No preview available
HomeMy WebLinkAboutREGULAR COUNCIL - 06 Apr 2015 - Agenda - PdfAGENDA RENTON CITY COUNCIL REGULAR MEETING April 6, 2015 Monday, 7 p.m. 1.CALL TO ORDER AND PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE 2.ROLL CALL 3.SPECIAL PRESENTATION a. Police Department - Employee Recogntion 4.ADMINISTRATIVE REPORT 5.AUDIENCE COMMENT (Speakers must sign up prior to the Council meeting. Each speaker is allowed five minutes. The first comment period is limited to one-half hour. The second comment period later on in the agenda is unlimited in duration.) When you are recognized by the Presiding Officer, please walk to the podium and state your name and city of residence for the record, SPELLING YOUR LAST NAME. NOTICE to all participants: pursuant to state law, RCW 42.17A.555, campaigning for any ballot measure or candidate in City Hall and/or during any portion of the council meeting, including the audience comment portion of the meeting, is PROHIBITED. 6.CONSENT AGENDA The following items are distributed to Councilmembers in advance for study and review, and the recommended actions will be accepted in a single motion. Any item may be removed for further discussion if requested by a Councilmember. a. Approval of Council meeting minutes of 3/23/2015. Council concur. b. Mayor Law appoints Kimberly Unti to the Library Advisory Board, for a term expiring on 9/1/2017. Refer to Community Services Committee. c. Mayor Law appoints the following individuals to the Municipal Arts Commission: Mary Clymer, for a term expiring on 12/31/2015; and Kimberly Eshelman, Adrienne LaFaye, and Neil Sheesley for terms expiring on 12/31/2017. Refer to Community Services Committee. d. City Clerk reports bid opening on 3/23/2015; CAG-15-025 - Riverview Park Bridge Replacement; and submits staff recommendation to accept the lowest responsive bid from Rodarte Construction, Inc. in the amount of $759,628.88. Refer to Finance Committee for discussion of funding. e. City Clerk reports bid opening on 3/24/2015 for CAG-15-032 - Sunset Terrace Regional Stormwater Facility Project; and submits staff recommendation to accept the low bid submitted by Olson Bros Excavating, Inc. in the amount of $649,550. Council concur. Page 1 of 517 f. City Clerk reports appeal of the Hearing Examiner's final decision upon reconsideration regarding the Reserve at Tiffany Park Preliminary Plat (LUA-13-001572) by Renate Beedon, Tiffany Park Woods Advocacy Group, accompanied by required fee. Consideration of the appeal by the City Council shall be based solely upon the record, the Hearing Examiner’s report, the notice of appeal, and additional submissions by parties (RMC 4-8-110.F.6.). Refer to Planning and Development Committee. g. Community Services Department recommends approving five 2015 Neighborhood Project Grant applications and authorize expenditures in the amount of $45,252 from the budgeted 2015 Neighborhood Program fund. Refer to Community Services Committee. h. Community Services Department recommends approval of an amendment to the Purchase and Sale agreement for the Fawcett property, along May Creek, with an agreed upon price of $785,000; with total project expenses estimated at $824,000; and to adjust the budget as necessary. Refer to Finance Committee. i. Public Works Department recommends approval of an Interlocal Cooperative Purchasing Agreement with Kitsap County to expedite the purchase of capital items. Council concur. (See 8.a. for resolution.) j. Transportation Systems Division requests authorization to increase a Public Works Department Transportation Systems Division Operations Section Civil Engineer II Position from 0.50 FTE to 1.0 FTE, and adjust the budget as necessary. Refer to Finance Committee. k. Transportation Systems Division recommends approving a resolution adopting the Renton Municipal Airport Sustainability Management Plan. Refer to Transportation (Aviation) Committee. l. Transportation Systems Division recommends approval of an amendment to the Aerodyne, LLC (LAG-84-006) lease agreement for a land rental rate adjustment from $0.75 to $0.7252 per square foot per year in accordance with a January 2015 lease arbitration decision. Council concur. m. Transportation Systems Division recommends approval of an amendment to the Renton Gateway Center (LAG-09-006) lease agreement for a land rental rate adjustment from $0.57 to $0.7252 per square foot per year in accordance with a January 2015 lease arbitration decision. Council concur. n. Transportation Systems Division recommends approval of an amendment to the Kaynan, Inc. (LAG-84-003) lease agreement for a land rental rate adjustment from $0.75 to $0.7252 per square foot per year in accordance with a January 2015 lease arbitration decision. Council concur. o. Transportation Systems Division recommends approval of an amendment to the Kaynan, Inc. (LAG-85-011) lease agreement for a land rental rate adjustment from $0.75 to $0.7252 per square foot per year in accordance with a January 2015 lease arbitration decision. Council concur. p. Utilities System Division submits CAG-14-018, Monterey Terrace Water Main Replacement Project; and requests approval of the project, authorization for final pay estimate in the amount of $13,485.11, commencement of a 60-day lien period, and release retainage, to Buno Construction, LLC., contractor, if all required releases are obtained. Council concur. q. Utilities Systems Division recommends approval of an Interagency Agreement with King County to accept $231,876 for the 2015-2016 King County Solid Waste Division Waste Reduction and Recycling Grant. Council concur. (See 8.b. for resolution.) Page 2 of 517 7.UNFINISHED BUSINESS Topics listed below were discussed in Council committees during the past week. Those topics marked with an asterisk (*) may include legislation. Committee reports on any topics may be held by the Chair if further review is necessary. a. Finance Committee: Vouchers; King County Sexual Assault Resource Center Lease Amendment; Iron Mountain Lease Addendum; Refunding 2006 Limited Tax General Obligation Bonds*; 2015- 16 Amended Fee Schedule*; 2015 Carry Forward Budget Amendment Ordinance*; Utility Billing Adjustment Request for 215 S. 4th Pl. b. Transportation (Aviation) Committee: Job Order Contract for 800 W. Perimeter Rd. Building Improvements; Amendment to Rainier Flight Service Lease Agreement; NE Sunset Blvd. Roadway Improvements Project Preliminary Design Contract; Emerging Issues in Transportation 8.RESOLUTIONS AND ORDINANCES Resolution: a. Interlocal Cooperative Purchasing Agreement with Kitsap County (see 6.i.) b. Interagency Agreement for 2015-2016 King County Solid Waste Reduction & Recycling Grant (See 6.q.) c. 2015-16 Amended Fee Schedule (See 7.a.) Ordinance for first reading: a. Refunding 2006 Limited Tax General Obligation Bonds (See 7.a.) b. 2015 Carry Forward Budget Amendment (See 7.a.) Ordinance for second and final reading: a. Establishing S. 132nd St. SAD (1st reading 3/23/2015) 9.NEW BUSINESS (Includes Council Committee agenda topics; visit rentonwa.gov/cityclerk for more information.) 10.AUDIENCE COMMENT 11.ADJOURNMENT COMMITTEE OF THE WHOLE AGENDA (Preceding Council Meeting) COUNCIL CHAMBERS April 6, 2015 Monday, 6:00 p.m. Community Services Capital Projects Briefing • Hearing assistance devices for use in the Council Chambers are available upon request to the City Clerk • CITY COUNCIL MEETINGS ARE TELEVISED LIVE ON GOVERNMENT ACCESS CHANNEL 21 AND ARE RECABLECAST: Tues. & Thurs. at 11 AM & 9 PM, Wed. & Fri at 9 AM & 7 PM and Sat. & Sun. at 1 PM & 9 PM Page 3 of 517 CITY OF RENTON COUNCIL AGENDA BILL Subject/Title: Appointment to Library Advisory Board Meeting: REGULAR COUNCIL - 06 Apr 2015 Exhibits: A. Memo to Mayor Law Recommending Appointment B. Member Application Submitting Data: Dept/Div/Board: Executive Staff Contact: April Alexander, ext. 6520 Recommended Action: Refer to Community Services Committee. Fiscal Impact: Expenditure Required: $ N/A Transfer Amendment: $N/A Amount Budgeted: $ N/A Revenue Generated: $N/A Total Project Budget: $ N/A City Share Total Project: $ N/A SUMMARY OF ACTION: Mayor Law appoints the following to the Library Advisory Board: Ms. Kimberly Unti, 4102 NE 22nd Place, Renton, WA 98059, for a term expiring 9/1/17. STAFF RECOMMENDATION: Confirm Mayor Law's appointment of Ms. Unti to the Library Advisory Board. 6b. - Mayor Law appoints Kimberly Unti to the Library Advisory Board, for a term Page 4 of 517 COMMUNItY SERVICES MEMORANDUM RECEIVED DATE:March 20,2015 MAR 2 3 TO:Denis Law,Mayor MAYORs OFFICE CC:Jay Covington,Chief Administrative Officer FROM:Terry Higashiyama,Community Services Administrator STAFF CONTACT:Peter Renner,Facilities Director,Ext.6605 SUBJECT:Request for Appointment of Kim Unti to the Renton Library Advisory Board fRLAB) Interviews were recently held for a vacated position on the Renton Library Advisory Board.The interviewers were Erica Richey,the Board Chair,John Sheller,the King County Library Cluster Manager for this area,and Peter Renner,who Iiaises with me to the RLAB. There were four candidates;all of them were highly motivated to serve Renton’s citizens,and each of them brought special talents,abilities,and perspectives into review.Any one of them would make a good board member. The interview panels’unanimous first choice to forward for your consideration for appointment to the open RLAB position is Kim Unti.You may already knowthat Kim is an outstanding citizen and community leader.The panel was impressed with her prominent leadership roles within various church and community organizations.She is articulate,and her high level of strategic planning experience will certainly help the Board focus on achievable goals associated with their mission to represent Renton’s collaborative interests in the services that King County Library System provides. Thank you for your time and effort to support the ongoing efforts and activities of the Renton Library Advisory Board. c:\users\analexander\appdata\Iocal\microsoft\windows\temporary Internet files\content.outlook\pO74e4hy\rlab unti.doc6b. - Mayor Law appoints Kimberly Unti to the Library Advisory Board, for a term Page 5 of 517 April Alexander From:Kim.unti@comcast.net Sent:Thursday,February 26,2015 5:27 PM To:April Alexander Cc:Kim.unti@comcastnet Subject:Application for boards,commissions,or committees. The following registration was submitted via the City of Renton website: Data from form “Application for Boards,commissions,or committees”was received on 2/26/20 15 5:26:53 PM. Boards,commissions,committees Field Value BoardsCommissionsCommittees Library Advisory Board* Title Ms. Name Kimberly N Unti address 4102 NE 22 Place City,State,Zip Renton,WA 98059 Applicant’s email Kim.unti@comcast.net Applicant’s phone 425-271-5914 Applicant’s alternate phone Renton Resident?true If so,since when 1980 Former Residence Bellingham Educational Background 1981 Undergraduate degree (social work) HomemakerOccupationSubstitute para-educator Renton School District In the past I have held the position of Life Stage Coordinator at St,Mathew Lutheran,Renton WA.In that OccupationBackground position I managed a three person staff,worked with over 100 volunteers and initiated new programming for children, families,young adults,and seniors. RSD currentlyEmployerSt.Matthew Lutheran -recent past Served as Vice President of the NWWA Synod Lutheran Church in America (highest lay position) Served on the initial library campaign task force,to join KCLS Community Activities President of Sierra Heights Elementary PTSA served on Advisory Board for Valley Medical Center -resulting in the working agreement with UW Medicine Served as synod assembly chair for three year -the governing body of the local Lutheran church 1 6b. - Mayor Law appoints Kimberly Unti to the Library Advisory Board, for a term Page 6 of 517 Field Value I have been looking for an opportunity to serve the community that my family has been fortunate to live in for the past 35 years.After serving on the library campaign to merge with KCLS,the library system has been a special interest of mine. When I get involved in organizations,I am able to hear all D sides of issues,keep things positive,not personalizeeasonsconflictsandworkhardtoreachmutuallyagreedupon conclusions. The library is a wonderful asset to a city and the families benefit greatly from a healthy functioning library organization.I know the Unti family has always enjoyed our time at the library all the way back to children’s story time. Can attend day meetings false Can attend night meetings true Email “Application for boards,commissions,or committees.”originally sent to analexander@rentonwa.gov from Kim.unti@comcast.net on 2/26/2015 5:26:53 PM.The following were also sent a copy:Kim.unti@comcast.net. 26b. - Mayor Law appoints Kimberly Unti to the Library Advisory Board, for a term Page 7 of 517 CITY OF RENTON COUNCIL AGENDA BILL Subject/Title: Appointments to Municipal Arts Commission Meeting: REGULAR COUNCIL - 06 Apr 2015 Exhibits: A. Memo to Mayor Law Recommending Appointments B. Applications for Members Submitting Data: Dept/Div/Board: Executive Staff Contact: April Alexander, ext. 6520 Recommended Action: Refer to Community Services Committee. Fiscal Impact: Expenditure Required: $ N/A Transfer Amendment: $N/A Amount Budgeted: $ N/A Revenue Generated: $N/A Total Project Budget: $ N/A City Share Total Project: $ N/A SUMMARY OF ACTION: Mayor Law appoints the following to the Municipal Arts Commission: l Ms. Mary Clymer, 11600 Rainier Ave S, Apt. 405, Seattle, WA 98178, for a term expiring 12/31/15 l Ms. Kimberly Eshelman, 13982 SE 159th Place, Renton, WA 98058, for a term expiring 12/31/17 l Ms. Adrienne LaFaye, 15103 Sunwood Blvd., Tukwila, WA 98188, for a term expiring 12/31/17 l Mr. Neil Sheesley, 516 Williams Ave S, Unit A, Renton, WA 98057, for a term expiring 12/31/17 STAFF RECOMMENDATION: Confirm Mayor Law's appointments of Ms. Clymer, Ms. Eshelman, Ms. LaFaye, and Mr. Sheesley to the Municipal Arts Commission. 6c. - Mayor Law appoints the following individuals to the Municipal Arts Page 8 of 517 AND ECONOMIC DEVE10PM ENT M E M 0 R A N D U M MAR202015 c\-MAYORS OFFIDATE:March 20,2015 Cf TO:Denis Law,Mayor FROM:C.E.“Chip”Vincent,CED SUBJECr:Appointments to Renton Municipal Arts Commission Background The Renton Municipal Arts Commission currently has four vacant positions for terms of office that will expire in December of 2015 (1)and December 2017 (3).The RMAC solicited applications throughout the community by a variety of methods.Potential commissioners were invited to attend the February 2015 RMAC meeting.On March 16, 2015,eight people who submitted applications were interviewed by a Committee of the RMAC. The applicants were all very highly qualified and the decision to choose only four was an extremely difficult one.The Committee recommends the applications for those not selected be retained in the event another vacancy opens in the future. On March 17th the Committee forwarded its recommendations to the full Commission. The RMAC subsequently endorsed the Committee’s recommended candidates.The RMAC is now providing the following people for your consideration: Mary Clymer Mary has a very long history in Renton,including attending Renton schools.She attended Central Washington University and the prestigious American Musical and Dramatic Academy in New York.She has been active in a wide variety of art-based and other activities in Renton including the Downtown Renton Events Committee,River Days Art Market (Chair),Renton Art and Antiques Walk,City of Renton Budget Committee,and the Arts &Culture Master Plan Committee.Mary has strong interests in reaching out to the artisan population of Renton and furthering the arts in the Downtown core.Her primary art medium is hand-made arts.Mary is a lively individual whose creativity and local knowledge will be assets to the Commission. Kim Eshelman Kim lives in the City of Renton,north of Fairwood.She graduated with a Bachelor of Arts degree,cum laude,in humanities,from Washington State University.Kim’s background is in university and college administration.For the past three years,however,she has been a full-time artist painting primarily in acrylic and pastel.She is involved in the arts 6c. - Mayor Law appoints the following individuals to the Municipal Arts Page 9 of 517 Denis Law,Mayor Page 2of2 March 20,2015 community through the Artist Trust and is currently working on the Artist Trust 2015 auction fund raiser.Kim is interested in furthering Renton as a thriving artistic community in which both artists and the local community can participate in and enjoy the arts.Kim’s work can be viewed at www.kimeshelman.com. Adrienne LaFaye Although currently a resident of Tukwila,Adrienne has lived in Renton most of her life and feels she is a part of the Renton Community.She has a BA degree from the University of Washington and an AA degree from the Art Institute of Seattle.An artist for 27 years,five years ago Adrienne left the banking industry fora full time art career. Her paintings are widely shown throughout the Northwest.She has written and illustrated a middle grade book of fiction.She has been represented at the Renton River Days Art Market and has received an award for her work at the Renton Annual Art Show.Adrienne is a member of the Society of Children’s Book Writers and Illustrators and volunteers at the Northwest African American Museum.She would bring both business and artistic experience to the Arts Commission to help make informed decisions about the Renton community. Neil Sheesley Neil is very involved in the Renton community,currently serving on the Renton Municipal Airport Advisory Committee,the South Renton Neighborhood Association (President),and Arts Unlimited of Renton (Board Member).Due to his work with the South Renton neighborhood,he understands and appreciates the importance of reaching out to the other neighborhoods in Renton and sees this as a way the RMAC can attain its primary goal of raising awareness of art and culture in the community.Neil is a musician and has interesting ideas about the performing arts and increasing the profiles of local musicians and music venues in Renton. Recommendation In concurrence with the endorsement of the full Renton Municipal Arts Commission and the RMAC liaison,I recommend the appointment to the Renton Municipal Arts Commission of Mary Clymer to the position that will expire December 2015,with the intention that she be reappointed at that time to a term that would expire December 2018,and Kim Eshelman,Adrienne LaFaye,and Neil Sheesley to positions that would expire December 2017. 6c. - Mayor Law appoints the following individuals to the Municipal Arts Page 10 of 517 April Alexander Erom:happydelusions@yahoo.com (ant:Monday,February 09,2015 5:55 PM 10:April Alexander Cc:happydelusions@yahoo.com Subject:Application for boards,commissions,or committees. The following registration was submitted via the City of Renton website: Data from form “Application for Boards,commissions,or committees”was received on 2/9/2015 5:54:41 PM. Boards,commissions,committees Field Value BoardsCommissionsCommittees Municipal Arts Commission* Title Ms. Name Mary Clymer address 1 1600 Rainier Ave S Apt 405 City,State,Zip Seattle,WA.98178 Applicant’s email happydelusions@yahoo.com Applicant’s phone 206-962-7959 pplicant’s alternate phone 206-772-0256 Renton Resident?false If so,since when Former Residence Early education in the Renton School District Educational Background Central Washington University AIvIDA-American Musical and Dramatic Academy -Freelance Art promoter and event coordinator.Occupation Just started a new job with AAA asa Member Travel Counselor. Team Clymowitz LLC,2014 to present Exterior Maintenance and Landscaping for Bryn Mawr Tower Condo’s The Local 907 Pub and Eatery,2010 to 2014 General Bartending and Serving skills.Including customer -service,food and beverage orders,balancing till and OccupationBackground paperwork,cleaning. Happy Delusions Gallery Entrepreneur,2007 to 2012 Responsible for all aspects of running the gallery including sales,correspondence with artists and clients,shipping and receiving artwork,managing inventory,invoicing,paying bills,bookkeeping,supervising a part-time staff,and general maintenance of the gallery. AAA Washington,Just got hired this week.yay! Employer happy delusions -Team Clymowitz LLC 16c. - Mayor Law appoints the following individuals to the Municipal Arts Page 11 of 517 Field Value .Nominated representative chairing the weekly Downtown Events Committee to discuss upcoming events,planning and economic discussion in regards to the City of Renton. .Art Market Chair,representing,coordinating and manage one hundred (100+)artists for Renton River Days 2008-2013. .Volunteer for Renton Art Walk 2008-2012. .Served on board with other Community Leaders to evaluate and assess 2011-2012 Renton City budget with Renton City department heads (including the Mayor)to line item assess and propose budget solution findings to the Renton City Council. Community Activities .Acted as a representative for Puget Sound Energy Small Business Green Power program campaign promoting green business. •Spokes person for the City of Renton in multiple public commercials to enhance City satisfaction,morale and diversity for the City of Renton. •Instrumental committee member in organizing downtown events 2009-2011 including but not limited to Community Halloween Party,Holiday Santa for the Month of December,Poker Run, Downtown Beautification and The Renton Art Walk. I feel like I could offer a different perspective that may get overlooked as far as the artisan population of Renton goes.I have stood out as a leader in the arts for the downtown core Reasons and feel that the community still contacts me when questions about the city and arts come up.A voice is needed for this population.Personally I feel a need to be involved and look for opportunities that speak to my interest. Can attend day meetings false Can attend night meetings true Email “Application for boards,commissions,or committees.”originally sent to analexander@rentonwa.gov from happydelusions@yahoo.com on 2/9/20 15 5:54:41 PM.The following were also sent a copy:happydelusions(yahoo.com. 26c. - Mayor Law appoints the following individuals to the Municipal Arts Page 12 of 517 April Alexander ,rom: t7nt: To: Cc: Subject: kim@kimeshelman.com Monday,February 09,2015 8:17 AM April Alexander kim@kimeshelman.com Application for boards,commissions,or committees. The following registration was submitted via the City of Renton website: Data from form “Application for Boards,commissions,or committees”was received on 2/9/2015 8:16:59 AM. Boards,commissions,committees (an attend day meetings ‘an attend night meetings pplicant’s phone L pp1icant’s alternate phone Field Value BoardsCommissionsCommittees Municipal Arts Commission* Title Ms. Name Kimberly Eshelman address 13982 SE 159th Place City,State,Zip Renton,WA 98058 Applicant’s email kim@kimeshelman.com 425-572-6773 503-319-1390 Renton Resident?true If so,since when 2010 Former Residence Sammamish,WA .Bachelor of Arts,cum laude,Humanities,Washington StateEducationalBackgrounduniversity .Fine ArtistOccupationPleaseview my work at www.kimeshelman.com I worked as an Executive Assistant to Presidents,Provosts, Endowed Chairs,and other high level executives in both OccupationBackground university and college settings as well as the private sector for over 15 years.Three years ago I began my full time career as a painter. Employer self employed ....I am volunteering this year at the Artist Trust 2015 auctionCommunityActivitiesandbecomingamemberofthatcommunity. Art is my passion and I would love to help create a more Reasons vibrant and thriving artistic community in Renton for both artists and the local community to enjoy and participate in. true true 16c. - Mayor Law appoints the following individuals to the Municipal Arts Page 13 of 517 April Alexander (rom: To: Cc: Subject: adriennelafayeartyahoo.com Monday,Match 02,2015 3:23 PM April Alexander adriennelafayeart@yahoo.com Application for boards,commissions,or committees. The following registration was submitted via the City of Renton website: Data from form “Application for Boards,commissions,or committees”was received on 3/2/2015 3:22:49 PM. Boards,commissions,committees Field Value BoardsCommissionsCommittees Municipal Arts Commission* Title Ms. Name Adrienne La Faye address 15103 Sunwood Blvd Applicant’s email (Nppficant’s phone Applicant’s alternate phone Renton Resident? If so,since when former Residence CCan attend day meetings Can attend night meetings true 1iLAW\OL.WA g(’lgg’City,State,Zip adriennelafayeart@yahoo.com (206)859-3981 true 1974-2013 Tukwila Educational Background U of W BA,Art Institute of Seattle,AA , .Self employed Artist,I’ve been self-employed for over 5years.iccupation as an full-time artist. .Banker for 15 years and Artist for 27 years.I’m skilled atOccupationBackgroundplanningandorganizinggroupsandevents. Employer N/A Self-employed Volunteer for Northwest African American Museum,I’ve had a booth at Renton River days and have completed in the PAAS and Community Activities won an award for one of my paintings.I’m constantly exhibiting my paintings all over Washington State for the past 27 years but more actively in the last five years. 1 would love to help whenever possible with my skills and experience.I love art and want to help make decisions about Reasons the art community.I’ve lived in Renton most of my life and I :will always feel apart of Renton and would the opportunity be able to give back. true 16c. - Mayor Law appoints the following individuals to the Municipal Arts Page 14 of 517 April Alexander The following registration was submitted via the City of Renton website: Data from form “Application for Boards,commissions,or committees”was received on 2/12/20 15 9:54:28 AM. Boards,commissions,committees Reasons Can attend day meetings Cn attenims ant: To: Cc: Subject: nasheesley@aoLcom Thursday,February 12,2015 9:54 AM April Alexander nasheesley@aol.com Application for boards,commissions,or committees. Field BoardsCommissionsCommittees Title Name Municipal Arts Commission* Mr. address Value Neil Sheesley 516 Williams Ave.S.Unit A City,State,Zip Renton,WA 98057 Applicant’s email nasheesley@aol.com fpp1icants phone 425-919-5203 -4pplicant’s alternate phone Renton Resident?true If so,since when 05/13 Former Residence Educational Background Westminster,CO Gateway HS Aurora,CO.Journeyman sprinkler fitter certificate from Penn ST. Occupation Musician Gates energy Products 1981-1990.Local union 669 fire OccupationBackground sprinkler fitter 1990-2009.self employed home repair 2009- 2013.Property Maintenance 2013-2015 Employer unemployed at the moment. Community Activities President-South Renton neighborhood association.Member Renton Airport Advisory Committee.Board member-Arts Unlimited of renton I have recently become a professional musician and have met an incredible group of people who wish to bring all kinds of art to the city.It is very exciting and i wish to be apart it. true true 16c. - Mayor Law appoints the following individuals to the Municipal Arts Page 15 of 517 CITY OF RENTON COUNCIL AGENDA BILL Subject/Title: Contract Award for Bid Opening on 3/23/2015; CAG-15-025; Riverview Park Bridge Replacement Meeting: REGULAR COUNCIL - 06 Apr 2015 Exhibits: A. Issue Paper B. Staff Recommendation C. Bid Tab Submitting Data: Dept/Div/Board: City Clerk Staff Contact: Jason Seth, City Clerk, ext. 6502 Recommended Action: Refer to Finance Committee. Fiscal Impact: Expenditure Required: $ 759,628.88 Transfer Amendment: $150,000.00 Amount Budgeted: $ 1,167,000.00 Revenue Generated: $N/A Total Project Budget: $ 1,317,000.00 City Share Total Project: $ 250,000.00 SUMMARY OF ACTION: Engineer's Estimate: $650,000 - $800,000 In accordance with Council procedure, bids submitted at the subject bid opening met the following two of three required criteria: l There was more than one bid. l There were no irregularities with the low bid. However, the lowest responsive bid is not within the current project budget. Therefore, staff recommends acceptance of the low bid submitted by Rodarte Construction, Inc. in the amount of $759,628.88; and to refer the bid to the Finance Committee for discussion regarding funding. STAFF RECOMMENDATION: Accept the lowest responsive bid from Rodarte Construction, Inc. in the amount of $759,628.88 for the Riverview Park Bridge Replacement, subject to discussion of funding. 6d. - City Clerk reports bid opening on 3/23/2015; CAG-15-025 - Riverview Park Page 16 of 517 COMMUNITY SERVICES DEPARTMENT M E M O R A N D U M DATE: April 6, 2015 TO: Ed Prince, Council President Members of the City Council FROM: Terry Higashiyama, Community Services Administrator STAFF CONTACT: Todd Black, Capital Project Coordinator Leslie Betlach, Parks Planning and Natural Resources Director SUBJECT: Riverview Park Bridge Replacement ISSUE: Should the construction contract for the Riverview Park bridge replacement be awarded to Rodarte Construction, Inc. in the amount of $759,628.88? Should the King County 2007 Proposition 2 Levy Fund be utilized to fund the project shortfall? RECOMMENDATION: Award the construction contract to Rodarte Construction, Inc. in the amount of $759,628.88 and authorize the Mayor and the City Clerk to execute the contract. Approve the transfer of $150,000.00 from the King County 2007 Proposition 2 Levy Fund. BACKGROUND SUMMARY: In October 2011, PND Engineers, Inc. performed an inspection of the Riverview Park Bridge to assess the general condition and structural integrity of the bridge. The inspection of the substructure revealed several deficiencies in the three intermediate pile bents (piling groups) located in the Cedar River, and was deemed structurally unsound. The bridge was demolished and removed in August 2014. In 2013 the City successfully secured state Capital Budget monies as a direct appropriation from the legislature. In December 2013 the State Department of Commerce and the City entered into an agreement for $1,067,000.00 and committed to a $100,000.00 grant match for a total project budget of $1,167,000.00 to remove and replace the existing bridge and in-stream piles, install native habitat planting, and replace three interpretive signs with new signage. The City contracted with PND Engineering, Inc. for design services for the bridge demolition, new bridge design, and permits. The new bridge replacement project was advertised through the Daily Journal of Commerce and six quotes were received, with three quotes lower and three quotes higher than the Engineer’s estimate of $800,000.00. The lowest quote of $759,628.88 was submitted by Rodarte Construction, Inc. 6d. - City Clerk reports bid opening on 3/23/2015; CAG-15-025 - Riverview Park Page 17 of 517 Ed Prince, Council President Renton City Council Members Page 2 of 2 April 6, 2015 Staff reviewed the Rodarte Construction, Inc. quote for completeness and accuracy, performed the necessary background research and is recommending award to Rodarte Construction, Inc. The estimated construction timeframe is between June 15 and mid-September 2015, commencing upon execution of this contract. In-water work is permitted by the Washington Department of Fish and Wildlife’s Hydraulic Permit Agreement between June 15 and August 31, 2015. Access to Riverview Park until the new bridge is completed will continue to be from the Cedar River Trail, with the closest parking either at Maplewood Roadside Park (1/5 mile east) or at the NARCO property (one mile west). The new bridge replacement cost is $759,628.88, and including the demolition cost of $192,030.00, the engineering and interpretive design fees of $274,708.29, and permitting and bid advertising fees of $5,422.00, total $1,231,789.20, which leaves a negative balance of $64,780.09. In addition, funding is also needed to provide an approximate 10% construction contingency to cover potential change orders. The additional funding of $150,000.00 is proposed to come from the King County Prop 2 Levy fund, which can only be used for open space acquisition and trail development. The new total project budget will be $1,317,000.00. CONCLUSION: Awarding the contract to the lowest responsive contractor, Rodarte Construction, Inc., allows the City to move forward with the construction of a new pedestrian bridge. Construction of this new single span bridge will provide a safe access to Riverview Park across the Cedar River. Cc: Jay Covington, Chief Administrative Officer Iwen Wang, FIT Administrator Jamie Thomas, Fiscal Services Director Misty Baker, Senior Finance Analyst Tracy Schuld, Accounting Supervisor 6d. - City Clerk reports bid opening on 3/23/2015; CAG-15-025 - Riverview Park Page 18 of 517 COMMUNITY SERVICES DEPARTMENT M E M O R A N D U M DATE: March 30, 2015 TO: Jason Seth, City Clerk FROM: Terry Higashiyama, Community Services Administrator STAFF CONTACT: Todd Black, Capital Project Coordinator Leslie Betlach, Parks Planning and Natural Resources Director SUBJECT: Riverview Park Bridge Replacement, CAG-15-025 The Community Services Department recommends that the Riverview Park Bridge Replacement project, construction contract in the amount of $759,628.88 be awarded to Rodarte Construction, Inc., 17 E. Valley Highway East, Auburn, WA 98092. There were six bids submitted for the project. The bid submitted by Rodarte Construction, Inc. is the lowest responsive bid and the bidder has been found to be responsible. However, the current funding is insufficient to cover the construction budget and an approximate 10% construction contingency, to cover potential change orders. To date, the funding has been used for the former bridge demolition, engineering design, permits, and bid advertising. We are requesting that the Council refer the Award action to the Finance Committee for further discussion of the funding status for this project. The City secured a grant of $1,067,000.00 from the state legislature, to be administered by the Department of Commerce. The City matched the grant with funding of $100,000.00 for a project budget of $1,167,000. Staff recommends the use of $150,000 from the City’s King County 2007 Proposition 2 Levy Fund, which can only be used for open space acquisition and trail development, to make up the project shortfall. The new total project budget will be $1,317,000.00. The construction contract calls for the installation of a single span aluminum bridge with concrete abutments, adjacent concrete walkways and aluminum and steel railings, native habitat planting, and three replacement interpretive signs. Construction of this new bridge will provide a safe access across the Cedar River to Riverview Park. cc: Jay Covington, Chief Administrative Officer Iwen Wang, FIT Administrator Jamie Thomas, Fiscal Services Director Misty Baker, Senior Finance Analyst Tracy Schuld, Accounting Supervisor 6d. - City Clerk reports bid opening on 3/23/2015; CAG-15-025 - Riverview Park Page 19 of 517 Project: Riverview Park Bridge Replacement CAG‐15‐025 Date: 03/23/15 CITY OF RENTON BID TABULATION SHEET 1 of 2 Bid Total from Signed Bid Triple Bidders Add. Schedule of Prices Proposal Bond Form Qual. 1 *Includes Sales Tax Five Rivers Co., Inc. 1331 Baltimore St 1 Longview WA x x x x x $908,073.65 98632 Lisa M. Stevenson Highmark Concrete  Contractors PO Box 1713 2 Buckley WA x x x x x $761,079.75 98321 Jacob Cimmer KC Equipment 4550 49th Ave. NE 3 Seattle WA x x x x x $1,044,630.00 98105 Kevin C. Pleas Quigg Bros., Inc. P.O. Box 1707 4 Aberdeen WA x x x x x $776,355.00 98520 Matthew Zepeda Bidder FORMS Engineer's Estimate $650,000 ‐ $800,0006d. - City Clerk reports bid opening on 3/23/2015; CAG-15-025 - Riverview Park Page 20 of 517 Project: Riverview Park Bridge Replacement CAG‐15‐025 Date: 03/23/15 CITY OF RENTON BID TABULATION SHEET 2 of 2 Bid Total from Signed Bid Triple Bidders Add. Schedule of Prices Proposal Bond Form Qual. 1 *Includes Sales Tax Bidder FORMS Rodarte Co., Inc. 17 E. Valley Hwy East 5 Auburn WA x x x x x $759,628.88 98902 Frank C. Rodarte, Jr. Zemek Coonstruction Co. 21209 212th Av SE 6 Maple Valley WA x x x x x $802,744.50 98038 David C. Zemek Engineer's Estimate $650,000 ‐ $800,0006d. - City Clerk reports bid opening on 3/23/2015; CAG-15-025 - Riverview Park Page 21 of 517 CITY OF RENTON COUNCIL AGENDA BILL Subject/Title: Contract Award for Bid Opening on March 24, 2015; CAG-15-032; Sunset Terrace Regional Stormwater Facility Project Meeting: REGULAR COUNCIL - 06 Apr 2015 Exhibits: A. Staff Recommendation B. Bid Tab (10 Bids) Submitting Data: Dept/Div/Board: City Clerk Staff Contact: Jason Seth, City Clerk, ext. 6502 Recommended Action: Council Concur. Fiscal Impact: Expenditure Required: $ 649,550 Transfer Amendment: $N/A Amount Budgeted: $ N/A Revenue Generated: $N/A Total Project Budget: $ 1,300,000 City Share Total Project: $ N/A SUMMARY OF ACTION: Engineers Estimate: $738,160.09 In accordance with Council procedure, bids submitted at the subject bid opening met the following three criteria: l There was more than one bid. l The low bid was within the project budget. l There were no irregularities with the low bid. Therefore, staff recommends acceptance of the low bid by Olson Bros. Excavating, Inc., in the amount of $649,550. STAFF RECOMMENDATION: Accept the low bid submitted by Olson Bros Excavating, Inc. in the amount of $649,550.00. 6e. - City Clerk reports bid opening on 3/24/2015 for CAG-15-032 - Sunset Page 22 of 517 CITYOFRENTONMAR25Z015PUBLICWORKSDEPARTMENTRECER/EDMEMORANDUMDATE:March25,2015TO:JasonSeth,CityClerkFROM:RonStraka,SurfaceWaterUtilityEngineeringManager,x724$SUBJECT:BidAwardRecommendationfortheSunsetTerraceRegionalStormwaterFacilityProject,SWP-27-3658ThebidopeningfortheSunsetTerraceRegionalStormwaterFacility,SWP-27-3625,washeldonMarch24,2015,at2:30p.m.Tenbidswerereceived.Theengineer’sestimatefortheprojectconstructioncostwas$738,160.09.Thelowbidfortheprojectis$649,550fromOlsonBrosExcavating,Inc.TheSurfaceWaterUtilityreviewedthelowbidforcompleteness,inclusionofallrequiredforms,bidbond,andmathematicalcorrectnessofthebid.Allpaperworkforthelowbidisinorder.Twobiddershadminormatherrorseitherinmultiplyingthebiditemquantitybytheunitpriceand/orinaddingupthebiditemtotals.Thecorrectedbidamountsdidnotchangetheorderofthebids.Thecorrectionsarelistedbelow:BidderOriginalBidCorrectedBidTitanEarthwork$734,982.96$734,882.96ThomcoConstruction,Inc.$797,885.93$782,885.93]Thelowbidmeetsthefollowingconditionsforaward:1.Thelowbidmustbewithinthetotalprojectbudget;2.Theremustbemorethanonebidder;and3.Thelowest,responsible,responsivebidcontainsnosignificantirregularities.Theprojectislocatedinthefuture3.1acreSunsetParkeastofHarringtonAveNEandnorthofSunsetBoulevardintheSunsetAreaofRenton(seeattachedmap).TheprojectwasawardedaStatewideStormwaterGrantfromtheDepartmentofEcologytoretrofitapproximately3.0acresofparkinglotandroadwaystormwaterrunoffbyprovidingflowcontrolandwaterqualitytreatment.Projectimprovementsinclude:•Excavatinganddisposingofapproximately4,200cubicyardsofnativematerial.Constructinga150footby70footundergroundinfiltrationgalleryunderthe6e. - City Clerk reports bid opening on 3/24/2015 for CAG-15-032 - Sunset Page 23 of 517 Mr.Seth,CityClerkPage2of2March25,2015stormwatercells,consistingofaonefoottreatmentsoillayerandthreefeetofdrainrock.Installingfive12-inchdiameterslottedunderdrainpipesat15footspacing,each250feetinlengthwithinthelevelaggregatelayer.InstallingaType2catchbasinononeendofeachunderdrain,andaclean-outontheotherendofeachunderdrainpipe.Connectingthemaintenancemanholesbyan18-inchstormdraintoformamanifold.Connectingthemanifoldtoa60-inchdownstreammanholeflowcontrolstructure.•Constructingtwowaterqualitytreatmentbioretentionstormwatercellswithacombinedapproximate1500squarefootfloorareaand3H:1Vsideslope.•InstallingthenewstormsysteminportionsofNE10thStreetincludingapproximately360feetof18-inchCPEPpipe,fourTypeIIcatchbasins,oneTypeIcatchbasinsanda60-inchdiametermanholeflowsplitter.•InstallinganewstormsysteminportionsofSunsetLaneNEincluding270feetof18-inchCPEPpipeandsevenTypeIIcatchbasins.Removalandreplacementofasphaltconcretepavement,asphaltoverlay,concretecurbs,gutters,anddriveways.Landscapeandpropertyrestoration.Trenchexcavation,includingremovalofexistingunsuitablematerial,stockpilingexcavatedmaterial,andmaintenanceofexistingutilities.•Relocatingapproximate52feetof8-inchDlwatermainalongHarringtonAveNE.•Sitestabilizationandpropertyrestoration.Theprojectisfundedfromtheapproved2015SurfaceWaterUtilityCapitalImprovementProgrambudgetthatincludestheproposed2014carry-forwardbudgetadjustmentfortheSunsetTerraceRegionalStormwaterFacilityproject(427.475492).Theprojectis75%fundedbytheDepartmentofEcology’sFY2012StatewideStormwaterGrantAgreement*G1200544thatwasapprovedbyCouncilinOctober2012.Therearesufficientfundsinthe2015CapitalImprovementProgrambudgettofundtheproject.TheSurfaceWaterUtility,therefore,recommendsthatthisitembeplacedontheApril6,2015,consentagendaforCouncilconcur.StafffurtherrecommendsthatCouncilawardtheconstructioncontracttothelowestresponsive,responsiblebidder,OlsonBrosExcavating,Inc.,intheamountof$649,550.AttachedforyourreferenceisthebidtabulationshowingtheengineerTsestimate,thelowbid,andtheotherbidssubmitted.PleasecontactmeorHebéC.Bernardoatx7264,ifyouhaveanyquestions.Attachmentscc:GreggZimmerman,PublicWorksAdministratorLysHornsby,UtilitySystemsDivisionDirectorHebéBernardo,SurfaceWaterUtilityEngineerh:\filesys\swp-surfacewaterprojects\swp-27-surfacewaterprojectsfcip)\27-3658sunsetregionalswfacility\1600construction\502advertisingandaward\502.6noticeofaward\2015-03-25clerk-bid-award-regfac.doc\HCBtp6e. - City Clerk reports bid opening on 3/24/2015 for CAG-15-032 - Sunset Page 24 of 517 0 t S. C, CM C U) C D0CD -1CD‘-I 2)C-) CD CD CD 0 D2) Co 0 3 2) CD 2)0 ‘-p‘C -ø -‘0 CD0I-p Co ‘-pCD 2)V NJ NJ0 NJ0 (SC ‘fiE] wo-uC,’o -- m —II -U in azEDo—I —I0 wm ‘1 CCDmo SC Z o - o Cia.:Z6e. - City Clerk reports bid opening on 3/24/2015 for CAG-15-032 - Sunset Page 25 of 517 Project.SunsetTerraceRegionalStnrmwaterFacility-BWP-27-3650BidDote.July00,2014ItemUnitBet.No.Description:QuantityOlsenBros.Eooaeaticg,lee.EngineersEstimateUnitBidUnitBidP4ccAmocntP4ccAmountRedadocessinestloc,tee.UnitBidP4ccAmountArnharcenstruogleeIce,StaffordEooanattsg,LLcHoffmancocetmotion.,tee.UnitBidUnitBidUnitBidPAceAmountPitceAmountP4ccAmountOmegaBrothersconestoo.TttaoEarthwork,LLCUnitBidUnitBidFitceAmountFitccAmountLaserUndergroundUnitP6ccR.L.AttiaThomoccocst.Inc.BidUnitBidUnitBidAmountP6ccAmountP6ccAmountSCHEDULEAIMinorChungmBut,t2MobilutationLBI3TcmporaryTralBcContmlLBI4UtilityPothotngBA105BenalatiorotUtilityCorBictuFAitConutwutionBumcying,Staking,andAu-BuiltLB7TemporaryBmuionandSedimentmaterPollutUrLBitClcaitngandDmhhingLBBBemocalolStmcturmandObstmctiuneLBtBPluggingBiduhegPipeBA3FacilityBucacatiun,HaulandBackBllCV6,200t2ImpoitedTrenchBackBllIncludingHaulTONB7013TrenchBucacatidcSolelyBystemLBIt4BemnualandReplacementotUnnuitabteFoandatTON359litConutmctidnDmleutilcbrUndcrgmundDrainageBYI,2BBtoCmuhndBurtacingBaneCoarucTON30017HotMdAsphalt(HMA)Cl.BYInchP084-22TON340tBTemporaryCoidMdAsphaltConcreteFetchTON108lBUndcrdrain12-InchOiamPVCLF5202BDrainPipet2-trchPVCOiamLFtBB21MineralAggregateType2itTON2,20022CormgatcdPotyethylcneStomrSewerPipe12-incLP3tB23ComugatodPotyethyleneStonmSewerPipelit-incLP42t24DuOileImrStonmBemerPipelit-inchDidmLPB325TcleuinidnlnnpeUidnLFB752itCatchBasinTypeIBAI27CatchBaidnType2,4S-inchDiamBAIt2itOutletStmctureBAI2gOceritowStmcturrBAI30BmrrgencyOcerltowStwctureBAI31FlowSpIBerBAI32B-InchCleanDVBAB33BiureterhonBoilCV2B534TopsoilTypoBCV00235PSIPB-BibmeanguireumIBBDFLOWBRINDIBAt238FSIPB-MahociaagaltohamIOBBOONDBAPBIBAB37PSIPB-Comasseitcea‘kelseyrIKBLSBYBDW:BA25530PSIFB-HelictotAchonsempehorcnuIBLUEOATBA33439PSIPB-BudheckiahidaIBLACKEYEDSUSANBAitit4BPSIFB-SececidgmyitISUNBHINBDAISYBUBIBA7541PSIPB-Weididatonda‘BokraspiwtISPILLEDWBA7B42PSIPB-JancusocaminatusITAPBBTIPBUSHI’BA29243FSIPB-JancuspatemISFBBAOINDBUSH(4”BA2B244PSIPB-JancaseffasasICOMMONBUSH14”toBA29245FSIPB-JurcantenainISLBNDBBBUSH14”pot)BA25240FSIPB-JarcasensitotunIDADDBB-LBAVBDRIBA29247PSIPB-AsdouglanianaIDOUDLASIBIS(BarenBA24it40LandscapingtnutallatidnLBI4SIrrigationSystemLS155CementConcreteCurBandDullerLF70StCementConcreteSidewalh,CantBamps,and06SV5352TreatmentLayerCV50053BockPadSY5554SideSewerBeidcatidnBA255WaterLireBcidcathnB-inchDiameterLF52SohuTaxBurn171ApptosBy’HekitC.BemaidoCityotBenton,SurtaceWaterUtility15,000-SB1S,000-OSB4,005BitB4,005OS15,0000515,00005400004,000002,000002,000SB14,3437514,3437540,300004S,300009,055.009,00000to_SOSoobooBooISOOS45000211000,52005200017,400004,500004,50000500015,450093504,200,0020000,700.001050035,7200090000,400,00500020,0000040000,400.0037.2551,9500054.5521,22304570020207001355512,555004093,400001,400001,400052,0100032,010905,620.005,520.003,040003,040001,750001,750.007,500007,50000030.003,150005000t4,2S000300022,075004200504.0042OS3750012003,0550012004,0000012.00l,032.OS1200000.001000t,2t0.SS5.001,450.005001,400005001,400005001,450005001,480005001,2400024,3000024,3000010,0000010,0000035002,73000SOSS3,05500400020,0000045002,475001,700003,400002500013,5200015,0000030,0000035,00000300005,000003,0000020,0000010,0000010,005.001,50000100024001,00000310040540,0010500200.0044007500290000007500ItSOS2001,100002,300005,500,003,509003,000000,100.009000045001300270027.00225010001000270027.004004.0040040040040013,700009,00400500010000390058005,000002000015,0000030,0000035,000003,000005,000003,0000020,000,0010,0000010,000004,500.0057,2000020,050001,0000012,050004,8000012,0000035,7500021,0000522,0005012,0050093,0000023,3400031,575.0010,505001,740001,1000025,300005,800003,000003,000005,100004,5500513,550007,0260032400243005,005.003,340.00000002,025002,052001,150001,165001,160001,165001,160000920013,700009,004003,005006,3005019,505004,7300012,0000010,400001S,0000050,000,007,50000475005,000007,5000010,000003,5000010,000003500031.5022.001000015002000500105.0005002500500025.0064007000150002.001,000002,200005,000.004,000003,200005,50000500005000300022002200100010001000100020003003003003.003000009,5000010,000004000700045,0040002,500053300015,0000550,000057,500004,750.005,000.007,5000010,000.003,5000010,000001,050.00132,300.0019,140.00100.005,035002,4000019,5000035,7000010,2500013,000.000,0000055,0000024,0050029,4700013,550,001,740.051,0000524,200005,000004,000003,200.008,500002,5000014,2500010,0800025400190002,550.003,3400005000750001,52000876,00575.00875.0057000578001,400009,5000010,000002,000004.4100022,500502,200005,0050017,1800015,0000557,0000010,000001,100005,0000015,0000015,000001,100.0025,000.004000517.0031.005,0000043.001.5031.0010000125002500590026003500400585004001,000003,300008,300003,200001,300000,00000000.0051,00240024.0024057.00700700700150040040040040040050037,0000015,005003400800045.S050002,700002250015,0050057,000.0015,500.0011,000005,0000015,0000015,000001,1000525,000,001,205.0071,4000029,970005,000.0016,727001,000009,3000034,0000012,5000013,000000,4400057,2000013,8150020,205000,194.003,490001,000.0038,300905,300003,200001,300005,000004,5005014,5350014,44800298,00218001.006002,3380080200525.001,140001,185.001,188001,168001,100001,180001,240.0037,0000015,000002,380005,0400522,500002,750005,4000011,7000015,0000027,4480015,09000450005,0000012,000,007,500.0020,0000018,5000030000235020001,100004000I7528001050013500285052,50285053005700110.003001,000.004,500000,000005,250002,7500010,000001,000.00550537.502200220011.0011.0011001100220035035035035035070014,7500010,5000582508000550080003,50000300.0015,0000027,4450015,000,004,500005,0000012,000007,500.0025,000,0015,550,055000058,700.0024,380001,150.5015.580502,150000,455.0035,7000014,5000014,B20008,4000558,3000020,617.0023,007,0010,230002,010001,000.0049,500008,000555,255002,7500010,000.005,000.5015,8750022,575.00284,00190002,030003,674.0094000825551,672501,022001,022.001,022.001,022.001,022001,7385014,7500010,500004,375005,0400027,500004,400007,0000015,0000015,500.0043,5800018,40000400.005,0000010,1250524,5000014,0000027,800003100023.2022505,0250043.5010535.0012500137003200365527.3085008300116001.151,200004,460005,000004,22500I,2B00010,225001,000.00550015.0031.0531,00260011.001100315031003,703,703,753,703.7037015,830007,6250052.00700034.7034001,200001950015,0000043,5800010,400004,050005,0000010,1250024,500.0014,0000027,800000300007,4400015,575.005,0250018,921.502,2200010,5000042,0000014,7900516,640005,8400060,0800025,2850034,0430010,788001,000501,2000045,060008,500.004,22500t,2B00010,225005,0000015,675008,0305537200275,008,708003,07400045002,325002,356001,080401,085,401,080401,080401,000409176015,030007,625003,840504,4100017,355001,870.002,4000010,1920015,000000,602505,042.55321.135,000005,005256,870.513,270.7524,415,77000032,0033005,451.0032.0018057.00140401930031505000347530005500110004.001,362003,6t6005,033003,017001,821007,485001,372008200330031.0031.50260011.50115031.0031.003753753753,753.7530015,7550015,90800517085.0045.0001.004,020.004000015,000.008,802.506,042553,211.305,00000S,00S.258,07BSI3,278,7024,415.7727000134,4000020,710005,451.0012,448001,9200017,100.0047,735.5020,044.0015,380.008,0600078,4550014,7820023,1550010,230,003,400.001,382.0030,776.005,033003,017001,821007,405008,8800023,3700010,80800372,00279506,708003,041.00909002,325052,358001,095001,005001,005001,055001,095.008880015,7550015,008003,815.005,3550024,500003,355009,8400021,2100015,000.0024,4782620,60000735005,000005,4450035,000002,8500015,2255045000180026502,5000038002.253350171.00125.002700550037006500700004002.751,700004,000507,050.003,050001,450000,700002750049.0025.00243024357,307.00650730150035035035035035050028,0000010,5000080007800580032001.000.0036S.0015,005.0024,4702628,800007,350.005,000.005,4450035,000002,0500015,225001,350OS75,6000023,055002,5000014,702002,7005010,0500058,1405013,5000014,040000,4400081,450.0025,2850032,838008,742002,392501,7000052,000007,050003,050001,450008,700001,3750013,9650015,05000251.00210701,003402,3380055000S47.S01,140001,022051,022001,022001,522.001,022001,2400020,0000010,500.004,200004,014.0025,000001,760003,8000018,980.0015,0500075,000.0038,550.001,000005,000.005,000008,0000020,0000020,000002,000.0020501.0020,000001.002002500150001.005500600025001000012S00170003.001,500004,000008,000.007,000007,000007,555001,000.00550540003000300012001200120012.00600BooBooBOO80080080012,0000010,0000050007000500030004,000003005015,0000575,0000036,0000010,00000S’OoO,oO5,000.008,000.0020,0000020,000008,0000004,000.05870.0520,00000305002,400007,5000051,000001080028,600005,8000055,0000038,9000002,82500I5,OtO002,8t0001,5000044,000008,000007,000007,000007,505.00S.005.001S,67S.0024,080.0038000270003,098.004,000001,0320000000458001,752.001,752.001,752001,752001,752001,5040012,0000010,005.003,500004,72S.0025,000.001,650008,0000015,800,0015,0000060,000.003,000.00100005,000,008,000005,0000050,0000020,000.00550030001.00100001.0050020,00200001005400040003000000010050110005003,000006,000008,000007,005006,005008,000001,0050048001300270027.00230010001000270027.0040040040040040040013,700006,B00004000100055000200010,000002500015,0000080,000.003,000001,000.005,000.008,000.00S_0000050,0000020,0000018500126,00000870.5010000389006,000008,7000060,000001,080.0020,000505,4000060,0000035,0100042,10000b0,230.004,350003,0000080,000008,000007,000008,000008,000005,0000013,600007,02000324.00243005,934003,34000080002,025002,052001,16800t.168051,16500t,168001,10500092.0013,700008,600002,800008,3000025,000001,100.0020,000.0513,0000015,0000080,0000050,400.00t,09g00S,000.0O6,500.0012,5000030,400.0029,708005050017.8017.S03,5000050003.0027,001150075007200540024.0060006500ItO003501,007002,833006,083002,435004,500.0010,005001,4780050451925250025.007517.258007.50156037037037037037046535,7600011,4200530.0075003500100003,300003500015,0000000,0000050,4000019,590005,000008,5000012,5005030,4000025,706001,5000073,9200015,225003,5000021,704.003,800008,1000030,100008,1000037,440006,8400052,8000023,3400035,7050010,230003,045001,8670031,183008,883002,439004,500.0010,005.007,3900015,0682511,580.5030000225001,037.582,421.50584.00562501,105001,000401,000401,000401,080401,080401,1532035,760.0011,420002,100004,7250017,500005,500006,800.0018,20000TotalBid=5730,169.09TotalBidu0549,55000TotalBidu0855,251.00TotalBiduTotaIA=0738,160.09TutaiA5049,55000TcIaIA5655,251.00ToIaIA5673,83200ToIaIA0601,50000TotaIA=5717,42660TotaIA5733,65087TutaiAB734,B02.96ToUIA=5784,50000TuIatA=B707,81000ToVIA=5782.805935873,B32.0OTotalBid=0651,50000TotalBidn0717,42000TotalBid0733,00087TotalBid5734,68208TotalBid=0754,50000TotalBidu0757,01000TotalBid=0782,00593BidTab-Finab3Page16e. - City Clerk reports bid opening on 3/24/2015 for CAG-15-032 - Sunset Page 26 of 517 Project: Sunset Terrace Regional Stormwater Facility Project CAG‐15‐032 Date: 03/24/15 CITY OF RENTON BID TABULATION SHEET 1 of 3 Bid Total from Proposal Bid L&I Rcpt. M/W  Bus. Subs  Schedule of Prices & Trpl. Form Bond Cert Add. Subs. List *Includes Sales Tax Archer Construction Inc. 7855 S. 206th St. 1 Kent x x x x x x $673,832.00 WA 98032‐1354 Wade Archer Hoffman Construction, Inc. PO Box 845 2 Enumclaw x x x x x x $717,420.60 WA 98022 Brad Hoffman Laser Underground & Earthworks 20417 87th Ave. SE 3 Snohomish x x x x x x $794,508.00 WA 98296 Bret Lane Olson Bros. Excavating, Inc. 6622 ‐ 112th St. East 4 Puyallup x x x x x x $649,550.00 WA 98373 Steve Olson Bidder FORMS Engineer's Estimate $690,000 ‐ $860,0006e. - City Clerk reports bid opening on 3/24/2015 for CAG-15-032 - Sunset Page 27 of 517 Project: Sunset Terrace Regional Stormwater Facility Project CAG‐15‐032 Date: 03/24/15 CITY OF RENTON BID TABULATION SHEET 2 of 3 Bid Total from Proposal Bid L&I Rcpt. M/W  Bus. Subs  Schedule of Prices & Trpl. Form Bond Cert Add. Subs. List *Includes Sales Tax Bidder FORMS Pivetta Brothers Const. Inc. PO Box 370 5 Sumner x x x x x x $733,680.67 WA 98390 Mark Pivetta R.L. Alia Company 107 Williams Ave. S 6 Renton x x x x x x $797,810.00 WA 98057 Richard L.  Alia Rodarte Construction Inc. 17 E. Valley Hwy. East Auburn x x x x x x $655,251.00 7 WA 98092 Frank C. Rodarte Jr. Stafford Excavating LLC PO Box 545 Enumclaw x x x x x x $691,500.00 8 WA 98022 Aaron Stafford Engineer's Estimate $690,000 ‐ $860,0006e. - City Clerk reports bid opening on 3/24/2015 for CAG-15-032 - Sunset Page 28 of 517 Project: Sunset Terrace Regional Stormwater Facility Project CAG‐15‐032 Date: 03/24/15 CITY OF RENTON BID TABULATION SHEET 3 of 3 Bid Total from Proposal Bid L&I Rcpt. M/W  Bus. Subs  Schedule of Prices & Trpl. Form Bond Cert Add. Subs. List *Includes Sales Tax Bidder FORMS Thomco Const. Inc. 13600 44th St. NE Lake Stevens x x x x x x 797,885.93 9 WA 980258 David Thomas TITAN Earthwork, LLC 13806 16th St. E Sumner x x x x x x 734,982.96 10 WA 98390 Steve Greiling 11 12 Engineer's Estimate $690,000 ‐ $860,0006e. - City Clerk reports bid opening on 3/24/2015 for CAG-15-032 - Sunset Page 29 of 517 CITY OF RENTON COUNCIL AGENDA BILL Subject/Title: Appeal of Hearing Examiner's Final Decision upon Reconsideration dated 2/26/2015 regarding the Reserve at Tiffany Park Preliminary Plat. (File No. LUA-13-001572) Meeting: REGULAR COUNCIL - 06 Apr 2015 Exhibits: (See Summary for List of Exhibits) Submitting Data: Dept/Div/Board: City Clerk Staff Contact: Jason Seth, City Clerk (x6502) Recommended Action: Refer to Planning and Development Committee. Fiscal Impact: Expenditure Required: $ N/A Transfer Amendment: $N/A Amount Budgeted: $ N/A Revenue Generated: $N/A Total Project Budget: $ N/A City Share Total Project: $ N/A SUMMARY OF ACTION: Appeal of the Hearing Examiner’s Final Decision upon Reconsideration on the Reserve at Tiffany Park Preliminary Plat was filed on 3/12/2015 by Renate Beedon, President of Tiffany Park Woods Advocacy Group, accompanied by the required $250.00 fee. EXHIBITS: A. Response Letters (Supporting & Denying) (3/27/2015 - 3/30/2015) B. City Clerk’s letter (3/20/2015) C. Appeal – TPWAG (3/12/2015) D. HEX’s Final Decision upon Reconsideration (2/27/2015) E. HEX's Order on Request for Reconsideration II (1/29/2015) F. Revised & Amended Request for Reconsideration – TPWAG (1/28/2015) G. HEX's Order on Request for Reconsideration (1/22/2015) H. Request for Reconsideration – CH& (1/22/2015) I. Request for Reconsideration – TPWAG (1/21/2015) J. HEX’s Final Decision (1/7/2015) STAFF RECOMMENDATION: Take action on the Reserve at Tiffany Park Preliminary Plat appeal. 6f. - City Clerk reports appeal of the Hearing Examiner's final decision upon Page 30 of 517 CITY OF RENTON MAR 3 0 2015 3112 SE 18'x' Street Renton, Washington 98058 RECEIVED March 30, 2015 CITY CLERK'S OFFICE Jason Seth, City Clerk Renton City Council's Planning and Development Committee 1055 South Grady Way Renton, Washington 98057 Subject: Tiffany Park Woods Development Renton City Council's Planning and Development Committee, There are several issues that I request your permission to briefly bring to your attention with supporting information and/ or photographs. I will be prepared, with information, to discuss any of the following issues. 1) SE 16'x' Street accident records. 2) Congested hairpin turn as the water tower. 3)Area school capacity. 4)Friendliness and openness ofneighborhoods. 5)Isolation of heritage neighborhood homes. 6)Development buffers. 7)Loss of property values to heritage homeowners. 8)Dense housing. 9)Children need to in contact with nature. 10)Neighborhood residents denied the opportunity to gather information for hearings. 11)Requested Environmental Studies. 12)Money emphasis 13)City oversight of builders. 14)Neighborhood disruptions by multi million dollar international corporations. 16f. - City Clerk reports appeal of the Hearing Examiner's final decision upon Page 31 of 517 15)Local government's duty to represent the citizens who pay their salaries. 16)Advice to TPWAG to limit issues. Sincerely, William L. Roenicke 425-271-7785 risingr@integrity.com 26f. - City Clerk reports appeal of the Hearing Examiner's final decision upon Page 32 of 517 Date: Mon, Mar 30, 2015 To: City Council City of Renton CITY OF 1055 Grady Way RENrOM Renton, WA 98057 MAR 3 0 2015 1r ffLARECEIVED "'tiFrom: Tiffany Park Woods Advocacy Group mailto:renton-opposites@comcast.net CIryCLERKS Opp/CE 1725 Pierce Avenue SE Renton, WA 98058 Subject: Reserve at Tiffany Park PP - Hearing Examiner Decision (LUA13-001572) Comments Supporting Notice of Appeal of Hearing Examiner Decision to City Council Dear Sir or Madam: This letter constitutes Tiffany Park Woods Advocacy Group's Comments Supporting the Notice of Appeal to the City Council of the Final Decision Upon Reconsideration dated February 26, 2015 pursuant to RMC 4-8-080 and RMC 4-8-110(F)(3). Framework for City Council Decision What makes this appeal interesting is that the City of Renton used the alternative threshold determination process commonly referred to as the "mitigated determination of non-significance" set forth in WAC 197-11- 350. With a MDNS, promulgation of a formal EIS is not required. An applicant may clarify or change a proposal by revising the environmental checklist and permit application so that a MDNS can be issued for the revised project. WAC 197-11-350(2). Alternatively, the municipality may specify mitigation measures and issue a MDNS only if the proposal is changed to incorporate those measures. WAC 197-11-350(3). Nonetheless, WAC 197-11-350(2) clearly emphasizes: "If a proposal continues to have a probable significant environmental Impact,even with mitigation measures,an EIS shall be prepared." Courts review a decision to issue a MDNS under the "clearly erroneous" standard.A finding is clearly erroneous when, although there is evidence to support it, the reviewing court on the record is left with the definite and firm conviction that a mistake has been committed. Norway Hill Preservation & Protection Association v. King County Council, 87 Wn.2d 267, 274, 552 P.2d 674 (1976). For the MDNS to survive judicial scrutiny, the record must demonstrate that "environmental factors were adequately considered in a manner sufficient to establish prima facie compliance with SEPA,and that the decision to issue a MDNS was based on information sufficient to evaluate the proposal's environmental impact. Sisley v. San Juan County, 89 Wn.2d 78, 82-83, 569 P.2d 712 (1977). In essence, what SEPA requires is that the presently unquantified environmental amenities and values will be given appropriate consideration in decision making along with economic and technical considerations. It is an attempt by the people to shape their future environment by deliberation, not default. Norway Hill at 272. In order to achieve this goal, it is important that an environmental impact statement be prepared in all appropriate cases. TPWAG Comments Supporting Notice of Appeal to City Council Page 1 of 46f. - City Clerk reports appeal of the Hearing Examiner's final decision upon Page 33 of 517 In a nutshell, this MDNS process is a mixed hybrid of both procedural and substantive SEPA because the threshold determination of the DNS (procedural component) is contingent upon the determination that mitigation measures (the substantive component) can alleviate any adverse environmental impacts. Professor William Rodgers, an eminent scholar at the University of Washington, emphasizes that the issue of a mitigated DNS has been hotly debated: "What this process approves is a kind of backroom bargaining outside of the normal glare of EIS procedures...As a result,the process should remain under sharp scrutiny."The SEPA rules provide that if a proposal continues to have a probable significant environmental impact after mitigation measures have been applied, an environmental impact statement shall be prepared. This touchstone of the SEPA review process was designed to provide some protection from abuse: "If a MDNS is issued and an appealing party proves that the project will still produce significant adverse environmental impacts, then the MDNS decision must be held to be "clearly erroneous" and an EIS must be promulgated." Anderson v. Pierce County, 86 Wn.App. 290 (Wn.App. Div. 2 1997). Review of Record Leaves Definite and Firm Conviction that Mistake Committed What makes this appeal unique is that the full scope of mitigation measures were not specified and determined until the Hearing Examiner issued the Final Decision Upon Reconsideration dated February 26, 2015. The gist of TPWAG's appeal to the City Council is that the hearing examiner's decision provides inadequate mitigation for the impacts on the environment and on the surrounding community of Applicant's proposed development to support a MDNS determination under SEPA. Consequently the preliminary plat application should be denied and an environmental impact statement must be prepared. The record clearly reflects: 1. TPWAG was denied access to the property and denied a fair opportunity to perform our own wetland assessment on the property. The City and Applicant's wetland assessment understates the extent of wetlands on the site.The hearing examiner's decision fails to fully evaluate the significant adverse impacts on the environment resulting from the wetlands. Instead the decision improperly defers consideration of these issues to the construction permit stage where the public has little or no input. 2. The hearing examiner's decision recognizes that there is uncertainty as to whether the project site is free from hazardous waste, but does not adequately address the probable adverse impact on the environment resulting there from. 3. The hearing examiner's decision fails to adequately address the substantial adverse impacts resulting from the proposed storm drainage system for the site, including the detention vault, roof runoff and downstream impacts. Instead the decision improperly defers consideration of these issues to the construction permit stage where the public has little or no input. 4.Although the hearing examiner's decision recognizes that there is a substantial probable adverse impact resulting from the extensive use of structural retaining walls on the project, the hearing examiner's decision fails to fully and adequately address the adverse impacts resulting from this extensive use of an intricate network of rockeries, modular block retaining walls, lock and load retaining walls, and extensive grading operations and provides inadequate mitigation for the impacts on the environment and the community. Instead the decision improperly defers TPWAG Comments Supporting Notice of Appeal to City Council Page 2 of 46f. - City Clerk reports appeal of the Hearing Examiner's final decision upon Page 34 of 517 consideration of these issues to the construction permit stage where the public has little or no input. 5. The hearing examiner's decision fails to adequately address the traffic impacts directly related to ingress and egress for the site, including but not limited to the impact of converting SE 18th Street and 124th Place SE from quiet Cul-De-Sacs into arterials and the reduction in property values resulting there from. As a result, additional traffic studies should be performed to investigate and revise access routes to the project. 6. The hearing examiner's decision requires Applicant to submit additional documentation to the Current Planning Project Manager prior to construction permit approval, including an updated geotechnical report, revised preliminary plat and landscaping plan, revised wetland mitigation plan, final mitigation plan for retaining walls and phase one environmental site assessment. All of this documentation should have been prepared and should be prepared prior to preliminary plat approval. Otherwise the public will have little or no input on these issues. The City Council's review of the record should lead to the definite and firm conviction that it would be a mistake to rubber stamp this preliminary plat. The extensive mitigation measures outlined in the hearing examiner's decision, and discussed above, are a reliable indicator of major action with significant environmental effects.The mitigation measures do not reduce all significant adverse environmental impacts below the threshold level of significance, but merely postpone their evaluation to the construction permit stage. Consequently the City Council should deny the preliminary plat application and require an environmental impact statement. Conclusion The members of TPWAG are proud that we have persevered in the face of considerable adversity at the consolidated SEPA/preliminary plat hearing. Given that the deck was stacked so highly against TPWAG and in favor of the Applicant, it is remarkable that we were able to prevail with the hearing examiner so that the Applicant was required to provide the plethora of additional documentation to the city prior to construction permit approval. Most of these issues were simply glossed over or ignored by the Environmental Review Committee's threshold determination and were not included as mitigation measures. Rather than providing reasonable mitigation of adverse environmental impacts, all of this additional documentation is tantamount to a reliable indicator of and suggests significant environmental impacts. Once the Applicant provides this additional documentation, we are confident that it will reveal a wide array of marginal impacts that are very important to the neighbors and together result in a significant impact. TPWAG initially organized to advocate for the preservation of the character of the woods at Tiffany Park as a unique and mature forest in an urban area, habitat for wildlife and sanctuary where community residents hike or simply find peace in the middle of the city. Over time it became apparent that the Applicant provided insufficient and inadequate information to truly understand the massive scope of the proposal and its detrimental impact on the environment. We now have the definite and firm conviction that it was a mistake to excuse an EIS which should give detailed consideration to the alternative possibilities that Applicant's preliminary plat is proportionally and aesthetically out of touch and not compatible with the neighborhood; that existing streets are inadequate to safely handle ingress and egress for the site; that "backroom bargaining" understated and minimized the wetland requirements for the site; that unlawful discharges to the wetlands may destroy the wetlands or cause flooding downstream; that the geotechnical information for the site may be inadequate to understand the risks associated with the massive grading operation, the extensive TPWAG Comments Supporting Notice of Appeal to City Council Page 3 of 46f. - City Clerk reports appeal of the Hearing Examiner's final decision upon Page 35 of 517 excavation necessary for the drainage vault, or the construction of an extensive and intricate network of retaining walls; and that the proposed storm water system may exacerbate downstream storm water capacity issues that the City already considers an environmental nuisance. This proposal continues to have a probable significant environmental impact, even with mitigation measures, so it is important that an environmental impact statement be prepared For all of these reasons, we strongly urge the City Council to deny the preliminary plat application and require an environmental impact statement. Tiffany Park Woods Advocacy Group f y 1 RENATE BEEDON President TPWAG Comments Supporting Notice of Appeal to City Council Page 4 of 46f. - City Clerk reports appeal of the Hearing Examiner's final decision upon Page 36 of 517 CITYOF RENTON To: MAR 3 0 2015 wt)awl City Council RECEIVED CITY CLERK'S OFFICE h' City of Renton 1055 Grady Way Renton, WA 98057 Subject: Reserve at Tiffany Park PP - Hearing Examiner Decision LUA13- 001572) Notice of Appeal of Hearing Examiner Decision to City Council Dear Council members: We would like to add our support to the Tiffany Park Woods Advocacy Group' s Notice of Appeal to the City Council of the Final Decision Upon Reconsideration dated February 26, 2015. The cutting of the woods, grading of the land, building of roads, utilities and residences may have a negative impact on wildlife, the environment, property values, neighbors and the citizens of Renton. Here are our comments based on some of the points made in the Appeal (Item numbers from the Appeal): Item 3: "TPWAG was denied access to the property and denied a fair opportunity to perform our own wetland assessment on the property." In a fair and open process there should be nothing to lose by having a second study of the wetlands done to ensure they are properly protected. Item 4: "The hearing examiner's decision recognizes that there is uncertainty as to whether the project site is free from hazardous waste". Shouldn't that be one of the first things established before allowing homes and yards to be built there? And if the developer has information about this that they refuse to divulge, then that definitely casts doubt on the safety of the site. Item 5: "The hearing examiner's decision fails to adequately address the substantial adverse impacts resulting from the proposed storm drainage system for the site." Is this supposed to be resolved before approval? Will leaving it to the construction permit stage allow the developer too much leeway and result in a poor outcome? Item 6: "The hearing examiner's decision recognizes that there is a substantial probable adverse impact resulting from the extensive use of structural retaining walls on the project." This is yet one more thing that should be addressed before 6f. - City Clerk reports appeal of the Hearing Examiner's final decision upon Page 37 of 517 approval of the project. The style, height and nature of these walls will make a big difference in how this project affects the surrounding neighbors. Is it standard procedure to delay the definition and review of these features, or is it just a way for the developer to avoid providing mitigations? Item 7: "The hearing examiner's decision fails to adequately address the traffic impacts directly related to ingress and egress for the site." If you look at the two proposed entry points, they are both situated such that it will be a huge impact on the people living on those roads. The SE 18th Street entrance in particular will be very congested, especially during construction, as it was not designed to be an arterial. Item 8: "The hearing examiner's decision requires Applicant to submit additional documentation to the Current Planning Project Manager prior to construction permit approval" Is there any reason not to require it before preliminary plat approval? Why not have all the information possible before making that decision? Item 10: "An environmental statement is required by the weight of the evidence." And by the reluctance of the developer to provide all they know about the possibility of hazardous waste on the property. And by their refusal to allow a second wetlands study. It would be proper to know the environmental impact of development on 21 acres of 79 year old woods before giving approval. In short, we expect our public representatives to do everything they can to make sure this site is developed in a responsible way, with an open, thorough process that results in all stakeholders' concerns addressed before the final decisions are made. Thank you. Doug, Elizabeth and Michael Frisch 1717 Pierce Ave SE Renton, WA 98058 425-228-2346 6f. - City Clerk reports appeal of the Hearing Examiner's final decision upon Page 38 of 517 CITY OF RENTON To: City Council City of Renton MAR 3 0 2015 1055 Grady Way RECEIVED Renton, WA 98057 CITY CLERK'S OFFICE From: Robin Jones 3624 SE 19t" CT Renton, WA 98058 Subject: Reserve at Tiffany Park PP - Hearing Examiner Decision (LUA13-001572) Comments Supporting Notice of Appeal of Hearing Examiner Decision to City Council Members of the City Council: In addition to earlier comments that I have submitted, this letter reflects an expansion on my earlier appeal comments to the Hearing Examiner. The Hearing Examiner is required to follow a process and apply the different information presented to him against the Renton Municipal Code to ensure compliance, which he has sought to do. What he is not always capable of doing is considering unique, intangible factors, which is why the process allows for an appeal to the City Council; hence this letter. I believe the Renton City Council should relook the land decisions made to date for the following unique circumstances. 1. The land use process that has been used to date has not be able to account for the unique nature of this land parcel; the length of time that it has been lying unused and the maturity of the surrounding community. This is a unique block of land that has been pristine for roughly 35 year, surrounded by homeowners who have a well-founded expectation that their property would border a green belt. I would ask for the Council Members to factor this longevity consideration and owner expectations in a re- examination of the current land decision. 2. The land use process that has been used to date has been unable to account for the intangible impact on the community and quality of life concerns that this development action would have. As the representative's for the citizens for this area the Council Members are in the best position to voice these intangible but highly critical concerns. The citizens impacted by this decision have significant worries around school enrollments, decreasing house prices, loss of recreational areas, a declining quality of life and loss of community cohesion. I would ask for the Council Member as our political 6f. - City Clerk reports appeal of the Hearing Examiner's final decision upon Page 39 of 517 representatives to assess the current land decision to ensure that our concerns in these areas have been addressed. 3. The Land use decision today has not accounted for the ongoing legal action against the Renton School Board around the land action process. This legal action, challenges the Renton School Board's assertion that entering into a single source binding contract prior to engaging with the general public does not meet the intent of the State Law. This legal action is currently active and in the discovery phase. I would ask the Council Member take into consideration that there is a strong possibility that this land action has not followed the legal process as dictated by Washington State Law. Based on these three unique factors of this area of land I would asked the Council Members to re-examine the current land decisions and re-shape the current decision to reflect this unique concerns raised above. Sincerely Robin Jones 6f. - City Clerk reports appeal of the Hearing Examiner's final decision upon Page 40 of 517 CITY OF RENTON MAR 2 7 2015 RECEIVED 2707SE 16th Street CITY CLERICS OFFICE Renton, Washington 98058 March 24, 2015 Jason Seth, City Clerk Mayor Dennis Law, and the Renton City Council 1055 South Grady Way Renton, Washington 98057 Re: Traffic Safety SE 16th Street, Tiffany Park Woods Development Mayor Dennis Law, and the Renton City Council, I am a resident of Renton, having lived at the above address for 10 years. During that time there have been many automobile accidents on the streets, and street corner, which border my home, property. Yes, and many accidents in the last five years. The police have been at some of the accidents. Many times the driver is able to drive off before the police arrive. My property has been damaged many times. I have not been compensated for the damage to my property. Fortunately no children in my family have been injured by one of these accidents. have asked for help from the city to make the street safer, but my requests have always been ignored. I would like to come and explain this problem to the City Council asking for help to make this street safer. To repeat, there have been many accidents on this street in the past five years, some with police attendance. Sincerely, Ruka Khazehie 6f. - City Clerk reports appeal of the Hearing Examiner's final decision upon Page 41 of 517 CITY OF RENTON MAR 2 7 2015 RECEIVED ITY-CLEWSGF-FVE L\)1 j vo SL 7 709 S- ALtk r--,tfcf,T N A- 9 EGM RAM4 2-7 20S T&SON sz-;qi , Ci TV CURX 1 1H2 V-cJrM-M CAN CCUJUc(L bS s so Ute, G T-C)U/ V\w A,...9B,0S7 HmWn 5RFLTV -SE 1611, S crr-CC a VAV U- DEN IV K.- L&W At,,o unc RDjTb m jv COU ML I'L H A14 S-JTV OF VUS0 ON S., F- terv, sorccT- SNC, 19S 7, W OUM U KS- TO COML BiF-C> L T14 E, C-OU N C I L FOV T V\J= ALSO Ur-'!- -M E`l- A PAfLT-V Ofk- COILD LL N ALL r ou L i(Do nou M-z I L-S. 6f. - City Clerk reports appeal of the Hearing Examiner's final decision upon Page 42 of 517 Cynthia Moya From: Jason Seth Sent: Friday, March 27, 2015 10:58 AM To: Cynthia Moya Subject: FW:Appeal of Hearing Examiner Decision Reserve at Tiffany Park LUA13-001572 CITY OF RENTON Letter supporting the Reserve at Tiffany Park appeal. Jason MAR 2 7 2015 Jason Seth, CMC RECEIVED City Clerk iseth@rentonwa.gov CITY CLERKS OFFICE 425-430-6502 From: Craig &Jill Jones [mailto:cajones52 acomcast.nek] Sent: Friday, March 27, 2015 9:22 AM To: Jason Seth Subject: Appeal of Hearing Examiner Decision Reserve at Tiffany Park LUA13-001572 To: Renton City Council Planning and Development Committee c/o Jason Seth, City Clerk As parties of interest we are writing to register our support of the appeal by the Tiffany Park Woods Advocacy Group(TPWAG)of Hearing Examiner's Decision regarding the proposed development, Reserve at Tiffany Park(LUA13-001572). We agree with the ten points made by TPWAG that the adverse impacts of this development have not been adequately studied or addressed. It is unusual for such a fully,canopied parcel of forest to be available for development within the city limits. The proposed development of this tract for 97 homes is problematic in several ways: the parcel lies at the heart of a long-developed community it contains several wetlands that require protection has limited road access is directly upslope from a city park is a block away from an elementary school. The issue of storm water runoff and drainage should be of particular concern to the city.As previously testified, the Tiffany Park neighborhood already has water drainage issues during and after heavy rains.The city park,Tiffany Park, is at the lowest point of the entire neighborhood and sits on top of Ginger Creek,which was culverted when the park was built. During the rainy season the park's wooded patch becomes a small pond and the playground and playing field become saturated and unusable.Along the curb of Lake Youngs Way near the baseball diamond a puddle often extends well out into the street, sometimes with a footprint as big as a house. The proposed development will remove a thousand mature trees and forest duff, which absorb rain, and replace them with pavement and rooftop to an extent far greater than the surrounding neighborhood.The developer proposes a water retention vault directly behind and upslope of existing houses and about 150 yards away and upslope from the park. If the vault leaks or proves inadequate,flooding could impact those homes and the city's park. We urge the city council to seriously consider the TPWAG appeal and the concerns of the people of the Renton neighborhood who will bear the burden of this development. Thank you. Jill Jones Derek Jones Kyleigh Jones 1413 Newport Ct. SE Renton,WA 98058 1 6f. - City Clerk reports appeal of the Hearing Examiner's final decision upon Page 43 of 517 CITY OF RENTON MAR 2 7 2011 Jason A.Seth,CMC City Clerk RECEIVED City of Renton CITY CLERK'S OFFICE 1055 South Grady Way i<L Renton,WA 98057 Re:Appeal of Hearing Examiner's decision dated February 26, 2015, regarding Reserve at Tiffany Park PP. (File No. LUA-13-001572 ECF, PP, CAE) Dear Mr.Seth, I am writing in support of the appeal filed March 11, 2015 by Renate Beedon,the designated representative of the Tiffany Park Woods Advocacy Group (TPWAG). I am a party of record, because 1 gave oral comments at a meeting held at Tiffany Park Elementary, and submitted written comments to City Staff at that meeting. I do not live adjacent to the Tiffany Park Woods. But I know enough about it to have an informed opinion. The errors of fact or law presented in the TPWAG appeal letter seem true to me.The written record as I have seen in letters mailed from City Staff indicates to me that the hearing examiner gave the developer instructions on doing many things that they should have done prior in the process. Now the developer can do it the back door way by having only the project manager watching what they're doing,and the public gets no input.As one of several examples,the hearing examiner requires the applicant to submit extensive additional documentation to the project manager before construction permit approval. But all of this should have been prepared prior to preliminary plat approval. Overall,the written record indicates to me that the process has been unfairly allowed to go forward, basically no matter what.To me,this has the appearance of a pre-determined outcome,with the public interest not seriously considered. I request City Council, in consideration of the written record previously established, including the facts presented in the appeal letter, please stop this runaway process,and find a better alternative use for the unique and beautiful Tiffany Park Woods than the current development plan which is not in the best interests of current and future residents of the City of Renton. Sincerely, Czez Z44-4— Daniel Goldman 1608 Glenwood Ave SE Renton,WA 98058 425-271-6058 6f. - City Clerk reports appeal of the Hearing Examiner's final decision upon Page 44 of 517 CITY OF RENTON h" T-' 1 MAR 2 7 2015 l> RECEIVED 5242nd Ave.Suite Soo off,e 206 58,0;oc CITY CLERK'S OFFICE Seattle-WJ'98104 far K6 SP;2308 1_.uai nc-ossrom CH& March 27, 2015 Mayor Law& City Councilmembers City of Renton 1055 Grady Way Renton, WA 98057 Re: Letter Supporting Denial of TPWAG Appeal The Reserve at Tiffany Park Preliminary Plat City File No. LUA13-001572 Dear Mayor Law and Councilmembers: This firm represents Henley USA, LLC ("Henley"), the contract purchaser for the property and applicant for The Reserve at Tiffany Park Preliminary Plat(the "Preliminary Plat"). By this letter, Henley asks the Council to deny the appeal filed by the Tiffany Park Woods Advocacy Group TPWAG"). This letter is submitted in conjunction with Henley's Motion to Dismiss TPWAG's appeal ofthe Renton Hearing Examiner's decision denying TPWAG's first appeal under the State Environmental Policy Act ("SEPA") as an improper second appeal of the SEPA threshold Determination of Non- Significance ("DNS-M"). Should the Council deny the Motion to Dismiss, Henley requests the Council affirm the Hearing Examiner's decision because the Preliminary Plat is in full compliance with the governing regulations and approval of the Preliminary Plat was proper. Pursuant to RMC 4-8-110(F)(5) and (8), TPWAG has the burden of proving that "a substantial error in fact or law exists in the record." Absent such proof, the Council must affirm the Examiner's decision. TPWAG's appeal fails to raise any errors of fact or law, and its request for the extreme relief of overturning the findings and conclusions of expert City Staff and the Hearing Examiner should be denied. The Council should affirm the Hearing Examiner's decision. TPWAG Assertions Nos. 1 & 2: TPWAG's first two assertions fail to raise any error of fact or law capable of review. TPWAG instead makes broad generalized statements that the Hearing Examiner's decision is insufficient to support the DNS-M and the Council should require additional mitigation. The record before the Examiner confirms, as the Examiner ruled, that the Hearing Examiner's Final Decision to approve the Preliminary Plat with the DNS-M is adequately supported by the numerous studies provided and expert conclusions reached during the application process and the hearing before the Examiner. Nothing in TPWAG's Assertions in paragraphs 1 and 2 warrant reversal of the Examiner's Decision. nro ersa,cairncross.com direct(206)254-4417 02773006.D0CX15 }6f. - City Clerk reports appeal of the Hearing Examiner's final decision upon Page 45 of 517 Mayor Law& City Councilmembers March 27, 2015 Page 2 TPWAG Assertion No. 3: TPWAG next asserts that the wetlands delineation was done incorrectly, the Hearing Examiner's Final Decision did not fully evaluate the adverse environmental impacts on wetlands, and it improperly deferred these issues to the construction permit stage. All of these arguments are unfounded. A thorough review of the environmental impacts of the Preliminary Plat on wetlands was conducted and numerous experts, including a third-party review by the City, concurred that an EIS was unnecessary because no probable adverse impacts were likely. TPWAG argues as a basis for its appeal that it was denied a fair opportunity to perform a wetlands assessment of the property. A fundamental tenet of property law is that there is no public right of access to private property. TPWAG therefore had no right to access, and the School District had no duty to provide TPWAG, or the general public, access to this private property for the purpose of environmental investigation. There were extensive studies ofthe environmental impacts on wetlands and numerous experts confirmed that no Environmental Impact Statement ("EIS") was required because no probable significant adverse environmental impacts would occur. In October 2013, Henley submitted a Wetland Determination study and in February 2014, to account for revisions to the plat, Henley submitted a revised Wetland Determination, both of which were performed by C. Gary Schulz, Inc. At the request of the City of Renton, these studies were then reviewed by an independent third-party consultant, Otak. Upon receipt of the recommendations from the Otak study, Henley again submitted a Revised Wetland Determination and Response in June 2014 and a further response in July 2014. The Hearing Examiner reviewed all of these studies in reaching his Final Decision approving the Preliminary Plat and specifically held that"[g]iven the extensive review of wetland impacts, staff's review and approval of wetland mitigation, and the applicant's compliance with all applicable wetland regulations, it is concluded that the proposal will not create any adverse impacts to wetlands." Final Decision upon Reconsideration, pg. 19. In fact, the project does more than simply avoid adverse impacts to the wetlands. As the Examiner noted, "[t]he applicant's wildlife expert, Racheal Villa of Soundview Consultants testified that the formalized protection of the wetlands and buffers on site would result in an improvement in habitat conditions for both pileated woodpeckers and Townsend's bats over the present situation due to the fairly degraded condition of the habitat at present." Final Decision upon Reconsideration, pg. 13. Thus, the evaluation of environmental impacts on wetlands and the wetlands delineation are the product of several iterations of expert review and recommendations, and revisions of the Preliminary Plat by Henley to meet these recommendations. This process culminated in an informed and proper decision by the Hearing Examiner approving the Preliminary Plat. The only matters deferred to the time of construction permitting are matters of engineered design that can only be addressed at the time construction permits are processed by the City. 02773006.DOCX;5}6f. - City Clerk reports appeal of the Hearing Examiner's final decision upon Page 46 of 517 Mayor Law& City Councilmembers March 27, 2015 Page 3 TPWAG Assertion No. 4: TPWAG's fourth asserted error alleges that there is uncertainty as to whether the project site is free of hazardous waste. This argument stems from the belief that the property was once subject to two easements in favor of the Department of Defense and therefore it is possible the property was exposed to hazardous substances. TPWAG's allegations relate to sections 3 and 4 of a recorded 1957 summary of five different even older grants, conveyances, and easements. At most, TPWAG's allegations establish that there was a grant of an easement to the Defense Plant Corporation in 1944 across a 14 foot strip of land somewhere in this area, that may or may not include a portion of the land within the plat. TPWAG's allegations are purely speculative as to the presence of hazardous material. TPWAG has provided no evidence of the existence of hazardous materials on the property. As highlighted by the Hearing Examiner, TPWAG was "unable to demonstrate evidence of any overt signs of contamination visible on the site that might justify overturning the substantial weight due the SEPA official's determination that the project site does not contain any hazardous waste necessitating further environmental review." Final Decision upon Reconsideration, pg. 12. TPWAG's bald speculation about possible hazardous waste on the site fails to carry its burden ofrp oving that"a substantial error in fact or law exists in the record." RMC 4-8-110(F)(5). The Council should deny TPWAG's appeal and affirm the Preliminary Plat approval. TPWAG Assertion No. 5: TPWAG also asserts that the Hearing Examiner's Final Decision inadequately addresses adverse impacts resulting from the proposed storm drainage system and demands more precise and exhaustive mitigation conditions at this early stage. Again, these arguments are misguided, as the Hearing Examiner based his approval of the Preliminary Plat on a thorough analysis of more than adequate studies and technical plans to address storm drainage and TPWAG did not present any evidence to the contrary. The Hearing Examiner specifically noted that TPWAG's strategy of making vague accusations that studies and plans are generally inadequate, without providing any support for its claim, is insufficient to overcome the surplus of evidence Henley provided demonstrating compliance with all applicable regulations. Specifically, the Hearing Examiner stated TPWAG has "not identified any deficiencies in these [stormwater runoff] calculations or the regulations that require them."Ruling on Reconsideration, pg. 6. Further, the Examiner noted, "[TPWAG has] not specifically identified how any part of the proposed system would fail to comply with stormwater regulations as they apply to roof runoff and its interaction with wetlands. Under these circumstances it would be appropriate to assign remaining compliance issues to engineering stage final plat review, as contemplated in the City's subdivision review regulations."' Ruling on Reconsideration, pg. 6. The Code does not require exhaustive final See also Final Decision upon Reconsideration,pg. 18-19(noting the City had"reasonably sufficient information at this stage of review to evaluate downstream impacts"and"[s]ince the proposed stormwater discharge is consistent with all applicable regulations, is a standard practice for development and also meets the approval of staff, it is determined that the proposed discharge to wetlands will not create any probable significant adverse environmental impacts.") 02773006.DOCX;5 )6f. - City Clerk reports appeal of the Hearing Examiner's final decision upon Page 47 of 517 Mayor Law& City Councilmembers March 27, 2015 Page 4 plans at this preliminary plat application step, but instead provides a logical and reasonable multistep process by which supplementary materials are added to appropriately fine tune the project as needed. Granting TPWAG's appeal and requiring Henley to submit extremely detailed plans that are required at later stages would be contrary to law. The Council should instead affirm the Hearing Examiner's Decision because the Preliminary Plat complies with the City's development regulations and environmental review procedures. TPWAG has established no error of fact or law in the record that would support reversal of the Examiner's Decision. TPWAG Assertion No. 6: The Council also should reject TPWAG's argument that the Hearing Examiner failed to adequately mitigate the probable adverse impacts of structural retaining walls. The Hearing Examiner found that retaining walls greater than four feet in height that are visible off-site have a significant adverse aesthetic impact. But the Examiner also expressly concluded that "[t]he aesthetic impacts of the retaining walls can be fully mitigated by the by a [sic] ten foot perimeter landscaping strip." Final Decision, pg. 10. The Examiner concluded that the ten-foot buffer requirement for visible retaining walls "will prevent the retaining walls from creating probable significant adverse environmental impacts." Final Decision, pg. 11. Again, the Hearing Examiner's careful analysis and thoughtful Decision should not be disturbed in the face of the bare allegations presented by TPWAG. TPWAG has failed to establish an error of fact or law to support reversal. The Council should reject TPWAG's appeal and affirm the Hearing Examiner's approval of the Preliminary Plat. TPWAG Assertion No. 7: TPWAG's last argument asserts that the Hearing Examiner failed to adequately address the project's traffic impacts. TPWAG's argument lacks any support in the record, as the Hearing Examiner's Final Decision was based on extensive traffic studies submitted by Henley and an independent consultant, and these studies concluded that the impacts on traffic were either within the acceptable levels of service or sufficiently mitigated by the required DNS-M conditions. The Hearing Examiner reviewed the Traffic Impact Analysis prepared by TranspoGroup and the Independent Secondary Review requested by the City and prepared by Perteet, the City's third-party transportation reviewer. These studies fully captured any adverse traffic impacts resulting from the project and TPWAG again failed to present any evidence to the contrary. TPWAG also asserts that there will be significant adverse impacts from the conversion of SE 18th Street and 124th Place SE from cul-de-sacs to "arterials." In fact, these residential roadways will remain residential roadways. No such conversion of these roads into arterials is contemplated by the Preliminary Plat and, as noted by the Hearing Examiner, TPWAG did not produce any evidence that connecting these roads would create adverse environmental impacts, including diminished property values. Ruling on Reconsideration Requests, pg. 6. Both roadways were long planned to connect to serve this site, whether it was developed as a school, or a residential subdivision. f02773006.DOCX;5 }6f. - City Clerk reports appeal of the Hearing Examiner's final decision upon Page 48 of 517 Mayor Law& City Councilmembers March 27, 2015 Page 5 Pursuant to a review of the various traffic studies and expert opinions, the Hearing Examiner made an informed technical decision that any adverse impacts to traffic would be sufficiently mitigated by the conditions imposed. Again, Henley is not disputing any of these conditions and plans to comply with them. Thus, the Council should affirm the Hearing Examiner's Final Decision approving the Preliminary Plat and deny TPWAG's unsubstantiated appeal. TPWAG Assertions 8-10: TPWAG concludes its appeal by making additional generalized arguments that do not raise any specific error of fact or law, but instead urge the Council to abandon the process required under the Renton Municipal Code and SEPA. TPWAG again argues that additional technical studies and detailed plans should be required at this preliminary plat stage instead of later in the development process. But to require Henley to provide engineering and construction level analysis at the time of preliminary plat would be contrary to law. Indeed, under State law, a preliminary plat is a"neat and approximate drawing of a proposed subdivision showing the general layout of streets and alleys, lots, blocks, and other elements of a subdivision." RCW 58.17.020(4). TPWAG argues for more, more, more, but neither State law nor the Renton Code demand the exhaustive level of analysis that TPWAG requests at the preliminary plat stage of review. The Council should affirm the Examiner's Decision. TPWAG's final generalized argument also is contrary to law, as it asks the Council to overturn the DNS-M reached by City Staff, independent third-party experts, and the Hearing Examiner. While Henley firmly asserts that the DNS-M is proper for all of the reasons stated above, we also reiterate our arguments set forth in our Motion to Dismiss that this second appeal of the SEPA threshold determination is barred by law and not subject to review by the Council. Thank you for your time and attention to this response. For all of the reasons stated above, Henley respectfully requests that the TPWAG Appeal of the Hearing Examiner's Final Decision upon Reconsideration be denied and the Hearing Examiner's Final Decision approving the Preliminary Plat be affirmed. Very truly yours, Nancy Bainbri ge Rogers NBR/kgb 02773006.DOCX;5 }6f. - City Clerk reports appeal of the Hearing Examiner's final decision upon Page 49 of 517 Denis Law Mayor City of March 20, 2015 City Clerk -Jason A.Seth,CMC 2"d REVISED LETTER APPEAL FILED BY: Tiffany Park Woods Advocacy Group by Renate Beedon, President RE: Appeal of Hearing Examiner's decision dated February 26, 2015, regarding Reserve at Tiffany Park PP. (File No. LUA-13-001572 ECF, PP, CAE) To Parties of Record: Pursuant to Title IV, Chapter 8, Renton City Code of Ordinances, written appeal of the hearing examiner's decision on the Reserve at Tiffany Park PP has been filed with the City Clerk. In accordance with Renton Municipal Code Section 4-8-110F, within five days of receipt of the notice of appeal, or after all appeal periods with the Hearing Examiner have expired, the City Clerk shall notify all parties of record of the receipt of the appeal. Other parties of record may submit letters limited to support of their positions regarding the appeal within ten (10) days of the date of mailing of this notification. The deadline for submission of additional letters is by 5:00 p.m., Monday, March 30, 2015. NOTICE IS HEREBY GIVEN that the written appeal and other pertinent documents will be reviewed by the Council's Planning and Development Committee at 3:00 p.m. on Monday,June 8, 2015, in the Council Chambers, 7th Floor of Renton City Hall, 1055 South Grady Way, Renton, Washington 98057. The recommendation of the Committee will be presented for consideration by the full Council at a subsequent Council meeting. Copy of the appeal and the Renton Municipal Code regarding appeal of Hearing Examiner decisions or recommendations is attached. Please note that the City Council will be considering the merits of the appeal based upon the written record previously established. No further evidence or testimony on this matter will be accepted by the City Council. For additional information or assistance, please call Jason Seth, City Clerk, at 425-430-6510. Sincerer, Chris L. Chau Deputy City Clerk Attachments Error in last paragraph — not based on Code. 1055 South GradyWay•Renton,Washington 98057• (425)430-6510/Fax(425)430-6516• rentonwa.gov6f. - City Clerk reports appeal of the Hearing Examiner's final decision upon Page 50 of 517 r City of Renton Mun 31 Code; Title IV, Chapter 8, Secy 110—Appeals 4-8-110C4 Filing of Appeal and Fee:The notice of appeal shall be accompanied by a fee in accordance with RMC 5- 1-2,the fee schedule of the City. (Ord. 3658, 9-13-1982; Ord. 5660, 5-14-2012; Ord. 5688, 5-13-2013) 4-8-11OF: Appeals to City Council—Procedures 1. Standing: Unless otherwise provided by State law or exempted by a State or federal agency, only the applicant, City or a party of record who has been aggrieved or affected by the Hearing Examiner's decision and who participated in the Hearing Examiner's public hearing may appeal the Hearing Examiner's decision. A person(s) will be deemed to have participated in the public hearing process if that person(s): a. Testified or gave oral comments at the public hearing; or b. Submitted any written comments to City staff or the Hearing Examiner regarding the matter prior to the close of the hearing; or c. Has been granted status as or has requested to be made a party of record prior to the close of the public hearing. 2. Notice to Parties of Record: Within five (5) days of receipt of the notice of appeal,the City Clerk shall notify all parties of record of the receipt of the appeal. 3. Opportunity to Provide Comments: Parties of record may submit letters in support of their positions within ten (10) days of the dates of mailing of the notification of the filing of the notice of appeal. 4. Council Review Procedures: No public hearing shall be held by the City Council. No new or additional evidence or testimony shall be accepted by the City Council. The cost of transcription of the hearing record shall be borne by the applicant. If a transcript is made,the applicant is required to provide a copy to the City Clerk and the Renton City Attorney at no cost. It shall be presumed that the record before the City Council is identical to the hearing record before the Hearing Examiner. (Ord. 5675, 12-3-2012) 5. Burden:The burden of proof shall rest with the appellant. 6. Council Evaluation Criteria:The consideration by the City Council shall be based solely upon the record,the Hearing Examiner's report,the notice of appeal and additional arguments based on the record by parties. 7. Findings and Conclusions Required: If, upon appeal of a decision of the Hearing Examiner on an application submitted pursuant to RMC 4-8-0701-11, as it exists or may be amended, and after examination of the record, the Council determines that a substantial error in fact or law exists in the record, it may modify or reverse the decision of the Hearing Examiner accordingly. (Ord. 5675, 12-3- 2012) 8. Decision Documentation:The decision of the City Council shall be in writing and shall specify any modified or amended findings and conclusions other than those set forth in the report of the Hearing Examiner. Each material finding shall be supported by substantial evidence in the record. 9. Council Action Final:The action of the Council approving, modifying or rejecting a decision of the Examiner shall be final and conclusive, unless appealed within the time frames established under subsection G5 of this Section. (Ord. 3658, 9-13-1982; Ord. 4389, 1-25-1993; Ord. 4660, 3-17-1997; Ord. 5558, 10-25-2010) 6f. - City Clerk reports appeal of the Hearing Examiner's final decision upon Page 51 of 517 Date: Wed, Mar 11, 2015 To: City Council City of Renton CITY OF RENTON CPG 1055 Grady Way Renton, WA 98057 MAR 12 2015 i3 RECEIVED From: Tiffany Park Woods Advocacy Group mailto:renton-opposites@comcast.net Gln CLERK'S OFFICE 1725 Pierce Avenue SE Renton, WA 98058 Subject: Reserve at Tiffany Park PP- Hearing Examiner Decision (LUA13-001572) Notice of Appeal of Hearing Examiner Decision to City Council Dear Sir or Madam: This letter constitutes Tiffany Park Woods Advocacy Group's Notice of Appeal to the City Council of the Final Decision Upon Reconsideration dated February 26, 2015 pursuant to RMC 4-8-080 and RMC 4-8-110(F). TPWAG hereby designates Renate Beedon as the designated representative. Summary of Substantial Errors of Fact or Law 1. The hearing examiner's decision provides inadequate mitigation for the impacts on the environment and on the surrounding community of Applicant's proposed development to support a DNS-M determination under SEPA. 2. The City of Renton has authority to ask for mitigation under SEPA, and TPWAG asks the City of Renton to exercise that authority for all issues raised in this Notice of Appeal. 3. TPWAG was denied access to the property and denied a fair opportunity to perform our own wetland assessment on the property. The wetlands delineation has been done incorrectly. The hearing examiner's decision fails to fully evaluate the significant adverse impacts on the environment resulting from the wetlands. Instead the decision improperly defers consideration of these issues to the construction permit stage where the public has little or no input. 4. The hearing examiner's decision recognizes that there is uncertainty as to whether the project site is free from hazardous waste, but does not adequately address the probable adverse impact on the environment resulting there from. 5. The hearing examiner's decision fails to adequately address the substantial adverse impacts resulting from the proposed storm drainage system for the site, including the detention vault, roof runoff and downstream impacts. Instead the decision improperly defers consideration of these issues to the construction permit stage where the public has little or no input. 6. Although the hearing examiner's decision recognizes that there is a substantial probable adverse impact resulting from the extensive use of structural retaining walls on the project, the hearing examiner's decision fails to fully and adequately address the adverse impacts resulting from this extensive use of an intricate network of rockeries, modular block retaining walls and lock and load retaining walls and provides inadequate mitigation for the impacts on the environment and the TPWAG Notice of Appeal to City Council Page 1 of 2 6f. - City Clerk reports appeal of the Hearing Examiner's final decision upon Page 52 of 517 community. Instead th vision improperly defers consideration Mese issues to the construction permit staghere the public has little or no input. 7. The hearing examiner's decision fails to adequately address the traffic impacts directly related to ingress and egress for the site, including but not limited to the impact of converting SE 18th Street and 124th Place SE from quiet Cul-De-Sacs into arterials and the reduction in property values resulting there from. As a result, additional traffic studies should be performed to investigate and revise access routes to the project. 8. The hearing examiner's decision requires Applicant to submit additional documentation to the Current Planning Project Manager prior to construction permit approval, including an updated geotechnical report, revised preliminary plat and landscaping plan, revised wetland mitigation plan, final mitigation plan for retaining walls and phase one environmental site assessment. All of this documentation should have been prepared and should be prepared prior to preliminary plat approval. Otherwise the public will have little or no input on these issues. 9. The hearing examiner's decision improperly concludes that there is no need for additional SEPA mitigation, environmental review, or the issuance of an environmental impact statement. 10. An environmental statement is required by the weight of the evidence. An environmental impact statement is justified and must be prepared if after applying mitigation measures by changing, clarifying or conditioning of the proposed action, a proposal continues to have a probable significant adverse impact on the environment. Tiffany Park Woods Advocacy Group SLA s-,—,4 RENATE BEEDON President CC,: Lc,rf lti u U 2SSc -\b es TPWAG Notice of Appeal to City Council Page 2 of 2 6f. - City Clerk reports appeal of the Hearing Examiner's final decision upon Page 53 of 517 NOW err+CITY OF RENTON FEB 272015 1 RECEIVED 2 CITY CLERKS OFFICE 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 BEFORE THE HEARING EXAMINER FOR THE CITY OF RENTON 10 11 RE: The Reserve at Tiffany Park 12 Preliminary Plat FINAL DECISION UPON 13 RECONSIDERATION 14 Preliminary Plat and SEPA Appeals 15 LUA13-001572, ECF, PP, CAE 16 17 I. SUMMARY 18 A. Alterations to Final Decision Resulting from Reconsideration Requests 19 A Final Decision was issued on the above captioned matter on January 8, 2015. The Final Decision 20 was subjected to two requests for reconsideration made by the SEPA Appellants and the applicant. 21 This Final Decision Upon Reconsideration incorporates all the changes to the January 8, 2015 Final Decision resulting from the reconsideration requests. The Ruling on Reconsideration Requests, 22 attached to this decision as Attachment C, identifies the basis for all the changes made to the January 23 8, 2015 Final Decision. None of the changes are significant. The only changes made to the January 8, 2015 Final Decision are those identified in the Ruling on Reconsideration Requests. 24 25 26 PRELIMINARY PLAT - Preliminary Plat- 1 6f. - City Clerk reports appeal of the Hearing Examiner's final decision upon Page 54 of 517 I B. Summary of Decision 2 The applicant requests preliminary plat approval for the subdivision of 21.66 acres into single-family 3 residential lots and several critical areas tracts located at the dead end of SE 18th Street and bordered by the Cedar River Pipeline along the southern property boundary and the Mercer Island Pipeline4alongtheeasternpropertyboundary. Two appeals of a mitigated determination of nonsignificance 5 ("MDNS") issued under the Washington State Environmental Policy Act ("SEPA") were consolidated with the review of the preliminary plat. The Tiffany Park Woods Advocacy Group6 ("TPWAG") filed one of the two SEPA appeals and the applicant submitted the second appeal. The 7 preliminary plat is approved subject to conditions. The TPWAG SEPA appeal is denied. The applicant SEPA appeal is sustained, in part. 8 TPWAG raised numerous issues in its SEPA appeal regarding the conversion of the 21.66 acre9 subject property from a community recreational resource to a residential subdivision. The property 10 is entirely undeveloped and is covered with trails, tree forts and other similar structures that reveal years of community use. In its SEPA appeal TPWAG argues that the loss of this long-time1I recreational use is an environmental impact that should be subject to SEPA review. As detailed in 12 this decision, the fact that the applicant has allowed neighbors to use its property in the past (or worse, the fact that neighbors may have trespassed in the past) does not justify the imposition of any13 SEPA requirements because the neighbors will lose that privilege as a result of the development. 14 Similarly, the fact that the applicant has chosen to retain the trees on its land in the past and through that choice provided neighbors with an appealing arboreal view does not put the applicant in a15 position where it must now continue to offer that type of view to neighboring properties. With one 16 exception the applicant proposes development that is aesthetically similar and compatible with surrounding uses. For this reason, there is no legal basis for imposing any further environmental17reviewormitigationtoaddressaestheticimpacts. The one exception is retaining walls. The 18 applicant proposes numerous retaining walls that will reach heights of up to 21 feet. Retaining walls of this height are not present in the vicinity and the aesthetic impacts of these structures are not19 similar or compatible to the structures on neighboring properties. Consequently, the MDNS 20 mitigation measures will require ten foot wide perimeter landscaping designed to aesthetically buffer 21 these walls from neighboring uses. 22 TPWAG alleged more technical environmental impacts related to the geotechnical studies, hazardous materials, drainage, wetlands impacts, groundwater impacts, landslide hazards, seismic 23 hazards, and retaining walls. The expert testimony and reports provided by the applicant, verified by 24 experts from the City staff and in some cases, third party peer review, proved to be more compelling than the expert testimony provided by TPWAG, especially when factoring the substantial weight that 25 must be given the SEPA responsible official's determination that the proposal will not create any 26 probable significant adverse environmental impacts. One issue that did require some additional PRELIMINARY PLAT- Preliminary Plat - 2 6f. - City Clerk reports appeal of the Hearing Examiner's final decision upon Page 55 of 517 AW 1 mitigation was hazardous waste. An appellant expert testified that the prior ownership of the 2 property by the US Department of Defense raised a concern that the property may contain hazardous waste. The applicant refused to grant access to the subject property for purposes of testing for 3 hazardous waste or any other site investigation. The applicant also acknowledged that it did a Phase 4 I hazardous waste environmental review when it purchased the property, but never offered the review into evidence. Given the somewhat suspect conduct of the applicant, an MDNS condition of 5 review will require that the applicant submit its Phase I review to staff prior to development, to 6 verify that there is no hazardous waste issue with the site. 7 The applicant's SEPA appeal was more limited in scope and only challenged three of the City's MDNS conditions, specifically Conditions 1, 3 and 6. At hearing the City and applicant agreed to 8 revised language for Conditions 1 and 3. Condition No. 6 remained the only contested issue in the 9 applicant's appeal. The condition required a 15-foot landscaping buffer around the entire perimeter of the development. This decision only found a ten -foot buffer necessary, limited to areas adjoining10proposedretainingwallstoconcealthewallsfromneighboringview. I I A summary of testimony is attached as Attachment A. The summary is provided as a convenience 12 and reference to those who would like an overview of the evidence presented at the two days of hearings on this application. The testimony section should not be construed as any formal findings13 of fact and also do not represent what was determined to be important to the final decision. 14 CONTENTS 15 I. SUMMARY ......................................................................................................................... 116II. TESTIMONY....................................................................................................................... 3 17 III. EXHIBITS............................................................................................................................ 3 IV. FINDINGS OF FACT..........................................................................................................4 18 V. CONCLUSIONS OF LAW................................................................................................24 SEPAAPPEAL........................................................................................................... 25 19 PRELIMINARY PLAT..............................................................................................29 20 VI. DECISION .........................................................................................................................40 21 II. TESTIMONY 22 Please see Attachment A for testimony summary. 23 24 III. EXHIBITS 25 Please see Attachment B for the exhibits admitted during the hearing. Exhibits admitted after the 26 hearing are as follows: PRELIMINARY PLAT- Preliminary Plat- 3 6f. - City Clerk reports appeal of the Hearing Examiner's final decision upon Page 56 of 517 rrr 1 ow Exhibit AS: City of Renton Preliminary Plat Condition Revision Response (December 11,2 2014) 3 Exhibit AT: TPWAG Post Hearing Closing Argument(December 14, 2014) Exhibit AU: TPWAG Motion— Late Filing (December 15,2014) 4 Exhibit AV: Henley Response to TPWAG Motion—Late Filing (December 15, 2015) Exhibit AW: Henley (Proposed) Order Denying TPWAG Motion— Late Filing (December 15,5 2014) Exhibit AX: Hearing Examiner Ruling—Late Filing(December 15, 2014)6 Exhibit AY: Henley Response—TPWAG Post Hearing Closing Argument(December 19, 7 2014) Exhibit AZ: Henley Reply—City of Renton Preliminary Plat Condition Revision Response 8 December 19, 2014) 9 Exhibit BB: City of Renton—TPWAG Post Hearing Closing Argument(December 22, 2014) 10 IV. FINDINGS OF FACT II Procedural: 12 1. Applicant. Henley USA, LLC. 13 2. Hearing. A consolidated hearing on the preliminary plat application and SEPA appeals was held on November 18, 2014 and continued to December 8, 2014 in the City of Renton Council City14 Chambers. The record was left open for the appellants to provide a SEPA Closing Argument by 15 December 12, 2014. City staff was also given until December 12, 2014 to provide a SEPA Rebuttal. City staff and the applicant had until December 19, 2014 to provide SEPA closing arguments and16 preliminary plat comments. 17 Substantive: 18 19 3. Project Description and Appeal. 20 A. Project Description. The applicant requests preliminary plat approval for the 21 subdivision of 21.66 acres into 97 single-family residential lots. There is an alternate plat with 96 lots to allow for 30% tree retention (Exhibit 3). The property is located at the dead end of SE 18th 22 Street. It is bordered on the south by the Cedar River Pipeline and on the east by the Mercer Island 23 Pipeline. Two appeals of a mitigated determination of nonsignificance ("MDNS") issued under the Washington State Environmental Policy Act ("SEPA") were consolidated with the review of the 24 preliminary plat. 25 The subject property consists of four parcels. The majority of the site is located in the R-8 zone. A 26 small portion is located in the R-4 zone. All proposed lots are located in the R-8 zone. The proposed PRELIMINARY PLAT- Preliminary Plat - 4 6f. - City Clerk reports appeal of the Hearing Examiner's final decision upon Page 57 of 517 I lots would range in size from 4,500sf to 8,456sf. The average lot size is 5,399sf. Under either the 96 2 lot or 97 lot scenarios, density would be equal to or less than 5.70 dwelling units per acre. In addition to the residential lots, 13 tracts are proposed for sensitive areas, tree retention, storm drainage, 3 access, pedestrian connections, and open space including an existing 10 foot wide vegetated buffer 4 along the northern boundary. Access to the site would be gained from SE 18th Street with secondary access extended from 124th Place SE. 5 The site is currently vacant with 1,305 significant trees. The applicant has proposed to retain or 6 mitigate 188 trees in order to achieve the objective of 30%tree retention requirement. Adequate tree 7 retention requires approval of the 96-lot alternative. The site slopes generally to the west/northwest at an approximate average slope of 10-15% with localized slopes of 25%. The site contains three 8 Category 2 wetlands (Wetlands A, C, and, D) and two Category 3 wetlands (Wetlands B and E). The 9 applicant is requesting a Critical Area Exemption for the extension of SE 18th Street through portions of the buffer associated with Wetland E. 10 The applicant has submitted a Wetland Report, Drainage Report, Traffic Impact Analysis,1 I Geotechnical Engineering study, Arborist Report, and Habitat Data Report. Independent secondary 12 studies for Transportation and Wetlands are included with the application. 13 B. SEPA Appeal. A mitigated determination of nonsignificance ("MDNS") was issued for the 14 proposal on September, 2014. Two timely appeals of the threshold determination were filed by the Tiffany Park Woods Advocacy Group (TPWAG) and Cairncross & Hempelmann on behalf of 15 Henley USA, LLC. 16 1. Applicant SEPA Appeal. The applicant challenged three of the City's MDNS 17 conditions, specifically Conditions 1, 3 and 6 on the grounds that they impose unlawful 18 obligations on the applicant and restrict the applicant's ability to develop the plat. 19 a. MDNS Condition 1. The applicant argued MDNS Condition 1 should be revised because the condition required earthwork to comply with an earlier, preliminary 20 version of the geotechnical report which has since been superseded. The applicant requested 21 the SEPA condition be revised to state the earthwork shall be consistent with the final geotechnical report submitted prior to construction (Exhibit J). City staff and the applicant 22 then agreed upon the following language for Condition No. 1, which is found to adequately 23 address pertinent environmental impacts: 24 All earthwork performed, implemented by the applicant, shall be consistent with the recommendations ofthe geotechnical report, prepared by Associated Earth Sciences,25 Inc., dated September 28, 2012 or consistent with the recommendations of the final 26 City-approved geotechnical report. PRELIMINARY PLAT- Preliminary Plat- 5 6f. - City Clerk reports appeal of the Hearing Examiner's final decision upon Page 58 of 517 44W, NOW, 1 b. MDNS Condition 3. The applicant's concerns over MDNS Condition No. 3 2 became moot since the filing of its appeal and the City and applicant have been able to agree upon a revised condition that acceptably mitigates against environmental impacts. 3 MDNS Condition 3 provides as follows, 4 5 The applicant shall be required to retain 30% of the significant trees on site with exclusions for those trees that are considered dead, diseased, or dangerous, trees 6 located within proposed rights-of-way, and trees located within the critical areas and their associated buffers. 7 The applicant initially argued the condition should either be struck as a SEPA condition or 8 modified to require compliance with the Tree Cutting and Land Clearing Plan, completed by 9 Washington Forestry Consultants, Inc. (August 27, 2014) which complies with the 30% 10 retention requirement(Appeal Exhibit A, Attachment 11). I I City staff disagreed. They argued that there are probable averse environmental impacts that are being mitigated by the MDNS condition. The City argued the MDNS Condition prevents 12 the applicant from using mitigation under RMC 4-4-130(H)(1)(e)(i) to replace trees and 13 instead requires retention of significant trees. 14 The Tree Cutting and Land Clearing Plan, completed by Washington Forestry Consultants, Inc. (August 27, 2014) established that overall the proposal will actually meet the City's 15 SEPA 30%tree retention requirement. To meet this requirement, the applicant must retain or 16 mitigate 188 on-site trees. The Washington Forestry Consultants plan proposes to save 181 of these trees and mitigate the final seven trees. The applicant's tree retention plan analyzed just 17 the 96 lot alternative. However, Mr. Galen Wright of Washington Forestry Consultants stated 18 new field studies performed since the August 27, 2014 report have identified additional significant trees on-site beyond those mapped in the original field survey. These trees will be 19 retained, bringing the total retention to well above the 188 required trees. Mr. Wright stated 20 he was much more confident now regarding the location of trees, their health and which might be viably preserved. 21 22 Since the applicant ultimately achieved the 30% retention objective, the City and applicant agreed to the following tree retention language as a condition of approval, 23 24 The applicant shall provide afinal Tree Retention Plan, complying with the 30% tree 25 retention mitigation measure while demonstrating proposed walls would not impact 26 trees proposedfor retention. The Final Tree Retention Plan shall be submitted to, and PRELIMINARY PLAT- Preliminary Plat- 6 6f. - City Clerk reports appeal of the Hearing Examiner's final decision upon Page 59 of 517 I approved by, the Current Planning Project Manager prior to construction permit 2 approval. 3 C.MDNS Condition 6. MDNS Condition No. 6 remains the only contested portion of the applicant's appeal. MDNS Condition No. 6 as adopted by the SEPA4responsibleofficialrequireda15-foot landscape buffer around the entire perimeter of the 5 development. For the reasons identified in FOF No. 5, this perimeter has been reduced to ten feet and must only be placed in areas to conceal proposed retaining walls from neighboring6view. 7 2. TPWAG SEPA Appeal. TPWAG raised several issues in its SEPA appeal,ppeal, alleging 8 both inadequate review and probable significant adverse environmental impacts. The 9 impacts identified by TPWAG are addressed in FOF No. 5. 10 4. Surrounding Area. The subject site is surrounding on all sides by single family residential development. To the south it is bordered by the 100 foot wide Cedar River Pipeline. To the east, it is 11 bordered by the 60 foot wide Mercer Island Pipeline. The zoning surrounding the subject on all sides 12 is single family residential (R-8),though there is also a small portion of R-4 zoning to the east. 13 5. Adverse Impacts. The proposal does not create any probable significant adverse environmental impacts. Adequate public facilities and drainage control are provided as determined14inFindingofFactNo. 6. As noted in Finding of Fact No. 5, two appeals to the threshold were filed. 15 The issues on appeal from the applicant, Henley, are discussed first. The issues on appeal for the project opponent, the Tiffany Park Woods Advocacy Group, are then discussed. Finally, other16impactsnotrelatedtoeitherappealbutrelatedtothepreliminaryplatarediscussedbelow. 17 A. Applicant SEPA Issue. As identified in FOF No. 3, only one issue remains in the 18 Applicant's SEPA appeal, specifically the need for perimeter landscaping. It is 19 determined that only the applicant's proposed retaining walls create probable significant environmental impacts and that these impacts can be reduced to 20 nonsignificant levels with ten foot sight obscuring landscaping limited to perimeter 21 areas in front of the retaining walls. 22 1. Proposed Development Aesthetically Compatible with Surrounding Development. With the exception of retaining walls (addressed separately),23 the proposed development does not create any probable significant impacts 24 because of aesthetic incompatibility with the surrounding neighborhood. A site visit and aerial photographs (Ex. K.6.c) reveal that the surrounding25 neighborhoods are not exceptionally wooded or treed and that the amount of 26 trees proposed for retention by the applicant would not be less than PRELIMINARY PLAT- Preliminary Plat- 7 6f. - City Clerk reports appeal of the Hearing Examiner's final decision upon Page 60 of 517 4w I surrounding development. Further, although the applicant proposes a modest 2 increase in density, reasonable minds would certainly differ as to whether this difference in density would create a significant aesthetic impact. The 3 developed portions of the plat are all in the R-8 zone, though the proposed 4 residential density will be 5.7 dwelling units per acre. The minimum density requirement in the zone is 4.0 dwelling units per acre. All adjacent properties 5 are zoned R-8. Proposed lot sizes would range from 4,500 square feet to 8,456 6 square feet with an average lot size of 5,399 square feet. While the proposed lots appear to be, on average, somewhat smaller than those of the surrounding 7 developments, they are not significantly smaller and are at a density that is lower than would otherwise be allowed within this zone. Further, because of8 the presence of the two pipelines and the perimeter location of the critical 9 areas tracts, very few of the lots will be directly adjacent to existing residential 10 lots. The pipelines do not offer much in terms of vegetated screening but they do physically separate the proposed lots from existing lots. Any difference in 11 the size of the lots will not be aesthetically significant, especially given the 12 separation of the project from the surrounding neighborhood. 13 2. Loss of Trees Not a Probable Significant Environmental Impact. It is determined that the loss of trees beyond those required to be retained by City 14 code does not qualify as a probable significant adverse environmental impact. 15 In its environmental review, the City suggests that the perimeter is necessary to make up for the fact that a significant number of trees will be removed, 16 thereby adversely affecting the views currently enjoyed by neighboring 17 properties. Numerous adjoining property owners also commented on this impact. It is determined that the loss of trees owned by the applicant does not 18 qualify as a significant adverse environmental impact. Of course, almost all 19 development of vacant parcels involves the removal of trees. As discussed in COL No 5, in order to justify mitigation beyond the minimum standards set by 20 the City's landscaping code, the project must involve some fairly unique or 21 significant impacts that were not anticipated in the adoption of that code. The existence of such a large parcel (and large number of associated trees) is 22 arguably unique, but that argument is undermined to a large degree by the 23 subjectivity involved in aesthetic review. Given that the applicant is retaining 30% of the trees, it is debatable whether the loss of the other 70% creates a 24 significant aesthetic view impact to neighboring property owners, especially 25 with the buffering that will be required by this decision to obscure retaining walls. 26 PRELIMINARY PLAT- Preliminary Plat- 8 6f. - City Clerk reports appeal of the Hearing Examiner's final decision upon Page 61 of 517 I The assessment of aesthetic impacts occasioned by the loss of trees is also 2 tempered by the fact that it is debatable from a legal standpoint whether the applicant can be made to mitigate against the loss of a voluntary aesthetic 3 benefit it has provided to the surrounding community. The applicant has had 4 no obligation to retain all of the trees on its property in the past. Surrounding property owners have no entitlement to this currently existing aesthetic 5 benefit. SEPA only requires mitigation and analysis of impacts created by 6 development. The loss of trees in excess of those required by City code is not an impact created by the development, since those trees could have been 7 removed at any time prior to development. The site visit, the record and the 8 code do not reveal that any other properties in the vicinity have had to retain perimeter landscaping or that they provide a similar aesthetic benefit to the 9 surrounding community. Given that no such need was found in the past when trees were removed by other development it is at least somewhat questionable10 why that is found necessary now in the absence of any code provision I 1 expressly requiring such a perimeter. 12 3. Retaining Walls Create A Probable Significant Adverse Environmental 13 Impact. It is determined that the retaining walls proposed by the applicant in excess of four feet create a probable significant adverse environmental impact. 14 As noted in the Staff Report, the applicant is proposing multiple walls on the 15 proposed project. Some of the walls will be rockeries. Some walls are retaining walls which will face into the site. These are walls that allow for a 16 finished grade for a lot to be below the surrounding grade. Other walls will be 17 lock and load walls that allow for a finished lot grade above the surrounding grade. Six foot fencing is allowed on top of both types of walls. These walls 18 are visible from outside the site. Staff notes the applicant has proposed lock 19 and load walls ranging in height from four feet potentially up to 21 feet high. During testimony, Mr. Talkington stated revised grading plans may allow for 20 reduced retaining wall heights. 21 A site visit to the surrounding neighborhoods was conducted December 28, 22 2014. Though the subject is largely surrounded by pipeline easements, these easements are cleared of vegetation allowing a direct line of sight into the23developmentandoftheretainingwalls. The site visit demonstrated that high 24 retaining walls are not a common feature of the surrounding development. The applicant proposes solid rock or concrete walls of up to 21 feet in height.25 These walls will impact the view of the property from surrounding residences, 26 especially given they are an uncommon feature in the area. As proposed, the PRELIMINARY PLAT- Preliminary Plat- 9 6f. - City Clerk reports appeal of the Hearing Examiner's final decision upon Page 62 of 517 I view from surrounding residences will be significantly impacted as they 2 change from forest canopy and surrounding homes to rock wall faces of nearly two stories tall in places. The Staff Report notes several walls will be seen by 3 the public (proposed Lots 40, 41, 46, 47, 80, 82, 83-90, 93 and 94)x. 4 When considering retaining wall impacts, the height of the wall affects the 5 significance of the impacts. Low retaining walls do not block sunlight and air or obstruct views. The building codes only require building permits for 6 retaining walls four feet or more in height (RMC 4-5-060(E)(2)(c)(iv)). This 7 serves as a good threshold height for aesthetic impacts. Retaining walls lower than four feet do not obstruct views for a person of average height. They also 8 tend to be more commonly found in neighborhoods since no building permit is 9 required. For these reasons, the findings in the preceding paragraph on retaining wall aesthetic impacts are limited to retaining walls over four feet or 10 more in height. Retaining walls less than four feet in height are not found to I I create probable significant adverse environmental impacts. 12 4. Ten Foot Perimeter Landscaping Fully Mitigates Retaining Wall Impacts. The aesthetic impacts of the retaining walls can be fully mitigated by the by a13 ten foot perimeter landscaping strip. The City is recommending a fifteen foot 14 buffer of trees. During testimony, the applicant's arborist stated a ten foot wide buffer with a staggered double row of conifers would create a very dense15screenin10years. He noted a 15 foot buffer is not sufficient in width to plant 16 a third row of conifers, which would require a 30 foot buffer. The City's arborist concluded that at least 35 feet was necessary to provide for a site- 17 obscuring buffer of trees and that ten verses fifteen feet would not make any 18 material difference in screening (Decision Attachment A, page 7). Given that staffs 15 foot recommendation is counter to the recommendation of its own 19 arborist2 and that the applicant's arborist provides a reasonably good 20 21 In any discussion of lot numbers, this decision is referring to the numbering scheme utilized in the 97-lot 22 alternative (Exhibit 2). The nomenclature of the 96-lot alternative is exactly one lot lower for each lot because the Tree Retention Plan recommended the elimination of Lot 1 ofthe 97 lot alternative to maintain 30%tree retention. 23 2 1 Staff also advocated for a 15 foot buffer because it would help retain some of the treed character ofthe project site. See Exhibit A 1,page 19. As outlined in FOF No.5.A.1,the applicant cannot be legally made to compensate for24thelossoftreesonitsproperty. Further,staff also based its 15 foot buffer requirement upon RMC 4-4-070(F)(4)(b). This perimeter buffer provides for aesthetic screening between single and multi-family housing. This standard does25serveasagoodanalogousstandardforretainingwallimpacts. Unfortunately, the standard only requires six foot 26 high vegetation. A six foot high hedge set against a 21 foot high retaining wall does not accomplish a great deal of PRELIMINARY PLAT- Preliminary Plat- 10 6f. - City Clerk reports appeal of the Hearing Examiner's final decision upon Page 63 of 517 wr' NOOP 1 explanation of how a ten foot buffer can effectively screen the property, it is 2 determined that the ten foot buffering advocated by the applicant's arborist will provide a fully sight obscuring buffer to the retaining walls and as such 3 will prevent the retaining walls from creating probable significant adverse 4 environmental impacts. 5 Limiting the landscape perimeters to the areas where the retaining walls are four feet or more in height should also completely obstruct them from the 6 view of neighboring property owners. For these reasons, the conditions of 7 approval will require the applicant to revise its landscaping plan to provide for site obscuring perimeter landscaping adjacent to areas where the retaining 8 walls are four or more feet in height, specifically in the perimeter areas close 9 to Lots 40, 41, 46, 47, 80, 82, 83-90, 93 and 94. 10 B. TPWAG SEPA Issues. I I 1. Aesthetic Impact Due to Loss_of Trees. The appellants argue there is a 12 significant adverse aesthetic impact due to the loss of trees. With the exception of retaining walls (addressed separately), the proposed development 13 does not create any probable significant impacts because of aesthetic 14 incompatibility with the surrounding neighborhood. As discussed above in Finding of Fact 5.A.1, the surrounding neighborhoods are not exceptionally 15 wooded or treed and the amount of trees proposed for retention by the 16 applicant would not be less than surrounding development. As described in Finding of Fact 5.A.2, the is retaining 30%of the trees. The applicant has had 17 no obligation to retain all of the trees on its property in the past. Surrounding 18 property owners have no entitlement to this currently existing aesthetic benefit. The loss of trees in excess of those required by City code is not an 19 impact created by the development, since those trees could have been 20 21 aesthetic mitigation. For this reason, the RMC 4-4-070(F)(4)(b) buffer does not serve as an ideal analogous landscaping standard. What the RMC 4-4-070(F)(4)(b)and other RMC 4-4-070 perimeter buffer requirements does 22 show is that the City Council was uncomfortable requiring more than a fifteen foot wide buffer in any situation. Requiring more than 15 feet does in fact to place an unreasonable burden upon the applicant for something as 23 subjective as an aesthetic impact. It is for this reason likely that the City went against the findings of its arborist and only required a fifteen foot buffer instead of a 30 foot buffer. This was an appropriate approach, but did not go far enough since as testified by the applicant's arborist, a fifteen foot would not provide for any significant protection24beyondatenfootbuffer. Given that a 30 foot buffer would be unreasonable mitigation,the imposition of a ten foot buffer has to be found acceptable even though there a small chance it may not provide for 100% screening as25concludedbytheCity's arborist. 26 PRELIMINARY PLAT- Preliminary Plat- 1 l 6f. - City Clerk reports appeal of the Hearing Examiner's final decision upon Page 64 of 517 4 Iftl I removed at any time prior to development. It is also at best debatable whether 2 the loss of the other 70% creates a significant aesthetic view impact to neighboring property owners, especially with the buffering that will be 3 required by this decision to obscure retaining walls. 4 2. Potential Presence of Hazardous Materials. No impacts from hazardous 5 materials are anticipated. The appellants demonstrated the subject property had at one time been owned by the Department of Defense. They alleged there6mightbehazardousmaterialsonsitebasedonthisformeruser. For the past 65 7 years, for all intents and purposes, the site has been covered by a seemingly healthy forest canopy. The appellants were unable to demonstrate evidence of 8 any overt signs of contamination visible on the site that might justify 9 overturning the substantial weight due the SEPA official's determination that the project site does not contain any hazardous waste necessitating further10environmentalreview. However, nor were the appellants granted access to 1 I perform their own studies. The applicant also neglected to submit a Phase I Environmental Site Assessment it said was prepared for the proposal, even 12 after the appellants made the study an issue during the hearing. The actions of 13 the applicant on the hazardous waste issue create uncertainty as to whether the project site is free from hazardous waste. Given that this issue remains 14 unresolved, a condition of approval will require the applicant to submit the 15 results of the Phase 1 ESA to City staff for confirmation that there are no hazardous materials on site. 16 17 3. Wildlife Habitat and Connectivity. No probable significant adverse impacts to wildlife habitat are anticipated and the SEPA Responsible Official had 18 sufficient information to adequately assess the impacts. The applicant submitted a Revised Wetland Determination and Response Letter (Exhibit 5),19 a Habitat Assessment (Exhibit 6), and two Habitat Assessment Technical 20 Memorandums (Exhibits 16 and 17). The City required an independent secondary review of the wetlands report (Exhibit 14). As noted in Conclusion21 of Law 3.13 below, the SEPA responsible official must make a prima facie 22 showing that he has based his determination upon information reasonably sufficient to evaluate the impacts of a proposal (WAC 197-11-335). These23 multiple studies and memoranda were more than adequate to fully assess the 24 wildlife impacts of the proposal as the appellants have not demonstrated any additional information that could have made any material difference in the25 official's conclusions. 26 PRELIMINARY PLAT- Preliminary Plat- 12 6f. - City Clerk reports appeal of the Hearing Examiner's final decision upon Page 65 of 517 me I No significant adverse impacts are anticipated for wildlife or habitat 2 connectivity. With the exception of pileated woodpeckers and Townsend's bats, the fish and wildlife habitat assessment found no listed or endangered 3 species or priority habitat on site. Though the property may function as 4 marginal habitat for many common species, it is geographically isolated from the Cedar River corridor by the Mercer Island Pipeline easement, a residential 5 street, residential lots, a steep slope and the Bonneville Power 6 Administration's easement. Testimony from all sides spoke to the heavy human disturbance on the site including recreational walkers, bikers, 7 unleashed dogs, and the presence of unpermitted structures and pits including forts and paint ball hides. The applicant's wildlife expert, Racheal Villa of8 Soundview Consultants testified that the formalized protection of the wetlands 9 and buffers on site would result in an improvement in habitat conditions for 10 both pileated woodpeckers and Townsend's bats over the present situation due to the fairly degraded condition of the habitat at present. ll 4. Seismic Hazards. The SEPA Responsible Official had adequate information to 12 assess the seismic hazards and no probable significant adverse impacts are 13 anticipated in regards to these hazards. As to adequacy of review, the applicant provided a geotechnical report by AES (Exhibit 7) that was 14 reviewed, by the request of the applicant, by Earth Solutions, NW (Exhibit 15 K.2). The AES conclusion in the geotechnical report stated the site, from a geotechnical engineering standpoint, is suitable for support of conventional 16 paving, lightly loaded structures and typical buried utilities, all typical 17 improvements in a single family residential subdivision. The AES preliminary geotechnical report and subsequent peer review by Earth Solutions, NW 18 provide information reasonably sufficient to evaluate the environmental 19 impacts of the proposal under WAC 197-11-335. 20 The appellants note the nearest USGS mapped fault zone is 3.9 miles away, though they feel additional testing should occur to determine if there are21unmappedfaultzones. The appellants argued there was evidence of ground 22 movement in the form of bent trees and hummocky land which could indicate several things including seismic shifting or landslide activity caused by a23shallowgroundwatertable. The City has mapped the site as a Low Seismic 24 Hazard area and outside of the Coal Mine Hazard areas. The applicant has provided a geotechnical report by AES that was reviewed at the applicant's 25 request by Earth Solutions, NW, the firm hired to perform geotechnical work 26 for the applicant going forward. Mr. Coglas of Earth Solutions, NW testified PRELIMINARY PLAT - Preliminary Plat- 13 6f. - City Clerk reports appeal of the Hearing Examiner's final decision upon Page 66 of 517 1 there are no seismic hazards on the property (Decision Attachment A, Page 2 21). Mr. Coglas went on to state with respect to site stability and groundwater, the stability of the predominantly flat to gently sloping property is good. In his 3 opinion and based on geologic mapping and subsurface data for the site and 4 surrounding area, the site is very similar to the surrounding developed residential area. There is nothing in the record to indicate an increased danger 5 of seismic hazard beyond that of the surrounding properties. A single-family 6 residential plat in this area is in no more probable seismic danger than the surrounding developed properties. The proposal will not create any probable 7 significant adverse environmental impacts in regards to seismic hazards. 8 5. Landslide Hazards. The SEPA Responsible Official had adequate information 9 to assess landslide hazards. They appellants argued the soil under the plat has structural anomalies that require further study to determine if there are 10 landslide or other geologically hazardous conditions. The appellants point to 11 bent trees and uneven surfaces located on the site may indicate shallow or slightly deeper ground movement which may be indications of landslide 12 activity in the past or future propensity of slides. They note they requested 13 access to perform their own studies but were denied. Specifically, the appellants have requested expanded soils tests, percolation tests and more test 14 pits and borings to measure localized hydraulic conductivity. As noted above, 15 the applicant has provided a geotechnical report by AES that was reviewed by Earth Solutions, NW. Mr. Coglas of Earth Solutions, NW testified there are no 16 landslide hazards on the property (Decision Attachment A, Page 20). The 17 City's Development Engineering Manager, Mr. Lee, testified he concurred with Mr. Coglas' assessment of the landslide hazard risk. Mr. Lee is a 18 professional engineer with extensive experience in site development and civil 19 engineering in Washington. He noted, the steep areas are very small (15-20' feet long) and do not warrant slope stability analysis. Overall on the project 20 site, the approximate slope is only 10% or so. There are no sensitive or 21 protected slopes on the subject property. The majority of the subject site has less than 15 percent slopes. There are a few areas with slopes of 15 percent to 22 35 percent. These areas are characterized as Medium Landslide Hazard areas. 23 Mr. Lee stated the City code does not require additional slope stability analysis for these areas. 24 The appellant also asserted that the number and location of test pits were 25 insufficient to evaluate slope stability. Mr. Lee testified there were sufficient 26 numbers of test pits to gauge impacts on ground movement from groundwater PRELIMINARY PLAT- Preliminary Plat- 14 6f. - City Clerk reports appeal of the Hearing Examiner's final decision upon Page 67 of 517 I on site. He would have preferred to see a few more, especially in the vault 2 area. However, as Mr. Coglas testified, the City may require extra analysis during final engineering as the design is finalized. He stated he does not 3 typically require additional geotechnical analysis at this stage of the process. 4 Mr. Lee felt the information provided was adequate to allow for a determination of impact on the site(See Decision Attachment A, Page 24). 5 Mr. Lee's objectivity as a staff employee and his engineering expertise are6determinativeontheslopestabilityissue. He clearly reviewed the 7 geotechnical reports in detail and found no need for further investigation or additional information. The findings of the geotechnical analysis are also8 compelling on their own and the relatively modest slopes of the project site do q not raise any apparent cause for concern. For these reasons, it is concluded that the SEPA responsible official had reasonably adequate information to10assesstheslopestabilityoftheprojectsite. 11 6. Groundwater. The SEPA Responsible Official had reasonably adequate 12 information to assess the groundwater impacts and there are no probable significant adverse groundwater impacts associated with the proposal. The13 appellants argued there was insufficient study of the groundwater situation on 14 site and the potential affect groundwater might have on development. They note they requested access to perform their own studies but were denied.15 Specifically, they appellants have requested expanded soils tests, 16 tests and more test pits and borings to measure localized hydraulic conductivity. The applicant provided a geotechnical report (Exhibit 7), a peer17 review of the geotechnical report (Exhibit K.2), a wetlands report and a 18 revised wetlands report (Exhibit 5), and a drainage report (Exhibit 8). The wetlands reports were independently reviewed by Otak (Exhibits 14 and 15).19 The City's Development Engineer, Mr. Lee stated the applicant had provided 20 a sufficient number of test pits to gauge impacts of potential groundwater on site (Decision Attachment A, page 24). Given the extensive information21 provided and the peer review, the applicant has provided information 22 sufficient for the SEPA Responsible Official to issue a threshold 23 determination with respect to groundwater impacts. 24 There are no anticipated adverse impacts related to the groundwater table. The appellants argue groundwater saturation levels at this site make it 25 undevelopable. They point to the AES geotechnical report (Exhibit 7), the 26 Shultz wetlands report (Exhibit 5), the Technical Information Report by PRELIMINARY PLAT - Preliminary Plat- 15 6f. - City Clerk reports appeal of the Hearing Examiner's final decision upon Page 68 of 517 I Barghausen and the Otak wetlands reviews (Exhibits 14 and 15) as all 2 demonstrating the groundwater table is at or within seven inches of the surface in all wetland areas. Groundwater near the surface is defining feature of 3 wetlands. However, the appellants argue the water table is a flat contour 4 throughout the project site and, as a consequence of a high water table, water intrusion will disrupt or prevent proper installation of utilities, foundation 5 drains and the stormwater vault. 6 The applicant's geotechnical engineer, Ray Coglas, testified there is perched 7 groundwater on the site, rather than a flat table, a statement Mr. Lee concurred with during testimony (Decision Attachment A, pages 22 and 25, 8 respectively). If the site had a flat water table close to the ground surface all 9 over the site; the whole site would be underwater because of the varying topography, which is of course not the case. He stated perched waters trapped 10 by impervious soils are limited in area and capacity and will drain away when I l cuts are made to hillsides. The water AES encountered was seepage from perched water rather than the actual groundwater table (Decision Attachment 12 A, page 22). Mr. Coglas referred to the AES test pits and stated they showed 13 no caving or seepage which would indicate weakness in the soils or significant groundwater at or near the surface outside of wetland areas. He stated though 14 there will be some groundwater seepage, he does not expect the site will 15 require dewatering or extensive pumping. AES found no groundwater in its test pits. Mr. Coglas stated even if the appellants are correct and that 16 groundwater is at zero elevation, it could be managed without damaging the 17 feasibility of the project. Mr. Lee also concurred with this statement. lg Mr. Coglas noted the soils at the subject are not unique to this subject. The entire subject is surrounded by existing development at a similar intensity to19theproposeddevelopmentonsimilartopographyandsoils. There is no 20 indication from the record or from the site visit to suggest the utilities; infrastructure or house foundations in the surrounding neighborhoods have21failedduetoperchedgroundwaterorahighwatertable. Mr. Coglas noted the 22 presence of groundwater will not preclude development if best management 23 practices are followed. 24 Given Mr. Lee's concurrence in the opinion of Mr. Coglas and the substantial weight required of the findings of the SEPA responsible official, it is 25 determined that the proposal will not create any probable significant adverse 26 groundwater impacts. PRELIMINARY PLAT- Preliminary Plat- 16 6f. - City Clerk reports appeal of the Hearing Examiner's final decision upon Page 69 of 517 1*4100, 1 7. Downstream Impacts. The SEPA Responsible Official has information 2 reasonably sufficient to evaluate the downstream impacts of the proposal. The City required a Level I downstream analysis. The proposed Level 2 Flow 3 Control (Exhibit A, page 31) will restrict the flow of the 2-year release rate to 4 50% of the pre-developed site conditions, which will help to reduce an existing drainage issue. Mr. Lee stated the City is uncertain of a segment of 5 the pipeline that takes the water downstream of the project site and have 6 therefore requested a Level 2 downstream analysis to be performed prior to building permit approval. They want to make sure the project will not 7 exacerbate existing downstream flooding issues. An NPDES permit will be 8 required for the project, which will stipulate the allowable discharge into the conveyance system (Decision Attachment A, Page 25). The City additionally 9 established a SEPA mitigating condition requiring Level 2 downstream 10 analysis for '/4 mile from the project site. All of the requirements must be met before a building permit or construction permits are issued. With these 11 conditions in place, the City has reasonably sufficient information at this stage 12 of review to evaluate down stream impacts. 13 8. Discharge into Wetlands. The proposed discharge of roof run-off into wetlands will not create a probable significant adverse environmental impact. 14 The detailed local, state and federal standards applicable to stormwater run-off 15 are determinative on the existence of adverse impacts. If the proposed drainage is compliant with applicable regulations, there are no adverse 16 impacts. The appellants assert that the proposed roof run-off into wetlands is 17 in violation of the Clean Water Act. As noted by the applicant, the King County Surface Water Drainage Manual specifically excludes drainage from 18 roofs (except untreated metal roofs) from consideration as pollution 19 generating sources (Exhibit AF). The appellants have not provided any citation or court opinion that roof run off discharge constitutes a violation of 20 any applicable regulation and no such violation is apparent from the reading 21 of the Clean Water Act. Mr. Talkington, in his testimony for the applicant, noted that discharge of clean or non-point source polluted stormwater into 22 wetlands is common practice and is required to hydraulically charge the 23 wetlands. Mr. Lee stated the applicant had complied with all city, state and federal code requirements with respect to stromwater. Mr. Lee testified the 24 codes are sufficient to address all probable stormwater impacts. He further 25 noted a National Pollution Discharge and Elimination System permit will be required for the project, which will ensure that no stormwater pollutants are 26 released into wetlands or groundwater. The permit will include background PRELIMINARY PLAT - Preliminary Plat- 17 6f. - City Clerk reports appeal of the Hearing Examiner's final decision upon Page 70 of 517 14u/ res I and discharge monitoring. No building permit or construction permits will be 2 issued until the NPDES conditions are met. Since the proposed stormwater discharge is consistent with all applicable regulations, is a standard practice 3 for development and also meets the approval of staff, it is determined that the 4 proposed discharge to wetlands will not create any probable significant adverse environmental impacts. 5 9. Air Quality. No significant adverse impacts to air quality are anticipated. 6 During the construction phase of the project, there will be exhaust from trucks 7 and heavy equipment. However, after the construction phase is over, the subdivision will function similarly to the surrounding development with 8 respect to emissions and air quality issues. The proposed development is 9 functionally the same as the existing development pattern. Nothing in the record indicates there will be significant adverse impacts with respect to air 10 quality. 11 C. Other Impacts Related to the Preliminary Plat. 12 1. Wetlands. As proposed and conditioned, the proposal will not create any 13 significant adverse impacts to wetlands. There are five wetlands on site. Three 14 of the wetlands are Category 2; the others are Category III. The applicant submitted a Wetland Determination, prepared by C. Gary Schulz, Inc. 15 October 30, 2013) and a revised Wetland Determination in response to 16 revisions to the plat including the use of a drainage vault, instead of a drainage detention pond, and the inclusion of a vegetated buffer along portions of the 17 site perimeter(February 28, 2014). 18 Based on public comments (See Exhibit 10.6), staff required an evaluation by 19 an independent qualified professional regarding the applicant's wetland 20 analysis and the effectiveness of any proposed mitigating measures. On April 3, 2014 an independent secondary wetland review was provided to the City by 21 Otak (Exhibit A, Attachment 14). Following the completion of 22 recommendations in the Otak memo, the applicant submitted a Revised Wetland Determination and Response (June 3, 2014) (Exhibit A, Attachment 23 5). 24 At the hearing, members of the public expressed concern regarding the 25 protection of wetlands and wildlife habitat. There was specific concern 26 regarding removal of trees and wetland hydrology. During testimony, Ms. PRELIMINARY PLAT - Preliminary Plat- 18 6f. - City Clerk reports appeal of the Hearing Examiner's final decision upon Page 71 of 517 I Villa of Soundview Consultants stated she was hired by the applicant to 2 perform supplementary wetland review for fish and wildlife habitat. In her study, she found no state or federally listed or protected species on the site. 3 She noted the habitat is fairly disturbed now with evidence of a lot of human 4 intrusion. In her opinion, protection of the wetlands and habitats with proper fencing and signage would result in better protection for the habitat than exists 5 currently. 6 The Otak Supplemental Independent Secondary Review concluded water 7 quality, wetland hydrologic function and flood storage will be protected. The 8 applicant proposes buffer averaging provisions (RMC 4-3-050(M)(6)(f)). The buffer averaging plan provides additional buffer area at ratios that range from 9 1.6:1.0 to 9.5:1.0. Wetlands A, B, C, and D would have buffer areas 10 significantly greater following the buffer averaging proposal. However, staff are concerned the proposed adjustments will not provide adequate buffering I 1 on the north and east sides of Wetlands B and C to take into account the proposed "lock & load walls" in those locations. The applicant will be12 required to submit a Final Mitigation Plan (RMC 4-8-120(W)) demonstrating 13 appropriate mitigation for all wetlands and buffer impacts prior to permit 14 approval. 15 The applicant has requested a critical areas exemption allowing a permanent buffer impact to 14sf of the Wetland E buffer. The exemption would allow the 16 applicant to construct the required full street improvements at SE 18th Street 17 RMC 4-6-060). This area (219sf) has already been impacted by past infrastructure construction. Staff recommends approval of the critical areas 18 exemption with mitigation for the impact. 19 The critical areas on site have a total area of 1 ]8,494 square feet (2.72 acres) 20 and would be located in (Tracts B, G, K, & M). The applicant is proposing to 21 increase wetland buffers which would result in a total native open space used to preserve native forest habitat of approximately 175,199 square feet (4.02 22 acres). As conditioned, no impacts to wetland habitat are anticipated. 23 Given the extensive review of wetland impacts, staff s review and approval of 24 wetland mitigation, and the applicant's compliance with all applicable wetland regulations, it is concluded that the proposal will not create any adverse 25 impacts to wetlands. 26 PRELIMINARY PLAT- Preliminary Plat- 19 6f. - City Clerk reports appeal of the Hearing Examiner's final decision upon Page 72 of 517 1 2. Tree Retention Required. The proposal provides for adequate tree retention 2 because it complies with the City's tree retention standards, RMC 4-4-130(C). The applicant submitted two versions of the preliminary plat application. The 3 first version is a 97 lot alternative that does not achieve 30% significant tree 4 retention. The second plat alternative is a 96-lot preliminary plat that achieves 30% significant tree retention and implements the applicant's Tree Protection 5 Report (Exhibit 3). Since the 96-lot alternative implements the applicant's tree 6 retention plan and is consistent with the agreed upon SEPA mitigation measure requiring 30% retention, this is taken as the applicant's proposal and 7 is the design approved by this decision. If the applicant was still intending to 8 pursue a 97-lot design, it should request reconsideration. 9 No other significant impacts are reasonably anticipated from the evidence contained within the administrative record. 10 6. Adequacy of Infrastructure/Public Services. The project will be served by adequate11infrastructureandpublicservices. Preliminary adequacy of all infrastructure facilities has been 12 reviewed by the City's Public Works Department and found to be sufficient. Specific infrastructure/services are addressed as follows: 13 14 A. Water and Sewer Service. This site is located in the City of Renton water service boundary. There is an existing 8-inch water main stubbed to the site in SE 20th Court, in 15 SE 19th Court and SE 18th Court. This site is located in the 590-water pressure zone. 16 Static pressure in the area ranges from 65-82 psi. The site is located in the City of Renton sewer service area. There is an 8-inch sewer main in SE 18th Street. 17 18 B. Police and Fire Protection. Police and Fire Prevention staffs indicate that sufficient resources exist to furnish services to the proposed development; subject to the provision 19 of Code required improvements and fees. A Fire Impact Fee, based on new single family 20 lots, will be required in order to mitigate the proposal's potential impacts to City emergency services. The fee is payable to the City as specified by the Renton Municipal 21 Code. Currently the fee is assessed at $479.28 per single family residence. This fee is 22 paid at time of building permit issuance. 23 C. Drainage. As conditioned, the proposal provides for adequate drainage facilities. In order 24 to address concerns raised by staff, as recommended by them a condition of approval requires a Level 2 downstream analysis for '/4 mile from the project site to determine if 25 the proposed project would exacerbate existing downstream capacity issues. The 26 applicant submitted a Preliminary Drainage Report prepared by Barghausen, dated PRELIMINARY PLAT - Preliminary Plat- 20 6f. - City Clerk reports appeal of the Hearing Examiner's final decision upon Page 73 of 517 vrI 1 February 24, 2014 (Exhibit 8). Staff has determined that the preliminary plan is 2 consistent with the 2009 King County Surface Water Manual and City of Renton Amendments to the KCSWM, Chapters 1 and 2. Full compliance with the Manual will 3 be required during engineering review. 4 D. Parks/Open Space. The proposal is consistent with adopted parks and open space 5 standards and, therefore, provides for adequate parks and open space. RMC 4-2-115, 6 which governs open space requirements for residential development, does not have any specific requirements for open space for residential development in the R-8 district. 7 However, the applicant is proposing a total of 1.26 acres of passive and active open 8 space, in addition to critical areas on site, for the open space needs of the subdivision. The applicant will also be require to pay park impact fees prior to building permit issuace 9 to ensure that the development pays its fair share of system wide park improvements. 10 E. Streets. The proposal, as conditioned, provides for adequate streets and associated 1 1 infrastructure. The applicant is proposing two points of ingress and egress into the plat; SE 18th St and 124th Place SE. The primary neighborhood streets which would serve12 project traffic include 116th Avenue SE, 126th Avenue SE, SE 168th Street, SE Petrovitsky 13 Road, S. Puget Drive, and 108th Avenue SE-Benson Road S. The project site is currently served by King County Metro Route 148 with Routes 102 and 155 also operating within14 the vicinity of the subject site. The nearest transit stop for Route 148 is located on Lake 15 Youngs Drive SE and 123`d Avenue SE. 16 Staff received comments from interested parties with respect to traffic specifically related 17 to the need for additional analysis, trip generation, lack of public transit, level of service, sight distance, the Edmonds Avenue SE/SE 16th Street-Edmonds Way SE intersection,18 the use of speed bumps for traffic calming, stop signs, and traffic impact fees (See 19 Exhibit 10). 20 The applicant submitted a Traffic Impact Analysis (TIA) prepared by TranspoGroup, 21 November, 2013) as part of the original submittal. Based on public comments received, staff required an evaluation by an independent qualified professional regarding the22 applicant's transportation analysis and the effectiveness of any proposed mitigating 23 measures. The TIA concludes that all affected intersections will continue to operate at an acceptable level of service, except the intersection of Benson Drive S/S Puget Drive, 24 which will fall to LOS E by 2018 with or without the proposed project. The addition of 25 AM peak hour project traffic would add approximately five seconds of average delay to 26 this intersection. Staff concluded that this minor amount of delay did not justify PRELIMINARY PLAT - Preliminary Plat- 21 6f. - City Clerk reports appeal of the Hearing Examiner's final decision upon Page 74 of 517 Me I additional mitigation and the reduction in LOS will not violate the City's adopted level of 2 service. The applicant will be required to pay traffic impact fees prior to issuance of building permits, which provides adequate mitigation against the modest traffic impacts 3 created by the proposal. 4 The TIA noted limited sight distance exists today for southbound motorists on Monroe 5 Avenue SE approaching SE 18th Street due to the roadway geometrics and existing 6 obstructions (fence and on-street vehicle parking). The site distance issue was remedied by an MDNS condition that requires the applicant to install a stop sign. 7 8 Included in the Independent Secondary Review (Exhibit 13) was a recommendation for sight distance analysis at the 124th Place SE and SE 158th Street intersection. The report 9 identifies this intersection as a possible sight distance concern. Given the provided TIA does not include an analysis of the sight distance at this intersection, a SEPA mitigation10 measure was issued requiring the applicant submit a revised TIA including an analysis of 11 the 124th Place SE and SE 158th Street intersection sight distance and recommend appropriate mitigation if needed (Exhibit 22). Site distances at all other study12 intersections were deemed adequate with the exception of Beacon Way SE at SE 16" 13 Street. 14 The vertical curve of SE 16th Street presents a visibility concern. A crest vertical curve 15 obstructs sight distance where SE 16th Street crosses Beacon Way SE especially if car speeds exceed posted speed limit signage. There are existing signs (Steep Hill, Slippery16WhenWet, Advisory 15MPH Speed) at SE 16th Street northeast of Beacon Way SE 17 which help to calm existing traffic at this intersection. Approximately 60% of the project's trips are anticipated to utilize this intersection. Therefore, the ERC issued a l 8 SEPA mitigation measure requiring the applicant to install an additional warning sign for 19 a CROSSROAD (W2-1 symbol) with a 15MPH advisory speed on the southwest directional approach to Beacon Way SE, along the north side of SE 16th Street (east of20BeaconWaySE) (Exhibit 22). The ERC issued another SEPA mitigation condition at this 21 intersection to reduce cut thru traffic. The applicant is required to install directional information signage (white letters on green background) at S. Puget Drive and 116th 22 Avenue SE facing west (Exhibit 22). The signs are required to read "TIFFANY PARK" 23 with a left arrow and"CASCADE" with a right arrow. 24 Several public comments requested the use of speed bumps as a traffic calming measure 25 along SE 16th Street to address sight distance (including vertical), cut through traffic, and 26 spin out concerns which would be aggravated by traffic generated by the proposal. The PRELIMINARY PLAT- Preliminary Plat- 22 6f. - City Clerk reports appeal of the Hearing Examiner's final decision upon Page 75 of 517 r wool 1 City does not support the use of speed bumps on public streets. Speed bumps are not 2 desired due to noise, excessive speeds between installations (so drivers can make up time), and result in a reduction in response time of public safety vehicles such as fire 3 engines and aid cars. 4 Several public comments requested internal pedestrian connectivity, connections to 5 neighboring developments/abutting pipelines, connectivity to Tiffany Park Elementary, 6 and the crossing at SE 16th St and Edmonds Way SE intersection (See Exhibit 10.22). No frontage improvements are required on adjacent street frontage. The internal public 7 streets have been proposed with a right-of-way width of 53 feet which meets the City's 8 complete street requirements for residential access streets. Pavement width of 26 feet, 0.5 foot wide curbs, 8 foot wide landscaped planters (on both sides of the street), 5 foot wide 9 sidewalks (on both sides of the street), drainage improvements, and street lighting are required. The applicant is proposing two pedestrian connections to neighboring10 developments and an abutting pipeline via Tracts C and E. 11 City staff evaluated the intersection of Edmonds Avenue SE/SE 16`" Street-Edmonds 12 Way SE with respect to pedestrian improvements in 1996, 2005 and again in 2007 and 13 determined that crosswalks were not warranted at this location. The additional development traffic will not exceed the threshold to warrant installation of a crosswalk at 14 this location. 15 As noted in staff testimony above, the proposal will not exceed six dwelling units per16acreandthereforeisnotrequiredtoprovidealleyaccess. 17 Several public comments dealt with construction traffic (See Exhibit 10.30). The 18 developer will be required to comply with the Renton Municipal Code for haul hours, 19 construction hours, and noise levels. A final Traffic Control Plan complying with the Renton Municipal Code will be required to be submitted and approved prior to 20 construction. 21 F. Parking. Sufficient area exists, on each lot, to accommodate required off street parking22foraminimumoftwovehiclesperdwellingunitasrequiredbyCitycode. 23 G. Schools. The Renton School District anticipates it can accommodate any additional24studentsgeneratedbythisproposalatthefollowingschools: Tiffany Park Elementary 25 0.4 miles from the subject site), Nelson Middle School (1.7 miles from the subject site) 26 and Lindberg High School (0.9 miles from the subject site). RCW 58.17.110(2) provides PRELIMINARY PLAT- Preliminary Plat- 23 6f. - City Clerk reports appeal of the Hearing Examiner's final decision upon Page 76 of 517 MW I that no subdivision be approved without making a written finding of adequate provisions 2 for safe walking conditions for students who walk to and from school and/or bus stops. Tiffany Park Elementary and Lindberg High School are within walking distance of the 3 subject site while Nelson Middle School would require future students to be transported 4 to school via bus. 5 As part of the proposed project, sidewalks would be constructed along on-site roadways 6 which would connect to the existing sidewalk system providing adequate provisions for safe walking conditions for students who walk to and from school and/or bus stops. 7 8 Sidewalks would provide a route between the project site and nearby Tiffany Park Elementary School, including available marked crosswalks at the Kirkland Avenue 9 SE/Lake Youngs Way intersection. The Kirkland Avenue SE/Lake Youngs Way intersection is approximately 300 linear feet from where SE 18th St intersects Lake10 Youngs Way. Given the number of homes proposed, it is very likely that a large influx of I 1 students would attempt to cross Lake Youngs Way SE, at the SE 18th Street intersection, which does not currently have a marked crosswalk. In order to provide a more practical12 safe route to Tiffany Park Elementary from the project site, a SEPA mitigation measure 13 was issued requiring the applicant provide a marked crosswalk at the intersection of SE 14 18th Street and Lake Youngs Way. 15 No current bus stops exist for this property as it is currently undeveloped. The Renton School District will be making provisions for the location of bus stops for those students16whowillbeattendingNelsonMiddleSchool. 17 A School Impact Fee, based on new single-family lots, will also be required in order to18mitigatetheproposal's potential impacts to Renton School District. The fee is payable to 19 the City as specified by the Renton Municipal Code at the time of building permit application. Currently the fee is assessed at $5,455.00 per single family residence and20wouldincreaseto $5,541.00 on January 1, 2015. 21 22 V. CONCLUSIONS OF LAW 23 1. Authority. RMC 4-7-020(C) and 4-7-050(D)(5) provide that the Hearing Examiner shall24holdahearingandissueafinaldecisiononpreliminaryplatapplications. RMC 4-9-070(R) and 25 RMC 4-8-110(A)(2) grant the Examiner authority to review and make final decisions on SEPA 26 appeals. PRELIMINARY PLAT- Preliminary Plat- 24 6f. - City Clerk reports appeal of the Hearing Examiner's final decision upon Page 77 of 517 r/' 1 2. Zoning/Comprehensive Plan Designations. The majority of the subject property is zoned 2 Residential 8 dwelling units per net acre (R-8). A small portion of the subject property is zoned Residential 4 dwelling units per net acre (R-4). Only the R-8 portion of the property is proposed for 3 residential development. The comprehensive plan map land use designation is Residential Single 4 Family (RSF) and Residential Low Density (RLD). 5 SEPA APPEAL 6 3. Review Standard. There are two reasons a DNS can be overturned to overturned: (1) there are unmitigated probable significant adverse environmental impacts; or(2) the SEPA responsible official 7 has not undertaken an adequate review of environmental factors. Each grounds for reversal will be 8 separately addressed below. 9 A. Probable Significant Adverse Environmental Impacts 10 The primary relevant inquiry for purposes of assessing whether County staff correctly issued a DNS I 1 is whether the project as proposed has a probable significant environmental impact. See WAC 197- 12 11-330(l)(b). WAC 197-11-782 defines "probable" as follows: 13 Probable`means likely or reasonably likely to occur, as in `a reasonable probability of more than a moderate effect on the quality of the environment` (see WAC 197-11-794). Probable is 14 used to distinguish likely impacts from those that merely have a possibility ofoccurring, but 15 are remote or speculative. This is not meant as a strict statistical probability test. 16 If such impacts are created, conditions will have to be added to the DNS to reduce impacts so there are no probable significant adverse environmental impacts. In the alternative, an environmental 17 impact statement would be required for the project. In assessing the validity of a threshold 18 determination, the determination made by the City's SEPA responsible official shall be entitled to substantial weight. WAC 197-11-680(3)(a)(viii). An appeal of an MDNS is judicially reviewed19undertheclearlyerroneousstandards. Under the clearly erroneous standard, the decision of the 20 SEPA responsible official can only be overturned if, after reviewing the entire record, the decision maker is left with the definite and firm conviction that a mistake has been made. RMC 4-8-110- 21 (E)(12)(b)(v). The procedural determination by the Environmental Review Committee or City staff 22 shall carry substantial weight in any appeal proceeding. RMC 4-8-11 O(E)(I 2)(a). 23 B. Adequate Environmental Review 24 The second reason a DNS can be overturned is if the SEPA responsible official did not adequately 25 review environmental impacts in reaching his threshold determination. The SEPA responsible official 26 PRELIMINARY PLAT- Preliminary Plat- 25 6f. - City Clerk reports appeal of the Hearing Examiner's final decision upon Page 78 of 517 I must make a prima facie showing that he has based his determination upon information reasonably 2 sufficient to evaluate the impacts of a proposal. WAC 197-11-335. 3 C. No Grounds for an EIS. 4 TPWAG has not demonstrated a need for additional SEPA mitigation, environmental review or the 5 issuance of an environmental impact statement. All of the grounds for SEPA appeal are addressed in Finding of Fact No. 5. As determined in that finding, none of the impacts identified by TPWAG 6 qualify as probable significant adverse environmental impacts and TPWAG has not identified an 7 impact for which the SEPA responsible official did not have sufficient information to reasonably assess impacts. 8 D. Perimeter Landscaping._ 9 10 MDNS Condition No. 6 is modified to only require 10 foot perimeter landscaping along the retaining walls that are over four feet in height, specifically in proximity to lots 40, 41, 46, 47, 80, 82, 83-90, 11 93 and 94. 12 The applicant argues that no perimeter buffering is required because the City's landscaping standards 13 do not require buffering and that those standards should be determinative in assessing the need for landscaping. The applicant is correct up to a point. RCW 36.70B.030(3) and RCW 43.2 1 C.240(2)(a) 14 does allow a city to use its development standards as the exclusive source of mitigation for 15 environmental impacts. However, RCW 43.21 C.240(2)(a) provides that in order to use development regulations in this manner the City must make a determination in the course of permit review that the 16 development standards in question are adequately addressed by the development regulations. RCW 17 43.21C.240(4) further clarifies that for development standards to be found to adequately mitigate impacts, imposition of the standards must either avoid or mitigate the impacts; or the legislative body 18 of the city has determined that the development standard sets acceptable levels of impact. 19 Renton's landscaping standards do not adequately address all of the aesthetic impacts created by the 20 proposal. As noted previously, one of the two ways that a development standard can be found to adequately address impacts is if the City Council intended the standard to set acceptable levels of21impact. See RCW 43.21 C.240(4)(b).The Renton City Council expressly determined that the 22 landscaping standard would not set acceptable levels of aesthetic impact, stating the purpose clause of the landscaping standards that "it is not the intent ofthese regulations that rigid and inflexible design 23 standards be imposed, but rather that minimum standards be set." 24 The other, more difficult issue involved in ascertaining whether the landscaping standards would 25 adequately address aesthetic impacts is if the standards actually mitigate the impacts. Given the 26 subjectivity of aesthetic perimeter impacts, one would have to conclude that in the vast majority of PRELIMINARY PLAT- Preliminary Plat- 26 6f. - City Clerk reports appeal of the Hearing Examiner's final decision upon Page 79 of 517 1498j° r+'' 1 typical subdivisions the landscaping standards do set an adequate standard. In not imposing any 2 perimeter landscaping requirements between single family residential uses, the City Council must have determined that for the typical subdivision, such landscaping is not necessary. However, the 3 proposed subdivision is not typical. As determined in Finding of Fact No. 6, the proposal will involve 4 up to 16.6 foot high retaining walls that will create a stone wall to the neighborhoods across from it, which in turn can be topped with 6 foot fences. The site visit revealed that no other homes in the 5 vicinity have such retaining walls or similar edifices bordering on public roads. Consequently, the 6 impacts of the subdivision are not typical and likely not the type of impact the City Council considered when it omitted any buffer requirements for adjoining residential uses. Additional 7 mitigation through SEPA is well justified in this case to mitigate against the impact of retaining 8 walls. 9 The City's environmental report also cites that buffering is necessary to off-set the impacts of the densities of the proposal, which are higher than adjoining densities. This does not serve as an 10 adequate justification for buffering. Setting a threshold for adverse aesthetic impacts based upon a I I difference in density or lot sizes is a completely arbitrary action in the absence of any legislative guidance. The difference in density between the proposal and adjoining uses is not so high that 12 reasonable minds would share the same opinion as to whether the difference is aesthetically adverse. 13 Though both the surrounding areas and the subject are zoned R-8, the developed density of the proposal will not exceed 5.7 dwelling units per acre. Indeed, unlike the retaining walls of the project, 14 differences in residential densities are something that one would reasonably anticipate the Council 15 would have considered in adopting its landscaping standards, and it adopted no perimeter requirements between residential zoning districts with different densities, except as between multi- 16 family and less intense residential uses. For these reasons, the comparatively higher density of the 17 proposal does not create a probable significant adverse environmental impact. 18 Another issue with respect to the SEPA's mitigation measure is to ensure that the City has adopted a SEPA policy that requires the impact to be addressed. RCW 43.21C.060 requires that SEPA 19 mitigation must be based upon policies adopted by the local government authority. Interestingly, the 20 City hasn't adopted its development standards as part of its SEPA policies, so the purpose clause of the landscaping regulations, which promote aesthetic compatibility, can't be used. There are plenty of21otherSEPApoliciesthatpromoteaestheticcompatibility. RMC 4-2-070(M)(2)(ii) provide that one of 22 the goals of SEPA review is to assure aesthetically pleasing surroundings. The City's comprehensive plan is another adopted SEPA policy. One of its community design goals is to "raise the aesthetic23 quality of the city". Objective CD-M recognizes that well designed landscaping provides aesthetic 24 appeal and makes an important contribution to the health, safety, economy and general welfare of the community. Policy CD-88 provides that street trees and landscaping should be required for new25developmenttoprovideanattractivestreetscapeinareassubjectedtoatransitionoflanduses. All of 26 these policies are served by the perimeter landscaping required by this decision, since such PRELIMINARY PLAT - Preliminary Plat- 27 6f. - City Clerk reports appeal of the Hearing Examiner's final decision upon Page 80 of 517 W I-OW, 1 landscaping will raise the aesthetic quality of the city, provide for aesthetic appeal and buffer against 2 the transition from the higher density residential development and its associated retaining walls to the lower surrounding residential densities. 3 The applicants argue in their briefing that requiring perimeter landscaping would be unreasonable4becausehomeswouldloseyardspace. In the alternative, of course, the applicant may have to lose 5 some lots. Given the judicial construction of"reasonable" in due process and takings cases, the loss of a few lots or yard space would not be considered unreasonable. 6 7 As a final matter, SEPA mitigation can only be used to impose mitigation against probable significant adverse environmental impacts. As determined in the Finding of Fact No. 5, the solid walls created 8 by the higher portions of the retaining wall easily qualify. No reasonable minds could differ on the opinion that high retaining walls are at odds with the general design of the community and create a9 mass of rock or concrete wall that is aesthetically adverse. The remaining issue is how high the wall 10 should be to be considered adverse. Again, reference to existing codes is useful as it provides an objective and consistent standard for application. Retaining walls fewer than four feet in height do11 not require building permit review. Consequently, it can be reasonably anticipated that decorative 12 retaining walls under four feet may not be that uncommon, whereas property owners will only go through the time and expense of building permit review for higher walls when they are necessitated13 for stability as opposed to decorative purposes. A four feet height is also still low enough to retain the 14 views of surrounding trees, vistas and other natural and landscaped features. For this reason, those portions of the proposal with retaining walls that exceed four feet in height shall be subject to the 1015 foot wide perimeter landscaping requirement imposed in the MDNS. 16 E. Conclusion of Law 3(E) has been renumbered to Conclusion of Law No. 7.5 as directed by 17 the Ruling on Reconsideration. 18 F. Loss of Recreational Use. 19 The appellants assert that the project site has been used as a recreational resource by the surrounding 20 community for decades and that its loss is a probable significant adverse environmental impact. The 21 loss of recreational use from the property is not an environmental impact of the proposal subject to SEPA review and mitigation. Even if it were, that loss does not result in any violation of the City's 22 detailed park policies and regulations, compliance of which assures that development will not create 23 demand upon park facilities that exceeds legislatively adopted level of service standards. 24 As a preliminary matter, it should be noted that this decision does not address the prescriptive rights claims made by the appellants to the project site. As ruled in Ex. AG, the Examiner has no authority25toaddresstheprescriptiveeasementclaimsassertedbytheSEPAappellants. Practically speaking, 26 this decision will not prejudice the appellants' prescriptive rights claims if the appellants diligently PRELIMINARY PLAT- Preliminary Plat- 28 6f. - City Clerk reports appeal of the Hearing Examiner's final decision upon Page 81 of 517 I pursue those claims in superior court, the proper forum for such a claim. Should the appellants 2 actually succeed in persuading a court that the public has prescriptive rights to the public school property (which appears unlikely at this juncture), they could acquire injunctive or other judicial 3 relief to prevent development of the proposal. 4 No additional SEPA review or mitigation is merited on the recreational use issue because the loss of 5 that use cannot be considered an impact of the proposal. In the absence of any prescriptive rights to the project site, project opponents are left with the argument that the applicant should fund further 6 environmental review or provide for additional mitigation to compensate for the fact that either (1) 7 the applicant was benevolent enough to allow the public to use its property; or (2) the public repeatedly trespassed on the applicant's property. From an equitable standpoint, such a position 8 borders on the absurd. More importantly, the applicant could prevent the public from using its 9 property at any time, with or without the proposal. For this reason,the loss of recreational use should not be considered an impact of the proposal for purposes of environmental review. 10 Even if loss of the recreational use of the site could be legitimately considered an environmentalII purposesimpactforur of SEPA its loss would notPPP qualify as a probable significant adverse 12 environmental impact. The City's comprehensive plan, park impact fees and open space requirements are all designed to assure that each developer is required to provide its proportionate share13 contribution to the park needs of the city and that the park needs of the public will be met as 14 development progresses. The applicant's proposal is consistent and compliant with all of these requirements. In point of fact the applicant will be required to pay park impact fees at the time of15 building permit issuance. The applicant is also providing for 1.2 acres of open space, even though no 16 open space is required for subdivisions in the R-8 zone. As would be expected, none of the City's park policies or regulations penalizes a developer for withdrawing the ability of the public to use or17 trespass upon its property. Since the applicant is acting fully within the requirements of the City's 18 detailed park policies and regulations, its proposal cannot be considered to create adverse impacts to 19 the City's (i.e. public's) parks and recreational system. 20 PRELIMINARY PLAT 21 6. Review Criteria. Chapter 4-7 RMC governs the criteria for preliminary review. Applicable standards are quoted below in italics and applied through corresponding conclusions of law. 22 23 RMC 4-7-080(B): A subdivision shall be consistent with thefollowingprinciples ofacceptability: 24 1. Legal Lots: Create legal building sites which comply with allprovisions ofthe City Zoning Code. 25 2. Access: Establish access to a public roadfor each segregated parcel. 26 PRELIMINARY PLAT- Preliminary Plat- 29 6f. - City Clerk reports appeal of the Hearing Examiner's final decision upon Page 82 of 517 Iftow 4000" 1 3. Physical Characteristics: Have suitable physical characteristics. A proposed plat may be denied 2 because offlood, inundation, or wetland conditions. Construction ofprotective improvements may be required as a condition ofapproval, and such improvements shall be noted on thefinal plat. 3 4. Drainage: Make adequate provision for drainage ways, streets, alleys, other public ways, water 4 supplies and sanitary wastes. 5 RMC 4-4-080(I)(7): 6 a. Benefits of Joint use driveways reduce the number of curb cuts along individual streets and7therebyimprovesafetyandreducecongestionwhileprovidingforadditionalon-street parking 8 opportunities. Joint use driveways should be encouraged whenfeasible and appropriate. (Ord. 4517, 5-8-1995) 9 10 b. Where Permitted:Adjoining commercial or industrial uses may utilize a joint use driveway where suchjoint use driveway reduces the total number oj'driveways entering the street network, subject to 11 the approval of the Department of Community and Economic Development. Joint use driveways 12 must be created upon the common property line ofthe properties served or through the granting ofa permanent access easement when said driveway does not exist upon a common property line. Joint 13 use access to the driveway shall be assured by easement or other legalform acceptable to the City. 14 7. As to compliance with the Zoning Code, Finding I(2) of the staff report in the portions 15 related to density, lot dimensions, setbacks and building standards (Pages 12-13) are adopted by reference as if set forth in full, with all associated recommended conditions of approval adopted by 16 this decision as well. 17 As depicted in the plat map, Staff Report Ex. 2, most of the lots will directly access a public Road 18 (Road A, SE 18th Street or 124th Place SE). As noted in Finding of Fact 6.G, shared driveways are 19 proposed for Lots 12-14, Lots 15-17, Lots 38-40 and Lots 79-81. Staff additionally suggests Lot 11 and Lots 78 take access from the shared driveway. There are no topographical or critical areas issues 20 to preclude these three lots from having shared access. The shared access would reduce the number of curb cuts at the entrance of the plat at 124th Place SE and along the cul de sac at the end of the21 same street. Potential vehicle and pedestrian conflicts would be lessened by consolidating driveways. 22 However, the applicant testified use of the shared driveway for Lot 1 1 is problematic because the driveway would be at an angle to the roadway which would also change the design of the house to23allowsideloadingofthegarage. The applicant objected to the inclusion of Lot 78 in a shared 24 driveway. There appear to be no material differences between Lots 78 and 81 in terms of orientation or width. As these lots are very near to the subdivision entrance, limiting potential vehicle and25pedestrianconflictsisdesirable. Though a change to the design of the house on Lot 1 1 is not an 26 unreasonable accommodation to allow for vehicular and pedestrian safety at the cul de sac, the PRELIMINARY PLAT- Preliminary Plat- 30 6f. - City Clerk reports appeal of the Hearing Examiner's final decision upon Page 83 of 517 I driveway for Lot 11 would be at an undesirable angle to the shared driveway. The cul de sac serves a 2 limited number of houses. In this instance, the safety effect of removing one driveway access to a cul de sac does not outweigh the impact to Lot 11 caused by the creation of off kilter driveway. The 3 approval will be conditioned to require the inclusion of Lots 12-14, Lots 15-17, Lots 38-40 and Lots 4 78-81 in shared driveways. 5 As determined in Finding of Fact No. 5 and 6, the project is adequately designed to prevent any impacts to critical areas and will not cause flooding problems. As determined in Finding of Fact No. 6 6,the proposal provides for adequate public facilities. 7 7.5 Retaining Wall Height. The six-foot retaining wall height limitation recommended by staff 8 will not be adopted. Renton does not have any standards imposing height limits on retaining walls 9 outside of setback areas. There is nothing in the record that establishes the potential for any adverse impacts other than aesthetic, and those impacts will be adequately addressed by the staff's 10 recommended landscape perimeter. 1 I The retaining wall condition presents two code interpretation issues: (1) whether the City's fence and 12 hedge regulation (RMC 10-4-040) applies to retaining walls, and (2) if RMC 10-4-040 does apply, whether it imposes a six foot height limit on retaining walls. As to the first issue, RMC 10-4-040 13 probably does apply to retaining walls. RMC 4-4-040(A) provides that the purpose of RMC 4-4-050 14 is to regulate the material and height of "fences and hedges." "Fence" is not defined in the RMC. However, walls are addressed throughout RMC 4-4-040. Most pertinent, RMC 4-4-040(C)(1) 15 provides in relevant part that, "In cases where a wall is used instead of a fence, height shall be 16 measured from the top surface of the wall to the ground on the high side of the wall." This sentence strongly suggests that the wall in question can include retaining walls, since the sentence 17 acknowledges that one side of the wall can be at a higher grade than the other. Retaining walls that 18 project above the higher grade would meet this definition. The applicant argues that this reference to wall" as well as others pertains to "European or California-style stone walls." Nothing in the 19 language of RMC 4-4-040 suggests that walls be limited to stone walls. 20 In addition to providing some clarity on the applicability of RMC 4-4-040 to retaining walls, RMC 4- 21 4-040(C)(1) also establishes that retaining walls that do not project past the higher grade have a height of zero feet, which is below all the height limits set for walls by RMC 4-4-040. The sentence22 clearly states that retaining wall height is to be measured from the "high side of the wall", which 23 would be zero in the case of the retaining walls proposed by the applicant. This result makes sense in light of the other limitation of RMC 4-4-040, that it applies only "in cases where walls are used 24 instead of a fence." If a retaining wall does not extend above the higher grade, it doesn't take the 25 place of a fence and hence is not subject to the height limit. In short, retaining walls that only serve to 26 retain soil, as proposed by the applicant, are not subject to the height limits of RMC 4-4-040. PRELIMINARY PLAT- Preliminary Plat- 31 6f. - City Clerk reports appeal of the Hearing Examiner's final decision upon Page 84 of 517 ti 41We 1 Practically speaking, this means that RMC 4-4-040 doesn't apply to retaining walls solely used to 2 stabilize grade separations, since no other provisions in RMC 4-4-040 apply as well. 3 Since the six foot height limit is not required RMC 4-4-040, staff would have to find some other code provision to require the fence. Plat criteria requiring conformance to the comprehensive plan, see 4 RMC 4-7-080(I)(1), include the policies addressing aesthetic impacts identified in COL No. 5.A.1. 5 As determined in Finding of Fact No.6.C, the aesthetic impacts of the retaining walls can be fully mitigated by perimeter landscaping. Staff acknowledged as much at page 13 of the staff report. 6 Therefore, the record contains no adequate justification for a limitation on retaining wall height. 7 8 RMC 4-7-080(I)(1): ...The Hearing Examiner shall assure conformance with the general purposes 9 ofthe Comprehensive Plan and adopted standards... 10 8 The proposed preliminary play is consistent with the Renton Comprehensive Plan as outlined I I in Finding I(I) of the staff report, which is incorporated by this reference as if set forth in full. 12 RMC 4-7-120(A): No plan for the replatting, subdivision, or dedication of any areas shall be 13 approved by the Hearing Examiner unless the streets shown therein are connected by surfaced road or street (according to City specifications) to an existing street or highway. 14 9. As shown in Staff Report Ex. 2, the internal road system connects to SE 18th Street and 124th 15 Place SE, both public roads. 16 RMC 4-7-120(B): The location ofall streets shall conform to any adoptedplans for streets in the 17 City. 18 10. The City's adopted street plans are not addressed in the staff report or anywhere else in the 19 administrative record. However, the proposed internal road system extends two existing stub roads, SE 18th Street and 124th Place SE. Both extensions will be constructed to City road standards.20 Consequently, the criterion above is construed as satisfied by the proposal. 21 RMC 4-7-120(C): Ifa subdivision is located in the area ofan officially designed[sic]trail, 22 provisions shall be made for reservation ofthe right-of--way orfor easements to the Cityfor trail 23 purposes. 24 11. According to the Renton Trails and Bikeways Map (Exhibit 20) a pedestrian trail is designated within the Seattle Pipeline abutting the site. The applicant would be required to obtain 25 right-of-way or an access easement across the pipeline for secondary access via 124th Place SE (see 26 Finding 35.6, Streets). In addition, the applicant would be required to provide a safe crossing for the PRELIMINARY PLAT - Preliminary Plat- 32 6f. - City Clerk reports appeal of the Hearing Examiner's final decision upon Page 85 of 517 1 designated trail across the extension of 124th Place SE. As a condition of approval, the applicant 2 shall submit a revised plat plan depicting a safe pedestrian crossing, across the 124th Place SE extension, for the Seattle Waterline Pedestrian Trail. 3 RMC 4-7-130(C): A plat, short plat, subdivision or dedication shall be prepared in conformance 4 with the followingprovisions: 5 1. Land Unsuitable for Subdivision: Land which is found to be unsuitable for subdivision includes 6 land with features likely to be harmful to the safety and general health ofthe future residents (such 7 as lands adversely affected by flooding, steep slopes, or rock formations). Land which the Department or the Hearing Examiner considers inappropriate for subdivision shall not be 8 subdivided unless adequate safeguards are provided against these adverse conditions. 9 a. Flooding/Inundation: Ifanyportion ofthe land within the boundary ofa preliminary plat 10 is subject to flooding or inundation, that portion ofthe subdivision must have the approval of the.State according to chapter 86.16 RCW before the Department and the Hearing Examiner11shallconsidersuchsubdivision. 12 b. Steep Slopes:A plat, short plat, subdivision or dedication which would result in the 13 creation oj'a lot or lots thatprimarily have slopes fortypercent(40%) or greater as measuredper RMC 4-3-050Jla, without adequate area at lesser slopes upon which14 development may occur, shall not be approved. 15 16 3. Land Clearing and Tree Retention: Shall comply with RMC 4-4-130, Tree Retention and Land1ClearingRegulations. 18 4. Streams: 19 a. Preservation: Every reasonable effort shall be made to preserve existing streams, bodies20 ofwater, and wetland areas. 21 b. Method: Ifa stream passes through any ofthe subject property, a plan shall be presented 22 which indicates how the stream will be preserved. The methodologies used should include an 23 overflow area, and an attempt to minimize the disturbance ofthe natural channel and stream bed. 24 c. Culverting: The piping or tunneling ofwater shall be discouraged and allowed only when25 going under streets. 26 PRELIMINARY PLAT- Preliminary Plat- 33 6f. - City Clerk reports appeal of the Hearing Examiner's final decision upon Page 86 of 517 Vr/ lwr 1 d. Clean Water: Every effort shall be made to keep all streams and bodies ofwater clear of 2 debris andpollutants. 3 12. The land is suitable for a subdivision. As determined in Finding of Fact 5.13, the stormwater design assures that it will not contribute to flooding and all critical areas will be protected. As4determinedinFindingofFactNo. 5.13, no lots with primarily 40% slopes will be created. No piping 5 or tunneling of streams is proposed. Trees will be retained as required by RMC 4-4-130 as determined in Finding of Fact No. S.A. 6 7 RMC 4-7-140: Approval of all subdivisions located in either single family residential or multi- family residential zones as defined in the Zoning Code shall be contingent upon the subdivider's 8 dedication of land or providingfees in lieu of dedication to the City, all as necessary to mitigate the 9 adverse effects of development upon the existing park and recreation service levels. The requirements and procedures for this mitigation shall be per the City of'Renton Parks Mitigation 10 Resolution. 11 13. City ordinances require the payment of park impact fees prior to building permit issuance. 12 See also the discussion on loss of recreational use in Conclusion of Law 31 above. 13 RMC 4-7-150(A): The proposed street system shall extend and create connections between existing streets unless otherwise approved by the Public Works Department. Prior to approving a street14 system that does not extend or connect, the Reviewing Official shall find that such exception shall 15 meet the requirements of subsection E3 of this Section. The roadway classifications shall be as 16 defined and designated by the Department. 17 14. As shown in Staff Report Ex. 2, the proposed internal roads extend two existing stubs, SE 181h Street and 1241" Place SE. The internal Road A creates a loop connection between the two 18 public streets which did not exist previously. 19 RMC 4-7-150(B): All proposed street names shall be approved by the City. 20 15. As conditioned. 21 RMC 4-7-150(C): ,Streets intersecting with existing or proposedpublic highways, major or22secondaryarterialsshallbeheldtoaminimum. 23 16. None of the proposed streets intersect with a public highway or arterial. 24 RMC 4-7-150(D): The alignment ofall streets shall be reviewed and approved by the Public Works25Department. The street standards set by RMC 4-6-060 shall apply unless otherwise approved. Street 26 1 alignment offsets ofless than one hundred twentyfivefeet(125) are not desirable, but may be PRELIMINARY PLAT- Preliminary Plat- 34 6f. - City Clerk reports appeal of the Hearing Examiner's final decision upon Page 87 of 517 Owl-, NMI01 I approved by the Department upon a showing ofneed but only after provision ofall necessary safety 2 measures. 3 17. As determined in Finding of Fact 6, the Public Works Department has reviewed and 4 approved the adequacy of streets, which includes compliance with applicable street standards. 5 RMC 4-7-150(E): 6 1. Grid:A grid street pattern shall be used to connect existing and new development and shall be the 7 predominant streetpattern in any subdivision permitted by this Section. 8 2. Linkages: Linkages, including streets, sidewalks, pedestrian or bike paths, shall be provided within and between neighborhoods when they can create a continuous and interconnected network 9 ofroads andpathways. Implementation ofthis requirement shall comply with Comprehensive Plan 10 Transportation Element Objective T-A and Policies T-9 through T-16 and Community Design Element, Objective CD-Mand Policies CD-50 and CD-60. 11 3. Exceptions: 12 a. The grid pattern may be adjusted to a 'flexible grid"by reducing the number oflinkages3 or the alignment between roads, where the followingfactors are present on site: 14 i. Infeasible due to topographical/environmental constraints; and/or 15 16 ii. Substantial improvements are existing. 17 4. Connections: Prior to adoption oj'a complete grid street plan, reasonable connections that link existing portions of the grid system shall be made. At a minimum, stub streets shall be required 18 within subdivisions to allowfuture connectivity. 19 5. Alley Access:Alley access is the preferred street pattern exceptfor properties in the Residential 20 Low Density land use designation. The Residential Low Density land use designation includes the RC, R-1, and R-4 zones. Prior to approval ofa plat without alley access, the Reviewing Official shall21 evaluate an alley outla and determine that the use o alleyjy(s) is notfeasible... 22 6. Alternative Configurations: Offset or loop roads are the preferred alternative configurations. 23 7. Cul-de-Sac Streets: Cul-de-sac streets may only be permitted by the Reviewing Official where due24todemonstrablephysicalconstraintsnofutureconnectiontoalargerstreetpatternisphysically 25 possible. 26 PRELIMINARY PLAT- Preliminary Plat- 35 6f. - City Clerk reports appeal of the Hearing Examiner's final decision upon Page 88 of 517 4W NWMOI 1 18. As shown in Staff Report Ex. 2, the proposed street system contributes to the grid system by 2 creating loop access which did not previously exist. Both of the intersecting public streets are currently stub roads. Alley access is not required because the proposed density does not meet the 6 3 dwelling unit/acre threshold. The internal roads are looped as encouraged by the criterion above. 4 The cul de sacs proposed cannot be extended to connect the road network because of the presence of two pipeline easements. The criterion is met. 5 RMC 4-7-150(F): All adjacent rights-of=way and new rights-of-way dedicated as part of the plat,6 including streets, roads, and alleys, shall be graded to their full width and the pavement and 7 sidewalks shall be constructed as specified in the street standards or deferred by the 8 Planning/Building/Public Works Administrator or his/her designee. 9 19. As proposed all roads will meet City street profile standards for road with and frontage improvements. 10 RMC 4-7-150(G): ,Streets that may be extended in the event of'future adjacent platting shall be 11 required to be dedicated to the plat boundary line. Extensions ofgreater depth than an average lot 12 shall be improved with temporary turnarounds. Dedication ofafull-width boundary street shall be required in certain instances tofacilitate future development. 13 20. As shown in Ex. 2 to the Staff Report, the proposed roads may not be extended due to the14 presence of pipeline easements. The subject is surrounded on all sides by existing residential 15 development. 16 RMC 4-7-170(A): Insofar as practical, side lot lines shall be at right angles to street lines or radial 17 to curved street lines. 18 21. As depicted in Staff Report Ex. 2, the side lines are in conformance with the requirement 19 quoted above. 20 RMC 4-7-170(B): Each lot must have access to a public street or road. Access maybe by private access easement streetper the requirements ofthe street standards. 21 22 22. As previously determined and conditioned, each lot has access to a public street. 23 RMC 4-7-170(C): The size, shape, and orientation of lots shall meet the minimum area and width requirements of the applicable zoning classification and shall be appropriate for the type of 24 development and use contemplated. Further subdivision of lots within a plat approved through the 25 provisions of this Chapter must be consistent with the then-current applicable maximum density requirement as measured within the plat as a whole. 26 PRELIMINARY PLAT- Preliminary Plat- 36 6f. - City Clerk reports appeal of the Hearing Examiner's final decision upon Page 89 of 517 1 23. As previously determined and as conditioned, the proposed lots comply with the zoning 2 standards of the R-8 zone, which includes area, width and density. 3 RMC 4-7-170(D): Width between side lot lines at their foremost points (i.e., the points where the side lot lines intersect with the street right-of-way line) shall not be less than eighty percent (80%) of4 the required lot width except in the cases of(1)pipestem lots, which shall have a minimum width of 5 twentyfeet (20) and(2) lots on a street curve or the turning circle of cul-de-sac (radial lots), which 6 shall be a minimum ofthirtyfive feet(35). 7 24. The applicant has proposed several lots including Lots 14, 15 and 38 which do not meet the minimum frontage width requirement. As discussed below in Conclusion of Law 27, each of these 8 lots must be eliminated or revised to meet the minimum frontage width requirements. Or, as 9 discussed in Conclusion of Law 5 above, the applicant may also submit an alternative plat plan which includes a combination of all lots fronting onto a public street meeting minimum lot widths 10 and those portions of the lots now proposed for shared driveway/access easements. 1 1 RMC 4-7-170(E): No residentially zoned lot shall have a depth-to-width ratio greater thanfour-to- 12 one (4:1). 13 25. As conditioned, all pipestem lots will be eliminated or revised to meet minimum lot width 14 requirements which will bring all of the lots into compliance with this criterion. 15 RMC 4-7-170(F):All lot corners at intersections ofdedicatedpublic rights-of-way, except alleys, shall have minimum radius offifteen feet (15). 16 17 26. As proposed all lots meet this criterion. 18 RMC 4-7-170(G): Pipestem lots may be permittedfor new plats to achieve the minimum density 19 within the Zoning Code when there is no other feasible alternative to achieving the minimum density. Minimum Lot Size and Pipestem Width and Length: The pipestem shall not exceed one hundredfifty20 feet(150) in length and not be less than twentyfeet(20) in width. The portion of the lot narrower 21 than eightypercent(80%) ofthe minimum permitted width shall not be usedfor lot area calculations orfor the measurement ofrequiredfront yard setbacks. Land area included in private access22easementsshallnotbeincludedinlotareacalculations. Pipestem lots shall not abut one another. 23 27. The proposal exceeds the minimum density of 4.0 dwelling units per acre by 1.7 dwelling24unitsperacreandthereforepipestemlotsareprohibited. The applicant has proposed several 25 pipestem lots including Lots 12, 14, 15, 17, 38, 40 and 79. As a condition of approval, each of these lots must be eliminated or revised to meet the minimum frontage width requirements. As an 26 1 alternative, the applicant may also submit an alternative plat plan which includes a combination of PRELIMINARY PLAT - Preliminary Plat- 37 6f. - City Clerk reports appeal of the Hearing Examiner's final decision upon Page 90 of 517 fir r' 1 all lots fronting onto a public street meeting minimum lot widths and those portions of the lots now 2 proposed for shared driveway/access easements as discussed above in Conclusion of Law 5. 3 RMC 4-7-190(A): Easements may be requiredfor the maintenance and operation of utilities as specified by the Department. 4 5 28. As conditioned. 6 RMC 4-7-190(B): Due regard shall be shown to all natural features such as large trees, watercourses, and similar community assets. Such naturalfeatures should be preserved, thereby 7 adding attractiveness and value to the property. 8 29. Trees will be retained as required by City code as determined in Finding of Fact No. 5. There 9 are no other natural features that need preservation as contemplated in the criterion quoted above. 10 RMC 4-7-200(A): Unless septic tanks are specifically approved by the Public Works Department I 1 and the King County Health Department, sanitary sewers shall be provided by the developer at no cost to the City and designed in accordance with City standards. Side sewer lines shall be installed 12 eightfeet(8) into each lot ifsanitary sewer mains are available, or provided with the subdivision 13 development. 14 30. As conditioned. 15 RMC 4-7-200(B): An adequate drainage system shall be provided for the proper drainage of all 16 surface water. Cross drains shall be provided to accommodate all natural waterflow and shall be of sufficient length to permit full-width roadway and required slopes. The drainage system shall be 17 designed per the requirements ofRMC 4-6-030, Drainage (Surface Water) Standards. The drainage 18 system shall include detention capacityfor the new street areas. Residential plats shall also include detention capacityfor future development ofthe lots. Water qualityfeatures shall also be designed to 19 provide capacityfor the new street pavingfor the plat. 20 33. The proposal provides for adequate drainage that is in conformance with applicable City 21 drainage standards as determined in Findings of Fact No. 5 and 6. The City's stormwater standards, which are incorporated into the technical information report and will be further implemented during22civilplanreview, ensure compliance with all of the standards in the criterion quoted above. 23 RMC 4-7-200(C): The water distribution system including the locations offire hydrants shall be 24 designed and installed in accordance with City standards as defined by the Department and Fire 25 Department requirements. 26 31. Compliance with City water system design standards is assured during final plat review. PRELIMINARY PLAT- Preliminary Plat- 38 6f. - City Clerk reports appeal of the Hearing Examiner's final decision upon Page 91 of 517 1 RMC 4-7-200(D): All utilities designed to serve the subdivision shall be placed underground. Any 2 utilities installed in the parking strip shall be placed in such a manner and depth to permit the planting of trees. Those utilities to be located beneath paved surfaces shall be installed, including all 3 service connections, as approved by the Department. Such installation shall be completed and 4 approved prior to the application of any surface material. Easements may be required for the maintenance and operation ofutilities as specified by the Department. 5 32. All utilities including the stormwater vault are proposed to be placed underground. As 6 conditioned, utility installation will be inspected and approved prior to paving of surface materials 7 above the utilities. 8 RMC 4-7-200(E): Any cable TV conduits shall be undergrounded at the same time as other basic 9 utilities are installed to serve each lot. Conduit for service connections shall be laid to each lot line by subdivider as to obviate the necessityfor disturbing the street area, including sidewalks, or alley 10 improvements when such service connections are extended to serve any building. The cost of trenching, conduit, pedestals and/or vaults and laterals as well as easements therefore required to11 bring service to the development shall be borne by the developer and/or land owner. The subdivider 12 shall be responsible only for conduit to serve his development. Conduit ends shall be elbowed to final ground elevation and capped. The cable TV company shall provide maps and specifications to13 the subdivider and shall inspect the conduit and certify to the City that it is properly installed. 14 33. As conditioned. 15 RMC 4-7-210: 16 17 A. MONUMENTS: 18 Concrete permanent control monuments shall be established at each and every controlling corner of the subdivision. Interior monuments shall be located as determined by the Department. All surveys19shallbepertheCityofRentonsurveyingstandards. 20 B. SURVEY.- 21 22 All other lot corners shall be marked per the City surveying standards. 23 C. STREET SIGNS: 24 The subdivider shall install all street name signs necessary in the subdivision. 25 34. As conditioned. 26 PRELIMINARY PLAT- Preliminary Plat- 39 6f. - City Clerk reports appeal of the Hearing Examiner's final decision upon Page 92 of 517 1 VI. DECISION 2 The proposed 96-lot preliminary plat as depicted in Ex. 33 to the staff report, and critical area 3 exemption as described in the findings of this decision, are approved subject to the following conditions: 4 1. The applicant shall comply with the mitigation measures issued as part of the Determination5ofNon-Significance Mitigated, dated September 22, 2014 except as modified below: 6 a. MDNS Condition l shall be revised as follows: 7 All earthwork performed, implemented by the applicant, shall be consistent with the8 recommendations of the geotechnical report, prepared by Associated Earth Sciences, 9 Inc., dated September 28, 2012 or consistent with the recommendations of the final 10 City-approved geotechnical report. I I b. MDNS Condition 6 shall be stricken and replaced with the following [as modified by the Ruling on Reconsideration]: 12 The applicant shall revise its landscaping plan to provide for a 10 foot wide on-site3streetfrontagelandscapestripasrequiredbyRMC4-4-070(F)(1) for all lots and a 10 14 foot wide, site obscuring perimeter landscaping adjacent to areas where the retaining walls are four or more feet in height. Landscaping at maturity must exceed the height15oftheadjacentretainingwall. The final detailed landscape plan shall be submitted to 16 and approved by the Current Planning Project Manager prior to construction permit approval. Such landscaping shall include a mixture of trees, shrubs, and groundcover 17 as approved by the Department of Community and Economic Development. 18 2. The applicant shall be required to demonstrate compliance with the minimum 50-foot lot 19 width requirement for all lots with less than 50 feet in width at the foremost points (where the 20 side lot lines intersect with the street right-of-way line) pursuant to RMC 4-11-120. The average distance between the side lines connecting front and rear lot lines shall be submitted 21 to the Current Planning Project Manager prior to construction permit approval. 22 3. Condition No. 3 has been deleted as directed in the Ruling on Reconsideration. 23 24 3 All references to the plat map in this decision in the findings and conclusions have been to Exhibit 2 of the staff report. Those references are accurate. However,the plat approved by this decision is depicted in Exhibit 3 of the25staffreport,which is the 96 lot subdivision as opposed to the 97 lot subdivision. 26 PRELIMINARY PLAT- Preliminary Plat- 40 6f. - City Clerk reports appeal of the Hearing Examiner's final decision upon Page 93 of 517 V 1 4. The applicant shall be required to submit a revised plat and landscaping plan, which are 2 elements of the City's required construction plan set, depicting curb bulbouts at street intersections where on-street parking is located or calling for no curb bulbouts and 3 installation of "no parking" designations where street parking is prohibited at street 4 intersections. The revised plat and landscaping plan shall be submitted to and approved by the Current Planning Project Manager prior to construction permit approval. 5 5. The applicant shall eliminate individual access directly from internal public streets for those6lotsabuttingprivatestreetsand/or shared driveway access easements, specifically Lots 12- 7 14, Lots 15-17, Lots 38-40 and Lots 78-81 in shared driveways. Said lots shall be required to take access from the abutting private street and/or access easement and shall not exceed 8 access thresholds pursuant to RMC 4-6-060.J and K. Lot l l may access the public street 9 directly. The revised plat plan shall be submitted to, and approved by, the Current Planning Project Manager prior to construction permit approval. Furthermore,the access restriction for 10 such lots is required to be noted on the face of the Final Plat prior to recording. 11 6. The applicant shall revise the proposed mitigation plan to depict all retaining walls on site, 12 including lock & load walls on the north and east sides of Wetlands B and C. The applicant shall also identify if proposed walls are anticipated to impact critical area buffers and providel3 appropriate mitigation for such impacts. A Final Mitigation Plan, pursuant to RMC 4-8- 14 120.W, shall be submitted to, and approved by, the Current Planning Project Manager prior 15 to construction permit approval. 16 7. The temporary buffer impacts consisting of minor intrusions or disturbance from construction activities shall be restored with appropriate grading, soil amendments, and the 17 planting of native species to the satisfaction of the Current Planning Project Manager. The 18 revised mitigation plan shall be submitted to, and approved by, the Current Planning Project Manager prior to construction permit approval. 19 8. The existing wetland mitigation plan already assures that 1,331 square feet of additional20 wetland buffer area is being provided to mitigate for both existing buffer impacts to Wetland 21 E that are not associated with the Plat, as well as the loss of 14 square feet of the Wetland E buffer which loss is associated with the extension of SE 18th Street. To provide an additional22offsetfortheimpactsresultingfromtherequestedexemptionassociatedwiththefillof14 23 square feet of buffer to extend SE 18th Street. The applicant has agreed to provide and shall provide enhancement to the Wetland `E' buffer immediately abutting SE 18`" Street, as well24asenhancedplantingsadjoiningthatbufferareawithinTractM. A revised mitigation plan 25 shall be submitted to, and approved by, the Current Planning Project Manager prior to 26 construction permit approval. Preliminary Plat- 41PRELIMINARYPLAT- 6f. - City Clerk reports appeal of the Hearing Examiner's final decision upon Page 94 of 517 wme 1 9. The applicant shall be required to establish a Native Growth Protection Easement over those 2 parts of the site encompassing wetlands and their associated buffers and place fencing and signage along the outer buffer edge prior to Final Plat approval. 3 10. The applicant shall be required to submit a fill source statement, if fill materials are brought 4 to the site, in order to the City to ensure only clean fill is imported prior to construction. 5 11. The applicant shall provide a final Tree Retention Plan, complying with the 30% tree 6 retention SEPA mitigation measure while demonstrating proposed retaining walls would not 7 impact trees proposed for retention. The Final Tree Retention Plan shall be submitted to, and approved by,the Current Planning Project Manager prior to construction permit approval. 8 12. The applicant shall submit a revised plat plan, which is an element of the City's required 9 construction plan set, depicting a safe pedestrian crossing, across the 124`h Place SE 10 extension, for the Seattle Waterline Pedestrian Trail. The revised plat plan, as part of the construction plan set, shall be submitted to, and approved by the Current Planning Project 11 Manager, Community Services Department, and the Transportation Department prior to 12 construction permit approval. 13 13. The applicant shall be required to obtain right-of-way or a public access easement through the Cedar River Pipeline, for the extension of 124th Place SE, to the satisfaction of the Planl4 Reviewer prior to construction permit approval. 15 14. Pedestrian lighting shall be depicted on the lighting plan at the entrances of Tracts C and E 16 from the proposed right-of-way). The lighting plan shall be submitted to, and approved by, 17 the Current Planning Project Manager and the Plan Reviewer prior to construction permit approval. 18 15. The Preliminary Plat plan shall be revised so that no more than 4 lots may gain access via a19shareddrivewayandthatatleastonesuchlotshallmeetminimumlotwidthrequirements 20 along a street frontage pursuant to RMC 4-7-170.1) (a minimum of 80% of the required lot width/40 feet or 35 feet along a street curve). The lot(s) which provides physical frontage 2l along the street shall only be allowed vehicular access from the shared private driveway. In 22 order to provide shared access, Lots 14, 17 and 38 shall be widened to 35 feet and take primary access from the shared driveway. The revised plat plan shall be submitted to and 23 approved by the Current Planning Project Manager prior to construction permit approval. 24 16. The plat plan shall be revised so that all lots have no less than a 40-foot lot width where side 25 lot lines intersect with the street right of way or for radial lots be a minimum of 35 feet in 26 width. Specifically, proposed Lots 14, 17, and 38 would be required to be widened to 35 feet PRELIMINARY PLAT- Preliminary Plat- 42 6f. - City Clerk reports appeal of the Hearing Examiner's final decision upon Page 95 of 517 W r.rj 1 in order to comply with the condition. The revised plat plan shall be submitted to and 2 approved by the Current Planning Project Manager prior to construction permit approval. 3 17. The applicant shall submit a revised plat plan depicting the elimination of all pipestem lots lots which are less than 40 feet in width where the side lot lines intersect with the street 4 right-of-way or for radial lots are less than 35 feet) within the subdivision. Specifically, 5 proposed Lots 12, 14, 15, 17, 38, 40, and 79 would be required to be eliminated or revised to meet minimum frontage width requirements. The applicant may also submit an alternative 6 plat plan which includes a combination of all lots fronting onto a public street meeting 7 minimum lot widths and those portions of the lots now proposed for shared driveway/access easements could be placed in Shared Driveway Tracts with easements placed over them 8 pursuant to RMC 4-6-060, Street Standards. The revised plat plan shall be submitted to and 9 approved by the Current Planning Project Manager prior to construction permit approval. 10 18. Any proposal to convert the Stormwater vault within Tract A to a Stormwater detention pond be considered a Major Plat Amendment subject to the requirements outlined under RMC 4-7-1 1 080M.2. 12 19. The applicant shall be required to create a homeowners' association and maintenance 13 agreement(s) for the shared utilities, landscape areas and maintenance and responsibilities for 14 all shared improvements of this development. A draft of the document(s) shall be submitted to Current Planning Project Manager for review and approval by the City Attorney and 15 Property Services section prior to the recording of the final plat. 16 20. The applicant shall submit the results of the Phase 1 Environmental Site Assessment to the 17 City for review. Appropriate mitigation, if any, shall be completed prior to issuance of building permits. 18 19 21. All road names shall be approved by the City. 20 22. Easements may be required for the maintenance and operation of utilities as specified by the Department. 21 23. Sanitary sewers shall be provided by the developer at no cost to the City and designed in 22 accordance with City standards. Side sewer lines shall be installed eight feet (8') into each lot 23 if sanitary sewer mains are available, or provided with the subdivision development. 24 24. Any cable TV conduits shall be undergrounded at the same time as other basic utilities are installed to serve each lot. Conduit for service connections shall be laid to each lot line. 25 25. Concrete permanent control monuments shall be established at each and every controlling 26 corner of the subdivision. Interior monuments shall be located as determined by the PRELIMINARY PLAT- Preliminary Plat- 43 6f. - City Clerk reports appeal of the Hearing Examiner's final decision upon Page 96 of 517 we 40e 1 Department. All surveys shall be per the City of Renton surveying standards. All other lot corners shall be marked per the City surveying standards. The subdivider shall install all2streetnamesignsnecessaryinthesubdivision. 3 26. [This condition added as directed by the Ruling on Reconsideration to address Roof run-off]. 4 Roof run-off that impacts wetlands shall not be allowed mix with polluting surfaces. Category 2 wetlands may not be structurally or hydrologically engineered for runoff quantity5orqualitycontrolasrequiredbyKCSWDMReference5. City staff shall require design adjustments as authorized by KCSWDM 1.2 to the extent necessary to prevent adverse6impactstowetlandhydrologycausedbyroofrunoff. 7 DATED this 26`" day of January, 2015. 8 9 iE~h, n.C3 bnechte 10 City of Renton Hearing Examiner 11 12 13 APPEAL RIGHTS AND VALUATION NOTICES 14 RMC 4-8-080 provides that the final decision of the hearing examiner is subject to appeal to the 15 Renton City Council. RMC 4-8-1 IO(E)(14) requires appeals of the hearing examiner's decision to 16 be filed within fourteen (14) calendar days from the date of the hearing examiner's decision. There is no right to reconsideration as the decision has already been subject to reconsideration. 17 Additional information regarding the appeal process may be obtained from the City Clerk's Office, 18 Renton City Hall—7th floor, (425)430-6510. 19 The City Council's jurisdiction to hear SEPA appeals is contested by the applicant. The City Council shall determine whether it has any jurisdiction to hear an appeal of the SEPA portion of20thisdecision. 21 Affected property owners may request a change in valuation for property tax purposes 22 notwithstanding any program of revaluation. 23 24 25 26 PRELIMINARY PLAT- Preliminary Plat- 44 6f. - City Clerk reports appeal of the Hearing Examiner's final decision upon Page 97 of 517 rPO ATTACHMENT A The Reserve at Tiffany Park Preliminary Plat and SEPA Appeals LUA13-001572, ECF, PP, CAE) TESTIMONY SUMMARY SEPA Appeal #1 —Applicants Applicant Testimony Ms. Nancy Rogers, applicant's Attorney, stated the applicant had filed an appeal to the City's SEPA MDNS based on three issues. They felt the geotechnical report should be updated to reference the current geotechnical report. They have issues with Conditions #3 and#6. They believe it's better for the project and environment to have Henley comply with a tree protection plan and have Henley's arborist work with the City's arborist to assure that as many trees as possible are preserved. They requested amendments to Condition 3. In addition, Condition 6 was imposed in the MDNS. It would impose a 15-50 foot perimeter buffer around the entire site. This is overreaching and unduly burdensome. The applicant is going above and beyond to provide buffering, which is not necessary because they are proposing single family uses next to single family uses. There are two rights of ways along substantial portions of the borders, the Mercer Island Water Pipeline and the Cedar River Water Pipeline. One is 60 feet wide; the other is 100 feet wide. There is already substantial buffering between existing uses and the project site. They have an analysis responding to the City staff SEPA analysis filed last Friday (Exhibit K11). Ms. Rogers summarized this analysis. They appealed Condition #l. Staff felt that Condition #1 would be acceptable if they amended the condition to include compliance with the revised geotechnical report. The applicant agrees. With respect the appeal to Conditions #3 for tree preservation and #6 for the proposed perimeter buffer, mitigation conditions under SEPA are subject to state and federal law, statutory and case law that establish a nexus of rough proportionality. That nexus is required to be shown by the City prior to imposition of these mitigation conditions. Case law dealing with the imposition of buffers had held that buffers need to be imposed when two very dissimilar uses are proposed adjacent to each other. That is not the case here. With respect to Condition #3, the scope of that condition has morphed from the SEPA MDNS to the staff's current opinion. The applicant appealed this condition to require compliance with the applicant's tree protection plan rather than the more general requirement that they comply with relevant City codes. Staff is requiring 30% retention of trees rather than the Code requirement that 6f. - City Clerk reports appeal of the Hearing Examiner's final decision upon Page 98 of 517 allows for replacement of trees through mitigation (RMC 4-4-130(H)(1)(e)). The condition is overreaching and overly burdensome. The City has failed to identify an adverse significant environmental impact related to tree preservation in the applicant's proposal. They are intending to preserve 30% of the trees. The developer needs to be able to replace trees that might be inadvertently damaged during construction rather than complying to a hard set retention percentage. They aren't intending to clear cut. They plan to protect the 30% of the trees. A few extra might come down through inadvertent damage. If so, those will be properly mitigated. With respect to Condition#6, the perimeter buffer, as stated in the original MDNS condition it was a minimum 15 foot buffer" which became 15-50 feet in width around the entire perimeter. There is no significant environmental impact here and the City is not entitled to impose mitigation here. There is no legal authority or justification by the City to require Henley to protect one use from another when the use is the same. The neighboring property owners could plant trees in their own yards. As designed by Henley, the project already minimizes visual impact to neighboring uses in ways that are not required by the code. The code does not impose a perimeter buffer of any sort on a single family project like this. The majority of this site includes a perimeter buffer of 10-15 feet. There is more on critical areas tracts. The average buffer width is 55 feet. In addition, they have the two pipeline rights of ways, which are 60 feet and 100 feet wide. Adding in the pipelines, the average buffer goes up to 100 feet between homes from this project and adjacent homes. This is well outside of rough proportionality. Mr. Barry Talkington is a civil engineer with Barghausen Consulting Engineers. Mr. Talkington described his education and qualifications. He prepares designs and layouts for single family projects. He designs roads, infrastructure, storm ponds, etc. He's prepared about 50 preliminary plats. It is typical for him to design a preliminary plat and then start into more detailed engineering design. They have prepared preliminary and final grading plans. Ms. Rogers presented Exhibit A-11, the ultimate plat layout. Mr. Talkington described the exhibit, the 96-lot version of the plat. There was an earlier version with more lots but they removed one to meet the 30% tree retention requirement. They eliminated Lot 1 from the original submittal. In response to Ms. Rogers, Mr. Talkington described the various perimeter buffers, ranging including 50 feet in Tracts B and M and near Lots 13 and 14, the buffer is 15 foot wide. They have a 10 foot buffer that increase to nearly 80 feet by Lot 19 by the Mercer Island Pipeline. The minimum proposed buffer is 10 feet. By Tract G, the buffer is 100 feet. The Mercer Island Pipeline is 60 feet wide. The minimum setback along this area is 70 feet. Some lots do touch the property boundary, though that is adjacent to the 100 foot wide Cedar River Pipeline. There is additional greenspace in Tract H, G and J. In some places the buffer goes from 15 feet to 200 feet. The average buffer width is approximately 50 feet. With the pipeline areas, the average buffer width is over 100 feet. Only six 6f. - City Clerk reports appeal of the Hearing Examiner's final decision upon Page 99 of 517 i lots touch the perimeter of the property, all along the Cedar River Pipeline. In his opinion, the project does not result in a significant adverse aesthetic impact to the neighbors. With respect to retaining walls, Mr. Talkington stated retaining walls are not purely cosmetic, though they can be. The purpose is to shorten the distance needed for a grade transition. There is grading involved in nearly all projects in the Pacific Northwest. Grading is accomplished via slopes or retaining walls. To create a hypothetical lot, either grade more land or build a wall along the edge and grade less. Lots with significant trees were designed with retaining walls to retain more trees. A building permit is required for a wall of 4 feet high or greater. Mr. Talkington has prepared building permit applications for this project and the associated grading plans which will be submitted today. Ms. Rogers asked about Exhibit K6, related to the grading plans. Ms. Rocale Timmons asked if this was the Erosion Control plan set. Mr. Talkington confirmed it is. In response to Ms. Rogers, for Lots 18-21, Mr. Talkington stated the retaining walls would be rockeries. The lot grade is below the existing grade. He noted the top and bottom of the wall elevations. For example, Lot 19's wall is 4.5 feet. A cut wall is for when a retaining wall is retaining the existing grade when the pad grade is below the existing grade. For a pad above the existing grade, they would use a fill wall. These walls are constructed differently. Fill walls require extra stabilization. In every place where there is a cut wall, the face of the wall will be to the interior of the project. For the fill walls, the face is to the exterior of the project. Mr. Talkington addressed the staff Report (Page 13) concern about the height and visibility of walls along the Cedar River Pipeline. The wall at Tract A will be visible, though there will be landscaping planted between the walls and the perimeter. For Lots 79 and 81 (Exhibit K6a, Lots 80 and 82), there is a cut rockery wall. This wall will not be visible from outside the project. For Lot 40, there is a retaining wall. It is 4-6 feet to prop up the access drive. This will be visible. There's another wall at 7.5 feet. Lots 45 and 46 have a fill wall at 16 feet tall. In response to the staff Report, Mr. Talkington reviewed the heights of the walls. They prepared an alternative design to reduce the heights of the walls. The wall will now be 6 feet tall (Exhibit K6b, the revised grading plan for Lots 44-47). The portion of Lot 46 that borders the Cedar River Pipeline has a 2 foot wall. The wall at Lot 47 is 1.7 feet to 6 feet tall. Henley will be willing to agree to a Plat Condition that will call for the walls to be the revised height. Ms. Timmons asked about the relevancy of this line of questioning to the SEPA Appeal, specifically Conditions #3 and#6. Ms. Rogers stated she understood the staff's buffer requirements to screen the adjacent neighbors from the development, including the impact of retaining walls. Ms. Timmons agreed to relevance. Ms. Rogers asked Mr. Talkington to speak to the walls along Road A near Tract K. Mr. Talkington referred to this wall as a fill wall. There is an open space tract, Wetlands B and C, which will provide a screen for the wall. Focusing on this part of the plat, Mr. Talkington stated there was no significant adverse environmental impact with respect to the aesthetics. 6f. - City Clerk reports appeal of the Hearing Examiner's final decision upon Page 100 of 517 OW Ntoo Ms. Rogers addressed staff Report (page 21) regarding retaining walls. She stated the staff felt those retaining walls would interfere with tree retention. She asked, in general, does designing a site to include retaining walls help or hinder tree preservation. Mr. Talkington responded it can help by reducing grading requirements along the perimeter of the site and protect trees. When he designs a plat, the cost of construction is considered. Retaining wall construction is more expensive than grading. They were directed to save trees, which meant construction of retaining walls. Ms. Rogers asked who Mr. Talkington turned to when he needed to determine the effects of his design for retaining walls on tree preservation. Mr. Talkington said that's a question for the arborist. Ms. Timmons asked Mr. Talkington to describe his thought process on providing the buffers he provided and their merit. Mr. Talkington stated it started with the road network. They had two locations to tie into for an internal road. In creating the road corridors, they tried to lay out lots that would be evenly distributed on both sides of the road. They looked to use the property most efficiently for the lot layout with respect to the grading. They tried to reduce the overall grading. Ms. Timmons asked if Mr. Talkington saw merit in providing a perimeter buffer. Mr. Talkington stated he didn't show as many buffers initially. They initially looked to retain trees in larger pockets in other areas. As the project evolved to its current configuration, they considered saving trees as part of the buffer. Ms. Timmons asked as a practical matter, how would a 15 foot buffer affect plat design? Mr. Talkington stated that he had considered it. There are many alternative scenarios. They looked at how the buffer would impact their original design. There was a significant change in lot yield. Ms. Timmons asked if Mr. Talkington considered aesthetics in his design. He stated he did because he wanted the project outcome to be pleasing. Mr. Steve Lee, Renton Development Engineering Manager, stated typically the City doesn't see as much of a concise grading plan proposed for preliminary plat. He is glad Mr. Talkington prepared one. He asked Mr. Talkington to describe the setback from the walls. Mr. Talkington stated that is a question for the geotechnical engineer, however there is no need for a setback from the geo-grid. Mr. Lee asked if construction of the geo-grid caused excavation in to natural areas. Mr. Talkington stated it did. Also, cut walls will require a wall drain behind them. Mr. Lee asked if the walls would need to be setback into the lots in order to reduce the impact on the natural areas. Mr. Talkington said they design the walls to be entirely on the subject lot and not within the open space. Mr. Lee asked if a tree is located near a drainage wall, would the tree be impacted. Mr. Talkington stated he didn't know. Mr. Galen Wright, of Washington Forestry Consultants, is an arborist. Mr. Wright described his education and qualifications. He has owned his company for 21 years. Their focus is on urban forestry consulting. He personally has 35 years of experience. He's worked on 1,400 similar projects 6f. - City Clerk reports appeal of the Hearing Examiner's final decision upon Page 101 of 517 4*W we of many scales since 1994. He stated in general, his tree protection plans are accurate. The trees he has designated for protection are saved. Though, occasionally, they will find an edge tree that doesn't look as good after the project and before. In that case, they mitigate the tree. The tree protection plan exhibits are Exhibit A4 (June) and Exhibit Al2 (August). The August plan is tied to the most recent layout. Ms. Rogers noted the report concludes this is a "well treed site". By that, Mr. Wright stated means he was able to save two or three clusters to break up the clear cut look. If they supplement with lot trees and street trees, in 10 years the property will be well treed. There is a nice low brush community on the site that improves the buffer capacity of the vegetation. The wetlands on site are also well treed. Ms. Rogers stated the 30% tree retention requirement translates to preserving 188 on-site trees. The August tree retention plan proposes to save 181 trees and relocate others. Mr. Wright stated his understanding of the Renton code with respect to construction damage means the tree can be replaced at a ratio of 2:1. He stated he is familiar with SEPA staff Condition #3. He said his understating of the requirement was not to mandate a hard 30% requirement without field judgment. The code allows them to save trees but mitigate those that can't be saved. Ms. Rogers asked Mr. Wright how many trees would be saved. Mr. Wright replied well in excess of 188 trees would be saved. They have re-analyzed the edges and found there were more trees than they had earlier expected before a more formal survey was undertaken. Mr. Wright discussed the relationship between retaining walls and trees. He stated he had the grading plan in hand when he did his follow up evaluation. They had been very hard on the edge trees initially. Later, he was able to perform a tree by tree analysis with the grading plan in hand. Trees respond very differently to walls based on where the majority of their roots are growing. He did a tree by tree analysis to determine how much, if any, intrusion could be done to a tree's root protection zone. This is usually a later stage analysis. He's very confident in his current estimation of the number of tree that will be viably preserved. He knows exactly which trees will be impacted, and how for each edge tree. Mr. Wright said the next step is to have a pre-construction meeting. They always ask to be included in that conference. At that time the clearing limits are staked. He walks those boundaries. If there is anything different from current knowledge, then they will make field adjustments. They mapped tons to trees. Sometimes, they'll find the survey and field location don't quite match. They adjust clearing limits during the field observation. They'll remove hazardous trees if they find them. After that, they put up tree protection fences. If anything changes during construction, then Mr. Wright asks to be included in the decision of how to treat the trees. 6f. - City Clerk reports appeal of the Hearing Examiner's final decision upon Page 102 of 517 rw d" Ms. Rogers asked if this process is described in the tree protection plan. Mr. Wright said it is. He stated he has no doubt this project will retain more than 30% of trees even accounting for field adjustments for hazardous trees or others that can't or shouldn't be saved. Ms. Rogers asked Mr. Wright about the perimeter buffer. She said the City is concerned about a 50% sight obscuring buffer. She asked about the 10 foot buffer specifically. Mr. Wright stated he understood the buffer and the tree retention within the buffer. He stated he also is familiar with Henley's plan to provide 6 foot fences along the backyards. With the 10 foot buffer and fences, the 50% screening requirement will be met. New trees can also be planted in any gaps. In his opinion, a 15 foot buffer would add a few more trees, but not a huge amount. Ms. Rogers asked if Mr. Wright thought there was a significant adverse environmental impact from the project. The City Attorney objected. The Examiner stated the question limited to aesthetic impacts is allowed. Mr. Wright stated the 6 foot fence is sight obscuring. There are trees everywhere but the stormwater facility and a few in the pipelines. There are several layers of buffering. There will be places where you can see new houses better than others, but there will be a fence and trees. Within a few years trees will fill the gaps. Ms. Rocale Timmons asked Mr. Wright if he knew how many trees exist on the site. He stated there were 1,305 trees on-site. This is a contiguous canopy cover. The canopy is viewed by surrounding property owners. They are proposing to keep 181 trees plus the trees in the critical areas and buffers. There are 626 significant trees in the buildable areas. There are many other poor quality trees. They will remove over 400 significant trees. Ms. Timmons asked how the removal of so many trees would impact the surrounding property owners. Mr. Wright said it's aesthetic. There is no other impact. Ms. Timmons asked about the revised tree retention plan. She asked if the new plan is approvable as is. Mr. Wright stated it was and they will exceed the minimum 30% requirement. He stated it is a valuable contribution to the environment. In response to Ms. Timmons, he stated an adequate width for a natural vegetated buffer depends on the type of trees, the age of the trees and the how they are growing. There are places on site where the screen is dense and others that are thinner. They didn't map alders and cottonwoods. They didn't include those in the survey. Ms. Timmons asked what buffer width is necessary to provide screening in a natural vegetated state. Mr. Wright stated it depends on site conditions. Mr. Wright stated if they plant in a 10 foot buffer with a double staggered row of conifers, it will create a very dense screen in 10 years. A 15 foot buffer is not adequate to add a third row that would require about 30 feet of buffer. City TestimonX Rocale Timmons addressed the applicant's testimony with respect to Conditions #3 and #6. The City's mitigation measure is not intended to preclude replacement of trees damaged during 6f. - City Clerk reports appeal of the Hearing Examiner's final decision upon Page 103 of 517 fte construction. The applicant is citing the wrong code. Condition#3 is solely designed to require a tree retention plan. The applicant has provided a plan that does not meet the requirement. It is not detailed enough to be used during construction. Staff analysis (Exhibit N) goes through the significant adverse impact of removing such a large tree canopy. The staff feels the MDNS condition defines a significant impact and provides appropriate mitigation. With respect to Condition #6, Ms. Timmons stated staff has demonstrated a significant impact to surrounding property owners with respect to aesthetics. Staff feels the mitigation measure adequately addresses these impacts. Mr. Terry Flatley, City of Renton Urban Forestry and Natural Resources Manager, described his education and qualifications. He has reviewed at least 50 tree retention plans for the City. Mr. Flatley stated he had not visited the site personally. It is a fully timbered site with 100% canopy cover. He described the site as a large woodland area in the middle of the City in the middle of a subdivision. This is a rare site. He believes it is necessary to protect the tree canopy. The City tries to retain as much canopy as possible. He believes the appropriate amount of trees to protect is a minimum 30%. In response to Ms. Timmons, Mr. Flatley stated a 10 foot buffer is adequate to support a natural vegetated perimeter, depending on the type of vegetation. This strip will retain smaller vegetation, but not large mature trees. He provided a recommendation for a perimeter buffer of 35 to 100 feet. To his knowledge, the City requested a 15 foot buffer. In terms of accommodating trees, there are some extra trees being protected. Five feet is a very minor increment. It would allow for more planting. Mr. Flatley stated he felt a buffer is needed along the southern perimeter because buffers are to moderate climate and obscure sites from view. It's an aesthetic issue for trail users and adjacent neighbors. The buffer would provide privacy. Mr. Flatley stated without an adequate screen there would be significant adverse aesthetic impacts to trail users and neighbors. A 15 foot buffer would reduce the impacts. In response to the Examiner, Mr. Flatley stated the difference between a 10 foot and a 15 foot buffer is not significant in terms of mitigating impacts. Ms. Rogers asked if Mr. Flatley had reviewed the revised tree protection plan for the project. He stated he had reviewed Exhibit 11 today but his review is based on the 2013 version. Ms. Rogers asked if it was possible Mr. Wright's tree retention plan would assure protection of 30% of the trees on the site. Mr. Flatley stated with oversight it is possible. Ms. Rogers asked if he provided that oversight. He said he didn't. Ms. Rogers asked if the City's MDNS Condition #3 was essentially a restatement of City code. Mr. Flatley agreed that is was. Ms. Rogers asked if Mr. Flatley had provided SEPA mitigation measures to staff and asked the staff to implement them. He stated he hadn't. Ms. Rogers asked if the 6f. - City Clerk reports appeal of the Hearing Examiner's final decision upon Page 104 of 517 fir'' condition would be adequate to require a tree protection plan and have it approved by the City. He stated it could. With respect to MDNS Condition#6, the buffer requirement was for sight obscuring and was 15 feet wide. The staff analysis (Exhibit N) increased that buffer from 15 feet to 15-50 feet. Ms. Rogers asked if Mr. Flatley had read Exhibit N. He stated he hadn't. Ms. Rogers asked if he was familiar with the City's Comprehensive Plan. He stated he was generally familiar with it. He stated he was not familiar with specific policies. Ms. Rogers asked Mr. Flatley to review a large area photo with respect to his earlier testimony Exhibit K6c). Mr. Flatley stated he recognized the area and that there are a number of green, treed areas around the subject. He agreed there is a large protected corridor along the Cedar River and at Tiffany Park. He further agreed that with or without Tiffany Park, there will remain treed areas near the project. Mr. Flatley stated the City's landscaping code with respect to screening allows planting and fencing. He agreed the project plan includes fences and vegetation. Mr. Flatley stated he didn't have any knowledge of buffers on adjoining properties but didn't see any in the aerial photo. Ms. Timmons stated that staff is standing by their analysis. For mitigation measure #3 it sounds as if the appellant intends to meet the 30% requirement. That's all the City is requesting. The applicant is failing to consider the City's intend is to protect the existing tree canopy. The mitigation measure is intended to preclude replacement tree. The code is inadequate to do that without the mitigation measure. However, a tree retention plan is amenable to the City. For mitigation measure #6, the staff feels they have proven impact and provided adequate mitigation. Staff feels the public are the appropriate people to provide information on impacts. Applicant Testimony In response to the Examiner, Mr. Talkington stated in the northern portion of the plat, the 15 foot buffer would be preserved but clearing and a wall would be located in the lots themselves (Lots 11- 14). No additional clearing will go into the buffer area. For Lots 15-18, there will be no wall. All other improvements would be within the lot area. There will be no additional clearing. Ms. Rogers asked the Examiner to read the SEPA Appeal argument letter dated November 18, 2014. As stated in that letter, the City staff and the applicant are in agreement to Revised Conditions #1 and#3. However, they would argue to keep the existing language in the condition, but add a comma and add a statement that an updated tree protection plan and land clearing plan to be submitted and approved prior to construction. Condition #6 deals with a perimeter buffer. No perimeter buffer is required in this zone and none exist surrounding the subject. The requirement would be unique in this area and they would be buffering their single family uses from surrounding single family uses. 6f. - City Clerk reports appeal of the Hearing Examiner's final decision upon Page 105 of 517 r fir+' There is no significant impact in terms of aesthetics. They have voluntarily provided 10-200 feet (50 foot average) buffers and two pipelines of 60 to 100 feet (Mercer Island Trail and Cedar River Trail corridors, respectively). Only six lots touch a property boundary. Some have fill walls, the highest currently proposed is 6 feet high. There is a 100 foot Cedar River Trail buffer adjacent to these properties and between adjacent properties. The City's SEPA analysis cited Comprehensive Plan Objective CDG and Policies 50 and 55 as justification for the perimeter buffer. Those policies do not apply here. The City omitted the citation of the objective, which does not apply here. These uses are not different. The proposed use and adjacent use are the same. The tree canopy is being protected. There is no need for a perimeter buffer of 15 feet, let along 50 feet. Addition of a buffer after the fact will invalidate the proposal and violate state law. Public Testimony Ms. Claudia Donnelly lived in the Renton Potential Annexation Area in Renton Highlands. Ms. Donnelly stated she had submitted questions. In February 2014, in an article in the Renton Reporter, Ms. Timmons stated all 1,300 trees would be coming down. How will the protected trees be protected? This developer will clear cut all of the trees and put in replacement trees. At Ms. Donnelly's subdivision, Windstone, and at Piper's Bluff, this same developer clear cut all of the trees. Who will make sure the trees won't be clear cut? Ms. Donnelly stated she was concerned about the proposed stormwater detention pond failing and impacting the development. At Windstone, the detention pond failed three times spilling water and mud into a wetland and Honey Creek. At Piper's Bluff, the detention pond failed and dumped yellow water into May Creek. Renton officials do not work on the weekend; they will not protect the wetlands. Ms. Donnelly stated Renton allowed Safeway to build on wetlands three summers ago. They started getting water coming up through the floor and had to rope off the area. The hours of construction ordinance must be followed. How will it be? Renton has an ordinance keeping dirt off of the road and protecting streams during construction. The laws are not being enforced. Renton doesn't allow working on Sundays. This developer had contractors working on Sundays in at least Windstone and Piper's Bluff. No staff person will be there to monitor them. The City does not require the contractor to get the necessary NPDES permit from DOE prior to start of work. Additionally, the City doesn't require erosion control fences near wetlands, private property or streams before clearing starts. They don't make the contractors have the necessary permits for clearing before building permits. In the late 1990s a builder cleared without permits and there was no consequence. Ms. Donnelly expressed concern about the Renton appeal process. On November 26, there was a notice in the paper talking about the appeal timeframe for this development, yet the document itself 6f. - City Clerk reports appeal of the Hearing Examiner's final decision upon Page 106 of 517 MWO M had not been released. She had to request it from the director. If there is no notice before the appeal starts, how can the City be trusted? On June 14, 2012 the Renton Reporter asked if Renton's tree preservation policy was just for show. Ms. Donnelly presented pictures of Piper's Bluff. Forty-seven trees were supposed to be retained or mitigated. Some of the trees were saved. Many were cleared. The trees being planted are decorative and replacing Douglas Firs and other large trees. Some trees must be saved. She also showed examples of construction dirt on the road in front of her house. The dirt is washing into Green Creek and May Creek. No one at Renton cares about the street or the environment. Ms. Barbara Smith stated considering the greenbelt surrounding the pipelines is not realistic. Those are dirt paths without trees. Ms. Smith stated she should not have to plant trees on her yard, plus the trees are 80-100 feet high. Replanting trees won't compensate. They are losing their quality of life. The wildlife that's there will be removed. The school district shouldn't have sold it. They didn't provide proper notice of sale. They were denied access to do further studies but the developer was allowed on it. She encourages the City to put strict enforceable timelines. She found 97 reviews on this developer online. Only 5 were positive. They are local and speaking to poor construction, leak issues, mold in new homes and poor customer service. People wait years to have construction defects repaired. SEPA Appeal#2—Project Opponent TPWAG Appellant Testimony Mr. Daniel McMonagle is the attorney for the project opponents, the Tiffany Park Woods Advocacy Group. The opponents have lived in this neighborhood for 34 years and have historically used the woods. Mr. David Beedon is a member of the TPWAG and has lived in the neighborhood since it was built 34 years ago. He lives at 1725 Pierce Avenue SE in Renton. Mr. Beedon lives directly adjacent to the project. He can walk to the former school property in five minutes. The TPWAG is composed of five persons who hold officer positions in a non-profit corporation formed in March 2014. The purpose of the group is to mitigate as much as possible any environmental or other impacts coming out of this development. He has experience in the woods. He has been walking in these woods since 1982. He exercises there and watches wildlife. The character of the woods has been mostly unchanged for all that time. Some changes there were related to dirt embankments on paths to facilitate mountain biking. There are teepee and treehouses built here. The woods have never been fenced, except along the Cedar River Pipeline. The fence has been there at least 34 years. It has been unmaintained. The fence is along the City of Seattle Watershed property line. It is not a school district fence. The woods property has never been signed no trespassing. 6f. - City Clerk reports appeal of the Hearing Examiner's final decision upon Page 107 of 517 1%W11 NWO There is an extensive trail system in the woods that were there when he moved in. There are nine separate access points along the two pipeline rights of way and other at the end of 18th Street. These are trailheads. The trails are a large loop with several connector trails. The outer loop is about a 15 minute walk. Mr. Beedon has personally been pruning and trimming trails to keep them open. He believes the school district performed maintenance there four times in the last three decades including cutting down dangerous trees and removing trash or yard waste. He is aware of no other activity from the school district on the property. The school district performed maintenance there in 2000, 2010, and twice in 2011. Each of these incidents was related to a request for action to the school district by a member of the public. Mr. Beedon spoke to the school district in 2000 about illegal activity on the property. That prompted the 2000 maintenance and the placement of signage discouraging dumping. In 2010, Mr. Beedon called the school district to ask why some trees had been removed. The school district stated there were dangerous trees. In 2011 he spoke with the school district about illegal trash and a fire pit on the property. The school district responded by cleaning up the trash and removing the fire pit. Mr. Beedon quoted an email sent to him by Mr. Mike Rouch of the school district. The email stated, I got the sense this is an important asset to your neighborhood and I wanted our folks to do what we could to restore the beauty there." Mr. Beedon stated the school district had essentially left the property alone. Mr. Beedon stated the trails have been used for recreational walking, running, dog walking, bicycling, socializing, wildlife viewing, and inventorying plants. Kids build forts and tree houses. This area is used extensively for recreation, on a daily basis there are at least a dozen people in there. Over the years, thousands of people have used it. Use of the area has increased due to the informal maintenance of the paths. Aesthetically, the woods are beautiful. It's a wild area with a variety of vegetation and wetlands. The topography is interesting. There are seasonal creeks. It reminds him of the foothills of the Cascades, though with less dramatic topography. Mr. Beedon described wildlife he has seen on the property including bobcat, pileated woodpecker, red headed sapsuckers, ducks, crows, other types of birds, deer, and owls. Mr. Beedon stated there are a rich variety of plants on the property. There are also at least two geocaches on the property. Mr. Beedon showed pictures of stormwater accumulated on the two pipelines on the property. The pipelines drain onto the school district property. Recently, the City of Renton cleaned out drain pipes to improve the drainage and reduce flooding. In response to Mr. McMonagle, Mr. Beedon stated he had hired Mr. Neugebauer in September 2014 to perform studies on the property and review the applicant's studies. The TPWAG had asked the 6f. - City Clerk reports appeal of the Hearing Examiner's final decision upon Page 108 of 517 school district to allow them to do a third party wetland evaluation. The school district denied the request stating it did not further the interest of the school district or the developer. The Examiner asked Mr. McMonagle to tie the historic use of the property to a SEPA impact, noting the public did not have a right to use this property in the first place. How is there an adverse impact under SEPA? There could be a prescriptive use, but the Examiner does not have the authority to adjudicate prescriptive use or adverse possession. The Examiner noted Halverson v. Bellevue, and the limits on restrictions of Hearing Examiner authority, specifically Legune v. Clallam County, and others. The Examiner's authority is limited to those described specifically in the City code. The Examiner asked Mr. McMonagle to provide a brief on the issue of the authority and relevance of the public prescriptive right to the property by November 28th with applicant and City response by December 5th. Mr. Steven Neugebauer of SNR Company is a licensed hydrogeologist and engineering geologist. He presented a PowerPoint presentation highlighting the relevant issues from his report (Exhibit M49). Mr. Neugebauer described his qualifications. He stated the biggest issue with this project is groundwater and the engineering geology of the site. The big thing is the SEPA document is inadequate. His scope for this project is to assess the applicant's studies and to review the environmental impacts of the project. SEPA should produce information regarding impacts. The SEPA checklist is not designed to gather all the impacts. There should be more intensive studies done here because of the intensity of the development and of the surrounding development. There are only preliminary studies, which are inadequate. Mr. Neugebauer stated the history of the site needs to be reviewed as far back as possible. His presentation will focus on the SEPA issues. Only four studies have been incorporated in the SEPA checklist, there are now 22 studies. Mr. Neugebauer described the wildlife corridor link along the greenbelt from the subject to the Cedar River. This is the only significant open area in the local region. The moor is surrounded by development except for this narrow wildlife corridor on the northeast corner. He showed maps dating back to 1865 to show historical water flows. In 1898 the Black River still flowed, the Green River Valley was the White River Valley and the Duwamish Waterway was still a river. There are wetlands shown on the map in this area as back as 1898. The entire regional drainage system has changed since then. The title report shows in 1936 this subject property had been cleared and was owned by the railroad and in 1945 by a Department of Defense corporation. This is an important issue to SEPA because there might have been wartime activity here with potential contaminants. Mr. Neugebauer states there should have been a Phase 1 ESA. Mr. Neugebauer showed the development pattern in 1990. It has been forested since the 1940s. The oldest trees are about 65 years old. Mr. Neugebauer showed the geomorphology of the area. The property had been in a melt water channel from the last ice age that became the Cedar River. Drainage goes both to the southwest and northeast. The area has many depositional environments for soils. There are structural anomalies in 6f. - City Clerk reports appeal of the Hearing Examiner's final decision upon Page 109 of 517 NOrr the area. There are no geological reports performed by the applicant and they couldn't perform their own. He stated there should have been more soils tests, percolation tests, more test pits and borings. There is neither engineering geology nor hydrogeological studies. He showed a geologic map of the area and pointed to geologic issues from the confluence of two seismic faults. This might influence landslide activities. The USGS maps show that the closest fault zone is 3.9 miles, though there may be others nearby that haven't yet been mapped. Geologists look for bend trees and uneven surfaces. There are many bent trees here. That indicates ground movement. The ground is moving slowly and the trees are bending with it. There might be shallow or slightly deeper ground movement. He walked the site, but didn't perform studies because the school district wouldn't allow it. The SEPA documents say there are no structures on the site, but there are treehouses and forts. The site is vacant but not unused. The Opponents state there is no SEPA document, only a report from the City's Environmental Review Committee. Mr. Steven Neugebauer discussed the title report's historical accounts of ownership of the project site (Page 12). There is an easement for a natural gas pipeline. There are several other easements for various purposes. Ms. Rogers asked about the relevance of this testimony. Mr. McMonagle asked Mr. Neugebauer to describe the relevance of this testimony in terms of SEPA. Mr. Neugebauer stated the SEPA checklist asks about potential hazardous wastes on the property. No studies were conducted. The title report shows potential hazardous uses in the past. A phase 1 environmental site assessment should have been conducted. Mr. Neugebauer stated the applicant hadn't shown how they were dealing with the City's drainage easement, which is part of the City's drainage system. Ms. Rogers noted that the drainage easement was released. Mr. Neugebauer stated his concern from a geologic perspective is that there were no geologic or hydrogeologist studies performed for this site. There isn't enough information. This site could have fault zones. Also, there is potential evidence of ground creep or slumps. His specific concern is that these mobile soils must be dealt with, which would require further study. He also stated the SEPA Checklist is wrong because the studies came later. He stated the Checklist was wrong because it ignored recreational activities and recreational structures on the property. Mr. Neugebauer stated 14 days is insufficient to review the many studies that were performed as part of this application. He stated he had reviewed all of the documents and believes an Environmental Impact Statement should have been required. The SEPA Checklist was the only document presented. The SEPA document should show what the conditions are in a summary format. Another issue is the hydrology and geology of the site. The wetland determination by Gary Shultz and the Technical Information Report from Barghausen and the Otak report show groundwater saturation levels that make this site undevelopable. The groundwater will be too high in the rainy season. Mr. Neugebauer referred to the Shultz report. He stated the depth to the water table is zero 6f. - City Clerk reports appeal of the Hearing Examiner's final decision upon Page 110 of 517 err 040 inches below ground level. Groundwater is a flat line, it is not contoured. This site needs additional study to determine how it can be developed. An EIS should be required. Mr. Neugebauer read definitions for various types of groundwater and hydric soils from the USGS. The applicant's report shows so much water there that development without pumps may not be feasible. Groundwater is also protected from pollutants. It's illegal to discharge pollutants into groundwater. Water from the homes cannot be discharged into the wetlands. Mr. Neugebauer stated the AES geotechnical report is not adequate to satisfy SEPA requirements. It stated that in the report. There have not been the extensive studies that should have been prepared. There were inadequate numbers of test pits. Though they acknowledge groundwater will be near the surface in winter (8" from surface), but don't describe how they plan to deal with it. The report was paid for by the school district and was inadequate in scope. The report shows the site has geotechnical critical areas, specifically erosion, site stability and other indicators of shallow ground creep or slumping. The site will need deep infiltration strategies to get the stormwater down below the high water table and into a more permeable layer. There is no capacity for stormwater infiltration on this site. This may be why the developer has chosen a stormwater vault because a pond won't infiltrate. Anything excavated below the surface will have groundwater issues. Drainage ditches will be full of water. If you put a vault where groundwater is at the surface, the vault will have to be tied down to bedrock or it will float out of the ground. There need to be much more detailed studies. The geotechnical report says the slope angles are for areas where groundwater seepage is not present at the face of the slope. There will need to be some sort of temporary de-watering. Mr. Neugebauer stated the water will come back and flood basements and keep stormwater from flowing. Based on our review, the deposits are not the type the report suggests. This soil is impermeable. The AES report assumes the soil is permeable. The soils promote shallow ground creep and slumping. Mr. Neugebauer reviewed the Environmental Review Committee report. He believes it is inadequate and an EIS should have been prepared. This project was done in too many disjointed steps. On page 8 of AES, the report says the wetlands may be groundwater influenced. However, there is no further study to determine what to do. Having groundwater within 8" of the surface is a major issue. There is a 12" culvert discharging stormwater into the wetland. That's illegal under the Clean Water Act. They cannot discharge to a point source. There need to be better studies. The Environmental Review Committee report states the project will result in minimal loss of vegetation to the site. That's impossible given the current proposal. According to the Washington State Department of Fish and Wildlife, there is priority habitat here. The removal of existing vegetation will remove a great deal of the evapotranspiration on this site. The trees may remove as much as 75% of the water from the site. The ERC is more worried about views than the more critical water issues. 6f. - City Clerk reports appeal of the Hearing Examiner's final decision upon Page 111 of 517 Mr. Neugebauer stated the ERC is basing its opinions on studies that are too preliminary. The issue of liquefaction isn't addressed at all. There is no study as to how the displaced groundwater will affect neighbors. Mr. Neugebauer's final point is that there is no cohesive and conclusive SEPA document. You can't make a final environmental determination on a document that doesn't exist. Ms. Timmons asked Mr. Neugebauer if he'd read the drainage report in the application packet. Mr. Neugebauer stated he had. Ms. Timmons asked Mr. Neugebauer to relate his testimony to the drainage report. Mr. Neugebauer stated the applicant put the cart before the horse because there are no studies for groundwater hydrology. There isn't enough information to form a drainage report. In response to the Examiner, Mr. Neugebauer stated he would have done test pits and boring, piezometer studies and look for the groundwater. If the wetlands are there, the groundwater is there. We need additional studies to determine where the water really is. If it's at the surface, the drainage report is incorrect. The Examiner asked if they know the groundwater is, why does there need to be additional study. Mr. Neugebauer stated the drainage plan isn't taking into account the groundwater. A building pad cannot be placed where the groundwater at the surface. Utilities cannot be placed within the groundwater, particularly sewer which would be continuously draining groundwater. Ms. Rogers asked if he was familiar with the 1995 Local Project Review Act (RCW 36.70B). Mr. Neugebauer stated he wasn't. Ms. Rogers asked if Mr. Neugebauer was aware of the SEPA provisions that provide that city regulations can be sufficient to mitigate environmental impacts. Mr. Neugebauer stated he had looked at it and at the requirements for an EIS. Ms. Rogers asked if he had worked with real estate developers who are speculatively buying property. He stated he did and that developers did feasibility studies. He stated phase 1 environmental site assessments (ESA) were common. He had not seen the applicant's Phase 1 ESA and couldn't speak to whether one existed. It is a typical procedure. Ms. Rogers asked if Mr. Neugebauer was familiar with the City's preliminary plat procedures. He responded he was slightly familiar with them. Mr. Neugebauer stated a project of this size would typically have an EIS. He had never seen a development of this size with this much contention without an EIS. Ms. Rogers stated the applicant had prepared a SEPA Checklist June 2014. Mr. Neugebauer was not aware of the newer checklist. In response to Ms. Rogers, Mr. Neugebauer stated the test pits from Mr. Shultz's report were taken throughout the project site, though most are in the wetland areas. He stated there are high levels of water throughout the site because water tables are flat. He stated he was not aware of a 303D listing for any water on the site, though all wetlands are expected to be so listed to allow discharge. 6f. - City Clerk reports appeal of the Hearing Examiner's final decision upon Page 112 of 517 Mr. Neugebauer stated stormwater is being directed to a vault but it will not treat the stormwater for heavy metals. Ms. Rogers referred to the 2012 AES report. The top of page 2 states the site is suitable for buried utilities, paving and structures. Mr. Neugebauer stated they also said additional studies would be conducted. Ms. Rogers asked if he understood that detailed construction and engineering review and much more intensive studies will be conducted before final plat. Mr. Neugebauer reiterated he felt the cart was being placed before the horse in that the SEPA review is now for a reason. It allows for adequate public comment. Later phases do not. Ms. Rogers referred to the aerial photo (Exhibit K6c) and asked Mr. Neugebauer if the project site isn't completely surrounded by similar residential developments. He stated there is forested land around here and existing development is less dense. He did agree there are existing houses and roads surrounding the project. He doesn't know if there are existing geological or hydrological issues affecting the existing homes, however he speculates that may be why the areas to the northeast and east are not developed. Applicant Response Mr. Kevin Jones, Transportation Engineer, Transpo Group, prepared the traffic report for this project. He also reviewed the public comments and will respond to them. He's responding specifically to letters from Mr. Roenicke and Ms. Garlough. Mr. Roenicke was concerned that the traffic counts were conducted in June 2013, a time period when the adjacent elementary school is out for summer. Mr. Jones responded by noting that they acknowledged school was out of session. As such, they added to their counts school traffic based on the enrollment of school at the time, which is within eight students of the current student count. They looked at average trip rates for elementary schools and inflated the counts by 210 AM Peak and 70 PM Peak hour trips. Ms. Garlough claimed to have taken counts themselves and compared them to the Transpo report. Ms. Garlough stated the traffic volume was 30% higher than Transpo's measurements. Mr. Jones agreed that traffic volumes fluctuate day to day; however, the traffic volume in the neighborhood is low. The volumes are low enough that you could double traffic and still have Level of Service (LOS) A or B at all of the surrounding intersections. The intersection operation will stay high and not fall below an acceptable LOS that would require mitigation. Mr. Jones responded to another comment about the impact of new residential traffic on school pedestrian traffic by stating that the overlap in traffic conditions would be in the morning. The residence peak happens after school is out. The projected increase in volumes on Lake Youngs Way is 10-45 +/- trips in the AM Peak hour. This increase, on average, is one vehicle or less per minute during that time period. Traffic volumes fluctuate and there may be an extra car or two in that time period. The school traffic tends to be concentrated in 30 minute intervals. Most of the project traffic won't mix with school traffic volumes. 6f. - City Clerk reports appeal of the Hearing Examiner's final decision upon Page 113 of 517 Mr. Jones spoke to potential safety issues for school pedestrian traffic. He stated there won't be much impact because the volumes are low. Also, they are providing a pedestrian crosswalk at 18th and Lake Youngs Way. Given the speed limits, the pedestrian crossing and relatively small increase in volumes, there do not anticipate a safety hazard. There is concern about visibility on 16th Street and there was a suggestion this is an accident prone area. They review the accident logs from the City for this location. Specifically, they reviewed collision records for SE 16th Street between Beacon Way SE and Lake Youngs Way SE. For a four year period, there were no collisions reported in this area. There is a grade difference between Beacon and Ferndale. They looked at the collision records and measured daily traffic volumes over a seven day period. 16th Street serves about 3,300 vehicles per day. 4.8 million vehicles traveled along that section in four years without a single reported collision. There was one in February of this year, though that was related to icy conditions. Mr. Jones stated the data does not support the assertion this location is a collision prone location. They will also add additional signage on the north side of 16th Street indicating there is an intersection approaching. The geometrics of the road make it difficult to see the intersection. There is a sign now recommending speed limits of 15 mph in this area. There are sidewalks along the route to the school (Exhibit A9, Figure 1). Mr. Jones responded to a comment from Ponderosa Estates. Residents in this subdivision are concerned about long waits nearby intersections, specifically the intersection labelled Intersection 13 in the Transpo report. They evaluated the intersection from a delay standpoint in the AM and PM Peak. The intersection was not originally reviewed, but was added at the City's request. The review of this intersection was this year while school was in session. Based on the data and the stop control of this intersection, they found this intersection has 15 seconds of average delay or less. The delay will not significantly increase with this development looking out to 2018. It's currently 13 seconds in both the AM and PM Peak. The LOS is B now and will stay that way. This is an acceptable delay under the City's standards. No change in traffic control is necessary. Another issue with respect to school traffic is whether there will need to be extra traffic control personnel from the school. Mr. Jones stated he didn't know, but that the use of traffic crossing guards is a typical occurrence in this area. He doesn't anticipate the school district will need to hire traffic control personnel they don't already have. Mr. McMonagle asked Mr. Jones about the changes from the original to the revised traffic study. Mr. Jones stated that in both cases, there were the two proposed entrances there are right now. Mr. McMonagle asked Mr. Jones to explain the route persons in the subdivision would use to get out to a minor arterial. Mr. Jones stated that 60% of the Tiffany Park traffic was assumed to go to the west and the remainder would go south. Of the westbound traffic, they assumed the majority of it would go to SE 16th Street via some route. They would then access Edmonds Avenue. They revised the study because there was a lot of public comment about the absence of that intersection in the study. For the southbound traffic, they assumed the traffic would mostly go to SE 18th Street to Lake 6f. - City Clerk reports appeal of the Hearing Examiner's final decision upon Page 114 of 517 vr/ Youngs Way. Some would go to SE 16th Street; others would go to Royal Hills. Other traffic would go to Beacon, Ferndale or other routes to SE 16th Street and Edmonds Avenue. He stated SE 16th Street had more grade than SE 18th Street; otherwise the roadway geometry was comparable. Mr. McMonagle asked Mr. Jones about the development's proposed roads. Mr. Jones stated the development will have roads designed to the current standards. Ms. Racheal Villa, of Soundview Consultants, described her experience and qualifications. Her company conducted the fish and wildlife habitat assessment for the property (Exhibit K, page 40). Together, all the scientists who worked on this report have about 80 years of experience. She is a qualified senior author for biological assessments under WSDOT, which is fairly unique. Ms. Villa stated she had visited the project site. She was hired to perform supplementary wetlands review for fish and wildlife habitat. They reviewed the wetlands assessment. They reviewed lists of species from the USFW and the WA DFW for priority habitats and species offsite associated with the Cedar River corridor. There was nothing specifically mapped on site, so they looked to see what was on-site. In their normal critical areas assessment, they would usually incorporate wetlands and habitat scientists. They found nothing specifically listed for priority protection. They reviewed a wider area for noise and stormwater impacts (Exhibit A, Attachment 16). Ms. Villa noted the habitat here is fairly disturbed on a large scale basis. There is a lot of human intrusion. It's not directly connected to the Cedar River corridor. There are trees, but the wildlife has to cross the 60 foot wide water easement, cross a residential road, cross residential yards, cross a 40% slope and then the Bonneville Power Administration's easement to the Cedar River corridor. It's discontinuous, isolated and highly disturbed. The prior testimony documents that by mentioning the extensive use practiced here. Ms. Villa stated they looked at all potentially regulated species on site including all state and federal listed species and habitat. They found habitat potentially associated with pileated woodpeckers and Townsend's bat, both Washington State listed species. Ms. Villa stated there is a great deal of woodpecker activity. She didn't see nests, but she did see snags. Pileated woodpeckers utilize 1,480 acres, which would include the whole Cedar River corridor. It is possible the woodpeckers are foraging on site. Woodpeckers are a residential, non-migratory species. Ms. Villa stated Townsend's bats might use the site seasonally during the summer for foraging for insects. The DFW would require protecting wetlands, associated buffers and large trees. Ms. Villa stated the plat will not result in a loss of significant, protected habitat for these two listed species. Ms. Villa stated the bobcat is not a listed species. It's a hunted species that doesn't have specific requirements for habitat protection. Ms. Rogers asked Ms. Villa her opinion of the impact of the proposed project. Ms. Villa stated if the wetlands and buffers are protected and off-leash dogs and people on bikes were kept out, the 6f. - City Clerk reports appeal of the Hearing Examiner's final decision upon Page 115 of 517 wetlands would be better protected than they are now. A typical buffer around a critical area is split rail, which does not keep wildlife out. They function to keep humans and their pets out. Ms. Rogers asked Ms. Villa to summarize her November 18, 2014 memo. Ms. Villa summarized the letter by saying they reviewed for potentially regulated species and habitats in accordance with the City of Renton's codes. They concluded the proposal will not likely cause adverse impact on listed species or critical habitats with implementation of best management practices. Protection of wetlands, buffers and significant trees are proposed. She also mentioned the current condition with anthropogenic structures, unleashed pets and many other disturbances to wildlife currently occurring on the site. With respect to non-game species, they were surveyed in the review. She reiterated this is a highly disturbed, isolated patch. Ms. Villa discussed the stormwater filtration system which will remove many pollutants. There is no direct downstream connection to Ginger Creek, which is a tributary to Cedar River. The plan as proposed will protect the downstream areas. Mr. McMonagle stated he didn't understand the description of the critical areas fence. Ms. Villa described what a wooden, split rail fence looks like. Mr. Gary Schulz is a wetlands ecologist. Mr. Schultz described his education and qualifications. He is a sole proprietor who does habitat assessments, mitigation planning, and wetland and stream studies. He is a water and sewer district commissioner. Ms. Rogers asked Mr. Schultz if he had visited the project site. He stated he had, many times. His work was focused on wetland delineation and stream identification. He used the ACOS, the DOE Wetlands Manual. He put transects on the property and walked the site in a pattern to determine the location of wetlands. He delineated the wetlands. His delineation was reviewed by Otak, the City's peer reviewer. Mr. Schultz concluded the wetlands are isolated and separated from downstream habitats and water. The southern pipeline dams the site and prevents the flow of surface water off site. They are pocket depressions that are influenced by perched groundwater on a seasonal basis. He visited the site during March and June to view where the water was by season. Ms. Rogers asked if Mr. Schultz tracks weather patterns. He stated he used the SeaTac rainfall record. His review was conducted in March 2014, when the rainfall was 5-6 inches above normal for that time of year. According to the news, it was record breaking month, though he couldn't quote the record. Ms. Rogers asked Mr. Schultz about shallow groundwater and the data plots described by Mr. Neugebauer. Mr. Schultz stated they were all near wetlands boundaries. Mr. Schultz reviewed these extra data points at the request of Otak. Mr. Schultz stated Mr. Neugebauer used the term `aquake regime'. This term means hydric soils. A lot of these plots were outside the wetland boundaries and didn't have hydric soils. They aren't part of the wetland, though it was a wet time of year. Mr. Schultz stated the soils on site are Alderwood, which typically overlay an impervious till layer. 6f. - City Clerk reports appeal of the Hearing Examiner's final decision upon Page 116 of 517 Perched, seasonal high water is common. Mr. Schultz stated the areas that will be wet in the winter will be protected. In June 2013, there was no water at all on site. Mr. McMonagle asked Mr. Schultz whether he's a hydrogeologist. Mr. Schultz stated he wasn't. He is a wetland ecologist. Mr. McMonagle asked if Mr. Schultz can interpret hydrology. Mr. Schultz stated delineating wetlands requires an understanding of wetland hydrology, though he didn't provide either a hydrology report or a geologic report. Mr. Ray Coglas, of Earth Solutions NW, described his education and qualifications. He is a licensed geotechnical engineer. He's been a registered geoengineer since 1998. He is the president of Earth Solutions NW. Mr. Coglas stated he had been present for the TPWAG testimony and had visited the project site. He submitted a letter as part of the exhibit package (Exhibit K, page 33). Ms. Rogers asked Mr. Coglas to discuss his letter and his response to Mr. Neugebauer. Ms. Rogers asked to discuss the soil and groundwater characteristics on the site, specifically as they related to the ability to develop the project. Mr. Coglas stated his role was initially to review the AES report. His portion was review of prior reports, field surveys and review of public comments. With respect to the AES report and some of the testimony he'd heard, the AEA report is standard practice. The site is fairly to moderately sloping site, mainly glacial till though there may be some outwash. The level of investigation that was done as part of the AES report was similar to what his firm would have done. A lot of time geotechnical reports are driven by the proposed use. Kurt Merryman authored the AES report. He is reputable. The report was valid. They adequately characterized on site conditions. The one thing that stood out to Mr. Coglas is that AES didn't throw up any red flags. There's nothing in the report that would suggest major problems. AES was working for the school district and would have been required to tell the district if they thought there would be issues for development. All sites are unique, however this is a typical glacial till site. The level of investigation was appropriate with test pits. If it had been him, he'd done the same type of review for the intended use. If this was proposed to be a 25 story office building with three levels of underground parking, then far more intensive study would have been needed. The analysis that was done was appropriate for the scale of the site and proposed type and intensity of use. In preparing his summary, he looked at all that. He agrees with the AES conclusions. A lot of what a geotechnical engineer does is determining the scope of analysis needed. They could have done a lot more, but the budget and type of project didn't require it. Most of the activity will be near surface and low intensity. Ms. Rogers asked if there would be additional geotechnical analysis to support construction and engineering design at the permit stage. Mr. Coglas stated as far as the actual engineering of the project when it comes to assigning actual values for designer, his firm will prepare a geotechnical report that may or may not include more information. The final design isn't finished, so they don't know yet where they'll need more specific information. 6f. - City Clerk reports appeal of the Hearing Examiner's final decision upon Page 117 of 517 With respect to shallow groundwater, Mr. Coglas stated there is groundwater in the northwest. He stated the various depths of groundwater testified to before (6", 8", or 2'), AES characterizes the water table at 8' in depth during the summer. It fluctuates seasonally. There's nothing in the AES report suggesting 2' in the summer. It reports 8' in depth. The thing he wants to point out is this site is a perched groundwater condition. Glacial till is dense and cemented and does not allow vertical penetration of surface water to depth. That's common. He is not surprised that during wetland studies they encountered shallow or ponding water in the depressional wetland areas. To suggest the whole site will be underwater is not consistent with a perched groundwater table. There are recessional sands at the surface that allow water to pass through. That water then gets trapped in the impervious layer. He deals with groundwater on all of his projects. It is not a condition that precludes development. There's nothing unique to the plot of Tiffany Park or its surrounds geologically speaking. The Kent Valley is a flat, deep alluvial deposit with a level groundwater table that fluctuates evenly across the valley floor. The Kent Valley is like a deep bathtub. That's not the case here. The till layer is shallow and undulating in Tiffany Park. The elevation change across Tiffany Park is 40'. For example, if the groundwater table were level here, a change in 40' in elevation across the site would cause most of it to be underwater. That's not the case. There are seep environments that are seasonally wet, but they are localized based on the topography and glacial till layer. Groundwater seepage is managed during construction; it doesn't preclude construction. Mr. Rogers asked Mr. Coglas to discuss managing stromwater during construction, specifically, will the stormwater vault float? Mr. Coglas stated that almost every single project he's on has stormwater facilities, many of them are vaults. He's done hundreds of vaults. They look at excavation, the base, storage capacity, stability of the side slopes, and backfill. Tiffany Park is not an environment where he would be concerned with buoyancy of his vault structure. There might be a large seep at the beginning of the cut because of built up water pressure. This usually attenuates over time as the trapped water is drained. They always put a footing drain around the vault if they are concerned the groundwater seam might create excess hydrostatic pressure on the concrete walls. They aren't concerned about buoyancy here. He has done projects that do have buoyancy issues. In that case, there are many best management practices to prevent the vault from being displaced. Ms. Rogers asked to turn back to the AES report. She asked Mr. Coglas to discuss the log reports for the test pits. Mr. Coglas stated geotechnical engineers dig test pits to evaluate soil profiles. Notes suggesting no caving or seepage are very useful because it speaks to the strength of the soil. Groundwater seepage is different from the groundwater table. In the Kent Valley, they would call any water they found the groundwater table, rather than seepage. In this case, there is a difference. Mr. Rogers noted Mr. Neugebauer asked for additional studies. Mr. Coglas described his report and its detail of the geological hazards on site. Mr. Coglas stated there were no slopes that met the City's criteria for sensitive or protected areas. There are some local, isolated areas that may meet the 40% criteria, but as a geotechnical engineer, he looks at stability. The code specifies the boundaries. Mr. Coglas stated there are no landslide hazards or high erosion hazards on the project site. 6f. - City Clerk reports appeal of the Hearing Examiner's final decision upon Page 118 of 517 err'` Erosion is something to be managed. They derive the characterization of erosion from the USDA now NRCS) soil characterization. These soil types were derived for agriculture. When working fields, it was good to know which soils had high erosion qualities. In development, the type of erosion hazard is not significant. Tiffany Park has some slight to moderate erosion areas. However, they control erosion through many different methodologies. The final product is stabilized. Erosion is managed through engineering solutions. Mr. Coglas stated there are no seismic hazards on this property. The Seattle fault is 3.7 miles north. We live in a tectonically active environment. There might be a splay or other features under Tiffany Park, but none are known. It's important to know that the residential building code for this area is sufficient to offset seismic risk in this region. A more intense structure or development would require more studies, but low density residential development does not. There is a low seismic hazard here, according to the City. With respect to coal mine hazards, Mr. Coglas stated they had reviewed the coal mine maps. AES also addressed this. They are outside the boundary where further study is needed for coal mine hazards. Mr. Coglas stated there are no potential adverse environmental impacts in relation to geotechnical issues. In response to the Examiner, Mr. Coglas stated he was hired as peer review for the AES report. He was also hired to respond to public comments. Mr. Coglas stated he disagreed with Mr. Neugebauer's conclusions the entire site is somehow going to be underwater or flooded. The groundwater is perched on glacial till that undulates and is uneven. Mr. Coglas said in these environments, based on studies and his experience, it's likely there will be some groundwater seepage when they do utility excavations or cuts/fills. This is not a site that will require dewatering or extensive pumping. The groundwater table is perched with various, isolated seams. In the Kent Valley, pulling water out would draw the whole water table down. This isn't the case here. The water table will be shallow near the wetlands. The AES report, except for the narrative, doesn't document any observed groundwater in the test pits. In exploration pit #6, they noted weak groundwater seepage below 8 feet. It was the dry season. The Examiner asked if Mr. Neugebauer is correct in his conclusion the groundwater level is at zero elevation, would that cause a problem for construction. Mr. Coglas said that would be a problem, but that is not the case. However, if it was at zero elevation, they could manage it. The stormwater system might need to change, but it could be feasibility changed. Mr. Coglas stated the notion that the groundwater is right at the surface everywhere on the project is absurd. Mr. McMonagle asked Mr. Coglas about the test logs in the back of the AES report. Mr. Coglas stated the pits were all test excavations, rather than borings. He agreed there were 12 test pits on the 22 acres dug on September 6, 2012. He agreed all of the pits were done on the same day (Exhibit 6f. - City Clerk reports appeal of the Hearing Examiner's final decision upon Page 119 of 517 A7, Figure 2). Mr. Coglas stated he is a licensed civil engineer, not a licensed geologist or hydrogeologist. They have them on staff. He reviews those reports and has studied these specialties. He's familiar with the two basic groundwater environments at this site. Mr. McMonagle referred to Page 1 of the AES report that there is a caution the report should be reviewed and revised to support a specific development proposal. Mr. Coglas stated he was retained in October 2014. He was hired to provide peer review of the AES report, prepare a site evaluation, review the plat proposal and provide feedback on community comments. Mr. McMonagle asked if Mr. Coglas had done physical investigation of the site. Mr. Coglas said he had not and was unsure of whether he would be asked to going forward. He anticipates what he would do on a follow up report which would include further review of plat plans. Mr. Coglas stated construction is done year round right now. He prepares different recommendations to deal with groundwater, depending on the season. With respect to the vault, the physical dimension for this vault is very large, but he doesn't know exactly how big. His role is to help the contractor to install the vault and deal with any groundwater or geotechnical issues to ensure the vault is installed correctly and will function. The vault will probably be 12-18' deep. They will have 100 times more bearing capacity than is needed. There will be a soil cap. He'll look at the stability of the excavation to ensure the walls hold. Mr. Coglas showed where the stormwater vault will be located on the plat. Mr. Coglas agreed the deepest test pit was 10.5', though he's gone deeper on other projects. The shallowest test pit was 8'. He agreed the only test pit in the vicinity of the vault was Test Pit#11, to a depth of 8.5'. Ms. Rogers asked Mr. Coglas to clarify his role in the project going forward. He stated his firm is the geotechnical engineer of record and will assume that role going forward. Mr. Barry Talkington, of Barghausen Consulting Engineers, is the civil engineer for the project and designed the plat. Mr. Talkington spoke of the drainage release on the title. A drainage release states there is stormwater leaving a property and draining on another property. It is not an easement with an exact location. His design of the plat addressed the release by looking at upstream drainage basins around the property. The drainage release in the title is for the Ponderosa subdivision, at least a half mile from the property. It is uphill, but there is no physical way water can drain from that property on to the project property. The drainage release was executed in 1965, before much of the present development was constructed. The drainage release described the entire section (640 acres). It's just an historical remainder. Mr. Talkington stated discharging clean stormwater into wetlands is a common practice. The drainage is discharged into the buffer to recharge the hydrology of the wetland. With respect to street widths, the streets inside the project are narrower than in the surrounding communities, in conformance with current city code. 6f. - City Clerk reports appeal of the Hearing Examiner's final decision upon Page 120 of 517 hr' Mr. Talkington stated the preliminary plat process starts with city approval. The next step is preparation of full construction plans and drainage reports. Additional information will be requested from sub-consultants. They prepared a preliminary drainage report for the general storm drainage design. They will do a final, more specific drainage report next. The final drainage report is usually a fine tuning, though there may be changes that require more extensive revisions. Mr. McMonagle asked if Barghausen Consulting is an engineering firm. Mr. McMonagle asked whether Barghausen was paid hourly from the consultant or as a contingent fee. Mr. Talkington stated it wasn't contingent. Staff Response Mr. Steve Lee, City of Renton Development Engineering Manager, described his position with the City and his relevant work experience and qualifications. Mr. Lee he had reviewed the project files and performed a site visit. He has experience in the Cedar River area for the last ten years. Mr. Lee responded to Mr. Neugebauer's testimony. He stated Mr. Neugebauer's points were very general. Most of the issues Mr. Neugebauer raises were dealt with well by Mr. Coglas. Mr. Lee stated the Cedar River issues will always be present. The river system is young and new. There have been sloughing issues, but they were caused by deforestation in the early 20th century, earthquakes and other acts of nature. The Cedar River is now controlled by the US Army Corp of Engineers (ALOE). There is a bit of control in the form of two upstream dams. Seattle Public Utilities (SPU) has the capability of metering the flow of the Cedar River. Within the last five years, there was an 80 year event of 10,000cfs. In the past, that would have causes landslides and flooding at Boeing. That didn't occur because of the controls in place by the ACOE and SPU. Mr. Lee stated Mr. Coglas has performed at least 20 projects in the City of Renton. He is correct in his review of the geotechnical study by AES. The site is very similar to other sites in the city. The steep areas are very small (15-20' feet long) and do not warrant slope stability analysis. Overall on the project site, the approximate slope is 10% or so. The City does not require additional slope stability analysis. With respect to the number of test pits in the AES study, Mr. Lee stated there were sufficient numbers of test pits to gauge impacts of potential groundwater on site. He would have preferred to see a few more, especially in the vault area. However, as Mr. Coglas testified, the City may require extra analysis. He stated he does not typically require additional geotechnical analysis at this stage of the process. They may ask for deeper borings or excavation pits. The residential nature of this proposal wouldn't usually require it. They will look at this again to determine if more geotechnical information is needed for the walls, cuts, grading and the stromwater vault. Mr. Lee felt the information provided was adequate to allow for a determination of impact on the site. The AES didn't mention issues of groundwater on the site. Therefore, they didn't feel the need to require secondary review. The City determined the AES report was adequate. 6f. - City Clerk reports appeal of the Hearing Examiner's final decision upon Page 121 of 517 SAW Mr. Lee spoke to the stormwater drainage issues. The only concern the City may have is the placement of the vault. They may require additional and deeper test pits to determine if there is groundwater that would have a detrimental effect on the vault structure. In that instance, they will do a buoyancy calculation to determine the static water volume. A certain amount of water will hold the vault down. They need to know how much water that is and when it will be in the vault. In response to Ms. Timmons, Mr. Lee stated the storm drainage water will be pre-treated and will prevent polluted water from running off into the wetlands. The vault will treat all PGIS run off and discharge to a closed conveyance system. None of the pollution generating systems will discharge into a wetland. Mr. Lee stated the City of Renton will require a Level 2 downstream analysis to describe the downstream conveyance after leaving the site. They are uncertain of a segment of the pipeline that takes the water. They want to make sure there is no downstream flooding. An NPDES permit will be required for the project. The permit stipulates allowable discharge into a conveyance system. That will include background monitoring as well as discharge monitoring. All of the requirements must be met before a building permit or construction permits are issued. Mr. Lee summarized the local, state and federal code requirements. The applicant has complied with all code requirements. He stated these codes are sufficient to address all probable stormwater impacts. He said the Seattle pipeline is monitored by SPU. If they see even a fraction of a movement in that hillside, they'll know. This is the drinking water in the City of Seattle. In response to the Examiner, Mr. Lee stated the deep, static groundwater level was uniformly along the wetland level at the project, it could affect the development. They would discover this instance during construction. If grades are lower than the wetland level, they will require more borings and test pits. The Examiner asked if the code regulations would allow the City to ask for more borings. Mr. Lee stated it comes down to professional liability as defined in the RCW. The person stamping the plans is responsible. The City is responsible for life safety only. The engineering staff can require more borings if they think there might be an issue. If there are groundwater issues present, the proposed vault is the best solution. In response to Ms. Rogers, Mr. Lee stated there is a difference between the perched groundwater table and the static, deeper groundwater level. There are no indications of the static groundwater level above 8'. Mr. Lee agreed with Mr. Coglas' assertion that the surface groundwater could be addressed during construction. Mr. McMonagle asked if Mr. Lee was aware the geotechnical report was prepared for the school district rather than the applicant. Mr. Lee stated he was. Mr. McMonagle asked if there shouldn't have been at least one test pit per acre. Mr. Lee stated the geotechnical engineering consultant will get a representative sampling of the site. They add more bores if they see dissimilarities in the site. Mr. McMonagle asked if Mr. Lee was aware AES limited its number of test pits based on budgetary 6f. - City Clerk reports appeal of the Hearing Examiner's final decision upon Page 122 of 517 Wrr' 4010 constraints. Mr. Lee stated he was not aware of this. With respect to the stormwater, Mr. Lee stated the initial design was for a pond but changed to a vault sometime this year. Mr. McMonagle asked if the vault addition would typically trigger the need for additional review. Mr. Lee stated they would typically ask for more information but they haven't yet requested more geotechnical information from the applicant. Ms. Timmons asked if the City can get the extra information in an engineering packet. Mr. Lee stated it could. Ms. Rocale Timmons stated the studies provided by the applicant; especially the technical studies will be fine-tuned in detail at the time of construction permit submittal. These studies are used to determine if there are probably adverse impacts from the development. The appellant has asserted there hasn't been adequate time to review the proposal and the attendant studies. This project has been in review for nine months. The file has been available. The appellant has been provided with these studies, including the revised studies from June 2013. There were two Notices of Application released. Ms. Timmons entered Exhibit AK. The September 2014 notice included the revised SEPA checklist. With respect to wetlands, the City asked for a third party study. That study was completed by Otak. Otak provided two separate memos in response to revised studies from Mr. Schultz. Otak affirmed the final wetland determination (Exhibit A5). Otak determined there was a wetland missed by the applicant. The studies were revised to acknowledge the fifth wetland on-site. Otak then affirmed all of the revisions made by Mr. Schultz. Staff agrees with the TPWAG appellant regarding tree preservation for wildlife on site. With respect to transportation, staff agrees with testimony provided by Mr. Jones of Transpo Group. Perteet, the City's consultant, concurred with the Transpo study. They feel all potential impacts are mitigated. Staff agrees with the testimony provided by Ms. Villa with respect to critical areas and buffers. Applicant Rebuttal Ms. Rogers stated the applicant agrees with staff on every issue with the exception of the requirement of a 15 foot buffer. Appellant Rebuttal Mr. Neugebauer stated he was concerned about the stormwater vault filter. There are no specifications on this. He has never seen a filter that can remove dissolved metals. He is concerned about the maintenance of the filter. Who will change it or maintain it? 6f. - City Clerk reports appeal of the Hearing Examiner's final decision upon Page 123 of 517 W me Mr. Neugebauer said he's been practicing hydrogeology for 33 years. He stated perched groundwater doesn't occur on slopes. The water drains through. The groundwater follows the contour of the land. He stated the unsaturated zone flow is at negative pressure. Groundwater is at atmospheric pressure. The applicant is describing an impossible scenario. They can see the groundwater through pressure gradients. He stated the water table at an elevation is a water table. He stated they are using the applicant's information which is incomplete. The groundwater will go with the slope of the ground. Either the water's at the surface and there is a wetland or it's not. In the upper 30", the bioturbation zone, the ground is unsaturated. The water flows through the pore space and creates a vacuum behind it. There is just not enough information to really say where the groundwater is and where it's going. Finally, Mr. Neugebauer stated groundwater is regulated under the Clean Water Act. Point sources cannot be wetland hydrology. Preliminary Plat Staff Testimony Ms. Rocale Timmons gave a PowerPoint presentation (Exhibit AL). The site is located in the Benson Hill community planning area in the Tiffany Park neighborhood. It is 22 acres located in the R8 zone. It is bordered by the Cedar River Pipeline and the Mercer Island Pipeline. There are 1,300 trees on this vacant site. It is owned by the Renton School District. It is surrounded by existing single family residences. It ties into two existing street stubs which will be extended into the site. The applicant is requesting critical areas exemptions and preliminary plat approval. The City has received 72 comment letters. Staff was present at a community meeting held by TPWAG and conducted a separate meeting in September 2014. On September 22, the Environmental Review Committee (ERC) issued a MDNS decision with 11 mitigation measures. Two appeals were filed. The environmental determination did not include new issues related to zoning, permitted uses, density, construction mitigation, and others. The applicant is proposing 97 lots. There is a 96 lot proposal to allow 30% retention of trees. There will be a 5.7 du/acre density. Average lot size is 5,400sf. The site has five wetlands (three Category II and two Category III). The applicant is proposing buffer reductions with mitigation in the form of buffer extensions. The applicant is asking for a critical areas exemption for the extension of SE 18th Street to allow for a small buffer impact. Staff supports the requested exemption. Staff relied heavily on the Comprehensive Plan. There are many significant trees, critical areas, wildlife and an established density and use pattern that are unique. Ms. Timmons described the Comprehensive Plan policies the staff relied on in their analysis. The staff attempted to provide harmony and balance between existing and new neighborhoods. The proposal complies with the Comprehensive Plan as conditioned. 6f. - City Clerk reports appeal of the Hearing Examiner's final decision upon Page 124 of 517 14W 1400 The proposal meets most bulk and dimensional standards if all conditions of approval are met. The only issue is Lot 19. This lot may not meet minimum lot width standards, but will be conditioned to meet the standard. The applicant has provided a landscape plan. This plan does not comply with the code, but could with minor modifications. Per the development standards, there are several proposed walls ranging from 4' to 21' on-site. These walls are outside the height limit. Staff has requested a height limit on walls. Staff would be open to terracing of walls to reduce the overall height. With respect to critical areas, most requirements are met with conditions. The applicant has asked for modifications to wetland buffers. There are impacts from walls that must be revised. There were public comments related to habitat. The site provides habitat for non-listed species. The tree preservation plan is sufficient to provide habitat. Based on the provided tree inventory, approximately 679 trees were excluded from retention calculations. At least 188 trees must be preserved on site or replaced at a mitigation ratio to allow 30% tree retention. The applicant proposes to protect 181 trees and mitigate seven others. In terms of the analysis from subdivision regulations, the proposal complies if all conditions of approval are met. The applicant must provide a safe crossing for the trail. In response to the Examiner, Ms. Timmons stated there is no applicable street plan in the area. There were several comments regarding transportation issues. The proposed development would generate 1,000 weekday trips. Intersections near the project would remain at acceptable levels of service. A SEPA mitigation measure requires a new stop sign at Monroe Avenue. Staff has included an additional condition of approval to address sight distance concerns. Staff has also recommended additional signage. Staff feels as conditioned, all impacts for transportation are mitigated. With respect to residential lots, there are several pipe stem lots. Staff would like to see the applicant revise these lots to comply with code or provide for shared driveways. Shared driveways are preferred to reduce curb cuts. Parks, police and fire staff indicate there are sufficient resources to support the development if all fees are paid. Adequate provisions for safe walking conditions for students are provided. Sidewalks will be constructed to connect to the existing sidewalk system. Staff has recommended a SEPA mitigation measure to include a crosswalk improvement at Lake Youngs Way at SE 18th Street. Adequate provision for water and sewer are provided. The drainage report complies with the 2009 Stormwater Manual. There will be a vault within Tract A. The applicant will need to provide a downstream analysis for stormwater conveyance. 6f. - City Clerk reports appeal of the Hearing Examiner's final decision upon Page 125 of 517 AW In response to the Examiner, Ms. Timmons stated there will be no alley access. This proposal does not meet the threshold. There are two zones on the property. Applicant Testimony Ms. Rogers presented a letter describing the applicant's rationale for revised conditions of approval along with a set of revised conditions for the plat (Exhibits AM and AN, respectively). Ms. Rogers asked for approval of the plat subject to revised conditions. They are generally supportive of the staff report. They have a few areas of disagreement. Ms. Rogers wanted to emphasize a point that the client is under contract to purchase the project from the Renton School District. This is surplus land the district cannot use. Ms. Rogers noted they are asking for revisions to Conditions 4, 5, 6, 9, and 16-18. They are requesting additional changes to conditions to fix typographical errors, repetition, and non-contested issues. The City has recently changed its justification for Condition 3 for the 15 foot buffer. The City had originally erroneously relied on incorrect Comprehensive Plan policies. They are now turning to policies that also don't support the need for a buffer. Aesthetics are not an adequate basis to impose a perimeter buffer. There is already an average 50 foot perimeter buffer proposed along with two pipelines. There is no need for an additional buffer. With respect to Condition 4, they have proposed a modification to the location of curb bulb outs. They feel the City will agree with this revision. Condition 5 is the biggest issue. This is the condition that City is asserting that retaining walls must be limited to 4 feet in the front yard and 6 feet in the back yard. The City is referencing a condition related to aesthetic dividers, not retaining walls. None of the retaining walls concepts are referenced in this condition. Even if this particular code were to apply, the measurement of height does not apply. The walls they have designed are essential to the design of the plat. Exhibit AM, Attachment B, are two staff reports for current amendments to the walls and hedges section of the code. Title 4 does not have standards for retaining walls. Exhibit AM, Attachment C is a city handout that establishes a difference between fences, hedges and walls and engineered retaining walls. Exhibit AM, Attachment D is the pre-application memo for the original meeting Henley had with the City. You never get a written report again until you see the Hearing Examiner. The City stated the proposed retaining walls are not subject to the fences portion of the code. Even if the code has recently changed, they are vested to the old code. If the retaining walls are reduced or eliminated, we'll end up doing more grading. That will result in impact to trees and increased construction impacts. They have submitted a grading plan with reduced retaining wall heights. Conditions 6 and 16 are about shared private driveways. They are concerned the City is demanding an extra lot use the shared private driveways. There is a specific instance when this will not work. 6f. - City Clerk reports appeal of the Hearing Examiner's final decision upon Page 126 of 517 rot 10` Condition 9 is the wetland mitigation associated with Wetland E, at the southeast section of the site. The wetland mitigation plans show they have already exceeded the required buffer. They have to extend the street. The critical areas exemption is for 14sf of impact from the required sidewalk. The City has asked for additional buffer area. They disagree but will agree to provide enhanced plantings. Condition 17 is a typographical error. Condition 18 is related to pipe stem lots which are really about the shared driveway issue. Mr. Gary Schultz, the wetland ecologist, described the mitigation impacts the applicant is providing. His testimony is specifically related to Condition 9. Mr. Schultz described the 1,331sf of additional buffer the applicant is.proposing. Ms. Rogers stated Ms. Timmons agreed to the revised Conditions 1, 4, 9, 13 and 17. Ms. Timmons stated they disagree with applicant revised Conditions 3, 5, 6, and 16. In response to the Examiner, Ms. Vanessa Dolby, stated she would not be opposed to changing Condition 5 to allow them to request a variance. She could not comment on whether staff would support a variance. These would be administrative variances. Ms. Rogers stated that they did not apply for a variance because they were told they didn't need to. Mr. Barry Talkington spoke to the difference between cut and fill walls. A cut is needed when the finished lot grade is below the existing grade. The wall stabilizes the grade. A fill wall includes fill on top of existing grade. The finished lot is above existing grade. This is and engineered wall with reinforcing fabric. Mr. Talkington stated the revised plan reduces the 21' high wall above Tract A and the 18' high wall along the Cedar River Pipeline. That wall will come down to 6'. The height from the high side of the walls is zero if they apply the code in effect when they submitted. In their case, the finished grade is the top of the wall. Mr. Talkington described the limits on site grading imposed by two entrances, ADA standards, etc. The overall objective is to balance cut/fill on site. They are limited by the road access and ADA standards for road slopes through intersections. They can only change grades on site so much. As the plan is laid out there are grade differences from lot to lot that requires walls. They attempt to maximize lot areas and reduce impacts to surrounding buffers. If they meet the City's conditions, they will lose lots, reduce lot sizes and impact the buffers. Use of walls allows them to decrease impacts. For Conditions 6 and 16, Mr. Talkington spoke to a set of maps (Exhibit AO) depicting the shared driveway plans. He prepared the plans. For lots 9-14, the shared driveway easement will be used Lots 12-14. Lot 14 has direct access to the cul-de-sac but there will be no driveway there. The City would also require Lot 11 to use this driveway. This is not desirable because the driveway would be at an angle to the roadway which would also change the design of the house to allow side loading of 6f. - City Clerk reports appeal of the Hearing Examiner's final decision upon Page 127 of 517 rrr rr r" the garage. The City is attempting to apply the amended code to the plot rather than the code under which the project vested. The staff Report stated Lot 14 had inadequate frontage. This has been corrected. For Lots 15-17, they had originally designed the shared driveway to service Lots 15 and 16. They have now included Lot 17 on the shared easement. They have also corrected the frontage of Lot 17 to comply with code. Next to Lots 15-17, there is a pedestrian tract. For Lots 38-40, the issue is the same as for Lots 15-17. They have revised the lots to allow Lot 38 to comply with the width requirement and access the shared easement. For Lots 79-81, Lot 81 was added to allow access to the shared right of way. Lot 78 will not access the shared driveway. With the applicant's revised condition language, they are willing to ensure access to shared driveways for three lots rather than the City's suggested four. Public Testimony Ms. Jill Jones is a Renton resident. She's heard experts testifying and noted that many of these people testifying have not walked the roads. She has lived there and walked therefor years. This is a valuable resource. The Cedar River corridor cannot be walked by residents. There is no access here because it is steep. The woods are fully canopied, with easy trails. Henley says because the development is single family residences, they shouldn't have to provide a buffer. The development is much denser than the existing neighborhoods. The trees are mature and were pre-existing 30 years ago. The road is wide. There are many trees. Grass planting strips absorb the rain. Ms. Jones showed an example of other Henley developments that have no trees and narrow parking strips. The homes will be taller and larger than the existing houses on much smaller lots. There will be no stormwater areas. Currently Tiffany Park floods in heavy storms. She has serious doubts about the ability to provide adequate stormwater drainage. She also observed a pileated woodpecker in the woods on April 14, 2014. Ms. Beedon would like to ask the Examiner to walk the woods before he makes a decision. This is important. She has listened to all of the testimony. The experts seem to care but they have shown no concern about what they are tearing down. This piece of wood should be preserved. They are taking away something irreplaceable. She feels this piece of property should be preserved for future generations and all of us. She asked the Examiner to walk this area. Also, she has observed pileated woodpecker nests in these woods. They don't migrate. This is not about not wanting development. This is about preserving a precious piece of woods. She wouldn't care if they built a prison there is it was cleared. This is about nature and the trees. She can't imagine all these trees being torn down. If the citizens hadn't become active, the forest would be clear cut. They have a right as citizens to be heard and care about the environment. 6f. - City Clerk reports appeal of the Hearing Examiner's final decision upon Page 128 of 517 W*` Ms. Barbara Smith stated she didn't realize she needed to submit the reviews for Henley Homes Exhibit AQ). Ms. Rogers noted they were not a comprehensive review. Staff Rebuttal Ms. Timmons stated for the driveway portion of the code, please review RMC 4-4-080. This code allows discretionary authority in the code to limit the number of driveways accessing the street. staff does not agree with the proposed revisions to Conditions 6 and 16. They want to see Lots 11 and 78 to access abutting shared driveways. 6f. - City Clerk reports appeal of the Hearing Examiner's final decision upon Page 129 of 517 e ATTACHMENT B The Reserve at Tiffany Park Preliminary Plat and SEPA Appeals LUA13-001572, ECF, PP, CAE) EXHIBITS ADMITTED DURING HEARING SEPA Appeal Exhibits Exhibit A: City of Renton Environmental Analysis (Attachments 1-18 are listed as Preliminary Plat Exhibits 1-18 below) Exhibit B: Environmental (SEPA) Determination of Non-Significance Mitigated Preliminary Plat Exhibit 22 below) Exhibit C: Environmental Checklist (June 10, 2014) Exhibit D: Comprehensive Plan (Land Use, Transportation and Community Design Elements) Exhibit E: Acceptance and Notice of Application Affidavit Service by Mailing (November 24, 2014) Exhibit F: Notice of Application and Off Hold Notice Affidavit Service by Mailing (July 25, 2014) Exhibit G: Commitment for Title Insurance Exhibit H: TPWAG Letter to Renton School District (September 10, 2014) Exhibit I: Renton School District Letter of Denial to TPWAG (September 16, 2014) Exhibit J: Henley Appeal Exhibit K: Henley SEPA Appeal Exhibits 1.a.HEX Staff Recommendation Report b. Pre-Application Notes C.Wetland Determination (October 30, 2013) d. Wetland Determination (February 28, 2014) 2. Letter Report from Ray Coglas 3.RSD Resolution No. 0312/13 4.SPU Letter(November 4, 2014) 5. Drainage Release 6.Site Maps and Aerial Photos 7. Airsoft Guns Documentation 8.Revised Plans, Alternate Layouts 9. COR COW Meeting (September 9, 2013) 10. Area Water Well Logs 11. Legal Analysis and Argument (November 18, 2014) 12. Soundview Consultants Letter, Racheal Villa 13. Grete Associates Report, 2008 Exhibit L: TPWAG Appeal Exhibit M: TWPAG SEPA Appeal Exhibits 19. TIR Report (November 12, 2013) 6f. - City Clerk reports appeal of the Hearing Examiner's final decision upon Page 130 of 517 Mr 0 21. TIA Report (November 2013) 23. Tree Protection Report (November 13, 2013) 24. SEPA Checklist (November 13, 2013) 39. Miscellaneous Photographs of Surrounding Site 40. Professional Qualifications—Steven Neugebauer 41. Neugebauer Expert Report (November 17, 2014) 47. Pre-Hearing Statement regarding Prescriptive Easement (November 18, 2014) 48. TPWAG Correspondence with Renton School District Exhibit N: Staff Appeal Analysis (November 18, 2014) Exhibit O: Henley Pre-Hearing Order Request Exhibit P: Hearing Examiner Order Requesting Reply to Pre-Hearing Order Request Exhibit Q: TPWAG Response to Pre-Hearing Order Request Exhibit R: City Response to Pre-Hearing Order Request Exhibit S: Henley Response to Pre-Hearing Order Request Exhibit T: Pre-Hearing Order Exhibit U: McMonagle Notice of Appearance Exhibit V: Flatley Resume Exhibit X: Lee Resume Exhibit Y: Declaration of Timmons Exhibit Z: Not Used Exhibit AA: Renton Reporter Article (Donnelly) Exhibit AB: Letter to Editor (Donnelly) Exhibit AC: 5 Photographs (Donnelly) Exhibit AD: TPWAG Memo on HEX Authority and Halverson v. Bellevue (November 28, 2014) Exhibit AE: City of Renton Response to TPWAG Memo of 11/28/14 (December 5, 2014) Exhibit AF: Henley Response to TPWAG Memo of 11/28/14 (December 5, 2014) Exhibit AG: Hearing Examiner Ruling on Examiner Authority and Halverson v. Bellevue December 7, 2014) Exhibit AH: Title Report/Chain of Title (TPWAG) Exhibit Al: Roenicke TPWAG Summary Testimony Exhibit AP Garlough TPWAG Summary Testimony Exhibit AK: Timeline Preliminary Plat Exhibits Exhibit 1: HEX Report Exhibit 2: Preliminary Plat Plan (July 16, 2014) Exhibit 3: Tree Cutting and Land Clearing Plan (July 16, 2014) Exhibit 4: Tree Protection Report (June 6, 2014) Exhibit 5: Revised Wetland Determination and Response Letter(June 3, 2014) Exhibit 6: Habitat Assessment (January 16, 2014) Exhibit 7: Geotechnical Report (September 28, 2012) Exhibit 8: Drainage Report (February 24, 2014) Exhibit 9: Traffic Impact Analysis (April 23, 2014) 6f. - City Clerk reports appeal of the Hearing Examiner's final decision upon Page 131 of 517 Exhibit 10: Public Comment Letters: '10.1-10.70 Exhibit 11: Alternative Tree Cutting and Land Clearing Plan (August 29, 2014) Exhibit 12: Alternative Tree Protection Report (August 27, 2014) Exhibit 13: Independent Secondary Review - Traffic Exhibit 14: Independent Secondary Review—Wetland (April 3, 2014) Exhibit 15: Supplemental Independent Secondary Review—Wetland (July 9, 2014) Exhibit 16: Habitat Assessment Technical Memorandum (February 11, 2014) Exhibit 17: Habitat Assessment Technical Memorandum (June 12, 2014) Exhibit 18: Landscape Plan (July 16, 2014) Exhibit 19: Transportation Concurrency Approval Exhibit 20: Renton Trails and Bikeways Map Exhibit 21: Environment Review Committee (ERC) Staff report Exhibit 22: SEPA Determination and Mitigation Measures (September 22, 2014) Exhibit 23: Public Meeting Notice Exhibit 24: Notice of Application Affidavits Exhibit AL: Staff PowerPoint Presentation Exhibit AM: Applicant Letter of Revised Plat Conditions (December 8, 2014) Exhibit AO: Shared Driveway Exhibit AP: Jones, Photographs Exhibit AQ: Henley Homes Reviews from Internet 6f. - City Clerk reports appeal of the Hearing Examiner's final decision upon Page 132 of 517 CITY OF RENTON FEB 2 7 W5 1 RECEIVED 2 CITY CLERK'S OFFICE 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 BEFORE THE HEARING EXAMINER FOR THE CITY OF RENTON 10 11 RE: The Reserve at Tiffany Park 12 Preliminary Plat RULING ON RECONSIDERATION13REQUESTS 14 Preliminary Plat and SEPA Appeals ) 15 16 LUA13-001572, ECF, PP, CAE 17 18 Summary 19 The Final Decision issued on January 8, 2015 is left largely unchanged as a result of reconsideration 20 requests filed by the SEPA Appellants and the applicant. The changes authorized by this decision will be implemented in a REVISED FINAL DECISION UPON RECONSIDERATION, issued on 21 the same date as this accompanying ruling. The applicant's reconsideration request was originally 22 filed as a Request for Clarification and all of the applicant's requests were granted as they just helped clarify the intent of the Final Decision. The SEPA Appellants requested substantive changes and 23 most of those requests were denied. Since the applicant denied access to the SEPA Appellants to 24 conduct wetland studies at the project site, the SEPA Appellants were authorized to admit additional wetland evidence during the reconsideration process. However, this new evidence merely proved25cumulativeandwasnotsufficienttoovercomethefindingsmadebyOtak, the independent third 26 party reviewer of the applicant's wetland determinations. A condition will be added requiring PRELIMINARY PLAT- 1 6f. - City Clerk reports appeal of the Hearing Examiner's final decision upon Page 133 of 517 1 compliance with stormwater regulations that pertain to roof run off. Although compliance with these 2 requirements is already required during engineering review for final plat approval, the requirements are called out in the conditions of approval to ensure that engineering staff makes a priority of 3 ensuring that stormwater wetland impacts are addressed as contemplated in the City's stormwater 4 regulations. 5 Background 6 This ruling responds to two reconsideration requests. The SEPA Appellants requested 7 reconsideration of the Hearing Examiner's decision on the above-captioned matter by letter dated January 21, 2015. An Order on Request for Reconsideration was issued in response on January 22, 8 2015 directing the SEPA Appellants to limit the new evidence of their request for reconsideration to that authorized by the9 Renton Municipal Code. The SEPA Appellants submitted a modified request for reconsideration on 10 January 28, 2015 within the time frame required by the January 22, 2015 order. Since the SEPA Appellant's first request for reconsideration, the applicant has also submitted a timely request for11 reconsideration dated January 22, 2015. The applicant's request for reconsideration replaced an 12 earlier request for clarification. An Order on Request for Reconsideration 11 was issued on January 29, 2015. The final reply deadline was set for February 10, 2015. This deadline was extended to13 February 11, 2015 by email order dated February 4, 2015. 14 15 Evidence/Argument Relied Upon 16 R-1 Administrative Record established at the close of the hearing on December 8, 2014. 17 R-2 Henley Request for Reconsideration dated January 22, 2015. 18 R-3 SEPA Appellant Request for Reconsideration dated January 28, 2015 in addition to pictures of wetlands taken on January 16, 2015 as included in the SEPA Appellant January 22, 201519requestforreconsideration. 20 R-4 Henley February 4, 2015 Response to Request for Reconsideration 21 22 R-5 City February 5, 2015 Response to Request for Reconsideration 23 R-6 SEPA Appellant Reply dated February 9, 2015 24 R-7 Henley Reply dated February 9, 2015. 25 1 R-8 Order on Request for Reconsideration dated January 22, 2015. 26 PRELIMINARY PLAT- 2 6f. - City Clerk reports appeal of the Hearing Examiner's final decision upon Page 134 of 517 Nmme I 14W 1 R-9 Order on Request for Reconsideration 11 dated January 29, 2015. 2 Henley Request for Reconsideration 3 The Henley request for reconsideration was originally submitted as a request for clarification and 4 was largely uncontested. The requests are addressed individually below using the numbering system 5 of Ex. 2 as follows: 6 1. P. 28, line 9 should read "10 foot wide perimeter landscaping requirement" instead of"15 foot wide perimeter landscaping requirement". The revised MDNS condition imposed by7theFinalDecisionimposesa10-foot perimeter landscaping requirement and this 8 supersedes any conflicting background language in the decision. 9 2. The applicant asserts that the reference to the "10 foot wide on-site landscaping strip for 10 all lots" in MDNS Condition No. 6 is too ambiguous. This quoted language was taken from recommended Condition No. 3 of the staff report, which also combined the on-site 11 landscaping strip with perimeter landscaping requirements and also provided no further clarification on the location of he "on-site landscaping strip". The applicant made no12 further effort to clarify the language when it requested revision to Condition No. 3 in its 13 December 8, 2014 request for revised conditions, Ex. AM. Now the applicant asserts and the City has no objection to the assertion that the language is ambiguous. MDNS14 Condition No. 6 will be clarified to note that the "on-site landscaping strip" is the 15 frontage landscaping required by RMC 4-4-070(F)(1). 16 3. Specific lot references in MDNS Condition No. 6 will be removed. MDNS Condition 17 No. 6 will read as follows: 18 The applicant shall revise its landscaping plan to provide for a 10 foot wide on-site street frontage landscape strip as required by RMC 4-4-070(F)(1) for all lots and a 1019 foot wide, site obscuring perimeter landscaping adjacent to areas where the retaining 20 walls are four or more feet in height. Landscaping at maturity must exceed the height of the adjacent retaining wall. The final detailed landscape plan shall be submitted to21 and approved by the Current Planning Project Manager prior to construction permit 22 approval. Such landscaping shall include a mixture of trees, shrubs, and groundcover 23 as approved by the Department of Community and Economic Development. 24 4. Conclusion of Law No. 3(E) of the Final Decision shall be renumbered as Conclusion of Law No. 7.5. 25 26 5. Condition of Approval No. 3 is deleted. PRELIMINARY PLAT- 3 6f. - City Clerk reports appeal of the Hearing Examiner's final decision upon Page 135 of 517 I SEPA Appellant Request for Reconsideration 2 The SEPA Appellants' request for reconsideration is addressed by topic below, following the order 3 presented by the SEPA Appellants in their request for reconsideration, Ex. 3: 4 1. Wetland New Evidence. The SEPA Appellants request admission of photographs taken 5 January 16, 2015. In their reply, Ex. 6, the SEPA Appellants also present evidence regarding climatic conditions taken from Weatherspeak. The evidence is admitted because the SEPA 6 Appellants were denied an opportunity to do their own wetland assessment on the subject property. 7 The evidence presented by the SEPA Appellants would not normally be admitted due to the strict 8 prohibition on admission of new evidence as outlined in the Examiner's January 22, 2015 Order on Reconsideration. Although of course the appellants could not have photographed the flooded 9 conditions present on January 16, 2015 prior to the close of the hearing, the type of evidence 10 supporting their claim (e.g. that the time of the wetland delineation was during an unusually dry period, etc.) could have been made from other sources, such as eyewitness testimony and soil11samples. RMC 4-8-100(G)(9) does allow for the introduction of new evidence that was not 12 reasonably available during the hearing, but this provision needs to be strictly construed to be consistent with the "one hearing" objectives of the Regulatory Reform Act as discussed in the Order 13 on Reconsideration. If RMC 4-8-100(G)(9) is interpreted as authorizing a hearing participant to 14 augment the record any time they find a new piece of corroborating evidence to support their case, the reconsideration process simply becomes a "do-over" opportunity for hearing participants to fill 15 in gaps in their case they should have covered the first time around. New evidence should only be 16 admitted if there was no other evidence available to the hearing party that could have equally proven their point. 17 In this case, the SEPA Appellants weren't otherwise given a reasonable opportunity to argue that18 the conditions taken during the wetland delineation conducted by the applicant were unusually dry 19 and may have lead to inaccurate results. Since delineations are largely based upon soil and vegetation samples and observations, the SEPA Appellants most effective way to prove their point20wouldhavebeentodotheirownwetlanddelineation. However, the applicant denied the SEPA 21 Appellants property access to conduct such a delineation. For this reason, the SEPA Appellants should be granted substantial flexibility in presenting evidence on the presence and location of22wetlands. Through the actions of the applicant, the SEPA Appellants have been forced to rely upon 23 secondary evidence to support their position. If this type of evidence arises for the first time during the reconsideration period, it is fair to let them use it. The Weatherspeak evidence presented in the 24 reply was available during the hearing, but it was used as rebuttal to points raised by the applicant 25 during reconsideration argument. Given the flexibility due the SEPA Appellants on wetland evidence, the Weatherspeak evidence is also admitted. 26 PRELIMINARY PLAT- 4 6f. - City Clerk reports appeal of the Hearing Examiner's final decision upon Page 136 of 517 W W 1 2. Wetland Delineations. Wetland boundaries were accurately delineated. The new evidence 2 presented by the SEPA appellants (January 16, 2015 photographs, Ex. 3) shows that standing water extended beyond the wetland boundaries staked by the applicant on January 16, 2015. The SEPA 3 Appellants also provided evidence in Ex. 6 that the conditions existing when the applicant's wetland 4 delineations were conducted were exceptionally dry. This evidence and the other arguments and evidence presented by the SEPA Appellants during the hearing in chief is not sufficient to overcome 5 the expert opinions and delineation work performed by the applicant and the independent third party 6 experts (Otak) that reviewed the work. The SEPA Appellants do raise valid points, but the fieldwork done by the applicant's expert was verified by the third party experts (Otak) on March 17, 7 2014, an exceptionally rainy month. As noted in p. 2 of Ex. 14, one of the Otak reports: 8 Please note that the wetland delineation was performed in June 2013, whereas the rainfall 9 amount as of March 17, 2014, was approximately 5.58 inches above the normal amountfor March (National Weather Service); ... 10 In the Ex. 14 report Otak further identified that during their March 17, 2014 site visit that standing 1 I water extended from a depth of several inches to 1.5 feet deep beyond delineated wetland boundaries. Despite these findings and conducting its visit in an exceptionally wet spring month, Otak still12concludedthatthedelineationswereaccurate. As noted in the applicant's reconsideration response, 13 Ex. 4, a wetland delineation is not based exclusively on the presence of water, but rather is based upon several factors including hydrology, soils and vegetation. The issues raised by the SEPA 14 Appellants certainly puts the conclusions of the applicant's expert into question, but those concerns are put to rest by Otak's third party review. There is no reason to doubt the objectivity or 15 competency of Otak's review and for that reason it proves determinative on the wetland issues. 16 3. Buffer Averaging. The SEPA Appellants identify areas where the project encroaches into wetland buffers. The SEPA Appellants do not dispute that these encroachments were authorized as17partoftheapplicant's buffer averaging and they do not identify how the buffer averaging plan fails to 18 meet applicable City buffer averaging standards. Absent any evidence to the contrary, it cannot be concluded that the averaging plan found to be code compliant by third party reviewer Otak and City 19 Staff fails to meet City standards. 20 4. Trees. The SEPA Appellants assert that a ten-foot wide buffer in front of retaining walls would not be sufficient to obscure the walls from view. No evidence is referenced or explanation21profferedastowhythebufferwouldbeinsufficient. The final decision on this matter contained a 22 detailed review of the evidence on the sufficiency of the buffer width and the SEPA Appellants did not identify any error in this analysis. The ten foot wide buffer is still found to be sufficient. 23 5. Stormwater. The SEPA appellants assert that the removal of trees will reduce 75% of the 24 property's ability to process storm water and that a 24" discharge pipe as proposed by the appellant is inadequate to handle stormwater. It is determined that the City's stormwater regulations provide for25adequatestormwatermitigation. 26 PRELIMINARY PLAT- 5 6f. - City Clerk reports appeal of the Hearing Examiner's final decision upon Page 137 of 517 1 The City of Renton has adopted the 2009 King County Surface Water Design Manual under RMC 4- 6-030(C). This manual requires that stormwater runoff rates and volumes match pre-development,2 forested conditions. In short, the City's stormwater regulations already require stormwater systems to 3 be designed to take into account the impact of tree removal and are also designed to assure that all stormwater facilities, including pipes, have adequate capacity to handle stormwater run-off. The 4 applicant has prepared a preliminary set of calculations in its Technical Information Report, Ex. A, att. 8, which addresses the reduction in natural stormwater retention occasioned by the loss of trees.5 The SEPA appellants have not identified any deficiencies in these calculations or the regulations that require them. Condition No. 2 of the MDNS also requires a Level 2 downstream analysis, which will6 verify the adequacy of pipe sizes. In the absence of any evidence to the contrary, the City's 7 stormwater regulations are determinative on the adequacy of stormwater mitigation. Further, in the absence of any evidence to the contrary on the applicant's compliance with those stormwater 8 regulations, City engineering staffs finding of adequacy on the preliminary calculation is also determinative. 9 6.Roof Runoff. The SEPA Appellants assert that the proposed diversion of rooftop run off into10wetlandsviolatesCitystormwaterregulations. The Appellants also assert that roof top run off will I I mix with pollutants in yards and then flow into wetlands. The applicant responds that the roof top runoff is proposed to be diverted away from polluting surfaces so that no mixing will occur. The 12 applicant also asserts that compliance with stormwater manual requirements will be achieved during final engineering review. 13 City engineering staff have determined that the proposal's proposed stormwater system will comply14withapplicablestormwaterregulationsasconceptuallyproposedforpreliminaryplatreview. The 15 SEPA appellants have not specifically identified how any part of the proposed system would fail to comply with stormwater regulations as they apply to roof runoff and its interaction with wetlands. 16 Under these circumstances it would be appropriate to assign remaining compliance issues to engineering stage final plat review, as contemplated in the City's subdivision review regulations. 17 However, to remove any doubt, a condition of approval will require that (1) roof run-off that impacts wetlands will not be allowed to mix with any polluting surfaces; (2) Category 2 wetlands may not be18structurallyorhydrologicallyengineeredforrunoffquantityorqualitycontrolasrequiredby 19 KCSWDM Reference 5; and (3) City staff shall require design adjustments as authorized by KCSWDM 1.2 to the extent necessary to ensure that wetland hydrology is not adversely affected by 20 the proposal. 21 5. Traffic. The SEPA Appellants assert that the conversion of SE 18th St. and 124th Place SE from cul de sacs to throughways to serve the project is not sufficiently mitigated and will reduce their22propertyvaluesby $30,000. The reduction in property values is new evidence that cannot be 23 considered during reconsideration since that information was reasonably available to the SEPA Appellants during the hearing in chief. The SEPA Appellants also make several suggestions for 24 revising access routes to the project site. It is too late to consider these types of suggestions after the close of the hearing. Any change to access would require a re-evaluation of traffic impacts, which 25 could take substantial investigation and study by both the applicant and staff. Since the record is 26 closed, the opportunity for that type of analysis is gone. If any of the suggestions were made prior to PRELIMINARY PLAT- 6 6f. - City Clerk reports appeal of the Hearing Examiner's final decision upon Page 138 of 517 low!"' vwr+' 1 the close of the hearing, the SEPA appellants should have identified where in the record the suggestion was made and why the staff and applicant response were deficient. In the absence of that2typeofinformation, the SEPA Appellant requests for revision cannot be considered. 3 4 DATED this 26th day of February, 2015. 6 Phi A.01W,chts 7 City of Renton Hearing Examiner 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 PRELIMINARY PLAT- 7 6f. - City Clerk reports appeal of the Hearing Examiner's final decision upon Page 139 of 517 CITY OF RENTON I S JAN 2 8 2015 RECEIVED 1 CITY CLERICS OFFICE 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 BEFORE THE HEARING EXAMINER FOR THE CITY OF RENTON 10 11 RE: The Reserve at Tiffany Park 12 Preliminary Plat ORDER ON REQUEST FOR 13 RECONSIDERATION II 14 Preliminary Plat and SEPA Appeals ) 15 16 LUA13-001572, ECF, PP, CAE 17 The SEPA Appellants requested reconsideration of the Hearing Examiner's decision on the above- 18 captioned matter by letter dated January 21, 2015. An Order on Request for Reconsideration was issued in response on January 22, 2015 directing the SEPA 19 Appellants to limit the new evidence of their request for reconsideration to that authorized by the 20 Renton Municipal Code. The SEPA Appellants have submitted a modified request for reconsideration on January 28, 2015 within the time-frame required by the January 22, 2015 Order. 21 Since the SEPA Appellant's first request for reconsideration, the applicant has also submitted a timely request for reconsideration dated January 22, 2015. The reconsideration requests from both 22 the SEPA Appellants and the applicant will be distributed to the parties of record of this proceeding 23 for response and reply. 24 It is recognized that once again the SEPA appellants are attempting to introduce new evidence in the record and that applicable legal standards only allow new evidence under very limited circumstances.25 This places the applicant in the difficult position of arguing against the admission of new evidence 26 while at the same time having to respond to the new evidence in case the evidence is admitted. The PRELIMINARY PLAT - 1 6f. - City Clerk reports appeal of the Hearing Examiner's final decision upon Page 140 of 517 I applicant is given the opportunity to limit its response to evidence in the record and reserve the right to respond to newly presented evidence if any such evidence is admitted. If the applicant chooses this2 course of action, the examiner will rule on the admissibility of evidence after the submission 3 deadlines outlined below and then provide an additional opportunity for response to new evidence by the applicant and final reply by the SEPA appellants before ruling on the reconsideration requests. In 4 the alternative, the applicant may "cover all bases" and argue against the admission of new evidence while also presenting new evidence to the extent necessary to respond to any new evidence from the5SEPAappellantsthatisadmittedintotherecord. 6 7 ORDER ON RECONSIDERATION 8 9 1. Persons who testified at the hearing on the above-captioned matter and City staff shall have until 5:00 pm, February 4, 2015 to provide written comments in response to the Request for 10 Reconsideration submitted by the SEPA Appellants on January 28, 2015 and the Request for Reconsideration submitted by the applicant on January 22 2015. Only persons who participated 11 in the SEPA appeal may comment on the SEPA appeal issues. All comments are limited to the 12 issues raised in the requests for reconsideration. 13 2. The SEPA Appellants and the applicant shall have until February 9, 2015 at 5:00 pm to provide a written reply to the responses to their own reconsideration requests. 14 15 3. All written comments, responses and replies authorized above must be emailed to the Examiner 16 at olhrechts[Lm (a gnwil.coin; Rocale Timmons at RTMinwns0 Rcntonwa.go%; Renate Beedon at rento n-oppositesC comca,t.net; Nancy Rogers at. NRo ers@Cairncross.cotn and Cynthia Moya 17 at CMoya@Rentonwa.gov. In the alternative written comments may be mailed or delivered to Rocale Timmons, City of Renton Senior Planner, at 1055 South Grady Way, Renton, WA 98057.18 Mailed or delivered comments must be received by the City by the deadlines specified in this 19 Order. 20 DATED this 29th day of January, 2015. 21 t 22 Phi A.Olbrcchu 23 City of Renton Hearing Examiner 24 25 26 PRELIMINARY PLAT - 2 6f. - City Clerk reports appeal of the Hearing Examiner's final decision upon Page 141 of 517 i Date: Wed,Jan 28, 2015 To: City of Renton Hearing Examiner Phil Olbrechts mailto:olbrechtslaw Li)gmail.com CITY OFRENTON dam City of Renton JAN 2 8 20151055GradyWay C;,i Renton, WA 98057 RECEIVED CIN CLERK'S OFFICE From: Tiffany Park Woods Advocacy Group mailto:renton-opposites@comcast.net 1725 Pierce Avenue SE Renton, WA 98058 Subject: Reserve at Tiffany Park PP - Hearing Examiner Decision (LUA13-001572) Revised and Amended Request for Reconsideration Dear Mr. Olbrechts: This letter constitutes Tiffany Park Woods Advocacy Group's Revised and Amended Request for Reconsideration pursuant to RMC 4-8-100(G)(9) and RMC 4-8-110(E)(13), which provide for reconsideration of a hearing examiner's decision if a party of record believes the decision is based on "an erroneous procedure, errors of law or fact, or the discovery of new evidence which could not be reasonably available at the prior hearing." TPWAG has elected to pursue this Request for Reconsideration Pro Se and hereby designates Renate Beedon as the designated representative. References Letter entitled, "RE:The Reserve at Tiffany Park - Preliminary Plat- Preliminary Plat and SEPA Appeals - LUA13-001572, ECF, PP, CAE - Final Decision", from Phil Olbrechts - City of Renton Hearing Examiner, dated Jan 8, 2015. Scope The Hearing Examiner's decision provides inadequate mitigation for the impacts on the environment and on the surrounding community of Applicant's proposed development to support a DNS-M determination under SEPA. The City of Renton has authority to ask for mitigation under SEPA, and TPWAG asks the City of Renton (via the Hearing Examiner) to exercise that authority in the areas discussed in this letter. An environmental impact statement is justified and must be prepared whenever significant adverse impacts on the environment are probable, not just when they are inevitable. If an environmental statement is required by the weight of the evidence and if the responsible city authority does not require an environmental impact statement then the decision is clearly erroneous. The Hearing Examiner is entitled to consider newly discovered evidence not reasonably available at the prior hearing. TPWAG Revised/Amended Request for Reconsideration Page 1 of 8 6f. - City Clerk reports appeal of the Hearing Examiner's final decision upon Page 142 of 517 r Wetland Determination, Measuring and Staking Newly Discovered Evidence Pursuant to the Hearing Examiner's Order on Request for Reconsideration dated January 22, 2015 TPWAG removed all photographs of the wetlands taken on January 16, 2015. These photographs were simply provided to show that the wetland boundary markers and wetland buffer markers are standing in bodies of water. Photographs of this condition were not readily available at the time of the hearings because the wetland studies were performed after a 3 month draught (2013) or after unusual we seasons (2014) of the year. The photographs that have been removed show typical conditions in January and bring into question the delineation of the limits of the wetlands and suggests the boundary of Wetland B and possibly wetland C were not correctly delineated. RMC 4-8-100(G)(9) provides that "any interested person feeling that the decision of the Hearing Examiner is based on "erroneous procedures, errors of law or fact, error in judgment or the discovery of new evidence which could not be reasonably available at the prior hearing" may make a Request for Reconsideration. Thus the Renton Municipal Code allows the Hearing Examiner to consider this limited discovery of new evidence. TPWAG believes that the wetland photographs removed from this Revised/Amended Request for Reconsideration fall into this category of evidence and should be considered by the Hearing Examiner. TPWAG requests that they be allowed to resubmit these photographs as newly discovered evidence. Problems One of our concerns is the wetlands and the way they have been determined, measured and staked. As you can see from our comments below, we believe that the wetland depiction alone has been done incorrectly and therefore question the way other studies pertaining to this development have been conducted. An EIS would clearly provide the city and all interested parties with information that is correct and fully evaluate the significant adverse impacts on the environment. The original study by OTAK pointed out many discrepancies in the original study submitted by Schulz. The OTAK study claimed that the wetlands are actually larger than described in the original study submitted by Schulz. After the Applicant received the OTAK study, a meeting was held between the City of Renton, Schulz and OTAK. At that on-site meeting the Applicant apparently convinced the OTAK consultants that the original study by Schulz was correct and the OTAK study was not. If you look at and compare both reports, you can see significant changes between the two versions of OTAK studies. TPWAG requested minutes for this meeting from the City of Renton and was told that there were no minutes because this was a "field trip" and that the two revised wetland reports from Schulz and OTAK were record enough. Apparently, there is no written record of what was said and decided by whom during this off-site meeting in the woods. One thing the participants of the "field trip" did agree on is the addition of wetland D. TPWAG Revised/Amended Request for Reconsideration Page 2 of 8 6f. - City Clerk reports appeal of the Hearing Examiner's final decision upon Page 143 of 517 OTAK Secondary Review Memo-43-1, We are providing you with a Tree Cutting/Land Clearing Plan, which shows how the proposed lots (in particular lots 70, 79 and 80) appear to encroach onto the wetlands B and C. Also encroaching onto wetland C is a street. On the "Preliminary Cover Sheet for Tiffany Park" chart it looks like the street is cutting right into the wetland. VWCUrTNOAAM CLE~KM• PM e\ ` REBF•RYS AT TIFFANYPARK r iii'! tb Tc r s t• WaBIT 11 These encroachments appear on the Tree Cutting/Land Clearing Plan dated in 2014. (Date is too small to read). TPWAG Revised/Amended Request for Reconsideration Page 3 of 8 6f. - City Clerk reports appeal of the Hearing Examiner's final decision upon Page 144 of 517 w The maps provided by thr iplicant show that plats and streets al-- ,dy encroach onto wetland boundaries acknowledges ,,y the Applicant. If we, TPWAG, are co{,._ct in our assumption that the wetlands have been marked incorrectly and that all the wetlands are bigger than depicted by the Applicant, than the proposed lots and street will greatly violate the wetland buffers and therefore the wetland code/regulations, etc. We believe that this aspect alone should call for an EIS, since it is possible that more errors or oversights like with the wetlands have been made throughout the whole proposed development. We hope that at least the wetland delineation will be revisited and re-staked and then reviewed again A visit to the City of Renton Clerk's office on Monday,January 26, 2015 by TPWAG revealed that several sets of original drawings were incomplete, thus we were unable to study these drawings in conjunction with our request for reconsideration. The city planner, Ms. Timmons, told TPWAG that the drawing dated August 2014, is "old". This "old" drawing showed the presence of a storm water retention pond rather than a vault as presented during the Hearing Examiner's meetings in 2014. After Ms.Timmons left, we looked for newer drawings but could not find any. The City Clerk staff told us that they were not in possession of newer drawings.) Relief Requested Discount the one-sided testimony of Applicant's wetlands expert (because the property owner refuses to allow TPWAG to bring an independent expert on the property) Require the property owner to allow TPWAG to bring a wetlands expert on site, allow adequate time to find an expert who is willing to work with private citizens, allow adequate time for the expert to prepare a report, and then hold a meeting to examine the results. TPWAG requests that it be invited should such a meeting take place. Direct the Applicant and City Staff to make a complete set of original drawings available for review by the public as soon as possible to support this process. Require an EIS to resolve the unanswered probable significant environmental impacts as raised by Steve Neugebauer in his testimony before the Hearing Examiner, and as are raised in this letter. Trees Problems A 10 foot buffer around the property is inadequate, not only because of esthetic value but also because it does not provide sufficient protection from the high winds that occur regularly in our area. During the Hearing Examiner's meetings on Nov 18, 2014 and Dec 8, 2014, we witnessed public testimony from Claudia Donnelly and Jill Jones showing how the developer had apparently removed all trees from another development, even though the City of Renton requires them to retain trees. Relief Requested Require a buffer of at least 20 feet around the property Therefore, we request that the City of Renton ensure that the developer doesn't intentionally or carelessly damage the few trees that are required to be retained under city ordinance, and then use that as legal loophole to circumvent city ordinance and remove the "damaged" trees. Consider assigning a person on site during construction hours to monitor activities to ensure code compliance. Consider steep fines for careless or intentional damage to trees. TPWAG Revised/Amended Request for Reconsideration Page 4 of 8 6f. - City Clerk reports appeal of the Hearing Examiner's final decision upon Page 145 of 517 If trees are damaged and ry -t be removed, require Applicant to red- ' -:e the damaged trees with equivalent *mature* trees, _.id prohibit them from using any of the ,riginal canopy from the removed tree for any purpose other than to allow the new tree to grow. Storm Water Problems Per Steve Neugebauer's testimony, removing trees will remove 75% of the property's ability to process storm water. 24" pipe (as proposed by Applicant) is barely good enough for a 10-year storm. 100-year storms are common. We may have a few 100-year storms in any calendar year. Thus, it is likely that the neighboring properties will be flooded regularly as a result of the proposed development. Relief Requested Consider requiring a larger storm water drainpipe along SE 18th Street. Consider requiring "pervious" pavement (that allows water to pass through it) on all streets, sidewalks and driveways, so that the storm water can be naturally mitigated on site. Consider requiring retention of at least 6" of topsoil on all exposed surfaces (e.g., lawns) to minimize the need for watering, and so that the storm water can be naturally mitigated on site. TPWAG requests that storm water management studies, calculations be completed in compliance with the City of Renton Storm Water Management Requirements, as further defined by the adopted King County Surface Water Design Manual; sections which specifically address this issue are titled: Core Requirements#2 Off site Analysis, and Core Requirements#4 Conveyance Systems. The City of Renton has some added amendments for special community situations. Roof Runoff Problems Although roof runoff by itself may not be a pollutant, when it is mixed with chemicals and pesticides used in the yard it becomes a pollutant. Although roof runoff may not be a target pollution-generating surface, roof runoff is still subject to flow control per Core Requirement#3 which mandates that the City may require design adjustments per the wetland hydrology protection guidelines in Reference 5. KCSWDM Reference 5, Wetland Hydrology Protection Guidelines, mandates that a wetland may not be structurally or hydrologically engineered for runoff quantity or quality control in Category 2 wetlands. We have attached the Wetland Hydrology Protection Guidelines.) Applicable Laws The Hearing Examiner's Order on Request for Reconsideration provides that "applicable laws are not considered new evidence." The Wetland Hydrology Protection Guidelines are part of the King County Surface Water Design Manual. Section 6.2 of the KCSWDM provides "roof runoff is subject to flow control per Core Requirement#3. Section 1.2 of the KCSWDM provides that where there is potential impact to wetland hydrology, "DDES may require design adjustments per the wetland hydrology reference guidelines in TPWAG Revised/Amended Request for Reconsideration Page 5 of 8 6f. - City Clerk reports appeal of the Hearing Examiner's final decision upon Page 146 of 517 Reference Section 5. Therefore th' -ection is merely summarizing applical'--law and should be considered by the hearing examiner. Relief Requested Applicant should comply with the Wetland Hydrology Protection Guidelines Traffic Problems Applicant's expert has testified that the level of service on the roads surrounding the proposed development will be acceptable per the applicable city and state laws. However, that analysis did not address the impact of converting SE 18th Street and 124th Place SE from quiet cul-de-sacs into arterials for the traffic from almost 100 new homes (over 1,000 vehicles per day- mostly on SE 18th Street- by Applicant's own estimates). Realtors know that the difference in value between a house on a busy street and a house on a cul-de- sac is significant. We have researched home prices on quiet and cul-de-sac streets vs. busy streets. Those findings showed that the 16 homeowners on SE 18 Street can probably each expect a $30,000 loss in property value as a result of the increased traffic on this street should the development go forward. The city has noted to that they take no responsibility for any loss sustained. More ingress and egress points to the development would certainly help to disperse the traffic. (Roenicke Testimony.) Applicant also seems to be well aware of this fact. The planned development contains not one, but two cul-de-sacs (instead of building adequate roads to carry traffic in and out)! We respect Applicant's right to develop their property, but we expect the applicant to respect the property rights of the surrounding community. We believe that Applicant is maximizing its profit by unfairly externalizing its costs to the neighboring property owners. Relief Requested We ask the City of Renton to intervene to ensure equal protection under the law. Consider substantially reducing the number of allowable houses in the proposed development. Consider requiring at least one more access road to the proposed development (even if Applicant has to buy existing houses to create such access). Consider removing speed bumps that are blocking arterial streets to the South (especially 126th Avenue SE, SE 164th Street, and SE 160th Street). This will provide less incentive for drivers from the proposed development to avoid the back entrance (i.e., 124th Place SE) and for drivers coming from Fairwood to use Pierce Ave SE and SE 16th Street. Consider street modifications to encourage traffic to use Royal Hills Drive SE instead of SE 16th Street. Royal Hills Drive SE is currently a bus snow route. It is a wide road, it has a gentle incline, it has good sight distance, and it is sanded when icy, so it is much better suited for the heavy volume of traffic than is SE 16th Street. 1. Re-open the north end of Beacon Way SE to Puget Drive SE. 2. Close the intersection at SE 16th Street and Edmonds Avenue SE. Local traffic will be able to use the newly opened Beacon Way SE, and traffic from Edmonds Way SE will no longer have to fight arterial traffic on SE 16th Street to leave their neighborhood. TPWAG Revised/Amended Request for Reconsideration Page 6 of 8 6f. - City Clerk reports appeal of the Hearing Examiner's final decision upon Page 147 of 517 t Environmental Impact Statement Problems An environmental impact statement is justified and must be prepared whenever significant adverse impacts on the environment are probable, not just when they are inevitable. If an environmental statement is required by the weight of the evidence and if the responsible city authority does not require an environmental impact statement then the decision is clearly erroneous. The problems raised in this request for reconsideration, together with the issues raised at the appeal hearing, coupled with Applicant's refusal to provide full documentation of environmental conditions at the site and the full extent of structural retaining walls at the site, and the piecemeal manner in which the City of Renton and the Applicant addressed problematic issues for the wetlands, detention vault, drainage and retaining walls, weigh in favor of requiring preparation of an environmental impact statement. Relief Requested The City of Renton should require an environmental impact statement for the project. Respectfully submitted by Tiffany Park Woods Advocacy Group with the hope that you reconsider our issues. Thank you. RENATE BEEDON President cc: Rocale Timmons mailto:RTimmonsLcDRenton,va.gov Nancy Rogers mailto:NRoaersid)Cairncross.com TPWAG Revised/Amended Request for Reconsideration Page 7 of 8 6f. - City Clerk reports appeal of the Hearing Examiner's final decision upon Page 148 of 517 t E 4 4A, y Iti'vaiNib CedarT4sRiver a Grdft Severlk s impact m OCSE :-. ttitM1St p ASF Qc. cw to4 tl.idren ddw 1% e y young ren.. m R tau Ow - inn K A aVA 4 Severe h LU SE Ct impact fy rcpt ed enakinby bLe+ py ' N' SE ISM St F many+ rkd" Cr, i:-veicpmer,t 4 p g se1" 1 Pwa&, Cdo Vue w Severe impact SE 21st St Zt GradeVhb chidwe SE 160th St _ Sr ced .. - - SE lfi th St-_ SEIM St -v- wvkwkka aCNK.Kle K .camps" l ou irs4,10 SESE16tstSt SE 162nd St a i SE 162nd St SE 162nd St 4 SE 163rd St SE 163rd St SP d3d 7 b.ar,rS $E%ft%tst SE SE 164th St SE 164thSt Figure 1 -Area Map TPWAG Revised/Amended Request for Reconsideration Page 8 of 8 6f. - City Clerk reports appeal of the Hearing Examiner's final decision upon Page 149 of 517 f Technical Memorandum To: Rocale Timmons, Senior Planner City-of Renton - Current Planning 10230 NE Points Daae From: Darcey Miller, Senior Wedand Scientist Suite 400 425) 739-7977 Kirkland, RA 98033 Phone(423)8224446 Copies: Fax(423)827-9377 Date: April 3, 2014 Subject:Reserve at Tiffany Park Wedand Delineation Review Project No.: 32385.A This review pertains to the Preliminary-Plat application for the Reserve at Tiffany Park (City- of Renton LUA13-001572) submitted by the applicant, Novastar Development, Inc., to the Citi-of Renton (City). The proposed Reserve at Tiffany Park is located generally to the east of Tiffanv Park, to the north of SE 158" Street, and south and west of Pierce Avenue SE. Otak has been asked by the City- of Renton (the City) to review the submitted critical areas document and to provide comments regarding its applicability to the Renton NIunicipal Code (RN1C), specifically, Section 4-3- 050, Critical Areas Regulations. The following documents were reviewed in terms of compliance with the critical areas sections of the City-code: Vetland Determination:Reserve at Tiany Park, prepared by C. Gary Schulz, dated February 28, 2014; Plan set for the Reserve at Tiffany-Park Preliminary=Plat,prepared by Barghausen Consulting Engineers, Inc., signed February-27, 2014. Technical Information Report, prepared by Barghausen Consulting Engineers, Inc., dated November 12, 2013,and revised February 24, 2014. The Wetland Determination identifies three Category-2 wetlands and one Category 3 wetland on the site,which are required to have 50-foot and 25-foot buffers,respectively. The report indicates that wetland buffer averaging is proposed for the project site, and outlines the rationale for meeting the requirements for buffer averaging described in the R IC. K:Aproject\32300\32385:A\Reports\Cri6cal_areas Review Memo_2014_0403.doe6f. - City Clerk reports appeal of the Hearing Examiner's final decision upon Page 150 of 517 Rocale Timmons, SeniorPlanner, City ofRenton Page 2 Reserve at Tiffany Park 1L"etland Review Apri13,2014 Two Otak wetland biologists visited the site on March 17, 2014, to confirm whether the wetland delineation was consistent with the IYlarhington State Vetlands Identification and Delineation Manual Ecology 1997), as required by the RhIC. An Otak biologist made an additional site visit on March 31, 2014. Please note that the wedand delineation was performed in June 2013,whereas the rainfall amount as of March 17,2014,was approximately 5.58 inches above the normal amount for March National Weather Service);and on March 31, 2014 was 5.85 inches above normal for March. Comment 1 — Delineation Method The wetland determination report cites the US Army Corps of Engineers wetland delineation manuals (1987 and 2010 supplement) for the methodology used. However, the Vashington State Vetlands Identification and Delineation Alanual(Ecology 1997) is required by RMC 4-3-050.NI.4.a. Recommendation: The applicant should ensure that the wetland delineation is consistent with the methodology required by the RMC. Comment 2—Survey Map We have not seen a survey map showing all of the wetland flags,which is necessary for confirming the wetland delineation.As discussed below, some wetland flags were not found in the field; however, ifwe have a detailed map and some of the flags remain, all of those missing flags may not need to be replaced. Recommendation: The applicant should submit a map showing all of the surveyed wetland flags from June 2013 and any upcoming revisions). In addition,missing wetland flags should be replaced as deemed necessary for Otak's confirmation of the wetland edges. Comment 3—Wetland A We agree with portions of Wetland A's delineated edges. However,we could not find some of the flags (including Wetland A-1) in the southern part of the wetland. It appears that the wetland areas extend farther out than the delineated edge, specifically near Flags A-1,A-3,A-5, and A-6. In these areas,we observed hydrophytic vegetation (if any plants at all), hydric soils, and wetland hydrology mainly inundation). On March 17, 2014,in some areas that appeared to be outside of the delineated flagged) wetland,inundation was over 1 foot deep during our site visit (see Photograph 1). We agree that Wetland A meets the criteria outlined in the RMC for a Category 2 wetland,which is required to have a 50-foot buffer. Recommendation: Wetland A should be reexamined and any differing edges re-flagged during the early growing season (before mid-May). Any changes to the wetland should be included in the revised Wetland Determination Report and project plans. K:\project\32300\32385. \Reports\Critical Areas Review Nlemo_2014_0403.doc6f. - City Clerk reports appeal of the Hearing Examiner's final decision upon Page 151 of 517 Rocale Timmons, Senior Planner, CityofRenton Page 3 Reserve at Tiany Park lf'etland Revieav April3,2074 Comment 4—Wetlands B and C During our site visits, standing water extended generally- 10 to 70 feet farther than the delineated edges of Wetlands B and C. In addition,Wetlands B and C are not separated by upland area; they appear to be part of the same wetland. On March 17, 2014,inundation ranged from several inches to 1.5 feet deep in areas that may be outside of the delineated wetland edge. Hydrophytic vegetation mainly- salmonberry>and red alder) and hydric soils were also observed in the majority-of these areas. We agree that Wetland C meets the criteria outlined in the RMC for a Category-2 wetland, which is required to have a 50-foot buffer; however, because Wetlands B and C are connected (one wetland), the area flagged as Wetland B would also be considered a Category-2. Recommendation: Wetlands B and C should be reexamined and any differing edges re-flagged during the early growing season (before mid-Nlay). Confirm the rating and buffer size for Wedand B. Any changes to the wetlands should be included in the revised Wetland Determination Report and project plans. Comment 5—Wetland D We agree with the majority-of the wetland flag locations on Wetland D, although the wetland appears to extend approximately 25 feet to the south of Flags D-3 and D-4. We agree that Wetland D meets the criteria outlined in the RMC for a Category-2 wetland. Recommendation: The wetland should be reexamined and any differing edges re-flagged during the early growing season (before mid-flay). Any changes to the wetland should be included in the revised Wetland Determination Report and project plans. Comment 6—Offsite Wetland (SW side Mercer Island Pipeline ROW) An offsite wetland adjacent to the Reserve at Tiffany Park site was observed on the southwest side of the Mercer Island Pipeline Right-of-way (see Photograph 2). The northwest end of the wetland is southwest of(in line with) 18`h Court SE. This linear wetland is approximately 150 to 200 feet long and contains hydrophytic vegetation (creeping buttercup, reed canarygrass, and other grasses) and hydric soils. Wetland hydrology observed on Nfarch 17, 2014, ranged from saturation at the surface to saturation at 4 inches below the surface. This wetland likely meets the criteria in the Ri'NIC for a Category 3 wetland,which is required to have a 25-foot buffer. Recommendation: If permission is granted from the offsite landowner, the wetland should be delineated, classified, and added to the revised Wetland Determination Report and plans. If permission for delineation is not received, the wetland location should be estimated and shown on the plans, along with the buffer. K:\proiect\32-300\323853\Reports\Critical Areas Review blemo_2014_0403.doe6f. - City Clerk reports appeal of the Hearing Examiner's final decision upon Page 152 of 517 Rocale Timmons, Senior Planner, City ofRenton Page 4 Reserve at Tiffany Park If'etland Review April 3, 201.1 Comment 7—Offsite Wetlands (NE side Mercer Island Pipeline ROW) Several offsite wetlands were observed on the northeast side of the Nlercer Island Pipeline Right-of- way (northeast of the gravel access road). These wetlands appear to be Category 3 wetlands;if so, they are likely far enough away so that their 25-foot buffers do not extend onto the project site. Recommendation: The applicant should confirm that buffers from these offsite wetlands do not extend onto the property. Comment 8—Wetland in Southwest Corner of Site A wetland was observed in the southwest corner of the site, to the north of SE 18`h Street and southeast of the adjacent development's fence. The area was dominated by salmonberry, Himalayan blackberry, and reed canarygrass. On Nlarch 17, 2014, hydric soils and up to 4 inches of inundation were observed, and water was draining from the wetland onto the sidewalk along the north side of SE 18`h Street. Recommendation: The wetland (if it is determined to be one) should be delineated, classified, and added to the revised Wetland Determination Report and project plans. Comment 9—Flowpath from Wetland B During our March 17, 2014 site visit,water was observed flowing generally west out of Wetland B to the southwest corner of the project site (see Photographs 3,4, and 5), then offsite into the Cedar River Pipeline Right-of-way. The wetted width of the floxvpath onsite on Nlarch 17`h was approximately 3 to 6 feet, and the water depth was 1 to 3 inches. Vegetation on the edges of the stream generally consists of upland species such as Indian plum. A defined stream channel with bed and banks was not observed. Sorted gravels were observed in several small portions of the flowpath; however, these gravels were generally angular and therefore have not been subject to flow strong enough to round their edges. During our Nlarch 31, 2014 site visit, no water was observed along the flowpath that had been observed on Nlarch 17`h. Standing water was present at Wetland B beyond the flagged wetland edge), but no flowing surface water was observed exiting the wetland. No streams are mapped on or adjacent to the site. The closest stream is Ginger Creek, approximately 800 feet offsite to the west. Ginger Creek is a Class 4 tributary to the Cedar River, per RMC Figure 4-3-050-Q4 (Streams and Lakes). Given the above information, it is our opinion that water flows through this area only during/after high rainfall events, drains quickly, and that the area does not meet the definition of a stream. Recommendation: No action is necessary. K:\project\32300\32385. \Reports\Critical areas Review N1cmo_2014_0403.doc6f. - City Clerk reports appeal of the Hearing Examiner's final decision upon Page 153 of 517 Rocale Timmons, Senior Planner, City ofRenton Page 5 Reserve at Tiffany Park Fetland Review April 3,2014 Comment 10—Offsite Wetland (Cedar River Pipeline ROW) The flowpath described in Comment 9 drains into the Cedar River Pipeline ROW, to the southwest of the southwest corner of the Tiffany-Park site. Inundation was observed in the area, as well as FAC or wetter vegetation and potentially hydric soils; therefore, the area appears to be a wetland see Photograph 6). Recommendation: The wetland (if it is determined to be one) should be delineated, classified, and added to the revised Wetland Determination Report and plans. Comment 11—Buffer Averaging The buffer averaging proposal in the Wedand Determination Report has demonstrated that it meets all of the requirements in RNIC 4-3-050.NI.6.£ However,revisions to wetland edges will likely change this proposal. Recommendation: The applicant should revise the buffer averaging proposal to be consistent with the any necessary-revisions to the wetland edges and wetland buffers onsite. Comment 12—Temporary Buffer Impacts Sheets 6 and 7 of the plan set (Preliminary Grading Plan) show disturbed areas in wetland buffers that will result from grading and wall installation. These temporary-buffer impacts are not discussed in the Wetland Determination Report, nor are they shown on Figure 2 in the report. Recommendation: The applicant should revise the wetland documentation to discuss all temporary- impacts to wetland buffers, including impacts to specific functions and how restoration will replace those functions. A restoration planting plan for the disturbed areas should be provided as part of 60°,o design. Encl. Photographs K:\project\3_'300\32355.1\Reports\Critical:areas Revim Dlemo_2014_0403.doc6f. - City Clerk reports appeal of the Hearing Examiner's final decision upon Page 154 of 517 Rocale Timmons, Senior Planner, City ofRenton Page 6 Reserve at Tiffany Park Vetland Revie2v April 3,2014 PHOTOGRAPHS Photograph 1: Wedand A, near southern delineated edge (3/17/14) Photograph 2. Offsite wetland on Mercer Island Pipeline ROW, facing SE (3/17/14) K:\project\32300\32385-k\Rt--ports\CriticaI Areas Review Nlemo-2014-0403.doc y, •t sir.. 1 S k. va.` 6f. - City Clerk reports appeal of the Hearing Examiner's final decision upon Page 155 of 517 FIF a /•le- 41 r ZI kA k. T t < Y 6f. - City Clerk reports appeal of the Hearing Examiner's final decision upon Page 156 of 517 1+_ n }, •,,a .. y: - x s,gad' .. ...,,,. ,..;- fa v y1 1. t, , ice+•~/ .••^•` ./ /t ,, t"S J` t f "+ , mow.{ /° T . 6f. - City Clerk reports appeal of the Hearing Examiner's final decision upon Page 157 of 517 4 S 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 BEFORE THE HEARING EXAMINER FOR THE CITY OF RENTON 10 11 RE: The Reserve at Tiffany Park 12 Preliminary Plat ORDER ON REQUEST FOR 13 RECONSIDERATION 14 Preliminary Plat and SEPA Appeals ) 15 16 LUA13-001572, ECF, PP, CAE 17 The SEPA Appellants have requested reconsideration of the Hearing Examiner's decision on the 18 above-captioned matter by letter dated January 21, 2015. Since the reconsideration request affect parties of record and the interests of the City, the parties of record who testified at the hearing and19Citystaffwillbegivenanopportunitytorespondtotherequestforreconsiderationbeforeadecision 20 on the reconsideration request is issued. Any responses must be based upon evidence that is already in the record. No evidence that has not been recorded at the hearing or entered as an exhibit at the 21 hearing will be considered in the reconsideration request. 22 The SEPA Appellants do not appear to be aware that once a land use hearing is closed, no new 23 evidence may be considered except under very limited circumstances. Their reconsideration request appears to include photographs and reports that were not admitted into the administrative record of 24 this appeal. The restriction on new evidence arises from the Regulatory Reform Act requirement that there be no more than one public hearing on a land use permit application. RCW 36.70B.050(2) 25 provides that city and county land use permit review procedures only authorize one open record 26 hearing per project permit application or consolidated project permit application. The purpose of this PRELIMINARY PLAT - 1 6f. - City Clerk reports appeal of the Hearing Examiner's final decision upon Page 158 of 517 I requirement is to provide for a more efficient permitting system by preventing decision makers from holding one new hearing after another ad infinitum as new factual issues occur and also to prevent2 public confusion about when to participate in an on-going series of public hearings. See RCW 3 36.7013.010. Allowing new evidence after the close of a hearing essentially creates a second hearing. Renton's land use ordinances must be interpreted in a manner that is consistent with the one hearing 4 rule of the Regulatory Reform Act. The hearing on this matter was closed on December 19, 2014, the last date that evidence was authorized for the hearing of this application. No new evidence is allowed5afterDecember19, 2014, except as authorized by the Regulatory Reform Act or the Renton 6 Municipal Code. 7 Given that the SEPA Appellants may not have been aware of the restriction on new evidence, they will be given an opportunity to reformulate their reconsideration request so that it is properly limited8toevidencethathasbeenadmittedintotherecordofthisproceeding. 9 10 ORDER ON RECONSIDERATION 11 1. The SEPA Appellants have until 5:00 pm, January 28, 2015 to re-submit their Request for 12 Reconsideration so that it does not contain any new evidence. 13 Persons who testified at the hearing on the above-captioned matter and City staff shall have until 5:00 pm, February 4, 2015 to provide written comments in response to the Request for 14 Reconsideration submitted by the SEPA Appellants in response to the January 28, 2015 deadline. Only persons who participated in the SEPA appeal may comment on the SEPA appeal issues. All 15 comments are limited to the issues raised in the Request for Reconsideration subject to the January 16 28, 2015 deadline. 17 3. The SEPA Appellants shall have until February 9, 2015 at 5:00 pm to provide a written reply to 18 the responses authorized in the preceding paragraph. 19 4. All written comments, responses and replies authorized above must be emailed to the Examiner at olbrechtslati'tit n ail.com; Rocale Timmons at Renate Beedon at 20 rentor-opposites a comeast.net; Nancy Rogers at. NRog,:r's a CLlimcross.coni and Cynthia Moya at CMoya@Rentonwa.gov. In the alternative written comments may be mailed or delivered to 21 Rocale Timmons, City of Renton Senior Planner, at 1055 South Grady Way, Renton, WA 98057. 22 Mailed or delivered comments must be received by the City by the deadlines specified in this Order. 23 5. No new evidence may be presented in the replies or responses. All information presented must be 24 drawn from documents and testimony admitted into the public hearing of this proceeding. 25 Applicable laws, court opinions and hearing examiner decisions are not considered new evidence and may be submitted if relevant to a response or reply to the Applicant's request for 26 reconsideration. PRELIMINARY PLAT - 2 6f. - City Clerk reports appeal of the Hearing Examiner's final decision upon Page 159 of 517 1 2 6. In order to prevent confusion, the City Clerk's Office is directed to not distribute this Order 3 to the parties of record until the SEPA Appellants have submitted a revised Request for Reconsideration pursuant to the terms of this Order. When that revised Request is submitted, 4 the City Clerk's Office should distribute the revised Request for Reconsideration along with this Order to the parties of record. The January 21, 2015 Request for Reconsideration should5notbedistributedtothepartiesofrecordatanytime (unless of course someone makes a 6 specific request for a copy). 7 DATED this 22nd day of January, 2015. 9 Plir A.albrmhts 10 City of Renton Hearing Examiner 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 PRELIMINARY PLAT - 3 6f. - City Clerk reports appeal of the Hearing Examiner's final decision upon Page 160 of 517 CITY OF RENTON r JAN 2 2 2015 RECEIVED CITY CLERK'S OFFICE 1 4 i- 6- S C H& January 22, 2015 VIA EMAIL Hearing Examiner Phil Olbrechts City of Renton 1055 Grady Way Renton, WA 98057 Re: The Reserve at Tiffany Park Preliminary Plat City File No. LUA13-001572—Request for Reconsideration Dear Examiner Olbrechts: This firm represents Henley USA, LLC ("Henley"), the contract purchaser for the property and applicant for the above-referenced preliminary plat. Henley submits this written request pursuant to RMC 4-8-100(G)(9) and RMC 4-8-110(E)(13), which provide for reconsideration of a Hearing Examiner's Decision if a party of record believes the Decision is based on "an erroneous procedure, errors of law or fact, errors in judgment, or the discovery of new evidence which could not be reasonably available at the prior hearing." We originally sought review of these issues as a request for review of technical errors under RMC 4-8-100(G)(7). We are filing this request for reconsideration to ensure that these issues are reviewed as we have not yet received a ruling on our earlier request; however, we believe they should be more appropriately considered in our previously filed request for clarification and correction of technical errors. 1.There may be errors of fact or law on p. 28, line 9. Here, there is a typographical error referencing a"15 foot wide perimeter landscaping requirement." That should be revised to reference a 10 foot wide perimeter landscaping requirement." 2.There may be errors of fact or law on p. 40, lines 7— 10. Here, the first portion of Examiner's Condition Lb, which revises MDNS Condition 6, reads: "The applicant shall revise its landscaping plan to provide for a 10 foot wide on-site landscape strip for all lots." As revised, this Condition also goes on to address the 10 foot perimeter landscaping for certain lots with retaining walls facing neighboring property owners, that resulted from the SEPA Appeal. The linkage of those two issues raises a possibility for misinterpretation. We ask the Examiner to separate the issues or otherwise clarify that there is a difference between the 10 foot front yard landscaping issue called for by code, and the 10 foot buffer for retaining walls along the edge of the property that resulted from the SEPA Appeal. nrogers2cairncross.com direct:(206)254-4417 102743372.DOCX;2} 6f. - City Clerk reports appeal of the Hearing Examiner's final decision upon Page 161 of 517 Hearing Examiner Phil OlbrJ, January 22, 2015 Page 2 The record reflects that these are two separate issues. Specifically, the City Staff Report to the Examiner(Exhibit K.La), at p. 13, described how 10-feet of street frontage landscaping was required by RMC 4-4-070(F)(1), which provides: "Ten feet(10') of on-site landscaping is required along all public street frontages, with the exception of areas for required walkways and driveways and those zones with building setbacks less than ten feet (10'). In those cases, ten feet (10') of landscaping shall be required where buildings are not located." The Staff Report continued by noting that the code-required 10-foot front yard landscape strip was not shown on the landscape plan in the record. The Staff Report also then described the ERC determination to impose a 15 foot perimeter buffer, and then stated that City Staff was recommending a condition that would require submittal of a new landscape plan to depict two things: (1) "a 10-foot wide on-site landscape strip for all lots," and(2) a"15-foot wide vegetated buffer surround the subject site..." We ask that the two issues be plainly separated in the plat conditions. 3.There may be errors of fact or law on p. 26, lines 4—5, that is also repeated on p. 40, line 11, which text lists Lots 40, 41, 46, 47, 80, 82, 83-90, 93, and 94. Here, the Examiner's Decision text, and Examiner's Condition Lb, which revises MDNS Condition 6, calls for a 10 foot wide area of perimeter landscaping where retaining walls are greater than 4 feet in height above the ground surface, so as to buffer the visual impact of those walls on the existing neighborhood. To reflect the evidence in the record, we request that the list of specified lots either be revised or eliminated. As noted on Exhibit K.6.a, and in the testimony of Barry Talkington, Lots 80 and 82 have a"cut" wall, meaning that the wall is not visible outside the property line ofthe plat, meaning there can be no visual impact of the wall to buffer. Lots 83 - 90, and 93 - 94 are buffered behind Tract A, which tract is already wider than 10 feet and which tract is already planned for landscaping. Thus, if revised, the list of lots should include only Lots 40, 41, 46, 47, plus a note that as to Lots 83 - 90, and 93 - 94, the revised landscaping plan for Tract A should confirm that site obscuring landscaping will be planted in Tract A. Also, the revision should note that only walls that are on the perimeter property line, over 4 feet as measured from above-ground, and visible from neighboring properties should be subject to the buffering requirement. Alternatively, because as described in the testimony of Barry Talkington, the plat design continues to evolve in the engineering process, there is the very real possibility that some walls on the perimeter may drop below four feet in height above the lower level of the ground surface, meaning that an alternative approach for the Condition language on p. 40 would be to omit the list of lots entirely and instead state that: "A 10 foot wide, site obscuring landscaping buffer shall be provided adjacent to areas where retaining walls are four feet or more in height above the ground surface on the low side ofthe wall, and where those walls are located on the perimeter of the property and are visible to neighboring property owners." 02743372.DOCX;2} 6f. - City Clerk reports appeal of the Hearing Examiner's final decision upon Page 162 of 517 Hearing Examiner Phil Olbrci, _s January 22, 2015 Page 3 4.There may be errors of fact or law on pp. 28 - 29, discussion of Retaining Wall Height. The retaining wall height issue was raised as part of the preliminary plat proceeding, not the SEPA Appeals. Accordingly, it should fall under the preliminary plat discussion that begins on p. 30 ofthe Examiner's Decision. 5.There may be errors of fact or law on p. 40, Examiner's Condition 3. Condition 3 should be deleted because it was replaced and superseded by Condition 4. Thank you for your time and attention to this request. Very truly yours, v Nancy Bainbridge Rogers NBR/kgb cc: Rocale Timmons 02743372.DOCX;2} 6f. - City Clerk reports appeal of the Hearing Examiner's final decision upon Page 163 of 517 z Date: Wed,Jan 21, 2015 To: City of Renton Hearing Examiner Phil Olbrechts mailto:olbrechtslaw@gmail.com CITY OF RENTOIV City of Rentonr y Wa1055GradWay JAN 1 2015 Renton, WA 98057 RECEIVED CITY CLERK'S OFFICE From: Tiffany Park Woods Advocacy Group mailto:renton-opposites@comcast.net 1725 Pierce Avenue SE Renton, WA 98058 Subject: Reserve at Tiffany Park PP- Hearing Examiner Decision (LUA13-001572) Request for Reconsideration Dear Mr. Olbrechts: This letter constitutes Tiffany Park Woods Advocacy Group's Request for Reconsideration pursuant to RMC 4- 8-110(E)(13). TPWAG has elected to pursue this Request for Reconsideration Pro Se and hereby designates Renate Beedon as the designated representative. References Letter entitled, "RE:The Reserve at Tiffany Park- Preliminary Plat- Preliminary Plat and SEPA Appeals - LUA13-001572, ECF, PP, CAE - Final Decision", from Phil Olbrechts- City of Renton Hearing Examiner, dated Jan 8, 2015. Scope The Hearing Examiner's decision provides inadequate mitigation for the impacts on the environment and on the surrounding community of Applicant's proposed development to support a DNS-M determination under SEPA. The City of Renton has authority to ask for mitigation under SEPA, and TPWAG asks the City of Renton (via the Hearing Examiner)to exercise that authority in the areas discussed in this letter. An environmental impact statement is justified and must be prepared whenever significant adverse impacts on the environment are probable, not just when they are inevitable. If an environmental statement is required by the weight of the evidence and if the responsible city authority does not require an environmental impact statement then the decision is clearly erroneous. Wetlands Problems Wetland determination, measuring and staking One of our concerns is the wetlands and the way they have been determined, measured and staked. As you can see from our comments below, we believe that the wetland depiction alone has been done incorrectly and therefore question the way other studies pertaining to this development have TPWAG Request for Reconsideration Page 1 of 206f. - City Clerk reports appeal of the Hearing Examiner's final decision upon Page 164 of 517 been conducted. An EIS ild clearly provide the city and all inte _.,ced parties with information that is correct and fully evaluate the significant adverse impacts on the environment. The ORIGINAL study by Otak pointed out many discrepancies in the original study submitted by Schulz. Specifically, this study claimed that the wetlands are actually larger than the original study submitted by Schulz. After the Applicant received the Otak study, a meeting was held between the City of Renton, Schulz and Otak. This was an on-site meeting where apparently the Applicant convinced the Otak consultants that the original study by Schulz was correct and the OTAK study was not. If you look at and compare both reports, you can see significant changes between the two versions of Otak studies. One thing they did agree on is the additional wetland D. OTAK Secondary Review Memo-4-3-1• As you can see from the pictures taken On January 16, 2015, the wetland boundary markers and in some cases even the wetland buffer markers are standing in bodies of water. This is NOT after a record rainfall, but during a typical day in January. This is of great concern to us, as it suggests that the boundary of wetland B and possibly wetland C were not correctly delineated. 7, M elr e t h r 4 1aa TPWAG Request for Reconsideration Page 2 of 206f. - City Clerk reports appeal of the Hearing Examiner's final decision upon Page 165 of 517 Vy k T a s w 1 is 4 •. t 'l , " ` :`'' a 7 _ S t Y P ; 4 t 6f. - City Clerk reports appeal of the Hearing Examiner's final decision upon Page 166 of 517 1, R r-y,y ra RKyfAn k 1` b+r ' k,: t tl III II S ' j'* 9 1'4 i, k 4d'. yr i T r . ti 4 f r fit, ` j y¢ t t' 1 2 y'„ 3 5' FF l% y..q4. ). Y'3 + A ( r r ,; -}. f v fF ' Y P i t fit 3f_e •• k ... F ,, J r t s, t 5 :yrs Ott- 4`°, „_ x. s„ F l r r gyp' 4.' - f - ra. r ti 1 5 a^ 6f. - City Clerk reports appeal of the Hearing Examiner's final decision upon Page 167 of 517 Image 8477 ea s s a• o 411 4LI y r 4 t a axisEE4ve. F c fp/ A^ y e v k 6f. - City Clerk reports appeal of the Hearing Examiner's final decision upon Page 168 of 517 Image ,, 3 1 six' _... x 1 i. ff. rs 7 i ' Mfr } y P` r .I }.. r L t d e r 3 Image , y.r'r` e if C Y Si { j 2 v ..+'"' l a • l 4` F. Al rR .a .. r ./ r ts y 6f. - City Clerk reports appeal of the Hearing Examiner's final decision upon Page 169 of 517 waf 1,'a R t, t 4't v i4 Y` u , ti 1 P'. 6f. - City Clerk reports appeal of the Hearing Examiner's final decision upon Page 170 of 517 f S y i t.`•. fff i a k i i Y 1 6f. - City Clerk reports appeal of the Hearing Examiner's final decision upon Page 171 of 517 s ffjj w'.. t e 3 {" t4 if 4 a` bn vs f71r c1 x tE'"& .: • ?. fs r+ f,#t r.,e vw. N a y IK t J ry 3'a r x• k ." t .- y;,,,, t C w'e »° M1 „F;'F. r.. p ... i 1n... YpKy - 'rt .."'`" j;- .+u.;„ wn..a• A, s r 1 y _ 6f. - City Clerk reports appeal of the Hearing Examiner's final decision upon Page 172 of 517 N i tr,' t i 5 r sF z q `..r\a ,,,:'{ '' it J 1 't t- y k{ as y , t ' j+; s: ,sL,rrf, t• - At fig z v, w s s t a. r "'"*'4., y'_`'J'. ysz ryF J!{r . . -. 'Ft :,:,, ,,,,•.,ar,rte-'• Y 4• f Y ?``Frw. 51 9d"' r t* 6f. - City Clerk reports appeal of the Hearing Examiner's final decision upon Page 173 of 517 i r x r r f y Y a. ., _. r :... fib'° w' $' e d w TPWAG Request for • •- • 11 of 206f. - City Clerk reports appeal of the Hearing Examiner's final decision upon Page 174 of 517 t a We are supplying copy of a topographical map showing the location of trees and wetlands upon which we indicate location of photos taken on January 16, 2014.. (Topographic Survey, Renton School District, February 2008) t, 6, Renton School District Survey Map r rs N ' - azs z__ ej c ie \3 v 31 56 1 \ x— H WIRD GRPI TPWAG Request for Reconsideration Page 12 of 206f. - City Clerk reports appeal of the Hearing Examiner's final decision upon Page 175 of 517 We are also providing you with a Tree Cutting/Land Clearing Plan, which shows how the proposed lots are appearing to encroach onto the wetlands B and C, in particular lots 70, 79 and 80. RESERVE AT TIFFANY PARK 1 ow mwmu 4 i M a w'6 EXHIBIT 11 TPWAG Request for Reconsideration Page 13 of 206f. - City Clerk reports appeal of the Hearing Examiner's final decision upon Page 176 of 517 r f?LAdE.J?Y LiNChf" :L rr tvn,a picarrn.waucmm:.:.mec rSp,t...,a.. .. FOR r f RESE.RYE AT TIFFANY PAS' cry._,.,.,.,..........._'`..`.' , S v yA 1 r.AIMwDRMWA.aw« sem; fi a4gy Yi"iRE sxa rn* s r 9 w M t y r.a fres i esi i EXHIBIT 18 Also encroaching onto wetland C is a street. On the "Preliminary Cover Sheet for Tiffany Park" chart it looks like the street is cutting right into the wetland. These encroachments appear on the Tree Cutting/Land Clearing Plan dated in 2014. (date is too small to read). In addition,on the "Preliminary Cover Sheet for Tiffany Park" the wetland is encroached even more than on the previous maps. In other words, it appears that the wetlands keep shrinking to make room for proposed lots. TPWAG Request for Reconsideration Page 14 of 206f. - City Clerk reports appeal of the Hearing Examiner's final decision upon Page 177 of 517 The photos taken on January 16 clearly show that several wetland boundary and wetland buffer markers are clearly inside of the wetland boundaries and/or buffers. This is of great concern to TPWAG. The maps provided by the Applicant show that plats and streets already encroach onto wetland boundaries acknowledged by the Applicant. If we,TPWAG, are correct in our assumption that the wetlands have been marked incorrectly and that the wetlands are bigger than depicted by the Applicant, than the proposed lots and street will greatly violate the wetland buffers and therefore the wetland code/regulations, etc. We believe that this aspect alone should call for an EIS, since it is possible that more errors or oversights like with the wetlands have been made throughout the whole proposed development. We hope that at least the wetland delineation will be revisited and re-staked and then reviewed again Relief Requested Discount the one-sided testimony of Applicant's wetlands expert (because the property owner refuses to allow TPWAG to bring an independent expert on the property) Require the property owner to allow TPWAG to bring a wetlands expert on site, allow adequate time for the expert to prepare a report, and then hold a meeting to examine the results. Require an EIS to resolve the unanswered probable significant environmental impacts as raised by Steve Neugebauer in his testimony before the Hearing Examiner, and as are raised in this letter. Trees Problems During the Hearing Examiner's meetings on Nov 18, 2014 and Dec 8, 2014, we witnessed public testimony from Claudia Donnelly and Jill Jones showing how the developer had apparently removed all trees from another development, even though the City of Renton requires them to retain trees. Therefore, we request that the City of Renton ensure that the developer doesn't intentionally or carelessly damage the few trees that are required to be retained under city ordinance, and then use that as legal loophole to circumvent city ordinance and remove the "damaged" trees. Relief Requested Consider assigning a person on site during construction hours to monitor activities to ensure code compliance. Consider steep fines for careless or intentional damage to trees. If trees are damaged and must be removed, require Applicant to replace the damaged trees with equivalent *mature* trees, and prohibit them from using any of the original canopy from the removed tree for any purpose other than to allow the new tree to grow. Storm Water Problems Per Steve Neugebauer's testimony, removing trees will remove 75%of the property's ability to process storm water. TPWAG Request for Reconsideration Page 15 of 206f. - City Clerk reports appeal of the Hearing Examiner's final decision upon Page 178 of 517 24" pipe (as proposed by A:, .icant) is barely good enough for a 101 .r storm. 100-year storms are common. We may have a few 100-year storms in any calendar year. Thus, it is likely that the neighboring properties will be flooded regularly as a result of the proposed development. Relief Requested Consider requiring a larger storm water drainpipe along SE 18th Street. Consider requiring "pervious" pavement (that allows water through it) on all streets, sidewalks and driveways, so that the storm water can be naturally mitigated on site. Consider requiring retention of at least 6" of topsoil on all exposed surfaces (e.g., lawns)to minimize the need for watering, and so that the storm water can be naturally mitigated on site. TPWAG requests that storm water management studies, calculations be completed in compliance with the City of Renton Storm Water Management Requirements, as further defined by the adopted King County Surface Water Design Manual; sections which specifically address this issue are titled: Core Requirements#2 Off site Analysis, and Core Requirements#4 Conveyance Systems. The City of Renton has some added amendments for special community situations. Roof Runoff Problems Although roof runoff by itself may not be a pollutant, when it is mixed with chemicals and pesticides used in the yard it becomes a pollutant. Although roof runoff may not be a target pollution-generating surface, roof runoff is still subject to flow control per Core Requirement#3 which mandates that the City may require design adjustments per the wetland hydrology protection guidelines in Reference 5. KCSWDM Reference 5, Wetland Hydrology Protection Guidelines, mandates that a wetland may not be structurally or hydrologically engineered for runoff quantity or quality control in Category 2 wetlands. We have attached the Wetland Hydrology Protection Guidelines.) Relief Requested Applicant should comply with the Wetland Hydrology Protection Guidelines. WN LI Wetland hydrology Protection guidelines.F Traffic Problems Applicant's expert has testified that the level of service on the roads surrounding the proposed development will be acceptable per the applicable city and state laws. However, that analysis did not address the impact of converting SE 18th Street and 124th Place SE from quiet Cul-De-Sacs into arterials for the traffic from almost 100 new homes (over 1,000 vehicles per day- mostly on SE 18th Street- by Applicant's own estimates). Realtors know that the difference in value between a house on a busy street and a house on a Cul-De- Sac is significant. TPWAG Request for Reconsideration Page 16 of 206f. - City Clerk reports appeal of the Hearing Examiner's final decision upon Page 179 of 517 o "Usually the differ. .: in pricing is someplace between 6% 16% depending on what type of traffic is traveling on your busy street and at what times." http://www.realestateabc.com/homeguide/selling-busy-street.htm) o "For instance, you may have a stellar home, but if it's on a busy street, its value will undoubtedly be less than a comparable home on a road less traveled. Potential rezoning of adjacent areas also can affect comps: If that lovely forest behind your home is due to become a sea of condominiums, your home's value is likely to be less than a similar home that will retain its forest view." (http://www.realtor.com/home-values/HomeValuesFag.aspx) o "Nevertheless, the single obstacle to getting anyone interested in our home is the close proximity to the access road. ... It needs to be priced alot less than the comps. ... around here it seems a house siding a busy street sells for 10-15% less than the same house inside the subdivision." (http://www.zillow.com/advice-thread/Tips-Suggestions-to-Sell-House-Near-Busy- Street/17954/) o "How much do you think the street knocks off the price tag? ... I'd say 10-25%, depending on the street." (http:Hforums.redfin.com/t5/Seattle/Selling-House-on-Busy-Street/td-p/53731) Applicant also seems to be well aware of this fact. The planned development contains not one, but two Cul-De-Sacs (instead of building adequate roads to carry traffic in and out)! We respect Applicant's right to develop their property, but we expect them to respect the property rights of the surrounding community. We believe that Applicant is maximizing their profit by unfairly externalizing their costs to the neighboring property owners. With this proposed development, we estimate that Applicant will effectively be taking$1,560,000 from surrounding property owners without compensation. We ask the City of Renton to intervene to ensure equal protection under the law. o Based on City of Renton Plat maps. o Based on Zillow.com for typical property values of$300k. 0 14 houses along SE 18th Street with severe 15% impact. 0 4 houses along 124th Place SE with severe 15% impact. o Another 50 houses on surrounding roads with 5% impact. o Thus, 18 property owners lose an estimated $45,000 each and 50 property owners lose an estimated $15,000 each. o Meanwhile Applicant's preliminary plat map shows that they intend to build 26 houses along their Cul-De-Sacs, giving an estimated 26 * $45,000 =$1,170,000 in additional profit for Applicant. Relief Requested Consider substantially reducing the number of allowable houses in the proposed development. Consider requiring at least one more access road to the proposed development (even if Applicant has to buy existing houses to replace with roads). Consider removing speed bumps that are blocking arterial streets to the South (especially 126th Avenue SE, SE 164th Street, and SE 160th Street). This will provide less incentive for drivers from the proposed development to avoid the back entrance (i.e., 124th Place SE) and for drivers coming from Fairwood to use Pierce Ave SE and SE 16th Street. Consider street modifications to encourage traffic to use Royal Hills Drive SE instead of SE 16th Street. Royal Hills Drive SE is currently a bus snow route. It is a wide road, it has a gentle incline, it has good sight distance, and it is sanded when icy, so it is much better suited for the heavy volume of traffic than is SE 16th Street. TPWAG Request for Reconsideration Page 17 of 206f. - City Clerk reports appeal of the Hearing Examiner's final decision upon Page 180 of 517 1. Re-open the end of Beat . Way SE to Puget Drive SE. 2. Close the intersection at SE16th Street and Edmonds Avenue SE. Local traffic will be able to use the newly opened Beacon Way SE, and traffic from Edmonds Way SE will no longer have to fight arterial traffic to leave their neighborhood. i v§ 190d Poyad kill,Dr$E r . Frte" t`>' ldFa1 9`e Sf t ltiVl qG Pkq L 1b re\ QS 5 SE 16th St SF SE. 3 n9LLad+reri:xt th.• , ttakeq 7th St rF M E SF MSE}trt' r C,F F9' 3;a S aSE o rtL sF i rr 9 CL D roc sF f SF n o SE 18thCt C:uk•,L-;Sura yw SE 157th St F TMwyPark _- A 1'1 6 dyo to SF 20th Ct 1111% 4- FF75j u` `F•V Pae u p! SE IsosCaudceCafe;.:l'.c F: SE 21st St Ile i taKade Y:<!.m 6 c SF7 hist SE 160th St rF SE 160th St SE 160th St W N v,ca.=cus SE lblst St Schnc; S N {:ac&Park. sr SE 162nd St fF SE 162nd St r wN SE 162nd St SE 163rd St W SE 163rd St W a a a x t t L SE 164th St N10 SE 164th St SE 164th St SE 164th it ar rc. Figure 1 -Area Map TPWAG Request for Reconsideration Page 18 of 206f. - City Clerk reports appeal of the Hearing Examiner's final decision upon Page 181 of 517 Environmental Impact 5tatemed Problems An environmental impact statement is justified and must be prepared whenever significant adverse impacts on the environment are probable, not just when they are inevitable. If an environmental statement is required by the weight of the evidence and if the responsible city authority does not require an environmental impact statement then the decision is clearly erroneous. The problems raised in this request for reconsideration, together with the issues raised at the appeal hearing, coupled with Applicant's refusal to provide full documentation of environmental conditions at the site and the full extent of structural retaining walls at the site, and the piecemeal manner in which the City of Renton and the Applicant addressed problematic issues for the wetlands, detention vault, drainage and retaining walls weigh in favor of requiring preparation of an environmental impact statement. Relief Requested The City of Renton should require an environmental impact statement for the project. Respectfully submitted by Tiffany Park Woods Advocacy Group with the hope that you reconsider our issues. Thank you. qko1 RENATE BEEDON President cc: Rocale Timmons mailto:RTimmons@Rentonwa.gov Nancy Rogers maiIto:NRogers@Cairncross.com TPWAG Request for Reconsideration Page 19 of 206f. - City Clerk reports appeal of the Hearing Examiner's final decision upon Page 182 of 517 h 1 O f 9 Royal H;11s Or SE 9sPSE open severe'zs at S SE 16th 5ticpact marSE Psi S`, be` O A P Q`} e ke Y°ung,close ii 7th St m m df, 4yn yP Y SE ii fF F SF fi S t'4G fP W7 h Am. Fb% 9 e a SFS V, A_ S.A .h nJ Aevere eP9 sF t° `PSF f impact rF SE 19r6Ct proposed C k;.:u ,:••asFfsmsdvelopmenttSE157thStFTiffanyparkA LLJ Tf m yw N N SE 20th Ct or j SF S> v SEISt <Sfhr} —s:5IC3recu.c E severe o, impact SE 21st St IlA` r c' SF' 7hStCF:Rear. crR SE 16LYh St speed v SE 160th Stbumps SE 160th St N vca:,us speed z: a ->bumps t -r p 2 SE 161st St 1 Carcadr Pxk sis i•• s SE 162nd St rF P SE 162nd St < S CON SE 162nd Si SE 163rd St ^W N y NWtxN H y SE 163rd St speed 19 SE 1(rith St E bumps SE 164th St SE SE 1641h St SE 164th St Figure 2 -Area Map TPWAG Request for Reconsideration Page 20 of 206f. - City Clerk reports appeal of the Hearing Examiner's final decision upon Page 183 of 517 Technical Memorandum To: Rocale Timmons, Senior Planner City of Renton-Current Planning 10230 hE Points Drive From: Darcey Miller,Senior Wetland Scientist Suite 400 425) 739-7977 Kirkland, WA 98033 Phone(425)8224446 Copies: Fax(425)827-9577 Date: April 3, 2014 Subject: Reserve at Tiffany Park Wetland Delineation Review Project No.: 32385.A This review pertains to the Preliminary Plat application for the Reserve at Tiffany Park (City of Renton LUA13-001572) submitted by the applicant,Novastar Development,Inc., to the City of Renton (City). The proposed Reserve at Tiffany Park is located generally to the east of Tiffany Park, to the north of SE 158th Street, and south and west of Pierce Avenue SE. Otak has been asked by the City of Renton (the City) to review the submitted critical areas document and to provide comments regarding its applicability to the Renton Municipal Code (RMC), specifically, Section 4-3- 050, Critical Areas Regulations. The following documents were reviewed in terms of compliance with the critical areas sections of the City code: Vetland Determination:Reserve at Tiany Park, prepared by C. Gary Schulz, dated February 28, 2014; Plan set for the Reserve at Tiffany Park Preliminary Plat,prepared by Barghausen Consulting Engineers, Inc., signed February 27,2014. Technical Information Report,prepared by Barghausen Consulting Engineers,Inc., dated November 12,2013,and revised February 24,2014. The Wetland Determination identifies three Category 2 wetlands and one Category 3 wetland on the site,which are required to have 50-foot and 25-foot buffers,respectively. The report indicates that wetland buffer averaging is proposed for the project site, and outlines the rationale for meeting the requirements for buffer averaging described in the RMC. K:\project\32300\32385:1\Reports\Critical Areas Review\femo_2014_0403.doc6f. - City Clerk reports appeal of the Hearing Examiner's final decision upon Page 184 of 517 i Rocale Timmons,Seniot Planner, City ofRenton Page 2 Reserve at Tiffany Park Wetland Review Apri13,2014 Two Otak wetland biologists visited the site on March 17, 2014,to confirm whether the wetland delineation was consistent with the Washington State Wetlands Identification and Delineation Manual Ecology 1997), as required by the RMC. An Otak biologist made an additional site visit on March 31,2014. Please note that the wetland delineation was performed in June 2013,whereas the rainfall amount as of March 17, 2014,was approximately 5.58 inches above the normal amount for March National Weather Service); and on March 31,2014 was 5.85 inches above normal for March. Comment 1 — Delineation Method The wetland determination report cites the US Army Corps of Engineers wetland delineation manuals (1987 and 2010 supplement) for the methodology used. However, the Washington State Wetlands Identification and Delineation Alanzral(Ecology 1997) is required by RMC 4-3-050.M.4.a. Recommendation: The applicant should ensure that the wetland delineation is consistent with the methodology required by the RMC. Comment 2—Survey Map We have not seen a survey map showing all of the wetland flags,which is necessary for confirming the wetland delineation. As discussed below, some wetland flags were not found in the field; however,ifwe have a detailed map and some of the flags remain,all of those missing flags may not need to be replaced. Recommendation: The applicant should submit a map shoeing all of the surveyed wetland flags from June 2013 and any upcoming revisions). In addition,missing wetland flags should be replaced as deemed necessary for Otak's confirmation of the wetland edges. Comment 3—Wetland A We agree with portions ofWetland A's delineated edges. However,we could not find some of the flags (including Wetland A-1) in the southern part of the wetland. It appears that the wetland areas extend farther out than the delineated edge, specifically near Flags A-1,A-3,A-5,and A-6. In these areas,we observed hydrophytic vegetation (if any plants at all), hydric soils, and wetland hydrology mainly inundation). On March 17,2014,in some areas that appeared to be outside of the delineated flagged) wetland,inundation was over 1 foot deep during our site visit (see Photograph 1). We agree that Wetland A meets the criteria outlined in the RMC for a Category 2 wetland,which is required to have a 50-foot buffer. Recommendation: Wetland A should be reexamined and any differing edges re-flagged during the early growing season (before mid-May). Any changes to the wetland should be included in the revised Wedand Determination Report and project plans. K:\project\32300\32385:\\Reports\Critical Areas Review 1\femo_2014_0401doc6f. - City Clerk reports appeal of the Hearing Examiner's final decision upon Page 185 of 517 r t Rocale Timmons,SeniorPlanner, City ofRenton Page 3 Reserve at Tiffany Park Vetland Revieav April 3,2014 Comment 4—Wetlands B and C During our site visits, standing water extended generally 10 to 70 feet farther than the delineated edges of Wetlands B and C. In addition,Wetlands B and C are not separated by upland area; they appear to be part of the same wetland. On March 17, 2014,inundation ranged from several inches to 1.5 feet deep in areas that may be outside of the delineated wetland edge. Hydrophytic vegetation mainly salmonberry and red alder) and hydric soils were also observed in the majority of these areas. We agree that Wetland C meets the criteria outlined in the RMC for a Category 2 wetland, which is required to have a 50-foot buffer;however, because Wetlands B and C are connected (one wetland),the area flagged as Wetland B would also be considered a Category 2. Recommendation: Wetlands B and C should be reexamined and any differing edges re-flagged during the early growing season (before mid-May). Confirm the rating and buffer size for Wetland B. Any changes to the wetlands should be included in the revised Wetland Determination Report and project plans. Comment 5—Wetland D We agree with the majority of the wedand flag locations on Wetland D,although the wetland appears to extend approximately 25 feet to the south of Flags D-3 and D-4. We agree that Wetland D meets the criteria outlined in the RMC for a Category 2 wetland. Recommendation: The wetland should be reexamined and any differing edges re-flagged during the early growing season (before mid-May). Any changes to the wetland should be included in the revised Wetland Determination Report and project plans. Comment 6—Offsite Wetland (SW side Mercer Island Pipeline ROW) An offsite wetland adjacent to the Reserve at Tiffany Park site was observed on the southwest side of the Mercer Island Pipeline Right-of-way (see Photograph 2). The northwest end of the wetland is southwest of(in line with) 18`h Court SE. This linear wetland is approximately 150 to 200 feet long and contains hydrophytic vegetation (creeping buttercup,reed canarygrass, and other grasses) and hydric soils.`Wetland hydrology observed on March 17,2014,ranged from saturation at the surface to saturation at 4 inches below the surface. This wetland likely meets the criteria in the RMC for a Category 3 wetland,which is required to have a 25-foot buffer. Recommendation: If permission is granted from the offsite landowner, the wetland should be delineated, classified,and added to the revised Wetland Determination Report and plans. If permission for delineation is not received, the wetland location should be estimated and shown on the plans,along with the buffer. K:\project\32300\32385,k\Reports\Critical.Areas Review Memo_2014_0403.doc6f. - City Clerk reports appeal of the Hearing Examiner's final decision upon Page 186 of 517 i Rocale Timmons, Senior Planner, City ofRenton Page 4 Reserve at Tifany Park Wetland Review April 3, 2014 Comment 7—Offsite Wetlands (NE side Mercer Island Pipeline ROW) Several offsite wetlands were observed on the northeast side of the Mercer Island Pipeline Right-of- way (northeast of the gravel access road). These wetlands appear to be Category 3 wetlands;if so, they are likely far enough away so that their 25-foot buffers do not extend onto the project site. Recommendation: The applicant should confirm that buffers from these offsite wetlands do not extend onto the property. Comment 8—Wetland in Southwest Corner of Site A wetland was observed in the southwest corner of the site,to the north of SE 18`h Street and southeast of the adjacent development's fence. The area was dominated by salmonberrv, Himalayan blackberry,and reed canarygrass. On March 17, 2014, hydric soils and up to 4 inches of inundation were observed,and water was draining from the wetland onto the sidewalk along the north side of SE 18`h Street. Recommendation: The wetland(if it is determined to be one) should be delineated,classified,and added to the revised Wetland Determination Report and project plans. Comment 9—Flowpath from Wetland B During our March 17,2014 site visit,water was observed flowing generally west out of Wedand B to the southwest corner of the project site (see Photographs 3,4, and 5),then offsite into the Cedar River Pipeline Right-of-way. The wetted width of the flowpath onsite on March 17`h was approximately 3 to 6 feet, and the water depth was 1 to 3 inches.Vegetation on the edges of the stream generally consists of upland species such as Indian plum.A defined stream channel with bed and banks was not observed. Sorted gravels were observed in several small portions of the flowpath;however,these gravels were generally angular and therefore have not been subject to flow strong enough to round their edges. During our March 31,2014 site visit,no water was observed along the flowpath that had been observed on March 17`h. Standing water was present at Wetland B beyond the flagged wetland edge),but no flowing surface water was observed exiting the wetland. No streams are mapped on or adjacent to the site.The closest stream is Ginger Creek, approximately 800 feet offsite to the west. Ginger Creek is a Class 4 tributary to the Cedar River,per RMC Figure 4-3-050-Q4 (Streams and Lakes). Given the above information,it is our opinion that water flows through this area only during/after high rainfall events, drains quickly, and that the area does not meet the definition of a stream. Recommendation: No action is necessary. K:\project\32300\32385A\Reports\Critical Areas Reeiew tiiemo_2014_0403.doc6f. - City Clerk reports appeal of the Hearing Examiner's final decision upon Page 187 of 517 Rocale Timmons, SeniotPlanner, City ofRenton Page 5 Reserve at Tiffany Park Wetland Review Aprd13,2014 Comment 10—Offsite Wetland (Cedar River Pipeline ROW) The flowpath described in Comment 9 drains into the Cedar River Pipeline ROW,to the southwest of the southwest corner of the Tiffany Park site. Inundation was observed in the area, as well as FAC or wetter vegetation and potentially hydric soils;therefore, the area appears to be a wetland see Photograph 6). Recommendation:The wetland (if it is determined to be one) should be delineated, classified, and added to the revised Wedand Determination Report and plans. Comment 11—Buffer Averaging The buffer averaging proposal in the\Vetland Determination Report has demonstrated that it meets all of the requirements in RMC 4-3-050.M.6.f. However,revisions to wetland edges will likely change this proposal. Recommendation: The applicant should revise the buffer averaging proposal to be consistent with the any necessary revisions to the wetland edges and wetland buffers onsite. Comment 12—Temporary Buffer Impacts Sheets 6 and 7 of the plan set (Preliminary Grading Plan) show disturbed areas in wetland buffers that will result from grading and wall installation. These temporary buffer impacts are not discussed in the Wetland Determination Report,nor are they shown on Figure 2 in the report. Recommendation: The applicant should revise the wetland documentation to discuss all temporary impacts to wetland buffers,including impacts to specific functions and how restoration will replace those functions. A restoration planting plan for the disturbed areas should be provided as part of 60% design. Encl. Photographs K:\project\32300\32385. \Reports\Critical Areas Review Memo_2014_0-V)1doc6f. - City Clerk reports appeal of the Hearing Examiner's final decision upon Page 188 of 517 Rocale Timmons,Senior Planner, City ofRenton Page 6 Reserve at Tiany Park Wetland Reviev April 3,2014 PHOTOGRAPHS r 5 Photograph 1: Wetland A,near southern delineated edge (3/17/14) f. Photograph 2. Offsite wetland on Mercer Island Pipeline ROW, facing SE (3/17/14) K:\project\32300\32385A\Reports\Critical Areas Review D1emo_2014_0403.doc6f. - City Clerk reports appeal of the Hearing Examiner's final decision upon Page 189 of 517 FITms gam' 441 7 fid'' w k r i.< t i it x., A a :w , - .. 6f. - City Clerk reports appeal of the Hearing Examiner's final decision upon Page 190 of 517 t Fes', •y'<a,- -.. ;. r t f µ ;,;n S',M.: a t 1 t t 1 i i IPAAr pYYS- T r tt`' 4..c-S$4x' -., t r yry•- 4 a,k r d r. y 3 T L f .{r#.'. .7,•<.' •C ,yn..ytt * 4 4`." iPd y1 i`, t ,6f. - City Clerk reports appeal of the Hearing Examiner's final decision upon Page 191 of 517 t -h(avrc h34olO° 'Prete-,c ii&"gvicLU n s,`l ,p4t a SECTION 6.2 GENERAL REQUIREMENTS FOR WQ FACILITIES runoff is unaffected by whether or not the runoff is detained. Therefore.facilities such as wetponds, which are sized by a simple volume-based approach that does not route flows through a detention facility. are the same size whether they precede or follow detention. Note that facilities which are sized based on volume and vv-hich include routing of tlows through a detention facility,such as the detailed sand filter method.arc significantly smaller when located downstream of detention.even though the same volume of water is treated in either situation. This is because the detention facility routing sequence stores peaks within the pond and releases them at a slow rate,reducing the size of the sand filter pond subsequently needed(the volume needed to store the peaks need not be provided again in the sand filter pond). Flow Volume to be Treated When water quality treatment is required pursuant to the core and special requirements of this manual, it is intended that a minimum of'95%of the annual average runoff volume in the(8 year)time series.as determined v`ith the KCRTS model,be treated. Designs using the WQ design flow(as discussed above) will treat this minimum volutne. Treatable Flows As stated in Chapter I.only runoff Brom target pollution-generating surfaces must be treated using the water qualit) tacility options indicated in the applicable water quality menu. These surfaces include both pollution-generating-impervious surface and pollution-generating pervious surface. "Target"means that portion from which runoff must he treated using a water qualit) facility as specified in Chapter I. Pollution-generating impervious surfaces arc those impervious surfaces which are subject to vehicular use or storage of erodible or leachable materials.wastes,or chemicals:and which receive direct rainfall or the run-on or blow-in otrainfall. Por subdivisions.target pollution-generating impervious surfaces typically include right-of-way improvements(roads),parking areas and driveways that are notfulls, disperser)as specified in Section 1.2.3.2. Metal roofs are also considered to be pollution-generating- impervious ollution-generatingimpervioussurfaceunlesstheyaretreatedtopreventleaching. Pollution-generating-pervious surfaces arc those non-impervious surfaces subject to use of pesticides and fertilizers, loss of soil.or the use or storage of erodible or leachable materials,wastes,or chemicals. For subdivisions.target pollution- generating pervious surfaces typically include lawns and landscaped areas that are notfirllv dispenser) and from which there will not be a concentrated surface discharge in a natural channel or man-made cote eyance system from the site. The tbllowin_points summarize v,ihich site tlows must be treated and under what circumstances: All runoff Brom target pollution-generating inipervious surfaces is to be treated through the water quality facility or facilities required in Chapter I and specified in the Chapter 6 menus. Runotf ti-om lawns and landscaped areas generalI}oyerflo"s toward street drainage systems where it is comeyed to treatment facilities along with the road runoff. However.sometimes runoff fi-om backyards drains into open space or buffer areas. In these cases,buffers may be used to provide the requisite water qualit} treatment provided(I)runoff sheet flows into the buffer or a dispersal trench is provided to disperse flows broadly into the buffer,and(2)the flow path through the pollution- generating area is limited to about 200 feet. Drainage from impervious SUrfaces that are not pollution-generating(such as most roots)or are not target pollution-generating surfaces may bypass the treatment facility.11 Roof rtmoff is, however. still subject to t1mx control per Core Requirement 43. Note that metal roofs are considered pollution- generating unless they are treated to present leaching. Available data on the quality of roof runoff was examined. Although there are instances of polluted roof runoff,they tend to be related to galvanized roofing materials or industrial processes. There is also data that suggests the pollutant concentration of atmospheric fallout decreases with vertical elevation. See"Water Quality Thresholds Decision Paper,"April 1994..King County Surface Water Management Division(now Water and Land Resources Division). 1/912009 2009 Surface Water Design Manual 6-18 6f. - City Clerk reports appeal of the Hearing Examiner's final decision upon Page 192 of 517 d SECTION 12 CORE REQUIREMENTS TABLE 1.2.3.A SUMMARY'OF FLOW CONTROL PERFORMANCE CRITERIA ACCEPTABLE FOR IMPACT MITIGATION" IDENTIFIED PROBLEM AREA-SPECIFIC FLOW CONTROL FACILITY REQUIREMENT DOWNSTREAM Basic Flow Control(FC)Areas Conservation FC Areas Flood Problem FC Areas No Problem Identified Apply the Level 1 flow control Apply the historic site Apply the existing or historic Apply the minimum area- standard,which matches existing conditions Level 2 flow control site conditions Level 2 flow specific flow control site conditions 2-and 10-year standard,which matches control standard(whichever is performance criteria.peaks historic durations for 50%of 2- appropriate based on yr through 50-year peaks AND downstream flow control area) matches historic 2-and 10- AND match existing site year peaks conditions 100-year peaks Type 1 Drainage Problem Additional Flow Control No additional flow control or No additional flow control or Conveyance System Hold 10-year peak to overflow T, othermitigation is needed other mitigation is needed Nuisance Problem peak(2)(3) Type 2 Drainage Problem Additional Flow Control No additional flow control is No additional flow control is Severe Erosion Apply the existing site conditions needed,but other mitigation needed,but other mitigation Problem Level 2 flow control standard(')(') may be required4) may be required) Type 3 Drainage Problem Additional Flow Control Additional Flow Control Additional Flow Control Severe Flooding Apply the existing site conditions Apply the historic site If flooding is from a closed Problem Level 3 flow control standard to conditions Level 3 flow control depression,make design peak flows above the overflow T standard. If flooding is from a adjustments as needed to peak. If flooding is from a closed closed depression,make meet the"special provision for depression,make design design adjustments as needed closed depressions" 3 s adjustments as needed to meet the to meet the"special provision special provision for closed for closed depressions"(3)r5) depressions"tags) Potential Impact to Additional Flow Control Additional Flow Control Additional Flow Control Wetland Hydrology as DDES may require design DDES may require design DDES may require design Determined through a adjustments per the wetland adjustments per the wetland adjustments per the wetland Critical Area Review per hydrology protection guidelines in hydrology protection guidelines hydrology protection guide- KCC 21A.24.100 Reference Section 5 in Reference Section 5 lines in Reference Section 5 Notes More than one set of problem-specific performance criteria may apply if two or more downstream drainage problems are identified through offsite analysis per Core Requirement#2. If this happens,the performance goals of each applicable problem-specific criteria must be met. This can require extensive,time-consuming analysis to implement multiple sets of outflow performance criteria if additional onsite flow control is the only viable option for mitigating impacts to these problems. In these cases,it may be easier and more prudent to implement the historic site conditions Level 3 flow control standard in place of the otherwise required area-specific standard. Use of the historic Level 3 flow control standard satisfies the specified performance criteria for all the area-specific and problem-specific requirements except if adjustments are required per the special provision for closed depressions described below in Note 5. z Overflow T,is the return period of conveyance system overflow. To determine T requires a minimum Level 2 downstream analysis as detailed in Section 2.3.1.1. To avoid this analysis.a T,of 2 years may be assumed. 3 Offsite improvements may be implemented in lieu of or in combination with additional flow control as allowed in Section 1.2.2.2 p. 1-28)and detailed in Section 3.3.5. 4) A tightline system may be required regardless of the flow control standard being applied if needed to meet the discharge requirements of Core Requirement#1 (p. 1-21)or the outfall requirements of Core Requirement#4(p. 1-54),or if deemed necessary by DDES where the risk of severe damage is high. st Special Provision for Closed Depressions with a Severe Flooding Problem: IF the proposed project discharges by overland flow or conveyance system to a closed depression experiencing a severe flooding problem AND the amount of new impervious surface area proposed by the project is greater than or equal to 10% of the 100-year water surface area of the closed depression,THEN use the"point of compliance analysis technique" described in Section 3.3.6 to verify that water surface levels are not increasing for the return frequencies at which flooding occurs,up to and including the 100-year frequency. If necessary,iteratively adjust onsite flow control performance to prevent increases. Note.The point of compliance analysis relies on certain field measurements taken directly at the closed depression(e.g.,soils tests,topography etc.). Ifpermission to enterprivate property for such measurements is denied, DDES may waive this provision and apply the existing site conditions Level 3 flow control standard with a mandatory 20% safety factor on the storage volume. 1/9!2009 2009 Surface Water Desien Manual 1-36 6f. - City Clerk reports appeal of the Hearing Examiner's final decision upon Page 193 of 517 KING COUNTY, WASHINGTON, SURFACE WATER DESIGN MANUAL KING COUNTY,WASHINGTON SURFACE WATER DESIGN MANUAL REFERENCE 5 WETLAND HYDROLOGY PROTECTION GUIDELINES DOE GUIDE SHEET 1B: STORMWATER WETLAND ASSESSMENT CRITERIA DOE GUIDE SHEET 2B: GUIDELINES FOR PROTECTION FROM ADVERSE IMPACTS OF MODIFIED RUNOFF QUANTITY DISCHARGED TO WETLANDS 2009 Surface Water Design Manual 1/9/2009 6f. - City Clerk reports appeal of the Hearing Examiner's final decision upon Page 194 of 517 E Guide Sheet 1B: Stormwater Wetland Assessment Criteria Excerpted from 2005 DOE Stormwater Manual for Western Washington This guide sheet gives criteria that disqualify a natural wetland from being structurally or hydrologically engineered for control of stormwater quantity, quality, or both. These criteria should be applied only after performing the alternatives analysis outlined in Guide Sheet IA. 1. A wetland should not be structurally or hydrologically engineered for runoff quantity or quality control and should be given maximum protection from overall urban impacts (see Guide Sheet 2, Wetland Protection Guidelines) under any of the following circumstances: In its present state it is primarily an estuarine or forested wetland or a priority peat system. It is a rare or irreplaceable wetland type, as identified by the Washington Natural Heritage Program, the Puget Sound Water Quality Preservation Program, or local government. It provides rare, threatened, or endangered species habitat that could be impaired by the proposed action. Determining whether or not the conserved species will be affected by the proposed project requires a careful analysis of its requirements in relation to the anticipated habitat changes. It provides a high level of many functions. In general, the wetlands in these groups are classified in Categories I and 11 in the Washington State Wetland Rating System of Western Washington."That publication is available on-line at httpaiwww.ecv.«a.gov/biblio/sea.htmles. 2. A wetland can be considered for structural or hydrological modification for runoff quantity or quality control if most of the following circumstances exist: It is classified in Category IV in the"Washington State Wetland Rating System of Western Washington". In general, Category IV wetlands have monotypic vegetation of similar age and class, lack special habitat features, and are isolated from other aquatic systems. Any functions lost through hydrologic or structural modification in a Category IV wetland would have to be compensated/replaced. The wetland has been previously disturbed by human activity, as evidenced by agriculture, fill. ditching, and/or introduced or invasive weedy plant species. 6f. - City Clerk reports appeal of the Hearing Examiner's final decision upon Page 195 of 517 s The wetland has been deprived of a significant amount of its water supply by draining or previous urbanization (e. g.,by loss of groundwater supply), and stormwater runoff is sufficient to augment the water supply. A particular candidate is a wetland that has experienced an increased summer dry period, especially if the drought has been extended by more than two weeks. Construction for structural or hydrologic modification in order to provide runoff quantity or quality control will disturb relatively little of the wetland. The wetland can provide the required storage capacity for quantity or quality control through an outlet orifice modification to increase storage of water. rather than through raising the existing overflow. Orifice modification is likely to require less construction activity and consequent negative impacts. Under existing conditions the wetland's experiences a relatively high degree of water level fluctuation and a range of velocities(i.e., a wetland associated with substantially flowing water, rather than one in the headwaters or entirely isolated from flowing water). The wetland does not exhibit any of the following features: Significant priority peat system or forested zones that will experience substantially altered hydroperiod as a result of the proposed action; Regionally unusual biological community types, Animal habitat features of relatively high value in the region (e.g., a protected, undisturbed area connected through undisturbed corridors to other valuable habitats, an important breeding site for protected species); The presence of protected commercial or sport fish: Configuration and topography that will require significant modification that may threaten fish stranding; A relatively high degree of public interest as a result of, for example, offering valued local open space or educational, scientific, or recreational opportunities, unless the proposed action would enhance these opportunities; 6f. - City Clerk reports appeal of the Hearing Examiner's final decision upon Page 196 of 517 The wetland is threatened by potential impacts exclusive of stormwater management, and could receive greater protection if acquired for a stormwater management project rather than lett in existing ownership. There is good evidence that the wetland actually can be restored or enhanced to perform other functions in addition to runoff quantity or quality control. There is good evidence that the wetland lends itself to the effective application of the Wetland Protection Guidelines in Guide Sheet 2. The wetland lies in the natural routing of the runoff. Local regulations often prohibit drainage diversion from one basin to another. The wetland allows runoff discharge at the natural location. 6f. - City Clerk reports appeal of the Hearing Examiner's final decision upon Page 197 of 517 Guide Sheet 213: Guidelines for Protection from Adverse Impacts of Modified Runoff Quantity Discharged to Wetlands Excerpted from 2001 DOE Stormwater Manual for Western Washington 1. Protection of wetland plant and animal communities depends on controlling the wetland's hydroperiod, meaning the pattern of fluctuation of water depth and the frequency and duration of exceeding certain levels, including the length and onset of drying in the summer. A hydrologic assessment is useful to measure or estimate elements of the hydroperiod under existing pre-development and anticipated postdevelopment conditions. This assessment should be performed with the aid of a qualified hydrologist. Post-development estimates of watershed hydrology and wetland hydroperiod must include the cumulative effect of all anticipated watershed and wetland modifications. Provisions in these guidelines pertain to the full anticipated build-out of the wetland's watershed. This analysis hypothesizes a fluctuating water stage over time before development that could fluctuate more, both higher and lower after development; these greater fluctuations are termed stage excursions. The guidelines set limits on the frequency and duration of excursions, as well as on overall water level fluctuation, after development. To determine existing hydroperiod use one of the following methods, listed in order of preference: Estimation by a continuous simulation computer model— The model should be calibrated with at least one year of data taken using a continuously recording level gage under existing conditions and should be run for the historical rainfall period. The resulting data can be used to express the magnitudes of depth fluctuation, as well as the frequencies and durations of surpassing given depths. [Note: Modeling that yields high quality information of the type needed for wetland hydroperiod analysis is a complex subject. Providing guidance on selecting and applying modeling options is beyond the scope ofthese guidelines but is being developed by King County Surface Water Management Division and other local jurisdictions. An alternative possibility to modeling depths, frequencies, and durations within the wetland is to model durations above given discharge levels entering the wetland over various time periods (e. g., seasonal, monthly, weekly). This option requires further development.] Measurement during a series of time intervals (no longer than one month in length)over a period of at least one year of the maximum water stage, using a crest stage gage, and instantaneous water stage, using a staff gage--The resulting data can be used to express water level fluctuation (WLF) during the interval as follows: Average base stage=(instantaneous stage at beginning of interval + Instantaneous stage at end of interval)/2 WLF =Crest stage- Average base stage 6f. - City Clerk reports appeal of the Hearing Examiner's final decision upon Page 198 of 517 4 Compute mean annual and mean monthly VLF as the arithmetic averages for each year and month for which data are available. To forecast future hydroperiod use one of the following methods, listed in order of preference: Estimation by the continuous simulation computer model calibrated during pre- development analysis and run for the historical rainfall period— The resulting data can be used to express the magnitudes of depth fluctuation, as well as the frequencies and durations of surpassing given depths. [Note: Post- development modeling results should generally be compared with predevelopment modeling results, rather than directly with field measurements, because different sets of assumptions underlie modeling and monitoring. Making pre-and post-development comparisons on the basis of common assumptions allows cancellation of errors inherent in the assumptions.] Estimation according to general relationships developed from the Puget Sound Wetlands and Stormwater Management Program Research Program, as follows in part adapted from Chin 1996): Mean annual WLF is very likely (100% of cases measured)to be <20 cm (8 inches or 0.7 ft) if total impervious area (TIA)cover in the watershed is<6%(roughly corresponding to no more than 15% of the watershed converted to urban land use). Mean annual WLF is very likely (89%of cases measured)to be> 20 cm if TIA in the watershed is> 211% (roughly corresponding to more than 30% of the watershed converted to urban land use). Mean annual WLF is somewhat likely (50% of cases measured)to be> 30 cm (1.0 ft) if TIA in the watershed is> 21%(roughly corresponding to more than 30% of the watershed converted to urban land use). Mean annual WLF is likely (75%of cases measured)to be> 30 em, and somewhat likely (50%of cases measured)to be 50 cm (20 inches or 1.6 ft) or higher, if TIA in the watershed is>40%(roughly corresponding to more than 70%of the watershed converted to urban land use). The frequency of stage excursions greater than 15 cm (6 inches or 0.5 ft) above or below pre-development levels is somewhat likely(54%of cases measured)to be more than six per year ifthe mean annual WLF increases to> 24 cm (9.5 inches or 0.8 ft). 6f. - City Clerk reports appeal of the Hearing Examiner's final decision upon Page 199 of 517 The average duration of stage excursions greater than 15 cm above or below pre-development levels is likely(69%of cases measured)to be more than 72 hours if the mean annual WLF increases to>20 cm. 2. The following hydroperiod limits characterize wetlands with relatively high vegetation species richness and apply to all zones within all wetlands over the entire year. If these limits are exceeded,then species richness is likely to decline. If the analysis described above forecasts exceedences, one or more of the management strategies listed in step 5 should be employed to attempt to stay within the limits. Mean annual WLF (and mean monthly WLF for every month of the year)does not exceed 20 cm. Vegetation species richness decrease is likely with: (i)a mean annual (and mean monthly) WLF increase of more than 5 cm (2 inches or 0.16 ft) if predevelopment mean annual (and rnean monthly) WLF is greater than 15 cm, or(2) a mean annual (and mean monthly) WLF increase to 20 cm or more if pre- development mean annual (and mean monthly) WLF is 15 cm or less. The frequency ofstage excursions of 15 cm above or below predevelopment stage does not exceed an annual average of six.Note: A short-term lagging or advancement of the continuous record of water levels is acceptable. The 15 cm limit applies to the temporary increase in maximum water surface elevations hydrograph peaks)after storm events and the maximum decrease in water surface elevations (hydrograph valley bottoms)between events and during the dry season. The duration of stage excursions of 15 cm above or below predevelopment stage does not exceed 72 hours per excursion. The total dry period (when pools dry down to the soil surface everywhere in the wetland)does not increase or decrease by more than two weeks in any year. Alterations to watershed and wetland hydrology that may cause perennial wetlands to become vernal are avoided. I The following hydroperiod limit characterizes priority peat wetlands(bogs and fens as more specifically defined by the Washington Department of Ecology)and applies to all zones over the entire year. If this limit is exceeded, then characteristic bog or fen wetland vegetation is likely to decline. if the analysis described above forecasts exceedence, one or more of the management strategies listed in step 5 should be employed to attempt to stay within the limit. The duration of stage excursions above the predevelopment stage does not exceed 24 hours in any year. 6f. - City Clerk reports appeal of the Hearing Examiner's final decision upon Page 200 of 517 Note: To apply this guideline a continuous simulation computer model needs to be employed. The model should be calibrated with data taken under existing conditions at the wetland being analyzed and then used to forecast post- development duration of excursions. 4. The following hydroperiod limits characterize wetlands inhabited by breeding native amphibians and apply to breeding zones during the period 1 February through 31 May. If these limits are exceeded,then amphibian breeding success is likely to decline. If the analysis described above forecasts exceedences, one or more of the management strategies listed in step 5 should be employed to attempt to stay within the limits. The magnitude of stage excursions above or below the pre-development stage does not exceed 8 cm, and the total duration of these excursions does not exceed 24 hours in any 30 day period. Note: To apply this guideline a continuous simulation computer model needs to be employed. The model should be calibrated with data taken under existing conditions at the wetland being analyzed and then used to forecast post- development magnitude and duration of excursions. 5. If it is expected that the hydroperiod limits stated above could be exceeded, consider strategies such as: Reduction of the level of development; Increasing runoff infiltration [Note: Infiltration is prone to failure in many Puget Sound Basin locations with glacial till soils and generally requires pretreatment to avoid clogging. In other situations infiltrating urban runoff may contaminate groundwater. Consult the stormwater management manual adopted by the jurisdiction and carefully analyze infiltration according to its prescriptions.]: Increasing runoff storage capacity, and Selective runoff bypass. 6. After development, monitor hydroperiod with a continuously recording level gauge or staff and crest stage gauges. If the applicable limits are exceeded, consider additional applications of the strategies in step 5 that may still be available. It is also recommended that goals be established to maintain key vegetation species, amphibians, or both, and that these species be monitored to determine if the goals are being met. 6f. - City Clerk reports appeal of the Hearing Examiner's final decision upon Page 201 of 517 CITYOF RENTON Me 01 JAN 0 8 2015 RECEIVED 1 CITY CLERK'S OFFICE 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 BEFORE THE HEARING EXAMINER FOR THE CITY OF RENTON 10 11 RE: The Reserve at Tiffany Park 12 Preliminary Plat FINAL DECISION 13 14 Preliminary Plat and SEPA Appeals 15 LUA13-001572, ECF, PP, CAE 16 17 I.SUMMARY 18 The applicant requests preliminary plat approval for the subdivision of 21.66 acres into single-family 19 residential lots and several critical areas tracts located at the dead end of SE 18`h Street and bordered by the Cedar River Pipeline along the southern property boundary and the Mercer Island Pipeline20alongtheeasternpropertyboundary. The applicant is requesting a Critical Area Exemption for the 21 extension of SE 18th Street through portions of the buffer associated with Wetland E. Two appeals of a mitigated determination of nonsignificance ("MDNS") issued under the Washington State 22 Environmental Policy Act ("SEPA") were consolidated with the review of the preliminary plat. The 23 Tiffany Park Woods Advocacy Group ("TPWAG") filed one of the two SEPA appeals and the applicant submitted the second appeal. The preliminary plat is approved subject to conditions. The 24 TPWAG SEPA appeal is denied. The applicant SEPA appeal is sustained, in part. The Critical Areas 25 Exemption is approved. 26 TPWAG raised numerous issues in its SEPA appeal regarding the conversion of the 21.66 acre PRELIMINARY PLAT - 1 6f. - City Clerk reports appeal of the Hearing Examiner's final decision upon Page 202 of 517 VOW 1%0r 1 subject property from a community recreational resource to a residential subdivision. The property 2 is entirely undeveloped and is covered with trails, tree forts and other similar structures that reveal years of community use. In its SEPA appeal TPWAG argues that the loss of this long-time 3 recreational use is an environmental impact that should be subject to SEPA review. As detailed in 4 this decision, the fact that the applicant has allowed neighbors to use its property in the past (or worse, the fact that neighbors may have trespassed in the past) does not justify the imposition of any 5 SEPA requirements because the neighbors will lose that privilege as a result of the development. 6 Similarly, the fact that the applicant has chosen to retain the trees on its land in the past and through that choice provided neighbors with an appealing arboreal view does not put the applicant in a 7 position where it must now continue to offer that type of view to neighboring properties. With one 8 exception the applicant proposes development that is aesthetically similar and compatible with surrounding uses. For this reason, there is no legal basis for imposing any further environmental 9 review or mitigation to address aesthetic impacts. The one exception is retaining walls. The applicant proposes numerous retaining walls that will reach heights of up to 21 feet. Retaining walls10 of this height are not present in the vicinity and the aesthetic impacts of these structures are not 11 similar or compatible to the structures on neighboring properties. Consequently, the MDNS mitigation measures will require ten foot wide perimeter landscaping designed to aesthetically buffer12thesewallsfromneighboringuses. 13 TPWAG alleged more technical environmental impacts related to the geotechnical studies, 14 hazardous materials, drainage, wetlands impacts, groundwater impacts, landslide hazards, seismic 15 hazards, and retaining walls. The expert testimony and reports provided by the applicant, verified by experts from the City staff and in some cases, third party peer review, proved to be more compelling 16 than the expert testimony provided by TPWAG, especially when factoring the substantial weight that 17 must be given the SEPA responsible official's determination that the proposal will not create any probable significant adverse environmental impacts. One issue that did require some additional 18 mitigation was hazardous waste. An appellant expert testified that the prior ownership of the 19 property by the US Department of Defense raised a concern that the property may contain hazardous waste. The applicant refused to grant access to the subject property for purposes of testing for 20 hazardous waste or any other site investigation. The applicant also acknowledged that it did a Phase 21 I hazardous waste environmental review when it purchased the property, but never offered the review into evidence. Given the somewhat suspect conduct of the applicant, an MDNS condition of 22 review will require that the applicant submit its Phase I review to staff prior to development, to 23 verify that there is no hazardous waste issue with the site. 24 The applicant's SEPA appeal was more limited in scope and only challenged three of the City's MDNS conditions, specifically Conditions 1, 3 and 6. At hearing the City and applicant agreed to 25 revised language for Conditions 1 and 3. Condition No. 6 remained the only contested issue in the 26 1 applicant's appeal. The condition required a 15-foot landscaping buffer around the entire perimeter PRELIMINARY PLAT - 2 6f. - City Clerk reports appeal of the Hearing Examiner's final decision upon Page 203 of 517 fir we 1 of the development. This decision only found a ten -foot buffer necessary, limited to areas adjoining 2 proposed retaining walls to conceal the walls from neighboring view. 3 A summary of testimony is attached as Attachment A. The summary is provided as a convenience and reference to those who would like an overview of the evidence presented at the two days of 4 hearings on this application. The testimony section should not be construed as any formal findings 5 of fact and also do not represent what was determined to be important to the final decision. 6 CONTENTS 7 I. SUMMARY................................. 1 8 II. TESTIMONY....................................................................................................................... 3 III. EXHIBITS............................................................................................................................ 3 9 IV. FINDINGS OF FACT.......................................................................................................... 4 V. CONCLUSIONS OF LAW................................................................................................ 24 10 SEPA APPEAL........................................................................................................... 24 PRELIMINARYPLAT.............................................................................................. 3011VI. DECISION 39 12 13 II. TESTIMONY 14 Please see Attachment A for testimony summary. 15 III. EXHIBITS 16 Please see Attachment B for the exhibits admitted during the hearing. Exhibits admitted after the1hearingareasfollows: 18 Exhibit AS: City ofRenton Preliminary Plat Condition Revision Response (December 11, 19 2014) Exhibit AT: TPWAG Post Hearing Closing Argument(December 14, 2014) 20 Exhibit AU: TPWAG Motion—Late Filing (December 15, 2014) 21 Exhibit AV: Henley Response to TPWAG Motion—Late Filing (December 15, 2015) Exhibit AW: Henley (Proposed) Order Denying TPWAG Motion—Late Filing (December 15, 22 2014) Exhibit AX: Hearing Examiner Ruling—Late Filing (December 15, 2014) 23 Exhibit AY: Henley Response—TPWAG Post Hearing Closing Argument (December 19, 2014) 24 Exhibit AZ: Henley Reply—City of Renton Preliminary Plat Condition Revision Response 25 December 19, 2014) Exhibit BB: City of Renton—TPWAG Post Hearing Closing Argument(December 22, 2014) 26 PRELIMINARY PLAT - 3 6f. - City Clerk reports appeal of the Hearing Examiner's final decision upon Page 204 of 517 vy r 1 IV. FINDINGS OF FACT Procedural: 2 3 1. Applicant. Henley USA, LLC. 4 2.Hearing. A consolidated hearing on the preliminary plat application and SEPA appeals was held on November 18, 2014 and continued to December 8, 2014 in the City of Renton Council City5Chambers. The record was left open for the appellants to provide a SEPA Closing Argument by 6 December 12, 2014. City staff was also given until December 12, 2014 to provide a SEPA Rebuttal. City staff and the applicant had until December 19, 2014 to provide SEPA closing arguments and7preliminaryplatcomments. 8 Substantive: 9 10 3.Project Description and Appeal. 11 A. Project Description. The applicant requests preliminary plat approval for the 12 subdivision of 21.66 acres into 97 single-family residential lots. There is an alternate plat with 96 lots to allow for 30% tree retention (Exhibit 3). The property is located at the dead end of SE 18`" 13 Street. It is bordered on the south by the Cedar River Pipeline and on the east by the Mercer Island 14 Pipeline. Two appeals of a mitigated determination of nonsignificance ("MDNS") issued under the Washington State Environmental Policy Act ("SEPA") were consolidated with the review of the 15 preliminary plat. 16 The subject property consists of four parcels. The majority of the site is located in the R-8 zone. A 17 small portion is located in the R-4 zone. All proposed lots are located in the R-8 zone. The proposed lots would range in size from 4,500sf to 8,456sf. The average lot size is 5,399s£ Under either the 96 18 lot or 97 lot scenarios, density would be equal to or less than 5.70 dwelling units per acre. In addition 19 to the residential lots, 13 tracts are proposed for sensitive areas, tree retention, storm drainage, access, pedestrian connections, and open space including an existing 10 foot wide vegetated buffer 20 along the northern boundary. Access to the site would be gained from SE 18th Street with secondary 21 access extended from 124th Place SE. 22 The site is currently vacant with 1,305 significant trees. The applicant has proposed to retain or mitigate 188 trees in order to achieve the objective of 30% tree retention requirement. Adequate tree23 retention requires approval of the 96-lot alternative. The site slopes generally to the west/northwest 24 at an approximate average slope of 10-15% with localized slopes of 25%. The site contains three Category 2 wetlands (Wetlands A, C, and, D) and two Category 3 wetlands (Wetlands B and E). The 25 applicant is requesting a Critical Area Exemption for the extension of SE 18th Street through 26 portions of the buffer associated with Wetland E. PRELIMINARY PLAT - 4 6f. - City Clerk reports appeal of the Hearing Examiner's final decision upon Page 205 of 517 1 The applicant has submitted a Wetland Report, Drainage Report, Traffic Impact Analysis, 2 Geotechnical Engineering study, Arborist Report, and Habitat Data Report. Independent secondary studies for Transportation and Wetlands are included with the application. 3 B. SEPA Appeal. A mitigated determination of nonsignificance ("MDNS") was issued for the 4 proposal on September, 2014. Two timely appeals of the threshold determination were filed by the 5 Tiffany Park Woods Advocacy Group (TPWAG) and Caimcross & Hempelmann on behalf of Henley USA, LLC. 6 7 1.Applicant SEPA Appeal. The applicant challenged three of the City's MDNS conditions, specifically Conditions 1, 3 and 6 on the grounds that they impose unlawful 8 obligations on the applicant and restrict the applicant's ability to develop the plat. 9 a.MDNS Condition 1. The applicant argued MDNS Condition 1 should be 10 revised because the condition required earthwork to comply with an earlier, preliminary version of the geotechnical report which has since been superseded. The applicant requested 11 the SEPA condition be revised to state the earthwork shall be consistent with the final 12 geotechnical report submitted prior to construction (Exhibit J). City staff and the applicant then agreed upon the following language for Condition No. 1, which is found to adequately 13 address pertinent environmental impacts: 14 All earthwork performed, implemented by the applicant, shall be consistent with the 15 recommendations of the geotechnical report, prepared by Associated Earth Sciences, Inc., dated September 28, 2012 or consistent with the recommendations of the final16 City-approved geotechnical report. 17 b.MDNS Condition 3. The applicant's concerns over MDNS Condition No. 3 18 became moot since the filing of its appeal and the City and applicant have been able to agree 19 upon a revised condition that acceptably mitigates against environmental impacts. 20 MDNS Condition 3 provides as follows, 21 The applicant shall be required to retain 30% ofthe significant trees on site with 22 exclusions for those trees that are considered dead, diseased, or dangerous, trees located within proposed rights-of-way, and trees located within the critical areas 23 and their associated buffers. 24 The applicant initially argued the condition should either be struck as a SEPA condition or modified to require compliance with the Tree Cutting and Land Clearing Plan, completed by25WashingtonForestryConsultants, Inc. (August 27, 2014) which complies with the 30% 26 retention requirement(Appeal Exhibit A, Attachment 11). PRELIMINARY PLAT - 5 6f. - City Clerk reports appeal of the Hearing Examiner's final decision upon Page 206 of 517 I City staff disagreed. They argued that there are probable averse environmental impacts that 2 are being mitigated by the MDNS condition. The City argued the MDNS Condition prevents the applicant from using mitigation under RMC 4-4-130(H)(1)(e)(i) to replace trees and 3 instead requires retention of significant trees. 4 The Tree Cutting and Land Clearing Plan, completed by Washington Forestry Consultants, 5 Inc. (August 27, 2014) established that overall the proposal will actually meet the City's SEPA 30% tree retention requirement. To meet this requirement, the applicant must retain or 6 mitigate 188 on-site trees. The Washington Forestry Consultants plan proposes to save 181 of 7 these trees and mitigate the final seven trees. The applicant's tree retention plan analyzed just the 96 lot alternative. However, Mr. Galen Wright of Washington Forestry Consultants stated 8 new field studies performed since the August 27, 2014 report have identified additional 9 significant trees on-site beyond those mapped in the original field survey. These trees will be retained, bringing the total retention to well above the 188 required trees. Mr. Wright stated 10 he was much more confident now regarding the location of trees, their health and which 11 might be viably preserved. 12 Since the applicant ultimately achieved the 30% retention objective, the City and applicant 13 agreed to the following tree retention language as a condition of approval, 14 15 The applicant shall provide a final Tree Retention Plan, complying with the 30% tree retention mitigation measure while demonstrating proposed walls would not impact 16 trees proposedfor retention. The Final Tree Retention Plan shall be submitted to, and 17 approved by, the Current Planning Project Manager prior to construction permit approval. 18 C.MDNS Condition 6. MDNS Condition No. 6 remains the only contested 19 portion of the applicant's appeal. MDNS Condition No. 6 as adopted by the SEPA 20 responsible official required a 15-foot landscape buffer around the entire perimeter of the development. For the reasons identified in FOF No. 5, this perimeter has been reduced to ten 21 feet and must only be placed in areas to conceal proposed retaining walls from neighboring 22 view. 23 2.TPWAG SEPA Appeal. TPWAG raised several issues in its SEPA appeal, alleging both inadequate review and probable significant adverse environmental impacts. The24 impacts identified by TPWAG are addressed in FOF No. 5. 25 26 PRELIMINARY PLAT - 6 6f. - City Clerk reports appeal of the Hearing Examiner's final decision upon Page 207 of 517 1 4.Surrounding Area. The subject site is surrounding on all sides by single family residential 2 development. To the south it is bordered by the 100 foot wide Cedar River Pipeline. To the east, it is bordered by the 60 foot wide Mercer Island Pipeline. The zoning surrounding the subject on all sides 3 is single family residential (R-8), though there is also a small portion of R-4 zoning to the east. 4 5.Adverse Impacts. The proposal does not create any probable significant adverse 5 environmental impacts. Adequate public facilities and drainage control are provided as determined in Finding of Fact No. 6. As noted in Finding of Fact No. 5, two appeals to the threshold were filed. 6 The issues on appeal from the applicant, Henley, are discussed first. The issues on appeal for the 7 project opponent, the Tiffany Park Woods Advocacy Group, are then discussed. Finally, other impacts not related to either appeal but related to the preliminary plat are discussed below. 8 A. Applicant SEPA Issue. As identified in FOF No. 3, only one issue remains in the9 Applicant's SEPA appeal, specifically the need for perimeter landscaping. It is 10 determined that only the applicant's proposed retaining walls create probable significant environmental impacts and that these impacts can be reduced to11 nonsignificant levels with ten foot sight obscuring landscaping limited to perimeter 12 areas in front of the retaining walls. 13 1. Proposed Development Aesthetically Compatible with Surrounding 14 Development. With the exception of retaining walls (addressed separately), the proposed development does not create any probable significant impacts 15 because of aesthetic incompatibility with the surrounding neighborhood. A 16 site visit and aerial photographs (Ex. K.6.c) reveal that the surrounding neighborhoods are not exceptionally wooded or treed and that the amount of 17 trees proposed for retention by the applicant would not be less than 18 surrounding development. Further, although the applicant proposes a modest increase in density, reasonable minds would certainly differ as to whether this 19 difference in density would create a significant aesthetic impact. The 20 developed portions of the plat are all in the R-8 zone, though the proposed residential density will be 5.7 dwelling units per acre. The minimum density 21 requirement in the zone is 4.0 dwelling units per acre. All adjacent properties 22 are zoned R-8. Proposed lot sizes would range from 4,500 square feet to 8,456 square feet with an average lot size of 5,399 square feet. While the proposed 23 lots appear to be, on average, somewhat smaller than those of the surrounding 24 developments, they are not significantly smaller and are at a density that is lower than would otherwise be allowed within this zone. Further, because of 25 the presence of the two pipelines and the perimeter location of the critical 26 areas tracts, very few of the lots will be directly adjacent to existing residential PRELIMINARY PLAT - 7 6f. - City Clerk reports appeal of the Hearing Examiner's final decision upon Page 208 of 517 I lots. The pipelines do not offer much in terms of vegetated screening but they 2 do physically separate the proposed lots from existing lots. Any difference in the size of the lots will not be aesthetically significant, especially given the 3 separation of the project from the surrounding neighborhood. 4 2.Loss of Trees Not a Probable Significant Environmental Impact. It is 5 determined that the loss of trees beyond those required to be retained by City code does not qualify as a probable significant adverse environmental impact. 6 In its environmental review, the City suggests that the perimeter is necessary 7 to make up for the fact that a significant number of trees will be removed, thereby adversely affecting the views currently enjoyed by neighboring8properties. Numerous adjoining property owners also commented on this 9 impact. It is determined that the loss of trees owned by the applicant does not qualify as a significant adverse environmental impact. Of course, almost all 10 development of vacant parcels involves the removal of trees. As discussed in 11 COL No 5, in order to justify mitigation beyond the minimum standards set by the City's landscaping code, the project must involve some fairly unique or 12 significant impacts that were not anticipated in the adoption of that code. The 13 existence of such a large parcel (and large number of associated trees) is arguably unique, but that argument is undermined to a large degree by the 14 subjectivity involved in aesthetic review. Given that the applicant is retaining 15 30% of the trees, it is debatable whether the loss of the other 70% creates a significant aesthetic view impact to neighboring property owners, especially 16 with the buffering that will be required by this decision to obscure retaining 17 walls. 18 The assessment of aesthetic impacts occasioned by the loss of trees is also tempered by the fact that it is debatable from a legal standpoint whether the19applicantcanbemadetomitigateagainstthelossofavoluntaryaesthetic 20 benefit it has provided to the surrounding community. The applicant has had no obligation to retain all of the trees on its property in the past. Surrounding21 property owners have no entitlement to this currently existing aesthetic 22 benefit. SEPA only requires mitigation and analysis of impacts created by development. The loss of trees in excess of those required by City code is not23animpactcreatedbythedevelopment, since those trees could have been 24 removed at any time prior to development. The site visit, the record and the code do not reveal that any other properties in the vicinity have had to retain25perimeterlandscapingorthattheyprovideasimilaraestheticbenefittothe 26 surrounding community. Given that no such need was found in the past when PRELIMINARY PLAT- 8 6f. - City Clerk reports appeal of the Hearing Examiner's final decision upon Page 209 of 517 N"dr 1 trees were removed by other development it is at least somewhat questionable 2 why that is found necessary now in the absence of any code provision expressly requiring such a perimeter. 3 3.Retaining Walls Create A Probable Significant Adverse Environmental 4 Impact. It is determined that the retaining walls proposed by the applicant in 5 excess of four feet create a probable significant adverse environmental impact. As noted in the Staff Report, the applicant is proposing multiple walls on the 6 proposed project. Some of the walls will be rockeries. Some walls are 7 retaining walls which will face into the site. These are walls that allow for a finished grade for a lot to be below the surrounding grade. Other walls will be 8 lock and load walls that allow for a finished lot grade above the surrounding 9 grade. Six foot fencing is allowed on top of both types of walls. These walls are visible from outside the site. Staff notes the applicant has proposed lock 10 and load walls ranging in height from four feet potentially up to 21 feet high. 11 During testimony, Mr. Talkington stated revised grading plans may allow for reduced retaining wall heights. 12 A site visit to the surrounding neighborhoods was conducted December 28,13 2014. Though the subject is largely surrounded by pipeline easements, these 14 easements are cleared of vegetation allowing a direct line of sight into the development and of the retaining walls. The site visit demonstrated that high15 retaining walls are not a common feature of the surrounding development. The 16 applicant proposes solid rock or concrete walls of up to 21 feet in height. These walls will impact the view of the property from surrounding residences,17 especially given they are an uncommon feature in the area. As proposed, the 18 view from surrounding residences will be significantly impacted as they change from forest canopy and surrounding homes to rock wall faces of nearly19twostoriestallinplaces. The Staff Report notes several walls will be seen by 20 the public (proposed Lots 40, 41, 46, 47, 80, 82, 83-90, 93 and 94)1. 21 When considering retaining wall impacts, the height of the wall affects the 22 significance of the impacts. Low retaining walls do not block sunlight and air or obstruct views. The building codes only require building permits for 23 24 1 In any discussion of lot numbers, this decision is referring to the numbering scheme utilized in the 97-lot alternative (Exhibit 2). The nomenclature of the 96-lot alternative is exactly one lot lower for each lot because the25TreeRetentionPlanrecommendedtheeliminationofLot1ofthe97lotalternativetomaintain30%tree retention. 26 PRELIMINARY PLAT - 9 6f. - City Clerk reports appeal of the Hearing Examiner's final decision upon Page 210 of 517 rrNr' ri I retaining walls four feet or more in height (RMC 4-5-060(E)(2)(c)(iv)). This 2 serves as a good threshold height for aesthetic impacts. Retaining walls lower than four feet do not obstruct views for a person of average height. They also 3 tend to be more commonly found in neighborhoods since no building permit is 4 required. For these reasons, the findings in the preceding paragraph on retaining wall aesthetic impacts are limited to retaining walls over four feet or 5 more in height. Retaining walls less than four feet in height are not found to 6 create probable significant adverse environmental impacts. 7 4.Ten Foot Perimeter Landscaping Fully Mitigates Retaining Wall Impacts. The aesthetic impacts of the retaining walls can be fully mitigated by the by a8tenfootperimeterlandscapingstrip. The City is recommending a fifteen foot 9 buffer of trees. During testimony, the applicant's arborist stated a ten foot wide buffer with a staggered double row of conifers would create a very dense 10 screen in 10 years. He noted a 15 foot buffer is not sufficient in width to plant 11 a third row of conifers, which would require a 30 foot buffer. The City's arborist concluded that at least 35 feet was necessary to provide for a site- 12 obscuring buffer of trees and that ten verses fifteen feet would not make any 13 material difference in screening (Decision Attachment A, page 7). Given that staff s 15 foot recommendation is counter to the recommendation of its own 14 arborist2 and that the applicant's arborist provides a reasonably good 15 explanation of how a ten foot buffer can effectively screen the property, it is determined that the ten foot buffering advocated by the applicant's arborist 16 will provide a fully sight obscuring buffer to the retaining walls and as such 17 18 1 Staff also advocated for a 15 foot buffer because it would help retain some of the treed character of the project site. See Exhibit A1,page 19. As outlined in FOF No.5.A.1,the applicant cannot be legally made to compensate for 19 the loss oftrees on its property. Further, staff also based its 15 foot buffer requirement upon RMC 4-4-070(F)(4)(b). This perimeter buffer provides for aesthetic screening between single and multi-family housing. This standard does 20 serve as a good analogous standard for retaining wall impacts. Unfortunately, the standard only requires six foot high vegetation. A six foot high hedge set against a 21 foot high retaining wall does not accomplish a great deal of 21 aesthetic mitigation. For this reason, the RMC 4-4-070(F)(4)(b) buffer does not serve as an ideal analogous landscaping standard. What the RMC 4-4-070(F)(4)(b) and other RMC 4-4-070 perimeter buffer requirements does 22 show is that the City Council was uncomfortable requiring more than a fifteen foot wide buffer in any situation. Requiring more than 15 feet does in fact to place an unreasonable burden upon the applicant for something as 23 subjective as an aesthetic impact. It is for this reason likely that the City went against the findings of its arborist and only required a fifteen foot buffer instead of a 30 foot buffer. This was an appropriate approach, but did not go far enough since as testified by the applicant's arborist, a fifteen foot would not provide for any significant protection24beyondatenfootbuffer. Given that a 30 foot buffer would be unreasonable mitigation,the imposition of a ten foot buffer has to be found acceptable even though there a small chance it may not provide for 100% screening as25concludedbytheCity's arborist. 26 PRELIMINARY PLAT - 10 6f. - City Clerk reports appeal of the Hearing Examiner's final decision upon Page 211 of 517 rr 01 I will prevent the retaining walls from creating probable significant adverse 2 environmental impacts. 3 Limiting the landscape perimeters to the areas where the retaining walls are four feet or more in height should also completely obstruct them from the 4 view of neighboring property owners. For these reasons, the conditions of 5 approval will require the applicant to revise its landscaping plan to provide for site obscuring perimeter landscaping adjacent to areas where the retaining 6 walls are four or more feet in height, specifically in the perimeter areas close 7 to Lots 40, 41, 46, 47, 80, 82, 83-90, 93 and 94. 8 B.TPWAG SEPA Issues. 9 1.Aesthetic Impact Due to Loss of Trees. The appellants argue there is a 10 significant adverse aesthetic impact due to the loss of trees. With the exception of retaining walls (addressed separately), the proposed development 11 does not create any probable significant impacts because of aesthetic 12 incompatibility with the surrounding neighborhood. As discussed above in Finding of Fact 5.A.1, the surrounding neighborhoods are not exceptionally 13 wooded or treed and the amount of trees proposed for retention by the 14 applicant would not be less than surrounding development. As described in Finding of Fact 5.A.2, the is retaining 30% of the trees. The applicant has had 15 no obligation to retain all of the trees on its property in the past. Surrounding 16 property owners have no entitlement to this currently existing aesthetic benefit. The loss of trees in excess of those required by City code is not an _ 17 impact created by the development, since those trees could have been 18 removed at any time prior to development. It is also at best debatable whether the loss of the other 70% creates a significant aesthetic view impact to 19 neighboring property owners, especially with the buffering that will be 20 required by this decision to obscure retaining walls. 21 2.Potential Presence of Hazardous Materials. No impacts from hazardous materials are anticipated. The appellants demonstrated the subject property 22 had at one time been owned by the Department of Defense. They alleged there 23 might be hazardous materials on site based on this former user. For the past 65 years, for all intents and purposes, the site has been covered by a seemingly 24 healthy forest canopy. The appellants were unable to demonstrate evidence of 25 any overt signs of contamination visible on the site that might justify overturning the substantial weight due the SEPA official's determination that 26 PRELIMINARY PLAT - 11 6f. - City Clerk reports appeal of the Hearing Examiner's final decision upon Page 212 of 517 1400 I the project site does not contain any hazardous waste necessitating further 2 environmental review. However, nor were the appellants granted access to perform their own studies. The applicant also neglected to submit a Phase 1 3 Environmental Site Assessment it said was prepared for the proposal, even 4 after the appellants made the study an issue during the hearing. The actions of the applicant on the hazardous waste issue create uncertainty as to whether the 5 project site is free from hazardous waste. Given that this issue remains 6 unresolved, a condition of approval will require the applicant to submit the results of the Phase 1 ESA to City staff for confirmation that there are no 7 hazardous materials on site. 8 3.Wildlife Habitat and Connectivity. No probable significant adverse impacts to 9 wildlife habitat are anticipated and the SEPA Responsible Official had sufficient information to adequately assess the impacts. The applicant 10 submitted a Revised Wetland Determination and Response Letter (Exhibit 5), 11 a Habitat Assessment (Exhibit 6), and two Habitat Assessment Technical Memorandums (Exhibits 16 and 17). The City required an independent 12 secondary review of the wetlands report (Exhibit 14). As noted in Conclusion 13 of Law 3.13 below, the SEPA responsible official must make a prima facie showing that he has based his determination upon information reasonably 14 sufficient to evaluate the impacts of a proposal (WAC 197-11-335). These 15 multiple studies and memoranda were more than adequate to fully assess the wildlife impacts of the proposal as the appellants have not demonstrated any 16 additional information that could have made any material difference in the 17 official's conclusions. 18 No significant adverse impacts are anticipated for wildlife or habitat connectivity. With the exception of pileated woodpeckers and Townsend's19bats, the fish and wildlife habitat assessment found no listed or endangered 20 species or priority habitat on site. Though the property may function as marginal habitat for many common species, it is geographically isolated from21theCedarRivercorridorbytheMercerIslandPipelineeasement, a residential 22 street, residential lots, a steep slope and the Bonneville Power Administration's easement. Testimony from all sides spoke to the heavy23humandisturbanceonthesiteincludingrecreationalwalkers, bikers, 24 unleashed dogs, and the presence of unpermitted structures and pits including forts and paint ball hides. The applicant's wildlife expert, Racheal Villa of 25 Soundview Consultants testified that the formalized protection of the wetlands 26 and buffers on site would result in an improvement in habitat conditions for PRELIMINARY PLAT - 12 6f. - City Clerk reports appeal of the Hearing Examiner's final decision upon Page 213 of 517 I both pileated woodpeckers and Townsend's bats over the present situation due 2 to the fairly degraded condition of the habitat at present. 3 4.Seismic Hazards. The SEPA Responsible Official had adequate information to assess the seismic hazards and no probable significant adverse impacts are 4 anticipated in regards to these hazards. As to adequacy of review, the 5 applicant provided a geotechnical report by AES (Exhibit 7) that was reviewed, by the request of the applicant, by Earth Solutions, NW (Exhibit 6 K.2). The AES conclusion in the geotechnical report stated the site, from a 7 geotechnical engineering standpoint, is suitable for support of conventional paving, lightly loaded structures and typical buried utilities, all typical 8 improvements in a single family residential subdivision. The AES preliminary 9 geotechnical report and subsequent peer review by Earth Solutions, NW provide information reasonably sufficient to evaluate the environmental 10 impacts of the proposal under WAC 197-11-335. 11 The appellants note the nearest USGS mapped fault zone is 3.9 miles away, 12 though they feel additional testing should occur to determine if there are unmapped fault zones. The appellants argued there was evidence of ground13 movement in the form of bent trees and hummocky land which could indicate 14 several things including seismic shifting or landslide activity caused by a shallow groundwater table. The City has mapped the site as a Low Seismic15 Hazard area and outside of the Coal Mine Hazard areas. The applicant has 16 provided a geotechnical report by AES that was reviewed at the applicant's request by Earth Solutions, NW, the firm hired to perform geotechnical work17fortheapplicantgoingforward. Mr. Coglas of Earth Solutions, NW testified 18 there are no seismic hazards on the property (Decision Attachment A, Page 21). Mr. Coglas went on to state with respect to site stability and groundwater,19 the stability of the predominantly flat to gently sloping property is good. In his 20 opinion and based on geologic mapping and subsurface data for the site and surrounding area, the site is very similar to the surrounding developed21residentialarea. There is nothing in the record to indicate an increased danger 22 of seismic hazard beyond that of the surrounding properties. A single-family residential plat in this area is in no more probable seismic danger than the 23 surrounding developed properties. The proposal will not create any probable 24 significant adverse environmental impacts in regards to seismic hazards. 25 5. Landslide Hazards. The SEPA Responsible Official had adequate information 26 to assess landslide hazards. They appellants argued the soil under the plat has PRELIMINARY PLAT - 13 6f. - City Clerk reports appeal of the Hearing Examiner's final decision upon Page 214 of 517 N.01 1 structural anomalies that require further study to determine if there are 2 landslide or other geologically hazardous conditions. The appellants point to bent trees and uneven surfaces located on the site may indicate shallow or 3 slightly deeper ground movement which may be indications of landslide 4 activity in the past or future propensity of slides. They note they requested access to perform their own studies but were denied. Specifically, the 5 appellants have requested expanded soils tests, percolation tests and more test 6 pits and borings to measure localized hydraulic conductivity. As noted above, the applicant has provided a geotechnical report by AES that was reviewed by 7 Earth Solutions,NW. Mr. Coglas of Earth Solutions, NW testified there are no 8 landslide hazards on the property (Decision Attachment A, Page 20). The City's Development Engineering Manager, Mr. Lee, testified he concurred 9 with Mr. Coglas' assessment of the landslide hazard risk. Mr. Lee is a professional engineer with extensive experience in site development and civil10 engineering in Washington. He noted, the steep areas are very small (15-20' 11 feet long) and do not warrant slope stability analysis. Overall on the project site, the approximate slope is only 10% or so. There are no sensitive or12 protected slopes on the subject property. The majority of the subject site has 13 less than 15 percent slopes. There are a few areas with slopes of 15 percent to 35 percent. These areas are characterized as Medium Landslide Hazard areas.14 Mr. Lee stated the City code does not require additional slope stability 15 analysis for these areas. 16 The appellant also asserted that the number and location of test pits were 17 insufficient to evaluate slope stability. Mr. Lee testified there were sufficient numbers of test pits to gauge impacts on ground movement from groundwater 18 on site. He would have preferred to see a few more, especially in the vault 19 area. However, as Mr. Coglas testified, the City may require extra analysis during final engineering as the design is finalized. He stated he does not 20 typically require additional geotechnical analysis at this stage of the process. 21 Mr. Lee felt the information provided was adequate to allow for a determination of impact on the site (See Decision Attachment A, Page 24). 22 Mr. Lee's objectivity as a staff employee and his engineering expertise are23determinativeontheslopestabilityissue. He clearly reviewed the 24 geotechnical reports in detail and found no need for further investigation or additional information. The findings of the geotechnical analysis are also 25 compelling on their own and the relatively modest slopes of the project site do 26 not raise any apparent cause for concern. For these reasons, it is concluded PRELIMINARY PLAT - 14 6f. - City Clerk reports appeal of the Hearing Examiner's final decision upon Page 215 of 517 Nwoo 1 that the SEPA responsible official had reasonably adequate information to 2 assess the slope stability of the project site. 3 6.Groundwater, The SEPA Responsible Official had reasonably adequate information to assess the groundwater impacts and there are no probable 4 significant adverse groundwater impacts associated with the proposal. The 5 appellants argued there was insufficient study of the groundwater situation on site and the potential affect groundwater might have on development. They6notetheyrequestedaccesstoperformtheirownstudiesbutweredenied. 7 Specifically, they appellants have requested expanded soils tests, percolation tests and more test pits and borings to measure localized hydraulic 8 conductivity. The applicant provided a geotechnical report (Exhibit 7), a peer 9 review of the geotechnical report (Exhibit K.2), a wetlands report and a revised wetlands report (Exhibit 5), and a drainage report (Exhibit 8). The 10 wetlands reports were independently reviewed by Otak (Exhibits 14 and 15). 11 The City's Development Engineer, Mr. Lee stated the applicant had provided a sufficient number of test pits to gauge impacts of potential groundwater on 12 site (Decision Attachment A, page 24). Given the extensive information 13 provided and the peer review, the applicant has provided information sufficient for the SEPA Responsible Official to issue a threshold 14 determination with respect to groundwater impacts. 15 There are no anticipated adverse impacts related to the groundwater table. The 16 appellants argue groundwater saturation levels at this site make it undevelopable. They point to the AES geotechnical report (Exhibit 7), the17Shultzwetlandsreport (Exhibit 5), the Technical Information Report by 18 Barghausen and the Otak wetlands reviews (Exhibits 14 and 15) as all demonstrating the groundwater table is at or within seven inches of the surface19inallwetlandareas. Groundwater near the surface is defining feature of 20 wetlands. However, the appellants argue the water table is a flat contour throughout the project site and, as a consequence of a high water table, water 21 intrusion will disrupt or prevent proper installation of utilities, foundation 22 drains and the stormwater vault. 23 The applicant's geotechnical engineer, Ray Coglas, testified there is perched 24 groundwater on the site, rather than a flat table, a statement Mr. Lee concurred with during testimony (Decision Attachment A, pages 22 and 25, 25 respectively). If the site had a flat water table close to the ground surface all 26 over the site; the whole site would be underwater because of the varying PRELIMINARY PLAT - 15 6f. - City Clerk reports appeal of the Hearing Examiner's final decision upon Page 216 of 517 Vl 1 topography, which is of course not the case. He stated perched waters trapped 2 by impervious soils are limited in area and capacity and will drain away when cuts are made to hillsides. The water AES encountered was seepage from 3 perched water rather than the actual groundwater table (Decision Attachment 4 A, page 22). Mr. Coglas referred to the AES test pits and stated they showed no caving or seepage which would indicate weakness in the soils or significant 5 groundwater at or near the surface outside of wetland areas. He stated though 6 there will be some groundwater seepage, he does not expect the site will require dewatering or extensive pumping. AES found no groundwater in its 7 test pits. Mr. Coglas stated even if the appellants are correct and that 8 groundwater is at zero elevation, it could be managed without damaging the feasibility of the project. Mr. Lee also concurred with this statement. 9 Mr. Coglas noted the soils at the subject are not unique to this subject. The 10 entire subject is surrounded by existing development at a similar intensity to 11 the proposed development on similar topography and soils. There is no indication from the record or from the site visit to suggest the utilities; 12 infrastructure or house foundations in the surrounding neighborhoods have 13 failed due to perched groundwater or a high water table. Mr. Coglas noted the presence of groundwater will not preclude development if best management 14 practices are followed. 15 Given Mr. Lee's concurrence in the opinion of Mr. Coglas and the substantial 16 weight required of the findings of the SEPA responsible official, it is determined that the proposal will not create any probable significant adverse17groundwaterimpacts. 18 7.Downstream Impacts. The SEPA Responsible Official has information 19 reasonably sufficient to evaluate the downstream impacts of the proposal. The 20 City required a Level 1 downstream analysis. The proposed Level 2 Flow Control (Exhibit A, page 31) will restrict the flow of the 2-year release rate to 21 50% of the pre-developed site conditions, which will help to reduce an 22 existing drainage issue. Mr. Lee stated the City is uncertain of a segment of the pipeline that takes the water downstream of the project site and have 23 therefore requested a Level 2 downstream analysis to be performed prior to 24 building permit approval. They want to make sure the project will not exacerbate existing downstream flooding issues. An NPDES permit will be 25 required for the project, which will stipulate the allowable discharge into the 26 conveyance system (Decision Attachment A, Page 25). The City additionally PRELIMINARY PLAT - 16 6f. - City Clerk reports appeal of the Hearing Examiner's final decision upon Page 217 of 517 1 established a SEPA mitigating condition requiring Level 2 downstream 2 analysis for '/4 mile from the project site. All of the requirements must be met before a building permit or construction permits are issued. With these 3 conditions in place, the City has reasonably sufficient information at this stage 4 of review to evaluate down stream impacts. 5 8.Discharge into Wetlands. The proposed discharge of roof run-off into wetlands will not create a probable significant adverse environmental impact. 6 The detailed local, state and federal standards applicable to stormwater run-off 7 are determinative on the existence of adverse impacts. If the proposed drainage is compliant with applicable regulations, there are no adverse 8 impacts. The appellants assert that the proposed roof run-off into wetlands is 9 in violation of the Clean Water Act. As noted by the applicant, the King County Surface Water Drainage Manual specifically excludes drainage from 10 roofs (except untreated metal roofs) from consideration as pollution 11 generating sources (Exhibit AF). The appellants have not provided any citation or court opinion that roof run off discharge constitutes a violation of 12 any applicable regulation and no such violation is apparent from the reading 13 of the Clean Water Act. Mr. Talkington, in his testimony for the applicant, noted that discharge of clean or non-point source polluted stormwater into 14 wetlands is common practice and is required to hydraulically charge the 15 wetlands. Mr. Lee stated the applicant had complied with all city, state and federal code requirements with respect to stromwater. Mr. Lee testified the 16 codes are sufficient to address all probable stormwater impacts. He further 17 noted a National Pollution Discharge and Elimination System permit will be required for the project, which will ensure that no stormwater pollutants are 18 released into wetlands or groundwater. The permit will include background 19 and discharge monitoring. No building permit or construction permits will be issued until the NPDES conditions are met. Since the proposed stormwater 20 discharge is consistent with all applicable regulations, is a standard practice 21 for development and also meets the approval of staff, it is determined that the proposed discharge to wetlands will not create any probable significant 22 adverse environmental impacts. 23 9. Air Quality. No significant adverse impacts to air quality are anticipated. 24 During the construction phase of the project, there will be exhaust from trucks and heavy equipment. However, after the construction phase is over, the 25 subdivision will function similarly to the surrounding development with 26 respect to emissions and air quality issues. The proposed development is PRELIMINARY PLAT - 17 6f. - City Clerk reports appeal of the Hearing Examiner's final decision upon Page 218 of 517 ern' 00' 1 functionally the same as the existing development pattern. Nothing in the 2 record indicates there will be significant adverse impacts with respect to air quality. 3 4 C. Other Impacts Related to the Preliminary Plat 5 1.Wetlands. As proposed and conditioned, the proposal will not create any significant adverse impacts to wetlands. There are five wetlands on site. Three 6 of the wetlands are Category 2; the others are Category III. The applicant 7 submitted a Wetland Determination, prepared by C. Gary Schulz, Inc. October 30, 2013) and a revised Wetland Determination in response to 8 revisions to the plat including the use of a drainage vault, instead of a drainage 9 detention pond, and the inclusion of a vegetated buffer along portions of the site perimeter(February 28, 2014). 10 11 Based on public comments (See Exhibit 10.6), staff required an evaluation by an independent qualified professional regarding the applicant's wetland 12 analysis and the effectiveness of any proposed mitigating measures. On April 3, 2014 an independent secondary wetland review was provided to the City by13Otak (Exhibit A, Attachment 14). Following the completion of 14 recommendations in the Otak memo, the applicant submitted a Revised Wetland Determination and Response (June 3, 2014) (Exhibit A, Attachment155) 16 At the hearing, members of the public expressed concern regarding the1 protection of wetlands and wildlife habitat. There was specific concern 18 regarding removal of trees and wetland hydrology. During testimony, Ms. Villa of Soundview Consultants stated she was hired by the applicant to19 perform supplementary wetland review for fish and wildlife habitat. In her 20 study, she found no state or federally listed or protected species on the site. She noted the habitat is fairly disturbed now with evidence of a lot of human21intrusion. In her opinion, protection of the wetlands and habitats with proper 22 fencing and signage would result in better protection for the habitat than exists 23 currently. 24 The Otak Supplemental Independent Secondary Review concluded water quality, wetland hydrologic function and flood storage will be protected. The25 applicant proposes buffer averaging provisions (RMC 4-3-050(M)(6)(f)). The 26 buffer averaging plan provides additional buffer area at ratios that range from PRELIMINARY PLAT - 18 6f. - City Clerk reports appeal of the Hearing Examiner's final decision upon Page 219 of 517 1 1.6:1.0 to 9.5:1.0. Wetlands A, B, C, and D would have buffer areas 2 significantly greater following the buffer averaging proposal. However, staff are concerned the proposed adjustments will not provide adequate buffering 3 on the north and east sides of Wetlands B and C to take into account the 4 proposed "lock & load walls" in those locations. The applicant will be required to submit a Final Mitigation Plan (RMC 4-8-120(W)) demonstrating 5 appropriate mitigation for all wetlands and buffer impacts prior to permit 6 approval. 7 The applicant has requested a critical areas exemption allowing a permanent 8 buffer impact to 14sf of the Wetland E buffer. The exemption would allow the applicant to construct the required full street improvements at SE 18`" Street 9 RMC 4-6-060). This area (219sf) has already been impacted by past infrastructure construction. Staff recommends approval of the critical areas10 exemption with mitigation for the impact. 11 The critical areas on site have a total area of 118,494 square feet (2.72 acres) 12 and would be located in (Tracts B, G, K, & M). The applicant is proposing to 13 increase wetland buffers which would result in a total native open space used to preserve native forest habitat of approximately 175,199 square feet (4.02 14 acres). As conditioned, no impacts to wetland habitat are anticipated. 15 Given the extensive review of wetland impacts, staffs review and approval of 16 wetland mitigation, and the applicant's compliance with all applicable wetland regulations, it is concluded that the proposal will not create any adverse 17 impacts to wetlands. 18 2.Tree Retention Required. The proposal provides for adequate tree retention 19 because it complies with the City's tree retention standards, RMC 4-4-130(C). The applicant submitted two versions of the preliminary plat application. The20firstversionisa97lotalternativethatdoesnotachieve30% significant tree 21 retention. The second plat alternative is a 96-lot preliminary plat that achieves 30% significant tree retention and implements the applicant's Tree Protection 22 Report (Exhibit 3). Since the 96-lot alternative implements the applicant's tree 23 retention plan and is consistent with the agreed upon SEPA mitigation measure requiring 30% retention, this is taken as the applicant's proposal and 24 is the design approved by this decision. If the applicant was still intending to 25 pursue a 97-lot design, it should request reconsideration. 26 PRELIMINARY PLAT - 19 6f. - City Clerk reports appeal of the Hearing Examiner's final decision upon Page 220 of 517 14OW S%00-11 I No other significant impacts are reasonably anticipated from the evidence contained within the 2 administrative record. 3 6. _A_ acyof Infrastructure/Public Services. The project will be served by adequate infrastructure and public services. Preliminary adequacy of all infrastructure facilities has been4reviewedbytheCity's Public Works Department and found to be sufficient. Specific 5 infrastructure/services are addressed as follows: 6 A. Water and Sewer Service. This site is located in the City of Renton water service 7 boundary. There is an existing 8-inch water main stubbed to the site in SE 20th Court, in SE 19th Court and SE 18th Court. This site is located in the 590-water pressure zone. 8 Static pressure in the area ranges from 65-82 psi. The site is located in the City of Renton 9 sewer service area. There is an 8-inch sewer main in SE 18th Street. 10 B. Police and Fire Protection. Police and Fire Prevention staffs indicate that sufficient 11 resources exist to furnish services to the proposed development; subject to the provision of Code required improvements and fees. A Fire Impact Fee, based on new single family12lots, will be required in order to mitigate the proposal's potential impacts to City 13 emergency services. The fee is payable to the City as specified by the Renton Municipal Code. Currently the fee is assessed at $479.28 per single family residence. This fee is 14 paid at time of building permit issuance. 15 C. Drainage. As conditioned, the proposal provides for adequate drainage facilities. In order 16 to address concerns raised by staff, as recommended by them a condition of approval 17 requires a Level 2 downstream analysis for 1/4 mile from the project site to determine if the proposed project would exacerbate existing downstream capacity issues. The 18 applicant submitted a Preliminary Drainage Report prepared by Barghausen, dated 19 February 24, 2014 (Exhibit 8). Staff has determined that the preliminary plan is consistent with the 2009 King County Surface Water Manual and City of Renton 20 Amendments to the KCSWM, Chapters 1 and 2. Full compliance with the Manual will 21 be required during engineering review. 22 D. Parks/Open Space. The proposal is consistent with adopted parks and open space 23 standards and, therefore, provides for adequate parks and open space. RMC 4-2-115, which governs open space requirements for residential development, does not have any 24 specific requirements for open space for residential development in the R-8 district. 25 However, the applicant is proposing a total of 1.26 acres of passive and active open space, in addition to critical areas on site, for the open space needs of the subdivision. 26 PRELIMINARY PLAT - 20 6f. - City Clerk reports appeal of the Hearing Examiner's final decision upon Page 221 of 517 AW I The applicant will also be require to pay park impact fees prior to building permit issuace 2 to ensure that the development pays its fair share of system wide park improvements. 3 E. Streets. The proposal, as conditioned, provides for adequate streets and associated 4 infrastructure. The applicant is proposing two points of ingress and egress into the plat; SE 18th St and 124th Place SE. The primary neighborhood streets which would serve 5 project traffic include 116th Avenue SE, 126th Avenue SE, SE 168th Street, SE Petrovitsky 6 Road, S. Puget Drive, and 108th Avenue SE-Benson Road S. The project site is currently served by King County Metro Route 148 with Routes 102 and 155 also operating within 7 the vicinity of the subject site. The nearest transit stop for Route 148 is located on Lake 8 Youngs Drive SE and 123rd Avenue SE. 9 Staff received comments from interested parties with respect to traffic specifically related to the need for additional analysis, trip generation, lack of public transit, level of service,10 sight distance, the Edmonds Avenue SE/SE 16th Street-Edmonds Way SE intersection, 11 the use of speed bumps for traffic calming, stop signs, and traffic impact fees (See 12 Exhibit 10). 13 The applicant submitted a Traffic Impact Analysis (TIA) prepared by TranspoGroup, November, 2013) as part of the original submittal. Based on public comments received,14 staff required an evaluation by an independent qualified professional regarding the 15 applicant's transportation analysis and the effectiveness of any proposed mitigating measures. The TIA concludes that all affected intersections will continue to operate at an16acceptablelevelofservice, except the intersection of Benson Drive S/S Puget Drive, 17 which will fall to LOS E by 2018 with or without the proposed project. The addition of AM peak hour project traffic would add approximately five seconds of average delay to18thisintersection. Staff concluded that this minor amount of delay did not justify 19 additional mitigation and the reduction in LOS will not violate the City's adopted level of service. The applicant will be required to pay traffic impact fees prior to issuance of20buildingpermits, which provides adequate mitigation against the modest traffic impacts 21 created by the proposal. 22 The TIA noted limited sight distance exists today for southbound motorists on Monroe 23 Avenue SE approaching SE 18th Street due to the roadway geometrics and existing obstructions (fence and on-street vehicle parking). The site distance issue was remedied 24 by an MDNS condition that requires the applicant to install a stop sign. 25 26 PRELIMINARY PLAT - 21 6f. - City Clerk reports appeal of the Hearing Examiner's final decision upon Page 222 of 517 Wo N40011 I Included in the Independent Secondary Review (Exhibit 13) was a recommendation for 2 sight distance analysis at the 124th Place SE and SE 158th Street intersection. The report identifies this intersection as a possible sight distance concern. Given the provided TIA 3 does not include an analysis of the sight distance at this intersection, a SEPA mitigation 4 measure was issued requiring the applicant submit a revised TIA including an analysis of the 124th Place SE and SE 158th Street intersection sight distance and recommend 5 appropriate mitigation if needed (Exhibit 22). Site distances at all other study 6 intersections were deemed adequate with the exception of Beacon Way SE at SE 16th Street. 7 8 The vertical curve of SE 16th Street presents a visibility concern. A crest vertical curve obstructs sight distance where SE 16th Street crosses Beacon Way SE especially if car 9 speeds exceed posted speed limit signage. There are existing signs (Steep Hill, Slippery When Wet, Advisory 15MPH Speed) at SE 16th Street northeast of Beacon Way SE10 which help to calm existing traffic at this intersection. Approximately 60% of the 11 project's trips are anticipated to utilize this intersection. Therefore, the ERC issued a SEPA mitigation measure requiring the applicant to install an additional warning sign for12 a CROSSROAD (W2-1 symbol) with a 15MPH advisory speed on the southwest 13 directional approach to Beacon Way SE, along the north side of SE 16th Street (east of Beacon Way SE) (Exhibit 22). The ERC issued another SEPA mitigation condition at this 14 intersection to reduce cut thru traffic. The applicant is required to install directional 15 information signage (white letters on green background) at S. Puget Drive and 116th Avenue SE facing west (Exhibit 22). The signs are required to read "TIFFANY PARK" 16 with a left arrow and "CASCADE"with a right arrow. 17 Several public comments requested the use of speed bumps as a traffic calming measure18 along SE 16th Street to address sight distance (including vertical), cut through traffic, and 19 spin out concerns which would be aggravated by traffic generated by the proposal. The City does not support the use of speed bumps on public streets. Speed bumps are not 20 desired due to noise, excessive speeds between installations (so drivers can make up 21 time), and result in a reduction in response time of public safety vehicles such as fire engines and aid cars. 22 23 Several public comments requested internal pedestrian connectivity, connections to neighboring developments/abutting pipelines, connectivity to Tiffany Park Elementary,24 and the crossing at SE 16th St and Edmonds Way SE intersection (.See Exhibit 10.22). No 25 frontage improvements are required on adjacent street frontage. The internal public 26 streets have been proposed with a right-of-way width of 53 feet which meets the City's PRELIMINARY PLAT - 22 6f. - City Clerk reports appeal of the Hearing Examiner's final decision upon Page 223 of 517 vole o,W 1 complete street requirements for residential access streets. Pavement width of 26 feet, 0.5 2 foot wide curbs, 8 foot wide landscaped planters (on both sides of the street), 5 foot wide sidewalks (on both sides of the street), drainage improvements, and street lighting are 3 required. The applicant is proposing two pedestrian connections to neighboring 4 developments and an abutting pipeline via Tracts C and E. 5 City staff evaluated the intersection of Edmonds Avenue SE/SE 16th Street-Edmonds 6 Way SE with respect to pedestrian improvements in 1996, 2005 and again in 2007 and determined that crosswalks were not warranted at this location. The additional 7 development traffic will not exceed the threshold to warrant installation of a crosswalk at 8 this location. 9 As noted in staff testimony above, the proposal will not exceed six dwelling units per 10 acre and therefore is not required to provide alley access. 11 Several public comments dealt with construction traffic (See Exhibit 10.30). The developer will be required to comply with the Renton Municipal Code for haul hours,12 construction hours, and noise levels. A final Traffic Control Plan complying with the 13 Renton Municipal Code will be required to be submitted and approved prior to construction. 14 15 F. Parking. Sufficient area exists, on each lot, to accommodate required off street parking 16 for a minimum of two vehicles per dwelling unit as required by City code. 17 G. Schools. The Renton School District anticipates it can accommodate any additional students generated by this proposal at the following schools: Tiffany Park Elementary180.4 miles from the subject site), Nelson Middle School (1.7 miles from the subject site) 19 and Lindberg High School (0.9 miles from the subject site). RCW 58.17.110(2) provides that no subdivision be approved without making a written finding of adequate provisions20forsafewalkingconditionsforstudentswhowalktoandfromschooland/or bus stops. 21 Tiffany Park Elementary and Lindberg High School are within walking distance of the subject site while Nelson Middle School would require future students to be transported 22 to school via bus. 23 As part of the proposed project, sidewalks would be constructed along on-site roadways 24 which would connect to the existing sidewalk system providing adequate provisions for 25 safe walking conditions for students who walk to and from school and/or bus stops. 26 PRELIMINARY PLAT - 23 6f. - City Clerk reports appeal of the Hearing Examiner's final decision upon Page 224 of 517 AW wd01 I Sidewalks would provide a route between the project site and nearby Tiffany Park 2 Elementary School, including available marked crosswalks at the Kirkland Avenue SE/Lake Youngs Way intersection. The Kirkland Avenue SE/Lake Youngs Way 3 intersection is approximately 300 linear feet from where SE 18th St intersects Lake 4 Youngs Way. Given the number of homes proposed, it is very likely that a large influx of students would attempt to cross Lake Youngs Way SE, at the SE 18th Street intersection, 5 which does not currently have a marked crosswalk. In order to provide a more practical 6 safe route to Tiffany Park Elementary from the project site, a SEPA mitigation measure was issued requiring the applicant provide a marked crosswalk at the intersection of SE 7 181h Street and Lake Youngs Way. 8 No current bus stops exist for this property as it is currently undeveloped. The Renton 9 School District will be making provisions for the location of bus stops for those students 10 who will be attending Nelson Middle School. 1 I A School Impact Fee, based on new single-family lots, will also be required in order to mitigate the proposal's potential impacts to Renton School District. The fee is payable to12 the City as specified by the Renton Municipal Code at the time of building permit 13 application. Currently the fee is assessed at $5,455.00 per single family residence and 14 would increase to $5,541.00 on January 1, 2015. 15 V. CONCLUSIONS OF LAW 16 17 1. Authority. RMC 4-7-020(C) and 4-7-050(D)(5) provide that the Hearing Examiner shall 18 hold a hearing and issue a final decision on preliminary plat applications. RMC 4-9-070(R) and RMC 4-8-110(A)(2) grant the Examiner authority to review and make final decisions on SEPA 19 appeals. 20 2. Zoning/Comprehensive Plan Designations. The majority of the subject property is zoned 21 Residential 8 dwelling units per net acre (R-8). A small portion of the subject property is zoned Residential 4 dwelling units per net acre (R-4). Only the R-8 portion of the property is proposed for22residentialdevelopment. The comprehensive plan map land use designation is Residential Single 23 Family (RSF) and Residential Low Density(RLD). 24 SEPA APPEAL 25 26 PRELIMINARY PLAT - 24 6f. - City Clerk reports appeal of the Hearing Examiner's final decision upon Page 225 of 517 NOW' 1 3. Review Standard. There are two reasons a DNS can be overturned to overturned: (1) there are 2 unmitigated probable significant adverse environmental impacts; or (2) the SEPA responsible official has not undertaken an adequate review of environmental factors. Each grounds for reversal will be 3 separately addressed below. 4 A. Probable Significant Adverse Environmental Impacts 5 The primary relevant inquiry for purposes of assessing whether County staff correctly issued a DNS 6 is whether the project as proposed has a probable significant environmental impact. See WAC 197- 7 11-330(l)(b). WAC 197-11-782 defines "probable"as follows: 8 Probable`means likely or reasonably likely to occur, as in `a reasonable probability ofmore than a moderate effect on the quality ofthe environment' (see MVAC 197-11-794). Probable is9usedtodistinguishlikelyimpactsfromthosethatmerelyhaveapossibilityofoccurring, but 10 are remote or speculative. This is not meant as a strict statistical probability test. 11 If such impacts are created, conditions will have to be added to the DNS to reduce impacts so there 12 are no probable significant adverse environmental impacts. In the alternative, an environmental impact statement would be required for the project. In assessing the validity of a threshold 13 determination, the determination made by the City's SEPA responsible official shall be entitled to substantial weight. WAC 197-11-680(3)(a)(viii). An appeal of an MDNS is judicially reviewed14 under the clearly erroneous standards. Under the clearly erroneous standard, the decision of the 15 SEPA responsible official can only be overturned if, after reviewing the entire record, the decision maker is left with the definite and firm conviction that a mistake has been made. RMC 4-8-110-16 (E)(12)(b)(v). The procedural determination by the Environmental Review Committee or City staff 17 shall carry substantial weight in any appeal proceeding. RMC 4-8-110(E)(12)(a). 18 1 B. Adequate Environmental Review 19 The second reason a DNS can be overturned is if the SEPA responsible official did not adequately 20 review environmental impacts in reaching his threshold determination. The SEPA responsible official must make a prima facie showing that he has based his determination upon information reasonably21sufficienttoevaluatetheimpactsofaproposal. WAC 197-11-335. 22 C. No Grounds for an EIS. 23 TPWAG has not demonstrated a need for additional SEPA mitigation, environmental review or the24issuanceofanenvironmentalimpactstatement. All of the grounds for SEPA appeal are addressed in 25 Finding of Fact No. 5. As determined in that finding, none of the impacts identified by TPWAG 26 qualify as probable significant adverse environmental impacts and TPWAG has not identified an PRELIMINARY PLAT - 25 6f. - City Clerk reports appeal of the Hearing Examiner's final decision upon Page 226 of 517 I I impact for which the SEPA responsible official did not have sufficient information to reasonably 2 assess impacts. 3 D. Perimeter Landscaping. 4 MDNS Condition No. 6 is modified to only require 10 foot perimeter landscaping along the retaining 5 walls that are over four feet in height, specifically in proximity to lots 40, 41, 46, 47, 80, 82, 83-90, 93 and 94. 6 The applicant argues that no perimeter buffering is required because the City's landscaping standards7donotrequirebufferingandthatthosestandardsshouldbedeterminativeinassessingtheneedfor 8 landscaping. The applicant is correct up to a point. RCW 36.70B.030(3) and RCW 43.21C.240(2)(a) does allow a city to use its development standards as the exclusive source of mitigation for 9 environmental impacts. However, RCW 43.21C.240(2)(a) provides that in order to use development 10 regulations in this manner the City must make a determination in the course of permit review that the development standards in question are adequately addressed by the development regulations. RCW1143.21 C.240(4) further clarifies that for development standards to be found to adequately mitigate 12 impacts, imposition of the standards must either avoid or mitigate the impacts; or the legislative body 13 of the city has determined that the development standard sets acceptable levels of impact. Renton's landscaping standards do not adequately address all of the aesthetic impacts created by the14 proposal. As noted previously, one of the two ways that a development standard can be found to 15 adequately address impacts is if the City Council intended the standard to set acceptable levels of impact. See RCW 43.21 C.240(4)(b).The Renton City Council expressly determined that the16 landscaping standard would not set acceptable levels of aesthetic impact, stating the purpose clause of 17 the landscaping standards that "it is not the intent ofthese regulations that rigid and inflexible design 18 standards be imposed, but rather that minimum standards be set." 19 The other, more difficult issue involved in ascertaining whether the landscaping standards would adequately address aesthetic impacts is if the standards actually mitigate the impacts. Given the 20 subjectivity of aesthetic perimeter impacts, one would have to conclude that in the vast majority of 21 typical subdivisions the landscaping standards do set an adequate standard. In not imposing any perimeter landscaping requirements between single family residential uses, the City Council must 22 have determined that for the typical subdivision, such landscaping is not necessary. However, the 23 proposed subdivision is not typical. As determined in Finding of Fact No. 6, the proposal will involve up to 16.6 foot high retaining walls that will create a stone wall to the neighborhoods across from it, 24 which in turn can be topped with 6 foot fences. The site visit revealed that no other homes in the 25 vicinity have such retaining walls or similar edifices bordering on public roads. Consequently, the impacts of the subdivision are not typical and likely not the type of impact the City Council 26 considered when it omitted any buffer requirements for adjoining residential uses. Additional PRELIMINARY PLAT - 26 6f. - City Clerk reports appeal of the Hearing Examiner's final decision upon Page 227 of 517 I mitigation through SEPA is well justified in this case to mitigate against the impact of retaining 2 walls. 3 The City's environmental report also cites that buffering is necessary to off-set the impacts of the densities of the proposal, which are higher than adjoining densities. This does not serve as an4adequatejustificationforbuffering. Setting a threshold for adverse aesthetic impacts based upon a 5 difference in density or lot sizes is a completely arbitrary action in the absence of any legislative guidance. The difference in density between the proposal and adjoining uses is not so high that 6 reasonable minds would share the same opinion as to whether the difference is aesthetically adverse. 7 Though both the surrounding areas and the subject are zoned R-8, the developed density of the proposal will not exceed 5.7 dwelling units per acre. Indeed, unlike the retaining walls of the project, 8 differences in residential densities are something that one would reasonably anticipate the Council 9 would have considered in adopting its landscaping standards, and it adopted no perimeter requirements between residential zoning districts with different densities, except as between multi- 10 family and less intense residential uses. For these reasons, the comparatively higher density of the 11 Proposal does not create a probable significant adverse environmental impact. 12 Another issue with respect to the SEPA's mitigation measure is to ensure that the City has adopted a SEPA policy that requires the impact to be addressed. RCW 43.21C.060 requires that SEPA13 mitigation must be based upon policies adopted by the local government authority. Interestingly, the 14 City hasn't adopted its development standards as part of its SEPA policies, so the purpose clause of the landscaping regulations, which promote aesthetic compatibility, can't be used. There are plenty of15otherSEPApoliciesthatpromoteaestheticcompatibility. RMC 4-2-070(M)(2)(ii)Provide that one of 16 the goals of SEPA review is to assure aesthetically pleasing surroundings. The City's comprehensive plan is another adopted SEPA policy. One of its community design goals is to "raise the aesthetic17 quality of the city". Objective CD-M recognizes that well designed landscaping Provides aesthetic 18 appeal and makes an important contribution to the health, safety, economy and general welfare of the community. Policy CD-88 provides that street trees and landscaping should be required for new19developmenttoprovideanattractivestreetscapeinareassubjectedtoatransitionoflanduses. All of 20 these policies are served by the perimeter landscaping required by this decision, since such landscaping will raise the aesthetic quality of the city, provide for aesthetic appeal and buffer against 21 the transition from the higher density residential development and its associated retaining walls to the 22 lower surrounding residential densities. 23 The applicants argue in their briefing that requiring perimeter landscaping would be unreasonable 24 because homes would lose yard space. In the alternative, of course, the applicant may have to lose some lots. Given the judicial construction of"reasonable" in due process and takings cases, the loss 25 of a few lots or yard space would not be considered unreasonable. 26 PRELIMINARY PLAT - 27 6f. - City Clerk reports appeal of the Hearing Examiner's final decision upon Page 228 of 517 ftw 1"0111 I As a final matter, SEPA mitigation can only be used to impose mitigation against probable significant 2 adverse environmental impacts. As determined in the Finding of Fact No. 5, the solid walls created by the higher portions of the retaining wall easily qualify. No reasonable minds could differ on the 3 opinion that high retaining walls are at odds with the general design of the community and create a 4 mass of rock or concrete wall that is aesthetically adverse. The remaining issue is how high the wall should be to be considered adverse. Again, reference to existing codes is useful as it provides an 5 objective and consistent standard for application. Retaining walls fewer than four feet in height do 6 not require building permit review. Consequently, it can be reasonably anticipated that decorative retaining walls under four feet may not be that uncommon, whereas property owners will only go 7 through the time and expense of building permit review for higher walls when they are necessitated 8 for stability as opposed to decorative purposes. A four feet height is also still low enough to retain the views of surrounding trees, vistas and other natural and landscaped features. For this reason, those 9 portions of the proposal with retaining walls that exceed four feet in height shall be subject to the 15 10 foot wide perimeter landscaping requirement imposed in the MDNS. 11 E. Retaining Wall Height. 12 The six-foot retaining wall height limitation recommended by staff will not be adopted. Renton does not have any standards imposing height limits on retaining walls outside of setback areas. There is13nothingintherecordthatestablishesthepotentialforanyadverseimpactsotherthanaesthetic, and 14 those impacts will be adequately addressed by the staff s recommended landscape perimeter. 15 The retaining wall condition presents two code interpretation issues: (1) whether the City's fence and 16 hedge regulation (RMC 10-4-040) applies to retaining walls, and (2) if RMC 10-4-040 does apply, whether it imposes a six foot height limit on retaining walls. As to the first issue, RMC 10-4-040 17 probably does apply to retaining walls. RMC 4-4-040(A) provides that the purpose of RMC 4-4-050 18 is to regulate the material and height of "fences and hedges." "Fence" is not defined in the RMC. However, walls are addressed throughout RMC 4-4-040. Most pertinent, RMC 4-4-040(C)(1) 19 provides in relevant part that, "In cases where a wall is used instead of a fence, height shall be 20 measured from the top surface of the wall to the ground on the high side of the wall." This sentence strongly suggests that the wall in question can include retaining walls, since the sentence 21 acknowledges that one side of the wall can be at a higher grade than the other. Retaining walls that 22 project above the higher grade would meet this definition. The applicant argues that this reference to wall" as well as others pertains to "European or California-style stone walls." Nothing in the 23 language of RMC 4-4-040 suggests that walls be limited to stone walls. 24 In addition to providing some clarity on the applicability of RMC 4-4-040 to retaining walls, RMC 4- 25 4-040(C)(1) also establishes that retaining walls that do not project past the higher grade have a 26 height of zero feet, which is below all the height limits set for walls by RMC 4-4-040. The sentence PRELIMINARY PLAT - 28 6f. - City Clerk reports appeal of the Hearing Examiner's final decision upon Page 229 of 517 400, 4/ 1 I clearly states that retaining wall height is to be measured from the "high side of the wall", which 2 would be zero in the case of the retaining walls proposed by the applicant. This result makes sense in light of the other limitation of RMC 4-4-040, that it applies only "in cases where walls are used 3 instead of a fence." If a retaining wall does not extend above the higher grade, it doesn't take the 4 place of a fence and hence is not subject to the height limit. In short, retaining walls that only serve to retain soil, as proposed by the applicant, are not subject to the height limits of RMC 4-4-040. 5 Practically speaking, this means that RMC 4-4-040 doesn't apply to retaining walls solely used to 6 stabilize grade separations, since no other provisions in RMC 4-4-040 apply as well. 7 Since the six foot height limit is not required RMC 4-4-040, staff would have to find some other code provision to require the fence. Plat criteria requiring conformance to the comprehensive plan, see 8 RMC 4-7-080(I)(1), include the policies addressing aesthetic impacts identified in COL No. 5.A.1. 9 As determined in Finding of Fact No.6.C, the aesthetic impacts of the retaining walls can be fully mitigated by perimeter landscaping. Staff acknowledged as much at page 13 of the staff report. 10 Therefore, the record contains no adequate justification for a limitation on retaining wall height. 11 F. Loss of Recreational Use. 12 The appellants assert that the project site has been used as a recreational resource by the surrounding13communityfordecadesandthatitslossisaprobablesignificantadverseenvironmentalimpact. The 14 loss of recreational use from the property is not an environmental impact of the proposal subject to SEPA review and mitigation. Even if it were, that loss does not result in any violation of the City's 15 detailed park policies and regulations, compliance of which assures that development will not create 16 demand upon park facilities that exceeds legislatively adopted level of service standards. 17 As a preliminary matter, it should be noted that this decision does not address the prescriptive rights claims made by the appellants to the project site. As ruled in Ex. AG, the Examiner has no authority18 to address the prescriptive easement claims asserted by the SEPA appellants. Practically speaking, 19 this decision will not prejudice the appellants' prescriptive rights claims if the appellants diligently pursue those claims in superior court, the proper forum for such a claim. Should the appellants20actuallysucceedinpersuadingacourtthatthepublichasprescriptiverightstothepublicschool 21 property (which appears unlikely at this juncture), they could acquire injunctive or other judicial 22 relief to prevent development of the proposal. 23 No additional SEPA review or mitigation is merited on the recreational use issue because the loss of that use cannot be considered an impact of the proposal. In the absence of any prescriptive rights to 24 the project site, project opponents are left with the argument that the applicant should fund further 25 environmental review or provide for additional mitigation to compensate for the fact that either (1) the applicant was benevolent enough to allow the public to use its property; or (2) the public 26 repeatedly trespassed on the applicant's property. From an equitable standpoint, such a position PRELIMINARY PLAT - 29 6f. - City Clerk reports appeal of the Hearing Examiner's final decision upon Page 230 of 517 fir. 1 borders on the absurd. More importantly, the applicant could prevent the public from using its 2 property at any time, with or without the proposal. For this reason, the loss of recreational use should not be considered an impact of the proposal for purposes of environmental review. 3 Even if loss of the recreational use of the site could be legitimately considered an environmental4impactforpurposesofSEPA, its loss would not qualify as a probable significant adverse 5 environmental impact. The City's comprehensive plan, park impact fees and open space requirements are all designed to assure that each developer is required to provide its proportionate share 6 contribution to the park needs of the city and that the park needs of the public will be met as 7 development progresses. The applicant's proposal is consistent and compliant with all of these requirements. In point of fact the applicant will be required to pay park impact fees at the time of 8 building permit issuance. The applicant is also providing for 1.2 acres of open space, even though no 9 open space is required for subdivisions in the R-8 zone. As would be expected, none of the City's park policies or regulations penalizes a developer for withdrawing the ability of the public to use or 10 trespass upon its property. Since the applicant is acting fully within the requirements of the City's 11 detailed park policies and regulations, its proposal cannot be considered to create adverse impacts to the City's (i.e. public's) parks and recreational system. 12 13 PRELIMINARY PLAT 14 6.Review Criteria. Chapter 4-7 RMC governs the criteria for preliminary review. Applicable 15 standards are quoted below in italics and applied through corresponding conclusions of law. 16 RMC 4-7-080(B): A subdivision shall be consistent with the following principles ofacceptability: 17 1. Legal Lots: Create legal building sites which comply with all provisions ofthe City Zoning Code. 18 2. Access: Establish access to a public roadfor each segregated parcel. 19 3. Physical Characteristics: Have suitable physical characteristics. A proposed plat may be denied20becauseofflood, inundation, or wetland conditions. Construction ofprotective improvements may 21 be required as a condition ofapproval, and such improvements shall be noted on the final plat. 22 4. Drainage: Make adequate provision for drainage ways, streets, alleys, other public ways, water 23 supplies and sanitary wastes. 24 RMC 4-4-080(I)(7): 25 a. Benefits of. Joint use driveways reduce the number of curb cuts along individual streets and 26 thereby improve safety and reduce congestion while providing for additional on-street parking PRELIMINARY PLAT - 30 6f. - City Clerk reports appeal of the Hearing Examiner's final decision upon Page 231 of 517 w„r V I opportunities. Joint use driveways should be encouraged whenfeasible and appropriate. (Ord. 4517, 2 5-8-1995) 3 b. Where Permitted: Adjoining commercial or industrial uses may utilize ajoint use driveway where such joint use driveway reduces the total number ofdriveways entering the street network, subject to4theapprovaloftheDepartmentofCommunityandEconomicDevelopment. Joint use driveways 5 must be created upon the common property line of the properties served or through the granting ofa permanent access easement when said driveway does not exist upon a common property line. Joint6useaccesstothedrivewayshallbeassuredbyeasementorotherlegalformacceptabletotheCity. 7 7. As to compliance with the Zoning Code, Finding I(2) of the staff report in the portions 8 related to density, lot dimensions, setbacks and building standards (Pages 12-13) are adopted by 9 reference as if set forth in full, with all associated recommended conditions of approval adopted by this decision as well. 10 As depicted in the plat map, Staff Report Ex. 2, most of the lots will directly access a public Road11 (Road A, SE 18th Street or 124th Place SE). As noted in Finding of Fact 6.G, shared driveways are 12 proposed for Lots 12-14, Lots 15-17, Lots 38-40 and Lots 79-81. Staff additionally suggests Lot 11 and Lots 78 take access from the shared driveway. There are no topographical or critical areas issues 13 to preclude these three lots from having shared access. The shared access would reduce the number 14 of curb cuts at the entrance of the plat at 124th Place SE and along the cul de sac at the end of the same street. Potential vehicle and pedestrian conflicts would be lessened by consolidating driveways. 15 However, the applicant testified use of the shared driveway for Lot 11 is problematic because the 16 driveway would be at an angle to the roadway which would also change the design of the house to allow side loading of the garage. The applicant objected to the inclusion of Lot 78 in a shared 17 driveway. There appear to be no material differences between Lots 78 and 81 in terms of orientation 18 or width. As these lots are very near to the subdivision entrance, limiting potential vehicle and pedestrian conflicts is desirable. Though a change to the design of the house on Lot 11 is not an 19 unreasonable accommodation to allow for vehicular and pedestrian safety at the cul de sac, the 20 driveway for Lot 11 would be at an undesirable angle to the shared driveway. The cul de sac serves a limited number of houses. In this instance, the safety effect of removing one driveway access to a cul 21 de sac does not outweigh the impact to Lot 11 caused by the creation of off kilter driveway. The 22 approval will be conditioned to require the inclusion of Lots 12-14, Lots 15-17, Lots 38-40 and Lots 78-81 in shared driveways. 23 As determined in Finding of Fact No. 5 and 6, the project is adequately designed to prevent any24impactstocriticalareasandwillnotcausefloodingproblems. As determined in Finding of Fact No. 25 6, the proposal provides for adequate public facilities. 26 PRELIMINARY PLAT - 31 6f. - City Clerk reports appeal of the Hearing Examiner's final decision upon Page 232 of 517 I I RMC 4-7-080(I)(1): ...The Hearing Examiner shall assure conformance with the general purposes 2 ofthe Comprehensive Plan and adopted standards... 3 8.The proposed preliminary play is consistent with the Renton Comprehensive Plan as outlined 4 in Finding I(1) of the staff report, which is incorporated by this reference as if set forth in full. 5 RMC 4-7-120(A): No plan for the replatting, subdivision, or dedication of any areas shall be approved by the Hearing Examiner unless the streets shown therein are connected by surfaced road 6 or street(according to City specifications) to an existing street or highway. 7 9. As shown in Staff Report Ex. 2, the internal road system connects to SE 18th Street and 124th 8 Place SE, both public roads. 9 RMC 4-7-120(B): The location ofall streets shall conform to any adopted plans for streets in the 10 City. 11 10. The City's adopted street plans are not addressed in the staff report or anywhere else in the administrative record. However, the proposed internal road system extends two existing stub roads, 12 SE 18th Street and 124th Place SE. Both extensions will be constructed to City road standards. 13 Consequently, the criterion above is construed as satisfied by the proposal. 14 RMC 4-7-120(C): Ifa subdivision is located in the area ofan officially designed[sic]trail, 15 provisions shall be madefor reservation ofthe right-qf--way or,for easements to the City for trail purposes. 16 11. According to the Renton Trails and Bikeways Map (Exhibit 20) a pedestrian trail is 17 designated within the Seattle Pipeline abutting the site. The applicant would be required to obtain 18 right-of-way or an access easement across the pipeline for secondary access via 124th Place SE (see Finding 35.6, Streets). In addition, the applicant would be required to provide a safe crossing for the 19 designated trail across the extension of 124th Place SE. As a condition of approval, the applicant 20 shall submit a revised plat plan depicting a safe pedestrian crossing, across the 124th Place SE extension, for the Seattle Waterline Pedestrian Trail. 21 RMC 4-7-130(C): A plat, shortplat, subdivision or dedication shall be prepared in conformance 22 with the following provisions: 23 1. Land Unsuitable for Subdivision: Land which is found to be unsuitable for subdivision includes 24 land with features likely to be harmful to the safety and general health ofthe future residents (such 25 as lands adversely affected by flooding, steep slopes, or rock formations). Land which the Department or the Hearing Examiner considers inappropriate for subdivision shall not be 26 subdivided unless adequate safeguards are provided against these adverse conditions. PRELIMINARY PLAT - 32 6f. - City Clerk reports appeal of the Hearing Examiner's final decision upon Page 233 of 517 WO' r/ 1 a. Flooding/Inundation: If'any portion ofthe land within the boundary ofa preliminary plat 2 is subject to flooding or inundation, that portion ofthe subdivision must have the approval of the.State according to chapter 86.16 RCW before the Department and the Hearing Examiner 3 shall consider such subdivision. 4 b. Steep.Slopes:A plat, short plat, subdivision or dedication which would result in the 5 creation ofa lot or lots that primarily have slopesforty percent (40%) or greater as measuredper RMC 4-3-050J1 a, without adequate area at lesser slopes upon which 6 development may occur, shall not be approved. 7 8 3. Land Clearing and Tree Retention: Shall comply with RMC 4-4-130, Tree Retention and Land 9 Clearing Regulations. 10 4. Streams: 11 a. Preservation: Every reasonable effort shall be made to preserve existing streams, bodies 12 ofwater, and wetland areas. 13 b. Method: I a stream asses through an o the subjectproperty, a lan shall be resentedfpgYfJpp 14 which indicates how the stream will be preserved. The methodologies used should include an overflow area, and an attempt to minimize the disturbance ofthe natural channel and stream15bed. 16 c. Culverting: The piping or tunneling ofwater shall be discouraged and allowed only when 17 going under streets. 18 d. Clean Water: Every effort shall be made to keep all streams and bodies of water clear of 19 debris and pollutants. 20 12. The land is suitable for a subdivision. As determined in Finding of Fact 5.13, the stormwater 21 design assures that it will not contribute to flooding and all critical areas will be protected. As determined in Finding of Fact No. 5.13, no lots with primarily 40% slopes will be created. No piping 22 or tunneling of streams is proposed. Trees will be retained as required by RMC 4-4-130 as 23 determined in Finding of Fact No. 5.A. 24 RMC 4-7-140: Approval of all subdivisions located in either single family residential or multi- family residential zones as defined in the Zoning Code shall be contingent upon the subdivider's 25 dedication ofland or providingfees in lieu ofdedication to the City, all as necessary to mitigate the 26 adverse effects of development upon the existing park and recreation service levels. The PRELIMINARY PLAT - 33 6f. - City Clerk reports appeal of the Hearing Examiner's final decision upon Page 234 of 517 Now I requirements and procedures for this mitigation shall be per the City of Renton Parks Mitigation 2 Resolution. 3 13. City ordinances require the payment of park impact fees prior to building permit issuance. See also the discussion on loss of recreational use in Conclusion of Law 3.F above. 4 5 RMC 4-7-150(A): The proposed street system shall extend and create connections between existing streets unless otherwise approved by the Public Works Department. Prior to approving a street 6 system that does not extend or connect, the Reviewing Official shall find that such exception shall 7 meet the requirements of subsection E3 of this Section. The roadway classifications shall be as defined and designated by the Department. 8 14. As shown in Staff Report Ex. 2, the proposed internal roads extend two existing stubs, SE918thStreetand124thPlaceSE. The internal Road A creates a loop connection between the two 10 public streets which did not exist previously. 11 RMC 4-7-150(B): All proposed street names shall be approved by the City. 12 15. As conditioned. 13 RMC 4-7-150(C): Streets intersecting with existing or proposed public highways, major or 14 secondary arterials shall be held to a minimum. 15 16. None of the proposed streets intersect with a public highway or arterial. 16 RMC 4-7-150(D): The alignment ofall streets shall be reviewed and approved by the Public Works 17 Department. The street standards set by RMC 4-6-060 shall apply unless otherwise approved. Street alignment offsets ofless than one hundred twentyfivefeet (125) are not desirable, but may be18approvedbytheDepartmentuponashowingofneedbutonlyafterprovisionofallnecessarysafety 19 measures. 20 17. As determined in Finding of Fact 6, the Public Works Department has reviewed and 21 approved the adequacy of streets, which includes compliance with applicable street standards. 22 RMC 4-7-150(E): 23 1. Grid:A grid streetpattern shall be used to connect existing and new development and shall be the 24 predominant streetpattern in any subdivision permitted by this Section. 25 2. Linkages: Linkages, including streets, sidewalks, pedestrian or bike paths, shall be provided 26 within and between neighborhoods when they can create a continuous and interconnected network PRELIMINARY PLAT - 34 6f. - City Clerk reports appeal of the Hearing Examiner's final decision upon Page 235 of 517 lkse r` 1 ofroads andpathways. Implementation ofthis requirement shall comply with Comprehensive Plan 2 Transportation Element Objective T-A and Policies T-9 through T-16 and Community Design Element, Objective CD-Mand Policies CD-50 and CD-60. 3 3. Exceptions: 4 5 a. The gridpattern may be adjusted to a `flexible grid" by reducing the number oflinkages or the alignment between roads, where the followingfactors are present on site: 6 7 i. Infeasible due to topographical/environmental constraints; and/or 8 ii. Substantial improvements are existing. 9 4. Connections: Prior to adoption ofa complete grid street plan, reasonable connections that link existing portions ofthe grid system shall be made. At a minimum, stub streets shall be required 10 within subdivisions to allow future connectivity. 11 S. Alley Access:Alley access is the preferred street pattern exceptforproperties in the Residential 12 Low Density land use designation. The Residential Low Density land use designation includes the RC, R-1, and R-4 zones. Prior to approval of a plat without alley access, the Reviewing Official shall13 evaluate an alley layout and determine that the use ofalleys) is notfeasible... 14 15 6. Alternative Configurations: Offset or loop roads are the preferred alternative configurations. 7. Cul-de-Sac Streets: Cul-de-sac streets may only be permitted by the Reviewing Of where due16 to demonstrable physical constraints no future connection to a larger street pattern is physically 17 possible. 18 18. As shown in Staff Report Ex. 2, the proposed street system contributes to the grid system by 19 creating loop access which did not previously exist. Both of the intersecting public streets are currently stub roads. Alley access is not required because the proposed density does not meet the 6 20 dwelling unit/acre threshold. The internal roads are looped as encouraged by the criterion above. 21 The cul de sacs proposed cannot be extended to connect the road network because of the presence of two pipeline easements. The criterion is met. 22 RMC 4-7-150(F): All adjacent rights-of-way and new rights-of-way dedicated as part of the plat,23 including streets, roads, and alleys, shall be graded to their full width and the pavement and 24 sidewalks shall be constructed as specified in the street standards or deferred by the 25 Planning/Building/Public Works Administrator or his/her designee. 26 PRELIMINARY PLAT - 35 6f. - City Clerk reports appeal of the Hearing Examiner's final decision upon Page 236 of 517 u+, 1 119. As proposed all roads will meet City street profile standards for road with and frontage 2 improvements. 3 RMC 4-7-150(G): Streets that may be extended in the event offuture adjacent platting shall be required to be dedicated to the plat boundary line. Extensions ofgreater depth than an average lot4shallbeimprovedwithtemporaryturnarounds. Dedication of a full-width boundary street shall be 5 required in certain instances to facilitatefuture development. 6 20. As shown in Ex. 2 to the Staff Report, the proposed roads may not be extended due to the 7 presence of pipeline easements. The subject is surrounded on all sides by existing residential development. 8 RMC 4-7-170(A): Insofar as practical, side lot lines shall be at right angles to street lines or radial 9 to curved street lines. 10 21. As depicted in Staff Report Ex. 2, the side lines are in conformance with the requirement 11 quoted above. 12 RMC 4-7-170(B): Each lot must have access to a public street or road. Access may be by private 13 access easement street per the requirements ofthe street standards. 14 22. As previously determined and conditioned, each lot has access to a public street. 15 RMC 4-7-170(C): The size, shape, and orientation of lots shall meet the minimum area and width 16 requirements of the applicable zoning classification and shall be appropriate for the type of development and use contemplated. Further subdivision of lots within a plat approved through the 17 provisions of this Chapter must be consistent with the then-current applicable maximum density 18 requirement as measured within the plat as a whole. 19 23. As previously determined and as conditioned, the proposed lots comply with the zoning 20 standards of the R-8 zone, which includes area, width and density. 21 RMC 4-7-170(D): Width between side lot lines at their foremost points (i.e., the points where the side lot lines intersect with the street right-of-way line) shall not be less than eighty percent(80%) of 22 the required lot width except in the cases of(1)pipestem lots, which shall have a minimum width of 23 twentyfeet (20) and(2) lots on a street curve or the turning circle ofcul-de-sac (radial lots), which shall be a minimum ofthirtyfivefeet (35). 24 24. The applicant has proposed several lots including Lots 14, 15 and 38 which do not meet the25minimumfrontagewidthrequirement. As discussed below in Conclusion of Law 27, each of these 26 lots must be eliminated or revised to meet the minimum frontage width requirements. Or, as PRELIMINARY PLAT - 36 6f. - City Clerk reports appeal of the Hearing Examiner's final decision upon Page 237 of 517 I discussed in Conclusion of Law 5 above, the applicant may also submit an alternative plat plan 2 which includes a combination of all lots fronting onto a public street meeting minimum lot widths and those portions of the lots now proposed for shared driveway/access easements. 3 RMC 4-7-170(E): No residentially zoned lot shall have a depth-to-width ratio greater than four-to- 4 one (4:1). 5 25. As conditioned, all pipestem lots will be eliminated or revised to meet minimum lot width 6 requirements which will bring all of the lots into compliance with this criterion. 7 RMC 4-7-170(F):All lot corners at intersections ofdedicatedpublic rights-of-way, except alleys, 8 shall have minimum radius offifteen feet (15). 9 26. As proposed all lots meet this criterion. 10 RMC 4-7-170(G): Pipestem lots may be permittedfor new plats to achieve the minimum density I 1 within the Zoning Code when there is no other feasible alternative to achieving the minimum density. 12 Minimum Lot Size and Pipestem Width and Length: The pipestem shall not exceed one hundredfifty 13 feet (150) in length and not be less than twentyfeet(20) in width. The portion ofthe lot narrower than eightypercent(80%) ofthe minimum permitted width shall not be usedfor lot area calculations 14 orfor the measurement ofrequiredfront yard setbacks. Land area included in private access 15 easements shall not be included in lot area calculations. Pipestem lots shall not abut one another. 16 27• The proposal exceeds the minimum density of 4.0 dwelling units per acre by 1.7 dwelling units per acre and therefore pipestem lots are prohibited. The applicant has proposed several 17 pipestem lots including Lots 12, 14, 15, 17, 38, 40 and 79. As a condition of approval, each of these 18 lots must be eliminated or revised to meet the minimum frontage width requirements. As an alternative, the applicant may also submit an alternative plat plan which includes a combination of 19 all lots fronting onto a public street meeting minimum lot widths and those portions of the lots now 20 proposed for shared driveway/access easements as discussed above in Conclusion of Law 5. 21 RMC 4-7-190(A): Easements may be requiredfor the maintenance and operation ofutilities as 22 specified by the Department. 23 28. As conditioned. 24 RMC 4-7-190(B): Due regard shall be shown to all naturalfeatures such as large trees, watercourses, and similar community assets. Such naturalfeatures should be preserved, thereby25 adding attractiveness and value to the property. 26 PRELIMINARY PLAT - 37 6f. - City Clerk reports appeal of the Hearing Examiner's final decision upon Page 238 of 517 1 29. Trees will be retained as required by City code as determined in Finding of Fact No. 5. There 2 are no other natural features that need preservation as contemplated in the criterion quoted above. 3 RMC 4-7-200(A): Unless septic tanks are specifically approved by the Public Works Department and the King County Health Department, sanitary sewers shall be provided by the developer at no4costtotheCityanddesignedinaccordancewithCitystandards. Side sewer lines shall be installed 5 eightfeet (8) into each lot iifsanitary sewer mains are available, or provided with the subdivision development. 6 7 30. As conditioned. 8 RMC,4-7-200(B): An adequate drainage system shall be provided for the proper drainage of all surface water. Cross drains shall be provided to accommodate all natural waterflow and shall be of'9 sufficient length to permit full-width roadway and required slopes. The drainage system shall be 10 designed per the requirements of RMC 4-6-030, Drainage (.Surface Water) Standards. The drainage system shall include detention capacityfor the new street areas. Residential plats shall also include 11 detention capacityfor future development ofthe lots. Water qualityfeatures shall also be designed to 12 provide capacityfor the new street pavingfor the plat. 13 33. The proposal provides for adequate drainage that is in conformance with applicable City drainage standards as determined in Findings of Fact No. 5 and 6. The City's stormwater standards,14 which are incorporated into the technical information report and will be further implemented during 15 civil plan review, ensure compliance with all of the standards in the criterion quoted above. 16 RMC 4-7-200(C): The water distribution system including the locations offire hydrants shall be 17 designed and installed in accordance with City standards as defined by the Department and Fire Department requirements. 18 19 31. Compliance with City water system design standards is assured during final plat review. 20 RMC 4-7-200(D): All utilities designed to serve the subdivision shall be placed underground. Any utilities installed in the parking strip shall be placed in such a manner and depth to permit the 21 planting of trees. Those utilities to be located beneath paved surfaces shall be installed, including all 22 service connections, as approved by the Department. Such installation shall be completed and approved prior to the application of any surface material. Easements may be required for the 23 maintenance and operation ofutilities as specified by the Department. 24 32. All utilities including the stormwater vault are proposed to be placed underground. As 25 conditioned, utility installation will be inspected and approved prior to paving of surface materials above the utilities. 26 PRELIMINARY PLAT - 38 6f. - City Clerk reports appeal of the Hearing Examiner's final decision upon Page 239 of 517 001 Moe 1 I RMC 4-7-200(E): Any cable TV conduits shall be undergrounded at the same time as other basic 2 utilities are installed to serve each lot. Conduitfor service connections shall be laid to each lot line by subdivider as to obviate the necessity for disturbing the street area, including sidewalks, or alley 3 improvements when such service connections are extended to serve any building. The cost of 4 trenching, conduit, pedestals and/or vaults and laterals as well as easements therefore required to bring service to the development shall be borne by the developer and/or land owner. The subdivider 5 shall be responsible only for conduit to serve his development. Conduit ends shall be elbowed to 6 final ground elevation and capped The cable TV company shall provide maps and specifications to the subdivider and shall inspect the conduit and certify to the City that it is properly installed. 7 33. As conditioned. 8 9 RMC 4-7-210: 10 A. MONUMENTS: 11 Concrete permanent control monuments shall be established at each and every controlling corner of the subdivision. Interior monuments shall be located as determined by the Department. All surveys12 shall be per the City ofRenton surveying standards. 13 B. ,SURVEY.' 14 15 All other lot corners shall be markedper the City surveying standards. 16 C. STREET SIGNS: 17 The subdivider shall install all street name signs necessary in the subdivision. 18 34. As conditioned. 19 20 VI. DECISION 21 The proposed 96-lot preliminary plat as depicted in Ex. 33 to the staff report, and critical area exemption as described in the findings of this decision, are approved subject to the following22conditions: 23 24 3 All references to the plat map in this decision in the findings and conclusions have been to Exhibit 2 of the staff 25 report. Those references are accurate. However, the plat approved by this decision is depicted in Exhibit 3 of the staff report,which is the 96 lot subdivision as opposed to the 97 lot subdivision. 26 PRELIMINARY PLAT - 39 6f. - City Clerk reports appeal of the Hearing Examiner's final decision upon Page 240 of 517 W erre; 1 1. The applicant shall comply with the mitigation measures issued as part of the Determination 2 of Non-Significance Mitigated, dated September 22, 2014 except as modified below: 3 a. MDNS Condition 1 shall be revised as follows: 4 All earthwork performed, implemented by the applicant, shall be consistent with the 5 recommendations of the geotechnical report, prepared by Associated Earth Sciences, Inc., dated September 28, 2012 or consistent with the recommendations of the final6City-approved geotechnical report. 7 8 b. MDNS Condition 6 shall be stricken and replaced with the following: 9 The applicant shall revise its landscaping plan to provide for a 10 foot wide on-site landscape strip for all lots and a 10 foot wide, site obscuring perimeter landscaping10adjacenttoareaswheretheretainingwallsarefourormorefeetinheight, specifically 11 in the perimeter areas close to Lots 40, 41, 46, 47, 80, 82, 83-90, 93 and 94. Landscaping at maturity must exceed the height of the adjacent retaining wall. The 12 final detailed landscape plan shall be submitted to and approved by the Current 13 Planning Project Manager prior to construction permit approval. Such landscaping shall include a mixture of trees, shrubs, and groundcover as approved by the14DepartmentofCommunityandEconomicDevelopment. 15 2. The applicant shall be required to demonstrate compliance with the minimum 50-foot lot 16 width requirement for all lots with less than 50 feet in width at the foremost points (where the 17 side lot lines intersect with the street right-of-way line) pursuant to RMC 4-11-120. The average distance between the side lines connecting front and rear lot lines shall be submitted 18 to the Current Planning Project Manager prior to construction permit approval. 19 3. The applicant shall be required to submit a revised plat plan and landscaping plan depicting 20 curb bulb-outs where on-street parking is located. The revised plat and landscaping plans 21 shall be submitted to and approved by the Current Planning Project Manager prior to construction permit approval. 22 4. The applicant shall be required to submit a revised plat and landscaping plan, which are23 elements of the City's required construction plan set, depicting curb bulbouts at street 24 intersections where on-street parking is located or calling for no curb bulbouts and installation of "no parking" designations where street parking is prohibited at street25intersections. The revised plat and landscaping plan shall be submitted to and approved by 26 the Current Planning Project Manager prior to construction permit approval. PRELIMINARY PLAT - 40 6f. - City Clerk reports appeal of the Hearing Examiner's final decision upon Page 241 of 517 ter' 1 5. The applicant shall eliminate individual access directly from internal public streets for those 2 lots abutting private streets and/or shared driveway access easements, specifically Lots 12- 14, Lots 15-17, Lots 38-40 and Lots 78-81 in shared driveways. Said lots shall be required to 3 take access from the abutting private street and/or access easement and shall not exceed 4 access thresholds pursuant to RMC 4-6-060.J and K. Lot 11 may access the public street directly. The revised plat plan shall be submitted to, and approved by, the Current Planning 5 Project Manager prior to construction permit approval. Furthermore, the access restriction for 6 such lots,is required to be noted on the face of the Final Plat prior to recording. 7 6. The applicant shall revise the proposed mitigation plan to depict all retaining walls on site, including lock & load walls on the north and east sides of Wetlands B and C. The applicant8 shall also identify if proposed walls are anticipated to impact critical area buffers and provide 9 appropriate mitigation for such impacts. A Final Mitigation Plan, pursuant to RMC 4-8- 120.W, shall be submitted to, and approved by, the Current Planning Project Manager prior10toconstructionpermitapproval. 11 7. The temporary buffer impacts consisting of minor intrusions or disturbance from12constructionactivitiesshallberestoredwithappropriategrading, soil amendments, and the 13 planting of native species to the satisfaction of the Current Planning Project Manager. The revised mitigation plan shall be submitted to, and approved by, the Current Planning Project14Managerpriortoconstructionpermitapproval. 15 8. The existing wetland mitigation plan already assures that 1,331 square feet of additional 16 wetland buffer area is being provided to mitigate for both existing buffer impacts to Wetland 17 E that are not associated with the Plat, as well as the loss of 14 square feet of the Wetland E buffer which loss is associated with the extension of SE 18th Street. To provide an additional 18 offset for the impacts resulting from the requested exemption associated with the fill of 14 19 square feet of buffer to extend SE 18th Street. The applicant has agreed to provide and shall provide enhancement to the Wetland `E' buffer immediately abutting SE 18th Street, as well 20 as enhanced plantings adjoining that buffer area within Tract M. A revised mitigation plan 21 shall be submitted to, and approved by, the Current Planning Project Manager prior to construction permit approval. 22 23 9. The applicant shall be required to establish a Native Growth Protection Easement over those parts of the site encompassing wetlands and their associated buffers and place fencing and 24 signage along the outer buffer edge prior to Final Plat approval. 25 10. The applicant shall be required to submit a fill source statement, if fill materials are brought 26 to the site, in order to the City to ensure only clean fill is imported prior to construction. PRELIMINARY PLAT -41 6f. - City Clerk reports appeal of the Hearing Examiner's final decision upon Page 242 of 517 I 11. The applicant shall provide a final Tree Retention Plan, complying with the 30% tree 2 retention SEPA mitigation measure while demonstrating proposed retaining walls would not impact trees proposed for retention. The Final Tree Retention Plan shall be submitted to, and 3 approved by, the Current Planning Project Manager prior to construction permit approval. 4 12. The applicant shall submit a revised plat plan, which is an element of the City's required 5 construction plan set, depicting a safe pedestrian crossing, across the 124th Place SE extension, for the Seattle Waterline Pedestrian Trail. The revised plat plan, as part of the6 construction plan set, shall be submitted to, and approved by the Current Planning Project 7 Manager, Community Services Department, and the Transportation Department prior to 8 construction permit approval. 9 13. The applicant shall be required to obtain right-of-way or a public access easement through the Cedar River Pipeline, for the extension of 124th Place SE, to the satisfaction of the Plan10Reviewerpriortoconstructionpermitapproval. 11 14. Pedestrian lighting shall be depicted on the lighting plan at the entrances of Tracts C and E12fromtheproposedright-of-way). The lighting plan shall be submitted to, and approved by, 13 the Current Planning Project Manager and the Plan Reviewer prior to construction permit approval. 14 15 15. The Preliminary Plat plan shall be revised so that no more than 4 lots may gain access via a shared driveway and that at least one such lot shall meet minimum lot width requirements 16 along a street frontage pursuant to RMC 4-7-170.1) (a minimum of 80% of the required lot 17 width/40 feet or 35 feet along a street curve). The lot(s) which provides physical frontage along the street shall only be allowed vehicular access from the shared private driveway. In 18 order to provide shared access, Lots 14, 17 and 38 shall be widened to 35 feet and take 19 primary access from the shared driveway. The revised plat plan shall be submitted to and approved by the Current Planning Project Manager prior to construction permit approval. 20 21 16. The plat plan shall be revised so that all lots have no less than a 40-foot lot width where side lot lines intersect with the street right of way or for radial lots be a minimum of 35 feet in 22 width. Specifically,proposed Lots 14, 17, and 38 would be required to be widened to 35 feet 23 in order to comply with the condition. The revised plat plan shall be submitted to and approved by the Current Planning Project Manager prior to construction permit approval. 24 17. The applicant shall submit a revised plat plan depicting the elimination of all pipestem lots25 lots which are less than 40 feet in width where the side lot lines intersect with the street 26 right-of-way or for radial lots are less than 35 feet) within the subdivision. Specifically, PRELIMINARY PLAT - 42 6f. - City Clerk reports appeal of the Hearing Examiner's final decision upon Page 243 of 517 I proposed Lots 12, 14, 15, 17, 38, 40, and 79 would be required to be eliminated or revised to 2 meet minimum frontage width requirements. The applicant may also submit an alternative plat plan which includes a combination of all lots fronting onto a public street meeting 3 minimum lot widths and those portions of the lots now proposed for shared driveway/access 4 easements could be placed in Shared Driveway Tracts with easements placed over them pursuant to RMC 4-6-060, Street Standards. The revised plat plan shall be submitted to and 5 approved by the Current Planning Project Manager prior to construction permit approval. 6 18. Any proposal to convert the Stormwater vault within Tract A to a Stormwater detention pond 7 be considered a Major Plat Amendment subject to the requirements outlined under RMC 4-7- 080M.2. 8 9 19. The applicant shall be required to create a homeowners' association and maintenance agreement(s) for the shared utilities, landscape areas and maintenance and responsibilities for10 all shared improvements of this development. A draft of the document(s) shall be submitted 11 to Current Planning Project Manager for review and approval by the City Attorney and 12 Property Services section prior to the recording of the final plat. 13 20. The applicant shall submit the results of the Phase 1 Environmental Site Assessment to the City for review. Appropriate mitigation, if any, shall be completed prior to issuance of 14 building permits. 15 21. All road names shall be approved by the City. 16 22. Easements may be required for the maintenance and operation of utilities as specified by the 17 Department. 18 23. Sanitary sewers shall be provided by the developer at no cost to the City and designed in accordance with City standards. Side sewer lines shall be installed eight feet (8') into each lot 19 if sanitary sewer mains are available, or provided with the subdivision development. 20 24. Any cable TV conduits shall be undergrounded at the same time as other basic utilities are 21 installed to serve each lot. Conduit for service connections shall be laid to each lot line. 22 25. Concrete permanent control monuments shall be established at each and every controlling corner of the subdivision. Interior monuments shall be located as determined by the23Department. All surveys shall be per the City of Renton surveying standards. All other lot corners shall be marked per the City surveying standards. The subdivider shall install all24streetnamesignsnecessaryinthesubdivision. 25 26 PRELIMINARY PLAT - 43 6f. - City Clerk reports appeal of the Hearing Examiner's final decision upon Page 244 of 517 1 DATED this 8th day of January, 2015. 2 f 3 Phi A. 4 City of Renton Hearing Examiner 5 6 APPEAL RIGHTS AND VALUATION NOTICES 7 8 RMC 4-8-080 provides that the final decision of the hearing examiner is subject to appeal to the 9 Renton City Council. RMC 4-8-110(E)(14) requires appeals of the hearing examiner's decision to be filed within fourteen (14) calendar days from the date of the hearing examiner's decision. A 10 request for reconsideration to the hearing examiner may also be filed within this 14 day appeal 11 period as identified in RMC 4-8-110(E)(13) and RMC 4-8-100(G)(9). Anew fourteen (14) day appeal period shall commence upon the issuance of the reconsideration. Additional information 12 regarding the appeal process may be obtained from the City Clerk's Office, Renton City Hall — 7th 13 floor, (425) 430-6510. 14 Affected property owners may request a change in valuation for property tax purposes 15 notwithstanding any program of revaluation. 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 PRELIMINARY PLAT - 44 6f. - City Clerk reports appeal of the Hearing Examiner's final decision upon Page 245 of 517 r.r N"Ne ATTACHMENT A The Reserve at Tiffany Park Preliminary Plat and SEPA Appeals LUA13-001572,ECF, PP, CAE) TESTIMONY SUMMARY SEPA Appeal#1 —Applicants Applicant Testimony Ms. Nancy Rogers, applicant's Attorney, stated the applicant had filed an appeal to the City's SEPA MDNS based on three issues. They felt the geotechnical report should be updated to reference the current geotechnical report. They have issues with Conditions #3 and#6. They believe it's better for the project and environment to have Henley comply with a tree protection plan and have Henley's arborist work with the City's arborist to assure that as many trees as possible are preserved. They requested amendments to Condition 3. In addition, Condition 6 was imposed in the MDNS. It would impose a 15-50 foot perimeter buffer around the entire site. This is overreaching and unduly burdensome. The applicant is going above and beyond to provide buffering, which is not necessary because they are proposing single family uses next to single family uses. There are two rights of ways along substantial portions of the borders, the Mercer Island Water Pipeline and the Cedar River Water Pipeline. One is 60 feet wide; the other is 100 feet wide. There is already substantial buffering between existing uses and the project site. They have an analysis responding to the City staff SEPA analysis filed last Friday (Exhibit K11). Ms. Rogers summarized this analysis. They appealed Condition #1. Staff felt that Condition #1 would be acceptable if they amended the condition to include compliance with the revised geotechnical report. The applicant agrees. With respect the appeal to Conditions #3 for tree preservation and #6 for the proposed perimeter buffer, mitigation conditions under SEPA are subject to state and federal law, statutory and case law that establish a nexus of rough proportionality. That nexus is required to be shown by the City prior to imposition of these mitigation conditions. Case law dealing with the imposition of buffers had held that buffers need to be imposed when two very dissimilar uses are proposed adjacent to each other. That is not the case here. With respect to Condition #3, the scope of that condition has morphed from the SEPA MDNS to the staff's current opinion. The applicant appealed this condition to require compliance with the applicant's tree protection plan rather than the more general requirement that they comply with relevant City codes. Staff is requiring 30% retention of trees rather than the Code requirement that 6f. - City Clerk reports appeal of the Hearing Examiner's final decision upon Page 246 of 517 4. 1- allows for replacement of trees through mitigation (RMC 4-4-130(H)(1)(e)). The condition is overreaching and overly burdensome. The City has failed to identify an adverse significant environmental impact related to tree preservation in the applicant's proposal. They are intending to preserve 30% of the trees. The developer needs to be able to replace trees that might be inadvertently damaged during construction rather than complying to a hard set retention percentage. They aren't intending to clear cut. They plan to protect the 30% of the trees. A few extra might come down through inadvertent damage. If so, those will be properly mitigated. With respect to Condition #6, the perimeter buffer, as stated in the original MDNS condition it was a minimum 15 foot buffer" which became 15-50 feet in width around the entire perimeter. There is no significant environmental impact here and the City is not entitled to impose mitigation here. There is no legal authority or justification by the City to require Henley to protect one use from another when the use is the same. The neighboring property owners could plant trees in their own yards. As designed by Henley, the project already minimizes visual impact to neighboring uses in ways that are not required by the code. The code does not impose a perimeter buffer of any sort on a single family project like this. The majority of this site includes a perimeter buffer of 10-15 feet. There is more on critical areas tracts. The average buffer width is 55 feet. In addition, they have the two pipeline rights of ways, which are 60 feet and 100 feet wide. Adding in the pipelines, the average buffer goes up to 100 feet between homes from this project and adjacent homes. This is well outside of rough proportionality. Mr. Barry Talkington is a civil engineer with Barghausen Consulting Engineers. Mr. Talkington described his education and qualifications. He prepares designs and layouts for single family projects. He designs roads, infrastructure, storm ponds, etc. He's prepared about 50 preliminary plats. It is typical for him to design a preliminary plat and then start into more detailed engineering design. They have prepared preliminary and final grading plans. Ms. Rogers presented Exhibit A-11, the ultimate plat layout. Mr. Talkington described the exhibit, the 96-lot version of the plat. There was an earlier version with more lots but they removed one to meet the 30% tree retention requirement. They eliminated Lot 1 from the original submittal. In response to Ms. Rogers, Mr. Talkington described the various perimeter buffers, ranging including 50 feet in Tracts B and M and near Lots 13 and 14, the buffer is 15 foot wide. They have a 10 foot buffer that increase to nearly 80 feet by Lot 19 by the Mercer Island Pipeline. The minimum proposed buffer is 10 feet. By Tract G, the buffer is 100 feet. The Mercer Island Pipeline is 60 feet wide. The minimum setback along this area is 70 feet. Some lots do touch the property boundary, though that is adjacent to the 100 foot wide Cedar River Pipeline. There is additional greenspace in Tract H, G and J. In some places the buffer goes from 15 feet to 200 feet. The average buffer width is approximately 50 feet. With the pipeline areas, the average buffer width is over 100 feet. Only six 6f. - City Clerk reports appeal of the Hearing Examiner's final decision upon Page 247 of 517 r` rr"' lots touch the perimeter of the property, all along the Cedar River Pipeline. In his opinion, the project does not result in a significant adverse aesthetic impact to the neighbors. With respect to retaining walls, Mr. Talkington stated retaining walls are not purely cosmetic, though they can be. The purpose is to shorten the distance needed for a grade transition. There is grading involved in nearly all projects in the Pacific Northwest. Grading is accomplished via slopes or retaining walls. To create a hypothetical lot, either grade more land or build a wall along the edge and grade less. Lots with significant trees were designed with retaining walls to retain more trees. A building permit is required for a wall of 4 feet high or greater. Mr. Talkington has prepared building permit applications for this project and the associated grading plans which will be submitted today. Ms. Rogers asked about Exhibit K6, related to the grading plans. Ms. Rocale Timmons asked if this was the Erosion Control plan set. Mr. Talkington confirmed it is. In response to Ms. Rogers, for Lots 18-21, Mr. Talkington stated the retaining walls would be rockeries. The lot grade is below the existing grade. He noted the top and bottom of the wall elevations. For example, Lot 19's wall is 4.5 feet. A cut wall is for when a retaining wall is retaining the existing grade when the pad grade is below the existing grade. For a pad above the existing grade, they would use a fill wall. These walls are constructed differently. Fill walls require extra stabilization. In every place where there is a cut wall, the face of the wall will be to the interior of the project. For the fill walls, the face is to the exterior of the project. Mr. Talkington addressed the staff Report (Page 13) concern about the height and visibility of walls along the Cedar River Pipeline. The wall at Tract A will be visible, though there will be landscaping planted between the walls and the perimeter. For Lots 79 and 81 (Exhibit K6a, Lots 80 and 82), there is a cut rockery wall. This wall will not be visible from outside the project. For Lot 40, there is a retaining wall. It is 4-6 feet to prop up the access drive. This will be visible. There's another wall at 7.5 feet. Lots 45 and 46 have a fill wall at 16 feet tall. In response to the staff Report, Mr. Talkington reviewed the heights of the walls. They prepared an alternative design to reduce the heights of the walls. The wall will now be 6 feet tall (Exhibit K6b, the revised grading plan for Lots 44-47). The portion of Lot 46 that borders the Cedar River Pipeline has a 2 foot wall. The wall at Lot 47 is 1.7 feet to 6 feet tall. Henley will be willing to agree to a Plat Condition that will call for the walls to be the revised height. Ms. Timmons asked about the relevancy of this line of questioning to the SEPA Appeal, specifically Conditions #3 and#6. Ms. Rogers stated she understood the staffs buffer requirements to screen the adjacent neighbors from the development, including the impact of retaining walls. Ms. Timmons agreed to relevance. Ms. Rogers asked Mr. Talkington to speak to the walls along Road A near Tract K. Mr. Talkington referred to this wall as a fill wall. There is an open space tract, Wetlands B and C, which will provide a screen for the wall. Focusing on this part of the plat, Mr. Talkington stated there was no significant adverse environmental impact with respect to the aesthetics. 6f. - City Clerk reports appeal of the Hearing Examiner's final decision upon Page 248 of 517 ftw I./' Ms. Rogers addressed staff Report (page 21) regarding retaining walls. She stated the staff felt those retaining walls would interfere with tree retention. She asked, in general, does designing a site to include retaining walls help or hinder tree preservation. Mr. Talkington responded it can help by reducing grading requirements along the perimeter of the site and protect trees. When he designs a plat, the cost of construction is considered. Retaining wall construction is more expensive than grading. They were directed to save trees, which meant construction of retaining walls. Ms. Rogers asked who Mr. Talkington turned to when he needed to determine the effects of his design for retaining walls on tree preservation. Mr. Talkington said that's a question for the arborist. Ms. Timmons asked Mr. Talkington to describe his thought process on providing the buffers he provided and their merit. Mr. Talkington stated it started with the road network. They had two locations to tie into for an internal road. In creating the road corridors, they tried to lay out lots that would be evenly distributed on both sides of the road. They looked to use the property most efficiently for the lot layout with respect to the grading. They tried to reduce the overall grading. Ms. Timmons asked if Mr. Talkington saw merit in providing a perimeter buffer. Mr. Talkington stated he didn't show as many buffers initially. They initially looked to retain trees in larger pockets in other areas. As the project evolved to its current configuration, they considered saving trees as part of the buffer. Ms. Timmons asked as a practical matter, how would a 15 foot buffer affect plat design? Mr. Talkington stated that he had considered it. There are many alternative scenarios. They looked at how the buffer would impact their original design. There was a significant change in lot yield. Ms. Timmons asked if Mr. Talkington considered aesthetics in his design. He stated he did because he wanted the project outcome to be pleasing. Mr. Steve Lee, Renton Development Engineering Manager, stated typically the City doesn't see as much of a concise grading plan proposed for preliminary plat. He is glad Mr. Talkington prepared one. He asked Mr. Talkington to describe the setback from the walls. Mr. Talkington stated that is a question for the geotechnical engineer, however there is no need for a setback from the geo-grid. Mr. Lee asked if construction of the geo-grid caused excavation in to natural areas. Mr. Talkington stated it did. Also, cut walls will require a wall drain behind them. Mr. Lee asked if the walls would need to be setback into the lots in order to reduce the impact on the natural areas. Mr. Talkington said they design the walls to be entirely on the subject lot and not within the open space. Mr. Lee asked if a tree is located near a drainage wall, would the tree be impacted. Mr. Talkington stated he didn't know. Mr. Galen Wright, of Washington Forestry Consultants, is an arborist. Mr. Wright described his education and qualifications. He has owned his company for 21 years. Their focus is on urban forestry consulting. He personally has 35 years of experience. He's worked on 1,400 similar projects 6f. - City Clerk reports appeal of the Hearing Examiner's final decision upon Page 249 of 517 4 r.oe of many scales since 1994. He stated in general, his tree protection plans are accurate. The trees he has designated for protection are saved. Though, occasionally, they will find an edge tree that doesn't look as good after the project and before. In that case, they mitigate the tree. The tree protection plan exhibits are Exhibit A4 (June) and Exhibit Al2 (August). The August plan is tied to the most recent layout. Ms. Rogers noted the report concludes this is a "well treed site". By that, Mr. Wright stated means he was able to save two or three clusters to break up the clear cut look. If they supplement with lot trees and street trees, in 10 years the property will be well treed. There is a nice low brush community on the site that improves the buffer capacity of the vegetation. The wetlands on site are also well treed. Ms. Rogers stated the 30% tree retention requirement translates to preserving 188 on-site trees. The August tree retention plan proposes to save 181 trees and relocate others. Mr. Wright stated his understanding of the Renton code with respect to construction damage means the tree can be replaced at a ratio of 2:1. He stated he is familiar with SEPA staff Condition #3. He said his understating of the requirement was not to mandate a hard 30% requirement without field judgment. The code allows them to save trees but mitigate those that can't be saved. Ms. Rogers asked Mr. Wright how many trees would be saved. Mr. Wright replied well in excess of 188 trees would be saved. They have re-analyzed the edges and found there were more trees than they had earlier expected before a more formal survey was undertaken. Mr. Wright discussed the relationship between retaining walls and trees. He stated he had the grading plan in hand when he did his follow up evaluation. They had been very hard on the edge trees initially. Later, he was able to perform a tree by tree analysis with the grading plan in hand. Trees respond very differently to walls based on where the majority of their roots are growing. He did a tree by tree analysis to determine how much, if any, intrusion could be done to a tree's root protection zone. This is usually a later stage analysis. He's very confident in his current estimation of the number of tree that will be viably preserved. He knows exactly which trees will be impacted, and how for each edge tree. Mr. Wright said the next step is to have a pre-construction meeting. They always ask to be included in that conference. At that time the clearing limits are staked. He walks those boundaries. If there is anything different from current knowledge, then they will make field adjustments. They mapped tons to trees. Sometimes, they'll find the survey and field location don't quite match. They adjust clearing limits during the field observation. They'll remove hazardous trees if they find them. After that, they put up tree protection fences. If anything changes during construction, then Mr. Wright asks to be included in the decision of how to treat the trees. 6f. - City Clerk reports appeal of the Hearing Examiner's final decision upon Page 250 of 517 400 4010 Ms. Rogers asked if this process is described in the tree protection plan. Mr. Wright said it is. He stated he has no doubt this project will retain more than 30% of trees even accounting for field adjustments for hazardous trees or others that can't or shouldn't be saved. Ms. Rogers asked Mr. Wright about the perimeter buffer. She said the City is concerned about a 50% sight obscuring buffer. She asked about the 10 foot buffer specifically. Mr. Wright stated he understood the buffer and the tree retention within the buffer. He stated he also is familiar with Henley's plan to provide 6 foot fences along the backyards. With the 10 foot buffer and fences, the 50% screening requirement will be met. New trees can also be planted in any gaps. In his opinion, a 15 foot buffer would add a few more trees, but not a huge amount. Ms. Rogers asked if Mr. Wright thought there was a significant adverse environmental impact from the project. The City Attorney objected. The Examiner stated the question limited to aesthetic impacts is allowed. Mr. Wright stated the 6 foot fence is sight obscuring. There are trees everywhere but the stormwater facility and a few in the pipelines. There are several layers of buffering. There will be places where you can see new houses better than others, but there will be a fence and trees. Within a few years trees will fill the gaps. Ms. Rocale Timmons asked Mr. Wright if he knew how many trees exist on the site. He stated there were 1,305 trees on-site. This is a contiguous canopy cover. The canopy is viewed by surrounding property owners. They are proposing to keep 181 trees plus the trees in the critical areas and buffers. There are 626 significant trees in the buildable areas. There are many other poor quality trees. They will remove over 400 significant trees. Ms. Timmons asked how the removal of so many trees would impact the surrounding property owners. Mr. Wright said it's aesthetic. There is no other impact. Ms. Timmons asked about the revised tree retention plan. She asked if the new plan is approvable as is. Mr. Wright stated it was and they will exceed the minimum 30% requirement. He stated it is a valuable contribution to the environment. In response to Ms. Timmons, he stated an adequate width for a natural vegetated buffer depends on the type of trees, the age of the trees and the how they are growing. There are places on site where the screen is dense and others that are thinner. They didn't map alders and cottonwoods. They didn't include those in the survey. Ms. Timmons asked what buffer width is necessary to provide screening in a natural vegetated state. Mr. Wright stated it depends on site conditions. Mr. Wright stated if they plant in a 10 foot buffer with a double staggered row of conifers, it will create a very dense screen in 10 years. A 15 foot buffer is not adequate to add a third row that would require about 30 feet of buffer. City Testimony Rocale Timmons addressed the applicant's testimony with respect to Conditions #3 and #6. The City's mitigation measure is not intended to preclude replacement of trees damaged during 6f. - City Clerk reports appeal of the Hearing Examiner's final decision upon Page 251 of 517 construction. The applicant is citing the wrong code. Condition#3 is solely designed to require a tree retention plan. The applicant has provided a plan that does not meet the requirement. It is not detailed enough to be used during construction. Staff analysis (Exhibit N) goes through the significant adverse impact of removing such a large tree canopy. The staff feels the MDNS condition defines a significant impact and provides appropriate mitigation. With respect to Condition #6, Ms. Timmons stated staff has demonstrated a significant impact to surrounding property owners with respect to aesthetics. Staff feels the mitigation measure adequately addresses these impacts. Mr. Terry Flatley, City of Renton Urban Forestry and Natural Resources Manager, described his education and qualifications. He has reviewed at least 50 tree retention plans for the City. Mr. Flatley stated he had not visited the site personally. It is a fully timbered site with 100% canopy cover. He described the site as a large woodland area in the middle of the City in the middle of a subdivision. This is a rare site. He believes it is necessary to protect the tree canopy. The City tries to retain as much canopy as possible. lie believes the appropriate amount of trees to protect is a minimum 30%. In response to Ms. Timmons, Mr. Flatley stated a 10 foot buffer is adequate to support a natural vegetated perimeter, depending on the type of vegetation. This strip will retain smaller vegetation, but not large mature trees. He provided a recommendation for a perimeter buffer of 35 to 100 feet. To his knowledge, the City requested a 15 foot buffer. In terms of accommodating trees, there are some extra trees being protected. Five feet is a very minor increment. It would allow for more planting. Mr. Flatley stated he felt a buffer is needed along the southern perimeter because buffers are to moderate climate and obscure sites from view. It's an aesthetic issue for trail users and adjacent neighbors. The buffer would provide privacy. Mr. Flatley stated without an adequate screen there would be significant adverse aesthetic impacts to trail users and neighbors. A 15 foot buffer would reduce the impacts. In response to the Examiner, Mr. Flatley stated the difference between a 10 foot and a 15 foot buffer is not significant in terms of mitigating impacts. Ms. Rogers asked if Mr. Flatley had reviewed the revised tree protection plan for the project. He stated he had reviewed Exhibit 11 today but his review is based on the 2013 version. Ms. Rogers asked if it was possible Mr. Wright's tree retention plan would assure protection of 30% of the trees on the site. Mr. Flatley stated with oversight it is possible. Ms. Rogers asked if he provided that oversight. He said he didn't. Ms. Rogers asked if the City's MDNS Condition #3 was essentially a restatement of City code. Mr. Flatley agreed that is was. Ms. Rogers asked if Mr. Flatley had provided SEPA mitigation measures to staff and asked the staff to implement them. He stated he hadn't. Ms. Rogers asked if the 6f. - City Clerk reports appeal of the Hearing Examiner's final decision upon Page 252 of 517 Ave condition would be adequate to require a tree protection plan and have it approved by the City. He stated it could. With respect to MDNS Condition #6, the buffer requirement was for sight obscuring and was 15 feet wide. The staff analysis (Exhibit N) increased that buffer from 15 feet to 15-50 feet. Ms. Rogers asked if Mr. Flatley had read Exhibit N. He stated he hadn't. Ms. Rogers asked if he was familiar with the City's Comprehensive Plan. He stated he was generally familiar with it. He stated he was not familiar with specific policies. Ms. Rogers asked Mr. Flatley to review a large area photo with respect to his earlier testimony Exhibit K6c). Mr. Flatley stated he recognized the area and that there are a number of green, treed areas around the subject. He agreed there is a large protected corridor along the Cedar River and at Tiffany Park. He further agreed that with or without Tiffany Park, there will remain treed areas near the project. Mr. Flatley stated the City's landscaping code with respect to screening allows planting and fencing. He agreed the project plan includes fences and vegetation. Mr. Flatley stated he didn't have any knowledge of buffers on adjoining properties but didn't see any in the aerial photo. Ms. Timmons stated that staff is standing by their analysis. For mitigation measure #3 it sounds as if the appellant intends to meet the 30% requirement. That's all the City is requesting. The applicant is failing to consider the City's intend is to protect the existing tree canopy. The mitigation measure is intended to preclude replacement tree. The code is inadequate to do that without the mitigation measure. However, a tree retention plan is amenable to the City. For mitigation measure#6, the staff feels they have proven impact and provided adequate mitigation. Staff feels the public are the appropriate people to provide information on impacts. Applicant Testimony In response to the Examiner, Mr. Talkington stated in the northern portion of the plat, the 15 foot buffer would be preserved but clearing and a wall would be located in the lots themselves (Lots 11- 14). No additional clearing will go into the buffer area. For Lots 15-18, there will be no wall. All other improvements would be within the lot area. There will be no additional clearing. Ms. Rogers asked the Examiner to read the SEPA Appeal argument letter dated November 18, 2014. As stated in that letter, the City staff and the applicant are in agreement to Revised Conditions #1 and#3. However, they would argue to keep the existing language in the condition, but add a comma and add a statement that an updated tree protection plan and land clearing plan to be submitted and approved prior to construction. Condition #6 deals with a perimeter buffer. No perimeter buffer is required in this zone and none exist surrounding the subject. The requirement would be unique in this area and they would be buffering their single family uses from surrounding single family uses. 6f. - City Clerk reports appeal of the Hearing Examiner's final decision upon Page 253 of 517 14W 4r/ There is no significant impact in terms of aesthetics. They have voluntarily provided 10-200 feet (50 foot average) buffers and two pipelines of 60 to 100 feet (Mercer Island Trail and Cedar River Trail corridors, respectively). Only six lots touch a property boundary. Some have fill walls, the highest currently proposed is 6 feet high. There is a 100 foot Cedar River Trail buffer adjacent to these properties and between adjacent properties. The City's SEPA analysis cited Comprehensive Plan Objective CDG and Policies 50 and 55 as justification for the perimeter buffer. Those policies do not apply here. The City omitted the citation of the objective, which does not apply here. These uses are not different. The proposed use and adjacent use are the same. The tree canopy is being protected. There is no need for a perimeter buffer of 15 feet, let along 50 feet. Addition of a buffer after the fact will invalidate the proposal and violate state law. Public Testimony Ms. Claudia Donnelly lived in the Renton Potential Annexation Area in Renton Highlands. Ms. Donnelly stated she had submitted questions. In February 2014, in an article in the Renton Reporter, Ms. Timmons stated all 1,300 trees would be coming down. How will the protected trees be protected? This developer will clear cut all of the trees and put in replacement trees. At Ms. Donnelly's subdivision, Windstone, and at Piper's Bluff, this same developer clear cut all of the trees. Who will make sure the trees won't be clear cut? Ms. Donnelly stated she was concerned about the proposed stormwater detention pond failing and impacting the development. At Windstone, the detention pond failed three times spilling water and mud into a wetland and Honey Creek. At Piper's Bluff, the detention pond failed and dumped yellow water into May Creek. Renton officials do not work on the weekend; they will not protect the wetlands. Ms. Donnelly stated Renton allowed Safeway to build on wetlands three summers ago. They started getting water coming up through the floor and had to rope off the area. The hours of construction ordinance must be followed. How will it be? Renton has an ordinance keeping dirt off of the road and protecting streams during construction. The laws are not being enforced. Renton doesn't allow working on Sundays. This developer had contractors working on Sundays in at least Windstone and Piper's Bluff. No staff person will be there to monitor them. The City does not require the contractor to get the necessary NPDES permit from DOE prior to start of work. Additionally, the City doesn't require erosion control fences near wetlands, private property or streams before clearing starts. They don't make the contractors have the necessary permits for clearing before building permits. In the late 1990s a builder cleared without permits and there was no consequence. Ms. Donnelly expressed concern about the Renton appeal process. On November 26, there was a notice in the paper talking about the appeal timeframe for this development, yet the document itself 6f. - City Clerk reports appeal of the Hearing Examiner's final decision upon Page 254 of 517 Nftw had not been released. She had to request it from the director. If there is no notice before the appeal starts, how can the City be trusted? On June 14, 2012 the Renton Reporter asked if Renton's tree preservation policy was just for show. Ms. Donnelly presented pictures of Piper's Bluff. Forty-seven trees were supposed to be retained or mitigated. Some of the trees were saved. Many were cleared. The trees being planted are decorative and replacing Douglas Firs and other large trees. Some trees must be saved. She also showed examples of construction dirt on the road in front of her house. The dirt is washing into Green Creek and May Creek. No one at Renton cares about the street or the environment. Ms. Barbara Smith stated considering the greenbelt surrounding the pipelines is not realistic. Those are dirt paths without trees. Ms. Smith stated she should not have to plant trees on her yard, plus the trees are 80-100 feet high. Replanting trees won't compensate. They are losing their quality of life. The wildlife that's there will be removed. The school district shouldn't have sold it. They didn't provide proper notice of sale. They were denied access to do further studies but the developer was allowed on it. She encourages the City to put strict enforceable timelines. She found 97 reviews on this developer online. Only 5 were positive. They are local and speaking to poor construction, leak issues, mold in new homes and poor customer service. People wait years to have construction defects repaired. SEPA Appeal#2—Project Opponent TPWAG Appellant Testimony Mr. Daniel McMonagle is the attorney for the project opponents, the Tiffany Park Woods Advocacy Group. The opponents have lived in this neighborhood for 34 years and have historically used the woods. Mr. David Beedon is a member of the TPWAG and has lived in the neighborhood since it was built 34 years ago. He lives at 1725 Pierce Avenue SE in Renton. Mr. Beedon lives directly adjacent to the project. He can walk to the former school property in five minutes. The TPWAG is composed of five persons who hold officer positions in a non-profit corporation formed in March 2014. The purpose of the group is to mitigate as much as possible any environmental or other impacts coming out of this development. He has experience in the woods. He has been walking in these woods since 1982. He exercises there and watches wildlife. The character of the woods has been mostly unchanged for all that time. Some changes there were related to dirt embankments on paths to facilitate mountain biking. There are teepee and treehouses built here. The woods have never been fenced, except along the Cedar River Pipeline. The fence has been there at least 34 years. It has been unmaintained. The fence is along the City of Seattle Watershed property line. It is not a school district fence. The woods property has never been signed no trespassing. 6f. - City Clerk reports appeal of the Hearing Examiner's final decision upon Page 255 of 517 There is an extensive trail system in the woods that were there when he moved in. There are nine separate access points along the two pipeline rights of way and other at the end of 18th Street. These are trailheads. The trails are a large loop with several connector trails. The outer loop is about a 15 minute walk. Mr. Beedon has personally been pruning and trimming trails to keep them open. He believes the school district performed maintenance there four times in the last three decades including cutting down dangerous trees and removing trash or yard waste. He is aware of no other activity from the school district on the property. The school district performed maintenance there in 2000, 2010, and twice in 2011. Each of these incidents was related to a request for action to the school district by a member of the public. Mr. Beedon spoke to the school district in 2000 about illegal activity on the property. That prompted the 2000 maintenance and the placement of signage discouraging dumping. In 2010, Mr. Beedon called the school district to ask why some trees had been removed. The school district stated there were dangerous trees. In 2011 he spoke with the school district about illegal trash and a fire pit on the property. The school district responded by cleaning up the trash and removing the fire pit. Mr. Beedon quoted an email sent to him by Mr. Mike Rouch of the school district. The email stated, I got the sense this is an important asset to your neighborhood and I wanted our folks to do what we could to restore the beauty there." Mr. Beedon stated the school district had essentially left the property alone. Mr. Beedon stated the trails have been used for recreational walking, running, dog walking, bicycling, socializing, wildlife viewing, and inventorying plants. Kids build forts and tree houses. This area is used extensively for recreation, on a daily basis there are at least a dozen people in there. Over the years, thousands of people have used it. Use of the area has increased due to the informal maintenance of the paths. Aesthetically, the woods are beautiful. It's a wild area with a variety of vegetation and wetlands. The topography is interesting. There are seasonal creeks. It reminds him of the foothills of the Cascades, though with less dramatic topography. Mr. Beedon described wildlife he has seen on the property including bobcat, pileated woodpecker, red headed sapsuckers, ducks, crows, other types of birds, deer, and owls. Mr. Beedon stated there are a rich variety of plants on the property. There are also at least two geocaches on the property. Mr. Beedon showed pictures of stormwater accumulated on the two pipelines on the property. The pipelines drain onto the school district property. Recently, the City of Renton cleaned out drain pipes to improve the drainage and reduce flooding. In response to Mr. McMonagle, Mr. Beedon stated he had hired Mr. Neugebauer in September 2014 to perform studies on the property and review the applicant's studies. The TPWAG had asked the 6f. - City Clerk reports appeal of the Hearing Examiner's final decision upon Page 256 of 517 tw 440, school district to allow them to do a third party wetland evaluation. The school district denied the request stating it did not further the interest of the school district or the developer. The Examiner asked Mr. McMonagle to tie the historic use of the property to a SEPA impact, noting the public did not have a right to use this property in the first place. How is there an adverse impact under SEPA? There could be a prescriptive use, but the Examiner does not have the authority to adjudicate prescriptive use or adverse possession. The Examiner noted Halverson v. Bellevue, and the limits on restrictions of Hearing Examiner authority, specifically Legune v. Clallam County, and others. The Examiner's authority is limited to those described specifically in the City code. The Examiner asked Mr. McMonagle to provide a brief on the issue of the authority and relevance of the public prescriptive right to the property by November 28th with applicant and City response by December 5th. Mr. Steven Neugebauer of SNR Company is a licensed hydrogeologist and engineering geologist. He presented a PowerPoint presentation highlighting the relevant issues from his report (Exhibit M49). Mr. Neugebauer described his qualifications. He stated the biggest issue with this project is groundwater and the engineering geology of the site. The big thing is the SEPA document is inadequate. His scope for this project is to assess the applicant's studies and to review the environmental impacts of the project. SEPA should produce information regarding impacts. The SEPA checklist is not designed to gather all the impacts. There should be more intensive studies done here because of the intensity of the development and of the surrounding development. There are only preliminary studies, which are inadequate. Mr. Neugebauer stated the history of the site needs to be reviewed as far back as possible. His presentation will focus on the SEPA issues. Only four studies have been incorporated in the SEPA checklist, there are now 22 studies. Mr. Neugebauer described the wildlife corridor link along the greenbelt from the subject to the Cedar River. This is the only significant open area in the local region. The moor is surrounded by development except for this narrow wildlife corridor on the northeast corner. He showed maps dating back to 1865 to show historical water flows. In 1898 the Black River still flowed, the Green River Valley was the White River Valley and the Duwamish Waterway was still a river. There are wetlands shown on the map in this area as back as 1898. The entire regional drainage system has changed since then. The title report shows in 1936 this subject property had been cleared and was owned by the railroad and in 1945 by a Department of Defense corporation. This is an important issue to SEPA because there might have been wartime activity here with potential contaminants. Mr. Neugebauer states there should have been a Phase 1 ESA. Mr. Neugebauer showed the development pattern in 1990. It has been forested since the 1940s. The oldest trees are about 65 years old. Mr. Neugebauer showed the geomorphology of the area. The property had been in a melt water channel from the last ice age that became the Cedar River. Drainage goes both to the southwest and northeast. The area has many depositional environments for soils. There are structural anomalies in 6f. - City Clerk reports appeal of the Hearing Examiner's final decision upon Page 257 of 517 MW the area. There are no geological reports performed by the applicant and they couldn't perform their own. He stated there should have been more soils tests, percolation tests, more test pits and borings. There is neither engineering geology nor hydrogeological studies. He showed a geologic map of the area and pointed to geologic issues from the confluence of two seismic faults. This might influence landslide activities. The USGS maps show that the closest fault zone is 3.9 miles, though there may be others nearby that haven't yet been mapped. Geologists look for bend trees and uneven surfaces. There are many bent trees here. That indicates ground movement. The ground is moving slowly and the trees are bending with it. There might be shallow or slightly deeper ground movement. He walked the site, but didn't perform studies because the school district wouldn't allow it. The SEPA documents say there are no structures on the site, but there are treehouses and forts. The site is vacant but not unused. The Opponents state there is no SEPA document, only a report from the City's Environmental Review Committee. Mr. Steven Neugebauer discussed the title report's historical accounts of ownership of the project site (Page 12). There is an easement for a natural gas pipeline. There are several other easements for various purposes. Ms. Rogers asked about the relevance of this testimony. Mr. McMonagle asked Mr. Neugebauer to describe the relevance of this testimony in terms of SEPA. Mr. Neugebauer stated the SEPA checklist asks about potential hazardous wastes on the property. No studies were conducted. The title report shows potential hazardous uses in the past. A phase 1 environmental site assessment should have been conducted. Mr. Neugebauer stated the applicant hadn't shown how they were dealing with the City's drainage easement, which is part of the City's drainage system. Ms. Rogers noted that the drainage easement was released. Mr. Neugebauer stated his concern from a geologic perspective is that there were no geologic or hydrogeologist studies performed for this site. There isn't enough information. This site could have fault zones. Also, there is potential evidence of ground creep or slumps. His specific concern is that these mobile soils must be dealt with, which would require further study. He also stated the SEPA Checklist is wrong because the studies came later. He stated the Checklist was wrong because it ignored recreational activities and recreational structures on the property. Mr. Neugebauer stated 14 days is insufficient to review the many studies that were performed as part of this application. He stated he had reviewed all of the documents and believes an Environmental Impact Statement should have been required. The SEPA Checklist was the only document presented. The SEPA document should show what the conditions are in a summary format. Another issue is the hydrology and geology of the site. The wetland determination by Gary Shultz and the Technical Information Report from Barghausen and the Otak report show groundwater saturation levels that make this site undevelopable. The groundwater will be too high in the rainy season. Mr. Neugebauer referred to the Shultz report. He stated the depth to the water table is zero 6f. - City Clerk reports appeal of the Hearing Examiner's final decision upon Page 258 of 517 inches below ground level. Groundwater is a flat line, it is not contoured. This site needs additional study to determine how it can be developed. An EIS should be required. Mr. Neugebauer read definitions for various types of groundwater and hydric soils from the USGS. The applicant's report shows so much water there that development without pumps may not be feasible. Groundwater is also protected from pollutants. It's illegal to discharge pollutants into groundwater. Water from the homes cannot be discharged into the wetlands. Mr. Neugebauer stated the AES geotechnical report is not adequate to satisfy SEPA requirements. It stated that in the report. There have not been the extensive studies that should have been prepared. There were inadequate numbers of test pits. Though they acknowledge groundwater will be near the surface in winter (8" from surface), but don't describe how they plan to deal with it. The report was paid for by the school district and was inadequate in scope. The report shows the site has geotechnical critical areas, specifically erosion, site stability and other indicators of shallow ground creep or slumping. The site will need deep infiltration strategies to get the stormwater down below the high water table and into a more permeable layer. There is no capacity for stormwater infiltration on this site. This may be why the developer has chosen a stormwater vault because a pond won't infiltrate. Anything excavated below the surface will have groundwater issues. Drainage ditches will be full of water. If you put a vault where groundwater is at the surface, the vault will have to be tied down to bedrock or it will float out of the ground. There need to be much more detailed studies. The geotechnical report says the slope angles are for areas where groundwater seepage is not present at the face of the slope. There will need to be some sort of temporary de-watering. Mr. Neugebauer stated the water will come back and flood basements and keep stormwater from flowing. Based on our review, the deposits are not the type the report suggests. This soil is impermeable. The AES report assumes the soil is permeable. The soils promote shallow ground creep and slumping. Mr. Neugebauer reviewed the Environmental Review Committee report. He believes it is inadequate and an EIS should have been prepared. This project was done in too many disjointed steps. On page 8 of AES, the report says the wetlands may be groundwater influenced. However, there is no further study to determine what to do. Having groundwater within 8" of the surface is a major issue. There is a 12" culvert discharging stormwater into the wetland. That's illegal under the Clean Water Act. They cannot discharge to a point source. There need to be better studies. The Environmental Review Committee report states the project will result in minimal loss of vegetation to the site. That's impossible given the current proposal. According to the Washington State Department of Fish and Wildlife, there is priority habitat here. The removal of existing vegetation will remove a great deal of the evapotranspiration on this site. The trees may remove as much as 75% of the water from the site. The ERC is more worried about views than the more critical water issues. 6f. - City Clerk reports appeal of the Hearing Examiner's final decision upon Page 259 of 517 11w Mr. Neugebauer stated the ERC is basing its opinions on studies that are too preliminary. The issue of liquefaction isn't addressed at all. There is no study as to how the displaced groundwater will affect neighbors. Mr. Neugebauer's final point is that there is no cohesive and conclusive SEPA document. You can't make a final environmental determination on a document that doesn't exist. Ms. Timmons asked Mr. Neugebauer if he'd read the drainage report in the application packet. Mr. Neugebauer stated he had. Ms. Timmons asked Mr. Neugebauer to relate his testimony to the drainage report. Mr. Neugebauer stated the applicant put the cart before the horse because there are no studies for groundwater hydrology. There isn't enough information to form a drainage report. In response to the Examiner, Mr. Neugebauer stated he would have done test pits and boring, piezometer studies and look for the groundwater. If the wetlands are there, the groundwater is there. We need additional studies to determine where the water really is. If it's at the surface, the drainage report is incorrect. The Examiner asked if they know the groundwater is, why does there need to be additional study. Mr. Neugebauer stated the drainage plan isn't taking into account the groundwater. A building pad cannot be placed where the groundwater at the surface. Utilities cannot be placed within the groundwater, particularly sewer which would be continuously draining groundwater. Ms. Rogers asked if he was familiar with the 1995 Local Project Review Act (RCW 36.70B). Mr. Neugebauer stated he wasn't. Ms. Rogers asked if Mr. Neugebauer was aware of the SEPA provisions that provide that city regulations can be sufficient to mitigate environmental impacts. Mr. Neugebauer stated he had looked at it and at the requirements for an EIS. Ms. Rogers asked if he had worked with real estate developers who are speculatively buying property. He stated he did and that developers did feasibility studies. He stated phase 1 environmental site assessments (ESA) were common. He had not seen the applicant's Phase 1 ESA and couldn't speak to whether one existed. It is a typical procedure. Ms. Rogers asked if Mr. Neugebauer was familiar with the City's preliminary plat procedures. He responded he was slightly familiar with them. Mr. Neugebauer stated a project of this size would typically have an EIS. He had never seen a development of this size with this much contention without an EIS. Ms. Rogers stated the applicant had prepared a SEPA Checklist June 2014. Mr. Neugebauer was not aware of the newer checklist. In response to Ms. Rogers, Mr. Neugebauer stated the test pits from Mr. Shultz's report were taken throughout the project site, though most are in the wetland areas. He stated there are high levels of water throughout the site because water tables are flat. He stated he was not aware of a 303D listing for any water on the site, though all wetlands are expected to be so listed to allow discharge. 6f. - City Clerk reports appeal of the Hearing Examiner's final decision upon Page 260 of 517 I%W 4we Mr. Neugebauer stated stormwater is being directed to a vault but it will not treat the stormwater for heavy metals. Ms. Rogers referred to the 2012 AES report. The top of page 2 states the site is suitable for buried utilities, paving and structures. Mr. Neugebauer stated they also said additional studies would be conducted. Ms. Rogers asked if he understood that detailed construction and engineering review and much more intensive studies will be conducted before final plat. Mr. Neugebauer reiterated he felt the cart was being placed before the horse in that the SEPA review is now for a reason. It allows for adequate public comment. Later phases do not. Ms. Rogers referred to the aerial photo (Exhibit K6c) and asked Mr. Neugebauer if the project site isn't completely surrounded by similar residential developments. He stated there is forested land around here and existing development is less dense. He did agree there are existing houses and roads surrounding the project. He doesn't know if there are existing geological or hydrological issues affecting the existing homes, however he speculates that may be why the areas to the northeast and east are not developed. Applicant Response Mr. Kevin Jones, Transportation Engineer, Transpo Group, prepared the traffic report for this project. He also reviewed the public comments and will respond to them. He's responding specifically to letters from Mr. Roenicke and Ms. Garlough. Mr. Roenicke was concerned that the traffic counts were conducted in June 2013, a time period when the adjacent elementary school is out for summer. Mr. Jones responded by noting that they acknowledged school was out of session. As such, they added to their counts school traffic based on the enrollment of school at the time, which is within eight students of the current student count. They looked at average trip rates for elementary schools and inflated the counts by 210 AM Peak and 70 PM Peak hour trips. Ms. Garlough claimed to have taken counts themselves and compared them to the Transpo report. Ms. Garlough stated the traffic volume was 30% higher than Transpo's measurements. Mr. Jones agreed that traffic volumes fluctuate day to day; however, the traffic volume in the neighborhood is low. The volumes are low enough that you could double traffic and still have Level of Service (LOS) A or B at all of the surrounding intersections. The intersection operation will stay high and not fall below an acceptable LOS that would require mitigation. Mr. Jones responded to another comment about the impact of new residential traffic on school pedestrian traffic by stating that the overlap in traffic conditions would be in the morning. The residence peak happens after school is out. The projected increase in volumes on Lake Youngs Way is 10-45 +/- trips in the AM Peak hour. This increase, on average, is one vehicle or less per minute during that time period. Traffic volumes fluctuate and there may be an extra car or two in that time period. The school traffic tends to be concentrated in 30 minute intervals. Most of the project traffic won't mix with school traffic volumes. 6f. - City Clerk reports appeal of the Hearing Examiner's final decision upon Page 261 of 517 1".r 1*40' Mr. Jones spoke to potential safety issues for school pedestrian traffic. He stated there won't be much impact because the volumes are low. Also, they are providing a pedestrian crosswalk at 18th and Lake Youngs Way. Given the speed limits, the pedestrian crossing and relatively small increase in volumes, there do not anticipate a safety hazard. There is concern about visibility on 16th Street and there was a suggestion this is an accident prone area. They review the accident logs from the City for this location. Specifically, they reviewed collision records for SE 16th Street between Beacon Way SE and Lake Youngs Way SE. For a four year period, there were no collisions reported in this area. There is a grade difference between Beacon and Ferndale. They looked at the collision records and measured daily traffic volumes over a seven day period. 16th Street serves about 3,300 vehicles per day. 4.8 million vehicles traveled along that section in four years without a single reported collision. There was one in February of this year, though that was related to icy conditions. Mr. Jones stated the data does not support the assertion this location is a collision prone location. They will also add additional signage on the north side of 16th Street indicating there is an intersection approaching. The geometrics of the road make it difficult to see the intersection. There is a sign now recommending speed limits of 15 mph in this area. There are sidewalks along the route to the school (Exhibit A9, Figure 1). Mr. Jones responded to a comment from Ponderosa Estates. Residents in this subdivision are concerned about long waits nearby intersections, specifically the intersection labelled Intersection 13 in the Transpo report. They evaluated the intersection from a delay standpoint in the AM and PM Peak. The intersection was not originally reviewed, but was added at the City's request. The review of this intersection was this year while school was in session. Based on the data and the stop control of this intersection, they found this intersection has 15 seconds of average delay or less. The delay will not significantly increase with this development looking out to 2018. It's currently 13 seconds in both the AM and PM Peak. The LOS is B now and will stay that way. This is an acceptable delay under the City's standards. No change in traffic control is necessary. Another issue with respect to school traffic is whether there will need to be extra traffic control personnel from the school. Mr. Jones stated he didn't know, but that the use of traffic crossing guards is a typical occurrence in this area. He doesn't anticipate the school district will need to hire traffic control personnel they don't already have. Mr. McMonagle asked Mr. Jones about the changes from the original to the revised traffic study. Mr. Jones stated that in both cases, there were the two proposed entrances there are right now. Mr. McMonagle asked Mr. Jones to explain the route persons in the subdivision would use to get out to a minor arterial. Mr. Jones stated that 60% of the Tiffany Park traffic was assumed to go to the west and the remainder would go south. Of the westbound traffic, they assumed the majority of it would go to SE 16th Street via some route. They would then access Edmonds Avenue. They revised the study because there was a lot of public comment about the absence of that intersection in the study. For the southbound traffic, they assumed the traffic would mostly go to SE 18th Street to Lake 6f. - City Clerk reports appeal of the Hearing Examiner's final decision upon Page 262 of 517 We 1*400, Youngs Way. Some would go to SE 16th Street; others would go to Royal Hills. Other traffic would go to Beacon, Ferndale or other routes to SE 16th Street and Edmonds Avenue. He stated SE 16th Street had more grade than SE 18th Street; otherwise the roadway geometry was comparable. Mr. McMonagle asked Mr. Jones about the development's proposed roads. Mr. Jones stated the development will have roads designed to the current standards. Ms. Racheal Villa, of Soundview Consultants, described her experience and qualifications. Her company conducted the fish and wildlife habitat assessment for the property (Exhibit K, page 40). Together, all the scientists who worked on this report have about 80 years of experience. She is a qualified senior author for biological assessments under WSDOT, which is fairly unique. Ms. Villa stated she had visited the project site. She was hired to perform supplementary wetlands review for fish and wildlife habitat. They reviewed the wetlands assessment. They reviewed lists of species from the USFW and the WA DFW for priority habitats and species offsite associated with the Cedar River corridor. There was nothing specifically mapped on site, so they looked to see what was on-site. In their normal critical areas assessment, they would usually incorporate wetlands and habitat scientists. They found nothing specifically listed for priority protection. They reviewed a wider area for noise and stormwater impacts (Exhibit A, Attachment 16). Ms. Villa noted the habitat here is fairly disturbed on a large scale basis. There is a lot of human intrusion. It's not directly connected to the Cedar River corridor. There are trees, but the wildlife has to cross the 60 foot wide water easement, cross a residential road, cross residential yards, cross a 40% slope and then the Bonneville Power Administration's easement to the Cedar River corridor. It's discontinuous, isolated and highly disturbed. The prior testimony documents that by mentioning the extensive use practiced here. Ms. Villa stated they looked at all potentially regulated species on site including all state and federal listed species and habitat. They found habitat potentially associated with pileated woodpeckers and Townsend's bat, both Washington State listed species. Ms. Villa stated there is a great deal of woodpecker activity. She didn't see nests, but she did see snags. Pileated woodpeckers utilize 1,480 acres, which would include the whole Cedar River corridor. It is possible the woodpeckers are foraging on site. Woodpeckers are a residential, non-migratory species. Ms. Villa stated Townsend's bats might use the site seasonally during the summer for foraging for insects. The DFW would require protecting wetlands, associated buffers and large trees. Ms. Villa stated the plat will not result in a loss of significant, protected habitat for these two listed species. Ms. Villa stated the bobcat is not a listed species. It's a hunted species that doesn't have specific requirements for habitat protection. Ms. Rogers asked Ms. Villa her opinion of the impact of the proposed project. Ms. Villa stated if the wetlands and buffers are protected and off-leash dogs and people on bikes were kept out, the 6f. - City Clerk reports appeal of the Hearing Examiner's final decision upon Page 263 of 517 mw N"Ove wetlands would be better protected than they are now. A typical buffer around a critical area is split rail, which does not keep wildlife out. They function to keep humans and their pets out. Ms. Rogers asked Ms. Villa to summarize her November 18, 2014 memo. Ms. Villa summarized the letter by saying they reviewed for potentially regulated species and habitats in accordance with the City of Renton's codes. They concluded the proposal will not likely cause adverse impact on listed species or critical habitats with implementation of best management practices. Protection of wetlands, buffers and significant trees are proposed. She also mentioned the current condition with anthropogenic structures, unleashed pets and many other disturbances to wildlife currently occurring on the site. With respect to non-game species, they were surveyed in the review. She reiterated this is a highly disturbed, isolated patch. Ms. Villa discussed the stormwater filtration system which will remove many pollutants. There is no direct downstream connection to Ginger Creek, which is a tributary to Cedar River. The plan as proposed will protect the downstream areas. Mr. McMonagle stated he didn't understand the description of the critical areas fence. Ms. Villa described what a wooden, split rail fence looks like. Mr. Gary Schulz is a wetlands ecologist. Mr. Schultz described his education and qualifications. He is a sole proprietor who does habitat assessments, mitigation planning, and wetland and stream studies. He is a water and sewer district commissioner. Ms. Rogers asked Mr. Schultz if he had visited the project site. He stated he had, many times. His work was focused on wetland delineation and stream identification. He used the ACOE, the DOE Wetlands Manual. He put transects on the property and walked the site in a pattern to determine the location of wetlands. He delineated the wetlands. His delineation was reviewed by Otak, the City's peer reviewer. Mr. Schultz concluded the wetlands are isolated and separated from downstream habitats and water. The southern pipeline dams the site and prevents the flow of surface water off site. They are pocket depressions that are influenced by perched groundwater on a seasonal basis. He visited the site during March and June to view where the water was by season. Ms. Rogers asked if Mr. Schultz tracks weather patterns. He stated he used the SeaTac rainfall record. His review was conducted in March 2014, when the rainfall was 5-6 inches above normal for that time of year. According to the news, it was record breaking month, though he couldn't quote the record. Ms. Rogers asked Mr. Schultz about shallow groundwater and the data plots described by Mr. Neugebauer. Mr. Schultz stated they were all near wetlands boundaries. Mr. Schultz reviewed these extra data points at the request of Otak. Mr. Schultz stated Mr. Neugebauer used the term `aquake regime'. This term means hydric soils. A lot of these plots were outside the wetland boundaries and didn't have hydric soils. They aren't part of the wetland, though it was a wet time of year. Mr. Schultz stated the soils on site are Alderwood, which typically overlay an impervious till layer. 6f. - City Clerk reports appeal of the Hearing Examiner's final decision upon Page 264 of 517 ale Perched, seasonal high water is common. Mr. Schultz stated the areas that will be wet in the winter will be protected. In June 2013, there was no water at all on site. Mr. McMonagle asked Mr. Schultz whether he's a hydrogeologist. Mr. Schultz stated he wasn't. He is a wetland ecologist. Mr. McMonagle asked if Mr. Schultz can interpret hydrology. Mr. Schultz stated delineating wetlands requires an understanding of wetland hydrology, though he didn't provide either a hydrology report or a geologic report. Mr. Ray Coglas, of Earth Solutions NW, described his education and qualifications. He is a licensed geotechnical engineer. He's been a registered geoengineer since 1998. He is the president of Earth Solutions NW. Mr. Coglas stated he had been present for the TPWAG testimony and had visited the project site. He submitted a letter as part of the exhibit package (Exhibit K, page 33). Ms. Rogers asked Mr. Coglas to discuss his letter and his response to Mr. Neugebauer. Ms. Rogers asked to discuss the soil and groundwater characteristics on the site, specifically as they related to the ability to develop the project. Mr. Coglas stated his role was initially to review the AES report. His portion was review of prior reports, field surveys and review of public comments. With respect to the AES report and some of the testimony he'd heard, the AEA report is standard practice. The site is fairly to moderately sloping site, mainly glacial till though there may be some outwash. The level of investigation that was done as part of the AES report was similar to what his firm would have done. A lot of time geotechnical reports are driven by the proposed use. Kurt Merryman authored the AES report. He is reputable. The report was valid. They adequately characterized on site conditions. The one thing that stood out to Mr. Coglas is that AES didn't throw up any red flags. There's nothing in the report that would suggest major problems. AES was working for the school district and would have been required to tell the district if they thought there would be issues for development. All sites are unique, however this is a typical glacial till site. The level of investigation was appropriate with test pits. If it had been him, he'd done the same type of review for the intended use. If this was proposed to be a 25 story office building with three levels of underground parking, then far more intensive study would have been needed. The analysis that was done was appropriate for the scale of the site and proposed type and intensity of use. In preparing his summary, he looked at all that. He agrees with the AES conclusions. A lot of what a geotechnical engineer does is determining the scope of analysis needed. They could have done a lot more, but the budget and type of project didn't require it. Most of the activity will be near surface and low intensity. Ms. Rogers asked if there would be additional geotechnical analysis to support construction and engineering design at the permit stage. Mr. Coglas stated as far as the actual engineering of the project when it comes to assigning actual values for designer, his firm will prepare a geotechnical report that may or may not include more information. The final design isn't finished, so they don't know yet where they'll need more specific information. 6f. - City Clerk reports appeal of the Hearing Examiner's final decision upon Page 265 of 517 ftme rte/+ With respect to shallow groundwater, Mr. Coglas stated there is groundwater in the northwest. He stated the various depths of groundwater testified to before (6", 8", or 2'), AES characterizes the water table at 8' in depth during the summer. It fluctuates seasonally. There's nothing in the AES report suggesting 2' in the summer. It reports 8' in depth. The thing he wants to point out is this site is a perched groundwater condition. Glacial till is dense and cemented and does not allow vertical penetration of surface water to depth. That's common. He is not surprised that during wetland studies they encountered shallow or ponding water in the depressional wetland areas. To suggest the whole site will be underwater is not consistent with a perched groundwater table. There are recessional sands at the surface that allow water to pass through. That water then gets trapped in the impervious layer. He deals with groundwater on all of his projects. It is not a condition that precludes development. There's nothing unique to the plot of Tiffany Park or its surrounds geologically speaking. The Kent Valley is a flat, deep alluvial deposit with a level groundwater table that fluctuates evenly across the valley floor. The Kent Valley is like a deep bathtub. That's not the case here. The till layer is shallow and undulating in Tiffany Park. The elevation change across Tiffany Park is 40'. For example, if the groundwater table were level here, a change in 40' in elevation across the site would cause most of it to be underwater. That's not the case. There are seep environments that are seasonally wet, but they are localized based on the topography and glacial till layer. Groundwater seepage is managed during construction; it doesn't preclude construction. Mr. Rogers asked Mr. Coglas to discuss managing stromwater during construction, specifically, will the stormwater vault float? Mr. Coglas stated that almost every single project he's on has stormwater facilities, many of them are vaults. He's done hundreds of vaults. They look at excavation, the base, storage capacity, stability of the side slopes, and backfill. Tiffany Park is not an environment where he would be concerned with buoyancy of his vault structure. There might be a large seep at the beginning of the cut because of built up water pressure. This usually attenuates over time as the trapped water is drained. They always put a footing drain around the vault if they are concerned the groundwater seam might create excess hydrostatic pressure on the concrete walls. They aren't concerned about buoyancy here. He has done projects that do have buoyancy issues. In that case, there are many best management practices to prevent the vault from being displaced. Ms. Rogers asked to turn back to the AES report. She asked Mr. Coglas to discuss the log reports for the test pits. Mr. Coglas stated geotechnical engineers dig test pits to evaluate soil profiles. Notes suggesting no caving or seepage are very useful because it speaks to the strength of the soil. Groundwater seepage is different from the groundwater table. In the Kent Valley, they would call any water they found the groundwater table, rather than seepage. In this case, there is a difference. Mr. Rogers noted Mr. Neugebauer asked for additional studies. Mr. Coglas described his report and its detail of the geological hazards on site. Mr. Coglas stated there were no slopes that met the City's criteria for sensitive or protected areas. There are some local, isolated areas that may meet the 40% criteria, but as a geotechnical engineer, he looks at stability. The code specifies the boundaries. Mr. Coglas stated there are no landslide hazards or high erosion hazards on the project site. 6f. - City Clerk reports appeal of the Hearing Examiner's final decision upon Page 266 of 517 Erosion is something to be managed. They derive the characterization of erosion from the USDA now NRCS) soil characterization. These soil types were derived for agriculture. When working fields, it was good to know which soils had high erosion qualities. In development, the type of erosion hazard is not significant. Tiffany Park has some slight to moderate erosion areas. However, they control erosion through many different methodologies. The final product is stabilized. Erosion is managed through engineering solutions. Mr. Coglas stated there are no seismic hazards on this property. The Seattle fault is 3.7 miles north. We live in a tectonically active environment. There might be a splay or other features under Tiffany Park, but none are known. It's important to know that the residential building code for this area is sufficient to offset seismic risk in this region. A more intense structure or development would require more studies, but low density residential development does not. There is a low seismic hazard here, according to the City. With respect to coal mine hazards, Mr. Coglas stated they had reviewed the coal mine maps. AES also addressed this. They are outside the boundary where further study is needed for coal mine hazards. Mr. Coglas stated there are no potential adverse environmental impacts in relation to geotechnical issues. In response to the Examiner, Mr. Coglas stated he was hired as peer review for the AES report. He was also hired to respond to public comments. Mr. Coglas stated he disagreed with Mr. Neugebauer's conclusions the entire site is somehow going to be underwater or flooded. The groundwater is perched on glacial till that undulates and is uneven. Mr. Coglas said in these environments, based on studies and his experience, it's likely there will be some groundwater seepage when they do utility excavations or cuts/fills. This is not a site that will require dewatering or extensive pumping. The groundwater table is perched with various, isolated seams. In the Kent Valley, pulling water out would draw the whole water table down. This isn't the case here. The water table will be shallow near the wetlands. The AES report, except for the narrative, doesn't document any observed groundwater in the test pits. In exploration pit #6, they noted weak groundwater seepage below 8 feet. It was the dry season. The Examiner asked if Mr. Neugebauer is correct in his conclusion the groundwater level is at zero elevation, would that cause a problem for construction. Mr. Coglas said that would be a problem, but that is not the case. However, if it was at zero elevation, they could manage it. The stormwater system might need to change, but it could be feasibility changed. Mr. Coglas stated the notion that the groundwater is right at the surface everywhere on the project is absurd. Mr. McMonagle asked Mr. Coglas about the test logs in the back of the AES report. Mr. Coglas stated the pits were all test excavations, rather than borings. He agreed there were 12 test pits on the 22 acres dug on September 6, 2012. He agreed all of the pits were done on the same day (Exhibit 6f. - City Clerk reports appeal of the Hearing Examiner's final decision upon Page 267 of 517 foi N"W' A7, Figure 2). Mr. Coglas stated he is a licensed civil engineer, not a licensed geologist or hydrogeologist. They have them on staff. He reviews those reports and has studied these specialties. He's familiar with the two basic groundwater environments at this site. Mr. McMonagle referred to Page 1 of the AES report that there is a caution the report should be reviewed and revised to support a specific development proposal. Mr. Coglas stated he was retained in October 2014. He was hired to provide peer review of the AES report, prepare a site evaluation, review the plat proposal and provide feedback on community comments. Mr. McMonagle asked if Mr. Coglas had done physical investigation of the site. Mr. Coglas said he had not and was unsure of whether he would be asked to going forward. He anticipates what he would do on a follow up report which would include further review of plat plans. Mr. Coglas stated construction is done year round right now. He prepares different recommendations to deal with groundwater, depending on the season. With respect to the vault, the physical dimension for this vault is very large, but he doesn't know exactly how big. His role is to help the contractor to install the vault and deal with any groundwater or geotechnical issues to ensure the vault is installed correctly and will function. The vault will probably be 12-18' deep. They will have 100 times more bearing capacity than is needed. There will be a soil cap. He'll look at the stability of the excavation to ensure the walls hold. Mr. Coglas showed where the stormwater vault will be located on the plat. Mr. Coglas agreed the deepest test pit was 105, though he's gone deeper on other projects. The shallowest test pit was 8'. He agreed the only test pit in the vicinity of the vault was Test Pit#11, to a depth of 8.5'. Ms. Rogers asked Mr. Coglas to clarify his role in the project going forward. He stated his firm is the geotechnical engineer of record and will assume that role going forward. Mr. Barry Talkington, of Barghausen Consulting Engineers, is the civil engineer for the project and designed the plat. Mr. Talkington spoke of the drainage release on the title. A drainage release states there is stormwater leaving a property and draining on another property. It is not an easement with an exact location. His design of the plat addressed the release by looking at upstream drainage basins around the property. The drainage release in the title is for the Ponderosa subdivision, at least a half mile from the property. It is uphill, but there is no physical way water can drain from that property on to the project property. The drainage release was executed in 1965, before much of the present development was constructed. The drainage release described the entire section (640 acres). It's just an historical remainder. Mr. Talkington stated discharging clean stormwater into wetlands is a common practice. The drainage is discharged into the buffer to recharge the hydrology of the wetland. With respect to street widths, the streets inside the project are narrower than in the surrounding communities, in conformance with current city code. 6f. - City Clerk reports appeal of the Hearing Examiner's final decision upon Page 268 of 517 N"90'` Mr. Talkington stated the preliminary plat process starts with city approval. The next step is preparation of full construction plans and drainage reports. Additional information will be requested from sub-consultants. They prepared a preliminary drainage report for the general storm drainage design. They will do a final, more specific drainage report next. The final drainage report is usually a fine tuning, though there may be changes that require more extensive revisions. Mr. McMonagle asked if Barghausen Consulting is an engineering firm. Mr. McMonagle asked whether Barghausen was paid hourly from the consultant or as a contingent fee. Mr. Talkington stated it wasn't contingent. Staff Response Mr. Steve Lee, City of Renton Development Engineering Manager, described his position with the City and his relevant work experience and qualifications. Mr. Lee he had reviewed the project files and performed a site visit. He has experience in the Cedar River area for the last ten years. Mr. Lee responded to Mr. Neugebauer's testimony. He stated Mr. Neugebauer's points were very general. Most of the issues Mr. Neugebauer raises were dealt with well by Mr. Coglas. Mr. Lee stated the Cedar River issues will always be present. The river system is young and new. There have been sloughing issues, but they were caused by deforestation in the early 20th century, earthquakes and other acts of nature. The Cedar River is now controlled by the US Army Corp of Engineers (ACOE). There is a bit of control in the form of two upstream dams. Seattle Public Utilities (SPU) has the capability of metering the flow of the Cedar River. Within the last five years, there was an 80 year event of 10,000cfs. In the past, that would have causes landslides and flooding at Boeing. That didn't occur because of the controls in place by the ACOE and SPU. Mr. Lee stated Mr. Coglas has performed at least 20 projects in the City of Renton. He is correct in his review of the geotechnical study by AES. The site is very similar to other sites in the city. The steep areas are very small (15-20' feet long) and do not warrant slope stability analysis. Overall on the project site, the approximate slope is 10% or so. The City does not require additional slope stability analysis. With respect to the number of test pits in the AES study, Mr. Lee stated there were sufficient numbers of test pits to gauge impacts of potential groundwater on site. He would have preferred to see a few more, especially in the vault area. However, as Mr. Coglas testified, the City may require extra analysis. He stated he does not typically require additional geotechnical analysis at this stage of the process. They may ask for deeper borings or excavation pits. The residential nature of this proposal wouldn't usually require it. They will look at this again to determine if more geotechnical information is needed for the walls, cuts, grading and the stromwater vault. Mr. Lee felt the information provided was adequate to allow for a determination of impact on the site. The AES didn't mention issues of groundwater on the site. Therefore, they didn't feel the need to require secondary review. The City determined the AES report was adequate. 6f. - City Clerk reports appeal of the Hearing Examiner's final decision upon Page 269 of 517 NW 1. Mr. Lee spoke to the stormwater drainage issues. The only concern the City may have is the placement of the vault. They may require additional and deeper test pits to determine if there is groundwater that would have a detrimental effect on the vault structure. In that instance, they will do a buoyancy calculation to determine the static water volume. A certain amount of water will hold the vault down. They need to know how much water that is and when it will be in the vault. In response to Ms. Timmons, Mr. Lee stated the storm drainage water will be pre-treated and will prevent polluted water from running off into the wetlands. The vault will treat all PGIS run off and discharge to a closed conveyance system. None of the pollution generating systems will discharge into a wetland. Mr. Lee stated the City of Renton will require a Level 2 downstream analysis to describe the downstream conveyance after leaving the site. They are uncertain of a segment of the pipeline that takes the water. They want to make sure there is no downstream flooding. An NPDES permit will be required for the project. The permit stipulates allowable discharge into a conveyance system. That will include background monitoring as well as discharge monitoring. All of the requirements must be met before a building permit or construction permits are issued. Mr. Lee summarized the local, state and federal code requirements. The applicant has complied with all code requirements. He stated these codes are sufficient to address all probable stormwater impacts. He said the Seattle pipeline is monitored by SPU. If they see even a fraction of a movement in that hillside, they'll know. This is the drinking water in the City of Seattle. In response to the Examiner, Mr. Lee stated the deep, static groundwater level was uniformly along the wetland level at the project, it could affect the development. They would discover this instance during construction. If grades are lower than the wetland level, they will require more borings and test pits. The Examiner asked if the code regulations would allow the City to ask for more borings. Mr. Lee stated it comes down to professional liability as defined in the RCW. The person stamping the plans is responsible. The City is responsible for life safety only. The engineering staff can require more borings if they think there might be an issue. If there are groundwater issues present, the proposed vault is the best solution. In response to Ms. Rogers, Mr. Lee stated there is a difference between the perched groundwater table and the static, deeper groundwater level. There are no indications of the static groundwater level above 8'. Mr. Lee agreed with Mr. Coglas' assertion that the surface groundwater could be addressed during construction. Mr. McMonagle asked if Mr. Lee was aware the geotechnical report was prepared for the school district rather than the applicant. Mr. Lee stated he was. Mr. McMonagle asked if there shouldn't have been at least one test pit per acre. Mr. Lee stated the geotechnical engineering consultant will get a representative sampling of the site. They add more bores if they see dissimilarities in the site. Mr. McMonagle asked if Mr. Lee was aware AES limited its number of test pits based on budgetary 6f. - City Clerk reports appeal of the Hearing Examiner's final decision upon Page 270 of 517 r.r constraints. Mr. Lee stated he was not aware of this. With respect to the stormwater, Mr. Lee stated the initial design was for a pond but changed to a vault sometime this year. Mr. McMonagle asked if the vault addition would typically trigger the need for additional review. Mr. Lee stated they would typically ask for more information but they haven't yet requested more geotechnical information from the applicant. Ms. Timmons asked if the City can get the extra information in an engineering packet. Mr. Lee stated it could. Ms. Rocale Timmons stated the studies provided by the applicant; especially the technical studies will be fine-tuned in detail at the time of construction permit submittal. These studies are used to determine if there are probably adverse impacts from the development. The appellant has asserted there hasn't been adequate time to review the proposal and the attendant studies. This project has been in review for nine months. The file has been available. The appellant has been provided with these studies, including the revised studies from June 2013. There were two Notices of Application released. Ms. Timmons entered Exhibit AK. The September 2014 notice included the revised SEPA checklist. With respect to wetlands, the City asked for a third party study. That study was completed by Otak. Otak provided two separate memos in response to revised studies from Mr. Schultz. Otak affirmed the final wetland determination (Exhibit A5). Otak determined there was a wetland missed by the applicant. The studies were revised to acknowledge the fifth wetland on-site. Otak then affirmed all of the revisions made by Mr. Schultz. Staff agrees with the TPWAG appellant regarding tree preservation for wildlife on site. With respect to transportation, staff agrees with testimony provided by Mr. Jones of Transpo Group. Perteet, the City's consultant, concurred with the Transpo study. They feel all potential impacts are mitigated. Staff agrees with the testimony provided by Ms. Villa with respect to critical areas and buffers. Applicant Rebuttal Ms. Rogers stated the applicant agrees with staff on every issue with the exception of the requirement of a 15 foot buffer. Appellant Rebuttal Mr. Neugebauer stated he was concerned about the stormwater vault filter. There are no specifications on this. He has never seen a filter that can remove dissolved metals. He is concerned about the maintenance of the filter. Who will change it or maintain it? 6f. - City Clerk reports appeal of the Hearing Examiner's final decision upon Page 271 of 517 Mr. Neugebauer said he's been practicing hydrogeology for 33 years. He stated perched groundwater doesn't occur on slopes. The water drains through. The groundwater follows the contour of the land. He stated the unsaturated zone flow is at negative pressure. Groundwater is at atmospheric pressure. The applicant is describing an impossible scenario. They can see the groundwater through pressure gradients. He stated the water table at an elevation is a water table. He stated they are using the applicant's information which is incomplete. The groundwater will go with the slope of the ground. Either the water's at the surface and there is a wetland or it's not. In the upper 30", the bioturbation zone, the ground is unsaturated. The water flows through the pore space and creates a vacuum behind it. There is just not enough information to really say where the groundwater is and where it's going. Finally, Mr. Neugebauer stated groundwater is regulated under the Clean Water Act. Point sources cannot be wetland hydrology. Preliminary Plat Staff Testimony Ms. Rocale Timmons gave a PowerPoint presentation (Exhibit AL). The site is located in the Benson Hill community planning area in the Tiffany Park neighborhood. It is 22 acres located in the R8 zone. It is bordered by the Cedar River Pipeline and the Mercer Island Pipeline. There are 1,300 trees on this vacant site. It is owned by the Renton School District. It is surrounded by existing single family residences. It ties into two existing street stubs which will be extended into the site. The applicant is requesting critical areas exemptions and preliminary plat approval. The City has received 72 comment letters. Staff was present at a community meeting held by TPWAG and conducted a separate meeting in September 2014. On September 22, the Environmental Review Committee (ERC) issued a MDNS decision with 11 mitigation measures. Two appeals were filed. The environmental determination did not include new issues related to zoning, permitted uses, density, construction mitigation, and others. The applicant is proposing 97 lots. There is a 96 lot proposal to allow 30% retention of trees. There will be a 5.7 du/acre density. Average lot size is 5,400sf. The site has five wetlands (three Category II and two Category III). The applicant is proposing buffer reductions with mitigation in the form of buffer extensions. The applicant is asking for a critical areas exemption for the extension of SE 18th Street to allow for a small buffer impact. Staff supports the requested exemption. Staff relied heavily on the Comprehensive Plan. There are many significant trees, critical areas, wildlife and an established density and use pattern that are unique. Ms. Timmons described the Comprehensive Plan policies the staff relied on in their analysis. The staff attempted to provide harmony and balance between existing and new neighborhoods. The proposal complies with the Comprehensive Plan as conditioned. 6f. - City Clerk reports appeal of the Hearing Examiner's final decision upon Page 272 of 517 MW The proposal meets most bulk and dimensional standards if all conditions of approval are met. The only issue is Lot 19. This lot may not meet minimum lot width standards, but will be conditioned to meet the standard. The applicant has provided a landscape plan. This plan does not comply with the code, but could with minor modifications. Per the development standards, there are several proposed walls ranging from 4' to 21' on-site. These walls are outside the height limit. Staff has requested a height limit on walls. Staff would be open to terracing of walls to reduce the overall height. With respect to critical areas, most requirements are met with conditions. The applicant has asked for modifications to wetland buffers. There are impacts from walls that must be revised. There were public comments related to habitat. The site provides habitat for non-listed species. The tree preservation plan is sufficient to provide habitat. Based on the provided tree inventory, approximately 679 trees were excluded from retention calculations. At least 188 trees must be preserved on site or replaced at a mitigation ratio to allow 30% tree retention. The applicant proposes to protect 181 trees and mitigate seven others. In terms of the analysis from subdivision regulations, the proposal complies if all conditions of approval are met. The applicant must provide a safe crossing for the trail. In response to the Examiner, Ms. Timmons stated there is no applicable street plan in the area. There were several comments regarding transportation issues. The proposed development would generate 1,000 weekday trips. Intersections near the project would remain at acceptable levels of service. A SEPA mitigation measure requires a new stop sign at Monroe Avenue. Staff has included an additional condition of approval to address sight distance'concerns. Staff has also recommended additional signage. Staff feels as conditioned, all impacts for transportation are mitigated. With respect to residential lots, there are several pipe stem lots. Staff would like to see the applicant revise these lots to comply with code or provide for shared driveways. Shared driveways are preferred to reduce curb cuts. Parks, police and fire staff indicate there are sufficient resources to support the development if all fees are paid. Adequate provisions for safe walking conditions for students are provided. Sidewalks will be constructed to connect to the existing sidewalk system. Staff has recommended a SEPA mitigation measure to include a crosswalk improvement at Lake Youngs Way at SE 18th Street. Adequate provision for water and sewer are provided. The drainage report complies with the 2009 Stormwater Manual. There will be a vault within Tract A. The applicant will need to provide a downstream analysis for stormwater conveyance. 6f. - City Clerk reports appeal of the Hearing Examiner's final decision upon Page 273 of 517 Awe In response to the Examiner, Ms. Timmons stated there will be no alley access. This proposal does not meet the threshold. There are two zones on the property. Applicant Testimony Ms. Rogers presented a letter describing the applicant's rationale for revised conditions of approval along with a set of revised conditions for the plat (Exhibits AM and AN, respectively). Ms. Rogers asked for approval of the plat subject to revised conditions. They are generally supportive of the staff report. They have a few areas of disagreement. Ms. Rogers wanted to emphasize a point that the client is under contract to purchase the project from the Renton School District. This is surplus land the district cannot use. Ms. Rogers noted they are asking for revisions to Conditions 4, 5, 6, 9, and 16-18. They are requesting additional changes to conditions to fix typographical errors, repetition, and non-contested issues. The City has recently changed its justification for Condition 3 for the 15 foot buffer. The City had originally erroneously relied on incorrect Comprehensive Plan policies. They are now turning to policies that also don't support the need for a buffer. Aesthetics are not an adequate basis to impose a perimeter buffer. There is already an average 50 foot perimeter buffer proposed along with two pipelines. There is no need for an additional buffer. With respect to Condition 4, they have proposed a modification to the location of curb bulb outs. They feel the City will agree with this revision. Condition 5 is the biggest issue. This is the condition that City is asserting that retaining walls must be limited to 4 feet in the front yard and 6 feet in the back yard. The City is referencing a condition related to aesthetic dividers, not retaining walls. None of the retaining walls concepts are referenced in this condition. Even if this particular code were to apply, the measurement of height does not apply. The walls they have designed are essential to the design of the plat. Exhibit AM, Attachment B, are two staff reports for current amendments to the walls and hedges section of the code. Title 4 does not have standards for retaining walls. Exhibit AM, Attachment C is a city handout that establishes a difference between fences, hedges and walls and engineered retaining walls. Exhibit AM, Attachment D is the pre-application memo for the original meeting Henley had with the City. You never get a written report again until you see the Hearing Examiner. The City stated the proposed retaining walls are not subject to the fences portion of the code. Even if the code has recently changed, they are vested to the old code. If the retaining walls are reduced or eliminated, we'll end up doing more grading. That will result in impact to trees and increased construction impacts. They have submitted a grading plan with reduced retaining wall heights. Conditions 6 and 16 are about shared private driveways. They are concerned the City is demanding an extra lot use the shared private driveways. There is a specific instance when this will not work. 6f. - City Clerk reports appeal of the Hearing Examiner's final decision upon Page 274 of 517 Condition 9 is the wetland mitigation associated with Wetland E, at the southeast section of the site. The wetland mitigation plans show they have already exceeded the required buffer. They have to extend the street. The critical areas exemption is for 14sf of impact from the required sidewalk. The City has asked for additional buffer area. They disagree but will agree to provide enhanced plantings. Condition 17 is a typographical error. Condition 18 is related to pipe stem lots which are really about the shared driveway issue. Mr. Gary Schultz, the wetland ecologist, described the mitigation impacts the applicant is providing. His testimony is specifically related to Condition 9. Mr. Schultz described the 1,331sf of additional buffer the applicant is proposing. Ms. Rogers stated Ms. Timmons agreed to the revised Conditions 1, 4, 9, 13 and 17. Ms. Timmons stated they disagree with applicant revised Conditions 3, 5, 6, and 16. In response to the Examiner, Ms. Vanessa Dolby, stated she would not be opposed to changing Condition 5 to allow them to request a variance. She could not comment on whether staff would support a variance. These would be administrative variances. Ms. Rogers stated that they did not apply for a variance because they were told they didn't need to. Mr. Barry Talkington spoke to the difference between cut and fill walls. A cut is needed when the finished lot grade is below the existing grade. The wall stabilizes the grade. A fill wall includes fill on top of existing grade. The finished lot is above existing grade. This is and engineered wall with reinforcing fabric. Mr. Talkington stated the revised plan reduces the 21' high wall above Tract A and the 18' high wall along the Cedar River Pipeline. That wall will come down to 6'. The height from the high side of the walls is zero if they apply the code in effect when they submitted. In their case, the finished grade is the top of the wall. Mr. Talkington described the limits on site grading imposed by two entrances, ADA standards, etc. The overall objective is to balance cut/fill on site. They are limited by the road access and ADA standards for road slopes through intersections. They can only change grades on site so much. As the plan is laid out there are grade differences from lot to lot that requires walls. They attempt to maximize lot areas and reduce impacts to surrounding buffers. If they meet the City's conditions, they will lose lots, reduce lot sizes and impact the buffers. Use of walls allows them to decrease impacts. For Conditions 6 and 16, Mr. Talkington spoke to a set of maps (Exhibit AO) depicting the shared driveway plans. He prepared the plans. For lots 9-14, the shared driveway easement will be used Lots 12-14. Lot 14 has direct access to the cul-de-sac but there will be no driveway there. The City would also require Lot 11 to use this driveway. This is not desirable because the driveway would be at an angle to the roadway which would also change the design of the house to allow side loading of 6f. - City Clerk reports appeal of the Hearing Examiner's final decision upon Page 275 of 517 the garage. The City is attempting to apply the amended code to the plot rather than the code under which the project vested. The staff Report stated Lot 14 had inadequate frontage. This has been corrected. For Lots 15-17, they had originally designed the shared driveway to service Lots 15 and 16. They have now included Lot 17 on the shared easement. They have also corrected the frontage of Lot 17 to comply with code. Next to Lots 15-17, there is a pedestrian tract. For Lots 38-40, the issue is the same as for Lots 15-17. They have revised the lots to allow Lot 38 to comply with the width requirement and access the shared easement. For Lots 79-81, Lot 81 was added to allow access to the shared right of way. Lot 78 will not access the shared driveway. With the applicant's revised condition language, they are willing to ensure access to shared driveways for three lots rather than the City's suggested four. Public Testimony Ms. Jill Jones is a Renton resident. She's heard experts testifying and noted that many of these people testifying have not walked the roads. She has lived there and walked therefor years. This is a valuable resource. The Cedar River corridor cannot be walked by residents. There is no access here because it is steep. The woods are fully canopied, with easy trails. Henley says because the development is single family residences, they shouldn't have to provide a buffer. The development is much denser than the existing neighborhoods. The trees are mature and were pre-existing 30 years ago. The road is wide. There are many trees. Grass planting strips absorb the rain. Ms. Jones showed an example of other Henley developments that have no trees and narrow parking strips. The homes will be taller and larger than the existing houses on much smaller lots. There will be no stormwater areas. Currently Tiffany Park floods in heavy storms. She has serious doubts about the ability to provide adequate stormwater drainage. She also observed a pileated woodpecker in the woods on April 14, 2014. Ms. Beedon would like to ask the Examiner to walk the woods before he makes a decision. This is important. She has listened to all of the testimony. The experts seem to care but they have shown no concern about what they are tearing down. This piece of wood should be preserved. They are taking away something irreplaceable. She feels this piece of property should be preserved for future generations and all of us. She asked the Examiner to walk this area. Also, she has observed pileated woodpecker nests in these woods. They don't migrate. This is not about not wanting development. This is about preserving a precious piece of woods. She wouldn't care if they built a prison there is it was cleared. This is about nature and the trees. She can't imagine all these trees being torn down. If the citizens hadn't become active, the forest would be clear cut. They have a right as citizens to be heard and care about the environment. 6f. - City Clerk reports appeal of the Hearing Examiner's final decision upon Page 276 of 517 Ms. Barbara Smith stated she didn't realize she needed to submit the reviews for Henley Homes Exhibit AQ). Ms. Rogers noted they were not a comprehensive review. Staff Rebuttal Ms. Timmons stated for the driveway portion of the code, please review RMC 4-4-080. This code allows discretionary authority in the code to limit the number of driveways accessing the street. staff does not agree with the proposed revisions to Conditions 6 and 16. They want to see Lots 11 and 78 to access abutting shared driveways. 6f. - City Clerk reports appeal of the Hearing Examiner's final decision upon Page 277 of 517 ATTACHMENT B The Reserve at Tiffany Park Preliminary Plat and SEPA Appeals LUA13-001572, ECF, PP, CAE) EXHIBITS ADMITTED DURING HEARING SEPA Appeal Exhibits Exhibit A: City of Renton Environmental Analysis (Attachments 1-18 are listed as Preliminary Plat Exhibits 1-18 below) Exhibit B: Environmental (SEPA) Determination of Non-Significance Mitigated Preliminary Plat Exhibit 22 below) Exhibit C: Environmental Checklist (June 10, 2014) Exhibit D: Comprehensive Plan (Land Use, Transportation and Community Design Elements) Exhibit E: Acceptance and Notice of Application Affidavit Service by Mailing (November 24, 2014) Exhibit F: Notice of Application and Off Hold Notice Affidavit Service by Mailing (July 25, 2014) Exhibit G: Commitment for Title Insurance Exhibit H: TPWAG Letter to Renton School District (September 10, 2014) Exhibit I: Renton School District Letter of Denial to TPWAG (September 16, 2014) Exhibit J: Henley Appeal Exhibit K: Henley SEPA Appeal Exhibits 1.a.HEX Staff Recommendation Report b.Pre-Application Notes C.Wetland Determination (October 30, 2013) d. Wetland Determination (February 28, 2014) 2. Letter Report from Ray Coglas 3. RSD Resolution No. 0312/13 4.SPU Letter (November 4, 2014) 5.Drainage Release 6.Site Maps and Aerial Photos 7. Airsoft Guns Documentation 8.Revised Plans, Alternate Layouts 9. COR COW Meeting (September 9, 2013) 10. Area Water Well Logs 11. Legal Analysis and Argument (November 18, 2014) 12. Soundview Consultants Letter, Racheal Villa 13. Grete Associates Report, 2008 Exhibit L: TPWAG Appeal Exhibit M: TWPAG SEPA Appeal Exhibits 19. TIR Report (November 12, 2013) 6f. - City Clerk reports appeal of the Hearing Examiner's final decision upon Page 278 of 517 W 21. TIA Report (November 2013) 23. Tree Protection Report (November 13, 2013) 24. SEPA Checklist (November 13, 2013) 39. Miscellaneous Photographs of Surrounding Site 40. Professional Qualifications—Steven Neugebauer 41. Neugebauer Expert Report (November 17, 2014) 47. Pre-Hearing Statement regarding Prescriptive Easement (November 18, 2014) 48. TPWAG Correspondence with Renton School District Exhibit N: Staff Appeal Analysis (November 18, 2014) Exhibit O: Henley Pre-Hearing Order Request Exhibit P: Hearing Examiner Order Requesting Reply to Pre-Hearing Order Request Exhibit Q: TPWAG Response to Pre-Hearing Order Request Exhibit R: City Response to Pre-Hearing Order Request Exhibit S: Henley Response to Pre-Hearing Order Request Exhibit T: Pre-Hearing Order Exhibit U: McMonagle Notice of Appearance Exhibit V: Flatley Resume Exhibit X: Lee Resume Exhibit Y: Declaration of Timmons Exhibit Z: Not Used Exhibit AA: Renton Reporter Article (Donnelly) Exhibit AB: Letter to Editor(Donnelly) Exhibit AC: 5 Photographs (Donnelly) Exhibit AD: TPWAG Memo on HEX Authority and Halverson v. Bellevue (November 28, 2014) Exhibit AE: City of Renton Response to TPWAG Memo of 11/28/14 (December 5, 2014) Exhibit AF: Henley Response to TPWAG Memo of 11/28/14 (December 5, 2014) Exhibit AG: Hearing Examiner Ruling on Examiner Authority and Halverson v. Bellevue December 7, 2014) Exhibit AH: Title Report/Chain of Title (TPWAG) Exhibit Al: Roenicke TPWAG Summary Testimony Exhibit AJ: Garlough TPWAG Summary Testimony Exhibit AK: Timeline Preliminary Plat Exhibits Exhibit 1: HEX Report Exhibit 2: Preliminary Plat Plan (July 16, 2014) Exhibit 3: Tree Cutting and Land Clearing Plan (July 16, 2014) Exhibit 4: Tree Protection Report (June 6, 2014) Exhibit 5: Revised Wetland Determination and Response Letter (June 3, 2014) Exhibit 6: Habitat Assessment (January 16, 2014) Exhibit 7: Geotechnical Report (September 28, 2012) Exhibit 8: Drainage Report (February 24, 2014) Exhibit 9: Traffic Impact Analysis (April 23, 2014) 6f. - City Clerk reports appeal of the Hearing Examiner's final decision upon Page 279 of 517 Iftw Exhibit 10: Public Comment Letters: *10.1-10.70 Exhibit 11: Alternative Tree Cutting and Land Clearing Plan (August 29, 2014) Exhibit 12: Alternative Tree Protection Report (August 27, 2014) Exhibit 13: Independent Secondary Review - Traffic Exhibit 14: Independent Secondary Review—Wetland (April 3, 2014) Exhibit 15: Supplemental Independent Secondary Review—Wetland (July 9, 2014) Exhibit 16: Habitat Assessment Technical Memorandum (February 11, 2014) Exhibit 17: Habitat Assessment Technical Memorandum (June 12, 2014) Exhibit 18: Landscape Plan (July 16, 2014) Exhibit 19: Transportation Concurrency Approval Exhibit 20: Renton Trails and Bikeways Map Exhibit 21: Environment Review Committee (ERC) Staff report Exhibit 22: SEPA Determination and Mitigation Measures (September 22, 2014) Exhibit 23: Public Meeting Notice Exhibit 24: Notice of Application Affidavits Exhibit AL: Staff PowerPoint Presentation Exhibit AM: Applicant Letter of Revised Plat Conditions (December 8, 2014) Exhibit AO: Shared Driveway Exhibit AP: Jones, Photographs Exhibit AQ: Henley Homes Reviews from Internet 6f. - City Clerk reports appeal of the Hearing Examiner's final decision upon Page 280 of 517 CITY OF RENTON COUNCIL AGENDA BILL Subject/Title: 2015 Neighborhood Project Grant Applications Meeting: REGULAR COUNCIL - 06 Apr 2015 Exhibits: A. Issue Paper Submitting Data: Dept/Div/Board: Community Services Staff Contact: Norma McQuiller, Neighborhood Program Supervisor, ext. 6595 Recommended Action: Refer to Community Services Committee. Fiscal Impact: Expenditure Required: $ 45,252.00 Transfer Amendment: $N/A Amount Budgeted: $ 72,950.00 Revenue Generated: $N/A Total Project Budget: $ N/A City Share Total Project: $ N/A SUMMARY OF ACTION: Five 2015 Neighborhood Project Grant applications were received for a total funding request of $45,252. The interdepartmental Grant Review Team analyzed the applications and recommended the five projects for funding based on the criteria of meeting the overall objectives of the Neighborhood Program. STAFF RECOMMENDATION: Approve funding all five 2015 Neighborhood Project Grants and authorize expenditures in the amount of $45,252 from the budgeted 2015 Neighborhood Program fund. 6g. - Community Services Department recommends approving five 2015 Page 281 of 517 COMMUNITY SERVICES DEPARTMENT M E M O R A N D U M DATE: March 24, 2015 TO: Ed Prince, Council President Members of City Council VIA: Denis Law, Mayor FROM: Terry Higashiyama, Administrator STAFF CONTACT: Norma McQuiller, Neighborhood Program Coordinator, Ext. 6595 SUBJECT: 2015 Neighborhood Project Grant Applications ISSUE: Should five applications for 2015 Neighborhood Project Grants be approved for funding? RECOMMENDATION: Approve the five requested 2015 Neighborhood Project Grants and authorize expenditures in the amount of $45,252 from the budgeted 2015 Neighborhood Program fund. BACKGROUND SUMMARY: The City Council appropriated $72,590 in the 2015 General Fund budget for the three Neighborhood Grant Programs: Neighborhood Newsletter/Communication Grants; Neighborhood Project Grants; and Neighborhood Mini-grant Projects. The Neighborhood Program announced the availability of funds in January for the 2015 Newsletter/ Communication Grants for Officially Recognized Neighborhoods. The total amount of the eligible communication grant requests came to $14,894, leaving a balance of $57,696 for the remaining two Neighborhood Project Grant categories. Five Project Grant applications were received for a total request of $45,252 in funding. The inter-depart- mental Grant Review Team analyzed the applications and recommended five projects for funding based on the criteria of meeting the overall objectives of the Neighborhood Program, which are:  Project developed with a realistic budget.  Documentation shows neighborhood participation and adequate volunteer labor reflecting community support for the project.  Project includes maintenance after project completion.  Physical improvements are visible and benefit a large area of a community.  Sufficient matching funds exist through volunteer labor, cash, and/or materials. A total of $45,252 in matching funds is recommended, which will leave a balance of $12,444 available for the Mini-grant Program and funding for a second round of 2015 Neighborhood Project Grants. 6g. - Community Services Department recommends approving five 2015 Page 282 of 517 Ed Prince, Council President Members of City Council March 24, 2015 Page 2 h:\deputy city clerk\agenda\agenda 2015\04 - april\4-6-15\issue paper 2015 neighborhood project grants 03252015.docx 3/30/2015 The eligible applications are listed in the following table with a brief project synopsis. 2015 Neighborhood Project Grant Recommendations *Note: The above amounts are rounded to the nearest dollar. Neighborhood Grant Request Total Project Cost Project Description Yes Meets Neighborhood Program Objectives South Renton Neighborhood Association $3,367 $6,734 Plant 17 Apollo Maple trees within the neighborhood. Yes. Starwood HOA $19,888 $39,776 Certified Playground Company will install a play structure in the neighborhood common area. This will allow children to play, as well as serve as a gathering place. Yes. A Building Permit is needed if the play structure exceeds 10-feet in height and 150 square feet. Sorrento HOA $4,111 $8,222 Install an entrance sign to identify the neighborhood. Yes. Signs are attractive, will provide a neighborhood identity and also pride and ownership. Victoria Park HOA $13,560 $27,120 Certified Playground Company will install a play structure in the neighborhood common area. This will allow children to play, as well as serve as a gathering place. Yes. A Building Permit is needed if the play structure exceeds 10-feet in height and 150 square feet. LaCrosse HOA $4,326 $8,652 Expand current community garden to include irrigation and a Blueberry Patch and Grape Arbor to be shared by all. Yes. Irrigation and added blueberries and grapes will benefit residents and the local food bank. 6g. - Community Services Department recommends approving five 2015 Page 283 of 517 Ed Prince, Council President Members of City Council March 24, 2015 Page 2 h:\deputy city clerk\agenda\agenda 2015\04 - april\4-6-15\issue paper 2015 neighborhood project grants 03252015.docx 3/30/2015 CONCLUSION: The Neighborhood Grant Program continues to provide neighborhood associations with opportunities to promote and improve their community while getting to know their neighbors better. The recommended expenditures are an appropriate use of City funds. cc: Casey Stanley, Neighborhoods, Resources and Events Manager Norma McQuiller, Neighborhood Coordinator Jennifer Jorgenson, Administrative Secretary 6g. - Community Services Department recommends approving five 2015 Page 284 of 517 CITY OF RENTON COUNCIL AGENDA BILL Subject/Title: May Creek Property Acquisition Meeting: REGULAR COUNCIL - 06 Apr 2015 Exhibits: A. Issue Paper B. Agreement C. Addendum to Agreement D. May Creek Fawcett Location Map E. May Creek Fawcett Site Map Submitting Data: Dept/Div/Board: Community Services Staff Contact: Leslie Betlach, Parks Planning and Natural Resources Director, ext. 6619 Recommended Action: Refer to Finance Committee. Fiscal Impact: Expenditure Required: $ 824,000.00 Transfer Amendment: $0 Amount Budgeted: $ 868,334.00 Revenue Generated: $868,334.00 Total Project Budget: $ 868,334.00 City Share Total Project: $ 0 SUMMARY OF ACTION: The City of Renton, King County, and more recently the City of Newcastle, have been acquiring property along May Creek since the late 1980's for a continuous corridor extending from Lake Washington to King County's Cougar Mountain Regional Wildland Park. The 5.73 acre Fawcett property is a critical missing link in making this connection. In December 2014, the City and the property owner executed a Purchase and Sales Agreement with several contingencies - one of which included each entity securing an independent appraisal. The appraisals were within $1,000.00 of one another and the City agreed to use the higher appraised value of $785,000.00. With project expenses to include title and appraisal work, an environmental assessment, closing fees, etc., the estimated total project costs are $824,000.00. Two King County Conservation Futures grants totaling $868,334.00 are proposed to fund this acquisition. In 2014, the City was recommended for an award of $174,000.00 which will be available to the City mid-year 2015. In 2015, the City applied for a $694,334.00 grant with a recommendation for the award to be made in September 2015; funding will be available in 2016. Should the City not be recommended for full award of the second grant, the City's King County 2007 Proposition 2 Levy Fund and/or the City's Park Impact Mitigation Fund (fund 303) will cover any shortfalls. The Addendum to the Agreement commits the City to purchasing the property for $785,000.00 once all of the remaining contingencies have been met. STAFF RECOMMENDATION: Authorize the Mayor and City Clerk to execute the Addendum to the Purchase and Sale Agreement for the Fawcett property with an agreed upon price of $785,000.00. Once all remaining contingencies have been met, authorize city staff to acquire property with total project expenses estimated at $824,000.00. Adjust the budget as described. 6h. - Community Services Department recommends approval of an amendment Page 285 of 517 h:\deputy city clerk\agenda\agenda 2015\04 - april\4-6-15\issue paper on fawcett acquisition.doc COMMUNITY SERVICES DEPARTMENT M E M O R A N D U M DATE: March 30, 2015 TO: VIA: Ed Prince, Council President Members of Renton City Council Denis Law, Mayor FROM: Terry Higashiyama, Community Services Administrator STAFF CONTACT: Leslie Betlach, Parks Planning and Natural Resources Director SUBJECT: May Creek Property Acquisition Issue: Should the Council authorize the Mayor and City Clerk to execute the Addendum to the Purchase and Sale Agreement for the Fawcett property for $785,000.00? Once all of the contingencies have been met, should the Council authorize the City staff to acquire the property with total project expenses estimated at $824,000.00? Should the Council authorize the potential transfer of funds and adjust the budget if grant proceeds do not fully cover acquisition costs? Recommendation: Authorize the Mayor and City Clerk to execute the Addendum to the Purchase and Sales Agreement. Authorize City staff to acquire the property, once all contingencies have been met. Authorize the transfer of funds and adjust the budget if grant proceeds do not fully cover the acquisition costs. Background: Since the late 1980’s the City of Renton and King County, and more recently the City of Newcastle, have been acquiring property along May Creek. The long term goal is for a continuous corridor from Lake Washington east to King County’s 3,115 acre Cougar Mountain Regional Wildland Park – which also connects to Bellevue’s Coal Creek Park and the Lake Washington Loop Trail system. City staff has been conversing with the Fawcett family since 1990 regarding this 5.7 acre acquisition as this is a key parcel in the overall corridor. In late 2014, the City was approached about acquiring the property and the City and property owner entered into a Purchase and Sales Agreement with several contingencies to include:  Completion of a satisfactory Level I Environment Assessment at the City’s expense (in progress) 6h. - Community Services Department recommends approval of an amendment Page 286 of 517 Ed Prince, Council President Renton City Council Members Page 2 of 2 March 30, 2015 h:\deputy city clerk\agenda\agenda 2015\04 - april\4-6-15\issue paper on fawcett acquisition.doc  Obtaining committed funding for the purchase (see below)  Approval of the purchase by the Renton City Council (seeking)  Obtaining insurable title satisfactory to the City (in progress) The Purchase and Sale Agreement intentionally did not identify a purchase price. The City and the property owner agreed to secure independent appraisals at their own expense, and within five days following receipt of the appraisals negotiate in good faith to agree upon Fair Market Value. The appraisals were within $1,000.00 of one another. The agreed upon value of $785,000.00 is included in Addendum “A” to the Purchase and Sale Agreement. Once the Addendum is fully executed and per the Purchase and Sale Agreement, the City has thirty (30) business days to deposit $5,000.00 in Earnest Money. The Earnest Money will be held in escrow and accrue interest which will be credited to the City and applied to the Purchase Price of $785,000.00. The total estimated acquisition costs to include title and appraisal work, environmental assessment, closing fees, etc., is $824,000.00. Two King County Conservation Futures grants totaling $868,334.00 will fund this acquisition. In 2014, the City applied for and was recommended for an award of $174,000.00 which will be available in 2015. In 2015 the City applied for a $694,334.00 grant to fund the Fawcett acquisition and utilized the value of two recent property donations as part of the grant match (Kenyon-Dobson Park and May Valley Meadows). The City will be notified in September of this year the amount of the award; funding will be available in 2016. Should the City not be recommended for full award of the second (Fawcett) grant, the City’s King County 2007 Proposition 2 Levy Fund and/or the City’s Park Impact Mitigation Fund (fund 303) will cover any shortfalls. The current balance of the KC Levy Fund is $457,486.00 and funding can only be used for open space acquisition and trails. We anticipate transferring $150,000.00 from the KC Levy Fund to the Riverview Park Bridge Replacement project leaving a remaining balance of $307,486.00. The current balance of the Park Impact Mitigation Fund is $1,219,359.00. Due to the funding constraints of the 2007 KC Proposition 2 Levy monies, the Levy fund would first be utilized to offset any shortfalls. Conclusion: The 5.7 acre Fawcett property is a missing link in the May Creek Greenway and critical to completing a continuous greenway system. This parcel will one day be a part of a multi- jurisdictional soft surface trail system. The Greenway also serves as an urban separator between more developed areas and protects steep and sensitive slopes, provides habitat for endangered salmon species, provides a wildlife and habitat corridor, and land for surface water storage capacity. Cc: Jay Covington, Chief Administrative Officer Iwen Wang, Administrative Services Administrator Larry Warren, City Attorney 6h. - Community Services Department recommends approval of an amendment Page 287 of 517 REALESTATEPURCHASEANDSALEAGREEMENTTHISAGREEMENT,datedDecemberc..,2014(“Agreement”),isbetweenCreekPartnersLLC,aWashingtonlimitedliabilitycompany(“Seller”),andCityofRenton,anonchartercodecityunderRCW35A,andamunicipalcorporationunderthelawsoftheStateofWashington,(“Purchaser”),andismadeforthepurposeofpurchaseandsaleofthefollowingdescribedrealproperty.-Inconsiderationofthecovenantsandagreementshereinaftermade,thepartiesagreeasfollows:1.DescriptionofProperty:PurchaseragreestopurchasefromSeller,andSelleragreestoselluntoPurchaser,thefollowingdescribedrealproperty,referredtointhisAgreementas“thepremises”:SEEEXHIBITA,attachedheretoandincorporatedhereThbythisreference.SellerandPurchaserherebyauthorizetheinsertionovertheirsignaturesofthecorrectlegaldescriptionoftheabove-designatedpropertyifunavailableattimeofsigning,ortocorrectthelegaldescriptionpreviouslyenterediferroneousorincomplete.2.PurchasePrice:a.ThePurchasePricetobepaidbythePurchasertoSellerforthepremisesshallbetheFairMarketValueoftheProperty,asdefinedbelow.ThePurchasePriceshallbepaidincashatClosing.PURCHASEANDSALEAGREEMENT-;6h. - Community Services Department recommends approval of an amendment Page 288 of 517 b.Asusedherein,theterm“FairMarketValue”shallmeanthefairmarketvalueofthepremisesasofthedateofthisAgreementasdeterminedbytheappraisalprocedureinthisSection2(b).FollowingmutualexecutionofthisAgreementPurchaserandSellershalleachselectandretain,atitsowncost,anM.A.l.appraisertodeterminetheFairMarketValueofthepremisesandissueanappraisalreport.ByonorbeforeApril1,2015,eachparty’sappraisershallcompleteitsappraisalreportandacopyshallbedeliveredtobothparties.Withinfive(5)daysfollowingthedateofreceiptofbothappraisalreportsbytheparties,thepartiesshallnegotiateingoodfaithtoagreeupontheFairMarketValueofthepremisesbyreferencetothevaluesintheappraisalreports.IfthepartiesagreeupontheFairMarketValue,thepartiesshallexecuteanamendmenttotheAgreementspecifyingtheFairMarketValueasthePurchasePrice.IfthepartiesareunabletotimelyagreeuponsuchFairMarketValue,thisAgreementshallautomaticallyterminate,uponwhichtheEarnestMoneyshallberefundedtoPurchaserandneitherpartyshallhaveanyfurtherrightsorliabilitiesunderthisAgreement,otherthanPurchaser’sindemnityobligationsinconnectionwithpre-closinginvestigationactivities.c.EarnestMoney.Withinthirty(30)businessdaysafterthemutualexecutionofthisAgreement,PurchasershalldepositEarnestMoneyintheamountoffivethousanddollarsandno/100($5,000.00)withtheClosingAgent.TheEarnestMoneyisintheformofcashdepositedwiththeClosingAgent.TheEarnestMoneyshallbenon-refundabletoPurchaser,exceptasprovidedinthisAgreement.TheEarnestMoneyshallbeheldbyClosingAgent,inescrow.ExceptasotherwiseprovidedinthisAgreement,theEarnestMoneyandallaccruedinterestwillbecreditedtothePurchaseratClosingandappliedtothePurchasePrice.PURCHASEANDSALEAGREEMENT-26h. - Community Services Department recommends approval of an amendment Page 289 of 517 3.Title:Titletothepremisesshallbeconveyedfreeofencumbrancesordefects,atclosing,exceptthefollowing(the“PermittedExceptions”):encumbrances,restrictionsandreservationsofrecordandgeneraltothearea,rightsreservedinFederalPatentsorStateDeeds,reservedoiland/ormineralrights,buildingoruserestrictionsgeneraltothedistrict,existingeasementsnotinconsistentwiththeintendeduseofthepremises,anyencroachmentsorclaimsofadversepossessionorprescriptiveeasementwhichasurveyofthelegaldescriptionhereinmayreveal,andbuildingandzoningregulationsorprovisions.Thetitleinsurancepolicytobeissuedshallcontainnoexceptionsotherthanthoseconsistentwiththeforegoingsentenceandasprovidedinthestandardform.Iftitleisnotinsurableasaboveprovidedand/orcannotbemadesoinsurablebytheterminationdatesetforthherein,SellershallnotbeindefaultunderthisAgreement,unlessSellerhasintentionallyfailedorrefusedtodelivertitle,thisAgreementshallbeterminatedandPurchasershallreceivethereturnofitsEarnestMoney.Apreliminarycommitmentforastandardformowner’spolicyoftitleinsurancehasbeenorderedfromFirstAmericanTitle,OrderNo.702450.Thefinalstandardfromowner’spolicyoftitleinsurancewillbeorderedbytheClosingAgentandissuedatPurchaser’sexpense.4.Conveyance:TransferofSeller’sinterestinthepremisesshallbebyStatutoryWarrantyDeedsubjecttothePermittedExceptions.5.Prorations:Taxesforthecurrentyear,assessmentsthatarePermittedExceptionsforthecurrentyear,tents,insurance,interest,mortgagereserves,waterandotherutilitiesconstitutingliensonthepremisesshallbeproratedasofdateofclosing.PURCHASEANDSALEAGREEMENT-36h. - Community Services Department recommends approval of an amendment Page 290 of 517 6.Closing:Thispurchaseshallbeclosedonthatdate(“ClosingDate”)thatisadateselectedbyPurchaserandreasonablyacceptabletoSellerthatiswithinthirty(30)daysafterPurchaser’sremovalofallcontingencies,butinanyeventnotlaterthanJuly20,2015;providedthattheClosingDatemaybefurtherextendedbyagreementofthepartiestoadatethatisreasonablyacceptabletobothparties.ThepartieswilldepositinescrowwiththeClosingAgentallinstrumentsandmoneysnecessarytocompletethispurchaseinaccordancewiththisAgreement.ThecostofescrowshallbepaidbythePurchaser.ClosingofthepurchaseandsaleshalloccurwhenthestatutorywarrantydeedhasbeendeliveredandrecordedandthepurchasepricehasbeendeliveredtoSellerorisavailabletoSeller.TheClosingAgentshallbeSherriSmyth,ChicagoTitleofWashington,15215SE272’SI,Suite101,Kent,WA98042,(253)856-9760.7.Possession:SellershalldeliverpossessiontoPurchaserondateofclosing.8.Seller’srepresentationsandwarranties:SellerrepresentsandwarrantstoPurchaserasfollows:a.SellerhasfullpowerandauthoritytoconveythepremisestoPurchaser.b.Sellerhasnotreceivedanynoticeofnon-compliancewithapplicablezoning,land-use,building,construction,subdivisionandotherlocal,stateandfederallaws,ordinancesandregulationsorwithexistingcovenants,conditions,restrictionsandeasements.c.TotheSeller’sknowledge,SellerhasnotpurposefullyalteredorwithheldanyDueDiligenceMaterialsandotherinstrumentsanddocumentsdeliveredtoPurchaserpursuanttothisAgreement(the“WarrantedMaterials”).PURCHASEANDSALEAGREEMENT-46h. - Community Services Department recommends approval of an amendment Page 291 of 517 d.Sellerhasnotreceivednoticeofanyspecialassessmentornoticeofanycondemnationproceedingsaffectingthepremises.e.TotheSeller’sknowledge,thereisnolitigationpendingorthreatenedagainstSellerthatarisesoutoftheownershipofthepremises.f.SellerhasreceivednonoticeofanyfailureofSellertocomplywithanyapplicablegovernmentalrequirementsinrespectoftheuse,occupationandconstructionofthepremises,including,butnotlimitedto,environmental,fire,health,safety,zoning,subdivisionandotherlanduserequirementsthathavenotbeencorrectedtothesatisfactionoftheappropriategovernmentalauthority,andSellerhasreceivednonoticeof,andhasnoknowledgeof,anyinvestigationrelatingtoanysuchgovernmentalrequirement.g.SellerhasreceivednonoticeofanydefaultorbreachbySellerunderanycovenants,conditions,restrictions,rightsofwayoreasementsthatmayaffectSellerinrespecttothepremisesormayaffectthepremisesoranyportionthereofandnosuchdefaultorbreachnowexists.h.ToSeller’sknowledge,nobuildingorotherimprovementencroachesonthepremises.i.ThereatenoleasesaffectinganypartofthepremisesotherthanthosedeliveredtoPurchaser,andtherearenowrittenororalpromises,understandingsoragreementsbetweenSellerandanytenantthathavenotbeendisclosedbySelleraspartofthematerialsprovidedtothePurchaser.PURCHASEANDSALEAGREEMENT-S6h. - Community Services Department recommends approval of an amendment Page 292 of 517 j.TotheSeller’sknowledgetherearenopermits,licensesorconsentsrequiredbyanygovernmentalauthorityinconnectionwiththeSeller’scurrentuseofthepremisesexceptthosepreviouslyobtainedbySelleranddeliveredtoPurchaser,andSellerhasreceivednonoticeoftheformationofanylocalimprovementdistrictsproposedwhichwillaffectthepremises.k.[IntentionallyOmitted.]I.[IntentionallyOmitted.]m.SellerisnotaforeignpersonasdefinedinSection1445oftheInternalRevenueCode.n.Alloftherepresentations,warrantiesandcovenantsofSellercontainedinthisAgreementaretrueandcorrectasoftheeffectivedateandasoftheClosingDateandwillsurvivetheclosingofthetransactioncontemplatedbythisAgreement.AsusedinthisAgreement,“Seller’sknowledge”or“Seller’sactualknowledge”referstoandislimitedtothecurrentactualknowledgeofGregFawcettwithoutadditionalinquiryorinvestigation.PURCHASEANDSALEAGREEMENT-66h. - Community Services Department recommends approval of an amendment Page 293 of 517 9.Hazardousmaterial:a.Definitions:(1)Definitionof“EnvironmentalLaw5”:Theterm“EnvironmentalLaws”meansanyandallstate,federalandlocalstatutes,regulationsandordinancesrelatingtotheprotectionofhumanhealthandtheenvironment.(2)Definitionof“HazardousMaterial”:Theterm“HazardousMaterial”meansanyhazardousortoxicsubstance,materialorwaste,including,butnotlimitedto,thosesubstances,materialsandwasteslistedintheUnitedStatesDepartmentofTransportationHazardousMaterialsTable(49C.F.R.§172.101),asitexistsormaybeamended;intheUnitedStatesEnvironmentalProtectionAgencyTable302.4—ListofHazardousSubstancesandReportableQuantities(40C.F.R.§302.4),asitexistsormaybeamended;intheStateofWashingtonModelToxicsControlAct(RCW70.105D),asitexistsormaybeamended;asdefinedintheHazardousSubstanceTax—ModelToxicsControlAct(RCW82.21.020(1)),asitexistsormaybeamended;andanyothersubstances,materialsandwastesasbecomeregulatedorsubjecttocleanupauthorityunderanyEnvironmentalLaws.b.CompliancewithEnvironmentalLaws:Sellerrepresentsandwarrantsthat:(1)SellerhasnoactualknowledgeofthereleaseorpresenceofanyHazardousMaterialon,in,fromorontothepremises;PURCHASEANDSALEAGREEMENT-76h. - Community Services Department recommends approval of an amendment Page 294 of 517 (2)Sellerhasnotgenerated,manufactured,refined,transported,stored,handled,disposedoforreleasedanyHazardousMaterialonthepremises,norhasSellerpermittedtheforegoing;(3)TotheSeller’sactualknowledge,SellerhasobtainedallapprovalsandcausedallnotificationstobemadeasrequiredbyEnvironmentalLaws;(4)TotheSeller’sactualknowledge,SellerhasnotreceivedanynoticeofanyviolationofanyEnvironmentalLaws;(5)TotheSeller’sactualknowledge,noactionhasbeencommencedorthreatenedregardingSeller’scompliancewithanyEnvironmentalLaws;(6)TotheSeller’sactualknowledge,notanksusedforthestorageofanyHazardousMaterialaboveorbelowgroundarepresentonoraboutthepremises;and(7)TotheSeller’sactualknowledge,noactionhasbeencommencedorthreatenedregardingthepresenceofanyHazardousMaterialonoraboutthepremises.c.Nowaiverofliability:Sellerhasnotreleasedorwaivedandwillnotreleaseorwaivetheliabilityofanypreviousowner,lesseeoroperatorofthepremisesoranypartywhomaybepotentiallyresponsibleforthepresenceorremovalofHazardousMaterialonoraboutthepremises.SellerhasmadenopromisesofindemnificationregardingHazardousMaterialtoanyparty.d.Representations;ConditionofPremises.PurchaseracknowledgesthatpriortoClosing,Purchasershallhaveinspectedthepremises,andasofClosing,Purchaserwillhavesatisfieditselfinallrespectstherewith,including,butnotlimitedto,allmattersrelatedtoPURCHASEANDSALEAGREEMENT-86h. - Community Services Department recommends approval of an amendment Page 295 of 517 HazardousSubstances,andthatPurchaserwillbepurchasingthepremisesonanASIS,WHEREISbasis.Purchaseragreesthat,otherthantheexpresswarrantiescontainedinSection2hereinorinthestatutorywarrantydeed,Sellerhasmadenorepresentations,warrantiesoragreementsofanykindornature,regardingthepremises,expressorimpliedandSellerexpresslydisclaimsanywarrantiesorrepresentations,whetherexpressorimplied,includinganywarrantyofhabitability,merchantability,orfitnessforaparticularpurpose,includingwithoutlimitationanyofthefollowingmattersinanywayrelatedtoorarisingfrom:(1)thestabilityorsuitabilityofthesoilonthepremises;(2)thepresenceorabsenceofanyhazardoussubstancesin,on,underoraboutthepremises;(3)building,zoning,sensitivearea,andallsimilarStateandlocallawsorotherlaw,rule,ordinanceorregulationrestrictingtheuse,renovation,repair,improvement,oroccupancyofthepremisesforanypurpose;(4)thesizeorareaofthepremisesandthelocationofboundaries;and(5)anydefectiveconditionofthepremises;andPurchaserherebyreleases,waives,andrenouncesanyclaimagainstSellerrelatedtoanyorallofthemattersdiscussedinthisSection9(d).TheprovisionsofthisSection9(d)shallsurvivetheClosing.e.EnvironmentalStudy.Purchaser,uponreasonablenoticetoSellerwillhavetherighttotakesoilandwatersamples(includinggroundwatersamples)fromthepremises,andtotestandanalyzethosesamplestodeterminetheextentofanycontaminationofthesoilsandwater(includinggroundwater)onoraboutthepremises.If,basedontheresultsofthoseinspectionsand/ortests,PurchaserdeterminesthattheconditionofthepremisesisunsatisfactoryorifPurchaserbelievesthatitsownershipofthepremiseswouldPURCHASEANDSALEAGREEMENT-96h. - Community Services Department recommends approval of an amendment Page 296 of 517 exposePurchasertounduerisksofgovernmentinterventionorthird-partyliability,Purchasermay,withoutliability,upondeliveryofwrittennoticetoSeller(“CancellationNotice”)cancelthepurchaseofthepremisesandterminatethisAgreement,and,providedthatsuchCancellationNoticeisdeliveredtoSellerbyonorbeforeonehundredtwenty(120)daysafterthedateofmutualexecutionofthisAgreement(“NoticeDeadline”),PurchasershallreceiveafullrefundoftheEarnestMoneyandallaccruedinterest.IfPurchaserdeliversaCancellationNoticeaftertheNoticeDeadline,thisAgreementshallterminate,SellershallretaintheEarnestMoneyandneitherpartyshallhaveanyfurtherobligationtotheotherunderthisAgreement,I,otherthanPurchaser’sindemnityobligationsinconnectionwithpre-closinginvestigationactivities.10.Continuationandsurvivalofrepresentationsandwarranties:AllrepresentationsandwarrantiesbytherespectivepartiescontainedinthisAgreementormadeinwritingpursuanttothisAgreementareintendedtoandwillremaintrueandcorrectasofthetimeofclosing,willbedeemedtobematerialandwillsurvivetheexecutionanddeliveryofthisAgreementandthedeliveryofthestatutorywarrantydeedandtransferoftitle.Suchrepresentationsandwarranties,however,arenotassignableanddonotrunwiththeland,exceptasmaybeexpresslyprovidedhereinorcontainedinawritteninstrumentsignedbythepartytobecharged.11.Governinglaw:ThisAgreementwillbegovernedbyandconstruedinaccordancewiththelawsofthestateofWashington.PURCHASEANDSALEAGREEMENT-106h. - Community Services Department recommends approval of an amendment Page 297 of 517 12.Nonmerger:ThetermsandprovisionsofthisAgreement,including,withoutlimitation,allindemnificationobligations,willnotmergein,butwillsurvive,theclosingofthetransactioncontemplatedunderthisAgreement.13.Default:a.IfPurchaserfailstopurchasethepremisesinaccordancewithitsobligationsunderthisAgreement,Seller’sexclusiveremedyforsuchfailureshallbetoterminatethisAgreementandretaintheEarnestMoney,thepartiesagreeingthatthedamagesthatwouldbeincurredbySellerinsucheventwouldbedifficultorimpossibletodeterminewithprecisionandthattheamountoftheEarnestMoneyisreasonableinlightofsuchdifficultyorimpossibility,thepurchaseprice,andthenatureofthepremises.Theforegoingshallnot,however,limitanyrightofSellertoindemnificationordefenseprovidedinthisAgreement,ortheprovisionsofthisAgreementprovidingforpaymentofattorneys’feesintheeventofadispute,oranyofSeller’srightsunderapplicablelawintheeventthatPurchaserbreachesanycovenantoragreement,exceptforthecovenanttoclose.b.IfSellerdefaultsinitscontractualperformanceherein,thePurchasermayelectto:(1)seekspecificperformancepursuanttothetermsofthisAgreement,damages,orrescission;or(2)receivearefundoftheEarnestMoneyandallaccruedinterest.Purchasershallbedeemedtohaveelectedtheremedyinclause(2)unlessPurchaserfilesalawsuitforthereliefdescribedinclause(1)withinsixty(60)daysfromthedatePurchaserhasknowledgeofSeller’sdefault.InnoeventshallPurchaserbeentitledtorecoverconsequentialdamages,suchaslostprofits.PURCHASEANDSALEAGREEMENT-li6h. - Community Services Department recommends approval of an amendment Page 298 of 517 c.Thenon-defaultingpartyshallbeentitledtorecoveritscostsandattorney’sfeesintheeventcounselisretainedasaresultofsuchdefault.14.Miscellaneous:TherearenoverbalorotheragreementswhichmodifyoraffectthisAgreement.TimeisoftheessenceofthisAgreement.Purchaserhasnotconsultedwith,nordiscoveredtherespectiveparcelsthroughtheuseofarealtororotheragentandtherearenofinder’sfeesorcommissionsdueuponthistransaction.Facsimileorelectronictransmissionofanysignedoriginaldocument,andretransmissionofanysignedfacsimileorelectronictransmission,shallbethesameastransmissionofanoriginal.Attherequestofeitherparty,ortheClosingAgent,thepartieswillconfirmfacsimileorelectronictransmittedsignaturesbysigninganoriginaldocument.NoticesgivenunderthisAgreementshallbeinwritingandshallbedeliveredpersonallyorsentbyUnitedStatesregularmail,postageprepaid,tothefollowingaddresses,orbyemailsenttotheemailaddressesidentifiedbelow:Seller:GregoryM.Fawcett,RegisteredAgentCreekPartnersLLC540$324thPLSEFallCity,WA98024Email:gfawcettcnwlink.comCreekPartnersLLCP0Box402FallCity,WA98024Email:gfawcett@nwlink.comPurchaser:CityofRentonAUN:LeslieBetlach1055SGradyWayPURCHASEANDSALEAGREEMENT-126h. - Community Services Department recommends approval of an amendment Page 299 of 517 Renton,WA98057Email:lbetlachrentonwa.govLawrencei.Warren,CityAttorneyCityofRenton1055SGradyWayRenton,WA98057Email:lwarren@rentonwa.gov15.ResidencyofSeller:SellerwarrantstoEscrowAgentthatifSellerisanindividual,Sellerisnotanon-residentalienforpurposesofU.S.incometaxationorifSellerisacorporation,partnership,trust,orestate,Sellerisnotaforeigncorporation,foreignpartnership,foreigntrustorforeignestate.16.Contingencies:TheobligationofthePurchaserunderthisAgreementiscontingentupontheoccurrenceofthefollowingonorbeforethedateofclosing:a.CompleteasatisfactoryLevelIEnvironmentalstudy,atPurchaser’sexpense,asspecifiedinSection9(e)ofthisagreement.b.Obtaincommittedfundingforthepurchase.c.ObtainapprovalofthepurchasebytheRentonCityCouncil.U.ObtaininsurabletitlesatisfactorytotheCity.17.RealPropertyTransferDisclosureStatement:TheSelleragreestoprovidetothePurchaserwithinfive(5)daysofthemutualacceptanceofthisagreementaRealPropertyTransferDisclosureStatementpursuanttoRCWChapter64.06.PURCHASEANDSALEAGREEMENT-136h. - Community Services Department recommends approval of an amendment Page 300 of 517 SELLER:CREEKPARTNERSLLC,aWashingtonlimitedliabilitycompanyBy:WtATh’Lt)o/!GreM.Fawcett,ManagerDateBy:____________________________________SabraFawcett,MemberDateBy:Q.\?uct(,MiIoiifGeccLgeA.Fawcett,ManagerDatePURCHASEANDSALEAGREEMENT-146h. - Community Services Department recommends approval of an amendment Page 301 of 517 PURCHASER:CITYOFRENTONBy :____________DenisLaw,MayorDateATTEST:By:JasonA.Seth,CityClerkDatePURCHASEANDSALEAGREEMENT-156h. - Community Services Department recommends approval of an amendment Page 302 of 517 STATEOFWASHINGTONCOUNTYOFKING)55)THISISTOCERTiFYthatonthisC)dayof2-eCLV’fZ,2OjL,beforeme,theundersigned,anotarypublicinandforthestateofWashington,dulycommissionedandsworn,personallyappearedGregM.FawcetttomeknowntobeaManagerofCreekPartnersLIC,thelimitedliabilitycompanythatexecutedthewithinandforegoinginstrumentandacknowledgedthesaidinstrumenttobethefreeandvoluntaryactanddeedofsaidlimitedliabilitycompanyfortheusesandpurposesthereinmentioned,andonoathstatedthathewasauthorizedtoexecutesaidinstrument,andthatthesealaffixed,ifany,isthesealofsaidcompany.WITNESSmyhandandofficialsealthedayandyearinthiscertificatefirstabovewritten.ubStateof0hiflgt0hILSSUL(Ho’MGOMEXPiRESApriiO12017Signature:NotaryPubicinandforthestateofWashington.Notaryfprint):&Slzku\iStrpOC’%’._Residingin:(JJ’Myappointmentexpires:-oL—PURCHASEANDSALEAGREEMENT-166h. - Community Services Department recommends approval of an amendment Page 303 of 517 STATEOFWASHINGTON)55COUNTYOFKINGTHISISTOCERTIFYthatonthis__ _ _ __ _ _ __dayoffl-ec.JvV\.,2Oj,beforeme,theundersigned,anotarypublicinandforthestateofWashington,dulycommissionedandsworn,personallyappearedSabraFawcetttomeknowntobeaMemberofCreekPartnersICC,thelimitedliabilitycompanythatexecutedthewithinandforegoinginstrumentandacknowledgedthesaidinstrumenttobethefreeandvoluntaryactanddeedofsaidlimitedliabilitycompanyfortheusesandpurposesthereinmentioned,andonoathstatedthathewasauthorizedtoexecutesaidinstrument,andthatthesealaffixed,ifany,isthesealofsaidcompany.WITNESSmyhandandofficialsealthedayandyearinthiscertificatefirstabovewritten.ret______________________________________Signatu____________________________________k/hestateofWashington.NotaryNotaryPublicinastatefWashingtonAS’MSULKHANOVANotary(print):i-S&\V1JL’&Residingin:MYCOMMISSIONEXPIRESMyappointmentexpires:fl-c)c\0—z)PURCHASEANDSALEAGREEMENT-176h. - Community Services Department recommends approval of an amendment Page 304 of 517 STATEOFWASHINGTON)ssCOUNTYOFKINGTHISISTOCERTIFYthatonthis1)dayof___ _ __ _ __ _ __ _ __ _ _ ,2OjLbeforeme,theundersigned,anotarypublicinandforthestateofWashington,dulycommissionedandsworn,personallyappearedGeorgeA.FawcetttomeknowntobeaManagerofCreekPartnersICC,thelimitedliabilitycompanythatexecutedthewithinandforegoinginstrumentandacknowledgedthesaidinstrumenttobethefreeandvoluntaryactanddeedofsaidlimitedliabilitycompanyfortheusesandpurposesthereinmentioned,andonoathstatedthathewasauthorizedtoexecutesaidinstrument,andthatthesealaffixed,ifany,isthesealofsaidcompany.WITNESSmyhandandofficialsealthedayandyearinthiscertificatefirstabovewritten.Signature:_________________________________NotaryPublicinandJrthestate91Washington.NotaryPulticNotary(print):ftS%yxSLA\\ftC&vLStateofWaigton...ASResidingin:_1)MYCOMMISSIONEXPIRESMyappointmentexpires:Pr()C01tApnI01,2017PURCHASEANDSALEAGREEMENT-186h. - Community Services Department recommends approval of an amendment Page 305 of 517 STATEOFWASHINGTON)ssCOUNTYOFKINGTHISISTOCERTIFYthatonthis__ _ ___ _ _ ___dayof__ __ _ __ _ __ __ _ __ _ __ ,2Q_,beforeme,theundersigned,anotarypublicinandforthestateofWashington,dulycommissionedandsworn,personallyappearedMayorDenisLawtomeknowntobetheMayoroftheCityofRenton,themunicipalcorporationthatexecutedthewithinandforegoinginstrumentandacknowledgedthesaidinstrumenttobethefreeandvoluntaryactanddeedofsaidmunicipalcorporationfortheusesandpurposesthereinmentioned,andonoathstatedthathewasauthorizedtoexecutesaidinstrument,andthatthesealaffixed,ifany,isthecorporatesealofsaidcorporation.WITNESSmyhandandofficialsealthedayandyearinthiscertificatefirstabovewritten.Signature:______________________________________NotaryPublicinandforthestateofWashington.Notary(print):__________________________________Residingin:___________________________________Myappointmentexpires:_______________________PURCHASEANDSALEAGREEMENT-196h. - Community Services Department recommends approval of an amendment Page 306 of 517 PURCHASER:By:DenisLaw,MayorATTEST:PURCHASEANDSALEAGREEMENT-156h. - Community Services Department recommends approval of an amendment Page 307 of 517 EXHIBITATOREALESTATEPURCHASEANDSALEAGREEMENTLegalDescriptionofthePremisesOrderNo.702450A.L.T.A.CCMMITMENTECKEDULEA?age2Thelandreferredtointhiscommitn5ntissituatedintheStateofWashington,anddescribedasfollows:PARCELA:Thatportoonofthefollowingdescribedprcoer:ylyIngeastandsoutheastofStateWighweyNo.1:ThatportionofGovernnentLotIinSection32,Township24North,RangeSEast,W.M.,inKingCounty,Washington,describedasfollowsBegInningontheeastlineofsaidGovernmentLotI,southDl42’13”west30feetfronthenortheastcornerthereof;ThencesouthO142’l3”west963.80fee:;Thencenorth8443’54”west644.44feet:Thencesouth01tl’02”west329.55feettoapointiifeetnorthofthesouthlineofsaidGov5rnmentLot1;Thencenorth8B4B’S5”wee:20feet:Thencenorth01’ll’02”east151.56feet;Thencenorth835S4S”west415.57feet;Thencenorth77l0’30”west409.2feettotheeasterlymarginofLakeWashingtonBoulevard;Thencenorth3056’13”eastalongsaideasterlymargin907.39feet;Thenceonacurvetotherighthavingaradiusof65.49feet,distant68.44feettoapoint30feetsouthcithenorthlineofsaidGovernmentLot1;Thencestuth88S0’10”east927.54feettothepointofbeginning;EXCEPTthatportionconveyedtoKingCountyforl08AvenueSoutheastbydeedrecordedunderRecordingNumber5700301.PARCEL3:ThatportioncfthefollowingdescribedpropertylyingeastofStateWighwavNo.IasdeededtotheStateofWashingtonbydeedrecordedunderRecordingNumber4673375:AportionofGovernmentLotI,Section32,Township24North,RangeSEast,W.M.,inKingCounty,Washington,describedasfollows:Beginningatapointontheeastlineofsaidlotfromwhichtilenortheastcornerthereofbearsnorth142‘13’eastadistanceoi993.80feet;Thencesouth142’l3”westalongtheeastlineofsaidlot,340.55feettothesoutheastcornerthereof;tcontinuedEXHIBITA6h. - Community Services Department recommends approval of an amendment Page 308 of 517 OrderNo.7D246OA.L.T.A.CCt’ITMENTSCXEDULEAPage3ZRDESCRIPTION,con:inud:Thencealcoathesouth.lineofsaidlctnorth8348’S3”west641.3SfeetThencenorthIii’O2’east340.55feet;Thencesouth8848’E6”west641.35fee:tothepointofbeginning;EXCEPTINGtherefromtheportionoftheabovedescribedtractlyingsouthofthefollowingdescribediinesBeginningatapoint11fee:northofthesoutheastcorneroftheabovedescribedtract;Thencewesterly559feet,moreorless,toapointwhichis13feetnorthofthesouthlineofthetracthereinabovedescribed;Thencecontinuingwesterly82fee:,moreorless,toapointonthewesterlylineofsaidtractdistant11feetnorthofthesouthlineofsaidGovernmentLot1.ANDALSOEXCEPTthatnortionconveyedtoKingCountyforl08’AvenueSoutheastbydeedrecordedunderRecordinaNunber5700802.ENDORSCNEDTJLEANOTEFORINFORMATIONALPURPOSESONLY:Thefollowingmaybeusedasanabbreviatedlegaldescriptiononthedocumentstoberecorded,peramendedECW63.04Saidabbreviatedlegaldescriptionisno:asubstituteforacompletelegaldescriptionwithinthebodyofthedocument.NE/NW,32-24-05EXHIBITA6h. - Community Services Department recommends approval of an amendment Page 309 of 517 Form17C©Copyright2011SellerDisdosurestatement-UnimprovedSELLERDISCLOSURESTATEMENTtNorthwestMultipleListingSeMenRev.7)11UNIMPROVEDPROPERTYALLRIGHTSRESERVEDPagelof5aSELLERCkIatL.L..fTobeusedintransfersofunimprovedresidentialrealproperty,includingpropertyzonedforresidentialusethatisnotimprovedbyoneor2moreresidentialdwellingunits,aresidentialcondominium,aresidentialtimeshareoramobileormanufacturedhome.Unimprovedresidential3realpropertydoesnotincludecommercialrealestateasdefinedinRCW60.42.005orpropertydefinedas‘timberland”underRCW84.34.020.4SeeRCtVChapter64.06forfurtherexplanations.5INSTRUC1ONSTOTHESELLER6Pleasecompletethefollowingform.Donotleaveanyspacesblank.Ifthequestionclearlydoesnotapplytothepropertywrite“NA.”Ifthe7answeris“yes”toanyasterisked(*)item(s),pleaseexplainonattachedsheets.Pleaserefertothelinenumber(s)ofthequestion(s)whenyou$provideyourexplanation(s).Foryourprotectionyoumustdateandinitialeachpageofthisdisclosurestatementandeachattachment.Delivery9ofthedisclosurestatementmustoccurnotlaterthanfive(5)businessdays,unlessotherwiseagreed,aftermutualacceptanceofawritten10purchaseandsaleagreementbetweenaBuyerandSeller.11NOTICETOTHEBUYER12THEfOLLOWING.DISCLOSURESAREMADEBYSELLERABOUTTHECONDITIONOfTHEPROPE.TYLOCATEDAT13TaxLrrt5’qQ1ojfl5’Wtti1i’t.ii)tf41iLA)‘14CtWfR?MlOr,CO(MIY0fJ<1)C1,f9}IEPROPERTY”)15ORASLEGALLYDESCRIBEDONTHEATTACHEDEXHIBITA.SELLER1vIAKESTHEFOLLOWINGDISCLOSURESOfEXISTING16TvL&TERIAIFACTSORMATERIALDEFECTSTOBUYERBASEDONSELLER’SACTUALKNOWLEDGEOfTHEPROPERTYAT17THETIMESELLERCOMPLETESTHISDISCLOSURESTATEMENT.UNLESSYOUANDSELLEROTHERWISEAGREEIN1$WRITING,YOUHAVETHREE(3)BUSINESSDAYSFROMTHEDAYSELLERORSELLER’SAGENTDELIVERSTHIS19DISCLOSURESTATEMENTTOYOUTORESCINDTHEAGREEMENTBYDELIVERINGASEPARATELYSIGNEDWRITTEN20STATEMENTOFRESCISSIONTOSELLERORSELLER’SAGENT.ifTHESELLERDOESNOTGIVEYOUACOMPLETED21DISCLOSURESTATEMENT,THENYOUMAYWAIVETFIERIGHTTORESCINDPRIORTOORAFTERTHETIMEYOUENTER22INTOAPURCHASEANDSALEAGREEMENT.23THEFOLLOWINGAREDISCLOSURESMADEBYSELLERANDARENOTTHEREPRESENTATIONSOfANY24REALESTATELICENSEEOROTHERPARTY.THISINfORMATION18fORDISCLOSUREONLYANDISNOT25INTENDEDTOBEAPARTOfANYWRtTTENAGREEMENTBETWEENBUYERANDSELLER.26FORAMORECOMPREHENSIVEEXAMINATIONOFTHESPECIFICCONDITIONOfTHISPROPERTYYOU27AREADVISEDTOOBTAINANDPAYFORTHESERVICESOfQUALIFIEDEXPERTSTOINSPECTTHE28PROPERTY,WHICHMAYINCLUDE,WITHOUTLIMiTATION,ARCHITECTS,ENGINEERS,LANDSURVEYORS,29PLUMBERS,ELECTRICiANS,ROOFERS,BUILDINGINSPECTORS,ON-SITEWASTE1ATERTREATMENT30INSPECTORS,ORSTRUCTURALPESTINSPECTORS.THEPROSPECTIVEBUYERANDSELLERMAYWISHTO31OBTAINPROFESSIONALADVICEORINSPECTIONSOFTHEPROPERTYORTOPROVIDEAPPROPRIATE32PROVISIONSINACONTRACTBETWEENTHEMWITHRESPECTTOANYADViCE,INSPECTiON,DEFECTSORWARRANTIES.SellerUis!Uisnotoccupyingtheproperty.I.SELLER’SDISCLOSURES:36*Ifyouanswer“Yes”toaquestionwithanasteriskf*),pleaseexplainyouranswerandattachdocuments,itavailableandnototherwise37publiclyrecorded.Ifnecessaxy,useanattachedsheet.38YESNODON’T39I.TITLEKNOW40A.Doyouhavelegalauthoritytoselltheproperty?Ifno,pleaseexplain.UU41*5Istitletothepropertysubjecttoanyofthefollowing?42(I)firstrightofrefusalUU43(2)OptionUU44(3)LeaseorrentalagreementUU45(4)Li1estate9U46*C.Arethereanyencroachments,boundaryagreements,orboundarydisputes7.4..UU47*1).Isthereaprivateroadoreasementagreementforaccesstotheproperty?UU48,SLL4Af*E.Arethereanyrights-of-way,easements,oraccesslimitationsthataffecttheBuyer’suseoftheproperty9‘UU49F.Arethereanywrittenagreementsforjointmaintenanceofaneasementorrightofway9UU50*G.Isthereanystudy,surveyproject,ornoticethatwouldadverselyaffecttheproperty”UU51*J4Arethereanypendingorexistingassessmentsagainsttheproperty?UU52*1.Arethereanyzoningviolations,nonconforminguses,oranyunusualrestrictionsonthe53propertythataffectfutureconstnzctionorremodeling9UU54*JIsthereaboundarysurveyfortheproperty9UU55*K.Arethereanycovenants,conditions,orrestrictionsrecordedagainsttitletotheproperty9UU56PLEASENOTE:Covenants,conditions,andrestrictionswhichpurporttoforbidorrestricttheconveyance,encumbrance,occupancy,orleaseofrealpropertytoindividualsbasedonrace,creed,color,sex,nationalorigin,familialstatus,ordisabilityarevoid,unenforceable,andillegal.sgRCW49.60.224.59SELLER’SINTHALS:I”IDATE:IJ°‘J’ISELLER’SINITIALS:_____ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _DATE:____ _ _ ___ _ _ _6h. - Community Services Department recommends approval of an amendment Page 310 of 517 Form17C©Copynght2011SellerDisclosureStatement-unimprovedSELLERDISCLOSURESTATEMENTNorthwestMultipleUstingSeniceRev.7111UNIMPROVEDPROPERTYALLRIGHTSRESERVEDPage2of5(Continued)YESNODON’T602.WATERKNOW61A.HouseholdWater62(1)Doesthepropertyhavepotablewatersupply9.UU63(2)Ifyes,thesourceofwaterforthepropertyis:64,Privateorpubliclyownedwatersystem65UPrivatewellservingonlytheproperty66*UOtherwatersystem67*Ifshared,arethereanywrittenagreements9ClUCl6$*(3)Isthereaneasement(recordedorunrecorded)foraccesstoandlormaintenance69ofthewatersource9ClU70*(4)Arethereanyproblemsorrepairsneeded9ClU71(5)Isthereaconnectionorhook-upchargepayablebeforethepropertycanbeconnected72tothewatermain9UU73(6)Haveyouobtainedacertificateofwateravailabilityfromthewaterpurveyorserving74theproperty?(Ifyes,pleaseattachacopy.)UU75(7)Isthereawaterrightpermit,certificate,orclaimassociatedwithhouseholdwater76supplyfortheproperty?(Ifyes,pleaseattachacopy.)UU77(a)Ifyes,hasthewaterrightpermiLcertificate,orclaimbeenassigned,7$transfeffed,orchanged9UUCl79*(b)Ifyes,hasalloranyportionofthewaterrightnotbeenusedforfiveormore$0successiveyears7UUU$1(c)Ifnoordon’tknow,isthewaterwithdrawnfromthewatersourcelessthan5,000gallonsaday?UU82*($)Arethereanydefectsintheoperationofthewatersystem(e.g.pipes,tank,pwup,etc.)9UU,iS$3B.IrrigationWater•(1)Arethereanyirrigationwaterrightsfortheproperty,suchasawaterrightpermit,certificate,orclaim?(Ifyes,pleaseattachacopy.)ClU$6(a)Ifyes,hasalloranyportionofthewaterrightnotbeenusedforfiveormoresuccessiveyears9UUU(b)Ifyes,hasthewaterrightpermit,certificate,orclaimbeenassigned,transferred,orchanged9ClUU90*(2)Doesthepropertyreceiveirrigationwaterfromaditchcompany,irrigation91district,orotherentity?Ifso,pleaseidentifytheentitythatsuppliesirrigationwaterto92theproperty:__________________________________UU93C.OutdoorSprinklerSystem94(1)Isthereanoutdoorsprinklersystemfortheproperty9UU95*(2)Ifyes,arethereanydefectsinthesystem9UUU96*(3)Ifyes,isthesprinklersystemconnectedtoirrigationwater9UUCl973.SEWEWSEPTICSYSTEM9$A.Thpropertyisservedby:99Publicsewersystem100UOn-sitesewagesystem(includingpipes,tanks,drainfields,andallothercomponentparts)101ClOtherdisposalsystem102Pleasedescribe:103B.Isthepropertysubjecttoanysewagesystemfeesorchargesinadditiontothosecoveredinyour,.104regularlybilledseweroron-sitesewagesystemmaintenanceservice9UU105SELLER’SINITIALS:GDATE:I‘JJi9SELLER’SINITIALS:DATE:6h. - Community Services Department recommends approval of an amendment Page 311 of 517 (Continued)C.Ifthepropertyisconnectedtoanon-sitesewagesystem:(1)Wasapermitissuedforitsconstruction9U*(2)Wasitapprovedbythelocalhealthdepartmentordistrictfollowingitsconstruction’U(3)Isthesepticsystemapressurizedsystem’U(4)Isthesepticsystemagravitysystem°U*(5)Havetherebeenanychangesorrepairstotheon-sitesewagesystem?U(6)Istheon-sitesewagesystem,includingthedrainfield,locatedentirelywithintheboundariesoftheproperty9UI f n o ,ple ase ex p l a i n : _ _ _ _ ___ _ _ _ ____ _ _ _ ___ _ _ _ _ ___ _ _ _ ____ _ _ _ ___ _ _ _ _ ___ _ _ _ ____ _ _ _ ___ _1164.ELECTRWALIGASA.Isthepropertyservedbynaturalgas9UB.Isthereaconnectionchargeforgas9UC.Isthepropertyservedbyelectricity’UD.Isthereaconnectionchargeforelectricity’U*E.Arethereanyelectricalproblemsontheproperty’U5.FLOODING125A.Isthepropertylocatedinagovernmentdesignatedfloodzoneorfloodplain9UUX1266.SOiLSTABILITY127*A.Arethereanysettlement,earthmovement,slides,orsimilarsoilproblemsontheproperty?UUW128Form17CSellerDisclosureStatement-UnimprovedRev.7/11Page3of5SELLERDISCLOSURESTATEMENTUNIMPROVEDPROPERTY©Copynght2011NorthwestMultipleUstingServiceALLRIGHTSRESERVEDYESNODON’T106KNOW107logU109U110UliiU112U113114U$l(115*(7)Doestheon-sitesewagesystemrequiremonitoringandmaintenanceservicesmorefrequentlythanonceayear9U117U11$119U120U,121U122U123U1247.ENVIRONMENTAL129*A.Havetherebeenanyflooding,standingwater,ordrainageproblemsonthepropertythataffectthepropertyoraccesstotheproperty9U*B.Doesanypartofthepropertycontainfilldirt,waste,orotherfillmaterial9U*(Isthereanymaterialdamagetothepropertyfromfire,wind,floods,beachmovements,earthquake,expansivesoils,orlandslides’UD.Arethereanyshorelines,wetlands,floodplains,orcriticalareasontheproperty?*E.Arethereanysubstances,materials,orproductsinoronthepropertythatmaybeenvironmentalconcerns,suchasasbestos,formaldehyde,radongas.lead-basedpaint,fuelorchemicalstoragetanks,orcontaminatedsoilorwater9UHasthepropertybeenusedforcommercialorindustrialpurposes’UtG.Isthereanysoilorgroundwatercontamination’UtH.Aretheretransmissionpolesorotherelectricalutilityequipmentinstalled,maintained,orburiedonthepropertythatdonotprovideutilityservicetothesnucnuesontheproperty?U*1.Hasthepropertybeenusedasalegalorillegaldumpingsite9U].Hasthepropertybeenusedasanillegaldrugmanufacturingsite9U*K.Arethereanyradiotowersthatcauseinterferencewithcellulartelephonereception9USELLER’SThALS:&DATE:)SELLER’STIALS:130U131U132133U134UU135136137U138U139U140141U142U4143U144U145DATE:6h. - Community Services Department recommends approval of an amendment Page 312 of 517 Form17CtCopyrlght2011SellerDisdosureStatement-UnimprovedSELLERDISCLOSURESTATEMENTNorthwestMultipleUstingServiceRev.7/11UNIMPROVEDPROPERTYALLRIGHTSRESERVEDPage4of5(Continued)YESNODON’T1468.HOMEOWNERS’ASSOCIATION/COMMONINTERESTSKNOW147A.Isthereahomeowners’association’UU148Nameofassociationandcontactinformationforanofficer,director,employee,orother149authorizedagent,ifany,whomayprovIdetheassociation’sfinancialstatements,minutes,150bylaws,finingpolicy,andotherinformationthatisnotpubliclyavailable:151_ ________ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ ________ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ ________ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ ________ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _152B.Arethereregularperiodicassessments9UXU153$___________perUmonthUyears154UOther_ _ ________ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ ________ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ ________ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ ________1555C.ArethereanypendingspecialassessmentsUU156*DAretheremyshared“commonareas”oranyjointmaintenanceagreements(facilities157suchaswalls,fences,landscaping,pools,tenniscourts,walkways,orotherareas15$co-ownedinundividedinterestwithothers)?UU1599.OTHERFACTh160*A.Arethereanydisagreements,disputes,encroachments,orlegalactionsconcerningtheproperty?UU16193.Doesthepropertyhaveanyplantsorwildlifbthataredesignatedasspeciesofconcern,orlisted162asthreatenedorendangeredbythegovernment9UU163*C.Isthepropertyclassifiedordesignatedasforestlandoropenspace9UU1640.Doyouhaveaforestmanagementplan?Ifyes,attachUU165*E.Haveanydevelopment-relatedpermitapplicationsbeensubmittedtoanygovernmentagencies9UU166IftheanswertoEis“yes,”whatisthestatusoroutcomeofthoseapplications?167_________________________________________________________16$F.Isthepropertylocatedwithinacity,county,ordistrictorwithinadepartmentofnaturalresources169fireprotectionzonethatprovidesfireprotectionservices’UU170IftFULLDISCLOSUREBYSELLERS171A.Otherconditionsordefects:172tAretheremyotherexistingmaterialdefectsaffectingthepropertythataprospectivebuyer173shouldknowabout9U1743.Verification175Theforegoinganswersandattachedexplanations(ifany)arecompleteandcorrecttothebestofSeller’sknowledgeandSellerhas176receivedacopyhercofSelleragreestodefend,indemni&andholdrealestatelicenseesharmlessfromandagainstanyandallclaims177thattheaboveinformationisinaccurate.Sellerauthorizesrealestatelicensees,ifany,todeliveracopyofthisdisclosurestatementto17$otherrealesteliceffe?andallprospectivebuyersoftheproperty.179Date:I.C)It1Date:___________________________________________180Seller:________________________________________________Seller:_______________________________________________181NOTICESTOTUEBUYER182SEXOFFENDERREGISTRATION183INFORMATIONREGARDINGREGISTEREDSEXOFFENDERSMAYBEOBTAINEDFROMLOCALLAWENFORCEMENT184AGENCIES.THISNOTICEISINTENDEDONLYTOINFORMYOUOFWHERETOOBTAINTHISiNFORMATIONANDIS185NOTANINDICATIONOFTHEPRESENCEOFREGISTEREDSEXOFFENDERS.186PROXIMiTYTOFARMING187THISNOTICEISTOINFORMYOUTHATTHEREALPROPERTYYOUARECONSIDERINGFORPURCHASEMAYHEIN188CLOSEPROXIMiTYTOAFARM.THEOPERATIONOFAFARMINVOLVESUSUALANDCUSTOMARYAGRICULTURAL189PRACTiCES,WHICHAREPROTECTEDUNDERRCW7.48.305,THEWASHINGTONRIGHTTOFARMACT.190SELLER’SINmALS:DATE:SELLER’SINITIALS:DATE:6h. - Community Services Department recommends approval of an amendment Page 313 of 517 Form17C©Copynght2011SellerDisclosureStatement-UnimprovedSELLERDISCLOSURESTATEMENTNorthwestMultipleListingServiceRev.7/11UNIMPROVEDPROPERTYALLRIGHTSRESERVEDPage5of5(Continued)H.BUYER’SACKNOWLEDGEMENT191Buyerherebyacknowledgesthat:192A.BuyerhasadutytopaydiligentattentiontoanymaterialdefectsthatareknowntoBuyerorcanbeknowntoBuyerbyutilizing193diligentattentionandobservation.194B.ThedisclosuressetforthinthisstatementandinanyamendmentstothisstatementaremadeonlybytheSellerandnotbyanyreal195estatelicenseeorotherparty.196C.Buyeracknowledgesthat,pursuanttoRCW64.06.050(2),realestatelicenseesarenotliableforinaccurateinformationprovidedby197Seller,excepttotheextentthatrealestatelicenseesknowofsuchinaccurateinformation.198D.ThisinformationisfordisclosureonlyandisnotintendedtobeapartofthewrittenagreementbetweentheBuyerandSeller.199F.Buyer(whichtermincludesallpersonssigningthe“Buyer’sacceptance”portionofthisdisclosurestatementbelow)hasreceiveda200copyofthisDisclosureStatement(includingattachments,ifany)bearingSeller’ssignature(s)..201DISCLOSURESCONTAINEDINTHISDISCLOSURESTATEMENTAREPROVIDEDBYSELLERBASEDONSELLER’SACTUAL202KNOWLEDGEOFTHEPROPERTYATTHETIMESELLERCOMPLETESTHISDISCLOSURE.UNLESSBUYERANDSELLER203OTHERWISEAGREEINWRITiNG,BUYERSHALLHAVETHREE(3)BUSINESSDAYSFROMTHEDAYSELLERORSELLER’S204AGENTDELIVERSTHISDISCLOSURESTATEMENTTORESCINDTHEAGREEMENTBYDELIVERINGASEPARATELYSIGNED205WRITTENSTATEMENTOfRESCISSIONTOSELLERORSELLER’SAGENT.YOUMAYWAIVETHERIGHTTORESCINDPRIOR206TOORAFTERTHETIMEYOUENTERINTOASALEAGREEMENT.207BUYERHEREBYACKNOWLEDGESRECEIPTOfACOPYOFTHISDISCLOSURESTATEMENTANDACKNOWLEDGESTHAT208THEDISCLOSURESMADEHEREINARETHOSEOfTHESELLERONLY,ANDNOTOFANYREALESTATELICENSEEOR209OTHERPARTY.210DATE:______________________________________DATE:________________________________________211BUYER:___________________________________BUYER:_____________________________________212BUYER’SWAIVEROFRIGHTTOREVOKEOFFER213BuyerhasreadandreviewedtheSeller’sresponsestothisSellerDisclosureStatement.Buyer.approvesthisstatemntandwaivesBuyer’sright214torevokeBuyer’sofferbasedonthisdisclosure.215DATE:__________________________________DATE:___________________________________216BUYER:___________________________________BUYER:_____________________________________217BUYER’SWAIVEROFRIGHTTORECEIVECOMPLETEDSELLERDISCLOSURESTATEMENT21$BuyerhasbeenadvisedofBuyer’srighttoreceiveacompletedSellerDisclosureStatement.Buyerwaivesthatright.However,iftheanswerto219anyofthequestionsinthesectionentitled“Environmental”wouldbe“yes,”Buyermaynotwaivethereceiptofthe“Environmental”sectionof220theSellerDisclosureStatement.221DATE:_____________________________________DATE:______________________________________222BUYER:___________________________________BUYER:_____________________________________223Iftheansweris“Yes”toanyasterisked(*)items,pleaseexplainbelow(useadditionalsheetsifnecessary).Pleaserefertothelinenumber(s)of224thequestion(s).225226227228229230231232233SELLERSINITIALS:DATE:SELLER’SINITIALS:DATE:6h. - Community Services Department recommends approval of an amendment Page 314 of 517 6h. - Community Services Department recommends approval of an amendment Page 315 of 517 6h. - Community Services Department recommends approval of an amendment Page 316 of 517 6h. - Community Services Department recommends approval of an amendment Page 317 of 517 6h. - Community Services Department recommends approval of an amendment Page 318 of 517 6h. - Community Services Department recommends approval of an amendment Page 319 of 517 6h. - Community Services Department recommends approval of an amendment Page 320 of 517 May Creek — Fawcett Site Map North 1” = 220’ (5.73 Ac.) 6h. - Community Services Department recommends approval of an amendment Page 321 of 517 CITY OF RENTON COUNCIL AGENDA BILL Subject/Title: Interlocal Cooperative Purchasing Agreement with Kitsap County Meeting: REGULAR COUNCIL - 06 Apr 2015 Exhibits: A. Issue Paper B. Equipment Quote C. Interlocal Cooperative Purchasing Agreement D. Draft Resolution Submitting Data: Dept/Div/Board: Public Works Staff Contact: Ron Kahler, ext. 2660 Recommended Action: Council Concur. Fiscal Impact: Expenditure Required: $ 63,215 Transfer Amendment: $N/A Amount Budgeted: $ 63,215 Revenue Generated: $N/A Total Project Budget: $ 63,215 City Share Total Project: $ 63,215 SUMMARY OF ACTION: The City of Renton would like to enter into an Interlocal Cooperative Purchasing Agreement with Kitsap County in order to expedite the purchase of capital items. Interlocal cooperative purchasing has long been established and encouraged in the City of Renton Policy and Procedure 250-02. Entering into this agreement will allow the City to buy competitively using Kitsap County contracts and satisfy all of the statutory obligations for public bid. Entering into this agreement will save the City considerable time and expense by eliminating the need to conduct our bids and advertising on the purchase of specific items when the county has already completed this process. Instituting this agreement will provide quicker and more responsive delivery of materials and equipment to the City. STAFF RECOMMENDATION: Approve the Resolution authorizing the Mayor and City Clerk to enter into an Interlocal Cooperative Purchasing Agreement with Kitsap County. 6i. - Public Works Department recommends approval of an Interlocal Page 322 of 517 PUBLIC WORKS DEPARTMENT M E M O R A N D U M DATE: March 18, 2015 TO: Ed Prince, Council President Members of the Renton City Council VIA: Denis Law, Mayor FROM: Gregg Zimmerman, Public Works Administrator STAFF CONTACT: Ron Kahler, Fleet Manager, Ext. 2660 SUBJECT: Interlocal Cooperative Purchasing Agreement with Kitsap County ISSUE: Should Council approve the Resolution authorizing the Mayor and City Clerk to enter into an Interlocal Cooperative Purchasing Agreement with Kitsap County? RECOMMENDATION: Approve the Resolution authorizing the Mayor and City Clerk to enter into an Interlocal Cooperative Purchasing Agreement with Kitsap County. BACKGROUND SUMMARY: Intergovernmental cooperative purchasing has long been established and encouraged in the City of Renton Policy and Procedure 250-02. Entering into this agreement will allow the City to make purchases using Kitsap County contracts and satisfy all of the statutory obligations for public bid. This agreement will save the City considerable time and expense by eliminating the need to conduct our own bids and advertising on the purchase of specific items when the county has already completed this process. More specifically, the City has recently received a bid from Sonsray Machinery, LLC for purchase of a new Gilcrest Pavmaster 414, replacing the existing paver, as budgeted by the Street Maintenance Section and Equipment Repair and Replacement (Fund 501). Replacement of the paver is included in the 2015 budget approved by Council in November. Instituting this agreement will provide a quicker and more responsive delivery of the paver to be purchased in the next couple of months making it available for summer street maintenance projects and eliminate down time for repairs of aging equipment. 6i. - Public Works Department recommends approval of an Interlocal Page 323 of 517 Ed Prince, Council President Members of the Renton City Council Page 2 of 2 March 18, 2015 H:\Deputy City Clerk\Agenda\Agenda 2015\04 - April\4-6-15\Issue Paper Interlocal.doc CONCLUSION: The Interlocal Cooperative Purchasing Agreement with Kitsap County is a highly efficient way for the City of Renton to purchase capital items. Entering into this agreement will eliminate the time needed to advertise and award bids, thereby reducing the purchasing time for capital items by a minimum of two weeks. cc: Iwen Wang, Administrative Services Administrator Mike Stenhouse, Maintenance Services Director Ron Kahler, Fleet Manager Hai Nguyen, Finance Analyst Vanessa Poorman, Maintenance Buyer 6i. - Public Works Department recommends approval of an Interlocal Page 324 of 517 INTERLOCAL JOINT PURCHASING AGREEMENT KC-102-15 THIS AGREEMENT is between the City of Renton, a political subdivision of the State of Washington, and the County of Kitsap, a public agency under the laws of the State of Washington. WITNESSETH: WHEREAS, the Interlocal Cooperation Act, as amended, and codified in Chapter 39.34 of the Revised Code of Washington provided for interlocal cooperation between governmental agencies; and WHEREAS, Chapter 39.33 of the Revised Code of Washington provides for intergovernmental disposition of property; and WHEREAS, the parties desire to utilize each other’s procurement agreements when it is in their mutual interest; -- NOW, THEREFORE, the parties agree as follows: 1. PURPOSE: The purpose of this agreement is to acknowledge the parties’ mutual interest to jointly bid the acquisition of goods and services where such mutual effort can be planned in advance and to authorize the acquisition of goods and services and the purchase or acquisition of goods and services under contracts where a price is extended by either party’s bidder to other governmental agencies. 2. ADMINISTRATION: No new or separate legal or administrative entity is created to administer the provisions of this agreement. 3. SCOPE: This agreement shall allow the following activities: A. Purchase or acquisition of goods and services by each party acting as agent for either or both parties when agreed to in advance, in writing; B. Purchase or acquisition of goods and services by each party where provision has been provided in contracts for other governmental agencies to avail themselves of goods and services offered under the contract and/or where either party’s bidder is willing to extend prices to other governmental agencies. 4. DURATION AGREEMENT – TERMINATION: This agreement shall remain in force until cancelled by either party in writing. 6i. - Public Works Department recommends approval of an Interlocal Page 327 of 517 5. RIGHT TO CONTRACT INDEPENDENT ACTION PRESERVED: Each party reserves the right to contract independently for the acquisition of goods or services without notice to the other party and shall not bind or otherwise obligate the other party to participate in the activity. 6. COMPLIANCE WITH LEGAL REQUIREMENT: Each party accepts responsibility for compliance with federal, state or local laws and regulations including, in particular, bidding requirements applicable to its acquisition of goods and services. 7. FINANCING: The method of financing of payment shall be through budgeted funds or other available funds of the party for whose use the property is actually acquired or disposed. Each party accepts no responsibility for the payment of the acquisition price of any goods or services intended for use by the other party. 8. FILING: Executed copies of this agreement shall be filed as required by Section 39.34.040 of the Revised Code of Washington prior to this agreement becoming effective. 9. INTERLOCAL COOPERATION DISCLOSURE: Each party may insert in its solicitations for goods a provision disclosing that other authorized governmental agencies may also wish to procure the goods being offered to the party and allowing the bidder the option of extending its bid to other agencies at the same bid price, terms and conditions. 10. NON-DELEGATION/NON-ASSIGNMENT: Neither party may delegate the performance of any contractual obligation, to a third party, unless mutually agreed in writing. Neither party may assign this agreement without the written consent of the other party. 11. HOLD-HARMLESS: Each party shall be liable and responsible for the consequence of any negligent or wrongful act or failure to act on the part of itself and its employees. Neither party assumes responsibility to the other party for the consequences of any act or omission of any person, firm or corporation not a party to this agreement. 12. SEVERABILITY: Any provision of this agreement, which is prohibited or unenforceable, shall be ineffective to the extent of such prohibition or unenforceability, without invalidating the remaining provision or affecting the validity or enforcement of such provisions. 6i. - Public Works Department recommends approval of an Interlocal Page 328 of 517 DATED __ day of __________, 2015. DATED ____ day of ______________, 2015. CITY OF RENTON KITSAP COUNTY DENIS LAW, Mayor ROBERT GELDER, Chair LARRY WARREN, City Attorney EDWARD E. WOLFE, Commissioner CHARLOTTE GARRIDO, Commissioner ATTEST: ATTEST: JASON SETH, City Clerk DANA DANIELS, Clerk of the Board 6i. - Public Works Department recommends approval of an Interlocal Page 329 of 517 1  CITY OF RENTON, WASHINGTON    RESOLUTION NO. _______    A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY OF RENTON, WASHINGTON, AUTHORIZING THE  MAYOR AND CITY CLERK TO ENTER INTO AN INTERLOCAL COOPERATIVE  PURCHASING AGREEMENT WITH KITSAP COUNTY.     WHEREAS, Renton’s Policy and Procedure 250‐02, subsection 6.1.1, permits Renton to  enter into Interlocal Cooperative Purchases (defined in subsection 5.9), and permits Renton to  acquire non‐public word goods, supplies, materials, equipment, and services without having to  satisfy Renton’s purchasing, bidding, and contracting requirements set forth in RPP 250‐02; and   WHEREAS, Kitsap County offers other jurisdictions the option of entering into a  Cooperative Purchasing Agreement with Kitsap County for various equipment and supplies  using Kitsap County’s competitively awarded contracts; and   WHEREAS, Renton will be able to purchase needed items and services competitively by  entering into an Interlocal Purchasing Agreement with Kitsap County; and   WHEREAS, Renton will save considerable time and expense by entering into this  Interlocal Purchasing Agreement with Kitsap County;   NOW, THEREFORE, THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF RENTON, WASHINGTON,  RESOLVES AS FOLLOWS:  SECTION I. The above recitals are found to be true and correct in all respects.  SECTION II. The Mayor and City Clerk are authorized to enter into an Interlocal  Cooperative Purchasing Agreement with Kitsap County.      6i. - Public Works Department recommends approval of an Interlocal Page 330 of 517 RESOLUTION NO. _______  2  PASSED BY THE CITY COUNCIL this ______ day of _____________________, 2015.        ______________________________  Jason A. Seth, City Clerk       APPROVED BY THE MAYOR this ______ day of _____________________, 2015.        ______________________________  Denis Law, Mayor            Approved as to form:      ______________________________  Lawrence J. Warren, City Attorney    RES.1665:3/10/15:scr    6i. - Public Works Department recommends approval of an Interlocal Page 331 of 517 CITY OF RENTON COUNCIL AGENDA BILL Subject/Title: Increase of a Public Works Department Transportation Systems Division Operations Section Civil Engineer II Position from 0.50 FTE to 1.0 FTE Meeting: REGULAR COUNCIL - 06 Apr 2015 Exhibits: A. Issue Paper Submitting Data: Dept/Div/Board: Public Works Staff Contact: Doug Jacobson, extension 7242 Recommended Action: Refer to Finance Committee Fiscal Impact: Expenditure Required: $ $35,300 (2015); $56,616 (2016) Transfer Amendment: $N/A Amount Budgeted: $ N/A Revenue Generated: $N/A Total Project Budget: $ N/A City Share Total Project: $ N/A SUMMARY OF ACTION: The Public Works Department requests authorization to increase an existing Transportation SystemsDivision Operations Section Civil Engineer II position from 0.50 FTE to 1.0 FTE, effective May 1, 2015. The estimated expenditure for this increase is $35,300 for 2015 and $56,616 for 2016. Therefore, an additional request is made to decrease the Transportation Systems Maintenance Electricity budget line item 003.000000.016.542.95.47.001 by $35,300 in 2015 and $56,616 in 2016 to accommodate the increase in FTE. The funding for this increase in FTE is available as a result in savings by converting the city-owned high-pressure sodium street lights to LED lighting, and will be included in the next quarterly budget adjustment. This position is responsible for maintaining the City’s traffic signal network and is currently filled as a 0.50 FTE. STAFF RECOMMENDATION: Authorize the increase of a Public Works Department Transportation Systems Operations Section Civil Engineer II position from 0.50 FTE to 1.0 FTE, and adjusting the budget line item as necessary. 6j. - Transportation Systems Division requests authorization to increase a Page 332 of 517 PUBLIC WORKS DEPARTMENT M E M O R A N D U M DATE: March 18, 2015 TO: Ed Prince, Council President Members of the Renton City Council VIA: Denis Law, Mayor FROM: Gregg Zimmerman, Public Works Administrator STAFF CONTACT: Doug Jacobson, Deputy Public Works Administrator- Transportation, Ext. 7242 SUBJECT: Increase of a Public Works Department Transportation Systems Division Operations Section Civil Engineer II Position from 0.50 FTE to 1.0 FTE ISSUE: Should the Public Works Department be authorized to increase a Transportation Systems Division Operations Section Civil Engineer II position from 0.50 FTE to 1.0 FTE effective May 1, 2015? RECOMMENDATION: Authorize the increase of the Public Works Department Transportation Systems Operations Section Civil Engineer II position from 0.50 FTE to 1.0 FTE, and decrease the Transportation Systems Maintenance Electricity budget line item 003.000000.016.542.95.47.001 by $35,300 in 2015 and $56,616 in 2016 to accommodate the increase in FTE. The funding for this increase in FTE is available as a result in savings by converting the city-owned high-pressure sodium street lights to LED lighting, and will be included in the next quarterly budget adjustment. BACKGROUND SUMMARY: The Public Works Department requests authorization to increase its Transportation System Operations Civil Engineer II position from 0.50 FTE to 1.0 FTE. The estimated expenditure for this change is $35,300 for 2015 and $56,616 for 2016. This position is responsible for maintaining the City’s traffic signal network and is currently filled as a 0.50 FTE. Prior to 2010, this position was filled as a 1.0 FTE. Due to the economic downturn and decline in development throughout the city, the position was reduced as 6j. - Transportation Systems Division requests authorization to increase a Page 333 of 517 Ed Prince, Council President Members of the Renton City Council Page 2 of 2 March 25, 2015 h:\deputy city clerk\agenda\agenda 2015\04 - april\4-6-15\issue paper - pwt signal engineer fte increase.doc a cost savings in January 2010. A new surge in development and the need to improve alignment of our traffic signal system throughout the city to accommodate such new development requires the assistance of a full-time, in-house employee. The other two Transportation Operations Section engineers have other levels of expertise and experience, but neither possesses the expertise and experience to maintain the city’s traffic signal system. Increasing this position would better allow the Public Works Department Transportation Systems Division to: 1. Maintain the traffic management center operations, including the traffic signal central control system, develop appropriate signal timings and update SYNCHRO models to ensure our system appropriately meets the demands of morning, midday and evening peak hours. 2. Provide more internal and external collaborative efforts working on plan review to ensure traffic signal designs and street lighting are in compliance with city code and attending meetings with staff and developers as needed. 3. Raise overall customer service levels by providing more timely responses to resident inquiries and allow time to prepare work orders that will expedite signal work, pavement marking, signing and traffic control plans. Currently, the 0.50 FTE position permits only 2 hours per week managing the traffic management center, rather than the desired 8 hours per week, and only managing 25% of the remaining proactive tasks. The Transportation Operations Manager is performing all plan review, in addition to his other tasks. Increasing the Transportation Operations Civil Engineer II position from a 0.50 FTE to a 1.0 FTE will help improve overall safety for motorists and pedestrians and increase level of service allowing more dedication to development projects changing the face of the city such as the Downtown Circulation Project, Southport development and the Sunset Highlands Redevelopment, which all require intense traffic signal design and ongoing monitoring. The funding for this increase in FTE is available as a result in savings by converting the city-owned high-pressure sodium street lights to LED lighting, and will be included in the next quarterly budget adjustment. cc: Iwen Wang, Administrative Services Administrator Nancy Carlson, Human Resources/Risk Management Administrator Doug Jacobson, Deputy Public Works Administrator, Transportation Chris Barnes, Transportation Operations Manager Cathryn Laird, Human Resources Manager Hai Nguyen, Finance Analyst File 6j. - Transportation Systems Division requests authorization to increase a Page 334 of 517 CITY OF RENTON COUNCIL AGENDA BILL Subject/Title: Renton Municipal Airport Sustainability Management Plan Meeting: REGULAR COUNCIL - 06 Apr 2015 Exhibits: A. Issue Paper B. Sustainability Management Plan C. Draft Resolution Submitting Data: Dept/Div/Board: Public Works Staff Contact: Jonathan Wilson, Airport Manager, ext. 7477 Recommended Action: Refer to Transportation/Aviation Committee. Fiscal Impact: Expenditure Required: $ 0 Transfer Amendment: $0 Amount Budgeted: $ 0 Revenue Generated: $0 Total Project Budget: $ 0 City Share Total Project: $ 0 SUMMARY OF ACTION: In 2010 the Renton Municipal Airport was selected by the FAA to complete a Sustainability Management Plan (SMP). The SMP was completed in 2012 with help from the Renton Airport Advisory Committee and Barnard Dunkelberg and Company, Inc. Now, at the conclusion of the project, the Airport seeks Council approval of a Resolution to formally adopt the SMP. STAFF RECOMMENDATION: Approve a Resolution adopting the Renton Municipal Airport Sustainability Management Plan. 6k. - Transportation Systems Division recommends approving a resolution Page 335 of 517 PUBLICWORKSDEPARTMENTMEM0RANDUMDATE:April6,2015TO:EdPrince,CouncilPresidentMembersoftheRentonCityCouncilVIA:DenisLaw,Mayor,_—yFROM:GreggZimmerman,PtiblicWorksAdministratorSTAFFCONTACT:JonathanWilson,AirportManager(extension7477)SUBJECT:RentonMunicipalAirportSustainabilityManagementPlanISSUE:ShouldCouncilapproveaResolutionadoptingtheRentonMunicipalAirportSustainabilityManagementPlan?RECOMMENDATION:ApproveaResolutionadoptingtheRentonMunicipalAirportSustainabilityManagementPlan.BACKGROUND:TheAirportwasawardeda$150,000FAAgranttocompleteaSustainabilityManagementPlan(SMP)in2010.ThegrantfollowedacompetitiveselectionprocesswhereRentonwasoneofonly10airportsnationwideselectedtodevelopaSMP.TheobjectiveoftheSMPistodevelop,balanceandmanageanincreasinglycomplexsetofgoalsandopportunitiestoensurethelong-termsustainabilityoftheAirport.TheSMPfocusesonsustainablepracticesincludingfinancialandphysical,inadditiontoenergyuseandgreenhousegasproduction.WiththehelpoftheRentonAirportAdvisoryCommittee(RAAC)andBarnardDunkelbergandCompany,Inc.,theSMPwascompletedin2012.ThedeliverablereceivedincludedtheactualplanitselfandaMicrosoftExcelspreadsheettrackingtoolthattheAirportusestoinputrelevantdata.ThatdataisthentrackedovertimetomeasuretheAirport’sprogresstowardmeetingtheSMPgoals.Thefinalreportfor2013wascompletedandresultswerepresentedtotheRAACinFebruary2015.Thefinalreportfor2014isbeingdevelopednowandwillbepresentedtotheRAACinMay.NowattheconclusionoftheprojecttheRentonMunicipalAirportseeksCouncilapprovalofaResolutiontoformallyadopttheSMP.cc:JosefHarnden,AdministrativeSecretaryISusanCampbell-Hehr,SecretaryII6k. - Transportation Systems Division recommends approving a resolution Page 336 of 517 SUSTAINABILITYMANAGEMENTPLANTableofContentsTableofContentsListofFiguresiiAbbreviationsandAcronymsiiiA.ExecutiveSummaryandOverviewoftheProcessExecutiveSummaryA.1OverviewoftheProcessA.3Definitions(Vision,Sustainability,Categories,Goals,ObjectivesandInitiatives)A.3SummaryofSustainabilityGoalsA.4ImplementationA.5CalendarofSustainabilityManagementPlanActivitiesA.6B.SustainabilityforRentonMunicipalAirportRentonDefinitionofSustainabilityB.1RentonSustainabilityVisionB.2SustairiabilityCategoriesB.3C.CurrentConditionsAirportSettingC.2FinancialC.2GreenhouseGasEmissionsInventoryC.3EnergyUtilities—EmissionsandCostC.3WaterResourcesC.3AirportVehicleFleetandRelatedEmissionsC.4EmployeesC.4CommunityC.4NoiseC.4D.SustainabilityGoalsandObjectivesDevelopmentandEvolutionofSustainabilityGoals/ObjectivesD.2AirportFinanceCategoryD.2AirportandLocalEconomicValuesCategoryD.3CommunityOutreachandEducationCategoryD.3EnergyConsumption/GreenhouseGasesCategoryD.4NoisefromAircraftOperationsCategoryD.4Operations,Maintenance,andCapitalImprovementofAirportFacilitiesCategoryD.5WaterQualityCategoryD.5RENTONMUNICIPALAIRPORT6k. - Transportation Systems Division recommends approving a resolution Page 337 of 517 SUSTAINABILITYMANAGEMENTPLANE.InitiativesforMeetingGoals/ObjectivesDevelopmentandEvolutionofSustainabilityInitiativesE.2AirportFinancialsInitiativesE.2AirportandLocalEconomicValueInitiativesE.2CommunityOutreachandEducationInitiativesE.2EnergyConservation!GreenhouseGasesInitiativesE.3NoisefromAircraftOperationsInitiativesE.3Operation,Maintenance,andCapitalImprovementofAirportFacilitiesInitiativesE.3WaterQualityInitiativesE.3DescriptionofInitiativesE.4F.SustainabilityManagementPlanImplementation(DecisionMaking,ImplementationSteps,andTrackingTool)Guide:ImplementationoftheSustainabilityManagementPlanF.2SustainabilityReportingToolF.2Appendix1.DefinitionsofSustainability2.InventoryofExistingConditions3.2010CarbonFootprint4.FinancialBaselineandAPIAnalysis5.SustainabilityInitiatives6.SustainabilityInitiativesPollingResultsListofFiguresFigureClOverallOperationalExpensebyCategory,2010C.2FigureC2EmissionsSourcesbyScope(2010)C.3IRENTONMUNICIPALAIRPORT6k. - Transportation Systems Division recommends approving a resolution Page 338 of 517 SUSTAINABILITYMANAGEMENTPLANAbbreviationsandAcronyms_ _ _______ _ _ _ _______ACI-NAAirportsCouncilInternational-NorthAmericaACRPAirportsCooperativeResearchProgramCIPCapitalImprovementProgramC02eCarbonDioxideEquivalent(ameasureofgreenhousegasemissions)DNLDay/NightAverageSoundLevelEONS“aholisticapproachtomanaginganairportsoastoensuretheintegrityoftheEconomicviability,Operationalefficiency,NaturalResourceConservation,andSocialresponsibility(EONS)oftheairport.”FAAFederalAviationAdministrationGHGGreenhouseGasGRIGlobalReportingInitiativekWhKilowattHourLEDLightEmittingDiodeMIRLsMediumIntensityRunwayLightsPAPIPrecisionApproachPathIndicatorRAACRentonAirportAdvisoryCommitteeREILRunwayEndIdentifierLightsRNPRequiredNavigationPerformanceRNTRentonMunicipalAirport(abbreviatedairportidentifier)TRBTransportationResearchBoardoftheNationalAcademiesRENTONMUNICIPALAIRPORT6k. - Transportation Systems Division recommends approving a resolution Page 339 of 517 ISUSTAINABILITYMANAGEMENTPLANA.ExecutiveSummaryandOverviewoftheProcessHistorically,theRentonMunicipalAirportwasrunonaday-to-day,project-to-projectbasis.Whilethisapproachmayhaveworkedinthepast,overtime,theAirporthasbecomeanincreasinglycomplexoperation.Thesecomplexitiesstrainedtheoldmodelofmanagement,andmadeitclearthatanewmanagementmodelwasneeded.Recently,Airportstaffbegansearchingforabetterwaytomanagethefacilityanditscomplexitiesinamoresustainablemanner.L..‘-..RENTONMUNICIPALAIRPORTAl6k. - Transportation Systems Division recommends approving a resolution Page 340 of 517 SUSTAINABIUTYMANAGEMENTPLANAtRentonMunicipalAirport,“Sustainability”isthenextstepinthemanagementevolutionofthefacilitywiththepurposeof:•IncreasingtheAirport’scompetitivenessthroughleanoperations;•OptimizingtheuseoftheAirport’slimitedassets;•Reducingenvironmentalimpactsofthefacility;and•Earninggreatersupportfromthecommunity.ForRentonMunicipalAirport,sustainabilityistheframeworkthatcanbeusedtoaddressincreasinglycomplexmanagement.InmanagingtheAirport,thestaffneedtonotonlyaddresstheEconomicsideofrunningthefacility(Operations),butalsotheNaturalResourcesandSocialcharacteristics.Byadoptinganewmanagementapproach,tenantsandresidentswillbeabletodemonstratetheAirport’sfocusoncreatingbalancebetweentheEconomic,SocialandEnvironmentalcharacteristics.AtRentonMunicipalAirport,forthesustainabilitymodeltohaveanymeaning,itiscriticalthatAirportstafftrack,measure,andreportitsprogress.Datacurrentlycollected(orsoontobecollected)byAirportstaffwillbemeasuredusingatrackingtooldevelopedspecificallyforthispurpose.ThetrackingtoolisalignedwiththeAirport’ssustainabilitygoalsandobjectives.Inseekinganewmanagementmodel,theRentonMunicipalAirporthasvoluntarilyundertakenthepreparationofaSustainabilityManagementPlanaspartoftheFederalAviationAdministration(FAA)SustainabilityPilotProgram.InpreparingthisPlan,AirportManagementadoptedthefollowingsustainabilitypolicy:TheAirportstrivestobecomemorefinanciallyviable,operationallyefficient,whileconservingnaturalresources,andbeingsociallyresponsible.ThisdocumentidentifiestheAirport’sapproachtosustainabilityandtheinitialactionsthatAirportstaffwillendeavortoimplement.Sustainableactionsstrivetobalancethefinancial/operations,naturalresources(environmental),andsocialconsiderations.IRENTONMUNICIPALAIRPORTA.26k. - Transportation Systems Division recommends approving a resolution Page 341 of 517 SUSTAINABILITYMANAGEMENTPLANOverviewoftheProcessThisfirstchapteroftheSustainabilityManagementPlandescribesofthedefinitions,summaryofsustainabilitygoals,implementation,scheduleandcalendarofsustainabilityactivitiesthroughtheyear.Definitions(VISION,SUSTAINABILITY,CATEGORIES,GOALS,andINITIATIVES)Throughoutthisdocument,theterms“Vision”,“DefinitionofSustainability”,“categories”,“goals”and“objectives”areused.ThesetermscapturetheapproachthatthestaffofRentonMunicipalAirporthaveembracedrelativetoimplementingsustainablemanagementpracticesattheAirport.The“Vision”articulatesthevaluesoftheorganization.The“definitionofsustainability”identifieswhatsustainabilitymeansatRentonMunicipalAirport(RNT).ThejSustainabilityManagementPlanthenfocusesonareasofinterest,calledSustainabilityatRenton“categories”inaccordancewithFAA’sscopeGoals•Objectives•Initiativesofworkforthesustainabilitypilotprojects.TheultimateoutputofthestudywastoidentifyinitiativesoractionsthatAirportstaffmighttaketomovetowardsachievingitsgoalofbeingmoresustainable.Tohelpclarifyanddirecttheeffort,“goals”and“objectives”withineachfocusarea/categorywereestablished.Goalsrepresentthepurposethatinitiativesaredesignedtoachieve,andobjectivesaretargetsorinformationtofurtheremphasize/directtheinitiatives.TheAirportmanagementobtainedinputconcerningthecategoriesforconsiderationinthisSustainabilityManagementPlanaswellasgoalsandobjectivesthroughcoordinationwithitscitizen/tenantpublicinputcommittee(theRentonAirportAdvisoryCommittee—abbreviatedRAAC).Categoriesfocusedtheeffortoninterestareassuchthatspecificsustainabilitygoals/objectivesandsubsequentinitiatives(describedlaterinthisdocument)couldbeidentified.“Initiatives”representtheactionsorprogramsthatcouldbeimplementedtoassistwithmakingprogressonachievingthegoals/objectives.IRENTONMUNICIPALAIRPORTA.36k. - Transportation Systems Division recommends approving a resolution Page 342 of 517 SUSTAINABILITYMANAGEMENTPLANSummaryofSustainabilityGoalsBecauseofthelimitedresourcesatsmallairports,itisimportantthattherangeofissuesaddressedinsustainabilityplanningprovidesthemostbenefitpossibletothefacility,operations,environs,andcommunitywithinthoselimitingfactors.ThroughcoordinationwithAirportmanagementandtheRAAC,sustainabilitygoalsweredevelopedforcategoriesidentifiedasbeingmostimportant,andincluding:AirportFinancecategoryProvidinganeconomicallystableassetthatcontributestothecommunity;and,Balanceexpenditureswithrevenuetoremainfinanciallyself-sufficientinthelong-term.•Improverevenuetoprovideforfuturedevelopmentopportunities.•ProvidefinancialcapacitythatwillenabletheAirporttopursuesustainabilityinitiativesinthefuture.AirportandLocalEconomicValuescategory•Attractairporttenantsandaircraftoperationsthataddeconomicvaluetothelocaleconomy.•ContinuouslyimproveasatieronesupplierforBoeingaircraftmanufacturing.•Diversifytenantsandaviationservicesforlandandseabasedoperations.•Increaseemployment.CommunityOutreachandEducationcategory•Continuouslyimprovetheairport’srelationswiththesurroundingneighborhoodsandwithairporttenants.•Raisecommunityawarenessofairportservicesandvaluetoregionalemployment.EnergyConsumption/GreenhouseGasescategory•ReduceenergyconsumptionwithoutadverselyaffectingtheAirportoritstenants.•ReduceAirportownedgreenhousegasemissions.NoisefromAircraftOperationscategory•Maintain65DNLnoisecontouronairportproperty.•Minimizeaircraftnoiseoverneighborhoods.Operations,Maintenance,CapitalImprovementsofAirportFacilitiescategory•Maintainasafeairportonadailybasis.•Maintainairportandseaplaneinfrastructureingoodcondition.WaterQualitycategory•Reducestormwaterrunoffquantity.•Improvestormwaterquality.RENTONMUNICIPALAIRPORTA.46k. - Transportation Systems Division recommends approving a resolution Page 343 of 517 ISUSTAINABILITYMANAGEMENTPLANChapterEofthisdocumentdiscussestheinitiativesoractionsthatwereidentifiedwhichwillassisttheAirportwithmakingprogresstowardachievingthegoals.ImplementationTheprocessthatAirportstaffwillusetoimplementtherecommendationsoftheSustainabilityManagementPlanreflectsthe“plan,do,check,andact”cycle(describedlaterindetail).ToensurethattheprinciplesoftheprocessbecomepartoftheAirport’sculture,actionwillberequiredonaregularbasis.ThefollowingitemsidentifytheactionsthatwillbeoverseenbytheAirportManager,andoveracalendaryear,themanagementactionstobetaken:DailyActivities,asneededJournalinformationaboutactivitiesandcircumstancesaffectingconditionsattheAirport.•UsetheSustainabilityReportingToolforreview/screeningofinitiatives.MonthlyActivities•Inputofmonthlydata(electricityandfueluse,waterfees/use,etc.)intotheSustainabilityReportingTool.•ReviewandsupplementsustainabilityinitiativesintheSustainabilityReportingTool.QuarterlyActivities•MeetwithRentonAirportAdvisoryCommittee(RAAC)toreviewsustainabilityinitiativesreviewedbyairportstaffduringpreviousquarter.AnnualActivities:•Inputofannualdata(i.e.,annualoperations,energy,financialdata,etc.)bystaffintotheSustainabilityReportingToolbymid-Marchfortheprioryear.•ProduceanAnnualReportbeforemid-yearthat:+Documentsinitiativesreviewedduringtheprioryearandtheirratingsrelativetotheestablishedsustainabilitygoals.+Reportshistoricandcurrentperformancemetricsrelativetosustainabilitycategories.BiennialActivities(everytwoyears):•Reconsiderthesustainabilitygoalsandinitiativesandadjustasnecessary.•ReviewtheSustainabilityReportToolandadjustasnecessary.•Improvequarterlyandannualreportingtemplates,ifwarranted.•DiscussionwithRAPICaboutperformanceandgoals,andidentifysuggestedinitiativesfortheupcomingyear.•Evaluatetheseimplementationsteps,andreviseasnecessary.IRENTONMUNICIPALAIRPORTA.56k. - Transportation Systems Division recommends approving a resolution Page 344 of 517 ISUSTAINABILITYMANAGEMENTPLANCalendarofSustainabilityManagementPlanActivitiesMONTHACTIONSTOBEUNDERTAKENEveryMonthJournalairporttrendsandconditionsEvaluateanddocumentinitiativesInputmonthlyutilitydataJanuaryFebruaryMeetwithRAAC—Present4thquarterinitiativesMarchInputyearenddataforprioryearintotheSustainabilityReportingToolAprilMayStaffreview/assessmentofprioryearperformanceProduceannualreportforprioryearJuneMeetwithRAAC—Presentprioryearperformanceand1StquarterinitiativesJulyAugustMeetwithRAAC—Present2ndquarterinitiativesSeptemberOctoberNovemberMeetwithRAAC—Present3rdquarterinitiativesDecemberThroughtheaboveimplementationprocess,theAirportmanagementstaffwilltrackprogresstowarditssustainabilitygoals.Whileperiodiccheckswillbeperformed,acomprehensivereviewofthecategories/issues,goals,objectives,metrics,andreportingprocedureswillbeconductedeverytwoyears.Thepurposeofthebiennialreviewistomakeadjustmentsbasedonexperience,lessonslearned,changingconditions,inputfromstakeholders,andchangesintheneedsofthecategories.ChapterFprovidesastep-by-stepprocessforthisreevaluation.Theimplementationapproachreflectsthebeliefthatsuccessfulimplementationofsustainabilitypracticesshouldbetransparentandinvolvethe“plan,do,check,act”1process.ThisSustainabilityManagementPlanitself(andthesubsequentchapters)representsthefirststep-the“plan”portionoftheprocess.Implementationoftheinitiatives,includingthedatacollection,representsthe“do”portionoftheprocess.Afterimplementinginitiatives,establishinga“check”process(whichiseffectivelyareview/reporteffort)isneeded.AlsocalledtheDemingCycle.IRENTONMUNICIPALAIRPORTA.66k. - Transportation Systems Division recommends approving a resolution Page 345 of 517 SUSTAINABILITYMANAGEMENTPLANTheSustainabilityManagementPlanprocessdevelopedatool(SustainabilityReportingTool)fortrackingandreportingprogress.Astimeprogresses,Airportstaffmayneedtoidentifyareaswhereadditionaleffortsorfocusmaybewarranted.The“act”portionrepresentsadjustmentstotheimplementationbasedonwhathasbeenlearnedduringthe“do”and‘check”steps.Thisentire“plan,do,check,act”processisvitaltothesuccessofasustainabilityprogrambecauseitguidesimplementationofsustainabilityinitiatives,trackstheirsuccessovertime,andhighlightswaystoimprovetheprograminthefuture,leadingtoevenmoresustainablemeasuresinthefuture.RENTONMUNICIPALAIRPORTA.76k. - Transportation Systems Division recommends approving a resolution Page 346 of 517 ISUSTAINABILITYMANAGEMENTPLANB.SustainabilityforRentonMunicipalAirportThischapterintroducesthedefinitionofsustainabilityasitappliestoRentonMunicipalAirport,andlistsRenton’sinitialsustainabilitycategoriesofinterest.ThesecategoriesenableAirportstafftofocusonspecificsustainabilitygoalsandobjectives,whichareoutlinedinChapterC.RentonDefinitionofSustainabilityWhileingeneral,sustainabilityreferstobalancingfinancial,environmental,andsocialconsiderationsindecisionmaking,eachorganizationoftentakesvariousdifferentapproachestodefiningsustainability.Thesustainabilitydefinitiondependslargelyontheindividualairport,environmental,andcommunityfactors.Becauseofthis,inordertocreateasuccessfulsustainabilityplan,Airportstaffmustfirstdeterminehowtodescribesustainabilityontheirterms,keepinginmindtheirexistingvisionstatementandtheindividualizedairport,environmental,andcommunitycharacteristics.Mostpartiesthatembarkonsustainabilityplanninguseoneofthemorecommonlycitedsustainabilitydefinitionsasafoundationandthenattachvariousvaluesorpoliciesapplicabletothatorganizationtocreateanindividualizedsustainabilitypolicy.AreviewoftheexistingdefinitionsofsustainabilityprovidesamethodtocreateanindividualizedunderstandingofsustainabilitythatmeetsRentonMunicipalAirport’sneeds,whilestillrecognizingIRENTONMUNICIPALAIRPORTB.16k. - Transportation Systems Division recommends approving a resolution Page 347 of 517 SUSTAINABILITYMANAGEMENTPLANthatthisdefinitioncanevolveovertime.Rangesofsustainabilitydefinitionswereconsideredduringthefirstphaseofthisproject.TheserangeofsustainabilitydefinitionsintheaviationindustryandworldwideareincludedinAppendix1.BasedontheAirport’sfocusonoperationalandfinancialviabilitywithinthecontextofcomplexsocialandenvironmentalcharacteristics,RentonMunicipalAirportdecidedtoembracethedefinitionofsustainabilityasendorsedbytheAirportsCouncilInternational-NorthAmerica(Ad-NA).ACI-NA’sdefinitionofsustainabilityis:01i5t1C1”aholisticapproachtomanaginganairportsoastoensuretheintegrityoftheEconomicviability,Operationalefficiency,NaturalResourceConservationandSocialresponsibility(EONS)oftheAirport.”RentonSustainabilityVisionAftercementingasustainabilitydefinitionforRentonMunicipalAirport,thenextstepintheSustainabilityManagementPlanprocesswastoconsiderhowthesustainabilityvaluescanbeembracedatRentonMunicipalAirport.Inordertoembracesustainabilitymorevisibly,airportstaffworkedwiththeprojectteamandRAACtoidentifyanairportsustainabilityvision.Afterdiscussion,thestaffattheAirportidentifiedthefollowingsustainabilityvision:•Provideahighstandardforsafetyandcustomersatisfaction;•Provideahighstandardforoperationalefficiency;•Provideaneconomicallystableassetthatcontributestothecommunity;and,•Demonstrateenvironmentalstewardshipandcommunity/socialresponsibility.Thesustainabilityvisionwasdevelopedinconsiderationofthedefinitionofsustainabilityoutlinedpreviously,andtheCityofRenton’sVisionStatement(detailedinAppendix1).Asageneralaviationairport,RentonMunicipalAirportdoesnothavetheresourcesthatareoftenavailabletootherlargerairportsthathavededicatedsustainabilityorenvironmental,community,andfinancialstaffmembers.Therefore,fortheRentonMunicipalSustainabilityManagementPlantobesuccessful,theapproachtakenmustbedonetobalancetheresourcesavailable,whilemeetingthesustainabilityvisiondetailedabove.RENTONMUNICIPALAIRPORTB.26k. - Transportation Systems Division recommends approving a resolution Page 348 of 517 SUSTAINABILITYMANAGEMENTPLANForsomethingtobesustainable,itmustnotjeopardizetheorganization’sabilitytomeettheirfundamentalresponsibilities.TherearethreefundamentalactionsthatRentonMunicipalAirportisresponsiblefor,including:•Day-to-dayoperationandmaintenanceoftheairportfacility;=PeriodiccapitalimprovementattheAirport;andAirportBusinessManagementthatincludesmaintainingresponsiblepartnershipswithtenants,neighbors,regulators,andotherstakeholders.TheSustainabilityManagementPlanforRentonMunicipalAirportmustitselfbesustainableand,therefore,betailoredtobalancefinancialandstaffresources,localsocialconcerns,andenvironmentalconsiderations.Whenmakingdecisionsandtakingaction,theAirportManagerwillapplytheprincipleofsustainabilitybyconsideringtheeffectsoftheirdecisions/actionsonthefocusareasorcategories.SustainabilityCategoriesThisSustainabilityManagementPlanwaspreparedunderagrantfromtheFAA’sSustainabilityPilotProgram.Thatprogramprovidedatemplatescopeofservices,whichairportsparticipatingintheprogramtailoredtotheirlocalneeds.Includedinthattemplatescopeistheterm“categories.”Ingeneral,airportsparticipatinginthepilotprogramhaveadaptedthattermtorepresentinterestareasorstudyareafocus.ThroughcoordinationwiththeRAAC,the“categories”forconsiderationinthisSustainabilityManagementPlanwereselected.AcategoryisanareaoffocusthathasbeenidentifiedasimportantfortheAirportandcommunity.Categoriescreateafoundationtofocusthedevelopmentofspecificsustainabilitygoals/objectivesandsubsequentinitiativesdescribedlater.InputfromtheRAAChelpedidentifyimportantissuesrelatingtothegoalsandobjectives.Forthetenants,issuesidentifiedincludedcompetitiveleaseratesandotherfinancialmeasurestomaketheuseoftheAirportmoreattractiveandaffordable.ResidentialcommunitymembersSustainabilityatRentonGoals•Objectives•InitiativesindicatedthatnoiseandvisualimpactoftheAirportonthesurroundingneighborhoodswereofconcern.AdditionalcategoriesandissueswilllikelybeaddressedinthefutureasthePlanisupdated.Thefollowingcategorieswereselected:•AIRPORTFINANCE:Airportfinancialstabilityiscrucialtoitslong-termviability,andtheviabilityoftenantbusinesses.Airportfinanceincludesallrevenueandexpendituresassociatedwiththeoperation,maintenance,andimprovementofthefacility.•AIRPORTANDLOCALECONOMICVALUES:TheabilityfortheAirporttoretainaircraftmanufacturingjobsforcitizens,generaterevenuewhilemaintainingreasonableleaseratesforairportbusinesses,andreceivingfederalfinancialassistanceisvitaltoitsabilitytomaintainandimproveeconomicconditionsattheAirportlocally,regionally,andnationally.RENTONMUNICIPALAIRPORTB.36k. - Transportation Systems Division recommends approving a resolution Page 349 of 517 ISUSTAINABILITYMANAGEMENTPLAN•COMMUNITYOUTREACHANDEDUCATION:TheAirportisavisiblememberofthelocalcommunity,CityofRenton,andPugetSoundRegion.WhilemostindividualsinthoseareasdonothavedirectcontactwiththeAirport,theaircraftusingthefacilitiesareoftennoticed.Further,thecommunityisdirectlyandindirectlybenefitedfromeconomicactivityoccurringattheAirport.ENERGYCONSUMPTION/GREENHOUSEGASES:EnergyisanimportantsustainabilityissueforRentonMunicipalAirportbecausereducingenergy/fuelusecanimproveairqualityandreducegreenhousegases,andreduceoperatingcostsfortheAirport.TheCityofRentonrecognizesthatgreenhousegasemissionshaveaglobaleffect,withconsequencesfeltregionallyduetothepotentialforclimatechangeandsealevelrise.•NOISEFROMAIRCRAFTOPERATIONS:Aircraftnoiseoverresidentialareasisalong-timeconcernofboththeAirportandsurroundingcommunities.AircraftnoiseisexperiencedfromawiderangeofactivitiesattheAirport,rangingfromflightschoolstoBoeingaircraftoperations.•OPERATIONSANDMAINTAINANCEOFAIRPORTFACILITIES:ThemajorityofAirportstafftimeandfinancialresourcesisdedicatedtothecontinuedmaintenanceandoperationofthefacilities.ConsiderableeffortisexpendedtokeepthefacilityrunningwhilestrivingtoenhanceconditionsforusersoftheAirport,aswellasthesurroundingneighborhoods.OperationsandmaintenanceactivitiesrepresentthebestopportunityforincorporationofsustainabilityintoboththemanagementandstructureoftheAirport.WATERQUALITY:DuetothecloseproximityofCedarRiverandLakeWashington,waterqualityisanimportantpartoftheairportenvironment.Stormwaterrun-offfromtheAirportincreasesthepotentialforimpactsonwaterqualityandhabitatinthearea.Additionally,areductionofpotablewaterconsumptionattheAirportcanreduceoperatingcosts.BasedondiscussionswithAirportstaffandtheRentonAirportAdvisoryCommittee,futureexpansionofthisPlanmayconsiderinclusionof:Waste,NaturalHabitats,ConstructionManagement,andAirQuality.Theseissuesandotherswereinitiallyconsideredbut,ultimately,notincludedinthisinitialPlanbecauseofthelimitedamountofbaselineandfutureinformationavailableandtheadditionalstaffandfinancialcoststhatwouldbeincurredbytheAirportwhentracking.Astheimplementationprogresses,thelimitingfactorsareexpectedtosubsideandconsiderationofadditionalissues/categoriesmaybewarranted.Thefollowingchapter,CurrentConditions,includesdetailedinventoryofthebaselineconditionsrelatedtotheabovecategories,asavailable.IRENTONMUNICIPALAIRPORTB.46k. - Transportation Systems Division recommends approving a resolution Page 350 of 517 ISUSTAINABILITYMANAGEMENTPLANc.CurrentConditionsThischapteridentifiesthecurrentconditionsrelativetothekeyfocusoftheinitialSustainabilityManagementPlan.Thebaselineenabledanunderstandingoftheissues.Withthatunderstanding,goalsandobjectivescouldbeconsidered,aswellasaidinidentifyingmetricstomeasureprogress.Thischapterdocumentsbaseline(existing)conditionsinthefocusareas(categories).AsummaryofthebaselinedataforthesecategoriesisdescribedbelowanddetailedinAppendix2.ThisinformationrepresentswhatisknownabouttheAirportrelativetotheinitialsustainabilitycategoriesinthecurrent,short-,medium-andlong-termtimeframes,Itisimportanttonotethatsomeinformationisnotavailableincertaincategoriesandmustbeestimated.Assuch,todisclosethedataconfidence,thedatasourcesareidentifiedasmeasured,orestimated.LRENTONMUNICIPALAIRPORTC.16k. - Transportation Systems Division recommends approving a resolution Page 351 of 517 ISUSTAINABILITYMANAGEMENTPLANAirportSettingRentonMunicipalAirportisageneralaviationairportthatservesRenton,Washingtonandothernearbycommunities.TheCityofRentonislocatedonthesouthshoreofLakeWashington.TheCityofRentonishometoapproximately94,000residentsandisafastgrowingcommunityinthePugetSoundarea.TheAirportprovidesregionalaviationservicesforaircharter,airtaxi,corporate,business,andrecreationalflyers.Withover80,000annualaircraftoperations,theAirportisusedprimarilybysingleenginepistonaircraft.TheBoeingCommercialAirplaneCompanyfacilitiesatandnearRentonMunicipalAirportareusedtomanufactureBoeing737aircraft.BoeingisaneconomiccontributortothePugetSoundareaeconomy,aswellasregionallyandnationally.WillRogers-WileyPostMemorialSeaplaneBaseislocatedatthenorthendoftheAirport,alongtheshoreofLakeWashington.FigureClOverallOperationalExpenseCategories,Budgeted2012Source:SustainableBusinessConsulting,2012.Management\Totals$955,060FinancialTheinformationincludedinthissectionidentifiesthefinancialbaselinefortheAirportandprovidesinsighttothoseareasthatcreatetheheaviestburdenontheAirportfinancially.SourcesofRevenue:Ninety-fivepercentofrevenuecollectedatRentonMunicipalAirportisderivedfromtheirlong-termleasesofairportpropertyandbuildings.Theremainingsourcesofrevenuetodayandinthefuturearefromfuelsales,investmentinterest,andfacilityenhancementprojects.Facilityenhancementprojectswillgenerateadditionalincomeonceconstructedwiththeadditionalrevenuederivedprimarilyfromleasesonnewlyconstructedfacilities,AnewleasewithBoeingstartingin2010resultedinanearly$1millionannualincreaseinoperatingrevenue.OperatingExpenses:OperationalexpensesforRentonMunicipalAirportwereseparatedintothreegeneralcategories:StaffingExpenses,MaintenanceExpenses,andIndirectCosts.EightypercentofthecostsareassociatedwithStaffingExpenses.IndirectCosts(interest,insurance,etc.)arethesecondlargestcategoryandaccountforaboutsixteenpercentoftotalexpenses.Electricity,gas,water,sewage,andfuelaccountforapproximatelyelevenpercentofthetotalexpensebudget(over$100,000ayear).Moredetailedinformationabouteachofthesecategoriesfor2012isincludedEnFigureCl,OverallOperationExpenseCategories.AdditionalinformationabouttheairportfinancesisprovidedinAppendix4.IndirectCostTotals$178,055MaintenanceTotals$56,500RENTONMUNICIPALAIRPORTC.26k. - Transportation Systems Division recommends approving a resolution Page 352 of 517 SUSTAINABILITYMANAGEMENTPLANCapitalImprovementProgramExpenses:TheAirporthasexperiencedafewyearsofhighcapitalexpendituresinordertomaintainandrenewtheairportinfrastructure.Additionalcapitalprojectsareplannedtooccurinthefuture.TheseexpensesaredocumentedinAppendix4.GreenhouseGasEmissionsInventoryAGreenhouseGasEmissions(GHG)inventorywascompletedforthekeysourcesandothersourceslocatedontheAirportthatareownedbytheCity,basedon2010conditions.Includingallairport-relatedsources,activityatRentonMunicipalAirportgeneratesapproximately6,608metrictonsofgreenhousegases(CO2e-carbondioxideequivalentgases).Ofthe6,608metrictonsofCO2e,theCityofRentononlyhasdirectcontrol(referredtoasScope1or2emissions)overapproximately132metrictonsofC02e,approximatelytwopercentoftheemissionsattheAirport.ThebreakdownofemissionscanbeseeninFigureC2,EMISSIONSSOURCESBYTYPE,2010.FigureC2EmissionsSourcesbyType(2010)Source:SustainableBusinessconsulting,2011.Scope3JerAFuel22%......5cope1&22%Scope3Wacte7%Scope3intituo.7%EnergyUtilities—EmissionsandCostAlargequantityoftheAirport’sgreenhousegasemissionscomesfromitselectricityusagefromitsfacilitiesandfieldlightingandequatestoapproximatelysixtypercentoftheemissionsthatareownedandcontrolledbytheAirportandresultedinalargeportionoftheAirport’soperatingbudget.TheAirportTrafficControlTower/FAAOffices/AirportOfficesarethelargestusersofelectricityduetoenergyintensiveactivitiesoccurringwithinthefacilitiessuchascomputerservers,airflightcontrolrooms,etc.Overthecourseofthepastthreeyears,electricityuseattheAirportdecreasedslightlyfromahighof228,224kWhsin2008,toalowof205,519kWhsin2010.WaterResourcesTheAirportisbilledatmediumintensityratesforalloftheimpervioussurfacecoveredareaontheAirport.Thischargehasincreasedfromapproximately$4,000permonthin2007to$9,300permonthin2012,andisprojectedtorisesubstantiallyinthenearfutureasoverallstormwaterratesriseintheCity.Currently,theAirporthasatotalof$94,766budgetedforCitySurfaceWaterManagementfeesin2012,butthisbudgetedamountdidnotaccountforarecentincreaseinthestormwaterfees,whichhavenowrisento$111,000.Approximatelyhalfoftheairport’simpervioussurfaceisdischargeddirectlyintotheCedarRiveranddoesnotrelyontheCity’sstormwaterconveyancesystem.TheCityofRentonprovideswaterandsewerservicetothesouthhalfoftheAirport,andBrynMawr-SkywayWaterandSewerDistrictprovideswaterandsewertothenorthwestquadrant.ThelargestexpenseinthewaterusecategorycomesfromtheirrigationprovidedthroughAirportWayScope3GeneralAviationFuelS76%RENTONMUNICIPALAIRPORTC.36k. - Transportation Systems Division recommends approving a resolution Page 353 of 517 SUSTAINABILITYMANAGEMENTPLANWestIrrigation.Intotal,irrigationaccountsforaboutforty-eightpercentofthetotalwaterexpense.Generally,theseexpensespeakinJunethroughOctoberduringthegrowingseason,withapproximatelyseventypercentofthecostsbeingincurredinthesemonths.AirportVehicleFleetandRelatedEmissionsTheAirportownsseveralvehiclesforusebyairportstaffforgeneralairportoperationandmaintenance,includingfourlighttrucks.Additionally,theAirportownsalargemowerthatisusedtomaintainairportlandscaping.Emissionsfromairport-ownedvehiclesandequipmentrepresentapproximatelytwenty-fourpercentofairport-ownedandcontrolledemissions,secondonlytoelectricity.EmployeesTheAirportemployssixfulltimeregularemployeesandfivefulltimeseasonalemployees.Anemployeecommutingsurveywascompletedin2011withaparticipationrateofonehundredpercent.Intermsofemployeeworkcommuting,ninety-sixpercentoftravelconsistsofsingleoccupancydriving,twopercentmotorcycleuse,andtwopercentbicycleuse,withanaveragecommutingdistanceof29milesround-trip.Noparkingfeesarechargedforemployees,andparkingislocateddirectlynexttotheentrance/office.CommunityTheCityofRentonComprehensivePlanUpdateof2009describestheAirportas,“morethanatransportationfacility.ItisalsoavitalelementtoRenton’scommercialandindustrialeconomy,providingaircraftservices,manufacturingsupport,flighttraining,andotherairportactivities.”Theplanincludesobjectivesandpoliciestosupportincreasedaviationactivitiesandappropriatemitigationofadverseimpactswhenpossible.Inrecentyears,Airportstaffmembershaveworkedonimprovingpublicoutreach.TheRentonAirportAdvisoryCommitteewascreatedtoprovidealinkbetweentheAirportandthecommunityandstakeholders,includingtenants,localbusinessowners,andmembersofthepublic.NoiseLandusearoundtheAirportgenerallyconsistsofopenwatertotheimmediatenorth(LakeWashington)andeast(CedarRiver),andanurbanmixofcommercial,manufacturing!industrial,publicuse,andresidentialsurroundingtherestoftheAirport.TheAirporttrackscitizencomplaintsaboutaircraftnoise.Complaintsarereceivedthroughletters,emails,andphonecallsandareloggedandtrackedbytheAirport.Theredoesnotappeartobeaconsistentpatterninthenumberofnoisecomplaints(ascomparedinAppendix2).Thenumberofnoisecomplaintsha5rangedfrom16to217annuallyoverthecourseof2000-2011andhasincreasedanddecreasedvariablyoverthistimeperiod.Further,theredoesnotappeartobearelationshipbetweenthenumberoftotalaircraftoperationsorclassesofactivityandnoisecomplaints.Additionally,theAirportcreatedavoluntaryNoiseAbatementBrochuretohelpreducenoiseimpactsandincreasepilotawarenessofnoisesensitivelandusesaroundtheAirport.TheAirporthasworkedwiththeFlightSchooltohelpincreasetheuseoftheseprocedures,whenable,andalsohasdevelopedasetofvoluntarygroundrun-upprocedurestofurtherreduceimpacts.TheAirportisalsoworkingwithaconsultantwhohasstandardized,digitizedandmarketedthevoluntarynoiseabatementplanforinclusioninelectronic“flightbags”inordertoreachalargeraudienceofpilots.RENTONMUNICIPALAIRPORTC.46k. - Transportation Systems Division recommends approving a resolution Page 354 of 517 SUSTAINABILITYMANAGEMENTPLAND.SustainabilityGoalsandObjectivesSustainability“goals”arethepurposetowardwhichaninitiativeisdirectedorfocused.Sustainability“objectives”aredirectedatthespecificsofwhichtheinitiativesareintendedtoaccomplish.Objectivesaresometimescalledtargets.Wherenumerictargetsarenotdefined,theobjectivesprovideadditionalinformationaboutthefocusofthegoal.ThischapterliststhegoalsandobjectivesdevelopedfortheRentonMunicipalAirportSustainabilityManagementPlan.Progressforeachofthesustainabilitygoals/objectiveswillbetrackedincomparisontotheexistingbaselineconditionsoutlinedinthepreviouschapter.RENTONMUNICIPALAIRPORTD.16k. - Transportation Systems Division recommends approving a resolution Page 355 of 517 SUSTAINABILITYMANAGEMENTPLANTheAirportvisionistobe:Theproviderofsafe,efficient,andcustomer-friendlygeneralaviationfacilitiesandservices;TheairportofchoiceforaviationinRenton,theKentValley,andcitiesontheeasternshoreofLakeWashington;and,•ThelaunchsiteforBoeingaircraftmanufacturing.DevelopmentandEvolutionofSustainabilityGoals/ObjectivesTheAirportsvisionstatementshavebeenpairedwiththesustainabilitycategoriestobecomethebasisfordevelopingspecificsustainabilitygoals.ThegoalshavebeenrefinedthroughinputreceivedfromtheRAAC.Sustainabilitygoalswereproposedafterthebaselineinventorywascompleted,asthecontextoftheissuewasneededtodevelopapplicablegoals.TheRAACmemberswereabletofocusinandexaminenotonlytheobjectivesofthisSustainabilityManagementPlan,butalsotheobjectivesoftheAirportasawholeandhowgoalsmightrelatetocurrentconditionsandcommunityconcerns.Further,thediscussionofgoalsprovidedtheAirportandtheRAACmembersanopportunitytoarticulatetheirspecificdesiresforthefutureofthefacility.ThroughaseriesofprogressivelymoredetailedmeetingswiththeAirportandmembersoftheRAAC,thecurrentlistofgoalsandobjectiveswereestablishedforeachofthesustainabilityresourcecategories.AstheSustainabilityManagementPlanisputintopracticeandimplemented,thegoals/objectiveswillneedtobefurtherrefinedtoaccountforever-changingconditions.Inmanycases,itwillbedeterminedthatadditionalorperhapsmoreambitiousgoals/objectivescanbeestablished.Conversely,theremaybegoals/objectivesthatneedtobeloweredorremovedbecauseoftheinabilitytoachieveortrackprogressasconditionschange.Asimplementationprogresses,Airportmanagementmaywishtoamendgoals/objectivesasappropriateandmodifytheinitiatives,tracking,andimplementationtools.ThefollowingprovidesadescriptionofthesustainabilitygoalsdevelopedforeachresourcecategorycurrentlyconsideredinthisPlan:AirportFinanceCategoryGOAL:Balanceexpenditureswithrevenuetoremainfinanciallyself-sufficientinthelong-term.KEYOBJECTIVE:TomaintainfiscalbalancetoensurethattheAirportcancontinuetooperate,maintain,andimprovethefacilitieswithoutsourcesofrevenuebeyondthoseeithergeneratedattheAirportorprovidedbytheFAA.TheAirport,historically,wasnotalwaysself-sufficientandithasbeenabletobecomesothroughfiscaldisciplineandbudgeting.GOAL:Improverevenuetoprovideforfuturedevelopmentopportunities.KEYOBJECTIVE:ToimproverevenuesufficienttomeetoperationsandmaintenancecostsandallowforstrategicimprovementsthatprovidebenefittobothAirportusersandthesurroundingcommunities.Currently,theAirportgeneratesenoughrevenuetoundertakemodestfacilityimprovementswithfinancialassistancefromtheFAA.CurrentfinancialresourcesrequirethatmanyofthefacilityimprovementprojectsRENTONMUNICIPALAIRPORTD.26k. - Transportation Systems Division recommends approving a resolution Page 356 of 517 SUSTAINABILITYMANAGEMENTPLANgetpushedintothefuture,wellbeyondwhenneeded.GOAL:ProvidefinancialcapacitythatwillenabletheAirporttopursuesustainabilityinitiativesinthefuture.KEYOBJECTIVE:Toimprovefinancialcapabilitytofacilitatetheundertakingofsustainabilityimprovementprojectsthatmayhaveahigherinitialcost,butprovideamuchlowertotalcostandprovideagreaterreturnoninvestment.Byprovidingadequatefinancialresourcesupfront,theAirportcanreduceitslong-termfinancialcommitmentsandprovidefacilitiesthatbetterbalanceoperational,environmental,social,andfinancialconsiderations.AirportandLocalEconomicValuesCategoryGOAL:Attractairporttenantsandaircraftoperationsthataddeconomicvaluetothelocaleconomy.KEYOBJECTIVE:ToprovidefacilitiesandservicesthatattractusersandtenantsandmaximizesbenefitstotheAirportandlocalcommunity.Generally,tenantsthatprovideservicestousers,increaseemploymentattheAirport,andmaintainfinanciallystablebusinessesaremostbeneficialtotheAirportandlocaleconomy.GOAL:ContinuouslyimproveasatieronesupplierforBoeingaircraftmanufacturing.KEYOBJECTIVE:TomaintainandenhancetheAirportinamannerthatachievesbenefitforBoeing,theAirport,andthecommunity.TheBoeingCommercialAirplaneCompany,locatedadjacenttotheAirport,manufacturesBoeing737aircraftandusestheairfieldfortheirinitialflights,andisaneconomicdriverlocally,regionally,andnationally.GOAL:Diversifytenantsandaviationservicesforlandandseabasedoperations.KEYOBJECTIVE:ToprovideavarietyofservicesandtenantsattheAirporttomaketheAirportmoredesirableforothertenantsandusers.Todiversifytypesofbusinessandoperationstoprovidestabilitywhenoneormoresectorsofaviationexperiencechangesordeclines.GOAL:IncreaseprivatesectoremploymentontheAirportproperty.KEYOBJECTIVE:ToprovideopportunitiesfortheAirportanditstenantstoincreaseemploymentatthefacility,aswellasprovideeconomicbenefitsthatincreaseemploymentregionally.Increasestoemploymentgenerally,aswellasregionally,havetheeffectofstimulatingtheeconomyattheAirport.CommunityOutreachandEducationCategoryGOAL:Continuouslyimprovetheairport’srelationswiththesurroundingneighborhoodsandwithairporttenants.RENTONMUNICIPALAIRPORTD.36k. - Transportation Systems Division recommends approving a resolution Page 357 of 517 SUSTAINABILIT’(MANAGEMENTPLANKEYOBJECTIVE:TomaintainandenhancetheopencommunicationbetweentheAirport,surroundingneighborhoods,andairporttenants.TopartnerincollaborativeeffortstoprovidebenefitstothecommunityandtotheAirport.TheAirportisavisiblememberofthelocalneighborhoods,CityofRenton,andPugetSoundRegion’seconomy.WhilemostindividualsinthoseareasdonothavedirectcontactwiththeAirport,theaircraftusingthefacilitiesareoftennoticed.GOAL:Raisecommunityawarenessofairportservicesandvaluetoregionalemployment.KEYOBJECTIVE:ToassisttheunderstandingofthebenefitsthattheAirportprovidesbothdirectlyandindirectly.TheAirportservesasaneconomicengineforregionalemploymentandservices.TherearealargenumberofjobsandservicesthataredependentuponthefacilitiesandservicesprovidedattheAirport.EnergyConsumptionIGreenhouseGasesCategoryGOAL:ReduceenergyconsumptionwithoutadverselyaffectingtheAirportoritstenants.KEYOBJECTIVE:TooperatetheAirportinamannerthatreducesenergyconsumptionwithoutnegativelyaffectingthefacilityanditsusers.Reducingenergyconsumptiongenerallydecreasesfinancialexpenditures,aswellasreducestheamountofgreenhousegasandotheremissionsgeneratedattheAirport.GOAL:ReduceAirportownedgreenhousegasemissions.KEYOBJECTIVE:Toreachorexceedthegoaloffifteenpercentreductioningreenhousegasemissionsby2020throughgainsinefficiencyandreducedenergyconsumption.NoisefromAircraftOperationsCategoryGOAL:Maintain65DNLnoisecontouronairportproperty.KEYOBJECTIVE:Tomaintainaircraftnoiselevelsinneighborhoodstobelow65DNL,whichisthefederallyrecognizedthresholdforlandusecompatibility.Currently,the65DNLdoesnotextendbeyondairportpropertyintoresidentialneighborhoods.GOAL:Minimizeaircraftnoiseoverneighborhoods.KEYOBJECTIVE:ToimprovethenoiseenvironmentforneighborhoodsinthevicinityoftheAirport.Aircraftoftenoverflyresidentialareasduringtake-off,landings,andpatternflighttraining.TheAirportdesirestobothminimizetotalaircraftnoiseexposureoverneighborhoods,whileprovidingafacilitythatisaccommodatingandopentousers.Currently,theAirportmaintainsanoiseabatementbrochure,tracksnoisecomplaints,andworkswithpilotsandtheFAAtoidentifyvoluntarymeasuresthatminimizeoverallnoiselevels.RENTONMUNICIPALAIRPORTD.46k. - Transportation Systems Division recommends approving a resolution Page 358 of 517 SUSTAINABILITYMANAGEMENTPLANOperations,Maintenance,andCapitalImprovementofAirportFacilitiesCategoryGOAL:Maintainasafeairportonadailybasis.KEYOBJECTIVE:TocontinuetoprovideafacilitythatmeetsorexceedssafetystandardssetbytheFAAforaFARPart139Airportwhenfeasible.TheAirport’sandFAA’stopmandateisaviationsafety.Tomeetsafetyrequirements,theAirportmustcontinuetooperateandmaintainthefacilitywithahighlevelofdiligenceonadailybasis.Examplesofmaintenanceactivitiesincludepavementrepairs,perimetersecurityimprovements,trimmingandmowingofvegetatedareas,removalofwildlifehazardsandattractants,lightingimprovementsandreplacement,andmanymore.GOAL:Maintainairportandseaplaneinfrastructureingoodcondition.KEYOBJECTIVE:MaintainairportpavementstoaPavementConditionIndexvalueof60forallrunwayandtaxiwaypavementsexperiencingaircraftloadsofmorethan60,000poundstosafelyaccommodateBoeingproductionaircraft.Maintaintheseaplanefacilities,whichincludeafloatingseaplanedockandlaunchrampandatleastsixfeetofdepthnecessaryforfloatplaneaccessofthelaunchramp.WaterQualityCategoryGOAL:Reducestormwaterrunoffquantity.KEYOBJECTIVE:ReducetheamountofstormwaterleavingtheAirporttolowertheenvironmentalimpactsassociatedwithurbanstormwaterdischarges.GOAL:Improvestormwaterquality.KEYOBJECTIVE:ToimprovethenaturalenvironmentattheAirportandinsurroundingneighborhoods.Stormwaterqualityaffectsgroundwater,naturalhabitats,andaquaticspecies.TheAirportisimmediatelyadjacenttotheCedarRiverandLakeWashington,whichbothsupportsensitivehabits,salmon,andpublicswimmingareas.RENTONMUNICIPALAIRPORTD.56k. - Transportation Systems Division recommends approving a resolution Page 359 of 517 SUSTAINABILITYMANAGEMENTPLANE.InitiativesforMeetingGoalsandObjectivesSustainability“initiatives”existandproposedactionsorprojectsundertakenbytheAirportinconjunctionwiththeconductoftheirthreeprimaryactivities:1)operation,2)maintenance,and3)capitalimprovementofthefacility.ThepurposeofanInitiativeistomakeprogresstowardreachingormaintainingoneormoresustainabilitybasedgoals.TheAirporthasinitiatednumerousinitiativesassociatedwiththeirthreeprimaryactivities(operations,maintenance,andcapitalimprovements).Inadditiontoexistinginitiatives,newinitiativeshavebeenidentifiedthroughthedevelopmentofthisPlan.Whiletheintentofindividualinitiativesistoassistwithmovingtowardachievingagoal,inmanycases,thatinitiativemayalsobeneutralornegativetowardmeetinganothergoal.Inthoseinstances,theSustainabilityManagementPlanwillassistthedecisionmakerswhenbalancingthesetypesofconsiderations.P.-—.iø--RENTONMUNICIPALAIRPORTE.16k. - Transportation Systems Division recommends approving a resolution Page 360 of 517 SUSTAINABILITYMANAGEMENTPLANDevelopmentandEvolutionofSustainabilityInitiativesAfterinitialsustainabilitygoalswereestablishedforthecategoriesselectedforthisSustainabilityManagementPlan,theprojectteamdevelopedalistofpotentialinitiativesfortherespectivegoals.TheinitialsetofinitiativeswasthenrefinedbytheAirportManagement.AspartoftheSustainabilityManagementPlan,severalRentonAirportAdvisoryCommitteemeetingswereconductedtoreview,revise,andprioritizeadraftlistofsustainabilityinitiatives.Duringonemeeting,participantsprovidedcommentsonthepotentialrangeofinitiativesandthen,throughapollingprocess,identifiedthoseinitiativesthattheyeachindividuallybelievedtobeofimportance.TheresultsofthateffortarenotedinAppendix6.Assustainabilityinitiativesarecompleted,refined,orsuspended,AirportstaffwilltrackandmonitortheprogresstowardmeetingtheestablishedgoalsoftheSustainabilityManagementPlan.Perhapsmoreimportant,theimplementationofthePlanshoulditselfserveasatooltoenabletheAirporttoevaluateactionsandprojectsinordertodetermineiftheyleadtowardsustainability.FollowingisthelistofinitiativesidentifiedbytheAirportStaffandRentonAirportAdvisoryCommitteeasbeingmostimportant.ThefulllistofinitiativesidentifiedandconsideredduringthedevelopmentofthisPlanisincludedinAppendix5.Itisexpectedthatthebelowlistwillbesupplementedwithadditionalinitiativesandrefinedbychangeorremovalofinitiativesasimplementationprogresses.TheimplementationprocessisfurtheroutlinedinChapterA.Thefollowinginitiativeswereidentified:AirportFinancialsInitiativesAF1.UpdateCashFlowModelmonthlyAF2.TrackmonthlyutilitychargesAF3.PartnerwithenergyfirmstoconsiderrenewableenergyprojectsonresidualairportlandsthatoffsetairportcostsorgeneraterevenueAF4.InitiateatotalcostofownershipsystemformakingdecisionsAirportandLocalEconomicValueInitiativesEV1.PrepareforgreaterleaseareaneedsassociatedwithBoeing737MaxprogramEV2.PrecisionApproach—DevelopRNPapproach/departureproceduresEV3.AttractanavionicsrepairshopasanairporttenantEV4.PartnerwithenergyfirmstoconsiderrenewableenergyprojectsthatoffsetairportcostsorgeneraterevenueCommunityOutreachandEducationInitiativesCOl.ContinueairporttoursforatleastfiveRenton-basedcommunitygroupsannuallyC02.ConductoneannualairportopenhouseSustainabilityInitiativesaretheactionsthatcouldbetakentomeetthedefinedgoalsandobjectives.IRENTONMUNICIPALAIRPORTE.26k. - Transportation Systems Division recommends approving a resolution Page 361 of 517 SUSTAINABILITYMANAGEMENTPLANC03.Establishairportinternshipsand/orpubliceducationprogramsCD4.Conducteventssuchasdisplaysofhistoricalinformation,womanflight,aircraft,etc.CD5.Usesocialmedia,suchastheairportwebsite,todisseminateinformationregardingoperationalchangesC06.SeekopportunitiestousetheoldRentonChamberofCommercesitetoengagethepublicintheimportanceofaviationinRentonEnergyConservation!GreenhouseGasesInitiativesEC1.Lightingupgradeforbuildings(Buildings616and790)EC2.RemoveoldnaturalgasandpropaneheatingunitsandreplacewithhighefficiencyheatersEC3.PartnerwithutilitytoexamineenergyefficiencyinitiativesNoisefromAircraftOperationsInitiativesND1.AnnuallyupdatebrochureforVoluntaryNoiseAbatementproceduresND2.ContinuetoencourageRenton-basedandotherflightschoolsintheareatotrainstudentsto“flyquiet”ND3.ContinuetocontractwithfirmstoelectronicallydisseminateRenton’sexistingnoiseabatementproceduresN04.EvaluatebermsandblastfencesforadditionalattenuationOperation,Maintenance,andCapitalImprovementofAirportFacilitiesInitiativesDM1.ReplacetheSeaplanelaunchrampDM2.CompletetheMaintenanceDredgingandShorelineMitigationprojecttomaintainproperwaterdepthsforseaplanestoaccesstheLakeDM3.Developa“green”landscapingandmaintenancepracticesplan(i.e.,limitchemical,waterandenergyuse,useofnativematerials,etc.)DM4.PerformannualfacilitysurveysandprioritizemaintenanceitemsfortheyearDM5.UpdatethePavementManagementPlanfortheAirporttotrackthepavementconditionoftherunway,alltaxiwaysandramps,andallparkinglotsandperimeterroadpavementsDM6.CompletethedevelopmentofanairportmaintenancemanagementplanbyDecember2013tomemorializescheduledmaintenanceactivitiesWaterQualityInitiativesWQ1.Considerinstallingperviouspavementswhenrepavingparkinglots,whereappropriate/availableWQ2.InstallswalesorraingardentypetreatmentswherepossibletoimprovestormwaterqualityWQ3.Utilizelow-toxicityherbicides-Plantnitrogen-fixingvegetationWQ4.InstallmoisturesensorsandtimersforallirrigationsystemsIRENTDNMUNICIPALAIRPDRTE.36k. - Transportation Systems Division recommends approving a resolution Page 362 of 517 SUSTAINABILIlYMANAGEMENTPLANDescriptionofInitiativesTableElincludesabriefdescriptionofeachinitiative,aswellasexpectedbenefits,andanybarriers/effectstobeavoidedandminimized.FortheBenefitscolumnofTableEl,eachinitiativeisexaminedrelativetothepreviouslyidentifiedsustainabilityfocuscategoriesincluding:a)airportfinancial,b)airportandlocaleconomicvalues,c)communityoutreachandeducation,d)energyconservation/greenhousegases,e)noisefromaircraftoperations,f)operationandmaintenanceoftheAirport,andg)waterquality.Thishelpstoillustratetherelativebenefitsofeachinitiativeacrossmultiplecategories,asmanyinitiativeshavebenefitsinmorethanonesustainabilitycategory.ThiswasaccomplishedthroughuseoftheSustainabilityReportingTool.TheBarriers/EffectstobeAvoidedcolumndescribesanymitigatingcircumstancesthatcouldmakeaninitiativedifficulttoimplement,aswellasanypotentialnegativeeffectsinothersustainabilitycategoriesthatmightoffsetthebenefitsdescribedinthebenefitscolumn.Forexample,initiativesthatstimulatebusinessattheAirportcouldhaveanegativeeffectonnoiseduetopotentialincreasesinoperations.IRENTONMUNICIPALAIRPORTE.46k. - Transportation Systems Division recommends approving a resolution Page 363 of 517 SUSTAINABILITY MANAGEMENT PLAN TABLE Dl STAKEHOLDER PRIORITY SUSTAINABIIJTY INITIATIVES Airport Financial Initiatives Description PrimaryBenefits Barriers/Effects to be Avoided/Minimized Tracking of monthly cash flow to highlight potential areas for improvement!opportunities. -Financial -Time intensive Track monthly utility charges Focus on airport-owned facilities’ consumption of energy,water,etc. -Financial -Energy Conservation!GHG -Time intensive Partner with energy firms to consider renewable energy projects on residual lands that offset airport costs or generate revenue Examine potential of installing solar panels,geothermal,wind turbines,etc.to help offset airport costs,reduce energy consumption!GHG emissions,and potentially increase revenue. -Financial -Airport!Local Economic Value -Community Outreach -Energy Conservation!GHG Reduction -Potential initial costs,but ROl could be high;partnership may be able to offset initial costs (lease agreements) Initiate a total cost of ownership system for making decisions Examine financial!operational decisions within a framework of cost of implementation,maintenance,and operation within the life cycle. -Financial -Airport!Local Economic Value -Energy Conservation!GHG -Reduce Operation and Maintenance Impacts -Initial cost to develop,but return over the long-term Attract an avionics repair shop as an airport tenant Description Examine the needs of Boeing under the expansion of lease area resulting from an increase in 737 production. Develop a Required Navigation Procedure for approach!departure for aircraft with the necessary navigation equipment. Attract an avionics shop to help diversify economic base and expand amenities for local users. Primary Benefits -Financial -Airport!Local Economic Value -Financial -Airport!Local Economic Value -Community Outreach -Energy Conservation!GHG -Reduce Noise -Financial -Airport!Local Economic Value -Community Outreach Barriers/Effects to be Avoided/Minimized -Noise (additional aircraft operations) -Water Quality -Not all aircraft are equipped with the necessary avionics equipmentto fly precision approach procedures -Noise (additional aircraft operations) Update Cash Flow Model Monthly Airport and Local Economic Values Prepare for greater lease area needs associated with Boeing 737 Max program Precision Approach -Develop RNP approaches/departure procedures RENTON MUNICIPAL AIRPORT E.56k. - Transportation Systems Division recommends approving a resolution Page 364 of 517 SUSTAINABILITY MANAGEMENT PLAN Partner with energy firms to consider renewable energy projects that offset airport costs or generate revenue Examine potential of installing solar panels,geothermal,wind turbines,etc. to help offset airport costs,reduce energy consumption/GHG emissions, and potentially increase revenue. -Financial -Airport!Local Economic Value -Community Outreach -Energy Conservation!GHG Reduction -Potential initial costs,but ROl could be high;partnership may be able to offset initial costs (lease agreements) Community Outreach and Education Description Primary Benefits Barriers/Effects to be Avoided/Minimized Continue airport tours for at least five Renton-based community groups annually Conduct airport tours for interested community groups and members. -Airport!Local Economic Value -Community Outreach -Time for Airport staff Conduct one annual airport open house Establish airport internships and/or public education programs with a sustainability component Conduct events such as displays of historical info,woman flight, aircraft,etc. Seek opportunities to use the old Renton Chamber of Commerce site to engage the public in the importance of aviation in Renton Conduct an annual airport open house for the community to visit the airport facilities and learn about airport programs and contributions. Create positions,such as internships, to help the Airport implement and track their sustainability projects, while providing experience for students looking for hands-on experience in sustainability. Research and develop special events such as:historical aircraft displays/flights,a focus on women in aviation or other public interest events to promote the Airport. Create an information sharing site to share information on potential benefits of aviation. -Community Outreach -Airport!Local Economic Value -Community Outreach -Airport!Local Economic Value -Community Outreach -Airport!Local Economic Value -Community Outreach -Time for Airport staff -Financial -Time for Airport staff -Time for Airport staff -Time for Airport staff RENTON MUNICIPAL AIRPORT E.66k. - Transportation Systems Division recommends approving a resolution Page 365 of 517 SUSTAINABILITY MANAGEMENT PLAN Remove old natural gas and propane heating units and replace with high efficiency heaters Replace old heating units with high efficiency heating units. PrimaryBenefits -Financial -Energy Conservation!GHG -Reduce Operation!Maintenance -Financial -Energy Conservation!GHG -Reduce Operation!Maintenance Barriers/Effects to be Avoided/Minimized -Initial cost of lights;should be offset by reduction in consumption -Initial cost of lights;should be offset by reduction in consumption Partner with utility to examine energy efficiency initiatives Examine partnership alternative with the utility company to implement energy efficiency initiatives beyond those identified previously. -Financial -Community Outreach -Energy Conservation!GHG -Reduce Operation!Maintenance -Time for Airport staff -Initial implementation costs; should be offset by reduction in consumption Description Update the Voluntary Noise Abatement Brochure every year to include new procedures or additional information. Barriers/Effects to be Avoided/Minimized Continue to encourage Renton-based and other flight schools in the area to train students to ‘fly quiet” Continue to contract with firms such as Whispertrack to electronically disseminate RNT’s existing noise abatement procedures Provide a more robust fly quiet training for student pilots to ensure that they understand the noise sensitivities and methods they can use to reduce their impact. Provide additional methods of dissemination offly quiet information for pilots and tenants of the Airport to ensure that they understand the noise sensitivities and methods they can use to reduce their impact. -Airport!Local Economic Value -Community Outreach Reduce Noise -Reduce Operation!Maintenance -Airport!Local Economic Value -Community Outreach -Reduce Noise -Reduce Operation!Maintenance -Time ofAirport staff -Time of Airport staff Energy Conservation! Greenhouse Gases Lighting upgrade for buildings (Buildings 616 and 790) Description Upgrade lighting to high efficiency for buildings 616 and 790. Noise from Aircraft Operations Annually update brochure for Voluntary Noise Abatement procedures PrimaryBenefits -Community Outreach -Reduce Noise -Reduce Operation!Maintenance -Time ofAirport staff RENTON MUNICIPAL AIRPORT E.76k. - Transportation Systems Division recommends approving a resolution Page 366 of 517 SUSTAINABILITY MANAGEMENT PLAN Examine the potential to -Airport!Local Economic Value -Financial:Initial cost of Evaluate berms and blast fences for additional attenuation construct a berm or blast fence -Community Outreach study!berms -for additional noise attenuation.-Reduce Noise Operation,Maintenance,and Capital Barriers/Effects Improvement ofAirport Facilities Description PrimaryBenefits to beAvoided/Minimized Replace the existing seaplane -Airport!Local Economic Values -Cost of replacement -Potential water qualityReplacetheSeaplanelaunchramplaunchrampwithupdated -Reduce Operation!Maintenancefacilities,impacts during construction -Cost -Airport!Local Economic Values -Potential impact on seaplane Complete the Maintenance Dredging and Shoreline Mitigation project Dredge the seaplane base.-Reduce Operation!Maintenance operation during mitigation to maintain proper waterdepths for seaplanes to access the Lake -Water Ouality -Potential increase in wildlife hazards Create a landscaping and maintenance plan with green -Community Outreach -Cost of plan development;Develop a “green”landscaping and maintenance practices plan (i.e.,practices to reduce consumption -Reduce Operation!Maintenance ROIlimitchemical,water and energy use,use of native materials,etc.)of materials and impact on -Water Ouality surrounding resources. Annually perform a survey to -FinancialPerformannualfacilitysurveysandprioritizemaintenanceitemsfortheexamineandprioritize -Reduce Operation!Maintenance -Time of Airport staffmaintenanceitemsforthe -Water Oualityyear following year. Update the Pavement Update the Pavement Management Plan for the Airport to track the Management Plan to ensure that -Reduce Operation!Maintenance -Time of Airport staffpavementconditionoftherunway,all taxiways and ramps,and all pavement on the Airport is -Airport!Local Economic Values parking lot and perimeter road pavements adequately maintained and replaced as needed. Provide a method to track andCompletethedevelopmentofanairportmaintenancemanagementensuremaintenanceactivitiesare -Reduce Operation!Maintenance -Time ofAirport staffplanbyDecember2013tomemorializescheduledmaintenancebeingcompletedontimeandas-Airport!Local Economic Values activities needed. RENTON MUNICIPAL AIRPORT E.86k. - Transportation Systems Division recommends approving a resolution Page 367 of 517 SUSTAINABILITY MANAGEMENT PLAN Water Quality Consider installing pervious pavements when repaving parking lots where appropriate/available Install swales or rain garden type treatments where possible to improve stormwater quality Utilize low-toxicity herbicides -Plant nitrogen-fixing vegetation Install moisture sensors and timers for all irrigation systems Description PrimaryBenefits Where appropriate,install pervious -Reduce Operation!Maintenancepavementswhenreplacing -Water Qualitypavement. -Reduce Operation/MaintenanceInstallswalesorraingardens.-Water Quality Use low-toxicity -Airport!Local Economic Value pesticide/herbicides on the airport -Reduce Operation!Maintenance property.-Water Quality -FinancialInstallmoisturesensorsfor -Water Qualityirrigationtopreventoverwatering. -Reduce Operation/Maintenance Barriers/Effects to be Avoided/Minimized -Financial:Additional cost -Financial:Additional cost to install -Additional cost -Cost of implementation;ROI RENTON MUNICIPAL AIRPORT E.96k. - Transportation Systems Division recommends approving a resolution Page 368 of 517 SUSTAINABILITYMANAGEMENTPLANF.SustainabilityManagementPlanImplementation-DecisionMaking,Implementation,andTrackingThischapterdescribesthestepsforimplementationoftheSustainabilityManagementPlan,includingthepurposeanduseoftheSustainabilityReportingTool.ThisToolisintendedtobuildupontheplanninginformationoutlinedinthepreviouschapters(sustainabilitygoalsandinitiatives),andtohelptheAirportnavigateremainingportionsoftheprocess.TheSustainabilityReportingToolprovidesameanstotracktheperformancemetricsrelativetotheestablishedsustainabilitygoalsandobjectives,aswellasatemplateforevaluatingandreportingoninitiativesforimplementation.-*J1—RENTONMUNICIPALAIRPORTF.16k. - Transportation Systems Division recommends approving a resolution Page 369 of 517 SUSTAINABILITYMANAGEMENTPLANGuide:ImplementationoftheSustainabilityManagementPlanThissectionfurtherdefinestheimplementationoftheSustainabilityManagementPlanandactsasaroadmapforhowthepiecesfittogether.ThisPlanwillbeusedtoassistindecisionmakingwhenconsideringmostcurrentandfutureactions.BecauseoftheimportanceoftheImplementationelement,theprocessoutlinedbelowissupplementedwithaSustainabilityReportingToolthatwasdevelopedforthisproject.TheuseofthetoolwillhelptheAirportbetransparentinitsconsiderationofsustainability,visualizetherelationshipbetweeninitiativesandgoals,anddetermineabalancedapproachtoaddressingthegoals.PlanEachstepinthe“plan,do,check,act”processisdescribedinmoredetailbelow.TheSustainabilityManagementPlanrepresentsthefirststepinthe“plan”portionoftheprocess.Definingsustainabilityandestablishingsustainabilitycategories(areasoffocus),collectingbaselineinformation,identifyinggoalsandobjectives,andtheidentifyinginitiativesareallaportionoftheplanningaspect.Inthefuture,assubsequentstepsinthecycleoccur,additionalconsiderationofcategories/issues,baselinecondition(s),andgoalswilllikelybenecessary.Implement(Do)Implementationoftheinitiativesrepresentsthe“do”portionoftheprocess.Thisinvolvesaccomplishingtherecommendationsinthisdocumentandmakingprogresstowardachievingthegoalsandobjectives.By“doing,”theAirportwillbedevelopingacultureofsustainabilityandwillbegintoreshapethepracticesandprocessesforcompletingmanyofitstasksassociatedwithoperation,maintenance,andcapitalimprovementofthefacility.Report(Check)Afterimplementinginitiatives,the“check”processencompassesthereportingaspectoftheimplementationprocess.Asinitiativesareimplemented,thenextstepistotrackandchecktheprocesstowardmeetingthegoalsandobjectives.RentonMunicipalAirporthaslimitedfinancialandstaffingresourcesand,assuch,themanagementandtrackingofthePlanmustnotconsumeaninordinateamountoftime.Iftrackingandcheckingbecometoodifficult,theimplementationoftheentiresustainabilityeffortwillfalter.Implementationandcheckingrequiretheuseoftoolsfortrackingsuccessandidentifyingareasofadditionalrequiredeffort.ThisprojecthasdevelopedatooltoaidtheAirportintrackingprogress.Refine(Act)The“act”portionrepresentswhathasbeenlearnedduringthe“do”and“check”steps.Thisinvolvesansweringthequestionof,“Whatdidwelearnandhowcanwedoitbetternexttime?”byreevaluatingtheissues/categories,goals,andobjectivesandmetrics.Duringthisstageofthecycle,adjustmentsareoftenidentified.StepsforImplementingThefollowingspecificstepsarerecommendedforimplementingthesustainabilitygoalsandobjectives.Thesestepsrepresentvariousstagesinthe“Plan,Do,Check,Act”cycleandarestepsthattheAirportmaywishtoimplementinsubsequentiterationsofthecycle.ChapterAcontainsaproposedscheduleandindicationofpartiesresponsibleforthesesteps.RENTONMUNICIPALAIRPORTF.26k. - Transportation Systems Division recommends approving a resolution Page 370 of 517 ISUSTAINABILITYMANAGEMENTPLANSTEP1:DiscussCategoriesofInterestorConcernWHO:AirportStaffandtheRentonAirportAdvisoryCommitteeWHAT:Identifyareasofexistingissues,concerns,orinterestbasedonstakeholderandcommunityconcerns.Someofthequestionsthatshouldbeconsideredinclude:Whataspectswouldyouliketochange/improve?Arethereresourcesorissuesofinterest/concern,suchasairquality,noise,waterquality,financial,etc.?Theseissuesrepresentcategoriesoffocus.Thecategoriesmaybegeneralinnature,asthesecategoriesofinterestbecomethebaselineformorespecificsustainabilitygoals.WHEN:ThisprocesswasinitiallycompletedaspartofthisinitialdevelopmentoftheSustainabilityManagementPlan.Meetingswereheldwithstakeholderstodeterminethecategoriesorareasofinterest.AsthePlanevolves,thecategories/interestareasshouldbereviewedbiennially.STEP2:CreateBaselineInventory2WHO:AirportstaffWHAT:ConductaBaselineInventoryforthosecategories/interestareasidentifiedinStep1.Theinformationgatheredinthisstepprovidesthebaselineformonitoringprogresstowardachievingagoaldescribedinsubsequentsteps.TheBaselineInventoryisinChapterC.2Note:therearetimeswhenSteps2and3maybereversed.Aninventorymaybeneededtohelpframe/establishagoal.Inothercases,theissuemaybewellunderstoodandagoalcanbeestablishedbeforecollectionofthemoredetaileddata.WHEN:TheInventorywasinitiallycompiledandcompleted.Airportstaffwillupdatethisinformationrepresentingactualperformanceonaregularbasis(Step6)aslistedinChapterAofthisreport.ThetypeofinformationprovidedintheInventoryshouldbeupdatedperiodicallydependingonchangesingoals.STEP3:IdentifySpecificGoalsWHO:AirportstaffwithinputfromstakeholdersWHAT:Categoriesofinterest(Step1)pairedwiththebaselineinformation(Step2)mayberefinedfurtherinthisstep.Fromanunderstandingofactualperformance,goalsandobjectivesmayneedtobemodifiedorexpanded.Goalsandobjectiveshighlightspecificareasofimprovementandshouldbemeasurablesothatprogresscanbetrackedandreported.WHEN:GoalsandobjectiveswereinitiallyidentifiedintheSustainabilityPlanprocess.Thesecategories,goals,andobjectivesmayneedtobeupdatedaspartofthe“Act”processinStep9.STEP4:DevelopInitiativesWHO:AirportstaffwithinputfromstakeholdersWHAT:Thisstepinvolvesbrainstormingofspecificactions(calledinitiatives)thatcouldbetakentomeetthegoals/objectivesoutlinedinStep3.Generally,aninitialscreeningofinitiativesisdonetodeterminethosethatarepotentiallyfeasible.A“laundrylist”ofinitiativesisincludedinAppendix5ofthisdocument.Thelistissortedbycategoryandincludesgeneralconsiderationssuchasrelativecost(financialandstafftime),aswellasidentifiesthepotentialoverlaporRENTONMUNICIPALAIRPORTF.36k. - Transportation Systems Division recommends approving a resolution Page 371 of 517 ISUSTAINABILITYMANAGEMENTPLANconsiderationsrelatedtoothergoalsandobjectives.WHEN:AswithSteps1-3,thisStepwasinitiallycompletedaspartoftheinitialSustainabilityManagementPlanprocess.Initiativesshouldbeupdatedinthe“act”process,whichinvolvescheckingthesuccessofimplementedinitiatives(SeeStep9).STEP5:PrioritizeInitiativesWHO:AirportwithhelpfromTrackingToolandinputfromStakeholdersWHAT:Initially,initiativesaregenerallyidentifiedforeachspecificgoal/objectivebut,asstatedabove,inmanycases,aninitiativemayaffectseveraldifferentcategoriesineitherapositiveoranegativeway.Forexample,awaterqualitymeasuretoinstallperviouspavementinparkinglotsmayhelptomeetwaterqualitygoalsbut,duetocost,itcouldnegativelyaffectfinancialgoals.Additionally,aninitiativesuchasupgradinglightingtobemoreenergyefficientcouldresultinaninitialcost,butwithsignificantcostsavingsoverthelifeoftheinitiative(resultinginhelpingmeetbothfinancialandenergy-relatedgoals).Therefore,toprioritizetheimplementationofinitiatives,theeffectthattheinitiativewouldhaveacrossallcategoriesshouldbereviewedpriortoimplementingoneinitiativeoveranother.ForthisStep,aSustainabilityInitiativeTrackingToolhasbeendevelopedtoassisttheAirportinthisplanningelement.Foranyinitiative,theAirportcanusetheTrackingTooltodeterminetheinitiative’srelativescoreagainstthesustainabilitygoalstohelpnarrowdownpotentialinitiatives.Thiswouldinclude:Alistingofinitiativesconsideredforimplementationduringtheperiod.•Therelative“score”oftheinitiativestowardmeetingthesustainabilitygoals/objectives.•Identifythoseinitiativesmovingforwardtowardimplementation.ConsiderobtaininginputfromtheRentonAirportAdvisoryCommittee.WHEN:ThiswasinitiallycompletedaspartofpreparingtheinitialSustainabilityPlan,butwillbeupdatedbytheAirportManageratleastbienniallyinthefuturebasedonthelessonslearned(Step9).ThisreportandtheSustainabilityInitiativeTrackingToolserveasthefirstiterationinthe“Plan”stageoftheprocess(Steps1-5).TheToolincludesthecategories,goals,andobjectives,aswellastheBaselineInventory,andtheinitiallistofinitiativesasdocumentedbythisinitialreport.AssustainabilityprocessandprinciplesareimplementedatRentonMunicipalAirport,theAirportManagerwillrevisitthePlantomakeimprovementsandadjustmentsasneeded,butthisPlanwillserveasafoundationforfurtheriterationsofSteps1-5.STEP6:ImproveBaselineInformationGatheringandRecordingWHO:AirportstaffWHAT:TheToolaccompanyingthisPlanisintendedtoassistwithbothidentifyingtheinformationusefultotrackingsustainability,aswellasprovidethelocationforstafftomaintainthedata,ThisstepwillbuildupontheinformationgatheredintheBaselineIRENTONMUNICIPALAIRPORTF.46k. - Transportation Systems Division recommends approving a resolution Page 372 of 517 ISUSTAINABILITYMANAGEMENTPLANInventory(Step2)tokeepituptodateasinitiativesareimplementedtoenabletrackinginlatersteps.WHEN:Afteridentifyingcategories/goals/objectives,itisimportanttokeepuptheloggingofmetricsimportanttotrackingthosefeaturesonaregularbasis.Ingeneral,theinformationwithinthetoolwillneedtobeupdatedoneitheradaily,monthly,quarterly,orannualbasis,dependingonthemetric.STEP7:SelectSustainabilityInitiativestoImplementWHO:AirportstaffWH1.T:ThisstepbuildsuponStepSbytakingtheinitiativesthatmadethe“firstcut”duringtheplanningprocessandanalyzingitspotentialbenefitswithinthecontextofpresentdayconditions.ItisexpectedthatasmallnumberofinitiativesfromthelistdevelopedinStep5wouldbeexaminedduringtheyeartodeterminethosethatwouldbefeasibleandmosteffectivebasedonconsiderationofexistingconditionssuchasfunding,time/effortrequirements,prioritization,etc.Thefollowingsub-stepsshouldbefollowed:•ReviewagainstgoalsusingtheTool(mayalreadybecompletedinStep5).•Examinefundingsources.Reviewcostrequired.•Revieweffortrequired.•Iftheinitiativemeetsthesustainabilitygoals/objectivesandisfeasible,theinitiativeshouldbeundertaken.Dependingonthetypeofinitiative,thisStepmightincludecoordinationwithstakeholders,includingtheRentonAirportAdvisoryCommittee,todetailthereviewoftheinitiativesandreporttheoutcome.Itisrecommendedthatthereportingbeconductedonceperquarterandinclude:Alistingofinitiativesconsideredforimplementationduringtheperiod.Therelative“score”oftheinitiativestowardmeetingthesustainabilitygoals/objectives.•Identifythoseinitiativesmovingforwardtowardimplementation.Iffavorableandfeasible,theAirportwouldsecurefunding,stafftime,orotherresources,asnecessarytoaccomplishtheinitiative.WHEN:Itisexpectedthatonceatthestartofeverycalendaryear,theAirportwouldpickasmallnumberofSustainabilityInitiativestofocusonforthat12-monthperiod.Theimplementationoftheseinitiativesduringtheyearwoulddependonchangingfactorssuchastheavailabilityoffundingandprioritization.Forinstance,aprojectintendedtoreduceenergyusemighthaveahigherprioritizationiftherearegrantstoinstallhighefficiencylights,oriftheAirportdecidesthatreducingenergyconsumptionisaprimarygoalforthatyear.RENTONMUNICIPALAIRPORTF.56k. - Transportation Systems Division recommends approving a resolution Page 373 of 517 SUSTAINABILITYMANAGEMENTPLANSTEP8:CheckSuccessagainstMetricsWHO:AirportstaffWHAT:ThisSteptakestheinformationupdatedwithintheInventoryinStep6.Theinformationdocumentedonthemetricsshouldbeexaminedtodetermineiftheinitiativeshadthepredictedeffectinhelpingmeetthegoals.Forexample,ifnewenergyefficientlightingwasinstalledasaninitiative,theutilitieswouldbeexaminedtodetermineifthebill/kWhusewentdown.Ifitdid,thenthedecreaseincost/energyusewouldbeconfirmedandtheAirportwouldtrackanetbenefittowardtheirenergyefficiencyandfinancialgoals.Iftherewasnocorrespondingdecrease,thenitwouldbeimportanttonotethatandproceedtoStep9.ThisStepwouldincludetheuseoftheImplementationTooltoexaminethechanges(positiveornegative)thatwerearesultofimplementinginitiativesunderthePlan.Thiswillincludeasummaryof:Listofinitiativesimplementedoverthepastyear.Keymetricsfortheyearwithacomparisontorecentpastyears.Summaryofinitiativesconsideredandtheirrelativevaluetowardmeetingthesustainabilitygoals/objectives.WHEN:InformationshouldbekeptupdatedaspartofStep6,butexaminedonceayear(orasneeded,postimplementation)toreviewchanges.ForimplementationofthisPlan,itisrecommendedthattheAirportprepareanannualsummaryreportingkeymetrics,initiativesimplemented,progress,andplannedinitiatives.Thefocusofthereportshouldbeonwhatwasthegoal/objective,wasprogressmadetowardachievingthegoal/objective,andanindicationofanybarriersthatmayhavepreventedprogress.STEP9:ReviewandImproveWHO:AirportStaffWHAT:ThisStepinvolvesidentifyingthoseaspectsoftheprocessthatcouldbeimproved.ItinvolvesexaminingtheresultsoftheannualmetricsreviewreportcreatedaspartofStep8todetermineifanychangesneedtobemadetotheplanscategoriesofinterest,goals/objectives,metricsneedingtobetracked,implementationtool,etc.ThiswillinvolveupdatestothePlan(thisdocument),thelistofprioritizedinitiatives,thesteps,themetrics,ortheimplementationtoolasnecessary.Insomecases,theneedtoimproveperformancewillbequantitative(Werethespecificnumericalgoals/objectivesachieved?)andinothercasesqualitative,basedonpersonaljudgment.Inallcases,theconclusionsshouldbedocumented,soastobetransparent.Duringthisstep,theAirportManagerwilllikelysummarizechangesandaddendumstotheSustainabilityManagementPlanthroughpresentationstotheRentonAirportAdvisoryCommittee,whichwouldthenbepostedtotheAirportandCity’swebsites,andotherwisemadeavailabletothecommunity.ThisstepdoesnotnecessitatethattheentirePlanberevised.Instead,eachcomponentofthePlancouldbescrutinizedastheimplementationprogressestodeterminewhereimprovementscanbemadeorchangesareneededbasedonupdatedconditions.WHEN:TheSustainabilityManagementPlancanberevisedbothformally,throughtherevisiontothePlandocuments,andinformally,throughchangesmadethroughaddendumsornotes.ItisrecommendedthatregularnotesandaddendumsbeIRENTONMUNICIPALAIRPORTF.66k. - Transportation Systems Division recommends approving a resolution Page 374 of 517 SUSTAINABILIlYMANAGEMENTPLANtrackedastheyarise.However,itisrecommendedthatallofthekeycomponentsofthisPlanbere-evaluatedatleastonceeverytwoyearsinitiallyandthenannuallyaftertheprocesshasbeeningrained.Withtime,perhapsassoonastwotothreeyears,therewillbesufficientbaselineinformationandexperiencetobeabletomoreeasilykeepthecomponentsofthisPlancurrent.STEP10:AdjustSteps1-9asNecessaryWHO:AirportStaffWHAT:StartatStep1andadjusttheprocessasnecessary,basedonwhatwaslearnedinthepreviousiterationoftheprocess.WHEN:Itisrecommendedthatregularnotesandaddendumsbetrackedastheyarise.However,itisrecommendedthatallofthekeycomponentsofthisPlanbereevaluatedatleastonceeverytwoyearsinitiallyandthenannuallyaftertheprocesshasbeeningrained.ThestepsintheGuidedetailedabovewerefollowedanddocumentedinthefollowingchaptersforthefirstiterationoftheSustainabilityManagementPlan.Thiswillserveasaguidelineforfutureiterationsasconditionschange.SustainabilityReportingToolAsdescribedbrieflyinthesectionsabove,concurrentwithdevelopmentofthisSustainabilityManagementPlan,a“Tool”hasbeendevelopedtoassistwiththeinitialimplementationofthePlan.ThepurposeofthetoolistoassisttheAirportwiththeevaluationofinitiatives,tracking,andreportingaspectsofthePlan.LikethisPlan,theToolservesasastartingpointandwillneedtomaintained,updated,andrefinedtoincorporatelessonslearnedandimproveitsfunctionalityandusefulness.TheuseoftheToolwillhelptheAirportvisualizetherelationshipbetweeninitiativesandgoals!objectivesandhelpstriveforbalance.ItisimportanttonotethatthemoreconsistentlytheToolisapplied,themoreusefulitislikelytobeinthefuture.TheToolisintendedtoprovidethefollowingcapabilities:•Listandtrackinitiativesidentifiedtomeetthesustainabilitygoals/objectives.•Visualizesuccessofinitiativesthatmeetordonotmeetgoals/objectives.Trackandsummarizetherelativebenefitsand/orimpairmentsofinitiativesrelativetoeachsustainabilitygoal/objective(i.e.,doesaninitiativemeetthegoals/objectives?).Trackkeymetrics.•Visualizehowsustainabilitycategoriesaretracking.•Summarizeandreportmetricswithpercentchangeovertime.•Visualizechangeinkeymetricsoversuccessiveyears.aDeterminethesuccessofthePlanandpotentiallyhighlightareasforimprovement.RENTONMUNICIPALAIRPORTF.76k. - Transportation Systems Division recommends approving a resolution Page 375 of 517 SUSTAINABILITYMANAGEMENTPLANGeneralreportingandthetoolsusedtoconductreviewofprogresstowardsustainabilitygoalsaredescribedinthefollowingpages,givingbasicinstructionsandexamplesofhowtousetheTool.ItalsoincludessampleoutputreportsfromtheTooltobeusedfortracking,coordinating,andreporting.TheToolissplitintofourprimaryareasandcolorcodedintheExcelSpreadsheet:Instructions(WHITEtab),GraphicalDashboardofPerformance(GREENTab),SustainabilityInitiativesEvaluation(PURPLETabs),andSustainabilityCategoryTracking(ORANGETabs).Tab1—Instructions(WHITE):TheInstructionsgiveashortoverviewofthetabs,ascontainedinthisdocumentaswell.Tab2—ReportCard(GREEN):TheGreenTabisagraphicaldepictionofanumberofmetricsthatwereidentifiedtohelpmeasurethesuccessofimplementingsustainabilityinitiativesrelativetothegoals/objectives.ThesegraphicsintheGreenTaballowtheAirporttovisuallyseethedatathatisinputinotherareasoftheTool.Tab3—Potential2012Initiatives(PURPLE):ThePurpleTabscontaininformationregardingevaluationofthesustainabilityinitiatives.AsstatedinStep7oftheGuide,theAirportwillgenerallypickanumberofinitiativestofocusonwithinthatcalendaryear.ThoseinitiativeswouldbeaddedintothisPotentialInitiativestaboftheTooltonarrowthefocusofinitiativesofinterestforthatyear.Tab4—2012InitiativesinDetail(PURPLE):Foreachinitiativeofinterest,theAirportshouldfillouttheInitiativesintheDetailTab.Thistabconstitutesageneral“test”ofaninitiativeagainstthegoals/objectivesforeachsustainabilitycategory.TheAirportwouldfillin“positive,”“negative,”or“neutral”foreachgoalorobjectiveandtheToolwillprovideageneral“score”ofhowwelltheinitiativemeetstheoverallsustainablevision(economic,operations,naturalenvironment,andsocial).Ifalltheboxesinthistestaregenerallyshadedneutralorgreen,thentheinitiativegenerallypassesthistest.Althoughthisactsasagoodwaytoidentifyandnarrowpotentialinitiatives,itisimportanttonotethattheremaybeacompellingreasontoimplementaninitiativethatmaynotbefavorableinallcategories,basedonadditionalfactors.But,ingeneral,thisToolwillassisttheAirportinidentifyingthebestpotentialsustainabilityinitiativeswithrespecttotheoverallgoalsandobjectives.Tab5—2012InitiativesSummary(PURPLE):Onceaninitiativeisimplemented,theAirportwillfillouttheInitiativesSummaryTab.ThisaspectoftheTooltracksthesustainabilityinitiativesimplementedandallowstheAirporttoseearelativescoreoftheinitiativesagainstthetrackingmetrics(OrangeTabs).ThisToolassiststheAirportinidentifyingtheperformanceandwillhelpdetermineifadditionalmeasuresoradjustmentsareneededtohelpmeettheAirportgoalsandobjectives.Tabs6—14Metrics(ORANGE):Thesetabsrepresentthetrackingofthesustainabilitymetricidentifiedforeachmajorcategoryincluding:aircraftoperations,airportfinancials,economicvalues,communityoutreach,energy,noise,operationsandmaintenance,andasummaryofallthecategories.Thesesheetsshouldbeupdatedasnewannualinformationbecomesavailableandenteredinthespreadsheetinthebluedatacells.InformationintheReportCardTab(GREEN)andtheSummaryTab(ORANGE),shouldupdateautomaticallyreflectingtheaddeddata.ThisportionoftheToolallowstheAirporttoreviewthesuccessoftheinitiatives(Step8),identifyareasofimprovement(Step9),andupdatetheprocessasnecessary(Step10).RENTONMUNICIPALAIRPORTF.86k. - Transportation Systems Division recommends approving a resolution Page 376 of 517 CITYOFRENTON,WASHINGTONRESOLUTIONNO.ARESOLUTIONOFTHECITYOFRENTON,WASHINGTON,ADOPTINGTHEAIRPORT’SSUSTAINABILITYMANAGEMENTPLAN.WHEREAS,theFederalAviationAdministration(FAA)offeredandweacceptedagrantintheamountof$150,000tocompletethedevelopmentofaSustainabilityManagementPlanfortheAirport;andWHEREAS,theFAAprovidedthegrantunderaFAApilotprogramtohelpairportsmeettheirenvironmental,social,andeconomicobligations;andWHEREAS,theAirportselectedBernardDunkelbergasitsconsultanttoassistindevelopingtheSustainabilityManagementPlan;andWHEREAS,theRentonAirportAdvisoryCommissionhashelpedcreate,edit,andfinalizetheSustainabilityManagementPlan;andWHEREAS,theRentonMunicipalAirporthasnowcompleteditsSustainabilityManagementPlan.NOW,THEREFORE,THECITYCOUNCILOFTHECITYOFRENTON,WASHINGTON,DOESRESOLVEASFOLLOWS:SECTIONI.Theabovefindingsaretrueandcorrectinallrespects.SECTIONII.TheCityCouncildoesherebyadopttheAirport’sSustainabilityManagementPlan.16k. - Transportation Systems Division recommends approving a resolution Page 377 of 517 RESOLUTIONNO.PASSEDBYTHECITYCOUNCILthis__ _ _ __dayof________________________,2015.JasonA.Seth,CityClerkAPPROVEDBYTHEMAYORthis_ __ _ _dayof____ _ _ _ _ _____ _ _ _ _ _.2015.DenisLaw,MayorApprovedastoform:LawrenceJ.Warren,CityAttorneyRES.1663:2/25/15:scr26k. - Transportation Systems Division recommends approving a resolution Page 378 of 517 CITY OF RENTON COUNCIL AGENDA BILL Subject/Title: Addendum 015-15 to Aerodyne, LLC Lease Agreement LAG 84-006 Meeting: REGULAR COUNCIL - 06 Apr 2015 Exhibits: A. Issue Paper B. Addendum Submitting Data: Dept/Div/Board: Public Works Staff Contact: Jonathan Wilson, Airport Manager, ext. 7477 Recommended Action: Council Concur. Fiscal Impact: Expenditure Required: $ N/A Transfer Amendment: $N/A Amount Budgeted: $ N/A Revenue Generated: $($1,910.80) Total Project Budget: $ N/A City Share Total Project: $ N/A SUMMARY OF ACTION: Aerodyne, LLC leases a 77,048 square foot parcel for aircraft hangar storage at 300 Airport Way, under LAG 84-006. The lease allows for a lease rate adjustment every 3 years. On April 1, 2014 Valbridge Property Advisors established the fair market rate at $0.75 per square foot per year. In January 2015, through an arbitration process as a result of a dispute by Renton Gateway Center, the new land lease rate was determined to be $0.7252 per square foot per year. This is a 17% increase over the prior lease rate of $0.62 per square foot per year. However, because Aerodyne has been paying its lease rate at the higher amount of $0.75 per square foot per year since April 2014, the result is an annual airport leasehold revenue decrease of $1,910.80. The lease expiration date is August 31, 2026. STAFF RECOMMENDATION: Approve an amendment to Aerodyne, LLC's lease agreement for a land rental rate adjustment from $0.75 to $0.7252 per square foot per year in accordance with a January 2015 lease arbitration decision, authorize the Mayor and City Clerk to sign the addendum. 6l. - Transportation Systems Division recommends approval of an amendment Page 379 of 517 PUBLICWORKSDEPARTMENTMEMORANDUMDATE:April6,2015TO:EdPrince,CouncilPresidentMembersoftheRentonCityCouncilVIA:DenisLaw,Mavorr4LFROM:GreggZimmermaAn,inistratorSTAFFCONTACT:JonathanWilson(extension7477)SUBJECT:Addendum015-15toAerodyne,LLCLeaseAgreementLAG84-006ISSUE:ShouldCouncilapproveAddendum015-15toAerodyne,LLC’sleaseagreementLAG84-006foralandrentalrateadjustmentfrom$0.75to$0.7252persquarefootperyearandauthorizetheMayorandCityClerktosigntheaddendum?RECOMMENDATION:InaccordancetoaJanuary2015leasearbitrationdecision,approveAddendum015-15toAerodyne,LLC’sleaseagreementLAG84-006foralandrentalrateadjustmentfrom$0.75to$0.7252persquarefootperyearandauthorizetheMayorandCityClerktosigntheaddendum.BACKGROUND:Aerodyne,LLCleasestwoparcelsat300AirportWayunderleaseagreementLAG84-006,withanexpirationdateofAugust31,2026.Theleaseallowsforaleaserateadjustmentevery3years.OnApril1,2014,theCitycontractedwithValbridgePropertyAdvisorstoperformamarketappraisalforgroundleaserates.Theyestablishedthefairmarketrateat$0.75persquarefootperyear.Lastfall,RentonGatewayCenterchosetodisputetheleaserateof$0.75,basedontherecentmarketappraisalandenteredintoleasearbitrationproceedings.InJanuary2015thearbitratordeterminedthelandleaseratetobe$0.7252persquarefootperyearforRentonGatewayCenter’slease.6l. - Transportation Systems Division recommends approval of an amendment Page 380 of 517 EdPrince,CouncilPresidentMembersoftheRentonCityCouncilPage2of2April6,2015FollowingtheRentonGatewayCenterarbitration,anduponconsultationwiththeMayorandotherexecutiveandadministrativestaff,theAirportwasdirectedtoadjustthelandrentalratefortheotherleaseswithadjustmentsthatoccurredin2014(RainierFlightService,Kaynan,andAerodyne).Thelandrentalportionsofthoseleasesarebeingreadjustedto$0.7252.Sincetheseleaseshavealreadybeenpayingthehigherrate,theAirportwasdirectedtoretroactivelyapplythenewarbitratedrate.ThedecisiontomaketheseadjustmentsisprimarilybecauseofthefederalgrantassurancestheCityagreestoasaconditionofacceptingfederalgrantdollars.Specifically,GrantAssurance#22statesthat,“Eachfixed-basedoperatorattheairportshallbesubjecttothesamerates,fees,rentalsandotherchargesasareuniformlyapplicabletoallotherfixed-basedoperatorsmakingthesameorsimilarusesofsuchairportandutilizingthesameorsimilarfacilities.”Notallofourtenantsareconsideredfixed-baseoperators,butthecentralpremiseoftheassuranceandthetitleofGrantAssurance#22is“EconomicNondiscrimination.”AerodynehassignedAddendum015-15totheirleaseforthelandrentalrateadjustment,effectiveAugust31,2014throughAugust31,2017.cc:DougJacobson,DeputyPWAdministrator—TransportationJosefHarnden,TransportationAdministrativesecretaryH:\FileSys\AIR-Airport,TransportationServicesDivision\03Projects\01Tasks\AgendaBills\2015AgendaBills\AgBill—AerodyneAdd015-15.doc6l. - Transportation Systems Division recommends approval of an amendment Page 381 of 517 LAG84-006Addendum015-15ADDENDUMTOIEASEAGREEMENT(CityofRentontoAerodyneLLC)THISADDENDUMtoLeaseAgreementLAG84-006iseffectiveasofSeptember1,2014.RECITALS:WHEREAS,AerodyneLLChasaLeaseAgreementwiththeCityofRenton,LAG84-006,executedonSeptember1,1984,andassignedunderAddendum12-06;andWHEREAS,AerodyneLLCleasestwoparcelsinsidetheperimeterfence,consistingof42,936squarefeetand34,774squarefeet,foratotalleasedareainsidethefenceof77,710squarefeet;andWHEREAS,AerodyneLLCleasestwoparkinglotparcelsoutsideoftheperimeterfence,consistingofawestparkinglotwithasquarefootof4,518squarefeetandaneastparkinglotwithasquarefootageof1,466squarefeet,foratotalparkinglotleasedareaof5,984,andwithaleaseratethatis66%oftheestablishedgroundleaserate;andWHEREAS,onSeptember1,2011,thelandrentalratefortheapproximately77,710squarefeetoflandarealeasedbyAerodyneLLCwasdeterminedtobe$0.62persquarefootperyearandcontinuinguntilSeptember1,2014;andWHEREAS,onSeptember1,2011,thelandrentalratefortheapproximately5,984squarefeetofleasedparkinglotareawasdeterminedtobe$0.41persquarefootperyearandcontinuinguntilSeptember1,2014;andWHEREAS,theLessorandLesseedesiretoreduceAerodyneLLC’s34,774squarefootparcelinsidethefencebya662squarefoottriangularsectiontouseforthenewblastfencelocation;andWHEREAS,thereducedareaofthetwoparcelsinsidetheperimeterfence,consistingof42,936squarefeetand34,112(34,774—662)squarefeet,resultsinanewtotalleasedareainsidethefenceof77,048squarefeet;andWHEREAS,pursuanttoLAG84-006Addendum13-09,inaletterdatedApril4,2014,LesseewasnotifiedbycertifiedletterthattheleaseratewouldbereadjustedusingameansotherthantheConsumerPriceIndex-Urban;andLeaseAgreementLAG84-006CityofRentontoAerodyneLLC6l. - Transportation Systems Division recommends approval of an amendment Page 382 of 517 LAG84-006Addendum015-15WHEREAS,effectiveSeptember1,2014,Lessorhadadjustedthelandleaserateto$0.75persquarefootperyearforthe77,048squarefeetoflandwithintheperimeterfence,andLesseehadpaidsaidrentalrate,pursuanttoLAG84-006;andWHEREAS,effectiveSeptember1,2014,Lessorhadadjustedthelandleaseratefortheparkinglotsto$0.50(66%of$0.75)persquarefootperyear,andLesseehadpaidsaidrentalrate,pursuanttoLAG84-006;andWHEREAS,onJanuary8,2015,throughaleasearbitrationprocess,anewlandrentalratewasestablishedat$0.7252persquarefootperyear;andWHEREAS,onSeptember1,2014,andfortheensuingthree(3)yearperiod,thelandrentalrateshouldbeadjusted,usingtheleasearbitrationprocess,toarateof$0.7252persquarefootperyearforthe77,048squarefeetofleasedarea,resultinginanannualrentalamountof$55,875.21(77,048x$07252),andcontinuinguntilSeptember1,2017.WHEREAS,onSeptember1,2014,andfortheensuingthree(3)yearperiod,thetwo(2)parkinglotareas,consistingof5,984squarefeet,havearateof$0.48persquarefootperyear,or66%ofthelandrentalratebecauseoftheirlimitedmarketability($0.7252x.66=$0.48),resultinginanannualrentalamountof$2,872.32(5,984x$0.48),andcontinuinguntilSeptember1,2017.WHEREAS,theannualdifferencebetween77,048sq.ft.x$0.75and77,048sq.ft.x$0.7252is$1,910.79($57,786.00-$55,875.21).Themonthlyamountofthedifferentialis$159.23($1,910.79/12).TherefundamountisNineHundredFiftyFivedollarsandThirtyEightcents($955.38)(6monthsx$159.23),fortheperiodbeginningSeptember1,2014toFebruary28,2015.TherefundwillbedeductedfromthelandrentalamountinMarch2015.WHEREAS,theannualdifferencebetween5,984sq.ft.x$0.50and5,984sq.ft.x$0.48is$119.68($2,992.00-$2,872.32).Themonthlyamountofthedifferentialis$9.97($119.68/12).TherefundamountisFiftyNinedollarsandEightyTwocents($59.82)(6monthsx$9.97),fortheperiodbeginningSeptember1,2014toFebruary28,2015.TherefundwillbedeductedfromthelandrentalamountinMarch2015.LeaseAgreementLAG84-0062CityofRentontoAerodyneLLC6l. - Transportation Systems Division recommends approval of an amendment Page 383 of 517 LAG84-006Addendum015-15NOW,THEREFORE,ITISHEREBYAGREEDANDCOVENANTEDBYANDBETWEENTHECITYOFRENTONANDAERODYNELLCASFOLLOWS:WITNESSETH:1.TheLessorandLesseedoherebyagreetoamendSection2ofAddendum13-09toLAG84-006,toreducethesquarefootageoftheleasedareainsidetheperimeterfenceandsouthofthetaxilaneto34,112squarefeet,asidentifiedintheamendedExhibitA-i,andthattheareanorthofthetaxilaneremainsunchangedat42,936squarefeetforatotallandareaof77,048squarefeetinsidetheperimeterfence(34,112sq.ft.+42,936sq.ft.=77,048sq.ft.),effectiveSeptember1,2014.2.TheLessorandLesseedoherebyagreetosubstituteExhibitA-ihereto,forExhibitAofAddendum13-09toLAG84-006.3.TheLessorandLesseedoherebyagreetoamendSection2ofLAG84-006toprovidethatthenewannualrentshallbe$55,875.21(77,048sq.ft.x$07252),plusleaseholdexcisetax,forthe77,048squarefeetidentifiedinLeaseLAG84-006andaddenda,effectiveSeptember1,2014andcontinuinguntilAugust31,2017.4.TheLessorandLesseetoherebyagreetoamendSection2ofLAG84-006toprovidethatthenewannualrentshallbe$2,872.32(5,984sq.ft.x$0.48),plusleaseholdexcisetax,forthe5,984squarefeetidentifiedinLeaseLAG84-006andaddenda,effectiveSeptember1,2014andcontinuinguntilAugust31,2017.5.Lessorwilldeducttheamountof$1,015.20($955.38+$59.82)fromLessee’sinvoiceforMarch2015toreimburseLesseefortheoverpaidrentfortheperiodSeptember1,2014toFebruary28,2015.6.AllothertermsandconditionsoftheoriginalLeaseAgreementandAddendathereto,insofarastheyarenotinconsistentherewith,shallremaininfullforceandeffect.LeaseAgreementLAG84-0063CityofRentontoAerodyneLLC6l. - Transportation Systems Division recommends approval of an amendment Page 384 of 517 LAG84-006Addendum015-15AERODYNELLCCITYOFRENTONaLimitedLiabilityCompanyaMunicipalCorporationQQQLL1DenisLawMayor?%it-’2-4i—M_ _ _ _ ____ _ _ _ _ _ _ ____ _ _TitleJasonSethDeputyCityClerkDateApprovedastolegalformLawrenceJ.WarrenCityAttorneyLeaseAgreementLAG84-0064CityofRentontoAerodyneLLC6l. - Transportation Systems Division recommends approval of an amendment Page 385 of 517 6l. - Transportation Systems Division recommends approval of an amendment Page 386 of 517 CITY OF RENTON COUNCIL AGENDA BILL Subject/Title: Amendment 2-15 to Renton Gateway Center Lease Agreement LAG 09-006 Meeting: REGULAR COUNCIL - 06 Apr 2015 Exhibits: A. Issue Paper B. Amendment Submitting Data: Dept/Div/Board: Public Works Staff Contact: Jonathan Wilson, Airport Manager, ext. 7477 Recommended Action: Council Concur. Fiscal Impact: Expenditure Required: $ N/A Transfer Amendment: $N/A Amount Budgeted: $ N/A Revenue Generated: $21,238.50 annually Total Project Budget: $ N/A City Share Total Project: $ N/A SUMMARY OF ACTION: Renton Gateway Center leases a 136,846 square foot parcel for field-based operator services at 750 West Perimeter under LAG 09-006. The lease allows for a lease rate adjustment every 3 years. On April 1, 2014 Valbridge Property Advisors established the fair market rate at $0.75 per square foot per year. Renton Gateway Center disputed the market appraisal and entered into lease arbitration proceedings. In January 2015 the arbitrator determined the land lease rate to be $0.7252 per square foot per year for Renton Gateway Center’s lease. This is a 27% increase over the prior lease rate of $0.57 per square foot per year and results in an annual airport leasehold revenue increase of $21,238.50. The lease expiration date is August 31, 2046. STAFF RECOMMENDATION: Approve an amendment to Renton Gateway Center's lease agreement for a land rental rate adjustment from $0.57 to $0.7252 per square foot per year in accordance with a January 2015 lease arbitration decision, authorize the Mayor and City Clerk to sign the addendum. 6m. - Transportation Systems Division recommends approval of an amendment Page 387 of 517 6m. - Transportation Systems Division recommends approval of an amendment Page 388 of 517 6m. - Transportation Systems Division recommends approval of an amendment Page 389 of 517 6m. - Transportation Systems Division recommends approval of an amendment Page 390 of 517 6m. - Transportation Systems Division recommends approval of an amendment Page 391 of 517 CITY OF RENTON COUNCIL AGENDA BILL Subject/Title: Addendum 015-15 to Kaynan, Inc. Lease Agreement LAG 003-84 Meeting: REGULAR COUNCIL - 06 Apr 2015 Exhibits: A. Issue Paper B. Addendum Submitting Data: Dept/Div/Board: Public Works Staff Contact: Jonathan Wilson, Airport Manager, ext. 7477 Recommended Action: Council Concur. Fiscal Impact: Expenditure Required: $ N/A Transfer Amendment: $N/A Amount Budgeted: $ N/A Revenue Generated: $($1,964.14) Annually Total Project Budget: $ N/A City Share Total Project: $ N/A SUMMARY OF ACTION: In addition to Kaynan’s lease of 27,085 square feet of land under lease LAG 011-85, they also lease 79,199 square feet of land under a separate lease, LAG 003-84 with an expiration date of August 31, 2016. The lease allows for a lease rate adjustment every 3 years. On April 1, 2014 Valbridge Property Advisors established the fair market rate at $0.75 per square foot per year. In January 2015, through an arbitration process as a result of a dispute by Renton Gateway Center, the new land lease rate was determined to be $0.7252 per square foot per year. Kaynan has agreed to a land rental rate change adjusting their land rental rate down from $0.75 to $0.7252 per square foot per year. This will result in a land rental rate reduction of $163.68 per month, or $1,964.14 annually. This reduction is in accordance with a January 2015 lease arbitration decision. STAFF RECOMMENDATION: Approve an amendment to Kaynan’s lease agreement for a land rental rate adjustment from $0.75 to $0.7252 per square foot per year in accordance with a January 2015 lease arbitration decision, authorize the Mayor and City Clerk to sign the addendum. 6n. - Transportation Systems Division recommends approval of an amendment Page 392 of 517 PUBLICWORKSDEPARTMENTMEMORANDUMDATE:April6,2015TO:EdPrince,CouncilPresidentMembersoftheRentonCityCouncilVIA:DenisLaw,MayorFROM:GreggZimmerman,AdministratorSTAFFCONTACT:JonathanWilson(ext7477)SUBJECT:Addendum015-15toKaynan,Inc.LeaseAgreementLAG003-84ISSUE:ShouldCouncilapproveAddendum015-15toKaynan,Inc.’sleaseagreementLAG003-84foralandrentalrateadjustmentfrom$0.75to$0.7252persquarefootperyearandauthorizetheMayorandCityClerktosigntheaddendum?RECOMMENDATION:InaccordancetoaJanuary2015leasearbitrationdecision,approveAddendum015-15toKaynan,Inc.’sleaseagreementLAG003-84foralandrentalrateadjustmentfrom$0.75to$0.7252persquarefootperyearandauthorizetheMayorandCityClerktosigntheaddendumtotheleaseagreement.BACKGROUND:InadditiontoKaynan’sleaseof27,085squarefeetoflandunderleaseagreementLAG011-85,theyalsolease79,199squarefeetoflandunderaseparateleaseLAG003-84,withanexpirationdateofAugust31,2016.Kaynan,Inc.hasagreedtoanaddendumtothisagreementwhichwoulddecreasetheircurrentlandrentalratefrom$0.75to$0.7252persquarefootperyear,or$163.68permonth.ThisaddendumisretroactivetoJune1,2014whenKaynan’sleaseratewasinitiallysettothisappraisedrate,so$1,473.12,ortheequivalentof9monthsofthereducedratehasbeencreditedtoKaynan’sMarchstatement.Lastfall,RentonGatewayCenterchosetodisputetheleaserateof$0.75,basedontherecentmarketappraisalandenteredintoleasearbitrationproceedings.InJanuary20156n. - Transportation Systems Division recommends approval of an amendment Page 393 of 517 EdPrince,CouncilPresidentMembersoftheRentonCityCouncilPage2of2April6,2015thearbitratordeterminedthelandleaseratetobe$0.7252persquarefootperyearforRentonGatewayCenter’slease.FollowingtheRentonGatewayCenterarbitration,uponconsultationwiththeMayorandotherexecutiveandadministrativestaff,theAirportwasdirectedtolowerthelandrentalratefortheotherleasesrecentlyestablishedat$0.75(RainierFlightService,Kaynan,andAerodyne).Thelandrentalportionsofthoseleasesarebeingrenegotiateddownto$0.7252.Sincetheseleaseshavealreadybeenpayingthehigherrate,theAirportwasdirectedtoretroactivelyapplythenewarbitratedrate.ThedecisiontomaketheseadjustmentsisprimarilybecauseofthefederalgrantassurancestheCityagreestoasaconditionofacceptingfederalgrantdollars.Specifically,GrantAssurance#22statesthat,“Eachfixed-basedoperatorattheairportshallbesubjecttothesamerates,fees,rentals,andotherchargesasareuniformlyapplicabletoallotherfixed-basedoperatorsmakingthesameorsimilarusesofsuchairportandutilizingthesameorsimilarfacilities.”Notallofourtenantsareconsideredfixedbaseoperators,butthecentralpremiseoftheassuranceandthetitleofGrantAssurance22is“EconomicNondiscrimination.”Inessence,bylevelingthenewrateamongtheseothertenantstheCityisbetterpositionedtoavoidfuturePart16complaints.Kaynan,Inc.hassignedAddendum015-15totheirleaseforthelandrentalrateadjustment,effectiveretroactivetoJune1,2014throughAugust31,2016,whichistheexpirationdateoftheirlease.cc:DougJacobson,DeputyPWAdministrator—TransportationJosefHarnden,TransportationAdministrativeSecretaryH:\FileSys\AIR-Airport,TransportationServicesDivision\03Projects\01Tasks\AgendaBills\2015AgendaBills\AgBill—KaynanAdd15-15RateChange6n. - Transportation Systems Division recommends approval of an amendment Page 394 of 517 LAG003-84Addendum015-15(supersedesAddendum15-14)ADDENDUMTOLEASEAGREEMENT(CityofRentontoKaynan,Inc.)THISADDENDUMtoLeaseAgreementLAG003-84iseffectiveasofJune1,2014.RECITALS:WHEREAS,Kaynan,Inc.hasaLeaseAgreementwiththeCityofRenton,LAG003-84,executedonSeptember1,1984;andWHEREAS,KaynanInc.leasesapproximately79,199squarefeetofgroundspace;andWHEREAS,onJune1,2011,thelandrentalratefortheapproximately79,199squarefeetoflandarealeasedbyKaynan,Inc.wasdeterminedtobe$0.62persquarefootperyearandcontinuinguntilJune1,2014;andWHEREAS,pursuanttoLAG003-84,Addendum13-08paragraph5,inaletterdatedApril4,2014,LesseewasnotifiedbycertifiedletterthattheleaseratewouldbereadjustedusingameansotherthantheConsumerPriceIndex-Urban;andWHEREAS,effectiveJune1,2014,Lessorhadadjustedthelandleaserateto$0.75persquarefootperyear,andLesseehadpaidsaidrentalrate,pursuanttoAddendum15-14toLAG003-84;andWHEREAS,LessorandLesseedesiretowithdrawAddendum15-14toLAG003-84andhaveitsupersededbythisAddendum015-15;andWHEREAS,onJanuary8,2015,throughaleasearbitrationprocess,anewlandrentalratewasestablishedat$07252persquarefootperyear;andWHEREAS,onJune1,2014,andfortheensuingthree(3)yearperiod,thelandrentalrateshouldbeadjusted,usingtheleasearbitrationdetermination,toarateof$0.7252persquarefootperyearforthe79,199squarefeetofleasedarea,resultinginanannualrentalamountof$57,435.11(79,199x$0.7252),andcontinuinguntilAugust31,2016.WHEREAS,theannualdifferencebetween79,199Sq.Ft.x$0.75and79,199Sq.Ft.x$0.7252is$1,964.14($59,399.25-$57,435.11).Themonthlyamountofthedifferentialis$163.68(1,964.14/12).TherefundamountisOneThousandFourHundredSeventyThreedollarsandTwelvecents($1,473.12)(9monthsx$163.68),forLeaseAgreementLAG003-840FIGINALCityofRentontoKaynan,Inc.6n. - Transportation Systems Division recommends approval of an amendment Page 395 of 517 LAG003-84Addendum015-15(supersedesAddendum15-14)theperiodbeginningJune1,2014toFebruary28,2015.TherefundwillbedeductedfromthelandrentalamountforMarch2015.NOW,THEREFORE,ITISHEREBYAGREEDANDCOVENANTEDBYANDBETWEENTHECITYOFRENTONANDKAYNAN,INC.ASFOLLOWS:WITNESSETH:1.TheLessorandLesseedoherebyagreetoamendsection2ofLAG003-84toprovideanannuallandrentof$57,435.11(79,199x$0.7252),forthe79,199squarefeetidentifiedinleaseLAG003-84throughAugust31,2016.2.TheLessorandLesseedoherebyagreetowithdrawAddendum15-14toLAG003-84.ThisAddendum015-15shallsupersedeAddendum15-14.3.Lessorwilldeducttheamountof$1,473.12fromLessee’sinvoiceforMarch1,2015,toreimburseLesseefortheoverpaidrentfortheperiodJune1,2014toFebruary28,2015.4.AllothertermsandconditionsoftheoriginalLeaseAgreementandAddendathereto,insofarastheyarenotinconsistentherewith,shallremaininfullforceandeffect.KAYNAN,INC.CITYOFRENTONaWashingtonCorporationaMunicipalCorporation422Z______DenisLawMayorTitleJasonSethCityClerkLeaseAgreementLAG003-842CityofRentontoKaynan,Inc.6n. - Transportation Systems Division recommends approval of an amendment Page 396 of 517 LAG003-84Addendum015-15(supersedesAddendum15-14)DateApprovedastolegalformCityAttorneyLeaseAgreementLAG003-843CityofRentontoKaynan,Inc.6n. - Transportation Systems Division recommends approval of an amendment Page 397 of 517 CITY OF RENTON COUNCIL AGENDA BILL Subject/Title: Addendum 09-15 to Kaynan, Inc. Lease Agreement LAG 011-85 Meeting: REGULAR COUNCIL - 06 Apr 2015 Exhibits: A. Issue Paper B. Addendum Submitting Data: Dept/Div/Board: Public Works Staff Contact: Jonathan Wilson, Airport Manager, ext. 7477 Recommended Action: Council Concur. Fiscal Impact: Expenditure Required: $ N/A Transfer Amendment: $N/A Amount Budgeted: $ N/A Revenue Generated: $($671.71) Annually Total Project Budget: $ N/A City Share Total Project: $ N/A SUMMARY OF ACTION: Kaynan Inc. leases 27,085 square feet of land under lease LAG 011-85, with an expiration date of July 15, 2016. The lease allows for a lease rate adjustment every 3 years. On April 1, 2014 Valbridge Property Advisors established the fair market rate at $0.75 per square foot per year. In January 2015, through an arbitration process as a result of a dispute by Renton Gateway Center, the new land lease rate was determined to be $0.7252 per square foot per year. Kaynan has agreed to a land rental rate change adjusting their land rental rate down from $0.75 to $0.7252 per square foot per year. This will result in a land rental rate reduction of $55.97 per month, or $671.71 annually. This reduction is in accordance with a January 2015 lease arbitration decision. STAFF RECOMMENDATION: Approve an amendment to Kaynan’s lease agreement for a land rental rate adjustment from $0.75 to $0.7252 per square foot per year in accordance with a January 2015 lease arbitration decision, authorize the Mayor and City Clerk to sign the addendum. 6o. - Transportation Systems Division recommends approval of an amendment Page 398 of 517 6o. - Transportation Systems Division recommends approval of an amendment Page 399 of 517 EdPrince,CouncilPresidentMembersoftheRentonCityCouncilPage2of2April6,2015thearbitratordeterminedthelandleaseratetobe$0.7252persquarefootperyearforRentonGatewayCenter’slease.FollowingtheRentonGatewayCenterarbitration,anduponconsultationwiththeMayorandotherexecutiveandadministrativestaff,theAirportwasdirectedtolowerthelandrentalratefortheotherleasesrecentlyestablishedat$0.75(RainierFlightService,Kaynan,andAerodyne).Thelandrentalportionsofthoseleasesarebeingrenegotiateddownto$0.7252.Sincetheseleaseshavealreadybeenpayingthehigherrate,theAirportwasdirectedtoretroactivelyapplythenewarbitratedrate.ThedecisiontomaketheseadjustmentsisprimarilybecauseofthefederalgrantassurancestheCityagreestoasaconditionofacceptingfederalgrantdollars.Specifically,GrantAssurance#22statesthat,“Eachfixed-basedoperatorattheairportshallbesubjecttothesamerates,fees,rentals,andotherchargesasareuniformlyapplicabletoallotherfixed-basedoperatorsmakingthesameorsimilarusesofsuchairportandutilizingthesameorsimilarfacilities.”Notallofourtenantsareconsideredfixedbaseoperators,butthecentralpremiseoftheassuranceandthetitleofGrantAssurance22is“EconomicNondiscrimination.”Inessence,bylevelingthenewrateamongtheseothertenantstheCityisbetterpositionedtoavoidfuturePart16complaints.Kaynan,Inc.hassignedAddendum09-15totheirleaseforthelandrentalrateadjustment,retroactivelyeffectivetoJune1,2014throughJuly15,2016,whichistheexpirationdateoftheirlease.cc:DougJacobson,DeputyPWAdministrator—TransportationJosefHarnden,TransportationAdministrativeSecretaryH:\FileSys\AIR-Airport,TransportationServicesDivision\03Projects\01Tasks\AgendaBills\2015AgendaBills\AgBill—KaynanAdd9-15RateChange6o. - Transportation Systems Division recommends approval of an amendment Page 400 of 517 LAG011-85Addendum9-15(supersedesAddendum9-14)ADDENDUMTOLEASEAGREEMENT(CityofRentontoKaynan,Inc.)THISADDENDUMtoLeaseAgreementLAG011-85iseffectiveasofJune1,2014.RECITALS:WHEREAS,Kaynan,Inc.hasaLeaseAgreementwiththeCityofRenton,LAG011-85,executedonJuly1,1985;andWHEREAS,KaynanInc.leasesapproximately27,085squarefeetofgroundspace,andaCity-ownedbuilding,referredtoas#5-01,situatedonthegroundleasespace;andWHEREAS,onJune1,2011,thelandrentalratefortheapproximately27,085squarefeetoflandarealeasedbyKaynan,Inc.wasdeterminedtobe$0.62persquarefootperyearandcontinuinguntilJune1,2014;andWHEREAS,pursuanttoLAG011-85,Addendum7-08paragraph5,inaletterdatedApril4,2014,LesseewasnotifiedbycertifiedletterthattheleaseratewouldbereadjustedusingameansotherthantheConsumerPriceIndex-Urban;andWHEREAS,effectiveJune1,2014,Lessorhadadjustedthelandleaserateto$0.75persquarefootperyear,andLesseehadpaidsaidrentalrate,pursuanttoAddendum9-14toLAG011-85;andWHEREAS,LessorandLesseedesiretowithdrawAddendum9-14toLAG011-85andhaveitsupersededbythisAddendum9-15;andWHEREAS,onJanuary8,2015,throughaleasearbitrationprocess,anewlandrentalratewasestablishedat$0.7252persquarefootperyear;andWHEREAS,onJune1,2014,andfortheensuingthree(3)yearperiod,thelandrentalrateshouldbeadjusted,usingaleasearbitrationdetermination,toarateof$0.7252persquarefootperyearforthe27,085squarefeetofleasedarea,resultinginanannualrentalamountof$19,642.04(27,085x$0.7252),andcontinuinguntilAugust31,2016;andWHEREAS,Theannualdifferencebetween27,085SQ.FT.X$0.75and27,085SQ.FT.x$0.7252IS$671.71($20,313.75—19,642.04)Themonthlyamountofthedifferentialis$55.97(671.71/12).TherefundamountisFiveHundredThreedollarsLeaseAgreementLAG011-850RIGINALCityofRentontoKaynan,Inc.6o. - Transportation Systems Division recommends approval of an amendment Page 401 of 517 LAG011-85Addendum9-15(supersedesAddendum9-14)andSeventyThreecents($503.73)(9monthsx$55.97),fortheperiodbeginningJune1,2014andendingFebruary28,2015.TherefundwillbedeductedfromthelandrentalamountforMarch2015.NOW,THEREFORE,ITISHEREBYAGREEDANDCOVENANTEDBYANDBETWEENTHECITYOFRENTONANDKAYNAN,INC.ASFOLLOWS:WITNESSETH:1.TheLessorandLesseedoherebyagreetoamendsection2ofLAG011-85toprovideanannuallandrentof$19,642.04(27,085x$0.7252),forthe27,085squarefeetidentifiedinleaseLAG011-85,effectiveJune1,2014throughAugust31,2016.2.TheLessorandLesseedoherebyagreetowithdrawAddendum9-14toLAG011-85.ThisAddendum9-15shallsupersedeAddendum9-14.3.Lessorwilldeducttheamountof$503.73fromLessee’sinvoiceforMarch1,2015toreimburseLesseefortheoverpaidrentfortheperiodJune1,2014toFebruary28,2015.4.AllothertermsandconditionsoftheoriginalLeaseAgreementandAddendathereto,insofarastheyarenotinconsistentherewith,shallremaininfullforceandeffect.KAYNAN,INC.aWashingtonCorporation5:TitleCITYOFRENTONaMunicipalCorporationDenisLawMayorJasonSethCityClerkLeaseAgreementLAG011-85CityofRentontoKaynan,Inc.6o. - Transportation Systems Division recommends approval of an amendment Page 402 of 517 LAG011-85Addendum9-15(supersedesAddendum9-14)DateApprovedastolegalformCityAttorneyLeaseAgreementLAG011-853CityofRentontoKaynan,Inc.6o. - Transportation Systems Division recommends approval of an amendment Page 403 of 517 c:\users\jharnden\desktop\scanned agenda bills\kaynan, inc lease amendment 015-15 to lag-003-84\kaynan (ellison fluid systems) _campbell- hehr 2015.doc HUMAN RESOURCES AND RISK MANAGEMENT M E M O R A N D U M DATE: March 30, 2015 TO: Susan Campbell-Hehr FROM: Gary B. Lamb, Risk Manager SUBJECT: Insurance Review/Kaynan, Inc. and Ellison Fluid Systems, Inc. Ground lease with the City at 350 Airport Way. I have reviewed the certificate of insurance for the above-mentioned entity. The insurance certificate meets the city’s risk management requirements. 6o. - Transportation Systems Division recommends approval of an amendment Page 404 of 517 6o. - Transportation Systems Division recommends approval of an amendment Page 405 of 517 CITY OF RENTON COUNCIL AGENDA BILL Subject/Title: Final Pay Estimate – CAG-14-018 (WTR-27-3674) Monterey Terrace Water Main Replacement Project Meeting: REGULAR COUNCIL - 06 Apr 2015 Exhibits: A. Pay Estimate #5 (Final) B. Notice of Completion of Public Works Contract Submitting Data: Dept/Div/Board: Public Works Staff Contact: Andrew Weygandt, Water Utility Engineer, ext. 7208 Recommended Action: Council Concur. Fiscal Impact: Expenditure Required: $ 13,485.11 (final pay est. only) Transfer Amendment: $N/A Amount Budgeted: $ 14,000.00 (final pay est. only)Revenue Generated: $N/A Total Project Budget: $ 1,100,000 (Acct.425.455170)City Share Total Project: $ 100% SUMMARY OF ACTION: On April 7, 2014, Council awarded the construction contract to Buno Construction, LLC. Construction started on April 29, 2014. The project was completed on December 14, 2014. The original contract amount was $775,073.85 and the final contract amount is $669,846.12. The decrease in contract amount of $104,986.89 was due to the contractor’s ability to install the water main using a narrower trench than estimated and by using native material suitable for trench backfill instead of using imported trench backfill. The project was completed on schedule and within the budget. STAFF RECOMMENDATION: Accept the project, approve the final pay estimate in the amount of $13,485.11, and release the retainage bond after 60 days, subject to the receipt of all required authorizations. 6p. - Utilities System Division submits CAG-14-018, Monterey Terrace Water Page 406 of 517 TO:FINANCEDIRECTORFROM:PUBLICWORKSADMINISTRATORCONTRACTOR:BunoConstruction,LLCCONTRACTNO.#CAG-14-018PO#1810001905ESTIMATENO.5(Final)WTR-27-3674ClosingDate:04/09/2015PROJECT:MontereyTerraceWatermainReplacementProject1.CONTRACTOREARNINGSTHISESTIMATE$12,535.112.SALESTAX@9.50%$950.003.TOTALCONTRACTAMOUNTTHISESTIMATE$13,485.114.EARNINGSPREVIOUSLYPAIDCONTRACTOR$599,416.455EARNINGSDUECONTRACTORTHISESTIMATE$12,535.116.SUBTOTAL-CONTRACTORPAYMENTS$611,951.567.RETAINAGEONPREVIOUSEARNINGSN/A8RETAINAGEONEARNINGSTHISESTIMATEN/A9.SUBTOTAL-RETAINAGEN/A10.SALESTAXPREVIOUSLYPAID$56,944.5611.SALESTAXDUETHISESTIMATE$950.0012.SUBTOTAL-SALESTAX$57,894.56GRANDTOTAL:$669,846.12FINANCEDEPARTMENTACTION:PAYMENTTOCONTRACTOR(Lines5and11):ACCOUNT#425.455170.018.594.34.63.000f020#5$13,485.11Retainagecoveredbybond:BondNo.1029471Issuedby:TheHanoverInsuranceCompanyofNewHampshireTOTALTHISESTIMATE:$13,485.11CHARTER116,LAWSOF1965CITYOFRENTONCERTIFICATIONI,THEUNDERSIGNEDDOHEREBYCERTIFYUNDERPENALTYOFPERJURY,THATTHEMATERIALSHAVEBEENFURNISHED,THESERVICESRENDEREDORTHELABORPERFORMEDASDESCRIBEDHEREIN,ANDTHATTHECLAIMISAJUST,DUEANDUNPAIDOBLIGATIONAGAINSTTHECITYOFRENTON,ANDTHATIAMAUTHORIZEDTOAUTHENTICATEDCERTIFYTOSAIDCLAIMSigned:OWCpcfvqLI‘2Vi/irPrintedOn:03/18/2015CityofRentonPublicWorksDepartmentPage16p. - Utilities System Division submits CAG-14-018, Monterey Terrace Water Page 407 of 517 PrintedOn:03/19/2015CityofRentonPublicWorksDepartmentPage1ProjectMontereyTerraceWaterrnainReplacementProjectContractorBunoConstruction,LLCItemDescriptionNoContractNumberCAG-14-018PayEstimate5(Final)ClosingDate.04/0912015UnitEst.UnitPreviousPreviouoThisThisTotalTotalQuantityPriceQuantityAmountQuantityAmountQuantityAmount001Mobilization,Demobilization,SitePreparation&Clean-upLumpSum1002.TrafficControlLumpSum1003TrenchExcavationSafetySystemsLumpSum1004ConstructionSurveyingandStakingLumpSum1As-BuiltSurveyingforProgressPaymentsandFinalAs-005BuiltsLumpSum1006.TemporaryErosionandSedimentationControlLumpSum1007SiteSpecificPotholingEach10FurnishandInstall12Cl52DlWaterPipe&FittingswIOOS.PolywrapLinealFoot340FurnishandInstall6”Cl52DlWaterPipe&FittingswI009.PolrnrapLinealFoot3410010.Cutin6’GateValveAssemblyEach2011.FurnishandInstall6”GateValveAssemblyEach15012.FurnishandInstall12’GateVatveAssemblyEach1013FurnishandInstall24ButterflyValveAssemblyEach1014.ConcreteforThrustBlocking.Dead-ManAnchorBlocksCubicYard30015.FurnishandInstallFireHydrantAssemblyEach7016Furnish&Install1”WaterServiceConnectonEach68017Furnish&InstallAirReleaseandVacuumValveAssemblyEach1018.ConnectiontoExistingWaterMain-NE3rdStEachI019ConnectiontoExistingWaterMain-MontereyP1NEEach1020Cut.Cap,andBlockExistingWaterMainEach1021FurnrshandInstal8”PVCSewerPipeLinealFoot10022SideSewerTeeReplacementEach8FurnishandInstall54”DiamShallowSanitarySewer023ManholeEach3RemovalandReplacementofUnsuitableFoundation024Mater,alTon150025SelectImportedTrenchBackfillTon1000CrushedSurfacingTopCourse,CrushedRockBackfill,026CrushedRockforShoulderRestorationTon1600027.2’Temporary&4FinalHotMixAsphaltTrenchPatchingTon1100028.RemovalandReplacementofConcreteCurbandGutterLinealFool250029TelevisionInspectionofSanitarySewersLinealFoot100030ConcreteDrivewayand/orSidewalkRestorationSquare-Yard100$60,00000$25,000.00$10,000.00$10,00000$10,00000$3,00000$500.00$81.00$49.00$2,000.00$1,000.00$2,00000$6,00000$5000$6,00000$1,700.00$3,500.00$12,000.00$3,000.00$500.00$10000$1,00000$3,50000$1200$1200$1500$9500$2000$300$5000100$60,00000$000100$60,000001.00$25,000.00$0.001.00$25,000.00100$10,000.00$0.001.00$10,000001.00$10,000.00$0.001.00$10,0000000050001.00$10,000.001.00$10,000.00100$3,000.00$0001.00$3000001000$5,000.00$0.0010.00$5,000.0029800$2413800$0002g8.o0$24,138.003051.00$149,49900$0.003051.00$149,499.002.00$4,000.00$0.002.00$4,000.0015.00$15,00000$00015.00$15,000.00200$4,000.00$0002.00$4,000.000.00$000Sooo0.00$0001450$72500$0.001450$725.007.00542,000.00$0007.00$42,000006900$11730000$00069.00$117,300.00100$3,50000$0.00100$3,500.00100$12,00000$0001.00$12,00000100$3,000.00$0001.00$3,00000200$1,00000$000200$1,000.001800$180000$00018.0051,80000900$9,00000$0.00900$9,000.00300$10,500.00$000300$10,500.000.00$000$000000$000000$000$000000$00057505$8,62575$00057505$8,6257565886$62,59170$000658.86$82,5917014600$292000500014600$29200083900$251700$00083900$2517004600$2,300.00$0004600$2,300006p. - Utilities System Division submits CAG-14-018, Monterey Terrace Water Page 408 of 517 PrintedOn:03/19/2015CityofRentonPublicWorksDepartmentPage2ProjectMontereyTerraceWatermainReptacementProjectcontractNumber:cAc-14-018contractor:Bonnconotruction,LLCPayEntimate5(Final)ctoningDate04109/2015ternDencriptionUnitEotUnitPrenioenPrexioxnThinThinTotalTotalNoQuantityPriceQuantityAmountQuantityAmountQuantityAmount031Property&LandncaneRentorationLumpsumi$10,000.00100$1000000$0.001.00$10,00000032Property&LandncapeRentcrationLumpSum1$10,00000000$000$0.00000$000co#i24”ButterflyVatxeRentockingFee(NoTanRequired)LumpSum1$2,53511000$0001.00$2,535111.00$2,53511Subtotal$599,416.45$12,535.11$811,951.5695%SatenTan(ThinentimatecosinottanedTaxpaidforBidItemSonly)$56,944$6$950.00$57,894.56UTotal$656,36101$13,46511$669,846.124i,h/,r6p. - Utilities System Division submits CAG-14-018, Monterey Terrace Water Page 409 of 517 CITYOFRENTONPublicWorksDepartmentCONTRACTCHANGEORDERAGREEMENTCONTRACT:CAG14-018—MontereyTerraceWaterMainReplacementProjectCONTRACTOR:BunoConstruction,Inc.SUMMARYOFPROPOSEDCHANGE:C.O.#1Providealllabor,equipment,subcontracting,bonding,insuranceforthecompleteworkrequiredfortheextraworkasoutlinedbelow:ITEMAdditional_QuantitiesUnderThis_ChangeOrderRestockingfeefor24”butterflyvalve.*NotaxUnitQuantityUnitTotalPriceLS1$2,535.11$2,535.11$2,535.11_ ___ _ ___ ________$0.00$2,535.11ORIGINALCONTRACTCURRENTCONTRACT1ESTIMATEDNETESTIMATEDCONTRACTAMOUNTAMOUNTCHANGETHISORDERTOTALAFTERCHANGE$777,849.80$667,311.01$2,535.11$669,846.12Date:jq1—Date:__ __ _ __ _ __Date:__ __ _ __ _ __Colrequired.Subtotal9.5%SalesTaxTotal4l0CostAllocationWaterUtility42SA5M6.018.594.34.63.000$2,535.11SIGNATURES:Contractor:ProjectEngineer:ApprovedBy:I(WaterUtilitySupervisor)H:\FiIeSys\WTR-DrinkingWaterUtility\WrR27WaterProjectFilesW1’R27-3674MontereyTerraceWaterMainReplacementContractDocuments\PayEstimates\Changeorderl02-27-15.docAWah6p. - Utilities System Division submits CAG-14-018, Monterey Terrace Water Page 410 of 517 ‘ic_J.I-U-U’JUBeUngharn3607348400Marysille3606512400Bend54136975i7Olympia360597300HLDCBremerton360•3774507Pacific253•863•8600COMPA\IUClackamas5036563900Pesco5095450255P0Box160BclLueWAOS(1(tO0l6t)_Euqene5416070031Pdnonc15419232090Credit4Hayden2037729060Spokane509•5688400MemoIJ0BEWHHermiston541•922•0775Wenatchee5098868804#042750Hillsbomo503•626•2466Yakima5092488400Shipto:NE3RDST&MONTEREYDRNEBUNOCONSTRUCTION,LLC2021999thAveSERENTONWA98056SNOHOMISHWA982967970Order#mvDate:IOrderWriter:(360)863-2893Due:NET10THPROX07/24/14arthRuckhaber-FOB:—--1ShipVia:——---—POIJOBJOB#365MONTEREYTERRACEWATUnitLessCreditTLineQtyU0MDescriptionPrice¾PriceXThTConbnuationofRA244861forNonstockitems.Vendorrestockandfreightcharges.;1EA<13614357>24”DlMJXFLANGEADAPTER,C/L,983.44-983.44NC,C110,IMPORTSalesInvoice<13614357>21EA<13614350>24”DIMJXFLANGEADAPTER,CIL,983.44-983.44NC,C110,IMPORTSalesInvoice<13614350>‘;.c..I-1,966.88Freight:0.00Tax:0.00GrandTotal:-1,323.046p. - Utilities System Division submits CAG-14-018, Monterey Terrace Water Page 411 of 517 R‘-tL______Freight:Tax:GrandTotal:-7,565.06P*1,89j.270.000.00-5,673.79Bellingham3607348400Marysvifle3606512400Bend541•389•7577Olympia36045973O0HAD.FOVILERBremetton3603774507Pacific253863•86O0COMPANYE1ThfFckamas503•656•3900Pasco5O9•5450255P0Box160•Bellevue,WA•98009-0160thgene541•6070081Redmond5419232090re1Hayden208•772•9060Spokane50956884O0MemoBEWHHermiston5419220775Wenatchee5098868804#042750Hillsboro503626•2466Yakima509•24884OOTo:Shipto:NE3RDST&MONTEREYDRNEBUNOCONSTRUCTION,LLC2021999thAveSERENTONWA98056SNOHOMISHWA982967970Order#mvDate:OrderWriter:(360)863-2893Due:NET10THPROX06/24/14JGahRuckhaber—F9&—8hip-uia;PO/dOBJOE#365MONTEREYTERRACEWATUnitLessCreditTLineQtyUoMDescriptionPrice¾PriceX12345Thiscreditueiongsorci-:evvieoii-’ianschangedandthismaterialwasnotneeded.1EA<I3614357>24”X12”FLTEEDl,AWWACl10,CILSalesInvoice<13614357>2EA<13614357>24”MJSLEEVELNGPATTERNDI,AWWAC153LESSACCESSORIES(377LBS)SalesInvoice<13614357>6EA<13614357>24”COMPACTBODYM]ACCESSORYKITCOMPLETEWITHGLAND,GASKETAND(16)3/4”X5”T-BOLTSSalesInvoice<13614357>1EA<13614353>24”FLANGEDBUTTERFLYVALVEM&HFIG4500-02,AWWAC504,WI2”NUT,C550EPOXYCOATED(1165LBS)SalesInvoice<13614353>2EA<13614353>24”BFVFLANGEPLATEDBOLT&NUTKIT,A307,J6EA1-1/4”X5-1/2’BOLTWITHNUT;4EA1-1/4’X3-1/2”CAPSCREWSalesInvoice<13614353>1,585.00586.67141.623,777.0090.00-1,585.00-1,173.34-849.72-3,777.00-180.00$euhuijihePacillcr1llwshio19116p. - Utilities System Division submits CAG-14-018, Monterey Terrace Water Page 412 of 517 DOriginalRevised#NOTICEOFCOMPLETIONOFPUBLICWORKSCONTRACTDate:3/18/2015Contractor’sUBINumber:602173756Assignedto:DateAssigned:DepartmentUseOnlyNoticeisherebygivenrelativetothecompletionofcontractorprojectdescribedbelowProjectNameContractNumberJobOrderContractingMontereyTerraceWaterMainReplacementProjectWTR-27-3674/CAG-14-018DYesI?1’NoDescriptionofVorkDone[IncludeJobsiteAddress(es)Installationof3,700linearfeetof12-inchdiameterductileironwaterpipe,fittings,valves,andfirehydrantsfortheCityofRenton’sMontereyTerraceNeighborhoodlocatednearNE3rdStreetatMontereyDriveNE.Contractor’sNamef-mailAddressAffidavitID*BunoConstruction,LLCdanbuno@msn.com560053ContractorAddressTelephone#2021999thAveSESnohomish,WA98296425-486-1280IfRetainageisnotwithheld,pleaseselectoneofthefollowingandListSurety’sName&BondNumber.L?1’RetainageBondContract/Paymentbond(validforfederallyfundedtransportationprojects)Name:TheHanoverInsuranceCompanyofAmericaIBondNumber:1029471DateContractAwardedDateWorkCommencedDateWorkCompletedDateWorkAcceptedApril7,2014April29,2014December14,2014December14,2014WereSubcontractersusedonthisproject?Ifso,pleasecompleteAddendumA.YesDNoAffidavittD*-NoL&treleasewillbegranteduntilallaffidavitsarelisted.ContractAmountS707,830.00Additions(+)$2,535.11LiquidatedDamages$Reductions(-)$98,413.55AmountDisbursed$669,846.12Sub-Total$611,951.56AmountRetained$0.00AmountofSalesTax9.5(Ifvariousratesapply,pleasesendabreakdown)$57894.56TOTALS669,846.12TOTAL$669,846.12NOTE:ThesetwototalsmustbeegttatComments:Retainagecovetedbybond.Additionof$2,535.11forrestockingfeetoreturnmaterialsnotneededfortheproject.Notaxpaidonteturned/restockeditems.OWachnju,nStat€,DepartnwntofLabor&IndustriesContractRelease(855)545-8163,option#4ContractRelease@LNlWA.GOVTitle:AccountaingAssistantPhoneNumber:425-430-6919-EmploymentSecurity_ADepartmentRegistration,Inquiry,Standards&CoordinationUnit(360)902-9450pubhcworks@esd.wa.govName&MailingAddressofPublicAgency(ityotI<enton1055S.GradyWayRenton,WA98057UBINumber:177000094Federallyfundedtransportationproject?YesgNo(ifyes,provideContractBondStatementbelow)ContactName:NatalieWissbrodNote:TheDisbursingOfficermustsubmitthiscompletednoticeimmediatelyafteracceptanceoftheworkdoneunderthiscontract.NOPAYMENTSHALLBEMADEFROMRETAINEDFUNDSuntilreceiptofallreleasecertificates.SubmittingForm:Pleasesubmitthecompletedformbyemailtoallthreeagenciesbelow.EmailAddress:nwissbrod@rentonwa.govflDepartmentofRevenueC_PublicWorksSection(360)704-5650PWC@dor.wa.govREV310020e(42814)F2l5-038-00t)04-20(46p. - Utilities System Division submits CAG-14-018, Monterey Terrace Water Page 413 of 517 AddendumA:PleaseListallSubcontractorsandSub-tiersBelowThisaddendumcanbesubmittedinotherfomats.Provideknownaffidavitsatthistime.NoL&lreleasetvitlbegranteduntilallaffidavitsarelisted.Subcontractor’sName:UBINumber:(Required)AffidavidID*SalinasConstruction,Inc.600316188560346SalinasSawingandSealing,Inc.601717158545439Cadman,Inc.176000099563128AmericanSurveyingandEngineering,PLLC603226051558513Fortaxassistanceortorequestthisdocumentinanalternateformat,pleasecall1-800-647-7706.Teletype(TTY)usersmayusetheWashingtonRelayServicebycalling711.REV310020eAddendum(04/28/14)f215-038-00004-20146p. - Utilities System Division submits CAG-14-018, Monterey Terrace Water Page 414 of 517 CITY OF RENTON COUNCIL AGENDA BILL Subject/Title: Interagency Agreement Between King County and the City of Renton for the 2015-2016 King County Solid Waste Division Waste Reduction and Recycling Grant (WRR Grant) King County Contract #5728419 Meeting: REGULAR COUNCIL - 06 Apr 2015 Exhibits: A. Issue Paper B. Interagency Agreement C. Draft Resolution Submitting Data: Dept/Div/Board: Public Works Staff Contact: Linda Knight, ext. 7397 Recommended Action: Council Concur. Fiscal Impact: Expenditure Required: $ 231,876 Transfer Amendment: $NA Amount Budgeted: $ 231,876 Revenue Generated: $231,876, (2015/2016) Total Project Budget: $ 231,876 City Share Total Project: $ 0 SUMMARY OF ACTION: The City of Renton is eligible to receive $231,876 in non-matching grant funding in 2015-2016 through the King County Solid Waste Division’s Waste Reduction and Recycling Grant Program. This grant provides funding for the Waste Reduction and Recycling Program. The annual grant allocation is $115,938. STAFF RECOMMENDATION: Approve a Resolution authorizing the Mayor and City Clerk to execute the Interagency Agreement between King County and the City of Renton for the 2015-2016 King County Solid Waste Division Waste Reduction and Recycling Grant. 6q. - Utilities Systems Division recommends approval of an Interagency Page 415 of 517 PUBLIC WORKS DEPARTMENT M E M O R A N D U M DATE: March 23, 2015 TO: Ed Prince, Council President Members of Renton City Council VIA: Denis Law, Mayor FROM: Gregg Zimmerman, Administrator STAFF CONTACT: Linda Knight, Solid Waste Coordinator, x7397 SUBJECT: Interagency Agreement Between King County and the City of Renton for the 2015-2016 King County Solid Waste Division Waste Reduction and Recycling Grant (WRR Grant) King County Contract #5728419 ISSUE: Should Council approve a Resolution authorizing the Mayor and City Clerk to execute the Waste Reduction and Recycling Grant Interlocal Agreement with King County in order to receive a total of $231,876 in non-matching grant funding for 2015-2016 to implement the Waste Reduction and Recycling Program? RECOMMENDATION: Approve a Resolution authorizing the Mayor and City Clerk to execute the Interagency Agreement between King County and the City of Renton for the 2015-2016 King County Solid Waste Division Waste Reduction and Recycling Grant King County Contract #5728419, which provides a total of $231,876 in non-matching grant funding in 2015-2016 to implement the Waste Reduction and Recycling Program. BACKGROUND SUMMARY: King County Solid Waste Division established a Waste Reduction and Recycling Grant Program (WRR Grant) for cities that participate in the King County Comprehensive Solid Waste Management Plan. This grant provides funding to further the development and enhancement of local waste reduction and recycling projects and for broader resource conservation projects that integrate with waste reduction and recycling programs. The WRR Grant authorizes the distribution of 2015 and 2016 funds without requiring an amendment for 2016 funds. 6q. - Utilities Systems Division recommends approval of an Interagency Page 416 of 517 Mr. Prince, Council President Page 2 of 2 March 23, 2015 H:\Deputy City Clerk\Agenda\Agenda 2015\04 - April\4-6-15\Issue Paper WRR Grant.doc\LKtp The Projects: Special Recycling Events The Special Recycling Events (Recycling Days) have grown in popularity and volume of materials recycled since their inception in 1990. These events serve over 1,000 households each year. Recycling Days serve the community well and provide an opportunity for Renton residents to recycle a higher volume of materials while improving the appearance of their neighborhoods through the process of a general clean-up/recycle event. Beginning in 2003/2004, the county provided additional funding to Renton to expand the Recycling Days to unincorporated county customers who live just outside the Renton city limits. While we have never discriminated between Renton and unincorporated county customers, this additional funding allows us to recover all costs associated with serving this population. The additional allocation is applied directly to the Recycling Days, providing for increased per-dollar efficiency of the events while allowing the Solid Waste Utility the flexibility to fund other areas of need. ReUse It! Renton Stop and Swap Now in its 11th year of implementation, this popular program provides a venue for residents to bring unwanted but still useable household goods and construction materials. Residents in need of materials are invited to come and take useable materials home. This program not only diverts materials from the landfill but also fulfills a need of some of our community’s most vulnerable populations. General Education & Waste Prevention Policy Development Staff will continue to target waste reduction and recycling messages throughout the year. In addition, staff will research strategies and develop policies for administrative and Council consideration to reduce waste and increase the City’s sustainability. CONCLUSION: The City of Renton is eligible to receive $231,876 in non-matching grant funding in 2015-2016 through the King County Solid Waste Division’s Waste Reduction and Recycling Grant Program. This grant provides funding for the Special Recycling Events and other waste reduction and recycling projects. The annual grant allocation is $115,938. An Interagency Agreement between the City and King County must be signed in order for the City to receive grant funds. cc: Lys Hornsby, Utility Systems Director Hai Nguyen, Senior Financial Budget Analyst Tracy Schuld, Senior Financial Budget Analyst 6q. - Utilities Systems Division recommends approval of an Interagency Page 417 of 517 CONTRACT#5728419INTERAGENCYAGREEMENTFOR2015and2016BetweenlUNGCOUNTYandtheCITYOFRENTONThistwo-yearInteragencyAgreement“Agreement”isexecutedbetweenKingCounty,aCharterCountyandpoliticalsubdivisionoftheStateofWashington,andtheCityofRenton,amunicipalcorporationoftheStateofWashington,hereinafterreferredtoas“County’tand“City”respectively.Collectively,theCountyandCitywillbereferredtoas“Party”or“Parties.”PREAMBLEKingCountyandtheCityofRentonadoptedthe2001KingCountyComprehensiveSolidWasteManagementPlan,whichincludeswastereductionandrecyclinggoals.Inordertohelpmeetthesegoals,theKingCountySolidWasteDivisionhasestablishedawastereductionandrecyclinggrantprogramforthecitiesthatoperateundertheKingCountyComprehensiveSolidWasteManagementPlan.Thisprogramprovidesfundingtofurtherthedevelopmentand/orenhancementoflocalwastereductionandrecyclingprojectsandforbroaderresourceconservationprojectsthatintegratewithwastereductionandrecyclingprogramsandservices.Thisgrantprogramdoesnotfundhouseholdhazardouswastecollectionactivities.ProgrameligibilityandgrantadministrationtermsarediscussedintheGrantGuidelines,attachedtothisAgreementasExhibitB.GrantfundingforthisprogramissubjecttothebudgetapprovalprocessoftheKingCountyCouncil.GrantfundingapprovedbytheKingCountyCouncilisavailabletoallKingCountycitiesthatoperateundertheKingCountyComprehensiveSolidWasteManagementPlan.TheCitywillspenditsgrantfundstofulfillthetermsandconditionssetforthinthescopeofworkwhichisattachedheretoasExhibitAandincorporatedhereinbyreference.TheCountyexpectsthatanyinformationand/orexperiencegainedthroughthegrantprogrambytheCitywillbesharedwiththeCountyandotherKingCountycities.I.PURPOSEThepurposeofthisAgreementistodefinethetermsandconditionsforfundingtobeprovidedtotheCityofRentonbytheCountyforwastereductionandrecyclingprogramsand/orservicesasoutlinedinthescopeofworkandbudgetattachedasExhibitA.6q. - Utilities Systems Division recommends approval of an Interagency Page 418 of 517 II.RESPONSIBILITIESOFTHEPARTIESTheresponsibilitiesofthePartiestothisAgreementshallbeasfollows:A.TheCity1.fundsprovidedtotheCitybytheCountypursuanttothisAgreementshallbeusedtoprovidewastereductionandrecyclingprogramsandlorservicesasoutlinedinExhibitA.Thetotalamountoffundsavailablefromthisgrantin2015and2016shallnotexceed$231,876.2.ThisAgreementprovidesfordistributionof2015and2016grantfundstotheCity.However,grantfundsarenotavailableuntilJanuary1,2015.3.Duringthistwo-yeargrantprogram,theCitywillsubmitaminimumoftwo,butnomorethaneight,progressreportstotheCountyinaformapprovedbytheCounty.ReportsmustbesignedbyaCityofficial.Thesereportswillinclude:a.adescriptionofeachactivityaccomplishedpertainingtothescopeofwork;andb.reimbursementrequestswitheithercopiesofinvoicesforeachexpenditureforwhichreimbursementisrequestedorafinancialstatement,preparedbytheCity’sfinancedepartment,thatincludesvendorname,descriptionofservice,dateofservice,datepaidandchecknumber.IftheCitychoosestosubmituptothemaximumofeight(8)progressreportsandrequestsforreimbursementduringthetwo-yeargrantprogram,theyshallbeduetotheCountyonthelastdayofthemonthfollowingtheendofeachquarter-April30,July30,October31,January31-exceptforthefinalprogressreportandrequestforreimbursementwhichshallbeduebyMarch31,2017.IftheCitychoosestosubmittheminimumoftwoprogressreportsandrequestsforreimbursementduringthetwo-yeargrantprogram,theyshallbeduetotheCountybyJanuary31,2016andMarch31,2017.RegardlessofthenumberofprogressreportstheCitychoosestosubmit,inordertosecurereimbursement,theCitymustprovideinwritingtotheCountybythe5thworkingdayofJanuary2016andJanuary2017,thedollaramountofoutstandingexpendituresforwhichtheCityhasnotyetsubmittedareimbursementrequest.4.TheCityshallsubmitafinalreporttotheCountywhichsummarizestheworkcompletedunderthegrantprogramandevaluatestheeffectivenessoftheprojectsforwhichgrantfundswereutilized,accordingtotheevaluationmethodsspecifiedinthescopeofwork.Thefinalreportisduewithinsixmonthsofcompletionoftheproject(s)outlinedinthescopeofwork,butnolaterthanJune30,2017.26q. - Utilities Systems Division recommends approval of an Interagency Page 419 of 517 5.IftheCityacceptsfundingthroughthisgrantprogramfortheprovisionofWasteReductionandRecyclingprogramsandprojectsforotherincorporatedareasofKingCounty,theCityshallexplaintherelationshipwiththeaffectedadjacentcityorcitiesthatallowsforacceptanceofthisfundingandthespecificsoftheproposedprogramsandprojectswithinthescopeofworkdocumentrelatedthereto.6.TheCityshallberesponsibleforfollowingallapplicableFederal,Stateandlocallaws,ordinances,rulesandregulationsintheperformanceofworkdescribedherein.TheCityassuresthatitsproceduresareconsistentwithlawsrelatingtopubliccontractbiddingprocedures,andtheCountyneitherincursnorassumesanyresponsibilityfortheCity’sbid,awardorcontractingprocess.7.DuringtheperformanceofthisAgreement,neithertheCitynoranyPartysubcontractingundertheauthorityofthisAgreementshalldiscriminateonthebasisofrace,color,sex,religion,nationality,creed,maritalstatus,sexualorientation,age,orpresenceofanysensory,mental,orphysicalhandicapintheemploymentorapplicationforemploymentorintheadministrationordeliveryoforaccesstoservicesoranyotherbenefitsunderthisAgreementasdefinedbyKingCountyCode,Chapter12.16.8.DuringtheperformanceofthisAgreement,neithertheCitynoranyPartysubcontractingundertheauthorityofthisAgreementshallengageinunfairemploymentpracticesasdefinedbyKingCountyCode,Chapter12.18.TheCityshallcomplyfullywithallapplicablefederal,stateandlocallaws,ordinances,executiveordersandregulationsthatprohibitsuchdiscrimination.Theselawsinclude,butarenotlimitedto,RCWChapter49.60andTitlesVIandVIIoftheCivilRightsActof1964.9.TheCityshalluserecycledpaperfortheproductionofallprintedandphotocopieddocumentsrelatedtothefulfillmentofthisAgreement.TheCityshallusebothsidesofpapersheetsforcopyingandprintingandshalluserecycled/recyclableproductswhereverpractical.10.TheCityshallmaintainaccountsandrecords,includingpersonnel,financial,andprogrammaticrecords,andothersuchrecordsasmaybedeemednecessarybytheCounty,toensureproperaccountingforallprojectfundsandcompliancewiththisAgreement.AllsuchrecordsshallsufficientlyandproperlyreflectalldirectandindirectcostsofanynatureexpendedandserviceprovidedintheperformanceofthisAgreement.Theserecordsshallbemaintainedforaperiodofsix(6)yearsafterterminationhereofunlesspermissiontodestroythemisgrantedbytheOfficeoftheStateArchivistinaccordancewithRCWChapter40.14.Theseaccountsshallbesubjecttoinspection,revieworauditbytheCountyand/orbyfederalorstateofficialsassoauthorizedbylaw.11.TheCityshallmaintainarecordoftheuseofanyequipmentthatcostsmorethan$1,000andispurchasedwithgrantfundsfromKingCountyforatotalperiodofthree(3)years.Therecordsshallbecompiledintoayearlyevaluationreport,acopyofwhichshallbesubmittedtoKingCountybyMarch31ofeachyearthroughtheyear2019.36q. - Utilities Systems Division recommends approval of an Interagency Page 420 of 517 12.TheCityagreestocreditKingCountyonallprintedmaterialsprovidedbytheCounty,whichtheCityisduplicating,fordistribution.EitherKingCounty’snameandlogomustappearonKingCountymaterials(includingfactsheets,casestudies,etc.),or,ataminimum,theCitywillcreditKingCountyforartworkortextprovidedbytheCountyasfollows:“artworkprovidedcourtesyofKingCountySolidWasteDivision”and/or“textprovidedcourtesyofKingCountySolidWasteDivision.”13.TheCityagreestosubmittotheCountycopiesofallwrittenmaterialswhichitproducesand/orduplicatesforlocalwastereductionandrecyclingprojectswhichhavebeenfundedthroughthewastereductionandrecyclinggrantprogram.Uponrequest,theCityagreestoprovidetheCountywithareproduciblecopyofanysuchwrittenmaterialsandauthorizestheCountytoduplicateanddistributeanywrittenmaterialssoproduced,providedthattheCountycreditstheCityforthepiece.14.TheCitywillprovidetheKingCountyProjectManagerwiththedateandlocationofeachRecyclingCollectionEventprovidedbytheCity,aswellascopiesofanyprintedmaterialsusedtopublicizeeachevent,assoonastheyareavailablebutnolaterthanthirty(30)dayspriortotheevent.Ifthereisanychangeinthedateorthelocationofanevent,theCitywillnotifytheCountyaminimumofthirty(30)dayspriortotheevent.IftheeventbrochureisrequiredforadmissiontotheCity’sevent,theCityisexemptfromhavingtoprovidethebrochuretoKingCounty.15.IftheCityacceptsfundingthroughthisgrantprogramfortheprovisionofrecyclingcollectioneventsforadjacentareasofunincorporatedKingCounty,theCityshallsendannouncementsoftheeventstoallresidenceslistedinthecarrierroutesprovidedbyKingCounty.TheannouncementsandallotherprintedmaterialsrelatedtotheseeventsshallacknowledgeKingCountyasthefundingsource.16.TheCityunderstandsthatfundingforrecyclingcollectioneventsforadjacentareasofunincorporatedKingCountywillbeallocatedonayearlybasissubjecttotheKingCountyCouncil’syearlybudgetapprovalprocess.17.ThisprojectshallbeadministeredbyLindaKnight,CityofRentonRecyclingCoordinator,ordesignee.B.TheCounty:1.TheCountyshalladministerfundingforthewastereductionandrecyclinggrantprogram.fundingisdesignatedbycityandissubjecttotheKingCountyCouncil’sbudgetapprovalprocess.ProvidedthatthefundsareallocatedthroughtheKingCountyCouncil’sbudgetapprovalprocess,grantfundingtotheCitywillincludeabaseallocationof$5,000peryearwiththebalanceoffundstobeallocatedaccordingtotheCity’spercentageofKingCounty’sresidentialandemploymentpopulation.However,ifthispopulationbasedallocationformulacalculationwouldresultinacityreceivinglessthan$10,000peryear,thatcityshallreceiveanadditionalallocationthatwouldraisetheirtotalgrantfundingto$10,000peryear.46q. - Utilities Systems Division recommends approval of an Interagency Page 421 of 517 2.TheCityofRenton’sbudgetedgrantfundsfor2015-2016are$231,876.Thisincludes$38,483peryearforprovidingRecyclingCollectionEventstoresidentsofunincorporatedKingCountythatareincludedinthecarrierroutesasprovidedtotheCitybytheCountyandaslistedinExhibitA.3.Withinforty-five(45)daysofreceivingarequestforreimbursementfromtheCity,theCountyshalleithernotifytheCityofanyexceptionstotherequestwhichhavebeenidentifiedorshallprocesstherequestforpayment.Ifanyexceptionstotherequestaremade,thisshallbedonebywrittennotificationtotheCityprovidingthereasonforsuchexception.TheCountywillnotauthorizepaymentforactivitiesand/orexpenditureswhicharenotincludedinthescopeofworkandbudgetattachedasExhibitA,unlessthescopehasbeenamendedaccordingtoSectionVofthisAgreement.KingCountyretainstherighttowithholdallorpartialpaymentiftheCity’sreport(s)andreimbursementrequest(s)areincomplete(i.e.,donotincludeproperdocumentationofexpendituresand/oradequatedescriptionofeachactivitydescribedinthescopeofworkforwhichreimbursementisbeingrequested),and/orarenotconsistentwiththescopeofworkandbudgetattachedasExhibitA.4.TheCountyagreestocredittheCityonallprintedmaterialsprovidedbytheCitytotheCounty,whichtheCountyduplicates,fordistribution.EithertheCity’snameandlogowillappearonsuchmaterials(includingfactsheets,casestudies,etc.),or,ataminimum,theCountywillcredittheCityforartworkortextprovidedbytheCityasfollows:“artworkprovidedcourtesyoftheCityofRenton”and/or“textprovidedcourtesyoftheCityofRenton.”5.TheCountyretainstherighttosharethewrittenmaterial(s)producedbytheCitywhichhavebeenfundedthroughthisprogramwithotherKingCountycitiesforthemtoduplicateanddistribute.Insodoing,theCountywillencourageothercitiestocredittheCityonanypiecesthatwereproducedbytheCity.6.ThewastereductionandrecyclinggrantprogramshallbeadministeredbyMorganJohn,ProjectManager,KingCountySolidWasteDivision,ordesignee.III.DURATIONOFAGREEMENTThisAgreementshallbecomeeffectiveoneitherJanuary1,2015orthedateofexecutionoftheAgreementbyboththeCountyandtheCity,ifexecutedafterJanuary1,2015andshallterminateonJune30,2017.TheCityshallnotincuranynewchargesafterDecember31,2016.However,ifexecutionbyeitherPartydoesnotoccuruntilafterJanuary1,2015,thisAgreementallowsfordisbursementofgrantfundstotheCityforCounty-approvedprogramsinitiatedbetweenJanuary1,2015andthelaterexecutionoftheAgreementprovidedthattheCitycomplieswiththereportingrequirementsofSectionII.AoftheAgreement.56q. - Utilities Systems Division recommends approval of an Interagency Page 422 of 517 IV.TERMINATIONA.ThisAgreementmaybeterminatedbyKingCounty,inwholeorinpart,forconveniencewithoutcausepriortotheterminationdatespecifiedinSectionIII,uponthirty(30)daysadvancewrittennotice.B.ThisAgreementmaybeterminatedbyeitherParty,inwholeorinpart,forcausepriortotheterminationdatespecifiedinSectionIII,uponthirty(30)daysadvancewrittennotice.Reasonsforterminationforcausemayincludebutnotbelimitedto:nonperformance;misuseoffunds;and/orfailuretoprovidegrantrelatedreports/invoices/statementsasspecifiedinSectionII.A.3.andSectionII.A.4.C.IftheAgreementisterminatedasprovidedinthissection:(1)theCountywillbeliableonlyforpaymentinaccordancewiththetermsofthisAgreementforservicesrenderedpriortotheeffectivedateoftermination;and(2)theCityshallbereleasedfromanyobligationtoprovidefurtherservicespursuanttothisAgreement.D.Nothinghereinshalllimit,waive,orextinguishanyrightorremedyprovidedbythisAgreementorlawthateitherPartymayhaveintheeventthattheobligations,termsandconditionssetforthinthisAgreementarebreachedbytheotherParty.V.AMENDMENTSThisAgreementmaybeamendedonlybywrittenagreementofbothParties.AmendmentstoscopesofworkwillonlybeapprovediftheproposedamendmentisconsistentwiththemostrecentlyadoptedKingCountyComprehensiveSolidWasteManagementPlan.fundsmaybemovedbetweentasksinthescopeofwork,attachedasExhibitA,onlyuponwrittenrequestbytheCityandwrittenapprovalbyKingCounty.Suchrequestswillonlybeapprovediftheproposedchange(s)is(are)consistentwithand/orachievesthegoalsstatedinthescopeandfallswithintheactivitiesdescribedinthescope.VI.HOLDHARMLESSANDINDEMNIFICATIONTheCityshallprotect,indemnify,andholdharmlesstheCounty,itsofficers,agents,andemployeesfromandagainstanyandallclaims,costs,and/orissueswhatsoeveroccurringfromactionsbytheCityand/oritssubcontractorspursuanttothisAgreement.TheCityshalldefendatitsownexpenseanyandallclaims,demands,suits,penalties,losses,damages,orcostsofanykindwhatsoever(hereinafter“claims”)broughtagainsttheCountyarisingoutoforincidenttotheCity’sexecutionof,performanceoforfailuretoperformthisAgreement.Claimsshallincludebutnotbelimitedtoassertionsthattheuseortransferofanysoftware,book,document,report,film,tape,orsoundreproductionormaterialofanykind,deliveredhereunder,constitutesaninfringementofanycopyright,patent,trademark,tradename,and/orotherwiseresultsinunfairtradepractice.66q. - Utilities Systems Division recommends approval of an Interagency Page 423 of 517 VII.INSURANCEA.TheCity,atitsowncost,shallprocurebythedateofexecutionofthisAgreementandmaintainforthedurationoftheAgreement,insuranceagainstclaimsforinjuriestopersonsordamagestopropertywhichmayarisefromorinconnectionwithperformanceofworkpursuanttothisAgreementbytheCity,itsagents,representatives,employees,and/orsubcontractors.Theminimumlimitsofthisinsuranceshallbe$1,000,000generalliabilityinsurancecombinedsinglelimitperoccurrenceforbodilyinjury,personalinjury,andpropertydamage.Ifthepolicyhasanaggregatelimit,a$2,000,000aggregateshallapply.Anydeductibleorself-insuredretentionsshallbethesoleresponsibilityoftheCity.SuchinsuranceshallcovertheCounty,itsofficers,officials,employees,andagentsasadditionalinsuredsagainstliabilityarisingoutofactivitiesperformedbyoronbehalfoftheCitypursuanttothisAgreement.AvalidCertificateofInsuranceandadditionalinsuredendorsementisattachedtothisAgreementasExhibitC,unlessSectionVII.B.applies.B.IftheAgencyisaMunicipalCorporationoranagencyoftheStateofWashingtonandisself-insuredforanyoftheaboveinsurancerequirements,awrittenacknowledgementofself-insuranceisattachedtothisAgreementasExhibitC.C.IftheAgencyisaMunicipalCorporationoranagencyoftheStateofWashingtonandisamemberoftheWashingtonCitiesInsuranceAuthority(WCIA),awrittenacknowledgement/certificationofcurrentmembershipisattachedtothisAgreementasExhibitC.VIII.ENTIRECONTRACT/WAIVEROFDEFAULTThisAgreementisthecompleteexpressionoftheagreementoftheCountyandCityhereto,andanyoralorwrittenrepresentationsorunderstandingsnotincorporatedhereinareexcluded.Waiverofanydefaultshallnotbedeemedtobeawaiverofanysubsequentdefault.WaiverofbreachofanyprovisionofthisAgreementshallnotbedeemedtobewaiverofanyotherorsubsequentbreachandshallnotbeconstruedtobeamodificationofthetermsofthisAgreementunlessstatedtobesuchthroughwrittenapprovalbytheCounty,whichshallbeattachedtotheoriginalAgreement.IX.TIMEISOFTHEESSENCETheCountyandCityrecognizethattimeisoftheessenceintheperformanceofthisAgreement.X.SEVERABILITYIfanysection,subsection,sentence,clauseorphraseofthisAgreementis,foranyreason,foundtobeunconstitutionalorotherwiseinvalidbyacourtofcompetentjurisdiction,suchdecisionshallnotaffectthevalidityoftheremainingportions.76q. - Utilities Systems Division recommends approval of an Interagency Page 424 of 517 XI.NOTICEAnynoticerequiredorpermittedunderthisAgreementshallbedeemedsufficientlygivenorservedifsenttotheKingCountySolidWasteDivisionandtheCityattheaddressesprovidedbelow:IftotheCity:MorganJohn,ProjectManager,oraprovideddesigneeKingCountySolidWasteDivisionDepartmentofNaturalResourcesandParks201SouthJacksonStreet,Suite701Seattle,WA98104-3855LindaKnight,RecyclingCoordinator,oraprovideddesigneeCityofRentonSolidWasteUtility1055SGradyWayRenton,WA98057INWITNESSWHEREOFthisAgreementhasbeenexecutedbyeachPartyonthedatesetforthbelow:CityKingCounty(Title)DateBYPatD.McLaughlin,DirectorSolidWasteDivisionForDowConstantine,KingCountyExecutiveDate$6q. - Utilities Systems Division recommends approval of an Interagency Page 425 of 517 ExhibitAKingCountySolidWasteWRRGrant2015SCOPEOFWORKAPPLICANTCityofRentonSolidWasteUtility10555.GradyWayRenton,WA98057PROGRAMWasteReduction&RecyclingGrantPROJECTMANAGERSLindaKnightJuliePursellJinaKim425.430.7397425.430.7396425.430.7391lknight@rentonwa.govjpursell@rentonwa.govjkim@rentonwa.govFax425.430.7241Fax425.430.7241Fax425.430.7241FUNDINGREQUESTED$77,455(CityAllocation)$38,483(RCEFunds)*$115,938TotalPROJECTS&FUNDINGSUMMARY•RecyclingCollectionEvent$40,000•RentonReuseEvent$38,000•GeneralRecyclingEducation$37,9386q. - Utilities Systems Division recommends approval of an Interagency Page 426 of 517 ScopeofWorkTaskRecyclingCollectionEventProjectManagerJuliePursell,SolidWasteEducationSpecialistScheduleJanuary—December2015Budget$40,000GoalCollect200tonsofrecyclablematerialnotcollectedatthecurbsideDescriptionRentonwillimplement2SpecialRecyclingEventsin2015.Eacheventwillcollectrecyclablematerialsnotcollectedatthecurbside.EventsareavailabletoallresidentialhouseholdsfromthegreaterRentoncommunity.BotheventswillbeheldattheRentonTechnicalCollegeandwillbeopentothepublicbetweenthehoursof9:00a.m.and3:00p.m.Whilemostitemsarefreetothepublictorecycle,mattressesrequireafeeof$15-20perpiecerecycledpaidtothevendor.Businessesarenoteligibletoparticipate.EventDatesSpring2015—May9,2015Fall2015—September12,2015EventStaffingCitystaff,vendorstaffandvolunteerswillbeutilizedintheoperationsforeachevent.JuliePursellwillmanagetheeventandexperiencedvolunteerswillgreetthepublic,screenmaterials,directtrafficthroughthesite,anddistributeeducationalmaterials.ACityofRentonPoliceOfficerwillbeinchargeoftrafficcontrol.Staffworkingtheeventwillbescheduledbetween7:30a.m.and5:00p.m.Becausewerequireallstafftoremainon-siteforthedurationoftheevent,theCitywillsupplylunchandliquidrefreshmentsEventPromotionThepublicwillbenotifiedabouttheeventsthroughdirectmail,utilitybillinserts,theCity’swebsitecablechannel,andCitynewsletter.MaterialsCollectedScrapmetal,appliances,concrete,bulkyyardwaste(greaterthan4’longand3”indiameter),cleanwoodwaste,usedmotoroil,usedantifreeze,usedoilfilters,automotivebatteries,alkalineandNicadbatteries,cellphones,reusablehouseholditemsandunusabletextiles,Styrofoam,plasticbagsandbubblewrap,mattresses,cardboardwillbecollectedandreusedorrecycled.Otheritemsmaybeaddeddependentuponviablerecyclablemarkets.2015CityofRentonScopeofWorkPage26q. - Utilities Systems Division recommends approval of an Interagency Page 427 of 517 EvaluationEacheventwillbeevaluatedbasedonthenumberofvehiclesservedandtheweightofrecyclablematerialcollected.*DeliverablesNumberofVehiclesServed:900BudgetDetailStaff$20,000Contract/Vendors$3,000Supplies$1,000Printing/Distribution$16,0002015CityofRentonScopeofWorkPage36q. - Utilities Systems Division recommends approval of an Interagency Page 428 of 517 TaskRentonReuseEventProjectManagerJuliePursell,SolidWasteEducationSpecialistScheduleJanuary—December2015Budget$3$,000GoalTodivertmaterialsfromthelandfillbyprovidinganopportunityforresidentstoswapmaterialsthatstillhaveauseablelifeDescriptionTheCityrecognizesthatwasteprevention&recyclingarethetopwastemanagementstrategiesinthesolidwastehierarchy.Underthistaskstaffwillplanandimplementaone-dayreuseevent,scheduledSaturday,June6,2015.TheeventwillbeheldatacentrallocationintheCity.ItwillprovideanopportunityforresidentsofthegreaterRentoncommunityincludingunincorporatedKingCountyresidentstoexchangematerialsthatstillhavesomeusefullife,butarenolongerofvaluetotheoriginalowner.Residentswillbeabletodropofffurniture,toys,householdgoods,sportsequipment,doors,windows,andothermaterialsapprovedbyRentonstaff.Residentsmayalsocometotheeventtotakehomematerialsothershavedroppedoff.Materialsnotclaimedbytheendoftheeventwillberecycledorlandfilled.Residentswillbenotifiedofthiseventthroughadirectmailcampaign(usingthesamemaillistastheSpecialRecyclingevents),adsplacedinthelocalnewspaper,andtheCity’swebsite.Volunteersandcitystaffwillstafftheevent.Evaluation/Deliverables•Estimateofvolumeofmaterialsdivertedfromlandfill•Estimateofparticipants•Compareresidualdisposal2015to2014BudgetDetailStaff$8,000Contract/Vendors$1,000Supplies$1,000Printing/Distribution$28,0002015CityofRentonScopeofWorkPage46q. - Utilities Systems Division recommends approval of an Interagency Page 429 of 517 TaskGeneralSolidWasteEducation&WastePreventionPolicyProjectManagerLindaKnight,SolidWasteCoordinatorScheduleJanuary—December2015Budget$37,938GoalToincreasepublicknowledgeofsolidwastebestpracticesDescriptionTheCitycurrentlyeducatesitspublicusingtraditionalmediaandmarketingmethodsincluding:billinginserts,directmail,newsletters,website,andtelevisionviatheCity’scablechannel.Additionally,theCitymayuseotherstrategiessuchasworkshops,video,andsocialmarketingcampaignstotargetspecificbehaviorchangesforitsresidentsandbusinesses.TheCitywillusefundingfromtheWRRGrantunderthistasktodelivereducationalmessagestoitscustomersasrelevantissuesemergeinsolidwaste,wastepreventionandrecycling.TheCitywillalsoworkondevelopingCitypoliciesthatencouragewastepreventionand/orrecycling.Deliverables.TBD—basedonemergingeducationalneedsBudgetDetailsStaff$7,000Contracts/Vendors$10,000Supplies$2,000Printing&Distribution$8,9382015CityofRentonScopeofWorkPage56q. - Utilities Systems Division recommends approval of an Interagency Page 430 of 517 6q. - Utilities Systems Division recommends approval of an Interagency Page 431 of 517 ExhibitAKingCountySolidWasteWRRGrant2016SCOPEOFWORKAPPLICANTCityofRentonSolidWasteUtility10555.GradyWayRenton,WA98057PROGRAMWasteReduction&RecyclingGrantPROJECTMANAGERSLindaKnightJuliePursellJinaKim425.430.7397425.430.7396425.430.7391Jknight@rentonwa.govjpursell@rentonwa.govjkim@rentonwa.govFax425.430.7241Fax425.430.7241Fax425.430.7241FUNDINGREQUESTED$77,455(CityAllocation)$38,483(RCEFunds)*$115,938TotalPROJECTS&FUNDINGSUMMARY•RecyclingCollectionEvent$40,000•RentonReuseEvent$38,000•GeneralRecyclingEducation$37,9386q. - Utilities Systems Division recommends approval of an Interagency Page 432 of 517 ScopeofWorkTaskRecyclingCollectionEventProjectManagerJuliePursell,SolidWasteEducationSpecialistScheduleJanuary—December2016Budget$40,000GoalCollect200tonsofrecyclablematerialnotcollectedatthecurbsideDescriptionRentonwillimplement2SpecialRecyclingEventsin2016.Eacheventwillcollectrecyclablematerialsnotcollectedatthecurbside.EventsareavailabletoallresidentialhouseholdsfromthegreaterRentoncommunity.BotheventswillbeheldattheRentonTechnicalCollegeandwillbeopentothepublicbetweenthehoursof9:00a.m.and3:00p.m.Whilemostitemsarefreetothepublictorecycle,mattressesrequireafeeof$15-20perpiecerecycledpaidtothevendor.Businessesarenoteligibletoparticipate.EventDatesSpring2016—TBDFall2016—TBDEventStaffingCitystaff,vendorstaffandvolunteerswillbeutilizedintheoperationsforeachevent.JuliePursellwillmanagetheeventandexperiencedvolunteerswillgreetthepublic,screenmaterials,directtrafficthroughthesite,anddistributeeducationalmaterials.ACityofRentonPoliceOfficerwillbeinchargeoftrafficcontrol.Staffworkingtheeventwillbescheduledbetween7:30a.m.and5:00p.m.Becausewerequireallstafftoremainon-siteforthedurationoftheevent,theCitywillsupplylunchandliquidrefreshmentsEventPromotionThepublicwillbenotifiedabouttheeventsthroughdirectmail,utilitybillinserts,theCity’swebsitecablechannel,andCitynewsletter.MaterialsCollectedScrapmetal,appliances,concrete,bulkyyardwaste(greaterthan4’longand3”indiameter),cleanwoodwaste,usedmotoroil,usedantifreeze,usedoilfilters,automotivebatteries,alkalineandNicadbatteries,cellphones,reusablehouseholditemsandunusabletextiles,Styrofoam,plasticbagsandbubblewrap,mattresses,cardboardwillbecollectedandreusedorrecycled.Otheritemsmaybeaddeddependentuponviablerecyclablemarkets.2016CityofRentonScopeofWorkPage26q. - Utilities Systems Division recommends approval of an Interagency Page 433 of 517 EvaluationEacheventwillbeevaluatedbasedonthenumberofvehiclesservedandtheweightofrecyclablematerialcollected.DeliverablesNumberofVehiclesServed:900BudgetDetailStaff$20,000Contract/Vendors$3,000Supplies$1,000Printing/Distribution$16,0002016CityofRentonScopeofWorkPage36q. - Utilities Systems Division recommends approval of an Interagency Page 434 of 517 TaskRentonReuseEventProjectManagerJuliePursell,SolidWasteEducationSpecialistScheduleJanuary—December2016Budget$38,000GoalTodivertmaterialsfromthelandfillbyprovidinganopportunityforresidentstoswapmaterialsthatstillhaveauseablelifeDescriptionTheCityrecognizesthatwasteprevention&recyclingarethetopwastemanagementstrategiesinthesolidwastehierarchy.Underthistaskstaffwillplanandimplementaone-dayreuseevent,scheduled(TBD).TheeventwillbeheldatacentrallocationintheCity.ItwillprovideanopportunityforresidentsofthegreaterRentoncommunityincludingunincorporatedKingCountyresidentstoexchangematerialsthatstillhavesomeusefullife,butarenolongerofvaluetotheoriginalowner.Residentswillbeabletodropofffurniture,toys,householdgoods,sportsequipment,doors,windows,andothermaterialsapprovedbyRentonstaff.Residentsmayalsocometotheeventtotakehomematerialsothershavedroppedoff.Materialsnotclaimedbytheendoftheeventwillberecycledorlandfilled.Residentswillbenotifiedofthiseventthroughadirectmailcampaign(usingthesamemaillistastheSpecialRecyclingevents),adsplacedinthelocalnewspaper,andtheCity’swebsite.Volunteersandcitystaffwillstafftheevent.Evaluation/Deliverables•Estimateofvolumeofmaterialsdivertedfromlandfill•Estimateofparticipants•Compareresidualdisposal2016to2015BudgetDetailStaff$8,000Contract/Vendors$1,000Supplies$1,000Printing/Distribution$28,0002016CityofRentonScopeofWorkPage46q. - Utilities Systems Division recommends approval of an Interagency Page 435 of 517 TaskGeneralSolidWasteEducation&WastePreventionPolicyProjectManagerLindaKnight,SolidWasteCoordinatorScheduleJanuary—December2016Budget$37,938GoalToincreasepublicknowledgeofsolidwastebestpracticesDescriptionTheCitycurrentlyeducatesitspublicusingtraditionalmediaandmarketingmethodsincluding:billinginserts,directmail,newsletters,website,andtelevisionviatheCity’scablechannel.Additionally,theCitymayuseotherstrategiessuchasworkshops,video,andsocialmarketingcampaignstotargetspecificbehaviorchangesforitsresidentsandbusinesses.TheCitywillusefundingfromtheWRRGrantunderthistasktodelivereducationalmessagestoitscustomersasrelevantissuesemergeinsolidwaste,wastepreventionandrecycling.TheCitywillalsoworkondevelopingCitypoliciesthatencouragewastepreventionand/orrecycling.Deliverables.TBD—basedonemergingeducationalneedsBudgetDetailsStaff$10,000Contracts/Vendors$20,000Supplies$2,938Printing&Distribution$5,0002016CityofRentonScopeofWorkPage56q. - Utilities Systems Division recommends approval of an Interagency Page 436 of 517 6q. - Utilities Systems Division recommends approval of an Interagency Page 437 of 517 ExhibitB2015-2016GrantGuidelinesProgramEligibility:GrantfundsmaybeusedforavarietyofWasteReduction&Recycling-relatedprogramsincludingresidentialandcommercialwastereductionandrecyclingeducationprograms,businessassistanceprograms,andspecialrecyclingevents.Citiesmayalsousetheirfundsonbroaderresourceconservationprograms,aslongastheyarepartofanoverallwastereduction/recyclingprogram.Citiesmaychoosetousetheirfundingononeprogramoracombinationofprograms.forWR]Rprogramideas,pleaserefertothelistsbelow.Pleasenotetheselistsarenotexhaustive,butmerelyintendedtoprovidesomeguidanceonwhatis/isn’teligible.CitiesmayalsorefertothecurrentlyadoptedComprehensiveSolidWasteManagementPlanfordirectioninprogramdevelopment.Ifyouareunsureifyourproposedprogramiseligibleforfunding,pleasecallMorganJohn(206-477-4624).Eligibleforfunding:•SchoolWR]Reducation/implementationprograms•Kitchenfoodwastecompostingprograms•Reusablebagpromotions•Yardwastesubscriptionpromotions•Outreachatcommunityevents•PromotingnewandexistingWR/Rprogramsthroughmedia,mail,andsocialnetworking•Businessrecognitionprograms•RecyclingCollectionEvents,includingcollectionoftiresandmattresses•Householdbatterycollectionandrecycling(nolead-acidbatteries)•BusinessandresidentialWR/Reducationandcommunications•Productstewardshipinitiatives-couldbeeducationprogramsorworkingwithotheragencies/organizations/businessestoimplementprograms•Cityrecyclingprogramsandfacilities•VideospromotingWR/RprogramsThefollowingareeligibleforfundingonacase-by-casebasis,aslongaspartofanoverallWRJRProgram.However,theCountywouldnotprovidereimbursementif,forexample,allofacity’sgrantdollarswereusedtosell/giveawayrainbarrelsordistributecompactfluorescentlightbulbs.•WaterConservation-i.e.RainBarrels•EnergyConservation•WaterQuality:integratedpestmanagement;catchbasinfilters•Demonstrationgardens;interpretivesignage;recycled-contentparkfurnishings2015-2016WRJRGrant6q. - Utilities Systems Division recommends approval of an Interagency Page 438 of 517 Thefollowingarenoteligibleforfunding:•Collectionofgarbage,exceptforresidualgarbagerelatedtothecollectionofrecyclables.•Collectionofanyhouseholdhazardouswasteitemsincluding,butnotlimitedto:>Treatedwood>Paint>Leadacidbatteries>Oil,gasoline,andantifreeze>Fluorescentlights•HouseholdHazardousWasteEducationProgramsCitiesshouldpursuefundingthroughLHWMPorCPGforHouseholdHazardousWastecollectionoreducationprograms.GrantAdministration:RequestsforReimbursement.Citiesmaychoosetosubmitonerequestforreimbursementperyearduringthefundingcycle,duenolaterthanMarch15,2016andMarch15,2017.However,citiesmaysubmitrequestsforreimbursementasfrequentlyasquarterly.TheBudgetSummaryReportform(Attachment4)mustbeusedwhensubmittingrequestsforreimbursement.Bythe5thworkingdayofJanuary2016andJanuary2017,citiesmustnotifySWUoftheirtotalexpendituresforworkthathasbeencompletedto-date,butforwhichrequestsforreimbursementhavenotyetbeensubmitted.ProgressandfinalReports:Progressreportsdescribingprogramactivities,accomplishmentsandevaluationresultsneedtoaccompanyeachrequestforreimbursement.Afinalreportdescribingtheoutcomeofgrant-fundedactivitiesisduewiththefinalrequestforreimbursement.Ifhowever,thecitydoesnothavetheresultsofitsprogramevaluationbytheendofthegrantcycle,thefinalnarrativereportmaybesubmittednolaterthansixmonthsaftertheendofthegrantcycleonJune30,2017.(Note:ThefinalrequestforreimbursementwouldstillneedtobesubmittedbyMarch15,2017.)AllProgressandfinalReportsneedtobesignedbyacityofficial.Signedreportsmaybescannedandemailed.Amendments:formalamendmentstograntILAsarenotnecessaryunlessthecitywishestomakesignificantchangestoitsscopeofworkand/orbudget.Ingeneral,asignificantchangewouldbeoneinwhichthecitywishestoaddordeleteataskfromtheirscopeofwork.Aminorchange,suchasmovingdollarsbetweentasks,wouldonlyrequirewrittennotification,whichmaybesubmittedviae-mail.However,thecityshouldcontacttheDivisionwhenconsideringchangestotheirscopesandbudgetstodetermineifaformalamendmentisneeded.6q. - Utilities Systems Division recommends approval of an Interagency Page 439 of 517 1  CITY OF RENTON, WASHINGTON    RESOLUTION NO. ________     A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY OF RENTON, WASHINGTON, AUTHORIZING THE  MAYOR AND CITY CLERK TO ENTER INTO AN INTERLOCAL COOPERATIVE  AGREEMENT WITH KING COUNTY ENTITLED “INTERAGENCY AGREEMENT FOR  2015 AND 2016 BETWEEN KING COUNTY AND THE CITY OF RENTON”.     WHEREAS, the City and King County are authorized, pursuant to RCW Chapter 39.34,  the Interlocal Cooperation Act, to enter into an interlocal government cooperative agreement;  and  WHEREAS, King County and the City of Renton adopted the 2001 King County  Comprehensive Solid Waste Management Plan, which includes waste reduction and recycling  goals; and   WHEREAS, in order to help the City meet those goals, the King County Solid Waste  Division has established a waste reduction and recycling grant program; and   WHEREAS, the City of Renton will utilize the grant funds to fulfill the terms and  conditions set forth in the scope of work which is attached to the agreement; and    WHEREAS, is necessary to document the terms and conditions of the funding to be  provided to the City;    NOW, THEREFORE, THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF RENTON, WASHINGTON, DOES  RESOLVE AS FOLLOWS:   SECTION I. The above recitals are found to be true and correct in all respects.    SECTION II. The Mayor and City Clerk are authorized to enter into a contract entitled  “Interagency Agreement For 2015 and 2016 Between King County and the City of Renton”  providing grant funds for waste reduction and recycling programs.  6q. - Utilities Systems Division recommends approval of an Interagency Page 440 of 517 RESOLUTION NO.  ________  2  PASSED BY THE CITY COUNCIL this ____ day of _________________, 2015.             ______________________________         Jason A. Seth, City Clerk      APPROVED BY THE MAYOR this ____ day of _________________, 2015.                ______________________________          Denis Law, Mayor      Approved as to form:      _____________________________  Lawrence J. Warren, City Attorney      RES:1629:3/18/15:scr      6q. - Utilities Systems Division recommends approval of an Interagency Page 441 of 517 CITYOFRENTON,WASHINGTONRESOLUTIONNO.______ARESOLUTIONOFTHECITYOFRENTON,WASHINGTON,AUTHORIZINGTHEMAYORANDCITYCLERKTOENTERINTOANINTERLOCALCOOPERATIVEPURCHASINGAGREEMENTWITHKITSAPCOUNTY.WHEREAS,Renton’sPolicyandProcedure250-02,subsection6.1.1,permitsRentontoenterintoInterlocalCooperativePurchases(definedinsubsection5.9),andpermitsRentontoacquirenon-publicwordgoods,supplies,materials,equipment,andserviceswithouthavingtosatisfyRenton’spurchasing,bidding,andcontractingrequirementssetforthinRPP250-02;andWHEREAS,KitsapCountyoffersotherjurisdictionstheoptionofenteringintoaCooperativePurchasingAgreementwithKitsapCountyforvariousequipmentandsuppliesusingKitsapCounty’scompetitivelyawardedcontracts;andWHEREAS,RentonwillbeabletopurchaseneededitemsandservicescompetitivelybyenteringintoanInterlocalPurchasingAgreementwithKitsapCounty;andWHEREAS,RentonwillsaveconsiderabletimeandexpensebyenteringintothisInterlocalPurchasingAgreementwithKitsapCounty;NOW,THEREFORE,THECITYCOUNCILOFTHECITYOFRENTON,WASHINGTON,RESOLVESASFOLLOWS:SECTIONI.Theaboverecitalsarefoundtobetrueandcorrectinallrespects.SECTIONII.TheMayorandCityClerkareauthorizedtoenterintoanInterlocalCooperativePurchasingAgreementwithKitsapCounty.18a. - Interlocal Cooperative Purchasing Agreement with Kitsap County (see 6.i.)Page 442 of 517 RESOLUTIONNO.PASSEDBYTHECITYCOUNCILthis____ _ _dayof__ ___ _ ___ _ ___ _ ___ _ __,2015.JasonA.Seth,CityClerkAPPROVEDBYTHEMAYORthis_ _ _ _ _ _dayof_ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ ________ _ _.2015.DenisLaw,MayorApprovedastoform:LawrenceJ.Warren,CityAttorneyRES.1665:3/10/15:scr28a. - Interlocal Cooperative Purchasing Agreement with Kitsap County (see 6.i.)Page 443 of 517 CITYOFRENTON,WASHINGTONRESOLUTIONNO.__ _ __ _ _ARESOLUTIONOFTHECITYOFRENTON,WASHINGTON,AUTHORIZINGTHEMAYORANDCITYCLERKTOENTERINTOANINTERLOCALCOOPERATIVEAGREEMENTWITHKINGCOUNTYENTITLED“INTERAGENCYAGREEMENTFOR2015AND2016BETWEENKINGCOUNTYANDTHECITYOFRENTON”.WHEREAS,theCityandKingCountyareauthorized,pursuanttoRCWChapter39.34,theInterlocalCooperationAct,toenterintoaninterlocalgovernmentcooperativeagreement;andWHEREAS,KingCountyandtheCityofRentonadoptedthe2001KingCountyComprehensiveSolidWasteManagementPlan,whichincludeswastereductionandrecyclinggoals;andWHEREAS,inordertohelptheCitymeetthosegoals,theKingCountySolidWasteDivisionhasestablishedawastereductionandrecyclinggrantprogram;andWHEREAS,theCityofRentonwillutilizethegrantfundstofulfillthetermsandconditionssetforthinthescopeofworkwhichisattachedtotheagreement;andWHEREAS,isnecessarytodocumentthetermsandconditionsofthefundingtobeprovidedtotheCity;NOW,THEREFORE,THECITYCOUNCILOFTHECITYOFRENTON,WASHINGTON,DOESRESOLVEASFOLLOWS:SECTIONI.Theaboverecitalsarefoundtobetrueandcorrectinallrespects.SECTIONII.TheMayorandCityClerkareauthorizedtoenterintoacontractentitled“InteragencyAgreementFor2015and2016BetweenKingCountyandtheCityofRenton”providinggrantfundsforwastereductionandrecyclingprograms.18b. - Interagency Agreement for 2015-2016 King County Solid Waste Reduction Page 444 of 517 RESOLUTIONNO.PASSEDBYTHECITYCOUNCILthis___ _dayof__ _ _ _ _ _ ____ _ _ _ _ _ _ ,2015.JasonA.Seth,CityClerkAPPROVEDBYTHEMAYORthis___ _dayof___ _ _ _ _ _____ _ _ _ _ _ ,2015.DenisLaw,MayorApprovedastoform:LawrenceJ.Warren,CityAttorneyRES:1629:3/18/15:scr28b. - Interagency Agreement for 2015-2016 King County Solid Waste Reduction Page 445 of 517 CITYOFRENTON,WASHINGTONRESOLUTIONNO.ARESOLUTIONOFTHECITYOFRENTON,WASHINGTON,AMENDINGTHE2015-16CITYOFRENTONFEESCHEDULE.WHEREAS,onNovember23,2009,theCounciladoptedOrdinanceNo.5509,whichremovedmanyfeesfromtheRentonMunicipalCodeandconsolidatedthemintoafeeschedulebrochure,whichhasbeenupdatedannually;andWHEREAS,asapartoftheCity’s2015/2016biennialbudget,the2015-16CityofRentonFeeSchedulewasadoptedbyResolutionNo.4232onNovember3,2014;andWHEREAS,itisnecessarytoamendthe2015-16CityofRentonFeeSchedule;NOW,THEREFORE,THECITYCOUNCILOFTHECITYOFRENTON,WASHINGTON,DOESRESOLVEASFOLLOWS:SECTIONI.Theaboverecitalsarefoundtobetrueandcorrectinallrespects.SECTIONII.Theamended2015-16CityofRentonFeeSchedulebrochure,attachedhereto,isherebyadoptedbyreference.AcopyofthefeebrochureisatalltimesfiledwiththeCityClerk.PASSEDBYTHECITYCOUNCILthis_ _ _ _ _ _dayof________________________,2015.JasonA.Seth,CityClerk18c. - 2015-16 Amended Fee Schedule (See 7.a.)Page 446 of 517 RESOLUTIONNO._____ _APPROVEDBYTHEMAYORthis______dayof___________________2015.DenisLaw,MayorApprovedastoform:LawrenceJ.Warren,CityAttorneyRES:1664:3/5/15:scr28c. - 2015-16 Amended Fee Schedule (See 7.a.)Page 447 of 517 CD CDDCCD D In8c. - 2015-16 Amended Fee Schedule (See 7.a.)Page 448 of 517 TableofContentsPageSECTIONI.MISCELLANEOUSFEES1SECTIONII.MAPLEWOODGOLFCOURSE2SECTIONIII.CITYCENTERPARKINGFEES3SECTIONIV.AQUATICFEES3SECTIONV.CARCOTHEATRE(Repealed)4SECTIONVI.PARKSANDFACILITIESUSEANDRENTAL4SECTIONVII.COMMUNITYCENTERPASSCARD&FEES6SECTIONVIII.AIRPORTCHARGES6SECTIONIX.ANIMALLICENSES6SECTIONX.BUSINESSLICENSES7SECTIONXI.ADULTENTERTAINMENTLICENSES7SECTIONXII.DEVELOPMENTFEES7BuildingFees7LandUseReviewFees12PublicWorksFees14FireDepartmentCommunityRiskReductionFees19TechnologySurchargeFee20ImpactFees20SECTIONXIII.EMERGENCYSERVICES(effectivedateisdeferreduntilfurthernotice)218c. - 2015-16 Amended Fee Schedule (See 7.a.)Page 449 of 517 ReturntotheTableofContentsCityofRentonFeeSchedule1.Maps:TYPEOFFEES201420152016SECTIONI.MISCELLANEOUSFEESa.Zoningmaps-standard11x17$4.00$4.00$4.00b.Zoningmaps-large24x36$12.00$12.00$12.00c.ComprehensivePlanmap-standard11x17$4.00$4.00$4.00U.ComprehensivePlanmap-large24x36$12.00$12.00$12.00e.Precinctmaps$5.00$5.00$5.002.Plat:a.Firstpage$2.00$2.00$2.00b.Eachadditionalpage$1.00$1.00$1.003.photocopies:a.Each8.5”x11”or8.5”x14”$0.15$0.15$0.15b.Each11’x17’$0.20$0.20$0.20c.Each8.5x11”or8.5’x14”color$0.25$0.25$0.254.Budget:a.City’sBudget$10.00$10.00$10.00b.City’sBudgettoothermunicipalityorquasi-municipalN/CN/CN/Ccorporationorothernonprofitcharitableoreducationorganization5.AudioorVideoRecordingCopies:a.Audiorecording,eachcopy$2.00$2.00$2.00b.Videorecording,eachcopy$2.00$2.00$2.006.RegulationsandPlans:a.ComprehensivePlanandMap$30.00$30.00$30.00b.TitleIV,DevelopmentRegulations:(i)TextandZoningMap$110.00$110.00$110.00(ii)Textonly$100.00$100.00$100.00c.IndividualChaptersofDevelopmentRegulations$10.00$10.00$10.00U.RentonMunicipalCode(twovolumes)$400.00$400.00$400.00e.CodeSupplements,peryear:(i)TitlesI-IllandVI-X$70.00$70.00$70.00(ii)TitleIV$70.00$70.00$70.007.MiscellaneousServices:a.CertificationandNotaryFees-Clerk’sCertification$10.00$10.00$10.00b.NotaryPublicAttestationorAcknowledgementoras$6.00$6.00$6.00otherwiseprovidedforinRCW42.28.090,persignaturec.HoldHarmlessAgreementsandothersimilardocuments$20.00$20.00$20.00nototherwiseprovidedford.Laminationoflicenses,pictures$6.00$6.00$6.00e.ReviewofShoppingCartContainmentand$150.00$150.00$150.00RetrievalPlans1.CommunityDevelopmentBlockGrants)CDBG)LoanProgram:(I)ApplicationFee-$200.00$200.00$150or0.25%of$150or0.25%of(ii)LoanOriginationFee-loanamount,loanamount,whicheveriswhicheverisgreatergreater._.50%oftotal50%oftotal(ix)ClosingCosts)includinganylegalfees)-actualCostsactualCosts8.MiscellaneousChargesforPoliceServices:a.PoliceReportsperpageb.RecordChecks(WrittenResponse)c.Photographs-DigitalonCDU.Photographs-black&whiteorcolor-Costofdevelopingfilm$0.15$0.15$0.15$5.00$5.00$5.00$2.00$2.00$2.00CostCostCost8c. - 2015-16 Amended Fee Schedule (See 7.a.)Page 450 of 517 ReturntotheTableofContentsCityofRentonFeeScheduleTYPEOFFEES201420152016e.FingerprintCards$5.00$5.00$5.00(I)Eachadditionalcard$1.00$1.00$1.00g.chargesforFireDocuments:a.Firereportsperpage$0.15$0.15$0.15b.FireinvestigativereportonCD$2.00$2.00$2.00c.Firstcopy-black&whiteorcolor-CostofdevelopingfilmCostCostCostd.Additionalcopy-black&whiteorcolor-CostofdevelopingfilmCostCostCost10.ComputerListings:a.CityofRentonnewbusinesslist$10.00$10.00$10.00b.Listofallbusinesslicenses$20.00$20.00$20.00c.Copiesrequestedtobefaxed,localnumber$3.00$3.00$3.00ci.Copiesrequestedtobefaxed,longdistancenumber(i)One(1)-five(5)pages$10.00$10.00$10.00(ii)Six(6)ormotepages(ten(10)pagelimit)$20.00$20.00$20.0011.UtilityFee:a.SpecialRequestWaterMeterReading$30.00$30.00$30.00b.utilityNewAccountSetup$25.00$25.00$25.00c.utilityBillingAccountTransfet(tenantbillingforml$5.00$5.00$5.00d.Waterutilityoutstandingbalancesearchrequestedby$25.00$25.00$25.00fax,messengerorletter12.ScheduleofFinesforFalseAlarms-Security/Burglar:a.First,second,andthirdfalsealarmsinaN/CN/CN/Cregistrationyear*b.Fourthandfifthfalsealarmsinaregistrationyear*$50.00$50.00$50.00c.Sixthfalsealarmandsuccessivefalsealarmsina$100.00$100.00$100.00registrationyear*d.LateRegistrationPenalty$50.00$50.00$50.00e.LateFalseAlarmPaymentPenalty$25.00$25.00$25.00f.AppealHearingCancellationFee$10.00$10.00$10.00AregistrationyearshallmeanJanuary1thruDecember31eachyear.13.NSFCheckFees$25.00$25.00$25.0014.VeteranParkTile:Threelines$75.00$75.00$75.00Note:ShouldtotalofSectionIfeesdueislessthan$4.00andnototherfeeisduetothecityatthesametime,thedepartmentadministratormayauthorizetowaivetheentireamountdueattheirdiscretion.SECTIONII.MAPLEW000GOLFCOURSEGreenFees:Thecostofgolfcoursegreenfeesshallbeasfollows.Forpurposesofthissection,“weekend”shallmeanFriday,Saturday,andSunday.“Weekday”shallmeantheremainingfourdaysoftheweek.“Junior”shallmeanages17andunder,“Senior”shallmeanages62andover.a.Weekday:(i)18Hole$32.00$34.00$34.00(ii)9Hole$24.00$25.00$25.00(iii)18Hole,Senior$24.00$25.00$25.00(iv)9Hole,Senior$16.00$17.00$17.00(v)18Hole,Junior$16.00$18.00$18.00(vi)9Hole,Junior$12.00$14.00$14.00b.Weekend:(i)18Hole$38.00$40.00$40.00(ii)9Hole$24.00$25.00$25.002.ClubRental$15.00$15.00$15.003.GolfCartFees:a.18Hole$26.00$26.00$28.00b.9hole$16.00$16.00$17.00c.SingleRider$18.00$18.00$20.008c. - 2015-16 Amended Fee Schedule (See 7.a.)Page 451 of 517 ReturntotheTableofContentsCityofRentonFeeScheduleTYPEOFFEES2014201520164.DrivingRangeFees:a.LargeBucket$7.00$7.00$8.00b.SmallBucket$4.00$4.00$5.00C.Warm-upBucket$2.00$2.00$3.005.LessonFees:a.1/2HourPrivate$40.00$40.00$45.00b.1HourPrivate$60.00$60.00$65.00c.1/2HourSeriesPrivate$140.00$140.00$160.00d.1HourSeriesPrivate$220.00$220.00$240.00e.GroupSeries$90.00$90.00$100.00f.1/2HourPrivate,Junior$20.00$20.00$25.00g.PlayingLesson(3-holeminimum/9-holemaximum)perhole$15.00SECTIONIII.CITYCENTERPARKINGFEESCITYCENTERGARAGEPARKINGFEESParkingratesforretailparkingwillbeasfollows:a.Zero(0)-two(2)hoursN/CN/CN/Cb.Two(2)-four(4)hours$2.00$2.00$2.00c.Four(4)-six(6)hours$4.00$4.00$4.00d.Six(6)ormorehours$6.00$6.00$6.00e.Full-dayparking,monthlypass-holders,taxandadminfeeincluded$42.32$42.32$42.32DiscountedRate:Adiscountedrateforparkinginthelong-term,card-accessedareasofthegarageandinCitysurfaceparkinglotswillbeprovidedforanypersonorentitywholease(s)three(3)ormoreparkingspaces(s)foratleastasix(6)monthperiod.Thefeeswillbeasnegotiated.2.MainStreetParkingLota.Zero(0)-four(4)hoursN/CN/CN/Cb.Full-dayparking,monthlypass-holdersonly,taxandadminfeeincluded$42.32$42.32$42.32SECTIONIV.AQUATICFEES1.AdmissionfortheAquaticCentershallbeasfollows:a.RegularSession:(i)Residentinfants-under;yearN/CN/CN/C(ii)Non-residentinfants-under;yearN/CN/cN/C(iii)Residentyouth-1to4years$4.00$4.00$4.00(iv)Non-residentyouth-ito4years$8.00$8.00$8.00(v)ResidentagesSandup$8.00$8.00$8.00(vi)Non-residentages5andup$14.00$14.00$14.00(vii)Residentlapswim-waterwalkingonly$3.00$3.00$3.00(viii)Non-residentlapswim-waterwalkingonly$4.50$4.50$4.50b.SeasonPass:)i)Residentinfants-under1yearN/CN/CN/C(ii)Non-residentinfants-under1yearN/CN/CN/C(it)Residentages1andup$50.00$60.00$60.00(iv)Non-residentages1andup$100.00$120.00$120.00MiscellaneousRates:(i)Residentregularsessionperpersonrate(grouprates)$10.00$10.00$10.00(ii)Non-residentregularsessionperpersonrate$16.00$16.00$16.00(iii)LockerRental$0.25$0.25$0.25*GroupRates:Groupratesofferguaranteedadmissionforthegroup.Inordertoqualifyforagrouprate,thegroupmustconsistoften(10)ormorepersons,andthesessionmustbescheduledinadvance.Pleasenotethatthenumberofgroupsmaybelimitedeachday.StaffhastheauthoritytoofferdiscounteddailyratesforpartialsessionsorRenton-onlyevents.d.CanopyRentalFees:(includescanopyandadmissionforoneleisureswimsession):(i)HenryMosesPartyTent#1(10x20’foruptotwenty-five(25)guests):(1)ResidentRate,persession$240.00$300.00$300.00(2)Non-residentRate,persession$370.00$450.00$450.00c.38c. - 2015-16 Amended Fee Schedule (See 7.a.)Page 452 of 517 ReturntotheTableofContentsCityofRentonFeeScheduleTYPEOFFEES201420152016(ii)HenryMosesPartyTent#2(10x10foruptofifteen(15)guests):(1)ResidentRate$155.00$200.00$200.00(2)Non-ResidentRate$240.00$290.00$290.00*Salestaxnotincludedintherentalfeee.ResidentRateallinclusive$1,350.00$1,500.00$1,500.00f.Non-residentRateallinclusive$1,350.00$1,500.00$1,500.00g.SwimLessonProgram:(ilResidentswimlessonperlesson$7.00$7.00$7.00(ii)Non-residentswimlessonperlesson$9.00$9.00$9.00h.End-of-yearSchoolPartyRentals:(i)RentonSchoolDistrict(1)001-299students$1,900.00$1,900.00$1,900.00(2)300-399students$2,250.00$2,250.00$2,250.00(3)400-499students$2,400.00$2,400.00$2,400.00(4)500-599students$2,550.00$2,550.00$2,550.00(ii)OtherSchoolsandDistricts(1)001-299students$2,450.00$2,450.00$2,450.00(2)300-399students$2,850.00$2,850.00$2,850.00(3)400-499students$3,150.00$3,150.00$3,150.00(4)500-599students$3,360.00$3,360.00$3,360.002.BoatLaunchRates:a.Dailyresident-7daysaweek$10.00$10.00$10.00b.DailyNon-resident-7daysaweek$20.00$20.00$20.00c.Overnightresident-7daysaweek$20.00$20.00$20.00d.OvernightNon-resident-7daysaweek$40.00$40.00$40.00e.Annualparkingpermit-resident$50.00$60.00$60.001.Annualparkingpermit-non-resident$100.00$120.00$120.00g.Additionalsticker(launchingpermit)$5.00$5.00$5.00h.FishingTournamentsatCoulonBeach(additionalrentalfeeif$50.00$50.00$50.00usingthePavilionareaforweighinandorelectricityatthecurrentrentalrate)pereventSECTIONV.CARCOTHEATRE(Repealed)SECTIONVI.PARKSANDFACIUTIESUSEANDRENTAL1.OutlyingPicnicShelters(CedarRiverTrail,LibertyPark,PhillipArnoldPark,TeasdaleParkandHeritagePark)Maximumof75people:a.Resident8:3Oam-1:3Opm/3:3Opm-8:3Opm$90.00$90.00$90.00b.Non-resident8:3Oam-1:3Opm/3:3Opm-8:3Opm$180.00$180.00$180.00c.Fulldayresident8:3Oam-sunset$140.00$140.00$140.00d.Fulldaynon-resident8:3Oam-sunset$270.00$280.00$280.002.GeneCoulonBeachParkShelters(South#1,South#2andCreekside)Maximumof75people:a.Resident8:3Oam-1:3Opm/3:3Opm-8:3Opm$100.00$100.00$100.00b.Non-resident8:3Oam-1:3Opm/3:3Opm-$:3Opm$180.00$180.00$180.00C.Fulldayresident8:3Oam-sunset$140.00$140.00$140.00d.Fulldaynon-resident8:3Oam-sunset$260.00$260.00$260.00e.SouthShelters1&2Residentrate$300.00$300.00$300.00f.SouthShelters1&2Non-residentrate$600.00$600.00$600.003.GeneCoulonBeachParkShelters(NorthShelter):a.Resident8:3Oam-1:3Opm/3:3Opm-8:3Opm$120.00$120.00$120.00b.Non-resident8:3Oam-1:3Opm/3:3Opm-8:3Opm$240.00$240.00$240.00C.Fulldayresident8:3Oam-sunsetunder75people$160.00$160.00$160.00d.Fulldayresident8:3Oam-sunset76-100people$190.00$190.00$190.00e.Fulldaynon-resident8:3Oam-sunsetunder75people$320.00$320.00$320.00f.Fulldaynon-resident8:3Oam-sunset76-100people$380.00$380.00$380.008c. - 2015-16 Amended Fee Schedule (See 7.a.)Page 453 of 517 ReturntotheTableofContentsCityofRentonFeeScheduleTYPEOFFEES2014201520164.Tennis,BasketballandSandVolleyballcourtrateperhour(TournamentPlayOnly):a.Tenniscourt$5.00$10.00$10.00b.Parkbasketballcourt$5.00$10.00$10.00c.Sandvolleyballcourt$5.00$10.00$10.005.CateringandEventRate(Allcityparksapply):a.Residenthalfday$200.00$200.00$200.00b.Residentfullday$350.00$350.00$350.00c.Non-residenthalfday$‘lOO.OO$400.00$400.00d.Non-residentfullday$700.00$700.00$700.006.Inflatableandbigtoyrate,each.Alongwithrentalfeefortheuseof$.OGG$G9Cityfacilityforeachinflatableorbigtoy,ApplicantorRentershallprovideproofofinsurancenamingtheCityofRentonasadditionalinsured.7.OpenSpaceAreaintheParks(Cascade,Teasdale,PhillipArnold,CedarRiver,Earlington,GeneCoulon,Glencoe,KennydaleLions,Sunset,andRiverviewParks):a.Residentrateperhour$10.00$10.00$10.00b.Non-residentrateperhour$25.00$25.00$25.008.PhotoShootsperhour:4Q,GOa.CommercialFilmandPhotoShootsperhour$300.00$300.00$300.009.AthleticFieldRental,LightsandPrepFees:a.Sportsfieldrentalperhour-resident$25.00$25.00$25.00b.Sportsfieldrentalperhour-non-resident$30.00$30.00$30.00c.RentonAreaYouthSportsAgencies,perhour$6.00$6.00$6.00d.Fieldprepforsoftball/baseball-residentperoccurrence$30.00$30.00$30.00e.Fieldprepforsoccer-residentperoccurrence$45.00$45.00$45.00f.Fieldprepother-residentperoccurrenceVariesVariesVariesg.Fieldprepforsoftball/baseball-$35.00$35.00$35.00non-residentperoccurrenceh.Fieldprepforsoccer-non-residentperoccurrence$50.00$50.00$50.00i.Fieldprepother-non-residentperoccurrenceVariesVariesVariesj.Fieldlightsallsports-residentperhour$25.00$25.00$25.00k.Fieldlightsallsports-non-residentpethour$30.00$30.00$30.0010.Banquet&ClassroomRental-CommunityCenter&SeniorActivityCenter:a.Friday5hourminimum-resident$650.00$650.00$650.00b.WeekendRates10hourminimum-resident$1,300.00$1,300.00$1,300.00c.Extrahours-perhour-resident$130.00$130.00$130.00d.Friday5hourminimum-non-resident$750.00$750.00$750.00e.WeekendRates10hourminimum-non-resident$1,500.00$1,500.00$1,500.00f.Extrahours-perhour-non-resident$150.00$150.00$150.00g.Kitchencharge-perhour$88.00$100.00$100.00h.BanquetRoom-Mon-Thurs-resident/hr3hourmm$85.00$85.00$85.00i.BanquetRoom-Mon-Thurs-non-resident/hr3hourmm$90.00$90.00$90.00j.Damagedeposit-seniorcenter/communitycenter-$550.00$550.00$550.00residentandnon-residentk.Contractviolationfee-perhour$165.00$200.00$200.0011.ClassroomandGymnasiumRental-RentonCommunityCenter:a.Residentsinglegymathletic-perhour$45.00$45.00$45.00b.Non-residentsinglegymathletic-perhour$50.00$50.00$50.00c.Residentdoublegymathletic-perhour$90.00$90.00$90.00d.Non-residentdoublegymathletic-perhour$100.00$100.00$100.00e.Residentsinglegymnon-athletic$550.00$550.00$550.00f.Non-residentsinglegymnon-athletic$660.00$675.00$675.00g.Residentdoublegymnon-athletic$1,100.00$1,100.00$1,100.00h.Non-residentdoublegymnon-athletic$1,350.00$1,350.00$1,350.00i.Carpetfeesinglegym-resident&non-resident$165.00$175.00$175.00j.Carpetfeedoublegym-resident&non-resident$330.00$350.00$350.00k.Classroomresident$35.00$35.00$35.00I.ClassroomNon-resident$40.00$40.00$40.008c. - 2015-16 Amended Fee Schedule (See 7.a.)Page 454 of 517 ReturntotheTableofContentsCityofRentonFeeScheduleTYPEOFFEES20142015201612.BirthdayPartyPackages:a.Bouncepackage-resident$75.00$75.00$75.00b.Sportspackage-resident$65.00$65.00$65.00c.Bouncepackage-non-resident$85.00$85.00$85.00U.Sportspackage-non-resident$75.00$75.00$75.0013.FacilityRental-NeighborhoodCenter:a.Meetingroom-resident$35.00$35.00$35.00b.Gymnasium-resident$35.00$35.00$35.00c.Meetingroom-non-resident$40.00$40.00$40.00d.Gymnasium-non-resident$40.00$40.00$40.00SECTIONVII.COMMUNITYCENTERPASSCARD&FEESOneMonthFitnessPass:a.Resident$20.00$20.00$20.00b.Non-resident$24.00$24.00$24.002.YearlyPass:a.Resident$200.00$200.00$200.00b.Non-resident$240.00$240.00$240.003.RacquetballPass:a.Resident$55.00$55.00$55.00b.Non-resident$55.00$55.00$55.004.CommunityCenterDropInFees:a.Residentadult/senior/studentaerobics$6.00$6.00$6.00b.Non-residentaerobics$6.00$6.00$6.00c.Residentbasketball$3.00$3.00$3.00U.Non-residentbasketball$3.00$3.00$3.00e.Senior/studentbasketball$2.00$2.00$2.00f.Residentvolleyball$3.00$3.00$3.00g.Non-residentvolleyball$3.00$3.00$3.00h.Senior/studentvolleyball$2.00$2.00$2.00i.Residentfitness$3.00$3.00$3.00j.Non-residentfitness$3.00$3.00$3.00k.Senior/studentfitness$2.00$2.00$2.00I.Resident/senior/studentshowerpass$20.00$20.00$20.00m.Non-residentshowerpass$20.00$20.00$20.00n.Residentracquetballperhour$7.00$7.00$7.00o.Non-residentracquetballperhour$7.00$7.00$7.00p.Senior/studentracquetballperhour$7.00$7.00$7.00q.Residentwallyballperhour$10.85$10.85$10.85r.Non-residentwallyballpethour$13.00$13.00$13.00s.Senior/studentwallyballperhour$9.75$9.75$9.75SECTIONVIII.AIRPORTCHARGES1.AirportFuelFlowCharge:pergallon$0.06$0.06$0.062.Transientairplaneparkingdaily$4.00$4.00$4.003.Hangarwaitlist,onetimefee$100.00$100.00$100.004.Tie-downwaitlist,onetimefee$25.00$25.00$25.005.Lostgatecardfeeperoccurrence$50.00$50.00$50.006.T-Hangar,Non-RefundableMove-inFee$250.00$250.00$250.00SECTIONIX.ANIMALLICENSESCat-Annual:a.CatAltered$30.00$30.00$30.00b.CatAltered-qualifiedseniorlifetimetagImax.3)*$30.00$0.00$0.00c.CatUnaltered$45.00$50.00$50.00d.CatUnaltered-qualifiedseniorlifetimetag(max.3)*$45.00$0.00$0.0068c. - 2015-16 Amended Fee Schedule (See 7.a.)Page 455 of 517 ReturntotheTableofContentsCityofRentonFeeSchedule$30.00$30.00$45.00$45.00$30.00$0.00$50.00$0.00$30.00$0.00$50.00$0.00SECTIONX.BUSINESSLICENSESGeneralBusinessLicense(Basefee+Perhourfee=Totalfee):a.BcfeeRegistrationFee$45.00$110.00$110.00b.Perhourfee,foreachworkerhour$0034$00352$00352c.MinimumFec**$110.00$110.00$110.00Or$65perfulltimcequivalentemployeebasedon1920worhcrhoursPerhourrateshallbeadjustedeveryotheryearbySeattle-Tacoma-Bremerton,AllItems,urbanWageEarnersandClericalWorkers(alsoknownasCPI-W)endingAugust31,forthesametwoyearperiod.Minimumfeeincludesthe$Sbasefeeandupto1920workerhours2.ShortTermEmploymentwithintheCity:a.Atemporaryninety(90)daylicensemaybepurchased$50.00$50.00$50.00foreachFTEonatemporaryjobfor*Nottoexceed270consecutivedays3.Penalties:a.Thepenaltytoreinstateanexpiredbusinesslicense$50.00$50.00$50.00b.Thepenaltyforfailuretoobtainabusinesslicense$250.00$250.00$250.00plus:paymentofalllicensefeeamountsstillowingforthelastthree(3)years,plusapenaltyof(20%)perannumforallamountsowing,plusanyaccounting,legaloradministrativeexpensesincurredbytheCityindeterminingthenonreporting,ortheunpaidportionoverthelast(3)yearsorincollectingthetaxand/orpenalty.C.FailuretopaythelicensefeewithinonedayafterthedayonwhichitisdueandpayablepursuanttosubsectionC7ofChapterSoftheRMCshallrenderthebusinessenterprisesubjecttoapenaltyof(5%(oftheamountofthelicensefeeforthefirstmonthofthedelinquencyandanadditionalpenaltyof(5%)foreachsucceedingmonthofdelinquency,butnotexceedingatotalpenaltyof(25%)oftheamountofsuchlicensefee.SECTIONXI.ADULTENTERTAINMENTLICENSES1.Everypersonapplyingforaadultentertainmentlicenseshallpaytheapplicablenonrefundableapplicationfee:a.AdultEntertainmentBusinessLicense$750$750$750b.Entertainer$75$75$75C.Manager$75$75$75U.LicenseReplacement$10$10$102.Penalties:a.CivilPenalty,perviolation$1,000$1,000$1,000SECTIONXII.DEVELOPMENTFEES1.BuildingFeesa.BuildingPermitFees:BuildingPermitFeesarepayablepriortotheissuanceofabuildingpermitValuationisbetween:$1.00to$500.00$501.00to$2,000.00$28.00$28.00$28.00$28+$3.65x$28+$3.65x$28+$3.65xeach$100valueeach$100valueeach$100valueTYPEOFFEES2014201520162.Dog-Annual:a.DogAlteredb.Dogaltered-qualifiedseniorlifetimetag(max.3)c.Dogunalteredd.Dogunaltered-qualifiedseniorlifetimetag(max.3)*3.DuplicateTag$10.00$10.00$10.004.AdditionalAnimalPermit,NewandAnnualRenewal$50.00$50.00$50.005.Penaltyfornotlicensing$250.00$250.00$250.006.Laterenewalfee$30.00$30.00$30.00*Qualifledseniorshallmeanresidentssixty-one(61)yearsofageorolder,meetingtheincomeguidelinesassetforthinSection8-4-31CoftheRMC.BaseFee78c. - 2015-16 Amended Fee Schedule (See 7.a.)Page 456 of 517 ReturntotheTableofContentsElectricalPermitFees:(i)ResidentialFees-Single-FamilyandDuplex(1)NewService-SingleFamilyandDuplex(a)Upt0200AMP(b)Over200AMP(2)ServiceChanges/NewCircuits-SingleFamilyandDuplex:(a)Changeupto200AMP(b)Changeover200AMP(c)Anynewcircuitsaddedtoabovepriceispereachuptoamaximumof$60.00Id)Minimumfeeforremodel/additionofnewcircuitswithoutaservicechargeCityofRentonFeeScheduleTYPEOFFEES201420152016$2001.00to25,000.00$82.75+$16.75x$82.75+$16.75x$82.75+$16.75xeach$,100Deach$,1000each$,1000valuevaluevalue$25,001.00to$50,000.00$468-4-$12x$468+$12x$468+$12xeach$1,000each$1,000each$1,000valuevaluevalue$50,001.00to$100,000.00$768+$8.35x$768+$8.35x$768+$8.35xeach$1,000each$1,000each$1,000valuevaluevalue$100,001.00to$500,000.00$1,185.50+$1,185.50+$1,185.50+$6.70xeach$6.70xeach$6.70xeach$1,000value$1,000value$1,000value$500,001.00to$1,000,000.00$3,865.50+$3,865.50+$3,865.50+$5.65xeach$5.65xeach$5.65xeach$1,000value$1,000value$1,000value$1,000,001.00andup$6,690.50+$6,690.50+$6,690.50-$4.35xeach$4.35xeach$4.35xeach$1,000value$1,000value$1,000valueb.CombinationBuildingPermitFees:CombinationBuildingPermitfeesarerequiredforeachnewsinglefamilyresidentialstructure,andarepayablepriortotheissuanceofabuildingpermit(i)Plumbingupto3,000sqft$150.00$150.00$150.00(ii)Plumbingover3,000sqft$175.00$175.00$175.00(iii)Mechanicalupto3,000sqft$150.00$150.00$150.00(iv)Mechanicalover3,000sqft$175.00$175.00$175.00(v(Electricalupto3,000sqft$75.00$75.00$75.00(vi)Electricalover3,000sqft$100.00$100.00$100.00c.BuildingPlanCheckFee;Inadditiontothebuildingpermitfeesorcombinationbuildingpermitfees,aplancheckfeeequaltosixtyfivepercent(65%)ofthepermitfeewillbechargedonallbuildingpermits.Payableatthetimeofbuildingpermitapplicationsubmittal.d.DemolitionPermitFee:(i)Residential$115.00$115.00$115.00(H)Commercial$115.00$250.00$250.00e.StateBuildingCodeFee:(I)Allprojects:$4.50$4.50$4.50(H)Multi-familyprojects:$4.50$4.50$4.50(1)Eachadditionalcard:$2.00$2.00$2.00$70.00$70.00$70.00$80.00$80.00$80.00$45.00$60.00$60.00$60.00$75.00$75.00$15.00$15.00$15.00$45.00$60.00$60.0088c. - 2015-16 Amended Fee Schedule (See 7.a.)Page 457 of 517 ReturntotheTableofContentsCityofRentonFeeScheduleTYPEOFFEES201420152016(ii)Multi-Family,CommercialandIndustrialFees:(1)Feesforalltypesofelectricalpermitsarebasedonvalueofwork:$1.00to$250.00$500.00$45.00$60.00$60.00$250.01$500.01to$1,000.00$45+3.3%of$45+3.3%of$45+3.3%ofvaluevaluevalue$1,000.01to5,000.00$78+2.9%of$78+2.9%of$78+2.9%ofvaluevaluevalue$5,000.01to$50,000.00$223+1.7%of$223+1.7%of$223÷1.7%ofvaluevaluevalue$50,000.01to$250,000.00$1,073+1.0%of$1,073+1.0%of$1,073+1.0%ofvaluevaluevalue$250,000.01to$1,000,000.00$3,573+0.8%of$3,573+0.8%of$3,573+0.8%ofvaluevaluevalue$1,000,000.01andup$11,573+0.45%$11,573+0.45%$11,573+0.45%ofvalueofvalueofvalue(Hi)TemporaryElectricalServices$45.00$60.00$60.00(iv)MiscellaneousElectricalFees(1)JobTrailers$45.00$60.00$60.00(2)Signspereach$45.00$60.00$60.00431SwimmingPpol,HotTubs,5ounapotcich.6QGG(3)MobileHomes$45.00$60.00$60.00(4)LowVoltageWork(e.g.,alarmsystems;thermostats;computer,50%of50%of50%ofdata,orphonelines;fiberoptics,cabletelevision,etc.)commercialfeescommercialfeesMinimum$60.00Minimum$60.00Exemption:Residentialtelephonecommunicationsystems,thermostats,securitysystems,andcabletelevisioninstallationsareexemptfromfeesg.GradeandFillLicenseFees:Feesshallbebasedonthevolumeoftheexcavationandfill.(i)GradingLicense(1)50cubicyardsorless$10.00$15.00$15.00(2)51-100cubicyards$15.00$20.00$20.00(3)101-1,000cubicyards(a)Forthefirst100cubicyards$15.00$20.00$20.00(b)Foreachadditional100cubicyards$7.00$9.00$9.00orfraction(4)1,001-10,000cubicyards(a)Forthefirst1,000cubicyards$78.00$101.00$101.00(b)Foreachadditional1,000cubicyards$6.00$8.00$8.00orfraction(5)10,001-100,000cubicyards(a)Forthefirst10,000cubicyards$132.00$173.00$173.00(b)Foreachadditional10,000cubicyards$27.00$36.00$36.00orfraction(6)100,001ormorecubicyards(a)Forthefirst100,000cubicyards$375.00$497.00$497.00(b)Foreachadditional100,000cubicyards$15.00$20.00$20.00orfractionInadditiontothelicensefees,agradingplancheckfeeandadrainageplancheckfeeischargedforallgradinglicensesrequiringplanreview.Beforeacceptingasetofplansandspecificationsforchecking,theDevelopmentServicesDivisionshallcollectaplancheckingfee.(ii)GradingPlanCheckFees(1)50cubicyardsorless$5.00$10.00$10.00(2)51-100cubicyards$10.00$20.00$20.00(3)101-1,000cubicyards$15.00$30.00$30.00(4)1,001-10,000cubicyards$20.00$40.00$40.00(5)Foreachadditional10,000cubicyards$10.00$20.00$20.00(6)Forthefirst100,000cubicyards$110.00$220.00$220.00(7)Foreachadditional10,000cubicyards$6.00$8.00$8.0098c. - 2015-16 Amended Fee Schedule (See 7.a.)Page 458 of 517 ReturntotheTableofContentsCityofRentonFeeScheduleTYPEOFFEES201420152016(8)Forthefirst200,000cubicyards$170.00$300.00$300.00(9)Foreachadditional10,000cubicyards$3.00$4.00$4.00(10)Drainageplancheckfeesassociatedwithagrading$50.00$100.00$100.00license:feeplus$1.00forevery10,000sqfeetoflandarea.(11)SolidWasteFills:Theplancheckfeeforsolidwaste1.5xplan1.5xplan1.5xplanfillsshallbeoneandone-half(1-1/21timestheplancheckfeecheckfeecheckfeecheckingfeeslistedabove.Thefeeforagradinglicenseauthorizingadditionalworktothatunderavalidlicenseshallbethedifferencebetweenthefeepaidfortheoriginallicenseandthefeeshownfortheentireproject.(12)AnnualLicensesofSolidWasteFills:Thefeefor1.5xplan1.5xplan1.5xplanannuallicensesforsolidwastefillsshallbeonecheckfeecheckfeecheckfeeandone-half(1-1/2)timestheplancheckingfeeslistedabove.Thefeeforagradinglicenseauthorizingadditionalworktothatunderavalidlicenseshallbethedifferencebetweenthefeepaidfortheoriginallicenseandthefeeshownfortheentireproject.Anyunusedfeemaybecarriedforwardtothenextyear.Ifanyworkisdonebeforethelicenseisissued,thegradinglicensefeeshallbedoubled.h.HouseMoving-minimumperhourInspectionFee:$75.00$100.00$100.00ThiscoversonlytheBuildingSectioninspectionofthestructurepriortomove.ThereisaseparateadditionalfeechargedbythePublicWorksDepartmenttocovertheactualhousemovepermit.Abuildingpermitisalsorequiredinordertositethestructureonthenewsite.InspectionFeeForCondominiumConversions:$100on1stunit$100on1stunit$100on1stunit/$15eachaddI/$15eachaddI/$15eachadd’Iunitunitunitj.Manufactured/MobileHomeInstallationFees:Includesplanreviewandinspectionfeesforthefoundation(electrical,plumbing,mechanical,sewerandwaterconnectionfeesareinadditiontothebelowamounts).(i)Withinamanufacturedhomepark$100.00$100.00$100.00.BuildingPermitBuildingPermitBuildingPermit(ii)OutsideofamanufacturedhomeparkFeesFeesFeesk.MechanicalPermitFees:(I)Basicpermitfeeplusitemizedfeesbelow:$45.00$45.00$45.00(1)Heatingsystem(furnace,heatpump,$17.00$17.00$17.00suspendedheater,fireplace,woodstove,etc.).A/Csystem(airconditioner,chillerorAirHandlingunit(VAV)includingductsandvents)(2)BoilerorCompressor:$17.00$17.00$17.00Inctallatignorrclocationofcach:(a)Uptoandincludinghorscpowcr.Single&MultiFamily$17.00$17.00$17.00(b)Ovor3horsopowcr.ntcincluding$30.00$60.00$60.0015horcpowcr.Commercial{e}Ovcr15horcppwcruptoandincluding%40,GQ$4GGG$4OOG30horsepower.{41Over20horsepowertoandincludingS.&0050horsepower.%eIOverSOhorsepower.$100.00$100.00$100.00108c. - 2015-16 Amended Fee Schedule (See 7.a.)Page 459 of 517 CityofRentonFeeScheduleReturntotheTableofContentsWPEOFFEES201420152016(3)AbsorptionSystem:CommercialRefrigerationsystem$17.00$60.00$60.00Installationorrelocationofeach:toandincluding100,000Btu/h$43,00$44,00cr100,000Btu/huptoandincluding$g,oosae,ee500,000Btu/hvcr500,000Btu/huptoandincluding64GGo$40,001,000,000Btu/h(4)Over1,000,000Btu/h“toandincluding$6000$60,GG$6&GQ1,750,000Btu/h(4)Over1,750,000Ecu/h$100.00$100.00$100.00(4)Residentialventilation/exhaustfan$8.00$8.00$8.00(&.)Apptanseorpieceofequipmentregulated344GG3.14,40344,00notclassedinotherappliancecategories,orfor‘.vhichnootherfeeislistedinthiscode(5)Commercialventilation/exhaustsystemnot$17.00$17.00$17.00aportionofanyheatingorairconditioningsystemauthorizedbyapermit.(6)CommercialHood:Installationofeach$50.00$50.00$50.00servedbyamechanicalexhaust,includingtheductsforsuchhoodeach(7)Incinerator:Installationorrelocationofeach$75.00$75.00$75.00(8)Applianceorpieceofequipmentregulatedbythis$17.00$17.00$17.00codebutnotclassedinotherappliancecategories,orforwhichnootherfeeislistedinthiscode(9)FuelGasPiping:Eachgaspipingsystemofito4344,44342,0034100(a)Eachgas-pipingsystemofito4outlets$12.00$12.00$12.00(b)Eachgaspipingsystemof5ormoreouticts,per$2.50$2.50$2.50outletEachadditionaloutletover4,peroutletPlumbingPermitFees:(I)Basefeeforalltypesofwork;plusitemized$45.00$45.00$45.00feesbelow(1)Perplumbingfixture(e.g.,sink,shower,toilet,$8.00$8.00$8.00dishwasher,tub,etc.)orsetoffixturesononetrap(2)Formetertohousewaterservice$8.00$8.00$8.00(3)FuelGasPiping:Eachgaspipingsystemofito43410031-10034100(a)Eachgas-pipingsystemofito4outlets$12.00$12.00$12.00(b)EachgaspipingsystemofSormoreoutlcts,per$2.50$2.50$2.50outletEachadditionaloutletover4,peroutlet(4)Perdrainforrainwatersystems$8.00$8.00$8.00(5)Perlawnsprinklersystem,includesbackflow$8.00$8.00$8.00prevention(6)Perfixtureforrepairoralterationofdrainageorvent$8.00$8.00$8.00piping(7)Pervacuumbreakerorbackflowprotectiondeviceon$8.00$8.00$8.00tanks,vats,etc.(8)Perinterceptorforindustrialwastepretreatment$8.00$8.00$8.0019)MedicalGasPiping:(a)Eachgas-pipingsystemofito5outlets-$60.00$60.00)b)Eachadditionaloutletover5,peroutlet-$5.00$5.00m.SignPermitFees:(i)PermanentSigns:(1)Roof,projecting,awning,canopy,marquee,$125.00$125.00$125.00andwallsigns(2)Freestandinggroundandpolesigns$175.00$175.00$175.00H8c. - 2015-16 Amended Fee Schedule (See 7.a.)Page 460 of 517 ReturntotheTableofContentsCityofRentonFeeScheduleTYPEOFFEES201420152016(ii)TemporaryandPortableSigns:(1)RealEstateDirectionalSigns,pursuant$50.00$50.00$50.00toRMC4-4-100J2,permitvalidfora12-monthsperiod(2)GrandOpeningEventSigns,pursuantto$25.00$50.00$50.00RMC4-4-lOOJ6d(i)(3)EventSigns,pursuanttoRMC4-4-100J6d(ii)$15.00$25.00$25.00and(iii)persign,perpromotion(4)A-FrameSigns,pursuanttoRMC4-4-100]5$100.00$100.00$100.00Chargeisforthefirstsign,allsubsequentsignsare$50.00(5)CommercialPropertyRealEstateBanner$50.00$50.00$50.00eachsignpermitisvalidfor12months.(6)DecorativeFlagsfeeisperentranceand$50.00$50.00$50.00validuntilflag(s)areremoved(iii)RequestforAdministrativeModificationsofCity$100.00$100.00$100.00CenterSignRegulationsperRMC4-4-100H9:(iv)WorkinAdvanceofSignPermitIssuance:WhereworkforwhichthepermitisrequiredbythisTitleIVofRMCisstartedorproceededwithpriortoobtainingsaidpermit,thefeesabovespecifiedshallbedoubled;butthepaymentofsuchdoublefeeshallnotrelieveanypersonsfromcomplyingwiththerequirementsintheexecutionoftheworknorfromanyotherpenaltiesprescribedherein.n.Sv:immingPool/HotTub,’SpaInctallationFeca:(4Publicpoe1,apa,hottub$GG{4Privatepop1,apa,hottub{444Poolfillingcyatem,includingbatkflov;prevention,each(14Eachwatcrhcaterand/orvent-,GO4.’4Caapipingeystcm,each2-GO{4Replacingoffilter,GG4.vii.)’.1itccIlanepucrcplaccmcnts4.’.i44Backwaahreceptorn.MiscellaneousFees:(i)ReplacementPermitFee:Permitcopiesforreplacementoflostormutilatedbuilding,demolition,grading,plumbing,electricalormechanicalpermitwillbefurnisheduponapaymentofaservicefee(ii)MinimumHousingInspection:(1)AssessedundertheprovisionsofSection305.8$75.00$75.00oftheInternationalBuildingCode.Re-inspectionfeesshallbe$75.00perhourorthetotalhourlycosttothejurisdiction,whicheverisgreatest.Thiscostshallincludesupervision,overhead,equipment,hourlywagesandfringebenefitsoftheemployeesinvolved.(2)WABO-AdultFamilyHome;Miscbuildinginspection-$100.00$100.00(iii)PlanReviewFeesforElectrical,Plumbing,or40%of40%of40%ofMechanicalPermits:Inadditiontotheabovepermitfeepermitfeepermitfeepermitfees,aplancheckfeeequaltofortypercent(40%)ofthepermitfeemaybechargedwhenrequiredbytheBuildingOfficial.2.LandUseReviewFeesa.GeneralLandUseReview(i)AdditionalAnimalsPermit(annualfcc)$50.00$50.00$50.00(ii)AnnexationN/CN/CN/C(iii)AppealofHearingExaminer’sDecision,$250.00$250.00$250.00AdministrativeDecision,orEnvironmentalDecision128c. - 2015-16 Amended Fee Schedule (See 7.a.)Page 461 of 517 ReturntotheTableofContentsCityofRentonFeeScheduleTYPEOFFEES201420152016(iv)BindingSitePlan(totalfeeforbothpreliminary$1,800.00$2,500.00$2,500.00andfinalphases)(v)CodeTextAmendmentN/CN/CN/C(vi)ComprehensivePlanMaporText$1,000.00$2,500.00$2,500.00Amendment(each)(vu)ConditionalUsePermit(1)HEX$2,000.00$2,500.00$2,500.00(2)Administrative$2,000.00$1,000.00$1,000.00(viii)CriticalAreasReviewFee:forthoseprojectsthat100%of100%of100%ofproposeimpactstocriticalareasandwillbecontractcostcontractcostcontractcostbilledatthecostofcontractbiologist’sreview.1(ix)EnvironmentalImpactStatementCostincludethe100%ofcost100%ofcost100%ofcostcoordination,reviewandappeal.DraftandFinal2(x)EnvironmentalChecklistReview$2,000.00$1,000.00$1,000.00(xi)FencePermit(special)$100.00$100.00$100.00(xii)GradingandFillingPermit(HearingExaminer)$2,000.00$2,500.00$2,500.00(xti)LotLineAdjustment$450.00$450.00$450.00(xiv)Manufactured/MobileHomePark:(1)Tentative$500.00$500.00$500.00(2)Preliminary$2,000.00$2,500.00$2,500.00(3)Final$1,000.00$1,000.00$1,000.00(xv)OpenSpaceClassificationRequest$100.00$100.00$100.00(xvi)Plats:(1)ShortP1st(totalfeeforbothpreliminaryand$1,400.00$2,000.00$2,000.00finalphases)(2)Preliminary$4,000.00$4,500.00$4,500.00(3)FinalP1st$1,500.00$1,500.00$1,500.00(xvii)PlannedUrbanDevelopment:(1)PreliminaryPlan$2,000.00$2,500.00$2,500.00(2)FinalPlan$1,000.00$1,000.00$1,000.00(.4i4RebuildAppro’.’Dl,.{4.HeDringEeomincrRcview$500.00$500.00$500.00(Adminictrcti’.cRc.icw$250.00$250.00$250.00(xviu)Rezone$2,000.00$2,500.00$2,500.00(xix)RoutineVegetationManagementPermit$75.00$75.00$75.00withoutCriticalAreas(xx)ShoppingCartPlanReview$100.00$100.00$100.00(xxi)Shoreline-RelatedPermits(1)ShorelinePermitExemptionN/CN/CN/C(2)SubstantialDevelopmentPermit$2,000.00$2,000.00$2,000.00(3)ConditionalUsePermit$2,000.00$2,500.00$2,500.00(4)Variance$2,000.00$2,500.00$2,500.00(xxii)SiteDevelopmentPlan(SitePlanorMasterPlanwhichincludesdesignreviewfeeforprojectssubjecttoRMC4-3-100):(1)HearingExaminerReview$2,000.00$2,500.00$2,500.00(2)AdministrativeReview$1,000.00$1,500.00$1,500.00(3)Modification(minor,administrative)N/CN/CN/C(4)Modification(major)requirednewApplicationApplicationApplicationapplicationandrepaymentoffeerequiredFeesFeesFees(xxiv)SpecialPermit(HearingExaminer)$2,000.00$2,500.00$2,500.00(xxv)TemporaryUsePermits:(1)Tier1$75.00$75.00$75.00(2)Tier2$150.00$150.00$150.00(xxvi)Variance(pereachvariancerequested)$1,200.00$1,200.00$1,200.00AdministrativeorHearingExaminer(xxvii)WaiverorModificationofCode$100.00$150.00$150.00Requirementscostisperrequest(xxix)LandscapeReviewFee$100.00$100.00$100.00(xxx)ZoningComplianceLetter-$400.00$400.00138c. - 2015-16 Amended Fee Schedule (See 7.a.)Page 462 of 517 ReturntotheTableofContentsCityofRentonFeeScheduleTYPEOFFEES201420152016C.1PerRMC4-3-OSOF7,theCitymaychargeandcollectfeesfromanyapplicanttocovercostsincurredbythecityinreviewofplans,studies,monitoringreportsandotherdocumentsrelatedtoevaluationofimpactstoorhazardsfromcriticalareasandsubsequentcode-requiredmonitoring.2WhentheCityistheleadagencyforaproposalrequiringanEnvironmentalImpactStatement(EIS)andtheEnvironmentalReviewCommittee(ERC)determinesthattheElSshallbeprepared,theCitymaychargeandcollectareasonablefeefromanyapplicanttocovercostsincurredbytheCityinpreparingtheElS.TheERCshalladvisetheapplicant(s)oftheprojectedcostsfortheEISpriortoactualpreparation;theapplicantshallpostbondorotherwiseensurepaymentofsuchcosts.TheERCmaydeterminethattheCitywillcontractdirectlywithaconsultantforpreparationofanEIS,oraportionoftheEIS,andmaybillsuchcostsandexpensesdirectlytotheapplicant.SuchconsultantsshallbeselectedbymutualagreementoftheCityandapplicantafteracallforproposals.IfaproposalismodifiedsothatanFISisnolongerrequired,theERCshallrefundanyfeescollectedunderthissubsectionwhichremainafterincurredcostsarepaid.TheCitymaycollectareasonablefeefromanapplicanttocoverthecostofmeetingthepublicnoticerequirementsofthisTitlerelatingtotheapplicant’sproposal.TheCityshallnotcollectafeeforperformingitsdutiesasaconsultedagency.TheCitymaychargeanypersonforcopiesofanydocumentpreparedunderthisTitle,andformailingthedocument,inamannerprovidedbychapter42.17RCW.SystemDevelopmentChargeTables:(ilWaterandWastewaterSystemDevelopmentCharges:(1)5/8x3/4inch(a)Waterservicefee(b)Fireservicefee,.b(cIWastewaterfeeb.ExceptionforProjectsVestedintheCounty:ForthoseprojectsthathavevestedtoalandusepermitunderthedevelopmentregulationsofKingCounty,theKingCountyLandUseReviewFeeScheduleshallapply,andisherebyadoptedbyreference.AcopyofthatfeeschedulehasbeenfiledwiththeCityClerkandisavailableattheCityClerk’sofficeforpublicreview.3.PublicWorksFeesa.FranchisePermitFees:Unlessotherwisespecifiedinafranchiseagreement,thefeeshallbedueandpayableatorpriortothetimeofconstructionpermitissuance.Ifafranchiseagreementdoesnotspecifythefeeamount,thegenericfee,asidentifiedinthefollowingtable,shallbecollected.AbondasstipulatedinRMC9-10-5,StreetExcavationBond,isalsorequired.(I)Smallwork,includingtrenchinglessthan60$350.00$350.00$350.00linearfeetorinstallationof6orlessutilitypoles(ii)Allotherworkpermitfeeplus$60.00per$350.00$350.00$350.00overtimehourofinspection.b.Latecomers’AgreementApplicationFees:Theprocessingfeeisdueatthetimeofapplication.Theadministrationandcollectionfeeisdeductedfromeachindividuallatecomerfeepaymentandthebalanceforwardedtotheholderofthelatecomer’sagreementpursuanttoRMC9-5,TenderofFee.(i)Processingfee(Nonrefundable)ifamountcovered$500.00$500.00$500.00bylatecomers’is$20,000.00orless(U)Processingfee(Nonrefundable)ifamount$1,000.00$1,000.00$1,000.00coveredbylatecomers’isbetween$20,000.00and$100,000.00(Hi)Processingfee(Nonrefundablelifamount$2,000.00$2,000.00$2,000.00coveredbylatecomers’isgreaterthan$100,000.00(iv)Latecomers’Agreement—Administrationand15%oftotal15%oftotal15%oftotalcollectionfeeifamountcoveredbylatecomers’is$20,000.00orless(v)Latecomers’Agreement—Administrationand10%oftotal10%oftotal10%oftotalcollectionfeeifamountcoveredbylatecomers’isbetween$20,000.00and$100,000.00(vi)LatecomersAgreement—Administrationand5%oftotal5%oftotal5%oftotalcollectionfeeifamountcoveredbylatecomers’isgreaterthan$100,000.00(vii)Segregationprocessingfee,ifapplicable$750.00$750.00$750.00$2,809.00$3,090.00$3,245.00$365.00$402.00$422.00$2,033.00$2,135.00$2,242.00148c. - 2015-16 Amended Fee Schedule (See 7.a.)Page 463 of 517 ReturntotheTableofContentsCityofRentonFeeScheduleTYPEOFFEES201420152016(2)1inch(a)Waterservicefee$2,809.00$3,090.00$3,245.00(b)Fireservicefee$365.00$402.00$422.00(c)Wastewaterfee$2,033.00$2,135.00$2,242.00(311-1/2inch(a)Waterservicefee$14,045.00$15,450.00$16,225.00(b)Fireservicefee$1,826.00$2,010.00$2,110.00(c)Wastewaterfee$10,165.00$10,675.00$11,210.00(4)2inch(a)Waterservicefee$22,472.00$24,720.00$25,960.00(b(Fireservicefee$2,921.00$3,216.00$3,376.00Ic)Wastewaterfee$16,264.00$17,080.00$17,936.00(5)3inch(a)Waterservicefee$44,944.00$49,440.00$51,920.00(b)Fireservicefee$5,843.00$6,432.00$6,752.00(c)Wastewaterfee$32,528.00$34,160.00$35,872.00(6)4inch(a)Waterservicefee$70,225.00$77,250.00$81,125.00(b)Fireservicefeea,b$9,129.00$10,050.00$10,550.00(c)Wastewaterfee$50,825.00$53,375.00$56,050.00(7)6inch(a)Waterservicefee$140,450.00$154,500.00$162,250.00(b)Fireservicefee‘‘$18,259.00$20,100.00$21,100.00Cc)Wastewaterfee$101,650.00$106,750.00$112,100.00(8)8inch(a)Waterservicefee$224,720.00$247,200.00$259,600.00(b)Fireservicefeeb$29,214.00$32,160.00$33,760.00(c)Wastewaterfee$162,640.00$170,800.00$179,360.00Baseduponthesizeofthefireservice(NOTdetectorbypassmeter)Unlessaseparatefireserviceisprovided,thesystemdevelopmentcharge(s)shallbebaseduponthesizeofthemeterinstalledandaseparatefireservicefeewillnotbecharged.(ii)StormWaterSystemDevelopmentCharges:(1)Newsinglefamilyresidence(including$1,228.00$1,350.00$1,485.00mobile/manufacturedhomes)(2)Additiontoexistingsinglefamilyresidencegreaterthan$0.49;$0540$0594500squarefeet(includingmobile/manufacturedhomes)persqfootpersqfootpersqfootFeenottoexceed$1,012.00(3(Allotheruseschargepersquarefootofnewimpervious$0.49;$0540$0594surface,butnotlessthan$1,012.00persqfootpersqfootpersqfootd.AdministrativeFeesforSDCSegregationRequest:TheapplicantshallpaytheCity’sadministrativecostsforthepreparation,processingandrecordingofthepartialpaymentofthefee(s).Atthetimeofapplicationforspecialassessmentdistrict,and/orlatecomer’schargepartialpaymenttheapplicantshallpaytheadministrativefeeof$750.00foreachsegregation.Ifthesamesegregationisusedformorethanoneutility’sspecialassessmentdistrict,and/orlatecomer’scharge,thenonlyoneadministrativefeeiscollected.e.PublicWorksConstructionPermitFees:Thefollowingpublicworksconstructionpermitfees,utilitypermitfees,andmiscellaneouschargesarepayableatorpriortothetimeofconstructionpermitissuance.(i)WaterConstructionPermitFees:(1)Watermetertestsfor3/4”to2’meter$50.00$50.00$50.00(a)Watermetertestsonmeters2”orlarger$60deposit÷$60deposit+$60deposit+timeandtimeandtimeandmaterialsmaterialsmaterials(b)OpenandclosefirehydrantsforfireTimeandTimeandTimeandflowtestsconductedbyothers,materialsmaterialsmaterials158c. - 2015-16 Amended Fee Schedule (See 7.a.)Page 464 of 517 ReturntotheTableofContentsCityofRentonFeeScheduleTYPEOFFEES201420152016(c)Waterservicedisconnection$250.00$250.00$250.00(cutatmain)(d)Meterresets$95.00$95.00$95.00(e)Repairofdamagetoservice$225.00$225.00$225.00(f)Watermainconnections$535.00$535.00$535.00(g)Watermaincutandcap$1,000.00$1,000.00$1,000.00(h)Waterquality/inspection/puritytests$65.00$65.00$65.00(i)Specialtywatertests(lead,copper,etc)costoftest+$70Costoftest+$70Costoftest+$70processingfeeprocessingfeeprocessingfee(j)Waterturnons/offsafterhours$185.00$185.00$185.00(k(Installationofisolationvalve.$2,000deposit+$2,000deposit÷$2,000deposit+timeandtimeandtimeandmaterialsmaterialsmaterials(I)Newwaterlinechlorinationfee.Fee$250+$0.15$250+$0.15$250+$0.15plus$0.15perlinealfootforanyperlinealperlinealperlinealfootageafterthefirsttwohundredfiftyfootfootfoot(250)linealfeetTimeandTimeandTimeand(m)Miscellaneouswaterinstallationfees,materialsmaterialsmaterials(n)Servicesizereductions$50.00$50.00$50.00(o)Installationfeesforringandcover$200.00$200.00$200.00castings(2)Watermeterinstallationfees—Cityinstalled:Thefollowingfeesarepayableatthetimeofapplicationforwatermeterinstallation(s).(a)3/4”meterinstalledbyCitywithin$3,075.00$3,075.00$3,075.00Citylimits.Installationofstubserviceandmeter.(i)3/4”meterdropinonly$400.00$400.00$400.00(b)3/4”meterinstalledbyCityoutsideCity$3,310.00$3,310.00$3,310.00limits,Installationofstubserviceandmeter.(i)3/4”meterdropinonly$400.00$400.00$400.00)c)1”meterinstalledbytheCity.$3,310.00$3,310.00$3,310.00Installationofstubserviceandmeter(i)1”meterdropinonly$460.00$460.00$460.00)d)1-1/2’meterinstalledbytheCity.$5,330.00$5,330.00$5,330.00Installationofstubserviceandmeter.(i)1-1/2”meterdropinonly$750.00$750.00$750.00(e)2”meterinstalledbytheCity.$5,660.00$5,660.00$5,660.00Installationofstubserviceandmeter.(I)2”meterdropinonly$950.00$950.00$950.00(3)Watermeterprocessingfees—Applicantinstalled:Formeterslargerthan2”,theapplicantmustprovidematerialsandinstalls,TheCitychargesa$220.00processingfeeatthetimeofmeterapplication.(4)HydrantMeterfees:Thefollowingfeesarepayableatthetimeofapplicationforahydrantmeter:(a)Hydrantmeterpermitfee$50.00$50.00$50.00(b)Deposits:(i)3/4”meterandbackflow$300.00$300.00$300.00preventionassembly.(H)3”meterandbackflow$800.00$800.00$800.00preventionassembly.(Hi)Depositprocessingcharge,$25.00$25.00$25.00nonrefundable.(c)Costofwaterperccf.$3.70$3.70$3.70(d)Meterrentalbeginsondayofpickup.(I)3/4”meterandbackflow$11.66$11.66$11.66preventionassembly.Permonth.(ii)3”meterandbackflow$143.67$143.67$143.67preventionassembly.Permonth.168c. - 2015-16 Amended Fee Schedule (See 7.a.)Page 465 of 517 ReturntotheTableofContents(ii)WastewaterandsurfacewaterconstructionpermitFees:(1)Residential:(a)Wastewaterpermitfee(b)Surfacewaterpermitfee(2)Commercial:(a)Wastewaterpermitfee(b)Surfacewaterpermitfee(3)Industrial:ta)Wastewaterpermitfee(b)Surfacewaterpermitfee(4)Repairofanyoftheabove(a)Wastewaterpermitfee(b)Surfacewaterpermitfee(5)Cutandcap/Demolitionpermit(a)Wastewaterpermitfee(b)Surfacewaterpermitfee(6)Groundwaterdischarge(temporaryconnectiontowastewatersystemforone-timedischargeofcontaminatedgroundwaterto50,000gallons)(7)Groundwaterdischarge(temporaryconnectiontowastewatersystemfordischargeofcontaminatedgroundwaterover50,000gallons)RateplusbilledforcurrentRentonandKingCountysewerrateondischargedamount(meterprovidedbypropertyowner)(4)Wastewaterorstormwaterservice(5)KingCountyROWPermits/Inspections(a)ServiceInstallationOnly(b)UtilityExtensionper100’ofLength(Mm200Length)$200.00$250.00$250.00$200.00$250.00$250.00$250.00$300.00$300.00$250.00$300.00$300.00$300.00$300.00$300.00$300.00$300.00$300.00$150.00$200.00$200.00$150.00$200.00$200.00$200.00$250.00$250.00$200.00$250.00$250.00NNNG$300.00$300.00$300.00plusKingplusKingplusKingCountyCountyCountysewerrateonsewerrateonsewerrateondischargeddischargeddischargedamountamountamount$100.00$125.00$150.00$150.00f.Publicworksplanreviewandinspectionfees:Alldevelopers,municipalorquasi-municipalentities,orutilitycorporationsorcompanies,exceptthosespecificallyexempted,shallpayfeesunderthisSection.ExemptedentitiesincludeCity-franchisedcableTV,cablemodem,naturalgas,telecommunications,andelectricalpower.Halfofthisfeemustbepaiduponapplicationandtheremainderwhenthepermit(s)isissued.Thereareadditionalconstructionpermitfeeswhicharealsopayableuponissuance.Thefeewillbebaseduponpercentagesoftheestimatedcostofimprovementsusingthefollowingformula.(i)Streetandutilityplanreviewandinspectionfees;estimatedconstructioncost:Theapplicantmustsubmitseparate,itemizedcostestimatesforeachitemofimprovementsubjecttotheapprovalbythePublicWorksPlanReviewSection,(1)$150,000.00orless(2)Over$150,000.00butlessthan$300,000.00.6%ofcost$9,000÷5%over$150,000$16,500+4%$16,500÷4%over$300,000over$300,000-$550.00CityofRentonFeeScheduleTYPEOFFEES201420152016(iii)Workinright-of-way—constructionpermit:Utilityandstreet/sidewalkimprovements:Abondisrequired,asstipulatedinRMC9-10-5,StreetExcavationBond.(1)Lessthan35feetinlength$100.00$100.00(2)35to100feetinlength$125.00$125.00(3)Greaterthan100feetinlength$150.00$150.00$150.00$150.00$600.00$300.00Exception:Nopermitfeeshallbechargedforindividualhomeownersforworkinstreetrights-of-wayforstreettreeorparkingstripirrigationsystems.(iv)Streetlightsystemfee:Allnewinstallationsofstreetlightingfacilitiesshallincurafeeof$500.00perconnectiontothepowersystem,payableatorpriortothetimeofconstructionpermitissuance.$600.00$300.00(3)$300,000.00andover.(uIStandardorminordrainageadjustmentreview6%ofcost$9,000+5%over$150,0006%ofcost$9,000+5%over$150,000$16,500+4%over$300,000$550.00178c. - 2015-16 Amended Fee Schedule (See 7.a.)Page 466 of 517 ReturntotheTableofContentsCityofRentonFeeScheduleTYPEOFFEES201420152016Constructioncost,alsoknownastheEngineer’sEstimateortheContractor’sBid,shallmeancostestimateforallprojectrelatedimprovementsoutsideofthebuildingenvelopes,including,butnotlimitedto,allcostsrequiredtoconstructthefollowing:pavedparkinglots,privatesidewalksorwalkways;privateandpublicstormwatermanagementfacilities;temporaryerosionandsedimentationcontrolfacilities;waterqualityfacilities;publicandprivatestreets;publicandprivatesanitarysewers;publicwatermainimprovements;requiredoff-siteStreet,bikeandpedestrianimprovements;streetlightingimprovements;requitedlandscapingandstreettreeimprovements;andsitegradingandmobilizationcosts.g.Releaseofeasementfees:Theimposition,collection,paymentandotherspecificsconcerningthischargearedetailedinchapter9-1RMC,Easements.(i)Filingfee,payableatthetimeofapplication$250.00$250.00$250.00(ii)Processingfee(paiduponCouncilapprovalof$250.00$250.00$250.00releaseofeasement)h.Right-of—Wayusepermitfees&RevocablepermitsfortheUseofExcessPublicRight-ofway:Thesefeesarepayableatthetimeofapplication.Theimposition,collection,paymentandotherspecificsconcerningthischargearedetailedinchapter9-2RMC,ExcessRight-ofWayUse.(i)Singlefamilyandtwofamilyusesannually,fee$10.00+LET’$10.00+LET1$10.00+LET’plusleaseholdexcisetax1ifapplicable(ii)Alluseswithoutpublicbenefitfeeisapermonth0.5%xValue20.5%xValue20.5%xValue2chargebasedonpropertyvalue2oflandtobeLET’LET’LET’utilized,plusleaseholdexcisetax’,ifapplicable.Payableyearlyinadvance(iii)Useswithpublicbenefitfeeisaperyearof0.5%xValue20.5%xValue’0.5%xValue’assessedvalueoflandadjoiningtheproperty,LET’LET’LET’plusleaseholdexcisetax’,ifapplicable.Innocaselessthan$10.00.Payableyearlyinadvance.(iv)InsuranceRequired:PublicLiabilityandpropertydamageinsuranceisalsorequiredpursuanttoRMC9-2-5B,MinimumPermitRequirementsforExcessRight-of-WayUse.(v)ExceptionforPublicAgencies:ano-feepermitmaybeissuedonlywhentheapplicantisapublicagencyandwhentheproposeduseoftheright-of-wayprovidesadirectservicetothepublic(e.g.,Metroapplicationsforright-of-wayforbusshelters).‘ThereisherebyleviedandshallbecollectedaleaseholdexcisetaxonthatactorprivilegeofoccupyingorusingpublicownedrealorpersonalpropertythroughaleaseholdinterestattherateestablishedbytheStateofWashington‘Right-of-wayvalueshallbebasedontheassessedvalueofthelandadjoiningthepropertyasestablishedbytheKingCountyAssessorStreetandAlleyvacationFees:Theimposition,collection,paymentandotherspecificsconcerningthischargearedetailedinchapter9-14RMC,Vacations.(i)Filingfee,payableatthetimeofapplication$500.00$500.00$500.00(ii)Processingandcompletionfee,payableuponCouncilapprovalofthevacationanduponadministrativedeterminationofappraisedvalueofvacatedright-of-way:AppraisedValueofVacatedright-of-way:(1)Lessthan$25,000$750.00$750.00$750.00(2)$25,000to$75,000$1,250.00$1,250.00$1,250.00(3)Over$75,000$2,000.00$2,000.00$2,000.00j.TemporaryconnectionstoaCityutilitysystemmaybegrantedforaone-time,temporary,short-termuseofaportionofthepropertyforaperiodnottoexceedthree(3)consecutiveyears.(i)StormWaterFee;Annualfeeequaltotenpercent(10%)ofthecurrentsystemdevelopmentchargeapplicabletothatportionoftheproperty.*(U)WastewaterFee;Annualfeeequaltotenpercent(10%)ofthecurrentsystemdevelopmentchargeapplicabletothesizeofthetemporarydomesticwatermeter(s).(Hi)WaterFee;Annualfeeequaltotenpercent(10%)ofthecurrentsystemdevelopmentchargeapplicabletothesizeofthetemporarywatermeter(s).*188c. - 2015-16 Amended Fee Schedule (See 7.a.)Page 467 of 517 ReturntotheTableofContentsCityofRentonFeeScheduleTYPEOFFEES201420152016*Saidfeeshallbepaidannually(non-prorated),andshallbenonretundable,nontransterable(fromoneportionofthepropertytoanother)andshallnotconstituteacredittothesystemdevelopmentchargedueatthetimeofpermanentuseoftheutilitysystem.Theapplicationfortemporaryconnectionshallconsistofadetailedplanandaboundarylineoftheproposeddevelopmentserviceareaforuseinthefeedetermination.k.WaterorSewer-Redevelopment:creditforexistingwaterorsewerservice:Anyparcelthatcurrentlyhaswaterandorsewerserviceiseligibleforaproratedsystemdevelopmentcharge.(i)Fee(s)baseduponmeter(s)proposedforfinalprojectminusfee(s)baseduponmeterexistingonsite.4.FireDepartmentCommunityRiskReductionFeesa.Fireplanreviewandinspectionfees(i)$0to$249.99$30.00$30.00$30.00(H)$250.00to$999.99$30+2%ofthe$30+2%ofthe$30+2%ofthecostcostcost(Hi)$1,000.00to$4,999.99$50+2%ofthe$50÷2%ofthe$50+2%ofthecostcostcost(iv)$5,000.00to$49,999.99$150+1.5%of$150+1.5%of$150+1.5%ofthecostthecostthecost(v)$50,000.00to$99,999.99$350+1.2%of$350+1.2%of$350+1.2%ofthecostthecostthecost(vi)$100,000.00andabove$800+.75%of$800+.75%of$800+.75%ofthecostthecostthecost(vii)constructionRe-inspection.Feeisperhourwitha2hour$75.00$75.00$75.00minimum.Theminimummaybeassessediftherequestedinspectiondoesnotmeettheapprovaloftheinspector.(vHi)Violation/SecondRe-Inspectionafter3D-dayperiod(whenever$150.00$150.00$150.0030daysormorehavepassedsinceFireDepartmentnotificationofaviolation,whichrequiredafirstre-inspection,andsuchviolationhasnotbeenremediedorgrantedanextension)(ix)ThirdRe-Inspection/Pre-citationFollow-UpInspectionwhen$250.00$250.00$250.00re-inspectionsarerequiredbeyondthefirstandsecondre-inspectionslx)PreventableFirealarmfee:(1)First,second,andthirdpreventablealarmsN/cN/cN/c(2)Fourthandfifthpreventablealarmsinacalendaryear,$70.00$70.00$70.00feeispereachalarm.(3)Sixthpreventablealarmandsuccessivepreventable$150.00$150.00$150.00alarmsinacalendaryear,feeispereachalarm.(xi)LatePaymentPenalty$35.00$35.00$35.00b.FirePermittype:(i)Operationalfirecodepermit(issuedinaccordancewith$84.00$84.00$84.00Section105.6ofthelFc)feeisyearly(ii)HazardousmaterialsandHPMfacilitiesyearly$150.00$150.00$150.00(Hi)constructionpermit;20%oftheaboveplanreview/inspectionfeeorminimumof$50.00,whicheverisgreater(iv)Replacementforlostpermit,pereach$35.00$35.00$35.00(v)Hazardousproductionmaterialspermit(forbusinesses$150.00$150.00$150.00storing,handling,orusinghazardousproductionmaterialsasregulatedinthefirecode)permitisyearly(vi)Undergroundtankremovalpermit(commercial)SeeFireplanSeeFireplanSeeFireplanreviewandreviewandreviewandconstructionconstructionconstructionpermitfeespermitfeespermitfees198c. - 2015-16 Amended Fee Schedule (See 7.a.)Page 468 of 517 ReturntotheTableofContentsCityofRentonFeeScheduleTYPEOFFEES___ _ __ _ ___ _ _ _ __ _ ___ _ _ _ _ ___ _201420152016(vii)Undergroundtankremovalorabandonment-in-placepermit$84.00$84.00$84.00residential)5.TechnologySurchargeFeeAnadditional3%technologysurchargeshallberequiredforallfeesincludedinthefollowingSubsectionsofSectionDD,DevelopmentFees,oftheCityofRentonFeeScheduleBrochure:Subsection1,BuildingFees;Subsection2,LandUseReviewFees,exceptforappealsanddirectEIScosts;Subsectionsa,e,fandhofsubsection3,PublicWorksFees;andSubsectionaofsubsection4,FireDepartmentCommunityRiskReductionFees6.ImpactFeesa.SchoolImpactFees:(i)lssaquahSchoolDistrict(1)SingleFamilyFee$5,730.00$4,560.00TBD(2)MultiFamily,Duplex,&AccessoryDwellingFee(ADU)N/A$1,458.00TBD(ii)KentSchoolDistrict(1)SingleFamilyFee$5,486.00$5,486.00TBD(2)MultiFamily,Duplex,&AccessoryDwellingFee(ADu)$3,378.00$3,378.00TBD(iii)RentonSchoolDistrict(1)SingleFamilyFee$5,455.00$5,541.00TBD(2)MultiFamily,Duplex,&AccessoryDwellingFee(ADu)$1,339.00$1,360.00TBDb.TransportationImpactFees:(i)LightIndustrial,persqfoot$1.54$2.63$3.59(ii)Manufacturing,persqfoot$1.09$1.95$2.78(iii)Mini-warehouse,persqfoot$0.40$0.70$0.99(iv)Singlefamilyhouse,perdwelling$1,430.72$2,214.44$2,951.17(v)Apartment,perdwelling&AccessoryDwellingUnit(ADU)$953.25$1,454.20$1,923.83(vi)condominium&Duplexesperdwelling$789.44$1,180.8451,546.31(vii)Mobilehome,perdwelling$786.06$1,237.40$1,662.92(viii)Seniorhousing-attached,perdwelling$309.65$352.31$384.76(ix)Hotel,petroom$1,038.59$1,512.77$1,952.79(x)Motel,perroom$783.44$1,182.39$1,555.62lxi)Marina,perboatberth$301.77$394.13$476.56(xii)Movietheater,persqfoot$2.16$4.16$6.09(xUi)Health/fitnessclub,persqfoot$3.86$5.41$6.85(xiv)Highschool,persqfoot$1.29$1.67$2.00(xv)Church,persqfoot$1.00$1.37$1.70(xvi)Hospital,persqfoot$1.80$2.44$3.02(xvii)Nursinghome,perbed$278.19$391.14$494.92(xviii)Generaloffice,persqfoot$2.20$3.59$5.10(xix)Medicaloffice,persqfoot$4.84$7.20$9.39(xx)Shoppingcenter,persqfoot$3.22$3.33$3.33(xxi)Restaurant:sit-down,persqfoot$10.10$11.00$11.58(xxii)Fastfood,nodrive-up,persqfoot$21.93$22.65$22.65(xxiii)Fastfood,withdrive-up,persqfoot$26.78$27.66$27.66(xxiv)Gasstation,perpump$7,777.11$8,033.75$8,033.75(xxv)Gasstationwithconveniencestore,perpump$8,314.34$8,588.71$8,582.71(xxvi)Supermarket,persqfoot$8.93$10.53$11.83(xxvt)Conveniencemarket-24hour,persqfoot$25.98$26.84$26.84)xxvti)Drive-inbank,persqfoot$12.98$15.33$17.26c.ParkImpactFees:(i)Singlefamily$963.01$1,441.29$1,827.94(H)Multi-family:2units,Duplexes,&AccessorySwellingunit(ADU)$848.34$1,204.40$1,532.56(iii)Multi-family:3or4units$705.95$1,094.35$1,458.52(iv)Multi-family:5ormoreunits$649.52$975.90$1,280.84(v)Mobilehome$558.73$1,015.38$1,340.06208c. - 2015-16 Amended Fee Schedule (See 7.a.)Page 469 of 517 ReturntotheTableofContentsCityofRentonFeeScheduleTYPEOFFEES201420152016U.FireImpactFees:(i)Residential-singlefamily(detacheddwellings&duplexes)$479.28$495.10$495.10(ii)Residential-multifamily&AccessoryDwellingUnit(ADU)$418.42$463.66$495.10(iii)Hotel/motel/resort$0.56$0.61$0.65(iv)Medicalcarefacility$2.14$3.88$5.56(v)Office$0.14$0.14$0.14(vi)Medical/dentaloffice$0.63$0.75$0.87(vii)Retail$0.54$0.58$0.61(viii)Leisurefacilities$0.79$1.08$1.36(ix)Restaurant/lounge$0.94$1.40$1.84(x)Industrial/manufacturing$0.08$0.08$0.08(xi)Church/non-profit$0.24$0.25$0.25(xii)Education$0.44$0.45$0.45(xiii)Specialpublicfacilities$1.42$2.40$3.33*ti)..(u)isperunit*liiiltxiiilisnersausrefootSECTIONXIII.EMERGENCYSERVICES(effectivedateisdeferreduntilfurthernotice)BasicLifeSupportEmergencyMedicalServicesTransportUserFeea.BasicFee$600.00$600.00$600.00b.Permilechargeonalltransports218c. - 2015-16 Amended Fee Schedule (See 7.a.)Page 470 of 517 CITY OF RENTON, WASHINGTON LIMITED TAX GENERAL OBLIGATION REFUNDING BONDS, SERIES 2015 ORDINANCE NO. _______ AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF RENTON, WASHINGTON, PROVIDING FOR THE ISSUANCE OF ONE OR MORE SERIES OF LIMITED TAX GENERAL OBLIGATION REFUNDING BONDS OF THE CITY IN THE AGGREGATE PRINCIPAL AMOUNT OF NOT TO EXCEED $14,000,000 TO REFUND CERTAIN OUTSTANDING LIMITED TAX GENERAL OBLIGATION BONDS AND TO PAY COSTS OF ISSUING THE BONDS; AND DELEGATING THE AUTHORITY TO APPROVE THE FINAL TERMS OF THE BONDS. PASSED: April 13, 2015 PREPARED BY: PACIFICA LAW GROUP LLP Seattle, Washington 8a. - Refunding 2006 Limited Tax General Obligation Bonds (See 7.a.)Page 471 of 517 ORDINANCE NO. ____ -i-03/18/15 TABLE OF CONTENTS* Page Section 1.Definitions and Interpretation of Terms..................................................................2 Section 2.Authorization of Bonds and Bond Details................................................................8 Section 3.Registration, Exchange and Payments.....................................................................8 Section 4.Redemption Prior to Maturity and Purchase of Bonds .........................................14 Section 5.Form of Bonds........................................................................................................18 Section 6.Execution of Bonds ................................................................................................20 Section 7.Refunding Plan; Application of Bond Proceeds .....................................................21 Section 8.Tax Covenants ........................................................................................................23 Section 9.Bond Fund and Provision for Tax Levy Payments ..................................................26 Section 10.Defeasance.............................................................................................................27 Section 11.Sale of Bonds..........................................................................................................28 Section 12.Undertaking to Provide Ongoing Disclosure..........................................................30 Section 13.Lost, Stolen or Destroyed Bonds............................................................................35 Section 14.Severability; Ratification ........................................................................................35 Section 15.Effective Date of Ordinance...................................................................................36 * This Table of Contents is provided for convenience only and is not a part of this ordinance. 8a. - Refunding 2006 Limited Tax General Obligation Bonds (See 7.a.)Page 472 of 517 CITY OF RENTON, WASHINGTON ORDINANCE NO. _______ AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF RENTON, WASHINGTON, PROVIDING FOR THE ISSUANCE OF ONE OR MORE SERIES OF LIMITED TAX GENERAL OBLIGATION REFUNDING BONDS OF THE CITY IN THE AGGREGATE PRINCIPAL AMOUNT OF NOT TO EXCEED $14,000,000 TO REFUND CERTAIN OUTSTANDING LIMITED TAX GENERAL OBLIGATION BONDS AND TO PAY COSTS OF ISSUING THE BONDS; AND DELEGATING THE AUTHORITY TO APPROVE THE FINAL TERMS OF THE BONDS. WHEREAS, the City of Renton, Washington (the “City”), has outstanding its Limited Tax General Obligation Bonds, 2006, issued on August 8, 2006, pursuant to Ordinance No. 5215 adopted by the City Council (the “Council”) of the City on July 17, 2006 (the “2006 Bond Ordinance”), which remain outstanding as follows: Maturity Dates (December 1)Principal Amounts Interest Rates 2015 $ 700,000 5.25 % 2016 750,000 4.30 2017 775,000 5.00 2019*1,670,000 5.00 2020 900,000 5.00 2021 945,000 5.00 2022 1,000,000 5.25 2023 1,040,000 5.25 2024 1,095,000 5.25 2028*4,975,000 5.00 * Term Bonds. (the “2006 Bonds”); and WHEREAS, the 2006 Bond Ordinance provides that the City may call the 2006 Bonds maturing on or after December 1, 2017 (the “Refunding Candidates”), for redemption on or 8a. - Refunding 2006 Limited Tax General Obligation Bonds (See 7.a.)Page 473 of 517 -2-03/18/15 after December 1, 2016, in whole or in part on any date, at the price of par plus accrued interest, if any, to the date of redemption; and WHEREAS, after due consideration it appears that all or a portion of the Refunding Candidates (the “Refunded Bonds”) may be defeased and refunded by the proceeds of limited tax general obligation bonds at a savings to the City and its taxpayers; and WHEREAS, the Council deems it in the best interest of the City to issue one or more series of limited tax general obligation refunding bonds in the aggregate principal amount of not to exceed $14,000,000 (the “Bonds”) to redeem and defease the Refunded Bonds and to pay costs of issuing the Bonds; and WHEREAS, the Council wishes to delegate authority to the Mayor, Chief Administrative Officer and Finance Director (each, a “Designated Representative”), for a limited time, to approve the interest rates, maturity dates, redemption terms and principal maturities for the Bonds within the parameters set by this ordinance, in order to effect such a refinancing; and WHEREAS, the City expects to receive a proposal from Piper Jaffray & Co. (the “Underwriter”) to underwrite the Bonds, and now desires to issue and sell the Bonds to the Underwriter as set forth herein; NOW, THEREFORE, THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF RENTON, WASHINGTON, DOES ORDAIN AS FOLLOWS: Section 1.Definitions and Interpretation of Terms. (a)Definitions.As used in this ordinance, the following words shall have the following meanings: Acquired Obligations means the Government Obligations acquired by the City under the 8a. - Refunding 2006 Limited Tax General Obligation Bonds (See 7.a.)Page 474 of 517 -3-03/18/15 terms of this ordinance and the Escrow Agreement to effect the defeasance and refunding of the Refunded Bonds. Beneficial Owner means any person that has or shares the power, directly or indirectly to make investment decisions concerning ownership of any Bonds (including persons holding Bonds through nominees, depositories or other intermediaries). Bond Fund means the “City of Renton Limited Tax General Obligation Bond Debt Service Fund, 2015” authorized to be created pursuant to Section 9. Bond Purchase Contract means the contract for the purchase of the Bonds between the Underwriter and City, executed pursuant to Section 11. Bond Register means the registration books showing the name, address and tax identification number of each Registered Owner of the Bonds, maintained for the Bonds in the manner required pursuant to Section 149(a) of the Code. Bond Registrar means, initially, the fiscal agent of the State of Washington, for the purposes of registering and authenticating the Bonds, maintaining the Bond Register, effecting transfer of ownership of the Bonds and paying interest on and principal of the Bonds. Bond Year means each one-year period that ends on the date selected by the City. The first and last Bond Years may be short periods. If no day is selected by the City before the earlier of the final maturity date of the Bonds or the date that is five years after the date of issuance of the Bonds, Bond Years end on each anniversary of the date of issue and on the final maturity date of the Bonds. Bonds mean the not to exceed $14,000,000 aggregate principal amount of City of Renton, Washington, Limited Tax General Obligation Refunding Bonds, Series 2015[___], or 8a. - Refunding 2006 Limited Tax General Obligation Bonds (See 7.a.)Page 475 of 517 -4-03/18/15 other series designation as approved by a Designated Representative, issued pursuant to this ordinance. Call Date means December 1, 2016. City means the City of Renton, Washington, a municipal corporation duly organized and existing by virtue of the laws of the State of Washington. Code means the Internal Revenue Code of 1986, as amended, and shall include all applicable regulations and rulings relating thereto. Commission means the Securities and Exchange Commission. Council means the City Council as the general legislative authority of the City, as duly and regularly constituted from time to time. Designated Representative means the Mayor, the Chief Administrative Officer and the Finance Director of the City, and any successor to the functions of such offices. The signature of one Designated Representative shall be sufficient to bind the City. DTC means The Depository Trust Company, New York, New York, a limited purpose trust company organized under the laws of the State of New York, as depository for the Bonds pursuant to Section 3. Escrow Agent means U.S. Bank National Association, Seattle, Washington. Escrow Agreement means the Escrow Deposit Agreement between the City and the Escrow Agent, executed pursuant to Section 7. Federal Tax Certificate means the certificate executed by a Designated Representative setting forth the requirements of the Code for maintaining the tax exemption of interest on any series of Tax-Exempt Bonds, and attachments thereto. 8a. - Refunding 2006 Limited Tax General Obligation Bonds (See 7.a.)Page 476 of 517 -5-03/18/15 Finance Director shall mean the City’s Finance and Information Services Administrator or the successor to such officer. Government Obligations mean those obligations now or hereafter defined as such in chapter 39.53 RCW. Letter of Representations means the blanket issuer letter of representations from the City to DTC. MSRB means the Municipal Securities Rulemaking Board or any successors to its functions. Net Proceeds, when used with reference to any series of Tax-Exempt Bonds, mean the principal amount of such Tax-Exempt Bonds, plus accrued interest and original issue premium, if any, and less original issue discount, if any. Private Person means any natural person engaged in a trade or business or any trust, estate, partnership, association, company or corporation. Private Person Use means the use of property in a trade or business by a Private Person if such use is other than as a member of the general public. Private Person Use includes ownership of the property by the Private Person as well as other arrangements that transfer to the Private Person the actual or beneficial use of the property (such as a lease, management or incentive payment contract or other special arrangement) in such a manner as to set the Private Person apart from the general public. Use of property as a member of the general public includes attendance by the Private Person at municipal meetings or business rental of property to the Private Person on a day-to-day basis if the rental paid by such Private Person is the same as the rental paid by any Private Person who desires to rent the property. Use of 8a. - Refunding 2006 Limited Tax General Obligation Bonds (See 7.a.)Page 477 of 517 -6-03/18/15 property by nonprofit community groups or community recreational groups is not treated as Private Person Use if such use is incidental to the governmental uses of property, the property is made available for such use by all such community groups on an equal basis and such community groups are charged only a de minimis fee to cover custodial expenses. Refunded Bonds mean those Refunding Candidates designated by a Designated Representative for refunding pursuant to Section 7 and Section 11. Refunding Account means the account by that name established pursuant to Section 7. Refunding Candidates mean the 2006 Bonds maturing on or after December 1, 2017, as shown in the recitals to this ordinance. Registered Owner means the person named as the registered owner of a Bond in the Bond Register. For so long as the Bonds are held in book-entry only form, DTC shall be deemed to be the sole Registered Owner. Rule means the Commission’s Rule 15c2-12 under the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as the same may be amended from time to time. Taxable Bonds means any Bonds determined to be issued on a taxable basis pursuant to Section 11. Tax-Exempt Bonds means any Bonds determined to be issued on a tax-exempt basis under the Code pursuant to Section 11. 2006 Bond Ordinance means Ordinance No. 5215 adopted by the Council on July 17, 2006, authorizing the issuance of the 2006 Bonds. 8a. - Refunding 2006 Limited Tax General Obligation Bonds (See 7.a.)Page 478 of 517 -7-03/18/15 2006 Bonds mean the Limited Tax General Obligation Bonds, 2006 of the City, issued on August 8, 2006, pursuant to the 2006 Bond Ordinance as described in the recitals of this ordinance. Underwriter means Piper Jaffray & Co. (b)Interpretation. In this ordinance, unless the context otherwise requires: (1)The terms “hereby,” “hereof,” “hereto,” “herein,” “hereunder” and any similar terms, as used in this ordinance, refer to this ordinance as a whole and not to any particular article, section, subdivision or clause hereof, and the term “hereafter” shall mean after, and the term “heretofore” shall mean before, the date of this ordinance; (2)Words of the masculine gender shall mean and include correlative words of the feminine and neutral genders and words importing the singular number shall mean and include the plural number and vice versa; (3)Words importing persons shall include firms, associations, partnerships (including limited partnerships), trusts, corporations and other legal entities, including public bodies, as well as natural persons; (4)Any headings preceding the text of the several articles and sections of this ordinance, and any table of contents or marginal notes appended to copies hereof, shall be solely for convenience of reference and shall not constitute a part of this ordinance, nor shall they affect its meaning, construction or effect; and (5)All references herein to “articles,” “sections” and other subdivisions or clauses are to the corresponding articles, sections, subdivisions or clauses hereof. 8a. - Refunding 2006 Limited Tax General Obligation Bonds (See 7.a.)Page 479 of 517 -8-03/18/15 Section 2.Authorization of Bonds and Bond Details. For the purpose of refunding the Refunded Bonds and paying costs of issuance of the Bonds, the City is hereby authorized to issue and sell one or more series of limited tax general obligation refunding bonds in the aggregate principal amount of not to exceed $14,000,000 (the “Bonds”). The Bonds shall be general obligations of the City, shall be designated “City of Renton, Washington, Limited Tax General Obligation Refunding Bonds, Series 2015[___]” or other such designation as set forth in the Bond Purchase Contract and approved by a Designated Representative. The Bonds of a series shall be dated as of their date of initial delivery; shall be fully registered as to both principal and interest; shall be in the denomination of $5,000 each, or any integral multiple thereof, within a maturity; shall be numbered separately in such manner and with any additional designation as the Bond Registrar deems necessary for purposes of identification; and shall bear interest payable on the dates set forth in the Bond Purchase Contract; and shall mature on the dates and in the principal amounts set forth in the Bond Purchase Contract and as approved by a Designated Representative pursuant to Section 11. The Bonds of any of the maturities may be combined and issued as term bonds, subject to mandatory redemption as provided in the Bond Purchase Contract. Section 3.Registration, Exchange and Payments. (a)Bond Registrar/Bond Register. The City hereby specifies and adopts the system of registration approved by the Washington State Finance Committee from time to time through the appointment of a state fiscal agent. The City shall cause a bond register to be maintained by the Bond Registrar. So long as any Bonds remain outstanding, the Bond 8a. - Refunding 2006 Limited Tax General Obligation Bonds (See 7.a.)Page 480 of 517 -9-03/18/15 Registrar shall make all necessary provisions to permit the exchange or registration or transfer of Bonds at its designated corporate trust office. The Bond Registrar may be removed at any time at the option of the Finance Director upon prior notice to the Bond Registrar and a successor Bond Registrar appointed by the Finance Director. No resignation or removal of the Bond Registrar shall be effective until a successor shall have been appointed and until the successor Bond Registrar shall have accepted the duties of the Bond Registrar hereunder. The Bond Registrar is authorized, on behalf of the City, to authenticate and deliver Bonds transferred or exchanged in accordance with the provisions of such Bonds and this ordinance and to carry out all of the Bond Registrar’s powers and duties under this ordinance. The Bond Registrar shall be responsible for its representations contained in the Certificate of Authentication of the Bonds. (b)Registered Ownership. The City and the Bond Registrar, each in its discretion, may deem and treat the Registered Owner of each Bond as the absolute owner thereof for all purposes (except as provided in Section 12), and neither the City nor the Bond Registrar shall be affected by any notice to the contrary. Payment of any such Bond shall be made only as described in Section 3(h), but such Bond may be transferred as herein provided. All such payments made as described in Section 3(h) shall be valid and shall satisfy and discharge the liability of the City upon such Bond to the extent of the amount or amounts so paid. (c)DTC Acceptance/Letters of Representations. The Bonds initially shall be held in fully immobilized form by DTC acting as depository. To induce DTC to accept the Bonds as eligible for deposit at DTC, the City has executed and delivered to DTC a Blanket Issuer Letter of Representations. Neither the City nor the Bond Registrar will have any responsibility or 8a. - Refunding 2006 Limited Tax General Obligation Bonds (See 7.a.)Page 481 of 517 -10-03/18/15 obligation to DTC participants or the persons for whom they act as nominees (or any successor depository) with respect to the Bonds in respect of the accuracy of any records maintained by DTC (or any successor depository) or any DTC participant, the payment by DTC (or any successor depository) or any DTC participant of any amount in respect of the principal of or interest on Bonds, any notice which is permitted or required to be given to Registered Owners under this ordinance (except such notices as shall be required to be given by the City to the Bond Registrar or to DTC (or any successor depository)), or any consent given or other action taken by DTC (or any successor depository) as the Registered Owner. For so long as any Bonds are held in fully-immobilized form hereunder, DTC or its successor depository shall be deemed to be the Registered Owner for all purposes hereunder, and all references herein to the Registered Owners shall mean DTC (or any successor depository) or its nominee and shall not mean the owners of any beneficial interest in such Bonds. If any Bond shall be duly presented for payment and funds have not been duly provided by the City on such applicable date, then interest shall continue to accrue thereafter on the unpaid principal thereof at the rate stated on such Bond until it is paid. (d)Use of Depository. (1)The Bonds shall be registered initially in the name of “Cede & Co.”, as nominee of DTC, with one Bond maturing on each of the maturity dates for the Bonds within a series in a denomination corresponding to the total principal therein designated to mature on such date. Registered ownership of such immobilized Bonds, or any portions thereof, may not thereafter be transferred except (A) to any successor of DTC or its nominee, provided that any such successor shall be qualified under any applicable laws to provide the service proposed to 8a. - Refunding 2006 Limited Tax General Obligation Bonds (See 7.a.)Page 482 of 517 -11-03/18/15 be provided by it; (B) to any substitute depository appointed by the Finance Director pursuant to subsection (2) below or such substitute depository’s successor; or (C) to any person as provided in subsection (4) below. (2)Upon the resignation of DTC or its successor (or any substitute depository or its successor) from its functions as depository or a determination by the Finance Director to discontinue the system of book entry transfers through DTC or its successor (or any substitute depository or its successor), the Finance Director may hereafter appoint a substitute depository. Any such substitute depository shall be qualified under any applicable laws to provide the services proposed to be provided by it. (3)In the case of any transfer pursuant to clause (A) or (B) of subsection (1) above, the Bond Registrar shall, upon receipt of all outstanding Bonds of a series, together with a written request on behalf of the Finance Director, issue a single new Bond for each maturity of that series then outstanding, registered in the name of such successor or such substitute depository, or their nominees, as the case may be, all as specified in such written request of the Finance Director. (4)In the event that (A) DTC or its successor (or substitute depository or its successor) resigns from its functions as depository, and no substitute depository can be obtained, or (B) the Finance Director determines that it is in the best interest of the beneficial owners of the Bonds that such owners be able to obtain such Bonds in the form of Bond certificates, the ownership of such Bonds may then be transferred to any person or entity as herein provided, and shall no longer be held by a depository. The Finance Director shall deliver a written request to the Bond Registrar, together with a supply of physical Bonds, to issue 8a. - Refunding 2006 Limited Tax General Obligation Bonds (See 7.a.)Page 483 of 517 -12-03/18/15 Bonds as herein provided in any authorized denomination. Upon receipt by the Bond Registrar of all then outstanding Bonds together with a written request on behalf of the Finance Director to the Bond Registrar, new Bonds of such series shall be issued in the appropriate denominations and registered in the names of such persons as are requested in such written request. (e)Registration of Transfer of Ownership or Exchange; Change in Denominations. The transfer of any Bond may be registered and Bonds may be exchanged, but no transfer of any such Bond shall be valid unless it is surrendered to the Bond Registrar with the assignment form appearing on such Bond duly executed by the Registered Owner or such Registered Owner’s duly authorized agent in a manner satisfactory to the Bond Registrar. Upon such surrender, the Bond Registrar shall cancel the surrendered Bond and shall authenticate and deliver, without charge to the Registered Owner or transferee therefor, a new Bond (or Bonds at the option of the new Registered Owner) of the same date, series, maturity and interest rate and for the same aggregate principal amount in any authorized denomination, naming as Registered Owner the person or persons listed as the assignee on the assignment form appearing on the surrendered Bond, in exchange for such surrendered and cancelled Bond. Any Bond may be surrendered to the Bond Registrar and exchanged, without charge, for an equal aggregate principal amount of Bonds of the same date, series, maturity and interest rate, in any authorized denomination. The Bond Registrar shall not be obligated to register the transfer or to exchange any Bond during the 15 days preceding any interest payment or principal payment date any such Bond is to be redeemed. 8a. - Refunding 2006 Limited Tax General Obligation Bonds (See 7.a.)Page 484 of 517 -13-03/18/15 (f)Bond Registrar’s Ownership of Bonds. The Bond Registrar may become the Registered Owner of any Bond with the same rights it would have if it were not the Bond Registrar, and to the extent permitted by law, may act as depository for and permit any of its officers or directors to act as a member of, or in any other capacity with respect to, any committee formed to protect the right of the Registered Owners of Bonds. (g)Registration Covenant. The City covenants that, until all Bonds have been surrendered and canceled, it will maintain a system for recording the ownership of each Bond that complies with the provisions of Section 149 of the Code. (h)Place and Medium of Payment. Both principal of and interest on the Bonds shall be payable in lawful money of the United States of America. Interest on the Bonds shall be calculated on the basis of a year of 360 days and twelve 30-day months. For so long as all Bonds are held by a depository, payments of principal and interest thereon shall be made as provided in accordance with the operational arrangements of DTC referred to in the Letter of Representations. In the event that the Bonds are no longer held by a depository, interest on the Bonds shall be paid by check or draft mailed to the Registered Owners at the addresses for such Registered Owners appearing on the Bond Register on the fifteenth day of the month preceding the interest payment date, or upon the written request of a Registered Owner of more than $1,000,000 of Bonds (received by the Bond Registrar at least 15 days prior to the applicable payment date), such payment shall be made by the Bond Registrar by wire transfer to the account within the United States designated by the Registered Owner. Principal of the Bonds shall be payable upon presentation and surrender of such Bonds by the Registered Owners at the designated office of the Bond Registrar. 8a. - Refunding 2006 Limited Tax General Obligation Bonds (See 7.a.)Page 485 of 517 -14-03/18/15 If any Bond shall be duly presented for payment and funds have not been duly provided by the City on such applicable date, then interest shall continue to accrue thereafter on the unpaid principal thereof at the rate stated on such Bonds until it is paid. Section 4.Redemption Prior to Maturity and Purchase of Bonds. (a)Mandatory Redemption of Term Bonds and Optional Redemption, if any. The Bonds of a series shall be subject to optional redemption on the dates, at the prices and under the terms set forth in the Bond Purchase Contract approved by a Designated Representative pursuant to Section 11. The Bonds of a series shall be subject to mandatory redemption to the extent, if any, set forth in the Bond Purchase Contract and as approved by a Designated Representative pursuant to Section 11. (b)Purchase of Bonds. The City reserves the right to purchase any of the Bonds offered to it at any time at a price deemed reasonable by a Designated Representative. (c)Selection of Bonds for Redemption. For as long as the Bonds are held in book-entry only form, the selection of particular Bonds within a series and a maturity to be redeemed shall be made in accordance with the operational arrangements then in effect at DTC. If the Bonds are no longer held in uncertificated form, the selection of such Bonds to be redeemed and the surrender and reissuance thereof, as applicable, shall be made as provided in the following provisions of this subsection (c). If the City redeems at any one time fewer than all of the Bonds having the same maturity date within a series, the particular Bonds or portions of Bonds of such series and maturity to be redeemed shall be selected by lot (or in such manner determined by the Bond Registrar) in increments of $5,000. In the case of a Bond of a denomination greater than $5,000, the City and the Bond Registrar shall treat each Bond of 8a. - Refunding 2006 Limited Tax General Obligation Bonds (See 7.a.)Page 486 of 517 -15-03/18/15 such series as representing such number of separate Bonds each of the denomination of $5,000 as is obtained by dividing the actual principal amount of such Bond by $5,000. In the event that only a portion of the principal sum of a Bond is redeemed, upon surrender of such Bond at the designated office of the Bond Registrar there shall be issued to the Registered Owner, without charge therefor, for the then unredeemed balance of the principal sum thereof, at the option of the Registered Owner, a Bond or Bonds of like series, maturity and interest rate in any of the denominations herein authorized. (d)Notice of Redemption. (1)Official Notice. For so long as the Bonds are held in uncertificated form, notice of redemption (which notice may be conditional) shall be given in accordance with the operational arrangements of DTC as then in effect, and neither the City nor the Bond Registrar will provide any notice of redemption to any Beneficial Owners. Thereafter (if the Bonds are no longer held in uncertificated form), notice of redemption shall be given in the manner hereinafter provided. Unless waived by any owner of Bonds to be redeemed, official notice of any such redemption (which redemption may be conditioned by the Bond Registrar on the receipt of sufficient funds for redemption or otherwise) shall be given by the Bond Registrar on behalf of the City by mailing a copy of an official redemption notice by first class mail at least 20 days and not more than 60 days prior to the date fixed for redemption to the Registered Owner of the Bond or Bonds to be redeemed at the address shown on the Register or at such other address as is furnished in writing by such Registered Owner to the Bond Registrar. All official notices of redemption shall be dated and shall state: (A)the redemption date, 8a. - Refunding 2006 Limited Tax General Obligation Bonds (See 7.a.)Page 487 of 517 -16-03/18/15 (B)the redemption price, (C)if fewer than all outstanding Bonds are to be redeemed, the identification by series and maturity (and, in the case of partial redemption, the respective principal amounts) of the Bonds to be redeemed, (D)any conditions to redemption; (E)that (unless such notice is conditional) on the redemption date the redemption price will become due and payable upon each such Bond or portion thereof called for redemption, and that interest thereon shall cease to accrue from and after said date, and (F)the place where such Bonds are to be surrendered for payment of the redemption price, which place of payment shall be the designated office of the Bond Registrar. On or prior to any redemption date, unless any condition to such redemption has not been satisfied or waived or notice of such redemption has been rescinded, the City shall deposit with the Bond Registrar an amount of money sufficient to pay the redemption price of all the Bonds or portions of Bonds which are to be redeemed on that date. The City retains the right to rescind any redemption notice and the related optional redemption of Bonds by giving notice of rescission to the affected registered owners at any time on or prior to the scheduled redemption date. Any notice of optional redemption that is so rescinded shall be of no effect, and the Bonds for which the notice of optional redemption has been rescinded shall remain outstanding. 8a. - Refunding 2006 Limited Tax General Obligation Bonds (See 7.a.)Page 488 of 517 -17-03/18/15 (2)Effect of Notice; Bonds Due. If an unconditional notice of redemption has been given and not rescinded, or if the conditions set forth in a conditional notice of redemption have been satisfied or waived, the Bonds or portions of Bonds to be redeemed shall, on the redemption date, become due and payable at the redemption price therein specified, and, if the Bond Registrar then holds sufficient funds to pay such Bonds at the redemption price, then from and after such date such Bonds or portions of Bonds shall cease to bear interest. Upon surrender of such Bonds for redemption in accordance with said notice, such Bonds shall be paid by the Bond Registrar at the redemption price. Installments of interest due on or prior to the redemption date shall be payable as herein provided for payment of interest. All Bonds which have been redeemed shall be canceled by the Bond Registrar and shall not be reissued. (3)Additional Notice. In addition to the foregoing notice, further notice shall be given by the City as set out below, but no defect in said further notice nor any failure to give all or any portion of such further notice shall in any manner defeat the effectiveness of a call for redemption if notice thereof is given as above prescribed. Each further notice of redemption given hereunder shall contain the information required above for an official notice of redemption plus (A) the CUSIP numbers of all Bonds being redeemed; (B) the date of issue of the Bonds as originally issued; (C) the rate of interest borne by each Bond being redeemed; (D) the series and maturity date of each Bond being redeemed; and (E) any other descriptive information needed to identify accurately the Bonds being redeemed. Each further notice of redemption may be sent at least 20 days before the redemption date to each party entitled to receive notice pursuant to Section 12 and with such additional information as the City shall 8a. - Refunding 2006 Limited Tax General Obligation Bonds (See 7.a.)Page 489 of 517 -18-03/18/15 deem appropriate, but such mailings shall not be a condition precedent to the redemption of such Bonds. (4)Amendment of Notice Provisions. The foregoing notice provisions of this Section 4, including but not limited to the information to be included in redemption notices and the persons designated to receive notices, may be amended by additions, deletions and changes in order to maintain compliance with duly promulgated regulations and recommendations regarding notices of redemption of municipal securities. Section 5.Form of Bonds. The Bonds shall be in substantially the following form: UNITED STATES OF AMERICA NO. $ ___ STATE OF WASHINGTON CITY OF RENTON LIMITED TAX GENERAL OBLIGATION REFUNDING BOND, SERIES 2015[____] INTEREST RATE: %MATURITY DATE:CUSIP NO.: REGISTERED OWNER:CEDE & CO. PRINCIPAL AMOUNT: The City of Renton, Washington (the “City”), hereby acknowledges itself to owe and for value received promises to pay to the Registered Owner identified above, or registered assigns, on the Maturity Date identified above, the Principal Amount indicated above and to pay interest thereon from ___________, 2015, or the most recent date to which interest has been paid or duly provided for until payment of this bond at the Interest Rate set forth above, payable on ___________ 1, 2015, and semiannually thereafter on the first days of each succeeding ___________ and ___________. Both principal of and interest on this bond are payable in lawful money of the United States of America. The fiscal agent of the State of Washington has been appointed by the City as the authenticating agent, paying agent and registrar for the bonds of this issue (the “Bond Registrar”). For so long as the bonds of this issue are held in fully immobilized form, payments of principal and interest thereon shall be made as provided in accordance with the operational arrangements of The Depository Trust Company (“DTC”) referred to in the Blanket Issuer Letter of Representations (the “Letter of Representations”) from the City to DTC. 8a. - Refunding 2006 Limited Tax General Obligation Bonds (See 7.a.)Page 490 of 517 -19-03/18/15 The bonds of this issue are issued under and in accordance with the provisions of the Constitution and applicable statutes of the State of Washington and Ordinance No. _______ duly passed by the City Council on April 13, 2015 (the “Bond Ordinance”). Capitalized terms used in this bond have the meanings given such terms in the Bond Ordinance. This bond shall not be valid or become obligatory for any purpose or be entitled to any security or benefit under the Bond Ordinance until the Certificate of Authentication hereon shall have been manually signed by or on behalf of the Bond Registrar or its duly designated agent. This bond is one of an authorized issue of bonds of like series, date, tenor, rate of interest and date of maturity, except as to number and amount in the aggregate principal amount of $__________ and is issued pursuant to the Bond Ordinance to provide a portion of the funds necessary (a) to refund and defease certain limited tax general obligation bonds of the City, and (b) to pay costs of issuance. [Pursuant to the Bond Ordinance, the City has also authorized the issuance of its Limited Tax General Obligation Refunding Bonds, Series 2015[______] in the aggregate principal amount of $__________ for these purposes.] [The bonds of this issue are not subject to optional redemption.][The bonds of this issue are subject to redemption as provided in the Bond Ordinance and the Bond Purchase Contract.] The City hereby irrevocably covenants and agrees with the owner of this bond that it will include in its annual budget and levy taxes annually, within and as a part of the tax levy permitted to the City without a vote of the electorate, upon all the property subject to taxation in amounts sufficient, together with other money legally available therefor, to pay the principal of and interest on this bond as the same shall become due. The full faith, credit and resources of the City are hereby irrevocably pledged for the annual levy and collection of such taxes and the prompt payment of such principal and interest. [The bonds of this issue have [not] been designated by the City as “qualified tax-exempt obligations” for investment by financial institutions under Section 265(b) of the Code.] The pledge of tax levies for payment of principal of and interest on the bonds may be discharged prior to maturity of the bonds by making provision for the payment thereof on the terms and conditions set forth in the Bond Ordinance. It is hereby certified that all acts, conditions and things required by the Constitution and statutes of the State of Washington to exist and to have happened, been done and performed precedent to and in the issuance of this bond exist and have happened, been done and performed and that the issuance of this bond and the bonds of this issue does not violate any constitutional, statutory or other limitation upon the amount of bonded indebtedness that the City may incur. 8a. - Refunding 2006 Limited Tax General Obligation Bonds (See 7.a.)Page 491 of 517 -20-03/18/15 IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the City of Renton, Washington, has caused this bond to be executed by the manual or facsimile signatures of the Mayor and the City Clerk and the seal of the City imprinted, impressed or otherwise reproduced hereon as of this ____ day of ___________, 2015. [SEAL] CITY OF RENTON, WASHINGTON By /s/ manual or facsimile Mayor ATTEST: /s/ manual or facsimile City Clerk The Bond Registrar’s Certificate of Authentication on the Bonds shall be in substantially the following form: CERTIFICATE OF AUTHENTICATION This bond is one of the bonds described in the within-mentioned Bond Ordinance and is one of the Limited Tax General Obligation Refunding Bonds, Series 2015[____], of the City of Renton, Washington, dated ____________, 2015. WASHINGTON STATE FISCAL AGENT, as Bond Registrar By Section 6.Execution of Bonds. The Bonds shall be executed on behalf of the City with the manual or facsimile signatures of the Mayor and City Clerk of the City and the seal of the City shall be impressed, imprinted or otherwise reproduced thereon. Only such Bonds as shall bear thereon a Certificate of Authentication in the form hereinbefore recited, manually executed by the Bond Registrar, shall be valid or obligatory for any purpose or entitled to the benefits of this ordinance. Such Certificate of Authentication 8a. - Refunding 2006 Limited Tax General Obligation Bonds (See 7.a.)Page 492 of 517 -21-03/18/15 shall be conclusive evidence that the Bonds so authenticated have been duly executed, authenticated and delivered hereunder and are entitled to the benefits of this ordinance. In case either of the officers who shall have executed the Bonds shall cease to be an officer or officers of the City before the Bonds so signed shall have been authenticated or delivered by the Bond Registrar, or issued by the City, such Bonds may nevertheless be authenticated, delivered and issued and upon such authentication, delivery and issuance, shall be as binding upon the City as though those who signed the same had continued to be such officers of the City. Any Bond may be signed and attested on behalf of the City by such persons who at the date of the actual execution of such Bond, are the proper officers of the City, although at the original date of such Bond any such person shall not have been such officer of the City. Section 7.Refunding Plan; Application of Bond Proceeds. (a)Refunding Plan. For the purpose of realizing a debt service savings and benefiting the taxpayers of the City, the Council proposes to refund and defease the Refunded Bonds as set forth herein. The Refunded Bonds shall include all or a portion of the Refunding Candidates as designated by a Designated Representative and set forth in the Bond Purchase Contract. Proceeds of the Bonds and other available funds of the City shall be deposited with the Escrow Agent pursuant to the Escrow Agreement to be used immediately upon receipt thereof to defease the Refunded Bonds as authorized by the 2006 Bond Ordinance and to pay costs of issuance of the Bonds. The net proceeds deposited with the Escrow Agent shall be used to defease the Refunded Bonds and discharge the obligations thereon by the purchase of certain Government 8a. - Refunding 2006 Limited Tax General Obligation Bonds (See 7.a.)Page 493 of 517 -22-03/18/15 Obligations (which obligations so purchased, are herein called “Acquired Obligations”), bearing such interest and maturing as to principal and interest in such amounts and at such times which, together with any necessary beginning cash balance, will provide for the payment of: (1)interest on the Refunded Bonds due and payable on and prior to the Call Date; and (2) the redemption prices of the Refunded Bonds on the Call Date. Such Acquired Obligations shall be purchased at a yield not greater than the yield permitted by the Code and regulations relating to acquired obligations in connection with refunding bond issues. (b)Escrow Agent/Escrow Agreement. The City hereby appoints U.S. Bank National Association, Seattle, Washington, as the Escrow Agent for the Refunded Bonds (the “Escrow Agent”). A cash balance, if any, and the Acquired Obligations shall be deposited irrevocably with the Escrow Agent in an amount sufficient to defease the Refunded Bonds. The proceeds of the Bonds remaining after acquisition of the Acquired Obligations and provision for the necessary cash balance shall be utilized to pay expenses of the acquisition and safekeeping of the Acquired Obligations and expenses of the issuance of the Bonds. In order to carry out the purposes of this Section 7, each Designated Representative is authorized and directed to execute and deliver to the Escrow Agent the Escrow Agreement. (c)Call for Redemption of Refunded Bonds. The City hereby calls the Refunded Bonds for redemption on their Call Date in accordance with the provisions of the 2006 Bond Ordinance authorizing the redemption and retirement of the 2006 Bonds prior to their fixed 8a. - Refunding 2006 Limited Tax General Obligation Bonds (See 7.a.)Page 494 of 517 -23-03/18/15 maturities. Said defeasance and call for redemption of the Refunded Bonds shall be irrevocable after the issuance of the Bonds and delivery of the Acquired Obligations to the Escrow Agent. The Escrow Agent is hereby authorized and directed to provide for the giving of notices of the redemption of the Refunded Bonds in accordance with the applicable provisions of the 2006 Bond Ordinance. The costs of publication of such notices shall be an expense of the City. The Escrow Agent is hereby authorized and directed to pay to the Finance Director, or, at the direction of the Finance Director, to the paying agent for the Refunded Bonds, sums sufficient to pay, when due, the payments specified in this Section 7. All such sums shall be paid from the money and Acquired Obligations deposited with the Escrow Agent, and the income therefrom and proceeds thereof. All such sums so paid to said Finance Director shall be credited to the Refunding Account. All moneys and Acquired Obligations deposited with the Escrow Agent and any income therefrom shall be held, invested (but only at the direction of the Finance Director) and applied in accordance with the provisions of this ordinance and with the laws of the State of Washington for the benefit of the City and owners of the Refunded Bonds. The City will take such actions as are found necessary to see that all necessary and proper fees, compensation and expenses of the Escrow Agent for the Refunded Bonds shall be paid when due. Section 8.Tax Covenants. The City covenants that it will not take or permit to be taken on its behalf any action that would adversely affect the exemption from federal income taxation of the interest on the Tax-Exempt Bonds and will take or require to be taken such acts as may reasonably be within its ability and as may from time to time be required under 8a. - Refunding 2006 Limited Tax General Obligation Bonds (See 7.a.)Page 495 of 517 -24-03/18/15 applicable law to continue the exemption from federal income taxation of the interest on the Tax-Exempt Bonds. (a)Arbitrage Covenant. Without limiting the generality of the foregoing, the City covenants that it will not take any action or fail to take any action with respect to the proceeds of the sale of the Tax-Exempt Bonds or any other funds of the City which may be deemed to be proceeds of the Tax-Exempt Bonds pursuant to Section 148 of the Code and the regulations promulgated thereunder which, if such use had been reasonably expected on the dates of delivery of the Tax-Exempt Bonds to the initial purchasers thereof, would have caused the Tax- Exempt Bonds to be treated as “arbitrage bonds” within the meaning of such term as used in Section 148 of the Code. The City will comply with the requirements of Section 148 of the Code and the applicable regulations thereunder throughout the term of the Tax-Exempt Bonds. (b)Private Person Use Limitation for Bonds. The City covenants that for as long as the Tax-Exempt Bonds are outstanding, it will not permit: (1)More than 10% of the Net Proceeds of the Tax-Exempt Bonds to be allocated to any Private Person Use; and (2)More than 10% of the principal or interest payments on the Tax-Exempt Bonds in a Bond Year to be directly or indirectly: (A) secured by any interest in property used or to be used for any Private Person Use or secured by payments in respect of property used or to be used for any Private Person Use, or (B) derived from payments (whether or not made to the City) in respect of property, or borrowed money, used or to be used for any Private Person Use. 8a. - Refunding 2006 Limited Tax General Obligation Bonds (See 7.a.)Page 496 of 517 -25-03/18/15 The City further covenants that, if: (3)More than five percent of the Net Proceeds of the Tax-Exempt Bonds are allocable to any Private Person Use; and (4)More than five percent of the principal or interest payments on the Tax- Exempt Bonds in a Bond Year are (under the terms of this ordinance or any underlying arrangement) directly or indirectly: (A)secured by any interest in property used or to be used for any Private Person Use or secured by payments in respect of property used or to be used for any Private Person Use, or (B)derived from payments (whether or not made to the City) in respect of property, or borrowed money, used or to be used for any Private Person Use, then, (i) any Private Person Use of projects described in subsection (3) hereof or Private Person Use payments described in subsection (4) hereof that is in excess of the five percent limitations described in such subsections (3) or (4) will be for a Private Person Use that is related to the state or local governmental use of the projects refunded by the proceeds of the Tax-Exempt Bonds, and (ii) any Private Person Use will not exceed the amount of Net Proceeds of the Tax- Exempt Bonds allocable to the state or local governmental use portion of the projects to which the Private Person Use of such portion of projects refunded by the proceeds of the Tax-Exempt Bonds relate. The City further covenants that it will comply with any limitations on the use of the projects refunded by the proceeds of the Tax-Exempt Bonds by other than state and local governmental users that are necessary, in the opinion of its bond counsel, to preserve the tax exemption of the interest on the Tax-Exempt Bonds. 8a. - Refunding 2006 Limited Tax General Obligation Bonds (See 7.a.)Page 497 of 517 -26-03/18/15 (c)Modification of Tax Covenants. The covenants of this section are specified solely to assure the continued exemption from regular income taxation of the interest on the Tax- Exempt Bonds. To that end, the provisions of this section may be modified or eliminated without any requirement for formal amendment thereof upon receipt of an opinion of the City’s bond counsel that such modification or elimination will not adversely affect the tax exemption of interest on any Tax-Exempt Bonds. (d)Designation under Section 265(b). In the Federal Tax Certificate the City may designate any Tax-Exempt Bonds as “qualified tax-exempt obligations” under Section 265(b)(3) of the Code for investment by financial institutions if the City does not expect to issue more than $10,000,000 in qualifying tax-exempt obligations in calendar year 2015. Section 9.Bond Fund and Provision for Tax Levy Payments. The City hereby authorizes the creation of a fund to be used for the payment of debt service on the Bonds, designated as the “City of Renton Limited Tax General Obligation Bond Debt Service Fund, 2015” (the “Bond Fund”). No later than the date each payment of principal of or interest on the Bonds becomes due, the City shall transmit sufficient funds, from the Bond Fund or from other legally available sources, to the Bond Registrar for the payment of such principal or interest. Money in the Bond Fund may be invested in legal investments for City funds. The City hereby irrevocably covenants and agrees for as long as any of the Bonds are outstanding and unpaid that each year it will include in its budget and levy an ad valorem tax upon all the property within the City subject to taxation in an amount that will be sufficient, together with all other revenues and money of the City legally available for such purposes, to pay the principal of and interest on the Bonds when due. 8a. - Refunding 2006 Limited Tax General Obligation Bonds (See 7.a.)Page 498 of 517 -27-03/18/15 The City hereby irrevocably pledges that the annual tax provided for herein to be levied for the payment of such principal and interest shall be within and as a part of the tax levy permitted to cities without a vote of the people, and that a sufficient portion of each annual levy to be levied and collected by the City prior to the full payment of the principal of and interest on the Bonds will be and is hereby irrevocably set aside, pledged and appropriated for the payment of the principal of and interest on the Bonds. The full faith, credit and resources of the City are hereby irrevocably pledged for the annual levy and collection of said taxes and for the prompt payment of the principal of and interest on the Bonds when due. Section 10.Defeasance. In the event that the City, to effect the payment, retirement or redemption of any Bond, sets aside in the Bond Fund or in another special account, cash or noncallable Government Obligations, or any combination of cash and/or noncallable Government Obligations, in amounts and maturities which, together with the known earned income therefrom, are sufficient to redeem or pay and retire such Bond in accordance with its terms and to pay when due the interest and redemption premium, if any, thereon, and such cash and/or noncallable Government Obligations are irrevocably set aside and pledged for such purpose, then no further payments need be made into the Bond Fund for the payment of the principal of and interest on such Bond. The owner of a Bond so provided for shall cease to be entitled to any lien, benefit or security of this ordinance except the right to receive payment of principal, premium, if any, and interest from the Bond Fund or such special account, and such Bond shall be deemed to be not outstanding under this ordinance. 8a. - Refunding 2006 Limited Tax General Obligation Bonds (See 7.a.)Page 499 of 517 -28-03/18/15 The City shall give written notice of defeasance to the owners of all Bonds so provided for within 30 days of the defeasance and to each party entitled to receive notice in accordance with Section 12. Section 11.Sale of Bonds. (a)Bond Sale. The Bonds shall be sold at negotiated sale to the Underwriter pursuant to the terms of the Bond Purchase Contract. Market conditions are fluctuating and, as a result, the most favorable market conditions may occur on a day other than a regular meeting date of the Council. The Council has determined that it would be in the best interest of the City to delegate to the Designated Representatives for a limited time the authority to approve the final interest rates, aggregate principal amount, principal amounts of each maturity of the Bonds, whether to issue the Bonds in one or more series, whether to designate the Bonds (or the Bonds of a series) as Tax-Exempt or Taxable Bonds, whether to designate the Bonds of a series as “qualified tax-exempt obligations” under Section 265(b)(3) of the Code, selection of the Refunded Bonds, and redemption rights. Each Designated Representative is hereby authorized to determine whether to issue the Bonds in one or more series, whether to designate the Bonds (or the Bonds of a series) as Tax- Exempt or Taxable Bonds, whether to designate the Bonds of a series as “qualified tax-exempt obligations” under Section 265(b)(3) of the Code, and to approve the final interest rates, aggregate principal amount, principal amounts of each maturity of the Bonds, selection of the Refunded Bonds, and redemption rights for the Bonds in the manner provided hereafter so long as: 8a. - Refunding 2006 Limited Tax General Obligation Bonds (See 7.a.)Page 500 of 517 -29-03/18/15 (1) the aggregate principal amount of the Bonds does not exceed $14,000,000, (2) the final maturity date for the Bonds is no later than December 1, 2028, (3) the Bonds are sold (in the aggregate) at a price not less than 98% and not greater than 120%, (4) the Bonds are sold for a price that results in a minimum net present value debt service savings over the Refunded Bonds of 8.00%, (5) the true interest cost for the Bonds (in the aggregate) does not exceed 4.00%, and (6) the Bonds conform to all other terms of this ordinance. Subject to the terms and conditions set forth in this Section 11, the Designated Representatives are hereby authorized to execute the Bond Purchase Contract. The signature of one Designated Representative shall be sufficient to bind the City. Following the execution of the Bond Purchase Contract, a Designated Representative or the Finance Director shall provide a report to the Council describing the final terms of the Bonds approved pursuant to the authority delegated in this section. The authority granted to the Designated Representatives by this Section 11 shall expire 120 days after the effective date of this ordinance. If a Bond Purchase Contract for the Bonds has not been executed within 120 days after the effective date of this ordinance, the authorization for the issuance of the Bonds shall be rescinded, and the Bonds shall not be issued nor their sale approved unless such Bonds shall have been re-authorized by ordinance of the Council. The ordinance re-authorizing the issuance and sale of such Bonds may be in the form of a new ordinance repealing this 8a. - Refunding 2006 Limited Tax General Obligation Bonds (See 7.a.)Page 501 of 517 -30-03/18/15 ordinance in whole or in part or may be in the form of an amendatory ordinance approving a bond purchase contract or establishing terms and conditions for the authority delegated under this Section 11. (b)Delivery of Bonds; Documentation. Upon the passage and approval of this ordinance, the proper officials of the City, including the Designated Representatives, are authorized and directed to undertake all action necessary for the prompt execution and delivery of the Bonds to the Underwriter and further to execute all closing certificates and documents required to effect the closing and delivery of the Bonds in accordance with the terms of the Bond Purchase Contract. (c)Preliminary and Final Official Statements. The Finance Director is hereby authorized to ratify and to deem final the preliminary Official Statement relating to the Bonds for the purposes of the Rule. The Finance Director is further authorized to ratify and to approve for purposes of the Rule, on behalf of the City, the final Official Statement relating to the issuance and sale of the Bonds and the distribution of the final Official Statement pursuant thereto with such changes, if any, as may be deemed by her to be appropriate. Section 12.Undertaking to Provide Ongoing Disclosure. (a)Contract/Undertaking. This section constitutes the City’s written undertaking for the benefit of the owners, including Beneficial Owners, of the Bonds as required by Section (b)(5) of the Rule. (b)Financial Statements/Operating Data. The City agrees to provide or cause to be provided to the Municipal Securities Rulemaking Board (“MSRB”), the following annual financial 8a. - Refunding 2006 Limited Tax General Obligation Bonds (See 7.a.)Page 502 of 517 -31-03/18/15 information and operating data for the prior fiscal year (commencing in 2015 for the fiscal year ended December 31, 2014): (1)Annual financial statements, which statements may or may not be audited, showing ending fund balances for the City’s general fund prepared in accordance with the Budgeting Accounting and Reporting System prescribed by the Washington State Auditor pursuant to RCW 43.09.200 (or any successor statute) and generally of the type included in the official statement for the Bonds under the heading “Comparative Statement of Revenues, Expenditures and Changes in Fund Balances”; (2)The assessed valuation of taxable property in the City; (3)Ad valorem taxes due and percentage of taxes collected; (4)Property tax levy rate per $1,000 of assessed valuation; and (5)Outstanding general obligation debt of the City. Items (2)-(5) shall be required only to the extent that such information is not included in the annual financial statements. The information and data described above shall be provided on or before the end of nine months after the end of the City’s fiscal year. The City’s current fiscal year ends December 31. The City may adjust such fiscal year by providing written notice of the change of fiscal year to the MSRB. In lieu of providing such annual financial information and operating data, the City may cross-reference to other documents available to the public on the MSRB’s internet website or filed with the Commission. If not provided as part of the annual financial information discussed above, the City shall provide the City’s audited annual financial statement prepared in accordance with the 8a. - Refunding 2006 Limited Tax General Obligation Bonds (See 7.a.)Page 503 of 517 -32-03/18/15 Budgeting Accounting and Reporting System prescribed by the Washington State Auditor pursuant to RCW 43.09.200 (or any successor statute) when and if available to the MSRB. (c)Listed Events. The City agrees to provide or cause to be provided to the MSRB, in a timely manner not in excess of ten business days after the occurrence of the event, notice of the occurrence of any of the following events with respect to the Bonds: Principal and interest payment delinquencies; Non-payment related defaults, if material; Unscheduled draws on debt service reserves reflecting financial difficulties; Unscheduled draws on credit enhancements reflecting financial difficulties; Substitution of credit or liquidity providers, or their failure to perform; Adverse tax opinions, the issuance by the Internal Revenue Service of proposed or final determinations of taxability, Notices of Proposed Issue (IRS Form 5701- TEB) or other material notices or determinations with respect to the tax status of the Bonds, or other material events affecting the tax status of the Bonds; Modifications to the rights of Bondholders, if material; Optional, contingent or unscheduled Bond calls other than scheduled sinking fund redemptions for which notice is given pursuant to Exchange Act Release 34-23856, if material, and tender offers; Defeasances; Release, substitution, or sale of property securing repayment of the Bonds, if material; Rating changes; 8a. - Refunding 2006 Limited Tax General Obligation Bonds (See 7.a.)Page 504 of 517 -33-03/18/15 Bankruptcy, insolvency, receivership or similar event of the City; The consummation of a merger, consolidation, or acquisition involving the City or the sale of all or substantially all of the assets of the City, other than in the ordinary course of business, the entry into a definitive agreement to undertake such an action or the termination of a definitive agreement relating to any such actions, other than pursuant to its terms, if material; and Appointment of a successor or additional trustee or the change of name of a trustee, if material. (d)Format for Filings with the MSRB. All notices, financial information and operating data required by this undertaking to be provided to the MSRB must be in an electronic format as prescribed by the MSRB. All documents provided to the MSRB pursuant to this undertaking must be accompanied by identifying information as prescribed by the MSRB. (e)Notification Upon Failure to Provide Financial Data. The City agrees to provide or cause to be provided, in a timely manner, to the MSRB notice of its failure to provide the annual financial information described in Subsection (b) above on or prior to the date set forth in Subsection (b) above. (f)Termination/Modification. The City’s obligations to provide annual financial information and notices of certain listed events shall terminate upon the legal defeasance, prior redemption or payment in full of all of the Bonds. Any provision of this section shall be null and void if the City (1) obtains an opinion of nationally recognized bond counsel to the effect that the portion of the Rule that requires that provision is invalid, has been repealed retroactively or 8a. - Refunding 2006 Limited Tax General Obligation Bonds (See 7.a.)Page 505 of 517 -34-03/18/15 otherwise does not apply to the Bonds and (2) notifies the MSRB of such opinion and the cancellation of this section. The City may amend this section with an opinion of nationally recognized bond counsel in accordance with the Rule. In the event of any amendment of this section, the City shall describe such amendment in the next annual report, and shall include a narrative explanation of the reason for the amendment and its impact on the type (or in the case of a change of accounting principles, on the presentation) of financial information or operating data being presented by the City. In addition, if the amendment relates to the accounting principles to be followed in preparing financial statements, (A) notice of such change shall be given in the same manner as for a listed event under Subsection (c), and (B) the annual report for the year in which the change is made shall present a comparison (in narrative form and also, if feasible, in quantitative form) between the financial statements as prepared on the basis of the new accounting principles and those prepared on the basis of the former accounting principles. (g)Bond Owner’s Remedies Under This Section. The right of any bondowner or Beneficial Owner of Bonds to enforce the provisions of this section shall be limited to a right to obtain specific enforcement of the City’s obligations under this section, and any failure by the City to comply with the provisions of this undertaking shall not be an event of default with respect to the Bonds. (h)No Default. Except as otherwise disclosed in the City’s official statement relating to the Bonds, the City is not and has not been in default in the performance of its obligations of any prior undertaking for ongoing disclosure with respect to its obligations. 8a. - Refunding 2006 Limited Tax General Obligation Bonds (See 7.a.)Page 506 of 517 -35-03/18/15 Section 13.Lost, Stolen or Destroyed Bonds. In case any Bond or Bonds shall be lost, stolen or destroyed, the Bond Registrar may execute and deliver a new Bond or Bonds of like series, date, number and tenor to the Registered Owner thereof upon the Registered Owner’s paying the expenses and charges of the City and the Bond Registrar in connection therewith and upon his/her filing with the City evidence satisfactory to the City that such Bond was actually lost, stolen or destroyed and of his/her ownership thereof, and upon furnishing the City and/or the Bond Registrar with indemnity satisfactory to the City and the Bond Registrar. Section 14.Severability; Ratification. If any one or more of the covenants or agreements provided in this ordinance to be performed on the part of the City shall be declared by any court of competent jurisdiction to be contrary to law, then such covenant or covenants, agreement or agreements, shall be null and void and shall be deemed separable from the remaining covenants and agreements of this ordinance and shall in no way affect the validity of the other provisions of this ordinance or of the Bonds. All acts taken pursuant to the authority granted in this ordinance but prior to its effective date are hereby ratified and confirmed. Section 15.Effective Date of Ordinance. This ordinance shall go into effect thirty (30) days from the time of final passage as provided by law. PASSED BY THE CITY COUNCIL this 13th day of April, 2015. Jason A. Seth, CMC, City Clerk APPROVED BY THE MAYOR this 13th day of April, 2015. Denis Law, Mayor 8a. - Refunding 2006 Limited Tax General Obligation Bonds (See 7.a.)Page 507 of 517 -36-03/18/15 Approved as to form: Deanna Gregory Pacifica Law Group LLP Bond Counsel Date of Publication: ___________________ 8a. - Refunding 2006 Limited Tax General Obligation Bonds (See 7.a.)Page 508 of 517 CERTIFICATE I, the undersigned, City Clerk of the City Council of the City of Renton, Washington (the “City”), DO HEREBY CERTIFY: 1.The attached copy of Ordinance No. ____ (the “Ordinance”) is a full, true and correct copy of an ordinance duly passed at a regular meeting of the City Council of the City held at the regular meeting place thereof on April 13, 2015, as that ordinance appears on the minute book of the City; and the Ordinance will be in full force and effect thirty (30) days from the time of final passage as provided by law; and 2.A quorum of the members of the City Council was present throughout the meeting and a majority of those members present voted in the proper manner for the passage of the Ordinance. IN WITNESS WHEREOF, I have hereunto set my hand this 13th day of April, 2015. Jason A. Seth, CMC, City Clerk 8a. - Refunding 2006 Limited Tax General Obligation Bonds (See 7.a.)Page 509 of 517 CITYOFRENTON,WASHINGTONORDINANCENO.__________ANORDINANCEOFTHECITYOFRENTON,WASHINGTON,AMENDINGTHECITYOFRENTONFISCALYEARS2015/2016BIENNIALBUDGETASADOPTEDBYORDINANCENO.5737,INTHEAMOUNTOF$66,949,826.WHEREAS,onNovember3,2014,theCityCounciladoptedOrdinanceNo.5737approvingtheCityofRenton’s2015/2016BiennialBudget;andWHEREAS,fundsappropriatedin2014,butnotexpendedin2014duetocapitalprojectinterruptionsanddelaysininvoicepayments,needtobecarriedforwardandappropriatedforexpenditurein2015;andWHEREAS,minorcorrectionsandtherecognitionofgrants,contributionsandassociatedcostsandnewcostitemsnotincludedinthebudgetrequireadditionaladjustmentstothe2015/2016BiennialBudget;NOW,THEREFORE,THECITYCOUNCILOFTHECITYOFRENTON,WASHINGTON,DOESORDAINASFOLLOWS:SECTIONI.OrdinanceNo.5737establishingtheCityofRenton’s2015/2016BiennialBudgetisherebyamendedinthetotalamountof$66,949,826foranamendedtotalof$552,837,193overthebiennium.SECTIONII.The2015CarryForwardBudgetAdjustmentSummarybyFundisherebyattachedasExhibitAandthe2016AdjustedBudgetSummarybyFundisherebyattachedasExhibitB.DetailedlistsofadjustmentsareavailableforpublicreviewintheofficeoftheCityClerk,RentonCityHall.18b. - 2015 Carry Forward Budget Amendment (See 7.a.)Page 510 of 517 ORDINANCENO.SECTIONIII.Thisordinanceshallbeeffectiveuponitspassage,approval,andfive(5)daysafterpublication.PASSEDBYTHECITYCOUNCILthis______ _dayof__ __ __ _ __ __ _ __ __ _ __ _,2015.JasonA.Seth,CityClerkAPPROVEDBYTHEMAYORthis_______dayof_____________ __ _ _ _ ,2015.DenisLaw,MayorApprovedastoform:LawrenceJ.Warren,CityAttorneyDateofPublication:__ __ __ _ __ __ _ __ _ORD:1862:3/16/15:scr28b. - 2015 Carry Forward Budget Amendment (See 7.a.)Page 511 of 517 ORDINANCE NO. Exhibit A:2015 Carry Forward Budget Adjustment Summary by Fund BEGINNING FUND BALANCE REVENUES II EXPENDITURES ENDING FUND BALANCE Available 2015 Beg 2015 Ad]2015 2015 2015 2015 Ending Fund Reserved!Fund Fund Fund Bal Changes Fund Bal Budgeted Changes Ad]usted Budgeted Changes Ad]usted Balance Designated Balance 000 GENERAL 8,594,362 2,564,951 11,159,313 83,402,440 29,032 83,431,472 83,490,932 3,147,965 86,638,897 7,951,887 7,951,887 001 COMMUNITYSERVICES 2,022,533 445,170 2,467,703 12,284,640 194,280 12,478,920 12,284,640 323,716 12,608,356 2,338,267 2,338,267 003 STREETS 1,581,566 565,663 2,147,229 10,096,711 -10,096,711 10,096,711 167,000 10,263,711 1,980,229 1,980,229 004 COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENTBLOCK GRANT 10,197 64,754 74,951 307,462 155,446 462,908 293,358 155,446 448,804 89,055 89,0SS 005 MUSEUM 52,979 12,521 65,500 227,761 -227,761 227,761 -227,761 65,500 65,500 009 FARMERS MARKET 75,604 29,346 104,950 59,400 -S9,400 59,453 -59,453 104,897 (104,897)- 011 FIREANDEMERGENCYSVCHEALTh&WELLNESS 55,094 19,471 74,565 25,000 -25,000 25,000 -25,000 74,565 (74,565)- 21X GENERAL GOVERNMENT MISC DEBT SVC 1,115,674 355,397 1,471,071 6,463,588 -6,463,588 6,463,588 -6,463,588 1,471,071 -1,471,071 Total General Governmental Funds 13,508,009 4,057,273 17,565,282 112,867,002 378,758 113,245,760 112,941,443 3,794,127 116,735,570 14,075,471 (179,462)13,896,009 102 ARTERIAL STREETS 15,689 (804)14,885 640,000 -640,000 640,000 -640,000 14,885 14,885 108 LEASEDCITYPROPERTIES 368,261 (247,247)121,014 768,957 -768,957 663,403 -663,403 226,568 226,568 110 SPECIAL HOTEI-MOTELTAX 135,913 83,177 219,090 265,000 -265,000 245,000 38,942 283,942 200,148 200,148 125 ONEPERCENTFORART 92,771 8,609 101,380 15,000 -15,000 102,950 -102,950 13,430 13,430 127 CABLECOMMUNICA71ONS DEVELOPMENT 285,632 27,458 313,090 97,674 -97,674 97,674 20,000 117,674 293,090 293,090 135 SPRINGBROOK WETLANDS BANK 669,613 (338,691)330,922 ------330,922 330,922 303 COMMUNITYSERVICESIMPACTMIEGA11ON 1,110,618 127,982 1,238,600 $6,500 -86,500 ---1,325,100 1,325,100 304 FIREIMPACTMITIGATION $46,165 80,323 926,488 99,000 -99,000 250,000 -250,000 775,488 775,488 305 TRANSPORTA11ONIMPACTMI11GA11ON 749,185 95,463 844,648 216,500 -216,500 196,000 195,000 391,000 670,148 670,148 316 MUNICIPAL FACILI11ESCIP 446,689 4,047,297 4,493,986 3,344,000 1,374,145 4,718,145 3,366,000 5,552,715 8,918,715 293,416 293,416 317 CAPITAL IMPROVEMENT 1,434,436 2,625,282 4,059,718 13,167,628 5,515,664 18,683,292 14,274,630 7,722,774 22,063,404 679,606 )650,000’29,606 326 HOUSING OPPORTUNITY/ECO DLV REVOLVING 1,010,599 76,167 1,086,766 ----75,000 75,000 1,011,766 (1,000,000)11,766 336 NEW LIBRARYDEVELOPMENT 57,000 15,272,760 15,329,760 ----15,329,760 15,329,760 -- 402 AIRPORT OPERATIONS &CIP 233,478 573,343 806,821 2,651,020 13,945,868 16,596,888 2,260,529 14,209,398 16,469,927 933,782 (172,053)761,729 403 SOLID WASTE U11LIW 1,257,755 287,851 1,545,606 16,461,726 -16,461,726 16,675,139 -16,675,139 1,332,193 (400,000)932,193 404 GOLF COURSE SYSTEM &CAPITAL 111,691 (154,602)(42,911)2,655,383 -2,655,383 2,616,052 -2,616,052 (3,S80)r -(3,580) 405 WATER OPERATIONS &CAPITAL 11,030,050 4,842,044 15,872,094 16,272,634 -16,272,634 16,737,381 4,062,000 20,799,381 11,345,347 (2,830,093)8,515,254 406 WASTEWATER OPERATIONS &CAPITAL 7,631,115 3,274,284 10,905,399 27,126,439 1,491,423 28,617,862 26,326,798 3,900,000 30,226,798 9,296,463 (1,695,988)7,600,475 407 SURFACE WATER OPERATIONS &CAPITAL 3,113,930 4,690,291 7,804,221 11,999,966 5,244,602 17,244,568 11,746,980 9,450,000 21,196,980 3,851,809 (1,084,194)2,767,615 501 EQUIPMENTRENTAL 3,608,097 1,702,222 5,310,319 5,764,536 14,500 5,779,036 5,507,047 1,371,39S 6,878,442 4,210,913 4,210,913 502 INSURANCE 11,757,156 312,155 12,069,311 4,341,647 1,300,000 5,641,647 3,594,S78 -3,594,578 14,116,380 (13,852,973’263,407 503 INFORMAtiON SERVICES 843,690 1,072,358 1,916,048 4,631,231 -4,631,231 4,641,865 965,000 5,606,865 940,414 940,414 504 FACILITIES 706,922 447,167 1,154,089 4,922,003 32,322 4,954,325 4,918,001 197,715 5,115,716 992,698 992,698 SOS COMMUNICATIONS 327,742 56,227 383,969 992,431 -992,431 991,430 -991,430 384,970 384,970 512 HEALThCARE INSURANCE 6,420,432 255,073 6,675,505 12,954,736 -12,954,736 13,424,573 -13,424,573 6,205,668 (4,027,372)2,178,296 522 LEOFF1 RETIREES HEALTHCARE 7,221,225 490,638 7,711,863 1,639,699 631,735 2,271,434 1,115,744 -1,115,744 8,867,553 (223,149)8,644,404 611 FIREMENS PENSION 4,907,478 133,504 5,040,982 468,000 -468,000 210,475 -210,475 5,298,507 (5,298,507)- Total Other Funds 66,393,332 39,840,331 106,233,663 131,581,710 29,550,259 161,131,969 130,602,249 63,155,699 193,757,948 73,607,684 (31,234,329)42,373,355 TOTAL ALL FUNDS 79,901,341 43,897,604 123,798,945 244,448,712 29,929,017 274,377,729 243,543,692 66,949,826 310,493,518 87,683,155 (31,413,791)56,269,364 38b. - 2015 Carry Forward Budget Amendment (See 7.a.)Page 512 of 517 ORDINANCE NO. Exhibit B:2016 Adjusted Budget Summary by Fund II BEGINNING FUND BALANCE REVENUES I EXPENDITURES I ENDING FUND BALANCE 2016 2016 2016 2016 Available 2016 Beg 2016 Adj.Budgeted Adjusted Budgeted Adjusted Ending Fund Reserved!Fund Fund Fund Bal Changes Fund Bal Revenue Changes Revenue Expenditure Changes Expenditure Balance Designated Balance 000 GENERAL 8,505,869 (553,982)7,951,887 86,749,334 -86,749,334 86,757,519 -86,757,519 7,943,702 7,943,702 001 COMMUNITY SERVICES 2,022,533 315,734 2,338,267 12,727,828 -12,727,828 12,727,828 -12,727,828 2,338,267 2,338,267 003 SThEEtS 1,581,566 398,663 1,980,229 10,447,984 -10,447,984 10,447,984 -10,447,984 1,980,229 1,980,229 004 COMMUNITDEVELOPMENTBLOCKGRANT 24,301 64,754 89,055 307,462 -307,462 295,986 -295,986 100,531 100,531 005 MUSEUM 52,979 12,521 65,500 235,281 -235,281 235,281 -235,281 65,500 65,500 009 FARMERSMARKEt 75,551 29,346 104,897 59,400 -59,400 63,315 -63,315 100,982 (100,982)- 011 FIREANDEMERGENCYSVCHEALTh&WECINESS 55,094 19,471 74,565 25,000 -25,000 25,000 -25,000 74,565 (74,565)- 21X GENERAL GOVERNMENT MISC DEBT SVC 1,115,674 355,397 1,471,071 6,248,676 -6,248,676 6,248,676 -6,248,676 1,471,071 -1,471,071 Total General Governmental Funds 13,433,567 641,904 14,075,471 116,800,965 -116,800,965 116,801,589 -116,801,589 14,074,847 (175,547)13,899,299 102 ARTERIALSTREEtS 15,689 (804)14,885 650,000 -650,000 650,000 -650,000 14,885 14,885 108 LEASED CIWPROPERflES 473,815 (247,247)226,568 768,957 -768,957 671,979 -671,979 323,546 323,546 110 SPECIAL HOTEL-MOTELTAX 155,913 44,235 200,148 265,000 -265,000 265,000 -265,000 200,148 200,148 125 ONEPERCENTFORART 4,821 8,609 13,430 15,000 -15,000 ---28,430 28,430 127 CABLECOMMUNICATIONSDEVELOPMENT 285,632 7,458 293,090 97,674 -97,674 97,674 -97,674 293,090 293,090 135 SPRINGBROOKWETLANDS BANK 669,613 (338,691)330,922 ------330,922 330,922 303 COMMUNITYSERVICESIMPACTMIflGA11ON 1,197,118 127,982 1,325,100 86,500 -86,500 ---1,411,600 1,411,600 304 FIREIMPACTMITIGATION 695,165 80,323 775,488 99,000 -99,000 250,000 -250,000 624,488 624,488 305 TRANSPORTAnONIMPACTMIflGAflON 769,685 (99,537)670,148 216,500 216,500 ---886,648 886,648 316 MUNICIPAL FACILITIESCIP 424,689 (131,273)293,416 5,103,000 -5,103,000 5,392,000 -5,392,000 4,416 4,416 317 CAPITAL IMPROVEMENT 327,434 352,172 679,606 6,582,000 -6,582,000 6,831,590 -6,831,590 430,016 (4O0,000’30,016 326 HOUSINGOPPORTUNIW/ECODEVREVOLVING 1,010,599 1,167 1,011,766 ------1,011,766 (1,000,000)11,766 336 NEW LIBRARYDEVELOPMENT 57,000 (57,000)--------- 402 AIRPORT OPERATIONS &CIP 623,969 309,813 933,782 3,473,293 -3,473,293 3,786,185 -3,786,185 620,890 (177,896)442,994 403 SOLID WASTEU11LFTY 1,044,342 287,851 1,332,193 16,514,320 -16,514,320 17,144,532 -17,144,532 701,980 (400,000)301,980 404 GOLF COURSE SYSTEM &CAPITAL 151,022 (154,602)(3,580)2,812,793 -2,812,793 2,303,479 -2,303,479 505,735 (306,592)199,143 405 WATER OPERATIONS &CAPITAL 10,565,303 780,044 11,345,347 16,308,371 -16,308,371 17,894,664 -17,894,664 9,759,055 (2,864,594)6,894,461 406 WASTEWATER OPERATIONS &CAPITAL 8,430,756 865,707 9,296,463 26,417,398 -26,417,398 25,885,356 -25,885,356 9,828,505 (1,710,405)8,118,100 407 SURFACE WATER OPERATIONS &CAPITAL 3,366,916 484,893 3,851,809 9,859,250 -9,859,250 10,026,642 -10,026,642 3,684,416 (1,117,253)2,567,164 501 EQUIPMENT RENTAL 3,865,586 345,327 4,210,913 5,921,100 -5,921,100 4,203,192 -4,203,192 5,928,821 5,928,821 502 INSURANCE 12,504,225 1,612,155 14,116,380 3,991,201 -3,991,201 3,509,594 -3,509,594 14,597,988 (14,316,191)281,797 503 INFORMATiON SERVICES 833,056 107,358 940,414 4,702,271 -4,702,271 4,712,338 -4,712,338 930,347 930,347 504 FACILI11ES 710,924 281,774 992,698 4,930,944 -4,930,944 4,926,946 -4,926,946 996,697 996,697 505 COMMUNICATIONS 328,743 56,227 384,970 1,027,739 -1,027,739 1,026,738 -1,026,738 385,971 385,971 512 HEALThCARE INSURANCE 5,950,595 255,073 6,205,668 14,295,824 -14,295,824 14,596,149 -14,596,149 5,905,343 (4,378,845)1,526,498 522 LEOFF1 RETIREES HEALTHCARE 7,745,180 1,122,373 8,867,553 1,662,647 609,560 2,272,207 1,167,553 -1,167,553 9,972,207 (9,972,207)- 611 FIREMENSPENSION 5,165,003 133,504 5,298,507 468,000 -468,000 200,475 -200,475 5,566,032 (5,566,032)- Total Other Funds 67,372,793 6,234,891 73,607,684 126,268,782 609,560 126,878,342 125,542,086 -125,542,086 74,943,940 (42,210,014)32,733,926 TOTAL ALL FUNDS 80,806,360 6,876,795 87,683,155 243,069,747 609,560 243,679,307 242,343,675 -242,343,675 89,018,787 (42,385,561)46,633,226 j2 year total 79,901,341 487,518,459 30,538,577’518,057,036 485,887,367 66,949,826 552,837,193 89,018,787 (42,385,561)46,633,226 48b. - 2015 Carry Forward Budget Amendment (See 7.a.)Page 513 of 517 l,kf(JlkCITYOFRENTON,WASHINGTONORDINANCENO.___ __ _ _ANORDINANCEOFTHECITYOFRENTON,WASHINGTON,ESTABLISHINGANASSESSMENTDISTRICTFORSANITARYSEWERSERVICEFORPROPERTIESADiACENTTOSOUTH132NDSTREET,ANDESTABLISHINGTHEAMOUNTOFTHECHARGEUPONCONNECTIONTOTHEFACILITIES.THECITYCOUNCILOFTHECITYOFRENTON,WASHINGTON,DOESORDAINASFOLLOWS:SECTIONI.ThereisherebycreatedaSanitarySewerServiceSpecialAssessmentDistrictfortheareaservedbytheSouth132’StreetSewerExtensionprojectinthenorthwestquadrantoftheCityofRentonandwithinKingCounty,whichareaismoreparticularlydescribedinExhibitAattachedhereto.AmapoftheserviceareaisattachedasExhibitB.Therecordingofthisdocumentistoprovidenotificationofpotentialconnectionandinterestcharges.Whilethisconnectionchargemaybepaidatanytime,theCitydoesnotrequirepaymentuntilsuchtimeastheparcelisconnectedtoand,thus,benefitingfromthesewerfacilities.Thepropertymaybesoldorinanyotherwaychangehandswithouttriggeringtherequirement,bytheCity,ofpaymentofthechargesassociatedwiththisdistrict.SECTIONII.PersonsconnectingtothesanitarysewerfacilitiesinthisSpecialAssessmentDistrict,andwhichpropertieshavenotbeenchargedorassessedwithallcostsoftheSouth132IidStreetSewerExtensionasdetailedinthisordinance,shallpay,inadditiontothepaymentoftheconnectionpermitfeeandinadditiontothesystemdevelopmentcharge,aperunitchargefornewconnectionsofresidentialunitsofeleven18a. - Establishing S. 132nd St. SAD (1st reading 3/23/2015)Page 514 of 517 ORDINANCENO.__ __ __ _thousandtwohundredfifty-fourdollarsandninety-twocents($11,254.92)perdwellingunit.SECTIONIII.Inadditiontotheaforestatedcharges,thereshallbeaninterestchargeoftwopointsixpercent(2.60%)perannumaddedtotheSpecialAssessmentDistrictcharge.Theinterestchargeshallaccruefornomorethanten(10)yearsfromthedatethisordinancebecomeseffective.Interestchargeswillbesimpleinterestandnotcompoundinterest.SECTIONIV.Thisordinanceiseffectiveuponitspassage,approvalandthirty(30)daysafterpublication.PASSEDBYTHECITYCOUNCILthis__ __ _ __dayof___ _ __ _ __ _ __ _ __ _ __ _ ,2015.JasonA.Seth,CityClerkAPPROVEDBYTHEMAYORthis__ __ _ __dayof______________________,2015.DenisLaw,MayorApprovedastoform:LawrenceJ.Warren,CityAttorneyDateofPublication:____ _ _ _ ___ _ _ _ _ _ORD:1861:2/18/15:scr28a. - Establishing S. 132nd St. SAD (1st reading 3/23/2015)Page 515 of 517 ORDINANCENO._ _ _ _ _ _ _EXHIBITASouth132tdSewerExtensionSpecialAssessmentDistrictLegalDescriptionLots1,2,3,4,5,6and7,Block19,EarlingtonAcreTracts,accordingtotheplatthereofrecordedinVolume15ofPlats,page$4,recordsofKingCounty,Washington,lyingsouthwesterlyofthesouthwestmarginofRentonAvenue,asestablishedbydeedsrecordedunderRecordingNumbers710319010$and7103160147;TOGETHERWITHLots4and5,Block20,EarlingtonAcreTracts,accordingtotheplatthereof,recordedinVolume15ofPlats,Page84,recordsofKingCounty,Washington;ANDtheNorth75.5feetofthewest$0feetofLot7andtheNorth152feetoftheeast80feetofLot6ofsaidBlock20,EarlingtonAcreTracts.AllsituateintheNEquarterofSection13,Township23North,Range4East,W.M.,intheCityofRenton,KingCounty,Washington.38a. - Establishing S. 132nd St. SAD (1st reading 3/23/2015)Page 516 of 517 ORDINANCENO._______EXHIBITBN’214480050021448004882164800487South132ndStreet2144800552121448005462144100546___________21448005:35--SOUTH132NDSEWEREXTENSIONSPECIALASSESSMENTDISTRICTBOUNDARYScale1”=100’48a. - Establishing S. 132nd St. SAD (1st reading 3/23/2015)Page 517 of 517