Press Alt + R to read the document text or Alt + P to download or print.

No preview available

The URL can be used to link to this page

Home My WebLink AboutCouncil 04/28/2008 r AGENDA RENTON CITY COUNCIL • REGULAR MEETING April 28, 2008 Monday, 7 p.m. 1. CALL TO ORDER AND PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE 2. ROLL CALL 3. SPECIAL PRESENTATION: First Savings Bank NW Recognition 4. PUBLIC HEARING: City Code Title IV (Development Regulations) docket items: Alleys, Fast Food, and Towing Operations/Auto Impoundment Yards 5. ADMINISTRATIVE REPORT 6. 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. 7. 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 4/21/2008. Council concur. b. City Clerk reports appeal of Hearing Examiner's decision regarding the Blueberry Haven Short Plat application (SHP-07-131)by Richard and Lauralee Gordley, represented by Dickson Steinacker LLP, 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.). c. Court Case filed on behalf of Shane Watson and Lauren Watson by Dann D. Sheffield, Sheffield & Associates, who seek compensation for injury and permanent disability sustained by Shane Watson on 2/10/2005 while working on the Maplewood Water Treatment Facility and Golf Course Improvements construction project. Refer to City Attorney and Insurance Services. d. Community and Economic Development Department recommends approval of the New Life - Aqua Barn Annexation; 374 acres located in the vicinity of Maple Valley Hwy. Council concur. (See 9.a. to 9.g. for ordinances.) e. Community Services Department recommends approval of the revisions to the Park Rules and Regulations. Refer to Community Services Committee. f. Police Department recommends approval of the starting compensation for two specific Lateral Police Officers at Step D of the salary range. Council concur. g. Public Works Department recommends approval of the request to waive the past due water bill in the amount of$16,307.72 for the water meter at Liberty Park. Refer to Finance Committee. h. Public Works Department recommends approval to amend the 2008 Budget for Fund 501, Equipment Rental, in the amount of$37,077 to fund a Mechanic Assistant position, and approval to add the previously approved Street Maintenance Manager position to the 2008 Budget index of • positions. Approval is also sought to hire a Mechanic Assistant, grade a09, effective 7/1/2008. Refer to Finance Committee. i. Transportation Systems Division requests approval of an agreement in the amount of$19,700 with King County for providing shoulder improvements along Ripley Lane. Council concur. (See 9.a. for resolution.) (CONTINUED ON REVERSE SIDE) 1 j. Transportation Systems Division recommends approval of an agreement in the amount of $63,797 with Parametrix, Inc. for the May Creek Bridge at NE 31st St. Replacement project. Council concur. • k. Utility Systems Division submits CAG-07-027, SW 34th St. Culvert Replacement; and requests approval of the project, authorization for final pay estimate in the amount of$1,600, commencement of 60-day lien period, and release of retained amount of$66,516.98 to R.L. Alia Company, contractor, if all required releases are obtained. Council concur. 1. Utility Systems Division requests authorization to establish the Highlands Water Main Improvements Special Assessment District in the estimated amount of$2,000,000 to ensure that project costs are equitably distributed to those who benefit. Refer to Utilities Committee. m. Utility Systems Division recommends approval of an agreement with Harrington Square Associates, LLC regarding cost sharing for the construction of the Highlands Water Main Improvements project. City's cost share is $1,400,000. Refer to Utilities Committee. 8. UNFINISHED BUSINESS Topics listed below were discussed in Council committees during the past week. Those topics marked with an asterisk(*) may include legislation. Committee reports on any topics may be held by the Chair if further review is necessary. a. Finance Committee: Vouchers; 2008 Budget Amendment for Information Technology Projects* b. Transportation (Aviation) Committee: Transit Now Route 153 Partnership Agreement with King County and Kent* 9. RESOLUTIONS AND ORDINANCES Resolutions a. Agreement with King County re Ripley Lane shoulder improvements (see 7.i.) b. Agreement with King County and Kent re: Metro Bus Route 153 (see 8.b.) • Ordinances for first reading: a. Approving the New Life - Aqua Barn Annexation (see 7.d.) b. Establishing CA zoning for the New Life - Aqua Barn Annexation area; 3.062 acres (see 7.d.) c. Establishing RC zoning for the New Life - Aqua Barn Annexation area; 109.35 acres (see 7.d.) d. Establishing RMH zoning for the New Life - Aqua Barn Annexation area 26.79 acres (see 7.d.) e. Establishing R-4 zoning for the New Life - Aqua Barn Annexation area; 95.20 acres (see 7.d.) f. Establishing R-8 zoning for the New Life - Aqua Barn Annexation area; 12.10 acres (see 7.d.) g. Establishing R-14 zoning for the New Life - Aqua Barn Annexation area; 69.35 acres (see 7.d.) h. 2008 Budget amendment for information technology projects (see 8.a.) Ordinance for second and final reading: Adjusting utility discount rates for low-income senior/disabled residents (1st reading 4/21/2008) 10. NEW BUSINESS (Includes Council Committee agenda topics; call 425-430-6512 for recorded information.) 11. AUDIENCE COMMENT 12. ADJOURNMENT COMMITTEE OF THE WHOLE AGENDA (Preceding Council Meeting) Council Conference Room • 5:30 p.m. Emerging Issues in Community and Economic Development; Annexation Implementation Update; 1st Quarter Financial Report 1 RENTON CITY COUNCIL Regular Meeting April 28, 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 flag. ROLL CALL OF MARCIE PALMER, Council President; DON PERSSON; KING PARKER; COUNCILMEMBERS RICH ZWICKER; GREG TAYLOR; RANDY CORMAN. MOVED BY PALMER, SECONDED BY CORMAN, COUNCIL EXCUSE ABSENT COUNCILMEMBER TERRI BRIERE. CARRIED. CITY STAFF IN DENIS LAW,Mayor; JAY COVINGTON,Chief Administrative Officer; ATTENDANCE ZANETTA FONTES,Assistant City Attorney; BONNIE WALTON, City Clerk; GREGG ZIMMERMAN,Public Works Administrator;ALEX PIETSCH, Community and Economic Development Administrator; REBECCA LIND,Planning Manager; TERRY HIGASHIYAMA, Community Services Administrator; TIM LAWLESS, Housing Repair Coordinator; MARTY WINE, Assistant CAO; DEPUTY CHIEF MARK PETERSON, Fire Department; DEPUTY CHIEF TIM TROXEL,Police Department. SPECIAL PRESENTATION Housing Repair Coordinator Lawless introduced Mark Fehr, Community Human Services: Housing Reinvestment Officer and Assistant Vice President with First Savings Bank Repair Assistance Program, Northwest, and reported that for the past eleven years,the bank has been First Savings Bank Northwest supporting the Housing Repair Assistance Program by providing matching Grant funds to help pay for services. To date, the amount of support totals $185,000. Mr. Lawless explained that the purpose of the program is to help low-income, disabled, and older adults maintain their homes to be safe and healthy places to live. The services provided enable the recipients to maintain independent lifestyles and increase the amount of time they are able to stay in their homes. Mr. Fehr was presented with an award in honor of the bank's continued support of the Housing Repair Assistance Program. Councilmember Corman noted the importance of the safety improvements that are provided by this program. PUBLIC HEARING This being the date set and proper notices having been posted and published in Planning: Development accordance with local and State laws,Mayor Law opened the public hearing to Regulations (Title IV) 2006 consider amendments to the following City Code Title IV (Development Docket Review Regulations) docket items: Alleys,Fast Food, and Towing Operations/Auto Impoundment Yards. Starting with the amendments concerning fast food, Planning Manager Lind pointed out the existing inaccuracy and inconsistency with the "fast food" and "eating and drinking establishments" definitions, and the need to revise Note 22 associated with the zoning use tables. She stated that the proposal includes: adding "fast food restaurants" as a new category under "Retail" in the zoning table; allowing stand-alone fast food with drive-throughs in the Commercial Arterial (CA)zone; allowing fast food with drive-throughs only in the Employment Area Valley in the Light Industrial (IL) zone; revising definitions for "fast food" and "drive-in/drive-through retail or service"; and prohibiting drive-throughs in the Center Downtown and Center Village zones. Turning to the amendments regarding alleys,Ms. Lind explained that the R-8 (eight dwelling units per acre)zone does not have development standards requiring properties that abut an alley to use the alley for vehicular access to all April 28, 2008 Renton City Council Minutes Page 137 parking areas. The recommended amendments include implementing standards for properties that abut public alleys in the R-8 zone with a paved and/or crushed rock surface, whereas vehicular access will be taken from the alley, and all parking areas and garages will be in the rear or side yards. Ms. Lind noted that the added development standards will maintain or improve established neighborhood characteristics. Moving on to the amendments pertaining to towing operations/auto impoundment yards, Ms. Lind stated that towing and auto impoundment is only allowed in the Heavy Industrial and Medium Industrial zones. She pointed out the difficulty in finding available land in these zones suitable for this type of use, and noted that towing is a necessary service. Ms. Lind reported that the proposed changes include: permitting towing operations/auto impoundment yards in the IL zone when tow trucks and impounded vehicles are kept in a building; implementing a new definition for "towing operations" that omits the element of auto impoundment;permitting towing operations in the CA zone when the use is shared with an auto body or auto repair shop and when tow trucks are kept in a building when not in use; and allowing Class A, B, and E tow vehicles in both the IL and CA zones. Correspondence was read from Angela Laulainen(Renton) supporting the alley amendments. She stated that the amendments will help maintain the pedestrian- friendly nature of the North Renton neighborhood,maintain the character of the neighborhood, and encourage developers to design homes with landscaped front yards. Correspondence was read from Jason Scott(Renton) expressing concern regarding crime and alley safety in the North Renton Neighborhood. He recommended that the alley amendments only be considered as part of a comprehensive plan to address the most pressing issues in the neighborhood: blight, crime, and problem landlords. Public comment was invited. Ray Giometti (Renton) voiced support for the alley amendments as proposed, pointing out that single-family houses will be built that fit into neighborhoods as they look now. Stating that although these amendments are especially suitable for north and south Renton,he noted the possibility of separating the Highlands area and other parts of the City from the downtown area. George Daniels(Renton) disagreed with the alley amendments,pointing out that currently, about 50 percent of the houses have off-the-street vehicular access. He encouraged the City to review the long-term ramifications, noting that alley maintenance will increase as traffic on the alleys increase. Additionally, Mr. Daniels expressed concerns regarding the negative effect on the use of backyards and the current encroachment of buildings into the alleys. Nora Schultz (Renton) expressed her support for the alley amendments. She indicated that vehicular access from alleys makes sense in north and south Renton, as it is uniform and more visually appealing. Howard McOmber(Renton) noted the lack of maintenance of alleys in the Highlands area. He stated his preference for more flexibility regarding vehicular access to homes in the Highlands area, suggesting that the Hearing Examiner make the determinations concerning access on a case by case basis. April 28,2008 Renton City Council Minutes Page 138 There being no further public comment, it was MOVED BY PARKER, SECONDED BY ZWICKER, COUNCIL CLOSE THE PUBLIC HEARING. CARRIED. Councilmember Parker noted that these items will remain in Planning and Development Committee for further review. 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 public is invited to an open house to kick-off the beginning of the Shoreline Master Program update on April 30 at City Hall. 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 4/21/2008. Council concur. 4/21/2008 Appeal: Blueberry Haven City Clerk reported appeal of Hearing Examiner's decision regarding the Short Plat, Gordley, SHP-07- Blueberry Haven Short Plat application (SHP-07-131)by Richard and Lauralee 131 Gordley, represented by Dickson Steinacker LLP, accompanied by required fee. Refer to Planning and Development Committee. (See page 141 for action on related correspondence.) Court Case: Shane Watson & Court Case filed on behalf of Shane Watson and Lauren Watson by Sheffield& Lauren Watson, CRT-08-004 Associates who seek compensation for injury and permanent disability sustained by Shane Watson on 2/10/2005 while working as a subcontractor on the Maplewood Water Treatment Facility and Golf Course Improvements construction project. Refer to City Attorney and Insurance Services. Annexation: New Life - Aqua Community and Economic Development Department recommended approval of Barn, Maple Valley Hwy the New Life-Aqua Barn Annexation; 374 acres located in the vicinity of Maple Valley Hwy. Council concur. (See page 140 for ordinances.) Community Services: Park Community Services Department recommended approval of the revisions to the Rules & Regulations Changes Park Rules and Regulations. Refer to Community Services Committee. Police: Lateral Police Officers Police Department recommended approval of the starting compensation for two Hire at Step D specific Lateral Police Officers at Step D of the salary range. Council concur. Finance: Utility Bill Public Works Department recommended approval of the request to waive the Adjustment, Community past due water bill in the amount of$16,307.72 for the water meter at Liberty Services Department Park. Refer to Finance Committee. Budget: 2008 Amendment, Public Works Department recommended approval to amend the 2008 Budget Mechanic Assistant Position for Fund 501, Equipment Rental, in the amount of$37,077 to fund a Mechanic Assistant position, and approval to add the previously approved Street Maintenance Manager position to the 2008 Budget index of positions. Approval was also sought to hire a Mechanic Assistant, grade a09, effective 7/1/2008. Refer to Finance Committee. Transportation: Ripley Lane Transportation Systems Division requested approval of an agreement in the Shoulder Improvements, King amount of$19,700 with King County for providing shoulder improvements County along Ripley Lane. Council concur. (See page 139 for resolution.) Transportation: May Creek Transportation Systems Division recommended approval of an agreement in the Bridge at NE 31st St amount of$63,797 with Parametrix, Inc. for the May Creek Bridge at NE 31st Replacement, Parametrix St. Replacement project. Council concur. April 28, 2008 Renton City Council Minutes Page 139 CAG: 07-027, SW 34th St Utility Systems Division submitted CAG-07-027, SW 34th St. Culvert Culvert Replacement, RL Alia Replacement; and requested approval of the project, authorization for final pay Company estimate in the amount of$1,600, commencement of 60-day lien period, and release of retained amount of$66,516.98 to R.L. Alia Company, contractor, if all required releases are obtained. Council concur. SAD: Highlands Water Main Utility Systems Division requested authorization to establish the Highlands Improvements Water Main Improvements Special Assessment District in the estimated amount of$2,000,000 to ensure that project costs are equitably distributed to those who benefit. Refer to Utilities Committee. Utility: Highlands Water Main Utility Systems Division recommended approval of an agreement with Improvements, Harrington Harrington Square Associates,LLC regarding cost sharing for the construction Square Associates of the Highlands Water Main Improvements project. City's cost share is $1,400,000. Refer to Utilities Committee. MOVED BY PALMER, SECONDED BY CORMAN, COUNCIL APPROVE THE CONSENT AGENDA AS PRESENTED. CARRIED. UNFINISHED BUSINESS Finance Committee Chair Persson presented a report recommending approval of Finance Committee Claim Vouchers 271339 - 271784 and two wire transfers totaling Finance: Vouchers $3,381,603.62; and approval of 142 Payroll Vouchers, one wire transfer, and 757 direct deposits totaling$2,528,329.70. MOVED BY PERSSON, SECONDED BY PARKER, COUNCIL CONCUR IN THE COMMITTEE • REPORT. CARRIED. Budget: 2008 Amendment, Finance Committee Chair Persson presented a report recommending Information Technology concurrence in the staff recommendation to amend the 2008 Budget and provide Projects funds to complete information technology projects as follows: 1. $273,000 for Maintenance Task Management Systems implementation, 2. $136,000 for New World Police Systems software and services, 3. $50,000 for completion of the website refresh, and 4. $27,000 for a video and remote training system for the Fire and Emergency Services Department. The Committee further recommended that the ordinance regarding this matter be presented for first reading. MOVED BY PERSSON, SECONDED BY PARKER, COUNCIL CONCUR IN THE COMMITTEE REPORT. CARRIED. (See page 141 for ordinance.) Transportation (Aviation) Transportation (Aviation) Committee Chair Corman presented a report Committee regarding the Transit Now Route 153 transit service partnership agreement. The Transportation: Metro Route Committee recommended concurrence in the staff recommendation to authorize 153 Bus Service, King County the Mayor and City Clerk to enter into the King County Metro Route 153 & Kent partnership agreement with King County Metro Transit and the City of Kent. The Committee further recommended that the resolution regarding this matter be presented for reading and adoption. MOVED BY CORMAN, SECONDED BY PALMER, COUNCIL CONCUR IN THE COMMITTEE REPORT. CARRIED. (See page 140 for resolution.) RESOLUTIONS AND The following resolutions were presented for reading and adoption: ORDINANCES Resolution #3943 A resolution was read authorizing the Mayor and City Clerk to enter into an Transportation: Ripley Lane interlocal agreement with King County regarding reimbursement for work to be Shoulder Improvements, King done on Ripley Lane. MOVED BY PERSSON, SECONDED BY PALMER, County COUNCIL ADOPT THE RESOLUTION AS READ. CARRIED. v April 28, 2008 Renton City Council Minutes Page 140 Resolution #3944 A resolution was read authorizing the Mayor and City Clerk to execute the Transportation: Metro Route transit service direct financial partnership agreement by and between King 153 Bus Service, King County County and the cities of Renton and Kent. MOVED BY PERSSON, & Kent SECONDED BY CORMAN, COUNCIL ADOPT THE RESOLUTION AS READ. CARRIED. The following ordinances were presented for first reading and referred to the Council meeting of 5/5/2008 for second and final reading: Annexation: New Life-Aqua An ordinance was read annexing approximately 374 acres of property generally Barn, Maple Valley Hwy located immediately south of the Renton Maple Valley Hwy. and immediately east of the Cedar River at approximately 136th Ave. SE;New Life-Aqua Barn Annexation. MOVED BY PARKER, SECONDED BY ZWICKER, COUNCIL REFER THE ORDINANCE FOR SECOND AND FINAL READING ON 5/5/2008. CARRIED. Annexation: New Life-Aqua An ordinance was read establishing the zoning classification for approximately Barn, CA Zoning(3.062 3.062 acres of property annexed within the City of Renton from King County Acres) zoning to CA (Commercial Arterial) zoning; CPA 2007-M-03;New Life -Aqua Barn Annexation. MOVED BY PERSSON, SECONDED BY PARKER, COUNCIL REFER THE ORDINANCE FOR SECOND AND FINAL READING ON 5/5/2008. CARRIED. Annexation: New Life-Aqua An ordinance was read establishing the zoning classification for approximately Barn, RC Zoning (109.35 109.35 acres of property annexed within the City of Renton from King County Acres) zoning to RC (Resource Conservation)zoning; CPA 2007-M-03; New Life - Aqua Barn Annexation. MOVED BY PARKER, SECONDED BY ZWICKER, COUNCIL REFER THE ORDINANCE FOR SECOND AND FINAL READING ON 5/5/2008. CARRIED. Annexation: New Life - Aqua An ordinance was read establishing the zoning classification of approximately Barn, RMH Zoning (26.79 26.79 acres of property annexed within the City of Renton from King County Acres) zoning to RMH (Residential Manufactured Home) zoning; CPA 2007-M-03; New Life- Aqua Barn Annexation. MOVED BY PARKER, SECONDED BY ZWICKER, COUNCIL REFER THE ORDINANCE FOR SECOND AND FINAL READING ON 5/5/2008. CARRIED. Annexation: New Life - Aqua An ordinance was read establishing the zoning classification of approximately Barn, R-4 Zoning(95.20 95.20 acres of property annexed within the City of Renton from King County Acres) zoning to R-4(Residential - four dwelling units per net acre)zoning; CPA 2007-M-03;New Life-Aqua Barn Annexation. MOVED BY PARKER, SECONDED BY ZWICKER, COUNCIL REFER THE ORDINANCE FOR SECOND AND FINAL READING ON 5/5/2008. CARRIED. Annexation: New Life - Aqua An ordinance was read establishing the zoning classification of approximately Barn, R-8 Zoning (12.10 12.10 acres of property annexed within the City of Renton from King County Acres) zoning to R-8 (Residential - eight dwelling units per net acre) zoning; CPA- 2007-M-03; New Life- Aqua Barn Annexation. MOVED BY PARKER, SECONDED BY PALMER, COUNCIL REFER THE ORDINANCE FOR SECOND AND FINAL READING ON 5/5/2008. CARRIED. Annexation: New Life - Aqua An ordinance was read establishing the zoning classification of approximately Barn, R-14 Zoning(69.35 69.35 acres of property annexed within the City of Renton from King County Acres) zoning to R-14 (Residential - 14 dwelling units per net acre)zoning; CPA- 2007-M-03;New Life-Aqua Barn Annexation. MOVED BY PARKER, SECONDED BY CORMAN, COUNCIL REFER THE ORDINANCE FOR SECOND AND FINAL READING ON 5/5/2008. CARRIED. April 28,2008 Renton City Council Minutes Page 141 Budget: 2008 Amendment, An ordinance was read amending the 2008 Budget in the total amount of Information Technology $486,000 as it relates to Information Services Fund 503. MOVED BY Projects PERSSON, SECONDED BY PALMER, COUNCIL REFER THE ORDINANCE FOR SECOND AND FINAL READING ON 5/5/2008. CARRIED. The following ordinance was presented for second and final reading and adoption: Ordinance#5372 An ordinance was read amending Chapter 1, Garbage, Chapter 2, Storm and Utility: Low-Income Senior& Surface Water, Chapter 4, Water, and Chapter 5, Sewers of Title VIII (Health Disabled Utility Rates and Sanitation) of City Code by adjusting current utility discount rates for low- income senior/disabled residents. MOVED BY PERSSON, SECONDED BY CORMAN, COUNCIL ADOPT THE ORDINANCE AS READ. ROLL CALL: ALL AYES. CARRIED. NEW BUSINESS Councilmember Parker reported receipt of correspondence within the deadline Citizen Comment: Blueberry allowed by City Code regarding the appeal of the Hearing Examiner's decision Haven Short Plat Appeal, concerning the Blueberry Haven Short Plat from the following: William E. Gordley, SHP-07-131 O'Connor(Port Angeles), Sue Rider(Renton), Deanna Dobak (Renton), Barbara P. Hicks(Renton), Julie E. Bray(Renton), and Ashley A. Peck,Gendler& Mann LLP (Seattle). MOVED BY PARKER, SECONDED BY ZWICKER, COUNCIL REFER THESE ITEMS OF CORRESPONDENCE TO THE PLANNING AND DEVELOPMENT COMMITTEE. CARRIED. ADJOURNMENT MOVED BY PERSSON, SECONDED BY ZWICKER, COUNCIL ADJOURN. CARRIED. Time: 7:48 p.m..� // Bonnie I. Walton, CMC, City Clerk Recorder: Michele Neumann April 28, 2008 RENTON CITY COUNCIL COMMITTEE MEETING CALENDAR Office of the City Clerk COUNCIL COMMITTEE MEETINGS SCHEDULED AT CITY COUNCIL MEETING April 28, 2008 COMMITTEE/CHAIRMAN DATE/TIME AGENDA COMMITTEE OF THE WHOLE MON., 5/05 Emerging Issues - Regional Updates; (Palmer) 5:30 p.m. Hendrix House Update; Museum Master Plan Update *Council Conference Room* COMMUNITY SERVICES MON., 5/05 Park Rules and Regulations Revisions (Briere) 5 p.m. FINANCE (Persson) PLANNING & DEVELOPMENT THURS., 5/01 City Code Title IV (Development (Parker) 2:30 p.m. Regulations) Docket Item re: Wireless Regulations 3 p.m. 409 Whitworth Condominiums Site Plan Appeal *Council Chambers* PUBLIC SAFETY MON., 5/05 Traffic Safety Camera Program (briefing (Taylor) 4 p.m. only); International Fire Code Adoption TRANSPORTATION (AVIATION) (Corman) UTILITIES THURS., 5/01 Highlands Water Main Improvements (Zwicker) 1:30 p.m. Special Assessment District; Agreement with Harrington Square for Highlands Water Main Improvements Cost Sharing 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. `SY O ve'2sNryO� 2008 DOCKET PUBLIC HEARING April 28, 2008 1. FAST FOOD CODE AMENDMENT The City of Renton currently peiuuts fast food through"eating and drinking establishments"in the Center Village (CV), Commercial Arterial (CA), Center Downtown (CD), Urban Center North Zones (UC-N1 and UC-N2), Light Industrial (IL), Medium Industrial (IM) and Heavy Industrial (IH) zones. However, there is a technical discrepancy in the Renton Municipal Code with regard to fast food restaurants since the definition for eating and drinking establishments prohibits fast food. Also, the language in note 22 consists of three different topics, all of which are referenced in the CN, CV, and CA zones and therefore, clarity of the note is an issue. Restricting the drive-through component for fast food in the CV and CD zones, only permitting stand-alone fast food with a drive-through in the CA zone, and limiting location of fast food in the IL zone to Employment Area Valley would further the intent of these zones. The purpose statements of the CV and CD zones encourage pedestrian friendly environment, therefore restricting drive-throughs further this intent. Additionally, revision of the development regulations to include "fast food restaurants" as a retail use within the zoning table and amending note 22 so it relates only to the pertinent zoning districts which have restrictions on building size limitations attempts to simplify existing code. RECOMMENDATION: • Add"Fast Food Restaurant"as a new category under"Retail" • Prohibit drive-throughs from stand-alone fast food restaurants in the CD and CV zones • Limit the location of fast food restaurants with drive-throughs to the Employment Area Valley in the IL zone • Permit fast food restaurants with drive-throughs in the CA zone • Revise the definition for fast food restaurants so that the inconsistency in the code is clarified. This includes not classifying a fast food restaurant as an eating and drinking establishment. • The current definition for drive-in/drive-through retail/service calls out the specific use rather than the drive-in/drive-through element such as fast food restaurants and espresso stands versus fast food windows or espresso windows. Therefore, this definition is being revised so that the drive-in services are being referenced rather than the use such as "fast-food windows, espresso windows, banks and pharmacies." 2. ALLEYS CODE AMENDMENT Residential zones R-10, R-14,RM-U, and RM-T have development standards where abutting alleys are to be used for the location of parking, garages, and access. The R-8 zone does not. The majority of public alleys located in the R-8 zone are in the Highlands, Kennydale, North Renton, and Renton Hill areas. Many properties with alley access have developed with parking and garages accessed from the rear of a lot via an alley, with the exception of the Highlands. This style of development has created unique neighborhood elements as compared with more suburban style development. These characteristics include more on-street parking, less curb cuts across continuous sidewalks and paths, garages located to the back or side of homes, and safer, more pedestrian oriented streets. Currently, new projects in the R-8 zone can compromise these characteristics as current development standards allow the placement of driveways between a home and street. There are a variety of alley surfaces: grass, crushed rock, pavement, or a mix. Adding parking and access standards will maintain or improve neighborhood J character, maintain safe pedestrian environments, keep valued on-street parking spaces, and utilize the City's entire transportation network. >` RECOMMENDATION: • Implement parking and vehicular access standards for properties in the R-8 zone that abut an alley with paved and/or crushed rock surfacing • Access standards would require vehicular entry and exit to the site's parking areas and garages through the use of an abutting alleyway • Parking standards would require parking areas and attached and detached garages to be located in the rear or side yard of a property and not allowed between a front lot line and front building line 3. TOWING OPERATIONS/AUTO IMPOUNDMENT YARDS CODE AMENDMENT Currently, in the City of Renton towing services are linked as a land use with auto impoundment yard and are only allowed in the Heavy Industrial (IH) and Medium Industrial (IM) zones. Due to this, smaller scale tow operations have found it difficult to conduct business in the City. A docket request was made to allow towing operations/impound facilities as a land use in the Light Industrial (IL) and Commercial Arterial (CA) zones in addition to the IH and IM zones, subject to some conditions such as containment inside a building and not allowing heavy-duty tow trucks. The IL zone purpose statement allows for low intensity activities such as storage when it occurs in a building. The condition of keeping the operations and impoundment functions of towing within a building meets this purpose statement. The CA zone purpose statement emphasizes the intention to encourage a pedestrian environment and retail and service businesses. The business districts allow a maximum density of 60 dwelling units per acre and encourage a strong emphasis on pedestrians. Separating the two uses of towing operations/auto impoundment yard and allowing the towing operations function when it is shared with another auto related use successfully emphasizes the services aspect of towing while not deterring from a pedestrian environment. RECOMMENDATION: • Write a new definition for"towing operations", omitting the element of auto impoundment • Permit towing operations/auto impoundment yards in the Industrial Light(IL)zone when: • tow vehicles are limited to Class A,B, and E, and • the vehicles that have been towed are kept in a building, and • towing vehicles are housed in a building when not in use • Allow the towing operations function as an administrative conditional use in the Commercial Arterial (CA)zone when the use is: • shared with an auto repair or auto body shop, and • towing vehicles are limited to Class A, B, and E, and • towing vehicles are housed in a building when not in use t r City of Renton City Council • Public Hearing Docket Item 06-14 Docket Items: ; Fast Food Fast Food,Alleys,and Towing &Note 22 Operations/Auto Impoundment Yards April 28,2008 u��,°�> Background Recommendation •Request to correct an inconsistency in the RMC •The Planning Commission and staff recommend the relating to fast food restaurants&note 22. • Currently,fast food restaurants are permitted through following changes: "eating and drinking establishments"in— • Add fast food as a new category in the zoning table •CV,CA,CD,IL,IM,IH,UC-Nl&UC-N2 zones • Allow stand-alone fast food in the CA • • Definition of Eating and drinking establishments with drive—through service prohibit fast food,whereas fast food is defined as an • Allow in IL zones only in Valley eating and drinking establishment • With drive—through service • Note 22 is referenced in the CV,CN and CA zone • Revise definitions for"Fast food"and"drive/in drive-through>. • Size restrictions CV,CN,CA • retail or service" •Fast food in CN •No office and conference CV • Becomes 2 notes Recommendation (cont.) • No drive-through in CD&CV zones • UCN-1 Zone(keep existing) Size requirements for all fast food pads Docket Item 06-13 • Minimum of 5,000 sq.tt.or 3t • Incorporated within a shopping center 1; Alleys • These proposed changes comply with the Comprehensive Plan • Land Use Element,Goals#9&10 ' ' S£ [! II 4 — .- ..... ..... .._ .,:w._...w.. ....._ ..- .... b dna. Background t Recommendation . •Request to require properties in the Residential-8(R-8) 1 a The Planning Commission and staff rrt.`:q,_ . ;: zone that abut an alley to use the alley for vehicular s recommend the following changes: '; .:y.x:;. '',1 access to all parking areas. •Implement standards for properties ,. ': •Other City Residential Zones have these requirements. 1 that abut public alleys in the R-8 zone with a paved and/or crushed -0,S;;-='. .::,,,. '� •Concern expressed is that current standards can 1! .. compromise neighborhood characteristics. rock surface. n •Vehicular access to be taken from the ''',5'-' " iw•4, z.. , _ alley. �' # L:,;-,.,,r— '. Require all parking areas and garages to • • fi e g1in be provided in the rear or side yard. '' .'••,'„,;,, N Renton streets •• " 4 K6aay Nte4 Recommendation (cont.) .. • Adding development standards willit maintain or improve established �• ,,.o.1 neighborhood characteristics. Docket Item 06-15 • This recommendation complies with the Comprehensive Plan. Towing Operations/ •Community Design Element Goals and Policy CD-13. p Auto Impoundment Yards . . tit ISI -..—..-.-- - .m. m —.wm .aa Background Recommendation i •Request to allow towing operations/auto impoundment •The Planning Commission and staff recommend the $ yards in the Industrial Light(IL)zone and the following changes: Commercial Arterial(CA)zone. •Permit Towing Operations/Auto Impoundment Yards in •When the operation occurs entirely in a building the IL zone when: •When tow trucks are light and medium duty trucks •Towing/auto impoundment is currently only allowed in . 'Tow trucks and impounded vehicles are kept in a building the Industrial Heavy and Industrial Medium zones. I •Implement a new definition for"Towing Operations" •Concern: i •Remove the auto impoundment yard function •Difficult to find available land in these zones. •Places an emphasis on the service aspect in the more •Towing is a necessary service that the City wishes to pedestrian oriented business districts and CA zone. accommodate. J • _ R Recommendation ! Public Record •Permit towing operations in the CA zone when: •The following materials are entered into the public •The use is shared with an auto body shop or an auto repair record shop • Fast Food •Tow trucks are kept in a building when not in use • Planning Commission Recommendation March 26,2008 • Issue Paper March 26,2008 •Allow only Class A,B,and E tow vehicles m both the IL • Alleys and CA zones. • Planning Commission Recommendation March 26,2008 •These proposed changes comply with the Comprehensive € • Issue Paper March 26,2008 Plan. • Towing •Land Use Element Goal#9,the Goal and the Purpose • Planning Commission Recommendation March 12,2008 Statement for the Commercial designation • Issue Paper February 27,and March 12,2008 Next Steps for This Docket Group •Planning and Development Committee Recommendation •City Council Action tiSY U "t> • • -N ro`• P P- craria kittel41"-y From: "Laulainen, Angela"<ALaulainen@Iwsd.org> To: <council@ci.renton.wa.us> Date: 4/28/2008 4:39:30 PM Subject: Public Hearing regarding use of Alleys Dear Council Members: I am writing to make a comment regarding the Public Hearing to consider the following: Amendments to Renton Municipal Code-2006 Title IV Docket Items: Alleys- Implementing parking and loading standards for properties abutting an existing paved and/or crushed rock alley; and locating parking and/or garages in new development in the side or rear yards with vehicular access through the abutting alley I support the amendment to require new development to make use of the alleys instead of placing garages and driveways on the street. I would like to keep our neighborhood pedestrian friendly and this amendment would help to maintain the character of the neighborhood by encouraging developers to design homes with predominantly landscaped or grass covered front yards as opposed to predominantly driveways. I do not want to see the yards disappear when this happens and have our neighborhood become mostly asphalt. Please approve this amendment. Thank you. Sincerely, Angela Laulainen 314 Garden AVE N Renton, WA 98057 41 11' Age; ' 4/ , 1-01001 From: "Jason Scott"<jasondscott@gmail.com> To: <Council@ci.renton.wa.us> Date: 4/28/2008 5:57:10 PM Subject: Re: Fw:Alleys - Public Hearing Dear Councilmembers: I am writing in response to the proposed Alleys Code Amendment to Title IV of the City Code. My wife and I own a home on Garden Avenue North in the North Renton neighborhood. In the three years we have lived in the neighborhood, we, and many of our neighbors, have become increasingly frustrated with the blight and crime in our beloved neighborhood. In large part, the blight and crime is a direct result of the acts and omissions of a few derelict landlords. We have dilapidated, boarded-up buildings that are eyesores and whose only useful purposes are to serve as attractive nuisances and safe houses for criminal activity. We have landlords renting single-family homes to multiple families, creating population densities that our neighborhood is not equipped to handle. We have other landlords who know their rental units are being used as drug houses, yet allow such activity to continue unfettered. I know this has little to do with the amendment before you tonight that would ban garages in front of homes, but that is exactly my point. I feel like the City's priorities need to be refocused to first address the most pressing issues facing North Renton and other similar neighborhoods. I am not opposed, per se, to the proposed Alley Amendment. I appreciate the fact that it was proposed with the intent of improving the pedestrian-friendliness of the neighborhood and preserving the character of the neighborhood. On the other hand,we are a long way from having safe enough alleys in our neighborhood where I would want my wife parking in our alley at night. Whatever one thinks of the Alley Amendment, it is best to consider such an amendment only as part of a comprehensive plan to address the most pressing issues facing our neighborhood. Trying to preserve the character of the neighborhood when part of that"character" is seen by many neighbors as blight and crime is premature. I hope that the Council will consider working with North Renton and other neighborhoods on a comprehensive plan to deal with blight, crime, and problem landlords as well as issues such as the one before the Council concerning parking in alleys. Sincerely, Jason Scott 235 Garden Avenue N. (425)896-4439 On Fri, Apr 25, 2008 at 12:09 PM, Julia Medzegian < Jmedzegian@ci.renton.wa.us>wrote: • > Dear Jason, > Per Councilmember Zwicker's request, I am copying you with Monday's >Council Agenda. Please note that the Public Hearing regarding this matter > is on the agenda. If you cannot make the meeting and would like to comment >via email, please send your comments to Council@ci.renton.wa.us. Those >comments will be forwarded to each councilmember individually and included > in the public record. Please let me know if you have questions or concerns. >Sincerely, >Julia Medzegian > City Council Liaison >425.430.6501 >jmedzegian@ci.renton.wa.us > >>>"Rich Zwicker"<richzwicker@msn.com>4/22/2008 6:14 AM >>> > Julia, please add Jason Scott to the interested party list for the alley > issue. Thank you!! > Original Message *From:*Jason Scott<jasondscott@gmail.com> >*To:*Rich Zwicker<richardzwicker@msn.com> >*Sent:*Saturday, April 19, 2008 6:15 PM >*Subject:* Re: Alleys - Public Hearing > Rich, >Thanks for keeping us informed. >As far as this proposed code change goes, do you know what the reasons are >for prohibiting garages/driveways in the front of homes? I'm having a hard >time thinking of what the benefit of such a change would be to the > neighborhood, and, anecdotally, it seems like a lot of break-ins occur in >alley garages. >Any info you can forward on the arguments for and against the proposed >code change is greatly appreciated. >Thanks, >Jason Scott >235 Garden Avenue North > Renton, WA 98057 >On Sat, Apr 19, 2008 at 9:38 AM, Rich Zwicker<richardzwicker@msn.com> >wrote: > > I wanted to let my North Renton neighbors know that a public hearing has > > been set for April 28, 2008 at 7:00 pm at the Renton City Council meeting > > regarding a code change that will implement new parking and loading >>standards for properties abutting allies. New development would be required > >to locate parking and/or garages in the side or rear yards with vehicular > >access to the parking areas through the abutting alley. >> In other words, no new houses with garages and driveways in the ..r >>front--only alley access. This directly impacts North Renton. ' » >>The Council is seeking input from all sides--both for and against--as it >>considers this code change. We really want to know what the neighborhoods > >think about this. > > Let me know if you have any questions. Thanks!! > >- Rich. CC: "Julia Medzegian"<Jmedzegian@ci.renton.wa.us> • (cy 0 ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT, U ,, NEIGHBORHOODS, AND STRATEGIC • ' PLANNING DEPARTMENT MEMORANDUM DATE: February 27, 2008 TO: Ray Giometti, Planning Commission Chair Members of the Planning Commission FROM: Angie Mathias, Assistant Planner SUBJECT: Docket- 06-15 Towing ISSUE: Should the City allow towing operations to occur in zones other than the Industrial Heavy and Industrial Medium zones? BACKGROUND: In the City of Renton towing services are linked as a land use with auto impoundment yard and are only allowed in the Industrial Heavy (IH) and Industrial Medium (IM) zones. Due to this, smaller scale tow operations have found it difficult to conduct business in the City. In August 2006, Mr. Lee Isben owner of Lee's Towing Service L.L.C. requested that the City allow towing operations/impound facilities as a land use in the Industrial Light (IL) and Commercial Arterial (CA) zones in addition to the IH and IM zones. Mr. Isben also suggested some specific conditions for approval of such land use in those zones. The suggested conditions that apply to zoning code are: • Vehicle storage must be contained inside a building. There are to be no exceptions to this requirement. • No heavy-duty (Class C) tow trucks and/or trucks that exceed 26,000 gross vehicle weight will be permitted on the premises. According to the Washington State Department of Licensing there are six classifications of tow trucks, those are: • Class A — Trucks that are capable of towing and recovery of passenger cars, pickup trucks, small trailers, or equivalent vehicles. • Class B — Trucks that are capable of towing and/or recovery of medium size trucks, trailers, motor homes, or equivalent vehicles. • Class C — Trucks that are capable of towing and/or recovery of large trucks, trailers,buses, motor homes, or similar vehicles. • Class D — Trucks that are equipped for and primarily used as "wheel lift" trucks. • Class E — Trucks designed and intended to transport vehicles entirely on a truck bed. H:\EDNSP\Title IV\Docket\2007\06-15 Towing\Issue Paper.doc Page 1 of 4 t t -a • Class S — Tow or recovery trucks that cannot meet the requirements of Class • "A", "B", "C", "D", or"E" and are not eligible for waiver per WAC 204-91A- 070(4). Mr. Isben also made several other suggestions that include conditions such as keeping the property clean, following safety and environmental measures without exception, and requiring inspection by the Washington State Patrol and City of Renton. Many of these suggested conditions are items that would be required in either City of Renton code or the Revised Code of Washington. For example, an inspection of facilities and tow trucks by Washington State Patrol is an annual requirement under RCW 46.55.040. Currently, City code only permits towing services/impound yards outright in the IH zone. In the IM zone they are allowed as a hearing examiner conditional use and are excluded in the area south of Interstate 405 and north of Southwest 16th Street. As shown in the maps below the locations of these two zones are primarily in the valley area and near the urban center. It is difficult to identify in the maps included below, but the parcel sizes in the IH zone are very large (typically approximately 5 acres) and the parcels in the IM zone are also large (typically approximately 2 acres). There are a few smaller parcels located north of Grady Way and west of Oaksdale Avenue SW (typically approximately.62 acres), of these smaller parcels most are occupied with a use or owned by a public entity. This was one of the issues cited by Mr. Isben as a difficulty in properly locating a towing operation. He stated that the properties that were available in a zoning designation that allows towing were large and therefore expensive. Further, he stated that the property owners of the large parcels were unwilling to subdivide their property into smaller sizes that would then be lower priced. ; s. /� •) `f __1 et c: �—� a - ." tdAte !' h ;'' o'"yrs- ! k�. Fa: r J , r F 4 -',- iL Asa• tlii el 1t - - •i•a. _. � �- i f•, 1 -- ... .,-1• :its , .z,!'•44- i !z.T i' �'dJ I i,� �11 '{� '-;'_i' ,,, :s:-.„-i , ,i-.,..•- -^r.re+-�F 1 y 44, i n: ',1;-:];'!•! N4- ' 1 :„„.ji ! 4',-,-- �f' L "-T ,% #h I i fk , : imilwri..v&o, 1+ . 1. 1,(-44 H:\EDNSP\Title IV\Docket\2007\06-15 Towing\Issue Paper.doc Page 2 of 4 / ISSUE DISCUSSION: In order to evaluate Mr. Ibsen's request to allow towing operations in the IL and CA zone staff referred to the purpose statements for the two zones. The purpose statement for the IL zone reads: "The purpose of the Light Industrial Zone (IL) is to provide areas for low- intensity manufacturing, industrial services, distribution, storage, and technical schools. It is intended to implement the Employment Area Industrial, Employment Area Valley, and Commercial Corridor designation of the Comprehensive Plan. Uses allowed in this zone are generally contained within buildings. Material and/or equipment used in production are not stored outside. Activities in this zone do not generate external emissions such as smoke, odor, noise, vibrations, or other nuisances outside the building. Compatible uses that directly serve the needs of other uses in the zone are also allowed. " With the condition that the vehicles being kept by the tow operation are kept entirely within a building, a tow operation would meet the purpose of the IL zone. It is recommended that tow operations/auto impoundment be allowed in the IL zone when it is located within a building and subject to other limitations. The purpose statement for the CA zone reads: "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, 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 uses 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 with development standards 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 Comprehensive Plan designation. " In the CA zone a large-scale building that stores automobiles is not indoor or outdoor retail sales, but does provide a service. However, this zone also seeks to encourage residential use and pedestrian activity particularly in the business districts. In fact, the business districts allow a maximum residential density of 60 dwelling units/acre in mixed use developments with height limit of 50 feet. It is likely that an indoor tow operation/impoundment yard would be a single story building. Business districts are intended to evolve into concentrated urban forms. The puropose of the regulations for the Business districts is: To "guide the redevelopment of strip commercial urban forms into more concentrated urban forms, provide for design guidelines for residential development within the district, enhance the pedestrian environment, make the commercial environment more attractive, improve the City's tax base, and result in a more successful business district. " H:\EDNSP\Title IV\Docket\2007\06-15 Towing\Issue Paper.doc Page 3 of 4 The business districts are located in gateway and highly commercial areas of the City and are prominent nodes of activity for their surrounding neighborhoods and seek to encourage pedestrian activity. A towing facility is not a business type that pedestrians would engage in linked activities to and from, nor one that people would want to live next to. A linked activity for a pedestrian would be when a person parks in one spot and visits multiple stores or services without moving their vehicle. A person may go to a tow yard to retrieve their vehicle as a pedestrian, but are unlikely to have traveled to their destination for the purpose of visiting other services or shops. However, the zone does intend to allow services and towing is a service. In order to encourage linked visits and emphasize the service aspect of towing rather than the storing of vehicles, it may be reasonable to allow towing operations/auto impoundment when it is an accessory use to another auto related use, such as vehicle repair shops. A large building that has only a single use of storing vehicles would likely lack features that make it an appealing building to walk by. A building that stored a limited number of vehicles would have less impact on the pedestrian environment. Accessory uses are defined as: "Uses customarily incidental and subordinate to the principal use and typically located upon the same lot occupied by the principal use. 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." So, it may be reasonable to allow towing operations/auto impoundment yards in the CA zone when it is accessory to a body shop or vehicle service and repair primary use. Additionally, the number of stored vehicles would be limited to a specified number, the tow vehicles would be required to be garaged, and other limitations. Additionally, in order to continue to encourage the gateway function, pedestrian focus, and mixed-use high density residential development of the business districts it may be appropriate to only allow towing operations/auto impoundment yards in the CA zone outside the business districts and other prominent gateway locations in the CA zone. COMPREHENSIVE PLAN COMPLIANCE: The allowance of a service operation such as towing services/auto impoundment complies with the purpose statement for the commercial corridor designation, which is implemented with both the CA zone and the IL zone. Objective LU-DDD reads in part: "The Commercial land use designation should include: businesses that provide necessary or desirable goods and services to the larger community. However, the same objective also states that the designation should include: `projects that may be highly visible from principal arterial, uses that are dependent upon or benefiting from high-volume traffic, and uses that provide significant employment." To achieve a balance of this objective it will be important to place limitations on the towing services/auto impoundment businesses. CONCLUSION: Staff is looking forward to discussion and input from the Planning Commission on this matter prior to making recommendations. H:\EDNSP\Title IV\Docket\2007\06-15 Towing\Issue Paper.doc Page 4 of 4 Pe d ze,e; • ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT, NEIGHBORHOODS, AND STRATEGIC PLANNING DEPARTMENT MEMORANDUM DATE: March 12, 2008 TO: Ray Giometti, Planning Commission Chair Members of the Planning Commission FROM: Angie Mathias, Assistant Planner SUBJECT: Docket- 06-15 Towing ISSUE: Should the City allow towing operations to occur in zones other than the Industrial Heavy and Industrial Medium zones? RECOMMENDATION: • Permit towing operations/auto impound yards in the Industrial Light (IL) zone when: - tow vehicles are limited to Class A, B, and E, and - the vehicles that have been towed are kept in a building, and - towing vehicles are housed in a building when not in use. • Allow the towing operations function as an administrative conditional use in the Commercial Arterial (CA) zone when the use is: - shared with an auto repair or auto body shop, and - towing vehicles are limited to Class A, B, and E, and - towing vehicles are housed in a building when not in use. • Implement a new definition for towing operations. BACKGROUND: In the City of Renton towing services are linked as a land use with auto impoundment yard and are only allowed in the Industrial Heavy (IH) and Industrial Medium (IM) zones. Due to this, smaller scale tow operations have found it difficult to conduct business in the City. In August 2006, Mr. Lee Isben owner of Lee's Towing Service L.L.C. requested that the City allow towing operations/impound facilities as a land use in the Industrial Light (IL) and Commercial Arterial (CA) zones in addition to the IH and IM zones. Mr. Isben also suggested some specific conditions for approval of such land use in those zones. The suggested conditions that apply to zoning code are: • Vehicle storage must be contained inside a building. There are to be no exceptions to this requirement. H:\EDNSP\Title IV\Docket\2007\06-15 Towing\Issue Paper#2.doc Page 1 of 5 v. • No heavy-duty (Class C) tow trucks and/or trucks that exceed 26,000 gross vehicle weight will be permitted on the premises. According to the Washington State Department of Licensing there are six classifications of tow trucks, those are: • Class A — Trucks that are capable of towing and recovery of passenger cars, pickup trucks, small trailers, or equivalent vehicles. • Class B — Trucks that are capable of towing and/or recovery of medium size trucks, trailers, motor homes, or equivalent vehicles. • Class C — Trucks that are capable of towing and/or recovery of large trucks, trailers, buses, motor homes, or similar vehicles. • Class D — Trucks that are equipped for and primarily used as "wheel lift" trucks. • Class E — Trucks designed and intended to transport vehicles entirely on a truck bed. • Class S — Tow or recovery trucks that cannot meet the requirements of Class "A", "B", "C", "D", or"E" and are not eligible for waiver per WAC 204-91A- 070(4). Mr. Isben also made several other suggestions that include conditions such as keeping the property clean, following safety and environmental measures without exception, and requiring inspection by the Washington State Patrol and City of Renton. Many of these suggested conditions are items that would be required in either City of Renton code or the Revised Code of Washington. For example, an inspection of facilities and tow trucks by Washington State Patrol is an annual requirement under RCW 46.55.040. Currently, City code only permits towing services/impound yards outright in the IH zone. In the IM zone they are allowed as a hearing examiner conditional use and are excluded in the area south of Interstate 405 and north of Southwest 16th Street. As shown in the maps below the locations of these two zones are primarily in the valley area and near the urban center. It is difficult to identify in the maps included below, but the parcel sizes in the IH zone are very large (typically approximately 5 acres) and the parcels in the IM zone are also large (typically approximately 2 acres). There are a few smaller parcels located north of Grady Way and west of Oaksdale Avenue SW (typically approximately.62 acres), of these smaller parcels most are occupied with a use or owned by a public entity. This was one of the issues cited by Mr. Isben as a difficulty in properly locating a towing operation. He stated that the properties that were available in a zoning designation that allows towing were large and therefore expensive. Further, he stated that the property owners of the large parcels were unwilling to subdivide their property into smaller sizes that would then be lower priced. H:\EDNSP\Title IV\Docket\2007\06-15 Towing\Issue Paper#2.doc Page 2 of 5 i !: ,, f / t4_ .-/ s z#'. , .. ,....„ .. .rte g0 xil3 "Q ' r ` ,- ]F .,,.„._,,.. ,,,„, ,,,, ,,,_.,„„_,_,,,,,,. ,,„, - as. iF F a ' _c , 1% I _ I 1 , ''.1'-',:;-. .,',; . . —+2"" ';, . , l" • .. .t t '1,,E, '' :m,:-.:-..,�, �I � .. *�,:`�� -.- Ia'7 I s_< . :-..''' f.±d - 1 :- i 17:: -..:' ' .I >_r ao ISSUE DISCUSSION: In order to evaluate Mr. Ibsen's request to allow towing operations in the IL and CA zone staff referred to the purpose statements for the two zones. The purpose statement for the IL zone reads: "The purpose of the Light Industrial Zone (IL) is to provide areas for low- intensity manufacturing, industrial services, distribution, storage, and technical schools. It is intended to implement the Employment Area Industrial, Employment Area Valley, and Commercial Corridor designation of the Comprehensive Plan. Uses allowed in this zone are generally contained within buildings. Material and/or equipment used in production are not stored outside. Activities in this zone do not generate external emissions such as smoke, odor, noise, vibrations, or other nuisances outside the building. Compatible uses that directly serve the needs of other uses in the zone are also allowed." With the condition that the vehicles being kept by the tow operation are kept entirely within a building, a tow operation would meet the purpose of the IL zone. It is recommended that tow operations/auto impoundment be allowed in the IL zone when it is located within a building and subject to other limitations. The purpose statement for the CA zone reads: H:\EDNSP\Title IV\Docket\2007\06-15 Towing\Issue Paper#2.doc Page 3 of 5 w "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, 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 uses 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 with development standards 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 Comprehensive Plan designation. " In the CA zone a large-scale building that stores automobiles is not indoor or outdoor retail sales, but does provide a service. However, this zone also seeks to encourage residential use and pedestrian activity particularly in the business districts. In fact, the business districts allow a maximum residential density of 60 dwelling units/acre in mixed use developments with height limit of 50 feet. It is likely that an indoor tow operation/impoundment yard would be a single story building. Business districts are intended to evolve into concentrated urban forms. The puropose of the regulations for the Business districts is: To "guide the redevelopment of strip commercial urban forms into more concentrated urban forms, provide for design guidelines for residential development within the district, enhance the pedestrian environment, make the commercial environment more attractive, improve the City's tax base, and result in a more successful business district." The business districts are located in gateway and highly commercial areas of the City and are prominent nodes of activity for their surrounding neighborhoods and seek to encourage pedestrian activity. A towing facility is not a business type that pedestrians would engage in linked activities to and from, nor one that people would want to live next to. A linked activity for a pedestrian would be when a person parks in one spot and visits multiple stores or services without moving their vehicle. A person may go to a tow yard to retrieve their vehicle as a pedestrian, but are unlikely to have traveled to their destination for the purpose of visiting other services or shops. However, the CA zone does intend to allow services and towing is a service. In order to emphasize the service aspect of towing while balancing the pedestrian focus of the CA zone and business districts it is recommended that only the towing operation function be allowed in the CA zone. In order to encourage linked visits and emphasize the service aspect of towing rather than the storing of vehicles, it is reasonable to allow towing operations/auto impoundment when it is shared with another auto related use, such as vehicle repair shops. Staff has two recommendation options regarding towing operations/auto impoundment yards in the CA zone. In both options towing operations/auto impoundment yards would be allowed in the CA zone when the use is shared with an auto repair or auto body shop, tow trucks would be limited to Class A, B, and E, and tow trucks would be required to be kept indoors. H:\EDNSP\Title IV\Docket\2007\06-15 Towing\Issue Paper#2.doc Page 4 of 5 a COMPREHENSIVE PLAN COMPLIANCE: The allowance of a service operation such as towing services/auto impoundment complies with the purpose statement for the commercial corridor designation, which is implemented with both the CA zone and the IL zone. Objective LU-DDD reads in part: "The Commercial land use designation should include: businesses that provide necessary or desirable goods and services to the larger community. However, the same objective also states that the designation should include: `projects that may be highly visible from principal arterial, uses that are dependent upon or benefiting from high-volume traffic, and uses that provide significant employment. " To achieve a balance of this objective it will be important to place limitations on the towing services/auto impoundment businesses. CONCLUSION: Currently, the City only allows towing operations/auto impoundment yards in the IH and IM zones. By allowing towing operations/auto impoundment yards in the IL zone when they are contained within a building it meets the purpose statement for the IL zone and would create many more options for business locations for tow operators. It is recommended that this use in the IL zone be permitted for Class A, B, and E tow vehicles. However, the locations of the IL zone are somewhat limited and are not throughout the City. The CA zone has is a zone that is widely located in many different areas of the City. The CA purpose statement allows for provision of service functions. However, it also seeks to encourage pedestrian activity, especially in the Business Districts. The recommendation of allowing the towing function only and when it is a shared use emphasizes the service aspect of towing while not impacting the pedestrian environment. APPEALS AVAILABLE: Development regulation text amendments referred to the Planning Commission are a Type X land use. The appeal available is a judicial appeal to the Growth Management Hearings Board. H:\EDNSP\Title IV\Docket\2007\06-15 Towing\Issue Paper#2.doc Page 5 of 5 I fcy O DEPARTMENT OF COMMUNITY AND U ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT • -c-„rNrVo� MEMORANDUM DATE: March 12, 2008 TO: King Parker, Committee Chair Members of the Planning and Development Committee FROM: Renton Planning Commission SUBJECT: Towing Code Amendment The Renton Planning Commission met on February 27 and March 12, 2008, to review the towing code amendment. The Commission deliberated on this issue on March 12, 2008, and recommends approval of the standards to the Planning and Development Committee. RECOMMENDED ACTION: MOVED BY OSBORN, SECONDED BY BONNER to accept the Staff's Recommendation to allow towing in the CA zone. Commission added an Administrative Conditional Use Permit to the recommendation. FIVE FOR, ONE ABSENT. MOTION CARRIED. For: Robert Bonner, Casey Bui, Michael Chen,Brad Miller,Nancy Osborn Absent: Yong Lee RECOMMENDED ACTION: MOVED BY OSBORN, SECONDED BY BONNER to accept the Staffs Recommendation on permitting towing in the IL zone. FOUR FOR, ONE AGAINST, ONE ABSENT. MOTION CARRIED. For: Casey Bui, Michael Chen, Brad Miller, Nancy Osborn Against: Robert Bonner Absent: Yong Lee Signed Ray ometti, Chair Renton Planning Commission Documents Considered as part of the Planning Commission Review: These documents can also be found online at http://www.rentonwa.gov/business/default.aspx?id=2778 • Issue Paper,dated February 27,2008 • Staff Presentation,dated February 27,2008 • Issue Paper,dated March 12,2008 • Staff Presentation,dated March 12,2008 h:\ednsp\planning comm\recommendations\2008\towing.doc Pea&) • YCOMMUNITY AND ECONOMIC � DEVELOPMENT + + •eNr-r0� MEMORANDUM DATE: March 26, 2008 TO: Ray Giometti, Planning Commission Chair Members of the Planning Commission FROM: Thara Johnson, Associate Planner SUBJECT: Docket- 06-16- Fast Food and Note 22 ISSUES: Should fast food be permitted as a stand alone retail use in commercial zoning districts? If permitted as a by-right use, are there some zoning districts which should be excluded from this allowance? Revise the reference to size requirements in the Center Village zone which do not apply? RECOMMENDATION: Revise zoning use tables (4-2-060 and 4-2-070) and note 22 (4-2-080) to provide for fast food and restrict locations of drive-throughs in the following zones: • Center Village (CV) (Restriction of drive-through) • Commercial Arterial (CA) • Center Downtown (CD) (Restriction of drive-through) • Urban Center North 1 (UC-N1) (Restriction on size) • Light Industrial (IL) (Restricted to locations within the EAV) Revise existing definitions for "drive-in drive-through retail or service" and "fast food". Revise note 22 to reference size restrictions; add new notes for proposed restrictions on fast food restaurants and relocate restrictions for office and conference uses in the CV zoning district as a separate note. BACKGROUND: Currently, the City of Renton permits fast food establishments as an accessory use in several zoning districts; Commercial Neighborhood (CN), Center Village (CV), Commercial Arterial (CA), Center Downtown (CD), Urban Center North Zones (UC-N1 and UC-N2), Light Industrial (IL), Medium Industrial (IM) and Heavy Industrial (IH) zoning districts. However, fast food restaurants are not permitted, which is a technical discrepancy in the code since it is classified as an "eating and drinking establishment", whereas the definition for"eating and drinking establishments" excludes fast food. H:\EDNSP\Title IV\Docket\2007\06-16 Fast Food\Issue paper#2.doc The definition for "eating and drinking establishments" reads "a retail establishment selling food and/or drink for consumption on the premises or for take-out, including accessory on-site food preparation. This definition includes, but is not limited to, restaurants, cafes, microbrew establishments, and espresso stands. This definition excludes taverns;fast food; entertainment clubs; dance clubs; and/or dance halls". The drive through component for fast food restaurants is permitted through "drive-in/ drive-through retail", and the definition reads "A business or a portion of a business where a customer is permitted or encouraged either by the design of physical facilities or by service and/or packaging procedures, to carry on business in the off-street parking or paved area accessory to the business, while seated in a motor vehicle. In some instances, customers may need to get out of the vehicle to obtain the product or service. This definition shall include but not be limited to fast-food restaurants, espresso stands, and drive-in services at banks and pharmacies. This definition excludes vehicle service and repair, vehicle fueling stations, and car washes". However, CN, CV, CA, CD, UC-N1, UC-N2, IL, IM, and IH only permit drive-in/drive-through retail services as an accessory use, which is defined as "uses customarily incidental and subordinate to the principal use and typically located upon the same lot occupied by the principal use". Therefore, fast food restaurants with a drive-through are not permitted except when incidental to a principal use, therefore typically as part of a larger commercial or industrial development. Another issue relates to the fact that note 22 has three separate topics. Additionally, the three zoning districts which reference this note are the CN, CV and CA zoning districts. The note reads "size restrictions apply per use in RMC 4-2-120A. In the CN Zone, fast food establishments are prohibited. In the CV Zone, no office and conference uses are allowed for parcels fronting, or taking primary access from, Edmonds Avenue NE." The first part of the note references size restrictions in the CN, CV and CA zoning districts. However, the CV has no specific size restrictions, therefore this portion of note 22 does not relate to the CV zoning district. The second portion of the note restricts the location of fast food restaurants in the CN zoning district. However, as previously reflected, fast food restaurants are not permitted except as an accessory use, with the additional restriction of not being allowed to locate in the CN zoning district. Also, since part of this docket item relates to evaluating fast food establishments and including them as a separate retail use, this portion of the note could be removed since the zoning table would list the zoning districts where the use could be permitted. The last part of the note only pertains to the CV zone and not either the CN or CA zoning district, as it references the restriction of office and conference uses that have primary access from Edmonds Ave., in the CV zoning district. Therefore, this portion of the note should be separated from the first portion which references size restrictions and only relates to CN and CA zoning districts; whereas the last section only relates to the CV zoning district. Adding "fast food establishments" as an individual retail use within the zoning table would imply that an evaluation of which zoning districts should permit these establishments as by-right uses. Currently, the IL, IM and IH zoning districts only permit fast food restaurants as an accessory use, similar to the CV, CA, CD, UC-N1 and UC-N2 districts. Note 22, currently restricts fast food related uses from being located in the CN zoning district and drive-in/ drive through retail uses are not permitted in the residential H:\EDNSP\Title IV\Docket\2007\06-16 Fast Food\Issue paper#2.doc zoning districts and also the CO and COR districts as they do not comply with the purpose of these districts. Feedback from the Commission - The Planning Commission outlined several concerns with the proposal of allowing for stand alone fast food retail as a permitted use in the CV, CA, CD, UC-Ni and UC-N2 zones. One of the major concerns dealt with the incidental use of drive-throughs that are largely predominant in a majority of franchise fast food restaurants, on a national level. This occurrence promotes auto oriented uses and therefore does not meet the intent of enhancing opportunities for pedestrian friendly areas in the CV and CD zones. Therefore, after exploring some alternatives to solve the current discrepancy between note 22 and the definitions for "drive-in/ drive-through retail/ service" and "fast food restaurant", one option may be to restrict permitting fast food restaurants through the use of notes. A consideration may be to permit stand-alone fast food restaurants as a permitted use in the CD and CV zones with a restriction that no associated drive-throughs may be permitted. Additionally, fast food would not be permitted in the CN, UC-N2, IM or IH zones. Fast Food restaurants would be permitted in the IL zone would with a restriction on all fast uses to be located within the Employment Area Valley and in the UC-N1 zone would be restricted through note 81. This would require that "no stand- alone structures smaller than five thousand (5,000) square feet, except for pushcarts/kiosks, unless architecturally and functionally integrated into a shopping center or mixed use development" and thereby ensure that a future fast food restaurant would be integrated into an existing larger development, if there was space available or ensure that the minimum size is achieved. Essentially, the only zone where fast food would be permitted as a stand-alone use with an associated drive through would be in the CA zone. COMPREHENSIVE PLAN COMPLIANCE: These changes comply with the Comprehensive Plan policies for the CN, CV, CA, UC-N1, UC-N2, IL, IM and IH zoning districts. There are a number of Comprehensive Plan policies associated with these eight (8) zoning districts, policies LU-YY, LU-ZZ, LU-CCC, LU-DDD, LU-WWW, LU-YYY and LU-ZZZ. The policies encourage a diverse range of commercial and industrial activities; and revising existing development regulations to pursue the intent of permitting certain retail uses such as "fast food restaurants" as a by-right use, rather than merely as an accessory use, promote the intent of compliance with the comprehensive plan. CONCLUSION: Revision of the development regulations to include "fast food restaurants" as a retail use within the zoning table as well as amending note 22 so it relates only to the pertinent zoning districts which have restrictions on building size limitations attempts to simplify existing code. Also, revising note 22 to relocate the portion of the note which only applies to office and conference uses in the CV zoning district as a distinct note 111, serves the purpose of removing references that do not apply in their entirety. Additionally, restricting elements of fast food retail that are not compatible with the intent of the CD and CV zones such as drive-throughs serve to enhance the underlying zones while increasing opportunities for compatible retail. H:\EDNSP\Title IV\Docket\2007\06-16 Fast Food\Issue paper#2.doc ATTACHMENT 1 4-2-060 ZONING USE TABLE - USES ALLOWED IN ZONING DESIGNATIONS: ZONING USE TABLE RESIDENTIAL ZONING DESIGNATIONS INDUSTRIAL COMMERCIAL ZONING DESIGNATIONS USES: RC R-1 R-4 R-8 RM R-10 R-14 RM IL IM IH CN CV CA CD CO CO UC- UC- H R N1 N2 H. OFFICE AND CONFERENCE Conference Centers P38 P38 P38 H P38 P P P21 P P91 Medical and dental offices P42 P38 P38 P38 AD17 P22 PP PPP P92 Pill Offices,general P42 P13 P13 P13 AD17 t PP PPP P93 Pill Veterinary offices/clinics P P42 P38 P38 P38 P2-2 P P P38 P P78 Pill I. RETAIL Adult retail use P43 P43 P43 P43 P43 P43 P43 Big-box retail P72 P72 P72 P72 P79 Drive-in/drive-through, retail AC AC AC AC AC28 AC AC AC AC 28 78 80 Eating and drinking establishments P1 P1 P1 P1 P1 P1 H33 P42 P P P P22 P P22 P P12 P27 P81 P94 Fast Food Restaurants 1'38 P111 P22 P112 P81 Horticultural nurseries,existing HHHHHHHHHHHH H HH H H Horticultural nurseries, new H AD38 Retail sales H33 AD P34 P34 P34 P60 P P68 P P54 P21 P82 P95 Retail sales,outdoor P30 P30 P30 P15 P15 P15 P15 P15 Taverns AD P20 AD P21 P82 P99 Vehicle sales, large P P P P41 Vehicle sales,small P P P P20 ATTACHMENT 1 USES: RC R-1 R-4 R-8 RM R-10 R-14 RM IL IM IH CN CV CA CD CO CO UC- UC- H _ R N1 N2 K. SERVICES Day Care Services Adult day care I AC AC AC AC AC AC AC AC P55 P55 P55 P22 P P22 P P P P78 P100 Adult day care II HHHH H33 H AD AD H P22 P P22 P P12 P21 P78 P100 Day care centers H25 H25 H25 H25 H33 H25 P54 P54 P54 P22 P P22 P P P21 P78 P100 Family day care AC AC AC AC AC AC AC AC AC AC AC AC AC AC AC3 AC AC AC AC L.VEHICLE RELATED ACTIVITIES Body shops P31 P31 P31 H31 Car washes P _P P AD2 P22 Express transportation services _ _ _ AD P AD20 L. VEHICLE RELATED ACTIVITIES Fuel dealers H59 P Industrial engine or transmission P31 P31 P31 rebuild Parking garage,structured, P P P P P20 P3 P P P P102 commercial or public Parking,surface,commercial or P38 P38 P38 P20 P3 AD public Park and ride,dedicated _ P105 P105 P105 P106 P105 P107 P105 P107 Park and ride,shared-use P108 P108 P108 P108 P108 P108 P P P P106 P109 P107 P P107 Railroad yards P Taxi stand P AD AD Tow truck operation/auto H59 P impoundment yard Transit centers H38 H38 H38 P H2O P H38 P P103 ATTACHMENT 2 4-2-070J CENTER VILLAGE (CV) Uses allowed in the CV Zone are as follows: USES: TYPE: AGRICULTURE AND NATURAL RESOURCES Natural resource extraction/recovery H ANIMALS AND RELATED USES Pets,common household, up to 3 per dwelling unit or business establishment AC RESIDENTIAL Attached dwelling P#73 Flats or townhouses(existing legal) P#73 OTHER RESIDENTIAL, LODGING AND HOME OCCUPATIONS Adult family home P Congregate residence P Group homes II for 6 or less P Group homes II for 7 or more P Home occupations AC#6 Retirement residences P SCHOOLS K-12 educational institution(public or private) H#9 K-12 educational institution(public or private), existing P#9 Schools/studios, arts and crafts P PARKS Parks, neighborhood P Parks, regional/community,existing P Parks, regional/community, new AD OTHER COMMUNITY AND PUBLIC FACILITIES Community Facilities Religious institutions H Service and social organizations H Public Facilities City government offices AD City government facilities H Other government offices and facilities H OFFICE AND CONFERENCE Medical and dental offices P r22 P#111 ATTACHMENT 2 Offices,general P-142 =1-.1 Veterinary offices/clinics P411 Conference center H RETAIL Adult retail use P#43 Drive-in/drive-through, retail AC#28 Eating and drinking establishments P Fast Food Restaurants P#111 Retail sales P Retail sales,outdoor P#15 Taverns AD ENTERTAINMENT AND RECREATION Entertainment Cultural facilities AD Dance clubs AD Dance halls AD Movie theaters AD Recreation Recreation facilities, indoor existing P Recreation facilities, indoor new P SERVICES Services, General Hotel P Motel P On-site services P Drive-in/drive-through service AC#28 Day Care Services Adult day care I P Adult day care II P Day care centers P Family day care AC SERVICES (Continued) Healthcare Services Convalescent centers P Medical institutions H VEHICLE RELATED ACTIVITIES Parking garage,structured,commercial or public P Park and ride,shared-use P#106 Park and ride,dedicated P#106 ATTACHMENT 2 Vehicle fueling stations P Vehicle service and repair,small AD#2 Taxi stand P Transit centers P STORAGE Indoor storage AC#11 INDUSTRIAL Industrial, General Laboratories:light manufacturing AD Laboratories:research, development and testing H Solid Waste/Recycling Recycling collection station P UTILITIES Communications broadcast and relay towers H Electrical power generation and cogeneration H#66 Utilities,small P Utilities,medium AD Utilities, large H WIRELESS COMMUNICATION FACILITIES Lattice towers support structures H#48 Macro facility antennas P#44 Micro facility antennas P Mini facility antennas P#44 Minor modifications to existing wireless communication facilities P#49 Monopole I support structures on private property H#44 Monopole I support structures on public right-of-way AD#44 Monopole II support structures H#48 Parabolic antennas—Large H#44 GENERAL ACCESSORY USES Accessory uses per RMC 4-2-050 and as defined in chapter 4-11 RMC,where not otherwise listed AC in the Use Table TEMPORARY USE Model homes in an approved residential development:one model home on an existing lot P#53 Sales/marketing trailers,on-site P#53 Temporary or manufactured buildings used for construction P#10 Temporary uses P#53 ATTACHMENT 2 4-2-070K COMMERCIAL ARTERIAL (CA) • Uses allowed in the CA Zone are as follows: USES: TYPE: AGRICULTURE AND NATURAL RESOURCES Natural resource extraction/recovery H ANIMALS AND RELATED USES Kennels, hobby AC#37 Pets,common household, up to 3 per dwelling unit or business establishment AC RESIDENTIAL Semi-attached dwelling AD#18 Attached dwelling AD#18 OTHER RESIDENTIAL, LODGING AND HOME OCCUPATIONS Group homes I H Group homes II for 7 or more H Home occupations AC#6 SCHOOLS K-12 educational institution(public or private) H #9 K-12 educational institution(public or private),existing P#9 Other higher education institution P Schools/studios,arts and crafts P Trade or vocational school H PARKS Parks,neighborhood P Parks, regional/community,existing P Parks,regional/community, new AD OTHER COMMUNITY AND PUBLIC FACILITIES Community Facilities Cemetery H Religious institutions H Service and social organizations H Public Facilities City government offices AD OTHER COMMUNITY AND PUBLIC FACILITIES (Continued) City government facilities H Other government offices and facilities H • ATTACHMENT 2 OFFICE AND CONFERENCE Conference center P#38 Medical and dental offices P Offices,general P Veterinary offices/clinics P RETAIL Adult retail use P#43 Big-box retail P#72 Drive-in/drive-through, retail AC Eating and drinking establishments P •._. Fast Food Restaurants " Horticultural nurseries H Retail sales P#68 Retail sales,outdoor P#15 Taverns P#20 Vehicle sales,large P#41 Vehicle sales,small P#20 ENTERTAINMENT AND RECREATION Entertainment Adult entertainment business P#43 Card room P#52 Cultural facilities AD Dance clubs P#20 Dance halls P#20 Gaming/gambling facilities, not-for-profit H#20 Movie theaters P#20 Sports arenas,auditoriums, exhibition halls,indoor P#20 Sports arenas,auditoriums,exhibition halls,outdoor AD#20 Recreation Recreation facilities, indoor P Recreation facilities,outdoor H#20 SERVICES Services, General Hotel P#20 Motel P#20 Off-site services P#38 On-site services P#69 Drive-in/drive-through service AC Vehicle rental,small P#20 Day Care Services Adult day care I P#22 Adult day care II P#22 ATTACHMENT 2 Day care centers P#22 Family day care AC Healthcare Services Convalescent centers H Medical institutions H VEHICLE RELATED ACTIVITIES Body shops H#31 Car washes P#22 Express transportation services AD#20 Parking garage,structured,commercial or public P#20 Parking,surface,commercial or public P#20 Park and ride,shared-use P#109 Park and ride,dedicated P#105 Transit centers H#20 Vehicle fueling stations P Vehicle service and repair,small P Air Transportation Uses Helipads,accessory to primary use H#20 STORAGE Indoor storage AC#11 Outdoor storage P#64 Self-service storage H#26 Vehicle storage AD#38 INDUSTRIAL Industrial, General Laboratories:light manufacturing P#20 Laboratories:research, development and testing P#20 INDUSTRIAL(Continued) Manufacturing and fabrication, light H#20 Solid Waste/Recycling Recycling collection station and processing center P#38 Recycling collection station P UTILITIES Communications broadcast and relay towers H Electrical power generation and cogeneration H#66 Utilities,small P Utilities, medium AD Utilities,large H WIRELESS COMMUNICATION FACILITIES ATTACHMENT 2 Lattice towers support structures AD#47 Macro facility antennas P#44 Micro facility antennas P Mini facility antennas P#44 Minor modifications to existing wireless communication facilities P#49 Monopole I support structures on private property P#44 Monopole I support structures on public right-of-way P#44 Monopole II support structures AD#47 Parabolic antennas—Large P#44 GENERAL ACCESSORY USES Accessory uses per RMC 4-2-050 and as defined in chapter 4-11 RMC,where not otherwise listed AC in the Use Table TEMPORARY USE Model homes in an approved residential development:one model home on an existing lot P#53 Sales/marketing trailers,on-site P#53 Temporary or manufactured buildings used for construction P#10 Temporary uses P#53 4-2-070L CENTER DOWNTOWN (CD) Uses allowed in the CD Zone are as follows: USES: TYPE: AGRICULTURE AND NATURAL RESOURCES Natural resource extraction/recovery H ANIMALS AND RELATED USES Kennels, hobby AC#37 Pets,common household, up to 3 per dwelling unit or business establishment AC RESIDENTIAL Detached dwelling (existing legal) P Attached dwelling P#16 OTHER RESIDENTIAL, LODGING AND HOME OCCUPATIONS Adult family home P#3 Congregate residence P#3 Group homes I H#3 Group homes II for 6 or less P#3 Group homes II for 7 or more H#3 Home occupations AC#6 Retirement residences P#3 ATTACHMENT 2 SCHOOLS K-12 educational institution (public or private) H #9 K-12 educational institution (public or private), existing P#9 Other higher education institution P Schools/studios,arts and crafts P PARKS Parks,neighborhood P Parks, regional/community, existing P Parks, regional/community, new AD OTHER COMMUNITY AND PUBLIC FACILITIES Community Facilities Cemetery H Religious institutions H Service and social organizations H OTHER COMMUNITY AND PUBLIC FACILITIES (Continued) Public Facilities City government offices AD City government facilities H Other government offices and facilities H OFFICE AND CONFERENCE Conference center P Medical and dental offices P Offices,general P Veterinary offices/clinics P RETAIL Adult retail use P#43 Drive-in/drive-through, retail AC#28 Eating and drinking establishments P Fast Food Restaurants P:0112 Horticultural nurseries H Retail sales Retail sales,outdoor P#15 Taverns AD ENTERTAINMENT AND RECREATION Entertainment Adult entertainment business P#43 Cultural facilities AD Dance clubs H Dance halls H ATTACHMENT 2 Movie theaters P Sports arenas,auditoriums,exhibition halls,indoor P Recreation Recreation facilities, indoor P SERVICES Services, General Bed and breakfast house,accessory P Bed and breakfast house, professional P Hotel P SERVICES (Continued) On-site services P Drive-in/drive-through service AC#70 Day Care Services Adult day care I P Adult day care II P Day care centers P Family day care AC#3 Healthcare Services Convalescent centers P#3 Medical institutions H VEHICLE RELATED ACTIVITIES Parking garage,structured,commercial or public P#3 Parking garage,surface, commercial or public P#3 Park and ride,shared-use P#107 Park and ride,dedicated P#107 Taxi stand AD Transit centers P STORAGE Indoor storage AC#11 INDUSTRIAL Industrial, General Commercial laundries, existing P#4 Laboratories: light manufacturing P#3 Laboratories: research, development and testing AD#3 Manufacturing and fabrication,light H#3 Solid Waste/Recycling Recycling collection station P UTILITIES Communications broadcast and relay towers H ATTACHMENT 2 Electrical power generation and cogeneration H#66 Utilities,small P Utilities, medium AD Utilities, large H WIRELESS COMMUNICATION FACILITIES Lattice towers support structures H#48 Macro facility antennas P#44 Micro facility antennas P Mini facility antennas P#44 Minor modifications to existing wireless communication facilities P#49 Monopole I support structures on private property AD#46 Monopole I support structures on public right-of-way AD#46 Monopole II support structures H#48 Parabolic antennas—Large AD#46 GENERAL ACCESSORY USES Accessory uses per RMC 4-2-050 and as defined in chapter 4-11 RMC,where not otherwise listed AC in the Use Table TEMPORARY USE Model homes in an approved residential development:one model home on an existing lot P#53 Sales/marketing trailers,on-site P#53 Temporary or manufactured buildings used for construction P#10 Temporary uses P#53 4-2-0700 INDUSTRIAL LIGHT (IL) Uses allowed in the IL Zone are as follows: USES: TYPE: AGRICULTURE AND NATURAL RESOURCES Natural resource extraction/recovery H ANIMALS AND RELATED USES Kennels P#37 Kennels, hobby AC#37 Pets,common household, up to 3 per dwelling unit or business establishment AC OTHER RESIDENTIAL, LODGING AND HOME OCCUPATIONS Caretaker's residence AC SCHOOLS K-12 educational institution(public or private) H#9 K-12 educational institution (public or private),existing P#9 Other higher education institution P#38 • ATTACHMENT 2 Schools/studios, arts and crafts P Trade or vocational school P PARKS Parks,neighborhood P Parks,regional/community,existing P Parks,regional/community, new AD OTHER COMMUNITY AND PUBLIC FACILITIES Community Facilities Cemetery H Religious institutions H Service and social organizations H Public Facilities City government offices AD City government facilities H Other government offices and facilities H OFFICE AND CONFERENCE Conference center P#38 Medical and dental offices P#38 Offices,general P#13 OFFICE AND CONFERENCE (Continued) Veterinary offices/clinics P#38 RETAIL Adult retail use P#43 Big-box retail P#72 Drive-in/drive-through, retail AC Eating and drinking establishments P Fast Food Restaurants P#:a Horticultural nurseries H Retail sales P#34 Retail sales,outdoor P#30 Vehicle sales,large P Vehicle sales,small P ENTERTAINMENT AND RECREATION Entertainment Adult entertainment business P#43 Card room P#52 Cultural facilities AD Dance clubs P#38 Dance halls P#38 ATTACHMENT 2 Gaming/gambling facilities, not-for-profit H#38 Movie theaters P#38 Sports arenas,auditoriums, exhibition halls,indoor P#38 Sports arenas,auditoriums, exhibition halls,outdoor P Recreation Recreation facilities, indoor P#38 Recreation facilities,outdoor P#32 SERVICES Services, General Hotel P#38 Motel P#38 Off-site services P#38 On-site services P#38 Drive-in/drive-through service AC#62 Vehicle rental,small P SERVICES (Continued) Vehicle and equipment rental, large P#38 Day Care Services Adult day care I P#55 Adult day care II AD Day care centers P#54 Family day care AC Healthcare Services Medical institutions H#56 VEHICLE RELATED ACTIVITIES Body shops P#31 Car washes P Express transportation services AD Industrial engine or transmission rebuild P#31 Parking garage,structured,commercial or public P Parking,surface,commercial or public P#38 Park and ride,shared-use P Park and ride,dedicated P#105 Transit centers H#38 Vehicle fueling stations P Vehicle service and repair, large AD Vehicle service and repair,small P Air Transportation Uses Helipads,accessory to primary use H STORAGE Hazardous material,storage,on-site or off-site,including treatment H#24 ATTACHMENT 2 Indoor storage P Outdoor storage P#57 Self-service storage P#58 Warehousing P INDUSTRIAL Industrial, General Assembly and/or packaging operations P Commercial laundries,existing. P#38 Commercial laundries, new P#38 Construction/contractor's office P#14 Laboratories:light manufacturing P#38 Laboratories: research,development and testing P#31 INDUSTRIAL (Continued) Manufacturing and fabrication,light P Solid Waste/Recycling Recycling collection station and processing center P#14 Recycling collection station P UTILITIES Communications broadcast and relay towers H#38 Electrical power generation and cogeneration H#66 Utilities,small P Utilities, medium AD Utilities, large H WIRELESS COMMUNICATION FACILITIES Lattice towers support structures AD#47 Macro facility antennas P#44 Micro facility antennas P Mini facility antennas P#44 Minor modifications to existing wireless communication facilities P#49 Monopole I support structures on private property P#44 Monopole I support structures on public right-of-way P#44 Monopole II support structures AD#47 Parabolic antennas—Large P#44 GENERAL ACCESSORY USES Accessory uses per RMC 4-2-050 and as defined in chapter 4-11 RMC,where not otherwise listed AC in the Use Table TEMPORARY USE Sales/marketing trailers,on-site •P#53 Temporary or manufactured buildings used for construction P#10 Temporary uses P#53 ATTACHMENT 2 4-2-070R URBAN CENTER NORTH 1 (UC-N1) Uses allowed in the UC-N1 Zone are as follows: USES: TYPE: ANIMALS AND RELATED USES Pets,common household, up to 3 per dwelling unit or business establishment AC RESIDENTIAL Attached dwelling P#74 OTHER RESIDENTIAL, LODGING AND HOME OCCUPATIONS Caretaker's residence AC Home occupations AC Retirement residences P#75 SCHOOLS K-12 educational institution (public or private) H#76 Other higher education institution P Trade or vocational school . H#77 PARKS Parks,neighborhood P Parks,regional/community, existing P Parks,regional/community, new P OTHER COMMUNITY AND PUBLIC FACILITIES Community Facilities Religious institutions H Service and social organizations H#78 Public Facilities City government offices AD City government facilities H Other government offices and facilities H OFFICE AND CONFERENCE Conference centers P Medical and dental offices P Offices,general P Veterinary offices/clinics P#78 RETAIL Big-box retail P#79 Drive-in/drive-through, retail AC#78 Eating and drinking establishments P#81 Fast Food Restaurants P#81 • ATTACHMENT 2 Horticultural nurseries H Retail sales P#82 Taverns P#82 ENTERTAINMENT AND RECREATION Entertainment Cultural facilities AD Movie theaters P#83 Sports arenas,auditoriums,exhibition halls,indoor H#84 Sports arenas,auditoriums,exhibition halls,outdoor P#84 Recreation Recreation facilities,indoor P#78 SERVICES Services, General Hotel P On-site services P#78 Drive-in/drive-through service AC#78 Day Care Services Adult day care I P#78 Adult day care II P#78 Day care centers P#78 Family day care home AC Healthcare Services Convalescent centers AD#85 Medical institutions H VEHICLE RELATED ACTIVITIES Parking garage,structured,commercial or public P Park and ride,shared-use P#107 Park and ride,dedicated P#107 Transit centers P INDUSTRIAL Industrial, General Assembly and/or packaging operations P#86 Laboratories:light manufacturing P Laboratories: research, development and testing P Manufacturing and fabrication, light P Manufacturing, airplane P Manufacturing,airplane,accessory functions AC UTILITIES Utilities,small P Utilities,medium AD ATTACHMENT 2 Utilities,large H WIRELESS COMMUNICATION FACILITIES Macro facility antennas H Micro facility antennas P Mini facility antennas AD Minor modifications to existing wireless communication facilities P GENERAL ACCESSORY USES Accessory uses per RMC 4-2-050 and as defined in chapter 4-11 RMC,where not otherwise listed AC in the Use Table TEMPORARY USE Sales/marketing trailers,on-site P#10 Temporary or manufactured buildings used for construction P#10 Temporary uses P#53 • ATTACHMENT 3 4-2-080 CONDITIONS ASSOCIATED WITH ZONING USE TABLES: A. SUBJECT TO THE FOLLOWING CONDITIONS: 22. Size restrictions apply per use in RMC 4-2-120A. In--the C`N-Zor< - asi-toed establishments are prohibite4. 38. Only allowed in the Employment Area Valley(EAV) land use designation. See EAV Map in RMC 4-2-080B. 81. No stand-alone structures smaller than five thousand(5,000) square feet, except for pushcarts/kiosks, unless architecturally and functionally integrated into a shopping center or mixed use development. 1 l 1. In the CV Zone, no office and conference uses are allowed .for parcels fronting, or taking primary access .from. Edmonds Avenue NE; and fast food restaurants are prohibited. from accommodating drive throughs. 112. In the CD zone; fast food restaurants are prohibited from accommodating- dri - throu.ahs. ATTACHMENT 4 4-11-040 DEFINITIONS D: Drive-In/Drive-Through Retail Or Service: A business or a portion of a business where a customer is permitted or encouraged either by the design of physical facilities or by service and/or packaging procedures, to carry on business in the off-street parking or paved area accessory to the business, while seated in a motor vehicle. In some instances, customers may need to get out of the vehicle to obtain the product or service. This definition shall include but not be limited to drive-in services at fast-food .° windows, espresso stands windows, and--drive—i --serv=iees--at banks and pharmacies. This definition excludes vehicle service and repair, vehicle fueling stations, and car washes. 4-11-060 DEFINITIONS F: Fast Food Restaurant: An e4—or 1:t in it estaMislia restaurant occupying a detached structure, identified by a name brand that offers a standard menu, typical business operation logo, advertising franchise ownership or affiliation, and a corporate architectural prototype building. Franchise fast food typically caters to a market area larger than one neighborhood and is auto oriented. It may include drive through service. This definition excludes espresso stands. i P fcy O DEPARTMENT OF COMMUNITY AND ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT 'e*PM E M O R A N D U M DATE: March 26, 2008 TO: King Parker, Committee Chair Members of the Planning and Development Committee FROM: Renton Planning Commission SUBJECT: Fast Food and Footnote 22 Code Amendment The Renton Planning Commission met on March 12 and 26, 2008, to review the fast food and footnote 22 code amendment. The Commission deliberated on this issue on March 26, 2008, and recommends approval of the standards to the Planning and Development Committee. RECOMMENDED ACTION: MOVED BY OSBORN, SECONDED BY MILLER to accept the Staff's Recommendation as presented with the exclusion of Note 81 referencing pushcarts/kiosks. THREE FOR, ONE ABSTAIN, ONE ABSENT. MOTION CARRIED. For: Yong Lee, Brad Miller,Nancy Osborn Against: None Abstain: Michael Chen Absent: Robert Bonner Signed 4.4Pfrlak Ray ometti, Chair Renton Planning Commission Documents Considered as part of the Planning Commission Review: These documents can also be found online at http://www.rentonwa.gov/business/default.aspx?id=2778 • Issue Paper,dated March 12,2008 • Staff Presentation,dated March 12,2008 • Issue Paper,dated March 26,2008,with Attachments 1 through 4 • Staff Presentation,dated March 26,2008 h:\ednsp\planning comm\recommendations\2008\fast food.doc c �GGG1�G ��y 0 DEPARTMENT OF COMMUNITY AND �,, ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT �e*P MEMORANDUM DATE: March 26, 2008 TO: King Parker, Committee Chair Members of the Planning and Development Committee FROM: Renton Planning Commission SUBJECT: Alleys in the R-8 Zone Code Amendment The Renton Planning Commission met on February 13 and March 26, 2008, to review the alleys in the R-8 zone code amendment. The Commission deliberated on this issue on March 26, 2008, and recommends approval of the standards to the Planning and Development Committee. RECOMMENDED ACTION: MOVED BY OSBORN, SECONDED BY MILLER to accept the Staff's Recommendation as presented. FOUR FOR, ONE ABSENT. MOTION CARRIED. For: Michael Chen, Yong Lee, Brad Miller,Nancy Osborn Against: None Abstain: None Absent: Robert Bonner Signed A.0friat Ray ometti, Chair Renton Planning Commission Documents Considered as part of the Planning Commission Review: These documents can also be found online at http://www.rentonwa.gov/business/default.aspx?id=2778 • Issue Paper,as part of February 13,2008 Packet,with Attachment A • Staff Presentation,dated February 13,2008 • Issue Paper,as part of March 26,2008 Packet,with Attachment A • Staff Presentation,dated March 26,2008 h:\ednsp\planning comm\recommendations\2008\alleys.doc r DOCKET ITEM 06-13 Alleys and Residential-8 (R-8) Zones March 26, 2008 ISSUE: Should new development in R-8 zones that abut an alley be required to have vehicular access to all parking from the alley and be required to locate all parking areas and attached or detached garages behind the front building line? RECOMMENDATION: Add vehicular and parking access development standards to the R-8 zone, for properties that abut a paved or gravel alley that would require: • Vehicular access to all parking areas and attached or detached garages through the alley, and • All parking areas and attached or detached garages to be located at the side or rear of the property; not located in front of the building and/or in the area between the front lot line and the front building line. BACKGROUND: Other residential zones in the City have development standards with specific language for new development projects that abut an alley right-of-way, where alleys are to be used for vehicular access to parking and parking areas are not allowed between a street and building front. This is not true for the R-8 zone. Compromising neighborhood character Without these development standards in the R-8 zone, established neighborhood character and quality is compromised where vehicles can access parking areas and garages through the use of driveways. Although the Comprehensive Plan does not speak specifically to single lot development, the type of project that would most likely occur in a R-8 zone, it sets a preference for the style of new development in established residential neighborhoods. Policy CD-13 of the Community Design Element states that new projects should draw on elements of existing development to reflect the site planning and scale of existing areas in placement of structures and location of entries. This policy applies to the location of parking areas and garages in areas with alleys as these properties have historically located parking areas and garages in the rear or side yards and used the alley as the access route to individual residences. Currently, new projects can change the character of residential areas with alleys by allowing the placement of vehicles, garages, and driveways between a home and street which reduces safety levels for pedestrians and the amount of on-street parking spaces. Location of alleys in the R-8 zone Staff has reviewed original plats,maps, and available data at the City to locate alley right-of- ways in the Residential-8 (R-8)zone. The Highlands,Kennydale,North Renton, and Renton Hill neighborhoods have functioning alleys as part of their street networks. There are also other alleys in the City. This recommendation speaks to alleys that are one of two access points to a property rather than alleys that are the only access point to a property. Developed and undeveloped alley right-of-ways It is important to note that not all alley right-of-ways have been improved. Alleys in R-8 zones have different surfaces like grass, gravel, and asphalt or a mixture. For example, in North Renton H:\EDNSP\Title IV\Docket\2007\06-13 Alleys and the R-8 zone\Issue Paper 2_Alleys and R-8 zones V l.doc P. 1 all alleys are paved but in the Highlands area there are grass, gravel, and paved alley ways. - Gravel and paved alley surfaces provide a sufficient surface for vehicle access. Code language examples for recommendation Other residential zones as well as Urban Overlay Districts have established parking and loading development standards for areas with alleys,providing exemplary language to evaluate as part of this process. Examples state that 1) all parking shall be provided in the rear yard when alley access is available, 2)that all parking shall be provided in the rear portion of the yard, and access shall be taken from the alley, and 3)no surface parking shall be located between a building and the front property line and that parking lots and garages shall be accessed from alleys when available. Location Examples 1 and 2 have language where all parking is to be provided in the rear year when alley access is available. As found in the neighborhoods with alleys, there are properties with parking areas or garages in side yards, so it would be consistent with neighborhood character to allow the location of parking areas or attached and detached garages in the side or rear yards. It would not be consistent to allow any parking area or attached and detached garages to be located between the residential street and the front of a residence, including the side yard. Access Examples 2 and 3 require that parking areas and garages be accessed from alleys when available. This language would be consistent with the R-8 areas with alleys. As mentioned previously, current development standards allow access to properties with abutting alleys to have drive access from the street rather than the alley which compromises established neighborhood character, allowing for a reduction in on-street parking, an increase in curb cuts and the crossing of vehicles through pedestrian paths and sidewalks. COMPREHENSIVE PLAN COMPLIANCE: A zoning code amendment establishing development standards that require all parking to be provided in rear or side yards and vehicular access to be taken from the alley would not conflict with goals, objectives, and policies in the Comprehensive Plan. CONCLUSION: Adding development regulations will maintain or improve established neighborhood character, maintain safe pedestrian environments, keep valued on-street parking spaces, and utilize the City's entire transportation network. H:\EDNSP\Title IV\Docket\2007\06-13 Alleys and the R-8 zone\Issue Paper 2_Alleys and R-8 zones V l.doc P.2 Attachment A: Referenced Comprehensive Plan Policy in the Community Design Element Policy CD-13: Infill development should be reflective of the existing character of established neighborhoods even when designed using different architectural styles, and/or responding to more urban setbacks,height or lot requirements. Infill development should draw on elements of existing development such as placement of structures, vegetation, and location of entries and walkways, to reflect the site planning and scale of existing areas. H:\EDNSP\Title IV\Docket\2007\06-13 Alleys and the R-8 zone\Attachment A Issue Paper 2.doc ti`SY O ADMINISTRATIVE, JUDICIAL, AND * �% ® ♦ LEGAL SERVICES DEPARTMENT MEMORANDUM DATE: April 28, 2008 TO: Marcie Palmer, Council President Members of the Renton City Council FROM: Denis Law, Mayor Jay Covington, Chief Administrative Officer SUBJECT: Administrative Report In addition to our day-to-day activities, the following item is worthy of note for this week: The public is invited to an open house to kick off the beginning of the Shoreline Master Program Update at 6:00 p.m. on April 30 in the Council Chambers at Renton City Hall. The updating process will include several opportunities for public participation over the next two years. Policies and regulations for land use around Lake Washington, the Cedar River, May Creek, and the Black River/Springbrook Creek areas may be affected by the update. Visit shoreline.rentonwa.gov more information. CITY OF RENTON COUNCIL AGENDA BILL AI€f: --.7 ' /3. • Submitting Data: For Agenda of: 4/28/2008 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 3/27/2008 Correspondence.. regarding the Blueberry Haven Short Plat application. Ordinance (File No. LUA-07-131, SHP-A, ECF) Resolution Old Business Exhibits: New Business City Clerk's letter (4/15/2008) Study Sessions Appeal - Richard and Lauralee Gordley (4/10/2008) Information Hearing Examiner's Decision - (3/27/2008) Recommended 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.. 7 SUMMARY OF ACTION: Appeal of the Hearing Examiner's decision on the Blueberry Haven Short Plat application was filed on 4/10/2008 by Richard and Lauralee Gordley, represented by Dickson Steinacker LLP, accompanied by the required $75 fee. STAFF RECOMMENDATION: Council to take action on the Blueberry Haven Short Plat application appeal. cc: Jennifer Henning Larry Warren III Rentonnet/agnbill/ bh 1 's, o " CITY OF RENTON ' e ..u .: City Clerk — .. Denis Law,Mayor Bonnie I. Walton 0 �N -April 15, 2008 , • APPEAL FILED BY: Richard and Lauralee Gordley, represented by Dickson Steinacker LLP RE: Appeal of Hearing Examiner's decision dated 3/27/2008 regarding the Blueberry Haven ' Short Plat located at 2010 Jones.Ave. NE (File No.LUA-0.7-131,,SHP-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 Blueberry Haven Short Plat application has been filed with the City Clerk. ' In accordance with Renton Municipal Code Section 4-8410F, the City Clerk'shall notify all 'parties of record'of-the receipt of the appeal. Other parties ofrecord,may submit letters limited ' to support of theirpositions within ten (10)-,days of-the,date of mailing of the notification of the filing of the appeal. The deadline for submission of additional letters is 5:0.0 pm, Friday, April ' 25,'2008.' NOTICE IS HEREBY GIVEN that the written appeal:and_other pertinent:documents will be • reviewed by the Council's Planning and Development.Committ ee. TheCouncil Liaison will notify all parties of record of the date and time.of the-Planning and Development Committee ' 0, . meeting. If you are not listed in local-telephbrie directories`and.wish'to•.attend the meeting, please call the Council Liaison at 425-43.0-6501 for information. The recommendation of the • Committee.will be presented for considerationby the.full Council at a,subsequent Council' . meeting. . Enclosed you,will"find a copy of the appeal and of the Renton Municipal Code regarding appeals of Hearing Examiner decisions or_recommendations. 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 evidenceor testimony on this matter will be accepted by the City Council.- . , , For additional information or as.sistance, please feel free to call me at 425-430-6502. Sincerely, _ Bonnie I.. Walton " City Clerk " Enclosures . cc: Council Liaison • I 1055 South Grady Way-Renton, Washington 98057-(425),430-6510%FAX(425)430-6516 R'ENT ,O N 411. AHEAD OF THE CURVE L.' This paper contains 50%recycled material,30%post consumer 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 11111 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) APPEAL TO RENTON CITY COUNCIL OF HEARING EXAMINER'S DECISION/RECOMMENDATION 3 t 21?V0 ci2r k ei k &,6-;akyit-r3j, NAME 11 �iCdu/E�? FILE .APPLIcATION /IG�The undersigned interested party hereby files its Notice of Appeal f om the decision or recommendation of the PP Land Use Hearing Examiner, dated / /9�C/ 20(a_. � � � 1. IDENTIFICATION OF PARTY' 200$ 44:3S P''� APPELLANT: REPRESENTATIVE (IF AN i Name: 17-3ICt 111 re nod &wed& 6 Yd/V Name: 17) /011" (Mr4 ' , 'I v S%�vv t"K6 Address: C i C J641-,'"J th E_ Address: /211 . 941.4c, TZ—. 1i/el ( * ile=c-b r el- Qezie a Phone Number: 49r- 27- -qI q? Phone Number: 2S` `- Z - CL'&J Email: Email: 4- iG ;SG yt 6-*.) !'k--3474 c .6640 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. IZ'I S Error: (S' e- 2 , 1-c m`2-v Correction: • Conclusions: Notr Error: 65 ems-- :. c7 Correction: Other: No. Error: Correction: 3. SUMMARY OF ACTION REQUESTED The City Council is requested to grant the following relief: (Attach explanation, if desired) V Reverse the decision or recommendation and grant the following relief: liff)''' A-61-f Modify the decision or recommendation as follows: Remand to the Examiner for further consideration as follows: Other: A pellant/Representave Signature Type/Printed Name Date Ji /v NOTE: Please refer to Title IV,Chapter 8,of theme Reento unicipal Code,and Section 4-8-1 IOF,for specifi appeal procedures. DICKSON STEINACKER LLP ATTORNEYS AT LAW THOMAS L. DICKSON REPLY TO TACOMA OFFICE: SEATTLE OFFICE: KEVIN T. STEINACKER 1401 WELLS FARGO PLAZA BANK OF AMERICA TOWER SHANE L. YELISH 1201 PACIFIC AVENUE 701 FIFTH AVENUE, STE. 4201 MATTHEW J. SMITH TACOMA, WA 98402 SEATTLE, WA 98104 ROBERT P. DICKSON TELEPHONE: (253) 572-1000 TELEPHONE: (206) 621-1110 FAX: (253) 572-1300 FAX: (253) 572-1300 April 10, 2008 Renton City Council 1055 S Grady Way Renton, WA 98057 Re: Blueberry Haven Short Plat Appeal LUA-07-131, SHPL-A, ECF Dear City Council: Applicants Richard and Lauralee Gordley hereby appeal the Hearing Examiner decision dated March 27, 2008, regarding the Blueberry Haven short plat application, LUA-07-131, SHPL-A, ECF, a copy of which is attached. A hearing in this matter was held on February 12, 2008. For the reasons set forth below, the Gordleys respectfully request that the decision be reversed. 1111 Assignments of Error The Gordleys assign error to the Hearing Examiner's Findings of Fact 12-15, 18-20, and 22, and to all of the Conclusions of Law. Factual Summary The Gordleys are the owners of property located at 2010 Jones Ave. NE in Renton. In an effort to modify their property, they submitted a short plat application in late 2007 to divide their parcel into two lots. The application was approved by the City on December 10, 2007. A neighbor, Susan Rider, appealed the approval to the Hearing Examiner. The Gordley property is an inverted L-shaped parcel. There is a streams running south to north through the property and a wetland just west of the stream in the northeast portion of the property. In an effort to subdivide and eventually sell portions of their property, the Gordleys sought and obtained approval from the City of Renton, for two short plats and a lot line adjustment (this adjustment is not at issue here). The City required the Gordleys to submit a Critical Areas Study to describe and analyze the proposed impact of the requested property action. In this case, the Gordleys produced a report from Steward and Associates which concluded that a portion of their property is a Category 3 wetland, • ' Reference to the water body as a"stream"should not be construed as an admission that it is a naturally occurring channel, as opposed to an artificially constructed drainage ditch. Renton City Council Gordley Brief on Appeal Page 2 of 8 • mentioning that a small stream exists on the property. This report did not directly address the issue of stream classification. Pursuant to RMC 4-8-100(A)(1)(a) and RMC 4-3-050(L)(3)(d)(ii),2 the City did not require the Gordleys to produce additional studies, including a specific stream study, not because they assumed the Steward and Associates study was sufficient on its face, but because of numerous prior studies dealt with similar issues and contained relevant analysis for stream designation. Only one out of seven studies classified the stream as anything other than a Class 4. The one study that stated the stream may be a Class 3 was later corrected to indicate that the stream was in fact a Class 5. Prior to the Gordleys' efforts to secure a short plat approval, a neighbor (Mr. Dutro) had interest in the area and sought to re-classify the stream to an even lower category, a Class 5. In his efforts, Mr. Dutro secured a study of the area which demonstrated that the stream in question ought to be a Class 5 drainage ditch. The following is a chart with information taken from Figure 1 of the City's brief to the Hearing Examiner, summarizing the various studies that had been done and were reviewed by the City while processing the Gordley short plat application: Company Date Classifications Property Notes Entranco 12/1996 Stream=N/A Higate Includes Gordley property Wetland =2 Elisport Engineering— 10/2004 Stream= 33 Core/Gordley No wetland due to 0 Anne Seethoff Wetland=N/A changing water levels Ellisport Engineering— 4/2005 Stream= 5 Dutro/Gordley Letter to Dutro regarding Anne Seethoff Wetland—N/A analysis (including Gordley parcel), submitted to City for request change to unregulated Class 5 Stream. Watershed—Hugh 4/2005 Stream=4 Gordley/ Analyzed the stream in Mortensen Wetland= 2 Blueberry Farm context of whether it was a Class 4 or Class 5. Operating within its discretionary authority as granted by the Code, the City had a preapplication meeting with the Gordleys in 2005. Based upon further review during the application process, the City affirmed what the Code already indicated for the area: that the stream running across a portion of the Gordley property is a Class 4 stream. The City's decision on the short plat application stated: 2 Under this provision,a standard stream or lake study may"be waived by the Administrator when the applicant provides satisfactory evidence that: (a)A road,building or other barrier exists between the water body and the proposed activity,or(b) The water body or required buffer area does not intrude on the applicant's lot,and based on evidence submitted,the proposal will not result in significant adverse impacts to nearby water bodies regulated under this Section;or(c)Applicable data and S analysis appropriate to the proposed project exists and an additional study is not necessary."RMC 4-3-050(L)(3)(d)(ii) (emphasis added) 3 Ellisport wrote a letter in June 20505 stating that the Class 3 designation was under the old ordinance. Based on the new Critical Areas Ordinance(passed in 2005),the channel should properly be designated as a Class 5. Exhibit 19. Renton City Council Gordley Brief on Appeal Page 3 of 8 A stream has been identified, which flows along the east border of the project site. The • City's Streams and Lakes Map classifies the stream as a Class 4 stream, which is non- salmonid bearing intermittent stream. Class 4 streams require a minimum 35-foot buffer. A stream study prepared by Cedarock Consultants, Inc., dated February 17, 2006 was submitted with the project application. The study was prepared for the City of Renton and was prepared in response to a previous request to reclassify the on-site stream from a Class 4 stream to a Class 5 stream, which is unregulated. In addition, at the time there was also some discussion as to whether the stream should actually be classified as a Class 3 stream. A Class 3 stream is a non-salmonid bearing stream that has perennial flows and requires a 75-foot buffer. The report included a review of the previous documentation that had been prepared regarding the stream, information that had been obtained through a site visit, and a review of the City's Critical Areas Regulations. The report concluded that it is unlikely that the stream is a salmonid bearing stream due to steep slopes that exist downstream towards Lake Washington. The report indicated that no conclusive evidence had been gathered as to whether the stream was perennial or intermittent and that this issue can only be resolved through direct observation of flow characteristics during the summer and that this data can take several years to gather depending on rainfall patterns. Therefore, the report recommended that the stream retain its Class 4 stream classification. Staff has received comments from neighbors regarding the classification of the stream. The neighbors have indicated that the stream flows perennially and that the stream is misclassified and should be classified as a Class 3 stream. • In order to protect the wetland, stream and associated buffer areas, staff recommends as a condition of approval that a Native Growth Protection Easement shall be recorded over the on-site wetland, stream, and associated buffer areas prior to or concurrent with the recording of the final short plat map. In order to notify future property owners of the presence of the stream and wetland areas, staff recommends that the edge of the NGPE be delineated with a split rail fence and identified with signage as approved by the Development Services Division Project Manager. A fencing and signage detail shall be submitted to the Development Services Division project manager at the time of Utility Construction Permit Application for review and approval. The fencing and signage shall be installed prior to the recording of the final plat. Exhibit 1, December 10, 2007 Report and Decision, pages 7-8 (emphasis added). It is clear from these passages of the final short plat approval, that the City was not only cognizant of the stream issue, but it took steps to address the issue directly by creating an easement. The decision making process by the City followed stringent and carefully thought-out procedures. Rather than completely ignoring the concerns of the surrounding neighbors, the City mandated that for the final approval for the Short Plat to go through, the Gordley property would be subject to a Native Growth Protection Easement. Much of the evidence submitted by Ms. Rider at the hearing (with the intent to counter the City's • decision) was irrelevant and should have been excluded. The photos in Exhibit 10 were not photos of the Gordley property, and are therefore entitled to little, if any weight. For the same reason, the photos J Renton City Council Gordley Brief on Appeal Page 4 of 8 • in Exhibit 11 are also not photos of the Gordley property, and Ms. Rider had no expert testimony to clarify how the comments and photos of Exhibit 11 affect classification of the stream and wetland on the Gordley property. The Council Meeting Minutes of March 21, 2005 (Exhibit 12) do refer to Kennydale Creek as an example of a Class 3 stream, but the portion of the stream on the Gordley property is not Class 3. Exhibit 12 is certainly not an expert study of the Gordley property. Similarly, the letters in Exhibits 6 and 13 also do not discuss the Gordley property. Authority and Argument The City's decision to approve the short plat application was neither arbitrary and capricious nor clearly erroneous, and the Hearing Examiner's decision must be reversed. The only issue on which the City's decision could be reversed was whether the City properly processed and approved the Gordleys' short plat application, specifically, whether the City's decision to waive the stream study was justified. See Conclusion of Law 6. The Hearing Examiner failed to give proper weight to the prior decision of the City and Ms. Rider did not meet her burden to establish that the City's approval of the short plat application was in error. Ms. Rider argued that the approval was in error because the buffers applied by the City were contrary to existing conditions. However, Ms. Rider had made no formal request to reclassify the stream, and the Hearing Examiner had no authority to sua sponte reclassify the bodies of water on the Gordley property. Furthermore, if the City did not err in waiving the stream study, then its approval of the short plat application based upon the current classification cannot have been an error. The City's procedural determinations and discretionary decisions are both entitled to substantial • weight: The procedural determination by the Environmental Review Committee or City staff shall carry substantial weight in any appeal proceeding. The Hearing Examiner shall give substantial weight to any discretionary decision of the City rendered pursuant to this Chapter/Title. RMC 4-8-110(E)(7)(a). Where such deference is mandated, a reviewing tribunal should not "substitute its judgment for the judgment of [the original decision making agency] on a disputed factual issue." Northern Pac. Transport Co. v. Wash. Utilities and Transportation Commission, 69 Wn.2d 472, 477, 418 P.2d 735 (1966). Given this deference, the City staff decision should be presumed to be correct and only overturned on a clear showing that it was in error. Ms. Rider has not met this burden. The City's approval of the Gordley short plat can only be reversed if the decision to waive a stream study and subsequent approval of the application was either "clearly erroneous in view of the entire record as submitted" or "arbitrary or capricious." RMC 4-8-110(E)(7)(b)(v and vi).4 The Hearing Examiner improperly applied these standards. 4 There can be no argument that the other criteria of RMC 4-8-110(E)(7)(b) are grounds for reversal of the City's decision. Planning clearly had jurisdiction to approve the application, and there was no procedural error in processing the application, especially in light of the specific provision in the Code allowing for waiver of the standard stream study. Renton City Council Gordley Brief on Appeal Page 5 of 8 1. The City Staff Decision Was Not Arbitrary or Capricious. • P The decision to waive the stream study was not arbitrary or capricious. A decision is arbitrary and capricious if it is willful and unreasoning in disregard of the facts and circumstances. Northern Pac. Transport Co., 69 Wn.2d at 478. "Action is not arbitrary and capricious when exercised honestly and upon due consideration of the facts and circumstances." Id. "Where there is room for two opinions, an action taken after due consideration is not arbitrary and capricious even though a reviewing court may believe it to be erroneous." Rios v. Dept. of Labor & Indus., 145 Wn.2d 483, 501, 39 P.3d 961 (2002) (quotation omitted); see also Sparks v. Douglas County, 127 Wn.2d 901, 908, 904 P.2d 738 (1995). Sparks v. Douglas County involved the approval of several plat applications on the condition that the applicant dedicate certain rights of way for road improvements. 127 Wn.2d at 904-05. The applicant appealed the condition several times, arguing in part that the condition was arbitrary and capricious because there was no evidence that the proposed subdivisions would have an adverse impact on the existing traffic sufficient to require widening of the existing roads. The Washington Supreme Court held that the County decision was not arbitrary or capricious because the County properly considered the available facts, including the current road widths and information regarding current and projected road use, even though there was no direct evidence that the proposed subdivisions would have an adversely impact. Id. at 909-10. Because there was substantial evidence to support the County's decision, the decision was not arbitrary or capricious even though additional evidence might have supported a different outcome. Based upon the evidence available, the City's decision to waive further stream studies was justified. The Q Map shows the stream as a Class 4 stream. This is supported by the Cedarrock report of February 2006 (Exhibit 18), the Watershed study of July 2005 (Exhibit 17), and the Seward & Associates CAS submitted as part of the Gordleys' application. The reports and letters by Ellisport Engineering placed the stream in Class 5. Exhibits 14 and 19. It is clear from the Administrative Short Plat Report and Decision (Exhibit 1) that the City considered all of the evidence it had available, including comments from neighbors, and decided to approve the application based on the buffers for a Class 4 stream and Category 3 wetland. The City examined the Cedarrock study. At the time of that study, the City states that "there was also some discussion as to whether the stream should actually be classified as a Class 3 stream." (Exhibit 1, Decision page 8.) The City relied on the study's conclusion that "no conclusive evidence had been gathered as to whether the stream was perennial or intermittent and that this issue can only be resolved through direct observation of flow characteristics during the summer and that this data can take several years to gather depending on rainfall patterns." Id. Therefore, the City adopted the report's recommendation to retain the Class 4 classification. However, in light of comments from neighbors that the stream should be Class 3, the City required a Native Growth Protection Easement to be recorded as a condition of approval, and further required that the easement be delineated with a fence and signage. There was no study available to the City or later submitted by Ms. Rider that indicated the stream was a Class 3. Although it is Class 3 further downstream, Ms. Henning testified that it is not unusual for there to be multiple classifications on any one stream. The City acknowledged receipt of various letters 41) from residents regarding the characteristics of the stream, but the decision to favor expert studies over lay observations cannot be arbitrary and capricious. Those neighbors who testified at the hearing did not Renton City Council Gordley Brief on Appeal Page 6 of 8 • have a clear view of the stream due to vegetation, and their testimony was contradicted by the Gordleys who stated that the stream is intermittent and without any sustainable life. The letters of Larry Fisher to the City dated October 12 and 19, 2006, should not have been admitted into evidence because they do not relate to the portion of the stream on the Gordley property. Mr. Fisher admitted that he had never been on the Gordley property. The City's decision not to require an additional stream study was not arbitrary or capricious. The City considered the several studies that had already been done in the area and determined that an additional study was not necessary. Even in light of the City's knowledge of the comments of Larry Fisher and residents of the area, the decision not to require an additional study was not arbitrary or capricious because neither Mr. Fisher nor the residents provided a study that contradicted those already reviewed by the City. Although there may have been conflicting opinions as to whether an additional study would be relevant, this alone does not establish that the decision was arbitrary and capricious. Rather than require a study which would either be inconclusive or take years to complete, the City conditioned approval on the recording of an easement to protect the wetland. The decision of the City staff to approve the application without an additional stream study must be affirmed. 2. The City Staff Decision Was Not Clearly Erroneous. The Hearing Examiner improperly determined that the decision was clearly erroneous. Under the clearly erroneous standard, a decision can be reversed when the reviewing tribunal, "with good • reason therefor, [has] a definite and firm conviction that a mistake of fact [has] been committed." Ancheta v. Daly, 77 Wn.2d 255, 259, 461 P.2d 531 (1966) (emphasis added). Thus, the clearly erroneous standard applies specifically to findings of fact, not to discretionary decisions based on facts. E.g. Port of Seattle v. Pollution Control Hearings Bd., 151 Wn.2d 568, 588, 90 P.3d 659 (2004); Pitts v. State, Dept. of Social and Health Services, 129 Wn. App. 513, 523, 119 P.3d 896 (2005). A perceived error in judgment alone would not justify reversal under the clearly erroneous standard, because the reviewing body should not substitute its judgment for that of the agency.5 Ancheta, 77 Wn.2d at 259. In Brown v. City of Tacoma, 30 Wn. App. 762, 637 P.2d 1005 (1981), a citizen appealed the city's decision not to require an environmental impact statement for a proposed condominium development near the citizen's home. The city reviewed the environmental checklist submitted by the builder and required certain studies, before issuing a declaration of nonsignificance. Id. at 763-64. Although the appellant argued that the builder's checklist was biased and incomplete, the city's decision was not clearly erroneous because it considered extensive evidence, including comments raised by the appellant during the review process. Id. at 765. The city's threshold determination of nonsignificance was based upon reasonably sufficient information, and was not clearly erroneous. Id. The City's approval of the short plat application was not clearly erroneous. The City reviewed all of the evidence it had available and determined that an additional study of the stream was not necessary. The City was not required to reevaluate the classification of the stream, nor was reclassification justified based on the studies that had been done. Neither the City Council nor the Hearing Examiner can substitute its judgment for the Planning Department. As discussed above, the mere fact that there were conflicting opinions as to the proper classification of the stream is insufficient 5 An error in judgment would be more properly analyzed under the arbitrary and capricious standard,as discussed above. Renton City Council Gordley Brief on Appeal Page 7 of 8 to overturn the City's approval of the short plat. There is no study that classifies the stream as a Class • 3,6 so the City's decision to rely on the studies and Q Map showing the stream as a Class 4 was not clearly erroneous. 3. The Hearing Examiner Did Not Have Authority to Reclassify the Stream. The Hearing Examiner's decision must also be reversed because he improperly recategorized the stream. Conclusion of Law 10. Under the Code, the location and extent of Class 2 to 4 water bodies is depicted on the Q Map found in RMC 4-3-050(Q). RMC 4-3-050(L)(1)(c)(i). The Q Map is "a guide to the general location and extent of streams." Id. Specific classification of a particular water body is "determined by the City based upon field review and applicant-funded studies" as described in the Code. Id. Nothing in the Code allows classification of a particular water body by the Hearing Examiner on appeal of a short platapplication. A stream can be reclassified to a lower (less restrictive) class based upon "administrator acceptance of a supplemental stream or lake study, followed by legislative amendment to the map in subsection Q of this Section prior to its effect." RMC 4-3-050(L)(1)(c)(ii). Although the Code does not specifically address reclassification to a higher class, any such reclassification should be supported at a minimum by appropriate studies pursuant to the quoted language in RMC 4-3-050(L)(1)(c)(i and ii). Placing a stream in a higher class would also arguably require legislative amendment to the Q Map,just as with a change to a lower class. In any event, the requirement for field review and appropriate studies certainly means that reclassification of a stream based on its characteristics is not "automatic," as the Hearing Examiner claimed without citation to a section of the Code. Conclusion of Law 10. Furthermore, nothing in the Code allows for reclassification of a stream based on the testimony and observations of lay witnesses. Even if the Hearing Examiner did have the authority to reclassify the stream, there was no study submitted as required by the Code that could support a different class. The Q Map conclusively establishes the category of a water body unless there is a conflict between the Q Map and the criteria for classification of a stream. RMC 4-3-050(L)(1)(c)(ii). At the time the short plat application was reviewed, the stream was a Class 4 and the wetland was a Category 3. By approving the Gordley short plat, the City determined either (1) there was insufficient evidence of a conflict to justify changing the Q Map or (2) there was no conflict because the stream was properly Class 4 as depicted on the Q Map. As discussed above, the Code only allows a change to the category of a water body when supported by a proper study. The only reports the City had showed the stream as a Class 4. Thus, if the decision not to require another study was justified, as argued above, it cannot have been error for the City to process the application according to the buffers provided in the Code for the existing classifications. Ms. Rider should not have been allowed to argue the classification of the stream on appeal of the City's approval of the short plat. She had not made a formal request to the Planning Department to reclassify the stream or wetland, and without an appropriate study to support a change in the classification, no change to the class could be justified under the Code. Ms. Rider's arguments as to the 6 The Ellisport Engineering report of October 2004 was prior to enactment of the Critical Areas Ordinance, and was later • revised by Ellisport after the CAO was in effect. Exhibit 19. 7 It should also be noted that Ms. Rider had an opportunity to present argument regarding proper classification of the stream at the time of Mr.Dutro's application to reclassify the stream. • Renton City Council Gordley Brief on Appeal Page 8 of 8 • proper classification of the water bodies can only be considered to the extent that they are relevant to determine whether the City's decision to waive the stream study was arbitrary or capricious. If the water bodies were improperly classified by the City, the most that the Hearing Examiner could have done was remand the matter for another study. 4. Conclusion. The critical issue on this appeal is whether the City properly processed the Gordley short plat application in waiving another stream study. If the decision to waive a study was not arbitrary or capricious, then the City approval of the application must be upheld. The short plat was approved subject to buffers for a Class 4 stream and a Category 3 wetland, as the water bodies were categorized at the time of the application. There can be no error by the City in approving the application based upon the existing classification. This is especially true in light of the fact that the City required a Native Growth Protection Easement to protect the wetland, stream, and buffer area. In light of the evidence available to the City, the decision to require an easement rather than engage in a years-long study to evaluate the stream was not arbitrary or capricious. In order to determine whether the waiver of the stream study was justified, it is critical to evaluate the evidence available to the City staff at the time the decision was made. The testimony and exhibits submitted by Ms. Rider at the hearing are only relevant to the extent that that evidence was provided to the City while the Gordley short plat application was pending. The evidence shows that the • City had three studies of the area, all showing the stream at Class 4. The only evidence suggesting a Class 3 classification were various letters from residents, and it is not clear what those letters contained other than lay observation. The City also had information to suggest that the stream lacked a natural channel and should therefore be a Class 5. Even assuming that the City should have questioned the established classification of the stream, an additional study at the time of shortp latapplication (late 2007)would likely not have conclusively resolved the question. Based on the lack of any study showing the stream as a Class 3 and the other evidence described, the City's decision to waive another study and to process the application based on existing classifications was reasonable. Ms. Rider has not met her substantial burden to establish that the decision was clearly erroneous, arbitrary, or capricious. She also failed to submit sufficient evidence, such as a stream study, to justify reclassification of the stream, assuming that the stream could be reclassified after the short plat was approved. The Hearing Examiner must be reversed, and the City staff decision reinstated. Respectfully submitted, DICKSON STEINACKER LLP I � Kevin T. Steinacker Attorneys for Richard and Lauralee Gordley • 041008 Gordley 8059 • • r --- March 27, 2008 OFFICE OF THE HEARING EXAMINER • CITY OF RENTON REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION APPELLANT: Susan Rider APPLICANT: Richard and Lauralee Gordley 2010 Jones Avenue NE Renton, WA 98056 Blueberry Haven Short Plat Appeal LUA-07-131, SHPL-A, ECF PUBLIC HEARING: After reviewing the Appellant's 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 are a summary of the February 12, 2008 hearing. The legal record is recorded on CD. • The hearing opened on Tuesday, February 12, 2008, at 9:00 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: Exhibit No. 1: Staff file containing the original Exhibit No. 2: Vicinity Map Showing the Original appeal letter, the plat application and the City's Plat determination. Exhibit No.3: Plat Map Prior to Lot Line Adjustment Exhibit No.4: Short Plat Map. Shows wetland area in green,buffer area in light green. Exhibit No. 5: City Stream Classification Map Exhibit No. 6: Three Letters from Mr. Fisher dated October 12, 2006, October 19, 2006 and February 20, 2007. Exhibit No. 7: Packet of Letters From Owners dated Exhibit No. 8: Packet of Letters from Owners dated 2005 2006 Exhibit No. 9: Packet of Letters From Owners dated Exhibit No. 10 a-r: Photos of the Area 2008 Exhibit No. 11: Packet from Randy Corman website Exhibit No. 12: City Council Minutes dated March (17-pages)with photos showing foundation filled with 21,2005. • water,etc. Blueberry Haven Short Plat Appeal LUA-07-131, SHPL-A, ECF March 27, 2008 1111 Page 2 Exhibit No. 13: Washington DepaL fluent of Ecology, Exhibit No. 14: Ellisport Engineering Packet, Wetland Studies dated October 16, 2000. Wetland Delineation Report on Gordley and Dutro properties. Exhibit No. 15: Wetland Delineation, Highgate Exhibit No. 16: Watershed Company Report dated Sewage Lift Station Elimination, December 1996 March 2, 2007, to Terry Dutro,regarding wetland determination at the Dutro property. Exhibit No. 17: Letter from Watershed Company to Exhibit No. 18: Letter from Mr. Hadley of Cedarock City of Renton dated July 19, 2005 regarding Consultants to Mr. Dutro dated February 17, 2006 Blueberry Meadows project for Environmental Review Exhibit No. 19: Ellisport Engineering letter to Mr. Exhibit No. 20: May 17, 2005 Masterbuilt Dutro dated June 29, 2005 and letter to Lauralee Construction letter to the City of Renton. Gordley dated April 25,2005 also from Ellisport Eng. Exhibit No. 21: Easement for Manmade Drainage Exhibit No. 22: Q-Map from Code Reference Map Ditch. Quit Claim Deed(2 sheets) Exhibit No. 23: Letter regarding Terry Dutro study Exhibit No. 24a-d: Photos of Gordley's home from Ellisport Engineering—Stream Class 5 411) Parties Present: Jennifer Henning, Development Services Ann Nielsen,Assistant City Attorney Ashley Peck,Attorney for Appellant Susan Rider,Appellant Richard and Lauralee Gordley,Applicant Prior to testimony, discussion was had regarding briefs,responses, and testimony of witnesses and determining . classifications of creeks and wetlands. Ms. Peck stated that they had eight witnesses, seven are neighbors and have personal knowledge of the creek. The eighth witness was Larry Fisher from the Depai fluent of Fish and Wildlife. A list of witnesses was provided to the Examiner. Opening Statement from Ashley Peck. The main issue in Ms. Rider's appeal is the application of the Critical Areas Ordinance to this Short Plat approval. Kennydale Creek flows through the property, there also are wetlands on the site and they believe that the classifications that have been applied in this short plat are contrary to the critical areas criteria as well as the existing conditions. The Kennydale Creek should be classified as a Class 3 perennial stream rather than a Class 4 stream. The buffers applied to this stream are the least restrictive and least protective buffers to a stream. Further,there are issues with the wetland classification, in the past this . wetland has been classified as a Category 2 Headwater Wetland because it is located in the headwaters of Kennydale Creek. The Critical Area Study submitted by the applicant shows the creek as a Category 3 Wetland and does not take into consideration that it is located in the headwaters. Blueberry Haven Short Plat Appeal LUA-07-131, SHPL-A, ECF March 27, 2008 Page 3 • Jennifer Henning gave a brief overview of what is proposed and where the property is located, where the creek runs and the associated wetlands. The property is located in the East Kennydale area to the east of I-405 and east of Jones Avenue NE and north of NE 20th Street. The proposal is to subdivide the property into two lots. The wetland area extends across both parcels. In addition Kennydale Creek is located on the east boundary of the property. It is a drainage channel that feeds into the larger creek downstream. The City has classified the creek as both a Class 3 and a Class 4. As the creek begins to cross under I-405 it converts to a Class 3, at NE 24th it becomes a Class 4 stream. Julie Bray, 1901 NE 20`h Street, Renton, WA 98056 stated that she has lived at this address for approximately 20 years, she walks almost every day and the creek has always been running. It runs during the dry summer season, she has never seen it without water. Upon Questioning by Ann Nielsen,Ms. Bray stated that she has worked for the City of Renton for 26 years in the Fire Department. She does have access to City Codes, as well as being aware of and knowing Jennifer Henning and where the Development Services Division is located. She has seen signs on the property,but did not realize that it was going to impact her property. She further stated that she saw the creek on a daily basis,her house is located just south of Lot B and she walks along 20th at a distance of approximately two feet from the creek. Her dog would often go into the creek and play in the water. Larry Fisher, 1775-12th Ave NW, Ste. 201, Issaquah,WA 98027 stated that he has been with the Washington Depai tment of Fish and Wildlife and has been the area Habitat Biologist for about 17 years. His area of • expertise includes all tributaries south of I-90, he is familiar with Kennydale Creek. He received a notice to testify and to his knowledge he is testifying as a State expert. There has been activity around this creek for several years. He has seen the stream during all the months of the year and has never seen it dry. It does not make sense that the headwaters would be classified different than the lower part of the stream. Comment letters have been sent to the City of Renton regarding the Kennydale Blueberry Farm proposal explaining why this stream should be a Class 3 rather than a Class 4. The creek is spring fed and they maintain their flow year around. Upon Questioning by Ms. Nielsen, Mr. Fisher stated that he received the subpoena requesting him to testify approximately two weeks prior to today. He believed that his supervisor was aware that he was present today testifying in his capacity as an employee of the Depai tment of Fish and Wildlife. He has had conversations with Ms. Rider about the application and reviewed materials that she had in her file. The creek does have water running in July, August and September. Ms.Nielsen wanted to establish when exactly he was out there, from what vantage point was he able to observe the creek. Mr. Fisher stated that he was there during the summer in the 90's when the City did a sewer line project,he was also there during the summer reviewing the activity during the Roberson Short Plat extension of the culvert about two years ago. During the normal construction season, usually during the summer,'the waters are the lowest and likely to cause the least impact, there has always been water in the creek. His observations of the creek have been from the road(NE 20t). From this vantage point,he is able to see approximately 100 feet up stream. Deanna Dobak, 1700 NE 20th Street, Renton, WA 98056 stated she overlooks Lot A and Lot B, they are able to • see the wetlands from their house. They have lived there since 2002 and she has never seen the creek dry. They Blueberry Haven Short Plat Appeal LUA-07-131, SHPL-A, ECF March 27, 2008 Page 4 1111 walk with their dogs and child at least three times a week. She stops and checks it out and takes the time to look at the water. She has never seen the creek dry during the months of June,July and August. Upon questioning by Ms. Nielsen,Ms. Dobak stated that she was observing the creek from NE 20th Street and can see approximately a third to half of the way up the east property line of Lot B. She has seen ducks swimming in the water during the summer months. William O'Connor, 921 S Washington Street, Port Angeles, WA 98362 stated that he has known Ms.Rider for five to six years. Together they have been watching and studying the creek for some time. Ms. Rider has a ground water pond in her backyard that is level with the stream at the Blueberry Farm. There has been water in the Blueberry Farm stream and at NE 24th Street on every occasion that they have looked at it. His personal knowledge is that the stream is always flowing during the summer months and that it has never dried up. Paul Watt, 2433 Jones Avenue NE, Renton, WA 98056 stated that he has lived at this address since the 1960's, he is north of 24th on the west side of Jones. The stream runs on the backside of his property between the freeway and his property. He gets up at 5:00 am and walks to the creek each morning, he has never seen the creek dry. He does not walk to the creek in the winter months, it's too soggy and wet. Karen Finnicum, 1302 Aberdeen Ave NE, Renton, WA 98056 stated that she has lived in the area since 1963, in 1971 her car was driven into the creek. The creek has never been dry. When the property belonged to the Pohls, she rode horseback through the property, the ponies would dump them into the creek in the summer. She has never seen the creek without water. 10-minute recess • Susan Rider, 1835 NE 20th Street,Renton, WA 98056 stated that when they first found out about the creek reclassification in 2005 the neighborhood was astonished g that there was a claim that the stream was seasonal, because no one had ever seen it go dry. The creek is obviously a Class 3, in 2005, 2006 and 2008 letters and affidavits regarding the stream and the amount of water consistently in the stream were written by the neighbors. A series of photos were introduced by Ms. Rider, they were documented as Exhibit 1 Oa-r: 10a: Shows the grate on the east side of I-405 that takes the water underneath I-405 and comes out onto the Kennydale Creek ravine, which flows into Lake Washington, 10b: Shows the same area showing water flowing out of a pipe in the Misty Cove area, 10c: Shows wetlands next to the project(deer in field). She was standing on NE 20th east of the Gordley property when taking these photos, 10d: From 24th and Jones showing creek flowing downstream from the Gordley property, 10e: Shows creek flowing along the west side of the Rider property and continues across the Blueberry property and comes out by Mr. Gordley's property, 10f: Shows where creek comes out on 20th from the Blueberry Farm(looking south), 10g: Shows the creek along NE 20th in front of the Blueberry Farm during the summer, 10h: Shows the creek along NE 20`h in front of the Blueberry Farm during summer flowing to the culvert, 10i: Shows the creek in the Rider backyard during the summer, 10j: Shows the creek coming out under the fence on the Blueberry Farm, 10k: Shows the Rider backyard in July 2006, 101: Shows the creek in front of the Blueberry Farm on NE 20th in July 2006 during the drought, l Om: Shows the creek flowing to the culvert where it goes under NE 20th and continues to the Gordley property, 10n: Duplicate of 10f, Blueberry Haven Short Plat Appeal LUA-07-131, SHPL-A, ECF March 27,2008 Page 5 • 10o: Mr. Zevart in Mr. Watt's yard,shows dog playing in the creek at the end of the longest drought in Washington history. The picture was taken in the vicinity of Jones Avenue between NE 24th and the grate that goes under I-405, 10p-q-r: Show water flowing in the creek during the summer months. The above photos all depict water north and south of the Gordley property in July, which was one of the driest July's on record. People in the neighborhood have called the City Council with concerns about the creek and headwater wetlands. Recently a foundation was being dug for a house across the street, north of Ms. Rider's house. The water table is on higher ground than the wetlands and creek, the property was entirely spring fed, the contractors had to run pumps 24-hours a day for months. She presented another photograph that was taken by Randy Corman on a visit to the location. City Council minutes from the March 21,2005 meeting were presented, there were statements in the minutes for the adoption of Kennydale Creek classification as a Class 3 creek. Mr. Rider presented a letter from the Washington State Depai tnient of Ecology referring to the wetland and creek issues in this area. As well, Wetland Studies were presented by various professional organizations. They refer to water in the creek, and the creek being perennial if it were down to the ground water level, which it is. Upon questioning by Ms.Nielsen,Ms. Rider stated she had looked at the creek on the Gordley property during the summer of 2007. She had not been on the property since the Gordleys purchased it approximately 10 years • ago. She also observed the creek from NE 20th, she could see approximately 100 feet into the property. She is also able to see the wetlands, the deer in a prior picture were in the wetlands and on the Gordley property. Since then, there has been a lot line adjustment and she was not sure where the Gordley property runs now. Ms. Rider has lived on her property since 1982, she had lived on NE 20th since 1976, sees the creek most every day. In the summer there is more grass,but the creek is fairly open, it can be seen both summer and winter. The mud is really deep, the water on top of the mud is only a few inches, once the kids or dogs get in, they are wet up to their knees. During the Roberson Short Plat planning, it seemed that no one knew anything about that project, then all of a sudden they started doing work on the property. There was further discussion on how the stream was classified, Exhibit 18 was a stream survey which stated that it was not possible to tell if it was indeed a Class 3 stream because the survey was done during the winter months and the person doing the work did not study the stream in the summer months. Ms.Nielsen went on the clarify that this classification study was submitted as part of the Dutro application,Mr.Dutro came up with his own study, in which he proposed that the classification be evaluated as a Class 5. The City was then left to do a study to evaluate if it truly was a Class 5 or if it was a Class 4 stream. There was never an issue to looking at the stream as a possible Class 3. The requirements of a stream classification study were then discussed, it has to identify the mean high water mark, the functions of the stream and review the criteria in the Code for the classification. Lauralee Gordley, 2010 Jones Avenue NE, Renton, WA 98056 stated that she is the applicant. She started this process began in March of 2005. The short plat was filed based on the current zoning and the current stream 1111 classification. Both of those have changed since she started this project. The CAO was adopted in June 2005 and the rezone was adopted in December 2006. The stream has been addressed previously, there has been Blueberry Haven Short Plat Appeal LUA-07-131, SHPL-A, ECF March 27, 2008 Page 6 IIIplanning and council meetings regarding the stream. Sue Rider attended those meetings and stated her position. Ms. Gordley feels that she has been at a disadvantage as a property owner, she has put out great expense doing the short plat,this is not a big developer short plat, rather a private short plat. She has been reduced to a two-lot short plat. They have previously gone through a stream classification,the Department of Fish and Wildlife have been to the site, they have said this stream is not significant, it's not even on their radar. She feels she has not been treated fairly by the City and others. The wildlife, deer, ducks and rodents are typical to this area but she has never seen any of them drink out of the "drainage ditch"as it is called on her title report. They will drink surface water. The Monterey Court NE residential neighborhood runoff drains into the Blueberry Farm, the 37-home Westminster development drains all surface water into the entrance of her property, which on her title reports notes that it is a private drainage ditch and was determined to be such in 1958. The sewer line was put in after the purchase of her property and has been addressed in prior meetings that that sewer line changed the hydrology of her property. They created a French drain in order to drain the area of its water. Exhibit 2, the photograph showing a foundation filled with standing water,was discussed regarding the sewer lines that were installed north of 20th and west/north of the subject site. Surface water runs into the ditch at NE 20th Street, the pipe from the Blueberry Farm has no water flowing out of it. There could be standing water, but it is not flowing. People testified that they could see 100' up the stream, however, the landscape consists of a row of Poplar trees with blackberry bushes that are overgrown and obstructing. The blackberry bushes begin at the corner of NE 20"'Street and continue back approximately 100 feet. The creek cannot be seen from Jones or NE 20"', it's private property, once the creek hits the property 41) north of them, it is completely overgrown and cannot be viewed from anywhere. The original owner of the property told her that he and his children dug the ditch, it was also stated in the history of the stream that the Corps of Engineers brought out mules and dug some of the ditch. When Terry Dutro purchased the property he wanted to reclassify the stream to a Class 5, Gordley's said they did not want to be involved in changing anything. In 2004 she went to the City and wanted to know the status of her property, what documentation there was on the wetland, and what could be done. In order to sell part or all of her property, she needed to have that information. She was told that she would have to do a new wetland study, things change and there had been a lot of new development in the area. They agreed to doing a joint 1 wetland study at that time, if the study had shown that there was a wetland, she would not have invested any further money into the development of her property. Ms. Gordley continued with a list of objections that she had with the previous testimony heard.First, Larry Fisher talked about a peat bog, there is no peat bog on her property. The photo of the headwater is far from her property and her understanding is that while there may be some water flowing at that point, it does not get to her property without other surface water taking it there. She further stated that she had never seen any fish or other life form in the stream. They tried to enhance the area by placing frogs in the stream, but they died. She has never seen any animals drinking from the ditch. The deepest level of water has been to the top of the ditch and that was during the monsoon rains. The ditch is approximately 3 feet deep. She has seen the pipe coming from the Blueberry Farm at the entrance of her property with no water coming out. Regarding the photos that were presented earlier, she stated that none of the photos were taken on the Gordley property. • The Randy Corman log was not about their property. Exhibit 15 was prior to their ownership and the hydrology has changed since that report was written. She has had two studies done since then. The Ellisport Engineering Report was not accepted by the City, it did state a stream classification but the information was based on a pre- Blueberry Haven Short Plat Appeal LUA-07-131, SHPL-A, ECF March 27,2008 Page 7 CAO category. A letter following that was submitted, however the referenced area is not in the shortP lat • application, she did offer the letter as an exhibit. Exhibits 16 and 17 were not on their property. If the area were one that needed to be preserved, she would not have gone through this process. The property has been enhanced since their purchase, the neighborhood enjoys their open space. She believes this is an open space issue and that a huge burden has been placed on them by the City Planning Depaitment to provide reports and documents. They have committed money based on the City procedures and zonings. There should be a grandfather clause so they can finish up their project. The area was originally zoned R-8 and was downzoned to R-4. Upon questioning by Ms. Peck, Ms. Gordley stated that the ditch is not continuous, there are culverts that come in above the level of the bottom of the ditch. She has seen that no water is coming from that pipe. People saying that they can see 100' down her property cannot possibly see that far. The plants and trees would definitely block the view of the stream. She further stated that she has no proof or information that this stream is intermittent rather than perennial. The Cedarock Consultants prepared a stream classification report for the short plat. It was not, however,her burden to prove the stream classification. Her title report states that it is a drainage ditch,not a stream. It became a Class 4 stream, but that was without best available science, it is a drainage ditch. The City Council decided to send out their own consultant who stated that if the property were to be short platted it could be enhanced in the buffer zone to keep water cool. There is no official stream study report concluding that this stream flows intermittently. • Break for Lunch to reconvene at 1:49 p.m. Rick Gordley, 2010 Jones Avenue NE, Renton, WA 98056 stated that he was using Exhibit 3 for reference and gave a description of the terrain between the Blueberry headwaters and the end of his property. All the local neighborhoods built in the 1980's use surface drains, the houses,roads, sidewalks, and driveways have below grade surface drains, which flow downhill to the Blueberry field and into his and the adjacent properties to the north. There are well over 400 houses that drain to these properties. The drainage ditch was dug in 1958, since that time neighborhoods have been developed,roads built and all that water is being directed to the drainage ditch. He further stated that he is a licensed ICC inspector,most of his fieldwork has been in drainage. Upon questioning by Ms. Nielsen,Mr. Gordley stated that the headwater is at the entrance of his driveway and the creek runs right along the east side of his property. There are lots of large poplar trees and blackberries in the vicinity. At the end of the culvert where the creek dumps into his property from the adjacent neighborhood of 37 homes, it is impossible to see five feet up the creek from the middle of June on. Today you can see maybe 30-feet up stream. He has only seen this ditch with a mud bottom one time, he does not believe it is a creek,he believes it is a drainage ditch. Currently the water is approximately 3-4 inches deep, in the rainy season it can go all the way to the top of the bank. No living critters are in the water,no fish,no frogs, in fact one of his animals died from drinking the stagnant water. Mr. Pohl originally owned the land, he wanted to create a wildlife preserve in the backyard. He brought in the • wetland along with trees and bushes and planted them all over the yard. He installed a 25,000-30,000 gallon . Blueberry Haven Short Plat Appeal LUA-07-131, SHPL-A, ECF March 27, 2008 Page 8 IIIpond that he pumped from the ditch to his backyard. He has an agreement with the City that he can continue to do that for the next 30-40 years. Mr.Pohl left and the system failed. Upon questioning by Ms. Peck, Mr. Gordley stated that he has owned this property for approximately 9-10 years. He only knew of the one stream study that was done by Mr. Hadley from Ellisport Engineers. Erika Conkling,Sr. Planner, Economic Development stated that their responsibility is looking at planning and long-range issues. They process plans and programs of a non-project nature where they look at the long term and large view of the City, including the processing of annual comprehensive plan amendments. She was involved with the 2006 updates and managed the Gordley comprehensive plan amendments. This was considered a non-project action because there is not a specific development proposal associated with them, but because they were amending the comprehensive plan. SEPA determinations were made on the proposed comprehensive plan amendments of non-significance. Two separate comment letters were received from Larry Fisher of the Department of Fish and Wildlife on the Blueberry Farm comprehensive plan amendment. There were no comments on the downzone of the larger area. It was not necessary at the time of the SEPA review to look at critical areas that would come at the time of a specific project review. Things are looked at in general, but one can never predict what the specific analysis would be until you have a project. The Examiner reviewed this testimony and finished by asking exactly what is happening on the Gordley property? Jennifer Henning, Current Planning Manager, Development Services showed the code provision 4-3-050q, the Streams and Lakes map also known as the water class map. She marked the map with various colors to show • the different classifications of this stream in question today. The Examiner was given an 11 x 17-inch copy of the map for his use during this hearing. Ms. Henning continued stating that this map does not include Class 5 streams because they are considered to be unregulated,nor does it include Class 1, which are the shorelines of state by significance and are subject to the shoreline master program. This is for streams in the city that are Class 2, 3, or 4. When initial discussions begin with an applicant, the critical area maps are one of the first things that are looked at, includingthe stream and water class maps so it can be determined what, if anything,nythin , is on the subjectproperty. In this case, the map shows a Class 4 stream going through the property, which begins to the south of this property and extends to the north,crosses under I-405 comes out in a ravine and outlets into Lake Washington. It is not unusual to have multiple classifications on any one stream. The first person in this case that came looking for a downgrade in the classification was Mr. Terry Dutro, he was looking at assembling various parcels in'the area including the Gordley's property, the Core property(which Dutro now owns)and one other parcel. He brought in some studies that stated it was a man made drainage ditch and therefore should not be regulated. July 19, 2005 they received correspondence from Hugh Mortenson of the Watershed Company that talked about what it would take to classify the stream as a Class 5 stream,more discussion was had about the wetland system. At the time Mr.Mortenson determined that the recommendation for this stream as a Class 4 should stand. The City held that it was a Class 4 Stream not a Class 5; Mr.Dutro appealed the determination and went before the City Council. (see RMC 4-3-050Llcii—Reclassification) Ultimately Mr. Dutro withdrew his appeal but it became a larger discussion on how these streams get reclassified and what is the proper process. When public notice went out on discussion of this creek,neighbors came,wrote letters or attended committee meetings. The • Council decided that they needed to understand better what was going on,they asked that the City pay for a study to evaluate whether this stream should be a Class 5 or remain a Class 4. They further instructed the City Blueberry Haven Short Plat Appeal LUA-07-13 I, SHPL-A, ECF March 27, 2008 Page 9 • to hire the firm that had put together the City's water classification map originally. That was Cedarock Consulting, Carl Hadley. After evaluation by Mr. Hadley, he determined that the stream should remain a Class 4. Mr. Hadley only studied the stream as to whether it was a Class 4 or 5 stream, he did not look at the possibility of the stream being a Class 2 or 3. A discussion was had between the Examiner and Ms. Nielsen. Ms. Henning stated that one of the reasons Mr. Dutro asked for this reclassification was because he and the neighbors both presented aerial photographs of the site dating back to 1936 which showed no defined channel until in the 1950's when it was hand dug. Mr.Hadley's conclusions state that he looked at theossibilit� p res of Class 3 and Class 4 and Class 5, those conclusions are in his decision. He does o s state that"in the absence of conclusive evidence supporting a change from the existing Class 4 water classification, it is my recommendation that this classification stands." Upon questioning by Ms. Peck, Ms. Henning stated that as the current planning manager, she is charged with implementing the codes of the City. There is another group in strategic planning that actually drafts the codes and runs the critical areas program and hires consultants. How information gets translated into these maps is for those experts, she had no working knowledge of how the information came about. The map that she used is her guidepost, what she uses to implement the code. When an application for a land use project comes in, there is a list of things that might apply. They have the ability to require, modify or waive requirements. The supplemental stream study was waived in this case because they felt that they had the information they needed and it was current based on the Hadley report that • the City had paid for. A supplement analysis would only be needed to address the crossing of the stream and if the buffers were to be reduced to 25-feet. Ms. Peck stated that if the stream flows perennially then it would be classified as a Class 3 stream and that is essentially what the Hadley study states. She quoted from the study as follows, "If the water flows continuously during years of normal rainfall, it would be classified as a Class 3 water". He does note that he was not commissioned to address that issue; that he was there in February and that it would take years of study to determine. Nowhere in the letter does he say that this is an intermittent stream. Ms. Nielsen countered with the first paragraph, "water type classification"he says that, "the water course has been classified by the City of Renton, the Q map, as a Class 4 water based on the belief that, 1) the water is not fish bearing, and 2) the water course is intermittent during years of normal rainfall." Discussion continued between Ms. Peck and Ms.Nielsen. Ms. Henning stated that she had a minimum of six studies for this area that were done in the last 10 years. The reason for so many studies is due to the change of the water over that span of years, development has taken place and caused the water table and drainage patterns to change. She further stated that she has three reports that call the stream a 4, one that calls it a 5 and one that, back in 2004 called it a 3, however there was no classification system in place at that time. She does not have any report that says it is anything other than a 4 or 5. Ms. Peck stated that the applicant did submit a critical area report for the Gordley property. There are some errors in the report. The Steward&Association Report concludes that this property is a Category 3 wetland and they allude to hydrological changes in the area. There were several wetland studies done and Ms. Peck referred to each showing the various classifications that were given at the specific times. The 1996 report stated that the • area should be classified as a Category 2 wetland. The area has been reviewed on three subsequent occasions for the City,the most recent time was 2007 in which it was confirmed as a Category 2 wetland, that report was BlueberryHaven Short Sort Plat Appeal LUA-07-131, SHPL-A, ECF March 27, 2008 Page 10 IIIdone by the Watershed Company. There was an additional confirmation by Entranco in 1999 and the Watershed Company in 2005 again confirmed this classification. The initial report goes on the refer to the Kennydale Creek as a seasonal drainage ditch and further refers to the fact that the creek flows north and eventually runs into May Creek. She does not know where that information came from,but this creek does not flow into May Creek, it flows into Lake Washington. A 15-minute break was taken. Testimony resumed at 3:48 p.m. Ms. Nielsen stated that regarding the concerns of the Hearing Examiner over the fact that there has not been an independent study done on this project, which leaves a quandary on any challenger in that they are not allowed on the subject property with an expert in order to try to present a counter study. The City's position is that there should be more than a layperson's information submitted. Therefore, the City proposed to adjourn this hearing and give the appellant an opportunity to bring in their own study performed by an expert, the applicant has agreed to that limited purpose and that an expert would be allowed to come onto their property. The City did request that the consultant not be someone who has previously made a report on this particular project. Secondly, they asked for a list of experts be submitted to the City within two weeks, the City will look at the list and make a determination as to which expert should do the study. Within one month that person would have a report prepared. Finally, there needs to be communication between the appellants' expert and the applicant,they need to set a date and time that they would be on the property to do the study. The Examiner stated that this could take longer than one month, the expert cannot do fair research this time of • year. It certainly would be different now than in the dry summer months. Ms. Peck stated that she did not feel that it was the appellant's responsibility to pay for the expert. It is a shame that the appellant has had to hire an attorney to enforce the City's own codes. The Examiner further stated that there are properties that have constraints, it would have been helpful if the Gordleys' had been told about some of the constraints on their roe and sometimes it just is not known until property rtY J the money has been spent and the surveys done. However, in one month could an expert come in and say this creek is intermittent, or this creek flows. If they cannot, then we are back at square one. He also agreed with the appellant, he did not know if it truly was their burden. If the evidence shows that the creek is flowing regularly, then is the map wrong or the text right. The appellants do have the burden to show testimony, lay testimony is permitted, it is not anecdotal. There had even been conflicting lay testimony. Ms.Peck stated that she felt it was not her client's duty to do the work. This is not the first time this has been brought to the City. The City has classified this stream and still cannot produce any scientific evidence that it has ever done a study that proves that this stream is intermittent. The City has had ample notice of this issue. The Examiner decided to go ahead with the hearing, he would make a decision and either party can appeal. He is not totally convinced that the creek is always there. It has to flow and it has to flow more than intermittently, there is a water body out there that contains water. After much discussion on the merits of the offer being presented to the appellants, it was decided that the hearing would continue, the Examiner felt that the offer was not a fair offer. The applicant usually pays the cost for studies and determinations on water situations and the timing would not work. III Christian Denzler, 1800 NE 20th Street,Renton, WA 98056 stated that he lives on NE 20th immediately east of the Gordley property. He shares the stream with the Gordleys a length of approximately 134 feet. He has lived Blueberry Haven Short Plat Appeal LUA-07-131, SHPL-A, ECF March 27, 2008 Page 11 • there 14 years and has the low lot in the area. Springs bubble up and move around to a different part of the yard and then disappear. Several years ago the City took out the Highgate lift station and created a gravity feed sewer line that goes 12 feet deep and then cuts over to Jones and gravity feeds down. This essentially created a French drain, it took about two years and his yard started drying out. Heritage Glen,east of his property, capped a spring and put in a surface water drain for the development, it is a 24-inch diameter pipe that runs in front of his house and dumps into a small pool in the ditch. They were also allowed to put in 3-5 dewatering wells, which changed the entire water table. When that happened, the stream did go dry. Jennifer Henning stated that before the above discussion, Ms. Peck had been asking questions regarding the wetland study that was presented. Ms.Peck stated that the applicant's study does not acknowledge that this is located in the headwaters of Kennydale Creek. Prior studies that were submitted included one done for the City by the Watershed Company dated March 2, 2007,which concluded that these wetlands were Category 2 because they were located in the highwaters of Kennydale Creek. Ms. Henning continued that the Watershed study was done as a result of some grading activity that had happened at the Dutro site, they required a delineation to be done. It does state that it is a Category 2 headwaters wetland. They are still in the process of responding to that study in terms of the restoration that must occur. They have stated that they believe the wetland was disturbed enough, several have called it a Category 3 wetland, two have called it a Category 2 headwater wetland. They are accepting a mixed • designation where it appears to have been heavily disturbed. Discussion continued between Ms. Henning and Ms. Peck regarding the headwaters of Kennydale Creek and as to the classification of the wetlands whether they are Category 2 or 3. Regardless of what the wetland is classified as, there are still buffers and the site has development potential. A Category 2 wetland has a 50-foot buffer, a Category 3 wetland has a 25-foot buffer. Before the Critical Areas Ordinance was adopted all creeks and water bodies in the City had a 15-foot buffer. A Class 4 has a 35-foot buffer which can be averaged down to 25 feet, a Class 3 has a 75-foot buffer which can be buffer averaged down to 37.5 feet. • The Steward and Associates report was accepted. Exhibit 4 shows the wetland in green with the buffer area in light green and in light yellow a 35-foot buffer from the creek. It is difficult to tell the wetland area because it is a mowed lawn area. Exhibit 24 a-d photos (4 pages)of the Gordleys' home were identified and show the location and condition of the wetland. Lauralee Gordley stated that she believed they had been burdened with going the extra mile on the development of this property. The Preliminary Application response is dated March 2005. They have had to do the best available science, they understand the concern of the people in the area and that they enjoy the open space. There is a great conflict of interest on the part of people walking by and walking their dogs, they are benefiting from this property and to say that it is an independent opinion is not true. If the codes are going to change, the Gordleys should be grandfathered on their original application. Making this process go on for years is not justice to the Gordleys, they have submitted reports they paid for as well as the codes and regulations of the City. She further does not believe that people have a clear view of the stream. The poplar trees are full and there is a • heavy growth of blackberries which block view of the stream. Blueberry Haven Short Plat Appeal LUA-07-131, SHPL-A, ECF March 27,2008 Page 12 4111 The Examiner stated that the record would be kept open for one week for written rebuttal of information presented today. Record will be open until February 15, 2008. Ann Nielsen's brief will be submitted by February 29, 2008 and Ashley Peck's reply will be in March 7, 2008. 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 4:38 pm. FINDINGS, CONCLUSIONS &RECOMMENDATION Having reviewed the record in this matter, the Examiner now makes and enters the following: FINDINGS: 1. The appellant, Susan Rider, hereinafter appellant, filed an appeal of an administrative decision approving a short plat. A brief submitted on behalf of the appellant noted it was filed for"appellants Sue Rider and the Kennydale Critical Areas Alliance." 2. The appeal was filed in a timely manner on December 26, 2007. 3. The appellant lives across the street from the subject site. 4. The City approved a two-lot short plat for property located at 2010 Jones Avenue NE. The short plat is called the Blueberry Haven Short Plat(LUA07-131, SHPL-A). It was an administrative approval. • 5. The parcel is an inverted L-shaped parcel with frontage along Jones Avenue NE (its address street) and along NE 20th Street. The subject site is approximately 37,714 square feet. Proposed Lot A would be 17,930 square feet while Proposed Lot B would be 19,784 square feet. Proposed Lot A would contain the existing home and would take its access from Jones. It would be oriented in an east-west direction. Proposed Lot B would be oriented north-south and take its access from the south or NE 20th Street. 6. Proposed Lots 1 and 2 would comply with the R-4(4 dwelling units per acre)Zoning district. 7. The subject site contains areas defined or limited by City Critical Areas regulations. There is a creek that flows along the eastern margin of the subject site and a wetland just west of the creek in the northeast portion of the subject site. 8. The City has two maps that define or deal with the creek. There is a Water Class Map (Ex 5)and the • Streams and Lakes Map found in Section 4-3-050(Q)generally known as the Q Map. Both of those maps appear to show that the stretch of the creek at the subject site is a Class 4 waterway. 9. The applicants submitted a Critical Areas Study prepared at their request by Steward and Associates. That study determined that the wetland on the subject site was a Category 3 wetland. The City determined that an analysis of the creek was unnecessary apparently in the belief that sufficient studies in the area had already been conducted and that the creek was a Class 4 creek given the City's Water Class Map and the Q Map. 10. Staff based its short plan analysis and approval on its review of both the wetland and creek located on 11111 the subject site as well as the zoning and comprehensive plan. Staff determined that the wetland is a Category 3 wetland and required a buffer of 25 feet. Certain requirements accompany the preservation or enhancement of such wetlands but those are not at issue in this review. Staff also determined that the Blueberry Haven Short Plat Appeal LUA-07-131, SHPL-A, ECF March 27, 2008 Page 13 or enhancement of such wetlands but those are not at issue in this review. Staff also determined that the • stream is a Class 4 stream that requires a 35-foot buffer. Again, issues relating to buffer or stream preservation are not at issue in this review. 11. The appellant alleges that the approval of the short plat violates critical areas regulations by not recognizing the appropriate classification of a stream that runs along the eastern margin of the site and not recognizing the appropriate categorization of a wetland located in the center of the site, generally where Proposed Lots A and B join. The appellant alleges that the stream should be a Class 3 stream with a buffer of 75 feet. The appellant also alleges that the wetland is a Headwaters Wetland and should be a Category 2 with a buffer of 50 feet. 12. The City dismisses the many letters and comments as merely anecdotal and lay observations on the nature of the creek,particularly as to whether it is an intermittent creek or perennial. The City also objected to photographs showing the creek at various points in time showing water flowing in the creek. The objections were twofold. First, they were not taken of the subject property and second, they represented a mere snapshot in time,not showing perennial flows. The photographs show the creek flowing during generally dry times of year and they show it flowing both south(upstream) and north (downstream) of the site. Similarly, the City objected to letters from Mr. Fisher who represents the Department of Fish and Wildlife. The letters were submitted for property upstream and across NE 20th street from the subject site. Theyappear to indicate that the creek was misclassified and that it flows J perennially. While not directly observed on the subject site and not submitted for the stretch of the creek on the subject site, the letters demonstrate the creek appears to flow almost immediately upstream of the subject site, state's interest in this creek and suggest its Class and/or significance was not fully • understood or examined. 13. The City in its arguments asks that the Examiner consider that the stream was a manmade ditch and should be classified a Class 5 based on the testimony of the applicants, again, lay testimony. The City argues their testimony be given as much credence as the other lay witnesses that the creek is perennial. First, the applicants'knowledge of the stream is much more recent and they do not know its history. Second,and more importantly, the City Council has already determined this issue and rejected it. 14. The City also argues (at page 12 brief) with no persuasive power whatsoever that the Q Map designates the creek in the vicinity of the subject site as a Class 4 waterway. The City indicated(at Page 2 brief) that"it is nearly impossible to exactly pinpoint and identify the Kennydale Creek or stream on Gordley's property" on that very same map. 15. The Renton Water Class Map is Figure Q, Section 4-3-050(Q5). It is quite small and lacks much detail •although it probably does show the general area of the creek where the subject site is located and the Map's Legend shows it as a Class 4 Creek in this general location. Actually, such a map lacking in detail might explain why the actual language of the Code says that actual characteristics of the stream prevail over the map. (4-3-050(L)(1)(c) 16. The Cedarock Consultants study done by Carl Hadley states at Page 2 that "Conclusively evaluating the intermittent vs. continuous flow issue is difficult at best and not possible at this time. The stream would most appropriately be examined during the period between late July and late September during a year of normal rain. • (it goes on to define "normal rainfall.") Blueberry Haven Short Plat Appeal LUA-07-131, SHPL-A, ECF March 27, 2008 Page 14 411) The Hadley report then goes on to discuss an Ellisport Engineering report and rainfall during 2004 (considered a normal year)and 2005 (considered a dry year)and the Ellisport report done in October 2004, a normal year but a "relatively dry time of year" with less than normal rainfall, about half of normal. Hadley quoting from the Ellisport report: "South across NE 20th Street is a blueberry farm where the Class II stream originates. The stream flows under the street in a culvert, which extends northward onto the Gordly(sic)property. Water was flowing in the stream at the time of the site inspection." (Emphasis was in the original Hadley report). 17. The Hadley report also references a Watershed Company report. Apparently the waterway was inspected by The Watershed Company on July 18, 2005. Hadley reports that 2005 was a normal but very dry year. The Watershed report contained the following: "standing water was present in the pond and in the main ditch/stream" 18. The Hadley report also appears to answer a question that this office is still pondering. What is the status of a creek that enters a broad swampy area and flow is not so easily discernable? "While these swampy areas are clearly a type of watercourse with important aquatic habitat functions and values, the question is whether or not they meet the definitions of"naturally defined channel." (italics in original) One could argue that a swamp is a channel and is the only type of channel that would form • under the circumstances. The definition in Webster Dictionary defines channel as "the bed of a body of water flowing on the earth." (italics in original). There is no evidence that the site was ever hydraulically isolated. It most likely drained to the north under pre-existing conditions as it does now. The area was clearly a wetland and still contains wetland characteristics. The channel was dug to drain the historic wetland and create 'usable' land. The City of Renton may choose to distinguish between wetlands and channels. However, there is no clear dividing line between the two so any distinction would have to be done carefully." (emphasis supplied)." This language does appear to address what happens when a visible stream hits a wetland or bog and discernable flow melds into a marsh, swamp or bog. It becomes hard to distinguish but that does not mean the stream is no longer flowing. 19. Finally, the Hadley report notes: "The perennial stream flow issue(Class 3 vs.Class 4)can only be answered by direct observation of flow characteristics in the channel during the summer. These data could take a few years to gather if this winters heavy rainfall pattern continues." This statement helped inform this office that any immediate study such as that offered during the course of the hearing wherein the City and the applicant requested the appellant to engage and fund a study • almost immediately would be meaningless in answering the "intermittent versus perennial" status during the later dry months of summer. This was the information the Examiner used to decide an expert employed by any party for a short period near the hearing time would be fruitless in answering the Blueberry Haven Short Plat Appeal LUA-07-131, SHPL-A, ECF March 27, 2008 Page 15 question. So Footnote 5 of the City's Brief is clearly a one-sided, incomplete statement. The issue was • not limited to which party should pay for such an expert. The expert would be limited to examining the creek during a very limited time so that nothing definitive could show the flow during the drier months of summer. Any expert hired by any party would only be able to review a snapshot of the creek during the rainy season, leaving doubt about whether it is perennial or not. The City objected to photographs showing the creek flowing as those actual snapshots (photographs) were, as the City maintains, snapshots proving nothing about"perennial flow." 20. A wetland study conducted for the City by Entranco(December 1996) for the Higate Sewage Lift Station found the wetlands in the area of the subject site were a Category 2 wetland including disturbed wetlands near NE 20th Street. Entranco in 1999 confirmed in correspondence with John Hobson the wetland was a headwater wetland. The Watershed Company in 2005 by Hugh Mortenson indicated to. Nancy Weil that they were a Category 2 wetland as they were "the headwaters of a stream system." The Watershed Company, again, in 2007, when asked in a potential corrective review, concluded that the wetland was a headwaters wetland (page 7)and reaffirms "the findings expressed in Mr. Mortensen's 2005 letter to the City of Renton." 21. A number of provisions of the Renton Municipal Code are applicable to this review. They include: Section 4-3-050(L)(1) 1. Applicability/Lands to Which These Regulations Apply: These stream and lake regulations apply to sites containing all or portions of Class 2 to 4 streams or lakes and/or their buffers as described below. This section does not apply to Class 1 waters, which are regulated by RMC 4- 3-090, Shoreline Master Program Regulations, or to Class 5 waters which are exempt. All other • critical area regulations, including, but not limited to, flood hazard regulations and wetland regulations, do apply to classified streams where applicable. a. Classification System: The following classification system is hereby adopted for the purposes of regulating streams and lakes in the City. Stream and lake buffer widths are based on the following rating system: i. Class 1: Class 1 waters are perennial salmonid-bearing waters, which are classified by the City and State as Shorelines of the State. ii. Class 2: Class 2 waters are perennial or intermittent salmonid-bearing waters which meet one or more of the following criteria: (a) Mapped on Figure Q4,Renton Water Class Map, as Class 2; and/or (b) Historically and/or currently known to support salmonids, including resident trout, at any stage in the species lifecycle; and/or (c) Is a water body(e.g.,pond, lake)between one half(0.5)acre and twenty (20)acres in size. iii. Class 3: Class 3 waters are non-salmonid-bearing perennial waters during years of normal rainfall, and/or mapped on Figure Q4, Renton Water Class Map, as Class 3. iv. Class 4: Class 4 waters are non-salmonid-bearing intermittent waters during years of normal rainfall,and/or mapped on Figure Q4, Renton Water Class Map, as Class 4. v. Class 5: Class 5 waters are non-regulated non-salmonid-bearing waters which meet one or more of the following criteria: (a)Flow within an artificially constructed channel where no naturally defined • channel had previously existed; and/or Blueberry Haven Short Plat Appeal LUA-07-131, SHPL-A, ECF March 27, 2008 Page 16 • (b)Are a surficially isolated water body less than one-half(0.5)acre(e.g., pond) not meeting the criteria for a wetland as defined in subsection M of this Section. 4-3-050(L)(1) c. Maps and Inventory: i. Mapped Streams and Lakes: The approximate location and extent of Class 2 to 4 water bodies within the City limits are indicated on a map in subsection Q of this Section,Maps.The map is to be used as a guide to the general location and extent of streams. Specific locations and extents will be determined by the City based upon field review and applicant-funded studies prepared pursuant to subsection L3 of this Section. ii. Reclassification: Where there is a conflict between the Renton Water Class Map in Subsection Q and the criteria in subsection L 1 a of this Section, the criteria in subsection Lla of this Section shall govern.The reclassification of a water body to a lower class(i.e. 2 to 3, or 3 to 4, etc.) requires administrator acceptance of a supplemental stream or lake study, followed by a legislative amendment to the map in subsection Q of this SectionP rior to its effect. 4-3-050(M)(1)(a)(ii)(c) ii. Category 2: Category 2 wetlands are wetlands, which meet one or more of the following criteria: (a)Wetlands that are not Category 1 or 3 wetlands; and/or (b) Wetlands that have heron rookeries or osprey nests, but are not Category 1 • wetlands; and/or (c)Wetlands of any size located at the headwaters of a watercourse, i.e., a wetland with a perennial or seasonal outflow channel, but with no defined influent channel, but are not Category 1 wetlands; and/or (d) Wetlands having minimum existing evidence of human-related physical alteration such as diking, ditching or channelization; and/or Section 4-3-050(L)(7): "Criteria for Permit Approval—Class 2 to 4: Permit approval by the Reviewing Official for projects on or near regulated water bodies shall be granted only if the approval is consistent with the provisions of this subsection L...", 4-3-050(F)(7)(a): "7. Independent Secondary Review: The City may require independent review of an applicant's report as follows: a. Aquifer Protection Areas,Flood Hazards, Habitat Conservation, Streams and Lakes, Wetlands: When appropriate due to the type of critical areas, habitat,or species present, or project area conditions, the Reviewing Official may require the applicant to prepare and/or fund analyses or activities,including, but not limited to: i. An evaluation by an independent qualified professional regarding the applicant's analysis and the effectiveness of any proposed mitigating measures or programs, to include any recommendations as appropriate.This shall be paid at the applicant's expense, and the Reviewing Official shall select the third • party review professional; and/or Blueberry Haven Short Plat Appeal LUA-07-131, SHPL-A, ECF March 27, 2008 Page 17 22. After the hearing closed but in the window left open for the City to possibly rebut information contained II/ in the appellant's brief and exhibits,additional correspondence was submitted by a neighbor who left the hearing because her father was in his last illness and subsequently passed away and additional written submittals and photographs by the underlying applicants. The City did not object to these submissions but the appellant did object. This office has reviewed those submissions and finds that they add nothing of substance to the record. 23. There were arguments and issues raised about the Growth Management Hearings Board and the concept of"best available science." The office is not usurping powers jurisdictionally placed in another review body. It does not need Best Available Science to determine this appeal, although this office believes that it would certainly help everyone if some independent expert had assessed both the stream and wetland. 24. The City insinuates that the neighbors have a bias against the development of the subject site and, therefore, their testimony is potentially tainted. The same can be said for those who want to develop the subject site-the underlying applicants. The testimony by all parties appeared credible. 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 arbitrary and capricious (Section 4- • 8-110(E)(7)(b). The appellant has demonstrated that the action of the City should be reversed. The decision is reversed. 2. Arbitrary and capricious action has been defined as willful and unreasoning action in disregard of the • facts and circumstances. A decision, when exercised honestly and upon due consideration of the facts and circumstances, is not arbitrary or capricious (Northern Pacific Transport Co. v Washington Utilities and Transportation Commission, 69 Wn. 2d 472,478 (1966). 3. An action is likewise clearly erroneous when, although there is evidence to support it, the reviewing body, on the entire evidence, is left with the definite and firm conviction that a mistake has been committed. (Ancheta v Daly, 77 Wn. 2d 255, 259 (1969). An appellant body should not necessarily substitute its judgment for the underlying agency with expertise in a matter unless appropriate. 4. Section 4-3-050(L)(7) limits the issuance of a permit where property is on or near regulated water bodies. A permit may only be issued if it is consistent with the various critical area regulations including buffer widths based on those water bodies'characteristics. In other words this short plat approval can only be approved if it complies with the appropriate buffer widths required around a Category 2 wetland and a Class 3 stream if the appellant has demonstrated error sufficient to overturn the decision below. 5. This office is not dealing with issues properly before the Growth Management Hearings Board. This office is reviewing an appeal of a short plat where the appellant has alleged that the critical areas buffers were not appropriate since the City used the wrong standards for the two critical areas, a stream and a wetland,on the Gordley property. If the City has wrongly defined those critical areas as the appellant alleges, then it would appear that review of the short plat approval is appropriate. This office does not reach any conclusions nor does it know the impacts on the development potential of the property if it • decides that the City was wrong. Blueberry Haven Short Plat Appeal LUA-07-131, SHPL-A, ECF March 27, 2008 Page 18 • wetland, on the Gordley property. If the City has wrongly defined those critical areas as the appellant alleges, then it would appear that review of the short plat approval is appropriate. This office does not reach any conclusions nor does it know the impacts on the development potential of the property if it decides that the City was wrong. 6. Code requires an applicant to conduct a standard stream study if the site contains a water body or buffer or is within 100 feet(Section 4-3-050(L)(3)(a)). The City may also require independent review(Section 4-3-050(F)(7)(a). The City may waive such study if it does not think it is necessary(4-8-100(A)(a)(a) and 4-8-050(L)(3)(d)(i)(c)). The appellant has demonstrated that an error has been made. The City inappropriately waived a study that might have helped finally decide an issue that has been raised by the appellant and neighbors for a number of years. The record before this office demonstrates that the stream flows perennially as it enters a culvert under NE 20th street and appears to flow as it begins its entry into the subject site, the Gordley property. The record further demonstrates that this same stream flows perennially north of the subject site. The record does not directly show how the stream flows once it disappears from view looking north into the subject site. But the Hadley report coupled with the lay testimony allows one to draw reasonable conclusions. The Hadley report indicates that the demarcation or delineation of a creek as it enters a swamp might not be easy to determine but that does not negate that it flows in some fashion. It is interesting to note that the City opted to accept the Critical Areas Study wetland analysis submitted by the applicants that was contradicted by earlier studies but did not seek a stream review. Not only did the City not seek a stream review by the applicants'own expert but it did not seek an independent study that might have resolved the contradictions raised by neighbors. It merely weighed the neighbors'concerns and letters and accepted the applicants'study rather than seeking independent confirmation. 41) 7. The City notes that there must be a conflict before the definition of the"class" of a stream takes precedence over the Q Map. The record shows a series of letters addressed to the City raising concerns about the creek's classification. The appeal certainly presents a conflict that allows one to determine if the map or the definition applies to this stretch of the creek. The City has already indicated(at Page 2 brief) that "it is nearly impossible to exactly pinpoint and identify the Kennydale Creek or stream on Gordley's property" on that very same map. If it is nearly impossible to pinpoint the creek from that map it certainly has to be impossible to rate its character by that map. Clearly, the maps are not detailed maps. They don't even purport to be redrawn USGS Topographical maps showing gullies or ridges. They are basically line maps which even at large scale shows no real meaningful features. "...the city can reasonably surmise that Kennydale Creek flows along the eastern boundary of the subject site" (page 2, brief) "Reasonably surmising" is not a legal standard that meets the definitions found in code. A stream should be classified based on its real characteristics and not some supposition. The City acknowledges that it did receive "numerous letters" disputing the classification. It dismisses those as "general comments or anecdotal information based on personal observations." Code basically says: "a stream's classification depends on the stream's character." It is a simple proposition-perennial flow, Class 3. Intermittent flow, Class 4. (We will not deal with Class 5 ditches, which can have perennial flow since that had already been decided after an earlier review). The map is not conclusive -rather how a stream flows determines its class. A wrong map designation does not make a stream a Class 4 stream if it in fact flows per the definitions. This office acknowledges that personal observations(so- called lay testimony) of Lake Washington's existence would be much easier to verify. But there are probably sections of the Cedar River that flow through private property that may be harder to observe and would be hard to verify. Clearly, in those instances, the Cedar River is seen flowing toward a property and seen flowing away but might be hidden beyond view on private property. Logic allows • some leaps of faith and logic suggests that it might be flowing even where it cannot be observed. In this case,perhaps an independent review could have established what happens "out of view." Since no one should blindly sacrifice a critical resource without more information, staff had a responsibility to attain Blueberry Haven Short Plat Appeal LUA-07-131, SHPL-A, ECF March 27,2008 Page 19 applicants but the Code requires either the creek be studied or waived unless their is sufficient factual • basis for a decision. The City committed error in not requiring a stream study by the applicant and compounded it by not requiring an independent review. 8. This office is left with some unease over how some of these classifications work in real life and maybe those concerns cannot be resolved in a forum like this appeal -But if a perennial stream flows into a mucky wetland or bog or through an area of say, quicksand like substance, given no surface evidence of flow through that "thickened" area, and then perennially flows out say, 50 or 100 or 300 feet away downstream, what is the class or character as it moves imperceptibly though that area? But given the record, this office finds that staff erred in waiving the study. There were too many lay observations to render their observations mere anecdote and the Hadley report even suggests the demarcation in streambed and flow uncertain. What do we have in this case? We have a record that demonstrates that the stream in question flows perennially to and under NE 20th Street from property immediately upstream of the site and we have that same stream flowingperenniallynorth of the subject site. This P J record seems sufficient to give a reviewer pause. What happens to these perennially flowing waters when theyenter, traverse and leave the site? Rather than waive requirements for a report, the subjectq City should have required the report and probably should have required an independent assessment of this resource. That decision cannot be likened to one which was "exercised honestly and upon due consideration of the facts and circumstances." (Northern Pacific). That is why this office finds that the Q Map is overruled in this conflict by the language making stream characteristics the final arbiter of stream class. 9. In the case of the wetland, if the City had compared the results of the applicants'recent wetland study with results of reports it had on file, as it supposedly did with the creek, it might have found contradictions that may have encouraged it to seek an independent assessment. Studies or reviews in three cases called the wetland a "headwaters wetland" and that means it should be a Category 2 Wetland. Nowhere in the City's analysis of this plat is there any mention of the "headwaters wetland" observations of the past studies or the definition of such wetlands as Category 2 wetlands. In the case of the stream, no stream analysis was provided even with resident evidence that it did flow. On the other hand, in the case of the wetland an analysis was submitted which accounted for its state of degradation but prior reports appear to have called the wetlands,a "headwaters wetland" which by definition is a Category 2 Wetland and its state of degradation would not apparently affect that categorization. The definition though does provide an example,which could confuse the issue: "i.e., a wetland with a perennial or seasonal outflow channel, but with no defined influent channel." It appears that the wetland may be associated with a stream and that stream, may flow into it. But, again, independent analysis was not provided. The lack of such independent review was erroneous unless one concludes that the earlier reviews for City projects or other purposes were independent and then those reviews found it a "headwater wetland, a Category 2 wetland." 10. Now, one does have to decide if the applicants must suffer prolonged delays if answers are needed. The current facts, the anecdotal evidence and the Hadley report show evidence of perennial flow in a normal year. Code proclaims streams with those characteristics a Class 3. This office has to conclude therefore, that the City was wrong based on current knowledge. If the applicants wish to contest the characteristics of this DEFINED Class 3 stream, they would have to produce evidence and have it downgraded per regulations. Upgrading it based on its characteristics is automatic-Code says so. 11. The decision below should not be reversed without a clear showing that the decision is clearly erroneous • or arbitrary and capricious. This office concludes that there is sufficient reason to reverse the decision below. Blueberry Haven Short Plat Appeal LUA-07-131, SHPL-A, ECF March 27,2008 Page 20 • have it downgraded per regulations. Upgrading it based on its characteristics is automatic-Code says so. 11. The decision below should not be reversed without a clear showing that the decision is clearly erroneous or arbitrary and capricious. This office concludes that there is sufficient reason to reverse the decision below. DECISION: The decision is reversed and the appeal is granted. ORDERED THIS 27th day of March 2008 -1/..5L—J FRED J. KAUF AN ' HEARING EXAMINER TRANSMITTED THIS 27th day of March 2008 to the parties of record: Jennifer Henning Ann Nielsen Ashley Peck Development Services Assistant City Attorney Gendler and Mann, LLP City of Renton City of Renton 1424 Fourth Avenue,Ste. 1015 Seattle, WA 98101 Susan Rider Richard and Lauralee Gordley 1835 NE 20th Street 2010 Jones Avenue NE Renton, WA 98056 Renton, WA 98056 Deanna Dobak William O'Connor Larry Fisher 1700 NE 20th Street 921 S Washington Street 1775-12`h Ave NW, Ste. 201 Renton, WA 98056 Port Angeles, WA 98362 Issaquah, WA 98027 Karen Finnicum Julie Bray Paul Watt • 1302 Aberdeen Ave NE 1901 NE 20th Street 2433 Jones Avenue NE Renton, WA 98056 Renton, WA 98056 Renton, WA 98056 Christian Denzler Denise Blackmau Erika Conkling 1800 NE 20th Street 2100 Jones Avenue NE Senior Planner Renton, WA 98056 Renton,WA 98056 Development Services Robert Cave Barbara Hicks Sue Larson-Kinzer 12518 E 17th Street 10402 1515t Avenue SE 1733 NE 20th Street Bellevue, WA 98005 Renton, WA 98059 Renton,WA 98056 11111 Blueberry Haven Short Plat Appeal LUA-07-131, SHPL-A, ECF March 27, 2008 Page 21 TRANSM1T1 ED THIS 27th day of March 2008 to the following: • Mayor Denis Law Dave Pargas,Fire Jay Covington,Chief Administrative Officer Larry Meekling, Building Official Julia Medzegian, Council Liaison Planning Commission Gregg Zimmerman, PBPW Administrator Transportation Division Alex Pietsch, Economic Development Utilities Division Jennifer Henning, Development Services Neil Watts,Development Services Stacy Tucker, Development Services Janet Conklin, Development Services Renton Reporter Pursuant to Title IV, Chapter 8, Section 100Gof the City's Code, request for reconsideration must be filed in writing on or before 5:00 p.m.,April 10, 2008. Any aggrieved person feeling that the decision of the Examiner is ambiguous or based on erroneous procedure, errors of law or fact, error in judgment, or the discovery of new evidence which could not be reasonably available at the prior hearing may make a 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 Depai(Anient, first floor of City Hall. An appeal must be filed in writing on or before 5:00 p.m., April 10, 2008. If the Examiner's Recommendation 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 Hearing Examiner and members of the City Council. All communications concerning the proposal must be made in public. This public communication permits 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 request by 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. E. 1303585.35' ISURVEYOR'S NOTES: I anvlci rlrll / I A BEARING OF NTE'3f'00'N ON N ie • N MONUMENTED CENTERLINE OF JONES AVE N E. THE TOPOGRAPHIC SURVEY SHORN HEREON WAS SANITARY SEWER MANHOL PERFORMED IN OCTOBER OF 2006. II11D RIM ELEV. 256 27' _ THE FIELD DATA NAS COLLECTED AND RECORDED IE 12-PVC N 246.27' GRAPHIC SCALE S = 30` ON MAGNETIC MEDIA THROUGH AN ELECTRIC THEODOLITE. LUA NO. IE 12-PVC S 246.37' THE DATA FILE IS ARCHIVED ON DISC OR CD. IE B' PVC SE 246.37' o rk - ` • WRITTEN FIELD NOTES MAY NOT EXIST.CONTOURS ARE ITE.' ,, SHOWN FOR CONVENIENCE ONLY. DESIGN SHOULD RELY UA :TL LOCATION 0 30 60 ON SPOT ELEVATIONS, MANHOLE IS TRTH 94' FROM HERE s REFERENCES USED: 2)A TITLE REPORT HAS NOT FURNISHED AND THEREFOR, N m EASEMENTS IF ANY, NOT SHOWN ON THIS MAP. • +8 & IF 24-GONG N 26565' CITY OF RENTON LUA-95-093-LLA, V.105 PAGE 179. 3)SUBJECT PROPERTY TAX PARCEL NO. 277160-4655. 265P ROLLED CITY OF RENTON SHORT PLAT NO.SHPL-060-87, V. 60 PAGE 270. KCAS MAP N.E. 1/4 SEC. 05-23-05 ALL RECORDS OF KING COUNTY, WA, 4)SUBJECT PROPERTY AREA PER THIS SURVEY IS 37.672 SD.F7.+/- D ASPHALT 10/09/2006 5)THE BURIED UTILITY LINES SHOWN ON THIS HAP ARE CURB FNO. REBAR 6 CAP AREA - 105 SOFT.+/- PER LOCATOR MARKS FOUND IN THE FIELD. AT CALC'D POSITION 30.00' 'HELD'ELEV.-267.1' 5HE0 15 6)WETLAND AREA PER THIS SURVEY-$601 SO. FT. +/- CA •'D 3.5'5 OF LINE WHICH COVERS 15X OF PROPERTY. _- - a_a ,� - ROCKERY �.k1� ' . �•;1 B' _ J EAV :. ` . `4 _q'i01 dd, IE IB'CANG . 'r. , s : '- 404 ❑ _+ EA ELEV. __ .. ,...,......:'Y'E,O: ■` 5269.21' ViI /TOE14 , '',.•;,,,, ;. .CENTERL'IN;OF a4 o0.27. F.F. ELEV. CONC SLOPE ...�:� OI:TC �! •`' ._l.•, ;..L, :,`DRAINAGE.:' �I^ 268.5' IPA 10 F.F. EL ;,7f,.., •„ ��p Q ' , . r`/ .�>.:..,, INGRES ':E'BRPS1.04,0`,.:,, .1 HOUSE N0.20f0 • �;' `��ff 'IULIL�Z'TIES�€SF1'T��,a:•''f�!'`Tba:: �f! LEGEND 6 E •t C AE I.,417.56�1.,;,,9: x•,2,,.vim-, y�t C 8000 . 7 1.785 S0.FT.+/- IJP 1 88f;:::i":;'..e,,,.. , r , - F. -...: 4' /,y�,.i.r:`•`.+�:+:•::y • BRIDGECULVERT LINE II T, �_.�•��.'.'rkf,'..!'r°.�''.'9,'w"%^!'k';ty - �FOUND MONUMENT AS NOTED `� /:., {':;i4. 1"° v.:.,tL,.,. ;+.., '� BUILDING LINE MEBENCH MAR!( e .h�1•N;"1!...,.I..0. , 'x.4i of,,.•,.. 'A �I� •• O FIRE HYDRANT �Q CENTERLINE OF ROAD 1�•T7�•'� ' 255.60. "/• "': �`'?�'•;ti" �':�',;:• I,. T ®FOUND REBAR 0 CAP a5 NOTED PK NAIL 6 WASH '�=' I �A I r _ _ IK. ' """"'�"•� - ac OVERHEAD WIRES ELEV. ON --- o O FOUND IRON PIPE AS NOTED ' NAIL -272.89' ' • t' ' "' ;,:':'. ` '; s r 1,f ]t y, ROCKERY r. NB9'29'00'E 155.00' i•.' '. ��'/�` Z y UTILITY POLE _0_0_ EAVe ELEV,m .- ® YARD DRAIN WOOD FENCE 'TARE SEWER MANH - 4 216'•/- ."1;,f'.';!'4't't"'^ n, "`•.I� ""'3e{!,ip'�^1"�'��i h m SANITARY SEWER MANHOLE W BURIED WATER LINE YARD DRAIN 4,- ' ;`WETL'A'ND',•: '.S.i,f;.e..;: Y ELEV. 272.62 �k ' .. i'+; '...•,.�, ,+'';�:?:. ♦♦♦ • RIM ELEV. 266.67' /-'�•. AREA';•f- -;;; r':aq•. O Yv 01 FINISHED FLOOR ELEVATION S BURIED SEWER LINE 2-PVC N 260.42 .'1. }.,.,:' t ✓,)4•,BY;.., _ `1 CONC SE 260. '�"�■ EDGE OF 9..SOY.•0,',F %-;',��.;j, 5 ELECTRIC METER ® RET. WALL S ROLLED WETLAND ;l;�:j�r';;;;y';•;.;,!j;� :k F ! '.111§k. : :l\ % SPOT ELEVATION CONC CONCRETE p "' ASPHALT CURB AREA :'•:'.�:•;i:,"";;,;;+'1.::``b!'".1•}-O p` 111�:�' R-O-H RIGHT-OF-WAY I j1�:;p.:[' ® NATER METER GONG N 272.13' L. m' 11' .�:5'��V;;I:;•r':.';, 0„`:(✓T061 DRAYA ESM'T 4I B1 GAS METER yy11 ( ) RECORD • �. �� 0 +'' ' " .--;;;?.;RE,C':7N&'B= •99006 IB•t1�',� r HATER VALVE (^�DECIDUOUS TREE (NOT SHORN TO SCALE) O 4 NOTE r,`'T'> f''a-.+R;')+:""�;`':?:" $6.11% ♦WET LAND FLAGS CD TRUNK DIA SHOWN IN INCHES. E, - x WETLAND FLAGS WERE FIELD m �6! :::;'?' CONIFIR TREE (NOT SHOWN TO SCALE) o fB •P--.:,.]2 'i'� /.•:N<.-4 ASPHALT SURFACE +4/ LOCATED BY GEOOIMENSIONS r �.. INC. ON JUNE 7, 2007. WF] �',..,:.a.._ e.- 'TOP �N1 +r .� { .=]GRAVEL SURFACE TRUNK DIA SHOWN IN INCHES. 1,61 V r - 0cH ' %' � +n ]''�WETCANb AREA HATCH 81 Al m Y.`,•! /'�/ o IN r;,■ lo' BUILDING BUILDING ¢ VERTICAL DATUM: (VISITED 10-09-2006) o '' , ' ' �� 10/09/2006 i 303 FMD. REBAR O CAP R o W CITY OF RENTON BENCH MARK NO.RENT1839 rir DOT B'8'044 0.2' W. OF PROPERTY m (NAV° 1988) -SEE MAP FOR DETAILED INFORMATION' 6' 1 \\\ TOP CORNER 'RECO' m0 �o \ 9, , A CT - I DITCH ELEV.-252.4' •0' //XELEVATION ON COPPER PIN-279.16' 7' S FT C, ANITARY SEWER MANHOLE 0 8 u I l0• /-•T - Z I. IM ELEV. 277.15' _ - f■1 E 12-PVC NW 264.05' w �\ TOE /a1A; E 8'PVC SE 263.55' v \ \ SLOPE • I' 0 e m ■ to..et - G �7[f N Ey SLOP TOR \ 16'0 i� 'F'.... 6. 1qF B' IB' �1� \ >1 ��i -� T' IB1 i1�1�� CENTERLINE OF ] 10/09/2006 6 ,• 0 at,�_ DRAINAGE DITCH Y3{5 t a FMO. REBAR G CAP 50'- 0 - '" 1 '/ '�']ff'.4� .(. 0.4' E. UNDER RR TIE . 2. nitYY' Z070 NOT ACCEPT' }r IELEV.-262.9 N 1 14' H� 1� IE 12'GONG I? 91'1 j1 R l0 \ 4f 30,��' S 252.49. 'Tx40 PIPES'. J.u- R-O-M R-O-W B•© 0, BB'16 • :hall'''. o0 10/09/2A'JG 3 iR� ASPHAOFFOVNO MON IN 0.5 -� m,z!', n • cAse W" 1039.24' CALC'D V I,. [,� . -. 5,---444.J- -- NBB'16'14'E 1325 79' MEAS. (1325.79' SHPL-O60-B 71 N.E.201H L •EDIc• 71.�1.� .fit • -.. car of RBJTON POINT TNO.1CVJ HOR¢CONIROL �' '"- ROLLED ASPHALT CC BBJCHMAIM(N0.RBVTI639 10/09/No06699 CURB R-0-6 _ GORDLEY SHORT PLAT 10/09/2006 _ .. FOUND COPPER PIN IN SANITARY SEWER MANHOLE FOUND COPPER PIN IN ■ CONC INCASED CONC INCASED RIM ELEV. 262.59' J GR Geo P. ensions 2010 JONES AVE NE ELEV. ON PIN-279.16' N- 180914.85' IE B'PVC NW 254.69' WASH ' E- 1303563.82- IE 12' PVC E 254.59' 0.� I,t.1.,,, `a Li RENTON,WA.98056 .55 METHOD OF SURVEY: 0,1111,/•••1: ,/ r ".7 0 6210 FAIRWAY PLACE S.E. SW 1/4 OF NE 1/4, S.___6__ T 23N R._5E INSTRUMENTATION FOR THIS SURVEY WAS A 1'GEODIMETER 600 ^��''� �' SNO6IUALMIE,WA.98065 0WN. BY DATE JOB NO. SELECTRONIC RVE A MERE DISTANCE ANO REVERSE ANGLES.G UNIT. ocEDURES USED IN THIS • NO CORRECTION NECESSARY. (' OR,JP PHONE(425)458.4488 D.A.H. 01/04/2008 6309 MEETS CITY OF RENTON, KING COUNTY AND STATE OF WASHINGTON STANDARDS 4L LAN I SET BY WAC 332-130-100. EXPIRES 11/26/2008 FAX{.cw)6W G7W CHKD. BY SCALE SHEET :........:..................... E.LI.G. 1..,30' 2 OF 2 1 , , GORDLEY PROJECT 2010 JONES AVE NE RENTON, WA 98056 I,,�i;rtl:{S,.A,;�; ,,, GENERAL SEWER AND DRAINAGE NOTES GENERAL NOTES �i • �.F� '�ti i 1��.k t �'_ 'ITN•P. E 11 ST Sr. ii F`'a 1.BEDOMG SHALL BE CLASS B FOR ALL PIPE EXCEPT DUCTILE IRON PIPE, 1 ALL WORK AND WTERTALSAPPLICABLE SHALL S C ACCORDANCE ES THE LATEST 15 'S Z•( �y>:F � 1.111111.133. 1 I'''''''4'N•2;Y. y yY:7:4 ICH S1NLL BE CLASS D. BEDDING MATERIAL FOR PVC PIPE AND CMP SHALL EDITIONS OF ALL APPLICABLE PUNS,SPECIFICATIONS.CODES,AND RULE OF BE MRIERAL+31'.',A�'{:�.4':,�I'y:V�;iryd�;, �'a4•I'la'�fir', „j ,W.,;5 v '1+,'`' ;.” SHALL BE MECHANICALLY COIMACTEO TOGATE PPE 22. N95X OF NIAAXMUM DRY R PVC PIDENSTY ASPE AND THE CRY OF RENTON Y<f,U,.I t A�Lf z� _1_= ' '�`>434. i.,{,."RIE'E' E. , 3'- MEASURED BY ASTM 0-698 FOR IMPROVED AREAS SUCH AS STREET OR Z.,'COPE OF THE APPROVED 7-MUST.ON THE JOB SITE WHENEVER Icy>1 RI;q A� �T^,( �� ' , "� ,ty yL''r" E �i• SIDEWALK AND 90R DENSITY N UNIMPROVED AND LANDSCAPE AREAS. CONSTRUCTION IS IN PROGRESS. 'ii).iSr Y t S • a"p,�r /'t.,.;-vt}i ;t, N E 27TH ST 2 TEES ON NEW PPE LESS THAN 24'DWIEIFR Stall BE PREFABRICATED, 3,ALL LOCATIONS OF EXISTING UTILITIES SHOWN HEREON HAVE BEEN I"L `� TEES ON EXISTING PIPE OR ON NEW PIPE WITHOUT PREFABRICATED TEES SULL ESTABLISHED BY FIELD SURVEY OF OBTAINED ROG AVAILABLE RECORDS AND AWt� xs 1 2 / t'a12Ytrtri,� 71M — 'lc' �,a BE CONNECTED BY CORE DRIWNG AND FLEXIBLE CONNECTION.SEE SHOULD THEREFORE BE CONSIDERED APPROXIMATE ONLY AND NOT A�(1/ �f E3- *Drt 44C9k' `V O SPECIFICATIONS NECESSARILY COMPLETER IS THE SOLE RESPONSIBILITY OF THE CONTRACTOR 7(11 iLy r-`jl,rry knL,lt n1,H A,.y.�E)�;� •�f TO I AND VERIFYACCURACYIIIII NRTHER DISCOVER AND wm ANr oMER 1RIunIs NOT SHOWN BE PLACED AT A MINIMUM SLOPE OF 2S AND A MAXIMUM SLOFE OF SOK. HEREON WHICH MAY BE AFFECIEO BY THE MPIEMENTATION OF THLR PUN, 4�1.33IK' f'te>S`I `I",!441.:a'(4'+x 1 N tin.E 23RD ST, INLET CONNECTIONS 5wu BE PLACED ATA MINIMUM SLOPE OF 5X AND A SI`{(''A )2 �' 8j SPAT>' T1 f4 ZA A MAXIMUM SLOPE OF 5011. 4 THE CONTRACTOR SHALL CONTACT THE UNDERGROUND UPUTIES LOCATION } S"' Y SERVI:E AT LEAST 48 HOURS PRIOR TO CONSTRUCTION NO E SEEN LOM { II AW.P4 k TI 4 4.SERVICE DRAINS AND SIDE SEWERS SHALL E CONNECTED OR RECONNECTED SHALL COMMENCE UNTIL ALL UNDERGROUND FACILITIES HAVE BEEN LOCATED MI, 4 1 �1 3 v+V ': } Yy ti Z AND MARKED,THE CONTRACTOR SHALL OISCORW AND AVOID ANY U.S. y{^ U AS APPROVED BY 111E INSPECTOR,t" Y ( L'-•'.!i, (' Y NOT SHAWN ON THESE PUNS AND HAS SOLE RESPONSIBILITY TO VERIFY \ { u�fhO E 20TH 5.PEUY ENRTNG SERVICE OtWNS AND 510E SEYIERS TO CIGR ODER OR UTILITY LOCATIONS IN THE VICINITY OF THE WORK,WHETHER SHOWN ON ME �.!J{N{ y '� )L�y lSYt ttUNDER THE NEW UTILITY AS APPRO./0 BY THE INSPECTOR. PUNS OR NOT. C/Ti,ws.9 o?.341 -.J. ; �. ,,R 6.WHERE A NEN PIPE ALLOWS AH EXISTING OH NEW IfTILI/Y BY 6'OR MESS, 5.THE CONTRACTOR SlMll LOCATE ANO PROTECT ALL CASTINGS STRUCTURES 0 40 y t TT,r'(r4 Htd S " POLITIES. NE PLOOSE FOVA SRRLL BE PLACER A5 A CUSHK)N BETWEEN THEAND UTILITIES DURING CONSTRUCTION.IN THE EVENT OF DAMAGE THE t ✓4 ts� ) ^ , UTILITIES. CONTRACTOR SHALL NOTIFY THE OWNER AND ENGINEER IMMEDIATELY AND t'tY A4 Y FY 5 • VM1d SNAIL RESTORE THE UTILITY OR STRUCTURE TO ITS PREVIOUS CONDITION. ILVK A}� ).1V`Vh y T' •Ylt.T R N.E 16T 7,SERVICE DRAINS AND SIDE SEWERS SHALL NOT BE BACKFILLED UNTIL THE �, _y ,�, TRIP ,I ,Y I A as .,' PIPE NAS BEEN INSPECTED AND APPROVED AND THE LOCATION AND DEPTH IS 6.THE STORM DR/PAGE SYSTEM SHALL BE CONSTRUCTED ACCORDING TO THE NNS} T 9,! f,1. L RECORDED BY THE INSPECTOR. APPROVED DRAINAGE CONTROL PLAN ON FILE WITH GATT OF RENTON AND IN t HE.PROVED BUILDING PERMIT PUN SET.ANY DEVIATION FROM THE 1 'I f J a LY�i ' A i APPROVED PUNS M.REQUIRE WRITTEN APPROVAL FROM THE CRY OF 1$A'��`.rd�l. (C'�i L. 1tTf1�!4� V !`.v51��./ , P.ALLOWABLE MATERIALS RENTON. t 1 T�h"Yg 11 it44� Y 1 RT; SJ A.PVC PIPE AND FTTRNOS-ASTM 0 3034 SDR 35 WITH (J Y 1 i' Y xr .LYE%)y4 A N.E. 12TH ST. 0 RUBBER GASKET JOINTS,FSM 03033 SOH 35 WITH 7.ALL OPERATIONQ PIRIOR TOC WCONSTRUCTIO OF IMPERVIOUS E CONSTRUCTED ANO SURFACING UNLESS IN t,LUy L h I Iry- -SII CAWED JOINTS,OR Mi1L1 i789 NDT URGER THAN ,i'�'.4 !l yT y(Y • Fj \, A 1 SFJ~' 12 INCHES IN DIAMETER OTHERS.APPROVED BY THE CITY OF RENTON �'0(LLLY:YAA 721i'VJnF J 8,THE CONTRACTOR SHALL KEEP OFF-SITE STREETS CLF AT ALL TIMES 0Y ,.,y{`SAV.':1t+'`I.v,t;-Y?nl , ` y B 085 PIPE-/STMT D22B2 SDR 21 WASHING Tp/A2A'" SP lyi P OR(APPROVAL F ROM THE SCRY OF ENTON,NOT BE ALLO.vEO WITHOUT �......�. Z 'p C.PERFORATED PJC SUBSURFACE DRAIN PIPE-AASHTO M 278. Iii. O IIEI, . B.WHERE THE WORK REQUIRES CONT ACTORS,RELOCATION HE INSTALLATION N ' . D.CONCRETE PIPE-LESS TION 12'DIAMETER,ASTM C14 'p 2 CUSS V:12'OR IS'OMMETER,ASM C78 CUSS N: UTILITIES BY OTHERS,THE CONTACTOR SIIAIl NOTIFY TIME UTILITY COMPANY 18'OR URGER IN DWIETER ASIA C76,CWS T6. AND COORDINATE HIS WORK TO AVOID CONCOCTS, + JIMAni 10.ME CONTRACTOR SNAIL NOTIFY THE RENTON PE DEPARTMENT y IAF • 1 2 �6► ,- lill E CORRUGATED POLYETHYLENE DRAIN PIPE-ORUTER THAN DISPATCHER TWENTY-FOUR(24) OURS IN ADVANCE OF ALL WATER SERVICE littk, DISPATCHER k \ 12'DM ITER AASHTO N 29 TWE 5.FOR DETENTION HACCESS BLOC, E THE CONTRACT AND 51R ALSO NOTIFY CLOSURES E OTHER1( PIPE ON PRIVATE PROPERT2 4( 4 "' O,P ..__.... .........._- .I CFQALL NEW,RGELOGTED,OR ELIMINATED HYDRANTS RESULTING FROM TH. F.HDPE PIPE-ASTM F610,MAY BE USED ONLY FOR WORK. VICINITY MAP oRLTRATIOKN DRAINAGEs'T"`MS SEWING SINGLE-FAMILY ..1000' G.DUCTILE IRON PIPE-ANSI 021.51 CLASS 5I WITH PUSH ON JOINTS.PTTINOS FOR DUCTILE IRON PIPE SHALL BE DUCTILE.ANSI A21.10 OR ANSI A221.53,WITH PUSH-ON JOINTS,GLANDS ON MECIWIIGL JOINT PIPE AND FITTINGS SAIL BE DUCTILE. H.STEEL PIPE FOR DETENTION-MSHTO M 36,TYPE 1. HORIZONTAL DATUM WATER REFER TO THE MONUMENTEO CENTERLINE CITYOF RENTON J.KUMINUM PIPE FOR DETFNPON-AASNTO MVA. OF JONES AVE.N.E.,NORTH 0031'00'WEST 1655 GRADY WAY K.'ADS'OR EGUAL-ASSHTO M294 TYPE S.DRAINAGE RENTON,WA 90Q55 APPLICATIONS ON PRIVATE PROPERTY VERTICAL DATUM I SUBSURFACE DRAIN(SSD)PIPE FRT ((AND INOS SHALL BE • PVC PER AST. WITH CITY OF RENTON-AVO 88 RUBBER GASKET JOINT41 S.PIPE PIPE SHALLS HAVE)SLOTTED SEWER & STORM SEWER CITY OF RENTON BENCHMARK N0.RENT1839 1055 GRADY WAY • PERFOMnOns.SLOTS AE To .w' BENCHMARK CITY OF RENTONLONG AND SPACER 0.25'A➢ART.BE SLoOoT LOG110NSwmE10'HALL SRE LOCATED PER DETAIL ON PLAN. FOUND COPPER PIN IN CORE INCASED AT PENTON.WA 98055 THE INTERSECTION OF JONES AVE.N.E AND N.E.20TH ST EL ON PIN-079.1K' DRAWING LIST OWNER GAS DRAWING NO. TITLE UALEE OORDLEY PUGET SOUND ENERGY 80000-00-100 COVER SHEET U 2010 JONES AVE NE. 805 156TH AVE.NE 600130-Do-101 PU TING SURVEY RENTON,WA 96056 BELLEVUE,WA 98007 00000-00-103 PUT MAP (415)44-0700 80000-00-104 UTILITYINPLAANND DRAINAGE PLAN 80000-00-10S ROAD PLAN AND PROFILE 80000-00-106 LANDSCAPE PLAN 80000-00-107 DETAIL SHEET _ -- __ _ _.,___.__1— 1 -4- _— ------ I �� 2010 JONES AVE NE CiTY OF RENTON i ___ i i —_— RENTON, WA 98056 TOP iiip__ ---- ----- --- ---'-- - ----- - — ------- — GORDLEY SHORT P COVER SHEET ___ I ` PT DEC05/06 SNORT PUT SUBMITTAL GORDLEY SHORT PLAT No.I DATE DESCRIPTION ORAWM ON.DESIGN CHKRI APP'D No. DATE DESCR DRAWN CHK'p DESIGN CHKD APP'D 96.*HO SCALE PRJECT NUHU..6 DRAMMG HU. RCN,No. I REFERENCE DRAWINGS ISSUE/RASIONS ISSUE/REVISIONS NONE 8000000-100 P� .1 CITY OF RENTON COUNCIL AGENDA BILL ......--7 ,1 AI#: / a • Submitting Data: For Agenda of: Dept/Div/Board.. AJLS/City Clerk April 28, 2008 Staff Contact Bonnie Walton Agenda Status Consent X Subject: Public Hearing.. CRT-08-004; Court Case Correspondence.. Shane Watson and Lauren Watson, husband and wife, Ordinance vs. City of Renton Resolution • Old Business Exhibits: New Business Summons and Complaint Study Sessions Information Recommended Action: Approvals: Refer to City Attorney and Insurance Services Legal Dept Finance Dept Other Fiscal Impact: iiiExpenditure Required... Transfer/Amendment Amount Budgeted Revenue Generated Total Project Budget City Share Total Project SUMMARY OF ACTION: Summons and Complaint for Personal Injuries filed in King County Superior Court by Dann D. Sheffield, Dann D. Sheffield & Associates, 5511 Seaview Ave. NW, Seattle, 98107, on behalf of Shane Watson (and wife Lauren Watson) who seeks compensation for injury and permanent disability sustained on 2/10/2005 while working as a subcontractor on the Maplewood Water Treatment Facility and Golf Course Improvements construction project (CAG-03-112). III lOi r�ENTOM • 1 APR 2 3 Z008 A44 f� RECEIVED3 STI D r err"CLERK'S OFFICE 4 P"""f' 111, TrYti Puh /D ' 5 011 e411)414 allini5 6 7 IN THE SUPERIOR COURT OF THE STATE OF WASHINGTON IN AND FOR THE COUNTY OF KING 8 9 SHANE WATSON and LAUREN ) No. WATSON husband and wife, ) Plaintiff, ) 11 vs. ) SUMMONS (20/60 DAYS) ) [CR 4 (b)(2)] 12 ) CITY OF RENTON, a governmental ) 13 Municipality ) •14 ) Defendants. ) 15 ) TO THE DEFENDANT(S): 16 A lawsuit has been started against you in the above-entitled court by Plaintiff(s). 17 Plaintiff(s)' claim is stated in the written complaint, a copy of which is served upon you with 18 this summons. 19 In order to defend against this lawsuit,you must respond to the complaint by stating your defense in writing, and by serving a copy upon the person signing this summons 20 within 20 days (60 days if out of the State of Washington) after the service of this summons, excluding the day of service, or a default judgment may be entered against you without 21 notice. A default judgment is one where Plaintiff(s) is/are entitled to what has been asked for because you have not responded. If you serve a notice of appearance on the undersigned 22 person,you are entitled to notice before a default judgment may be entered. 23 You may demand that the Plaintiff(s) file this lawsuit with the court. If you do so, 24 the demand must be in writing and must be served upon the person signing this summons. Within 14 days after you serve the demand, the Plaintiff(s) must file this lawsuit with the 25 court, or the service on you of this summons and complaint will be void. 26 If you wish to seek the advice of an attorney in this matter, you should do so 111,7 SUMMONS - 1 DANN D. SHEFFIELD & ASSOCIATES ATTORNEYS AT LAW 5511 SEAVIEW AVENUE NORTHWEST SEATTLE,WASHINGTON 98107 TELEPHONE(206)781-5000 FAX(206)781-0866 1 promptly so that your written response, if any, may be served on time. • 2 THIS SUMMONS is issued pursuant to Rule 4 of the Superior Court Civil Rules of n. 3 the State of Washington. 1 DATED this n day of A.Sjl , , 2008. 4 5 DANN D. SHEFFIELD & ASSOCIATES 6 ✓t--� 7 P ann D. Sheffield WSBA 6815 8 Attorney for Plaintiff 9 10 11 12 13 14 • 15 16 17 18 19 i 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 • 27 SUMMONS - 2 DANN D. SHEFFIELD &. ASSOCIATES ATTORNEYS AT LAW 5511 SEAVIEW AVENUE NORTHWEST SEATTLE,WASHINGTON 98107 TELEPHONE(206)781.5000 FAX(206)781-0866 1 • 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 IN THE SUPERIOR COURT OF THE STATE OF WASHINGTON 9 IN AND FOR THE COUNTY OF KING 10 SHANE WATSON and LAUREN WATSON ) No. 11 Husband and wife, ) ) 08.1®'2 'II12 18 - lgrA 12 Plaintiff, ) ) COMPLAINT FOR 13 -vs- ) PERSONAL INJURIES •14 CITY OF RENTON, a governmental ) 15 Municipality, ) ) 16 Defendants. ) ) 17 COME NOW, Shane Watson and Lauren Watson, the above-named plaintiffs, and for 18 cause of action against the above-named defendants, complain and allege that: 19 20 I. JURISDICTION 21 1.1 The above-entitled Court has jurisdiction over the parties and the subject matter 22 of the above-entitled cause of action. 23 II. VENUE 24 2.1 The Superior Court for King County is the proper Court for bringing the above- 25 entitled cause of action as the accident giving rise to the injuries claimed herein occurred in 26 IlkKing County, Washington. 7 DANN D. SHEFFIELD & ASSOCIATES ATTORNEYS AT LAW COMPLAINT FOR 5511 SEAVIEW AVENUE NORTHWEST SEATTLE,WASHINGTON 98107 PERSONAL INJURIES - 1 TELEPHONE(206)781-5000 FAX(206)781-0866 1 • 2 III. PARTIES 3 3.1 The plaintiffs,Shane Watson and Lauren Watson,currently resides in Snohomish 4 County,Washington. 5 6 3.2 The defendant, City of Renton,is a governmental municipality. A claim form has 7 been completed, served and is on file with the City of Renton. (Copy attached.) 8 3.3 The accident giving rise to the injuries claimed herein occurred in King County, 9 Washington. 10 3.4 The plaintiff hereby reserves the right to amend the parties and causes of action 11 throughout this complaint to conform to the evidence. 12 IV. FACTS 13 4.1 On or about February 10, 2005, the plaintiff, Shane Watson, sustained serious • 14 15 injury and permanent disability when a vault door collapsed while he was performing 16 employment as an electrician. 17 4.2 That at the time of the injuries,plaintiff, Shane Watson,was employed by Dalton 18 Electric. Dalton Electric was a subcontractor of Midmountain Contractors, Inc. 19 4.3 That at all times mentioned Midmountain Contractors, Inc., was the general 20 contractors of the Maplewood Water Treatment and Golf Course/City of Renton project. 21 4.4 That defendant, City of Renton, retained and contracted with Midmountain 22 Contractors, Inc. as the general contractor for the Maplewood Water Treatment and Golf 23 Course/City of Renton project. 24 25 4.5 That defendant, City of Renton, owned and controlled the property, facility and 26 project of Maplewood Water Treatment and Golf Course/City of Renton project. • 27 V. NEGLIGENCE DANN D. SHEFFIELD &ASSOCIATES ATTORNEYS AT LAW COMPLAINT FOR 5511 SEAVIEW AVENUE NORTHWEST SEATTLE,WASHINGTON 98107 PERSONAL INJURIES - 2 TELEPHONE(206)781-5000 FAX(206)781-0866 r • 1 2 5.1 That at all times mentioned herein,Midmountain Contractors,Inc. and the City 3 of Renton were obligated to provide a safe place to work for employees and project workers and 4 to provide such employees and project workers, such as plaintiff, Shane Watson, proper 5 6 safeguards to protect them from injury. That the construction project was controlled,managed 7 and occupied at all time by defendant corporation,Midmountain Contractors,Inc. and the City 8 of Renton. 9 5.2 That plaintiff's injuries occurred when plaintiff was performing his job and the 10 injuries were due to the negligence of defendant, City of Renton, and Midmountain 11 Contractors, Inc. That was negligent in the following respects: 12 1. In failing to make proper inspection and examination of the working area to 13 prevent reasonably foreseeable accidents and injures for employees and project 111 workers such as plaintiff. 4 2. In failing to take proper precautions or safety measures which in the exercise of 15 reasonable care should have been taken to prevent injuries such as the one that 16 I occurred to plaintiff. 17 3. In failing to furnish a safe and reasonably secure place for the performance of work required of employees and project workers such as plaintiff. 18 4. In failing to provide proper safety devices for use of employees and project 19 workers such as plaintiff in connection with work being completed. 20 5. In violating Washington Administrative Code regulations,Washington Industrial 21 Safety and Health Act (WISHA) regulations and Federal OSHA regulations, as well as violations of other regulations, statutes and lawful provisions of the State 22 of Washington and the United States of America with specific provisions of which will be alleged when discovery has been completed. 23 6. In negligently failing to coordinate the work of subcontractors employed on the 24 job site resulting in hazards due to the interaction of the various subcontractors 25 performing work at the direction of defendant corporation. 26 7. In otherwise acting in a dangerous, negligence, reckless wilful and wanton fashion causing plaintiff's injuries. 7 DANN D. SHEFFIELD &ASSOCIATES ATTORNEYS AT LAW COMPLAINT FOR 5511 SEAVIEW AVENUE NORTHWEST PERSONAL INJURIES - 3 SEATTLE,WASHINGTON 98107 TELEPHONE(206)781-5000 FAX(206)781.0866 1 • 2 5.3 Further, defendant City of Renton acknowledged and retained responsibility for 3 any defect,known or unknown,in the vault doors that may cause injury to any employee of both 4 5 the general contractor and/or any sub-contractor on the Maplewood Water Treatment and Golf 6 Court/City of Renton project. 7 VI. PHYSICAL INJURY 8 6.1 As a direct and proximate result of the incident described above which is the 9 subject of this action, the plaintiff, Shane Watson, sustained severe physical injuries to his 10 person which will be fully set forth and further established at the time of trial. 11 VII. DAMAGES AND PROXIMATE CAUSE 12 7.1 As a direct and proximate result of the subject incident described herein and as a 13 direct and proximate result of the negligent acts,violations and omissions of the above-named • 14 15 defendant, the plaintiff, Shane Watson, has suffered pain, mental and physical anguish, and 16 continued physical disability since February 10,2005,to his person in amounts to be established 17 and proven at the time of trial. 18 7.2 That the plaintiff, Shane Watson, as a further direct and proximate result of the 19 negligence of the above-named defendant, has suffered significant monetary losses resulting 20 from the impairment of his earning capacity and his inability to carry out normal day-to-day 21 work, family and recreational activities that he enjoyed prior to the accident in question. 22 8.3 As a direct and proximate result of the defendant's negligence, the plaintiff, 23 24 Shane Watson,has expended and will be compelled to expend significant amounts of money for 25 medical, hospital and related medical services in an effort to regain his health and his normal 26 physical condition that existed prior to the accident in question, the exact extent of which is 27 currently unknown, but will be further established and proven at the time of trial. • DANN D. SHEFFIELD & ASSOCIATES ATTORNEYS AT LAW COMPLAINT FOR 5511 SEAVIEW AVENUE NORTHWEST PERSONAL INJURIES - 4 SEATTLE,WASHINGTON 207500007 FAX(206)781-0866 V • 1 2 7.4 The plaintiff, Shane Watson, as a further direct and proximate result of the 3 negligence of the above-named defendant, has become permanently physically disabled. 4 7.5 That the plaintiff, Shane Watson, as a further direct and proximate result of the 5 6 negligence of the above-named defendant, has suffered other pecuniary losses in amounts 7 currently unknown, but to be proven and established at the time of trial. 8 7.6 That the plaintiff,Lauren Watson, as a further direct and proximate result of the 9 negligence of the above-named defendant, has suffered continuing loss of love and affection 10 from her husband, Shane Watson, and has further suffered ongoing mental anguish since , all 11 to her damage in amount to be established and proven at the time of trial. 12 WHEREFORE, Shane Watson, the above-named plaintiff, prays that a judgment be 13 entered against the above-named defendant, and each of them,for the causes of action set forth 4 g throughout this complaint and for damages in amounts established throughout this complaint, • 15 g P 16 and in amounts to be established at the time of trial for: 17 1. Pain, suffering and mental anguish (past, present and future); 18 2. Permanent physical disability; 19 3. Past,present, and future medical expenses; 20 4. Past, present, and future earnings/income and earning capacity; 21 5. Property damage; 22 6. The resulting decrease in the plaintiffs'quality of life which has resulted from the 23 24 physical restrictions and impairment which have adversely affected the plaintiffs'social, 25 family, recreational and career objectives. 26 7. Attorney fees and costs; 11,7 8. Prejudgment interest; DANN D. SHEFFIELD & ASSOCIATES ATTORNEYS AT LAW COMPLAINT FOR 5511 SEAVIEW AVENUE NORTHWEST PERSONAL INJURIES - 5 SEATTLE, TELL HONE(206) 07 781 5000 FAX(206)781.0866 A 1 • 2 9. Post judgment interest; 3 10. For such other and further relief as the court deems just and equitable under he 4 1 premises. �I „` �..� 5 �+ �' 6 DATED this day of 1" . �l�.\,/ , 2008. 7 DANN D. SHEFFIELD &ASSOCIATES 8 •i 9 D.. ? D ••effield WSBA 6815 10 A t• n- for Plaintiff 11 12 13 14 • 15 I 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 • 27 DANN D. SHEFFIELD (St ASSOCIATES ATTORNEYS AT LAW COMPLAINT FOR 5511 SEAVIEW AVENUE NORTHWEST SEATTLE,WASHINGTON 98107 PERSONAL INJURIES - 6 TELEPHONE(206)781-5000 FAX(206)781-0866 CITY OF RENTON COUNCIL AGENDA BILL AI#: I .a C✓ •Submitting Data: For Agenda of: Dept/Div/Board... CED/Planning April 28, 2008 Staff Contact Rebecca Lind (x6588) Agenda Status Consent X Subject: Public Hearing... New Life Aqua Barn Pre-zoning and Proposed Correspondence... Annexation Effectuation Ordinance X Resolution Old Business Exhibits: New Business • Issue Paper Study Sessions • Boundary Review Board Closing Letter Information • Annexation Map • Ordinances Recommended Action: Approvals: Council Concur Legal Dept X Finance Dept Other Fiscal Impact: Expenditure Required... Transfer/Amendment Amount Budgeted Revenue Generated Total Project Budget City Share Total Project... IIISUMMARY OF ACTION: The Council held a public hearing on the proposed annexation on December 3, 2007, and accepted a 60% Notice of Intent Petition to initiate annexation of approximately 374-acres located along the south of the SE Renton - Maple Valley Highway (SR 169), east of Maplewood Addition and out to the Urban Growth Boundary, near 184th Ave SE, if extended. The City received the closing letter from the Boundary Review Board for King County on March 14, 2008, with an effective approval date of January 3, 2008. The two required hearings to consider zoning were held on August 8 and October 1, 2007, as part of the Comprehensive Plan Amendment and concurrent rezoning process. The pre-zoning was approved by City Council action for the Maple Valley Highway Corridor (CPA #2007-M-03) on December 10, 2007. Zoning for this area includes Resource Conservation, Residential 4, Residential 8, Residential Manufactured Home, Residential 14, and Commercial Arterial. The zoning and annexation effectuation ordinances are presented for adoption. STAFF RECOMMENDATION: Adopt ordinances effectuating the pre-zoning of the Maple Valley Highway Comprehensive Plan Amendment and pre-zoning and the annexation of the New Life - Aqua Barn area. • Renton net/agnail/bah DEPARTMENT OF COMMUNITY AND • 0 •• ® ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT MEMORANDUM• DATE: April 18, 2008 TO: Marcie Palmer, Council President Members of the Renton City Council VIA: ©L-Denis Law, Mayor FROM: Alex Pietsch, Administrator STAFF CONTACT: Rebecca Lind, Long Range Planning Manager (x6588) SUBJECT: New Life/Aqua Barn Annexation - Effectuation of Zoning and Annexation ISSUE: • Should the City Council effectuate the New Life - Aqua Barn Annexation now that the Boundary Review Board for King County (BRB) has completed their review and • issued their closing letter? • If Council decides to effectuate this annexation, should Council concurrently adopt zoning for the area consistent with the Maple Valley Highway Corridor Comprehensive Plan Amendment and concurrent pre-zoning action of December 10, 2007? RECOMMENDATION: The Administration recommends that Council: • Adopt an ordinance effectuating the annexation of the approximately 374-acres located along the south of the SE Renton—Maple Valley Highway (SR 169), east of Maplewood Addition and out to the Urban Growth Boundary, near 184th Ave SE, if extended; and • Adopt six ordinances concurrently rezoning the non-street portions of the annexation site Resource Conservation (RC), Residential 4 - four units per net acre (R-4), Residential 8 - eight units per acre (R-8), Residential 14 - fourteen units per acre (R- 14), Residential Manufactured Home (RMH), and Commercial Arterial (CA), consistent with the Comprehensive Plan and concurrent pre-zoning decision of December 10, 2007. 1111 h:\ednsp\paa\annexations\new life-aqua barn\final issue paper.doc Marcie Palmer,Council President April 18,2008 Page 2 of 3 BACKGROUND SUMMARY: • On December 3, 2007, the City Council accepted the 60%Notice of Intent Petition and authorized the administration to prepare a Notice of Intent package to the Boundary Review Board for King County(BRB). The proposed New Life - Aqua Barn Annexation is approved by the BRB and the City received the BRB's closing letter on March 14, 2008, with an effective approval date of January 3, 2008. The City has held the two required public hearings on zoning on August 8 and October 1, 2007. On December 10, 2007, the City Council adopted the Maple Valley Highway Corridor Comprehensive Plan Amendment and concurrent pre-zoning (CPA#2007-M-03) for land within this annexation area. Approved pre-zoning for this area provides for a range of zones and densities to ensure that the majority of existing development or vested development will be conforming in the transition from King County to Renton zoning, and that future development is consistent with Renton Comprehensive Plan policies. • RC zoning is applied to the areas of protected critical areas. • R-4 zoning is applied in areas with single family detached subdivisions and/or manufactured homes in the density range of two to four dwelling units per acre. • R-8 zoning is applied to areas developed with single family units in the density range 110 of four to eight dwelling units per acre. • R-14 zoning is applied where there is recently constructed housing stock, developed under King County zoning, with existing densities in the range of 12-18 dwelling units per net acre. • RMH zoning is applied to sites in the study area that have pre-existing manufactured home developments. • CA is applied to an approximately three acres area bordering the SE Renton - Maple Valley Highway planned for a small retail shopping and services center. The annexation proposal is now before the City Council for effectuation of both the annexation and the approved pre-zoning. The annexation area is within the water and sewer service area of the Cedar River Water and Sewer District by agreement under the East King County Coordinated Water System Plan. Fire suppression services are currently provided by both Fire District 25 and Fire District 40. The King County Sheriff's Office provides police services. Upon annexation, Renton would most likely take over both fire suppression and police services. Fiscally, the proposed annexation is estimated to have a positive fiscal impact for the City of approximately$90,945 a year in 2007 dollars. A one-time parks acquisition and • h:\ednsp\paa\annexations\new life-aqua barn\final issue paper.doc Marcie Palmer,Council President April 18,2008 Page 3 of 3 • development cost attributable to this annexation would be $336,000, primarily for neighborhood parks to serve the area. The proposed annexation complies with most relevant City annexation policies as well as the objectives of the BRB. CONCLUSION: City staff have reviewed this annexation and voiced no objections or indicated major obstacles to providing services to it. The annexation has reasonable boundaries and the BRB determined that it complies with relevant BRB objectives. Since the annexation site is within Renton's Potential Annexation Area and no impediments to the provisions of City services have been identified, the proposed annexation would appear to be in the City's general welfare and interest. Staff concludes that the proposed New Life -Aqua Barn Annexation would further the City's business goals, be consistent with its Comprehensive Plan, and be in the general welfare and interest of the City. • • h:\ednsp\paa\annexations\new life-aqua barn\final issue paper.doc Washington State Boundary Review Board 24-° For King County • Yesler Building, Room, 400 Yesler Way, Seattle, WA 98104 Phone: (206) 296-6800 • Fax: (206)296-6803 • http://www.metrokc.gov/annexations March 14, 2008 Av'{ :y5` MAR 17 2008 City of Renton City of Renton Economic Development, Attn: Rebecca Lind, Neighborhoods &Strategic Planning Long Range Planning Manager 1055 South Grady Way Renton, WA 98057 RE: CLOSING LETTER FOR RESOLUTION AND HEARING DECISION File No. 2270 - City of Renton - New Life - Aqua Barn Annexation Dear Ms. Lind: We are writing to advise you that the Washington State Boundary Review Board for King County has now completed the Resolution and Hearing Decision, as specified in RCW 36.93, to • approve the above referenced proposed action filed with the Board effective: January 3, 2008. The Resolution and Hearing Decision for this action is enclosed for filing as prescribed by RCW 36.93.160(4). An appeal period to Superior Court has been established, as mandated by RCW 36.93.160. The appeal period to Superior Court will close on April 14, 2008. In order to finalize the proposed action, the applicant must address the following requirements, where applicable: 1. Compliance with the statutory requirements and procedures specified in the Notice of Intention; 2. Sewer and Water district actions and some other actions are also subject to approval by the Metropolitan King County Council. If the Council makes changes to the proposal, the Board may then be required to hold a public hearing. 3. Filing with King County of franchise application(s), as required, accompanied by a copy of this letter. 4. Filing with King County of permit application(s), as required, accompanied by a copy of this letter. • Page two continued, March 14, 2008 • Foiiii HE8 5. Notification to King County Office of Regional Policy and Planning, in writing, of your intended effective date of this action. This notification should be provided as early as possible. Please send this information to Gwen Clemens, Office of Management and Budget, 701 Fifth Avenue, Suite 3200, Seattle, Washington 98104, and 6. Filing with King County Council of: (1) one certified copy of your final resolution or ordinance accomplishing this action; and (2) a copy of this letter. This document should be filed with the Clerk of the Council (Attn: Ms Anne Noris), King County Courthouse, Room 1025, Seattle, Washington 98104 If you have questions or would like additional information, please contact our office at 206.296.6800. Sincerely, Lenora Blauman Executive Secretary Attachment: Resolution and Hearing Decision, dated March 13, 2008 cc: Ms. Anne Noris, Clerk of Council Ms. Debra Clark, King County Department of Assessments Ms. Lydia Reynolds-Jones, Manager, Project Support Services Mr. Dave Wilson, Elections Division Mr. Paul Reitenbach, Department of Development & Environmental Services Ms. Gwen Clemens, Office of Management and Budget King County E-911 Program District(s): King County Fire Protection District No. 25 King County Fire Protection District No. 40 Cedar River Water and Sewer District Renton School District No. 405 Fairwood Municipal Initiative • .,;• .15t i s,(_,_, y_!LLJ-U pis W-�_ 5IE-14bfth`Pl-,b.tj -•t•(I I I - ETI ,SE-1,..1st PI-1 1 — r} 11 E142n -J y s in ,L1:Ir -�ti}} "s al �am1 _ _` r a `r la-_- -SE-142nd-St ! t' t} 4 JK 1 M. .v-C: r t� Illir or, --i5E-143rd•St NU Ii44fhsral +�li I 1• (VVVrIU' ■!I■� M�ti� 1k!- "i� 1 SE 144th.St' *■ — ti AY ma\~ti :7 } L•I- nits.::0 al ,r 1 (I(r =3 ,4 vh':=., —gm _ _ ■ I AM Seaasth'Sr ,,,,-__-7:7_,- -14.,,,,A Iilk Lf ~ C 4 r I _ /▪(r moi J_T,.�� J I .1-�7)------- E (t)- i 7, ,, hmerinillgir<. `� .i; s +' �'y_.= __.�-``� '1), <5.-::::•-,Z___:_ 4</..--, L 1'J'•, 1_ it Sf- lid i � ^ r 1 tiJ! ` r , t ' _ . 1i ' �r. 1''4�iz ' '- -' T. I `` ' �aa � `yRIt -PJ ( i E Ip -e A',., - - 1:: _- i I ` I n'-t ti4l ^„ t4 Re7ron ' � ' jl rn rs X544rA iart _ 4- is , rl #�^ i(- iver�7r� ti- T•stiI, 1 -L 1 ti -•'_ '''''.\, A --...,•, :, ale, _ '�' `� 1 J�, __ - - _ -..,-,.`•` Rd�=:='-- ,• 1 ?'1.,• ••=f it I ti 0lA•,� ]. -scC MIS 1 , t= ice' �11.4.4....... ._::,_`� -`;,\ i 1� f +-...,,_,,,,ti} '—tom tiamaimaa' 4- z,? 4.44,41,L-Ami -,..`t_,...,�ggi'amii+ !i ir^- _ _41=:,,l(�I,IrTIiriI •_� it', It ! _ � 1r _tI_ _�' tjr{SE156th•St--! jl�) t�--'/J t- „ ]- `I..--1(N<1-I 1 1 I ''-'1+�-r - 111111110 l7'r'' '�j i 'r -SE S r I S x S l--� *Iai�ii..1 1 .� a•1a-I �.l�r ',}ti titso .—■tl`, = ---"- i a�aa�aa�aa 1�11r•.: =-4-4'-',,,...L ,.—. as 4.. • I �a i3iaiiii�'ia ! �' i 1 .:} l);ti ,5. 5(G aaa,.aa�aamaaseaamaa�aaat i^+ �- .✓tasaas a. Pie I I • i rl" r ? 1'x.1 -ry 71.--27;;;' -'7 ",:;;`,,,_,, �;'ryy �^� y�40th _ ,.60th RIT�r_is (`i`'Lt,,'4) �- 'i }6=7s'�r7- 1 I ( I •i-,'.� 1 1 ` , f• n," I I '1 ( I(I(I L., _ r -�1 r. ��-�,_ ' ASF-j�63��'ij.�t"�rAY'��, t;"r:`�,�11'SE-16.2_n_d�_i -�W� 1',1 -4-"'. - 1 C :117{'f' F¢' • ,+r's,f__}4 - Y1. �,��• E .1--.4-11-11-6T-4)1-1 I . - iii 1�11I - J li '"-��-L X114{E j.t, Ll ii,.hr,'S ,r':l''!}`-" ',`""rr t_'� `•4 Tr. - L )�� ,,� `%� .j,'.i SE,165 'r' I P-�" t{-.-ri, T'• --r- k ,, '.--7- 1.'":71-: • r Vii',, ti ,, r h.,c/ t 465th•St_• -`_ - 'j{r. t}Gil �.ti t - W I -"•c�`'y'' _SE::jjl�,'� r'` � . -mil - r., ti�r t 'Z'',,-.:::%;"c/\ r7 I 't t}.;.•'' r 6 1�<.:!i7.`.F�� I.L„:...4,..--i7, ��`ai- , ��O�s- �r�1j..... 5! - '4'-'11.�1 5, /i 1 �:i t U_ �'�.... � ` ii'1',`,, , 'r /,`ii `�i 5y\ 11��y-t �..-i '.1�.1 l,V}`-!ri , '�I..�.I'_'� nil �!'I`" � � ti�l''i . �t� i15=2.7- 't '''t `? . 2jj i ' r''""�, }=_, Stix :NE-7c1... N, -7.7--1-• f�� -� _ �• :'f:-, Ei 1_68th S =.i-'�t �1 l��'I� :"��%'�� -1 4 5t N,2,�!,1- j 1 i i i 7 i °• �•.,;:, t`.,; 'L_`}•' In' 1 � ,,--A.:4-\1.::)4 1 I•rT. ` i,_I�-3.�:�;�,---_ti �"°`z^Lj,; I•k 14)*; th 5 ,-kl -''.,- .1.2...:,...t-'.2:.. .,-,:':4_,_,--. t s .- . '1 ], ` '�..La'.- '��G—_I..•.,- J •_ - ;t,LY.� 51.1, , ' F=. �P•j""'2I f' ;:_ _ {-Ir- ,,1 wI Its i } ---�—•tir 1 j,t i.+t ._..L .'��A ffr-,, A *•J y'"r`v,=z ''1 . -r:"`?.;'•. -E-I = ..1=_- _ I; .1':I y-�. r - ;tilt` �- '- y ^� {-A-"�_-. ,.,1 yr ''',,,-;:',::••::-2,•,:•‹.-;•,,..x>,,,-,,,,:.,.--!-� I i. ',•-,13E _.l i4,--.4,,-'0".' �. • f~�i ^-.'::::::::::3.17x I �tj r ,'` r { -- jr -I l_ '' r r .____,,,..,\ 14 r-_rat•:'• ,;,' � ..��'j'T.�'F'• )-�';r-'�,� i. 1 �a=.r+ y�1h.-.,F'_�'�.... �T S I ,z4.1„-_,23 :,--., ' si: I,'A kr, 1i_, \--..,,-_,) r I?j i' h -r-,--_1 i A.?-C i 1'1 ;----- New �.,',r }r. `',`. �-../..e!..? s_._1=▪ !)--k-,-,"=;"..5-�._ti fi-l I=11_-if 1 �.-r17,,_:,1,....„I ' I '3 �E -,�`-tt�y -� --115=f f, �- -1� I New Life - Aqua Barn Annexation �, o Department of Community Exhibit Al: Proposed Annexation Boundary & Economic Development k,N�p� Alex Pietsch,Administrdor A Johnson,PlanningTechnidan March 19,2008 " Legend 0 500 1,000 2,000 Feet (k) 11/u=ua 1:16,000 %uu u. New Life-Aqua Barn Proposed Boundary III•111; =nnduce'.:by City of Renton(c)2008, e CE ty of Rerton all rWhts reserved. t•.owarrartes d any sort.ircludirc but rot lir to to accuracy.fitnessor mrd antakiiry. Re Name I-1="D•.S"S cE orects',,-.rv,:_I m._.= ., _ -;n-\ x mparythis product. '1_pr'opos,r,d_arr,?x_'rn.rcaryr_ac • CITY OF RENTON, WASHINGTON ORDINANCE NO. AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF RENTON, WASHINGTON ANNEXING CERTAIN TERRITORY OF THE CITY OF RENTON (NEW LIFE - AQUA BARN ANNEXATION; FILE NO. A-07-001) WHEREAS, under the provisions of RCW 35A.14.120, as amended, a petition in writing requesting that certain territory contiguous to the City of Renton, as described below, be annexed to the City of Renton, was presented and filed with the City Clerk on or about April 3, 2007. WHEREAS, prior to the filing and circulation of said petition for annexation to the City of Renton, the petitioning owners notified the City Council of their intention to • commence such proceedings as provided by law, as more particularly specified in RCW 35A.14.120 and upon public hearing thereon, it having been determined and the petitioning owners having agreed to accept that portion of the City's Comprehensive Plan as it pertains to the territory including the applicable Zoning Code relating thereto; and WHEREAS, as part of the Comprehensive Plan amendment cycle the pre-zoning of the area was considered as file number CPA 2007 M:03 and the Planning Commission held a public hearing regarding the pre-zoning of the area on August 8, 2007. In the same matter the City Council held a public hearing regarding the pre-zoning of the area on October 1, 2007. WHEREAS, the King County Department of Assessments has examined and verified the signatures on the petition for annexation on, or about, November 8, 2007 and • 1 ORDINANCE NO. • determined that the signatures represent a majority of the annexation area's assessed value (excluding streets), as provided by law; and WHEREAS, the Department of Community and Economic Development of the City of Renton having considered and recommended the annexing of said property to the City of Renton; and WHEREAS, the City Council fixed December 3, 2007 as the time and place for Public hearing in the City Council Chambers, City Hall, Renton, Washington, upon the petition and notice thereof having been given as provided by law; and WHEREAS, pursuant to said notices public hearings have been held at the time and place specified in the notices, and the Council having considered all matters in connection with the petition and further determined that all legal requirements and • procedures of the law applicable to the petition method for annexation have been met; and WHEREAS, the King County Boundary Review Board having deemed the "Notice of Intention" approved as of March 14, 2008; and WHEREAS, the Cityof Renton is concurrentlyzoningthe area to be consistent with the Comprehensive Plan, to include: RC (Resource Conservation), R-4 (Residential Four Units per Net Acre), R-8 (Residential Eight Units per Net Acre), R-14 (Residential Fourteen Units per Net Acre, RMH (Residential Manufactured Homes), and CA (Commercial Arterial) • 2 ORDINANCE NO. • NOW, THEREFORE, THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF RENTON, WASHINGTON, DOES ORDAIN AS FOLLOWS: SECTION I. The findings, recitals, and determinations are hereby found to be true and correct in all respects. All requirements of the law in regard to the annexation by petition method, including the provisions of RCW 35A.14.120, 130, 140, and 150 have been met. It is further determined that the petition for annexation to the City of Renton of the property and territory described below is hereby approved and granted; the following described property being contiguous to the City limits of the City of Renton is hereby annexed to the City of Renton, and such annexation to be effective on and after the approval, passage, and publication of this Ordinance; and on and after said date the property shall constitute a part of the City of Renton and shall be subject to • all its laws and ordinances then and thereafter in force and effect; the property being described as follows: See Exhibits "A" attached hereto and made a part hereof as if fully set forth herein [Said property, approximately 374-acres, is generally located immediately south of the Renton Maple Valley Highway and immediately east of the Cedar River at approximately 136 Avenue Southeast.] and the owners of the property within the annexation shall be subject to the City's Comprehensive Plan and Zoning Code. SECTION II. This Ordinance shall be effective upon its passage, approval, and thirty days after its publication. • 3 ORDINANCE NO. • A certified copy of this Ordinance shall be filed with the King County Council, State of Washington, 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.+:+:ma. 4 • • Exhibit A NEW LIFE - AQUA BARN ANNEXATION LEGAL DESCRIPTION The lands included within the subject annexation area are situated in Sections 22, 23, 24 and 27, all in Township 23 North, Range 5 East, W.M., King County, Washington, said annexation area being more particularly described as follows: Beginning at the point of intersection of the northeasterly margin of SE Renton-Maple ValleyHighway (SR169, P.S.H. #5 and the "THREAD" of the Cedar River in the g Y )� Northwest quarter of said Section 22, said point also being on the Renton City Limits as annexed under Ordinance No. 4156; Thence southeasterly along said existing City Limit Line as annexed under Ordinance No. 4156, and the northeasterly right of way margin of said SE Renton-Maple Valley Highway to the west line of Government Lot 2 in the Northeast quarter of said Section 22, where said City Limit Line follows the northerly right of way margin of the • abandoned Burlington Northern (Pacific Coast) Railroad right of way; Thence continuing southeasterly along said City Limit Line and said northerly right of way margin to an intersection with the westerly right of way margin of 149th Ave. SE, in the Southwest quarter of said Section 23; Thence leaving said City Limit Line and continuing southeasterly, along said northerly railroad right of way margin, crossing 149th Ave SE and 154th P1 SE to the intersection of said northerly railroad right of way margin and the easterly right of way margin of 154th P1 SE, said intersection also being a point on the Urban Growth Boundary (UGB) line; Thence southerly along the southerly extension of said easterly right of way margin and said UGB line, to a point of cusp on the northeasterly right of way margin of SE Renton- Maple Valley Highway (SR169, P.S.H. #5), in the Southwest quarter of said Section 23; Thence southeasterly along the various courses of said northeasterly right of way margin and said UGB line, to an intersection with a line 201 feet east of and parallel with the west line of the Southwest quarter of said Section 24; Thence southerly along said parallel line and said UGB line to a point of intersection with a line perpendicular to said west line, said perpendicular line beginning at a point on said west line 50 feet south of the northeast corner of Tract A of Valley Faire II, as recorded IIIunder Volume 131 of Plats, Pages 39 - 43, records of King County, Washington; 0232c(Aqua Barn Annex per BRB 1-30-2008).doc - I - February 15,2008 Thence westerly along said perpendicular line and said UGB line to the west line of said • Southwest quarter, said west line also being the east line of the Southeast quarter of said Section 23; Thence northwesterly along a line parallel with the north line of said Tract A, a distance of 350 feet; Thence northerly along a line parallel with said east line, to the north line of said Tract A; Thence generally westerly along the various courses of the north line of said Tract A, to the west line of said Southeast quarter, said west line also being the east line of the Southwest quarter of said Section 23; Thence southerly along said east line, to the southeast corner of said subdivision; Thence westerly along the south line of said subdivision to the southwest corner thereof; Thence northerly along the west line of said subdivision, to the northwest corner of the Southwest quarter of said Southwest quarter, said northwest corner also being the southeast corner of the Northeast quarter of the Southeast quarter of said Section 22; Thence westerly along the south line of said subdivision, to the SE corner of Tract J, Pioneer Place, as recorded under Volume 226 of Plats, Pages 51 - 56, said records; • Thence westerly along the various courses of the south line of said Tract J, to a point on the west line of said plat, said west line also being the east line of Elliot Farm, as recorded under Volume 180 of Plats, Pages 4 - 15, said records, said west line also being the east line of the Northwest quarter of the Southeast quarter of said Section 22; Thence northerly along said east line of said plat, said east line also being the east line of Tract G and Tract E, both of said plat, to the most easterly northeast corner of said Tract E; Thence westerly along the various courses of the northerly line of said Tract E, to a point on the easterly right of way margin of 140th Way SE, in the Northeast quarter of the Southwest quarter of said Section 22; Thence southeasterly, southerly and southwesterly along said easterly right of way margin, to an intersection with the south line of said Section 22; Thence westerly along said south line, crossing said 140th Way SE, said south line also being the south line of Maple Ridge Estates, as recorded under Volume 134 of Plats, Pages 9 - 16, said records, to a point on the east line of Lot 2, View Point at Maple Ridge, as recorded under Volume 161 of Plats, Pages 32 - 35, said records; • 0232c(Aqua Barn Annex per BRB 1-30-2008).doc -2- February 15,2008 Thence southerly and westerly along the boundary lines of Lots 2 through 9 of said plat, 4111 in the Northeast quarter of said Section 27, and the westerly extension thereof, crossing 140th Ave SE, to an intersection with the westerly right of way margin of 140th Ave SE, in the Northwest quarter of said Section 27; Thence northerly along said westerly right of way margin, to an intersection with said south line of said Section 22, said south line also being the south line of said plat; Thence westerly along said south line of said Section 22 and the south line of said plat, to the southwest corner of Lot 13 of said plat, in the Southwest quarter of said Section 22; Thence generally northerly along the various courses of the west line of said plat and the west line of Maple Ridge Estates, Division 2, Phase 3, as recorded under Volume 163 of Plats, Pages 64 - 66, said records, to the northwest corner of said plat, said northwest corner also being a point on the south line of the Northeast quarter of the Southwest quarter of said Section 22; Thence westerly along said south line, to the most southerly southeast corner of Tract J, King County Boundary Lot Adjustment No. LO1 L 0026, as recorded under King County Rec. No. 20010730900003; Thence westerly, northwesterly, northerly, southwesterly and westerly along the various courses of the southerly and westerly boundary lines of Tract J, to a point on the western boundary thereof, said point also being the southeast corner of Tract L of said boundary • line adjustment, in Govermnent Lot 9 of said Section 22; Thence southwesterly, westerly and northwesterly, along the various courses of the south line of said Tract L to the southwest corner thereof, said southwest corner also being a point on the east line of that property conveyed to King County under King County Recording Number 9810304345; Thence southwesterlyand southeaster) alongsaid east line, to an intersection y, with the centerline of Molasses Creek; Thence northwesterly along said creek centerline and its northwesterly extension, to an intersection with the Renton City Limit Line as annexed under Ordinance No. 5243, said line also being the "THREAD" of the Cedar River; Thence northeasterly along said City Limit Line and the "THREAD" of the Cedar River to the point of beginning. • 0232c(Aqua Barn Annex per B12B 1-30-2008).doc -3- February 15, 2008 '-`'+ SE=140th PlI 4 j,15 c �� .1. 4. -` . F,-_ - -`E, - F.T 1SE_1-.1st Pl -, •Q 4 r, SE 217 !i°1-"�.=I 'I r `' — -1 �{i .\N'0'1 `' ti ��I JQJt ...-1--7,i i-5E-142nd St _ ---Iti- 1 .-- ,, , r ■ mall IN, ■ ` gi �r��im so .. �� i/ SiiiiiLP -{ _ _~ �a 1 __.4 t " L' rm . NI• t I t,''' 4sy,:_ + j J,! H .il- %' 1,4 , tern `fit _ — -1. I m,. • r 1 I I ,-- =-?+ I�f i�\ J 1 a \ 1 j--1_.SE 19tt .k • / ,L 411414..._ ~~\-)! � - y� y $E I r tib` ~;' I �_��I T" 'T • ,, - I, r;i maw _l M I�•,r.,a ♦ 1 - - r r . , "I �� ,, 55t'. ( -_-�..Tr n yRya■. � "" r r ; itx . 4 1 -na •moi r .l _ �.t 1 ---::::-_=-z__ '`..`l�.ftS (_-C-J--7-7,c,-(-7--11- �'-' 1' I w 7 . ,,; L `z;-, • L71' _ i,• -Rd=_T=af .�6L i 14 y �,, QO> r{r`,rr r: r Q —(- _ �.. E '_,. _I �.- -f ----._:',-,-i,- ...-- i ,} 9 ,i F 4'•} 1 d 4u t;(,),�1 O -{ - -r.=~a ., {.' IIA I \_.._...�,,•,a■■�aa 'L' ,,moi,,;+,\�� 4�,a■ �5, ■ ir�r■ -r r_�r- rti tir�ti'�-•l-j-� u-' - .. _`. ,y\:-{::...I^V',. it - _ _ t,y6th•Sf t 1)1_ ti ti ti (_•� _ r 1• ,trC t 1 ; JI i. i1}' _ti - TIT-ts[14'..IIISL.4'°' a�■r..r ri` y\ , I l •--- r ,� �u I I rslai■'■'r'ir {f— ia�na,■�■aau�aran�uauauaut i'` - - \ 1 w. au ,■� Pies I 1)f o i f c,, t f :''f 5 t, 1AOth F—-SEg60t`h` PI t "'.--1: -r' r•� r ?,. - i -tel f"3: Sy`r-r 7-`r.y -nj }Il T / ! • ' �s�nY j�f ' A' rf '. 1 i IsE�>s2nd P11T I/..:1' __ -T-i q,&,,,_ . T_-_, ,CLII,:<.t.,.:: _4 _____...., '-, r4-7 • ( 1. `' -7i :rJ'r. ,L�l`/ 1-'rhrr�;/ — I P^---11')_ i6'55'4-- • •'� ' ! ti :'S :1h'S•(3'`- _' -, -, r "0•o, 1_ L �1 L.,_, -ttiS�, i-•< .i`, J 1._- ,,.-�"ti \� .i.; 3 --\.1` ,' aH� \• S,SE:"'I rfl4J 4i 71 ''-e-,:,! ' c 11r i �{{jjlr�;' \I• ll-.1,-'04.7-_, , .J - �I� '4-> c„, '3,31....4.17: \ . r, f -r f 1'r,'fi4'r- ,y _• -----: �`:- .f i- ..11"-- ] 1--`" ' r.--.3. -::1>-:5-1'.;5)<:',61'9''5-3-1- :\r��,•. I.! ,!r f?: ...._.�� ...1 t,�: i ,i.t_..,,I t ' t t - , ,',. ,!'-..:-.-114,..., Y- ) r a� r1.,,-,,,,,,..„.,....,57,,,5:::,,._ ?r3 r+,--•--.1-...,i-r- '" 5E168 hI 1, I 1 , I,.J" 3-I , ._� ? a ti F�N, #`i ",f,,ji t^l' - t I I i 1 iLi1 i i i i4 _SL`:�_ L_`s:' - �' it - �: --:.1. �-_,l '.7e(:::.--A\ _,r� \;-'-% `f!{ r,-.,- ..f!r.?_I ."_�,..7'7';'..7..''''- WI.f�fi"rrmi-TT if I,:,, ,,;,: 1 •.,S - _,t[r"r!_1 r 1i� .. -- ?.,: • Q::,;';i S 1-• '1` `t71:1,4:,,:' 1 t4 t ,' , .".(i I,t<`:,, II-1 �,`', ...'-::,-'f--;,&.�"'' i-- 1 ,,,.i' --d +r -,£G I) i% , }1•-. -1 yam',. /r,.�- .,,_ tI�J".� ,--LL--2 TT1 ~ �--s' ,4-7,...1s '}4J--St ,..... ,, h'A`/ 5 ll ,,4 ',.-' �_ . I .Ti _ j: _ Y 1. 1 - ...._-1---"----'46.->„..t. e ''''-‘-'1'.I.,)- Sal_;� -r�"7`�'! �.. i` -� W -._. �-�r �'` t--�_ � � �- _ tr "`r, rr' � I {� �I`` ' 1If , =�=.. 1-+�f_t E 1 ' t 1 1 1 I ' 1 �'_.� $l't.'�'4v't � �\ti - � (rl r- I i f•t k, �•4 New Life - Aqua Barn Annexation SAY o Department of Community ExhibitAl: Proposed Annexation Boundary o & Economic Development n , • "`"��•��` Alex Pietsch,Administrator �- 31.,,,r0 A Jchnsort,PlanningTed,nician March 19,2008 " Legend 0 500 1,000 2000 Feet p■mus 1111 1 New Life-Aqua Barn Proposed Boundary 1:16,000 lr■mur■m; Producec by City of Renton(c)2008, te City of Rerton all rights reserved. Nowarraroes at any sort =luding tat - -= not lirniteo to accuracy.fitness or n-erchantatilty. 373ee Nair- ., , DNS uroecf>r.;.r_ x mpar:y this product. ',:1_propos>ee__arc ex_izur:cary r_:^ • • CITY OF RENTON, WASHINGTON ORDINANCE NO. AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF RENTON, WASHINGTON ESTABLISHING THE ZONING CLASSIFICATION OF CERTAIN PROPERTY ANNEXED WITHIN THE CITY OF RENTON FROM KING COUNTY ZONING TO RC (RESOUCE CONSERVATION) (COMPREHENSIVE PLAN AMENDMENT, CPA#2007-M-03). WHEREAS, under Section 4.2.020 of Chapter 2, Land Use Districts, of Title IV (Development Regulations) of Ordinance No. 4260 entitled "Code of General Ordinances of the City of Renton, Washington," as amended, and the maps and reports adopted in conjunction therewith, the property hereinbelow described has not been zoned in the City of Renton; and WHEREAS, said property owners petitioned the City of Renton for annexation and • concurrent rezoning, which said annexation having previously been approved and the property annexed to the City of Renton, and the City having held two public hearings to consider this zoning application, the first hearing being held on August 1, 2007 and the second hearing being held on October 1, 2007, and said zoning request being in conformity with the City's Comprehensive Plan, as amended, and the City Council 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: SECTION I. The following described property in the City of Renton is hereby zoned to RC as herein below specified. The annual ordinance adopting the maps of the City's zoning ordinance is hereby amended to evidence said rezoning and the CED Administrator is • 1 ORDINANCE NO. • hereby authorized and directed to change the maps of the zoning ordinance, as amended, to evidence said rezoning, to wit: See Exhibit "A" attached hereto and made a part hereof as if fully set forth herein. [Said properties, approximately 109.35 acres, including those portions of Section 22, and the Southwest quarter of Section 23, all in Township 23 North, Range 5 East, W.M., in the City of Renton, King County, Washington.] SECTION II. 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.+:+:. 2 EXHIBIT A • RC ZONE LEGAL DESCRIPTION Those portions of Section 22, and the Southwest quarter of Section 23, all in Township 23 North, Range 5 East, W.M., in the City of Renton, King County, Washington, more particularly described as follows: Those portions of Parcels B, C & E of King County Boundary Line Adjustment No. L97L0179, as recorded under King County Recording No. 9808259003, lying northerly of Molasses Creek, easterly of the existing Limits of the City of Renton as annexed by Ordinance No. 5243, southerly of the south right of way margin of SE Renton - Maple Valley Highway SE (SR 169, P.S.H. #5), and westerly of the following described line: Commencing at the Southeast corner of Government Lot 9 of said Section 22 from which the Northeast corner bears North 01° 17'33" E; Thence South 84° 03' 54" West a distance of 356.78 feet; Thence South 23° 58' 46" East a distance of 78.30 feet, to the centerline of said Molasses Creek and the True Point of Beginning of the herein described line; Thence North 23° 58' 46" West a distance of 54.29 feet; Thence North 32° 24' 58" East a distance of 95.30 feet; Thence North 20° 55' 58" East a distance of 109.60 feet; Thence North 14° 4' 11" East a distance of 210.01 feet; Thence North 11° 46" 55' East a distance of 86.83 feet; Thence North 24° 05' 49" East a distance of 147.47 feet; Thence North 21° 36' 09" East a distance of 222.47 feet, to said southerly margin and the terminus of the herein described line; TOGETHER WITH Lots L & K that portion of the Lot J of King County Lot Line Adjustment No. L01L0126, as recorded under King County Recording No. 20010730900003, lying southerly of the following described line: Commencing at the Southwest corner of said Lot J, thence North 32° 49' 04" West along the west line thereof, a distance of 956.24 feet to an angle point in said west line; Aqua Barn RC Zoning Page 1 of 4 4/14/2008 • Thence continuing along said west line North 01° 17' 33" East a distance • of 530.18 feet to the True Point of Beginning of the herein described line; Thence South 89° 17' 47" East a distance of 149.84 feet; Thence South 73° 16' 58"East a distance of 297.02 feet; Thence South 62° 57' 05" East a distance of 6.76 feet to a point on a curve to the left, having a radius of 133.00 feet, the center of which bears North 50° 41' 22" East; Thence southeasterly along the arc of said curve a distance of 34.67 feet; Thence South 54° 14' 45" East a distance of 58.83 feet to a point on a curve to the left, having a radius of 80.00 feet; Thence easterly along the arc of said curve a distance of 69.14 feet; The South 62° 57' 05" East a distance of 106.37 feet to a point on the northeasterly line of said Lot J and the terminus of said line; and TOGETHER WITH Tracts B, C & D of Elliot Farm, as recorded in Volume 180 of Plats, Pages 4— 15, records of King County; and • TOGETHER WITH Tract J of Pioneer Place, as recorded in Volume 226 of Plats, Pages 51 — 57, said records; and TOGETHER WITH that portion of the Northeast quarter of the Southeast quarter of said Section 22 lying southerly of the following described line: Beginning at the southeast corner of said subdivision, from which the southwest corner bears North 89° 22' 8" West; Thence North 26° 48' 31" West a distance of 76.62 feet; Thence North 40° 14'11" West a distance of 120.87 feet; Thence North 56° 04' 13" West a distance of 156.83 feet; Thence North 60° 21' 35" West a distance of 46.95 feet to an intersection with the west line of said Tract J; Aqua Barn RC Zoning Page 2 of 4 4/14/2008 • Thence South 13° 50' 41" West along said west line a distance of 275.46 • feet to the south line of said subdivision and the terminus of the herein described line; and TOGETHER WITH that portion of the Southwest quarter of said Southwest quarter lying southerly of the following described line: Commencing at the southwest corner of said subdivision; Thence North 02° 08' 49" East, along the west line thereof, a distance of 513.13 feet to the True Point of Beginning of the herein described line; Thence North 18° 42' 45" East a distance of 112.66 feet; Thence North 57° 43' 27" East a distance of 53.17 feet; Thence North 10° 47' 04" East a distance of 101.15 feet; Thence North 11° 30' 50" East a distance of 130.38 feet; Thence North 33° 10' 43" East a distance of 146.99 feet; Thence North 54° 38' 15" East a distance of 89.93 feet; • Thence North 76° 30' 15" East a distance of 60.83 feet; Thence North 88° 18' 55" East a distance of 80.47 feet; Thence South 77° 28' 16" East a distance of 152.68 feet; Thence South 40° 25' 34" East a distance of 167.83 feet; Thence South 32° 16' 31" East a distance of 53.17 feet; Thence South 11° 58' 34" East a distance of 79.81 feet; Thence South 50° 44' 26" East a distance of 317.77 feet; Thence North 50° 51' 21" East a distance of 131.17 feet; Thence North 78° 46' 33" East a distance of 243.48 feet to a point of intersection with the east line of said subdivision and the terminus of the herein described line; and • Aqua Barn RC Zoning Page 3 of 4 4/14/2008 TOGETHER WITH Tract A of King County Short Plat No. L99S3019, as recorded under King County Recording No. 20010831900002; and • TOGETHER WITH that portion of Emerald Crest, as recorded in Volume 132, of Condominiums, Pages 61 — 67, said records, lying southerly of the following described line: Commencing at the Southeast corner of said condominium; Thence N 01° 22' 15" East along the east line of said condominium, a distance of 432.41 feet to the True Point of Beginning of the herein described line; Thence North 66° 21' 00" West a distance of 229.87 feet; Thence South 88° 36' 10" West a distance of 191.07 feet; Thence South 65° 13' 29" West a distance of 33.87 feet; Thence North 85° 36' 05" West a distance of 92.54 feet; Thence North 72°0 9' 38" West a distance of 126.38 feet to an angle point on the east line of said condominium and the terminus of the herein described line, said angle point being North 01° 22' 51" East a distance of • 526.59 feet from the southwest corner of said condominium; and TOGETHER WITH that portion of the Burlington Northern and Sante Fe railroad right of way in said Sections 22 & 23 lying easterly of the west line of the Southeast quarter of the Northeast quarter of said Section 22, northerly and westerly of the northeasterly margin of said SE Renton—Maple Valley Highway and westerly of the southerly extension of the easterly right of way margin of 154th Place SE to its intersection with said northeasterly margin in said Southwest quarter of Section 23. Aqua Barn RC Zoning Page 4 of 4 4/14/2008 • 1 ' /j !! / i~ I 11 t, , i i,i l4sfhQ .r" ') rl_t_. L 5�� UJ__ ,dl ! lij`. 1 0 A i / \ I 1 \ i I..__.i )I 1 .1 t SE�14nip i.6t s as . / "- sSE -' -- ---'_ dr,, 8th �:i �::,,A ':d yal'i YVw<. • I ar,4 �, :.i'* .,�•� i-. .....--- - - --- /'---/.i`'_-_ I _, =Sti, -- I r� I� �' .. � ,yam ! 4 I° ...I�^..1^ : l I tit ,14 ;, ``�j..i�h u_.7-.. / r - _i I I �'' I� _.i _ -t-r�%--�-;-Iii_-!"_I-�- 4 7'''' v+,Ori^,`"';i" r.', ' I i ' / :' 9,�r:rr:^I,^,..::ns:r", 4 '4")"`\11,44V +..�\"•`ei ''t" 7r..-i. i n d' ,Q". :�i 1--- _-_.. -i_j' j �.-I ��..t u� 5 r I I 1 r' II _I I i il,' tiff :1., --..I_ e f`\ f 11 �'i — h` :��%%%• ...�$iill;�' "i''i!�Y,^.py„�l�t"4';�I,� 1 I � �' i` _ �I -,.__..r r I ilii -1. `\ 110X+ X ,'I1 g��aM't KA1Yr»,,. \' `�\ '-'14. .nen, •V•... .ow., h' ++'.� `. ''. :+0:,•.. I. ..IO 41 ♦. I '' .:.•.illi•.. n:17: �' '''1,..;, \\, __ , —' • : •••••••••••••.s;' •••i•••••••••1 i0• i3O r- ,..':Ir _en!, O• L. ,,SCI,{ *M•. (- ' -` •••••••••••••••••••••••••••••:44,4*..0 'aF (` .�.�•.•De ��.�.�.�.�f r i! : r `rWj�!.-•••••••r,-._ - r'F: ,,,O''''',,,'-'••.-. II, I 1 I ,. , gi t•••••••:•:+744+.•••••••••••••••••••••••.1. i CITY OF RENTON, WASHINGTON • ORDINANCE NO. AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF RENTON, WASHINGTON ESTABLISHING THE ZONING CLASSIFICATION OF CERTAIN PROPERTY ANNEXED WITHIN THE CITY OF RENTON FROM KING COUNTY ZONING TO R-4 (RESIDENTIAL SINGLE FAMILY, FOUR DWELLING UNITS PER NET ACRE) (COMPREHENSIVE PLAN AMENDMENT, CPA# 2007-M-03). WHEREAS, under Section 4.2.020 of Chapter 2, Land Use Districts, of Title IV (Development Regulations) of Ordinance No. 4260 entitled "Code of General Ordinances of the City of Renton, Washington," as amended, and the maps and reports adopted in conjunction therewith, the property hereinbelow described has not been zoned in the City of Renton; and WHEREAS, said property owners petitioned the City of Renton for annexation and concurrent rezoning, which said annexation having previously been approved and the property ill annexed to the City of Renton, and the City having held two public hearings to consider this zoning application, the first hearing being held on August 1, 2007 and the second hearing being held on October 1, 2007, and said zoning request being in conformity with the City's Comprehensive Plan, as amended, and the City Council 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: SECTION I. The following described property in the City of Renton is hereby zoned to R-4 as herein below specified. The annual ordinance adopting the maps of the City's zoning ordinance is hereby amended to evidence said rezoning and the CED Administrator is 1 ORDINANCE NO. • hereby authorized and directed to change the maps of the zoning ordinance, as amended, to evidence said rezoning, to wit: See Exhibit "A" attached hereto and made a part hereof as if fully set forth herein. [Said properties, approximately 95.20 acres, including those portions of the Southeast quarter of Section 23 and the Southwest quarter of Section 24, both in Township 23 North, Range 5 East, W.M., in the City of Renton, King County, Washington.] SECTION II. 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.+:+:. • 2 EXHIBIT A R-4 ZONE LEGAL DESCRIPTION • Those portions of the Southeast quarter of Section 23 and the Southwest quarter of Section 24, both in Township 23 North, Range 5 East, W.M., in the City of Renton, King County, Washington, more particularly described as follows: Valley Faire I as recorded in Volume 133 of Plats, Pages 43 —47, records of King County; TOGETHER WITH Valley Faire I, Phase III, as recorded in Volume 139 of Plats, Pages 8 — 10, said records; and TOGETHER WITH Valley Faire III, as recorded in Volume 146 of Plats, Pages 22 —28, said records; and TOGETHER WITH that portion of said Southeast quarter lying easterly of the east lines of said Valley Faire I and Valley Faire I, Phase III plats, southerly of the southerly right of way margin of SE Renton—Maple Valley Highway(SR 169, P.S.H. #5) and northerly of the northern boundary of Tract A of Valley Faire II, as recorded in Volume 131 of Plats, Pages 39-43, said records, and as amended by King County Lot Line Adjustment S92L0194; and TOGETHER WITH the west 201 feet of said Southwest quarter lying southerly of said • southerly margin and northerly of a line perpendicular to the west line of said Southwest quarter, that begins at the northeast corner of said amended Tract A; TOGETHER WITH Maple Ridge Estates, as recorded in Volume 134 of Plats, Pages 9— 16, said records; and TOGETHER WITH Maple Ridge Estates Div. 2, as recorded in Volume 158 of Plats, Pages 50— 55, said records; and TOGETHER WITH Maple Ridge Estates Div. 2, Ph. 3, as recorded in Volume 163 of Plats, Pages 64—66, said records; and TOGETHER WITH View Pointe At Maple Ridge, as recorded in Volume 163 of Plats, Pages 64—66, said records; and TOGETHER WITH Lots 1 —4 of King County Short Plat S91 S0108, recorded under King County Recording No. 9303129008; and LESS roads. Aqua Barn R-4 Zoning Page 1 of 1 4/22/2008 • f 1 - ,.. , I ! f r I ' r `"1 t9j &N \ ,.f,\. ,. Y r •,r.-F,,-,yjj\Y t a .....si: ,...r,w;"viae„.. ... �,._ ! - ti r,. -- ..,.G�`, }% I __ t. ,• , i.. ;%il =r'” _v `-j0„G,,- I SE 6thP/ .� ., ! Ate',,:. , �. ,! a i r I ,,,,,,,;,,,,,,, E 148 :i;iWld;,"p,r.4.,;';q,, ,,,-, I ..: ♦. % s--—' - .�.fh, ..__ !�� ._-- ,, T . 1 � s r t 11‘;) : L:,-1,.' �"p't,,$ "- -: , / '•,, N � •1 \,C, ;1'N':.1 _ I.- ,'r--'�..( _ 3 71 i ?"'f /.1:A.-: ' �...iii :;,--.-.,-., ":::\ , .1: 1 / p i f'' Re 10 •�. r (..ter — ,r• ti7a -, ,` 1.. E n;" ---- --- • t yHw ' y i t .. - Lf j ' L /;Y::n. � Q t y a rentM . ; . , , • i.••O•:°iOOF ar ..I .•tiiiiiii ��: , ".'r\. 0 O • ` iiieiiiieiiii , `•••••••••••••••••••O • Q _ ,\ « - .rP•: ^. • • ,Q 1 •,..i....,,,,,,,,,,,,.. ti i ,iei. .i .00i IX 1 -4•j•::,••••e•••••••••.;S., oi ♦••♦•♦ .rNr"fii ;.«,' `` 1 t,. :- ,,-. ° o • ° °!°O°i♦ ..w ,„ -- -- r',g,,i �rfr;.._. _. 444-4•••:•••: ..:!�e1iii•i•;'ncr::'.:. ` . ./,L_:. I �.•-p, .. ... •♦♦•°• •O•.,i. •• . r "i � s._ ._-.: / /,„•) N' " . h •°.•x., ;..oma••se♦•♦ •O.• :.• 0fi;M1F'.;.,kLk�ii : i ��_•'-.'',"� �' j ' •i••ii,4-4,..-.41=-•-•'.....,„ !Je•°O•i :O!�.«:SEo♦°i00°•°OOo 4eO el•iso•••.;•;''.7S',!4,.± •r iiisii°:...oi•°' •.J':i o••D�.�c�,�� _..<__: -_ 1 �O°' %'' 6th$t♦' >�o•••••••••••••••••••••••%•••••.4,,, L. .,i°i : i ••i5°",I,♦°••••i•iv '•� ,; I. pi'O• •m%�:%ib«5�' ti`'i- 'Qj,71,;,..•: X.:•:.:.:.:.:::::::::::::::iOi'�O:ii•i! rE�156thtiA:^• o'• �\ Y �\ ' ..+41.,�°s'ioo'ior ••,%e s*! , : . . i\ 1 ••• ••••••••••••••••••` *•i•�S* ,0"4"4••••••••,,,•••••••••••••• . .i`• is i•itii°i oii°iii� i•ims 4• - _-- , , • oVi•��•: CITY OF RENTON, WASHINGTON • ORDINANCE NO. AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF RENTON, WASHINGTON ESTABLISHING THE ZONING CLASSIFICATION OF CERTAIN PROPERTY ANNEXED WITHIN THE CITY OF RENTON KING COUNTY ZONING TO R-8 (RESIDENTIAL SINGLE FAMILY, EIGHT DWELLING UNITS PER NET ACRE) (COMPREHENSIVE PLAN AMENDMENT, CPA# 2007-M-03). WHEREAS, under Section 4.2.020 of Chapter 2, Land Use Districts, of Title IV (Development Regulations) of Ordinance No. 4260 entitled "Code of General Ordinances of the City of Renton, Washington," as amended, and the maps and reports adopted in conjunction therewith, the property hereinbelow described has not been zoned in the City of Renton; and WHEREAS, said property owners petitioned the City of Renton for annexation and concurrent rezoning, which said annexation having previously been approved and the property • annexed to the City of Renton, and the City having held two public hearings to consider this zoning application, the first hearing being held on August 1, 2007 and the second hearing being held on October 1, 2007, and said zoning request being in conformity with the City's Comprehensive Plan, as amended, and the City Council 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: SECTION I. The following described property in the City of Renton is hereby zoned to R-8 as herein below specified. The annual ordinance adopting the maps of the City's zoning ordinance is hereby amended to evidence said rezoning and the CED Administrator is • 1 ORDINANCE NO. • hereby authorized and directed to change the maps of the zoning ordinance, as amended, to evidence said rezoning, to wit: See Exhibit "A" attached hereto and made a part hereof as if fully set forth herein. [Said properties, approximately 12.10 acres, including those portions of the Southeast and Southwest quarters of Section 22, and the Northeast quarter of Section 27, all in Township 23 North, Range 5 East, W.M., in the City of Renton, King County, Washington.] SECTION II. 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.±:+:. • 2 EXHIBIT A • R-8 ZONE LEGAL DESCRIPTION Those portions of the Southeast and Southwest quarters of Section 22, and the Northeast quarter of Section 27, all in Township 23 North, Range 5 East, W.M., in the City of Renton, King County, Washington, more particularly described as follows: Pioneer Place as recorded in Volume 226 of Plats, Pages 51 —57, records of King County, except Tract J; TOGETHER WITH Tract P, Elliot Farm, as recorded in Volume 180 of Plats, Pages 4- 15, said records; and TOGETHER WITH the south 220 feet of the North 545 feet of the East 200 feet of the Northwest quarter of said Southeast quarter of Section 22; LESS roads. • Aqua Barn R-8 Zoning Page 1 of 1 4/22/2008 • i T:I� i`(1" 1 1\ i. F.,_1_;-!i•' , i- -- ` —I0 I' ,I . ._.-:_..1, 'r 1 fit — y�_ =l, T ..' � � --f. l �� r l j I I �',ems.. r ! th v r,.L;i I , , 1.48 I r- f — _.._ i t/j t 11 _ C t • y • j • t i... ,. � i1 i �'•dy;:.i9jl''iud„V”„„.. _.. .. ,Q\`, 1... -.. .__ r1..f!; 9 ,t:` ey 4)--�'•% ',,,,,,,.:;;;.i.:,,..,....,,,,,.,,,, `d.'w�yay 0: i I\ha�` !•\f �`_ _' I_- ' 'j 1' i in�:(' f _ M,.. I J•` ;ho "n., N/! -1 1 „' '- Yip 'i in p l' -� \\ �,. t I \ ,.�. . i ., re�i - .,,. _ �• ^ �' ..-- .".' �:., ,...! r'�%__-— 111 -\^4'” ` rr 1 j � �. . , •44.44....O•eeeee,e: -Ren _ Ii.r' ':.u' ,I •.......,,•.•,.,,,.....................,.„,,-47,,,,/,,• i" �•. :r;,. ::.,_;ern;... •• 3,y„ " : �`• ,: .. r .,wr: I..+1`• •ti0°ii °iii 04.4 r4. •°.!.,.;.oad/B. �..I`• y i �jl;p• ---! •••• ♦•••.4.44••4 i „�.. "� -- r \ ►••4 •.'' ..4•:4.44•!' ♦i : /e : •' „:.'C ":,:� ...� i........_(,( „ eai,,r!<,. • •.,{tea „ 4:4:40 •ire°i:•i�000iei•Oi�e 00 lVr7/ �.• i' i , ' c' _ wy s6c •- •. �' 44;44••..4•: CITY OF RENTON, WASHINGTON 411 ORDINANCE NO. AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF RENTON, WASHINGTON ESTABLISHING THE ZONING CLASSIFICATION OF CERTAIN PROPERTY ANNEXED WITHIN THE CITY OF RENTON FROM KING COUNTY ZONING TO RMH (RESIDENTIAL MANUFACTURED HOMES) (COMPREHENSIVE PLAN AMENDMENT, CPA# 2007-M-03). WHEREAS, under Section 4.2.020 of Chapter 2, Land Use Districts, of Title IV (Development Regulations) of Ordinance No. 4260 entitled "Code of General Ordinances of the City of Renton, Washington," as amended, and the maps and reports adopted in conjunction therewith, the property hereinbelow described has not been zoned in the City of Renton; and WHEREAS, said property owners petitioned the City of Renton for annexation and concurrent rezoning, which said annexation having previously been approved and the property annexed to the City of Renton, and the City having held two public hearings to consider this • zoning application, the first hearing being held on August 1, 2007 and the second hearing being held on October 1, 2007, and said zoning request being in confoimity with the City's Comprehensive Plan, as amended, and the City Council 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: SECTION I. The following described property in the City of Renton is hereby zoned to RMH as herein below specified. The annual ordinance adopting the maps of the City's zoning ordinance is hereby amended to evidence said rezoning and the CED Administrator is 1 ORDINANCE NO. • hereby authorized and directed to change the maps of the zoning ordinance, as amended, to evidence said rezoning, to wit: See Exhibit "A" attached hereto and made a part hereof as if fully set forth herein. [Said properties, approximately 26.79 acres, including those portions of Northeast quarter of the Southwest quarter of Section 22, and the Southwest quarter of Section 23, both in Township 23 North, Range 5 East, W.M., in the City of Renton, King County, Washington.] SECTION II. This ordinance shall be effective upon its passage, approval, and thirty days after its publication. PASSED BY THE CITY COUNCIL this day ay 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.+:+:. • 2 EXHIBIT A RMH ZONE LEGAL DESCRIPTION • Those portions of Northeast quarter of the Southeast quarter of Section 22, and the Southwest quarter of Section 23, both in Township 23 North, Range 5 East, W.M., in the City of Renton, King County, Washington, more particularly described as follows: That portion of Emerald Crest, as recorded in Volume 132 of Condominiums, Pages 61 — 67, records of King County, lying northerly of the following described line: Commencing at the Southeast corner of said condominium; Thence N 01° 22' 15" East along the east line of said condominium, a distance of 432.41 feet to the True Point of Beginning of the herein described line; Thence North 66° 21' 00" West a distance of 229.87 feet; Thence South 88° 36' 10" West a distance of 191.07 feet; Thence South 65° 13'29" West a distance of 33.87 feet; Thence North 85° 36' 05" West a distance of 92.54 feet; • Thence North 72° 09' 38" West a distance of 126.38 feet to an angle point on the east line of said condominium and the terminus of the herein described line, said angle point being North 01° 22' 51" East a distance of 526.59 feet from the southwest corner of said condominium; and TOGETHER WITH those portions of said Northeast quarter of the Southeast quarter and the West half of said Southwest quarter lying southerly of the southerly right of way margin of the SE Renton - Maple Valley Highway (SR 169, P.S.H. #5), easterly of the Plat of Pioneer Place as recorded in Volume 226 of Plats, Pages 51-54, said records and westerly of the following described line: Commencing at the intersection of the west line of said West half with said southerly margin; Thence South 75° 42' 00" East along said margin 390.27 feet to the True Point of Beginning of the herein described line; Thence South 13° 01' 15" West a distance of 1010.22 feet; Thence North 75° 42' 00" West a distance of 139.00 feet; Aqua Barn RMH Zoning Page 1 of 2 4/14/2008 • Thence South 13° 42' 00" West a distance of 274.24 feet, to the west line 1111 of said subdivision and the terminus of the herein described line; and Except that portion of said Northeast quarter lying southerly of the following described line: Beginning at the southeast corner of said subdivision, from which the southwest corner bears North 89° 22' 8" West; Thence North 26° 48' 31" East a distance of 76.62 feet; Thence North 40° 14'11" East a distance of 120.87 feet; Thence North 56° 4' 13" East a distance of 156.83 feet; Thence North 60° 21' 35" East a distance of 46.95 feet to an intersection with the west line of Tract J of said Pioneer Place and the terminus of the herein described line. Aqua Barn RMH Zoning Page 2 of 2 4/14/2008 1 \•\��) �'i,,N7 ® ' I,�I,, 1 \J;y -i.. J.L.`1_./.:..i--i.1_� ,,.4,56.. 0 _4,7' -7,21 _._, 1 - ---...r ,' — --.--L---II --f'� St.„.'•.:•�;�, «,1,.•v+�,,,� Vii., • 6 l � � t � „r S a �, _.._.._.._.._.I ;,.yl ►rte I ' .^,rs7y lrp'd,„M1k„L� .,..a. .y,w: ?<� ,:�!i�,i � , /"-- T _ '"'�— :,!. - t ,. �,,. f I — ---I--1-- !„,''!"! i'; 1I 8th – .,.tn..• , ♦ > .�., -.. _C,.' -tet' — _ - �,.n , �:,q � —j I I I tom' f.. ;, L g.7'' am, �:''",,,f;;;;;;0,1•:.;1';;,,,' I / r I`'o.: ' SE�;� I .!,-..=/' t - i 11;6,�,:,• 1• l'li�';Ij6ii ni llNry9�'- 1_.._.._.- ; j OQ 1 y'.. •:� �� Ili ..ie. -:A t, , t� \ w Q, , ,,. . : ,.,,M,,I4.4:iii. - 4, I' .�.. , / C.,..., if+l�fia'ai Yi I i _.., • ti"-i--•• 1. 'roy., ,..' •St. `}, C -n;f_1 ......—___ , r a. - .. `i,l' - h ty '•' i t,. 4"10" ' 'u'04, r. t 1._ _,e. I� 0'' / /\, t\i' 1 if', '.^`\-r .!�;� � `- ,,.: _ I --- ��' I i I rye' r��, rl •r, tJ .�'. • M« '' Ft�w-Y b'A, 1 ,, a+ ' iL. ti ! J r ii--- \,,, \\-, ‘,...._._, _,,_,. __ _, _, , , r 1 - i I IF\ i.i.' '.',I7,1/7 ,.,r i r.. nj`o ••�.. ;..-._...-......._, „: i i dl"•rb - .•�., Ji�_ _`i____ _...I 't - n= '''''N,.- `Map •�•:� l °J,,., . .,�.i.�„”;i•. I --1 '' 'r' :••0.0.0••••0.3 y;H .�w -I � u \.T -^+. %'. -.:ii iiiiii:: --.. I _ •-,,,, ,,..40:1,,''^rml_1 1 x- `. 4"/;,: •••••••••� . a.'a� �«.« LLQ'• �� •• .u;. ',,,°t.. ,t n it� ,sir:m2+mf°'`'.5:ic�;,_,,. �.n, 1 j :fin w.r, L, ILI ,tai• Ii r• i"M''�;;i;'�'iAa�,i.Yfla'' ..... I i,,r 1 I I /':-m;. ai., i"---; ,J,. ,% t't ,..._ '' �0•••••• 0•• '0 OI-.-._._.-.. •i i•�r:�'L't!r Ni!'i f,'„!;i:�.x,,,..... y ,.. I,. i '\ I ,5 � . ;'N ,�. ".';i Oiii+• Oii G > 0iiiiiii..,=ta•..r..,.,,,•,.`-:..,�.:.” 1 �._I _! ) ,r;', W ----..i_L' 0.••••••• •••••. ,( .._.•iiiiiiiiii•0, aaa.!i'S"V^'•i'"., !:,.n -_\ \ ,,,, ,` _• (`._'...,- r- �s` P•�.!'• �•i:•:O❖0 a •.•••�•••••••�•�•., "•.•w..-.1i';iiG'a^'t'ia ., l: -'. ';::r.__, �-hi^r.-`ry: S_..Jt-_...� ',"",ti�..�.. ••ii. N _ _.••••❖•••••❖•••❖�.... i)�`� I � ,:, _. ^ o th't\; .t !,!,;„.,,,..42,,,,,.. ............ (- "" >S6thSt,v Q;,_.i I f i , �� by:•:•:•:•:•:•y:•:,•:•SE�157t/i St '.,.._;"I t Ny�, L:......�• ..x.:4,:.:44,.... _ , / / \s/ ,! \ i // / \ )-r'!r i SE,1.59th'Pl�/, t ;:r. I –_ , '_. _. __. SE�159th'PI! 1 1 I fl j : j (.. `' ^\ I I f----.'..• th�P 'I _� � ,`/ _ .'.1.:/, 7S A, /.i,j`\ jl,. fir.' (' i } i I ! I Il l ' 1 1 '.Ci--., \ J wS 6" 1 Y ` SE.762ndrPl,. I i = r J :/ , 5. i ff _ New Life Aqua Barn Annexation ��Y o Department of Community Legend RMH Zone & Economic Development ._..� 1••_..i New Life-Aqua Barn Boundary N ��N`C� Alex Pietsch,Administrator April 21,2008 Adriana Johnson,Planning Technician From King County Zoning to Renton RMH 0 300 600 1,200 :2••.:K1 RMH-Residential Manufactured Homes ciiiiiimmie Feet Sued by Qty er Rednton(c)2 nti the oily of0 1:12,000 _II nghts reserved t o warranties e any sort. mg but not lunrted to accuracy.fitness or File Name:H:\EDNSP\GIS ro ects\new life barn\ rchanlabillty.accompany this product. p i mxdslnew_life_aqua_barn_from_KC_zoning_to_ MH.mxd • CITY OF RENTON, WASHINGTON ORDINANCE NO. AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF RENTON, WASHINGTON ESTABLISHING THE ZONING CLASSIFICATION OF CERTAIN PROPERTY ANNEXED WITHIN THE CITY OF RENTON FROM KING COUNTY ZONING TO R-14 (RESIDENTIAL 14; FOURTEEN DWELLING UNITS PER NET ACRE) (COMPREHENSIVE PLAN AMENDMENT, CPA#2007-M-03). WHEREAS, under Section 4.2.020 of Chapter 2, Land Use Districts, of Title IV (Development Regulations) of Ordinance No. 4260 entitled "Code of General Ordinances of the City of Renton, Washington," as amended, and the maps and reports adopted in conjunction therewith, the property hereinbelow described has not been zoned in the City of Renton; and WHEREAS, said property owners petitioned the City of Renton for annexation and • concurrent rezoning, which said annexation having previously been approved and the property annexed to the City of Renton, and the City having held two public hearings to consider this zoning application, the first hearing being held on August 1, 2007 and the second hearing being held on October 1, 2007, and said zoning request being in confouiiity with the City's Comprehensive Plan, as amended, and the City Council 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: SECTION I. The following described property in the City of Renton is hereby zoned to R-14 as herein below specified. The annual ordinance adopting the maps of the City's zoning ordinance is hereby amended to evidence said rezoning and the CED Administrator is • 1 ORDINANCE NO. • hereby authorized and directed to change the maps of the zoning ordinance, as amended, to evidence said rezoning, to wit: See Exhibit "A" attached hereto and made a part hereof as if fully set forth herein. [Said properties, approximately 69.35 acres, including those portions Section 22, and the Southwest quarter of section 23, both in Township 23 North, Range 5 East, W.M., in the City of Renton, King County, Washington.] SECTION II. 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.+:+:. 2 • • EXHIBIT A • R-14 ZONE LEGAL DESCRIPTION Those portions Section 22, and the Southwest quarter of Section 23, both in Township 23 North, Range 5 East, W.M., in the City of Renton, King County, Washington, more particularly described as follows: That portion of Lot J of King County Lot Line Adjustment No. L01L0126, as recorded under King County Recording No. 20010730900003, lying northerly of the following described line: Commencing at the Southwest corner of said Lot J; Thence North 32° 49' 04" West along the west line thereof, a distance of 956.24 feet to an angle point in said west line; Thence continuing along said west line, North 01° 17' 33" East a distance of 530.18 feet to the True Point of Beginning of the herein described line; Thence South 89° 17' 47" East a distance of 149.84 feet; Thence South 73° 16' 58" East a distance of 297.02 feet; Thence South 62° 57' 05" East a distance of 6.76 feet to a point on a curve • to the left, having a radius of 133.00 feet and the center of which bears North 50° 41' 22" East; Thence southeasterly along the arc of said curve a distance of 34.67 feet; Thence South 54° 14' 45" East a distance of 58.83 feet to a point on a curve to the left, having a radius of 80.00 feet; Thence easterly along the arc of said curve a distance of 69.14 feet; The South 62° 57' 05" East a distance of 106.37 feet to a point on the northeasterly line of said Lot J and the terminus of said line; TOGETHER WITH Tract A of Elliott Farm, recorded in Volume 180 of Plats, Pages 4— 15, records of King County, as corrected by affidavit of correction of plat recorded under King County Recording No. 9810121777, except any portion thereof conveyed to King County for road purposes; and TOGETHER WITH Parcel "A" of King County Boundary Line Adjustment No. L95L0113, as recorded under King County Recording No. 9510179023; and Aqua Barn R-14 Zoning Page 1 of 3 4/14/2008 110 TOGETHER WITH Lots 1 & 2 of King County Short Plat No. L99S3019, as recorded 1111 under King County Recording No. 20010831900002; and TOGETHER WITH that portion of the West half of said Southwest quarter lying southerly of the southerly right of way margin of SE Renton - Maple Valley Highway (SR 169, P.S.H. #5), northerly of the following described line: Commencing at the southwest corner of said subdivision; Thence North 02° 08' 49" East, along the west line thereof, a distance of 513.13 feet to the True Point of Beginning of the herein described line; Thence North 18° 42' 45" East a distance of 112.66 feet; Thence North 57° 43' 27" East a distance of 53.17 feet; Thence North 10° 47' 04" East a distance of 101.15 feet; Thence North 11° 30' 50" East a distance of 130.38 feet; Thence North 33° 10' 43" East a distance of 146.99 feet; Thence North 54° 38' 15" East a distance of 89.93 feet; • Thence North 76° 30' 15" East a distance of 60.83 feet; Thence North 88° 18' 55" East a distance of 80.47 feet; Thence South 77° 28' 16" East a distance of 152.68 feet; Thence South 40° 25' 34" East a distance of 167.83 feet; Thence South 32° 16' 31" East a distance of 53.17 feet; Thence South 11° 58' 34" East a distance of 79.81 feet; Thence South 50° 44' 26" East a distance of 317.77 feet; Thence North 50° 51' 21" East a distance of 131.17 feet; Thence North 78° 46' 33"East a distance of 243.48 feet to an intersection with the east line of said subdivision and the terminus of the herein described line; and, Aqua Barn R-14 Zoning Page 2 of 3 4/14/2008 • easterly of the following described line: • Commencing at the intersection of the west line of said subdivision with said southerly margin; Thence South 75° 42' 00"East along said margin 390.27 feet to the True Point of Beginning of the herein described line; Thence South 13° 1' 15" West a distance of 1010.22 feet; Thence North 75° 42' 00"West a distance of 139.00 feet; Thence South 13° 42' 00" West a distance of 274.24 feet, to the west line of said subdivision and the terminus of the herein described line. Aqua Barn R-14 Zoning Page 3 of 3 4/14/2008 • N` I y (---r7140%, I, / I ;\\" I. :- .I( r11SE :i— 1_ .....__ ._ ... - .k 11 —* f'.,: /,N,7 I ' ! 1)' -J J.....I.IT: I +'4sf/f �1� _ __ -__.-N,q _ I'�i-�y 1� d , Lill C 1 \ S s ! IV,. I .._ _ }i1 _ _ L Pi I „ r—A- 1 )14VlT 'I. - 1 �146th1?11,,,,,,,D,.•,.(7„_: .17....a--'it- r;, LI 1 i I N� r r Ia :< 9"- �... ~"'pry _ - '' 'r'` ,�;;._ - -iL<+ 8ft --v' ---l-�r' - -- E' --__..1 1..1 i s.�- 'i'''' ,i,r'„,. `' J? i --.... i,.I - dly,n. r` j. ;r 5 ' ,. .._.' TVs- t i,.. .' • tz I_ i 4•:+:4•:•:.:•:.. ..`4.4,-, ,,_:-1.:-.%,„..kI .r7�'' i I it s r'' ' _�` i I! \.I,'__, '�\��.��' ......�•i♦ii'Oiii♦iii�,,r4.�•••••••..�� ,,-.;+yd.,a,� __. � '�';.',,''!ti•.;>`,,. , .:L,- - �,\�+;' r �••••••••♦•••♦••••••� '�::i•OOiii•Oiiii•••ii P♦ ?”`F.iyi ...'::,::r., i I' .•: / i�•.••••♦••♦••♦•♦�••i;.ti�w�ii�0iiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiii0`r i ' i4,. ..' '+O; i P- j • _ .` '• .1 i •�ii•�`:?,, .!ii4..♦• 14.:..•••••••••••••:+ i�ii�iiii��♦�L:,,,., {--. ,..:,", �'�� `. r1 7. II • i •iu , • ' ytO •� ?';'r .: L__j______1L— ' j ••iiiiii•♦i•••....-, . :., - 1. , \. . .,.. ' . ii� iiiiiiiii \ --'-',: ,' <'',.:.,-:. _. `7 :u i--'_(:. •I Q` ♦• `'•+:•�•♦:O•••••••••••j••.. •• Gia;i;'tL`= e" i dy.. L `:i ,.\� •��(•�iiiiiiii♦i ii i Q•iii iiiiii�: t;'": :tr v:,rr..: :r; 1. :--':::_.�, ♦ ♦ •♦••••••••♦ ••••••••••• • • \ ----\-------=\-1L-1-;,::.'''",,„...:.-i:.,--)�,{ .�. _.. ///7-7-" '"---1 ....•.............h.....a.•..... 1 - .�-''.�:1! I ;; i ,':,..r� ..,,.:�,,,6':ri!�:hoii;Cd*ai,.��\,:,,„,,: _ .,. \ .--�,., .� •••♦.....••••..•.•ems•••♦••.♦••• - \-.e.-'• h,',-�. I I ,M.h.,",:r.ra � ----_- ,' .,,: •'C„ --t, 'i••`i❖•••••••❖••••O•••O•:**:•••O•••••••••0.00•••••0 _- - :,i ;-. S I ys. p,� ti _ ..•••.•.••••.••.•..•♦•••••••..••... ." E16th'St\'.,;.t. >' i / ' vu / -. ..`, .❖•• :•00000000000••000000000• --''- 57,,,,./0-1,� -,;i, .-y.__' ,'.''•.... i 1-1F�—I '-_�..i - :,7<\ _\� •.♦� ••.....♦.♦...❖.♦.♦.❖:•.♦.❖.•.♦.♦:•.♦.♦I - _ ......3 \.I ,'r ' ; ,,''i - 1.,..,I, I �.K ;"(`'\ .'!1;`t. • �� s•.:4+:4�4��.:44:4�0,•i ii• __ l sl I i:, r 1.,:.1 f I , .,�•v. ."-.. i / i-/---1//` 5 15 I ' 0m•.••- moi..., I I r I ! -• �.:—.I f 1 fi.:' \, / ,,-1 1- , 1 ,.SE,159tine/-, , L_ ...-. _ _:..SEk159th>P/ 1 I 1 I i� (�` \ ,,i-:,' 'i '' I- r �1 ..„ --- ----— -- I rte•._.. ---.._------- L._.._..�.._.._..�..� \\ _ '� r ' 7, ( 1-1 -' Is,., yl 60th Pl`, + , 1. : ;,' ' i r\ ; i vt'r/ v r• ISE __l..._R_ <:-, '. !..._...., lit J.._r '' .. Y','' I' • 76 nthP- : , r II Ii yl 76 ry - o i" \ L I _ I_ i _r :"/,',: it r , ...r r : i New Life Aqua Barn Annexation ��Y o Department of Community Legend R-14 Zone �, ; & Economic Development ._..� 1.._..; New Life-Aqua Barn Boundary N "Milli p Adriana Johnson,Planning Technician From King County Zoning to Renton R-14 0 300 600 1,200 ,;, r••r•. ••♦•• ;;;•;;•; R-14-Residential 14du/acre IIIIIICEimmiume Feet III. P duced by Gty or Penton(c)2008 the Cay of 1:12,000 II rights reserved No warranties of any sort, in9 but not limited to accuracy fitness or 0File Name:H:\EDNS:12,0 ro ects\new_ife •arn\ chamamileo, y.accompany this product mxds\new_life_aqua_barn_from_KC_zoning_to_ -14.mxd • • CITY OF RENTON, WASHINGTON ORDINANCE NO. AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF RENTON, WASHINGTON ESTABLISHING THE ZONING CLASSIFICATION OF CERTAIN PROPERTY ANNEXED WITHIN THE CITY OF RENTON KING COUNTY ZONING TO CA (COMMERCIAL ARTERIAL) (COMPREHENSIVE PLAN AMENDMENT, CPA# 2007-M-03). WHEREAS, under Section 4.2.020 of Chapter 2, Land Use Districts, of Title IV (Development Regulations) of Ordinance No. 4260 entitled "Code of General Ordinances of the City of Renton, Washington," as amended, and the maps and reports adopted in conjunction therewith, the property hereinbelow described has not been zoned in the City of Renton; and WHEREAS, said property owners petitioned the City of Renton for annexation and concurrent rezoning, which said annexation having previously been approved and the property • annexed to the City of Renton, and the City having held two public hearings to consider this zoning application, the first hearing being held on August 1, 2007 and the second hearing being held on October 1, 2007, and said zoning request being in conformity with the City's Comprehensive Plan, as amended, and the City Council 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: SECTION I. The following described property in the City of Renton is hereby zoned to CA as herein below specified. The annual ordinance adopting the maps of the City's zoning ordinance is hereby amended to evidence said rezoning and the CED Administrator is 110 1 ORDINANCE NO. • hereby authorized and directed to change the maps of the zoning ordinance, as amended, to evidence said rezoning, to wit: See Exhibit "A" attached hereto and made a part hereof as if fully set forth herein. [Said properties, approximately 3.062 acres, including Lots 3 & 4 of King County Short Plat No. L99S30119, as recorded under King County Recording No. 20010831900002, in the Northeast quarter of the Southwest quarter of Section 23, Township 23 North, Range 5 East, W.M., in the City of Renton, King County, Washington.] SECTION II. 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.+:+:. • 2 I EXHIBIT A • CA ZONE LEGAL DESCRIPTION Lots 3 & 4 of King County Short Plat No. L99S3019, as recorded under King County Recording No. 20010831900002, in the Northeast quarter of the Southwest quarter of Section 23, Township 23 North, Range 5 East, W.M., in the City of Renton, King County, Washington. • Aqua Barn CA Zoning Page 1 of 1 4/14/2008 • L ! " •.: �/ I �l/ ' -` SE '.._. J___._ J I� g71 ...j St :.,..1 / rkh"✓ II � Li r SB 146th Pl. . a -k S! 1 f = ._ 1, - -'t I 14a `- )..... S t ,,,," ,:.-1: , .-„ i 7„ , Qi i �� u.. i .,,...,�yirylly i,,,..i '` �fY"\r J \(r` :{ r i :,, ,5-w";` V I 4.. may:; i I� _ , i ,;:� l,?J:'-moi'i' . '.�� ' 'I I 1, I Re ,.teraj 1 5 I ..r I �. .., 7;;;;,',.,,,,,j, , ,i 1'r� .apse; �.,�„ r ' ` I d I ''''''1: r. ,,,,,i,<7, `,` -^Y:/, -r^?,. ! �j _4).:; '�..1 W•iiii�� :"s,,:;, __ _ I I (" ,I. ii,,,,11:::.1..,;;,,,,,;?1,1,‘ ,r; ;..._:":,i;„;,\ i_ .J _ • --T I54:1N. I \','-i,.1.;;;...i.-.'.1• .„'..\....'": ' ,,;_: a�• i ht ti _'�_ • / - - SE/56th-St, !I :e�-. I: I I f- Y - (.1\\I_'i Iv , \::-• I kSE,425 hist ,.:_, ,-II, -1,7/t`.� \I..�, 1711 I/-1-1///11-1 , SE 1: 8,. i',',. J ji.i;..L..:,---;.:-=- i i f iii sf I I /\ i.• +fes '�....._.- i l / ; I T i 1 PI( ,t I II —�' SEa1 rhiP/l i I i SEn_-71 .—.�=� _ ---- 59t � I i'` S >. tip 0. i' L.-L.•I:thy . 1 �• -y2. ,,,,• .,- rs f / - A' /, /'--rl. \\r F''163r / r li - SES _ 1 / j k : 1 ; 1 VI ._; ;fr n i I 'St N 1 ^: kr. '"I New Life Aqua Barn Annexation ,,v, o Department of Community Legend CA Zone n; & Economic Development ._..� i.._..i New Life-Aqua Barn Boundary N 1. Nzo� Alex Pietsch,Administrator April 21,2008 Adriana Johnson,Planning Technician From King County Zoning to Renton CA 0 300 600 1,200 •vvvw. CA-Commercial Arterial 'Feet by Cre er Renton(c)r008.the Qty s 1:12,000 -I rights rty UI Re NO warranties of any Sortny but not Ii,ntleU to accuracy.fitness or File Name:H\EDNSP\GISprojects\newlifearn\ Sect rcheirtablliry.accornuany this nrotlnct. mxds\new_life_aqua_barn_from_KC_zoning_to_CA.mxd CITY OF RENTON COUNCIL AGENDA BILL t_.....7 .0 1/ AI#: ! 6 , •Submitting Data: For Agenda of: April 28, 2008 Dept/Div/Board.. Community Services Dept. Staff Contact Terry Higashiyama, X6606 Agenda Status Bonnie Rerecich, X6624 Consent Subject: Public Hearing.. Correspondence.. Revision of Park Rules and Regulations Ordinance Resolution X Old Business Exhibits: New Business - Issue Paper Study Sessions - Resolution with Exhibit A,proposed Park Rules and Information Regulations - Old Park Rules and Regulations - Approval memorandum from City Attorney's office Recommended Action:4 Approvals: Refer to Community Services Committee Legal Dept X Finance Dept Other Fiscal Impact: Expenditure Required... None Transfer/Amendment Amount Budgeted Revenue Generated Total Project Budget City Share Total Project.. SUMMARY OF ACTION: The Parks Commission and Community Services Department recommend that the current Park Rules and Regulations be revised, in order to 1) facilitate community requests in a timely manner; 2) restrict domestic animals at the Maplewood Golf Course; 3) eliminate confusion by combining similar sections; 4) correct the location of the sections entitled "Conduct" and "Lost Property"by moving them from Article C, Civil Violations, to Article B, Criminal Violations, and add an"Additional Violations" section under Article B; 5) revise the penalties sections, by referring to City Code instead of stating the specific penalties; 6) correct references to the "Park Board"to read "Parks Commission;" and 7)make other formatting and minor language revisions as necessary, and to be in accordance with City Code. STAFF RECOMMENDATION: SPass resolution that will authorize the adoption of revised Park Rules and Regulations. C:\Documents and Settings\brerechich\Local Settings\Temp\agenda bill Park Rules.doc KY 'e COMMUNITY SERVICES DEPARTMENT IIII . . En, ... 1 1- ..,, N�O . MEMORANDUM DATE: April 18, 2008 TO: Terri Briere, Community Services Committee Chair Members of the Renton City Council VIA: Denis Law,Mayor FROM: TerryHi ashi ama"CommunitYServices Administrator STAFF CONTACT: Bonnie Rerecich, Community Resource& Funding Manager(X6624) SUBJECT: Recommendation to Adopt Revised Park Rules and Regulations ISSUE Should the City Council adopt a Resolution authorizing revisions to the Park Rules and Regulations,as recommended by the Parks Commission and the Community Services Department? ATTACHMENTS 1. Draft resolution,with Exhibit A, proposed Park Rules and Regulations; due to the IIIformatting and layout changes, it was felt that a strike-though document would be difficult to read. The specific changes are therefore described below. 2. OId Park Rules and Regulations 3. Approval memoranda from City Attorney's Office 4. Draft agenda bill BACKGROUND Periodically, a review to update the Park Rules and Regulations is necessary to ensure that the rules are relevant and effective. The Parks Commission has the authority under RMC 2-9-6 to propose such revisions to the City Council. A Community Service Department group,including staff members from Parks, Recreation,Facilities, Library, Human Services,and Maplewood Golf Course, in addition to Parks Commission members and Police Department staff, reviewed the current rules and identified issues that were not being met or were out-of-date. This review process,which included the City Attorney's Office, found several issues that needed to be addressed. The revisions made in response to the group's recommendations are described below. PROPOSED CHANGES Significant changes,other than formatting, and clarifying/simplifying the text, were made as follows: S .• Customer service has been compromised due to how the Park Rules and Regulations often cite the Parks Commission as the authorized designee to grant permission for certain events or activities. Staff could not assist the public with such requests for authorization, because they did not have the authority to do so. Renton City Council April I I,2008 p.2 Where appropriate,these rules have been revised, with the authority given to the • Administrator or the Administrator's authorized designee rather than the Parks Commission. The above-mentioned changes affect Sections B.1,2,3, 7, 8, and 11,and C.4 and 5, in the proposed Park Rules and Regulations. • The Maplewood Golf Course Manager requested that domestic animals be restricted at the golf course. Section B.11,"Domestic Animals in Parks,"reflects this change. ■ Section B.14,"Littering,"and the former Section B.15, "Refuse Disposal,"were identified as like issues. Therefore, these sections were combined in Section B.14, "Littering,"and the language was simplified. ■ "Noise Restrictions"and "Amplification Devices" were in two different sections, which was confusing. The"Amplification Devices"section was eliminated and its content was added to Section B.15, "Noise Restrictions." ■ Two sections formerly listed under Civil Violations, "Conduct"and "Lost Property,"were moved to Article B, Criminal Violations, as Sections 16 and 17, per the recommendation of the City Attorney's office. In addition,Section B.16, "Conduct,"was revised to reflect City Code language. • Section B.18,"Additional Violations,"was added under Article B,"Criminal Violations,"to cover any additional criminal laws that may be violated. • Per the City Attorney's recommendation,a new"Penalties"section was created, in • Article D,which cites the relevant sections of the Renton Municipal Code. The statement of penalties was formerly noted at the beginning of Article B, "Criminal Violations,"and Article C, "Civil Violations."Citing the Renton Municipal Code penalties sections will eliminate the need to revise the penalties section of the Park Rules and Regulations, whenever the law is revised. • Several references to the "Park Board"were made throughout the document,and these were corrected to read"Parks Commission." RECOMMENDATION On November 20,2007,the Parks Commission recommended that the revised Park Rules and Regulations be adopted by the City of Renton. In addition,the Community Services Department recommends adoption of a Resolution authorizing the adoption of the revised Park Rules and Regulations. cc: Jay Covington, Leslie Betlach Enc. Draft Resolution with proposed Park Rules and Regulations Old Park Rules and Regulations Approval memoranda from City Attorney's Office Draft agenda bill • • CITY OF RENTON, WASHINGTON RESOLUTION NO. A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY OF RENTON, WASHINGTON, ADOPTING AMENDMENTS TO THE ARK RULES AND REGULATIONS. a, ,ill, '1' . WHEREAS, the Parks Commission has establi$[[h?c,cer?tain rules and regulations for the l€it111.10 t1' "'11'. management of the properties under its supervision entitled"Park1Rules and Regulations;" and ,e: ii!...` iti1 WHEREAS,representatives from the Community Services D'ep*tment of the City of iiilfi, '11111111, Renton, including staff members from Parks, Recreation, Facilities, Library,€Tu 1an Services and Maplewood Golf Course, in addi ionto Parks Commission members, Police Department 1g113i'k1'4St'y'r�. `•i1 s 7ii'. staff, and the City Attorney's office, were:asked;to.review tl'e,current Park Rules and { Iit 3c 91 4£ i,•,k i'Ri ii Regulations and identifyrareas where revision.was necessary; and; $' • lir 'ti,ih. ,lii, q;+ ,. - ...z. ritip ,tii WHEREAS, these proposed+°revisions are;included in th attached Exhibit A, Park Rules ilfitxA7.911}a. ! Ili, Ali I li ,i, and Regulations•;:and Ili, 44 ! 1 111111"1"111111111., lP1iiiiik ' Etjijj€:L> �� t11 1at�� ltti'i;;'y �:,� ' 1 WHEREAS,the.pcopoed revisions mclude thelfollowing changes: 1) Authority is now 111 '4[1+, X111 , , given to the Oommunity Services Administrator or his/her authorized designee to grant lis + 3i}y permission for certain events or Ilk 9111t, domestic animals are restricted at the Maplewood tli ll'Ig ill `�i , Golf Course; 3) sections'with nearidentical subjects were combined, to eliminate confusion; 4) 411 ' 111'1.111 . 11 the sections entitled "Conduet'land"Lost Property," formerly listed under Article C, Civil Violations, were moved to Article B, Criminal Violations, as Sections 16 and 17, and an "Additional Violations" section was also added to Article B; 5) the Penalties sections are reorganized and reworded to refer to the relevant City Code sections; 6) references to the "Park Board" are corrected to read "Parks Commission;" and 7) other formatting and minor language 0 revisions are made as necessary, and to be in accordance with City Code; and RESOLUTION NO. WHEREAS, at its November 20, 2007 meeting, the Parks Commission recommended • that the revised Park Rules and Regulations be adopted by the City of Renton; and WHEREAS,the City Council has reviewed these proposed amendments to the Park Rules and Regulations; 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 proposed amendments to the Park Rules and Regulations, as set forth in Exhibit A, Park Rules and Regulations, are approved, authorized and adopted by the Renton City Council. SECTION III. A copy of the revised Park Rules and Regulations shall be filed with the City Clerk. 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. • 2 RESOLUTION NO. EXHIBIT A • Park Rules and Regulations Authorized by Ordinance No. 4419. Amended by Ordinance No.5155. Amended from Ordinance No. 4319 and No. 1476. Resolution No. 3555 adopted March 18, 2002; Resolution No. 3751 adopted May 9, 2005. A. General Provisions Section 1. Priority of Use Programs and activities scheduled by the Community Services Department will have first priority for use of parks and facilities. Otherwise, use of parks and facilities will be on a"first-come first- served"basis. Section 2. Designee of Administrator The term"Administrator"shall mean the Community Services Administrator. The authority granted herein to the Administrator is granted to the Administrator's designee. Section 3. Exemptions from Rules and Regulations • Rules and Regulations related to possession of Weapons & Fireworks (Section B3) do not apply to law enforcement personnel or to persons performing assigned duties as authorized by the Administrator. • Rules and Regulations related to Overweight Vehicles in Parks (Section B6) do not apply to City of Renton maintenance vehicles or emergency vehicles. • Rules and Regulations related to Wildlife Harassment g (Section B7) do not apply to wildlife control efforts authorized by the Administrator. • Rules and Regulations related to Domestic Animals in Parks (Section B11) do not apply to law enforcement K-9 officers in the conduct of their official duties or to animals used by independent contractors if required in performance of the contract. • Rules and Regulations related to Parking and Moorage (Section C10) do not apply to park maintenance and law enforcement watercraft. B. Criminal Violations Section 1. Posting of Signs Except as authorized by the Administrator, it is unlawful to use, place or erect any signboard, sign, billboard, bulletin board, post, pole, or device of any kind for advertising in any park; or to attach any notice bill, poster, sign, wire, rod, or cord to any tree, shrub, railing, post, or structure within any park; or to place or erect in any park, a structure of any kind. Section 2. Park Closing Unless otherwise posted, it is unlawful to remain in any park after the posted closing time, except when engaged in activities, programs, or events scheduled by the Community Services Department. • RESOLUTION NO. Section 3. Weapons & Fireworks Except as otherwise permitted by law, it is unlawful for a person to possess in any park, any • fireworks, firecracker, torpedo, explosive, air gun, sword, knife, bow and arrow(s), BB gun, paint ball gun, or slingshot. It is unlawful for any person to possess firearms in any park except as otherwise permitted by law. Section 4. Alcohol It is unlawful toossess or consume alcoholic beverages ages m any park except in areas designated by the Parks Commission. Designated areas are 1) Maplewood Golf Course, when such beverages are purchased and consumed within the concessionaire's licensed premises; and 2) designated areas of the Renton Community Center and Renton Senior Activity Center facilities as part of a facility rental. All activities shall comply with all Washington State Liquor Control Board requirements. Section 5. Swimming Areas It is unlawful for any person to disobey rules, signs, or lifelines designating swimming areas. Swimming shall be permitted only within these areas. All persons using designated swimming areas shall obey all posted rules and/or the instruction of lifeguards, facility managers, or other authorized Community Services Department employees. No person shall give or transmit a false signal or false alarm of drowning. Section 6. Overweight Vehicles in Parks It is unlawful for any vehicle with a gross weight of over 32,000 pounds or a maximum width of over 102 inches to use the road in any park of the city except for places set apart for such purposes by the Parks Commission and designated by signs. Section 7. Wildlife Feeding & Harassment It is unlawful in any manner to tease, annoy, disturb, molest, catch, injure or kill, throw any stone or missile of any kind at or strike with any stick or weapon, any animal, bird, or fowl in any manner; or to feed any fowl or bird in any park. Section 8. Concessions, Sales, Commercial Activities, Distribution & Posting Pamphlets It is unlawful to perform the following activities in a park area unless authorized in writing by the Administrator: • Operating a fixed or mobile concession, or traveling exhibition. • Soliciting, selling, offering for sale, peddling, hawking, or vending any goods or services. • Advertising any goods or services other than the direct handing of written advertising to any one person. • Conducting classes or organized competitions. • Distributing any commercial circular notice, leaflet, pamphlet or printed material of any kind in any Community Services buildings. These facilities are not public forums or limited public forums, and are designated solely to the specific purposes for which they are dedicated. • EXHIBIT A—p. 2 ' RESOLUTION NO. • Entering upon, using or traversing any portion of a park for commercial purpose, IIIincluding fund raising and/or fund solicitation. • Attaching or securing to any vehicle or structure any commercial circular notice, leaflet, pamphlet, or printed material of any kind. Section 9. Water Craft It is unlawful to have, keep, or operate any boat, float, raft, or other water craft in or upon any bay, lake, slough, river or creek, within the limits of any park, or to land the same at any point upon the shores thereof, except at places set apart for such purposes by the Parks Commission and so designated by signs. Section 10. Speeding on Trails It is unlawful for any person to travel on a trail at a speed greater than is reasonable and prudent under the existing conditions or in disregard for actual and potential hazards. In every event, speed shall be so controlled as is necessary to avoid colliding with others using the trail. Travel at speeds in excess of 15 miles per hour on any trail shall constitute in evidence a prima facie presumption that the person violated this section. 1 Section 11. Domestic Animals in Parks It is unlawful to allow or permit any domestic animal, including service animals, to run at large in any park, or enter any swimming area, pond, or fountain therein. A dog brought into or kept in a park area shall be on a leash not more than eight(8) feet in length. Exceptions to leash requirements may be made only for approved scheduled events. • No domestic animals, except for service animals, will be allowed in any park or park • facility that permits swimming. • Any person with a dog or other pet in their possession in any park shall be responsible for both the conduct of the animal and for removal from the park of feces deposited by such animal. The person with the dog or other pet must have in their possession the equipment or supplies required for feces removal. • With permission of the Parks Commission, domestic animals, except for service animals, can be restricted from specific events held at parks or posted areas within a park. • No domestic animals, except for service animals, will be allowed at the Maplewood Golf Course. Section 12. Authority to Remove Persons in Parks It shall be unlawful to stay in a park when directed to leave by an authorized Community Services Department employee or any police officer. Section 13. Vandalism It is unlawful to remove, destroy, mutilate or deface any structure, monument, statue, vase, fountain, wall fence, railing, vehicle, bench, shrub, tree, fern, plant, flower, lighting system, or sprinkling system, or other property lawfully in any park. Section 14. Littering • It is unlawful to throw or deposit any refuse or other material in any park, except in designated receptacles, or to take garbage or refuse generated outside a park to a park for disposal. EXHIBIT A—p. 3 RESOLUTION NO. Section 15. Noise Restrictions All provisions of the Renton Municipal Code, Title 8, Chapter 7, will be strictly enforced, in • particular the following provisions: • It is unlawful to play car stereos, radios, or "boom boxes" - portable audio equipment, such as tape or compact disc players - so loudly they interfere with normal conversations or cause annoying vibrations at a distance of 75 feet or more. • It is unlawful to operate or use any loudspeaker or other mechanical means of amplifying sound in any park without a written permit. Section 16. Conduct It is unlawful to use abusive, vile, profane, or obscene language or threats, which interfere with the reasonable use of a park by the general public. It is unlawful to engage in acts of violence, including but not limited to fights of any kind, or to act in a violent, threatening, intimidating, or hostile manner toward another person whereby such person is put in reasonable fear for his/her safety. Section 17. Lost Property It is unlawful for any person to fail to turn in any property or objects found on any park premises to the park staff or directly to the office of the Police Department, at City Hall, Renton, Washington. The article shall be disposed of in accordance with applicable City and State Laws. Section 18. Additional Violations Any violation of state criminal laws or the criminal laws of the City of Renton constitutes a • violation of these Rules and Regulations. C. Civil Violations Section 1. Activities It is unlawful in any park to practice or play golf, baseball, cricket, soccer, polo, archery, hockey, volleyball, badminton, or other games of like character, or to hurl, propel, or fly any airborne or other missile, including model airplanes, except in places and times set apart for such purposes by the Parks Commission. Section 2. Motorized and Non-motorized Vehicles in Parks Except for wheelchairs, wheeled prosthetics, or other wheeled vehicles being used by a disabled person, it is unlawful to ride, park, or drive any bicycle, tricycle, motorcycle, motor vehicle, skateboard, rollerbiades, roller-skates, land sailing device, scooter, unicycle, or any other wheeled or similar vehicle, horse or pony on, over, or through any park designated by signage. It is unlawful to use the Renton Skate Park at Liberty Park with any device other than a skateboard or in-line skates. Section 3. Vehicle Repair in Parks Except when authorized in writing by the Administrator, it is unlawful, to operate, repair or service any motor vehicle or motorcycle on park property for the purpose of testing, servicing, or repairing. • Section 4. Racing in Parks LX1-11E11 A —p. 4 RESOLUTION NO. It is unlawful to engage in, conduct, or hold any trials or competitions for speed, endurance or • hill climbing involving any vehicle, watercraft, aircraft, or animal in any park without the written permission of the Administrator. Section 5. Camping and Overnight Stays in Parks Except at places set aside for such purposes and so designated by signs, it is unlawful to erect a tent or shelter or to arrange bedding, or both, for the purpose of, or in such a way as will permit remaining overnight. It is also unlawful to park a trailer, camper, or other vehicle for the purpose of remaining overnight, except when authorized by the Administrator. Section 6. Fires and Barbecues It is unlawful to build fires in any park except in areas designed and set aside for such purpose by the Parks Commission. It is unlawful to use any portable barbecue over 36 inches in length or less than 30 inches in height over a combustible surface unless said surface is protected by a heat shield or fireproof device placed under the barbecue. Section 7. Metal Detecting It shall be unlawful to use in any park a device to detect ores or metals, except when authorized in writing by the Administrator. Section 8. Glass Containers in Parks with Swimming Areas It is unlawful to possess any glass container in any portion of the park or park facility that permits swimming. • Section 9. Group Rally/Special Use Permit It is unlawful to conduct any group rally in a park area or designated facilities where such activities will conflict in any way with normal park usage. To avoid conflict, permission for such activities must be obtained in advance from the Administrator. Special permit required: Groups that desire to use City of Renton facilities may be granted Special Use Permits by the department, but will be subject to a user fee. Where appropriate, special conditions of use shall be established by the Community Services Department and so noted on the Special Use Permits. Section 10. Parking and Moorage • It is unlawful to park in an area designated for a particular recreational activity, unless participating in that activity. Vehicles parked in violation of this section may be impounded at the owner's expense. • Boat or watercraft users who are launching at Gene Coulon Memorial Beach Park and who do not have an annual permit must pay the posted fee on a per-use basis. • It is unlawful to moor any boat or watercraft beyond posted time limits. • Watercraft moored in violation of this section may be impounded at the owner's expense. • EXHIBIT A—p. 5 RESOLUTION NO. D. Penalties Section 1. Criminal Violations • Pursuant to RMC 2-9-6C, Park Rules and Regulations identified as criminal violations herein are punishable pursuant to RMC 1-3-1. Section 2. Civil Violations Pursuant to RMC 2-9-6C, Park Rules and Regulations identified as civil violations herein are punishable pursuant to RMC 1-3-2. E. Trail Etiquette All Users: • Obey all trail signs and regulations. • Show courtesy for other trail users at all times. • Keep dogs on leash, maximum length 8 feet(dogs are not allowed in Gene Coulon Memorial Beach Park& Kennydale Beach Park). • When entering or crossing a trail at an uncontrolled point, yield to traffic already on the trail. • No group of trail users shall occupy more than half of the trail nor impede the normal movement of trail users. • Motor vehicles are not allowed on City of Renton trails except by Community Services Department personnel. Pedestrians: 411 • Listen for audible signals and allow faster trail users to pass safely. Bicyclists: • Cyclists are required to wear safety helmets on all trails in King County. • Yield to pedestrians. Always give an audible(voice, bell, horn)warning before passing another trail user. • EXHIBIT A—p. 6 Old Park Rules and Regulations • Park Rules and Regulations Authorized by Ordinance No. 4419. Amended from Ordinance No. 4319 and No. 1476. Resolution #3555 adopted March 2002 Resolution #3751 adopted May 9, 2005 Fine not to exceed $500 and 90 days in city jail Section 1. Posting of Signs It is unlawful to use, place or erect any signboard, sign, billboard, bulletin board, post, pole or device of any kind for advertising in any park; or to attach any notice bill, poster, sign, wire, rod or cord to any tree, shrub, railing, post or structure within any park; or, without written consent of the Park Board, to place or erect in any park, a structure of any kind: provided that the Park Board may permit the erection of temporary directional signs or decorations on occasions of public celebration and picnics. Section 2. Park Closing It is unlawful to remain in any park after the posted closing time, except when engaged in activities that are a part of the recreation program approved by the Park Board. Section 3. Weapons&Fireworks It is unlawful for any person except duly authorized law enforcement personnel to possess any firearm, • fireworks, firecracker,torpedo, explosive, air gun, sword, knife, bows and arrows, BB gun or slingshot without the appropriate concealed weapon permit in any park until a written permit has been obtained from the Park Board. Section 4. Alcohol It is unlawful to possess or consume alcoholic beverages in any park except in areas designated by the Park Board. Designated areas are 1) Maplewood Golf Course, when such beverages are purchased and consumed within the concessionaire's licensed premises; 2)The Renton Community Center and Renton Senior Activity Center banquet facilities. Section 5. Swimming Areas • It is unlawful for any person to disobey rules, signs or lifelines designating swimming areas. Swimming shall be permitted only within these areas. All persons using designated swimming areas shall obey all posted beach rules and/or the instruction of lifeguards, facility managers, or other Parks Division employees. No person shall give or transmit a false signal or false alarm of drowning. Section 6. Overweight Vehicles in Parks It is unlawful for any vehicle with a gross weight of over 32,000 pounds or a maximum width of over 102 inches to use the road in any park of the city except for places set apart for such purposes by the Park Board and designated by signs. This rule shall not apply to parks maintenance or emergency vehicles. Section 7. Wildlife Feeding&Harassment • Old Park Rules and Regulations It is unlawful in any manner to tease, annoy, disturb, molest, catch, injure or kill,throw any stone or missile • of any kind at or strike with any stick or weapon, any animal, bird, or fowl; or to feed any fowl or bird in any park except in areas designated by the Park Board. Section 8. Concessions.Sales,Commercial Activities&Posting Pamphlets It is unlawful to perform the following activities in a park area unless specifically authorized in writing. Such writing shall include a concession contract with the Park Board: • Operating a fixed or mobile concession, traveling exhibition. • Soliciting, selling, offering for sale, pedaling, hawking, or vending any goods or services. • Advertising any goods or services other than the direct handling of written advertising handed to any one person. • Distributing any commercial circular notice, leaflet, pamphlet or printed material of any kind in any Community Services special purpose buildings(i.e. Renton Community Center, Renton Senior Activity Center, Maplewood Golf Course Clubhouse).These facilities are not public fora or limited public fora and are designated solely to the specific purposes for which they are dedicated. • Entering upon, using or traversing any portion of a park for commercial purpose, including fund raising and/or fund solicitation, without written Park Board permission. Section 9. Water Craft It is unlawful to have, keep or operate any boat, float, raft or other water craft in or upon any bay, lake, slough, river or creek, within the limits of any park, or to land the same at any point upon the shores • thereof bordering upon any park, except at places set apart for such purposes by the Park Board and so designated by signs. Section 10. Speeding on Trails It is unlawful for any person to travel on a trail at a speed greater than is reasonable and prudent under the existing conditions and having regard to actual and potential hazards. In every event, speed shall be so controlled as may be necessary to avoid colliding with others who are complying with the law and using reasonable care.Travel at speeds in excess of 15 miles per hour on a walking/vehicle trail shall constitute in evidence a prima fade presumption that the person violated this section. Section 11. Domestic Animals in Parks It is unlawful to allow or permit any domestic animal, including service animals,to run at large in any park, or enter any swimming area, pond or fountain therein. A dog brought into or kept in a park area shall be on a leash not more than eight(8)feet in length. • No domestic animals will be allowed in any park or park facility which permits swimming and/or boating activities. • Any person with a dog or other pet in their possession in any park shall be responsible for both the conduct of the animal and for removal from the park of feces deposited by such animal.The person with the dog or other pet must have in their possession the equipment required for feces removal. • Domestic animals, except for service animals, can be restricted from specific events held at parks, 11111 upon request and subsequent approval of the Park Board. Old Park Rules and Regulations Section 12. Authority to Remove Persons in Parks • It shall be unlawful to stay in a park when directed to leave by a Renton Park Department employee or any police officer. Section 13. Vandalism It is unlawful to remove, destroy, mutilate or deface any structure, monument, statue, vase, fountain, wall fence, railing, vehicle, bench, shrub,tree, fern, plant, flower, lighting system or sprinkling system or other property lawfully in any park. Section 14. littering It is unlawful to throw any refuse, litter, broken glass, crockery, nails, shrubbery, trimmings,junk or advertising matter in any park or to deposit any such material therein, except in receptacles provided for such purposes. Section 15. Refuse Disposal It is unlawful for any person to deposit any refuse brought from private property in receptacles located in Renton parks or facilities. Nothing in this section is intended to prohibit the disposal of refuse generated from park use such as picnics, barbecues, lunches, etc. Section 16. Noise Restrictions It is unlawful to play car stereos, radios, or"boom boxes" - portable audio equipment, such as tape or compact disc players- so loudly they interfere with normal conversations or cause annoying vibrations at a • distance of 75 feet or more. Fine not to exceed $250 Section 1. Activities It is unlawful in any park to practice or play golf, baseball, cricket, soccer, polo, archery, hockey, volleyball, badminton or other games of like character, or to hurl, propel, or fly any airborne or other missile, including model airplanes, except in places and times set apart for such purposes by the Park Board. Programs and activities scheduled by the Park Department will have first priority for use of parks and facilities. Section 2. Motorized and Non-motorized Vehicles in Parks It is unlawful to ride, park or drive any bicycle, tricycle, motorcycle, motor vehicle, skateboard, rollerblades, roller-skates, land sailing device, scooter, unicycles or any other wheeled or similar vehicle, horse or pony on, over or through any park designated by signage as being restricted from such activities. It is unlawful to use the Renton Skate Park at Liberty Park with any device other than a skateboard or in-line skates. Section 3. Vehicle Repair in Parks It is unlawful, without written permission from the Community Services Administrator or a designated representative,to operate, repair or service any motor vehicle or motorcycle on park property for the purpose of testing, servicing or repairing. • Section 4. Racing in Parks Old Park Rules and Regulations It is unlawful to engage in, conduct or hold any trials or competitions for speed, endurance or hill climbing • involving any vehicle, boat, aircraft, or animal in any park without written permission from the Park Board. Section 5. Camino and Overnight Stays in Parks It is unlawful except at places set aside for such purposes by the Park Board and so designated by signs, to erect a tent or shelter or to arrange bedding, or both, for the purpose of, or in such a way as will permit, remaining overnight. It is also unlawful to park a trailer,camper or other vehicle for the purpose of remaining overnight. Section 6. fires and Barbecues It is unlawful to build any fires in any park except in areas designed and set aside for such purpose by the Park Board. It is unlawful to use any portable barbecue over 36 inches in length or less than 30 inches in height over a combustible surface unless said surface is protected by a heat shield or fireproof device placed under the barbecue. Section 7. Metal Detecting It shall be unlawful to use in any park a device to detect ores or metals without written permission of the Community Services Administrator or the Community Services Administrator's designated representative. Section 8. Glass Containers in Parks with Swimming Areas It is unlawful to possess any glass container in any portion of the park or park facility which permits swimming unless authorized to do so by the Community Services Administrator or the Community Services Administrator's designated representative. • Section 9. Conduct It is unlawful to use abusive language or to conduct oneself in a manner that interferes with the reasonable use a park by the general public. Section 10. Amplification Devices It is unlawful to operate or use any loudspeaker or other mechanical means of amplifying sound in any park without a written permit from the Community Services Administrator or the Community Services Administrator's designated representative. Section 11. Group Rally It is unlawful to conduct any group rally in a park area or designated facilities where such activities will conflict in any way with normal park usage.To avoid conflict, permission for such activities must be obtained in advance from the Community Services Administrator or the Community Services Administrator's designated representative. Section 12. Special Use Permit Special permit required. Groups which desire to use City of Renton facilities may be granted special use permits by the department but will be subject to a user fee. Where appropriate, special conditions of use shall be established by the department and so noted on the special use permits. Section 13. Lost Property 11111 Old Park Rules and Regulations • It is unlawful for any person to fail to turn in any property or objects found on any park premises to the park staff or directly to the office of the Police Department, at City Hall, Renton, Washington. The article shall be disposed of in accordance with applicable City and State Laws. Section 14 Parking and Moorage It is unlawful to park in an area designated for a particular recreational activity, unless participating in that activity and only while participating in that activity. Vehicles parked in contravention of this section may be impounded at owner's expense. Boats or watercraft launching at Gene Coulon Memorial Beach Park must pay posted fee. It is unlawful to moor any boat or watercraft beyond posted time limits in areas so designated. It shall be unlawful to moor a watercraft in contravention of this section. Additionally, watercraft moored in contravention of this section may be impounded at the owner's expense. All Users: • Obey all trail signs and regulations. • Show courtesy for other trail users at all times. • Keep dogs on leash, maximum length 8 feet(Dogs are not allowed in Gene Coulon Memorial Beach Park& Kennydale Beach Park). • When entering or crossing a trail at an uncontrolled point, yield to traffic already on the trail. • No group of trail users shall occupy more than half of the trail as to impede the normal movement of trail users. • • Motor vehicles are not allowed on City of Renton trails except by Parks Department personnel. Pedestrians: • Listen for audible signals and help faster trail users pass safely. Bicyclists: • Cyclists are required to wear safety helmets on all trails in King County. • Yield to pedestrians. Always give an audible (voice, bell, horn) warning before passing another trail user. • i CITY OF RENTON COUNCIL AGENDA BILL r I AI#: / a t-- • Submitting Data: For Agenda of: April 28, 2008 Dept/Div/Board.. Police Staff Contact Chief Milosevich Agenda Status Consent X Subject: Public Hearing.. Request to Start specific Lateral Police Officers at "D" Correspondence.. Step Police Officer Wage - Range PC60 Ordinance Resolution Old Business Exhibits: New Business Issue paper Study Sessions Information Recommended Action: Approvals: Council concur Legal Dept Finance Dept Other Fiscal Impact: Expenditure Required... $6,600 Transfer/Amendment Amount Budgeted $6,600 Revenue Generated Total Project Budget City Share Total Project.. SUMMARY OF ACTION: iiiApprove and authorize wages at City of Renton Salary Range PC60 "D" Step for: Lateral Police Officer Michael Toth, retroactive to April 16, 2008 Lateral Police Officer Steven Rice effective May 1, 2008 STAFF RECOMMENDATION: Increase the beginning salaries of Lateral Police Officers Steven Rice and Michael Toth to City of Renton Salary Range PC60 "D" step. • • Rentonnet/agnbill/ bh ti`sY O� POLICE DEPARTMENT 41, MEMORANDUM DATE: April 21, 2008 TO: Marci Palmer, Council President Members of the Renton City Council VIA: Denis Law, Mayor FROM: Kevin Milosevich, Chief of Police SUBJECT: Request to start Lateral Police Officers Steven Rice and Michael Toth's compensation at "D" Step Police Officer wage ISSUE: Should the City Council authorize the starting compensation for Lateral Police Officers Steven Rice and Michael Toth at "D" Step Police Officer's wage? • RECOMMENDATION: Approve and authorize "D" Step Police Officer wage for Lateral Police Officers Steven Rice (effective May 1, 2008) and Michael Toth (retroactive to April 16, 2008). BACKGROUND: The City of Renton has just completed a large annexation, requiring the Police Department to hire 24 additional officers. The Police Department has attracted many well qualified and experienced officers from outside agencies. On occasion, lateral officer candidates possess a lengthy tenure with their department, and have a higher than average amount of experience to contribute to the department. The Chief of Police is authorized to offer new employees a salary of up to "C" step, without council approval. Entry level officers with the Renton Police Department reach "D" step with 3 years of service. Lateral Police Officer Steven Rice has completed all phases of testing and has been offered employment with the Renton Police Department. Mr. Rice is a seven-year veteran of the Seattle Police Department, with experience in a variety of assignments. Prior to Mr. Rice's tenure with the Seattle Police Department, he served six years with the Phoenix Police Department. Mr. Rice is currently earning $5,587 per month. Mr. Rice's compensation at the "C" step ($5,572 including patrol premium and education), would be a decrease in compensation. Mr. Rice's • experience and qualifications merit a higher beginning salary than"C" step. Mr. Rice's compensation at "D" step would be approximately$5,972. With a difference of$400 a month, beginning May 1, 2008, the additional cost to the city will be $3,200, which will not require additional funding. Page 2 of 2 Lateral Police Officer Michael Toth has completed all phases of testing and has been offered employment with the Renton Police Department. Mr. Toth is a four-year veteran of the Seattle Police Department, with experience in a variety of assignments. Prior to Mr. Toth's tenure with the Seattle Police Department, he served four years with the Mineral County Sheriff's Office in Montana. Mr. Toth is currently earning $5,587 per month. Hiring Mr. Toth at"C" step ($5,572 including patrol premium and education), would be a decrease in compensation. Mr. Toth's experience and qualifications merit a higher beginning salary than "C" step. Mr. Toth's compensation at"D" step would be approximately$5,972. With a difference of$400 a month, beginning April 16, 2008, the additional cost to the city will be $3,400, which will not require additional funding. • • h:\pd_admin\ga\agendabills-issue papers\2008 agenda bills\2008-issuepaper-salaries-rice-toth.doc CITY OF RENTON COUNCIL AGENDA BILL / AI : + ` ./ • Submitting Data: Public Works Department For Agenda of: Dept/Div/Board.. Administration April 28, 2008 Staff Contact Gregg Zimmerman (ext. 7311) Agenda Status Consent X Subject: Public Hearing.. Correspondence.. Request to waive past-due water bill in the amount of Ordinance $16,307.72 for the Liberty Park water meter at 1414 Resolution Houser Way North. Old Business Exhibits: New Business Study Sessions Information Recommended Action: Approvals: Legal Dept Refer to Finance Committee Finance Dept X Other Fiscal Impact: Transfer/Amendment 411 Expenditure Required . . Revenue Generated Amount Budgeted Total Project Budget City Share Total Project.. SUMMARY OF ACTION: Old meter reading records from 1987 and 1999 indicated that this water meter located at 1414 Houser Way N. for Liberty Park was not hooked up, and in 2003 the meter was identified as being for circulating water only, resulting in no billing for the meter. Community Services was not billed for this meter due to inaccurate records about the use of the meter. The discrepancy was discovered in January 2008 when a crew report indicated that this meter and service line supplied water to the park The meter had not been billed since 2003. Records indicate that there is a $16,307.72 past-due charge owed for water used for this service. While City Code 8-4-40.B requires that customers be charged for water consumption, issues such as this one, in which errors on the part of the City lead to improper billing, are evaluated on a case by case basis. Correct billing has been charged for this meter since January 2008 when the error was discovered. STAFF RECOMMENDATION: Authorize the Administration to waive the past due bill in the amount of$16,307.72 for the Liberty Park water meter located at 1414 Houser Way N. III C:\DOCUME-1\BWalton\LOCALS—1\Temp\waterbilll.doc CITY OF RENTON COUNCIL AGENDA BILL AI#: / ,, A , • Submitting Data: Public Works Department For Agenda of: Dept/Div/Board.. Administration April 28, 2008 Staff Contact Gregg Zimmerman(ext. 7311) Agenda Status Consent X Subject: Public Hearing.. Correspondence.. X 2008 Budget Amendment Ordinance to hire a Mechanic Ordinance Assistant; and to Add Street Maintenance Manager Resolution grade m26 to the 2008 Budget Index of Positions. Old Business Exhibits: New Business Issue paper Study Sessions Ordinance Information Recommended Action: Approvals: Legal Dept Refer to Finance Committee Finance Dept X Other Fiscal Impact: iiiTransfer/Amendment Expenditure Required . . $37,077 Revenue Amount Budgeted $6,381,575 Generated $37,077 (Fund 501/Equipment Rental) (Source of Funds: Contract payments from Fire District 40) Total Project Budget $6,418,652 (Fund 501) City Share Total Project.. $37,077 SUMMARY OF ACTION: The proposed ordinance amends the 2008 budget for Fund 501, Equipment Rental, in the amount $37,077 by appropriating Fire District 40 Contract payments in order to provide funding to hire a mechanic assistant grade a09 effective July 1, 2008 to assist with the maintenance of the vehicle fleet. The ordinance also adds the street maintenance manager grade m26 position that was previously approved in Ordinance No. 5261, to the 2008 Budget index of positions (no cost). STAFF RECOMMENDATION: Adopt an ordinance amending the 2008 Budget for Fund 501, Equipment Rental, in the amount $37,077 and authorizing adding the previously approved street maintenance manager position to the 2008 Budget index of positions. Approve hiring a mechanic assistant grade a09 effective July 1, 2008 to assist with the maintenance of the vehicle fleet. • H:\Division.s\ADMIN\GREGG\mechanicassistant.doc ( To‘e PUBLIC WORKS DEPARTMENT MEMORANDUM DATE: April 18, 2008 TO: Marcie Palmer, Council President Members of the Renton City Council VIA: )("' Denis Law, Mayor FROM: Gregg Zimmermab 1Zlic Works Administrator STAFF CONTACT: Gregg Zimmerman (x-7311) SUBJECT: 2008 Budget Amendment Ordinance to Hire a Fleet Mechanic Assistant and to Add Street Maintenance Manager to the 2008 Budget Index of Positions ISSUE: Should the City Council adopt an ordinance amending the 2008 budget for Fund 501, 1111 Equipment Rental, in the amount $37,077 to hire a mechanic assistant grade a09 effective July 1, 2008 to assist with the maintenance of the vehicle fleet and to add the previously approved street maintenance manager position to the 2008 Budget index of positions? RECOMMENDATION: Adopt an ordinance amending the 2008 budget for Fund 501, Equipment Rental, in the amount $37,077 and adding the previously approved street maintenance manager position to the 2008 Budget index of positions. Approve hiring a mechanic assistant grade a09 effective Julyl, 2008 to assist with the maintenance of the vehicle fleet. BACKGROUND SUMMARY: The City Council adopted Ordinance No. 5340 amending the 2008 Budget in order to provide funding for costs associated with the contract with Fire District 40 to provide fire and emergency services to the District. This Ordinance provides $3,433,000 of revenue from contract payments from Fire District 40 in 2008. The Fire and Emergency Services Operating Agreement between Renton and Fire District 40 (CAG-08-015) identifies a department overhead rate of 18.6% ($638,538 in 2008) to fund intergovernmental services and other costs. These numbers are pro-rated for 10 months of service, and will be higher in subsequent years. One of the intergovernmental services associated with this Operating Agreement is the • requirement to maintain the Fire District's 18 fleet vehicles. These additional vehicles 4 Page 2. • (vehicle list attached) will cause the work load to exceed the staff resources of the fleet maintenance section. If not addressed, over time this will reduce the section's service level and cause them to fall behind, particularly in the area of preventive maintenance. The long term costs to the City in reducing preventive maintenance of the citywide fleet will far exceed the cost of hiring an additional assistant mechanic who would be assigned preventive maintenance responsibilities. Since the overhead cost associated with the Operating Agreement with Fire District 40 was established for the purpose of funding such interdepartmental service needs, the preferred means of funding this additional assistant mechanic would be to use the Fire District 40 contract payments for this purpose. Therefore the recommendation is to use these funds to pay for hiring this assistant mechanic grade a09 ($37,077 for 6-months, assuming a July 1, 2008 hire date). The annual cost for this position in subsequent years is $74,154 per year. Ordinance No. 5361 amended the City 2008 Budget to provide for costs to serve the Benson Hill Communities annexation area. This Ordinance included funding to upgrade a Street Maintenance Worker III position to a Street Maintenance Manager position in order to provide adequate management of the enlarged street maintenance section. The Street Maintenance Manager position is a new position and is not included in the 2008 Budget index of positions. The proposed ordinance will add this new position to the • 2008 Budget index of positions. There is no cost to the City associated with this item other than the cost previously approved in Ordinance No. 5361. The description of this new position is attached to this agenda bill. cc: David Daniels,Fire Chief Marty Wine,Assistant Chief Administrative Officer Mike Stenhouse,Maintenance Services Division Director Dave Hohn,Fleet Maintenance Manager H:\Division.s\ADMIN\GREGG\mechanicassistan 1.doc • CITY OF RENTON, WASHINGTON ORDINANCE NO. AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF RENTON, WASHINGTON, AMENDING THE 2008 BUDGET BY ALLOCATING CONTRACT PAYMENTS FROM FIRE DISTRICT 40 TO FUND 501, EQUIPMENT RENTAL, AND AUTHORIZING THE ADDITION OF A MECHANIC ASSISTANT; AND TO ADD A POSITION FOR A STREET MAINTENANCE MANAGER TO THE 2008 BUDGET INDEX OF POSITIONS. THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF RENTON, WASHINGTON, DOES ORDAIN AS FOLLOWS: • SECTION 1. Appropriation in Funds 501 is hereby adjusted as follows: Fund 2008 Budget Budget Adjustment 2008 Adjusted Budget 501 $6,381,575 $37,077 $6,418,652 Source of funds: Contract payments from Fire District 40 SECTION 2. A position for a Mechanic Assistant, grade a09, is hereby added to the 2008 budget, effective July 1, 2008. SECTION 3. A position for a Street Maintenance Manager- grade m26, previously approved in Ordinance No. 5261, entitled "2008 Budget Amendment to provide for costs to serve the Benson Hill Communities Annexation Area", is hereby added to the 2008 Budget index of positions. • • ORDINANCE 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 to as to form: Lawrence J. Warren, City Attorney Date of Publication: 2. • :k:)6 7 ifiy,, ;- v bit _=i (1 '/G King County Fire District 40 • District 12.5 square miles located between Renton, Kent and Maple Valley. Formed in April of 1949, the District has an estimated 2005 population of 45,183. Governed by a Board of five (5)elected Commissioners. Personnel-(43 Full-time and 34 Community Volunteer Specialists) Full-time: Fire Chief Deputy Fire Chief Three (3) Battalion Chiefs Six (6) Lieutenants Twenty-One (24) Firefighters Administrative Assistant Secretaries (2) Deputy Fire Marshal Public Educator Mechanic Facilities Manager • Volunteer: Thirty Four(34) Community Volunteer Specialists NOTE: Full-time Firefighters, Lieutenants and Battalion Chiefs are members of IAFF Local 1912. All full time employees(except the Fire Chief) are covered by Civil Service. Facilities Station 41, 14810 SE Petrovitsky Road Station 42, 10810 SE 176 Street Administrative Offices, 10828 SE 176 Street(includes Vehicle Maintenance shop) :Vehicles . . . . . . . . .• Engines: 1990 Darley/Spartan (10 person cab, 1500 GPM) (415) 1993 Darley/Spartan (10 person cab, 1500 GPM) (423) 2003 Spartan/H& W Pumper(432) 2006 Spartan/H& W Pumper(437) Aid Cars: • 1999 Road Rescue Aid Car(425) 2002 Braun Aid Car(1990 converted) (431) I Staff:' 1992 Ford Explorer(Reserve) (420) 4. 1992 Chevrolet Truck(Mechanic)(418) 1993 Dodge Caravan (Reserve)(421) • 2000 Ford Expedition(Battalion Chief)(428) 2000 Dodge Caravan (Chief)(427) 2002 Ford Focus(Deputy Fire Marshal) (429) 2004 Chevrolet Tahoe (Deputy Chief) (434) 2005 Dodge Caravan(Public Education) (435) 2005 Chevrolet Silverado(Maintenance) (436) Specialty: 1942 Antique Seagrave(401) 1984 Chevrolet 4 x 4 Brush truck (80 GPM/200 tank) (424) 1995 Water Buffalo/400 gal (430) Financial 2000 Assessed valuation $1,912,970,705 2001 Assessed valuation $2,125,986,402 2002 Assessed valuation $2,344,498,593 2003 Assessed valuation $2,556,918,507 2004 Assessed valuation $2,744,444,883 2005 Assessed valuation $2,907,263,785 2006 Assessed valuation $3,185,805,034 111 2007 Assessed valuation $3,418,731,643 2000 Operating Budget $3,404,829 2001 Operating Budget $3,656,717 2002 Operating Budget $3,925,050 2003 Operating Budget $4,076,982 2004 Operation Budget $4,505,528 2005 Operating Budget $5,143,656 2006 Operating Budget $5,778,693 2007 Operating Budget $6,018,694 Bonded indebtedness (2003): $4,995,000 Bonded indebtedness (2005): $7,000,000 2000 Calls for Service: TOTAL: 3,157 Fire 654 EMS 1,706 Service B/P 797 2001 Calls for Service TOTAL: 3,140 Fire 591 • EMS 1,709 Service B/P 840 2002 Calls for Service TOTAL 3,124 CITY OF RENTON • CLASS TITLE: STREET MAINTENANCE MANAGER (SM-3071) BASIC FUNCTION: Under the direction of the Maintenance Services Director, plan, direct and supervise a variety of specialized duties in the construction, maintenance and repair of City street systems; plan and coordinate the annual street overlay program; develop, monitor and control assigned budgets; purchase needed materials and equipment; operate a variety of heavy and light vehicles, specialized equipment and hand and power tools; train, assign, supervise and evaluate the work of assigned maintenance services personnel; assure work projects are completed according to code, specifications and timelines. REPRESENTATIVE DUTIES: Plan, schedule, direct and supervise advanced and specialized activities for the inspection, monitoring and maintenance of City street systems, alleys, right-of-ways, bridges, sidewalks, direct street, pavement, sidewalk, curb and gutter construction and the repair, building and painting of guardrails. Oversee planning and coordinating of the annual street overlay program; estimate materials and costs; select contracted services as required. • Establish area's operational objectives, goals and priorities; monitor and measure attainment of objectives, goals and priorities and implement corrective actions in project phases and objectives as necessary. Develop and implement short- and long-range maintenance and preventive maintenance programs; provide technical guidance and training; schedule safety and other training sessions; inspect job sites for safety issues and proper practices; assure proper cleanup of job sites. Train, assign, supervise and evaluate the work of assigned maintenance services personnel; discipline and terminate employees in accordance with City policies and procedures. Estimate materials, time and personnel required to complete work projects; develop schedules, including alternate schedules for inclement weather conditions; enter schedules into computer system. Develop, monitor and control assigned budgets; monitor and control materials purchases and expenditures; evaluate, determine and purchase required work projects and needed equipment and materials. • Inspect work in progress; assure projects are completed in compliance with codes, specifications, standards, work orders and time schedules. Street Maintenance Manager - Continued Page 2 Communicate with the public, contractors and government agencies to receive complaints and suggestions and to provide information and 11111 explanation regarding City streets and solid waste. Coordinate work projects with contractors, government agencies, organizations and the public as required; follow up on issues received from the public, contractors and government agencies as necessary. Train personnel in the proper operation, use and care of a variety of heavy and light equipment, specialized equipment and hand and power tools. Maintain inventory of tools, equipment and supplies on maintenance vehicles; assure vehicle, tools and equipment are maintained in a clean, safe and proper working condition. Prepare and maintain a variety of records and reports related to system operations, inspections, preventive maintenance, performance evaluations, service complaints, inventory levels, bid specifications, work projects and equipment and materials use. Direct maintenance services personnel and participate with large work projects as required; respond to emergencies including system failures, floods and snow storms. • Schedule safety and other training sessions; inspect job sites for safety issues and proper practices; assure proper cleanup of job sites; direct cleanup crews. Plan and coordinate the preparation and conduct of excavations, subgrade preparations, surface treatments, paving, overlays, cold and hot patching and sealing. Perform duties related to flood, snow. ice and vegetation control and removal and the cleanup of hazardous waste spills. Update and revise maps, diagrams and schematics of streets. Perform traffic control duties for co-workers, other City departments and contractors as assigned. Respond to emergency and off-hour situations as required; administer first aid and CPR as needed. Perform related duties as assigned. • + 1 Street Maintenance Manager - Continued Page 3 • KNOWLEDGE AND ABILITIES: KNOWLEDGE OF: • Advanced and specialized construction, maintenance and repair procedures, practices and methods used street and storm water maintenance services. • Principles and practices of supervision and training. • Laws, rules and regulations related to assigned activities. • Applicable City codes and standards. • Interpersonal skills using tact, patience and courtesy. • Operation, use and care of hand and power tools and specialized equipment used in street and storm water maintenance, general construction, maintenance work and groundskeeping. • Layout and operation and activities of street systems and facilities. • Policies and objectives of assigned City systems and activities. • Local topography and geography. • Operation of light and heavy vehicles and equipment. • Health and safety practices and procedures. • Budget development and control. • City purchasing policies and procedures. ABILITY TO: 111 • Perform a variety of advanced and specialized zed duties in the construction. maintenance and repair of City street systems. • Train, supervise and evaluate personnel. • Prioritize and schedule work. • Analyze situations accurately and adopt an effective course of action. • Assure work projects are completed according to code, specifications and time lines. • Read, interpret, apply and explain rules, regulations, policies and procedures. • Maintain current knowledge of technological advances in the field. • Operate and train personnel in the use and care of specialized tools and equipment used in advanced maintenance and repair work. • Understand and follow oral and written directions. • Establish and maintain cooperative and effective working relationships with others. • Work independently with little direction. • Meet schedules and time lines. • Read blueprints, schematics, grade stakes and shop sketches. • Observe health and safety regulations. • Inspect facilities and systems for maintenance and repair needs and fire, safety and health hazards. • Respond to emergency situations and be on an on-call status periodically. • Maintain records and reports related to work performed. • Observe legal and defensive driving practices. Street Maintenance Manager- Continued Page 4 EDUCATION AND EXPERIENCE: Any combination equivalent to: graduation from high school supplemented by college- • level course work in construction technology or related field and five years of increasingly responsible experience within the specific assigned maintenance services area, including at least two years in a supervisory capacity. LICENSES AND OTHER REQUIREMENTS: Valid Washington State driver's license; a valid flagging certificate and first aid certificate issued by an authorized agency. WORKING CONDITIONS: Work is primarily performed in an office environment, but some field work is required as well as response at any time in the event of an emergency. March 2008 • • r CITY OF RENTON COUNCIL AGENDA BILL AI#: I . .. • Submitting Data: Public Works For Agenda of: Dept/Div/Board.. Transportation Systems April 28, 2008 Staff Contact Jim Seitz, Transportation Agenda Status Planning Supervisor, x7246 Consent X Subject: Public Hearing.. Reimbursement-Commitment to Pay Agreement Correspondence.. Between the City of Renton and King County for Ordinance Providing Shoulder Improvements Along Ripley Lane Resolution Old Business Exhibits: New Business X Issue Paper Study Sessions Resolution Information Reimbursement - Commitment to Pay Agreement Recommended Action: Approvals: Legal Dept X Council Concur Finance Dept Fiscal Impact: (fund 317.012602) Expenditure Required... $19,700.00 (estimate) Transfer/Amendment.. iiiAmount Budgeted $482,000.00 Total Project Budget... . $482,000.00 City Share Total Project $ 19,700.00 SUMMARY OF ACTION: The City is currently working on two projects along Ripley Lane adjacent to the Seahawks' development site. The Surface Water Utility Section will be completing storm drainage improvements across Ripley Lane this summer, and a City design team will also be completing landscaping improvements on the west side of Ripley Lane this summer. At this time, the landscaping project will include minor street improvement elements only. These minor street improvements consist of providing a 5-foot gravel shoulder on the west side of Ripley Lane and a 2-foot gravel shoulder on the east side. These improvements will improve the stormwater drainage runoff from the street and enhance the overall appearance of the street. The bus turnaround area will be regraveled as part of the work. King County performs this type of work annually on its county roads and for cities when requested. Therefore, staff recommends contracting with King County to perform the work. STAFF RECOMMENDATION: • Approve the resolution authorizing the Mayor and City Clerk to enter into the Reimbursement- Commitment to Pay Agreement with King County in the amount of$19,700 for shoulder improvements along Ripley Lane. • H:\File Sys\TRP-Transportation Planning&Programming\Ripley Lane\RipleyLaneAgendaBill.doc OC) 1\1 PUBLIC WORKS DEPARTMENT t. •• MEMOR ANDUM DATE: April 28, 2008 TO: Marcie Palmer, Council President Members of the Renton City Council VIA: � Denis Law, Mayor FROM: Gregg Zimmerma�ministrator STAFF CONTACT: Jim Seitz, Transportation Planning Supervisor, x7245 SUBJECT: Reimbursement—Commitment to Pay Agreement Between the City of Renton and King County for Providing Shoulder Improvements Along Ripley Lane ISSUE: Should Council authorize the Mayor and City Clerk to sign the Reimbursement—Commitment • to Pay Agreement between the City of Renton and King County for providing shoulder improvements along Ripley Lane in the amount of$19,700? RECOMMENDATION: Approve the resolution authorizing the Mayor and City Clerk to enter into the Reimbursement— Commitment to Pay Agreement with King County in the amount of$19,700 for shoulder improvements along Ripley Lane. BACKGROUND: The City is currently working on two projects along Ripley Lane adjacent to the Seahawks' development site. The Surface Water Utility Section will be completing storm drainage improvements across Ripley Lane this summer, and a City design team will also be completing landscaping improvements on the west side of Ripley Lane this summer. At this time, the landscaping project will include minor street improvement elements only. These minor street improvements consist of providing a 5-foot gravel shoulder on the west side of Ripley Lane and a 2-foot gravel shoulder on the east side. These improvements will improve the stormwater drainage runoff from the street and enhance the overall appearance of the street. The bus turnaround area will be regraveled as part of the work. Marcie Palmer,Council President Members of the Renton City Council Page 2 of 2 April 28,2008 • Due to the year 2008 workload (including assisting with the Houser Way concrete panel railroad crossing project and performing surface preparation work for the 2008 asphalt overlay program), the City Street Maintenance Section is not available to provide the shoulder improvements along Ripley Lane. King County performs this type of work annually on its county roads and for cities when requested. Therefore, staff recommends contracting with King County to perform the work. cc: Peter Hahn,Deputy Public Works Administrator—Transportation Neil Watts,Development Services Director Jim Seitz,Transportation Planning and Programming Supervisor File 1111 • H:\File Sys\TRP-Transportation Planning&Programming\Ripley Lane\RipleyLanelssuePaper.doc 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 WITH KING COUNTY REGARDING REIMBURSEMENT FOR WORK TO BE DONE ON RIPLEY LANE. WHEREAS, the City has determined that it is necessary to do certain repair work on Ripley Lane, also known as Hazelwood Lane, on both sides of the road from 1400 feet from Lake Washington Boulevard to the trestle in front of the Seahawks practice facility; and WHEREAS, the City does not currently have sufficient forces to do the necessary work; and WHEREAS, King County has agreed to do that work for the City of Renton; and WHEREAS, it is necessary to document the terms and conditions under which such • repair work will be done; 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 an interlocal agreement with King County Department of Transportation Road Services Division entitled "Reimbursement — Commitment to Pay" for certain repair work on both sides of Ripley Lane. PASSED BY THE CITY COUNCIL this day of , 2008. Bonnie I. Walton, City Clerk • 1 RESOLUTION NO. APPROVED BY THE MAYOR this day of , 2008. • Denis Law, Mayor Approved as to form: Lawrence J. Warren, City Attorney RES.1335:4/17/08:scr • • 2 r 1:43 • King County Department of Transportation Road Services Division Reimbursement - Commitment To Pay Date: 4/07/08 Project No.: Problem Description(Details of Request): Pull the shoulder at Hazelwood Lane also known as Ripley Lane and regravel. Location of Problem(Street&corner/address): 1400' from Lk Wa Blvd to trussel in front of Seahawks practice facility (both sides). K.C. Recommended Action: Pull the shoulder at both sides of Hazelwood Lane - 1400' from Lake Washington Blvd to trussel in front of Seahawks practice facility. The shoulder pull work will include grading out the existing dirt, removing it, and placing new gravel. The work limits would be about 2' on the east side of the road and 5' on the west side of the road. Place about 2 inches of additional gravel within the school bus turn-around area(apx. 40'X 100'). This work will be competed within the next 4-6 weeks from April 14, 2008. The cost estimate is approximately$19,700 per the attachment. The City of Renton agrees to pay for actual costs within 30 days after receiving the invoice. Responsible Party: Name: Mayor Denis Law Billing address: (If different) Company: City of Renton Address: 1055 S. Grady Way Renton,WA 98055 Signature: Phone#: 425-430-7248 KC Signature: • ROADS MAINTENANCE PROJECT COST ESTIMATE/REQUEST & CLOSURE NOTICE PROJECT#: TITLE: 2008 City of Renton Shoulder Est. YEAR: 2008 PROGRAM#: LOCATION: Ripley Ln.(Hazelwood Ln.) :START DT: ASAP PLAN. UNIT: 2 TYPE: Overlay Prep ORG: DIV: 2 COMPL DT: TRACKING #: PROJECT DESCRIPTION TASK TASK DESCRIPTION AMOUNT Hazelwood LN also known as Ripley Ln. 242 Shoulder pull 1 Day $14,1,59.40 1400'from Lk Wa Blvd to trusses infront of Seahawks practice facility(both sides) 236 Re-Gravel .5 day $5,536.67 Shoulder pulling for above street Re-gravel shoulder with 5/8 crushed ;Includes all cost of necessary BMP's ESTIMATE ACTUAL LABOR $10,490.20 ER&R EQUIP $5,059.00 VEND EQUIP MATERIALS $4,146.87 CONTRACT TOTAL: $19,696.07 TOTAL: $19,696.07 OPEN SIGNATURES: (as needed) CLOSURE SIGNATURES: (as needed) I CLSR DATE: (name) (date) (name) (date) REOUESTOR: REOUESTOR: AUTHORIZOR: AUTHORIZOR: FIELD PROCESS FIELD PROCESS MAINT PROCESS MAINT PROCESS FINANCE PROCESS FINANCE PROCESS ❑ Entered in database ❑ Copies ❑ Entered in database El Copies III esxls • CITY OF RENTON COUNCIL AGENDA BILL t Al#: 1 d / • Submitting Data: Public Works Department For Agenda of: Dept/Div/Board.. Transportation Systems - Design April 28, 2008 Staff Contact Derek Akesson, Transportation Agenda Status Design Project Manager, x 7243 Consent X Subject: Public Hearing.. Correspondence.. May Creek Bridge at NE 315t Street Replacement— Ordinance Parametrix Design Contract Resolution Old Business Exhibits: New Business X Issue Paper Study Sessions Design Contract Information 2008-2013 TIP#12 Site Map Recommended Action: Approvals: Council Concur Legal Dept X Finance Dept Fiscal Impact: (317.012503) Expenditure Required... $ 63,797 Transfer/Amendment iiiAmount Budgeted $ 100,000 (2008) Revenue Generated Total Project Budget $ 735,000 (2008-2013) City Share Total Project $ 271,809 SUMMARY OF ACTION: The purpose of this contract is to produce a Type, Size and Location (TS&L) Report with a recommendation for repair and/or full replacement of the May Creek Bridge at NE 31st Street. This report will provide Transportation staff with the ability to apply for Bridge Replacement Advisory Committee (BRAC) funding. BRAC applications are to be announced sometime in spring 2008. Once announced, Transportation staff will have 30 to 45 days to apply for BRAC funding. The Washington State Department of Transportation, Highways and Local Programs has requested that all agencies applying for BRAC funding be specific with requests. The TS&L Report produced in this contract will enable Transportation staff to be specific in the BRAC funding request. Currently $100,000 is budgeted (2008-2013 TIP #12) in 2008 to complete this report. The final design phase will begin after the BRAC funding awards are announced in the fall 2008. The final design should be complete in spring 2009, allowing construction to begin in summer 2009, if funding is available. STAFF RECOMMENDATION: Authorize the Mayor and City Clerk to execute the design contract with Parametrix for the May Creek Bridge at NE 31St Street Replacement Project (TIP #12) in the amount of$63,797. IIII H.\Division.s\TRANSPOR.TAT\DESIGN.ENG\PROJECTS\T12503-May Creek Bridge Replacement\City Correspondance\Agenda Bill Parametrix Design Contract 2-TS&L.doc `VY O • ��= ® , PUBLIC WORKS DEPARTMENT •*12'� MEMORANDUM DATE: April 28, 2008 TO: Marcie Palmer, Council President Members of the Renton City Council VIA: 3' Denis Law, Mayor FROM: Gregg ZimmermaiXklic Works Administrator STAFF CONTACT: Derek Akesson, Transportation Design Project Manager (x7243) SUBJECT: May Creek Bridge at NE 31St Street Replacement— Parametrix Design Contract ISSUE: Should the Council authorize the execution of the design contract with Parametrix for the • May Creek Bridge at NE 31St Street Replacement Project (TIP #12) in the amount of$63,797? RECOMMENDATION: Authorize the Mayor and City Clerk to execute the design contract with Parametrix for the May Creek Bridge at NE 31st Street Replacement Project (TIP #12) in the amount of$63,797. BACKGROUND: As a part of the 2003 and 2005 bridge inspections,the May Creek Bridge at NE 315t Street was identified as a replacement candidate by having a deteriorating superstructure and substructure. In 2005, the City applied for a federal grant to help with the replacement costs and was notified by WSDOT Highways and Local Programs that Bridge Replacement Advisory Committee (BRAC) grant applications were suspended until the BRAC funding caught up with the existing bridge replacement demand. In the fall of 2005, structural engineers from Parametrix conducted a load rating on the bridge because of the 2005 bridge inspection results. The load rating indicated that the bridge required weight restrictions. The City posted the bridge as required. In 2005 a survey contract was awarded to Perteet Engineering to begin a base map survey of the area. In late 2006 an engineering design contract was awarded to Parametrix to complete the • geotechnical investigation, environmental permitting, and the structural design of the project. At the time the design contract was awarded it was assumed that the bridge would be replaced rather Marcie Palmer,Council President Members of the Renton City Council Page 2 of 2 April 28,2008 than retrofitted. However, the source of construction funding was not known since BRAC funding was suspended indefinitely. It was assumed that the City would come up with the construction funding or would find another funding source. As a result,the design contract did not include tasks to prepare the project to meet federal requirements for BRAC funding. The additional tasks would add costs to the design contract. Since the status of new BRAC funding was not known, it was assumed that the extra design cost was not feasible. In spring 2007 Highways and Local Programs informed the City that BRAC funding would become available again in 2008. Transportation staff began discussing two options for the project. Option 1 is to spend additional City funds on design to achieve federal standards for BRAC funding. Option 2 is to use remaining design contract funds to determine a retrofit that would improve the condition of the bridge. Concerning Option 1, the Highways and Local Programs Office has stated that the May Creek Bridge is a good candidate for BRAC construction funding based on the 2005 bridge inspection report. This report produced a Bridge Sufficiency Rating of 6 on a scale of 0 to 100. Since that time, the City has contracted with a second engineering consulting firm to seek a second opinion on the condition of the May Creek Bridge. The evaluation performed by this second firm produced a Bridge Sufficiency Rating of 40. There is good justification for this new rating. Additionally, it is more consistent with the deterioration rate noted in past inspections of the bridge. This result further reduces the likelihood of receiving2008 BRAC fundingfor a full bridge replacement. This leads to Option 2. A bridge retrofit would be less expensive than a full bridge replacement. If the City has to provide all the funding from City resources, a bridge retrofit may be something the City can afford. At the same time, a retrofit would still be eligible for BRAC funding. Transportation staff has discussed the above scenarios with Parametrix. The conclusion of these discussions was to produce a Type, Size and Location Report (TS&L) outlining various options ranging from minor repairs to full replacement. Therefore, this contract is for a TS&L report for the bridge. This report will recommend a repair and/or replacement configuration for the bridge. The recommendation will enable Transportation staff to be specific when applying for BRAC funding. Applications for BRAC funding will be announced sometime in spring 2008. Highways & Local Programs has requested agencies to be specific when requesting BRAC funding. cc: Peter Hahn,Deputy PBPW Administrator—Transportation Robert Hanson,Transportation Design Supervisor Derek Akesson,Transportation Design Project Manager Connie Brundage,Transportation Administrative Secretary H:\Division.s\TRANSPOR.TAT\DESIGN.ENG\PROJECTS\T12503-May Creek Bridge Replacement\City Correspondance\Issue Paper Parametrix Design 2- TS&L.doc • Consultant/Address/Telephone 1 Local Agency Parametrix, Inc. Standard Consultant 1231 Fryar Avenue Sumner,WA 98390 Agreement ®Architectural/Engineering Agreement ❑Personal Services Agreement 253-863-5128 Agreement Number Project Title And Work Description May Creek Bridge Replacement Federal Aid Number Agreement Type(Choose one) ❑Lump Sum Lump Sum Amount $ ®Cost Plus Fixed Fee DBE Participation Overhead Progress Payment Rate 185 % ❑Yes ®No Overhead Cost Method Federal ID Number or Social Security Number ❑Actual Cost Do you require a 1099 for IRS? Completion Date 1 ❑Actual Cost Not To Exceed % ❑Yes IN No December 31, 2009 ®Fixed Rate 10 % • Fixed Fee $ 5,279.00 Total Amount Authorized $ 63,797.00 ❑Specific Rates Of Pay ❑Negotiated Hourly Rate Management Reserve Fund $ ❑Provisional Hourly Rate Maximum Amount Payable$ 63,797.00 ❑Cost Per Unit of Work Index of Exhibits Exhibit"A"-Scope of Work Exhibit"B" DDE Pcaticipatiuii !�1 Exhibit"C" Eleetrenie Exehang,of Lulu,l.Vl in and Otha1 Dad Exhibit"D"-Payment(by Agreement Type) Exhibit"B" Consultant Fcc Determination Exhibit"F" Breakdown of Overhead Cost Exhibit`-0" Subcontract Work/Fcc Dctc1111i1ratiuii Exhibit"I"—Payment Upon Termination of Agreement Exhibit"J"—Alleged Consultant Design Error Procedures Exhibit"K"—Consultant Claim Procedures Exhibit"L" Liability In3urancc Increase Exhibit"M"—Certification Documents THIS AGREEMENT,made and entered into this day of , , fa between the Local Agency of ,Washington,hereinafter called the"AGENCY", and the above organization hereinafter called the"CONSULTANT". DOT Form 140-089 EF Page 1 of 8 Revised 6/05 WITNESSETH THAT: WHEREAS,the AGENCY desires to accomplish the above referenced project,and • WHEREAS,the AGENCY does not have sufficient staff to meet the required commitment and therefore deems it advisable and desirable to engage the assistance of a CONSULTANT to provide the necessary services for the PROJECT; and WHEREAS,the CONSULTANT represents that he/she is in compliance with the Washington State Statutes relating to professional registration,if applicable,and has signified a willingness to furnish Consulting services to the AGENCY, NOW THEREFORE,in consideration of the terms,conditions,covenants and performance contained herein,or attached and incorporated and made a part hereof,the parties hereto agree as follows: I General Description of Work The work under this AGREEMENT shall consist of the above described work and services as herein defined and necessary to accomplish the completed work for this PROJECT.The CONSULTANT shall furnish all services,labor,and related equipment necessary to conduct and complete the work as designated elsewhere in this AGREEMENT. II Scope of Work The Scope of Work and projected level of effort required for this PROJECT is detailed in Exhibit"A"attached hereto and by this reference made a part of this AGREEMENT. III General Requirements All aspects of coordination of the work of this AGREEMENT with outside agencies,groups,or individuals shall receive advance approval by the AGENCY.Necessary contacts and meetings with agencies,groups,and/or individuals shall be coordinated through the AGENCY.The CONSULTANT shall attend coordination,progress and presentation meetings with the AGENCY and/or such Federal,State,Community,City or County officials,groups or individuals as may be requested by the AGENCY.The AGENCY will provide the CONSULTANT sufficient notice prior to meetings requiring • CONSULTANT participation.The minimum required hours or days notice shall be agreed to between the AGENCY and the CONSULTANT and shown in Exhibit"A." The CONSULTANT shall prepare a monthly progress report,in a form approved by the AGENCY,which will outline in written and graphical form the various phases and the order of performance of the work in sufficient detail so that the progress of the work can easily be evaluated. The CONSULTANT,and each SUBCONSULTANT,shall not discriminate on the basis of race,color,national origin,or sex in the performance of this contract.The CONSULTANT,and each SUBCONSULTANT,shall carry out applicable requirements of 49 CFR Part 26 in the award and administration of USDOT-assisted contracts.Failure by the CONSULTANT to carry out these requirements is a material breach of this AGREEMENT that may result in the termination of this AGREEMENT. Participation for Disadvantaged Business Enterprises(DBE),if required,per 49 CFR Part 26,or participation of Minority Business Enterprises(MBE),and Women Business Enterprises(WBE),shall be shown on the heading of this AGREEMENT.If D/M/WBE firms are utilized,the amounts authorized to each firm and their certification number will be shown on Exhibit"B"attached hereto and by this reference made a part of this AGREEMENT.If the Prime CONSULTANT is a DBE firm they must comply with the Commercial Useful Function(CUF)regulation outlined in the AGENCY'S"DBE Program Participation Plan".The mandatory DBE participation goals of the AGREEMENT are those established by the WSDOT'S Highway and Local Programs Project Development Engineer in consultation with the AGENCY. All Reports,PS&E materials,and other data furnished to the CONSULTANT by the AGENCY shall be returned.All electronic files,prepared by the CONSULTANT,must meet the requirements as outlined in Exhibit"C." All designs,drawings,specifications,documents,and other work products,including all electronic files,prepared by the CONSULTANT prior to completion or termination of this AGREEMENT are instruments of service for this PROJECT, 411 and are the property of the AGENCY.Reuse by the AGENCY or by others,acting through or on behalf of the AGENCY of any such instruments of service,not occurring as a part of this PROJECT,shall be without liability or legal exposure to the CONSULTANT. Page 2 of 8 f IV Time for Beginning and Completion • The CONSULTANT shall not begin any work under the terms of this AGREEMENT until authorized in writing by the AGENCY. All work under this AGREEMENT shall be completed by the date shown in the heading of this AGREEMENT under completion date. The established completion time shall not be extended because of any delays attributable to the CONSULTANT,but ' may be extended by the AGENCY in the event of a delay attributable to the AGENCY,or because of unavoidable delays caused by an act of GOD or governmental actions or other conditions beyond the control of the CONSULTANT. A prior supplemental agreement issued by the AGENCY is required to extend the established completion time. V Payment Provisions The CONSULTANT shall be paid by the AGENCY for completed work and services rendered under this AGREEMENT as provided in Exhibit"D"attached hereto,and by reference made part of this AGREEMENT. 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.The CONSULTANT shall conform to all applicable portions of 48 CFR Part 31. A post audit may be performed on this AGREEMENT.The need for a post audit will be determined by the State Auditor,WSDOT External Audit Office and/or at the request of the AGENCY'S PROJECT Manager. VI Sub-Contracting The AGENCY permits sub-contracts for those items of work as shown in Exhibit"G"attached hereto and by this reference made part of this AGREEMENT. Compensation for this sub-consultant work shall be based on the cost factors shown on Exhibit"G." • The work of the sub-consultant shall not exceed its maximum amount payable unless a prior written approval has been issued by the AGENCY. All reimbursable direct labor,overhead,direct non-salary costs and fixed fee costs for the sub-consultant shall be substantiated in the same manner as outlined in Section V.All sub-contracts shall contain all applicable provisions of this AGREEMENT. With respect to sub-consultant payment,the CONSULTANT shall comply with all applicable sections of the Prompt Payment laws as set forth in RCW 39.04.250 and RCW 39.76.011. The CONSULTANT shall not sub-contract for the performance of any work under this AGREEMENT without prior written permission of the AGENCY.No permission for sub-contracting shall create,between the AGENCY and sub-contractor,any contract or any other relationship.A DBE certified sub-consultant is required to perform a minimum amount of their sub-contracted agreement that is established by the WSDOT Highways and Local Programs Project Development Engineer in consultation with the AGENCY. VII Employment The CONSULTANT warrants that they have not employed or retained any company or person,other than a bona fide employee working solely for the CONSULTANT,to solicit or secure this contract,and that it has not paid or agreed to pay any company or person,other than a bona fide employee working solely for the CONSULTANT,any fee, commission,percentage,brokerage fee,gift,or any other consideration,contingent upon or resulting from the award or making of this contract.For breach or violation of this warrant,the AGENCY 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 CONSULTANT or other persons while engaged in the performance of any work or services required of the CONSULTANT under this AGREEMENT,shall be considered employees of the • CONSULTANT only and not of the AGENCY,and any and all claims that may arise under any Workmen's Compensation Act on behalf of said employees or other persons while so engaged,and any and all claims made by a Page 3 of 8 third party as a consequence of any act or omission on the part of the CONSULTANT'S employees or other persons 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. The CONSULTANT 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 the contract,in the employ of the United States Department of Transportation,or the STATE,or the AGENCY,except regularly retired employees, without written consent of the public employer of such person. VIII Nondiscrimination During the performance of this contract,the CONSULTANT,for itself,its assignees,and successors in interest agrees to comply with the following laws and regulations: Title VI of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 (42 USC Chapter 21 Subchapter V Section 2000d through 2000d-4a) Federal-aid Highway Act of 1973 (23 USC Chapter 3 Section 324) Rehabilitation Act of 1973 (29 USC Chapter 16 Subchapter V Section 794) Age Discrimination Act of 1975 (42 USC Chapter 76 Section 6101 et seq.) Civil Rights Restoration Act of 1987 (Public Law 100-259) American with Disabilities Act of 1990 • (42 USC Chapter 126 Section 12101 et. seq.) 49 CFR Part 21 23 CFR Part 200 RCW 49.60.180 In relation to Title VI of the Civil Rights Act of 1964,the CONSULTANT is bound by the provisions of Exhibit"H" attached hereto and by this reference made part of this AGREEMENT,and shall include the attached Exhibit"H"in every sub-contract,including procurement of materials and leases of equipment,unless exempt by the Regulations or directives issued pursuant thereto. IX Termination of Agreement The right is reserved by the AGENCY to terminate this AGREEMENT at any time upon ten(10)days written notice to the CONSULTANT. In the event this AGREEMENT is terminated by the AGENCY other than for default on the part of the CONSULTANT,a final payment shall be made to the CONSULTANT as shown in Exhibit"I"for the type of AGREEMENT used. No payment shall be made for any work completed after ten(10)days following receipt by the CONSULTANT of the Notice to Terminate.If the accumulated payment made to the CONSULTANT prior to Notice of Termination exceeds the total amount that would be due when computed as set forth herein above,then no final payment shall be due and the CONSULTANT shall immediately reimburse the AGENCY for any excess paid. If the services of the CONSULTANT are terminated by the AGENCY for default on the part of the CONSULTANT, 41111 the above formula for payment shall not apply. Page 4 of 8 In such an event,the amount to be paid shall be determined by the AGENCY with consideration given to the actual costs incurred by the CONSULTANT 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 a type which is usable to the AGENCY at the time of termination,the cost to the AGENCY 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 AGENCY 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 using the formula set forth above. If it is determined for any reason that the CONSULTANT was not in default or that the CONSULTANT'S failure to perform is without the CONSULTANT'S or it's employee's default or negligence,the termination shall be deemed to be a termination for the convenience of the AGENCY.In such an event,the CONSULTANT would be reimbursed for actual costs in accordance with the termination for other than default clauses listed previously. In the event of the death of any member,partner or officer of the CONSULTANT or any of its supervisory personnel assigned to the PROJECT,or dissolution of the partnership,termination of the corporation,or disaffiliation of the principally involved employee,the surviving members of the CONSULTANT hereby agree to complete the work under the terms of this AGREEMENT,if requested to do so by the AGENCY.This subsection shall not be a bar to renegotiation of the AGREEMENT between the surviving members of the CONSULTANT and the AGENCY,if the AGENCY so chooses. In the event of the death of any of the parties listed in the previous paragraph,should the surviving members of the CONSULTANT,with the AGENCY'S concurrence,desire to terminate this AGREEMENT,payment shall be made as set forth in the second paragraph of this section. Payment for any part of the work by the AGENCY shall not constitute a waiver by the AGENCY of any remedies of any type it may have against the CONSULTANT for any breach of this AGREEMENT by the CONSULTANT,or for failure of the CONSULTANT to perform work required of it by the AGENCY.Forbearance of any rights under the S AGREEMENT will not constitute waiver of entitlement to exercise those rights with respect to any future act or omission by the CONSULTANT. X Changes of Work The CONSULTANT shall make such changes and revisions in the complete work of this AGREEMENT as necessary to correct errors appearing therein,when required to do so by the AGENCY,without additional compensation thereof. Should the AGENCY fmd it desirable for its own purposes to have previously satisfactorily completed work or parts thereof changed or revised,the CONSULTANT shall make such revisions as directed by the AGENCY.This work shall be considered as Extra Work and will be paid for as herein provided under Section XIV. XI Disputes Any dispute concerning questions of fact in connection with the work not disposed of by AGREEMENT between the CONSULTANT and the AGENCY shall be referred for determination to the Director of Public Works or AGENCY Engineer,whose decision in the matter shall be final and binding on the parties of this AGREEMENT;provided, however,that if an action is brought challenging the Director of Public Works or AGENCY Engineer's decision,that decision shall be subject to de novo judicial review.If the parties to this AGREEMENT mutually agree,disputes concerning alleged design errors will be conducted under the procedures found in Exhibit"J",and disputes concerning claims will be conducted under the procedures found in Exhibit"K". XII Venue,Applicable Law, and Personal Jurisdiction In the event that either party deems it necessary to institute legal action or proceedings to enforce any right or obligation under this AGREEMENT,the parties hereto agree that any such action shall be initiated in the Superior court of the State of Washington,situated in the county in which the AGENCY is located.The parties hereto agree that all questions shall be resolved by application of Washington law and that the parties to such action shall have the right of appeal from such decisions of the Superior court in accordance with the laws of the State of Washington.The CONSULTANT hereby consents to the personal jurisdiction of the Superior court of the State of Washington,situated in the county in • • which the AGENCY is located. • Page 5of8 • XIII Legal Relations The CONSULTANT shall comply with all Federal,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 the State of Washington. The CONSULTANT shall indemnify and hold the AGENCY and the STATE 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 in part from the CONSULTANT'S negligence or breach of any of its obligations under this AGREEMENT;provided that nothing herein shall require a CONSULTANT to indemnify the AGENCY or the STATE against and hold harmless the AGENCY or the STATE from claims,demands or suits based solely upon the conduct of the AGENCY or the STATE, their agents,officers and employees;and provided further that if the claims or suits are caused by or result from the concurrent negligence of(a)the CONSULTANT'S agents or employees,and(b)the AGENCY or the STATE,their agents,officers and employees,this indemnity provision with respect to(1)claims or suits based upon such negligence (2)the costs to the AGENCY or the STATE of defending such claims and suits shall be valid and enforceable only to the extent of the CONSULTANT'S negligence or the negligence of the CONSULTANT'S agents or employees. The CONSULTANT'S relation to the AGENCY shall be at all times as an independent contractor. The CONSULTANT shall comply with all applicable sections of the applicable Ethics laws,including RCW 42.23, which is the Code of Ethics for regulating contract interest by municipal officers.The CONSULTANT specifically assumes potential liability for actions brought by the CONSULTANT'S own employees against the AGENCY and, solely for the purpose of this indemnification and defense,the CONSULTANT specifically waives any immunity under the state industrial insurance law,Title 51 RCW. Unless otherwise specified in the AGREEMENT,the AGENCY shall be responsible for administration of construction contracts,if any,on the PROJECT.Subject to the processing of a new sole source,or an acceptable supplemental agreement,the CONSULTANT shall provide On-Call assistance to the AGENCY during contract administration.By providing such assistance,the CONSULTANT shall assume no responsibility for:proper construction techniques,job site safety,or any construction contractor's failure to perform its work in accordance with the contract documents. The CONSULTANT shall obtain and keep in force during the terms of the AGREEMENT,or as otherwise required, the following insurance with companies or through sources approved by the State Insurance Commissioner pursuant to Title 48 RCW. Insurance Coverage A.Worker's compensation and employer's liability insurance as required by the STATE. B.Commercial general liability and property damage insurance in an aggregate amount not less than two million dollars($2,000,000)for bodily injury,including death and property damage.The per occurrence amount shall not exceed one million dollars($1,000,000). C.Vehicle liability insurance for any automobile used in an amount not less than a one million dollar($1,000,000) combined single limit. Excepting the Worker's Compensation Insurance and any Professional Liability Insurance secured by the CONSULTANT,the AGENCY will be named on all policies as an additional insured.The CONSULTANT shall furnish the AGENCY with verification of insurance and endorsements required by the AGREEMENT.The AGENCY reserves the right to require complete,certified copies of all required insurance policies at any time. All insurance shall be obtained from an insurance company authorized to do business in the State of Washington.The CONSULTANT shall submit a verification of insurance as outlined above within fourteen(14)days of the execution of this AGREEMENT to the AGENCY. No cancellation of the foregoing policies shall be effective without thirty(30)days prior notice to the AGENCY. The CONSULTANT'S professional liability to the AGENCY shall be limited to the amount payable under this AGREEMENT or one million($1,000,000)dollars,whichever is the greater,unless modified by Exhibit"L".In no • case shall the CONSULTANT'S professional liability to third parties be limited in any way. Page 6 of 8 .i The AGENCY will pay no progress payments under Section V until the CONSULTANT has fully complied with this section.This remedy is not exclusive;and the AGENCY and the STATE may take such other action as is available to it under other provisions of this AGREEMENT,or otherwise in law. • XIV Extra Work A.The AGENCY may at any time,by written order,make changes within the general scope of the AGREEMENT in the services to be performed. B.If any such change causes an increase or decrease in the estimated cost of,or the time required for,performance of any part of the work under this AGREEMENT,whether or not changed by the order,or otherwise affects any other terms and conditions of the AGREEMENT,the AGENCY shall make an equitable adjustment in the(1)maximum amount payable;(2)delivery or completion schedule,or both;and(3)other affected terms and shall modify the AGREEMENT accordingly. C.The CONSULTANT must submit any"request for equitable adjustment",hereafter referred to as"CLAIM",under this clause within thirty(30)days from the date of receipt of the written order.However,if the AGENCY decides that the facts justify it,the AGENCY may receive and act upon a CLAIM submitted before final payment of the AGREEMENT. D.Failure to agree to any adjustment shall be a dispute under the Disputes clause.However,nothing in this clause shall excuse the CONSULTANT from proceeding with the AGREEMENT as changed. E.Notwithstanding the terms and conditions of paragraphs(A)and(B)above,the maximum amount payable for this AGREEMENT,shall not be increased or considered to be increased except by specific written supplement to this AGREEMENT. XV Endorsement of Plans If applicable,the CONSULTANT shall place their endorsement on all plans,estimates,or any other engineering data furnished by them. • XVI Federal and State Review The Federal Highway Administration and the Washington State Department of Transportation shall have the right to participate in the review or examination of the work in progress. XVII Certification of the Consultant and the Agency Attached hereto as Exhibit"M-1(a and b)"are the Certifications of the CONSULTANT and the AGENCY,Exhibit "M-2"Certification Regarding Debarment,Suspension and Other Responsibility Matters-Primary Covered Transactions,Exhibit"M-3"Certification Regarding the Restrictions of the Use of Federal Funds for Lobbying and Exhibit"M-4"Certificate of Current Cost or Pricing Data.Exhibit"M-3"is required only in AGREEMENTS over $100,000 and Exhibit"M-4"is required only in AGREEMENTS over$500,000. XVIII Complete Agreement This document and referenced attachments contain all covenants,stipulations,and provisions agreed upon by the parties.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. XIX 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 CONSULTANT does hereby ratify and adopt all statements,representations, warranties,covenants,and agreements contained in the proposal,and the supporting material submitted by the CONSULTANT,and does hereby accept the AGREEMENT and agrees to all of the terms and conditions thereof. • Page 7 of 8 In witness whereof,the parties hereto have executed this AGREEMENT as of the day and year shown in the "Execution Date"box on page one(1)of this AGREEMENT. • r By �� 1 Ht} , IBy Consultant '— (ZA‘i, --vizicAs Agency • • DOT Form 140-089 EF Revised 6/05 Page 8 of 8 • Exhibit A-1 Scope of Work Project No. See attached Scope of Work_ • Documents To Be Furnished By The Consultant • DOT Form 140-089 EF Exhibit A-1 Revised 6/05 SCOPE OF WORK- City of Renton {_ �:•..�.��:y C'm..- »�prt,nfl!+i;fnawaecJ-»Oro-5i �,.a' "Ry C9.:�.'n�.� .'%R,rT..-:Syc C ns�ult'rn ren lneeri ` :rvices fbt is • PHASE 11 — PROJECT MANAGEMENT Task 11.1 - Project Management and Support Measurable Task Objectives Parametrix(Consultant)will monitor the progress of the work tasks,staff work loads,and milestones with the project schedule,and will make adjustments as necessary to keep the project on track.Consultant will work closely with the City of Renton staff and provide project management to ensure that the proper level of effort is being applied to the project tasks and only provide services for what's truly needed to deliver the project. Approach Our approach to the TS&L for May Creek Bridge will include the following: • Schedule,prepare for,attend,and document project team meetings.These meetings will include consultant and City of Renton staff and will include the following: • > Project Kickoff. > TS&L Development. > Assist the City with Public Informational data,if necessary. > 90%TS&L Review to City of Renton May 2,2008 > 1 week review by City due back with comments to Parametrix May 9,2008 > Final TS&L Report to City of Renton May 16,2008 • Prepare a detailed schedule showing all major tasks,meetings and review milestones. • Prepare detailed monthly progress reports and progress billings and submit to the City for approval and payment.Monitor the project budget. • • The monthly report,addressing progress of the work,shall include: > A narrative of the work performed and the tasks to be performed in the next reporting period,and if necessary to define delays,problems,responsive action requirements by the Consultant and City,and other project needs. > An update of the schedule progress. • Negotiate and enter into subconsultant agreements,as authorized by City,to include the following responsibilities: City of Renton 214-1779-028 • Engineering Services for May Creek Bridge TS&L 1 March 2008 • SCOPE OF WORK.(CONTINUED > Schedule and coordinate the work of all subcontractors.Maintain necessary surveillance of subcontract work to assure that necessary progress continues. > Subcontract administration and cost control. Assumptions • The following assumptions apply to this scope of work: > Initial survey will be provided by the City.Additional survey work required as discussed in Phase 14. > Some of the alternatives to be investigated will require addressing ROW during the TS&L Phase. > The full replacement alternative structure is proposed to be approximately 60 feet in length. > Bridge railing type,for all alternatives,will be determined by the consultant and the City. Deliverables The deliverables will include: • • Transmittal Forms. • Project Invoices and Status Reports. PHASE 12— ENVIRONMENTAL Task 12.1 — Environmental Documentation and Permitting Assistance Not applicable to this portion of the TS&L.May be reactivated during the final design phase depending on option selected. PHASE 13 — FOUNDATION INVESTIGATION AND REPORT Task 13.1 - Foundation Investigation HWA GeoSciences,Inc.,provided,under a separate contract,preliminary geotechnical services and preliminary foundation design recommendations.Four exploratory borings were made,two to 39 feet below existing ground surface and two to 11.5 feet below the existing ground surface at specified distances from each end of the existing structure.Upon review of this draft report it was determined that additional information will be necessary regarding the possible foundation types in order to complete the TS&L.A minimal cost has been accounted for in our proposed budget.Once an alternative is chosen the original HWA contract may be reactivated during the final design phase. • Assumptions The alternative matrix will utilize the findings of the supplemented Draft Geotechnical Report. • City of Renton 2I4-1779-028 Engineering Services for May Creek Bridge TS&L 2 March 2008 SCOPE OF WORK CONTINUED) • Deliverables • Draft geotechnical report will be included in the TS&L submittal. PHASE 14—ADDITIONAL SURVEY WORK Task 14.1 —Additional Survey Work Parametrix will provide additional survey as required during the development of the TS&L.This additional survey will build upon the work previously performed by Perteet Inc.A ROW drawing will be developed showing possible property acquisition and/or trades. Deliverables The deliverables will include: • Survey drawings in sufficient detail to study alternative bridge types as they impact the roadway geometries. • ROW drawing PHASE 15-RIGHT-OF-WAY SERVICES Task 15.1 —Right of Way Services Not applicable to this portion of the TS&L.To be reactivated during the final design phase. • PHASE 16— FINAL TS&L REPORT TASK 16.1 —Roadway Engineering It is anticipated,based on the results of the hydraulic study(100 year flood elevation),that an adjustment will be required in the vertical roadway alignment for evaluation of selected bridge type alternatives.Maintaining the existing vertical alignment will be a priority.The limits of the roadway improvements will be defined during the alternative analysis. Deliverables • Preliminary Roadway Plans included in the TS&L Task 16.2—Hydraulics Consultant performed a basin analysis to determine hydrology for the project.A model was prepared using HEC-RAS for the existing and post-project conditions for up to two foundation alternatives(driven piles or spread footings)to calculate the 100-year design flow depth velocities and water surface elevations.A scour analysis was performed for the 500-year design event to assist in determining bridge foundation type and design stream bank protection. The results were compiled into a draft Hydraulics Report. During the preparation of the TS&L City comments will be reviewed and incorporated as necessary. City of Renton 214-1779-028 1111 Engineering Services for May Creek Bridge TS&L 3 March 2008 SCOPE OF WORK CONTINUED Assumptions The alternative matrix will utilize the findings of the Draft Hydraulics Report. Deliverables • The draft Hydraulics Report will be part of the TS&L report. Task 16.3—TS&L The proposed structure will be evaluated to span the creek channel as determined by the hydraulic studies and may recommend grading the banks back to closely match their original section. The Consultant will prepare a 90% review submittal and a final TS&L in accordance with the requirements of the State of Washington,Department of Transportation Bridge Design Manual Chapter 2 Section 2.1.5. Parametrix's senior staff will perform a QA/QC review of all materials prior to submitting to the City for review.Consultant will then incorporate City staff's comments and revise the TS&L for delivery to the City in paper copies. Assumptions Our scope includes the following structural assumptions • Bridge alternatives to be considered will include both straight and skewed configurations. • Bridge alternatives will include both single span and multiple span alternatives. • Bridge alternatives to be studied will incorporate phased construction with one lane traffic open at all times. • Retaining wall design beyond the abutment wingwalls will not be included in the alternative analysis. • 1 Interim submittal and 1 Final submittal.Review comments shall be submitted back to the consultant within 1 week of the initial TS&L submittal. • Only one review meeting is assumed. • Washington State Standard Specifications 2008 will be used. • A construction cost estimate for each alternative will be prepared. Deliverables • 90%TS&L Report • Final Bound Report • City of Renton 214-1779-028 Engineering Services for May Creek Bridge TS&L 4 March 2008 SCOPE OF WORK (CONTINUED) • PHASE 17— BIDDING ASSISTANCE Task 17.1 - Bidding Assistance Not applicable to this portion of the TS&L.To be reactivated during the final design phase. PHASE 18—QA/QC TASK 18.1 —QA/QC Goal Comply with all applicable QA/QC Standards and Procedures. Approach Quality is a critical element to the reliability and success of the planning,design,and construction effort.Our goal under this task is to ensure that we commit to quality,and through a systematic utilization of checks and balances,deliver a project that is fully in conformance with both the standards of our profession and expectations of the Client. Utilizing the standards and procedures established by Parametrix as a base,we will develop an appropriate plan for quality,to ensure proper documentation of process design,peer and senior • staff review,and other factors,as appropriate. PHASE 19—CONSTRUCTION SERVICES (CONTINGENCY) TASK 19.1 —CONSTRUCTION SERVICES Not applicable to this portion of the TS&L.To be reactivated during the final design phase. City of Renton 214-1779-028 • Engineering Services for May Creek Bridge TS&L 5 March 2008 PRIX • Form or Poe/os City of Renton May Creek Bridge TS&L BUDGET SUMMARY Labor Inflation Labor Subtotal Expenses Expense Mark-up EvenseSubtotal Subconsultants SubMark-up Subconsultant Overhead Profit Total Amount Adjustment w/o profit Subtotal 0 R 1 s:fi%�>i�i<S 1000°' 185k S' .t:. cert-:}:�:•:?::":::-:••:::_.,:.:,::::� �it:i3i PhaseTask ;<; :: — _ _ ,�k} .:........:::::. ::::::::.... „-:. .... :.::.:.::.:}: : . .....Y:r.:v.,u•.w:::.:r{.v-:'v�':::.x;.. .J4: :4:i:: �i: ?`vv:Y : '• i:r�::•. :v:}:•::}yY:.v:v::r::............... .:::::.::..-...;:{.,.......v:..n.... ..;..;:.:Yr::r•:r}:xYY ., }v• v...Y:}�r:f:;i�:iJ}\r:ri�r:C i':v}.}}}'.}}...:::. Description 4 0% ,...............,......:............ } ........... 11 Project Management .........:.>..:. . 11.1 Project Management Plan $613 $1,135 $175 $1,748 $1,748 12 Environmental 12.1 Environmental Documatation 13 Foundation Investigation 13.1 Foundation Investigation $474 $877 $135 $1,351 $9 $9 $1,276 $1,276 $2,636 14 Additional Survey Work 14.1 Additional Survey Work $600 $1,110 $171 $1,710 $15 $15 $1,725 15 Right-of-Way Services 15.1 Right of Way Services 16 Final TS&L 16.1 Roadway Engineering $2,542 $4,702 $724 $7,243 $37 $37 $4,308 $4,308 $11,588 16.2 Hydraulics $92 $171 $26 $263 $16 $16 $279 16.3 TS&L $14,200 $26,270 $4,047 $40,470 $71 $71 $40,541 17 Bidding Assistance 17.1 Bidding Assistance 18 OA/OC 18.1 QA/QC 19 Construction Services(Contingency) 19.1 Construction Services TOTAL $18,522 $34,265 $5,279 $148 ,.:::"'<•,`.`.,:,,.•;. :::.'^,,•, ........ - :.cc.:L:;;+:?}�4E� $5,584 .. .-?i:•`:M $58,518 Goal Multipliers: Labor.;;::;';>J's'%i"r � :...:...,. Expense: ..,:•::...::...:.: . Subconsultants• < <: :::'f. 0 $5,279 FF $63,797 P 1 of 1-SUMMARY File Name:Budget May Creek TS&L 03-31.08.>ds Project Delivery System Page Date Printed:04/17/2008 PARAMETRIX Form 01-PD-40/Rev.09/06 City of Renton May Creek Bridge TS&L LABOR Categories Senior Project Project Roadway Hydrologist Environ. Sr.Scientist Biologist Coordinator CADD Admin Word Proc Surveyor Labor Manager Engineer Engineer Engineer Specialist Amount Labor Rates $69.93 345.30 $28.22 $52 88 $46.19 $42.50 $38.26 $30.66 $29.00 $31.30 $21.68 $2532 $29.53 Phase-Task Description tion 11- Project Management ........................................................................................................................................................................................................................................... .................... -11.1 Project Management Plan 6 3 2 $613 12- Environmental _ -12.1 Environmental Documatation 13- Foundation Investigation -13,1 Foundation Investigation 2 3 6 1 $474 14- Additional Survey Work -14,1 Additional Survey Work 2 5 2 6 $600 16- Right-of-Way Services -15.1 Right of Way Services 16- Final TS&L -16.1 Roadway Engineering 24 8 16 $2,542 -16.2 Hydraulics 2 _ _ $92 -16.3 TS&L 80 24 180 10 40 4 32 $14,200 17- Bidding Assistance -17.1 Bidding Assistance 18- QA/QC -18 1 QA/QC 19- Construction Services(Contingency) -19.1 Construction Services TOTAL 114 43 188_ 2 13 56 4 32 6 $18,522 File Name.Budget May Creek TS&L 4is ProjerySystem Page 3 oOR 8 • City of Renton May Creek Bridge TS&L EXPENSES Subconsultants Categories mileage copies plots fax Color Prints Postage FmEakcii:i Misc. Expenses HWA Geosciences Certified Land Services KPG MOM Rates 30.505 $0.05 .00 $1.00 $2.00 $4.00 $1,60.00 $1,00 Labor Exp Labor Exp Labor Exp Total Phase Task Description 11- Project Management -11.1 Project Management Plan 12- Envlronmentai -12.1 Environmental Documatation 13- Foundation Investigation -13.1 Foundation Investigation 9 $9 $1,276 $1,276 14- Additional Survey Work -14.1 Additional Survey Work 30 $15 15- Right-of-Way Services -15.1 Right of Way Services 16- Final TS&L -16.1 Roadway Engineering 44 30 13 $37 $4,308 $4,308 -16.2 Hydraulics 16 $16 -16.3 TS&L 74 30 8 $71 17- Bidding Assistance -17.1 Bidding Assistance 18- OAJOC -18.1 QA/QC 15- Construction Services (Contingency) -19.1 Construction Services TOTAL 148 60 13 8 25 147.74 $1,276 $4,308 $5,584 File Name:Budget May Creek TS&L 03-31-08.xls Project Delivery System Page 4 of 4-EXPENSES Date Printed:04/17/2008 Exhibit D-2 • Payment (Cost Plus a Fixed Fee) The CONSULTANT shall be paid by the AGENCY for completed work and 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 specified in Section II, "Scope of Work."The CONSULTANT shall conform to all applicable portions of 48 CFR Part 31. A. Actual Costs:Payment for all consulting services for this PROJECT shall be on the basis of the CONSULTANT'S actual cost plus a fixed fee. The actual cost shall include direct salary cost, overhead,direct non-salary costs,and fixed fee. 1. Direct Salary Costs: The Direct Salary Cost is the direct salary paid to principals, professional,technical,and clerical personnel for the time they are productively engaged in work necessary to fulfill the terms of this AGREEMENT. The CONSULTANT shall maintain support data to verify the direct salary costs billed to the AGENCY. 2. Overhead Costs: Overhead Costs are those costs other than direct costs,which are included as such on the booksof the CONSULTANT in the normal everyday keeping of its books. Progress payments shall be made at the rateshown in the heading of this AGREEMENT under"Overhead Progress Payment Rate."Total overhead paymentshall be based on the method shown in the heading of the AGREEMENT. The two options are explained as follows: • a. Fixed Rate: If this method is indicated in the heading of the AGREEMENT the AGENCY agrees to reimburse the CONSULTANT for overhead at the percentage rate shown.This rate shall not change during the life of the AGREEMENT. b. Actual Cost:If this method is indicated in the heading of the AGREEMENT the AGENCY agrees to reimburse the CONSULTANT the actual overhead costs verified by audit,up to the Maximum Total Amount Payable,authorized under this AGREEMENT,when accumulated with all other Actual Costs. A summary of the CONSULTANTS cost estimate and the overhead computation is shown in Exhibit"E"attached hereto and by this reference made part of this AGREEMENT.When an Actual Cost method is used,the CONSULTANT(prime and all sub-consultants)will submit to the AGENCY within six (6)months after the end of each firm's fiscal year,an overhead schedule in the format required by the AGENCY(cost category,dollar expenditures,etc.)for the purpose of adjusting the overhead rate for billing purposes.It shall be used for the computation of progress payments during the following year and for retroactively adjusting the previous year's overhead cost to reflect the actual rate. • DOT Form 140-089 EF Exhibit D-2 Revised 6/05 Failure to supply this information by either the prime CONSULTANT or any of their • sub-consultants shall cause the AGENCY to withhold payment of the billed overhead costs until such time as the required information is received and an overhead rate for billing purposes is approved. The AGENCY, STATE and/or the Federal Government may perform an audit of the CONSULTANT'S books andrecords at any time during regular business hours to determine the actual overhead rate,if they so desire. 3. Direct Non-Salary Costs:Direct Non-Salary Costs will be reimbursed at the Actual Cost to the CONSULTANT. These charges may include,but are not limited to,the following items:travel,printing,long distance telephone, supplies,computer charges and fees of sub-consultants. Air or train travel will be reimbursed only to economy class levels unless otherwise approved by the AGENCY. The CONSULTANT shall comply with the rules and regulations regarding travel costs(excluding air,train,and rental car costs)in accordance with the AGENCY'S Travel Rules and Procedures. However,air,train,and rental car costs shall be reimbursed in accordance with 48 Code of Federal Regulations(CFR)Part 31.205-46"Travel Costs."The billing for Direct Non-Salary Costs shall include an itemized listing of the charges directly identifiable with the PROJECT. The CONSULTANT shall maintain the original supporting documents in their office. Copies of the original supporting documents shall be supplied to the AGENCY upon request.All above charges must be necessary for the services provided under this AGREEMENT. 4. Fixed Fee: The Fixed Fee,which represents the CONSULTANT'S profit,is shown in the heading of this AGREEMENT under Fixed Fee. This amount does not include any . additional Fixed Fee,which could be authorized from the Management Reserve Fund. This fee is based on the Scope of Work defined in this AGREEMENT and the estimated person-hours required to perform the stated Scope of Work. In the event the CONSULTANT enters into a supplemental AGREEMENT for additional work,the supplemental AGREEMENT may include provisions for the added costs and an appropriate additional fee. The Fixed Fee will be prorated and paid monthly in proportion to the percentage of work completed by the CONSULTANT and reported in the Monthly Progress Reports accompanying the billings.Any portion of the Fixed Fee earned but not previously paid in the progress payments will be covered in the final payment,subject to the provisions of Section IX entitled"Termination of Agreement." 5.Management Reserve Fund: The AGENCY may desire to establish a Management Reserve Fund to provide the Agreement Administrator with the flexibility to authorize additional funds to the AGREEMENT for allowable unforeseen costs,or reimbursing the CONSULTANT for additional work beyond that already defined in this AGREEMENT. Such authorization(s)shall be in writing and shall not exceed the lesser of$100,000 or 10%of the Total Amount Authorized as shown in the heading of this AGREEMENT.The amount included for the Management Reserve Fund is shown in the heading of this AGREEMENT. This fund may not be replenished.Any changes requiring additional costs in excess of the Management Reserve Fund shall be made in accordance with Section XIV, "Extra Work." • 6. Maximum Total Amount Payable: The Maximum Total Amount Payable by the AGENCY to the CONSULTANT under this AGREEMENT shall not exceed the • amount shown in the heading of this AGREEMENT. The Maximum Total Amount Payable is comprised of the Total Amount Authorized,and the Management Reserve Fund. The Maximum Total Amount Payable does not include payment for Extra Work as stipulated in Section XIV, "Extra Work."No minimum amount payable is guaranteed under this AGREEMENT. B. Monthly Progress Payments: The CONSULTANT may submit billings to the AGENCY for reimbursement of Actual Costs plus the calculated overhead and fee on a monthly basis during the progress of the work. Such billings shall be in a format approved by the AGENCY and accompanied by the monthly progress reports required under Section III,"General Requirements" of this AGREEMENT. The billings will be supported by an itemized listing for each item including Direct Salary,Direct Non-Salary,and allowable Overhead Costs to which will be added the prorated Fixed Fee. To provide a means of verifying the billed salary costs for CONSULTANT employees,the AGENCY may conduct employee interviews. These interviews may consist of recording the names,titles, salary rates, and present duties of those employees performing work on the PROJECT at the time of the interview. C. Final Payment: Final Payment of any balance due the CONSULTANT of the gross amount earned will be made promptly upon its verification by the AGENCY after the completion of the work under this AGREEMENT, contingent upon receipt of all PS&E,plans,maps,notes,reports, electronic data and other related documents which are required to be furnished under this AGREEMENT. Acceptance of such Final Payment by the CONSULTANT shall constitute a release of all claims for payment,which the CONSULTANT may have against the AGENCY unless such claims are specifically reserved in writing and transmitted to the AGENCY by the CONSULTANT prior to its acceptance. Said Final Payment shall not,however,be a bar to any 4111 claims that the AGENCY may have against the CONSULTANT or to any remedies the AGENCY may pursue with respect to such claims. The payment of any billing will not constitute agreement as to the appropriateness of any item and at the time of final audit,all required adjustments will be made and reflected in a final payment.In the event that such final audit reveals an overpayment to the CONSULTANT,the CONSULTANT will refund such overpayment to the AGENCY within thirty(30)days of notice of the overpayment. Such refund shall not constitute a waiver by the CONSULTANT for any claims relating to the validity of a finding by the AGENCY of overpayment.The CONSULTANT has twenty(20)days after receipt of the final POST AUDIT to begin the appeal process to the AGENCY for audit findings. D. Inspection of Cost Records: The CONSULTANT and their sub-consultants shall keep available for inspection by representatives of the AGENCY,STATE and the United States,for a period of three (3)years after receipt of final payment,the cost records and accounts pertaining to this AGREEMENT and all items related to or bearing upon these records with the following exception: if any litigation,claim or audit arising out of,in connection with,or related to this contract is initiated before the expiration of the three(3)year period,the cost records and accounts shall be retained until such litigation,claim,or audit involving the records is completed. • • • Exhibit Payment Upon Termination of Agreement By the Agency Other Than for Fault of the Consultant (Refer to Agreement, Section IX) Lump Sum Contracts • A final payment shall be made to the CONSULTANT which when added to any payments previously made shall total the same percentage of the Lump Sum Amount as the work completed at the time of termination is to the total work required for the PROJECT.In addition,the CONSULTANT shall be paid for any authorized extra • work completed. • I Cost Plus Fixed Fee Contracts A final payment shall be made to the CONSULTANT which when added to any payments previously made, shall total the actual costs plus the same percentage of the fixed fee as the work completed at the time of termination is to the total work required for the Project. In addition,the CONSULTANT shall be paid for any authorized extra work completed. Specific Rates of Pay Contracts • A final payment shall be made to the CONSULTANT for actual hours charged at the time of termination of this AGREEMENT plus any direct nonsalary costs incurred at the time of termination of this AGREEMENT. Cost Per Unit of Work Contracts A final payment shall be made to the CONSULTANT for actual units of work completed at the time of termination of this AGREEMENT. • DOT Form 140-089 EF Exhibit I Revised 6/05 2 Exhibit J • Alleged Consultant Design Error Procedures The purpose of this exhibit is to establish a procedure to determine if a consultant's alleged design error is of a nature that exceeds the accepted standard of care. In addition,it will establish a uniform method for the resolution and/or cost recovery procedures in those instances where the agency believes it has suffered some material damage due to the alleged error by the consultant. Step 1 —Potential Consultant Design Error(s)is Identified by Agency's Project Manager At the first indication of potential consultant design error(s),the first step in the process is for the Agency's project manager to notify the Director of Public Works or Agency Engineer regarding the potential design error(s).For federally funded projects,the Region Highways and Local Programs Engineer should be informed and involved in these procedures. (Note: The Director of Public Works or Agency Engineer may appoint an agency staff person other than the project manager,who has not been as directly involved in the project,to be responsible for the remaining steps in these procedures.) Step 2-Project Manager Documents the Alleged Consultant Design Error(s) After discussion of the alleged design error(s)and the magnitude of the alleged error(s),and with the Director of Public Works or Agency Engineer's concurrence,the project manager obtains more detailed documentation than is normally required on the project.Examples include: all decisions and descriptions of work;photographs,records of labor,materials and equipment. Step 3—Contact the Consultant Regarding the Alleged Design Error(s) 111 If it is determined that there is a need to proceed further,the next step in the process is for the project manager to contact the consultant regarding the alleged design error(s)and the magnitude of the alleged error(s). The project manager and other appropriate agency staff should represent the agency and the consultant should be represented by their project manger and any personnel(including sub-consultants) deemed appropriate for the alleged design error(s)issue. Step 4—Attempt to Resolve Alleged Design Error with Consultant After the meeting(s)with the consultant have been completed regarding the consultant's alleged design error(s), there are three possible scenarios: • It is determined via mutual agreement that there is not a consultant design error(s).If this is the case,then the process will not proceed beyond this point. • It is determined via mutual agreement that a consultant design error(s)occurred.If this is the case,then the Director of Public Works or Agency Engineer,or their representatives,negotiate a settlement with the consultant. The settlement would be paid to the agency or the amount would be reduced from the consultant's agreement with the agency for the services on the project in which the design error took place. The agency is to provide H&LP,through the Region • DOT Form 140-089 EF Exhibit J Revised 6/05 Local Programs Engineer,a summary of the settlement for review and to make 411 adjustments, if any, as to how the settlement affects federal reimbursements.No further action is required. • There is not a mutual agreement regarding the alleged consultant design error(s). The consultant may request that the alleged design error(s)issue be forwarded to the Director of Public Works or Agency Engineer for review.If the Director of Public Works or Agency Engineer,after review with their legal counsel,is not able to reach mutual agreement with the consultant,proceed to Step 5. Step 5—Forward Documents to Highways and Local Programs For federally funded projects all available information,including costs,should be forwarded through the Region Highways and Local Programs Engineer to H&LP for their review and consultation with the FHWA.H&LP will meet with representatives of the agency and the consultant to review the alleged design error(s),and attempt to find a resolution to the issue.If necessary,H&LP will request assistance from the Attorney General's Office for legal interpretation. H&LP will also identify how the alleged error(s)affects eligibility of project costs for federal reimbursement. • If mutual agreement is reached,the agency and consultant adjust the scope of work and costs to reflect the agreed upon resolution. H&LP,in consultation with FHWA, will identify the amount of federal participation in the agreed upon resolution of the issue. • If mutual agreement is not reached,the agency and consultant may seek settlement by arbitration or by litigation. • • 3 Exhibit K • Consultant Claim Procedures The purpose of this exhibit is to describe a procedure regarding claim(s)on a consultant agreement.The following procedures should only be utilized on consultant claims greater than$1,000.If the consultant's claim(s)are a total of $1,000 or less,it would not be cost effective to proceed through the outlined steps. It is suggested that the Director of Public Works or Agency Engineer negotiate a fair and reasonable price for the consultant's claim(s)that total $1,000 or less. This exhibit will outline the procedures to be followed by the consultant and the agency to consider a potential claim by the consultant. Step 1—Consultant Files a Claim with the Agency Project Manager If the consultant determines that they were requested to perform additional services that were outside of the agreement's scope of work,they may be entitled to a claim. The first step that must be completed is the request for consideration of the claim to the Agency's project manager. The consultant's claim must outline the following: • Summation of hours by classification for each firm that is included in the claim; • Any correspondence that directed the consultant to perform the additional work; • Timeframe of the additional work that was outside of the project scope; • Summary of direct labor dollars,overhead costs,profit and reimbursable costs associated with 411 the additional work; and • Explanation as to why the consultant believes the additional work was outside of the agreement scope of work. Step 2—Review by Agency Personnel Regarding the Consultant's Claim for Additional Compensation After the consultant has completed step 1,the next step in the process is to forward the request to the Agency's project manager. The project manager will review the consultant's claim and will met with the Director of Public Works or Agency Engineer to determine if the Agency agrees with the claim. If the FHWA is participating in the project's funding,forward a copy of the consultant's claim and the Agency's recommendation for federal participation in the claim to the WSDOT Highways and Local Programs through the Region Local Programs Engineer.If the claim is not eligible for federal participation,payment will need to be from agency funds. If the Agency project manager,Director of Public Works or Agency Engineer,WSDOT Highways and Local Programs(if applicable),and FHWA(if applicable)agree with the consultant's claim,send a request memo,including backup documentation to the consultant to either supplement the agreement,or create a new agreement for the claim.After the request has been approved,the Agency shall write the supplement and/or new agreement and pay the consultant the amount of the claim. Inform the consultant that the final payment for the agreement is subject to audit.No further action in needed regarding the claim procedures. 11110 DOT Form 140-089 EF Exhibit K Revised 6/05 If the Agency does not agree with the consultant's claim,proceed to step 3 of the procedures. • Step 3—Preparation of Support Documentation Regarding Consultant's Claim(s) If the Agency does not agree with the consultant's claim,the project manager shall prepare a summary for the Director of Public Works or Agency Engineer that included the following: • Copy of information supplied by the consultant regarding the claim; • Agency's summation of hours by classification for each firm that should be included in the claim; • Any correspondence that directed the consultant to perform the additional work; • Agency's summary of direct labor dollars, overhead costs,profit and reimbursable costs associated with the additional work; • Explanation regarding those areas in which the Agency does/does not agree with the consultant's claim(s); • Explanation to describe what has been instituted to preclude future consultant claim(s);and • Recommendations to resolve the claim. Step 4—Director of Public Works or Agency Engineer Reviews Consultant Claim and Agency Documentation 111 The Director of Pubic Works or Agency Engineer shall review and administratively approve or disapprove the claim,or portions thereof,which may include getting Agency Council or Commission approval(as appropriate to agency dispute resolution procedures).If the project involves federal participation,obtain concurrence from WSDOT Highways and Local Programs and FHWA regarding final settlement of the claim. If the claim is not eligible for federal participation, payment will need to be from agency funds. Step 5—Informing Consultant of Decision Regarding the Claim The Director of Public Works or Agency Engineer shall notify(in writing)the consultant of their final decision regarding the consultant's claim(s). Include the final dollar amount of the accepted claim(s)and rationale utilized for the decision. Step 6—Preparation of Supplement or New Agreement for the Consultant's Claim(s) The agency shall write the supplement and/or new agreement and pay the consultant the amount of the claim. Inform the consultant that the final payment for the agreement is subject to audit. • Exhibit M-1(a) • Certification Of Consultant Project No. Local Agency I hereby certify that I am Robert H.Murray and duly authorized representative of the firm of Parametrix,Inc. whose address is 1231 Fryar Avenue,Sumner,WA 98390 and that neither I nor the above firm I here represent has: (a) Employed or retained for a commission,percentage,brokerage,contingent fee,or other consideration, any firm or person(other than a bona fide employee working solely for me or the above CONSULTANT)to solicit or secure the AGREEMENT; (b) Agreed,as an express or implied condition for obtaining this contract,to employ or retain the services of any firm or person in connection with carrying out this AGREEMENT;or (c) Paid,or agreed to pay,to any firm,organization or person(other than a bona fide employee working solely for me or the above CONSULTANT)any fee,contribution,donation,or consideration of any kind for,or in connection with,procuring or carrying out this AGREEMENT; except as hereby expressly stated(if any); I acknowledge that this certificate is to be available to the Washington State Department of Transportation and the Federal Highway Administration,U.S. Department of Transportation in connection with this AGREEMENT involving participation of Federal-aid highway funds,and is subject to applicable State and Federal laws,both criminal and civil. Date Signature • !, DOT Form 140-089 EF Exhibit M-1(a) Revised 6/05 • Exhibit M-1(b) Certification Of Agency Official I hereby certify that I am the AGENCY Official of the Local Agency of Washington,and that the consulting firm or its representative has not been required,directly or indirectly as an express or implied condition in connection with obtaining or carrying out this AGREEMENT to: (a) Employ or retain,or agree to employ to retain,any firm or person; or (b) Pay,or agree to pay,to any firm,person, or organization,any fee,contribution,donation,or consideration of any kind;except as hereby expressly stated(if any): I acknowledge that this certificate is to be available to the Washington State Department of Transportation and the Federal Highway Administration,U.S. Department of Transportation,in connection with this AGREEMENT involving participation of Federal-aid highway funds,and is subject to applicable State and Federal laws,both criminal and civil. Date Signature 110 411 DOT Form 140-089 EF Exhibit M-1(b) Revised 6/05 J Exhibit M-2 • Certification Regarding Debarment, Suspension, and Other Responsibility Matters-Primary Covered Transactions I. The prospective primary participant certifies to the best of its knowledge and belief,that it and its principals: A. Are not presently debarred,suspended,proposed for debarment, declared ineligible,or voluntarily excluded from covered transactions by any federal department or agency; B. Have not within a three-year period preceding this proposal been convicted of or had a civil judgment rendered against them for commission or fraud or a criminal offense in connection with obtaining,attempting to obtain,or performing a public(federal,state,or local)transaction or contract under a public transaction;violation of federal or state antitrust statues or commission of embezzlement,theft,forgery, bribery,falsification or destruction of records,making false statements,or receiving stolen property; C. Are not presently indicted for or otherwise criminally or civilly charged by a governmental entity (federal,state, or local)with commission of any of the offenses enumerated in paragraph(I)(B). of this certification; and D. Have not within a three(3)year period preceding this application/proposal had one or more public transactions(federal,state,or local)terminated for cause or default. II. Where the prospective primary participant is unable to certify to any of the statements in this certification, • , such prospective participant shall attach an explanation to this proposal. Consultant(Firm): Parametrix,Inc. (Date) (Signature)President or Authorized Official of Consultant 1111 DOT Form 140-089 EF Exhibit M-2 Revised 6/05 r I 111Exhibit M-3 Certification Regarding The Restrictions of The use of Federal Funds for Lobbying The prospective participant certifies,by signing and submitting this bid or proposal,to the best of his or her knowledge and belief,that: 1. No federal appropriated funds have been paid or will be paid,by or on behalf of the undersigned,to. any person for influencing or attempting to influence an officer or employee of any Federal agency, a member of Congress,an officer or employee of Congress,or an employee of a member of Congress in connection with the awarding of any Federal contract,the making of any Federal grant, the making of any Federal loan,the entering into of any cooperative agreement, and the extension, continuation,renewal,amendment,or modification of any Federal contract,grant, loan,or cooperative agreement. 2. If any funds other than Federal appropriated funds have been paid or will be paid to any person for influencing or attempting to influence an officer or employee of any Federal agency,a member of Congress,an officer or employee of Congress,or an employee of a member of Congress in connection with this Federal contract,grant,loan,or cooperative agreement,the undersigned shall complete and submit Standard Form-LLL, "Disclosure Form to Report Lobbying," in accordance with its instructions. This certification is a material representation of fact upon which reliance was placed when this transaction was made or entered into. Submission of this certification is a prerequisite for making • or entering into this transaction imposed by Section 1352,Title 31,U.S. Code. Any person who fails to file the required certification shall be subject to a civil penalty of not less than$10,000 and not more than$100,000 for each such failure. The prospective participant also agrees by submitting his or her bid or proposal that he or she shall require that the language of this certification be included in all lower tier subcontracts which exceed $100,000 and that all such subrecipients shall certify and disclose accordingly. Consultant(Firm): Parametrix,Inc. (Date) (Signature)President or Authorized Official of Consultant • DOT Form 140-089 EF Exhibit M-3 Revised 6/05 Exhibit M-4 • Certificate of Current Cost or Pricing Data This is to certify that,to the best of my knowledge and belief,the cost or pricing data(as defined in section 15.401 of the Federal Acquisition Regulation(FAR)and required under FAR subsection 15.403-4) submitted,either actually or by specific identification in writing,to the contracting officer or to the contracting officer's representative in support of May Creek Bridge Replacement Project are accurate,complete,and current as of April 17,2008 **. This certification includes the cost or pricing data supporting any advance agreements and forward pricing rate agreements between the offeror and the Government that are part of the proposal. Firm Parametrix,Inc. Name Robert H.Murray Title Bridges and Structures Division Manager Date of Execution*** * Identify the proposal,quotation,request for price adjustment,or other submission involved, giving the appropriate identifying number(e.g.,RFP No.). • ** Insert the day,month,and year when price negotiations were concluded and price agreement was reached. *** Insert the day,month,and year of signing,which should be as close as practicable to the date when the price negotiations were concluded and the contract price was agreed to. • DOT Form 140-089 EF Exhibit M-4 Revised 6/05 Supplemental Signature Consultant/Address/Telephone Parametrix, Inc. Page for 1231 Fryar Avenue Standard Consultant Sumner, WA 98390 Agreement Agreement Number Project Title And Work Description May Creek Bridge Replacement Federal Aid Number Local Agency THIS AGREEMENT, made and entered into this day of between the Local Agency of , Washington, hereinafter called the "AGENCY" , and the above organization hereinafter called the"CONSULTANT". In witness whereof,the parties hereto have executed this AGREEMENT as of the day and year first above written. CONSULTANT LOCAL AGENCY • By j 1�i _ ln,�.,. By Hil �IoY ( t Consultant Robert H. MurrayAgency Y By By Consultant Agency By Agency By Agency • DOT Form 140-089 EF Appendix 31.910 Revised 6/05 2008 Transportation Capital Improvement Fund 317 03/18/2008 Budget Adjustment Project List TIP # Project Title Final (Adjusted) 2008 Project Number 2008 Budget 317.000000.016.5950.0000.00 1 Street Overlay Program T12108 685,000 2 Arterial Rehabilitation Program T12186 470,000 3 Duvall Av NE T12123 4,509,240 4 Duvall Av NE - King County T12305 3,533,475 5 Duvall Ave NE 7th to Sunset T12702 - 6 SR 169 HOV - 140th to S R900 T12175 6,000,000 7 Rainier Av - Grady Way to S 2nd St T12703 13,640,000 8 SW 27th/Strander Design T12240 10,080,000 9 NE 4th St/Hoquiam Av NE T12209 230,000 10 Ripley Lane T12602 482,000 11 Garden Av N Widening T12603 850,000 4- 12 May Creek Bridge Replacement T12503 100,000 13 Monterrey Ave-NE 20th wall rept T12704 - 14 Bridge Inspection & Repair T00106 150,000 15 Intersection Safety & Mobility T12601 450,000 16 Traffic Safety Program T12115 45,000 17 School Zone Sign Upgrades T12504 100,000 18 RR Crossing Safety Prog. T12166 5,000 19 Loop Replacement Program T00016 20,000 20 Sign Replacement Program T12113 5,000 21 Light Pole Replacement Program T00091 35,000 is Traffic Efficiency Program ® T12162 50, Transit Program T12706 225,0 IP CITY OFST'ON . PLANNING/BUILDING/PUBLIC WORKS TRANSPORTATION SYSTEMS DIVISION 2008 -2013 SIX-YEAR TIP May Creek Bridge Replacement Functional Classification: N/A Fund: 317 Proj.Length: N/A Proj: 12503 TIP No. 12 CONTACT: Derek Akesson 425.430.7243 DESCRIPTION: STATUS: The bridge is located at N 31st Street.The project will remove the existing bridge structure and the timber The May Creek Bridge was inspected in 2005.The bridge is scheduled to be inspected piers within the waterway(pier 2 is in the middle of the stream channel). Replace with a single span, again in 2007.With the uncertainty of BRAC funding availability and the current condition of concrete structure supported on concrete abutments. Adjust the alignment of both approaches to conform the bridge(structurally deficient),the City proceeded with the design of a new bridge with to the increase in bridge deck height. This replacement will require some right-of-way acquisition due to City funds. Design to be completed in 2007. the adjustment of the alignment and the new bridge location. JUSTIFICATION: CHANGES: The existing structure is four feet below the 100-year floodwater level standards set by WSDOT: The BRAC is not accepting grant applications until 2008. BRAC funding is needed to cover the bridge deck is supported by a timber pier that is vulnerable to the weakening effect of rot and damage construction costs of the new bridge. from debris flows. Failure of this pier would cause immediate collapse. The timber abutments are showing evidence of rot and deterioration. May Creek bridge is classified as functionally obsolete;but has low ADT. 1 Funded :1 225,8091 Unfunded :1 695,000 Project Totals Programmed Pre-2008 Six Year Program ITEM Programmed Spent Pre-2007 2007 Total 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 EXPENSES: Project Development - ' Precon Enq/Admin 225,809 12,809 173,000 40,000 20,000 20,000 R-O-W(includes Admin) Construction Contract 586,000 586,000 440,000 146,000 Construction Enq/Admin 109,000 109,000 90,000 14,000 5,000 Other TOTAL EXPENSES 920,809 12,809 173,000 735,000 20,000 550,000 160,000 5,000 SOURCES OF FUNDS: ' Vehicle Fuel Tax • Business License Fee 102,809 12,809 70,000 20,000 20,000 Proposed Fund Balance 123,000 103,000 20,000 20,000 Grants In-Hand Mitigation In-Hand Vehicle Fuel Tax Other In-Hand Grants Proposed-BRAC AC 649,000 649,000 484,000 160,000 5,000 Mitigation Proposed L.I.D.'s Proposed Other Proposed Undetermined 46,000 46,000 46,000 TOTAL SOURCES 920,809 12,809 173,000 735,000 20,000 550,000 160,000 5,000 M•y C,.ek OB/'tt2007 12 38 PM 5-12 FINAL MAY CREEK BRIDGE AT NE 31ST STREET 0 LOCATION m� �t ili�° I , St i' I g F ern S} I ° € t abf»-S;_, $8 88th Sf! �l E4 R S' i C(r .,., i NE3:sr ' S ` q.. tr L4�Jr13 y£ �'� �•C tf .7 q „ , 2'ss •r3;'" '' St K•err, ilziti ' - , and�', rot t "fix ,S t s } V "'c^aFti..w, , ; .•, • „n 1° h:p , , i ": �•��} a, ......". ...__.. ;..,..^."r Mb✓`c-`",4 i• .,� FW,.� , ^.,,, 1`�`i'r'�1: , . ' s, .,, ,::' . 9 g sTR b .1 ,d��1`^art f rS' `° ray wEYrt w...... 7 ? f , t a � Nr �7t4R•"r , .., • `'l .:4 bre"1h SI ! ^' N� ,.. a. 2'81h,--8.t„-t , ,«.N«sa««.. 4 .. . -wf -Licrt. ",'i1CW 1 , pi" X15 '• y:s :,,r„< �''r;�T,iS; • • ,..�t�i4}f)jl .i1. ._.... �4��(fY Si ,tel, hof:?btlY�}� '1, y 1 erns 4. t f t t` ., ¢ `dt rfl.cxf ' 0 1111 • H .2/ CITY OF RENTON COUNCIL AGENDA BILL /1 AI #: o • Submitting Data: Public Works For Agenda of: Dept/Div/Board.. Utility Systems Division/Surface April 28, 2008 Water Utility Staff Contact Ron Straka(ext. 7248) Agenda Status Allen Quynn (ext. 7247) Consent X Subject: Public Hearing.. Final Pay Estimate— CAG-07-027 Correspondence.. SWP-27-3223, SW 34th Street Culvert Replacement Ordinance Project Resolution Old Business Exhibits: New Business Issue Paper Study Sessions Pay Estimate#12 (Final) Information Notice of Completion Recommended Action: Approvals: Council Concur Legal Dept Finance Dept X Other i! Fiscal Impact: Expenditure Required... $1,600 Transfer/Amendment Amount Budgeted $40,800 Revenue Generated Total Project Budget $1,535,000 City Share Total Project SUMMARY OF ACTION: R.L. Alia Co. began construction of the SW 34th Street Culvert Replacement project on May 21, 2007, and completed construction on March 6, 2008. The awarded amount of the contract was $1,270,871.00 and the final contract amount is $1,330,339.89. The difference of$59,468.89 was the result of change orders and changes in bid quantities. The approved 2007 Surface Water Utility Capital Improvement Program budget for the SW 34th Street Culvert Replacement project was $1,535,000. The majority of the construction costs was paid from the 2007 budget account. The approved 2008 carry forward project budget is $40,800. The 2008 Surface Water Utility Capital Improvement Program account has sufficient budget remaining to fund the Final Pay Estimate(#427.018.5950.0038.63/u65370.f010.0000.0000). STAFF RECOMMENDATION: Accept the SW 34th Street Culvert Replacement project, approve the Final Pay Estimate in the amount of$1,600.00, and release the retainage of$66,516.98 after 60 days and all required releases from the state have been obtained. • H:\File Sys\SWP- Surface Water Projects\SWP-27- Surface Water Projects(CIP)\27-3223 SW 34th St Culvert Replacement Project\1600 Construction\1605 Pay Estimates\AgendaBill-Final.doc\AQtp O PUBLIC WORKS DEPARTMENT • ♦ .; MEMORANDUM• -NrcC DATE: April 16, 2008 TO: Marcie Palmer, Council President Members of the Renton City Council VIA: Denis Law, Mayor FROM: Gregg Zimmerman dministrator STAFF CONTACT: Ron Straka, Surface Water Utility Supervisor(ext. 7248) Allen Quynn, Surface Water Utility Engineer(ext. 7247) SUBJECT: SW 34th Street Culvert Replacement Project (CAG-07-027) Project Acceptance and Final Pay Estimate ISSUE: Should Council accept the SW 34th Culvert Replacement project, approve the Final Pay • Estimate in the amount of$1,600, and release the retainage bond after 60 days and all required releases from the state have been obtained? RECOMMENDATION: Accept the SW 34th Culvert Replacement project, approve the Final Pay Estimate, and release the retainage bond after 60 days and all required releases from the state have been obtained. BACKGROUND: R. L. Alia Company began construction of the SW 34th Street Culvert Replacement project on May 21, 2007, and completed construction on March 6, 2008. The awarded amount of the contract was $1,270,871.00 and the final contract amount is $1,330,339.89. The difference of$59,468.89 was due to the following factors: • Increases in the quantities of some bid items needed for construction, including controlled density fill, stream bed gravel, and curb, gutter and sidewalk. • Extra work required to re-core, interchange Kor-N-Seal boots and mud up holes in SSMH #5 and#6. SSMH #5 required installation of a sand collar and new channel. Council/SW 34thth Final Pay April 16,2008 Page 2 of 2 • Extra work required to excavate, install, backfill and compact 500 lineal feet of 2-inch Schedule 40 conduit across the culvert and install inside drop structure in SSMH #5. • Extra work required to survey and install new City monument; excavate, form and pour 4-inch thick concrete at driveway approaches, and for curb and gutter along driveway entrances; and install additional lane markings on SW 34th Street. • Remove and replace 1000 square feet of existing asphalt trail north and south of SW 34th Street that was damaged during construction. The approved 2007 Surface Water Utility Capital Improvement Program budget for the SW 34th Street Culvert Replacement project was $1,535,000. The majority of the construction costs was paid from the 2007 budget. The approved 2008 carry forward project budget is $40,800. The 2008 Surface Water Utility Capital Improvement Program account has sufficient budget remaining to fund the Final Pay Estimate (#427.018.5950.003 8.63/u653 70.fid 10.0000.0000). CONCLUSION: Accept the SW 34th Street Culvert Replacement project, approve the Final Pay Estimate in the amount of$1,600, and release the retainage of$66,516.98 after 60 days and all 1111 required releases from the state have been obtained. cc: Lys Hornsby,Utility Systems Director File • H:\File Sys\SWP-Surface Water Projects\SWP-27-Surface Water Projects(CIP)\27-3223 SW 34th St Culvert Replacement Project\1600 Construction\1605 Pay Estimates\Issue Paper-final.DOC\AQtp T6: FINANCE DIRECTOR $ FROM: PUBLIC WORKS ADMINISTRATOR CONTRACTOR: R.L. Alia Company el TRACT NO. CAG-07-027 ESTIMATE NO. 12 (Final) PROJECT: SW 34th Street Culvert Replacement Project 1. CONTRACTOR EARNINGS THIS ESTIMATE $1,600.00 2. 3. TOTAL CONTRACT AMOUNT THIS ESTIMATE $1,600.00 4. EARNINGS PREVIOUSLY PAID CONTRACTOR $1,262,302.91 ' 5. * EARNINGS DUE CONTRACTOR THIS ESTIMATE $1,520.00 6. SUBTOTAL-CONTRACTOR PAYMENTS $1,263,822.91 ' 7. RETAINAGE ON PREVIOUS EARNINGS $66,436.98 8. ** RETAINAGE ON EARNINGS THIS ESTIMATE $80.00 9. SUBTOTAL- RETAINAGE $66,516.98 * (95%x LINE 1) ** (RETAINAGE: 5%) GRAND TOTAL: $1,330,339.89 FINANCE DEPARTMENT ACTION: PAYMENT TO CONTRACTOR (Lines 5 and 11): OP ACCOUNT # 427.01 59 ' 0 8.63/ 65370.f01 0 8. �0 0 3 u 0 0 00 0000 $1,520.00 # 12 (Final) $1,520.00T AINED AMOUNT Line 8 : ACCOUNT # 427.018.590.0038.63/u65370.f010.0000.0000 $80.00 # 12 (Final) $80.00 TOTAL THIS ESTIMATE: $1,600.00 CHARTER 116, LAWS OF 1965 CITY OF RENTON CERTIFICATION tfNO?, 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 I/-6i-sob HEREIN,AND THAT THE CLAIM IS A JUST,DUE AND UNPAID OBLIGATION AGAINST THE CITY OF RENTON,AND THAT I AM AUTHORIZED TO AUTHENTICATE AND CERTIFY TO SAID CLAIM Signed: ID Printed On:4/9/2008 City of Renton Public Works Department Page 1 6 Printed On:4/9/2008 City of Renton Public Works Department Page 1 Project: SW 34th Street Culvert Replacement Project Contract Number CAG-07-027 Contractor:R L.Alia Company Pay Estimate 12(Final) Closing Date- 4/8/2008 II Item Description Unit Est. Unit Previous Previous This This Total Total No. Quantity Price Quantity Amount Quantity Amount Quantity Amount 001. Mobilization Lump Sum 1 $72,000 00 1.00 $72,000.00 0.00 $0.00 1.00 $72,000.00 002 Pot Hole Existing Utilities Each 23 $250.00 3.00 $750.00 0 00 $0.00 3.00 $750.00 003. Temporary Water Pollution/Erosion Control Lump Sum 1 $3,500.00 1.00 $3,500.00 0.00 $0.00 1.00 $3,500.00 004. Temporary Stream Diversion Lump Sum 1 $107,000 00 1.00 $107,000.00 0.00 $0.00 1.00 $107,000.00 005. Traffic Control Lump Sum 1 $2,500.00 1 00 $2,500.00 0.00 $0.00 1.00 $2,500.00 006. Contractor Supplied Surveying Lump Sum 1 $8,000.00 1.00 $8,000.00 0.00 $0.00 1.00 $8,000 00 007. Removal of Structures and Obstructions Lump Sum 1 $9,000.00 1.00 $9,000.00 0 00 $0.00 1.00 $9,000.00 008 Removal of Existing Pavement Square Yard 3350 $5.00 3896.00 $19,480.00 0.00 $0.00 3896.00 $19,480.00 009. Removal of Existing Sidewalk Square Yard 561 $5.00 650 00 $3,250.00 0 00 $0.00 650.00 $3,250 00 010. Clearing,Grubbing,and Roadside Cleanup Lump Sum 1 $3,000.00 1.00 $3,000.00 0.00 $0.00 1.00 $3,000 00 011. Dewatering Lump Sum 1 $35,000.00 1.00 $35,000.00 0.00 $000 1.00 $35,000 00 012. Sheeting,Shoring,and Extra Excavation Lump Sum 1 $40,000.00 1.00 $40,000.00 0.00 $0.00 1 00 $40,000.00 013. Channel Excavation Cubic Yard 700 $40.00 700.00 $28,000.00 0.00 $0.00 700.00 $28,00 Controlled Density Fill(CDF)for Culvert and Wing Wall 014. Foundation Cubic Yard 120 $175.00 187.00 $32,725.00 0.00 $0.00 187.00 $32,725.00 015. Crushed Surfacing Base Course Ton 680 $25.00 382.24 $9,556.00 0.00 $0.00 382.24 $9,556.00 016. Crushed Surfacing Top Course Ton 115 $30.00 92 00 $2,760 00 0.00 $0.00 92.00 $2,760.00 017. Hot Mix Asphalt,Class A Ton 1370 $90.00 1413.56 $127,220.40 0.00 $0.00 1413.56 $127,220.40 018 Pre-Cast 30-ft wide x 12-ft high x 65-ft long Box Culvert Lump Sum 1 $210,000.00 1.00 $210,000.00 0.00 $0.00 1.00 $210,000 00 019 Wing Walls Lump Sum 1 $72,000.00 1.00 $72,000.00 0.00 $0.00 1.00 $72,000.00 020. Deck Parapet for Box Culvert Lump Sum 1 $11,000 00 1.00 $11,000.00 0.00 $0.00 1.00 $11,000.00 021. Steel Pipe Handrail Lineal Foot 172 $100.00 108.33 $10,833.00 0 00 $0.00 108.33 $10,833.00 022. Storm Drain Pipe,12-in Diameter Lineal Foot 325 $40.00 318.00 $12,720.00 0.00 $0.00 318 00 $12,720 00 023. Storm Drain Pipe,36-in Diameter Lineal Foot 38 $99.00 24.00 $2,376.00 0.00 $0.00 24.00 $2,376.00 024. Sewer Manhole,48-in Diameter Each 4 $2,800 00 4.00 $11,200 00 0 00 $0.00 4.00 $11,200.00 025 Sewer Mahole,Type B,54-in Diameter Each 2 $3,200.00 2.00 $6,400 00 0.00 $0.00 2.00 $6,400.00 026. Catch Basin,Type 2,96-in Diameter Each 1 $10,000.00 1.00 $10,000 00 0,00 $0.00 1.00 $10,000 00 027. Catch Basin,Type 2,48-in Diameter Each 1 $2,000.00 1.00 $2,000 00 0.00 $0.00 1.00 $2,0000 i 028. Catch Basin,Type 1,with Open Face Curb Each 5 $900.00 5.00 $4,500.00 0 00 $0 00 5.00 $4,500 00 029. Fire Hydrant Assembly Each 2 $3,800.00 2.00 $7,600.00 0.00 $0.00 2 00 $7,600 00 Printed On:4/9/2008 City of Renton Public Works Department Page 2 Project: SW 34th Street Culvert Replacement Project Contract Number- CAG-07-027 I or:R.L.Alia Company ty Pay Estimate 12(Final) Closing Date: 4/8/2008 Description Unit Est. Unit Previous Previous This This Total Total No. Quantity Price Quantity Amount Quantity Amount Quantity Amount 030. Trench Safety System Lump Sum 1 $5,000.00 1.00 $5,000.00 0.00 $0.00 1.00 $5,000.00 031. 8-in Temporary Bypass Water Main Lump Sum 1 $9,000 00 1.00 $9,000 00 0.00 $0.00 1.00 $9,000.00 12-in Ductile Iron Pipe for Water Main-Restrained Joint 032. Fittings Lineal Foot 290 $100.00 290.00 $29,000.00 16.00 $1,600.00 306.00 $30,600.00 033. 22-in Steel Casing Pipe for Water Main Lump Sum 1 $6,800.00 1.00 $6,800.00 0.00 $0.00 1.00 $6,800.00 034. Connection to Existing Water Main Each 3 $1,900.00 3 50 $6,650.00 0 00 $0.00 3 50 $6,650.00 035. 8-in Temporary Sewer Line Bypass Lump Sum 1 $1,000.00 1.00 $1,000.00 0.00 $0.00 1.00 $1,000.00 036. 8-in PVC Pipe for Sewer Main Lineal Foot 949 $48.00 999.00 $47,952.00 0 00 $0.00 999.00 $47,952.00 037. Removal and Replacement of Unsuitable Material Ton 100 $50.00 228.61 $11,430.50 0.00 $0.00 228.61 $11,430.50 038. 14-in Steel Casing Pipe for Sewer Main Lump Sum 1 $2,000.00 1.00 $2,000.00 0.00 $0.00 1.00 $2,000.00 039. Television Inspection of Sanitary Sewers Lineal Foot 949 $2.00 999.00 $1,998.00 0.00 $0.00 999.00 $1,998.00 040. Connection to Existing Sewer and Storm Drain Each 6 $2,000.00 7.00 $14,000.00 0.00 $0 00 7.00 $14,000.00 041.• Concrete for Thrust Blocking,Dead-Man Anchor Blocks Cubic Yard 12 $150.00 9 00 $1,350.00 0.00 $0.00 9.00 $1,350.00 12-in Gate Valve Each 3 $2,500.00 6 00 $15,000.00 0.00 $0.00 6 00 $15,000.00 043. Container Plant-1 Gallon Container Each 97 $13.00 97 00 $1,261.00 0.00 $0.00 97.00 $1,261.00 044. Balled and Burlapped-6-8 ft Height Each 8 $173.00 9.00 $1,557.00 0 00 $0.00 9,00 $1,557.00 045. Live Stake Each 66 $4.00 66.00 $264.00 0 00 $0.00 66.00 $264.00 046. Mulch Mat Square Yard 1000 $2.60 1000 00 $2,600.00 0.00 $0.00 1000,00 $2,600.00 047. Bark Mulch Cubic Yard 50 $59.00 60.00 $3,540.00 0 00 $0 00 60.00 $3,540 00 048. Hydroseeding Square Foot 8500 $0.25 11500.00 $2,875.00 0.00 $0 00 11500.00 $2,875 00 049. Cement Concrete Curb and Gutter Lineal Foot 700 $20.00 874.50 $17,490 00 0.00 $0.00 874 50 $17,490.00 050. Concrete Guardrail Lump Sum 1 $11,000 00 1.00 $11,000.00 0 00 $0.00 1 00 $11,000 00 051. Beam Guardrail Flared Terminal Lump Sum 1 $5,800.00 1.00 $5,800.00 0,00 $0.00 1.00 $5,800 00 052. Cement Concrete Sidewalk Square Yard 355 $50.00 405.00 $20,250.00 0.00 $0.00 405,00 $20,250 00 053. Sidewalk Ramp Square Yard 25 $50.00 2700 $1,350.00 000 $0.00 27.00 $1,350 00 054. Cement Concrete Driveway,Type 1 and 3 Square Yard 161 $50.00 155.00 $7,750 00 0 00 $0.00 155.00 $7,750.00 055. Pavement Markings Lump Sum 1 $2,900.00 1.00 $2,900 00 0.00 $0.00 1.00 $2,900.00 Structure Excavation 07 Lump Sum 1 $56,000.00 1 00 $56,000.00 0 00 $0.00 1.00 $56,000.00 Gravel Backfill for Walls Cubic Yard 308 $50.00 620.60 $31,030.00 0.00 $0.00 620.60 $31,030.00 058. Gravel Borrow Cubic Yard 795 $30 00 982.95 $29,488.50 0.00 $0.00 982 95 $29,488.50 M J Printed On:4/9/2008 City of Renton Public Works Department Page 3 Project: SW 34th Street Culvert Replacement Project Contract Number: CAG-07-027 IllContractor:R.L.Alia Company Pay Estimate 12(Final) Closing Date: 4/8/2008 Item Description Unit Est. Unit Previous Previous This This Total Total No. Quantity Price Quantity Amount Quantity Amount Quantity Amount r 059. Bank Run Gravel for Trench Backfill Cubic Yard 1028 $30.00 803.05 $24,091.50 0.00 $0.00 803.05 $24,091.50 060. Streambed Gravel Ton 660 $40.00 839.72 $33,588.80 0 00 $0.00 839.72 $33,588.80 061. Quarry Spalls Cubic Yard 4 $100.00 700 $700.00 0.00 $0.00 7.00 $700.00 062. Log with Root Wad Each 4 $3,000 00 4.00 $12,000.00 0 00 $0 00 4.00 $12,000.00 063. Top Soil,Type A Cubic Yard 150 $44.00 81.00 $3,564.00 0.00 $0.00 81.00 $3,564.00 064. Compost Cubic Yard 60 $68.00 60.00 $4,080.00 0.00 $0.00 60.00 $4,080.00 065. Wing Wall Drainage Matt Square Yard 100 $20.00 135.00 $2,700.00 0.00 $0.00 135.00 $2,700.00 066. Street Light Modification Lump Sum 1 $10,000.00 1.00 $10,000.00 0.00 $0.00 1.00 $10,000.00 067. Final Restoration and Cleanup Lump Sum 1 $13,000.00 1.00 $13,000.00 0 00 $0.00 1.00 $13,000.00 068. Change Order#1 Lump Sum 1 $1,301.70 1.00 $1,301.70 0.00 $0.00 1.00 $1,301.70 069. Change Order#2 Lump Sum 1 $5,897.05 1.00 $5,897.05 0.00 $0.00 1.00 $5,897.05 070. Change Order#3 Lump Sum 1 $4,078.69 1.00 $4,078 69 0.00 $0 00 1.00 $4,078.69 071. Change Order#4 $3,031.75 1.00 $3,031.75 0.00 $0.00 1.00 $3,0310 Subtotal $1,328,739.89 $1,600.00 $1,330,339.89 TT Total $1,328,739.89 $1,600 00 $1,330,339.89 r / /G ? C.- y-9-08 sTarE State of Washington Reg.No.: 4 0 40, Department of Revenue O �:h__7 Audit Procedures&Administration Date: • } 1889 boy= PO Box 47474 Olympia,Washington 98504-7474 NOTICE OF COMPLETION OF PUBLIC WORKS CONTRACT From: DEPARTMENT USE ONLY City of Renton Assigned To 1055 South Grady Way Renton,WA 98055 Date Assigned Notice is hereby given relative to the completion of contract or project described below. Description of Contract CAG-07-027 SW 34th Street Culvert Replacement Project Project No. SWP-27-3223 Contractor's Name R.L.Alia Company Telephone No. 425-226-8100 Contractor's Address 107 Williams Ave. S. Renton,WA 98055 Date Work Commenced Date Work Completed Date Work Accepted May 21,2007 March 6,2008 March 11,2008 • Surety or Bonding Co. Hartford Fire Insurance Co. Agent's Address Carl Newman C/o Parker, Smith&Feek 2233 112th Ave.NE Bellevue,WA 98004 425-709-3600 Contract Amount: $1,270,871.00 Amount Disbursed: $1,263,822.91 Additions or Reductions: $59,468.89 Amount Retained: $66,516.98 Sales Tax: $0 Total: $1,330,339.89 Total $1,330,339.89 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. •• H:\File Sys\SWP - Surface Water Projects\SWP-27 - Surface Water Projects (CIP)\27-3223 SW 34th St Culvert Replacement Project\1600 Construction\1605 Pay Estimates\Notice of completion.doc\AQtp F CITY OF RENTON COUNCIL AGENDA BILL Submitting Data: Public Works For Agenda of: April 28, 2008 Dept/Div/Board.. Utility Systems /Water Utility Staff Contact Abdoul Gafour, x 7210 Agenda Status Consent X Subject: Public Hearing.. Establishment of a Special Assessment District for the Correspondence.. Highlands Water Main Improvements Project Ordinance Resolution Old Business Exhibits: New Business Issue Paper Study Sessions Draft Notice of Potential Assessment Information Preliminary Assessment District Roll District Boundary Map Recommended Action: Approvals: Refer to Utilities Committee Legal Dept Finance Dept Other • Fiscal Impact: Expenditure $2,000,000 Transfer/Amendment Required Amount Budgeted $1,400,000 (2008 Budget) Revenue Generated $2,000,000 Acct.#425.018.5950.34.63.u55572 Total Project $1,400,000 (City's share) City Share Total Project $1,400,000 (City) Budget $600,000 (Developer's share) Developer's Share $ 600,000 SUMMARY OF ACTION: The Water Utility has completed the design of the water main improvements for the Highlands Redevelopment area. The project is ready for advertisement for construction bids in the spring of 2008 with construction anticipated in the summer and fall of 2008. The Water Utility requests Council's approval for the establishment of a Special Assessment District in order to ensure that the cost of the project is equitably distributed to properties that will benefit from the improvements. STAFF RECOMMENDATION: Approve the preliminary Special Assessment District and preliminary assessment roll for the proposed water main improvements for the Highlands Redevelopment area and direct staff to proceed with the establishment of the final Special Assessment District upon completion of the construction of the project. • H:\File Sys\WTR-Drinking Water Utility\WTR-27-Water Project Files\WTR-27-3179 Renton Highlands 565-Zone Water Main Improvements\Preliminary SAD\agen da-bill-preliminary-sad.doc\AGtp • ti`cY se PUBLIC WORKS DEPARTMENT ' ' MEMORANDUM -NSC) DATE: April 11, 2008 TO: Marcie Palmer, Council President Members of the Renton City Council VIA: -1C Denis Law, Mayor FROM: Gregg Zimmerma41Zrministrator STAFF CONTACT: Abdoul Gafour, Water Utility Engineering Supervisor(ext. 7210) SUBJECT: Establishment of a Special Assessment District for Highlands Water Main Improvements Project ISSUE: Should the City of Renton establish a Special Assessment District in order to ensure that the cost of the Highlands Water Main Improvements project is equitably distributed to • properties that will benefit from the construction of the project? RECOMMENDATION: Approve the preliminary Special Assessment District for the Highlands Water Main Improvements project and direct staff to proceed with the establishment of the final Special Assessment District upon completion of the construction of the project. BACKGROUND SUMMARY: The Highlands Water Main Improvements project is needed to provide sufficient water capacity and water pressure to meet fire flow demands from development and redevelopment of properties in the Renton Highlands area. The first significant private development project being constructed in Renton Highlands is the Harrington Square mixed-used development, which includes 210 multi-family dwelling units with 3,000 square-feet of retail spaces and 313 structured parking stalls. The Highlands Water Main Improvements project consists of the installation of 4,500 feet of 12-inch water line and new fire hydrants in NE Sunset Blvd, Harrington Avenue NE and NE 9th Street. The existing water mains in these streets, which were constructed in the early194Js, cannot deliver the fire flow or water pressure demand required by current fire codes for new development or redevelopment projects in the Renton Highlands. • The Water Utility proposes the establishment of a City-held Special Assessment District to ensure that the cost of the project is equitably distributed to properties that will benefit Council/Highlands Prelim SAD April 11,2008 Page 2 of 2 from the project, and at such time the properties are developed or redeveloped. The • proposed assessment method is based on a lineal front-footage of properties abutting on each side of the street where the new water mains will be constructed. The estimated total assessment for the project cost, including construction cost, Cit?s administration, and contingencies is $2,000,000. The estimated assessable front-footage of adjacent properties that benefit from the improvements is 5,822 feet; therefore the estimated potential assessment per front-foot within the Special Assessment District is $343.52 per front-foot. The assessment will be triggered when the properties within the special assessment district are developed or redeveloped and the development or redevelopment of the properties requires a fire flow demand or a water pressure demand that exceeds the water system capacity and water pressure before the water main improvements. Before the water main improvements, the water system capacity is limited to 2,000 gallons per minute, and the water pressure is limited to 40 pounds per square-inch. CONCLUSION: The Highlands Water Main Improvements project is consistent with the Citys business plan, which identifies infrastructure improvements as a means to promote economic development and neighborhood revitalization in the Renton Highlands area. City land use policies support public investments in infrastructure improvements to encourage • redevelopment, which creates opportunities for household growth. CounciFs approval of the establishment of a Special Assessment District will ensure that each property that benefits from the improvements pays its fair share of the costs. cc: Alex Pietsch,DECD Administrator Lys Hornsby,Utility Systems Director Nenita Ching,PW Financial and Adm Analyst File • H:\File Sys\WTR-Drinking Water Utility\WTR-27-Water Project Files\WTR-27-3179 Renton Highlands 565-Zone Water Main Improvements\Preliminary SAD\Issue-paper-prelim-sad.doc\AGtp H <Name> • <Secondary Name> <Street Address> <City, State> <Zip> CITY OF RENTON NOTICE OF POTENTIAL ASSESSMENT NOTICE OF PRELIMINARY HEARING FOR CITY OF RENTON SPECIAL ASSESSMENT DISTRICT HIGHLANDS WATER MAIN IMPROVEMENTS (1St Preliminary Notice) Mailed: MM/DD/YY King County Account Number: <PID> Per State Law (RCW 35.92.025) and City Ordinance No. 4444 the City may hold an Ordinance against the construction of water facilities, sewer facilities, storm water facilities, and street improvements including signalization and lighting, for the reimbursement by any owner of real estate who did not contribute to the original cost of such facility(ies) who subsequently tap onto or benefit from said facility(ies). Future users are subject to a fair pro-rata share of the cost of the construction of said facility(ies). Costs will become payable by the future user(s) upon issuance of • a City permit authorizing the future user(s) to construct improvements that would allow the users property to derive benefit from these facilities. It is the intent of this notice to inform you, that under the above quoted law, the Public Works Department of the City of Renton has filed a request with the Renton City Council, to recover a portion of the City's costs associated with the following project and that the cost recovery may likely affect your property. Contract: Special Assessment District No. Estimated construction start date: June 1, 2008 Estimated construction completion date: August 31, 2008 The Estimated Potential Assessment is $343.52 per front-foot for all properties within the Area Assessment District Boundary. A copy of a map is attached. Each property within the assessment area and boundary is referenced by a parcel number and by a King County tax account number. The Estimated Total Assessment Cost is $2,000,000.00 and the Total Assessable Front-Footage is 5,822 feet. Scope of Work: Installation of approximately 4,500 feet of 12-inch water main, fire hydrants and all appurtenances, in NE Sunset Boulevard, Harrington Avenue NE and NE 9th Street. A copy of a map Showing the proposed assessment area and boundary and of the general location of the water main improvements is attached. The purpose of the assessment district'is to allow the City the ability to collect the costs of the • construction of the Highlands Water Main Improvements by all those who benefit from its construction. To accomplish this, we are required to record a Notice of Potential Assessment against any parcel that may benefit from the improvements in the future. The benefit area is defined as the service area that the water main improvements may be able to serve. This boundary is shown on the attached map and is labeled "Special Assessment District Boundary". You will only be required to pay this assessment when the property gains benefit from the new water mains. Until that time, the property can be sold or change hands without activating the assessment. A property may gain benefit from the water main improvements during the development or redevelopment of the property with or without a connection to the water main improvements. Therefore the Special Assessment District charge may be triggered without a physical connection to the improvements. Benefit from the water main improvements can include but are not limited to the following: • A property that is not receiving water service from the existing water mains and that is connecting to the new water mains for domestic, or fire protection, or landscape irrigation uses. • A property that is receiving water service from the existing water mains before the construction of the new water mains and that is connecting to the new water mains for domestic, or fire protection, or landscape irrigation uses. 11111 • A property that is receiving water service from the existing water mains and the property is developed and/or redeveloped, such that the development and redevelopment of the property requires a fire flow demand or a water pressure that exceeds the water system capacity and water pressure before the water main improvements. The water system capacity prior to the improvements is limited to 2,000 gallons per minute (gpm), and the water pressure prior to the improvements is limited to 40 pounds per square-inch (psi). You will not be required to pay the assessment until one of the above situations occurs. However, the assessment district will accrue simple interest at a rate of between 6% and 8% per annum for a period of ten years. The accrual of interest will begin thirty (30) days after the Notice of Final Assessment is recorded with King County Records. To avoid interest charges at a future date, you may pay the amount of assessment during the thirty-day period after recording, interest free. This option is totally at the discretion of the property owner. Following construction, after the City receives the actual (final) costs, a second notice will be mailed to you verifying your inclusion in the Special Assessment District (recovery area) boundary. A quote of the final assessment dollar amounts will be provided on this second notice. Per City Ordinance No. 4444 you may request an appeal hearing by writing to the Renton City Council, c/o City Clerk, 1055 S Grady Way, Renton, WA 98057, within twenty (20) days of this preliminary notice. Appeals must adhere to the criteria established under Sections 9-16-4 and 9- 16-9.0 and D of Ordinance No. 4444. During this preliminary stage, appeals will be limited to the issue of whether or not a specific property should be included in the latecomer area. • H:\File Sys\WTR-Drinking Water Utility\WTR-27- Water Project Files\WTR-27-3179 Renton Highlands 565-Zone Water Main Improvements\Preliminary SAD\preliminary-notice-of-assessment.doc\AGtp If you have any questions regarding this special assessment district, construction costs, future • connections to, or use of, the improvements, please contact: Abdoul Gafour, Water Utility Engineering Supervisor, (425-430-7210) or e-mail agafour@ci.renton.wa.us Bonnie I. Walton, City Clerk City Highlands Water Main Special Assessment District -1st Notice of Preliminary Assessment/Preliminary Hearing • • H:\File Sys\WTR-Drinking Water Utility\WTR-27 -Water Project Files\WTR-27-3179 Renton Highlands 565-Zone Water Main Improvements\Preliminary SAD\preliminary-notice-of-assessment.doc\AGtp PROPOSED SPECIAL ASSESSMENT DISTRICT FOR WATER MAIN IMPROVEMENTS IN RENTON HIGHLANDS ' 2/12/2008 Estimated total project cost including, construction cost, administration, inspection and contingencies $ 2,000,000 Total Assessable Front-Foot(fr-ft) 5,822.00 Unit Cost/front-foot $ 343.52 Parcel No. Tax PID Front Foot Front-Foot Cost Tax Payer of Record 1 7227800285 224.56 $ 77,142 Kayo Oil 2 7227801206 130 $ 44,658 US Bank Corporate Properties 3 7227801205 785.46 $ 269,825 Greater Highlands Ltd Partnership 4 7227801201 125 $ 42,941 Yadav & Gill LLC 5 7227801085 115 $ 39,505 Renton Housing Authority 6 7227801055 265 $ 91,034 USA 7 7227500635 220 $ 75,575 Harris-Vukov & Silvia, Denise 8 7227500630 60.2 $ 20,680 Vukov S J 9 7227500625 60 $ 20,611 CW Holdings LLC 10 7227500620 60 $ 20,611 CW Holdings LLC 11 7227500615 60 $ 20,611 MGA Enterprises LLC 12 0812000005 118 $ 40,536 Smith, Jeff D & Barbara 13 7227500610 142 $ 48,780 Haywood, Eric&Jie 14 7227801024 618.41 $ 212,439 Harrington Square Associate 15 7227801029 13.29 $ 4,565 Safeway Inc Store 0366 16 7227801028 170.15 $ 58,451 Lai, David W& Christina Y 17 7227801025 379.35 $ 130,316 Renton Highlands Associates LLC 18 7227801026 251.5 $ 86,396 Safeway Inc Store 0366 19 7227801023 424.91 $ 145,967 Highlands Community Church 20 7227800995 227.35 $ 78,100 Highlands Community Church 21 7227900090 150 $ 51,529 Piacentini, Louise 22 7227900091 294.4 $ 101,134 Wong, D & C 1 LLC 23 7227900096 80 $ 27,482 Wong, D & C 1 LLC 24 0089000010 61 $ 20,955 Wong, D & C 1 LLC 25 7227900094 265.42 $ 91,178 Kin Properties 26 7227900095 170 $ 58,399 Pacific Nut Company, Inc. 27 7227900016 150 $ 51,529 Le, Peter K 28 7227900020 60 $ 20,611 Walgreen Co. 29 7227900015 40 $ 13,741 Walgreen Co. 30 7227900019 101.00 $ 34,696 Walgreen Co. $ - Total 5,822 $ 2,000,000 front-foot total assessment total assessment III III i h/filesy39Ritr-27-3179/sunset-watermain repl./sad/021108pidlist.xls P \7 \ Y ., y NE le-11- ST ----Lr / 1 "It,* __----- 30 2 44/ 26 liz ,`�' P 2 S Q 3 z c ,v a , t`L , 2 3 4 z �SJ� iis cy IPA 21 � el 1ply BO DA'� a�a •PE�� -- • AS LSS ' ,N , 'al 1-,' FIOTY iys8 T , iiim , 17 �,I i m I ! 4 W 7 z I\ '��`\ 2 0 9 Q NEW 12" WATE• LINES - gill z 19 10 14 -, 11 cri I -- 12 9�N S' I - z ; " , 1 li --! i-f9_ 313 16 / i- ! \ \ / 1 \ i I I BOUNDARY 0 ECI a A S§_ - INT ID ail -------1 , • _ ,, \ HIGHLANDS 565-ZONE WATER MAIN IMPROVEMENTS SPECIAL ASSESSMENT DISTRICT f i. CITY OF RENTON COUNCIL AGENDA BILL AI #: %�� • Submitting Data: Public Works For Agenda of: April 28, 2008 Dept/Div/Board.. Utility Systems/Water Utility Staff Contact Abdoul Gafour, x 7210 Agenda Status Consent X Subject: Public Hearing. Agreement with Harrington Square Associates, LLC for Correspondence.. Cost Sharing of the Highlands Water Main Ordinance Improvements Project Resolution Old Business Exhibits: New Business Issue Paper Study Sessions Draft Agreement Information Recommended Action: Approvals: Refer to Utilities Committee Legal Dept X Finance Dept X Other Fiscal Impact: ii Expenditure Required... $2,000,000 Transfer/Amendment Amount Budgeted $1,400,000 (2008 Budget) Revenue Generated From Acct# 425.018.5950.0034.63.u55572 Developer's Share of Project $ 600,000 Total Project Budget $2,000,000 City Share Total Project.. $1,400,000 SUMMARY OF ACTION: The Water Utility requests Council's approval of an agreement with Harrington Square Associates, LLC, for the cost sharing for the construction of the Highlands Water Main Improvements project. In the agreement, Harrington Square Associates, LLC, the developer of the Harrington Square mixed- used development in Renton Highlands, agrees to pay the City an initial amount of$600,000 toward the construction of the water main improvements project and the City will fund the remaining $1,400,000 of the total project cost estimated at $2,000,000. The City will recoup its share of the cost through a City-held Special Assessment District (SAD) to ensure that the cost of the project is equitably distributed to properties that will benefit from the project, and at such time the properties are developed or redeveloped. Fees collected by the City from the SAD will also reimburse Harrington Square Associates, LLC for its share of the project cost, which is the difference between its initial payment of$600,000 and the final SAD charges attributed to the development. STAFF RECOMMENDATION: Approve the agreement and authorize the Mayor and City Clerk to sign the agreement between the City of Renton and Harrington Square Associates, LLC for the cost sharing for the construction of the • Highlands Water Main Improvements project. H:\File Sys\WTR-Drinking Water Utility\WTR-27-Water Project Files\WTR-27-3179 Renton Highlands 565-Zone Water Main Improvements\Agreement with HSA\agenda-bill-HSAagreement.doc/AGtp r `SY O • C) ® , PUBLIC WORKS DEPARTMENT • MEMORANDUM DATE: April 11, 2008 TO: Marcie Palmer, Council President Members of the Renton City Council VIA: e,L. Denis Law, Mayor feta k . FROM: Gregg Zimmerma6mrnistrator STAFF CONTACT: Abdoul Gafour, Water Utility Engineering Supervisor(ext. 7210) SUBJECT: Cost Sharing Agreement with Harrington Square Associates, LLC for Highlands Water Main Improvements Project ISSUE: Should the City of Renton enter into a cost sharing agreement with Harrington Square Associates, LLC for the construction of the Highlands Water Main Improvements project? • RECOMMENDATION: • Approve the cost sharing agreement with Harrington Square Associates, LLC and the City of Renton for the cost sharing for the construction of the Highlands Water Main Improvements project. Under this agreement, the Cites estimated share of the project cost is $1,400,000 and the developer's share is $600,000. BACKGROUND SUMMARY: The Highlands Water Main Improvements project is needed to provide sufficient water capacity and water pressure to meet fire flow demands from the development and redevelopment of properties in the Renton Highlands area. The project generally consists of the installation of 4,500 feet of 12-inch water line, new fire hydrants, other appurtenances, and roadway restoration, in NE Sunset Boulevard, Harrington Avenue NE and NE 9th Street. The existing water mains in these streets, which were constructed in the earlyl940's, cannot deliver the fire flow or water pressure demand required by current fire codes for new development or redevelopment projects in the Renton Highlands. The first significant private development project being constructed in the Renton Highlands is the Harrington Square Development, a residential/retail mixed-used development, which includes 210 multi-family dwelling units with 3,000 square-feet of retail spaces and 313 structured parking stalls. • Typically, the City would require the developers to pay for the design and installation of all utilities required by City Code for their projects. In 2004, Harrington Square Council/Harrington Square Agreement April 11,2008 Page 2 of 2 Associates, LLC, the owner and developer of the mixed-used development requested the • City to participate in the cost sharing for the design and installation of water main improvements since the improvements support the City's business plan, which identified infrastructure improvements as a means to promote economic development and neighborhood revitalization of the Highlands redevelopment area. On April 5, 2004, City Council approved partial funding for the project and authorized staff to proceed with the development of a special assessment district to recoup the City's share of the improvements, subject to contribution of funding from the developer. The estimated construction cost in 2004 for the water main improvements was $900,000. Since 2004, the developer decided to put the construction of the Harrington Square project on hold and recently started construction of the project in January 2008. The City's 2008 cost estimate for the water main improvements project, including construction cost, City's administration, and contingencies, is $2,000,000. The substantial project cost estimate increase from 2004 to 2008 is due to increased prices for materials, labor and equipment costs, and inflation. Under the proposed cost-sharing agreement with the City, Harrington Square Associates, LLC will agree to pay the City an initial sum of$600,000 toward the project cost, and the City will fund the remaining $1,400,000. The Water Utility will be requesting, under a separate agenda bill, Council's approval for the establishment of a City-held Special Assessment District to ensure that the cost of the project is equitably distributed to properties that will benefit from the project, and at such time the properties are developed • or redeveloped. Fees collected by the City from the Special Assessment District will be reimbursed to the City and to Harrington Square Associates, LLC for its share of the project cost, which is the difference between its initial payment of$600,000 and the final special district assessment charges attributed to the property of the Harrington Square mixed-used project. CONCLUSION: The Highlands Water Main Improvements project supports the City's business plan goals, which identify infrastructure improvements as a means to promote economic development and neighborhood revitalization in the Renton Highlands area. City economic development policies support public investments and encourage partnering in infrastructure improvements to promote redevelopment, which creates opportunities for household growth. Council's approval of the cost sharing agreement with Harrington Square Associates, LLC will ensure funding for the project and that the City and the developer will be reimbursed for their shares of the project costs from properties within the Special Assessment District that will benefit from the improvements. cc: Alex Pietsch,Community and Economic Development Administrator Lys Hornsby,Utility Systems Director Nenita Ching,PW Financial and Adm Analyst 1111 File H:\File Sys\WTR-Drinking Water Utility\WTR-27-Water Project Files\WTR-27-3179 Renton Highlands 565-Zone Water Main Improvements\Agreement with HSA\Issue-paper-agreement-HSA.doc\AGtp .f Draft Agreement Between 04)4 The City of Renton And Harrington Square Associates, LLC For The Highlands Water Main Improvements Project This Agreement for the Highlands Water Main Improvements Project ("Agreement") is made and entered into this day of , 2008, by and between the City of Renton, Washington, a municipal corporation of the State of Washington, (the "City"), and Harrington Square Associates, LLC, a Washington limited liability company ("HSA"). WHEREAS, HSA is constructing the Harrington Square Development, a residential/retail development located at 950 Harrington Avenue NE, Renton, WA, with King County parcel identification number 7727801024; WHEREAS, the City's water mains in the vicinity of the Harrington Square Development cannot provide sufficient flow capacity and water pressure to meet the fire flow demand and water pressure demand for the Harrington Square Development; • WHEREAS, the City's development regulations require HSA to design and construct necessary off-site water main improvements to provide the required fire flow demand and water pressure demand for the Harrington Square Development; WHEREAS, the water main improvements will provide additional fire flow capacity and water pressure for fire protection and for domestic use to adjacent properties in the Renton Highlands which front the proposed water main improvements and as such, the water main improvements will benefit the properties, at such time the properties are developed and/or redeveloped; WHEREAS, the water main improvements are considered as the City's infrastructure improvements that will support the City's goals and objectives for phased development and redevelopment strategy to revitalize the Renton Highlands; WHEREAS, it is deemed to be in the best public interest for the City, as owner of the water main improvements, to plan, design and manage the construction of the improvements; WHEREAS, the City's cost estimate, as of March 2008, for the design, construction, and contract administration of the water main improvements, as shown in attached Exhibit B, is Two Million Dollars ($2,000,000); Page 1 of 5 H:\File Sys\WTR-Drinking Water Utility\WTR-27-Water Project Files\WTR-27-3179 Renton Highlands 565-Zone Water Main Improvements\Agreement with HSA\HSA-Agreement-DraftO 1.DOC\AGtp WHEREAS, the City intends to establish a City-held Special Assessment District to ensure that the cost of the project is equitably distributed to properties that will benefit from the project, and at such time the properties are developed or redeveloped; WHEREAS, HSA in consideration of the faithfuler • p formance of the work to be done by the City, agrees to pay the City an initial sum of Six Hundred Thousand Dollars ($600,000.00), prior to the City's advertisement for public bids for the construction of the project; WHisonEREAS, the City agrees to fund the remaining project cost that is over the $600,000.00 to be paid from HSA to the City, and the City's estimated share of the remaining project cost is One Million Four Hundred Thousand Dollars ($1,400,000); WHEREAS, HSA is entitled to be reimbursed by the City for its share of the project cost which is the difference between the initial payment of$600,000 to the City and the final special district assessment charges attributed to HSA's property located at 950 Harrington Avenue NE, and with King County parcel identification no. 7727801024, as described above; WHEREAS, the parties have entered into this Agreement to set forth their respective obligations with respect to the planning, design, construction and funding of the water main improvements project; NOW THEREFORE, in consideration of the terms, conditions, covenants, and performances contained herein, or attached and incorporated and made a part hereof, the City of Renton and Harrington Square Associates, LLC. mutually agree as follows: • SECTION 1: UNDERSTANDING This agreement reflects the understanding between the parties regarding the matters covered. It is understood and agreed that this Agreement is solely for the benefit of the parties hereto and gives no right to any other party. No joint venture or partnership is formed as a result of this Agreement. No employees or agents of HSA shall be deemed, or represent themselves to be, employees of the City. No employees or agents of the City shall be deemed to represent themselves to be, employees of HSA. SECTION 2: SCOPE OF WORK The general location of the water main improvements is shown on attached Exhibit "A". The City agrees that it will, by and through its staff, consultants, and its contractor, perform the following: a. Secure all permits and environmental review approval necessary for the construction of the project. b. Prepare engineering plans and contract documents for public construction bids in accordance to City standards and procedures and applicable state bidding laws. c. Advertise the project for public bids and select the lowest, responsive and responsible bidder for award of the construction contract. Page 2 of 5 • H:\File Sys\WTR-Drinking Water Utility\WTR-27-Water Project Files\WTR-27-3179 Renton Highlands 565-Zone Water Main Improvements\Agreement with HSA\HSA-Agreement-Drafto I.DOC\AGtp d. Manage, inspect and supervise the construction of the project, including change orders, in accordance with contract documents up to the final completion and acceptance of the project. SECTION 3: PROJECT COSTS ESTIMATE APT The City's estimated preliminary costs, as shown on Exhibit "B", dated March 25, 2008, of the water main improvements are $2,000,000. Construction costs will be determined after the opening of the bids, and from the bid amount to be submitted by the low bidder. Actual total project costs, including construction costs with final quantities, City's contract administration cost, and change orders cost, will be determined after the completion of the project. SECTION 4: CITY-HELD SPECIAL ASSESSMENT DISTRICT The City intends to hold a Special Assessment District to recover the following costs from benefiting properties within the Special Assessment District boundary to be established for the project: a. The City's actual share of the project cost, and b. HSA's share of the project cost which is the difference between HSA's initial payment of$600,000 and the final special district assessment charges attributed to HSA's property located at 950 Harrington Avenue NE and as described above. SECTION 5: COLLECTIONS AND REIMBURSEMENT OF ASSESSMENTS • The City will collect payments for special assessment district charges from properties within the special assessment district boundary; at such times said properties developed and/or redevelop, and such development and/or redevelopment receives benefit from the water main improvements, and/or if the properties connect to the water mains. Reimbursements to HSA for payments collected by the City for the special assessment district shall be limited to one fifteen (15) year term from the date of the City's publication of the final assessment roll for the special assessment district. The one time 15-year term limit is established by Chapter 9-5 of Renton Municipal Code for reimbursement to developers and owners of a pro-rata portion of public works facilities, which they install and turn over to the City. All payments collected shall be reimbursed as follows: 1. Payments collected within the first fifteen (15) years from the date of the City's publication of the final assessment roll for the special assessment district will be reimbursed as follows: • 50%to the City but not to exceed the City's actual project costs, including direct and indirect costs. • 50%to HSA but not to exceed the difference between the initial payment of$600,000 by HSA less the final special district assessment charge attributed to HSA's property. Page 3 of 5 H:\Pile Sys\WTR-Drinking Water Utility\WTR-27-Water Project Files\WTR-27-3179 Renton Highlands 565-Zone Water Main Improvements\Agreement with HSA\HSA-Agreement-Draft01.DOC\AGtp 2. Payments collected after the first fifteen (15) years from the date of the City's publication of the final assessment roll for the special assessment district will be reimbursed as follows: • • 100% to the City until all of the City's actual project costs, including direct and indirect costs, are recuperated. „r4 RAFT SECTION 6: TERM AND EFFECTIVE DATE This Agreement shall remain in full force and effect and be binding on both parties hereto upon accomplishment of the following: a) This Agreement is approved by the City Council of the City of Renton. b) This Agreement is signed by HSA and provided to the City. c) HSA pays the initial payment of $600,000.00 to the City, subject to the reimbursement of HSA's share of the City's collected special assessment district charges as described in Section 6 of this Agreement. d) The City executes this Agreement and the Agreement is recorded. SECTION 7: COORDINATION AND PROJECT MANAGEMENT ASSIGNMENT The City's representative for this Project is: Abdoul Gafour • City of Renton Water Utility Engineering Supervisor 1055 South Grady Way Renton, WA 98057 (425-430-7210) HSA's representative for this Project is: Rich Senseney, Project Manager Colpitts Development Company, LLC 1015 37th Avenue East Seattle, WA 98112 (206-322-1381) Amendment of coordination and project management assignments shall be made by mail by the representative party. SECTION 8: AMENDMENTS Any amendments or modifications to this Agreement shall be made in writing and signed by the parties hereto, and neither the City nor HSA shall be bound by verbal or implied agreements made by any official, agent or representative of either the City or HSA with respect to the subject matter of this Agreement. Page 4 of 5 Page H:\File Sys\WTR-Drinking Water Utilit \WTR-27-Water Project Files\WTR-27-3 179 Renton Highlands 565-Zone Water Main Improvements\Agreement with HSA\HSA-Agreement-Draft01.DOC\AGtp 71 SECTION 9: WAIVER 0 No waiver by either party of any term or condition of this Agreement shall be deemed or constructed as a waiver of any other term or condition. No waiver shall be effective unless in writing. D, -. A F kr THIS AGREEMENT AUTHORIZED BY THE CITY COUNCIL ON , 2008 Bonnie Walton, City Clerk APPROVED BY THE MAYOR ON 2008 Denis Law, Mayor IIIApproved as to legal form: Larry Warren, City Attorney APPROVED BY HARRINGTON SQUARE ASSOCIATES, LLC. ON , 2008 EXHIBITS: Exhibit A: Site Plan for Highlands Water Main Improvements Project. Exhibit B: Preliminary Project Cost Estimates—March 2008 • Page 5 of 5 1-l•\File Sys\WTR-Drinking Water Utility\WTR-27-Water Project Files\WTR-27-3179 Renton Highlands 565-Zone Water Main Improvements\Agreement with HSA\HSA-Agreement-Draft01.DOC\AGtp I I ' 1 \ 1 Exhibit Pk Ljj_ z NE 12TF- ST i • I1 30 4 14 �� :: "41 ir ask I, ,_ 3 • I - •IF„,.i . , . 41P DA' u� •PES AS :SS „ „.1.1,, 6 # , 0 lo)ki �� 1 18 MIN *4 7 It s. \______ sh � g Q t NEW 12” WATE1 LINES20 - 9 z 19 10 ' 14 11 z __ A 121 N S- \ Q I N� 9 __ e 97_2 1, 16 III.........,,,000 F' I `------4 t .0. OUNDARY 0' ' A A S`, (' K ! ` ' -\ T 10 - ' "' 4„ J • \ HIGHLANDS 565-ZONE WATER MAIN IMPROVEMENTS SPECIAL ASSESSMENT DISTRICT N �� S �� Prepared by: EXHIBIT B Abdoul Gafour Highlands Water Main Improvements City of Renton Preliminary Cost Estimate 03/25/08 i _-_ 1 mu6��r--�Unit 'Description '---- '--- -------- ---- UnitCoo�--- Engineer'sE�i�o� -'----_-_� ---_ '_- -_ -- _.---_-� uantity 1Lump Sum Mobilization, Demobilization 1 *100.000.00 __$100,000.00 2 Lump Sum 'Construction Surveying,Staking and An'8uilts [-'_ 1 $25.000.00 $25.000.00> 3 Lump Sum Traffic Control 1 $60.000.00 $00.000.00 4 Lump Sum Erosion, Sedimentation Control and Landscaping 1 $5.000.00 $5,000.00 5 Lump Sum Shoring, Design,Construction and Maintenance 1 $15.000.00 $15.000.00�_ 6 Linear Foot Furnish and Install 12"Dia. Ductile Iron Water Main& Fittings 4500 $130.00 __$585.000.00 7Lin*arFootFumiohand |nstoU1O^ Dia. Ducti|o |mnVVa1orMain& Fittinga 50 $100.00 $5.000.00 8 Each Furnish and Install 12"Gate Valve Assembly 24 $3.080.00 $72.000.00 9 Each Furnish and Install 10"Gate Valve Assembly 4 $1.200.00 $4.800.00 10 Linear Foot Furnish and Install 8" Dia. Ductile Iron Water Main & Fittings 30 $100.00 $3.000.00 _ _ 11Linear Foot furnish and Install 6" Dia. DuctUe Iron Water Main & Fittings 40 $90.00 $3.600.00 12 Each 12"Megalug Assembly 10 $400.00 *4.000.00 13 Each Furnish and Install Fire Hydrant Assembl 6 $4.000.00 $24.000.00L 14 Each Connection to Existing Water Main 5 $7.000.00 $35,000.00 15 Each Furnish and Install 3/4''Water Service5 $1.750.00 $8,750.00 ---' 16 Each � ur�s`and |nsta||1.Water Service ' [ 0 $1.700.00 $0.00 17 Each 0 $2,000.00 *0.00 18 Ton Furnish and Install Imported Select Trench Backfill 3000 *25.00 $75,000.00 19 Ton Furnish and Install Foundation Mat*,�� 500 $25.00 $1e.500.00_____�_ 20 Each Furnish and Install 2 Inch Blow-off Assembly 2 $4.000.00 $8.000.00 __ 21 Ton fThick Asphalt Concrete for PatchingTi*^ohPatching 2100 *150.00 $315,000.00 22 Ton Crushed Surfacing Top Course _ _ 1000 $30.00 $30,000.00 23 Cu-Yd Concrete for Thrust Blocking & Dead-Man Anchor Blocks 100 $250.00 $25,000.00 24 Sq Yd Removal and Replacement of Concrete Sidewalk and Driveways 100 $150.00 $15.000.00_____ 25 Linear Fand Replacement of Concrete Curb&Gutter 200 *50.00 $10,000.00 --- 26 Lump SuofExiudngVVatorMa�s. hydrants,valves bo^es,etc.------------ 1 $10.000.00 ---$10,000.00 i ------ __ 27Lump Sum | T,affi�Loops Sensor Replacement _ _ -] _ � _1 - $30.000.00 r--- � $30.0� 0O Tota| t480,650.00 ________ __ _________� �___ -__'_- 8.9 � � �� §� L —�-- - _-'_--' *130.287 $1,610,947 , Total _-- - ' __-----_- --�-_ 20%oon��en�e» ��__ � 4%��ec��and poUm�ma��me� *86.863 | Total with contingencies and inspection $2.000.000 FINANCE.COMMITTEE:REPORT APPROVED BY - CITY COUNCIL April 28,2008 Date 5"-R8- ;oar • APPROVAL OF CLAIMS AND PAYROLL VOUCHERS The Finance Committee approves for payment on-April 28," 2008 claim vouchers'271339-271784 and 2 wire transfers,totaling$3,381,66 03:: 2, and`757 direct t deposits, 142payroll vouchers, and".1r wire transfer,totaling $2,528,329:70: - . _ Don Persson,Chair ce- air - King Parker,Member "- . FINANCE COMMITTEE APPROVED BY . ._ COMMITTEE REPORT CITY`COUNCIL. . Apri128,200$ Date: 2S:A°8'.. 2008 BUDGET AMENDMENT FOR INFORMATION TECHNOLOGY PROJECTS 'The Committee concurs with-the staff recommendation to amend the 2008.budget and provide funds to , . complete.information technology projects as follows: _ . 1," $273,000 for Maintenance Task Management Systems implementation, 1 • 2. $136,000 for New World Police Systems software and services, 3: $50,000 for completion of the Web Site refresh, and•. ' . . • 4. $27,000 for a video and remote training system for.the Fire and Emergency Services Department. . • ' The Committee further .recommends that-:the`ordinance regarding this`matter bepresented for :first reading. '? fr - Don Persson,Chair m Bri air o ap „, King Parker;Member Linda Parks,Fiscal Services Director - NancyViolante,Financial ServiceManSer_ I:ICOMMITTEE\Reports\Finance\200812008_Budget Amendment forIT Carryforward Projects.doc • APPROVED BY TRANSPORTATION/AVIATION COMMITTEE CITY:COUNCIL COMMITTEE'REPORT Date 41.-"1?-#2°6?' April 28,2008. King County Metro/City of Renton/City of Kent: Transit Now Route 153.Transit Service Partnership (Referred April 14, 2008) The Transportation Committee recommends concurrence in the staff recommendation :to • • authorize the :Mayor and City Clerk, to 'enter- into the KC Metro Route: 153. Partnership, Agreement with King County Metro Transit and'the City of Kent. The Committee further recommends that the reolution regarding this_matter be presented for adoption. `Randy Corman, Chair Don Persson, Vice Chair Marcie Palmer,:Substitute Member cc: Nathan Jones,Transportation Planner.. : Connie Brundage;TiansportationSecretary • H:Dvision/Transportation/Admin/Committee R,eports/2008/Transit Now a4tel lar eWt CITY OF RENTON, WASHINGTON RESOLUTION NO. ,30S A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY OF RENTON, WASHINGTON, AUTHORIZING THE MAYOR AND CITY CLERK TO ENTER INTO AN INTERLOCAL AGREEMENT WITH KING COUNTY REGARDING REIMBURSEMENT FOR WORK TO BE DONE ON RIPLEY LANE. WHEREAS, the City has determined that it is necessary to do certain repair work on Ripley Lane, also known as Hazelwood Lane, on both sides of the road from 1400 feet from Lake Washington Boulevard to the trestle in front of the Seahawks practice facility; and WHEREAS, the City does not currently have sufficient forces to do the necessary work; and WHEREAS, King County has agreed to do that work for the City of Renton; and WHEREAS, it is necessary to document the terms and conditions under which such repair work will be done; 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 an interlocal agreement with King County Department of Transportation Road Services Division entitled "Reimbursement — Commitment to Pay" for certain repair work on both sides of Ripley Lane. PASSED BY THE CITY COUNCIL this day of , 2008. Bonnie I. Walton, City Clerk 1 ► RESOLUTION NO. APPROVED BY THE MAYOR this day of , 2008. Denis Law, Mayor Approved as to form: Lawrence J. Warren, City Attorney RES.1335:4/17/08:scr 2 - adofieed 1,11.10f CITY OF RENTON, WASHINGTON// RESOLUTION NO. 399-1 A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY OF RENTON, WASHINGTON, AUTHORIZING THE MAYOR AND CITY CLERK TO EXECUTE THE TRANSIT SERVICE DIRECT FINANCIAL PARTNERSHIP AGREEMENT BY AND BETWEEN KING COUNTY AND THE CITIES OF RENTON AND KENT, WASHINGTON. WHEREAS, in September 2006, the King County Council adopted Ordinance 15582, the Transit Now ordinance, directing the submission of a proposition to King County voters to fix and impose an additional sales and use tax of one-tenth of one percent to fund expansion of the King County Metro public transportation system and a variety of transit service improvements; and WHEREAS, the Transit Now ordinance identified a number of transit service measures to be implemented using the one-tenth of one percent sales and use tax collected through Transit Now that focus on capital, operating, and maintenance improvements that are expected to expand and improve bus service on local streets and arterials within King County; and WHEREAS, mutually beneficial contractual arrangements with other public and private entities ("service partnerships") that leverage public and private funds to provide both new and better bus service to cities and major employers is one of four key strategies (the "Service Partnership Program") identified in the Transit Now proposition approved by King County voters in the general election on November 7, 2006; and WHEREAS, the Service Partnership Program is also designed and intended to support the service development objectives and financial strategies of the Six-Year Transit Development Plan for 2002-2007, and its successor, the Ten-Year Strategic Plan for Public Transportation 2007-2016; and 1 ' RESOLUTION NO. WHEREAS, the Ten-Year Strategic Plan for Public Transportation 2007-2016 adopted by King County Council November 13, 2007 Strategy IM-3 exempts service partnerships, schedule maintenance, contracted services or partnership agreements from subarea allocation and reduction requirements; and WHEREAS, the City of Renton has submitted an application for a direct financial partnership for transit service and has met the criteria established by the County for awarding such partnerships; and WHEREAS, the proposal submitted by the City of Renton has been deemed to show a potential gain in ridership; and WHEREAS, the proposal submitted by the City of Renton has been approved by the King County Council; 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 hereby authorized to execute the Transit Service Direct Financial Partnership Agreement By and Between King County and the Cities of Renton and Kent, Washington. PASSED BY THE CITY COUNCIL this day of , 2008. Bonnie I. Walton, City Clerk 2 • RESOLUTION NO. APPROVED BY THE MAYOR this day of , 2008. Denis Law, Mayor Approved as to form: Lawrence J. Warren, City Attorney RES.1332:3/27/08:scr 3 • ORDINANCE NO. and territory described below is hereby approved and granted; the following described property being contiguous to the City limits of the City of Renton is hereby annexed to the City of Renton, and such annexation to be effective on and after the approval, passage, and thirty days after publication of this Ordinance; and on and after said date the property shall constitute a part of the City of Renton and shall be subject to all its laws and ordinances then and thereafter in force and effect; the property being described as follows: See Exhibit"A" attached hereto and made a part hereof as if fully set forth herein [Said property, approximately 374-acres, is generally located immediately south of the Renton Maple Valley Highway and immediately east of the Cedar River at approximately 136th Avenue Southeast.] and the owners of the property within the annexation shall be subject to the City's • Comprehensive Plan and Zoning Code. SECTION II. This Ordinance shall be effective upon its passage, approval, and thirty days after its publication. A certified copy of this Ordinance shall be filed with the King County Council, State of Washington, and as otherwise provided by law. PASSED BY THE CITY COUNCIL this day of , 2008. Bonnie I. Walton, City Clerk 4110 3 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.1467:4/18/08:scr. • 4 f • Exhibit A NEW LIFE - AQUA BARN ANNEXATION LEGAL DESCRIPTION The lands included within the subject annexation area are situated in Sections 22, 23, 24 and 27, all in Township 23 North, Range 5 East, W.M., King County, Washington, said annexation area being more particularly described as follows: Beginning at the point of intersection of the northeasterly margin of SE Renton-Maple Valley Highway (SR169, P.S.H. #5), and the "THREAD" of the Cedar River in the Northwest quarter of said Section 22, said point also being on the Renton City Limits as annexed under Ordinance No. 4156; Thence southeasterly along said existing City Limit Line as annexed under Ordinance No. 4156, and the northeasterly right of way margin of said SE Renton-Maple Valley Highway to the west line of Government Lot 2 in the Northeast quarter of said Section 22, where said City Limit Line follows the northerly right of way margin of the • abandoned Burlington Northern (Pacific Coast) Railroad right of way; Thence continuing southeasterly along said City Limit Line and said northerly right of way margin to an intersection with the westerly right of way margin of 149th Ave. SE, in the Southwest quarter of said Section 23; Thence leaving said City Limit Line and continuing southeasterly, along said northerly railroad right of way margin, crossing 149th Ave SE and 154th P1 SE to the intersection of said northerly railroad right of way margin and the easterly right of way margin of 154th P1 SE, said intersection also being a point on the Urban Growth Boundary (UGB) line; Thence southerly along the southerly extension of said easterly right of way margin and said UGB line,to a point of cusp on the northeasterly right of way margin of SE Renton- Maple Valley Highway(SR169, P.S.H. #5), in the Southwest quarter of said Section 23; Thence southeasterly along the various courses of said northeasterly right of way margin and said UGB line, to an intersection with a line 201 feet east of and parallel with the west line of the Southwest quarter of said Section 24; Thence southerly along said parallel line and said UGB line to a point of intersection with a line perpendicular to said west line, said perpendicular line beginning at a point on said west line 50 feet south of the northeast corner of Tract A of Valley Faire II, as recorded • under Volume 131 of Plats, Pages 39 - 43, records of King County, Washington; 0232c(Aqua Barn Annex per BRB 1-30-2008).doc -1 - February 15,2008 Thence westerly along said perpendicular line and said UGB line to the west line of said • Southwest quarter, said west line also being the east line of the Southeast quarter of said Section 23; Thence northwesterly along a line parallel with the north line of said Tract A, a distance of 350 feet; Thence northerly along a line parallel with said east line, to the north line of said Tract A; Thence generally westerly along the various courses of the north line of said Tract A, to the west line of said Southeast quarter, said west line also being the east line of the Southwest quarter of said Section 23; Thence southerly along said east line, to the southeast corner of said subdivision; Thence westerly along the south line of said subdivision to the southwest corner thereof; Thence northerly along the west line of said subdivision, to the northwest corner of the Southwest quarter of said Southwest quarter, said northwest corner also being the southeast corner of the Northeast quarter of the Southeast quarter of said Section 22; Thence westerly along the south line of said subdivision, to the SE corner of Tract J, Pioneer Place, as recorded under Volume 226 of Plats, Pages 51 - 56, said records; • Thence westerly along the various courses of the south line of said Tract J, to a point on the west line of said plat, said west line also being the east line of Elliot Farm, as recorded under Volume 180 of Plats, Pages 4 - 15, said records, said west line also being the east line of the Northwest quarter of the Southeast quarter of said Section 22; Thence northerly along said east line of said plat, said east line also being the east line of Tract G and Tract E, both of said plat, to the most easterly northeast corner of said Tract E; Thence westerly along the various courses of the northerly line of said Tract E, to a point on the easterly right of way margin of 140th Way SE, in the Northeast quarter of the Southwest quarter of said Section 22; Thence southeasterly, southerly and southwesterly along said easterly right of way margin, to an intersection with the south line of said Section 22; Thence westerly along said south line, crossing said 140th Way SE, said south line also being the south line of Maple Ridge Estates, as recorded under Volume 134 of Plats, Pages 9 - 16, said records, to a point on the east line of Lot 2, View Point at Maple Ridge, as recorded under Volume 161 of Plats, Pages 32 - 35, said records; • 0232c(Aqua Barn Annex per BRB 1-30-2008).doc -2- February 15,2008 Thence southerly and westerly along the boundary lines of Lots 2 through 9 of said plat, . in the Northeast quarter of said Section 27, and the westerly extension thereof, crossing 140th Ave SE, to an intersection with the westerly right of way margin of 140th Ave SE, in the Northwest quarter of said Section 27; Thence northerly along said westerly right of way margin, to an intersection with said south line of said Section 22, said south line also being the south line of said plat; Thence westerly along said south line of said Section 22 and the south line of said plat, to the southwest corner of Lot 13 of said plat, in the Southwest quarter of said Section 22; Thence generally northerly along the various courses of the west line of said plat and the west line of Maple Ridge Estates, Division 2, Phase 3, as recorded under Volume 163 of Plats, Pages 64 - 66, said records, to the northwest corner of said plat, said northwest corner also being a point on the south line of the Northeast quarter of the Southwest quarter of said Section 22; Thence westerly along said south line,to the most southerly southeast corner of Tract J, King County Boundary Lot Adjustment No. LOl L 0026, as recorded under King County Rec. No. 20010730900003; Thence westerly, northwesterly, northerly, southwesterly and westerly along the various courses of the southerly and westerly boundary lines of Tract J, to a point on the western boundary thereof, said point also being the southeast corner of Tract L of said boundary line adjustment, in Government Lot 9 of said Section 22; Thence southwesterly, westerly and northwesterly, along the various courses of the south line of said Tract L to the southwest corner thereof, said southwest corner also being a point on the east line of that property conveyed to King County under King County Recording Number 9810304345; Thence southwesterly and southeasterly, along said east line, to an intersection with the centerline of Molasses Creek; Thence northwesterly along said creek centerline and its northwesterly extension, to an intersection with the Renton City Limit Line as annexed under Ordinance No. 5243, said line also being the "THREAD" of the Cedar River; Thence northeasterly along said City Limit Line and the "THREAD" of the Cedar River to the point of beginning. • 0232c(Aqua Barn Annex per BRB 1-30-2008).doc -3- February 15, 2008 _ „<:,v-1=-:iii Jr. tom_ - 11,_-Q1,_ _ f--r- 'sE-1••1st ji — kt '..1 t{rritS�l SE_14'2 St,- ':j = �`Y _� �. I } 15�. 5. }, •i 9�1 __ ' ,:=B �ft r1lb ) J 11 w �� _iJiIL - I', Ar5e-1hSt' _" t j A1 SE 14dYJ%St ',1- _ _ 1 / t1�� t ti � c.:-L\''. J71 j ,J -/ V"' 1111165111111 6.E. 46 —, '' Tilaull�w 1 ijj ' i7,-;',--i.4. th7-sE.14 Iiis, i _ ,_._ ` ` .,1-.-..4 P,q 1 ' J I �':_./I j `7 �- i ti 1 t�� yb r { w _ '� . �.. a rr ^ .-. J t I.,,` �s. — —� _ -'-Via//eY yaa...... C I/.. �� rJf 1 I � -S4--,,,-- �i l IFtitir, it ��` � ill R... '''' '.‘<,-‘. i Y :S. 1.1 "Alai Nort.1 ---- 1:1::,,ktt%E .-' e--^=-4,__"1-,...f..:14 -\-NP-6 I 1..-- ,__—61t—I-:-:.--7--,"i 1 i , `iy 0771,- (:`,-f -.?)1', L' Q I -I----- ~y.4--- ,-._I !� ir'' 1 _•.,Y _f j I•E Y * -.l` ---:- _ Kms'- .r" ,ice c.,\771.- 1,, a-,. -,.,t.,1 4c 1 �m r * 4aci ` `j,z N , i_ •„I` F I _,,,ti- i._�.T-I•'I jI'r'f-Tri '- - .... ("Z:"1".., ! I:', —�., ._i(Y—II maims' - '1 �.,.,,,Ie ,rad} SJ }.��aisl �•-•.�'- r•9-• -r�J j�I�fi i ,_ ._•_:a'- ivr, J w r St r� ' �� ■^' SF1.56th•st J UTL-71----1 �ST� 01* e-r •1_ , Y R-M-7 - ••('0111.14._ I 1 LL C 1'. `•� •1 r -`�J�.Bf'^;. r• U t■ Ifs J,J i 1,1 1111041. r �i Li t � r v Y� j+ Ij\;�j'`s 4. II r~� �.a .. I Ja a��Li aLis�i aau.■na.�araa�sa.n�aaau�uani 4-j,,,,,,--,`�� y`> titi .-r, 1'botn PJ F---I-SEr160. pi ��J �`• Tom, 1' ti �-"l •l-}. i ,-_: •.,.t,-1- .. s. 'SE- 62nd-PI }1 --. ' • T • ,,1,4 ' ( 1- r J, �` t i+ ��• fir- rr�rr J >, .-.-4 ' _ ,{ - __ ( t _ .+1 .r`''''',4. T-fti SE:�6S'"f'•�• 1 PT--(-1 '..t 16' r -7-1'r k +' t- ?Ill,• --, •44 at-,,,,,/_._ 'r-?,. J E 165=h'Sr-' ,r--_ ``l 1 1 J !,....0-0 +jp'1\ ■■r ,ri,l .±5 i I T-, 1 .,1. S ti J s. O r MSM ( ir,.:,',,� i, 7,-,2,,,,>:,„:..„.,,I, y `.%.,e."r) ;-, r' "tom`+ ''<"' F.."'%,'. r a,a� .-_ 15\t}+ y S..- -,i r 'r�.. rt...0 �•- ti� ti �o-' �•-s;', r-�> I ,I �',_��`� �- 'q-�'i i`�.-•I•-»I��b %, . •z ,r\' I , - --A-r.,+ '`t � ti, t'.4- `7�!� Ji r `Its tt � I J fY� '('�-r'''• •t-7I 5 T{ 1 SLI �� .t�;G .t �.c' �-�'.,�� t rt-,r �. � 'r-- =': � .�`r Iii 9 .� } i I-r='-r-Y=r `t-• I i Ii ---1------'--T Y 1 ¢'1r-i C_. �J�- { .-., iM 1 1 ! rt-'�, LL fi- r-;I,.Y• 1-. tMi... ....'j .A s r fh-r }�r+?-�.r_ ,'ti 'r v:-,SE168 fh_I._•--t".ir,V':: I E! 1 ^;_h:.i....- .'.,._.._ >�e,11'\ F ^ ,�,{+-J'-`I'�f,2 'ti+ 1°F 5 ,!i - I St - I __� .Fj-j _ "4171 ...IL 1_ ."?-- llJ ici h I 4-tI,L• --:t,-=-7-7-"i0'-',-...),`,-N 1LIJ_ZT�` y:' � r rim—•,. -,,L,, _:<_- ----1',:l'r-Lg.:.i III i I I l7 "Y 1. `t {1'i(� r ..-)..4;-• ti %;r<` I1-.---'j t 1 •'r_J' -Y �S- Vin, , �:'}�1-- f r_ 11 I 1 ', tea.. z _.� ..1,..7.-.,,t? 'h titi r -,.,,.....4„ t -.5k-1- I- I it--:- ...1 Irkk4 New Life - Aqua Barn Annexation Department of Community • .rSY os ;& Economic Development / lex Pietsch,Administror � at -1\-V A Jchnsor>,Planning March 19,2006 " Legend o 500 1,000 2000 /I MIICEINICIIIIIIMMIIMIIIN Feet rimor� / 1 New Life-Aqua Barn Proposed Boundary 0 1:16,000 tium,...; Produced by City of Renton(c)2008, t-ie City of Renton all rights reserved. N-owar rarties d any sort,ircluding but not limited to accuracy.fitness or n�rchantablity. Fie NameCJ Sed __prove;ts:hev:_It>;_r rr.', a mpany this product. F1_proposed_arne:x_teur.cal y.ni -I. I • CITY OF RENTON, WASHINGTON ORDINANCE NO. AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF RENTON, WASHINGTON, ESTABLISHING THE ZONING CLASSIFICATION OF CERTAIN PROPERTY ANNEXED WITHIN THE CITY OF RENTON FROM KING COUNTY ZONING TO CA (COMMERCIAL ARTERIAL) (COMPREHENSIVE PLAN AMENDMENT, CPA#2007-M-03). WHEREAS, property owners petitioned the City of Renton for annexation and concurrent rezoning, which annexation having previously been approved and ordinance adopted which will annex the property to the City of Renton, and the City having held two public hearings to consider this zoning application, the first hearing being held on August 1, 2007 and the second hearing being held on October 1, 2007, and the zoning request being in conformity with the City's Comprehensive Plan, as amended, and the City Council having considered all • matters relevant thereto, and all parties having been heard appearing in support or in opposition to the proposed zoning; NOW, THEREFORE, THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF RENTON, WASHINGTON, DOES ORDAIN AS FOLLOWS: SECTION I. The following described property in the City of Renton is hereby zoned to CA. The annual ordinance adopting the maps of the City's zoning ordinance is hereby amended to show the rezoning and the CED Administrator is hereby authorized and directed to change the maps of the zoning ordinance, as amended, to evidence the rezoning, to wit: • 1 y, 3 ORDINANCE NO. • See Exhibit"A" attached hereto and made a part hereof as if fully set forth herein. [Said properties, approximately 3.062 acres, including Lots 3 & 4 of King County Short Plat No. L99S30119, as recorded under King County Recording No. 20010831900002, in the Northeast quarter of the Southwest quarter of Section 23, Township 23 North, Range 5 East, W.M., in the City of Renton, King County, Washington.] SECTION II. 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.1466:4/18/08:scr. • 2 EXHIBIT A • CA ZONE LEGAL DESCRIPTION Lots 3 & 4 of King County Short Plat No. L99S3019, as recorded under King County Recording No. 20010831900002, in the Northeast quarter of the Southwest quarter of Section 23, Township 23 North, Range 5 East, W.M., in the City of Renton, King County, Washington. Aqua Barn CA Zoning Page 1 of 1 4/14/2008 / ..� �JS _v/✓\ }.. j f _.,—,.I.,%'r j `` SE` 0 y1 __.--,-114----1,—,, _ - St' �'... <,r+� i / Y' _ I v ; ,,,,..c�,,..,'tY'_':+t .,, `... 4S, ..I` •.j� -...-:\ RI, r,--- - M� —�—! , 7 ' ve � � - • f :41! I 's* , ,__L............. .____ ,u� _ --I1-� :„''i `'_-.-5E-946t Y- .q$w;:,;. .� E 148 i' ,l\ ,fit ... 1 /. ,._;. I. —t t_— ; " _, 1 I W �M,t,;:. 'i' r< ��" t».5,'"�'F::; r ! _ _. i.' �1..,�`�. -1.�\ �! 1t t -� _.(/� 744,`,/.....'��,i;r,:^. ig I _....-'`. .7';' /, j ;``=[P;'v,:' S E`,�O' i �d`� � I i --- ., `t!4-t, 4-- if j •r!tF ;;;yg ( ,:$:;r- 7�e,,� j Gj,PJ\ _ii,.'. �` _.•5e,,,-`" Lr.__: -.i;Q /c ,:':��;'as''s I I \ ._% h J' ' ..,;, sr,Q- � \ y/ J, n I '., v?`� \-+nt /%/ ,„��.i;��k;�il i'Jl�rrar ��;0- jay r�'\\ Y j f --1 ('-- ._.......r-1_!--`,��.�,-.lr--' ,r I t jjr `,,,, i/—4•---\.%” u I- I \. ice'\�' ._� :��'' x�`,/;1•y2`;;fi«.44 rtf-i,i'3 �- f....-AQ• I r / :.,2�,"' "-'+ �r�\ / °r j ;I -yt\` -.�.. � "\\,,i \\,-.' :t.:I ,._t.tif',,_47.-m1; :eh, I y ..;.,,•. .,rh., t s.`:."wn'.�,. - /';n, .- --{ r ,I ,1 i - , �+ Y •� zti�" °x`r` , �. i Z 4 11 cl ,� I ""e�„ L I i, 1-_.�u ,,,,,. 'CsE.Re•�i -'i_...,_.,-_ti ' s'� i � I y ;:,, 'i i I �•' '+�,r w 4,• I \ /.r::.- '- JJ'+1 r i i 7,,71q0/72:41-��-•may".--.i ( �:;,, % -- i • _ \\. } J`, f t , '�j`• . .�.i } %�.r;,'. ;� ,ra10/e. �.�`-� :";;a.., r - .=i_...-i -�'' N: *'4' I --4%,�r r`!;=L.f.r i_;1; Va//e •s„•. i.12:n` •: ..,, 'ii i r r- I :..I .I_ `1 '(�,,,,,t,„.„,., ! J 7 �l,. f r; :. l` l •�`, _._ -, �. .. a.t , J ` ,�1�:% - _,-"\-._.. II �,,,,,j ^'1 _( .��"' '}:i;.r=. "�' - ,tea' "-1 1 4i....., y r...iv,fkb.... _ J \ Ol; ( 1.'2_1-'1/ ��:�� Q 0ii,•ii•Oi0'OOi• 91''lb�;s;,:.,;, `„\,._II I \ s 10.:_;:.::,:V.: �� 't \ = + t „ ..-1.7,T �� .Ji f•e.�'� 'O Iri .aa"€c{,;,r,., __._ - i I \ . 7�, "� = i•.. ',?S-.'" ,,GLI '-;'. -� lt,../f- t\ .,"; i;'� a` :-( ': ,,. I SE 15 tltJSfr t >r' \'y I' ; 4 ..k',. ',' .r I r,. r .:; ,_y `,i I\j i. =' . y L iSE ;5� I I I I i III .t l'r -�•• -I ' .� kr-- _. I / \ '\/ r '� sf, I ` I i ! \ \ ( I1 I II . , .1;; : i r _ I r I \� \ I II i I �J: I SE 7 9th;„/ •- i : $ is - 1 h✓P i Y , SE3'1 9t %` III `' 1---•----•--••— -- -- •-----•� , i� I I .r. __.,.....- i r 2e,` y • : T...,, ti SEs \ �..y, „!sem, ,T j 60th P 1i y, �� / x-5731,/ ?7 am.;;: r' —r r- i --t , T r ti 4�`.i - \ �,'.,,( s , "—� .Jr';' '\\. I I I I , I , i 'S '� I'-_i > ,- .. IIlIIP I I I _t. _,,, -. i - , i. �` tSE d O --r S 1L s,= _ I �r s' i li"r , ,,., ,Irl , , �� i' , ,., 1_ New Life Aqua Barn Annexation � �Y o eDepartment of Community Legend CA Zone , ; & Economic Development ._..� i-•_••i New Life-Aqua Barn Boundary N 'P�NW Alex Pietsch,Administrator April 21,2008 Adriana Johnson,Planning Technician From King County Zoning to Renton CA 0 300 600 1,200 �' � Feet iii:K:i CA-Commercial Arterial d by City of Renton(c)2008,the City of ill 1:12,000 4 rights reserved.No warranties of any sort, g but not limited to accuracy,fitness or File Name:H:\EDNSP\GIS_projects\new life arn\ erchantabii ty,accompany this product, - - mxds1new_life_aqua_barn_from_KC_zoning_to_CA.mxd ....• d • CITY OF RENTON, WASHINGTON ORDINANCE NO. AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF RENTON, WASHINGTON, ESTABLISHING THE ZONING CLASSIFICATION OF CERTAIN PROPERTY ANNEXED WITHIN THE CITY OF RENTON FROM KING COUNTY ZONING TO RC (RESOURCE CONSERVATION) (COMPREHENSIVE PLAN AMENDMENT, CPA#2007-M-03). WHEREAS, property owners petitioned the City of Renton for annexation and concurrent rezoning, which annexation having previously been approved and ordinance adopted which will annex the property to the City of Renton, and the City having held two public hearings to consider this zoning application, the first hearing being held on August 1, 2007 and the second hearing being held on October 1, 2007, and the zoning request being in conformity with the City's Comprehensive Plan, as amended, and the City Council having considered all • matters relevant thereto, and all parties having been heard appearing in support or in opposition to the proposed zoning; NOW, THEREFORE, THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF RENTON, WASHINGTON, DOES ORDAIN AS FOLLOWS: SECTION I. The following described property in the City of Renton is hereby zoned to RC. The annual ordinance adopting the maps of the City's zoning ordinance is hereby amended to show the rezoning and the CED Administrator is hereby authorized and directed to change the maps of the zoning ordinance, as amended, to evidence the rezoning, to wit: See Exhibit"A" attached hereto and made a part hereof as if fully set forth herein. [Said properties, approximately 109.35 acres, including those portions of Section 22, and the Southwest quarter of Section 23, all in Township 23 North, Range 5 East, W.M., in the City of Renton, King County, Washington.] • 1 ORDINANCE NO. . • SECTION II. 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.1465:4/18/08:scr. 2 Y . EXHIBIT A • RC ZONE LEGAL DESCRIPTION Those portions of Section 22, and the Southwest quarter of Section 23, all in Township 23 North, Range 5 East, W.M., in the City of Renton, King County, Washington, more particularly described as follows: Those portions of Parcels B, C & E of King County Boundary Line Adjustment No. L97L0179, as recorded under King County Recording No. 9808259003, lying northerly of Molasses Creek, easterly of the existing Limits of the City of Renton as annexed by Ordinance No. 5243, southerly of the south right of way margin of SE Renton- Maple Valley Highway SE (SR 169, P.S.H. #5), and westerly of the following described line: Commencing at the Southeast corner of Government Lot 9 of said Section 22 from which the Northeast corner bears North 01° 17'33" E; Thence South 84° 03' 54" West a distance of 356.78 feet; Thence South 23° 58' 46" East a distance of 78.30 feet, to the centerline of said Molasses Creek and the True Point of Beginning of the herein described line; Thence North 23° 58' 46" West a distance of 54.29 feet; • Thence North 32° 24' 58" East a distance of 95.30 feet; Thence North 20° 55' 58" East a distance of 109.60 feet; Thence North 14° 4' 11" East a distance of 210.01 feet; Thence North 11° 55' 46" East a distance of 86.83 feet; Thence North 24° 05' 49" East a distance of 147.47 feet; Thence North 21° 36' 09" East a distance of 222.47 feet, to said southerly margin and the terminus of the herein described line; TOGETHER WITH Lots L & K that portion of the Lot J of King County Lot Line Adjustment No. LO1L0126, as recorded under King County Recording No. 20010730900003, lying southerly of the following described line: Commencing at the Southwest corner of said Lot J, thence North 32° 49' 04" West along the west line thereof, a distance of 956.24 feet to an angle point in said west line; • Aqua Barn RC Zoning Page 1 of 4 4/14/2008 Thence continuing along said west line North 01° 17' 33" East a distance • of 530.18 feet to the True Point of Beginning of the herein described line; Thence South 89° 17' 47" East a distance of 149.84 feet; Thence South 73° 16' 58" East a distance of 297.02 feet; Thence South 62° 57' 05" East a distance of 6.76 feet to a point on a curve to the left, having a radius of 133.00 feet, the center of which bears North 50° 41' 22" East; Thence southeasterly along the arc of said curve a distance of 34.67 feet; Thence South 54° 14' 45" East a distance of 58.83 feet to a point on a curve to the left, having a radius of 80.00 feet; Thence easterly along the arc of said curve a distance of 69.14 feet; The South 62° 57' 05" East a distance of 106.37 feet to a point on the northeasterly line of said Lot J and the terminus of said line; and TOGETHER WITH Tracts B, C & D of Elliot Farm, as recorded in Volume 180 of Plats, Pages 4— 15, records of King County; and • TOGETHER WITH Tract J of Pioneer Place, as recorded in Volume 226 of Plats, Pages 51 — 57, said records; and TOGETHER WITH that portion of the Northeast quarter of the Southeast quarter of said Section 22 lying southerly of the following described line: Beginning at the southeast corner of said subdivision, from which the southwest corner bears North 89° 22' 8" West; Thence North 26° 48' 31" West a distance of 76.62 feet; Thence North 40° 14'11" West a distance of 120.87 feet; Thence North 56° 04' 13" West a distance of 156.83 feet; Thence North 60° 21' 35" West a distance of 46.95 feet to an intersection with the west line of said Tract J; Aqua Barn RC Zoning Page 2 of 4 4/14/2008 • f Thence South 13° 50' 41" West along said west line a distance of 275.46 feet to the south line of said subdivision and the terminus of the herein • described line; and TOGETHER WITH that portion of the Southwest quarter of said Southwest quarter lying southerly of the following described line: Commencing at the southwest corner of said subdivision; Thence North 02° 08' 49" East, along the west line thereof, a distance of 513.13 feet to the True Point of Beginning of the herein described line; Thence North 18° 42' 45" East a distance of 112.66 feet; Thence North 57° 43' 27" East a distance of 53.17 feet; Thence North 10° 47' 04" East a distance of 101.15 feet; Thence North 11° 30' 50" East a distance of 130.38 feet; Thence North 33° 10' 43" East a distance of 146.99 feet; Thence North 54° 38' 15" East a distance of 89.93 feet; • Thence North 76° 30' 15" East a distance of 60.83 feet; Thence North 88° 18' 55" East a distance of 80.47 feet; Thence South 77° 28' 16" East a distance of 152.68 feet; Thence South 40° 25' 34" East a distance of 167.83 feet; Thence South 32° 16' 31" East a distance of 53.17 feet; Thence South 11° 58' 34" East a distance of 79.81 feet; Thence South 50° 44' 26" East a distance of 317.77 feet; Thence North 50° 51' 21" East a distance of 131.17 feet; Thence North 78° 46' 33" East a distance of 243.48 feet to a point of intersection with the east line of said subdivision and the terminus of the herein described line; and Aqua Barn RC Zoning Page 3 of 4 4/14/2008 • TOGETHER WITH Tract A of King County Short Plat No. L99S3019, as recorded under King County Recording No. 20010831900002; and • TOGETHER WITH that portion of Emerald Crest, as recorded in Volume 132, of Condominiums, Pages 61 —67, said records, lying southerly of the following described line: Commencing at the Southeast corner of said condominium; Thence N 01° 22' 15" East along the east line of said condominium, a distance of 432.41 feet to the True Point of Beginning of the herein described line; Thence North 66° 21' 00" West a distance of 229.87 feet; Thence South 88° 36' 10" West a distance of 191.07 feet; Thence South 65° 13' 29" West a distance of 33.87 feet; Thence North 85° 36' 05" West a distance of 92.54 feet; Thence North 72°0 9' 38" West a distance of 126.38 feet to an angle point on the east line of said condominium and the terminus of the herein described line, said angle point being North 01° 22' 51" East a distance of • 526.59 feet from the southwest corner of said condominium; and TOGETHER WITH that portion of the Burlington Northern and Sante Fe railroad right of way in said Sections 22 &23 lying easterly of the west line of the Southeast quarter of the Northeast quarter of said Section 22, northerly and westerly of the northeasterly margin of said SE Renton—Maple Valley Highway and westerly of the southerly extension of the easterly right of way margin of 154th Place SE to its intersection with said northeasterly margin in said Southwest quarter of Section 23. Aqua Barn RC Zoning Page 4 of 4 4/14/2008 • -. j SE _ jl \ �/ / i- \ \ ` I IS fjf. �/ S, ,J,.�_.f-.. I�I W / ' Ij :' t S E : __, I 1 • l I ' x �t,-----,,,:,- - T ,` ' ! I r" -..s - r Ir-%Ij -SE`146thtQl,:.:y �._.,,, ti l i l j w:.r.,.�,. ' J� r I 1 i - .:� f I-`I ,-_ I I 1 , _.r T l' I I -^ -- — Alt" 'Y . _... __...-_-I ''•41.,.�.._.._.._.._ .,:r401.4 -*,•'.'..":''... y.,... 'r - 1 SE 14 j •-..."--i''' ._ _._ "--1--.; 1 y Fy I •• - Vii.,. ) 1 -- --- - _,-Y.l..1 .St l1 41:•i �,"k�G'y"r� !. ; 1 � ,,;`t I _I, II_I_ _ 1,. <t^ 1 I j I 1Lij l h/J/9e M1'1 {'i:�AI:iC .t.{...le,`:� r`y ,n9 =� !f , / '' I ,i''`e i yfi''•\ !� ,A�t_ .�iCit I (/� i f.:?,ff,Ah I I % 4'_;.. E�/o Qin r ('"pgth;- ta .4.,,;4•44,:t• a' I_-` 4 'CI?—', ,:i �� ^. S` --'--s.--: '_x.. Q�� i / .,I"?41� '-7---,-... - 3'iQ" �. I I r f -- .r. "` . /\.��•�•.•, F.:t ,F p, F. j rO' ,Q4 v (+ r r I�,. �. / H ,, `• ;•,......, -1 .�.a s',141,4.',-t.,..,,.'I ,r.j;�r,,:.;dry I I T-'� ;' __ , I,. '•ti \ ••'••• r � 1 .• .•..• .t .4.41••--•-'. %).•'. j •' '•••••••.V.*.• :amu..+:411W1I,.••••••••••••i r CITY OF RENTON, WASHINGTON ORDINANCE NO. AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF RENTON, WASHINGTON, ESTABLISHING THE ZONING CLASSIFICATION OF CERTAIN PROPERTY ANNEXED WITHIN THE CITY OF RENTON FROM KING COUNTY ZONING TO RMH (RESIDENTIAL MANUFACTURED HOMES) (COMPREHENSIVE PLAN AMENDMENT, CPA# 2007-M-03). WHEREAS, property owners petitioned the City of Renton for annexation and concurrent rezoning, which annexation having previously been approved and ordinance adopted which will annex the property to the City of Renton, and the City having held two public hearings to consider this zoning application, the first hearing being held on August 1, 2007 and the second hearing being held on October 1, 2007, and the zoning request being in conformity with the City's Comprehensive Plan, as amended, and the City Council having considered all ' matters relevant thereto, and all parties having been heard appearing in support or in opposition to the proposed zoning; NOW, THEREFORE, THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF RENTON, WASHINGTON, DOES ORDAIN AS FOLLOWS: SECTION I. The following described property in the City of Renton is hereby zoned to RMH. The annual ordinance adopting the maps of the City's zoning ordinance is hereby amended to show the rezoning and the CED Administrator is hereby authorized and directed to change the maps of the zoning ordinance, as amended, to evidence the rezoning, to wit: ,- 1 Thence South 13° 42' 00" West a distance of 274.24 feet, to the west line of said subdivision and the terminus of the herein described line; and Except that portion of said Northeast quarter lying southerly of the following described line: Beginning at the southeast corner of said subdivision, from which the southwest corner bears North 89° 22' 8" West; Thence North 26° 48' 31" East a distance of 76.62 feet; Thence North 40° 14'11" East a distance of 120.87 feet; Thence North 56° 4' 13" East a distance of 156.83 feet; Thence North 60° 21' 35" East a distance of 46.95 feet to an intersection with the west line of Tract J of said Pioneer Place and the terminus of the herein described line. Aqua Barn RMH Zoning Page 2 of 2 4/14/2008 , r a I v i I SE -1_ Eiji ---r.---.,( 1. \ t .,,,,,,,,tum,.. j `r W ,e; t a y1_0 •ry.,.,,.-,.n:.,Frau V,. f1-0.,1_, ....1 ... S•E '7 IW L �y ,.fa r. 'i."L,,,,Lj,; -I... i_._...-SE;I14 -;; —'4.-.7..17.?: �\i i lith I ,� I �. A' 1 ;,'_•�,:'z':-,,,40,70'. i i/ s;__.;'-!--1.--,.---- z t.,...II I W_ ., , ti.. . ' I 7,,, ---•!---,,,,LOI•i :?-!:I!!!'!!!"1! !!"'"' `-,;� ',ii ',f ! C +141'x,p i'Ik.'. __./,' '7 -' ' - _ ...._- ' ,I r' `.., -i h } ham. :.t„ ..a, e „� 1`r i I -.1,,:),,‘ �\ c i c+ w� '' ? f I r� -1 ` 4 , , • oI r' ; , 'rti ,• ' - I m' -- -� r I 11 , , , , '1( i(r •�•: a�_ �` r".... T , ':,;,,�,I.i r •_.•iiiiii••••••� nu,r ^".;t,..._ '-':.:.-I"';:o�"...:,,i.i "�.�I r;i, I I ,; \ . .1,;r'Ih--•••••••••••e••••4 WI •,00r,dgy:q!:i,,,,,,,„ ...... -a,Sil•c �, •',L . 7.::., i �\ \ -•,-,---....�_. l�A .,/:�,� : ''.,,,&_•••••♦ • y ' .gal .. I .- .c-u.`.. ' `�-..i ` � ��' . I •••••• •I 'c a> •Jird.. \ 4 l r \ , d.: ✓F,i iii•••. Q••. 6 > ''•••••••••••••••••;.....:'..,,7.^11'10 Iiit ,.-., ....p• -, a, n- I •••• ••• �t .� • r .. ,-. 'r_.-_Crs` .: ., ••••••. .••••••••••♦ , --------1., ��•` .. '..'1 I 1 `i • 7,.. , I , 4 . , •••••• .•••••••••••,.,,. .,'rgi';:`iiiiiN!U'j cu" - - \ - I - -1 --„ .,,,u "''�'. !''''7!' •�.,,, '. t—..Jt-__ .,,.L - . iii N • . 'r, ..< I i ...v.. '-°anYtn '•v,_.N r ^ :r.,� _ __ ❖••. e.-,*•':+:44:44,4:44,•••, ,f '.+a e'`<n,. t t.W , ::_..:.. —+-,—{. '\Vii-, ..• •_.r ••••••••••.. _ _ 4; ,,I ..,_ _.. ! li, • ........... ,,q, Et156th• «u r -^Z� i .00•::::j .o. - ";' _ 1 +1- ..i /....,-;-,..-',1'.''.i'.---;-,-;-, �': ___•;.,, \-_.....,. ...: -_-) I _-...;:;;•;•;•;•i;•;p i:•;•;SE41 1/i,$t r,. ; I i ' (,./±�`r.;-.1.7,•.;-4,�j----`' 1--!ri/; i • SEi1:58� },{_„,,,..2?,-,---}-~_'�.: r I , !I i \\ '�:' III I --- --- - - ; _' . I I�� _/ ) n ry.a ,.SE„159thiRl . ' Jr:/ �,______________,.......____________J '\ i-1-----f* —�--SE§159th PI t iI I ILI I I 1 - P — � � I,h. — - •i ! .. �1.i . /�l 762n I T .: a S/ S. ..•1-,1--_,--1d ' I ( r':.: i g t., r r l ,,,,,,,,,••,. ,[Y ! r 4 ti i k, i. Q J/^.•y( - t� j. ie h✓ `f ” i I ! 1__ New Life Aqua Barn Annexation ticY o Department of Community Legend RMH Zone C-ItiMV & Economic Development •-----• 1-----i New Life-Aqua Barn Boundary N ��IY CAlex Pietsch,Administrator April 21,2008 Adriana Johnson,Planning Technician From King County Zoning to Renton RMH 0 300 600 1,200 ,•,•;•1:E:i RMH-Residential Manufactured Homes Feet Produced by City of Renton(c)2008 the City of 1:12,000 Renton all rights reserved.No warranties of any sort, including bet 00/invited to accuracy.fitness or File Name:H:\EDNSP\GIS_projects\new— life_aqua_barn\ merchantability.accompany this product mxds\new_life_aqua_barn_from_KC_zoning_to_RMH.mxd • CITY OF RENTON, WASHINGTON ORDINANCE NO. AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF RENTON, WASHINGTON, ESTABLISHING THE ZONING CLASSIFICATION OF CERTAIN PROPERTY ANNEXED WITHIN THE CITY OF RENTON FROM KING COUNTY ZONING TO R-4 (RESIDENTIAL SINGLE FAMILY, FOUR DWELLING UNITS PER NET ACRE) (COMPREHENSIVE PLAN AMENDMENT, CPA# 2007-M-03). WHEREAS, property owners petitioned the City of Renton for annexation and concurrent rezoning, which annexation having previously been approved and ordinance adopted which will annex the property to the City of Renton, and the City having held two public hearings to consider this zoning application, the first hearing being held on August 1, 2007 and the second hearing being held on October 1, 2007, and the zoning request being in conformity with the City's Comprehensive Plan, as amended, and the City Council having considered all • matters relevant thereto, and all parties having been heard appearing in support or in opposition to the proposed zoning; NOW, THEREFORE, THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF RENTON, WASHINGTON, DOES ORDAIN AS FOLLOWS: SECTION I. The following described property in the City of Renton is hereby zoned to R-4. The annual ordinance adopting the maps of the City's zoning ordinance is hereby amended to show the rezoning and the CED Administrator is hereby authorized and directed to change the maps of the zoning ordinance, as amended, to evidence the rezoning, to wit: 110 1 ORDINANCE NO. • See Exhibit "A" attached hereto and made a part hereof as if fully set forth herein. [Said properties, approximately 95.20 acres, including those portions of the Southeast quarter of Section 23 and the Southwest quarter of Section 24, both in Township 23 North, Range 5 East, W.M., in the City of Renton, King County, Washington.] SECTION II. 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.1463:4/18/08:scr. 2 • EXHIBIT A • R-4 ZONE LEGAL DESCRIPTION Those portions of the Southeast quarter of Section 23 and the Southwest quarter of Section 24, both in Township 23 North, Range 5 East, W.M., in the City of Renton, King County, Washington, more particularly described as follows: Valley Faire I as recorded in Volume 133 of Plats, Pages 43 —47, records of King County; TOGETHER WITH Valley Faire I, Phase III, as recorded in Volume 139 of Plats, Pages 8 — 10, said records; and TOGETHER WITH Valley Faire III, as recorded in Volume 146 of Plats, Pages 22 —28, said records; and TOGETHER WITH that portion of said Southeast quarter lying easterly of the east lines of said Valley Faire I and Valley Faire I, Phase III plats, southerly of the southerly right of way margin of SE Renton—Maple Valley Highway(SR 169, P.S.H. #5) and northerly of the northern boundary of Tract A of Valley Faire II, as recorded in Volume 131 of Plats, Pages 39-43, said records, and as amended by King County Lot Line Adjustment S92L0194; and • TOGETHER WITH the west 201 feet of said Southwest quarter lying southerly of said southerly margin and northerly of a line perpendicular to the west line of said Southwest quarter, that begins at the northeast corner of said amended Tract A; TOGETHER WITH Maple Ridge Estates, as recorded in Volume 134 of Plats, Pages 9— 16, said records; and TOGETHER WITH Maple Ridge Estates Div. 2, as recorded in Volume 158 of Plats, Pages 50— 55, said records; and TOGETHER WITH Maple Ridge Estates Div. 2, Ph. 3, as recorded in Volume 163 of Plats, Pages 64—66, said records; and TOGETHER WITH View Pointe At Maple Ridge, as recorded in Volume 163 of Plats, Pages 64—66, said records; and TOGETHER WITH Lots 1 —4 of King County Short Plat S91 S0108, recorded under King County Recording No. 9303129008; and LESS roads. Aqua Barn R-4 Zoning Page 1 of 1 4/22/2008 • J \/ I ";rm rl 7"r-c\ T - _ /j/ I - i e xi yl ----,-_ -__I.__. --},-_tom. y , ILL/ r y r t' I i fhfA SE1� _ _ ;..... 'I---=fin "� .11 .s-.- i '`tit ` I G ... i S 4'k, I I �\ li " P/ :: 146th.l, sE '` v ,.,--/;;;4,' A.,._... `I. ill I 1 y:>' 1 y._... j :: +... ._ -__ \_ '',.t',M-aiiiIi„i, �; ._. I ___.__.-_ - _.-... ._ i/'..._,1 I SE1 S I - `.r Y... _... _.�_._ 'i si ; I i ,,.."32•V'' ;, j 1 / i r ,t,. tip„ �: -- L _ _,L L j I r, 9�' •aha: I / / ,., �. \ 1 , ...I 1 ` i0 (;!l ;,.,£ I I i I�''t---1 "SE$ I r , i -,.-,, .,t„ ,S I �,/, i7?' ':a'a'F9 kVAN.. ,. I %., 1. -JO'P\ Sof 1 I y�gt ; Q ;T_, q y aCiYl; K i .Q� Ni .''47_-' _-.._--_ I1,it.--J• f I :\ - (4.0)....'i .. i*46)\,.,t / '�j, 'fi:91141 iti,.. ,el 1 , I I/ I ( h /' ,.! , _i �IL v —1`r' I I, ._ ., E S .ter`, t_ ap � `: I ,, j - ii n�M � ,• M iu7. -- -`_. �,-n.'r,7 l'J%i' �-JJ'`�,/' - �efk i/ey J�"'�.. ::i __ I y” ----( \,�. % ,, Hwy, i.. .•••e•ee . ;` •,e0•ee •e ° °eeeoee•:S � /7,';...�--, z I 1 0 Q _ ''`.._..� ,..,,. � �u,+_ ,``."r'•'+,: \"• I I - - .•d.•••e •••••o•• • r ! ie•e••••.` \ • ._.':::o::i...•e.•::• :iy,f"�a:. ....... I //w•e-; iw••wo�••♦ ♦••..,•...,tA '`' -/ t,- wlid.. ••°•••gip:,.:, ♦w•a�41•••S:. ••wo••O•a „ � ^.pa..a:��•O„e-,��,r.•oee••°:o••ee, o•� i•�o�•�•• .Y- l'1._ r'._.�.-.�l '/ pw•o.1 •°011,.i.�i'.';S` °e°•:.d-'i `avi is:_.'_oo.°, o••SE+156th`'.o•� e.:' " 6 �•? ��; E1156'th S�'.:: :" �'�'�'�'�'�'�',:........, t \ ❖•i�''ii•:8t! •• •oa•..��.�i::::°:°i .. 4 • ;�\ i i:: .:::oo:::i c.0o••°• o•.... 0 aeQ,•o.,;$1/4 4+:•••••••a•••V ' 1.1.01 •M> •0•°i n Oa•°••w••a •�•••ae w•••••••;c r, —) ••••i.,'•°••••eow• .'44.•••o••••a••w-%•e0•rv,•Q• mio."*••00••000••••000••00••: iw:wiw:4 'i:�:3:.�w�w�.•.�.'•:•:•:, w.i ❖w::�www.w'%s_, 1-...,,,_.,,,,-- 1 ', 1 ' SEC i.•• ,% , . w.%%$, ..ew%%;,•..po.in xw::•:2:%•:j:w:w:w:w:•:O••..:.: 'e e.i •:�:•:°:❖:°:❖:•:°:O°�°Oi:•°A:••❖i i:.'i•:°:❖i ) ^_ �-; • I J/ ••e•°•❖i a Mh�St•❖,i%%%%%:•i..•.••� %•••••• •.j w•°:°:❖:•:O°4, ( •o•e♦ .••.+.1.w ::oe•••••o•••♦ 1. \J' I 1 - ^..•�I •:::❖:•:....;e:•:••:'iii o.'a'•'-• �!w�w'•�•�i / / - ,t•?•�4V•4%'••'%•**•tt •••. '14 4,•4...v.v....v.v I,,;' 1 I •$$ :?a S•!Q•!•`,°o+..�•�• '•� ❖:❖:•O:❖:•:°:❖i:❖:❖:❖o:•:°:❖:! IsOi e':•i• ii• rlr I 1 ' •••••••❖•••••••°.•a••❖••.°w•••a••••••ea.•a••w••°aaa•°••°••a••°'•>•aa•T' - - -' i �'""``~, i❖:•:°:•:°:❖❖:i•:°:•:o••a o•a o•w•••w ew•w•i w•o,•!�i:•.',t;"' I 1 i-... _ • 1 1 .w•. •••••we,.„.•.•a' SE 459th P1.''-' :i•.•:e ' ` : _ .V.SE P1•••••••••10:44.:•:t....•...•e..A•• •'•_ _...-. I •, �I\'\ 'h,'' . i i�ivvrrrw•••••••..o�•••♦ -- o••• w • • ,\ I SF "r :r - tso Pi }1 i W I 1` ,--,',/,-, ,,,,. "b:'v Jai,, �. I __II I r-_�__i_._.._.-.' 1 ,\ / ,SE._r-; A/'./../; Q , \1 - 7,gl2hd _4 I I ;` , .,763r ` '~ `Ci 'r w ~~ '\..i..'J. I.I_ __ _..i ,-- __4 _/ ao eitsi .. `; LI I hm 1 New Life Aqua Barn Annexation Department of Community Legend R-4 Zone •�`CY o A,�; & Economic Development •_..� • New Life-Aqua Barn Boundary N Alex Pietsch,Administrator I..--.1 •.4,1,1,1,,z5April 21,2008 Adriana Johnson,Planning Technician From King County Zoning to Renton R4 0 250 500 1,000 •:::•;•w•; :; :❖ •, R-4 Residential 4du/acre Pon Feet fill)ed by City of Renton(c)2008,the City of 1:12,000 I nghts reserved No warranties of any sort, rc but not limited to accuracy.fitness or �rchantabirty.accompany this product. IIIFile Name:H:\EDNSP1GIS_projects\new_life_ _barn\ mxds\new_l ife_aqua_barn_from_KC_zoning_to_R4.mxd • CITY OF RENTON, WASHINGTON ORDINANCE NO. AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF RENTON, WASHINGTON, ESTABLISHING THE ZONING CLASSIFICATION OF CERTAIN PROPERTY ANNEXED WITHIN THE CITY OF RENTON FROM KING COUNTY ZONING TO R-8 (RESIDENTIAL SINGLE FAMILY, EIGHT DWELLING UNITS PER NET ACRE) (COMPREHENSIVE PLAN AMENDMENT, CPA# 2007-M-03). WHEREAS, property owners petitioned the City of Renton for annexation and concurrent rezoning, which annexation having previously been approved and ordinance adopted which will annex the property to the City of Renton, and the City having held two public hearings to consider this zoning application, the first hearing being held on August 1, 2007 and the second hearing being held on October 1, 2007, and the zoning request being in conformity with the City's Comprehensive Plan, as amended, and the City Council having considered all • matters relevant thereto,e eto, and all parties having been heard appearing in support or in opposition to the proposed zoning; NOW, THEREFORE, THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF RENTON, WASHINGTON, DOES ORDAIN AS FOLLOWS: SECTION I. The following described property in the City of Renton is hereby zoned to R-8. The annual ordinance adopting the maps of the City's zoning ordinance is hereby amended to show the rezoning and the CED Administrator is hereby authorized and directed to change the maps of the zoning ordinance, as amended, to evidence the rezoning, to wit: • 1 ORDINANCE NO. • See Exhibit "A" attached hereto and made a part hereof as if fully set forth herein. [Said properties, approximately 12.10 acres, including those portions of the Southeast and Southwest quarters of Section 22, and the Northeast quarter of Section 27, all in Township 23 North, Range 5 East, W.M., in the City of Renton, King County, Washington.] SECTION II. 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.1464:4/18/08:scr. 2 j EXHIBIT A • R-8 ZONE LEGAL DESCRIPTION Those portions of the Southeast and Southwest quarters of Section 22, and the Northeast quarter of Section 27, all in Township 23 North, Range 5 East, W.M., in the City of Renton, King County, Washington, more particularly described as follows: Pioneer Place as recorded in Volume 226 of Plats, Pages 51 —57, records of King County, except Tract J; TOGETHER WITH Tract P, Elliot Farm, as recorded in Volume 180 of Plats, Pages 4- 15, said records; and TOGETHER WITH the south 220 feet of the North 545 feet of the East 200 feet of the Northwest quarter of said Southeast quarter of Section 22; LESS roads. • • Aqua Barn R-8 Zoning Page 1 of 1 4/22/2008 110 u_ i J;,I% ;4' i „ _-:!--,-,-.....-i,_,____C� h _..li �r Std `f / fir. ,I ,,^ — I �f .'.,- , l,, -- _ 'I`�, aJ b 4:.•.1 1 k; I 1\� ;.�. i " AI/i i' _ �, $E�,1 u'Lam.., 1 yi I ' l `. i —— (tom �1 t I . r'" I I /\,,..::, + SE : fr I L .o,• I • iI. 1 st 1 � F `., "" / f . i or, y� f 1� '.�`Q'! �. �' ff `�':' t,•. j _\. .,/ /•r..i_._. ies�Rp.• I Q�'�\\\?' `y'� r- �.._..,-.,_. l�r f 5 .ri _�-I t y�j-Sq•. `r�,4 r. / / .`-I c„tt'a.. / • � • rj `y / -!' I �J -�l•�.(a i I t .: >`.,+^. �r' % `3w'••, • I. 5 I I I iz• ' \ '\, -__',,It- I I -✓' i,,� -'-\ ^! .. `;. s;v�•t':p'M,yl•I Q,' i -I •I �n. r -\A , ,{I, t"3ula.;a,J:s• 'may , - h = '"- tQ y �i " nn. •.e :?4;}/ •1811 `hl"�'ri,!;fr,;;a,i�Ii�aii'iYphill;^�5"'.. I . - - I \irv'"`I f, -:''. :'7.a,.- y,,, i -1i _ ,�I` •h,.•• i I f ii'04�'Ftp°:•o�••o e ER@ tr=<' " •• Alk, ,-' -. P"—i`- •�i i i i �°•.•e• :,O.O•i i••--,..:.:,,,...to', dAt V •� I ., �:;yea; -' —. �„ ` .••❖� ••o••°.�•�0•°••i a°.•i°i�d:.•eon e+ r7/ ••�-•�.. _ '1;.._ ,1p 1 t' : rfi`, -tiT11 \ - •.•.......:-..-�.•�•4ef'.i�':°i° �r nw _ • ,. 1 I „r•.a„r,:y,.••.,e,�11:::,,�.,:^,,�.. '� • ••. j °...°° 4'4!1,. III t � p0`' a.._i r:/ i '%oe!e�i Qc t y .rvtw;.. '.: {a: �I r•.. I� ! .�..? ,r% ...- ,;,,,...A. ....�..._ ”, 4,,,'''' , p1 l ,l \, I...1 \ , \\_- _ f 4^L 14...1 Q` Q - - ''`'```�3F,;n� .._.� •.r:;•,^ - \ ` I S �;,lh Ise° ...__ __..!� .. ,, • Y/1 1\ I,� ,.�•- ♦ r rl `C,.�.. �/ ,ISIgYfry�ll,�hh I: -_.__- -,a.>'..fj ,`. !-• -__.\ `' --______�..— _ t- I- -:,;;,,,,,,t,,,.........-.-.:,....11.17,•••• ..�i.-.\. --•„— -•--- . Jr l�/` j f -n;-, . _ •�,ist. I a / 7 h I / �._. •-1l 1f/i 1� �Ye, t ,._,.• _. _,? t..e`� V;.! y rl€f1!'?I¢la,wnse„pry,m�ua i c,'= : ' r, . t\ ,. i .., 1 ..._ j! i' '- ,: a -S_E 56th!St / I ; / l�>.. ' ”. ,'?'y, ' I:>-iX01 ,056tt!- 444„:„\� t i • I _i-,,: .5 _I I ,.,- ~'i ..I..—� _ •~':Y' "` • • rte/ h:.Sticiq -I I ,, 1p'r.•Y:.�•-�• I �; /� -(.�` '..!/... .I T-__�•: � 'b`r- " \..! ( I i !I I, I I i ,\1,l l 11 .....1. � • -•�•..�.� 1 : 111I i / ;.° 1' / Iii --.,\>i.ihS.f/I 1 ! i r"--`--•\ _f^ �._ f �\ yt it ,l,:+ ., 'I i.kSE1.5 I tiirP.l t \!�,. '— ' .--• -"\ � I 159th i t- ------- --- — _ '''\ / ' `` -In-:: `�, i`l, ! I ix `.°'w'' E! i-'7 i\ir'A„' J.'{ • .. [ r k:. I '1' II.. S ISE�� I n . . -1.% r ;63rd '` /^,` ,,: r -- Jr(_,I _ _ j _ I:.-r f ,,, , •,_.„_,,,...‹,., ..11, New Life Aqua Barn Annexation Department of Community Legend R-8 Zone &AYm,o; & Economic Development .---,~ i�,N Alex Pietsch,Administrator i„—,-j New Life-Aqua Barn Boundary April 21,2008 N rc Adriana Johnson,Planning Technician From King County Zoning to Renton R8 0 250 500 1,000 ” Feet ig:K., R-8-Residential 8du/acre ed by City of Renton(c)2008.the City rights reserved. sort, warranties of any sort, ar � ng but not limited to accuracy fitness or III1:12,000 File Name:H:\EDNSP\GIS_projects\new_life— arn\ / chanlabihty,accompany this product mxds\new_life_aqua_bam_from_KC_zoning_to_ 8.mxd 1 • CITY OF RENTON, WASHINGTON ORDINANCE NO. AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF RENTON, WASHINGTON, ESTABLISHING THE ZONING CLASSIFICATION OF CERTAIN PROPERTY ANNEXED WITHIN THE CITY OF RENTON FROM KING COUNTY ZONING TO R-14 (RESIDENTIAL 14; FOURTEEN DWELLING UNITS PER NET ACRE) (COMPREHENSIVE PLAN AMENDMENT, CPA #2007-M-03). WHEREAS, property owners petitioned the City of Renton for annexation and concurrent rezoning, which annexation having previously been approved and ordinance adopted which will annex the property to the City of Renton, and the City having held two public hearings to consider this zoning application, the first hearing being held on August 1, 2007 and the second hearing being held on October 1, 2007, and the zoning request being in conformity • with the City's Comprehensive Plan, as amended, and the City Council having considered all matters relevant thereto, and all parties having been heard appearing in support or in opposition to the proposed zoning; NOW, THEREFORE, THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF RENTON, WASHINGTON, DOES ORDAIN AS FOLLOWS: SECTION I. The following described property in the City of Renton is hereby zoned to R-14. The annual ordinance adopting the maps of the City's zoning ordinance is hereby amended to show the rezoning and the CED Administrator is hereby authorized and directed to change the maps of the zoning ordinance, as amended, to evidence the rezoning, to wit: See Exhibit"A" attached hereto and made a part hereof as if fully set forth herein. [Said properties, approximately 69.35 acres, including those portions Section 22, and the Southwest quarter of section 23, both in Township 23 North, Range 5 East, W.M., in the City of Renton, King County, Washington.] • 1 I ORDINANCE NO. • SECTION II. 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.1462:4/18/08:scr. 2 EXHIBIT A • R-14 ZONE LEGAL DESCRIPTION Those portions Section 22, and the Southwest quarter of Section 23, both in Township 23 North, Range 5 East, W.M., in the City of Renton, King County, Washington, more particularly described as follows: That portion of Lot J of King County Lot Line Adjustment No. L01 L0126, as recorded under King County Recording No. 20010730900003, lying northerly of the following described line: Commencing at the Southwest corner of said Lot J; Thence North 32° 49' 04" West along the west line thereof, a distance of 956.24 feet to an angle point in said west line; Thence continuing along said west line,North 01° 17' 33" East a distance of 530.18 feet to the True Point of Beginning of the herein described line; Thence South 89° 17' 47"East a distance of 149.84 feet; Thence South 73° 16' 58" East a distance of 297.02 feet; • Thence South 62° 57' 05" East a distance of 6.76 feet to a point on a curve to the left, having a radius of 133.00 feet and the center of which bears North 50° 41' 22" East; Thence southeasterly along the arc of said curve a distance of 34.67 feet; Thence South 54° 14' 45"East a distance of 58.83 feet to ap oint on a curve to the left, having a radius of 80.00 feet; Thence easterly along the arc of said curve a distance of 69.14 feet; The South 62° 57' 05" East a distance of 106.37 feet to aoint on the he northeasterly line of said Lot J and the terminus of said line; TOGETHER WITH Tract A of Elliott Farm, recorded in Volume 180 of Plats, Pages 4— 15, records of King County, as corrected by affidavit of correction of plat recorded under King County Recording No. 9810121777, except any portion thereof conveyed to King County for road purposes; and TOGETHER WITH Parcel "A"of King County Boundary Line Adjustment No. L95L0113, as recorded under King County Recording No. 9510179023; and Aqua Barn R-14 Zoning Page 1 of 3 4/14/2008 TOGETHER WITH Lots 1 & 2 of King County Short Plat No. L99S3019, as recorded • under King County Recording No. 20010831900002; and TOGETHER WITH that portion of the West half of said Southwest quarter lying southerly of the southerly right of way margin of SE Renton - Maple Valley Highway (SR 169, P.S.H. #5), northerly of the following described line: Commencing at the southwest corner of said subdivision; Thence North 02° 08' 49" East, along the west line thereof, a distance of 513.13 feet to the True Point of Beginning of the herein described line; Thence North 18° 42' 45" East a distance of 112.66 feet; Thence North 57° 43' 27" East a distance of 53.17 feet; Thence North 10° 47' 04" East a distance of 101.15 feet; Thence North 11° 30' 50" East a distance of 130.38 feet; Thence North 33° 10' 43" East a distance of 146.99 feet; Thence North 54° 38' 15" East a distance of 89.93 feet; 111 Thence North 76° 30' 15" East a distance of 60.83 feet; Thence North 88° 18' 55" East a distance of 80.47 feet; Thence South 77° 28' 16" East a distance of 152.68 feet; Thence South 40° 25' 34" East a distance of 167.83 feet; Thence South 32° 16' 31" East a distance of 53.17 feet; Thence South 11° 58' 34" East a distance of 79.81 feet; Thence South 50° 44' 26" East a distance of 317.77 feet; Thence North 50° 51' 21" East a distance of 131.17 feet; Thence North 78° 46' 33" East a distance of 243.48 feet to an intersection with the east line of said subdivision and the terminus of the herein described line; and, Aqua Barn R-14 Zoning Page 2 of 3 4/14/2008 1111 f I easterly of the following described line: • Commencing at the intersection of the west line of said subdivision with said southerly margin; Thence South 75° 42' 00"East along said margin 390.27 feet to the True Point of Beginning of the herein described line; Thence South 13° 1' 15" West a distance of 1010.22 feet; Thence North 75° 42' 00"West a distance of 139.00 feet; Thence South 13° 42' 00" West a distance of 274.24 feet, to the west line of said subdivision and the terminus of the herein described line. • Aqua Barn R-14 Zoning Page 3 of 3 4/14/2008 4110 I �I, 1--.. y�I/I'',\ \ fir_j�/ SE&Tq'" r „ ,y XElul _____41_„1 —�-'r S' �� per/) �/ / ! ii. '~1._,— 145ao \ i' ----:°1aI SE 11"g� 1' I-C9 'q'_ '. .k._ j- _--- ---.I-[_ ?—•" --;'I---`'i.(h' -- - �I 7 I ' -SE \,_..I -1 4... :, — I it--I l., -.._.- G '::._.1.--,- F ,ffi ;,,•l,t'�r'":-w. ,.:r•, I :- 4r„'. �,, '> �I ------ -- �--�/..---- j,:;. 1„ E/48 I ----- I gio -,,,,..,/„..t9 (9r;b."'.�, ":/,/ �. :tL, I --'r` yi— d,.f 1 -",'N.-------I, I V ,'''547.,,:-.L:'',...- -. �[ x / -r,,. , ., ff. ,%e '4,J"i'!u,kia31i4;SF., --_. • / �`�O Vs° \ / ' i.,� r 7 kgt I:.9. v ^.� Q� i X4: :4:,-402.!.:1k,....., � J .rr:. _ - \�•' _ i i .�..'f" •:�.S,.,u:q.� ,q -- --',r`„--'$- ,`,, tf"ti i.. ,••••••••:•:•.t.,:.' uw�y,n, �,. I T'I'--'-{ G� R4".'''',.I ,Q', y .e- ,(/ i f - /t.--h-'k_ -rc.,w�': ' �i•••i%••••:••••••••� ...,;.;•,;:;':,,:r:.'7i":•ate,r 1._� ea_ ( i I bf , I---- i----L--- .11 ".11 L(NJ/ t�O. -i n �,' �O•b•••••••O••••••♦'" :•:•:+:+:4;....,:s;,..4 4 Y.' . Jv i I 441V-:,,,l f • i _, __I IL_ �' ,`J { / --+ ...••♦....♦•r. 1♦♦••••••..•.••. TeJa�2s;t4•'M U9,e.� ''''''':;:":"'i.".,-„ ,, .., :.�: _ t �%/ r 'Oiii•O.000•i00 'ii0••O•i•Oiii•Oiii•OOO� `x"-._�:ry,�,:�wu�+4,^ „•,, \. ; '-,I i I ✓ J\ \1•_ \, .•,�,♦,♦,•,♦,•,♦••,♦,•,•,� Oiiiii•Oiiii0•iiii•OOiiii ' "'firi'h4 xerr ----....0): ,i r! : ''i'i.;n /'�`\\ �„ _.-i �t .. ' • .' •4.♦••♦'31��. :♦•••••••••••••••♦•♦•♦•:•••♦•♦.�♦••••••••••i•♦`'. icy �< .1 • •••O%r i i••• •i�ii40••i CITY OF RENTON, WASHINGTON • ORDINANCE NO. AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF RENTON, WASHINGTON, AMENDING THE CITY OF RENTON FISCAL YEAR 2008 ANNUAL BUDGET AS ADOPTED BY ORDINANCE NO. 5325, AS IT RELATES TO INFORMATION SERVICES FUND 503. WHEREAS, on December 10, 2007, the City Council adopted Ordinance 5325 approving the City of Renton's 2008 Annual Budget; and WHEREAS, funds appropriated in 2007, but not expended in 2007 need to be carried forward and appropriated for expenditure in 2008; NOW, THEREFORE, THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF RENTON, WASHINGTON, DOES ORDAIN AS FOLLOWS: SECTION I. Ordinance No. 5325 as previously amended establishing the City • of Renton's 2008 Annual Budget is hereby further amended in the total amount of$486,000 as follows: The Information Services Fund (Fund 503) is hereby amended to reflect the following appropriations: INFORMATION SERVICES FUND(Fund 503) FY 2008 2008 Carry- 2008 Original forward Amended 2008 REVENUES Budget Amendment Budget Funding Source Use prior year revenues 653,570 486,000 1,139,570 New Revenues 4,904,138 0 4,904,138 Revenues 5,557,708 486,000 6,043,708 EXPENDITURES 5,557,708 5,557,708 Maintenance Task Management 273,000 273,000 New World Systems 136,000 136,000 Web Site Refresh 50,000 50,000 • Video/Remote Training 27,000 27,000 Expenditures 5,557,708 486,000 6,043,708 1 ORDINANCE NO. • 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 , 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.1459:4/11/08:scr • 2