Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutCouncil 02/11/2008 f AGENDA RENTON CITY COUNCIL • REGULAR MEETING February 11, 2008 Monday, 7 p.m. 1. CALL TO ORDER AND PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE 2. ROLL CALL 3. SPECIAL PRESENTATION: Recognition of Jim Ashurst, Charter Member of Firefighters Union 4. ADMINISTRATIVE REPORT 5. AUDIENCE COMMENT (Speakers must sign up prior to the Council meeting. Each speaker is allowed five minutes. The comment period will be limited to one-half hour. The second audience 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. 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 2/4/2008. Council concur. b. Administrative, Judicial and Legal Services Department recommends approval of an agreement • in the amount of$175,000 with Renton School District#403 to provide financial support for the Renton Pool at Lindbergh High School. Refer to Committee of the Whole. c. City Clerk reports appeal of Hearing Examiner's decision regarding T-Mobile's conditional use permit application for monopole at S. 3rd Pl. (CU-07-041)by T-Mobile USA, Inc., represented by Linda Atkins of Davis Wright Tremaine, accompanied by required fee. Refer to Planning and Development Committee. 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 4-8-110F.6.). d. City Clerk recommends adoption of an ordinance finalizing the vacation of a portion of Queen Ave. NE, south of NE 4th St., as all conditions of the vacation approval have been satisfied (VAC-07-003; petitioner Newfourth, LLC). Council concur. (See 8.a. for ordinance.) e. City Clerk recommends adoption of an ordinance finalizing the vacation of a portion of Whitworth Ave. S., south of S. 4th St., as all conditions of the vacation approval have been satisfied (VAC-07-002; petitioner TEAM Properties, LLC). Council concur. (See 8.b. for ordinance.) f. Development Services Division recommends approval, with conditions, of the Magnussen Final Plat (FP-07-129); 49 single-family lots on 8.37 acres located at NE 2nd St. between Duvall Ave. NE and Field Ave. NE. Council concur. (See 8.a. for resolution.) g. Economic Development, Neighborhoods and Strategic Planning Department recommends approval of a contract with Parametrix, Inc. in the amount of$199,890 to update the Shoreline Master Program. Council concur. h. Finance and Information Services Department recommends adoption of an ordinance establishing the State funding threshold and sales tax rebate rate related to the Benson Hill Communities Annexation. Council concur. (See 8.c. for ordinance.) i. Utility Systems Division submits CAG-07-140, Water Line Relocation for Realignment of • Benson Rd. S. and I-405 Overpass; and requests approval of the project, authorization for final pay estimate in the amount of$11,979, commencement of 60-day lien period, and release of retained amount of$54,193.25 to Ceccanti, Inc., contractor, if all required releases are obtained. Council concur. (CONTINUED ON REVERSE SIDE) p j. Utility Systems Division requests approval of an agreement in the amount of$48,000 with PACE Engineers, Inc. to perform base mapping for the White Fence Ranch Sewer Extension project. Council concur. • 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: Cedar River Natural Zone Survey Agreement with Pace Engineers; Vouchers b. Planning & Development Committee: City Code Title IV (Development Regulations) Docket* c. Utilities Committee: Upper Springbrook Creek Restoration Project Agreement with U.S. Army Corps of Engineers* 8. RESOLUTIONS AND ORDINANCES Resolutions: a. Magnussen Final Plat (see 6.f.) b. Agreement re: Upper Springbrook Creek Restoration with U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (see 7.c.) Ordinances for first reading: a. Vacation of portion of Queen Ave. NE (see 6.d.) b. Vacation of portion of Whitworth Ave. S. (see 6.e.) c. Setting threshold and tax rates re: Benson Hill Communities Annexation (see 6.h.) d. Housekeeping amendments to City Code (Title IV); see 7.b. e. Animal regulations (see 7.b.) f. Downtown area amendments (see 7.b.) 1111 Ordinances for second and final reading: a. Benson Hill Communities property rezone to RC (1st reading 2/4/2008) b. Benson Hill Communities property rezone to CN (1st reading 2/4/2008) c. Benson Hill Communities property rezone to CO (1st reading 2/4/2008) d. Benson Hill Communities property rezone to RM-F (1st reading 2/4/2008) e. Benson Hill Communities property rezone to RMH (1st reading 2/4/2008) f. Benson Hill Communities property rezone to CA (1st reading 2/4/2008) g. Benson Hill Communities property rezone to R-1 (1st reading 2/4/2008) h. Benson Hill Communities property rezone to R-4 (1st reading 2/4/2008) i. Benson Hill Communities property rezone to R-8 (1st reading 2/4/2008) j. Benson Hill Communities property rezone to R-10 (1st reading 2/4/2008) k. Benson Hill Communities property rezone to R-14 (1st reading 2/4/2008) 9. NEW BUSINESS (Includes Council Committee agenda topics; call 425-430-6512 for recorded information.) 10. AUDIENCE COMMENT 11. ADJOURNMENT COMMITTEE OF THE WHOLE AGENDA (Preceding Council Meeting) • Council Chambers 6 p.m. Emerging Issues - Legislative Update; Annexation Funding Update RENTON CITY COUNCIL Regular Meeting February 11, 2008 Council Chambers Monday, 7 p.m. MINUTES Renton City Hall CALL TO ORDER Mayor Denis Law called the meeting of the Renton City Council to order and led the Pledge of Allegiance to the g gflag. ROLL CALL OF MARCIE PALMER, Council President; DON PERSSON; KING PARKER; COUNCILMEMBERS TERRI BRIERE; RICH ZWICKER; GREG TAYLOR; RANDY CORMAN. CITY STAFF IN DENIS LAW, Mayor; JAY COVINGTON, Chief Administrative Officer; ATTENDANCE LAWRENCE J. WARREN, City Attorney; BONNIE WALTON, City Clerk; GREGG ZIMMERMAN, Planning/Building/Public Works Administrator; FIRE CHIEF/EMERGENCY SERVICES ADMINISTRATOR I. DAVID DANIELS, DEPUTY CHIEF CHUCK DUFFY, DEPUTY CHIEF ROBERT VAN HORNE and LIEUTENANT CRAIG SOUCY,Fire Department; COMMANDER CHARLES KARLEWICZ,Police Department. SPECIAL PRESENTATION Renton Retired Firefighters Association representative Bruce Phillips reported Fire: Jim Ashurst Recognition, that retired Assistant Fire Chief Jim Ashurst worked for the Fire Department Firefighters Union Charter from 1944 to 1968. Mayor Law presented Mr. Ashurst with a plaque in Member recognition of his valuable years of service to Renton as a volunteer firefighter from 1938 to 1944, and as a paid firefighter from 1944 to 1968. Additionally, Renton Firefighters Local 864 President Soucy presented Mr. Ashurst with a copy of the original union charter from 1946, on which Mr. Ashurst's name is listed. Fire Chief/Emergency Services Administrator Daniels commented on the changes that have taken place within the Fire Department over the years,noting Mr. Ashurst's contribution to the strong foundation on which the department was built. Finally, Mr. Phillips presented Mr. Ashurst with the badge that he wore during his years of service to Renton. ADMINISTRATIVE Chief Administrative Officer Covington reviewed a written administrative REPORT report summarizing the City's recent progress towards goals and work programs adopted as part of its business plan for 2008 and beyond. Items noted included: * The poplar trees surrounding Renton Stadium, including those along Logan Ave., have been determined to be diseased and dangerous by a qualified arborist. Work began today to remove and replace the trees with a different variety. AUDIENCE COMMENT Rodger Duncan (Kent) requested that the City reopen a Potential Annexation Citizen Comment: Duncan - Area boundaries interlocal agreement with the City of Kent that was signed,but Potential Annexation Area not implemented, in July 1999. He explained that a 31.63-acre area, located in Boundaries Agreement with the vicinity of S. 55th St. and 92nd Ave. S., is isolated from Kent by SR-167, Kent but with Renton's annexation of the Benson Hill Communities area, is now directly adjacent to Renton. MOVED BY PERSSON, SECONDED BY BRIERE, COUNCIL REFER THIS MATTER TO THE ADMINISTRATION. CARRIED. Citizen Comment: Walker- Kristie Walker(Renton) introduced herself as a teacher at McKnight Middle McKnight Middle School School, and expressed her appreciation for the community support of the History Day Competition National History Day competition that took place last week. She explained that eighty 8th graders took part in the competition, and their projects were judged by community members. Ms. Walker presented Councilmembers Persson and February 11,2008 Renton City Council Minutes Page 45 Parker with thank you notes from the students for their participation in the judging process. Councilmember Parker indicated that he was amazed by the talent displayed by the students. CONSENT AGENDA Items on the consent agenda are adopted by one motion which follows the listing. Council Meeting Minutes of Approval of Council meeting minutes of 2/4/2008. Council concur. 2/4/2008 AJLS: Renton Pool, Renton Administrative, Judicial and Legal Services Department recommended approval School District of an agreement in the amount of$175,000 with Renton School District#403 to provide financial support for the Renton Pool at Lindbergh High School. Refer to Committee of the Whole. Appeal: Monopole Conditional City Clerk reported appeal of Hearing Examiner's decision regarding T-Mobile's Use Permit, T-Mobile, CU-07- conditional use permit application for monopole at SE 3rd Pl. by T-Mobile 041 USA, Inc., represented by Linda Atkins of Davis Wright Tremaine, accompanied by required fee. Refer to Planning and Development Committee. Vacation: Queen Ave NE, City Clerk recommended adoption of an ordinance finalizing the vacation of a Newfourth,VAC-07-003 portion of Queen Ave. NE, south of NE 4th St., as all conditions of the vacation approval have been satisfied (VAC-07-003; petitioner Newfourth,LLC). Council concur. (See page 47 for ordinance.) Vacation: Whitworth Ave S, City Clerk recommended adoption of an ordinance finalizing the vacation of a TEAM Properties,VAC-07- portion of Whitworth Ave. S., south of S. 4th St., as all conditions of the 002 vacation approval have been satisfied (VAC-07-002; petitioner TEAM Properties, LLC). Council concur. (See page 47 for ordinance.) Plat: Magnussen,NE 2nd St, Development Services Division recommended approval,with conditions, of the FP-07-129 Magnussen Final Plat; 49 single-family lots on 8.37 acres located at NE 2nd St. between Duvall Ave. NE and Field Ave. NE. Council concur. (See page 46 for resolution.) EDNSP: Shoreline Master Economic Development,Neighborhoods and Strategic Planning Department Program, Parametrix recommended approval of a contract with Parametrix, Inc. in the amount of $199,890 to update the Shoreline Master Program. Council concur. Annexation: Benson Hill Finance and Information Services Department recommended adoption of an Communities, State Funding ordinance establishing the State funding threshold and sales tax rebate rate related to the Benson Hill Communities Annexation. Council concur. (See page 47 for ordinance.) CAG: 07-140, Benson Rd S Utility Systems Division submitted CAG-07-140, Water Line Relocation for Water Line Relocation, Realignment of Benson Rd. S. and I-405 Overpass; and requested approval of Ceccanti the project, authorization for final pay estimate in the amount of$11,979, commencement of 60-day lien period, and release of retained amount of $54,193.25 to Ceccanti, Inc., contractor, if all required releases are obtained. Council concur. Utility: White Fence Ranch Utility Systems Division requested approval of an agreement in the amount of Sewer Extension Survey, $48,000 with PACE Engineers, Inc. to perform base mapping for the White PACE Engineers Fence Ranch Sewer Extension project. Council concur. MOVED BY PALMER, SECONDED BY CORMAN, COUNCIL APPROVE THE CONSENT AGENDA AS PRESENTED. CARRIED. February 11,2008 Renton City Council Minutes Page 46 UNFINISHED BUSINESS Finance Committee Chair Persson presented a report recommending approval of Finance Committee Claim Vouchers 268639 - 269146 and two wire transfers totaling Finance: Vouchers $6,701,920.06; and approval of 163 Payroll Vouchers, one wire transfer, and 692 direct deposits totaling $2,301,601.64. MOVED BY PERSSON, SECONDED BY CORMAN, COUNCIL CONCUR IN THE COMMITTEE REPORT. CARRIED. Community Services: Cedar Finance Committee Chair Persson presented a report recommending River Natural Zone Boundary concurrence in the staff recommendation to approve an agreement with PACE Survey, PACE Engineers Engineers, Inc. in the amount of$79,500 to perform a property boundary survey of parcels comprising the Cedar River Natural Zone, set property corners or recover existing corners, identify boundary encroachments onto City property, and produce a record of survey to be filed with the King County Recorder. The Committee also recommended authorizing the use of 2007 funds in the amount of$40,000 from 316.000000.020.5940.0076.63.000001. Funds were previously identified for this project and are to be carried forward in a future budget amendment. The Committee further recommended that the Mayor and City Clerk be authorized to execute the survey services agreement. MOVED BY PERSSON, SECONDED BY BRIERE, COUNCIL CONCUR IN THE COMMITTEE REPORT. CARRIED. Planning & Development Planning and Development Committee Chair Parker presented a report Committee regarding the City Code Title IV (Development Regulations) docket. The Planning: Development Committee recommended concurrence in the staff recommendation to approve Regulations (Title IV) Docket the following three zoning text amendments as recommended by the Planning Review Commission: 1) Docket Item 06-01, Housekeeping Group I; 2) Docket Item 06- 10, Household Pets and Keeping of Animals Regulations; and 3)Docket Item 06-29, Downtown Code Text Amendments. The Committee further recommended that the three ordinances regarding this matter be presented for first reading. MOVED BY PARKER, SECONDED BY BRIERE, COUNCIL CONCUR IN THE COMMITTEE REPORT. CARRIED. (See page 47 for ordinances.) Utilities Committee Utilities Committee Chair Zwicker presented a report recommending Utility: Upper Springbrook concurrence in the staff recommendation to approve the agreement with the Creek Restoration, US Army U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (USACE) to share in the cost and design to Corps of Engineers permit the Upper Springbrook Creek Restoration project. The terms of the agreement require USACE to fund 75 percent($286,950) of the total design cost of$382,600,with the City contributing the remaining 25 percent local match ($95,650). The Committee further recommended that the resolution regarding this matter be presented for reading and adoption. MOVED BY ZWICKER, SECONDED BY TAYLOR, COUNCIL CONCUR IN THE COMMITTEE REPORT. CARRIED. (See page 47 for resolution.) RESOLUTIONS AND The following resolutions were presented for reading and adoption: ORDINANCES Resolution #3929 A resolution was read approving the Magnussen Final Plat; approximately 8.37 Plat: Magnussen,NE 2nd St, acres located in the vicinity of NE 2nd St., between Duvall Ave. NE and Field FP-07-129 Ave. NE. MOVED BY PARKER, SECONDED BY CORMAN, COUNCIL ADOPT THE RESOLUTION AS READ. CARRIED. 1 February 11,2008 Renton City Council Minutes Page 47 Resolution #3930 A resolution was read authorizing the Mayor and City Clerk to enter into a Utility: Upper Springbrook design agreement with the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers regarding the Upper Creek Restoration, US Army Springbrook Creek Restoration project. MOVED BY BRIERE, SECONDED Corps of Engineers BY ZWICKER, COUNCIL ADOPT THE RESOLUTION AS READ. CARRIED. The following ordinances were presented for first reading and referred to the Council meeting of 2/25/2008 for second and final reading: Vacation: Queen Ave NE, An ordinance was read vacating a portion of right-of-way, six feet wide and Newfourth, VAC-07-003 approximately 293 feet in length, of Queen Ave. NE, south of NE 4th St. (VAC- 07-003; petitioner Steve Beck,Newfourth, LLC). MOVED BY BRIERE, SECONDED BY PARKER, COUNCIL REFER THE ORDINANCE FOR SECOND AND FINAL READING ON 2/25/2008. CARRIED. Vacation: Whitworth Ave S, An ordinance was read vacating a portion of right-of-way, approximately 60 TEAM Properties, VAC-07- feet in width and 100 feet in length, of Whitworth Ave. S., south of S. 4th St. 002 (VAC-07-002; petitioner Brian Allen, TEAM Properties, LLC). MOVED BY BRIERE, SECONDED BY PARKER, COUNCIL REFER THE ORDINANCE FOR SECOND AND FINAL READING ON 2/25/2008. CARRIED. Annexation: Benson Hill An ordinance was read setting the threshold and tax rates in accordance with Communities, State Funding RCW 82.14.415 with respect to the Benson Hill Communities Annexation. MOVED BY PERSSON, SECONDED BY PALMER, COUNCIL REFER THE ORDINANCE FOR SECOND AND FINAL READING ON 2/25/2008. CARRIED. Planning: Development An ordinance was read amending Chapter 1, Administration and Enforcement; Regulations (Title IV) Docket, Chapter 2,Zoning Districts -Uses and Standards; Chapter 3, Environmental Housekeeping Amendments Regulations and Overlay Districts; Chapter 4, Citywide Property Development Standards; Chapter 9, Permits- Specific; and Chapter 11, Definitions, of Title IV (Development Regulations); and Chapter 1, Garbage, of Title VIII (Health and Sanitation) of City Code to complete housekeeping amendments to Title IV amendments made during docket review. MOVED BY PARKER, SECONDED BY BRIERE, COUNCIL REFER THE ORDINANCE FOR SECOND AND FINAL READING ON 2/25/2008. CARRIED. Planning: Development An ordinance was read amending Chapter 1, Administration and Enforcement; Regulations (Title IV) Docket, Chapter 2, Zoning Districts - Uses and Standards; Chapter 4, Citywide Property Animal Regulations Development Standards; Chapter 8, Permits- General and Appeals; Chapter 9, Permits - Specific; and Chapter 11, Definitions, of Title IV (Development Regulations); Chapter 4, Animal Licenses, of Title V (Finance and Business Regulations); and Chapter 6, Animals and Fowl at Large, of Title VI (Police Regulations) of City Code to amend the regulations regarding the keeping of animals. MOVED BY PARKER, SECONDED BY BRIERE, COUNCIL REFER THE ORDINANCE FOR SECOND AND FINAL READING ON 2/25/2008. CARRIED. Planning: Development An ordinance was read amending Chapter 4-2, Zoning Districts -Uses and Regulations(Title IV) Docket, Standards; and Chapter 4-4, Citywide Property Development Standards, of Title Downtown Core IV (Development Regulations) of City Code to amend regulations in effect for Downtown Renton, including removing the boundary of the Downtown Core District, amending the boundary of the City Center Sign District, amending the boundary of the Downtown Pedestrian District, and amending the parking regulations for commercial businesses. MOVED BY PARKER, SECONDED BY ZWICKER, COUNCIL REFER THE ORDINANCE FOR SECOND AND FINAL READING ON 2/25/2008. CARRIED. i February 11,2008 Renton City Council Minutes Page 48 The following ordinances were presented for second and final reading and adoption: Ordinance#5341 An ordinance was read amending Chapter 2, Zoning Districts - Uses and Annexation: Benson Hill Standards, of Title IV (Development Regulations) of City Code establishing the Communities, RC Zoning zoning classification of certain property annexed within the City of Renton from King County zoning to Resource Conservation (RC)zoning; Benson Hill Communities; CPA 2007-M-06. MOVED BY CORMAN, SECONDED BY BRIERE, COUNCIL ADOPT THE ORDINANCE AS READ. ROLL CALL: ALL AYES. CARRIED. Ordinance#5342 An ordinance was read amending Chapter 2, Zoning Districts - Uses and Annexation: Benson Hill Standards, of Title IV (Development Regulations) of City Code establishing the Communities, CN Zoning zoning classification of certain property annexed within the City of Renton from King County zoning to Commercial Neighborhood (CN) zoning; Benson Hill Communities; CPA 2007-M-06. MOVED BY CORMAN, SECONDED BY BRIERE, COUNCIL ADOPT THE ORDINANCE AS READ. ROLL CALL: ALL AYES. CARRIED. Ordinance#5343 An ordinance was read amending Chapter 2,Zoning Districts-Uses and Annexation: Benson Hill Standards, of Title IV (Development Regulations) of City Code establishing the Communities, CO Zoning zoning classification of certain property annexed within the City of Renton from King County zoning to Commercial Office(CO) zoning; Benson Hill Communities; CPA 2007-M-06. MOVED BY CORMAN, SECONDED BY BRIERE, COUNCIL ADOPT THE ORDINANCE AS READ. ROLL CALL: ALL AYES. CARRIED. Ordinance#5344 An ordinance was read amending Chapter 2, Zoning Districts -Uses and Annexation: Benson Hill Standards, of Title IV(Development Regulations) of City Code establishing the Communities, RM-F Zoning zoning classification of certain property annexed within the City of Renton from King County zoning to Residential Multi-Family(RM-F)zoning; Benson Hill Communities; CPA 2007-M-06. MOVED BY CORMAN, SECONDED BY BRIERE, COUNCIL ADOPT THE ORDINANCE AS READ. ROLL CALL: ALL AYES. CARRIED. Ordinance#5345 An ordinance was read amending Chapter 2, Zoning Districts -Uses and Annexation: Benson Hill Standards, of Title IV (Development Regulations) of City Code establishing the Communities, RMH Zoning zoning classification of certain property annexed within the City of Renton from King County zoning to Residential Manufactured Home (RMH)zoning; Benson Hill Communities; CPA 2007-M-06. MOVED BY CORMAN, SECONDED BY BRIERE, COUNCIL ADOPT THE ORDINANCE AS READ. ROLL CALL: ALL AYES. CARRIED. Ordinance#5346 An ordinance was read amending Chapter 2, Zoning Districts -Uses and Annexation: Benson Hill Standards, of Title IV (Development Regulations) of City Code establishing the Communities, CA Zoning zoning classification of certain property annexed within the City of Renton from King County zoning to Commercial Arterial (CA) zoning; Benson Hill Communities; CPA 2007-M-06. MOVED BY CORMAN, SECONDED BY BRIERS, COUNCIL ADOPT THE ORDINANCE AS READ. ROLL CALL: ALL AYES. CARRIED. Ordinance#5347 An ordinance was read amending Chapter 2, Zoning Districts -Uses and Annexation: Benson Hill Standards, of Title IV (Development Regulations) of City Code establishing the Communities, R-1 Zoning zoning classification of certain property annexed within the City of Renton from King County zoning to R-1 (Residential - one dwelling unit per net acre) 1 February 11,2008 Renton City Council Minutes Page 49 zoning; Benson Hill Communities; CPA 2007-M-06. MOVED BY CORMAN, SECONDED BY BRIERE, COUNCIL ADOPT THE ORDINANCE AS READ. ROLL CALL: ALL AYES. CARRIED. Ordinance#5348 An ordinance was read amending Chapter 2, Zoning Districts - Uses and Annexation: Benson Hill Standards, of Title IV (Development Regulations) of City Code establishing the Communities, R-4 Zoning zoning classification of certain property annexed within the City of Renton from King County zoning to R-4 (Residential - four dwelling units per net acre) zoning; Benson Hill Communities; CPA 2007-M-06. MOVED BY CORMAN, SECONDED BY BRIERE, COUNCIL ADOPT THE ORDINANCE AS READ. ROLL CALL: ALL AYES. CARRIED. Ordinance#5349 An ordinance was read amending Chapter 2, Zoning Districts - Uses and Annexation: Benson Hill Standards, of Title IV (Development Regulations) of City Code establishing the Communities, R-8 Zoning zoning classification of certain property annexed within the City of Renton from King County zoning to R-8 (Residential - eight dwelling units per net acre) zoning; Benson Hill Communities; CPA 2007-M-06. MOVED BY CORMAN, SECONDED BY BRIERE, COUNCIL ADOPT THE ORDINANCE AS READ. ROLL CALL: ALL AYES. CARRIED. Ordinance#5350 An ordinance was read amending Chapter 2, Zoning Districts-Uses and Annexation: Benson Hill Standards, of Title IV (Development Regulations) of City Code establishing the Communities, R-10 Zoning zoning classification of certain property annexed within the City of Renton from King County zoning to R-10 (Residential - ten dwelling units per net acre) zoning; Benson Hill Communities; CPA 2007-M-06. MOVED BY CORMAN, SECONDED BY BRIERE, COUNCIL ADOPT THE ORDINANCE AS READ. ROLL CALL: ALL AYES. CARRIED. Ordinance#5351 An ordinance was read amending Chapter 2, Zoning Districts - Uses and Annexation: Benson Hill Standards, of Title IV (Development Regulations) of City Code establishing the Communities,R-14 Zoning zoning classification of certain property annexed within the City of Renton from King County zoning to R-14 (Residential - 14 dwelling units per net acre) zoning; Benson Hill Communities; CPA 2007-M-06. MOVED BY CORMAN, SECONDED BY BRIERE, COUNCIL ADOPT THE ORDINANCE AS READ. ROLL CALL: ALL AYES. CARRIED. NEW BUSINESS MOVED BY PERSSON, SECONDED BY CORMAN, COUNCIL REFER Finance: Benson Hill THE FOLLOWING THREE TOPICS TO THE FINANCE COMMITTEE: Communities Annexation CONTINUED FUNDING FOR THE BENSON HILL COMMUNITIES Funding, Capital Funding ANNEXATION PLAN, FINANCIAL POLICY FOR CAPITAL FUNDING Financial Policy, Newly PLAN, AND FRANCHISE/UTILITY FEES FOR NEWLY ANNEXED Annexed Areas AREAS. CARRIED. Franchise/Utility Fees Citizen Comment: Various- Councilmember Parker reported receipt of letters from Valerie and Michael Monopole Conditional Use O'Halloran (Renton), and Chuck and Fran Gitchel (Renton)regarding the appeal Permit Appeal, T-Mobile, CU- of the Hearing Examiner's decision concerning the T-Mobile monopole 07-041 conditional use permit application. MOVED BY PARKER, SECONDED BY ZWICKER, COUNCIL REFER THE CORRESPONDENCE TO THE PLANNING AND DEVELOPMENT COMMITTEE. CARRIED. AUDIENCE COMMENT Newton Ellifrits (Renton)noted a correction to the consent agenda item Citizen Comment: Ellifrits - concerning the appeal of the Hearing Examiner's decision regarding the T- Monopole Conditional Use Mobile monopole conditional use permit application. He pointed out that the Permit Appeal, T-Mobile, CU- location is SE 3rd Pl., not S. 3rd Pl. as stated. 07-041 February 11, 2008 Renton City Council Minutes Page 50 ADJOURNMENT MOVED BY PERSSON, SECONDED BY PALMER, COUNCIL ADJOURN. CARRIED. Time: 7:39 p.m. Bonnie I. Walton, CMC, City Clerk Recorder: Michele Neumann February 11, 2008 cr RENTON CITY COUNCIL COMMITTEE MEETING CALENDAR 1,4 Office of the City Clerk COUNCIL COMMITTEE MEETINGS SCHEDULED AT CITY COUNCIL MEETING February 11, 2008 COMMITTEE/CHAIRMAN DATE/TIME AGENDA COMMITTEE OF THE WHOLE MON., 2/18 CANCELLED (Palmer) MON., 2/25 Emerging Issues in Transportation and 6 p.m. Economic Development; Renton Pool Interlocal Agreement *Council Conference Room* COMMUNITY SERVICES MON., 2/25 Housing Repair Assistance Program (Briere) 5:30 p.m. Policies FINANCE MON., 2/25 Vouchers; (Persson) 4:30 p.m. Judicial Specialist Hire at Step E PLANNING & DEVELOPMENT THURS., 2/21 City Code Title IV (Development (Parker) 3 p.m. Regulations) Docket PUBLIC SAFETY (Taylor) TRANSPORTATION (AVIATION) THURS., 2/14 Regional and Local Transportation Issues (Corman) 4 p.m. Update; Airport Leasing Policies; Letter of Agreement with Boeing regarding Logan Ave. N. Bike Lane (briefing only) UTILITIES THURS., 2/21 CANCELLED (Zwicker) NOTE: Committee of the Whole meetings are held in the Council Chambers unless otherwise noted. All other committee meetings are held in the Council Conference Room unless otherwise noted. ( )( O� ADMINISTRATIVE, JUDICIAL, AND LEGAL SERVICES DEPARTMENT , NTO MEMORANDUM DATE: February 11, 2008 TO: Marcie Palmer, Council President Members of the Renton City Council FROM: Denis Law, Mayor Jay Covington, Chief Administrative Officer SUBJECT: Administrative Report The Renton School District has notified the City that the poplar trees surrounding Renton Stadium, including those along Logan Avenue, have been determined to be diseased and dangerous by a qualified arborist. City of Renton Parks Maintenance staff inspected the trees and concur with the arborist's report. Work began today to remove and replace the trees with a different variety. The Renton School District will have flaggers directing traffic as the work occurs along Logan Avenue. delAd%/At/te 6,7144111nlj c2 gOr gipAzee zLo Rodger Duncan li,i -i 19721 92nd Avenue South Kent (Should be Renton), WA (206) 898-0271 February 11, 2008 • I request that the City of Renton re-open a PAA Interlocal Agreement with the city of Kent that was signed, but not implemented in July, 1999. • The subject 31 .63 acres is isolated from the contiguous City of Kent by state highway 67. • The recent Benson Hills Communities Annexation now places the City of Renton directly adjacent to the subject properties. • A copy of the signed Renton/Kent PAA Interlocal Agreement is provided. %P_ D 1,003-0. 4$ l f-W 4. CITY OF RENTON ----. ,.LL! I Economic Development, Neighborhoods and Planning IMOD Jesse Tanner,Mayor Susan Carlson,Administrator July 12, 1999 James P.Harris Planning Director City of Kent 220 4d'Avenue South Kent,WA 98032-5895 SUBJECT: RENTON/KENT PAA INTERLOCAL AGREEMENT Dear Jim: On June 7th the Renton City Council approved the amendments the Kent City Council suggested, deleting.Item 5.E. pertaining to Kent agreeing to de-annex the 31.63 acre area bounded by SR- 167 on the west, SE 192nd Street on the north, 92nd Avenue S. on the east, and S.200th Street on the south. At this time they also authorized our Mayor and City Clerk to execute the revised agreement. Our City Attorney has reviewed the agreement and both Mayor Tanner and the City Clerk have signed it. I am enclosing two signed copies, -the original and one copy. Please sign both documents and return one set to us for our records. I've appreciated working with you on this project even though it went longer than either of us expected. Hope you have a great summer. Sincerely, • Donald K. Erickson,AICP Project Manager • Attachments:2 Sets PAA Interlocal Agreement cc: Jay Covington on Sue Carlson Document2 1055 South Grady Way - Renton. Washineton 98055 A�.6.+ 11.11V p- , \ e PetrovlsN Rd SE witsN Rd — ; 1� %I�ar st a /1111 ... �"•- SF 1761,St l'i 41st S i■fi� m �' . 11111 OP SE 177th Sl Se P«oy! ■ y - Renton PAA : j���� 1� S 4;40 Sl• „� SE 180th St HE - $E 179th PI�,��' WA - SE 180th Pt SE 1801,Si �JL�/,E. r Or- i st I�L.J YRA 5 181st SI SE 180Ih PI $C 18x1 a \ SE 183rd sl IEI SE 184th St SE 184th 1 e - -�� Y 184 r •I SE 184th St .. r SE 186th St !85th PI 11 , 5. I� � . 186th �, SE 186th Si i i Jr!oinimi. I l 0 � �nn • SE 188th Sl h 1 N t.`♦ - .... a � s 188th St IJ /I gm S '� � < �\\%)W, ,�. 190tmISEhSt \YA SC 190th Si a \�9`,�Q�Z p aS S5th S1 ■. I ^, -t. SE 192nd St SE 192nd Sl __ SE 192nd St r___ SE 192nd St IT a ,E, co - -;a47j1 �° SE 196th SI SE 196th SI S 0 . • 4.VIZ '1r s_� rrr+ NEI , ) 98th VIII 'ANTHER l ' A ,:; ll_ SE 198th St _..... -q?' , s 2001,slA16i ` in `SE 2a01n St - r -- - SE 200th t .' SE 200• St S 202nd St. __— 34 204„ si. rm I , ^; _ _ SE2 04thSt ytO20 ly�. 31 9r N SE 203rd PI . - < , • s Kent rail I II ci: 5 20�h PI , 11..._ 'i�� SE 208th St r SE 208th Sl h SE 2071 �� SE 2081,St Ki `�y SE 258th St �"'- SE 208 ' SE 208th SI i 81 S. 33 iff,p, �� v $2101,$1c �� cr nY1 L i52J! SE 2101,PI c G ��-, Long Range Planning EXHIBIT "A" PER + Planning/Building/Public Works Renton/Kent Potential Annexation Area Boundary �, ,�� —— D. Erikson, R. MacOnie � .�0 7 July 1996 — Municipal Boundaries 0 i000 2000 —•--• -- Urban Growth Boundary 1:24,000 Potential Annexation Area Boundary --- Previous Renton PAA Boundary pm Proposed for Deannexation by Kent CAG-99--098 AN AGREEMENT BETWEEN THE CITIES OF RENTON AND KENT RELATING TO POTENTIAL ANNEXATION AREA DESIGNATION THIS IS AN AGREEMENT between the Cities of Renton, a municipal corporation of the State of Washington ("Renton"), and Kent, a municipal corporation of the State of Washington ("Kent"), hereinafter collectively referred to as the"Cities." RECITALS A. Pursuant to RCW 36.70A.110(2), the Washington State Growth Management Act of 1990, as amended, requires each City within the County to propose the location of an urban growth area, and B. The Countywide Planning Policies adopted and approved by Ordinance 10450 on July 6, 1992 by the County Council and amended by Ordinance 11446 on July 19, 1994 and ratified by Cities within the County, establishes rules for designating potential annexation areas for cities within the countywide urban growth boundary,and C. Countywide Planning Policy LU-31 states that in collaboration with adjacent counties and cities and King County, and in consultation with residential groups in affected areas, each City shall designate a Potential Annexation Area(PAA), and D. It is in the public interest that the jurisdictions cooperate to designate logical and achievable PAA boundaries,and NOW THEREFORE,the Cities-hereby agree: 1. PURPOSE. The purpose of this agreement is to confirm the decision made between the Cities for the identification of a common boundary for their respective PAA boundaries. 2. DEFINITIONS. Potential Annexation Area(FAA): The unincorporated urban area adjacent to a city,within which urban growth shall be encouraged and phased, and which is expected to annex to the city. Annexation is expected to occur sometime during the next 20 years at which time the city will provide services and utilities. Urban Growth Areas: Areas proposed by the cities and designated by the County within which urban growth shall be encouraged and phased and outside of which growth can occur only if it is not urban in nature. Urban Growth Boundary: The boundary marking the limit between the urban growth areas and other areas such as rural and resource areas where urban growth is not permitted. The boundary shall be designated by the County in consultation with the appropriate cities,under the requirements of the Growth Management Act,as amended. H:\div\pts\P In\de\INTERLOC.DOC/ 3. AFFECTED PARTIES. The designation of PAAs in Exhibit"A"(map)attached hereto and by this reference made a part of this agreement are of interest to a variety of affected parties, including property owners, area residents,the general public, special service districts and the municipalities. 4. RELATIONSHIP TO EXISTING LAWS AND STATUTES. This Agreement in no way modifies nor supersedes existing laws and statutes and is consistent with existing laws and statutes. In meeting the commitments encompassed in this Agreement, all parties will comply with the requirements of the Annexation Statutes,Open Public Meetings Act, State Environmental Policy Act, Growth Management Act and Countywide Planning Policies for King County. 5. RESPONSIBILITIES. A. The Cities acknowledge the PAA boundary and each respective Cities' PAA illustrated in Exhibit"A". B. The Cities will only annex territory within their designated PAAs. C. Kent acknowledges that Renton has legitimate concerns regarding the need to protect the aquifer that serves its Springbrook Springs water utility and agrees to enter into discussions within sixty(60)days of the signing of this agreement that will lead to an agreement between the Cities to protect the Renton Springbrook Springs Aquifer recharge area that extends to approximately SE 206th Place on the south and 108th Avenue SE on the east. Mechanisms to be considered,include,but are not necessarily limited to, land use regulations (type and intensity),recharge area set asides, and public education. The agreement between the Cities shall be executed within 18 months of the signing of this agreement. D. Kent also acknowledges that Renton has recently acquired the Cleveland property south of the Springbrook Trout Farm,off Talbot Road South as a future public park and Renton acknowledges that Kent has recently acquired property south of S 200th Street for a neighborhood park. Since service areas for these two parks will likely overlap,both Cities agree to enter into discussions regarding the possible interface of these two recreation facilities. E. Renton acknowledges that Kent has identified the 196th Street Corridor project between East Valley Highway and SR-515 as one of its concurrency projects which the City of Kent believes should be built by 2010. Since most of this project will occur within Renton's PAA with the potential of impacting the Springbrook Springs watershed as well as the new park site on the former Cleveland property the Cities agree to enter into joint discussions with each other and King County regarding the potential development alignment, financing, and scheduling of the 196th Street Corridor project between the East Valley Highway and 108th Avenue SE(SR-515). Representatives from both Cities' parks and public works dein,.tinents should be represented in these discussions. H:\div\pts\pin\de\INTERLOC.DOC/ r ' 6. AMENDMENTS. A. If either of the Cities desires to modify their respective PAA such that it would affect that of the other City, it shall contact the other party to this Agreement to begin discussions regarding PAA boundary amendments. The Cities agree to participate in such discussions when called. Either Party is authorized to call a meeting upon 30 days written notice. B. The proposed amendments shall be supported by written evidence of a significant change in one of the criteria listed in paragraph 6(D),below. The Cities shall concur that the substantial change warrants an amendment to theoriginal designated common PAA boundary between the Cities, as shown in Exhibit"A",attached. C. A public process shall be conducted regarding an amendmentto the common PAA boundary between the Cities. In determining whether PAA boundary amendments to the original designated common PAA boundary between the Cities should be made the Cities shall be guided,but not limited,by their findings with respect to the criteria in 6.D.below. D. Criteria for Amendment to Potential Annexation Areas • Recognition of resident community identification. • Financial and technical ability to provide municipal services. • Creation of logical service areas(vehicular accessibility and utility construction). • Recognition of physical boundaries. Bodies of water Topographical features Watersheds Freeways • Protection of critical/resource areas significant to a particular jurisdiction. Protection of critical areas Opportunities for urban separators • Logical boundaries. Elimination of unincorporated islands No overlapping potential annexation areas E. The proposed amended PAA agreement shall be submitted to the respective cities' legislative authorities for approval. 7. DURATION AND TERMINATION. This Agreement is effective upon signature of both Cities and shall continue in effect from year to year unless terminated by a six month written notice by one City Council to the other. 8. SEVERABILITY CLAUSE. Any provision of this Agreement which is declared invalid or illegal shall in no way affect or invalidate any other provision hereof and such other provisions shall remain in full force and effect. H:\div\pts\pin\de\INTERLOC.DOC/ 9. INDEMNIFICATION. A. Renton shall indemnify and hold harmless Kent and its officers, agents and employees, or any of them from any and all claims,actions, suits, liability, loss, costs,expenses and damages of any nature whatsoever,by reason of or arising out of any negligent act or omission of Renton,its officers,agents and employees,or any of them, in the performance of this Agreement. In the event that any such suit based upon such a claim, action, loss or damage is brought against Kent,Renton shall defend the same at its sole cost and expense; provided,that Kent reserves the right to participate in such suit if any principle of governmental or public law is involved. If final judgment be rendered against Kent and its officers, agents and employees, or any of them, or jointly against Renton and Kent and their respective officers, agents and employees, or any of them, Renton shall satisfy the same, including all chargeable costs and attorney's fees. B. In executingthis Agreement,Kent gr does not assume liability or responsibility for or in any way release Renton from any liability or responsibility which arises in whole or in part from the existence or affect of Renton City ordinances,rules or regulations. If any cause, claim, suit, action or administrative proceeding is commenced in which the enforceability and/or validity of any such Renton City ordinance,rule or regulation is at issue, Renton shall defend the same at its sole expense and if judgment is entered or damages are awarded against Kent,Renton shall satisfy the same, including all chargeable costs and attorney's fees. C. Kent shall indemnify and hold harmless Renton and its officers, agents and employees,or any of them from any and all claims,actions, suits, liability,loss, costs, expenses and damages of any nature whatsoever,by reason of or arising out of any negligent act or omission of Kent, its officers, agents and employees, or any of them, in the performance of this Agreement. In the event that any such suit based upon such a claim,action, loss or damage is brought against Renton,Kent shall defend the same at its sole cost and expense; provided, that Renton reserves the right to participate in such suit if any principle of governmental or public law is involved. If final judgment be rendered against Renton and its officers, agents and employees, or any of them, or jointly against Renton and Kent and their respective officers, agents and employees,or any of them,Kent shall satisfy the same, including all chargeable costs and attorney's fees. D. In executing this Agreement,Renton does not assume liability or responsibility for or in any way release Kent from any liability or responsibility which arises in whole or in part from the existence or affect of Kent City ordinances,rules or regulations. If any cause, claim, suit, action or administrative proceeding is commenced in which the enforceability and/or validity of any such Kent City ordinance,rule or regulation is at issue,Kent shall defend the same at its sole expense and if judgment is entered or damages are awarded against Renton,Kent shall satisfy the same,including all chargeable costs and attorney's fees. • H:\div\pts\pin\d e\INTERLOC.DOC/ • i 10. ADMINISTRATION. This Agreement shall be administered by: A. The Mayor of Kent or the Mayor's designee, and B. The Mayor of Renton or the Mayor's designee. CITY OF RENTON CITY OF KENT eAr, h sse Tanner Jiff ite Mayor ,payor Date Date Attest: 411 -.i . yeti / arilyn J. .6: Brenda Jacobe City Clerk City Clerk Date 1-1/'P7 Date 7–/-?9 H:\div\pts\pin\de\INTERLOC.DOC/ .n. MIIIIIIIIIIILIV r 1 s 17b. J b iia. :.t7 . Y � n till. 9th St ' EItls:,3: .� , en ,sk Rd SE , �: �1t1����i■. �� � Pea. � NI SW 41st S 1 I ` — x 11111:4® lika . ` < SE 77)th Sl SE'p�froty c- myR$ 5QMIN $ SE 180U St SE 179 StS' SE 179th PI //,,,,,,,,,,,,.......iiSE 18Mh PI SE 180th Sl -`SE 181st St � � SE 180th PI $181stSE 182nSta f181dt 111 �rirti _Lth Sl SE 184n •7 E 184thSt�(��'`� SE 186th St $1.3 05th pI �� �J 786th by. bS/(� �,� b� �J Irtt SE 186.6 91 X111! t '� t13 ,f• til �� !I= 9 s S teeth St A St nnnnp� 1 's O. a i ,. c O s >;1 � N I SE 190th St '(.1 SE 190th St th' En s 4,�9`� - a' g NI ia � S 55th St I SE 192nd St SE 192nd St 2 - ��. SE 192nd St SE 192nd St Renton 1 qb.1 a© - ` u J CNII Nri- ,r_ PAA 1 _ o I = c 4ILI SE 1961 P_ St�- SE 196th S I a ,r 7961,,„ SIP PANTHER LA , ;En198th St , III �� ` �` SE 199th __ 1 `--� II 1 0�1�w g _ SE 200th St ------_ - SE 200th St, 200th 1 t 1 $E 200th Sl ---- Ilst St . .?07st �6 ISE 201st)St. Fillailigl __ }0, SE 202nd PI a ! LSE 202nd St.a ___ < o �8to'1Ke et t tfn- _ SE 204th St _ 45 84a r4h • -- tX L'{ 9 20 _I __ 'Oka ..... PI ti'•�r a' i 1 a $ e 'I 20716 y. PI 08 a $ 3 _ 1E 20 th St 5� a St a SE 208th 9l SE 208th St : •• - SE 208th St ♦ - �-� 1 SE 208th St SE 208th St SE 208th 9E 208th St millyillilifill,201 PI I I IN ll la PIM 1 0 , Neighborhoods & Strategic Planning EXHIBIT "A” vQwED/N/SP • D. Erickson, O. Dennison Renton/Kent Potential Annexation Area Boundary ,.ro 15 June 1999 ———— Municipal Boundaries n 2nnn anon -. Growth Boundary Urban LVLLlluuly '!' - Potential Annexation Area Boundary 1 :24,000 -- Previous Renton PAA Boundary • CITY OF RENTON COUNCIL AGENDA BILL AI#: 67 . hA 7 Submitting Data: AJLS For Agenda of: February 11, 2008 Dept/Div/Board.. Mayor's Office Staff Contact Marty Wine, Asst.CAO (x6526) Agenda Status Consent X Subject: Public Hearing.. Renton Pool Funding Agreement between the City of Correspondence Renton and Renton School District 403 Ordinance Resolution X Old Business Exhibits: New Business Interlocal Agreement Study Sessions Resolution Information Recommended Action: Approvals: Refer to Committee of the Whole Legal Dept X Finance Dept X Other Fiscal Impact: Expenditure Required... $175,000 (2008 and 2009) Transfer/Amendment Amount Budgeted $175,000 (2008) Revenue Generated • Total Project Budget City Share Total Project.. SUMMARY OF ACTION: The Interlocal Agreement for the Benson Hill Annexation states that $300,000 of the $950,000 County General Fund payment will be made only when the City and the Renton School District agree about the City's support of future operations of the Renton Pool; and once the School District and County have executed and recorded a lease termination and asset transfer agreement for the Renton Pool. City/School District and County/School District Agreements have been reached for the Pool to be owned and operated by the District as of the date of annexation with ongoing financial support from the City. Council is asked to authorize an interlocal agreement for funding stating that the City will transmit a payment of between $125,000 and $175,000 to the School District in each of the years 2008 and 2009 to be used for Renton Pool operations, repair and maintenance. For this payment, the District agrees to own and operate the Pool at its expense; and to assure access to recreational swimming and aquatics opportunities, and awareness of water safety for the entire Renton community. The City and District will annually review Pool costs and revenues through 2010 to determine the precise level of City payment between $125,000 and $175,000; and will analyze opportunities for the Pool to become self-sustaining. Other than the two payments, the City has no obligation to provide additional funds to the District relating to the operations, repair or maintenance of the Pool. The resolution authorizes the Mayor and City Clerk to execute the interlocal agreement. STAFF RECOMMENDATION: • Authorize the Mayor and City Clerk to enter into an interlocal agreement with Renton School District#403 to provide financial support for the Renton Pool at Lindbergh High School. Rentonnet/agnbill/ bh • RENTON POOL FUNDING AGREEMENT BETWEEN THE CITY OF RENTON AND RENTON SCHOOL DISTRICT 403 This FUNDING AGREEMENT is dated as of , 2008 and is executed by and between the CITY OF RENTON, a municipal corporation of the State of Washington("City"), and RENTON SCHOOL DISTRICT 403, a special purpose local government (the "District"). The City and the District are collectively referred to herein as the "Parties." RECITALS 1. WHEREAS, King County ("County") leased certain real property from the District pursuant to the terms of a Lease Agreement ("Lease) dated May 14, 1970, located on the premises of the District's Lindbergh High School; and 2. WHEREAS, pursuant to the Lease, the County constructed on the leased property certain improvements known as the Renton Pool ("Pool"). Pursuant to the Lease, the parties entered into a separate Pool Use Agreement, setting the District's use terms and conditions; and 3. WHEREAS, the Lease does not contain any specific terms or conditions relating to early termination; and lb4. WHEREAS, King County desires to divest itself of ownership, management, and financial responsibility for local parks and recreation facilities located inside cities; and current and future annexations of the City's potential annexation areas would have the effect of removing areas from the jurisdiction of King County; and 5. WHEREAS, the Benson Hill Communities area voted at an election on November 6, 2007, to annex to the City and the City has taken action necessary to ensure annexation of the area is effective March 1, 2008; and 6. WHEREAS, the boundaries of the Benson Hill Communities annexation includes the Renton Pool property, such annexation resulting in the Pool property being located within city limits; and 7. WHEREAS, by separate agreement between the District and the County dated , a copy of which is attached hereto as Exhibit A ("Lease Termination Agreement"), the County and the District have agreed to terminate the Lease and Pool Use Agreement effective as of March 1, 2008 ("Transfer Date"), or as soon thereafter as practicable; and 8. WHEREAS, the District has inspected and knows the condition of the Pool and will, as of the Transfer Date, accept and assume full and complete responsibility for all operations, maintenance, repairs, or improvements of, and provision of recreational services at the property; and i 9. WHEREAS, the District and the City have agreed as to the value of preserving the operation • of the Pool as a community asset that supports educational, athletic and recreational opportunities, and water safety awareness for residents of all ages; and 10. WHEREAS, the District and the City now desire to memorialize their agreements regarding the continued operation of the Renton Pool in a manner that will ensure continued access by residents to appropriate aquatics facilities; and NOW, THEREFORE, in consideration of their mutual agreements set forth herein, the District and the City hereby agree as follows: TERMS 1. Financial Arrangement. The City will provide some share of financial support for the Pool in consideration for the District's agreement to assume title and continue to operate and maintain the Pool at its expense; and to assure access to recreational swimming and aquatics opportunities, and awareness of water safety for the entire Renton community. The City agrees to transmit a payment of between $125,000 and $175,000 to the District no later than July 31 of each of the years 2008 and 2009 to be used for the purposes of Renton Pool operations, repair and maintenance. The District and the City shall jointly review the operating costs and revenues of the Pool no later than June of each year through the year 2010 to determine the precise level of City • payment between $125,000 and $175,000, using a financial plan as outlined in Exhibit C, and to analyze opportunities for the Pool to be self-sustaining. Other than the funds provided pursuant to this paragraph, the City shall have no obligation to provide additional funds to the District relating to the operations, repair and maintenance of the Pool. 2. Recreation Programs. The District retains authority to provide such recreational programming at the Pool that will complement current District programming and which will continue access to aquatics programs for the entire Renton community. The District has agreed to abide by the County's Forward Thrust Covenants from and after the Transfer Date and until May 14, 2010, which is the date the Lease would have expired in the absence of the Lease Termination Agreement and which is the date the parties agree is the end of the useful life of the Pool, and to not transfer or convey the Pool or convert the property to a non-recreational use prior to such date except by agreement providing that such lands shall continue to be used for the purposes contemplated by King County Resolution 34571. The District has further agreed that until May 14, 2010, the District will not limit or restrict access to and use of the Pool or the leased property by non-District residents in any way that does not also apply to District residents. The District covenants that if differential fees for -2- • non-District residents are imposed, they will be reasonably related to the cost borne by the District. The District is assuming the Pool equipment and supplies left on site by King County, which includes all furniture, lifeguard equipment, first aid supplies, specialty tools, operator manuals, as-built pool and remodel plans, phone system, lighting fixtures, miscellaneous pool equipment, building maintenance supplies, spare parts, and materials such as chlorine and filtration supplies for pool maintenance. Following the annual review each June of the operating costs and revenues of the Pool, the City and the District will seek community input as to the value of the program offerings at the Pool and additional program options available in the community, with the intent for the District to evaluate whether it is financially feasible to continue the Pool's operation beyond its useful life in 2010. 3. Dispute Resolution. If a dispute arises between the District and the City concerning the performance of any provision of this Agreement or the interpretation thereof, and the District and the City are unable to resolve their differences through informal discussions, the parties will endeavor to settle the dispute by mediation under such mediation rules as shall be agreeable to the parties. Such mediation will be non-binding but a condition precedent to having the dispute resolved pursuant to litigation. In the event any action is brought to enforce any provision of this Agreement, the parties • agree to be subject to exclusive jurisdiction in the King County Superior Court, and agree that in any such action venue shall lie exclusively in King County. 4. Enforcement. Should either party bring suit against the other to enforce any provision of this Agreement or to redress any breach thereof, the prevailing party in such litigation shall be entitled to recover its costs and reasonable attorney's fees. No action shall be commenced prior to completion of the dispute resolution process set forth above. 5. Duration of Agreement. This Agreement shall become effective on the date of transfer of the Pool, and shall remain in full force and effect until the later of July 31, 2010 or the date of payment of the last amount due to be paid hereunder. 6. Relationship of the Parties. The parties to this Agreement are independent and nothing in this Agreement is intended to create a partnership,joint venture or other mutual undertaking between the parties. 7. No Assignment. The terms, covenants and conditions set forth in this Agreement shall be deemed personal to the parties hereto and may not be assigned or transferred to any other person. 8. No Third-Party Beneficiaries. This Agreement is solely for the benefit of the parties hereto, and no third party shall be entitled to claim or enforce any rights hereunder except as 111 specifically provided herein. -3- 9. Severability. In the event any part of this Agreement is declared void or invalid, the • remaining portions of this Agreement shall not be affected, but shall remain in full force and effect. 10. Modification. The obligations of the parties to this Agreement may not be modified, amended or waived except by written agreement executed by both parties. 11. Equal Opportunity to Draft. Each party has had opportunity to consult with counsel in connection with the negotiation, execution and delivery of this Agreement. Each of the provisions of this Agreement has been reviewed and negotiated, and represents the combined work product of both parties hereto. No presumption or other rules of construction, which would interpret the provisions of this Agreement in favor of or against the party preparing the same, will apply in connection with the construction or interpretation of any of the provisions of this Agreement. 12. Insurance. The District shall maintain comprehensive general liability, errors and omissions, and automobile insurance. 13. Indemnification. The District shall indemnify and hold harmless the City and its officers, agents and employees, or any of them from any and all claims, actions, suits, liability, loss, costs, expenses, and damages of any nature whatsoever, by reason or arising out of any negligent action or omission of the District, its officers, agents, and employees, or any of them, in • performing obligations pursuant to this Agreement. In the event that any suit based upon such a claim, action, loss, or damage is brought against the City, the District shall defend the same at its sole cost and expense,provided that the City retains the right to participate in said suit if any principal of governmental or school district authority is involved, and if final judgment be rendered against the City and its officers, agents, and employees, or any of them, or jointly against the City and District and their respective officers, agents, and employees, or any of them, the District shall satisfy the same. The City shall indemnify and hold harmless the District and its officers, agents and employees or any of them from any and all claims, actions, suits, liability, loss, costs, expenses, and damages of any nature whatsoever, by reason or arising out of any negligent action or omission of the City, its officers, agents, and employees, or any of them, in performing obligations pursuant to this Agreement. In the event that any suit based upon such a claim, action, loss, or damage is brought against the District, the City shall defend the same at its sole cost and expense, provided that the District retains the right to participate in said suit if any principal of governmental authority is involved; and if final judgment be rendered against the District and its officers, agents, employees, or any of them, or jointly against the City and District and their respective officers, agents, and employees or any of them, the City shall satisfy the same. The City and the District acknowledge and agree that if such claims, actions, suits, liability, • loss, costs, expenses and damages are caused by or result from the concurrent negligence of -4- the City, its agents, employees, and/or officers and the District, its agents, employees, and/or • officers,this section shall be valid and enforceable only to the extent of the negligence of each party, its agents, employees and/or officers. The parties hereto have expressly bargained for and do waive for purposes of this Indemnification section, only, the immunities of Title 51 RCW, as it relates to any claim, suit or cause of action by one party's employee(s) against the other party. The provisions of this Indemnification Section shall survive the expiration or termination of this Agreement with respect to any event occurring prior to such expiration or termination. 14. Notices. All notices or communications by one of the parties hereto to the other shall be addressed, respectively, as follows: If to the City: If to the District: City of Renton Renton School District Terry Higashiyama, Administrator Attn: Rich Moore, Asst. Superintendent Community Services Department 300 SW 7th Street 1055 South Grady Way Renton, WA 98055 Renton, WA 98057 • Any notice shall be deemed to have been given (a) three (3) business days after the mailing thereof when mailed by registered or certified mail (return receipt requested), (b) the next business day after delivery to any overnight courier service offering proof of receipt; (c) upon receipt if sent by facsimile (with copy by registered or certified mail, return receipt requested), or(d) upon receipt if by hand delivery. Dated this day of February 2008. IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the parties have executed this Agreement. City of Renton Renton School District No. 403 Denis Law, Mayor Mary Alice Hueschel, Superintendent • Date Date -5- • Approved as to Form: Approved as to Form: City Attorney Attorney Date Date STATE OF WASHINGTON ) ) SS COUNTY OF KING ) On this day of , 200_, before me, the undersigned, a Notary Public in and for the State of Washington, duly commissioned and sworn personally appeared, to me known to be the individual described in and who executed the forgoing instrument, and acknowledged to me that signed and sealed the said instrument as free and voluntary act and deed for the uses and purposed therein mentioned. WITNESS my hand and official seal hereto affixed the day and year in this certificate above • written. Notary Public in and for the State of Washington, residing at City and State My appointment expires STATE OF WASHINGTON ) ) SS COUNTY OF KING ) On this day of , 200_, before me, the undersigned, a Notary Public in and for the State of Washington, duly commissioned and sworn personally appeared, to me known to be the individual described in and who executed the forgoing instrument, and acknowledged to me that signed and sealed the said instrument as free and voluntary act and deed for the uses and purposed therein mentioned. WITNESS my hand and official seal hereto affixed the day and year in this certificate above • written. -6- Notary Public in and for the State of • Washington, residing at City and State My appointment expires • • -7- Draft Draft Draft ATTACHMENT A RENTON POOL LEASE TERMINATION AND ASSET TRANSFER STATEMENT This STATEMENT OF LEASE TERMINATION AND ASSET TRANSFER is dated as of , 2008 and is executed by and between KING COUNTY, a home rule charter county and political subdivision of the State of Washington(the "County"), and RENTON SCHOOL DISTRICT 403, a special purpose local government(the "District"). The County and the District are collectively referred to herein as the "Parties." BACKGROUND 1. The County leased certain real property from the District pursuant to the terms of a Lease Agreement dated May 14, 1970 ("Lease"), a copy of which is attached hereto as Exhibit A. The leased property is located on the premises of the District's Lindbergh High School. 2. Pursuant to the Lease, the County constructed on the leased property described on Exhibit B those certain improvements and known as the Renton Pool ("Pool"). Pursuant to the Lease, the parties have also entered into a separate Pool Use Agreement, a copy of which is attached hereto as Exhibit C, setting the terms and conditions under which the District may use the Pool. 3. The County desires to divest itself of ownership, management, and financial • responsibility for local parks and recreation facilities located inside cities. 4. The Benson Hill Communities area voted at an election on November 6, 2007, to annex to the City of Renton (the "City") and the City has taken action necessary to ensure annexation of the area is effective March 1, 2008. 5. By separate agreement between the City and the County dated as of (the Annexation Agreement), the County will pay the City certain amounts to offset costs incurred by the City associated with annexing the Benson Hill Communities area. A portion of this financial support is conditioned on the transfer of the Pool to the District and the City agreeing to provide ongoing funds to the District in support of the pool. A copy of the section of the Annexation Agreement containing these terms is attached as Exhibit D. A copy of the funding agreement between the City and the District is attached as Exhibit E. The District is not a third party beneficiary of the Annexation Agreement. The County does not by this agreement commit any funds to the District in support of the operation or improvement of the Pool, nor is this agreement contingent on the City and District meeting their obligations under the agreement attached as Exhibit E. 6. The Lease does not contain any specific terms or conditions relating to early termination. 7. The County and the District have agreed to terminate the Lease, subject to and consistent with the terms and conditions set forth in this Statement. The parties have also agreed to terminate their Pool Use Agreement through this same Statement. • Draft document dated 2-04-08 1 Draft Draft Draft • TERMS AND CONDITIONS OF LEASE TERMINATION 1.0 Termination of Lease and Pool Use Agreement. The Lease shall be terminated as of the Transfer Date. The District releases the County from all obligations of any kind or nature under the Lease, effective from and after the Transfer Date. The Pool Use Agreement is also terminated as of the Transfer Date, and neither party shall have any further right, duty or obligation under that agreement from and after such date. The "Transfer Date" shall be the date on which the deed referenced in Section 2.1 of this Agreement is fully executed and recorded, and shall occur on March 1, 2008 or as soon thereafter as practicable. 2.0 District Takes Pool and Other Improvements "AS IS". 2.1 The parties agree that the Pool is annexed to the leased property and cannot be removed from it without destroying the Pool and causing substantial damage to the leased property. The County shall assign,transfer and convey to the District, as of the Transfer Date, all of the County's right,title, and interest in and to the Pool and in and to any and all other County-made improvements on the leased property. The District will accept and assume, as of the Transfer Date, all of the County's right, title and interest in and to the Pool and in and to any and all other County-made improvements on or in the leased property. The County shall cooperate with the District after the date hereof in executing additional transfer documents (including, but not limited to, a bargain and sale deed as to the improvements) if necessary to convey or perfect title to the Pool in the District as of • the Transfer Date. 2.2 The County will make its records concerning the Pool available to the City and the County personnel most knowledgeable about the Pool will be available to jointly inspect the Pool with District personnel and to provide the District the status of maintenance of such facilities and point out known conditions, including any defects or problems, if any, with the Pool. The District agrees to, accept the Pool as of the Transfer Date in AS IS condition, and assume full and complete responsibility for all operations, maintenance, repairs, or improvements of, and provision of recreational services at, the Pool. 2.3 King County does not make and specifically disclaims any warranties, express or implied, including any warranty of merchantability or fitness for a particular purpose, with respect to the Pool, and no official, employee, representative or agent of King County is authorized otherwise. 2.4 The District acknowledges and agrees that except as indicated in paragraph 5.2 of this Statement, the County shall have no liability for, and that the District shall release and have no recourse against the County for, any defect or deficiency of any kind whatsoever in the Pool without regard to whether such defect or deficiency was known or discoverable by the District or the County. 3.0 Transfer to District of Personal Property Associated with the Pool. The County shall, effective as of the Transfer Date, convey, assign and deliver to the District certain • existing equipment and supplies necessary to operate and maintain the Pool, as Draft document dated 2-04-08 2 Draft Draft Draft enumerated in Exhibit F. The County will leave such equipment and supplies on site, • which equipment and supplies will include all furniture, lifeguard equipment, first aid supplies, specialty tools, operator manuals, as-built pool and remodel plans, phone system, lighting fixtures, miscellaneous pool equipment, building maintenance supplies, spare parts, and materials such as chlorine and filtration supplies for pool maintenance. The District shall take all equipment and supplies AS IS and WHERE IS and agrees that the County holds no future responsibility with regard to the equipment and supplies or any occurrence related to or resulting from use of the equipment and supplies. Any equipment and supplies stored at the Pool for use at other King County facilities will not be transferred. The County shall cooperate with the District after the date hereof in executing additional transfer documents (including, but not limited to, a bill of sale) if necessary to convey or perfect title to the equipment and supplies in the District as of the Transfer Date. 4.0 District's Forward Thrust Covenants. 4.1 The deeds referenced in Section 2.1 shall contain the following specific covenants pertaining to use, which covenants shall run with the leased property for the benefit of the County and the County land that makes up its public park, recreation and open space system. The County and the City agree that the County shall have standing to enforce these covenants until the covenants terminate, both as a matter of contract under this Statement, and as covenants in the deed, which covenants shall be set forth as follows: (a) The District covenants that it shall: 1111 (1) Abide by and enforce all terms, conditions and restrictions in King County Resolution 34571; (2) Not transfer or convey the Pool or convert the leased property to a non-recreational use except by agreement providing that such lands shall continue to be used for the purposes contemplated by Resolution 34571. (b) The District covenants that through December 31, 2019, the District shall not use the Pool or the leased property in a manner that would cause the interest on County bonds related to the Pool to no longer be exempt from federal income taxation. (c) The District covenants that for so long as the Pool is operated, the Pool and the leased property shall continue to be used for public park or recreation purposes, unless other equivalent lands or facilities within the County are received in exchange therefor and the replacement lands or facilities are used for park or recreation purposes. (d) The District further covenants that for so long as the Pool is operated, the District will not limit or restrict access to and use of the Pool or the leased property by non-District residents in any way that does not also apply to District residents. The District covenants that if differential fees for non-District residents are imposed, they will be reasonably related to the cost borne by District taxpayers to • Draft document dated 2-04-08 3 Draft Draft Draft • maintain, improve or operate the Pool or the leased property for parks and recreation purposes. (e) The District covenants that it shall place the preceding covenants in any deeds or other documents transferring the Pool for public recreation purposes provided however that the covenants in Section 4.1(a) shall terminate on May 14, 2010,the expiration of the original term of the Lease and the end of the contemplated useful life of the Pool as stated in Resolution 34571. 5.0 Environmental Liability. 5.1 "Hazardous Materials" as used herein shall mean any hazardous, dangerous or toxic wastes, materials, or substances as defined in state or federal statutes or regulations as currently adopted or hereafter amended. 5.2 Nothing in this Statement shall be deemed to waive any statutory claim for contribution that the District might have against the County under federal or state environmental statutes that arises from hazardous materials deposited or released on the leased property by the County during the County's tenancy. The District may not, however, assert such a claim to the extent that the District creates the need for or exacerbates the cost of remediation upon which a statutory claim for contribution is based as a result of the District performing construction activities on the leased property, changing the configuration of the leased property, or changing the use of the leased property. 5.3 If the District discovers the presence of hazardous materials at levels that could give rise to a statutory claim for contribution against the County it shall notify the County in writing within ninety (90) days of such discovery. Prior to undertaking any remediation of hazardous materials, the parties shall use their best efforts to reach agreement as to which party is responsible for remediation. 5.4 In no event shall the County be responsible for any costs of remediation that exceed the minimum necessary to satisfy the state or federal agency with jurisdiction over the remediation. 6.0 Indemnification and Hold Harmless. 6.1 King County shall indemnify and hold harmless the District and its elected officials, officers, agents or employees, or any of them, from and against any and all claims, actions, suits, liability, loss, costs, expenses and damages of any nature whatsoever, including, but not limited to, attorneys' fees, (i) which are caused by or result from a negligent action or omission of King County, its officers, agents and employees in performing its obligations pursuant to this Statement, and/or (ii) in accordance with the indemnification provisions of the Lease (Exhibit A) which provisions shall survive the termination of the Lease, arising from those occurrences related to the Pool that occurred prior to the Transfer Date, except to the extent that indemnifying or holding the District harmless would be limited by Section 5 of this Statement. In the event that any suit based • upon such a claim, action, loss or damage is brought against the District or the District and King County, (as described in (i) above), King County shall defend the same at its Draft document dated 2-04-08 4 Draft Draft Draft sole cost and expense and, if final judgment be rendered against the District and its elected officials, officers, agents and employees or jointly against the District and King 110 County and their respective elected officials, officers, agents and employees, King County shall satisfy the same. In the event that any suit based upon such a claim, action, loss or damage is brought against the District or the District and King County, (as described in (ii) above), King County and the District shall defend, settle and satisfy the same in accordance with the indemnification provisions of the Lease (Exhibit A), which provision shall survive the termination of the Lease. 6.2 In executing this Statement, the County does not assume liability or responsibility for or in any way release the District from any liability or responsibility which arises in whole or in part from the existence or effect of District rules or regulations. If any cause, claim, suit, action or administrative proceeding is commenced in which the enforceability and/or validity of any such District rule or regulation is at issue, the District shall defend the same at its sole expense and if judgment is entered or damages are awarded against the District, the County or both, the District shall satisfy the same, including all chargeable costs and attorney's fees. 6.3 The District shall indemnify and hold harmless King County and its elected officials, officers, agents and employees, or any of them, from and against any and all claims, actions, suits, liability, loss, costs, expenses and damages of any nature whatsoever, including, but not limited to, attorneys' fees, (i)which are caused by or result from a negligent act or omission of the District, its officers, agents and employees in performing obligations pursuant to this Statement, and/or (ii) arising from those occurrences related • to the Pool that occurred on or after the Transfer Date, except to the extent that indemnifying or holding the County harmless would be limited by Section 5 of this Statement. In the event that any suit based upon such a claim, action, loss or damage is brought against King County or King County and the District, the District shall defend the same at its sole cost and expense and, if final judgment be rendered against King County and its officers, agents and employees or jointly against King County and the District and their respective officers, agents and employees, the District shall satisfy the same. 6.4 Each party shall immediately notify the other of any and all claims, actions, losses or damages that arise or are brought against that party relating to or pertaining to the Pool. 6.5 Each party agrees that its obligations under this Section 6 extend to any claim, demand, and/or cause of action brought by or on behalf of any employees, or agents. For this purpose, each party, bymutual negotiation, hereby waives, with respect to the other party only, any immunity that would otherwise be available against such claims under the Industrial Insurance provisions of Title 51 RCW, but only to the extent necessary to indemnify the other party. 7.0 General Provisions Regarding Effect, Construction, and Enforcement of this Statement. This Statement contains all of the agreements of the Parties with respect to termination of the Lease and with respect to any matter covered or mentioned in this • Statement. This Statement shall be binding upon and inure to the benefit of the Parties' Draft document dated 2-04-08 5 Draft Draft Draft successors and assigns. This Statement creates no rights, duties, or obligations in any • person or entity not a party to it. Any provision of this Statement that is declared invalid or illegal shall in no way affect or invalidate any other provision. In the event either of the Parties defaults on the performance of any terms of this Statement or any Party places the enforcement of this Statement in the hands of an attorney, or files a lawsuit in connection with this Statement, each Party shall pay all its own attorneys' fees, costs and expenses. This Statement shall be governed by the laws of the State of Washington. The venue for any dispute related to this Statement shall be Washington State Superior Court in and for King County, Washington. Failure of any Party to declare any breach or default immediately upon the occurrence thereof, or delay in taking any action in connection with, shall not waive such breach or default. Time is of the essence of this Statement and each and all of its provisions in which performance is a factor. 8.0 Status of County Employees. Subject to District civil service rules and state law, the District agrees to consider the hiring of County employees whose employment status is affected by the transfer of ownership of the Pool where such County employees make application with the District per the District's hiring process and meet the minimum qualifications for employment with the District. The County shall in a timely manner provide the City with a list of those affected employees. The County acknowledges that the District does not guarantee that any such County employees will in fact be hired. 9.0 Notices. All notices or communications by one of the parties hereto to the other shall be • addressed, respectively, as follows: If to the County: If to the District: King County Renton School District Kevin Brown, Manager 300 SW 7th Street King County Parks and Recreation Division Renton, WA 98055 Seattle, WA 98104 Attn: Rich Moore, Asst. Superintendent Any notice shall be deemed to have been given (a) three (3) business days after the mailing thereof when mailed by registered or certified mail (return receipt requested), (b)the next business day after delivery to any overnight courier service offering proof of receipt; (c) upon receipt if sent by facsimile (with copy by registered or certified mail, return receipt requested), or(d) upon receipt if by hand delivery. 10.0 Counterparts. This Statement may be executed in any number of counterparts, which counterparts shall collectively constitute the entire Statement. 11.0 Neutral Authorship. Each party has had opportunity to consult with counsel in connection with the negotiation, execution and delivery of this Statement and in connection with termination of the Lease. Each of the provisions of this Statement has been reviewed and negotiated, and represents the combined work product of both parties hereto. No presumption or other rules of construction which would interpret the 110 provisions of this Statement in favor of or against the party preparing the same will apply Draft document dated 2-04-08 6 Draft Draft Draft in connection with the construction or interpretation of any of the provisions of this 111 Statement. 12.0 Execution Authorized. Each Party represents to the others that the execution of this Statement has been duly authorized by all necessary action on behalf of such party and that the signatories below have the necessaryauthorityto bind the Parties to all terms of g this Statement. IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the parties have executed this Statement. King County Renton School District No. 403 King County Executive Superintendent Date Date Approved as to Form: Approved as to Form: Attorney Attorney • Date Date • Draft document dated 2-04-08 7 Draft Draft Draft • STATE OF WASHINGTON ) ) SS COUNTY OF KING ) On this day of , 2008, before me, the undersigned, a Notary Public in and for the State of Washington, duly commissioned and sworn personally appeared, to me known to be the individual described in and who executed the forgoing instrument, and acknowledged to me that signed and sealed the said instrument as free and voluntary act and deed for the uses and purposed therein mentioned. WITNESS my hand and official seal hereto affixed the day and year in this certificate above written. Notary Public in and for the State of Washington, residing at City and State My appointment expires STATE OF WASHINGTON ) ) SS • COUNTY OF KING ) On this day of , 2008, before me, the undersigned, a Notary Public in and for the State of Washington, duly commissioned and sworn personally appeared, to me known to be the individual described in and who executed the forgoing instrument, and acknowledged to me that signed and sealed the said instrument as free and voluntary act and deed for the uses and purposed therein mentioned. WITNESS my hand and official seal hereto affixed the day and year in this certificate above written. Notary Public in and for the State of Washington, residing at City and State My appointment expires • Draft document dated 2-04-08 8 Draft Draft Draft EXHIBIT A • • Copy of Lease between County and District • • Draft document dated 2-04-08 9 Draft Draft Draft • EXHIBIT B Legal Description of leased property Beginning at the southwest corner of the southeast quarter of the northeast quarter of Section 28, Township 23 North, Range 5 E.W. M.; thence north 1° 59' 35" east 294 feet; thence south 88°11'25" east 658 feet to the true point of beginning; thence north 1°59'35" east 190 feet; thence north 88°11'25" west 148.50 feet; thence south 31°48'35" west 218 feet more or less to a point that is north 88°11'25" west from the true point of beginning; thence south 88°11'25" east 257 feet more or less to the true point of beginning. ALSO, an easement for ingress, egress, including parking; ALSO; an easement for utilities over, under and across the following described property: The southeast quarter of the northeast quarter, Section 28, Township 23 North, Range 5 E.W.M., less the south 250 feet of the east 523 feet of the west 553 feet, known as Tax Lot 4, records of King County, Washington. • • B-1 Draft Draft Draft EXHIBIT C • Copy of Pool Use Agreement between King County and Renton School District 403 • C-i Draft Draft Draft • EXHIBIT D Copy of Section 4(a) of the Interlocal Agreement between the City of Renton and King County, Relating to the Annexation of the Benson Hill Communities Potential Annexation Area, dated as of 1. ANNEXATION FUND PAYMENT AND ROAD IMPROVEMENTS CONTRIBUTION. In order to partially offset the City's cost of transitioning and providing services to the Annexation Area, and in consideration of the City relieving the County of the burden of providing local public services (including but not limited to drainage services and operation of local park and recreation facilities) in the Annexation Area, the County will provide the City with a payment from the annexation initiative incentive reserve funds, and shall fund certain roadway improvements in advance of annexation. a. The County shall pay the City up to $950,000 in County General Fund dollars, which amount shall be paid as follows: i. Upon the City's request, $475,000 shall be transmitted to the City not later than 30 days following adoption by the City of an ordinance accepting annexation of the Annexation Area effective no later than March 1, 2008 (which action shall be taken after receiving certification that the proposition was approved by voters). ii. $175,000 and any portion of the $475,000 the County has not already paid to the City authorized by paragraph 4.a.1 above shall be transmitted to the City within 30 days • following the effective date of the annexation of the Annexation Area so long as that effective date is no later than March 1, 2008. iii. $300,000 of the $950,000 shall be transmitted to the City when: (i) the City provides the County with a copy of an executed, written agreement between the City and the Renton School District ("District") committing the City to pay the District for support of future operations of the Renton Pool; and (ii) the District and County have executed and recorded a lease termination and asset transfer agreement for the Renton Pool. It is the intent of the parties that, in lieu of transferring the Renton Pool to the City, the Pool will instead be owned and operated by the District from and after the date of annexation with ongoing financial support from the City; therefore it is agreed by the parties that the $300,000 retained by the County with respect to the Renton Pool shall not be payable to the City if the conditions (i) and (ii) set forth in the preceding sentence are not met by June 1, 2008. • D-1 • Draft Draft Draft Exhibit E Copy of Executed Pool Funding Support Agreement between City of Renton and Renton School District • • D-2 . 1 Draft Draft Draft • EXHIBIT F Personal Property to be Transferred From County to District, AS IS, WHERE IS 1 Water Slide 2 Tall office chairs 1 Rope Swing Adding machine 1 Water Basketball Hoop 4 Telephones 1 Backboard 2 Electric pencil sharpeners 2 Tot Docks Manual pencil sharpener 1 Handicap lift- water activated 3 Staplers 1 Handicap lift - hand crank 4 Tape dispensers 1 Shallow water steps 2 Large brooms 1 1 meter diving board 2 Small brooms 1 3 sided Kiosk 2 Long handled dust pans 5 Patio chairs 2 3-hole punches 1 Glass top patio table Misc. Office supplies -pens, pencils, 16 Fun noodles markers, scissors, etc. 6 Garbage cans with lids 3x4 mounted dry erase board 10 Mustang Lifejackets Refrigerator 34 Orange Lifejackets First Aid cot with bedding 2 Ring buoys 2 4 drawer file cabinet 1 Sheppard hook 2 drawer file cabinet 3 Rescue tubes 3 8 foot tables 39 Kickboards 1 6 foot table 1 • S Lane lines 5 foot table 2 Pace Clocks Misc. Flashlights 16 Sets of Hydro Fit deep water 28 Clip boards exercise equipment Misc. First Aid supplies 6 Starting blocks Misc. Waste baskets 1 T-rope Water chemistry test kit with test tablets 1 Shallow water lane line 1 Box fan 15 Pull buoys Misc. Scrub brushes and floor squeegees 1 6 foot moveable guard chair 2 Litter pickers 1 6 foot stationary guard chair 2 3 tiered shelf 2 Lifeguard rescue fanny packs 5 Whistles 1 Set of backstroke flags and poles 5 Paper cutter 1 Pool Vacuum 16' ladder 2 Large swim mats 1 8' ladder 7 Small swim mats 1 6' ladder 1 Deck table 2 wheeled hand cart 4 Desks 1 Shop vacuum 6 Office chairs Misc. Garden tools 1 Clothes washer Misc. Hand & power tools 1 Clothes dryer Several Garden hoses 1 TV/VCR player Extension cord 1 Set of Manikins -3 adult and 2 infant 30 Folding Chairs and rack 1 Storage cart with toys 0 8 Floating dumb bells D-3 Attachment C HAZEN POOL • COST PROJECTION MODEL AS OF MARCH 1, 2008 2007-2008 %of 2008-2009 %of 2009-2010 %of Budget Budget Budget Budget Budget Budget REVENUES Swimming Lessons Fees 115,296 64.71% 121,061 64.71% 127,114 64.71% Rentals 62,881 35.29% 66,025 35.29% 69,326 35.29% TOTAL ANTICIPATED REVENUES: 178,177 187,086 196,440 LABOR EXPENSES: Manager 67,792 30.33% 45,733 17.84% 47,603 18.15% Supervisor 31,084 13.91% 45,118 17.60% 46,020 17.55% Senior Guard - - Lifeguards/Instructors 95,000 95,000 37.06% 96,900 36.95% Custodian 17,500 6.83% 17,850 6.81% Classified OT 15,000 5.85% 15,000 5.72% • Classified Benefits 29,663 13.27% 38,003 14.82% 38,861 14.82% TOTAL LABOR: 223,539 256,354 262,234 OPERATING EXPENSES: Supplies 30,000 11.83% 31,500 6.63% 33,075 6.73% TOTAL OPERATING EXPENSES: 30,000 11.83% 31,500 6.63% 33,075 6.73% TOTAL GENERAL EXPENSE: 253,539 474,940 491,749 TOTAL EXPENSES BEFORE ADJUSTMENT; 253,539 0.00% 474,940 0.00% 491,749 0.00%! TOTAL DIRECT COSTS: 253,539 0.00% 474,940 0.00% 491,749 0.00% PROFIT/(LOSS) (75,362) -42.30% (287,854) 688,189 0.00% TOTAL DIRECT COSTS: 253,539 0.00% 474,940 0.00% 491,749 0.00% INDIRECT COST 10,142 4.00% 18,998 4.00% 19,670 4.00% TOTAL EXPENDITURES 263,680 493,937 511,419 NET PROFIT/(LOSS) (85,503) (306,852) 707,859 • • 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 AGREEMENT BETWEEN THE CITY OF RENTON AND RENTON SCHOOL DISTRICT #403, RELATING TO FINANCIAL SUPPORT FOR THE RENTON POOL. WHEREAS, the City of Renton and Renton School District #403 have the authority under Chapter 39.34 RCW, the Interlocal Cooperation Act, to enter into this Agreement; and WHEREAS, the City desires to facilitate the near term transition of the City's annexation areas as they move from unincorporated status to being annexed to the City; and WHEREAS, the Benson Hill Communities area voted at an election on November 6, 41) 2007, to annex to the City and the City has taken action necessary to ensure annexation of the area is effective March 1, 2008; and WHEREAS, King County is divesting itself of ownership, management, and financial responsibility for local parks and recreation facilities located inside cities, including the Renton Pool property that will be located within city limits upon annexation; and WHEREAS, the County and School District have reached an agreement for the lease termination for the Renton Pool property located on the premises of the District's Lindbergh High School; and WHEREAS, King County provided certain funds to the City of Renton in order to partially offset the City's cost of transitioning and providing services to potential annexation areas, including the Renton Pool; and • 1 RESOLUTION NO. WHEREAS, the District and the City have agreed as to the value of preserving the • operation of the Pool as a community asset that supports educational, athletic and recreational opportunities, and water safety awareness for residents of all ages; and WHEREAS, the City intends to provide some share of financial support for the Pool for two years in consideration of the District's agreement to own and operate the Pool at its expense, so that residents are assured access to recreational swimming and aquatics opportunities, until the bond covenants for the Pool's original investment are satisfied in the year 2010; and WHEREAS, The District and the City intend to jointly review the operating costs and revenues of the Pool each year to determine the level of financial support desired by the City, not to exceed $175,000 in each year 2008 and 2009, and to analyze opportunities for the Pool to be self-sustaining; NOW, THEREFORE, THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF RENTON, • WASHINGTON, DOES RESOLVE AS FOLLOWS: SECTION I. The above findings are true and correct in all respects. SECTION II. The Mayor and City Clerk are authorized to enter into an interlocal agreement between the City of Renton and Renton School District#403. PASSED BY THE CITY COUNCIL this day of , 2008. Bonnie I. Walton, City Clerk APPROVED BY THE MAYOR this day of ,2008. • 2 RESOLUTION NO. • Denis Law, Mayor Approved as to form: Lawrence J. Warren, City Attorney RES.XXXX:02/04/0 8:mw • • 3 CITY OF RENTON COUNCIL AGENDA BILL • e...„. AI#: , , Submitting Data: For Agenda of: February 11, 08 Dept/Div/Board: AJLS/City Clerk Staff Contact: Bonnie I. Walton Agenda Status Consent X Subject: Public Hearing Appeal of Hearing Examiner's decision dated January 15, 2008 Correspondence regarding T-Mobile Monopole in SE 3rd Place R-O-W Ordinance Application. Resolution (File No. LUA-07-041 CU-A, ECF) Old Business Exhibits: New Business • City Clerk's letter (2/1/08) Study Sessions • Appeal - T-Mobile USA (1/29/08) including: Information • * Hearing Examiner's Report & Recommendation (1/15/08) * Appeal to Hearing Examiner (10/29/07) ecommended Action: Approvals: Refer to Planning and Development Committee Legal Dept Finance Dept Other Fiscal Impact: N/A Expenditure Required... Transfer/Amendment Amount Budgeted Revenue Generated Total Project Budget .... City Share Total Project... SUMMARY OF ACTION: Appeal of the Hearing Examiner's decision on the T-Mobile Monopole in SE 3rd Place R-O-W was filed on January 29, 2008 by Linda Atkins, Attorney of Davis Wright Tremaine, Representative for Michael Cade, T-Mobile USA, Inc. accompanied by the required $75 fee. STAFF RECOMMENDATION: Council to take action on the T-Mobile Monopole in SE 3rd Place Right-of Way appeal. cc: Jennifer Henning Larry Warren 11111 Rentonnet/agnbill/ bh • February 1, 2008 APPEAL FILED BY: Linda Atkins, Attorney of Davis Wright Tremaine, Representative for Michael Cady, T-Mobile USA, Inc. RE: Appeal of Hearing Examiner's decision dated January 15, 2008,regarding conditional use application for a wireless communications facility, known as the T-Mobile Monopole; SE r Place and Anacortes Av SE R-O-W. (File No. LUA-07-041 CU-A, ECF) 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 T-Mobile Monopole within the SE 3rd Place and Anacortes Av SE right-of-way Conditional Use Permit application 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 immediately 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, February 11, 2008. • NOTICE IS HEREBY GIVEN that the written appeal and other pertinent documents will be reviewed bythe Council's Planningand Development ve opment Committee at 3:00 p.m. on Thursday February 21, 2008, 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. Unless a showing can be made that additional evidence could not reasonably have been available at the prior hearing held by the Hearing Examiner, no further evidence or testimony on this matter will be accepted by the City Council. For additional information or assistance, please call me at 425-430-6510. Sincerely, +e5S-1t .w � 4datt- Bonnie I. Walton City Clerk Attachments • City of Renton Municipal Code; Title IV, Chapter 8, Section 110—Appeals 4-8-110C4 The notice of appeal shall be accompanied by a fee in accordance with RMC 4-1-170, the fee schedule of • the City. (Ord. 3658, 9-13-82) 4-8-110F: Appeals to City Council—Procedures 1. Time for Appeal: Unless a specific section or State law providing for review of decision of the Examiner requires review thereof by the Superior Court or any other body, any interested party aggrieved by the Examiner's written decision or recommendation may submit a notice of appeal to the City Council, upon a form furnished by the City Clerk, within fourteen(14)calendar days from the date of the Examiner's written report. 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: Other 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. Transmittal of Record to Council: Thereupon the Clerk shall forward to the members of the City Council all of the pertinent documents, including the written decision or recommendation, findings and conclusions contained in the Examiner's report, the notice of appeal, and additional letters submitted by the parties. (Ord. 3658, 9-13-1982) 5. 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 unless a showing is made by the party offering the evidence that the evidence could not reasonably have been available at the time of the hearing before the Examiner. If the Council determines that additional evidence is required, the Council shall remand the matter to the Examiner for reconsideration and receipt of additional evidence. The cost of transcription of the hearing record shall be borne by the applicant. In the • absence of an entry upon the record of an order by the City Council authorizing new or additional evidence or testimony, and a remand to the Hearing Examiner for receipt of such evidence or testimony, it shall be presumed that no new or additional evidence or testimony has been accepted by the City Council, and that the record before the City Council is identical to the hearing record before the Hearing Examiner. (Ord. 4389, 1-25-1993) 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 submissions by parties. 7. Findings and Conclusions Required: If, upon appeal of a decision of the Hearing Examiner on an application submitted pursuant to RMC 4-1-050F1, and after examination of the record, the Council determines that a substantial error in fact or law exists in the record, it may remand the proceeding to Examiner for reconsideration, or modify, or reverse the decision of the Examiner accordingly. 8. Council Action: If, upon appeal from a recommendation of the Hearing Examiner upon an application submitted pursuant to RMC 4-1-050F2 and F3, and after examination of the record, the Council determines that a substantial error in fact or law exists in the record, or that a recommendation of the Hearing Examiner should be disregarded or modified, the City Council may remand the proceeding to the Examiner for reconsideration, or enter its own decision upon the application. 9. Decision Documentation: In any event, 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. The burden of proof shall rest with the appellant. (Ord 3658, 9-13-1982) 10. 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. 4660, 3-17-1997) CITY OF RENTON COI APPEAL TO RENTON CITY COUNCIL JAN 2 9 2008 ;30 r OF HEARING EXAMINER'S DECISION/RECOMMENDATION RECEIVED CITE CLERK'S OFFICE 1111 APPLICATION NAME T-Mobile SE 3rd P1 & Anacortes Ave. FILE NO. LUA07-065CU A, ECF Right-of-way The undersigned interested party hereby files its Notice of Appeal from the decision or recommendation of the Land Use Hearing Examiner, dated January 15 , 20 08 . 1. IDENTIFICATION OF PARTY APPELLANT: REPRESENTATIVE(IF ANY): Name: T-Mobile USA, Inc./Michael Cady Name: Linda W. Atkins& Davis Wright Tremai_ne Address: 19807 North Creek Pkwy 2nd Floor Address: 777 108th Ave NE, #2300 Bothell, WA 98011 Bellevue, WI 98004-5149 Phone Number: 425-398-7603 Phone Number: 425-646-6115 Email: Michael.Cady@T-Mobile.com Email:lindaatkins@dwt.com 2. SPECIFICATION OF ERRORS (Attach additional sheets, if necessary) Set forth below are the specific errors or law or fact upon which this appeal is based: Finding of Fact: (Please designate number as denoted in the Examiner's Report) No. 4'5, Error: See attached 7,12, 14,15, 18-21 Correction: See attached • Conclusions: No. 1-7 Error: See attached Correction: See attached Other: No. Error: Sec attached Correction: See attached 3. SUMMARY OF ACTION REQUESTED The City Council is requested to grant the following relief: (Attach explanation, if desired) See attached. x Reverse the decision or recommendation and grant the following relief: Issue Permit Modify the decision or recommendation as follows: . OR X Remand to the Examiner for further consideration as follows: See attached. Other: ft4se-4, lit Linda W. Atkins /-2,- o o8 Appellant/Representative Signature Type/Printed Name Date NOTE: Plea a refer to Title IV,Ch ter 8,of the Renton Municipal Code,and Section 4-8-110F,for specific appeal procedu es. i \ CCH - c UJotA.mi Appeal of Hearing Examiner Decision No. LUA07-65, CU-A, ECF Page 1 of 8 BEFORE THE RENTON CITY COUNCIL • APPEAL OF DENIAL OF ADMINISTRATIVE CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT Appellant: T-Mobile USA, Inc. and T-Mobile West Corporation, d/b/a T- Mobile Decision Appealed: Decision of City of Renton Hearing Examiner dated January 15, 2008 Project Name: T-Mobile Monopole in SE 3rd Place and Anacortes Ave SE Right-of-Way Property Owner: City of Renton, 1055 S Grady Way, Renton WA 98057 Project Location: Street right-of-way located northwest of property addressed at 4401 SE 3rd Place, within SE 3rd Place and Anacortes Ave SE File Number: LUA07-065, CU-A, ECF I. Nature of Application and Project Location T-Mobile, the Appellant and Applicant, filed an application for an Administrative Conditional Use Permit approval for a wireless communications facility with the City of Renton on June 28, 2007. The application requested permission to replace an existing 40-foot tall wooden Puget Sound Energy ("PSE") power pole with a new wooden power pole to be 59-feet-11-inches tall. Permission to replace the existing wooden power pole with a new pole was requested so that T-Mobile could collocate three flush-mounted wireless communications antennas on the pole. The T-Mobile proposal also included a request for permission to install an underground vault to house telecommunications equipment associated with the wireless facility. The project site totals 104 square feet in area and would be accessed via Anacortes Avenue NE. The purpose of the proposed T-Mobile wireless communications facility is to provide in- building and outdoor coverage to a residential area located within the City of Renton east of Union Avenue SE and roughly bounded by SE 2nd Place to the north and SE 4th Place to the south. The area surrounding the proposed site is zoned Residential-8 (R-8) (8 dwelling units per acre). Single family residences surround the project site. T-Mobile currently cannot provide adequate wireless signal in this area, and thus cannot adequately serve its customers in the area. The application was processed by the City of Renton as an Administrative Conditional Use permit to install a"monopole 1" structure. As defined by RMC 4-11-230 a "monopole 1" structure is: Appeal of Hearing Examiner Decision No. LUA07-65, CU-A, ECF Page 2 of 8 IIA wireless communication support structure which consists of a freestanding support structure, less than sixty feet(60') in height, erected to support wireless communication antennas and connecting appurtenances. As T-Mobile explained to the Hearing Examiner during the open record appeal hearing in this matter, this definition is not a completely accurate description of the T-Mobile application. Although it is necessary to replace the existing PSE pole with a somewhat taller pole in order to allow the attachment of T-Mobile antennas at the proper height,the primary purpose of the pole will continue to be to support PSE power lines. II. City of Renton Development Services Permit Denial and Appeal to City of Renton Hearing Examiner. In an Administrative Land Use Action decision issued October 15, 2007, City of Renton Development Services Director Neil Watts denied T-Mobile's application on the following grounds: 1. The subject proposal does not comply with all of the policies and codes of the City of Renton, due to the inability of the project to mitigate the aesthetic impacts that the proposal would have on ithe surrounding single family residential neighborhood. 2. The proposal does not comply with the Comprehensive Plan Utilities element due to the aesthetic impacts the monopole would have on the surrounding neighborhood that cannot be mitigated. The proposal does not comply with all the Wireless Communication Facilities Conditional Use Criteria. 3. Unrebutted testimony was received from real estate 1 professionals stating that the siting of a monopole 1 structure at the proposed location would reduce the property values in the vicinity. T-Mobile disagreed with these conclusions and appealed this administrative denial to the City of Renton Hearing Examiner. III. T-Mobile's Grounds for Appeal of Hearing Examiner's Denial Decision The City of Renton Hearing Examiner held an open record hearing on T-Mobile's appeal on December 18, 2007. Witnesses for T-Mobile at the hearing included T-Mobile representatives Kevin Foy and Chris Conaxis, T-Mobile Zoning Supervisor Michael Cady, and T-Mobile's Radiofrequency("RF") engineer, Kevin During. Following the hearing, the Hearing Examiner denied T-Mobile's appeal, and entered Findings and III Appeal of Hearing Examiner Decision No. LUA07-65, CU-A, ECF Page 3 of 8 Conclusions as set forth on pages 8 – 11 of the Examiner decision. A true and correct • copy of the Examiner's decision is attached to this appeal as Appendix 1: T-Mobile hereby appeals the Hearing Examiner denial and the Examiner's findings and conclusions, as set forth below: A. Potential Errors Related to Hearing Examiner"Minutes" of December 18, 2007 Hearing 1. To the extent that any of the text of the Hearing Examiner decision as set forth beginning at the bottom of page 1 of the decision and continuing through the top of page 8 of the decision—denominated by the Examiner as "Minutes"—is inconsistent with, or does not accurately reflect, the actual testimony of the witnesses at the hearing, T-Mobile objects to the same, and requests that for purposes of the appeal that the City Council consider and base its decision on only the official record of the December 18, 2007 Hearing Examiner hearing. 2. To any extent that the "Minutes"of the December 18, 2007 hearing as set forth at pages 1-8 of the Examiner's decision(a) are inaccurate and (b) constitute factual findings of the Examiner, T-Mobile hereby appeals from such inaccurate findings. 3. T-Mobile reserves the right to order and enter into the record before the City • Council a complete transcription of the December 18, 2007 hearing, and to present to the Council in written briefs or in oral argument further specific objections to the characterization of the evidence by the Hearing Examiner in the "Minutes" as necessary or appropriate for its appeal. B. Errors in Hearing Examiner's Findings 1. T-Mobile appeals from Finding 4 of the decision to the extent that such finding may inadequately characterize the nature of the T-Mobile application. Finding 4 states that the proposal is for a"monopole 1" structure. As defined by RMC 4-11-230 a "monopole 1" structure is "A wireless communication support structure which consists of a freestanding support structure, less than sixty feet(60') in height, erected to support wireless communication antennas and connecting appurtenances." Although it is necessary to replace the existing PSE pole with a somewhat taller pole in order to allow the attachment of T-Mobile antennas at the proper height, the primary purpose of the pole will continue to be to support PSE power lines. PSE power lines obviously are not "wireless" facilities. T-Mobile's proposal is to collocate its antennas on the PSE pole. 2. T-Mobile appeals from Finding 5 of the decision because this finding recites conclusions of the City staff report with which T-Mobile disagrees. Testimony and documents in the record before the Examiner demonstrate that there are many trees in the area, and that from certain views in the neighborhood there would be a screening effect • for the pole. The existing PSE pole is 40' tall; thus, to the extent that this Finding 5 Appeal of Hearing Examiner Decision No. LUA07-65, CU-A, ECF Page 4 of 8 • characterizes the existing structures in the area as no higher than 30', the Finding is inaccurate. 3. T-Mobile appeals from Finding 7 to the extent that the Hearing Examiner has incorporated and relied upon certain conclusions of Development Director Watts which are recited in Finding 7. T-Mobile disagrees with the Director's conclusions as set forth in the written appeal from the Director's decision that T-Mobile filed with the Hearing Examiner. A true and correct copy of T-Mobile's appeal of the Director decision is attached hereto as Appendix 2, and each of the grounds for appeal set forth in Appendix 2 are incorporated herein by reference. 4. T-Mobile appeals from Finding 12 because it inaccurately characterizes what may be allowed in the R-8 zone under the Renton wireless facilities ordinance. RMC 4-4- 140(G) sets forth the height limits for wireless facilities. Under these provisions, wireless facilities may exceed the height limit for a zone, for example, a monopole 1 structure is allowed at any height less than 60' in all zones. The mere fact that a wireless facility proposal is taller than other structures in a zone is not a determining factor for granting a wireless facility permit. By their nature, wireless facilities must be taller than other structures in an area, otherwise the wireless signal cannot be sent. The Renton Municipal Code acknowledges this fact. The Hearing Examiner, however, erroneously ignores this fact. • 5. Finding 14 restates certain comments made by the Director in his administrative decision. To the extent that the Examiner may have adopted or relied upon such comments, T-Mobile appeals from Finding 14, for the reasons set forth in its appeal of the Director's decision, attached hereto as Appendix 2. 6. Finding 15 recites certain conclusions of the ERC. To the extent that such recited conclusions, or other text of Finding 15, suggest or state that the Examiner finds that the T-Mobile application should be denied on aesthetic grounds, T-Mobile appeals from the finding. Testimony and documents presented to the Hearing Examiner addressed aesthetic issues and issues related to various mitigation measures that might be utilized for a wireless facility of this type. Finding 15 does not accurately reflect such evidence. 7. T-Mobile appeals from Finding 18. There is no indication in the Finding as to what letter the Examiner refers to (there were at least two real estate agent letters in the record). To the extent that T-Mobile is able to guess at which letter the Examiner relies upon, T-Mobile disagrees that any such letter referred to in the Finding "indicates"that there would be an adverse effect on property values. The letters contain statements by parties who were not present at the hearing and who therefore could not be cross- examined. No evidence was presented regarding the qualifications of the letter writers. The finding refers to evidence that is of indeterminate identity, and given the lack of expert qualifications, of little or no weight. • Appeal of Hearing Examiner Decision No. LUA07-65, CU-A, ECF Page 5 of 8 8. T-Mobile appeals from Finding 19. This finding mischaracterizes the referenced • report submitted by Appellant, and ignores pertinent evidence in the Appellant's report as well as supporting testimony given at the hearing concerning the relevance of the report and concerning the similarities between the property analyzed in the report and the proposal at issue. 9. T-Mobile appeals from Finding 20. The utility poles referenced are not identified as to location or height, nor is their location or height correlated to the search ring criteria for the T-Mobile site. There is no factual basis stated for the conclusion that such poles, with or without the unspecified"modifications"referred to in the Finding, could "provide less aesthetic concern." The Finding is inconsistent with the testimony and documents presented to the Examiner, and mischaracterizes the facts concerning what locations are actually able and suitable to provide coverage for the gap in service that prompted T- Mobile to make the application at issue. 10. Finding 21 inadequately characterizes the evidence presented by T-Mobile concerning its efforts to submit an application to the City for a site that was not located within a residential area. This finding does not accurately reflect the record or T- Mobile's efforts in this regard. C. Errors in Hearing Examiner's Conclusions. 1. T-Mobile appeals from Conclusion 1 for the following reasons. RMC 4-8- 110(7)(b) sets out six separate grounds for reversal or remand of an administrative land use decision "if the substantial rights of the applicant may have been prejudiced because the decision is: (i) in violation of constitutional provisions; (ii) in excess of the authority or jurisdiction of the agency; (iii)made upon unlawful procedure; (iv) affected by other error of law; (v) clearly erroneous in view of the entire record as submitted; (vi) arbitrary or capricious." The Hearing Examiner's Conclusion 1 purports to cite these criteria, but only refers to four of the six criteria. Conclusion 1 declares that T-Mobile failed to show any error under the six criteria, but fails to identify how, or on what basis, the Examiner reached this decision. The Examiner ignored the provisions of the federal Telecommunications Act, and ignored written and testimonial evidence from T-Mobile as to facts relevant to the application decision, including but not limited to substantial evidence that T-Mobile considered other alternatives to the proposed location, including an alternative that would have placed the facility completely outside of a residential area, but was thwarted by the City itself from pursuing that alternative, by reason of the letter and the application of the City's burdensome, overly restrictive, anti-competitive ordinances which denied T-Mobile the ability to fill a significant gap in its coverage and to compete on a level playing field with other wireless service providers. 2. T-Mobile appeals from Conclusions 2 and 3 on the grounds that these conclusions evidence that the Examiner gave undue deference to the decision of the Director, in direct violation of Renton Municipal Code provisions that require the Examiner to hold an open Appeal of Hearing Examiner Decision No. LUA07-65, CU-A, ECF Page 6 of 8 • record hearing on the application and to decide based upon the record evidence admitted before the Examiner whether the application should be approved. 3. Conclusion 4 is erroneous and should be reversed by the Council because it reflects that the Examiner incorrectly applied the permit approval criteria for wireless facilities, and improperly based his decision on undue deference to the decision of the Director, and upon an erroneous application of the law. The Examiner in Conclusion 4 erred in determining that this proposal could be denied solely for aesthetic reasons, and further erred in ignoring substantial evidence that this permit denial deprives T-Mobile of the ability and opportunity to close a significant gap in its coverage which cannot be closed through any other site alternatives. 4. T-Mobile appeals from Conclusion 5 because it reflects that the Examiner ignored substantial evidence presented by T-Mobile that the proposed facility at the proposed site is the only means available to T-Mobile under the Renton Municipal Code for closing a significant gap in its coverage. The Examiner declares in this conclusion that some other combination of"additional shorter poles or taller poles spread out further"would be suitable alternatives, without any basis in the record evidence that such unidentified alternatives would be located within the T-Mobile search ring or that such alternatives would have provided adequate coverage. The Examiner fails to discuss T-Mobile's evidence that it attempted without success to persuade the Development Services • department to accept an application for T-Mobile to locate its facilities at a nearly 1 acre size lot, not located within a residential district, where other communications facilities are already located, and which would not have adverse aesthetic impacts because of existing screening trees. The Examiner's Conclusion 5 is clearly erroneous and must be reversed. 5. T-Mobile appeals from Conclusion 6 because it is clearly erroneous on its face. This conclusion admits that no provision of the Renton Municipal Code required T- Mobile to submit reports concerning alternative sites. Having said this, the conclusion then states that T-Mobile's application was properly denied by Development Develo ment Services Director because of the absence of alternatives evidence. The Examiner states that"the Director was . . . limited to consider the impacts of the proposed pole and site", but then concludes that a permit was properly denied because of factors that do not relate to the proposal. Conclusion 6 is contradictory on its face, illogical, and not based upon the Renton Municipal Code or upon a correct interpretation of Telecommunications Act case law. 6. T-Mobile appeals from Conclusion 7 because it, like Conclusions 1, 2 and 3, is predicated on errors of law concerning the proper standard of review of the Director's decision, and upon a misapprehension of the role of an open record appeal hearing within the administrative land use decision making process. Further, Conclusion 7 is predicated on a misapprehension of the role that aesthetics may play in a decision on a wireless facility proposal under Renton's wireless code and under Washington law. For example, • RMC 4-4-140(F)(2) states on its face that as to visual impact, wireless development should preserve the pre-existing character of the surroundings "to the extent consistent Appeal of Hearing Examiner Decision No. LUA07-65, CU-A, ECF Page 7 of 8 with the function of the communications equipment," and that wireless facilities shall be • designed to blend with the existing characteristics of the site "to the extent practical." These provisions clearly state that considerations of aesthetics and compatibility must be balanced with the technical requirements of wireless communications. Here, the Director and the Examiner have denied a permit to T-Mobile for the only feasible location to fill the significant gap in its coverage because the support structure for the antennas will be taller than other structures in the area and because it will be seen. Washington courts consistently have been clear that a permit denial cannot be based upon these considerations alone. See Seattle SMSA Ltd. v. San Juan County, 88 F.Supp.2d 1128, 1131 n.3 (W.D.Wn. 1997) (aesthetic factors may not be sole basis for permit denial); Citizens to Preserve Pioneer Park LLC v. City of Mercer Island, 106 Wn.App. 461 (2001) (fact that monopole would be seen from some adjacent properties insufficient to support permit denial). IV. The City's Permit Denial Violates the Federal Telecommunications Act. The Telecommunications Act of 1996 ("the Act") prohibits municipal government from enacting or enforcing regulations or requirements that"may prohibit or have the effect of prohibiting the ability of any entity to provide any interstate or intrastate telecommunications service." 47 U.S.C. § 253. Under Section 253 of the Act, federal courts have made it clear that municipalities are prohibited from imposing complex, discretionary, and burdensome zoning obligations on telecommunications providers as a precondition of deploying telecommunications facilities. See, e.g., Sprint Telephony PSC, L.P. v. County of San Diego, 479 F.3d 1061 (9th Cir. 2007); City of Auburn v. Qwest Corp., 260 F.3d 1160 (9th Cir. 2001). Such "barriers to entry" are improper, and any municipal decision which embodies or creates such a barrier is a violation of federal law. Here, where T-Mobile has already been prevented from submitting an application to the City for a wireless facility on non-residentially-zoned land that would have covered the gap in its service area, and now has been denied a permit for the only other practicable location that would allow it to service the gap on the grounds that the location is too close to residences, or has too much impact on residences, T-Mobile effectively has been prevented from entering and providing services to this area, in violation of Section 253 of the Act. The City's application of its zoning regulations, as admitted by even the Hearing Examiner in Conclusion 6, have made it virtually impossible for T-Mobile to service its customers in the area affected by this application. Similarly, Section 332(c)(7)(B) of the Act prohibits local government permit denials that prohibit or have the effect of prohibiting the provision of wireless services. This section of the Act is even expressly recognized by the City, in RMC 4-4-140(E)(2), which provides that "The City zoning requirements may not prohibit or have the effect of prohibiting the provision of wireless telecommunications service." Here, where the City has refused to grant a permit to T-Mobile for a facility at the only practicable location Appeal of Hearing Examiner Decision No. LUA07-65, CU-A, ECF Page 8 of 8 • that will allow it to fill the significant gap in its service coverage, the City has violated both Section 332 of the Act and its own ordinances. V. RELIEF REQUESTED The Hearing Examiner has erroneously denied T-Mobile's appeal of the Development Director's Decision, and the City Council should reverse the Examiner's decision. For all of the reasons that are apparent from the contents of T-Mobile's appeal to the Hearing Examiner and from the other documents contained in the record and the testimony that was before the Hearing Examiner, the Development Director erred in issuing his original denial of T-Mobile's site application. T-Mobile presented ample evidence supporting the proposed location and facility as being the minimum necessary to fill the gap in its service coverage. The record before the Hearing Examiner contains the report and testimony of T-Mobile's radiofrequency engineer as to the size and location of the coverage gap, and of the reasons why the proposal is the only practicable solution to fill that gap. The RF engineer's report and testimony includes an analysis of alternative sites, which analysis was completely ignored by the Hearing Examiner. Based upon the record before the Hearing Examiner, and upon the applicable criteria of RMC 4-4-140 and 4-9- 030(J), the wireless facility application of T-Mobile for this location should be approved. T-Mobile respectfully requests that the City Council reverse the Hearing Examiner's • decision and grant the requested permit. In alternative event that the Council believes that additional information is required regarding any matter or issue presented to the Hearing Examiner, T-Mobile would request that the Council remand to the Examiner for further proceedings with instructions as to the proper legal standards to apply to a decision on remand. Dated this 29th day of January, 2008. Respectfully Submitted, Davis Wright Tremaine, Attorneys For Appellant T-Mobile it; By Linda White Atkins WSBA#17955 777 108th Avenue NE Bellevue, WA 98004 Telephone: 425-646-6115 Facsimile: 425-646-6199 Email: lindaatkins@dwt.com • • APPENDIX 1 s Ill January 15,2008 OFFICE OF THE HARING EXAM/NER CITY OF RENTON REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION APPELLANT: T=Nlobile Monopole in SE 3'4-Pla.ce:Right=of--Way Appeal LUA-07-06,5,CU-A,ECF PUBLIC HEARING: After reviewing:the Appellant'written requests for a hearing and examining available information on file,the.Examiner conducted a public hearing on the subject as follows: MINUTES The following minutes ate a summary ofthe.December 18, 2007 hearing. The legal record is recorded on CD. The hearing opened on Tuesday,December 18,2007, at 9:01 a.m. in the Council Chambers on the;seventh floor • of the Renton City Hall. Parties wishing to testify were affirmed by the Examiner: • The following exhibits_were entered into the,record: - xh.ibit No. 1: Staff file containing the original appeal letter and site information, by reference, letters from.a number of neighbors,Mr. Watt's denial,.and the letter establishing this appeal date. Parties Present: Neil Watts, Development Services Director,City of Renton Arm Nielsen, Assistant City Attorney Kevin Foy, Appellant Chris Conaxis,Representing the Appellant, 575 Andover Park W,-Ste.2W,Tukwila, WA 98.18'8 Michael Cady,Zoning Supervisor for T-Mobile,575 Andover Park W, Ste.201,Tukwila, 98188 Kevin Durning,RF Engineer for T-Mobile, 575 Andover Park W, Ste.:201,Tukwila, WA 98:188 Testimony began with: Chris-Conaxis stated that T-Mobile was here to bring excellent coverage to their..customers and their needs;. Thereis a greater need in rural areas and,residential neighborhoods: Fanew sites,arid ndidates include computer modeling, input_froni customers,; competition froim other carr'iers,:demand for a ii"emergency coverage, new types of home construction and po ulation increase P p stn the area,overall.system performance,as well as other considerations. A gap in T-Mobile's coverage has been discovered and-a location T-Mobile Monopole Appeal TLA-07-065, CU-A January 15, 2008 Page 2 • has been found that is within the.constraints;of the code that will serve to meet the customer's needs. This=plan is:designed to bring coverage-to residences east of Uni:on.Aveniue at SE2°d Place to the south at$E 41h. These • targeted areas are very.smal.l, (map referred teas Tab.6 in the booklet) • T-Mobile applied for application, went through allthe necessary processes and.was`issued a denial. The information provided was a chronological order of events,starting.at Tab 7 With the request for pre-application meeting with-the City to discuss the-proposal. Mr,Conaxis continued"through'the booklet reviewing all the pertinent information in the process leading to ile denial of the.application, Aesthetics were not:brought up during the,review process and yet down the road it ends up being one of the major factors that theCity is relying on for the denial of the project. On October 8 they received notice from the'ERC and on.October 15 they received the staff report, which was a complete reversal of the City s position from May/June and the Pre- Application Notice. Part of Tab-4 is the analysis provided by their radio frequency engineer, which discusses how they arrived at this facility as well as some of the alternatives that were reviewed. •Some of the other locations required the changing out of an existing utility pole fora new.one slightly taller to accommodate the antennas. • Tab 2 shows the area without coverage and the second map shows the facility with coverage. It is nota larger area that it covers. T-Mobile contends that under the present code,these monopole facilities are able to be located in this zone up to 60 feet. T-Mobile is not proposing a monopole 1, which is defined in the code as a wireless communication support structure,consisting of a free-standing support stricture less than 60 feet.in-.height to.support wireless communications, antennas and connecting appurtenances. They, instead,are proposing an attached wireless • communication facility, which would be utilizing an existing structure,granted the-existing structure would have to be removed and replaced for a stronger pole. They consider it an existing.structure since one currently exists in the exact spot where the communication tower would-be located,the pole would,continue to serve it's primarypurpose as an existing utility pole, the wireless antennas would serve as a secondary function to that pole. T-Mobile does agree that the top portion of the-pole would not be able:to be screened;.to work effectively, the pole does need to protrude above ground and above the trees iii order to function properly. Any tree:that was in front of the antenna would not allow the wireless antenna to function properly,the-wireless function cannot Work through the trees, it must be above them. Tl-ie Examiner stated that aesthetics is the issue and to make the antenna aesthetic the antenna would-need to be screened and if you screen it the anteiina.becpmes useless. That is the dilemma. Mr. Conaxis stated that that was correct,the top half of the pole could not be screened froni a.functionality. standpoint. There are trees in the area that are acting-and a backdrop.or screen from certain angles,,,but.the top 20 feet of the pole is there for functionality purposes: The proposed antennas in this case would be flusli mounted to.the pole, they would•not:ptotrude from the pole. The antenna is approximately 6 feet in'length and has a-winged shape. The antenna will be flush-mounted and painted to match the color of the pole. The equipment that runs the antenna will be installed in an underground 'vault for aesthetic purposes so the general public not see the-equipment. Upon approval of the_project,,the City has agreed to approve the undergroundvault activity. T-Mobile would be Willing to enclose the antennain a canister.. Michael Cady stated that they had looked-at false trees•to minimize the looks of the antenna. What they have found is that when you are close to those trees, they are very ugly,you can tell that they are false. The only time they work well is when there is-a site-that is quite a distance from anyone viewing it: Secondly the utility • . T--Mobile Monopole Appeal. LUA-07-065 CU-A • January 15,2008 Page 3 corripany has never authorized a pole that is designed to look like a tree because their ptimary function is as a utility pole and that function has to continue. the report states that there is not an impact.on:property values. Chris COriaXis..earnerrented that the.;false trees, if they were put on a:corder Where a utility pole currently exists, the false tree would:stand out like a.sore thumb. If it:is in a full stand".of trees to make it look like an existing tree tends to Work better. They hadproposed another alternative of placing the pole within a cluster of trees and that proposal was denied by the City, because of that they had to look for other sites. • Under the staff report, the second item that the City contends is that the proposal does"not comply with the Comprehensive Plan for utility elements. The neighborhood is currently dominated.by 30-40 foot utilitypoles; T-Mobile is taking an existing structure and utilizing that existing structure by-raising the heightrather than bringing,a new pole into the neighborhood. It further states that the proposal does not comply with the Communications Facilities Conditional Use criteria. On the previous.page under Conditional PernitReview it States that the applicant s conditional use perrnitapplication compiles with- tne requirements for the information necessaryfor the conditional use permit review: A third item under the conclusions states testimony was received from realestate professionals stating:that the, • site of monopole 1 structures at the proposed location would reduce the property values'inthe vicinity. T- Mobile contends that they were never given an opportunity to provide rebuttal to that testimony. That rebuttal was submitted with the appeal documents. Under Tab 11 on third page there is talk about Ord. 5286 under RMC 4.2-080 states that-monopoles proposed on public right-of-way may be allowed via Administrative U-se.Permit,in."a Right-of-Way Use Permit,that is what- they were told in their pre-application meeting and that"is the process they followed: Itfurth'er states:that the monopole must`be 100.feet setback from any adjacentresidential.ly zoned:parcel, otherwise a Hearing Examiner Conditional Use would be required. This facility.is riot 100 feet from a-residentially zoned property,they contend that the City may not have had the authority to make a decision,on this application. • Neil Watts quoted from RMC 4.2-060p,-which.states this project would come under the Admin istrative.Use Permit process,He further went onto explain where the 100-foot setback:applied. • Chris Conaxis stated that this was not a Monopole l.,rather it is an existing structure. The Examiner stated if it is not a Monopole I then this hearing should probably not be taking place. He further asked fora definition of a Monopole I. • Neil Watts stated that it is a freestanding support structure less than 60-feet in height. This is an existing structure. Chris Conaxis stated that they started looking at this,location prior to May 2006. Tab 13.eon:air&-the letter and, application that T-Mobtl'e:turned in for a Monopole 1 on the property at 400 Union..This,did not meet the size criteria, the parcel was.92 acre and it had to be one full acre, They were"riot:even given.the-ability to:requesta: rvariance for that site. They were:told"that a new code was-in the works and that it would be favorable for utility oles in the right of way and that's wherethey changed their direction-.and.'started;loolcing:for suitable options. T-Mobile Monopole Appeal LUA-07-065,CU-A January 15, 2008 Page 4 • Kevin Durtiing, 575 Andover Park W,Ste.201,Tukwila,WA 98188 stated that the.:coverage=from-this partictil'ar.location would be approximately a halfmile. They are the-predominate server in this area,there:,goal is to stay out of Maple Valley with this particular site and shoot more to the north. The height and location of trees will affect the service areas. In the Winter coverage is usually better because of the deciduous_trees. If the tree is within ten or twelve feet it may cause problems, the beam is not allowed-to develop-it.is basically stopped. Chris Conaxis showed a map showing,an overview of the neighborhood with the location ofithe facility,mar-ked with a red dot. If this particular utility pole is not acceptable;how would any other utility poleon any of'the surrounding streets meet the code? Union Street was inspected, from this location to Union they would-lose 30- 40 feet in elevation, and again once on Union they have the same-problem,where will they be able to put their .ground equipment. There_is a sidewalk and no-place to accommodate the cabinetsabove ground or Underground. They have been researchingthis project:for almost-3 years andItal e identified one property that appears to meet-the needs of the-code,acid after months o work,received'a denial. The Examiner asked if a taller tower located in the,area of SE l`28il'and,Cemetery Road which is more an arterial and more commercial oriented area,would,that serve the,area geographically? Kevin Duming stated that they do have several locations in and around that particular area,they have not looked in that exact area. Taller is ambiguous, they can serve anything if they have a tall enough tower. He is.not sure that it would be approved to be a taller tower in that area. As to what competitors are doing in this area,he did not know, different bands require different frequencies. Ann Nielsen stated that the October 8,2007 Environmental Committee Report, issued by theCity,under No.3 •. on page 3 of 4 it specifically lists a category-of aesthetics. The conclusion states that other than-relocation there does not appear to be any mitigation measure that could be implemented that would reduce the aesthetics of the proposed Monopole 1 structure and associated'equipment cabinet. Aesthetics was pointed out in'the SEPA documents. Also, on October 29, 20.07,which ran concurrent with,the appeal_period'on'the.Director's decision,if there--was an issue with this it should have been appealed at that time. The Examiner stated that they had no reason to appeal since ERC did not impose any mitigation measures. Ann Nielsen stated that was true,.but the appellant did just bring up that the.City had nowhere brought up the -aspect of aesthetics,When it was specifically referenced in that'report. For.purpose of the record,are the appellants saying that this.isnot.a Monopole 1 structure? Neil Watts read the definition-of'a Monopole I structure: "Monopole 1:a-wireless communication support structure which consists of a free standing ,tipport structure,:;less'than:60-feet in height, erected to support wireless cornmunications,antennas and:appurtenances:" Ann Nielson stated that it is their application and appeal,but they are not saying that it is a-Monopole 1,if they think"it.i.ssomething else, they should reapply under that.applicable provision. The Examiner asked if the criteria or conditional use would be different if this was not a Monopole 1, if it's-less II/ than 60'feet is there some different criteria. T-Mobile Monopole Appeal I UA-07-065, CI1-A ii• January 15; 200.8 Page 5 Neil Watts.stated when the Ordinance was written,they were looking at twottliffereithypes, support_structiires_ which are basically a.Monopole 1,Monopole 2 structures which.are significantly higher,.and;the latticetowers which are very extreme situations. Separately from tiiat..is the-,discussion and definition on the.different range of antennas. The intention set out in the code in the policies-is forpeople`to put antennas on existing structures, buildings, poles, etc. If PSE had a pole that was the right height.and was structurally such that it could support the antenna, a permit for the antennas could be sought. If the antennas were.small enough, which these today appear to be, it would be an outright permitted use. However, this is not an existing pole,either in height or in ability to support this type of facility. There is a new pole being:put in. After discuss ion_on.whether this was the.pr:-oper'titne for this-hearing and Whether or not this was a Monopole 1 or not, the appellant stated that he would prefer to continue with the hearing todayunder the declaration of a Monopole 1.. Neil Watts this particular provision allowing these types of facilities to_go into single-family zoned property in the right of way was:a late addition in the last year or two. This was not part of the original wireless code that was written about 1998. It would be very difficult to meet the criteria for a conditional use permit in dense a single-family neighborhood on single-family residential streets. There are several stretches of major arterial streets that are zoned R-8. Providing service, as most providers are trying to do, in these smaller sites is going to be very difficult. In this particular case, Union has the very large • existing poles in the area,as'well,NE 4th has large existing poles,.;and they could go in and-use the:existing pole i • for their antennas. Established.neighborhoods, with smaller streets and smaller lots make it very difficult to meet the conditional,usecriteria. Neil Watts commented on cost being.an issue:as far'as si e.selection: The current location being considered is as simple a.place for a pole location,there are no existing'curbs or sidewalks,installation of-the underground vault, which needs to be underground, is arguably.less ecpensive. Itis notphysically impossible to install a vault I where a sidewalk exists, it also is not physically impossible to make negotiations with adj'acentproperties to use a portion of their property for installation of the vault. The focus has been on this site because the location is 1 right in the middle of the area they are trying to provide service to,it was a logical site to look at. • A pre-application is not a formal review,it is not a formal denial or approval. It siniply lists out codes,fees iand processes and tries.to give information if it-does not meet code. The dilemma is balancing out two needs,they are addressed in the code, Section.4,4.140, wireless.:communication-facilities,list-the two counteibalancing things being looked.at here. One.is Section,B., which talks-about poles and Section E, which is compliance with i the Telecommunications Act of 1996: If T-Mobileiad been able-to:demonstrate that all the other sites did not i provide adequate:service to This area, it'woad be much.11arder to deny this'request. The idea was to try to.encourage providers-to go to commercial and industrial zoned_-properties and.,to co-locate_ on existing poles,towers or buildings. The code is stet up to.make it easy to go to the desired location and makes it more difficult or impossible to go to:areas where the.City did not want them to be in. They did not want them to be in single-family zones. This application was with the Environmental Review Committee a fairly lengthy period of time. A request for alternative sites was requested and never provided:. There were many concerns-with the Committee,there Were `identified adverse,impacts,but they Were-not raised to the level ofsignif cant. nNielsen referred to Tab 12, the Market Study,Which was actually d one-at a Redmond Park does not appear o be applicable because it is not in a residential area: T-Mobile Monopole Appeal LUA-07-065,CU-A 1 January 15, 2008 Page 6 • Chris Conaxis stated that it was applicable because the-pole was placed at the edge of the park and a.residential areasurrounded the park. The pole was a replacement-structure and has a lot of similarities_to this.project today. The pole was set back between 400 and 500 feet of a residential structure. Ann Nielsen continued that thepole was actually set within the park-as opposed to.aresidential area. Tab 4 covers the radio frequency analysis;the City.did not receive this analysis prior to today's hearing. T- Mobile doesacknowledge that there were other can didates considered besides this location. What were-.the.:facts that.precluded:moving to-this current location? Chris Conaxis stated that it would have required moving a utility pole to another frontyard as opposed to the front yard it currently is in. All considered locations were the same circumstances. The location that was chosen had the largest section of right of way and that:allowed for the ground equipment. The other locations • don't have a clear right of way. Elevation is lost on Union and there currently is a developed sidewalk and. doing an underground vault in that situation would have been more difficult if it was even allowed. Doing the vault is the most expensive part of the installation and that has been budgeted so wherever the site is, it would not cost any more. It is a major cost to go underground.To put a slab of cement down and placethe cabinets above grade would be much.cheaper and the preferred alternative. Not all competitors,are able to,get service to this area. Some are in there currently,some are not. Michael Cady stated that they really need this site because-other ear ers:have different frequencies and because • of the frequency range they broadcast'in and receive in, they can have different site requirements Than T-Mobile. • This site is particular to the coverage gap needs for T-Mobile. • Kevin Durning'stated that they look at their own needs and not what others.are using Or doing at any particular location. New York has sites every other block in order to get coverage. The planners have to work within the j code and find the best locations. The City of Renton would not look favorably on four locations that would provide service when what was proposed for the four could be one with one site. Chris.Conaxis stated that this pole would be 19 feet taller than any existing pOle: { • The,Examiner stated that there are trees in the area but:nothing screens the corner parcel where the-pole would be located. This would.be highly visible to adjacent.properties. Chuck Gitchel,4401 SE 3`'Place,Renton 9$059 stated that he resides at the site of the proposed T-1Vlobile monopole that would be located on the corner of their property; He has training in electrories•-as a radar !, repairman and later as a radio/telephone communications technician. He was-taught extensively the-dangers of frequency radiation. The question is how much is too much. Microwave ovens are built with a metal casing and screening'in the oven door to help block the radiation from harming people. Microwaves, cell phones and radio •and television antennas all use frequency radiation,the dangers exist in all cases. T-Mobile representatives c-arire through theneighborhood a,few weeks ago,they were told the fi-equency radiation from a tower::is not asbad a holding a phone up to your head. The cell ph'one:coinpanies knowhow hal„rftil these frequencies are to the public'S health. The Examiner stated that the code does not allow him to consider the health issues when mating.his•decision. There are secondary implications includingreal estate values. He therefore will not allow radiatjwr'testiniony, • . . T-Mobile Monopole Appeal LUA-07-065, CU-A • January 15, 2008 Page.7 Mr..Gitchel continued stating that there is a falling hazard,the pole would be nolY4$fOret fr—Ortr the house and 25 feet.from their carport. The existing pole if hit would riot hit theirhOuse. They have.a drug house in the -neighborhood, it only takes one person on drugs to hit the new pole and bring it down on top of their house.. , Regarding the vault location, when a person from T-Mobile dug a hole for soil samples they realized this vault would be 25 feet from theirbedroorni they would be able to hear-the equipmertt running at night. He was-told that the Environmental Study pertained to birds,etc,he did not appealarid perhaps he should have. He believes that the installation of thispole would lower-their property values. Resubmitted several letters from real estate experts-and readportions'frainthoSeletters. il Chandra Lindquist,251 Vashon Avenue-SE,Renton 98059 stated that because Union is zoned for this sort of thing and T-Mobile submitted alternate sites; there is a new park in that area,why did they not consider doing their site concurrent with the construction of the new park. They stated they did.not want to install an underground vault where there are existing sidewalks,there were no existing sidewalks it was vacant land up until one year ago. . The Examiner clarified that T-Mobile was,asked to-submit alternative sites; but they did not respond to that 1 :request. They are not necessarily required to;they had the right to ask for this site,the City had the right to look it:over and say no. T-Mbbile can,come back With arequest for a new lotaticin and try again. ' Mike O'Halloran,4420 SE 4th Street,.Renton 98059 asked if this monopole is,authorized what prevents competition from taking over other poles or just adding antenna to thd,ekistinwornewynonopplel Would like to appeal to T-Mobile and the City of Renton to conte up with an alternative location'and find a Cann-non ground that would satisfy the residents as well as the customers. John Worthington, 450.0 SE 2nd Place, Renton 98059 stated that he felt T-Mobile was trying to take advantage of the code and he would like to see an alternative for then-i. He does not want to impede free market,but he also pointed out that as to property market values, at some point they may want to increase their property taxes for underground utilities, which would increase the overall property values. Committing to a cell phone tower that locks them in and grandfathers them in and prevent the neighborhood from going to underground utilities. Steven Northcraft,4209 SE PPlace;Renton 98059 stated that he has underground utilities and in the development immediately south of this area on SE 4th many-of the hOmes:.haVe;undergroUnd utilities, All new construction is being-require,dto haveundergroundutilitieSinthis area. Chris Conaxis stated that they-were following the code ta bring Service to theircustarners: , Ann Nielsen gave a closingstatementthat Mr. Watts decision as Director should be given substantial deferente. The burden is that the appellant must show*iv that decision.should be overturned, itdoes.notappear that they have done that. It is possible that there are other alternatives for T-Mobile, The facts show that to allow this monopole would make it the tallest structure in the neighborhood.. It would be quite visible due to the absence of any trees.or mitigated structureS.There were statements in all the letters, including letters from real estate brokers,stating that the existence ofthismonopole would have adverse real estate effects to this particular loCation. The appellant did.a study Of Watt of a monopole on residential property, however,the study was done on a monopole that was located within The confined of a city park and little, any,weight s.b0014 be given this study. With the appellant'spresentation today,they do not appear to have met their burden and therefore Ill, asked that the Examiner upheld the City!s Director decision.. T-Mobile-Monopole Appeal LIJA-07-065,CU-A January. 15, 2008 Page 8 • Chris Conaxis stated that they cannot be responsible for the technologies of Sprint,.Nextel, Cingular and if.they° •• • have the ability to come in due to their different technologies,if they are unable to provide the.coverage that they want to provide,it does not do their case any good that their competitors do have coverage in this area and they don't and are not allowed_to get into that area. They are gone to the preferred locations and.now theyy-are trying to get into the rural and residential Areas,they would consider it a barrier to entryto•provide coverage to this•particular neighborhood ifthis faeility:is not allowed. The Examiner called for further testimony regarding this project. There Was no one else wishing to speak; and no further comments from staff. The hearing:closed at 11;11 FINDINGS, CONCLUSIONS-&RI's,COMMENDATION • Having reviewed the record in this matter,the Examiner now makes and enters the.following: FINDINGS: 1. The appellant,Kevin Foy,Wireless Facilities,Inc,for T-Mobile filed an appeal of an administrative • decision denying-an Administrative Conditional Use for a Monopole.1:. 2. The appeal was filed in a timely manner. 3. The project would be located in the•public right=of=way near the intersection Of SE 3rd Place and Anacortes Avenue SE. The nearby street address would be 4401 SE 3rd Place. 4111) 4. The project is described as: "The applicant is requesting Administrative Conditional Use Permit approval for the replacement of an existing 40-foot tall wood power pole with a 59'11-inch wood power pole that would also function.as a monopole 1 structure. The monopole l and associated equipment vault would'be located_'within,.the pudic right-of--way:and is zoned .Residential-$ (R-S) dwelling unit per acre. Single-family residences • surround the project site on:all,sides;. The site.-totals 104 square feet in area and would:tesult,in 32:cubic yards-of excavations. Access to the site would.be provided by Artacortes A,vetue NE." 5. The staff report noted: "The-surrounding topography i$.flat.. Due to the.flat topography of the site,the prevalence of single story homes,-andthe lack of=trees'in:the immediate vicinity of the project site,tate monopole would be more evident to the-residents in the itl imediate-vicinity-ofthe project site and would • not be absorbed in the surrounding environment." (Administrative Conditional Use.Report,Oct, 15, 2007,Page 3). The staff report goes on to-,describe the lack of trees in the immediate-area andthe proposed location's abutting a front yard of one.residence and.directly across the street from several Other residences. Staff also noted that;the pole would be almost 30 feet taller than.the 30 foot tall structures-permitted in the zone and was not=sensitively sited. • 6. The criteria for review_are.found in Section 49-03W.. •7. After administrative review',Development Services Director Watts,found: "1. The subject proposal does not comply with all of the policies and codes T-Mobile Monopole Appeal LUA-07-065,CU-A • January 15,_2008 Page-9 of The City of Renton,dueto'the inability of the project to mitigate°the aesthetic-impacts thatthe proposal would have on the Surrounding single family residential neighborhood. 2. The,proposal does not comply with the Comprehensive Plan Utilities element due-to the aesthetic-impacts-the Monopole would have on the • surrounding neighborhood that cannot•be mitigated. The proposal does not comply with all the Wireless Communication Facilities Conditional Use Criteria. 3. Unrebutted testimony was received from real estate professionals stating that the siting'of a monopole 1 structure at the proposed location would reduce property-Values in the-vicinity." 8. The Director then denied the permit. 9. The proposed structure would serve a:dual purpose. ft wouldcontinue to carry Puget Sound Energy lines in the neighborhood and it would also accommodate a wireless cellular facility. The new pole would be 59'11" tall. The cellular equipment on the pole would be flush mounted and painted the color of the pole. There would also be an-underground vault containing associated equipment. There was.no IIS discussion about the noise-that could be generated'by the vaulted-equipment. The vault would be 13'4" by 8'and access would be via a ground level hatch door. The Vault would be:located.in the public righ't- • of-way. No additional roads or access requirements are necessary. 10. The applicant anticipates one vehicle trip per month for maintenance purposes. 1.1. Approximately 32 cubic yardsofmaterial would he excavated to accommodate the-vault. 12.. The R-8 Zone in which the proposed facility would'be ldcated permits a maximum height-of 30 feel or two stories. The existing-Puget Sound.Energy poles in this area are-40 feet tall. The new pole would be one inch less than 60 feet tall or almost 20 feet taller or 50% tailerthan the existing-pole(and-.other poles in this area). .13. Monopole 1 facilities of less than 60 feet may be permitted via an Administrative or Hearing;Examiner Conditional Use. The proposed facility, which is one inch less than 60 feet is subject to that:_review authority(RMC 4-4-140). 14. Additional comments froth the Director noted: "Based on comments,received, staff has-concerns that the proposed location is not.the most:suitable location_'for-a:n onopole 1 structure. The proposed.Monopole- 1 would be substantially taller;.that'(sic)the surrounding single family`residences and the existing?SE power poles.aiid islocated immediately abutting the front yard.of;anyexisting.single fatriilyreSiderice." 15: The appellants noted that the.ERC did not propose any specific Mitigation to address the aesthetic. impacts of the proposal and-relying on the lack of such measure as a sign that the aesthetics were not a_ critical-issue. Rather the ERC did.address the aesthetics in the following statement: • "Other than relocation,there does not appear-to be any mitigation measures that could:be implemented that would:teduce the aesthetic-impacts of the proposed monopole-1 structure and associated equipment cabinet." (Page-3 of 4,Envir-onineiital Review Committee Staff Report,_August 13,2007). • I T-Mobile Monopole Appeal LUA-07-065,CU-A January"15, 2008 Page I 0 16. The appellant also noted that the pole-would not be replacing_a shorter pole but that the pole would be taller. In fact,the existing pole could not physically support the proposed equipment.and would be replaced with a more appropriate,supporting pole in the same location. • 17: The appellant noted that they specifically complied with code, designed-a tower less than.60-feet and that the view ofresidences would not change. The appellant specifically noted "Any candidate considered or/will be considered ina residential designation,will meet the,same opposition;just different residents.!' 1;8. There was a,letter from a real estate agent indicating that the:proposed facility. would'adveisely affect property values. While health concerns may notbe used to determine if a wireless"facility, is appropriately sited,the fact that potential purchasers mighi shy away from property located near such,a facility could affect property values.. 19. The real estate report the appellant provided does not provide a comparable situation-in any respect. The report speaks of a facility located in a larger park and significantly separated from nearby residential structures and apparently fairly well screened by existing trees and vegetation. .20. Staff indicated that taller utility poles are located along Union Avenue not far from the proposed site and.modifications to those poles could probably provide less aesthetic concerns. Any other location would be subject to appropriate review: 2.1• The.appellant-did initially-consider an approximately 0.92 acre site owned bySeattle but trite ` •" na ruled it out of consideration since one acre sites are the:minimum-necessary under the Code for"free-standing" cell facilities. CONCLUSIONS: 1. The appellant has the burden of demonstrating that the.decision of the City Official was"either in error;. or was otherwise contrary to law or constitutional provisions,or was:arbitraryand capricious(Section 4- 8-110(E)(7)(b). The appellant has failed to show any error. 2: Arbitrary and capricious.action has been defined-as willful and unreasoning-action in disregard of the facts and circuriistarioes. A decision,when exercised.honestly and open-due consideration of"the facts and circumstances, is not arbitrary or capricioum(Northern Pacific Transport Co;v Washington Uti'litie`s" i and Transportation Coiruriission,.69 Wn.2d.472,418:(1966). 3.. An action is likewise clearly erroneous When,although there is evidence to support it,the reviewing_ body,on the entire evidence,is lef°with;the definite and firm conviction th to mistake has been .coiruriitted.(Ancheta v Daly, 77 Wn.2d 25.5,259(19.69).. An appellate body should not necessarily substitute its judgment for the underlying agency with expertise in a matter unless appropriate. 4. Code covering these facilities does have some admittedly odd-provisions or possibly contradictory provisions. Be that as it may,the Director reviewed thisro osal under the Conditional Use Code P P criteria and found that it was inappropriate for this particular location. Unless the facility Can-be made aesthetically appropriate, the Director was correct in his'determination. Thee-Director keyedirt on the :aesthetic impacts and found that they could not be rectified. At the public hearing,a.number o'fconcepts • were discussedand it was.clear that in the current"situation,the-location of isp:Qle makes screening: -impossible. The aesthetic-impacts cannot"be reduced. The"Directordid.not:rea"eh an erroneous, 1 T-Mobile Moriopole:Appeal • • LUA-07-065,CU-A January 15, 2008 Page 11 Conclusion. 5. No one is disputing that the appellant is attempting to serve his or her customers. What is-in dispute is whether they have looked at other-reasonable alternatives that might provide satisfactory reception. The appellant_fo'cused in on this site for topographical reasons-it is.a bit higher in elevation and relativ..ely flat. The appellant apparently did not expiore:alternatives that suitable given a mix.of additional shorter poles or taller poles•spread out.further. Staff noted that taller utility poles,line Union Avenue and,modifications to'those poles would be less evident-aesthetically. 6. The appellant is probably correct when they state.that: "Any candidate considered or/-will be•.considered in a residential designation will meet the same opposition;just different residents." The City bas created a potentially hard criteria to satisfy but that does not make the decision unreasonable orerroneo.us. The appellant only considered one other location,which did not comply with lot area size criteria but did not consider other public right-of-way corridors with taller existing powerpoles or possibly a series of shorter poles. While the appellant did riot have to submit alternatives, the Director was,therefore; limited to consider the impacts of the proposed pole and site. The appellant went with only their favored choice,and the.Director based on his reading of the code,made a supportable. decision. 7. A reviewing body should not reverse the underlying decision unless there'is compelling,evidence that_a mistake was made. This office cannot decide that a mistake was-made. It wasreasonable in:terms of the proposal, the site, the lack of any ability to screen the proposal and the absence of compelling ID ' evidence that this is the only tenable location. • DECISION: The decision affirmed ORDERED THIS 15'x'day of January 2008 - -Ca-j i FRED J. KA-0E4' , HEARING E .1.. R ' TRANSMITTED THIS 15'day of January 2.008 to the parties-of record. Neil Watts Ann Nielsen Kevin Foy Development Services Director Assistant City Attorney T-Mobile USA;Inc. City of Renton City ofRenton 1°2920 SE`38`�'Street • Renton,WA 98057 Bellevue,WA 98006 Chris Conaxis Mike Cady Kevin'Diirnmg; . 575 Andover Park W, Ste. 201 575 AndoverPark.W, Ste..201 575 AndoverPark W, Ste.201 Tukwila,WA'98188 Tukwila,WA 98188 Tukwila,WA-,98.1E.8 • T-Mobile USA Chuck&Fran Gitchel Michael 4 Valerie O'Halloran 19807 North Creek Parkway 4401 SE 3rd Place 4420 SE 4°''Street Bothell,WA 98011 Renton, WA 9g059 Renton;WA9S055 T-Mobile Monopole Appeal WA-07-.065, CU-A I,- January 15,2008 Page 12 Newton&Joyleen EllifritS Lewis Sezto Van Slaughter 42118 SE 3"Place 1075Rainier Avenue S 4409 SE Pi Place Renton, WA 98059 Seattle, WA.98178 Renton,WA 98059 Stephen Northcraft Greg Schoendaller Alvin &Jacqueline Courtney 4209 SE 3"Place 4408.SE e'Street po Box 2653 Renton, WA 98059 Renton, WA 9.8059 Renton, WA 98056 Victor Bloomfield/Jennifer Skidc Michael,Debby&Hannah Ekness John Ehle 4418 SE 3"Place 4400 SE 3"Place 406 Anacortes Aventie SE Renton,WA 98059 Renton, WA 98059 Renttm, WA 98059 John Megow Jciel`G. Smith Roger&Vickey Beny I 4408 SE 3"Place 349 Anacortes Avenue SE. 4405 SE 3"Place Renton, WA 98059 Renton,WA 98059 Renton, WA 98059 I i• Terry Clangh 'Dennis_&Cindy Shimmel James &Kimberly Stark i 4503 SF3t Place 4224 SE ri Place 4301 SE 3'Place 1 Renton, WA 98059 Renton, WA 98059 Renton, WA 98059 j Ah Tapke Velquist Joel&lieidyBam.ett Cory&Lori Foster IP 4301 SE.3"Place 4309 SE 3'Place 4413 SE 3"Place Renton,WA 98059 Renton; WA 9.8'059 Renton, WA 98059 Gail a Anthony Knell Ken&Anne Miller Pauline Blue 4425 SE 3'Place 4415 SE:4th Street 420 Chelan Averiuse SE Renton, WA 98059 Renton, WA 980:59 Renton, WA 98059 Doug Mears Bruce a Ruth..Rutledge Joyce M.Crock 4308 SE 3'Place 43:03 SE 3"Place 414 Chelan.Avenue SE 1 Renton, WA 98059 Renton, WA 98059 Renton, WA 98059 1 James S.Dalgleish Bonnie WatSon Jeremy&Jill'Peeiy 407 Anacortes Avenue SE Keller Williams Realty 4432 SE 4-'1'Street Renton, WA 98059 61:5 E Pioneer, Ste. 203 Renton,WA 98059 1 puykljup,WA 9872 Chandra Lindquist John Worthington 251 Vaslion Avenue SE 4500 SE 2"Pince Renton,WA 98059 Renton,WA 98059 TRANSMITTED THIS 15'day of January 2008 to the following: Mayor Denis,Law Robert Van Home,Deputy Fire Chief Jay Covington,:ChiefAdministrative.Officer Larry MeCkling,,Building Official Ali. Julia,Medzegion, Connell Liaison Planning Commission Gregg Zimmerman,PBPW Administrator TyanspOttaitiOn.Division IV Alex Pietsdk EConOinic Development Utilities Division Jennifer Henning, Development Services Neil Watts,Development Services Stacy Tucker, Development Services. Janet Conklin,Development Services 1 • Y a T-Mobile Monopole Appeal 41, LUA-07-065, CU-A January 15,2008 Page 13 Renton Reporter Pursuant to Title IV;Chapter 8, Section 100Gof the City's Code,request.for reconsideration must:be filed hi writing on or before 5:00 p,m.,January 29;208. Any aggrieved person feeling that,the decision of the Examiner is ambiguous or°based on erroneous:proced'ure, errors oflaw or fact,error in judgment';:or the discovery of new evidence which could not be.reasonably available atthe prior-.hearing may make a written request for a review by the Examiner within fourteen(:14)days from the date of the Examiner's,decision. This request shall set forth the specific ambiguities or.errors discovered by such appellant,and the Examiner may, after review of the record, take further action as he deems proper. An appeal to the City Council is governed by Title IV,Chapter 8, Section 110, which requires that such appeal be.filed with the City Clerk, accompanying a filing.fee of$75.00 and meeting other specified requirements. Copies of this ordinance are available for inspection or purchase in the Finance Department,first floor of City Hall. An appeal must be filed in writing ori or before 5,:00 p.m.,January 29.20.08. If the Examiner's'Re'commendation or Decision contains the_requirement for Restrictive Covenants,the executed Covenants will be required prior to approval'by City Council or'final processing of the file. You may.contact this office for information on formatting covenants. The Appearance of Fairness Doctrine provides that no ex parte (private one-on-one)communications may occur concerning pending land use decisions. This means that parties to a land use decision may not communicate in • private with any decision-maker concerning the proposal. Decision-makers'.in the'land use process include both the IIearing Examiner and members of the City Council. All communications concerning the proposal must be made in public. This public communication permit's all interested parties to know the contents of.the communication and.would allow them to openly rebut the evidence. Any violation of this-doctrine would result in the invalidation of the requestby the Court. The Doctrine_applies not only to the initial public hearing but to all Requests for Reconsideration as well as Appeals to the City Council. • 0 • APPENDIX 2 • • s 0 CITY OF RENTON ;,,,y .;.. + Hearing Examiner :., Kathy Keolker,Mayor . IK 11 . : . . :: &•rVO • November 6,2007 • - • Kevin Foy Zoning Specialist . WFT 575 Andover park West,Ste:201 • Tukwila,WA 98188 . . . 'RE T-1vMobile ZM.Lonopole in SE 3`d Place and Anacortes Ave:SE Right-of-Way Appeal . • LUA 07-:065,:CU-A;ECF Dear Mr,.Foy: The appeal hearing..on the above referenced matter has been scheduled for Tuesday;December - : • 18 2007 at 9:00 am: The hearing;will take;placeiithe Council Chambers on the seventh floor . -Of the Renton City-Hail. The address is 1055 S Grady Way in:Renton.. - , . . Tf this can provide arty further assistance,pleaseaddress those comments in.wntirlg:. . : • Sincerely, " �C/b d ,, ` -(70 .. Nancy Thompson • Secretary to.Hearing Examiner .. . : City of Renton Enclosure ; cc:. Ann Nielsen Assistant City Attorney._ Neil Watts,Development Services:Director - S.tacyTuclker,Development Services.:. All Parties of:Records • • . 1055 South Grady Way-Renton,Washington.98055-(425)430-6515 REN TON • gra .AHEAD OF TH.E URVE . - � � t�Tl.&ne�e....�do6.cF(1Q�r .er.m�lm:t.. eorktii�a(Iot.nncrrr,nm m,e. � .. ., eflYOF VP? OCT 29 200' • City of Renton: Department of Planning/Building/Public Works RECEIVED Administrative Land Use Action OW MEWS QFFiCg Report&Decision: October 15t,2007 I ,10/ n4 J'S Project Name: T-Mobile Monopole in SE 3`d Place and Anacortes Ave SE Right-of-Way • Owner: City of Renton, 1055 S Grady Way,Renton WA 98057 File Number: LUA07-065,CU-A, ECF Project Manager: Jill K. Ding Project: Description: The application is requesting Administrative Conditional Use Permit approval for the replacement of an existing 40 foot tall wood power pole with a 59-11-inch wood power pole that would also function as a monopole 1 structure. The monopolel and associated equipment vault would be located within the public right-of-way and is zoned Residential-8 (R-8) dwelling unit per acre. Single family residences surround the project site on all sides. The project site totals 104 square feet in area and would result in 32 cubic yards of excavations. Access to the site would be provided via Anacortes Avenue NE. Project:Location:: Northwest of 4401 SE.3'Place;:within_SE_3ra Place.and • Anacortes Ave SE right-of-way Conclusions by Development Services Director:Neil Watts 1) The subject proposal does not comply with all of the policies • and codes of the City of Renton, due.to the inability of the project to mitigate the aesthetic impacts that the proposal would have on the surrounding single family residential neighborhood. 2) The proposal does not comply with the Comprehensive Plan Utilities element due to the aesthetic impacts the monopole would have on the surroundingneighborhood that cannot be mitigated. The proposal does not comply with all the Wireless Communication Facilities Conditional Use Criteria. 3) Unrebutted testimony was received from real estate professionals stating that the siting of a monopole 1 structure at the proposed location would reduce the property values in the vicinity. OC l—ey ua'VCVt, Cd-Y 4 it y fuer/. ✓ - P vc� ���� f O H rn1 • Decision: The conditional Use Permit for the T-Mobile Monopole in SE 3rd Place and Anacortes Avenue SE right-of-way, File No. LUA07-065 CU-A, ECF is denied. Land Use Decision Appeal Process: Appeals of either the environmental determination(RCW 43.21.Co75(3),WAC 197-11-680)and/or the land use decision must be filed in writing on Or before 5:00 PM October 29,2007. T-Mobile Appeal Narrative: • T-Mot ile:hereby appeals the.decisionmade-by.D.evelopment Service&Director in regards to application LUA07-065,CU-A,ECF. T-Mbbile Will demonstrate the conclusions made forth should be reconsidered by a third party hearing examiner.:Upon review, it is T-Mobile's belief that the supplemental information provided in this appeal and a chance to respond to public concerns should prove T-Mobile meets all. standards/criteria set forth in City of Renton Code. Part One: Project Description/Background The proposal would include the replacement of an existing 40 foot tall wood • Puget Sound Energy (PSE)distribution line pole with a 59'-11"wood power pole that would also serve as a monopole-1 structure supporting wireless cellular facilities. The proposed cellular antenna would-be flush mounted and painted to matchthe color of the • wood power pole. The primary function of the pole would remain as part of an electrical distribution system, the installation of the proposed wireless antennas would be a secondary function. Associated ground equipment is proposed to be located out of sight, below grade in a 13'x 4' 8'vault with only the hatch door being the visible part of the vault. The vault hatch would be screened with landscaping as required by the.:City. The site would be accessed via Anacortes Ave SE,which leads directly up to the-access hatch proposed within the Once constiv6tion is complete,.one vehicle trip per month is anticipated for maintenance purposes. The proposed project would result in the removal of 32 cubic yards of soil, which would be transported to an approved off-site location. Part Two: Administrative Land Use Action—Report&Decision. Type of Land Use Action: Administrative Conditional Use Permit Consistency with Conditional Use Permit Criteria: • 1)Height of the proposed tower: • The proposal would replace an existing.40 foot tall PSE power pole..with a 59-11- inch tall wood power pole that would also house wireless cellular antenna for T-Mobile. The surrounding R-8 zoning designation has a maximum height of 30 feet and.2 stories • and the surrounding PSE power poles have a maximum height of 40 feet. The-proposed monopole 1 would exceed the maximum heightpermitted for a singlefamily residence by• almost 30 feet and the existing PSE power poles by almost 20 feet and would therefore-be the tallest structure in the neighborhood. T-Mobile Response:. Per RMC 4-4-140 as well as the R-8 zoning designation,monopole:l structures are allowed via Administrative or Hearing Examiner Conditional Use Permit. A - monopole 1 structure has a height limit of less1han.60-feet. T-Mobile's application,is for the 59-feet 11-inches which is minimal height,xequired to meet the intended'raoverage. • area. Ordinance No 5286, Renton Municipal Code 4-2-080 Conditions Associated with Zoning Tables section A. Subject to the following conditions: 45.For Monopoles Proposed on Public Right-of-way: may be allowed via an 1111 administrative conditional use permit•and:right-of-way use permit. 46. Eligible for an administrative conditional.use permit provided that the facility has a minimum setback of one•hundredfeet(100)from any adjacent residentially zoned. parcel, otherwise a Hearing Examiner conditional use permit is required. T-Mobile Response:. • According.to the Renton MunicipaF Code,.Monopole 1 structures are:-allowed. through administrative and hearing examinee conditional use permits:.Monopole :has,. height.,definition.of anything:under.60-feet::T-Mobi1e decision to extend�theutility pole • 19-feet 11-inches was considered to have least :amount of imposing.impact aesthetically • white-develeping:a.footprint-thatdoes:•nat:exis Yfor:T-Mobile: T-Mobile is committed to bring servicewhere their customers::workvandplay.::: Customers.rely on T-Mobile wireless serviceslorwork and recreational:uses;:As T= Mobile continues:to add wireless technologiesthe:clientbase continumto growl--Clients, are-no longer•.=residing just in urban areas andhave expanded into suburbs=and residentially zoned.areas and expect a seamless°coverage,commuting,traveling <working, .and recreationaluse:: • • • The applicant contends that the project site was selected in part due to the existing trees that would screen the proposed monopole 1 from the surrounding properties. Staff has reviewed the proposal, and it appears that there are no existing trees in the immediate vicinity of the proposed monopole 1 structure, and therefore no screening would be provided for the existing single family residences located in the immediate vicinity of the project site. The trees located in the existing neighborhood would provide some screening of the monopole 1 from the residences located along SE 4`h St and SE 3'd St, but would not the residencies along SE 3rd Place and Anacortes Ave SE, which are in the immediate vicinity. T-Mobile Response: The site was considered because it does provide some screening for the residences along SE 4th and SE 3r°St. Unfortunately,there was no site that could be identified meeting the criteria set forth from every residence. During the identification process,it was acknowledged that no free standing Monopole 1 would be permissible in this residential search ring. Code restriction on parcel size,setbacks, and allowable uses would not allow monopole structure solely built for wireless carriers. Limited to strictly collocating on PSE utility poles,typical tree foliage islimited due maintenance required for power-lines. Since utility poles were the only permissible • option,T-Mobile identified this site to provide some screening. Please note T-Mobile, as recognized:by the City,-is a secondary use on the PSE utility pole in the Right-of-Way. Therefore is limited=in design aspects since final approval must meet PSE standards. 2) Proximity of the tower to residential structures and residential district boundaries The proposed monopole 1 structure would be located at the SE corner of the intersection ofAnacortes Ave SE and'SE;3' Place ivithindn R-8 zone and abutting the front yard area of an existing single family residence located at 4401 SE 3rd Place. The project site is surrounded on all sides by single story single family residences. Staff has received numerous comments from the immediately abutting residents and surrounding neighbors expressing their displeasure with the proposal to locate a monopole 1 structure within their neighborhood. Their comments centered on health concerns, aesthetic impacts to their neighborhood, and the concern that their property values could be adversely impacted. Staff has reviewed these comments and concurs that the proposed monopole 1 structure would have an adverse impact on the aesthetics of'the existing neighborhood due to the lack of screening in the immediate vicinity of the project site and due to the location of the monopole 1 within the immediate vicinity of an existing single family residential neighborhood. Therefore, staff recommends that an alternate location be identified that would have less of an adverse impact on an existing single family • residential neighborhood. • T-Mobile Response: T-Mobile understands the apprehension from the neighborhood. Growth in demand for wireless service,along with increased use by existing customers and the advent of next generation wireless device technologies overburdens the wireless network and can result in dropped calls and spotty coverage. The decision to place new wireless facilities is driven by the needs and expectations of T-Mobile's customers including: • Customer demand for uninterrupted wireless service throughout homes and neighborhoods; • Customer desire for next generation wireless device technologies; • T-Mobile's responsibility to expand capacity at existing sites.and planahead:for future customer demand; and • Government requirements for emergency services and Enhanced 9-1-1. T-Mobile uses specific technical criteria to determine if a new wireless facility is needed. Radio frequency(RF)conducts a thorough analysis of T-Mobile's wireless network, including: •. Network Statistics-Engineers review network data to scientifically measure overall network performance. The data includes the amount of trafficc at individual wireless facilities,including the number of droppd:and blocked calls. • • Customer Satisfaction Surveys and Feedback-Customers are askedabout•dead spots;dropped calls and coverage levels in their home and neighborhoods.. • Drive Test-Field technicians, engineers and third-party researchers collect real- time statistics by canvassing service areas with wireless phones,mobile data computers, and analysis equipment to test network quality. Drive tests simulate the customer experience and provide critical signal strength and call quality data. T-Mobile identified a candidate located at 400 Union Ave SE,Renton WA 98059. Application was made:after identifying the process would include a Hearing:Examiner CUP'and variance required:.The variance was regiiired because the parcel owned.by Seattle Public Utilities did not have a full one(1) acre size parcel. The.parcel.was,.92 acres.T-Mobile recognized the risk,but spent money in putting together the application because it best fit the intent of the code and the requirements at that time:per zoning designation. A letter addressed by Neil Watts,Development Services Director,stated theCity would not allow the application because of the failed code requirement of a one.(1)acre parcel size. After denying T-Mobile's original application(see attachment A) and in accordance with new ordinance(January 2007);the decision to scan the search ring and identify all. possible candidates With new restrictions was given. Already established by the denied' application,the only candidates in the search that met code requirements were PSE utility poles. • • The lack of tree screening is compensated by T-Mobile's design to utilize an existing feature of the neighborhood. PSE poles are apparent through out the neighborhood. By attaching antennas on the pole it utilizes a structure already present. By extending the pole,it meets the coverage objective and requirements needed from T-Mobile RF and creates the least amount of impact on the neighborhood. Per code,R-8 zoning designation,monopole 1 structures are perinissible(less than 60.-feet)and T-Mobile's design creates the least amount of impact. Health concerns are not an issue and evidence provided by T-Mobileshows compliance with all local and federal standards for health safety. 3)Natureof Uses on adjacent and nearby properties. The project site would be located within an existing single family neighborhood zoned R-8. The existing single family residences surrounding the project site are primarily single story residences. Staff has received numerous comments from the surrounding neighbors regarding their concerns with the proposal to locate a monopole 1 structure within their neighborhood. Most of the comment centered on health concerns, the aesthetic impact that the monopole 1 structure would have on their neighborhood, and the adverse impact that the monopole 1 structure would have on their property values. Included with the comments were some assessments from real estate • agents confirmingthe neighbors concerns that the proposed monopole 1 structure would reduce their property values. Based on the comments received, staff has concerns that the proposed location is not the most suitable location for a monopole 1 structure. The proposed monopole 1 would be substantially taller that the surrounding single family residences and the existing PSE power poles and is located immediately abutting the front yard area of an existing single family residence. T-Mobile Response: T-Mobile's application is designed to follow the pataneters•o£theRMC.;The, Code states the permissible height is less than 60-feet in R-8 designations. T-Mobile needs the height to establish line of site technology to work with its established network. The difference is 19-feet 11-inches,the additional height of the utility pole is minimal to a brandnew development else where in the neighborhood. The view the residences will have from 0-40-feet.will not change. By providing some screening the maximum amount available in the area, T-Mobile has identified a location that has met.: the code requirements. To establish a more detailed footprint and to meet customer needs,T-Mobile must create a Wireless Communication Facility for this area. After all the criteria'involved,in picking this specific location,the concerns will not disappear for alternate candidates; Any candidate considered or/will be considered in a residential designation will meet the same opposition;just different residents. • • T-Mobile has met code guidelines and is uncertain any residential applications will be accepted if this application is denied for the conclusions mentioned above. T- Mobile has read code,designed the application to meet standards set forth,filed a pre- application meeting to gain further information provided after a preliminary review by city employees. T-Mobile is unclear as to why this approval was not granted since all design standards are met and no indication was provided at the time of the pre-application meeting the design proposed would create aesthetic impact which would lead to a denied application. 4) Surrounding Topography The surrounding topography is fiat. Due to the flat topography of the site, the prevalence of single story homes, and the lack of trees in the immediatevicinity of the project site the monopole would be more evident to the residents in the immediate vicinity of the project site and would notbe absorbed into the surrounding environment. T-Mobile Response: The.topography is flat and part of the reason the sitewas chosen. Due the height restraint of less than 60-feet by RMC,the direct-line-of-site technology would be limited if antennas were obstructed. Trees taller than 60-feet and in close proximity of the site would diminish the signal strength significantly. It was already established by the previous denial that a 1 acre parcel was required unless the facility was placed within the • ROW. After an..analysis of the PSE poles T-Mobile came to the conclusion the application met:the intent of the RMC. 5) Surrounding tree coverage and foliage There are existing mature trees in the surrounding neighborhood; however there are no trees within the immediate vicinity of theproject site. The applicant indicates that no trees would be removed for the installation of the proposed monopole structure. The applicant indicates that the site was selected in part due to the existing mature trees :. located in the surrounding neighborhood,.which would provide_screening.of the monopole from the surrounding neighborhood. However, there are no trees in the immediate vicinity;monopole I structure would:be highly visible to the properties in the immediate vicinity. In section number one,staff acknowledges"The trees located in the existing neighborhood would providesome screening.of the monopole 1 from the residences located along SE 4`''St and SE 3"d St". Due to the limitations set forth by the design standards,T-Mobile could not identify a sitethatmeet screening from all.residences. Due to the nature of developing a site,T-Mobile will create.some presence in the neighborhood. The steps T-Mobile.:has. taken identifies the need and creates a facility with the least amount of impact.. • Identifying another PSE pole will still have'an effect of those residences abutting the pole. 6) Design of the tower,with•.particular reference to design.characteristics that have the effect of reducing or eliminating visual obtrusiveness: • • The applicant contends that the proposed monopole 1 structure has-been designed to reduce its impacts on the surrounding single family residential neighborhood. The project site.was selected due to the existing mature trees in the surrounding neighborhood that would screen the monopole from the surrounding neighborhood. The monopole._would be.made.ofwood:and replaces an-existiftx wood PSE power:pole;-the antennas would be flush mounted and painted to match the color of the pole. The equipment cabinet would be installed underground in a vault. Staff has received comments from the surrounding neighborhood:,Some:of the concerns cited by the neighbors include aesthetic impacts from having a 59-foot.11-inch tall monopole 1 structure installed-within their single family residentiatineighborhood. The proposed monopole would abut the front yard area of a single familyresidence and- is adjacent(across the street)from several other residences. Staff has concernslhat the proposed location may not be suitable for a monopole 1 structure, due to its location 1111 within an existing established single family neighborhood and the aesthetic impact it would have on the neighborhood and the lack of any mitigation that could be required to reduce the impacts. The proposed monopole would be 59 feet 1-inches in height, which is almost 30feet taller than the maximum height permitted in the R-8 zone andalmost 20 feet taller than the existing•PSE power poles. There are no trees in the immediate vicinity to screen the monopole from the properties abutting and/or adjacent to the project site. T-Mobile Response: T-Mobile proposed the:application to the standards set,forthin RM ,- The code states any R-8 zoning designation, can have up to less than:60' monopole:I strreture: Thecode dictates the maximum height a WCF can apply for. In this instance,T-Mobile RE engineers need tl a maximumrheight stated-kin--the code--for the technology-to function properly. Trees and foliage are limited due to the fact the utility pole is in theROW T- Mobile's considers the application.using a utility pole as a form of screeningitselfis Tree-. screening of monopoles is usually required to conceal the new WCF in theiarea:::Since PSE poles are abundant in this neighborhood,T-Mobile will utilize the=existinw characteristics of the neighborhood to screen the development of the new-WCF. 7) Proposed ingress and egress 8)Potential noise,light and-glare impacts • T-Mobile Response: No further comment provided for numbers 7 and 8. 9)Availability of suitable existing towers and other structures Limited information was provided by the applicant regarding alternate towers and structures. A previous attempt was made to install a monopole 1 structure on a Seattle Public Utilities pump station facility located at the terminus of Union Ave SE, south of SE 4th St. However, the application was rejected by the City as the proposed project site did not meet the applicable criteria for permitting a monopole 1 facility in an R-8 zone. The proposed monopole would have need located closer than 100 feet from a residential property and the size of the property was less than 1 acre. No other. information regarding other alternative sites was provided. T-Mobile Response: As mentioned and provided,T-Mobile made application for an alternative site and was denied. The denial stemmed from being.08 of an acre short of the required 1 acre. T-Mobile addressed the situation and applied for a variance on the.08 acre short since it was close proximity in size. T-Mobile believed the intent of the code was to find parcel big enough to support a WCF and being only 3,485 square feet short of anacre, a variance would be granted. • After getting.rej ected;.T-Mobile followed the RMC and all of thedesign. requirements setforth in the WCF section and the requirements set forth from the R-8 zoning designation. T-Mobile's only option was to consider PSE utility poles within the search ring. 10) Conformance with the Comprehensive Plan,Zoning Code and other ordinances Policy U-100-Require that the siting and location of telecommunications facilities be accomplished in a manner that minimizes adverse impacts on the environment and adjacent land.uses. The proposed monopole I structure has been sited in an existing single family. residential neighborhood that is zoned R-8. Staff has received numerous comment letters from the surrounding neighbors expressing concern that the proposed facility:may negatively affect their health, adversely impact the aesthetics of the neighborhood, and reduce their property values: The applicant contends that efforts have been made to' reduce the impacts of themonopole on the surrounding neighborhood, by replacing the existing wood powerpole with another, taller wood power pole,flush mounting the antennas on the pole and painting them to,same color as the pole, and installing the equipment cabinet underground in a vault. . It does not appearthatthe intend of this policy is met as the measures proposed to diminish the appearance of the facility would not accomplish that. Adjacent land uses • • • would be impacted by the siting of the facility in the established residential neighborhood. T-Mobile Response: By using the characteristics of the existing PSE utility poles located throughout the neighborhood,T-Mobile contends that it has limited the adversely impact on the aesthetics of the neighborhood. If a new free standing monopole built only for wireless carriers were sited in the neighborhood it would create a significant impact Vaulting•the radio cabinets keeps,the associated radio equipment out of public site and underground,. thus creating almost no impact from the radio cabinets. Painting the antennas to match the pole in color and flush mounting them to the utility pole eliminates the impact of antennas horizontally off the pole and creating.attention by being discolored,from the PSE pole. Policy U-101-Require that cellular communications structures and towers be sensitively sited and.designed to diminish aesthetic impacts, and be collocated on existing structures andt:towers wherever possible and practical. The applicant contends that the proposed location was chosen to maximize the use of existing trees to screen the monopole from the surrounding residential • neighborhood. No trees would be removed as a result of project construction. There are existing trees in the surrounding neighborhood; however staff has concerns regarding the lack of screening available for the existing residences located in the immediate vicinity as there are no trees in the immediate vicinity of the proposed monopole. The proposed antenna would be collocated on an existing PSE power pole that would have to be replaced with a taller pole. It does not appear that the intent of this policy is met as the proposed monopole 1 structure would not be sensitively sited, an alternate location that is not immediately surrounded by single family residences would be preferred. T-Mobile Response We believe that this proposal sal is sensitivelysited and that it is the least impactive p Im P alternative available to T-Mobile under the code. It is also making use of existing structures. Therefore,it is implementing policy U-101. As mentioned before,technical data is researched for new WCFs. T-Mobile shows a need for a new facility with set•parameters. Engineers examine existing wireless facilities in the search area to determine if they can be expanded. Using existing facilities is usually the most desired option. Wireless signals travels by line of sight;large buildings, hills and tall trees can limit signal strength. Natural geographic features, structures and vegetation are critical factors that often dictate necessary locations for new wireless facilities. Local zoning and building codes guide where wireless facilities can be built and impose specific requirements for location,height and aesthetics. • • T-Mobile gives priority whenever possible to siting new wireless facilities in industrial, commercial and mixed-residential.areas. However, customers increasingly use their wireless devices at home,making it necessary to place wireless facilities in and around residential neighborhoods. The original application emphasized more screening due to its placement within the parcel and surrounding vegetation. It called:for a new monopole structure I to be screened by existing trees on the parcel ownedby Seattle Public Utilities. T-Mobile's thought process for applying on a parcel that doesn't meet the one(1)acre.requirement (parcel was.92 of an acre)but screens more adequately would be considered for approval. Since the application didn't get submitted due not meeting the code. requirements,T-Mobile searched for other possible candidates. PSE poles were the only option T-Mobile considers to meet all requirements. Colloeating.on an existing PSE pole(swappedout)and.addin g..the necessary height within code limit creates`he-least amount of impact possible. Please see our SEPA determination of non-significance(Attachment B). B) Zoning Code C) Development standards T-Mobile Response: - • T-Mobile does not have furthercomment onthe zoning code and development standards. T-Mobile Response to the Conclusions: The City of Renton's explanation for.denying T-Mobile's application is not substantiated by the record or the requirement9f the Code. Conclusion 1 states:the inability of the project to mitigate aesthetic:im_pacts on the surrounding singlcfamily residential neighborhood: By utilizing the characteristics (PSE poles)of the neighborhood T-Mobile limits aesthetic impact on.the neighborhood. Further.:indicationthat the impacts are.minor is the issuance of the DNS from the environmentai::review.board. The total. impact/footprint T-Mobile will have on this application different from what is existing . now is the 19-feet 11-inches extra in height:on-the:PSE pole and a hatch.door•:in the ground. : The trade off of having in-house reception for new device technologies; emergency services,and Enhanced 9-1-1 is less;*,.han.20' feet of wood pole.. The... customers have dictated the need for additionalfseammless.coverage and T-Mobile.is trying to provide coverage_while following the RMC: To create,a footprint in a residential • . . 0 neighborhood by changing the height of a PSE pole is the least amount of impact possible. Conclusion 2 states the proposal does not comply with the Comprehensive Plan Utilities element due to the aesthetic impacts the monopole would have on surrounding neighborhood that cannot be mitigated. City also states the proposal does not comply with all the wireless communication facilities conditional use criteria. Per RMC 4-4-140 F(2) Visual Impact: "Site location and development shall preserve the pre-existing character of the surrounding buildings and land uses and the zone district to the extent consistent with the function of the communications equipment. Wireless communication towers shall be integrated through location and design to blend in with theexisting characteristics of the site to the extent.practical. Existing.on-site vegetation shall be preserved or improved, and disturbance of the existing topography • shall be minimized, unless such disturbance would result in less visual impact of the site to the surrounding area". T-Mobile's application is preserving the pre-existing.character of the surrounding neighborhood as much as practical. The additional 19-feet 11-inches requiredin height on the PSE utility pole is the only change the neighborhood would notice. Any new monopole 1 structure would impact the neighborhood significantly by IIIbuilding a 59-foot 11-inch pole that does not blend into the neighborhood. Even if screenedby trees the section of monopole where the antennasare located would be noticeable due to the line of sight needed to work with the existing network system. T- Mobile believes utilizing the utility pole creates the least amount of impact. Conclusion 3 by the City states unrebutted testimony was received from real estate professionals stating a loss in property values. T-Mobile was never given an opportunity to provide testimony or supporting documention to address this testimony. The letters were seen by T-Mobile but not considered credible since there was no supporting.docunmentatioh or".studies--rather-only opinions.of realtors and riot-appraisers. This criteria is not in the land use code and therefore we did not perceive it to be a valid argument for denial. Provided in attachment C,is a property value report done by third party assessor for a different T-Mobile site. T-Mobile would have addressed any concerns by the City on property values if the City had requested any additional information. The letters submittedand on file show an emotional attachment from the realtors expressing their concerns. The realtors all live within the neighborhood and are connected to the application.. Please review documentation provided by T-Mobile on property values. Based on the content of the application and sensitive consideration given to aesthetic impacts by our site-proposal,webelieve this project should receive approval. Failure to • approve this site-would eliminate all potential sites within the search area and result in a • barrier to entry(Telecomm Act 1996). T-Mobile would-have a significant coverage gap in service with noeffective means of serving this area.utilizing existing technology. We therefore respectfully request that the administrative decision be overturned. • • • r CITY OF RENTON COUNCIL AGENDA BILL AI#: . d. 5 :Submitting Data: For Agenda of: 2/11/2008 Dept/Div/Board.. AJLS/City Clerk Staff Contact Bonnie Walton, x6502 Agenda Status Consent X Subject: Public Hearing... Street Vacation Petition for a portion of Queen Ave. NE, Correspondence.. south of NE 4th St. Petitioner: S. Beck,Newfourth, LLC Ordinance X File No. VAC-07-003 Resolution Old Business Exhibits: New Business Minutes of 8/6/2007 & 1/14/2008 Study Sessions Ordinance Information Recommended Action: Approvals: Council concur Legal Dept X Finance Dept Other Fiscal Impact: Expenditure Required... N/A Transfer/Amendment Amount Budgeted Revenue Generated Total Project Budget City Share Total Project.. •SUMMARY OF REQUEST: At the regular Council meeting of August 6, 2007, the City Council held a public hearing to consider a vacation request, submitted by Steve Beck, Newfourth, LLC, for a portion of unopened Queen Ave. NE (formerly 128th Ave. SE) right-of-way, south of NE 4th St., approximately six feet in width and 293 feet in length. The Council approved the vacation request subject to staff's recommendation that an easement be retained over the entire area for the future waterline extension. At the Council meeting of January 14, 2008, compensation was set at $7,000. Compensation was received by the City Clerk on January 23rd. No other amounts are due, and staff has verified that all conditions of the vacation approval have been satisfied. Therefore, the ordinance can be adopted to finalize the vacation. STAFF RECOMMENDATION: Finalize the street vacation by adopting the ordinance cc Karen McFarland Reference: 35.79 RCW&RMC 9-14 • i RENTON CITY COUNCIL • Regular Meeting August 6, 2007 Council Chambers Monday, 7 p.m. MINUTES Renton City Hall CALL TO ORDER Mayor Kathy Keolker called the meeting of the Renton City Council to order and led the Pledge of Allegiance to the flag. ROLL CALL OF TONI NELSON, Council President; RANDY CORMAN; DON PERSSON; COUNCILMEMBERS MARCIE PALMER; TERRI BRIERE; DENIS LAW; DAN CLAWSON. CITY STAFF IN KATHY KEOLKER,Mayor; JAY COVINGTON, Chief Administrative ATTENDANCE Officer; ZANETTA FONTES, Assistant City Attorney; BONNIE WALTON, City Clerk; PETER HAHN, Deputy Planning/Building/Public Works Administrator-Transportation;KAREN MCFARLAND,Engineering Specialist; LINDA KNIGHT, Solid Waste Coordinator;ALEX PIETSCH, Economic Development Administrator; SUZANNE DALE ESTEY, Economic Development Director; PREETI SHRIDHAR, Communications Director; CHIEF I. DAVID DANIELS and EMERGENCY MANAGEMENT DIRECTOR DEBORAH NEEDHAM, Fire Department; COMMANDER KENT CURRY, Police Department. PUBLIC HEARINGS This being the date set and proper notices having been posted and published in Vacation: 128th Ave SE, accordance with local and State laws, Mayor Keolker opened the public hearing Newforth, VAC-07-003 to consider the petition to vacate a portion of unopened Queen Ave. NE • '_.., (formerly 128th Ave. SE) right-of-way, south of NE 4th St., approximately six feet in width and 293 feet in length. (Petitioner: Steve Beck on behalf of Newforth, LLC.) Engineering Specialist McFarland reported that 100 percent of the abutting property owners have signed the vacation petition, and the area does not contain any City-owned facilities. She stated that the request is associated with the petitioner's intent to create two buildable lots, and according to the petitioner, the public benefits by having this property put back into productive use. Ms. McFarland indicated that the vacation request was circulated to various City departments and outside agencies for review and no objections were raised. In conclusion,Ms. McFarland stated that staff recomrrtendpproval of the vacation subject to the retainage of an easement over the entire area for a future water line extension. Public comment was invited. Steve Beck,4735 NE 4th St., Renton, 98059, said Newforth, LLC owns the property located directly east of and adjacent to the east property line of the vacation area, and the property located directly west of and adjacent to the west property line of the vacation area. He detailed the history of the subject right- of-way and the problems surrounding the documentation of the right-of-way on the tax assessor's maps. Pointing out that Newforth's lot line adjustment application is on hold pending the outcome of this proposal, Mr. Beck urged Council to grant the vacation. • There being no further public comment, it was MOVED BY CLAWSON, SECONDED BY BRIERE, COUNCIL CLOSE THE PUBLIC HEARING. CARRIED. August 6, 2007 Renton City Council Minutes Page 265 MOVED BY BRIERE, SECONDED BY LAW, COUNCIL APPROVE THE VACATION REQUEST SUBJECT TO THE RETENTION OF AN EASEMENT OVER THE ENTIRE AREA FOR THE FUTURE WATER LINE EXTENSION. CARRIED. Vacation: Whitworth Ave S, This being the date set and proper notices having been posted and published in TEAM Properties, VAC-07- accordance with local and State laws, Mayor Keolker opened the public hearing 002 to consider the petition to vacate a portion of Whitworth Ave. S. right-of-way (ROW), south of S. 4th St., approximately 60 feet in width and 100 feet in length. (Petitioner: Brian Allen on behalf of TEAM Properties,LLC.) Engineering Specialist McFarland stated that 100 percent of the abutting property owners have signed the vacation petition, and the area contains City- owned water, wastewater, and surface water facilities. She indicated that the petitioner plans to use the requested vacation area in the proposed development of the ATS Automation Addition project(LUA-07-003). Ms. McFarland reviewed the petitioner's reasons why the vacation will benefit the public. Upon circulation of the petition to various City departments and outside agencies, Ms. McFarland reported that the Utility Division asked that an easement be retained and that sufficient area be provided for a boring pit. The Transportation Division requested that vehicular turnaround access be provided and that ROW be turned back to the City should the BNSF Railway Company ROW be abandoned. Finally, she reported that the Economic Development Department objected to the vacation request for the following reasons: interim land use of the parking lot would be perpetuated, higher density development which may require the requested ROW is anticipated, and future use of the railroad ROW is unknown. • Councilmember Briere expressed concern that the property to the west of the vacation area will have no access. Correspondence was read from Louis Barei, 614 S. 18th St., Renton, 98055, owner of property located at 417 Whitworth Ave. S., requesting that the end of Whitworth Ave. S. be made wider so that U-turns can more easily be conducted. Public comment was invited. Mark DeWitt,4735 NE 4th St., Renton, 98059, owner of property located at 424 Whitworth Ave. S.,reported that the vacation request is a result of a City • condition placed upon the proposed development. He stated that the vacation request violates City Code since a cul-de-sac is required for any dead end street over 300 feet in length. Mr. DeWitt expressed concern that if he or his neighbors develop were to develop property in the future, a cul-de-sac would be needed farther up the street, which would entail taking large portions of the smaller lots. Brian Allen,450 Shattuck Ave. S.,Renton,98057, vacation petitioner, stated that in 2000, TEAM Properties purchased the old Milwaukee Substation building that now houses companies that provide approximately 140 jobs in Renton. He explained that TEAM Properties owns property adjacent to the east and west sides of the vacation area, and due to the lack of space in the building, a building expansion is being sought. MOVED BY BRIERE, SECONDED BY CORMAN, COUNCIL ALLOW THE SPEAKER ANOTHER FIVE MINUTES. CARRIED. January 14, 2008 Renton City Council Minutes i Page 14 CAG: 06-069, Rainier Ave S, Transportation Systems Division recommended approval of an amendment to • Hardie Ave SW& SW 27th CAG-06-069, agreement with Sound Transit, to formalize revised commitments St/Strander Blvd Funding, relative to the Rainier/Hardie Ave. Arterial Improvement Project and the Union Sound Transit . Pacific Railroad Relocation Project. Council concur. Vacation: Queen Ave NE, Technical Services Division reported receipt of appraisal performed for the Newfourth, VAC-07-003 vacation of portion of Queen Ave. NE (formerly 128th Ave. SE), south of NE 4th St., and requested Council accept the appraisal and set compensation at $7,000 for the right-of-way. (VAC-07-003;petitioner Newfourth,LLC) Council concur. Utility: West Coast Technical Services Division recommended acceptance of a quitclaim deed from Preliminary Plat, Quitclaim The Kenny for additional Hoquiam Ave. NE right-of-way related to the West Deed, Hoquiam Ave NE Coast Preliminary Plat(PP-04-149) due to an error in King County's records. Council concur. MOVED BY PALMER, SECONDED BY CORMAN, COUNCIL APPROVE THE CONSENT AGENDA AS PRESENTED. CARRIED. UNFINISHED BUSINESS Planning and Development Committee Chair Parker presented a report Planning &Development regarding the City Code Title IV(Development Regulations) docket. The Committee Committee recommended concurrence in the staff recommendation to set a Planning: Development public hearing for 2/4/2008 on the following three items within the Title IV Regulations (Title IV) Docket docket: Review 1) Housekeeping Amendments Group I 2) ' Animal Regulations • 3) Center Downtown Code Amendments The Title IV docket referral will remain in Committee for further consideration. MOVED BY PARKER, SECONDED BY TAYLOR, COUNCIL CONCUR IN THE COMMITTEE REPORT. CARRIED. Finance Committee Finance Committee Chair Persson presented a report recommending approval of Finance: Vouchers Claim Vouchers 267234 - 268245 and seven wire transfers totaling $8,941,297.21; and approval of 258 Payroll Vouchers, two wire transfers, and 1,359 direct deposits totaling $4,416,247.72. MOVED BY PERSSON, SECONDED BY BRIERE, COUNCIL CONCUR IN THE COMMITTEE REPORT. CARRIED. RESOLUTIONS AND The following resolutions were presented for reading and adoption: ORDINANCES Resolution #3925 A resolution was read approving the Cassidy Cove Final Plat; approximately Plat: Cassidy Cove,NE 4th St, 68.05 acres located in the vicinity of NE 4th St. and Monroe Ave. NE. FP-07-115 MOVED BY PARKER, SECONDED BY PALMER, COUNCIL ADOPT THE RESOLUTION AS READ. CARRIED. Resolution #3926 A resolution was read approving the Barbee Mill Final Plat; approximately 22 Plat: Barbee Mill, Lake_ WA acres located in the vicinity of Lake Washington Blvd. N.,N. 40th Pl., Williams Blvd N,FP-07-109 Ave. N., and N. 42nd Pl. MOVED BY PARKER, SECONDED BY TAYLOR, COUNCIL ADOPT THE RESOLUTION AS READ. CARRIED. The following ordinance was presented for second and final reading and adoption: CITY OF RENTON, WASHINGTON • ORDINANCE NO. AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF RENTON, WASHINGTON, VACATING A PORTION OF RIGHT-OF-WAY SIX FEET WIDE AND APPROXIMATELY 293 FEET IN LENGTH OF QUEEN AVENUE NE, SOUTH OF NE 4TH STREET (STEVE BECK—NEWFOURTH LLC; VAC- 07-003). WHEREAS, a proper petition for vacating a right-of-way six feet wide and approximately 293 feet in length of Queen Avenue NE, south of NE 4th Street, was filed with the City Clerk on May 14, 2007, and that petition was signed by the owners representing more than two-thirds (2/3) of the property abutting upon the street or alley to be vacated; and WHEREAS, the City Council, by Resolution No. 3892, passed on July 16, 2007, set August 6, 2007, at 7:00 p.m., in the City Council Chambers of the City of Renton as the time and place for a public hearing on this matter; and the City Clerk having given proper notice of this hearing as provided by law, and all persons having been heard who appeared to testify in favor or in opposition on this matter, and the City Council having considered all information and arguments presented to it; and WHEREAS, the Administrator of the Planning/Building/Public Works Department has considered this petition for vacation, and has found it to be in the public interest and for the public benefit, and that no injury or damage to any person or properties will result from this vacation; NOW, THEREFORE, THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF RENTON, WASHINGTON, DOES ORDAIN AS FOLLOWS: SECTION I. The following described right-of-way of Queen Avenue NE, south of NE 4th Street, to wit: 1 ORDINANCE NO. • (A portion of right-of-way in the Northeast Quarter of the Northeast Quarter of Section 16, Township 23 North, Range 5 East, W.M., in the City of Renton, King County, Washington.) See Exhibit"A" attached hereto and made a part hereof as if fully set forth herein is hereby vacated subject to a utility easement in favor of the City retained over the entire right-of- way. SECTION II. Compensation is set in the amount of $7,000.00 for this street vacation. SECTION III. This ordinance shall be effective upon its passage, approval, and five days after its publication. A certified copy of this ordinance shall be filed with the Office of Records and Elections, and as otherwise provided by law. • PASSED BY THE CITY COUNCIL this day of , 2008. Bonnie I. Walton, City Clerk APPROVED BY THE MAYOR this day of , 2008. Denis Law, Mayor Approved as to form: Lawrence J. Warren, City Attorney Date of Publication: • ORD.1426:1/30/08:scr 2 , ti0 . EXHIBIT LegalscM pf,n For Right-Of-Way Vacation Theta est 6 feet of the fd lowing describedproperty: West 26 4 feet ()Idle East 1300 feet of the North Quarter of the Northeast Quarter ct Northeast Quarter of Stion |R Township 23 North. Range 5 Last. .M. EXCEPT the North 38.5 feet. (Being the same as descnhedin a Quit Claim Deed recordunder Instrument No. 781'61016) Containing: 1755sq| are Feet, more or 0 "EXHIBIT B' attached and by this refer,:mea parthc + y!/±& r • s . I \ 9 � & ' • /d� r , A} t .y ' j :,,,,:'' ''''.'""< :„. 7-1,-) d ° ' ��Z�) k-,ƒ ' 2»\ \ \ /� z\ \ : v t ,. ) \ \--7,7(...,./.5., . .• •� �` ( ,,441:, • C , 3&x ) z L m « w ,&_ 0 :4' I • , NE 4th Avenue „ .;• cri (f...:• — _......., S Es:",•:,)1,-,"-,-A,'E' 2,81.,C,0'. .--) ..--,,-,, :--.1 24 253.9:V' i ..0-1; \ -- ' i.- . ,,;/..1 r.;" -ji c"..• ---:'''', - ,-: /.:; i:4 c:,.,;... — o.‘.-- e, ; .''.:. 1 0:, ,..'.:. ".< '-'" •,... ,,,, '.;"•-z c.:• ::..."" ,L! '',;- in '-,-1 - ,: ', --,:, ,--u oi kb ..:`t•-:;11: -:.z :I ,.!.., .---, ' Via.. --." ;.N1 • '-'..?'. '.-,_,'", ,.7,., S -- _ .:'. #3709 ,., -- , . . '.., , ,'y2,(:,//.--i ,-- rV 1 . 1,.., CI `.1 ;52.,305--9 f)2.--;" z i I . (...3., :-....: Portion of Queen Ave. NE TO BE VACATED • / . 1 .,...:. c...,... f,-..i „_, N I/-, N I/,'.2, 4•1': 1/4. ;a: ;74" ,7 5 i .kP , ....,-".•'"' 2 4..3 6.-1 Af . ' 253.64' Nia97...,.•.51,1'W 284 CO' '----"- 4 I , „.„(fl,,VZ:12ZZ-n-,--22z7. •sst'sys.ms-c.ss;:,-.„,,.., \.\ i 0 4- '. —,0,;"-- 1 t:''' i • .. —,:,--. -,:.:.,;, !,.-1 ,,, c.)',.."' 1-,i:::',1-.•.: -:' -"' '_:,--,:, '-..; Q ,,, i 5•!;!.1 ''' ,,,,_1(' oe '-*; r), ks, P" . . • tg„,04 ,-4:5!r.,::: x.HrzEs 11/244/.2.0ng,3? Tr.,,...f:t gs.,"•• I—15-0f3 , Exhibit . ,•;','; 'N''.''''-';'''i .TFI - --- ,„, „:„/„.. ,,,,,„ Queen Ave. NE - Right-of-Way Vacation LANE) St)RVEY13,16',Ne, 2e):51:,..;rs,-,,,--,„ ..e6-56.00 ... , ..,/ 0 CITY OF RENTON COUNCIL AGENDA BILL AI#: / j 1 • :Submitting Data: For Agenda of: 2/11/2008 Dept/Div/Board.. AJLS/City Clerk Staff Contact Bonnie Walton, x6502 Agenda Status Consent X Subject: Public Hearing... Street Vacation Petition for a portion of Whitworth Ave. S., Correspondence.. south of S. 4th St. Petitioner: B. Allen, TEAM Properties, Ordinance X LLC; File No. VAC-07-002 Resolution Old Business Exhibits: New Business Minutes of 8/6/2007, 9/24/2007 & 1/28/2008 Study Sessions Ordinance Information Recommended Action: Approvals: Council concur Legal Dept X Finance Dept Other Fiscal Impact: Expenditure Required... N/A Transfer/Amendment Amount Budgeted Revenue Generated Total Project Budget City Share Total Project.. • SUMMARY OF REQUEST: At the regular Council meeting of August 6, 2007, the City Council held a public hearing to consider a vacation request, submitted by Brian Allen, TEAM Properties, LLC, for a portion of Whitworth Ave. S. right-of-way, south of S. 4th St., approximately 60 feet in width and 100 feet in length. On September 24, 2007, the Council adopted the recommendation of the Planning and Development Committee to approve the vacation request subject to four conditions. At the Council meeting of January 28, 2008, compensation was set at $9,500. Compensation was received by the City Clerk on January 31st. No other amounts are due, and staff has verified that all conditions of the vacation approval have been satisfied. Therefore, the ordinance can be adopted to finalize the vacation. STAFF RECOMMENDATION: Finalize the street vacation by adopting the ordinance cc Karen McFarland Reference: 35.79 RCW&RMC 9-14 • August 6,2007 t Renton City Council Minutes Page 265 MOVED BY BRIERE, SECONDED BY LAW, COUNCIL APPROVE THE • VACATION REQUEST SUBJECT TO THE RETENTION OF AN EASEMENT OVER THE ENTIRE AREA FOR THE FUTURE WATER LINE EXTENSION. CARRIED. Vacation: Whitworth Ave S, This being the date set and proper notices having been posted and published in TEAM Properties, VAC-07- accordance with local and State laws, Mayor Keolker opened the public hearing 00.2 to consider the petition to vacate a portion of Whitworth Ave. S. right-of-way (ROW), south of S. 4th St., approximately 60 feet in width and 100 feet in length. (Petitioner: Brian Allen on behalf of TEAM Properties, LLC.) Engineering Specialist McFarland stated that 100 percent of the abutting property owners have signed the vacation petition, and the area contains City- owned water, wastewater, and surface water facilities. She indicated that the petitioner plans to use the requested vacation area in the proposed development of the ATS Automation Addition project(LUA-07-003). Ms. McFarland reviewed the petitioner's reasons why the vacation will benefit the public. Upon circulation of the petition to various City departments and outside agencies, Ms. McFarland reported that the Utility Division asked that an easement be retained and that sufficient area be provided for a boring pit. The Transportation Division requested that vehicular turnaround access be provided and that ROW be turned back to the City should the BNSF Railway Company ROW be abandoned. Finally, she reported that the Economic Development Department objected to the vacation request for the following reasons: interim land use of the parking lot would be perpetuated, higher density development which may require the requested ROW is anticipated, and future use of the railroad ROW is unknown. Councilmember Briere expressed concern that the property to the west of the vacation area will have no access. Correspondence was read from Louis Barei, 614 S. 18th St., Renton, 98055, owner of property located at 417 Whitworth Ave. S., requesting that the end of Whitworth Ave. S. be made wider so that U-turns can more easily be conducted. Public comment was invited. Mark DeWitt,4735 NE 4th St., Renton, 98059, owner of property located at 424 Whitworth Ave. S., reported that the vacation request is a result of a City condition placed upon the proposed development. He stated that the vacation request violates City Code since a cul-de-sac is required for any dead end street over 300 feet in length. Mr. DeWitt expressed concern that if he or his neighbors develop were to develop property in the future, a cul-de-sac would be needed farther up the street, which would entail taking large portions of the smaller lots. Brian Allen,450 Shattuck Ave. S., Renton, 98057, vacation petitioner, stated that in 2000, TEAM Properties purchased the old Milwaukee Substation building that now houses companies that provide approximately 140 jobs in Renton. He explained that TEAM Properties owns property adjacent to the east and west sides of the vacation area, and due to the lack of space in the building, a building expansion is being sought. MOVED BY BRIERE, SECONDED BY CORMAN, COUNCIL ALLOW THE SPEAKER ANOTHER FIVE MINUTES. CARRIED. August 6, 2007 Renton City Council Minutes Page 266 Mr. Allen assured that access will be provided to the parcel to the west of the vacation area. Additionally, he noted that TEAM Properties has signed a neighborhood agreement with St. Anthony Church to allow members to park in TEAM Properties' lots on nights and weekends. Mr. Allen listed the benefits of the vacation, including mitigating Whitworth Ave. S. traffic, fencing off railroad transients from the neighborhood, cleaning up garbage accumulation at street end, and allowing parking access to neighbors during non-business hours. He assured that the BNSF ROW will be turned back to the City if abandoned, and that vehicular turnaround access will be provided. Finally, he relayed that the City staff told him the use of cul-de-sacs is not enforced in the urban core. Responding to Councilmember Corman's inquiry, Fire Chief Daniels indicated that although he has not reviewed this matter, typically cul-de-sacs are not needed in the downtown core as buildings can be accessed by the Fire Department on another side. In response to Councilmember Briere's question, Mr. Allen said that access to the parking will be from Shattuck Ave. S. There being no further public comment, it was MOVED BY BRIERE, SECONDED BY CLAWSON, COUNCIL CLOSE THE PUBLIC HEARING. CARRIED. MOVED BY BRIERE, SECONDED BY LAW, COUNCIL REFER THE VACATION PETITION FOR A PORTION OF WHITWORTH AVE. S. TO THE PLANNING AND DEVELOPMENT COMMITTEE. CARRIED. ADMINISTRATIVE Chief Administrative Officer Covington reviewed a written administrative REPORT report summarizing the City's recent progress towards goals and work programs adopted as part of its business plan for 2007 and beyond. Items noted included: * The Renton Police Athletic Association donated $250 to the Community Services Athletic Association for its Recreation Division Scholarship Program. * Children 14 and younger are invited to attend the Annual Kennydale Splash Day at Kennydale Beach Park on August 8. AUDIENCE COMMENT Kevie Russell, 2906 NE 7th St., Renton, 98056,reading from his letter on the Citizen Comment: Russell - topic of the vacation of a portion of Index Pl. NE, expressed his objection to a Index PINE, A&D Quality 15-foot-wide strip, which the City wants to retain as a pedestrian right-of-way, Construction Company, VAC- being taken out of his portion of the area to be vacated. He requested that the 07-001 pedestrian right-of-way be taken out of the center of Index P1. NE, one-half from each parcel, so he will not be left with a ten-foot strip of land separated from the rest of his parcel by the pedestrian right-of-way. Additionally,Mr. Russell noted that a walkway currently exists to the east of the subject property. MOVED BY BRIERE, SECONDED BY LAW, COUNCIL REFER THIS CORRESPONDENCE TO THE PLANNING AND DEVELOPMENT COMMITTEE. CARRIED. Citizen Comment: McOmber- Howard McOmber, 475 Olympia Ave. NE, Renton, 98056, speaking on the Index PINE, A&D Quality topic of the vacation of a portion of Index Pl. NE, stated that Index Pl. NE is not Construction Company, VAC- an asset for the Highlands neighborhood and he wants the area to be vacated. 07-001 He objected to the retainage of a strip of land from the aforementioned speaker's portion of the vacation area for a pedestrian right-of-way,pointing out that a pedestrian right-of-way already exists near the vacation area and should • sufficiently serve the neighborhood. September 24,2007 Renton City Council Minutes Page 327 UNFINISHED BUSINESS Council President Nelson presented a Committee of the Whole report regarding • Committee_of the Whole the 2008 piped utility rates and System'Development Charges. The Committee Utility: Utility Rates& System recommended concurrence in the staff recommendation to approve the proposed Development Charges 2008 revenue increases of 6 percent for water, 6 percent for wastewater, and 6.5 percent for surface water and the proposed 2008 System Development Charges. The Committee further directed staff to prepare an ordinance reflecting the 2008 utility rates and System Development Charges to be processed with the budget ordinance. MOVED BY NELSON, SECONDED BY CLAWSON, COUNCIL CONCUR IN THE COMMITTEE REPORT. CARRIED. Council President Nelson noted that staff will explore options to better inform low-income seniors and disabled persons of the available lower rates. Planning& Development Planning and Development Committee Vice Chair Clawson presented a report Committee recommending concurrence with the staff recommendation to approve a multi- EDNSP: Multi-Family family housing property tax exemption agreement that addresses the terms and Housing Property Tax conditions for a partial property tax exemption upon completion of the Exemption, Harrington Square Harrington Square project in the Highlands designated residential targeted area. The Committee further recommended that the Mayor and City Clerk be authorized to execute said agreement in substantially the same form. MOVED BY CLAWSON, SECONDED BY PALMER, COUNCIL CONCUR IN THE COMMITTEE REPORT. CARRIED. Vacation: Whitworth Ave S, Planning and Development Committee Vice Chair Clawson presented a report TEAM Properties, VAC-07- recommending concurrence in the staff recommendation to approve the request 002 to,vacate a portion of Whitworth Ave. S. right-of-way subject to the following- four conditions: • • An easement for the City's water,wastewater and surface water utilities be retained over the entire right-of-way; • Sufficient area be provided in the requested vacation area for a boring pit; •• Vehicular turnaround access be provided to the Transportation Division's satisfaction; and • Right-of-way revert back to the City should the adjacent BNSF Railway Company right-of-way be abandoned at some point in the future. MOVED BY CLAWSON, SECONDED BY PALMER, COUNCIL CONCUR IN THE COMMITTEE REPORT. CARRIED. Utilities Committee Utilities Committee Chair Clawson presented a report regarding the Hazen 565- CAG: 07-141, Hazen 565- Zone Reservoir Construction project. The Committee recommended Zone Reservoir Construction, concurrence in the staff recommendation to approve the additional budget T Bailey appropriation in 2008 to cover project costs, with a total project budget(2007 and 20(18) not exceeding$6,500,000. The Committee further recommended concurrence in the staff recommendation to award the construction contract for Hazen 565-Zone Reservoir Construction project to the low bidder, T. Bailey, Inc., in the amount of$5,404,265.96. MOVED BY CLAWSON, SECONDED BY LAW, COUNCIL CONCUR IN THE COMMITTEE REPORT. CARRIED. Utility: Hazen 565-Zone Utilities Committee Chair Clawson presented a report recommending Reservoir Construction concurrence in the staff recommendation to approve the consultant agreement Services, RH2 Engineering with RH2 Engineering, Inc. to provide services during construction of the • Hazen 565-Zone Reservoir project in the amount of$220,602. The Committee further recommended that the Mayor and City Clerk be authorized to execute January 28,2008 ) Renton City Council Minutes ) Page 26 ADMINISTRATIVE Chief Administrative Officer Covington reviewed a written administrative REPORT report. Items noted.included: * Map Your Neighborhood Facilitator Training on January 30 at Renton • Technical College will train residents to organize meetings with their neighbors to define resources and needs they may have during a disaster. * The Renton Community Organizations Active in Disaster meeting will be held on January 31 at Renton Technical College. CONSENT AGENDA Items on the consent agenda are adopted by one motion which follows the listing. Council Meeting Minutes of Approval of Council meeting minutes of 1/14/2008. Council concur. 1/14/2008 Committee of the Whole Approval of Committee of the Whole special meeting minutes of 1/22/2008. Special Meeting Minutes of Council concur. 1/22/2008 Appointment: Planning Mayor Law reappointed Yong Lee to the Planning Commission for a three-year Commission term expiring 1/31/2011. Council concur. City Clerk: Quarterly Contract City Clerk submitted quarterly contract list for period of 10/1/2007 to List, 10/1/2007 to 12/31/2007 12/31/2007, and expiration report for contracts expiring between 1/1/2008 and 6/30/2008. Information. Court Case: Patrick J Gress, Court Case filed by Patrick J. Gress regarding seizure of personal property by CRT-08-001 the Renton Police Department on 3/23/2006. Refer to City Attorney and Insurance Services. CAG: 06-008, Activity Community Services Department submitted CAG-06-008, Activity Buildings • Buildings ADA Upgrades, ADA Upgrades; and requested approval of the project, authorization for final Regency NW Construction pay estimate in the amount of$137,258.71, commencement of 60-day lien period, and release of retained amount of$15,737.58 to Regency NW Construction, Inc., contractor, if all required releases are obtained. Council concur. CAG: 07-102, Downtown Economic Development,Neighborhoods and Strategic Planning Department Wayfinding System, Sea recommended approval of Addendum No. 2 to CAG-07-102, contract with Sea Reach Ltd Reach Ltd. for developing a Downtown Wayfinding System, to extend the term through 3/1/2008. Council concur. Budget: 2008 Amendments Finance and Information Services Department recommended approval of the 2008 Budget amendment ordinance, which amends 2008 Budget expenditures ,by $12,169,435. Council concur. (See page 28 for ordinance.) Vacation: Whitworth Ave S, Technical Services Division reported receipt of appraisal performed for the -TEAM Properties, VAC-07- vacation of a portion of Whitworth Ave. S., south of S. 4th St., and requested 002 Council accept the appraisal and set compensation at$9,500 for the right-of- way (VAC-07-002; petitioner TEAM Properties, LLC). Council concur. Transportation: FlexPass Transportation Systems Division recommended approval of a contract with Program, King County & King County, Sound Transit, and Pierce Transit to continue the FlexPass Sound Transit&Pierce Transit Commute Trip Reduction Program for City employees in the amount of$34,980 for 2008-2009. Council concur. Utility: 2008 Long Range • Utility Systems Division recommended approval of an agreement in the amount Wastewater Management Plan, of$33,829 with Carollo Engineers for services related to the development of the Carollo Engineers 2008 Long Range Wastewater Management Plan. Council concur. Y CITY OF RENTON, WASHINGTON • ORDINANCE NO. AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF RENTON, WASHINGTON, VACATING A PORTION OF RIGHT-OF-WAY APPROXIMATELY 60 FEET IN WIDTH AND 100 FEET IN LENGTH OF WHITWORTH AVENUE SOUTH, SOUTH OF SOUTH 4TH STREET (BRIAN ALLEN — TEAM PROPERTIES, LLC; VAC-07-002). WHEREAS, a proper petition for vacating a right-of-way approximately 60 feet in width and 100 feet in length of Whitworth Avenue South, south of South 4th Street, was filed with the City Clerk on April 4, 2007, and that petition was signed by the owners representing more than two-thirds (2/3) of the property abutting upon the street or alley to be vacated; and WHEREAS, the City Council, by Resolution No. 3893, passed on July 16, 2007, set August 6, 2007, at 7:00 p.m., in the City Council Chambers of the City of Renton as the time and • place for a public hearing on this matter; and the City Clerk having given proper notice of this hearing as provided by law, and all persons having been heard who appeared to testify in favor or in opposition on this matter, and the City Council having considered all information and arguments presented to it; and WHEREAS, the Administrator of the Planning/Building/Public Works Department has considered this petition for vacation, and has found it to be in the public interest and for the public benefit, and that no injury or damage to any person or properties will result from this vacation; NOW, THEREFORE, THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF RENTON, WASHINGTON, DOES ORDAIN AS FOLLOWS: SECTION I. The following described right-of-way of Whitworth Avenue South, south of South 4th Street, to wit: 1111 ORDINANCE NO. • (A portion of right-of-way in the Southeast Quarter of Section 18, Township 23 North, Range 5 East, W.M., in the City of Renton, King County, Washington.) See Exhibit "A" attached hereto and made a part hereof as if fully set forth herein is hereby vacated subject to an easement for the City's water, wastewater and surface water utilities shall be retained over the entire right of way; further, sufficient area shall be provided in the requested vacation area for a boring pit; further, vehicular turnaround access shall be provided to the Transportation Division's satisfaction; and the right-of-way shall revert back to the City should the adjacent Burlington Northern Santa Fe Railway Company's right-of-way be abandoned at some point in the future. SECTION II. Compensation is set in the amount of $9,500.00 for this street vacation. SECTION III. This ordinance shall be effective upon its passage, approval, and five days after its publication. A certified copy of this ordinance shall be filed with the Office of Records and Elections, and as otherwise provided by law. PASSED BY THE CITY COUNCIL this day of , 2008. Bonnie I. Walton, City Clerk APPROVED BY THE MAYOR this day of , 2008. Denis Law, Mayor • 2 r • ORDINANCE NO. Approved as to form: Lawrence J. Warren, City Attorney Date of Publication: ORD.1429:2/1/08:scr • • 3 A CORE DESIGN, INC. Exhibit A III BELLEVUE WA 98007 Core Project No: 07082 5/30/07 LEGAL DESCRIPTION— Right of Way Vacation That portion of the southeast quarter of the southeast quarter of Section 18, Township 23 North, Range 5 East, W.M. in the City of Renton, King County, Washington described as follows: COMMENCING at the northeast corner of Block 2, Smithers 5th Addition to the town of Renton,according to the Plat thereof recorded in Volume 16 of Plats,page 33, records of said County, said corner being on the west right of way margin of Whitworth Avenue South; thence S01°17'56"W, along the east line of said Block 2 and west margin, 337.00 feet to the south line of the north 17.00 feet of Lot 16,Block 2 of said Plat and the POINT OF BEGINNING of the herein described tract; thence continuing S0 l°17'56"W, along said east line and west margin, 113.16 feet to the southeast corner of Lot 13, Block 2, of said Plat, said corner being on the northerly margin of the Chicago, Milwaukee, St. Paul and Pacific Railroad right of way and on the arc of a 5679.58-foot radius curve to the left, the center of which bears N22°18'06"W; thence the following three courses and distances along said margin; thence easterly, along said curve, through a central angle of 00°19'50", a distance of 32.78 feet to the centerline of said Whitworth Avenue South; thence III NO1°17'56"E, along said centerline, 7.23 feet; thence N66°59'54"E 32.92 feet to the southwest corner of Lot 13, Block 2, Smithers 4th addition to the town of Renton, according to the Plat thereof recorded in Volume 11 of Plats,page 19, records of said County, said corner being on the east right of way margin of said Whitworth Avenue South; thence NO 1'17156"E, along the west line of said Block 2 and east margin, 79.11 feet to the easterly prolongation of the south line of the north 17.00 feet of Lot 16,Block 2 of said Smithers 5th Addition; thence N88°38'21"W, along said easterly prolongation, 60.00 feet to THE POINT OF BEGINNING. Contains 5,774±square feet(0.1326±acres). '�'� /d7 i0,. J. S ; sr e;.of , •S c'y10 2 p o 4J41 :f ' 5 O ,w i,i UiSTE�� JX- �'glLANA ''•,,�EXPIRES: ` A.7/0 ,,47 07082L01 Right of Way Vacation.doc, 5/31/07, page 1 III f • S. 4TH ST. 24 i 6 BLOCK 2 BLOCK 2 SMITHERS FIFTH ADDITION TO vi SMITHERS 4TH ADDITION TO THE TOWN OF RENTON THE TOWN OF RENTON VOL. 16, PG. 33 O I M a VOL. 11, PG. 19 w lo 17 Z 11 I 16 30 I 30' S. UNE N. 17' LOT 16 N8838'21"W N88'38'211 POB 1 12 I r. r. 15AREATO BE VACATED ` 13 YYY I n. w I. ,- Z i- I s 30 w 30 , • z 14 a, a` or N665952 aye\ Z 329 __________________________%.cp_ „, 31-,a5) rN,' 019 130J. R' CHICAGO, MILWAUKEE, ST. SCALE:20'1" = 40' PAUL AND PACIFIC RAILROAD o 40' RIGHT OF WAY WHITWORTH AVENUE 531/0 7 PAGE 31,,'d,9�_90- ,..,,.s,'9..9.77..9.9.9,,y... RIGHT OF WAY VACATION 1� J, w� Exhibit B SE 1 /4 Section 18 OF 1 N S' • N 5 4 ''1. 8'y,r Kg %. 4,4 14711 NE 29th Place,#10I a' �i.-r'.ii.. Q Bellevue,Washington 98007 425.885.7877 Fax 425.885.79630 'q ..,,,,•'&. iii DESIGN `' r'•°I sTt$• �` ��'AL LAS 44, ENGINEERING • PLANNING • SURVEYING SIRES: ai/08 Eti� .J®B IV®.. ®7 O$ �xEEEFEEEEFEEEEEEEfEE�f 0 •' CITY OF RENTON COUNCIL AGENDA BILL AI #: 6 . 1 • Submitting Data: Planning/Building/Public Works For Agenda of: February 11, 2008 Dept/Div/Board.. Development Services Division Staff Contact Jan Illian ext. 7216 Agenda Status Consent X Subject: Public Hearing.. Magnussen Final Plat Correspondence. File No. LUA 07-129 FP (LUA 06-053 PP). Ordinance X Resolution Old Business Exhibits: New Business 1. Resolution, legal description, vicinity map, and Study Sessions project site map Information 2. Staff Report and Recommendation Recommended Action: Approvals: Council Concur Legal Dept X Finance Dept Other III Fiscal Impact: N/A Expenditure Transfer/Amendment Required... Amount Budgeted Revenue Generated Total Project Budget City Share Total Project SUMMARY OF ACTION: The recommendation for approval of the referenced final plat is submitted for Council action. This plat divides 8.37 acres into 49 single-family residential lots and 2 storm drainage tracts. The construction of the utilities and street improvements to serve the lots is complete at this time. All construction will be approved, accepted, or guaranteed as required through the Development Services Division prior to recording of the plat. All conditions placed on the preliminary plat by City Council will be met prior to the recording of the plat. STAFF RECOMMENDATION: Approve the Magnussen Plat - LUA 07-129FP, with the following conditions and adopt the resolution. 1. All plat improvements shall be either constructed or deferred to the satisfaction of City staff prior to the recording of the plat. • 2. All plat fees shall be paid prior to recording of the plat. • • CITY OF RENTON, WASHINGTON RESOLUTION NO. A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY OF RENTON, WASHINGTON, APPROVING FINAL PLAT (MAGNUSSEN FINAL PLAT; FILE NO. LUA-07-129FP). WHEREAS, a petition for the approval of a final plat for the subdivision of a certain tract of land as hereinafter more particularly described, located within the City of Renton, has been duly approved by the Planning/Building/Public Works Department; and WHEREAS, after investigation, the Administrator of the Planning/Building/Public Works Department has considered and recommended the approval of the final plat, and the approval is proper and advisable and in the public interest; and WHEREAS, the City Council has determined that appropriate provisions are made for • the public health, safety, and general welfare and for such open spaces, drainage ways, streets or roads, alleys, other public ways, transit stops, potable water supplies, sanitary wastes, parks and recreation, playgrounds, schools, school grounds, sidewalks and other planning features that assure safe walking conditions for students who walk to and from school; and WHEREAS, the City Council has determined that the public use and interest will be served by the platting of the subdivision and dedication; NOW, THEREFORE, THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF RENTON, WASHINGTON, DOES RESOLVE AS FOLLOWS: SECTION I. The above findings are true and correct in all respects. SECTION II. The final plat approved by the Planning/Building/Public Works Department pertaining to the following described real estate, to wit: • See Exhibit "A" attached hereto and made a part hereof as if fully set forth • (The property, consisting of approximately 8.37 acres, is located in the vicinity of • NE 2°d Street between Duvall Avenue NE and Field Avenue NE) is hereby approved as such plat, subject to the laws and ordinances of the City of Renton, and subject to the findings, conclusions, and recommendation of the Planning/Building/Public Works Department dated January 25, 2008. PASSED BY THE CITY COUNCIL this day of , 2008. Bonnie I. Walton, City Clerk APPROVED BY THE MAYOR this day of 2008. Denis Law, Mayor • Approved as to form: Lawrence J. Warren, City Attorney RES.1319:01/28/08:scr • 2 • Legal Descriptions: Parcel k Lot 3, King County Short Plat No . 676075, recorded under Recording No . 7701190691, in King County, Washington . Parcel B: Lot 1 King County Short Plat No . 882065, recorded under Recording No . 8303160822, in King County, Washington . Parcel C: Lot 2 King County Short Plat No . 882065, recorded under Recording No . 8303160822, in King County, Washington . Parcel D: Lot 3 King County Short Plat No . 882065, recorded under • Recording No . 8303160822, in King County, Washington . Parcel E: Lot 4 King County Short Plat No . 882065, recorded under Recording No . 8303160822, in King County, Washington . EXCEPT the north 60 feet of the east 30 feet of said Lot 4, conveyed to King County for road purposes recorded under Recording No . 8705050924. TOGETHER WITH the north 30 . 5 feet of the east 30 feet of said Lot 4, vacated by City of Renton Ordinance Number 5278 recorded under Recording Number 20070511001389. Parcel F: The east 300 feet of the south 198 feet of the southeast quarter of the northeast quarter of the northwest quarter of Section 15, Township 23 north, Range 5 east, Willamette Meridian, in King County, Washington; EXCEPT that portion thereof lying within the Right-of-Way of Southeast 132nd Street . Parcel G: Lot 1 King County Short Plat No . 881050, recorded under Recording No . 8201220536, in King County, Washington . • t Xi • a01.,-_ II r' ' NE5th St a r • NE 4th St c.4 NE 3rd co SPIE Ct NE 2nd P14 j--Ea 1 o 41 1C x NE Is .1 .$:, entral Ave Avenue a 4' \ F-41 S / V • 4 • DEVELOPMENT SERVICES DIVISION BUILDING/PLANNING/PUBLIC WORKS CITY OF RENTON STAFF REPORT AND RECOMMENDATIONS APPLICANT: Lozier at Laurel Crest LLC. Magnussen Plat File: LUA 07-129 FP LUA06-053PP LOCATION: NE 2"d Street between Duvall Ave NE and Field Ave NE NE V2 of Section 05, Twn. 23N. Rge.SE. WM SUMMARY OF REQUEST: Final Plat for 49 single-family residential lots with water, sewer, storm, streets, lighting, and two drainage tracts. RECOMMENDATION: Approve With Conditions FINDINGS, CONCLUSIONS &RECOMMENDATION Having reviewed the record documents in this matter, staff now makes and enters the following: FINDINGS: 1. The applicant, Paul Ebensteiner of Lozier at Laurel Crest LLC, filed a request for approval of a 49 lot Final Plat. 2. The yellow file containing all staff reports, the State Environmental Policy Act (SEPA) documentation, and other pertinent materials was entered into the record as Exhibit No. 1. 3. The 49-lot preliminary plat was subject to Environmental Review. 4. The subject proposal was reviewed by all departments with an interest in the matter. 5. The subject site is located N. of NE 2nd Street between Duvall Ave NE and Field Ave NE. The new plat is located in the SE Y2 of Sec.5, Twn. 23N. Rge. 5E. WM 6. The subject site is an 8.37-acre parcel. 7. The Preliminary Plat received City of Renton Council approval on December 11, 2006. •8. The site has a R-8 (Single Family) land use zoning, with the adoption of Ordinance 4404 enacted in June 1993. 9. The Final Plat complies with both the Zoning Code and the Comprehensive Plan. 1 I Page 2 10. The Preliminary Plat was subject to a number of conditions as a result of plat review. The applicant has complied with the following conditions: 1) The applicant has complied with the Geotechnical report submitted by Earth Solutions NW, dated April 13, 2006. 2) The applicant provided temporary erosion control in accordance with the Department of Ecology's Stormwater Management Manual. 3) The applicant complied with the 2005 King County Surface Water Manual. 4) The applicant complied with the recommendations contained in the Drainage Report dated August 32, 2006 prepared and submitted by Jim Jaeger P.E. 5) The applicant has removed the sight obscuring tree branches at NE 2nd Street and Jericho. 6) Transportation Mitigation fees will be paid prior to recording of the plat. 7) Fire Mitigation fees will be paid prior to recording of the plat. 8) Park Mitigation fees will be paid prior to recording of the plat. 9) The existing well was decommissioned in accordance with King County on September 7,2007. 10) Fencing and signage delineating the stream buffer has been installed. 11) A Native Growth Protection Easement located on Lots 48, 49, and Tract B will be recorded with the final plat. 12) A revised Tree Retention Plan has been submitted and approved by Jennifer Henning. 13) A revised Landscaping Plan has been submitted and approved by Jennifer Henning. 14) Stormwater detention tracts have been fenced. 15) Demolition permits have been obtained and finaled. 16) The Declaration of Covenants, Conditions and Restrictions have been submitted, reviewed and are approved CONCLUSIONS: The Final Plat generally appears to satisfy the conditions imposed by the preliminary plat process and therefore should be approved by the City Council. RECOMMENDATION: The City Council should approve the Final Plat with the following conditions: 1. All plat improvements shall be either constructed or deferred to the satisfaction of City staff prior to the recording of the plat. 2. All fees shall be paid prior to the recording of the plat. SUBMITTED THIS a5 DAY of Q Z .,2008 VELOPMENT SERVICES DIVISION • • Legal Descriptions: Parcel A: Lot 3, King County Short Plat No . 676075, recorded under Recording No . 7701190691, in King County, Washington . Parcel B: Lot 1 King County Short Plat No . 882065, recorded under Recording No . 8303160822, in King County, Washington . Parcel C: Lot 2 King County Short Plat No . 882065, recorded under Recording No . 8303160822, in King County, Washington . Parcel D: Lot 3 King County Short Plat No . 882065, recorded under • Recording No . B303160822, in King County, Washington . Parcel E: Lot 4 King County Short Plat No . 882065, recorded under Recording No . 8303160822, in King County, Washington . EXCEPT the north 60 feetof the east 30 feet of said Lot 4, conveyed to King County for road purposes recorded under Recording No . 8705050924. TOGETHER WITH the north 30 . 5 feet of the east 30 feet of said Lot 4, vacated by City of Renton Ordinance Number 5278 recorded under Recording Number 20070511001389. Parcel F: The east 300 feet of the south 198 feet of the southeast quarter of the northeast quarter of the northwest quarter of Section 15, Township 23 north, Range 5 east, Willamette Meridian, in King County, Washington; EXCEPT that portion thereof lying within the Right-of-Way of Southeast 132nd Street . Parcel G: Lot 1 King County Short Plat No . 881050, recorded under Recording No . 8201220536, in King County, Washington . • 410 Xi fr r") NE5th St a W •oma' NE 4th St NE 3rd SITE Ct NE 2nd P1 0 1111 B 1 C xg ani is ,1 t‘.: Central Ave • h Avenue - \ �3s 0 4\ $1> blcV* • , • • • A RN LLA 131M-02-050-LLA S89'09'15"E 413.61' 50.01' 54.62' 50.00' 50.00' 50,00' 50.00' 3 09.91' ® ® g d a 9 29 11 t 12 13 14 p 'PIXAL0 LELIC - ® ® _ ® _ ® CIEJ 389'09'f5'E 110,02' \- --O- ANO PRIV18100 E DRAINAGE `,8 - m L/]I-20•PRIVATE ACCESS I NE 204 Court\ --_Z El904557 9, $ 20'I ANO UTILITIES 1f - m'd • EASEMENT $r ti--�8.. -l� N 3 m; 18 }- �� -_ =s � .` -93--27.45•__39.50 C7--�� DECI r • 89'09.15'1 J4.23'� • /,,4r 56.95' `CB / 599'09'f5'E 111.07' •• 10 46 47' q].•5675 10,62 ¢j].� 3rd PLACElt ., „ V 91 m 20'PRIVATE ACCESS N/6'Si /- 9.09.05.0 66 51I' k5,/, 5 d9 30`:c'fi.i.3.Y(:,a ND UTILITIES 6 /, _ �/\\ '.d ,.«2Y 4C PUBLIC MATER .0...„,..,, - 65.98' 17 N• EASEMENT B /, '4,...,.V _-31 23' 34.75'_-` '�444. \\ CMJ 5 ® /m / 4 `'1' 6,P.O4. 1 999'15'45'/100 14' \ \1 589'15'/5'E 101.36' W / 9 589'09'15"E 204.05' & ® - 21' 21' I 23 6 22 1 * 18 . 7A 16' . E - I 2r Zr w 60.01' 50 O1' _ 1.15' °�. 0 1+" r41 IF111 .... O ® o a'U710SCAPE 50.01' - �1Y� I-(EASEMENT --- 589'15'45T 9].90' 0 OI 56915'45'E 100.02' m (SEE NOTE ON yy�� '$. '+ I N 'u1d (PAGE 2 OF 51 ZS .�- lfi.9a' I gill- 1 $ I ��r m 11y'PUBLIC S[OENALN O ti $ 0 0' 3' _o .I I 569109'154 132 03' I m'Io AND UTILITY EASEMENT O ':,,,,,,H3212 1 .4 ,4 N89'15'IS'1 8 e 3 O b>b'• I 66,4 V 66.02'21 I O -- 19 o m "Y u ® `m�, 6.00'Yr 599'15'®91.99' •r 9') IP, EM f m CU rJ I $ ,. •-•, ® o m !SEE DETAIL A� 2 3 m ro CI I .4}l a I PAGE 5 OF 5 2 - 3 .- 4 L--MO'PRIVATE w X $ SFE 9/TAIL 0 m ® I DRAINAGE - ' IT AGE OF! ' m6E5 DETAIL E m X N 009'/5'45'E 100.02' w r. �" EASEMENT W .PAGE 5 Of- ,m u, SEE DETAIL F N. 44 'N $6EE DETAIL C Im .I 1! I ^� N '° 'AGE OF! e PAGE 569F U-h•Ic, A:, I X21• 21' 20 $ ur{E r+x. ..... ,' -35-M0' -_30.01 - -50.01' - -0 01'e-10.L 669]' -1-%.,1- ,.. -Jb- h'L�6S. '1"5-'15:E--"-'5 @Q'L13.E_15y GRgRD C2530 Y' A -41.53'---40.4:' C C3%�1s'e'' �/•(1 10'UTILITY SYSTE 252 09' \ . '•100.00' R•f00.00' EASEMENT RECORDING NE 2nd PLACE '� 82.02:sy 6.1'52.23'4.152'23' - "� 0 04 56 9 2 000]11050003]4 _ 323.19' 251 7& _L•3.7'0 L•3.2a, a 589'23'44"E 205.04' • N• 'L 589'153 4 "E 474.97' v 591'3622'L 589'15'45'6* h.® 95.02' 90.01'r L34 L2'J"" a2.. f 49.:8' 4.53' -5D 01' _-50.01'- --50.0(' - -50.01' S0 Of' L26 '[rt- -62.00 [� .�bq r $ 47 $, i o f_ VY ,r 4Y.69'1=--:G' 1 ® �� ,�{ $' 15'PJ9LIC L- 38 \ I 999.24'30'E 95.02' � 21 3O o EASEMENT a I 48 + o SEE DETAIL 8'21 32 31 - ® fI EASEMENT = 27 28 ® �, m ®® 110' u'I ® + ._ I PAGE 5 OF 5 i �+ �^ N IN IN ® '4,- ® r'3 ® rr3 ® "�d ® n ® = N 21 21' m ® 4. RA[NAGEATE 1 LANDSCAPE�' e $ $ N $ $ $ 589'15'a5'E 91 43' I I0 EASEMENT' 404. ASENENT N00'2940000X I 999.18'58LE 175.04' ISEE NOTE ON 29 ^' 21.66' 15' Ia,15' 62.00' 39 0 ' I PAGE 2 OF 51 62.2x' ® - No ,d, 95.02' 20' 00.02'I� N O • I 60.01' 50.01' 50 01' •• MOO'28'00'0 S19'15'45'E 220 05' o y 1 O 50 01' S0 01' 20.38' w 989.15.45.E 98.02• ,I NN H s 3 CE`TAM: N89'15'45"W 288.43' 2 0 ni �zO PRAM IVATE ACCESS + m w' TRACT A EASEI5A1E FENCE 1 I - m $ 649014941 [TIES '�' STORM MANAGE. I I . p , I� 8 o e 40 S e 2 IC _ IP 1 45 - 0 49 l a' m iq ® 1- N m I ® • u ® N �--r O 1J I N IS89't5'/5'E 95 02' im m Tj, O 2f u. 389115'45'0 96.02' u'1 or I :.4, d Y99 m589'1!'15'0 220.05' .••12.02' N ;••(5.00' T1 50.01' $ l3'PUBLIC I 5P 976675 50.01' 65,01' 55.01' `�, DRAINAGE I 44 S89'Si'45'E J,g0.02' O REC.NO.;,1'19059: 0 g I T I O 1--15'PUBLIC 41 �'. ('747 ; s89'19'IS'E 95.02' - TRACT B O EISEME61 - W W$STORM DRAINAGE, 8 P I �O 2 "el r 589.15.45.E 98.02' I I m I� .r NATIVE 34 n 'l"' ® $ 35 g 6 8 37 42 2f 21' ®® 0 N EA•SEMENT TON CD = o MOE .r0 (STREAM) P ® $ SEE DETAIL 6 , I I) °T'.m T 7190 SO.FT. I IC - - fry . ` -l- 1"t0- --•• 44' • ..".' ' 4ir- 153 . rVY50 01'- -50.01 - 1L.g.01'-- 5.01'-1;- 2.49-- 41,:- UI © N89'24'44"W 205.03' I7 12.00'N 220.05' NE 2nd 9T. N NE 2nd ST. CITY OF RENTON COUNCIL AGENDA BILL AI#: < 6 (7 submitting Data: For Agenda of: February 11, 2008 Dept/Div/Board.. Economic Development Neighborhoods and Strategic Planning Staff Contact Erika Conkling(ext. 6578) Agenda Status Consent X Subject: Public Hearing.. Shoreline Master Program Grant Contract with Correspondence.. Parametrix Ordinance Resolution Old Business Exhibits: New Business Draft Grant Contract Study Sessions Information Recommended Action: Approvals: Council concur Legal Dept X Finance Dept Other 4iFiscal Impact: Expenditure Required... $199,890 Transfer/Amendment Amount Budgeted Revenue Generated Total Project Budget $200,000 City Share Total Project... SUMMARY OF ACTION: The State enacted new Shoreline Master Program legislation and all jurisdictions are required to update local Shoreline Master Programs to ensure consistency with the new regulations. In order to complete this work, the City was awarded a$200,000 grant by the Washington Department of Ecology to hire a consultant. Council accepted this grant on December 10, 2007. The City published an RFP (Request for Proposals) and conducted a competitive process to select a consultant. With the approval of this contract, the City would enter into an agreement with Parametrix to provide consulting services up to the amount of$199,890 for the update of Renton's Shoreline Master Program between February 2008 and December 2009. STAFF RECOMMENDATION: Approve a contract with Parametrix for$199,890 for consultant services to update Renton's Shoreline Master Program, and authorize the Mayor and the City Clerk to sign. III H:\EDNSP\Legal\Contracts\2008\Parametrix\Agenda Bill Parametrix Contract_.doc • CONSULTANT AGREEMENT THIS AGREEMENT is made as of the day of , 20 , between the CITY OF RENTON, a municipal corporation of the State of Washington, hereinafter referred to as "CITY" and Parametrix, Inc., hereinafter referred to as "CONSULTANT", for their services in the development of a Shoreline Master Program. Information shall be made available for use by the City of Renton Staff and City Council. The CITY and CONSULTANT agree as set forth below: 1. Scope of Services. The Consultant will provide all labor necessary to perform all work, which is described in the attached Scope of Services (Exhibit A). This Agreement and Exhibit hereto contain the entire agreement of the parties and supersedes all prior oral or written representation or understandings. This Agreement may only be amended by written agreement of the parties. The scope of work may be amended as provided • herein. 2. Changes in Scope of Services. The City, without invalidating the Consultant Agreement, may order changes in the services consisting of additions, deletions or modifications, and adjust the fee accordingly. Such changes in the work shall be authorized by written agreement signed by the City and Consultant. If the project scope requires less time, a lower fee will be charged. If additional work is required, the consultant will not proceed without a written change order from the City. If any provision of this Agreement is held to be invalid, the remainder of the Agreement shall remain in full force and effect to serve the purposes and objectives of this Agreement. 3. Time of Performance. The Consultant shall complete performance of the Consultant Agreement for the items under Consultant's control in accordance with Exhibit A. If items not under the Consultant's control impact the time of performance, the Consultant will notify the City. 4. Term of Consultant Agreement. The term of this Agreement shall end at completion of the scope of work identified in Exhibit A, but no later than April 20, 2010. This Agreement may be extended to accomplish change orders, if required, upon mutual written agreement of the City and the Consultant. 5. Consultant Agreement Sum. The total amount of this Agreement is not to exceed the sum of$199,890. Washington State Sales Tax is not required. The Cost Estimate provided by the Consultant to the City specifies total cost. • 6. Method of Payment. Payment by the City for services rendered will be made after a voucher or invoice is submitted in the form specified by the City. Payment will be made • within thirty(30) days after receipt of such voucher or invoice. The City shall have the right to withhold payment to the Consultant for any work not completed in a satisfactory manner until such time as the Consultant modifies such work so that the same is satisfactory. 7. Record Maintenance and Work Product. The Consultant shall maintain accounts and records, which properly reflect all direct and indirect costs expended and services provided in the performance of this Agreement. The Consultant agrees to provide access to any records required by the City. All originals and copies of work product, exclusive of Consultant's proprietary items protected by copyright such as computer programs, methodology, methods, materials, and forms, shall belong to the City, including records, files, computer disks, magnetic media or material which may be produced by Consultant while performing the services. Consultant will grant the City the right to use and copy Consultant copyright materials as an inseparable part of the work product provided. 8. Assignment Agreement. The Consultant shall not assign any portion of this consultant Agreement without express written consent of the City of Renton. 9. Hold Harmless. The Consultant shall indemnify, defend and hold harmless the City, its officers, agents, employees and volunteers, from and against any and all claims, losses or liability, or any portion thereof, including attorneys fees and costs, arising from injury or death to persons, including injuries, sickness, disease or death of Consultant's own • employees, or damage to property caused by a negligent act or omission of the Consultant, except for those acts caused by or resulting from a negligent act or omission by the City and its officers, agents, employees and volunteers. Should a court of competent jurisdiction determine that this agreement is subject to RCW 4.24.115, then, in the event of liability for damages arising out of bodily injury to persons or damages to property caused by or resulting from the concurrent negligence of the contractor and the city, its officers, officials, employees and volunteers, the contractor's liability hereunder shall be only to the extent of the contractor's negligence. It is further specifically and expressly understood that the indemnification provided herein constitute the contractor's waiver of immunity under the Industrial Insurance Act, Title 51 RCW, solely for the purposes of this indemnification. This waiver has been mutually negotiated by the parties. The provisions of this section shall survive the expiration or termination of this agreement. 10. Insurance. The Consultant shall secure and maintain commercial liability insurance in the amount of$1,000,000 in full force throughout the duration of this Consultant Agreement. It is agreed that on the CONTRACTOR's policy, the City of Renton will be named as Additional Insured(s) on a non-contributory primary basis. A certificate of insurance and the Primary & Non-Contributory Additional Insurance Endorsement page, properly endorsed, shall be delivered to the City before executing the work of this agreement. Please note: The cancellation language should read "Should any of the above described policies be cancelled before the expiration date thereof, the issuing company will mail 45 days written notice to the certificate holder named to the left." • 2 11. Independent Contractor. Any and all employees of the Consultant, while engaged in • the performance of any work or services required by the Consultant under this agreement, shall be considered employees of the Consultant only and not of the City. The Consultant's relation to the City shall be at all times as an independent contractor. Any and all claims that may or might arise under the Workman's Compensation Act on behalf of said employees, while so engaged, and any and all claims made by a third party as a consequence of any negligent act or omission on the part of the Consultant's employees, while so engaged on any of the work or services provided to be rendered herein, shall be the sole obligation and responsibility of the Consultant. 12. Compliance with Laws. The Consultant and all of the Consultant's employees shall perform the services in accordance with all applicable federal, state, county and city laws, codes and ordinances. Discrimination Prohibited: Consultant, with regard to work performed under this agreement, will not discriminate on the grounds of race, color, national origin, religion, creed, age, sex, the presence of any physical or sensory handicap, or sexual orientation, in the selection and/or retention of employees, or procurement of materials or supplies. This agreement is entered into as of the dayand year written above. 9 CONSULTANT CITY OF RENTON Parametrix, Inc. Denis Law, Mayor • 411 108t''Avenue NE, Suite 1800 Bellevue, WA 98004-5571 APPROVED AS TO FORM: ATTEST: City Attorney Bonnie I. Walton, City Clerk i 3 1 ATTACHMENT A— SCOPE OF WORK DRAFT 2 City ton of Ren • 3 Shoreline Master Program 4 OVERVIEW OF SCOPE OF WORK 5 The goal of this scope of work is to clearly describe the tasks necessary to complete the City of Renton 6 Shoreline Master Plan update by April 20,2010. This scope specifies specific tasks to be completed by 7 the Parametrix team(hereafter Consultant)as well as specific tasks to be completed by Renton staff.The 8 scope of work includes 5 phases,with individual tasks. The scope includes goals,approach, deliverables 9 and assumptions for each task and serves as the basis for the associated cost estimate. 10 Assumptions Applicable to all Phases and Tasks: 11 • The Consultant will provide deliverables to the City in electronic format. Unless otherwise 12 specified, deliverables will be in PDF,Microsoft Word or Microsoft Excel. 13 • The City will have the primary responsibility for implementing the Public Participation plan with 14 assistance, as specified from the Consultant. The city will be responsible for identifying and 15 coordinating with key stakeholders, including property owners, state agencies,tribes, and 16 neighboring jurisdictions.Unless otherwise specified under specific phases and tasks, the City 17 will produce and print paper reports,memos, agendas etc. as needed for, agency,public Planning 18 Commission and City Council review. For all public, committee and other meetings, the client • 19 will be responsible for scheduling,notice,text,reports and records of meetings. The City will 20 prepare meeting exhibits unless included in specific Consultant deliverables. 21 • The City will e-mail all Consultant deliverables in electronic file to the Ecology project officer as 22 provided in the City of Renton/Ecology Grant Agreement.The city shall track all Ecology, 23 agency and public comments and shall maintain a record of written response as required by the 24 Grant Agreement. The City and Consultant will jointly develop a matrix format for comments 25 and responses to enable Consultant responses to be readily integrated into the City's overall 26 records. 27 • For review comments on deliverables including Technical Reports and Draft Code text, the City 28 will collate comments and resolve conflicts among reviewers. One set of comments containing 29 all comments by reviewers will be provided to the Consultant in a tracking matrix of comments 30 and responses in MS Word or Excel format. The City will request clarification of the individual 31 reviewer for comments that are unclear or ask questions. If issues are technical in nature,the 32 Consultant will directly contact individual reviewers to discuss comments and clarify issues 33 within the constraints of the budget. The consultant will track comments and responses in a 34 matrix format developed by the consultant and Renton staff. 35 • For each deliverable,the Consultant will prepare one draft and one final version, except if 36 otherwise specified. This means there will be two(2)opportunities(total) for the City and 37 Ecology and other agencies to comment. The first review will be comprehensive and will raise 38 all substantive issues. The second review is to confirm that the responses adequately address the 39 comments from the first review. No additional substantive comments will be raised in the second 40 review. If needed,the Consultant will revise the final deliverable if there are specific issues 41 where reviewers believe the Consultant responses did not adequately address reviewer's issues • City of Renton SMP Update 1 01-25-08 REVISED Scope of Work 42 and will be limited to specific issues identified. Review by Ecology is presumed to take place for each of the work products. If Ecology review is not timely,the City will determine whether to 034 proceed without input(or with incomplete input)or adjust the schedule. 45 • The scope assumes that the City will have the primary responsibility of integrating work 46 produced into the City GIS system,with specified assistance from the Consultant. GIS mapping 47 will be completed by the City. GIS data layers used in the analysis by the Consultant will be 48 created or obtained from existing data sources including the City,King County,WDNR,Ecology, 49 WDFW and other agencies.Compilation will be performed by the City to assure compatibility 50 with the system standards and long-term use by the City. . The Consultant will work with City 51 GIS staff to identify analysis and mapping needs and deliverables for each task. Overlays and 52 queries will be completed by the City at the request of the Consultant. Analysis performed by the 53 Consultant will include coordination with the City to obtain necessary data and will include 54 transmittal of the results of the analysis to the city to be integrated with the GIS system. 55 • Meetings are assumed to occur at the Renton City Hall,other locations within the City of Renton 56 or at the Consultant's offices in Bellevue,or at Ecology offices in Bellevue. Meetings at other 57 locations may require travel time and expenses that will be billed in addition to assumptions 58 included in this scope. 59 • Actions bythe Cityor Ecologythat cause schedule delaywill be considered out of scope and may Y 60 result in a concomitant delay in the number of days that the Consultant deliverables are due. 61 Review of Consultant work products by Ecology or other agencies is a key component of the 62 project that is not under the control of the City or Consultant. The City will be responsible for 63 tracking Ecology and agency comments and determining whether to proceed on project elements 64 if agency input is incompletes. IlkPHASE 1: PROJECT COMPLETION STRATEGY 66 (Ecology Grant Agreement Task 1.1 and 1.2) 67 Goals and Objectives 68 This is the initial,key collaborative step that establishes the structure for working closely with City staff, 69 Ecology, and other stakeholders throughout the project. 70 Approach 71 This phase will address: 72 • The relationships among the Consultant team, City staff, and Ecology will be defined and detailed 73 in a Project Management Plan including protocols for coordination on substantive issues,review 74 of draft products, schedule and budget tracking and an understanding of how the project team will 75 respond to unanticipated change. 76 • A Public Participation Plan will be prepared that identifies specific objectives,key parties, 77 property owners, state agencies,tribes,neighboring jurisdictions and established timelines for 78 citizen participation activities. Efforts will be include recreationists/conservationists and 79 organizations that may not typically seek involvement in new shoreline regulations. The plan will 80 identify appropriate means of participation for key stakeholders. Various methods can be 81 employed for different groups ranging from public meetings and workshops that involve a broad 82 cross-section of the public to direct notification to affected property owners,newsletter articles, • City of Renton SMP Update 2 01-25-08 REVISED Scope of Work 83 website posting,news releases,legal notices,document circulation,public workshops and 84 hearings. • 85 • A public meeting will be held during this process to introduce the Shoreline Management Act and 86 the Shoreline Master Program to the public and invite input into the overall process. 87 Consultant Deliverables 88 • Draft Project Management Plan Delivered to Renton Staff: February 29, 2008 89 • Final Project Management Plan Delivered to Renton Staff after incorporation of Renton Staff 90 comments. 91 Renton Deliverable 92 • Public Participation Plan(Ecology Contract Task 1.2) 93 • Renton Staff will e-mail the electronic file of public participation plan and strategy consistent 94 with Chapter 90.58.130 to Ecology project officer consistent with Task 1.2 of the Renton/Ecology 95 Agreement (Due due: April 20, 2008) 96 • Renton Staff will maintain a comment response matrix of all comments received from ecology, 97 other agencies,from the public and stakeholders,Planning Commission, City Council and other 98 forums and provide to the Consultant periodically as new information is added. 99 Assumptions 100 • Up to two(2)meetings will be held with the Consultant,city staff,Ecology and other interested 1111 101 agencies to develop the Project Management Plan and Public Participation Plan. 102 • Renton Staff will be primarily responsible for briefings of the Planning Commission and City 103 Council with assistance from the Consultant as specified for individual tasks. 104 • Renton Staff will initiate coordination with adjacent jurisdictions engaged in similar SMP update 105 tasks, for the purpose of efficiently using grant funds, sharing information and methods of 106 analysis, drafting compatible SMP policies,regulations,environment designations and 107 coordinating public involvement and will transmit other jurisdiction comments to the Consultant, 108 or invite other jurisdictions to scheduled meetings consistent with Task A of the Renton/Ecology 109 Agreement. 110 • City staff will be responsible for the logistical work to arrange facilities and inform attendees 111 about meeting times/locations,prepare agenda and meeting records. 112 • Exhibits to support this task will be produced by City staff with assistance from the Consultant as 113 specified for individual tasks. 114 • Renton Staff will e-mail the electronic file of public participation plan and strategy consistent 115 with Chapter 90.58.130 to Ecology project officer consistent with Task 1.2 of the Renton/Ecology 116 Agreement (Due due: April 20, 2008) 117 • For the purpose of this scope,the Consultant participation in public and agency involvement is 118 summarized in the table below. 119 • City of Renton SMP Update 3 01-25-08 REVISED Scope of Work Meeting Name Participants Content Deliverables • Project Completion Strategy Renton Staff Address Draft Proposals o Project Mgmt Plan Up to 2 meetings Up to 4 Consultants o Public Partic.Plan Ecology contact Public Kickoff Meeting Renton Staff General Orientation o Power Point Up to 2 meetings Up to 4 Consultants Presentation Ecology contact Information Resources Renton Staff Address list of potential Technical Memo(TM) Up to 2 meetings Up to 3 Consultants resources addressing available data Ecology contact and data gaps Other agencies as avail. GIS Coordination Renton Staff Establish details of GIS TM prepared by Consultant Up to 4 Consultant,2 information sharing and map persons production Ecology contact(optional) Agency Meetings- Renton Staff Summary of Findings o Draft Inventory/Char Inventory/Characterization Up to 4 Consultants o Draft Ecological Preliminary Findings Ecology contact Opportunities TM Up to 2 meetings Other Agencies o Draft Shoreline Use TM o Draft Public Access TM City Staff Meeting—Existing Renton Staff Discussion of Information o Draft Policies Code Issues Up to 4 Consultants from Renton on Existing o Draft Code Up to 2 meetings Code Public Meeting—Options Renton Staff General Orientation o Power Point Up to 2 meetings Up to 4 Consultants Presentation • Ecology contact o Revised Draft TMs Public Meeting— "interest At each meeting: Orientation and identification o Power Point group"meetings for 3 Renton Staff of specific issues for each Presentation geographic areas Up to 2 Consultants, area Up to 9 total meetings Ecology contact Planning Commission—Options Renton Staff Orientation and identification o Power Point Up to meetings(additional Up to 2 Consultants, of issues Presentation meetings would be attended by Ecology contact Renton Staff only) Renton City Council—Options— Renton Staff Orientation and identification o Power Point Up to 4 meetings(additional Up to 2 Consultants, of issues Presentation meetings would be attended by Ecology contact Renton Staff only) Agency Meeting—Draft Code Renton Staff General Orientation o Draft Code Up to 2 meetings Up to 3 Consultants, Ecology contact Public Meeting—Draft Codes Renton Staff General Orientation o Power Point Up to 2 meetings Up to 2 Consultants, Presentation Ecology contact o Draft Code Planning Commission—Draft Renton Staff Orientation and identification o Power Point Code—Up to 2 meetings Up to 2 Consultants, of issues Presentation (additional meetings would be Ecology contact o Draft Code attended by Renton Staff only) Renton City Council—Draft Renton Staff Orientation and identification o Power Point Code—Up to 2 meetings Up to 2 Consultants, of issues Presentation (additional meetings would be Ecology contact o Code revisions by attended by Renton Staff only) Renton staff • Up to 36 meetings City of Renton SMP Update 4 01-25-08 REVISED Scope of Work 120 • Consultant staff participation at meetings is limited to 2 hours,plus travel time,unless otherwise • 121 specifically provided under individual tasks. 122 • Renton staff may revise the allocation of meetings or duration of meetings within the total 123 Consultant hours provided for meetings. 124 PHASE 2: SHORELINE INVENTORY AND ANALYSIS 125 (Ecology Grant Agreement Task 1.3 and Task 2) 126 Goals and Objectives 127 The shoreline inventory and analysis provides a factual basis for shoreline policy and regulatory 128 decisions,preliminary cumulative impact analysis, and restoration planning. The Consultant will assist 129 the City in identifying and obtaining existing information on watershed-scale processes and shoreline 130 ecological functions and land use. The inventory will be used to characterize existing conditions and 131 provide a baseline from which future conditions can be assessed. 132 Division of Labor: 133 • Renton staff will provide GIS support and oversight for the inventory and analysis. 134 • The Consultant will prepare technical analyses and reports for this phase. 135 Approach 136 The inventory and analysis will follow a logical process outlined in the Shoreline Guidelines and the 137 Ecology grant. The cConsultant will manage information resources in a manner that produces focused • 138 and useful information for making shoreline management decisions. 139 Task 2.1 —Collect, Review, and Evaluate Available Information 140 Goals and Objectives 141 Work with City staff to identify and obtain existing shoreline information,review information for 142 relevance, and identify data gaps. 143 Approach 144 The City will compile a list of available data sources in their possession relevant to the shoreline 145 inventory and analysis.The Consultant will review the list, augment with other information resources, 146 and evaluate the adequacy of the information for the analysis. Existing information and technical studies 147 produced via the WRIA 8 and WRIA 9 planning processes; and studies on Lake Washington and on the 148 Cedar River watershed will provide much of the required information. 149 The Consultant will work with City GIS staff to identify existing GIS data from a variety of sources 150 through review of sources used in current studies. Data sources will likely include the existing City 151 system,King County,the U.S.Army Corps of Engineers,FEMA,WSDOT,Ecology,DNR, and other 152 sources. The Consultant will evaluate the appropriateness of available information for the purpose of this 153 study, and for future public and permit center working maps for administration of regulations. 1111 City of Renton SMP Update 5 01-25-08 REVISED Scope of Work Os4 This evaluation includes a data gap analysis to identify key resource issues that are not understood adequately based on existing information and that are needed to address the inventory elements listed in 6 the Shoreline Guidelines 157 Consultant Deliverables 158 • Technical Memorandum evaluating available information, including a bibliography of existing 159 studies, GIS information from the City and other sources; information available in non-GIS 160 format that may be integrated in the City GIS system; additional data needs not included in 161 existing information(data gaps)and proposed methods for integrating external data with the City 162 GIS system. Delivered to Renton Staff: March 14,2008. 163 Renton Deliverables 164 • Renton staff will prepare and deliver to the Consultant a list of all GIS resources in the city 165 system, existing technical studies prepared for the city since 2000 on critical areas within the 166 shoreline and plans and permit conditions for recent development approved or proposed on the 167 shoreline. Depending on the volumes of reports available,not all reports may be reviewed or 168 utilized by the Consultant.Delivered to Consultant: February 15,2008. 169 Assumptions 170 • The City will be primarily responsible for assembling GIS information in the City system, 171 including a list of citations for all data layers. The Consultant will assist the City in identifying 172 and obtaining GIS data from other sources.The City will be responsible for preparing all GIS 173 based maps and exhibits,with coordination from the Consultant on content and format, or except 0 as specifically provided for in individual tasks. 175 Task 2.2: Inventory 176 (Ecology Grant Agreement Task 1.3) 177 Goals and Objectives 178 Use data collected in Task 2.1 to compile and inventory of existing shoreline ecological functions and 179 land use patterns. The inventory will inform the analysis and characterization(Task 2.3).This task also 180 includes determining the extent of shoreline jurisdiction. 181 Approach 182 The Consultant will use existing reports, maps, aerial photos, oblique photos and GIS data to inventory 183 shoreline ecological conditions and land use patterns along the City's shorelines. Information compiled 184 as part of the inventory will include the following at a minimum (to the extent such information is 185 pertinent and readily available): 186 • Shoreline vegetation 187 • Shoreline modifications, including docks,bulkheads and other structural modifications 188 • Fish and wildlife use and habitats 189 • Current land use patterns within and adjacent to shorelines iii0 • Zoning and Comprehensive Plan land use designations City of Renton SMP Update 6 01-25-08 REVISED Scope of Work 191 • Transportation and utility facilities • 192 • Critical areas as defined in RCW36.70A and Renton Municipal Code 193 • Degraded areas with potential for restoration 194 • Existing and potential public access sites 195 • Channel migration zones(if any) 196 • FEMA floodplain and floodway 197 • Known archaeological and historic sites 198 • Public lands 199 The Consultant will review criteria defined in RCW 90.58.030 used to identify and map Shorelines of the 200 State within the City's jurisdiction and any Potential Annexation Areas (PAAs), as well as areas of 201 special interest,rapidly developing waterfronts,previously identified toxic or hazardous material clean-up 202 sites, and eroding shorelines. The Consultant will recommend whether new information indicates a need 203 to change the definition or extent of shoreline jurisdiction described in the current Shoreline Master 204 Program. 205 Consultant Deliverables 206 • Technical memo reviewing criteria for Shoreline Management Act jurisdiction, identifying any 207 changes required, or options,and including a map (to be complied by the City GIS staff) 208 depicting shorelines and shorelands. The map will be based on existing data related to the 209 presumed location of the ordinary high water mark and associated wetlands with the 210 understanding that precise delineation of shoreline jurisdiction requires site-specific evaluation. 211 Delivered to Renton Staff: March 31,2008 (Ecology Task 1.1 Ecology due date April 20, 2008) 212 • Specifications for GIS-based digital working maps of inventory information.Delivered to Renton 213 Staff: May 10, 2008 (Partial fulfillment of Ecology Task 1.3 Due date: July 20,2008) 214 • Shoreline Inventory,Delivered to Renton Staff July 10, 2008(Ecology Task 1.3 due July 20, 215 2008)This may be provided as a separate report or combined with the analysis and 216 characterization results in the technical report described below under Task 2.3. 217 Renton Deliverables 218 • GIS-based digital maps of shoreline jurisdiction based on specifications provided by the 219 Consultant. (Ecology Task 1.1, Due date: April 20, 2008). 220 • GIS-based digital working maps of inventory information based on specifications provided by the 221 Consultant. (Partial fulfillment of Ecology Task 1.3 Due date: July 20, 2008) . 222 Assumptions 223 • In keeping with the Shoreline Guidelines(WAC 173-26),which specify that the inventory and 224 characterization be based on existing information(as opposed to data collection or field work), 225 The Consultant intends to limit field reconnaissance to one or two day"spot checks"of areas of 226 special interest. The purpose of the"spot checks"would be to"ground-truth"observations 227 derived from existing information. This will include a one-day survey of the Lake Washington 228 Shoreline. Boat rental is included in the budget. • City of Renton SMP Update 7 01-25-08 REVISED Scope of Work • 229 • The City GIS staff will be responsible for producing shoreline jurisdiction maps and digital working maps of inventory information based on guidance and input from the Consultant. 231 Task 2.3: Shoreline Analysis and Characterization 232 (Ecology Grant Agreement Task 2.1) 233 Goals and Objectives 234 Develop a detailed understanding of the relationship between ecosystem-wide processes and shoreline 235 functions and document findings to support subsequent phases and tasks. 236 Approach 237 The Consultant will analyze the interaction between the inventory information(Task 2.2),the 238 characterization of ecosystem processes (Task 2.3.1)and assessment shoreline ecological functions(Task 239 2.3.2),and summarize findings in a report and map folio. Findings will inform shoreline policy and 240 regulatory development and protection and restoration opportunities. 241 This analysis will: 242 • Present the geographic and jurisdictional context for the SMP update. 243 • Qualitatively characterize ecosystem processes and shoreline functions. 244 • Identify future opportunities for shoreline protection,restoration,public access and potential use 245 conflicts so as to inform later environment designation and allowed use decisions. • Begin evaluation of anticipated cumulative impacts. 47 • Identify measures to ensure consistency between existing local plans and regulations and the 248 updated SMP. 249 • Present the findings of the shoreline analysis in text and graphic form, including initial 250 recommendations for protection and restoration of ecological functions through updated SMP 251 policies,regulations, environment designations, and restoration strategies. 252 Task 2.3.1 Characterize Ecosystem-wide Processes 253 Goals and Objectives 254 Identify natural watershed-scale process controls and management activities that influence shoreline 255 ecological function and highlight key issues for managing shoreline resources. 256 Approach 257 This characterization will present a coarse analysis of the broader area that influences the City's shoreline 258 jurisdiction. It will include a narrative and a limited number of maps describing and illustrating the 259 processes in the larger drainage area linked to shoreline ecologic functions. These processes include the 260 uptake,transport and deposition of water, sediment,nutrients, organic matter, heat/light, and pollutants. 261 Specifically,the description of ecosystem processes will: • City of Renton SMP Update 8 01-25-08 REVISED Scope of Work 262 • Present the basic geographic context—geology, soils,topography, climate, vegetation, and • 263 drainage patterns,and a description of how these are relevant to the shoreline.This information 264 may be available through existing regional watershed or natural resource related plans. 265 • Note location and nature of major human physical land uses within the watershed that affect 266 ecosystem-wide processes,e.g., dams,major roads,railroads, land alteration patterns, industrial 267 developments. 268 • Note location and nature of known pertinent parameters or sites relating to regulatory activities, 269 e.g. TMDL,ESA listings,contaminated sites. 270 • Identify issues that can be addressed through the SMP and those addressed through other 271 planning and regulatory efforts either because they are outside of SMA jurisdiction,or that 272 primary regulatory responsibility is assigned to state or federal agencies(MCTA,ESA, etc.). 273 • Identify preliminary opportunities for protection/restoration of areas outside SMA jurisdiction 274 and nearby uplands and adjacent areas essential for maintaining shoreline form and function. 275 The characterization of ecosystem-wide processes will rely primarily on data from inter jurisdictional, 276 watershed,or regional inventories pursuant to WAC 173-26-201(3)(c)and will provide a context for Task 277 2.3.2.This analysis will incorporate existing data,GIS analysis/mapping,published information from 278 WRIA 8,WRIA 9, and Lake Washington, and possibly the results of the King County shoreline 279 assessment model to the extent that the model results and underlying data are available,useable, and 280 accurate. 281 Task 2.3.2: Analyze Shoreline Reach Functions 282 Goals and Objectives • 283 The analysis of shoreline reach functions will assess existing shoreline conditions within the City of 284 Renton in the context of watershed-scale processes identified in Task 2.3.1, and establish an 285 environmental baseline for shoreline planning and regulation. 286 Approach 287 This shoreline analysis will be a more detailed analysis of the City's shoreline jurisdiction that includes a 288 narrative with references to maps and GIS data. The characterization will evaluate and assess shoreline 289 ecological functions based on the current scientific data. The shoreline will be separated into reaches 290 based on land use and ecological processes (such as man-made physical features, stream confluences, 291 and/or land use patterns). Functions will be described as they are associated with each shoreline reach. 292 Specifically, this characterization will: 293 • Evaluate the physical,biological and land use characteristics of the shorelines to determine the 294 overall condition of the habitat and shoreline resources. 295 • Evaluate and assess shoreline ecological functions based on current scientific understanding of 296 conditions within shoreline jurisdiction. 297 Reach information will be organized by major watersheds or substantial differences in existing and future 298 land use and may include: 299 • Cedar River • City of Renton SMP Update 9 01-25-08 REVISED Scope of Work • 00 • South Lake Washington shore 1 • East Lake Washington shore 302 • Green River,Black River, and Springbrook Creek 303 The Consultant will prepare a Shoreline Inventory and Analysis Report with accompanying maps 304 summarizing the information and data collected in Tasks 2.1,2.2, and 2.3 as they relate to development of 305 an effective SMP. 306 The report will include synthesis maps at appropriate scales that illustrate findings and correspond with 307 the narrative. Maps will differentiate the land and water contained within the SMA jurisdiction from 308 adjacent lands and contributing drainages. 309 Coarse-scale maps will depict both the significant geologic,hydrologic,and ecologic features most 310 essential to maintaining shoreline form and function and those land uses that may have altered upland 311 processes influencing shoreline functions. Maps and/or aerial photos at the shoreline reach scale will 312 indicate applicable inventory features such as known presence of listed species,riparian vegetation, 313 existing land uses,mapped/known critical areas, and shoreline modifications to the extent such 314 information can be mapped using available data sources. Potential areas for shoreline uses,public access, 315 restoration and/or protection will be indicated. The portfolio will include a comprehensive list and map 316 of existing public access to shorelines. 317 Consultant Deliverables Task 2.3 318 • Shoreline Inventory,Analysis and Characterization Report and map folio to document the preliminary results of the shoreline inventory and characterization as described above. (Ecology Task 2.1 and 2.2) Delivered to Renton Staff: July 10, 2008 321 Renton Deliverables 322 • Production of GIS-based map folio based on specifications provided by the Consultant. 323 • Renton will e-mail the Consultant Draft Inventory,Analysis and Characterization Report • 324 electronic file to the Ecology project officer(Ecology Tasks 2.1.1 and 2.1.2 Entire Phase 2 due: 325 October 20,2008) 326 Assumptions: 327 • The characterization of ecosystem-wide processes will rely primarily on data from inter- 328 jurisdictional,watershed,or regional inventories pursuant to WAC 173-26-201(3)(c).This 329 analysis will incorporate existing data, GIS analysis/mapping,published information from 330 WRIA 8,WRIA 9, and Lake Washington,and the results of the King County shoreline 331 assessment model to the extent that the King County model results and underlying data are 332 available, useable, and accurate. 333 • Reach scale functions outside the City of Renton limits but within the Renton UGA will be 334 performed by reference to the King County Shoreline inventory/characterization. Maps and 335 inventory prepared by the county will be reproduced with minimal additional interpretation. 336 • The City will be responsible for producing maps that are included in deliverable. The 337 Consultant will assist City GIS staff with map development and review draft products. s City of Renton SMP Update 10 01-25-08 REVISED Scope of Work 338 PHASE 3: ASSESSMENT OF OPTIONS • 339 (Ecology Grant Agreement Tasks 2.1.3;2.1;4,4.1) 340 Goals and Objectives 341 This is the critical phase of the project. This is where all the pieces come together and the critical 342 tradeoffs and balancing decisions are made. 343 This will include three related efforts: 344 • Identification of opportunities utilizing the results of the inventory/characterization and 345 addressing trade-offs between ecological preservation/restoration and land use opportunities 346 • Identify regulatory approaches that achieve the goals of the SMA while providing a predictable, 347 fair system that provides guidance routine land use decisions, as well as major projects. 348 • A public involvement and decision-making effort 349 Division of Labor: 350 In completing this critical phase of the project Renton staff and the Consultant team both will provide 351 substantial contributions to the public involvement and decision making process. 352 • Renton staff will be in the primary role of: 353 • Providing information on existing land use, approved development, and expected 354 development trends based on Comprehensive Plan and Economic Development Plan policies; 355 • Working with the Consultant team to develop appropriate options. • 356 • Conducting the public involvement effort,with the support of the Consultant team. 357 • Conducting meetings and soliciting policy direction from the Planning Commission and City 358 Council,with the support of the Consultant team. 359 • The Consultant team will be the lead for identifying conceptual options and preparing supporting 360 scientific information based on the inventory/characterization. 361 • Agencies will be involved in providing input on the preferred approach. The Consultant team 362 will attempt to get"buy-in"to the approach from key agencies such as Ecology and WDFW on 363 both the Shoreline and Critical Areas components of the program. 364 Task 3.1: Analyze Opportunities and Impediments 365 (Ecology Grant Agreement Tasks 2.1.3; 2.1;4,4.1) 366 Goals and Objectives 367 Utilize the Inventory/Analysis to identify potential opportunities and possible impediments to the 368 protection and restoration of ecological functions as well as current and potential land use and public 369 access opportunities and constraints to inform policy decisions on the Shoreline Master Program. 370 Approach 371 This effort is based on the inventory/characterization and will flow naturally from the methodology and 372 presentation structure. • City of Renton SMP Update 11 01-25-08 REVISED Scope of Work 373 Two basic types of opportunities will be identified: 04 • Ecological functions 375 • Protection 376 • Restoration 377 • Land use opportunities 378 • Water dependent,water related and mixed use opportunities 379 • Public access opportunities 380 Ecological protection and restoration opportunities will be largely addressed by the 381 inventory/characterization subtasks above. An important perspective will be provided by the ecosystem- 382 wide analysis in identifying functions that can be provided in Renton and those that are more effectively 383 provided elsewhere in the watershed. It is critical that the SMP recognize this and provide opportunities 384 for off-site and on-site mitigation and enhancement.The Consultant team will identify what resources 385 should be the focus in Renton and where other opportunities in the watershed should be pursued. 386 Land use opportunities will be driven both by the Renton Comprehensive Plan and by the desires of local 387 communities. 388 • Water related use opportunities—One of the central goals of the SMA is to prefer uses that are 389 unique to or dependent upon use of the state's shoreline including ports, shoreline recreational 390 uses(including but not limited to parks,marinas,piers,and other improvements facilitating 391 public access to shorelines), industrial and commercial developments that are particularly 392 dependent on their location on or use of the shorelines of the state, and other development that will provide an opportunity for substantial numbers of people to enjoy the shorelines of the state. We anticipate this will be assessed through: 395 • Identification of existing resources and the extent of use,particularly seasonal overcrowding. 396 ■ Providing an estimate of future demand for shoreline use consistent with WAC 173-26- 397 201(3)(d)(ii)requirements based on: 398 • General industrial sector demands as documented in the King County Buildable Lands Report 399 • Moorage demand projections based on both growth in boating ownership and options for 400 storage or moorage 401 • Shoreline park demand based on IAC guidelines and local polices. 402 • Demand for mixed-use development based on the Renton Comprehensive Plan and economic 403 development goals. 404 • Public shoreline access opportunities will be addressed based on the demand analysis as well as 405 on sites identified in the inventory/characterization.The potential for future access locations will 406 be based partially on existing transportation,utility, and public ownership patterns and also on 407 opportunities for acquisition or provision as part of new development or redevelopment. 408 Identification will be coordinated with the Renton and King County Parks,Recreation,and Trails 409 and plans and policies. 410 Opportunities will be identified for separate reaches of the shoreline. 411 Consultant Deliverables 412 • Draft Technical Memorandum addressing opportunities and alternative strategies for preserving and enhancing ecological functions based on the characterization of shoreline processes and City of Renton SMP Update 12 01-25-08 REVISED Scope of Work 414 functions in Phase 2, above for Ecology,public,and agency review. (Ecology Task 2.1.3) 415 Delivered to Renton Staff August 20, 2008 • 416 • Draft Technical Memorandum addressing shoreline use opportunities for water dependent,water- 417 related, and non-water related use for Ecology,public,and agency review. (Ecology Task 2.1.3) 418 Delivered to Renton Staff August 20, 2008 419 • Draft Technical Memorandum addressing public access opportunities for Ecology,public, and 420 agency review. (Ecology Task 2.1.3)Delivered to Renton Staff August 20,2008 421 • Consultant will attend public meetings to present the findings of the Technical Memoranda and 422 answer questions. The public meetings are outlined in the Table in Task 1. Public meetings are 423 anticipated in September 2008 424 Renton Deliverables 425 • Renton Staff will e-mail the Consultant Technical Memoranda electronic files to the Ecology 426 project officer and prepare an SMP Submittal Checklist(Ecology Task 2.1.3 due October 427 20,2008) 428 • Production of GIS-based maps for Technical Memoranda 429 Assumptions 430 • Analysis will be based primarily on the Inventory/Characterization or specific additional 431 information identified in the tasks above. 432 • Renton GIS staff shall provide maps at least two(2)weeks prior to the target date for the • 433 Technical Memo. 434 • Renton Staff will arrange for consultation and coordination with Ecology, other agencies and 435 adjacent jurisdictions and will forward comments to the Consultant. 436 Task 3.2: Options for Regulatory Approach 437 (Ecology Grant Agreement Tasks 2.2 and 2.4) 438 Goals and Objectives 439 This effort will integrate a number of related issues that will flow from the inventory and analysis,but 440 also represent an opportunity for the City to decide how to integrate the SMP with other City policies and 441 regulations 442 Task 3.2.1 Shoreline Environmental Designations or Zoning 443 Goals and Objectives 444 Shoreline Environment Designations provide the primary means of applying regulations that are 445 appropriate to both the type of anticipated use and the character of existing ecological functions. This 446 task will require close collaboration with Renton Staff in understanding how existing city regulations 447 work and in developing solutions appropriate to the city's regulatory structure. • City of Renton SMP Update 13 01-25-08 REVISED•Scope of Work • 448 Approach 09 As an initial resource,Renton staff will provide a summary report of the existing regulatory system that 450 addresses the following: 451 • Application to typical single family,multi-family and non-residential shoreline development of 452 existing city land use, and other regulations,including density,bulk standards,parking standards, 453 tree preservation, land disturbance,clearing and grading, flood protection, stormwater 454 management, utility standards and road standards to identify interrelationships with the SMP and 455 provisions of other codes 456 • Provide a description of application of the above standards to a cross-section of recently approved 457 applications for shoreline development permits to identify what works effectively and what needs 458 code and non-code (administrative)improvements. Include copies of a sample of recent shoreline 459 applications and record of city action. 460 • Renton staff will distribute a brief questionnaire to recent permit applicants to include developers, 461 engineers, scientists and planners to identify regulations that work effectively and issues that 462 cause confusion with respect to the development,permitting and compliance/enforcement 463 processes. Renton staff will distribute the survey and summarize the responses.The Consultant 464 will assist the Renton Staff in developing an outline of potential issues to be addressed. 465 • One meeting will be held with Renton development review staff to identify problems with and/or 466 opportunities to provide for more consistency and coordination between programs. 467 Issues to be addressed by the Consultant include: • Overview description of existing Shoreline Designations including: 089 • Designation Criteria 470 • Existing geographic location 471 ■ Existing bulk dimensional requirements 472 • Matrix Comparison of Existing Shoreline Designations to WAC 173-26-211 Environmental 473 Designation Provisions. 474 • Matrix Evaluation of Existing Shoreline Designations in relation to scientific information. 475 • Ecological context,including the Shoreline Inventory/Characterization 476 • Presence of Critical Areas and issues not addressed in the proposed CAO amendments 477 (Renton Ordinance No. 5136) 478 • Potential for restoration of ecological processes and functions 479 ■ Existing use characteristics and potential cumulative impacts 480 • Potential for"water dependent uses" 481 • Relationship to Comprehensive Plan and Zoning, 482 • Options for Changes to Existing Shoreline Designations. These options will be presented in 483 matrix format and be developed from the evaluation in above and generally will reflect a range 484 based on advantages and disadvantages of the following approaches: 485 • Employ an overlay of Shoreline Environmental Designations(SED) similar to the existing 486 Renton Code 487 • Employ an overlay of Shoreline Environmental Designations(SED) similar to the Ecology WAC 173-26-211. City of Renton SMP Update 14 01-25-08 REVISED Scope of Work 489 • Employ shoreline zoning classifications as separate classifications that may extend into 490 uplands outside of shoreline jurisdiction(and address the adjacent lands issue). • 491 The evaluation shall include,but not be limited to: 492 • The advantages of prescriptive regulations for application to routine permit decisions (such as 493 single family development)versus relying primarily on criteria or performance standards as an 494 overlay to existing zoning; 495 • The extent of future development an whether it is likely to be largely contained within shoreline 496 jurisdiction,or whether shoreline jurisdiction is likely to be only a part of a larger development; 497 In each case,the application of regulatory options shall be assessed separately for specific areas of the 498 city,which may include the following areas: 499 • Cedar River(City limits to mouth) 500 • South Lake Washington(from north boundary of Gene Coulon Park to west City limits) 501 • North Lake Washington(from north boundary of Gene Coulon Park to north City UGA limits) 502 • Black River/Spring brook Creek 503 Consultant Deliverables 504 • Draft Technical Memorandum addressing Shoreline Environment Designations (SED)in relation 505 to the opportunities and impediments analysis in Task 3.1 outlining alternative strategies for 506 preserving and enhancing ecological functions based on the characterization of shoreline 507 processes and functions. The analysis will discuss the advantages and disadvantages of options 508 implementation, in a matrix format for Ecology,public,and agency review. (Ecology Task 2.4) 509 Delivered to Renton Staff August 20, 2008 510 Renton Deliverables 511 • Provide a MS Word version of all existing policies and regulations related to the Shoreline 512 Master Plan and provide direction on any changes to the format of policies and regulations that 513 differ from the existing plans and regulations 514 • Summary report of the existing regulatory system that addresses the following: 515 • Application to typical single family,multi-family and non-residential shoreline development 516 of existing city land use, and other regulations; 517 • Provide a description of application of the above standards to a cross-section of recently 518 approved applications for shoreline development permits to identify what works effectively 519 and what needs code and non-code(administrative)improvements together with copies of a 520 sample of recent shoreline applications and record of city action. 521 • Distribution and compilation of questionnaire to recent permit applicants 522 • Host meeting with Renton development review staff to identify problems and/or opportunities 523 to provide for more consistency and coordination between programs. Summarize meeting 524 results. • City of Renton SMP Update 15 01-25-08 REVISED Scope of Work 5 Task 3.2.2 Critical Area Regulations 2s 6 Goals and Objectives 527 The Shoreline Management Act mandates that regulations for critical areas in the master program 528 provide a level of protection of critical areas at least equal to that provided by the local government's 529 critical areas ordinances adopted pursuant to the(RCW 90.58.090(4)).Renton's existing critical area 530 regulations and the proposal to extend these regulations to the shoreline in 2003 through 2005 proposals 531 include an approach of designating uniform buffer areas for different classifications of resources(streams, 532 wetlands)and also allowing exceptions on a case-by-case basis. In Renton,however,within the area of 533 SMA jurisdiction,there are numerous challenges to implementing a uniform buffer of standard widths 534 applied to rivers and lakes. 535 The appropriate approach for Renton will recognize that: 536 • The values and functions of ecosystems must be maintained 537 • Regulations 538 • May result in localized impacts or loss of some critical areas. 539 • Must result in no net loss of the value and functions within a watershed or other 540 catchment area. 541 Tulalip Tribes of Washington(Tulalip I)v. Snohomish County, CPSGMHB Case No. 96-3-0029(Jan. 8, 1997) 542 Swinomish Indian Tribal Community, et al. v. Skagit County, et al., WWGMHB Case No. 02-2-0012c 43 Approach 4 Critical areas regulations will be based on: 545 • The assessment of existing ecological functions in the Phase 2 Inventory/Characterization and the 546 extent to which: 547 • Buffers are currently in place that provided specific ecological functions 548 • Buffers may be needed to maintain existing ecological functions, given the potential for 549 ecological degradation with new development or redevelopment 550 • Buffers may provide enhancement of ecological functions, and more specifically for 551 anadromous fish; 552 • Assessment of the practical limits to imposing standard buffers relating to factors such as: 553 • Existing single-family development lot depth and existing structure location 554 • Existing multi-family development lot depth, structure location, and potential for re- 555 development 556 ■ Existing non-residential development,potential for redevelopment,potential for water- 557 dependent use,water-related use and non-water related use and potential for integrating 558 buffer areas into development areas considering lot area, depth, and the range of potential 559 uses. 560 Consultant Deliverables 561 • Draft Technical Memorandum addressing critical areas in relation to the opportunities and 562 alternative strategies for preserving and enhancing ecological functions based on the III City of Renton SMP Update 16 01-25-08 REVISED Scope of Work 563 characterization of shoreline processes and functions in Phase 2 for Ecology,public,and agency 564 review. (Ecology Task 2.4)Delivered to Renton Staff August 20,2008 • 565 Renton Deliverables 566 • Renton Staff will e-mail the Consultant Technical Memoranda electronic file to the Ecology 567 project officer and prepare a SMP Submittal Checklist (Ecology Task 2.4 Prepare Draft 568 Recommendations) Due date October 20,2008 569 • Production of GIS-based maps for Technical Memoranda 570 Assumptions for Task 3.2 571 • Renton Staff shall provide a MS Word version of all existing policies and regulations related to 572 the Shoreline Master Plan and provide direction on any changes to the format of policies and 573 regulations that differ from existing plans and regulations 574 • The prior work on critical areas that contributed to the 2005 partial SMP update will be used as 575 the Best Available Science(BAS)record with the exception of wetlands which will rely on the 576 Ecology publication Wetlands in Washington State,Volumes 1 (A Synthesis of the Science, 577 March 2005)and 2 (Guidance for Protecting and Managing Wetlands, April 2005) 578 • The Inventory/Characterization prepared in Phase 2 will provide the inventory related to critical 579 areas; 580 • The 2006 King County Flood Hazard Management Plan will provide the basis for 581 characterization of Frequently Flooded Areas. 582 • Renton GIS staff shall provide maps at least two(2)weeks prior to the target date for the • 583 Technical Memo. 584 • Renton staff will be responsible for review of the initial Consultant proposal for Critical Area 585 regulations and provide direction to the Consultant on the general range of regulations,based 586 primarily on Renton Ordinance 5136 and the existing Critical Areas code. 587 Phase 3.3: Preliminary Cumulative Impacts Analysis 588 (Ecology Grant Agreement Task 4.1) 589 Goals and Objectives 590 An evaluation of the incremental and cumulative impacts of options under consideration is an important 591 ongoing element of the SMP update process. At this phase,the preliminary findings of the cumulative 592 impacts analysis, will allow the City to evaluate the options,and allow the proposed SMP provisions to be 593 adjusted as needed to demonstrate how no net loss of ecological function and SMA use-preferences 594 (water-oriented uses,public access, etc.)will be achieved.This analysis will identify how proposed SMP 595 standards will avoid and offset expected impacts of future permitted and exempt shoreline development. 596 Approach 597 The inventory/characterization in Phase 2 will provide the basis for identifying existing trends in 598 ecological functions based on existing regulations.The assessment of cumulative impacts would be based 599 on the extent to which these conditions and trends are continued or altered by: i City of Renton SMP Update 17 01-25-08 REVISED Scope of Work 0 • Reasonably foreseeable future development and use of the shoreline under the existing Renton 1 SMP(including impacts from unregulated activities,exempt development, and other incremental 02 impacts) 603 • Likely influence of existing zoning regulations to the extent that they narrow the range of 604 allowable development beyond the existing SMP 605 • Likely influence of existing critical area regulations to the extent that they narrow the area in 606 which allowable development may occur or impose specific requirements beyond the existing 607 SMP 608 • Likely influence of existing state and federal regulations to the extent that they impose standard 609 mitigation requirements on allowable development 610 This preliminary inventory will provide a baseline for assessing the effects of the options for shoreline 611 policies and regulations in changing existing trends of ecological degradation. 612 The Preliminary Cumulative Impact Analysis will identify key environmental issues using the 613 SEPA/GMA integration procedure in WAC 197-11-210. 614 Consultant Deliverables 615 • Preliminary Cumulative,Impact Analysis for Ecology,public, and agency review. (Ecology Task 616 4.1)Delivered to Renton Staff August 20, 2008 617 Renton Deliverables �8 • Renton Staff will e-mail the Consultant Technical Memoranda electronic file to the Ecology 9 project officer and I prepare an SMP Submittal Checklist (Ecology Task 4.1)Due date October 620 20,2009 621 • Production of GIS-based maps for Technical Memoranda 622 Assumptions for Task 3.3 623 • Renton GIS staff shall provide maps at least two(2)weeks prior to the target date for the 624 Technical Memo. 625 • The influence of existing City of Renton regulations will be based on the summary report of the 626 existing regulatory system prepared by Renton staff. 627 • The influence of existing state and federal regulatory programs will be based on: 628 • Corps of Engineers Regional General Permits including RGP-3 Construction of New or 629 Modification of Existing Residential Overwater Structures and Installation of Moorage Piling 630 in Lake Washington, Lake Sammamish, the Sammamish River and Lake Union, Including the 631 Lake Washington Ship Canal Effective Date:March 7, 2005 632 • Washington Department of Fish and Wildlife Hydraulic Project Approval Guidelines, 633 including Stream Habitat Restoration Guidelines (SHRG), Design of Road Culverts for Fish 634 Passage, Integrated Streambank Protection Guidelines(ISPG) 635 • Washington Department of Ecology Washington State Coastal Zone Management Program 636 Section 309 Assessment and Strategy, Fourth Round 2006 Section 309 Program Assessment 637 of the status of the nine required improvement areas,and describes the State's tentative CZM Program improvement measures for 2006 through 2010. City of Renton SMP Update 18 01-25-08 REVISED Scope of Work 639 • Stormwater Management Programs will be assessed based on Technical Memorandum • 640 Summary and Analysis of Stormwater Appendix H Regulations and Programs Washington 641 Stormwater Management Study 642 • Washington Environmental Permits Handbook, Governor's Office of Regulatory Assistance, 643 2007 644 • Renton Staff will arrange for consultation and coordination with city staff,Ecology, other agencies 645 and adjacent jurisdictions and will forward an integrated set of comments to the Consultant. 646 Consultant revision to the Draft Preliminary Analysis will take place in the Final Cumulative 647 Analysis be prepared in Task 4.2 648 Phase 3.4: Preliminary Restoration Plan 649 (Ecology Grant Agreement Tasks 4.2) 650 Goals and Objectives 651 Approach 652 A preliminary assessment or opportunities for restoration identified in the inventory/characterization will 653 be based on existing WRIA Salmon Recovery and other restoration planning as well as the 654 Inventory/Characterization and will include identification of: 655 • Areas where future uses should be designed to allow or encourage restoration,including 656 assessment of options for incorporating incentives for restoration in regulatory provisions 657 • Potential strategies for mitigating development impacts through off-site(or out-of-city)mitigation 658 that will focus on the areas of greatest ecological productivity, if on-site mitigation is not • 659 effective or appropriate 660 • Opportunities to manage public lands for ecological restoration 661 Deliverables 662 • Preliminary Restoration Plan for Ecology,public, and agency review. (Ecology Task 4.2) 663 Delivered to Renton Staff August 20, 2008 664 Renton Deliverables 665 • Renton Staff will e-mail the Consultant Technical Memoranda electronic file to the Ecology 666 project officer and 1 prepare an SMP Submittal Checklist (Ecology Task 4.2)Due date October 667 20,2008 668 • Production of GIS-based maps for Technical Memoranda 669 Assumptions for Task 3.4 670 • Renton GIS staff shall provide maps at least two(2)weeks prior to the target date for the 671 Technical Memo. 672 • Existing restoration programs used to develop the Preliminary Restoration Plan include: 673 • Final Lake Washington/Cedar/Sammamish Watershed(WRIA 8) Chinook Salmon 674 Conservation Plan,July 2005. 411 City of Renton SMP Update 19 01-25-08 REVISED Scope of Work li 75 ■ Lake Washington/Cedar/Sammamish Watershed(WRIA 8)Near-Term Action Agenda for Salmon Habitat Conservation, August 2002 77 • Chinook Salmon Conservation Plan, WRIA 8- Cedar River, Lake Washington, Sammamish 678 Watershed, February 2005 679 • Salmon Habitat Plan, Green/Duwamish and Central Puget Sound Watershed 680 Water Resource Inventory Area (WRIA) 9,July 2005 681 • Salmon Recovery Funding Board(SERF) Grants for WRIA 8 and 9 682 • Renton Staff will arrange for consultation and coordination with city staff,Ecology,other 683 agencies and adjacent jurisdictions and will forward an integrated set of comments to the 684 Consultant. Revisions to the Draft Preliminary Restoration Plan will be prepared for the Final 685 Plan in Task 4.3 686 Phase 3.5: Public Involvement and Decision Making 687 (Ecology Grant Agreement Tasks 2.1.4 and 2.2) 688 Goals and Objectives 689 This task will address the process of developing a community vision that includes citizen goals and 690 aspirations for use of the shoreline and balances competing demands for preservation and restoration of 691 ecological functions,and fulfills the vision of the City's Comprehensive Plan. We see three related 692 efforts to accomplish this key step: 693 Approach The opportunities identified in the inventory/characterization and assessment of the cumulative impacts of 5 each option will be presented to: 696 • General public, agencies and other stakeholders 697 • Focus groups for up to three geographic areas,which may include: 698 • Cedar River and South Lake Washington 699 • North Lake Washington 700 • Black River/Spring brook Creek 701 • Presentation to the Planning Commission and City Council for initial policy direction 702 The basic regulatory options will be introduced early in the process in a conceptual form and refined in 703 Phase 4. Providing a full menu of options early in the process is designed to facilitate discussion and 704 build trust by providing an opportunity for input on a range of possibilities. .Potential regulatory 705 mechanisms will be described in a manner that will be understood by both the general public,and the 706 development community. 707 Consultant Deliverable 708 • Power Point presentation for Public Meetings,Interest Groups,Planning Commission, City 709 Council Delivered to Renton Staff September 5,2008 710 • Draft Public information handout Delivered to Renton Staff August 20,2008 711 • Attendance at meetings as provided in Phase 1 Table III City of Renton SMP Update 20 01-25-08 REVISED Scope of Work • 712 Renton Deliverable 713 • Scheduling,publicity and exhibits for meetings • 714 • Record of comments received in matrix format and response to non-technical issues 715 • Direction to Consultant on results of Planning Commission and City Council consideration of 716 options 717 Assumptions for Task 3.5 718 • The table in Task 1 outlines public meetings and outlines Consultant involvement and products: 719 • There will be no Citizen Advisory Committee or Technical Advisory Committee 720 • Separate "interest group"meetings will be scheduled with representatives selected by the Cityfor 721 specific areas with distinct ecological characteristics,land use or stakeholder groups. Interest 722 group meetings will be held to solicit input on the issues of interest to the stakeholders in the area, 723 but will not provide detailed review of proposals.Meetings are assumed for up to three interest 724 areas,that may include: 725 • Cedar River and South Lake Washington(between Gene Coulon Park and west City Limits 726 • North Lake Washington(north of Gene Coulon Park) 727 • Black River/Spring brook Creek 728 • The Power Point presentation prepared for the public meeting, interest group meetings,Planning 729 Commission and City Council will be essentially the same. 730 • Consultant will provide drafts of the public information handout,potential property mailings, and • 731 newspaper publicity. City staff will be responsible for the final revision,printing and 732 distribution. 733 • City staff will be responsible for the logistical work to arrange facilities and inform attendees 734 about meeting times/locations,prepare agenda and meeting records. 735 • Exhibits to support this task will be handled by City staff. Consultant will advise on exhibit 736 content, City GIS or other staff will produce them.Total exhibits prepared will be limited to 737 printouts of Power Point slides 738 • Renton Staff will arrange for consultation and coordination with city staff, Ecology, other 739 agencies and adjacent jurisdictions and will forward an integrated set of comments to the 740 Consultant. 741 PHASE 4: DEVELOP SHORELINE POLICY, REGULATIONS, AND RESTORATION PLAN 742 (Ecology Grant Agreement Tasks 3.4,4.1,4.2,4.3) 743 Goals and Objectives 744 The policy decisions made after consideration of the options will allow the detailed work of crafting 745 specific policies and regulations. 746 Division of Labor: 747 • Renton staff will be in the primary role of: • City of Renton SMP Update 21 01-25-08 REVISED Scope of Work 48 • Providing input based on the Phase 3 Technical Memoranda and the Public Involvement Program to establish the basic framework to allow the Consultant team to develop an initial 0 draft of the SMP; 751 • Conducting the public involvement effort,with the support of the Consultant team; 752 • Making additional text changes to the Consultant Draft SMP through the public involvement, 753 Planning Commission and City Council review process 754 ■ Administering the formal processes for review and adoption. 755 • The Consultant will 756 • Prepare an initial draft of the policies and regulations city staff review(and Ecology review if 757 timely) and respond to one set of comments 758 • Finalize the Cumulative Impacts Report and Restoration Plan; 759 • Prepare an initial draft of the Environmental Checklist and Determination of Non- 760 Significance using the SEPA/Growth Management Act(GAMA)integration procedure in 761 WAC 197-11-210 762 • Provide additional technical input and proposals for SMP provisions as public,Planning 763 Commission and City Council questions are raised 764 • Agencies will be will be involved in providing formal input on the proposed SMP both through 765 the City of Renton adoption process and the Ecology review and approval process. 766 Task 4.1: Develop Draft Shoreline Use and Modification Policies, Regulations, and 767 Standards 768 (Ecology Grant Agreement Tasks 3.3 and 4.3) Draft Shoreline Master Program Consultant will provide "Draft Revisions to City of Renton Shoreline 770 Master Program including relevant sections of the Comprehensive Plan and Development Regulations in 771 redline version and will include: 772 • Environment Designations or Zoning classifications Based on the policy direction resulting 773 from Phase 3,the Consultant and City staff will develop environment designations or zoning 774 classifications that: 775 • Reflect the findings of the shoreline inventory and characterization regarding ecologically 776 important functions that differ between reaches; 777 • Reflect similar allowed or proposed uses; 778 • Have similar potential for implementing setbacks and buffers based on existing lot 779 configurations; 780 • Bulk and Dimensional Standards Consultant will develop recommendations for specific bulk 781 and dimension standards for density, setbacks and buffers,including critical area buffers, for each 782 use and each shoreline designation based on the criteria of"no loss of net ecological function". 783 • Standards. Consultant will draft recommendations for amendments to the existing text of Title 784 23.100 Shoreline Use and Development to incorporate specific performance standards for uses 785 based on the criteria of"no loss of net ecological function", and the following general criteria: 786 • For uses exempt from obtaining a Shoreline Substantial Development Permit, and which 787 contribute to restoration of ecological function, such as vegetation enhancement,provide 788 recommendations for performance standards that would allow applicants and staff to approve Iiiproposals that are coordinated with other agencies'requirements, such as the Washington City of Renton SMP Update 22 01-25-08 ' REVISED Scope of Work 790 Department of Fish and Wildlife Hydraulics Project Approval and Corps of Engineers • 791 Nationwide or Regional Permits. 792 • For uses exempt from obtaining a Shoreline Substantial Development Permit,provide 793 recommendations for performance standards that would allow applicants to develop 794 proposals and staff to approve proposals and enforce conditions based on existing 795 information generally without specialist reports,while providing a"precautionary approach," 796 in limiting potential impacts on resources. 797 • For uses exempt from obtaining a Shoreline Substantial Development Permit,provide 798 recommendations for the option of providing more detailed assessment by qualified 799 professionals of on-site and local environmental processes allowing alternative approaches 800 that may be approved in lieu of the performance standards , above. 801 • For uses requiring a Shoreline Substantial Development Permit,recommend measurable 802 performance standards,where practical,to allow specific assessment in technical reports 803 required of applicants and objective review, approval and enforcement of performance 804 standards required as conditions. 805 • Recommend opportunities to provide incentives for restoration in shoreline regulations. 806 ■ Identify opportunities for integration with Critical Areas Ordinance standards and identify 807 potential additional standards in cases where specific shoreline processes warrant additional 808 protection,restoration or performance standards to meet the criteria of no loss of net 809 ecological function". 810 • Recommend approaches to develop standards to meet WAC 173-26-221 criteria for 811 archaeological and historic resources,wetlands, geologically hazardous areas,critical 812 saltwater habitats, critical freshwater habitats, flood hazards,public access,vegetation 813 conservation and WAC 197-26-231 for shoreline modification,piers and docks, as well as 111111 814 specific standards for other uses in WAC 173-26-241. 815 • Include specific use and modification policies and regulations consistent with SMP 816 guidelines requirements including: 817 o Allowed uses and preferences for shoreline dependent or related uses where appropriate 818 o Provisions for public access 819 o Provisions for shoreline modification and vegetation conservation 820 • Administrative provisions will address: 821 • Permit administration 822 • Compliance and enforcement 823 • Non-conforming uses 824 • Draft map(s)illustrating the land and water area contained within mapped shoreline designation 825 or zoning boundaries will be prepared together with justification and rationale. 826 The Consultant team will prepare a draft report demonstrating how shoreline inventory and 827 characterization findings and cumulative impact analysis are reflected in proposed SMP policies, 828 regulations, environment designations, and restoration strategies. 829 We anticipate that this task will provide a somewhat different approach for two types of shoreline uses: 830 • Uses that do not require a substantial development permit,that may have minimal impacts by 831 themselves,but have the potential to cause substantial cumulative effects on the shoreline. We 832 anticipate a regulatory framework that: • City of Renton SMP Update 23 07-25-08 REVISED Scope of Work 33 • Serves to communicate the important values and performance measures for"exempt"actions 4 such as single-family use, 35 • Provides understandable performance standards that are easily communicated to staff, 836 property owners, and professionals. These standards may involve reference to other resource 837 tools not adopted as part of the master program, such as Ecology,WDFW, and Army Corps 838 of Engineers standards for various types of facilities,and 839 • Provides incentives to implement facilities that improve ecological functions,especially 840 restoration programs. 841 • Uses that may occur infrequently,but that have the potential to have substantial impacts on the 842 natural environment and surrounding uses. In these cases,extensive permit review is likely and 843 the function of the regulations is largely to establish performance standards decision makers will 844 use in evaluating projects. 845 Consultant Deliverables 846 • Draft Comprehensive Plan Policies Revisions 847 • Draft Development Code Revisions . (Addresses Ecology Tasks Task 3.1, 3.2, 3.3, 3.4) 848 Both delivered to Renton Staff April 20,2008 (Due to Ecology July 20,2009) 849 Renton Deliverables 850 • GIS-based maps of SEDs or zoning designations 1 • Revisions to Consultant Draft Comprehensive Plan Policies during Review/Adoption Process 2 • Revisions to Consultant Draft Development Code during Review/Adoption Process(Addresses 853 Ecology Tasks Task 3.1, 3.2, 3.3, 3.4) 854 Assumptions for Task 3.4 855 • Renton Staff shall provide MS Word version of all existing policies and regulations related to the 856 Shoreline Master Plan 857 • Administrative provisions of the existing Shoreline Master Program are presumed to be consistent 858 with SPM guidelines and other statutes. Additional provisions of the SMP are expected to use 859 current administrative provisions. 860 • Renton GIS staff shall provide maps at least two(2)weeks prior to the target date for the 861 Consultant Deliverable 862 Task 4.2: Cumulative Impacts Analysis and SEPA Analysis 863 (Ecology Grant Agreement Tasks 4.1 and 5.3) 864 Goals and Objectives 865 The Preliminary Cumulative Impact Analysis was prepared to inform the regulatory options considered in 866 Phase 3. This analysis will be updated based on the draft SMP provisions to demonstrate how no net loss 867 of ecological function and SMA use-preferences(water-oriented uses,public access,etc.)will be 868 achieved. • City of Renton SMP Update 24 01-25-08 REVISED Scope of Work 869 Approach • 870 The analysis will identify how proposed SMP standards will avoid and offset expected impacts of future 871 permitted and exempt shoreline development. 872 Anlysis will be based on the Preliminary Cumulative Impact Analysis and update specific provisions to 873 reflect how the provisions of the Consultant Draft SMP polices and regulations achieve no net loss of 874 ecological function and SMA use-preferences (water-oriented uses,public access, etc.). If the additional 875 changes made in the draft program require update of the cumulative impact analysis,this will be done by 876 the city with input from the Consultant team. 877 Environmental analyses will be concurrent with and an integral part of the planning and decision making 878 under GMA consistent with the SEPA/GMA integration procedures of WAC 197-11-210 through 235. 879 Integrating SEPA throughout the decision-making process will provide participants in the process with 880 the information needed to make informed choices at each stage of the process. 881 The Consultant will prepare a Draft Environmental Checklist and Determination of Non-Significance 882 using the SEPA/GMA integration procedure in WAC 197-11-210. City staff will make revisions if 883 needed to reflect changes to the initial draft. 884 Consultant Deliverables 885 • Draft Cumulative Impact Analysis for Renton staff and agency review; (Ecology Task 4.1) 886 Delivered to Renton Staff May 20, 2009 887 • Final Cumulative Impact Analysis with revisions responding to Renton staff and agency review; • 888 Delivered to Renton Staff two weeks after receipt of compiled comments 889 • Draft Environmental Checklist and Determination of Non-Significance using the SEPA/GMA 890 integration procedure in WAC 197-11-210. Delivered to Renton Staff June 20,2009 891 • Final SEPA Environmental Checklist with revisions responding to Renton staff review.Delivered 892 to Renton Staff two weeks after receipt of compiled comments. City staff will make revisions if 893 needed to reflect changes to the initial Consultant draft of Policies and Regulations 894 Renton Deliverables 895 • Renton Staff will e-mail the Final Cumulative Impact Analysis electronic file to the Ecology 896 project officer and 1 prepare an SMP Submittal Checklist (Ecology Task 4.1 Due date October 897 20, 2009 898 • Renton Staff will be responsible for any revisions to the Cumulative Impact Analysis based on 899 changes made to the Consultants Draft Code Review/Adoption Process (Ecology Task 4.3) 900 • Revisions to the Environmental Checklist and Determination of Non-Significance using the 901 SEPAIGMA integration procedure in WAC 197-11-210 if needed to reflect changes to the initial 902 Consultant draft during Review/Adoption Process 903 • Publication of Determination of Non-Significance,response to comments and related actions 904 Assumptions for Task 4.2 905 • Changes between the Preliminary Cumulative Impact Analysis and the Final Analysis will reflect 906 specific policies and regulations in the Shoreline Master Program. There will be no changes to • City of Renton SMP Update 25 01-25-08 REVISED Scope of Work 07 the basic structure and organization of the previous report or to findings related to programs other than the SMP 909 • Renton Staff will arrange for consultation and coordination with city staff,Ecology, other 910 agencies and adjacent jurisdictions and will forward an integrated set of comments to the 911 Consultant. Consultant will provide one revision to the Draft Cumulative Impact Analysis 912 • Renton GIS staff shall provide maps at least two(2)weeks prior to the target date for the 913 Consultant Deliverable 914 Task 4.3: Final Restoration Plan 915 (Ecology Grant Agreement Tasks 4.2) 916 Goals and Objectives 917 The final plan will based on: 918 • Changes between the Preliminary Plan and the Final Plan will reflect specific policies and 919 regulations in the Shoreline Master Program. 920 Consultant Deliverables 921 • Preliminary Restoration Plan for Renton staff and agency review; (Ecology Task 4.2)Delivered 922 to Renton Staff June 20,2009 923 • Final Restoration Plan with revisions responding to Renton staff and agency review; (Ecology 924 Task 4.2)Delivered to Renton Staff two weeks after receipt of compiled comments .5 Renton Deliverables 926 • Renton Staff will e-mail the Final Restoration Plan electronic file to the Ecology project officer 927 and 1 prepare an SMP Submittal Checklist (Ecology Task 4.2 Due date October 20,2009 928 • Renton Staff will be responsible for any revisions to the Final Restoration Plan based on changes 929 made to the Consultants Draft Code Review/Adoption Process(Ecology Task 4.2): 930 Assumptions for Task 4.3 931 • Changes between the Preliminary Plan and the Final Restoration Plan will reflect specific policies 932 and regulations in the revised Draft Shoreline Master Program. There will be no changes to the 933 basic structure and organization of the previous report or to findings related to programs other 934 than the SMP. 935 • Renton Staff will arrange for consultation and coordination with city staff, Ecology,other 936 agencies and adjacent jurisdictions and will forward an integrated set of comments to the 937 Consultant. Consultant will provide one revision to the Draft Plan. 938 • Renton GIS staff shall provide maps at least two(2)weeks prior to the target date for the 939 Consultant Deliverable 940 PHASE 5: LOCAL SMP ADOPTION PROCESS 941 (Ecology Grant Agreement Task 5) 1111 City of Renton SMP Update 26 01-25-08 REVISED Scope of Work 942 Goals and Objectives • 943 Division of Labor: 944 • Renton staff will take the primary responsibility for the local adoptions process including: 945 • Assembly of the complete draft SMP with a tracking mechanism for revisions to respond to 946 public, agency,Planning Commission and City Council contributions 947 • Coordinating informal Ecology review of draft SMP documents 948 • Issuing formal SEPA documentation 949 • Provide GMA 60-day notice of intent to adopt 950 • Conducting the public involvement effort 951 • Making additional text changes to the Draft SMP through the public involvement,Planning 952 Commission and City Council review process 953 • Making revisions required to Technical Memoranda to respond to changes in the SMP after 954 the initial Consultant Draft 955 • Submittal of adopted SMP to Ecology together with the submittal checklist 956 • The Consultant team will provide additional technical input and evaluate comments on SMP 957 provisions as public,Planning Commission and City Council questions are raised to the total 958 hourly budget provided. 959 Consultant Deliverables 960 • Attendance at Public Meetings, Planning Commission meeting, City Council meeting 961 • Technical input and evaluation of specific comments on SMP provisions referred by Renton Staff 4111 962 limited to the total hourly budget provided. 963 Renton Deliverables 964 • All procedural requirements for consideration and adoption of SMP 965 Assumptions 966 • Participation at meetings is limited as specified in Phase 1 967 TASK 6— PROJECT MANAGEMENT 968 Goals and Objectives 969 Maintain constant and thorough communications with City staff and sub Consultant s to maximize 970 teamwork and productivity while minimizing rework. Maintain control of the project scope,budget, and 971 schedule,including that of subconsultants. Provide quality service and products to the City of Renton. 972 Approach 973 • Schedule and coordinate the work of all subcontractors. Maintain necessary surveillance of 974 subcontract work to assure that necessary progress continues. 975 • Hold frequent team meetings to coordinate schedule requirements and review technical problems 976 and other matters of significance to the progress of the work. • �I City of Renton SMP Update 27 01-25-08 REVISED Scope of Work 0 7 • Provide subcontract administration and cost control. 8 • Coordinate project documentation,including the following: 979 • Prepare necessary project correspondence,letters,memos,meeting minutes, etc.,to support the 980 project work. Maintain a central file for written materials. 981 • Provide all Technical Memoranda and Draft Code text to the city in MS Word format. 982 Coordinate with Renton Staff on all aspects of project completion,including the following: 983 • Prepare and submit monthly progress billings to the City 984 • Provide additional identification of issues and proposed solutions if unforeseen issues arise 985 • Approve and process subcontract billings 986 • Keep a log of Consultant team contact with Ecology, other agencies and the public, and transmit 987 cc's of emails and other correspondence to the Renton staff Project Manager 988 Deliverables 989 • Project Management Plan(Phase 1) 990 • Monthly progress reports. The monthly report,addressing progress of the work shall include, as 991 appropriate: 992 • A summary of actual versus scheduled cost 93 • A summary of actual versus scheduled progress • A narrative to define unanticipated issues,responsive action requirements by the Consultant 95 and City 996 • Additional progress reports or identification of unanticipated issues as needed 997 Assumptions 998 • Meetings with City of Renton staff will generally not require additional travel beyond that 999 budgeted for other meetings and generally will be scheduled on days when other meetings are 1000 scheduled. 1001 • City of Renton staff will determine the staff from the City that will participate in all meetings. 1002 • City of Renton staff will provide all logistical support for the meetings including scheduling, 1003 notice, sending out agendas, designating meeting rooms,tracking attendance,taking the official 1004 meeting notes, and sending out meeting minutes or summaries to all participants for review and 1005 finalizing meeting records. Exhibits to be prepared by the Consultant are indicated as deliverables 1006 in each task below. 1007 • The duration of contract is February 2008 through May 2010. Delays due to unforeseen 1008 circumstances may result in additional effort necessary for project management and 1009 administration. 1010 Summary of Consultant Deliverables 1011 • Project Management plan 102 • Monthly progress reports. City of Renton SMP Update 28 01-25-08 REVISED Scope of Work 1013 • Additional progress reports or identification of unanticipated issues as needed 1111 1014 • Power Point Presentation for initial Public Meeting 1015 • List of desirable information for GIS inventory 1016 • Technical memo on SMA jurisdiction,March 31,2008 (Ecology Task 1.1 due April 20, 2008) 1017 • Shoreline Inventory, July 10,2008(Ecology Task 1.3 due July 20,2008)(May be combined with 1018 Inventory,Analysis and Characterization Report) 1019 • Shoreline Inventory, Analysis and Characterization Report,July 10, 2008 (Ecology Task 2.1.1 1020 and 2.1.2 due October 20,2008) 1021 • Draft Technical Memorandum addressing opportunities and alternative strategies for preserving 1022 and enhancing ecological functions,August 20,2008 (Ecology Task 2.1.3 due October 20, 2008) 1023 • Draft Technical Memorandum addressing shoreline use opportunities for water dependent,water- 1024 related, and non-water related use,August 20, 2008 (Ecology Task 2.1.3 due October 20,) 1025 • Draft Technical Memorandum addressing public access opportunities, August 20,2008 1026 (Addresses Ecology Task 2.1.3 due October 20) 1027 • Draft Technical Memorandum addressing Shoreline Environment Designations(SED)or zoning 1028 designations,August 20,2008 (Ecology Task 2.4 and 3.3 due October 20,2008) 1029 • Draft Technical Memorandum addressing critical areas,August 20, 2008 (Ecology Task 2.1.4 due 1030 October 20, 2008) 1031 • Preliminary Cumulative Impact Analysis and identification of environmental issues,August 20, • 1032 2008 (Ecology Task 4.1 due October 20,2009) 1033 • Preliminary Restoration Plan for Ecology,August 20,2008 (Ecology Task 4.2 due October 20, 1034 2009) 1035 • Power Point Presentation for Public Meeting Power,Interest Group Meetings,Planning 1036 Commission Meeting and for City Council Meeting on Options, September 5, 2008 1037 • Draft Public Information handout,August 20,2008 1038 • Draft Comprehensive Plan Revisions,April 20, 2009(Ecology Tasks Task 3.1, 3.2, 3.3, 3.4 due 1039 July 20, 2009) 1040 • Draft Development Code Revisions,April 20, 2009(Ecology Tasks Task 3.1, 3.2, 3.3, 3.4 due 1041 July 20, 2009) 1042 • Preliminary Final Cumulative Impact Analysis for Renton staff and agency review,May 20, 2009 1043 • Final Cumulative Impact Analysis(Ecology Task 4.1 due October 20, 2009) 1044 • Draft Environmental Checklist and Determination of Non-Significance,June 20,2009 1045 • Final SEPA Environmental Checklist with revisions responding to Renton staff review. (Ecology 1046 Task 5.3 due April 20, 2010) 1047 • Preliminary Final Restoration Plan,June 20, 2009 • City of Renton SMP Update 29 01-25-088 REVISED Scope of Work 48 • Final Restoration Plan(Ecology Task 4.2 due October 20,2009 addressed in Preliminary Restoration Plan, August 20,2008) 1050 • Attendance at Public, Planning Commission and City Council Meetings for consideration of Draft 1051 SMP 1052 • Technical input on issues raised during public,Planning Commission and City Council review 1053 Summary of Renton Staff Deliverables 1054 • E-mail the electronic files of work products to Ecology project officer,preparation and transmittal 1055 of SMP Submittal Checklist 1056 • Prepare Public Participation Plan 1057 • Identify and coordinate with key stakeholders, including property owners, state agencies,tribes, 1058 and neighboring jurisdictions. 1059 • Produce and copy paper reports,memos, agendas etc. as needed for,agency,public Planning 1060 Commission and City Council review. Scheduling,provide notice, exhibits and records of 1061 meetings. 1062 • Maintain a comment response matrix of all comments received from ecology, other agencies and 1063 as the result of public information,Planning Commission,City Council and other forums and 1064 provide to the Consultant periodically as new information is added. 1065 • List of existing information in the possession of the City of Renton including GIS information 1066 and technical reports for transmittal to Consultant for Inventory. • MS Word version of all existing policies and regulations related to the Shoreline Master Plan and 1 68 direction to the Consultant on any changes to the format of policies and regulations that differ 1069 from the existing plans and regulations 1070 • Production of GIS-based maps for Reports,Technical Memoranda policies and codes. 1071 • GIS-based digital maps of shoreline jurisdiction for Technical Memo(Ecology Task 1.1,Due 1072 April 20, 2008) 1073 • Working maps of shoreline inventory(Ecology Task 1.3,Due July 20,2008) 1074 • Summary report of the existing regulatory system: 1075 • Direction to Consultant on results of Planning Commission and City Council consideration of 1076 options 1077 • Revisions to Consultant Draft Comprehensive Plan Policies during Review/Adoption Process 1078 • Revisions to Consultant Draft Development Code during Review/Adoption Process(Addresses 1079 Ecology Tasks Task 3.1, 3.2, 3.3, 3.4) 1080 • Issuance of SEPA Determination of Non Significance and associated procedures with relevant 1081 supporting documentation 1082 • Evidence of compliance with GMA notice requirements 1083 • Public hearing record • City of Renton SMP Update 30 01-25-08 REVISED Scope of Work PARAMETRIX City of Renton DRAFT BUDGET Form 01FDatann..02406 CLIENT:City of Renton PROJECT:Shoreline Master Plan Update • SUOCONSULTAMS On Genn Colh Drake Oatmeal 093634mard Penwell Jan Cassie Wren Camden Don Wennp Pete Lawson EWAbYm F/.vaaohan FAvawman EAS/AM Edlma Word ransom' erAFf Rol Ma Cherye0aa11 Sch.Lead RM.Inv. A4eath 040380 Poay Gl5&Caaphn R00000 &Iden Cordal ReW$8oro BenRarOe Muml Clancy Aaron Buy Rae=Shakra Stew Winn Run Saner Chypa Marry SnOol °enm" BuonoJanuriaruyd1E071tRaft Change 370 RLL RATES 115010 120300 $11040 413700 520352 $118.72 411872 $150.01 $201 00 $7700 $8400 412187 $120.00 411000 90988 $8728 $86.88 HOURS COST Quality Control $ 12 4 r l 24 4,019 4,012 Phew 1:PROD.COMPLETION STRATEGY 24 8 16 16 6 _ 4 _ _ 4 4 4 88 12,613 9,741 Phase 2:INVENTORY II ANALYSIS Task 2.l-Evakmle Ecming lnlmnale0 4 8 4 8 12 4 22 44 5,355 2,2e 3,087 Task 22-Inventory 4 y 24 24 , 16 _ 16 6 8 98 9,665 9,916 (2311) Task 23 Shorelines Analysts and Characterization ' Task 231 Ecosysem-WW,Processes _ 12 68 20 4 8 16 74 8819 7,937 882 Task 232 Reach Sale Processes 1224 6 16 16 16 36 16 8 16 166 19,730 441 Plum3:ASSESSMENT OF OPTIONS - - Phase 3 t Analyze Opponurnls 168 16 _ 24 40 6 _ 20 4 4 4 144 20,462 20,482 1201 Phan 32 Options for Regulatory Approach 278 8 24 8 _ 16 4 96 13,197 12,213 985 4 7765033 Pre2mnary Cum4atne!moans Analysis6 8 8 l 8 20 6 4 4 68 9,181 6835 346 Phase 3.4.Preliminary Reslorzlron Penning 8 8 6 36 8 4 4 76 9,313 106 Phase3.5-PubnelnvoNenroot and 0eusmn MMeng 40 16 24 24 16 8 12 24 4 4 4 176 26,454 11,716 14,735 Phase 4:POLICY,REOUL.,RESTA.PLAN 180841 Draft Polley.Regulations 40 835 8 6 4 8 10 130 17,219 153 8 Task 42 CumulaMelmpaca and SEPA Analysis4 8 9 8 l 20 4 4 56 7,102 6,755 346 Task43 Final Rest0105on Pan _ 8 8 - ,, 20 4 4 44 5550 5,570 (20) Mae 6:Loud SMP Adopdon Prow 40 24 8 _ _ 24 6 102 14,278 6476 7,800 Phis*8:PROJECTMANAGEIAENT 40 4 16 12 6 16 94 12,864 12,850 14 1 248 36 152 44 92 108 40 116 40 48 16 24 ' 268 52 70 106 1480 195,842 157,473 38,368 IM9auseExpense Kam Quantity Unit Cost ;;,c"F"'qzu" '$i,',' ,y l' maw 2800 $0.485 1p4818a 6;'HS E:aie $1,35600 NOTE-Beesi os Otis is a m11111921 8921 p cjad,inthvkiusl billing roes for cal 181011 704507nsl us su611xt h:014475e in al0rdnnce with act,'4 rampensrlinn srh4Gules. 1,358 2025 (667) Photocopies 5000 80.10 $500.00 Changes in 75 2Crnel Wiling rates:hall ncd charge contract amount 500 500 Check pdn0 100 81.00 $100.00 M11079 Shall be upazled Lal oIlect future IES rates 100 100 9041 Ramal $1,900.00 2,090 2,090 1 I 199,890 160,099 39,791 File Nnme:REnton SMA DRAFT Budget el-25.00.63 Proem Delivery System Paye t of 1 0 0 • (. CITY OF RENTON COUNCIL AGENDA BILL AI#: 6 f Ar •Submitting Data: For Agenda of: Dept/Div/Board.. Finance & IS Department February 11, 2008 Staff Contact Michael E. Bailey, Administrator Agenda Status Consent X Subject: Public Hearing.. Correspondence.. State Funding for Benson Hill Annexation Ordinance X Resolution Old Business Exhibits: New Business • Issue paper Study Sessions Ordinance Information Recommended Action: Approvals: Legal Dept X Council Concur Finance Dept X Other Fiscal Impact: Expenditure Required... Transfer/Amendment ii; Amount Budgeted Revenue Generated Total Project Budget City Share Total Project SUMMARY OF ACTION: Review of the Benson Hill annexation budget and financial plan illustrates a net cost to serve the Benson Hill annexation area in 2008 of $2,869,689. State law provides for assistance with these costs. This ordinance establishes the state funding assistance threshold and sales tax rebate rate in order to qualify for state funding assistance per RCW 82.14.415. STAFF RECOMMENDATION: Approve an Ordinance establishing the state funding threshold and sales tax rebate rate. III H:\FINANCE\ADMINSUP\OI_AgendaBills\2008_Benson Hill Annexation State Funding Threshold.doc , (0. O FINANCE AND INFORMATION SERVICES c.)0;% ® • DEPARTMENT '�N�O� MEMORANDUM DATE: February 11, 2008 TO: Marcie Palmer, Council President Members of the Renton City Council VIA: OL' Denis Law, Mayor FROM: Mike Bailey, Administrator6`"'" SUBJECT: Benson Hill Annexation State Sales Tax Support Threshold ISSUE • Should the amounts for state sales tax assistance to the City to serve the Benson Hill annexation area be determined and provided to the state? RECOMMENDATION Adopt an ordinance establishing the net costs of providing the city level of service to the Benson Hill annexation area; and establish the threshold amount and rate for state sales tax assistance. BACKGROUND SUMMARY A significant portion of the Benson Hill area will be annexed to the City of Renton effective March 1, 2008. In developing the 2008 Budget, staff included cost items related to providing the existing level of city service to the Benson Hill annexation area. The initial amounts appropriated were those known to be needed at the time. Additional amounts were identified as necessary after the initial start-up phase. At the time of drafting the 2008 budget, some amounts were still under discussion within the Administration. Amounts which were identified in the needed after the initial start-up phase and that will be presented in a future budget amendment total $847,540. They are detailed at the bottom of this memo. Additional amounts may be recommended in the form of amendments to the 2008 • budget. It is anticipated that this will include additional costs to be incurred for space to accommodate the additional employees needed to serve this area. h:\finance\adminsup\02_issuepapers_memos to council or mayor\2008 benson hill annex state financing threshold a.doc Marcie Palmer,Council President Members of the Renton City Council February 11,2008 Page 2 of 4 • The General Government revenues from existing city tax structure anticipated to be realized from the Benson Hill area are $8,519,409. These were determined in a study conducted in 2005 and updated with the assistance of King County. The preliminary General Government costs to serve the area as provided for by the original 2008 budget are $10,762,913. In addition, the amounts that were postponed as described above are $847,540. The difference of up to $2,597,004 is the amount needed to serve the annexation area in 2008 that will not be generated by revenues from the area. The City Council and staff reviewed an implementation plan for the Benson Hill annexation area on September 21, 2007. At the time, estimates to provide service identified an annual short-fall for 2008 of$822,643 not including one-time costs. Some of the on-going costs have increased since the development of the plan. In addition, the one-time costs for vehicles and equipment of $3,040,865 were identified. The cost to provide space for the additional 92 employees has also become clearer. It is recommended that the space costs be amortized over future years through an internal service fund. The table below summarizes the financial analysis: Initial Postponed General Government Estimates 2008 Budget Costs Total • Revenue 8,519,409 8,519,409 - 8,519,409 Expenditures On-going 9,342,052 8,609,841 8,609,841 One-time 3,040,865 2,153,072 2,153,072 Total 12,382,917 10,762,913 847,540 11,610,453 Less-space costs 1 247,020 247,020 494,040 Difference (3,863,508) (1,996,484) (600,520) (2,597,004) 1 Space costs estimated to be$1,867,519 to be amortized through internal service fund A further complication is the different fiscal years of the City and the State of Washington. The amounts above reflect the City's 2008 fiscal year. The state funding is governed by the State of Washington Fiscal Year which starts on July 1st. As a result, we will have six months of costs from our 2009 budget supported by the state's 2008 fiscal year funding threshold. In order to provide for this, I've utilized one-half of the 2009 City cost estimates in development of the state funding analysis. Since 2008 costs reflect phasing in on-going expenses, the full year's on-going costs in 2009 will be about 21% higher than they were in 2008. This results in a net difference for the state's fiscal year of $2,823,057. This represents the "threshold amount" as defined within RCW 82.14.420. • h:\finance\adminsup\02_issuepapers_memos to council or mayor\2008 benson hill annex state financing threshold a.doc 4 Marcie Palmer, Council President Members of the Renton City Council February 11,2008 Page 3 of 4 • The table below analyzes the affect of reconciling the two different fiscal years. Total from Rate of 2009 General Government above Change Estimate Blended Year Revenue 8,519,409 4.28% 8,884,040 8,701,724 Expenditures On-going 8,609,841 21.00% 10,417,908 9,513,874 Internal Service Funds 516,598 258,299 One-time 2,153,072 187,152 2,246,648 Total 11,610,453 11,121,658 12,018,821 Less-space costs 1 494,040 494,040 Difference (2,597,004) (2,237,618) (2,823,057) The State Legislature adopted SSB 6686 in 2006 which provides for state funds to offset the net costs of large annexations. If the population of an annexation is above 10,000, the law provides for up to .1% sales tax to be rebated back to the City from the state's portion of the existing sales tax rates. This level of state support can be increased up to .2% for an annexation with a population of 20,000 or higher. The city's 2008 budget estimated sales tax collected within the city to be $21,568,023. An additional $921,131 in sales tax • is estimated to be collected in the annexation area. From these estimates, the total taxable sales within the city and the annexation area are $2,645,782,823. At .1%, the maximum state tax assistance would be $2,645,783 for an annexation of up to 20,000 people ($5,291,565 for an annexation population of more than 20,000). The rate of tax that would equate to a threshold amount of$2,826,057 would be slightly above .1%. It is anticipated that the population of the Benson Hill annexation area will be significantly above 10,000 but below 20,000. If that is accurate, the maximum available is .1%. Therefore, in 2008, the City will need the full amount of state assistance to provide service to the annexed area. Staff will continue to develop a budget amendment addressing the items that were postponed during the 2008 budget and the remaining items under consideration. CONCLUSION The City will need all of the state funding assistance available to serve the Benson Hill annexation area in 2008 and should advise the state accordingly. Attachment: Draft Ordinance cc: Jay Covington,CAO Marty Wine,Assistant CAO • Bonnie Walton,City Clerk Department Administrators h:\finance\adminsup\02_issuepapers_memos to council or mayor\2008 benson hill annex state financing threshold a.doc Marcie Palmer,Council President Members of the Renton City Council February 11,2008 Page 4 of 4 • Postponed Items Fund Dept Dept Item On-going One-time Total 000 023 EDNSP Neighborhood Program 20,000 20,000 000 014 HR/RM Training 45,300 45,300 000 008 Police Supplies 45,000 45,000 000 008 Police Motorcycles 50,000 50,000 000 008 Police Training 9,000 9,000 000 009 Fire Equipment 100,000 100,000 20,000 249,300 269,300 001 020 ComSvcs Space Costs 247,020 247,020 001 020 Parks Vehicle 35,000 35,000 001 020 Parks Urban Forestry program 80,000 80,000 001 020 Rec. Study Community Center 30,000 30,000 001 020 HumSvcs Study Human Services Needs 30,000 30,000 - 422,020 422,020 108 020 Facility Shops Space Needs 35,000 35,000 35,000 35,000 • 003 016 TechSvcs Walkway/ Pavement Plan 21,220 21,220 003 016 TechSvcs Survey/Topo work 100,000 100,000 - 121,220 121,220 20,000 827,540 847,540 411 h:\finance\adminsup\02_issuepapers_memos to council or mayor\2008 benson hill annex state financing threshold a.doc • CITY OF RENTON, WASHINGTON ORDINANCE NO. AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF RENTON, WASHINGTON, SETTING THE THRESHOLD AND TAX RATES IN ACCORDANCE WITH RCW 82.14.415 WITH RESPECT TO THE BENSON HILL ANNEXATION. WHEREAS, on December 10, 2007,the City Council adopted Ordinance 5325 approving the City of Renton's 2008 Annual Budget; and WHEREAS, the adopted budget included General Government operational costs necessary to provide service to the area known as the Benson Hill annexation in the amount of $10,762,913; and WHEREAS, additional costs to provide city level of service to the annexed area will result in total costs of at least $11,610,453; and WHEREAS, revenue anticipated to be generated from activity within the annexation area is estimated to be $8,519,409; and WHEREAS, RCW 82.14.415 requires that the City Council determine a threshold amount representing costs to serve the area less revenues to be generated by the area, as well as a state sales tax rate to meet the financial needs of the annexed area; NOW, THEREFORE, THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF RENTON, WASHINGTON, DOES ORDAIN AS FOLLOWS: • 1 ORDINANCE NO. SECTION I. Pursuant to RCW 82.14.415 the City Council determines that the 1111 anticipated revenues from the Benson Hill annexed area are estimated to be $8,519,409 which result in a threshold difference in the initial year of annexation to serve the area in the amount of $2,823,057 and that a tax rate of.1% should be imposed to assist the City in providing services to the area within the annexation. SECTION II. This ordinance shall be effective upon its passage, approval, and five (5) days after publication. PASSED BY THE CITY COUNCIL this day of , 2007. Bonnie I. Walton, City Clerk APPROVED BY THE MAYOR this day of , 2007. Denis Law, Mayor Approved as to form: Lawrence J. Warren, City Attorney Date of Publication: • 2 1 CITY OF RENTON COUNCIL AGENDA BILL AI #: t i / ,- 111°• Submitting Data: Planning/Building/Public Works For Agenda of: February 11, 2008 Dept/Div/Board. Utility Systems/Water Utility Staff Contact Abdoul Gafour, x-7210 Agenda Status Consent X Subject: Public Hearing.. Final Pay Estimate - CAG-07-140 (WTR-27-3344) Correspondence Water Line Relocation for Realignment of Benson Road Ordinance and I-405, Contractor: Ceccanti, Inc. Resolution Old Business.... Exhibits: New Business Pay Estimate# 4 & Final Study Sessions Notice of Completion of Public Works Contract Information.... Project Summary Recommended Action: Approvals: Council Concur Legal Dept Finance Dept Fiscal Impact: Expenditure Required $11,979.00 (final pay estimate only) Transfer/Amendment iii Amount Budgeted $13,000.00 (for final pay estimate only) Revenue Generated Total Project Budget $1,260,000 (2007 & 2008 budget) City Share of Project 50% Acct.No WSDOT Share of Project 50% 425.018.5950.0034.63/U555901010.0000.0000 SUMMARY OF ACTION: The construction contract was awarded to Ceccanti, Inc. on August 20, 2007. Construction started on July 23, 2007, and was completed on December 6, 2007. The original contract amount was $869,421.66 and the final contract amount is $1,180,328.89. The increase of$310,907.23 is due to construction change orders for additional surface restoration work and import trench backfill materials resulting from unforeseen unstable and poor soil conditions. Several hundred feet of curb, gutter and sidewalk along Talbot Road South, which were undermined by the deep excavation for the installation of the water line, needed to be removed and replaced. The undermining also required the removal and replacement of a much larger amount of asphalt pavement in Talbot Road and within Sam's Club parking lot. The Water Utility and WSDOT have budgeted sufficient contingency funds in the total project budget to cover the additional work. STAFF RECOMMENDATION: Accept the project, approve the final pay estimate in the amount of$11,979.00, and release the retainage in the amount of$54,193.25 after 60 days, subject to the receipt of all required authorizations. ID H:\File Sys\WTR-Drinking Water Utility\WTR-27-Water Project Files\WTR-27-3344-Benson Rd&I-405 Water Line Relocation\Pay Estimates\agenda-bill- final-pay-est.doc\AGtp TO: FINANCE DIRECTOR em: PUBLIC WORKS ADMINISTRATOR CONTRACTOR: Ceccanti, Inc. ESTIMATE NO. 4 & FINAL CONTRACT NO. CAG-07-140 Closing Date 1/31/08 PROJECT: Water Line Relocation for Realignment of Benson Road and 1-405 -WTR-27-3344 1. CONTRACTOR EARNINGS THIS ESTIMATE $11,000.00 2. SALES TAX @ 8.90% $979.00 3. TOTAL CONTRACT AMOUNT THIS ESTIMATE $11,979.00 4. EARNINGS PREVIOUSLY PAID CONTRACTOR $1,019,221.66 5. * EARNINGS DUE CONTRACTOR THIS ESTIMATE $10,450.00 6. SUBTOTAL- CONTRACTOR PAYMENTS $1,029,671.66 7. RETAINAGE ON PREVIOUS EARNINGS $53,643.25 8. ** RETAINAGE ON EARNINGS THIS ESTIMATE $550.00 9. SUBTOTAL- RETAINAGE $54,193.25 10. SALES TAX PREVIOUSLY PAID $95,484.98 11. SALES TAX DUE THIS ESTIMATE $979.00 12. SUBTOTAL- SALES TAX $96,463.98 * (95% x LINE 1) ** (RETAINAGE: 5%) GRAND TOTAL: $1,180,328.89 •ANCE DEPARTMENT ACTION: PAYMENT TO CONTRACTOR (Lines 5 and 8): ACCOUNT # 425.018.5950.0034.63/U55590.f010.0000.0000 $11,429.00 # 4 $11,429.00 RETAINED AMOUNT (Line 8): ** ACCOUNT # 425.018.5950.0034.63/U55590.f010.0000.0000 $550.00 # 4 $550.00 TOTAL THIS ESTIMATE: $11,979.00 CHARTER 116, LAWS OF 1965 CITY OF RENTON CERTIFICATION I,THE UNDERSIGNED DO HEREBY CERTIFY UNDER PENALTY OF PERJURY,THAT THE MATERIALS HAVE BEEN FURNISHED,THE SERVICES RENDERED OR THE LABOR PERFORMED AS DESCRIBED HEREIN,AND THAT THE CLAIM ISA JUST,DUE AND UNPAID OBLIGATION AGAINST THE CITY OF RENTON,AND THAT I AM AUTHORIZED TO AUTHENTICATE AND CERTIFY TO SAID CLAIM Signed: 44)0W/ 6 w/ 44041 't 1OO • , t0i 2,. r < .vi2_!nl.6 Printed On: 01/31/2008 City of Renton Public Works Department Page 1 \S Printed On: 01/31/2008 City of Renton Public Works Department Page 1 Water Line Relocation for Realignment of Benson Road • Project: and 1-405-WTR-27-3344 Contract Number: CAG-07-140 Contractor Ceccanti,Inc. Pay Estimate 4&FINAL Closing Date' 01/31/2008 Item Description Unit Est. Unit Previous Previous This This Total Total No. Quantity Price Quantity Amount Quantity Amount Quantity Amount r ITEM DESCRIPT UNITS ESTQTY UPRICE PQTY PAMOUNT THISQTY TAMT TOTQTY TOTAMT 001. Mobilization&Demobilization Lump Sum 1 $73,000.00 1.00 $73,000.00 0.00 $0.00 1.00 $73,000.00 002. Trench Excavation Safety Systems Lump Sum 1 $15,000.00 1.00 $15,000.00 0 00 $0.00 1.00 $15,000.00 003. Construction Surveying,Staking,&As-Builts Lump Sum 1 $16,000 00 0.50 $8,000.00 0 50 $8,000.00 1 00 $16,000.00 004. Traffic Control Lump Sum 1 $40,000.00 1.00 $40,000 00 0 00 $0.00 1.00 $40,000.00 005. Temporary Erosion/Sedimentation Controls Lump Sum 1 $3,000.00 1.00 $3,000 00 0 00 $0 00 1.00 $3,000.00 006. Landscape Restoration Lump Sum 1 $2,400.00 1.00 $2,400.00 0.00 $0.00 1.00 $2,400.00 007. 16-Inch DIP,Cl.52&Fittings(Push-On,Polywraped) Linear Foot 1907 $138 00 1907.00 $263,166.00 0 00 $0 00 1907.00 $263,166.00 Megalug Restraint Harness for Push-On Pipe(16",w/ 008. Megalugs) Each 20 $325 00 51.00 $16,575.00 0.00 $0.00 51 00 $16,575 00 009. 16-Inch Gate Valve Assembly Each 4 $5,000.00 4.00 $20,000.00 0.00 $0 00 4 00 $20,000 00 010. 12-Inch Gate Valve Assembly Each 5 $1,500.00 5.00 $7,500.00 0 00 $0 00 5.00 $7,500 00 011. Fire Hydrant Assembly Each 3 $5,500.00 300 $16,500.00 0 00 $0.00 3 00 $1l 012. Connection to Existing Water Main-Benson Rd Lump Sum 1 $7,200.00 1.00 $7,200.00 0 00 $0 00 1.00 $7,200 00 013. Connection to Existing Water Main-NE Corner Sam's Club Lump Sum 1 $6,500.00 1.00 $6,500.00 0 00 $0.00 1.00 $6,500.00 014. Connection to Existing Water Main-S Corner Sam's Club Lump Sum 1 $6,500.00 1.00 $6,500.00 0 00 $0 00 1 00 $6,500.00 015. Connection to Existing Water Main-SR 515(Talbot Rd) Lump Sum 1 $6,500 00 1.00 $6,500.00 0.00 $0.00 1 00 $6,500.00 Steel Encasement for Crossing Existing 54"Culvert(SR- 016. 515) Lump Sum 1 $17,100.00 1.00 $17,100.00 0 00 $0.00 1 00 $17,100.00 017. Steel Encasement for Crossing Future 1-405 Retaining Wall Lump Sum 1 $14,500.00 1.00 $14,500.00 0 00 $0.00 1 00 $14,500.00 018. Select Imported Select Trench Backfill Ton 1520 $27.30 3386.78 $92,459.09 0 00 $0 00 3386 78 $92,459.09 019. Removal&Replacement of Unsuitable Foundation Material Ton 100 $113.00 100.00 $11,300.00 0.00 $0.00 10000 $11,300.00 020. Crushed Surfacing Top Course&Crushed Rock Backfill Ton 400 $30.00 1031.61 $30,948 30 0 00 $0.00 1031 61 $30,948 30 021. Reinforced CDF Trench Cut-Off Walls Lump Sum 1 $2,500.00 1.00 $2,500 00 0 00 $0.00 1 00 $2,500 00 Asphalt Concrete(Temp.&Perm.)for Trench Patching CI 022. 1/2"PG-70 Ton 800 $129.60 1216.31 $157,633.78 0 00 $0 00 1216 31 $157,633 78 023. 2"Deep Asphalt Overlay Class 1/2"PG-70 Ton 200 $106.00 296.90 $31,471.40 0.00 $0.00 296 90 $31,471.40 024. Concrete for Thrust Blocks&Dead-man Anchor Blocks Cubic Yd. 25 $112.00 7.00 $784.00 0.00 $0.00 7 00 $784 00 SII 025. Replace Pavement Markings and Traffic Buttons Lump Sum 1 $12,000.00 0.75 $9,000.00 0.25 $3,000.00 1.00 $11 026. Removal&Replacement of Concrete Sidewalk Sq.Yard 40 $124.00 40.00 $4,960.00 0 00 $0.00 40.00 $4,960.00 , 027. Removal&Replacement of Concrete Curb&Gutter Linear Foot 50 $62.00 50.00 $3,100.00 0.00 $0.00 50.00 $3,100.00 k-a Y J Printed On: 01/31/2008 City of Renton Public Works Department Page 2 IlkWater Line Relocation for Realignment of Benson Road t: and 1-405-WTR-27-3344 Contract Number: CAG-07-140 Contractor Ceccanti,Inc. Pay Estimate 4&FINAL Closing Date: 01/31/2008 Item Description Unit Est. Unit Previous Previous This This Total Total No. Quantity Price Quantity Amount Quantity Amount Quantity Amount 028. Traffic Loops Sensor Replacement Lump Sum 1 $16,200.00 1.00 $16,200.00 0.00 $0 00 1.00 $16,200.00 029. Culvert Repair Contingency Lump Sum 1 $44,000.00 1.00 $44,000.00 0.00 $0.00 1.00 $44,000.00 030. SR 515 Stormwater Improvements Lump Sum 1 $1,765 00 3.00 $5,295.00 0.00 $0 00 3.00 $5,295 00 Change Order Lump Sum 1 $139,772.34 1.00 $139,772 34 0.00 $0 00 1.00 $139,772.34 Subtotal $1,072,864.91 $11,00000 000 $1,083,864.91 8.9%Sales Tax $95,484.98 $979 00 $96,463.98 TT Total $1,168,349.89 $11,979.00 $1,180,328 89 k tj ri/O? ID • h v� ��. sTnTg State of Washington Reg.No.: CECCAI*227CB Department of Revenue Audit Procedures&Administration Date: • PO Box 47474 Olympia,Washington 98504-7474 NOTICE OF COMPLETION OF PUBLIC WORKS CONTRACT From: DEPARTMENT USE ONLY City of Renton Assigned To Natalie Beardsley—Finance Dept. 1055 South Grady Way Date Assigned Renton, WA 98057 Notice is hereby given relative to the completion of contract or project described below. Description of Contract CAG-07-140 Water Line Relocation for Realignment of Benson Road and I-405 Overpass Contractor's Name Ceccanti, Inc. Telephone No. 253-537-2990 Contractor's Address 4116 Brookdale Rd. E., Tacoma, WA 98446 Date Work Commenced Date Work Completed Date Work Accepted • July 23, 2007 December 6, 2007 February 11, 2008 Surety or Bonding Co. Fidelity and Deposit Company of Maryland Agent's Address David Maier 999 Third Ave, Suite 800 Seattle, WA 98101 Contract Amount: $798,367.00 Amount Disbursed: $1,126,135.64 Additions or Reductions: $285,497.91 Amount Retained: $54,193.25 Sales Tax: • $96,463.98 Total: $1,180,328.89 Total $1,180,328.89 By (Disbursing Officer) Phone No: The Disbursing Officer must complete and mail THREE copies of this notice to the Department of Revenue, Olympia, Washington 98504- 7474,immediately after acceptance of the work done under this contract. NO PAYMENTS SHALL BE MADE FROM RETAINED FUND until • receipt of Department's certificate,and then only in accordance with said certificate. FORM REV 31 0020(12-92) H:\File Sys\WTR - Drinking Water Utility\WTR-27 - Water Project Files\WTR-27-3344-Benson Rd & 1-405 Water Line Relocation\Pay Estimates\NoticeOfCompletion.doc\AGtp L Project Summary • Water Line Relocation for Realignment of Benson Road and I-405 CAG-07-140 Project start date: July 23, 2007 Project completion date: December 6, 2007 Contractor: Ceccanti, Inc., Spanaway, WA Project construction cost: $1,180,329 As part of the I-405 to SR 169 Stage 2f „? ' Widening and SR 515 Interchange 4 A _ ; Improvements,the City of Renton and -',-,..=-''t ti A +„~t WSDOT completed the construction of the s8 �' 4 `' relocation of 1900 lineal-feet of 16-inch �;- `.,, diameter transmission water line in Talbot A Road South(SR-515)and within Sams ,4 F _• Club property. The relocation of the City's 1 _ water line was needed to accommodate the r 11) •. ., future widening of Benson Rd. S. and the . i_; r .`�: t reconstruction of the Benson Road overpass .,:-r = �%.. . , ° ` _ • over I-405, scheduled for construction by 4,'` ±. \ �- - - WSDOT in 2008. The 16-inch water line �.--- -- , conveys water pumped from the City's ” �. downtown wells to the Talbot Hill 5 million-gallon underground reservoir ' ' '" ` located at Talbot Hill Park. Installation of 16-inch Isolation Valves - - 1 4.0",,. Ceccanti, Inc. of Spanaway, WA, constructed ,r..�•K Cr', i _ the improvements for a total cost of z = x' - ,r 0-' ;p - i' $1,180,328.89. The total project cost, - ` ~ , s,' r.„ + i.'.- including design engineering, City's contract administration and services during - �—' ``'*' _ construction, is$1,311,604.17. The City of ` Renton and WSDOT each contributed 50% toward the total project cost and the City managed the design and construction of the project. Removal and Replacement of Curb,Gutter&Sidewalk along Talbot Road South(SR 515) el a fr In order to complete the work before the • . Thanksgiving holiday and to minimize traffic t°' • impact to Sam's Club and to other local , - businesses, the contractor and City staff also , . `t. r . _-, t performed the work during the evenings and on „ �A. ,,,' ' .. , "; . �i .. weekends. 3 .- 4 4. Installation of Water Fitting Andrew Weygandt was the City's Water Utility project manager, and Steve Pinkham was the project inspector. City's water maintenance staff performed all four connections from the new water line to the existing water system. 'cli*-• , aMG•- III Pavement repairs performed each evening in order to open Talbot Road for morning rush hours traffic. • Undermining of adjacent pavement and sidewalk subgrade due to poor soil conditions I i. _ % :Y' ,---Y' and presence of groundwater. 1 . `; +.'#.-,-"-----!:)A• "'" , / - 'Ass,,//• -'#•-..,.,1 ..�» Trench Shoring System k, 1 .t.,. 1x'� r `'tom 'f. - °- .. A leaky 60-inch culvert across Talbot Road - ', South was repaired as part of the water main project. III ,,..c.„,,,,,„,„..,,,,, 44,,,_ 4. 3' A 4`..� J , � Leaky 60-inch Culvert ,,,,,,,. ...,,,,..'__,,,,_.:„ „.,, , ,.., ,.....,.....„..,.. .,.,,,..,. H:\File Sys\WTR-Drinking Water Utility\WTR-27-Water Project Files\WTR-27-3344-Benson Rd&I-405 Water Line Relocation\Pay Estimates\ProjectSummary.doc\AGtp , I CITY OF RENTON COUNCIL AGENDA BILL 6AI #: U IIISubmitting Data: For Agenda of: February 11, 2008 Dept/Div/Board.. PBPW/Utility Systems Division Staff Contact Dave Christensen (ext. 7212) Agenda Status Consent X Subject: Public Hearing.. White Fence Ranch Sewer Extension Survey Services Correspondence.. Contract with PACE Engineers, Inc. Ordinance Resolution Old Business Exhibits: New Business Survey Services Agreement Study Sessions Information Recommended Action: Approvals: Council Concur Legal Dept X Finance Dept X Other Fiscal Impact: iiiExpenditure Required... $48,000 Transfer/Amendment Amount Budgeted $50,000 Revenue Generated Total Project Budget $1,100,000 City Share Total Project SUMMARY OF ACTION: The Wastewater Utility, as part of its amended 2008 Capital Improvement Program (Council approval January 28, 2008), is extending sewer mains into the White Fence Ranch existing single-family development. As part of the design for this project, we need to hire a surveyor to perform the base mapping. PACE Engineers, Inc. was selected from the City's 2008 Annual Consultant Roster— Surveying Services. The contract amount of$48,000 is within the anticipated costs associated with such work and well within the total budget of$1,100,000. STAFF RECOMMENDATION: Authorize the Mayor and City Clerk to approve and execute the Survey Services Agreement with PACE Engineers, Inc., for survey services related to base mapping for the White Fence Ranch Sewer Extension project, in the amount of$48,000. III .___- H:\File Sys\WWP-WasteWater\WWP-03-0000 Correspondence-Wastewater\davec\White Fence Ranch PACE AB.doc\DMCtp SURVEYING SERVICES AGREEMENT • THIS AGREEMENT,made and entered into on this ,day of , 20 ,by and between the CITY OF RENTON, WASHINGTON,A MUNICIPAL CORPORATION HEREINAFTER CALLED THE"CITY," and the consulting firm PACE Engineers,Inc.whose address is, 11255 Kirkland Way,Kirkland,WA,98033 at which work will be available for inspection,hereinafter called the "SURVEYOR." PROJECT NAME: Surveying Services White Fence Ranch Sewer Extension WHEREAS,the City has not sufficient qualified engineering employees to provide surveying services within a reasonable time and the City deems it advisable and is desirous of engaging the professional services and assistance of a qualified professional surveying firm to do the necessary field surveying work for Public Works projects and the maintenance of the City's horizontal and vertical control,and WHEREAS,the Surveyor has represented and by entering into this Agreement now represents,that it is in full compliance with the statutes of the State of Washington for registration of professional land surveyor,has a current valid corporate certificate from the State of Washington or has a valid assumed name filing with the Secretary of State and that all personnel to be assigned to the work required under this Agreement are fully qualified to perform the work to which they will be assigned in a competent and professional manner, and that sufficient qualified personnel are on staff or readily available to staff this Agreement. WHEREAS,the Surveyor has indicated that it desires to do the work set forth in the Agreement upon the terms and conditions set forth below. NOW THEREFORE, in consideration of the terms, conditions, covenants and performances contained herein below, • the parties hereto agree as follows: I OBJECTIVES AND SCOPE OF WORK The objective of this Agreement is to provide land surveying services for the various departments which require such services during the planning, design and/or construction of City of Renton projects and for the development and maintenance of the City's maps. The scope of work shall include all services necessary to accomplish the work and shall detail the documents to be provided as agreed to under Scopes of Work authorized during the duration of this Agreement. The Surveyor shall furnish, and hereby warrants that it has, the necessary equipment, materials, and professionally trained and experienced personnel to facilitate completion of the work described in Exhibit A, Scope of Work, which is attached hereto and incorporated into this Agreement as though fully set forth herein. The work shall be verified for accuracy and completeness by the Consultant. The Surveyor will be held responsible for the accuracy and completeness of the work, even though the work has been accepted The Surveyor shall perform all work described in this Agreement and accompanying scopes of work to conform with the policies and standards set forth in Section II. II DESIGN CRITERIA The City will designate the basic premises and criteria for the work needed. Reports and plans,to the extent feasible, shall be developed in accordance with the latest edition and amendments of local and State regulations, "'guidelines,and specifications, including, but not limited to the following: 1. Draft GeoSpatial Positioning Accuracy Standards for the National Spatial Data Infrastructure by,the Federal Geographic Data Subcommittee,December 1996. c:\documents and settings\davidf\local settings\temporary Internet files\olkc0\white fence ranch pace 2007survey.doc\drf 1 /2007_survey.doc bh/rev06/07 2. All pertinent Washington State legislation,e.g. Chapter 58 of the Revised Code of Washington(RCW). 3. All pertinent sections of the Washington State Administrative Code(WAC), e.g. Chapters 332 WAC. 4. City of Renton Survey Specifications as set forth in Section 1-11 of the City of Renton Supplemental Specifications for the 1997 Standard Specifications for Road,Bridge, and Municipal Construction, • adopted May 19, 1997. III ITEMS TO BE FURNISHED TO THE CONSULTANT BY THE CITY The City will furnish the Surveyor copies of documents which are available to the City that will facilitate the preparation of the plans, studies, specifications, and estimates within the limits of the assigned work. All other records needed for the study must be obtained by the Surveyor. The Surveyor will coordinate with other available sources to obtain data or records available to those agencies. The Surveyor shall be responsible for this and any other data collection. The Surveyor shall be responsible for the verification of existing records to insure they represent the accurate and current field conditions. Should field studies be needed,the Surveyor will perform such work. The City will not be obligated to perform any such field studies. IV OWNERSHIP OF PRODUCTS AND DOCUMENTS TO BE FURNISHED BY THE CONSULTANT Documents,exhibits or other presentations for the work covered by this Agreement shall be furnished by the Surveyor to the City upon completion of the various phases of the work. All such material, including working documents,notes,maps, drawings,photographs,photographic negatives, etc. used in the Scope of Work, shall • become and remain the property of the City and may be used by it without restriction; except that, any use of such documents by the City not directly related to the Scope of Work pursuant to which the documents were prepared by the Surveyor shall be without any liability whatsoever to the Surveyor. Where possible and feasible all written documents and products shall be printed on recycled paper. Final documents, and interim drafts as feasible,will be printed on both sides of the recycled paper. V TIME OF BEGINNING AND COMPLETION This basic agreement shall be in effect for twelve(12)months from the date of formal acceptance by the City. This agreement may be extended for a maximum of three(3)years,upon agreement by both parties and written authorization by the City. The Surveyor shall not begin work under the terms of this Agreement until authorized in writing by the City by an executed Scope of Work. The time for completion of work performed under this Agreement shall be specified in the Authorized Scope of Work and as authorized in writing. If this contract would expire prior to the completion date of any Scope of Work,then this contract shall be automatically extended to the termination date of the Scope of Work. Established completion time shall not be extended because of any delays attributable to the Surveyor,but may be extended by the City in the event of a delay attributable to the City or because of a delay caused by an act of God or governmental actions or other conditions beyond the control of the Surveyor. A supplemental agreement issued by the City is required to extend the established time. Delays attributable to or caused by one of the parties hereto amounting to 30 days or more affecting the completion of the work may be considered a cause for re negotiation or termination of this Agreement by the other party. • c:\documents and settings\davidfllocal settings\temporary Internet files\olkcO\white fence ranch pace 2007survey.doc\drf 2 /2007_survey.doc bh/rev06/07 s VI PAYMENT The Surveyor shall be paid by the City for completed work for services rendered under this Agreement as provided hereinafter. Such payment shall be full compensation for work performed or services rendered and for all labor, • materials, supplies, equipment,and incidentals necessary to complete the work. All billings for compensation for work performed under this Agreement will list actual time(days and/or hours)and dates during which the work was performed and the compensation shall be figured using the rates in Exhibit A. Time&Materials Billing Payment for work accomplished shall be on the basis of the Surveyor's hourly billing rate per crew or man hours as appropriate plus material expenses. It is assumed that the billing rate for personnel provided covers the overhead and profit margins for the firm. No payment will be made for overhead or profit beyond the rates established in Exhibit A. 1. The billing rates should cover the salary expense for professional and technical personnel and principals for the time they are productively engaged in the work necessary to fulfill the terms of this Agreement. The billing rates are set forth in the attached Exhibit"A" and by this reference made a part of this Agreement. The billing rates may be updated annually by written approval of the Planning/Building/Public Works Administrator. 2. The material costs are those costs directly incurred in fulfilling the terms of this Agreement, including, but not limited to travel,reproduction,telephone, supplies, and fees of outside consultants. The material costs will be established for each Scope of Work which when executed will become a part of this Agreement. Billings for any material costs shall be supported by copies of original bills or invoices. Reimbursement for outside consultants and services shall be no greater than 1.10 times the invoiced amount. 3. The maximum amount payable for completion of all work under this Agreement on a time and materials IIIbasis is determined by the total of Authorized Scope of Work as shown in Exhibit"A." 4. Progress payments may be claimed monthly for time and materials actually incurred to date as supported by detailed statements. Final payment of any balance due the Surveyor of the gross amount earned per Scope of Work will be made promptly upon its verification by the City after completion and acceptance by the City of the work for each Scope of Work under this Agreement. Acceptance, by the Surveyor of final payment on the Scope of Work shall constitute full and final satisfaction of all amounts due or claimed to be due,for the specific Scope of Work. Payment for extra work performed under this Agreement shall be paid as agreed to by the parties hereto in writing at the time extra work is authorized. (Section VIII "EXTRA WORK"). A short narrative progress report shall accompany each voucher for progress payment. The report shall include discussion of any problems and potential causes for delay. To provide a means of verifying the invoiced time for consultant employees and material expenses,the City may conduct employee interviews. Time for the interviews can be billed at normal billing rates. Acceptance of such final payment by the Surveyor shall constitute a release of all claims of any nature, related to the specific Scope of Work,which the Surveyor may have against the City unless such claims are specifically reserved in writing and transmitted to the City by the Surveyor prior to its acceptance. Said final payment shall not,however, be a bar to any claims that the City may have against the Surveyor or to any remedies the City may pursue with respect to such claims. The Surveyor and its subconsultants shall keep available for inspection, by the City, for a period of three years after final payment, the cost records and accounts pertaining to this Agreement and all items related to, or bearing upon, these records. If any litigation,claim or audit is started before the expiration of the three-year retention period,the records shall be retained until all litigation, claims or audit findings involving the records have been resolved. The • three-year retention period starts when the Surveyor receives final payment. c:\documents and settings\davidf\local settings\temporary Internet files\olkc0\white fence ranch pace 2007survey.doc\drf 3 /2007_survey.doc bh/rev06/07 VII CHANGES IN WORK The Surveyor shall make all such revisions and changes in the completed work for each Scope of Work as are necessary to correct mistakes and blunders appearing therein, when required to do so by the City,without additional • compensation. Should the City find it desirable for its own purposes to have previously satisfactorily completed work or parts thereof revised,the Surveyor shall make such revisions, if requested and as directed by the City in writing. This work shall be considered as Extra Work and will be paid for as provided in Section VIII. VIII EXTRA WORK The City may desire to have the Surveyor perform work or render services in connection with a Scope of Work Assignment in addition to or other than work provided for by the expressed intent of the Scope of Work. Such work will be considered as Extra Work and will be specified in a written supplement to the Scope of Work which will set forth the nature and scope thereof. Work under a supplemental Scope of Work shall not proceed until authorized in writing by the City. Any dispute as to whether work is Extra Work or work already covered under a Scope of Work shall be resolved before the work is undertaken. IX EMPLOYMENT The Surveyor warrants that it has not employed or retained any company or person,other than a bona fide employee working solely for the Surveyor,to solicit or secure this contract and that he has not paid or agreed to pay any company or person, other than a bona fide employee working solely for the Surveyor,any fee, commission, percentage, brokerage fee, gifts or any other consideration, contingent upon or resulting from the award or making of this contract. For breach or violation of this warranty,the City shall have the right to annul this Agreement without liability, or in its discretion to deduct from the Agreement price or consideration or otherwise recover,the full • amount of such fee, commission,percentage,brokerage fee, gift or contingent fee. Any and all employees of the Surveyor,while engaged in the performance of any work or services required by the Surveyor under this Agreement, shall be considered employees of the Surveyor only and not of the City and any and all claims that may or might arise under the Workman's Compensation Act on behalf of said employees,while so engaged and any and all claims made by a third party as a consequence of any negligent act or omission on the parr. of the Surveyor's employees,while so engaged on any of the work or services provided to be rendered herein, shall be the sole obligation and responsibility of the Surveyor. The Surveyor shall not engage, on a full or part-time basis,or other basis,during the period of the contract,any professional or technical personnel who are, or have been at any time during the period of this contract, in the employ of the City except regularly retired employees,without written consent of the public employer of such person. If during the time period of this agreement, the Surveyor finds it necessary to increase its professional,technical,or clerical staff as a result of this work,the Surveyor will actively solicit minorities through their advertisement and interview process. 111 c:\documents and settings\davidf\local settings\temporary Internet files\olkc0\white fence ranch pace 2007survey.doc\drf 4 /2007_survey.doc bh/rev06/07 • r X NONDISCRIMINATION The Surveyor agrees not to discriminate against any client, employee or applicant for employment or for services because of race, creed, color,national origin, marital status, sex, sexual orientation,age or handicap except for a • bona fide occupational qualification with regard to, but not limited to the following: employment upgrading; demotion or transfer;recruitment or any recruitment advertising; layoff or terminations; rates of pay or other forms of compensation; selection for training; rendition of services. The Surveyor understands and agrees that if it violates this Non-Discrimination provision,this Agreement may be terminated by.the City and further that the Surveyor shall be barred from performing any services for the City now or in the future,unless a showing is made satisfactory to the City that discriminatory practices have terminated and that recurrence of such action is unlikely. XI TERMINATION OF AGREEMENT A. The City reserves the right to terminate this Agreement at any time upon not less than ten (10)days written notice to the Surveyor, subject to the City's obligation to pay Surveyor in accordance with subparagraphs C and D below. B. In the event of the death of a member,partner or officer of the Surveyor, or any of its supervisory personnel assigned to the project,the city may elect to terminate this contract, but if not so terminated, the surviving members of the Surveyor hereby agree to complete the work under the terms of this Agreement, if requested to do so by the City. This section shall not be a bar to re-negotiations of this Agreement between surviving members of the Surveyor and the City, if the City so chooses. In the event of the death of any of the parties listed in the previous paragraph, should the surviving members of the Surveyor,with the City's concurrence, desire to terminate this Agreement, payment shall be made as set forth in Subsection C of this section. 110 C. In the event this Agreement is terminated by the City other than for fault on the part of the Surveyor,a final payment shall be made to the Surveyor for actual time and material expenses for the work complete at the time of termination of the Agreement. In addition, the Surveyor shall be paid on the same basis as above for any authorized extra work completed. No payment shall be made for any work completed after ten(10)days following receipt by the Surveyor of the Notice to Terminate, except for work which may be required to complete checking of finalized work and record surveys as required by Washington State law. If the accumulated payment made to the Surveyor prior to Notice of Termination exceeds the total amount that would be due as set forth herein above, then no final payment shall be due and the Surveyor shall immediately reimburse the City for any excess paid. D. In the event the services of the Surveyor are terminated by the City for fault on the part of the Surveyor, the above stated formula for payment shall not apply. In such an event the amount to be paid shall be determined by the City with consideration given to the actual costs incurred by the Surveyor in performing the work to the date of termination,the amount of work originally required which was satisfactorily completed to date of termination,whether that work is in a form or of a type which is usable to the City at the time of termination,the cost to the City of employing another firm to complete the work required and the time which may be required to do so, and other factors which affect the value to the City of the work performed at the time of termination. Under no circumstances shall payment made under this subsection exceed the amount which would have been made if the formula set forth in subsection C above had been applied. I E. In the event this Agreement is terminated prior to completion of the work,the original copies of all Engineering plans, reports and documents prepared by the Surveyor prior to termination shall become the property of the City for its use without restriction. Such unrestricted use not occurring as a part of this project, shall be without liability or legal exposure to the Surveyor. • c:\documents and settings\davidf local settings\temporary Internet files\olkc0\white fence ranch pace 2007survey.doc\drf 5 /2007_survey.doc bh/rev06/07 F. Payment for any part of the work by the City shall not constitute a waiver by the City of any remedies of any type it may have against the Surveyor for any breach of this Agreement by the Surveyor, or for failure of the Surveyor to perform work required of it by the City. Forbearance of any rights under the Agreement will not constitute waiver of entitlement to exercise those rights with respect to any future act• or omission by the Surveyor. XII DISPUTES Any dispute concerning questions of facts in connection with work not disposed of by agreement between the Surveyor and the City shall be referred for determination to the Director of Planning/Building/Public Works or his/her successors and delegees, whose decision in the matter shall be final and conclusive on the parties to this Agreement. In the event that either party is required to institute legal action or proceedings to enforce any of its rights in this Agreement,both parties agree that any such action shall be brought in the Superior Court of the State of Washington, situated in King County. XIII LEGAL RELATIONS The Surveyor shall comply with all Federal Government, State and local laws and ordinances applicable to the work to be done under this Agreement. This contract shall be interpreted and construed in accordance with the laws of Washington. The Surveyor agrees to indemnify, defend and hold the City and its officers and employees harmless from and shall process and defend at its own expense all claims, demands or suits at law or equity arising in whole or part from the Surveyor's negligent acts, errors, or omissions under this Agreement provided that nothing herein shall require the Surveyor to indemnify the City against and hold harmless the City from claims, demands or suits based upon the conduct of the City, its officers or employees and provided further that if the claims or suits are caused by or result from the concurrent negligence of(a) the Surveyor's agents or employees and (b) the City, its agents, officers and employees, this provision with respect to claims or suits based upon such concurrent negligence shall be valid and enforceable only to the extent of the Surveyor's negligence or the negligence of the Surveyor's agents or employees except as limited below. The Surveyor shall secure general liability,property damage, auto liability, and professional liability coverage in the amount of$1.0 million,with a General Aggregate in the amount of$2 million,unless waived or reduced by the City. The Consultant shall submit a completed City of Renton Insurance Information Form,and the Standard Acord. The City of Renton shall be named as an"additional insured"on the contractor's policy with that coverage being primary and non-contributory to any other policy(ies)available to the City. Surveyor shall furnish copies of the declarations pages of relevant insurance policies to the City prior to execution of any Scope of Work. The Certification and Declaration page(s) shall be in a form as approved by the City. If the City's Risk Manager has the Declaration page(s)on file from a previous contract and no changes in insurance coverage has occurred, only the Certification Form will be required. All coverages provided by the Surveyor shall be in a form, and underwritten by a company acceptable to the City. The City will normally require carriers to have minimum A.M. Best rating of A XII. The Surveyor shall keep all required coverages in full force and effect during the life of any Scope of Work, and a minimum of thirty days' notice shall be given to the City prior to the cancellation of any policy. The Surveyors's relation to the City shall be at all times as an independent contractor. It is further specifically and expressly understood that the indemnification provided herein constitute the contractor's waiver of immunity under the Industrial Insurance Act, Title 51 RCW, solely for the purposes of this • indemnification. This waiver has been mutually negotiated by the parties. The provisions of this section shall survive the expiration or termination of this agreement. c:\documents and settings\davidf\local settings\temporary Internet files\olkc0\white fence ranch pace 2007survey.doc\drf 6 /2007_survey.doc bh/rev06/07 XIV SUBLETTING OR ASSIGNING OF CONTRACTS The Surveyor shall not sublet or assign any of the work covered by this Agreement without the express consent of • the City. XV ENDORSEMENT OF PLANS The Surveyor shall place their certification on all plans, specifications, estimates or any other engineering data furnished by them in accordance with RCW 18.43.070. XVI COMPLETE AGREEMENT This document and referenced attachments contain all covenants, stipulations, and provisions agreed upon by the parties. Later Scope of Work s will be in writing and executed and will become part of this agreement. No agent,or representative of either party has authority to make, and the parties shall not be bound by or be liable for, any statement,representation, promise, or agreement not set forth herein. No changes, amendments, or modifications of the terms hereof shall be valid unless reduced to writing and signed by the parties as an amendment to this Agreement. The invalidity or unenforceability of any provision in this Agreement shall not affect the other provisions hereof, and this Agreement shall be construed in all respects as if such invalid or unenforceable provision were omitted. XVIII EXECUTION AND ACCEPTANCE • This Agreement may be simultaneously executed in several counterparts, each of which shall be deemed to be an original having identical legal effect. The Surveyor does hereby ratify and adopt all statements,representations, warranties, covenants, and agreements contained in the Request for Qualifications, and the supporting materials submitted by the Surveyor, and does hereby accept the Agreement and agrees to all of the terms and conditions thereof. IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the parties hereto have executed this Agreement as of the day and year first above written. CONSULTANT CITY OF RENTON : J / ria 3i,Zag Signature Date Denis Law,Mayor Date David R, c 1 type or print name ATTEST: se4cor Prii4e14.1 5../rue ror Title Bonnie I. Walton, City Clerk • c:\documents and settings\davidf\local settings\temporary intemet files\olkc0\white fence ranch pace 2007survey.doc\drf 7 /2007_survey.doc bh/rev06/07 • RESOLUTION NO. 3229 CITY OF RENTON • SUMMARY OF FAIR PRACTICES POLICY ADOPTED BY RESOLUTION NO. 3229 It is the policy of the City of Renton to promote and provide equal treatment and service to all citizens and to ensure equal employment opportunity to all persons without regard to race, color, national origin, ethnic background, gender, marital status, religion, age or disability, when the City of Renton can reasonably accommodate the disability, of employees and applicants. for employment and fair, non-discriminatory treatment to all citizens. All departments of the City of Renton shall adhere to the following guidelines: (1) EMPLOYMENT PRACTICES - The City of Renton will ensure all employment related activities included recruitment, selection, promotion, demotion, training, retention and separation are conducted in a manner which is based on job-related criteria which does not discriminate against women, minorities and other protected classes. Human resources decisions will be in accordance with individual performance, staffing requirements, governing civil service rules, and labor contract agreements. (2) COOPERATION WITH HUMAN RIGHTS ORGANIZATIONS - The City of Renton will cooperate fully with all organizations and commissions organized to promote fair practices and equal opportunity in employment. (3) AFFIRMATIVE ACTION PLAN - The City of Renton Affirmative Action Plan and Equal Employment Program will be maintained and administered to facilitate equitable representation with the City work force and to assure equal employment opportunity to all. It shall be the responsibility of elected officials, the Mayor, the Affirmative Action Officer, department administrators, managers, supervisors, Contract Compliance Officers and all • employees to carry out the policies, guidelines and corrective measures set forth in the Affirmative Action Plan and Equal Employment Program. (4) CONTRACTORS' OBLIGATIONS - Contractors, sub-contractors, consultants and suppliers conducting business with the City of Renton shall affirm and subscribe to the Fair Practices and Non-discrimination policies set forth by the law and in the City's Affirmative Action Plan and Equal Employment Program. Copies of this policy shall be distributed to all City employees, shall appear in all operational documentation of the City, including bid calls, and shall be prominently displayed in appropriate city facilities. CONCURRED IN by the City Council of the City of RENTON,Washington, this 7 thday of October, 1996. CITY OF RENTON: RENTON CITY COUNCIL: • tai • Mayor Council President Attest: .1L III'►e City Cler! r 11111 c:\documents and settings\davidf local settings\temporary Internet files\oikc0\white fence ranch pace 2007survey.doc\drf 8 /2007_survey.doc bh/rev06/07 m;: 44' _ _ ,e44'1^)- i.:-3'..V-t'::`. - ':?'...''t yds.._. -_ Exhibit A ,_,.„.._ ;,„;,,:,_E7 S ,$'Af':_ .n4i Pta51itr,g,,,�; uge o ; ... � ;:`.fit; �.r:a` '`'�i r'" ;� `'° - ?oro.>:' �;*'. 'sem°`..:w: ',ti' ''`���.--,,�.,,.,,:, } :; - ;v,,: r-:fix< ,,1,; mu:..€;3K : .,',.,.:_,: Scope of Work _ ACE - �_rrl-W %_� a • An Engineering Services Company _.; i„,`'a,i'.,'.' siya`.. ,, to January 30, 2008 Dave Christensen City of Renton 1055 South Grady Way Renton WA 98055 Re: Scope and Cost Estimate for Survey Services White Fence Ranch ULID P08-025 Dear Mr. Christensen: PACE Engineers, Inc., is pleased to submit this cost proposal for providing Professional Survey Services for the subject project. If anything in this proposal is not as you anticipated, please let us know so we can adjust it as required. Based on your email, • review of some basic research and a site visit, we are pleased to offer the following scope IIIand cost estimate for the survey services required: Project Understanding: The site is the Assessors Plat of White Fence Ranch. The mapping is to be used to design sewer mains and laterals to serve the subdivision. The total length of route to be mapped is 6,400 feet. We will map the existing rights of way and the front of the lots. Then we will return to map the preferred crossing to be located more or less in the middle of the north half of the subdivision. Scope of Services: 1. Research and confirm primary control points on City of Renton datum for use on the project. 2. Provide a base map showing right-of-way and lot lines, one-foot contours, and all surface features. 3. The adjoining properties will be identified by the King County Tax ID number and owners name as available from the County's GIS. 4. All underground utilities located from locators paint, and readily available maps from the provider. 5. The existing residences will be located and the lowest finished floor elevation will III be measured. PACE Engineers, Inc. Kirkland Office 11255 Kirkland Way I Suite 300 I Kirkland, WA 98033 p 425 827 2014 I f 425.827.5043 paceengrs.com ":4.2-?-4.A • • >,' $`Engineers I Pt nnners 14 Sutwt yors January 30, 2008 fir_ "` _ Dave Christensen . -' City of Renton 6. The mapping will include the general topography and permanent features : (driveways, concrete walks and trees greater than 8"dbh) from the street to the front of the existing residences. 7. We will research King County Health Department for as-built records of the existing septic systems and/or ask the property owners where their septic tank is, and where possible show the location on the base map. 8. Establish horizontal and vertical control points around the site. Points will be set at approximate 500 foot intervals. 9. Provide the base map in AutoCAD 2005 format. The scale will be one to one. Text will be parallel to the alignment. Time Schedule: We are available to begin work on this project on or before February 6, 2008 and anticipate completion of the mapping by June, 2008. Estimated Fees: The projects will be done on a not to exceed basis of$48,000.00 according to the • attached 2008 Rate Schedule. In summary, we have developed a scope of work and budget based on our present knowledge of the proposed project. We have tried to cover all aspects of the proposed project; however, if you feel that additional areas of work require our attention if you have any questions or if you desire additional information please do not hesitate to contact us. Again, we are pleased to submit this proposal to accomplish the Professional survey tasks for the subject project, and look forward to working with you. Sincerely, PACE ENGINEERS, INC. -- te-tj/eon—te-AL-- David R. Fulton P.L.S. Senior Principal Surveyor • P:\P08\08000.00\Survey\Proposals\Topographic_Mapping Surveys\P08-025 WHITE FENCE RANCH\P08-025-White Fence Ranch.doc PACS= I Engineers I Planners I Surveyors ACE • An Engineering Services Company 2008 HOURLY RATE SCHEDULE DESCRIPTION HOURLY RATE 1. Office Tech I, Expediter I $ 44.00 2. Office Tech II, Expediter II $ 55.00 3. Jr. Instrument Person,Office Tech III, Intern $ 63.00 4. Instrument Person,GPS Assistant,Jr. CAD Drafter, Sr. Office Tech $ 68.00 5. Jr. Engineer, Designer I,Jr. Planner, Party Chief,CAD Drafter I,GIS Tech, Inspector I, Project Administrator $ 80.00 6. Engineer I, Designer II, Planner I,Survey Tech I,CAD Drafter II,GIS Analyst I,Inspector II $ 90.00 7. Engineer II,Sr. Designer, Planner II,Sr. Party Chief, Survey Technician II,CAD Drafter III, GIS Analyst II, Inspector III $ 100.00 8. Sr. Engineer, Project Designer I, Sr. Planner, Project Surveyor,Sr. CAD Drafter, GIS Analyst III,Sr. Inspector $ 110.00 9. Project Engineer, Project Designer II, Project Planner, Sr. Project Surveyor,GIS/CAD Manager $ 120.00 10. Sr. Project Engineer, Structural Engineer, Sr. Project Designer, Sr. Project Planner, Survey Project Manager $ 130.00 11. Project Manager, Principal Surveyor, Robotic/GPS&Operator $ 140.00 12. Sr. Project Manager, Sr. Principal Surveyor,3D Scanning &Operator $ 150.00 13. Principal Engineer, Principal Planner $ 160.00 14. Senior Principal $ 180.00 • REIMBURSABLES A. Sub-Consultants, Professional and Technical Cost+ 12% B. Maps, reports, materials, permit fees,express delivery and messenger, pass-thru bills and similar items necessary for work in progress Cost+ 12% C. Technology expenses associated with computers, software, electronic distance measuring devices,telephone,cell phone, photo copies, standard survey supplies and transportation and standard postage will be invoiced as a Technology Charge $2.50 per billable hour D. ' Out-of-Town travel per diem and cost of commercial transportation Cost+ 10% E. Transportation within 30 Mile Radius* No Charge Transportation beyond 30 Mile Radius-Automobile $ .55 per mile * On job inspection mileage will be billed $ .55 per mile F. Special Equipment/Software Special Software for Modeling/Analysis $ 10/hour Large Format Blueprints and Reproduction-Bond $ .50/sq foot Large Format Blueprints and Reproduction-Mylar $ 1.50/sq foot Color Copies-In-house(81/2 x 11) $ .50/page G. Expert Witness Rate x 1.5 Note: i All payment is due within 30 days from date of invoice. A monthly service charge of 2% will be added on all accounts older than 30 days. 2 The foregoing schedule of charges is incorporated into the agreement for the services provided effective January 1, 2008. After December 31,2008, invoices will reflect the schedule of charges in effect at that time. PACE Engineers,Inc. • Kirkland Office 11255 Kirkland Way I Suite 300 I Kirkland,WA 98033 P 425.827.2014 I f 425.827.5043 paceengrs.com <VY �� • AFFIDAVIT OF COMPLIANCE PACE Engineers,Inc. hereby confirms and declares that (Name of contractor/subcontractor/consultant/supplier) I. It is PACE Engineers, Inc. policy to offer equal (Name of contractor/subcontractor/consultant/supplier) opportunity to all qualified employees and applicants for employment without regard to the race,creed, color, sex, national origin, age, disability or veteran status. II. _ PACE Engineers,Inc. complies with all applicable federal, (Name of contractor/subcontractor/consultant/supplier) state and local laws governing non-discrimination in employment. II. When applicable, PACE Engineers,Inc. will seek out and (Name of contractor/subcontractor/consultant/supplier) negotiate with minority and women contractors for the award of 111 subcontracts. David R. Fulton Senior Principal Surveyor Print Agent/Representative's Name and Title Agent/Representative's Signature Instructions: This document MUST be completed by each contractor, subcontractor, consultant and/or supplier. Include or attach this document(s)with the contract. • c:\documents and settings\davidf\local settings\temporary internes files\olkc0\white fence ranch pace 2007survey.doc\drf 10 /2007_survey.doc bhlrev06/07 4 I III "N L a-------T---Th i , 111 > II , III : \ \\, W in co co \ 011 / - < < 1-------..___ SE 124TH .., ST w z w z 4 ---. I I-- L1.1 i _I 1— .... ,_ LO 0- 10 LO > e- 0 CD 011 a ct . ______ NE1 4TH PL 111111 \ - NE 4TH ST SE 128TH ST • WHITE FENCH RANCH SURVEY AREA SCALE 1"=300' [ • sCE—el COUNCIL: FINANCE.COMMITTEE.;REPORT February 11,2008 !}ate .c,-//-07008'` APPROVAL OF CLAIMS AND PAYROLL VOUCHERS The Finance Committee approves for,payment on February 11 2008, claim.vouchers 268639-269,146 and 2 wire transfers,totaling $6,70.1,920.06; and 692 direct deposits,.163 payroll vouchers,,and 1" - w ire transfer, totaling $2,301,601.641. • on Persson, Chair . erre;• Chair. • • • • • ln. •r' S. • ern.er • Ari-fOVED BY CT;COUNCIL - FINANCE COMMITTEE COMMITTEE REPORT• Date � -/I; U08 .f February 11 2008 .. Property Boundary Survey of.Cedar River Natural Zone (February 4;:2008) ' . The<hinance:Committee.recommends concurrence-in the staff recommendation to approve the_ Agreement:for Services with PACE Engineers, Inc. in the amount of$29,500.0.0 to perform a - property;boundary.survey of parcels compnsmg the Cedar River'.Natural Zone, set property' corners or recover existing corners,identify.boundaryencroachments:onto•City property and produce'a Record,of Survey to,be filed with the King County Recorder. ,The Finance. . '. Committee also recommends concurrence in the staff recommendation for"the following: :Authorize the use of2007 funds in-the amountof'$4.0,000.00 from ' :316.000600.020.5940.0910i61,09006).'.; Funds were'prev'iously identified , " for this project and are to"be carried:forward'in a future budget amendment. :. The Committee further recommends that the Mayor and City Clerk be authorized to execute•, the Agreement for survey services. D on Persson,:Chair (~ 'etri' s -*ere 7,71f e Chair , • • King kers Member 'Terry,Higashiyama;CommunityServices Administrator ,:. - ;.Leslie Betlach;Parks Director Terry-Flatlet';Parks'Maintenance Manager': f11iK� ri7ey; 'F1s hd&'i A/ancy.V�olan�e;: F{S _. PLANNING.AND:-DEVELOPMENT COMMITTEE ate, .. �? , COMMITTEE REPORT ® 1 _. February'11;2008 .:T • itle IV Development Regulations Docket--,: = `: :•; �`.: ° (1VIay 14, 2007} _ _ he Piannin `and Develop ment"Committee,recommends concurrence in the:.' 'T g P ; staff: .' , . \ ' , recommendation to':approve;tle,following three zoning text amendments: Docket_Item 6-1, Housekeeping Group'I,Docket Item 6-10,Household Pets'and,Keeping of Animals : _Regulations,,and Docket Item 06-29,Downtown Code Text Amendments,as OO;)0lmended by the Planning Commission.;`The COrninitteex further recommends that these three �6rdinances �" aided to the City Council TOr.first reading. King'ar er, Chair` Rich Zwicker;.:Vice Ch Greg Tai or,'Member , cc: Alga Pietsch`- Gre g Zimmerman - _ :, 'APPROVED B.Y. UTILITIES=COMMITTEE., _ COUNCIL 'COMMITTEE REPORT.'' -t .,-;'/ ,- ao , - aea� ;Feb ruary 1`I, 2008 ::' Upper Spr.3ngbrook Creek;Restoration.Project ,Design Agreement'and Program.Management'Plan : , (F.ebruary 4 2008) ' 'the Utilities.Cbnimittee recominends-concurrence inthe staff recommendation` pp :to.a .rove.,the ' agreement with the-U.S: Army Corps of Engineers (USACE)to-share in the cost to design:and . ', 'permit the Upper Springbrook Creek:Restoration project:,_The terms of the agreement require '. - USACE to fund"75: percent ($286,950) of the total design -cost of $382,600,with the City ` -- contributing the remaining 25,,=percent local match,.of $95,650: The Committee further recommends'that the resolution regarding this matter be ..Presented:for reading-and ado p tion: 1?- Rich Zwicker`C .ir. , C% '"Greg Taylor; ice Chair Terri Briere'Member - cc:_ Lys Hornsby,Utility Stents Director -. • /7G�o o,'PI a-//-Aor CITY OF RENTON, WASHINGTON RESOLUTION NO. 29,29 A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY OF RENTON, WASHINGTON, APPROVING FINAL PLAT (MAGNUSSEN FINAL PLAT; FILE NO. LUA-07-129FP). WHEREAS, a petition for the approval of a final plat for the subdivision of a certain tract of land as hereinafter more particularly described, located within the City of Renton, has been duly approved by the Planning/Building/Public Works Department; and WHEREAS, after investigation, the Administrator of the Planning/Building/Public Works Department has considered and recommended the approval of the final plat, and the approval is proper and advisable and in the public interest; and WHEREAS, the City Council has determined that appropriate provisions are made for the public health, safety, and general welfare and for such open spaces, drainage ways, streets or roads, alleys, other public ways, transit stops, potable water supplies, sanitary wastes, parks and recreation, playgrounds, schools, school grounds, sidewalks and other planning features that assure safe walking conditions for students who walk to and from school; and WHEREAS, the City Council has determined that the public use and interest will be served by the platting of the subdivision and dedication; NOW, THEREFORE, THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF RENTON, WASHINGTON, DOES RESOLVE AS FOLLOWS: SECTION I. The above findings are true and correct in all respects. SECTION II. The final plat approved by the Planning/Building/Public Works Department pertaining to the following described real estate, to wit: See Exhibit "A" attached hereto and made a part hereof as if fully set forth (The property, consisting of approximately 8.37 acres, is located in the vicinity of NE 2nd Street between Duvall Avenue NE and Field Avenue NE) is hereby approved as such plat, subject to the laws and ordinances of the City of Renton, and subject to the findings, conclusions, and recommendation of the Planning/Building/Public Works Department dated January 25, 2008. PASSED BY THE CITY COUNCIL this day of , 2008. Bonnie I. Walton, City Clerk APPROVED BY THE MAYOR this day of , 2008. Denis Law, Mayor Approved as to form: Lawrence J. Warren, City Attorney RES.1319:01/28/08:scr 2 • Ate/ fry` r"-"jNE5th St NE 4th St rw NE 3rd pl 3TTt� 2 Ct 1 °b la is ,1 q Central Ave U h Avenue 0 41 Legal Descriptions: Parcel k Lot 3, King County Short Plat No . 676075, recorded under Recording No . 7701190691, in King County, Washington . Parcel B: Lot 1 King County Short Plat No . 882065, recorded under Recording No . 8303160822, in King County, Washington . Parcel C: Lot 2 King County Short Plat No . 882065, recorded under Recording No . 8303160822, in King County, Washington . Parcel D: Lot 3 King County Short Plat No . 882065, recorded under Recording No . 8303160822, in King County, Washington . Parcel E: Lot 4 King County Short Plat No . 882065, recorded under Recording No . 8303160822, in King County, Washington . EXCEPT the north 60 feet of the east 30 feet of said Lot 4, conveyed to King County for road purposes recorded under Recording No . 8705050924. TOGETHER WITH the north 30. 5 feet of the east 30 feet of said Lot 4, vacated by City of Renton Ordinance Number 5278 recorded under Recording Number 20070511001389. Parcel F: The east 300 feet of the south 198 feet of the southeast quarter of the northeast quarter of the northwest quarter of Section 15, Township 23 north, Range 5 east, Willamette Meridian, in King County, Washington; EXCEPT that portion thereof lying within the Right-of-Way of Southeast 132nd Street . Parcel G: Lot 1 King County Short Plat No. 881050, recorded under Recording No . 8201220536, in King County, Washington . Mb CITY OF RENTON, WASHINGTON RESOLUTION NO. 39. 0 A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY OF RENTON, WASHINGTON, AUTHORIZING THE MAYOR AND CITY CLERK TO ENTER INTO A DESIGN AGREEMENT WITH THE U.S. ARMY CORPS OF ENGINEERS REGARDING THE UPPER SPRINGBROOK CREEK RESTORATION PROJECT. WHEREAS, the City of Renton in partnership with the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers has identified habitat improvements on Upper Springbrook Creek as part of the Green/Duwamish River Basin Ecosystem Restoration Project; and WHEREAS, the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers engages in activities and programs to conserve natural resources and improve aquatic habitat, and WHEREAS, the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers is given authority to enter into agreements with municipal entities and agencies in order to carry out and facilitate the activities and programs of the Corps to conserve natural resources and improve aquatic habitat; and WHEREAS, the City of Renton has an approved budget and staff available to perform such activities 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 hereby authorized to enter into a design agreement with the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers. RESOLUTION NO. PASSED BY THE CITY COUNCIL this day of , 2008. Bonnie I. Walton, City Clerk APPROVED BY THE MAYOR this day of , 2008. Denis Law, Mayor Approved as to form: Lawrence J. Warren, City Attorney Date of Publication: RES.1322:02/07/08:scr 2 r J CITY OF RENTON, WASHINGTON 1111 ORDINANCE NO. AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF RENTON, WASHINGTON, VACATING A PORTION OF RIGHT-OF-WAY SIX FEET WIDE AND APPROXIMATELY 293 FEET IN LENGTH OF QUEEN AVENUE NE, SOUTH OF NE 4TH STREET (STEVE BECK— NEWFOURTH LLC; VAC- 07-003). WHEREAS, a proper petition for vacating a right-of-way six feet wide and approximately 293 feet in length of Queen Avenue NE, south of NE 4th Street, was filed with the City Clerk on May 14, 2007, and that petition was signed by the owners representing more than two-thirds (2/3) of the property abutting upon the street or alley to be vacated; and WHEREAS, the City Council, by Resolution No. 3892, passed on July 16, 2007, set August 6, 2007, at 7:00 p.m., in the City Council Chambers of the City of Renton as the time and place for a public hearing on this matter; and the City Clerk having given proper notice of this • hearing as provided by law, and allpersons havingbeen heard who eared to testifyin favor or pp in opposition on this matter, and the City Council having considered all information and arguments presented to it; and WHEREAS, the Administrator of the Planning/Building/Public Works Department has considered this petition for vacation, and has found it to be in the public interest and for the public benefit, and that no injury or damage to any person or properties will result from this vacation; NOW, THEREFORE, THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF RENTON, WASHINGTON, DOES ORDAIN AS FOLLOWS: SECTION I. The following described right-of-way of Queen Avenue NE, south of NE 4th Street, to wit: • 1 ORDINANCE NO. (A portion of right-of-way in the Northeast Quarter of the Northeast Quarter of 111 Section 16, Township 23 North, Range 5 East, W.M., in the City of Renton, King County, Washington.) See Exhibit "A" attached hereto and made a part hereof as if fully set forth herein is hereby vacated subject to a utility easement in favor of the City retained over the entire right-of- way. SECTION II. Compensation is set in the amount of $7,000.00 for this street vacation. SECTION III. This ordinance shall be effective upon its passage, approval, and five days after its publication. A certified copy of this ordinance shall be filed with the Office of Records and Elections, and as otherwise provided by law. PASSED BY THE CITY COUNCIL this day of , 2008. • Bonnie I. Walton, City Clerk APPROVED BY THE MAYOR this day of , 2008. Denis Law, Mayor Approved as to form: Lawrence J. Warren, City Attorney Date of Publication: ORD.1426:1/30/08:scr • 2 1 • EX.HlBF F"A" Legal Description For Right-Of-Way Vacation The West 6 feet of the tollov.'ing described property: West 264 feet of the East 1 300 feet of the North Quarter of the Northeast Quarter of the Northeast Quarter of flection 16. Township 23 North. Range 5 East, W.M.. EXCEPT the North 38.5 feet. (Being. the same as described in a Quit Claim Deed recorded under Instrument No. 7S100610161 Containing: 1755 Squat e Feet,more or less. S EXHIBIT "B" attached and by this reference made a part hereof iPr'7-0 1,4 .... N .. . . ... f NE 4th Avenue 589'06'06"F 0 cd '.q i•-• '') ..........._ 583'06‘06'E. 284.00' . - .,. — f'•„2, 'i 4.07rtt 253.93' - 6.00' , . , ...-, / ','", • z .,-'-,;. - ...ii,.. o4 ,; . , . G,IN, ,• s,11::,.; to ,-+-.1 ,, _., 04 Iv .:„.. •,...„ oz r ...-, , # c‘i 3709 A .,,A; -,„_is: 3,..•-: ,-,.-.- ,,,,,,,,,,,-,,,za q ['d/ / ,- kr) I b ;--1; r',:l X r;',41:?9;i:7, Ni:', i64',73C5—90,15 c-.4 :-. .3..,...: i Ot.if..,..en Ave. NE , P .'*-;,, TO BE VACATED ....:. ,.-.., - P.) . • 2DDJ) L., t- ,...7. .,,,,,,; r..) r: PA ......' . ' \ Lt ;„?.. N ',/9, N 1/2 NZ: 1/4. NE 1/4 51 , .., 284(-15:3,3"W 00' ........... .-( . 1 ,,t1.3.ra7.Z2V74-Z2.:3?,11.:ESS3,..ZSS.:.m.s:5:;::,:,2; \ . \ P - c) (;•,\ i ,\ 1 7,-,-.- -P- 11'04.1 "f', "i F.,,,.4 <4,,,,4- ,. ,.1)-714... ., ., ,.'• \,, 4''ii,'-'2<'-'' ,--:' '''''';‘.;:' -.1'.• '-,:2-k':-.1, \,, ts\- 1 ; ! ;3,, • t-,:. ' ,T .., -% „, r r)1 \1,.1-').••• , --- „,.: 'ilV'. C)\:6\-. \4. 4: Iirk,•' ,,,,..-_2,4:4, I i ',."..'; li",.......ff iris y,.A4.,•('''''' `''•-.7% 3;f3' ' ".:I„.,...4 r ,It';14.-tiit,...V,' ..,•.5.:'' ,'..., ...43 . AII:'-.1,,,1....,I,,4';''',9-•'''''' 1::,,A, 51 , .. ..... _.. . .. • . . „ ;, s. .,....s ._,_ , 4.' 0.1t.F.: ' e Te 1-15-08 Exhibit "3 r ” i..4,- T p At7t.givzny ,=.44 TH ,,,,, A.::„..„,;„„,, ,,,,„„2:::K": ,,, r 4--. 69' Queen Ave. NE - Right-of-Way Vacation '.-- -.,,,,:,,- Job Nn. ' LA?us SURVEYiNG,NC. 7:••:',Y,.:K,,,:C ,",,.. JD6-56,00 / • 0 I CITY OF RENTON, WASHINGTON ORDINANCE NO. AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF RENTON, WASHINGTON, VACATING A PORTION OF RIGHT-OF-WAY APPROXIMATELY 60 FEET IN WIDTH AND 100 FEET IN LENGTH OF WHITWORTH AVENUE SOUTH, SOUTH OF SOUTH 4TH STREET (BRIAN ALLEN — TEAM PROPERTIES, LLC; VAC-07-002). WHEREAS, a proper petition for vacating a right-of-way approximately 60 feet in width and 100 feet in length of Whitworth Avenue South, south of South 4th Street, was filed with the City Clerk on April 4, 2007, and that petition was signed by the owners representing more than two-thirds (2/3) of the property abutting upon the street or alley to be vacated; and WHEREAS, the City Council, by Resolution No. 3893, passed on July 16, 2007, set August 6, 2007, at 7:00 p.m., in the City Council Chambers of the City of Renton as the time and place for a public hearing on this matter; and the City Clerk having given proper notice of this hearing as provided by law, and all persons having been heard who appeared to testify in favor or in opposition on this matter, and the City Council having considered all information and arguments presented to it; and WHEREAS, the Administrator of the Planning/Building/Public Works Department has considered this petition for vacation, and has found it to be in the public interest and for the public benefit, and that no injury or damage to any person or properties will result from this vacation; NOW, THEREFORE, THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF RENTON, WASHINGTON, DOES ORDAIN AS FOLLOWS: SECTION I. The following described right-of-way of Whitworth Avenue South, south of South 4th Street, to wit: • CITY OF RENTON, WASHINGTON ORDINANCE NO. AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF RENTON, WASHINGTON, SETTING THE THRESHOLD AND TAX RATES IN ACCORDANCE WITH RCW 82.14.415 WITH RESPECT TO THE BENSON HILL ANNEXATION. WHEREAS, on December 10, 2007,the City Council adopted Ordinance 5325 approving the City of Renton's 2008 Annual Budget; and WHEREAS, the adopted budget included General Government operational costs necessary to provide service to the area known as the Benson Hill annexation in the amount of $10,762,913; and WHEREAS, additional costs to provide city level of service to the annexed area will result in total costs of at least $11,610,453; and WHEREAS, revenue anticipated to be generated from activity within the annexation area is estimated to be $8,519,409; and WHEREAS, RCW 82.14.415 requires that the City Council determine a threshold amount representing costs to serve the area less revenues to be generated by the area, as well as a state sales tax rate to meet the financial needs of the annexed area; NOW,THEREFORE, THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF RENTON, WASHINGTON, DOES ORDAIN AS FOLLOWS: • 1 ORDINANCE NO. SECTION I. Pursuant to RCW 82.14.415 the City Council determines that the anticipated revenues from the Benson Hill annexed area are estimated to be $8 519 409 which • p > result in a threshold difference in the initial year of annexation to serve the area in the amount of $2,823,057 and that a tax rate of.1% should be imposed to assist the City in providing services to the area within the annexation. SECTION II. This ordinance shall be effective upon its passage, approval, and five (5) days after publication. PASSED BY THE CITY COUNCIL this day of , 2007. Bonnie I. Walton, City Clerk • APPROVED BY THE MAYOR this day of , 2007. Denis Law, Mayor Approved as to form: Lawrence J. Warren, City Attorney Date of Publication: • 2 • CITY OF RENTON, WASHINGTON • ORDINANCE NO. AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF RENTON, WASHINGTON, AMENDING CHAPTER 1, ADMINISTRATION AND ENFORCEMENT; CHAPTER 2, ZONING DISTRICTS — USES AND STANDARDS; CHAPTER 3, ENVIRONMENTAL REGULATIONS AND OVERLAY DISTRICTS; CHAPTER 4, CITY-WIDE PROPERTY DEVELOPMENT STANDARDS; CHAPTER 9, PERMITS - SPECIFIC; AND CHAPTER 11, DEFINITIONS, OF TITLE IV (DEVELOPMENT REGULATIONS); AND CHAPTER 1, GARBAGE, OF TITLE VIII (HEALTH AND SANITATION) OF ORDINANCE NO. 4260 ENTITLED "CODE OF GENERAL ORDINANCES OF THE CITY OF RENTON, WASHINGTON" TO COMPLETE HOUSEKEEPING AMENDMENTS TO TITLE IV AMENDMENTS MADE DURING DOCKET REVIEW. WHEREAS, the City of Renton, pursuant to the Washington State Growth Management Act, has been required to undertake docketed review of zoning text amendments; and WHEREAS, The City conducted review of housekeeping amendments and developed a 111) work program to implement needed updates of development regulations; and WHEREAS, the City Council has duly determined after due consideration of the testimony and evidence before it that specific regulations require housekeeping amendments that improve the clarity and consistency of the development standards; and WHEREAS, The City Council finds that revisions are needed to the Title IV Development Standards to correct errors of a housekeeping nature; NOW, THEREFORE, THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF RENTON, WASHINGTON, DOES ORDAIN AS FOLLOWS: SECTION I. Subsection 4-1-170A, Land Use Review Fees, is hereby amended to change the name "Conditional Approval Permit" to "Rebuild Approval Permit" as shown on Exhibit A, attached. • ORDINANCE NO. SECTION II. Subsection 4-2-010D, Zones Implementing Comprehensive Plan, is • hereby amended to correct an error in the Residential Multi-family (RMF) Implementing Zones column, from "RM-V" to "RM-U" and "RM-I" to "RM-T," and to correct an error in the Urban Center Downtown (UC-D) Implementing Zones column to add "Commercial Office CO" as shown in Exhibit B, attached. SECTION III. Subsection 4-2-020D, RESIDENTIAL-4 DU/ACRE (R-4), is corrected to reflect references to the Residential Low Density Comprehensive Plan Land Use designation and paragraph one is amended to read as follows: The Residential-4 Dwelling Units Per Net Acre Zone (R-4) is established to promote urban single family residential neighborhoods serviceable by urban utilities and containing amenity open spaces. It is intended to implement the Residential Low Density Comprehensive Plan designation. The Residential-4 DwellingUnits Per Acre Zone (R-4) will allow a maximum densityof four 4 • ( ) dwelling units per net acre. The R-4 designation serves as a transition between rural designation zones and higher density residential zones. It is intended as an intermediate lower density residential zone; applied to Residential Low Density Comprehensive Plan land use designation on the Land Use Map. SECTION IV. Subsection 4-2-020L, Commercial Arterial Zone (CA), is hereby corrected to incorporate references to the Employment Area Valley Land Use Designation and paragraph one is amended to read as follows: The purpose of the Commercial Arterial Zone (CA) is to evolve from "strip commercial" linear business districts to business areas characterized by enhanced site planning, incorporating efficient parking lot design, coordinated access, • 2 ORDINANCE NO. • amenities and boulevard treatment. The CA Zone provides for a wide variety of indoor and outdoor retail sales and services along high-volume traffic corridors. Limited residential use may be integrated into the zone if there are permanent physical connections to commercial uses. The zone includes five designated business districts along mapped corridors designed to encourage concentrated commercial activity, a focal point of pedestrian activity along the corridor and visual interest. Designated business districts include: Automall, Sunset Boulevard, Northeast Fourth, Puget Drive, and Rainier Avenue. The CA Zone is intended to implement the Commercial Corridor and Employment Area Valley Land Use Designations. SECTION V. Subsection 4-2-020N, Commercial Office Zone (CO), is hereby corrected to incorporate references to the Employment Area Valley Land Use Designation and paragraph Sone is amended to read as follows: The Commercial Office Zone (CO) is established to provide areas appropriate for professional, administrative, and business offices and related uses, offering high- quality and amenity work environments. It is intended to implement the Employment Area Valley Land Use designation and the office policies of the Commercial Corridor Land Use Comprehensive Plan designation. In addition, a mix of limited retail and service uses may be allowed to primarily support other uses within the zone, subject to special conditions. Limited light industrial activities, which can effectively blend in with an office environment, are allowed, as are medical institutions and related uses. • 3 * I ORDINANCE NO. SECTION VI. Subsection 4-2-020R, Heavy Industrial Zone (IH), is hereby corrected to • incorporate references to the Employment Area Industrial Land Use Designation and paragraph one is amended to read as follows: The purpose of the Heavy Industrial Zone (IH) is to provide areas for high- intensity industrial activities involving heavy fabrication, processing of raw materials, bulk handling and storage, construction, and heavy transportation. It is intended to implement the Employment Area Valley and Employment Area Industrial Comprehensive Plan designation. Uses in this zone may require large outdoor areas in which to conduct operations. Environmental impacts may be produced that affect off-site areas requiring isolation of the industrial activity from more sensitive land uses. Compatible uses that directly serve the needs of other uses permitted within the district are also allowed. 1111 SECTION VII. Subsection 4-2-010E, Additional Restrictions on Land Use, is amended to correct the term "Urban Center Design Overlay (Areas "A", "B", and "C")", to read "Urban Design Regulation (Areas "A", "B", "C", "D", and "E")" as shown on Exhibit C, attached. SECTION VIII. Subsection 4-2-060D, Other Residential, Lodging, and Home Occupations, line 4 is corrected to add "Congregate residence" as an administrative conditional use as shown on Exhibit D, attached. SECTION IX. Subsection 4-2-080A, Subject to the Following Conditions, Note 8 is corrected to reflect the correct zone name. Note 25 is corrected to change the reference "4-2- 060J" to "4-2-060G", Note 39 is corrected to eliminate the reference to Center Institution and to reference the boundary of the Commercial Corridor designation adjacent to the Valley Medical 4 ORDINANCE NO. • Center, and Note 40 is corrected to change "Center Institution" to "Commercial Corridor" reading as follows. 8. Allowed only in the Residential Multi-Family suffix. Twenty four (24) hour on-site management required. The manager's unit is not subject to minimum density requirements. No estate, garage or other sales from any leasable spaces. No outdoor storage, including vehicle or trailer storage lots. Self service storage uses in this zone are subject to the following special development standards: Temporary customer moving van/truck parking, if provided, must be clearly marked with signage or paint. Side and rear setbacks subject to the Commercial Arterial Zone standards of RMC 4-2-120A, Development Standards for Commercial Zoning Designations, in lieu of the RM-I development standards. 25. A preschool or day care center, when accessory to a public or community facility listed in RMC 4-2-060G, is considered a permitted use. 39. Requirements for uses not associated with a medical institution: Use must be located within the Commercial Corridor Comprehensive Plan land use designation bordered by S. 37th St., Talbot Rd, Can Rd, . 89th Ave SE, and the Valley Freeway. 40. Permitted when located within the Commercial Corridor (CC) Comprehensive Plan land use designation. SECTION X. Subsection 4-2-080B, Employment Area Valley, is hereby corrected to correspond to the Comprehensive Plan Land Use Map as shown in Exhibit E, attached. • 5 ORDINANCE NO. SECTION XI. Subsection 4-2-110A, Development Standards for Single Family 1111 Residential Zoning Designations, Setbacks section, is corrected as shown on Exhibit F, attached, to read as follows: a) Minimum Front Setback In the R-8 and R-4 Zones, delete note 6 where it occurs modifying the alley access garage. In the R-8 zone add note 6 to reference the primary structure. In the R-4 zone add note 6 to reference the phrase "except for where small lot clusters are allowed, R-8 standards shall apply" b) Add Note 13 to reference the phrase "Minimum Rear Yard", in the R-4 zone. c) Correct the language for attached garages which access from the "front and side yard" along a street to "front or side yard" along a street, SECTION XII. Subsection 4-2-110D, Conditions Associated With Development • Standards Table for Single Family Residential Zoning Designations, Note 6 and Note 13 are corrected to add the standard Minimum rear yard of twenty-five feet (25') and to read as follows: 6. A front yard setback of less than typically allowed is permitted if equal to or greater than the average of the front yard setback of the existing, abutting primary structures; however, in no case shall a minimum setback of less than twenty feet (20') be allowed for garages which access from the front yard street(s). 13. For properties vested with a complete plat application prior to November 10, 2004, and for the Mosier II, Maplewood East and Anthone, the following standards apply. Vested plats must be developed within five (5) years of preliminary plat approval and/or annexation. Maximum density—five (5) dwelling units per net acre. • 6 ORDINANCE NO. • Minimum lot size—seven thousand two hundred (7,200) sq. ft. Minimum lot width— sixty feet (60') for interior lots, seventy feet (70') for corner lots. Minimum lot depth—seventy feet (70'). Minimum front yard— fifteen feet (15') for the primary structure, twenty feet (20') for an attached or detached garage. For a unit with alley access garage, the front yard setback for the primary structure may be reduced to ten feet (10') if all parking is provided in the rear yard of the lot with access from a public right-of- way or alley. Minimum side yard along a street—fifteen feet(15'). Minimum side yard— five feet (5'). Minimum rear yard - twenty five feet(25'). SNote 6 is corrected to read as follows SECTION XIII. Subsection 4-2-120D, Illustrations, is hereby deleted. SECTION XIV. Subsection 4-3-040B1, Renton Automall District, is amended to correct the boundary of the Automall designation, to read as follows: APPLICABILITY: 1. Renton Automall District. a. Automall Area A: That area bounded by Grady Way S. on the north, Rainier Avenue S. (SR-167) on the east, 1-405 on the south, and Seneca Avenue S. on the west; and • 7 ORDINANCE NO. That area bounded by S.W. Grady Way on the north, Raymond Avenue • S.W. on the west, Seneca Avenue S.W. on the east, and the alley midway between S.W. Grady and SW 12th Street, on the south. b. Automall Area B: That area along the south side of S.W. Grady defined by the alley between S.W. Grady Way and S.W. 12th Street on the north, Seneca Avenue S.W. on the east, Raymond Avenue S.W. on the west, and I-405 on the south; That area along the south side of S.W. Grady Way west of Raymond Avenue S. between S.W. Grady Way on the north, Raymond Avenue S. on the east, a north/south line approximately four hundred feet (400') west of Raymond Avenue S.W. on the west, and I-405 on the south; That area along the north side of S.W. Grady Way west of Lind Avenue • S. bounded by S.W. Grady Way on the south, Oakesdale Avenue S.W. on the west, S.W. 10th Street on the north, and Lind Avenue S.W. on the east; That area along the north side of S.W. Grady Way between Lind Avenue to the west and Rainier Avenue S. on the east. Beginning at a point approximately four hundred feet (400') north of S.W. Grady Way along the east side of Lind Avenue S.W. on the west, then east for a distance of approximately three hundred twenty five feet (325'), then south to a point approximately one hundred eighty feet (180') north of S.W. Grady Way, then east from this point parallel to S.W. Grady Way to a point approximately ninety feet (90') west of Rainier Avenue S., • 8 ORDINANCE NO. • then north from this point approximately sixty feet (60'), then west approximately fifty feet (50'), and then north approximately two hundred fifteen feet (215') and then east approximately one hundred sixty feet(160') to Rainier Avenue S. on the east; That area north of South 7th Street and west of Hardie Avenue generally described as the area beginning at the northwest corner of South 7th Street and Hardie Avenue S. and then proceeding west approximately four hundred twenty five feet (425'), then north approximately four hundred fifty feet (450') to the southern edge of the Burlington Northern Railroad right-of-way, then east along the railroad right-of-way approximately two hundred thirty five feet (235') to Hardie Avenue and then south along Hardie Avenue to the beginning point; • That area north of South 7th Street between Hardie Avenue on the west, the Burlington Northern Railroad right-of-way on the north, and Rainier Avenue on the east; That area north of South 7th Street between Rainier Avenue S. on the west, a line approximately one hundred ninety feet (190') north of and parallel to South 7th Street on the north, and Shattuck Avenue S. on the east; The triangular area on the south side of South 7th Street between Hardie Avenue on the west and Rainier Avenue on the east; • 9 ORDINANCE NO. The larger area north of S. Grady Way between Rainier Avenue on the • west and Shattuck Avenue S. on the east between South 7th Street on the north and S. Grady Way on the south; That area north of S. Grady Way between Shattuck Avenue S. on the west, the northern edge of the former railroad right-of-way approximately one hundred fifty feet (150') north of S. Grady Way, and Talbot Road/Smithers Avenue S. on the east; That area along the south side of S. Grady Way between SR- 167/Rainier Avenue S. on the west and a north/south line approximately one thousand six hundred thirty feet (1,630') east of SR-167 on the east, S. Grady Way on the north, and on the south, west along S. Renton Village Place approximately one hundred seventy five feet (175') to the 1111 1998 zoning boundary between the CA Zone and the CO Zone on the south; and That area along the south side of S. Grady Way east of Talbot Road bounded by Talbot Road on the west, S. Grady Way on the northwest, Renton City Hall on the north/northeast, Benson Road S. on the east/southeast, and the I-405 right-of-way on the south. 2. N.E. Sunset Boulevard Business District: That area (RMC 4-3-040H) along NE Sunset Blvd. from east of Duvall Ave. NE to west of Union Ave. NE. • 10 ORDINANCE NO. • 3. Northeast Fourth Business District: That area (RMC 4-3-040I) along NE 3rd and 4th Streets between Queen Ave. NE on the west and Field Ave. NE on the east. 4. Rainier Ave. Business District: The area (RMC 4-3-040J) north of South 2nd Street on the north and the Houser railroad trestle on the south to the Renton Automall District. (Amd. Ord. 4839, 5-8-2000) 5. Puget Drive Business District: The area (RMC 4-3-040K) along Benson Road South and Puget Drive South that is south of Interstate 405 and north of the intersection of Puget Drive South and Benson Road South. (Ord. 5191, 12-12-2005) SECTION XV. Subsection 4-3-040G, Maps of Overlay Automall Districts, is amended to correct the boundary Map for the Automall as shown on Exhibit G. 110 SECTION XVI. Subsection 4-3-040D, Development Standards for Uses located within the Renton Automall - Areas A and B, Automall Improvement Plan Compliance, is corrected change the resolution reference number to read as follows: All development shall All development shall coordinate with the Automall coordinate with the Automall AUTOMALL Improvement Plan adopted by Improvement Plan adopted by IMPROVEMENT Resolution No. 3457. The plan Resolution No. 3457. The plan PLAN addresses potential street addresses potential street COMPLIANCE vacations, right-of-way vacations, right-of-way improvements, area gateways, improvements, area gateways, signage, landscaping, signage, landscaping, 11 ORDINANCE NO. circulation, and shared access. circulation, and shared access. • SECTION XVII. Subsection 4-3-050Q4, Streams and Lakes, is amended to correct the Streams and Lakes Map to reflect the reclassification of a Class 4 stream at 104th Ave SE and S. 32"d Place, King County Parcel 32923059010,and the reclassification of an unmapped Class 4 stream at Honey Creek View Estates, as shown on Exhibit H. SECTION XVIII. Subsection 4-3-100A2 regarding design standards and guidelines specific to District "A", is corrected to reference zoning names for areas within the Urban Center - Downtown and amended to read as follows: The purpose of this Section is to: 1. Establish design review regulations in accordance with policies established in the Land Use and Community Design Elements of the Renton Comprehensive • Plan in order to: a. Maintain and protect property values; b. Enhance the general appearance of the City; c. Encourage creativity in building and site design; d. Achieve predictability, balanced with flexibility; and e. Consider the individual merits of proposals. 2. Create design standards and guidelines specific to District 'A' that ensure design quality of structures and site development implementing the City of Renton's Comprehensive Plan Vision for portions of the Urban Center - Downtown zoned Center Downtown and Residential Multi-Family Urban Center. This Vision is of a downtown that will continue to develop into an efficient and III 12 ORDINANCE NO. • attractive urban city. The Vision of the Downtown Core is of mixed uses with high-density residential living supported by multi-modal transit opportunities. Redevelopment will be based on the pattern and scale of established streets and buildings. SECTION XIX. Subsection 4-3-100B4, Urban Design District, is amended to show the correct name of the Urban Design District Map as shown in Exhibit I, attached. SECTION XX. Subsection 4-3-10013, Building Roof Lines, is corrected to re- number section a. Minimum Standards for Districts 'A', 'C' and 'D' as follows: i. Buildings shall use at least one of the following elements to create varied and interesting roof profiles (see illustration, subsection I5f of this Section): (a) Extended parapets; (b) Feature elements projecting above parapets; • (c) Projected cornices; (d) Pitched or sloped roofs. ii. Locate and screen roof-mounted mechanical equipment so that the equipment is not visible within one hundred fifty feet (150') of the structure when viewed from ground level. iii. Screening features shall blend with the architectural character of the building, consistent with RMC 4-4-095E, Roof-Top Equipment. iv. Match color of roof-mounted mechanical equipment to color of exposed portions of the roof to minimize visual impacts when equipment is visible from higher elevations. SECTION XXI. Subsection 4-4-070E4, Plants, is corrected to read: • 13 ORDINANCE NO. 4. Plants: all plants specified shall be adapted to the site (sun exposure, cold • hardiness, moisture requirements, soil type, soil pH, etc) in addition: a. All plant material shall meet the most recent American Standards for Nursery plant Stock (ANSI Z60.1-2004). SECTION XXII. Subsection 4-4-070D3, Residential Rear/Sideyard/Landscaping along Streets, line 6 is corrected to read "right of way". D. GENERAL LANDSCAPE REQUIREMENTS: 3. Residential Rear/Side Yard/Landscaping Along Streets: When rear or side yards are along property lines abutting a street, there shall be a minimum five-foot (5') planting area in the public right-of-way. This will necessitate setting any future fencing back from the edge of the right-of-way so that the landscaping is visible from the street. Landscaping is required prior to occupancy. Maintenance • of such areas shall be the responsibility of the property owner(s). The maintenance requirement may necessitate provision of a gate in the fence to access the planting area. SECTION XXIII. Subsection 4-4-080E1B, Attached Dwellings Greater Than Three (3) Units, is corrected to clarify the parking requirement for 3 or more units and is amended to read as follows: 1. On-Site Parking Required: Required parking as specified herein shall be provided upon property in the same ownership as the property upon which the building or use requiring the specified parking is located or upon leased parking. Off-street parking facilities shall be located as hereinafter specified: 14 ORDINANCE NO. • a. Detached, Semi-Attached and Two (2) Attached Dwellings: On the same lot with the building they are required to serve. b. Attached Dwellings Three (3) or More Units: May be on contiguous lot with the building they are required to serve; provided, the provisions of subsection E2 (Off-Site Parking) of this Section are complied with. SECTION XXIV. Subsection 4-4-080F10e, Number of Required Spaces, is corrected to add parking for existing legal detached dwellings in the downtown core as shown on Exhibit J, attached. SECTION XXV. Subsection 4-9-180F1b, Line 3 is changed to correctly spell "policies" to read as follows: b. The property is potentially classified for the proposed zone being requested pursuant to the policies set forth in the Comprehensive Plan. 0 SECTION XXVI. Section 4-11-020, Definitions B, is amended to move the reference to "Big-Box Retail: See Retail, Big-Box" to occur alphabetically proceedin "Binding Site Plan." SECTION XXVII. Section 4-11-180, Definitions R, is amended to correct the definition of"Retail, Big Box" as follows: RETAIL, BIG-BOX: An indoor retail or wholesale use in a building no less than seventy five thousand (75,000) square feet of gross floor area and typically requires a high parking to building area ratio. Big-box retail buildings are typically single-story structures, but with a mass that stands more than thirty (30') feet tall. Big-box retail/wholesale sales can include, but are not limited to, membership warehouse clubs that emphasize bulk sales, discount stores, and • 15 ORDINANCE NO. outlet stores. This definition excludes vehicle sales, outdoor retail sales, and adult retail uses. SECTION XXVIII. Section 4-11-070, Definitions G, is amended to remove the term "grid-like street pattern" and Section 4-11-190, Definitions S, is amended to add "street grid pattern, modified". STREET GRID PATTERN, MODIFIED): A street system based upon a traditional grid pattern; however, offset intersections, loop roads, as well as angled or curved road segments may also be utilized on a limited basis. The block pattern is characterized by regular (i.e., rectangular or trapezoidal) blocks STREET GRID PATTERN, TRADITIONAL: A system of platting, or of street design, that features parallel and perpendicular streets and intersections of streets at right angles that form short blocks. • SECTION XXIX. Subsection 8-1-4L, Unlawful Placement and Removal of Garbage Cans, Recycling Bins and Yard Waste Carts in Business Areas, is corrected to remove a discontinued zone name and is amended to read as follows: L. It shall be unlawful for any person accumulating garbage, recyclables, and yard waste in the Center Downtown Zone, Center Neighborhood Zone, Commercial Arterial Zone, or Center Village Zone as set forth in RMC 4-2-020, whose location requires the placing of garbage cans or units, recycling bins or yard waste carts on sidewalks or alleys for collection, to place garbage cans or units, recycling bins or yard waste carts on sidewalks or alleys earlier than 5:00 p.m. It shall also be unlawful for any person who owns, leases or rents any garbage can or unit, recycling bins or yard waste carts in the zones referenced • 16 ORDINANCE NO. • above to fail to remove their garbage, recycling and yard waste containers from sidewalks or alleys by 9:30 a.m. following collection of the garbage, recyclables or yard waste, except that if collection has not occurred by the City's collection contractor, then the garbage cans or units, recycling bins or yard waste carts shall be immediately removed following collection. SECTION XXX. This Ordinance shall be effective upon its passage, approval, and thirty days after its publication. PASSED BY THE CITY COUNCIL this day of , 2008. Bonnie I. Walton, City Clerk • APPROVED BY THE MAYOR this day of , 2008. Denis Law, Mayor Approved as to form: Lawrence J. Warren, City Attorney Date of Publication: ORD:1424:1/18/08:scr • 17 CITY OF RENTON, WASHINGTON • ORDINANCE NO. AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF RENTON, WASHINGTON, AMENDING CHAPTER 1, ADMINISTRATION AND ENFORCEMENT; CHAPTER 2, ZONING DISTRICTS — USES AND STANDARDS; CHAPTER 4, CITY WIDE PROPERTY DEVELOPMENT STANDARDS; CHAPTER 8, PERMITS — GENERAL AND APPEALS; CHAPTER 9, PERMITS — SPECIFIC AND CHAPTER 11, DEFINITIONS, OF TITLE IV (DEVELOPMENT REGULATIONS); CHAPTER 4, ANIMAL LICENSES, OF TITLE V (FINANCE AND BUSINESS REGULATIONS) AND CHAPTER 6, ANIMALS AND FOWL AT LARGE, OF TITLE VI (POLICE REGULATIONS) OF ORDINANCE NO. 4260 ENTITLED "CODE OF GENERAL ORDINANCES OF THE CITY OF RENTON, WASHINGTON" TO AMEND THE REGULATIONS REGARDING THE KEEPING OF ANIMALS. WHEREAS, the City recognizes that animal owners keep their animals for a variety of reasons including, but not limited to, companionship, affection and protection; and • WHEREAS, the City seeks to set standards that ensure the keeping of animals occurs in a humane and appropriate manner that benefits the animals and allows animals to coexist harmoniously with adjacent and abutting uses; and WHEREAS, the City seeks to be responsive to citizens requests for greater flexibility in the minimum lot sizes required to keep certain types of animals; and WHEREAS, this matter was duly referred to the Planning Commission for investigation and study, and said matter having been duly considered by the Planning Commission, and said zoning text amendment request being in conformity with the City's Comprehensive Plan, as amended; and WHEREAS, the City Council held a second public hearing on January 28, 2008 having duly considered all matters relevant thereto, and all parties having been heard appearing in • support thereof or in opposition thereto; ORDINANCE NO. • NOW, THEREFORE, THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF RENTON, WASHINGTON, DOES ORDAIN AS FOLLOWS: SECTION I. Subsection 4-1-170A, Land Use Review Fees of Chapter 1, Administration and Enforcement, of Title IV (Development Regulations) of Ordinance No. 4260 entitled "Code of General Ordinances of the City of Renton, Washington" is hereby amended to change the name of the "Hobby Kennel License" to "Additional Animals Permit", to amend the parenthetical note which reads "(one time fee)" to read "(annual fee)" and to amend the fee amount from $20.00 to $50.00. SECTION II. Subsection 4-2-050A, Categories of Land Uses Established, of Chapter 2, Zoning Districts — Uses and Standards, of Title IV (Development Regulations) of Ordinance No. 4260 entitled "Code of General Ordinances of the City of Renton, Washington" is • hereby amended so that Accessory Uses reads: ACCESSORY USES: Uses customarily incidental and subordinate to the principal use and located upon the same lot occupied by the principal use or on an abutting/adjacent lot that is under the same ownership as the principal lot. Some accessory uses are specifically listed, particularly where a use is only allowed in an accessory form, whereas other accessory uses are determined by the Development Services Division on a case-by-case basis per RMC 4-2-050C4 and C6, Accessory Use Interpretations and Unclassified Uses. SECTION III. Subsection 4-2-060B, Zoning Use Table—Uses Allowed in Zoning Designations, Animals and Related Uses, of Chapter 2, Zoning Districts—Uses and Standards, of Title IV (Development Regulations) of Ordinance No. 4260 entitled "Code of General • 2 ORDINANCE NO. • Ordinances of the City of Renton, Washington" is hereby amended to completely strike the rows associated with and the words: "Animal husbandry (20 or fewer small animals per acre)", "Animal husbandry (4 or fewer medium animals per acre)", "Animal husbandry (maximum of 2 large animals per acre), "Greater number of animals than allowed above", "Kennels, hobby", and "Pets, common household, up to 3 per dwelling unit or business establishment". SECTION IV. Section 4-2-070, Zoning Use Tables of Chapter 2, Zoning Districts — Uses and Standards, of Title IV (Development Regulations) of Ordinance No. 4260 entitled "Code of General Ordinances of the City of Renton, Washington" are hereby amended to completely strike all of the rows associated with and all instances of the words: "Animal husbandry (20 or fewer small animals per acre)", "Animal husbandry (4 or fewer medium animals per acre)", "Animal husbandry (maximum of 2 large animals per acre), "Greater number of animals than allowed above", "Kennels, hobby", and "Pets, common household, up to 3 per dwelling unit or business establishment". SECTION V. Section 4-2-080, Conditions Associated With Zoning Use Tables, Subsection A, titled Subject to the Following Conditions, of Chapter 2, Zoning Districts — Uses and Standards, of Title IV (Development Regulations) of Ordinance No. 4260 entitled "Code of General Ordinances of the City of Renton, Washington" is hereby amended to strike note 36 and note 51, re-number the remaining notes accordingly and, to amend note 37 to read as follows: 37. a. General Requirements: Subject to requirements of RMC 4-4-010, Standards for Accessory .to Residential/Commercial Animal Keeping. Additional Animals require an Additional Animals Permit per RMC 4-9- 100. • 3 ORDINANCE NO. s b. IL Zone—Kennels: In the IL Zone, when operations are predominantly conducted out of doors rather than completely enclosed within an enclosed structure, an administrative conditional use permit is required. c. IM Zone — Kennels: Within the area south of I-405 and north of SW 16th Street only indoor kennels are permitted. SECTION VI. Chapter 4, City-Wide Property Development Standards, the Chapter Guide statement of Title IV (Development Regulations) of Ordinance No. 4260 entitled "Code of General Ordinances of the City of Renton, Washington" is hereby amended to read: CHAPTER GUIDE: Chapter 4-4 contains regulations and standards governing site development of property City-wide, such as parking, landscaping, fencing, and others. This Chapter does not contain procedural information. Related permit • processes (e.g., additional animals permit, parking modification, routine vegetation management permit, grading, excavation and mining permits, etc.) are located in chapters 4-8 and 4-9 RMC. SECTION VII. Section 4-4-010, Standards and Review Criteria for Keeping Animals, of Chapter 4, City-Wide Property Development Standards, of Title IV (Development Regulations) of Ordinance No. 4260 entitled "Code of General Ordinances of the City of Renton, Washington" is hereby amended to read as follows: 4-4-010 STANDARDS FOR ANIMAL KEEPING ACCESSORY TO RESIDENTIAL/COMMERCIAL USES: • 4 ORDINANCE NO. • A. PURPOSE AND INTENT: Animal owners keep their animals for a variety of reasons including, but not limited to companionship, affection, and protection. The regulations in this section set standards intended to require that the keeping of animals occurs in a humane and appropriate manner that benefits the animals and allows animals to coexist harmoniously with adjacent and abutting uses. B. APPLICABILITY: The keeping of household pets and/or domestic animals up to the maximum number allowed in section 4-4-010 and/or section 4-9-100 Additional Animals Permit by an owner/tenant for the purpose of enjoyment is permitted outright as an accessory use to residential or commercial use subject to the requirements of this section and section 4-5-050A Accessory Use. The keeping of such animals in a manner consistent with the standards in this chapter shall not constitute a nuisance or public disturbance in accordance with RMC 1-3-3 and RMC 8-7-3. C. AUTHORITY: 1. Responsibility: Responsibility for enforcement of this Section will be determined administratively. Responsibility for enforcement of the provisions of this Section shall generally be as follows: a. Animal Control Officer: All those matters related to care, maintenance, and individual licensing. b. Development Services Division: All those matters concerning land use and zoning. • 5 ORDINANCE NO. • D. NUMBER OF ANIMALS ALLOWED: 1. Household Pets. Three (3) household pets may be kept per single-family residence, residential unit, or commercial building. On single-family residential lots that are larger than 20,000 gross square feet, one additional household pet may be kept per additional 10,000 gross square feet in lot size. The keeping of four (4) or more dogs and/or cats shall always require obtainment of an Additional Animals Permit (RMC 4-9-100) or a Conditional Use permit for a Kennel (RMC 4-9-030). 2. Domestic Animals. Domestic animals, as defined in Subsection 4-11- 010A, are allowed to be kept in residential zoning designations. All domestic animals must be kept outdoors and confined in a dedicated shelter, pen, and/or open-run area. Small lot domestic animals, as defined in Subsection 4-11- 010A, may be kept in addition to household pets, medium lot domestic animals, as defined in Subsection 4-11-010A, and/or large lot domestic animals, as defined in Subsection 4-11-010A. When the total number of any combination of medium lot domestic animals, large lot domestic animals, and/or household pets at the property is greater than four (4) total animals, an Additional Animals Permit (RMC 4-9-100) shall be required. The specified minimum lot sizes are absolute requirements; variances, waivers, and/or modifications (RMC 4-9-250) may not be granted. 6 ORDINANCE NO. • a. Two (2) large lot domestic animals may be kept on lots that are at least one gross acre in size. On lots that are larger than one gross acre, one (1) additional large lot domestic animal may be kept per additional 20,000 gross square feet in lot size. a. Two (2) medium lot domestic animals may be kept on lots that are at least 12,500 gross square feet in size. On lots that are larger than 12,500 gross square feet, one (1) additional medium lot domestic animal may be kept per additional 7,500 gross square feet in lot size. c. Three (3) small lot domestic animals may be kept on lots that are at least 6,000 gross square feet in size. On lots that are larger than 6,000 11111 gross square feet, one (1) additional small lot domestic animal may be kept per additional 2,000 gross square feet in lot size. E. KEEPING GREATER NUMBER OF ANIMALS THAN ALLOWED: 1. Greater numbers of animals than allowed in 4-4-010D may be allowed subject to an Additional Animals Permit(RMC 4-9-100). 2. Occasional breeders are permitted to keep a greater number of animals than allowed on a temporary basis, not to exceed 120 days when those animals are less than 120 days old. 3. Animal foster care providers shall be allowed to keep a greater number of household pets than permitted outright provided they obtain an Additional Animals Permit. • 7 ORDINANCE NO. 1110 F. HOME OCCUPATIONS: The keeping of household pets or domestic animals for the purposes of sale, boarding, or any for-profit venture in all residential and mixed-use zones requires a Home Occupation permit, RMC 4-9-090. Any owner/tenant who keeps household pets and/or domestic animals and sells any animal related product, made from or produced by their household pets and/or domestic animals, shall be required to obtain a Home Occupation permit, RMC 4-9-090. Keeping animals for commercial purposes that exceed the standards of a Home Occupation accessory use requires approval pursuant to RMC 4-2-060 Uses Allowed in Zoning Designations. G. GENERAL STANDARDS FOR KEEPING ANIMALS: • 1. Shelter Location: Shelters, pens, and permanent/temporary kennel structures shall be located a minimum of ten feet (10') from any property line and in the rear yard unless the Development Services Division, based upon information provided by an owner/tenant, determines that a side yard would be a better location. Private barns and stables shall be located a minimum of fifty feet (50') from any property line. Barns and stables may not be located in attached garages or carports. 2. Confinement: All animals shall be kept and maintained in a manner which confines their movement and activity to the premises of the owner/tenant. a. Dog-runs, open-run areas, and permanent/temporary kennel structures shall be surrounded by a fence of adequate height, located a minimum of • 8 ORDINANCE NO. • ten feet (10') from any property line, and located in the rear yard unless the Development Services Division, based upon information provided by an owner/tenant, determines that a side yard would be a better location. Electric and barbed wire fences may be used, provided the conditions of RMC 4-4-040, Fences and Hedges, are met. b. On lots that are larger that one gross acre in size, dog-runs, open-run areas, and permanent/temporary kennel structures may be located closer than ten feet (10') to a property line if the dog-run, open-run area, and/or permanent/temporary kennel structure is no closer than one hundred feet (100') to any dwelling unit and the location is approved by Development • Services. 3. Health and Safety: All animals shall be kept in such a manner so as not to create any objectionable noise, odor, or annoyance or become a public nuisance. Provision shall be made to ensure that animal food stored outdoors will not attract rodents, insects, or other animals. 4. Animal Waste and Food Waste: All shelter structures, confinement areas, and/or open-run areas shall be kept clean. Provision shall be made for the removal of animal waste and food waste so that the areas are kept free from infestation of insects, rodents, or disease, as well as to prevent obnoxious or foul odors. Animal waste shall be properly disposed of, and any accumulated animal waste must not be stored within the shelter setback area. Any storage • of animal waste must not constitute a nuisance as defined in chapter 1-3 RMC. 9 ORDINANCE NO. H. ADDITIONAL STANDARDS FOR KENNELS AND STABLES: 1. Shelter and Structures: Shelter shall be provided for animals in clean structures which shall be kept structurally sound, maintained in good repair, contain the animals, and restrict entrance of other animals. All structures associated with kennels and stables shall be located a minimum of fifty feet (50') from any property line and must be located in a rear yard. On lots that are larger than one gross acre in size, exercising, training, and/or riding areas may be located closer than fifty feet (50') from a property line if the exercising, training, and/or riding areas are no closer than one hundred feet (100') to any dwelling unit and the location is approved by Development Services. 2. Food and Bedding: Suitable food and bedding shall be provided and stored in facilities adequate to provide protection against infestation or contamination by insects or rodents. Refrigeration shall be provided for the protection of perishable foods. 3. Criteria for Indoor Kennel Facilities: Applicants for kennels must show that indoor facilities have a sufficient heating and cooling system to provide a moderate temperature throughout the year; a sufficient ventilation system to circulate the air; an adequate natural or artificial lighting system to allow inspection and cleaning at any time of the day and that interior wall and ceiling surfaces are constructed of materials which are resistant to the absorption of moisture and odors. • 10 ORDINANCE NO. • 4. Criteria for Outdoor Kennel Facilities: Outdoor facilities will be constructed to provide shelter from the weather and associated elements while providing sufficient space for animal movement and exercise. Adequate drainage must be provided to prevent water buildup and subsequent damage and to facilitate waste removal. Adequate fences or retaining walls must be constructed to contain animals and prevent intrusion by others. I. ADDITIONAL STANDARDS FOR BEEKEEPING: 1. Minimum Setback: Hives shall be located a minimum of twenty-five feet (25') from an interior lot line, with the hive(s) entrance(s) facing away from the nearest property line. Hives shall be located a minimum of one hundred • feet (100') from public and/or private rights-of-way or access easements. 2. Maintenance Standards: a. Hives shall be maintained to avoid overpopulation and minimize swarming, for example by requeening regularly, so as not to become a nuisance. b. Hives shall be marked or identified to notify visitors. J. REVIEW CRITERIA FOR ADDITIONAL ANIMALS PERMITS: Special review criteria to be considered by the Reviewing Official for Additional Animals Permits are included in RMC 4-9-100. K. REVIEW CRITERIA FOR KENNELS AND STABLES: Special review criteria to be considered by the Reviewing Official for Additional • Animal Permits are included in RMC 4-9-100. 11 ORDINANCE NO. • L. PROHIBITED ANIMALS: Animals that are wild or dangerous are prohibited pursuant to RMC 6-6-12. M. VIOLATIONS AND PENALTIES: 1. Compliance with Current Code Regulations: If the keeping of animals does not comply with these regulations and is not classified as a nonconforming use, the owner shall have to comply with the Code regulations. 2. Fines: Violation of land use permits granted is subject to fines established in this Code. All other violations of police regulations shall be administered in accordance with Chapter 6-6 RMC, Animals and Fowl at Large. SECTION VIII. Section 4-8-080, Permit Classification, Subsection G, Land Use • Permit Procedures of Chapter 8, Permits - General and Appeals, of Title IV (Development Regulations) of Ordinance No. 4260 entitled "Code of General Ordinances of the City of Renton, Washington" is hereby amended so that the "Hobby Kennel License" in the Type II Land Use Permit section reads "Additional Animals Permit", and Section H, Review Processes Type II — Land Use Permits Administrative Review Process timeline, is amended so that "Hobby Kennel License" reads "Additional Animals Permit". SECTION IX. Section 4-8-120, Submittal Requirements— Specific to Application Type, Subsection C, Land Use Permit Submittal Requirements of Chapter 8, Permits — General and Appeals, City-Wide Property Development Standards, of Title IV (Development Regulations) of Ordinance No. 4260 entitled "Code of General Ordinances of the City of Renton, Washington" is hereby amended to strike the entire column associated with and the words • 12 • ORDINANCE NO. "Kennel License" and to amend the name "Kennel License, Kennel" to read "Additional Animals Permit" and place it in alphabetical order in the table. SECTION X. Section 4-9-090, Home Occupations, Subsection A, Definitions, of Chapter 9 Permits — Specific, of Title IV (Development Regulations) of Ordinance No. 4260 entitled "Code of General Ordinances of the City of Renton, Washington" is hereby amended to read: A. DEFINITION: Any commercial use conducted entirely within a dwelling or garage and carried on by persons residing in that dwelling unit which is clearly incidental and secondary to the use of the dwelling as a residence. An accessory structure that • provides shelter for domestic animals or household pets is allowed to be part of the business use when the household pets or domestic animals are a component of the commercial use. SECTION XI: Section 4-9-090, Home Occupations, Subsection F, Application and Review Procedures, part 4 Qualification Standards, items h and m of Chapter 9, Permits — Specific, of Title IV (Development Regulations) of Ordinance No. 4260 entitled "Code of General Ordinances of the City of Renton, Washington" are hereby amended to read: h. Outdoor Storage: The outdoor storage or display of materials, goods, products or equipment is prohibited. Domestic animals or household pets kept as an accessory use and utilized as a component of a home occupation are excluded from this provision. • 13 ORDINANCE NO. • m. Accessory Structures: Existing garages with adequate access may be used for home occupations; provided, that the property still complies with the parking requirements of the zone. Other accessory structures, such as carports and tool sheds, shall not be used for any activities associated with the business other than storage. Such storage shall be completely enclosed and not be visible from outside the accessory structure. Accessory structures providing shelter.for domestic animals or household pets that are a component of the home occupation are allowed. SECTION XII: Section 4-9-090, Home Occupations, Subsection G, Additional Requirements for Customer Visits or Deliveries, part 2 Inspection of Chapter 9, Permits — Specific, of Title IV (Development Regulations) of Ordinance No. 4260 entitled "Code of • General Ordinances of the City of Renton, Washington" is hereby amended to read: 2. Inspection: The Zoning Administrator or designated staff may inspect the property prior to approval or renewal of the business license to determine if: a. the information in the application is correct, and b. the property can accommodate a home occupation without changing the residential character of the premises, and c. any domestic animals or household pets kept as a component of the home occupation are maintained in a humane and appropriate manner. SECTION XIII. Section 4-9-100, Hobby Kennel License Process of Chapter 9 Permits - Specific, of Title IV (Development Regulations) of Ordinance No. 4260 entitled "Code of General Ordinances of the City of Renton, Washington" is hereby amended to read: • 14 • ORDINANCE NO. 4-9-100 ADDITIONAL ANIMALS PERMIT PROCESS: A. PURPOSE: (Reserved) B. APPLICABILITY: Additional Animals Permits are issued to an individual and held by that individual as long as they occupy the address where the keeping of additional animals has been approved and the animal use remains accessory. The permit is not transferable to a different individual or a different property. C. EXEMPTIONS: (Reserved) D. AUTHORITY AND RESPONSIBILITY: The Development Services Division, when satisfied that all requirements for an • Additional Animals Permit are met, shall approve the issuance of the Additional Animals Permit. The number of animals allowed with the Additional Animals Permit is at the discretion of the Reviewing Official and/or the inspecting Animal Control Officer, not to exceed a maximum of six (6) dogs and/or cats. If the Additional Animals Permit involves a use that also requires a Home Occupation Permit (RMC 4-9-090), the Development Services Division shall provide documentation to the Finance Department that the keeping of additional animals complies with the requirements of this Section. E. SUBMITTAL REQUIREMENTS AND FEES: Fees shall be as listed in RMC 4-1-170, and Submittal Requirements shall be as listed in 4-8-120C. • 15 ORDINANCE NO. • F. NOTIFICATION AND COMMENT PERIOD: 1. Notification: Public notice shall be accomplished consistent with RMC 4- 8-090, Public Notice Requirements. Property owners within three hundred feet (300') of the applicant's property shall be notified of the application. The applicant is responsible for providing current mailing labels and postage to the Development Services Division. 2. Comment Period and Decision: The notice of application comment period shall expire prior to the issuance of a decision by the Development Services Division Director or designee. The Director may approve, conditionally approve, or deny the proposed application. G. DECISION CRITERIA: • The Development Services Division Director shall review requests for Additional Animals Permits for compatibility of the proposal with the surrounding neighborhood. In order to determine that the site and facility will be adequate and to ensure the humane and appropriate care of the animals, the Development Services Director may require that the property be inspected by an Animal Control Officer. Factors to be considered in determining compatibility and adequacy are: 1. The keeping of additional animals will not have an adverse effect on abutting or adjacent properties or cause a detriment to the community. 2. The past history of animal control complaints regarding animals kept by the applicant. • 16 ORDINANCE NO. 0 3. Adequate and appropriate facility and rear yard specifications/dimensions exist that ensure the health and safety of the animals. The facility for medium lot and large lot domestic animals must include a grassy or vegetated area. 4. The animal size, type, and characteristics of breed. 5. The manner in which the animal waste will be managed. 6. The zoning classification of the premises on which the keeping of additional animals is to occur. 7. If the application is for the keeping of additional large lot animals, the applicant shall provide a copy of an adopted farm management plan based on King County Conservation District's Farm Conservation and Practice 1 0 Standards which shows that there is adequate pasturage to support a greater number of animals. 8. If the application is for an animal foster care provider, the applicant shall keep paperwork for all foster animals which states that the animals are foster animals from a sponsoring organization. Such paperwork shall be provided upon request to City officials. 9. Compliance with the requirements of RMC 4-4-010, Standards and Review Criteria for Keeping Animals. H. CONDITIONS: The Development Services Division Director or designee, in reviewing an Additional Animals Permit application, may require soundproofing of structures • as it deems necessary to ensure the compatibility of the proposal for additional 17 ORDINANCE NO. • animals with the surrounding neighborhood. Other conditions may be applied based upon the determination of the Director or designee that conditions are warranted to meet the purpose and intent of applicable regulations and decision criteria. I. PERIOD OF VALIDITY, INDIVIDUAL PERMITS: An Additional Animals Permit shall be annually renewed and valid as long as the operator is in compliance with the City requirements and has not had the Additional Animals Permit and/or related home occupation license revoked or renewal refused. In addition, all animals that are required to be licensed shall be individually licensed according to the regulations found in chapter 5-4 RMC, Animal Licenses. Failure to renew animal licenses as required in RMC 5-4 shall • trigger review and/or revocation of the Additional Animals Permit. J. VIOLATION AND PENALTIES: 1. Revocation of Additional Animals Permit: If, after conducting an investigation the Development Services Director finds that keeping of additional animals is in violation of the provisions of this Section and/or the terms and conditions subject thereto, he or she may revoke the Additional Animals Permit. 2. Revocation of Business License: Upon findings of violation, if the Additional Animals Permit holder also has a home occupation business license the Reviewing Official shall refer the findings to the City Finance and • 18 ORDINANCE NO. • Information Services Director who may revoke the home occupation business license pursuant to RMC 5-5-3G, General Business License Penalties. 3. License — Waiting Period Following Revocation or Refusal to Renew: For a period of one year after the date of revocation or refusal to renew, permits shall not be issued for additional animals to applicants who have previously had such permit revoked or renewal refused. In addition, the applicant must meet the requirements of this Section or any provisions of the animal control authority. 4. Violations of This Chapter and Penalties: Notwithstanding the revocation powers of the Finance and Information Services Director and the • Development Services Director, and unless otherwise specified, violations of this Section are misdemeanors subject to RMC 1-3-1. K. APPEAL: The applicant or a citizen may appeal the decision of the Reviewing Official pursuant to RMC 4-8-110, Appeals. SECTION XIV. Subsection 4-11-010A of Chapter 11, Definitions, of Title IV (Development Regulations) of Ordinance No. 4260 entitled "Code of General Ordinances of the City of Renton, Washington" is hereby amended to add certain definitions and alter certain definitions and place them in alphabetical order. Those definitions are to read: ADDITIONAL ANIMALS LICENSE: An annually renewed license issued by the Finance Department to individuals permitted to keep additional animals. • 19 ORDINANCE NO. • ADDITIONAL ANIMALS PERMIT: A conditionally granted permit for the keeping household pets and/or domestic animals, when they are accessory, at greater numbers than allowed outright. For dogs, /or combinations of dogs and cats the maximum number allowable with this permit is six (6). Animals kept in small animal hospitals, clinics, pet shops, or grooming services are excluded from this definition. ANIMALS, DOMESTIC: Animals that have been bred to be tame, are dependent on human intervention for food and shelter, and are kept continually at the premises of the owner. These animals are to include: large lot domestic animals, medium lot domestic animals, small lot domestic animals, and other animals as approved by the Development Services Director. Bees, peafowl, and • roosters are excluded from this definition. ANIMAL FOSTER CARE PROVIDER: A homeowner and/or tenant who cares for an animal or animals not considered their household pet/pets or domestic animal/animals on a temporary basis that is not longer than 120 days per animal. ANIMAL HUSBANDRY: The raising of domestic animals other than common household pets. ANIMALS, DOMESTIC — LARGE LOT: Animals that require at least one acre lot size; to include horses, ponies, donkeys, cows, llamas, goats, pigs, oxen, and other animals of similar size and characteristics as approved by the Development Services Director. • 20 ORDINANCE NO. • ANIMALS, DOMESTIC—MEDIUM LOT: Animal that require at least 12,500 gross square feet lot size; to include ducks, geese, sheep, miniature goats that are smaller than twenty-four inches (24") at the shoulder and/or not more than 150 pounds in weight, and other animals of similar size and characteristics as approved by the Development Services Director. ANIMALS, DOMESTIC — SMALL LOT: Animals that require at least 6,000 gross square feet lot size; to include rabbits, chickens, pigeons, and other animals of similar size and characteristics as approved by the Development Services Director. • SECTION XV. Subsection 4-11-110K of Chapter 11, Definitions, of Title IV 411) (Development Regulations) of Ordinance No. 4260 entitled "Code of General Ordinances of the City of Renton, Washington" is hereby amended to strike the definition of Kennel, Hobby. SECTION XVI. Subsection 4-11-1500 of Chapter 11, Definitions, of Title IV (Development Regulations) of Ordinance No. 4260 entitled "Code of General Ordinances of the City of Renton, Washington" is hereby amended to add two new definitions and place them in alphabetical order. The new definitions are to read: OCCASIONAL BREEDER: An owner/tenant with household pets and/or domestic animals that has a single litter no more frequently than one time every two years and keep the offspring no longer than 120 days. OPEN RUN AREA: An enclosed area that allows domestic animals and/or household pets to move about freely within the confines of the enclosure. 21 ORDINANCE NO. • Fencing such as residential fencing that is typically located along property lines and encloses residential yards is excluded from this definition. SECTION XVII. Subsection 4-11-160P of Chapter 11, Definitions, of Title IV (Development Regulations) of Ordinance No. 4260 entitled "Code of General Ordinances of the City of Renton, Washington" is hereby amended and the definition of Pet, Common Household is to read: II PETS, HOUSEHOLD: Animals that are generally kept as part of a household and for the purpose of companionship. These animals are to include: dogs, cats, rabbits, caged indoor birds, small rodents, non-venomous reptiles and amphibians weighing less than ten pounds, and other of similar size and characteristics as approved by the Developments Services Director,. SECTION XVIII. Subsection 4-11-190S of Chapter 11, Definitions, of Title IV (Development Regulations) of Ordinance No. 4260 entitled "Code of General Ordinances of the City of Renton, Washington" is hereby amended and the definition of Stables, Commercial is to read: STABLES, COMMERCIAL: A land use on which large lot domestic animals are kept for sale or hire to the public. Breeding, boarding, or training of large lot domestic animals may also be conducted. SECTION XIX. There is hereby added a new Section 5-4-6 to Chapter 4 Animal Licenses, of Title V (Finance and Business Regulations) of Ordinance No. 4260 entitled "Code of General Ordinances of the City of Renton, Washington"to read: • 22 ORDINANCE NO. • 5-4-6 ADDITIONAL ANIMALS: The keeping of additional animals may be allowed pursuant to RMC 4-9- 100. Application shall be made to the Development Services Division. Upon approval of the issuance of an Additional Animals Permit by the Development Services Director, the Finance Director shall be authorized to issue a license to keep Additional Animals to the applicant. The Additional Animals license shall be renewed annually upon receipt of the $50.00 fee and provided Animal Control and/or the Development Services Division has not revoked the permit pursuant to RMC 4-9-100 I. The first year license fee shall be waived for those who receive an Additional Animals Permit. • SECTION XX. Section 6-6-2, Taking up of Animals; Fee of Chapter 6, Animals and Fowl at Large, of Title VI (Police Regulations) of Ordinance No. 4260 entitled "Code of General Ordinances of the City of Renton, Washington", parts B and C are hereby amended to read: B. LARGE LOT DOMESTIC ANIMAL REDEMPTION: Any horses, cattle, or similarly sized animals may be redeemed by the payment of the fee of twenty dollars ($20.00) plus any out of pocket expenses by the City for boarding and feeding such animal, which fee shall be not less than five dollars ($5.00) per day for the keeping and boarding of said animal. C. SMALL AND MEDIUM LOT DOMESTIC ANIMAL REDEMPTION: All small and medium lot domestic animals, not to include such animals as 1111 horses, cattle or similarly sized animals may be redeemed upon payment of a 23 • ORDINANCE NO. • redemption fee in the sum of twenty dollars ($20.00) plus the additional sum of five dollars ($5.00) per day for the keeping of such animal. In the event any such animal is suffering from any serious injury or disease requiring treatment, then an additional fee for such treatment shall be imposed by the agency having the custody of such animal to cover the actual expenses of such treatment, including transportation and special services rendered to such animal. SECTION XXI. Section 6-6-3, Fowl at Large of Chapter 6, Animals and Fowl at Large, of Title VI (Police Regulations) of Ordinance No. 4260 entitled "Code of General Ordinances of the City of Renton, Washington", is hereby amended to read: 6-6-3 FOWL AT LARGE: It shall be unlawful for any person to allow or permit any chicken, pigeon • or other domestic fowl owned or in the custody or control of said person, to run at large in the City. The number of fowl permitted on a lot shall be consistent with RMC 4-4-010, Standards for Accessory to Residential/Commercial Animal Keeping. Violations of this Section shall constitute a civil infraction punishable by a fine of up to $250, not including costs. SECTION XXII. This ordinance shall be effective upon its passage, approval, and five days after publication. PASSED BY THE CITY COUNCIL this day of , 2008. Bonnie Walton, City Clerk • 24 ORDINANCE NO. • APPROVED BY THE MAYOR this day of , 2008. Denis Law, Mayor Approved as to form: Lawrence J. Warren, City Attorney Date of Publication: ORD:1423:1/11/08:scr 25 CITY OF RENTON,WASHINGTON [(I)I 'A 11111 ORDINANCE NO. AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF RENTON, WASHINGTON, AMENDING CHAPTER 4-2, ZONING DISTRICTS — USES AND STANDARDS, AND CHAPTER 4-4, CITY-WIDE PROPERTY DEVELOPMENT STANDARDS OF TITLE IV (DEVELOPMENT REGULATIONS) OF ORDINANCE NO. 4260 ENTITLED "CODE OF GENERAL ORDINANCES OF THE CITY OF RENTON, WASHINGTON" TO AMEND REGULATION IN EFFECT FOR DOWNTOWN RENTON, INCLUDING REMOVING THE BOUNDARY OF THE DOWNTOWN CORE DISTRICT, AMENDING THE BOUNDARY OF THE CITY CENTER SIGN DISTRICT, AMENDING THE BOUNDARY OF THE DOWNTOWN PEDESTRIAN DISTRICT, AND AMENDING THE PARKING REGULATIONS FOR COMMERCIAL BUSINESSES. WHEREAS, there are several regulatory and regulatory overlay districts that affect Renton's Downtown, including: the Center Downtown zone, the City Center sign regulations, the Downtown Core Overlay district, Urban Design Regulation District 'A', • and the Pedestrian Overlay District; and WHEREAS, the established boundaries of these districts have never been coordinated; and WHEREAS, the lack of coordination between the boundaries of these regulatory districts has been confusing for the public and for applicants for development; and WHEREAS, the coordination of these boundaries provides a more consistent implementation of the Comprehensive Plan; and WHEREAS, the City Council held a public hearing on February 4, 2008 having duly considered all matters relevant thereto, and all parties having been heard appearing in support thereof or in opposition thereto; NOW, THEREFORE, THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF RENTON, • WASHINGTON, DOES ORDAIN AS FOLLOWS: 1 SECTION I. Section 4-2-010 Section E, Additional Restriction on Land • Use of Chapter 2, Zoning Districts- Uses and Standards, of Title IV (Development Regulations) of Ordinance No. 4260 entitled "Code of General Ordinances of the City of Renton, Washington"is hereby amended as shown in Attachment A. SECTION II. Section 4-2-080 Section C, Downtown Core Area of Chapter 2, Zoning Districts- Uses and Standards, of Title IV (Development Regulations) of Ordinance No. 4260 entitled "Code of General Ordinances of the City of Renton, Washington" is hereby deleted. SECTION III. Section 4-2-080 Section D, Downtown Pedestrian District of Chapter 2, Zoning Districts- Uses and Standards, of Title IV(Development Regulations) of Ordinance No. 4260 entitled"Code of General Ordinances of the City of • Renton, Washington"is hereby amended as shown in Attachment B. SECTION IV. Section 4-2-120 Section B, Development Standards for Commercial Zoning Designations of Chapter 2, Zoning Districts-Uses and Standards, of Title IV (Development Regulations) of Ordinance No. 4260 entitled "Code of General Ordinances of the City of Renton, Washington" is hereby amended as shown in Attachment C. SECTION V. Section 4-2-120 Section C, Number 11, Conditions Associated with Development Standards Tables for Commercial Zoning Designations of Chapter 2, Zoning Districts- Uses and Standards, of Title IV(Development Regulations) of Ordinance No. 4260 entitled "Code of General Ordinances of the City of Renton, Washington" is hereby amended as follows: • 2 • 11. Reserved. SECTION VI. Section 4-2-120 Section C, Number 20, Conditions Associated with Development Standards Tables for Commercial Zoning Designations of Chapter 2, Zoning Districts- Uses and Standards, of Title IV (Development Regulations) of Ordinance No. 4260 entitled "Code of General Ordinances of the City of Renton, Washington" is hereby amended as follows: 20. "Public Suffix" (P)properties are allowed the following height bonus: Publicly owned structures shall be permitted an additional fifteen feet (15')in height above that otherwise permitted in the zone if"pitched roofs," as defined herein, are used for at least sixty percent(60%) or more of the roof surface of both primary and accessory structures. In addition, in zones where the maximum permitted building height is less than seventy five feet (75'), the maximum height of a publicly owned structure may be increased as follows,up to a maximum height of seventy five feet(75') to the highest point of the building: a. When abutting a public street, one additional foot of height for each additional one and one half feet (1-1/2') of perimeter building setback • beyond the minimum street setback required at street level unless such setbacks are otherwise discouraged; and b. When abutting a common property line, one additional foot of height for each additional two feet (2') of perimeter building setback beyond the minimum required along a common property line; and c. On lots four(4) acres or greater, five (5) additional feet of height for every one percent (1%) reduction below a twenty percent (20%) maximum lot area coverage by buildings for public amenities such as recreational facilities, and/or landscaped open space areas, etc., when these are open and accessible to the public during the day or week. SECTION VII. Section 4-4-080 Section B, Scope of Parking, Loading and Driveway Standards of Chapter 4, City-Wide Property Development Standards, of Title IV (Development Regulations) of Ordinance No. 4260 entitled "Code of General Ordinances of the City of Renton, Washington" is hereby amended as follows: B. SCOPE OF PARKING, LOADING AND DRIVEWAY STANDARDS: • 1. Applicability: 3 a. Within the Center Downtown Zone: This Section, except for subsections F1 • through F9 and J of this Section, shall apply in the following cases: i. New Buildings or Structures: If construction replaces an existing building, only the area exceeding the area of the original structure shall be used to calculate required parking. ii. Building/Structure Additions: Only the area exceeding the area of the original structure shall be used to calculate required parking. b. Outside the Center Downtown Zone: Off-street parking, loading areas, and driveways shall be provided in accordance with the provisions of this Section in the following cases: i.New buildings or structures. ii. Building/Structure Additions: The enlargement or remodeling of an existing building/structure by more than one-third (1/3) of the area of the building/structure. iii. Paving or Striping: The paving of a parking lot with permanent surface, or striping a previously unstriped lot. iv. Change in Use: The change of all or a portion of a building/structure or land use to a use requiring more parking than the previous use, as specified in subsection F10 of this Section, except when located in a shopping center. v. Activities Requiring Deliveries or Shipments: Uses requiring merchandise deliveries and/or shipments shall provide adequate permanent off-street loading space in addition to required parking for the use. 2. Conformance Required: It shall be unlawful for any person hereafter to erect, • construct, enlarge, move or convert any parking lot, parking structure, loading area, or driveway in the City or cause or permit the same to be done contrary to or in violation of any of the provisions of this Section. Driveways shall be constructed to City standards. 3. Plans Required: Where off-street parking is required, except for single-family dwellings, a plan shall be submitted for approval by the Building Department. The plan must be accompanied by sufficient proof of ownership that indicates the spaces contemplated will be permanent. 4. Future Changes to Parking Arrangement: Any future changes in parking arrangements or number of spaces must be approved by the Development Services Division. 5. Timing for Compliance: a. Building Permit Required: No construction, alteration or changes in uses are permitted until all the information in RMC 4-8-120D16p, Parking Analysis, and 4-8- 120D 19s, Site Plan, has been submitted and approved by the appropriate City departments and building permit has been issued. b. Requirements Prior to Occupancy Permit: The premises shall not be occupied until the parking lot is paved,marked, landscaped and lighted (if the lot is to be illuminated) and an occupancy permit has been issued, unless a deferment has been granted. c.Requirements Prior to Business License Issuance: A business license shall not be issued until an occupancy permit has been issued. • 4 SECTION VIII. Section 4-4-080 Section C, Downtown Core Area • Map of Chapter 4, City-Wide Property Development Standards, of Title IV (Development Regulations) of Ordinance No. 4260 entitled "Code of General Ordinances of the City of Renton,Washington" is hereby deleted. SECTION IX. Section 4-4-080 Section E, Location of Required Parking of Chapter 4, City-Wide Property Development Standards, of'title IV (Development Regulations) of Ordinance No. 4260 entitled"Code of General Ordinances of the City of Renton, Washington" is hereby amended as follows: E. LOCATION OF REQUIRED PARKING: 1. On-Site Parking Required: Required parking as specified herein shall be provided upon property in the same ownership as the property upon which the building or use requiring the specified parking is located or upon leased parking. Off-street parking facilities shall be located as hereinafter specified: • a. Detached, Semi-Attached and Two (2)Attached Dwellings: On the same lot with the building they are required to serve. b. Attached Dwellings Greater Than Three (3) Units: May be on contiguous lot with the building they are required to serve; provided,the provisions of subsection E2 (Off-Site Parking) of this Section are complied with. c. Boat Moorages: May have parking areas located not more than six hundred feet (600') from such moorage facility nor closer than one hundred feet (100') to the shoreline (see subsection F10 of this Section). Accessible parking as required by the Washington State Barrier Free Standards can be allowed within one hundred feet (100')per subsection F8e of this Section. d. Other Uses: On the same lot with the principal use except when the conditions as mentioned in subsection E2 (Off-Site Parking) of this Section are complied with. 2. Off-Site Parking: a. When Permitted: If sufficient parking is not available on the premises of the use, a private parking area may be provided off-site, except for single and two (2) family dwellings. b. Agreement Required: A parking agreement ensuring that off-site parking is available for the duration of the use shall be approved by the Development Services Director, following review by the City Attorney. c.Additional Information Required: The Development Services Division shall review the following as part of the permit process: i. A letter of justification addressing the need for off-site parking and • compatibility with the surrounding neighborhood. 5 ii. A site plan showing all dimensions of parking spaces, aisles, landscaping areas, • adjacent street improvements, curb cuts, and on-site and adjacent uses and buildings. d. Fees: No charge for use of such parking area shall be made in any residential zone except on a weekly or monthly basis. e. Maximum Distance to Off-Site Parking Area: i.Within the Center Downtown Zone: No distance requirements apply when both the use and off-site parking are located within the Center Downtown. ii. Within the UC-Nl and UC-N2 Zones: Off-site parking shall be within five hundred feet (500') of the building or use if it is intended to serve residential uses, and within one thousand five hundred feet(1,500') of the building or use if it is intended to serve nonresidential uses. iii.All Other Zones: Off-site parking shall be within five hundred feet(500') of the building or use if it is intended to serve residential uses, and within seven hundred fifty feet (750') of the building or use if it is intended to serve nonresidential uses. f. Transportation Management Plan Exception: The Planning/Building Public Works Department may modify the maximum distance requirements if a Transportation Management Plan or other acceptable transportation system will adequately provide for the parking needs of the use and the conditions outlined in RMC 4-9-250D2 are met. 3.Joint Use Parking Facilities: a. When Permitted: Joint use of parking facilities may be authorized only for those • uses that have dissimilar peak-hour demands. b.Agreement Required: A parking agreement ensuring that joint use parking is available for the duration of the uses shall be approved by the Development Services Director, following review by the City Attorney. c. Maximum Distance to Joint Use Parking: i. Within the Center Downtown Zone: No distance requirements apply when both the use and joint use parking are located within the Center Downtown. ii. Within the UC-Nl and UC-N2 Zones: Joint use parking shall be within seven hundred fifty feet (750') of the building or use if it is intended to serve residential uses, and within one thousand five hundred feet (1,500') of the building or use if it is intended to serve nonresidential uses. iii. All Other Zones: Joint use parking shall be within seven hundred fifty feet (750') of the building or use it is intended to serve. d. Special Provisions for Subdivision of Shopping Center: Parking areas in shopping centers may operate as common parking for all uses. If a shopping center is subdivided, easements and/or restrictive covenants must grant use and provide for maintenance of common parking and access areas. SECTION X. Subsection 10,Number of Parking Spaces Required, of Section 4-4-080 Section F, Parking Lot Design Standards of Chapter 4, City-Wide Property Development Standards, of Title IV (Development Regulations) of Ordinance i 6 • No. 4260 entitled"Code of General Ordinances of the City of Renton, Washington" is hereby amended as shown in attachment D. SECTION XI. Subsection 2, Applicability of Section 4-4-100 Section H, Signs Within City Center- Special Requirements of Chapter 4, City-Wide Property Development Standards, of Title IV (Development Regulations) of Ordinance No. 4260 entitled"Code of General Ordinances of the City of Renton,Washington" is hereby amended as follows: 2.Applicability: The sign standards of this subsection shall apply to the property contained within the City Center sign regulation boundaries as shown in the following figure, generally described as including: land which is within the Urban Design Regulations District 'A' SECTION XII. Subsection 3, Map of City Center Sign Regulation Boundaries of Section 4-4-100 Section H, Signs Within City Center- Special Requirements of Chapter 4, City-Wide Property Development Standards, of Title IV (Development Regulations) of Ordinance No. 4260 entitled"Code of General Ordinances of the City of Renton, Washington" is hereby amended as shown in Attachment E. SECTION XIII. Subsection 4, Type and Number of Permanent Signs Allowed of Section 4-4-100 Section H, Signs Within City Center- Special Requirements of Chapter 4, City-Wide Property Development Standards, of Title IV (Development Regulations) of Ordinance No. 4260 entitled"Code of General Ordinances of the City of Renton, Washington" is hereby amended as shown in Attachment F. SECTION XIV. Subsection 5 of Section 4-4-100 Section H, Signs 411 Within City Center- Special Requirements of Chapter 4, City-Wide Property 7 Development Standards, of Title IV (Development Regulations) of Ordinance No. 4260 • entitled"Code of General Ordinances of the City of Renton, Washington" is hereby amended as shown in Attachment G. SECTION XV. Subsection 6, Letter Size Limitation for Permanent Signs for Nonresidential Uses Based Upon Distance from Right-of-Way, of Section 4-4- 100 Section H, Signs Within City Center- Special Requirements of Chapter 4, City-Wide Property Development Standards, of Title IV (Development Regulations) of Ordinance No. 4260 entitled"Code of General Ordinances of the City of Renton, Washington"is hereby amended as shown in Attachment H. SECTION XVI. This ordinance shall be effective upon its passage, approval, and thirty days after publication. III PASSED BY THE CITY COUNCIL this day of ,2008. 1 Bonnie Walton, City Clerk APPROVED BY THE MAYOR this day of , 2008. Denis Law,Mayor Approved as to form: Lawrence J.Warren, City Attorney Date of Publication: ORD. III 8 ATTACHMENT A 4-2-010 • E ADDITIONAL RESTRICTIONS ON LAND USE: ZONING MAP SYMBOL TYPE OF LAND USE RESTRICTION Automall Restrictions Dot Pattern Public Use Designation "P" TYPE OF LAND USE RESTRICTION REFERENCE OR CODE SECTION NO. Airport-Compatible Land Use Restrictions RMC 4-3-020 Aquifer Protection Area RMC 4-3-050 Automall Improvement District RMC 4-3-040 Downtown Pedestrian District RMC 4-2-070L and 4-2-080D Northeast Fourth Street Business District RMC 4-3-040 "P" Suffix Procedures RMC 4-3-080 Planned Unit Development RMC 4-9-150 Rainier Avenue Business District RMC 4-3-040 • Restrictive Covenants See Property Title Report Sunset Blvd. Business District RMC 4-3-040 Urban Design Districts (Areas "A," "B," RMC 4-3-100 "C," "D," and "E") • 10 ATTACHMENT B III ,, y' } ff .'. mo �� ..a,...l���� i I.' ,,,i,,\',,,, . >� t " ----4 - ----- i _ — r • __ • g — 1___14 � _ 1 : : I 1 ' • - , L� ..„„,„,,„. . — :; • ;- i-,•,'• ..:„,,;.;.*•••,,,,-;,„;;;•-,../-2;:;,.\;; ••'; 1.., ,./;••,•,-,/ ,./..„,.. .,q.. ,� `' ...._,. „,____, .., fff • < I 1t y} S ,tx- - t r :, ~— ' ,r _r , ,, !... i1Tit ...._:..:._._..� �:.... ..•' ,„:2 :••‘:1'4.V.4,,1 :+..,, '".."4'144•:,:'•'., r 5indSF -,1 a, h;r' �. _ PPP .. .. _ r < l{ a h t t' Al 'i [—--i__ ' 111--r,1 q •�,",. `VS.:,":- �' r ./.14^j -- ._..._ lam.-.- y�,_. ,/ ''I : r ' . f 1111 I - ., . t I I _ t/7r \`l }7 % i i. I: i% i .— .>r t"'•} ,, �_._ ., -�I, � rte, • x7 a- —j t 5.. ......? --t i. : , i ..1 i x - r r . R - - y x ...1 ,i �-�_ • __ _.....:,....::::0----a......�:. 1 ? 1 .... f _ 1.-.._.<.__...... :nit .... . 1-- x_. iV"fc - - ••1._.... --- :,...,,, ,----1-- .. : ":.` — -._;. __._.,i: J'i_.,-=,.a..._,] i_, if, 4 O -_ it. E:t —'E -I _ 7:17'''''[:7----t {y 1,_,....;___,I..._ � � -=—,.--.,... 1,m.— __�_ -- � �`... �r--.:—.L�--s^ 1—.-1: ---< i it ;j_.._ _-moi ;� - ..� ._, 11----1 ... ...: ... is; •j L ? _j'\ �, 4 .. , _._ it ..__ _ _ '7------;:;',c',".•,:;;' __.. : ' 1; , �}-..,.,,, s1 fir—.- ..i -- a- - � r i, a-r, Economic Development. Downtown Pedestrian District Overlay 7" } Neighborhoods and Legend jury /y� Strategic Planningi Parcels R•.''..�Y g '----- February.2008 �1 .y'` Alex Pietsch,AAministrator " "Pedestrian District Adnane Johnson,Planning Technician ^a",...„,,, 0 25D 500 1.000 r- Feet '. :rc-:�rd,��t:cr�sit>a C,::20,.a... . 1:6,000 ` f ep:;;r<,,,,int m>.6n-;11;ao:=ts. n H',-0 t:SPSOIS prye est cede_amendnerR+.r d: s:-r-3..,^n3$.a>,ca l:a III- I. t. 'ped es IT tan_distrid_overl ay ned 11111 11 ATTACHMENT C 4-2-120B • DEVELOPMENT STANDARDS FOR COMMERCIAL ZONING DESIGNATIONS CD CO COR LOT DIMENSIONS Minimum Lot Size for None 25,000 sq. ft. None lots created after July 11, 1993 Minimum Lot None None None Width/Depth for lots created after July 11, 1993 LOT COVERAGE Maximum Lot None. 65%19 of total lot 65% of total lot Coverage for Buildings area or 75%19 if area or 75% if parking is parking is provided provided within within the building the building or or within a parking within a parking garage.25 garage. DENSITY (Net Density in Dwelling Units per Net Acre) 25 dwelling units NA Where a • Minimum Net per net acre.9 development Residential Density The minimum involves a mix of density uses then minimum requirements shall residential density not apply to the shall be 16 subdivision and/or dwelling units per development of a net acre.9'25 legal lot 1/2 acre or When proposed less in size as of development does March 1, 1995. not involve a mix of uses, then minimum residential density shall be 5 dwelling units per net acre.9'25 The same area used for commercial and office development can also be used to calculate residential density. Where • commercial and/or 12 ATTACHMENT C • office areas are utilized in the calculation of density, the City may require restrictive covenants to ensure the maximum density is not exceeded should the property be subdivided or in another manner made available for separate lease or conveyance. Maximum Net 100 dwelling units NA COR 1 and 2 Residential Density per net acre.9 (Generally the Density may be Stoneway increased to 150 Concrete Site and dwelling units per Port Quendall net acre subject to Site, respectively): • Administrative Conditional Use 25 dwelling units per net acre, approval. without bonus. Bonus density may be achieved subject to noted requirements in RMC 4-9-065, Density Bonus Review.9 COR 3 (Generally the Southport Site and Fry's Site): 50 dwelling units per net acre.9,25 The same area used for commercial and office development can also be used to calculate residential density. Where commercial and/or • office areas are utilized in the 13 ATTACHMENT C calculation of • density, the City may require restrictive covenants to ensure the maximum density is not exceeded should the property be subdivided or in another manner made available for separate lease or conveyance. SETBACKS Minimum Front None. Buildings less Determined Yard18 than 25 ft. in through site height: 15 ft.19 development plan Buildings 25 ft. review.22,24,25 to 80 ft. in height: 20 ft.13,19 Buildings over 80 ft. in height: • 30 ft.13,19 Maximum Front 15 ft. — for None Determined Yard18 buildings 25 ft. or through site less in height. development plan None—for that review.22,24,25 portion of a building over 25 ft. in height. Minimum Side Yard None 15 ft.19—for Determined Along A Street18 buildings less through site than 25 ft. in development plan height. review.22,24,25 20 ft.13,19— for buildings 25 ft. to 80 ft. in height. 30 ft.13,19—for buildings over 80 ft. in height. 15 ft. —for None Determined Maximum Side Yard buildings 25 ft. or through site Along A Street18 less in height. development plan • None—for that review.zz,za,zs 14 ATTACHMENT C • portion of a building over 25 ft. in height. Minimum Freeway 10 ft. landscaped 10 ft. landscaped 10 ft. landscaped Frontage Setback setback from the setback from the setback from the property line. property line. property line. Minimum Rear Yard18 None,unless the None required, Determined CD lot abuts a except, 15 ft. if through site residential zone, abutting a development plan then there shall be a residential zone. review.22'24'25 15 ft. landscaped strip or a 5 ft. wide sight-obscuring landscaped strip and a solid 6 ft. high barrier used along the common boundary. Minimum Side Yard18 None None required, Determined except 15 ft. if through site abutting or development plan adjacent to a review.22'24,25 • residential zone. Clear Vision Area NA In no case shall a In no case shall a structure over 42 structure over 42 in. in height in. in height intrude intrude into the 20 into the 20 ft. clear ft. clear vision vision area defined area defined in in RMC 4-11-030. RMC 4-11-030. ON-SITE LANDSCAPING Minimum On-site None 10 ft., except Determined Landscape Width— where reduced through site Along the Street through the site development plan Frontage development plan review. review process. Minimum On-site None 15 ft. sight- Determined Landscape Width obscuring through site Required Along the landscaping.If the development plan Street Frontage When street is a review. a Commercial Lot is designated Adjacent8 to Property arterial,l non- • Zoned R-1,R-4, R-8, sight-obscuring R-10, R-14, or RM landscaping shall 15 ATTACHMENT C be provided • unless otherwise determined by the Reviewing Official through the site development plan review process.3 Minimum Landscape 15 ft. landscaped 15 ft. wide Determined Width Required When strip consistent landscaped visual through site a Commercial Lot is with the definition barrier consistent development plan Abutting Property of landscaped with the review. Zoned Residential visual barrier in definition in RMC 4-11-120; or RMC 4-11-120, 5 ft. wide sight- when abutting a obscuring residentially landscaped strip zoned property.A and a solid 6 ft. 10 ft. sight- high barrier used obscuring along the common landscape strip boundary of may be allowed residentially zoned through the site property. development plan • review process. 3'4 Minimum On-site NA 15 ft. wide sight- Determined Landscape Width obscuring through site Required Along the landscape strip. development plan Street Frontage When review. a Commercial Zoned Lot is Adjacent$ to Property Zoned Commercial, Office or Public/Quasi, i.e., CN, CV, CA, CD, CO, or COR HEIGHT Maximum Building 95 ft.6'10 250 ft.6'12 COR 1 (Generally Height the Stoneway Concrete Site): 10 stories and/or 125 ft 6,14 COR 2 and 3 (Generally the Port Quendall • Site, Fry's Site 16 ATTACHMENT C • , and the Southport Site): 10 stories and/or 125 ft.; provided, the master plan includes a balance of building height, bulk and density;6 and provided, that in the COR 3 Zone only,buildings or portions of buildings which are within 100 ft. of the shoreline shall not exceed a maximum height of 75 ft.25 Maximum Building 20 ft. more than the 20 ft. more than Determined Height When a maximum height the maximum through site Building is Abutting a allowed in the height allowed in development plan Lot Designated as abutting residential the abutting review.25 Residential zone.6'17 residential zone.6 • Maximum Height for See RMC 4-4- See RMC 4-4- See RMC 4-4- Wireless 140G. 140G. 140G. Communication Facilities SCREENING See RMC 4-4-095. See RMC 4-4- See RMC 4-4-095. Minimum Required 095. for Outdoor Loading, Repair, Maintenance, Storage or Work Areas; Surface- Mounted Utility and Mechanical Equipment; Roof Top Equipment (Except for Telecommunication Equipment) Refuse or Recycling See RMC 4-4-090. See RMC 4-4- See RMC 4-4-090. 090. PARKING AND LOADING • General See RMC 4-4-080 See RMC 4-4-080 See RMC 4-4-080 and RMC 10-10- and RMC 10-10- and RMC 10-10- 17 ATTACHMENT C 13. 13. 13. Direct arterial • access to individual structures shall occur only when alternative access to local or collector streets or consolidated access with adjacent uses is not feasible. Required Location for All parking shall be NA NA Parking provided in the rear portion of the yard, with access taken from an alley, when available. Parking shall not be located in the front yard, nor in a side yard facing the street nor rear yard facing the street. Parking may be located off- • site or subject to a joint parking agreement. PEDESTRIAN ACCESS General NA A pedestrian Determined connection shall through site be provided from development plan a public entrance review. to the street, unless the Reviewing Official determines that the requirement would unduly endanger the pedestrian. SIGNS General See RMC 4-4-100. See RMC 4-4- See RMC 4-4-100. 100. LOADING DOCKS Location For permitted Not permitted on Determined • manufacturing and the side of the lot through site 18 ATTACHMENT C • fabrication uses, adjacent or development plan parking, docking abutting to a review. and loading areas residential zone.3 for truck traffic shall be off-street and screened from view of abutting public streets. DUMPSTER/RECYCLING COLLECTION AREA Size and Location of See RMC 4-4-090. See RMC 4-4- See RMC 4-4-090. Refuse or Recycling 090. Areas CRITICAL AREAS General See RMC 4-3-050 See RMC 4-3-050 See RMC 4-3-050 and 4-3-090. and 4-3-090. and 4-3-090. SPECIAL DEVELOPMENT STANDARDS Design Guidelines See RMC 4-3-100 NA NA for Urban Center Design Overlay regulations applicable to residential • buildings. 19 ATTACHMENT D 10.Number of Parking Spaces Required: a. Interpretation of Standards—Minimum and Maximum Number of Spaces: In • determining parking requirements, when a single number of parking spaces is required by this Code, then that number of spaces is to be interpreted as the general number of parking spaces required, representing both the minimum and the maximum number of spaces to be provided for that land use. When a maximum and a minimum range of required parking is listed in this Code, the developer or occupant is required to provide at least the number of spaces listed as the minimum requirement, and may not provide more than the maximum listed in this Code. b. Multiple Uses: When a development falls under more than one category, the parking standards for the most specific category shall apply, unless specifically stated otherwise. c. Alternatives: i. Joint Parking Agreements: Approved joint use parking agreements and the establishment of a Transportation Management Plan (TMP) may be used as described in subsections E3 and FlOc(ii) of this Section to meet a portion of these parking requirements. (Amd. Ord. 4790, 9-13-1999) ii.Transportation Management Plans: A Transportation Management Plan (TMP) guaranteeing the required reduction in vehicle trips may be substituted in part or in whole for the parking spaces required, subject to the approval of the Planning/Building/Public Works Department. The developer may seek the assistance of the Planning/Building/Public Works • Department in formulating a Transportation Management Plan. The plan must be agreed upon by both the City and the developer through a binding contract with the City of Renton. At a minimum, the Transportation Management Plan will designate the number of trips to be reduced on a daily basis, the means by which the plan is to be accomplished, an evaluation procedure, and a contingency plan if the trip reduction goal cannot be met. If the Transportation Management Plan is unsuccessful, the developer is obligated to immediately provide additional measures at the direction of the Planning/Building/Public Works Department, which may include the requirement to provide full parking as required by City standards. d. Modification: The Planning/Building/Public Works Department may authorize a modification from either the minimum or maximum parking requirements for a specific development should conditions warrant as described in RMC 4-9-250D2. When seeking a modification from the minimum or maximum parking requirements, the developer or building occupant shall provide the Planning/Building/Public Works Department with written justification for the proposed modification. e. Parking Spaces Required Based on Land Use: Modification of these minimum or maximum standards requires written approval from the Planning/Building/Public Works Department USE NUMBER OF REQUIRED SPACES GENERAL: • 20 ATTACHMENT D Mixed occupancies: (2 or 3 different uses in The total requirements for off-street 1 • the same building or sharing a lot. For 4 or parking facilities shall be the sum of the more uses, see "shopping center" requirements for the several uses requirements) computed separately, unless the building is classified as a "shopping center" as defined in RMC 4-11-190. Uses not specifically identified in this Planning/Building/Public Works Section: Department staff shall determine which of the below uses is most similar based upon staff experience with various uses and information provided by the applicant. The amount of required parking for uses not listed above shall be the same as for the most similar use listed below RESIDENTIAL USES OUTSIDE OF THE CENTER DOWNTOWN ZONE: Detached and semi-attached dwellings: A minimum of 2 per dwelling unit. Tandem parking is allowed. A maximum of 4 vehicles may be parked on a lot, including those vehicles under repair and restoration,unless kept within an enclosed building. IIIManufactured homes within a A minimum of 2 per manufactured home manufactured home park: site, plus a screened parking area shall be . provided for boats, campers, travel trailers and related devices at a ratio of 1 screened space per 10 units. A maximum of 4 vehicles may be parked on a lot, including those vehicles under repair and restoration, unless kept within an enclosed building. Congregate residence: 1 per sleeping room and 1 for the proprietor,plus 1 additional space for each 4 persons employed on the premises. Attached dwellings in RM-U, RM-T,UC- 1.8er 3 bedroom or larger dwelling g NI and UC-N2 Zones unit;1.6 per 2 bedroom dwelling unit;l.2 per 1 bedroom or studio dwelling unit.RM-T Zone Exemption: An exemption to the standard parking ratio formula may be granted by the Development Services Director allowing 1 parking space per dwelling unit for developments of less than 5 dwelling units with 2 bedrooms or lessper • unit provided adequate on-street parking is 21 ATTACHMENT D available in the vicinity of the • development. Attached dwellings within the RM-F Zone: 2 per dwelling unit where tandem spaces are not provided; and/or 2.5 per dwelling unit where tandem parking is provided, subject to the criteria found in subsection F8d of this Section. Attached dwellings within the CV Zone: 1 per dwelling unit is required. A maximum of 1.75 per dwelling unit is allowed. Attached dwellings within all other zones: 1.75 per dwelling unit where tandem spaces are not provided; and/or 2.25 per dwelling unit where tandem parking is provided, subject to the criteria found in subsection F8d of this Section. Attached dwelling for low income or 1 for each 4 dwelling units elderly: RESIDENTIAL USES IN THE CENTER DOWNTOWN ZONE: Attached dwellings: 1 per unit. • Attached dwellings for low income or 1 for every 4 dwelling units. elderly: Congregate Residences 1 per 4 sleeping rooms and 1 for the proprietor,plus 1 additional space for each 4 persons employed on the premises. COMMERCIAL ACTIVITIES OUTSIDE OF THE CENTER DOWNTOWN ZONE AND EXCEPT SHOPPING CENTERS: Drive-through retail or drive-through Stacking spaces: The drive-through service: facility shall be so located that sufficient on-site vehicle stacking space is provided for the handling of motor vehicles using such facility during peak business hours. Typically 5 stacking spaces per window are required unless otherwise determined by the Development Services Director. Stacking spaces cannot obstruct required parking spaces or ingress/egress within the site or extend into the public right-of- way. Banks: A minimum of 0.4 per 100 square feet of 22 ATTACHMENT D net floor area and a maximum of 0.5 per • 100 square feet of net floor area except when part of a shopping center. Convalescent centers: 1 for every 2 employees plus 1 for every 3 beds. Day care centers, adult day care (I and II): 1 for each employee and 2 loading spaces within 100 feet of the main entrance for every 25 clients of the program. Hotels and motels: 1 per guest room plus 2 for every 3 employees. Bed and breakfast houses: 1 per guest room. The parking space must not be located in any required setback. Mortuaries or funeral homes: 1 per 100 square feet of floor area of assembly rooms. Vehicle sales (large and small vehicles) 1 per 5,000 square feet. The sales area is with outdoor retail sales areas: not a parking lot and does not have to comply with dimensional requirements, landscaping or the bulk storage section requirements for setbacks and screening. Any arrangement of motor vehicles is allowed as long as: • •A minimum 5 feet perimeter landscaping is provided; p g area .They are not displayed in required landscape areas; and •Adequate fire access is provided per Fire Department approval. Vehicle service and repair (large and small 0.25 per 100 square feet of net floor area. vehicles): Offices, medical and dental: 0.5 per 100 square feet of net floor area. Offices, general: A minimum of 3 per 1,000 feet of net floor area and a maximum of 4.5 parking spaces per 1,000 square feet of net floor area. Eating and drinking establishments and 1 per 100 square feet of net floor area. taverns: Eatingand drinkingestablishment 1per 75 square feet of net floor area. q combination sit-down/drive-through restaurant: • Retail sales and big-box retail sales: A maximum of 0.4 per 100 square feet of net floor area, except big-box retail sales, 23 ATTACHMENT D which is allowed a maximum of 0.5 per • 100 square feet of net floor area if shared and/or structured parking is provided. Services, on-site (except as specified A maximum of 0.4 per 100 square feet of below): net floor area. Clothing or shoe repair shops,furniture, 0.2 per 100 square feet of net floor area. appliance,hardware stores,household equipment: Uncovered commercial area, outdoor 0.05 per 100 square feet of retail sales nurseries: area in addition to any parking requirements for buildings. Recreational and entertainment uses: Outdoor and indoor sports arenas, 1 for every 4 fixed seats or 1 per 100 auditoriums, stadiums, movie theaters, and square feet of floor area of main entertainment clubs: auditorium or of principal place of assembly not containing fixed seats, whichever is greater. Bowling alleys: 5 per alley. Dance halls, dance clubs, and skating 1 per 40 square feet of net floor area. • rinks: Golf driving ranges: 1 per driving station. Marinas: 2 per 3 slips. For private marina associated with a residential complex, then 1 per 3 slips. Also 1 loading area per 25 slips. Miniature golf courses: 1 per hole. Other recreational: 1 per occupant based upon 50% of the maximum occupant load as established by the adopted Building and Fire Codes of the City of Renton. Travel trailers: 1 per trailer site. COMMERCIAL ACTIVITIES WITHIN THE CENTER DOWNTOWN ZONE: Convalescent center, drive-through retail, These uses follow the standards applied drive-through service, hotels, mortuaries, outside the Center Downtown zone. indoor sports arenas, auditoriums, movie theaters, entertainment clubs, bowling alleys, dance halls, dance clubs, and other • recreational uses. 24 ATTACHMENT D All commercial uses allowed in the CD A maximum of 1 space per 1,000 square • Zone except for the uses listed above. feet of net floor area, with no minimum requirement. SHOPPING CENTERS: Shopping centers (includes any type of A minimum of 0.4 per 100 square feet of business occupying a shopping center): net floor area and a maximum of 0.5 per 100 square feet of net floor area. In the UC-N1 and UC-N2 Zones, a maximum of 0.4 per 100 square feet of net floor area is permitted unless structured parking is provided, in which case 0.5 per 100 square feet of net floor area is permitted. Drive-through retail or drive- through service uses must comply with the stacking space provisions listed above INDUSTRIAL/STORAGE ACTIVITIES: Airplane hangars, tie-down areas: Parking is not required. Hangar space or tie-down areas are to be utilized for necessary parking. Parking for offices associated with hangars is 1 per 200 square feet. Manufacturing and fabrication, A minimum of 0.1 per 100 square feet of • laboratories, and assembly and/or net floor area and a maximum of 0.15 packaging operations: spaces per 100 square feet of net floor area (including warehouse space). Self service storage: 1 per 3,500 square feet of net floor area. Maximum of three moving van/truck spaces in addition to required parking for self service storage uses in the RM-F Zone. Outdoor storage area: 0.05 per 100 square feet of area. Warehouses and indoor storage buildings: 1 per 1,500 square feet of net floor area. PUBLIC/QUASI-PUBLIC ACTIVITIES: 25 ATTACHMENT D Religious institutions: 1 for every 5 seats in the main • auditorium, however, in no case shall there be less than 10 spaces. For all existing institutions enlarging the seating capacity of their auditoriums, 1 additional parking space shall be provided for every 5 additional seats provided by the new construction. For all institutions making structural alterations or additions that do not increase the seating capacity of the auditorium, see "outdoor and indoor sports arenas, auditoriums, stadiums,movie theaters, and entertainment clubs." Medical institutions: 1 for every 3 beds, plus 1 per staff doctor,plus 1 for every 3 employees. Cultural facilities: 4 per 100 square feet. Public post office: 0.3 for every 100 square feet. Secure community transition facilities: 1 per 3 beds,plus 1 per staff member, plus 1 per employee. Schools: • Elementary and junior high: 1 per employee. In addition, if buses for the transportation of students are kept at the school, 1 off-street parking space shall be provided for each bus of a size sufficient to park each bus. Senior high schools: public, parochial and 1 per employee plus 1 space for every 10 private: students enrolled. In addition, if buses for the private transportation of children are kept at the school, 1 off-street parking space shall be provided for each bus of a size sufficient to park each bus Colleges and universities, arts and crafts 1 per employee plus 1 for every 3 schools/studios, and trade or vocational students residing on campus,plus 1 schools: space for every 5 day students not residing on campus. In addition, if buses for transportation of students are kept at the school, 1 off-street parking space shall be provided for each bus of a size sufficient to park each bus. • 26 ATTACHMENT E , 0 1,.., , r i= aa: 7 �� � 1 1 ;—t x` .. "��1, : i It .,..... �', ,," ;"�..,( _ '..,r,. t V t f—� % x .moi '`j v • A.,..._( :,r._�t..- - 1t:—CTL —1A 8 h„ /..7 L rill- �:, _i ;tip •fF,x :� z�sa _1 <, 1. ,-,,_ I ) "'IL-1-Ti---'',---651-''"'-- '''' ✓� "� - � 4- I i )-_.=r,�_._.-..__ i i j :! --I ��'';fi::::�......I(("._._._c� ; I .-'�,�� i� 1......_ 4 ~�. =.Ad ._ S L ,.A:,itt,, -# ..1=-_-.-1.---w2;-4- it �, "— 4--_— ?-_.„}-4-1i `.'.1`-71 -- I -__ „----..---<•\ � --jt `1%a is ,• i, 1-- 1--- HLF1LHThI 't — y1 (i,t� ? _1 is,f=�£ ....:_._•—_--— L. _ ; _t—_ .--S"T .,:',.'t,_ir _._:#^ !3-"_1j'ry;f < .m., _--'.� ` _..u�,�j' 'jE `,• ..._I_i'- .\ `¢.s,3+-`r� —__ ,°�y ^-Vii`I 1 1_ I_ 1 •- 1....1.1.N --} ! /`�`,•1 3#� 7 -_-E...........i � G"'_��. a,'.;.> 4.2=4- :. I' 1 " ._;t-- —._..__: :;.•°.q {t_ -- _:�� I=� � ..__ __,t--- te+ I'tt I er,.: €: ,_. .! '.- ,I'.... - °__ ��, F, r - ,. l• l ` —y xi �� y # , s '" _,- 1�.. '._._#t_. 1! '? _ f moi•°' ,-- - -£_ -; ..i€__, 1 .i�� 'i 1 [_�\ F..T _ � s a ............. (f , _ ...E i r /ii I r , , i 1 11 -� i-:- ., his, '\, ,': - .. --1 '---_-_ --_-- . . ... ,- � 1 ..:_.psi--._�j � r�:. 4 ?Economic Development, City Center Sign Boundary 601):1 Neighborhoods and Legend ±1 Strategic Planning _- City Center Sign Boundary February4,2O08 rl '•phi~ Alex Piets ch.Ad ministrator {,.- AdrIan aJohnson,Planning Technician Parcels00 i 0 D 5O0 1,U ___ . _i._._ _ Pr.ii,H1.Gfl,...TP.,,,,,_n.}:SI,yl-T 1 7500 £a+i£s,'r•.rzr f:,sae,i=: File Name H:IEGNSF,01S�rojedst ex qy 0ut..iq-i I, l;'E(r£LU S,ai.:a:8. 0a,'i:•, cc de arnendment£Rat N,Pias.h3c.>:-..maat,to: a-t d!J_center sign_boundary mxd 1111 27 ATTACHMENT F 4. Type and number of permanent signs allowed: 1111 a. Residential/Churches/Schools: Residential occupancies, churches, and schools in the City Center are subject to the requirements of subsection E4 of this Section, Signs Permitted in All Residential, Commercial, and Industrial Zones. b. Nonresidential Uses: Nonresidential occupancies (excluding churches and schools) are subject to the following standards based upon sign category: SIGN TYPE AND NUMBER OF SIGNS ALLOWED CATEGOR Y CATEGOR Freestan OR Ground OR Wall Y A ding Select only one of the following sign types: Number One One ground sign Each individual ground-level freestan per street frontage business may have one wall ding for each single sign for each business facade sign per occupancy fronting on a public street.In street building,multi- addition, in multiple building frontage occupancy complexes or for multi- for each building, or occupancy buildings each • single multiple building ground-level tenant with an occupan complex. The exterior business facade may cy maximum number have one wall sign to building of signs is 2. identify individual tenant located spaces. on a corner lot, multi- occupan cy building , or multiple building complex . The maximu m number of signs is 2. 111 Mix of An applicant for a business having more than one street frontage may 28 • ATTACHMENT F options for substitute an allowed Category A sign type for another Category A sign 1111 lots with type;however, the maximum number of signs shall not be exceeded. For multiple example, on a corner lot, an applicant may request one ground sign facing frontages one street frontage, and one freestanding sign facing the other street frontage. Multi- Multi-occupancy buildings or multiple building complexes with 50,000 occupancy square feet of gross leasable floor area or greater, and with frontage on buildings or Rainier Avenue S., may choose to comply with either: (1)The above multiple Category A regulations; or building (2)Freestanding or ground signs and wall signs per the following complexes— standards: greater than (i)Freestanding or Ground Signs: Have only one sign for each street 50,000 frontage of any one of the following types: Freestanding, ground, or square feet combination. Each freestanding or ground sign shall not exceed an with area greater than 1.5 square feet for each lineal foot of property frontage on frontage which the business occupies up to a maximum of 300 square Rainier Ave. feet; or if such sign is multi- faced, the maximum allowance shall not S. be more than 300 square feet. However, a maximum of one-half of the allowed square footage is allowed on each face. Businesses with less than 25 lineal front feet may have a sign of a maximum of 20 square feet per face. In addition, one freestanding sign is allowed for each street frontage of the complex. Each sign shall not exceed an area greater than 1.5 square foot for each linear foot of property frontage, not to exceed 150 square feet per sign face and a maximum • of 300 square feet including all sign faces. (ii)Wall Signs: In addition to the above freestanding or ground signs, wall signs are permitted with a total copy area not exceeding 20% of the building facade to which it is applied. Roof signs are prohibited per subsection C11 of this Section. Projecting signs are regulated per this subsection and subsection H5d of this Section. Buildings 40 Buildings 40 feet or greater in height may choose to comply with either: feet or (1)The above Category A regulations; or greater in (2)Freestanding or ground signs and wall signs per the following height standards. (i)Freestanding or Ground Signs: Have only one sign for each street frontage of any one of the following types: Freestanding, ground, or combination. Each freestanding or ground sign shall not exceed an area greater than 1.5 square feet for each lineal foot of property frontage which the business occupies up to a maximum of 300 square feet; or if such sign is multi- faced, the maximum allowance shall not be more than 300 square feet. However, a maximum of one-half of the allowed square footage is allowed on each face. (ii)Wall Signs: In addition to the above freestanding or ground signs, wall signs are permitted with a total copy area not exceeding 20% of the building facade to which it is applied. Roof signs are prohibited • per subsection Cil of this Section. Projecting signs are regulated per this subsection and subsection H5d of this Section. 29 ATTACHMENT F SIGN TYPE AND NUMBER OF SIGNS ALLOWED CATEGOR • CATEGOR Projecti 0 Awning Sign, or Canopy Sign, or Marquee Sign, or Y B ng Sign R Traditional Marquee Sign Select only one of the following sign types allowed in addition to signs of Category A. Number Each Each individual ground-level business may have one individu sign for each business facade fronting on a public al street.In addition, in multiple building complexes or for ground- multi-occupancy buildings each ground-level tenant with level an exterior business facade may have one sign to identify business individual tenant spaces. may A series of awnings or canopies upon a single business have and located on a single street frontage are considered as one sign one awning or canopy. for each • business facade fronting on a public street.In addition , in multiple building complex es or for multi- occupan cy building s each ground- level tenant with an exterior • business 30 ATTACHMENT F facade • may have one sign to identify individu al tenant spaces. SIGN TYPE AND NUMBER OF SIGNS ALLOWED CATEGOR Y CATEGOR Under AN Secondary Wall, AN If applicable,Multi- Y C: Awning D Projecting, or D Occupancy Building Sign, Allowed in /Under Awning Sign, or Multiple Building addition to Canopy Having No Complex Wall Sign signs of /Under Internal Categories A `Marque Illumination and B: e Number One per One sign, having (1) ground- no internal feet above grade, measured • level illumination, per to the bottom of the sign. business business facade per which does not public contain a Category entrance A or B sign; maximum of 2 secondary signs. • 31 ATTACHMENT G 5.a.FREESTANDING SIGNS SIZE, HEIGHT AND LOCATIONS ALLOWED FOR PERMANENT SIGNS FOR • NONRESIDENTIAL USES BASED UPON SIGN TYPE: MAXIMUM SIGN MAXIMUM LOCATION AND REQUIRED AREA HEIGHT OTHER CLEARANCES LIMITATIONS (Refer also to RMC 4-4- 100K16, K17 and K18) (1)General: Each sign (4) 20 feet, (5) Setbacks shall be (7) Minimum 15 shall not exceed an measured to consistent with the foot clearance area greater than 1.5 the top of the Zoning Code. above traffic square feet for each sign or sign (6)Property with street aisles and lineal foot of street structure, frontage on Rainier driveways. frontage which the whichever is Avenue S.: The sign shall building or complex higher. be located along Rainier occupies up to a Avenue S. and set back a maximum of 25 minimum distance of 100 square feet per face; lineal feet from the right- the maximum of-way of S. Third Street. cumulative square This setback shall not footage of all faces of apply to multi-occupancy a sign is 50 square buildings or multiple • feet. building complexes with 50,000 square feet gross (2)Property with leasable floor area or frontage on Rainier greater, having frontage Avenue S.: In lieu of on Rainier Avenue S. the sign area requirements of subsection (1) of this chart, each sign shall not exceed an area greater than 1.5 square feet for each lineal foot of street frontage which the building or complex occupies up to a maximum of 75 square feet per face; the maximum cumulative square footage of all faces of a sign is 150 square • feet; provided, that the 32 ATTACHMENT G i I sign is located in • accordance with subsection (6) of this chart. (3)Multi-occupancy buildings or multiple building complexes with greater than 50,000 square feet gross leasable floor area, having frontage on Rainier Avenue S.: Such uses may comply with the standards of subsections (1) or(2) of this chart, or with subsection H4b of this Section, Type and Number of Permanent Signs Allowed. Freestanding sign area • may be transferred from within the City Center sign regulation boundaries to contiguously owned property outside of the City Center sign regulation boundaries. Only sign area may be transferred, not the number of allowed signs. Where transferred, the maximum size of the freestanding sign shall not exceed the limits of subsection H4b of this Section, Type and Number of Permanent Signs Allowed. • 5.b. GROUND SIGNS 33 • ATTACHMENT G SIZE, HEIGHT AND LOCATIONS ALLOWED FOR PERMANENT SIGNS FOR NONRESIDENTIAL USES BASED UPON SIGN TYPE: • MAXIMUM SIGN MAXIMUM LOCATION AND REQUIRED AREA HEIGHT OTHER CLEARANCES LIMITATIONS (Refer also to RMC 4-4-100K16, K17 and K18) (1)General: Each (4) 5 feet if (5) Setbacks shall be sign shall not perpendicular to the consistent with the exceed an area right-of-way; 4 feet Zoning Code, and greater than 1.5 if the sign is not RMC 4-4-100L1b. square feet for each placed (6)Property with lineal foot of street perpendicular to the street frontage on frontage which the right-of-way. Height Rainier Avenue S.: building or complex is measured to the The ground sign occupies up to a top of the sign or shall be located maximum of 25 sign structure, along Rainier square feet per face; whichever is higher. Avenue S. and the maximum setback a minimum cumulative square distance of 100 footage of all faces lineal feet from the of a sign is 50 right-of-way of S. square feet. Third Street. This (2)Property with setback shall not • frontage on Rainier apply to multi- Avenue S.: In lieu occupancy buildings of the sign area or multiple building requirements of complexes with subsection (1) of 50,000 square feet this chart, each sign gross leasable floor shall not exceed an area or greater, area greater than 1.5 having frontage on square feet for each Rainier Avenue S. lineal foot of street frontage which the building or complex occupies up to a maximum of 75 square feet per face; the maximum cumulative square footage of all faces of a sign is 150 square feet; provided, that the sign is located in 111 accordance with 34 ATTACHMENT G subsection (6) of • this chart. (3)Multi-occupancy buildings or multiple building complexes with greater than 50,000 square feet gross leasable floor area, having frontage on Rainier Avenue S.: Such uses may comply with the sign area standards of subsections (1) or (2) of this chart, or with the size standards of subsection H4b of this Section, Type and Number of Permanent Signs Allowed. Ground • sign area may be transferred from within the City Center sign regulation boundaries to contiguously owned property outside of the City Center sign regulation boundaries. Only sign area may be transferred, not the number of allowed signs. Where transferred, the maximum size of the ground sign shall not exceed the limits of subsection H4b of this Section, Type and Number of Permanent Signs Allowed. 35 ATTACHMENT G 5.c. WALL SIGNS • SIZE, HEIGHT AND LOCATIONS ALLOWED FOR PERMANENT SIGNS FOR NONRESIDENTIAL USES BASED UPON SIGN TYPE: MAXIMUM SIGN MAXIMUM LOCATION AND REQUIRED AREA HEIGHT OTHER CLEARANCES LIMITATIONS (Refer also to RMC 4-4-100K16, K17 and K18) 1)General: Each (4) The wall sign (5) The sign shall be (9) When projecting sign shall not shall be placed on mounted on or over a public right- exceed an area the facade not more above the business of-way (maximum greater than 1.5 than 25 feet above facade to which it is 12 inches), a square feet for each the grade, measured associated. minimum of 8 feet lineal foot of to the top of the (6)The wall sign clearance above the business facade sign. Wall signs on shall be placed on a surface of the fronting a street, up multi-occupancy business facade sidewalk is required. to 100 square feet buildings or having street maximum. multiple building frontage; or, it shall (2) Multi-occupancy complexes with be placed on or buildings or 50,000 square feet above the business multiple building gross leasable floor entrance, if the complexes with area or greater, business has an • 50,000 square feet having frontage on exterior facade gross leasable floor Rainier Avenue S. which does not face area or greater, or buildings 40 feet a street, and the having frontage on or greater in height business is located Rainier Avenue S: may be placed in a multi-tenant In lieu of subsection anywhere on the building or multiple (1), the sign area facade and the top building complex. standards of of the sign shall not (7) The thickness of subsection H4b of extend vertically that portion of a this Section, Type above the fascia of wall sign which and Number of the building. projects over a Permanent Signs public right-of-way Allowed, may be shall not exceed 12 met. inches. (3) Buildings 40 feet (8) Wall signs or greater in height: located more than In lieu of subsection above 25 feet above (1), the sign area grade, measured to standards of the top of the sign, subsection H4b of shall only contain this Section, Type the name and/or and Number of logo of the • Permanent Signs business(es) or 36 ATTACHMENT G Allowed, may be development. met. • 5.d. PROJECTING SIGNS SIZE HEIGHT AND LOCATIONS ALLOWED FOR PERMANENT SIGNS FOR NONRESIDENTIAL USES BASED UPON SIGN TYPE: MAXIMUM SIGN MAXIMUM LOCATION AND REQUIRED AREA HEIGHT OTHER CLEARANCES LIMITATIONS (Refer also to RMC 4-4-100K16, K17 and K18) (1)Unlit, externally (4) Shall not be (5)The sign shall be (10) When illuminated, or tube located more than placed on a business projecting over a illuminated: Such 25 feet above the facade having street public right-of-way, projecting signs are grade, measured to frontage; or,it shall a minimum of 8 feet allowed a maximum the top of the sign or be placed on or clearance above the of 12 square feet per sign structure, above the business surface of the face; the maximum whichever is higher. entrance, if the sidewalk is required. cumulative square business has an footage of all faces exterior facade of a sign is 24 which does not face square feet. a street, and the . (2) Internally illuminated: Such business is located in a multi-tenant signs are allowed a building or multiple maximum of 6 building complex. square feet per face; (6) The sign shall be the maximum no more than 3 feet cumulative square tall. footage of all faces (7) A projecting of a sign is 12 sign may extend square feet. over the public (3) Combination of right-of-way by no illumination: The more than 4 feet maximum size of from the wall it is the combination mounted on. sign shall be 12 (8) The faces of a square feet per face; projecting sign shall the maximum be separated by a cumulative square maximum of 12 footage of all faces inches. of a combination (9) The sign shall be sign is 24 square mounted on or feet. Up to 50% above the business • maximum of the facade to which it is combination sign, 6 associated. 37 ATTACHMENT G square feet per face, may be internally • illuminated. 5.e. AWNING SIGN, CANOPY SIGN,MARQUEE SIGN SIZE, HEIGHT AND LOCATIONS ALLOWED FOR PERMANENT SIGNS FOR NONRESIDENTIAL USES BASED UPON SIGN TYPE: MAXIMUM SIGN MAXIMUM LOCATION AND REQUIRED AREA HEIGHT OTHER CLEARANCES LIMITATIONS (Refer also to RMC 4-4-100K16, K17, K18 and N3b) (1) Awning, canopy, None. (3) Sign copy shall (9) Sign structures or marquee sign: A only be located on shall be located a maximum of 50 the vertical faces of minimum of 8 feet square feet of copy the awning, canopy, above the surface of may appear on the or marquee. the sidewalk. Where vertical face area. (4) Maximum under awning, under (2)Traditional height/thickness of canopy, or under marquee sign: The awning/canopy with marquee signs are maximum copy area a sign: 10 feet. anticipated, the is 150 square feet (5) Maximum clearance should be per face; the height/thickness of increased to cumulative square marquee: in accommodate them • footage of all faces accordance with the as necessary. of a sign is 300 adopted edition of square feet total. the Uniform Building Code. (6) Building canopy poles shall not be placed in a manner which interferes with pedestrian or wheelchair travel upon a sidewalk. (7) Awnings, building canopies, and marquees and the attached or associated signs may extend over the right-of-way according to the terms of the adopted Uniform Building Code. • (8) The sign shall be 38 ATTACHMENT G mounted above the • business facade to which it is associated. 5.f.UNDER AWNING SIGN, CANOPY SIGN,MARQUEE SIGN SIZE, HEIGHT AND LOCATIONS ALLOWED FOR PERMANENT SIGNS FOR NONRESIDENTIAL USES BASED UPON SIGN TYPE: MAXIMUM SIGN MAXIMUM LOCATION AND REQUIRED AREA HEIGHT OTHER CLEARANCES LIMITATIONS (Refer also to RMC 4-4-100K16, K17, K18 and N3b) (1) 6 square feet. None (2) The sign shall (4) Minimum 8 feet not extend beyond above the surface of the awning, canopy, the sidewalk. or marquee to which it is attached. (3) The sign shall not be more than 12 inches thick. • 5.g. SECONDARY SIGN SIZE, HEIGHT AND LOCATIONS ALLOWED FOR PERMANENT SIGNS FOR NONRESIDENTIAL USES BASED UPON SIGN TYPE: MAXIMUM SIGN MAXIMUM LOCATION AND REQUIRED AREA HEIGHT OTHER CLEARANCES LIMITATIONS (Refer also to RMC 4-4-100K16, K17 and K18) (1) Secondary wall (3) Secondary wall (4) Secondary signs (8) When projecting or awning signs: or projecting signs shall not be located over a public right- Each sign shall not shall not be located on a business facade of-way, a minimum exceed an area more than 25 feet containing a of 8 feet clearance greater than one above the grade, Category A or B above the surface of square foot for each measured to the top sign, or another the entryway is lineal foot of of the sign or sign secondary sign. required. business facade, up structure, whichever (5) Secondary signs to maximum of 25 is higher. shall not be square feet. internally (2) Secondary illuminated. Such projecting signs: signs may be unlit, Maximum of 6 externally • square feet. illuminated or have tube illumination. 39 ATTACHMENT G (6) Maximum • height or thickness of awning with a sign: 10 feet. (7) Awning signs: Sign copy shall be located on the vertical faces of the awning. 5.h. MULTI-OCCUPANCY OR MULTIPLE BUILDING COMPLEX SIGN SIZE, HEIGHT AND LOCATIONS ALLOWED FOR PERMANENT SIGNS FOR NONRESIDENTIAL USES BASED UPON SIGN TYPE: MAXIMUM SIGN MAXIMUM LOCATION AND REQUIRED AREA HEIGHT OTHER CLEARANCES LIMITATIONS (Refer also to RMC 4-4-100K16, K17 and K18) (1) Buildings less (3) Buildings less (5) Buildings less (8) When projecting than 40 feet in than 40 feet in than 40 feet in over a public right- 411 height: The height: The wall height: The sign of-way, a minimum maximum square sign shall be placed shall be located on a of 8 feet clearance footage limitation is on the facade not business facade above the grade is 100 square feet. more than 25 feet which does not required. (2) Buildings 40 feet above the grade, contain any other in height or greater: measured to the top Category A or B The maximum of the sign. sign. square footage (4) Buildings 40 feet (6) Buildings 40 feet limitation is 100 in height or greater: in height or greater: square feet unless The wall sign may There are no the choice is made be placed anywhere restrictions on to comply with on the facade. facade placement. subsection H4b of (7) The sign shall this Section, Type only contain the and Number of business name Signs Allowed for and/or logo of each Nonresidential development. Uses. • 40 ATTACHMENT H • 6. Letter Size Limitations for Permanent Signs for Nonresidential Uses Based Upon Distance from Right-of-Way: a. Maximum Letter Height: The maximum letter height of signs shall be as follows: DISTANC FREESTANDIN AWNING SIGN/CANOPY SIGN/ MULTI- E OF G, GROUND, MARQUEE SIGN OCCUPANC SIGN WALL, Y OR FROM PROJECTING, MULTIPLE RIGHT- TRADITIONAL BUILDING OF-WAY MARQUEE COMPLEX SIGN SIGN Within 50 24 inches 12 inches 6 inches feet: (applies to letters and logo) Between 50 36 inches 6 inches feet and 12 inches (applies to 100 feet: letters and logo) More than 48 inches 12 inches 6 inches 100 feet: (applies to letters and logo) 11111 b. Exemption from Letter Size Limits: The following properties are exempt from the maximum letter height requirements of subsection H6a of this Section: i. Multi-occupancy buildings or multiple building complexes with fifty thousand (50,000) square feet gross leasable floor area or greater, having frontage on Rainier Avenue S.; or ii. Properties with frontage on Rainier Avenue S.; or iii. Buildings exceeding forty feet (40') in height. • 41 /ppea/ CITY OF RENTON eorrespondevcce FEB 11 2008 �o.5 s a-li- 20,0 `, RECEIVED CftY CLERKS OFFICE Refer Pfonn "cj creelv' it/ &,lmiffto February 11,2008 Renton City Council 1055 S Grady-Way- Renton, WA '91)57 Ref LUA07-065,;CU-A,.ECF T-Mobile Monopole in SE 3fa Place and Anacortes Ave SE Right of Way Dear Council Members As expected,T-Mobile has filed an,appeal to the Hearing Examiner's decision in the above-refi ren_r,_ed_matter. T-Mobile origin-ally-tried-to install amonopole I structure in-the Seattle Public Utilities um station facilitylocated at the end of Union Ave SE. Theywere prevented from pump doing so because the parcel in question is.08 of an acre short of the required 1 acre._ T-Mobile's application for a variance to this requirement was denied. The matter has become protracted and expensive in terms of city resources and-true,and in citizen anxiety. The City has the opportunity and obligation to resolve this in a way that does not impact a residential neighborhood. We suggest the Council moveuickl q Y and allow the variance to the 1 acre requirement.. We-ems do not want the City to be in violation of the Telecommunication Act of 1996;then we would have no control at all in the placement of these structures. Sine Qly, F `'1 Valerie aid Mitha 1 O'11 .t1©ran 4420 SE 4th Street Renton, WA 98059 425-271-6973 Aireal MY OF RENTON deice Cor espo�t FEB t t 2008 Chuck and Fran Gitchel o?"��-'�00� RECEIVED 4401 SE 3rd Place /D� ,` CITY CLERK'S OFFICE Renton, WA 98059 GTe*er JQa1>eliveied February 10, 2008 Planrt/r ,' Deve/oa x,if doily m/-Hee City of Renton, My wife and I live at the site where T-Mobile is still trying to install a 60 ft monopole 45 feet from our house and a 24/7-access vault 25 feet from our bedroom. Several Real Estate Professionals have written, and you have in your possession their letters, stating that all the property values near this pole would be drastically reduced or not saleable at any price. T-Mobile was unable to show any facts to the contrary at the hearing. If T—Mobile is allowed to place their antenna on the corner of our front yard, it will open the door for any cell phone company to place their antennas at ANY residentially zoned utility pole in the city of Renton. Hundreds of families would have their net worth drastically reduced. Would you want this to happen to you?...Would you want a cell phone monopole in your front yard two car lengths from your house?...Would you want to have people working one car length from your bedroom in the middle of the night?...Would you want to hear equipment running every night when you put your head on your pillow? T-Mobile was not allowed to apply for a permit at the south end of Union Ave. (See Exhibit A), but they were allowed to apply for a permit 45 feet from our house. THIS IS VERY BAD LAW! I previously asked the city council to grant T-Mobile a variance to pursue the location at 450 Union Ave. For whatever reason No action was taken. I asked the T-Mobile representatives to ask the city council for a variance for the Union Ave location. T-Mobile said they had their own ways of dealing with cities. It's evident by T-Mobiles recent appeal that they would rather use strong-arm techniques. I have had more than one neighbor tell me that T-Mobile has a lot of money and will ultimately get whatever they want in Renton. I do not believe this to be true, but if it is and if T-Mobile is right in their way of dealing with the City of Renton, Let me say: "The previous mayor and the previous city council passed these bad laws regarding cell phone monopoles. If T-Mobile succeeds in putting their antenna at the corner of our front yard, my neighbors, my wife and I will sue the city of Renton for our losses in property values. We will do everything in our power to get the local and national media involved to find out who is responsible for this happening and what company or group they work for." I would hope it doesn't come to that. I have been watching these city council proceedings for several months now. I personally believe that Mayor Law and most of the present city council members want to do what's best for the citizens of Renton. I hope I'm not being naïve in this thinking. Please DO NOT allow T-Mobile to install their antenna at the corner of our property. Chuck Gitchel Fran Gitchel IJXLC.IU u_ Y. .: j`c-ra w +kf wi -...,re...-fi -r • , 7 1'wl4t e f { z i ill II 'fit ; 1 t. ' I. rf_ - t J - _i��R�eIOA `I ,aux $ --a �?t .. ,u- ••••,n'''--,•'.,\..‘,‘' Ct>1�1"t"� `$.,,;,--,4";.^, Xi'X. y r tr r ,,..:. z # '9C10t i'SY.Al1il aX"-s a -, > e 'X•-- .c,r<r f .. y�o,,t', r„,ea >F <�y^ � �++ �,It ,V, t: 5i ct te '' ... -vim - t i °� 1�� t t}��t\t �� � \1l > s.. "s F x •,i z r fY�t Y ,,e,_,,„:"„7.,.,, �4 off V, �� 6,j� si I 5.- x '�,. : i �4.Wv 1..My y } 3 r x „,,F_ , a'sa'�.. a^H.2 ;ri ,1.1 ,......,:' ' '' 1� 1 . tk( § - r A� F, y :: ,*-.5„ cz •4. ,>s s, rte 4 • ; k : ” 7. -tom* 4,�'� 4'tY ��..."35E .�Dt'fip , St# i _ ,..u-r+.,tw...»..Gt .. Exhibit A 450 Union Ave. SE