Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutCouncil 07/02/2007 AGENDA RENTON CITY COUNCIL REGULAR MEETING July 2, 2007 Monday, 7 p.m. 1. CALL TO ORDER AND PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE 2. ROLL CALL 3. ADMINISTRATIVE REPORT 4. 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 address for the record, SPELLING YOUR LAST NAME. 5. 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 6/25/2007. Council concur. b. Mayor Keolker reappoints Robert Bonner, Jr., 1507 Jones Ave.NE, Renton, 98056, to the Planning Commission for a three-year term expiring 6/30/2010. Council concur. c. Mayor Keolker appoints Tyler Morse, 2625B Jones Ave. NE, Renton, 98056, to the Library Board(youth representative) for a two-year term expiring 7/1/2009. Refer to Community Services Committee. d. City Clerk reports appeal of Hearing Examiner's decision regarding The Landing site plan application(SA-06-071); appeal filed on 6/5/2007 by Harvest Partners, 8214 Westchester Dr., #650, Dallas, TX, 75225, represented by Hillis Clark Martin&Petersen, accompanied by required fee. Refer to Planning and Development Committee. e. City Clerk reports appeal of Hearing Examiner's decision regarding the Seahawks Headquarters and Training Facility site plan application(SA-06-073)by Football Northwest LLC, 505 5th Ave. S., #900, Seattle, 98104,represented by Roger A. Pearce of Foster Pepper PLLC, accompanied by required fee. Refer to Planning and Development Committee. f. Community Services Department submits CAG-06-168, Coulon Beach Log Boom and Transient Moorage Repair; and requests approval of the project, commencement of 60-day lien period, and release of retainage in the amount of$8,493.36 to Richard Phillips Marine, Inc., contractor, if all required releases are obtained. Council concur. g. Development Services Division recommends acceptance of a deed of dedication for additional right-of-way at the corner of Queen Ave.NE and NE 12th St. to fulfill a requirement of the Pazooki III Short Plat(SHP-05-116). Council concur. h. Finance and Information Services Department requests approval of a contract in the amount of $494,102 with InFor Global Solutions, Inc. for maintenance task management software. Approval is also sought to hire an interim project management position for 18 months at a cost of $150,000. Refer to Finance Committee. i. Finance and Information Services Department recommends approval of an addendum in the amount of$150,000 to CAG-03-167, contract with Weston Solutions, Inc.,to assist in the implementation of the new Enterprise Maintenance Management System. Refer to Finance Leo' Committee. j. Finance and Information Services Department submits request from Maplewood LLC (Maplewood Park Apartments)for a utility bill adjustment due to a water leak and recommends granting the adjustment in the amount of$16,455.76. Refer to Finance Committee. (CONTINUED ON REVERSE SIDE) y J' k. Fire Department recommends approval to replace the current King County Fire District#25 secretary,retiring effective 6/30/2007,with a new City of Renton position, Fire District Liaison. Council concur. I. Fire Department recommends adoption of the 2006 International Fire Code with local amendments. Refer to Public Safety Committee. m. Hearing Examiner recommends approval, with conditions, of the Cassidy Cove Preliminary Plat (PP-07-014); two lots on 68 acres located at 155 Monroe Ave. NE. Council concur. n. Legal Division recommends approval of the consent and certificate to Bank of America associated with construction loans for Harvest Partners for The Landing. Council concur. 6. CORRESPONDENCE 7. UNFINISHED BUSINESS Topics listed below were discussed in Council committees during the past week. Those topics marked with an asterisk(*)may include legislation. Committee reports on any topics may be held by the Chair if further review is necessary. a. Committee of the Whole: Benson Hill Communities Annexation* 8. RESOLUTIONS AND ORDINANCES Resolution: Calling for an annexation by election of the Benson Hill Communities Area(amended boundary); see 7.a. Ordinances for second and final reading: a. 2007 Budget amendment for SW 34th St. Culvert Replacement Project(1st reading 6/25/2007) b. State, national, and international standard codes (1st reading 6/25/2007) 9. NEW BUSINESS (Includes Council Committee agenda topics; call 425-430-6512 for recorded information.) 10. AUDIENCE COMMENT 11. ADJOURNMENT COMMITTEE OF THE WHOLE AGENDA (Preceding Council Meeting) Council Chambers 5:30 p.m. Renton Trails and Bicycle Draft Plan; Benson Hill Communities Annexation Transition Plan 1/41.1 • Hearing assistance devices for use in the Council Chambers are available upon request to the City Clerk • CITY COUNCIL MEETINGS ARE TELEVISED LIVE ON GOVERNMENT ACCESS CHANNEL 21 AND ARE RE-CABLECAST TUES.&THURS.AT 11 AM&9 PM,WED.&FRI.AT 9 AM&7 PM AND SAT.&SUN.AT 1 PM&9 PM 4 • RENTON CITY COUNCIL Regular Meeting July 2, 2007 Council Chambers Monday, 7 p.m. MINUTES Renton City Hall CALL TO ORDER Mayor Kathy Keolker called the meeting of the Renton City Council to order and led the Pledge of Allegiance to the flag. ROLL CALL OF TONI NELSON, Council President; DAN CLAWSON; DENIS LAW; TERRI COUNCILMEMBERS BRIERE; MARCIE PALMER; DON PERSSON; RANDY CORMAN. CITY STAFF IN KATHY KEOLKER, Mayor;JAY COVINGTON, Chief Administrative ATTENDANCE Officer; ZANETTA FONTES,Assistant City Attorney; BONNIE WALTON, City Clerk; SUZANNE DALE ESTEY, Economic Development Director; LESLIE BETLACH, Parks Director; MARTY WINE,Assistant CAO; CHIEF I. DAVID DANIELS and DEPUTY CHIEF CHUCK DUFFY, Fire Department; COMMANDER DAVID LEIBMAN, Police Department. ADMINISTRATIVE Chief Administrative Officer Covington reviewed a written administrative REPORT report summarizing the City's recent progress towards goals and work programs adopted as part of its business plan for 2007 and beyond. Items noted included: * Celebrate the nation's independence at Revo225's Fabulous Fourth of July at Gene Coulon Memorial Beach Park. * Picnic Pizzazz, a Kid's Entertainment Series at Kiwanis Park,kicks off July 12 with Castro the Magician. CONSENT AGENDA Items on the consent agenda are adopted by one motion which follows the listing. At the request of Councilmember Persson, item 5.k. was removed for separate consideration. Council Meeting Minutes of Approval of Council meeting minutes of 6/25/2007. Council concur. 6/25/2007 Appointment: Planning Mayor Keolker reappointed Robert Bonner, Jr., 1507 Jones Ave.NE, Renton, Commission 98056, to the Planning Commission for a three-year term expiring 6/30/2010. Council concur. Appointment: Library Board Mayor Keolker appointed Tyler Morse, 2625B Jones Ave. NE, Renton, 98056, to the Library Board (youth representative) for a two-year term expiring 7/1/2009. Refer to Community Services Committee. Appeal: The Landing, Harvest City Clerk reported appeal of Hearing Examiner's decision regarding The Partners, SA-06-071 Landing site plan application (SA-06-071); appeal filed on 6/5/2007 by Harvest Partners, 8214 Westchester Dr., #650, Dallas, TX, 75225, represented by Hillis Clark Martin & Peterson, accompanied by required fee. Refer to Planning and Development Committee. Appeal: Seahawks City Clerk reported appeal of Hearing Examiner's decision regarding the Headquarters &Training Seahawks Headquarters and Training Facility site plan application (SA-06-073) Facility, Football Northwest, by Football Northwest LLC, 505 5th Ave. S., #900, Seattle, 98104, represented SA-06-073 by Roger A. Pearce of Foster Pepper PLLC, accompanied by required fee. Refer to Planning and Development Committee. July 2, 2007 Renton City Council Minutes Page 230 CAG: 06-168, Coulon Beach Community Services Department submitted CAG-06-168, Coulon Beach Log Log Boom& Transient Boom and Transient Moorage Repair; and requested approval of the project, Moorage Repair, Richard commencement of 60-day lien period, and release of retainage in the amount of Phillips Marine $8,493.36 to Richard Phillips Marine, Inc., contractor, if all required releases are obtained. Council concur. Development Services: Development Services Division recommended acceptance of a deed of Pazooki III Short Plat, ROW dedication for additional right-of-way at the corner of Queen Ave. NE and NE Dedication, Queen Ave NE, 12th St. to fulfill a requirement of the Pazooki III Short Plat(SHP-05-116). SHP-05-116 Council concur Finance: Maintenance Task Finance and Information Services Department requested approval of a contract Management Software, InFor in the amount of$494,102 with InFor Global Solutions, Inc. for maintenance Global Solutions, Interim task management software. Approval was also sought to hire an interim project Project Manager management position for 18 months at a cost of$150,000. Refer to Finance Committee. CAG: 03-167, Enterprise Finance and Information Services Department recommended approval of an Maintenance Management addendum in the amount of$150,000 to CAG-03-167, contract with Weston System, Weston Solutions Solutions, Inc., to assist in the implementation of the new Enterprise Maintenance Management System. Refer to Finance Committee. Finance: Utility Bill Finance and Information Services Department submitted request from Adjustment, Maplewood LLC Maplewood LLC (Maplewood Park Apartments) for a utility bill adjustment due to a water leak and recommended granting the adjustment in the amount of $16,455.76. Refer to Finance Committee. Fire: 2006 International Fire Fire Department recommended adoption of the 2006 International Fire Code Code Adoption with local amendments. Refer to Public Safety Committee. Plat: Cassidy Cove, Monroe Hearing Examiner recommended approval,with conditions, of the Cassidy Ave NE, PP-07-014 Cove Preliminary Plat; two lots on 68 acres located at 155 Monroe Ave. NE. Council concur. Legal: Bank of America Legal Division recommended approval of the consent and certificate to Bank of Consent& Certificate re: America associated with constructions loans for Harvest Partners for The Harvest Partners Loans for The Landing. Council concur. Landing MOVED BY NELSON, SECONDED BY LAW, COUNCIL APPROVE THE CONSENT AGENDA AS AMENDED TO REMOVE ITEM 5.k. FOR SEPARATE CONSIDERATION. CARRIED. Separate Consideration Fire Department recommended approval to replace the current King County Item 5.k. Fire District#25 secretary, retiring effective 6/30/2007,with a new City of Fire: Fire District Liaison Renton position, Fire District Liaison. Position Responding to Councilmember Persson's question regarding whether this position is already budgeted in the 2007 Budget, Chief Administrative Officer Covington stated that the current position is largely funded through the City's contract with Fire District#25. He indicated that the duties of the new position are relatively the same as the current position. Fire Chief Daniels confirmed that the current position is funded by Fire District #25, and he explained that the new City position would provide services back to the Fire District and be funded through the Fire District's contract with the City. July 2, 2007 Renton City Council Minutes Page 231 MOVED BY PERSSON, SECONDED BY LAW, COUNCIL REFER CONSENT AGENDA ITEM 5.k. TO THE FINANCE COMMITTEE. CARRIED. Added City Clerk reported receipt of five letters, as allowed by City Code, regarding CORRESPONDENCE the appeal of the Hearing Examiner's decision concerning the Seahawks Citizen Comment: Various- Headquarters and Training Facility site plan application from the following Seahawks Headquarters & parties of record: Hal and Gerry Fardal, 6920 96th Ave. SE, Mercer Island, Training Facility Appeal, 98040; Dwight R. Schaeffer, 6958 96th Ave. SE, Mercer Island, 98040; Larry Football Northwest, SA-06- and Esther Barsher, 6940 96th Ave. SE, Mercer Island, 98040; Howard and Sue 073 Robboy, 6944 96th Ave. SE, Mercer Island, 98040; and L. Paul Ohainle, Socius Law Group, PLLC,Attorneys for Misty Cove Association of Apartment Owners, 601 Union St., Suite 4950, Seattle, 98101. MOVED BY BRIERE, SECONDED BY CLAWSON, COUNCIL REFER THE CORRESPONDENCE TO THE PLANNING AND DEVELOPMENT COMMITTEE. CARRIED. UNFINISHED BUSINESS Council President Nelson presented a Committee of the Whole report regarding Committee of the Whole the Benson Hill Communities Annexation. The Committee recommended Annexation: Benson Hill concurrence in the staff recommendation to approve a resolution amending the Communities, S 200th St& boundaries of the Benson Hill Communities Annexation in keeping with 128th Ave SE boundaries recommended by the Boundary Review Board, and amending the ballot title in the request to King County to hold a special municipal election on the Benson Hill Communities Annexation on the 11/6/2007 election ballot. The Committee further recommended that the resolution regarding this matter be presented for reading and adoption. MOVED BY NELSON, SECONDED BY BRIERE, COUNCIL CONCUR IN THE COMMITTEE REPORT. CARRIED. (See below for resolution.) RESOLUTIONS AND The following resolution was presented for reading and adoption: ORDINANCES Resolution #3891 A resolution was read authorizing the Mayor and City Clerk to take those Annexation: Benson Hill actions necessary to place Proposition 1 before the voters, including the Communities, S 200th St& preparation of information for the voter's pamphlet for the election to be held on 128th Ave SE 11/6/2007 regarding the annexation of approximately 2,438 acres of contiguous unincorporated territory within Renton's Fairwood Potential Annexation Area, also known as the Benson Hill Communities Annexation. MOVED BY LAW, SECONDED BY CLAWSON, COUNCIL ADOPT THE RESOLUTION AS READ. CARRIED. The following ordinances were presented for second and final reading and adoption: Ordinance#5296 An ordinance was read amending the 2007 Budget by transferring $150,000 Utility: SW 34th St Culvert from the Lake Ave. S./Rainier Ave. S. Storm System Replacement Project Replacement Project Fund expenditure account to the SW 34th St. Culvert Replacement Project Transfer, Budget Amend expenditure account. MOVED BY CLAWSON, SECONDED BY BRIERE, COUNCIL ADOPT THE ORDINANCE AS READ. ROLL CALL: ALL AYES. CARRIED. Ordinance#5297 An ordinance was read amending Sections 4-5-040,4-5-050, 4-5-055, 4-5-090, Development Services: 4-5-100, and 4-5-110 and adding Section 4-5-051 of Chapter 5, Building and Standard Codes Adoption Fire Prevention Standards, of Title IV (Development Regulations) of City Code by adopting the 2006 International Building, Residential,Mechanical,The Washington State Energy Code, and Fuel Gas Codes; the 2005 National July 2,2007 Renton City Council Minutes Page 232 Electrical Code,the 2006 Washington State Ventilation and Indoor Air Quality Code, and the 2006 Uniform Plumbing Code, and amendments thereto. MOVED BY BRIERS, SECONDED BY CLAWSON, COUNCIL ADOPT THE ORDINANCE AS READ. ROLL CALL: ALL AYES. CARRIED. NEW BUSINESS Noting that the last run of the Spirit of Washington Dinner Train from Renton Community Services: Spirit of will occur on 7/31/2007, it was MOVED BY LAW, SECONDED BY Washington Dinner Train CORMAN, COUNCIL REFER SPECIAL RECOGNITION OF THE SPIRIT Recognition OF WASHINGTON DINNER TRAIN AND ERIC TEMPLE TO THE FINANCE COMMITTEE. CARRIED. Development Services: Clover Councilmember Palmer indicated that Council received an e-mail last week Creek Homeowners from the Clover Creek Homeowners Association regarding concerns about Association, Building Practices substandard building practices and lack of adequate City inspection. & City Inspections Moved by Palmer, seconded by Persson, Council refer the issue of the Clover Creek Homeowners Association complaints about substandard inspections to Committee of the Whole.* Discussion occurred regarding the appropriate Council committee to which to refer this issue and the unsubstantiated allegations of potentially substandard construction and inspections. *Upon Ms. Palmer's withdrawal of the previous motion, it was MOVED BY PALMER, SECONDED BY PERSSON, COUNCIL REFER THIS ITEM TO THE ADMINISTRATION FOR INVESTIGATION AND REPORT BACK TO COUNCIL. CARRIED. Police: Mercer Island Harbor Councilmember Persson reported a citizen complaint concerning the City of Patrol Contract, Log Removal Mercer Island's alleged policy change on the removal of logs from the water. Policy He noted that the complainant was told that property owners are now responsible for removing logs that come to rest against their docks. Stating that the change affects Renton's Gene Coulon Memorial Beach and Kennydale Beach parks, Mr. Persson pointed out that Renton is paying for that service. MOVED BY PERSSON, SECONDED BY CORMAN, COUNCIL REFER THE MERCER ISLAND HARBOR PATROL CONTRACT TO THE PUBLIC SAFETY COMMITTEE. CARRIED. Public Works: The Landing Noting that the Transportation (Aviation) Committee members participated in a Infrastructure Tour tour of The Landing infrastructure, Councilmember Corman reported that Park Ave. N. is scheduled to reopen in a couple of weeks. ADJOURNMENT MOVED BY NELSON, SECONDED BY CORMAN, COUNCIL ADJOURN. CARRIED. Time: 7:35 p.m. LfJG 1z Bonnie I. Walton, CMC,City Clerk Recorder: Michele Neumann July 2, 2007 1 RENTON CITY COUNCIL COMMITTEE MEETING CALENDAR Office of the City Clerk COUNCIL COMMITTEE MEETINGS SCHEDULED AT CITY COUNCIL MEETING July 2, 2007 COMMITTEE/CHAIRMAN DATE/TIME AGENDA COMMITTEE OF THE WHOLE MON., 7/09 Emerging Issues in Economic (Nelson) 5:30 p.m. Development and Transportation/Aviation *Council Conference Room* Approximately CIP & Budget Process 6:15 p.m. *Council Chambers* COMMUNITY SERVICES (Corman) FINANCE MON., 7/09 Vouchers; (Persson) 4 p.m. Fire District Liaison Position Creation; Contract with InFor Global Solutions for Maintenance Task Management Software; Contract Addendum with Weston Solutions for Enterprise Maintenance Management System; Spirit of Washington Dinner Train/Eric Temple Recognition PLANNING & DEVELOPMENT THURS., 7/05 Seahawks Headquarters & Training (Briere) 2 p.m. Facility Site Plan Appeal; The Landing Site Plan Appeal; *Council Chambers* Approximately Highlands Task Force 3 p.m. *Council Conference Room* PUBLIC SAFETY (Law) TRANSPORTATION (AVIATION) WED., 7/04 CANCELLED (Holiday) (Palmer) UTILITIES THURS., 7/05 Dohrn Vacation Fee Waiver Request; (Clawson) 3:30 p.m. Surface Water Utility Master Plan 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. ,k( Y O ADMINISTRATIVE, JUDICIAL, AND • ;% ® • LEGAL SERVICES DEPARTMENT .11 MEMORANDUM DATE: July 2, 2007 TO: Toni Nelson, Council President Members of the Renton City Council FROM: Kathy Keolker, Mayor Jay Covington, Chief Administrative Officer SUBJECT: Administrative Report In addition to our day-to-day activities, the following items are worthy of note for this week: COMMUNITY SERVICES DEPARTMENT • Celebrate our nation's independence at Revo225's Fabulous Fourth of July at Gene Coulon Memorial Beach Park. Events include children's activities and face-painting from 12:00 - 8:00 pm, stage entertainment from 1:00 - 9:30pm, free shuttle service from 9:00am - midnight, and a professional fireworks display from a barge in Lake Washington at 10:00pm. Food and beverages available all day from 3 B's BBQ, Jet City Espresso, Kidd Valley, Ivar's and the beachside concessions stand. For parking and boat launch information, call 425-430-6600 or visit rentonwa.gov. • Picnic Pizzazz, a Kid's Entertainment Series, kicks off July 12 with Castro the Magician. Bring your picnic lunch and join us for free, fun-filled entertainment at Kiwanis Park(815 Union Avenue NE) on Thursdays from 12:00-1:OOpm. For a complete schedule of performances, call 425-430- 6700 or visit renton\va.�ov. • At Summer Splash-tacular, an array of water games, contests, safety presentations, and lifeguard demonstrations will provide fun, information and entertainment at the Henry Moses Aquatic Center on July 14 from 9:30-11:OOam. All ages are welcome, but water games and contests will be most appropriate for families with children ages 7 to 12. Bring a swimsuit and a smile! For more information, call the Renton Community Center at 425-430-6700 or visit rentonwa.gov. PLANNING/BUILDING/PUBLIC WORKS DEPARTMENT • The City of Renton Clean Sweep! program concluded this past weekend with the Load Zone Neighbor-to-Neighbor Curbside Cleanup event. Occupants of single-family residences placed unwanted materials at their curbside for free pickup. For more information about Clean Sweep! contact Linda Knight at 425-430-7397. • Burlington Northern Sante Fe Railroad opened construction bids for the four railroad bridge projects in Renton: the Cedar River Bridge, the Rainier Ave. Bridge, the Shattuck Ave. Bridge, and the Hardie Ave. Bridge. The first project—Rainier Avenue Bridge—will begin August 11. CITY OF RENTON COUNCIL AGENDA BILL A[a: 5 a b► n Submitting Data: For Agenda of: July 2, 2007 Dept/Div/Board.. AJLS/Mayor's Office Staff Contact Kathy Keolker, Mayor Agenda Status Consent X Subject: Public Hearing.. Correspondence.. Planning Commission Reappointment: Ordinance Robert Bonner, Jr. Resolution Old Business Exhibits: New Business Study Sessions Information Recommended Action: Approvals: Legal Dept Council Concur Finance Dept Other Fiscal Impact: Expenditure Required... Transfer/Amendment Amount Budgeted Revenue Generated Le Total Project Budget City Share Total Project SUMMARY OF ACTION: Mayor Keolker reappoints the following to the Planning Commission for a three-year term, expiring on June 30, 2010: Mr. Robert Bonner,Jr., 1507 Jones Avenue NE, Renton,WA 98056 STAFF RECOMMENDATION: Confirm Mayor Keolker's reappointments of Mr. Robert Bonner, Jr. to the Planning Commission. CITY OF RENTON COUNCIL AGENDA BILL A.# Submitting Data: For Agenda of: July 2, 2007 Dept/Div/Board.. AJLS/Mayor's Office Staff Contact Kathy Keolker, Mayor Agenda Status Consent X Subject: Public Hearing.. Correspondence.. Library Board Appointment: Ordinance Mr. Tyler Morse ' Resolution Old Business Exhibits: New Business Study Sessions Community Service Youth Application Information Recommended Action: Approvals: Legal Dept Refer to Community Services Committee Finance Dept Other Fiscal Impact: Expenditure Required... Transfer/Amendment Amount Budgeted Revenue Generated ✓Total Project Budget City Share Total Project SUMMARY OF ACTION: Mayor Keolker appoints the following to the Library Board: Mr. Tyler Morse, 2625B Jones Avenue NE, Renton, WA 98056, for a term expiring on June 1, 2009 (youth position—2-year term). STAFF RECOMMENDATION: Confirm Mayor Keolker's appointment of Mr. Tyler Morse to the Library Board. r rVEG CITY OF RENTON 200 APPLICATION-FOR-CEIMM UNIacY SE VICE _ l YOUTH APPLICATION r 't{rft' If you are interested in participating in local government by membership on any of the following City boards, commissions, or committees, please return completed form to: Office of the Mayor 1055 S. Grady Way Renton, WA 98055 Check the boards/commissions/committees in which you are interested: El Human Services Advisory Committee* El Library Board* Ei Municipal Arts Commission Cr Parks Commission* Advisory Commission on Diversity* *Must be City resident to serve on this board/commission/committee Date: MR. ❑ MS. ❑ NAME ADDRESS CITY � ZIP CODE Nifty PHONE: HOME 1f CELL EMAIL SCHOOL ATTENDING i, .1 s CURRENT GRADE LEVEL <.: . ef` °' CAN ATTEND: DAY MEETINGS? NIGHT MEETINGS? -+ . -, Briefly list aspects of your experience that you believe qualify you for this advisory board/commission/committee and why you are interested in serving: `` ""c.r , Youth members must be 15 to 20 years old. Regular attendance at scheduled board/commission/committee meetings is expected of all members. Youth members are responsible for transportation to and from meetings. Cc : ire . Pe i' • id®,n,4.►'e '• e-e 4. cti/ rrt t A. • i Te r r y 1 . 54trte '. I CITY OF RENTON COUNCIL AGENDA BILL AI#: ,, C/ e Submitting Data: For Agenda of: 7/2/2007 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 5/22/2007 Correspondence.. regarding The Landing Site Plan application. (File No. Ordinance LUA-06-071, SA-A) Resolution Old Business Exhibits: New Business A. Appeal Supplement - Harvest Partners (6/26/2007) Study Sessions B. City Clerk's letter (6/22/2007) Information C. Hearing Examiner's Decision (6/12/2007) D. Appeal - Harvest Partners (6/5/2007) E. Request for Reconsideration - Nicholson (6/5/2007) F. Hearing Examiner's Report & Decision (5/22/2007) Recommended Action: Approvals: Refer to Planning and Development Committee. Legal Dept Finance Dept Other tikalFiscal Impact: N/A Expenditure Required... Transfer/Amendment Amount Budgeted Revenue Generated Total Project Budget City Share Total Project.. SUMMARY OF ACTION: Appeal of the Hearing Examiner's decision on The Landing Site Plan application was filed on 6/5/2007 by Harvest Partners, represented by Hillis, Clark, Martin & Peterson, P.S. accompanied by the required $75 fee. STAFF RECOMMENDATION: Council to take action on The Landing Site Plan application appeal. cc: Jennifer Henning Larry Warren Iklime Rentonnet/agnbill/ bh CITY OF RENTON JUN 26 2001 RECEIVED 2 CITY CLERKS OFFICE 3 `to pvfrt 3 4 5 BEFORE THE RENTON CITY COUNCIL 6 In the Matter of the Appeal of LUA-06-071, SA-A 7 8 Brad Nicholson re: SUPPLEMENTAL NOTICE OF APPEAL OF HEARING EXAMINER'S DECISION 9 The Director's Administrative 10 Site Plan Approval. 11 I. OVERVIEW 12 While appeals were still pending before the Renton Hearing Examiner regarding 13 Applicant Harvest Partners' Site Plan for The Landing, the parties to the appeals reached a 14 settlement of all claims. Accordingly, Appellants Alliance for the South End ("ASE") and 15 Brad Nicholson withdrew their Request for Reconsideration of the Examiner's Site Plan 16 decision, and stated their support for Applicant's position regarding the Site Plan. Upon 17 Appellants' withdrawal of their opposition to the Site Plan, all pending decisions should have 18 been withdrawn. However, despite the settlement, the Examiner did not withdraw his initial 19 decision on the Site Plan, but instead issued a second decision on the merits. 20 All parties are in agreement as to the Site Plan for The Landing, and all appeals have 21 been dismissed or withdrawn. There is no longer a case or controversy, and the matter is 22 moot. The decisions of the Hearing Examiner should therefore be withdrawn and vacated. 23 II. INTRODUCTION 24 Applicant Harvest Partners hereby files this Supplemental Notice of Appeal of the 25 Hearing Examiner's Decision regarding Applicant's Site Plan for The Landing. This 26 Supplemental Notice of Appeal is intended to supplement and be consolidated with 27 Applicant's June 5, 2007 appeal filed with the Renton City Council. For the reasons stated 28 herein and in Applicant's June 5, 2007 appeal, Applicant respectfully requests that the Renton *we Supplemental Notice of Appeal of H I L L I S CLARK MARTIN & Hearing Examiner's Decision - Page 1 o f 8 P E T E x s o N, P.S. ��.'. t^.-r9 �'�, ,l� � r500 Galland Building, 1221 Second Ave �/ �, I�e ' " Seattle WA 98101-2925 Lie 206.623.1745;fax 206.623.7789 F:'°t"�1 Gt!'�`'�� 's t T C[.✓f 6",� r Xca tare/4..' 1 City Council withdraw and vacate the decisions of the Hearing Examiner as set forth below. *44010 2 In the alternative, because the decisions of the Hearing Examiner represent substantial errors 3 in fact or law, Applicant respectfully requests that the Renton City Council reverse the 4 decisions of the Hearing Examiner as set forth below. 5 III. STATEMENT OF FACTS 6 On May 22, 2007, following a hearing on the merits, the Renton Hearing Examiner 7 issued a decision regarding Applicant Harvest Partners' Site Plan for The Landing project(the 8 "Site Plan Decision"). In nearly all respects, the Site Plan Decision affirmed the Director's 9 approval of The Landing Site Plan, and modifications thereto. However, the Examiner 10 reversed the Director's approval of certain specific elements of The Landing Site Plan, 11 finding that there were not "practical difficulties" permitting such elements. 12 On May 31, 2007, the City filed a Request for Clarification regarding two issues in the 13 Site Plan Decision. The City's Request for Clarification sought to clarify: (1) whether the 14 Examiner's Site Plan Decision was intended to require a primary entrance on the west side of 15 Building 102; and (2) whether the Examiner's Site Plan Decision was intended to require 16 removal of the parking area in the northeast corner of Quadrant C, along North 10th Street.' 17 On June 5, 2007, Applicant filed a Request for Reconsideration with the Hearing 18 Examiner, requesting that the Examiner reconsider those portions of the Site Plan Decision 19 requiring modifications to the Site Plan. On the same date, Applicant filed its Notice of 20 Appeal of Hearing Examiner's Decision with the Renton City Council. On June 5, 2007, 21 Appellants Alliance for the South End ("ASE") and Brad Nicholson also filed a Request for 22 Reconsideration with the Hearing Examiner. 23 Subsequent to the filing of Applicant's and Appellants' Requests for Reconsideration, 24 Applicant and Appellants resolved this matter through a settlement, memorialized in a 25 Settlement Agreement and Release dated for reference purposes June 5, 2007. Accordingly, 26 on June 6, 2007, Appellants withdrew their Request for Reconsideration of the Examiner's 27 28 ' For reference purposes, a copy of the current Site Plan for The Landing is attached hereto as EXHIBIT A. Supplemental Notice of Appeal of 111LLIS CLARK MARTIN & Hearing Examiner's Decision - Page 2 of 8 PETERSON, P.S. 500 Galland Building, 1221 Second Ave Seattle WA 98101-2925 206 623.1745;fax 206.623.7789 1 Site Plan Decision. Furthermore, Appellants stated that they did not oppose Applicant's 2 Request for Reconsideration. A copy of Appellants' withdrawal is attached hereto as 3 EXHIBIT B. 4 On June 12, 2007, the Examiner issued a decision regarding Applicant's Request for 5 Reconsideration, as well as the City's Request for Clarification (the "Reconsideration 6 Decision"). A copy of the Reconsideration Decision is attached hereto as EXHIBIT C. 7 Although the Examiner's Reconsideration Decision acknowledged that a settlement between 8 the parties had occurred, the Examiner did not withdraw his previous decision, but rather 9 proceeded to render a decision on the merits. First, the Reconsideration Decision clarified 10 that a primary entrance on the west side of Building 102 was not required. Reconsideration 11 Decision, at 1. The Reconsideration Decision also stated that although the parking areas 12 south of North 10th Street in Quadrant C were permitted, the parking stalls located south of 13 North 10th Street in Quadrant B were not permitted. Id. Finally, the Examiner's 14 Reconsideration Decision denied Applicant's Request for Reconsideration, upholding the 15 original Site Plan Decision. Id, at 3. 16 As set forth below, because the parties had reached a settlement and had dismissed or 17 withdrawn all pending appeals while Applicant's Request for Reconsideration was still 18 pending, there was no longer a justiciable case or controversy, and the matter became moot. 19 Therefore, the Examiner's Site Plan Decision and the Examiner's Reconsideration Decision 20 should be withdrawn and vacated. In the alternative, as set forth in Applicant's June 5, 2007 21 appeal and Applicant's Request for Reconsideration, which documents are incorporated 22 herein by this reference, and as presented below, the Site Plan Decision and the 23 Reconsideration Decision contain substantial errors in fact or law, and those portions of the 24 decisions requiring modifications to the Site Plan should be reversed. 25 26 27 28 ti>r.r Supplemental Notice of Appeal of H i L i t s CLARK M x r t N Hearing Examiner's Decision -Page 3 of 8 P e T e x s o rr, P.S. 500 Galland Building, 1221 Second Ave Seattle WA 98101-2925 206.623.1745;fax 206.623.7789 IV. ARGUMENT 2 A. The Settlement between the Parties Rendered the Appeals Moot. 3 An administrative appeal invokes the exercise of quasi-judicial power. The exercise 4 of judicial power requires a justiciable case or controversy.2 Before jurisdiction can be 5 asserted, therefore, the hearing body must determine whether the case is moot.3 A case is 6 moot where the hearing body can no longer provide effective relief.4 A settlement involving 7 all parties and all claims renders an action moot.5 This also applies when a case is settled 8 pending appeal.6 When only moot questions are involved, no case or controversy exists, and a 9 case should be dismissed.7 10 Here, while Applicant's Request for Reconsideration of the Examiner's Site Plan 11 Decision was still pending, the parties reached a settlement of all claims. Appellants thereby 12 withdrew their Request for Reconsideration, and stated their support for Applicant's Request 13 for Reconsideration. As soon as the parties had entered into the settlement agreement, and 14 Appellants had withdrawn all appeals or Requests for Reconsideration related to The Landing, 15 a justiciable case or controversy no longer existed in this matter, and the matter became moot. 16 Because this matter was moot, the Examiner's Site Plan Decision and Reconsideration 17 Decision are without effect, and should be vacated and withdrawn. 18 B. The Examiner's Issuance of the Reconsideration Decision Despite the Settlement 19 Represents a Substantial Error in Fact or Law. The absence of a justiciable case or controversy following the settlement between the 20 parties provides sufficient basis for the Council to withdraw and vacate the Examiner's 21 22 23 2 U.S. Const. Art. III, §2. 24 3 See, e.g., Tosco Corp. v. Hodel, 804 F.2d 590, 591 (10th Cir. 1986). 25 4 See, e.g.,In re Marriage of Horner, 151 Wn.2d 884(2004);see also Tosco, 804 F.2d at 591 ("[C]ourts 26 are without power to decide questions that cannot affect the rights of litigants in the case before them."). 5 Tosco, 804 F.2d at 592,cited by Villas at Harbour Pointe Owners Ass'n v. Mutual of Enumclaw Ins. Co., 27 137 Wn.App. 751,761 n.13 (2007). 28 61d. 7 Snohomish County v. State Shorelines Hearings Bd., 108 Wn.App. 781,787(2001). Supplemental Notice of Appeal of H I L L I S CLARK MARTIN & Hearing Examiner's Decision - Page 4 of 8 PETERSON, P.S. 500 Galland Building, 1221 Second Ave Seattle WA 98101-2925 206.623.1745;fax 206.623.7789 I decisions in this matter. In the alternative, the Council should reverse the decisions of the `410' 2 Examiner because they contain substantial errors in fact or law. 3 First, the Examiner's Reconsideration Decision contains substantial errors in fact. The 4 Reconsideration Decision acknowledged that the parties had reached a settlement: 5 Since these various requests were received it appears that the parties have 6 reached a settlement of some of their appeal issues. The appellants no longer oppose the applicant's request for reconsideration and appellants have 7 withdrawn their request for reconsideration. 8 Reconsideration Decision, at 1. The Examiner again discussed the settlement at the 9 conclusion of the Reconsideration Decision: 10 In conclusion, this office congratulates the parties for reaching an amicable 11 solution to the issues that separated them but where the appeal was not fully withdrawn in certain particulars, the decision is herein clarified or upheld. 12 Id, at 3. 13 It is unclear from the language of the Examiner's Reconsideration Decision whether 14 the full extent of the settlement between the parties was understood. The Examiner's 15 ,i,, statement "where the appeal was not fully withdrawn in certain particulars..." suggests that 16 perhaps the Examiner believed that even with the settlement between the parties, Appellants 17 still maintained certain portions of their appeals. However, this is not the case. The parties 18 have fully settled all issues in this matter, and all pending appeals have been dismissed with 19 prejudice. Because the Examiner had already issued his Site Plan Decision at the time of the 20 settlement, in order for Appellants to nullify their original appeal of Applicant's Site Plan the 21 appropriate action was for Appellants to withdraw their Request for Reconsideration of the 22 Examiner's Site Plan Decision, which they did. Indeed, not only did Appellants withdraw 23 their Request for Reconsideration from further review, they specifically stated their support 24 for Applicant's Request for Reconsideration, thus signifying their support for Applicant's 25 request that the Site Plan be restored to its original form. Therefore, to the extent the 26 Examiner failed to withdraw his Site Plan Decision due to a misperception regarding the full 27 extent of the settlement and Appellants' withdrawal of their appeals, this represents a 28 substantial error in fact, and should be reversed. Supplemental Notice of Appeal of H I L U S C t A R MARTIN & PETERSON, P.S. Hearing Examiner's Decision - Page 5 of 8 500 Galland Building, 1221 Second Ave Seattle WA 98101-2925 206.623.1745;fax 206.623.7789 1 In addition, the Examiner's issuance of the Reconsideration Decision, despite the NaiS 2 settlement of the parties, represents a substantial error in law. As discussed above, a 3 settlement of all claims between the parties renders an action moot as there is no longer a 4 justiciable case or controversy.8 Upon Appellants' withdrawal of their Request for 5 Reconsideration, therefore, the correct action of the Examiner should have been to withdraw 6 or vacate the Site Plan Decision, thereby restoring the Site Plan to its original form. However, 7 the Examiner instead proceeded to issue the Reconsideration Decision despite the settlement, 8 not only reaffirming the Site Plan Decision but also requiring additional changes to the Site 9 Plan that were never requested by Appellants in their appeals.9 In so doing, the Examiner's 10 actions exceeded the scope of his authority and jurisdiction, and therefore represented a 11 substantial error in law. 12 C. The Examiner's Decisions Contain Substantial Errors in Fact. 13 1, The parking lots south of North 10th Street in Quadrant B are permitted by 14 the Renton Municipal Code, and were never contested by Appellants. The Examiner's Site Plan Decision stated: "The Director's decision is modified and 15 Narli this office will deny the requested modification for...the parking lots along N 10th Street." 16 Site Plan Decision, at 22. The City's Request for Clarification sought to clarify whether this 17 modification denial related to the parking lot located south of North 10th Street in 18 Quadrant C. As the City suggested, this appeared to be the case as the Quadrant C parking lot 19 was the only parking lot "along N 10th Street." However, the Examiner's Reconsideration 20 Decision came to a different conclusion: 21 22 This office believes that the stipulation governed any parking east of Park Avenue along North 10th Street. This office was referring to the Parking lots 23 south of North 10th Street west of Park Avenue. Referring to Site Plan Review 24 Update "A" (Page 3 Illustration) the parking in question would be parking stalls located between: 25 26 27 28 8 Tosco, 804 F.2d at 592. 9 See Part IV.C.1, below. Supplemental Notice of Appeal of H I L L I S CLARK MARTIN & Hearing Examiner's Decision - Page 6 of 8 PETERSON, P.S. 500 Galland Building, 1221 Second Ave Seattle WA 98101-2925 206.623.1745;fax 206.623.7789 Buildings 205 and 202 1 Buildings 202 and 201 `ome 2 Buildings 200 and 204 3 Reconsideration Decision, at 1. 4 Applicant agrees with the Examiner's conclusion that the parking area located south of 5 North 10th Street in Quadrant C was covered by the stipulation between the parties. 6 However, to the extent the Examiner's Reconsideration Decision requires the removal of any 7 parking lots or stalls at the north end of Quadrant B, the Reconsideration Decision contains a 8 substantial error in fact. Examination of the Site Plan for The Landing demonstrates that 9 there are no parking stalls "along North 10th Street" in Quadrant B. See EXHIBIT A. Indeed, 10 because there were no parking lots located along North 10th Street in Quadrant B, Applicant 11 never requested, nor did the Director ever grant, a modification to any particular code 1, requirements to permit the parking in this area of Quadrant B. The Examiner's "denial of the 13 modification" for these particular parking lots, when no modification was ever required or 14 granted, is therefore without basis. 15 Moreover, Appellants themselves never even claimed that the parking south of 16 North 10th Street in Quadrant B presented a violation of the Renton Municipal Code. A copy 17 of Appellants' exhibit depicting all of the alleged code violations, previously admitted as 18 Exhibit 8 at the Site Plan hearing before the Examiner, is attached hereto as EXHIBIT D. 19 Those particular parking areas noted by the Examiner in his Reconsideration Decision contain 20 no symbols indicating alleged violations of the Renton Municipal Code. 21 The parking areas south of North 10th Street in Quadrant B comply with the Renton 2') Municipal Code, were never the subject of a modification, and were never the subject of an 23 appeal by Appellants. Accordingly, the Examiner's required removal of these parking areas 24 represents a substantial error in fact, and should be reversed. 25 2. The Director properly granted modifications to specific Site Plan criteria. 26 The Examiner's Site Plan Decision and the Examiner's Reconsideration Decision also 27 contain substantial errors in fact by failing to uphold the Director's modifications for certain 28 portions of The Landing. Applicant hereby incorporates the arguments presented in Supplemental Notice o f Appeal of 1 l I L L I S CLARK MARTIN & PETERSON, P.S. Hearing Examiner's Decision - Page 7 of 8 500 Galland Building, 1221 Second Ave Seattle WA 98101-2925 206.623.1745,fax 206.623.7789 I Applicant's Request for Reconsideration, dated June 5, 2007.10 As presented therein, the Nvi 2 Director properly approved the modifications related to the primary entrance of Building 400, 3 and the parking areas located along Park Avenue North in Quadrants B and C. In those 4 particular instances, numerous practical difficulties rendered strict application of the Renton 5 Municipal Code impractical. Furthermore, the current Site Plan for The Landing is consistent 6 with the overall intent and purpose of the Renton Municipal Code design standards, the 7 Comprehensive Plan and the Conceptual Plan. Accordingly, the Examiner's reversal of 8 specific modification approvals by the Director represents a substantial error in fact, and 9 should be reversed. 10 V. CONCLUSION 11 For the reasons set forth herein and in Applicant's Request for Reconsideration, 12 Applicant respectfully requests that the Renton City Council withdraw and vacate the 13 Examiner's Site Plan Decision and Reconsideration Decision or, in the alternative, reverse 14 those portions of the decisions requiring modifications to the Site Plan for The Landing. 15 Proposed Orders are attached. , 4109 16 DATED this 6 day of June, 2007. 17 HILLIS CLARK MARTIN & 18 PETERSON, P.S. 19 20 = .earl V-->" -rome1 . Hi 's, SBA #1704 21 T. ' -an Durkan, WSBA #11805 22 Karen D. Breckenridge, WSBA #36666 Attorneys for Applicant 23 Harvest Partners 24 #355656 18449-004 7mfc011.doc 6/26/07 25 26 27 28 10 A copy of Applicant's Request for Reconsideration was previously submitted to the Renton City Council as Exhibit A to Applicant's June 5,2007 Notice of Appeal of Hearing Examiner's Decision. Supplemental Notice of Appeal of HILLIS CLARK MARTIN & Hearing Examiner's Decision - Page 8 of 8 PETERSON, P.S. 500 Galland Building, 1221 Second Ave Seattle WA 98101-2925 206 623.1745;fax 206.623.7789 Exhibit A / / / 5) / „ooh / \ \ , \ 1,J9 I'' \ _- \\,\ / \,?'F :I J\--1 \ . 30/ CINEMA 1 \� \ ./ a SCREEN; �' \ ,'// '`, 08 , ,1,,, \ PJ)�• ® _ 51f ,7 j 1/ 301 13____,,,A--- PARKING GARAGE P / 305 _ -I1// FOUR LEVELS 305 •IHPL ,7 Ak) /Tr �l ` /`P 302 1 �,i,K�� SK3 33k 310 ( TH Si REE lel % /� 205 1• / ` STREET .... / J l l�) .;.NORTH mTR fi 3Y. i / \.�' • -' 204 ,. -- = , ,,, / /' I UI i02 9.' 'OC 1IK o -, 103 I \i /, /j 14i / 18 IN F w _ 14N $ ' 4. .0. , Vr1� 201 ,_.-'IM' 4 r i -7_ I., tr'''''' //,*''f,..,-- - :5 ,//5,---,,,,,, _:-/,.,5,,,,LL_:_,- ____ 4 3 / 11— � 's/ l >Jninn .... ,. i , - i 1 ,: ,1 ,,A s, mu ? ,,,-"---- .\ \ II ._ �E �, _ 1 I � w�, o 000y l min h _. � o _ o ter ' i 405 m 07 6K of I I V. 68 II 40a111 ...., 30 2K I ' loo '15 9k FITNESS - I, li 42V 1 ' ■.<, ... S' o `111 i� —P" �� ��1a_In4f<LI<i.i.1<i.i<nl.rnrl•1�f— /5,06,/5,06,8,,nrr;a sraF,r I — -— ___________ 1 I e Exhibit B Buck@ 2025 First Avenue,Suite 500 Gordon LLP Seattle,WA 98121-3140 Attorneys at Law 206-382-9540 206-626-0675 Fax www.buckgordon.com June 6, 2007 VIA FACSIMILE Ms. Bonnie Walton City Clerk City of Renton 1055 South Grady Way Renton, WA 98055 Re: WITHDRAWAL OF APPELLANTS' REQUEST FOR RECONSIDERATION OF EXAMINER'S FINDINGS, CONCLUSIONS & RECOMMENDATION Dear Ms. Walton: Pursuant to RMC 4-8-110.C(5), we submit the following on behalf of appellants Brad Nicholson and Alliance for South End (ASE) via facsimile transmittal: • WITHDRAWAL OF APPELLANTS' REQUEST FOR RECONSIDERATION OF EXAMINER'S FINDINGS, CONCLUSIONS & RECOMMENDATION This document is filed in the Matter of the Appeals of ASE and Brad Nicholson regarding The Director's Administrative Site Plan Approval and The Director's Administrative Interpretation/Policy Decision. Copies of this letter and the above referenced document will also be faxed to the Hearing Examiner and all counsel of record. Very t ly .urs, Peter L. uc Cc: Fred Kauffman, Hearing Examiner Counsel of Record Y:\WP\ASE\Site Plan Appeal\1060607.doc 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 BEFORE THE I-IEARING EXAMINER OF THE CITY OF RENTON 10 In the Matter of the Appeals of ) 11 Alliance for South End (ASE) and ) LUA-06-071, SA-A 12 Brad Nicholson re: ) WITHDRAWAL OF 13 The Director's Administrative Site Plan ) APPELLANTS' REQUEST FOR Approval ) RECONSIDERATION OF 14 ) EXAMINER'S FINDINGS, 15 ) CONCLUSIONS & RECOMMENDATION 16 ) 17 Appellants Alliance for the South End ("ASE") and Brad Nicolson hereby 18 withdraw their above titled Request for Reconsideration, filed on June 5, 2007. Further, 19 Appellants do not oppose the Request for Reconsideration filed by Applicant Harvest 20 Partners on June 5, 2007. 21 22 23 24 25 WITHDRAWAL OF APPELLANTS' REQUEST FOR RECONSIDERATION - 1 Y:\WP\ASEISITE PLAN APPEAL\'- BUCk0 Gordon LLP 060607.W(THDRAWAL.RECONSIDERATION.DOC 2025 First Avenue,Suite 500 Seattle,WA 98121-3140 (206)382-9540 rf' NINS 1 Dated this Q.2 day of June, 2007, 2 BUCK & GS ' P I LLP 3 / 4 By: L. Buc WS:A#05060 5 Attorneys for Alliance for the South End and Brad Nicholson 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 NIS 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 WITHDRAWAL OF APPELLANTS' REQUEST FOR RECONSIDERATION - 2 Y:\WP\ASE\SITE PLAN APPEAL\P- BUCI<e Gordon LLP 060607.WITIIDRAWAL.RECONSIDERATION.DOC 2025 First Avenue,Suite 500 Seattle,WA 98121-3140 (206)382-9540 Exhibit C June 12, 2007 DECISION OF THE HEARING EXAMINER ON MATTERS OF THE APPEALS OF ASE AND BRAD NICHOLSON REGARDING THE DIRECTOR'S ADMINISTRATIVE SITE PLAN APPROVAL AND THE DIRECTOR'S ADMINISTRATIVE INTERPRETATION/POLICY DECISION ON BUILDING PERMIT APPLICATION APPROVALS This office has received a variety of requests regarding this matter. This office has received a Request for Clarification from the City. It also has received two Requests for Reconsideration - one from the Harvest Partners, the underlying applicant and one from the appellants. Since these various requests were received it appears that the parties have reached a settlement of some of their appeal issues. The appellants no longer oppose the applicant's request for reconsideration and appellants have withdrawn their request for reconsideration. City's Request for Clarification The City sought clarification for two issues. The decision this office made denied the modifications for parking lots along North 10th Street and for relief from having to provide a primary entrance along Park Avenue North. The City seeks to clarify what was meant by these denials. Parking along North 10th Street This office believes that the stipulation governed any parking east of Park Avenue along North 10th Street. This office was referring to the Parking lots south of North 10th Street west of Park Avenue. Referring to Site Plan Review Update "A" (Page 3 Illustration)the parking in question would be parking stalls located between: Buildings 205 and 202 Buildings 202 and 201 Buildings 200 and 204 Primary Entrances along Park Avenue North The second issue was whether Building 102 (again, refer to Site Plan Update A, Page 3 illustration)required a primary entrance along Park Avenue. The response is twofold. This office intended this denial to apply solely to Building 400, west of Park. First, this office believed that the stipulation governed all design aspects of Quadrant C except the tier of Parking along the eastern edge of Park in the location of Building 102. Second, if the stipulation did not govern this aspect of Building 102, then "practical difficulties" would allow a modification to be granted for this "primary entrance" modification. The stipulation allows the placement of a truck delivery driveway between the Park Avenue facade of Building 102 and Park Avenue. The mixing of pedestrians and heavy truck traffic at a primary entrance in this location would create an unsafe situation. Granting a modification would not otherwise affect public health, safety or welfare nor would it injure the general public or other properties in the area. Approving a modification implements the comprehensive plan by allowing the development of the 38-acre site with urban scale uses and generally conforms to the purposes of the Code to allow primary entrances when practical but otherwise allow a modification when it would be impractical or unsafe to require a primary entrance in a particular location. '' Hearing Examiner Decision The Landing Appeals June 12, 2007 Page 2 Now Applicant's Request for Reconsideration The applicant seeks reconsideration where the Hearing Examiner denied three modifications that had originally been approved by the Director. The Examiner required a primary entrance in the Park Avenue North facade of Building 400, denying a modification that would have eliminated that requirement. The Examiner removed a tier of parking east of Park in the vicinity of Building 102 denying a modification that would have allowed parking in that location. The Examiner required the applicant to abide by the limitation that not more than 60 feet of parking be located north of Building 400, again, denying a modification that would have allowed parking in those locations. Primary Entrance for Building 400 along Park Avenue North The applicant argues that there are practical difficulties in providing an entrance for Building 400 along Park Avenue and suggests that since there are industrial uses south of this area that there is little pedestrian traffic. This does not appear to be a practical difficulty but would be a self-fulfilling prophecy. If no pedestrian entrance is provided in this location there would be little to encourage new pedestrians to walk along Park in this location,killing the supposed "pedestrian-oriented" aspect of Park in this location. Next the applicant argues that theft could or would occur if there was a second entrance on Park Avenue since controlled access to one point would be lost. This is a design consideration and this office believes that urban design features override this issue. Urban design does bring with it certain levels of potential criminality but that apparently has not stopped many urban stores or even malls from having more than one entrance and possibly co-equal, if not primary entrances. Downtown Seattle has any number of retailers Ntari' with corner stores or block-wide stores with multiple entrances to encourage pedestrians. Even mall stores , such as Macy's at Northgate and Southcenter, Bed, Bath and Beyond at Southcenter and Nordstrom's have more than one entrance. The fact that the applicant has created its own internal pedestrian path does not make providing the one required by code difficult. The underlying record does not demonstrate any practical difficulties,just design choices of the applicant. There is no reason to modify the original decision. Parking east of Park Avenue North Parking west of Park Avenue North(more than 60 feet) The applicant has not provided any reason to modify the denial of parking along either side of Park Avenue North. For the same reason, a primary entrance is not appropriate for Building 102, the truck delivery driveway location and parking for passenger vehicles is not appropriate in this location-it would provide unsafe pedestrian movements from cars to the shopping experience. The fact that the applicant may be providing landscaping or even additional landscaping in other areas of the site or even along this street does not create any practical difficulty that necessitates a modification to allow parking where it is otherwise not permitted. Landscape strips between the parking and the sidewalks do not negate the code requirements for this urban, pedestrian-oriented street to not have parking along the corridor. There clearly was no ambiguity in what was intended since the applicant sought modifications for these unambiguous code provisions. Finally, the applicant's desire for additional parking does not create practical difficulties with regard to parking. The site provides acres of open parking. Code provides a range of parking for particular uses. Urban-scale development,traffic congestion, air pollution all demand that pedestrian-oriented development not cater particularly to the automobile driver. Hearing Examiner Decision The Landing Appeals June 12, 2007 Page 3 Nod Parking along North 10th west of Park Since the clarification sought by the City may have unexpectedly caught the applicant by surprise, this office will add that its arguments against the parking along Park Avenue North apply equally to the parking proposed along the south side of North 10th Street between the buildings noted above. North 10th, like Park Avenue is intended to be a pedestrian oriented street. There is no practical difficulty in meeting the design criteria or code standards along this portion of North 10th west of Park. As the original decision noted, if the reduction of parking hampers the development of the site due to other code standards, the applicant may reduce the number of buildings or provide additional structured parking elsewhere on the subject site. In conclusion, this office agrees with the applicant(Page 7 of Applicant's Request)that the Examiner recognized there are challenges to designing an URBAN shopping center but disagrees that there are all of the challenges suggested by the applicant. The City's comprehensive plan is not seeking, in the applicant's words, "a large retail center" (a la Northgate or Southcenter)but an urban center, which encourages PEDESTRIAN-ORIENTED experiences. The are no practical difficulties in providing an entrance for Building 400 along Park Avenue or abiding by Code that restricts parking along Park Avenue North. In conclusion, this office congratulates the parties for reaching an amicable solution to the issues that separated them but where the appeal was not fully withdrawn in certain particulars, the decision is herein clarified or upheld. If this office can provide any additional assistance please feel free to write. This decision can be appealed to the City Council by paying the appropriate fee and filing an appeal in writing by June 26, 2007. ORDERED THIS 12th day of June 2007. , \cA: FRED J. KAMAN HEARING EXAMINER TRANSMITTED THIS 12th day of June 2007 to the parties of record: Zanetta Fontes Peter Buck Jerome L. Hillis Warren Barber & Fontes, P.S. Buck & Gordon LLP Hillis Clark Martin & Peterson, P.S. PO Box 626 2025 First Ave, Suite 500 500 Galland Building Renton, WA 98057 Seattle, WA 98121 1221 Second Avenue Seattle, WA 98101 Ross Radley Brad Nicholson 3316 Fuhrman Ave E 2811 Dayton Avenue Seattle, WA 98102 Renton, WA 98056 Hearing Examiner Decision The Landing Appeals June 12, 2007 Page 4 Now TRANSMITTED THIS 12th day of June 2007 to the following: Mayor Kathy Keolker Stan Engler, Fire Jay Covington, CAO Larry Meckling, 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., June 26, 2007. 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 farther action as he deems proper. An appeal to the City Council is governed by Title IV, Chapter 8, Section 110, which requires that such appeal be filed with the City Clerk, accompanying a filing fee of$75.00 and meeting other specified requirements. Copies of this ordinance are available for inspection or purchase in the Finance Department, first floor of City Hall. An appeal must be filed in writing on or before 5:00 p.m., June 26, 2007. 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. Hearing Examiner Decision The Landing Appeals June 12, 2007 Page 5 The Doctrine applies not only to the initial public hearing but to all Requests for Reconsideration as well as Appeals to the City Council. Exhibit D VIOLATIONS IN MODIFIED SITE PLAN* * FULL SITE PLAN from modification submiftal dated March 2, 2007 (approved March 13, 2007) / // / \\ 7 I RMC 4-3-100.F.1.b.i: '-„ \ 7 \\\I Street frontage. , \ .. . ; „.„--------, * RMC 4-3-100.F.4.b: .7' .- ,A,K44 \ /4 scam Surface parking driveways. ,.-6'/• \.14,111--' toe 14/10.eCtRAGE 10' WWII: t. 309 7037 0 ,• FOUR LEVELS ,‘,17E, 27 41( * RMC 4-3-100 E 3 b A'r \ 0 1100.11.1.1'11.11111?" \ Primary entrance itik.tios4".kif. - 7C A 3171°' 14 STPEETiiimpaimo,.\ 31, 1i: ....- \ * RMC 4-3-100.E.2.b: I ; I, 202 f ' 200 IOW 1 ! WIPP". „. 777 le . 14K A>. V..... 18,< Adjacent to sidewalk. / .. • - °/ ...,4 ; .1 f7.- ,, , ..••• la* ,irq, / 201 : \ I .r. II_ gj '"" : ! r ..... _. *IF .,. ,t ..... ...- * RMC 4-`7-120 E .. , ... i ' -- ar, - -- --‘i,' ..'_ Tr,„‘k loalinq are.9s „i — — gi '::*.! — — — — . \ i _ t Za 'llf,!' _ _ _ 1 _ i__ L i ...., .1 . :, , - . if ,,,_ A RMC 4-3-100.F.1.b.i: ,. i T Parking on rear or side of building. 07 4C6 401 400 Igi, FiT.155 100 126 81(404 aos 4 4 "2 a 4y, „....„,,„ill 25K 30 7K 5.4 Ai k1 44I L .m,, s--, A RMC 4-2-120.E: ji ...., 17=‘;lam! 6 -.27Lzieralis-1,- — . .... ..!! . ! ' ISetbacks. NORTH 8TH 5TRFETAIM \ 20' b — 0 /---- (4 75' O go' 70' 140' A • ,;!POF REM JUN 2 6 M27 [PROPOSAL 2: REVERSE] RECEIVE, C C�F, 'SNitirre �r x.40 PLANNING & DEVELOPMENT COMMITTEE P COMMITTEE REPORT July 9, 2007 Appeals by Alliance for South End (ASE) and Brad Nicholson File No. LUA-06-071, SA-A Re: Director's administrative Site Plan approval Referred to Planning & Development Committee on July 2, 2007 This appeal came before the Planning and Development Committee (the "Committee") on July 5, 2007. The Committee reviewed the decision of the Hearing Examiner dated May 22, 2007, which decision affirmed the Director's approval of the Site Plan for The Landing project but reversed the Director's approval of certain specific elements in The Landing Site Plan. The Committee also reviewed the decision of the Hearing Examiner dated June 12, 2007, which denied Applicant's Request for Reconsideration and responded to the City's Request for Clarification. The Committee reviewed the file, including the briefs therein. The Committee also reviewed Appellants' Withdrawal of their Request for Reconsideration and Appellants' statement of support for Applicant Harvest Partners' Request for Reconsideration, filed pursuant to a settlement agreement reached by the parties. Finding that substantial errors in fact or law exist in the record, the Committee recommends that the Council reverse those portions of the decisions requiring modifications to the Site Plan for The Landing. The Committee further recommends that the Council adopt the attached Findings and Conclusions. Terri Briere, Chair Dan Clawson, Vice Chair Marcie Palmer, Member cc: Neil Watts Jennifer Henning Lawrence J. Warren FINDINGS 1. On August 17, 2006, the City of Renton Department of Planning, Building and Public Works issued a decision approving the Site Plan for The Landing, an approximately 572,700-square foot commercial/retail development to be constructed on a 38.22-acre site within the Urban Center-North 1 (UC-N1) zone in Renton, Washington (the "Director's Site Plan Approval").' The City had previously approved the master plan for The Landing project, and determined that The Landing project was consistent with the adopted Planned Action Ordinance. 2. On August 31, 2006, "Alliance for South End" ("ASE"), a Washington nonprofit corporation, and Brad Nicholson ("Appellants") filed appeals of the Director's Site Plan Approval.2 3. On February 22, 2007, following a hearing on standing and other jurisdictional issues, the Hearing Examiner issued a decision dismissing ASE's appeal of the Director's Site Plan Approval for lack of standing.3 ASE did not appeal this decision. 4. On May 22, 2007, following a hearing on the merits, the Renton Hearing Examiner issued a decision regarding Mr. Nicholson's appeal of the Director's Site Plan Approval (the "Examiner's Site Plan Decision").4 In nearly all respects, the Examiner's Site Plan Decision affirmed the Director's Site Plan Approval, and modifications thereto. However, the Examiner reversed the Director's approval of certain specific elements of The Landing Site Plan, finding that there were not "practical difficulties" permitting such , elements. 5. In particular, the Examiner's Site Plan Decision required the following specific changes to the current Site Plan for The Landing: (1) installation of an additional or alternative entrance on the east side of Building 400, fronting Park Avenue North;5 (2) removal of parking stalls located between Building 102 and Park Avenue North, in the southwest ' See Director's Site Plan Approval, attached as Exhibit A to Notice of Appeal of Administrative Site Plan Approval, dated August 31, 2006. 2 See Notice of Appeal of Administrative Site Plan Approval,dated August 31,2006. On the same date as this appeal, ASE and Mr.Nicholson also appealed an Interpretation/Policy Decision made by the City of Renton. On February 22, 2007,the Hearing Examiner dismissed those appeals for lack of jurisdiction. Neither ASE nor Mr. Nicholson appealed this dismissal. 3 See Decision of the Hearing Examiner on Matters of Standing and Jurisdiction brought by Attorneys for Alliance for South End(ASE)and Brad Nicholson, an Individual, dated February 22, 2007,at 6. 4 See Office of the Hearing Examiner, City of Renton, Findings, Conclusions and Recommendation on The Landing Site Plan Hearing on Merits, dated May 21 2007. 5 Id, at 22. corner of Quadrant C;6 and (3) removal of all but 60 feet of parking stalls located north of Building 400 and west of Park Avenue North. 6. On May 31, 2007, the City filed a Request for Clarification regarding two issues in the Examiner's Site Plan Decision.8 The City's Request for Clarification sought to clarify: (1) whether the Examiner's Site Plan Decision was intended to require a primary entrance on the west side of Building 102; and (2) whether the Examiner's Site Plan Decision was intended to require removal of the parking area in the northeast corner of Quadrant C, along North 10th Street. 7. On June 5, 2007, Applicant filed a Request for Reconsideration with the Hearing Examiner, requesting that the Examiner reconsider those portions of the Examiner's Site Plan Decision requiring modifications to the Site Plan.9 Also on June 5, 2007, Appellants filed a Request for Reconsideration with the Hearing Examiner, alleging various errors in the Examiner's Site Plan Decision.10 8. Subsequent to the filing of Applicant's and Appellants' Requests for Reconsideration, and while the Requests for Reconsideration were still pending, Applicant and Appellants resolved this matter through a settlement, memorialized in a Settlement Agreement and Release dated for reference purposes June 5, 2007. Accordingly, on June 6, 2007, Appellants withdrew their Request for Reconsideration of the Examiner's Site Plan Decision, and stated their support for Applicant's Request for Reconsideration.'' 9. On June 12, 2007, the Examiner issued a decision regarding Applicant's Request for Reconsideration, as well as the City's Request for Clarification (the "Examiner's N'""' Reconsideration Decision").12 10. The Examiner's Reconsideration Decision clarified that a primary entrance on the west side of Building 102 was not required.'3 The Examiner's Reconsideration Decision also stated that although the parking areas south of North 10th Street in Quadrant C were permitted, the parking stalls located south of North 10th Street in Quadrant B were not 6 Id. Id. 8 See City of Renton's Request for Clarification,dated May 31,2007. 9 See Applicant's Request for Reconsideration,dated June 5, 2007. 1°See Appellants' Request for Reconsideration of Examiner's Findings, Conclusions& Recommendation, dated June 5, 2007. 'I See Withdrawal of Appellants' Request for Reconsideration of Examiner's Findings, Conclusions& Recommendation, dated June 6,2007, and accompanying cover letter, attached as Exhibit B to Supplemental Notice of Appeal of Hearing Examiner's Decision,dated June 26,2007. 12 See Decision of the Hearing Examiner on Matters of the Appeals of ASE and Brad Nicholson Regarding the Director's Administrative Site Plan Approval and the Director's Administrative Interpretation/Policy Decision on Building Permit Application Approvals, dated June 12, 2007. 13 Id, at 1. permitted.14 Finally, the Examiner's Reconsideration Decision denied Applicant's Request for Reconsideration, upholding the Examiner's Site Plan Decision.15 11. According to the Site Plan for The Landing, there are no parking stalls or parking lots located "along North 10th Street" in Quadrant B.16 12. Appellants never claimed that the parking south of North 10th Street in Quadrant B presented a violation of the Renton Municipal Code.17 13. Numerous practical difficulties make the installation of an east-facing entrance on Building 400 impractical at this time, including the orientation of the building toward the pedestrian walkway to the north, security and loss prevention issues posed by requiring two entrances, and the numerous pedestrian-oriented elements already built into the design of Building 400.18 14. Numerous practical difficulties exist in designing a large urban retail center of The Landing's scale and magnitude that can incorporate sufficient pedestrian-oriented elements and yet also provide adequate parking within permissible proximity of the retail tenants.19 Where practical difficulties required that parking be located along Park Avenue North, the Site Plan for The Landing incorporates extensive landscaping and pedestrian-oriented elements, providing a large buffer and significant screening between Park Avenue North and the parking areas on either side.20 CONCLUSIONS From these Findings, the Committee adopts the following Conclusions: 1. For the Examiner to exercise quasi-judicial power, there must be a justiciable case or controversy.21 2. Before the Examiner can assume jurisdiction, therefore, the Examiner must determine whether the case is moot.22 A case is moot where the hearing body can no longer provide effective relief.23 14 Id. 15 Id,at 2-3. 16 See Site Plan for The Landing,attached as Exhibit A to Supplemental Notice of Appeal of Hearing Examiner's Decision,dated June 25,2007 17 See Appellants' exhibit depicting alleged code violations, attached as Exhibit D to Supplemental Notice of Appeal of Hearing Examiner's Decision, dated June 26,2007. 18 See Applicant's Request for Reconsideration, dated June 5, 2007. '91d. 20 Id. 21 U.S. Const. Art. III, § 2. 22 See, e.g., Tosco Corp. v. Hodel, 804 F.2d 590, 591 (10th Cir. 1986). 3. A settlement involving all parties and all claims renders an action moot.24 This also applies when a case is settled pending appeal.25 Name 4. When only moot questions are involved, no case or controversy exists, and a case should be dismissed.26 5. Upon settlement between the parties and withdrawal of Appellant's Request for Reconsideration, a justiciable case or controversy no longer existed in this matter. The action is moot. 6. Because this matter is moot, the Examiner's issuance of the Reconsideration Decision, despite the settlement of the parties, exceeded the scope of his authority and jurisdiction, and therefore represents a substantial error in law. 7. The parking areas south of North 10th Street in Quadrant B comply with the Renton Municipal Code, were never the subject of a modification, and were never the subject of an appeal by Appellants. Accordingly, the Examiner's Reconsideration Decision requiring removal of these parking areas represents a substantial error in fact, and should be reversed as to those portions of the decision. 8. Because practical difficulties rendered strict application of the Renton Municipal Code impractical, the Director properly approved the modifications related to the primary entrance of Building 400 and the parking areas located along Park Avenue North in Quadrants B and C. By failing to uphold these modifications, the Examiner's Site Plan Decision and the Examiner's Reconsideration Decision contain substantial errors in fact, "' and should be reversed as to those portions of the decisions. 9. With the reversal of those portions of the Examiner's Site Plan Decision and the Examiner's Request for Reconsideration that represented substantial errors in fact or law, the Landing Site Plan shall be subject to the Director's original Site Plan Approval, and subsequent modifications thereto. 10. To the extent not inconsistent with the Council's Findings and Conclusions herein, the Council adopts the remaining findings and conclusions set forth in the Examiner's Site Plan Decision. 23 See, e.g.,In re Marriage of Horner, 151 Wn.2d 884 (2004);see also Tosco, 804 F.2d at 591 ("[C]ourts are without power to decide questions that cannot affect the rights of litigants in the case before them."). 24 Tosco, 804 F.2d at 592,cited by Villas at Harbour Pointe Owners Ass'n v. Mutual of Enumclaw Ins. Co., 137 Wn.App. 751, 761 n.13 (2007). 25 Id. 26 Snohomish County v. State Shorelines Hearings Bd., 108 Wn.App. 781, 787 (2001). CITY OF REN` ON JUN 2 6 2007 RECEIVED [PROPOSAL 1: WITHDRAW AND VACATE] CITY C I ERKOF FICE PLANNING & DEVELOPMENT COMMITTEE COMMITTEE REPORT July 9, 2007 Appeals by Alliance for South End (ASE) and Brad Nicholson File No. LUA-06-071, SA-A Re: Director's administrative Site Plan approval Referred to Planning and Development Committee on July 2, 2007 This appeal came before the Planning and Development Committee (the "Committee") on July 5, 2007. The Committee reviewed the decision of the Hearing Examiner dated May 22, 2007, which decision affirmed the Director's approval of the Site Plan for The Landing project but reversed the Director's approval of certain specific elements in The Landing Site Plan. The Committee also reviewed the decision of the Hearing Examiner dated June 12, 2007, which denied Applicant's Request for Reconsideration and responded to the City's Request for Clarification. NIS The Committee reviewed the file, including the briefs therein. The Committee also reviewed Appellants' Withdrawal of their Request for Reconsideration and Appellants' statement of support for Applicant Harvest Partners' Request for Reconsideration, filed pursuant to a settlement agreement reached by the parties. In light of the settlement reached by all parties and Appellants' Withdrawal of their Request for Reconsideration, the Committee recommends that the Council withdraw and vacate the decisions of the Hearing Examiner. The Committee further recommends that the Council adopt the attached Findings and Conclusions. Terri Briere, Chair Dan Clawson, Vice Chair Marcie Palmer, Member cc: Neil Watts Jennifer Henning Lawrence J. Warren FINDINGS N"' 1. On August 17, 2006, the City of Renton Department of Planning, Building and Public Works issued a decision approving the Site Plan for The Landing, an approximately 572,700-square foot commercial/retail development to be constructed on a 38.22-acre site within the Urban Center-North 1 (UC-N1) zone in Renton, Washington (the "Director's Site Plan Approval").1 The City had previously approved the master plan for The Landing project, and determined that The Landing project was consistent with the adopted Planned Action Ordinance. 2. On August 31, 2006, "Alliance for South End" ("ASE"), a Washington nonprofit corporation, and Brad Nicholson ("Appellants") filed appeals of the Director's Site Plan Approval.2 3. On February 22, 2007, following a hearing on standing and other jurisdictional issues, the Hearing Examiner issued a decision dismissing ASE's appeal of the Director's Site Plan Approval for lack of standing.3 ASE did not appeal this decision. 4. On May 22, 2007, following a hearing on the merits, the Renton Hearing Examiner issued a decision regarding Mr. Nicholson's appeal of the Director's Site Plan Approval (the "Examiner's Site Plan Decision").4 In nearly all respects, the Examiner's Site Plan Decision affirmed the Director's Site Plan Approval, and modifications thereto. However, the Examiner reversed the Director's approval of certain specific elements of The Landing Site Plan, finding that there were not "practical difficulties" permitting such Now' elements. 5. On May 31, 2007, the City filed a Request for Clarification regarding two issues in the Examiner's Site Plan Decision.5 6. On June 5, 2007, Applicant filed a Request for Reconsideration with the Hearing Examiner, requesting that the Examiner reconsider those portions of the Examiner's Site Plan Decision requiring modifications to the Site Plan.6 Also on June 5, 2007, Appellants See Director's Site Plan Approval, attached as Exhibit A to Notice of Appeal of Administrative Site Plan Approval,dated August 31,2006. 2 See Notice of Appeal of Administrative Site Plan Approval,dated August 31,2006. On the same date as this appeal,ASE and Mr.Nicholson also appealed an Interpretation/Policy Decision made by the City of Renton. On February 22, 2007, the Hearing Examiner dismissed those appeals for lack of jurisdiction. Neither ASE nor Mr. Nicholson appealed this dismissal. 3 See Decision of the Hearing Examiner on Matters of Standing and Jurisdiction brought by Attorneys for Alliance for South End(ASE) and Brad Nicholson, an Individual,dated February 22,2007, at 6. See Office of the Hearing Examiner, City of Renton, Findings, Conclusions and Recommendation on The Landing Site Plan Hearing on Merits, dated May 22,2007. See City of Renton's Request for Clarification,dated May 31, 2007. iiro 6 See Applicant's Request for Reconsideration, dated June 5,2007. filed a Request for Reconsideration with the Hearing Examiner, alleging various errors in the Examiner's Site Plan Decision. 44r09 7. Subsequent to the filing of Applicant's and Appellants' Requests for Reconsideration, and while the Requests for Reconsideration were still pending, Applicant and Appellants resolved this matter through a settlement, memorialized in a Settlement Agreement and Release dated for reference purposes June 5, 2007. Accordingly, on June 6, 2007, Appellants withdrew their Request for Reconsideration of the Examiner's Site Plan Decision, and stated their support for Applicant's Request for Reconsideration.8 8. On June 12, 2007, the Examiner issued a decision regarding Applicant's Request for Reconsideration, as well as the City's Request for Clarification (the "Examiner's Reconsideration Decision").9 CONCLUSIONS From these Findings, the Committee adopts the following Conclusions: 1. For the Examiner to exercise quasi-judicial power, there must be a justiciable case or controversy.10 2. Before the Examiner can assume jurisdiction, therefore, the Examiner must determine whether the case is moot.11 A case is moot where the hearing body can no longer provide effective relief.12 *1000 3. A settlement involving all parties and all claims renders an action moot.13 This also applies when a case is settled pending appeal.14 7 See Appellants' Request for Reconsideration of Examiner's Findings, Conclusions& Recommendation, dated June 5,2007. 8 See Withdrawal of Appellants' Request for Reconsideration of Examiner's Findings,Conclusions& Recommendation, dated June 6,2007, and accompanying cover letter, attached as Exhibit B to Supplemental Notice of Appeal of Hearing Examiner's Decision, dated June 26,2007. 9 See Decision of the Hearing Examiner on Matters of the Appeals of ASE and Brad Nicholson Regarding the Director's Administrative Site Plan Approval and the Director's Administrative Interpretation/Policy Decision on Building Permit Application Approvals, dated June 12,2007. 10 U.S. Const. Art. III, § 2. 11 See, e.g., Tosco Corp. v. Hodel, 804 F.2d 590,591 (10th Cir. 1986). 12 See, e.g.,In re Marriage of Horner, 151 Wn.2d 884 (2004);see also Tosco, 804 F.2d at 591 ("[C]ourts are without power to decide questions that cannot affect the rights of litigants in the case before them."). 13 Tosco, 804 F.2d at 592,cited by Villas at Harbour Pointe Owners Ass'n v. Mutual of Enumclaw Ins. Co., 137 Wn.App. 751, 761 n.13 (2007). 14 Id. 4. When only moot questions are involved, no case or controversy exists, and a case should be dismissed.15 5. Upon settlement between the parties and withdrawal of Appellant's Request for Reconsideration, a justiciable case or controversy no longer existed in this matter. The action is moot. 6. Because this matter is moot, the Examiner's Site Plan Decision and the Examiner's Reconsideration Decision are without effect and should be withdrawn and vacated. 7. With the withdrawal and vacating of the Examiner's Site Plan Decision and the Examiner's Reconsideration Decision, the Landing Site Plan shall be subject to the Director's original Site Plan Approval, and subsequent modifications thereto. 41400" is Snohomish County v. State Shorelines Hearings Bd., 108 Wn.App. 781,787(2001). CITY OF RENTON ,SUN 2 6007 RECEIVED 1 c �1,Ef 5 OFFICE *441100 2 3 4 5 BEFORE THE RENTON CITY COUNCIL 6 In the Matter of the Appeal of 7 No. LUA-06-071, SA-A 8 Brad Nicholson re: CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE 9 The Director's Administrative Site Plan 10 Approval. I 1 I, Ju L. Park, am a legal assistant for the law firm of Hillis Clark Martin & Peterson, 12 P.S., 500 Galland Building, 1221 Second Avenue, Seattle, WA 98101. I hereby certify that 13 on the 26th day of June 2007, I caused to be delivered via legal messenger a true and correct 14 copyof(1) Supplemental Notice of Appeal of Hearing Examiner's Decision• and(2) this 15 Certificate of Service to the following: 16 Fred Kaufman, Hearing Examiner Renton City Council 17 City of Renton c/o Office of the Clerk 18 1055 South Grady Way City of Renton Renton, WA 98055 1055 South Grady Way 19 Renton, WA 98055 20 Lawrence J. Warren Peter L. Buck 21 Zanetta Fontes Buck & Gordon, LLP Warren Barber& Fontes, P.S. 2025 First Avenue, Suite 500 22 100 South Second Street Seattle, WA 98121-3140 23 Renton, WA 98057 24 Ross Radley Law Offices of Ross Radley, Inc. P.S. 25 3316 Fuhrman Ave. East, Suite 250 26 Seattle, WA 98102 27 28 HILLIS CLARK MARTIN & PETERSON, P.S. Certificate of Service - Page 1 of 2 500 Galland Building, 1221 Second Ave Seattle WA 98101-2925 206.623.1745;fax 206.623.7789 1 DATED this 2�rt� day of June, 2007. 2 HILLIS CLARK MARTIN & 3 PETERSON, P.S. 4 5 (Lir/ G— . 6 Ju L. Park Legal Assistant to Karen D. Breckenridge 7 8 #356249 18449-004 7mvt01!.doc 6/25/07 9 10 11 12 13 14 ,,• 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 HILLIS CLARK MARTIN & PETERSON, P.S. Certificate of Service - Page 2 of 2 500 Galland Building, 1221 Second Ave Seattle WA 98101-2925 206.623.1745;fax 206.623.7789 C.)ti -Y 0 CITY OF RENTON in City Clerk Kathy Keolker,Mayor Bonnie I.Walton NISJune 22, 2007 APPEAL FILED BY: Harvest Partners, represented by Hillis Clark Martin & Peterson, P.S. RE: Appeal of Hearing Examiner's decision dated 5/22/2007 regarding The Landing Site Plan application, 1002 Park Ave. N. (File No. LUA-06-071, SA-A) 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 Nicholson appeal of the Director's Administrative Site Plan Approval has been filed with the City Clerk. In accordance with Renton Municipal Code Section 4-8-110F, the City Clerk shall notify all parties of record of the receipt of the appeal. Other parties of record may submit letters limited to support of their positions 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 5:00 pm, July 2, 2007. NOTICE IS HEREBY GIVEN that the written appeal and other pertinent documents will be reviewed by the Council's Planning and Development Committee at 3:00 p.m. on Thursday, July 5, 2007, in the Council Chambers, 7th Floor of Renton City Hall, 1055 South Grady Way, Renton, WA, 98057. The recommendation of the Committee will be presented for consideration by the full Council at a subsequent Council meeting. Attached are a copy of the appeal and a copy 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 evidence or testimony on this matter will be accepted by the City Council. For additional information or assistance, please feel free to call me at 425-430-6502. Sincerely, 661•n,<<-J. Cda- ' Bonnie I. Walton City Clerk Attachments cc: Council Liaison 1055 South Grady Way-Renton, Washington 98057-(425)430-6510/FAX(425)430-6516 RENTON This saner cnntamt 500/n rcrvAari matnr,ai 'tfO/r,.,ct rn..<r pr„o. AHEAD O F THE CURVE 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 "�rrr the City. (Ord. 3658, 9-13-82) 4-8-110F: Appeals to City Council — Procedures 1. Time for Appeal: Unless a specific section or State law providing for review of decision of the Examiner requires review thereof by the Superior Court or any other body, any interested party aggrieved by the Examiner's written decision or recommendation may submit a notice of appeal to the City Council, upon a form furnished by the City Clerk, within fourteen (14) calendar days from the date of the Examiner's written report. 2. Notice to Parties of Record: Within five (5) days of receipt of the notice of appeal, the City Clerk shall notify all parties of record of the receipt of the appeal. 3. Opportunity to Provide Comments: Other parties of record may submit letters in support of their positions within ten (10) days of the dates of mailing of the notification of the filing of the notice of appeal. 4. Transmittal of Record to Council: Thereupon the Clerk shall forward to the members of the City Council all of the pertinent documents, including the written decision or recommendation, findings and conclusions contained in the Examiner's report, the notice of appeal, and additional letters submitted by the parties. (Ord. 3658, 9-13-1982) 5. Council Review Procedures: No public hearing shall be held by the City Council. No new or additional evidence or testimony shall be accepted by the City Council unless a showing is made by the party offering the evidence that the evidence could not reasonably have been available at the time of the hearing before the Examiner. If the Council determines that additional evidence is required, the Council shall remand the matter to the Examiner for reconsideration and receipt of additional evidence. The cost of transcription of the hearing record shall be borne by the applicant. In the absence of an entry upon the record of an order by the City Council authorizing new or additional evidence or testimony, and a remand to the Hearing Examiner for receipt of such evidence or testimony, it shall be presumed that no new or additional evidence or testimony has been accepted by the City Council, and that the record before the City Council is identical to the hearing record before the Hearing Examiner. (Ord. 4389, 1-25-1993) 6. Council Evaluation Criteria: The consideration by the City Council shall be based solely upon the record, the Hearing Examiner's report, the notice of appeal and additional submissions by parties. 7. Findings and Conclusions Required: If, upon appeal of a decision of the Hearing Examiner on an application submitted pursuant to RMC 4-1-050F1, and after examination of the record, the Council determines that a substantial error in fact or law exists in the record, it may remand the proceeding to Examiner for reconsideration, or modify, or reverse the decision of the Examiner accordingly. 8. Council Action: If, upon appeal from a recommendation of the Hearing Examiner upon an application submitted pursuant to RMC 4-1-050F2 and F3, and after examination of the record, the Council determines that a substantial error in fact or law exists in the record, or that a recommendation of the Hearing Examiner should be disregarded or modified, the City Council may remand the proceeding to the Examiner for reconsideration, or enter its own decision upon the application. 9. Decision Documentation: In any event, the decision of the City Council shall be in writing and shall specify any modified or amended findings and conclusions other than those set forth in the report of the Hearing Examiner. Each material finding shall be supported by substantial evidence in the record. The burden of proof shall rest with the appellant. (Ord 3658, 9-13-1982) 10. Council Action Final: The action of the Council approving, modifying or rejecting a decision Nair 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) June 12, 2007 DECISION OF THE HEARING EXAMINER ON MATTERS OF THE APPEALS OF ASE AND BRAD NICHOLSON REGARDING THE DIRECTOR'S ADMINISTRATIVE SITE PLAN APPROVAL AND THE DIRECTOR'S ADMINISTRATIVE INTERPRETATION/POLICY DECISION ON BUILDING PERMIT APPLICATION APPROVALS This office has received a variety of requests regarding this matter. This office has received a Request for Clarification from the City. It also has received two Requests for Reconsideration -one from the Harvest Partners, the underlying applicant and one from the appellants. Since these various requests were received it appears that the parties have reached a settlement of some of their appeal issues. The appellants no longer oppose the applicant's request for reconsideration and appellants have withdrawn their request for reconsideration. City's Request for Clarification The City sought clarification for two issues. The decision this office made denied the modifications for parking lots along North 10th Street and for relief from having to provide a primary entrance along Park Avenue North. The City seeks to clarify what was meant by these denials. Parking along North 10th Street Nleid This office believes that the stipulation governed any parking east of Park Avenue along North 10th Street. This office was referring to the Parking lots south of North 10th Street west of Park Avenue. Referring to Site Plan Review Update "A" (Page 3 Illustration)the parking in question would be parking stalls located between: Buildings 205 and 202 Buildings 202 and 201 Buildings 200 and 204 Primary Entrances along Park Avenue North The second issue was whether Building 102 (again,refer to Site Plan Update A, Page 3 illustration)required a primary entrance along Park Avenue. The response is twofold. This office intended this denial to apply solely to Building 400, west of Park. First, this office believed that the stipulation governed all design aspects of Quadrant C except the tier of Parking along the eastern edge of Park in the location of Building 102. Second, if the stipulation did not govern this aspect of Building 102, then "practical difficulties" would allow a modification to be granted for this "primary entrance" modification. The stipulation allows the placement of a truck delivery driveway between the Park Avenue facade of Building 102 and Park Avenue. The mixing of pedestrians and heavy truck traffic at a primary entrance in this location would create an unsafe situation. Granting a modification would not otherwise affect public health, safety or welfare nor would it injure the general public or other properties in the area. Approving a modification implements the comprehensive plan by allowing the development of the 38-acre site with urban scale uses and generally conforms to the purposes of the Code to allow primary entrances when practical but otherwise allow a modification when it would be impractical or unsafe to require a primary entrance in a particular location. Hearing Examiner Decision The Landing Appeals June 12, 2007 Page 2 11.r Applicant's Request for Reconsideration The applicant seeks reconsideration where the Hearing Examiner denied three modifications that had originally been approved by the Director. The Examiner required a primary entrance in the Park Avenue North facade of Building 400, denying a modification that would have eliminated that requirement. The Examiner removed a tier of parking east of Park in the vicinity of Building 102 denying a modification that would have allowed parking in that location. The Examiner required the applicant to abide by the limitation that not more than 60 feet of parking be located north of Building 400, again, denying a modification that would have allowed parking in those locations. Primary Entrance for Building 400 along Park Avenue North The applicant argues that there are practical difficulties in providing an entrance for Building 400 along Park Avenue and suggests that since there are industrial uses south of this area that there is little pedestrian traffic. This does not appear to be a practical difficulty but would be a self-fulfilling prophecy. If no pedestrian entrance is provided in this location there would be little to encourage new pedestrians to walk along Park in this location, killing the supposed "pedestrian-oriented" aspect of Park in this location. Next the applicant argues that theft could or would occur if there was a second entrance on Park Avenue since controlled access to one point would be lost. This is a design consideration and this office believes that urban design features override this issue. Urban design does bring with it certain levels of potential criminality but that apparently has not stopped many urban stores or even malls from having more than one Nose entrance and possibly co-equal, if not primary entrances. Downtown Seattle has any number of retailers with corner stores or block-wide stores with multiple entrances to encourage pedestrians. Even mall stores such as Macy's at Northgate and Southcenter, Bed, Bath and Beyond at Southcenter and Nordstrom's have more than one entrance. The fact that the applicant has created its own internal pedestrian path does not make providing the one required by code difficult. The underlying record does not demonstrate any practical difficulties,just design choices of the applicant. There is no reason to modify the original decision. Parking east of Park Avenue North Parking west of Park Avenue North(more than 60 feet) The applicant has not provided any reason to modify the denial of parking along either side of Park Avenue North. For the same reason, a primary entrance is not appropriate for Building 102, the truck delivery driveway location and parking for passenger vehicles is not appropriate in this location- it would provide unsafe pedestrian movements from cars to the shopping experience. The fact that the applicant may be providing landscaping or even additional landscaping in other areas of the site or even along this street does not create any practical difficulty that necessitates a modification to allow parking where it is otherwise not permitted. Landscape strips between the parking and the sidewalks do not negate the code requirements for this urban, pedestrian-oriented street to not have parking along the corridor. There clearly was no ambiguity in what was intended since the applicant sought modifications for these unambiguous code provisions. Finally, the applicant's desire for additional parking does not create practical difficulties with regard to parking. The site provides acres of open parking. Code provides a range of parking for particular uses. Urban-scale development, traffic congestion, air pollution all demand that pedestrian-oriented development not cater particularly to the automobile driver. Hearing Examiner Decision The Landing Appeals June 12, 2007 Page 3 �rrr� Parking along North 10th west of Park Since the clarification sought by the City may have unexpectedly caught the applicant by surprise, this office will add that its arguments against the parking along Park Avenue North apply equally to the parking proposed along the south side of North 10th Street between the buildings noted above. North 10th, like Park Avenue is intended to be a pedestrian oriented street. There is no practical difficulty in meeting the design criteria or code standards along this portion of North 10th west of Park. As the original decision noted, if the reduction of parking hampers the development of the site due to other code standards, the applicant may reduce the number of buildings or provide additional structured parking elsewhere on the subject site. In conclusion, this office agrees with the applicant(Page 7 of Applicant's Request)that the Examiner recognized there are challenges to designing an URBAN shopping center but disagrees that there are all of the challenges suggested by the applicant. The City's comprehensive plan is not seeking, in the applicant's words, "a large retail center" (a la Northgate or Southcenter)but an urban center, which encourages PEDESTRIAN-ORIENTED experiences. The are no practical difficulties in providing an entrance for Building 400 along Park Avenue or abiding by Code that restricts parking along Park Avenue North. In conclusion, this office congratulates the parties for reaching an amicable solution to the issues that separated them but where the appeal was not fully withdrawn in certain particulars, the decision is herein clarified or upheld. If this office can provide any additional assistance please feel free to write. This decision can be appealed to the City Council by paying the appropriate fee and filing an appeal in writing by June 26, 2007. ORDERED THIS 12th day of June 2007. \<c)1_ FRED J. KAIifMAN u HEARING EXAMINER TRANSMITTED THIS 12th day of June 2007 to the parties of record: Zanetta Fontes Peter Buck Jerome L. Hillis Warren Barber & Fontes, P.S. Buck & Gordon LLP Hillis Clark Martin & Peterson, P.S. PO Box 626 2025 First Ave, Suite 500 500 Galland Building Renton, WA 98057 Seattle, WA 98121 1221 Second Avenue Seattle, WA 98101 Ross Radley Brad Nicholson 3316 Fuhrman Ave E 2811 Dayton Avenue Seattle, WA 98102 Renton, WA 98056 Hearing Examiner Decision The Landing Appeals June 12, 2007 Page 4 TRANSMITTED THIS 12th day of June 2007 to the following: Mayor Kathy Keolker Stan Engler, Fire Jay Covington, CAO Larry Meckling, 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., June 26, 2007. 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 Nora, record, take further action as he deems proper. An appeal to the City Council is governed by Title IV, Chapter 8, Section 110, which requires that such appeal be filed with the City Clerk, accompanying a filing fee of$75.00 and meeting other specified requirements. Copies of this ordinance are available for inspection or purchase in the Finance Department, first floor of City Hall. An appeal must be filed in writing on or before 5:00 p.m., June 26, 2007. 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 Noir request by the Court. Hearing Examiner Decision The Landing Appeals June 12, 2007 Page 5 The Doctrine applies not only to the initial public hearing but to all Requests for Reconsideration as well as Appeals to the City Council. CITY OF RENTON APPEAL TO RENTON CITY COUNCIL 'JUN 0 5 2007 OF HEARING EXAMINER'S DECISION/RECOMMENDATION RECEIVED CITY CLERK'S OFFICE APPLICATION NAME The Landing — Master Site Plan FILE NO LUA-06-071 , SA—A430 / The undersigned interested party hereby files its Notice of Appeal from the decision or recommendation of the f'���v� Land Use Hearing Examiner,dated May 22 20 07 1. IDENTIFICATION OF PARTY APPELLANT: REPRESENTATIVE(IF ANY): Name: Harvest Partners Name: Hillis Clark Martin & Peterson Address: 8214 Westchester Drive, #650 Address: 1221 2nd Avenue, Suite 500 Dallas, TX 75225 Seattle, WA 98101 Phone Number: Phone Number: (206) 623-1745 Email: Email: 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: (See attached Notice Finding of Fact: (Please designate number as denoted in the Examiner's Report) of Appeal) No. Error: Correction: *air. Conclusions: No. Error: Correction: Other: No. Error: Correction: 3. SUMMARY OF ACTION REQUESTED The City Council is requested to grant the following relief: (Attach explanation, if desired) (See Attached Notice of Appeal) Reverse the decision or recommendation and grant the following relief: Modify the decision or recommendation as follows: Remand to the Examiner for further consideration as follows: Other: ''om' rig„ -� hr- tt/arz'es-t P /Hers Karen 8ftc enn'd ie. Appellan esentative Signature Type/Printed Name Date NOTE: Please refer to Title IV,Chapter 8,of the Renton Munici al Code,and Section 4-8-110F,for specific appeal procedures. CC' i/� k ->e.�, C,,3 My0A IG IN N��r �er �S, nem Sve s A�., 1 2 3 4 5 BEFORE THE RENTON CITY COUNCIL 6 In the Matter of the Appeal of LUA-06-071, SA-A 7 8 Brad Nicholson re: NOTICE OF APPEAL OF HEARING EXAMINER'S DECISION 9 The Director's Administrative 10 Site Plan Approval. 11 1. INTRODUCTION 12 Applicant Harvest Partners hereby files this Notice of Appeal of the Hearing 13 Examiner's Decision regarding Applicant Harvest Partners' Site Plan for The Landing, and 14 requests a stay of this appeal pending the outcome of Applicant's Request for Reconsideration 15 to the Hearing Examiner. 16 II. STATEMENT OF FACTS 17 On May 22, 2007, following a hearing on the merits, the Renton Hearing Examiner 18 issued a decision regarding Applicant Harvest Partners' Site Plan for The Landing project (the 19 "Decision"). In nearly all respects, the Decision affirmed the Director's approval of The 20 Landing Site Plan, and modifications thereto. However, the Examiner reversed the Director's 21 approval of certain specific elements of The Landing Site Plan, finding that there was not 22 sufficient evidence of"practical difficulties" permitting such elements. 23 On June 5, 2007, Applicant filed a Request for Reconsideration with the Hearing 24 Examiner, requesting that the Examiner reconsider those portions of the Decision requiring 25 modifications to the Site Plan. A copy of Applicant's Request for Reconsideration is attached 26 hereto as Exhibit A and incorporated herein by this reference. 27 28 Notice of Appeal of HILLIS CLARK MARTIN & Hearing Examiner's Decision -Page 1 of 2 PETERSON, P.S. 500 Galland Building, 1221 Second Ave Seattle WA 98101-2925 206.623.1745;fax 206.623.7789 III. REQUEST FOR STAY 2 Upon issuance of a decision by the Hearing Examiner, the Renton Municipal Code 3 permits interested persons to file Requests for Reconsideration to the Examiner within 4 fourteen days of the decision. RMC 4-8-100.G.4. The Renton Municipal Code also permits 5 interested parties aggrieved by the Examiner's decision to file appeals to the Renton City 6 Council, also within fourteen days of the Examiner's decision. RMC 4-8-110.E.8. There is 7 no provision in the Renton Municipal Code stating that the deadline for appeals to City 8 Council is tolled while a Request for Reconsideration is pending. Therefore, Applicant is 9 filing this Notice of Appeal simultaneously with its Request for Reconsideration in order to to comply with the fourteen-day deadlines for each. However, in light of the fact that the I 1 Decision remains under review of the Examiner pursuant to the Request for Reconsideration, 12 Applicant respectfully requests that all action on this appeal be stayed pending the outcome of 13 the Request for Reconsideration. Depending upon the outcome of the Request for 14 Reconsideration, Applicant may wish to withdraw this appeal entirely, file a new appeal of fire 1s the Examiner's decision on the Request for Reconsideration, or rest upon the arguments 16 already made in the Request for Reconsideration and incorporated herein. 17 DATED this S day of June, 2007. 18 HILLIS CLARK MARTIN & 19 PETERSON, P.S. 20 • ;� r 21 By Jer.me L illis, WSBA #1704 22 T R . Durkan, WSBA #11805 Karen D. Breckenridge, WSBA #36666 23 Attorneys for Applicant 24 Harvest Partners 25 #354953 18449-004 71v401!.doc 6/05/07 26 27 28 ' ire Notice of Appeal of HILLIS CLARK MARTIN & PETERSON, P.S. Hearing Examiner's Decision - Page 2 of 2 500 Galland Building, 1221 Second Ave Seattle WA 98101-2925 206.623.1745;fax 206.623.7789 1 *41111012 3 4 5 BEFORE THE HEARING EXAMINER OF THE CITY OF RENTON 6 In the Matter of the Appeal of LUA-06-071, SA-A 7 8 Brad Nicholson re: APPLICANT'S REQUEST FOR RECONSIDERATION 9 The Director's Administrative 1 o Site Plan Approval. 11 I. INTRODUCTION 12 Applicant Harvest Partners brings this Request for Reconsideration pursuant to Renton 13 Municipal Code (RMC)4-8-100.G(4). Applicant respectfully requests that the Examiner 14 reconsider specific portions of the decision, and modify the decision accordingly. 15 II. STATEMENT OF FACTS 16 On May 22, 2007, following a hearing on the merits, the Renton Hearing Examiner 17 issued a decision regarding Applicant Harvest Partners' Site Plan for The Landing project (the 18 "Decision"). In nearly all respects, the Decision affirmed the Director's approval of The 19 Landing Site Plan, and modifications thereto. However, the Examiner reversed the Director's 20 approval of certain specific elements of The Landing Site Plan, finding that there was not 21 sufficient evidence of"practical difficulties"permitting such elements. In particular, the 22 Decision requires the following specific changes to the current Site Plan for The Landings: 23 24 25 1 The City of Renton has filed a Request for Clarification with the Examiner,to clarify that the Decision 26 did not also require the installation of a primary entrance facing Park Avenue North on Building 102,nor did it require removal of parking stalls at the north end of Quadrant C along 10th Avenue North. Applicant hereby 27 joins in the City's Request for Clarification. Furthermore, should the Examiner determine that the Decision did require a Building 102 entrance facing Park Avenue North, or the removal of parking along 10th Avenue North, 28 Applicant hereby requests reconsideration of those changes to the Site Plan and incorporates by this reference the arguments presented by the City in the Request for Clarification. HILLIS CLARK MARTIN & Applicant's Request PETERSON, P.S. for Reconsideration -Page 1 of 8 500 Galland Building, 1221 Second Ave Seattle WA 98101-2925 206.623.1745;fax 206.623.7789 1 • Installation of an additional or alternative entrance on the east side of 2 Building 400, fronting Park Avenue North. See Decision, p. 22, at 3 paragraph 3 of"Decision" section. 4 • Removal of parking stalls located between Building 102 and Park Avenue 5 North, in the southwest corner of Quadrant C. See Decision,p. 22, at 6 paragraph 2 of"Decision" section. 7 • Removal of all but 60 feet of parking stalls located north of Building 400 and 8 west of Park Avenue North. See Decision, p. 21, paragraph 8; see also 9 Decision, p. 22, at paragraph 2 of"Decision" section. 10 As presented below, the Examiner's Decision as to these specific elements, and the 11 Examiner's finding that there were not practical difficulties requiring such elements in the 12 Site Plan, reflect an error in fact or judgment and therefore require reconsideration pursuant to 13 RMC 4-8-100.G(4). 14 III. ARGUMENT 15 A. Additional Entrance to Building 400 16 In the "Findings" section of the Decision, the Examiner states the following: 17 Similarly, this office can find no practical difficulty in providing a front 18 entrance along Park Avenue. While an entrance along a façade where other shops or buildings have their entrance would be a nice design feature for an 19 interrelated shopping complex, unless this office has missed some limiting aspect of the applicant's plans, there is no practical difficulty in providing 20 another entrance along the pedestrian-oriented street, that is, Park 21 Avenue...Not every shop is obviously amenable to having multiple entrances but an inviting pedestrian presence is supposed to be a feature of this complex 22 and the complex should not turn its "back" on Park Avenue. 23 Decision, p. 18, paragraph 45. 24 The Examiner's Decision therefore appears to require an additional or alternative 25 entrance on the east side of Building 400, facing Park Avenue North. See Decision, p. 22, at 26 paragraph 3 of"Decision" section. However, numerous practical difficulties make the 27 installation of a primary entrance in this location inappropriate in this context. 28 H1LLIS CLARK MARTIN & PETERSON, P.S. Applicant's Request for Reconsideration - Page 2 of 8 500 Galland Building, 1221 Second Ave Seattle WA 98101-2925 206.623.1745;fax 206.623.7789 1 First, given the existing industrial uses on the property to the south of The Landing 2 site, there is currently very little, if any, pedestrian traffic along Park Avenue North. At such 3 time as the property to the south is redeveloped with retail uses, and as additional infill along 4 Park Avenue North is completed, the pedestrian traffic along Park Avenue North will increase 5 substantially. Until that time, however, having a second primary entrance in a large retail 6 store such as that planned for Building 400, without significant pedestrian traffic to use the 7 second entrance, would likely pose serious security and loss prevention issues. The retail 8 store would be unable to locate its single point of sale with the entrance/exit, thus increasing 9 the risk of stolen merchandise. Where two entrances are required, the store's ability to control 10 the flow of merchandise would be compromised. In addition to the security issues, having 11 two entrances could lead to confusion to the customer and a significant loss of functionality 12 within the store, as valuable shelf, storage, and display space would be lost to the second 13 entrance area. 14 Due to the practical difficulties with having two entrances to Building 400, Applicant, 15 in consultation with the City, designed Building 400 with its primary entrance facing north, 16 toward the pedestrian walk and the customer parking. This design was consistent with the 17 City's vision presented in the Comprehensive Plan, as well as the Conceptual Plan for the site. 18 As the Examiner noted in the Decision, the Comprehensive Plan recognized that the 19 redevelopment of District One would be phased over a 30-year period. Decision, p. 16, 20 paragraph 40. Recognizing that the surrounding industrial uses would make it difficult to 21 achieve urban intensities upfront, both the Comprehensive Plan and the Conceptual Plan 22 called for the incorporation of pedestrian-oriented features within the development to aid the 23 transition to an urban mixed-use district. Id. The Conceptual Plan depicted a pedestrian 24 connector, running in an east to west direction and connecting the buildings along the south 25 side of Quadrants B and C. Decision, p. 13, paragraph 29. Applicant's design for The 26 Landing incorporates this key pedestrian corridor, and the building entrances for all of the 27 buildings, including Building 400, were therefore designed to front the pedestrian walk. 28 HILLIS CLARK MARTIN & Applicant's Request PETERSON, P.S. for Reconsideration -Page 3 of 8 500 Galland Building, 1221 Second Ave Seattle WA 98101-2925 206.623.1745;fax 206.623.7789 1 As the Examiner acknowledged, the north-facing entrance on Building 400 presents a 2 nice design feature for an interrelated shopping complex. Decision, p. 18, paragraph 45. 3 Were the entrance of Building 400 to face east rather than north, customers attempting to 4 walk from store to store in Quadrant B would be required to walk east for the entire width of 5 Building 400, then south for a distance, before reaching the entrance. The orientation of 6 Building 400's entrance toward the heart of The Landing site and the pedestrian walk 7 therefore presents the most practical, pedestrian-oriented design at this time, is consistent with 8 the City's vision in the Conceptual Plan and Comprehensive Plan, and enhances rather than 9 hinders the overall cohesiveness and pedestrian friendliness of The Landing project. 10 In addition, Applicant has incorporated several elements into its design to 11 accommodate the eventual transition of Park Avenue North into a vibrant, pedestrian-friendly 12 street. First, the materials and details used for the east facade of Building 400 will be the 13 same materials and details as used on the north side of the building, so there is no reduction in 14 quality or appearance. See "Update A" plans for Building 400, admitted as Exhibit 5 in the 15 Site Plan hearing. In addition, Applicant's Site Plan includes a wide sidewalk between Park 16 Avenue North and Building 400. Id. Over ten feet of landscaping is provided between 17 Building 400 and the sidewalk, and additional landscaping with street trees is provided 18 between the sidewalk and Park Avenue North. Id. With these pedestrian-oriented elements 19 incorporated into the current design for Building 400, Building 400 and its surrounding 20 landscaping will present an attractive, inviting addition to the streetscape of Park Avenue 21 North. Furthermore, if and when the long-term vision of pedestrian traffic along Park Avenue 22 North comes to fruition, such that market conditions create a demand and desire for a second 23 entrance, Building 400 has been designed to incorporate an exit-only door facing Park 24 Avenue North. Id. At that time, the exit could be converted into an entrance and the store 25 reconfigured to accommodate pedestrian traffic from Park Avenue North. 26 Given the numerous pedestrian-oriented elements already built into the design of 27 Building 400, and since the primary pedestrian flow is along the pedestrian walkway on the 28 north side of the building, the Examiner's requirement for a second entrance along Park Niro HILLIS CLARK MARTIN & PETERSON, P.S. Applicant's Request for Reconsideration - Page 4 of 8 500 Galland Building, 1221 Second Ave Seattle WA 98101-2925 206.623.1745;fax 206.623.7789 1 Avenue North does not enhance the pedestrian oriented nature of the project. Furthermore, 2 the requirement of a second entrance is unsafe and impractical at this time, thus hindering 3 rather than bolstering the opportunity for a successful retail marketplace. Applicant therefore 4 respectfully requests that the Examiner's Decision be modified to remove the requirement of a 5 primary entrance on the east side of Building 400. 6 B. Removal of Parking Along Park Avenue North 7 The Examiner's Decision also requires the removal of two specific parking areas in 8 The Landing Site Plan—the parking area between Building 102 and Park Avenue North, and 9 all but 60 feet of the strip of parking west of Park Avenue North and north of Building 400. 10 Decision, p. 22, at paragraph 2 of"Decision" section. In discussing the parking area between 11 Building 102 and Park Avenue North, the Examiner noted: 12 The parking stalls located on the east side of Park, adjacent to the roadway 13 serving the proposed Target store, raise some issues...There is no reason that makes compliance with code impractical. Landscaping can be provided to 14 screen the access drive and the additional parking. 15 Decision, p. 18, paragraph 44. In discussing the parking area north of Building 400 and west 16 of Park Avenue North, the Examiner stated: 17 This office cannot find any practical difficulties on limiting the curb area along 18 Park north of Building 400 to 'not more than 60 feet' occupied by parking or vehicular access. The parking certainly can be moved or removed and 19 replaced by landscaping. 20 Decision, p. 21, paragraph 8. 21 As detailed below, the Examiner's requirement for landscaping between Park Avenue 22 North and the parking areas has already been addressed in the existing Site Plan for The 23 Landing. Furthermore, the design and location of these parking areas were driven by practical 24 considerations, including market demands and the objective of a successful retail center. 25 The Examiner's discussion of each of these parking areas states that these parking 26 stalls could be replaced by landscaping. However, there are already significant landscaping 27 and pedestrian-oriented elements incorporated into the design, serving as a large buffer and 28 providing adequate screening between Park Avenue North and the subject parking areas. Nerd HILLIS CLARK MARTIN & PETERSON, P.S. Applicant's Request for Reconsideration -Page 5 of 8 500 Galland Building, 1221 Second Ave Seattle WA 98101-2925 206.623.1745;fax 206.623 7789 I Both of the subject parking areas are separated from the street by several pedestrian-oriented 2 amenities: (1) a row of landscaping measuring at least nine feet and up to eighteen feet in 3 width,2 all resting atop a landscape berm measuring at least two feet in height; (2) a pedestrian 4 sidewalk with enhanced paving, measuring approximately ten feet in width; and (3) a second 5 row of landscaping with street trees directly adjacent to Park Avenue North. In total, this 6 landscaping/sidewalk/landscaping buffer measures over 19 feet in the area west of Park 7 Avenue North, and over 28 feet in the area between Park Avenue North and Building 102. 8 For the Examiner's convenience, and to better visualize the significant separation of the 9 parking areas from the street, a copy of the original landscape plan depicting the landscaping 10 and sidewalks between Park Avenue North and the parking areas is attached hereto as 11 EXHIBIT A.3 12 The landscaping and sidewalks along Park Avenue North already exceed Renton 13 Municipal Code requirements and provide an inviting pedestrian connection for pedestrians 14 traveling north or south along Park Avenue. The additional landscaping required by the 15 Examiner's Decision, and the resulting loss of parking, will not positively influence the look 16 or function of the development, and will instead have an overall negative effect upon the 17 success of the retail center. 18 Interestingly, given the existing landscaping and pedestrian-oriented features between 19 the parking lot north of Building 400 and Park Avenue North, Applicant was likely not even 20 required to obtain a modification from the Director for this area. The Renton Municipal Code 21 states that on pedestrian-oriented streets, "No more than sixty feet (60') of the street frontage 22 measured parallel to the curb shall be occupied by off-street parking and vehicular access." 23 RMC 4-3-100.F.1.b.i. Here, in no place is the street frontage along the west side of Park 24 25 2 The landscaping planned for the area directly east of the parking area north of Building 400 is 26 approximately nine feet wide from parking area to sidewalk. The landscaping planned for the area directly west of the parking area between Building 102 and Park Avenue North is at least eighteen feet wide from parking area 27 to sidewalk. See Landscape Plan,attached hereto as Exhibit A;see also"Update A" landscape plans, admitted as Exhibit 5 in the Site Plan hearing. 28 3 This exhibit is provided for illustrative purposes. Specific dimensions may have changed since this Site Plan was submitted. See, e.g.,"Update A" landscape plans, admitted as Exhibit 5 in the Site Plan hearing. Iftlrr HILLIS CLARK MARTIN & PETERSON, P.S. Applicant's Request for Reconsideration -Page 6 of 8 500 Galland Building, 1221 Second Ave Seattle WA 98101-2925 206.623.1745;fax 206.623.7789 1 Avenue North"occupied by" off-street parking. Rather, the street frontage is "occupied by" 2 the adjacent landscaping and sidewalk, measuring approximately 20 feet in width. 3 Recognizing, however, that the Renton Municipal Code might be deemed ambiguous in terms 4 of what"occupied by"meant, Applicant requested and received a modification from the 5 Director to permit the parking area north of 400. To the extent a modification was required 6 for this parking area, and for the parking area between Building 102 and Park Avenue North, 7 and in light of the extensive screening and landscaping already provided to ensure a large 8 buffer between the parking areas and the street, the Director's approval of these modifications 9 was appropriate. 10 Furthermore, the Director's modifications were also proper given the practical 11 difficulties of compliance with the code while still providing a sufficient number of stalls in 12 adequate proximity to the retail tenants. As is the case with the development of any retail 13 center of this size and magnitude, Applicant's design for The Landing is and must be in large 14 part driven by what the market demands. This ability to attract tenants is particularly 15 important where, as here, the site is formerly unoccupied and is still surrounded by primarily , god 16 industrial uses. The specific numbers of stalls provided for the tenants' use, as well as the 17 proximity of those stalls to the buildings themselves, are often key considerations for 18 prospective tenants before they commit to a site. 19 The Examiner has acknowledged that a project of this scale and magnitude is certain 20 to require some modifications: 21 It would be or is too easy to shoot objections at a 38-acre project and find that 22 it may not comport with every guideline found in Code. The fact that a 38-acre site may not fit every guideline or minimum standard was why the Director 23 was apparently given the power to review modification requests and grant those requests if in the overall scheme of things, the development 24 accomplished the City's goals for this area—redevelopment at an urban scale 25 of substantially underutilized property...It may not be possible to meet every objective in a time span of two to three years on an area of this size and one 26 still subject to neighboring heavy industrial uses. 27 Decision, p. 17, paragraph 41. As the Examiner appears to recognize, Applicant was 28 presented with the challenge of designing a large retail center to conform to the City's long- NIS HILLIS CLARK MARTIN & PETERSON, P.S. Applicant's Request for Reconsideration -Page 7 of 8 500 Galland Building, 1221 Second Ave Seattle WA 98101-2925 206.623.1745;fax 206.623.7789 1 term vision and guidelines, and yet still incorporate appropriate design elements to attract 2 tenants for this initial phase. An example of Applicant's and the City's attempt to straddle 3 these sometimes conflicting demands exists with the subject parking areas. In order to attract 4 prominent, established tenants to the site, Applicant sought to provide a design that 5 incorporated pedestrian-oriented elements, and also accommodated the parking needs of the 6 incoming tenants. Recognizing that the parking demands of the tenants required parking 7 stalls near to Park Avenue North until such time as structured parking can be incorporated in 8 these areas, Applicant designed extensive landscaping and pedestrian-oriented elements 9 adjacent to Park Avenue North to ensure that the parking was appropriately screened and that 10 the pedestrian-oriented nature of the development was not compromised. 11 The Examiner's Decision requiring removal of these shared parking stalls fails to 12 recognize that Applicant's design already provides an appropriate amount of pedestrian- 13 oriented elements and screening along Park Avenue North. Moreover, the Examiner's 14 Decision will have a significant impact on the success of the tenants in the nearby areas and 15 will negatively impact Applicant's ability to lease these spaces. 16 For these reasons, Applicant respectfully requests that the Examiner's Decision be 17 modified to strike the required removal of the parking stalls between Building 102 and Park 18 Avenue North, and the parking stalls west of Park Avenue North and north of Building 400. 19 IV. CONCLUSION 20 For the reasons set forth herein, Applicant requests modification of the Examiner's 21 Decision to reverse the Examiner's denial of the Director's approval of Site Plan 22 modifications. 23 DATED this 1.ay of June, 2007. HILLIS ARK MARTIN & PET F SON, P.S. 24 25 B _ ,rom''L. Hillis, SBA #1704 26 cT!Ryan Durkan, WSBA #11805 Karen D. Breckenridge, WSBA #36666 27 Attorneys for Applicant 28 Harvest Partners #354789 18449-004 71r9011.doc 6/05/07 ``fury HILLIS CLARK MARTIN & PETERSON, P.S. Applicant's Request for Reconsideration - Page 8 of 8 500 Galland Building, 1221 Second Ave Seattle WA 98101-2925 206.623.1745;fax 206.623.7789 A ...) , 11/ 7 ANCNo• 202 oECaluOuS ACCENT TREES— DECIDUOUS sTREET TREES ,ii W ,.A ii,9 . i DECIDUOUS SlRET TREES ‘01 I / • iOW OR CONFERS AT BUILDING FOuNDADON AND ACCENT_ 1(4,...10,1i,...., . , .1 Ir r 6•,, ) // t‘. ittit...4,1( ..., DECIDUOuS MOPE TREES I lii,1 SHRUBS,WITH GROURO COVERS. Avi,..1±2..,.., .....e s.)11 i DECB3Lh7US , •DIT TRM -41111ilk ic.11F- ...._-± \ AlltrA -- i FA'Ir.-i, .., .. I/ ---......_ EVERGREEN SCREENING SHRUBS, . IAN,MI GROvH0 COM 0110 LAWN WITH GROUND CANER AHD 1 -111h jey, EVERGREEN FOUNDMON'...NX lip..... ACCENTGS:IRSU7S.ORIGIAMr3r. .-.,.A%ERRORSUn. ,,IIF vat AHO ACCENT SHRUBS.ORAMENtAL 1 ORNAMENTAL GRASSES AT BASE OF ORNAMENTAL CROSSES AT BASE GRASM,AND ORDERS COVER. TREES. OF TREES. GRASSES,MD GROUND COVER. CORERS RI All.PARKING : r Amok I 11 11 MAROS --- hill' # 0. .....-0.:, L-..::„.) 6c-D4 _.e.r.4,-111, €..•6 --3:„. .: ...,.. 'e.ai-ni •-eiit :,-ff I'' ,7CIP=--'—'7477' 't-4,=-1. liT:-;4-fi-uffermilmFavriv..-,...... . AR*. . .• -T A-,:,'t",-=MaggairtiM7.-,..-n -;e:;-E-; ';r.'-'.it7.REMO.-41..1-Tiutlarai4A nu PAR/011 , LANDSCAPE HERO v• u.NI; PAM(4401 IOATH 415111i5: '11 JOSCAPE BER • 1J+ . 2-5'Kr. ROSS SOAP STOW WALK 2-5 HT. 0 PAWING FEWETER 6ECI1GN Ul-M PAW446 IS BETILEEN Sit A elltLOSIG KALE VW•t•0' ‘ C 0 Near- Viq k„Fr at cz; 2e ) �4.J ty ,..' 3 4 5 BEFORE THE HEARING EXAMINER OF THE CITY OF RENTON 6 In the Matter of the Appeal of LUA-06-071, SA-A 7 8 Brad Nicholson re: APPLICANT'S REQUEST FOR RECONSIDERATION 9 The Director's Administrative ]0 Site Plan Approval. 11 I. INTRODUCTION 12 Applicant Harvest Partners brings this Request for Reconsideration pursuant to Renton 13 Municipal Code (RMC) 4-8-100.G(4). Applicant respectfully requests that the Examiner 14 reconsider specific portions of the decision, and modify the decision accordingly. Now 15 II. STATEMENT OF FACTS 16 On May 22, 2007, following a hearing on the merits, the Renton Hearing Examiner 17 issued a decision regarding Applicant Harvest Partners' Site Plan for The Landing project (the 18 "Decision"). In nearly all respects, the Decision affirmed the Director's approval of The 19 Landing Site Plan, and modifications thereto. However, the Examiner reversed the Director's 20 approval of certain specific elements of The Landing Site Plan, finding that there was not 21 sufficient evidence of"practical difficulties" permitting such elements. In particular, the 22 Decision requires the following specific changes to the current Site Plan for The Landing': 23 24 25 The City of Renton has filed a Request for Clarification with the Examiner,to clarify that the Decision 26 did not also require the installation of a primary entrance facing Park Avenue North on Building 102,nor did it require removal of parking stalls at the north end of Quadrant C along 10th Avenue North. Applicant hereby 27 joins in the City's Request for Clarification. Furthermore, should the Examiner determine that the Decision did require a Building 102 entrance facing Park Avenue North,or the removal of parking along 10th Avenue North, 28 Applicant hereby requests reconsideration of those changes to the Site Plan and incorporates by this reference the arguments presented by the City in the Request for Clarification. HILLIS CLARK MARTIN & Applicant's Request PETERSON, P.S. for Reconsideration - Page 1 of 8oRIGINit.,, 500 Galland Building, 1221 Second Ave Seattle WA 98101-2925 206.623.1745;fax 206.623.7789 1 ■ Installation of an additional or alternative entrance on the east side of 40101 2 Building 400, fronting Park Avenue North. See Decision, p. 22, at 3 paragraph 3 of"Decision" section. 4 • Removal of parking stalls located between Building 102 and Park Avenue 5 North, in the southwest corner of Quadrant C. See Decision, p. 22, at 6 paragraph 2 of"Decision" section. 7 • Removal of all but 60 feet of parking stalls located north of Building 400 and 8 west of Park Avenue North. See Decision, p. 21, paragraph 8;see also 9 Decision, p. 22, at paragraph 2 of"Decision" section. 10 As presented below, the Examiner's Decision as to these specific elements, and the 11 Examiner's finding that there were not practical difficulties requiring such elements in the 12 Site Plan, reflect an error in fact or judgment and therefore require reconsideration pursuant to 13 RMC 4-8-I00.G(4). 14 III. ARGUMENT 15 A. Additional Entrance to Building 400 16 In the "Findings" section of the Decision, the Examiner states the following: 17 Similarly, this office can find no practical difficulty in providing a front 18 entrance along Park Avenue. While an entrance along a façade where other shops or buildings have their entrance would be a nice design feature for an 19 interrelated shopping complex, unless this office has missed some limiting aspect of the applicant's plans, there is no practical difficulty in providing 20 another entrance along the pedestrian-oriented street, that is, Park 21 Avenue...Not every shop is obviously amenable to having multiple entrances but an inviting pedestrian presence is supposed to be a feature of this complex 22 and the complex should not turn its "back" on Park Avenue. 23 Decision, p. 18, paragraph 45. 24 The Examiner's Decision therefore appears to require an additional or alternative 25 entrance on the east side of Building 400, facing Park Avenue North. See Decision, p. 22, at 26 paragraph 3 of"Decision" section. However, numerous practical difficulties make the 27 installation of a primary entrance in this location inappropriate in this context. 28 Ned HILLIS CLARK MARTIN & PETERSON, P.S. Applicant's Request for Reconsideration - Page 2 of 8 500 Galland Building, 1221 Second Ave Seattle WA 98101-2925 206.623.1745;fax 206.623.7789 1 First, given the existing industrial uses on the property to the south of The Landing 2 site, there is currently very little, if any, pedestrian traffic along Park Avenue North. At such 3 time as the property to the south is redeveloped with retail uses, and as additional infill along 4 Park Avenue North is completed, the pedestrian traffic along Park Avenue North will increase 5 substantially. Until that time, however,having a second primary entrance in a large retail 6 store such as that planned for Building 400, without significant pedestrian traffic to use the 7 second entrance, would likely pose serious security and loss prevention issues. The retail 8 store would be unable to locate its single point of sale with the entrance/exit, thus increasing 9 the risk of stolen merchandise. Where two entrances are required, the store's ability to control 10 the flow of merchandise would be compromised. In addition to the security issues, having 1 t two entrances could lead to confusion to the customer and a significant loss of functionality 12 within the store, as valuable shelf, storage, and display space would be lost to the second 13 entrance area. 14 Due to the practical difficulties with having two entrances to Building 400, Applicant, claw Is in consultation with the City, designed Building 400 with its primary entrance facing north, 16 toward the pedestrian walk and the customer parking. This design was consistent with the 17 City's vision presented in the Comprehensive Plan, as well as the Conceptual Plan for the site. 18 As the Examiner noted in the Decision, the Comprehensive Plan recognized that the 19 redevelopment of District One would be phased over a 30-year period. Decision, p. 16, 20 paragraph 40. Recognizing that the surrounding industrial uses would make it difficult to 21 achieve urban intensities upfront, both the Comprehensive Plan and the Conceptual Plan 22 called for the incorporation of pedestrian-oriented features within the development to aid the 23 transition to an urban mixed-use district. Id. The Conceptual Plan depicted a pedestrian 24 connector, running in an east to west direction and connecting the buildings along the south 25 side of Quadrants B and C. Decision, p. 13, paragraph 29. Applicant's design for The 26 Landing incorporates this key pedestrian corridor, and the building entrances for all of the 27 buildings, including Building 400, were therefore designed to front the pedestrian walk. 28 HILLIS CLARK MARTIN & PETERSON, P.S. Applicant's Request for Reconsideration - Page 3 of 8 500 Galland Building, 1221 Second Ave Seattle WA 98101-2925 206.623.1745;fax 206.623.7789 1 As the Examiner acknowledged, the north-facing entrance on Building 400 presents a 2 nice design feature for an interrelated shopping complex. Decision, p. 18, paragraph 45. 3 Were the entrance of Building 400 to face east rather than north, customers attempting to 4 walk from store to store in Quadrant B would be required to walk east for the entire width of 5 Building 400, then south for a distance, before reaching the entrance. The orientation of 6 Building 400's entrance toward the heart of The Landing site and the pedestrian walk 7 therefore presents the most practical, pedestrian-oriented design at this time, is consistent with 8 the City's vision in the Conceptual Plan and Comprehensive Plan, and enhances rather than 9 hinders the overall cohesiveness and pedestrian friendliness of The Landing project. 10 In addition, Applicant has incorporated several elements into its design to 11 accommodate the eventual transition of Park Avenue North into a vibrant, pedestrian-friendly 12 street. First, the materials and details used for the east facade of Building 400 will be the 13 same materials and details as used on the north side of the building, so there is no reduction in 14 quality or appearance. See "Update A"plans for Building 400, admitted as Exhibit 5 in the 15 Site Plan hearing. In addition, Applicant's Site Plan includes a wide sidewalk between Park 16 Avenue North and Building 400. Id. Over ten feet of landscaping is provided between 17 Building 400 and the sidewalk, and additional landscaping with street trees is provided 18 between the sidewalk and Park Avenue North. Id. With these pedestrian-oriented elements 19 incorporated into the current design for Building 400, Building 400 and its surrounding 20 landscaping will present an attractive, inviting addition to the streetscape of Park Avenue 21 North. Furthermore, if and when the long-term vision of pedestrian traffic along Park Avenue 22 North comes to fruition, such that market conditions create a demand and desire for a second 23 entrance, Building 400 has been designed to incorporate an exit-only door facing Park 24 Avenue North. Id. At that time, the exit could be converted into an entrance and the store 25 reconfigured to accommodate pedestrian traffic from Park Avenue North. 26 Given the numerous pedestrian-oriented elements already built into the design of 27 Building 400, and since the primary pedestrian flow is along the pedestrian walkway on the 28 north side of the building, the Examiner's requirement for a second entrance along Park HILLIS CLARK MARTIN & Applicant's Request PETERSON, P.S. for Reconsideration - Page 4 of 8 500 Galland Building, 1221 Second Ave Seattle WA 98101-2925 206.623.1745;fax 206.623.7789 1 Avenue North does not enhance the pedestrian oriented nature of the project. Furthermore, 2 the requirement of a second entrance is unsafe and impractical at this time, thus hindering 3 rather than bolstering the opportunity for a successful retail marketplace. Applicant therefore 4 respectfully requests that the Examiner's Decision be modified to remove the requirement of a 5 primary entrance on the east side of Building 400. 6 B. Removal of Parking Along Park Avenue North 7 The Examiner's Decision also requires the removal of two specific parking areas in 8 The Landing Site Plan—the parking area between Building 102 and Park Avenue North, and 9 all but 60 feet of the strip of parking west of Park Avenue North and north of Building 400. 10 Decision, p. 22, at paragraph 2 of"Decision" section. In discussing the parking area between 11 Building 102 and Park Avenue North, the Examiner noted: 12 The parking stalls located on the east side of Park, adjacent to the roadway 13 serving the proposed Target store, raise some issues...There is no reason that makes compliance with code impractical. Landscaping can be provided to 14 screen the access drive and the additional parking. err 15 Decision, p. 18, paragraph 44. In discussing the parking area north of Building 400 and west 16 of Park Avenue North, the Examiner stated: 17 This office cannot find any practical difficulties on limiting the curb area along 18 Park north of Building 400 to 'not more than 60 feet' occupied by parking or vehicular access. The parking certainly can be moved or removed and 19 replaced by landscaping. 20 Decision, p. 21, paragraph 8. 21 As detailed below, the Examiner's requirement for landscaping between Park Avenue 22 North and the parking areas has already been addressed in the existing Site Plan for The 23 Landing. Furthermore, the design and location of these parking areas were driven by practical 24 considerations, including market demands and the objective of a successful retail center. 25 The Examiner's discussion of each of these parking areas states that these parking 26 stalls could be replaced by landscaping. However, there are already significant landscaping 27 and pedestrian-oriented elements incorporated into the design, serving as a large buffer and 28 providing adequate screening between Park Avenue North and the subject parking areas. HILLIS CLARK MARTIN & PETERSON, P.S. Applicant's Request for Reconsideration - Page 5 of 8 500 Galland Building, 1221 Second Ave Seattle WA 98101-2925 206.623.1745;fax 206.623.7789 i Both of the subject parking areas are separated from the street by several pedestrian-oriented 2 amenities: (1) a row of landscaping measuring at least nine feet and up to eighteen feet in 3 width,2 all resting atop a landscape berm measuring at least two feet in height; (2) a pedestrian 4 sidewalk with enhanced paving, measuring approximately ten feet in width; and (3) a second 5 row of landscaping with street trees directly adjacent to Park Avenue North. In total, this 6 landscaping/sidewalk/landscaping buffer measures over 19 feet in the area west of Park 7 Avenue North, and over 28 feet in the area between Park Avenue North and Building 102. 8 For the Examiner's convenience, and to better visualize the significant separation of the 9 parking areas from the street, a copy of the original landscape plan depicting the landscaping 10 and sidewalks between Park Avenue North and the parking areas is attached hereto as 11 EXHIBIT A.3 12 The landscaping and sidewalks along Park Avenue North already exceed Renton 13 Municipal Code requirements and provide an inviting pedestrian connection for pedestrians 14 traveling north or south along Park Avenue. The additional landscaping required by the 15 Examiner's Decision, and the resulting loss of parking, will not positively influence the look 16 or function of the development, and will instead have an overall negative effect upon the 17 success of the retail center. 18 Interestingly, given the existing landscaping and pedestrian-oriented features between 19 the parking lot north of Building 400 and Park Avenue North, Applicant was likely not even 20 required to obtain a modification from the Director for this area. The Renton Municipal Code 21 states that on pedestrian-oriented streets, "No more than sixty feet (60') of the street frontage 22 measured parallel to the curb shall be occupied by off-street parking and vehicular access." 23 RMC 4-3-100.F.1.b.i. Here, in no place is the street frontage along the west side of Park 24 25 2 The landscaping planned for the area directly east of the parking area north of Building 400 is 26 approximately nine feet wide from parking area to sidewalk. The landscaping planned for the area directly west of the parking area between Building 102 and Park Avenue North is at least eighteen feet wide from parking area 27 to sidewalk. See Landscape Plan, attached hereto as Exhibit A;see also"Update A" landscape plans, admitted as Exhibit 5 in the Site Plan hearing. 28 'This exhibit is provided for illustrative purposes. Specific dimensions may have changed since this Site Plan was submitted. See, e.g.,"Update A" landscape plans,admitted as Exhibit 5 in the Site Plan hearing. HILLIS CLARK MARTIN & PETERSON, P.S. Applicant's Request for Reconsideration - Page 6 of 8 500 Galland Building, 1221 Second Ave Seattle WA 98101-2925 206.623.1745;fax 206.623.7789 1 Avenue North"occupied by" off-street parking. Rather, the street frontage is "occupied by" 2 the adjacent landscaping and sidewalk, measuring approximately 20 feet in width. 3 Recognizing, however, that the Renton Municipal Code might be deemed ambiguous in terms 4 of what"occupied by" meant, Applicant requested and received a modification from the 5 Director to permit the parking area north of 400. To the extent a modification was required 6 for this parking area, and for the parking area between Building 102 and Park Avenue North, 7 and in light of the extensive screening and landscaping already provided to ensure a large 8 buffer between the parking areas and the street, the Director's approval of these modifications 9 was appropriate. 10 Furthermore, the Director's modifications were also proper given the practical 11 difficulties of compliance with the code while still providing a sufficient number of stalls in 12 adequate proximity to the retail tenants. As is the case with the development of any retail 13 center of this size and magnitude, Applicant's design for The Landing is and must be in large 14 part driven by what the market demands. This ability to attract tenants is particularly i,,,,,,,.• 15 important where, as here, the site is formerly unoccupied and is still surrounded by primarily 16 industrial uses. The specific numbers of stalls provided for the tenants' use, as well as the 17 proximity of those stalls to the buildings themselves, are often key considerations for 18 prospective tenants before they commit to a site. 19 The Examiner has acknowledged that a project of this scale and magnitude is certain 20 to require some modifications: 21 It would be or is too easy to shoot objections at a 38-acre project and find that 22 it may not comport with every guideline found in Code. The fact that a 38-acre site may not fit every guideline or minimum standard was why the Director 23 was apparently given the power to review modification requests and grant those requests if in the overall scheme of things, the development 24 accomplished the City's goals for this area—redevelopment at an urban scale 25 of substantially underutilized property...It may not be possible to meet every objective in a time span of two to three years on an area of this size and one 26 still subject to neighboring heavy industrial uses. 27 Decision, p. 17, paragraph 41. As the Examiner appears to recognize, Applicant was 28 presented with the challenge of designing a large retail center to conform to the City's long- Now HILLIS CLARK MARTIN & PETERSON, P.S. Applicant's Request for Reconsideration - Page 7 of 8 500 Galland Building, 1221 Second Ave Seattle WA 98101-2925 206.623.1745;fax 206.623.7789 i term vision and guidelines, and yet still incorporate appropriate design elements to attract 2 tenants for this initial phase. An example of Applicant's and the City's attempt to straddle 3 these sometimes conflicting demands exists with the subject parking areas. In order to attract 4 prominent, established tenants to the site, Applicant sought to provide a design that 5 incorporated pedestrian-oriented elements, and also accommodated the parking needs of the 6 incoming tenants. Recognizing that the parking demands of the tenants required parking 7 stalls near to Park Avenue North until such time as structured parking can be incorporated in 8 these areas, Applicant designed extensive landscaping and pedestrian-oriented elements 9 adjacent to Park Avenue North to ensure that the parking was appropriately screened and that io the pedestrian-oriented nature of the development was not compromised. 11 The Examiner's Decision requiring removal of these shared parking stalls fails to 12 recognize that Applicant's design already provides an appropriate amount of pedestrian- 13 oriented elements and screening along Park Avenue North. Moreover, the Examiner's 14 Decision will have a significant impact on the success of the tenants in the nearby areas and 15 will negatively impact Applicant's ability to lease these spaces. 16 For these reasons, Applicant respectfully requests that the Examiner's Decision be 17 modified to strike the required removal of the parking stalls between Building 102 and Park 18 Avenue North, and the parking stalls west of Park Avenue North and north of Building 400. 19 IV. CONCLUSION 20 For the reasons set forth herein, Applicant requests modification of the Examiner's 21 Decision to reverse the Examiner's denial of the Director's approval of Site Plan 22 modifications. 23 DATED this 7 t-flay of June, 2007. HILLIS,.CLARK MARTIN& PET _SON, P.S. 24 B • r�f - � � , 25 y - - � Yerome L. Hillis, *SBA #1704 26 'T:`Ryan Durkan, WSBA #11805 Karen D. Breckenridge, WSBA#36666 27 Attorneys for Applicant 28 Harvest Partners #354789 18449-004 71r901!.doc 6/05/07 HILLIS CLARK MARTIN & PETERSON, P.S. Applicant's Request for Reconsideration - Page 8 of 8 500 Galland Building, 1221 Second Ave Seattle WA 98101-2925 206.623.1745;fax 206.623.7789 MICRO 202 OECA000S ACCENT TREES— DECIDUOUS STREET TAMS `i 1 ' OECNuous Mat TREES \ `\ OR CORMS AT BUILDING. ,\\ Ar �A �,t'�' / . ,�,L ' ,•i1�,1 l� DEC;D000S CMwPr TREES i TOUNOATION AND ACCENT— I�,�I11 // `` �•r�� //� 1`'+�') SHRUBS.WRH GROUND MINTS. %� ��1I t / 4,,:,,,:i41/ %w=. / �, Y OEUOUOUS 1 I' �i //,,, 0 I' v r-� EVERGREEN FOUNDATION `:all/0k, , 1 ! - � - ' EVERGREEN CREENDIO SNRU` �t URN,WON GROUND COVER 50 LAWN.WITH GROUND MEP AND EVERGREEN SCR.ORWG SHRUBS. swum,DRNAUENTAL \ WN NTD 8ENCH � i I/ ACCENT SHRUBS,ORNAMENTAL oA!IWINTAE GRASSES AT MSE OF ORNAMENTAL GRASSES AT BASE ALCOR SHRUBS,01100 ENTAL GRASSES,AND GROUND T GRASSES,AND GROUND COVER TREES. Of TREES. GRASSES.NID GROUND COMM. COVMS IN ALL PARKING ' 1 A�� .V ISLANDS. 4f 4 aatx,x, -n. 1 ft "Will p -p: %.,r1.r '11-1.*t 111, 1 c.=:.I u d �ppqq- ��--�������E'' fP�Afi17.>„;!Ty71•.14.1,10,...71:4,,,,- 'e e• - _ 1$Trti•ra , —'7" ; - .1.I�:,,.--tr.i1, 'r.,A. - ft«"T . .trtAi',MR, n °+1'1-'fi :;c<_ ,,-E-i eii ';f ",.H,�t•ruS '{u�}'t,dei j�l m nT. i g-,1i1• .. °t' rn 1-Y— -1-A„:P .4r,- R,. �"'Ar 'r' •i.INH Baa'z.. Mm,. ,,-"g . m..lc ..., .- .:,tm,�_, _. eua.: TN. .5mM. i-u n .Iy. 6' PARMm • LANDSCAPE 000400 BERM 5.Ila: PARR A•I4 47.' 111)5U514 • l0SCAPE DER • :S I r ,AR:, _ r 2'-5 HT. WALK STRIP STRIP WAU4 2-5 HT. 0 PAM(ri PER9'ETER SECfiON am PA (5ri 15£ENEEN STREET AND EUILDIh13 GC+1E4e'•I•CP 1 1 2 3 4 5 BEFORE THE HEARING EXAMINER OF THE CITY OF RENTON 6 In the Matter of the Appeal of 7 No.LUA-06-071, SA-A 8 Brad Nicholson re: CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE 9 The Director's Administrative Site Plan 10 Approval. 11 I, Gina C. Pan, am a legal assistant for the law firm of Hillis Clark Martin & Peterson, 12 P.S., 500 Galland Building, 1221 Second Avenue, Seattle, WA 98101. I hereby certify that 13 on the 5th day of June 2007, I caused to be delivered via legal messenger a true and correct 14 copy of(1) Notice of Appeal of Hearing Examiner's Decision; (2)Applicant's Request for 15 Nomil Reconsideration; and(3) this Certificate of Service to the following: 16 Mr. Fred Kaufman, Hearing Examiner Office of the Clerk 17 City of Renton City of Renton 18 1055 South Grady Way 1055 South Grady Way Renton, WA 98055 Renton, WA 98055 19 Lawrence J. Warren Peter L. Buck 20 Zanetta Fontes Buck & Gordon, LLP 21 Warren Barber & Fontes, P.S. 2025 First Avenue, Suite 500 100 South Second Street Seattle, WA 98121-3140 22 Renton, WA 98057 23 Ross Radley 24 Law Offices of Ross Radley, Inc. P.S. 3316 Fuhrman Ave. East, Suite 250 25 Seattle, WA 98102 26 27 28 Nog HILLIS CLARK MARTIN & Certificate of Service - Page 1 of 2 PETERSON, P.S. I 500 Galland Building, 1221 Second Ave Seattle WA 98101-2925 206.623.1745;fax 206.623.7789 1 DATED this 5�h day of June, 2007. New 2 HILLIS CLARK MARTIN & 3 PETERSON, P.S. 4 5 ,) 6 Gina C. Pan Legal Assistant to T. Ryan Durkan 7 8 #354995 18449-004 7IwzOlLdoc 6/05/07 9 10 11 12 13 14 Name 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 HILLIS CLARK MARTIN & PETERSON, P.S. Certificate of Service - Page 2 of 2 500 Galland Building, 1221 Second Ave Seattle WA 98101-2925 206.623.1745;fax 206.623.7789 May 22, 2007 OFFICE OF THE HEARING EXAMINER Nord CITY OF RENTON Minutes APPELLANT: The Landing Site Plan Hearing on Merits File No.: LUA 06-071, SA-A PUBLIC HEARING: After reviewing the Development Services Report, examining available infoluiation on file with the application, field checking the property and surrounding area; the Examiner conducted a public hearing on the subject as follows: MINUTES The following minutes are a summary of the march 27, 2007 hearing. The legal record is recorded on CD. The hearing opened on Tuesday, March 27, 2007, at 9:02 a.m. in the Council Chambers on the seventh floor of the Renton City Hall. Parties wishing to testify were affirmed by the Examiner. 441400 The following exhibits were entered into the record: Exhibit No. 1: Yellow appeal file containing the Exhibit No. 2: All documents that predate this appeal original documents. Exhibit No. 3: Binder with 20 tabs from Zanetta Exhibit No. 4: July 21, 2006 site plan review package Fontes with associated stipulations Exhibit No. 5: Updates A, B, C, and D that have been Exhibit No. 6: Summary of Updates to the Site Plan, referred to and the parties have agreed to all of them. when they were submitted and when they were approved Exhibit No. 7: Sections of the Renton Comprehensive Exhibit No. 8: Violations in the Modified Site Plan Plan, District 1. Exhibit No. 9: Exhibit D to Settlement Agreement Exhibit No. 10: Lakeshore Landing Planned Action (Tab 20 in Binder) dated 11/81200. Exhibit No. 11: City of Renton Conr Cb."B"a" "" ibit No. 12: Page 79 of Exhibit 4 Exhibit No. 13: Packet from Harvest Partners • The Landing Site Plan Hearing on Merits File No.: LUA-06-071, SA-A May 22, 2007 Page 2 Zanetta Fontes, Attorney for the City of Renton stated that they had presented two stipulations and a binder of stipulated documents as Exhibits. Additionally they had agreed amongst themselves that they are not likely to call witnesses, they did want to make sure that Mr. Watts was available in case the Examiner had any questions of him during the course of the hearing. In that light, Mr. Buck on behalf of Mr.Nicholson has indicated that he may also call a witness, it might be best to swear in those witnesses now and save time later. The Examiner stated that yesterday an appeal of an update came in and it was stipulated that it be joined with today's matter since it is an update of the site plan and is subject to this administrative appeal hearing. Ms. Fontes agreed that there has been a stipulation that would indicate that the updates are being rolled into this hearing for judicial economy. However, it appears that Mr. Nicholson has submitted his appeal on that update in an effort to preserve that appeal. The Examiner further commented that the appeal was filed on behalf of Mr.Nicholson and ASE. ASE had been dismissed on the site plan but they still may appeal the modification, they may not be able to appeal the first site plan but can appeal the second site plan. He was not ready to grant them standing based on this stipulation. Mr. Buck stated that the site plan appeal was filed in late August or early September, since that time there have been four modifications applied for and granted to that initial site plan. The last two of those were in March of 2007. It is appropriate for the modifications to be before the Examiner so that he has the current site plan before him. One of the four should be appealed and the changes should be before the Examiner. With regard to parties there is an ASE , members are in control, the citizens are the directors. It is fine with `+fir them that the respondents can object to standing, it may not be overly relevant. Mr. Hillis stated that he agrees with what has been said, for the record, they do want to renew the motion to dismiss the appeals based upon the lack of standing of ASE and Mr. Nicholson. They would rely on their prior briefs and arguments and not submit any new material with regard to that. Secondly, he received a 45-page brief yesterday from Mr. Buck's office, they would like to have an opportunity to respond to that and would request that they have 10 days in which to do so. Ms. Fontes agreed with respect to reserving the right to object to ASE standing on the new appeal, they would join and ask for the opportunity to do a post-hearing brief. Mr. Buck stated that he had no objection to post-hearing briefs, which would possibly wrap into the fact that the Examiner would need and want more time. They would want to file a brief on issues raised today that have not been heard previously. Mr. Hillis suggested that there be an agreement on briefing. He further stated that they have stipulated to the authenticity of the exhibits that have been presented, they have not stipulated to their relevancy. They have also stipulated that they would not call witnesses but would make Mr. Watts available to answer any questions that the Examiner might have, a third stipulation was that Update A, which they have appealed as of Friday, is being combined with this appeal today. Mr. Buck stated that one of the exhibits they wanted to stipulate to today was the application for the Master vow Plan. He would like to see before the end of this hearing today that the City would identify what exactly was the Master Plan application, they would like that to be part of the record. The Landing Site Plan Hearing on Merits File No.: LUA-06-071, SA-A May 22, 2007 Page 3 Ms. Fontes stated that staff has gone through the records, they have tagged things, however she was not sure if that was the most efficient way to define what was part of the Master Plan application or if it should be copied for all parties. It can be taken care of today. Mr. Buck stated that a pre-hearing brief was presented today to the parties that discussed the issues that seem most important. There appears to be a disconnect between what the City of Renton wanted to do with this project and the project that Harvest Partners wants to do. The City and Boeing sought a certain kind of development, that plan is still in place. There is a development agreement, there is a conceptual plan, there is a comprehensive plan and development regulations. There has not been a public hearing that would change any of those strategies. Then in 2006, the Landing Development came to Harvest and Harvest had in mind a project that certainly made sense to them,but it does not fit the previous strategies and plans and those plans do not fit this situation. At some point changes could have been made to the development agreements, the conceptual plan,the comprehensive plan and the development regulations, but the City has not done that. Renton's code, Section 4-9-200.Elb,requires that there must be conformance with existing land use regulations for a site plan to be approved. One of the broader sections has to do with urban design regulations, Section 4-3-100. In order to get site plan approval there has to be explicit conformance to the intent and mandatory elements of the design guidelines. The brief presented today shows the deviation between the regulations and what Harvest wants to build. He further discussed the issues of parking between buildings and public streets, which the regulations say cannot be done. Building 102 shows two rows of parking to the west of the building. That should not be allowed according to the regulations. Building 400 just across the street; the original plan showed the building narrower and with parking next to the street, that has since been changed and shows that a building can be built up to the street just as it is required. Moving buildings could cause gaps, modifications can be seen on the other side of Park, Buildings 406 and 407 have a gap, that is not a flaw that the developer cannot fix. There are numerous examples in their brief where disconnects can be seen between code sections and what is being presented today. Buildings located on designated pedestrian streets should be located adjacent to the sidewalk. No more than 60 feet of street frontage should be parking along a pedestrian designated street. In the area north of Building 400 there is more than 60 feet; N 10th Street, west of Park combined with the area around Building 400 totals more than 60 feet. The main issue that Mr.Nicholson is most concerned about is Buildings 101 and 102 and the area to the west. In Quadrant C there is no challenge on the extent of parking on the east side of Park or the south side of 10th. The parking on the west side of Park between Buildings 203 and 400 is being challenged as well as along N 10th Street. Building 400 should face Park Avenue with an entrance on that side. The parking north of that building should be removed or reduced to less than 60 feet. Building 102 should be moved to the sidewalk and eliminate all parking. They are alleging no violations as to treatment of buildings,rather they are talking about buildings fronting on pedestrian streets,no parking between buildings and pedestrian oriented streets,no more than 60 feet of entrances or parking accumulatively along pedestrian oriented streets. There seems to be no soft exceptions to these issues. There are no objections to the parking to the east of Park Avenue that lies north of Building 102. They do object to the parking to the west of Building 102, and object to the main entrance facing north rather than onto the street. There are some objections to setbacks of Buildings 101 and 102 from North S"' Street(Code 4-2-120.E) and the truck loading areas to the south of Buildings 101 and 102. The Landing Site Plan Hearing on Merits File No.: LUA-06-071, SA-A May 22, 2007 Page 4 'err Quadrant A has a truck loading area off of Logan Avenue (Code 4-2-120.E)between Buildings 300 and 301that should not be there. Quadrant B and C has truck loading violations as well, along N 8`h Street. In Quadrant B some additional setbacks, code says that setbacks shall be five feet in this zone and the setbacks with the latest modification at Buildings 406 and 403 appear to have increased. In addition, west of Building 404 there is a setback greater than five feet. Along the south side of N 10`h there is surface parking violations (Code 4-3-100.F4b). Referring to Exhibit D under Tab 20 in the notebook, there is a crosshatch area that has been excluded from the settlement, it appears some of the hatches did not copy to the row of parking on Park Avenue. There are similar extensions of hash lines in the boxes, they are drawn in the same angle as the ones on the building. An original needs to be found and clarified as to what was actually stipulated. The conceptual plan (Tab 1 in Binder) does not seem to have a provision in the code that applies to this zone that states, in an overall site plan as this, the Director can make what modifications he wants to make. There are modification procedures and criteria that apply to minor adjustments. The Examiner stated that he had a letter from Mr. Hillis that cited that code provision. Mr. Buck continued that Mr. Green would address the conceptual plan. Duncan Green of Buck and Gordon, stated that they will get an original copy and see where the crosshatch areas actually are, second, they will look at the code and compare the code violations, assuming that these are code Norriv violations, and anything that is within the crosshatched area that is a code violation, they are requesting remedy on. If it is outside the crosshatched area they are not asking for anything. There are requirements in site plan review regulations that state site plans must be consistent with the conceptual plan that has been approved by City Council. Some of the violations seem to be limited to small areas of the site plan, if looked at in the context of the conceptual plan and all of the public process that happened, these violations add up to a lot. They depart drastically from what was adopted, approved and sold to the public. There are two key sources of authority that require site plans to be consistent with the approved conceptual plan, first RMC 4-9-200.E3a states that the plan must conform to the approved conceptual plan required by the development agreement for the subarea in question. Second the 2003 Development Agreement for the subarea between Boeing and the City of Renton, which is Tab 3 in the binder, provides that Renton will evaluate all subsequent permit applications within the sub-districts based on consistency with the approved conceptual plan. The October 18, 2004 Committee of the Whole report (Tab 7 in binder) the last page under this tab, the last sentence was read into the record. The current site plans appear to be inconsistent with the conceptual plan in a number of ways. First it is not consistent with the urban guidelines, this is where the importance of the urban guidelines in this district come into light. There is an October 14, 2004 memorandum (Tab 6 in the binder) "Center Oak pledges to design its project consistent with the revised urban center guidelines that are currently before you and anticipated to be adopted shortly." By adopting this plan, the City Council will provide Center Oak with a set of parameters within which it can develop its project while maintaining a high minimum level of development and insuring high quality design. The Landing does not do that. Another public document that confirms that the urban design guidelines were emphasized in the public process is a public information handout dated November 8, 2004, titled Lakeshore Landing Planned Action(Tab 6 in binder). 4, The Landing Site Plan Hearing on Merits File No.: LUA-06-071, SA-A May 22, 2007 Page 5 The Examiner stated that a conceptual plan or concept is not a blueprint to put up a building, it's a vision statement of what they would like to see in that area. It does not show placement of each building and where all parking spots would be, it's a concept but not perfect. It may not work when actually put in place. Mr. Green agreed with the Examiner, there is the conceptual plan with not a lot of detail, then you have a master plan with more detail and the site plan that has yet more detail. Each one has to be consistent with the previous one. There is some flexibility between the conceptual plan and the site plan. This project is not consistent with the spirit of the conceptual plan. However, pedestrian oriented streets, this was emphasized in the development agreement, in the comprehensive plan, in the development regulations and when the Landing came in, that requirement was ignored. Requirements triggered by pedestrian oriented streets were not triggered; in fact the City has stated that there are no pedestrian oriented streets. Park Avenue is fronted by more than 60 feet of parking and there are large format retailers and lots of parking. The Landing does not have the diverse mix or uses that the conceptual plan talked about, instead there are no mixed uses or residential in the northeastern quadrant by itself, no mixed use in this site plan, it appears to be purely retail. The site plan exceeds the big box retail that's talked about in the conceptual plan. There should have been a detailed consistency analysis performed to make sure that site plan was consistent with the conceptual plan. The Examiner asked for a clarification of"big box retail", it appears to be Target, Wal-Mart but is it the downtown Nordstrom store? Mr. Green stated that there are categories, up to 50,000 is large format, 50,000-10,000 is medium and then down to small format. Big box would be in the 50,000+zone. The conceptual plan stated that 20% of the retail would be in small-scale format (less than 10,000 square feet), looking at the proposed site plan it appears that there is a significantly smaller amount of the small-scale retail. The Examiner stated again that this is a conceptual plan, if the percentages were different does that make it violate the plan as a concept? Mr. Green stated it may not require invalidation of the whole site plan, the math should have been done. The conceptual plan talked about 2,646 direct jobs and 622 indirect jobs and now they are saying about 350 employees would work on the site. The director should have to go back and do the homework. Jerry Hillis,representing Harvest Partners, stated the appellants have claimed that the site plan approval conflicts with various land use regulations, the City of Renton's code, and that the site plan approval needs to be put in its proper context. The site plan is not the end of the road, it is the initial development scheme of the site. This process will occur over a number of years. This site plan is an initial development plan,not a final development. The comprehensive plan for the City of Renton anticipates development of this area over a number of years. The 2003 concept plan also articulated this vision for the site. He read a portion of that document(Tab 1 of the binder). The idea was that this would be developed over a long period of time, recognizing that that is what the comprehensive plan for the City required. He then showed the Center Oaks conceptual plan (Exhibit 10) this plan refers to final retail build outs. Potential tenants may include a large format retailer, a specialty grocery market, a movie theater and a mix of high quality The Landing Site Plan Hearing on Merits File No.: LUA-06-071, SA-A May 22, 2007 Page 6 national, regional and local specialty tenants and restaurants. On the map he pointed out setbacks along Park. There are no stores up to the street and this is the plan that Mr. Green would like the Landing to comply with literally. A concept plan is just that a concept plan. The Director concluded in the site plan decision that the overall concept of the Landing as now proposed meets the concept plan in terms of the overall intent of that concept plan, which was to create a retail center on this site. There is no mention of offices in this first stage, no mention of those kinds of uses, but a big mention of the fact that the initial planning is going to be different than the final development plan might be, all consistent with the City of Renton code. Nowhere is there a requirement that states that the original development plan for the site must meet all the planning goals for the area. What they do require is that the plan be set up in such a way that over the long-term the goals of the comprehensive plan will be met. The comprehensive plan for the Urban Center North is divided into several categories, the introduction, the overall comprehensive plan for centers, Urban Center North land use designation, and the vision for District 1, which this site is part of. The comprehensive plan is a broad statement of community goals, objectives and policies that direct the orderly development of the site. It is anticipated that national retailers will locate to the site. He continued reading what the Urban Centers, both North and Downtown, intentions and long range plans were designed to include. The Urban Center North land use designation states UCN policies will provide a blueprint for the transition of land over the next thirty years. LU-271 talks about the Urban Center as a whole and support uses that sustain minimum set employee levels. LU-284 allows phasing plans for mixed-use projects, LU-285 considers placement of parking areas in initial development plans to facilitate later in-fill plans lim r and higher density. There is a supply of under-utilized land north of NE 8th, which creates a redevelopment opportunity for a first phase development in District One. However, the industrial character of the surrounding development properties both within District Two to the west and the preliminary industrial area to the east will make it difficult to achieve true urban intensities in District One at the beginning of this transition. The overall vision for the District contemplates much more than a series of low-rise structures and large parking lots. It is important that this initial development facilitates later stages of investment as the neighborhood matures and property values increase. The vision allows for early stages of open parking lots but they should be handled in such a way as to allow for infill to occur over a period of time. There was a vision and that was that this was going to be a difficult area to develop, but it was going to be an area that the City saw developing over thirty years and they wanted to make sure that the initial development plan was done in such a way that future development could occur to further meet the goals of the comprehensive plan. The Director's decision finds that the site plan does meet the overall intent of the comprehensive plan. No urban plan can occur overnight, an initial layout has to anticipate future development. The Director's plan for this site was that the anticipation for future development be considered while planning this project. On the original site plan, in the north area along Park it is fully developed, the blank area on the east side of Park is a residential area, which is not part of this application. There is a cinema and entertainment to the north. The area along the north side of what will become 10th is fully developed for the initial plan. The Director was concerned about having all the retail on the north and wanted it spread out, which is what happened. The emphasis was then on the southern end, with the intent to create a pedestrian environment, which is not easy to do given the site. A major walkway was proposed through the site along the southern end, which would allow `irir the retail uses to abut that. The advantage is having the big parking lots to the north, which allows for future infill so that future retail can also be along that pedestrian corridor. There is a pedestrian link that runs through the middle of the site as well, there is another pedestrian link that goes from Quadrant A down through Quadrant The Landing Site Plan Hearing on Merits File No.: LUA-06-071, SA-A May 22, 2007 Page 7 D to 8`h. The area in Quadrant D to the right of the pedestrian link is an open market place for outdoor events, which are described in the plan. The urban development scheme is heading down Park, eventually infill opportunities are provided along Park to fulfill that part of the vision. The concept plan shows an even greater pedestrian atmosphere along Park in the initial stages than ever was shown in the concept plans. The issue was raised regarding small shops, in the development summary there is far more than 20% of the retail area that are small shops as opposed to the anchors and junior anchors. The initial stages of the development were looked at with the potential for better infill and build out. Harvest Paituers submitted a chart showing that approximately 125,000 square feet of additional development can occur on this property over the next 20 years. This site plan does meet the criteria that are required for a site plan in this code. (RMC 4-9-200.E) Under this section is states that creativity and innovation should not be discouraged and that is precisely what has been going on with the applicant and the development of this plan. The appellant asserts that there are several aspects of the plan that conflict with existing land use regulations. The code anticipates that a site plan may have conflicts with specific design and development regulations. The code provides that the Director can allow modification of design regulations pursuant to RMC 4-3-100(L) and that the Director has authority to modify development standards pursuant to RMC 4-8-070(C)10. The following are violations that were submitted by the appellant: (1) Parking between buildings and streets, the parking between Building 102 and Park Avenue has been stipulated to, but it is vague at this time. The parking north of the Target store is off the table at this point. Parking west of Building 102, the Director granted a modification (p.10, Site Plan Review). The alley driveway is vested, between Building 102 and Park, it is not going to be moved. (2)The code requires no more than 60' of street frontage along a pedestrian oriented street. There is more than 60 feet of frontage along the west side of Park. Again, the Director granted a modification for this requirement. Between Building 400 and Building 203 there is a parking lot immediately adjacent to Park, which is an infill area. Parking areas have been consolidated for future infill along with ingress/egress from the property. (3) Parking, driveways and pedestrian oriented streets, the Director granted a modification from this requirement (Site Plan Decision, pgs. 12 and 13) Parking areas are located mid block and consolidated to allow future infill. Consolidation of parking areas also allows for consolidation of access points providing access to the central area rather than requiring multiple access points. The Director wanted to limit access to Logan because Logan is a high visibility street, so where does that leave access from Quadrant B? Obviously, those accesses will have to be along 10t and Park Ave. The access has been limited from Quadrant B onto Park and three accesses off of 10`h. (4)To have another entrance on Park at this time would be impractical, this is not pedestrian heavy at this time. To change the entrance of Building 400 to face Park makes no sense in the overall development scheme and so the Director granted a modification. (Page 4 of update). Building 102 in Quadrant C does not allow for the entrance to be moved to Park, the driveway was vested. The Director granted a modification from that requirement. (Site Plan Decision,pg. 10) Creating a gap between these buildings would disturb the pedestrian atmosphere that was being created. (5)Truckload areas are generally located along 8th and one along Logan. The site plan shows that the area of the loading docks is totally screened,that is what the code requires and what the Director found. (Original site plan,pg. 14) (6) Setbacks of five feet along a street. The purpose of this requirement was to emphasize urban character and maximize pedestrian activity and minimize automobile use within the district. The Director granted a modification(update A pgs. 3 and 4) due to the walkway just north of these buildings makes this a pedestrian corridor. There is a walkway through the site consistent with what the plan requires. `nrir The Director is not required by code to make specific findings for each modification. The Director's decision articulates the criteria for granting a modification, the reason why the modifications on this site made sense and The Landing Site Plan Hearing on Merits File No.: LUA-06-071, SA-A May 22, 2007 Page 8 concludes that this relevant criterion has been met. The cases cited by appellants required specific findings of fact and did not deal with administrative determinations similar to these in the Renton code. The appellant has the burden to show that the criteria have not been met and the Director's decision is erroneous. In rendering his decision, the code directs the Director to consider the overall intent of the minimum standards and guide lines and to encourage creative design and alternatives in order to achieve the purpose of the design regulations. That has been done in this case. It was requested that the Director's decision to approve the site plan with modifications be upheld. Zanetta Fontes provided three handouts of code provision, a discrete page out of Exhibit 4 (page 79) was marked Exhibit 12, and a packet of information from Harvest Partners that was marked as Exhibit 13. As briefed in the appeals for the master plan, planned actions are very unique, the planning is done up front in the hopes that once the SEPA has been done and certain guidelines have been articulated and approved by the City, that creative developers would take advantage of the fact that much of the work has already been done. The fact that this is a planned action will dictate some of the processes about the lack of which the appellant complains. One of Mr. Nicholson's complaints is that there was no public hearing. (Page 9-62, 3"'page in Zanetta's handout) Regarding Renton Code 4-9-200.D1, the second sentence of sub a where it states, "that when a master plan is approved, subsequent site plans submitted for future phases may be submitted and approved administratively without a public hearing." The master plan had been approved prior to the site plan in this case and so no hearing was required. A hearing before a Hearing Examiner is not required if public hearings have been held where public comments were solicited on the proposed plan action ordinance; if the Environmental Impact Statement for the planned action reviewed preliminary conceptual plans which provided the public and decision makers with sufficient detail regarding the scale of improvements, the quantity of the various types of spaces to be provided, the use to which the structures would be put and the bulk and general form of the improvements. Mr. Nicholson further says that the ERC needed to make a determination and relying on code provision 4-9- 200.G9, it seems that the appellant has overlooked an appropriate section,sub8. Section 8 states that a consistency review should be conducted, and it was, by the zoning administrator for proposals submitted under the authority of an adopted planned action ordinance. The question of the Hearing Examiner's authority, Code provision 4-8-110.E, A and C states that any administrative decisions may be appealed to the Hearing Examiner, and further states that the Examiner shall have all the powers of the office from whom the appeal is taken insofar as the decision on the particular appeal is concerned. The Examiner has the power to remand as well as to do what the Examiner thinks needs to be done, if he feels that changes need to be made. Regarding findings, Mr. Green stated that a finding had to be made on each and every point, there is nothing in the code that requires that, there is nothing that requires a written finding made by the Director. The Director did find that there was compliance with the code or he would not have granted the modifications in the first place. The code further states that when applying the provisions of Title 4 the requirements shall be liberally construed in favor of the governing body. Moving on to the parking areas of Quadrant B and the buildings to the south,there is a pedestrian walkway. The median strip on Park, going east to west from Quadrant B to Quadrant C there is a median strip where the pedestrian walkway would cut across Park. That median strip was called for in the concept plan in Exhibit 10. %ow The pedestrian walkway continues eastward in front of Buildings 102, 101 and the Target Building(Building 100). The pedestrian walkway requirement has been met. • The Landing Site Plan Hearing on Merits File No.: LUA-06-071, SA-A May 22, 2007 Page 9 The screening plan as it relates to the east side of the south end, there is ample screening of trees along the south border of the parcel that is on N 8th Street. The code does not say that it must be a fence or sight obscuring fence, it just calls for screening and there is screening. The screening continues on along N 8th Street. There is considerable landscaping along Park as well, from 8th all the way up to Logan including that area where there is parking frontage between Building 203 and 400 on the west side of Park. Building 102 located at the northeast corner of Park and 8th, argument was made regarding moving this building over,there is however, a driveway just northwest of Building 102 and trucks must come in or go out from that location to make a one-way through on this drive in order to travel between 8th and Park. There has to be enough room for the truck to pass. The question is, is what is before the Examiner reasonable,was what the Director did reasonable, was it substantial error to grant the modifications considering the practicalities facing the applicant. The applicant needs to prove that it was substantial error. It was not. The purpose statement says that the overall mix and intensity of uses within the Urban Center North Zones will develop over time, consequently decisions made in early phases of redevelopment will need to take into consideration the potential for further infill and intensification of uses, that is what the Director did. The District is intended to attract new retail, office and technology related uses that co-exist with airplane manufacturing in the short run, but provide a standard of development that stimulates further investment and transition of uses in the longer term. Everything contemplates a long-term development. It does not have to be done overnight. Planned actions allow the planning to be up front. In the Comprehensive Plan words such as "maintaining zoning", "supporting uses" and the like, those are in the present tense, not future tense. The policy is to maintain the zoning so that it would create capacity for employment. There do not need to be obstacles for good creative development, this is an excellent development, it is consistent with the conceptual plan and planned action ordinance. The Lakeshore Landing has better pictures that have helped in terms of what was contemplated by the City and those are the types of development that are going into this plan. It was asked that the Examiner not remand this matter but uphold the decision of the Director. Mr. Buck stated that Ms. Fontes said the test for the Director was whether this was reasonable, that is not the test. The test is whether it is lawful, not reasonable. It is suggested that it is not reasonable for Buildings 403,404, etc., to require loading docks to be on the street, that may be, but that is what the City of Renton codes say. The Council adopted the laws and the Examiner should not be invited to decide that the Council was wrong. I-Iarvest Partners seem to have gotten it wrong, it doesn't matter how expensive it would be to change something, if it is wrong, they need to make the changes. In the area close to Building 102, the only thing that is missing is an agreement by Council as to what Exhibit D actually had. Did it include the areas in red along the edges of the property, or not. There is an exhibit that was attached to a settlement agreement, they will find out what it is and it will be given to the Examiner. The Examiner stated that neither side could stipulate to ignore an Ordinance. Until the Exhibit is produced and looked at, nothing can be done. Mr. Buck stated that on Exhibit D it states that the cross hatching is not intended to preclude the installation of curb, sidewalk or landscaping of those areas. A copy of that exhibit will be given to the Examiner. Ms. Fontes stated that(4-2-120.E) page 2-130.3 of the City Code says that parking, docking and loading areas for truck traffic shall be off-street and screened from view of abutting public streets. The Landing Site Plan Hearing on Merits File No.: LUA-06-071, SA-A May 22, 2007 Page 10 Now 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 2:19 pm. FINDINGS, CONCLUSIONS & RECOMMENDATION Having reviewed the record in this matter, the Examiner now makes and enters the following: FINDINGS: 1. The appellant, Brad Nicholson, hereinafter appellant, filed an initial appeal of an administrative decision approving a Site Plan for a project called The Landing. The applicant for The Landing is Harvest Partners (hereinafter Harvest). The appellant also filed an appeal of a proposed and approved change to the Site Plan. The parties agreed to consolidate the two appeals. (See below for ASE's standing on the second appeal) 2. The appeal was filed in a timely manner. The person filing the appeal lives in the City of Renton and commutes past the subject site and uses public facilities and bodies of water near the subject site including Lake Washington. 3. The subject site is approximately 38.22 acres. The total building area will be 572,700 square feet. The property is bounded generally by N 8th Street on the south, Logan Avenue N on the west and north, North 10th Street on the north and Garden Avenue N on the east. Park Avenue N runs through the site from south to north while N 10th Street runs through the site east to west, west of Park, and bounds the site on the north east of Park. 4. The Staff Report dated August 17, 2006, was incorporated by reference and adopted by this decision. Where this office differs from the staff report, Findings and Conclusions will spell out those differences. 5. The Planned Action Ordinance was approved by the City Council after a public hearing was opened on November 8, 2004. 6. A Master Plan was approved on the subject site under a separate file (LUA05-136) dated May 19, 2006. It was found consistent with the Planned Action Ordinance dated November 15, 2004 where the Planned Action determination was dated May 12, 2006. 7. Code specifically permits administrative approval of Site Plan proposals that had a public hearing and public comment for a Planned Action Ordinance and an EIS had sufficient information regarding the scale, types of spaces, uses and general form of the improvements. (Section 4-9-200.D.l.a). The appellant's objection that the original public hearing was not timely enough is not supported by Code. Administrative review is allowed when there was an original public hearing. The public hearing and published Boeing EIS satisfy the criteria listed for"exemption" from additional public hearings. It appears that the intent of the process was to eliminate duplicative reviews and provide some level of confidence that once an approval was granted,project proponents would not be required to jump through successive hoops and potentially changing standards or even political cycles or politicians. 8. The original site plan was submitted on July 21, 2006 and approved by the City on August 17, 2006 in the aforementioned Staff Report. 9. The applicant subsequently requested approval of four(4) changes or updates as they are now called. The Landing Site Plan Hearing on Merits File No.: LUA-06-071, SA-A May 22, 2007 Page 11 Nied 10. The Landing project site is located within District C of the Urban Center Design Overlay. The overall intent of the district is to consider individual merit and consider the minimum design standards while encouraging creative design alternatives. 11. The applicant received approval of an Administrative Site Plan for the construction of an approximately 572,700 square foot commercial/retail development with a 12-screen cinema. The proposed development would be constructed on the 38.22-acre site located within the Urban Center-North 1 (UC-N1) zoning designation. Proposed site improvements would consist of the various buildings, parking features, landscaping, utilities and stormwater. Special design standards apply for the zoning. The structures are proposed to range in height from approximately 30 to 45 feet. The parking provided would be a mix of structured and surface parking. A four level parking garage is proposed that would provide 675 parking stalls. There would be 1,955 surface parking stalls. 12. The applicant has subsequently submitted a series of four(4) updates or changes to the approved Site Plan. The updates have been labeled alphabetically, A, B, C and D. For purposes of this appeal, the parties agreed to stipulate that the current Site Plan proposal reflects the original site plan as amended or "updated" by these submissions while only the first two updates had been formally appealed. The stipulations were intended to have an administrative review of the proposal as it now stands. 13. Update A was submitted on December 29, 2006 and was approved by the City on March 13, 2007. It resulted in a reconfiguration and change in building design to the 400 series of buildings and particularly the fact that Building 400 now abuts Park Avenue rather than having it setback from Park. The update also connects Entertainment Boulevard to North 8th Street via a pedestrian walkway. 14. Update B was submitted on March 13, 2007 and was approved by the City on March 19, 2007. It resulted in revisions to Building 301, a parking garage building. 15. Update C was submitted on February 5, 2007 and was approved by the City on February 8 and 15, 2007. It resulted in an increase in the size of Building 201 (foi inerly 104) and a decrease in size in Building 203 (formerly 108) and changes to parking and service areas around Buildings 201, 203 and 202 (formerly Building 105). 16. Update D was submitted on February 13, 2007 and was approved by the City on March 7, 2007. It resulted in an increase in size for Building 102 (formerly Building 202) and change in facade and entries to Buildings 102 and 101 (foiirierly Building 201). 17. The Site Plan at this review(after the Updates) contains more than a dozen structures. Some of the structures contain separately numbered buildings attached to one another spread over three quadrants. The fourth quadrant in the northeast corner of the area is not part of the current review process. 18. Quadrant A is at the northwest corner of the site bounded by Logan Avenue on the west and north and by Park and N 10th on the east and south respectively. Its main components are a 14-screen cinema and parking garage located along Logan. There are other attached and detached retail buildings south of those buildings. The parking garage and cinema are oriented such that the fronts of the buildings would face Entertainment Boulevard an internal street that is generally south of and parallels Logan Avenue. 19. Quadrant B is in the southwest corner, south of Quadrant A. Quadrant B is bounded by Logan on the west, N 10th on the north, Park on the east and N 8th on the south. It will have a series of retail Nod buildings generally fronting along N 10th,a large interior surface parking lot and a series of buildings arrayed between an east-west pedestrian walkway(north of the buildings) and N 8th street(south of the The Landing Site Plan Hearing on Merits File No.: LUA-06-071, SA-A May 22, 2007 Page 12 44000, buildings). This southern tier of buildings will be oriented to the north and the internal pedestrian walkway. 20. Quadrant C is located in the southeast corner of the site. It is bounded by Park on the west,N 10th on the north, Garden on the east and 8th on the south. This quadrant contains retail buildings at its northwest corner(Park and N 10th)and a larger retail complex aligned along the south of the site, near and adjacent to N 8th Street. Quadrant C, the future home of a Target Store, is subject to a separate stipulation by the parties and other than parking located adjacent to Park at its extreme southwest corner is not part of this appeal due to the stipulation. 21. Quadrant A is mostly structures including the cinema, parking garage and smaller buildings and is divided by an internal east-west street. The applicant seems to have taken a design approach to create a ring of development around a central surface parking lot in Quadrant B with buildings' access from pedestrian paths along the south and north. The pedestrian-centric nature of the design does create issues with vehicle access to the site or sub-sites within the complex. Quadrant C is east of Park and has a major anchor in the Target Store. The parties have stipulated to a number of issues regarding Quadrant C and the Target complex leaving the only appeal issue for Quadrant C, the parking located immediately east of Park and west of the service road or driveway. 22. Issues similar to the Quadrant B parking lot arise with providing loading docks or bays for the various retail or other businesses in the complex. Forcing large delivery trucks into the midst of passenger vehicles is not always satisfying in terms of circulation and safety. The applicant has placed the loading docks at the perimeter of the site near Logan (between the parking garage and cinema) and along N 8th *ape (between Park and Logan) and that resulted in building facades being moved away from the street or sidewalks in some locations. The plans show landscaping in these areas to screen the loading areas from the streets. 23. The applicant sought modifications that would allow loading docks near the street at the Logan location and also loading docks along N 8th while also moving building facades along N 8th to be setback further from the street than permitted. 24. Staff found on Page 19 of the Staff Report that the proposed site plan results in an urban design concept through the provision of pedestrian-oriented spaces, pedestrian pathways and links to sidewalks around the site. The project is internally consistent with similar facade treatments, building materials and pavement links. There are coordinated design elements including container plantings, seat walls, tree grates, awning and benches. 25. The appellant suggested that the proposal does not meet the comprehensive plan's employment objectives of 50 employees per gross acre whereas the subject proposal would create approximately 350 jobs or 8/acre. The comprehensive plan's objectives are predicated on build-out. The center of the site could be developed with offices and the overall density of employment could change. Urban areas of downtown Seattle, Bellevue and even downtown Renton are a mix of scale and therefore, density. The infill anticipated over the next 30 years may increase the employment opportunities. 26. The comprehensive plan at Page IX-42/43 of the Plan states: "Urban Center North Land Use Designation Purpose Statement: The purpose Nome of the UC-N is to redevelop industrial land for new office, residential, and commercial uses at a sufficient scale to implement the Urban Centers criteria adopted in the Countywide Planning Policies. This portion of the Urban Center The Landing Site Plan Hearing on Merits File No.: LUA-06-071, SA-A May 22, 2007 Page 13 is anticipated to attract large-scale redevelopment greater than that in the Urban Center-Downtown, due to large areas of land available for redevelopment. In addition, new development is expected to include a wider group of uses including remaining industrial activities, new research and development facilities, laboratories, retail integrated into pedestrian-oriented shopping districts, and a range of urban- scale, mixed-use residential, office and commercial uses. The combined uses will generate significant tax income for the City and provide jobs to balance the capacity for the more than 5,000 additional households in the Urban Center. Development is expected to complement the Urban Center-Downtown. UC-N policies will provide a blueprint for the transition of land over the next 30 years into this dynamic, urban mixed-use district." And at Page IX-43: "Policy LU-271. Support uses that sustain minimum Urban Center employment levels of 50 employees per gross acre and residential levels of 15 households per gross acre within the entire Urban Center." 27. Those provisions do not apply solely to the Landing site or immediate vicinity but include the Urban Center, which is the entire downtown Renton area and not just the urban center NORTH locale. This office does not believe that the appellant has demonstrated that this office should second guess the timing, phasing, market forces and City's determination about this proposal. The appellant has not shown that the current plan is unreasonable in terms of a 30-year time line. There are many goals and objectives of the comprehensive plan and not all of them are attainable immediately. The comprehensive plan also acknowledges that redevelopment of the site is and will be constrained somewhat by the industrial character of surrounding development. This office agrees with the statement in Mr. Radley's Post Hearing Brief at Page 3: "it is certainly true no site plan can be consistent with every policy and principle of early large planning efforts..." 28. Referencing that brief further, this office does not agree with the second part of that sentence "when there have been as many modifications as there have been in the Landing Site Plan, it is legitimate to examine exactly how inconsistent the site plan is from previous planning efforts." The project is very large and the number of modifications does not seem extreme when considering the size and scale of the proposal. It includes approximately 23 retail or commercial spaces. It is spread out on 38.22 acres. It includes a parking structure with 675 stalls, and 1,955 surface parking stalls. It spans or crosses four(4) city streets. Some of the modifications address similar issues or design details such as placing parking between the building and pedestrian streets or a building exceeding the minimum setback. So two modifications actually apply to one facet of the design. 29. The appellant complains that the site plan does not correspond with the approved conceptual plan. The appellant strenuously argues that the current, what some might term, "concrete proposal" is not a true, laborious, carbon copy of the original concept plan or conceptual proposal. The objection is misplaced. The definition of a "concept" is that it is an abstract or generic idea. A conceptual plan is not a blue print. The conceptual plan is not a detailed proposal but provides a framework or basis for more concrete decision making. The site plan mirrors the conceptual plan in a number of particulars. The parking is located in the interior of the site, buildings, in the main, front the street or streets, there is an east-west pedestrian connector immediately north of the tier of buildings along N 8th Street and there is a north-south pedestrian connector in both the conceptual and site plans. The concrete proposal, that is the current Site Plan, does in fact flesh out the concepts. But it may even deviate in some manner from the concept. As noted, the concept is not a precise plan. Both the conceptual and the concrete show the The Landing Site Plan Hearing on Merits File No.: LUA-06-071, SA-A May 22, 2007 Page 14 'i41rr- property bisected east and west by Park Avenue and north and south by 10th Street. Both conceptual and concrete show tiers of buildings alongside Park Avenue but also driveways, parking lots and large interior parking lots. Both concept and concrete show an east to west pedestrian passage north of the southern tier of buildings and both show a similar pedestrian passage running south to north in the western portion of the site. 30. There are no minimum front, side yard, side yard along street or rear yard setbacks required by code. There is a maximum 5-foot front yard and side yard along street setback. This maximum setback is intended to draw buildings up toward the sidewalk and provide a pedestrian-oriented experience. The Director determined in an earlier administrative decision that while the UC-N1 Zone did not allow these setbacks to be increased by Site Plan review, other zones did allow such alteration and, therefore, for consistency, Site Plan alteration was appropriate and would be permitted. In the current review the Director found that the maximum setback could be increased and approved an increase. Since the Director has authority to approve a range of modifications, it is not necessary to use this authority to approve proposed modifications. 31. The Director also has the ability to grant modifications from the minimum standards. That ability could be used in the current case and will be employed by this office where appropriate. There is a practical difficulty in providing loading docks that either do not interfere with pedestrian areas or possibly create a complicated mix of passenger vehicles and larger delivery trucks. Therefore, increasing the distance between the sidewalk/street and buildings where loading docks are provided along N 8th Street and possibly Logan is appropriate and reasonable. Staff noted that these areas are landscaped and the Site Plan (Pages 78/79 of site plan) shows landscaping is intended in these areas and staff required supplementation (Page 14 of staff report). 32. Logan Avenue is considered a high visibility street and access to it has been limited to maintain its arterial functions and gateway aspect. This had led the applicant to place driveways along N 10`h, which is a pedestrian oriented street. The minimum design standards "prohibit driveways" along pedestrian oriented streets. 33. Originally, the buildings located both east and west of the southern end of Park Avenue N would have a parking area with two rows of parking located between the buildings and the sidewalk. An update removed the parking along the west side of Park and moved that building closer to the street. A stipulation regarding Quadrant C removes from review most of the issues raised by the appellant for that Quadrant but one tier of parking immediately east of Park and west of an access driveway is still subject to the appeal. 34. The appellant noted that the building located northeast of the intersection of 8th and Logan does not front on the street and is setback too much. Logan is a curving street at this location and the facade is straight which creates the additional setback. There does not appear to be any practical difficulty and it appears that either landscaping or a modest change in the facade could be used to fill in this location. Curving the building might not create the most practical building internally but it is not difficult to accomplish. But if landscaping is permitted the applicant can either provide landscaping in this area or change the facade. 35. The appellant suggests that a public hearing is required on the Site Plan since there are "unresolved concerns" but the code language is more exacting referring to them as "significant unresolved -Now. concerns." (emphasis supplied). This office has no doubt that the appellant Mr. Nicholson has unresolved concerns. There may even be others who have unresolved concerns. In a project of this scale there are possibly quite a few unresolved concerns by any number of people. Those concerns have The Landing Site Plan Hearing on Merits File No.: LUA-06-071, SA-A May 22, 2007 Page 15 to be significant. Some peoples' concerns may remain unresolved. That does neither tarnish the overall proposal nor mean it is subject to a public hearing. The ERC makes that decision and not any appellant or "concernee!" There are probably a number of concerns about this project that never will be resolved. Few land use decisions make everyone happy and unconcerned. 36. Access would be primarily from N 10th Street or Park Avenue N. Access onto Logan Avenue N has been minimized due to its classification as a High Visibility Street. The modification would allow N 10`h to have driveways along a pedestrian-oriented street. 37. As noted the Director can allow modifications from the Title(4-9-250.D.2) as well as the minimum standards (4-3-100.L). In none of the cases would approval of the modification have a detrimental impact on other properties or the general public. The modifications allow driveways on pedestrian- oriented streets, facades to be setback from the street to accommodate loading docks and more than 60 feet of interruptions to the pedestrian-oriented streetscape. None of these modifications would adversely affect other property and they are not going to have an overall public detriment. The modifications are all modest- allowing driveways to enter interior parking lots even if they occasionally cross pedestrian-oriented streets is not inherently dangerous. The curving, feature-rich N 10th Street will calm traffic flow making turning movements less problematic. Moving building facades off the street to accommodate landscaped-screened loading docks is also not inherently harmful. The modifications are not allowing taller buildings, which might create shadow or shading effects making pedestrian-oriented streets less hospitable. The deviations (modifications)have been designed into the project and the entire project appears to demonstrate high quality design. Again, N 10"' has curves, a rotary,paving details and landscaping all intended to create a coherent design and facade treatment. Allowing the driveways permits the applicant to emphasize the interior pedestrian paths and avoids cutting those with vehicle NeS access. 38. Staff has stated that N 10th Street and Park Avenue N are pedestrian-oriented streets. They note that the buildings fronting on N 10th Street between Logan Avenue N and Park Avenue N, and the north portion of Park Avenue N(buildings 100, 101, 102, 103, 104, 105, 106, 107, 108, 109, 302, 303, 304, and 306) would have pedestrian-oriented facades and would contain pedestrian-oriented retail and service uses. The sidewalk widths along N 10th Street vary, but are no less than 12 feet. Entry canopies and building mounted weather protection are proposed and would also add to the pedestrian friendly environment. (Building numbers may have been changed since the original report). Staff notes further that the building along the west side of Park Avenue N has been reconfigured to provide retail store fronts facing Park Avenue N. A minimum of 10 feet of landscaping is proposed where the surface parking area would abut a public right-of-way. (Page 11 staff report) 39. The staff report states: "The driveway access to the proposed surface parking lots would be off of N 10th Street, Park Avenue N, Logan Avenue N,N 8th Street, and Garden Avenue N. The intent of prohibiting driveway access to surface parking lots was to maintain a contiguous, uninterrupted sidewalk by minimizing, consolidating, or eliminating access off of pedestrian-oriented streets. The location of the surface parking lots at mid block and the consolidation of the surface parking areas to allow for further structured parking and retail development requires that some access to the parking lot be provided off of pedestrian-oriented streets(N 10th between Logan Avenue N and Park Avenue N) and Park Avenue N. The consolidation of the surface parking areas also allows for consolidation of the access points to the parking lot as access is provided to a central area as opposed to several decentralized parking lots that would each require access. Due to the consolidation of the surface parking areas, which would facilitate the future construction of structured parking and retail „ development, into the center of the project site and the consolidation of access points to the parking area staff concurs that driveway access to the proposed surface parking lots is unavoidable." With those The Landing Site Plan Hearing on Merits File No.: LUA-06-071, SA-A May 22, 2007 Page 16 considerations, staff recommended approval of a modification to the vehicular access requirements to permit the proposed driveway access points onto pedestrian-oriented streets. 40. The comprehensive plan has a number of objectives for redeveloping the area where the proposal is located. Those policies recognize the surrounding industrial uses will limit development potential for a while and also that redevelopment may be phased and may occur over an approximately 30-year time frame: "The current supply of underutilized land north of N. 8th Street creates an immediate redevelopment opportunity for a first phase of development in District One. However, the industrial character of the surrounding developed properties,both within District Two to the west and the Employment Area- Industrial area to the east, will make it difficult to achieve true urban intensities in District One at the beginning of this transition. The overall Vision for the District contemplates much more than a series of low-rise structures with large parking lots. Therefore, it is important that this initial development facilitates later stages of investment as the neighborhood matures and property values increase. It is also critical that the early-stage vision for District One sets the stage for high-quality redevelopment in District Two.`' "Vision -District One The changes in District One will be dramatic, as surface parking lots and existing err` large-scale industrial buildings are replaced by retail, flex tech, and office uses. Initial development may be characterized by large-format, low-rise buildings surrounding internal surface parking lots and bordered by a strong pedestrian- oriented spine along Park Avenue. As the Urban Center-North evolves, the buildings of District One may be remodeled and/or replaced with taller, higher density structures. Parking structures may also be built in future phases as infill projects that further the urbanization of the District. Two initial patterns of development are anticipated within the District: one, creating a destination retail shopping district; and the other, resulting in a more diverse mixed-use, urban scale office and technical center with supporting commercial retail uses. It is hoped that over time these patterns will blend to become a cohesive mixed-use district. In its first phases of development, District One hosts for the region a new form of retail center. Absent are the physical constraints of a covered mall. Although parking initially may be handled in surface lots, their configuration,juxtaposed with smaller building units, eliminates the expanse of paving that makes other retail shopping areas unappealing to pedestrians. Building facades, of one or two stories, are positioned adjacent to sidewalks and landscaped promenades. Destination retail uses that draw from a sub-regional or regional market blend with small, specialty stores in an integrated shopping environment to support other businesses in the area. While large-format("big-box")retail stores anchor development, they do not stand-alone. Rather, they are architecturally and functionally connected to the smaller shops and stores in integrated shopping centers." 'lore (Page IX-46) The Landing Site Plan Hearing on Merits File No.: LUA-06-071, SA-A May 22, 2007 Page 17 *44110 In other words, any proposal including the current proposal is not envisioned as the total end product. There has to be a start to redeveloping the area and any initial project might not fulfill all the objectives at this time. The overall proposal is certainly compatible with most of the aims of the City as envisioned in its comprehensive plan. 41. As a whole, the project appears to work and the modifications requested and approved appear geared toward allowing current development to veer from the strict guidelines and they are GUIDELINES, so that the initial development can occur now while not thwarting redevelopment or new development of the interior spaces with structured parking or more compact urban design features. It would be or is too easy to shoot objections at a 38-acre project and find that it may not comport with every guideline found in Code. The fact that a 38-acre site may not fit every guideline or minimum standard was why the Director was apparently given the power to review modification requests and grant those requests if in the overall scheme of things, the development accomplished the City's goals for this area - redevelopment at an urban scale of substantially underutilized property but recognizing that the City's goals for this area may not be entirely fruitful this year or next year and not within even the first decade. The redevelopment and build-out of this area was projected to take a few decades. Parking lots and interior open spaces are eventually anticipated to be developed. The journey is expected to take a while and code writers and the City Council even expected a few missteps might be found in its ordinances, providing a flexible method of allowing modifications to those regulations. The project as a whole is compatible with the overall objectives, goals and policies of the comprehensive plan. It leads to redevelopment of this area with a well-designed, coherent project that allows internal growth opportunities for redevelopment over the next 30 years. It adds retail and commercial uses, it creates pedestrian oriented corridors, it will be linked to residential components and it allows the continued function of the Boeing and Paccar industrial uses. The comprehensive plan compatibility is more than adequately discussed on Pages 3 and 4 of the staff report(August 17, 2006). There is a laundry list of policies and while the proposal might miss some aspects it meets others. The open center of the site, now dedicated to parking can be redeveloped over the 30-year time span suggested by the City's objectives. Similarly, employment can be expanded with redevelopment. It may not be possible to meet every objective in a time span of two to three years on an area of this size and one still subject to neighboring heavy industrial uses. 42. The appellant objected to the large interior parking lots: "This is because the Applicant designed a project that prioritized large, allegedly "convenient" parking lots over the "pedestrian-orients streets" that are mandated by the Renton Comprehensive Plan, approved Conceptual Plans, and development regulations in the Renton Municipal Code (RMC or "Code"). (Buck, Page 2 Post-Hearing Reply Brief). The appellant may complain of large, convenient parking lots but code does not prohibit them. What code prohibits are parking or lots between buildings and streets or too much frontage taken up by parking. The examples shown in the Code show larger, interior parking lots. The Conceptual Plan that the appellants allege the current Site Plan does not follow also showed larger interior parking lots. The real questions are not whether the lots are too large but whether some parking is in the wrong location, were modifications granted by the Director authorized by Code and were they appropriately reviewed, reasons demonstrated and granted? 43. The appellant suggests that the applicant created their own hardship by designing a project that does not conform to regulations. Hardship is not the standard for a modification. The modification criteria are not as demanding as those for a variance. There does not need to be a hardship and there is no concern about creating undue precedent as there are for reviewing a variance. None of the remaining criteria are as compelling as those required to grant a variance. Note the use of the teiuis or phrases "practical difficulties" and "impractical" in the modification criteria. Something impractical can justify a modification. The Director was not dealing with a "variance" where the applicant has to show undue The Landing Site Plan Hearing on Merits File No.: LUA-06-071, SA-A May 22, 2007 Page 18 Now hardship that deprives the applicant of reasonable use. Given an over 10 acre block, access needs to be provided in more than one location or else there would be practical difficulties for access. Loading docks need to be located somewhere on site and not impractically interfere with general pedestrian traffic or passenger vehicles. The Director used the appropriate standard in allowing modifications to access along N 10`h and loading docks along Logan and N 8th 44. Quadrant C provides only limited appeal issues. The parties have allowed through stipulation the building to be setback from Park. The parking stalls located on the east side of Park, adjacent to the roadway serving the proposed Target store,raise some issues. Is there some physical limitation or "practical difficulty" that requires parking when the guidelines do not allow it? There is no reason that makes compliance with code impractical. Landscaping can be provided to screen the access drive and the additional parking. This office has to find that while it may be "wasted" space that can boost the parking complement of the proposal, there is no practical difficulty in omitting that parking. It can be given over to landscaping, seating, decorative art or a combination of those uses. No practical difficulty requires a modification to allow parking in this area where none is permitted. 45. Similarly, this office can find no practical difficulty in providing a front entrance along Park Avenue. While an entrance along a facade where other shops or buildings have their entrance would be a nice design feature for an interrelated shopping complex, unless this office has missed some limiting aspect of the applicant's plans, there is no practical difficulty in providing another entrance along the pedestrian-oriented street, that is,Park Avenue. It is a design feature or detail that allows entrances to be oriented toward the interior of this complex. How pedestrian oriented will Park be if the facade facing Park is closed, routing pedestrians either far to the north or far to the south and then around to the Now west to gain access to a pedestrian oriented urban, shopping complex. Not every shop is obviously amenable to having multiple entrances but an inviting pedestrian presence is suppose to be a feature of this complex and the complex should not turn its "back" on Park Avenue. 46. There appear to be two standards that apply to pedestrian oriented streets. Section 4-3-100.F.4.b.ii indicates that surface parking driveways are prohibited on pedestrian-oriented streets while 4-3- 100.F.l.b.i.a suggests no more than 60 feet can serve vehicular access. In any event, the Director had to weigh the tradeoffs of intemipting Logan Avenue with vehicular access or N 10th with vehicular access. The Quadrant C block is large, at least 10 acres, and contains a large interior parking lot. The interior parking lots can provide redevelopment potential as suggested by the comprehensive plan. The interior parking can also potentially house structured parking and that is permitted to have access along pedestrian-oriented streets. Providing access to the interior parking on this large Quadrant and not have access along either Park or N 10th presents practical difficulties. The modification will allow development of a well-designed complex that provides pedestrian-oriented internal walkways that connect to pedestrian-oriented streets. In a perfect world there may be other methods of developing this site and the appellant may prefer some other design features but that does not show that the current design is inappropriate under the comprehensive plan. The small rotary, curving street and pedestrian crossings of N 10th Street should convey to drivers that pedestrians prevail and should be safe. A modification that allows the access along N 10th Street will not injure or create adverse impacts to other property. It conforms to the intent of the Code to redevelop this area with high quality development and to encourage pedestrians and a few driveways will not offset those benefits. On a complex that faces the public on all sides, the project does its best to meet the requirements for parking to be on the "side and/or rear of a building" as required by Code. Further justification is that the driveways along N 10th will also limit impacts to Logan, a high visibility street. In other words, the modification to allow 'ow access to the surface parking from pedestrian oriented streets is appropriate and was appropriately approved. Allowing access along a pedestrian-oriented street and allowing more than 60 feet does not appear to create any injury to other properties. It will not create any unsafe conditions although it will The Landing Site Plan Hearing on Merits File No.: LUA-06-071, SA-A May 22, 2007 Page 19 require more pedestrian vigilance. It allows the eventual redevelopment of the interior areas in compliance with the comprehensive plan's 30-year time frame. Notice, also, that the Code does appear to permit parking garages to have driveways along a pedestrian-oriented street. Therefore, it would not be that much of a stretch to allow surface lots access across such a street if there were practical difficulties in achieving a well-designed project while sparing Logan Avenue and Park Avenue from driveway intersections. And it would be no less safe than access to a parking garage. 47. The decision criteria for both a Site Plan and Modification use the terms "finding" and "find." Those terms are not as rigorous as those required by the Hearing Examiner language found in Code. In addition, notice the language in the next sentence "These criteria also provide a frame of reference... but are not intended to discourage creativity and innovation." On occasion, when explaining land use law to laymen, this office has tried explaining that in many (most) areas of the law one does not ask a question such as whether something is "appropriate" or does it"discourage creativity. " Or "Does this plat meet the public use and interest or is it APPROPRIATE?" Rarely in the law does one make value judgments such as those examples. The language quoted above seems particularly clear-that the "criteria... are not intended to discourage creativity and innovation." 48. Notice the much more specific requirements in the language governing Hearing Examiner decisions and Council action. "[F]indings from the record and conclusions" as opposed to the less rigorous "find" or "findings" asked of planners who are not asked to provide judicial or quasi-judicial decisions. It would appear that the Director and other planning professionals exercise professional judgment when reviewing applications but are not held to a judicial standard in producing an analysis and decision on a proposal. The Director's narrative discussion found in the staff report is sufficient. The Director's decision has in most areas sufficient information and recitation of facts about a project and its impacts to comport with the "find[ings]" specified by Code. 49. This office has not been convinced by any of the evidence or testimony that ASE should be granted standing in this matter for the appeal of the update that was combined with the initial appeal of the Landing Site Plan. The previous decision on ASE 's standing on the initial appeal remains applicable to this second appeal. 50. Attached to the back of this report are the Code Sections that apply to various portions of this decision. 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 modified and affiruned as indicated below. 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 appellate body should not necessarily substitute its judgment for the underlying agency with expertise in a matter unless appropriate. In this case, this office will exercise authority that gives it the powers of the underlying body to overturn, The Landing Site Plan Hearing on Merits File No.: LUA-06-071, SA-A May 22, 2007 Page 20 modify and supplement the staff report. This office does not believe a remand is necessary as in most particulars the staff report and Director's decision is more than adequate but the appellant has demonstrated that the Director erred in granting some of the requested modifications. 4. The appellant urges that the matter be remanded to the Director and staff. Is a remand the only option or even necessary in this case? Or is there sufficient information in the record for the examiner to either agree that the Director made the correct decision or decisions or rectify an error? This office believes that the record, the files, applications,reviews and reports contained in the record would allow this office to avoid a remand. A remand would be appropriate if there were grievous errors or omissions in the underlying decision. This office does not find grievous errors that require substantial additional fact finding by the City. The errors that were made can be rectified by denying modifications for parking along Park and N 10th Street and supplementing the staff report as was done in the above Findings. 5. This office can review the project and correct some of the errors, supplement the findings in others and affirm other parts of the decision without a remand. This office retains the authority of the "office from whom the appeal is taken." (4-8-110.E.1.c.) 6. While there have been challenges about whether the proposal is compatible with the comprehensive plan, whether it comports with the Conceptual Plan and the Master Plan, whether a public hearing was required and whether the Director appropriately reviewed and approved the various modifications, those issues can be resolved without a need to remand the matter or matters for further review. First, this office as noted finds that the overall Site Plan is compatible with the objectives, goals and policies of the comprehensive plan. The Director did not err and the appellant has failed to demonstrate that the `mow decisions on those matters were clearly erroneous. As noted, there are a large number of objectives and the proposal complies with many of them as shown in the original staff report. The goals are also not necessarily attainable immediately but the comprehensive plan provided a long-range view of Renton and 30 years provides additional opportunities for additional employment and more dense development. 7. Code does not require endless or repeated or even one additional public hearing when one was held. There was a public hearing on the Planned Action Ordinance. The Planned Action was found appropriate at that time and the proposal continued to evolve in a manner that reflects the premises of the both the Planned Action and the Conceptual Plan. There was no determination that there were "substantially unresolved"issues and those that may be unacceptable to the appellant do not appear to be substantial. The appellant certainly did not show any clearly erroneous decisions that cannot be rectified in this review and that demand a remand. None of the issues involved go to the heart of the injuries that the appellant used to show standing. There were no traffic-related issues nor any storm water or water pollution issues that would jeopardize regional waters. The modifications objected to do not address either of those issues. 8. This office has to conclude that the Director did not reach the correct decision on some of the modifications requested since there does not appear to be evidence that"practical difficulties" precluded complying with Code. In those cases, this office will simply deny the modifications since this office has the power of the official whose decision is being challenged. There is no need to remand these matters for any further review. The modifications that allow parking east of Park at the southwest corner of Quadrant C and west of Park(north of Building 400) and along Logan are denied. There do not appear to be any "practical difficulties" in providing a "primary entrance" along Park Avenue, the facing street. This complex should not turn its back on the pedestrian oriented street since there should not be a 'fir "back" on a pedestrian oriented street. While the applicant has created an internal pedestrian orientation for much of this complex, it sits adjacent to Park Avenue and should welcome pedestrians who happen to be walking along Park. There do not appear to be any practical difficulties in providing the primary The Landing Site Plan Hearing on Merits File No.: LUA-06-071, SA-A May 22, 2007 Page 21 entrance or even, possibly, co-equal entrance. It is merely a design decision. The modification should have been denied. This office will, therefore, exercise its authority under code and deny the modification. The modification for the building in the southeast corner of Quadrant B is denied and the building shall have a primary entrance along Park. The modification that would allow the building located in the southwest corner of Quadrant B to exceed the maximum setback is denied. This office cannot find any practical difficulties on limiting the curb area along Park north of Building 400 to "not more than 60 feet" occupied by parking or vehicular access. The parking certainly can be moved or removed and replaced by landscaping. The potential infill development would not be hampered by landscaping or seating in this area. Landscaping can be replaced by new structures. 9. In other areas such as whether formal findings are required,whether a public hearing was required and whether the Director has the authority to approve modifications in the Urban Design Regulations Overlay District(4-9-250) and the minimum standards of the design regulations (4-3-100.L) the appellant has not demonstrated that the Director made errors. The narrative form of the staff report appears to meet the standards of Code and the Director has the authority under various provisions to modify both the provisions of the general Title as well as the Minimum Standards if appropriate. 10. The nature of the Director's report does not fail because formal findings were not included. The Director's report provides reference to code sections, history of the project, zoning and comprehensive plan designations,background information and a discussion of the proposal and how it meets various code provisions. The Code contains different language specifying the requirements for a report from the City Council and Hearing Examiner decisions than it does for those of the Development Services reports. As has been noted, there are different review standards when the Council and Examiner issue quasi-judicial decisions than there are for Staff Reports or those made by the Director. The Director is Nod not making judicial decisions but providing a readable report that shows how a project complies with a variety of code provisions, also providing details about treatment materials and trim details, sometimes detailing landscaping species, paving materials, and similar information. It does need to show how certain proposals such as modifications comply with code but it does not need to follow any particular form. The report provides sufficient details and the appellant has not demonstrated error. 11. A Public hearing was not required. There was the public hearing and other prerequisites required to allow Administrative review. While those hearings may have been a couple of years ago, the entire Planned Action Ordinance and Master Plan process is intended to give developers and neighbors some assurances that there will not be endless reviews and re-reviews of proposals. There needs to be some finality so that people can make economic commitments and expect that "monkey wrenches" will not be tossed into the mix a year or two down the line on larger scale projects such as this one. As noted, there may be some unresolved issues in the appellant's mind and even the minds of other persons but those are not necessarily significant and they may never be resolved to those persons' satisfaction. That does not mean more public hearings are required. 12. The comprehensive plan compatibility is more than adequately discussed on Pages 3 and 4 of the staff report(August 17, 2006). There is a laundry list of policies and while the proposal might miss some aspects, it meets most others. The open center of the site, now dedicated to parking can be redeveloped over the 30-year time span suggested by the City's objectives. Employment can be expanded with redevelopment. It may not be possible to meet every objective in a time span of two to three years on an area of this size and one still subject to neighboring heavy industrial uses. 13. The phasing and 30 year timeframe does not require immediate fruition of employment goals. No *001 contractual requirements or covenants are needed. Frankly, 30 years is a long time. Thinking back 30 years, 1970 or so, few would have predicted that this land would be for sale by Boeing, Boeing would The Landing Site Plan Hearing on Merits File No.: LUA-06-071, SA-A May 22, 2007 Page 22 be retreating to the lake and Boeing might cease most of its Renton operations. The project meets many of the comprehensive plan's objectives and goals. It is probably not an easy process redeveloping 38 acres and doing it all in one, rather expensive, "fell-swoop." 14. The loading docks have to be somewhere for a complex of this size and it would appear reasonable to place them along a street that does not promote pedestrian access. It certainly is better than in the midst of the complex where they would not only introduce larger trucks to a passenger car environment but also introduce trucks and loading docks to the pedestrian oriented south tier of shops and buildings. The Director mentioned the smooth flow of pedestrians along the south portion of Quadrant B in his review. 15. There are practical difficulties gaining access to the interior parking lots that serve the north, west and south buildings of this large 38-acre complex. So access along N 10th Street appears reasonable given the fact that Logan is a heavily traveled arterial. It is also a high visibility street where access to parking lots should be limited so that there are fewer turning movements to interfere with arterial flow. In addition, the block is large and access to the parking from the north helps drivers get to and from the complex from more than just one surrounding street. The street is well landscaped, contains decorative paving, a roundabout and other features to enhance the 10th corridor. The street ties the north and south quadrants together. It does not detract from neighboring uses,presents a coherent plan and allows the development of this site in a manner compatible with the comprehensive plan. The additional frontage given to driveways or parking is not detrimental to the overall plan. 16. In conclusion, while the appellant has shown not all of the modifications were entirely appropnate, denying them will not substantially alter the Site Plan, and, frankly, approving them would not ,. significantly detract from the overall plan either. It is just that under code, there did not seem to he practical difficulties that would have allowed them. The other approved modifications, also, quite frankly, do not appear to detract in any way from what appears to be a coherent, well-designed initial plan for redeveloping 38 fallow acres. The Director, possibly supplemented by the additional findings in this report, appropriately justified them and approved them as the Director found that the proposed Site Plan complies with the comprehensive plan, the Planned Action Ordinance, the Conceptual Plan and the Master Plan. Would it be possible to redesign the project—clearly. Might there even be ways to make it better—maybe. Are changes necessary to the overall plan—no. DECISION: The decision affirmed in part and reversed in part. The Director's decision is modified and this office will deny the requested modification for the parking lots on the east side of Park Avenue North that was not covered by the parties' stipulation for Quadrant C, the parking lot on the west side of Park and the parking lots along N 10"' Street. Landscaping, street furniture or other uses compatible with the Design Standards may be installed in the place of the proposed parking. The Director's decision is modified and this office will deny the requested modification that would remove the requirement that a primary entrance be located on the pedestrian oriented street. The Director's decision is modified and this office will deny the requested modification that would allow the building at the southwest corner of Quadrant B to exceed the maximum setback. New The Director's decision is modified and this office will deny the requested modification that would allow the parking to exceed more than 60 feet of curb length. The Landing Site Plan Hearing on Merits File No.: LUA-06-071, SA-A May 22, 2007 Page 23 Nom If the loss of parking affects the parking complement of the overall Site Plan, the applicant as code permits,may increase the height of the parking structure,remove a retail component or coordinate with the City other methods to provide sufficient parking as required by Code. The Director's decision is modified as indicated in the above conclusions wherein this decision supplements or supplants the Director's decision for the remaining modifications that were requested. In all other particulars, the Director's decisions are affirmed and the appeal is denied. ORDERED THIS 22nd day of May 2007. Lt- FRED J. MAN HEARING E AMINER TRANSMITTED THIS 22nd day of May 2007 to the parties of record: Jill Ding Zanetta Fontes Peter Buck 1055 S Grady Way Assistant City Attorney Buck& Gordon Renton, WA 98055 City of Renton 2025 First Ave., Ste. 500 Seattle, WA 98121 Duncan Green Jerome L. Hillis Buck& Gordon Hillis Clark Martin & Peterson, P.S. Karen Breckenridge 2025 First Ave., Ste. 500 500 Galland Building Hillis Clark Martin &Peterson, P.S. Seattle, WA 98121 1221 Second Avenue 500 Galland Building Seattle, WA 98121 1221 Second Avenue Ross Radley Seattle, WA 98121 Attorney at Law Brad Nicholson 3316 Fuhrman Ave E 2811 Dayton Avenue Seattle, WA 98102 Renton, WA 98056 TRANSMITTED THIS 22❑d day of May 2007 to the following: Mayor Kathy Keolker Stan Engler, Fire Jay Covington, Chief Administrative Officer Larry Meckling,Building Official Julia Medzegian, Council Liaison Planning Commission Larry Warren, City Attorney Transportation Division Gregg Zimmerman, PBPW Administrator Utilities Division Alex Pietsch, Economic Development Neil Watts,Development Services Jennifer Henning, Development Services Janet Conklin, Development Services Stacy Tucker, Development Services King County Journal The Landing Site Plan Hearing on Merits File No.: LUA-06-071, SA-A May 22, 2007 Page 24 "%.r 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.,June 5, 2007. 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 tnient, first floor of City Hall. An appeal must be filed in writing on or before 5:00 p.m.,June 5, 2007. 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. lire 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. °trr✓ The Landing Site Plan Hearing on Merits File No.: LUA-06-071, SA-A May 22, 2007 Page 25 CODE PROVISIONS The following Code Sections apply to various portions of this decision. This office has emphasized with a double-underline the particular text in a section that is applicable to the decision. Design Criteria Code Provisions 4-3-100.E.3.b 3. Building Entries: Intent: To make building entrances convenient to locate and easy to access, and ensure that building entries further the pedestrian nature of the fronting sidewalk and the urban character of the district. h. Minimum Standards for District 'C': i. On pedestrian-oriented streets,the primary entrance of each building shall be located on the facade facing the street. 4-3-100.E.1.b.ii.a (a) High Visibility Street. A highly visible arterial street that warrants special design treatment to improve its appearance and maintain its transportation function. 4-3-100.F.4.b b. Minimum Standards for District 'C': i. Parking garages shall be accessed at the rear of buildings or from non=pedestrian- oriented streets when available. ii. Surface parking driveways are prohibited on pedestrian-oriented streets. iii. Parking lot entrances, driveways, and other vehicular access points on high visibility streets shall be restricted to one entrance and exit lane per five hundred (500) linear feet as measured horizontally along the street. F PARKING AND VEHICULAR ACCESS: Intent: To provide safe, convenient access to the Urban Center; incorporate various modes of transportation, including public mass transit, in order to reduce traffic volumes and other impacts from vehicles; ensure sufficient parking is provided, while encouraging creativity in reducing the impacts of parking areas; allow an active pedestrian environment by maintaining contiguous street frontages, without parking lot siting along sidewalks and building facades; minimize the visual impact of parking lots; and use access streets and parking to maintain an urban edge to the district. 1. Location of Parking: Intent: To maintain active pedestrian environments along streets by placing parking lots primarily in back of buildings. Parking along street 4-3-I00.E.2.b 2. Building Location and Orientation: Intent: To ensure visibility of businesses; establish active, lively uses along sidewalks and pedestrian pathways; organize buildings in such a way that pedestrian use of the district is facilitated; encourage siting of structures so that natural light and solar access are available to other structures and open space; The Landing Site Plan Hearing on Merits File No.: LUA-06-071, SA-A May 22, 2007 Page 26 enhance the visual character and definition of streets within the district; provide an appropriate transition between buildings, parking areas, and other land uses and the street; and increase privacy for residential uses located near the street. b. Minimum Standards for District 'C': i. Buildings on designated pedestrian-oriented streets shall feature "pedestrian-oriented facades" and clear connections to the sidewalk(see illustration, RMC 4-3-100E7a). Such buildings shall be located adjacent to the sidewalk, except where pedestrian- oriented space is located between the building and the sidewalk. Parking between the building and pedestrian-oriented streets is prohibited. ii. Buildings fronting on pedestrian-oriented streets shall contain pedestrian-oriented uses. iii. Nonresidential buildings may be located directly adjacent to any street as long as they feature a pedestrian-oriented facade. iv. Buildings containing street-level residential uses and single-purpose residential buildings shall be set back from the sidewalk a minimum of ten feet(10') and feature substantial landscaping between the sidewalk and the building (see illustration, RMC 4- 3-100E7h). v. If buildings do not feature pedestrian-oriented facades they shall have substantial landscaping between the sidewalk and building. Such landscaping shall be at least ten feet (10') in width as measured from the sidewalk(see illustration, RMC 4-3-100E7c). c. Guidelines Applicable to District 'C': i. Siting of a structure should take into consideration the continued availability of natural light (both direct and reflected) and direct sun exposure to nearby buildings and open space (except parking areas). ii. Ground floor residential uses located near the street should be raised above street level for residents'privacy. b. Minimum Standards for District 'C': i. On Designated Pedestrian-Oriented Streets: (a) Parking shall be at the side and/or rear of a building, with the exception of on-street parallel parking. No more than sixty feet(60') of the street frontage measured parallel to the curb shall be occupied by off-street parking and vehicular access. ii. All parking lots located between a building and street or visible from a street shall feature landscaping between the sidewalk and building; see RMC 4-4-080F, Parking Lot Design Standards. 4-3-100 URBAN DESIGN REGULATIONS: A PURPOSE: The purpose of this Section is to: 1. Establish design review regulations in accordance with policies established in the Land Use and Community Design Elements of the Renton Comprehensive Plan in order to: a. Maintain and protect property values; b. Enhance the general appearance of the City; c. Encourage creativity in building and site design; d. Achieve predictability,balanced with flexibility; and e. Consider the individual merits of proposals. The Landing Site Plan Hearing on Merits File No.: LUA-06-071, SA-A May 22, 2007 Page 27 *14100 4. Create design standards and guidelines specific to the Urban Center-North (District 'C') that ensure design quality of structures and site development that implements the City of Renton's Comprehensive Plan Vision for its Urban Center-North. This Vision is of an urban environment that concentrates uses in a "grid pattern" of streets and blocks. The Vision is of a vibrant, economically vital neighborhood that encourages use throughout by pedestrians. 5. Create design standards and guidelines applicable to the use of"big-box retail" as defined in RMC 4-11- 180, Definitions. 6. Establish two categories of regulations: (a) "minimum standards" that must be met, and (b) "guidelines" that, while not mandatory, are considered by the Development Services Director in determining if the proposed action meets the intent of the design guidelines. In the Urban Center Design Overlay area, specific minimum standards and guidelines may apply to all three districts, or certain districts only (Districts 'A', 'B', or 'C'), as indicated herein. (Ord. 5029, 11-24-03; Ord. 5124, 2-7-2005) Criteria for Site Plan Review 4-9-200.E "E DECISION CRITERIA FOR SITE PLAN AND MASTER PLANS: The Reviewing Official shall review and act upon plans based upon a finding that the proposal meets Comprehensive Plan objectives and policies and the criteria in this subsection and in subsection F of this Section, as applicable. These criteria also provide a frame of reference for the applicant in developing a site, but are not intended to discourage creativity and innovation." Nosie Criteria for Hearing Examiner, Council and Planning Decisions 4-8-100.G: "1. Standard Decision Time and Notification Procedure: Unless the time is extended pursuant to this Section, within fourteen (14) days of the conclusion of a hearing, or the date set for submission of additional information pursuant to this Chapter, the_Exami_ner shall render a written decision _including findings from the record and conclusions therefrom, and shall transmit a copy of such decision by regular mail, postage prepaid, to the applicant and other parties of record in the case requesting notice of the decision. The person mailing the decision, together with the supporting documents, shall prepare an affidavit of mailing, in standard form, and the affidavit shall become a part of the record of the proceedings. In the case of applications requiring City Council approval, the Examiner shall file his decision with the City Council members individually at the expiration of the appeal period for the decision." "K. COUNCIL ACTION: 1. Council Action Requires Minutes and Findings of Fact: Any application requiring action by the City Council shall be evidenced by minute entry unless otherwise required by law. When taking any such final action, the Council shall make and enter findings of fact from the record and d conclusions therefrom which support its action." 4-9-200.E.1.b "The Reviewing Official shall review and act upon plans based upon a finding that the proposal meets the Comprehensive Plan objectives and policies and the criteria in this subsection and subsection F of this sled Section, as applicable. These criteria also provide a frame of reference for the applicant in developing a site, but are not intended to discourage creativity and innovation." The Landing Site Plan Hearing on Merits File No.: LUA-06-071, SA-A May 22, 2007 Page 28 4-9-200.E "In rendering a decision,the Director will consider proposals on the basis of individual merit,will consider the overall intent of the of the minimum standards and guidelines, and encourage creative design alternatives in order to achieve the purposes of the design regulations." Hearing Examiner Authority 4-8-110. "E. APPEALS TO EXAMINER OF ADMINISTRATIVE DECISIONS AND ENVIRONMENTAL DETERMINATIONS: (Amd. Ord. 4827, 1-24-2000) 1. Applicability and Authority: c. Authority: To that end,the Examiner shall have all of the powers of the_office from whom the appeal is taken insofar as the decision on the particular issue is concerned_" Criteria for Modifications from Code 4-9-250 VARIANCES, WAIVERS, MODIFICATIONS, AND ALTERNATES: A PURPOSES: 3. Modifications: To modify a Code requirement when there are practical difficulties involved in carrying "err out the provisions of this Title when a special individual reason makes the strict letter of this Code impractical. (Ord. 4346, 3-9-1992) D MODIFICATION PROCEDURES: 1. Application Time and Decision Authority: Modification from standards, either in whole or in part, shall be subject to review and decision by the Planning/Building/Public Works Department upon submittal in writing of jurisdiction for such modification. (Amd. Ord. 4777, 4-19-1999) 2. Decision Criteria: Whenever there are practical difficulties involved in carrying out the provisions of this Title, the Department Administrator may grant modifications for individual cases provided he/she shall first find that a specific reason makes the strict letter of this Code impractical, that the intent and purpose of the governing land use designation of the Comprehensive Plan is met and that the modification is in confoimity with the intent and purpose of this Code, and that such modification: a. Substantially implements the policy direction of the policies and objectives of the Comprehensive Plan Land Use Element and the Community Design Element and the proposed modification is the minimum adjustment necessary to implement these policies and objectives; b. Will meet the objectives and safety, function, appearance, environmental protection and maintainability intended by the Code requirements, based upon sound engineering judgment; c. Will not be injurious to other property(ies) in the vicinity; d. Conforms to the intent and purpose of the Code; e. Can be shown to be justified and required for the use and situation intended; and f. Will not create adverse impacts to other property(ies) in the vicinity. (Ord. 4517, 5-8-1995; Ord. 5100, 11-1-2004) The Landing Site Plan Hearing on Merits File No.: LUA-06-071, SA-A May 22, 2007 Page 29 4-9-250.D(2) "2. Decision Criteria: Whenever there are practical difficulties involved in carrying out the provisions of this Title, the Department Administrator may grant modifications for individual cases provided he/she shall first find that a specific reason makes the strict letter of this Code impractical, that the intent and purpose of the governing land use designation of the Comprehensive Plan is met and that the modification is in conformity with the intent and purpose of this Code, and that such modification:" Criteria for Modifications from Minimum Standards Modifications 4-8-070.C.10.vi C PLANNING/BUILDING/PUBLIC WORKS ADMINISTRATOR OR DESIGNEE: Authority: The Planning/Building/Public Works Administrator or his/her designee shall review and act on the following: 10. Modifications: vi. Modifications to development standards in the Center Village Residential Bonus District and the Urban Desi _Regulation Overlay District; "also 4-3-100.L L. MODIFICATION OF MINIMUM STANDARDS: 1. The Director of the Development Services Division shall have the authority to modify the minimum standards of the design_r�ulations, subject to the provisions of RMC 4-9-250D, Modification Procedures, and the following requirements: a. The project as a whole meets the intent of the minimum standards and guidelines in subsections E, F, G, H, I, J, and K of the design regulations; b. The requested modification meets the intent of the applicable design standard; c. The modification will not have a detrimental effect on nearby properties and the City as a whole; d. The deviation manifests high quality design; and e. The modification will enhance the pedestrian environment on the abutting and/or adjacent streets and/or pathways. 2. Exceptions for Districts A and B: Modifications to the requirements in subsections E2a and E3a of this Section are limited to the following circumstances: a. When the building is oriented to an interior courtyard, and the courtyard has a prominent entry and walkway connecting directly to the public sidewalk; or b. When a building includes an architectural feature that connects the building entry to the public sidewalk; or c. In complexes with several buildings, when the building is oriented to an internal integrated walkway system with prominent connections to the public sidewalk(s). (Ord. 5124, 2-7-2005) Criteria for Public Hearings on Site Plans Public hearing required: , The Landing Site Plan Ilearing on Merits File No.: LUA-06-071, SA-A May 22, 2007 Page 30 Name D CRITERIA TO DETERMINE IF PUBLIC HEARING REQUIRED: In all cases, the public hearing for Master Plan or Site Plan Review should be conducted concurrently with any other required hearing, such as rezone or subdivision, if the details of the development are sufficiently defined to permit adequate review. A public hearing before the Hearing Examiner shall be required in the following cases: 1. Master Plans: a. All Master Plans proposed or required per subsection B of this Section,Master Plan Review, Applicability. Where a Master Plan is approved, subsequent Site Plans submitted for future phases may be_submitted and approved administratively without a public hearing. b. Exception for Planned Actions: A hearing before the Hearing Examiner is not required if both of the following criteria are met: i. One or more public hearings were held where eublic comment was solicited on the proposed Planned Action Ordinance, and ii. The environmental impact statement for the planned action reviewed preliminary conceptual plans for the site which provided the public and decision-makers with sufficient detail regarding the scale of the proposed improvements, the quantity of the various types of spaces to be provided, the use to which the structure will be put, and the bulk and general form of the improvements. "2. Site Plan Review: a. Significant Environmental Concerns Remain: The Environmental Review Committee determines that based on departmental comments or public input there are significant unresolved concerns that are raised by the proposal; or b. Large Project Scale: The proposed project is more than: i. One hundred (100) semi-attached or attached residential units; or ii. One hundred thousand (100,000) square feet of gross floor area (nonresidential) in the IL or CO Zones or other zones in the Employment Area Valley (EAV) land use designation (see EAV Map in RMC 4-2-080B); or iii. Twenty five thousand (25,000) square feet of gross floor area (nonresidential) in the CN, CD, CA, CV, or CO Zones outside the Employment Area Valley(EAV) land use designation (see EAV Map in RMC 4-2-080B); or iv. Four(4) stories or sixty feet(60') in height; or v. Three hundred (300)parking stalls; or vi. Ten (10) acres in size of project area. c. Commercial or industrial property lies adjacent to or abutting the RC, R-1, R-4, R-8 and R-10 Zones. (Ord. 4551, 9-18-1995; Ord. 4773, 3-22-1999; Ord. 4802, 10-25-1999; Amd. Ord. 4963, 5-13-2002; Ord. 5028, 11-24-2003)" CITY OF RENTON COUNCIL AGENDA BILL AI#: P Submitting Data: For Agenda of: 7/2/2007 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 6/11/2007 Correspondence.. regarding the Seahawks Headquarters and Training Ordinance Facility Site Plan application. (File No. LUA-06-073, Resolution SA-H, SA-M, SM, ECF) Old Business Exhibits: New Business A. City Clerk's letter (6/21/2007) Study Sessions B. Appeal - Football Northwest, LLC (6/15/2007) Information C. Hearing Examiner's Report & Decision (6/11/2007) 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.. SUMMARY OF ACTION: Appeal of the Hearing Examiner's decision on the Seahawks Headquarters and Training Facility Site Plan application was filed on 6/15/2007 by Northwest Football, LLC, represented by Roger A. Pearce, Foster Pepper, PLLC accompanied by the required $75 fee. STAFF RECOM1ViENDATION: Council to take action on the Seahawks Headquarters and Training Facility Site Plan application appeal. cc: Jennifer Henning Larry Warren Rentonnet/agnbill/ bh )<CN CITY OF RENTON ru City Clerk ,ep ` Kathy Keolker,Mayor Bonnie I. Walton 1V � June 21, 2007 APPEAL FILED BY: Football Northwest, LLC, represented by Roger A. Pearce, Foster Pepper PLLC RE: Appeal of Hearing Examiner's decision dated 6/11/2007 regarding the Seahawks Headquarters and Training Facility Site Plan application, 5015 Ripley Ln N. (File No. LUA-06-073, SA-H, SA-M, SM, 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 Barsher appeal of Seahawks Building Height has been filed with the City Clerk. In accordance with Renton Municipal Code Section 4-8-110F, the City Clerk shall notify all parties of record of the receipt of the appeal. Other parties of record may submit letters limited to support of their positions 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 5:00 pm, July 2, 2007. NOTICE IS HEREBY GIVEN that the written appeal and other pertinent documents will be reviewed by the Council's Planning and Development Committee at 2:00 p.m. on Thursday, July 5, 2007, in the Council Chambers, 7th Floor of Renton City Hall, 1055 South Grady Way, Now Renton, WA, 98057. The recommendation of the Committee will be presented for consideration by the full Council at a subsequent Council meeting. Attached are a copy of the appeal and a copy 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 evidence or testimony on this matter will be accepted by the City Council. For additional information or assistance, please feel free to call me at 425-430-6502. Sincerely, 661%t fl- L .i. Bonnie I. Walton City Clerk Attachments cc: Council Liaison 1055 South Grady Way-Renton,Washington 98057-(425)430-6510/FAX(425)430-6516 RENTON AHEAD OF THE CURVE ®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 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 `"rS testimony, it shall be presumed that no new or additional evidence or testimony has been accepted by the City Council, and that the record before the City Council is identical to the hearing record before the Hearing Examiner. (Ord. 4389, 1-25-1993) 6. Council Evaluation Criteria: The consideration by the City Council shall be based solely upon the record, the Hearing Examiner's report, the notice of appeal and additional submissions by parties. 7. Findings and Conclusions Required: If, upon appeal of a decision of the Hearing Examiner on an application submitted pursuant to RMC 4-1-050F1, and after examination of the record, the Council determines that a substantial error in fact or law exists in the record, it may remand the proceeding to Examiner for reconsideration, or modify, or reverse the decision of the Examiner accordingly. 8. Council Action: If, upon appeal from a recommendation of the Hearing Examiner upon an application submitted pursuant to RMC 4-1-050F2 and F3, and after examination of the record, the Council determines that a substantial error in fact or law exists in the record, or that a recommendation of the Hearing Examiner should be disregarded or modified,the City Council may remand the proceeding to the Examiner for reconsideration, or enter its own decision upon the application. 9. Decision Documentation: In any event, the decision of the City Council shall be in writing and shall specify any modified or amended findings and conclusions other than those set forth in the report of the Hearing Examiner. Each material finding shall be supported by substantial evidence in the record. The burden of proof shall rest with the appellant. (Ord 3658, 9-13-1982) 10. Council Action Final: The action of the Council approving, modifying or rejecting a decision of the Examiner shall be final and conclusive, unless appealed within the time frames established under subsection G5 of this Section. (Ord. 4660, 3-17-1997) CITY OF RENTON APPEAL TO RENTON CITY COUNCIL OF HEARING EXAMINER'S DECISION/RECOMMENDATION JUN 1 5 2007 RECEIVED `giz9 �y CITYLERKS F CE 1PPLICATION NAME A PPEAL.._ of YEA 2/ fC- EigMm &2_, ._be-casr©,l_ FILE NO.Lug- .(3 -. -073 New- ,s--4—I-I�.S -M IJ -7 �C The undersigned interested party hereby files its Notice of Appeal from the decision or recommendation 0?the Land Use Hearing Examiner, dated SUPSIE 1 ( , 200 7 1. IDENTIFICATION OF PARTY APPELLANT: REPRESENTATIVE (IF ANY): Name: Foo-r-s ri tom.. .Jo/L-ftwfsr- LL c Name: 20GE2 R • PEila_c /'ctsi F.,2 2 pt_ppE Lc_ Address: 11--1-7-,/: 219Y C e /cE,2 Address: Jill -32. A-ve . #3/-00 5O5 -5-d A .. s. #9�s-64 -c.E GuA 9 iost S�-r-�cgk/R /O I Phone Number: — Phone Number:09 4-4--1 - c4--c-00 Email: Email: PE 22�_F-0s L . co ill 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. 10 Error: S Ay c-I-VEJ SI-I-F ,T- Correction: Nikap r Conclusions: No.5 � Error: AFF �- GHC St4EE r - Correction: Other: No. Error: Correction: 3, SUMMARY OF ACTION REQUESTED The City Council is requested to grant the following relief: (Attach explanation, if desired) Reverse the decision or recommendation and grant the following relief: Modify the decision or recommendation as follows: SFS A--T>-RC_,c si/E-E- Remand to the Examiner for further consideration as follows: Other: / 6-PNeQOG-ER A. PCAL eE 9E /5,aAp 1orpppellanp Type/Printed Name SBR" ///3 Date NOTE: Please refer to Title IV,Chapter 8,of the Renton Municipal Code,and Section 4-8-110F,for specific appeal procedures, et:, L /y G,.Ja•/fir', et ily ,4 t Nt► I 14.94 i{s, De '.--i/C.5 ,/_)/Peck,---- r/Cvt K.c.-v Tri c-,-,1 dee--- 7,' )çG ,if-- 1 sved2 3 4 5 6 7 BEFORE THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF RENTON 8 9 In re Appeal of City of Renton Hearing Examiner Decision re Minor Adjustment to File No. LUA06-073 10 Approved Site Plan SA-H, SA-M, SM, ECF 11 NOTICE OF APPEAL OF FOOTBALL 12 NORTHWEST LLC 13 14 I. INTRODUCTION �1rr` 15 Football Northwest LLC ("FNW") requests the City Council to modify the June 11, 2007 16 decision of the City of Renton Hearing Examiner in File Nos. LUA-06-073, SA-H, SA-M, SM, 17 ECF. This supplements the City's Notice Of Appeal form. 18 The appeal before the Examiner involved a minor adjustment to the approved site plan 19 for the Seattle Seahawks Corporate Headquarters and Training Facility. The only change to the 20 approved site plan was to allow the Indoor Practice Facility(the "IPF") to be several feet higher 21 than described in the City's original site plan approval. Because this minor change to the 22 approved site plan clearly met the minor adjustment criteria in Renton Zoning Code §4-9-200(I), 23 the City's Department of Development Services issued the minor adjustment. On appeal, the 24 Examiner was required to give substantial weight to that administrative decision from the 25 Department of Development Services. In the Examiner's decision, the Examiner concluded that 26 all criteria for the issuance of the minor adjustment were satisfied. NOTICE OF APPEAL - 1 FOSTER PEPPER PLLC 1111 THIRD AVENUE,SUITE 3400 SEATTLE,WASHINGTON 98101-3299 PHONE(206)447-4400 FAX(206)447-9700 508167422 1 Rather than uphold Development Services' decision, as the Examiner was required to do I`1'2 once he found that the criteria for an approval of a minor adjustment were met, the Examiner 3 placed an additional condition on the Corporate Headquarters project. This additional condition 4 violated the review criteria in the Renton Zoning Code, failed to give substantial weight to the 5 decision of City staff, was unsupported by the evidence on appeal, was unrelated to any impact 6 from the minor adjustment, and imposed an unreasonable condition on the project. In particular, 7 the Examiner required 12 to 24 evergreen trees "along the lakeshore facade of the Indoor 8 Practice Field [sic]." Even if the Examiner had authority to impose conditions on the project 9 after finding that all minor adjustment criteria had been met, this condition is not supported by 10 any evidence in the record, which showed that the IPF would not look noticeably different from 11 the 111-foot tall building already approved. Moreover, the condition purports to require trees 12 along the IPF's "lakeshore facade" but the great majority of that lakeshore facade of the 13 Seahawks Corporate Headquarters does not even begin until an elevation of 55 feet in the air. It 4 is certainly unreasonable to plant evergreen trees 55 feet in the air on the roof of another loarr` 15 structure. 16 Because the Examiner's decision is not supported by the record or by the City's Code, 17 fails to give any deference to the City staff decision, and imposes an unreasonable condition, the 18 Council should modify the Examiner's decision to eliminate the "additional condition" required 19 by the Examiner. 20 II. FACTUAL BACKGROUND 21 The evidence at the hearing and in the record of the hearing shows the following: 22 The City's environmental review for the Seahawks Corporate Headquarters master plan 23 analyzed an IPF structure of up to 120 feet in height above slab, with a 95-foot clear interior 24 space over the indoor practice field. The 95-foot clear interior space is required for the facility to 25 operate in the manner designed for professional football practices. Based on its analysis of that 26 proposal, the City issued a Determination of Nonsignificance NINNY NOTICE OF APPEAL - 2 FOSTER PEPPER PLLC 1111 THIRD AVENUE,SUITE 3400 SEATTLE,WASHINGTON 98101-3299 PHONE(206)447-4400 FAx(206)447-9700 50816'12 2 1 After the issuance of the DNS, the project applicant moved the IPF structure (and other Ned 2 project buildings) approximately 62 feet further back from the shoreline, in order to minimize the 3 impact to the neighboring condominium owners to the north of the site. Design development for 4 the IPF structure showed that the interior 95-foot clear height could likely be accomplished with 5 an overall building height of approximately 111 feet in height. Those design development 6 drawings were the basis of the drawings and renderings presented to the City at the hearing on 7 the original site plan for the Seahawks Corporate Headquarters and Training Facility. 8 Accordingly, the City's site plan approval described the IPF as being "up to 111 feet" and 9 "approximately 111 feet tall." 10 After to the December 6, 2006, site plan approval, FNW worked with the City on the 11 final structural design of the IPF. In response to City building code requirements, FNW was 12 required to make changes to the truss structure of the IPF roof. In order to maintain the 95-foot 13 clear interior space for the IPF, the new truss structure requires a building height of 14 approximately 113 feet. To be cautious, FNW requested a minor adjustment to allow up to 115 15 feet in height, even though only approximately 113 feet in height is anticipated and currently 16 submitted to the City for permits. 17 This minor height variation to the IPF is the only change to the approved site plan. No 18 additional lot coverage is proposed, no expansion of the site plan boundary is proposed, and no 19 expansion of any other planned building on the site is proposed. Transportation and parking 20 impacts would be unchanged. Use of public services and utilities would be unchanged. The 21 only impact will be to allow a small increase in the scale of the IPF building. 22 The massing of the IPF itself will increase less than four percent (4%) if the full 115 feet 23 in height were utilized. At the anticipated final IPF height of approximately 113 feet, there 24 would be only a two percent (2%) increase to the scale of the IPF. With respect to the scale of 25 all development approved by the site plan, the total building volume would increase only three 26 percent (3%) if the full 115 feet in height were utilized for the IPF. At the anticipated final IPF NOTICE OF APPEAL - 3 FOSTER PEPPER PLLC 1111 THIRD AVENUE,SurrE 3400 SEATTLE,WASHINGTON 98101-3299 PHONE(206)447-4400 FAX(206)447-9700 50816 42 2 1 height of approximately 113 feet, the overall site massing would only increase by one and one- N`'"` 2 half percent (1%2 %). 3 III. APPEAL CRITERIA 4 A. Standing. 5 FNW is the permit applicant, one of the parties to the appeal hearing before the 6 Examiner, the owner of the property affected by the Examiner's appeal decision, and the ultimate 7 user of the Seahawks Corporate Headquarters. FNW will be directly affected by the Examiner's 8 decision and has standing to bring this appeal. 9 B. Time to File. 10 The Examiner's decision on the appeal of Development Services minor adjustment 1 1 approval was issued June 11, 2007. This appeal is filed within the required time limit in Renton 12 Zoning Code 4-8-110F. 13 C. Notice of Appeal and Filing Fee. 4 The notice of appeal foiin from the Renton City Clerk accompanies this Notice. A check Now 15 for the filing fee specified in Renton Zoning Code 4-1-170 is enclosed. 16 B. Assignments of Error. 17 1. Finding of Fact 10. 18 In Finding of Fact 10, the Examiner purports to explain his authority on appeal. The 19 Examiner claims to have "all the powers of the office from whom the appeal is taken." This 20 finding ignores controlling City ordinances, which require the Examiner to give substantial 21 weight to any discretionary decision of City staff and require the Examiner to review the City 22 staff decision under the appropriate standard of review and modify that decision only if it is 23 made on unlawful procedure, is clearly erroneous, or is arbitrary and capricious. Renton Zoning 24 Code 4-8-110E7(a and b). Nothing in the record shows that staff followed any erroneous 25 procedure, committed any clear error of law, and made any arbitrary and capricious decision. 26 Now NOTICE OF APPEAL - 4 FOSTER PEPPER PLLC 1111 THIRD AVENUE,SUITE 3400 SEATTLE,WASHINGTON 98101-3299 PHONE(206)447-4400 FAx(206)447-9700 5981b'42 2 1 The Examiner did not find that any of those standards of review were violated, and the Examiner Noiti 2 did not give any deference to the City staff decision as required by law. 3 2. Conclusions of Law 5, 6 and 7. 4 In Conclusions 5, 6 and 7, the Examiner makes multiple errors of law including the 5 following. 6 First, the Examiner fails to grant deference to the decision of Development Services to 7 issue the minor adjustment. 8 Second, the Examiner imposes an additional condition to the minor adjustment even after 9 concluding that all required criteria for issuance of the minor adjustment were met. 10 Third, the Examiner misinterprets the wording of the minor adjustment Code section 11 ("Minor modifications may be peiluitted by administrative determination") to aggrandize 12 conditioning authority unto himself. That section of the Code merely distinguishes minor 13 adjustments from major adjustments. If the criteria for a minor adjustment are met, then 14 Development Services makes the decision on the site plan change. If the minor adjustment 15 criteria are not met, then a major adjustment application and public hearing are required. 16 Nothing in that Code section gives the Examiner authority to impose additional conditions. 17 Fourth, the conditions imposed by the Examiner are not even related to the change to the 18 project proposed by the minor adjustment. The only change to the IPF is a slight height increase 19 (from approximately 111 feet to approximately 113 feet in height at the crest of the IPF roof). 20 The condition imposed by the Examiner, however, does nothing to address this tiny increase in 21 height, but only addresses the overall bulk of the building, which was already approved in the 22 original site plan approval. 23 Fifth, the Examiner's condition is not supported by any evidence in the record. Both the 24 expert testimony and the photosimulation exhibits show that the additional height of the IPF 25 would not even be a noticeable change to the project. While the IPF is admittedly a significant 26 structure, the only issue when issuing the minor adjustment is the difference between the NIS NOTICE OF APPEAL - 5 FOSTER PEPPER PLLC 1111 THIRD AVENUE,SUITE 3400 SEATTLE,WASHINGTON 98101-3299 PHONE(206)447-4400 FAX(206)447-9700 50%16712 1 structure as already permitted and the structure as amended (approximately two feet higher). 2 Because the Examiner's condition is not related to an impact of the minor adjustment, it is 3 plainly unlawful under controlling Washington law. 4 Sixth, the Examiner's condition is unreasonable. The existing site plan already has 5 significant landscaping along the shoreline, which will screen views from the water and provide 6 habitat amenities for the shoreline environment. The existing site plan proposed lower level 7 plantings in the northwest corner of the site in order to mitigate any view impacts that new 8 construction would have on the immediate project neighbors. The Examiner's condition would 9 require additional trees along the lakeshore facade of the IPF. This condition ignores the fact 10 that the 55-foot high administrative office building is shoreward from majority of the IPF. 11 According, the majority of the IPF facade does not even begin until 55-feet in the air. A 12 condition purporting to require trees 55 feet in the air—on the roof of another structure—is 13 unreasonable. 4 IV. CONCLUSION 15 For all the reasons above and for the reasons to he shown at the closed record hearing 16 before the City Council, FNW respectfully requests the City Council to modify the Examiner's 17 decision by striking the additional condition added by the Examiner in his June 11, 2007, 18 decision on appeal of Development Services minor adjustment decision. 19 DATED this 15th day of June 2007. 20 FOSTER PEPPER PLLC 21 22 tit 23 Roger A.CPearce, WSBA No. 21113 Attorneys for Football Northwest LLC 24 25 26 NOTICE OF APPEAL - 6 FOSTER PEPPER PLLC 1111 THIRD AVENUE,SUITE 3400 SEATTLE,WASHINGTON 98101-3299 PHONE(206)447-4400 FAX(206)447-9700 5081073" June 11, 2007 OFFICE OF THE HEARING EXAMINER CITY OF RENTON REPORT AND DECISION APPELLANT: Larry &Esther Barsher 6940 96th Ave SE Mercer Island, WA 98040 Barsher Appeal of Seahawks Building Height LUA-06-073, SA-H, SA-M, SM, 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 May 29, 2007 hearing. The legal record is recorded on CD. The hearing opened on Tuesday, May 29, 2007, at 8:59 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: Yellow file containing the original Exhibit No. 2: Topographic Map of Mercer Island appeal letter and site information. Exhibit No. 3: Photograph of Seahawk's site from Exhibit No. 4: Photograph of Boeing site at south end Barsher property of Lake Washington Exhibit No. 5: Photograph of east Boeing site Exhibit No. 6: Site Plan File LUA 06-073 Exhibit No. 7: Environmental Checklist Exhibit No. 8: October 19, 2006 letter from the City of Renton regarding the Seahawks Headquarters and Training Facility, acceptance from Environmental Review Committee Exhibit No. 9: Original Elevations (2 sheets) Exhibit No. 10: Hearing Examiner Decision dated submitted with the Site Plan application December 8, 2006 Exhibit No. 11: VA102—view study from Misty Cove (2 sheets) Parties Present: Larry Barsher, 6940 96th Ave SE, Mercer Island, WA 98040 Barsher Appeal of Seahawks Building Height LUA-06-037, SA-H, SA-M, SM, ECF June 11, 2007 Page 2 Larry Warren, City Attorney, City of Renton Roger Pearce, Foster Pepper, 1111 Third Ave, Ste. 3400, Seattle, WA 98101 Larry Barsher stated that he is a State of Washington Licensed Professional Civil Engineer and that he has lived on Mercer Island since 1980 and enjoyed the views and vistas for 27 years. He and his wife are alarmed by the fact that the City would allow this large building to get even larger and not include in this modification some landscaping to soften and mitigate the appearance of this structure. He produced a topographic map of Mercer Island and surrounding areas. He pointed out where his home lies and where the new Seahawk facility will be located. The distance from their home to the Seahawk building is approximately 3,700 feet or it, of a mile. He took more photographs of the Boeing plant, the width of that building is 840-feet and the height is approximately the same as the Seahawks is proposed to be. It shows approximately how much space the Seahawk building will actually take and the views that will be covered. There is a crane in the first photograph, it is 120-feet long, the Seahawk building is planned to be 115-feet tall. The new building will take up almost half of the hillside. A third photograph of the Boeing site shows an apartment building that is approximately 60-feet tall. They would not object to an approval of this increase in height provided it included the addition of some large evergreen trees that would reach approximately the roof elevation at maturity and planted judiciously close to the building. The trees would greatly reduce the facility's impact on those viewing the building from a distance. This small modification would greatly benefit the people of Mercer Island and generations to come. It seems reasonable that some large trees could be planted there. He is not asking for a total camouflage of the entire building. There should be some attention given to this matter. Esther Barsher, 6940 96th Ave SE, Mercer Island, WA 98040 stated that large specimens could be used. Planting smaller trees further from the building will not have the same softening effect as if you planted larger trees now. Larry Warren, City Attorney stated that there is an underlying presumption that the Barshers have a right to a view, however, there is no such right that is recognized. Secondly their entire argument is based upon environmental impact of this particular project, this is not a SEPA Appeal, in fact the original proposal reviewed by the Environmental Review Committee has the height of the building between 95-feet at the center of the field and 120-feet altogether, which is under the elevation that is now being approved by the minor modification. The actual building height will be approximately 113-feet rather than 115-feet. This issue must focus on Code or 9-200.i on minor modifications. A four-foot increase and 120-feet is not 10%. Take into fact that 360-feet was the width and the increase in the facade area, it is much smaller in percentage basis so it is much less than 10%. The second factor, adding a significantly greater impact on the environment, this does not have a significantly greater impact on the environment. This project was already reviewed by the Environmental Review Committee, and their decision was not appealed. The third item of the criteria changes the boundaries of the original approved plan, that does not occur at all. Mr. Warren referred the Examiner to the Staff Report to the ERC, page 2 of 16, third paragraph from the bottom, third line from the bottom of that paragraph. Barsher Appeal of Seahawks Building Height LUA-06-037, SA-H, SA-M, SM, ECF June 11, 2007 Page 3 Roger Pearce, Foster Pepper, 1111 Third Ave, Ste. 3400, Seattle, WA 98101 submitted a short hearing brief to the Examiner. The only issues before the Examiner are ones that require minor adjustments. The only change to the approved site plan is that the indoor practice facility is required to have a 95-foot height so that they can plan professional football inside. It required being 7-feet higher than it was described in the Examiner's original site plat approval. In the original application, the building was described as 120-feet high, and that was what the DNS was based on and the City found there was no environmental impact from a building of that height. Since that time, the building actually came down significantly in height. The Seahawks have no incentive to overbuild, all they need is a building that looks good and that has 95-feet clear height in the center of the field. At that time that the structure would be adequate and that the building could be 111-feet and at that time they also moved the entire building back 62-feet to help out the view from the Misty Cove Apartments. They have had some unexpected seismic issues that must be dealt with so the roof structure had to be beefed up a little bit, they asked for 115-feet just to make sure they don't have to come back again in addition to this proceeding today, they now believe that the height of the building will actually be in the range of 112-113-feet when they get to the final building approval. The main issue today is the incremental change in the height of the building, which is two to four feet. There is not a significantly greater impact at 115-feet from 1 1 1-feet, in fact, from the Misty Cove building the increase in building mass is not going to be noticeable. They request that the Examiner uphold the City's Decision. Elaine Wine, Football NW, 505 Fifth Avenue S., Ste. 900, Seattle, WA 98104 stated that she is a licensed architect in the State of Washington and the project manager for Football NW design and construction of this facility. The Indoor Practice Facility(1PF) clear height has been specified to be 95-feet at the mid-point of the practice field. That is the optimal height where the kickers can actually punt the ball and not interfere with any of the roof structure. She was involved with all the land use permitting that occurred back in the fall of 2006. The Environmental Checklist lists the approximate overall height of the building at 120-feet from the lowest elevation. In Exhibit 8, page 12 of 16 it describes the height of the IPF building to range in height from 55-feet to 120-feet. The facility was originally designed using a single member structural steel roof rafter that would have minimized the height of the IPF, which was the goal at that time. They were required to add a substantial amount of bracing in the walls and roof, which required roof trusses. Those trusses are deeper than a single member rafter and that caused the height of the facility to increase approximately 18-inches. On Exhibit 10, page 8, paragraph 19 states that the office building would be located closest to the lake to take advantage of lake views, it would be "L" shaped and wrap around the southwest corner of the larger indoor practice field. The 1PF situated on the north and east sides of the building would be up to 111-feet. And on the next page, paragraph 22 states that the office building would be 55-feet while the practice facility will be approximately 111-feet tall. VA102 was a view study showing what the impact of the adjusted height would be if it reached a maximum of 115-feet. A second study showed the view from the lake shows the added impact with the additional four feet of height added to the building. At this time the expectation is that the building height would be 113-feet. NIS Barsher Appeal of Seahawks Building Height LUA-06-037, SA-H, SA-M, SM, ECF June 11, 2007 Page 4 r.. There have been no site plan boundary changes, the footprint of the building has not been increased. The added volume to the IPF is approximately 4% and with the overall site the added impact was about 3% total volume. At 113-feet, which it is believed the building will actually be, the increase is about 2% to the overall volume to the IPF and 1.5% increase to the entire project. At a distance of 3/4 of a mile the proposed increase would not be noticeable. 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 10:00 am. FINDINGS, CONCLUSIONS & RECOMMENDATION Having reviewed the record in this matter, the Examiner now makes and enters the following: FINDINGS: 1. The appellants, Larry and Esther Barsher, hereinafter appellants, filed an appeal of an administrative decision approving an increase in the height of a building allowed under a previously approved Site Plan. The underlying proposal is for the development of the Seattle Seahawks I-Ieadquarters and Practice Facility. The height adjustment addresses the height of the Indoor Practice Facility. 2. The appeal was filed in a timely manner May 8, 2007. err 3. The appellants were parties to the original Site Plan public hearing. They were concerned about the height of the original facility at that time. 4. The original Site Plan decision was issued on December 7, 2006. In that decision Finding 19 noted that the height of the Indoor Practice Facility would be up to 111 feet: "The height of the indoor practice field ... would be up to 111 feet." (Page 8, Seahawks'Headquarters and Training Facility, LUA-06-073). Similarly at Page 9: "The office building will be 55 feet tall while the practice facility will be approximately 111 feet tall." At Page 13 of the same report in Conclusion 8, the report states: "The building complex has been designed to terrace upward from the lake with the office building scaled to approximately 55 feet and the more easterly element, the indoor practice fields, at 111 feet." 5. The ERC, the body responsible for the original environmental determination, noted in its staff report: "The height of the 80,000 gross square foot indoor practice field, situation on the north and east sides of the building, would be between 95 feet at the center of the field and 120 feet." fir►' Barsher Appeal of Seahawks Building Height LUA-06-037, SA-H, SA-M, SM, ECF June 11, 2007 Page 5 Ned 6. A representative of the applicant submitted a written request for an adjustment to the height of the building on April 9, 2007. The request stated: "1. Maximum Building Height- 115'0" feet in lieu of 110'6" feet as noted on figure 10.6 (Sheet A401) of the Land Use, Shoreline & Master Plan Permit Application - Volume 1. The requested adjustment is based on the refinements to the final structural design and accommodates a clear inside height dimension of 95 feet as noted in our application. The referenced height is measured to the highest point of the roof deck from the finished floor slab." 7. The Director, Development Services Division, issued a decision on the requested "Minor Adjustment to the Site Plan" on April 25, 2007. The Director approved the request. The Director noted: "... the proposed modified height of 115 feet would result in an additional 4 feet of building height and approximately 350,064 square feet of area. The proposed increase in area would not result in more than a 10 percent increase in area or scale of the development. Although the increased height could impact views from nearby properties, the modification would not have a substantial impact on the environment or facilities. The requested modification would not change the boundaries of the originally approved site plan." The Director's decision itself states: "Based on the analysis and recommendation of staff, I have determined the proposed revision is within the parameters defined by the Renton Municipal Code. Therefore, the proposed modification of the site plan is deemed to be 'minor' and therefore, is approved ..." 8. The appellants in their letter did indicate that they could accept the proposed height increase if the facade that faced their home and Mercer Island were screened with evergreen trees to soften the appearance of the facade. The appellants provided exhibits that provide a frame of reference for the final structure from their viewpoint(their home). These purport to show the mass of the building, how it will affect their view of the shoreline and background hillside. They use the relatively similar facade width and height of the Boeing complex to provide a concrete example of the scale of the proposed complex from their distance and vantage point. There was concern by the applicant that landscaping might affect the view from the condominiums. 9. The provisions allowing "minor adjustments" to a site plan are contained in Section 4-9-2001. "MINOR ADJUSTMENTS TO AN APPROVED SITE DEVELOPMENT PLAN: Minor modifications may be permitted by administrative determination. To be considered a minor modification, the amendment must not: Barsher Appeal of Seahawks Building Height LUA-06-037, SA-H, SA-M, SM, ECF June 11, 2007 Page 6 1. Involve more than a ten percent(10%) increase in area or scale of the development in the approved site development plan; or 2. Have a significantly greater impact on the environment and facilities than the approved plan; or 3. Change the boundaries of the originally approved plan. (Ord. 4802, 10-25-1999; Amd. Ord. 4954, 2-11-2002; Ord. 5028, 11-24-2003)" 10. Section 4-8-110.E. provides the authority of the Examiner on appeal: "APPEALS TO EXAMINER OF ADMINISTRATIVE DECISIONS AND ENVIRONMENTAL DETERMINATIONS: (Amd. Ord. 4827, 1-24-2000) 1. Applicability and Authority: c. Authority: To that end, the Examiner shall have all of the powers of the office from whom the appeal is taken insofar as the decision on the particular issue is concerned." 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- 8-1 10(E)(7)(b). The appellants have demonstrated that the action of the City should he modified. 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. In this case the original Site Plan was reviewed and approved by the Hearing Examiner. That was the original reviewing body or"the underlying agency with expertise." The Director was then asked to approve a minor adjustment to that Hearing Examiner approved Site Plan. The Director's decision as to whether the adjustment was minor is correct and the appellants have not demonstrated that part of the decision should be reversed. The increase proposed by the applicant does not exceed ten percent in area or scale. The increase does not appear to have a greater impact on the environment and facilities than the approved plan and it does not change the boundaries, at least, the footprint of the originally approved plan although it does change the boundaries if one uses vertical extent as a delimiter in boundaries. '44irrr 5. But the plans have been changed. The appellants produced evidence showing the scale of the building in reasonable juxtaposition to its locale and a frame of reference showing the similarly scaled Boeing complex. While the building might have nice design elements, it is still large. The applicant has Barsher Appeal of Seahawks Building Height LUA-06-037, SA-H, SA-M, SM, ECF June 11, 2007 Page 7 demonstrated a willingness to provide a "green screen"to soften the view from the northerly condominium and a softened appearance from Lake Washington of this now even taller building is reasonable. Code states: "Minor modifications may be permitted by administrative determination." Code does not require that minor modifications be approved. Minor modifications MAY be permitted by administrative determination. The term"may"denotes discretionary authority. That does not mean it must be approved. So while the Director is correct about this being a minor modification, that does not mean it should necessarily be granted or that it should not be subject to a reasonable condition or conditions. 6. The appellants have demonstrated the building's facade will increase in height and while it may not be a monumental change, the addition of landscaping cannot help but soften that view. Significant impact is not necessarily required to condition a project so that it blends better with its environment and provides a reasonable "streetscape"or in this case "waterscape." The originally proposed shoreward landscaping will not help soften the facade as well as plantings closer to the facade. While these plantings could affect the view from the adjacent condominium complex, trees could also naturally spring up along the boundaries of the site and alter that view and there would be no requirement to remove them. 7. Therefore, to the extent that the Director did not consider requiring landscaping to soften the impact of the facade change, the Director's decision is modified. The applicant shall be required to plant evergreen trees along the lakeshore facade of the Indoor Practice Field. The plantings should reflect a more natural arrangement and not necessarily be the same species or evenly spaced along the facade. Nor at maturity should the all trees necessarily reach the height of the facility. This office will defer to the Development Services Division to determine the spacing and species but the applicant shall plant between 12 and 24 trees of a reasonable specimen size at maturity. DECISION: The decision of the Director is modified and an additional condition shall be required as follows: The applicant shall be required to plant evergreen trees along the lakeshore facade of the Indoor Practice Field. The plantings should reflect a more natural arrangement and not necessarily be the same species or evenly spaced along the facade. Nor at maturity should the all trees necessarily reach the height of the facility. This office will defer to the Development Services Division to determine the spacing and species but the applicant shall plant between 12 and 24 trees of a reasonable specimen size at maturity. ORDERED THIS 11`h day of June 2007. FRED J. KA AN HEARING EXAMINER "Barsher Appeal of Seahawks Building Height LUA-06-037, SA-H, SA-M, SM, ECF June 11, 2007 Page 8 "` TRANSMITTED THIS 11th day of June 2007 to the parties of record: Larry Warren Elizabeth Higgins Larry & Esther Barsher City Attorney Development Services 6940 96th Ave SE City of Renton City of Renton Mercer Island, WA 98040 Roger Pearce Elaine Wine Port Quendall Company Foster Pepper Football NW 505 Fifth Avenue S., Ste. 900 1111 Third Ave, Ste. 3400 505 Fifth Avenue S., Ste. 900 Seattle, WA 98104 Seattle, WA 98101 Seattle, WA 98104 Lance Lopes Thomas Peterson Carl Hadley VP Seahawks Socius Law Group PLLC Cedar Rock Consultants 800 Occidental Ave S 601 Union Street, Ste 4950 19609 244th Avenue Seattle, WA 98034 Seattle, WA 98101 Woodinville, WA 98077 Eileen Halverson Joe Burcar Michael Cero 5021 Ripley Lane N., #302 3190 1601h Ave SE 8300 Avalon Drive Renton, WA 98056 Bellevue, WA 98008 Mercer Island, WA 98040 Thelma Sutherland Brian T. Sabey Jared Salstrom 1205 N 291h Street 5021 Ripley Lane N.. #304 5021 Ripley Lane N., #213 Renton, WA 98056 Renton, WA 98056 Renton, WA 98056 err' Steve Jansen Elya G. Baches Steve Gregerson 5021 Ripley Lane N.. #302 1414 N 34th Street 5021 Ripley Lane N., #302 Renton, WA 98056 Renton, WA 98056 Renton, WA 98056 Eleanor NI. Kemnamer, President Aaron Belenky, President Torn Ehrlichman Misty Cove Condo Assoc. Williamsburg Condo HOA Socius Law Group 5021 Ripley Lane N., #309 1800 NE 401h Street, Ste. H-4 601 Union Street, Ste. 4950 Renton, WA 98056 Renton, WA 98056 Seattle, WA 98101 Barbara Paxhia Dan &Jody Samson Dwight & Christine Schaeffer 5021 Ripley Lane N., #104 6952 96"'Ave SE 6958 96th Ave SE Renton, WA 98056 Mercer Island, WA 98040 Mercer Island, WA 98040 Shelly Munkberg Richard Wagner Jeffrey Taraday SECO Development Baylis Architects Foster Pepper 1083 Lk. Washington Blvd N, Ste. 50 10801 Main Street, Ste. 110 1111 Third Ave, 34th Floor Renton, WA 98056 Bellevue, WA 98004 Seattle, WA 98101 Les & Denise Klaff Carl Lindstrom Howard& Sue Robboy 6915 96th Ave SE 6910 96th Ave SE 6944 96th Ave SE Mercer Island, WA 98040 Mercer Island, WA 98040 Mercer Island, WA 98040 Steve & Deanna Marshall Hal & Gerry Fardal Dr. and Mrs. Robert Dietz 6915 96`h Ave SE 6915 96`h Ave SE 7906 E Mercer Way %w'` Mercer Island, WA 98040 Mercer Island, WA 98040 Mercer Island, WA 98040 Harsher Appeal of Seahawks Building Height LUA-06-037, SA-II, SA-M, SM, ECF June 11, 2007 Page 9 Nivid TRANSMITTED THIS 11"'day of June 2007 to the following: Mayor Kathy Keolker Larry Rude, Fire Marshal 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 King County Journal Pursuant to Title IV, Chapter 8, Section I00Gof the City's Code, request for reconsideration must be filed in writing on or before 5:00 p.m., June 25, 2007. Any aggrieved person feeling that the decision of the Examiner is ambiguous or based on erroneous procedure, errors of law or fact, en-or 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 Department, first floor of City Hall. An appeal must be filed in writing on or before 5:00 p.m.,June 25,2007. 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 ]chow 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. - : •• f — ',' 11*-76:.?gli/' (• 29 t. 1 ie 1: V,I:0.7- . — l'--- "/-.-.,.-,// .;- 4 -- ' --4, -- :- •.--, _,, . ‘ .. '"(, L -j'-'\, (t1;01 PA .7 - : I. •: ' : • .• : .., i . i-vivi,',v..- ostifi \ -—7., 0. • . . .. . . . . .c. .• •,,: :. . •. • .)113 j 711, ;4- . • • . ,',. : : ii;ri /1 ,'/4'.e.4•.• /i ' . _f_ ►_ .,,-irriv „,ig1 • F ,. • ,: . . .. . , :,. .,, , . .....•, 74 f .' \,... -,Aih: ;TX:- . . \V . :s . . i.d.:7itf'.. kr.-144- 1..,..;/ .4" g'• .. ,, , Argrr t 1117P . . • , Ir :, , „,...„... ....... , .....,,,... , ,, ..„ , •, „. • ,...• .,., , . •. ,,,.•......., .. . . ,,,.:„.„. : ••,•.,:. ,....... ., .... \. 10 , , ____ , .,,,, ,, .....,.-,,,rT________:/-, . ,,_,--„„„ . ,,•:• ,,-,, .. , ,f, . ..„.• ,,,..,..01,, , ,...,, . . . ,,.,..,. ,,,,,,,,,,...• ,., ,,,,__,,„, _ , _ _ _ . 2, ., _ ,.., . , :II:me '- ::: South Pointe--- t••yvi '' .' 1 ennydaleC!! -•• .,- •„, -. '7 �.EM 1 I. ;• i'. _ , Coleman Roinf 7:1 WW i _ ' ,�* �- ::`• , T I, 1 tt'• . IV. 1 It` f.EATTLE 01\ t, I �, ;1 ) "'.w�s'"'i ....,....,4„ to• '1 ! 1 �29.0' ;\ 1 t eTh ..- .41./11 . I,rA,Nh., • e.---t....,,_.,,, ,, 4 .. �, ,1 • i il sr, \) \ ARK �- blii • •N t�z .� j 1 \ A ! \ 1 ‘ '•%, .."::: '.': 1 :g- F \ 79 _ Ir. ',IL', �, ,.,4• 4 ,,,;Bryn a w r \ , ` ���C R .N. ••l. , ' � ,'�e, t I sat—_ '[ _ mow. , ]' l: CRAWFORD 9 April 2007 Mr. Neil R. Watts Director: Development Services Division City of Renton Renton City Hall - 6th Floor 1055 South Grady Way Renton, WA 98055 Regarding: SEATTLE SEAHAWKS HEADQUARTERS & PRACTICE FACILITY Renton, WA Project No. KC 005-03/ File No.IPF1 Subject: MINOR ADJUSTMENT TO SITE PLAN REQUEST Dear Neil: We have been informed by Bayley Construction that the engineer of record for the Indoor Practice Facility (IPF), Mr. H. David Jeter PE SE of HCI Steel Building System Inc. has requested a minor adjustment to the approved Site Plan consisting of: 1. Maximum Building Height— 115'-0"feet in lieu of 110'-6"feet as noted on Figure 10.6 (Sheet A401) of the Land Use, Shoreline & Master Plan Permit Application — Volume 1. The requested adjustment is based on refinements to the final structural design and accommodates a clear inside height dimension of 95 feet as noted in our application. The referenced height is measured to the highest point of the roof deck from the finished floor slab. Crawford Architects and the applicants — Port Quendall Company and Football Northwest LLC concur with this request. Please contact me at this office if you have any questions or require further information. Sincerely, CRAWFORD ARCHITECTS LLC David M. Murphy Partner Page 1 9 April 2007 Crawford Architects 1901 Main Street—Suite 200 4,441) Kansas City, MO 64108 816 421 2640 telephone 816 421 2650 facsimile david.murphy@crawford-usa.com Enclosure: None Nor,,, Copies: Jim Levin — Bayley Construction (for distribution) Lance Lopes — Seattle Seahawks Ray Colliver - Vulcan Tom Chiado —Vulcan Elaine Wine —Vulcan Roger Pearce— Foster Pepper Brian Dickson — MKA Structural Filer Nov Page 2 9 April 2007 Crawford Architects 1901 Main Street—Suite 200 Kansas City, MO 64108 *low 816 421 2640 telephone 816 421 2650 facsimile david.murphy@crawford-usa.com . ----," np 1 ,. i 1, _ u , '? -, , 14 „ , 4 . , ' 1 ,. . 5 , - t ' ,,,,,,, ,,, ;.•'.''',..;i,,,,,,,,,,„,,,:,,,y4r.z,o,t,`-','' ',..''',J44,4•'' •'''''',".,'"141.0;',15,....,5”;.44 ntri':,7..e ....81.4212060 1''''''''':''..1::'-ft"'•":'''''`.."':' ,...' ;,,,,,,'t,',' ,5454.1 5'4-':?"'T4' 5 4 ritiPM..) ,. • ., , ... , -,Th.•1,-,.',,''',;,',•.,''.',01,,'i%%t,;':,.".''',',,• „,. ,,pq.,,,,,..-,,,,":s. C...'.'.•iO.. :•. r. r•,,, ,, ,. I.•,v1..„.:,,i, , 1o.f,4,l',.,,.e,,“;.,....,...,,,•,,,::;--,,'_-,".."''.„',,,,1P,4-,,..,5z.,,,,..1q..4:`,;„,.,,,:',„;.-=,i•,:..;„,..?-c,!,.',-:3:''''I',''',..::, ,7yN1.-1:V,,-,.•,1,,,,t;-,'..1.,,,,,:.;,,.; , rzi:r,,,.V',, k e ,., ,:45-: a+''' ,-,..0 ,:.,;,,,,,t,,,. 2,,,,,,,,,r.,i,....- - • . :,......, ',,,i;---$ , . , ,:;.iq.-'1'.7t..4kt-lf,I.Ase,;,-,,-,c-,)4.,_ „--t .'t, - . . -- . '''' 9 „..-,,,,,,.--'•?•i,7,',:4-.4:W;ff. "`....'-,,,,-i,, ..:m...,-L-.P .,,`..-.-''.'”;--4-1',-:...„.„,,,,-„;.:L.' ,:•*.f14,;;a:gii,"..,,-',r . „ , ., ,,.!'.. -; : - --,- -, .''' , ' - ''''''' -,,-,,.5,1•:,, "1,,,"Y , ,'"I''' . , ' oo (i) ,,... ''''''' ' '''''''''''%--• ' - '' ':.',.''''.'.0''''''',. ',;.,.'''.4-.1:11"''''` ..'1.71- ,., ' '-'400'. .:',!,,,$.',C'•••-....,,+, .'',,• 6.. 0 CL) --, ....., .., .. . . -0 u_ 0 CD cC < a) C7)0 ,,,,,•.;,,O.',..,`,,,'. ., EXISTING VIEW FROM MISTY COVE(3RD FLOOR) H-” 1- P Lu . . , .. 03 I— 0 cC ' „,,...,:i;.:.1,,,t:4:41r. ..f; .' ... CO'' a) . .V"f,„''.i,' ' , - '''''','i !"'i” '7' '. i:::"..'-',', 1 ADJUSTED IPF ROOF ELEVATION-115-0' \ 7777'.. \ ' '-'''''•'",.•,:•';'%!,:i5.,i.;ftt",.',t,,,,,,'54: ,"."44;,,',1,1‘.",,i,i,.';',,,,,,.'„,-"E'',i,„4,414.4",".;',' ",,..''. „, .. ,, 1 1 I 5 \ CURRENT IPF ROOF ELEVATION 111 0' \, \ \ . 41•''''',"V-,1.''''...,,`'.•,,, 1.... 1 1 \ At. -- -1\ ,, ,.,, .;''' _ ,4, - -';.,4'''i'w''''', 44.4 ,84'... ->.'4,.'„',.',',:‘,,,':,;. -,,,-;.. ,,,, ,..,4...r.r,,"6.44-4, I K --- ,'' ___:-. ----- 44. , ____- ;49' \ ___, ------ , f----- .A., ...A; „.41 .. r"v`,.,;,A:iP‘7''':7'1'0'.',' ',....''•,,..,,,,, 1.' i 1'-4'..,,'e.`.='•7,*i2:,..;.;-':,.-;,i,--"t44i,'1i,,;:.,1t.'.'.4."i..;)i,”`';O'.,'1'''','','1 4'' e '.^',,.;,-,.,' , .,t;'''-,,-...‘...,.:.1.,41-11";;'`.'.f:'t,'..'-''''... ,...,,'s-.i-.,t,-,4-'4,,?,,1,,,44,:•4,4:'7.,'"',F,:',..'-.,..,.,;,%'L'.,.)6.,...„,.`,,-,:4A.:,,.,•,,,j,'`,."•.-.i.r,tild4!*,4.,,1.,..„:*.,'-`'„,`,..•,;: :... - .,„.,, , .1.,,,,.. , 04..,,,;x4,1,„4,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,..„, .„,,,,...k.,. ,,.7,”. ,+14‘ -'„°,' ..„47,Q:=,,-;.','•4;•...-,,.- .• , "-,,,,c''',. ...w.:4„:„.?,,,,,,t: • g'''*''' ,l'il'i*I'''''', i' '''';‘ ti :t 4: :','''. , , .' ,P'Ifi:' 1-----',- • '',... 'nib'''.-44t I's; ''...,..,.' ",.i.'1,::".,-,,,;.,,, •• ',.:,,tr,-..--,,,:,-....it? .3, ;.,,,-4',t.;.o,i'- :.,....„ '' ' ' ...i„...:1;;z...,4 , t.:Y. .4 '..1.'.,, ii,..-., 'Ir ' -c ' ''- ,,t'..t,'t , , 4 ,.', ..,,,e.t;•,,.`,:' ,, '11,.3li,i,; .,,i ,i,,,,„:''',,,;,:itt:.,..41..14,,,,."-.,:A,."Z...,-,f41.4 1,,7 '",/k,liCA,.01",,,114i,C::::-...,f,,::,:",,:y.,;,,',':',,It':4,,i;i0iiim.i-5,..,'',•' •,,'.-. ".4-..,,.';',,,=-2 r: ...;, .,,, .*„, ,•404,, , f 1, ,'.',':',', it,kr.,'.,,,.'':.,,,' ,!,..1:„.f. " .,,V',..t. i'- ::', ,,,f4',?rol,,,,),.p.;,...:12. ','. ,.., ..,...; .''"'"ki.,'”, *4'.t-'ci'''.' `''''''''',- ''. '-' %,"--4;.,r-. ..),4,...._., ,-'•','' ' '''''' ,'''''' : i'.. ,' :'. ''fl'', '.,'71 .%7,'',"io`, -,‘.4::1.., '' 4.i!„,.'4•,, ''''''':,'.,"..":',,..,. .„,t;'''s„, 4.,'":',-1,.:,.•14.),:;,1,.. ,: ..,,,,;;...,:,,,t,, ---t-Jk„,.44,7,:„,. , 1 yA„. .",,,,,;;„,,,':,A,„,,A9`,,,,,,,'t-,".1•:,),.^! • , '•.• . ,,::;-....' ..ar ?,,,, ,ik'SYr'et,,q, Ag. • ':,'It t". ,. '," ,', •;',. ,,t,i'l,'., .'' ,:.,,,.' ....-...... ,!:,,,:.'''', ,..K'"'''.,,,. ^' 4:.e");".e,f,P.,"'(,.,1 ''.!''',. ''''' " '''t,;„ '.'1° .,4:0 '..4.' ',Y ' -.... .l•,Wy,'i''i'','r'.''..;.7-.'4,1.;,,r0:.„:.-,.,..s,"-,4.,.t'.,.,.,',,,,:'.;-; S,'.'-"..I:,":..'.„,C'''.'''..f':',-;i•...'.'./''.,','.'..':','„%,I'J','^°',”! .''''..•ffr:-4,'4,.-. ,* , ,., ".':T s' A!7.`ti.t,4.,c f4.,': —'',•7.t.'.,',gS-,2•-M-';,:'--t''t','•P':.*'''','':,''''”.'„T'';,.-.,.•'',';^',< ' . ";4,f244',-...•A+;r;,4w•.I7'4.t,,fj,,,.t,ts_,)„Y,,_f0A,-..4'-.,4'4.-.l,m._,1-,,4rf.,.i,2.e:,,.-.:'.`J,,',:.„fA.'..t,4,,,f:-'1,,."'..,,::-.:.g1:.-5t`„.;1,.1,1-..,;,„4,l-,',1'"1{:,,,,4s,'"-',''','''t.,...,':,'','?,:4`.,,,:,,:!'s-*.,,,.,',..,.'.;.`,,-,-:I.•,I,5,_'1','',,1.,,:.,-,,,,'v,.- . .. .--i IO-. . .1 ,„,1 - VIEW FROM MISTY COVE(3RD FLOOR)Al T ASSESSMENT- (.1. , ( , ,2 s ( , 8 , :;l'ii`E,':.,..7'• —.. —.-..-- , ADJUSTED IPF ROOF ELEVATION-115,-0 // e 06 en / / CURRENT IPF ROOF ELEVATION-11V-0. I.- CD / .4 ,,,,,, , .. ..,,. ,,,,. -• .1, co -- 0 o •— LIJ 0 '. -l•,,: t , • 0 -1;•-;,'-';;;1',4. t'•-;',.i.,?*,,It AA-474S,,''' ,:t P 141.6?.. '1 tt,1.,,,,,,,,- I • ,,,A o.,. T , .Z.- : ',.,.,, (T) ;,,i-e•:* ,:,-„0,,,,,f,F,„.., / t - 0 , , . ,. — , ' —' — ''' --; ..".-: , -•':,,:.'''4,"."—",'", '.,,':'x',',,, ,',,,••"'..,,t-'":. zi3' 0)ccS , '',.:1' ' - i . f „,.. , , „ . ._, ,-..--:,.. ...__ , „..r.,....1...._.., ,..„..-.,..N..-,.......__.----., .,_.,....,. _....... .....„-___ ,...-,,..,. . _ . . .. 2L_ b ., ,---, ;: , -;.:'e , e,.„„,,,,,,, 03 I— .-i7- - --t4- -:r.;4-Z--;-';E......,4-;t-z,-Ti-:----:21-•-- ,t----- --2-- ---- -:--.-,,--- - -'-:-.------ :- - ' ------, ...__,-, . , Ci) '1,,,eji :,-;`,i''.''(;:i'fi'-' ' -I:, ,'', I ...''''i -,,4:,4"'-i4';;-•r,L, ---;' ',..1,., .. '.'4,t:Ci.`:'r- -, ',:::.e.• ''e'. innimi mum ',-.', - _ ,-.,,. ,:t,'!4‘,.-!'''''':.;',-,,, %k, ', --- '' r,.:! ,:.::,,:,, .-,... .„., ,,ri.. , .,?,..; :e1,-- - clew , - ,;,*,.':: ,- .'-' it—' ''" 4,10.1s' ',..'2,';:,.1.1.,.C.4...:'*;,:- ' '7 l'- ----:%L. - pr ''' - ''-' -• '' ';'11'44:(47;41riC,77..qfg,5*Ii 44i{;:.:1','.4 4.:4' ?A., 41;7::;C"...t,, ' ,-ev•-',.. - - ,,, ,,-4,--- ,,''-- , 1 ,c•--.,, 40. ' 41"4.'4::* '-* '''''''''''."'.4 -.A(V.S,' • ,0, • ,..- 't.1A.A. ' • l' ", -' ' ' ,''''' ' , ' ' - ', - i x41# .;', 4 ovr , •,k,:-_,I.lk,--,.t.„ , 7'' :4,.' , :--5,,,.0%,0 : , :r.,,,y,; ' :,.. , ,"t:',..',,.° ..„:-.„`"--e,'4,,","eif;''' '' ' ''. ',i,,,:',8:''''''"*.4jee,r;.,-‘,4**"'"'"‘I''' ''' -:,.,',...,.?.‘g,.,,''.4;i*'- : ,,, , - -'-'.. -•4......,-,...1-.---- ••• -, - ' - i -- , . ., ........ ---- _ . ,. .... .,. . , .. - .... ,. ...... _ , .. - --_ ........... 1111111•MIIIIIIIIM , _ - ., ,.. ,. ''' . ... .....7.4..,.........-.. - , ... ,..... .... _... . s - milmommmmomm ...... A aimmmonimm— VI SUALIZAT ION ASSESSMENT --... _ FIGURE 9 VA103Al 1„r s •-• -.kA,A.""F".",--,t,,,r...,,v,;,,,'„,.., :".'",7,V.,TATF,2,, ,,,V.,;'!'''-' ,.kr,"-!K,...,".:',1,.- ".-""'-,., , , , t x•liviRtzgemtVe.:7-;,,..,,T,TIPTS-'74,,ika, ,,,,,„,,,,,•0.,,,),,,,,,,,,..,,,,..,e,..,,,,,,,,,,,5.,,„ ..,„,,,,,,„„.„.„...,,,,„,..:, . ... , ,. , • , 7.,„,,....,,„ 7:',104,.,,,t':'1,`r'-''!'',Fc7ifrIP,17".61r1141;,,,'/?40.X.'4;VigiVaiAt?*'fqi'd.."7;"7b.`7#,W.,51.-":4:".VI','"'''..,'"'''.-."7'f'','..",.',1'...'•:`''.':'.. „ ''' ,V6:7 .c. ' g A •:i,,L4414.Attt4542%,(,;7..,.r,",k,, ",-,,'.,,t.4*,,,i'„q C,L. ',,,.0.i.4''''' ,:g''';',';i 9'1'47''.':'"''''':``:*..'7.7:,'"-"'7':'''n-_-,''',',-. - -f. ,- 1,::,4444"..,,,,,,,..51,4r-1,74-Itt ,,,,,-1,4+:::"M• •''.;,,;,:,,,,:,-'.';t -,=.:?,,,,,-;-;-,i,,,f,, : ,,,,,, , ' •, - ,„: , , , XA .,‘ ''''''.:r1I',4 ' 'r• ,........., 'tli, ,,,..._ .N; .14'0 . . „ ; ,--1•7M4 ---!--i - , .. .... .. ,, „ ,•S .?'•"..:.7,-,----,H:.--, 1.1•••,:•••:,..•.:,...,.....2.-•,,,,,:•-,-„,::•:--- 141,;•.:•, ,.•::1.,:.•.,,,-;:e&D.z,.:,. .", ,g;iu4.4,114.,mi.:.•zi;3! 6,,i,n-rx.,,,:c 4 • . • • .. •• . . .,•, ., :.,',.-l'All`. 1'.',,,,z,.',?,,,,,4.",,,;c.f7,,,,,','kii"5:4,,;,)'64.1,4",,"':4'1",•' ';,.'"qcilt.1.7....:,•:'..,",.:„t.::::,:qs ,./0-4,t,..1 i-,,'s '.."-:::fi..:-':'. :- '.,:..-"?.4).;...,."-.1'..''...•'',.....1.''',,,- • ''T .'„t i'''...."&:;•-K:ri'i '.",=.;k4 1,47,2:..:V-i'7 '5,f;',,,:,'..',,f,••,..,•;;;,-,:: •,:•: •,5,,.,,,,,. -5,5-;•x,,T ,,e: , -9,1, ,.,,- ,,,,,;;,i„ •-•'---i.:littell*40.1i ! tiMiladfill g .. .. .,.... .„,..,.. \._ .. .,. ......... _........_......._ „.....„..„.„. _....... _„_..,.._. ...„. NORTH ELEVATION .„ ,-,,,,,,,,"1'71."'"•71-111:•Z3P14.3=1,41111115.11325-eF4116X1,11-7,5.1F.,,,,4517.5W5,55•47., ,r,, ., , , :1,,•'11-'1. ' `-,11"'444-1$1'110 ir;,.;114A''''"4,7"Wel4,1-41.1WAtl '5,t,i,,261'7;1,',413,1Z111.1,:1:••.':'1,1377,1" :'1'1'2.''.r'•"111 '11 ' " . •11't t1:'',;.ri#44111i4.3,.„4:443V14,1*141414. •1,,,;.r:IT(,•416,,,,. .1,•• ,•,g..-,,.: t,,-,,, p.,,-,v,,,„,,„„,r„4,',',0','*-'' ,..t'''`7'111''''' ' ' ',11•"' . ;''',i'.Al'i''1/4!,"!t'L',V''.',4'..6,,457go,,.,..;','AisiZ,.:4?•?-,,,A.;,•;Zt.f..,-, ,,•.:,,,..,,•,;•-••45.?,4,..A.,:,,,ii:,,,,,,',r,.:t,,:r. :,-1,•,•:.••.nr'5,',:,•••,•••,-,,,;'.:,••,:••••, -.'•, ,-•-,- ,, ' .. • ...,_ ,•5 ,:45-,,q4,,,,t,,,A,,,•,,,. Trs,_,,,,•.;..r 0,,,,,,,q5,,e55,:w.,:,,,.5;\,•:,,,--,,,,,, , —• - . . . x, ,x,it , ,me_ -?t, 58 X2 X6 1(5 1(4 53 X2 .. . , .. , 1 • . .,......,....-2.-.,...-2.... , - . . 4 1 2 ''g''' -' 1 ' • = 1'. ' ' 1' - -=i 1-1 •-7.- , i.,...,„:,„ ,-'„,,';L ' ',...-:::,-,"1 fT.; --":';f:!r 'i ',...,72-1 '.1.11.••"`j., 1 !11:,;',--',2.4.7,111,•.',,74,1121,1 1.:p,1'•:,",k4 If.--7,',127, ,1 12 ii '1E1,,,?_ :'l';l",.:"f,., ' '. ,1. 21 4 36 3 2 ' 11 9 8 7 6 721727 11-'1-',•21', ,'s'"141 1.''114.':'74'..41",6 ,11'''',''.. s• ''.1.'" % r •,.. 4,0•I6,5,421,4,11,5t1.;•!,'' ..-1'7151i''VS,n':4°41-‘,- -"4:74 ,,,',".;, ,. ,,,r . ,, , "t4--I'u,,,-,-4 _,,,,4'r .jA',41,-,,42'14;:"' -•• Ar„,,,,: T': W 4J 4,,y, .0. 4,1BREfigg ,fs.,Y: '''''.''1,.4011PR.':;;;LilL,.',,.-'1. !•.'.,4; :,'; !'I..'."1. -• "; "t ;?:!0,4, 4,',541','0"A':Wu'": ,:+4''''-.11',W- .-- . - ,,I. ''14:4 ,"'4"''''1' 'a „, ,v,J.7 .,-, ;,-,:''.-'"." ',. ^,:t4[,,, ''''j•-'1,--''''.:-::14".--:',;12:1'::A7:::,12:.'-':'4t:P,'---t''',.`r''''-'•',”.11',1k1r;.:'11.11":'';'?-.."111 /•':: ,,e,,t,t,,,,,,,":.,:,.;:,, .,,,,..,,,,,..,...........,,,....., ..... .,...... .........•,.,........ WEST ELEVATION dAlim RENDERED ELEVATIONS - CURRENT DESIGN (.,., (14,„ ( ( (t. . ,, . , . .r ., .. . • ' • / / „.,-..., .,....!! . „ .._ , . FIIIIIIIIIINIIIIIIOIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIE ;;r.',;414•1,Troi•!0!;;4:14:T;71-;;;2;,4%,!;441'liv.:;;: ' 11:';':17. 1'l. 4:1!.: 741.41:.;;;' . i , ,co i ----",,i,/ , , ........ _,..:...:L. .....,... ..,...._,........., „. , EAST ELEVATION v.„,„,„„w„Arrmr,ft.r„:,,.,,,,,„,:.„,„.f...;.:4,.:,,4,,m,t,m,,r,„,,,,, ,...„41,„,,,:,,,,,,,rytw,„,„,,,,,,,,,,„,"„mr,45w7,77.7,,,,,,..,„:,',',Yf',77, '"' ":''''rrW1,71:rpc'ffrj.%:,‘,0-7,,,,:.....,,',,-;.:,:.23!'",W'.,",:'"?,;'.',,.11;:-.....7:7,-,,....:-7....,.,.;:,,,-..,...7,..,27,;,,,7,,-.•'. , • :r r:•',','',,,,,,,',V-.,:,-,yr,,5,,g;r1:nigAii .2t ;'4^.:1:';''''''''''•';'''''''ll'h'*;•;:i'J;'•':'''',1'l':11',IY•••-i,'„'%1":'''Y',.,,''...,••.,f•:::',.`':'-','..,1:,:1,,,,.itr.:::'•• :-,•'..,•',,.7'..:,:• •,,' ,,-• '':,' ,' "• '.:4•''•, . .,,•,''„•• :,,,-•• ; • • ,- : • -. . 0 H J :J.9 K L L:1IV N XA, XM ''rirl''Ar v. ., .,....., ,•:'''',?, `‘•,.1,.'-'.5" ,,„,,,,,,, ''''''W'n""'''''''''''rAW,PY'MMO'A':"-TP:,•7.1.--`'.,7'rr':',','r•I‘r.7.,:,,e;'•:`,,,,,7•,,,,?.•,,,,,I.,,••','•••''' ,-,•-•,,,.•..- • ::''.-, '''"". ...,,,,•••••...• .. ..,401.::-.,. ...:-.10..%:-..,...:4.41.v....f.h..2..-.,Ilir :): •:.. ..:,:....'•:' ''''•''',' :.,!`-2' '''I: '''-•L'' ' ,,'''2,' ,;1.4:',' '''.' f.ItE ',vilK,.,4, ! !. 74!:4',4.71.44.1;3 7:'7:Ati.1.0. ....,..;..'.'-",.-'-' .i:.:;..•:;.;',..t,:,Y,,.'f ,. ,,..„:.-..,_i.•i,,i. •',::'..',„'' - i0n4 0 tZ .4!!,,, . ,'4!,!,, i ,, ; . ..;,Aeo, SOUTH ELEVATION amAIMIM RENDERED ELEVATIONS - CURRENT DESIGN North and South Baxter Site Development Plan New Seattle Seahawks Headquarters & Training Facility Renton, WA DEVELOPMENT SERVICES DIVISION ENVIRONMENTAL CHECKLIST City of Renton Development Services Division 1055 South Grady Way, Renton, WA 98055 Phone: 425-430-7200 Fax:425-430-7231 A. BACKGROUND 1. Name of proposed project, if applicable: North and South Baxter Site Development Plan 2. Name of applicant: Port Quendall Company and Football Northwest LLC 3. Address and phone number of applicant and contact person: Mr. Ray Colliver Senior Director 505 Fifth Avenue South Suite 900 Seattle, WA 98104 206 342 2000 telephone 206 342 3554 facsimile rayc@vulcan.com email 4. Date checklist prepared: 24 May 2006 Revised 6 September 2006 4. Agency requesting checklist: City of Renton, Washington 6. Proposed timing or schedule (including phasing, if applicable): a. Design and Documentation March 2006 to May 2007 b. Final Remediation and Cap on Overall Site* November 2006 until May 2007 c. Final Remediation and Cap under building footprint* December 2006 until June 2007 d. Building Construction above the Cap January 2007 until July 2008 Environmental Checklist 24 May 2006 Revised 6 September 2006 Page 1 North and South Baxter Site Development Plan New Seattle Seahawks Headquarters & Training Facility Renton, WA *Pursuant to Department of Ecology Approval as lead agency(Items b and c). Nifty The project is required to open in June of 2008. 7. Do you have any plans for future additions, expansion, or further activity related to or connected with this proposal? If yes, explain. No plans for future additions, expansion or further activity are anticipated with the proposal. 8. List any environmental information you know about that has been prepared, or will be prepared, directly related to this proposal. The following information has been prepared: Past Studies In the past, several investigations of potential contamination at the Baxter Property have been performed, generating a large volume of chemical data and visual observations of soil quality. Comprehensive summaries of project area historical information, regulatory records and environmental data were provided in the Draft Remedial Investigation Report (Woodward Clyde, 1990). Those data were incorporated with data collected by ThermoRetec during the previous due diligence process and during 1998 and 2000 to develop an interpretation of site conditions currently present. These data were presented in the South Property Feasibility Study([FS]; ThermoRetec, 2000) and the North Property Feasibility Study and Cleanup Action Plan ([FS/CAP]; ThermoRetec, 2000). Nor SEPA was completed in 2000 for the site representing compliance with the State Environmental Policy Act ("SEPA") environmental review requirements for the proposed remedial actions to be performed as stated in the Consent Decree. Ecology has been established as the agency lead pursuant to SEPA for all cleanup actions under the consent decree. Remedial actions occurred in 2002 and 2004 at the South Baxter property. Baxter Cove Wetland Monitoring Reports have been prepared in 2005 and 2006. In 1989, the City of Renton began work on development of a Comprehensive Plan affecting the Property and surrounding properties. Between 1990 and 1993, extensive public hearings and meetings were held, and notification was provided to impacted property owners and the general public concerning Comprehensive Plan land use alternatives and proposed Renton Zoning Code amendments. In addition, in 1996 and 1997, an Environmental Impact Statement ("EIS") scoping process was conducted in association with proposed development of the Facility. This EIS scoping process involved significant public participation, including mailings, formal comment, and public meetings. The proposed development was never pursued. In preparing this submittal, the following reports were referenced: Environmental Checklist lore 24 May 2006 Revised 6 September 2006 Page 2 North and South Baxter Site Development Plan • New Seattle Seahawks Headquarters & Training Facility Renton, WA • *4010OTHER REFERENCES — Past Studies City of Renton, Gypsy Sub Basin Analysis Technical Memorandum No. 2, April 1995 City of Renton, Gypsy Sub Basin Drainage Improvements Design Memorandum, September 1997 City of Renton, Zoning Map, updated 10 January 2006 Washington Department of Transportation, 1-405 Renton to Bellevue Project Environmental Assessment, March 2006 Washington State Department of Ecology, Consent Decree#00-2-11778-7KNT and #00-2- 11779-5KNT. 9. Do you know whether applications are pending for governmental approvals of other proposals directly affecting the property covered by your proposal? If yes, explain. Remediation and mitigation has been substantially completed on the South Baxter property as documented in the Completion Report (2005) and approved by the Department of Ecology by the April 10, 2006 Partial Certificate of Completion. Capping of residual soil impacts to prevent direct contact to humans, institutional controls to insure cap integrity and future groundwater monitoring remain to be completed pursuant to the Consent Decrees and Cleanup Action Plans which were previously subject to a SEPA review and a Mitigated Determination of Significance issued by the Department of Ecology in 2000. 10. List any governmental approvals or permits that will be needed for your proposal, if known. a. City of Renton Master Plan approval b. City of Renton Shoreline Substantial Development Permit c. City of Renton Critical Areas Review d. City of Renton SEPA Review Remaining cleanup (capping and institutional controls) will be performed under Consent Decrees between the Department of Ecology and Port Quendall Company as part of initial work on the properties. As a result, certain state and local permits are preempted pursuant to the Model Toxics Control Act, although substantive requirements of those statutes and regulations will be satisfied by the cleanup approval. 11. Give brief, complete description of your proposal, including the proposed uses and the size of the project and site. Proposed Uses Proposed uses include administrative offices for professional football franchise and accessory Environmental Checklist ,0100.4 24 May 2006 Revised 6 September 2006 Page 3 North and South Baxter Site Development Plan New Seattle Seahawks Headquarters & Training Facility Renton, WA training and practice facilities. Potential tenant space may include accessory retail and office uses. Size of the Site The Project site is approximately 19.6 acres (853,776 square feet) in size. Facility Features • A permanent indoor practice field structure • Approximately 215,000 gross square feet of enclosed space will be constructed including the indoor practice field • Approximately 50,000 gross square feet of training facilities will be provided. • Approximately 15,000 gross square feet of player meeting space will be provided. • Approximately 48,000 gross square feet of administrative offices will be provided. • Approximately 15,000 gross square feet of technical and support areas will be provided. • Approximately 6,000 gross square feet of freestanding maintenance/ storage building. Training Camp The new facility will accommodate annual training camp on site. Training camp parking demand in excess of normal operations will be accommodated off-site. The Transportation Impact Analysis from TRANSPO Group, Inc., discusses parking and transportation issues in greater detail. Please refer to Section 12. �.r On Site Parking 275 to 315 Cars (final count to be verified) Setbacks & Wetlands A fifty foot setback from Lake Washington for structures will be provided consistent with Renton development regulations and the Renton Shoreline Master Program. Existing wetlands that are constructed on South Baxter with 50 foot buffer pursuant to Consent Decree, CAP and mitigation analysis in 2000 will be maintained. Environmental Checklist 44416, 24 May 2006 Revised 6 September 2006 Page 4 North and South Baxter Site Development Plan New Seattle Seahawks Headquarters & Training Facility Renton, WA 12. Location of the proposal. Give sufficient information for a person to understand the 4,4100 precise location of your proposed project, including a street address, if any, and section, township, and range if known. If a proposal would occur over a range of area, provide the range or boundaries of the site(s). Provide a legal description, site plan, vicinity map, and topographic map, if reasonably available. While you should submit any plans required by the agency, you are not required to duplicate maps or detailed plans submitted with any permit applications related to this checklist. Location As indicated by the attached site plans, the Baxter properties are located at 5015 Lake Washington Boulevard North, in the northeastern portion of Renton, Washington. They are located in the Southwest 1/4 of Section 29, Township 24 North, Range 5 East, King County. The Baxter site occupies approximately 19.6 acres adjacent to Lake Washington, three miles south of the junction of Interstate Highways 405 and 90, and has approximately 1,887 feet of shoreline. The legal descriptions of the North and South properties are provided below. Access Interstate 405 provides regional access to the site. Other vehicular access is also provided by Lincoln Avenue from the east, Ripley Avenue from the north and Lake Washington Avenue SE from the northeast via 44th Street interchange. Legal Description BAXTER SOUTH PROPERTY That portion of the "South Parcel," as shown on Survey recorded under King County Recording No. 20000209900005, Records of King County, Washington, lying Southerly of the following described line: Beginning at the most Northerly corner of said "North Parcel"; Thence S 45 26'31" W along the Northwesterly line thereof a distance of 912.56 feet to the True Point of Beginning of the herein described line; Thence S 58 13'14" E a distance of 918.82 feet to a point on the Southeasterly line of said "North Parcel," distant thereon 267.64 feet Northerly of the angle point in said Southeasterly line and the terminus of the said line. BAXTER NORTH PROPERTY That portion of the "North Parcel", as shown on Survey recorded under King County Recording No. 20000209900005, Records of King County, Washington, lying Northerly of the following described line: Beginning at the most Northerly corner of said "North Parcel"; Thence S 45 26'31" W along the Northwesterly line thereof a distance of 912.56 feet to the True Point of Beginning of the herein described line; Thence S 58 13'14" E a distance of 918.82 feet to a point on the Southeasterly line of said "North Parcel", distant thereon 267.64 feet Northerly of the angle point in said Southeasterly line and the terminus of the said line. Please refer to Section 1 for detailed Title Report. Environmental Checklist 24 May 2006 Revised 6 September 2006 Page 5 North and South Baxter Site Development Plan New Seattle Seahawks Headquarters & Training Facility Renton, WA Nommie Location and Vicinity Map Please refer to the attached location and vicinity map for additional detail. Topographic Map Please refer to the attached topographic map in Section 8 (Figure 8.1 and Figure 8.2) for additional detail regarding existing conditions. B. ENVIRONMENTAL ELEMENTS 1. EARTH a. General description of the site (circle one); flat, rolling, hilly, steep slopes, mountainous, or other. The site is located on the shore of Lake Washington and is generally flat. b. What is the steepest slope on the site (approximate percent slope?) The slope of the site is generally 1% to 2% with a maximum slope of approximately 5%. c. What general types of soils are found on the site (for example, clay, sand, gravel, peat, muck)? If you know the classification of agricultural soils, specify them and note any prime farmland. The Baxter Property (both North and South) is located on the eastern shore of Lake Washington on the former delta of May Creek, which is an under fit stream remaining within the glacial Kennydale Channel. The subsurface geology of the site is a combination of fluvial deltaic, lacustrine near shore and constructed fill deposits overlying Pleistocene glacial sediments and Eocene volcanic and sedimentary bedrock. The shallow geology at the project area has been heavily influenced by recent human activity, beginning with construction of the Lake Washington Ship Canal in 1916. This lowered the level of Lake Washington approximately 8 feet, and exposed a significant area of the May and Gypsy Creek Sub Basin Deltas which had formerly been submerged. Subsequent filling of low-lying areas was performed in 1955 to extend the shoreline and raise the grade for construction of industrial facilities at the Baxter North and South Properties. The source of the fill material is not well documented. The combination of naturally complex deltaic deposits with numerous dredging and backfilling episodes has resulted in a highly heterogeneous subsurface mixture of clay, silt, peat, sand, gravel and cobbles, as well as discarded debris and abandoned subsurface structures from former site activities. Geology and subsurface conditions for the project area were determined based on the geologic field reconnaissance, current and previous borings and published Environmental Checklist 24 May 2006 Revised 6 September 2006 Page 6 North and South Baxter Site Development Plan New Seattle Seahawks Headquarters & Training Facility Renton, WA *4004 geologic data. Based on field explorations, the depth to bedrock is varied with depths from 17.5 feet to depths greater than 50 feet. In general, the subsurface soils under the building footprint and fields consist of either fill material, soft estuarine deposits, loose alluvial soils and underlying very dense bedrock, or stiff to very stiff silt and clay and medium dense sand overlying bedrock. The fill is generally 2 to 3 feet thick, while the soft estuarine and loose alluvial soils extend to depths ranging from 17 to 38 feet below the existing ground surface under most of the building footprint. The alluvial and estuarine deposits contain layers of loose sand that are susceptible to liquefaction, as well as layers of highly compressible peat. The bedrock consists of highly weathered Andesite and is a competent bearing material for building foundations. The professional geotechnical report submitted in conjunction with this Environmental Checklist provides additional detail, including detail regarding constructability concerns for larger structures on the south portion of the site. Please refer to Volume 2, Appendix 2 of this application for additional information. d. Are there surface indications or history of unstable soils in the immediate vicinity? If so, describe. Recent subsurface exploration in 2006 included 6 borings and 29 backhoe test excavations. Liquefaction and settlement were identified as potential concerns. The upper 50 to 60 feet of soil within the May Creek delta are loose and potentially susceptible to liquefaction during a strong earthquake. In addition, consolidation of near-surface peats and clays from placement of the environmental cap fill upon this material may result in minor surface settlement. Please refer to Volume 2, Appendix 2 of this application for additional information. e. Describe the purpose, type, and approximate quantities of any filling or grading proposed. Indicate source of fill. Filling and grading will proceed pursuant to the Consent Decrees and Cleanup Action Plans, and subject to review and approval by the Department of Ecology. Some cleanup work and associated grading have been performed and documented in the Completion Report (2005) and approved by the Department of Ecology by the April 10, 2006 Partial Certificate of Completion. f. Could erosion occur as a result of clearing, construction, or use? If so, generally describe. Final capping of site will be conducted to complete remediation and cleanup activities in accordance with the Consent Decree. As a result erosion could occur but is not likely due to the shallow grade of the site. Environmental Checklist 24 May 2006 Revised 6 September 2006 Page 7 North and South Baxter Site Development Plan New Seattle Seahawks Headquarters & Training Facility Renton, WA Please refer to Sections 5 and 6 for additional detail regarding TESC Plan. g. About what percent of the site will be covered with impervious surfaces after project construction (for example, asphalt or buildings)? Approximately 40% of the site will be covered by impervious materials including buildings, plazas, surface parking and driveways. h. Proposed measures to reduce or control erosion, or other impacts to the earth, if any: Erosion will be controlled by maintaining a shallow grade to the site. Storm water will be managed consistent with best management practices to prevent any adverse effects from erosion. 2. AIR a. What types of emissions to the air would result from the proposal (i.e., dust, automobile, odors, industrial wood smoke) during construction and when the project is completed? If any, generally describe and give approximate quantities if known. Dust may be generated during construction activities. On-site construction equipment and hauling vehicles will generate emissions from internal combustion engines. b. Are there any off-site sources of emission or odor that may affect your proposal? If so, generally describe. No, there are no off-site sources of emission or odor that will affect the new facility. c. Proposed measures to reduce or control emissions or other impacts to air, if any: Dust will be suppressed by spraying water, as necessary, during construction. Stockpiles will be covered to the extent practicable to further minimize dust during construction. 3. WATER a. Surface Water: 1) Is there any surface water body on or in the immediate vicinity of the site (including year-round and seasonal streams, saltwater, lakes, ponds, wetlands)? If yes, describe type and provide names. If appropriate, state what stream or river it flows into. The project area includes approximately 1,887 feet of Lake Washington shoreline. 250 feet of shoreline is adjacent to the Baxter Cove inlet and wetland Environmental Checklist 24 May 2006 Revised 6 September 2006 Page 8 North and South Baxter Site Development Plan New Seattle Seahawks Headquarters & Training Facility Renton, WA which is not being altered. The current shoreline characteristics range from `' gently sloping vegetated shorelines to vertical exposed dirt banks, with a minor portion of bulkhead. As part of cleanup activities, a 0.46-acre wetland and a 50- foot vegetated buffer was restored along the South Baxter shoreline. In addition, the Gypsy Sub Basin drainage is located on the North Property; this system conveys storm water from 1-405 and the interchange to Lake Washington. A minor portion of this drainage is exposed while most is piped. The Ordinary High Water (OHW) is approximately 18.8 feet (NAVD88) or 15.2 feet (NGVD29). 2) Will the project require any work over, in, or adjacent to (within 200 feet) the described waters? If yes, please describe and attach available plans. Yes. The following work efforts are anticipated: a. Soil cover placement will occur within 200 feet of the shoreline on the North and South Properties consistent with the Department of Ecology Consent Decree requirements. b. Construction of Headquarters Facility c. Construction of natural grass Practice Fields d. Shoreline improvements within 50 foot setback per statute including riparian plant zone. e. Construction of retaining walls and driveways. f. Capping the site pursuant to Ecology regulations will require covering the short stretch of Gypsy Sub Basin that is not piped. Mitigation for any lost functions will be provided pursuant to Ecology capping approval. 3) Estimate the amount of fill and dredge material that would be placed in or removed from surface water or wetlands and indicate the area of the site that would be affected. Indicate the source of fill material. No fill or dredge will be placed in or removed from surface water or wetlands. 4) Will the proposal require surface water withdrawals or diversions? Give general description, purpose, and approximate quantities if known. No. 5) Does the proposal lie within a 100-year flood plain? If so, note location on the site plan. No 6) Does the proposal involve any discharges of waste materials to surface waters? If so, describe the type of waste and anticipated volume of discharge. There will be no discharge of waste material into surface waters. Environmental Checklist 24 May 2006 Revised 6 September 2006 Page 9 North and South Baxter Site Development Plan New Seattle Seahawks Headquarters & Training Facility Renton, WA %%me b. Ground Water: 1) Will ground water be withdrawn, or will water be discharged to ground water? Give general description, purpose, and approximate quantities if known. No 2) Describe waste material that will be discharged into the ground from septic tanks or other sources, if any (for example: Domestic sewage; industrial, containing the following chemicals...; agricultural; etc.). Describe the general size of the system, the number of such systems, the number of houses to be served (if applicable), or the number of animals or humans the system(s) are expected to serve. There will be no discharge of waste material into the ground from septic tanks or other sources. c. Water Runoff (including storm water): 1) Describe the source of runoff(including storm water) and method of collection and disposal, if any(include quantities, if known). Where will this water flow? Will this water flow into other waters, If so, describe? Storm water is the only source of runoff at the site. Stormwater will be collected and managed in accordance with applicable regulations and '44erif best management practices. Some storm water will infiltrate or evaporate but most will drain to Lake Washington after proper treatment. 2) Could waste material enter ground or surface waters? If so, generally describe. No. d. Proposed measures to reduce or control surface, ground, and runoff water impacts, if any: Storm water runoff from impervious surfaces subject to vehicular use will be treated prior to release. Best construction management practices will be in-place to prevent erosion and sedimentation impacts to surface water. Previous cleanup has improved ground water quality at the site. Final storm water controls will be designed to applicable Ecology and/or City of Renton storm water management requirements. 4. PLANTS. a. Check or circle types of vegetation found on the site: 1) X deciduous tree: alder, maple, aspen, other Environmental Checklist Norge 24 May 2006 Revised 6 September 2006 Page 10 • North and South Baxter Site Development Plan , New Seattle Seahawks Headquarters & Training Facility Renton, WA a. Including: Red alder saplings, sapling and seedling sized black cottonwood, red-osier dogwood, sitka willow, Pacific Madrone, Pacific willow 2) _X evergreen tree: fir, cedar, pine other a. Including in restored wetland and buffer area: Douglas fir, Sitka spruce, western red cedar 3) X shrubs a. Himalayan blackberry, Scotch broom, willow b. Restored wetland and buffer area: willows, snowberry, nootka rose, black twinberry, salmon berry, vine maple 4) X grass a. Non-native grasses and soft rush , bentgrass, red fescue, rye grass, white clover 5) pasture 6) crop or grain 7) X wet soil plants: cattail, buttercup, bullrush, skunk cabbage, other: soft rush, yellowflag iris, reed canary grass, small fruited bulrush, slough sedge 8) water plants: water lily, eel grass, milfoil, other 9) other types of vegetation Please refer to the Stream and Lake Study in Section 7 for additional habitat data. b. What kind and amount of vegetation will be removed or altered? 6-9 A great deal of pre-existing vegetation was removed during cleanup activities as prescribed in the 2000 SEPA. The North and South Properties are largely devoid of ,,, .001 vegetation –approximately 10% of the property contains trees/brush. Almost all vegetation on the South Property will be removed to facilitate final cleanup and capping activities; however, no native vegetation in the restored wetland will be removed. Most vegetation, including grasses, invasive shrubs (Himalayan blackberry and Scotch broom), and trees (sapling red alder, willow, and cottonwood) on the North Property will be removed prior to placement of the soil cover. c. List threatened or endangered species known to be on or near the site. To the best of our knowledge, there are no threatened or endangered plant species known to be on or near the site. d. Proposed landscaping, use of native plants, or other measures to preserve or enhance vegetation on the site, if any: Previous mitigation for wetland removal included creation of 0.46-acres of enhanced, forested wetland. Previous planting in this wetland and the any new planting in the associated 50-foot buffer will be maintained with native vegetation as described in the Mitigation Analysis Memorandum. If removed due to construction, existing vegetation along the shoreline, whether invasive or native species, will be replaced per the City of Renton Critical Areas Ordinance and Environmental Checklist 24 May 2006 Revised 6 September 2006 Page 11 North and South Baxter Site Development Plan ,New Seattle Seahawks Headquarters & Training Facility Renton, WA associated Shoreline Master Program. Mature native trees immediately adjacent to the shoreline (outside of the limit of grading) will be preserved where possible. All invasive shrubs along the shoreline will be removed and replaced with native shrub species as indicated in the current drawings. The proposed vegetation for this area will consist of native riparian species found in the King County Native Plant Guide and the King County, Washington —Surface Water Design Manual. Existing concrete and pavement debris that currently exists along the water's edge will be removed and replaced with large woody debris such as root wads and large trunk sections. Preserving mature trees, removing invasive species, planting native species, removing shoreline debris, and providing large woody debris are all actions that will provide enhanced functional habitat compared to pre- development conditions along the shoreline. 5. ANIMALS a. Circle or underline any birds and animals which have been observed on or near the site or are known to be on or near the site: 1) Birds: hawk, heron, eagle, songbirds, other a. Red-winged blackbird, snipe, mallards, Canada geese, osprey 2) Mammals: deer, bear, elk, beaver, other 3) Fish: bass, salmon, trout, herring, shellfish, other a. Lake Washington contains Chinook, Coho, and sockeye salmon, steelhead, cutthroat trout, bull trout, kokanee salmon, speckled dace, three-spine stickleback, northern squawfish, yellow perch, black crappie, largemouth bass, smallmouth bass, mountain whitefish, large scale sucker, longfin smelt, prickly sculpin — See Mitigation Analysis Memorandum (AES, 2000). New b. Crayfish, freshwater shrimp, freshwater clams — See Mitigation Analysis Memorandum (AES, 2000). c. ALSO: Turtles (painted and slider) Please refer to the Stream and Lake Study in Section 7 for additional habitat data. b. List any threatened or endangered species known to be on or near the site. Chinook salmon, bull trout, bald eagle c. Is the site part of a migration route? If so, explain Adult Chinook Salmon in Lake Washington migrate past the site on their way to the Cedar River each summer. Juvenile Chinook pass the site on their way back to Puget Sound, and may spend some time rearing in the site vicinity. Sockeye juveniles rear in Lake Washington and may utilize the shoreline and offshore habitat along the project for rearing. d. Proposed measures to preserve or enhance wildlife, if any: None Environmental Checklist `" oe 24 May 2006 Revised 6 September 2006 Page 12 • North and South Baxter Site Development Plan - New Seattle Seahawks Headquarters & Training Facility 7- Renton, WA 6. ENERGY AND NATURAL RESOURCES `" a. What kinds of energy (electric, natural gas, oil, wood stove, solar) will be used to meet the completed project's energy needs? Describe whether it will be used for heating, manufacturing, etc. Electricity will likely be used for cooling. Natural gas will be used for cooking and potentially heating. During final capping and construction, the only energy to be used is diesel to operate construction equipment. No manufacturing will be conducted on site. No. The project will not affect potential use of solar energy by adjacent properties. c. What kinds of energy conservation features are included in the plans of this proposal? List other proposed measures to reduce or control energy impacts, if any: 7. ENVIRONMENTAL HEALTH a. Are there any environmental health hazards, including exposure to toxic chemicals, risk of fire and explosion, spill, or hazardous waste that could occur as a result of this proposal? If so, describe. The South Baxter remediation will restore a contaminated, abandoned industrial/manufacturing site to allow project redevelopment. Adherence to institutional controls will minimize the potential for releases during development construction and thereafter. Where warranted, a site-specific health and safety plan will be prepared and used to limit worker exposure to hazards on site. 1) Describe special emergency services that might be required. The site-specific health and safety plan will include emergency contacts and procedures. 2) Proposed measures to reduce or control environmental health hazards, if any: Adherence to institutional controls will minimize the potential for releases during development construction and thereafter. Where warranted, a site-specific health and safety plan will be prepared and used to limit worker exposure to hazards on site. Environmental Checklist 24 May 2006 Revised 6 September 2006 Page 13 North and South Baxter Site Development Plan New Seattle Seahawks Headquarters & Training Facility Renton, WA b. Noise 1) What types of noise exist in the area which may affect your project (for example: traffic, equipment, operation, other)? There are no noises in the area that occur on a regular basis that will adversely impact the project. Interstate 405 is located near the site, although traffic noise is not expected to adversely affect the project. There is periodic railroad traffic on the adjacent rail line. 2) What types and levels of noise would be created by or associated with the project on a short-term or a long-term basis (for example: traffic, construction, operation, other)? During construction, there will be noise from construction equipment that will have minimal impact to adjacent uses. Impact-type noises will be limited and will occur during restricted hours to minimize any potential adverse impacts to adjacent uses. Indicate what hours noise would come from the site. These noises will occur during daylight hours and will vary seasonally. Once the building is enclosed, these noises will be contained within the enclosed building. Construction is anticipated to take approximately 18 months with approximately 6 months of exterior noise possible. Hours of construction operation will likely be 7:00 AM-5:00 PM, 5 days a week. Based on project needs, weekend work may be required to keep the project on schedule to meet occupancy dates. If this measure is necessary, adjoining property owners will be notified in advance. 3) Proposed measures to reduce or control noise impacts, if any: Any adverse noise impacts will be minimal and will likely be lower in frequency to the adjacent Interstate 405 and adjacent railroad. Exterior construction will be limited to daylight hours as permitted by the City of Renton. Contact with adjacent neighbors who may be adversely impacted will be made and information provided when loud noises, if any, will occur. The applicant is evaluating a request for restrictions on horn operation by the railroad at adjacent crossings. 8. LAND AND SHORELINE USE a. What is the current use of the site and adjacent properties? Current Use of the North Baxter Site: Vacant Current Use of the South Baxter Site: Vacant Environmental Checklist Now 24 May 2006 Revised 6 September 2006 Page 14 North and South Baxter Site Development Plan • New Seattle Seahawks Headquarters & Training Facility Renton, WA At the Baxter Property, wood treating operations ceased in 1981. Adjacent properties `44800 include: • Quendall Terminals, a former refining facility that is currently used for log sorting and storage, is located to the south; • Barbee Mills, a former lumber mill, is located south of Quendall Terminals; • Pan Abode, a cedar homes manufacturing facility, is located to the southeast; • Lake Washington Boulevard and 1-405 are located to the east; • Lake Washington is located to the west; • Condominiums and residences are located to the north. b. Has the site been used for agriculture? If so, describe. No, the site has not been used for agriculture in the recent past. c. Describe any structures on the site. Asphalt pad, a small one-story office building, and a small dock and boathouse are located on the North Property. d. Will any structures be demolished? If so, what? The small one-story office building will be demolished. `—i Nrool e. What is the current zoning classification of the site? Commercial/Office/Residential (COR-2) f. What is the current comprehensive plan designation of the site? Commercial/Office/Residential g. If applicable, what is the current shoreline master program designation of the site? Urban h. Has any part of the site been classified as an "environmentally sensitive" area? If so, specify. No i. Approximately how many people would reside or work in the completed project? Daily on-site personnel - approximately 200 people on a typical work day. Environmental Checklist ,, 24 May 2006 Revised 6 September 2006 Page 15 North and South Baxter Site Development Plan New Seattle Seahawks Headquarters & Training Facility Renton, WA j. Approximately how many people would the completed project displace? None k. Proposed measures to avoid or reduce displacement impacts, if any: Not Applicable I. Proposed measures to ensure that the proposal is compatible with existing and projected land uses and plans, if any: Adjacent Use to the North: Landscape buffers and potential fencing will be provided to buffer the project from adjacent residential uses Adjacent Use to the South: Landscape buffers and fencing will be provided to provide necessary visual separation between the project and adjacent logging operation and storage and remediation activity. 9. HOUSING a. Approximately how many units would be provided, if any? Indicate whether high, middle, or low-income housing. No housing will be provided. b. Approximately how many units, if any, would be eliminated? Indicate whether high, middle, or low-income housing. Noraw No housing will be eliminated. c. Proposed measures to reduce or control housing impacts, if any: Not Applicable. 10. AESTHETICS a. What is the tallest height of any proposed structure(s), not including antennas; what is the principal exterior building material(s) proposed. The bulk of the building is approximately 52 to 55 feet in height. The indoor practice facility is approximately 120 feet in height from its lowest elevation. b. What views in the immediate vicinity would be altered or obstructed? Views from the lake will be altered because the site is currently vacant. Views to the lake from adjacent uses located to the north and south should not be adversely affected. Views to the lake from structures located to the east, across Interstate 405 may be altered above existing tree lines. In this instance, approximately 30 to 40 feet of view above existing trees could be obstructed by the highest building masses. Visual simulations showing the view impact on nearby residential properties are being provided to the City of Renton in conjunction with the submittal of this Environmental Checklist. Environmental Checklist Now 24 May 2006 Revised 6 September 2006 Page 16 North and South Baxter Site Development Plan New Seattle Seahawks Headquarters & Training Facility Renton, WA • The design of the facility has maintained view corridors to Lake Washington from adjacent properties. The bulk of the building on site has been sited furthest from the shoreline to mitigate visual impacts to the condos located to the north. The majority of the site has no structures above grade, thus preserving views to the lake. As detailed design proceeds, these view corridors will be developed further. c. Proposed measures to reduce or control aesthetic impacts, if any: Traditional architectural devices to reduce the apparent scale and mass of the project are being explored including: 1. horizontal expression lines at changes of materials and fenestration 2. roof treatments 3. fenestration and glazing systems 4. Setbacks of building mass from the shoreline 5. Maintaining view corridors to Lake Washington. At the lakefront, the office components are placed in front of high mass elements associated with indoor practice facility in order to minimize view impacts from neighboring properties. This approach occurs at the south facade as well. To the north, landscaping will be incorporated at the building perimeter as well as the property line to buffer the facility from the adjacent residential uses. The majority of the site will have little or no structure above grade, which will effectively preserve a view corridor to Lake Washington over the majority of the site. NOIS The building has been set back from the north property line, and the higher element of the building has been located on the furthest landward part of the building, in order to mitigate view impacts from the residential use to the north. Significant view impacts are not anticipated from that site. The building has been sited to take advantage of the most stable soils and to minimize deep foundations. The south portion of the site is the area containing the soils of most environmental concern, and the applicant does not wish to disturb the Ecology-approved cap with foundation elements on that portion of the site. And functionally, the south portion of the site is further from the site entries and other structures, so it is more suitable for the training field elements of the proposed facility. 11. LIGHT AND GLARE a. What type of light or glare will the proposal produce? What time of day would it mainly occur? No permanent field lighting will be provided. Thus, no glare or light is anticipated that will adversely impact adjacent land uses, or land uses located in adjacent municipalities to the east or west with views of the properties from upland locations or across portions of Lake Washington. Environmental Checklist NG 24 May 2006 Revised 6 September 2006 Page 17 North and South Baxter Site Development Plan New Seattle Seahawks Headquarters & Training Facility Renton, WA b. Could light or glare from the finished project be a safety hazard or interfere with Nome views? No. It is not anticipated that any light or glare will pose a safety hazard. c. What existing off-site sources of light or glare may affect your proposal? There are no off-site sources of light or glare that we are currently aware of that will impact the project. d. Proposed measures to reduce or control light and glare impacts, if any: Not Applicable 12. RECREATION a. What designated and informal recreational opportunities are in the immediate vicinity? Public access to the shoreline will be provided as indicated by the Conceptual Site Plan. Access is proposed along the north property line with connections to the lakefront. The proposed access will include seating areas, a landscaped walkway and access to the lake for active and passive recreational use. Due to the security requirements associated with the daily operation of the Practice ' r Facility, public access to the overall site is limited to the designated public access areas. b. Would the proposed project displace any existing recreational uses? If so, describe. None c. Proposed measures to reduce or control impacts on recreation, including recreation opportunities to be provided by the project or applicant, if any: Not Applicable 13. HISTORIC AND CULTURAL PRESERVATION a. Are there any places or objects listed on, or proposed for, national state, or local preservation registers known to be on or next to the site? If so, generally describe. No b. Generally describe any landmarks or evidence of historic, archaeological, scientific, or cultural importance known to be on or next to the site. A Cultural Resource Assessment (Larson, 1997) was performed for the Baxter Properties Environmental Checklist 24 May 2006 Revised 6 September 2006 Page 18 North and South Baxter Site Development Plan New Seattle Seahawks Headquarters & Training Facility Renton, WA and properties south of Baxter in 1997. This assessment did not identify any cultural *4000 resources eligible for listing on the National Register of Historic Places were identified in the area. Literature review suggested that a Duwamish site may have been present at the historic mouth of May Creek, assumed to have been located on a nearby property south of the Baxter Properties. A copy of the Larson report is being submitted with this Environmental Checklist. c. Proposed measures to reduce or control impacts, if any: Monitoring for archeological materials will be included in development activities involving excavation in portions of the site designated "High Probability Areas" in the Cultural Resource Assessment (Larson, 1997). Monitoring could include having a professional archeologist on site to monitor any subsurface excavation to insure that no intact archeological materials or features are adversely affected by such activities. 14. TRANSPORTATION a. Identify public streets and highways serving the site, and describe proposed access to the existing street system. Show on site plans, if any. Greater detail on all transportation and parking issues can be found in the Transportation Impact Analysis (TRANSPO 2006) in Section 12. A more general discussion is provided below. Interstate 405 provides regional access to the site. The site is served by Lake Washington Boulevard, the primary access to which is via exit 7 (NE 44th Street) from 1-405. Other vehicular access is also provided by Lincoln Avenue from the east, Ripley Avenue from the north and Lake Washington Avenue SE from the northeast via 44th Street interchange. Two existing on grade crossings provide access to the site as shown on the attached site plans. Preliminary discussions between the Seahawks and the BNSF Railroad have commenced regarding a third (new) crossing, located halfway between existing crossings. b. Is site currently served by public transit? If not, what is the approximate distance to the nearest transit stop? The site is not served by public transit. The nearest transit stops are located at Park Ave N/N 33rd and 116th/76th c. How many parking spaces would the completed project have? How many would the project eliminate? New Parking: 275 to 315 cars Displaced Parking: No parking will be displaced or eliminated • Environmental Checklist 24 May 2006 Revised 6 September 2006 Page 19 North and South Baxter Site Development Plan New Seattle Seahawks Headquarters & Training Facility Renton, WA d. Will the proposal require any new roads or streets, or improvements to existing roads or streets, not including driveways? If so, generally describe (indicate whether public or private? Improvements will likely be required at the following areas: 1. Ripley Avenue 2. Existing at grade crossings @ BNSF Railroad right of way 3. Potential new at grade crossing @ BNSF Railroad right of way as indicated above e. Will the project use (or occur in the immediate vicinity of) water, rail, or air transportation? If so, generally describe. The Seahawks will continue to use commercial and charter air transportation at their current levels. Please refer to Section 12 for additional information. g. Proposed measures to reduce or control transportation impacts, if any: Please refer to Section 12 for proposed measures. 15. PUBLIC SERVICES a. Would the project result in an increased need for public services (for example: fire S protection, police protection, health care, schools, other)? If so, generally describe. 1.8"'' No. b. Proposed measures to reduce or control direct impacts on public services, if any. Not applicable 16. UTILITIES a. Circle or underline utilities currently available at the site: electricity, natural qas, water, refuse service, telephone, sanitary sewer, septic system, other. Describe the utilities that are proposed for the project, the utility providing the service, and the general construction activities on the site or in the immediate vicinity which might be needed. The following utilities will be provided by municipal systems : 1 . Water 2. Sanitary Sewer Other utilities will be required including. 1. Electricity— Puget Sound Energy Environmental Checklist \'tair° 24 May 2006 Revised 6 September 2006 Page 20 North and South Baxter Site Development Plan New Seattle Seahawks Headquarters & Training Facility Renton, WA 2. Natural Gas — Puget Sound Energy 3. Fiber - Qwest 4. DSL or T1 Telecommunication Lines - Qwest These utilities are available immediately adjacent to the site. Please refer to Section 5 for preliminary utility plans. C. SIGNATURE I, the undersigned, state that to the best of my knowledge the above information is true and complete. It is understood that the lead agency may withdraw any declaration of non-significance that it might issue in reliance upon this checklist should there be any willful misrepresentation or willful lack of full disclosure on my part. Proponent: Name Printed: Ray Colliver Date: D. SUPPLEMENTAL SHEETS FOR NONPROJECT ACTIONS Not Used ,14004 Environmental Checklist 24 May 2006 Revised 6 September 2006 Page 21 1 it) '44100,- 2 61 a1 a 3 to 4 5 6 7 BEFORE THE HEARING EXAMINER FOR THE CITY OF RENTON 8 LARRY BARSHER and ESTHER BARSHER, 9 Appellants, File No. LUA06-073 v. SA-H, SA-M, SM, ECF 10 CITY OF RENTON, and FOOTBALL 11 NORTHWEST, NOTICE OF APPEARANCE ON BEHALF OF FOOTBALL NORTHWEST 12 Respondents. LLC 13 TO: Fred Kaufman, City of Renton Hearing Examiner; and 14 AND TO: Larry Barsher and Esther Barsher, Appellants %owl 5 16 PLEASE TAKE NOTICE that Roger A Pearce, and Foster Pepper PLLC, enter 17 their appearance as counsel for Respondent Football Northwest LLC, by and through the 18 undersigned attorney, and request that service of all papers and pleadings in this lawsuit, except 19 original process, be made upon the undersigned attorney at the address stated below. 20 21 DATED this 9t1 day of May, 2007. 22 FOSTER PEPPER PLLC 23 24 ,h Z,446 25 Roger • earce, WSBA No. 21113 Attorney for Respondent Football Northwest LLC 26 NOTICE OF APPEARANCE ON BEHALF FOSTER PEPPER PLLC 1111 THIRD AVENUE,SUITE 3400 OF FOOTBALL NORTHWEST - 1 SEATTLE,WASHINGTON 98101-3299 PHONE(206)447-4400 FAX(206)447-9700 59813270 I DECLARATION OF SERVICE Nis 2 Helen M. Stubbert declares: 3 I am a legal assistant to Roger A. Pearce, and competent to be a witness in the above- 4 entitled proceeding. On May 9, 2007, I caused to be delivered in the manner indicated below 5 true and correct copies of a Notice of Appearance and this Certificate of Service to the following: 6 Fred J. Kaufman Larry and Esther Barsher Hearing Examiner 6940 96th Ave. S.E. 7 City of Renton Mercer Island WA 98040 1055 South Grady Way Via U.S. Mail 8 Renton, Washington 98055 Via U.S. Mail 9 I declare under penalty of perjury under the laws of the State of Washington that the 10 foregoing is true and correct. I1 12 DATED this 9th day of May, 2007, at Seattle, Washington. 13 14 Helen M. Stubbert Nerd 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 NOTICE OF APPEARANCE ON BEHALF FOSTER PEPPER PLLC `roid OF FOOTBALL NORTHWEST - 2 1111 THHtu AVENUE,SUITE 3400 SEATTLE,IVASHINGTON 98101-3299 PHONE(206)447-4400 FAX(206)447-9700 50813270 I Seahawks' Headquarters and Training Facility File No.: LUA-06-073, SA-H, SA-M, SM, ECF December 7, 2006 Page 16 Now 7. Fan parking during training camp will be accommodated at a parking lot or parking facility off the project site, with fans then being bused to the site. 8. The project dumpster/recycling area will use containers with lids, and the container storage area will be screened from the Misty Cove property. The garbage and recycling pickups will occur during normal business hours on weekdays—not at nights or very early morning hours. All non-recyclable materials placed in the containers will be in sealed plastic bags. 9. FNW shall replace the existing property line fence between the Misty Cove property and the project site with a new fence of at least equal quality. 10. No athletic field lighting is being proposed under the permit. The Seahawks agree not to seek any permit to do so for a period of 15 years from the date of this Agreement. All project exterior lighting will be designed so that the lighting is directed away from the Misty Cove residences. 11. FNW will provide signage that clearly indicates the main entrance to the project site, so that visitors to the site can easily find the entrance. Any signage will have to comply with City and State regulations. 12. The proposed shoreline area planting plan shall include lower-level plantings in the north section of the project shoreline area, in order to minimize impacts of views of the water from the adjacent Misty Cove Condominium property. 44610, 13. The mitigation and design measures in the Lake and Stream Study and the Turf Integrated Pest Management Plan submitted to the City as part of the project application shall be conditioned to permit approval. ORDERED THIS 7th day of December 2006. FRED J. KAUFMAN HEARING EXAMINER TRANSMITTED THIS 7th day of December 2006 to the parties of record: Elizabeth Higgins Kayren Kittrick Roger Pearce 1055 S Grady Way Development Services Foster Pepper Renton, WA 98055 Renton, WA 98055 1111 Third Avenue, 34th Floor Seattle, WA 98101 Lance Lopes David Murphy VP Seahawks Crawford Architects Larry&Esther Barsher 800 Occidental Avenue S 1801 McGee St., Ste. 200 6940 96th Avenue SE Seattle, WA 98034 Kansas City, MO 64108 Mercer Island, WA 98040 Eileen Halverson Joe Burcar Carl Hadley 5021 Ripley Lane N, #302 3190 160th Avenue SE Cedar Rock Consultants Renton, WA 98056 Bellevue, WA 98008 19609 244th Avenue December 7, 2006 Nod OFFICE OF THE HEARING EXAMINER CITY OF RENTON RECEIVED Minutes DEC 8 2006 APPLICANT: Football Northwest 505 Fifth Avenue S., Ste. 900 FOSTER PEPPER PLLC Seattle, WA 98104 OWNER: Port Quendall Company 505 Fifth Avenue S., Ste. 900 Seattle, WA 98104 CONTACT: Ray Colliver 505 Fifth Avenue S., Ste. 900 Seattle, WA 98104 Seattle Seahawks' Headquarters and Training Facility File No.: LUA 06-073, SA-H, SA-M, SM, ECF LOCATION: 5015 Lake Washington Boulevard N (also addressed as 5015, 4801, and 4635 Ripley Lane) SUMMARY OF REQUEST: Applicant requested Master Plan and Site Plan Review for the development of the Seattle Seahawks' Headquarters and Training Facility.The project would be a single building consisting of 135,534 sf of office space on two levels and 89,423 sf indoor practice facility. There would be up to four outdoor practice fields. The zoning designation is Commercial-Office-Residential. SUMMARY OF ACTION: Development Services Recommendation: Approve with conditions DEVELOPMENT SERVICES REPORT: The Development Services Report was received by the Examiner on November 14,2006. PUBLIC HEARING: After reviewing the Development Services Report, examining available information on file with the application, field checking the property and surrounding area; the Examiner conducted a public hearing on the subject as follows: MINUTES The following minutes are a summary of the November 21, 2006 hearing. The legal record is recorded on CD. The hearing opened on Tuesday, November 21, 2006,at 9:01 a.m. in the Council Chambers on the seventh floor of the Renton City Hall. Parties wishing to testify were affirmed by the Examiner. ,, v • Scahawks' Headquarters and Training Facility Ede No.: LUA-06-073, SA-H, SA-M, SM, ECF err► December 7, 2006 Page 2 The following exhibits were entered into the record: Exhibit No. 1: Yellow file containing the original Exhibit No. 2: Vicinity Map application, proof of posting, proof of publication and other documentation pertinent to this request. Exhibit No. 3: Historic Aerial Photo of North and Exhibit No. 4: Zoning Map South Baxter Properties Exhibit No. 5: Mitigation Site Plan - Alternative Exhibit No. 6: Plan Diagrams Plan Exhibit No. 7: North and South Building Elevations Exhibit No. 8: South View Transverse Section Exhibit No. 9: Base Site Plan Exhibit No. 10: Building Location Options Exhibit No. 11: Green Screen Wall A Exhibit No. 12: Green Screen Wall 13 Exhibit No. 13: Existing View from Misty Cove Unit Exhibit No. 14: View from Misty Cove Unit 302, 302 Base Site Plan Exhibit No. 15: View from Misty Cove Unit 302, Exhibit No 16: View from Misty Cove Unit 302, Akio" Mitigated Site Plan Comparison Exhibit No. 17: Existing View from Misty Cove Unit Exhibit No. 18: View from Misty Cove Unit 312, 312 Base Site Plan Exhibit No. 19: View from Misty Cove Unit 312, Exhibit No. 20: View from Misty Cove Unit 312, Mitigated Site Plan Comparison Exhibit No. 21: Daily Shadow Studies— Base Plan Exhibit No. 22: Daily shadow Studies—Mitigated Alternative Plan Exhibit No. 23: Seasonal Shadow Studies—Existing Exhibit No. 24: Seasonal Shadow Studies—Base Conditions Plan Exhibit No. 25: Seasonal Shadow Studies--Mitigated Exhibit No. 26: List of 25 Exhibits from Staff Report Alternative Plan Exhibit No. 27: Foster Pepper Appeal Settlement Exhibit No. 28: Petersen Appeal Settlement Letter Letter Exhibit No. 29: Appeal File by Reference Exhibit No.30: Shoreline Exhibit No. 31: Geotech Summary Exhibit No. 32: Power Point Presentation Exhibit No. 33: Draft Engineering Design Plan Seahawks' Headquarters and Training Facility File No.: LUA-06-073, SA-H, SA-M, SM, ECF December 7, 2006 Page 3 The Examiner stated there were two appeals, which had been filed by the Misty Cove Association of Apartments Owners and Steve Jensen,who filed on his own behalf as a separate individual. Letters have been received stating that the parties had reached a settlement in those two appeals. Zanetia Fontes stated that that was correct. She had been notified and she would let the parties go over the conditions to which they have agreed. It was noted that Mr. Jensen was not in the hearing room. Roger Pearce, Foster Pepper stated that they had reached a formal settlement agreement with Misty Cove Association of Apartment Owners who are represented by Mr. Peterson. The settlement letter did include 7 permit conditions that should be placed on the project. With respect to Mr. Jensen's appeal, he indicated the he was withdrawing and would fax a formal withdrawal to the Hearing Examiner's Office. He did ask that Mr. Jensen's appeal be dismissed if a letter were not forthcoming from Mr. Jensen. Tom Peterson stated that he represents Misty Cove, they have filed a dismissal of their appeal along with a letter identifying permit conditions, which are identical to the ones that Mr. Pearce submitted. The Examiner stated that Mr.Jensen's appeal is dismissed. The settlement is acceptable and the appeal is dismissed for both Misty Cove and Mr.Jensen. The Land Use Hearing began at 9:11 am with a presentation of the staff report by Elizabeth I-iirtgins, Senior Planner, Development Services. The applicant is requesting both Master Plan and Site Plan review of currently vacant 19.6-acre property in the Kennydale arca of northeast Renton. The project consists of one building at approximately 135,534 square feet, outdoor and indoor practice fields and an accessory building that would be Nosid used for maintenance. The project is located in the area known as Port Quendall in northeast Renton,just west of I-405. To the south is the Quendall terminals property, south of that the Barbee Mill property, the entire area is zoned Commercial-Office-Residential (COR). North of the project site is the Misty Cove Condominium and north of that the Ripley Lane neighborhood. To the east of the property is the Pan Abode property and the interchange to I-405. The site was considered to be in the distant country early on, and was used for wood processing after it was logged off. It has remained vacant since wood processing ended in 1981. It has been used for storage since then. The site has been subject to clean up by consent decree with the Department of Ecology. A cap will be required lobe placed over soil that still has residual contamination. Currently, the site is largely vacant, there is one building that will be removed. The indoor practice facility would be the farthest away from the lake and the office building would be a 2-story with a mezzanine level between the two stories and closest to the lake. This is part of the settlement between Misty Cove owners and the Seahawks, the fields were shifted around but remain on the south side of the property. The public access to the lake was extended to approximately 250 feet along the lake. The public access will be handled as a county park, open only during the daylight hours. The Shoreline Management Act allows uses that are water related, this is not water related, however the access to the lake for the public allows this property to meet the requirements. Access to the property currently is at the northeast corner and the southeast corner of the property. There are ongoing negotiations with the Burlington Northern Santa Fe Railroad to have an additional private crossing at about the mid-point of the property. This would be the primary entrance for the site. This project went to the Environmental Review Committee, the decision was appealed and has been settled. There were seven mitigation measures. • Scahawks' Headquarters and Training Facility File No.: LUA-06-073, SA-H, SA-M, SM, ECF NooseDecember 7, 2006 Page 4 The redevelopment of COR sites is intended to provide economic development and remediation of formerly impacted industrial sites. This site certainly provides that criteria. The Seahawks' building has been designed to be an architecturally significant state of the art facility fora professional football team. The community design element is met through the design of the project. The north facade of the indoor practice facility will be softened by use of a "green-screen wall". The project meets the development standards by being lower than the maximum building height,by covering only 17% of the property with buildings and by moving the project the applicant has attempted to mitigate the impacts of this building on the neighboring property. Visual assessment studies were done as well as shadow studies in order to study impacts to the Misty Cove condominiums. The outside practice fields will not be lit and not used at night so there will be no lighting that would interfere with the Misty Cove condominiums. There are no regulations on the types of fencing provided in this area, they will be replacing the fence along the border of Misty Cove Apartment Condominiums. The general parking consists of 91 stalls would be along the east side of the building, the secured team parking would be along the north and northwest corner of the building. The field is open to the public for three weeks in August and it is presumed that thousands of people will attend training. There will be a plan to shuttle people from off-site parking areas. Roger Pearce,Foster Pepper, 1 1 1 1 Third Avenue, 3411'Floor, Seattle 98101 stated that he is the Attorney for Scahawks and that there were several people that would be speaking today. There are no specific height limits in the urban environment, the Shoreline Master Program does allow new commercial uses if public access to and along the water is provided. A significant public access has been provided and it will be open just like a City *me park. It will only be open during the day, there will be on-site security. Lance Lopes, VP Seahawks, 800 Occidental Avenue S., Seattle, WA 98034 stated that he also serves as the general manager for this project. He identified goals in acquiring this location, the Kirkland facility was too small and had become obsolete in terms of what teams need to handle their requirements. The site in eastern Washington has served them well for many years, in recent times there has been a drop-off in attendance at the training camp, the fans from western Washington have not been able to get over there. The number of users for this property varies,there are approximately 130 full-time employees and a varying number between 30 and 90 players depending on the time of year. The site is laid out with the fields to the south, with three fields they can rotate during the training camp, the fourth field may or may not be built. That location will provide an area where fans will be able to view the practices of the team. The office building was built with the views in mind,both lake and practice fields. The nineteen acres is really the minimal amount and just about all of it has been used for this facility The month of August is the best time to think about training camp, it typically is a 25-day period and can vary from year to year. That is the time of year that the players are trying out for the team, the public is very interested in that process. The number of fans coining out for training camp could be in the range of 1,500 and 2,000 per day. A Saturday or Sunday could rise to perhaps 2,500. Practice is in the morning and the afternoon each day. They have asked the City about developing a bus turnaround on Ripley Lane, which can be shared with the current school bus stop, they propose to make it a nicer bus stop. That would allow the shuttle busses to drop people off right at the front gate. Burlington Northern Railway has indicated they would allow an easement over the center entrance area. Offsite parking has not yet been determined. There are some locations that they are looking at currently. Seahawks' Headquarters and Training Facility File No.: LUA-06-073, SA-H, SA-M, SM, ECF December 7, 2006 Page 5 The indoor facility is standard for the industry, which allows special teams to practice their punting and kicking. Public access will be from the north side of the property down to the lake and still keep the practice fields private. The plan is for a cyclone fence with a green screen on the fence. Between the Misty Cove and Seahawks a quality wood fence has been planned. David Murphy, Crawford Architects, 1801 McGee St., Ste. 200, Kansas City, MO 64108 gave a power point presentation of the project with site layout, vegetation and design details. The design materials allow them the ability to create a corporate image that is appropriate for the City of Renton and the Seattle Seahawks. The facility will be designed specifically to the Pacific Northwest. They are currently in design development stages, the south side of the office will be facing the practice fields and would be constructed with a series of cementiuous materials. The practice facility would consist of cementiuous panels or metal panels that would make up the composition of the facade. On the east elevations there would be cementiuous panels, wood, and translucent materials that would allow daylight to come into the indoor practice facility. The north side, facing Misty Cove would be designed with horizontal lines with shadows to break down the scale of the building. The green screen at the base would be 30-feet of lattice with green plantings to cover and allow for privacy. The west elevation of the building is proposed to be two stories and the south three stories. However,the west may go to 3 stories, it has not been fully determined as yet The dumpsters and loading dock areas will be screened from the public. To study the view impacts on the project from the Misty Cove property, the owners of units 302 and 312 allowed access to their property and they were able to photograph views from those sites. The lower levels on the south side have blocked views to the shoreline and to the site. Several photos were shown with various views to the south. Their goal was to maintain and enhance as many view corridors as possible. A 5-minute break was taken. Larry Barsher, 6940 96'h Avenue SE, Mercer Island, WA 98040 stated that he lives directly west of the facility across Lake Washington and from the front of his house he can see the training facility. From a close up perspective, it looks very attractive however, from a mile away it still is going to appear as a big box. When the final landscape plan is prepared he would like to suggest that some consideration would be given to soften the view as much as possible by the addition of perhaps some trees that could reach heights of 100-feet at maturity. In addition,perhaps a green wall could be installed on the roof of the office building in the center to add some contrast and softening. He did appreciate the fact that the lights would not be on in the evening. Eileen Halverson, 5021 Ripley Lane N, #302, Renton,WA would like to know where the parking would be located for the public access. Esther Barsher, 6940 96'"Avenue SE, Mercer Island, WA 98040 stated that she was concerned about the lighting for the parking area, would it be lit all night? Joe Burcar, 3190 160"'Avenue SE, Bellevue, WA 98008 stated that he is a shoreline specialist with the Washington State Department of Ecology. Considering the City Shoreline Master Program, would the use of this facility be considered a Conditional Use within the Master Program or is it in fact a permitted use and how would that translate into the final shoreline permitting, would it be a substantial shoreline permit or a conditional use permit? Ms. Higgins stated that there would be some buffer averaging.The wetland buffer is 50-feet and extends into the field area, however there is some buffer mitigation outside the field area that has been approved. The indoor practice facility which is 95-feet to the center clear height on the interior is outside of the 200 foot line. The Seahawks' Headquarters and Training Facility File No.: LUA-06-073, SA-H, SA-M, SM, ECF December 7, 2006 Page 6 City of Renton Shoreline Master Program does not regulate buildings below 75-feet that are within the 200-foot buffer. Mr. Burcar stated that he is testifying on behalf of the State. And finally, the parking area along the north of the facility, is there any buffer averaging happening in that area as well? He further was concerned as to the use of fertilizers and pesticides and what kind of plan would be in place to ensure that water quality of the lake would be protected. Ms. Higgins stated that this project does not require a Conditional Use Permit. The Shoreline permit is being processed separately. 'fhe ERC report states that the applicant is proposing an integrated pest management program with extremely limited use of chemicals on the fields and landscape areas. Carl Hadley, Cedar Rock Consultants, 19609 244th Avenue, Woodinville, WA 98077 stated that he is a professional fisheries biologist with 18 years of experience in the Seattle area. He was part of the team that wrote the lake and stream study, which was a requirement of the Renton Municipal Code. That study was required because there is a direct impact to a water body, the Gypsy sub-basin drainage and secondly, the site contains a shoreline of the state. The study takes a look at existing functions and values and compares that to future conditions based on mitigation and other things that are proposed for the site. It must be shown that there are equivalent or better values for the fish habitat and wildlife habitat on the site. The Gypsy sub-basin has been declared a fish bearing water, it drains 320 acres of the slope to the east with runoff from paved surfaces via roadside ditches, culverts,and parking lots with a bad history of flooding. There is a 500-foot long, 2-foot wide culvert, with a 125-foot open reach at the bottom of a 15-foot deep manmade ditch. The 125-foot open reach will be filled with capping, there can be no exposed water. The culvert will run between the playing fields and the side of the building. A new outfall will be built for the pipe with a 25-foot channel on the lake as mitigation for filling that existing open section of channel. The Department of Fish and Wildlife has initially approved the proposed plan. An Integrated Pest Management plan has been established for the site and will include a set of rules regarding the use of pesticide and fertilizer. Air, sunlight and drainage for the fields are an important part of pest control. A small amount of chemicals will be used for fungus only. Mr. Pearce stated that there is no proposed parking for the public access to the lake, the public most likely will use it more when the Burlington Northern tracks become a trail. There is a landscape plan in the application materials that points out species that will be planted including some larger species such as Douglas Fir and Western Red Cedar. Regarding Mr. Burcar's comments, this is a permitted use so long as significant public access is provided to and along the shoreline. No variance is required for height under the City Shoreline Master Program. There is a 50-foot setback for commercial buildings from the shoreline, not for paved surfaces or playing fields or grading. Kayren Kittrick, Development Services stated that they are working with the applicant regarding Ripley Lane and the Gypsy Creek flooding onto Ripley Lane. If a security gate is being provided for Misty Cove, is there a turnaround being provided for those people that like to wander in and will then need access to get out. That will all be covered during the design phase. The Examiner called for further testimony regarding this project. There was no one else wishing to speak, and y40r1.1 no further comments from staff. The hearing closed at 11:34 am. Seahawks' Headquarters and Training Facility File No.: LUA-06-073, SA-H, SA-M, SM, ECF December 7, 2006 Page 7 FINDINGS,CONCLUSIONS & RECOMMENDATION I-laving reviewed the record in this matter, the Examiner now makes and enters the following: FINDINGS: 1. The applicant, Football Northwest, for the Seattle Seahawks' Headquarters and Training Facility, filed a request for a Master Plan and Site Plan review. 2. The yellow file containing the staff report, the State Environmental Policy Act (SEPA)documentation and other pertinent materials was entered into the record as Exhibit#1. 3. The Environmental Review Committee(ERC), the City's responsible official issued a Determination of Non-Significance -Mitigated (DNS-M). An appeal of this determination was filed by adjacent property owners. The appeal was settled with an agreement to include certain additional conditions on the development of the subject site if those conditions were found appropriate after public hearing and review. 4. The subject proposal was reviewed by all departments with an interest in the matter. 5. The subject site is located at 5015 Lake Washington Boulevard N and is also addressed as 5015,4801 and 4635 Ripley Lane. The site is just north or west of the NE 44th Street (Exit 7) 1-405 interchange. NordThe site is located on the shoreline of Lake Washington. The Burlington-Northern railroad tracks run between the site and Ripley Lane. 6. The site actually runs at a diagonal from the southwest toward the northeast along the Lakeshore but is commonly thought of as running south to north. Therefore for illustrative purposes and descriptions this common reference will be used and so the lake will be considered the western edge of the site and Ripley Lane the eastern edge of the site -readers will be able to orient facilities and buildings to their location on the site from the lake and roadway locations. 7. Misty Cove residential complex is located immediately north of the site. As noted above, the homeowners in Misty Cove had filed an appeal of the SEPA decision but they, along with a separate resident of that complex settled the appeal prior to the hearing after reaching an agreement with the applicant. 8. Immediately south of the subject site is the Port Quendall site. That site is a "Superfund Site" that is highly contaminated and subject to separate cleanup regulations. 9. The map element of the Comprehensive Plan designates the area in which the subject site is located as suitable for the development of commercial, office and residential uses, but does not mandate such development without consideration of other policies of the Plan. 10. The subject site is currently zoned COR-2 (Commercial,Office, Residential). 11. The subject site was annexed to the City with the adoption of Ordinance 1823 enacted in April 1960. 12. The size of parcel is approximately 19.6 acres or 853,776 square feet. Seahawks' Headquarters and Training Facility File No.: LUA-06-073, SA-FI, SA-M, SM, ECF we December 7, 2006 Page 8 13. The site is essentially flat. Gypsy Creek runs through the site in an open ditch for approximately 125 feet before entering a 490-foot culvert. The culvert empties above the surface of the lake in an unnatural drop. Plans are to restore the shoreline in this area,create a cove and create a more natural entry into the culvert. 14. A Category 3 wetland has been restored. It would remain in a protected area at the southwest portion of the property, adjacent to Lake Washington. It probably would not be open to the public. 15. The subject site is under a cleanup agreement with the State. Remediation involves removing contaminated soils and capping depending on the proposed use and contaminants involved. The contamination was the result of the former use of the properly for wood-processing activities. Site grading for the project would be coordinated with continuing remediation, Calculations indicate the capping of the site and grading would require approximately 29,600 cubic yards of cut and 52,900 cubic yards of fill material. Some cut material would be removed from the site and the remainder reused. Any fill material will be tested or require a "source statement" to assure clean materials. As noted, the adjacent site to the south is under Superfund cleanup governance. 16. Two existing structures remain on the site. A single-story, 1,300 square foot wood-frame office building on the north portion of the site that would be removed. An existing boathouse and dock are located at the northwest shoreline. Currently, there are no plans for these facilities. 17. The underlying geology of soils dictated where the building would be located. Soils generally dictated that the large building would need piles for structural support and the soils on the south half of the site were not appropriate without additional remediation. In addition, the proposed practice playing fields require more and appropriately shaped space,which the wider south half provided. 18. The proposed complex consists of the Seahawks administrative offices and accessory training and practice facilities and a smaller maintenance building. The two major components are the attached office and indoor practice facility located on the north portion of the subject site and four practice fields including three with natural turf and one with artificial turf on the south portion of the property. The maintenance shed will be located at the southeast corner of the property. 19. Offices, meeting and classrooms, kitchen and dining area, lockers and exercise areas, football equipment storage areas, and an indoor practice field would be within a 224,957 square foot building on the North Baxter property. The office or Headquarters portion of the building would be up to 55 feet in height and contain two stories and a mezzanine level that would be open to the indoor practice field. The office building would be located closest to the lake to take advantage of the lake views. It would be L-shaped and wrap around the southwest corner of the larger indoor practice field. The height of the indoor practice field, situated on the north and east sides of the building, would be up to 1 1 1 feet. Originally, the roof was designed to swing upward along its edges to screen rooftop mechanical equipment. That equipment has since been moved into the building proper. The practice building has been designed to have an inside height clearance of approximately 95 feet to accommodate realistic passing and kicking moves. 20. The building would be a steel frame building. It would be faced with synthetic stone, masonry, and storefront systems on the lower level. Clear-glazed windows and cementiuous or metal wall panels would be used on upper portions and vary depending on location. The color palette would be earth tones with light beiges, buff, light may and browns and greens would be used for exterior treatments. The settlement agreement requires a green-screen or lattice wall with vegetation growing on it on the north facade, the facade facing Misty Cove. There will be horizontal banding breaking the building into Seahawks' Headquarters and Training Facility File No.: LUA-06-073, SA-H, SA-M, SM, ECF December 7, 2006 "'iS Page 9 thirds to reduce the apparent height and vertical modulations and articulations will also be used to reduce the apparent bulk of the building. Additionally, the administrative office portion of the building will be about half as tall as the indoor practice portion,providing a terraced or stepped aspect. There will be a formal entry along the Ripley Lane facade and a canopy will connect parking with the formal entrance. Other entries are provided along various aspects of the building complex. 21. The appeal settlement resulted in the building being moved toward the east approximately 62 feet and away from the shoreline. The taller indoor practice building is now located outside of the 200-foot shoreline management area. The move will reveal more of the shoreline and sky for the residents of Misty Cove. It will also move the mass of the building away from the shoreline. 22. The COR 2 zone permits lot coverage of 65 percent and a building height of 10-stories or 125 feet. The office building has a footprint of approximately 55,674 square feet, the indoor practice complex has a footprint of approximately 89,423 square feet and there is the 6,000 square foot maintenance shed for a total of 151,097 square feet or 17.7 percent of the 19.6 acre site. The office building will be 55 feet tall while the practice facility will be approximately 1 1 1 feet tall. Staff reports that the office building which falls within the 200-foot shoreline management zone complies with the Urban Shoreline designation of Renton's Shoreline Master Program. Although it is not a water-dependent use, the complex will provide access to the portions of the shoreline that have been off-limits to the public in the past. The one-story, 6,000 square foot maintenance and equipment storage building would be located in the southeast corner of the site. 23. There would be three or four outdoor practice fields. Some of the fields can be rotated to account for wear patterns. The three natural grass practice fields would be located on the portion of the property. The one artificial turf practice field would be parallel and adjacent to the east property line.The four practice fields would cover 8.3 acres. 24. The site would contain secured area to protect the practice fields, the players and to provide security and privacy during practices. 25. There is a variety of vegetation on the subject site including weeds, weed trees and some limited natural vegetation along the lake shore. The site will be landscaped with a variety of native trees and shrubs. Some of the larger trees would be preserved. As indicated a "green wall" would be located alone the north facade as pail of landscaping and screening. 26. Parties from Mercer Island with a view across the lake to this facility were concerned about views and screening as well as night lighting. 27. Primary access to the site would be from Lake Washington Boulevard and Ripley Lane. Any access or accesses will have to cross the Burlington Northern Santa Fe Railroad right-of-way. Currently, the primary access would be at the northeast corner of the subject site near the Misty Cove complex. A secondary access is available at the southeast corner of the property to Lake Washington Boulevard. Negotiations are underway with the railroad for a crossing about midway along the east property line. This would become the primary access if agreement can be reached. 28. On-site roads would be private and there would be parking for 252 vehicles. Parking would include 91 stalls for general surface parking and 161 secure(fenced)surface parking stalls for team members. Due to both limited access and on-site parking, the annual training camp, held for three weeks in August, would require off-site parking with a scheduled shuttle bus service in order to accommodate visitors. 4440104 Seahawks' Headquarters and Training Facility File No.: LUA-06-073, SA-H, SA-M, SM, ECF December 7, 2006 Now Page 10 29. As noted, there will be access to approximately 250 feet of Lake Washington shoreline. Access to the shoreline path would be via an east-west paved walkway located parallel to the north property boundary. A landscaped seating area and viewpoint would be provided. This path will typically be available to the public on the same schedule as City parks. 30. The development will increase traffic approximately 555 average vehicle trips per day. Traffic during open public sessions, mainly in August would be generally confined to normal traffic as well as some form of shuttle service to limit the amount of traffic and avoid taxing the local roads and the parking facility. 31. The applicant proposes using an "integral pest management plan"to limit the use of chemicals on the site. CONCLUSIONS: 1. The following general criteria are applicable to the subject site, which is zoned COR: Section 2 4-9-200 SITE DEVELOPMENT PLAN REVIEW: A PURPOSE AND INTENT: The purpose of site development plan review shall be to assure that proposed development is compatible with the plans,policies and regulations of the City of Renton as outlined in the City's Comprehensive Plan and the City's Business Plan Goals. Site development plan review may be used to analyze plans at iRow varying levels of detail to ensure continuity of project concept and consistent implementation. Elements subject to this Section include, but are not limited to, site layout, building orientation and design, pedestrian and vehicular environment, signage, landscaping, natural features of the site, screening and buffering, parking and loading facilities,and illumination. Site development plan review is divided into two types: Master Plan and Site Plan. 1. Master Plan: The purpose of the Master Plan process is to guide phased planning of development projects with multiple buildings on a single large site.The Master Plan is required to demonstrate how the major elements of a development are proposed on the site at sufficient detail to demonstrate the overall project concept. In addition, the Master Plan must illustrate how the major project elements, combined, create an urban environment that implements City goals. An additional purpose is to allow consideration and mitigation of potential impacts that could result from large-scale site and facility development,and to allow coordination with City capital improvement planning. Master Plan review should occur at an early stage in the development of a project, when the scale, intensity and layout of a project are known. 2. Site Plan Review: The purpose of the Site Plan process is the detailed arrangement of project elements so as to be compatible with the physical characteristics of a site and with the surrounding area. An additional purpose of Site Plan is to ensure quality development consistent with City goals and policies. For those developments that do not require Master Plan first, Site Plan Review should occur at an early stage in the development of a project, when the scale, intensity and layout of a project are known. Seahawks' headquarters and Training Facility File No.: LUA-06-073, SA-H, SA-M, SM, ECI= December 7, 2006 Page I I The intent of the tiered site development plan review process is to provide an opportunity to review projects at broad levels for the Master Plan and with increased specificity as development plans becomes refined to the level of Site Plan. Intent statements below shall guide review of the plans at a specificity appropriate to the level of review. 1. To promote the orderliness of community growth, protect and enhance property values and minimize discordant and undesirable impacts of development both on-and off-site; 2. To promote high quality design meeting criteria set forth in the City's Urban Center Design Overlay, where applicable; 3. To protect and enhance the desirable aspects of the natural landscape and environmental features of the City; 4. To ensure convenience and safety of vehicular and pedestrian movement within the site and in relation to adjacent areas, and ensure that road and pedestrian circulation systems implement land use objectives for the zone in which the project occurs; 5. To promote coordination of public or quasi-public elements, such as walkways, driveways, paths,and landscaping within segments of larger developments and between individual developments; 6. To protect neighboring owners and uses by assuring that reasonable provisions have been made for such matters as sound and sight buffers, light and air,and those other aspects of site plans which may have substantial effects on neighboring land uses; Noid 7.To minimize conflicts that might otherwise be created by a mix of uses within allowed zones; 8.To provide for quality,multiple family or clustered housing while minimizing the impacts of high density, heavy traffic generation,and intense demands on City utilities and recreational facilities; 9.To provide a mechanism to more effectively meet the purposes and intent of the State Environmental Policy Act; 10.To supplement other land use regulations by addressing site plan elements not adequately covered elsewhere in the City Code and to avoid violation of the purpose and intent of those codes. 2. More specific guidance is provided in the following criteria: 1. General Review Criteria for Both Master Plans and Site Plan Review: a. Conformance with the Comprehensive Plan, its elements, goals, objectives,and policies. In determining compliance with the Comprehensive Plan,conformance to the objectives and policies of the specific land use designation shall be given consideration over city-wide objectives and policies; b. Conformance with existing land use regulations; c. Mitigation of impacts to surrounding properties and uses; d. Mitigation of impacts of the proposed site plan to the site; e. Conservation of area-wide property values; f. Safety and efficiency of vehicle and pedestrian circulation; g. Provision of adequate light and air; h. Mitigation of noise, odors and other harmful or unhealthy Nod conditions; Seahawks' I-Ieadquarters and Training Facility File No.: LUA-06-073, SA-H, SA-M, SM, ECF Nkimm,. December 7, 2006 Page 12 Availability of public services and facilities to accommodate the proposed use; and j. Prevention of neighborhood deterioration and blight. 3. The criteria for a Master Plan and Site Plan review overlap or coincide in a number of particulars. Frankly, the Master Plan criteria are intended for a large multi-dimensional project with a variety of components,probably spread over a larger area. The Master plan would be more appropriately applied to a large, multi-phase or multi-building project where the aim is to achieve a cohesive,blended, harmonious whole. The Master Plan review would be to make sure to knit a uniform project that looks as if all of the elements and a variety of buildings had a basic design theme or one which made sure that all of the elements worked together as far as access,circulation and similar features spread over a larger proposal. A Master Plan review does not necessarily identify with the current proposal where one purpose is identified by the applicant-a complex in which to manage and train a professional football team. In the current proposal there really is only the one building, served by one, linear access road and the associated outdoor sports fields. The site pretty much stands alone. If and when development occurs south of the proposed complex on additional COR 2 property that will be under separate ownership and development criteria. 4. A fair number of City goals and objectives all point to redeveloping this very under-utilized property The City has always envisioned more interesting, one could say, grand plans for this former industrial area along the lakeshore. It has been years since a major industrial use that was water-related could utilize lakeshore property and not potentially inflict environmental damage on the shoreline or the lake and its water quality. Of course,some questions could he raised about the limited scope of this proposal ''tr►'` in terms of creating new as opposed to relocated employment and of basically leaving fallow, the spaces dedicated to practice fields that might have been developed with additional office buildings or research park. Might a mixed-use complex been more appropriate rather than one focused solely on the Seahawks football team? Possibly,but than again, a portion of this property still requires remedial capping of environmentally questionable soils probably mediating against development of housing Similarly,disturbance of some portion of the underlying soils would not be advisable for building foundation work whereas outdoor practice fields present a good match since there would be limited disturbance of the soils. The proposed plan will bring executive and administrative offices to this site. The site will be a focus for public visitation -practice and pre-season games. The proposed complex is also quite well-designed and has metamorphed into a better plan. The building has been moved further from the lake to reduce its visual impacts on both neighbors and those using the lake itself or viewing it across the lake. The four playing fields also keep about half of the site visually unencumbered. The complex will also be screened by landscaping along its facades and the site's perimeter. The building couplet has been scaled and terraced and utilizes visual elements to reduce its bulk and increase its visual interest. Clearly, any permissible use of the site,other than open space or parkland would create impacts on neighbors, boaters and Mercer Island residents. The plan also accommodates public use of a shoreline that has been closed to the public for decades. 5. The comprehensive plan suggests the redevelopment of former industrial sites with large-scale projects while remediating the impacts of the former industrial pollution. The proposed Seattle Seahawks administrative offices and practice facilities appear to fulfill these objectives with a high profile tenant in a highly styled complex. The complex as noted offers a mix of structural components, the office building and the indoor practice facility, and open space and landscaping, the four open-air practice fields and the general landscaping found around the grounds. The shoreline location suggests public access and that will be provided by the approximately 250 feet of trail along the lake shore as well as the connecting trail to the public rights-of-way east of the subject site. The offices will provide an urban Novae focus and a center for employment. The site, of course,provides built-in amenities. It has the lakeshore Seahawks' Headquarters and Training Facility File No.: LUA-06-073, SA-I-1, SA-M, SM, ECF December 7, 2006 Nod Page 13 and wetlands and views out over the lake. These will be well exploited by the orientation of the building. 6. The building meets the bulk standards for the COR 2 zone in terms of height and lot area coverage. Staff reported that it complies with the urban definition requirements of the City's current Shoreline regulations. Compliance with building and fire code requirements will be determined when appropriate permits are submitted for actual development. 7. The building complex has been moved away from the lake an additional 62 feet to offset to some extent its impacts on the adjacent residential complex. It has also redesigned its north facade treatment to reduce its visual impact on its near neighbors. There is no question that any permissible development of this site that adds buildings above grade will have an impact. That cannot be prevented save for keeping privately owned property as open space. That is not currently an option and the proposed plan appears to have achieved some reasonable compromise. After all,approximately half of the site, the entire south portion of the property will be open space - it will be practice fields. The applicant is seeking to create its own,new crossing of the railroad to reduce traffic impacts on its northerly residential neighbors who all share Ripley Lane. The applicant proposes replanting areas of the lakeshore with native plants and some larger specimens. Those efforts will serve to provide some screening without closing off the site's own visual access to the lake view. 8. The building complex has been designed to terrace upward from the lake with the office building scaled to approximately 55 feet and the more easterly element,the indoor practice fields, at 1 1 1 feet. Open space is a featured clement on the entire south half of the parcel. Landscaping will be used to soften facades and enhance the perimeter of the site near the railway and the road system. The building has a formal entry and focal point. It also has the public shoreline walkway. The exterior treatment combines a variety of-high-quality materials and finishes, colors and textures. Both horizontal and vertical banding and articulation will also be used in the facades to add visual interest and break the bulk into faceted planes. Recognizing past industrial pollution and current sensitivities, the applicant will be using Integrated Pest Management(IP/v1) techniques on all ornamental landscaped areas and natural turf practice fields. 9. The redevelopment of this will increase property values although there is no avoiding the fact that construction and occupancy on what has been a vacant site for quite a while will have an impact on the immediate community. The construction impacts should be relatively short-lived. The impacts of reuse and occupancy were anticipated when this site was comprehensively planned and the zoning was put in place. It was expected that this site and its neighbors to the south would be developed with a variety of more intensive uses bringing with those more intensive uses additional traffic, people, urban scale development and the general tumult of a vibrant urban lake shore. 10. The settlement agreement provides assurances that for an extended period of time there would be no night activities or lighting to accommodate night activities. Normal considerations will limit exterior lighting and parking lots and building entrances would be equipped with cut-off features to avoid light spillage onto adjacent properties. Again, though, interior lights will change the character or visual canvas that a vacant site provided from the lake's vantage point or even for those looking down on the site from the east. 11. The site's somewhat isolated location limits the complexity of access and circulation although the site does share Ripley Lane with others north of the site- The applicant is seeking an additional access which, would help improve access for both visitors to the site and to adjacent properties. The internal circulation appears reasonable. Additional visitor access during open events on the campus will be Seahawks' Headquarters and Training Facility File No: LUA-06-073,SA-H, SA-M, SM, ECF December 7, 2006 Nom" Page 14 accommodated by shuttle vehicles from remote parking areas to help limit the amount of traffic to the site. A canopied walkway connects parking to the main entrance. Interior walkways will accommodate pedestrians moving between facilities on the property. 12. The large open spaces on the south as well as the setback between the residential complex to the north and the current proposal allows entry of light and air to both the side and neighboring properties. The east aspect is already fairly open given the parallel roadways and railroad. The relocation of the building will reduce some shadow impacts although, again, any development of the subject site by legally permissible development would have an impact. The impacts have been reduced but not eliminated. 13. Construction will generate the most noise and this should be limited in duration. As noted above, there will be additional hubbub when the site is occupied and a bit more during the open practices during the summer season. 14. The site will be served by City water and sewer service. The Baxter Lift Station will need to be utilized and appropriately updated. Stormwater will be directed to the lake. The development will comply with the Department of Ecology and King County regulations. The creek's alignment will be altered and its outfall enhanced but it will remain culverted for a majority of its run through the subject site. The applicant will be paying mitigation fees imposed by the ERC to offset some impacts of the development on the City's facilities. 15. The redevelopment of the subject site will enhance the site and prevent deterioration or additional blight on the subject site 16. In addition to the above criteria the COR Zones provide additional criteria for reviewing a proposal. Those criteria include: a. The plan is consistent with a Planned Action Ordinance, if applicable; b. The plan creates a compact, urban development that includes a compatible mix of uses that meets the Comprehensive Plan vision and policy statements for the Commercial/Office/Residential or Urban Center North Comprehensive Plan designations; c. The plan provides an overall urban design concept that is internally consistent, and provides quality development; d. The plan incorporates public and private open spaces to provide adequate areas for passive and active recreation by the occupants/users of the site, and/or to protect existing natural systems; e. The plan provides view corridors to the shoreline area and Mt. Rainier where applicable; f. Public access is provided to water and/or shoreline areas; g. The plan provides distinctive focal points such as public area plazas, prominent architectural features,or other items; h. Public and/or private streets are arranged in a layout that provides reasonable access to property and supports the land use envisioned; and i. The plan accommodates and promotes transit,pedestrian, and other alternative modes of transportation. 17. There is no Planned Action Ordinance involving the subject site. Seahawks' Headquarters and Training Facility File No.: LUA-06-073, SA-H, SA-M, SM, ECF December 7, 2006 Page 15 18. The proposal is basically self-contained. The site's limitations include the poor and/or contaminated soils on the south half leaving commercial and office development a reasonable accomplishment. In addition,the COR zoned property to the south provides a residential component. It meets the comprehensive plan's goal of redeveloping the subject site with high quality uses. 19. The plan provides both public and private open space. There is the walking path along the shoreline and there are the open practice fields for team workouts. The applicant proposes to enhance the shoreline by restoring natural plants and protecting the existing wetland. 20. Shoreline view corridors will be provided both by the shoreline trail as well as the open views across the playing fields. Views of the lake will be available from the office building and other open areas on the subject site. 2I. The proposal will provide a focal point as an icon of a professional football team as well as when it is open to the public for practice sessions in the summer. The building is well designed and should be attractive even at its larger scale. 22. The access for the site is focused along Ripley Lane and/or Lake Washington Boulevard. It should reasonably serve the site for both vehicles and pedestrians. DECISION: The proposed Master Site Plan and Site Plan are approved subject to the following conditions: 1. The applicant shall submit a color and materials board demonstrating exterior materials and finishes to the Development Services project manager for approval prior to obtaining building permits. 2. The applicant shall submit a detailed landscape plan for the riparian zone along the shoreline of Lake Washington and install landscaping of a type and in a manner so as to enhance wildlife riparian habitat. Such submittal shall be prior to obtaining building permits and installation of landscaping shall be completed prior to building occupancy. 3. The applicant shall submit a detailed project landscape plan, meeting the requirements of RMC 4-8- 120D12, to the Development Services project manager for approval prior to obtaining building permits. 4. The applicant shall submit a detailed landscape plan and maintenance program for the public right-of- way landscaping along Ripley Lane abutting the Burlington Northern Santa Fe Railroad right-of-way. The plan shall be submitted to the Development Services project manager for approval prior to obtaining building permits and installation shall be prior to building occupancy. 5. The applicant shall submit a plan demonstrating locations of outdoor light fixtures, their function, light levels,and illumination coverage to the Development Services project manager for approval prior to obtaining building permits. 6. Football Northwest shall develop the project with the office building and the Indoor Practice Facility located as shown in the Mitigation Site Plat-Alternative. FNW shall develop a green screen wall, planted with ivy or other appropriate landscaping materials,along the bottom thirty(30) feet of the northeasterly elevation of the indoor practice facility. In addition,FNW will develop the north elevation of the indoor practice facility substantially in accordance with the principles stated in the Settlement ti Agreement. Seahawks' Headquarters and Training Facility File No.: LUA-06-073, SA-H, SA-M, SM, ECF December 7,2006 Notre Page 16 7. Fan parking during training camp will be accommodated at a parking lot or parking facility off the project site, with fans then being bused to the site. 8. The project dumpster/recycling area will use containers with lids,and the container storage area will be screened from the Misty Cove property. The garbage and recycling pickups will occur during normal business hours on weekdays—not at nights or very early morning hours. All non-recyclable materials placed in the containers will be in sealed plastic bags. 9. FNW shall replace the existing property line fence between the Misty Cove property and the project site with a new fence of at least equal quality. 0. No athletic field lighting is being proposed under the permit. The Seahawks agree not to seek any permit to do so for a period of 15 years from the date of this Agreement. All project exterior lighting will be designed so that the lighting is directed away from the Misty Cove residences. 11. FNW will provide signage that clearly indicates the main entrance to the project site, so that visitors to the site can easily find the entrance. Any signage will have to comply with City and State regulations. 12. The proposed shoreline area planting plan shall include lower-level plantings in the north section of the project shoreline area, in order to minimize impacts of views of the water from the adjacent Misty Cove Condominium property. ,fir 13. The mitigation and design measures in the Lake and Stream Study and the Turf Integrated Pest Management Plan submitted to the City as part of the project application shall be conditioned to permit approval. ORDERED THIS 7`''day of December 2006. FRED J.KAU AN HEARING EX INER TRANSMI I 1 ED THIS 7' day of December 2006 to the parties of record: Elizabeth Higgins Kayren Kittrick Roger Pearce 1 055 S Grady Way Development Services Foster Pepper Renton, WA 98055 Renton, WA 98055 1 1 1 1 Third Avenue, 34'h Floor Seattle, WA 98101 Lance Lopes David Murphy VP Seahawks Crawford Architects Larry&Esther Harsher 800 Occidental Avenue S 1801 McGee St., Ste. 200 6940 96"Avenue SE Seattle, WA 98034 Kansas City, MO 64108 Mercer Island, WA 98040 Eileen Halverson Joe Burcar Carl Hadley 5021 Ripley Lane N, #302 3190 160`''Avenue SE Cedar Rock Consultants Renton,WA 98056 Bellevue, WA 98008 19609 244th Avenue Seahawks' Headquarters and Training Facility File No.: LUA-06-073, SA-H, SA-M, SM, ECF December 7, 2006 Page 17 Woodinville, WA 98077 Football Northwest Port Quendall Company 505 Fifth Avenue S., Ste. 900 505 Fifth Avenue S., Ste. 900 Ray Colliver Seattle, WA 98104 Seattle,WA 98104 505 Fifth Avenue S., Ste. 900 Seattle, WA 98104 Michael Cero Thomas Peterson 8300 Avalon Drive Socius Law Group PLLC Thelma Sutherland Mercer Island, WA 98040 Two Union Square 1205 N 29"'Street 601 Union Street, Ste. 4950 Renton, WA 98056 Brian T. Sabey Seattle,WA 98101 5021 Ripley Lane N, Ste. 304 Jared Salstrom Renton, WA 98056 5021 Ripley Lane N, Ste. 213 Renton, WA 98056 Steve Jansen Eleanor Maargo Kennamer, President Elya George Baches 5021 Ripley Lane N, Ste. 4 Misty Cove Condo Association 1414 N 34"'Street Renton, WA 98056 5021 Ripley Lane N, Ste. 309 Renton, WA 98056 Renton,WA 98056 Aaron Belenky, President Elaine Wine Williamsburg Condo HOA Steve Gregerson Vulcan 1800 NE 40"Street, Ste. H-4 5021 Ripley Lane N, Ste. 302 505 Fifth Avenue S, Ste. 900 Renton, WA 98056 Renton,WA 98056 Seattle, WA 98104 Barbara Paxhia Shelly Munkberg Tom Ehrlichman Nod 5021 Ripley Lane N, Ste. 104 SECO Development Socius Law Group Renton, WA 98056 1083 Lake Washington Blvd N., Ste. 50 Two Union Square Renton,WA 98056 601 Union Street, Ste.4950 Richard Wagner Seattle, WA 98101 Baylis Architects Jeffrey Taraday 10801 Main Street, Ste. 110 Foster Pepper Bellevue, WA 98004 1 1 1 1 Third Avenue, Ste. 3400 Seattle, WA 98101 TRANSMI l I ED THIS 7"day of December 2006 to the following. Mayor Kathy Keolker Stan Engler, Fire Jay Covington, Chief Administrative Officer Larry Meckling, 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 King County Journal Pursuant to Title IV, Chapter 8, Section 1000of the City's Code, request for reconsideration must be filed in writing on or before 5:00 p.m.,December 21,2006. 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, ,ori after review of the record, take further action as he deems proper. • Seahawks' Headquarters and Training Facility File No.: LUA-06-073, SA-H, SA-M, SM, ECF December 7, 2006 "stole Page 18 An appeal to the City Council is governed by Title IV,Chapter 8, Section 110, which requires that such appeal be filed with the City Clerk, accompanying a filing fee of$75.00 and meeting other specified requirements. Copies of this ordinance are available for inspection or purchase in the Finance Department, first floor of-City Hall. An appeal must be filed in writing on or before 5:00 p.m., December 21, 2006. 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. Project Location: 5015 Lake Washington Boulevard N (also addressed as 5015, 4801, 4635 Ripley Lane) a. _ . , •a+r ."'la aaenM8u arum ii l_ i 1 p 1141‘ SITE • .• �; '.:, :� a,' N WW1 fIZMir. r� • 1, t�' �as:1 Sj n�L� ' karSI itri .. :,dill �1�� �7 ii • • ;;.;,,.... •�. `•. 4 •3 ? n 1Yt1__ I ;1• N f ••• 'err+' "'t`� , :-i� � �., �•�:;4:. mew • i_. x w n ..: .. . • GM(~'-- :g ;`'• .Ftp.-I �; oT= .a �, ' .,........,,.g....,„4„,„,, GJ . ___ , ,,,:...5. r _' j< • PROJECT i� m t 1 H� f` amp 1 j4 r 4.:24 , ,o p r , LOCATION ,, N risr sr am s <•lit•;,.ii e. , g ., , q L— '8.°4 0:x`.315,15**n 11`.8 S ti SE i7r't ' • Hro _ z .,;‘,•.:',.:-:,'129 Vyst ••< . .%\-s arm '� ` SE 76TH - M ,'' ,.�n J y . n R 0 1 44 h % 'd4T'_„ ±�'. u� tars J _ el•J�� �� tr. .,,� a. Z kr. •=r.icyy' /. J1 .13'•r SE �. T'S/ 4 gr..r 1 '-•C'1. '• w eaM St St Mtd F Uni: `z 7; t. SFE / i. J - enf --,43=!. A fifiOTH.ST w`:0_.-:, ._,-n-ra.-.-. il.f,t,... 'ROA NE 40TW 3 I ;" f rt Miff .,t : :'ft s1:- nbJs - . ,� `�pc i K < S utH ` 8£+L71 PN<J121_ 2 ��Agif-T-ailakt',".aC` - f.:`pi•. '_ SSPE r- ea:...t..d.f. .ti ;,:griPMIL'.....i :. / 0 0,i;;,,..K;.:iiii.:(:-2„:j.5! '4100.' 4. . a X77 )DL,u _ Kp- C •'. LAKE - ,4. " ^`0 `u M . 0 ^i A SIWGTON117 ii N ':.:1.:,:.:--ill -El': 1 , �HE iS .17:'";... f -Y—:....•;:t sl l'''°'-ui't:frc. i g 1 _ r f i t ilia:' ��b 0 ,,• rr` 11 scar ti 115 ei . •1 r �lik, rr qiiV i 0 0 1/4 1/2 1 cn I. EXHIBIT ' Scale In Miles S'eahawks Headquarters and Practice Facility I w I Renton,Washington I I 0 2 NOTE VICINITY MAP Reproduced with permission granted by THOMAS BROS.MAPS®. o This rnap is copyrighted by THOMAS BROS. MAPS®. It Is unlawful to copy or reproduce all or any part thereof,whether for September 2006 21-1-20525-003 0 personal use or resale,without permission. All rights reserved. i ici SHANNON&WILSON,INC. oo*,th*r and Environ tri Cons ttants - I ..._.\, \ - -f i . ./ , C / CA EJ R %` �/ ,,,,. , ,, �� , �/ -----, -- - f CI 1- iN� --- , - �.,� - - 1 - CUR I Cn i3 ., CUR , 8 U w R�� � • - ---- / _,•,...\____, ; I 1 1 i - .. - i: re. . .._ 0_, .„,:_c.r., . ..e...„<?<7 --.7-' ------- L---...—,.—I. —7_,-. -1,-- w O � JLi.__ likow EXHIBIT ZONING MAP 4 1 0 o i • C f� <e-F'11 1111 LAKE WASHINGTON PSE ELECT. �O '' �•� STATON I , - - - .. ` J L. �_-L_ I ,\ WETLANDS ,,,--____„=„,,...,A. to _—~`—`L' IN i-�• .1_� �.. a!STING BwLOwc ^; - I.b. STRUCTURETO BE \ _ _ ' �� �i/I'' .`'L 1` EXTENT OF REMOVED Gl1R: I PUBLIC ACCESS c'ACCESS WALK i�� j ��� � EXf5T1N. SECURITY FENCE r� : ? �.:- y.y.._.._.� DOCK r EXISTING POWER ��� !♦� j� //r�ii��•� �/.��e� y 20' SERVICE ROAD POLE LOCATION �� =me ��� iT! i o �1. :.,-..:•....- .,/r �//.z..45i/ii' "• SOUTH PROPERTY �1�� / �f=« y.�l,:"=•.jjji<: i. ^'y •..>S'r:';,•.Y.:;.�= l�• FENCE LINE �� lr�EL� i�iC aff %1/'i'+'ir:'. .111 ;.1--?1141'1''114..+r.li:r>7,P-st°I —_ _— \' �»rJ! `� / �i��Z1£ 1"1r t• F ` •'' it q i — i. Y PSE EASEu ENT !� m�'� -- "e. e .......'� 9�55':., C:7 UNE (Teo) : �I�mommanimme o`L,1L9' �ssimm` � ;c .f.5 t—..1 't..-t/ ...Ile: y�" ��• it 'Ais, j f :•-.. � NOMMEIMUNEMP a'J�•IVI•1lg1SI- err I,.�:,,,. •-ia• :.:Ic::r.,: ExiSTNG POWER mama! mo �i7r� rni� .:.:tiff'H: _`;:. :• uaS.- •\�Ll POLE LOCATION II �mor uj - , •1 e °1 ', e I' r a reit tr�� �d� ��siet , _� y e aNEW 1- STORY �.fiiMni _ !: WVNTENANCE riot r�� s.: 4 , 1 { a 4 rei } ', s'n-Kt .. Xa, \\ m,_— i SHED - :, +i1 \\ = A oc COVERED CRR WASH PAD +c` ,.F ._ t....y it „,. J ...ep \ (DIXiSilrtc POWER T �;%: a`t k J.-^: �t....,.........:.-4. 2• ,i- ; co ' POLE LOCATION .... CURS —_ — RRT'r'.UL TJFF F1yLD iS.�'1� � ,#' o spa PARKIN K1N ����i. s�`'” — 7� � (1,1�(11j 1 I U 1 I l I 1 W LI I IlLt11 W 1.( id ¢iI " SECURfTY GATE _ 1 i rf� _ t_ 1 �jH1 {SURFACE PARKING� _ 0—SECURITY " 0 FlILE• 111 It •rI�� I y S..' 'SE�URiT1'GATE BURLINGTON CZOffiNFRN `AYI a RIGHT- F-WAY — M miminwe mismillilmilli a maaus — PROPOSED RA)IWAY CROSSING - 111 Z iiiii��r a. Q fa • EXHIBIT o tail. PARKING COSI( F STRFAM cc 105 GENERAL SURFACE PARKING 1<t STALLS _ D z LAKEGYPAsSSUBINOTON N - CLA E ASS ' CLASS 2 (RE FIGURE P,3) TOTAL 254 .SECURE TEAM PARK INC t 13 STALLS z Q INTERc` 1T 4-7 4 C� IO v� � -- _ - - -• I .,. ner Ili OO 8.49E 9fjE PLAN o 'wc e eerr>9.ne.. O O errt.L....,(ATI�,•.be .cnm.uNO•l•-nea Ln z • _0.0•. • ( ( Ar• ::::"..,,;; ;..!:j,.?•,.....,..4.'..i:::.:$5';:•;til:,.!;c;.Z.M.P.;ri, ..:/..;,••••'......'". ,:.:.7.:••••:**-r.."•'....''...'4";;;itt -•,- • :.,.,:15‘,..1-:;,.....-• . • '' ' . . . . . ,_-;„.,•!,Offi,1.-ic.::•:,,••••':'..:..•,:.•:.::,..,•!-'..i,••,-.•.....:,, ',••„,;.-,.!:-.....-.:,-...,i - . , ,...-: , ,,,•••;.,,,(t5,14,,..;:',1,',:...:.'•.:',';''.,:',.,......•,•,..-.•.:.:.;-,,i•I',...;:,2::.'•;:il..:'..•..'7•..*!.....:.,1 ' "' •..'.,;. • • .••'.':,-;',-P't•''''t. -• '.••;,•,. J•fe,f:•:',:,:V.;,...:;..-:'.Y.::'•...7:"...'•...,:...';'!'..:•,...',•'••••...7,....-:'...•..!.,...',•: • ; -'..,. . . ' .. 2:.•:-.....!'N%.,.'"?;',-;:".",',.',...^i..,;,;!:::;.i'•,':....!.,,-,.....::',.::.i.::•;,":•[:!.,••.•.-:•i":-,,,..•. _.. • , '..: . . • ..--1,--'''41,-"?..,?.'."•,.::.:,',..'.,•••...-F..-:•••••••:•,*;:'.•,:i.':;..-:'•,':',';:.'.•;•',.'..7':... -; •• ' :• ...• •••;;;:c7.•tris4V4V••••s••;::.•••:•••••••,•••••••••.. •.-.:•••...........-••••••,--77,.-.7-.•• ..• ... .. . . .. ,.. . ....',-....:e.4.4ii4. • 7.•:77.•41.tee......7••••'••••••;i••••,:'••;:;•:•••:•••,'•:.•:.;•.•..••••.....,:7••••:,;.7.:;•'•7 7,'".•••••:•.*••••••;.. • '` .'•• • • .••••;••••••:•?, •••;••• . '. •-••:•,..i, '„.;,,,i4;•:•••••'••••••••....7 '7••••:•••••"z.,',7i...•::••••..••••,:••••I'.'.••••-•-•";••'-*••••;7•:.; . ' ••••- •'''.!;.••:••17 .:;•;;••••••••••••••.*:... ctfh•,,le.-?i,;,••. • ..:::`,••7;•,.7",`I•••-•••••..1.--kaics••••4•SiRO,I;•• ij..";••"•••:•••••;f:i•:..•••• •f•••••••:',•••-..7••••••...:;.•,...,:••:...:.7•••••••••••:.:-.....',.. 7' - . ••,..:-..„.,•7,,,,, • :.4.1,,,i100,;;.-tp•,,,,fie,,,,?.,•.,..,,.....,',.....,,,i.:„...!:..`,,,•••;"!"...::',':.••...,,!i,;',.',...•;:•.,c...:.,,:i••".. , .". •.. ''•'? ''',,_„..-','t,,V,..•',,,t,,Ojt.ii••44.4,::0:',Z:.4::.,,,:v:•.•-,,,,:,4,4.,',...'...•'..-t7-.!...,I 7.%.:...,,,::.,•;:: .•.::.,,....;::••.--:••.::,,,::::"-.:-': .•: ' • •.': :...ii... ...':.•-••,.:::-.,•,.::•.•:•,i:t..v.i...:1.11•6.4.il'i",...,.Eki-,P''"- '' .''''',:,••4.•.-44-;.',.'eniig,f•:•!,;,..,:.:4,,',"..:.•.•••.:-........-.5:':',-,-.:,."•••••,'........,:,.:.:':V.•.-;-,--...,-..,•.',....-•:.*:::.;..;•,.• ',,....:.• 1.%.-;1.i..:-••••:',:::,..':i.::::Ifi„,..;!:Siv.I.V.,•,-i•e•.',-•;:7.4,::.''' _ ':•,:i.:,,s,1)%.:::,,,IT..,:i:,,...-..,:!:•..,V;;4::;••4:,'1,...:•:•..-',.,;•••.'.".,'.::':".:...;),•;,....;',::-..•'"-%':,...•.,."-;;-:•-•....:-•:',........''''...,.7•:'....:."--,.••• .•.-'.-•:,.": -',44•2`^''",•-•:•:':e,",,Z•i,,:',;,'::',:•.1,.:::.::".,•tVi'.••:.:..*:':..::.*:-,i:':.•:'••• '.::''..•,,,::':,...';'-':.--:••;•,,,,,,:',, ...'."•.',.•::. ,,,,, ..:...: :t•vef.:::,...,....7.•:-...1."•.'..:4:r:•.;:‘,•.:4":.c.;.,faklitk??P".:-.. , .. . .,, .‘,.:...-.1...!;%t,it'1,:•;:,!,•;:.::•i••:.,..;1•,.:%:tf!'.!'.':.!.,:..,...:.•••••:i;...,.. ..:i.,*:,,'....-:,',.,...:'.?..1?......,;:,':-..,.i'fi;''',':.;".C:r'is-...'..;;:::".',•.::f'',','.17'.f.'".:: ;P;1.:.:.•,:11`,,.;;:•! :."4":4-11•':i."2;:it44•Pki(,t., ::,• . . e.',.:.•.Y:se,:z::,:v.^..,:"-)A0.,,,,:s.;,:•,,,,ks:WfV0, ,-.;- . ,,,... -, ......,,,,..,,,,,,;.:•,;,•..„',,;.,::.,,,-,-•.• f!,...tR44:1,...fs•i•ii•;:i‘i,•,?,5,1:;,!:.:,,:';i..i.:•1;f.::;1'..,,,;:•;;F.I.,,,:'."•,-*:.::`.::..e.:'.:!..:''..!:.,:.:."...'7.,.".,:•....--•':::ii:,,,f.,..1';',..•,::::•,;•:,,,'•....::::::-'::'•;*•'•••'',C-••''•:'' .re:t.ei..t.....if.,,..:,?1,-•:'•••••",%"-:".:it,:, •y,, ..:;,,...,:li,...,,,:j•..i.,,-;,,,e,i,,,;.. ,;-..,t 1,,,i.47.1,,;ft.i...:0'.‘;!!Iiii5,:i;:r.:at.::".,..!?;•.;4;"•.',1,',If.':,:;•:- ;'4!•::„.:.:• :',,•.',•,::/•;r:',7,::,:,*..'.,'2. -.,:-.:?,.:.1.i.'..:•',:•i....'"...,..•••••:,..;:•••:...,..;•i'',.•::,..:-.'."...::e..7-... trit'N'l-,V 4:''., •'''- -T'':''',''', ."-`'S'..'.IP•fohi%:•iitt4: '',4,'jk.t"P'Arft.1.4',E;vz,t.'i.i':.f..•••••,'14.;••.:1".>:,?.. .:?:!.%-:,:,:.:1,:.:.ift';'-t":!.--:•:;•::',.;•:Z:••.-,,::.?;;.,-.'•*:::••••••'-i•,:*:.:.:•:.••••:::• ..<:.•-•!i:.•••:::.;.::• :••,'... :,,•:::: .,„.,•.",.•:.,,• p,!,,.1311,44:14,:lirmir,,•.a..aitio,-.pw.otr.A.,,.?;;••,,.,i-...,4iif,',7,-Aff.:.4.,•••=1.pi:.:-.. ..,,..1.-....„•:,...:.::•,.•...,::•:',.4:,.....$,P..i,.. :.....c.,::,t.:i?...•:....,;..:::.••••i.,...•••(;:: ::.,,,12-.••:,:••••:.,•,.......,;;;4 A.,.;.;;.:,..,11;.,!:4•2?..e.,;;,34MA.W.V.1.4i,h7rrarkh.1.1•144C,,,W.:?•11:-.;424....'rev , . .,...?.. ..;?4".;,,....,,..,!...7,,,,,...'''...,;.;i4'...1.::::::,,...;;;;;.::,.!•.,,,,,•:.'.`•,,,F.;;.;?:•S.s,,,,s';',...,•.,_;..1.:•;.-••,..;!7.•,:: fp-'f'-'-':•• •,-.• owi•••••,•"-,-,---...,-,i•-•,-;••:: ::,••••.•;-•:•,.i.,,,,,,-.,7-..,;•,,q....,,,,,,,,,A:t,f,,i,:,,L,,,,...,:e.,,,•;••,•:.••:;•44,,,,,,,,,,:•.,...,:-..-.,•,...,;.•,,ez•••,:,.-:•..,,p.?:•.,„•,:.....„..,......,,,,:,,,,,,.,:•.,......„,...:,..........-.....,...,y,..;,.•.,.•:. Arre.,..,..;..,,,,,-.:_!....,,,..„,...,..,..,:•,....,„..;:,...,..,,,..A,,,,,,,.)„,„?,%.1...titcl4v,.,.0„..,...-:,,,,....,.....,•Nas..4..,,,,,,,,.......,,,,,,.,,,,,,,,:4;. ".,,,,Kv.„1,••••.....,•,•?„.,,•:-.,...,....,-..,...,,,,,:-...,.....,•..,...,..,,...!..,:•••., •-i',•--i• i...,tbeNgiti8I:o.gi: :,.....A.i....i.::-..,..!.:•.F... ..7::f--i!,v1.,'-ft,,,l'iN-• 3:•*...i.,:,,..:";.::::••••;•-ikitz•tA3.-9:i:.;,..;:iii-s.i.,,,,,•:,. .,p10?•;E..,,ii,f;ril.p.i:.!ir,,f,..c.:.:7:••••-!..i.i•-••••,.'i.!:.:-.,,-•,...:::,;: :::•-fA.t:.•;1•::-..; • .. . . ---.,.."'.•'''''.•''''''''."- " ".''''"-:'"•.11''''it!"-';'''';.•••.'''''."?.-•1;•:•?.."'?ic`:3;,••••,,:-I''-'• ..''.''.$'ili:•};'',...!• :,#:7Za54!:,:.-;7•:'1:.:•: 1.•::?'.1.;;1:Y.,..'?,t:Y;:-0,-..'.;....7•*;.1.i:..$:;;A•e,i''iflilz..-fgt'ifitirt:'f,i'f%-i,..i.i:.•..::;5 .... "•`••7•4 .w7.47‘,••::::',:•••••:•••••••:-• ••••,•;',"::•:',.:','..-•-•,-"•:•,....A',.,.is-4;'.:•::',4'.L,,,,:.,...,.....'•:,..',:...:.,-,..:-:...", i.:: ,..''', .''.‘":•;:,,nr..,71.2.;•i••,r•:...''.,•;','...*..-.,.....-'i,..,.....'9.;:',,'“..-Y1"i'',.••••:,..;,:•••6,;:.•"...'-'..';.*••••••••,,-*;-•.•:•?1.,•,:••.-.. - •-,-,:,,,;:-.e: •,,,,,,,:fv:,:',:.,;:.•••:',.",::,-,;•..1.•-•.7.:;,•'.•••;,•!..,,,,,..,,..;.:',,..,'::,,;,:i.il,....,....t:::.•N,:•‘:::•,..:.'.•."-':.1•' .•. '•'.: '''''''-":,•''',";\'''.1.V-4.1t,S:•';••:;'''':''''''-':-'•••';':'•.,;"'''•,::-Z.::-4::•••.-y:‘,•';•.-...,1-..;; ;;::,:;',1s::,..'•/-:.•.;,:;.•••,,?;,;/.1.4... ... :,.,•••,-.„.•. - - •'•....- • :''''''''''•••'''''••••'Is'''-•''''''••••410e••••^•••"''''.•'•••••••;7'•.:-'•-••••••';.:7,,!;,-.•••,3‘:11:5;•.if,•:•/•:.;:•;r7•••••::•-•.i.•••,•••••:,;••••••••••••••sx:•7-:•,:;ii•:•-.•; F•••:•:::•.••••k•i•..,i••••:•':•.7i.-•• . . ,•7.4'.:V.•A 7.•i.. k..., ,5,?..r...:0, „„.;,...;,.. ,. ...,. ., ,, -....„-:,-..„,..., ...,..„...z,....,:.:.::„,,,t,v‘'•*•,••••••••;•;1•••••'••••••;••••:•*tvq.:••••••,1;•:,•::74!i:P•"••••"••7•R•••41? ,4.-:••••.1•••‘•;.... ••„t. .--•••-.. .;:;•;.. •,I 7 17•••4'.,i _•;.•.•••-,•=;-;••=7. ,';,-...1...-.,-,.-.z......144.1:„.•••litIckilik;;Z:.7;?::::-.V.24;4•414,.•Ap,•,4)1i.;;;;tipS•14.0..t.:14.1..4FC.1•4.t.3h:••;44.4t..Vit•ge,r,V;:*•144 • i•••z••••i•••..:'. . •••4*:•••'-I`,..::• ••••:.••••••••.'..•. :4,•;:f . •,.7• ' •..„.• ....el:2,1111.-„,: -''-----•4,f.s7.,••..... ••-••••:•• :'•'••i••• •..?•,;-,••••::'•'''..1•7;•'"*.,'•i L•f.4%.:;'•.!;::••:/:'-ltr:•`'..1":•;;;•i.••:.1.•-;A';•••..: 6'.•..,• •. .. ..ti•s':••••1.•!•', - 1,'qv:-ell. •• ..z..r..•,.....:..•1-.:•;r•;•.;:••••.•, . ;•••• •••, ..m."!;%*-E!.,:;',11..??.:I:.,•!,7-,7•,:;:.;:',,,;.:4i;. ;.•4%•;;11.,.V•Izi •;.1;'.'4•,••••Vx,-4,1•37>:•-••141:I.;..'40i•il...7.'i:tk '''':-:'"''''•••;-_.•':',"••••••••-'‘!•••• •;;;•.'4•?.:Pel..ei:=;•,,*1•..407:••.::eftfig.A.,• -, ?..,z.i:3•"••••••.::.t•-••Pla?.4.r.2•!7.1'1)Xl;'••• - 4:i47 4!11.!C,i.::•41:W.VV;Y:77ilf:(41;%.--w.,;-E,.,,-.Iffili'l.:0::?1*.r..j'a?ee'Vit4;•;,XV•i'.4,.t.?%- ?" ..'-'.%.40'..-V"..41:'"'Y•• .%V.,••••--7.40Yq!".0•I ..C.if;C:giAlk.,••il'it1ii• gli);••iikt.ie:;1,,t-24:••.4::-.144.1..if4.•;4•14:,__15 vati 44-,:r*,,,t.4.:.'ig7P.•543,;•.:0•.k.-1..^r.....It",..,1,•-.,6'••i' 'Ivtlicif:44t..C."4;tv.•4 -*T-70• 4,,.`i• 1101 • •Ar'' •••*•"••-- -,`'._!•i.1!.. -• ' -'• ''•''•,• •••' -7••,;,....,:.••,..••.••-•••'-- t'ir'••6{..a.., ,•‘, •••- •Tii.,..;''‘,. '-'•• "44,40I'io't*,...4.001,•!••••4'..f,i•liet•IltilEkrAll:-7:46•....,,,,,,,,-,..,....vvs-42,---2...,v.,.,-,. 4-iy.t ,,. . r, „. ,.'4,t„,,,,,,24 to: ••• ..,.,...,'cei, -., to ..c iv, . 4,, '.' - t •i% •.,:i .1 - r--t4.--q+. " . —isiovt.--viri.4"."-"!':• •' • 'at•:'!4'''''V kto?'4,"•*4-44" 0'4.'4'114%,:glig.146^1:.• 1,-4,?. - ,,,' --, I. •12.1•:;;*,:-0: • '!. -I,-•,‘-'•••••,., ,v.t. k , ... • • • !•-,i•:;.,04t, • ,t't, '• . •-7; 7-• ....•-k---••nr.,,..0.1.,,,,...44-trwl.„acii,".-:;,.._,...1.,415j•e44.1,.,94.77•1‘..,.vivi`,/,04P4C•it.''';,..4.; ". ,....,:,. -"••70•4‘zg,..••••,•>11.,:r......,:••4,•.•.,i-,•":03,z, 144.,t4ktf,,k.k.,_!•x4-ps,r,;It' •.44:p%-.,-,,,„'/'f'..04..4.;•••,,,7"1. -"'".t1445-p'?4:'• ••,:' •••4••,,.4,...,,,,....• .'••• . • I••'''„, „-'n'••••-",...s.i."':...t&INs,. :M.'1••••'•:"....4•1 . •11'4•4"•,,Ft 4,:•;'''''•—•-.1:1•I-•:I^.---"'-'•--- 7-772'•••i',.•-:••'Itl•!,%•••k•-•-•;.I._ •••••••%4_,,•?;,,,_•.,• :4.6,1.2•iceoriifi•AiiIii‹,ix 44•,:,:t.sv.i.s..:1f4,•4;%,,.••.,_k•e•%.,.7 -.,' ,••,`•'-< ,..wAb;;;;;;:f.1,*71.!.,1.• ••• .4. -1,,..;.04:-,,*.•4 iti•,,. • ' ••••• - •••••••- t. , •..••' -tAk r*•••P"..1••e•' •.44•9417A,• ' 1.- 4L'',',"`.'-', 'CV",.-. '' '` i • ' •" '' ,.!W '''l.' '''"- . •• . "r'lliiVvi•"1:4•4'. ' '''''4' (c`'''••-••"f'-'t ••• •-•••---- - ::11‘...'"e.,•1•1•••1.1•44.1::,;•••cr,rnria:'•?•••!•Y••••:;. ./;2•'fl,f•ter..44.7,11.MIVro-VAS,V.4:14S4412,1"•fit•ii ige.4.46141, „1,t41::.•.$.....r.'.i•W:ITAM•titrilf4 AP...11.;t'i.^. .4',.' -4•S '.5 14i•' '!'.0.1'.:1;i4,7,1•111.74•afift..t.•••4; ' ,`Ae:. •fA,=''''' '' ;, `I'''''''*-1::4.*::$''',..'..f*r•i';',.:::•:.4.,,:'•r•ii-..'::*...1.:.54...11..11.1;F•t•TI'le.:.:11:41. 41;i:11/7"A..;,,tgiAl'''`V;5..P.,t,.. /.1z,,,`,04ti_-r4,V,w,4 kill'Vtl;iiiiiPiKt;t:::711...,..yv,','"*"A*4:::.-'-- -',,.,'Pit•kgYi•101,...ljt1;141141,1:4,' .. .e.,:p..- 41/4,40. _.'-‘1,-..i-,-14,11...;-14-•i';,;%sc li;::,:e.e.,;I:i;:s4,vi-P:'...4:-Ve,„---,e,&44.4r44414Titteig f;.0.,4,sedxsc-v::4,•p•APt.t.::f5;:`:;;4.18.1ior..--.14i,;x,..,-,;;AtAzzivo.... 110.;;;,eftAidikl.gituo 0,-se!telt.A,',:,.- . :y--,Jn•-•__,.., 4'" T -,±., -'----eirr;;;;:-sz,;.';'.'.1:z::1,1,.,,..:a•••••..•t.:40,....1..)....,7 g..--.41-$:.igi74--;,v;•:?,,..,,,:,,,.wtr4.:.tts.i., tilatv„,-!1%.,-,k,g6.-0..b:-.?:.4 7 e.,,.:4111...,...‘10.1.1..,:ii:',i,vilpis,e;:;tird.x.rovv1,4,...4Pjaotgo 4;44004 4,040' ,.10.:. .—. ._-1- .i,..z•,,,,ikte•-•:-..-:.i.,.*•••:•••••••••ro...ilf•-•••1••••''1••••;',.•••:•••••-•••••..,.••!•-ros4::•"•••••••••Tsk,....•ilo '` .14••••.ri've•al;;,•,:ite:,••$•,.....vit.„7.,•1••••••:111$4.!.••••••••iji.-4• ..,;•••124.•.;...4.0...t.,..nt.X./....0,•001,..w.f,;,..••• ,---• .-- ••••••••••••• ...,-..,.;4...4..,...v.i•••,..,e.,t,••,:l-•••c.••••7•1,.. •••:•••:74-,rays. ..r.0-.•,-'. ••-•0•7t•••4;t:.%••,i,: t.:•„-e.;z:•-•:...,•.:i.:•.. .t.,..:1,•.4..;,:vf.",..,1,72:•.....-tm:t.•.•:'•••..N.41-:•;.'•..til. ••••:•)'• ., 041•••••41441gt419144•4;kez:t•ligit;1•41tql,0'401•14: 1Wi'if•Aber•ir4:4gZAPA-41'.1.7 '1-2'.'. 4....e. •. 12.' • ''',',.•:.:,`‘r•i4V.'•. .,N,c;•it:45::.klit4,?'",:li•,':.":;'4ZetkSOVV:•;':'::::1-.4„itf•;•41i'ft4t9V.40.k.it 44•744:4A•31..Vs•V•i•-:Z*i,z(•-iii''*.c.ttl•i•:„.':$1•=af41;141:1"1:t•te*it4i;'' 7" .....,00.4 irg,4:-, .,:,.,i..-•,. . . 11.?••`',---Vfi;'...4:.,scir"7.•. •'•-••••••••::: iii7•••7.•i'i:•.f•••ifi'.••73vp,•.'•:•••‘;'• ..?fp.;`,111.:i .f.....y.e.,?1,,;?7•,.-.4,;:4;;;::::•-ix.',.:7•4•••14.4.4.fi:!k•.:$14., .1Vi.;c:7?!.•••••*•••;-,ett.•kgg-',A.VgfcrnS-1.7.1" " ••''.41.1•1001:4F:.*•4:Lc' I •• •t4>ir•,..•:i''•:!;*!•:.•:',11•Af•q:•.0'• PI":•'••••..N:-.1,..A.i...:•:,:pf.,t71,:••••P•IAMP..7•Kittv.;1:47,4•,:•!ttirip!•.;.0.•••;;;_...•,•t-t,.....eivi77:,t,...;•„t,',R,i:st".••• .i."-I;,:_c•.•:7?...,••., • • •„,..• • ,7.9•••••4•••••,,,e7•;,..:.•••••i:,••2K.:',I.q•.•;41•••••%•'"•''•• 46;•11:•A'"41.1:,1fP -..-A•fi- .....•'-• •• Aill ?f.."',--'-'' .._.,..,,,.z .,,,,,.,,,,:. ,..--. .-. -. .••..;.,. ,.. 1 ,,..,......,:. Misty Cove Unit 312 — Existing View EXHIBIT 17 • irt,-.17111c.r:••••••",.'s.: , '••= , ..-• • .:--,• •••••-,••-•:.:i•,';',11••''t;',: ?• -Vn-` '""•',`.:...,'''",'r'I;:'•Z'-'_'••,'''-t-1.1'':V.t...,4"',T,77.,Mr,,,,,,J,.."MgVt4W-;•-•-,4z, r•,•,..,,,,-•-•• - . , • ' ''-r•`•" .'"''2':•- • '''•'''"' -.'`)". '::--_•-••-'7',; ,-•-•,,,v-X.''''. .'••?--',1,•14.0",_,,,'c'\w-,':•,-;Y*41,4•1!ra'.'f,,'(..s.'= ''-,'- '. ',• ,E '.,-.• '-''',',..:i•-•-'-'n'41',:i-v,',. -;•,,,-;•:•. .•,•.';'•-..-'-'"-' ---',•• ,. ' •....- • . •- - , -,•.-4;,.'u1-;,1';'• i•-;:,..*.! ., •.''..,.-:•,,,.: ,;,,,,ti•..p..,,,,,,- kli,,,, ..;,-;;•• . .,,,,,,•„ . .:•.1 ., .k.::',,,,2,_,• '.• *.-.1.,,,,?,',''.2 •, ''‘.•:•••,•,:•,,,• ,:.1, . '.:-:: ;---:‘,.--•!;;;;;:•J(.-i":1'•1'',..;.../°21.••' %,•41:,,„;;%:•;:,'' ,'1: le,,,t2:`-`.4•,".••:••'-P i-,,.1., 4--;•7.•,-1,,r0,*,-••••.i ••:‘' s-• .••';,%,•41),ky,:,4•;.;,' ';, , -4t, •...wii `' • ' r . ''' . . ,,17r It- 4t',..-,...'i.V.71f-. 'f.:,',.;•1''',F1;',,,;:k .r,,„. „3.,... , ..,...,,,,:.,‘.,,, ..•,z,.. '.e..,-, .,,./.1m14,11:•...:if:••• ...,. ,,•••• ' f- .ii101,,..., .........-_•,.2:.!,,,,,,i4,:•,,i,:t;i14.$41,17,k, ' :2-le,',,, . , , . ' • '''t'•::''' ?-•'1....,'-:$%i••''•,V--• io.. • , -,..,•-•,•,',',q n1q.1%"•'..'„:.i'c'1,'•• '?'.' '4"" ', ';.t.ttC. ."-':'''.'''''',"1'41:•". 1:.”. '.4,4 l'?,Zrril,",',74,1;tvi:,••• 'Itt..•'.- ''., -‘4... ., ; -:•' ,,.'' `2R.I.;.t.,)•414:...,f- ;•,,I.Ris.'"...:;;*4 1..k.:;...4".‘‘.?''' • • '''''' :'' '.•le•11..:1 I. '1 '''''.;t.'''..-"; 't''''.R''''';'•g'l 1 V'''i.':.;:''''''..' ''' ''4''''''''''•"Vkiiy';, • ,'' 44. ..t.t. !':•:'. .,:. v...•i.%.cm"4. ''''.''',5:••,.1,;.A.;,14,-,• , ,,-0.• . . :.-,-;-; %,t:..,4,,N.s•••••,'1.-' "'"- ,'' 7-'''';lb•^4..f*i4,...,"':••'''."-, ••-.'"' ••,'.'''''...A'::;*•'• .,`•% ' . ' 'I' i•-.- 1111g.,42-•,.,..•... •'';:.;.: 4,: .- 'Ft, :WI.:. • f,..,,,..---. -1.,4-,y,.Y:4•,.t. •I.,. . ,.. . '..-,. 42 -• . .,-",',,•,,, AY: •"'V,.:44:....A.4-N.-.- !.,',.,*:..,,,.... ... ,. , .• . .. ''''--. ':'i: '' : 4:6.:•24 .A'•:' ,;:;1"1:11:114•44. '•' ' ..41. I )-,...c -•ri'-u• "...,,t4,"Jir.n.‘'•'. .,..,'&.. •. Z....•01.,..r.N.773.*!-1116'4'.4116X4tV*441CZ4Ziifri.S;:;;-777:79'.-er......... * ' ' ''•^^•.• 'r••'.•'..Z,..".‘...,••,,.%.-,,,-i I,v,':•.%5';:',.k..`:...:.)...•....,'..'P.'V r..•..... ..••,1,.;,:4:-.1-•'''.'''',........,ts..,rt!.... ,' ..‘k••Z.• i''',*•P 4 af..."..V?::...•..1. ' ...,•rt,:z1/4.,zr,,,,,,:qr,: ••••h ,. .- •,,,.;i2:..ht;',,I. `•••:5.•,!,- "'-•‘ .,••:'•f'.•••,!••.:.s,•• :•:•:• i, :04. r•-f-'z....2;•••!•;:::•..1.•,.;••..---;,••,•-•-•.9-••••. ....- --Tis",'-,•,-,,....:.f•.-:.•...- •-•,...._-......:...,:.--.-i • - ' --•••••• • •••; -,.... ,„... . ... ,.,... . ,,.v...4<;,,,....:11...et....,,, ..v. .74....,...;,..w.: . ...nrs.,),.0......::,4, • 7 ..:itzr.„,, ,, 71_ . .•.- Z.L.s..:.:...,i17:7.-. 4-•.,;,..,,,,,c,, ... ..-. -,,.- . ..,..,,,.. . ._ .. .. . - -.4,,,,,.•.,.s .,..........,,.....:... .,,, ! ,,,,ip,.........,.:...2......:44.., : j.,:„. :,...,....:::::.:,....76„,..$•...,...:1. . . ., ..,‘.0.4.-...-.71.-1,',,,,,,...•• 7.....;,..-'',..4.4.,;(i.k.:,..._--4.4.40. A*02,x.,.'..mal 5, t - •.4.. •, .-.....:,••,,,.. • . • •. :,....,.•.„.,.f.;....,...•••••:: ,.. , .............4„.„,:k.....,.....................,.. ....,......,„ -,..7.1. r,..?..,....-- , .,-„,„.. .,,,2,,...*.1 ,..4:0,.• . do—_,,, • ,...e: ,,,. .#„...7....i. • ... • -;„.............._______„.........:...:_______.... ....:•:;...... S.,;.••"e•"7,7tX•IA4ttlA, ''',',%?::,:i`,4..•••°"".,:,;44' it#:1,1, -,fr--.v,- . ,..,' ,,,---,e, .e:.:i sit, --. ,,,G:.-,,),ei:::•,‘- • - , t..,:t :,; ••• .44.. . •'•'••••••••n4•••.••0•••••••e':kv., a :,;ay..:.,...••••. • ••••1:1•-sg-,...• .• •'. -.- , .,. .,', tags: i ,' •• .4., '''''','‘''-`V•'+'(;,,.. •".',',' J.F,.-.T',./'-• ' --••••••••• T".""''•'"••*r.....................'..:.......,..!. 1... • • .. ...i-.:... , .•. ...,..ti••.. l'•s • :,t, -7."`"'"'":',...............1.,,,, -15;51' ,,'4•1!ri?...li r. 7.:A.••1011, . ,ct,•.."`^-:)1..,,,,,,,,4't,'-'', . ,,,,•.f,*';rt.,''' 4- -,-...••,,.. .7.07.-,.,-.e.,..;,„ ,«4............„,„„„,„„ •.... . ...,, ":•••::,,..-.1.-......7.4,-4 , --..i......,:-....:4..,. ...,..-.-.--:-..---.-.••. .,-,- , , ,-,,c,,I!.i. .:...c.fr_ ..,_ -4%---,; ,,,,,,,.; • v,:-.4,-4-.•-' . ..,r,.•i --4,4,,Pci... .. ,.,.„i; ir ...t-• • - •• ,,‘4.14...., ,....40r,•.. ••. ,,:,- ,,,,' ,4.)•;... • ,E., .• _/ j4 ....i... ,.. . . . . ,%, , "°"1"'"obeeinimost.71dati,a..„‘:7.r. •...... 4i4..: .. ' • -.,-,•-,...,' !Lyn, '•••.:,..1.*::-.::..6,,,P,LF,Y.i.:os,,,c,... , •-• '444.'. .•,•f'' .•ff ..diftra.,v., 1:1"!.... ':',':::::i.,••••••••:•:••;,..''''''''.404•41/4.4r.,.... --"'"*.qh ....•,,,J. •-- .. ':"..i . ::'-'...,1.-..* ,I,.14 1,,,:,:.1.i.i- :rmise. `.-A-.-.4T-..+,. ----- ,\.,.,.,,, • . / • -.........,...,:::•7, ...,,..0 i ",',:- ....r_-,-:‘: ... '-tur • ...z.g. •.? itch,. , •-- • .. ..An.. .. ....,,i,;.•••: -- ...... ---.....- ..:•:-......._-.T.";-": - ,,'"-figsq.r.::3 .. 4.4.....4.• -.` . . ,,,-.'- '6:-.1?'‘z,.....,,`1,c,..sx... • ,,,,, ...::.....„,..„,... .. , . ... i.l. . ...... ,...• • ••• . • _ __..,.:.............-,, ,,,..... ..„,„ -....„.".„._........,,,.. •• ..,.....i.„,..4„,-,„ ,...„--- ,•-•,.„... • • 4::• --___ _ ' •-,1'''-it-4-,-*•'"1.-..,•••••••-•:!:44"ZkiTtsft• • - ...."- :•213 :. -_ s"....Y '"T'4:::4,1'.4.rt....„... 4.. --,-.-,...•.--,...7.:4,2:::., . ... ii.....*.:•!:. ''..F.-.••...i..7.-..... 4.4''.1.7-'r-r.•,....z.,...1. • - ' ... . ...tt.::.?;?.41-;•!' or••' t i • ..,,, .....,..:..,••••Al!.......:::: • .. "".••••••• •• • '1,:....: •.•'•'1..-:•• • ... / • 1.,......T• ..•••;•,...t.:: ••••.1 i. '• KO. •'IL. . zz....:"----0:F.•:- ••• ----zt: -•••• :-,;-•::.: -:.... .• 7 4,-•-• - -- R'..t•• ',•••..?Pailt. '..! ....niirlf.•*-. .'%..,Ir•.'' ..e.:••,.:-••••ff• • .4.-... ......• ••••-:;•••:- ,..,......z..„...••••••••,"--"'" a 1 1 c-::::.".....?". :.17::,..1.1 if::::::14.,,.'.,...: , , • s•...... . *".•l'IN .- ' ,. •._. -;-:::::. :::: :..7:- ow... ''' • 14.:4. ... ....a...., .17. :::::. 7 ... ii-171.14::"'i 0- • ? . • VC'Y.'-*r .*'••..5%.1: .... ...."..:`......... .."'-'. .....--...Z.i.- ' 0 .' • .* '''.** .• . .. 1.2,3,!C. ,.. f... : .-3,::, ...;'..,.,:.:‘ i.,-..•,,,,?:cci., Z........ _ .,:"._ ,..-,..-- - ,....7"Z'ft***.:2,..«%.'-;!..."Z•-•• ;3,--., . ,....._. ...' • 1.1. 44.iir31;..' ....! . .?"'.•-•••:-.••!;. '.14tr"..7;,.... .Y.taiti,"th .r:• . ' ...s.,,. . •4;.,;,;:,.,_;," •...- h•••. . • tii i''' 4-,•• . I.• - ... ..1•:'•!.. ..... . :''--.•.•••'=•...";:,........-'4-7.:=-F:.:.....-...:yr.,..:.... -- •.-.,-.7,,.l.--•- '.+•.• ,;),,,',7,,,,A---••• ••,-,•-••••,,,..„,',. , ;r7::7-......•:..:. •:::-ij...-.,...::'..::'1.---'5.—:--.....:7,7!..-..?.;;;;-erz-M-....,..7-,:-' '.1.'.t..-41>.' -r'4.,..'',-.-',.. ...-',-- •'''''-:-.7...'i'''''.."••• '---..''''Ii. ". ..--:-:',''':';'.7:-..tzr--t,....:F.r,,,__ttgE..,,,,t.;.,-,, -.•••=.-.- ,, a,-.. .._. „............ % ...... ... ,‘, .. ,.. . :E•74.::.-::•-„.7,.:•:::::-::--7.7--,=•::,:,":.•.:r:.....n.,. ,„,..' r.•••'-•-••!.,',-,,,•0,,-..... ..-.-.',F---.- - • . . , . - 4 ;;;4.ti...,',..•',..'-e.).'.....-.,'., , ' -a .7..•:•••••••••.';','„....:..:. % 11Z-4,7?.,c:';-..L',-`r-P .,..:..,'• „ ..„...• . * • .3,-lb-.3.•'' —•••-.. ....:.•'...7.::....F.7.7i•?...;'-tAti,....,-,.M.:! .4.,s' ,i.c.'17.i..=..,,, . „ ...,.' ....,',.1 . „ . .- - '..,-...- , • 45 36 : X I • • .'.. "^:4.....;;T:•••••1,7n,..-..,",..!FF..-.r..1 ,..-7-• '''-'71•'''' 'G' ....=,...„A'—'7.4f.:'-'7,1,`S.Q,,,,,,I,,,,j,-.1.:.,.,',,,,"'. . '---. • • * •4,5, ' '''•••,43,:',.....r,Vr.,.."--.L:i'...•,..r.!.......:::"..V...s,.. .-:::::117.:.^4. ..., ,... • ,, . . .. a.a .1, , '.-'...' •-•:•••••••••i-----zir.a.--.!• =?;:44.•at:11.-;,.....----47 .ft-71a11,04===7::tia:.:_-.-...t..,,-.....-_,--S..z.-.:'....17,',L;o-,...,,..- , - .... - , . .. -"' la I I • •• •-;.--..2-.•..7-.7".:...•••••.:''.::.F.-11:".'"-•;••';• :...•';',-,---..';'' • .-:-'.:::•..-.% "i'' ( '4,.,^7...«"-zirgl'...--F.::; "%'••4.f;• ,..1.1•4,-;;;,c,..k; .4..,,,, '--5-•;,.,;«...0--- . .5„ , AERIAL VIEW - TRAINING CAMP ( • (.. ( ( ( ( .. . . ...,..,,e.1. vt.i.....4- . . ...?! ,r i,,,,;t,,,7,,ttgi.,_00411iiti,i.lt,..rt.!•‘.,:_,';,,,'•••••••;;‘ti,•:;:kr,,,,:t,i!•!..13Wgretr',., ,, , ,:v...,•:,,,,.,...,A,,,,x,.. ...,,,Ort7,,,,,,,!,,,,,.;,.•••.,•,••••',..,i;-..r., ',;,;,•,•'•..•:.",•9.`!,.!',. '!„,-,, ,,'_ .:i!y 7', , . ••• .:4".: 4504 • • .. ....adder V 1 :. .., . .,.. • , W. .,.40. . 44'ki d'• '. , ,4' •''•.; • • -Is -''. ,,,, '. , - • . . -*• '.•-• f 14,Ai.,-,, -,:%, •' - ‘,...' ,i...„.•• •-__;.".!?0,:- .4'., .,-, N ' - ' ., ,..;.. - -s5 74g-ir,..: ...al.- -"le' 'N,. ... -, •.;:-:... - *- "„..• ''"...x.:7,.1,0 :-.':.r..',Ibk. , ' • , ..,... .. .'‘.. . - ;,..: •.- 111::%.,,'• ,• ••••• •• pito„1,..v.: ! . • irk . . !i--3te.41_4t • . : . . . .,. , .we ft' • . • . -... ,..•f.. 1• •• - - • • iff,!;iP2'1 ,•.,.i!sk--.•••'::'77•;;:;',:•.%,: .e.-:••••r•:.!.. ., • :-. :. .•.•'....,..•...,•••.,',';',, ,,,,',1,, ,. . .'it• • •••'.? •.. . 1....lier.4:::t.,::: !:.;. '....,.:,.•... •••••,:•'..',".••••.: .7....,......:,...,,•••••,.01..i.:•':;•.':..!..''.".11‘,:-1,..';•..."•'..i,i-4,, MOW i t5....,:....41 .41 int rt,..,..1i....i,..,..,,,,,,.,,.„„.,,,;1.04 ....;;,.....,..„;.:.....i:;.. ...i„,...,,,,..,,,,,,..,„.„,.„..ir.„..,,•,,,..,..1„,..:,•.,7,,:,.z,,•,•14,••••,,,,•,„,,,,,,,,,i.c,.,,,....1,,..,0",1,,...':ii.44.1...‘44 •••••,, ..••••••,. •••.• -----•••,............4,1,•••.,•••,;%,.:,.,,,,,,,,i,,,...,,...;-%.••:•: -...:,!••••:••:•••:•••••• :••••!•*'...'!;."..s.!'1.',1, 4.•••:"'Vtrt! ?:"I'Va ..,:;•••:.•;/. . .•. •, . ........•:•;•:.4i•.•,,•,,,•••iip.•,••••:',!...:Stkziii,,;4•,10;.,:,v2.1•,,vi;iA4.1,A..:.;;;!;;4..,; ;;;;7...,•:.!,!:?•!.:•;;;i:•::•,:i.:•,:•:•-•O:',•,.::.,1•.-••.::::. .•?..k.A1',=•••••••••."..tt":"?.;.f.11:•14.:131f40.P • . „ .•1:e: 1 I 1 ••••'',;!!::.-3. ! ,,I? I 1 , ••••, .1‘.,,,.,,.,:,.,;,,..;,:.,......,,,,,,i;f:f. .f...,-.1..ttaktlyi,k'!;.•%) t',•q•••••"b••:.•••• • bin 114114 ill ,:,,,,,,,r.;.,,,.. 74. ,,..„., . ,..i....,..1,... ,,,,,. :: ...„,....„.,, ,. -......4, :..i - „ I i,„. i,.. : . •.,....,,,.,..,..:,,,,„,,„,,,,..:,,,, „.,..,..,,,,,,.,„,,„,,...,,,..,,,,' IN10 ,,,t..:!;•,:iip.0?- t,.- li:1`.11 l'i.',19"..tAtill' ,5:•U• -A:,•4147_,44,45•,',- !>•,•4Ati!tel%.: 0: •Pi•••?: lieeir,:•:10:%9'gT,h;Q:40.11t1!.. i, t'''''V..:•-f? ''' I i `•1;•:••••<4..:•:',1'.., ; •••,'i,•.t?i,;.;..) I7;VSr'..".fr'• :, ' . ' . '.! t•ie•i‘rl•C :': • .:':::.',1••,':‘: ;:•:'• I.'" R•ki.i::1:.:41,,qtti,;•,A,14.1;444 8i47:‘,‘ '‘• I.•,-':.411.7.!:5•7e;,..1‘e.::: . 1: Itle,'..1.•al ty:it.54,, . , .. '...I .d50::, : ',.:.: , 41-10,4..,,,z,,:grorgAlwios 1 r i ! , v.....,! q;:si.::}:oi...:,.....,..ssx.r . ... :;....0.‘;.,:-:-.. .,...:.i.;;,.,... ..-.t•:7'44 , •-•-•-•=,..1.:'•.:4:,''.11.VI:Pri&ritqt:.,...F.',1%..i;•:-.i:k ! .0;;.,-,...,..:.,1 - • e„„=.:,...•- -• - - •-: v.s 4.: ir,.tr•-,-,,t,.4.,c;111, .1 - .:=:,,,,e,,ii ,.zz.:,,,,,:r,.1.1.1i..-.7..w.:11,-&-..:::„,,... 1,...,,-...1.-.., 'iaF"...:,..'.1'.., •r .-i.,.t:rt•-• _ , ! •••••5,,1:„.4...-:..:,..;:r. ..-..-,.:.; r •- . . ::,,,-;;;,-. •:.,:-.....,.- - ...::• . •.4,- , , . 1,.:4'..•• .-11. 11111.-•.; ....:11 -,....:, :: • •.,„,,, , .. - -, ....-..-.•-,....L.,•,, • 7 :: •'. ':... ' ..411$ ! , 1 1 ,.• '• • r :.•- • ••• •, . •_ i' .! fW.'' ...,• •...'••:•..••. ! • 7 .-; •!:.• ••• .7.4''aillits.• • 1.• .•.r.ti •!:1 I! 1 ' ••t 7• ' •.L..i41.111ft....._• •.7.'.-..• s. -- iii. :•':::-,:'-'-.J:"7•7'" • :• .•• - i:•'''' '...r.;-% •' - ..• -...;,-'74C"."•••• '..- . ;'""c7 • .• . " i 1 i • =.• :1 ..-=: : • .• •J. =:. • . , . . .• • -.t,.7 ",.. ..."4.14,, -*"...- .4,_..••••4• •,„ =•:. - ..... ---:" ... . ....;-....• ... .: ....".. •:.... • :::.•-••...,:•;.:,-;.::;E:.,.........tzFs:4.. ..- t..2f.! •.• :. .. .* • f . . • 'M*61"11-1..5.4 1:7---',. .--:--, ---...- •••• •-•, - .;-•••.• .. • ..• , - ......••••••• ..,..........• - .•.....•:. •.. ....••..,..,..,..:,- ..!• • ... . . • ••• ..;-.,.. • • .i :. ‘.. . - . .. ...- „,..,: • .......,.....;.-.,..,::.,..,••:•,-„..... -..-..--;::..i. . . ...• . •. .:.,............,....:..,......;.. .:..:•• .f..•••.. . -.•• :'...„-•.,,••.,:•••-•,•!...1.,....,;..::;•':.:,....;...:.-. .••:•••...''`• ••••• •••••••:•• -• • • '''••:*.•' - •• , . -,-, Ti ••::'.: •T•j•••:!.':•••;:•:••;•••::,::;:;;F•;A•''.....4,'••••'• ••••• • ... .r..;••'‘.. ''', .." • • .:• • ••• •-e••• ••••:••%L. ......:: •.. .'•••w•••••••••••••• •••••••••...., f . •. . • ' '•_ - •• •- • .. .. •••' • • • . •'.:;••••:•.1,-..,',... •'..7.;-• ::.:••••••••• ..•... • •. 1: ' • • . • , , .. . •. . . ., i 0., • • '' • ' . .. . •. . ... . .. , .. . • . ... .... . .. • .. . . .. . .... . ... . . . • .. . .• . . • .. • . . I VIEW FROM RIPLEY LANE LOOKING NORTH I • , ..... • . ...1,7::;:c• . . i 1".••• ... '.' ,„, i• .i.P.;4';:'1•••••'•-' '•-•It••:"':iiv'' • ''.1,:e; .;•..... r ?k,..r, •-• 'Fri.:i* -.•• fi. ,'' •,...2.',..:!.,:•.;•.1..:„:.'1",..1,..".1:41.1 .,•••;,'•',....ri'r.,<Pr.,`;-..i' ':sr:,••• • rk".!••,•;:.‘R-•":'..„4-17;:$..-,•... ,,,-24. ,. ' • '4. ,,,. , . : •"....'''.. ....k.........'..'.' •;:....••;$;.•:.:::.:1';';,-“?.:Y76•.;.1....••-ill.7-,1,!',?;*•;:i.;?.,?;1.„' -:'.1:•::,i'-...e:',1;;.:'::::ai 'ri;.%•;•••''eAt,f.."...•••tv",.... .,-1•A:'-•• ..„ . „. e...f' . ''. • 6 ,•- " ...N..•,.. • •. •. ...,.•.: •, •- ....I-1•••...e.4.,t'l,....,..-.•,..,..1..-,1-,*.,..,r--,......,..•.....,;•...:,,,A„,,..4.._-..t.t r.j....,.i. .-4/,;?.`, ..% . •-•'..P,..;,.-.;......T...., iki...,,74- it,4. - •..t....„,4iR.,,.„1.„ ,..,.",,,,,,..--t: f...,!...,.;:li;.,i,',:, ,l'iga 4..1.'';,..'4. . 7/;.."0.:"!Nrilt 4.-•''''Aitt.,0:.1.4`1410`11-1-'..n.,i''''ii.'2.- ••.'iv. '41''',4, •- '.,•A''''',1'i" : • , . ..)':,,.., -.32111,,,'''DO„iities,:;,;;;:-''.X 11,-.......74;41e,::Z•47,e' N:V.;..2.2e:raf:5&'•4;;A:....;•-•.1,..,,L ,0.11:Zrit31;Z• led ,, . ,,..A.:7„...„„,. • ......it , i Lt. .,-:,,, •••—li.N.•;-••••••%•:.••••••......4............4,4.....<.........................-......,-....,...:........4:.::.•-.-..........,...;.....:ig.,.......,..4-1:4W a'fagiirt:t.litt-- t-iik-r,:..,._ .-"i•-,:•-,.,-1.;-:-4.- ' •••• *.'-i,'4416•,, .4, ;,..'...te,..4-,,..P.6i0.•-n....;-...:1,,,,-"•-t.',:'•.!':24V.--'4.. , -'•,, . •..c. • ,14 74,..-.3•1-te.-';',..;:e.,•;','..4.-4;!,..,;: t.:ti.f.: . ., • I 1 . • • . - . . ',...i.,., •,.....,„"ieP .6.,'''4- ''..'{`.'''':'5-'-.. ,--74 r.. ' :'-'-.'....l."-A\'''' 'Pr:.4",....44ra,:io:k.....:,.....4 t , . ,• • . , • . . . . - . , • • iAt '5. , ., , ,44 , •, .., ...",-.L.,*1 +•,,' .14.3..4 j.,.4.„,,.,,,-•0•2,4k i''' ,!•.`7.:.‘:r',•'sir A, IOW ;:, •'..: "0:::,,.'....':. ,mKg.,174.R.•7747.,,,R....N*.r7f4:F.W‘;,--;:,5.: .-,,-A......14#21‘, ..„..,.-‘...,...„zyi L'..:,,4_.,......,...,Via,,,„.,-'="4.1."'".2 •,17,2,,,J,'.."`i..._,.,:• le.L"-,i.::11,-...,.4,13.1.:'?4,'4074,.?;.Ve.?0..;44.,,it., s......•, ' .c'!`:',•:',- 7' . . .., .mon, fitaikl,..4t, vs2.N.vok,id.. ,t4)41.4....,„ T-:11...,•••:•,•:_,-,.:•=.77...,-=,,,‘..F.,;±--'1i.,_ ;: ..-.T.:--2'•‘,.-:..,:-:',•,.,'.-7•:,.•--.1-s.-.:.••`;,7,,-.:.':s..-.‘.,:.:"•.' ••••• ,..;•,...‘ ..:••••.,.. -..-.--: _... i';'....ZA:.•••':..:::r..:r?S:'.51•1;;';"•''r.:,!•:".•;•S:.1'...::44:4'444.:z•'`1',,'''':,: ,:-,:_,,-7,-..:4,-:.:-,..--,, ,,,,,,,,....-=:-4.:----:_.,,,i-,,,,,-t-y:-._-,:„.ii,---1,--5..r,,,,,,•- ".-1,....,..,,,if4...u.,...i. v,..!......,--..--,-.1.7,:rt...'fi'f,N.4.,,,,ti.,-,vei; . .„,,,,,,,,,,,-.,.. . -,,...-•-•04.447,:,-._ .,..,_,,., -" 4 •!•,.,'74..,,„''-'1'1,..I.A4.cleirkii,'!..V,'-:',.......,,,....;,;„.:,??:.";:APti..•sA•z•4'..';^:`':. .... -,..•• ..F...1;j4,‘,..,..:.;,...t' •,..,..-^,....4-,-,-;,...7...,,,,72,.....! .,...-.......4.-s-i Nr.m.rzl,,,,t..... -,-,-,;_.,aw....., .7.5:,,...::-Li.,--,:,:IL.....i.... .. . ,-7...„...,..„„„..: ,,,=,-.._-,:-...... . ,.,,..,....-,,v.--- --........,„7,..=. ..r.,,•`*--;,7,,:iF...,-.:••irdi....%.-•,••••• '•-- .-''"--•--'-....•'• '-•-:-• -."--.4'4,,:.,..,-:••••• I.,.-, - , e- :.•••.• .. oth..S:k.41;51,..- ....? - . . - . 1.?••A •.-7,..... ':.-:••-. .......••• i4;••••••:;:;•.••••:::. --:4.1.--: -.::.:....-;...;,•1..::::L7:;.-, '11:A4 .... _ .• . •. - -;51;-'.4.,..41:•••-•,•'75". .• . • • ' 1 • • . ,:.••...-,..-....--••-....,. k; ...:.:.....;.,..—..:.::. ..--:*.::4 .::..:::::::::z7....;joissimi...;:.z.j:4;iii.i.1:::. -.1.--.P• . ...*•• 4 . . 7...?•••::•:.:±0%:'•• .• • .. * - ' . • • '• ., ..gii" --;•••''..'',-...., . • 1 • ' . ... ...... • -• ' " ' - • - ..,q,:.,, ' • .IIIIIIIIIII .. .h....:, . •I r i,I 1 ..., , • ,'.1. 4.•:.•:'''''•..4;1. ..",...,i s...c...,4r'.?•••.' . .- • __,". . ...•.• . . . . '..... ..:‘,:'.... ., ...r.-1‘7;;I:j.y.Si.'.11";;.•,43W4•Ili. 4,.. ';', ‘.4.,-4..1. R.• -. .,„••.•••• ••......4.,44.r.,...a. ...0..":..„!........r.i.„..,f....K.r.order.r.a...mo.r.or • •- • ,•.,ifs •il e -.-..:..,:,...,•,.,..„...1f...•-... . -, -:- -........... .• •-• .,..1.,—, . -•"- . ., ...--s.,..a-...-4--varz.,:....„,,,,,......rer 9,74.#0.1.•.9•4•Anar .... . .;;;,•,7•1•!.''.**;f."-:,":., ...;•.:74•1:„t:•-'5;:*.i.e 4.i. . •.. .. ... .•..:.7. '-. 1;-•••1 41:•4...''' ...••.:::..-'4.:•1.11 'III .:i'•%'''.''' ' 1%,"',•••-••• ...4'• : '-'. .'- i• • grA.• ,Jdif::i....' .. • be..''.;i4A!:'.'!„..•..:1.•.:.:.'...•.*' ' .. • ••...'i..i.4'. .•• :.7:;!ittriitt.:•:',,'-ill•V'':;:"•-17:4:14.‘14; -!i' V;*110tigele. .-''':-‘c•tc. - •I',. 'i,..:..."''''''..''• ':-- .1;.*:'±:!0„,-•,.•'. 7.',.'.• '. 7' ! yt,f(T-4--•----ev.. • 4.-.4it,C•te.41'.. P' ." V ITI -,.. '.- t ilt„, t . ,..... , .... ,.,., ;;.. .-. ,.....„.u.., wijiMINICilk.... 4.::sr...••••• • tWitiok.,., . 4 - •,. .• .-',..-V-,'.4iest,--.---01.1•••144.'"V,...:',10,1•14",,k.1 Aptob.....-.4a,.. 6. .:.e l•. I,i..,in. • '' ,. ..•,.. ' ..,A.go'• . ''...e •.• . '- -- i,•1 . - •. •.. ....• .- '' • " - . •• .. .,..., ..: .. .,...- . _ :-•.,_ ,-. . . ,..........-- - - -,'•'-'.'•.- . ..-- - .. , . -. • - . ... ... .. -._ - • _ _._.,. , .._ .--... -••:0-r . ....,••,-.u....,---'^'"•,:-.--..—,,, .•4.••••.••-_------, - ---,•:•••' '....- ., ---, , ..... • ....... ' . . . - - - _, . -- - ---...:.--,. ...- . .. , . _.._ - • • -- •-•- . -- ,,- -. , . ' .....- . „. -.-,:75 ,•-•'"•____. ,.....4 - _ ...-.1•-•" . . _ - - ___„ -- --- ''''...••:.,h..— ,-- - — VIEW FROM LAKE LOOKING SOUTH ( (., . (.. City of Renton P/B/PW Department Preliminary Report to the Hearing Examiner SEATTLE SEAHA WKS'HEADQUARTERS AND TRAINING FACILITY LUA-06-073, SA-N, SA-M,SM,ECF PUBLIC HEARING DATE:November 21,2006 Page 7 of 20 err' appeal period commenced on October 23, 2006 and ended on November 6, 2006. Two appeals of the threshold determination were filed. It is anticipated that these appeals would be heard on November 21, 2006, prior to the public hearing on the Master and Site Plan Reviews. 3. ERC MITIGATION MEASURES Based on an analysis of probable impacts from the proposed project, the following mitigation measures were issued for the Determination of Non-Significance — Mitigated: 1. The applicant shall comply with the recommendations included in the geotechnical report, "Supplemental Preliminary Geotechnical Report Seahawks Headquarters and Practice Facility Renton, Washington," by Shannon & Wilson, Inc., dated September 13, 2006, including recommendations for excavation, backfill materials, structural concrete blocking, and soil remediation for the water mains. 2. This project shall be subject to the 2005 King County Surface Water Design Manual for water quality. 3. The applicant shall be required to provide a Temporary Erosion and Sedimentation Control Plan (TESCP) designed pursuant to the Department of Ecology's Erosion and Sediment Control Requirements, outlined in Volume II of the 2001 Stormwater Management Manual and provide staff with a Construction Mitigation Plan prior to issuance of construction permits. 4. The applicant shall work with the City to alleviate upstream flooding that may impact access to the site. Additional details of pipe sizing and/or street improvements would be addressed through site plan review. 5. A traffic mitigation fee of$75 per additional daily trip shall be assessed based on the submitted calculation of 555 ADT. The fee of$41,625.00 shall be assessed at building permit issue. 6. A fire mitigation fee of$0.52 per square foot of building space shall be assessed at building permit issue. 7. In the event that archaeological deposits are found during construction, work shall stop and the contractor(s) shall contact the State Archaeologist at the State of Washington Office of Archaeology and Historic Preservation, phone (360) 586-3065, the Muckleshoot Cultural Resources Program, phone (253) 939-3311, and Duwamish Tribal Services (206) 431-1582. 4. STAFF REVIEW COMMENTS Representatives from various city departments have reviewed the application materials to identify and address site plan issues from the proposed development. These comments are contained in the official file, and the essence of the comments has been incorporated into the appropriate sections of this report and the Departmental Recommendation at the end of the report. 5. SITE DEVELOPMENT PLAN REVIEW The purpose of site development plan review is to assure that proposed development is compatible with the plans, policies, and regulations of the City of Renton as outlined in the City's Comprehensive Plan and the City's Business Plan Goals. Site development plan review is divided into two types: Master Plan and Site Plan. HEX staff rpt 06-073.doc FOSTER PEPPER,,, Direct Phone (206)447-4676 Direct Facsimile (206)749-1997 E-Mail PearRs Ioster.com November 17, 2006 VJA MESSENGER Mr. Fred J. Kaufman Hearing Examiner M)11. Z (} City Ston of Ret t T 1055 South Grady Way ,cirY f Rtii , I Renton, Washington 98055 GMINER Re: Seattle Seahawks Headquarters Facility City of Renton Application No. LUA06-073 Dear Mr. Kaufman: As part of its settlement with the Misty Cove Association of Apartment Owners, permit applicant Football Northwest LLC ("FNW") agrees to the following permit conditions with respect to its Master Plan and Shoreline Permit Applications for the Seahawks Corporate Headquarters and '011 Training Facility under the above-referenced project number(the "Project") and respectfully requests they be made conditions of permit approval. Building Location/Indoor Practice Facility North Elevation Design. FNW shall develop the Project with the office building and the Indoor Practice Facility ("IPF") located as shown in the Mitigation Site Plan-Alternative, which is attached as Exhibit A to this letter. FNW shall develop a green screen wall, planted with ivy or other appropriate landscaping materials, along the bottom thirty (30) feet of the northeasterly elevation of the IPF(the IPF elevation to the south of the Misty Cove Condominium). In addition, FNW will develop the north elevation of the IPF substantially in accordance with the principles stated in Exhibit B to this letter. Training Camp Off-Site Fan Parking. Fan parking during training camp will be accommodated at a parking lot or parking facility off the Project site, with fans then being bused to the Project site. Project Dumpster/Recyling Area. The Project dumpster/recycling area will use containers with lids, and the container storage arca will be screened from the Misty Cove property. The garbage and recycling pickups will occur during normal business hours on weekdays— not at nights or very early morning hours. All non-recyclable materials placed in the containers will be in sealed plastic bags. Misty Cove/FNW Property Line Fence. FNW shall replace the existing property line fence between the Misty Cove property and the Project site with a new fence of at least equal quality. 507.14613 Mr. Fred J. Kaufman November I7, 2006 Page 2 Project Outdoor Lighting. No athletic field lighting is being proposed under the permit. The Seahawks agree not to seek any permit to do so for a period of 15 years from the date of this Agreement. All project exterior lighting will be designed so that the lighting is directed away from the Misty Cove residences. Signage. FNW will provide signage that clearly indicates the main entrance to the Project site, so that visitors to the site can easily find the entrance. Any signage will have to comply with City and state regulations. Shoreline Plantings. The proposed shoreline area planting plan shall include lower-level plantings in the north section of the Project shoreline area, in order to minimize impacts of views of the water from the adjacent Misty Cove Condominium property. Shoreline Impacts. The mitigation and design measures in the Lake and Stream Study and the Turf Integrated Pest Management Plan submitted to the City as part of the Project application shall he conditions to permit approval. Thank you for your consideration of this request. Nome Very truly yours, FOSTER PEPPER PLLC Roger A. Pearce Attorneys for applicant Football Northwest LLC cc: Ms. Elizabeth Higgins, City of Renton Tom Peterson, Esq, Mr. Lance Lopes Ms. Elaine Wine 5o74461 2 • 1 I 1 I ♦ , f , a 1 , , o 1 1 I ,e , I, , II 1 '1 L 12 I If I 11 1 t I, i II L_ so , 11 1 11 , ,1 1 , - ; X - ,— • +, ' I AkE V,ASHIIRG ON __ PSE r yr Tv Or., "-' (ELECT I I OL - I 11 I11 -� 4" (LIR _J.I (^ i - ,-,c, .././; ..-7�- EXISTING O131C C 1 \`• WETLANDS ,1;:::-'\�\`_\4a/'.YL -.���_UFO�\. .. STRUCTURE TO OColuOvED __� . \ \\_'-_ cUFF:V? ., / / I �, • I I , ._ - EXTENT 0, \ . r • \ cif \\ ►1 ' PUeUC ACCESS _ ., ACCESS WALK �' _ ' ����_, X'STW SECVRm F£':CE - CUR© ` . _ -.‹.----,- .Y-,-,,-2.1,,,-.-7-- - — DDGK v ,�20 SERVICE ROAD EC ING POWER �\ ,, — - Sir ri,I /., T'RCv.:.� �\ � POLE LOCATION Ii I C-- 6�CCC55 _. _- ,• ""i%` /.. SOUTH PROPERTY II / __- • ~_ - FENCE LIN_ ------,, -_..—_ -/ I :, $ "S PSE EASEuEM `/ 1'1 \t I \_ �I'�{{/�/ al,',"i'l: �� I` �N'' / N LINE (iS0) it \ �' 1/_-N4XuRAL GRASS.PRAC'ICE CLOS �'/ � I iq?,:; i: ,`,(,IiiIII,,Its Ic:o; , ' ") \IIS �"`l� �� '�,�'. ,bbl QJ if .- E%ISTINO PO++EA —'� _r=—Y--. `\ I/�I \I L _I ��Nj yy� J p I p. p ; CO PC;E LOCATION 'lir -. QfTE t, *-4#i' i4 C -V .', I '_ I Iv j ytFl.,, , ,.dQ t1 'T.. r. K:.1. Cr @ 1 .I. I.I- - - --'- - �'"_ ,,m':` "l:, iTd .:_. f✓ 1 1- 1Z`r:,; :.R(U.'bt 6 .;i'. 'i;$'I€;"I a.,. ... ,:il,li'"'i;. i -IAL; • >s, Cr) CURB -- _ I ._. _.._._-.. _ _ ,!'f'� .I'v ':.,1 .,y t UI C I �,t:, �a N£`w 1- SiORT 1 I I I 1 I 1 I ,I_! II 7 ��''4}{�'���E � k�E 1\ vaNTENM'cE € j -_.I I J i 1'11N50P.F PRACTICE iFACI1JIY ' T 1LL t �,1�y \ \ 2 I!I',; Jr `^i?11,rty ,, II i'1"; �..,\•'.W4;} \ Tp 5,4E0 'I IJt yLl 1€1 ,.:',i �„a;l'i ilih4 {t \ -. co�REO CAR WASH PAD- 1 I I I 1 I I —I ,,):, '.,,i,;1°12:'+ -- ;}u l'In'''�;js, 1i 9;iyi' r 1 �,: \\ ai 111 III ,;.,IU',<iiOrIl'I4I.,;; I''Al;,,Il!,. 'f Y co EXISTING PowEA J I ��•© r 'L, ;,l ,i. „,,, POLE IOCAi10N :;•I^'0 1;� \PTIi1:rL 'F • r e `' i=;;�;1>.',:;ia:.,.,al- tl S - LAAINT. PARKI\O .r.l''i1'''w I��11 __ ..-- - -- ------ -- -- -'-' ''.]',V‘ �1- ! 3 SrAlls �rla,.r , -r PI SECURITY CATS `— r O� l l l l l l l l 1«�t� I l I LI I I l I'I I f I I I I l I l 111 I F' • J __ __ \ ilRrh c AR IN —^tel & •'CE ___,/) �,._.._.:..�.,........._.-.c.. PLTE �� --.—_—_—j T,_—_—_ _—_ r{, 1--SECU41tt GATE �"�"Y i I NUN INGTON N•RTHFRI c•NTA E R(' T IF AY : � "'�' � L -a •- I ..-. -_._..-...._ - Imo.. . . ME— `- —r �- I = Q In- 1 PROPOSED FAILIYAY CROSSING W Z I O al OU �a J NATE' PAPKINC COV?L1: �"--- -- W En 1 c SRE TAM CLASS 1 GENERAL SURFACE PARKING 51 STALLS I n n I E_405 05 — a OZ - LAKE WASHINGTON - -CLASS 1 i SECURE TEAL, PARKING 161 STALLS K f-1 ., GYPSY SUS BASIN DRAINAGE - CLASS 2 (RE- FIGURE 8.3) j N T E 0 U m` TOTAL 252 STALL -;„K,.,,,a 0 0o j - ,,ipY or-- SrtE ar MITIGATION SITE PLAN-ALTERNATIVE 6 SCI,EVOCR O 0 I I Al I_,...„ Rcvlsco.vNOVEvaCR LC) Z A2-0.0 Indoor Practice Facility (IPF) — North Elevation The design features the use of traditional architectural devices to reduce the apparent scale and mass of the project including: horizontal expression lines, special roof treatments plus fenestration and glazing systems. At the north elevation of the IPF, three exterior wall systems are being developed: 1. Base—The first 30 feet of the facade will consist of cementious wall panels and/or nonreflective metal siding to a height of approximately 30 feet. Additional shade and shadow will be created by a "green-screen" that is comprised of a metal lattice grid with vegetation. 2. Middle - The middle portions of the elevation will consist of cementious wall panels and/or nonreflective metal siding to a height of approximately 80 feet with no"green screen." 3. Top—The"top" portions of the elevation will include a high percentage (up to 70% to 85% of translucent panels) and sculpted roof. The sculpted component of the roof would add visual interest and reduce the apparent scale of the facade by casting varying shadow on the IPF facade. Each layer of the facade will be defined by horizontal expression lines as mentioned above. In addition, the composition of the materials being proposed for the façade will have a texture which will further reduce the apparent mass of the structure. A range of color palettes are being studied for the facade including: 1. Metal Panels/Siding — Nickel to light gray 411110i 2. Cementious Panels— Buff/Sandstone to light gray/nickel 3. Translucent Panels —white to 'off-white"/light gray 4. "green-screen"— stainless/metal wire mesh with vegetation growing on the screen. Final color palettes will be based on actual materials selected. An example of potential final colors, massing and roof design is included on the following page. EXHIBIT ) ,.) ' ) cA i cNiF— m r x f_U '7: .. }4:6 `�4akra" b'', ,.'i$: .,�"`'n`.t' :.s �: t' Rift:a i cJ "1; �. xh i .,k. •,. -r ,'' .,t,•.%•d^?,. c. .' `+ip E`}^Svt-t:. �i,5,: Y•yty..,, ; ,•:.. zs-4�i I: i t� 11' _ � �" c +'1 1 • f- ) ��; �: zl'�y., -`Sr . :i v 'S.'tr �. w i ;{I •lY `•,tf 111 , S 7'`v'' ..).' '' �'y'�- l ..........1.,4!;;;?„..„4 ' • i:.��i' ,ri31 k'�l'4,44, -1` ,', , ,1 aF.1:' �;,� t • ,l�. >�.s ,,'s. r< 1• _ T,�.rt i. .e ..4'..',,,'f''t'; ry'!,',Ft, ,, M1'l;`)," ,kd1• „\`° • Y1�; .��. •- :i.'•.•::•. •:•:,.-.:;.•.., 3: _ ,.�,��7°,.ii";• It fi r3 r'a t�- ', 1v�.Y;�- t'- <v, .. i1.-,:..- ,,,ax,-. t '� • v> 'Yt�� r.�% `...� t ,:�� •k-•'�,' `'!'r:�:z"-, - _ °'Ltf iC� �r# � d. .--s} atd :•. <. ..,11'� '���� yi,tt' �). f�<n `S��Sa ,ri! )1 y;"�•.•y� _ C i ++-f. J, '-,'" .C.«% Jt i .. - 7. ., :# n, ,,..,;i.,:: =1t.,y.':• ....4 I, ,a:, ���<*.�'j� �,,��,�' 3�.^� � t.�y f r. �(� ,{.. �i'r,l 1' iatYS. ,�� ,s `.A:;: `, ,.y f"t:.a.-kr,vr, % �"'-i t.'<'i � .';,-I'A ,.�"F' 4k1 ` ,i`ia*�•.. :t „I. • • _ _ _ • ...,3,1,,,,o...: :«�v -' - , t-: -,t ;'i,4{`^,3i .,z kt,,'y• J� ,r fir ^;�`H ',-,42,' ,x((•s`w, S. �'". '•t I{" '�.'i'" .t-' 'd<', �, J'Mi;,' :.Tc<•� ,t,Y t, 'c,'•.1.' ,�'.1.* -"T �, ,3 "i .r . :4 r, :s t:'yi .c •c.,. .,s,,i 'j} ° F •r:Y,l'. \ •Lj"l.7 :,,. a,',�. ^;. �. -„ .. ..SA'..4,:; ',t,t1. y �i.S,. ., ii.�T lh` �k rev '13.,. 'plc; f t �4k.'. 1,u a?Yf�: �••, q Atm ?Y �*r' ( t it. ,, p S. .. s”,-mow ,a-tYa•. a. w y r ..-.1 „,4',.,-,' 'i- ..,1' r 'i!.)%//,,, ;f,-i! . l1Si, L.4tM- 33sh. '-, "� s ---- .. .�•Irivy$ tVr. . • , g f Y �S j 5 6141,4.,),.{1s tAt A.,f•d6 , ig •s , ' . ..1iti.t4,gCTot.4. ,1',/'oK4TT .::)s,,,,i‘-..-',';ft rL ). ., t CLgr?p 4 t0,::.A• did* 1ff'. V . i i.�' s t d 7c 4% w4SLd ky\,,a;/,,f;$. '' E 4 ,1,4%1Z,,,,,4 ,,yy �f i';C s t` i f h1 Sat'i -r ,:,-.4`.4 ,�1'�'u�n t J t, ;yt 1 t .. ct �t.�. t}J "nvt‘1,,,-,7k;:, t .t_ tt tai0i - tiix1il.VA-,..', t r}f _ te.,,,‘,';•;.!..,,,,,,,;•:,., y f a iiii 1,.:',,,,VI 4:'`;' • N .... .. 5(? . i, d ,9l..J . at?tw .i .4A 141 A,4 ............ s — ��Y o CITN OF R ENTON ♦ ♦ Planning/Building/PublicWorks Department Kathy Keolker,Mayor Gregg Zimmerman P.E.,Administrator NT October 19, 2006 RECEIVED Ray Colliver OCT 2 0 7(1r Port Quendall Company 505 5th Avenue S ste:#900 FOSTER PEPPER pLC Seattle, WA 98104 C SUBJECT: Seahawks Headquarters and Training Facility LUA06-073, SA-M, SA-H, SM, ECF Dear Mr. Colliver: This letter is written on behalf of the Environmental Review Committee (ERC) to advise you that they have completed their review of the subject project and have issued a threshold Determination of Non- Significance-Mitigated with Mitigation Measures. Please refer to the enclosed ERC Report and Decision, Part 2, Section B for a list of the Mitigation Measures. Appeals of the environmental determination must be-filed in writing- on or before 5:00 PM on November 6, 2006. Appeals must be filed in writing together with the required $75.00 application fee with: Hearing Examiner, City of Renton, 1055 South Grady Way, Renton, WA 98055. Appeals to the Examiner are governed by City of Renton Municipal Code Section 4-8-110.8. Additional information -, iiid regarding the appeal process may be obtained from the Renton City Clerk's Office, (425)430-6510. - A Public Hearing will be held by the Renton Hearing Examiner in the Council Chambers on the seventh floor of City Hall, 1055 South Grady Way, Renton-, Washington, on November 21., 2006 at 9:00 AM to consider the Master Site Plan and Site Plan. The applicant or representative(s) of the applicant is required to be present at the public hearing. A copy of the staff report will be mailed to you one week before the hearing. If the Environmental Determination is appealed, the appeal will be heard as part of this public hearing. The preceding information will assist you in planning for implementation of your project and enable you to exercise your appeal rights more fully, if you choose 'to do so. If you have any questions or desire clarification of the above, please call me at(425)430-7382. For the Environmental Review Committee, Elizabeth Higgins Senior Planner cc: Parties of Record Enclosure 1055 South Grady Way-Renton, Washington 98055 - E N T O N __ _ AHEAD OF THE CURVE . s I , REPORT City of Renton Department of Planning / Building / Public Works DECISION ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW COMMITTEE REPORT ERC MEETING DATE: October 16, 2006 Project Name: Seahawks Headquarters and Training Facility Owner: Port Quendall Company Applicant: Football Northwest Contact: Mr. Ray Colliver 505 Fifth Avenue S, Suite 900 Seattle, WA 98104 File Number: LUA06-073, ECF, SA-M, SA-H, SM Project Manager: Elizabeth Higgins, Senior Planner Project Description: The project proponent is requesting SEPA environmental review for development of the Seahawks Headquarters and Training Facility. The proposed project would consist of a three-story office building and indoor practice facility in a single structure and four outdoor practice fields for the sport of professional football. An ancillary building for football-related equipment storage is also planned. Continued next page Project Location: 5015 Lake Washington Boulevard N (also addressed as 5015, 4801, 4635 Ripley Lane)NIS Exist. Bldg. Area SF: N/A Proposed New Bldg.Area (footprint): 129,595 sf Proposed New Bldg.Area (gross): 215,000 sf Site Area: 19.68 acres (853,776 sf) Total Building Area GSF: 215,000 sf RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommends that the Environmental Review Committee issue a Determination of Non-Significance—Mitigated (DNS-M). I,- SITE \. t / > y • 'illII l..I `e I 1-7 , i { T rFF��►► • kit" ! f,�,� r (I i • J i 3 i ,. r Project Location Map Seahawks ERC Report 03 City of Renton P/B/PW Departmer._ Er- amental Review Committee Staff Report SEAHAWKS HEADQUARTERS AiTRAINING FACILITY LUA-06-073, ECF, SA-M, SA-H, SM REPORT OF OCTOBER 16, 2006 Page 2 of 16 PART ONE: PROJECT DESCRIPTION/BACKGROUND, CONTINUED The proposed project location is a vacant site between the shore of Lake Washington and the NE 44`h Street interchange with Interstate 405 (Exit 7) in Northeast Renton (Exhibit 1).The site consists of two tax parcels, known as Baxter North and Baxter South Properties. The 19.6 acre Baxter property is a former timber processing/wood treatment facility(Exhibit 2). The wood treating operations at the site ended in 1981 and the property was subsequently used for storage of bark mulch. Cleanup of the property was prescribed by Prospective Purchaser Consent Decrees (North Baxter, #00-2- 11778-7KNT and South Baxter, #00-2-11779-5KNT) negotiated with the Department of Ecology under the Model Toxics Control Act. Cleanup of the South Baxter property consisted of excavation and replacement of soils in the Baxter Cove area and soil stabilization in the uplands. North Baxter remediation, consisting of capping contaminated soils, has been proposed to occur simultaneously with site construction. The site is within the Gypsy Subbasin Drainage, a 320 acre area north of and near, but independent of May Creek. The drainage way for the Gypsy Subbasin enters the property in a pipe from the BNSF Railroad right-of-way. Once on the property it flows from east to west first in a 125 foot open channel and then for 490 feet in a pipe to an outfall at the shoreline of Lake Washington. The dominant character of the site is an abandoned open field. There are no significant buildings on the property at the present time. A single-story, 1,300 sf wood-frame office building built on Baxter North in 1963, would be removed from the property, as would asphalt-paved interior roads. An existing boathouse and dock are located at the northwest shoreline. There is currently no plan to utilize these features and they would be fenced from the area of the site accessible to the public. On-site clean-up activities, remediation from the former wood-processing activities, have consisted of soil excavation, contaminant removal, and in situ soil stabilization. Site grading for the project would be coordinated with continuing remediation. Calculations indicate the capping of the site(see Environmental Health discussion, below) and grading for site features would require approximately 29,600 cubic yards of cut and 52,900 cubic yards of fill material. Some cut material would be removed from the site and the remainder reused. A source statement for fill material would be `o'' required at the time of site construction. The property is zoned Commercial/Residential/Office 2 (COR 2). The stated purpose of the Commercial/ Residential/Office zone is, "to provide for a mix of intensive office, hotel, convention center, and residential activity in a high-quality, master-planned development that is integrated with the natural environment."Although a major, national sports franchise headquarters was not anticipated as a use at the time this policy statement was formed, the following adopted policy is applicable, "Also, commercial uses that provide high economic value may be allowed if designed with the scale and intensity envisioned for the COR zone." The proposed project consists of administrative offices for a professional football franchise and accessory training and practice facilities (Exhibit 3). The office and an indoor practice field would be within a 215,000 gross square foot building on the North Baxter property. Administrative offices would be 48,000 sf and technical/support and player meeting space would be 15,000 sf each. Four outdoor, practice fields covering 8.3 acres would be located on the Baxter South property. Three would be natural and one artificial turf. The proponent's vision is for a building that would be both functional and aesthetically significant. Of the total building area, 131,000 gross square feet of office space would be located on three levels. Most of the building would be between 52 and 55 feet in height. The height of the 80,000 gross square foot indoor practice field, situated on the north and east sides of the building, would be between 95 feet at the center of the field and 120 feet. There would be three natural grass practice fields, oriented east-west on the South Baxter property. A one-story, 6,000 sf maintenance/equipment storage building would be located near the south property line. The steel frame building would be faced in buff/sandstone to light gray synthetic stone, masonry, and storefront systems on the lower level. Clear-glazed windows and either buff/sandstone to light gray cementious, or nickel to light gray metal, wall panels in on upper portions. (Building siting and design will be discussed to a greater extent during the Site Plan Review). vlimay The scale and intensity of the proposed project balances City policies that intend high intensity use, with both the natural amenities of the shoreline and wetland, both of which will have been enhanced by project completion, and residual contamination from the former industrial use. Seahawks ERC Report 03 City of Renton P/B/PW Department- En- )mental Review Committee Staff Deport SEAHAWKS HEADQUARTERS AND TRAINING FACILITY LUA-06-073,ECF, SA-M, SA-H, SM , REPORT OF OCTOBER 16, 2006 Page 3 of 16 Access would be from Lake Washington Boulevard (Ripley Lane)on the east and would require crossing the Burlington Northern Santa Fe Railroad right-of-way with a private street On-site roads would be private. There would be parking for 299 vehicles; 195 stalls for general surface parking anlild 104 secure(fenced) surface parking stalls for team members. Due to both limited access and on-site parking, the annual training camp, held for three weeks in August, would require off-site parking with a scheduled shuttle bus service. Portions of the site not covered with pavement, buildings, or fields would be either restored with native vegetation (wetland and shoreline)or landscaped appropriately for its function. Irrigation systems would be installed in all landscaped areas with temporary irrigation for the shoreline riparian plantings until they are established. (Landscaping will be discussed to a greater extent during the Site Plan Review). A viewpoint at shoreline of Lake Washington would be accessible to the public by means of an east-west paved walkway located parallel to the north property boundary. This viewpoint would be landscaped and furnished with benches. A Category 3 wetland has been restored and would remain in a protected area at the southwest portion of the property, adjacent to Lake Washington. The wetland would not be accessible to the public, although public access to the shoreline of Lake Washington would be provided by the proponent at the northwest corner of the property. PART TWO: ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW In compliance with RCW 43.21 C.240, the following project environmental review addresses only those project impacts that are not adequately addressed under existing development standards and environmental regulations. A. Recommendation Based on analysis of probable impacts from the proposal, staff recommends that the Responsible Officials make the following Environmental Determination: DETERMINATION OF DETERMINATION OF - NON-SIGNIFICANCE NON- SIGNIFICANCE- MITIGATED. Issue DNS with 14-day Appeal Period. X Issue DNS-M with 14-day Appeal Period. Issue DNS-M with 15-day Comment Period with a Concurrent 14-day Appeal Period. B. Mitigation Measures 1. The applicant shall comply with the recommendations included in the geotechnical report, "Supplemental Preliminary Geotechnical Report Seahawks Headquarters and Practice Facility Renton, Washington," by Shannon &Wilson, Inc., dated September 13, 2006, including recommendations for excavation, backfill materials, structural concrete blocking, and soil remediation for the water mains. 2. This project shall be subject to the 2005 King County Surface Water Design Manual for water quality. 3. The applicant shall be required to provide a Temporary Erosion and Sedimentation Control Plan (TESCP) designed pursuant to the Department of Ecology's Erosion and Sediment Control Requirements, outlined in Volume II of the 2001 Stormwater Management Manual and provide staff with a Construction Mitigation Plan prior to issuance of construction permits. 4. The applicant shall work with the City to alleviate upstream flooding that may impact access to the site. Additional details of pipe sizing and/or street improvements would be addressed through site plan review. 5. A traffic mitigation fee of$75 per additional daily trip shall be assessed based on the submitted calculation of 555 ADT. The fee of$41,625.00 shall be assessed at building permit issue. 6. A fire mitigation fee of$0.52 per square foot of building space shall be assessed at building permit issue. 7. In the event that archaeological deposits are found during construction, work shall stop and the Ntid contractor(s) shall contact the State Archaeologist at the State of Washington Office of Archaeology and Historic Preservation, phone (360)586-3065, the Muckleshoot Cultural Resources Program, phone (253) 939-3311, and Duwamish Tribal Services(206)431-1582. Seahawks ERC Report 03 City of Renton P/B/PW Department En, Mmental Review Committee Staff Report SEAHAWKS HEADQUARTERS AM./ TRAINING FACILITY LUA-06-073, ECF, SA-M, SA-H, SM REPORT OF OCTOBER 16, 2006 Page 4 of 16 C. Exhibits Exhibit 1 Vicinity Map (September 2006) ,, Exhibit 2 Historic Aerial Photo of North and South Baxter Properties (date unknown) Exhibit 3 Seahawks Headquarters and Training Facility, Building Plan (September 2006) Exhibit 4 Seattle Fault Zone(July 2006) Exhibit 5 Seahawks Headquarters and Training Facility, Site Plan (September 2006) Exhibit 6 Baxter Cove Wetland Mitigation Plan (August 2006) Exhibit 7 Lake Washington Shoreline, Existing Conditions (2006) Exhibit 8 Riparian Habitat Functions and Values Chart(September 2006) Exhibit 9 Gypsy Subbasin Culvert Replacement and Relocation Plan (August 2006) Exhibit 10 Summary of Pest Control Measures (September 2006) Exhibit 11 Visualization Assessment Viewpoints (September 2006) Exhibit 12 Visualization Assessment, NE 76th Street Viewshed (September 2006) Exhibit 13 Visualization Assessment, Misty Cove Unit 312 Viewshed (September 2006) Exhibit 14 Visualization Assessment, Misty Cove Unit 302 Viewshed (September 2006) Exhibit 15 Seahawks Headquarters and Training Facility, Elevations (September 2006) D. Environmental Impacts The Proposal was circulated and reviewed by various City Departments and Divisions to determine whether the applicant has adequately identified and addressed environmental impacts anticipated to occur in conjunction with the proposed development. Staff reviewers have identified that the proposal is likely to have the following probable impacts: 1. Earth Impacts: An Environmental Checklist submitted by the project proponent and a report, "Supplemental Preliminary Geotechnical Report Seahawks Headquarters and Practice Facility Renton, Washington," by Shannon &Wilson, Inc., September 13, 2006, forms the basis of analysis of impacts classified within the category of"earth". Additional, existing reports were reviewed for consistency with the literature study and on- "—r' site investigation. Site exploration consisted of drilling 6 borings and excavating 29 backhoe test pits. Borings were based on proposed location of building corners and the estimated building center. The test pits were spaced across the site to provide an overview of near-surface soils. Some pits were more closely spaced where deeper excavation for site preparation would occur. The subsurface geology is a combination of naturally-occurring and artificial conditions. Fluvial deltaic, lacustrine near-shore deposits and constructed fill overlie Pleistocene glacial sediments and Eocene volcanic and sedimentary bedrock. The site has undergone many influences over past decades including the lowering of the lake approximately 8 feet when the Lake Washington Ship Canal was constructed in 1916. In the mid 1950s, filling occurred on the site to extend the shoreline and raise the grade for construction of industrial facilities. Ongoing dredging and backfilling increased the complexity of the soil so that the subsurface material consists of a highly heterogeneous mix of clay, silt, peat, sand, gravel, and cobbles. Intermixed are abandoned subsurface structures and discarded debris from past industrial activities on the site. Generally, subsurface soils in the building and fields locations consist of either fill material to a depth of 2 to 3 feet, soft estuarine deposits and loose alluvial soils to depths of between 17 and 38 feet. The estuarine and alluvial deposits have layers of loose sand and compressible peat making them subject to liquefaction(see discussion below). The depth to bedrock varies greatly across the site with depths from 17.5 feet to more than 50 feet. It consists of highly weathered Andesite and is a competent bearing material for building foundations. The site slopes gently at about a 1 percent grade across the property from northeast to southwest. There are isolated slopes at about 5 percent along the north of the site. There is an elevation change from 33 feet in the northeast corner to about 21 feet where a wetland is located in the southwest corner(see below). The proposed access road would gain elevation between the railroad crossing and the proposed office building. The elevation of the driveway and parking lot at the building entrance on the east side of the building Seahawks ERC Report 03 • City of Renton P/B/PW Department. Ent imental Review Committee Staff F eport SEAHAWKS HEADQUARTERS AND TRAINING FACILITY LUA-06-073, ECF, SA-M, SA-H, SM , REPORT OF OCTOBER 16,2006 Page 5 of 16 is proposed to be approximately 14 feet above the existing grade. The parking area would slope downward as it wraps around the north end of the building to the west, where it would meet the existing grade. A loadin dock at the northwest corner of the office building would be approximately 1 foot above existing grade. Thiguif configuration would require construction of walls designed to retain up to 14 feet of fill adjacent to the office building. The remainder of the site, consisting primarily of outdoor practice fields, would require an average of approximately 4 feet of fill, with cuts on the east side and up to 3 feet of fill on the west. The site is located approximately 3 miles south of the"Seattle Fault,"(Exhibit 4)and is therefore considered to lie in a moderately active seismic zone. Due to subsurface conditions, the site is subject to earthquake- induced liquefaction and settlement. This susceptibility to liquefaction extends to a depth of about 40 feet. The office/indoor practice building would have typical loads for a structure of this type and size(verified by Magnusson Klemencic Associates, project structural engineers, in conversation with Shannon &Wilson). The recommended foundation design for the building would include 24-to 36-inch concrete shafts drilled to bedrock. The practice equipment building would be supported sufficiently on spread footings. These proposed site improvements would not be anticipated to have adverse long-term impacts on surrounding properties, although drilling to bedrock may have temporary sound, emissions, and vibration impacts during construction (see Advisory Notes to Applicant, below). Mitigation Measures: The applicant will be required to comply with the recommendations included in the geotechnical report, "Supplemental Preliminary Geotechnical Report Seahawks Headquarters and Practice Facility Renton, Washington," by Shannon &Wilson, Inc., dated September 13, 2006, including recommendations for excavation, backfill materials, structural concrete blocking, and soil remediation for the water mains.. Nexus: RMC 4-4-060, "Grading, Excavation and Mining Regulations" 2. Air Impacts: It is anticipated that some temporary adverse air quality impacts could be associated with site work and building construction required to develop this property. Project development impacts during construction may include dust resulting from grading, exhaust from construction vehicles, odors from roofing installation, and roadway paving. Dust would be controlled through the use of temporary erosion control measures and sprinkling of the site with water as needed. Odor impacts during construction are unavoidable and would be short-term in nature. Post development impacts potentially include vehicle and heating and cooling systems exhaust. These emissions are regulated by state and federal agencies. Nor further site specific mitigation for the identified impacts from exhaust is required. Mitigation Measures: No further mitigation is required. Nexus: Not applicable 3. Water Impacts: The site is within the Gypsy Subbasin Drainage of the Lake Washington East Basin.The Gypsy Subbasin is a 320 acre, Class 2 water north of and near, but independent of May Creek. Class 2 waters are salmonid-bearing perennial waters during years of normal rainfall. The drainage collects at a point on the west side of the project site where it flows for 125 feet in an open ditch prior to entering a 24-inch piped culvert. The culvert length is 490 feet to an outfall at the shore of Lake Washington. Lake Washington is a Class 1 water, a salmonid-bearing perennial water also classified as Shorelines of Statewide Significance (see Shoreline discussion below). Reconfiguration of this feature of the Gypsy Subbasin (see Stormwater discussion below)and site development within 200 feet of a Shoreline of the State would occur as a part of the proposed project. For Seahawks ERC Report 03 • City of Renton P/B/PW Department ) En hmental Review Committee Staff Report SEAHAWKS HEADQUARTERS ANL) TRAINING FACILITY LUA-06-073,ECF, SA-M, SA-H, SM • • REPORT OF OCTOBER 16,2006 Page 6 of 16 these reasons, both Standard and Supplemental Stream/Lake studies were required. A report, "Stream and - Lake Study, Supplemental Stream and Lake Study, Stream Mitigation Plan, Seahawks Corporate Headquarters and Training Facility, Renton, Washington," by Cedarock Consultants, Inc. and A.C. Kindig& Nwir, Co, dated September 20, 2006, was submitted for review. The overall goal of the cumulative remediation, as determined by the Consent Decrees, has been improved water quality in Lake Washington. The proposed project incorporates the final remediation with the initial phases of development. This action is laying a 3-foot deep clean soil cap across the site. At the building location, the floor slab would serve as a part of this cap. Upsizing of the Gypsy Subbasin Drainage culvert, prior to completing the cap, would alleviate upstream flooding. Replacement of exotic species along the shoreline and replanting to improve functions and values of the riparian zone has been proposed. Most native plants and large trees along the shoreline would be preserved. These improved conditions would improve the shoreline role in protecting aquatic habitat values critical to Lake Washington. Mitigation Measures: No further mitigation is required. Nexus: Not applicable 4. Wetlands Impacts: Two on-site wetlands were excavated and filled in association with the remediation plan that resulted from the negotiated Consent Decrees. Also as part of the Consent Decrees, approximately 0.46 acre of mitigation wetland was restored in November 2002, along 250 feet of the shoreline of the Lake near the southwest corner of the property(Exhibit 5) at Baxter Cove. The Baxter Cove wetland is designed to be a forested wetland with open water and emergent components within the cove. Ultimately, it will be a forested wetland, but currently trees planted in seasonally saturated wetland areas have not attained the required height to meet classification standards for this wetland *sof type. The open water component is less than 40 percent of the total wetland area. The emergent classification can be applied to the open water area when the lake level is low and to the edges of the cove when levels are high. This lake-fed wetland meets the Renton standards for a Class 3 wetland (newly emerging). It complies with performance standards and is intended to remain as an undisturbed component of the project proposal. (Initial conceptual plans had a public access to the lake shoreline constructed through this area, but the final plan has public access to the lake outside of the protected wetland and its buffer). A 50-foot vegetated and enhanced wetland buffer was also restored as part of the mitigation. A portion of this buffer would be subject to buffer averaging, as allowed by the City of Renton Critical Areas Ordinance, but no part of the buffer would be reduced to less than 40-feet in width and the total amount of buffer area would not be reduced. Approximately 1,220 feet of the wetland buffer would be filled, with replacement of buffer area at a 1:1 ratio (Exhibit 6). Subsequently, a wetlands site assessment was conducted by The RETEC Group, Inc. in May 2006 and the results included in their report, "Shoreline and Wetland Survey, North and South Baxter Parcels, Seahawks Headquarters and Training Facility, City of Renton,"dated August 30, 2006. No jurisdictional wetland areas were identified on the project site during the wetland reconnaissance, other than the Baxter Cove wetland. Mitigation Measures: No further mitigation is required. Nexus: Not applicable 5. Shoreline Impacts: The proposed project site has 1,887 feet of shoreline along Lake Washington, a Class 1 Inventoried Shoreline of the State (Exhibit 7). There are approximately 1.23 acres of vegetated area within 100-feet of the `oriv. shoreline(excluding 0.36 acres of the Baxter Cove area that is part of the restored wetland). The character of the shoreline is a steep bank of between 2 and 3 feet high with vegetation rooted at the top of bank. A covered boathouse with pier and a dock are at two locations along the shoreline. Seahawks ERC Report 03 City of Renton P/B/PW Department- En )mental Review Committee Staff Report SEAHAWKS HEADQUARTERS AND TRAINING FACILITY LUA-06-073,ECF, SA-M, SA-H, SM , REPORT OF OCTOBER 16, 2006 Page 7 of 16 The proposed project would require the following work within 200 feet of the shoreline of Lake Washingtoi • Capping (soil cover placement)consistent with the Department of Ecology Consent Decree "gemil • Construction of the Seahawks Headquarters building • Construction of natural grass practice fields • Shoreline improvements per statute within the 50 foot setback, including riparian plant zone • Construction of retaining wall and driveways • Piping a section of Gypsy Creek drainage to an existing Gypsy Creek outfall at the lakeshore Proposed improvements are features allowed within the Renton Shoreline Master Program under the Urban Environment designation. Lake water elevations fluctuate depending on US Army Corps of Engineers regulation of water level at the Lake Washington Ship Canal. Typically, the elevation of Lake Washington in June is about 18.8 feet above sea level and 16.8 (the lowest level)during December and January. An Ordinary High Water Mark of 19.5 has been noted on this site, however, possibly due to erosion caused by a combination of lack of vegetation on the steep bank slope and wind and boat-generated waves. As part of the wetland restoration, large woody debris was anchored along the shoreline at Baxter Cove. Other logs, pilings, and seawalls along the shoreline may act to reduce the effects of wind and wave erosion. A Lake Washington shoreline planting plan is part of the proposed project. All trees 10 inches or larger in diameter at breast height within 100 feet of the shoreline have been inventoried and would be retained wherever possible. The vegetated area of 1.23 acres would be maintained or increased. All non-native vegetation would be removed and replaced with native plants that provide moderate to high shoreline protection and wildlife function. The existing 0.82 acres of tree canopy would be matched or exceeded, with cover objectives being met within 5 to 10 years (Exhibit 8). The shoreline restoration and management program is included in the Shoreline Substantial Development „ad Permit Application component of this Land Use Action. Mitigation Measures: [Mitigation of shoreline development is included in the Shoreline Substantial Development Permit Application component of this Land Use Action.] Nexus: Not applicable 6. Stormwater Impacts: The project site is located in the Gypsy Subbasin. Stormwater currently sheet flows from east to west across the weedy brush-covered, but vacant site, free draining into Lake Washington. An existing, degraded storm drain system crosses the site conveying stormwater from offsite to an outfall at the Lake. The site soils are a minor factor when considering the stormwater control system due to their heavily degraded nature and the manipulation of the site through filling, grading, and dredging over many years. For purposes of drainage analysis, soils would be designated as from Hydrologic soil Group C, moderate runoff soils (till). As part of the Consent Decree remediation, a "cap"is to be placed over potentially hazardous materials on site to prevent incidental contact following site development. This cap would be a factor to be considered during design of the stormwater control system (see Environmental Health discussion below). A report, "Stormwater Technical Information," by Magnusson Klemencic Associates, dated August 30, 2006 has been submitted by the project proponent and would be the primary basis for stormwater control systems design. Stormwater management would be based on the requirements of the 2005 King County Surface Water Design Manual (KCSWDM), which would be applicable for this project. The project is exempt from detention as it discharges into Lake Washington, a direct discharge receiving water. The system would include water quality treatment, however, prior to discharge. The KCSWDM designates areas draining to , ad Lake Washington as subject to the requirements of Basic Treatment. The proposed water quality treatment system, however, would provide Enhanced Basic water quality. Treatment systems would vary according to functions at different zones on the site, as follows: Seahawks ERC Report 03 City of Renton P/B/PW Departmen J En= hmental Review Committee Staff Report SEAHAWKS HEADQUARTERS Aivri TRAINING FACILITY LUA-06-073,ECF, SA-M,SA-H, SM REPORT OF OCTOBER 16, 2006 Page 8 of 16 Pedestrian hardscape(sidewalks, plaza), non-sports field landscaping, and building/roof areas: As non- pollution generating surfaces (roofs do not consist of unpainted metal), stormwater runoff will drain to Lake Washington as direct discharge. The synthetic turf field consists of a 12-inch base course of imported crushed rock, a minimum 1.5 inch porous asphalt layer, a fiber polyurethane woven fabric, 5/8 inch energy absorbing layer of granular rubber, 1.5 inch granular rubber and sand mix overlain by synthetic field turf. Rainwater on the synthetic field would infiltrate through the surface material and base layers to subdrains to be conveyed to the Lake for discharge. Natural turf fields: The natural turf fields would overlay an 18 inch layer of sand, which would function as a filter. As with the synthetic turf field, subdrains would convey runoff to the Lake. An Integrated Pest Management(IPM) Plan would be utilized for turf management(see Environmental Health discussion below). The IPM Plan would address the use of fertilizers, pesticides, and herbicides so that field runoff meets water quality standards. Parking lots and driveways: Stormwater runoff from paved areas subject to vehicle traffic would be collected and directed to four sand filters. Three of the filters would be grass covered to provide pre-treatment and maintain the surface permeability of the sand filters. Pretreatment at the fourth filter would be provided by an additional layer of sand. This filter would function, additionally, as a football practice area. To maintain the filter system and protect the health of the football players, the sand layer would be cleaned of potential pollutants annually or more often as needed. Subdrains would convey collected stormwater to the Lake for discharge. Peak rate runoff control in not required or provided for this project because the site discharges directly to Lake Washington, a major receiving water body. Therefore, retention/detention analysis and design would not be required. The Baxter Cove wetland is hydraulically connected to Lake Washington and will not be part of the project stormwater management systems. Discharge to Lake Washington would be through five new drainage system outfalls. The pipe outfalls would err release stormwater above the ordinary high-water mark (OHWM)of Lake Washington and subsequently drain over energy dissipating rock-lined channels to the OHWM. The channels would be located at areas of the shoreline where non-erosive material is located that would protect the shoreline during periods of lowered water levels. A portion of the Gypsy Subbasin drainage system, which conveys stormwater from the east side of Interstate 405 to the Lake, currently daylights for 125 feet east of the Burlington Northern Santa Fe Railroad right-of-way. This section consists of a below-grade, man-made ditch with steep, rock-lined side slopes. There is minimal fish habitat present. This open channel enters a 24-inch corrugated metal pipe that slopes approximately 0.1 percent to the Lake. The outfall is about 1 foot above the lake level, when the lake is at a low elevation. When the water level is at higher elevations, the culvert experiences backwater that makes upstream fish travel possible, although it has not been observed. The proposed project would require replacement and relocation of this Gypsy Subbasin drainage feature. The Headquarters building footprint conflicts with the current pipe location. The 490 foot pipe would be realigned around the building and lengthened to approximately 860 feet(Exhibit 9). The existing outfall would remain in place at its current condition. The Joint Aquatic Resources Permit Application (JARPA)for this work states the following potential impacts: "elimination of 125 feet of open channel, a slightly larger culver across the project site, will affect riparian vegetation along the Gypsy Subbasin and Lake Washington, and will result in some disturbance to the shoreline of Lake Washington above and below the ordinary high water mark." The existing outfall would be used and shoreline restoration at the outfall would occur as part of this work. Alternatives to piping, including daylighting the entire drainage channel and maintaining the existing open portion were studied. The capping requirement of the Consent Decrees, however, is premised on the need to 444019 avoid direct contact of flowing water with residual contaminated soils on the property. The capping and culvert together isolate the Gypsy Subbasin Drainage and Lake Washington from site soils. Therefore, the open section of the drainage would be included in the new piped system. Seahawks ERC Report 03 AMINh. City of Renton P/B/PW Department' En 'mental Review Committee Staff Report SEAHAWKS HEADQUARTERS AND TRAINING FACILITY LUA-06-073, ECF, SA-M, SA-H, SM . REPORT OF OCTOBER 16,2006 Page 9 of 16 The applicant shall work with the City to alleviate upstream flooding that may impact access to the site. Additional details of pipe sizing and/or street improvements would be addressed through site plan review. Surface Water System Development Charges of$0.249 per square foot of new impervious surfaces would be required. Mitigation Measures: This project shall be subject to the 2005 King County Surface Water Design Manual. The applicant shall be required to provide a Temporary Erosion and Sedimentation Control Plan(TESCP) designed pursuant to the Department of Ecology's Erosion and Sediment Control Requirements, outlined in Volume II of the 2001 Stormwater Management Manual and provide staff with a Construction Mitigation Plan prior to issuance of construction permits. The applicant shall work with the City to alleviate upstream flooding that may impact access to the site. Additional details of pipe sizing and/or street improvements will be addressed through the site plan review process. Nexus: SEPA Regulations 7. Transportation Impacts: Transportation impacts have been analyzed in the report, "Traffic Impact Analysis Seahawks' Headquarters," by The Transpo Group, dated September 2006. Vehicle access to the site would be from Ripley Lane (also known as Lake Washington Boulevard North). Lake Washington Boulevard intersects with Northeast 44th Street near the project site. Exit 7 of Interstate 405 is located at NE 44th St. Currently, Ripley Lane is improved with minimal pavement and no pedestrian amenities. There are two existing at-grade crossings of the Burlington Northern Santa Fe Railroad right-of-way. The southern one crosses the Quendall Terminals property. There is an access easement recorded granting access rights across the Quendall property to the proposed development site. The project proponent is discussing the possibility of a third crossing at a mid-point of the project site. A third crossing would not be necessity for project access however. The City of Renton Transportation Division has requested that street improvements along Ripley Lane include roadway widening to provide one vehicular traffic lane in each direction, bicycle lanes in each direction, and a paved shoulder area to serve as a pedestrian walkway(one side only) abutting the bicycle lane. These improvements should extend from Lake Washington Boulevard/NE 44th St on the south (beyond the project site)to the north end of the Seahawks Headquarters site. The City of Renton would contribute toward these improvements. In is estimated that the proposed project would contribute an additional 555 average daily weekday trips(ADT) to the City's transportation system. Therefore, the proposed project would be subject to a transportation mitigation fee of$75 per trip. The fee of$41,625.00 would be assessed at building permit issue. Parking for up to 315 cars would be provided on-site, with 104 spaces within a secure, fenced parking area. The site is not served by public transportation. The nearest transit stops are to the north in the City of Newcastle at 116th and 76th or south, in Kennydale, at Park Avenue N and N. 33'd St. Mitigation Measures: A traffic mitigation fee of$75 per additional daily trip shall be assessed based on the submitted calculation of 555 ADT. The fee of$41,625.00 would be assessed at building permit issue. Nexus: SEPA 8. Fire Protection Impacts: Fire Prevention staff indicates that sufficient resources exist to furnish services to the proposed development; subject to the condition that the applicant provides required improvements (see Advisory Notes Seahawks ERC Report 03 City of Renton P/B/PW Departmen_ Er. -nmental Review Committee Staff Report SEAHAWKS HEADQUARTERS AiviTRAINING FACILITY LUA-06-073,ECF, SA-M, SA-H, SM REPORT OF OCTOBER 16,2006 Page 10 of 16 to Applicant, below)and mitigation fees are paid prior to building permit issue. The mitigation fee, for commercial space, is $0.52 per square foot. r.r Mitigation Measures: A fire mitigation fee of$0.52 per square foot of building space shall be assessed at building permit issue. Nexus: SEPA 9. Vegetation Impacts: The project site has been periodically cleared of vegetation over the years of its industrial use. Comprehensive site clearing took place in 1990. Vegetation was also removed during Consent Decree cleanup activities. Currently, approximately 10 percent of the site has trees and other plants. Final cleanup including the placement of the 3-foot deep cap will require removal of most existing vegetation from the site, excluding that in the wetland and wetland buffer. Existing vegetation varies on the site depending on past activities and current situation. Vegetation zones include open meadow, which is the predominant condition, BNSF Railroad right-of-way edge, Gypsy Subbasin Drainage feature, Baxter Cove Wetland, and Lake Washington shoreline. Past industrial activities on the site, including clearing, have restricted the ability of trees to mature; thereby growth of tree canopy has been limited. The majority of the site is open meadow. Non-native grasses (bent grass, velvet grass, tall and red fescue, and reed canary grass)and weedy herbaceous plants (soft rush, sickle-leaved rush, bird's foot trefoil, white clover, western dock, vetch, and hairy cat's ear) typical of disturbed meadows dominate the vegetation on the property. Trees that are present along the eastern edge of the property, abutting the SNSF Railroad right-of-way, include black cottonwood, red alder, Scouler's and Pacific willow. Although a tree inventory has been completed and trees larger than 10 inches in diameter identified, these tree species are exempt from Renton's Now, tree retention regulations. Preservation of many of these trees has been proposed by the project applicant, but would not be required by the City of Renton. The steep banks of the open portion of the Gypsy Subbasin Drainage have cover consisting of red alder, black cottonwood, willow, Himalayan blackberry, and Scotch broom. The proposed project would relocate this open channel into a piped culvert and the existing vegetation would be removed. The lake-fed Baxter Cove wetland has three types of vegetation structure with its 0.46 acre area. They are aquatic bed, emergent plants, and scrub/shrub. When trees planted in seasonally saturated wetland areas attain greater height, classification standards for forested wetland will be met. Trees planted in the wetland include Douglas fir, western hemlock, Sitka spruce, bigleaf maple, black cottonwood, Oregon ash, red alder, Pacific willow, bitter cherry, and cascara. Shrubs include vine maple, red osier dogwood, hawthorn, western crabapple, Sitka willow, hazelnut, salmonberry, nootka rose, Oregon grape, sword fern, snowberry, twinberry, and salal. Emergent plants include lady fern, slough sedge, hardstem bulrush, small-fruited bulrush, water parsley, and tall mannagrass. Shoreline vegetation, at the top of a 2-to 3-foot bank, consists of blackberry, purple loosestrife, Scotch broom, red alder, black cottonwood, and willow. Other than Himalayan blackberry extending several feet over the bank there is little vegetation along the water edge. All pervious areas of the development are required to be landscaped. Renton Municipal Code requires that parking areas be landscaped and all areas planted with plants other than drought-tolerant varieties must be irrigated. No known endangered, threatened, or sensitive plant species have been observed on the property. Mitigation Measures: No mitigation required. Nouse Nexus: Not applicable Seahawks ERC Report 03 411. • City of Renton P/B/PW Department., I En[ 'mental Review Committee Staff Report SEAHAWKS HEADQUARTERS AND TRAINING FACILITY LUA-06-073, ECF, SA-M, SA-H, SM REPORT OF OCTOBER 16, 2006 Page 11 of 16 10. Wildlife Impacts: Both upland and aquatic habitat value of the site is considered to be low due to the highly distui, nature of the property. On-going and persistent site manipulation associated with the industrial business conducted on the upland portions of the property has resulted in limited vegetation and residual contamination. A 4-foot high beaver dam is located at the downstream end of the open portion of the Gypsy Subbasin Drainage channel at the east side of the site. This structure currently provides improved habitat value to the open channel that would otherwise be too shallow, muddy, and lacks instream structure and cover. There is little protection against winter storm events that result in high velocity flows. Likewise, low flows during summer also limit habitat quality. Higher value habitat may be located along the shoreline, although the dominance of non-native invasive plant species, lack of vegetative diversity and structure, and lack of special habitat features such as snags also results in limitation on value. No known endangered, threatened, or sensitive animal species have been observed on the property. Turtles of unknown species, but probably painted or red-eared sliders, were present near the Baxter Cove wetland, a killdeer was seen at the center of the property, and Canadian geese were observed on the property to the north. Other fowl observed in the vicinity include red-winged blackbird, snipe, and numerous duck species along the shoreline. Osprey are present in the area from mid-March through August and have nested at various locations in the area including the Baxter properties and the Barbee Mill property through the years. Their nests and perch site are also frequented by Canadian geese and bald eagles. Three bald eagle nests have been known, historically, to be west and northwest of the site on Mercer Island. Given the size and location of the property it can be expected that deer, beaver, raccoon, opossum, skunk, and other small mammals and rodents frequent the property. Mitigation Measures: No mitigation is required. Nexus: Not applicable 11. Environmental Health Impacts: The wood treating operations at the site ended in 1981 and the property was subsequently used for storage of bark mulch. Prospective Purchaser Consent Decrees (North Baxter, #00-2-11778-7KNT and South Baxter, #00-2-11779-5KNT)were negotiated with the Department of Ecology under the Model Toxics Control Act occurred in 2000. Cleanup of the South Baxter property consisted of excavation and replacement of soils in the Baxter Cove area and soil stabilization in the uplands. North Baxter remediation, consisting of capping contaminated soils, has been proposed to occur simultaneously with site construction. Although site cleanup occurred in 2002, as part of the Consent Decree for the North Baxter property, a"cap" is to be placed over the site to prevent incidental contact with potentially hazardous residual materials following site development. This cap would consist of both pervious and impervious materials including pavements, building foundation pads, athletic field materials, and imported fill. Where the cap consists of pervious materials, an indicator layer consisting of a fabric or geogrid textile would be placed over the 3 foot deep cap as a warning device for potential future excavation. The property abutting to the south, the Quendall Terminals, has been designated a superfund cleanup site. Cleanup will commence under the direction of the Environmental Protection Agency. The southern-most property, the Barbee Mill, has on-going, voluntary site remediation. Previous studies of the historic use of the properties in this area reveal that past industrial use, and resulting contamination, is property distinct, therefore cleanup plans are appropriately unique to each site. Natural turf field maintenance would be according to an Integrated Pest Management(IPM) Plan developed by the applicant. The IPM would address management techniques and potential chemical uses on the natural turf practice fields. The plan also includes an accidental spill and response plan. The IPM would utilize Best Management Practices (BPMs)to specify disease-resistant turf species and varieties, control of drainage and light, fertilization and watering regimes, and soil mechanics (Exhibit 8). Weed and insect pest damage threshold levels would be established and chemical treatment applied on an Seahawks ERC Report 03 City of Renton P/B/PW Department inmental Review Committee Staff Report SEAHAWKS HEADQUARTERS Alva TRAINING FACILITY LUA-06-073,ECF, SA-M, SA-H, SM • REPORT OF OCTOBER 16, 2006 Page 12 of 16 as-needed basis, if necessary. Alternative methods of cultural treatment control, however, would be preferred and sought. The exception to this approach would be routine, seasonal preventative treatment against fungus diseases. This would be necessary to prevent development of disease to levels that would require higher Nit'" doses that would also render the fields unplayable. Pesticides would not be proposed for use. An on-site field manager and staff would monitor and record turf health, damage levels, and response thresholds. Chemical analysis would be conducted to determine turf requirements. Field maintenance would comply with Washington State Industrial Safety and Health Act and Occupational Safety and Health Administration regulations. The turf fertilizer program includes nutrients and trace minerals to maximize turf health and minimize the need for pesticides. Slow release fertilizer would be the preferred form at application to reduce nutrient transport from the turf root zone. Slow release nutrients are insoluble and generally take 4 to 12 weeks to become completely liberated and available for turf utilization. Management of application rates would prevent overapplication of fertilizer. The potentially adverse impacts to water quality from the nitrogen, phosphorus, and potassium in fertilizer would also be mitigated through source control. The depth of the sand filter underlying the natural turf fields has been increased to 18 inches, which would provide a high level of water quality treatment and would comply with recommendations of the 2005 King County Surface Water Manual for sensitive fish habitat environments. Another method of reducing escape of fertilizers from the area of application is through irrigation control to avoid overwatering. Preferred management of pests, like disease control, would be through a combination of cultural methods and accepted tolerance levels. No chemical control would be proposed for insects or broadleaf weeds. Instead, management would include selection and enhancement of competing vegetation that resists pests and disease. Mitigation Measures: No additional mitigation is required. Nexus: Not applicable 12. Aesthetics Impacts: Proposed site development would include the construction of an office and indoor training facility building, playing fields, surface parking lots, and landscaping. The aesthetic character of the currently vacant site would change as a result of the development. The office and indoor training facility structure would range in height from 55 feet(office)to 120 feet(training facility). Development of the site raises several issues to be considered related to aesthetics, including building siting on the property, building massing and architecture, shadows, landscaping, lighting(see discussion below), and altered and/or obstruction of views to and from the project. An assessment of potential aesthetic impacts was initiated by the project proponent. A visual assessment of the proposed project was performed by Crawford Architects, (Addendum 1, dated September 27, 2006). Over 70 views of the project were photographed and from this data, 11 potential view corridors to Lake Washington were evaluated. The"worst case"situations are included herein, SE 76th St, a publicly accessible upslope location, and two top-floor units of the Misty Cove Condominiums (Exhibit 11). The Headquarters building on the North Baxter property would be visible from off-site areas, and would be prominent on the site due to its height and bulk. A second, one-story building on the South Baxter property would not be within view from off-site areas to the east or west because of the screening vegetation of the wetland and BNSF Railroad right-of-way vegetation. Views of this building would be blocked from Misty Cove by the Headquarters building. It is anticipated that the Headquarters building would be visible from areas of both the City of Newcastle and Renton, from higher elevations. It is not anticipated that views from higher elevations would be obstructed or altered. Seahawks ERC Report 03 City of Renton P/B/PW Department Enc Omental Review Committee Staff Report SEAHAWKS HEADQUARTERS AND TRAINING FACILITY LUA-06-073,ECF, SA-M, SA-H, SM , REPORT OF OCTOBER 16, 2006 Page 13 of 16 View impacts were evaluated from off-site areas including SE 76th Street upslope from the site, and from southwest facing units within the Misty Cove condominium complex,just north of the project site. 44.111 Views to and from the site, and to the site from off-site locations, would be affected by the proposal. As evidenced in Exhibit 12, views from SE 76th Street would change. Views of Mercer Island (to the west)from this location would be foreshortened. Views of Lake Washington, which are limited at this location due to existing vegetation on the BNSF Railroad right-of-way, would remain basically unaltered. Views from both the southbound and northbound lanes of Interstate 405, located between the SE 76th viewpoint and the site would be similar, with comparable impacts. • Many units of the Misty Cove Condominium have enjoyed territorial views across the property. With development,foreground views from the Misty Cove Condominiums would be affected by the presence of a building on what has been a vacant site. Presently, unmanaged site vegetation limits some views across the project site to Lake Washington. Industrial activities and outdoor storage of materials have also been largely screened from view by trees and shrubs between the Misty Cove property and the project site. Exhibit 13 shows the existing and proposed view from a third-floor unit, number 312. Similar views are shown for unit 302, located closer to the lake than the previous unit(Exhibit 14). A derelict office building on the site(to be demolished) is also within the view corridor of unit 302. The view to Lake Washington would remain unchanged, while the view of the site would change from vacant and vegetated to developed and landscaped. The 120-foot high building would be prominent. Measures proposed to reduce or control aesthetic impacts of the project include architectural design treatments intended to diminish the bulk of the structure, including roofline treatment, window detailing, and exterior finishes and colors. In addition, the building is being setback 50 feet from the water's edge and approximately 170 feet from the common property line. Overhead wires, currently within the Misty Cove view corridor, would be undergrounded. Landscaping at the building perimeter and property boundaries would buffer the building from the residentis, area to the north. Trees, planted as part of the landscaping proposed to buffer the structure from the Misty Cove condominiums, would mature to heights greater than the existing trees. On-site vegetation growth has been limited historically, due to the industrial activities on the property, which resulted in removal of trees before they reached maturity(see Vegetation discussion, above). The Headquarters building siting, on the North Baxter property, is based on geotechnical and soil contamination issues (see discussion above). The office and support functions of the building would be located on the west side of the structure in order to reduce the apparent mass of the taller portion of the building in which the practice facility is located (Exhibit 15). The three story Headquarters portion of the building, at about 55 feet, would be adjacent to the shoreline. This would also maximize views to the lake from interior office space. Architectural details, such as arcades, horizontal lines, roof treatments, and window detailing would be used to reduce the scale and mass of the building. The building color palette would be warm earth tones including buff/sandstone, light gray, nickel, and cherrywood. Views to roof-mounted mechanical equipment would be limited from ground level on the site, on adjacent properties, and the Lake. The environment of the area would be significantly altered by the proposed project, as is almost always the case when land transitions from vacant to fully developed. Significant adverse impacts are not expected, however, beyond those impacts that can be mitigated by the project proposal. Mitigation Measures: N/A Nexus: N/A Seahawks ERC Report 03 City of Renton P/B/PW Deparfiner_ Ed_ .nmental Review Committee Staff Report SEAHAWKS HEADQUARTERS A,„0 TRAINING FACILITY LUA-06-073,ECF, SA-M, SA-H, SM • REPORT OF OCTOBER 16, 2006 Page 14 of 16 13. Light and Glare lore Impacts: Although some interior building lights in offices may be on after dark, practice fields would not be lit because football practice would not occur at night. It is not anticipated that light levels would be higher than typical for an office structure. Mitigation Measures: N/A Nexus: N/A 14. Historic and Cultural Preservation Impacts: Historic and cultural impacts have been analyzed in relation to information included in the report, "Cultural Resource Assessment JAG Development, King County, Washington," by Larson Anthropological/ Archaeological Services, dated march 27, 1997. The 60-acre study area included the properties to the south of the Baxter site (Quendall Terminals and the Barbee Mill)and to the east(Pan Abode Cedar Homes). In addition to literature search and on-site subsurface exploration, the study included consultation with individuals representing the Muckleshoot and Duwamish Tribes. The area of the study is within the territory of the Duwamish, a Salish-speaking group predominant in the Seattle area. The Duwamish lived in cedar longhouses in villages located on most of the larger bodies of water in the central to southern portion of the Seattle area(Elliott Bay, Lake Washington, Lake Union, Salmon Bay, and on the Duwamish, Green/White, and Cedar/Black Rivers. A village of the Duwamish tribe was probably located in the vicinity of the Pan Abode property, upstream of the current mouth of May Creek. The lower portion of May Creek, which crosses the Barbee Mill property, would have been below the level of the Lake until exposed in 1916. All of the properties in the study area have been heavily influenced by fluctuations in lake levels over time due to earthquakes and the lowering of the Lake approximately 9 feet following construction of the Hiram Chittenden Locks and the opening of the Lake Washington Ship Canal in 1916. The first non-native inhabitant of the area within the study was James Madison (or Manning) Colman. In about 1875, he acquired 160 acres of property on both sides of May Creek. The study area encompasses this property. Colman Point, located about 0.5 mile south in Kennydale, is named for him. Except for about one acre of cleared land for the Colman house, the property was largely unused. The Baxter property is near an access road located to the north that was used for hauling coal from mines in Newcastle to Lake Washington for shipment to Seattle. In 1902, the timber on the Colman property was sold. In 1903, the Northern Pacific Railroad acquired a right-of-way through the property for construction of a railroad spur along the east side of Lake Washington. The railroad was built along the lake shore in 1905. The Colman family started selling the land in 1908.The portion that became the Baxter property was sold in 1914 to be used as a shingle production facility. The shingle mill was demolished sometime between 1939 and 1946. The Baxter Company purchased the property after leasing it from 1955. They used it primarily for wood treatment processes consisting of debarking and treatment for telephone poles and pilings. If present, it is unlikely that shallow remains of historic activity could have survived the severe manipulation of this site over the past sixty-plus years it has been used industrially. There may be archaeological features and artifacts deeply buried below the ground surface, dating from hunter-gatherer communities that existed in the vicinity of the property during historic times of low lake levels. Due to Consent Decree restrictions on exposing underlying soils, excavation on the site would be limited to borings for building structure pilings. Nime Mitigation Measures: In the event that archaeological deposits are found during construction, work shall stop and the contractor(s)shall contact the State Archaeologist at the State of Washington Office of Archaeology Seahawks ERC Report 03 City of Renton P/B/PW Department- l En_ )mental Review Committee Staff Report SEAHAWKS HEADQUARTERS AND TRAINING FACILITY LUA-06-073, ECF, SA-M, SA-H,SM REPORT OF OCTOBER 16, 2006 Page 15 of 16 and Historic Preservation, phone(360) 586-3065, the Muckleshoot Cultural Resources Program, phone (253) 939-3311, and Duwamish Tribal Services (206)431-1582. *1010 Nexus: SEPA Environmental Regulations E. Comments of Reviewing Departments The proposal has been circulated to City Departmental / Divisional Reviewers for their review. Where applicable, these comments have been incorporated into the text of this report as Mitigation Measures and/or Notes to Applicant. X Copies of all Review Comments are contained in the Official File. Copies of all Review Comments are attached to this report. Environmental Determination Appeal Process Appeals of the environmental determination must be filed in writing on or before 5:00 PM, November 6, 2006. Appeals must be filed in writing together with the required$75.00 application fee with: Hearing Examiner, City of Renton, 1055 South Grady Way, Renton,WA 98055. Appeals to the Examiner are governed by City of Renton Municipal Code Section 4-8-110.B. Additional information regarding the appeal process may be obtained from the Renton City Clerk's Office, (425)430-6510. ADVISORY NOTES TO APPLICANT The following notes are supplemental information provided in conjunction with the administrative land use action. Because these notes are provided as information only, they are not subject to the appeal process for the land use actions Planning 1. RMC section 4-4-030.C.2 limits haul hours between 8:30 am to 3:30 pm, Monday through Friday unless otherwfr- approved by the Development Services Division. The Development Services Division reserves the right to resk .4000 the approved extended haul hours at any time if complaints are received. 2. Within thirty(30) days of completion of grading work, the applicant shall hydroseed or plant an appropriate ground cover over any portion of the site that is graded or cleared of vegetation and where no further construction work will occur within ninety(90) days. Alternative measures such as mulch, sodding, or plastic covering as specified in the King County Surface Water Management Design Manual as adopted by the City of Renton may be proposed between the dates of November 1st and March 31st of each year.The Development Services Division's approval of this work is required prior to final inspection and approval of the permit. 3. Construction activities shall be restricted to the hours between seven o'clock(7:00)a.m. and eight o'clock(8:00) p.m., Monday through Friday.Work on Saturdays shall be restricted to the hours between nine o'clock(9:00) a.m. and eight o'clock(8:00) p.m. No work shall be permitted on Sundays. 4. Regarding the wetland and wetland buffer, the applicant shall record a Native Growth Protection Easement. Fire Prevention 1. The fire flow is 3,000 gpm. Minimum commercial fire hydrant requirements are one hydrant required within 150- feet of the structures and additional hydrants are required within 300-feet of the structures. Looped fire mains are required for fire flows exceeding 2,500 gpm with maximum spacing of 300-feet between hydrants. 2. Fire Department access roads are required to be paved, 20-foot wide and within 150-feet of all portions of the building exteriors. Dead end roadways over 150 feet in length are required to have an approved turnaround. If "grasscrete" is proposed, Fire Prevention Bureau specifications for base material and construction must be followed. 3. The Headquarters and Training Facility building is required to have compete fire sprinkler, standpipe, kitchen hood suppression and fire alarm systems. The Maintenance building may also need sprinkler and fire alarm systems depending on the amount of hazardous materials stored in it. Separate plans and permits are required for the installation of all systems through the Renton Fire Department. 4. Fire lane signage is required per city ordinance on all private streets and fire access roadways. 5. Minimum vertical height for fire department access is 13 feet 6 inches. 6. For fire planning purposes an electronic copy of the individual building site plans, in acceptable format, shall be submitted to the Renton Fire Department. 7. Any building classified as "high-rise" shall meet all special requirements of the International Building Code Sectio _ 403 and all applicable sections of the International Fire Code. Seahawks ERC Report 03 City of Renton P/B/PW Departmen Er- inmental Review Committee Staff Report SEAHAWKS HEADQUARTERS AP J TRAINING FACILITY LUA-06-073,ECF, SA-M, SA-H, SM REPORT OF OCTOBER 16,2006 Page 16 of 16 8. A complete hazardous material inventory statement is required to be submitted for review at time of building permit application. Use of city form or approved equivalent is required. Separate plans and permits are required for the installation of tanks, containing hazardous materials. `'ous'` Plan Review—Storm Drainage 1. The project does not include any connection to the Gypsy Creek drainage basin conveyance system ("Gypsy Subbasin")across the site, but the off-site conveyance facility is proposed to be moved outside of the footprint of the proposed building. Changes to the existing outfall are not proposed or authorized at this time. 2. The Surface Water System Development Charge is $0.249 per square foot of new impervious surface. This fee is payable at the time the utility construction permit is issued. Plan Review—Water 1. A looped water main system around the building complex is required. The minimum size of the water main is 10- inches in order to provide the required fire flow. 2. A double check valve assembly in a vault is required behind the domestic water meter since the building is over 30 feet tall. 3. A pressure reducing valve is required downstream of the water meter since the working pressure is above 80 psi. 4. The maximum distance between fire hydrants for this project shall be 300 feet. Additional hydrants will be required to comply with City code. 5. New water meter(s)or upsizing of existing meter will trigger Water System Development Charges, in the amount of $0.273/sf of the gross site area. This fee is payable at the time the utility construction permit is issued. Plan Review—Sewer 1. The Sanitary Sewer System Development Charge is $0.142/sf of the gross site area. This fee is payable at the time the utility construction permit is issued. Plan Review—Street Improvements and Transportation 1. Ripley Lane shall be improved to provide a minimum of 20-feet of asphalt from the northerly access to Lake Washington Boulevard/N 44th Street intersection. Due to the projected additional daily trips at this location, a turn-lane design may be required at the intersection in coordination with the City of Renton project. 2. All new wire utilities must be undergrounded. Plan Review—General 1. All plans shall conform to the Renton drafting standards. 2. Separate permits for side sewers, water meters, and backflow device are required. When plans are complete, three copies of the drawings, two copies of the drainage report, a construction estimate and application fee shall be submitted at the sixth floor counter in the Development Services Division, City Hall. Nur Seahawks ERC Report 03 File:J:0211020: .3021-1-20525.003 Fig 01.dwg Date:09-112006 Author.SAC 1-1 -0c —IM, m „t,,,. Q�,,,s,,3,.a6 D3 c' 0 53���, ,.;),,�6• .t, ° Sid aaii'..Pif�n� 3� w.� ULJ 61STrA11. h Pl �� $ , ..eaaS� 1� ... --- v 8, - `..TH A_S t^ Ar SE ��T 1:s.,:, ,,,,,, `sfy�s�Se 3+o `�o' PL E�� AV SEI sTC--� .r --_ is. i ,>{ 85TN , q�„ tii'.01,',. S a0. to 000 �\ p I� \ n�Il= 4" 53,- 1 ��� R e}t t 2 6 `< 9 iz 2 I .. --a>. . ,- , - , d i5. CD is ` y 'C d'-s — b• i 1 ? COo O 1` �`" +t51 � , f�, Q • t -,.'� 2k7 2:1.,...1:!4, .4 sE=`Y 93110 7000 3S SLI O 1:° ,'ti1ir n+ .10 _,, D Q scn,Av s �w+a '� ---,„1,4',00 .6900.-� 3 ® -' x^ \A rya 96TH AY SE a nJ b "/ Y to \ "' pi is 0 2 ToorffAiigiii4a '1112111Milomplip.a.... - o 73 E.2 (D co i . -,tS r .„ WE�.`t114N �• ,� , •� SSM,. ... gw ', m 1P3 N (=D 4 1.. 01`...1 •r, piM A r I '�rLI-,"?AR ` 4' 46 AY.`t N 'x �k 0 n G m E. • _.- i N--1g ...,A WA. z_z �.... 3600 , . Z "'I F....0 �,: s` to CD U� ,' 1 N I,cw Y 4 a,N <4 -, t ? - (CD JONES HIGH AY:NE R --�Cli :_v 'ri' 'si ;N AY .NE. Ag 0 0, � «i �`A.''' ZG) to "m ,1 00 ,- C- 1 t' EJ • ' .-.0N3, lvtl tiff.'Ili•.., �() _ tW+tia IliIN KAY NE Sm i 8l n'.?: r1Na e a yL11077 'I d•.r ' . O _ - N a IINCAUI w NE n_ uu��n. a A ` 4 i., ��,crNva:P ••••'....4 - 0 _.7, , lq ' '-• NE i t::.'-=',:r;11- 1 ' ,E ,z 9 f r' .1111'-LIN00LN AtrWs.NEy 0`• ;'�''c `..(t` 'I -'' = on mAv'hE II !. a;lt ._- Oo', LINCOLN Y <:. -,�r,.,l; n3 A6ERDEEN • ,a NE ors3 R q a ,.,.,,,,,r4:14-';'s.>:,:-..--, `�sj m o 1240 AV �. iAE.., ��� R ,' ; ! 'i n*,' �_� ' •1154...1\.\...\ *�' m AV;•NE ',6*-;,,,,: ,kgsti,(q�F BC�p mB - Att1. 2�' t k , �. , ' z ii se• -.+_-�-N • •'+EENT°•', .,iiit, L, , i,.- y7,{. ',',,'-',621,4%,1. ' 1 1, - —--__ ` S� 'N l`�i (1/y� -_,%:',0„,„s-,v o .,;x... v,rt NE WINE ',Ig�r4-1.�• i !...1c-;; 4 ,• ., n,�,, ,• �'3Sifi(�`[i" (- LI3ThI '�' ni--- ". .,� ,'� : _., S . 1+T-NtEtt H ... N U ''° + � 't 7c�a,.a ,.dm- �..r.a.. ^n'y,^D�t e 1%S m x'- 113111 AY � SE 4 er'41 ...... ....... ____ Figure 2 Historic Aerial Photo----of North and Ba •operty(date unknow ) , ( ,, , . , , -:,. • >: ,.,.. .,,,•,.:,..:,,..,-•,.,',-,,., ':,,,‘'. 1,1',-,...-.;,','','',r.L''''',;:;.. -,...,;';',''''.)::: ..-:'--"',..-:-."•-',.':•...,i,'',-',•,;. , : ' ' i'':1-.1 ',•• ',.,,. ,.-,.-...- .4 .,.i'....: ,1‘;‘...,'„ ,,..z,•, ..., ..a‘,‘ .,.. , .i,. •t.e'',.....,,-•,,.,.. "_,s-,.1-,'..4?.,.9.'..,',1., ',-,.., ,'• ••' I•' ''i, e.•=',.,.•'' =Io4;,,t.i 7 ' ,.'1,',.). Map .;,„.%, ,....,,-,,,',, .-.•.,i- .;. :,.,,,,";%,-....,1,•,-.*,•.+,••,.,i...1,,',,.'..;,',., .; ,-,...,,.' 1,....:-.;,...'.',"..;,'• '•"' . '',",.ft., ' 'lk.,.,r,i's,,k•i.'S,',.. "r",.,1,,.......1,i,...••=..'1%,....,, Legend ' ' ,'''',11',,,;,' 1,,,,,!,i....,.:.:•-•,.-,,,O,...,;',A.1'...,-;• '.....'-‘• - •:. " '.':- •: •,1."•4.' .„•••••,:•:-...:,'-,-,til. .;•••';.. . • ' ' ::,.•,,...,'t'•!..1.,1,77F.t•i,N.i,.:1••'..A., l'•:•;,,,,,,1,!1.•,,,,,,,,,,,,-,, ,-.,;",i,:ifit,,,,r,' ,••••i,-,:..c.„•,;,•,t ,,,• .,.;•,..,', .- •''.'4';' .•":•'" ,.- ,F.•Z .,.' `.', !,1 $...4; ''',:'-:',i,',',;,,...., :4,1•••):•',1,4f,'..,..,'.'-'4 k-. ,•••••-,‘ ..t•- >,:'..‘!'',*4 0 -,--i:i,t ,rz, , mk.v.1,•tq..,. x.,d. .s.,..*.'.'...:'•,:.''',.. ..s-',.,..... r• ." r ' '"t'I'r''-‘'' 4 J 4-' '• %'•-4'4 1..-k ' •44. •.' -I----.. •- • - , -4 •44. ....t.,..• v - •,, l' otpr• •Irlif hV ' V , 4 ' ' .44-,..,q,t'f,4&-44 r• 4.ii J•••,--..,'r,, • .... ;,,,,,•,-.;;•,,;,:,•'.'.,•-•i.,f,;',,,,,..:,:;?;;:i,•,.s,•',...,•,„.,,,,,,.,;.-,•;',:::::.....:!..--,'....'...,-;,,.:.:;••:',. ...i'.•,•".,71,••••,'.`V.-•,.•••!1•1"-.•••1,"„),-.;,,,' :,it•: •• '...• j.• '''..`W'. '"'AA."'' Ir''''; 1:;,.`44;;V;&lrivI.,.r.'!%,`4',11•11`7,...'",,,,,: t... Ir`zoi.„g : i't r.,• ''-&•,II ='r`.•:4•`‘,`'.t''``,.`•`-.L".•''',``‘;'`,;.?&I:r 11,1.II&:' `'-''"Z'eV.k7r!.°'j•;.`,.!.''t.”' ., 4.' . ' . '`''``''``-`.' 1.--''''.!''`I-'.U...i•,,,.1'',14.40111!;44i,.;,,, l'e,.; I''''.1• .l. .'-'e...•,,''•• •'•"' S',;:t.-1, ' .•,.,';'.,'.‘.....'‘',1 1;,.' North B t ..•:•:;:'•••''.' ,-ue,:s it,, Or, ti.if.JAANI.Avii.„•,,a,;••••,fil.,f6,.-•`;•.,\2:4 ,„.,, lute rstate --I:,t...",.. •:: ,'''':"..•):,,!,1::','-;'4,f „ .South Baxter Property•".,•,-' ax er Property !,•;':•„,,k• liA09 '' A '• 7.,),", '''lis.14'c4",51.0-let:'''''''. 4Y t).'" ' .,' .,'-•',.t ::':•••;'''.4.,..Y,'.„.: .:.'1'. '..''..''''. ^,'.-7 r"' •!'s:'t •:;4-.s.:.t" ,,i',..',1-:-.. .4....s., .4 :Ii.,,,•:`,'.;,1.4.4.::"'i.:'1'i'"'I'Vl'i•_., .1.41.1M:4. '5,'''=',I104.1 ,,'.4.s:,,,.,,,,,A .,:•:.• 11,-;;,::..-... Malor Roads •.....•..••k•',I,' ,4.-..-•,.r.'"." ', ‘1. •• '` '.,•.---!4-•t.'''...lt r,t,w•1,,•'I 4..... -• r•,,... , .t ..X.....,,,,i.r.,',;'-'t, •••••`: , ,,,t. • 114,,„%ttVe.4.4.V.`...4,,...4, •r.-4;1` ,.1/-• .1'. 4-. •`.. .: .'.,,.':.!. .,',.,'•,.,'4-,2., ‘$.1,.,,-, ;i,t;',..-•:: '' ,: 't`,"•.,'",,,,V tl,..,,,.I."I''•I''''... •Z,••• .''•{..' 0, .-- '`.4 laire 4 '''k,-1tre',"'ot''''t.Pit.4:;e.:L4,', ,'r'it'v?, Otour l'te,o3 '''',?' i'.2'.'friZt...4'41 4,./;,..1-' . q,',,....•!,,,:•1,..,1„,0,....s.:,,,.,,•4-,1,`..•••...-o.''::.,•,'/,••••,•'••:,,•,'4e...Y.•'",t •, ;:.'t% t:.-4 i7 I,-":r4t,`.-•--1 4--:•• .:,'•I.,``,0,,''.. ,,141,q 74,7,14C ,k 4.,a-,0 / tir V•ei,i11/4.'•:•'::1 `',',.••:1,..' s"'' ":. ,, / 11,14.,,s1Jle ,.,,,,:-•!.,I,•,,',..-..",, (7,',•:t., qkI•44•,...',,,;*--k...‘ •-r-I,t V"t.1‘.,..C.tego.rAt.,...";'''‘..i141k" '`'t •l'','""'II.,'''.' "''.-`'',`•-r-`11"1, ``.r.' •`'II:•i&` -" •, ,, ,r •,„ .*'" or, e N. i r-4`.ft',II.4,',:`«;4,,,L4L'e,-,Vis.,•., I- .,.let. , i ,,;4' ,` ,,:,„',,'::, ....1“. . ' .., l' t',, '2''' 'V''' 4i.,,, , , ,•;,,,',,,;••,'..:171••;:,, ,..'„. 4; .,.;',.:4;-,71.4:4,ck,:. :, ,1,P,V;?* -14,""'` ,,f -, , '1444SOZ 4-'41'`ft•4..::%'•4'.' ..--'4' '\`1 51/Vs h.l.thws, •',.-.;••iNt,••,"'1:.•,,,Pv .,0,,••••••;!1''e,;;••4••„, ,, '•,i, ' •••,'r,••;1•','' .-'-•,,a'-:',j;•..s•I'',•'v.' , ,Ok."•.-t:,,•••.",z•,•?4,,41,‘':-'1,;,:', Wir....kt, ,••••,s,, -r•t 1.• . 1 ,,,:,•/•4;•.,,,2,t7•1...;,/,.‘1,ii•„., •;; .•':;',..':' k:'•:.:' k.•,;',4i."0,•. ., , •• , ' •••.,,•,••,. , ,t,•, .,,,-t i0- -,',,,,i 0,•i••,-, .•'1,vie,•••40,;,/,,r,k 'As,''' i1=, 1 / '1,', PrAr''4,k..-,1 ,,' •4,,,,. ''' „...,/ ut bigh,...11, ,. 4,i, .,,,,..„,..;•.,:y;?t',is:,:..,..,,,:.;r;14 ':.4 i.', ;-`' 'II4t"'s ".',:,";''' '1OVI.,I;04-1!;;;I:Api a,,tii?4S(.4, ," er"..!,„ ,_,t;''' ,1 ' ''''Ir''. ,• ' i....i.il" •,' , . ' :4'.'''''' '':`,.''''''''','.. •;' ''''''I, • 47''''VP / '14-:',17:;:ifi,''''''»,'7 , 'i' '''''.'1; Roads ,s, ,r,'0' •It-r` 'A 1 -4 r rrrl ;4'1 ,I'' ''` ' , ..i UCSitiGeSt Clued Index 24K 7 A . 1- V 'I 4, ' ..1!'.'' ,, 2,VI``.... • r. ' ',` • ? -Aar- • '''' ' ' ':1•`"' " ' c`.4 '`. '' 'INN ' 4:4.:.'rk4.4,1I;'"d -;)14i,'''':',.',",,, 100.,,i. "" .. !..;., ,.,c„ ).„, . :I 1,^ 114 . ''i. '.74,`;' ''''." ', .,1 i, ' -I t i'•'''' ''''',i'r - -,, 1,-,••• ','' - `,,,, •••`- 4••••••••4;',4s,,,...,„ ilt" ' 1,,•••'•,'•• ' •;,:',';';',%. ,s': LI d„, ,,'IS*W• •••.„•:::. !; ,,` ki-,,..V-i,4.',,.•` • . ‘;• .,,,, ,•';',4%', "•'•-;:',*, .., Lower.40 Available ;ft/Miami (l'A iyi,4 7.11 tev.•,.'•-_:.,,,i• :4...7%4 ,• '',,,, .,,' „:%,' 1,``' ' • r,,,,,:r ,: ::::., 0 ..' , . ,, ..1 • • i: Nen-otoital ' +.. ] '4f • ••••‘ • ,e..1',4)k:-*•••7", •••...'''' : 0 ' ,411 ,„.),' ..' 4' ..1''. Al:.4:'"•;,,''' - ,'' '' ,, 4.: ' ,,,.,•';',,' .. • -.4‘..,..,, 44.,„ --..".' '.''"' ,4 4)''' .- 44 - ,k,- . • -m- -:*: ......++;,<;:•;-' ,"4 + -,, t'i,+„ ,P -",...-+, '.' Digitel 4.,, :' ' ' :. :.' ...- '*" "*" . - ), ,..";4::.;''.t:,';',),,,,r; -,,,:•:•4 (41' '44r •s' '4•,'' '''' •'•"', ,.A:.•"; ;•',"Ar ,•',i,,"5: y• '.'''' •!.1.:•;`,, ,f . ,. • , ... •‘, ,0 ,7•'• .., .:-' ,. ..--'' .2 l'.4..,,' i.'•'t..,4- • f•`if re'"/' " , No Data . .. A 10'''.. , • • . • f--/' '' •• '''' • '''• ''' ''''"1 '" ' ''' , 44it .'s „•,, ', , , r'i ' l' ' '' .;' • ''Y•".'' ', ' ' . , -'.. ,./' ''''y''".: - ' .-• ^It. _Iltdr ...,, '' ,,,' ;,re rtj' ' ...°••,'',.;(' • ..' aa•d" 1`,. ,a.`1, ' '444,,,,,, ..1 r: a, E Sem) .,, , • 40'• 0 ,s '1.'''l'' ,' ' ' l' .‘`,":`,;'',,!, '",„'''' ''''',tr I, '':'..,4•4`.."` . 41r4441" „::g,,! ,,,,,"',,,!`,.•, ,'} ,',.,-,', 4,4,•'.'.,I,'+;,:-P, ,',,•A..,.....1;::.%' ‘, . / NHD Streams ...„1„••••••...,.. •t,...,.. •••••••••114*-"‘: ::,'. .••,•• ,,.. ' '•''.:2.•,••••••••,..•;',..,••,,;•-„, ' '' ,Vz, •,.. /,,I,q s'10" ` ,.• #--, •,,..!•,11,,,,ZEIN :4i'••••;':.0 ,...*.;.. 11 Counties 1 DOK ',...,...t V,,,,'•.. ;•' `,.:.:.'..,1.,.;.:''.74-••,,..I.F.',..,,,,:,,'. ',.=';.,'..-_'..,,,--;-',..I.'',,r,,f, r'0...% .-If," . '‘' ',t, 4. iP' 1z., , ,,t'',e.;•,,,,,., ; -- • '''',:.r--.4.:,'''''' ';,'t,":'-';';''''='''.,', •.;•,...-1..i .. ' •., I‘,;;,.,',,•,„,,..=ii-% -1 ' ,,,N, 40,liy,-0'. V -- .•,,4.,,•:,%-,F,i.',,:,e„ , 0 States 100K ,,,,,,,;, :,,,',,,,. ; .„•,..11;.•iu ,.,,,,;, ..,"'4,,,,",, ,„„,,,,,,, , „,, • ^,j; , 7/ ,' .; .'",`,•;4'j'i.(/. '' '&"r‘ '/.. r. ''''t•& ` ....A`.:7'.....'''''''.'wr - •'''-' ::'r'''• -..-:.-'''',...1. ..;'''''..-r`I'`'`'‘`t:''' --& ' .4'1. .' iiIN &ft . k `'.k.2•01•%/4.`''''','X',4*,•:,'C :!,'`,'"-2. ',..''''i 2,&.• ,'' -, •;,.,.''..: .#1:412MISIMESIMES1' C:=1 South America :1:I.',''','.1• It 4;t:e?.,•'•'..",',,, 1-e.P.^... ,..:',”: .: -'Z.• '-' ',.'., ,:,.,, .„..: ..' )1,..,.,,”,:,, ,, ,„ .,-,,,,4 .,,_4,e4,,, ' •.410:•i.::-.";%.-....,:...' ',' 0 North America ID..,,•,.•.'..,.;.-,s;:.'..!".',....,,-, , ., •,-,Z„1.....erIk4,,,...1;r.:..t.;:70C.:,447rielks,, , .. g'',', ' r• , -,I3ste.,,.,- -,.,',' .•J'. Nil', i • 4;:!,;!„4,,,,,,,,E(71-, ,,,,, , .r ,...,3,-,....,.,,,,s,..,;....1.,:o.....4:',; • .t.;,•;,-,, '../r,'„•,'_• •,,:.'4,4' •,,,,,••••:,••••.•:.';i , •-. =,• • ‘0,111.e. -...,,;;f1t,if .7.- • '''' ' -' It•IF„,,'",v'e'',It •, ,••."•f f' 'Y..o„ti g.,••,:C„1,,'''',..4.;,'•V.'•.•::14''',1•••I'''• P.: :'',1-,:!..•':',.',' -"-,,....:',...t..,1; ,1,;,.::4••••..,,"•:';‘,•';',,','•-"„'-r,'?'• •.;',.f.,",ekt,', ' ' • , 4 i ..=.,,,,,,,,:,",,,,'..., . .,--..:,” ir 1 .,v.,....,2,-,,,,,,,,, ,,,,,,„:1;.' , ,:;:-.•.,,',,,,: .,..,,-*„.,-c'i;,..•:-.7i ;,- ,,,,t, .‘•'1•j'', •,'''',' r:2t,L'''',V,,,,i-,,,,,,,-,4,1-7''',f/:::,';',e;::•;'1'.-:';r'',,.';:'r',.'•,!, , ,' ':,1„„:t , , ,S.;'„,,,,,71„;,•";;•.*,%Z-,-:;,1,4y,',-, , ,- ,,`".:-,":,..`,"'„•-',‘„,. -''' ,#wf" ,-..';',5.-•-',:',-.',,', _ s ,.,A„,,,,,:r4,0,400,;1;,e,22,-, , 1„,,..-,,,,,,,,r,,,;.1,,,,,,It';',,.;;K:„.7,-,,..;,,,..7.7„.7, ;,,,,•,,,,,,,,,;,“ ,,,, ilit ,,''.7;. , ,'i' ,, ,t i ,;.te„3-Az,c -'''''''4+;,; ,,b,;, ,,', ',-'', ,,,r,,`./ , , ..6.- ,„•1 •,7 4040) r -„....,‘,14.4.4-;,•r•-`‘`"rir•.;`,kfT,$ , •e' ''''`''.'.4'..%'Pi'''.4'!!?•`/.9'' ..., lr.&•`''''''.' ''I''''',''''•‘,-",,-;-k•'..••it j.e..`. 4-....'' ,{ A•• kir; '` , !,t,,P.',";44%' ‘''?4!.,..47',""e`r i 1'n,' ''.1. ' 4 :: ;‘-',',1,,,t';' '': ''''':4. ''', '• '''. ' •"-.;' •••'.••''','..:•;',1''',,,',•" '.' 17,1 '' 1,,,it',',.%'..".".. ':yr,,, ' --,'4,,;,1,:,0 7,','0 V";,i'' ' ','''''''4',.`"' i •We,;•1,, .'p A t`•) -' 'rig.'"‘" c'''',e 1,,VV :,.2`,..r. '',''''''''''''',.. '.... .`:••; '.-,;"'cls'''''''Il...."%;.&;`, '''''-1'3' ` ',4 '' 'k''"&'I 4t444;Z'.°P,'514-A:j''',74,&r,` • ` ',1',`' 1,4`\`I`' :4',it''',"tr,' / Ar,,II";!,,`i,-' ',.eif'cA - N' 4.<,...••••••,, • , , ,, ,.. ,. , , _ ,s ,t.•: - ,, ,1,,,,';'•ir..„., 1 i'• ',.,,,1'.1,,,;•;•.,4; •,, • ?.;.;..( ,r,'`I,I',Pqk,'- r,-,1)''`iq,''''„.* I,Ytttli " ` '``'Pa". ..jr.:,%`"41.,:.'„,r.1 I.I:&::;.;`i';. •, 2 ..:.,,,4.0 i r.,...„.:5 ,,,„, 1;,,4 ,,,,,,,,,,,,,,-7,,, ,,,,,,''',„ ,-,t,",,44'''''','''..: '„.;, /:;4r „,Id,',,,: /;,',,,fi;;','",,P,'';','''' ''','1.-': ' /,l'ir',11;,,'0,1:,,','O''': -‘54,1''',. ''' ,ir''. '';,.:;;ii'i iii,e,'" 'i.t4,1,,,,,,-,,',..,92',,.:. , ,„f,,,,,,,,7,, i,, .,,1 :,..,,,,...;4,,,,,,,' ,,'` :,•-,,- ,,-J,,,4'.:•••••4„,..,3,7,,,,",i,;:irk44,:."4,i ;,,,,,J.,i',,,r,,,,k4.,",44.,&t,,,;,:l 2:74\:,.1.j.,f‘a .47....&...//1,,,I,,i,y,,,:.),,,,,,,,,Ifl,„%:![;.4.i,,- •4,,,i',,•,t),;;;,,,r,),,,,,k,r.g,,,, .:. '4446-1 ..,'t:41i,, :::•:,,::,?,,„i: ,:..;.,,,,, ','-:,,,;:115',,,,,.:1.),,..;;..f..."; '°',.: ',•'.` :',, ' '" ,,,,,, , .fizto ,..,,,,,,,, ',„:,t,';i:n. „L',a,41,,;,'''2:4'):,.)11'.'4viA.''' 1'; ..1''),' '' u,,.', / ', 4, .t'4,r''',,''7,,',I'', 'i„.‘,' ',14,4,' ,-,, ,"1"I'adi',At,' frell'i;'. , ,,,a,'',.t,,,'',1,, * ,'';'."-,'" ..o i''',Iloo •,,14111"' ,.,ill l'!'"','''''Ps' I''''I'' 1 .1.; •,,,,p4, - .,.,..i. >,,peor'',_'.%' 4 ,',''I"." P,I."`.4`',I' %°''4te 4rottqf•../ ,-., , 141,7.01` ,,,,.13,, I. -. ,,- .si r;4,1'....,.1.0'. i.',',', ' ..,i ,,,1`''.'•';&I. , ,..%,47,:.4''',"`',' r, '',.At-,.'4'.•:"„'&`:,,`it..1'.;'11°''',1•'',•'''''"-'i'''',•;',1%-:,:: ,„..,',;::;,'',..r•,.:',,:.,r',',,t'',4,.'.,'.'Jt `",,i1,41,"-,A r ,,I;:,4.,„r.! , „„ ''`.1',•'6I ii10".J.,";`.1,,`•`... ;g,f4ip ,‘ 'Ik°1---4'" 1:,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,k„iiro,,,,,..;:s.,,,,,,..,,..:41,,,,.,,,.: .4,,,,f ,,,,,„,-;..:1.,,,,.,,I,,,,,:I.,: 1.,,,t,.,.:11„,,,,,,,...r,i,,,,4,L.J;,,,,,',,,;,,,,,-;..,:i:04,•,,1:,,,,',;`,&:„4;''' .4, ' ,,, „r•,;''.7'''` '• ':‘'-'4'.7.:Pr,..1. ;';,...",:;,`",,,,,,,,,..kt„. 14. ::1,14'll'll'''', ., „., _ , le );f1,:''.74'1:11,4:;1'4'",-, 2;,:%'.''''r. :. _ ' 44,53''•., ,/,''', 'el,,,st . , , , , .0' V VV ...., ,-."4 r,,, ,, ,,;..,.- lc' t9., ,,,,, , ., e , , 7 :•,.. ,. .,•441tr o-,,"1. I& '' e •'•'1,i,z- -, , . ...;',:,,,,,;,,,,.;,,,,:l.,:,..', .'„),11;;,, ; ...eo,. '!, ; . s:. . ,..if..::::1•4" -....":.; .i. , -.., ,, i„.,„ „..I , s ,I, ,..,.....,,,;:,...,,,,,, ,;. .,.. ,,, ____, ,.,,,,...,, ,.,,,.....i,..4,,,,.,,,,,,cai ,,.....,.,,. „.. ,. ..,,,,.,,,:.,, ..,..,,......, . ?.,. i, ,. ,t,.. ,,,, ....yi.:.-: ,.......--..„,„ ;1,,,,,,i , 0.,,-,-5,,,.., •;,(f,'r or 1.* - :',.' t,o, ,,,,:,•,,,o; '„., •••:"';',, ,,,:1'.0.,..,,:'„,,..,r)/,,,', , k ,./. ',1.1 ', - -,.,.'-'•'-'0,/ii.;",.....?";,'"'"..;''.`.',...".....:::. '•::;',‘,t''•,' I'' ','•b...,,,I;;,at 1,1.:,5i'%... , ,',', EXHIBIT Y".,. ;;,....„4„.. .1e'4,:i' ' , ...,'•',' '%LI.'I`-',-.'.•I--h,4:. .11-:.•-.1.'''t ':i.';/':''.ji'14'."'I?, „,,,,\, ),',/VII,r,,,,,, ,t,,,,,.Q:4,,v,1,:t,,,ry,O,,,,,:,,t, ,g ,,‘,..r i'•',' ...:.i.‘--- '. .:',;','''"',,,,'" '• 1',"'",'NI'1,'”'l"'• -I'":4:'''`'"4,;',1:, ,..;:..,.;''1•ArCiq 'l20' "'IP'It , ,„4'.'is.,'I'''.'....,11'''''',' .''',-,•‘,..:,".k.%•45'.`:)4.";,•,"`'..•'4 4-1•Ii ilir'''jr.-:411''..;:',';',•rr.:.•11+•:; ,., ,f•,,,,,,,,,.. ...,h•-*•,,t ,4•A,,,',;‘,..,,,rof,t,',..4.,•";.4,,';•147, 0.•%1.04 I'C li •,,,,'11'2!;',1!,;;:„'Sid, ?'i "s"'3°. ,....,,,r;;;•4".".''. ,;fto'''''i):,1;;:w,m.';',"..-....,'N,..4,,..}. ....‘,1 •,,,,:,,,,Y.,t,.:7Y•Nr,,71.-01,101,q,,,..;:”.;', 1 1•j,i,tik,'1'.'',1,11,S.:!,,,'1. :i..!:.'.;.„.,';'1,',;;4! 444,1'...4$241'.*::*-,,',..i...,Y,,,,:..f.'''t ',;',..;;‘,1!;;;./n.;/;::,;;;;?,' .,,u,I.;1;,„,;:5,,,.4.,i ,,,,., t,4.1.1t:'•,?,.':`,,,k!'...,';',;,!4,.:!P;1.''..t*-;•!)'71: ;;;:ir`W.t::!A:.-14'1":3 l' ) :fr,'":%7414:i'SaVA:::1;:::' .1 '''''if4,;.:771errli: ,PlAr*.34"..-.11."'evki'''''!!'"i''111,1, :4114:;';')Iiiiiiiil..1.11 2 ,. - . 4 • I Y NNW t !.,,,,_11 m �_ i F; - - 9 (.1 0 ii, O 7 m r 0 171 ��+ 1 ¢ p atic, 1' `7,--''''t-7----,--./.-477,-.- G Q fti iel 'f3 { .. I I F _ 1 i,l rf 13 _ I F�t 'It � �.. I I x ,--......1 f.---_---4,4----:- r ! the +etc _ ,iF. r C F!I f 1 • Ij[a I- 1 T- Y �,�* � o o -_-'._ d _.-. . '�: - � jt'f r p l f Ci 6 r= I1 '..1-4-,.._e_ .rrk:. 1 ,. �d1 ##Yi .` it ' .9,I J I- -"p_�p -:1 'Yi�..,�k. t•. FQ � 1 1 - 1 ? 1 -171..---,--- -.,..,,,,_1. 0i F ` - - ---- t-..e>37-471",,-,1,-.7,...z.7%;17-� ,... �S,tS b I 4 -I 7r {Y 4 C1 " ,r , ; so € 4fj A..4 1 .-" t k > 7 ' Q ,'- rxrT ` 41 stks € ' f r<- ie -4-1 r- -n h'{{ 1,.0; ` ,pi4c1 F Yywy�a y i Ef ; •).1- �• s77,�`,� s.�'frrrA"',,t. 11 "'7p 'r a�'s3.er. At,7-'p ' `', r ,' -''','X i 94„,:a ate' tr 4ii.i . t�+XJ ra.' i n�4`. 0• '1.1 I -:'''<i Ott _F- rpt5 a: 1,.--o '� ! cr �'�4- r3' 1t•,,,.!'T k.N', g4',cn""n' p 1t sx 23 ti ,1" r --c a. _ +r r k e :'?s;`4:z- 3,fl.W./417. f cF .r ,v'# '1'J ;. ,:„E.t , t i.>rY ��} - r,- h,G k J r 3 i".."A i Y F i 2 t —,-3— .- -• x.�. --'`1..P .�r54f .to Yt1 11, 4 t:'�`' rrI -0 _.—.— X,r, txtri'S-1`i447-a 'f t 'spa `x J- C e • V _ : J „f I.v^,�'r-1"'i N . fix. r s �s t I u • t:; 77 , : ` .i 'k`,,•-s'k { - .(2,y rf}',c-c .-.0-4 r, r. J' , � t r�• r '.'.':i,.- , t "'.b h .0: rF '.. Z c w.:.f i.Wim''iw ",, 7. L '. z.n^^•^ a.+. ,sem s r ,i 4rN'. 24' ..•f ,' .R 3 t i = F ; r- • s I t_,,,t,-:-,?„4-',4g-7,`A41-114,-.§1=4.. fi' =.v'� s z1 } � c Y '` z � t -F'� C z t.. 1, { �$ " , -r I, a 1 t7 i z1 �.. , t t �a r" s S .7 f' 1 F ty r*y •eS n 4p F 4ss'i-'� 45 c -1 'i,niii ISS irs ,•.y:xrz'4''. 34,t ' (g f ( w E oxe:�'ia A,} li a•iy P�. ,c•' � ai; {31Y�,1 - ..,_-,:__.',.,:i1,,' r-" I� .,n3S r..3.,. s,Tt..v. 5 xt ,. i 6 a i 1t- t a" l`"x ,, sa � { ,.er1ztF X17- Lrig57 r i F77., ..„-:,4 z 7 rX ire�1 S r E ,7, e3 i t - It) t • tf Faa7Wk+x r` 'E F - i 'ID tir . Ys ' F .,.a '- l h' t A "n T u-• r a I • + aF a ',-, Fr --t---- ;i £' '1.`;r 4:AY7- u a 'C fi" -'� r 1 1 1 I 1 { Ji s tS it. S t:a+. -.>'.A1:174 . �� I 1 I I k'-'i rx�f.,. � "'eA rz t iT r +'?t F at.�' 1 i L J i..�� h i I ' ! t4,s' -.myfr: 'g ;;Io "Ft ! t aC 'E 3 xr - 1, S li1 y\+2'y'3, S .r,,3 { 1 <:' ,3 ,/,4;•�,£ • _ _ p 2 W R ahr L ! k° I• t t F',a4iE3,.k' ,kt f Y x.- k6�4. \ z z i -, t Fr- ^ '.''�f f np a'i i5-A i _.i 1 f y �1Nft•tr?- 3- '.A -2- [ r r `➢SS'.7'. 44 Y O OC -A b � a • 'Y`TI zWf y o0 O -, � htgr+ a ,>£r yk7.1 e3'F_:- .1 I 6J r m iS Z !: F ,-, ,,,>s `X' and 7+ ,�s y.•L,'., 1 I I 1 , ._ ...1.,-,..:7 r;� .pre { F- r v ,1• �rs ; i vr•-,+,�!r ,Kl' ¢`kli^F k' r'y 4P ..,r'�. �L _ _+,2414.*j-K' L a.. .,44: mime �sMw ps 2: '�. ,T; 4- qi3 Cr. C.f..r4'-.i - >f T o I O TC -- -- -- -- - - - --- - - -- - -`- -I . m IA ti J p Q x — — � f. 00 JCTION `` frills 1 SeahawksHeadquarters& ' • ! iDg ! Training Facility 1 �titU `\�; 'p _--i.-_ FOOTBALL NORTHWEST LLC f /� ; [J!! i 'I f , -I - RENTON WASHINGTON EXHIBIT } 3 • N ! Gill[n i -=`7 I _ IIM E• eY I (i(ce` : Iiia C �. C. '11111 hat \ 1 $111 _ ��d. - "\ r7 , pr 5-.7 L k�. I fii.` ';ji 111iuuri,:• tall":� 1ir1j1Ijr ' ■7 :t.iq — L i / ••al/1.a ..1.' , If('�1111111. 1 ' •`.tt: •r.!JW■ 1pill', t�.. 1'.. ',I.: len1.p aI""'""i,I' �,1 l�;v. _fy ! INIE` .J7�Jlne�s� �I���..4.A,..:,�Iriat%(••o,..c.l-.�•,cr-.:SIA _ �bl�f `(�■■'■■ ,' ■N -• _ 1L!'- 11 k*A;.",•*.inti It.m l it m 1 ! -\1% .fu ■ ri al-.Y1.' alU .l,•` a : (!,ll lei I(( CC.IC,t0:R `%)7, Itti1 L l, _ � 'e.•.e 6 ti' ••� l�••e.�i'I:e N1..., _ —1 . NI-mini!u '� rrr�r_l � • � , •• _ t:;o.'•':�acL(iAi:af-flinln- 'A� �.: .rrlIY��II�i� � wlt�u 1-JIIu r,� �::: nn ::lmi:' -;1 hri�l E ��,..:v:: . • .III. ; ut 1.. t . (I•. a 1.. ��e?_;:;;;:.::m � Se theFa t j��,% l � . .1`•�-i �1�'�,ja;j -`" a Fro , e�•4` 1>�' .�. (Atiumy,f, ,=r .- / 14-1414r i-.'M.1 Timm 67#.16744Iniii- +11� c/ l N�"NI...plug.„il;ir. 'i i '... I..% �p at'4'.';'7'"''''''''' su". C:t• 'r;F l:I- l :fie+ (t■f� �III �dGCul I*nIc^i ill_ r - ! f \!� El �`." .I 7 1 Ni. .grill 11f♦w ,�/m .r._s, a ' -coz, farac �c �j{p�j t 1 Vii. ”1 ��•1�'al 1 LJ �yt11 glif i. innn!n l: • 1•,ififi• rr } 4 �,'�� _ nfen:ed-Paul F. 91111,�u uYr, u �r � `^t• 11 �`+`�i II 6 l . = r6 ,, `� ''�f• `S . 4 Mil► ��! i•rr�t�',. �1� • k I ;Ms VL J 1-- -.6.,r 4,,w. _(j3 x,71 Vii - :%I"t (!r I l rad.: ii I'\\n . ::al ��`I ,�� 1• 1 y jj p k ... ' r v :ii / Fil- I•Ilil v-ice' m tl'.'' .F 4 1 11 T'S '= ill 1 �: �., 1` un : n i ::•A. ,l . n,• 0,...161-21 Sea I.e . fl r;, , ilk a :=rr,.�I: n �i . lei AIWA"iii D e '�t, e Fa ,.'tuna:r:eli . •t,,,,,,•,.,. , �t "--311. .a_�t ;:a� _' _°- ,1 : Site..\ t i .0 " on • .her_ 15tI ' wor,„ \` a /� lvc I Ca`��n'' ., .Ali V;' i=i1=m4, Is I`lr�.i'+i •t"':`, —�fet " �t�_' vier::-a la • ,n,• `l I 4.1 #F.'— \ce 1l i II,.....,„ „:IA ��lis. II w -1 .l,s.f. ' --- `��a! illi long' ., n 1 i �— � e1,• i i Iscir 11"'". ;. . 1 rl1111,6„11M„ i11si• . i '�1.-1 ' its • (ll 6! 111111' .',smut P A ■111 �' - ,-_-T Q40/0.1.,' f■e111t11 n _I /t ligg1 l �t. rel-' :ably '�" 1 i ,�ir11c.0�� I, - 111s`ai Mr �l�lh;ll. :�� A Fl�r�� , .� o ' =Ills !9111! Fmk n-:li. I °� IIL=�'4]] 1!I L'1/11. i► 1 §- well iteimir fitiaps winitwane \ sem■t 11111Igloo iiiiirda't-40fh ' li J ' . /=n'I�al wiiiiIt. 1 Y 1 �. _ ' .=�ililJ'li� -•Y�i: I�.`� it ue-i..� .,. =11111 �S'...-y i low•Y...zi YY■r 1,. .•.• -. Hunt. ' 1 CU -111YI1i� IfIIIC■■Wii/(i;■ ��,t,..,..sel.mors _ � �(1.�� 41■!It L F`:�:%1111 Il u111t 11 _��Y�`• ��� ��1,•� ' 1 I —I 1 el!,i .�'� � ■w f.1 �iunirri`IAI ii \•' ��w�� �li�.c�p` ~ I"-, ■■1`.� I..II' Ilft•/ti• ',�! � uf�11/�� `• ural 1c. - - _o , =- t_'� ' •,� ',ii � 1 III /. 0 0 0 I EXHIBIT o 4 0 1 2 sn Scale in Miles Seahawks Headquarters tr Renton,Washington co co NOTE Map based on Blakely et al., 2002, "Location, structure, SEATTLE FAULT ZONE N and seismicity of the Seatle fault zone, Washington: Evidence from aeromagnetic anomalies, geologic July 2006 21-1-20525-001 _m Imapping, and seismic-reflection data" SHANNON &WILSON, INC. I FIG. Georedxlical and Environmental Consultants RE: LII. 7RE 9 I I FOR LANDSCAPE & HARDSCAPE INIORUA:,_ �Es:::..j..---'-'— Mell - �- ��'� 4 I-.AKf WA aHINGTQN 0 f -N ELECT, ��( .1'7.-4. _ NOTE: OHW.-18.8 (NAVOSB) u P Y �+. 'UR I • Ir �; . OR 15."l (NCVD29) STATION t .` _ ' l` .�, r i ..�• `' .. 100 YEAR FLOORDPLAIN '-�• _ —_- `•iD —__ % AT LAKE WA. O.H.W.M. Z- `.P ,4 `-- 18.8' 0. 1I I - .:.-,'.-"T-= ...... --.. EXISTING I TO B >t..J '!r-`- - / 1r -T-" \--- '' 711 `• ` STRUCTURE i0 BE • - `�� "�' �� 10• PUBLIC ACCESS r .UFyi .. I �'.' --t'- XI T 4 ACCESSWAIX CURB`------ I ....... __ _--.26. li. ,l._,/� _ PUBLIC ACCESS S SECURITYFENCE WINN .�.�..r� . UNIT BLCF r_...__... _ I f•J, i �..�. �r '�" .. 'L_ _ DOCK NG i._ �� - .. 18 SERVICE ROAD f:XtSTI NG POVER '! ' a���,,, yt_y__.r 06 POL£ LOCATION— r.,ISL{ IE'1w•IYiy�` Qi 41.,.--I.', � iw L:llfjr /iGf�;. � �,,, I:. T"` SOUTH PROPERTY' 'l II I. --i-- I t Y l l i -_+y� \ <1.) V FENCE LINE ` `i I�I11 2 .. 1! -...-_ I 1 1 •Tea \\ t —1:: .� � PSE EASEMENT I t .1 F 7' y. A t ,I f T'1 .' \y�i �/�j 03 ( ) 1 ' 'ry;' [� I , ,J 4 acs IL '' ` N� 1 . t �t G 0�. �i t'! 1.._ �}3,ACICE RIE1D�- �u• .Irk ( Q' r --, ._� Er -�7111 ryr� -� r! uL EXISTING POWER �I I --r----•- Is----r . � (� PULE I.UCAT ION--N ( '77.---:-..- � I /yi, r'^. Cj p "' 2 , ,...,.....:=4J22,7, ---��5; '„,i1I24-„�-wS"i:._�'1XZ= tr f _O j ' O i'p }-.--E 1 i NEW STORY ( it ..I� ' C. 1 �i 1. i'� JI I I:'1 .. x•`1-< +� .Z c MAINTENANCE I {I •"'• L_ _ -- ` I• : 1 a •+RKING_ 1 1 SHED ---- --- - .r.. . -�--__,___ _(DWI.W_bP DR..I,NC-_____-..�20' i II'_ I oC 1 •,L$' li COVERED pAR W/TSH PAD . ' ` ti ...,� I -_ •-t t Ir t ::1 ^.. ! �6' ' Z EXISTING POWER I }i11 ••� 1 .r""C 1�Y� `'1 .L�....._s'.r�_.� __.. .r. W I I ! j POLE LOCATION r en~(r L I I ARTIFICIAL 1lmF "Ili • I ',. I-' I • J, "� - • 11-i-.1-,1 I 1 I': 4 STALLS •,J �PRACT{CE FIELD', - =• 1iI '— N. '————-- I— '1: '.. .rr I�•.I,' 11`l i, s� •f i I•I I I'' - __ 7 SECURITY GATE I f ' 'I — ENCF _.:_ 1. z li 11 i l 'i �° f~1 tt _ ttS^LCV LANG — G.: _ .� - tai Cl PROPOSED RAILWAY CROSSING U.Q.E. "fl EhEYS111G.COUNT --- ............m..... 'I MEANT CLASS '. GENERAL SURFACE PARKING 19-5 STALLS ''� LAKE. WASHINGTON - CLASS 1 SECURE TEAM PARKING 104 STALLS _,�- GYPSY SU5 BASIN DRAINAGE - CLASS 2 (RE. FIGURE 8.3) __._-'� Y TOTAL 299 STALLS �- RNTpN Al I SITE PLAN ew SEP I WE PLAN •L._,....,�,_:._ ..................... _._._... .._._.._._ ._. .._._...'- - _ -- - ' ---- - SEP �0O&' FIGURE 5.2�....a RECEIVED . . . . .. . _ ,V I -** oe , it.E Util CM)P.101,1C101.WES 1 POP..0 4.KOP.I.T..sr ef,m1). . .N.), .....4' eC....,....bc ......4 '' `•"*,...17.?" . 1 )."....4 ksc i .• I \ I , . 1 >< , -4-- „-- titiGema' _ N., \ -. 0.3304.1s. .....,....... \ „. ,. . minownimlm..... . \ i C "1 _.—......,,....7r ..., ",,,,,....... ".... I \ ,/,''.:”-..::.',,,...„,_ •••...„..., Id, . , !\ •-., ,... -.....„,. .,., ...-- . 1 , ., g -ft. I ,. 970 st ._, -....„.,.......„ . -,,,, / .;v ---------,. / ' .,:r ',. . ,.:,•,..,..,1.,.. ...q-, • • ... 13 0 I. -"'"•-•.- , .,1•003itiNEN10**:;;;:fidh:::,:e2,..... . 1.;, "--,-... ______,,,.... ..:-, ,, \j / = c ,I.,. , WM..Tlf • I . ,,z y.:.).:,:,'. r . Not TIV .,, ' CO . . 'I I i "'Vi>•111•*; 250 sf I = ,,C2 V., ...... I I n I- 0 '1 . i i 1 , CC) . ! . , 1 , 1,220 sf 1 . 1 I , I 1 . c4- 1-''Lt,:.- A i I !i . , . I 4 1 1-.. 1 , i"... ' I 0 . . = ' 00.0.8.11m•••.1.". 4 ; I • I I ' 'l I 4 'El 1• DEVELOPMENT PLANNING ........i___ ___............--......–__ CITY OF RENTON ..w444,...,,.. _.............___„......___ . ,,....no,, ,..5-,6.2 . ,II PI,,#w I'D r r C o.l.L.,:,,,II:,IVI,411,I1,,I,. n'....A..,.1.1104em,,....,,,r.,...,,,,,,,, ,,,,,.,,0,2,f,tr, ...„,0,....„ FIGURE , 0E204— ) RECEIVED • 1 i • . Nai.0 Photo S •-•-, ,RF'74. F-_74P- , _ ,.. ;,,,,--, „. ;..-,/,-,:s.-•,-I:,.t%•• 4,-,;(7....f.; i,------ ,- ..,,,,. .,-- , *"2.4: q",. -,,-"is>, -•',2•TV-.." I. '4 ,t; , ,i la„, ,,---,---,- ', ; : • “Wz-' p,,,,,„ - f.,k,4g--, h-• .!.:,- f -- ,- If"<!- - -'?, 4 i.1.-.: '. ,C'. -:„dt.-_-g..•_F-„,,,,--,--r;4-.6>t--,-4 •.... ,.- -,,,,,i•,- ..t fi-2-.•.:.. T ..e - . - .i., it,:- .-,..., _ _r,, Xi.-Zt_1:„,....- --",4 ..11 ...=,s'•---V",!,-,-.r.'."--4.-i,:,.,.;••-rz"4 0, ta:44 ,, r - r 1- -414 .-' '14 r- A , •,-.,-"' •71 ,,•..,z4,,F,,,,..z.,.. .„-N-t-_-"i •-;.pigef 1,A',.....47.-. 1 rW-.. ' ';'-,k.:1',N:,'',i. '.1, •• -: •,-. :al. *lc:711', of% ' -r.----,•,4-,. .-.i.4,0,•-•z.._.„_3•46-x-,.-. ,..--1,4„-.4-,L5,-..›,--2--...-,-ip _ , -,-: ., ::;1..-F - - -. ..A.4:4-*'(,s-. ' /*-4-,-,, 4-" ,A..= --. -_-,-_14,4- ,•r4e .:;7_,,.-,-_,__-.----'-,•,-z--..,, -' •? ,-,... ,- -____ - ..,,,,,,,,. .=.--.--.-.----,--A4;is v, ... • - - -,,,---5„,--_,,•,:-..-,1 ,--...„.„-,0,.„. „k.- r,_t,'.;,,,,_,. -ezar'-7-z----u--- .,,, T4..-71 :Y...,...,-,-,14-_-:,-.4,,-;,-,---7t,-,7-, ..- -- --'---,.. t. 4='... ...i"-",-;-',.4-'-'4_‘-'7';'•••'°- ---,4,,V.tA-4„,..t._,I), 'I?, -. 1-.,.'4-1„.•;:t r-4 7'-•-3,24S-4...;;;.'3e-,---417.;te'e- -'-' * .4."-- , -.....' ir...4s, ,,ti.i. ...., ..M7;44-4._:: ' - ,.. --",:0` ..,,1.4g; "!'"-....,_:-- e.l..","" -,,..--- 5 1!.,. -.-:-;:• -- -2.-5"C'Fi. '..-4g--,,..2."-- 1.-44:1 .K.."-1. --`,""_ ,:•, .;-,,,-.',..-., 1-:::,,,:, -:,--_,... ..."r"-e? 2,,- " _ ....,,: ,..5 " --f,- " - --' , .; .?-:_-:F‘177---..."---.....-' .. __-----;v361-: , --1-'--e--- 7,-"- TI-,•":;,..1.t,...--1-3' -,44::21 - -, ,-,-,-, -t' -- '-.7- 0' ,7---141-4'-,a-f*:-.. .Ar-.,-•::-;-- , --•• .F.:3';,.:":11.;b64-7F.,--' --.-- -.- ' .,,,--.<_-..'-;:..;:'.,Y4.'- ..f.,-;:..,...e";71,13-;-49;,,,r:,,-.=,..=-,......n-i-,-_,.,s --..- ,,,..z:•,.„....,.....-,ge,i1--0---, •---- -,.-..-z•_,..1-zo.r.--?,':,--ft...s-;,,,T.:".4.---,-;,%-,-.f,7' .-,, ,`,-,-13'..--- -....;/..--7:,,--.•;;?s---, .;-si 7-•-'"- .:- ,-' --- ,:.f.----':--:,--,-- -,.--::•Ir-V-',1 .":,==--=.-7--• "' ..,-,_-'-.7.:7_,.... ---.. ...,„..--r-,--:•_---,,„...9.,-.y---. ......,-},-,,,,,,-;:---,. ---a,----,y--,--,. -,..tt,--, ,,..., - .0P5,,, ' ...-_Y 7.fr;17,-3-'---.':-,'1 :-•-.4.-•-..",. .t „,- ,..7,.,4,*-,5.... TV:....V. ,.''....-!'5,,r.no. s„5,e-7,g.j-42::, cl ...4l,- ': _-::,, ,-..z• .,---'. --`-='-'-'-,-,--3'.--.....;.---,C.;4'-.15.-=1'''''-.."-::"-.7",=' ' 7='-'1-•`'.f. ..-",,i'-'--''';',--""'-'-,•:-•,..:":,L7''.--,-,,,-".4"4„'N 2: '-,^-',-..,.- ...,- .7.4.11 .::-.-7-::-'21-,is:rf. 4,;.A.:1;>-:;''',1":-.41.--'I....7Z C.--,:",•-.K,'-' It,- .:',,,4,,,.- 1 -.''-':-,,:•,--;,`,".2...,_, .1'....n..,_, " -: '..- --E. '" -1/';',; ::::: ::'.-r.:F'''':"!':::2 •E'_.• ,.. ,; .:- 4::•i.:.: ::--IZ'71--:',‘: . - ,,--77' :-":":•;‘--',.......-"z-: :"`-7-_--.2 ,...;-•••:.,:z:-.-:,-.:-114- .-,. ::_:7--..:,: - ......r.::,if,"`.---;-',-,',.'r- *nr---1,:47.-.--;......-':,-;"4'1,:?.-::-...=;;;= -.-....-,..",=--'•-_-- i-, : -..----,-,..•:-,-- ----:-.•=- !:-...-----:___,,.:-..,-,-...-e,t---7---"","-....2' -r,.f':;:-',,' '<AZ'., 2,• -",,,,:..,:s.:...::...,.-:.." ,..,-_-.7:---.--...-...", -* -..,., • 7-7.i..,-;'"-.1--,1-.._•'..--" `,-,-..,-ed7-------- ....,,,- ,,_:-,,,--,..-. -,.7., "-,i-r-1' -- - ---.17,...:,,r,r-4:'!--%•': .,-:-...,,r2-,, ..:....R.,- cz-2,--`,"": 4, _.---;';':/"..-- ",:ir•f-' .;Y!-.;!.::-*::':'-'.::- •-'-',":7_-,'S,r:-.-;.:---.,: -',.r.f.=-4-,:-:VZ:-:,'f---'/=- 1,--L=.r 7...:i, .1.7., -'•"5::..,-:,.?;4Y- -..:;;'''.s:'-4;'',,'-f:- " ....4‘-..;;I:;-:-.= '-,:.-1Z-L3,:' ts,:is. .,''-',.:.:1'--4'-:,i?:-`--''.-.z. 1?-• ....:, ,i.1------=--..- :-.....;•:_.-f...1.-z ,,..:.-,,,. i- -,--,_-,-,•_• - - .,-/..i:-_,,,:-..--_.--,-.,--_-_-..‹...;-,k,;A-41;1-,-,1••••`.-'-..!:......."•• - •--,\ -, _ ...... .,_,--.....„7.,-.,-..-•„„-,,-,-;•-., .,:--: •:,'._-_,.--r-z--:„..-1- /. .,,..-4„,,,,,,..,•_:...,,,,-_•:3.---„-v.,-?:;-/-\-:-.-.---%.--:-.3-..3,;.=•-...•-••-._t f...• , -,..-_,-: ..-.,; ••••/-___„ --_,,,..._ ...- --...-.--....-.--.,1-,--..,.....- ./... .., . ,.), :2....,....../...,- -,-'' . 6 . ...‘' .:::Sf.-....-.I'-, -.:.,t,:;st,-0 kr-..,',..7 ;:-,-,!:'...---,,:,,,---y---, 7.• Now,, ..-..'",-.----.-, - -,---...?-7:--,-,,,,,r7...-4,---,::',:_,•-,,,-4.1:.- -''"-•-•--''.- - Photo w ofpi1;n:s (bar Ckgoun-d) and)'.wasled---U711:--O;(fo-regreouanndd).along the northern portion of the restored Baxter Cove wetland. EXHIBIT Photo 6 7 „c..... 4., <• ., --, , , 2.----:•-•...,,- - ... ---z-'-` ,.._„-/ _ ..., -,. • ../.„- ,--- .,,._•= - „ „- , „„• r,- -v, •• .,; 2!,,•• - . . , -;.- - - ,''.---..:,-•--`-• ,,- '1”. ' f_. --._ , i',.•--:-:. ,,, *,- , ,t, .".•;;-'. p --, / - '1 - ,.,- '.- .-:'''-'-'',------, :"::-Z‘-„-Ti;:,---.T::,,, _ - , ,f '1-1•02 - it,'''k';-zi__,.' - - •Y :..-.',- :=-,-,-.:':-=‘;-:::'--==.-Vn.c.1',.,---, ' i' -1.n ! ,?,a.410.i,t -,--. _ '. -‘- ':7,-._;..1---':'5,',.•-:.-t,;:P-'-;,-1,i'-_, :. --Y'r_'TUS 3. t 3,1.3 ,,,' -.-/ 7.,..„ .--• :9'- 1.._.__,:-.-.-_-:: ...::::::-.::::_tWil, '.:-..''.•:.--'-'%,:-.,:.1_,,X,:,:,-- "N.:1- .•,.„', iiiit.!, , . -. - -- - --- --_-_, ,-..... - -,--::.--_-••,...1-...,-„.-_--/:„,-.- -.-',-.` - /-,, ,i • , , . - - .f.-_- •,-J,-r.,-,,,:_,_.- --_ •.:,,_i-___:,,-:-:_4_:-.3-:__-_:.7",::.--:----...,zr;-.L-1-7,....' . q./.„11,- ;-_-,,V:-.;:•'-,,-• . , - _ „, - '-' -: --• ...,,,..---,,._•'..,.z,-- :,-;.-- ,:% ..- - • - ., -_ , -.._- __,....„ -_-- 0-/ir,•-• r-- l'. • •. -,. - _---_--_-_--Z------.-:_-'_---,--:.-7,--,-.„:,'-z_.,.:---_-::..:_--'.-- :-- _-',----'.: - : -_-.,_.-,1_..•-_'•.I.-.:--,:,--.`-.:...-.,..,,.---...:Z.-,.-:. _:.,_ _: -,-.,'__.-•'-•.--.„:‘„. : -----.-,-'-- ,,:4,:-.-'-:-,----,i•,-•„.i.f/,5,A_-I‘;.,-.f,f,_..'. ‘,-,,-.T_%_-, ,,....... ,. , i) - I1r „: • : ; :- . " .: o: ri - . _ :.-..--- ----:',.', ....`,-77-.J.:-.. ;:z-', .-,---,,--..-....,:.".:_z__---f:',.---i.::--;,-; " - . - - ,,,, - • - ' •••440 , .itle "'1"._ - ' - ..-77'-;- ---'-----f-Z:;-;:',:,•,:-..-.:7-"-;=---;-.. .--.--r:..--:-•-:-. --l'-;"--1;z:E.-: ": ) • :- ':-.-----1• c..w....c':d4F3r,i7, • --,• :-' . • ... maga .. _ . . .. . . . . - - „• . • - s=1..t Aerialvi view--lOO:kJ.":;;;e:as7- -a:t-nO;th-. I3:Xt'se:hr.-0: lin . _Pilese Page 3 of 8a- nd a small dock are present along the Sea hawks Corporate Headquarters and Training Facility Renton, Washington Stream and Lake Study/Mitigation Plan Now" Table 3 Riparian Habitat Functions and Values, Comparison of Existing versus Proposed Conditions unction. Habitat Potentiall Existing Shoreline Proposed Shoreline- Function Tilt Class Conditions:: „�ttdlttc►Yt, ttasttl CctYtt�i Water Quality Low to Existing condition lacks Future development is not Equivalent Moderate width,plant density,and plant dependant on riparian function under diversity.Lack of native function for water quality both conditions vegetation also a minus. because it employs the 2005 King County Surface Water Design Manual,so width for water quality treatment is not required. Native vegetation is a plus. Food Low Sparse non-native vegetation Vegetation optimized with Proposed action provides little beneficial leaf a diverse mix of native will have higher litter and small organic species.High habitat value value debris, near lake. Microclimate Low to Existing shoreline area has Proposed shoreline area Equivalent Moderate little effect on microclimate. will have little effect on function under microclimate. both conditions Temperature Low to Not a significant issue for Not a significant issue for Equivalent &Shade none large Class 1 waterbodies. large Class 1 waterbodies. function under °�rrr►' both conditions Human Low Lake Washington is a public Lake Washington is a Equivalent Access access area so access control public access area so access function under not a habitat function issue control not a habitat both conditions function issue Large Woody Low Site periodically cleared so Planting that will contribute Proposed action Debris unlikely to have any some minor woody debris will have higher significant future LWD in the future. value contribution. Channel Low Controlled lake level and no Controlled lake level and Equivalent Migration surface channels on-site.No no surface channels on-site. function under potential for channel No potential for channel both conditions migration migration Bank Stability Low to Exotic species dominated Root strength increased Proposed action Moderate shoreline.Banks partially with native shrubs and will have higher protected by large logs. trees.Banks partially value protected by large logs. Wildlife Not Rated Patchy exotic species Native plantings in a dense Proposed action Habitat dominated riparian vegetation multi-story contiguous will have highest of relatively low value as canopy will provide high value — - - bird,amphibian,reptile,and wildlife habitat value. EXHIBIT rodent habitat. Adapted from:A.C.Kindig&Co and Cedarock Consultants,Inc.2003. 8September 20, 2006 CEDAROCK CONSULTANTS,INC.and A.C.KINDIG&Co.. Seahawkr/09-20-06 Lakes Stream Report.doe Page 29 )• ) .. . 1 I 1,111411:1Y, ' '1 H 1...1•00.1,10.0.I. - I r .. i cf. I - 11 RAGNIJ ,S339N . . . .0 .17, 131.EmENcIC 04.0„.. , ................. 't . ( 1 3 1 3 1 , .... 3,, 1 ''3•3 .-- -----m- /I ,.. .' I r ' Oa / .-----"-TM--------1 I 1 / I I 2 0 II I _ , (7 1\ i I § , ,''''''',„-' = 13 0 • CT Z . . -0 03 .....1.1..law... 1 Lli Litcr 1 , • , • li 74,•04,rn I . I •E . 03 12 I 1 • / ..................... './ , .,MilLiVitr. I , - 77II 7770..urii7 ! , ! ' 1I 1 i ir•.7,,4,1.,,,,-- LI.:zit, i co ; ; , i ; ;- • H , 1 1 I 1 1 1 i • , •• i:• • •• ,,,, ....,-, 1, 1 , . u... -,-.--f---,-,•• II 0 I.I • I. I . .,. , .... ...IA IN, \ ...PIO I / 1 .0,...,4; ..4. 0 \ . , t,,,,, ot,_. - __•_ ,; 4._ „, , . • i 00114011104 .... . Lot ,,,. ,e,v t.i.it.cl. ctl rc NI 4111C IYI l CO I;11,1.,Pr 1,yo,,,,,,, f 1,,n. ,,,,..,-,,,,,u.i...1,•r,,,,,c i.L,,,,,I,,,, p,o,ipIr PI 1.,/I/It t k 11.*ON Of FIGURE 5.18 cesoi_ • EXHIBIT 10 Seattle Seahawks Corporate Headquarters and Training Facility Turf Integrated Pest Management Plan(IPM) Table 2 • Summary of Pest Control Measures to be used for the Seahawks Practice Fields Physical/ Disease or Pest Cultural Control Mechanical Chemical Control Control Turfgrass Control Primo Maxx Turf growth suppressant Overseeding with (Trinexapac-ethyl) and Annual Bluegrass desirable during growing (Poa annua) control turfgrass; season Promote vigorous Prograss turf root growth to (ethofumesate) for with soil nutrient curative post- Weeds and irrigation emergence control Annual Bluegrass control, to out- of annual compete Poa bluegrass in fall annua. and in spring if warranted. Fungus Diseases Brown Patch (Rhizoctonia solani;R.blight) N r✓ Corticum Red Thread (Laetisaria fuciformis) Dollar Spot (Lanzia spp.And Moellerodiscus spp.) Fusarium Blight Chipco 26GT (Fusarium spp.) (Iprodione) Fusarium Patch (Microduchium nivale) Good air as preventative Gray Snow Mold Promote vigorous circulation; method of control (Typhula spp.) turf root growth to Good drainage; fall and spring Helminthosporium with soil nutrient Avoid shading; (Dreschlera spp.) and irrigation Avoid irrigating in Necrotic Ring Spot late.afternoon; (Leptosphaeria korrae) control, to out- Limit thatch; Pink Snow Mold compete weeds. Maintain soil pH (Fusairum nivale) <7 Rust (Puccinia coronata) Fungus Diseases Brown Patch (Rhizoctonia solani;R.blight) Heritage Fusarium Patch (azoxystrobin) (Microduchium nivale) as preventative • Rust method of control (Puccinia coronata) in fall and winter Take-all Patch (Gaeumannomyces graminis) September 20, 2006 A.C.KINDIG&CO. Page 7 . . i ...• ) . r -.I'‘,..7 — ....'.'.....,''.:-.--o.,.7.7":.•,' '1—..'r:i . .4i,••) ?p * '4%,^c,',,r,••• :•1- . ,... et'se^;;• • '''''...`;.•',. .3.4'. /. '''';',;- ...,111i.bfIll'•'..1/..',.''''''I:i,:1;;fr'1:.?.!'!'.....',.3'''';''''''',..,,,h,..,,,,. .:', :r: • *N, *;',,,!'is•-•. '''....4....',..'V`.'1..;7..:''''..-.' ,''',,„.,,,,' 4.....7/.;;.:/,''.,k,'..4 :1"..:..111.,/,'::;k.:(r;i:.',.;:,;',.-',.-.,,,.;.:':','.IF:'..7.-;.:.;oor..,,, E--( )--4 •—•--•• WI/1•KOO IICNI.,. 1011•111.....1•11.WO lit. . . % .... '-'''''.':.•::,':."..:'4.7'4.:-i.-,?'•.,i.,..,,/,,,- ' ' .,:1•.•,i:;„•;•.,•,V-J.1.:,••,,I,•!, .1. • ,‘.•:,, • ,.."•.'..*:•,:.':'13,'. . -''''''':••••1 .*:•••1,;•..'-';',-'.1;:i."1/,,,tii•i;.'..:'.^.,....',./.:11.'0. •J,.-%:,.,.,',., ;• ,,,,-z.—. ,-,- .... a",--',''',14'•A",:.:.• ',.•* ,,...",;,:•••••'...,...";•!,:i • -..•>••••• ,..-.. v- - •,,. t , T....1 ,, ...,:'•.;•', ...•'i,,,,,,;,,,,,, ,":', f';$••• ••,. • ,,*'"'•,,)p.". ...:••,,......:,?;,,...,,i"i'' ".,:,,.,,' /., '.ii'::•'......,':-., ";,`I l "..,. . .':'&:.::•:;.."': '::::.... :'.'.:::: >;,',:.„1,..,.. A.„;,i,,•,,,!....,...i.,, ,,f;/.i. ;.f.,,6..1.;.,-,-;.',.`...:.',T..' .. ,,::. .., '47;e7to, L I 3,,,,,-,;.!,,,,.......„,..........„-,,:.,,......:...... s.:.-...,...,-.:- 7- .?,,,...,..:;.;-,',...,..'', '.7....'W'f:...k.,,,, . 1,',.?.:''''',.'"'" ';'; ..'''ea.•'" • •"i:',:: ii.'..*.7...•'...1.[:::-8EAHAw.3'...".• /.• /1 ...:.f.:4:',,z6...,i;..?'„•`,;(';;;-..i:::'";r . W''•\4,..••,•'••••,, /..:-i.'..•t" .1'"...,I II i, imm............T.r. I .4 ":7 1;;'''.,,.'i.r...'.........'•:I':.:.:1.1..f.A°?, A.7.1.!.:;../..1'',.. I' ,..?:::0;.i::"5 " .1(1.:P: ::., / ' 1„':'e .1.•I',..-.'i! .•;•14,': '..P.V"it '''., K 06 • - •••••..,•`..".••'.it .....''.-...,'.: :; .:- 2:'.*.:'',-;... ..;•?; ,' ".•:.":,?,r..". ••ll.::,'„,"4., '-,''' ' .•••;;:... ..1.•.'•••::i,.t., .:'''''',"*.;-4.'; e . 0 j ,...',......-..:.:::;,.;..:?:.;;:....:;-:.,.',•;..:,:,:.,:...,"..-..:-. ..,.....•:; .::::,...':',i; -‘, ti.I.,'‘r.'%., ::.!!!.f',•,.;.-'':':' ,,lo,/ CO to; 1"2 .,.,,..',W;!:...:-..::;.:.. .'''.1.7,;':i',..;',i'::'' r' o 7 rd r .,', 1...... ,...r.,:,.-..;,.,...,,......:.....'.. .:•,...:',.',..:,..::„'..;.''...:.':','('.''''.':'....r.. '. ':'.'''.'••••: ..'.V.".:'.!' V, 7, u- I 1..-.::',...••••:::f... ....... ?..:;'.....-.........,.........',.:',,'.,',,-,-.:..-:,-:;.--,',.• c.,.,.........,.",-,,'.;.;f?•*•4;.tr,•:••'.,:- . • ' -••••.::::',".•;"•';',..-...)'''',.."';';''::—,•.`. 2 2 ._ ,... Ci) C 5 ,,, ,I: ...,, ,,, ';.•..••,:.:••"-:::.,,,?.:!•••3;•;•,,,•.',"•-..,-,:,:;.:...•,:::.!.......c.r...,,,,•;%/i.:,,,,,...,..e..i.:,=:"*Ai';:!:','*;;?;,44, i/417'•;:j1f. .,..".e.).".":.;' r 7:-...e..',4".14'„.4 , '1.- ,,,,..';.:s . .7... i .• ,',.•:ii"...''.'•;',- ,-.'.• "•••..•,,'• •—•••,J..'.• ,,.".••••••', '..;...--t,,L!-:1,--,,,v-•,..i iir,:.,,,,,*'ll''"... t'-'.'t.,!!)''! i '. ..-;.,.% , 11) o co FIGURE 1 . • .:-••'..!.7 ;`,'' '4...'.',.....:7:'',.;:.:,,,.- , NO UN\7 •—. . ' .'..1;1,..',..,:.::',:,*:.:' ;''''Z:'•.' . ST/44 CZ-,r4 et-L.. ......... rr'. ...?''',.... :..=",:;''?;.:•..7.:;;;,:;:k.,,''..4-. , -'..4'.. ..,' '''-4!';.:.:.o.":if'S-',',,=!•':•::;..4',A'..••.'C.;.,' .1' ' ( ,:.....Gr.?' ;:,:::i...::.,.:.,i,i1....!.'..:•4,,,...7.'....Y...„.7,nis....is.,,,,,,?, -...:,..-, , t ...: o.... ,•...•,/,,,,,,:....,.....0.1,,,,, ,',..,4,4:o,,.•.,., ,,..,..t‘.4;.. r.i....,....'...C,,t::"-:. c..1.'. .i'ff?'+''.',.'':' ....4...;i:7.r..".','47,.;'... ,•..,;"-f..., 302-'.2•' 301 Olt'''''; 314 31,?(1:; 312- I) (W:44E. Aka- '..4.4;r:'•*,-.:;',.!..'::',j'7''''a..:';'::,f'..';tt:' ii'','•'•••,.t..4.Z..'...P0':*.t.?';',.;':::: p.,t.. NATE PatcrE) ), ,";,,',-',..:;?'',-*,...-ts%;,.':.,-....•,/g1.:, •,'':.,s.:'...-.;',.:..;"'.i':..z'::.C..';',A.' .. . . -.'''.'''''''.'''';':'.....':'C..%••;';;;;:t....'''....:....tl'''.:.:::.':.V:7'.:;,.f.:;;...I''. olelre) .. i .: ..; ..,,`:i..•'"...,:,::...6'l' ..,1.,;;:'.;:;',: i...i7;:.:'::.,,:::...''......;f....1:::,,,,,.':e......,:,..4;'!".7',.;....;:,:::. .,'....:;t....;.,...4.:.•.:.;:::::,,,,o,,;;:iii.,.. .., 3.L.,,,i......1,,..:1;:........,iicr.....1:;..:::':.."...',;;..Y;.. ....,?.....:.;!;.:'..:.'.;:'''..:::‘.......:.,:::::....;::,':,:!,.:..:;..'',:,•::1:,•:.,• ; - ,....... ',' .... ',;......"' ' ':r.i .;.]';..: ':::: ':. C .;....t',.?...:',..,;i::,...:,...i:'.....-..Y'.'...,.....:.'..... '....:..!....,^..1..,Z...'f*!•tZ.;.j.,'''..::...'',...';'--..",::::;:'.....-{.,:.:%:'''...'.:....-......,...;:i::'-'...!':: ....''..1.,..'.777•'...17.r....:........•:''''. .'..'.."' C .rA, 44..., , i ,0i ;1'.:: Ur ' ' ' ' ' ' "c::[.:...:;,1:, ',..'64': :t''' ;::;.. e.1 ' 'i.'?..:j.il..i.iietri;,1;.,./%,;:,.,r,;,,i,...;; .±.1,:,..',..'........;:,....' ' 1:: ''''t'''' ''''''°4:1:. :::'''''':,,t4:,I6C:i;4:i,:c:;?:t,55k7,afi44' '''..f....!..'....'.1.:';',....'..;.:''.2:.....;':'....Y....:::.:::.:::.......:::::!.i.:::: ::';'''1'.:':-..;.':4;'!i.'];:';•:.c':.''..;.:';')::: :';..':';',A..i:;11'-'''-';4 it*I0iti*:.°4k ..3. ,7!: :?.,"::(...C., ..;.'..]:',.';,...,::,.r1 11•=•111.1=. ----......---.W• Pfif..?.!kl.i'NiTi'; '....ii,:;f",!;4;•:."'ir.i.:.:....,.. . I'':f4.::•.....k::::; .:',.'''...:::::':':...''./,:....:::''...'',..:,: ?.....';'...'..r:.........'......:..:"..........'....2....::;;!:.1:17.:.::::.1...;.-:•:.::.:!. ..;c;:';',Z:..: Sr.,:!...;: ::.:1':;••::...'/;';'..e::',12,01.,,,.E....f fl.f.,,..x.,,,,,,,...:4•;;;?4,,zyg,.:,„x.,...,",...,..,,,„,i,.,!..2,.5)./.:.i..,-,;,..:..,.1.:.,,:,...•,:ci.;;•...,,.i,.....;••...::.-...-. .,...,;..., A immimmnramor J VI•UALIZATION SSSSSS MINT ''''' ''...... . _ i ....., VA100_ . , I I )......1 PC) C\I a 014.1.0 im0Y.0141/111 /.....,( If F . . ' 4112,10"a4p i. Ogfa4 $.{:•:. .1-', .,,,,„,,.1. ,.,,,,,.. ,...;...:..'.,.,.5. ',X,i-1:,,,:::'..i. . ..'....''I''..?:***4.!' 1 .. :i., ..V.•,...‘.:.;,.,.I.'.;.',.;,'2.'. ..li::..` ";...,.:•r: ..,,,:' ./..,,l; ..... '.P:,:...,:'...-':". '.'.';....':.:.'...",,i''''....,,...,.......‘'......';....I. ...r.::....':.Vi...‘"..'‘ • ' .';. .-•"..';''..:;1'', 4 ' .........'7.r...../.:;.:......I..i,',........ ....;.::';':,1',.....:'I,.I....' .:'. . . 'fi...:-,:fa::.•'..:.;i'...'..:::,:.:.,....''.l'...;':::.,1,:::''...',.....':' .I ..' •':t.;47'3,0:C4,..s. ., :I.. I. :....'',..i..., ...r.'..k'',..''',....'",....'''1,..' . ,.,.: •,..:.?,., IJ .....:-; .i,,.. i•Y::!. :, ,t:;,.,,..::4:/.:I:4•1',:.:..'2,f...'..2,....:•; i•isI,,.: „-. • ',,'.,... -:-.:..,..c..k.,,,,,...,i ,-.•i;tft.74*:.,:g47,:,;,', 1,:i..".' ',..11i-:' ;:,:,:.'S-,.:::.,!..':,54,: q. ,.;: ::::' ,':.: ,.„-,.. :, i:i :....' ; ::....,7117775,irt,?;;;j!i;',.i.);::4".,;:f.'''';',':.'•!'i'-.:t .i,%.1zi17:43...* - 4.. - t '.'•%:',;:;V:•'• . ..i fj:-114''....;4:::i!:::: .4:141;:..,',:•!.#,;.‘;''.....,,•:',:1";..• :,')::•:'.:;::-.`::,:.;,.):.•.i le..!. ,••••.. . '13:,e1.::• .:f•''.•,-... „; ..'•1••••;3'.•:•.44:•:-. 4..;•:%S.,'' I ; " . !t"..i:n..!:i3O.,2.•• L s':::: :: ;•••I'''44':2..).:7: :••kig.'t,„••:. t, ,;.;•:?, °f1'..1!:,..7. •:‘:'•:;,.:',..'.:4:'••:,;; .-...........?:,::::;: .,*;„;:.. ..(''';.-;t;..:0-...c,";;•:•1?;*',... ,'....'.......-''r, ..,-. • •.. . • , !., .i.i.;j.,..,.,,,,i1,,,,, :7:,..,.;-:::,,,i,•.:•.....iri-7-:;;,,,,:..,..,.;....,:-...,....,ii.;:-H.f,,,,.%, 1,;-1,•:::,,,,,si,...':......: .,,...:437,:;,,,'..-f.:.....%,..i.-AFi..., ,-,....f.‘ 7...i-4,-..-er.—::•..,,r;;;.,..•,....4.,.;,--..5•,...f.:,- - .. i' -'1 "•*'''''''',1‘4•9'''''''''' • ' _ '.n.-:..7.tr'...,...,;11,-...t.;.1.:4.:6?:',44,..t:::''FZ':):4',:••5e,V,"4'...`;,'........,,7:•..i...„..,;.-.4%;;;.'..!,'ni:;;-:,;•:.,:•7.,^7•4.*..r....i'.1:1,4.,..".;.-?:,,,:;?:ar,,g;...‘;..,.....tf!...1.-;:.,..!7-7:ti4.7'i';',..i.:... ,.: •:7'.....; . . i .- '..t:;,,,,..i.qt%&;.,:-. : 4.:: •". . '..f."4....'';''..C.:;•,77-:t1.::••2•••:.-'':.•::!:;.,-....1,.::•.•4 f'142!jr,:i.e.i.-,......72.,:::::::':"•!!!;••.''' '''''''•,.'..;;;7:' .7•:;:: ,••••;,;-:.,.V.:;.::[k"::ii`,,•:441'.‘V'tf:::::"...7 ...21•..J.':-.:•;:s7.‘:.."'',147 ''"•• . . ;.;r•-: .1•::' ''''' '....7.-. •:: ....-::: ;". ...,. ''..'-:'.:1:.?;;;7......::•:Cs•r''''ilil';g1•if'...:Y. iiii;Ziitiiia.-- ---'2.-- .7-'7•7`.174 :77.;i'.1,.42U*:;;;-<:"."---..... --...r7,?,\,14(••4 .4%*;!.:7ZA'Z''.5*•'.•tk•:fts.g.FM, 'RR'!'.:7*Itr. ' e.:5 . .- -•• .• •-f 4:.':',-. '.:'',•'....,r''''''..:•-•l!'•?4":::11,1et,;:f;y1MAW:.''''.e',1i$",'"":Y',,.;'44,•,-;,-...i,..i5ii:•7,14.4 e W.,'•'''.''!.'"•,•-•'-" :-.,..0.:-..`:•5 *4.V•N‘N,, \?,'..;,.‘,`,,,k.',..`;',,,!.:•••,•",,....Zz: . N.I'kti",.•••fx,.. .t. : ''''''':i.-'''y ::. •...s•':".s..--;''''.•'.'".. .:,' ''''•'...:'.'' ... '''''.7'. ,. .,_,. .,,,,t.,, ,,.'''' -.:,,;„,.,s--,,.7& , ?"7."-..1.4:*ii3n4i.':';'2". ..,:::',. ' ..',,,,"\.,,, \Ns.;,:,:z.izz:e,-"...4.-':......:,-,:: .!•...f.'...:4'.:* "*;- .4z';'::,..t.•-k•••' E Q ' • ....4. - -. - ..;,..7„......:,. ,.. , ,..i.,-,4;.:4.,:,,,,..1,,::-•. ---..,-.'.,-- -"iimirimm,,„,.;74,,,„,',..,,...3w,.4.0":„. , 'i,1,,:.,*,..... g.4;.'. -1..;,,:...,;,,0., ..•,4•.,x0,,..;,,,,,';',s.\ "'..,s2.',',..1"..,...."..:,.',„I'...v,,,;,. ',..,:.,W...'...,;,,;,,, O z • • "'•• • .,,,,...,.1,;:',..."........ . (ID▪ •- cr) )-- • '''-:..':'." .•" ,i!,45:,?,,y,P' .,-5, :.,1:7,•<,,, r:i.. 7,••••74:!...;:A.;•;C,,,:,*",,-.....*..pr.f.,?.,.. ..-:3ii..z.;,,,,4 t:::....,-;:...•. ,.,. ..\....„.2 ., = •5 UJ i CT ''"•'•.;•,''•4,1 :.! S.:1!!:"'••''.7-r'••••:i.,•,,•••• ;•;.:::,- '1.•'''!',''',•.••.i".".7,:..i'''''''.•'•;:. ' ••• —• ' ''',';;7;'••••••• . . . ..0 ar 1...,„...„,,,..,,,.‘ ..... - ‘7..,-,,,- ...-----7,.:, ,.r.;.,,,.,.,,,,,,,,, „, .4,.,,,„, ...., ,.,,,;.....,.....,i...-1:,,.....,:,,,;.....,./.....fi,ii!....7';,..wa.f.,.r..........,..4, ,,,,, , ,..„ , ,,.,..,......ittl,!:y,,,.;,,,;;;..5.44','-'"k..1 ..',•.•,.‘..Z-',;,;',:.,,-,!..,•;2;.:,..'.....-'.1.1.,z;111..`:^1 7),7: ;,:.!,::.• .,.n. ci..:.,..;•71,..!...-mt;;;;;;::: . ' --' ''''''"*:.;;. .`,.',..:4;--4`;!..".''...:......w—,,.,-.`:,,c.-;,,,,,.,..,,,,..:..-..;;;.;,,....:.,•-•:.;;;;;;-!.:•..i.::•;....tr...,.....!.-...',. .-..-...--..:;,..,,„,.,..,..i:.....!s.,...'r •. ;,...,. .r.•, " •-- "" 1'4.4 f4.• .," -:,'• ‘'..?;'''',' ''•'-',Z;/,‘:5,"', "t:;*•'4"'-'''''.. ,?:.1.1.4‘4;sr-03'.; ::i,it;,..•..,.•,' •-•••''..fj•••• ..7....... - . . ---•--...,T..*-:- ,.."7. --,''''. ;;Iti*ti•Viiikit;','Ai.,,44^".• •,,..i1,4,,,,ttr,,:•,,-,..-.•".k.:,•-••,:. . - ---,•:,•...-.7:.-?-.. ?'. ,,,,o..-4 ,. ...„--q-,,,,,.,•- --,,,...4,• — - co 1- E = u. al - FIGURE 3 . c,3 H1 ',...• •'••''i. ;;.., •••,i, •IF, ..-:.. ' 111111111. ....,,, ... ... .. ...„,,,.,,, ,,,,,_, , . ,, ...., „..„.„:„.,..,.,....,........„,„,,,..., ‘,....„...,....,..„...,..,.....:,:...,:..„:„,-...-„,:.„..,:i.,,,,:....,.:: ,; '''''''. i'' ,....,,,,.....,• , I •'.-,-...,,,::..,.:..,..,.-•.,.','...,.-:,,......" .-.,..•'.:-...L.,,,.•,:....,...„ „,c.,.....,....- ',-„•.,.,,,•0:;,..,%;.f:.•,.....c.'7, ..,:,,,,:;.",..4f,.,,!..;,;;',..:;;;•.;:,:ii,,,,,i;;A .r.qiii),d;q:r:!'i!!'iTir-:'.E:r:;',J.:1.(:;'''':,:'-'...i:,,•';:!,1'' :;,;;1.::::,'.4..i.,,,,:, -:-..•.7,-;, ,:.-i,,i...,".:.-:...:.'......,::,;.,.., ,"..:::';.;,..•2",:.!;:',2:7.,..,,4-•.,..,,...;...;:,.01,f.:14:'.. ;,'..:i'.....,,,„:.,... ‘'...'C.;•A;'.;:,; , 0;:.;,..1,r.li;1!.N:l.';‘,::,L,.L.•.!;=th-t,...-" .,:.‘ . 1 i • . 1 , . . ....':.r....:•.";::.'''.."...1.•••'.::::,..:,•.,-,..,...... :-,',....t.,;.,,....1....,...,.....•!... •gp,,e:!.i.,..,,,..., ...• ...,-,.........;__. .!.?.,...,;,., :41:40. :i.oi!:!,,i..ic,:ri,;1 ..,,,,:4-4:1 .,;:• 1 , -'r)).i.7.•Ii:';'!--•.,',:.i:,' '- ''.';'.:-....:,...,.....:',.. ......;.,.'i'i...:'',,;or'....",,s'i•.:.....• :i... '.'.,4.:. ,,r,...,:',.......,.".'-•"... .- /i110 :;..'0':' lki.',16,14 •- .--.‘-1.,..-•(:•-•X'..zit'"..!:. '... :-......• .* ! .7.'.. ..71;'c'1::.':;,,kt>16.‘r.t;'..?:..Z..:JF.:Si.:7 r'...#15rivirtv?':::',g-.7!.......-....,4.,,:t-.:,,'..:,:•!,,: r,...,:,.'..,..,‘. t,.'.-.-.L_.',....:-,7::.P'ht,o,,wv,:,.,0'.Atik, ., N'.'2...F.:, V j l':' . 15,.,.!..,';',-"q414-1. , ' LI 74.- .."•,;IqMi:'-''';!:.-H::::: :....ti,:':6',..'e;':::1',',. .. <:1";5.4.r..,*:..i.;',;.!.....,11,, ,. -,..t..1 :2 :,,. ....„!*'',,:.-)1*A,.4:Lit _".. 'S'..1:"4.E.*".1-1`::i'§':i*I''.';'•;'7,4',•,,I,%:1:"...:':'.i.7'f.;..'1......t1.., :i.'•..•.;',„....:•:'..",....•.''.•,•..'' ....!!.'....',...•'''''r'-•.',''... ,. .'...."'-•'-j;. '.,"''.1Z".'''4:':';'W:7,:?••'...t'.'4'1!..•.,•"..•:•:" ":•,•.... '?1".'''''•••Z'''•. ; ' ' ''..."...'''''''"''''.2''''../ .:".'"• .;;;!....'?.....,%',..;‘:if;".4•,...,.;;I:i'.'4;4'..' -'-:"....:?:'4.:--i,','('-7. !;'....' ':Q'l 1.--1'S';?"'.*,. ',:11%;,:i1.;.;:',:'"•:''''.'"..`:.....*;7•!*..';‘,‘...-.4e,"'...r..4::...4.).?:•-. ..',.•.*..•.2.1-.. .....,;•.;,.-...••*'...."%"14• • ' I '.•;..LJ:..44,4.;*,,..,.. . •''.=-,....."..'•. :.!..--:7.:,•:4'.1..:1: .;..... ,.. ,...''. .-......:,....z:,..: ..77.. .:. : .,,e:;;.• '...1.,,..- -,.... .-, .....- -. : ••••• ....,.'...‘...c..,::".,-.I..i,...-;...,:•..-.;:•..::,,,,....7.-11,.-xo.,...:C;:::::. "---""...""."--:---.. .,,,..4...17.,,;,:a.oz.4. .;,..-L,a.d..gF,,,--,.,........,....,....„-.7 . ' - .-. • ., 7-,f,:-.•-I.;:....'........-.q;f-'4.F.;,:i.:,:,,;,;•.-"•'''.i.,..ki.,,.71.;•;,,. .,i,.rt'f..,?:,..,!,:.M.:': ...';',.,-.:..::F•,,i'l.4.',....;g''''''t''..."..".'--'4,', ,,' -,...!-,,r''''"...INV.i.'''SVN '‘..''.''.'''''.''''.',''..";:•'":..''.'i.'''''''''' *%'...''''''''''''.. *'''''".. t..5..:".'. __ ..,-..--, ... ' ' •. :....•....*t.':;.. .... .:. !7.,::....:2..., :;".;.:..-..''-','-':'"....14,;;,,..,,..;.... :,.,-,,,,,,,,, ,71P'4, ,V.PZ44.;;C"'„„.,•,.•;:"....' ,\'',1/4t,4..,'',....k.',-11.... .i; ‘,',.. ........*.;:', .:.:.:."....*.:",.'.. ..'..1.- . .0.. .',Xf!..':.. ,•••,•:,.4; . -. .. ..',..t-.•". -.,?....,.':: ";;;,".7...'' ..,,,,,,...,,,,,,,,,711,,•,....,-.1yi7.-,,,No.qt gc,‘,..i..i,z....,,,r..,.....„1....,.......'.. :..,,,, ?,'..,...,y,,,,,...,.N.:,.•..,,....;,.,,..:. ,:•,......,...,.2.-.,..:-,7 •..,..,...,....,..::::.-„,..,,,,,...„....,..• * . ;''"...'''"''-',.:..'.'''''''.. - ' ';'-'-'....-'."•'''''''"1"."^-•— .,. — --,.-1,'. .,,-..1;),•-••••--;::-:=::::":-'''..''''1`'.Nf";•''''S.'i' .-::.'' .. "., ...,......).i'.,'..,..... . ".' • .......'-'.•"..%:.*,;'•-•2 t''.,,'4,--.;e.." .'-' ..!•,..i.'• .%,..1. '.'. ''.• ' '''"•• ,k.••,...., •;.'.'•i',:'........A:. . -...'.::••1. "j .. •;;;1.4`:',i.'•';':• , ,=.44 - .., .he .L71 11,1.'''`.* -,1....--f.,-,41-,,,.,.... •. . ,......,.- ,. , • „:.:.,.1 eN, „'1".1• .. ' ., •2.'. .,e.".,i',.,.......p,,, ,n,..-„ -- -•'— , '• • i't".. t' ..''' ,-. `..'"'.;'.......i..,..."'''..e.'. " =" . • ,.., * ..> . -...l'..•:"..'.,''.. .;-'.'`,........'..;•-•.\'" '_... ..'. '. -,- :.',.,.,•,. •iii'....;:.• 15'.... •'•:.::. .'" .' ...:....c.,4,...7„-4;;,••••- ..`.7","::.2;.,:,...%,;„--2.. ..-Nik, ;,.....,..-,_ : ' ' .••...-:...',,....."--.1'. '' ''' ' c•..'..:- .;,',:•';•-,...!....?k•......:....%:.'' .....- ,. 2 . .1.'4 eL,''J ..:-...---- : .. '.. v--•::. ...:: : ''' •'.. '.... --:' -- ., ,... .-,..,,,,'....!...'7".... -7.1,44..,1. ,,'-•. • VISUALIZATION „c • ..,.........:;,;,;7.72-',....t.,:" '$. — V101_ FIGURE 4 .......,—....„ . ') ) ) • ) ''''',' ASL'•"):., . - '''.....:......"-- ...r.o.•••••••••1 •••••••••••••• it= M til • • $r' iii.41111M:, -%.'.'...14* • -.•-•, ,‘•• .. ft, 'tk,,t2: :".f •,'. 1.1 - ,. %.1`.4 . ' ''.. i..4:1:' '.;,...4 1 •, E---, ,:1,r, ,,,- .,,,•:,,,,;,•. .. -.,,,,:.:',,-:: •1 v.''.'.I'.V.• .''''. i f ri ...,-..,,...;,,..,....,„,:.;,,,,,14.,., .. • ......,1,..f•-0,I',', ,1, 1,1„,.:21, ..‹,"".;•tt 1.4'Il.S. :'f.,'irk;)'8.4.4`4 s -t..•.•';1A:6;,..'r',..:4'. . .:t' i •. t •f i • , .':':.."''' .th l'•:1';::.-17,..,..0'.,1-_,. ..,... - :t;P•7: '•'''*';9.5,2"IS)(...',''...'•••' '4.1','!1 41.`-i*.**'..•_;:t:rs:'7 `'...'ii2..:7•'4,e.f,',:.r. `i'-'.1.%•;.14:fr""ili•••••„',..-4 7,06,;•-•,.0ik'.4-'ti,341/t.:.''r.ii.... ''''.-.. . V....,","'r ”'".0"14.!;.!* rt l''''".or‘4*.Irtll'211'''' ''''.#47:.''';i.;;;-•,--.,“ c:Ci .:.:;•::?:-'''..--4::4:41.;..1;..:;+,.''', :'.,`...;.1.;-": ;•.*,;;;P:t.,..r."4?;:•,,,y.:.;:frV;A;:V''''..-'1,0k1,".":4:1.;.iii2'':$Y1';'?",./.:.:i.,fri.•;:'N.I'•‘;•":•,4,iN,f;•?1‘.1;,'•'.'•,!..:::"fit:'„);,:".7,..',•,..:;,4,•,.:q.:s.,' 't,;,i",•‘.,...7,;,"*'t,:it..,.k ..-1--- ..— •'•:-11.-*•-:14N.:,'•iS,',,,:i-..'•-.,':: ••......••''''%'::'!".f2i.I'V've'.".'.?'1"''.' Vc 1. tl,.!'..! '•t 1.70'9?4 h:.14.1'....4:511.;.,',Oil'il:4,!14:',.:t..S.4%.:.:',1'1.2gAtaiii4e4.,9"P b-4;.<„•>•7'4,.7,...:-7,,_Ite, .,,i3.;•`..•*,.,=.4,,,,,,,„,7„-;„:, ::„?...,..;,...,,,,,,;„.„,,,,,..,,c,,,„5::,./.., .44„.,:.,,..,,,,t,,,,,,,,,,,,: ..,. ,,:z:,!,,i.dti,:,,,,,,,,.„,..;,f":".;,,,,i,,.,1:,,,,,,,:....4,.....-...,..:::,:',....„17.,..,;:..';;..•,,,,.,,,,-,:,,,,,V,`,11:111,1";,',,,,;'''.,..i''.,<..140114011%.4,.,,z,,,,,,,,..,i;‘‘'..k1C",74,11''''';,4:2:%1;,1).‘",„,.,'74:,;•2.1,;•"''';''''',..- - ' ,..,..,,,,,..:*;:.,:,,. :;7:::,t1:.:/cii...::1%1141,,,,,,,.. li •-.-f,',..-•"c-•.'''' .. ,: :'1 -.I'.;:.", A.,,..b.. . 't'". . ':.E., - . , ,fe:4;E!.;'.:43.!.. .4j.;;A...",:'Etrr'; ...2'. ":1li'4::..."'::1''' -:',' . • Am... ..E.'EE ..'t 1.....".:tE.e• .`1 •.".. , ... t„ " „ .•. 7'::,4" ' '':;,.,...f._,1 ')",t;•:,;',;4•=i13:11.,:‘,. 47.4,4., •••4 .,. •, — 4 , 0.5 11 .. ., , . ....•• •••,:•,•14.' . .1. , .-;„:....•9----, •, .„ , ' .4 - -- :!II*411H41'• 4.. 0 .... al _,:.••• .•.'. 4 '' • ' ! , ••0 co 6 ' CZ ti- - -- 1 •• FIGURE 5 t 'E IHti, CO I as a.) . (/) I 4jf I , ,„ ,,, •• ' ' '. , ' - ' , '.. - ;I: .1 ;' ' 1,.' , . :, •-• ' ' _ ., ,....,°°** ' , I 1 1 lj ,. ... 1 , •...% E I 1 1 1 JI ' l 1 .,,,%V. ,,I., rel. ')•.., k 6..,, I i•, r• ...,..,.... .:,,,...,' 1.4,4•:••.:•.,4r4..:.).../•,:,••4•7,•„-.,!1.,•k.V.:z,r,7;4.;...;"'t'‘•.;..,. ;...,.,..,t:-,•:.,.-. ,.j',,` ,,:P' :.:..;, f,'," f. ,,1-,'0,r,',,..,"`:.-;'I.:'.::,1‘i;,;''i'•,f'./!",',4.,.1-P4r':4"'tt.„4\.i,''..7..•..",,$•.,?t1'...t.f4,.1A...1.s/.•.;,t.i.“e•"'A'•;'‘,.0,,,,4',.',.!*,,•,i"r'.t`t`-''''I,.1,''I..t,4..1...t,,'•4••,-.•'itt'',.•it,. •'•••• ''•'t"•7•1;..•..•..: ',;-'.-',•••••:'C..:"..,•:c..1,,•„`-...,•.•.••.•••. .- •-" ''"1444.1e I 1 1 :,,IF,y,c. ,..I..;,•„,,,y. ,,,,t,,,,,,"ri:,- :::;,;:,,,,,,,•_,14.),t,t•,%„.;, . 4.:•;,;;.,',. g;?,,,i,,,;;4:,,,,,1.440. '•,":-.,;•• ..,:,. .. ,., ., . ,,...,.z.,• , .;.;;;•44t.;.144 ,;;„;„..4•... .•.. .,,• .i.: 3:1:,;•,.. .:‘,..,,,,,f,,,,,,,...;,.f., , , ••,‘,,,.; . ;;Jf-;,,,,I.. • ......,,,,:•„,,t; ;11 li,•,.'••• •.1,,;::..,.;•4:,,,.•'n,..i.,.4,!".4.; ',,tti'l•,' '•.1:.;4.7•1•11,,;••:7i;'• .44 ''•,. ....f. - '. ..7•••••::...,Y 2.,.q.,..1...1.4,..r*4 '''''',7•,7-V•4•-:t.,A.n..!"--,r,•••1-t- , , , 0 1-,----, ••• ••q%•'.. .:,•-c•Q :,..!imb.i .• •'.,,,,),, .,•1,;;1:„,.., •!.•4t.,,, 1. ....., •„0-.:, q.,,,: :..•.,4•)••• , q•,...,1.f,-,e1 •••:.,•••• •• 4 ,•..*:, 11.4t,,:. ' L.4 E,,'P.,' lk ...... .. ..- ,.. 'r ''''''.” • ‘,3'‘I•rti:,.Li ,:. 'f., .•,'II,.: ...,z.,!.' ; 4.'0'" r I.1,Ct.', ''';f.....",“':': .4,.. '",...f,..L'...,.,,..44%‘%. '' A44.\176 '11 ' . ',.'.• !.......' ..%'.* ''. ' ' '• ..f.',V'hW4,tr,. .-' I- '4. I •': !':,•...444- IX:4 •••Z'F,SII, ..••:141:i",.'" :I4I'::',^:,'';';`"""jit'.: :.:4,10* '').;k::::: .• :I'4.1/41VI4'••,orf:/,4•41,... ,•„', .1,-i ,i• • .,•,.. 1 ' -,t-.11.:0,v,,,,,;,::•,•' - !.y.i.p.•••-vg..*»?:,..„.. , f ••-•,iNik•: .,.e;E p.',..il„!,.*A;OZ..•' . 4v,zp., ,,..:,,,.3,1.',.•••.',-4:. .. ,... • :•, ••. ,,,,,,o,,.,44„,.e...t. ,•••,;VI":.Iv.i;;.: ft'i,',4;* ,:, .4 4,.; e!f,..,.. .'•.'I:tr.:: '.,‘;:, , ,,. ;-;,-.4'.,,..„,,,of.•.,,,4,1v.„,,:,;44 ...,,-..,,t, s.e..3:,r;.•,..•:qt. • , s,...: ...... ,.... •.. •. .. .. . ,$.•, ..,,•;-',',..4.!;9444 "/..... ..":7!....•. ..."*$;-...t''''',,;,,:.!... ' is:. ••''',. ;.:4: 41‘.ss.:? ''''.‘. ge.',... '.1'4144-'4 !•••4.‘%.1;:1.', '40.'..V" :t 7, 5';A ''',,r: -,'7,,;..',•;', , -:,;• •;'. *e..,: .-,`‘,.-•••;.'• -",-••=',,,a. c ...t.".•`.'4,04'...4.•-•,47,'..•,:* '4'f,•,-i •,••',.''••• -:,,'..•::'",`I-C,,::;r..•••1.•• ‘41..%••-::,•.0'. ,.;;,,-,:- •.s..4.4,,.4'4,;;,, .4,',. -1! s.:-..,-,; •, ,,, .,r,,,,.; e ', .,... :,••'' • -•-, _ _ 9,Isl,4..Ijr 4' ','rai• %.Z• :.'%,.'..' "r::.•:'" ..•,>'•"1` 4-0,''.• kfrl,c '..,'?••,''il-•-•''r'-.41'"'.A,i ;I% '4`. y II t,-.:,.:,11',""tIIII*.y.I.',.,:'.*+",,!"',';^3',..'1.`I,4.;„..1, .• 4r4.'L.'''.(..;...'4'''I. ,II''',1%.:t ',to,i,7,,,N;;(.. t'INIII,,I.• •;`,,,''';',. .•- I.'', ':4tI:d I.I.‘,*.'1:,:Ii.I,...I2L.Z.,,;.',III,/TIP,i'',.,,,',,`I:if,c,"-':• .' -.', "...,,,,-'-.'-;-,'''. - itY--Vx,',,,': -;,•,,,i%:;'S'S.,-'1'.-:*‘:.)-,•--.`37i . "•,,&4:;`,,,.., ,:', ,'''t"..;J, •;,,•••°••;'• ‘,',:",,'4,-4:1•;‘,...,;;;40i,1,t 11'''l'•:'•'•'.41'1'. ••••':',r.:'-''',--Ir'.'`;:-.i ------.1:;--"' ""* , '' c';,:. , . • -*-1"4°Iit?.11;1';',:":':::11'41'...:,!"..‘t.';6,?..''''`.,`11'5',-''''','''-tti:';',1 j....'?':42:',>:,.':‘, :,,5:g.'s-...g.',.1.r"5. ',1-:''''j• .'. '.,..;1 •1,-..---*•,,, *i_ri::,:-.>-.-:'-::..-',• -'' ..? , , . ,-‘ ,„.,,,_,, lr;,,,, , 1 f„.-.-..,•,.;. i-"'; f.,,,,',.. rko,"-4,..4 to.;,.... ..,,.-I ..2!;*-:',v,-''':441., 't •' ' k,--iii- ....-----''':''';'4;'' "'' ' - ! . A ' ammomme„.„.„1 . ' 1...:1;E:'":. I:,.., ,...r,,,,,,..... ,-. -.4 f' : :'1 f' - •4."4"'',"''•'''' ' - * • . '1 ' • I ..,...,MVO ...... '.4.• ..,. A mo••••„........r V1104,1044100 FIGURE 6 VA 102 . . ., . ., I.. • ' ,,'', •-,,j,''',,,,7,',,,,;,....;;',':1'.... ,•.k.,e."';','.e.:,.',..'''4:‘,:.•,'; I. ,. „:i....: -2,ir..... 1••••••••00 ,11,71= I ,• • -.t.•,1;,',- ...., ri jaaillia74). ..., , ... ',"':'ill.,L.%','''....f. .,• .,r,,t , ''.t.:•: I • , j''',':'f:''',''''':•4:!'.,,::',4';,.'cy,,,..a. ...L. '::,'6„..-v.',,.....,„...."4.,.. ':"..!•5,'';';;•:',VC•k... .....,•, ..'•'',:.1:::j.iit:41'j.,'''•''''c•--,•''''''. .-' '' ' +-' ••'• - •-”'''-'..•• • W...., .c P-+ ..-.,:,..g,„',,,,,,,,,:,,,,.4,...,,,,,,,,,,,,,:,_.-,,.„.. ..;,,,.,,,,;:.:,,,,,,.,,,,..z.,,,,,.,:::-...:Q,,i3.,..y..I.,4,-,.:,•:...-.1...i.f.- ,,,,.i..z,.... Akk_.—.,,,,-....,..,,,,v,,,...,.."..., '''',.•,•4.,4 1,$. .,.4v,31.. ,....,..., •.4, .4.4,,H.,N.4,-.,A.:.. . 7;'.'-,':::4•,,;,'-:-:,.,:',:..,..::',."':'!,.'.•..'.;.1-.:;,i:::",,',,.;,",1,.5,,..z';4i',:.:,.4'2;•:72,Z,:‘.,;',,,.:•1.4-.;,-,1,',•7,1''?,L.";,....k1:.,,',:,.:.::..7,,2',:;;i.:i'r;'.:,,.e•:'',0,'.':;,‘,.,''-1'-:,;!,',:';,'.:',-'24'.7.,,,`..;1:f'.,1..44':z•:...,-.,^'.'„.,,•....C::-.'•'.''.?--.'.,,:.:':",,.,.,.-..'-.;S:%.'";';'::f"::,,.,":,T'•_•-'.'.'W.,-...",F,.2-,.,i'Y7,z.....,i..:..-?..'4';,'7,'2.,14..::v.,..:?..7.-.,•:,3..:;.L-,4.:.,'„7.;.-,,'..•E.,.,z,'._:r.1f,,...,-,-.,.:.,.,...,,..,..--i,,,,,,,7,,.,,:..,';.,,-.:,,0...:,::::-0.•-:f;.4-4_•:,-.,,.5... ,:,,.,.,.V.."%,-,,i•,:','','-e , V,,, 5 I 4MZ ,.0,-,•,,....,,'.,,..',..!,,,':'k,.:?''.,..,.;..'''d•.,;,.2,:::,V:''::•1;:.'‘'",''',,'i,..,'',,,.?•-,.i..-:-.i"..:'-•.,-.::4'',,i-;5''.'.',-:;:':4',j''.•':.'1.',,O''4.',''';.,:"''6.,..,.,:..,,,r1;„':.•:..',.'.'it.;.'''-.'1;•''.: - L — =I---4 '''''',,,•,,..:;:--,.,.. -•"'”-.:,',.4...-..--i-4...7.;•---',.. o`. .I• ti-a-;. 5 - ...., . . ir''-4.. .-:,.. :,'tt. .. ,.....,,.`..!.---, -.;::".'? !1.:,...f.,74 .!,..,i-r;LM-4,-,r...,;;;;:,.(,,7,7";•:7•.--..:.,,-;.!,&1. :R%.,-,,,,....4;m4.!ii----- 7.1-----...1.1----- ----,--i.,- 1 [...,,,,...1-1,?.:.,2,4,..2,A ...T-• K -.`....--.<,;.-:!:'-'....?..,:-;;:'7'-'-t-t.:4./.7-'5.:.1.1.1.--'-ti:-;-:':. :;',';..`‘.,,,V,.---t•-•,.:%i• •j i' ';',. .„-rnY',?.'`',.;;;,?;',,i ,.. .',"Iiii:4,1'':i''''.' :.1,.?;'''',..:,,A7':'74';2'...,„:,, „":„:,';;Aj-;•.'i,'," oo IV-4',',-.;,',',,:5.'-'!'"''','4°,,'',. ','' ,•44::'.4:,:I' -.•.1!....... • . ..,4ii,,, ,... -.117.3 u) ',,T.,-,.. ,:...z...:,"....-.rf•sto.terr'r1,11..Z.4.• -,- .. "•'• ,V,,A,i - ''' ,_ ' !,‘''',:..',..;.•;',.,','-:%.'.:•:'''.•,"..':-*•,,,:)..i.-;,,,,,pi;Q,•,...:••.,,,,,..:„•,,,:-t.,,,_ . 0 ,•••••••.,---,••••,••.,,,,,,s,r:-,,,:.t,•-,.,,,,3•-:,,-:t,„,....,--,-:-.,....,.....,,,•..-.,-,„,..._,,.._ __. .,„. ... ..• •-, ::.::,:,,,,...?•::4,..re.„,..g,,,?..?:,?....,m-,..4- • . -.:0.1,. ;..,,..:.,- , (1) l' .4,4.r•A 4 = ...14.:4.:;: ::;"..'....;•‘.: 1::' ....:;;.......g .. .A.. 3.:.:1;c;:.1.,:j;''.;;,,...,'A!/1,i3(;:::::V; ;;::::;rjr..5Y.,.,:.,;...Ifii.;;,;:?.c.::;,q'i::2::ir',.r!:.: . ''''' '')::...'4''':.".7,1713;A:'..A •••••• fl) ±- . . 1 I-11 FIGURE 7 I ,. ..- '':• ,-',-;-,,'i,'. CD cn§ , t E 2 ' a '7. —'.- ' :''.. . —,.. '-:•1‘.......o.-4,-;. o (j) 3-5,„.,',.?"9,,o r"- ',,.'..,...',V-•',:k,.-;',.:. i s , ,;;;;!;•.' 1 c . .....,. .., . ".• :f':1.''.'',''.Y:::.''ti;!?..•?;::`:.,:,.;:4...•.::..1:.:::4„2•'-1'.,,'?:&''.'.4:',;,.•.,.‘,•.$...j.:-'"'.•:..'''',.,-,''.c.';,i::.,2''..'t:;'..-...di•,•.';':::-,,::',;.'':„,:','-,?',:::.i:;•'',„;•,'';';',,:';:.:',,'4..•',.,.'.:•.:;;'1-!',:•-.',•4;..:•:,:,!,:'-:::.';'.•'.'1.'.`...•.•::•..•1..,•..•%;•'':,4.”..,.'..,.,.,-:'.:..1•,,.......'.:.i...:1,.:..4./•".:.;3,;.y./' *i:'',:.e':,('';..,i,:'„,-!:'')i.'--r,l..i•:.i:l•r.,'•,i,c',V‘i.i',c'',:.'f..:,:•.:.•,'.i...,:'....;.i••!:'.:,•.:,2..'."i'...i;,:.'.,';:.-,.;.•'•..,.'..'-'.':.'1.•..;'.•,1•:'',.•e.'.."','.,i.'..r.'.,.•',ej'..',',q..-...''.1"..•,;.„,.,,1''''.,A..,',,,;;'„,,.s,.,,jA',,,,,.r1.!'j..::,„.',-;:-;..;.:..,.;'t.':.;r.,:i..„,'.-'.:c't•-T:•'•'.'.'.r.'.'j.'".t.•-i.':''.''.':'..i'..',c4...-z.i;',:•,.,•,,1,:,t,,,';Y,'''„';':-','s",'g.,•1..',';'','.,.(,A:.i.,.:l.;$;.''',.`!,.."4...;.•,.0,';:1...;,',.'.4'.,:.14'':•',.".':'i..,i1..4i.•',l.i''i,„4>..'.';.;',,;k'-.,.",j$,.::;,•(.P,.-;,t:i:•?,4;.i.,.e'..Y.,::.''.''..'i.,4t11'il.;;.. ....f.•......:,,'i,..j...?*t.,‘1'c(.;ot:,,';.-.:-.41.'.,''..,.11.4..4f,:3.lq44I-.0i''1:,11..;,.V.....'t4'24'i7''t41;:i.1?....Tof':illYOr. 'i-.i..''.i;,t'."Yf.,6,:r-0'4ir.,.:',r'',0c,,':2;.j,45-.'1',';.'1'..4-'.:$'FL''.1''1,;A'o'!1.".i.2,':-.:,.1:.,,.,'.,,-,'',:'Z''l,"1.,',.,,.,.:,-:1,,1,",,'.,,,I:q?:',z;;,;.;•;,d;'',q.,:;f'•,,.V.,..:::::'4,'1,;.;',)..'',;:,',f,.,!'.,Y1,,;.t.,;4'r,.,;,',..i.J4Al1,;e'-,'lz,ol4';.,",.,'S.'.'..:'.?;,.,0,•!,,,‘,,!t;.;,1:'-L..',,.......:.!:;.f--,,;.7,.„l•:,.',i.;.;,.,,..,.,,1,..,.-,.:''f:.l;.:e.!.','!t--,.!'..2,!.;.".;.",.',i-:i.A/.,:;.,.::1,',.;':...:•,`,':5..,,.;;..,,;;,.::1;:-".:-•;.V.-.:;'::':',,.ffZ;:''.,,,''P,,,,:,.:.•.:....)Y,',..,e.i;....:e':§..'i.,1'.rf•.:..,..:4....'•.'..,:;,;.',.'i:.‘j;:::',.,';%,?:.'..;._:.,;f,:..'..,.=... j.:' „ I I' ; 1PIV ; ' c D 1 1.1 :,,.; e7.'. 4.,.,',.Y......,,.7, ..);,...... t....a.,,:.,. . : 4.q4 1,7...•,:::-....v,-' 1-..,',,',.. .:::.,•:• ,•'.,'•'-'..".-::: c..6.:.;: !.•.••2'4z:4:I eV;;Z:,;0 11;, !.' ' .‘!ki:;.;.% '•!:,,.'-.il'-ic.k: i ,;',t.i..; ••.:' •:.C.3•'.'•-..1: 'ir 'III;:r9F:•••'''''.'4";;;''''''';'%,11''''4'.'.'.......',:',,,..,:,.":::-.,..:-....';:1 .. ''',..f;.,...:.i.',:•.*:.',',,,,,,4 f,,,?p,;,,,•..,f.'kve",“,,H,,,,ke..: .,43.,;:;..,4,,44•,i,A4f t;•' .. ,:,,-,'.',;..'''','...:.V?*”.,.H.1;..: .•.”'.1.Et. ''''''''''''''' a '•:..,.:•Vf:'.-I.-..'!,::;':,;.'.7;?•.;--,.:;-.:.P',.•:';-::•:.'-••-e.-.;4-6f11iii4;ii,!:......:7.-;,V*,4',-5..i.....2'',•,•,.•.•.;''';'•,••'';,....-...::,,•q.::'•!,...•,.';i..'.,..:...1':--.....7.,;.:...,..c.';'•...':...-1..':IiI:..T'ii;.,"L'....''::‘:':T.:;,-,-:'!;.P!.:f••c--_:;':4,-1•7:‘-.',..,.,.,.!;-.•!.,','..:'7,-:.,.-,:'.,•i:42,.'-.61.s.:.'7.-..i'.1e..'7;"A:r::!t•::',-;:'7.--:.'4':-:...f:is.t.R-r.:.-.:;4:—.i.::':f':.;.i.,C::fc.',•-'-';•.:•.:.''$t7.i'..,:,.,...:..S::.',...7(•3,:,'...•Y-;.".,',:..,:',:'.,:•,-:f,.:.•;.••.^:•..:..,:f.';''f,'..:,-v''',..'4.'.'.".'.;•.'1.''3'-..i-'.2i.:'.;..:..1...'4,-".i:,'C.".....W..-.6'.."-7,,-,,,',?'.'z'--,'„•.".L,4..,.-!:_:.t.;:,,.,,::':,t-.,;;._.j;'„'--0,..-,''F?.„.'',:,.i:',.....-.4':1,,;::..i..;,..!-,..,';:•:`.;:'/..,:t.,'';1'..”.,.'!••!,..;."I.-,.?:i,:.,:.'z,.,'::,:.....::•::t,I11.:...,A.:.:.,•-:'.::•:i4r(11,i,,,"::•,:•.-..s,,...'..;•4',-..:,.;':,..•i1:.:.':.,',,'-.:-'':,•..::,:'',..':,.'..:A-•'..,:V';:i.;•:.'(•'.c•8•f,i',i',-.-•.,k.:..,!:.•:.'-,,,.'1'•,•.":;,,:.-..'',-',::...:?.1...:,.;::..,!-,',;,...;:':5••'',.":,.,-.,,-.,iY`..•..'--'.'7a.•:1;_.•).••.'..-.-.,.,i..,'. ,,,..1-;p,s.:",,4:'•-!&).17'.',',.PV,„,,.4i,,,1,,.,.;::.;V:•'.I..-.!.'.....„'''..;.-'t•s....,.,'.,.'.:.:,..::4-.'2.o;`;.4i..•t.”,.'.?..:i.1 ffi; i , , 3V , 2 ,;J;:rf:4.:L:2:.,•;.,4'T;.:1, 1IV ' i " 12 .,f.L5,.',,,....-,%,,:'".:,4O4.'':1t.1..hi.±`....• ec A l f FIGURE 8 - -t-- ., . ,.4.14-:::::'....',:';.'.. .'1...;. ..•EIT t•O• ..........argo,. A •••=i1. .... ...r VISUALIZATION --------.-7.:_ VA1 03 . ) ) ) ' Y r 2 1 • ! I t 0 1 i0 •I i] 11 10 .t t. '. v IP V e .w. ) -- • 0 O O 0 0 O © O c0 0 00 C� ' ..` .. H —7,3"-z---'—'="--,, A_ ++ .. V') --- _r - W I . -•:au.,r.4nx:ia.a�42 r •eu oi tOlaAaFLndsazxcblias, 4sa+",..u^sxan d 1, -I . 1- i. . < <. ; E 1 j-;�; 1-41 - H H 0 k I-H�-.- t« 1 — -— —SL. I m I 4 � "� L� `eo z C C $ € SOUTH ELEVATION Z CO " G1 ....•w.,.. al 2 co 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 00 0 0 0. z w 49. 0 moo.,.. a 7,.,, r w -----.w...,ti•Iw n.+wPR. 0. . MI 0 ".....:..oI H'A 1� f+I( - • __ E _ i" -' ___=-:tl:ltlr•� '.°`. Q . __.... . U ",.- --!a - —.7 . _ '�'�� ?7426 j C _i.. I °"R..• i ':f - ^ter-.._': "Ir''''''m...• c �,_1 L I .1,;'�_ .__—_. •mob ,/ Lg. all :, r L .� '. i •• .. .a.r« waw .w�'.1.0. +w c .... • ..... ..•...........rORTH ELEVATION BULDOo N. ' Al . ,v [L1tVAYpIO ���^� FIGURE 10.5 A302. CITY OF RENTONReceip' t P4 , 0856 'NI 0 O ‘..S' City Clerk Division + iiiR + 1055 South Grady Way :,- Renton,WA 98055 crV IF,--7 -4Nrc0 Date '-' /J i Li i 1 425-430-6510 t , 0 Cash 0 Copy Fee 0 Notary Service Er-Check No. \.(6. 1 _ Dr-Appeal Fee 0 Description: )(_--(___i CcitkiC-) \ Kyt - LL 1:- i - ()ici-,:: -73 -- r \ Funds Received From: -1 , Amount $ C..,. --) ---1 Name ,, - 3i' ---- 1 ).--- Address (261 Li , :--4 -.4,--,, _e_ -,1-:- ,,, 1 ,..., - nd, -- i , . _ City/Zip t ‘„ Cift Staff Signature • Seahawks' Headquarters and Training Facility File No.: LUA-06-073, SA-H, SA-M, SM, ECF December 7, 2006 Page 17 Woodinville, WA 98077 Football Northwest Port Quendall Company 505 Fifth Avenue S., Ste. 900 505 Fifth Avenue S., Ste. 900 Ray Colliver Seattle, WA 98104 Seattle, WA 98104 505 Fifth Avenue S., Ste. 900 Seattle, WA 98104 Michael Cero Thomas Peterson 8300 Avalon Drive Socius Law Group PLLC Thelma Sutherland Mercer Island, WA 98040 Two Union Square 1205 N 29th Street 601 Union Street, Ste. 4950 Renton, WA 98056 Brian T. Sabey Seattle, WA 98101 5021 Ripley Lane N, Ste. 304 Jared Salstrom Renton, WA 98056 5021 Ripley Lane N, Ste. 213 Renton, WA 98056 Steve Jansen Eleanor Maargo Kennamer, President Elya George Baches 5021 Ripley Lane N, Ste. 4 Misty Cove Condo Association 1414 N 34"' Street Renton, WA 98056 5021 Ripley Lane N, Ste. 309 Renton, WA 98056 Renton, WA 98056 Aaron Belenky, President Elaine Wine Williamsburg Condo HOA Steve Gregerson Vulcan 1800 NE 40`h Street, Ste. H-4 5021 Ripley Lane N, Ste. 302 505 Fifth Avenue S, Ste. 900 Renton, WA 98056 Renton, WA 98056 Seattle, WA 98104 Barbara Paxhia Shelly Munkberg Tom Ehrlichman 5021 Ripley Lane N, Ste. 104 SECO Development Socius Law Group Renton, WA 98056 1083 Lake Washington Blvd N., Ste. 50 Two Union Square Renton, WA 98056 601 Union Street, Ste. 4950 Richard Wagner Seattle, WA 98101 Baylis Architects Jeffrey Taraday 10801 Main Street, Ste. 110 Foster Pepper Bellevue, WA 98004 1111 Third Avenue, Ste. 3400 Seattle, WA 98101 TRANSMITTED THIS 7"'day of December 2006 to the following: Mayor Kathy Keolker Stan Engler, Fire Jay Covington, Chief Administrative Officer Larry Meckling, 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 King County Journal 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.,December 21, 2006. 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 ;err 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. CITY OF MENTON • _ ♦ d Planning/BuildingJPublicWorks Department Kathy Keolker,Mayor Gregg Zimmerman P.E.,Administrator TOY 10411110 April 25, 2007 David M. Murphy, Partner CRAWFORD ARCHITECTS LLC 1901 Main Street— Suite 200 Kansas City, MO 64108 Re: Seattle Seahawks Headquarters & Practice Facility, LUA06-073, SA-H, SA-M, SM, ECF — Request for Minor Adjustment to the Site Plan Dear Mr. Murphy I am in receipt of your letter dated April 9, 2007, wherein you request approval of a revision to the approved site plan for the Seahawks Headquarters and Training Facility. As your letter states, a minor adjustment to the approved site plan is proposed, as follows: Maximum Building Height — 115'-0" feet in lieu of 110'-6" feet as noted on Figure 10.6 (Sheet A401) of the Land Use, Shoreline & Master Plan Permit Application — Volume 1. ,41.04 Our understanding is that the requested adjustment is based on refinements to the final structural design and would accommodate a clear inside height dimension of 95 feet as noted in the application. Furthermore, the referenced height is measured to the highest point of the roof deck from the finished floor slab. The City of Renton Hearing Examiner approved the Practice Facility at a height of 111 feet above grade. Renton Municipal Code Section 4-9-2001, allows minor adjustments to an approved site plan, provided: 1. The adjustment does not involve more than a ten percent (10%) increase in area or scale of the development in the approved site plan; or 2. The adjustment does not have a significantly greater impact on the environment and facilities than the approved plan; or 3. The adjustment does not change the boundaries of the originally approved plan. Analysis of Request The site plan modification requested has been compared to the site plan as approved by the City of Renton Hearing Examiner on December 7, 2006. The proposed change in building height from 111 feet, as stated in the "Findings, Conclusions, and Recommendations" section of the Hearing Examiner's decision (numbers 19 and 22) to the proposed modified height of 115 feet would result in an additional 4 feet of building height and approximately 350,064 square feet of building area. 1055 South Grady Way-Renton, Washington 98057 R E N T O N Ln AHEAD OF THE CURVE David M. Murphy April 25, 2007 Page 2 The proposed increase in area would not result in more than a 10 percent increase in area or scale of the development. Although the increased height could impact views from nearby properties, the modification would not have a substantial impact on the environment or facilities. The requested modification would not change the boundaries of the originally approved site plan. The project site is zoned Commercial / Office / Residential. All applicable setback, lot coverage, and landscaping standards would be achieved. The requested modification would not impact the building facades or other architectural features as proposed. Decision Based on the analysis and recommendation of staff, I have determined the proposed revision is within the parameters defined by the Renton Municipal Code. Therefore, the proposed modification of the site pian is deemed to be "minor" and therefore, is approved subject to the following cOndiition: 1. Prior to the issuance of the final building permit for the Seahawks Headquarters and Training Facility, three full size prints and one 8 IA x11 inch contact print of revised building elevations shall bp submitted to the Development Services Division project manager. — This determination will be`final unless a`•written appeal of this administrative determination, accompanied by the requited $ 5;00 filing fee, is filed with the City's Hearing Examiner within 14.days of the date of this decision. If you have any questions,regarding this determination:or the requirements discussed in this letter, please contact Elizabeth Higgins, Senior Plaiiner,'at (425) 430-7382. Sincere , -e ro v Nti I Ulan Neil Watts, Director Development Services Division cc: Parties of Record Jim Levin Lance Lopes Ray Colliver Tom Chiado Elaine Wine Roger Pearce Brian Dickson Jennifer Henning Elizabeth Higgins File • CITY OF RENTON Larry and Esther Barsher 6940 96th Ave. S.E. MAY 0 8 2007 Mercer Island, Washington 98040CITY RECEIVED CLERK'S OFFICE' 206-232-9280....IesharOcorocast.net / 3L)p City Clerk May 8, 2007 City of Renton 10.55 South Grady Way Q/ -tto f>'ectririy EXQa2dncr Renton, WA 98057 App LCCA- 06-073, SA-N, sal, 'CeF Re: Seattle Seahawks Headquarters & Practice Facility, Request for Minor Adjustment We appeal the City of Renton's April 25, 2007 determination decision allowing the Seattle Seahawks Headquarters& Practice Facility, now under construction, to increase the height of the building to 1 15 feet. This decision was based on the determination the request is a minor modification as defined by The City of Renton Code, which we also appeal. An increase of 4 and 1/2 feet in height is not a minor modification. It will make an already imposing (I l 1 foot high by 340 long) large building even more imposing and larger to hundreds of people who view it across the lake on Mercer Island. This increase creates a significantly greater impact on the environment which Code Sec 4-9-2001 does not allow. At the initial examiner's hearing on November 21, 2006 I stated my family did not object to the construction of the facility and thought it would be a very attractive building viewed up close, however the structure will look like an enormous box as viewed from homes only one mile across the lake. We recommended that large evergreen trees reaching the height of at least 100 feetat maturity be planted judiciously in front of the building to mitigate and soften its imposing size. Such landscaping would go a long way to return what use to be a tranquil vista of homes, a modest apartment building (Misty Cove) and a hillside covered with trees. Much to our chagrin the hearing examiner's approval of the project did not include this modest landscape addition. Now the request is for the "enormous box" to get even larger, which we appeal. However we would not object to an approval that included the addition of large evergreen trees reaching to approximately the roof elevation at maturity and planted judiciously close to the building. The trees would mitigate and soften its size and greatly reduce the enlarged Seahawk Facility's environmental impact on those viewing the building from a distance. This landscape requirement should be added as an additional condition to the proposed modification. The change will benefit hundreds of Mercer Islanders now and for generations to come. We contacted neighbors that live near us and they agree with our concern and solution. The attachment is a list with their addresses and phone numbers. CG ' Lc-/ L f ( rre i The Pp required $75 appeal fee is enclosed. /)el I -j-t q 1/063 (� Sincerely, -7- 7 �`' � La /and Esther Barsher `"� Mercer Island Neighbors Agreeing With This Appeal and Mitigating Solution Name Address Phone# Dan &Jody Samson 6952 96th Ave. SE 232-0151 Dwight & Christine Schaeffer 6958 96th Ave. SE 236-2580 Les & Denise Klaff 6915 96th Ave. SE 232-4435 Carl Lindstrom 6910 96 Ave. SE 232-0933 Howard & Sue Robboy 6944 96th AVE SE 236-1162 Steven & Deanna Marshall 6934 96th Ave. SE 425-747-67.55 Hal & Gerry Fardal 6920 96th Ave. SE 232-1936 Dr. Robert and Bee Dietz 7906 E. Mercer Way 230-6989 fir./ 0 CITY OF RENTON e ♦ Hearing Examiner Fred J.Kaufman Kathy Keolker,Mayor Nr-roY *1110 May 10, 2007 Larry and Esther Barsher 6940 96th Ave. SE Mercer Island, WA 98040 Re: Seattle Seahawks Headquarters &Practice Facility Appeal LUA 06-073, SA-H, SA-M, SM, ECF Dear Mr. &Mrs. Barsher: We are in receipt of your Appeal in regards to the above referenced matter. The appeal hearing has been scheduled for Tuesday,May 29, 2007 at 9:00 a.m. The hearing will take place in the Council Chambers on the seventh floor of the Renton City Hall. The address is 1055 S Grady Way in Renton. If this office can provide any further assistance,please address those comments in writing. ed Sincerely, `" VC31r �Y Fred Kaufman hearing Examiner City of Renton FK/nt cc: Larry Warren, City Attorney Neil Watts, Development Services Elizabeth Higgins, Development Services Stacy Tucker, Development Services Roger Pearce, Foster Pepper Law Firm All Parties of Record 1055 South Grady Way-Renton, Washington 98055 -(425)430-6515 RENTON n AHEAD OF THE CURVE �..$ This paper contains 50%recycled material,30%post consumer o CITY OF RENTON CSF; �> ♦ ♦ HearingExaminer — s?)- � Kathy Keolker,Mayor Fred J.Kaufman Or 'NT May 10, 2007 Larry and Esther Barsher 6940 96th Ave. SE Mercer Island, WA 98040 Re: Seattle Seahawks Headquarters&Practice Facility Appeal LUA 06-073, SA-H, SA-M, SM, ECF Dear Mr. & Mrs. Barsher: We are in receipt of your Appeal in regards to the above referenced matter. The appeal hearing has been scheduled for Tuesday,May 29,2007 at 9:00 a.m. The hearing will take place in the Council Chambers on the seventh floor of the Renton City Hall. The address is 1055 S Grady Way in Renton. If this office can provide any further assistance,please address those comments in writing. Niue Sincerely, Fred Kaufman Hearing Examiner City of Renton FK/nt cc: Larry Warren, City Attorney Neil Watts, Development Services Elizabeth Higgins, Development Services Stacy Tucker, Development Services Roger Pearce, Foster Pepper Law Firm All Parties of Record 1055 South Grady Way-Renton, Washington 98055 -(425)430-6515 RENTON AHEM) OF TOE CURVE 62)This paper contains 50%recycled material,30%post consumer ) ) ) . ^,'PL�jd',',4,'1„-t„",4 �}t`Qj< g4, i tp""i,1 t 14'4'?t t � y, r ,i1 Yr�d �,,r",k Pi 1 1'K 1' fit$ '1 i ' 1 q� >rt ,��{ `�°4.+7 siQ qy#if'', "�'. 'Q '''i 41, tt t yd, 4 • + 1 f,t r I 11 �¢ 9 ll� d y . Q 'c'...` ;}S i t 4 A:',4*-, ifM :] { y� r, Knrs t 'is[i+t�l4' Fn �;, tr °if e1,' 'V',,,k4 ,k4S tiltk`,1 rl �� t a i�Q(}, ,�. yk ?f� ,' iyi S 0 o qq ,r,';.,.','d �f 0. 4 0�f i ” i s� '1 '>, .:?»`��� _ Att i 1,00 F�(r eF r't iQ t,�i' ; r ' sY y -H titfi'' "� Ji l,�1,y1e.4, ,14 fir:: �,i .4t�+7 ,'k! • r' 1",t. { rgi'i� k¢ Jolt'l lUiki '1"7 i Q t dA q ,v,I :i '1..: 1, Oft (t,� 1 p , , # R -..,-,,, a , ���� ,t1111."I i �K 1;,:., ,‘, 1 ct,!) „ ..11,',,,,,17:iy r r;, n _ „,„,,,,,,4.,'„,.,,f, >ti „1 1V. ' ii' 'i ,..„,t.,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,•.!3; ;,, i. ` t 1jji ' 2{ 5, i4�^4 9 { d4 �g� ✓ 1 'Gj;�4�� p¢ tq rxE k ` h .qt d.r � ` ai l':',' t�' "i; 1y''1,')'', s ill',.',!:, tt , #';11( 1,1,, �Q 1' ,i 5 Or''1..^,'z'1 C a 'y} �.. t 4 Fr , I,It(Itro:t,,t,,i r q Ir ��t "5. r ; ' t1r rgJ {t1,tb ,',"t",1,•",'",,;',*,{ is t 4, i'V I ttfl , lb f i t.�"S Ktti'” °rot, �'. }} '` ` Eo'r, k ' ,, kj y s 11 u t iJ ,57 ,:,.,,,,',.,,k1.•';. J 1 . 'it t{ �b1 , ) tit�� I�j�� i. ,„ d i r &,,,.,,,,,,,,„;„,,,..4,,„,„,,d45S1'^ ag '',lp",,0„,`,1r J .. i iii r. t �i ,, .111, '"�F;4'11' t r ' f � tt}d a i ..,r " ! rR (Q"m• • a .' - tlj i tai I Q 4t°')'''4 t`fr� •• 1 ,' t,'VIsol�. tfi,.!, �' tit 4N 41:1",':� Q t r 1 i 1k'fi� I t ,d, +A �" w }; r d } 1"4,,',,'T' <" '� +Q s;'1 li i 4 tk+�S7 rt,,, ! ik ;� 1r _ t t3� iil 'ki fir kit 3 ��3,�.�45` + tt{ old `,t !ii ,p. 1 a R" 4 ,,tr k!, fie , #i '`4 o k y 4q 1 `,� v r; ',i'.' ,r , ki;y�k,tlti ��'- k �! t „-,-,,,,,,,,I...,Ejfl r� 1 k � �s ° 4 f t et° r !,, i tyr , ,, , ',p �j '''1;;•,,t• i� � I nk�t{r tp�� i,t � try r �. ,Q "fi��'� j � > - � d ;`�Va 4. t i �A r 1,,r( . 1 11C, , 4' ',,,a k• e r::;,tr ',t i R t�k 1 d"+'` k4 �{t�N ,, a ' ik kl r�. kti rr 1a Mit o r rf,,,,'` t;'"'"k 1 , y "S t1 a [1, �e r-- a 9j” ‘ riel f , 1 t L t �'' g 1'1 ;�f_ "a',ru i=g.g 4 r it rf 'p t g. l d H fl i Q a# I� r s�.a 3 r= a )( 1 }ii �ry�' Sd ttid IS� of 4�i t t,4 .� 'PI'„ 1 ,4 i rI !' g_1a t °11 ., 1, 't 4,.` G lk ! `,;,?I4'''��,ttil k � �ii�fi����sw 1'10, i� 1 t t rt k �� pixy� �� � ° s'''ir 7 tti6t 1 "I Ya ,iy` � 1 ',....,-,0' �� t kt'"rk�.(r 9 1;:ftv,,,,:firif,-,1:4,;:: "� � i rid a� tX ati t, t L tt �,�j`t1�9 , �1Y iy N tl ak 1 d t.r li ttrr i u,1 11. t (d i ..1§ t` '° 1 , 1 1,41+0 ,,t 1°tt Y ' 1;1 t 1 ,Asa 9� t s GP,' �;a i F , �i a/� , 1 fty„ ,�=i =1i1 3E If t a� sh it , tl,. vw , G 4 41, t , t' d, tF�= -, a—,4,114-4 � , �� I , #; � 1t �� d, a, � ° t ° � ITI r, U:�t ti,''1,',',' t , t t :' '' �11,t,,.'1",',„'`'1,, p !{t to , e ,, f�', 'C ,ot , Q ,' •17-4 s nit Tt1f rtio-t • ,1 fi 1 r l x Crit V ',1 ., it�t ' l�G,.• ;S,r i,k S t: +ti�'1'k'('�2S4 , 0,,', l"` �',,t`,.t {4, a, s a., l - x''''t'''',1' ; y I fp s Ka ,4 I , + # i #"rIf: 'iris',.I ,,„:, .. ''', ,,,,.:',7;',.:::', 'il:'A.-,.,:,,,,,:. ..:.'',,iell,':.,,,,,, .1. ',4;1;!;'''.'i,'-i•orilly/ik,':y ii +' ., Pt y� tl ' ..1t.:i 5 dc. } , Al, i r ti --4 11ti1 ii � a G f . rKiri,IFI "� pp t Y,, fill '� - f I r n `,, Iro" v, 'by t. ' 7 ai} * 1 ' .,;%7!!,,,,,*.-* ..,,,"-"'- . ',',":, i•'''',i0,.!,'.,i- ''.' '',il''.'i',''',“,,r-t, 41: `I'''1'''i ', ''''',',lh,'"'V'll {` * ;til ; r r,a 141 ,' 0 ,-t ; Y -F. ," / ,',,Iti1 jj° it`3� J1 _, R y y F11 I' f!,fl i" f !p t y ; :,,,,...:.,.!,...4:::: .i,,,,:,.' � ` ^f '� iN 1 ( it�i4i� k. a ," � r ;" i�; , , u�"� �1,,T,:,.. --x SAN . 4b F I. h y�td f; r sr t �, < y �. 'elk + 'ft' Ia i r ', _4 8 o6 ^w T' . _ `' -,7�v�,�� ; y, G•.;'''''.",.',,'",t'',4 � ^r i � �. " , g �It ' t '17:::-.' G ';. * c•,,,:',,,,,V ,...,-4,1, i ,, , ' • .) :) 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 BEFORE THE HEARING EXAMINER FOR THE CITY OF RENTON 8 LARRY BARSHER and ESTHER BARSHER, 9 Appellants, File No. LUA06-073 10 v. SA-H, SA-M, SM, ECF 11 CITY OF RENTON, and FOOTBALL NORTHWEST LLC, HEARING BRIEF OF FOOTBALL 12 NORTHWEST LLC Respondents. 13 14 I. INTRODUCTION 'wad 15 Respondent Football Northwest LLC ("FNW") requests the Hearing Examiner to dismiss 16 the appeal of Larry Barsher and Esther Barsher (the "Barshers"). The Barshers have appealed 17 the issuance of a minor adjustment to the approved site plan for the Seattle Seahawks Corporate 18 Headquarters and Training Facility. The only issue before the Examiner is whether the minor 19 adjustment criteria in Renton Zoning Code §4-9-200(I) have been met. 20 The only change to the approved site plan is that the Indoor Practice Facility (the "IPF") 21 will be allowed to be several feet higher than described in the City's original site plan approval. 22 Because this minor change to the approved site plan clearly meets the minor adjustment criteria 23 in Renton Zoning Code §4-9-200(I), the Examiner should dismiss the Barshers' appeal. 24 25 26 HEARING BRIEF HNig( -OF FOOTBALL FOSTER PEPPER PLLC NORTHWEST LLC 1 1111 THIRD AVENUE,SUITE 3400 11 SEA"ITLE,WASHINGTON 98101-3299 PHONE(206)447-4400 FAX(206)447-9700 5(1567422 QRftR1AL • i 1 II. FACTUAL BACKGROUND *owe 2 The evidence at the hearing will show the following: 3 The City's environmental review analyzed an IPF structure of up to 120 feet in height 4 above slab, with a 95-foot clear interior space over the indoor practice field. The 95-foot clear 5 interior space is required for the facility to operate in the manner designed for professional 6 football practices. Based on its analysis of that proposal, the City issued a Determination of 7 Nonsignificance ("DNS"). 8 After the issuance of the DNS, the project applicant moved the IPF structure (and other 9 project buildings) approximately 62 feet further back from the shoreline, in order to minimize 10 view impacts to the neighboring condominium owners to the north of the site. In addition, 11 design development for the IPF structure showed that the interior 95-foot clear height could 12 likely be accomplished with an overall building height of approximately 111 feet in height. 13 Those design development drawings were the basis of the drawings and renderings presented to '4 the Examiner at the hearing on the original site plan for the Seahawks Corporate Headquarters 'err►' 15 and Training Facility. Accordingly, the Examiner's site plan approval described the IPF as being 16 "up to 111 feet"1 and "approximately 111 feet tall."2 17 Subsequent to the Hearing Examiner's December 6, 2006, Site Plan Approval, the City 18 and FNW's contractors have been moving toward final design of the IPF. In response to City 19 building code requirements, FNW has made changes to the truss structure of the roof In order to 20 maintain the 95-foot clear interior space for the IPF, this change to the truss structure will require 21 a building height of approximately 113 feet. To be cautious, FNW requested a minor adjustment 22 to allow up to 115 feet in height, although approximately 113 feet is the anticipated height. 23 This minor height variation to the IPF is the only change to the approved site plan. No 24 additional lot coverage is proposed, no expansion of the site plan boundary is proposed, and no 25 26 1 Examiner Site Plan Approval at Finding 19. Examiner Site Plan Approval at Finding 22. HEARING BRIEF OF FOOTBALL FOSTER PEPPER PLLC NORTHWEST LLC - 2 1111 THIRD AVENUE,SUITE 3400 SEATTLE,WASHINGTON 98101-3299 PHONE(206)447-4400 FAX(206)447-9700 50816742 2 •t 1 expansion of any other planned building on the site is proposed. Transportation and parking 2 impacts would be unchanged. Use of public services and utilities would be unchanged. The 3 only impact will be to allow a small increase in the scale of the IPF building. 4 The massing of the IPF itself will increase less than four percent (4%) if the full 115 feet 5 in height were utilized. At the anticipated final IPF height of approximately 113 feet, there 6 would be only a two percent (2%) increase to the scale of the IPF. With respect to the scale of 7 all development approved by the site plan, the total building volume would increase only three 8 percent (3%) if the full 115 feet in height were utilized for the IPF. At the anticipated final IPF 9 height of approximately 113 feet, the overall site massing would only increase by one and one- 10 half percent (11/4 %). 11 III. LEGAL ARGUMENT 12 A. Burden of Proof and Standard of Review on Appeal. 13 The Barshers have the burden of proof to show that the City staff's approval of a minor 14 adjustment was either an error of law or clearly erroneous in view of the entire record. Renton 15 Zoning Code §4-8-1 l0(E)(7)(b). 16 The Examiner is required to give substantial weight to the City staff's decision to allow 17 the minor adjustment to the approved site plan. Renton Zoning Code §4-8-1 10(E)(7)(a). 18 B. The Small Increase to the IPF Height Clearly Meets the City's Minor Adjustment Criteria. 19 The only issue before the Examiner is whether the slight increase in the height of the IPF 20 building (up to four feet) meets the City's criteria for a minor adjustment to an approved site 21 22 plan. The criteria in the Renton Zoning Code are as follows: 23 MINOR ADJUSTMENTS TO AN APPROVED SITE PLAN: 24 Minor modifications may be peimitted by administrative determination. To be considered a minor modification, the amendment must not: 25 1. Involve more than a ten percent(10%) increase in area or scale of the 26 development in the approved site development plan; or HEARING BRIEF OF FOOTBALL FOSTER PEPPER PLLC ' NORTHWEST LLC - 3 1111 THIRD AVENUE,SUITE 3400 SEATTLE,WASHINGTON 98101-3299 PHONE(206)447-4400 FAX(206)447-9700 5 O 6742 2 • R ,a 1 2. Have a significantly greater impact on the environment and facilities than the ‘1"''2 approved plan; or 3 3 Change the boundaries of the originally approved plan. 4 Renton Zoning Code §4-9-200(I). 5 Here, the IPF height increase clearly meets these criteria. 6 First, the ten percent limitation on area or scale of development is met. The area of 7 development is not increased whatsoever. The scale of development is increased slightly—up to 8 three percent (3%) if the full allowed 115 height for the IPF is utilized. While the IPF building is 9 anticipated to be only approximately 113 feet in height, even at 115 feet in height, the increase in 10 scale of development is far below the allowable ten percent in the Renton Zoning Code. 11 Second, there are no new significant environmental impacts. The City's DNS analyzed 12 an IPF building of approximately 120 feet in height and over 60 feet closer to the shoreline. That 13 DNS concluded that a building of that size in that location would not have any significant '4 adverse environmental impacts. The current proposal is for a shorter building (up to 115 feet in "err 15 height) that is further back from the shoreline. In addition, the only change to the approved site 16 plan is the minor height addition to the IPF building. There is no additional impervious surface, 17 no additional grading or earth movement, no additional traffic or parking, no landscaping areas 18 are being eliminated, and no additional use of public services or facilities. The only possible 19 impact would be an aesthetic impact. As shown in the elevations and simulations submitted at 20 the hearing, a four-foot increase in height (up to 115 feet in height) will be barely noticeable. 21 And the actual impact of the City decision will be an even smaller impact, because the likely 22 height will be approximately 113 feet. 23 Third, the boundaries of the original approved plan are unchanged. 24 The Barshers assume that this appeal is an opportunity to reargue the overall size and 25 view impacts of the Seahawks Corporate Campus and Training Facility. That is incorrect. The 26 only issue is whether the minor adjustment criteria in Renton Zoning Code §4-9-200(I) are met. 'herr" HEARING BRIEF OF FOOTBALL FOSTER PEPPER PLLC NORTHWEST LLC - 4 1111 THIRD AVENUE,SUITE 3400 SEATTLE,WASHINGTON 98101-3299 PHONE(206)447-4400 FAX(206)447-9700 50810742 • • 1 Because those criteria are clearly met—especially after giving substantial weight to the City 2 staffs decision to allow the minor adjustment—the Barshers' appeal must be dismissed. 3 RESPECTFULLY SUBMITTED this 29th day of May, 2007. 4 FOSTER PEPPER PLLC 5 174 6a../26 7 Roger Ai' earce, WSBA No. 21113 Attorneys for respondent Football Northwest LLC 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 HEARING BRIEF OF FOOTBALL FOSTER PEPPER PLLC NORTHWEST LLC - 5 1111 THIRD AVENUE,SUITE 3400 SEATTLE,WASHINGTON 98101-3299 PHONE(206)447-4400 FAX(206)447-9700 50816742 2 I► CITY OF RENTON COUNCIL AGENDA BILL AI#: Submitting Data: For Agenda of: Dept/Div/Board.. Community Services July 2, 2007 Staff Contact Leslie Betlach (x-6619) Agenda Status Consent X Subject: Public Hearing.. Gene Coulon Log Boom and Transient Moorage: Correspondence.. CAG-06-168 Ordinance Resolution Old Business Exhibits: New Business Notice of Completion Study Sessions Information Recommended Action: Approvals: Council Concur Legal Dept Finance Dept Other Fiscal Impact: Expenditure Required... $8,493.36 Transfer/Amendment Amount Budgeted $334,281.00 Revenue Generated Total Project Budget $216,491.98 City Share Total Project.. SUMMARY OF ACTION: The project has been completed to meet the specifications of the contract and the City of Renton accepts the project as complete. The project had a total of$115,183.43 in Change Orders: # 1 to locate and secure attached logs from the December windstorm, modify piles and re-fit sleeves; #2 replace south log boom with synthetic logs, new chains and connections; #3 replace steel beam and new utility hangers under deck near Ivar's; and#4 install galvanized swivels in south log boom, relocate additional synthetic logs from the south log boom to the north log boom, and install openings in the north log boom for sale boat access. The total project budget of$216,491.98 included engineering, construction, and bidding. The $8,493.36 is the retainage held until the statutory retention claim time has passed and clearance is received from the State of Washington. STAFF RECOMMENDATION: Accept the project and authorize the release of retainage upon receipt of all required releases. H:\Kim's I Drive\Bill\CIP\Coulon Underwater-Topside Inspection\2007-082mb(Coulon Log Boom and Transient Moorage Agenda BiII).doc ;$E STATEo� State of Washington Reg.No.: o4 Department of Revenue x Audit Procedures&Administration Date: ave y°$ PO Box 47474 .} _ '``t]889''0 Olympia,Washington 98504-7474 NOTICE OF COMPLETION OF PUBLIC WORKS CONTRACT From: DEPARTMENT USE ONLY City of Renton Assigned To Tracy Schuld 1055 South Grady Way Date Assigned Renton,WA 98057 Notice is hereby given relative to the completion of contract or project described below. Description of Contract Coulon Log Boom and Transient Moorage Repair Contractor's Name Richard Phillips Marine, Inc. Telephone No. 503-663-3420 Contractor's Address 33002 SE Ryder Lane,Boring, OR 97009 Date Work Commenced Date Work Completed Date Work Accepted November 17,2006 March 30,2007 "- Surety or Bonding Co. Insurance Co. of the West Agent's Address Lockton Insurance Brokers,Inc. Two Embarcadero, Suite 1700 San Francisco,CA 98411 Contract Amount: $64,000.00 Amount Disbursed: $176,322.08 Additions or Reductions: $105,867.13 Amount Retained: $8,493.36 Sales Tax: $14,948.31 Total: $184,815.44 Total $184,815.44 By (Disbursing Officer) Phone No: 425-430-6918 The Disbursing Officer must complete and mail THREE copies of this notice to the Department of Revenue, Olympia, Washington 98504- 7474,immediately after acceptance of the work done under this contract. NO PAYMENTS SHALL BE MADE FROM RETAINED FUND until receipt of Department's certificate,and then only in accordance with said certificate. FORM REV 31 0020(12-92) DC:CTY31 0020 11/99 bh H:\Kim's I Drive\Bill\CIP\Coulon Park Log boom\2007-081mb(Notice_of Completion Richard Phillips).doc CITY OF RENTON COUNCIL AGENDA BILL AI{/: Submitting Data: Planning/Building/Public Works For Agenda of: July 2, 2007 Dept/Div/Board.. Development Services Division Staff Contact Carrie K. Olson x7235 Agenda Status Consent X Subject: Public Hearing.. Acceptance of additional right-of-way to comply with Correspondence.. City of Renton code for new short plats and the Ordinance Pazooki III Short Plat, LUA05-116-SHPL Resolution Old Business Exhibits: New Business Deed of Dedication Study Sessions Exhibit Map Vicinity Map Information Administrative Report and Decision Recommended Action: Approvals: Council concur Legal Dept X Finance Dept X Other Fiscal Impact: N/A Expenditure Required... Transfer/Amendment Amount Budgeted Revenue Generated Total Project Budget City Share Total Project. SUMMARY OF ACTION: The area to be dedicated is a 15' corner radius, approximately 53 sq.ft, at the corner of Queen Ave NE and NE 12th St. This dedication is to comply with City of Renton code for new short plats and the Pazooki III Short Plat(LUA05-116). Council acceptance of said right-of-way should be completed prior to recording the deed with the short plat. STAFF RECOMMENDATION: Accept the additional right-of-way and authorize the Mayor and City Clerk to sign and record the Deed of Dedication. L\PlanReview\COLSON\Shortplats 2007\Pazooki 3 SHPL 04m AGNBILL.doc Return Address: City Clerk's Office City of Renton 1055 South Grady Way Renton, WA 98055-3232 DEED OF DEDICATION Property Tax Parcel Number: Og2.3059to J Project File II: Street Intersection: NE Itch S%Q- nam (� aye,a+k, Reference Number(s)of Documents assigned or released:Additional reference numbers are on page Grantor(s): C110e A Ppi2001C 1 Grantee(s): I. 1. City of Renton,a Municipal Corporation LEGAL DESCRIPTION: (Abbreviated or full legal must go here. Additional legal on page ) Pt�n NE S-ci123tJ 12,SEIW.M. Si tuoAe, in the C14y ©f 2.9-M-on, 1�tu Goontl,Wo.sM,n1‘,on . • The Grantor,for and in consideration of mutual benefits conveys,quit claims,dedicates and donates to the Grantee(s)as named above,the above described real estate situated in the County of King,State of Washington. This dedication is Nue required as a condition for development of property. IN WITNESS WHEREOF, I have hereunto set my hand and seal the day and year as written below. Approved and Accepted By: Grantor(s):• Grantee(s): City of Renton Mayor City Clerk INDIVIDUAL FORM OF STATE OF WASHINGTON )ss ACKNOWLEDGMENT COUNTY OF KING I certify that I know or have satisfactory evidence that 6 IS izi A T/}z 14 Notary Seal must be within box signed this instrument and acknowledged it to be hip eir free and voluntary act for the uses and purposes •-n.!n-+ in the instrument. Notary Public t State of Washington �' ' �'�' < JANE M. KOENIG Nota ub is in a di'' the State of Wa hi O n My Appointment Expires Dec 17t,1g rin {, n,[(& My app!intment expires: "DVC-0 19, 7t2OFl Afrzrt. 2-7k 2V19'7 DEED DOC - Page I ,4100 Project WO# Exhibit A PID Legal Description GRANTOR: Street: BEGINNING AT THE NORTHEAST CORNER OF THE WEST 67.04 FEET OF THE EAST 134.07 FEET OF THE SOUTH 210.00 FEET OF THE NORTH 240.00 FEET OF THE EAST HALF OF THE EAST HALF OF THE NORTHWEST QUARTER OF THE NORTHEAST QUARTER OF SECTION 9, TOWNSHIP 23 NORTH, RANGE 5 EAST, W.M., RECORDS OF KING COUNTY,WASHINGTON; THENCE N 87°59'56" W 52.04 FEET TO THE TRUE POINT OF BEGINNING; THENCE ALONG A TAN- GENT CURVE TO THE LEFT, HAVE A RADIUS OF 15.00 FEET, AN ARC DIST- ANCE OF 23.03 FEET TO THE WEST LINE OF SAID WEST 67.04 FEET; THENCE N 0°16'09" W 15.00 FEET ALONG SAID WEST LINE TO THE LINE BEARING N 87°59'56" W FROM THE TRUE POINT OF BEGINNING; THENCE S 87°59'56" E 15.00 FEET TO THE POINT OF BEGINNING. ALL SITUATE IN THE CITY OF RENTON,KING COUNTY, WASHINGTON. NIS ��,of ; I ti. 0 , -‘f 41- #.: '' l R 85&6 wogs - 44, 'ALL SITUATE IN THE CITY OF RENTON, KING COUNTY, WASHINGTON' N.E.Noise 12TH ST. S87'59'56" E l�— 67.04 — — — 1 312.74 1 NI OI N O IO M S 8739'58' E 15.00 O I M "--EDGE ASPH. PAVEMENT N 8759'56" W 52.04' / O O P.O.W. -30'- DEDICATION rihO' I AREA=53 S.F. ik 8 mi $ �N4' I m O S P Z m Pc � 0 g -30'- I 8 1 IW 41----------------77717 9'56" E-67.04 is 7 ( ) D o W (v C 3 0 Z ocb o U) � } m I r W CN 1 Q1 $ m MAP NOT TO SCALE 0 < ) J z `� w (le w ' s`' U0 �� REPORT City of Renton '.,, Department of Planning/Building/Public Works DECISION ADMINISTRATIVE SHORT PLAT REPORT& DECISION A. SUMMARY AND PURPOSE OF REQUEST: REPORT DATE: October 25, 2005 Project Name Pazooki 3 Short Plat Owner/Applicant: Gloria Pazooki, 14044 SE 144'h Place, Bellevue, WA 98006 Contact: Ryan Pazooki, 5624 117th Avenue SE, Bellevue, WA 98006 File Number LUA-05-116, SHPL-A Project Manager Jill K. Ding, Associate Planner Project Description Administrative Land Use Action (Short Plat Review) for the subdivision of two existing parcels totaling 18,437 square feet (0.42 acres) zoned Residential — 8 dwelling units per acre into 3 lots. An existing 1,330 square foot single-family residence and detached garage are proposed to be removed. Proposed Lot 1 area would be 5,363 square feet, proposed Lot 2 area would be 5,028 square feet, and proposed Lot 3 area would be 8,045 square feet. Access to the proposed lots would be via new residential driveways onto Queen Avenue NE. Project Location 3613 NE 12th Street illiliF TL lK o a .. .r.nR. ,y 1 w 1%At +-rr Ir'FLA Til \--..):. yy v nr.WI 'F:r1 A Rj I Ili m T .e °„I�1 N.E 414TH ST� y� id mi I r E_ � .. ; ,,. 11112 ISrii�r w _13 01 rfW l KZ J ' � 8 � 15 illr CRrS[RVO/R JI =4 WI , °uil '4141CI .7 ^ 16 4 • "f IU2imm o!A R!IlRVO/R �fLP* • tl I 11 2 Izp,. ,., I.p it i ,� e "� I ' ' -\ ;pill ume t 1 e SSI lil irtia W (� � R "y�S'S � 'r ,r II • . rr � II •rr'T I•�? •�"'r'/• A� [�]�G "��?�4{ old ? A r^x I �:�5. :�}' - . tri 3” � ie i �j yri z ,I • •• ,.ur - A 6R: I f ia� 1 r, ut� ,_..'uc./ I•• , lIr�i•` r{�fw, a _I,r:" i I;ii • 2111r0 nr,A e QWhil \\e 5' gii[i�• ��1 S28 , IRIVAYIrLgi \4100, tiglie. .2! ' EgMliga `d Capri ¢' nl y ;��• , QM W 91�.,J,,a 1�� Q ,rr,ggg,,� l i� Z , � r 1• e - „/L s 7R-- . 4 .. i °f0 . o'.r,. I vi p u 1 ,o, eo 1 Project Location Map Adm,RPT_Pazook,3doc City of Renton P/B/PW Department Administrative Land Use Action REPORT AND DECISION DATED October 25,2005; PROJECT LUA-05-116,SHPL-A Page 2 B. GENERAL INFORMATION: 4114.00 1. Owners of Record: Gloria Pazooki, 14044 SE 144th Place, Bellevue, WA 98006 2. Zoning Designation: Residential—8 du/ac (R-8) 3. Comprehensive Plan Land Use Designation: Residential Single Family(RSF) 4. Existing Site Use: The site has an existing single-family residence and detached garaged proposed to be removed. 5. Neighborhood Characteristics: North: Single Family Residential (R-8 zone) East: Single Family Residential (R-8 zone) South: Single Family Residential (R-8 zone) West: Single Family Residential (R-8 zone) 6. Access: Via single-family residential driveways onto Queen Ave NE 7. Site Area: 18,437 square feet/0.42 acres C. HISTORICAL/BACKGROUND: Action Land Use File No. Ordinance No. Date Comprehensive Plan N/A 5099 11/01/2004 Zoning N/A 5100 11/01/2004 Annexation N/A 1475 03/16/1954 D. PUBLIC SERVICES: 1. Utilities Water: The City of Renton currently supplies water service to this site. There is an 8-inch watermain in NE 12"' Street. Fire Flow available to the site is approximately 2500 gpm. Static water pressure is 56 psi. Sewer: There are no existing sewer mains at this location. Surface Water/Storm Water: This project is within the Lake Washington Drainage basin. 2. Streets: There are no curbs, gutters or sidewalks along the frontage of either NE 12th Street or Queen Ave NE. 3. Fire Protection: City of Renton Fire Department E. APPLICABLE SECTIONS OF THE RENTON MUNICIPAL CODE: 1. Chapter 2 Land Use Districts Section 4-2-020: Purpose and Intent of Zoning Districts Section 4-2-070: Zoning Use Table Section 4-2-110: Residential Development Standards 2. Chapter 4 Property Development Standards Section 4-4-030: Development Guidelines and Regulations 3. Chapter 6 Streets and Utility Standards Section 4-6-060: Street Standards 4. Chapter 7 Subdivision Regulations Nokurr Section 4-7-070: Detailed Procedures for Short Subdivisions Section 4-7-120: Compatibility with Existing Land Use and Plan-General Requirements and Minimum Standards AdminRPT Pazooki 3.doc City of Renton P/B/PW Department Administrative Land Use Action REPORT AND DECISION DATED October 25,2005; PROJECT LUA-05-116,SHPL-A Page 3 Section 4-7-150: Streets-General Requirements and Minimum Standards Section 4-7-170: Residential Lots-General Requirements and Minimum Standards 5. Chapter 9 Procedures and Review Criteria F. APPLICABLE SECTIONS OF THE COMPREHENSIVE PLAN: 1. Land Use Element— Residential Single Family 2. Community Design Element G. DEPARTMENT ANALYSIS: 1. Project Description/Background The applicant, Gloria Pazooki, is proposing to subdivide two existing parcels totaling 0.42-acres (18,437 square feet) in area zoned Residential — 8 dwelling units per acre (R-8) into three lots. The property is located at the southeast intersection of NE 12th Street and Queen Avenue NE. The property currently contains a 1,330 square foot single-family residence and a detached garage, which are proposed to be removed. The required front yard setback is 15 feet for the primary structure and 20 feet for an attached garage. The required rear yard setback is 20 feet. Proposed lot sizes are: Lot 1 at 5,363 sq. ft., Lot 2 at 5,028 sq. ft., and Lot 3 at 8,045 sq. ft. The proposal for the eventual development of three new single-family residences would arrive at a density of 7.1 dwelling units per net acre (du/ac). The allowed density range in the R-8 zone is a minimum of 4.0 to a maximum of 8.0 dwelling units per acre. Access to the proposed lots would be provided via new residential driveways onto Queen Avenue NE. The topography of the subject site is flat. Of the currently existing 12 trees onsite (3 ornamental, 1 evergreen, 4 maple, and 4 fruit) 3 are proposed to remain. 2. Environmental Review Except when located on lands covered by water or sensitive areas, short plats are exempt from SEPA Environmental Review pursuant to WAC 197-11-800(6)(a). 3. Compliance with ERC Conditions N/A 4. Staff Review Comments Representatives from various City departments have reviewed the application materials to identify and address issues raised by the proposed development. These comments are contained in the official file, and the essence of the comments has been incorporated into the appropriate sections of this report and the Departmental Recommendation at the end of the report. 5. Consistency Short Plat Criteria Approval of a plat is based upon several factors. The following short plat criteria have been established to assist decision-makers in the review of the plat: a) Compliance with the Comprehensive Plan Designation The site is designated Residential Single Family (RSF) on the Comprehensive Plan Land Use Map. Lands in the RSF designation are intended to be used for quality residential detached development organized into neighborhoods at urban densities. It is intended that larger subdivision, inf ill development, and rehabilitation of existing housing be carefully designed to enhance and improve the quality of single-family living environments. The proposal is consistent with the following Comprehensive Plan Land Use and Community Design Element policies: Policy LU-147. Net development densities should fall within a range of 4.0 to 8.0 dwelling units per acre in Residential Single Family neighborhoods. The proposed project for three lots would arrive at a net density of 7.1 dwelling units per net acre, which is within the allowable density range. AdminRPT Pazooki 3.doc City of Renton P/B/PW Department Administrative Land Use Action REPORT AND DECISION DATED October 25,2005; PROJECT LUA-05-116,SHPL-A Page 4 Policy LU-148. A minimum lot size of 5,000 square feet should be allowed on in-fill parcels of less than one acre (43,560 sq. ft.) in single-family designations. Allow a reduction on lot size to 4,500 square feet on parcels greater than one acre to create an incentive for aggregation of land. The minimum lot size is not intended to set the standard for density in the designation, but to provide flexibility in subdivision/plat design and facilitate development within the allowed density range. All of the proposed lots equal or exceed the minimum lot size of 5,000 square feet. Policy LU-152. Single-family lot size, lot width, setbacks, and impervious surface should be sufficient to allow private open space, landscaping to provide buffers/privacy without extensive fencing, and sufficient area for maintenance activities. The proposed new lots would meet the required lot size, width, and setbacks to create sufficient front, rear, and side yard areas. Policy LU-154. Interpret development standards to support new plats and infill project designs incorporating street locations, lot configurations, and building envelopes that address privacy and quality of life for existing residents. The proposed lots are rectangular in shape and oriented such that all of the lots would have access to a public right-of-way. Approval of this application would not decrease the quality of life for residents in the immediate vicinity. Policy CD-12. Infill development, defined as new short plats of nine or fewer lots, should be encouraged in order to add variety, updated housing stock, and new vitality to neighborhoods. The proposed short plat would subdivide two existing parcels into three lots. Three new residences would be constructed on the new lots, updating the housing stock in the existing neighborhood. b) Compliance with the Underlying Zoning Designation The subject site is designated Residential —8 Dwelling Units per Acre (R-8) on the City of Renton Zoning Map. The proposed development would allow for the future construction of three new single-family dwelling units with one existing home and detached garage to be removed. The allowed density range in the R-8 zone is a minimum of 4.0 to a maximum of 8.0 dwelling units per acre. Net density is calculated after the deduction of sensitive areas, areas intended for public right-of-way, and private access easements. The property does not contain any sensitive areas or access easements. Based on the proposal for two lots the project would arrive at a net density of 7.1 dwelling units per acre, which is within the allowed density range for the R-8 zone. The allowed building lot coverage in the R-8 zone is 35 percent or 2,500 square feet, whichever is greater for lots over 5,000 square feet in size and lots 5,000 square feet or less are allowed a maximum of 50 percent lot coverage. The lot coverage requirements for the proposed lots would be verified at the time of building permit review. The required setbacks in the R-8 zone are as follows: front yard is 15 feet for the primary structure and 20 feet for an attached garage, side yard is 5 feet, side yard along a street is 15 feet for the primary structure and 20 feet for an attached garage and the rear yard is 20 feet. Based on the proposed subdivision, the proposed lots would have their front yards facing west along Queen Avenue NE. The setbacks for the proposed lots would be verified at the time of building permit review. The parking regulations required that detached or semi-attached dwellings provide a minimum of 2 off-street parking spaces. As proposed, each lot would have adequate area to provide two off- street parking spaces. Compliance with the parking requirements will be verified at the time of building permit review. The R-8 zone permits accessory structures only when associated with a primary structure located on the same parcel. An existing 1,330 sq. ft single-family residence and detached garage are vft,,.. proposed to be removed. Staff recommends as a condition of approval that the applicant obtain a demolition permit and complete all inspections and approvals for all buildings located on the property prior to the recording of the final short plat. AdminRPT Pazooki 3.doc City of Renton P/B/PW Department Administrative Land Use Action REPORT AND DECISION DATED October 25,2005; PROJECT LUA-05-116,SHPL-A Page 5 c) Community Assets The entire site is vegetated primarily with grass and a total of 12 trees (3 ornamental, 1 evergreen, 4 maple, and 4 fruit). Three of the existing trees are proposed to remain. The City's landscaping regulations require the installation of landscaping within the public right-of-way. The minimum amount of landscaping required for sites abutting a non-arterial public street (Queen Avenue NE and NE 12th Street) is 5 feet provided that if there is additional undeveloped right-of-way in excess of 5 feet, this shall also be landscaped. A determination has been made that if no additional area is available within the public right-of-way due to required improvements, the 5-foot landscaped strip may be located within private property abutting the public right-of-way. The landscaping proposed shall either consist of drought resistant vegetation or shall be irrigated appropriately. In addition, the applicant will be required to plant two ornamental trees, a minimum caliper of 1-1/2 inches (deciduous) or 6 — 8 feet in height (conifer), within the 15-foot front yard setback area for the proposed lots. A conceptual landscape plan was submitted with the application. The landscape plan proposes a 5-foot planter strip within the NE 12th Street and Queen Avenue NE rights-of-way. The proposed vegetation within the 5-foot planter strip includes Cercidiphyllum Japonica, Cercis Canadensis, Nandina Woodsii, and Ilex Helleri, which are all drought tolerant plants. Three trees are proposed within the planter strip of Lot 1, and 1 tree each is proposed within the planter strips fronting Lots 2 and 3. The landscaping regulations require that two trees be installed within the planter strip or front yard areas of the proposed lots. Therefore, staff recommends as a condition of approval that the landscape plan be revised to show one additional tree within the front yard area or planter strip of proposed Lots 2 and 3. d) Compliance with Subdivision Regulations Streets: No new public streets would be created as part of the proposed short plat. NE 12th Street is classified as a Collector Street and Queen Avenue NE is classified as a Residential Access Street on the City's Arterial Street Map. There are no curbs, gutters or sidewalks along the frontage of either NE 12th Street or Queen Ave NE. The City's adopted street standards require the installation of half street improvements, including curb, gutter, and sidewalk, along the frontage of the short plat unless deferred. An off-site deferral was granted for the installation of frontage improvements for the subject site on August 3, 2005. A restrictive covenant shall be required to be recorded with the short plat. The proposed short plat is anticipated to generate additional traffic on the City's street system. In order to mitigate transportation impacts, staff recommends a condition of approval be placed on the project requiring a Transportation Mitigation Fee based on $75.00 per net new average daily trip attributed to the project. Two new lots (credit given for the existing residence) are expected to generate approximately 9.57 new average weekday trips per lot. The fee for the proposed short plat is estimated at $1,435.50 ($75.00 x 9.57 trips x 2 lots = $1,435.50) and is payable prior to the recording of the short plat. Blocks:No new blocks will be created as part of the proposed short plat. Lots: The size, shape, orientation, and arrangement of the proposed lots comply with the requirements of the Subdivision Regulations and the development standards of the R-8 zone. Each lot is rectangular in shape. The front yard areas of the proposed lots are oriented to the west along Queen Avenue NE. Each of the proposed lots provides direct access to a public street (Queen Avenue NE). The minimum lot size in the R-8 zone is 5,000 square feet for parcels that total less than 1 acre in area. The proposed lot sizes are 5,363 square feet for Lot 1, 5,028 square feet for Lot 2, and 8,045 square feet for Lot 3, which meet the minimum lot size requirements. The minimum lot width in the R-8 zone is 60 feet for corner lots and 50 feet for interior lots Proposed Lot 1 would be a corner lot with a minimum lot width requirement of 60 feet, Lots 2 and 3 are interior lots and would have a minimum lot width requirement of 50 feet. Proposed Lot 1 has a lot width of 80 feet, Lot 2 has a lot width of 75 feet, and Lot 3 has a lot width of 55 feet. The minimum lot depth in the R-8 zone is 65 feet. Proposed Lots 1 and 2 have a lot depth of 67 feet AdminRPT Pazooki 3.doc City of Renton P/B/PW Department Administrative Land Use Action REPORT AND DECISION DATED October 25,2005; PROJECT LUA-05-116,SHPL-A Page 6 and Lot 3 has a lot depth of 134 feet. The dimensions of the proposed lots meet the minimum width and depth requirements and are compatible with other existing lots in this area under the same R-8 zoning classification. In addition, the lots appear to contain adequate building areas for the construction of suitable single-family residences when taking setbacks and lot coverage requirements into consideration. These requirements will be reviewed at the time of building permit application. e) Reasonableness of Proposed Boundaries Access: Each lot would have direct access to a public right-of-way (Queen Avenue NE) via single- family residential driveways. Topography:The topography of the subject site is flat. Relationship to Existing Uses: The properties surrounding the subject site are single-family residences and are designated Residential — 8 Dwelling Units Per Acre (R-8) on the City's zoning map. The proposal is similar to existing development patterns in the area and is consistent with the Comprehensive Plan and Zoning Code, which encourage residential inf ill development. f) Availability and Impact on Public Services(Timeliness) Police and Fire: Police and Fire Prevention staff indicate that sufficient resources exist to furnish services to the proposed development, subject to the condition that the applicant provide Code required improvements and fees. A Fire Mitigation Fee, based on $488.00 per new single-family lot with credit given for the existing single-family residence, is recommended in order to mitigate the proposal's potential impacts to City emergency services. The fee is estimated at $488.00 ($488.00 x 2 new lots = $976.00) and is payable prior to the recording of the short plat. Schools: According to the Draft Environmental Impact Statement for the City of Renton Land Use Element (January 16, 1992), the City of Renton has a student generation factor of 0.44 students per single-family residential dwelling. Based on the student generation factor, the proposed short 'tome plat would result in one additional student (0.44 X 2 lots = 0.88 rounded up to 1) to the local schools (Honeydew Elementary, McKnight Middle School and Hazen High School). It is anticipated that the Renton School District can accommodate any additional students generated by this proposal. Storm Water. A Technical Information Report prepared by Ali Sadr dated September 20, 2005 was submitted with the application. According to the report, the storm drainage runoff as a result of the project development will increase by 0.046 CFS, which is below the threshold for a stormwater detention and drainage system. The City's Plan Review Section has reviewed the Technical Information Report and determined that the method for drainage control shall comply with the requirements found in the King County 1990 Surface Water Design Manual. System Development Charges shall be paid at the current rate of $715.00 per new single-family lot. The fee is payable prior to the issuance of the utility construction permit. Water and Sanitary Sewer Utilities:There is an existing 8-inch watermain in NE 12`h Street. The required fire flow for single-family residences is 1,000 gpm, and a fire hydrant is required to be located within 300 feet of all single-family residences. Additional fire flow and hydrants are required if the total square footage of the new single-family structures are greater than 3600 square feet. Existing and new hydrants will be required to be retrofitted with Storz "quick disconnect" fittings if not existing. The Renton Fire Department and water engineer will determine the location of a new fire hydrant if required. New water service stubs to each lot must be installed prior to recording of the short plat. A system development charge of $1,525.00 per single-family lot is required and payable at the time of issuance of a utility construction permit with credit given for the existing residence. There are no existing sewer mains at this location. The applicant shall be required to install a sewer main extension to connect the new lots to the sewer system. Short plats shall provide separate side sewers stubs to each building lot. No dual side sewers are allowed. Each new lot 444ray must be served with an individual side sewer at a minimum slope of 2 percent. Sewer stub-outs must be installed prior to the recording of the short plat. A System Development Charge of $900.00 per each new lot is required. This fee is payable at the time of issuance of a utility construction permit with credit given for the existing residence. Prior to recording the short plat, any existing AdminRPT Pazooki 3.doc y City of Renton P/B/PW Department Administrative Land Use Action REPORT AND DECISION DATED October 25,2005; PROJECT LUA-05-116,SHPL-A Page 7 septic systems must be abandoned in accordance with the King County Department of Heal' regulations. H. Findings: Having reviewed the written record in the matter, the City now enters the following: 1. Request: The applicant has requested Administrative Short Plat Approval for the Pazooki 3 Short Plat, File No. LUA-05-116, SHPL-A. 2. Application: The applicant's short plat application complies with the requirements for information for short plat review. The applicant's short plat plan and other project drawings are contained within the official land use file. 3. Comprehensive Plan: The subject proposal is consistent with the Comprehensive Plan designations of the Residential Single Family(RSF) land use designation. 4. Zoning: The proposal as presented complies with the zoning requirements and development standards of the Residential Single Family-8 (R-8) zoning designation, provided all advisory notes and conditions of approval are complied with. 5. Subdivision Regulations: The proposal complies with the requirements established by the City's Subdivision Regulations provided all advisory notes and conditions are complied with. 6. Existing Land Uses: Land uses surrounding the subject site include: North: Residential Single Family (zoned R-8); East: Residential Single Family (zoned R-8); South: Residential Single Family (zoned R-8); and West: Residential Single Family (zoned R-8). 7. Setbacks: The setbacks for future development on the proposed lots would be evaluated based on the standards applicable to lots along streets existing as of March 1, 1995. The front yard setbacks of the proposed lots would face to the west onto Queen Avenue NE. The setbacks for the proposed lot,, would be verified at the time of building permit review. 8. System Development Charges: A Water System Development Charge, a Surface Water System Development Charge and a Sewer System Development Charge, at the current applicable rates, will be required for the each new single-family residence as part of the construction permit. 9. Public Utilities: The applicant will be required to install a sewer main for the proposed as well as individual sewer and water stubs to serve the new lots. In addition, any existing and new fire hydrants must be fitted with 5"quick disconnect Storz fittings. Conclusions: 1. The subject site is located in the Residential Single Family (RSF) comprehensive plan designation and complies with the goals and policies established with this designation. 2. The subject site is located in the Residential — 8 Dwelling Units Per Acre zoning designation and complies with the zoning and development standards established with this designation provided all advisory notes and conditions are complied with. 3. The proposed three lot short plat complies with the subdivision regulations as established by city code and state law provided all advisory notes and conditions are complied with. 4. The proposed three lot short plat complies with the street standards as established by City Code, provided the project complies with all advisory notes and conditions of approval contained herein. J. DECISION: The Pazooki 3 Short Plat, File No. LUA-05-116, SHPL-A, is approved subject to the following conditions: 1. The applicant shall obtain a demolition permit and complete all inspections and approvals for all buildings located on the property prior to the recording of the final short plat. AdminRPT Pazooki 3.doc City of Renton P/B/PW Department Administrative Land Use Action REPORT AND DECISION DATED October 25,2005; PROJECT LUA-05-116,SHPL-A Page 8 2. The landscape plan shall be revised to show one additional tree within the front yard area or planter strip of proposed Lots 2 and 3. 3. The applicant shall pay the required Transportation Mitigation Fee at the rate of $75.00 per net new average daily trip associated with the project. The Transportation Mitigation Fee shall be paid prior to the recording of the short plat. 4. The applicant shall pay a Fire Mitigation Fee based on a rate of $488.00 per new single-family lot with credit given for the existing residence. The fee for this short plat is estimated at$488.00 (1 new single family lot x$488.00=$488.00) and shall be paid prior to the recording of the short plat. DATE OF DECISION ON LAND USE ACTION: SIGNATURES: \('' ''). ) /A. 1 - Gregg A.ZirJ1 rmpr, P/B/PW Administrator decision date TRANSMITTED this 25'h day of October,2005 to the Owners/Applicants: Gloria Pazooki 14044 SE 44th Place Bellevue, WA 98006 _rr' TRANSMITTED this 25`h day of October, 2005 to the Contact: Ryan Pazooki 5624 117th Avenue SE Bellevue, WA 98006 TRANSMITTED this 25Th day of October, 2005 to the Parties of Record: No Parties of Record TRANSMITTED this 25th day of October, 2005 to the following: Larry Meckling, Building Official Stan Engler, Fire Marshal Neil Watts, Development Services Director Jennifer Henning Jan Conklin Carrie Olson Lawrence J.Warren, City Attorney South County Journal Land Use Action Appeals& Requests for Reconsideration The administrative land use decision will become final if the decision is not appealed within 14 days of the effective date of decision. An appeal of the decision must be filed within the 14-day appeal period (RCW 43.21.C.075(3);WAC 197-11-680). RECONSIDERATION. Within 14 days of the effective date of the decision, any party may request that a decision on a short plat be reopened by the Administrator. The Administrator may modify his decision if material evidence not readily discoverable prior to the original decision is found or if he finds there was misrepresentation of fact. After review of the reconsideration request, if the Administrator finds insufficient evidence to amend the original decision,there will be no further extension of the appeal period. Any person wishing to take further action must file a formal appeal within the following appeal timeframe. APPEAL. This administrative land use decision will become final if not appealed in writing to the Hearing Examiner on or before 5:00 PM on November 8, 2005. Appeals to the Examiner are governed by City of Renton Municipal Code Section 4-8-110. Additional information regarding the appeal process may be obtained from the Renton AdminRPT Pazooki 3.doc r City of Renton P/B/PW Department REPORT AND DECISION DATED October 25,2005; PROJECT LUA-05-116,SHPL-A Administrative Land Use Action City Clerk's Office, (425) 430-6510. Appeals must be filed in writing, together with the required$75.00 application fee, to: HeaoP 9 Examiner, City of Renton, 1055 South Grady Way, Renton, WA 98055. EXPIRATION DATE: The Short Plat approval will expire two (2) years from the date of approval. An extension may be requested pursuant to RMC section 4-7-080.M. ADVISORY NOTES TO APPLICANT The following notes are supplemental information provided in conjunction with the administrative land use action. Because these notes are provided as information only, they are not subject to the appeal process for the land use actions. Pla,nnmg 1. RMC section 4-4-030.C.2 limits haul hours between 8:30 am to 3:30 pm, Monday through Friday unless otherwise approved by the Development Services Division. The Development Services Division reserves the right to rescind the approved extended haul hours at any time if complaints are received. 2. Commercial, multi-family, new single family and other nonresidential construction activities shall be restricted to the hours between 7:00 a.m. and 8:00 p.m., Monday through Friday. Work on Saturdays shall be restricted to the hours between 9:00 a.m. and 8:00 p.m. No work shall be permitted on Sundays. 3. The minimum amount of landscaping required for sites abutting a non-arterial public street is 5 feet provided that if there is additional undeveloped right-of-way in excess of 5 feet, this shall also be landscaped. A determination has been made that if no additional area is available within the public right-of-way due to required improvements, the 5- foot landscaped strip may be located within private property abutting the public right-of-way. The landscaping proposed shall either consist of drought resistant vegetation or shall be irrigated appropriately. 4. Two ornamental trees, a minimum caliper of 1-1/2 inches (deciduous) or 6—8 feet in height (conifer), shall be planted or retained within the 15-foot front yard setback area for the proposed lots. Property Services 1. Please see attached comments from Property Services. Fire 1. A fire hydrant with 1,000 GPM fire flow is required within 300 feet of all new single-family structures. If the building square footage exceeds 3,600 sq. ft. in area, the minimum fire flow increases to 1,500 GPM and requires two hydrants within 300 feet of the structures. 2. Street addresses shall be visible from a public street. Plan Review—Storm/Surface Water 1. A Surface Water System Development Charge of $715.00 per single-family lot is payable at the time of issuance of the utility construction permit. Plan Review—Sewer 1. Short plats shall provide separate side sewer stubs to each new building lot. Side sewers are required be installed prior to the recording of the short plat. No dual side sewers are allowed. 2. A Sewer System Development Charge of $900.00 per new building lot is payable at the time of issuance of utility construction permit. Plan Review— Water 1. A Water System Development Charge of $1,525.00 per each new single-family lot is payable at the time of issuance of a construction permit. 2. Water service stubs to each building lot are required to be installed prior to recording of the short plat. Plan Review—General 1. All plans shall conform to the Renton Drafting Standards. 2. A construction permit is required. When plans are complete, three copies of the drawings, two copies of the drainage report, a construction estimate, application and appropriate fees shall be submitted to the 6th floor counter. Nord AdminRPT Pazooki 3.doc CITY OF RENTON PLANNING/BUILDING/PUBLIC WORKS MEMORANDUM DA 1'E: October 10,2005 TO: Jill Ding FROM: Sonja J.Fesser SUBJECT: Pazooki 3 Short Plat,LUA-05-116-SHPL Format and Legal Description Review Bob Mac Onie and I have reviewed the above referenced short plat submittal and have the following comments: Nosy Comments for the Applicant: The interior short plat lot lines should be noted as solid lines, and the bearings for said lines should be shown on the short plat drawing. Is the reference to "THE CITY OF SEA FILE"correct, as noted in the "NO IL"block(lower right-hand corner of preliminary "SHORT PLAT MAP"submittal(Sheet 1 of 6)? Information needed for final short plat approval includes the following: Note the City of Renton land use action number and land record number, LUA-05-116-SHPL and LND-20-0428, respectively, on the short plat drawing,preferably in the upper right-hand corner. The type size used for the land record number should be smaller than that used for the land use action number. The document must be submitted pursuant to RCW 58.09, specifically sheet size at 18"X 24". A licensed surveyor needs to prepare and stamp, sign and date the final short plat submittal. Do not use the City's title block or Seal on the final submittal;the document is not a product of, or for the City. Show two ties to the City of Renton Survey Control Network(tie the subject property to the Survey Control Network). The geometry will be checked by the city when the ties are provided. *low Note the Basis of Bearing. 11-I:\File Sys\LND-Land Subdivision&Surveying Records\LNla-20-Short Plats\0428\RV051010.doc October 14, 2005 Page 2 NINO Provide short plat and lot closure calculations. Include a statement of equipment and procedures used,per WAC 332-130-100. Indicate what has been, or is to be, set at the new corners of the proposed lots. Note discrepancies between bearings and distances of record and those measured or calculated, if any. Remove all references to building setback lines, zoning and density information from the final short plat drawing. Note all easements, agreements and restrictive covenants of record on the short plat drawing. Include references to Rec. No. 3618233 (access property to make repairs and cut brush/trees that are a menace to the electric transmission line)and Rec.No. 3618233 (exceptions and reservations per deed from Northern Pacific Railroad). The city will provide lot addresses as soon as possible. Note the addresses for all three lots on the short plat drawing. The City of Renton Administrator of Planning/Building/Public Works is the only city official who signs the final short plat submittal. Provide an appropriate approval block and signature line. Provide King County approval blocks as needed. All vested owners of the subject short plat property need to sign the final short plat submittal. Include notary blocks as needed. Include a declaration block on the drawing. Note that if there are easements, agreements or restrictive covenants to others(City of Renton, neighboring property owners, etc.) as part of this subdivision,they can be recorded concurrently with the short plat. The short plat drawing and the associated document(s) are to be given to the Project Manager as a package. The short plat document will be recorded first(with King County). The recording number(s)for the associated document(s) (said documents recorded concurrently with, but following the short plat) need to be referenced on the short plat drawing. Fee Review Comments: The Fee Review Sheet for the preliminary short plat review is provided for your use and information. Nomil H:\Tile Sys\LND-Land Subdivision&Surveying Records\LND-20-Short Plats\0428\RV051010.doc\cor • PROPERTY SERVICES FEE REVIEW FOR SUBDIVISIONS No. 2005- 53 APPLICANT: --p,dtiZQpk-) , �L�F�1 4 RECEIVED FROM_ (date) R ADDRESS: "3 - WO# 774 FV9 vissi,PURE OF WORK: 3-Loy ,,Hops-i- (ist.7. 1G1 51-lo X PRELIMINARY REVIEW OF SUBDIVISION BY LONG PLAT, NEED MORE INFORMATION: - LEGAL DESCRIPTION SHORT PLAT, BINDING SITE PLAN, ETC. PID#'s VICINITY MAP FINAL REVIEW OF SUBDIVISION,THIS REVIEW REPLACES - SQUARE FOOTAGE - OTHER PRELIMINARY FEE REVIEW DATED - FRONT FOOTAGE SUBJECT PROPERTY PARENT PID# Oq _q I O7J( NEW KING CO.TAX ACCT.#(s)are required when -4185 assigned by King County. It is the intent of this development fee analysis to put the developer/owner on notice,that the fees quoted below may be applicable to the subject site upon development of the property. All quoted fees are potential charges that may be due and payable at the time the construction permit is issued to install the on-site and off-site improvements(i.e.underground utilities,street improvements,etc.) Triggering mechanisms for the SDC fees will be based on current City ordinances and determined by the applicable Utility Section_ Pleasenote that these fees are subject to change without notice. Final fees will be based on rates in effect at time of Building Permit/Construction Permit application. - The existing house on SP Lot# , addressed as has not previously paid SDC fees,due to connection to City utilities prior to existance of SDC fee Ord_ SP Lot# _will be subject to future SDC fees if triggering mechanisms are touched within current City Ordinances. - We understand that this subdivision is in the preliminary stage and that we will have the opportunity to review it again before recordation. The following quoted fees do NOT include inspection fees, side sewer permits, r/w permit fees or the cost of water meters. SPECIAL ASSESSMENT DISTRICT PARCEL METHOD OF ASSESSMENT ASSESSMENT DISTRICTS NO. NO. ASSESSMENT UNITS OR FEE Latecomer A:reement ( vt) WATER Latecomer A:reement (r vt) WASTEWATER -C) - - Latecomer A:reement (rvt)OTHER -0 Special Assessment District/WATER — -O- — :jai Assessment District/WASTEWATER )�- kf`it Use Agreement(METRO) -- Local Improvement District Traffic Benefit Zones $75.00 PER TRIP, CALCULATED BY TRANSPORTATION FUTURE OBLIGATIONS -- -. SYSTEM DEVELOPMENT CHARGE- WATER -" Estimated #OF UNITS/ SOC FEE Pd Prev_ Partially Pd(Ltd Exemption) - Never I'd SQ. FTG_ Single family residential$1,525/unit x Mobile home dwelling unit$1220/unit in park 2 $ 3,050.00 Apartment, Condo$915/unit not in CD or COR zones x Commercial/Industrial, $0.213/sq. ft. of property (not less than$1,525.00) x Boeing. by Special Agreement/Footprint of Bldg plus IS ft perimeter(2.800 GPM threshold) SYSTEM DEVELOPMENT CHARGE - WASTEWATER .- Estimated — 1 Pd Prey. - Partially Pd(Ltd Exemption) Never Pd Single family residential$900/unit x �3 2,700,00 Mobile home dwelling unit$720/unit x ) Apartment, Condo$540/unit not in CD or COR zones x Commercial/Industrial $0.126/sq. ft_ of property x(not less than$900.00) SYSTEM DEVELOPMENT CHARGE-SURFACEWATER -" Estimated Pd Prey. Partially I'd (Ltd Exemption) Never.Pd Single familt residential and mobile ttorne dwelling unit$715/unit x _ t 1�.43 QO All other properties$0.249/sq ft of new intper%ions area of property x (not less than $715-00) _ l _ PRELIMINARY TOTAL S 7 oot t o _naruir u r :\utli„i it Q , 11- 11_ 1.11""If subject propert} is ttithin an LID, it is de‘elopers responsibilith to checl. vsith the l finance Dept. for paid/un-paid st.ttns (� Square footage figures arc taken from the king Count} Assessor's map and are subject to change- m W Curren( ( it SDC Ice appy to :VETCH\ f: I.iniu.irs I, 20(1C D5 - 4 T23N R5E E 1/2 . / C V c'e 0 --- �• 1. R NE o CA =� — — 12 h C A cv R m NE lth F14ej 6 R-8 R M—F 'NS � El w / '' z NBA- 1 t1k-sPl. R-8 NE 11th .L R-$ 1 NE Le NE 10th 1.I I �R-8 d R-8 CO CO / 00 NE lOtr � I NE 10th Ct. R--g �, pp R-8 R-8 �-- • R-NE Rl; w NE 10th Ln. — 1 R-8 Z R-8 -NE 10th St". \ R 8 _ :0` R-8 ' I ( R-8 NE 9th St. \\ O o ct i NE9Ct w R-8 3 2 R—8 E 1:� c R=8 NE 9th Ct. . o fA) n 0- IR-s� R-8 W CO w NE 8th :Ct. z H ' R-8 NE 8th St: /� �, L - NE 7th St. c� / k-8 : _ NE `7th w \ R-8, -1 rNE' 7 t, R-8 R-8 5TT :� 3 E 6 Ct.J NE 7th Pl. - R=BC R-8 R-8 o NE 6th ",Pi ` NE fi' IL(p) 1 NE 6th z� Pl. _.-' t C � E R-8 R-8 R-8 Z 6 R—1 p ,� I NE 6th It". F--.1 R 8 °° i p 1 1 R-10 J R-10 —8 jd 9 \� R—8 — [R-10] - -_ __ f 1 ! `--� o o •lR-1o1 [R10- d I ,��R-10 CA QJ P R M—F /--7fR=10 - NE 5th S 0 RM-F ,- .,� )) RM—P . c CA CA —II . 4th St. NE 4th St. C A C A . F CA CA R-8 CA . CA `""'io F5 - 16 T23N R5E E 1/2 2 0 . 0 'CY �~ °� ZONING ---- Renton City Limits i:te00 Y � ~ " `' �R� 9 T23N R5E E 1/2 5309 1k I( EF.._.__.____ :; Jt1 ¢ NE 12ThST. R I —� — — s ersp'x67.01-.-[ � / _SH r W ,Fj�� g 216.04 — E BROW GR AZX liA "1 A # — 9 Q Q pp t 1 s er6y'9e'E 17.0e' € 3 N 299p 1 2 foil I ti Y 1 a OP NE�JIM PE ~ g LOT 1 $ 8 NE 12m x I c �' HE e H 5T 8 A F I - Ij V1ClITY MAP za 4...)a 1,5 GRAPHIC SCALE s EM. 1msA rm) Q 0 Doan Fero rapm wham wuNEN, E DORM,SET Row 1Rm LS CM ansa 4 n E LOT 2 • 8 W I. P ma•A•. L vu h ENwM.Rwv¢a Ewx,.R..Rawmf a I.5.15 10.57. h 6r9p'm•w e)Da' IFN 9,31E W M COUNTY a STATE a.A9,W0Tw 117,04. Mm IF. Q TM NaM NIT OF,HE N M a)CO FEET a THE EAST 13wor FEET a,HE 8 i i�[ 44 ro»A"mt°f.v H"aaNTMi R"`s`,�Na"e i.n wN„`Ha,Hu:, [I`'3 LOT 3 a RWc sr.rz a.A9R.O,DH I A 911774:::57114E'''':03:75 $o[�aEs 1014 MFA.16..11 A R- ON aE5 020W Sa13 NE 12TH S g o. li ROC.W 9.0 TOT.SIZE ARG.14437 S fEEVAR0IS THE Ian/5 N RENT, m can*DATNASc-PONT c err. RITMNE,GONGSTMR*Fa A,ENE MN.LOT SM.9000 S h 5799'051•R 13e 1.' SS o-91 SRPIME),a a A CWC%R uwwM, PROP LOT 1 ARU..9mSS Sr IT22 A 0 OJ'ra N)a¢OR,NK,vP a M WOH PROP LOT 2 AREA.NOx.SF b'�L--xO'—� ME 3 PROP LOT J AREA.eo.>e v 1 I NAT c:s No mF,u a ne W,emcnw EELv..1a.FF1 RE, A BS.FRONT TNN.20' CoNT.WT...4 FRT B. Y -S� TNI5 NAP REPRESENTS AN ELECTRONIC DATA TRE DEVELOPED BY AM F CONTINENTAL SURVE HO CO.CONTINENT.HOLDS A WTO CO* MD THAT COIN ME ORIGIN, AMY REPRESENTATION CHANOE TO,HE DAITCOI(NNED M D NE 6� TACONSIDERED UNNJDgW4ED.UN6ES5 REVIEWED BY ME UNOERSAGNED SURVEYOR REFERENCED: ANY REUSE OR ADAPTATIONOF 3415 130 RAT THE USER'S REN.UNLESS REVIEWED BY THE UNDERSIGNED SURVEYOR FYSR SUITABILITY PUT OF BRENTWOOD m VOL 5151,w.Jx,W IaHc INDEX TO SHEETS couHrr,WASHINGTON. ROS.REL.120030e03900011 VOL.100,PG.15.5*, NOTE II IN KING WMT, ASHINCTON. ME 15 nun!MES*la*ON PM SURVEY ARE BASED R.O S REG 9m20pp012 W VOL t tp,PO.213 M ETC.ON INO B1 lRR/11'RECORM.1.LOCATION OF a THE VCITY�OF SUl,IE NINc CWN1f wAVRNc1oN. 1 d 6 SHORT PLAT MAP CITY OF REMTON SNORT PUT pts-m REG.#39111 Rp00)M RR_m, 2 d 6 DEMOLRION TF.SC ALL 0131a UNDERGROUND URLRT LINES TNAT MOM PUN BE PRESENT MD NOT SHOWN.ARE.1010.TO Pc pD.IN NMc COUNTY.rASIRrIcroH. CONTINENTAL SURVEYING co. R.05 RFC.#5303075004 IN VOL px,PC.2'R, 3 d 6 OU�1 AVE NE UTILITY EKTEHSION PLAN He WMT.WARRINGTON Cl/8405- cTTY OF RENTON 4 of 6 NE 12711 ST SEWER EXTENSION PUN a:, EEPLDEP<F+TNIr oF=PLleuo worRK5 5 of ID 6 NOTES ADETAILS Short Pint Map 6 016 WATER E(TE SON DETAILS o ,2 l g mama 21E ,E No 2. s-11.•41 44.4. . - m Q ...Ram .0, - .eer 1 a 6 • g- � _ At�Dslc AP f= pLAN, conc. v�� . Sp4zMbee. 22 2005 , ---------- ----- = r 74‘111100-77- h I ' N . IITN ST, 5 pi_ —sr -,? r;.Z-.7., XxxKX <x , I , i 1 1 ► To 9..,_,..1.1.,L) \ 0111.EJ I. - IE'� s9-6-2-EEU I ► ' : LOTl LE(aRND ._ --_i___ I • KArrsofLN I TCEF '3"' = c nfl1P-xy-Lu Poktzu•\ -- i I a 3 n ■ Rem Bu , 1s-2o' 1 Ivo, ! a (CE2cIS dRV RDEu51!) o- X uRD1D, f{I WoobSii 2'-3' d� - 1___ --.-_- - - - , I 1 ii _ '_ - ______-_ - - -------- - -- i-__-- O�EGo �BR l 1 j-4 47.04 I ,CLLEX 1-VF.uuEe1) 1 ► S'PI-ROTE -STL1a . u) ". .r aam-.we GroWorder Grog. . - -- -- - - - -r - .--- - ------ -- -- -- --- - 7 Cr I • Semi,WA 90168 F 1206i 2.41-28771l r ( W O d ! I I 0 _J a I • I . Lol3 4 cc N O 7 ( ( ( , DEMOLITION / TESC PLAN I I NE.12TH 3T I — s erw'en oxo• ..1-...-.4- — — — EN SS LIM _ :, 216. i Mtn- 9 a ,:,..,,,;,,,,,,:,..,,,-„, ,e'„ � s eren'ee'E\67.-- -17' .' ti ”.u I BE,G.=wDF ... , /'`gyp° \ \\\\ O \\ S: jr, axRNNr u�w 1B-n C d 1 kIi \ »�.,r "GRAPHIC SCALE ,,c;Erx - lam nommimnimumn1 I I Y '.LOT t - '" 8 m in is .F b'�� Ils .20b I 4, I I I.cro eEMO,SE mll 11 • ii K �3.• il► Y�z 111 .,f cf E '' I ✓.rr't�a-..�.cw E-•�w Z o R>,om I 'i 't �a il "rte, tif t II k9° LOT 2 k ' O I 4 le S �r, . .w� - '''''..4:11;',.',� 8 W SISt°,� . ' "4 g arssx M aeon. '" 1121 it -_--- t, •�, `fJ''+rz r > I le a' Q a • - 0 .. R '' 1 Z boy V 0 Its @3 I '' % 8 — I R LOT 3 1 cc 1 4 *i I. .r erss'x'r• I3..u•--=4.-0. T t,. H I 3 MA'4.,-±• r 'Sed.tJ C06TRUCRON A➢LV4 I,SLMEDNI NO ATO EPRE-CONSTRUE.REEING 00 4 COT 001.5 Y' 1 arm A 0004000 POMP FOR EYSINC CARAOE 10 6E RENOMD S PROMS'OPA411t OR.ROE STEEN WRING CCN500CIION. -. . 4.ROM 0000 G0RIIX. i000*4 EROSION CORROL NEhSUR0$ S INSTILL I.*TURES PEA R. ! SITE pSlUmm MIA.0YC moot*BW2 AS KW.006.1U0111'EYn]R511R. PIM AND HYDROS=ILL OeS.NBED MFA S PROTTET ILL M PROPERMS N..,TO ME PROXET FREY SEANEM j u,1 •/...- CITY OF RENTON R.CO...0K(RM..ANO UP(RME M USE...RES WRRO OJt4 V.TON T aT ' OEPAHETRMErF 0P4 PVBLIC WORKS I UNOI TN(RSR M ER..IS EtLA. RSA,SAO, './A�.. Dominion/TESC Man C _6N .E - t ...MO m.m a CITY OF RENTON COUNCIL AGENDA BILL n Al#: �-' 1 q • 441.00 Submitting Data: For Agenda of: Dept/Div/Board.. Finance & IS Department July 2, 2007 Staff Contact Michael E. Bailey Agenda Status Finance/IS Administrator Consent Subject: Public Hearing.. Authorization to purchase maintenance task Correspondence.. management software and contract approval. Ordinance Resolution Old Business Exhibits: New Business Issue Paper Study Sessions Contract Information Recommended Action: Approvals: Legal Dept X Refer to Finance Committee Finance Dept HR X Fiscal Impact: Expenditure Required. $922,352 Transfer/Amendment (44401 Amount Budgeted: $427,900 Revenue Generated Total Project Budget $922,352 City Share Total Project SUMMARY OF ACTION: Staff recommends approval of the purchase and contract execution with Infor for a maintenance task management system in the amount of$494,102. While this exceeds the current project budget amount, the current budget will not be exceeded within the 2007 calendar year. An additional capital budget request in the amount of$494,452 bill be made for 2008. Additionally, staff recommends hiring of an interim project manager in the amount of$150,000 (2007/2008 calendar years). STAFF RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommends approval of the contract and authorization for the Mayor and City Clerk to execute said contract, and approval of an interim project management position for 18 months. Nkre C:\DOCUME-l\BWalton\LOCALS-I\Temp\EMMS agenda bill v2.doc ti` Y O FINANCE AND INFORMATION SERVICES ,; ® •, DEPARTMENT •��Nrro� MEMORANDUM DATE: June 22, 2007 TO: Toni Nelson, Council President Members of the Renton City Council VIA: --34":0_Kathy Keolker, Mayor FROM: Michael E. Bailey, FIS Administrator STAFF CONTACT: David Tibbot, ext. 6874 SUBJECT: Infor Maintenance Task Management Contract Approval ISSUE Should the City of Renton enter into a contract with Infor, Inc. for the Enterprise Maintenance Task Management System Project? RECOMMENDATION ‘o'"'' Staff recommends approval of the contract to acquire and implement and enterprise level maintenance task management system. BACKGROUND Maintenance task management programs began in the PBPW Maintenance Division in 1989. This division is running the same program today, although the vendor is no longer in business nor providing program support. Facilities has made several attempts to implement maintenance task management and is currently using a system put in-place in 1996 and it too is longer vendor supported. Transportation Maintenance/Signal Shop is using a separate program that although currently vendor supported, will be replaced as part of this effort. This program crosses departmental lines and brings a single vendor solution to the enterprise. The major stakeholders in this project are Parks, Facilities, PBPW Maintenance, Transportation Maintenance and long term, we see additional business units within the city using this system. The selected system is asset based, meaning that all items tracked/inventoried will contain location data that will be maintained in coordination with the city's G.I.S. system making disaster recovery and response more efficient. Eight responses to the city's RFP were received and evaluated with costs ranging from $400,000 to $1,000,000. A project committee make up of the stakeholders actively c:\docume—Ithwalton\locals—htemp\gwviewer\emms cound issue paper v2.doc Toni Nelson, Council President Members of the Renton City Council Page 2 of 2 June 11, 2007 participated in the vendor selection process to include site visits to existing customers and customer reference checks. Infor is financially strong and has just announced the acquisition of the number two industry player, Hansen Systems. We have been assured that Infor's Datastream product will remain the company's flagship product. In addition to project contract approval, we are also asking council approval for a limited term position as project manager. This position will work closely with the project consultant, Weston, reside in Information Services, and oversee business process review, program implementation, staff training, data conversions and be responsible for vendor/consultant management throughout the project. Due to the magnitude of this effort, upon successful project completion it is our intent to come back to council and seek conversion of this position to a full-time Business Systems Analyst position to assume administrative responsibilities for this system. Separately, we have asked approval for a contract extension for the project consultant, Weston Solutions. Total project costs are estimated to be $922,352 which includes $199,250 in consultant expenses, $150,000 in project management costs, $494,102 for Infor's consulting, support and software licensing costs, and a contingency of$79,000. $427,900 has been approved in the CIP for this project. An addition CIP request of$494,452 will be made through the 2008 budget process. Cc: Jay Covington,CAO Mary Wine,Assistant to the CAO George McBride, Information Services c:\docume—I\bwalton\locals—I\temp\gwviewer\emms council issue paper v2.doc • GENERAL CONTRACT PROVISIONS FOR THE CITY OF RENTON (to become the core of the contract with the successful proposer) The City of Renton, Washington, a municipal corporation (hereinafter the "CITY") and InFor Global Solutions (Greenville) Inc, whose address is 50 Datastream Plaza, Greenville, South Carolina 29605, (hereinafter the "CONTRACTOR"), agree and contract as follows: AGREEMENT The Agreement shall consist of the following documents: The purchase order; invitation to bid; the general conditions; the "Acknowledgment"; the proposal specifications; the proposal response; the technical conditions; written changes of any of the foregoing documents and the specific implementation and payment schedule. The Agreement documents are complementary and what is called for in any one document shall be binding as if called for by all. II. EXECUTION AND INTENT A. Agreements, notices and changes requiring the signature of the CITY shall not be binding upon the CITY unless signed by the Officer or Employee of the CITY who has been designated to administer the contract. III. WORK BY CONTRACTOR A. The CONTRACTOR agrees to perform the specific work described in Attachment A to this Agreement, which attachment is incorporated herein by reference. Said work shall more generally include all labor, materials and equipment necessary to furnish and deliver/install, train and support the purchased products and services as required by the contract. The work shall further include the delivery to the CITY of the equipment or other personal property as specified in the Agreement and also includes all construction, manufacturing, installation, programming and modification activities required to be accomplished in order to meet the technical specifications of the Agreement. B. All services, and all duties incidental or necessary thereto, shall be conducted and perfoinied diligently and completely and in accordance with professional standards of conduct and performance. C. The CONTRACTOR shall independently warrant for a minimum of 12 months all hardware accessories, software, installation, and support activities and/or assume responsibility as warranty contract agent for the warranting company as to warranties provided by the manufacturer and the CONTRACTOR's sub-contractors. The CONTRACTOR warrants that the items and services furnished will conform to its description and any applicable specifications shall be of good merchantable quality and fit the known purpose for which it has been sold to the CITY. D. The CONTRACTOR shall correct, in a complete and timely manner, all hardware and software defects for which the vendor is responsible. The time period required for said corrections shall be determined by the CITY and the CONTRACTOR. IV. CHANGES IN THE WORK AND TIME A The CITY may order changes consisting of additions, deletions, or modifications in the work, the contract amount and time for completion being adjusted accordingly. All such changes in the work must be authorized by a written change order signed by the City Manager and the CONTRACTOR. B. If the CONTRACTOR is delayed at any time in the progress of the work by changes ordered in the work, labor disputes, fire, unusual transportation delays, and unavoidable casualties which are beyond the CONTRACTOR's control, then the CONTRACTOR shall advise the CITY in writing of the delay and reason. Such notice shall be given within ten (10) days of the commencement of such delay. The CITY shall extend the time for completion but only to the extent that the delay is actually caused by any of the foregoing reasons. Norm V. THE CITY A. The CITY shall have the authority to inquire as to the status of the project to familiarize itself with the progress and quality of the work. The CONTRACTOR shall submit status reports according to a mutually agreeable schedule noting progress of work per negotiated work schedules, milestones attained, problems encountered and corrective actions taken. The vendor shall attend project status meetings based on a mutually agreeable schedule during the course of the Agreement period. B. The CITY shall have the authority to require any corrections in the work which are necessary to obtain conformance with the requirements of the Agreement. C. The CITY shall have the right to stop work whenever such stoppage may be necessary to obtain work which conforms with the Agreement requirements. VI. COMPENSATION A. The total compensation to be paid to CONTRACTOR for these services Nowshall not exceed $873,102, as detailed in Attachments E. The above fees include all labor, materials and expenses required for the completion of these services. B. Payment to CONTRACTOR by the CITY in accordance with the payment ceiling specified above shall be the total compensation for all work perfoinied under this Agreement and supporting documents hereto as well as all subcontractors' fees and expenses, supervision, labor, supplies, materials, equipment, services or the use thereof, reimbursable expenses, and other necessary incidentals. C. The CONTRACTOR shall be paid in accordance with the acceptance and payment schedule set forth in Attachment E. D. The CITY shall have the right to withhold payment to CONTRACTOR for any work not completed in a satisfactory manner until such time as CONTRACTOR modifies such work to the satisfaction of the CITY. E. Unless otherwise specified in this Agreement, any payment shall be considered timely if a warrant is mailed or is available within 30 days of the date of actual receipt by the CITY of an invoice conforming in all respects to the terms of this Agreement. VII. TERMINATION OF AGREEMENT The CITY reserves the right to terminate or suspend this Agreement at any time, with or without cause, by giving ten (10) days notice to CONTRACTOR in writing. CONTRACTOR shall be entitled to receive just and equitable compensation for any satisfactory work completed on the project prior to the date of suspension or termination, not to exceed the payment ceiling set forth above. VIII. LATE PERFORMANCE AND LIQUIDATED DAMAGES In the event of delay in CONTRACTOR's performance, the CITY shall issue a first notice after 10 days delay, and a second notice after 20 days delay. In the event of a delay of 30 days or more, and in addition to and not in limitation of any other rights or remedies of the CITY, the CONTRACTOR shall pay to the CITY the sum of$1000.00 for each and every calendar day of such delay beyond 90 days, as agreed liquidated damages. IX. LIABILITY INSURANCE COVERAGE CONTRACTOR will, at CONTRACTOR's sole expense, obtain and maintain during the life of this contract, policies of comprehensive general liability *my insurance and professional liability insurance, each with combined single limits of not less than $1,000,000 per occurrence and placed with an insurer having no . less than a Best's rating of A VII and authorized to do business in the State of Washington. Certificate(s) issued by the insurance carriers for said policies showing such insurance to be in force shall be filed with the CITY not less than ten (10) days following signing of this Agreement. Any policy of required insurance written on a claims-made basis shall provide coverage as to all claims arising out of the services performed under the contract and filed within three (3) years following completion of the services so to be performed. A failure to obtain and maintain such insurance or to file said certificates shall be a material breach of this Agreement. X. COMMENCEMENT AND COMPLETION OF WORK A. Work shall commence within five (5) working days after the Agreement has been signed. B. The CONTRACTOR shall complete installation of hardware and software within sixty (60) calendar days after commencement of work. The application software must be installed and operating within ninety (90) days after commencement of work. Training must begin within two (2) weeks after application software is installed. Nod XI. SUCCESSORS AND ASSIGNS The CONTRACTOR shall not assign, transfer, convey, pledge, or otherwise dispose of this Agreement or any part of this Agreement without prior written consent of the CITY. XIII. NONDISCRIMINATION The CONTRACTOR shall, in all hiring or employment made possible or resulting from this Agreement, take affirmative action to ensure that there shall be no unlawful discrimination against any employee or applicant for employment because of sex, race, age, color, creed, national origin, marital status or the presence of any sensory, mental or physical handicap, unless based upon a bonafide occupational qualification, and this requirement shall apply to but not be limited to the following: employment, advertising, layoff or termination, rates of pay or other forms of compensation and selection for training, including apprenticeship. No person shall be denied or subjected to discrimination in receipt of the benefit of any services or activities made possible by or resulting from this Agreement on the grounds of sex, race, color, creed, national origin, age except minimum age and retirement provisions, marital status, or the presence of any sensory, mental or physical handicap. `err+' XIV. HOLD HARMLESS/INDEMNIFICATION The CONTRACTOR agrees to indemnify, defend, and save harmless the CITY and its officers, agents, and employees, from any claim, real or imaginary, filed against the CITY or its officers, agents, or employees, alleging damage or injury arising out of the subject matter of this Agreement; provided, however, that such provision shall not apply to the extent that damage or injury results from the fault of the CITY or its officers, agents, or employees. "Fault" as herein used shall have the same meaning as set forth in RCW 4.22.015. It is understood that the indemnification provided herein constitutes the consultants waiver of immunity under industrial insuracne, Title 51 RCW, solely for the purposes of this indemnification. This waiver has been mutually negotiated by the parties and shall survive the expiration or termination of this agreement. XV. COMPLIANCE WITH LAWS The CONTRACTOR shall comply with all applicable State, Federal and C1TY laws, ordinances, regulations, and codes. *rrp XVI. GOVERNING LAW The governing law of this contract shall be the laws of the City of Renton and the laws of the State of Washington, including applicable rules and regulations thereof. XVII. FUTURE SUPPORT The CITY makes no commitment and assumes no obligations for the support of CONTRACTOR activities except as set forth in this Agreement. XVIII. INDEPENDENT CONTRACTOR CONTRACTOR is and shall be at all times during the term of this Agreement an independent contractor and not an employee of the CITY. CONTRACTOR agrees that it is solely responsible for the payment of taxes applicable to the services performed under this Agreement and agrees to comply with all federal, state, and local laws regarding the reporting of taxes, maintenance of insurance and records, and all other requirements and obligations imposed on him as a result of his status as an independent contractor. The CONTRACTOR is responsible for providing the office space and clerical support necessary for the performance of services under this Agreement. The CITY shall not be responsible for withholding or otherwise deducting federal income tax or social security or for contributing to the state industrial insurance or unemployment 01 compensation programs or otherwise assuming the duties of an employer with `'" respect to the CONTRACTOR, or any employee of contractor. XVIV EXTENT OF AGREEMENT/MODIFICATION This Agreement, together with all attachments and addenda, as outlined in Section 1, represents the entire and integrated Agreement between the parties hereto and supersedes all prior negotiations, representations or agreements, either written or oral. This Agreement may be amended, modified or added to only by written instrument properly signed by both parties hereto. SIGNED ON , 2007 By: By: InFor Global Solutions (Greenville), Inc. City of Renton 50 Datastream Plaza, 1055 S. Grady Way Greenville, South Carolina 29605 Renton, WA 98057 By: By - Name, Title Date Kathy Keolker, Mayor Date Attest: Bonnie I. Walton, City Clerk Date Approved as to Form: By: Lawrence J. Warren, City Attorney Date Attachment A CII NJ tJ t~? SERVICES WORK ORDER This Services Work Order ("Work Order") is subject to all terms and conditions of the Software Services Agreement between Infor and The City of Renton (The City)with an Effective Date of June 22, 2007 (the"Services Agreement"). All terms of the Services Agreement are incorporated herein by this reference. Capitalized terms not defined in this Work Order are defined in the Services Agreement. In the event of a conflict, the terms of this Work Order control over the terms of the Services Agreement. Licensee: City of Renton,WA Effective date of this Work Order: July 9,2007 (the"Work Order Date"). Work Order Number: RENTON-01 Prepared By: Weston Solutions, Inc. Approved By: Project i Renton,WA- EMMS Name: Objective: j Team with the City of Renton and Weston Solutions, Inc.to perform Phase 1 implementation of Datastream 7i in Facilities and Transportation Maintenance workgroups. Provide on-call technical support for two subsequent implementation phases: Phase 2—Parks; and Phase 3—Maintenance Services. Work to be performed in accordance with attached implementation plan(to be refined as one of the initial tasks within i the project scope). Project Scope During Phase 1 (base implementation and rollout for Facilities and Transportation Maintenance), Infor will • Lead the design tasks Install software • perform custom programming services Business rules - Payroll interface - Citizen Request web service customization • Train the core team and end users • Provide Application Consultant technical support for the following tasks: I - Configuring base software and key performance indicators - GIS configuration, data migration, and testing - Test script development and testing - SOP and final configuration documentation I - Change management During Phases 2 and 3, Infor will provide on-call technical support Project Deliverables 1 1. Draft and final implementation plan, including refined software services work order and MS Project file 2. Draft and final business process review documentation 3. Key performance indicator criteria definition I 4. Documentation of Renton's configuration of Datastream 7i system 5. Installation of licensed products per software order I 6. Core team training 7. Payroll interface Assistance 8. Call Center/Requestor training(Citizen Requests Web-Service) 9. End user training ! Project Assum tions I 1. Implementation services will be based on Datastream 7i. Upgrade to Version 8i will be independent of implementation and will not require repetition of any implementation activities- 2. During Phase 1,Weston will: Nowa'I • Support the design tasks • Perform configuration services Services Work Order Custom Dev(US&UK 01 June 2006) Page 1 of 5 • Support training • Perform data migrationil • • Develop initial reports • Participate in configuration/procedural testing and final documentation • Support end-user training and change management 3. lnfor and Weston will collaborate on implementation in accordance with the approved plan and at the ultimate ' direction and project management of the City of Renton. 4. ESRI's ArcGIS 9.2 will be the GIS software integration target throughout Phase 1 of implementation. Upgrade to i 9.3 will be tested on the Phase 1 system prior to configuring GIS in Phases 2 and 3. I 5. The costs and durations contained in the proposal are estimates based on preliminary discussions with The City personnel. Prior to firm pricing being established, Infor will require a formal onsite project scope development session with The City. Upon agreement on final scope and cost, a detailed Implementation Services Document I (ISD)and Project Gantt Chart will be created.The ISD will represent the Services Agreement between The City and 1 Infor. 6. The discounted daily rate for lnfor EAM Professional Services personnel is as follows: ': I • Project Manager: $212.50/Hour • Technical Consultant: $190.00/Hour • Application Consultant: $190.00/Hour 7. The work performed in support of the implementation will be billed on a time and material basis. Meaning, if opportunities do surface for Infor to accelerate the implementation process because certain tasks do not take as long as originally estimated,then we will move ahead with the subsequent tasks as we are able and the project will be delivered in less time and at less cost than was originally estimated. Should circumstances arise that may cause ' the project tasks to take longer than anticipated or that cause previously unforeseen tasks to be required,The City I will be consulted with before any out of scope work is executed. 8. The Core Project Team will be comprised of personnel from all functions to ensure that the system configuration and to-be system processes meet the needs of the entire organization. 1 9. No specific dates have been agreed upon for this implementation. Specific dates will be designated by the Infor and The City Project team once the scope is confirmed. 10. All work is estimated based on an eight-hour workday for both on-site and off-site tasks. Once the project begins, I an alternate work schedule can be made with the approval of the Infor EAM Project Manager if a customer so desires. For example, some customers prefer to work four 10-hour days instead of a normal schedule. Requests for a unique work schedule such as this will need to be approved by the Infor Project Manager. ;i 11. Travel estimates for Infor personnel are included in this proposal. The City of Renton may request additional on- site services with Infor's Project Manager if desired. 12. An Infor Project Manager will be engaged during the implementation of this project and involved up until the Project Closeout. Costs for Project Management services are calculated at 25% of the total services cost(before Project Management costs are included) , 13. Please note: these estimates do not include the costs for the delivery of any Integration of Datastream-7i with any I third party applications. Further detail would be required in order to estimate this scope of work. 14. Reports Writing Training and Assistance is based on Datastream-7i Advanced Reporting with Cognos Reportnet. It • is the customer's responsibility to have appropriate Author licenses prior to training. This is a train the trainer approach in which 3-5 reports will be defined and based on difficulty will be developed on site with the customer's assistance. This will allow the customer to continue developing ad-hoc reports after Infor's participation has ended. I 15. Module configuration in this implementation includes Administration (Security), Equipment, Materials, Purchasing, I PM's&Work Management, GIS, Inspections, Mobile, & Cognos Advanced Reporting. 16. Modules not included in this implementation are Projects, Calibrations, Risk Based Inspections,Web-Services, Databridge, VMRS Codes& Fleet Management. 17. Infor will consult with The City of Renton prior to utilizing any contingency budget for additional services. i - ' itProject Exclusions I i 1. Datastream software version upgrades will not be implemented as part of this scope of services 2. Datastream 7i v7.10 SQL Server platform Hosted by Infor 3. Datastream 7i Bar-code 4. Projects 5. Calibrations 'I j 6. Inspections 7. 21 CFR 11 I 8. VMRS Fleet Management 9. Advanced configuration services(Flex SQL,API configuration, custom reporting, and customization) 10. Data Conversion 11. Databridge XML integration to[System Name] 12. Analytics Services 13. Datastream 7i Forms Implementation Services ., 406.1 i Infor Responsibilities - --- Services Work Order Custom Dev(US&UK 01 June 2006) Page 2 of 5 1. Perform work within hours estimated within the implementation plan. 2. Obtain City's approval for modifications to the task-level allocation of Infor hours by position. I 3. Notify City of schedule and technical issues in a timely manner. 4. Provide a written monthly report on Infor activities by task,submitted with Infor's monthly invoice. 5. Communicate weekly with the City's Project Manager regarding project status. i Licensee Responsibilities 1. Provide Infor personnel with system administrator level access to servers as necessary for software installation, I testing, configuration, and configuration/procedural testing. 2. Provide Infor personnel with remote access to servers for programming, loading, testing, and assist with the design/ modifying of business rules and payroll interface within the allotted project plan and current Scope of work. . 3. Notify Infor's Project Manager of schedule and technical issues in a timely manner. , 4. The City Information Technology Resources will be available to assist with the implementation for the duration of the project. 5. A dedicated The City Project Manager will be assigned to the project to work collaboratively with the Infor project team. 6. The City will have proper hardware and infrastructure in place before installation task. A failure of on-site task readiness on the part of The City that impacts the completion of Infor activities could cause delays in the overall project duration. Services Fee Estimates (not-to-exceed) Resource/Activity/Task __II Estimated Person-Hours Person-Hour Rate(US$) 11 Estimated Fee(US$) On-Site Implementation and Education lI person-hours $ /person-hour II $ Solution Desi n/Architecture I person-hours I $ /person-hour I I $ Product Education–On Site I r person-hours $ /person-hour II $ Travel Costs($1,750.00 average onsite engagement) Jr On-Site Expenses On-Site Expenses I r $26,250 00 Application Consultation _Ir 432 person-hours $190.00/person-hour p ]r $82,080 00 Technical Consultation 112 person-hours $206.25/person-hour I I $23,100 00 Project Management II 136 person-hours $212 50/person-hour H $28.900 000-1 II II Total(Services+Expenses) IF 680 person-hours I I $160,330.00 Nilleme Infor has no obligation whatsoever to provide support services for the deliverables set forth above (the "Deliverables"), unless and until such time that: (i) Infor incorporates such Deliverables into the generally-available version of the Licensed Software (which incorporation decision shall be at Infor's sole discretion); and further provided that (ii) Licensee continues to obtain and pay for support services from Infer pursuant to the Agreement for the Licensed Software. Estimated days and costs listed in this Work Order represent an estimate only. Actual project time and cost may vary from the estimates provided. Where a substantial variation from this Work Order is foreseen, both parties must agree to the additional work and additional work orders will be issued prior to the commencement of those services. All services are provided on a time and material basis and are billed on a monthly basis. Billing and payment are not dependent or conditioned on delivery of deliverables contemplated herein or any other deliverables. Travel time to and from Licensee's site will be billed at one-half the normal rate. LICENSEE LOCATIONS: Please specify the complete names and addresses (including zip code) of Licensee's sites at which the Services will be rendered. If additional space is needed, please attach a separate sheet. Renton City Hall 1055 South Grady Way Renton,WA 98055 "%we Services Work Order Custom Dev(US&UK 01 June 2006) Page 3 of 5 PAYMENT: Infor will invoice Licensee for all services and applicable charges on a monthly basis, as Infor renders the services or Licensee incurs the charges, as applicable. Licensee will pay each Infor invoice within thirty(30)days of the date of invoice. IN WITNESS WHEREOF,the parties have set their respective hands and seals below. INFOR GLOBAL SOLUTIONS(Greenville),INC. LICENSEE: City of Renton,Washington (formerly known as Datastream Systems,Inc) Signature. Signature: Printed Name: Printed Name: Title: Title: Address: Address: Address: Address: Signature Date: Signature Date: Licensee Contact Information: Contact Person: Contact Person Address: Contact Person Phone Number: Contact Person Fax Number *411110 Services Work Order Custom Dev(US&UK 01 June 2006) Page 4 of 5 Appendix A- Milestone Billing Schedule, Base Implementation Task City of Renton Datastream EAM Implementation Resource Duration/ Unit Cost/ Extended Expenses # Tasks Hours Hour Cost Estimate *am" 1.00' Define , 1.01 Implementation Scope Document Development Project Manager 32 $212.50 $6,800.00 $1,750.00 1.02 Kickoff/Alignment Meeting Project Manager 8 $212.50 $1,700.00 Offsite Define Subtotal 40 $8,500.00 $1,750.00 2.00 Design .., _ . 2.01 Product Installation(Oracle) Technical Consultant 32 $210.00 $6,600.00 $1,750.00 2.02 Business Process Review(Phase I) 2.03 Transportation Maintenance Application Consultant 16 $190.00 $3,040.00 $1,750.00 2.04 Facilities Application Consultant 16 $190.00 $3,040.00 2.05 BPR Documentation/System Planning Application Consultant 32 $190.00 $6,080.00 Offsite 2.06 Key Performance Indicators Criteria Definition Application Consultant 24 $190.00 $4,560.00 $1,750.00 2.07 Core Team Training(Train the Trainers) Application Consultant 40 $190.00 $7,600.00 $1,750.00 2.08 >Inspections Training Application Consultant 16 $190.00 $3,040.00 $1,750.00 2.09 >Mobile Planning/Training Application Consultant 24 $190.00 $4,560.00 2.10 GIS Asset Planning Weston Solutions 16 n/a n/a n/a 2.11 Document 7i System Configuration Application Consultant 32 $190.00 $6,080.00 Offsite Design Subtotal 248 $44,600.00 $8,750.00 3.00 Develop . , 3 01 Key Performance Indicators Configuration Assistance Application Consultant 32 $190.00 $6,080.00 Offsite 3.02 Initial Configuration(TRN) Application Consultant 24 $190.00 $4,560.00 $1,750.00 3.03 GIS Configuration Weston Solutions 16 n/a n/a n/a 3.04 API(Data Upload Utility)Training Application Consultant 40 $190.00 $7,600.00 $1,750.00 3.05 **Manual Data Population(System Codes) City of Renton (64) $0.00 $0.00 Offsite 3.06 **Test Script Development City of Renton (64) $0.00 $0.00 Offsite 3.07 GIS Data Migration&Synchronization Weston Solutions 32 n/a n/a n/a 3.08 GIS Testing Weston Solutions 16 n/a n/a n/a 3.09 Reporting Training(Cognos Report-Net) Application Consultant 40 $190.00 $7,600.00 $1,750.00 3.10 **Payroll System Technical Services Assistance Technical Consultant 80 $206.25 $16,500.00 $1,750.00 3.11 **In for Technical Services team will provide support to City of Renton/Weston Solutions with the Payroll Data Extraction requirements. Develop Subtotal 280 $42,340.00 $7,000.00 4.00 Implement . 4.01 End User Training Application Consultant 32 $190.00 $6,080.00 $1,750.00 4.02 GIS Training Weston Solutions 24 n/a n/a n/a 4.03 7i Startup Assistance Application Consultant 32 $190.00 $6,080.00 $1,750.00 Implement Subtotal 88 $12,160.00 $3,500.00 5.00 Project Management Services 5.01 Project Management Milestone#1(40%) Project Manager 40 $212.50 $8,500.00 $1,750.00 5.02 Project Management Milestone#2(40%) Project Manager 32 $212.50 $6,800.00 Offsite 5.03 Project Management Milestone#3(20%) Project Manager 24 $212.50 $5,100 00 $1,750.00 Project Management Services Subtotal 96 $20,400.00 $3,500.00 6.00 Phase 2&3 implementation Services 6.01 Phases 2 and 3,Infor to provide on-call support Application Consultant 32 $190.00 $6,080.00 $1,750.00 Post Phase 1 Implementation Services Subtotal 32 $6,080.00 $1,750.00 Project Subtotals: 680 $134,080.00 $26,250.00 7.00 Contingency Budget Requirements 7.01 Contingency Services Budget(20%) Application Consultant^ 7.02 Application Consulting Services Application Consultant^ 120 $190.00 $22,800.00 7.03 Project Management Services Project Manager^ 24 $190.00 $5,100.00 Contingency Budget Subtotal: 144 $27,900.00 $0.00 Project Totals(Services,Expenses&Contingency) 824 $188,230.00 lilaIr/ Services Work Order Custom Dev(US&UK 01 June 2006) Page 5 of 5 AbT fV CINi © R) P:SCJII _?a«f—t:�iY SOFTWARE LICENSE AGREEMENT NS AGREEMENT NUMBER: THIS SOFTWARE LICENSE AGREEMENT (the "Agreement") is made between Infor Global Solutions (Greenville), Inc., (formerly Datastream Systems, Inc.) a wholly owned affiliate within the Infor Global Solutions Group, ("Infor") and ("Licensee")as of the Effective Date. The parties agree as follows: 1.Definitions. (g) "Discloser" means the party providing Confidential Information hereunder. (a) "Baseline" means the most recent general release version of a Component System as updated to the (h) "Documentation" means the then-current Infor- particular time in question through both Infor's warranty provided operating and technical documentation relating to services and Infor's maintenance program(as described in the features, functions and operation of the Baseline the Maintenance Agreement), but without any other Licensed Software. modification whatsoever. (i) "Documented Defect" means a material deviation (b) "Component System" means any one of the between the Baseline Component System and its computer software programs which is identified in the Documentation, for which Documented Defect Licensee applicable Order Form as a Component System, including has given Infor enough information for Infor to replicate the all copies of Source Code(if licensed),Object Code and all deviation on a computer configuration which is both related specifications, documentation, technical substantially similar to the Equipment and is under Infor's information, the Documentation, and all corrections, control. modifications, additions, improvements, enhancements to, and new applications developed from or through the use of (j) "Effective Date" means the date identified on the such software programs, and all Intellectual Property signature page of this Agreement as the Effective Date. Rights for such software program. (k) "Equipment" means the hardware and systems (c) "Confidential Information" means non-public software configuration on which Infor supports use of the information of a party to this Agreement. Confidential Licensed Software. Information of Infor includes, as between the parties, the Licensed Software, all software provided with the Licensed (I) "Intellectual Property Rights" means all patents, Software, and algorithms, methods, techniques and patent rights, patent applications, copyrights, copyright processes revealed by the Source Code of the Licensed registrations, trade secrets, trademarks and service marks Software and any software provided with the Licensed (including, where applicable, all derivative works of the Software. Confidential Information does not include foregoing)and Confidential Information. information that: (i) is or becomes known to the public without fault or breach of the Recipient; (ii) the Discloser (m) "Licensed Software" means the Component regularly discloses to third parties without restriction on Systems listed in all Order Forms between the parties. disclosure; or (iii) the Recipient obtains from a third party without restriction on disclosure and without breach of a (n) "Licensee Employees" means: (i) Licensee's non-disclosure obligation. employees with a need to know; and (ii) third party consultants engaged by Licensee who have a need to (d) "Delivery Address" means the Licensee shipping know, who have been pre-approved in writing by Infor, and address set forth in the applicable Order Form as the who, prior to obtaining access to the Licensed Software, Delivery Address. have executed an Infor-approved non-disclosure agreement. (e) "Delivery" and "Deliver" mean, for each Component System, the earliest of(a) the date that Infor (o) "Maintenance Agreement" means the Software places the Component System with a shipping agent, Maintenance & Support Agreement entered into between F.O.B. Shipping Point, for shipment to the Delivery the parties on or about the Effective Date. Address or such other address Licensee specifies, (b)the date Infor provides Licensee electronic access to the (p) "Marketing Associate" means a third party entity Component System by, for example, providing Licensee a specified on an Order Form which has an agreement with URL, where the Component System is available for Infor authorizing such third party to market the Licensed immediate electronic download along with access codes Software and related services, maintenance and support to permitting download and access to the Component Licensee. System, and (c) the date that Licensee actually receives the Component System. (q) "Object Code" means computer programs assembled, compiled, or converted to magnetic or (f) "Delivery Date" means the date upon which electronic binary form on software media, which are Delivery has occurred. readable and usable by computer equipment. Software License Agreement(US 01 June 2006) Page 1 of 5 (r) "Order Form" means each order form (including all and conditions of this Agreement, Infor grants Licensee a Software Supplements) between the parties incorporating perpetual, non-exclusive, non-transferable license (without the terms of this Agreement and the Maintenance the right to sublease or sublicense)to use and copy for use Agreement which set forth the Component Systems, user the Derivative Works created by Licensee or created by numbers, and associated fees,among other terms. Infor at Licensee's request and payment, for Licensee's own, internal computing operations. Upon Infor's request, (s) "Order Form Date"means the date identified on the Licensee will provide Infor with a copy (including all applicable Order Form as the Order Form Date. documentation related thereto) of all Derivative Works created by Licensee and will execute and deliver to Infor (t) "Recipient" means the party receiving Confidential any documents reasonably necessary to vest in Infor all Information hereunder. right,title and interest therein. (u) "Software Supplement" means, with respect to a (b)Object Code. Licensee has right to use the Licensed Component System, the addendum attached to the Software in Object Code form. Licensee also has the right applicable Order Form that contains additional terms, to use the Licensed Software in Object Code form conditions, limitations and/or other information pertaining to temporarily on another Infor-supported configuration, for that Component System. If any terms of a Software disaster recovery of Licensee's computer operations. Supplement conflicts with any other terms of this Agreement or the applicable Order Form, the terms of the (c) Documentation. Except as otherwise provided in the Software Supplement will control. applicable Software Supplement, Licensee may make a reasonable number of copies of the Documentation for (v) "Source Code" means computer programs written each Component System for its use in accordance with the in higher-level programming languages, sometimes terms of this Agreement. accompanied by English language comments and other programmer documentation. (d) Restrictions on Use of the Licensed Software. Except to the extent contrary to applicable law, Licensee is 2. Right to Grant License and Ownership. Infor has prohibited from causing or permitting the reverse the right to grant Licensee this license to use the Licensed engineering, disassembly or de-compilation of the Software. Infor either owns all right,title and interest to, or Licensed Software. Licensee is prohibited from using the has the right to license,the Licensed Software. Licensed Software to provide service bureau data processing services or to otherwise provide data 3. License. Subject to the terms and conditions of this processing services to third parties. Licensee will not allow Agreement (including without limitation, early termination), the Licensed Software to be used by, or disclose all or any Infor grants Licensee a perpetual, non-exclusive, non- part of the Licensed Software to, any person except transferable license (without the right to sublease or Licensee Employees. Without limiting the foregoing, sublicense)to use and copy for use the Licensed Software Licensee may allow third party consultants of Licensee to on the Equipment for Licensee's own, internal computing access the screen displays only of the Licensed Software solely for data input and retrieval purposes on a strict operations. The computer readable media containing Source Code and Object Code for the Licensed Software "need to know" basis, and such use shall not be deemed a may also contain Source Code and Object Code for non-permitted disclosure of the Licensed Software. Component Systems for which Licensee is not granted a Licensee acknowledges and agrees that U.S. export control laws and other applicable export and import laws license for use. Licensee may not make any use of any Source Code and/or Object Code for any such Component govern its use of the Licensed Software and Licensee will neither export or re-export, directly or indirectly, the Systems for which Licensee is not expressly obtaining a license for use under this Agreement. Any rights not Licensed Software, nor any direct product thereof in violation of such laws, or use the Licensed Software for expressly granted in this Agreement are expressly reserved. any purpose prohibited by such laws. (a) Source Code. If the applicable Order Form does not (e) Intellectual Property Rights Notices. Licensee is provide that Licensee has a license to use Source Code for prohibited from removing or altering any of the Intellectual a particular Component System, then Licensee has no Property Rights notice(s) embedded in or that Infor license to use, or any other rights in or to the Source Code otherwise provides with the Licensed Software. Licensee for that Component System. Only with respect to the must reproduce the unaltered Intellectual Property Rights Component Systems for which the Source Code is so notice(s) in any full or partial copies that Licensee makes licensed, Licensee has the right to compile, modify, of the Licensed Software. improve and enhance the Licensed Software. Licensee (f) Notice. To use any of the Licensed Software, will not disclose all or any part of the Source Code for the Licensee may also need to obtain,install on the Equipment Licensed Software to any person except Licensee and maintain Infor-supported versions of certain software Employees who, before obtaining access to the Source products, database Code, have been informed by Licensee in writing of the p softwareproducts and certain non-disclosure obligations imposed on both Licensee and software/hardware peripherals. By this notice, Infor is such Licensee Employees under this Agreement. Infor will advising Licensee that Licensee should consult with Infor own all right, title and interest to all derivative works of the to obtain a written listing of such necessary software Licensed Software, even if solely created by Licensee products, database software products and ("Derivative Works"). Licensee hereby assigns to Infor software/hardware peripherals_ bsolutely all of its rights, title and interest in and to any 4. Delivery. Except as otherwise provided derivative Works created by the Licensee together with all applicable Order Form, Infor will DeliverBaseline Intellectual Property Rights therein. Subject to the terms Software License Agreement(US 01 June 2006) Page 2 of 5 Licensed Software on the Delivery Date which shall not be later than thirty(30)days following the Order Form Date. (c) Disclaimer of Warranty. The limited warranties in this Section 6 are made to Licensee exclusively and are in lieu 5. Payment and Taxes. of all other warranties. INFOR MAKES NO OTHER WARRANTIES WHATSOEVER, EXPRESS OR IMPLIEDovid (a) Payment. Licensee will pay Infor all license fees WITH REGARD TO THE LICENSED SOFTWARE, IN within fifteen (15)days of the date of invoice. Licensee will WHOLE OR IN PART, OR ANY OTHER MATTER UNDER also reimburse Infor for actual travel and living expenses if THIS AGREEMENT. INFOR EXPLICITLY DISCLAIMS Infor is required to travel under this Agreement, with ALL WARRANTIES OF NON-INFRINGEMENT, reimbursement to be on an as-incurred basis. Licensee MERCHANTABILITY AND OF FITNESS FOR A will also reimburse Infor for all charges incurred in PARTICULAR PURPOSE. INFOR EXPRESSLY DOES connection with accessing Equipment, if any. Licensee will NOT WARRANT THAT THE LICENSED SOFTWARE, IN pay each Infor invoice within fifteen(15)days of the date of WHOLE OR IN PART, WILL BE ERROR FREE, WILL invoice. Late payments are subject to a late charge equal OPERATE WITHOUT INTERRUPTION, WILL BE to the lesser of: (i) one and one-half percent (1'/z%) per COMPATIBLE WITH ANY HARDWARE OR SOFTWARE month;and(ii)the highest rate permitted by applicable law. OTHER THAN THE EQUIPMENT, OR WILL MEET (b) Taxes. Licensee is responsible for paying all taxes LICENSEE'S REQUIREMENTS. (except for taxes based on Infor's net income or capital stock) relating to this Agreement, the Licensed Software, (d) Abrogation of Limited Warranty. The limited any services provided and payments made under this warranties in this Section 6 will be null and void to the Agreement. Applicable tax amounts (if any) are NOT extent that a Documented Defect is caused by: (i) anyone included in the fees set forth in this Agreement and any (including Licensee) other than Infor modifying the Order Form. Infor will invoice Licensee for applicable tax Baseline Component System; or (ii) Licensee not amounts and such invoices are due upon Licensee's implementing changes that Infor provides to correct or receipt thereof. improve the Baseline Component System. 6. Limited Warranty, Disclaimer of Warranty and (e) FAILURE OF ESSENTIAL PURPOSE. THE Election of Remedies. PARTIES HAVE AGREED THAT THE LIMITATIONS SPECIFIED IN SECTIONS 6 AND 15 WILL SURVIVE (a) Limited Software Warranty by Infor and Remedy For AND APPLY EVEN IF ANY LIMITED REMEDY Breach. Infor warrants to Licensee that, during the SPECIFIED IN THIS AGREEMENT IS FOUND TO HAVE Warranty Period, each Baseline Component System, as FAILED OF ITS ESSENTIAL PURPOSE, AND used by Licensee on the Equipment for its own internal REGARDLESS OF WHETHER LICENSEE HAS computing operations, will operate without Documented ACCEPTED ANY LICENSED SOFTWARE OR SERVICE lad Defects. "Warranty Period" means the period beginning on UNDER THIS AGREEMENT. the Order Form Date of the Order Form in which Licensee first licensed the applicable Baseline Component System (f) HIGH RISK ACTIVITIES. THE LICENSED and ending on the ninety(90)day anniversary thereof. For SOFTWARE IS NOT FAULT-TOLERANT AND IS NOT each Documented Defect, Infor, as soon as reasonably DESIGNED, MANUFACTURED OR INTENDED FOR USE practicable and at its own expense, will provide Licensee AS ON-LINE CONTROL EQUIPMENT IN HAZARDOUS with an avoidance procedure for, or a correction of the ENVIRONMENTS REQUIRING FAIL-SAFE Documented Defect. If despite its reasonable efforts, Infor PERFORMANCE, SUCH AS IN THE OPERATION OF is unable to provide Licensee with an avoidance procedure NUCLEAR FACILITIES, AIRCRAFT NAVIGATION OR for, or a correction of a Documented Defect, then, subject AIRCRAFT COMMUNICATION SYSTEMS, MASS to the limitations set forth in Section 15 of this Agreement, Licensee may pursue its remedy at law to recover direct TRANSIT, AIR TRAFFIC CONTROL, DIRECT LIFE damages resulting from the breach of this limited warranty. SUPPORT MACHINES, OR WEAPONS SYSTEMS, IN These remedies are exclusive and are in lieu of all other WHICH THE FAILURE OF THE LICENSED SOFTWARE remedies, and Infor's sole obligations for breach of this COULD LEAD DIRECTLY TO DEATH, PERSONAL limited warranty are contained in this Section 6(a). INJURY, OR SEVERE PHYSICAL OR ENVIRONMENTAL DAMAGE ("HIGH RISK ACTIVITIES"). ACCORDINGLY, (b) Limited Media Warranty. Infor warrants to Licensee INFOR DISCLAIMS ANY EXPRESS OR IMPLIED that the media containing the Baseline Licensed Software WARRANTY OF FITNESS FOR HIGH RISK ACTIVITIES. that Infor first delivers to Licensee will be free from material LICENSEE AGREES THAT INFOR SHALL NOT BE defects such that the Baseline Licensed Software shall be LIABLE FOR ANY CLAIMS OR DAMAGES ARISING accessible by the Equipment. Upon notice from Licensee FROM OR RELATED TO THE USE OF THE LICENSED that the media contains a material defect rendering the SOFTWARE IN SUCH APPLICATIONS. Baseline Licensed Software inaccessible by the Equipment, Infor will promptly deliver to Licensee 7. Confidential Information. Except as otherwise replacement media containing the Baseline Licensed permitted under this Agreement, the Recipient will not Software that is accessible by the Equipment or, in Infor's knowingly disclose to anythird a sole discretion, use commercially reasonable efforts to g y party, or make any use of make the Licensed Software electronically available for the Discloser's Confidential Information. The Recipient will download by Licensee. These remedies are exclusive and use at least the same standard of care to maintain the in lieu of all other remedies, and Infor s sole obligations for confidentiality of the Discloser's Confidential Information breach of this limited warranty are contained in this Section that it uses to maintain the confidentiality of its own 6(b). Confidential Information, but in no event less than reasonable care. Except in connection with the Licensed Software License Agreement(US 01 June 2006) Page 3 of 5 • Software and any software provided with the Licensed breaching party, the non-breaching party has the right to Software, the non-disclosure and non-use obligations of terminate upon written notice this Agreement(including all this Agreement will remain in full force with respect to each Order Forms hereunder) at any time while an event or item of Confidential Information for a period of ten (10) condition giving rise to the right of termination exists. years after Recipient's receipt of that item. However, However, notice to Infor of a suspected Documented Licensee's obligations to maintain both the Licensed Defect will not constitute a notice of termination of this Software and any software provided with the Licensed Agreement. Software as confidential will survive in perpetuity. (b) Effect of Termination. Upon termination of this 8. Indemnity by Infor. lnfor will defend, indemnify and Agreement by either party,Licensee will discontinue further hold Licensee harmless from and against any loss, cost use of the Licensed Software, and will promptly return to and expense that Licensee incurs because of a claim that Infor or (at Infor's request) will destroy all copies of the use of a Baseline Component System infringes any Licensed Software, and will certify to Infor in writing, over copyright of others. Infor's obligations under this the signature of a duly authorized representative of indemnification are expressly conditioned on the following: Licensee, that it has done so. Termination of this (i) Licensee must promptly notify Infor of any such claim; Agreement will not relieve either party from making (ii) Licensee must in writing grant Infor sole control of the payments which may be owing to the other party under the defense of any such claim and of all negotiations for its terms of this Agreement. settlement or compromise (if Licensee chooses to represent its own interests in any such action, Licensee (c) Survival of Obligations. All obligations relating to may do so at its own expense, but such representation non-use and non-disclosure of Confidential Information, must not prejudice Infor's right to control the defense of the indemnity, limitation of liability,and such other terms which claim and negotiate its settlement or compromise); (iii) by their nature survive termination, will survive termination Licensee must cooperate with Infor to facilitate the of this Agreement. settlement or defense of the claim; (iv)the claim must not arise from modifications or (with the express exception of (d) Termination Without Prejudice to Other Rights and the other Component Systems and third party hardware Remedies. Termination of this Agreement will be without and software specified by Infor in writing as necessary for prejudice to the terminating party's other rights and use with the Licensed Software) from the use or remedies pursuant to this Agreement. combination of products provided by Infor with items provided by Licensee or others. If any Component System 10. Notices. All notices and other communications is, or in Infor's opinion is likely to become, the subject of a required or permitted under this Agreement must be in copyright infringement claim, then Infor, at its sole option writing and will be deemed given when: delivered and expense,will either:(A)obtain for Licensee the right to personally; sent by registered or certified mail, return continue using the Component System under the terms of receipt requested; transmitted by facsimile confirmed by this Agreement; (B) replace the Component System with first class mail; or sent by overnight courier. Notices must 1410.'products that are substantially equivalent in function, or be sent to a party at its address shown on the signature modify the Component System so that it becomes non- page of this Agreement,or to such other place as the party infringing and substantially equivalent in function; or (C) may subsequently designate for its receipt of notices in refund to Licensee the portion of the license fee paid to accordance with this Section. Licensee must promptly Infor for the Component System(s) giving rise to the send copies of any notice of material breach and/or infringement claim, less a charge for use by Licensee termination of the Agreement to lnfor, Attention: General based on straight line depreciation assuming a useful life Counsel, 13560 Moms Road, Suite 4100, Alpharetta, GA of five (5) years, provided that Licensee has returned or 30004, USA, FAX number 678-319-8949, or to such other destroyed and discontinued its use of such Component place as Infor may subsequently designate for its receipt of System. THE FOREGOING SETS FORTH INFOR'S notices. EXCLUSIVE OBLIGATION AND LIABILITY WITH RESPECT TO INFRINGEMENT OF INTELLECTUAL 11. Force Majeure. Neither party will be liable to the PROPERTY RIGHTS. other for any failure or delay in performance under this Agreement due to circumstances beyond its reasonable 9. Term and Termination. control, including Acts of God, acts of war, terrorist acts, accident, labor disruption, acts, omissions and defaults of (a) Right of Termination. A party has the right to third parties and official, governmental and judicial action terminate this Agreement (including all Order Forms not the fault of the party failing or delaying in performance, hereunder) if the other party breaches a material provision or the threat of any of the foregoing. of this Agreement or such Order Form. To terminate this Agreement and all Order Forms hereunder), the party 12. Assignment. Licensee may not assign or otherwise seeking termination must give the other party notice that transfer any of its rights or obligations under this describes the event or condition of termination in Agreement, and any attempt at such assignment will be reasonable detail. From the date of its receipt of that void without the prior written consent of Infor. For notice, the other party will have thirty(30)days to cure the purposes of this Agreement, "assignment" shall include breach to the reasonable satisfaction of the party desiring use of the Licensed Software for benefit of any third party termination. If the event or condition giving rise to the right to a merger, acquisition and/or other consolidation by, with of termination is not cured within that period, the party or of Licensee, including any new or surviving entity that desiring termination can terminate this Agreement upon results from such merger, acquisition and/or other vritten notice to the other party. Notwithstanding the consolidation. '414wforegoing, to the extent a material breach of this Agreement cannot be cured through efforts of the Software License Agreement(US 01 June 2006) Page 4 of 5 13. No Waiver. A party's failure to enforce its rights 16. Compliance With Laws. Licensee will comply with with respect to any single or continuing breach of this all laws, rules and regulations applicable to the use of the Agreement will not act as a waiver of the right of that party Licensed Software. to later enforce any such rights or to enforce any other or any subsequent breach. 17. Audit Rights. Infor may audit the records of Noid Licensee to ensure compliance with the terms of this 14. Choice of Law; Severability. This Agreement will Agreement and each applicable Order Form(s). Infor will be governed by and construed under the laws of the State notify Licensee in writing at least ten (10) business days of New York, as applicable to agreements executed and prior to any such audit. Any such audit will be conducted wholly performed therein, but without regard to the choice during Licensee's regular business hours at Licensee's of law provisions thereof. This Agreement is originally offices and will not interfere unreasonably with Licensee's written in the English language and the English language business activities. Infor may audit Licensee no more than version shall control over any translations. If any provision once in any six (6) month period. If an audit reveals that of this Agreement is illegal or unenforceable, it will be Licensee is using a Component System beyond the scope deemed stricken from the Agreement and the remaining of the license granted herein (such as for example, for a provisions of the Agreement will remain in full force and number of users greater than those that Licensee licensed effect. The United Nations Convention on the International pursuant to this Agreement), then Licensee will promptly Sale of Goods (CISG) shall not apply to the interpretation reimburse Infor for the cost of such audit and pay Infor the or enforcement of this Agreement. underpaid license fees therefore and associated fees for Maintenance and Support (as defined in the Maintenance 15. LIMITATIONS OF LIABILITY. Agreement), based on Infor's then-current list rates,as well as any applicable late charges. (a) LIMITED LIABILITY OF INFOR. INFOR'S LIABILITY IN CONNECTION WITH THE LICENSED 18. Entire Agreement. This Agreement contains the SOFTWARE, THIS LICENSE OR ANY OTHER MATTER entire understanding of the parties with respect to its RELATING TO THIS AGREEMENT (WHATEVER THE subject matter, and supersedes and extinguishes all prior BASIS FOR THE CAUSE OF ACTION) WILL NOT oral and written communications between the parties about EXCEED THE FEE THAT LICENSEE ACTUALLY PAID its subject matter. Any purchase order or similar TO INFOR (OR, IF NO DISCRETE FEE IS IDENTIFIED IN document, which may be issued by Licensee in connection THE APPLICABLE ORDER FORM, THE FEE with this Agreement does not modify this Agreement. No REASONABLY ASCRIBED BY INFOR) FOR THE modification of this Agreement will be effective unless it is COMPONENT SYSTEM GIVING RISE TO THE in writing, is signed by each party, and expressly provides LIABILITY. that it amends this Agreement. This Agreement and any signed agreement or instrument entered into in connection herewith or contemplated hereby, and any amendments (b) EXCLUSION OF DAMAGES. IN NO EVENT hereto or thereto, to the extent signed and delivered by `" WILL INFOR BE LIABLE FOR ANY SPECIAL, means of digital imaging, electronic mail or a facsimile INCIDENTAL, INDIRECT OR CONSEQUENTIAL machine, shall be treated in all manner and respects as an DAMAGES OR DAMAGES FOR LOST PROFITS, original agreement or instrument and shall be considered WHETHER BASED ON BREACH OF CONTRACT, TORT to have the same binding legal effect as if it were the (INCLUDING NEGLIGENCE), PRODUCT LIABILITY, OR original signed version thereof delivered in person. This OTHERWISE, AND WHETHER OR NOT INFOR HAS Agreement and all Order Forms entered into pursuant BEEN ADVISED OF THE POSSIBILITY OF SUCH hereto may be signed in counterparts. DAMAGE. THE PARTIES have executed this Agreement through the signatures of their respective authorized representatives. Effective Date: Infor Global Solutions(Greenville),Inc. LICENSEE: (formerly known as Datastream Systems,Inc.) Signature: Signature: Printed Name: Printed Name: Title: Title: Address: Address: Address: Address: Signature Date: Signature Date: Software License Agreement(US 01 June 2006) Page 5 of 5 frTTIt biKA T C � N OF) SOFTWARE SERVICES AGREEMENT THIS SOFTWARE SERVICES AGREEMENT (the "Services Agreement") is made between Infor Global Solutions (Greenville), Inc., (formerly known as Datastream Systems, Inc.) a wholly owned affiliate within the Infor Global Solutions Group,("Infor")and ("Licensee")as of the Effective Date. The parties agree as follows: 1. Definitions. (j) "Services" means the software-related professional services that Infor will provide Licensee as contemplated (a) "Confidential Information" means non-public under this Services Agreement and/or any Work Order. information of a party to this Services Agreement. Confidential Information does not include information that: (k)"Work Order"has the meaning ascribed to such term (i) is or becomes known to the public without fault or in Section 2(a)of this Services Agreement. breach of the Recipient; (ii) the Discloser regularly discloses to third parties without restriction on disclosure; 2. Services. or (iii) the Recipient obtains from a third party without restriction on disclosure and without breach of a non- (a) Work Orders. Infor will provide Licensee with disclosure obligation. Services for or related to the Licensed Software as set forth in one or more mutually agreed to and signed work (b) "Discloser" means the party providing Confidential order(s)which shall contain without limitation, a description Information to the Recipient. of the Services, the Services rate(s), the estimated Services period and payment terms(each a "Work Order"). (c) "Effective Date" means the date identified on the The parties agree that Work Orders may not be complete signature page of this Services Agreement as the Effective statements of Services required by Licensee and additional Date. Services may be required which would be difficult to determine as of the date of this Services Agreement or of (d) "Equipment" means the hardware and systems the applicable Work Order. The estimated service period software configuration on which lnfor supports use of the and duties set forth in the Work Order are estimates based Licensed Software. on Infor's experience and then-current assessment from information furnished by Licensee and the level of support (e) "Intellectual Property Rights" means all patents, requested by the Licensee. Unless expressly stated atent rights, patent applications, copyrights, copyright otherwise: (i) the Services rates are for an 8-hour person- egistrations, trade secrets, trademarks and service marks day and will not include the expenses and charges referred (including, where applicable, all derivative works of the to in Section 3(a) of this Services Agreement; (ii) the foregoing)and Confidential Information. quoted rates shall represent Infor's current rates applicable to Licensee(i.e., the rates applicable to Licensee as of the (f) "Licensed Software" means the software system(s) effective date of the Work Order) for the resources that Infor licensed/is licensing to Licensee pursuant to a specified; and (iii) to the extent that Infor raises the rates separate agreement including all copies of source code (if charged for Services during the course of a project, licensed), object code and all related specifications, Licensee shall be required to pay lnfor at the increased documentation, technical information, and all corrections, rates. Unless otherwise stated in the applicable Work modifications, additions, improvements, enhancements to, Order, the total payment amount shall be an estimate and and new applications developed from or through the use of not a fixed price quote for Services. Infor is under no such software programs, and all Intellectual Property obligation to perform any Services other than pursuant to a Rights for such software program. Work Order. Notwithstanding the foregoing, if Infor performs Services at the direction of Licensee and the (g) "Licensee Employees" means: (i) Licensee's parties have not signed a Work Order for such Services, employees with a need to know; and (ii) third party then such Services shall be subject to all terms and consultants engaged by Licensee who have a need to conditions of this Services Agreement, and lnfor's then know, who have been pre-approved by Infor, and who, current rates for such Services shall apply. prior to obtaining access to the Licensed Software, have executed an Infor-approved non-disclosure agreement. (b) Conditions On Providing Services. Infor and Licensee will develop a project plan that identifies each (h) "Recipient" means the party receiving Confidential party's responsibilities for such Services. The project plan Information of the Discloser. will describe in detail the tentative schedule and the scope of Services that Infor will provide. Licensee will establish (i) "Residual Knowledge" shall mean ideas, concepts, the overall project direction; including assigning and know-how or techniques related to the Discloser's managing the Licensee's project personnel team. technology and Confidential Information that are retained Licensee must assign a project manager who will assume in the unaided memories of the Recipient who had rightful responsibility for management of the project. Licensee access to Confidential Information. must ensure that the Equipment is operational, accessible and supported at the times agreed to by the parties in the New project plan. While Infor is providing such Services, Licensee must provide Infor with such facilities, equipment and support as are reasonably necessary for Infor to Software Services Agreement(US 01 June 2006) Page 1 of 4 perform its obligations, including remote access to the specific date of the applicable Work Order and continuing Equipment. If the parties do not develop a project plan in for ninety (90) days after the completion of Services any instance, Infor will nonetheless provide Licensee with pursuant to that Work Order, Infor will render all Services Services on an as-directed basis, pursuant to a Work under such Work Order with reasonable care and skill. If Order. Infor owns and will own all right,title and interest to Licensee notifies Infor within the warranty period of a the Services and any work product generated from the breach of the foregoing warranty, Infor will re-perform such Services ("Work Product"), and Licensee will execute and Services in compliance with the foregoing warranty. If deliver to Infor any documents reasonably necessary to despite its reasonable efforts, Infor is unable to provide vest in Infor all right, title and interest therein. Subject to Licensee with Services in compliance with the foregoing the terms and conditions of this Services Agreement, Infor warranty,then,subject to the limitations set forth in Section grants Licensee a perpetual, non-exclusive, non- 12 of this Services Agreement, Licensee may pursue its transferable license (without the right to sublease or remedy at law to recover direct damages resulting from the sublicense)to use and copy for use the Work Product for breach of this limited warranty. These remedies are Licensee's own,internal computing operations. exclusive and are in lieu of all other remedies, and Infor's sole obligations for breach of this limited warranty are (c) Scheduling and Cancellation of Scheduled Services. contained in this Section 4(a). In connection with any project plan and subsequent Work Order, Licensee should make staffing requests at least four (b) Disclaimer of Warranty. The limited warranty in (4) weeks in advance to increase the likelihood that the Section 4(a) is made to Licensee exclusively and is in lieu request can be filled for the date requested. While it is of all other warranties. INFOR MAKES NO OTHER possible to secure staffing within this time frame(and Infor WARRANTIES WHATSOEVER, EXPRESS OR IMPLIED, will make commercially reasonable efforts to comply with WITH REGARD TO ANY SERVICES PROVIDED UNDER all staffing requests), the probability of obtaining the THIS SERVICES AGREEMENT AND/OR ANY WORK requested resources decreases the closer the request is ORDER, IN WHOLE OR IN PART. INFOR EXPLICITLY made to the need date. The parties agree that once DISCLAIMS ALL WARRANTIES OF NON- Licensee and Infor have scheduled a specific time during INFRINGEMENT,MERCHANTABILITY AND OF FITNESS which Infor will provide Services under the terms of this FOR A PARTICULAR PURPOSE. INFOR EXPRESSLY Services Agreement and/or a Work Order, Licensee will be DOES NOT WARRANT THAT THE SERVICES WILL obligated to pay Infor for such Services as if Infor had MEET LICENSEE'S REQUIREMENTS. performed such Services on the date scheduled and any related travel and living expenses to the extent such travel and living expenses are non-refundable, unless Licensee (c) FAILURE OF ESSENTIAL PURPOSE. THE has notified Infor that Licensee would like to reschedule or PARTIES HAVE AGREED THAT THE LIMITATIONS cancel the provision of such Services at least twenty one SPECIFIED IN SECTIONS 4 AND 12 WILL SURVIVE (21) days prior to the date which Infor is scheduled to AND APPLY EVEN IF ANY REMEDY SPECIFIED IN THIS perform such Services. SERVICES AGREEMENT IS FOUND TO HAVE FAILED OF ITS ESSENTIAL PURPOSE, AND REGARDLESS OF 3. Payment and Taxes. WHETHER LICENSEE HAS ACCEPTED ANY SERVICE UNDER THIS SERVICES AGREEMENT. (a) Payment. Unless otherwise stated in the applicable Work Order, Infor will invoice Licensee for all Services and 5. Confidential Information. Except as otherwise applicable charges on a monthly basis,as Infor renders the permitted under this Services Agreement,the Recipient will Services or Licensee incurs the charges, as applicable. not knowingly disclose to any third party, or make any use Licensee will also reimburse Infor for actual travel and of the Discloser's Confidential Information. The Recipient living expenses that Infor incurs in providing Licensee with will use at least the same standard of care to maintain the Services under this Services Agreement, with confidentiality of the Discloser's Confidential Information reimbursement to be on an as-incurred basis. Licensee that it uses to maintain the confidentiality of its own will also reimburse Infor for all charges incurred in Confidential Information, but in no event less than connection with accessing Equipment, if any. Licensee will reasonable care. Except in connection with the Licensed pay each Infor invoice within fifteen(15)days of the date of Software and any software provided with the Licensed invoice. Late payments are subject to a late charge equal Software, the non-disclosure and non-use obligations of to the lesser of: (i) one and one-half percent (1Y2%) per this Services Agreement will remain in full force with month;and(ii)the highest rate permitted by applicable law. respect to each item of Confidential Information for a period of ten (10) years after Recipient's receipt of that (b) Taxes. Licensee is responsible for paying all taxes item. However, Licensee's obligations to maintain both the (except for taxes based on Infor's net income or capital Licensed Software and any software provided with the stock) relating to this Services Agreement, any Services Licensed Software as confidential will survive in perpetuity. provided and payments made under this Services Notwithstanding the foregoing, this Section is not intended Agreement. Applicable tax amounts (if any) are NOT to prevent a Recipient from using Residual Knowledge, included in the fees set forth in this Services Agreement subject to any Intellectual Property Rights of the Discloser. and any Work Order. In each instance, Infor will invoice Licensee for applicable tax amounts and such invoices are 6.Term and Termination. due upon Licensee's receipt thereof. (a) Right of Termination. A party has the right to 4. Limited Warranty and Disclaimer of Warranties. terminate this Services Agreement (including all Work Orders hereunder) if the other party breaches a material sled (a) Limited Services Warranty and Remedy For Breach. provision of this Services Agreement or such Work Order. Infor warrants to Licensee that, for period beginning on the To terminate this Services Agreement and all Work Orders Software Services Agreement(US 01 June 2006) Page 2 of 4 hereunder, the party seeking termination must give the Agreement, and any attempt at such assignment will be other party notice that describes the event or condition of void without the prior written consent of Infor. For termination in reasonable detail. From the date of its purposes of this Services Agreement, "assignment" shall receipt of that notice, the other party will have thirty (30) include use of the Licensed Software for benefit of any days to cure the breach to the reasonable satisfaction of third party to a merger, acquisition and/or other the party desiring termination. If the event or condition consolidation by,with,or of Licensee, including any new or giving rise to the right of termination is not cured within that surviving entity that results from such merger, acquisition period, the party desiring termination can terminate this and/or other consolidation. Services Agreement upon written notice to the other party. Notwithstanding the foregoing, to the extent a material 10. No Waiver. A party's failure to enforce its rights breach of this Services Agreement cannot be cured with respect to any single or continuing breach of this through efforts of the breaching party, the non-breaching Services Agreement will not act as a waiver of the right of party has the right to terminate upon written notice this that party to later enforce any such rights or to enforce any Services Agreement(including all Work Orders hereunder) other or any subsequent breach. at any time while an event or condition giving right to the right of termination exists. However, notice to Infor under 11. Choice of Law; Severability. This Services Section 4(a) will not constitute a notice of termination of Agreement will be governed by and construed under the this Services Agreement. laws of the State of New York,as applicable to agreements executed and wholly performed therein, but without regard (b) Effect of Termination. Upon termination of this to the choice of law provisions thereof. This Services Services Agreement by either party, Infor will discontinue Agreement is originally written in the English language and the provision of all Services and Licensee will promptly pay the English language version shall control over any Infor for all Services rendered through the effective date of translations. If any provision of this Services Agreement is such termination. Termination of this Services Agreement illegal or unenforceable, it will be deemed stricken from the will not release either party from making payments which Services Agreement and the remaining provisions of the may be owing to the other party under the terms of this Services Agreement will remain in full force and effect. Services Agreement for all Services rendered through the The United Nations Convention on the International Sale of effective date of such termination. Goods (CISG) shall not apply to the interpretation or enforcement of this Agreement. (c) Survival of Obligations. All obligations relating to non-use and non-disclosure of Confidential Information, 12. LIMITATIONS OF LIABILITY. limitation of liability, and such other terms which by their nature survive termination, will survive termination of this (a) LIMITED LIABILITY OF INFOR. INFOR'S Services Agreement. LIABILITY IN CONNECTION WITH THE SERVICES, OR (d) Termination Without Prejudice to Other Rights and ANY OTHER MATTER RELATING TO THIS SERVICES AGREEMENT (WHATEVER THE BASIS FOR THE Remedies. Termination of this Services Agreement will be without prejudice to the terminating party's other rights and CAUSE OF ACTION) WILL NOT EXCEED THE FEE remedies pursuant to this Services Agreement. THAT LICENSEE ACTUALLY PAID TO INFOR FOR THE SERVICES GIVING RISE TO THE LIABILITY. 7. Notices. All notices and other communications required or permitted under this Services Agreement must (b) EXCLUSION OF DAMAGES. IN NO EVENT be in writing and will be deemed given when: delivered WILL INFOR BE LIABLE FOR ANY SPECIAL, personally; sent by registered or certified mail, return INCIDENTAL, INDIRECT OR CONSEQUENTIAL receipt requested; transmitted by facsimile confirmed by DAMAGES OR DAMAGES FOR LOST PROFITS, first class mail; or sent by overnight courier. Notices must WHETHER BASED ON BREACH OF CONTRACT, TORT be sent to a party at its address shown on the signature (INCLUDING NEGLIGENCE), PRODUCT LIABILITY, OR page of this Services Agreement, or to such other place as OTHERWISE, AND WHETHER OR NOT INFOR HAS the party may subsequently designate for its receipt of BEEN ADVISED OF THE POSSIBILITY OF SUCH notices in accordance with this Section. Licensee must DAMAGE. promptly send copies of any notice of material breach and/or termination of this Services Agreement to Infor, 13. Compliance With Laws. Licensee will comply with Attention: General Counsel, 13560 Moms Road, Suite all laws, rules and regulations applicable to the use of the 4100, Alpharetta, GA, 30004, USA, FAX number 678-319- Services and the Work Product. 8949, or to such other place as Infor may subsequently designate for its receipt of notices. 14. Non-Solicitation of Employees. During the period 8. Force Majeure. Neither party will be liable to the that Infor is providing Services pursuant to this Services other for any failure or delay in performance under this Agreement and for a period of one (1) year following the Services Agreement due to circumstances beyond its completion of such Services, neither Infor nor Licensee will reasonable control, including Acts of God, acts of war, offer to hire, hire, Solicit for employment or retention as an independent contractor, or in any way employ any terrorist acts, accident, labor disruption, acts, omissions Resource of the other party without the prior written and defaults of third parties and official, governmental and consent of the other party. "Solicit" as used in this Section judicial action not the fault of the party failing or delaying in does not include general solicitations, such as -performance,or the threat of any of the foregoing. advertisements in newspapers, trade publications or on the 9. Assignment. Licensee may not assign or transfer intemet. "Resource" for purposes of this Section means: (a) employees of the non-hiring party who directly worked any of its rights or obligations under this Services on the Services project at Licensee's location (the Software Services Agreement(US 01 June 2006) Page 3 of 4 "Project"), and(b)former employees of the non-hiring party writing, is signed by each party, and expressly provides who directly worked on the Project and whose employment that it amends this Services Agreement. This Services with that party ended less than six(6) months prior to the Agreement and any signed agreement or instrument date of such offer to hire, hire,Solicitation,or employment. entered into in connection herewith or contemplated hereby, and any amendments hereto or thereto, to the 15. Entire Agreement. This Services Agreement extent signed and delivered by means of digital imaging, contains the entire understanding of the parties with electronic mail or a facsimile machine, shall be treated in respect to its subject matter, and supersedes and all manner and respects as an original agreement or extinguishes all prior oral and written communications instrument and shall be considered to have the same between the parties about its subject matter. Any binding legal effect as if it were the original signed version purchase order or similar document, which may be issued thereof delivered in person. This Services Agreement and by Licensee in connection with this Services Agreement all Work Orders may be signed in counterparts. does not modify this Services Agreement. No modification of this Services Agreement will be effective unless it is in THE PARTIES have executed this Services Agreement through the signatures of their respective authorized representatives. Effective Date: Infor Global Solutions(Greenville),Inc. LICENSEE: (formerly known as Datastream Systems,Inc) Signature: Signature: Printed Name: Printed Name: Title: Title: Address: Address: Address: Address: Signature Date: Signature Date: Nia NIS Software Services Agreement(US 01 June 2006) Page 4 of 4 (I N R fat-."3 an,vor: is SOFTWARE MAINTENANCE &SUPPORT AGREEMENT `�frrr* AGREEMENT NUMBER: THIS SOFTWARE MAINTENANCE&SUPPORT AGREEMENT(the"Maintenance Agreement")is made between Infor Global Solutions (Greenville), Inc., (formerly known as Datastream Systems, Inc.) a wholly owned affiliate within the Infor Global Solutions Group, ("Infor") and ("Licensee") as of the Effective Date. The parties agree as follows: 1. Incorporation By Reference. Sections 1 (i) "Support" means telephone support for the current (Definitions), 7 (Confidential Information), 10 through 14 release, and immediately prior release, of the Baseline (Notices, Force Majeure, Assignment, No Waiver and Licensed Software during Infor's regular business hours. Choice of Law; Severability, respectively), and 16 through 17(Compliance with Laws, and Audit Rights, respectively) 3. Services. of the License Agreement are incorporated into this Maintenance Agreement by this reference as fully as if (a) Types of Services. During the term of this written out below. If any provision incorporated by Maintenance Agreement as it relates to a particular reference from the License Agreement conflicts with any Baseline Component System (as specified on the Order provision of this Maintenance Agreement, the provision of Form), Infor will provide Licensee with Maintenance and this Maintenance Agreement will control. Support for such Baseline Component System to the extent Licensee pays Infor the applicable fees as set forth 2. Additional Definitions. on the Order Form. (a) "Contract Year" means, with respect to each (b) Limitations. All Maintenance will be part of the Baseline Component System, each one (1) year period applicable Baseline Component System and will be beginning and ending on the dates provided for in the subject to all of the terms and conditions of the License Order Form for such Baseline Component System. Agreement and this Maintenance Agreement. Infor's obligation to provide Licensee with Maintenance and (b) "Effective Date" means the date identified on the Support for Baseline Component Systems owned by signature page of this Maintenance Agreement as the parties other than Infor is limited to providing Licensee affective Date. with the Maintenance and Support that the applicable third fir►' party owner provides to Infor for that Baseline Component (c) "Initial Order" means the first Order Form System. In this regard, to the extent that an agreement generated pursuant to the terms of the License Agreement authorizing Infor to resell or sublicense a third party's and this Maintenance Agreement. Baseline Component System is terminated or expires prior to the expiration of the term, for that Baseline Component (d) "Initial Term Expiration Date"means, with respect System, then Infor's obligation to provide Maintenance to each Baseline Component System, the date upon and Support to Licensee for that Baseline Component which the initial term of this Maintenance Agreement ends System, and Licensee's obligation to pay Infor for such for such Baseline Component System as provided for in Maintenance and Support for that Baseline Component the applicable Order Form. System, shall automatically terminate simultaneously with the termination or expiration of the relevant agreement. (e) "License Agreement" means the Software License Licensee must provide Infor with such facilities,equipment Agreement entered into between the parties on or about and support as are reasonably necessary for Infor to the date the parties signed this Maintenance Agreement. perform its obligations under this Maintenance Agreement, including remote access to the Equipment. (f) "Maintenance" means updates, enhancements or modifications to the Licensed Software which Infor 4. Payment and Taxes. incorporates into and makes part of the Baseline Licensed Software and does not separately price or market, together (a) Maintenance and Support Fees. For Maintenance with using reasonable efforts to provide Licensee with and Support for each Baseline Component System, avoidance procedures for or corrections of Documented Licensee will pay Infor: (i) for the first Contract Year, the Defects. amount provided for in the applicable Order Form as the "Payment Amount"; and (ii) for each Contract Year (g) "Partial Year" means, if applicable for a Baseline subsequent to the first Contract Year, an amount invoiced Component System, the partial Contract Year period by Infor, which amount will not increase by more than the specified in the Order Form for that Baseline Component "Annual Escalation Percentage Cap" provided for in the System. applicable Order Form over the fee that Licensee was obligated to pay to Infor for Maintenance and Support for (h) "Subsequent Orders" means all Order Forms the applicable Baseline Component System in the 3nerated pursuant to the terms of the License Agreement immediately preceding Contract Year. On Subsequent `�rdnd this Maintenance Agreement after the Initial Order. Orders, fees for partial Contract Years will be prorated. Payment of all fees for Maintenance and Support for each Software Maintenance&Support Agreement(US&UK 01 June 2006) Page 1 of 3 Baseline Component System is due within fifteen (15) COMPONENT SYSTEM OR ANY MAINTENANCE AND days of the date of invoice and is non-refundable. For SUPPORT WILL BE USABLE BY LICENSEE IF THE subsequent Contract Years, Infor will use good faith COMPONENT SYSTEM HAS BEEN MODIFIED BY efforts to invoice Licensee thirty (30) days in advance of ANYONE OTHER THAN INFOR, OR WILL BE ERROR the Contract Year anniversary date or upon reasonable FREE, WILL OPERATE WITHOUT INTERRUPTION OR request of Licensee with payment due by the first day of WILL BE COMPATIBLE WITH ANY HARDWARE OR the subsequent Contract Year. SOFTWARE OTHER THAN THE EQUIPMENT. (b) Additional Costs. Licensee will also reimburse Infor 7. Termination. A party has the right to terminate this for actual travel and living expenses that Infor incurs in Maintenance Agreement if the other party materially providing Licensee with Maintenance and Support, with breaches a provision of this Maintenance Agreement. To reimbursement to be on an as-incurred basis. Licensee terminate this Maintenance Agreement, the party seeking will also reimburse Infor for all charges incurred in termination must give the other party notice that describes connection with accessing Equipment, if any. the event or condition of termination in reasonable detail. (c) Taxes. Licensee is responsible for paying all taxes From the date of its receipt of that notice, the other party (except for taxes based on Infot's net income or capital will have thirty (30) days to cure the breach to the oce) rexe to this Maintenancet or caAgreempital nt, reasonable satisfaction of the party desiring termination. stMaintenance and Support, any services provided and terminationIf the event or condition giving rise ri the right pof arty payments made under this Maintenance Agreement. is not cured terminate thet period, the ance Applicable tax amounts (if any) are NOT included in the desiring termination can this Maintenance Agreement upon written fees set forth in this Maintenance Agreement. Infor will notice, to the the other al er invoice Licensee for applicable tax amounts and such Notwithstanding the foregoing, extent a material invoices are due upon Licensee's receipt thereof. breach of this Maintenance Agreement cannot be cured through efforts of the breaching party, the non-breaching (d) Invoices and Late Charges. Licensee will pay each party has the right to terminate this Maintenance Infor invoice within fifteen (15) days of the date of invoice Agreement anueventon orwritten notice to the other party gt any and in any event, on or before the dates specified in this tertime while or condition giving rise to the right a Maintenance Agreement or the applicable Order Form. suspected ted exists. However, notice tos Infortea of e Late payments are subject to a late charge equal to the suspected Documented Defect will not constitute a notice lesser of: (i) one and one-half percent (1%%) per month; of termination of this Maintenance Agreement. and(ii)rthe highestratepermittedhalf by ap(1%%)licable law. Termination of this Maintenance Agreement will be without prejudice to the terminating party's other rights and 5. Term. The term of this Maintenance Agreement for remedies pursuant to this Maintenance Agreement. Termination of this Maintenance Agreement shall also each Baseline Component System set forth on the Initial begins Order Form Date and ends on the terminate all Order Forms hereunder but only insofar as Orderal Term ontheO Date. Notwithstandingte and the such Order Forms relate to Maintenance and Support Initiforegoing, the term Expiration this Maintenance Agreement for Services. For the avoidance of doubt, termination of this Maintenance Agreement shall not terminate licenses Baseline Component Systems licensed pursuant to Subsequent Orders shall commence on the first day of the granted are nmt o the License Agreement termssss such Partial Year period as set forth on the applicable Order Llicenses are terminated pursuant to the of the Form for such later ordered Baseline Component Systems Agreementense Agreement. Neve Termination ofp this from m Maintenance and shall end on the later of the Initial Term Expiration will not relieve either party making Date or the last day of the then-current Contract Year. For payments whichmay be owing theother party under the each Baseline Component System, this Maintenance terms of thiss Maintenance Agreement.nt. Agreement will automatically renew for consecutive 8. LIMITATIONS OF LIABILITY. Contract Years beyond the Initial Term Expiration Date(or the end of the then-current Contract Year, as applicable) (a) LIMITED LIABILITY OF INFOR. INFOR'S on a year-to-year basis unless either party notifies the LIABILITY IN CONNECTION WITH MAINTENANCE, other in writing of its election to terminate Maintenance and Support under this Maintenance Agreement for any SUPPORT, OR ANY OTHER MATTER RELATING TO particular Baseline Component System at least ninety(90) THIS MAINTENANCE AGREEMENT (WHATEVER THE days prior to the Initial Term Expiration Date, or, for any BASIS FOR THE CAUSE OF ACTION) WILL NOT Contract Year subsequent to the Initial Term Expiration EXCEED THE FEES THAT LICENSEE ACTUALLY PAID Date, at least ninety(90)days prior to the expiration of the TO INFOR FOR MAINTENANCE AND SUPPORT FOR then-current Contract Year. THE CONTRACT YEAR IN WHICH SUCH LIABILITY ARISES. 6. Disclaimer of Warranties. Licensee acknowledges and agrees that INFOR MAKES NO WARRANTIES (b) EXCLUSION OF DAMAGES. REGARDLESS OF WHATSOEVER, EXPRESSED OR IMPLIED, WITH WHETHER ANY REMEDY SET FORTH HEREIN FAILS REGARD TO ANY MAINTENANCE, SUPPORT AND/OR OF ITS ESSENTIAL PURPOSE OR OTHERWISE, IN NO ANY OTHER MATTER RELATING TO THIS EVENT WILL INFOR BE LIABLE FOR ANY SPECIAL, MAINTENANCE AGREEMENT, AND THAT INFOR INCIDENTAL, INDIRECT OR CONSEQUENTIAL EXPLICITLY DISCLAIMS ALL WARRANTIES OF NON- DAMAGES OR DAMAGES FOR LOST PROFITS, INFRINGEMENT, MERCHANTABILITY AND FITNESS WHETHER BASED ON BREACH OF CONTRACT,TORT FOR A PARTICULAR PURPOSE. FURTHER, INFOR (INCLUDING NEGLIGENCE), PRODUCT LIABILITY, OR EXPRESSLY DOES NOT WARRANT THAT A OTHERWISE, AND WHETHER OR NOT INFOR HAS Software Maintenance&Support Agreement(US&UK 01 June 2006) Page 2 of 3 BEEN ADVISED OF THE POSSIBILITY OF SUCH Agreement. This Maintenance Agreement and any signed DAMAGE. agreement or instrument entered into in connection herewith or contemplated hereby, and any amendments 9. Entire Agreement. This Maintenance Agreement hereto or thereto, to the extent signed and delivered by ,,.contains the entire understanding of the parties with means of digital imaging, electronic mail or a facsimile respect to its subject matter, and supersedes and machine, shall be treated in all manner and respects as extinguishes all prior oral and written communications an original Maintenance Agreement or instrument and between the parties about its subject matter. Any shall be considered to have the same binding legal effect purchase order or similar document, which may be issued as if it were the original signed version thereof delivered in by Licensee in connection with this Maintenance person. This Maintenance Agreement and all Order Agreement does not modify this Maintenance Agreement. Forms entered into pursuant hereto may be signed in No modification of this Maintenance Agreement will be counterparts. effective unless it is in writing,is signed by each party,and expressly provides that it amends this Maintenance THE PARTIES have executed this Maintenance Agreement through the signatures of their respective authorized representatives. Effective Date: Infor Global Solutions(Greenville),Inc. LICENSEE: (formerly known as Datastream Systems,Inc_) Signature: Signature: Printed Name: Printed Name: Title: Title: Address: Address: Address: Address: Signature Date: Signature Date: 14111.01 1111101r Software Maintenance&Support Agreement(US&UK 01 June 2006) Page 3 of 3 cry— E CONTRACT TERMS AND CONDITIONS Refer to Infor's proposal (p 75) for clarifications requested to the City's sample contract.- 1. Confidentiality—should be no issue but pass it by your attorney. 2. Acceptance of Software—The City has agreed during verbal negotiation to acceptance upon installation. Any claims against Infor for errors in documented functionality would be dealt with under warranty provisions of the software license agreement. 3. Payment Terms - Sample agreements appended to the proposal state 15 days net payment terms. Infor's contract terms and conditions issues (page 75)backs off to net 30 days. The City stated and Infor verbally agreed in negotiations to terms of net 30 days from date of invoice receipt, not date of invoice. Date of receipt to be determined by FAX or electronic submittal. Infor's late payment interest rate in sample agreements appended to proposal state 1.5%per month or"highest rate permitted by applicable law". Infor's contract terms and conditions issues (page 75)backs off to 1%per month or"the highest legal rate of interest". Not sure about Washington law prohibiting interest penalties on late City payments or setting maximum rate. If the law protects the City sufficiently, let this item go. If not, I recommend negotiating prime plus 2.5 points divided by 12 (reasonable estimate of Infor's cost of money). 4. Telephone Support—My reading of their Bronze TechSupport service level definitions indicates that they meet or exceed the City's requirements. I recommend accepting their standards. However, the support agreement contract does not reference these standards explicitly, only the Order Form. Care must be taken to ensure that the order form references the standards and locks in the service levels for the five-year term. In addition, the City should realize that the response times are"guidelines"not guarantees. 5. Source Code Escrow—No issues. Datastream's standard source code escrow agreement(proposal appendix C) meets the City's needs. 6. Hold Harmless/Indemnification—Weston recommends a negligence-based indemnification clause, such as we negotiated with the City. 7. Ownership—Ownership clauses in RFP refer only to proposal materials. Infor is probably concerned that City could claim ownership of copyrighted materials submitted in proposal appendices. This is a moot issue as long as no reference to the RFP is included in the scope of work. 8. Termination—These are terms in the City's standard contract and negotiations should include the City's attorney. 1 Enterprise Asset Management Solution Proposal Prepared for City of Renton, Washington *40ilsw as set forth in its software license agreement and applicable software documentation. Datastream reserves the right to negotiate with the City regarding the provision of technical support. 4. Warranty (RFP — Section 4.4.3, p. 33; Sample Contract — Section III): Datastream takes exception to these provisions to the extent that they conflict with Datastream's standard limited warranty. Datastream provides a limited warranty as follows: LIMITED WARRANTIES AND DISCLAIMERS. Datastream represents and warrants that, during the thirty (30) day period following the first delivery of an Application to Licensee, the Application will operate substantially in accordance with the applicable Documentation, provided that Licensee operates the Application in compliance with such Documentation. In the event an Application fails to satisfy the warranty immediately above, Datastream will, at its option, correct or replace the nonconforming portion of the Application in a timely manner. Following the expiration of the warranty period, all issues related to the operation of an Application will be handled by Datastream as Support Services provided to Licensee pursuant to an Order Form. The limited warranty set forth herein will not apply to nonconformities determined by Datastream to have been caused by 1) deletions or modifications to an Application performed by a party other than Datastream, unless under the direction of Datastream's customer support and Licensee performs the changes in accordance therewith, 2) negligence in the operation or use of an Application, or 3) use, adjustments, installation, or malfunction of any products or goods other than those authorized by Datastream. The limited warranties set forth in this Agreement are made for Licensee's '_re benefit only. The remedies in this Section are the sole and exclusive remedies for breach of these limited warranties. DATASTREAM MAKES NO WARRANTY OR REPRESENTATION THAT LICENSEE'S USE OF THE APPLICATIONS WILL BE UNINTERRUPTED OR ERROR-FREE, AND SPECIFICALLY DISCLAIMS ANY AND ALL OTHER WARRANTIES, WHETHER WRITTEN OR ORAL, EXPRESS OR IMPLIED, WITH RESPECT TO THE APPLICATIONS, OR ANY OTHER GOODS OR SERVICES PROVIDED BY DATASTREAM, INCLUDING ANY IMPLIED WARRANTIES OF MERCHANTABILITY. OR FITNESS FOR A PARTICULAR PURPOSE. Please note that Datastream does not offer a I-year warranty as requested in the RFP. Datastream's standard software warranty is 30 days from delivery. 5. Software Updates (RFP —Section 4,4.4, p.33): Datastream takes exception to so much of this provision as conflicts with Datastream's standard software licensing agreement, which generally requires a licensee to keep its applications current with the updates and support modules provided. 6. Source Code Escrow (RFP Section 4,4.5, p.33): Datastream takes exception to so much of this provision as conflicts with Datastream's standard source code escrow agreement, a copy of which has been provided for review. Nitir Datastmam7i PAGE 76 Enterprise Asset Management Solution Proposal Prepared for City of Renton, Washington Contract Terms and Conditions: Clarifications Requested `" uitiO Datastream(now Infor) has made every effort to meet the requirements of the RFP. However, there are some unknowns within the RFP that cannot be fully scoped until the Define stage of the implementation takes place. WE reserves the right to negotiate and work with the City in good faith following selection to assure that a reasonable the nd mutually of Renton representat'rvesive ttoct is executed expedite the for the project. We will work diligently y negotiation process so that work can commence." t. Confidentiality (REP — Section 2.9.6, p.14): In order to protect the interests of its employees and other clients and customers, Datastream reserves the right to seek inclusion of language similar to the following: "Notwithstanding the foregoing, nothing in this section shall require Datastream to violate any privacy obligations with respect to its employees, agents, and contractors or to violate any obligations with respect to its other clients and customers." 2. Acceptance of Software (RFP — Sections 2.9.7 (p.151, 2.11.3 (p,18). 4.3.5 (p,32)., and 4.4.3 (p.33);Sample Contract—Sections VI(C), VI(D),and VII(p.37): Acceptance testing is mentioned repeatedly in the RFP and the Sample Contract. For example, the "Contracts Negotiation" section of the RFP states that the City shall make payments for installed products and any associated data that have passed acceptance tests and that General de moot Crarated th s give e re useable by the City as stand-alone products. Additionally, the the City the right to withhold payment for work not completed in a satisfactory manner and to terminate the agreement, with or without cause, upon 10 days notice. Datastream takes exception to so much of the RFP and General Contract Provisions as require an unspecified acceptance or approval procedure. Datastream's out-of-the-box software solution is deemed accepted upon delivery, but Datastream will consider reasonable acceptance criteria for implementation and configuration services and for custom work, if any, provided to the City. Additionally, Datastream typically does not agree to provisions that conflict with Datastream's standard payment provisions, set forth below. Datastream reserves the right to negotiate with the City to reach terms acceptable to both parties. Licensee shall pay Datastream the applicable License Fees within 30 days of delivery of each Application. Service Fees and/or Support Fees specified in each Order Form shall be paid within 30 days of Datastream's invoice. With respect to Services and Support provided by Datastream, Licensee shall pay Datastream all reasonable and actual travel expenses incurred by Datastream in rendering such services plus an administrative charge no later than thirty (30) days from the date of the invoice. In addition to all other remedies Datastream may have under this Agreement or at law, any amounts not paid when due shall bear interest at a rate equal to the lesser of (i) the rate of one percent (l%) per month or (ii) the highest legal rate of interest, for any month or portion thereof for which payment is not made after the due date. 3. Telephone Support (RFP — Section 4.4.2, p.33): Datastream takes exception to this provision to the extent that it requires support exceeding Datastream's standard technical support DaIi PAGE 75 Enterprise Asset Management Solution Proposal Prenared for City of Renton, Washington 7. old Harmless/Indemnification Sam'le Contract — Section XIV ,.38-39 : Datastream takes exception to this section as written and reserves the right to negotiate further with the City in order to limit Datastream's obligation and liability under this provision to the extent that any such claim arises out of a negligent act or omission on the part of Datastrearn, its subcontractors, agents, and employees. 8. Ownership (RFP—Sections 2.3 (p.11) and 2.7 (pp•I3)): Datastream reserves the right to clarify that notwithstanding anything in these sections, the rest of the RFP and Sample Contract, or the eventual agreement, all right, title, and interest in and to Datastream's software applications, documentation, and other proprietary information, including without limitation all copyrights, trade secrets, and other intellectual property rights pertaining thereto, shall remain vested in Datastream. Additionally, generally Datastream does not grant any right to use, sublicense, copy, modify, or disclose any of Datastream's software applications or other proprietary information except as expressly authorized by the terms of its software license agreement. Datastream reserves the right, however, to negotiate with the City to ensure that the City has all.rights it considers necessary. 9. Termination (Sample Contract —Section VII,.p.37): Datastream takes exception to a provision that allows for cancellation of the contact without cause. In addition, it reserves the right to negotiate further with respect to the City's right to terminate for cause to provide for both written notice and a period of time to cure a default or failure. Datastream proposes the following language: VII. TERMINATION OF AGREEMENT Either party may terminate this Contract for non-performance of the other party. The non-performing party shall be given a reasonable opportunity to correct the deficiency prior to termination. 10. Late Performance and Liquidated Damages (Sample Contract—Section VIII, p.37): Datastream takes exception to this provision to the extent that it conflicts with Datastream's standard limited warranty. Datastream reserves the right to negotiate further with the City on this provision. 11. Commencement and Completion of Work (Sample Contract — Section X, p.38): Datastream reserves the right to negotiate with the City to determine a project schedule that will be mutually agreeable to both parties. 12. Successors and Assi. (Sam le Contract — Section XI •.38 : Datastream takes exception to this provision to the extent that it precludes Datastream from assigning the contract to an affiliate or to a purchaser of all or substantially all of its assets or outstanding capital stock without the City's prior written consent. ' to?? PAGE 77 } CITY OF RENTON COUNCIL AGENDA BILL AI#: ) .: / Lei Submitting Data: For Agenda of: Dept/Div/Board.. Finance & IS Department July 2, 2007 Staff Contact Michael E. Bailey Agenda Status Finance/IS Administrator Consent Subject: Public Hearing.. Correspondence.. Authorize contract extension of EMMS consulting Ordinance service for implementation of the city's new Enterprise Resolution Maintenance Management System Old Business Exhibits: New Business Issue Paper Study Sessions Contract Information Recommended Action: Approvals: Legal Dept Referred Refer to Finance Committee Finance Dept HR Approved Fiscal Impact: Expenditure Required. $922,352 Transfer/Amendment Amount Budgeted: $425,000 Revenue Generated Total Project Budget $922,352 City Share Total Project SUMMARY OF ACTION: Staff recommends approval of a contract extension with Weston Solutions, Inc. as the project consultant in the amount of$150,000. Contract for Phase 1 of the project, system selection and contracting was $49,250. STAFF RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommends approval of the contract extension addendum, authorization for the Mayor and City Clerk to execute the addendum and the additional $150,000 expenditure. C:\DOCUME-1\B Walton\LOCALS-1\Temp\Westen agenda bill v2.doc FINANCE AND INFORMATION SERVICES " ,; ® + DEPARTMENT • MEMORANDUM DATE: June 22, 2007 TO: Toni Nelson, Council President Members of the Renton City Council VIA: , Kathy Keolker, Mayor FROM: Michael E. Bailey, FIS Administrator STAFF CONTACT: David Tibbot, ext. 6874 SUBJECT: Weston Solutions Contract Extension ISSUE Should the City of Renton enter into a contract extension with Weston Solutions, Inc. for the Enterprise Maintenance Task Management System Project? RECOMMENDATION `fir✓ Staff recommends approval of the contract to have a subject matter expert for the implementation of the EMMS Project. BACKGROUND We are requesting authority to extend the contract of our project consultant, Weston Solutions, for an additional $150,000 to assist the city with this implementation. Weston's Phase 1 consulting effort in the amount of$49,250 was to conduct a needs analysis, RFP development, proposal analysis and to assist in vendor selection. Weston's industry knowledge and expertise gained from extensive previous maintenance task management implementations has proven invaluable thus far. Cc: Jay Covington,CAO Mary Wine,Assistant to the CAO George McBride, Information Services c:\docume—I\bwalton\locals- I\temp\weston council issue paper v2.doc AMENDMENT TO SCOPE OF WORK Contract Between the City of Renton and Weston Solutions, Inc. for Preparation of a RFP for a Maintenance Task Management System Weston Solutions, Inc. (Weston) assisted the City of Renton with the preparation of a RFP for an Enterprise Maintenance Management System (EMMS). As part of the original scope of work, Weston also assisted the City in its vendor selection and initial implementation planning. This amendment to the scope of work describes how Weston will assist the City in its implementation of the Infor's Datastream 7i product. PHASE 5—IMPLEMENTATION Weston Solutions, Inc. (Weston) will provide expert assistance to support the City's implementation of the Datastream 7i product within the Facilities and Transportation work groups. These implementations will set the enterprise standards for business processes and system configuration for the subsequent roll-outs in Parks, Maintenance Services, and other workgroups. Weston will also support these subsequent roll-outs but at a lower level of effort, as the City gains the experience to carry out the implementations. Weston will work collaboratively with Infor's implementation consultants within the oversight of the City's Project Manager. Task 1 —Support Implementation Plan Refinement Weston will collaborate with the City and the selected vendor to prepare draft and final versions of a carefully phased plan for EMMS implementation, based on a preliminary draft implementation plan prepared by Weston under the previous contract phase. Weston will participate in the kickoffialignment meeting with the City project team and Infor in order to provide continuity of business process intelligence and transmittal of background information. Weston will recommend work scope definition and resource assignments sufficient to ensure a sound basis for the implementation effort. Weston will ensure that the following elements are addressed: • System-specific business process engineering • Software configuration and integration support • Data development and conversion • Report development • Annual planning setup and support • Operational change-over • Ongoing support 1 • Task 2—Design The design task will consist of the following three activities: • Business process review • Key performance indicators criteria definition • Document Datastream 7i system configuration Business Process Review Weston will participate in the business process review interviews conducted by Infor and review the resulting draft documentation. Key Performance Indicator Criteria Definition Weston will provide high-level review of the KPI criteria identified for the initial implementations (Facilities and Transportation). Document Datastream 7i System Configuration Weston will review Infor's documentation and identify unique needs of individual work groups that may be overlooked in the general configuration. There are overriding configuration standards for security, common data definition, accounting, and reporting that the City will want to enforce across all work groups. However, among the work groups, there are legitimate needs for variation in authority and approval matrices, preventive *awe maintenance, reporting, and programmatic planning. Weston will review the configuration specifications to ensure that they adequately cover: • Asset inventory • Call response decision tree • Priority codes • Activity codes • Work group privileges • Employee domain and authority matrix • Resource hierarchies for equipment, materials, and contractors • Work order templates with task/job hierarchy and default resource values • Custom field definitions • Report content and layout Task 3 —Development and Transition for Facilities and Transportation Maintenance Weston will support software configuration for the first two work groups in coordination with the City's Project Manager and Infor's consultants. Weston's involvement will include: • Review business rule modification • Configure KPIs Now 2 • Initial configuration • Support core team training • Configure GIS service • Migrate and synchronize GIS data • Support population of system codes • Support test script development • Support configuration testing • Advise on setup of Citizen Request web service • Assist in developing initial custom reports • Assist in developing standard operating procedures • Assist in finalizing configuration and documentation • Provide the GIS training component of the end user training • Provide on-call change management support Task 4—Development and Transition for Parks Weston will support software configuration for Parks in coordination with the City's Project Manager. Weston's involvement will include: • Configure KPIs • Initial configuration • Support core team training • Configure GIS service and support its testing • Support migration and synchronization of GIS data • Support population of system codes • Support configuration testing • Support development of initial custom reports • Provide on-call technical support Task 5 — Develop and Transition Maintenance Services Weston will support software configuration for Parks in coordination with the City's Project Manager. Weston's involvement will include: • Support GIS Configuration and testing • Develop activity-based budget model, reports, and KPIs • GIS Data migration • Support configuration testing • Support final configuration documentation • On-call technical support 3 Schedule imi"' The attached Preliminary Draft Enterprise MMS Implementation Plan contains the overall schedule and hours budget for Weston's work. This plan will be refined in collaboration with the City and Infor during the initial project tasks. Budget Weston will work in accordance with the attached implementation plan and its refined versions, at hourly rates presented in Table 1, within a budget not to exceed $150,000. Table 1 —Hourly Rates Staff Rate Gregg Selby, Project Manager/ Principal Analyst $170 Arnab Bhowmick, Analyst $130 Project Administrator $65 By: By: Weston Solutions, Inc. City of Renton 1055 S Grady Wy Renton, WA 98057 By: By: Date Kathy Keolker, Mayor Date Attest: Bonnie I. Walton, City Clerk Date Approved as to Form: By: Lawrence J. Warren, City Attorney Date 4 CITY OF RENTON COUNCIL AGENDA BILL AI#: s r Submitting Data: For Agenda of: Dept/Div/BoardFinance & IS Department' July 2, 2007 Staff Contact Michael E. Bailey Agenda Status Finance/IS Administrator Consent X Subject: Public Hearing.. Correspondence.. Request for Utility Bill Adjustment from Ordinance Maplewood LLC (apartment community) Resolution Old Business Exhibits: New Business Issue Paper Study Sessions Information Recommended Action: Approvals: Legal Dept Refer to Finance Committee Finance Dept Other Fiscal Impact: Expenditure Required... Transfer/Amendment Amount Budgeted Revenue Generated Total Project Budget City Share Total Project SUMMARY OF ACTION: Maplewood LLC experienced severely increased consumption during the utility billing periods of August 16 to October 12, and October 13 through December 18, 2006. The total bill for these two periods in 2006 is $24,571.75. An undetected leak caused the increase in consumption. The total of utility bills for the same period in 2005 was $5,349.05. Maplewood requests an adjustment of$16,455.76, leaving $8,115.99 due. The breakdown of the adjustment follows: Water- $2,643.44; Sewer- $4,373.44; and Metro - $9,438.88. STAFF RECOMMENDATION: Grant the requested adjustment in the amount of$16,455.76. H:\FINANCE\ADMINSUP\Ol_AgendaBills\2007_Maplewood LLC leak adjustment request.doc �ti`SY O� FINANCE AND ® •, INFORMATION SERVICES DEPARTMENT • MEMORANDUMNow DATE: June 20, 2007 TO: Toni Nelson, Council President Members of the Renton City Council VIA: Kathy Keolker, Mayor FROM: � Michael Bailey, FIS Administrator SUBJECT: Request for Utility Bill Adjustment from Maplewood LLC (apartment community) ISSUE Should an adjustment be made to Maplewood LLC utility bills as a result of a water leak? BACKGROUND Maplewood LLC experienced severely increased consumption during the utility billing periods of August 16 to October 12, and October 13 through December 18, 2006. The total bill for these two periods in 2006 is $24,571.75. An undetected leak caused the increase in consumption. The total of utility bills for the same period in 2005 was $5,349.05. Maplewood requests an adjustment of '40 '` $16,455.76, leaving $8,115.99 due. A copy of Maplewood's letter, the plumber's invoice, and the account history is attached. A breakdown of the adjustment follows: Water $2,643.44 Sewer $4,373.44 Metro $9,438.88 Total $16,455.76 Ordinance 5210 provides that the Finance Committee shall approve any utility account adjustment over$2,000. RECOMMENDATION Staff recommends granting the adjustment in the amount of$16,455.76. MEB/CZ/dlf Attachments,as stated cc: Gregg Zimmerman,P/B/PW Administrator Lys Hornsby,Utility Systems Director Linda Parks,Fiscal Services Director Cindy Zinck,Finance Analyst Supervisor Elloyce Sumpter,Accounting Supervisor Name h:\finance\adminsup\02_issuepapers_memos to council or mayor\2007_maplewood llc leak adjustment.doc ,----- ----- * ,... MAPLEWOOD PARK APA RTMENTS E W O O D PARK MARI GARCIA `ad Accou sting Manager 3815 NE 4th Street (425)226-0743 k P A R T M E N T S Renton, WA 98056 Fax (425)226-2518 Email: maple\ oodpark@comcast net www rnaplew( )dparkapartments,corn January 10, 2007 RE: Account #12044 Bldg B The City of Renton Utility Division; In the past couple of months we notice an increase to our water consumption in our monthly billing. Recently an underground leak was discovered to this built ling. This is what was causing that increase. Fortunately this problem has been taken care of. Afte~ speaking with someone is your department about the billing I was informed that your department will be able to adjust the water treatment for these months in our next month billing. I am also proving a copy of the repair invoice. If you have any questions please call our office at 425.226.0743. Than k you, (`',V1 (ijkv Mari Garcia Account Manager 381 NE 4th Street • Renton, WA 98056 • Phone (425) 226-0743 • Fax (425) 226-2518 l ... .. .. . _. . , NORTH (206)367-4665 Radio Dispatch. .. INVOICE I • SOUTH (206) 772.1333 Plumbing Maintenance M • .. 4 U 2 7 7 EAST (425)453-9006 24hr. Emergency Service • RENTON (425) 228-3204 Sewer Drain Cleaning 2 I` Wile WAY (253)839-9188 Remodeling � . e TACOMA (253) 572-2409 LICENSE# TPJIN**981 NR Tr351 UNION AVE. N.E TOLL FREE 1-800-464-3204 Renton,Washington 98059 - FAX ' (425) 228-0157 BILLING NAME (PHONE (DATE JOB (f ,//..,,z9/1-___, L,-`J`'`--. " /' , . L,:"./ �,,,,,/'v, BILLING ADDRESS I Ct,iTERLckt JOB ADDRESS k 7' ? /s tii✓ 4./T7 S CITY STATE ZIP CfJNj STATE ZIP (JOB PHONE /� �] / --- 0 /� ( ,r L/1-,-c J ��n ;�a c�J - L, } 7_-� �/ vP <:-..,� �,% / f O ' as r L„1,�.�t, T-^�-i L...i DESCRIPTION OF PROBLEM WATER PRESSURE R // 1 LAG o i i jJ hi.......,,,.__., � QTY /l / EACH AMOUNTISO [�{ / / .wry 9 / /l}---77 di cr/,9 ..-X---"'...--,----- / 7�.. 31 / / / // <f-r--G:,..- �J /5 J0 , .ri,� _J-,--.e.,., f_i.,.-7-; / //9 O , � /JJ 4_,),, C:Y ` .....-T-1.--.) GI 21,..ti:/C.9 r- .fid, ..,./ /�y ,f-✓ ..,z-v , .2 s JIM z,„ •7 ,A- , _- /•• •,;..g3,,, Z „`o,,.'r / 7f0 7.06 ,3 6 S`'- I,o �- /,/7,- z`-,---,__ -- __s--, 7._,---, ,mow ,- erg 2 2,_. Z�/p G /r (S/2 ' /1 y �� _2 7 �.1/c The labor service charge on this invoice for which you are charged is ARGE ❑ CASH Ell CHECK ❑ BANK CARD C/ A warranted thirty days.If the fault should recur within that time on labor rr ,` charge will be made(d we are notified immediately upon recurrence) No I G.1 ,r — pi --)e : [sI�1 warranty or work will commence until payment is received in full.No LLL F' J wartanty on Drains and where water pressure is over 801bs. SIGNATURE(I have authorized the above listed parts to be Installer and the J 7� / a .9 I ^ / ; All bills due�0 days after date e° Invoice 1S%per mand or 1 00 whichever Is j� labor performed) U /( fJ' / greater plus all reasonable collection fees(Attorney and or court fees)on SIGNATURE(I hereby acknowledge the satisfactory completion of the / f �� ffJ 7� unpaid balance after 10 days from invoice date. ,Li above described work) 8:00 AM Maw PM MON-FRI TIME 5.00 PM to 1000 PM MON-FRI DOUBLE SUNDAYS HOLIDAYS,HOLIDAY WEEKNDS T TIME ❑ 8.00 AM to 2:00 PM SATURDAY & ❑ NOON to 7000 PM SATURDAY TIME ❑ and 1000 PM to 6 00 AM DAILY HALF 600 AM to 800 AM MON-SAT .{ IE NO TRAVEL TIME plus TRAVEL TIME ONE WAY BJ plus TRAVEL TIME ONE WAY ✓ I?f 1 DATE PLUMBER TOTAL CABLE FEE 4.00 600 8.00 I�'-'®..?,tfn/`4,349 gr RENTALdr) cid! /�.... Yd ! ) / / .I a tx C I /. - • / rf..4s i-' ,....2,),,o.- tl J %� I rFnivu i r /— 7 A-6 / ars,, _2_,5-•- QUOTE PRICE / l (-7' J- 7 C /7, d'),)-S.--- A)-- 7 b / TOTAL.MATERIAL 517.7 5- / TOTAL LABOR&SERVICE /S 7/ Ci- SUB TOTAL I- ?S E ONLY TRAVEL TIME /TIME TRAVEL TIME TIME UME TRAVEL TIME 'WE �/'2 *cr--tee , F? w-^ LEAVE ON .0 LEAVE I) ONLEAVE ON TAX pit(�1j/` / 3 .„ ARRIVE OFF' I ARRIVE O� .�� ARRIVE OFF n ' TOTAL ✓/1-1 17 . /f S f 4 .a =L.,Lr i TYPE OF LEAK I Leak caused by City Staff I ,--- '1;'A: 0.-:.4:-.64i'1118111111110.111-40iiMii.i.i.:.iJ RENg......0...N...PRP. P*Pg!. ..:::,...-.......::::::::::::::::::::::::: Commercial Adjustment 1/2 of excess cc •.-..•-''Y'''.''''''''".'..".•.:.'-.-:::.-.-.-.--.''-'--•'.-'--'.'.'::.-...'......,]..:.,,.i..:,i..‘::- onmimet-:,-oiaKiiv0I9,-,-i...:::atioa MTF&Comm for Waler .-:-::,:::•...,,,..:...-.•,.•. • periodA 2nd Bill 3RD Bill .:,:-:.•-..i.':: :i-i.i:-:,i:.:.,? ::::•..2:. ,::: --:,---:-:--:j< 66- 1iti:: $2 643.44 dj Period Period Totals Water $1.91 --: ::.,:-:---E.:• : 27.614;',7':-•_.:-_ -E--:::::? - ::..7...:.-,, ....i.,:,,,,.',„:::---„::::::.•---tv:::- ...............,--,,,,..., ,..: . .:, :"-.--:.::,:.: 1,,i--::.::;;.i;,:...ii6.i.:...:: .44,. t.::,:,---.,-,i- .$44t.,..044..... WigaV . imme.m'.:. m.::iffi. 3557 Renton Sewer2768 $1 58TTLUsagebffled i-:::;,,,,,..i,..,:',V ...:::i::::::-.,:::::-.-;-.:m::-...-...F.:.;,, ,.:::: :::. "" ",,,,,,,,,,,............. r,.. .,...,,,,.,.....,_ . ...., ,.:,':::',..i:=ii ::-.ii.:]:mii:i.m:::: :;...:::-:::i;-,;.,iii:,:::...ii:i.i:JE l':.''''.-:,'::-.$941.38 88..:: Avelage Usage :':'.:-:,:iy:8,Vii ..:::::i.i:-:-:-:.:::::::.::. 789 King County $3.41 :::.:1.:],-.-H:-:::::276--- ::.----- ,-- ''',' • ' rri.OVERAGE 2768 0 0 ..::::..:.,:::271,3&. -:-:- .-: Total Adj: ( $19,094.20 ( 16455176 5 YR ADJ ( I (L. (.. L1t111ty ng Atwwwcirentoawa.ue Account F dory ListUser: carolb at 'tf.fir ,)iii Service Address: 3815 NE 4TH ST BLDG B Reference Number: 610251 Owner Name: MAPLEWOOD LLC Account Status: Active Home Phone: ( ) - Ext Connect Date: 03/29/1979 Business Phone: (425)226-0743 Ext Billing Cycle: 6 Customer Name: MAPLEWOOD LLC Account Number: 012044 000 Amount Due: 76.64 Customer Address: 3815 NE 4TH ST OFC RENTON,WA 98056-4108 Route Number: 61 Sequence Number: 026920 Serial Number: 42509398 76.64 0.00 0.00 0.00 Date Type Amount Description Water Sewer Storm Metro Garbage Penalty Misc unapp ca I Read Dt Reads Cons Service Balance: 33.46 14.67 0.00 28.51 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 05-30-07 Bal 76.64 33.46 14.67 28.51 04/11/2007 34,843 365 05-30-07 Bil 76.64 33.46 14.67 28.51 02/13/2007 34,478 930 05-17-07 Pay -2,724.79 -767.11 -595.67 -1,362.01 12/18/2006 33,548 2,152 04-27-07 Bal 2,724.79 767.11 595.67 1,362.01 10/12/2006 31,396 1,405 04-27-07 Bil 2,724.79 767.11 595.67 1,362.01 08/16/2006 29,991 1,269 04-18-07 Pay -76.64 -33.46 -14.67 -28.51 06/15/2006 28,722 887 03-29-07 Bal 76.64 33.46 14.67 28.51 04/20/2006 27,835 731 03-29-07 Bil 76.64 33.46 14.67 28.51 02/09/2006 27,104 376 03-14-07 Pay -6,950.99 -1,902.76 -1,533.57 -3,514.66 12/19/2005 26,728 373 02-27-07 Bal 6,950.99 1,902.76 1,533.57 3,514.66 10/17/2005 26,355 416 02-27-07 Bil 6,950.99 1,902.76 1,533.57 3,514.66 08/12/2005 25,939 360 02-21-07 Pay -76.64 -33.46 -14.67 -28.51 06/14/2005 25,579 -238 01-30-07 Bal 76.64 33.46 14.67 28.51 04/13/2005 25,817 971 01-30-07 Bil 76.64 33.46 14.67 28.51 02/15/2005 24,846 336 01-16-07 Pay -14,866.76 -4,142.19 -3,390.43 -7,334.14 12/14/2004 24,510 288 12-28-06 Bal 14,866.76 4,142.19 3,390.43 7,334.14 10/22/2004 24,222 389 12-28-06 Bil 14,866.76 4,142.19 3,390.43 7,334.14 08/17/2004 23,833 599 12-15-06 Pay -71.44 -31.87 -13.97 -25.60 06/14/2004 23,234 142 11-29-06 Bal 71.44 31.87 13.97 25.60 04/15/2004 23,092 330 11-29-06 Bil 71.44 31.87 13.97 25.60 02/17/2004 22,762 370 11-22-06 Pay -9,704.99 -2,715.42 -2,210.17 -4,779.40 12/12/2003 22,392 253 10-30-06 Bal 9,704.99 2,715.42 2,210.17 4,779.40 10/23/2003 22,139 352 10-30-06 Bil 9,704.99 2,715.42 2,210.17 4,779.40 08/18/2003 21,787 375 10-16-06 Pay -71.44 -31.87 -13.97 -25.60 06/16/2003 21,412 328 09-28-06 Bal 71.44 31.87 13.97 25.60 04/14/2003 21,084 257 09-28-06 Bil 71.44 31.87 13.97 25.60 02/21/2003 20,827 318 09-14-06 Pay -8,765.23 -2,455.66 -1,995.29 -4,314.28 12/14/2002 20,509 303 08-30-06 Bal 8,765.23 2,455.66 1,995.29 4,314.28 10/16/2002 20,206 339 no -''',-n,'. n,! o -,6< 23 2..-1- 5.6f' i 995 20 a UI4')X 08/13/2002 19,867 301 08-15-06 Pay -71.44 -31.87 -13.97 -25.60 06/18i200L i9,5l,v 2S`J 07-28-06 Bal 71.44 31.87 13.97 25.60 04/19/2002 19,277 256 07-28-06 Bil 71.44 31.87 13.97 25.60 02/18/2002 19,021 254 07-14-06 Pay -6,125.61 -1,726.04 -1,391.73 -3,007.84 12/19/2001 18,767 274 06-29-06 Bal 6,125.61 1,726.04 1,391.73 3,007.84 10/17/2001 18,493 309 06-29-06 Bil 6,125.61 1,726.04 1,391.73 3,007.84 08/16/2001 18,184 281 06-16-06 Pay -71.44 -31.87 -13.97 -25.60 06/19/2001 17,903 291 05-30-06 Bal 71.44 31.87 13.97 25.60 04/17/2001 17,612 238 Page-Account History List(06/15/2007- 4:22 PM) Page 1 Utility Billing wmw.ci.rentoawa.uc ; Account History ListUser: carolbi z`�kit it ,r ' .,.;t4.44 ;Oil/ Service Address: 3815 NE 4TH ST BLDG B Reference Number: 610251 Owner Name: MAPLEWOOD LLC Account Status: Active Home Phone: ( ) - Ext Connect Date: 03/29/1979 Business Phone. (425)226-0743 Ext Billing Cycle: 6 Customer Name: MAPLEWOOD LLC Account Number: 012044 000 Amount Due: 76.64 Customer Address: 3815 NE 4TH ST OFC RENTON,WA 98056-4108 Route Number: 61 Sequence Number: 026920 Serial Number: 42509398 76.64 0.00 0.00 0.00 Date Type Amount Description Water Sewer Storm Metro Garbage Penalty Misc unapp ca Read Dt Reads Cons Service Balance: 33.46 14.67 0.00 28.51 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 01-30-07 Bal 76.64 33.46 14.67 28.51 02/13/2007 34,478 1 930 01-30-07 Bil 76.64 33.46 14.67 28.51 12/18/2006 33,5485/ /2 ,152 01-16-07 Pay -14,866.76 -4,142.19 -3,390.43 -7,334.14 10/12/2006 31,396 I 1,405 ) 12-28-06 Bal 14,866.76 4,142.19 3,390.43 7,334.14 08/16/2006 29,991 1,269 12-28-06 Bil 14,866.76 4,142.19 3,390.43 7,334.14 06/15/2006 28,722 887 . 12-15-06 Pay -71.44 -31.87 -13.97 -25.60 04/20/2006 27,835 n 731,E 11-29-06 Bal 71.44 31.87 13.97 25.60 02/09/2006 27,1043-76 11-29-06 Bil 71.44 31.87 13.97 25.60 12/19/2005 26,728 �/373 11-22-06 Pay -9,704.99 -2,715.42 -2,210.17 -4,779.40 10/17/2005 26,355 61 `416 10-30-06 Bal 9,704.99 2,715.42 2,210.17 4,779.40 08/12/2005 25,939 ' tt 360 10-30-06 Bil 9,704.99 2,715.42 2,210.17 4,779.40 06/14/2005 25,579 -238 10-16-06 Pay -71.44 -31.87 -13.97 -25.60 04/13/2005 25,817 971 09-28-06 Bal 71.44 31.87 13.97 25.60 02/15/2005 24,846 336 09-28-06 Bil 71.44 31.87 13.97 25.60 12/14/2004 24,510 288 09-14-06 Pay -8,765.23 -2,455.66 -1,995.29 -4,314.28 10/22/2004 24,222 389 08-30-06 Bal 8,765 23 2,455.66 1,995.29 4,314.28 08/17/2004 23,833 599 08-30.-06 Bil 8,765.23 2,455.66 1,995.29 4,314.28 06/14/2004 23,234 142 08-15-06 Pay -71.44 -31.87 -13.97 -25.60 04/15/2004 23,092 330 07-28-06 Bal 71.44 31.87 13.97 25.60 02/17/2004 22,762 370 07-28-06 Bil 71.44 31.87 13.97 25.60 12/12/2003 22,392 253 07-14-06 Pay -6,125.61 -1,726.04 -1,391.73 -3,007.84 10/23/2003 22,139 352 06-29-06 Bal 6,125.61 1,726.04 1,391.73 3,007.84 08/18/2003 21,787 375 06-29-06 Bil 6,125.61 1,726.04 1,391.73 3,007.84 06/16/2003 21,412 328 06-16-06 Pay -71.44 -31.87 -13.97 -25.60 04/14/2003 21,084 257 05-30-06 Bal 71.44 31.87 13.97 25.60 02/21/2003 20,827 318 05-30-06 Bil 71.44 31.87 13.97 25.60 12/14/2002 20,509 303 05-15-06 Pay -5,047.65 -1,428.08 -1,145.25 -2,474.32 10/16/2002 20,206 339 04-27-06 Bal 5,047.65 1,428.08 1,145.25 2,474.32 08/13/2002 19,867 301 n4_77-06 Ril 5.047 6c 1 425 05 1.145 75 2.474 12 06/18/2002 19.566 289 04-17-06 Pay -71.44 -31.87 -13.97 -25.60 04/19/2002 19,277 256 03-30-06 Bal 71.44 31.87 13.97 25.60 02/18/2002 19,021 254 03-30-06 Bil 71.44 31.87 13.97 25.60 12/19/2001 18,767 274 03-16-06 Pay -2,594.60 -750.03 -584.35 -1,260.22 10/17/2001 18,493 309 03-16-06 Pay -71.44 -31.87 -13.97 -25.60 08/16/2001 18,184. 281 02-27-06 Bal 2,666.04 751.90 598.32 1,285.82 06/19/2001 17,903 291 02-27-06 Bil 2,594.60 750.03 584.35 1,260.22 04/17/2001 17,612 238 01-30-06 Bal 71.44 31.87 13.97 25.60 02/21/2001 17,374 308 UB-Accour „ .tory List(02/14/2007- 12:37 PM) Page 1 CITY OF RENTON COUNCIL AGENDA BILL AI#: _* Submitting Data: For Agenda of: July 2, 2007 Dept/Div/Board.. Fire Department/Fire Prevention Staff Contact Jim Gray, Assistant Fire Marshal Agenda Status Consent X Subject: Public Hearing.. Correspondence.. Adoption of the 2006 International Fire Code Ordinance X Resolution Old Business Exhibits: New Business Issue Paper Study Sessions Proposed Ordinance: RMC 4-5-070 Information Recommended Action: Approvals: Refer to Public Safety Committee Legal Dept X Finance Dept Other Fiscal Impact: Expenditure Required... Transfer/Amendment Amount Budgeted Revenue Generated Total Project Budget City Share Total Project SUMMARY OF ACTION: The International Fire Code (IFC) was developed by the International Code Conference and will be adopted by the State effective July 1, 2007. It carries editorial changes and section changes. In order to maintain the provisions of the previous adoptions, the City must adopt the new IFC. The major new addition to the Code involves the reduction in square footage for sprinkler requirements. The adoption of this IFC will bring the City into line with nine (9)Eastside Zone 1 Fire Marshal Jurisdictions and Zone 3 Fire Marshals. STAFF RECOMMENDATION: Approval of the proposed Code changes with local amendments and adoption of the related ordinance. H:\AFM Gray\IFC 06 Agenda Bill.doc C)' � FIRE DEPARTMENT �� c•-• MEMORANDUM ANT DATE: June 26, 2007 TO: Toni Nelson, Council President Members of the Renton City Council VIA: "- Kathy Keolker, Mayor FROM: I. David Daniels, Fire Chief/Emergency Services Administrator STAFF CONTACT: James E. Gray, x7023 SUBJECT: Adoption of the 2006 International Fire Code ISSUE: The State will adopt the 2006 International Fire and Building Codes, effective July 1, 2007. The Fire Department has proposed to update the City Fire Code by adopting the 2006 International Fire Code with local amendments. This will allow the City to bring forward local amendments and utilize the same Code as adopted by the State of 'tar Washington. BACKGROUND: The family of the International Codes has been published to include the International Building and International Fire Code. The State Building Code Council reviewed and adopted the 2006 International Fire Code in November 2006, to become effective as the statewide minimum Fire Code on July 1, 2007. In order for the City to bring forward local amendments that can be enforced, it is necessary to adopt the 2006 International Fire Code and local amendments by ordinance. The City Fire department joined and worked with Zone 3 Fire Marshals to form a consensus on local amendments to the 2006 International Fire Code. The proposed Ordinance includes existing City of Renton amendments. The major new changes are highlighted below. a. Add a requirement for an Outdoor Special Event Permit for events over 300 people. New H:\AFM Gray\IFC 06 Code Issue Paper.doc Toni Nelson,Council President Members of the Renton City Council Page 2 of 2 June 26,2007 b. Add an Automated External Defibrillator (AED) to new assembly place over 300 occupants. c. Require standby power for nursing homes, adult family homes, assisted living and service stations. d. Reduce the square footage for sprinkler requirements in all buildings. This would set the square footage at 5,000 square feet in all buildings, which is part of the Eastside Consensus agreement. The present ordinance square footage is 12,000 square feet for commercial and two story, five or more units in multifamily. Several surrounding jurisdictions have adopted the 5,000 square foot ordinance. The International Building Code offers numerous trade-offs for sprinklered buildings including: increases in exit travel distance, building heights and fire areas in buildings. Sprinklers also allow a reduction in fire ratings and types of constructions. All "R" (residential) Occupancies are required to be sprinklered by the International Building Code. The City of Renton has not had a large fire loss or death in a sprinklered building to date. e. Require air replenishment and emergency equipment for high rises. The adoption of this ordinance will provide consistency with the State adopted Fire Code. The adoption is also important to maintain and enforce the City's existing provisions of the previous adopted ordinance. RECOMMENDATION: The Fire Department recommends approval of the proposed code changes with local amendments and adoption of the related ordinance. cc: Bonnie Walton, City Clerk h:\afm gray\ifc 06 code issue paper.doc DEVELOPMENT REGULATIONS Title 4 REVISED AND COMPILED ORDINANCES City of Renton Washington RENTON MUNICIPAL CODE 4-5-070 INTERNATIONAL FIRE CODE AND FIRE PREVENTION REGULATIONS 4-5-070 INTERNATIONAL FIRE CODE AND FIRE PREVENTION REGULATIONS: B ADOPTION OF FIRE CODE AND STANDARDS: The City does hereby adopt the 2006 International Fire Code and Appendix B, (IFC) published by the International Code Council, by reference as provided by State law, with the amendments, deletions or exceptions as noted herein. C ADDITIONS AND AMENDMENTS TO THE FIRE CODE: The following non-consecutive sections of the 2006 International Fire Code are hereby amended to read as follows: 1. Section 101.1 Title. These regulations shall be known as the Fire Code of City of Renton, hereinafter referred to as "this code". Any references to "this jurisdiction" shall be references to the City of Renton, Washington. 2. Section 101.2 Scope. This section of the IFC shall be amended by adding the following: 5. Matters related to preparedness for natural or man made disasters. 3. Section 102.6 Referenced Codes and Standards. The codes and standards referenced in this code shall be those that are listed in Chapter 45 except all references to the ICC Electrical Code shall be amended by changing the reference to the Electrical Code adopted by the City of Renton. Such codes and standards shall be considered part of the requirements of this code to the prescribed extent of each such reference as determined or modified by the fire code official. 4. Section 103.1 General. All reference in this code to the department of fire prevention within the jurisdiction shall be synonymous with the Fire and Emergency Services Department under the direction of the fire code official. The function of the department shall be the implementation, administration and enforcement of the provisions of this code. 5. Section 103.3 Fire Marshal/Deputy(s)/Assistant(s). In accordance with prescribed procedures of this jurisdiction and with the concurrence of the appointing authority, the fire code official shall have the authority to appoint a Fire Marshal, Deputy Fire Marshal(s) and/or Assistant Fire Marshal(s), other related technical officers, inspectors and other employees. 6. Section 103.4.1 Legal Defense. The administrative authority or any employee performing duties in connection with the enforcement of this 2 code and acting in good faith and without malice in the performance of Noise such duties shall be relieved from any personal liability for any damage to persons or property as a result of any act or omission in the discharge of such duties, and in the event of claims and/or litigation arising from such act or omission, the City Attorney shall, at the request of and on behalf of said administrative authority or employee, investigate and defend such claims and/or litigation and if the claim be deemed by the City Attorney a proper one or if judgment be rendered against such administrative authority or employee, said claim or judgment shall be paid by the City. 7. Section 104.1.1 Discretionary authority. The Fire Chief/Emergency Services Administrator, Fire Marshal, Deputy and/or Assistant Fire Marshal(s) and Inspectors assigned to Community Risk Reduction section shall exercise discretionary authority to enforce this code. 8. Section 104.1.2 Ministerial authority. Members of the Fire and Emergency Services Department not assigned to the Community Risk Reduction section of the department shall exercise authority as designated by the Fire Chief/Emergency Services Administrator in department policy or as described in this code. 9. Section 104.10.1 Assistance from Other Agencies. Police and other enforcement agencies shall have authority to render necessary assistance "` in the investigation of fires or the enforcement of this code as requested by the fire code official. 10. Section 104.11.2 Obstructing Operations. No person shall obstruct the operations of the fire department in connection with extinguishment, control, or investigation of any fire or actions relative to other emergencies, or disobey any lawful command of the fire chief or officer of the fire department in charge of the emergency, or any part thereof, or any lawful order of a police officer assisting the fire department. 11. Section 105.1.1.1 Operational permit fees. The fee for permits issued in accordance with section 105.6 of the International Fire Code and permits issued for underground tank removal shall be as stipulated in RMC 4-1-150, Fire Prevention Fees. Fees for tank storage shall be assessed for each individual tank. The permits shall expire one year after date of issuance or as otherwise noted on the permit. The permit fee shall be payable at or before the time of issuance or renewal of the permit. In the event of failure to remit payment for an operational permit within thirty (30) days after receipt of application or renewal notice, the fee for the permit shall be double the amount of the above-stated fee. 3 12. Section 105.3.2 Extensions. A permittee holding an unexpired permit shall have the right to apply for an extension of the time within which the permittee will commence work under that permit when work is unable to be commenced within the time required by this section for good and satisfactory reasons. The Fire Code Official is authorized to grant, in writing, one or more extensions of the time period of a permit for periods of not more than 180 days each. Such extensions shall be requested by the permit holder in writing and justifiable cause demonstrated. 13. Section 105.4.1.1 Construction plan review. Plans shall be submitted for review and approval prior to issuing a permit for work set forth in Sections 105.7.1 through 105.7.12. 14. Section 105.4.1.2 Plan review and construction fees. Construction plans required to be reviewed by this chapter and International Fire Code shall be charged in accordance with RMC 4-1-150, Fire Prevention Fees. 15. Section 105.7.7 Hazardous materials. A construction permit is required to install, repair damage to, abandon, remove, place temporarily out of service, or close or substantially modify a storage facility, tank or other area regulated by Chapter 27 when the hazardous materials in use or storage exceed the amounts listed in Table 105.6.20. Exceptions: a. Routine maintenance. b. For emergency repair work performed on an emergency basis, application for permit shall be made within two working days of commencement of work. 16. Section 105.7.14 Temporary place of assembly/special event permit. An operational permit is required for any special event where 300 or more people will congregate in other than a permanent place of assembly, to include outdoors. 17. Section 107.5.1 Malfunctioning alarm fee. Whenever an alarm system is activated due to a malfunction and the fire department is dispatched, a report of the false alarm will be recorded for the building or area affected. For the first, second and third false alarm within a calendar year, no fee will be assessed. For every false alarm caused by a malfunction of the alarm beyond the third false alarm a fee will be assessed as per RMC 4-1-150. 4 18. Section 108.1 Heating Examiner. In order to hear and decide appeals low of orders, decisions or determinations made by the fire code official relative to the application and interpretation of this code, the Hearing Examiner process established by the City of Renton shall have authority. 19. Section 108.3 Qualifications. This section is deleted. 20. Section 109.2 Notice of violation. When the fire code official finds a building, premises, vehicle, storage facility or outdoor area that is in violation of this code, the fire code official is authorized to prepare a written notice of violation describing the conditions deemed unsafe and, when compliance is not immediate, specifying a time for reinspection. 21. Section 109.2.1.1 Reinspection. Whenever the fire department has given notification of a violation which required reinspection and thirty (30) days have expired with such condition or violation still in existence, a second reinspection will be required. 22. Section 109.2.1.2 Reinspection Fee. Any reinspection after the original thirty (30) day period of time shall be done only upon the payment of a reinspection fee as specified in RMC 4-1-150, Fire Prevention Fees, to be assessed against the person owning, operating or occupying the building or premises wherein the violation exists. This reinspection fee must be paid within ten (10) days of the notice for the reinspection. However, any building owner, operator or occupant, upon a reasonable request to the fire code official, may obtain an extension of said thirty (30) day period for a reasonable period to be established by the fire code official to allow such time for compliance. The request for an extension must be received by the fire department prior to the expiration of the original reinspection date. 23. Section 109.2.2.1 Notice and Responsibility. Whenever the infraction, condition or violation involves the structural integrity of the building, then the notice of the infraction, condition or violation shall be sent to both the building owner and its occupant or occupants. Should compliance with the fire code so as to remedy the infraction, condition or violation require additions or changes to the building or premises, which would be part of the structure or the fixtures to the realty, then the responsibility to remedy the infraction, condition, or violation shall be upon the owner of the building unless the owner and occupant shall otherwise agree between themselves and so notify the City. Should the occupant not remedy the infraction, condition, or violation, then the City shall have the right to demand such remedy from the owner of the premises. Nifairr 5 24. Section 109.2.3.1 Pre-citation fees. Reinspections required beyond the original reinspection as noted in Section 109.2 will be assessed a fee as „,d specified in RMC 4-1-150, Fire Prevention Fees, for each reinspection. Payment will be required within ten (10) days of the notice for the reinspection. 25. Section 109.3 Violation Penalties. Persons who shall violate a provision of this code or shall fail to comply with any of the requirements thereof or who shall erect, install, alter, repair or do work in violation of the approved construction documents or directive of the fire code official, or of a permit or certificate used under provisions of this code, shall be guilty of a misdemeanor and subject to the penalties in RMC 1-3-1 except for those provisions in RMC 4-5-070.C.104. Each day that a violation continues after due notice has been served shall be deemed a separate offense. 26. Section 111.4 Failure to Comply. Any person who shall continue any work after having been served with a stop work order, except such work as that person is directed to perform to remove a violation or unsafe condition, shall be guilty of a misdemeanor, subject to RMC 1-3-1. 27. Section 202 Definitions. The word "shall" is defined to have the following meaning: a. With respect to the functions and powers of the fire code official, any agents and employees of the City of Renton, and any Board authorized hereunder, a direction and authorization to act in the exercise of sound discretion and in good faith; and b. With respect to the obligations upon owners, occupants of the premises and their agents, there is a mandatory requirement to act in compliance with this code at the risk of civil and criminal liability upon failure to so act. 28. Section 202 Definitions. Automatic External Defibrillator (AED). An automated external defibrillator(AED) is a portable automatic device used to restore normal heart rhythm to patients in cardiac arrest. Fire Chief/Emergency Services Administrator. The administrator charged with the overall direction and oversight of the jurisdiction's emergency services including community risk reduction, fire/rescue services, emergency medical services and emergency management, and shall include all references in this code to the"fire chief." err 6 Fire Code Official. The fire chief/emergency services administrator, who shall be the chief law enforcement officer with respect to the enforcement of this code. Special Event. For the purposes of this code, events that have large occupant loads or create a potential hazard to the participants or the community shall be defined as a"special event" including: Any event that occurs in a permitted place of assembly that introduces a hazard regulated by this code and not approved at the time of the issuance of the Place of Assembly Permit. Any event with an occupant load that exceeds 300 in a location that does not have a Place of Assembly Permit. All temporary places of assembly. Temporary Place of Assembly. An occupancy not classified as "Assembly Group A" that is used for activities normally restricted to assembly occupancies and limited to a period of less than 30 calendar days of assembly use. 29. Section 307.1 General. Open burning is hereby prohibited in conformance with the Puget Sound Clean Air Agency and the Department of Ecology regulations. 30. Section 308.3.1.2 Flaming Food and Beverages Preparation. The preparation of flaming foods or beverages in places of assembly and drinking or dining establishments shall be in accordance with this section. a. Section 308.3.1.2.1 Dispensing. Flammable or combustible liquids used in the preparation of flaming foods or beverages shall be dispensed from one of the following: i. A 1-ounce(29.6 ml) container, or ii. A container not exceeding 1-quart(946.5 ml) capacity with controlled-pouring device that will limit the flow to a 1- ounce(29.6 ml) serving. b. Section 308.3.1.2.2 Containers Not in Use. Containers shall be secured to prevent spillage when not in use. c. Section 308.3.1.2.3 Serving of Flaming Food. The serving of flaming foods or beverages shall be done in a safe manner and shall 7 not create high flames. The pouring, ladling or spooning of liquids is restricted to a maximum height of eight (8)inches (203 mm) above the receiving receptacle. d. Section 308.3.1.2.4 Location. Flaming foods or beverages shall be prepared only in the immediate vicinity of the table being served. They shall not be transported or carried while burning. e. Section 308.3.1.2.5 Fire Protection. The person preparing the flaming foods or beverages shall have a wet cloth immediately available for use in smothering the flames in the event of an emergency. 31. Section 314.4 Vehicles. Liquid or gas-fueled vehicles, fueled equipment, boats or other motor craft shall not be located indoors except as follows: a. Batteries are disconnected. b. Fuel in fuel tanks does not exceed one-quarter tank or 5 gallons (19 L) (whichever is least). c. Fuel tanks and fill openings are closed and sealed to prevent tampering. Ned d. Vehicles, boats or other motor craft equipment are not fueled or defueled within the building. 32. Section 401.3 Emergency forces services notification. In the event an unwanted fire, medical emergency or hazardous material release occurs on a property, the owner or occupant shall immediately report such condition to the fire department. Building employees and tenants shall implement the appropriate emergency plans and procedures. No person shall, by verbal or written directive require any delay in the reporting of a fire, medical emergency or hazardous material release to the fire department. 33. Section 406.3.4 Automatic External Defibrillator (AED) Training. Where AEDs are required by this code, employees shall be familiar with the locations and use of the AEDs. 34. Section 408.2.3 Automatic External Defibrillators (AED). Group A-1 through A-5 occupancies and special events, with an occupancy load or event of 300 or more persons, shall have available and maintain an AED on the premise. 8 35. Section 408.2.3.1 Placement. AEDs shall be located within a one-way 41110, travel time to the assembly areas of the occupancy of not more than two (2) minutes. 36. Section 408.2.3.2 Notification. The Fire and Emergency Services Department shall be notified in writing of the installation of an AED on the premises. 37. Section 503.1 Where required. Fire apparatus access roads shall be provided and maintained in accordance with Sections 503.1.1 through 503.2. 38. Section 503.1.2.1 Two means of access. Two (2) means of approved access shall be required when a complex of three (3) or more buildings is located more than 200 ' from a public road. (RMC 4-6-060.G.5) 39. Section 503.2 Specifications. Fire apparatus access roads shall be installed and arranged in accordance with RMC 4-6-060 and 4-4-080. 40. Section 503.4.1 Enforcement. The fire department, may issue non- traffic citations to vehicles parked in a fire lane or blocking a fire hydrant in accordance with the Bail Schedule established by Renton Municipal Court. The application of the above penalty shall not be held to prevent the enforced removal of prohibited conditionsNow . 41. Section 505.1.1 Identification size. In order that the address identification is plainly visible, the following minimum size, figures or numbers, in block style in contrasting color shall be used in accordance with the following: 1. Single-family residential houses—4 ". 2. Multi-family residential, commercial, or small business: 50' or less setback— 6 "; more than 50' setback — 10". 3. Large commercial or industrial areas: 100' or less setback— 18"; more than 100 ' setback—24 ". 42. Section 505.1.2 Rear Door Marking. When vehicle access is provided to the rear of commercial, industrial and warehouse buildings, the rear doors servicing individual businesses shall be marked to indicate address and/or unit identification with letters or numbers at least four (4) inches high. 43. Section 505.1.3 Suite numbers. Buildings consisting of separate suites with the same building address shall have their suite number marked so Now9 that the suite is readily identifiable and the numbers or letters sized as per Section 505.1.1. Exception: Suites located on an interior hall or corridor shall have lettering at least one(1)inch high. 44. Section 508.5.1 Where required. Where a portion of the facility or building hereafter constructed or moved into or within the jurisdiction is more than 150 feet from a hydrant on a fire apparatus access road, as measured by an approved route around the exterior of the facility or building, on-site fire hydrants and mains shall be provided where required by the Fire Code Official. Exceptions: a. For Group R-3 and Group U occupancies, the distance requirement shall be 300 feet. b. Deleted. 45. Section 602.1 Definitions is amended by adding the following definition: Power Tap. A listed device for indoor use consisting of an attachment plug on one end of a flexible cord and two (2) or more receptacles on the opposite end and over current protection. 46. Section 604.2 Where required. Emergency and standby power systems shall be provided where required by Sections 604.2.1 through 604.2.21. 47. Section 604.2.20 Group I-i and Group 1-2 Nursing Home Occupancies. In addition to specific requirements listed elsewhere in the codes, approved standby power systems in new and existing Group I-1 and I-2 occupancies shall be provided to power the following operations: 1. Heating and refrigeration 2. Communications and alarm systems 3. Ventilation systems 4. Emergency lighting 5. Patient-care related electrical circuits 48. Section 604.2.21 Automotive Fuel Dispensing Facilities. All new commercial fuel dispensing facilities shall be provided with an approved standby power system to provide power to facilitate maintaining fuel dispensing during local power outages or disaster. 10 49. Section 605.10.5 Tip-Over Switch. All portable electric space heaters *taw shall be equipped with an automatic tip-over shut-off switch. Exception: Approved liquid filled portable heaters. 50. Section 806.1.1 Restricted Occupancies. Natural cut trees shall be prohibited in Group A, E, I-1, I-2, I-3, I-4, M, R-1, R-2 and R-4 occupancies. Exceptions: a. Trees located in areas protected by an approved automatic sprinkler system installed in accordance with Section 903.3.1.1 or 903.3.1.2 shall not be prohibited in Groups A, E, M, R-1 and R-2. b. Trees treated with a flame retardant and renewed to maintain flame resistance, subject to the approval of the Fire Code Official. 51. Section 807.1 General requirements shall be amended by adding the following requirement: In occupancies in Groups A, B, E, I and R-1 and dormitories in Group R-2, curtains, draperies, hangings and other decorative materials suspended from walls or ceilings shall meet the flame propagation performance criteria of NFPA 701 in accordance with Section 807.2 or be noncombustible. 411.0, 52. Section 809 Atrium furnishings. Atrium furnishings shall comply with Sections 809.1 and 809.2. 53. Section 809.1. Potential heat. Potential heat of combustible furnishings and decorative materials within atria shall not exceed 9,000 BTU per pound (20,934 J/g) when located within an area that is more than 20 feet (6096 mm) below ceiling level sprinklers. 54. Section 809.2. Decorative materials. Decorative material in atria shall be noncombustible, flame resistant or treated with a flame retardant. 55. Section 901.5.1 Occupancy. It shall be unlawful to occupy any portion of a building or structure until the required fire detection, alarm and suppression systems have been tested and approved. All acceptance tests shall be witnessed by the Fire Department prior to occupancy being granted. 56. Section 901.6.3 Annual Certification Required. All sprinkler systems, fire alarm systems, portable fire extinguishers, smoke removal systems, air replenishment systems and other fire protective or extinguishing systems shall be certified annually by a qualified agency. (Exception) 11 Hood fire extinguishing requires six (6) month service. Documentation shall be provided as indicated in section 901.6. 57. Section 901.6.4 Annual Hazardous Systems Certification. All electronic monitoring systems used in connection with flammable, combustible liquids and/or hazardous materials shall be certified annually by a qualified agency. Documentations of the system certification shall be forwarded to the Fire Department indicating the system has been tested and functions as required. 58. Section 903.2 Where Required. Approved automatic sprinkler systems in new buildings and structures shall be provided in the locations described in this section. All newly constructed buildings with a gross square footage of 5,000 square feet or greater, regardless of type or use as well as zero lot line townhouses within an aggregate area of all connected townhouses equaling 5,000 square feet or greater must be sprinklered. Additions to existing buildings which would result in a gross floor area greater than 5,000 square feet must be retrofitted with an automatic sprinkler system. Exception: One time additions to Group R-3 occupancies of up to 500 square feet are permitted without compliance with this Section. 59. Section 903.2.1.1 Group A-1. An automatic sprinkler system shall be provided for Group A-1 occupancies where one of the following conditions exists: a. The gross floor area exceeds 5,000 square feet; b. The fire area has an occupant load of 300 or more; c. The fire area is located on a floor other than the level of exit discharge; or d. The fire area contains a multi theater complex. 60. Section 903.2.1.3 Group A-3. An automatic sprinkler system shall be provided for Group A-3 occupancies where one of the following conditions exists: a. The gross floor area exceeds 5,000 square feet; b. The fire area has an occupant load of 300 or more; or voistOi 12 c. The fire area is located on a floor other than the level of exit discharge. Exception: Areas used exclusively as participant sports areas where the main floor area is located at the same level as the level of exit discharge of the main entrance and exit. 61. Section 903.2.1.4 Group A-4. An automatic sprinkler system shall be provided for Group A-4 occupancies where one of the following conditions exists: a. The gross floor area exceeds 5,000 square feet; b. The fire area has an occupant load of 300 or more; or c. The fire area is located on a floor other than the level of exit discharge. Exception: Areas used exclusively as participant sports areas where the main floor area is located at the same level as the level of exit discharge of the main entrance and exit. 62. Section 903.2.2 Group E. An approved automatic sprinkler system shall be provided for Group E Occupancies where the gross floor area exceeds 5,000 square feet. Exceptions: a. Throughout every portion of educational buildings below the level of exit discharge. b. Throughout all newly constructed Group E Occupancies having an occupant load of 50 or more for more than 12 hours per week or 4 hours in any one day. A minimum water supply meeting the requirements of NFPA 13 shall be required. c. Portable school classrooms, provided aggregate area of clusters of portable school classrooms does not exceed 5,000 square feet; and clusters of portable school classrooms shall be separated as required in Chapter 5 of the Building Code. d. Basements: An automatic sprinkler system shall be installed in basements classified as a Group E Occupancy when the basement is larger than 1,500 square feet in floor area. Now 13 When not required by other provisions of this chapter, a fire- extinguishing system installed in accordance with NFPA 13 may be err®` used for increases and substitutions allowed in Sections 504.2, 506.3, and Table 601 of the Building Code. 63. Section 903.2.3 Group B,F,H, and S Occupancies. An automatic sprinkler system shall be provided throughout all buildings containing a Group B, F, H or S occupancy with over twelve thousand 5,000 square feet of gross floor area. 64. Section 903.2.6 Group M. An automatic sprinkler system shall be provided throughout buildings containing a Group M occupancy where one of the following conditions exists: a. Where a Group M gross floor area exceeds 5,000 square feet; b. Where a Group M fire area is located more than three stories above grade; or c. Where the combined area of all Group M fire areas on all floors, including any mezzanines, exceeds 5,000 square feet. 65. Section 903.2.7.1 Group R-3 Occupancy. When the occupancy has over twelve thousand 5,000 square feet of gross floor area. ,I" 66. Section 903.2.7.2 Dwellings. When proposed within all residential zones, clustered or constructed so that, when attached, the total square foot gross floor area of all dwelling units exceeds 5,000 square feet. For the purpose of this subsection, portions of buildings separated by one or more firewalls will not be considered a separate building. 67. Section 903.2.14 Automatic Sprinkler Systems in New Buildings. The requirements for the installation of fire protection sprinkler systems in new buildings shall be as indicated in 903.2.14.1 and 903.2.14.2. 68. Section 903.2.14.1 Buildings over 5,000 square feet. A fully automatic fire protection sprinkler system is to be installed in all new buildings in excess of 5,000 square feet total gross floor area, regardless of vertical or horizontal fire barriers. Such sprinkler system shall be designed, installed and tested as per Section 903.3. 69. Section 903.2.14.2 Buildings less than 5,000 square feet. A fully automatic fire protection sprinkler system may be required by the Chief of the fire department or the fire code official for buildings less than 5,000 square feet gross floor area when, in their judgment, supported by written documentation from a professional organization (such as NFPA, 14 ICC, SBCC, U.L., ISO, etc.)verifies that hazardous operations, hazardous contents, critical exposure problems, limited accessibility to the building or other items may contribute to a definite hazard. 70. Section 903.2.15 Sprinkler Systems in Remodeled Buildings. The requirements for the installation of fire protection sprinkler systems in remodeled buildings shall be as indicated in Sections 903.2.15.1 and 903.2.15.2. 71. Section 903.2.15.1. Existing sprinklered buildings. When existing buildings with full sprinkler systems are remodeled or added onto, the remodeled or added on portion shall be fully sprinklered. 72. Section 903.2.15.2. Existing non-sprinklered buildings. When an existing building is added onto or remodeled and the resulting total square foot gross floor area exceeds 5,000 square feet, then the entire structure shall be fully sprinklered. 73. Section 903.3.1.2 NFPA 13R sprinkler systems. Where allowed in buildings of Group R, up to and including four stories in height, automatic sprinkler systems shall be installed throughout in accordance with NFPA 13R. NFPA 13R systems shall be limited to buildings with a maximum gross floor area of 12,000 square feet. *Al'"` 74. Section 903.4.2 Alarms. Approved audible and visible alarm notification appliances shall be connected to every automatic sprinkler system in accordance with Section 907 and throughout areas designated by the fire code official. Sprinkler water-flow alarm devices shall be activated by water flow equivalent to the flow of a single sprinkler of the smallest orifice size installed in the system. Alarm devices shall be provided on the exterior of the building in an approved location. Where a fire alarm system is installed, actuation if the automatic sprinkler system shall actuate the building fire alarm system. Exceptions: a. With approval of the fire code official, audible and visible alarm notification appliances may be omitted for approved residential sprinkler systems in 1 or 2 dwelling units if not otherwise specifically required. b. Approved domestically supplied local systems with ten (10) heads or less per building. 15 =SRS 75. Section 903.4.3 Floor Control Valves. Approved supervised indicating control valves shall be provided at the point of connection to the riser on each floor. Exception: When approved by the fire code official in NFPA 13D and NFPA 13R Systems. 76. Section 905.3.1 Building height. Class III standpipe systems shall be installed throughout buildings where the floor level of the highest story is located more 20 feet above the lowest level of the fire department vehicle access, or where the floor level of the lowest story is located more than 20 feet below the highest level of fire department vehicle access. Exceptions: (not amended) 77. Section 905.3.8 High-Rise Building Standpipes. Standpipe risers shall be combination standpipe/sprinkler risers using a minimum pipe size of 6 inch diameter. Two 2-1/2 inch hose connections shall be provided on every intermediate floor level landing in every required stairway unless otherwise approved by the Fire Code Official. Where pressure reduction valves (PRV) are required, each hose connection shall be provided with its own PRV. The system shall be designed to provide a minimum flow of 300 gpm at a minimum pressure of 150 psi (maximum 200 psi) at each standpipe connection, in addition to the flow and pressure requirements contained in NFPA 14. 78. Section 905.8 Dry standpipes. Dry standpipes, when approved by the Fire Code Official, are acceptable in other than high-rise buildings. 79. Section 906.1 Where required. Delete exception to item number 1. 80. Section 907.2.1 Group A. Delete the exception. 81. Section 907.2.2—Group B. A manual fire alarm system shall be installed in the following Group B Occupancies: a. Those having an occupant load of 500 or more persons or more than 100 persons above or below the lowest level of exit discharge. b. Those that are two (2) or more stories in height and 10,000 square feet or more in area. Exception: Deleted. 82. Section 907.2.3 Group E. Delete exception number 2. 16 *o,,,,. 83. Section 907.2.4 Group F. Delete exception. 84. Section 907.2.7 Group M. Delete exceptions number 1 and 2. 85. Section 907.2.8.1 Manual Fire Alarm System. Delete exceptions 1 and 2. 86. Section 907.2.9 Group R-2. Delete exceptions 1, 2, and 3. 87. Section 907.2.9.1 Multi-family complexes. Multi-family complexes with three (3) or more separate buildings within the complex, including recreation and/or day-care buildings, shall be provided with approved fire alarm systems regardless of size. The buildings within the complex shall have each building monitored by an approved central station. 88. Section 907.20.5.1 Nonconforming alarm systems. In the event that an alarm system may not meet these requirements, it shall be a further requirement of this chapter that modifications necessary to meet these minimum levels are made to the alarm system and subsequent testing is conducted prior to any occupancy being granted. 89. Section 914.3 High-Rise Buildings. High-rise buildings shall comply with Sections 914.3.1 through 914.3.7. 90. Section 914.3.6 Air replenishment systems. All high-rise buildings shall be equipped with an approved rescue air replenishment system. The system shall provide an adequate pressurized fresh air supply through a permanent piping system for the replenishment of portable life sustaining air equipment carried by fire department, rescue and other personnel in the performance of their duties. Location of access stations, as well as installation and maintenance of the air replenishment systems shall meet with the requirements as determined by the fire code official. A specifications document for the construction of air replenishing systems that conforms to the breathing equipment used by the Renton Fire Department will be made available by the fire code official. 91. Section 914.3.7 Fire equipment. A cabinet or other enclosed facility shall be provided in every stairwell, smoke tower or such similar structure on designated floors, commencing with the third floor, seventh floor and every fourth floor above the seventh floor for the storage of fire hose and related equipment. Said cabinets, devices, hoses and related equipment shall be furnished by the building owner. All such equipment and the specific location thereof shall be subject to the approval of the fire code official. These rooms will be inspected iklow 17 annually by the fire department and equipment replaced by the responsible party at the appropriate service life. 92. 1027.16.5 Materials and strength. Components of fire escape stairs shall be constructed of noncombustible materials. Fire escape stairs and balconies shall support the dead load plus a live load of not less than 100 pounds per square foot(4.78 kN/m2). Fire escape stairs and balconies shall be provided with a top and intermediate handrail on each side. The fire code official is authorized to require testing or other satisfactory evidence that an existing fire escape stair meets the requirements of this section. To ensure that fire escapes are safe and work properly, they must be visually inspected each year and load tested every five (5) years. 93. Section 1404.5 Fire watch. When required by the fire code official for building construction or demolition that is hazardous in nature, qualified personnel shall be provided to serve as an on-site fire watch. Fire watch personnel shall be provided with at least one approved means for notification of the fire department and their sole duty shall be to perform constant patrols and watch for the occurrence of fire. 94. Section 2204.3.1 General. Unattended self-service motor fuel- dispensing facilities, open to the general public are not allowed. As a condition of approval of fleet vehicle fueling and private fueling facilities, the owner or operator shall provide, and be accountable for, daily site visits, regular equipment inspection and maintenance. 95. Section 2701.5 Permits. Permits shall be required as set forth in Sections 105.6 and 105.7. When required by the fire code official, permittees shall apply for approval to permanently close a storage, use or handling facility. Such application shall be submitted at least 30 days prior to the termination of the storage, use or handling of hazardous materials. The fire code official is authorized to require that the application be accompanied by an approved facility closure plan in accordance with Section 2701.6.3. All new installations and/or modifications or additions to existing systems shall require plan review and permit fees as stipulated in RMC 4-1-150, Fire Prevention Fees. 96. Section 2703.2.6 Maintenance. In addition to the requirements of Section 2703.2.3, equipment, machinery and required detection and alarm systems associated with hazardous materials shall be maintained 18 in an operable condition. Defective containers, cylinders and tanks shall be removed from service, repaired or disposed of in an approved manner. Defective equipment or machinery shall be removed from service and repaired or replaced. Required detection and alarm system shall be replaced or repaired where defective. All monitoring systems used in connection with hazardous materials shall be certified at least annually by a qualified agency. Documentation of the system certification shall be forwarded to the fire department indicating the system has been tested and functions as required. 97. Section 2703.9 General Safety Precautions. General precautions for the safe storage, handling or care of hazardous materials shall be in accordance with Sections 2703.9.1 through 2703.9.10. 98. Section 2703.9.10 Manufacturer's limitations. The storage and use of hazardous materials shall not exceed the manufacturer's limitations on shelf life and any other restrictions on use. 99. Section 3301.1.3 Fireworks. The possession, sale and discharge of all fireworks are prohibited in the City of Renton, as of May 21, 2005. 100. Section 3301.1.3 Exception 3. Displays authorized by the City Council under permit issued pursuant to City Code, and the Washington Administrative Code, if required. Now 101. Section 3301.2.4.2 Public Display; Insurance Required. Any applicant shall, at the time of issuance of such license, submit to the City proper evidence of public liability and property damage insurance and such applicant shall maintain the insurance in a company or companies approved by the City with amounts as follows: One million dollars ($1,000,000.00)or more for injuries to any one(1) person in one (1) accident or occurrence; two million dollars ($2,000,000.00)or more for injuries to two (2)or more persons in any one(1) accident or occurrence; one million dollars($1,000,000.00)for damage to property in any one(1) accident or occurrence. Such insurance shall name the City as an additional insured and shall not be cancelable except by a 45- day pre-cancellation notice in writing to the City. 102. Section 3301.2.4.2.1 Pyrotechnic Operator Required. Every city- authorized display of fireworks shall be handled and supervised by a state licensed pyrotechnic operator. 103. Section 3301.7.1 Enforcement Officer. The fire code official or the official's duly authorized representative is hereby designated as the enforcing officer of this chapter. For acts that are deemed in violation of 19 the law, whether civil infraction or misdemeanor, the Police Department is also authorized to enforce the law. 104. Section 3301.7.2 Penalty. Any violation of this chapter on fireworks shall be an infraction only and punishable under RMC 1-3-2 entitled Civil Penalties, except possession, sale or discharge of fireworks not classified as "consumer" by statute, as now or hereafter amended, shall be subject to such fines and penalties as set forth in RCW 70.77.488, 70.77.540, and Chapter 212-17 WAC. (Amd. Ord. 5078, 5-17-2004; Ord. 5086, 6-21-2004; Ord. 5088, 6-28-2004) 105. Section 3404.2.11 Underground Tanks. Underground storage of flammable and combustible liquids in tanks shall comply with Section 3404.2 and Sections 3404.2.11.1 through 3404.2.11.5.3. Corrosion protection shall comply with WAC 173-360-305. All new underground storage tanks shall conform to the standards as defined in the "Underground Storage Tank Secondary Containment Ordinance" (RMC 4-5-120). All provisions of the "Underground Storage Tank Secondary Containment Ordinance" shall apply to the installation, use, maintenance and abandonment of underground storage tanks. All unauthorized releases from underground storage tanks shall be reported in conformance with RMC 4-5-120K, Release Reporting Requirements. Leaking tanks shall be promptly emptied and removed from the ground and abandoned in accordance with Section 3404.2.14. All new above ground and underground tank installations and modifications or additions to existing systems shall be subject to plan review and installation fees as described in RMC 4-1-150. 106. Section 3404.2.11.5.3 Leak Detection System Maintenance and Certification. Leak detection devices and monitoring systems installed in accordance with this section shall be inspected and tested at least annually by a qualified third party, and the test results maintained on site for at least one year. 107. Appendix B 104.2 Area separation. Portions of buildings, which are separated by one or more four-hour firewalls constructed in accordance with the International Building Code, without openings, and provided with a 30-inch parapet, are allowed to be considered as separate fire areas. (Ord. 4547, 7-24-1995; Amd. Ord. 4769, 3-8-1999; Ord. 5086, 6- 21-2004) 20 • CITY OF RENTON COUNCIL AGENDA BILL Al#: /in ' ,. Submitting Data: For Agenda of: Dept/Div/Board.. Hearing Examiner July 2, 2007 Staff Contact Fred J. Kaufman, ext. 6515 Agenda Status Consent X Subject: Public Hearing.. Correspondence.. Cassidy Cove Preliminary Plat Ordinance File No. LUA-07-014, PP, SA-A, ECF Resolution Old Business Exhibits: New Business Hearing Examiner's Report and Recommendation Study Sessions Legal Description and Vicinity Map Information Recommended Action: Approvals: Legal Dept Council Concur Finance Dept Other Fiscal Impact: Expenditure Required... N/A Transfer/Amendment kowoiAmount Budgeted Revenue Generated Total Project Budget City Share Total Project SUMMARY OF ACTION: The hearing was held on May 15, 2007. The Hearing Examiner's Report and Recommendation on the Cassidy Cove Preliminary Plat was published on June 5, 2007. The appeal period ended on June 19, 2007. No appeals were filed. The Examiner recommends approval of the proposed preliminary plat subject to the conditions outlined on page 6 of the Examiner's Report and Recommendation. Conditions placed on this project are to be met at later stages of the platting process. STAFF RECOMMENDATION: Approve the Cassidy Cove Preliminary Plat with conditions as outlined in the Examiner's Report and Recommendation. Rentonnet/agnbill/ bh June 5, 2007 %r► OFFICE OF THE HEARING EXAMINER CITY OF RENTON Minutes APPLICANT/OWNER: King County Department of Transportation 155 Monroe Ave NE Renton, WA 98056 CONTACT: Jon Cassidy 155 Monroe Ave NE Renton, WA 98056 Cassidy Cove Preliminary Plat File No.: LUA 07-014, PP, SA-A, ECF LOCATION: 155 Monroe Ave NE SUMMARY OF REQUEST: Approval to relocate a pole yard and Preliminary Plat approval for subdivision of 68 acres of land into 2 lots. SUMMARY OF ACTION: Development Services Recommendation: Approve subject to conditions DEVELOPMENT SERVICES REPORT: The Development Services Report was received by the Examiner on May 1, 2007. PUBLIC HEARING: After reviewing the Development Services Report, examining available info' uation on file with the application, field checking the property and surrounding area; the Examiner conducted a public hearing on the subject as follows: MINUTES The following minutes are a summary of the May 15, 2007 hearing. The legal record is recorded on CD. The hearing opened on Tuesday, May 15, 2007, at 9:27 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: Yellow file containing the original Exhibit No. 2: Neighborhood Detail Map application,proof of posting, proof of publication and other documentation pertinent to this request. Exhibit No. 3: Overall Site Plan with Buildings Exhibit No. 4: Proposed New Building Location Noire Exhibit No. 5: 2002 Subdivision (7 lots) Exhibit No. 5b: Map with large rectangle as "Pole Yard" and smaller rectangle as "building." Cassidy Cove Preliminary Plat File No.: LUA-07-014, PP, SA-A, ECF June 5, 2007 Page 2 Exhibit No. 6: Proposed Subdivision (2 lots) Exhibit No. 7: Proposed Pole Yard Location Exhibit No. 8: Zoning Map Exhibit No. 9: Aerial Photograph of Area showing vegetation and landscaping. The hearing opened with a presentation of the staff report by Elizabeth Higgins, Senior Planner, Development Services, City of Renton, 1055 S Grady Way, Renton, Washington 98055. This is a continuation of a hearing that was opened previously, a continuation was asked for due to Ms. Higgins not being able to make a recommendation at that time. The subdivision is located in northeast Renton south of NE 4th Street and Monroe. The facility is the site of the King County Roads and Parks Operations and Maintenance Base. It has 17 buildings that will remain. The subdivision and subsequent sale of the smaller lot would require the location of a pole yard in the southeast portion of the new 60-acre lot. A new 4,800 square foot building would be added to the new pole yard location. Lot B would be the new Renton Parks Facility location, it is an 8-acre parcel. The property is in the Employment Area—Industrial Comprehensive Land Use designation and is zoned Light Industrial with a Public Use suffix. Access to the property is from the north via Monroe Avenue NE and another access road,both of which come off of NE 4th Street. There are various uses that will take place on this property. The buildings at the core of the property have offices the type of uses that are often seen in the Light Industrial Zone, more research, and light manufacturing or assembly functions. The use for this site is material that will be stored outside. There are approximately 300 people employed at this facility. The area is zoned Light Industrial, the types of uses allowed in this zone include production, manufacturing, distribution, fabrication of materials and those activities are generally contained inside buildings. As previously NS mentioned, outdoor storage is allowed in this zone. The area to the west is Liberty Ridge, a residential area. The pole yard is moving to the southeast portion of the property, it is not at all visible from any of the surrounding residential areas. The Environmental Review Committee issued a Determination of Non-significance—Mitigated, which included 4 mitigation measures. No appeals were filed. Fire Mitigation fees must be paid for the new building. This project does conform to all Light Industrial Development Standards, the exception is in landscaping. There is a conflict between the Subdivision Standards and the Development Standards based on uses that are more medium to heavy industrial nature than a light industrial situation. This project consists of light, medium and heavy industrial uses all within the 60 acres of the site. There is landscaping at the center of the site where the office buildings are located. When you get out to the waste refuse dumping area, it is not practical to apply the same standards that would be used for light industrial. The 8-acre parcel was labeled "B", the 60-acre parcel (Lot 2) is labeled "A". Lot two is being subdivided into two parcels. There has been a suggestion that some rezoning take place in this area. There seems to be no clear designation between a Light Industrial Zone and a Medium or Heavy Industrial Zone, it is very finely segregated at that point. Most subdivision regulations for the Light Industrial Zone tend to fall to the residential requirements and minimal standards. There would be no impact on any of the public services that serve the property, all services Cassidy Cove Preliminary Plat File No.: LUA-07-014, PP, SA-A, ECF June 5, 2007 Page 3 can be provided. There would be some service utility charges in connection with the development, however, they would be minimal. In reviewing the site plan there is another set of criteria that need to be used, there is a small metal building with virtually no impact on the 60-acre site. The recommendation is that the applicant comply with the Determination of Non-Significance—Mitigated that was issued by the ERC. In the report there is a recommendation that a landscape plan be submitted. It appears that the native vegetation on the site does sufficiently screen the pole yard and the new building from any of the surrounding residential areas. The second recommendation from the report should be removed since no landscaping needs to be added. John Cassidy, 155 Monroe Avenue NE, Renton, 98056 stated that he concurred with the Staff report and the provisions that were mentioned. When the property was originally developed in the 1970's, extensive landscaping was done for the office areas. The rest of the site has been maintained in native vegetation, which is draught tolerant and they have continued to do that. He presented an aerial photograph that shows the area and the landscaping. The 8-acre parcel is located along the western portion of the site and borders Liberty Ridge development. He further explained the photograph showing where various offices were located and the vegetation surrounding them. Outside the parking lots it is all grass and trees. The frontage along NE 21'd has all been landscaped. The south end of the lot is all native vegetation as well. Most of the gravel and rock is stored in the operations area for road maintenance activities. They have tried to maintain as many of the significant trees on the site as possible. The current pole yard is mostly paved, the new yard would be entirely paved and all the runoff would be taken to a stoiiu drainage system that includes state of the art filters and treatment facilities. Nine Kayren Kittrick, Development Services stated that water and sewer are available, storm drainage is never a problem on this site, it almost has to be slowed down, everything is infiltration and it is fast. The site is inspected on a continuing basis, there is anti-creosote and other hazardous materials that govern this entire area and it is subject to inspection. 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 10:07 a.m. FINDINGS, CONCLUSIONS & RECOMMENDATION Having reviewed the record in this matter, the Examiner now makes and enters the following: FINDINGS: 1. The applicant, King County Depai tuient of Transportation, filed a request for a Preliminary Plat as well as for a Site Plan for a pole yard that would be relocated. 2. The yellow file containing the staff report,the State Environmental Policy Act(SEPA) documentation and other pertinent materials was entered into the record as Exhibit#1. 3. The Environmental Review Committee (ERC), the City's responsible official issued a Deteiiuination of Non-Significance -Mitigated (DNS-M). %row 4. The subject proposal was reviewed by all departments with an interest in the matter. 5. The subject site is located at 155 Monroe Avenue NE. The site is alternately addressed as 3005 NE 4th Cassidy Cove Preliminary Plat File No.: LUA-07-014, PP, SA-A, ECF June 5, 2007 Page 4 • Street. The subject site is located on the west side of Monroe and south of NE 4th Street. 6. The map element of the Comprehensive Plan designates the area in which the subject site is located as suitable for the development of Light Industrial Uses, but does not mandate such development without consideration of other policies of the Plan. 7. The subject site is currently zoned IL-P (Light Industrial,with the "P" signifying public ownership). 8. The subject site was annexed to the City with the adoption of Ordinance 2249 enacted in June 1966. 9. The subject site is approximately 2,962,000 square feet or 68 acres. The subject site is irregularly shaped with a panhandle extension providing access to NE 4th Street. The subject site consists of the expansive King County"shops complex." 10. The subject site slopes downward to the south. 11. The site was originally short platted in 2002. Further platting of a short plat within five (5)years requires review as a preliminary plat and a public hearing before the Hearing Examiner and approval of the City Council. 12. The two proposed lots would be 60 acres and 8 acres. The City of Renton proposes purchasing the 8- acre parcel. 13. Access to the lots would continue to be via the panhandle out to NE 4th Street and internal easement roadways. 14. Utility services would remain unchanged for this new plat. 15. The applicant proposes moving its pole yard to a new site on the east side of the larger of the two lots that would be created by the platting process. The yard will be paved to protect the underlying soils. The building is approximately 4,800 square feet. The building will be 22 feet tall. It will be industrial in character with metal siding, serving the needs of the adjacent pole yard. 16. The large lot will provide very large setbacks in all directions for the new facility. Landscaping was incorporated into prior site plan developments on the site. Natural landscaping remains along the periphery of the subject site. CONCLUSIONS: Preliminary Plat 1. The proposed preliminary plat appears to serve the public use and interest. While the plat is not necessarily traditional in terms of lot layout or lot shape and size, the subject site is a 68-acre compound used by King County to house a variety of large shop operations. The carving out of two lots, one 60 acres and the other 8 acres, from this large lot does not appear to create any undue impacts. The lots will have adequate area to provide yards that buffer surrounding uses from the industrial type uses that now occur or will occur on the subject site. 2. The division will allow the development of additional industrial uses on the site on the smaller 8-acre parcel. Cassidy Cove Preliminary Plat File No.: LUA-07-014, PP, SA-A, ECF June 5, 2007 Page 5 4ti.r 3. Urban services are available to the proposed lots and the additional lot will not tax the infrastructure of the City. 4. The potential change in ownership will not change the tax base since ownership has been public and will remain public. 5. In summary, the proposed plat allows a change in ownership but uses will be governmental and remain industrial or industrially related leading to no discernable change in the neighborhood characteristics. Site Plan 6. The site plan ordinance provides a number of specific criteria for reviewing a site plan. Those criteria are generally represented in part by the following enumeration: a. Conformance with the Comprehensive Plan; b. Conformance with the Building and Zoning Codes; c. Mitigation of impacts on surrounding properties and uses; d. Mitigation of the impacts of the proposal on the subject site itself; e. Conservation of property values; f. Provision for safe and efficient vehicle and pedestrian circulation; g. Provision of adequate light and air; h. Adequacy of public services to accommodate the proposed use; The proposed use satisfies these and other particulars of the ordinance. 7. The pole yard and its associated building are industrial in nature and are, therefore, compatible with the goals and policies of the comprehensive plan. 8. The 22-foot tall building is permitted in the current zone which otherwise permits 50-foot tall buildings. The yards comply with the district's regulations. 9. The large size of the subject site generally isolates the interior uses from surrounding development. The proposed site plan does not appear to create any untoward impacts. The use is merely being relocated from one area of the large subject site to another. The pavement should prevent any problems or contaminants from leaching into the underlying soils. 10. The proposal continues the rather industrial character of the site and should not unduly affect other uses on the subject site. ` ,,. 11. Again, the isolated, interior nature of the proposal should not affect property values. 12. The site already has an access roadway and easement system. This may need to be altered to make sure Cassidy Cove Preliminary Plat File No.: LUA-07-014, PP, SA-A, ECF June 5, 2007 Page 6 that circulation is appropriate for the proposed use. 13. The 22-foot tall building should not change the circulation of air or impair light from entering the subject site. 14. The site is appropriately served by utilities. DECISION: The Site Plan is approved subject to the conditions found in the Preliminary Plat recommendation. RECOMMENDATION: The City Council should approve the proposed Preliminary Plat subject to the following conditions: 1. The applicant shall comply with all requirements of the Determination of Non-Significance— Mitigated that was issued by the Environmental Review Committee on March 12, 2007. ORDERED THIS 5th day of June 2007. FRED J. K FMAN HEARING EXAMINER TRANSMITTED THIS 5lh day of June 2007 to the parties of record: Elizabeth Higgins John Cassidy Martin D. Paquette, PLS 1055 S Grady Way King County Dept of Transportation Renton Technical College Renton, WA 98055 155 Monroe Ave NE 3000 NE Fourth Street Renton, WA 98056 Renton,WA 98056 Kayren Kittrick 1055 S Grady Way Trent Berry Jonard Peregrino Renton, WA 98055 320 Lynnwood Avenue SE 136 Glennwood Place NE Renton, WA 98056 Renton,WA 98056 TRANSMITTED THIS 5`h day of June 2007 to the following: Mayor Kathy Keolker Larry Rude, Fire Jay Covington, Chief Administrative Officer Larry Meckling, 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 King County Journal Cassidy Cove Preliminary Plat File No.: LUA-07-014, PP, SA-A, ECF June 5, 2007 Page 7 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., June 19, 2007. 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 Department, first floor of City Hall. An appeal must be filed in writing on or before 5:00 p.m.,June 19, 2007. 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 Now 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. — ' E5 - 9 T23N R5E W 1/2 1 1 ,(_P-/ / I 1_,c )---- [ R-8 I ( NE 4th St. -- RM-F C A c• -'' R1,-;-----ri– CA CA CA VS..' , , •R-10 R-10 . - IL CN . RMF ' -' 11 '=: t:________ R—8 NE -4). ,:;,- ...., • . ,,..,. R—8 :. . . ., -(,•-•- -::v -2":6, '' ,- , . " . .,_ .. - • , , - , , P4 7 H ts.) (-----Th. • .(4.- w - . * is. is .. Z fl tn. . 3rd -St-- c- - . cf, - 'q,-,- .6i-q --;•. .,,, q!:__, 4; - - . , . , .. ...... . 0, , 5t St. R=4 . : : --7---, , . - •-s. ' '''' . DR --,,,,,,i-> 4:)..1(.• • , R-4 .: ,„•• __ _ 4 /J : . , CN --- -:- __ -- --.- • - --- ks RC tN \ - \ R—1 4 • – 1/ R '4 ' G5 - 21 T23N R5E W 1/2 'CY ? ...d0 4 y o 1+C)tC.mz . ZONING ——-- Renton City rimit$ 141300 EXHIBIT , ...AN P/B/PW TECHNICAL SERVICES 'P •,11,r0 02/16/06 16 T23N R5E 8 • TOPOGRAPHw MAP OF RENTON ROADS MAINTENANCE FACIU IY(PARCEL#1623059005) 141141.9 r a5 4' ' Jo I D In iiii �� 'ii -..., _____ ...D !If tti..... ( > le n I ' I)i i :,:,_..-.._1--.:11°.9:7-..t.::42::::____.=.-1;_ asso-lh--:-_::::_---1::::: 1 i Cr 0 �� NE 2ND STREET (4‘1.II 10 \1 i� vo W47,7 A 1..•91. 1 )1.) lii'I . \\ C L ----?7 \ vo...... -_-j , ,:,‘ I\;) -N. , ' o ,_ft______ j-__=__--:-_,_ . „i, , L\\._ -_____4 ,L.L........_, _____ ,„:, Q 0 -,5------:, l KC7'Q ��� oA I')\{ ' -_, b .;; ' --,7 , 4 �` \ i,�� ,__J - , ,, E,______ __:„.4,,/ (n,1 . _,,,,,, fir , <r :2,, ,,,.__ ,..y.„... .___ 1 .2 __„„ ...... ---------z ,_,..„---------), _ Ira ,......__________,_ -S FOOT CONTOURS -KC STREET �° 440 Fel EXHIBIT Q PARCEL Q RENTON LAND SALE ,( tnE NAME:fiYilpWcMen P M(CLOTFMS(;aYwMeumal N V DATAle,CrtSOURCES'9aWnf IGnBCo.*�¢'e4 used FdWe StoIX(;aJa�xs M S4aK OC,YIAMHt T�mannspcn Inducted on Ma map Aa bean compia,M g CO1*1 ONE 4vm a mete d NM c se*.�toe.�..es n out notice-IG9 n malw5 to repro..wa5 o ...r...s.asisesea••V�pt a le apcvay.completeness. u treks to Ore use. such Itammm..9 enemy sena n.be rad.ar am o«Aw.weoa daSncL:�meetal.« ® King County•,.._____ „„_. ---, ____.,. _ ,„,..,„ 1 mVas rna Is Canwga:nn.9.by but n.es*need b.or renown a Utt P.O.rewM9 hon, 9 `Y On sese of misuse a(rm:tomes.m.h,ed on Ws^ap.M,ads of On nos er.komrea OEYM2fh81T of e}w}a$Itro(jTAT1oN Vas map�pr«diN aWTtWOrlYaa penn<man of�9C akY ,�,a xaoe fOYD SEA`ACES pVIStON TECHNOLOGY WI • King- County Department of Tr-asportation Renton Facilil 2002 Short Plat (Lots 1 -- 4, 6, and 7) 2007 Short Plat (Proposed Lots `A' and `B') Nooe 68320.ro __ s 3n3a. R .��a. s �- s. NE 4TH ST I : p. >> pr�q� r ©T ,gp /4t .) 3RD 5� �/-i il-,---,' `-- e�6• 1 x� ® LOT 1 I o «ors9 zz-E C)o E + �r v9S,8'ifH� Qo I Illi -I = 1— _ f' Ill _ _Y �:4'., !7&. zii rf e¢ _ I!1 lNOIVII IDE 4.6o1 oil 1, I 3r _11.1, t T.i r t.` i c W _. Tizl�• �i f`tep� 9091 m 90-91 YYf-, ,t = 44' so'ncEErz s 01.0.77•5, N E. d �� '"a' <TEE 143-TE z2, s,. I!I Meo SFfEET 2 �r U.'�yin Ern.n.a n m•a•,7••E som' i o^ .Mean..mac mir m.sE ,''�„w� �I� s 89'BJ•oe E .5.1 : . , S 89-0723•'E LS000' SOUTH LLE OE NEI./OP NVV,SEC 16 .- - � 1• g----- s a9roJ'u"E 68133 �� / ���' — -1.-------„,c,„,„... � g.,..3.___44 .—� NEW LO a B sz91 x�Y VI t ` 11 , �I eo,6z rates er 3n,le..o.� l VI : s. 'IC -"- - «89-03,0-Y -1 •1 I PWtrm+a nsnNc tm z ; � I �'Tia� elji ". -"'^ -. __.. __ ——— SEE W r,a S M-SO4- I •s 89'07::E S 89hY,0"E I N 86'.1'35••E _© �I S 8$9)23'L �° N 89979P^Y L 4 L 2]273 ry 59.25•'E I Lik.' - I 53314' 00'52'))^ 3000 .4 r�a YS z 291.50• �Qw a �—*lig ® NEV.LQT .�0. , 'Rte, vi rt. �� ` ' V LOT i z. -0 ac -.....r,--______.,______________,._— :‘,,s 4L' i1 r N 01'0"23"E I. q S 8393,0"E I 7 n , d': - im 5•,m' F' 5]2.00 . = ]'-----J - l' 16 ,..10 4/ r' •. I I fes= .E".a. -f---r-_—--_-_—_---1 ' I M I ,S I LOT 3 :1 _n i— 'I1\� 1]'338) Y 9�g Y 111 x 57018)a0. -- ,�,// Z ]0010' S+1.09'C'J-E ^j 4 yrQo a; • _ ,., 1 _ 00 -.I Z.m san 2Y ]7 V �- 33�3pp _ ®® ++_ NEW LO T A e �e o . A ; EFEn3. . 2Ae 1.90.. „ 'ra3o-.iI .... ... .. . i_ i `NEW LOT A 60.820891 :fJ !& 1L e. ® = W-9,-696._or IV•— -- $ I. I ng ® r�i l 3 9529 z:. ® 4 Ilt �R•TON PER SEYER 60 Ciir 6 - i', A .- � ;i,r E«i➢N PER 10100895 ���1�\-�..$11EET, N 18320.00• Y worn 18.E SY V,Cr s 8,011.'E • 6� ae' IVB £ NEW LOT A 1 -, s s ,l t("�I i�ir� i ©®1iirt • 16 Q� j1 E8�0 13as L ® � — • ® : ., �I i1NG lar 2 _ �s ��Jr ESNr . 7 . i m �i6 t � �-a9a.s1m1 Al,w,E 2 rl 1 1 6 ‘.....- EXHIBIT 5 I • ; — 7 \ 7- ,1 — i ir /;;'-:;'' �. • ! it I, X;— --- -..„ 1 (:•-• 1 / h Trod,ri¢.Aa '/)(;,.1, N� /m ._-.__.I ....... ( r.r KC HEAL PT, — I �I U /�� 1 ,I ri , / yrs N" •• _ i.- [ . 1 ��� !0 . b0 INit Y� 1� S Iiiii!It 11'` ,_% i-" _.......r~._ ._.. _— naoa t- cn..aeio�iH FELT • I 1 INN • - ,— t.'tom. ' tl `�.,:... /{/�� \1\GH 77- 1 t7 ,ems'/� ��/' CORN+'cOluuH CM��'.J� ��Th Ilj'?( ' V I L / t F V 8100•• �\ e�\ \ /�C ((��' LLL{{{... I(/ (\'"/ 1 r ______...! } KC PARKS ADMIN. ;eo' ACC S & U1'IU. EAsT1 ENT ! \j .+ \`\ -~'�� 1 BLDG �� ) � L'i ' 1:J'0.:r, ' \ i '; !.' \ JI \.� �� �\ I NEW FENCE -- \\\71'i----....------' , f i /1)- -- \ k. EX. FENCE TO A alit SSORPT 0/ST NAGE FAO (.-------"-------4-T---...� �`\� Ir' i '-"�- __—`—_ - �--\ " A' I `BE RELOCATED ---- .41.700 � `...+ / I mi i '.‘) \\-......-------;_r_ !, N I I 1 �__ -\ ,L j ::4,--/:„0A)Ii...4. 1 T 1 — '10 77 //// / / / / / /7 r ,r: ) '/// I '\.5.' ..c.-Io,„. --,,,,-------1*-7." ..4,.-‘.17------?---C—s.., -1,!--------k,/ 's''' ----4:'''''...\\'''',C'7---1Y2j- I \ ' 1 `" O Y R !S • 14.. III. I 1 Of / L / ' / ;• - c • • e •• • I / ply 7 ,,:_j ' '�% 7"/\ i�/ I I I Iill / i 'JI' QL . r-_� / ///' / . ,7/ ;' 214— .2,--7.5----�' / f ; ITOTAL CUT VOLUME'. 1400 CUBIC YARD I I / / '( / �. •-• -.; 2. ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW Pursuant to the City of Renton's Environmental Ordinance and SEPA (RCW 43.21C, 1971 as amended), on March 12, 2007, the Environmental Review Committee issued a Determination of Non- Significance - Mitigated (DNS-M) for the Cassidy Cove Preliminary Plat and Site Plan Review. The DNS-M included 4 mitigation measures. A 14-day appeal period commenced on March 19, 2007, and ended on April 2, 2007. No appeals of the threshold determination were filed. 3. COMPLIANCE WITH ERC MITIGATION MEASURES Based on an analysis of probable impacts from the proposal, the Environmental Review Committee (ERC) issued the following mitigation measures with the Determination of Non-Significance — Mitig ,44004< 1. The applicant shall be required to comply with the recommendations included in the geotechnical report, "Geotechnical Engineering Study King County Renton Facilities Short Plat," by the King County Department of Transportation Engineering Services Section, dated October 2006. 2. The applicant shall submit a preliminary drainage plan and drainage report prior to obtaining building permits or recording the Final Plat. The report shall address detention and water quality requirements as outlined in the 1990 King County Surface Water Manual. If preliminary calculations indicate detention will be required under the 1990 manual, the project must comply with the 2005 King County Surface Water Design Manual to meet both detention (Conservation Flow control —a.k.a. Level 2) and water quality improvements. 3. The applicant shall be required to provide a Temporary Erosion and Sedimentation Control Plan (TESCP) designed pursuant to the Department of Ecology's Erosion and Sediment Control Requirements outlined in Volume II of the most recent Department of Ecology Stormwater Management Manual. 4. The applicant shall pay the appropriate Fire Mitigation Fee based on a rate of$0.52 per square foot prior to issuance of the building permit or recording of the Final Plat. Hex Report 07-014 (rev).doc Exhibit A `4rrrr LEGAL DESCRIPTION OF THE SPECIAL ASSESSMENT DISTRICT • FOR THE CITY OF RENTON- EAST RENTON INTERCEPTOR Portions of Sections 8, 9, 10, 11, 14, 15, 16, 17, 21 and 22 all in Township 23N, Range 5E W.M. in King County, Washington . Section 8, Township 23N, Range 5E W.M. All of that portion of Section 8, Township 23N, Range 5E W.M. lying East of the g East right-of-way line of SR-405 and South of the following described line: Beginning at the intersection of the East line of said Section 8 with the centerline of NE 7th Street; thence Westerly along said centerline of NE 7th Street to its t intersection with the centerline of Sunset Boulevard NE; thence Northerly along 4 the centerline of Sunset Boulevard NE to the North line of the Southeast V4 of said Section 8; thence West along said North line to the East right-of-way line of t. SR-405 and the terminus of said line. op) i i CZ Section 9, Township 23N, Range 5E W.M. i CO All of that portion of Section 9, Township 23N, Range 5E W.M. lying South and { t0D East of the following described line: - i Cr) Beginning on the centerline of NE 7th Street at its intersection with the centerline of Edmonds Avenue NE; thence Easterly along the centerline of NE 7th Street to . its intersection with the centerline of Monroe Avenue NE; thence North along said centerline to the South line of the Northeast 1/4 of said Section 9; thence East along said South line to its intersection with the centerline of Redmond Avenue NE; thence Northerly along said centerline to its intersection with the centerline of • I NE 10th Street; thence East along said centerline to the East line of said Section 9 and the terminus of said line. 1 i Section 10, Township 23N, Range 5E W.M. 3 1 All of that portion of Section 10, Township 23N, Range 5E W.M. lying Southerly and Westerly of the following described line: I Beginning on the West line of Section 10 at its intersection with the North line of # the South / of the North i/2 of said Section 10; thence East along said North line 1 to its intersection with the centerline of 142nd Avenue SE; thence Southerly I along said centerline to its intersection with the North line of the Southeast 1/4 of ' said Section 10; thence East along said North line to its intersection with the Fast line of said Section 10 and the terminus of said line. I 1 I 4 F:ZATAWEMI9¢•070:12NREVISEDSADLEQALdac I • • Legal Description of the Special Assessment District for the City of Renton-East Renton Interceptor Page 2 of 3 Section 11,Township 23N, Range SE W.M. All of the Southwest 1/4 of Section 11,Township 23N, Range 5E W.M.. Section 14,Township 23N, Range SE W.M. All of that portion of Section 14, Township 23N, Range 5E. W.M. described as follows: All of the Northwest 1/4 of said section, together with the Southwest 1/4 of said section, except the South 1/2 of the Southeast 1/4 of said Southwest 1/4 and except the plat of McIntire Homesites and 1/2. of streets adjacent as recorded in the Book of Plats, Volume 58, Page 82, Records of King County, Washington, and except the South 151.55 feet of the East 239.435 feet of Tract 6, Block 1 of Cedar River Five Acre Tracts as recorded in the Book of Plats, Volume 16, Page 52, Records of King County, Washington, less V2 of the street abutting said portion of Tract 6, Block 1, and less Tract 6, Block 2 of said Cedar River Five Acre Tracts, less '/i of ,p the street adjacent to said Tract 6, Block 2, and except the South 82.785 feet of 01 the East 150 feet of Tract 5, Block 2 of said Cedar River hive Acre Tracts and less 1/2 the street adjacent to said portion of Tract 5, Block 2. `'i /up Section 15, Township 23N, Range SE W.M. All of that portion of Section 15, Township 23N, Range 5E. W.M., except the Southwest 1/4 of the Southwest 1/4 of the Southwest 11¢ of said section. Section 16, Township 23N, Range SE W.M. All of that portion of Section 16, Township 23N, Range 5E W.M., except that portion of the Southeast 1/4 of the Southeast 114 of the said Section 16 lying East of the East line of the Plat of Maplewood Division No. 2 as recorded in the Book of Plats Volume 39, page 39, Records of King County Washington and its Northerly extension to the North line of said Southeast 1 of the Southeast V4 of the said Section 16 and except that portion of said section lying Southerly of the Northerly right-of-way line of SR 169 (Maple Valley Highway). • F Section 17,Township 23N, Range SE W,M. All of that portion of Section 17, Township 23N, Range 5E W.M., lying Northeasterly of the Northeasterly right-of-way of SR 169 (Maple Valley Highway) and Easterly of the East right-of-way line of SR-405 less that portion lying { generally West of the East and Southeasterly line of Bronson Way NE lying ,4010, FADATA1REWS2-074502AEVISEDSADLEGAL.dx Legal Description of the Special Assessment District for the City of Ren —East Renton Interceptgor Pae 3 of ton 3 between the South line of the NE 3rd Street and the Northeasterly margin of SR- 405. Section 21, Township 23N, Range SE W.M. All that portion of Section 21, Township 23N, R 5E W.M. lying Northeasterly of the Northeasterly right-of-way line of SR-I89 (Maple Valley Highway) and West of the East line of the Plat of Maplewood Division No. 2 as recorded in the Book of i< Plats, volume 39, page 39, Records of King County, Washington. Section 22, Township 23N, Range SE W.M. All of that portion of Section 22, Township 23N, Range 5E W.M. described as follows: All of the Northwest-Vt of the Northeast 1A of said Section 22 lying Northerly of the tD Southerly line of the Plat of Maplewood Heights as recorded in the Book of Plats, volume 78, pages 1 through 4, Records of King County,Washington. QTogether with the North 227,11 feet of the West 97.02 of the Northeast 14 of the t Northeast I/� of said Section 22.Naito 477 i • f � k 3 3 s _ t F:iIIATAAqENt202•075102NREV6E0.SADLEGALdx x CITY OF RENTON COUNCIL AGENDA BILL Al #: l1d SUBMITTING DATA: I FOR AGENDA OF: July 2, 2007 Dept/Div/Board.. Administrative Legal and Judicial Services I Staff Contact.. Lawrence J. Warren, City Attorney I AGENDA STATUS: Consent X SUBJECT: I Public Hearing.. Correspondence.. Consent and Certificate to Bank of America associated with I Ordinance construction loans for Harvest Partners for The Landing. I Resolution I Old Business.... EXHIBITS: I New Business.... Study Session... • The City of Renton's Consent and Certificate I Other RECOMMENDED ACTION: I APPROVALS: Legal Dept Council Concur Finance Dept....X I Other JAL IMPACT: N/A xpenditure Required... Transfer/Amendment.. Amount Budgeted Revenue Generated... SUMMARY OF ACTION: Bank of America is planning on loaning money to Transwestern Harvest Lakeshore, L.L.C. to finance construction on The Landing. As part of the security for the loan, Bank of America has asked the City to sign a Consent and Certificate that the various agreements between Boeing and the City and Transwestern Harvest Lakeshore, L.L.C. are current and, if there is a default, can be assigned or assumed by Bank of America or its successor in interest. The Consent and Certificate appears to be in appropriate legal form. STAFF RECOMMENDATION: Authorize the Mayor to execute the Consent and Certificate. T10.46:37 The City of Renton's Consent and Certificate "Nirr The undersigned (the "City") has entered into certain contracts and agreements including, but not limited to, those listed on Exhibit A attached hereto and made a part hereof(as the same may be amended or supplemented from time to time, the "Agreements") with Transwestern Harvest Lakeshore, L.L.C., a Delaware limited liability company ("Owner"), or its predecessors and assigns, pertaining to the development of, and construction of certain improvements (the "Improvements") on, the land (the "Land") more particularly described on Exhibit B attached hereto and made a part hereof. The City acknowledges that Owner will assign to Bank of America, N.A., a national banking association ("Agent"), as administrative agent for itself and other lenders ("Lenders"), for the benefit of Lenders, all of Owner's rights (but not Owner's obligations) in and to the Agreements as security for the obligations of Owner under an Amended and Restated Loan Agreement (the "Loan Agreement") to be entered into between Owner, Agent and Lenders. The City consents to and agrees to be bound by that assignment. The City further certifies to and agrees with Agent as follows: 1. The Agreements are in full force and effect, and neither Owner nor the City is in default under any of the Agreements. 2. If Owner defaults in making any payment or in performing any other obligation under any of the Agreements, or if any of the Agreements are terminated for any reason, the City will give Agent written notice of the default or termination. Prior to exercising any remedy available to the City under any of the Agreements as a result of a default, the City will afford to 'tale Agent a period of thirty (30) days within which to cure the default (it being acknowledged by the City that Agent shall have no obligation to cure any default by Owner). If any of the Agreements are terminated, the City, at the request of Agent, will enter into a new agreement with Agent upon substantially the same terms and conditions as set forth in the terminated Agreement. Any notice of default or termination will be delivered by personal delivery or by a nationally recognized overnight courier service or will be mailed by certified mail, return receipt requested,to the following address: Bank of America,N.A. —Real Estate Group 231 South LaSalle Street IL1-231-12-15 Chicago, Illinois 60697 Attention: Marilyn Weisbrodt Fax Number: (312) 828-2838 [Continued] err The Landing-City of Renton Consent and Certificate.DOC With a copy to: Through June 30, 2007: Barack Ferrazzano Kirschbaum Perlman&Nagelberg LLP 333 West Wacker Drive, Suite 2700 Chicago, Illinois 60606 Attention: Howard J. Kirschbaum, Esq. Fax Number: (312) 984-3150 After June 30, 2007: Barack Ferrazzano Kirschbaum Perlman &Nagelberg LLP 200 West Madison Avenue, Suite 3900 Chicago, Illinois 60606 Attention: Howard J. Kirschbaum, Esq. Fax Number: (312) 984-3150 3. In the event that Agent or any other party ("Owner's Successor") shall acquire title to the Land through foreclosure or deed in lieu of foreclosure, the City, if requested by Owner's Successor, will continue to perform its obligations under any of the Agreements, provided that any past due amounts owed to the City under such Agreement are paid to the City promptly following the request by Owner's Successor and provided that the City is thereafter compensated for its services, if any, as provided in the Agreement. If the City is not requested by Owner's Successor to continue to perform its obligations under any of the Agreements, then any continuation of such performance by the City shall be solely for the account of Owner, and the City will not assert any claim against Agent or Owner's Successor for any amounts owed to the City under such Agreement. 4. From time to time from and after the date hereof, the City shall execute and deliver such further consents and certificates as Agent may reasonably request to effectuate more fully the purposes and intent of this Consent and Certificate and to further perfect the rights and interests of Agent in and to the Agreements. 5. The City acknowledges that Agent and the Lenders will rely on this Consent and Certificate in making the loan to Owner that is contemplated by the Loan Agreement. [Signature Page to Follow] The Landing-City of Renton Consent and Certificate.DOC City has executed and delivered this Consent and Certificate on the day of May, 2007. CITY: CITY OF RENTON By: Name: Title: 44110, The Landing-City of Renton Consent and Certiticate.DOC EXHIBIT A CONTRACTS 1. Development Agreement for the Boeing Renton Aircraft Manufacturing Facility dated June 28, 2002, by and between The Boeing Company("Boeing")and the City of Renton (the "City"),recorded as Document No. 20020802000224 2. Strander Agreement dated December 4, 2002,by and between Boeing and the City, recorded as Document No. 20060420001032 3. Development Agreement for Renton Plant Development dated December 1, 2003,by and between Boeing and the City, recorded as Document No. 20031210001637 4. Agreement for Improvements to Pubic Infrastructure for The Landing dated June 8, 2006, by and between the City and Transwestern Harvest Lakeshore, L.L.C. ("Transwestern") 5. Parking Garage Agreement for the Landing dated February 16, 2007, by and between the City and Transwestern 6. Parking Garage Operation and Easement Agreement, dated , 200_by and between the City and Transwestern [To be executed post-closing] 4401 The Landing-City of Renton Consent and Certificate.DOC EXHIBIT B LEGAL DESCRIPTION THE LAND PARCEL A: LOTS 1A AND 4A OF KING COUNTY LOT LINE ADJUSTMENT, RECORDED AUGUST 8, 2006, UNDER RECORDING NO. 20060808900001 IN KING COUNTY, WASHINGTON. PARCEL B: LOT 1 OF KING COUNTY SHORT PLAT,ACCORDING TO PLAT RECORDED OCTOBER 24,2006, UNDER RECORDING NO. 20061024900005 IN KING COUNTY, WASHINGTON. SITUATE IN THE CITY OF RENTON, COUNTY OF KING, STATE OF WASHINGTON. TAX ACCOUNT NOS.: 088660-0010-04; 088660-0020-02; AND 088660-0029-03 low The Landing-City of Renton Consent and Certificate.DOC CITY OF RENTON COUNCIL AGENDA BILL Al#: 5 kiwi Submitting Data: For Agenda of: July 2, 2007 Dept/Div/Board.. Fire Department Staff Contact I. David Daniels, Fire Chief Agenda Status Stan Engler, Battalion Chief Consent X Subject: Public Hearing.. Correspondence.. Fire District Liaison position for the Fire Department Ordinance Resolution Old Business Exhibits: New Business Issue Paper Study Sessions Job Description Information Recommended Actions: Approvals: Council concur. Legal Dept Finance Dept Other Fiscal Impact: Expenditure Required... $65,206.00 Transfer/Amendment Amount Budgeted Revenue Generated $65,206.00 Total Project Budget $65,206.00 City Share Total Project SUMMARY OF ACTION: It is necessary to replace the current King County Fire District 25 secretary, retiring effective June 30, 2007, with the new City of Renton employee position, Fire District Liaison. STAFF RECOMMENDATION: Approve the Fire District Liaison position. ti` - 0 FIRE DEPARTMENT ® MEMORANDUM DATE: June 26, 2007 TO: Toni Nelson, Council President Members of the City Council VIA: � ,Y Kathy Keolker, Mayor if FROM: I. David Daniels, Fire Chief/Emergency Services Administrator STAFF CONTACT: Stan Engler, Battalion Chief SUBJECT: Fire District Liaison Position ISSUE: The creation of a new City of Renton employee position of Fire District Liaison is needed to handle the day-to-day affairs of the King County Fire District 25 (KCFD 25) and provide administrative support to the Fire Department. This Fire District Liaison position will be a non-exempt position represented by ASME 2170. BACKGROUND: Since the City of Renton and King County Fire District 25 (KCFD 25) entered into a fire services agreement in 1993, KCFD 25 has employed a Fire District secretary to manage the affairs of KCFD 25 and meet certain State requirements for Fire Districts. It was recognized that this position would transition to the City at some point. Conversion of this position would serve the interests of both the City and KCFD 25. The current KCFD 25 secretary is retiring effective June 30, 2007. The Fire Department has identified a critical need for additional administrative support for executive staff that this new position would help address. This position would be classified as an Administrative Secretary I. The City would contract with KCFD 25 to provide the funding for the Fire District Liaison position. RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommends that the City of Renton Council concur and authorize the Mayor to create and fund this new position. err' C:\DOCUME—I\BWalton\LOCAL&-I\Temp\07 FD Liaison Issue Paper.doc rrr■n■rr► CITY OF RENTON Ned CLASS TITLE: FIRE DISTRICT LIAISON BASIC FUNCTION: Under the direction of the Fire Chief or Deputy Fire Chief, plan and perform technical administrative office coordination to assure smooth, timely and efficient office operations for the department and the fire district(s) assigned to them; relieve the Fire Chief and/or Deputy Fire Chief and Commissioners of technical clerical and administrative duties having department-wide or district-wide impact; research, collect, analyze and compile data and information for inclusion in reports; train, schedule, supervise and evaluate assigned clerical personnel; maintain complex financial records, files and budgets related to departmental or fire district operations, programs and expenditures. DISTINGUISHING CHARACTERISTICS: The Fire District Liaison reports to the Fire Chief or Deputy Fire Chief. Incumbents perform a broad range of complex duties directly related to the operation of the department and the fire district(s) within the scope of their responsibility. This requires extensive knowledge and the ability to supervise and evaluate assigned clerical personnel. REPRESENTATIVE DUTIES: NIS *Plan and perform technical administrative support functions; relieve the Fire Chief and/or Deputy Fire Chief and Board of Commissioners of technical clerical and administrative duties having department-wide or district-wide impact; *Prepare and coordinate bid calls. *Notary Public *Respond to district public records requests. *Answer phones and greet visitors as necessary; accept shipments and coordinate pickup with department personnel. *Maintain fire district bank accounts (petty cash and money market); coordinate budget information with investment counselor. *Assist the Fire Chief and/or Deputy Fire Chief in managing the district contract(s) Fire District Liaison - Continued Page 2 *Record and prepare agendas and minutes for a variety of meetings; prepare and assemble resolutions, special reports and agenda items as necessary; prepare board of commissioner agenda items and backup materials; compose, prepare and type a variety of correspondence, memos, reports and other materials; review and proof documents, records and forms for accuracy, completeness and conformance to applicable rules and regulations. *Attend meetings or other events; coordinate guest presentations; maintain a current understanding of department functions, programs and laws governing both the department and fire districts; and represent the department or district as required. *Conduct a variety of studies involving programs, systems, operations, special needs, issues or activities of an assigned department or district; research, analyze and prepare recommendations or conclusions on assigned projects. *Establish and maintain procedures for systemic retention, protection, retrieval, transfer and disposal of records, files and information based on state retention standards. *Fulfill statutory requirements pursuant to the applicable WACs, including but not limited to, preparation of financial reports and district SAO audits. `— *Coordinate insurance handling and payments for retired district employees. *Plan and coordinate office workflow to assure timely and efficient office operations. *Train, schedule and assign duties to office clerical and secretarial staff; supervise and evaluate the performance of assigned personnel; chair staff meetings to facilitate the accurate flow of information and work assignments. *Prepare and maintain complex and comprehensive financial records and files pertaining to departmental expenditures, bookkeeping, budget balances, investments, payroll, personnel (including pension and benefits), vouchers, and operations; prepare status reports, charts and graphs as requested. *Collect, compile and coordinate a variety of statistical, financial and narrative reports and records as necessary; assist in budget projection, preparation, maintenance and control; prepare and coordinate purchase of office supplies, equipment and other expenditures. *Develop new and improved programs, systems and procedures as a result of new policies or directives or routine research and analysis; assist with implementation ,; after securing approval. Fire District Liaison - Continued Page 3 *Research, analyze and prepare information on a variety of topics for dissemination to the public through the media, conference presentations, community meetings and City literature; coordinate efforts with City departments, government agencies and vendors. Prepare bid specs, legal ads and public notices. *Operate business and office machines including computers, copiers, calculator, typewriter and transcription equipment. Develop and prepare specifications for departmental projects, contracts, purchases and equipment; research, prepare and administer grants. Perform related duties as assigned. KNOWLEDGE AND ABILITIES: KNOWLEDGE OF: • Organization, functions and activities of the assigned department. • Financial and statistical record-keeping techniques. • Principles and practices of supervision and training. • Processing requirements and procedures for public documents. • Principles and practices of governmental budget preparation and control techniques. • Modern office practices, procedures and equipment. Niod • Correct English usage, grammar, spelling, punctuation and vocabulary. • Supervisory principles and practices. • Interpersonal skills using tact, patience and courtesy. • Applicable laws, codes, regulations, policies and procedures. • Technical aspects of field of specialty. • City organization, operations, policies and objectives. • Preparation and presentation of financial, statistical and narrative reports. ABILITY TO: • Plan and perform technical administrative office coordination duties. • Relieve the Fire Chief and/or Deputy Fire Chief and any assigned board of fire commissioners of technical clerical and administrative duties having department-wide or district-wide impact. • Plan and organize work. • Operate word processing, spreadsheet, and other computer programs to enter data, maintain records and generate reports or correspondence. • Train, supervise and evaluate personnel. • Evaluate and recommend improvements in operations, systems, procedures, policies and methods. • Research and analyze data and information, and develop, evaluate and present alternative recommendations. ‘.4100` Fire District Liaison - Continued Page 4 • Present ideas and concepts clearly and concisely. • Communicate effectively both orally and in writing. • Read, interpret, apply and explain codes, rules, regulations, policies and procedures. • Protect medical records according to HIPAA regulations. • Establish and maintain cooperative and effective working relationships with others. • Meet schedules and time lines. • Work independently with little direction and discretion. • Maintain financial accounting records. • Prepare, monitor and control assigned budgets. • Type at 65 words net per minute from clear copy. EDUCATION AND EXPERIENCE: Any combination equivalent to: high school diploma, two years college-level training with specialized course work in business administration, office management, administrative support training or related field and four years of increasingly responsible administrative office support experience. LICENSES AND OTHER REQUIREMENTS: This classification may be required to possess a valid Washington State driver's license. WORKING CONDITIONS: Work is performed in an office environment. This classification will be required to attend and prepare minutes of fire district board of commissioner meetings in the evening. *Denotes an essential function May 2007 ` CITY OF RENTON tetial' C' >�ct-� JUL 0 2 2007 C 7 A-2OO 7 RECEIVED CITY CLERK'S OFFICE HAL & GERRY FARDAL 6920—96th Ave. S.E. Mercer Island, WA 98040-5406 July 2, 2007 City Clerk, City of Renton 1055 S. Grady Way Renton, WA 98057 Attn: Bonnie I. Walton Re: Barsher Appeal of Seahawks Building Request (F I LE_ L -06-0.7 3 j Dear Clerk: We are writing this letter in support of Larry and Esther Barsher's request that the June 11, 2007 decision of Hearing Examiner Fred J. Kaufman be upheld by the Renton City Council. Our home is located two lots up the slope from the east waterfront of Mercer Island, in the 6900 S.E. block. The sweeping and unobstructed view from our east side windows and deck is almost directly east to the new Seahawks' facility. The scale of the planned Seahawks' buildings greatly exceeds that of any other within our view of the landscape on the east side of the East Channel of Lake Washington. We are confident that there are many, many residences on the east waterfront/slope of Mercer Island that will be similarly impacted by the new structures. We are also confident that the Seahawks' owners want to be good neighbors, not only to any immediate neighbors (relatively few in number), but also to the substantially greater number of neighbors whose homes directly face the new buildings. And we are certain that the City of Renton likewise desires to take into account the effect of its developments on the residents of Mercer Island. The conclusion of the Hearing Examiner that from 12 to 14 evergreen trees be planted along the lakeside façade of the Indoor Practice Field to soften, at least to some extent, the visual impact of this huge structure is certainly reasonable, and should be upheld by the Renton City Council. Very truly yours, / ID Hal & Gerry Fardal hfardal@yahoo.coin F Rf:NTpN JUL 0 2 2001 July 1, 2007 7 -aO9? C,_r CLERIcS OFFICE" City Clerk Attention: Bonnie Walton 3./57 City of Renton 1055 Grady Way Renton, WA 98057 Re: Seahawks Practice Facility: Barsher Appeal of Seahawks Building Height( fie_ L(,l\—OG —ea% 44. Dr. Ms. Walton: I am writing in support of Examiner Fred Kaufman's recommendation that supports Larry Barsher's appeal. The proposed Sea Hawks' facility is an enolinous structure that dwarfs all other structures visible from the eastern side of Mercer Island, affecting the views of thousands of Mercer Island residents. I find the recommendation to be an inexpensive and reasonable approach to mitigate the impact. It's a mitigating provision that should have been part of the original design approval. I estimate the "minor" height increase represents a volume of eight of my houses. If it's that minor, the inside clearance could be reduced by the same amount without any significant impact to the Sea Hawks, or the foundation could be lowered. The Sea Hawks have not shown any significant hardship for complying, and therefore, their appeal should be denied. I suspect it would be cheaper for them to comply than it is for them to appeal. Sincerely, Dwight r. Schaeffer 6958 96th Ave SE Mercer Island, WAS 98040 jebfrazei fria44-44 -', Itj"(472d./f-Lit# CITY OF RENTON 7_07-a002 JUL 0 2 2007 d Larry and Esther Barsher RECEI6940 96th Ave. S.E. CITY CLERKS OFFICE Mercer Island, Washington 98040 2O6-232-923O....I es ba rC)co rn ca st.n et City Clerk July 2, 2007 City of Renton 1055 South Grady Way Renton, WA 98057 Re: Appeal of Hearing Examiner's decision dated 6/11/2007, File#LUA-06-073 This letter is in support of Barsher's approved Seahawks Headquarters &Practice Facility appeal. At the May 29, 2007 hearing my wife requested a copy of the Seahawks Headquarters& Practice Facility site and landscape plans from Elisabeth Higgins, Development Services City of Renton. These drawing were never provided. After I received notice of the appeal of the hearing examiner's decision on the Barsher appeal 1 called Elisabeth and requested the plans be mailed to me. After waiting many days I called Elizabeth again on June 28, 2007 and she apologized for not sending the drawings and said it will now be sent. 1 checked my mail box today (July 2, 2007) and the promised submittal was not there. If I get the drawings before the July 5th appeal meeting 1 will review and consider using them, with added commentary, as an attachment to this letter. As a Licensed Professional Civil Engineer I have done numerous site plan layouts during my nearly 50 years of practice. The above referenced plans will show me if there are adequate landscape areas next to the west side of the indoor football field building, and the administrative office building that surrounds it, to accommodate the approved addition of trees. If there is not enough areas then additional landscape areas could be created by relocating a few of the adjacent building parking stalls to another place on the site. The legacy of having the luxury of between 12 and 24 parking stalls close to the building (where large trees can be planted) surely does not equate to the negative impact legacy the large mass building will have on hundreds of Mercer Islanders now and for generations to come. If"between 12 and 24 trees" are placed close to the indoor football field building as well as the 55-foot high administrative office building, which wraps around the west side of the football building, those trees should not effect the Misty Cove lake views. Mr. Pearce's suggestion that trees be planted 55 feet in the air is making light of the hearing examiner's tree approval decision. The intent of the hearing examiners decision was to soften the impact and by placing trees very near the west side of both buildings that intent will be met because the football building will also be screened by trees planted adjacent to the office building. Mr. Pearce states"the existing site plan already has significant landscaping along the shoreline, which will screen views from the water". He misses the point. The purpose of adding"between 12 and 24 trees" is to mitigate and soften the massive building's size and greatly reduce the environmental impact on those viewing the building from across the lake on Mercer Island, not from the water. Mr. Pearce also states" Nothing in the code gives the Examiner authority to impose additional conditions". I plead that common good sense gives the Examiner authority to impose additional conditions when it comes to serving the good of the greater community, especially when such conditions are so minimal and inexpensive. Regardless of Mr. Pearce's commendable knowledge of the law and strict interpretation of city code& ordinances isn't the overriding purpose of city government to protect the welfare of its community and, in the big picture, the welfare of the greater community? One has to wonder how many trees could have been bought and installed with the money that has already been spent by this appeal of the hearing examiner's decision, will be spent conducting the July 5th review and finally be spent at the subsequent full Council meeting. Is this not ultimate folly? Surely on a 19.68 acre site one can arrange the layout to allow planting "between 12 and 24 trees" to soften the building's visual impact. Please consider this letter as a pertinent document when conducting the Council's Planning and Development Committee appeal review on July 5, 2007. Sincerely, Lar d Esther Barsher ps. Misty Cove's submittal to the City Council states that Barsher did not serve Misty Cove with a notice of their appeal. I was never told by the Development Services Department or the City Clerk that serving Misty Cove was my responsibility. I always thought service to parties of record (or interested parties) was the job of the City Clerk. "k/jedeof.". CITY OF RENTON 'D JUL 0 2 2007 C Howard& Sue Robboy RECEIVED ��m 7 SOD 7 CITY CLERKOFFICE 6944 96th Ave SE Mercer Island, WA 98040 Date: July 1, 2007 To: City of Renton & Seattle Seahawks From: Howard Robboy • Re: Seahawks Appeal of our Request to Plant Trees Li-- (LZ--A L U/6'‘ 06 '07.3 Dear Seahawks, Unlike many of the people in the Northwest, we supported your desire to build Quest Field. We pay additional property taxes every month for your stadium. It's a strange relationship. I make a payment, but I'm not an investor and don't share in the profits. When we learned of your decision to build a practice field in Renton, we were excited that you'd play a role in cleaning up the waterfront. Your structure is shaped like a box. It's ugly. How about being a good neighbor and putting trees up and keeping the shoreline pretty and green? The cost is quite minimal and appears to have a level of support by the city. We're not asking for a multi-million dollar change or to delay your project. We're just asking you to do for us what we do for you— support each other. Very truly yours, •ward : Sue Robboy uvlu, 47. LUV I J. UVI wI uvvluu Jnvv uiwvI 14V. JLU7 I . I Socius Law Group, PLLC 44eivite ATTORNEYS Qtia41.y Two Union Square•601 Union Street,Suite 4950 41), Seattle,Washington 98101.3951 Telephone 206.838.9100 • Facsimile 206.838.9101 XG/1 www.sociuslaw,com 7i Facsimile Transmittal Sheet 2 a o0 7 City Clerk TO: Attn: Bonnie Walton City of Renton FAX NUMBER: (425)430-6516 FROM: L. Paul Ohainle Seahawks Practice Facility: Barsher Appeal of Seahawks Building Height LUA-06-073, SA-H, SA-M, SM, ECF ("Barsher Appeal") NUMBER OF PAGES: 4 (including transmittal sheet) DATE/TIME: 6/29/07 2:27 PM IF ALL PAGES ARE NOT PROPERLY RECEIVED,PLEASE CONTACT: Erin Knobler ORIGINAL TO FOLLOW: X WILL WILL NOT COMMENTS: Enclosed please find Misty Cove's Submittal in Support of Football Northwest LLC's Appeal of the Office of the Hearing Examiner's June 11, 2007 Report and Decision.. If you have any questions or need anything further, please do not hesitate to call. CONFIDENTIALITY NOTE, The documents accompanying this facsimile transmission contain bpformation belonging to Socius Law Group,.uc which is confidential and/or legally privileged. The information is intended onlyfor the use of rhe individual or entity named above. If you are not the intended recipient,you are hereby pored that any disclosure copying distribution or the raking of any action In reliance on the contents of this ielecopied information is strictly prohibited. If you have received this facsimile In error,please immediately notify us by telephone to arrange for return of the original documents to us. As this facsimile may fade,you are advised to make a copy for your files to ensure a permanent record. If you do not receive all pages indicated above or if you experience a problem with this transmillal,please call our office immediately, 20373 JUN. 29, 1UU/ 3. UUNN 5UC1U5 LAW U UUr NU, j2d9 r. L 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 BEFORE THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF RENTON 8 9 In re Appeal of Hearing Examiner's June 11, File No. LUA06-073 2007 Decision Regarding the Seahawks' SA-H, SA-M, SM, ECF 10 Headquarters and Training Facility Site Plan Application SUBMITTAL IN SUPPORT OF 11 FOOTBALL NORTHWEST LLC'S APPEAL OF THE OFFICE OF THE 12 HEARING EXAMINER'S JUNE 11, 2007 REPORT AND DECISION 13 14 L INTRODUCTION 15 16 Misty Cove Association of Apartment Owners ("Misty Cove")joins Football 17 Northwest LLC's ("FNW")request that the City Council modify the June 11, 2007 decision 18 of the City of Renton Hearing Examiner in File Nos. LUA-06-073, SA-H, SA-M, SM, ECF 19 ("the Barsher Decision"). Misty Cove requests that the City Council set aside the conditions 20 imposed by the Barsher Decision that conflict with,the Master Plan and Site Plan, dated 21 December 7, 2006 ("December Decision"), and the Settlement Agreement between Football 22 Northwest LLC and Misty Cove ("Settlement Agreement"). Specifically, Misty Cove 23 requests that the City Council remove any conditions that impair Misty Cove's view corridor, 24 25 26 SUBMITTAL IN SUPPORT OF FOOTBALL Socius Law Group, PLLC A T T O R N E Y S NORTHWEST LLC'S APPEAL Two Union Square•601 Union Street,Suite 4950 Seattle,Washington 98101.3951 1 Telephone 206.838.9100 20473 Facsimile 206.838.9101 JUIN. L7. LUUI J . VVIIVI JVV1UJ Lnry UI\LUI IVV. JLU7 I J 1 such as the condition requiring 12-24 evergreen trees to be planted along the lakeshore 2 façade of the Indoor Practice Field. 1 3 4 II. FACTUAL BACKGROUND 5 On December 7, 2006, Hearing Examiner Fred Kaufman entered Findings, 6 Conclusions, and Recommendations and a Decision that honored, in part, a Settlement 7 Agreement between FNW and Misty Cove that would partially preserve the views of Lake 8 Washington currently enjoyed by owners of Misty Cove. The Barsher Decision requires 12- 9 24 evergreen trees to be planted along the lakeshore façade of the Indoor Practice Field. This 10 decision directly conflicts with the December Decision. It appears likely that the location of 11 the 12-24 evergreen trees along the facade will negatively impact Misty Cove's view, a 12 central issue to both the Settlement Agreement and the December Decision. Section 12 of 13 the December Decision provides as follows: 14 The proposed shoreline area planting plan shall include lower-level plantings 15 in the north section of the project shoreline area, in order to minimize impacts of views of the water from the adjacent Misty Cove Condominium property. 16 For these reasons, Misty Cove joins FNW's appeal of the Barsher Decision. 17 18 III. APPEAL CRITERIA 19 Misty Cove is one of the parties of record in this matter. Misty Cove will be directly 20 affected by the Examiner's decision and has standing to join FNW's appeal. FNW filed a 21 timely appeal of the June 11, 2007 Barsher Decision. Misty Cove is permitted to file a letter 22 in support of FNW's appeal on or before July 2, 2007. 23 Misty Cove incorporates by reference FNW's Assignments of Error, Finding of Fact 24 10 and Conclusions of Law 5, 6, and 7. 25 26 SUBMITTAL IN SUPPORT OF FOOTBALL Socius Law Group, PLLC ATTORNEYS NORTHWEST LLC'S APPEAL Two Union Square•601 Union Street,Suite 4950 _2- Seattle,Washington 98101..3951 Telephone 206.838.9100 20473 Facsimile 206.838.9101 Juju, (y. zuui rlvl JUI,IUJ LHW U UUr IVU. J2d9 V. 4 l The newly imposed condition to plant between 12 and 24 trees along the lakeshore 2 facade of the Indoor Practice Field may seriously impact Misty Cove's lake views. The same 3 views were a critical aspect of the Settlement Agreement with FNW and were protected in 4 the City of Renton's December Decision. Now, Misty Cove's lake views may be lost so that 5 a Mercer Island resident's view across the lake will be more natural. 6 In addition, from a review of our records, it does not appear that the Barshers served Misty Cove with a notice of their appeal or that Misty Cove received a copy of the Barsher 8 appeal, despite the fact that Misty Cove is a party of record. Upon proper notice of the issues 9 raised by the Barsher appeal, Misty Cove would have submitted comments in opposition to 10 it. 11 IV_ CONCLUSION 12 13 For the reasons set forth in FNW's Appeal and in this submittal in support, Misty 14 Cove requests that the City Counsel strike the additional conditions set forth in the Barsher 15 Decision and preserve Misty Cove's lake views, 16 DATED this 29th day of June, 2007. 17 SOCIUS LAW GROUP,PLLC 18 19 20 By 21 Thomas F. Peterson, wSBA#16587 L.Paul Ohainle, WSBA#33755 22 Attorneys for Misty Cove Association of Apartment Owners 23 24 25 26 SUBMITTAL IN SUPPORT OF FOOTBALL Socius Law Group, PLLC A T T O R N E Y S NORTHWEST LLC'S APPEAL Two Union Square•601 Union Street,Suite 4950 Seattle,Washington 98101.3951 -3- Telephone 206.838 9100 Y0473 Facsimile 206.839 9101 APPROVED BY CITY COUNCIL Date 1 a "a007'1 COMMITTEE OF THE WHOLE COMMITTEE REPORT July 2,2007 Benson Hill Communities Annexation (June 25, 2007) The Committee of the Whole recommends concurrence in the staff recommendation to approve a resolution amending the boundaries of the Benson Hill Communities annexation in keeping with boundaries recommended by the Boundary Review Board; and amending the ballot title in the request to King County to hold a special municipal election on the Benson Hill Communities annexation on the November 6, 2007 election ballot. The Committee further recommends that the resolution regarding this matter be presented for reading and adoption. Toni Nelson, Council ent cc: Alex Pietsch Marty Wine cow bh elect 062007.doc\ rev 01/07 bh fidoP/ed CITY OF RENTON, WASHINGTON RESOLUTION NO. 3 89/ A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY OF RENTON, WASHINGTON, AUTHORIZING THE MAYOR AND CITY CLERK TO TAKE THOSE ACTIONS NECESSARY TO PLACE PROPOSITION 1 BEFORE THE VOTERS, INCLUDING THE PREPARATION OF INFORMATION FOR THE VOTER'S PAMPHLET, FOR THE ELECTION TO BE HELD ON NOVEMBER 6, 2007, REGARDING THE ANNEXATION OF APPROXIMATELY 2,438 ACRES OF CONTIGUOUS UNINCORPORATED TERRITORY WITHIN RENTON'S FAIRWOOD POTENTIAL ANNEXATION AREA, ALSO KNOWN AS THE BENSON HILL COMMUNITIES ANNEXATION. WHEREAS, on March 12, 2007, the City of Renton passed Resolution No. 3863 supporting the annexation of contiguous unincorporated territory, referred to as the Benson Hill Communities Annexation area, lying generally in the area bounded by the City of Renton corporate boundary on the west and north, SE 192nd Street and S 200th Street on the south, and on the east, 108th Avenue SE, the eastern edge of Boulevard Lane Park, the western edge of Boulevard Lane Division No. 2, and 128th Avenue SE, if extended, but including Renton Park and Charles Lindberg High School; and WHEREAS,in that Resolution the City Council called for an election to be held on November 6, 2007, pursuant to Chapter 29.13.020 RCW and Chapter 35A.14 RCW, to submit to the voters of the aforesaid territory the proposal for annexation; and WHEREAS, THE Boundary Review Board for King County slightly amended the boundaries of the annexation; and WHEREAS, it is necessary for the City Council to authorize the actions necessary to place Proposition 1 before the voters for the November 6, 2007, election; 1 RESOLUTION NO. 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 H. The City Clerk is authorized and directed to take those actions necessary to place Proposition 1 before the voters on the November 6, 2007, election. SECTION III. The City Attorney has prepared the following ballot title for Proposition 1. The City Clerk is authorized to transmit this ballot title to King County Division of Records and Elections: PROPOSITION I ANNEXATION TO THE CITY OF RENTON The Renton City Council received a petition to annex property to the City of Renton and passed Resolution No. 3863 calling for an election on the question. This measure would authorize annexation of that property to the City of Renton, generally referred to as the Benson Hill Communities Annexation. Shall that area in unincorporated King County known as the Benson Hill Communities Annexation as legally described in City of Renton Resolution No. 3863, as amended by the Boundary Review Board, be annexed to the City of Renton? For Annexation E Against Annexation SECTION IV. The Mayor is authorized and directed to take those actions necessary to place the information regarding Proposition 1 in the November 6, 2007, election's voter's pamphlet. SECTION V. Actions taken prior to adoption of this resolution that are consistent with it are hereby ratified and confirmed. PASSED BY THE CITY COUNCIL this day of June, 2007. 2 RESOLUTION NO. Bonnie I. Walton, City Clerk APPROVED BY THE MAYOR this day of June, 2007. Kathy Keolker, Mayor Approved as to form: Lawrence J. Warren, City Attorney RES.1277:06/20/07:ch 3 BENSON HILL ANNEXATION LEGAL DESCRIPTION The lands included within the subject annexation are situated in parts of, Sections 21, 27, 28, 29, 31, 32 and 33 in Township 23 North, and Sections 5 and 6 in Township 22 North, all in Range 5 East, W.M., in King County, Washington, said annexation area being more particularly described as lying within the following described boundary: Beginning at the southeast corner of those lands annexed to the City of Renton under Ordinance No.1961 in the Southeast quarter of said Section 21 said southeast corner also being the point of intersection of the west line of the Southeast quarter of the Southeast quarter of said Section 21 and the southwesterly right of way margin of the City of Seattle Cedar River Pipe Line; Thence southeasterly along said southwesterly margin, crossing SE 160th Street, to the south line of said Southeast quarter; Thence westerly, along said south line to an intersection with the east line of the west half of the Northeast quarter of said Section 28; Thence southerly along said east line, to the northerly right of way margin of SE 164th Street; Thence easterly along said northerly margin to the point of intersection with the northerly extension of the easterly right of way margin of 128th Ave SE; Thence southerly along said northerly extension and the easterly margin thereof to the north line of the south half of said Northeast quarter; Thence easterly along said north line to an intersection with the east line of said Section 28; Thence southerly along said east line, to the northwest corner of"Tract A", Fairwood Park Division 7, as recorded under Volume 116 of Plats, Pages 88 through 90, said records, in said Section 27; Thence generally easterly, southerly, westerly and southerly along the various courses of said "Tract A", to a point on the northerly right of way margin of SE Petrovitsky Road (Petrovitsky Road Revision, Est. 5-28-62), in the Southwest quarter of the Southwest quarter of said Section 27; Benson Hill Annexation 1 June 22, 2007 Thence southeasterly perpendicular to the centerline of said SE Petrovitsky Road, a distance of 92' to the southerly margin thereof; Thence southwesterly, westerly and northwesterly along the various courses of said southerly right of way margin, crossing 128thAvenue SE, to the northwest corner of that portion of 128thAvenue SE dedicated per deed under King County Rec. No. 20000913001594, on the westerly right of way margin of 128thAvenue SE; Thence southeasterly and southerly along said westerly right of way margin, to an intersection with the east line of the west half of the Southeast quarter of said Section 28; Thence southerly along said east line, to the southeast corner of said subdivision said southeast corner also being the northeast corner of the Northwest quarter of the Northeast quarter of said Section 33; Thence southerly along the east line of said subdivision, to the southeast corner thereof, said southeast corner also being the northwest corner of the Southeast quarter of the Northeast quarter of said Section 33; Thence easterly along the north line of said subdivision, to an intersection with the northeasterly right of way margin of a 100' wide Puget Sound Power & Light Transmission Line right of way; Thence southeasterly along said northeasterly right of way margin, to an intersection with the northeasterly extension of the southeasterly lines of Lots 2 and 3, King County Short Plat No. 779163R, recorded under King County Rec. No. 8105060679; Thence southwesterly along said extension and the southeasterly lines of said lots, to an intersection with the northeasterly line of Lot 1, King County Short Plat No. C1077001, recorded under King County Rec. No. 7806080590; Thence northwesterly and southwesterly along the northeasterly and northwesterly lines of said Lot 1, to the most westerly corner thereof, said corner also being a point on the south line of Lot 2 of said short plat; Thence westerly along said south line, to the northeast corner of Lot 4, King County Short Plat No. 775088, recorded under King County Rec. No. 7710200755; Thence southwesterly along the east line of said Lot 4 to the southeast corner thereof, said corner also being on the northwesterly line of Boulevard Lane Division No. 2, as recorded under Volume 82 of Plats, Pages 20 and 21, said records; Thence continuing southwesterly along said northwesterly line, and southerly along the westerly line of Boulevard Lane Division 1, as recorded under Volume 80 of Plats, Pages 89 and 90, records of King County, Washington, to the westernmost southwest corner of Benson Hill Annexation 2 June 22, 2007 said plat, said southwest corner also being on a line 1073.56 feet north of and parallel with the south line of the Southeast quarter of said Section 33; Thence westerly along said parallel line, to a point 300.00 feet easterly of the west line of said subdivision, as measured perpendicular thereto, said point also being on the north line of Boulevard Lane Park, as deeded to King County under King County Rec. No. 19991011001557; Thence southeasterly along the east line of said park to the point of intersection of a line 422 feet east of and parallel with the west line of said subdivision and a line 300 feet north of and parallel with the south line of said subdivision; Thence continuing southerly along said east line, parallel with the west line of said subdivision, to a point on the northerly right of way margin of SE 192nd Street, said northerly right of way margin being 50 feet northerly of the south line of said Section 33 and the centerline of SE 192" Street; Thence westerly alon the various courses of said northerly right of way margin, crossing 120t"Avenue SE, 116t Avenue SE, 114th Place SE and 113th Way SE to its intersection with the easterly right of way margin of State Route 515, said intersection being 40 feet right of Station 270+50 per Washington State Department of Highways, Right of Way Plan SR 515 MP 3.87 to MP 5.15, Renton Vicinity: SE 196th to Carr Road, Sta 257+00 to Sta 283+00, Sheet 2 of 4 Sheets in said Section 32; Thence westerly, crossing State Route 515 (108th Avenue SE), to a point 40 feet left of Station 270+40 per said Right of Way Plan; Thence southerly along the various courses of the westerly right of way margin of State Route 515 (108th Avenue NE), crossing SE 192nd Street, SE 196th Street and SE 199th Street, to the northerly right of way margin of SE 200th Street in the north west quarter of said Section 5; Thence westerly along.the various courses of said northerly right of way margin, crossing 106thAvenue SE, 1051 Avenue SE and 104th Avenue SE, to its intersection with the existing City of Renton Limits Line as annexed under City of Renton Ordinance No. 3885; Thence northerly, easterly and westerly along the various courses of the existing limits of the City of Renton as annexed under City of Renton Ordinance Nos. 3885 & 3109 to the point where said existing limits as annexed under City of Renton Ordinance No. 3109 leaves the section line common to Sections 5 & 6 and enters said Section 6; Thence northerly along said common section line to its intersection with the existing City of Renton Limits Line as annexed under City of Renton Ordinance No. 3268; Benson Hill Annexation 3 June 22, 2007 Thence generally northerly and easterly along the various courses of the existing limits of the City of Renton as annexed under City of Renton Ordinance Nos. (in order from south to north) 3268, 5205, 5041, 3268, 4069, 1743, 4476, 1971, 3864, 1971, 5236, 1971, 3742, 1971, 3108, 1909, 5208, 3730, 2224, 1871 and 1961 to the Point of Beginning; EXCEPT the north 100 feet of the west 230 feet of the South half of the South half of the Northwest quarter of the Southeast quarter of said Section 29, previously annexed to the City of Renton under Ordinance No. 3432. TOGETHER WITH the following: That portion of Lot 3, King County Short Plat 779163R recorded under King County Rec. No. 8105060679, within the South half of the Northeast quarter of the Northeast quarter of said Section 33, if any; and Those portions of the Northeast quarter of said Section 6 and the Northwest quarter of said Section 5, lying southerly, westerly, southerly and westerly of existing City of Renton Limits Line as annexed under City of Renton Ordinance Nos. (in order from north to south): 3268, 3751, and 3109, and lying northerly of the northerly right of way margin of S. 200th Street; and That portion of the Northwest quarter of said Section 5, lying northerly of the northerly right of way margin of S. 200th Street, westerly and southerly of existing City of Renton Limits Line as annexed under City of Renton Ordinance No.3885, and easterly of existing City of Renton Limits Line as annexed under City of Renton Ordinance No. 3109. Benson Hill Annexation 4 June 22, 2007 -.w---11--— pillar ' 1.19..11k1MWT6-: * -- NIP 9"mNurf T-At _L71 mi OMMii 0 tv-,-,..iNip •wit1J ,..0 ma _ f irmt--16 ,0)i_ . -0 • /III i_ ✓ .,♦•• • ■ 4471 I _ a.1 f1�►. —is_ 111 ,s 111/1.1 �it. , HoeDrg ��,�%,♦ ��.`ei1� J AIM= ill i-■ I• ♦♦ , Welln '.�ill' L=am .� %OIC I,,��44 / >����: O ��_;'' �►�•�i�•i •i•� `v rr••id: �`i w e,f1S Qi:...ur . rv•• ♦ r►�i.•♦♦♦� �� I mom �� Circ , ►a►t- ♦ ♦ I♦ ♦ '',0, ', e':r ♦`I,,J rri �•i•rr 1�. f ♦ v 1 •i� N G ♦ ♦.✓ ri Erre twin VCrl Li Vit'�il ; , rrrr IO♦ ruo�l!Gt ar•"IVi•P♦ tlffI •Q♦i t1 �il� Lik it.,1,:::-.... •i •i Y •O�♦•Q�•�� c:au sr r tai tU.. �i.lil mu■ .♦.�•ri♦Oi♦♦rf-....■np♦. �iIIIc�►R.: ,•♦�'���f��ii E:"Ili Fwe. � r*.•♦�•■■0....e':':CV♦fD�+f.OJ „n. ` : ` •r 1- � qIA .�■.. ■391:rIrrnll.;;-YJ ♦�.: Unr tr.!! \►•i•• D I�� � � • 4 • `/..�.�,_,■b\r►Ar CL'Y. sa• Nr M� 1r ♦•♦•Llrrlrl =Jn it -n. ♦ ■,\■ rte®\I •a.L■: L1Ju1 .• ♦ 1I u1if:r,lll : ►► • !t I!i u i�n•0ad1 •. ►►••:aicce. tail. 5111111171 f:: '�Iw �°I r .;01131E3�3F itffi!Ilv�`I= iIi11121``Y ■ 46 r .•••p p�irefis pp�ni•��.�u. ►• �.tit /1IIIK 111W "�Cq ��•�•c.ilx:.l:tgpUR ;.. �7.►uiq�:;��I �.►..•:Y• •O1iMIllta t w,IIe.IJ7ti1F1 �_ 11:ir► •:•lir i'� ':���•� 4► •►.••f ���♦ jrriSn 27thStW /,.p i.••:%',�... ,.► r. .IIA iltlfli Ir rram541.:. ::�.lOt� ■ gyp:- ::EI u.�:•d.Yl+�•44.47,4"1,8!! -■r,r» v •►I • ` Ur •�� 'a 111_y�1.■Iw'=""� 1�f11it►-' 1 • ` �4grf srbrwi : ' ♦A•r. i s s •.�,. � tr ♦ •♦•♦1�I� n l ■►idfg •t:g1:�I• ♦ rr pn♦ `�:,d3a,� y'■■■� g u m f.p�.�•` O♦•• ♦•a ••i■u� A� ��'■'e.1 ;17 Sir•Eli i+ jr?•,7.!'1' \eI i is.-LI::t.:$21 � '��n•n►r •l'4=�i ■„■ rw■ia •rte �r✓� Irn .►:��=..iO■G. G e: iI : , 1 fdV1■ a id■nr 111 Lei!=3-s i.:,.aae11uu -2 n:gn■L■p -�I II�Ah■nurr..nr�.�O�/9 ` ���_� ,■■wwwn■•G:7+;Iv✓ - Im1'I! _� - e.rn rrj - _ �-a�tu� r�{r/2 .a.'1Y �I.,: 11 FI>rtt ohm nnnnm�hhndl i■-i■■■ .„,us Z.'W.� A ! �"�■����h aim• •��■=� ='� t ♦ P.d'•• si:lula:r .��IR LI ■. ow" • was' .•.:'.- 1. p olo : -D•,•, mu vi r�.:':: �►V`\\,`'jp:,\iii5ri�11 F�eitti23t :G: , � � • ��r\ ?'ii.•r5 f,•':�fpf: .ininprppnn. ,' ,OtIttO1 :■ :� ■ iuuiCiO�' 'E ' '' �` •,, 2-i illpi ;iiia, r Ir/Ot! �tf.� en 9p • G■w.- ��� III -►i•�'rTf.•1 noonnn ����ill ' r . n� •ir'�� . Ifw.�, ,��InunwumOJilE �''! ,■• "■ri i ,.3 skit ::3i 11 I■'. _. :.' ■ ■:■gin ..■' lip' ,i�it'� iL7�, R,l1 C_ - - =R.ar eT. -t�tw',�• `11.1 ' ■im elf num /.S ■'3i_.- ii r •rs■nil a11� tlli i �,�..t „"',II � ��r S ..:rg .ir' , ■t�,utli :�4-iii-lR54■6:tom■:Cileyf e.••e► IJV) I - t -1+■ ■car�lc!o►rr!..ti1l�.' iu qu:■a-:aL..r.11■t1i11til-i111it 7`afti=,'� w %. ■1 _ ilii I g•R■ "'P ''''l••"M f■-7 ��i4 :\•q. /■■� •Icer�n,7M�:qt •r'�M I'm l� - III ►.■r-.•o.•ra♦' �1!�■tom t�t■ ■ tt. (din......■ '.+ IME I-'imp-. ia��i1- GIS■21 MUM Milli E3 .EN III► 1 r ?Al �� Atli:Pr:nogg � l,- I gang 1141111111111 �III1D►n::u::�u✓�.IP nn • ttt�lll �■ MIME � . •w1.�p�- ' ■ ml i- II:.iGicillllll:# (~ ■ *�i1:■,: m - i■p a nlli RIS11611Zeirt::�i U�IrSRf•!tr!. __ -iwww � 5•.►V y.:rRrR� P.0%.�. ' a � .. 'imi.�iw1w■ •'•.�•ir r.re.•cu•^■�i mw n.�Q�.=I�IitlO Ip IPai*.y rI i�:..\•r•O Po�1111 __�hu4r �� %p• rri 1►,�•.' •1, r• ♦Ir.q:� :11■n�. 13 a I ^I 1 e►V !■" rC t• ��?♦r ••y�Y` •:ti •Gm- _�i►J., Iliaint : 5,,,C: ni■2Lri.a 7,r 1 if,' ♦ p■ ri �Ir■� ♦C vnr i .\ •.` A . ,,,,,,,..., : a�+ �: �E�� '�_au-::11�■i:■ ■ !nl ill ■ Im:r♦♦ �• •r.!!rr �.��n■J• •.p IF A ,-:'■•r• 11 � Pte- L.i4 p1\I/■Ilp •1 mow■ ■-- • ary A=� • I' 0� MIME �' �� 1111,!,�`�al `�' ■11�t� III •�G OIC■■ • ►�•` I1 err. ..�F !�R _ aTt. .O/-!•p•' \�iii _Irmo real any..¢rignitieuiliarto .■71„,mpsiii.,".'►J r� 1.......I'■ :IgG •r♦P i•S Q� � Jari•• r► ►♦�1 'ri ir■r �f��■ :1►�I♦i r��`Ui��I-�it � „..wr■■.: �■71■ ■nA:pP on\1111 1 .1,::_••-1 11 ` irn i111 Nidi1 • ::i~iI mena111�r/■■ 1 ■ ia� 7 . nu �1�1\'�3j tttt��11 .�..T ...■;.�1"�I,'''�1,117 ■ I iv �, 'MU II ■ :1""_:'•. "== ,r a Ernn,,,,,, �`■••■r-y i _norm= G► �' iai1141-- 1.4' -•� `I tl is _� iliNIIIImil WAR ....11)16„, 4.5 . t111t>•I■ �4♦i •sA\: :1111111Mnim III E. r, IPIn :'i �_ _� r• �/: r�1� i'%IM ., : •�_ air°1 ��:bra E'•,mil �� tatew E3�,�. .■r :'o1■1111111\r� VeTiiiir;141.1.11 �.ilii!! a !► nag 1 "'GC orenam.k .seZoomcu ■.E�I�'S11:2rsi:; ►�••. ilm ��np � . S ��� n1.. imillorlimira Ilf:•'.s: i:i!=�=i5mtII ... Fl 7••,.-- ■e 7„C:1:.. =� ,,.,;■ \ :i+••..7�i: i�... I_ 1iii a h,Illlte 1iYr� 4714.4 1L& iit : ♦ .-� '�i — II = IIii 77,W.....4r::14/2\ o io1■, - ■ 111111.i-►��..■►:� ,,�,. t-1 1 1 w ■ r C: .1! Ti �•- -► .I 111 ,IIIIIIII .hi. ,1. .■ \ . •y- r I• n '�t■7 IR , ..■t_mama u Proposed Benson Hill Annexation Area i �Y Annexation Boundary O.< o\ Economic Development,Neighborhoods&Strategic Planning — — city Limits r Alex Pietsch,Administrator "'���� C.E.Feasel �k'N-r0 30 May 2007 From: James Holland <James.Holland@microsoft.com> To: Don Persson <dpersson@ci.renton.wa.us>, Citizens to Council <Council@ci.renton.wa.us> Date: 6/28/2007 9:31:23 AM Subject: RE: Clover Creek Homeowners Association Meeting... Hi Don, I appreciate your quick response and I will let the members of the Homeowners Association know that I have heard back from you. Thanks again, James Holland Microsoft Corporation Real-time Collaboration Solution Specialist Tel: 800-426-9400, ext. 11476 Direct: 425-704-6190 Fax: (425) 936-7329 Email:james.holland@microsoft.com Original Message From: Don Persson [mailto:dpersson@ci.renton.wa.us] Sent: Thursday, June 28, 2007 9:23 AM To: Citizens to Council; James Holland Subject: Re: Clover Creek Homeowners Association Meeting... I think this letter should be referred to a council committee on Monday night, which I intend to >>> "'James Holland'<jholland@microsoft.com>" <jholland@microsoft.com> 06/27/07 8:19 PM >>> Hi Marcie/City of Renton Councilmembers, As you probably remember, we discovered many defects in our house that did not follow standard building practices. We are nearing completion on our house and the costs have definitely been more than we could have ever imagined (nearing $125,000 for the repairs). That being said, we had a homeowners meeting last night where over 25 families were present. More than half of those present expressed damage to their homes due to some of the same defects we have experienced. It was recommended that we bring this to the attention of the City of Renton as it seems there was limited oversight of the builder, Hearthstone Homes, by the City of Renton inspectors. There is a concern that Hearthstone Homes is still building in Renton and that prospective buyers may be faced with some of the same issues that many of us are facing. There is also discussion of our legal options in this matter as a result of not utilizing standard construction practices of the homes in this development and the lack of adequate inspection of the builder. We would like the opportunity to discuss what the City of Renton is doing to eliminate these types of problems in the future as well as meet with the council members to discuss the issues in our community. We are looking forward to your response. James Holland This email request originated from the following link: http://rentonwa.gov/government/default.aspx?id=3212