Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutCouncil 10/02/2006 AGENDA RENTON CITY COUNCIL REGULAR MEETING October 2, 2006 Monday, 7 p.m. 1. CALL TO ORDER AND PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE 2. ROLL CALL 3. PROCLAMATIONS: a. National Breast Cancer Awareness Month-October 2006&National Mammography Day-• October 20, 2006 . b. Fire Prevention Week- October 8 to 14, 2006 c. National Domestic Violence Awareness Month-October 2006 4. PUBLIC HEARING: Annexation and zoning of 24 acres(expanded from 7.18 acres) located in the vicinity of Hoquiam Ave. NE and NE Sunset Blvd. (Querin II) 5. ADMINISTRATIVE REPORT 6. AUDIENCE COMMENT (Speakers must sign up prior to the Council meeting. Each speaker is allowed five minutes. The comment period will be limited to one-half hour. The second audience comment period later on in the agenda is unlimited in duration.) When you are recognized by the Presiding Officer,please walk to the podium and state your name and address for the record, SPELLING YOUR LAST NAME. 7. CONSENT AGENDA The following items are distributed to Councilmembers in advance for study and review, and the recommended actions will be accepted in a single motion. Any item may be removed for further discussion if requested by a Councilmember. a. Approval of Council meeting minutes of 9/25/2006. Council concur. b. Mayor Keolker appoints Patricia Riggs, 1700 Lake Washington Blvd. N., #202,Renton, 98056, to the Municipal Arts Commission for a term expiring 12/31/2007. Refer to Community Services Committee. c. City Clerk submits petition for street vacation for a portion of Field Ave. NE,north of NE 2nd St.; petitioner ESM Consulting Engineers, 33915 1st Way S.,#200, Federal Way, 98003 (VAC- 06-004). Refer to Planning/Building/Public Works Administrator; set public hearing on 11/6/2006 to consider the petition. (see 10. for resolution setting public hearing.) d. City Clerk submits appeal of Hearing Examiner's decision on matters of standing and jurisdiction for The Landing Master Site Plan and Site Approval appeal (SA-05-136); appeal filed by Buck& Gordon, LLP, 2025 First Ave., Suite 500, Seattle, 98121, representing Alliance for South End (ASE)on 9/6/2006, accompanied by required fee. Refer to Planning and Development Committee. Consideration of the appeal by the City Council shall be based solely upon the record, the Hearing Examiner's report, the notice of appeal and additional submissions by parties(RMC 4-8-110F.6.). e. Development Services Division requests authorization to fill a vacant Building Inspector— Combination position at Step D of the salary range. Council concur. f. Economic Development,Neighborhoods& Strategic Planning Department submits 10%Notice of Intent to Annex for the proposed Marshall Annexation,and recommends a public meeting be set on 10/16/2006 to consider the petition; 7.6.acres located west of Duvall Ave. NE and north of NE Sunset Blvd. Council concur. (CONTINUED ON REVERSE SIDE) g. Transportation Systems Division recommends approval of Supplemental Agreement No. 7 to CAG-04-013,agreement with W&H Pacific, Inc., for design and construction engineering support for the South Lake Washington Roadway Improvements Project in the amount of $123,101.12. Council concur. h. Transportation Systems Division submits CAG-05-078, S. 4th St. &Burnett Ave. S. Traffic L✓ Improvements; and requests approval of the project, authorization for final pay estimate in the amount of$2,084.30, commencement of a 60-day lien period, and release of retained amount of $10,128.38 to Valley Electric, contractor, if all required releases are obtained. Council concur. 8. CORRESPONDENCE 9. 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. Community Services Committee: New City Park— 1% for Art Project; Parks Commission Appointments—Reymann and Dieckman 10. RESOLUTIONS AND ORDINANCES Resolution: Setting Public Hearing on 11/6/2006 for ESM Consulting Engineers street vacation petition(see 7.c.) 11. NEW BUSINESS(Includes Council Committee agenda topics; call 425-430-6512 for recorded information.) • 12. AUDIENCE COMMENT 13. ADJOURNMENT COMMITTEE OF THE WHOLE AGENDA (Preceding Council Meeting) • Council Chambers 6 p.m. Council Policies; Highlands Citizen's Advisory Task Force LA 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 - RENTON CITY COUNCIL Regular Meeting October 2, 2006 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 RANDY CORMAN, Council President; DON PERSSON; MARCIE PALMER; COUNCILMEMBERS TERRI BRIERE; DENIS LAW; TONI NELSON. MOVED BY NELSON, SECONDED BY CORMAN, COUNCIL EXCUSE ABSENT COUNCILMAN DAN CLAWSON. CARRIED. CITY STAFF IN KATHY KEOLKER, Mayor; LAWRENCE J. WARREN, City Attorney; ATTENDANCE BONNIE WALTON, City Clerk; GREGG ZIMMERMAN, Planning/Building/Public Works Administrator; DON ERICKSON, Senior Planner; TINA HARRIS, Domestic Violence Victim Advocate; CHIEF I. DAVID DANIELS, Fire Department; MARTY WINE, Assistant CAO; PREETI SHRIDHAR, Communications Director; CHIEF KEVIN MILOSEVICH, Police Department. PROCLAMATIONS A proclamation by Mayor Keolker was read declaring the week of October 8 to Fire Prevention Week- 14, 2006, to be "Fire Prevention Week" in the City of Renton in October 8 to 14, 2006 commemoration of the Great Chicago Fire of 1871, which killed more that 250 persons, left 100,000 homeless, and destroyed more than 17,400 buildings. MOVED BY LAW, SECONDED BY PERSSON, COUNCIL CONCUR IN THE PROCLAMATION. CARRIED. Fire Chief Daniels accepted the proclamation with appreciation, and he emphasized that the Fire Department works hard to keep the community safe. National Domestic Violence A proclamation by Mayor Keolker was read declaring the month of October Awareness Month - October 2006 to be "National Domestic Violence Awareness Month" in the City of 2006 Renton, and encouraging everyone in the community to take an active role in supporting all victims so they can lead healthy lives safe from violent and abusive behavior. MOVED BY NELSON, SECONDED BY CORMAN, COUNCIL CONCUR IN THE PROCLAMATION. CARRIED. Domestic Violence Victim Advocate Tina Harris accepted the proclamation. She expressed appreciation for the City's continued funding of the domestic violence program, and reviewed ways citizens can assist victims of domestic violence. Ms. Harris recognized six people, three of whom were present and introduced, for developing a program called Operation Safe Move as part of their Seattle University masters project. The program helps victims to move from one location to another. Ms. Harris introduced Pastor Ken Colman, Domestic Violence Task Force Co- Chair, who recognized and named members of the task force. He welcomed those interested in helping with this cause to attend task force meetings. Added A proclamation by Mayor Keolker was read declaring the day of October 4, Energy Star Change a Light 2006,to be "Energy Star Change a Light Day" in the City of Renton,and Day- October 4, 2006 encouraging all citizens to promote energy efficiency and environmental stewardship in every household by installing Energy Star qualified lighting. MOVED BY LAW, SECONDED BY NELSON, COUNCIL CONCUR IN THE PROCLAMATION. CARRIED. October 2,2006 Renton City Council Minutes Page 331 pliBi IC i-iE.ARING This being the date set and proper notices having been posted and published in Annexation: Querin II, accordance with local and State laws, Mayor Keolker opened the public hearing Hoquiam Ave NE to consider the proposed expanded annexation and zoning of 24 acres bounded by NE Sunset Blvd. on the north, SE 114th St., if extended,on the south, Hoquiam Ave. NE and 141st Ave. SE, if extended,on the west, and 144th Ave. SE on the east(Querin II). Don Erickson, Senior Planner, reported that five vacant parcels and 17 single- family dwellings exist on this site. The western portion is somewhat hilly, and the eastern portion drops off steeply to Honey Creek. He noted that public services are provided by Fire District#25,Water District#90, Renton sewer, and the Renton School District. Continuing, Mr. Erickson stated that the site is currently zoned R-4 (four dwelling units per gross acre) in King County. He pointed out that this zoning can bonus up to six dwelling units per gross acre and is comparable to Renton's R-8 (eight dwelling units per net acre) zoning. The City's Comprehensive Plan designates the site as Residential Low Density and Residential Single Family, for which R-4 and R-8 zoning is recommended. Turning to the fiscal impact analysis, Mr. Erickson pointed out the estimated deficit of$3,215 at current development, and the estimated surplus of$22,695 at full development. He noted the one-time parks acquisition and development cost of$40,498. In conclusion, Mr. Erickson indicated that the proposed expanded annexation is generally consistent with City annexation polices and Boundary Review Board criteria. Public comment was invited. There being none, it was MOVED BY BRIERE, SECONDED BY PALMER, COUNCIL CLOSE THE PUBLIC HEARING. CARRIED. MOVED BY BRIERE, SECONDED BY LAW, COUNCIL: ACCEPT THE EXPANDED QUERIN II ANNEXATION AS APPROVED BY THE BOUNDARY REVIEW BOARD,CONCURRENTLY ZONE THE NON- STREET PORTIONS OF THE 24-ACRE SITE R-4 AND R-8 CONSISTENT WITH THE RENTON COMPREHENSIVE PLAN LAND USE MAP, AND HOLD FIRST READING OF BOTH THE ANNEXATION AND ZONING ORDINANCES ON 10/9/2006. CARRIED. ADMINISTRATIVE Assistant CAO Marty Wine 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 2006 and beyond. Items noted included: * The 5th Annual Harvest Festival will be held at the Piazza in Downtown Renton on October 7 from 10 a.m. to 5 p.m. AUDIENCE COMMENT Sandel DeMastus, Highlands Community Association(HCA) Vice President, Citizen Comment: DeMastus- PO Box 2041,Renton, 98056, reported that the HCA picnic held on September Highlands Community 23 was well attended and a big success. She expressed her disappointment that Association Picnic, Fire Fire Department personnel did not attend the event,pointing out that she had Department Attendance arranged for them to do so. Ms. DeMastus stressed that the participation of the fire department was coordinated and on the schedule, and she questioned why the Fire Chief cancelled participation without coordination with the HCA. In response to the Mayor's inquiry, Fire Chief Daniels explained that he was not aware of the request for the Fire Department to attend this particular event. He indicated that some internal communication issues will need to be addressed within the department, and noted that a policy concerning the handling of these October 2,2006 Renton City Council Minutes Page 332 kinds of events will be put in place. Chief Daniels emphasized that the misunderstanding was not intentional. Respond nig to Council inquiries;-Chief Daniels confirmed that he did not cancel the Fire Department's participation at the HCA picnic. Citizen Comment: McOmber- Howard McOmber, PO Box 2041, Renton, 98056, noted the progress made Highlands Area during the preceding Committee of the Whole meeting regarding the formation Redevelopment, Task Force of the Highlands area citizen task force. He further noted the importance of citizen input towards the vision for the Highlands neighborhood, and he expressed his hope that the task force will be able to openly provide opinions and views, and be part of the decision-making process. Councilwoman Briere announced that interested parties can e-mail her to obtain a task force membership application. Citizen Comment: Puckett- Jerry Puckett, 15260 Oak Dr., Renton, 98058, indicated that he is a resident of Wonderland Estates Mobile the Wonderland Estates Mobile Home Park on Maple Valley Hwy. He Home Park, Comp Plan requested that the proposed Maplewood Addition Annexation and Amend &Annexation Comprehensive Plan amendment concerning the property be placed on the agenda for consideration as soon as possible. Mr. Puckett stated that the residents are working towards purchasing the park property. CONSENT AGENDA Items on the consent agenda are adopted by one motion which follows the listing. Council Meeting Minutes of Approval of Council meeting minutes of 9/25/2006. Council concur. 9/25/2006 Appointment: Municipal Arts Mayor Keolker appointed Patricia Riggs, 1700 Lake Washington Blvd. N., Commission #202, Renton, 98056, to the Municipal Arts Commission to fill the unexpired term of Denise Bisio, who has resigned (term to expire 12/31/2007). Refer to Community Services Committee. Vacation: Field Ave NE, ESM City Clerk submitted petition for street vacation for portion of Field Ave. NE, Consulting Engineers, VAC- north of NE 2nd St.; petitioner ESM Consulting Engineers, 33915 1st Way S., 06-004 #200, Federal Way, 98003. Refer to Planning/Building/Public Works Department; set public hearing on 11/6/2006 to consider the petition. (See page 333 for resolution setting public hearing.) Appeal: The Landing Site City Clerk submitted appeal of Hearing Examiner's decision on matters of Plan, Alliance for South End, standing and jurisdiction for The Landing Master Site Plan and Site Approval; SA-05-136 appeal filed on 9/6/2006 by Alliance for South End, represented by Buck& Gordon, LLP, 2025 1st Ave., Suite 500, Seattle, 98121, accompanied by required fee. Refer to Planning and Development Committee. Development Services: Development Services Division requested authorization to fill a vacant Building Building Inspector Inspector-Combination position at Step D of the salary range. Council concur. Combination Hire at Step D Annexation: Marshall, Duvall Economic Development, Neighborhoods and Strategic Planning Department Ave NE &NE Sunset Blvd submitted 10%Notice of Intent to Annex petition for the proposed Marshall Annexation and recommended a public meeting be set on 10/16/2006 to consider the petition; 7.6 acres located west of Duvall Ave. NE and north of NE Sunset Blvd. Council concur. CAG: 04-013,North Renton Transportation Systems Division recommended approval of Supplemental Infrastructure Improvements, Agreement No. 7 to CAG-04-013, agreement with W&H Pacific, Inc., for W&H Pacific design and construction engineering support in the amount of$123,101.12 for the South Lake Washington Roadway Improvements Project. Council concur. .rrri. October 2,2006 Renton City Council Minutes Page 333 CAG: 05-078, S 4th St& Transportation Systems Division submitted CAG-05-078, S. 4th St. and Burnett Burnett Ave S Traffic Ave. S. Traffic Improvements; and requested approval of the project, Improvements, Valley Electric authorization for final pay estimate in the amount of$2,084.30, commencement of 60-day lien period, and release of retained amount of$10,128.38 to Valley Electric, contractor, if all required releases are obtained. Council concur. MOVED BY CORMAN, SECONDED BY NELSON, COUNCIL APPROVE THE CONSENT AGENDA AS PRESENTED. CARRIED. UNFINISHED BUSINESS Community Services Committee Chair Nelson presented a report Community Services recommending concurrence in the staff recommendation to approve Mayor Committee Keolker's appointment of Al Dieckman to the Parks Commission for a term Appointment: Parks expiring on 6/1/2010, and Larry Reymann for a term,previously held by Commission Marjorie Richter, expiring on 6/1/2008. MOVED BY NELSON, SECONDED BY PALMER,COUNCIL CONCUR IN THE COMMITTEE REPORT. CARRIED. Community Services: New Community Services Committee Chair Nelson presented a report Park, 233 Union Ave NE, 1% recommending concurrence in the staff recommendation to approve etched for Art Project stainless steel curved panels as a public 1% for Art project at the new City park located at Union Ave. NE (in the Heather Downs neighborhood), and approve the total budget of$10,000 from Fund 125. MOVED BY NELSON, SECONDED BY PALMER, COUNCIL CONCUR IN THE COMMITTEE REPORT. CARRIED. RESOLUTIONS AND The following resolution was presented for reading and adoption: ORDINANCES Resolution #3836 A resolution was read setting a public hearing date on 11/6/2006 to vacate a 30- Vacation: Field Ave NE, ESM foot by 60-foot portion of 140th Ave. SE (Field Ave. NE), north of NE 2nd St. Consulting Engineers, VAC- (ESM Consulting Engineers). MOVED BY BRIERE, SECONDED BY LAW, 06-004 COUNCIL ADOPT THE RESOLUTION AS READ. CARRIED. NEW BUSINESS MOVED BY CORMAN, SECONDED BY PALMER, COUNCIL REFER THE Transportation: BNSF SUBJECT OF THE SEVERING OF THE BURLINGTON NORTHERN Railroad Track, Severing at SANTA FE RAILROAD TRACK AT WILBURTON TO THE Wilburton TRANSPORTATION(AVIATION) COMMITTEE. CARRIED. Community Services: 1% for MOVED BY BRIERE, SECONDED BY NELSON, COUNCIL REFER THE Art from Transportation TOPIC OF 1%FOR ART FROM TRANSPORTATION PROJECTS TO THE Projects COMMUNITY SERVICES COMMITTEE. CARRIED. School District: Activities Councilwoman Nelson reviewed Renton School District announcements and activities, which included: the recognition of Hazen High School social studies teacher and department chair Brett Crueger as a recipient of the Washington State University "Educators in Excellence" award, and the recognition of Renton High School's Family, Career and Community Leaders of America program students as recipients of a silver medal from a national competition. ADJOURNMENT MOVED BY NELSON, SECONDED BY CORMAN, COUNCIL ADJOURN. CARRIED. Time: 7:55 p.m. s ,� CIJa.Q;ro� Bonnie I. Walton,CMC, City Clerk Recorder: Michele Neumann October 2, 2006 RENTON CITY COUNCIL COMMITTEE MEETING CALENDAR Office of the City Clerk 'COUNCIL COMMITTEE MEI T--INGS SCHEDULED AT CITY COUNCIL MEETING- October 2, 2006 COMMITTEE/CHAIRMAN DATE/TIME AGENDA COMMITTEE OF THE WHOLE MON., 10/09 Emerging Issues (Transportation & (Corman) 5:30 p.m. Utilities) *Council Conference Room* Approximately Vision 20/20 + 20 6:30 p.m. *Council Chambers* COMMUNITY SERVICES (Nelson) FINANCE MON., 10/09 Vouchers; (Persson) 4:30 p.m. Harris/Reeves Request for Water Bill Adjustment; Colee Fence Height Variance Fee Waiver Request PLANNING & DEVELOPMENT THURS., 10/05 Highlands Citizen Advisory Task Force; (Briere) 2 p.m. Comprehensive Plan Amendments *Council Conference Room* 3 p.m. Provost Variances Application Appeal *Council Chambers* PUBLIC SAFETY (Law) TRANSPORTATION (AVIATION) THURS., 10/05 CANCELLED (Palmer) UTILITIES THURS., 10/05 King County Billing Methodology for (Clawson) 4 p.m. Wastewater; Utility Rates (briefing only); Utility Capital Improvement Program (briefing only) 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. '-�\ `��r �� CITY OF RENTON ♦ ♦ Mayor /� — / Kathy Keolker ����n l fr� Pry W het�ea�; in 1920, President Woodrow Wilson declared Fire Prevention Day, and in 1922 the day became the week containing October 9th in special observance of the Great Chicago Fire of 1871; and Whereas; the United States has one of the worst records for residential fire deaths in the world; and Whereat; since 2001, Renton has experienced over$600,000 in fire loss and one fatality from cooking fires and, in 2005, cooking fires accounted for 29 percent of all residential structure fires in Renton; and Whereat developing a home fire escape plan and practicing it at least twice a year are critical to escaping a fire safely; and W herecw, proper installation, testing, and maintenance of smoke alarms are part of a thorough home fire escape plan; and Whereat, by preventing the leading causes of home fires, and by developing and practicing a Ivor- thorough home escape plan, people can greatly reduce their fire risk; and W hereak; the City of Renton fire service is dedicated to the protection of life and property from the devastating effects of fire; Nov, Terme, I, Kathy Keolker, Mayor of the City of Renton, do hereby proclaim the week of October 8-14,2006,to be: 7re' P I/L o w Weems in the City of Renton in commemoration of the Great Chicago Fire of 1871, which killed more than 250 persons, left 100,000 homeless, and destroyed more than 17,400 buildings. I encourage all citizens to join me in this special observance. In witness whereof, I have hereunto set my hand and caused the seal of the City of Renton to be affixed this 2nd day of October 2006. ';A/Caliy Kathy Keolker t` low Mayor of the City of Renton, Washington 1055 South Grady Way-Renton,Washington 98057-(425)430-6500/F• 2 )430-6523 RENTON AHEAD OF THE CURVE Y a CITY OF RENTON ♦ ♦ Mayor Kathy Keolker Nr V PVOCZaM'u ,tCo-vt'rothmtwa-um Whereat domestic violence is a leading cause of death, killing more women than car crashes, muggings, and rape combined; and Whereaj it has been estimated that every nine seconds a woman is beaten by her husband or boyfriend in this country and, in more than half those instances, children under the age of 12 are present; and Where-a*each year in our nation, male intimates kill 1,000 to 1,600 female partners; and Wherea.;research suggests that a large number of women who commit suicide do so because of their violent victimization at the hands of an intimate male partner; and Whereat;in Renton, 2,213 domestic violence offenses were reported in 2005; and Wheiea*families and communities are strengthened by holding domestic violence perpetrators accountable for their crimes; and Whereao recognizing domestic violence victims is important for our communities to promote vir.r healing and empowerment; and Whereaj October is nationally recognized as Domestic Violence Awareness Month, and increasing public awareness and understanding of domestic violence will promote safety, health, and wellness for victims; Now, Therefore; I, Kathy Keolker, Mayor of the City of Renton, do hereby proclaim the month of October 2006 to be Nat' Dome4rto v' �l uw iti nt in the City of Renton, and encourage everyone in our community to take an active role in supporting all victims so they can lead healthy lives safe from violent and abusive behavior. In witness whereof,I have hereunto set my hand and caused the seal of the City of Renton to be affixed this 2nd day of October 2006. Nave Kathy Ke er Mayor of the City of Renton, Washington 1055 South Grady Way-Renton,Washington 98057-(425)4 t -.523 RENTON /�� AHEAD OF THE CURVE CITY OF RENTON ♦ � © ♦ � �! ' � lo/2p 2��� M Kathyyor Keolker P r W herea'; energy efficiency is important to the City of Renton because it saves consumers and businesses money and helps protect the environment by lessening greenhouse gas emissions and reducing air pollution; and Whereat; by taking the Energy Star Change a Light pledge, citizens of Renton have the opportunity to save energy and help reduce greenhouse gas emissions by switching to Energy Star qualified compact fluorescent lighting products in their homes; and Whereat; if this change were made in every home in Renton, our city would save 16,457,520 kilowatts of electricity, the evironmental equivalent of removing 414 cars from the road, while also reducing the amount of greenhouse gas emissions going into the air by 25,970,200 pounds; and W herea4; the City of Renton is proud to do our part in this nationwide effort to promote energy efficiency and environmental stewardship in every household by installing Energy Star qualified lighting; Now, Therefore, I, Kathy Keolker, Mayor of the City of Renton, do hereby proclaim October 4,2006,to be Evte4tgy Stagy C c LCg)it1Jy in the City of Renton, and I encourage all citizens to join me in making this important change. In witness whereof, I have hereunto set my hand and caused the seal of the City of Renton to be affixed this 2nd day of October, 2006. #, Kathy Ke. 'r Mayor of the City of Renton, Washington 1055 South Grady Way-Renton,Washington 98057-(425)430-6500/FAX(425)430-6523 R E N T O N AHEAD OF THE CURVE *or �`SY O ♦ t' `z � O QUERIN II ANNEXATION PUBLIC HEARING October 2, 2006 The Querin II annexation is located within Renton's Potential Annexation Area and abuts Renton on its western and southern boundary and is bordered by Hoquiam Avenue NE (142nd Avenue SE) on the west, NE 13th Street on the south, and 144th Avenue SE, if extended, on the east. It is located at the base of an unincorporated peninsula of land between 141st Avenue SE, if extended, on the west and 144th Avenue SE, if extended, on the east. The area is bounded on the north by the south side of NE Sunset Boulevard. The Renton City Council approved a 60% Direct Petition to annex for this annexation on November 7, 2005, and held the first of two required public hearings on possible future zoning on August 7, 2006. At this hearing the Council accepted the findings and decision of the Boundary Review Board expanding the original boundaries to 24 acres and zoning this area consistent with the City's Comprehensive Plan Land Use Map. At the August public hearing Council supported the Administration's recommendation to rezone the portion designated Residential Low Density (RLD) on the Comprehensive Plan, R-4, and the portion designated Residential Single Family (RS) on the Comprehensive Plan, R-8. Staff has prepared ordinances for both the annexation of the subject 24 acres and the rezoning of the non-street portions of it. RECOMMENDATION: The Administration is recommending that Council: 1) Adopt the annexation ordinance prepared by staff, and approved by the City Attorney, effectuating this 24-acre annexation; 2) Adopt, upon annexation, the R-4 zoning ordinance, zoning those portions of the site designated RLD on the City's Comprehensive Plan Land Use Map concurrently upon annexation; and 3) Adopt, upon annexation, the R-8 zoning ordinance, zoning those portions of site designated RS on the City's Comprehensive Plan Land Use Map concurrently upon annexation. *me Si " r... 3 •� m • UL "3 Ni: 1�i .r_ 7ir�! j r }7 •`�' I * . I a,r` `C?t,1• •Pi - `tr - 0` 5_ , „,.. F . 0 Ni.., i',,,t41' }} ,......., ',:' '',:,.-74,.;'...,:,':,,,,,,,, ,,:::,,,” 5F Isl 2.t..h.P1. . 11t`i ...- 607 mss, .. . . Si. 1140 s 1!1 ':'f f.•, 7,3 - r In • NEgtt , it " .. . e, .. cirri/ I u. i/ r..• }d NNE 7th e7thtip .W N.. - 1 i . co .t-,. Querin II Annexation 0 800 I600 I Figure I:Vicinity Map1 d'x.utattra'11,tlajxrzen i NigiKhbwh ods&Str:eic,Fte I'iennuog Fes,City ions Q ilira�xA yedmrm+tralrx Qrginal Amaxa I x 1.......,a.. r #re ed Annaxalion Arm I '� �' Querin II Annexation 44:1 ,. 'r 2nd Public Hearing on 4 . a Zoning and Annexation Effectuation October 2,2006 y Of Renton 3', M.rrN it(Pkpa n) Current Annexations :' .PMiin, '2.,'.. 4 - Aster Park -- \ ,' °;= ' %S. Background • y Ni.qu4m :: ', 2O4aa • Council accepted annexation in August 2005 <' , '---1... '474.5sG • City invoked BRB'$ jurisdiction in January 2006 ..--- �.• ;,,; ' ,, • In July2006 BRB expanded boundaries from 7.2 . .aw::. ^ P "s\ -_= . acres to 24 acres \)`'^ t. <.r'„':-- :”` ■ Council accepted BRB decision expanding a� boundaries on August 7,2006 and authorized 9' pg,t :, MwI staff to begin preparing ordinances for future <..vd 1 - ,.. 60 5 au.. „-- ;,.Ak.F.�n. zoning and annexation effectuation utl !o9y.eG ,J,7 ,1117 1 6toa • ■ Tonight's hearing intended to finalize zoning and r•„Y. •' ----- 6-r, "ac`\ i Polk!! effectuate Querin II Annexation _Li,., A2 1' , Existing Conditions ; `_ V , • PAA—Within Renton's Potential Annexation Area • Location-Between 141St Avenue SE on the a west and 144th Avenue SE,if extended,on the °. 5. east,south of SE 112th Street — ` ' } re • Size—24.0-acres • Natural Features—Western portion somewhat ,;original Area hilly,eastern portion drops off steeply to Honey ' ' Creek that traverses it's northeastern portion -• ' b s • Existing Land Use—17 single-family homes ” ` and 5 vacant parcels Querin II Annexation 1 Existing Conditions - Structures Existing Conditions - Topography .k f it. ■ 17 Existing r,II r------" SF Dwellings 30% y it , • Up to slopes `_ ---- Q r "� along Honey Creek J r n r~ :. :. �■ channel Topography Map — Structures Map I .`� Existing Conditions - Sensitive Areas R ,- . z x li Honey Creek and ek .!" .�� ` • M. F its ravine impact northeastern portion \ ist.. of site a , O vi� tet"' d3' z 3' HL A, ' "'': ',4, Type 2 wetland a . � exists near middle of site \ r•3 . ,- Sensitive Areas Map View looldng southwest towards home in expanded area t: '�, ° Existing Conditions — Public 7-;m 3' sR 90o Services ■ Within District#25 ` _ ■ Utilities - 44g ', , , • Within Water District#90 Service Area .""-,-,,,4,..,:°' }. • Within Renton Sewer Service Area � !IL • Schools .r f t .. .�. ■ Within Renton School District �■ W 'i. U!■'. +4 View north along 142'd Avenue SE towards SR 900(Sunset) ' i+•,; 2 Existing Land Use Designation Possible Zoning if Annexed & Zoning K.C.Land Use Map- • Renton Come Plan Land Urban Residential 4-12 Use Use Map du/ac ' Ml -Residential Low Density RS I,• _ : " ■„ 1 �yt (RLD) ' 3 ar� ��wO�I° -Residential Single FamilyNZ* , K.C.Zoning- Mall3 RS �°. R-4-Residential 4 du/ac' ( ) - , 1 , ME a w Suqaested Renton , 'Bonuses up to s du/gr.ac. i i- i m i £ � .w: Zoning it 0 "a m mi .. -R-4 (4 du/net acre) RS i Ami -R-8 (8 du/net acre) ,. SITE King County Zoning Map SITE Renton Comprehensive Plan Residential Low Residential Single Density Family • R-4 Zone • R-8 Zone I+1.-, < s 444.44 e ' gO Querin II Expanded Annexation .� 't--..,"" Querin II Expanded Annexation ...- '':x--:"' 11 Fiscal Impact Conclusion • The expanded annexation is generally consistent with relevant Countywide Planning Policies and City annexation policies • The BRB found the proposed expansion consistent with relevant Boundary Review Board objectives and policies for annexation • The BRB issued findings and decision supporting expansion One time parks acquisition and development cost of$40,498 3 Conclusion, continued Administration Recommendation That Council: • No major impediments to the provision of • Accept the expanded Querin II Annexation as City services to the area were identified approved by the BRB ■ Proposed R-4 zoning is consistent with City's ■ Concurrently zone the non-street portions of the Residential Low Density land use designation 24-acre site R-4 and R-8 consistent with Renton's Comprehensive Plan Land Use ■ Proposed R-8 zoning is consistent with Map,and City's Single Family Residential land use designation • Hold first reading of both the annexation and zoning ordinances on October 9,2006 .�'s .IFsA ✓�e .:� 4 '01, 4 GtiCY O� ADMINISTRATIVE, JUDICIAL, AND «� , LEGAL SERVICES DEPARTMENT • -Nrco� MEMORANDUM DATE: October 2, 2006 TO: Randy Corman, 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: GENERAL INFORMATION • Downtown Renton is alive with activity on Saturday, October 7th. Take part in the 5th Annual Harvest Festival at the Piazza on 3rd and Burnett from 10 a.m. to 5 p.m. Join with friends, neighbors, clubs and businesses to submit your own scarecrow. Participate in free fun activities for kids, visit Renton Chamber of Commerce businesses, see food demonstrations from a Renton Technical College Chef. Sponsored by the City of Renton, Piazza Renton and the Renton Chamber of Commerce. • Harvest Partners has begun construction of The Landing, a $300 million, 46-acre urban village style shopping center development at the south end of Lake Washington. The Landing will include national and local retail stores, great restaurants and cafes, and attractive residential units, with some to open in Fall 2007 and others to follow in Spring 2008. With approximately 600,000 square feet of retail shops and restaurants at full build-out, The Landing will be the perfect way to spend an entire day in Renton. PLANNING/BUILDING/PUBLIC WORKS DEPARTMENT • The Burlington Northern Santa Fe (BNSF) Corridor Advisory Committee is a panel of elected and staff officials from jurisdictions along the railroad corridor between Renton and Snohomish. The purpose of the Committee is to assist with the planning effort to determine best uses for this corridor, which BNSF intends to sell. The Committee had previously decided to eliminate the option of placing high capacity transit along this corridor from the alternatives under study. During its September 29th meeting, the Committee further eliminated the option of expanded freight delivery along the corridor from further consideration. The direction favored by the panel was to focus on use of the corridor as a bike/pedestrian corridor and/or a freight corridor at its current level of service, and to recognize that optimal uses may differ along various portions of the corridor. The next Committee meeting is scheduled to take place at Bellevue City Hall on October 27th. • CITY OF RENTON COUNCIL AGENDA BILL Al#: Submitting Data: For Agenda of: October 2, 2006 Dept/Div/Board.. AJLS/Mayor's Office Staff Contact Kathy Keolker, Mayor Agenda Status Consent X Subject: Public Hearing.. Correspondence.. Municipal Arts Commission Appointment: Ordinance Ms. Patricia Riggs Resolution Old Business Exhibits: New Business Study Sessions Community Service 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 )110mor Total Project Budget City Share Total Project SUMMARY OF ACTION: Mayor Keolker appoints the following to the Municipal Arts Commission for an unexpired term, expiring on December 31, 2007: Ms. Patricia Riggs, 1700 Lake Washington BIvd N, #202, Renton, WA 98056 (position previously held by Denise Bisio) STAFF RECOMMENDATION: Confirm Mayor Keolker's appointment of Ms. Patricia Riggs to the Municipal Arts Commission. Rentonnet/agnbill/ bh �/ CITY OF RENTON .,-•,, ,3,r.. APPLICATION APPLICATION FOR COMMUNITY SERVICE ( If you are interested in participating in local government by membership on any of the following Cityboards, _. - Nv.rr commissions,or committees,please complete this application and return it to: CC : 'T€rr K' Office of the Mayor City of Renton b<1'l ID• 1055 South Grady Way Renton, WA 98055 Check the boards/commissions/committees in which you are interested: ❑ AIRPORT ADVISORY COMMI I-FEE* ❑ PLANNING COMMISSION* U CIVIL SERVICE COMMISSION* U ADVISORY COMMISSION ON DIVERSITY ❑ HOUSING AUTHORITY* ❑ SENIOR CITIZENS ADVISORY COMMITTEE* ❑ HUMAN SERVICES ADVISORY COMMITTEE* ❑ SISTER CITY COMMITTEE-CUAUTLA LI LIBRARY B___ )6,,R1/___ --___________ ❑ SISTER CITY COMMITTEE-MSHIWAKI C MUNICIPAL ARTS COMMISSION* ❑ TRANSIT ADVISORY BOARD ter- 'ARKS COMMISSION* *Special membership requirements apply. Visit www.ci.renton.wa.us or call425-430-6500 for details. i Your application will be given e0, consideration as vacancies occur. MR. El MS.[ ' NAME 1&a...AG4aG ,�i 5 .0'. DATE C. 7, 2..Go 4, ADDRESS 17 C 6 AL, r' >1. A426ia ZIP CODE MS-6 PHONE: DAY Ci?-6---026:5-// 75-NIGHT ,W1-e---) EMAIL RENTON RESIDENT? ,cfreQ/ IF SO,SINCE WHEN? 9,....dy_ .R6 b CITY OF FORMER RESIDENCE l s :J-.„ '7 ii. a • / EDUCATIONAL BACKGROUND , � _�� ' 6 2(itajeiit,1 OCCUPATION —,2,_,,,_.,„ EMPLOYER OCCUPATIONAL BACKGROUND 1�,,L� �cJ ��✓ I��i Qy l Jt7 -e .,.i8'f COMMUNITY ACTIVITIES(organizations/clubs/service groups,etc.) (�{" � /`r—t . a >14,9-7(4.1. ^'..ZGJ I/.ii %........,,,a.,/ .L�.�L_.." ... 4i ... L_.. e----.1..._ - I/ i 4-46.400 /_i._ _ __4. • i . • . ',!.ff...IA., A / i .-.:, ....: -,,A_.-ir_ _•:"... 4 4-64,-o-Pa4.4914(1_ ail i REASON FOR APPLYING FOR THIS BOARD/COMMISSION/COMMITTEE I et...idzt) sf.0-) cJ AN ATTEND DAY MEETINGS? CAN ATTEND NIGHT MEETINGS? ,f�21� 1 I Applications will be kept on file for one year.If you have questions about serving on a board, commission,or committee,please feel free to contact the Mayor's Office at 425-430-6500. 050305 S CITY OF RENTON COUNCIL AGENDA BILL AI#: 1/44.0 :Submitting Data: For Agenda of: 10/2/2006 Dept/Div/Board.. AJLS/City Clerk Staff Contact Bonnie Walton, x6502 Agenda Status Consent X Subject: Public Hearing... X Street Vacation Petition for a portion of Field Ave. NE, north Correspondence.. of NE 2nd St. Petitioner: EMS Consulting Engineers for Paul Ordinance and Timothy Lindberg (File No. VAC-06-004) Resolution X Old Business Exhibits: New Business Petition, legal and map Study Sessions Resolution setting public hearing Information Recommended Action: Approvals: Set public hearing date of 11/6/2006, and refer to Legal Dept X Planning/Building/Public Works Administrator for Finance Dept recommendations Other Fiscal Impact: Expenditure Required... N/A Transfer/Amendment Amount Budgeted Revenue Generated Total Project Budget City Share Total Project.. kiwi SUMMARY OF REQUEST: On August 17, 2006, a petitiirn was submitted by EMS Consulting Engineers,33915 1St Way South, #200,Federal Way, WA 98003, on behalf of Paul and Timothy Lindberg, requesting vacation of an unimproved portion of Field Avenue NE,north of NE 2nd Street. The$250 filing fee was paid. The Planning/Building/Public Works Department has verified the petition documents and reports that 100% of the abutting property owners have signed the petition. The process regarding street vacation petitions requires that Council,by resolution, fix a time for a public hearing when the petition will be heard and determined. The date of the public hearing, must occur no less than 20 days or more than 60 days after adoption of the resolution. In accordance with City Code, the Administration will analyze the street vacation request and provide the Council with a recommendation. STAFF RECOMMENDATION: Adopt a resolution to set a public hearing on 11/6/2006, and refer the petition to the Planning/Building/Public Works Administrator for determination of advisability of the vacation and need for retention of easements. cc Karen McFarland Reference: 35.79 RCW&RMC 9-14 CITY OF RENTON PETITION FOR STREET VACATION AUG 1 7 2006 IN THE CITY OF RENTON 'vowRECEIVED y �f7/06CITY CLERK'S OFFICE To the Honorable Mayor and Dale Members of the City Council �- City of Renton Circulated 13y: ES/'1 �•�2v(�'L 6:' 4,12s�- 1055 S. Grady Way J Renton, WA 98055 Address: 3 I . 7 -� W,•� �,� Fes-A.12A. t--) tA)A 9 00-3 Dear Mayor and Council Members: - -/ t, _ Telephone: Z'5 ��JU W/3 nr:tFT = We,the undersigned property owners abutting a certain portion of public Right-of-Way, i0.' respectfully request the vacation of the street of alleyway as described on the attached i'a;CEIVED "Exhibit A"and <:‘-11.%:13;-ERK'e OFFIC commonly known as: The 30' by 60' section of 140th Ave. SE north of NE 2nd St (insert closest cross streets and reference lite street name,re.NE Bog Street from Bicycle Ailey to Slalom Avenge NE.) We request a time and place be fixed when this petition will be heard by the City Council. Of the property owners abutting the area of this petition t uo % 12/3 or more requlredl of the lineal frontage have agreed and indicated their joining this petition with their signa..res below: '1 —"VS • signature "signature yam, Paul Lindberg Timothy Lindberg print name phone print name phone 4715 NE 2nd P1. 13845 SE 131st St address address 152305-9222 152305-•9223 property identification number property identification number Instructions: Insert name of street.(i.e.NE 4th, alleyway east of Sunset Blvd.) 2. Attach complete legal description(i.e. metes and bounds,etc.). .3. Have the applicable property owners provide the following: a) Sign name. (Signatures of owners of 2/3 of lineal frontage must sign. Spouses do not need to sign. Owners in common must sign.) b) Print name and phone number. c) List Property address and Icing County tax parcel identification number 4. Attach a map to the petition designating the vacation boundaries. 5. Attach a brief statement of the purpose to be served by the street vacation. 6. Submit$250.00 filing fee with application SUBMIT PETITION TO THE CITY CLERIC,SEVENTH FLOOR, RENTON CITY HALL /4111/10' PM-Property Services AdministratlonlAdmintstrative\Forms1StreetVacallon\Sireel Vacation Petition doe EXHIBIT "A" ' STREET VACATION cry , RE c n, LEGAL DESCRIPTION The north 60 feet of the east 30 feet of Lot 4 of King County Short Plat No.882065, Recording Number 8303160822, described as follows: Commencing at the North quarter corner of Section 15, Township 23 North, Range 5 East, of the Willamette Meridian in King County, Washington; thence South 00°28'00" East, along the East line of the Northwest quarter of said Section 15, a distance of 937.25 feet to the Northeast corner of Lot 4 of King County Short Plat Number 882065 and the True Point of Beginning; thence continuing South 00°28'00", along said East line, a distance of 60.00 feet; thence North 89°15'45" East,parallel with the North line of said Lot 4, 30.00 feet; thence North 00°28'00" West, parallel with said East line, 60.00 feet, to the North line of Said Lot 4; thence South 89°15'45" East, a distance of 30.00 feet to the True Point of Beginning. Containing an area of 1800 Square Feet or 0.04 Acres more or less. voril All situate in the City of Renton, County of King, State of Washington. ce�0 M A Stiwye. c:,;, q 38965 • 44,c-GISLA c) . EXPIRES 55-23-C Cz27 EXHIBIT 6OB s€ �r°�► ` FFxe; STREET VACATION 10 North quarter corner 15 Section 15, Township I 23 north, Range 5 east, W.M. `U s. in *Aa 0) i w /yQ O I ( - ti O Cui I O S89 °15 ' 45"E 215. 05 ' 0 185. 00 ' I30.00 ' 1" = 50' 1\1800 kSq.Ft. r r \ • • �� IO O U - r l0\O iv�i � o \30.00 ' n of S89 .15'45"E N 30.00' 1 Noel - Lot 4 0 V CU O O - , z S89 °15 ' 45"E 215 . 05 ' , Off .s. NAIII ,EN H h'p �Q� ,F W A y jy 0i, CENTRE A / • I ti• c_: o f < p 0 I N TE cc c„ , , 7u, 9F 38965�� Q�� ; Surveying,inc., P.S. stpN GI S T EP �O 33701 9th Avenue South — Federal Way, WA 98003 �� L AO 33701 main 253-661-7719 fax iitw �����5�� iii io of ioAO Map Exhibit King County 30' by 60' West Might-of-Way of 140th Ave. SE Lrf.7G ;LL E ( i 1 '. i ' i 1 i i t i925$-' 001.1 t NE 111 ST "ii9291 811-..:_- 7"Tl `" u-,;f i 9� 9f r r 3 3 0451 ; •t, i ,] 0 NE 5TH ST,-,..' i j r 0200. d53 - `9258-1 I n 93/5 , , , s N :i F f I u ' NE 1 ii ST t �, '-- J+ i L Z n{1651 i II rte' ,',�, : �1 •Sr1{J- 3i• - , it ....., u1rL`J r « ( _ Z > II .Z t 1 Li i _ t ur t EC1. .� 9!69 .41167 -,,i 1 x 1- • w N 41 t'i C'(' i - i. I 1 - - tI__ 21 .fi_ -, >;` -. l 'i ! eat z , f --« " 9351, 1'-"',4_:` v; t..__.__...i . _ p 911t i ,rte { 'r r LVf51 €j° 9L1681 •! 9trir i 914) 9303 ;; 1 f - , .. 0360 t :I EZ _..-J 0390-" ._ __. f A1 ; i -• NE4TH ST i 412+1 1 11 O139 i .1 91d5 91111 j 1 a i i 292 . - r ;19132 1- 1i 3 9011 9'3st 0015 006I I' rI _ J 9108 X113 rt9 , i 0 d2 9035 ;90991 9109 9101_ 1 5'0 ' `1 X32 1 91 ) 056,d b u. N _3PC7 ST-i----,.4 r,, SC-`1 z-4 I'W"i. I , �.. .,.. ._ I 9139 i i F I I i • ,iii --- - ... .. - ..- .-_. 1 112f, 1 '. � �9154I � 51118 9'�ug i I I ! '' 9130, r :_�._i,.- i d NE . �f_^_7 _ 9.025 t, a t _ � - �___� _--_ ,� _- • i i- .-...•t. .-; : i 205 j 011 �t 31 i 06 I 1 , ; 4__ 032°1 1 ' i • N ND`LN r 1. . _j .._�1. t -1- --,' -;_1---r X ;f 9211 1 92x9 Y i 1 t3 0340 •'! 9207 } 92 is. I 0052 y. �a`} !^ :: 1. i i ; 1 , 9082 i ; 9964 0948 gp t -,0(44. V'J,_.N E NCI-S7 �qy - f.._._.'.q".'IL.--v=.,.ai�_' .-__-f-..._.- _ - I 1 ~ -- KCL" g py {•iF LlV1} 1 WWi _ Zt� F,,, 1 I r._ i IT zf,icf' 9 .. r . _ - - ,LT32ND SI ul ,_ 06901 11'1''t t } t 1 i t ? ; sty Q t(� X450 z I f... , I J I.' .,t _ ' 1 1 1 1 onat� 1 005 W 1 r z . - --NE-1 S7•C:T- --* --1_, 1', s • ; i 1----- _. 4+ 0065 03f10 . ' NE 1S1''CT .� 0130 —® 06010! t '_ = �, 1 !. !?1101 I " 0106 i:: t s`rl0290 4656'1 1a.t 1 c�# cu p,1 , 1 i f . 0280 - 5__` 0190 02101 ° t 10274+,�_--i'r..__. _-X104 �`N -1ST-� _ 9 079 ��0180 0200 0226• �� W t i -1 0066 •007$ ~ $115 1 L 1JJiUJ �. .`.,,.--�.._, Lfr t aslui z 0115 i . �. 0120 A- « ___ 1STSTI p ; : : ! 0075 `,. Alt fi 4711 ! r 'y ST ._Ci 0076 { —/ 1 ' .._ i 10330, 1 - "i i 000. , I ' , 5 f I 1 1 1 03Bti { t i 0,310:_�, _0440 " a „0390 } tlf�6 .1 1._. t1 1_-.SE-2ND-Sfi ` _ I# 0;04!1 ? tel i \i'" 00/0 -¢?' SrE 1357'14 ST " ,` ' 1 1 rn 10480 S i}l@�, iJ m, y3 g}, 1, / X0130 F�j 91421 fXJ40 0490" p .1 --- 4' ' _ it t1t140 . I w 9 , r 0010 0500 fd a3iJ a 1 , !„.4 9021 i : t""` . ... �. 0140 9129 di 140100 ' 0029 I f l ¢ rt_ (9 [ r,6CV C 2 0B Cowl! 1 71- ` ... , _. SE'136T•H_SL'- _..• : ._,�_- 0« _ 5- ;_.: 651 ft , The information included on this map has been compiled by King County staff from a variety of sources and is subject to change without notice.King County makes no representations or warranties,express or implied,as to accuracy,completeness,timeliness,or rights to the use of such information.King County shall not be liable for any general,special,indirect,incidental,or consequential damages including,but not limited to,lost revenues or lost profits resulting from the use or misuse of the information contained on this map.Any sale of this map or information on this map is prohibited except by written permission of King County. Date:8-4-2006 Source:King County iMAP-Property Information (http://www.metrokc.gov/GIS/;MAP) LEGAL DESCRIPTION A PORTION of the N.W. 1/4 & N.E. 1/4, SECTION 15, TOWNSHIP 23 N., RANGE 5 E., W.M. PARCEL 9046 LOT 1,KING COUNTY SNORT PUT NO.601050,RECORDED UNDER RECORDING NO.0201220538 IN KING COUNTY,WA --i . PARCELS 9205,9206,9222&9223 LOTS I,2,3 Y 4,IONG COUNTY WETLµO DELINEATOR IN CHAD 1 ,� 3 SNORT PLAT N0.662063,RECORDED UN0ER RECORDING NO 303160022, NOTE ALL EXISTING HOUSES AND ARMOUR , IN KING COUNTY,WA.;EXCEPT THE NORTH 60 FL of THE EAST 30 R. STRUCTURES ARE TO 6E REMOVED. APRIL 2006 1 3 5 C OF LOT 4,CONVEYED TO KING COUNTY FOR ROAD PURPOSES RECORDED ='� UNDER RECORDING NO.6705050924 ,� I I 023o59U� , PARCEL 9044.LOT 3,0020 COUNTY SHORT PUT NUMBER 576075. .L+•J0590J� ���%%% .'W'W 4N, RECORDED 9 UNDER 0.EAST33 NO 7701190691.S IN VINO COUNTY,WA _�__1 =rJ _3 I� I PARCEL STC TIE UST HE RFT Cf EAT AR 1H OF RET OF TWE "^ I r--II Pu ' -- 1T`—--�- �" f `^ WTHEAST OJARIER Of THE NORTHEAST WARIER Q<THE NORTHWEST —_ wa f.e, '` �6m m -"- J QUARTER OF sECTION 15.TOWNSHIP 23 NCR.,RANGE 3 EAST,WM IN I • ^ '00 •'• �Y/ �- y9 \ ! ! 1•T Z G COUNTY, A,EXCEPT THAT PORTON THEREOF LYING WYNN IN 1p \�� I �y RIGHT 05 A WOG SOUTHEAST 132ND ST E 45i 'i \' y 1 r 4 0 Y' 41�"` NURrN LL y II } � I6� f ,s14498 �,A.tw3n Al2W BII A13W �`;. 11 W y ,A 7,__11,---- l""' _16 \' \1 K VICINITY MAR LAM5.1.1._ G y{ �, $I \'i w• 1 \ ' +Y Q�23069f10� .. Nit ei i C 1 �. N 16 \ \, N SITE DATA i 6627/ - )j j I II OSxJD]�9o)5� W Bi FI ---= .'\ \ a am I�.\H��` T"�"�'N-(4� I\ 4I \ pT1 %;r TOTAL PUT AREA: 364.502 SF (8.366 ACRES) N; 1 $F ' •- �: \ y��_ 1 l ) K 1 AREA IN STREETS k ACCESS EASEMENTS:74,344 SF 4.4150 SF 4 76,494 SF(1 AO AG) Z f IT '2y: ' - \ �} ,;44, /\ �n1 E�,,J t 1 T1 b r• AREA IN SENSITIVE AREA BUFFER:7,205 SF W A 4 d 1 I I,_' f-'� :1.S -' f.� \ '1 y NET AREA: 266,006 Si (5.5] ACRES) (TOTAL AREA LESS STREETS&ES/ITS.) �v q W 1 aN-RFOCLNS I"I \" L,:523c5BV3'/06 •/ jf.I4.4 ,•y- 1IS,„,,,,00--,---,,,;„ F 2.0 17U\ ,,. 17 7 T , ' PROPOSED NO.LOTS. 48 41 Ii `1l WETLAND ,7 1f i,;_•• I4...._it_ r.`',,,, REC�I�„2-'662W ,,1'O AA, , I,_OBL VII ., wtAlaPI \ , r'••'• ZONING: R5,6 UNITS/ACRE '(3 D' II ' :T .�' _ ' (/ II 1', `EwsF'',WELL \ 7L , -1�'- --,,--yy 1 PROPOSED DENSITY. 746 UNITS/ACRE V 5,\ 1:,' w'w,5 4 H l• ,�H� a, II ,, 5' 3 ' I rI i �8W 1 I! ! L- i PROPOSED USE:R-6 ZONE.SINGLE FAMILY DETACHED REGIS. (yf �� isI \aI I Q P\)TyE.�.N :-.„11..';1"':'.„ i 7 INT{ weI(r r•u)P - Y:- �,\F_3 s .I • ssv\ 4, 1 1523659222 �\ 11 wF,.• !I F. II I.. . \ _* \l 1.4.- Y\I`Y i 1111 I ; _ .P.-121.2.1....` ro\m \ \ v ice_J5W:__)_'J P•. F. s 9d 'g 5. R9W TO ', • ca )I i 1 P�•IpJ}� J „.. ..4. 1-111i;\ 5: ,,�, I 2 .iI/ 3 ( r�I!,./1 d yR •,yh F�,� � NI'�\ C ''�� .'i � ',mil., � .�r�".--- SITE SERVICES 4, `° r E I .fir 6 '�I •» AI4.v ' ^`�`-\. �9/ --� �B/ I 1' ' __ I\ \ 111 SEWER- CITY OF RENTON x:',1_ e i 4 IVY` T/'- �� -f7--------- S ,�� )-�-.� 1 \ I` WATER: C11Y OF�LTON k N.C.W.O./Bo I I. 1�I �' I • 1 I �'1 � R� ( r' BdL4 /,)P{iI_ _ Ta- 8 1 I' s 3osezz] i^t• tt 156 3 84 �G�' 7 Portel 1.w SCHOOL arf OF RENTOL Se K.CCi ` 711 ll I ° I / )IS l ThgO�,I S 1 s 1' 7 DRE: CRY OF REM” , /1 , Iii � \I/—) , 5 1 / Aw„ Hi V Q 1 TELEPHONE: OWEST /-�. I 1 2JOSB205 j- / \ 6v _ri I V / ) F� I 4t Ij 1 ) CABLE T.V.:ELECTRICAL a COMCAST CABLEVISIGAS: PUGET UNE'� 'jyI 1' ='_I_. _1L OW ,Z oA_,_L__14,.L• _� - �:6„..\ ,.4 ' -,,A, I�', (20W !� �2' _ _._, ',-l.. _ ___� JJ i ,� 1 *01T ' _ �'s'I —�. .� -- 4. 'gi + - _:\D[F}7n ,gi>A'4Ei .I— , \ -TL...H-� r 1: 4�6= T�'�I1ICI7 MPEE6 • \ I IL52301 487 NJ�SS 17, ll✓'I ' le \z�, 32, 8 131 st ST. 3i ¢, 2 6 �. ZZ6WTGT 1�--4�-,A�0oo § (ADD ADDRESSES:SITE ADDRESS: 15EE OWNERS3838 SE Lu UT��� �P I G !or W .W W � I_ 6«s,,_f 0.so _I,v �At.— --F",,. w I .. , vT m x Ik .p. r u ' + ¢ iI. LIH' I �N I 1 \ a e DRAINAGE �"Y^LEIS I I �a ?w �I-1 I \._ ` L_ 1 - --E- - - Awi i Hr- ,e, •F-1 L4I� . ASSESSOas Nos. 15233059206 Z.._• tl1 __SE915)4.5(E�EB.5T0' 1 \ v -- J __��''1_ 152305-9222 ...., INw�.I.w.. t°.4C ... - a9R5 �' I ----:-..-:--A-- -------=----- _� ____ 1 I ��p]{ I 152305-9223 ( - 11:11 . � _ (' P� + \ ir' I • 132305-804 • 4 „,. -.may a'"f5 6`'E:^3w o .r _—Ew�..1� ` "!/ 4.D I' • 152305_8062 (L x•5p.r.w• 1D'EASEMENT T PSE FOR or ,• �N l - Al \ I 1 1 POMER.PEC f 8601190413 Recsps>Gl�oc I \ ' \ `l�MR I (_1 1S23DS-9046 II 1 I A 1`! KIN 101 1 � !`e MI (t.113, um•� 1 49 1; . . 'i 1 _11 I� or I` 3N '`,1*::: � 'y a 1,'3;:i--141-.....�v4mDo. RI`o.1 8 E—'--� --�P n R� 11�'' FREDERICK 6 JUDY SUSa:152J05-9082 illi ( 11 �23oSB177 a23oo9z0� ILL I I� 3tl•T 11r ' __ __\ _—J$� • }�aE I I i IAIII )I sr�PHE�r06 NE 20 YATiiNOe Rc:'1WsiJ08059 0::20. z I LI; 7^” _- - /'�— 11..:*`... RI R \ /441 �1 i3 R 11611 SE f 31 51.,fIFNTON,WA 96059 ,- 1� ` T I S 144 _ •. ., V10 Y F-__ 4_ PIC D.BELTRAN:152305-9048 III 6 00,-71 J� A',- •� (, 52305906x I F j\1 / I I 2106 BLAfiIE 5..RENTL9L WA 96053 W _--—--—--____ -f---__-___-•-9 HI I>,� ` , 8 �E J 1 O Tworxx s JENwRR DNOBFA¢16AM6-9211 • T ' ' 41 RI I `�__.-JE_L� 1 ill, ISN5 SE 1A 9T.MINTON WA 95059 H,� `i EXIST.N•SE { 1"\IL.W \ 1 O. / `�$ 11i PAUL t LOIS UNOBk'A¢157105-pm6!151105-9222 a 5p; '., I • _'/ t (TO BE Ef I ' I I1 43 1 ' "'AC�j P.1TRItlf l2SnMd APHE.RFEITM.WA.98(15. O(yj)bd( SS9�( I REM•,0IIi--,38 1 g 1 ,,W,d II 1m3'0ai 6E 131 ST. It 1 w�i05-90Do 8 ddd o `P��ENURSt % szlasvw E '3"° I 36W i ,3T ' i ,P4WE' i"-•---12I $,'�\oRSEr2�'inSTESMT.,DRAIN191E ' I;I i ii ,i Q�Q 1 42W ! �. 4EC�/814 30539 I h / U Y 1i R '1=ro Sr _yR e N• �W i. ;: lrP ZQ� d L- __�__ r f, i ro�\ "'" /` I:Y' bOo•.���M"_S99"R4'sO999...LLL M,VW529, a�--L_ I - 6 Q C • - NE 2nd ST. " I .....1,R .....,, �...n � -___ _ _,, _ OMB 1(29[94 WAR 1.A Act RANNY AND BOUNDARY BY rr Centre „z21,,,..-z.Y osaas PN CELS 9305A9205,9z22,9223 EA$ENENT TO P.FOR JE`NVRSt ) I 1 _-—- w " •n_,W_ iF — Pointe(`s" COHSIRVC EU AS rianoeoCONSTRUCTEDoas TO BE P �VRS( 3 NGk 5 GRAPHIC SCALE 1 �+' Surveying 11 JRf. ` I ,� '° F6 11° oNW — 1 Survey"'O LOT AREAS 1 rE S G0..-4( ` 1 6051 SF-(DROSS 101 Alto) S I QVBF- 101 rser) NOV-'"t"-- (4510 SF)_(LESS AREA DF LOT LESS TNAN 40'MMOE&ES/ITS.) - I Fy,. N or _— 'j • `� Ktnp RM 2108 163 itfl EXCAX MAY5 P997 E0939749 87/05,-05 80924 p RECD F 0.00 WARRANTY DEED CR tM5t_ .crorrta 00 The grantor„__,,, herein /�R K A . /,va7a- -c"6455 gr—,1/XT,R..Q 4a 41 for the consideration of (!p Ste j �%' Dollars C4 and other valuable corsaideratinn,convey and warrant_to the County of King,Stela of Washington, Nall interest in the following deacribod real cetera: tl9 The North 60 feet of the East 30 feet of Lot 4 of Ring County Short Plat No. 882065, Recording No. 8303160822, said Short Plat GO described as follows: r Lots 1 and 2 of King County Short Plat No. 676075 recorded under h Recording No. 7701190691, being the Southeast 1/4 of the Northeast . 1/4 of the Northwest 1/4 of Section 15, Township 23 North, Range ,. 5 East, W.M., King County, Washington; EXCEPT the South 198 feet thereof; and EXCEPT the North 186.15 feet of the West 234 feet; and h`+ EXCEPT County Road; SUBJECT to exceptions, reservations, rights, conditions and easements v by instruments recorded under King County Recording Nos. 192430, NI 7608040655, 7606290721, 7701190691, 8208260532, 8208260533, 8211231008 and 7611080549; Said East 30 feet being reserved for road. Contains an area of 1,800 Sq. Ft., or 0.04 Acres, ti/L R/W 140TH AVENUE S.E. —Red For Record At The Request Di - M{ &m �� � x x-1 re �? Gave Division c3rt;< re • morin ..�� S 'rl 1 together with the right to make all necessary slopes for cuts and fills upon the abutting property on 1..e. each aide at.any road'which is now, or may be constructed heroaTtar cif said property,in conformity with itindardpiaha and specifications for highway purposes,end to the same extent and purposes as Jf`; it the rights herein granted had been acquired by condemnation proceedings under Eminent Domain ststotet'et the Sista a!Washington. situated in the County of King,Sexte of Washington. 4 MUNIthis 7 _ lar of. / /'eft. ,.._».. A.D. ) STATE OF WASHINGTON se. COUNTY OF UNG On the..._JLtrt__..._...day at..._.. .AApri]__.___._._._..,108:_,beton me,a Notary Public in and for the State of Washington,duly commissioned and sworn,personally MUM. — _..__._...._•_.._.._ _ Pait)_Au..�,iD�,?gras._.__....__. .__._.._.. ___.._-.____to me kno m to bo the.�A yisttu .,.-.. 0 described in and_he. _executed the within instrument end acknowledged to me that_..he...._...rJgned ci 'and sealed the same an-.__w_h1.;......__.-..free and voluntary act and deed for the Uses and purpcees Gtherein mentioned. t1 nesii 14 band and official seal the day and year t, a e wdtutn Notary Pub) in end the mete of eshinyton, Resldtnp of ...Belyue, ____ , _.-.. ... _ .: (CORPORATION ACKNOWLEDGMENT PORtd1 SPATE OF WASHINCITON. i 7c- STATE OFIt/a.5/f4 /i7-1 as, County of--16?-- n L L . .A-D.l9 before me.the undersigned.a Notsry On wits cC 1 day�of/,��R _..�, Public in and foyth�t to of t�Li1. � ./Y}t duly contwirsioned and sworn penoually appeared A-a � f- - to me known to be the individual.._described in and who executed the foregoing instalment. and acknowledged to me dint.5-he—signed and sealed the said instrument ea._ _Jrce and voluntary act and deed for the uses and purposes therein mentioned. - WITNESS my hand and afield Real hereto affixed the day a d y in thie ce licate above tten � �h<�. Notary Public in end tort‘tba State of residing at •l PO r (Acknowledgment by individual Pioneer Nstloaal Title lama ance Company, Form L 2e) Q 1 ` i 9 f I id i -, I I § i 1I I i 0 1 g j . '1 8 _ 0 , NI ii a l o b 94 7 i; di' i:::`':3i0:_,its i ,4,p r Jail.> l t k- t t, �lyr+ r l RENTOP 7 2.0011 ww ww CONSULTING ENGINEERS LLE K'S OF= E _R August 15, 2006 Job No. 1241-005-005 Honorable Mayor and City Council Members City of Renton 1055 S. Grady Way Renton, WA 98055 RE: Petition for Street Vacation 30' by 60'Section of 140th Ave.SE King County Recording No. 8705050924 Dear Mayor and Council Members: With this letter and accompanying information, ESM Consulting Engineers is submitting a Petition for Street Vacation on behalf of Paul and Timothy Lindberg. The purpose of this Petition is to facilitate the subdivision of the Lindberg property, in which a new roadway system has been designed. ESM submitted the Magnussen preliminary plat, Application Number LUA06-053, on May 4, 2006 and we expect preliminary plat approval in the near future with the street vacation as a condition of approval. The Petition for Street Vacation would deed a 30' by 60' section of right-of-way not currently constructed back to the adjacent owners of the right-of-way so that the Magnussen Plat could in turn create a more appropriate road system for the area. Once constructed, approximately half of this right-of-way will be rededicated to the City for right- of-way with this plat in the connection of NE 2nd Place with 140th Avenue Southeast According to the City of Renton's Community Development Department, the large wetland north of this right-of-way, combined with sufficient access to NE 4th Street via Duvall Avenue SE, makes 140th Avenue SE a poor candidate for through road construction; therefore,this right-of-way will not serve its prior purpose. With the letter, we are submitting the following information, as outlined in the Petition For Street Vacation application submittal checklist: • Cover Letter Explaining Public Benefit(1 copy) • Petition For Street Vacation (1 copy) • Legal Description (1 copy) *41111101 33915 1st Way South Tel(253)838 6113 Bothell (4251 415 6144 Civil Engineering Land Planning Suite 200 Fax(253)838 7104 www.esmcivil.com Project Management Public Works Federal Way. WA 98003 Toll Free(800)345 5694 Land Surveying Landscape Architecture } Honorable Mayor and City Council Members August 15, 2006 Page 2 • Map Exhibit(1 copy) • Original Warranty Deed (1 copy) • Magnussen Preliminary Rat Map (1 copy) • Application Fee: $250.00 We understand that the enclosed information is sufficient for this Petition for Street Vacation application to be complete for processing. • If you need further information, or wish to discuss this project in detail, please contact me immediately; otherwise we look forward to receiving a notice of public hearing to consider the Petition for Street Vacation. Sincerely, ESM CONSULTING ENGINEERS, LLC. MATT CYR Assistant Planner *law Enclosures Ilesm8lengrlesm-jobs11241100510051documenflletter-001.doc • SEM S M COASULTING__E N G I N E1R S __LAC E...._ �.,. t 1% � September 15, 2006 Job No. 1241-005-005 Ms. Karen McFarland f y Utility Systems Division ±�ruTQr� Li <<; City of Renton S E r C6 1055 S. Grady Way Renton,WA 98055 r C sOFFICE RE: Additional Information for Petition for Street Vacation 30' by 60'Section of 140t Ave.SE King County Recording No.8705050924 Dear Ms. McFarland: With this letter and accompanying information, ESM Consulting Engineers is submitting the requested revised petition and exhibits for the Petition for Street Vacation on behalf of Paul and Timothy Lindberg. With the letter, we are submitting the following information, as outlined in the Petition for Street Vacation application submittal checklist: • Revised Petition for Street Vacation (1 copy) • Revised Legal Description (1 copy) • Revised Map Exhibit(1 copy) We understand that the enclosed information is sufficient for this Petition for Street Vacation application to be complete for processing. If you need further information, or wish to discuss this project in detail, please contact me immediately; otherwise we look forward to the public hearing to consider the Petition for Street Vacation. Sincerely, ESM CONSULTING ENGINEERS, LLC. MATT CYR Assistant Planner Enclosures Il esm8lengrlesm-jobs11241100510051documenttletter-002.doc 33915 1st Way South Tel(253)838 6113 Bothell(425)415 6144 Civil Engineering Land Planning Suite 200 Fax (253)838 7104 www.esmcivil.com Project Management Public Works Federal Way. WA 98003 Toll Free (800)345 5694 Land Surveying Landscape Architecture CITY OF RENTON, WASHINGTON Nohow RESOLUTION NO. A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY OF RENTON, WASHINGTON, SETTING A HEARING DATE TO VACATE A 30' BY 60' PORTION OF 140TH AVE. SE (FIELD AVE. SE) NORTH OF NE 2ND STREET (ESM CONSULTING ENGINEERS; VAC-06-004) WHEREAS, a Petition has been filed with the City Clerk of the City of Renton on or about August 17, 2006, pursuant to the requirements of RCW 35.79, petitioning for the vacation of a portion of 140th Ave. SE north of NE 2nd Street, as hereinafter more particularly described, and said petition having been signed by the owners of more than two-thirds (2/3) of the property abutting upon said street sought to be vacated, and same being described as follows: See Exhibit "A" attached hereto and made a part hereof as if fully set forth herein [A 30' by 60' section of 140th Avenue SE (Field Avenue NE) north of NE 2nd Street] *or NOW, THEREFORE, THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF RENTON, WASHINGTON, DOES RESOLVE AS FOLLOWS: SECTION L That November 6, 2006, at the hour of 7:00 P.M. at the City Council Chambers at City Hall, Renton, King County, Washington, is hereby fixed as the time and place for a public hearing to consider the aforesaid Petition for vacating a 30' by 60' section of 140th Avenue SE north of NE 2nd Street, which said hearing date is not more than sixty nor less than twenty days from the date of passage of this Resolution. SECTION H. The City Clerk is hereby authorized and directed to give notice of the time and date of this hearing as provided by RCW 35.79.020 and any and/or all persons interested therein or objecting to this vacation may then appear and be heard thereon, or they err 1 RESOLUTION NO. may file their written objections thereto with the City Clerk at or prior to the time of hearing on the vacation. SECTION III. The City Council shall determine, as provided by RCW 35.79.030, as to whether an appraisal shall be secured to determine their fair market value of the property sought to be vacated as provided for in Ordinance No. 4266, and the amount of compensation to be paid by the Petitioner-Owners to the City for such vacation. The City likewise reserves the right to retain an easement for public utility and related purposes. PASSED BY THE CITY COUNCIL this day of , 2006. Bonnie I. Walton, City Clerk APPROVED BY THE MAYOR this day of , 2006. Kathy Keolker, Mayor Approved as to form: Lawrence J. Warren, City Attorney RES.1212:9/26/06:ma Nird 2 EXHIBIT "A" STREET VACATION LEGAL DESCRIPTION The north 60 feet of the east 30 feet of Lot 4 of King County Short Plat No.882065, Recording Number 8303160822, described as follows: Commencing at the North quarter corner of Section 15, Township 23 North, Range 5 East, of the Willamette Meridian in King County, Washington; thence South 00°28'00" East, along the East line of the Northwest quarter of said Section 15, a distance of 937.25 feet to the Northeast corner of Lot 4 of King County Short Plat Number 882065 and the True Point of Beginning; thence continuing South 00°28'00", along said East line, a distance of 60.00 feet; thence North 89°15'45" East, parallel with the North line of said Lot 4, 30.00 feet; thence North 00°28'00" West, parallel with said East line, 60.00 feet, to the North line of Said Lot 4; thence South 89°15'45" East, a distance of 30.00 feet to the True Point of Beginning. Containing an area of 1800 Square Feet or 0.04 Acres more or less. 11.0, All situate in the City of Renton, County of King, State of Washington. I`fG EN H V OE NA3 00 <<, iv* r i,•[/=)( Z a ji38965 w •iptS> CI S T EN1/4 �OQ� x,4 L ANO EXPIRES 5-23-Zeo7 /44 `ars. t EXHIBIT "B" ,,, 404 30' X 60' STREET VACATION 10 North quarter corner 15 " Section 15, Township I23 north, Range 5 ineast, W.M. in oi rn W i7W I 0 I (\.1- 0 L.' 1 -i I `i Cu I 0 S89 °15 ' 45"E 215 . 05 ' C 185. 00 ' (30.00' 1" = 50' k1800 �Sq.Ft. \ I( r- t o I \U l ` O\O0 N I(\ i PPP 4 •e Y CITY OF RENTON COUNCIL AGENDA BILL AI#: Lor Submitting Data: For Agenda of: 10/2/2006 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 9/5/2006 Correspondence.. regarding the Matters of Standing and Jurisdiction Ordinance Brought by Attorneys for Alliance of South End (ASE) Resolution and Progressive Alliance for a Sustainable Southend Old Business (Pass). (File No. LUA-05-136, SA-A, SM) Exhibits: New Business A. Appeal Letter—HCMP Law Offices (9/18/2006) Study Sessions B. City Clerk's letter(9/15/2006) Information C. Appeal—Buck& Gordon, LLP (9/6/2006) D. Hearing Examiner's Decision (9/5/2006) 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 decision on matters of standing and jurisdiction for The Landing Master Site Plan and Site Approval appeal was filed on 9/5/2006 by Buck & Gordon, LLP, Representative for Alliance for South End (ASE), accompanied by the required $75 fee. STAFF RECOMMENDATION: Council action on matters of standing and jurisdiction for The Landing Master Site Plan and Site Approval appeal. cc: Jennifer Henning Larry Warren Rentonnet/agnbill/ bh HCMP Hulls C 15 h I. Sire MAIN IN & PI II ILI,ON fa it' id I.Ct,' - September 14, 2006 Renton City Council c/o Office of the Clerk City of Renton 1055 South Grady Way, 7th Floor Renton, WA 98055 Re: The Landing Master Plan: File No. LUA-05-136, SA-A, SM Dear Councilmembers: On September 5, 2006, the City of Renton Hearing Examiner issued a decision in the above referenced case, dismissing the appeals of Alliance for South End(ASE) for lack of standing. On the same date, ASE appealed the Hearing Examiner's decision to the Renton City Council. As representative for the applicant, Harvest Partners, and pursuant to Renton Municipal Code 4-8-110.F(3), we submit this letter in support of the Hearing Examiner's dismissal of the ASE appeals. For the reasons set forth in Harvest Partners' pleadings and summarized below,the Hearing Examiner correctly decided that ASE lacked standing to bring the appeals. We respectfully request that the City Council affirm the Hearing Examiner's dismissal of the ASE appeals. Background Following is a brief summary of the key events leading up to the dismissal of the ASE appeals for lack of standing. Please see Harvest Partners' pleadings for additional detail about these events. ■ City decisions on The Landing project: On May 12, 2006, the City of Renton Development Services Division issued a determination designating Harvest Partners' application for Administrative Master Site Plan approval as a"Planned Action." Harvest Partners' project, known as The Landing, involves a mixed-use development proposal including retail, office, entertainment, restaurant, hotel and/or residential uses with associated parking on former Boeing industrial property near the south end of Lake Washington. On May 19, 2006, the City of Renton Department of Planning, Building and Public Works issued a decision approving the Master Site Plan for The Landing. The May 12 and May 19 decisions are collectively referred to as the "Director's Decisions." 500 Galland Building 1221 Second Avenue Nitre 1221 Washington 98101-2925 T i M E R I TA S phone 206.623.1745 fax 206.623.7789 LAW FIRMS WORLDWIDE www.hcmp.corn A PROFESSIONAL SERVICE CORPORATION Renton City Council September 14, 2006 Page 2 of 5 ■ ASE files appeals: On May 25, 2006 and June 1, 2006, attorney Peter Buck filed appeals of the Director's Decisions on behalf of a group called"Alliance for South End" ("ASE"), a Washington nonprofit corporation. In the appeals, Mr. Buck admitted that his law firm represents WEA Southcenter LLC, the owner of a competing shopping mall, Westfield Southcenter. He further admitted that WEA Southcenter LLC is contributing funds for the appeal. Although ASE stated, "ASE's membership is and will be made up of Renton citizens,"ASE named no members in its appeals. ■ Harvest Partners and the City challenge ASE's standing: Harvest Partners and the City filed motions to dismiss the ASE appeals for lack of standing. The motions questioned whether ASE had any members at all, particularly in light of the fact that ASE's official filings with the Office of the Secretary of State on the same date as its first appeal, May 25, 2006, specifically stated that"There are no members as of this date." An association cannot have associational standing without having any members. A mere bystander or supporter of an association is insufficient to establish standing. Harvest Partners also presented evidence that WEA Southcenter LLC's parent company, the Westfield Group, has employed similar anti-competitive tactics around the world. These tactics include forming a shell organization under the facade of a concerned community group, which group then uses litigation and other bullying tactics to attempt to quash the potential development. 4,4101 • ASE identifies Brad Nicholson as its member: In response to the motions to dismiss the ASE appeals for lack of standing, ASE presented evidence of one alleged "member," Brad Nicholson. The ASE Response included a"Membership Application" signed by Mr. Nicholson, and an unsworn declaration from ASE's "Director," claiming that Mr. Nicholson's membership was formally"accepted" by the then-director, Mr. Buck(ASE and Westfield's attorney), prior to the filing of the ASE appeals. Regarding the statement to the Office of the Secretary of State that ASE had no members, ASE argued this was a"scrivener's error" committed due to personal stress, and that the filing instead should have said "There are no members with voting rights as of this date." The ASE Response included a sworn declaration by Mr. Nicholson,but did not include ASE's Bylaws or any other corporate records regarding membership in ASE. • ASE supplements the record with excerpt of its bylaws on the eve of the hearing: On the Friday afternoon prior to the hearing before the Hearing Examiner regarding ASE's standing, ASE filed additional documents with the parties and the Examiner. These documents included a sworn declaration from Mr. Buck, appended to which was an alleged, unsigned, undated "excerpt" from the ASE Bylaws regarding membership in ASE. A copy of this excerpt from the ASE HCMP Renton City Council September 14, 2006 Page 3 of 5 Bylaws is attached to this letter.' According to Section 1.2 of the Bylaws, the members are only given certain rights, and "none of the Member(sic) shall have any other rights whatsoever." These limited rights pertain only to the members' ability to vote regarding certain ASE activities such as a merger, sale, or dissolution—all irrelevant rights in the context of the litigation and in the context of the stated purpose of ASE. Noticeably absent from the limited rights of ASE members are any rights to vote on or have any say in the course of the litigation, the election of directors or other members, or the termination of memberships. Mr. Nicholson's membership could be terminated at any time. • Hearing before the Hearing Examiner: On August 22, 2006, the parties presented oral arguments on standing and other jurisdictional issues to the Hearing Examiner. ASE was unable to present any evidence that Mr. Nicholson, or any other members of ASE, had any meaningful control in ASE. A copy of the Hearing Examiner's decision is attached to this letter. • Hearing Examiner dismisses ASE appeals: On September 5, 2006, the Hearing Examiner issued its decision dismissing the ASE appeals. According to the decision,"This office finds that ASE does not have standing. It is a mere shell created by the applicant's potential competitor, Southcenter/Westfield for the purpose of thwarting a competitor's proposed development." %roe ASE has the Burden of Proof Standing is jurisdictional. In order to bring an action, a litigant must have standing. A party asserting standing bears the burden of establishing the elements of standing. Here, because ASE is the appellant, ASE has the burden of establishing associational standing. This is a closed record appeal; the Council's review is limited to the evidence or testimony already entered into the record, pursuant to RMC 4-8-110.F. As detailed in Harvest Partners' pleadings and summarized below, ASE has not brought forth the evidence necessary to establish associational standing, and thus has fallen short of its burden of proof. ASE argued Form over Substance In the hearing before the Hearing Examiner, and now in its appeal to the City Council, ASE attempts to argue form over substance. The "form"here is ASE's ' In a pre-hearing conference before the Hearing Examiner on July 11,2006,the parties agreed upon the deadlines for responses and motions regarding standing. However,ASE filed these additional documents one month after its deadline for submissions had passed. In the City's Reply to ASE's Untimely Submission Re: Standing,the City argued that ASE's materials should not be considered by the Examiner. The City has not waived its objection to the untimely submission. Furthermore,the City has argued,even if the Examiner was to consider the Bylaws,ASE only appended mere"excerpts"of the Bylaws to its untimely submissions,without a signature,date,or any indication of their validity and timing yam, of adoption. This untimely submission of incomplete Bylaws is yet another reason to doubt the veracity of ASE's evidence,and further evidence of ASE's failure to carry its burden of proof. HCMP Renton City Council September 14, 2006 Page 4 of 5 insistence that Mr. Nicholson is called a"member,"and thus ASE has standing. However, the series of ASE mistakes casts a shadow on the validity of Mr. Nicholson's membership;moreover, this emphasis on form alone reflects ASE's attempt to hide the true substance of the ASE/Nicholson relationship. Looking instead to the "substance"of ASE, the reality is that it is controlled fully by Westfield. Westfield, via its shell group ASE, brought the appeals against The Landing project in order to stop or significantly delay potential competition. However, because ASE and Westfield cannot establish standing on their own, ASE solicited someone to serve as a straw man"member,"Mr. Nicholson. On this basis alone, ASE now argues that it has associational standing. ASE produced only one member, in name only, and that was Mr. Nicholson. Yet, based on the record, ASE failed to prove he was anything more than a mere "supporter," or"bystander"because he had no meaningful control of ASE. This fact was made glaringly clear in ASE's own document, the excerpt from its Bylaws that ASE submitted on the eve of the hearing. According to the Bylaws, Mr. Nicholson has no meaningful voice in ASE as it applies to the course of this litigation. At the hearing, ASE was unable to provide any other evidence of Mr. Nicholson's substantive control. This inability to present any evidence of Mr. Nicholson's control is not surprising, given that the ASE Bylaws clearly state that the members have only those few irrelevant rights, and the members shall not have "any other rights whatsoever." Associational Standing Requires Real Members with Standing It is clear that a mere bystander or supporter is insufficient to grant standing. A member must be a true member, not only in name but also in substance. Harvest Partners cited several cases where courts looked to whether individuals could really qualify as members. The courts looked to traditional "indicia of membership" in the organization that sought associational standing. Indicia of membership included meaningful voting rights, financing of the litigation, and other evidence that suggested the individuals guided or controlled the actions of the organization. By focusing on whether the individual possesses the "indicia of membership," courts are able to analyze whether the alleged"member" actually has control,or is merely a puppet for other interests (like Westfield). The policy behind this test is simply common sense. To have associational standing, the organization has to be controlled by members who have standing. Without a strong representational relationship, there is no assurance that the association will represent the interests of the individuals that granted it standing, and the possibility exists that the process will be controlled by someone who is not harmed, and is no more than a bystander. Applying the associational standing test to the present case, ASE has failed to carry its burden. ASE is funded and controlled by Westfield, and its law firm Buck and HCMP Renton City Council September 14, 2006 Page 5 of 5 Gordon. ASE provided questionable evidence of only one alleged member, and it has admitted that Westfield is primarily financing the litigation. ASE has presented no evidence that Mr. Nicholson guides ASE's actions or has control over the organization. In fact, all evidence is to the contrary—according to the excerpt from ASE's bylaws, Mr. Nicholson has no meaningful voting rights in ASE, and thus has no meaningful control over the corporation, the Board, Officers, Bylaws, Articles, or any aspect of the corporate activity. He is in no different position than a mere bystander based on the evidence in the record. Conclusion The Council should find that ASE has not carried its burden to establish associational standing based on the evidence provided in the record. The evidence in the record falls far short of the mark. There is no evidence whatsoever that ASE has any real member. Rather, as the Examiner found, there is only a straw man: "A third party used in some transactions as a temporary transferee to allow the principal parties to accomplish something that is otherwise impermissible." Clearly, this is an appeal controlled by Westfield and its counsel Buck and Gordon, and they have not met the test for associational standing. ASE is exactly the type of sham organization that should be weeded out by the standing requirement. Form cannot prevail over substance. The applicant Harvest Partners respectfully 400` requests that the City Council affirm the Hearing Examiner's dismissal of the ASE appeals for lack of standing. Very truly yours, r 1f£ Jerome L. Hillis Attorney for Harvest Partners E-Mail: JLH@hcmp.com Enclosures cc (w/Encls.): Peter L. Buck Lawrence J. Warren Laura N. Whitaker Tod Ruble #337572 18449-004 78h001!.doc HCMP 0ti` Y_:_0 CITY. OF RENTON City Clerk Kathy Keolker,Mayor Bonnie I.Walton INTO , *4101 September 15, 2006 APPEAL FILED BY: Alliance for South End, represented by Buck & Gordon LLP RE: Appeal of Hearing Examiner's decision dated 9/5/2006, regarding Matters of Standing and Jurisdiction Brought by Attorneys for Alliance for South End (ASE) and Progressive Alliance for a Sustainable Southend (PASS) (File No. LUA-05-136, SA-A, SM; Appeal deadline 9/19/06 ) To Parties of Record: Pursuant to Title IV, Chapter 8, Renton City Code of Ordinances, written appeal of the hearing examiner's decision as referenced has been filed with the City Clerk. In accordance with Renton Municipal Code, the City Clerk shall notify all parties of record of the receipt of the appeal. Other parties of record may submit letters in support of their positions regarding the appeal within ten(10) days of the dates of mailing of the notification of the filing of the appeal. The deadline for submission of additional letters regarding the merits of the appeal is September 25, 2006. NOTICE IS HEREBY GIVEN that the written appeal and other pertinent documents will be reviewed by the Council's Planning and Development Committee. The Council secretary will notify all parties of record of the date and time of the Planning and Development Committee meeting. If you are not listed in local telephone directories and wish to attend the meeting, please call the Council liaison at 425 430-6555 for information. The recommendation of the Committee will be presented for consideration by the full Council at a subsequent Council meeting. Attached is a copy of the appeal and of a section of Renton Municipal code regarding appeals of hearing Examiner decisions or recommendations. Please note that the City Connell 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 contact me at 425 430-6502. Sincerely, &Oitc.J. &a Bonnie I. Walton City Clerk Enclosures *41.01 1055 South Grady Way-Renton,Washington 98055-(425)430-6510/FAX(425)430-6516 E N T 0 T Ack_. AHEAD OF 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 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 *01 evidence or testimony,,and-a remand to the Hearing Examiner for receipt of-suchevidence 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) %r.► 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 fratries established under subsection G5 of this Section. (Ord. 4660, 3-17-1997) Excerpt of Bylaws for ASE BYLAWS OF ALLIANCE FOR SOUTH END ARTICLE 1 MEMBERSHIP Section 1.1 Election of Members. The members of the corporation ("Members") shall consist of individuals, domestic or foreign profit or nonprofit corporations, general or limited partnerships, associations or other entities (each, a"Person") that have each of the following qualifications, as determined by the board of directors in its sole discretion: (a) The Person will support the purposes of the corporation and will not have a conflict with supporting the purposes of the corporation. (b) The Person has paid dues to the corporation in such amounts and at such times as the board of directors may establish by resolution. (c) The Person has made such applications or entered into such agreements as the board of directors may require. (d) The Person has been elected as a Member by the board of directors at any meeting thereof. Section 1.2 Rights of Members. The rights of the Members shall be exclusively as follows, and none of the Member shall have any other rights whatsoever: (a) The Members shall have voting rights with regard to the question of whether to approve a plan of merger or consolidation, pursuant to RCW 24.03.195(1). (b) The Members shall have voting rights with regard to the question of whether to approve a sale, lease, exchange, or other disposition of all, or substantially all, the property and assets of the corporation not in the ordinary course of business, pursuant to RCW 24.03.215(1). (c) The Members shall have voting rights with regard to the question of whether to approve the voluntary dissolution and winding up of the corporation, pursuant to RCW 24.03.220(1). 1 of 2 pages (d) The Members shall have voting rights with regard to the question of whether to approve a plan of distribution, pursuant to RCW '41trr 24.03.230(1). Section 1.3 Certificates of Membership. Certificates of membership in the corporation may be issued. If issued, they shall be numbered, and the respective Members' names shall be entered in the membership register of the corporation as the certificates are issued. Certificates, if any are issued, shall bear the Member's name and shall be signed by the president or the secretary. Section 1.4 Status of Membership. Membership in the corporation shall be personal, shall not survive the death of any individual Member, and may not be transferred by operation of law or by any other means. Section 1.5 Termination of Membership. Membership in the corporation may be terminated (a) for any action by a Member that is detrimental to the best interests of the corporation, (b) or for failure to actively support corporate purposes, or to actively participate in corporate activities, or (c) for failure continually to meet the qualifications of a Member pursuant to Section 1.1 of these Bylaws. Removal shall require the affirmative vote of the board of directors. In the event that any such termination is contemplated, the board of directors shall notify the Member in a record of the reasons for the proposed action, and of the ' " time and place of the meeting of the board of directors at which termination is to be considered, not later than ten (10) days prior thereto. Prior to the meeting, the subject Member shall be entitled submit written responses to the stated reasons for termination. At the option of the Board, the termination may be immediate, without prior notice, but with full post termination appeal proceedings. 2 of 2 pages September 5, 2006 DECISION OF THE HEARING EXAMINER ON MATTERS OF STANDING AND JURISDICTION BROUGHT BY ATTORNEYS FOR ALLIANCE FOR SOUTH END (ASE) AND PROGRESSIVE ALLIANCE FOR A SUSTAINABLE SOUTHEND (PASS) While some background may help frame this decision, elaborate details and history need not be provided at this time as the only issues currently are whether the parties have standing to bring challenges of the City's actions and whether the Hearing Examiner has jurisdiction to hear the challenges if the parties do have standing. This matter concerns City decisions regarding The Landing, a land use project proposed for approximately 47 acres in north Renton. The land, in the main, was property used by the Boeing Company for its airplane business and vacated as the company consolidated its operations toward the north and west. With the potential for the land to be developed or redeveloped the City of Renton conducted an environmental review of proposed changes to its Comprehensive Plan and Zoning Code and potential land use changes for the property. The City issued an Environmental Impact Statement(EIS). The adequacy of. the EIS was appealed and after a public hearing on the appeal, the appeal was denied. The appellant in that matter is a member of one of two groups challenging current decisions regarding the current proposal. Subsequently, Boeing sold off some of the acreage and a developer offered a development plan. The City held a public hearing and approved Ordinance 5107, a Planned Action Ordinance. That ordinance designated as Planned Actions uses and activities described in the FEIS and subject to mitigation measures that had been separately proposed as part of a Development Agreement originally agreed to by Boeing and the City. That ordinance further allowedchanges to that or other proposals that fell within the scope and character of the original plan. The original developer abandoned their original plans and the property changed hands to the current applicant. New plans were submitted and found by the Director of Development Services(Director) to be in conformance with the original Planned Action. The proposal was approved as a Planned Action and the Master Site Plan was approved. These actions by the director apparently removed any need for subsequent public hearings or environmental analysis of the new proposal. An appeal of the City's proposed infrastructure improvements in the area where the subject proposal would be developed had been initially filed but was withdrawn. Two separate citizen groups filed appeals of the City's action or actions. No individual filed an appeal on his or her own behalf. The City and the underlying applicant, Harvest Partners (Applicant), challenged the standing of the two groups that brought the appeals. At a Pre-hearing Conference the issue of standing as well as the Examiner's jurisdiction to hear the appeals were defined as issues to be resolved prior to any public hearing on the merits of the appeal or appeals. The various parties submitted motions and responses and oral argument was heard on the motions. Hearing Examiner Decision September 5, 2006 Page 2 The parties to the proceeding are the City, the applicant and the two citizen groups. Standing to Bring the Appeals: The Hearing Examiner Ordinance in part provides the following language on appeals: RMC 4-8-110(E)(3) E APPEALS TO EXAMINER OF ADMINISTRATIVE DECISIONS AND ENVIRONMENTAL DETERMINATIONS: (Amd. Ord. 4827, 1-24-2000) 1. Applicability and Authority: a. Administrative Determinations: Any administrative decisions made maybe appealed to the Hearing Examiner, in writing, with the Hearing Examiner, Examiner's secretary or City Clerk. (Ord. 4521, 6-5-1995) b. Environmental Determinations: Except for permits and variances issued pursuant to RMC 4-3-090, Shoreline Master Program Regulations, when any proposal or action is granted, conditioned, or denied on the basis of SEPA by a non-elected official, the decision shall be appealable to the Hearing Examiner under the provisions of this Section. 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_ Now 2. Optional Request for Reconsideration: See RMC 4-9-070N. (Ord. 5153, 9-26-2005) 3. Standing: a. Standing for Filing Appeals of the City's Environmental Determinations: Appeals from environmental determinations as set forth in subsection Elb of this Section or RMC 4-9-070N may be taken to the Hearing Examiner by any person aggrieved, or by any officer, department, board or bureau of the City affected by such.determination. Any agency or person may appeal the City's compliance with chapter 197-11 WAC for issuance of a Threshold Determination. A person is aggrieved when all of the following conditions are met: The decision is prejudiced or is likely to prejudice that person;the person's asserted interests are among those that are required to be considered by the City when it made its decision; and a decision in favor of that person would substantially eliminate or redress the prejudice to that person caused or likely to be caused by the decision; and prejudice means injury in fact. (Ord. 3891, 2-25-1985; Ord. 5153, 9-26-2005) b. Standing for Appeals of Administrative Determinations other than Environmental: Appeals from administrative determinations of the City's land use regulation codes and from environmental determinations required by the Renton environmental review regulations may be taken to the Hearing Examiner by any person aggrieved, or by any officer, department, board or bureau of the City affected by such determination. (Ord. 3454, 7-28-1980) c_ Special Standing Requirements for Appeals of Administrative Determinations Relative to the Tree Cutting and Land Clearing Regulations: 41111116. Hearing Examiner Decision September 5, 2006 Page 3 INS Any individual or party of record who is adversely affected by such a decision may appeal the decision to the City's Hearing Examiner pursuant to the procedures established in this Section. (Ord. 4351, 5-4-1992) d. Special Standing Requirements for Appeals of Decisions Relating to Master Site Plans: Any appellant must be seeking to protect an interest that is arguably within the zone of interest to be protected or regulated by this Title must allege an injury in fact, and that injury must be real and present rather than speculative. (Ord. 4551, 9-18-1995) One citizen group is identified as the "Alliance for South End" (hereinafter, ASE). They challenged two actions: The Director's decision designating "The Landing" as a planned action; The Director's decision approving the Master Plan for "The Landing." The only member of ASE identified was Brad Nicholson. He lives northeast of the project area. He drives through the area where the project is proposed. He also uses the nearby Coulon Park. He has identified traffic as an issue that would affect him. He also identified impacts to the water quality of Lake Washington as an issue that concerns him. He also identifies himself as someone who might shop, work or live in the area that would be developed if The Landing were approved. It was Mr. Nicholson, as an individual,who challenged the original EIS prepared for the City's Comprehensive Plan amendments and Zoning Code amendments. The second group is identified as "Progressive Alliance for a Sustainable Southend" (hereinafter, PASS). This second group appealed three actions: The Director's decision on the Master Site Plan The Planned Action decision on the roadwork and utility improvements The Planned Action decision on"The Landing." Two PASS members specifically identified are Patrick Kik and Sheila Pratt. Mr. Kik is a member of United Food and Construction Workers Local 21, which is a member of PASS. He lives at 530 Burnett Avenue North in Renton, Washington, a few blocks south of the proposed development. He has resided there since May 1997. He maintained that he wanted to be involved in the review process. He noted traffic and construction would affect him. Ms Pratt, according to her signed Declaration, lives at 300 Vermont (sic: Most likely Vuemont) Place Northeast in Renton, Washington, also a few blocks from the proposed development She wants to be involved because anything that occurs on that site would affect her due to her proximity to the proposed development. Traffic was identified as one area that concerns and would affect her_ Her use of Coulon Memorial Park would be affected by more users, parking dynamics and pollution to Lake Washington adjacent to the park. Hearing Examiner Decision September 5, 2006 Page 4 Since neither appeal was filed by any of the named individuals, the associations or groups they belong to can only have standing if some member of the association would have standing. Intl Ass'n of Firefighters, Local 1789 v. Spokane Airports, 146 Wn.2d 207, 213, 45 P.3d 186 (2002). The first group to be considered would be ASE, the group in which Mr. Nicholson is a member. The attorney representing ASE also represents Westfield, WEA Southeenter LLC, a business which owns and operates a large shopping center, Southcenter, located in Tukwila, Washington, a few miles southwest of the current proposal's location. The business, the attorney admitted is involved in providing at least some funding for this litigation and is on record(press releases and announcements - citations omitted) as opposing this development. Both the City and applicant challenged the standing of ASE based on the association of Westfield with this litigation and its funding. They challenged ASE as a shell corporation intending to directly impede the subject proposal by indirect means that Westfield could not do directly. Westfield, as an economic competitor has no standing to bring an appeal. Evidence presented at the hearing was the membership application of Mr. Nicholson and the bylaws of ASE. The membership application contains the following footer text: "C:\DOCUMENTS AND SETTING/PETER/MY DOCUMENTS/DATA/DOC/WESTFIELD/NON PROFIT/MEMBERSHZP FORM.DOC" *'4"'' (Exhibit A, Membership Application - Alliance for South End that Mr. Nicholson submitted for membership in ASE) The Bylaws of ASE provide the voting rights of members of ASE: Section 1.2 Rights of Members. The rights of the Members shall be exclusively as follows, and none of the Member(sic) shall have any other rights whatsoever: (a) The Members shall have voting rights with regard to the question of whether to approve a plan of merger or consolidation, pursuant to RCW 24.03.195(1). (b) The Members shall have voting rights with regard to the question of whether to approve a sale, lease, exchange, or other disposition of all, or substantially all, the property and assets of the corporation not in the ordinary course of business, pursuant to RCW 24.03.215(1). (c) The Members shall have voting rights with regard to the question of whether to approve the voluntary dissolution and winding up of the corporation, pursuant to RCW 24.03.220(1). (d) The Members shall have voting rights with regard to the question of whether to approve a plan of distribution,pursuant to RCW 24.03.230(1). (Exhibit B) At the hearing this office in trying to understand the relationship of ASE's members and ,,tarie specifically Mr. Nicholson's relationship to the litigation and also guided the litigation asked: "Who is driving the car?" ter. Hearing Examiner Decision September 5, 2006 Page 5 Nwool Staying with the "who is driving the car" analogy: Mr. Nicholson has no official say in the course or direction that this litigation will take. He cannot steer the litigation with any vote he can take. ASE's attorney noted Mr. Nicholson has a say in the litigation. It is easy to say that he can provide input but there is nothing he can do to control where it goes_ He has no vote in the organization that controls or governs or even gently directs the appeal. ASE merely uses his "stature" as an affected person to give it standing. Okay, granted, if there were 3 or more members of ASE, Mr. Nicholson would only be one voice. The other members could outnumber and outvote him. Except, clearly, those others cannot out vote him since none of them has a vote. Steering ahead with this "who is driving" analogy, one has to determine what is being driven. Sometimes folks being driven have a say in the route and sometimes they don't. In a car pool they have a say. On a public bus they do not. In some cases they can get off(bus) and at other times, they are on for the ride until it reaches a predetermined destination (airplane). With a bus, the conveyance may still be driven but no one is onboard any longer. A bus goes to the last stop even if there is no longer anyone on board. The course of the bus was clear from the start and that's where the bus goes. Can this litigation continue if there are no riders? ASE only has standing while there are members and while there are members with standing,that is, persons with the potential to be injured if they don't get a reasonable resolution of their appeal. Which itself brings up an interesting point-what if the membership dissolves, that is fades away, without dissolving ASE officially? Does ASE have any standing if there were no members any longer even if they or he did exist when the appeal was filed? The appellants labeled Mr. Nicholson a "poster child"(ASE's response to applicant's motions to dismiss for lack of standing, Page I) for the type of person within the zone of interest of SEPA. He could actually be a"poster child"of a "straw man" for an organization which has no meaningful substance_ The definition of a "straw man" is: A third party used in some transactions as a temporary transferee to allow the principal parties to accomplish something that is otherwise impermissible." (Black's Law Dictionary, Seventh Edition) We have a litigant or litigants, if one accepts that there are other members of ASE (although there was.no proof of their existence or their individual attributes of standing), who have no control of the litigation. The Bylaws of ASE specifically limit the participation, at least, in any voting that might control or influence the actions of the corporation. An interesting side note is that variously ASE's Attorney noted that: (1) there were "no members" in its initial filing with the Secretary of State; (2) then in pleadings indicated that was a mistake and it should have said "no voting members"; (3) but the '' Hearing Examiner Decision September 5, 2006 Page 6 bylaws provide a vote. Although as seen above, g the vote is very limited and provides no control of this litigation. A series of mistakes was identified by the parties in some of the various filings in this matter. They do cast a bit of a shadow over some of the evidence. So as noted above,if there are a number of other members of ASE, Mr. Nicholson would not necessarily get to call the shots or "drive" the bus or steer the litigation. But there is no evidence that even a real majority of ASE's members can do anything to control the course of this appeal. The bylaws give neither Mr. Nicholson nor any other individual member nor a majority of the members any right to control the appeal. Since ASE filed an appeal and its attorney continues to make appearances one has to presume someone or some entity, somewhere is in charge, calls the shots, directs the flow and pays for the litigation. It is certainly not Mr_ Nicholson. He has no vote on litigation matters nor do any of A.SE's "members." That footer shown above could be somewhat telling in determining who is directing the litigation on behalf of ASE. Mr. Nicholson's Membership Application has a footer that identifies, presumably, that document's computer storage origins. The footer line contains the following text: "C:\DOCUMENTS AND SETTING/PETER/MY DOCUMENTS/DATA/DOC/WESTFIELD/NON PROFIT/MEMBERSHIP FORM.DOC" That footer line would seem to indicate that Westfield's legal business and the ASE association's Iitigation might be handled or originate together. It would merge the potential interests of the two. Again, recall that Westfield is a competitor of the underlying applicant for the land use decisions being challenged. Or the "footer"could be just one more mistake in the way this matter was handled by Westfield's and ASE's attorney. It might have been a mistake in how the document was initially created in whatever word processing software was used. But ASE's attorneys have been frank. There have been no real attempts to hide the fact that Westfield employs them and actually pays some of the bills for ASE. But this blending, merging or blurring of the lines of control all lead to the inevitable question of who controls the litigation and whose interest is being served by the litigation. The conclusion would appear to be inescapable - Westfield is paying some of the bills and no one else, neither Mr. Nicholson nor any other individual or majority of ASE has been identified as being a principle litigant who can direct the litigation of this appeal. So even if this office were to acknowledge that Mr_ Nicholson might have standing under this office's normal inclination to liberally grant standing to an individual who can show some interest in a matter, Mr. Nicholson did not file the appeal in his own right. Sticking with our transportation analogy just a bit longer—Mr. Nicholson hitched his cart to the wrong horse and now has no control or say in this litigation. Mr. Nicholson has no ability to do much in his "non-voting" capacity as a mere member. But Mr. Nicholson is not alone(if there are other members of. ASE) as no member of ASE or the combined membership of ASE can do anything with this litigation. It may be unfortunate to preclude Mr. Nicholson's right to have his standing ascertained or appeal heard but he tied his rights, if any, to an association that granted him no rights to direct litigation. `limy He chose that course rather than file an appeal in his own right. Aim Hearing Examiner Decision September 5, 2006 Page 7 010 While one generally"pierces the corporate veil" to get at underlying persons or assets, it is ` generally done so that justice can prevail. Discard the corporate veil in this case and what we find is a competitor, Westfield Corporation. They own the nearby Southcenter Shopping Center_ They appear to be paying a good portion of the litigation, employ the attorney who is representing ASE and may have control over the litigation. Although, this office finds no evidence that Westfield controls the litigation, this office finds that no one really seems to control ASE and the attorneys in this matter. ASE, again, has no voting members controlling the appeal. The bylaws provide the ASE membership with a limited range ofpower and none that go to the heart of who controls this litigation. In SODERBERG ADV. v. KENT-MOORE CORP_ 11 Wn. App. 721, 734, 524 P.2d 1355 (1974) the court found: " The court could conclude from the evidence here and reasonable inferences therefrom that KM used its undue domination and control, through KM personnel with a primary loyalty to KM, to obtain and then avoid payment for essential services from which KM expected to receive great benefit. The domination was so complete that"the controlled corporation [had], so to speak,no separate mind, will or existence of its own and [was] but a business conduit for its principal." 1 W. Fletcher, Private Corporations § 43, at 205 (perm_ ed_ rev. 1963). In Seattle Ass'n of Credit Men v. Daniels, 15 Wn.2d 393, 396, 130 P.2d 892 (1942), the court in discussing the doctrine of disregard quoted the following with approval from Pittsburgh Reflector Co. v. Dwyer &Rhodes Co., 173 Wash. 552, 555, 23 P.2d 1114 (1933): "In order to justify the judicial disregard of corporate identities, one, at least, of two things must clearly appear. Either the dominant corporation must control and use the other as a mere tool or instrument in Carrying out its own plans and purposes so that justice requires that it be held liable for the results, or there must be such a confusion of identities and acts as to work a fraud upon third persons." Even if both things must be shown as suggested in Sonuner v. Yakima Motor Coach Co., 174 Wash. 638, 26 P.2d 92 (1933) (decided prior to Seattle Ass'n of Credit Men v. Daniels, supra), the court could and did conclude from the evidence that both things had been proved. Footnote 1, supra See 7.I. Case Credit Corp. v_ Stark,supra at 475_ See also Forest Hill Corp. v_ Latter&Blum, Inc., 249 Ala. 23,29 So. 2d 298 (1947); Linco Servs., Inc. v. DuPont, 239 Cal. App. 2d 841, 49 Cal. Rptr. 196 (1966);Dillard & Coffin Co. v. Richmond Cotton Oil Co., 140 Tenn. 290, 204 S.W. 758 (1918). KM in good conscience can scarcely complain if the trial court determined that to recognize the separate entity of PK under the peculiar circumstances here would in effect place the court in the untenable position of assisting in the accomplishment of a breach of duty owing to plaintiff." As was noted at the hearing, there is clearly no case on point. Most cases declaring an organization without standing have found that no individual member had sufficient standing on their own right. Or the claims made on behalf of the association were too personal to the members and could not be Hearing Examiner Decision September 5, 2006 Page 8 attached to an association. But those cases that found a lack of standing can still be elucidating. Here we have an organization in which no member can call the shots. See, e.g., Save a Valuable Environment (SAVE) v. City of Bothell, 89 Wn_2d 862, 866-67, 576 P.2d 401 (1978); Lujan v. Defenders of Wildlife, 504 U.S. 555, 561, 112 S.Ct. 2130, 2136, 119 L.Ed.2d 351 (1992). International Ass'n of Firefighters, Local 1789 v. Spokane Airports, 146 Wn.2d 207, 213-14,45 P.3d 186(2002); Des Moines Marina Ass'n v. City of Des Moines, 124 Wn. App. 282, TIMBERLANE v. BRAME 309 79 Wn. App. 303, 901 P.2d 1074. This office finds that ASE does not have standing. It is a mere shell created by the applicant's potential competitor, Southcenter/Westfield for the purpose of thwarting a competitor's proposed development. This brings us to the standing of PASS. Since the underlying nature of the association was never challenged nor evidence produced to make it suspect as to its aims, it would appear that PASS has members who individually could have standing and as such, PASS has standing to bring its appeal or appeals. The two identified members both live close to the proposed project. They could be affected by the traffic generated by the proposed development. They could be affected by the construction of the project itself. One of them uses a park that could further be affected by additional residents that would occupy proposed residences. Those interests appear to be within the zone of interests the appeal provisions were intended to protect. The increased traffic could slow down their respective commutes, increase roadway congestion and possibly lead to increased "'r"' risk of accidents. They could suffer injury in fact. It will be up to the appellants to prove their case to prevail in obtaining the remedy they seek but they have the right to present a case for review_ Jurisdiction to Hearing the Appeal: Repeating again for clarity, the Hearing Examiner Ordinance in part provides the following language on appeals: RMC 4-8-110(E)(3) E APPEALS TO EXAMINER OF ADMINISTRATIVE DECISIONS AND ENVIRONMENTAL DETERMINATIONS: (Amd. Ord. 4827, 1-24-2000) 1. Applicability and Authority: a. Administrative Determinations: Any administrative decisions made may be appealed to the Hearing Examiner, in writing, with the Hearing Examiner, Examiner's secretary or City Clerk. (Ord_ 4521, 6-5-1995) b. Environmental Determinations: Except for permits and variances issued pursuant to RMC 4-3-090, Shoreline Master Program Regulations, when any proposal or actionis granted, conditioned, or denied on the basis of SEPA by a non-elected official, the decision shall be appealable to the Hearing Examiner under the provisions of this Section. Hearing Examiner Decision September 5,2006 Page 9 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 particula issue is concerned. 2. Optional Request for Reconsideration: See RMC 4-9-070N. (Ord. 5153, 9-26-2005) 3. Standing: a. Standing for Filing Appeals of the City's Environmental Determinations: Appeals from environmental determinations as set forth in subsection Elb of this Section or RMC 4-9-070N may be taken to the Hearing Examiner by any person aggrieved, or by any officer, department, board or bureau of the City affected by such determination. Any agency or person may appeal the City's compliance with chapter 197-11 WAC for issuance of a Threshold Determination. A person is aggrieved when all of the following conditions are met: The decision is prejudiced or is likely to prejudice that person; the person's asserted interests are among those that are required to be considered by the City when it made its decision; and a decision in favor of that person would substantially eliminate or redress the prejudice to that person caused or likely to be caused by the decision; and prejudice means injury in fact. (Ord. 3891, 2-25-1985; Ord. 5153, 9-26-2005) b. Standing for Appeals of Administrative Determinations other than Environmental.: Appeals from administrative determinations of the City's land use regulation codes and from environmental determinations required by the Renton environmental review regulations may be taken to the Hearing , Examiner by any person aggrieved, or by any officer, department, board or bureau of the City affected by such determination. (Ord. 3454, 7-28-1980) c. Special Standing Requirements for Appeals of Administrative Determinations Relative to the Tree Cutting and Land Clearing Regulations: Any individual or party of record who is adversely affected by such a decision may appeal the decision to the City's Hearing Examiner pursuant to the procedures established in this Section. (Ord. 4351, 5-4-1992) d. Special Standing Requirements for Appeals of Decisions Relating to Master Site Plans: Any appellant must be seeking to protect an interest that is arguably within the zone of interest to be protected or regulated by this Title must allege an injury in fact, and that injury must be real and present rather than speculative. (Ord. 4551, 9-18-1995) It appears on the face of the appeal that the action or actions challenged were those of the Director. Those appear to be the type of decisions that fall within the jurisdiction of the Hearing Examiner. The appeal of PASS may proceed with the following guidance: The party may not challenge the underlying ordinance (Ordinance 5107) since this office cannot review decisions of the City Council. The Planned Action and Master Plan decisions of the Director can be challenged. Hearing Examiner Decision September 5, 2006 Page 10 Decision; Nemy The appeal of ASE is dismissed, as they have no standing. The appeal of PASS may proceed to arguments on the merits_ ORDERED THIS 5th day of September 2006. FRED J. KAT • HEXING EXAMINER TRANSMITTED THIS 5th day of September 2006 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 Claudia M. Newman Brad Nicholson King County Journal Newspaper Bricklin Newman Dold LLP 2811 Dayton Avenue Attn: Dean Radford 1001 Fourth Ave., Ste. 3303 Renton, WA 98056 600 Washington Ave S Seattle, WA 98154 Kent, WA 98032 Renton Reporter Attn: Oscar Halpert PO Box 130 Kent, WA 98032 TRANSMITTED THIS 5`h day of September 2006 to the following: Mayor Kathy Kcolkcr 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 King County Journal 4. Hearing Examiner Decision September 5, 2006 Page 11 Pursuant to Title IV, Chapter 8, Section 100Gof the City's Code, request for reconsideration must be filed in writinj on or before 5:00 p.m., September 19, 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, 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.,September 19,2006. 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. MembershipAppUcation - Alliance For South End I hereby apply for membership in Alliance For South End, A Washington Non-Profit Corporation. Printed Name az 1 ZSO-- 1 Signature jAir Address 2.S5 l Phone Z Date 24. - 2 ' 2--r)C Election By Directors bove ' divdual was elected to membership by the Board of Directors on 2006. Dated this day of . 2006. t t . By Secretary lolor CADOCUMENTS AND SETT NGSIPBTStV.tY DOCuMENTMATA0OCSNWESTIVAXANON ritommertaatsma.Fompoc s ELection By Directorssfto T above •diydual was elected to membership by the Board of Directors on A , 2006. Dated this 4, day ofP___Ly 2006. By Secretary C;\DOCUMENTS AND SETTINGS FETERMMY DOCUMENTS\DATA DOCSIWPSiFIR D1NON PROFIINMEEMBERSHIP FORMDOC ENLARGEMENT OF FOOTER EXHIBIT A EXHIBIT Excerpt of Bylaws for ASE BYLAWS OF ALLIANCE FOR SOUTH END ARTICLE I MEMBERSHIP Section 1.1 Election of Members. The members of the corporation ("Members") shall consist of individuals, domestic or foreign profit or nonprofit corporations, general or limited partnerships, associations or other entities (each, a "Person")that have each of the following qualifications, as determined by the board of directors in its sole discretion: (a) The Person will support the purposes of the corporation and will not have a conflict with supporting the purposes of the corporation. (b) The Person has paid dues to the corporation in such amounts and at such times as the board of directors may establish by resolution. err (c) The Person has made such applications or entered into such agreements as the board of directors may require. (d) The Person has been elected as a Member by the board of directors at any meeting thereof. Section X.2 Rights of Members. The rights of the Members shall be exclusively as follows, and none of the Member shall have any other rights whatsoever: (a) The Members shall have voting rights with regard to the question of whether to approve a plan of merger or consolidation, pursuant to RCW 24.03.195(1). (b) The Members shall have voting rights with regard to the question of whether to approve a sale, Iease, exchange, or other disposition of all, or substantially all, the property and assets of the corporation not in the ordinary course of business, pursuant to RCW 24.03.215(1). (c) The Members shall have voting rights with regard to the question of whether to approve the voluntary dissolution and winding up of the corporation,pursuant to RCW 24.03.220(1). Nifty 1 of 2 pages AIM h. (d) The Members shall have voting rights with regard to the question of whether to approve a plan of distribution, pursuant to RCW 24.03.230(1). Section L3 Certificates of Membership. Certificates of membership in the corporation may be issued. If issued, they shall be numbered, and the respective Members' names shall be entered in the membership rep Iter of the corporation as the certificates are issued. Certificates, if any are issued, shall bear the Member's name and shall be signed by the president or the secretary. Section 1.4 Status of Membership. Membership in the corporation shall be personal, shall not survive the death of any individual Member, and may not be transferred by operation of law or by any other means. Section 1.5 Termination of Membership. Membership in the corporation may be terminated (a) for any action by a Member that is detrimental to the best interests of the corporation, (b)or for failure to actively support corporate purposes, or to actively participate in corporate activities, or(c)for failure continually to meet the qualifications of a Member pursuant to Section I.1 of these Bylaws. Removal shall require the affirmative vote of the board of directors. In the event that any such termination is contemplated, the board of directors shall notify the Member in a record of the reasons for the proposed action, and of the time and place of the meeting of the board of directors at whichNeal termination is to be considered, not later than ten(10) days prior thereto. Prior to the meeting, the subject Member shall be entitled submit written responses to the stated reasons for termination At the option of the Board,the termination may be immediate, without prior notice, but with full post termination appeal proceedings. 2 of 2 pages APPEAL OF HEARING EXAMINER'S DECISION/RECOMMENDATI 'N ry TO RENTON CITY COUNCIL ac RENTON FILE LUA-05-136, SA-A, SM SEP 0 6 7006 Norwe APPLICATION NAME The Landing - Master Site Plan RECEly The undersigned interested party hereby files its Notice of Appeal from the decision or recorrflicrat U F,I✓E Land Use Hearing Examiner, dated September 5 , 20 0 6 0,?:‘,?5"1),,n ate /- /a1 St/c. 1. IDENTIFICATION OF PARTY APPELLANT: REPRESENTATIVE(IF ANY): Name: Alliance for South End Name: Buck & Gordon LLP Address: PO Box 1313 Address: 2025 First Ave_ , Suite 500 Ren , WA 98052-1313 Seattle, WA 98121 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: CONCLUSIONS: err No. Error: Correction: OTHER: No. Error: Correction: 3. SUMMARY OF ACTION REOUES IbD The City Council is requested to grant the following relief: (Attach explanation, if desired) X Reverse the decision or recommendation and grant the following relief: (See attached Notice Modify the decision or recommendation as follows: of Appeal) Remand to the Examiner .r further consideration as follows: Other tip i\.r1i �lgil1/‘/06 I npellant/Re• esen►: 've ignat re Date NOTE: Please refer to Title IV,Chapter 8,of the Renton Municipal Code,and Section 4-8-110F,for specific appeal procedures. H:\CITY CLERK APPEALIAPPEAL to Council.doc 1a✓' d4 , � j4/i*ORIGINALLCiNe, .5 /e- dNr ce- f/e4" 6:540.0fee l/e3YfO rn 1 2 '4.00 3 4 5 6 7 BEFORE THE RENTON CITY COUNCIL 8 In the Matter of the Appeal of ) 9 ) 10 Alliance for South End(ASE)re: ) LUA-05-136, SA-A, SM ) 11 The Director's Administrative Decision ) NOTICE OF APPEAL OF Designating The Landing Master Plan ) HEARING EXAMINER 12 Application a Planned Action;And The ) DECISION Director's Master Site Plan Approval ) 13 ) 14 I. INTRODUCTION , 441414 15 The Alliance for South End (ASE) hereby files this Notice of Appeal of the Hearing 16 17 Examiner's decision dated September 5, 2006, which dismissed ASE's above-captioned 18 appeals for lack of standing ("Examiner's Decision," Exhibit A). The grounds for appeal 19 are that the Hearing Examiner's decision is contrary to Washington law, without support 20 in state or federal law, and in violation of the constitutional rights of ASE's members. 21 II. TIMELINESS 22 This appeal is filed pursuant to RMC 4-8-110.E(8) and RMC 4-8-110.F(1), which 23 specify a 14-day appeal period for Hearing Examiner decisions. 24 25 NOTICE OF APPEAL OF Buck@ Gordon LLP HEARING EXAMINER DECISION- 1 2025 First Avenue,Suite 500 Y:\WP\ASE\APPEAL TO COUNCIL NOTICE OF APPEAL TO COUNCIL 090606.DOC Seattle,WA 98121 (206)382-9540 1 III. FACTS 1140, 2 The facts are set forth in the record below. ASE's pleadings are incorporated herein by 3 reference. 4 IV. STANDARD OF REVIEW 5 6 The Council reviews Hearing Examiner decisions to determine whether"substantial 7 error of fact or law exists in the record."RMC 4-8-110(F)(7). If the Council finds such an 8 error, "it may remand the proceeding to Examiner for reconsideration,or modify, or 9 reverse the decision of the Examiner accordingly."Id. 10 V. GROUNDS FOR APPEAL 11 The Hearing Examiner's decision reflects several errors of fact or law. His decision to 12 dismiss ASE's appeals for lack of standing was entirely dependent upon the proposition 13 14 that, in order for an organization to have standing, it must not only have a member or 15 members with standing, but it also must have members with certain "indicia of 16 membership," such as particular voting rights. This proposition is directly contrary to the 17 well established law in Washington, and does not appear to have support in any state or 18 federal law. The Hearing Examiner's decision also violated the rights of ASE's members 19 to freedom of association. The Hearing Examiner's decision should therefore be reversed. 20 21 A. In Washington, An Association Has Standing When One Member Has Standing. 22 Washington courts have consistently held that a citizens' group or other organization 23 has standing to challenge land use decisions "as long as one member has standing to do 24 25 so." East Gig Harbor Imp. Assn v. Pierce County, 106 Wn.2d 707, 701, 724 P.2d 1009 NOTICE OF APPEAL OF Buck@ Gordon LLP HEARING EXAMINER DECISION-2 2025 First Avenue,Suite 500 Skov Y:1WP\ASEIAPPEAL TO COUNCILWOTICE OF APPEAL TO COUNCIL 090606.DOC Seattle,WA 98121 (206)3824540 1 (1986) (emphasis added), citing Save a Valuable Environment (SAVE) v. Bothell, 89 2 Wn.2d 862, 867, 576 P.2d 401 (1978); see also Suquamish Indian Tribe, 92 Wn.App. at 3 830 (citing East Gig Harbor Imp. Ass'n and SAVE for proposition that "an organization 4 has standing only when at least one of its members has standing as an individual"). None 5 6 of these cases hold or even suggest that a member must have particular rights in the 7 organization, or that any other inquiry should be made once it has been established that at 8 least one member of the organization has standing. Nor do any of these cases hold or 9 suggest that the organization's funding sources are relevant to standing. 10 B. There is No Precedent for the Hearing Examiner's Denial of Standing in 11 this Case. 12 To our knowledge, no state or federal court has ever held that members of an 13 organization must possess "indicia of membership" in order for the organization to have 14 standing. The cases cited by the Applicant in briefing before the Hearing Examiner do not 15 support this proposition. The question presented and answered in the three cases cited by 16 the Applicant was not whether members of an organization must have voting rights in 17 18 order to assert associational standing, but whether "an organization that has no members 19 in the traditional sense may nonetheless assert associational standing." See Fund 20 Democracy, LLC v. S.E.C., 278 F.3d 21, 25 (D.C. Cir. 2002). Those cases hold that, if an 21 association does not have any members, but asserts that its has standing to sue on behalf 22 of non-member"supporters," then a court may inquire into whether its supporters possess 23 "indicia of membership."Id. at 26. The Applicant's argument that"a non-voting member. 24 25 NOTICE OF APPEAL OF Buck@ Gordon LLP HEARING EXAMINER DECISION-3 2025 First Avenue,Suite 500 Y:1WP\ASEIAPPEAL TO COUNCIL\NOTICE OF APPEAL TO COUNCIL 090606.DOC Seattle,WA 98121 (206)382-9540 NINO 1 . . cannot establish standing for the association" (Applicant's Reply to ASE Lack of 2 Standing,p. 7) is simply false. 3 In fact, one of the cases cited by the Applicant directly contradicts the Applicant's 4 position. In Friends of Tilden Park Inc. v. District of Columbia, 806 A.2d 1201, (D.C. 5 6 2002), the court explicitly stated that the nonprofit would have standing if it had any 7 members: 8 Friends initially asserted in Superior Court that it had standing to sue on behalf of its members, whom it described 9 as persons residing in the vicinity of 3883 Connecticut 10 Avenue who recreate in and enjoy the benefits of nearby Rock Creek Park. We do not doubt that if Friends had such 11 members, it would have standing as their representative to maintain an action challenging the District's failure to 12 require Clark to prepare an EIS . . . The persons whom Friends claims to represent are not its 13 members, however. By the terms of its articles of 14 incorporation, Friends has no members. Confronted with this inconvenient fact, Friends argues in this court that it 15 nonetheless has standing to sue as the representative of its "supporters" among the neighborhood residents whose 16 environmental interests are at stake. These supporters, Friends suggests, are its de facto if not its de jure members. 17 The record, though, does not bear out this claim. 18 Friends, 806 A.2d at 1208 (emphasis added). See also Hunt v. Washington State Apple 19 Advertising Com'n, 432 U.S. 333, 97 S.Ct. 2434 (1977) (holding that the Commission had 20 • • associational standing even though "the apple growers and dealers are not `members' of 21 22 the Commission in the traditional trade association sense"); Fund Democracy, 278 F.3d at 23 25 (stating that, "[On determining whether an organization that has no members in the 24 traditional sense maynonetheless assert associational standing, the question is whether the 25 NOTICE OF APPEAL OF BuckG Gordon UP HEARING EXAMINER DECISION-4 2025 First Avenue,Suite 500 �, Y:\WP\ASEIAPPEAL TO COUNCILWOTICE OF APPEAL TO COUNCIL 090606.1)0C Seattle,WA 98121 (206)382-9540 �rrrr► 1 organization is the functional equivalent of a traditional membership organization") 2 (emphasis added). 3 Unlike the "supporters" of the organizations in Friends of Tilden Park, Hunt, and 4 Fund Democracy, Brad Nicholson is a member of ASE "in the traditional sense." 5 6 Moreover, even if these cases could be interpreted to require "indicia of membership" in 7 cases where an organization actually has members, those cases are not relevant in this 8 proceeding because Washington courts have not adopted or even discussed such a 9 requirement.I 10 C. The Hearing Examiner's Decision Violated the Constitutional Rights of 11 ASE's Members. 12 The Hearing Examiner's dismissal of ASE's appeals violated the First Amendment 13 rights of Renton citizens to freely associate as members of ASE in order to protect their 14 rights. Ironically, the Hearing Examiner previously found that Brad Nicholson, a member 15 of ASE, had standing to sue on his own behalf in a similar matter, but then deprived Mr. 16 Nicholson standing in this matter simply because he chose to associate with other Renton 17 18 citizens who share his concerns about The Landing.2 19 I The Applicant did not cite any Washington cases to support its arguments about associational standing. 20 The Applicant's reliance on'SAVE for the proposition that"Washington courts have adopted thl;federal approach to standing requirements in environmental and land use cases"is misplaced.See Applicant's 21 Reply to ASE Lack of Standing,p. 8,n. 16,citing SAVE,89 Wn.2d 862.The SAVE court's approval of"the federal approach"refers to the holdings,discussed earlier in the SAVE opinion,which state that"a non- 22 profit corporation or association which shows that one or more of its members are specifically injured by a government action may represent those members in proceedings for judicial review."Id.at 867.When read 23 in context,the SAVE court's discussion of association standing actually flies in the face of the Applicant's suggestions that ASE lacks standing as an association. 24 2 Unfortunately,the Renton Municipal Code allows the Hearing Examiner to rule on the constitutional rights of developers who apply for permits,but the Examiner may not consider the constitutional rights of 25 Renton citizens appealing a City decision.See RMC 4-8-110.E(7)(b). NOTICE OF APPEAL OF Buck@ Gordon LLP HEARING EXAMINER DECISION-5 2025 First Avenue,Suite 500 Y:1WP1ASEIAPPEAL TO COUNCIL\NOTICE OF APPEAL TO COUNCIL 090606.DOC Seattle,WA 98121 (206)382-9540 void 1 The U.S. Supreme Court has recognized "a right to associate for the purpose of 2 engaging in those activities protected by the First Amendment—speech, assembly, 3 petition for the redress of grievances, and the exercise of religion.."Roberts v. U.S. 4 Jaycees, 468 U.S. 609, 618, 104 S.Ct. 3244 (1984). By dismissing ASE's appeals based 5 6 on the form of the association, the Hearing Examiner violated the rights of ASE members 7 to associate for the purpose of petitioning the government. "The Constitution guarantees 8 freedom of association of this kind as an indispensable means of preserving other 9 individual liberties."Id. 10 IV. CONCLUSION 11 For the reasons stated above, ASE respectfully requests that the Council reverse 12 the Hearing Examiner's decision to dismiss ASE's appeals for lack of standing. 13 14 15 Dated this day of September, 2006. 16 BUCK& • idt(A LP 17 pp 18 .0"" By: . /. 19 Peter L. Buck,"1 SBA#05060 Attorneys for Alliance for the South End 20 21 22 23 24 25 NOTICE OF APPEAL OF BuckG Gordon LLP HEARING EXAMINER DECISION-6 2025 First Avenue,Suite 500 r Y:\WP AAA APPEAL TO COUNCILWOTICE OF APPEAL TO COUNCIL 090606.DOC Seattle,WA 98121 (206)382-9540 EXHIBIT A .0.0. • September 5, 2006 *or DECISION OF THE HEARING EXAMINER ON MATTERS OF STANDING AND JURISDICTION BROUGHT BY ATTORNEYS FOR ALLIANCE FOR SOUTH END (ASE) AND PROGRESSIVE ALLIANCE FOR A SUSTAINABLE SOUTHEND (PASS) While some background may help frame this decision, elaborate details and history need not be provided at this time as the only issues currently are whether the parties have standing to bring challenges of the City's actions and whether the Hearing Examiner has jurisdiction to hear the challenges if the parties do have standing. This matter concerns City decisions regarding The Landing, a land use project proposed for approximately 47 acres in north Renton. The land, in the main, was property used by the Boeing Company for its airplane business and vacated as the company consolidated its operations toward the north and west. With the potential for the land to be developed or redeveloped the City of Renton conducted an environmental review of proposed changes to its Comprehensive Plan and Zoning Code and potential land use changes for the property. The City issued an Environmental Impact Statement(EIS). The adequacy of the EIS was appealed and after a public hearing on the appeal, the appeal was denied. The appellant in that matter is a member of one of two groups challenging current decisions regarding the current proposal. Subsequently, Boeing sold off somc of the acreage and a developer offered a development plan. The City held a public hearing and approved Ordinance 5107, a Planned Action Ordinance. Thai ordinance designated as Planned Actions uses and activities described in the FEIS and subject to mitigation measures that had been separately proposed as part of a Development Agreement originally agreed to by Boeing and the City. That ordinance further allowed changes to that or other proposals that fell within the scope and character of the original plan. The original developer abandoned their original plans and the property changed hands to the current applicant. New plans were submitted and found by the Director of Development Services(Director) to be in conformance with the original Planned Action. The proposal was approved as a Planned Action and the Master Site Plan was approved. These actions by the director apparently removed any need for subsequent public hearings or environmental analysis of the new proposal. An appeal of the City's proposed infrastructure improvements in the area where the subject proposal would be developed had been initially filed but was withdrawn. Two separate citizen groups filed appeals of the City's action or actions. No individual filed an appeal on his or her own behalf. The City and the underlying applicant, Harvest Partners (Applicant), challenged the standing of the two groups that brought the appeals. At a Pre-hearing Conference the issue of standing as well as Noisy the Examiner's jurisdiction to hear the appeals were defined as issues to be resolved prior to any public hearing on the merits of the appeal or appeals. The various parties submitted motions and responses and oral argument was heard on the motions. • Hearing Examiner Decision September 5, 2006 Page 2 The parties to the proceeding are the City, the applicant and the two citizen groups. Standing to Bring the Appeals: The Hearing Examiner Ordinance in part provides the following language on appeals: RMC 4-8-110(E)(3) E APPEALS TO EXAMINER OF ADMINISTRATIVE DECISIONS AND ENVIRONMENTAL DETERMINATIONS: (Amd. Ord. 4827, 1-24-2000) 1. Applicability and Authority: a. Administrative Determinations: Any administrative decisions made may be appealed to the Hearing Examiner, in writing,with the Hearing Examiner, Examiner's secretary or City Clerk. (Ord. 4521, 6-5-1995) b. Environmental Determinations: Except for permits and variances issued pursuant to RMC 4-3-090, Shoreline Master Program.Regulations,when any proposal or action is granted, conditioned, or denied on the basis of SEPA by a non-elected official, the decision shall be appealable to the Hearing Examiner under the provisions of this Section. 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_ 2. Optional Request for Reconsideration: See RMC 4-9-070N. (Ord. 5153, 9-26-2005) 3. Standing: a Standing for Filing Appeals of the City's Environment.aI Determinations: Appeals from environmental determinations as set forth in subsection El b of this Section or RMC 4-9-070N may be taken to the Hearing Examiner by any person aggrieved, or by any officer, department,board or bureau of the City affected by such determination. Any agency or person may appeal the City's compliance with chapter 197-11 WAC for issuance of a Threshold Determination. A person is aggrieved when all of the following conditions are met: The decision is prejudiced or is likely to prejudice that person;the person's asserted interests are among those that are required to be considered by the City when it made its decision; and a decision in favor of that person would substantially eliminate or redress the prejudice to that person caused or likely to be caused by the decision; and prejudice means injury in fact. (Ord. 3891, 2-25-1985; Ord. 5153,9-26-2005) b. Standing for Appeals of Administrative Determinations other than Environmental: Appeals from administrative determinations of the City's land use regulation codes and from environmental determinations required by the Renton environmental review regulations may be taken to the Hearing Examiner by any person aggrieved, or by any officer, department, board or bureau of the City affected by such determination. (Ord. 3454, 7-28-1980) .401 c. Special Standing Requirements for Appeals of Administrative Determinations Relative to the Tree Cutting and Land Clearing Regulations: Hearing Examiner Decision September 5, 2006 Page 3 Any individual or party of record who is adversely affected by such a decision may appeal the decision to the City's Hearing Examiner pursuant to the procedures established in this Section. (Ord. 4351, 5-4-1992) d. Special Standing Requirements for Appeals ofDecisions Relating to Master Site Plans:Any appellant must be seeking to protect an interest that is arguably within the zone of interest to be protected or regulated by this Title must allege an injury in fact, and that in than speculative. (Ord. Jam'must be real and present rather 4551, 9-18_1995) One citizen group is identified as the "Alliance for South End" challenged two actions: (hereinafter, ASE). They The Director's decision designating "The Landing"as a planned action; The Director's decision approving the Master Plan for "The Landing." The only member of ASE identified was Brad Nicholson. He lives northeast of the project are He drives through the area where the project is proposed. He also uses the nearby Coulon Parka He has identified traffic as an issue that would affect him. He also identified impacts to the water quality of Lake Washington as an issue that concerns him. He also identifies himself as someone who might shop, work or live in the area that would be developed if The Landing were a roved Now It was Mr. Nicholson, as an individual, who challenged the ori PP • Comprehensive Plan amendments and Zoningsinal EIS prepared for the City's Code amendments. The second group is identified as "Progressive Alliance for a Sustainable Southend PASS). This second group appealed three actions: (heneinafler, The Director's decision on the Master Site Plan The Planned Action decision on the roadwork and utility improvements The Planned Action decision on "The Landing." Two PASS members specifically identified are Patrick Kik and Sheila Pratt. Mr. Kik is a member of United Food and Construction Workers Local 21, which is a member of PASS. He lives at 530 Burnett Avenue North in Renton, Washington, a few blocks south of the proposed development. He has resided there since May 1997. He maintained that he wanted to be involved in the review process. He noted traffic and construction would affect him. Ms Pratt, according to her signed Declaration, lives at 300 Vermont(sic: Most likely Vuemont)Place Northeast in Renton, Washington, also a few blocks from the proposed development. Shewants to be involved beca anything that occurs on that site would affect her due to her proximity to the proposed use development_ Traffic was identified as one area that concerns and would affect her. Her use of Coulon Memorial Park would be affected by more users,parking dynamics and pollution to Lake Washington adjacent to the park. Hearing Examiner Decision September 5, 2006 Page 4 Since neither appeal was filed by any of the named individuals,the associations or groups they belong to can only have standing if some member of the association would have standing_ Intl Ass'n of Firefighters,Local 1789 v. Spokane Airports, 146 Wn.2d 207, 213, 45 P.3d 186 (2002). The first group to be considered would be ASE, the group in which Mr. Nicholson is a member. The attorney representing ASE also represents Westfield, WEA Southcenter LLC, a business which owns and operates a large shopping center, Southcenter, located in Tukwila, Washington, a few miles southwest of the current proposal's location. The business,the attorney admitted is involved in providing at least some funding for this litigation and is on record (press releases and announcements - citations omitted) as opposing this development. Both the City and applicant challenged the standing of ASE based on the association of Westfield with this litigation and its funding. They challenged ASE as a shell corporation intending to directly impede the subject proposal by indirect means that Westfield could not do directly. Westfield, as an economic competitor has no standing to bring an appeal. Evidence presented at the hearing was the membership application of Mr. Nicholson and the bylaws of ASE. The membership application contains the following footer text: "C:IDOCUMENTS AND SETTING/PETER/MY DOCUMENTS/DATA/DOC/WESTFIELD/NON PROFIT/MEMBERSHIP FORM.DOC" (Exhibit A, Membership Application-Alliance for South End that Mr. Nicholson submitted for membership in ASE) The Bylaws of ASE provide the voting rights of members of ASE: Section I.2 Rights of Members. The rights of the Members shall be exclusively as follows, and none of the Member(sic) shall have any other rights whatsoever: (a) The Members shall have voting rights with regard to the question of whether to approve a plan of merger or consolidation,pursuant to RCW 24.03.195(1). (b) The Members shall have voting rights with regard to the question of whether to approve a sale, lease, exchange, or other disposition of all, or substantially all,the property and assets of the corporation not in the ordinary course of business, pursuant to RCW 24.03.215(1). (c) The Members shall have voting rights with regard to the question of whether to approve the voluntary dissolution and winding up of the corporation,pursuant to RCW 24.03.220(1). (d) The Members shall have voting rights with regard to the question of whether to approve a plan of distribution, pursuant to RCW 24.03.230(1). (Exhibit B) At the hearing this office in trying to understand the relationship of ASE's members and , 1.04 specifically Mr. Nicholson's relationship to the litigation and also guided the litigation asked: "Who is driving the car?" OT il`fa'J Ca'I IJ(,J ' .J,aI7.,r'a 7T.TT Oflfil7—011_J:C Hearing Examiner Decision September 5, 2006 �,, Page 5 Staying with the "who is driving the car" analogy: Mr. Nicholson has no official say in the course or direction that this litigation will take. He cannot steer the litigation with any vote he can take. ASE's attorney noted Mr. Nicholson has a say in the litigation. It is easy to say that he can provide input but there is nothing he can do to control where it goes. He has no vote in the organization that controls or governs or even gently directs the appeal. ASE merely uses his "stature"as an affected person to give it standing. Okay, granted, if there were 3 or more members of ASE, Mr. Nicholson would only be one voice. The other members could outnumber and outvote him. Except, clearly, those others cannot out vote him since none of them has a vote. Steering ahead with this "who is driving" analogy, one has to determine what is being driven. Sometimes folks being driven have a say in the route and sometimes they don't. In a car pool they have a say. On a public bus they do not. In some cases they can get off(bus) and at other times, they are on for the ride until it reaches a predetermined destination (airplane). With a bus, the conveyance may still be driven but no one is onboard any longer. A bus goes to the last stop even if there is no longer anyone on board. The course of the bus was clear from the start and that's where the bus goes. Can this litigation continue if there are no riders? ASE only has standing while there are members and while there are members with standing,that is, persons with the potential to be injured if they don't get a reasonable resolution of their appeal. Which itself brings up an interesting point- what if the membership dissolves, that is fades away, without dissolving ASE officially? Does ASE have any standing if there were no members any longer even if they or he did exist when the appeal was filed? The appellants labeled Mr. Nicholson a "poster child"(ASE's response to applicant's motions to dismiss for lack of standing, Page 1) for the type of person within the zone of interest of SEPA. He could actually be a "poster child" of a "straw man"for an organization which has no meaningful, substance. The definition of a "straw man"is: A third party used in some transactions as a temporary transferee to allow the principal parties to accomplish something that is otherwise impermissible." (Black's Law Dictionary, Seventh Edition) We have a litigant or litigants, if one accepts that there are other members of ASE(although there was no proof of their existence or their individual attributes of standing), who have no control of the litigation. The Bylaws of ASE specifically limit the participation,at least, in any voting that might control or influence the actions of the corporation. An interesting side note is that variously ASE's Attorney noted that: (1) there were "no members"in its initial filing with the Secretary of State; (2) then in pleadings indicated that was a mistake and it should have said "no voting members"; (3)but the Hearing Examiner Decision September 5, 2006 Page 6 Noe bylaws provide a vote. Although as seen above,the vote is very limited and provides no control of this litigation. A series of mistakes was identified by the parties in some of the various filings in this matter. They do cast a bit of a shadow over some of the evidence. So as noted above, if there are a number of other members of ASE, Mr. Nicholson would not necessarily get to call the shots or"drive" the bus or steer the litigation_ But there is no evidence that even a real majority of ASE's members can do anything to control the course of this appeal. The bylaws give neither Mr. Nicholson nor any other individual member nor a majority of the members any right to control the appeal. Since ASE filed an appeal and its attorney continues to make appearances one has to presume someone or some entity,somewhere is in charge, calls the shots, directs the flow and pays for the litigation. It is certainly not Mr. Nicholson. He has no vote on litigation matters nor do any of ASE's "members." That footer shown above could be somewhat telling in determining who is directing the litigation on behalf of ASE. Mr. Nicholson's Membership Application has a footer that identifies, presumably, that document's computer storage origins. The footer line contains the following text: "C:IDOCUMENTS AND SETTING/PETER/MY DO CUMENTS/DATA/DOC/WESTIr LELD/NON PROFITfMEMBERSH1P FORM.DOC" That footer line would seem to indicate that Westfield's legal business and the ASE association's litigation might be handled or originate together. It would merge the potential interests of the two. Again, recall that Westfield is a competitor of the underlying applicant for the land use decisions being challenged. Or the "footer"could be just one more mistake in the way this matter was handled by Westfield's and ASE's attorney. It might have been a mistake in how the document was initially created in whatever word processing software was used. But ASE's attorneys have been frank. There have been no real attempts to hide the fact that Westfield employs them and actually pays some of the bills for ASE. But this blending, merging or blurring of the lines of control all lead to the inevitable question of who controls the litigation and whose interest is being served by the litigation. The conclusion would appear to be inescapable-Westfield is paying some of the bills and no one else, neither Mr.Nicholson nor any other individual or majority of ASE has been identified as being a principle Iitigant who can direct the litigation of this appeal. So even if this office were to acknowledge that Mr. Nicholson might have standing under this office's normal inclination to liberally grant standing to an individual who can show some interest in a matter, Mr. Nicholson did not file the appeal in his own right. Sticking with our transportation analogy just a bit Ionger—Mr. Nicholson hitched his cart to the wrong horse and now has no control or say in this litigation. Mr. Nicholson has no ability to do much in his "non-voting" capacity as a mere member. But Mr. Nicholson is not alone(if there are other members of ASE)as no member of ASE or the combined membership of ASE can do anything with this litigation. It may be unfortunate to preclude Mr.Nicholson's right to have his standing ascertained or appeal heard but he tied his rights,if any,to an association that granted him no rights to direct litigation. He chose that course rather than file an appeal in his own right. Hearing Examiner Decision September 5, 2006 Page 7 While one generally "pierces the corporate veil" to get at underlying persons or assets, it is generally done so that justice can prevail, Discard the corporate veil in this case and what we find is a competitor, Westfield Corporation. They own the nearby Southcenter Shopping Center. They appear to be paying a good portion of the litigation, employ the attorney who is representing ASE and may have control over the litigation. Although, this office finds no evidence that Westfield controls the litigation, this office finds that no one really seems to control ASE and the attorneys in this matter. ASE, again,has no voting members controlling the appeal. The bylaws provide the ASE membership with a limited range ofpower and none that go to the heart of who controls this litigation, In SODERBERG ADV, v.KENT MOORE CORP. 11 Wn. App. 721, 734, 524 P.2d 1355 (1974) the court found: " The court could conclude from the evidence here and reasonable inferences therefrom that KM used its undue domination and control, through KM personnel with a primary loyalty to KM, to obtain and then avoid payment for essential services from which KM expected to receive great benefit. The domination was so complete that"the controlled corporation[had], so to speak,no separate mind, will or existence of its own and (was] but a business conduit for its principal." 1 W. Fletcher,Private Corporations § 43, at 205 (perm. ed. rev. 1963). In Seattle ` Ass'n of Credit Men v. Daniels, 15 Wn.2d 393, 396, 130 P.2d 892 (1942), the court in discussing the doctrine of disregard quoted the following with approval from Pittsburgh Reflector Co. v. Dwyer&Rhodes Co., 173 Wash. 552, 555, 23 P.2d 1114 (1933): "In order to justify the judicial disregard of corporate identities, one, at least, of two things must clearly appear. Either the dominant corporation must control and use the other as a mere tool or instrument in Carrying out its own plans and purposes so that justice requires that it be held liable for the results, or there must be such a confusion of identities and acts as to work a fraud upon third persons." Even if both things must be shown as suggested in Sommer v, Yakima Motor Coach Co., 174 Wash. 638, 26 P.2d 92 (1933) (decided prior to Seattle Ass'n of Credit Men v. Daniels, supra), the court could and did conclude from the evidence that both things had been proved. Footnote 1, supra. See J.Y. Case Credit Corp. v. Stark, supra at 475. See also Forest Hill Corp. v. Latter&Blum, Inc., 249 Ala. 23,29 So. 2d 298(1947); 'Lino Servs., Inc. v. DuPont, 239 Cal. App. 2d 841, 49 Cal. Rptr. 196(1966); Dillard& Coffin Co. v. Richmond Cotton Oil Co., 140 Tenn. 290, 204 S.W. 758 (1918). KM in good conscience can scarcely complain if the trial court determined that to recognize the separate entity of PK under the peculiar circumstances here would in effect place the court in the untenable position of assisting in the accomplishment of a breach of duty owing to plaintiff." As was noted at the hearing, there is clearly no case on point. Most cases declaring an organization '4"w-without standing have found that no individual member had sufficient standing on their own right. Or the claims made on behalf of the association were too personal to the members and could not be Hearing Examiner Decision September 5, 2006 Page S ,4004 attached to an association. But those cases that found a lack of standing can still be elucidating. Here we have an organization in which no member can call the shots. See, e.g., Save a Valuable Environment (SAVE) v. City of Bothell, 89 Wn.2d 862, 866-67, 576 P.2d 401 (1978); Lujan v. Defenders of Wildlife, 504 U.S. 555, 561, 112 S.Ct. 2130, 2136, 119 L.Ed.2d 351 (1992). International Assn of Firefighters, Local 1789 v. Spokane Airports, 146 Wn.2d 207,213-14, 45 P.3d 186(2002); Des Moines Marina Ass'n v. City of Des Moines, 124 Wn. App. 282, TIMBERLANE v. BRAME 309 79 Wn. App. 303, 901 P.2d 1074. This office finds that ASE does not have standing. Jt is a mere shell created by the applicant's potential competitor, Southcenter/Westfield for the purpose of thwarting a competitor's proposed development. This brings us to the standing of PASS. Since the underlying nature of the association was never challenged nor evidence produced to make it suspect as to its aims, it would appear that PASS has members who individually could have standing and as such, PASS has standing to bring its appeal or appeals. The two identified members both live close to the proposed project. They could be affected by the traffic generated by the proposed development. They could be affected by the construction of the project itself. One of them uses a park that could further be affected by additional residents that would occupy proposed residences.. Those interests appear to be within the zone of interests the appeal provisions were intended to protect. The increased traffic could slow down their respective commutes, increase roadway congestion and possibly lead to increased risk of accidents. They could suffer injury in fact. It will be up to the appellants to prove their case to prevail in obtaining the remedy they seek but they have the right to present a case for review. Jurisdiction to Rearing the Appeal: Repeating again for clarity, the Hearing Examiner Ordinance in part provides the following language on appeals: • RMC 4-8-110(E)(3) E APPEALS TO EXAMINER OF ADMINISTRATIVE DECISIONS AND ENVIRONMENTAL DETERMINATIONS: (Amd. Ord. 4827, 1-24-2000) 1. Applicability and Authority: a. Administrative Determinations:Any administrative decisions made may be appealed to the Hearing Examiner, in writing, with the Hearing Examiner, Examiner's secretary or City Clerk. (Ord. 4521, 6-5-1995) b. Environmental Determinations: Except for permits and variances issued pursuant to RMC 4-3-090, Shoreline Master Program Regulations, when any proposal or action is granted, conditioned,or denied on the basis of SEPA by a non-elected official, the decision shall be appealable to the Hearing Examiner under the provisions of this Section. Bearing Examiner Decision September 5, 2006 Page 9 c. Authority: To that end,the Examiner shall have all of the powers of the low office from whom the appeal is taken insofar as the decision on the particular issue is Concerned, 2. Optional Request for Reconsideration: See RMC 4-9-070N. (Ord. 5153, 3. Standing: 9-26-2005) a. Standing for Filing Appeals of the City's Environmental Determinations: Appeals from environmental determinations as set forth in subsection El b of this Section or RMC 4-9-070N may be taken to the Hearing Examiner by any person aggrieved, or by any officer, department, board or bureau of the City affected by such determination. Any agency or person may appeal the City's compliance with chapter 197-11 WAC for issuance of a Threshold Determination.A person is aggrieved when all of the following conditions are met: The decision is prejudiced or is likely to prejudice that person; the person's asserted interests are among those that are required to be considered by the City when it made its decision; and a decision in favor of that person would substantially eliminate or redress the prejudice to that person caused or Iikely to be caused by the decision; and prejudice means injury in fact. (Ord. 3891,2-25-1.985; Ord. 5153, 9-26-2005) b. Standing for Appeals of Admin strative r than Nvioy Environmental:Appeals from administrativte determinations erminations eof the City's land use regulation codes and from environmental determinations required by the Renton environmental review regulations may be taken to the Hearing Examiner by any person aggrieved, or by any officer, department, board or bureau of the City affected by such determination. (Ord. 3454, 7-28-1980) c. Special Standing Requirements for Appeals of Administrative Determinations Relative to the Tree Cutting and Land Clearing Regulations: Any individual or party of record who is adversely affected by such a decision may appeal the decision to the City's Hearing Examiner pursuant to the procedures established in this Section. (Ord. 4351, 5-41992) d. Special Standing Requirements for Appeals of Decisions Relating to Master Site Plans:Any appellant must be seeking to protect an interest that is arguably within the zone of interest to be protected or regulated by this Title must allege an injury in fact, and that injury than speculative. (Ord, 4551, 9-18-1995) must be real and present rather It appears on the face of the appeal that the action or actions challenged were those of the Director. Those appear to be the type of decisions that fall within the jurisdiction of the Hearing Examiner. The appeal of PASS may proceed with the following guidance: challenge underlying ordinance(Ordinance 5107) since this officeca �t review ee sionsoof the City the Council. The Planned Action and Master Plan decisions of the Director can be challenged. Hearing Examiner Decision September 5,2006 Page 10 NIS Decision: The appeal of ASE is dismissed, as they have no standing. The appeal of PASS may proceed to arguments on the merits. ORDERED THIS 5th day of September 2006. LANFRED J. KA HEARING EXAMINER TRANSMITTED THIS 5th day of September 2006 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 4, PO Box 626 2025 First Ave, Suite 500 500 Galland Building ,4000 Renton, WA 98057 Seattle, WA 98121 1221 Second Avenue Seattle, WA 98101 Claudia M. Newman Brad Nicholson King County Journal Newspaper Bricklin Newman Dold LLP 2811 Dayton Avenue Attn: Dean Radford 1001 Fourth Ave., Ste. 3303 Renton, WA 98056 600 Washington Ave S Seattle, WA 98154 Kent, WA 98032 Renton Reporter Attn: Oscar Halpert PO Box 130 Kent, WA 98032 TRANSMI1 TED THIS 5th day of September 2006 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 King County Journal Hearing Examiner Decision September 5, 2006 Page 11 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.,September 19, 2006. Any aggrieved person feeling that the decision of the Examiner is ambiguous or based on erroneous procedure, errors of Iaw 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 N, Chapter 8, Section 110, which requires that such appeal be filed with the City Cleric, 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., September 19, 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 p1rties 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. • EXIIIBI' Membership _ Nisn Alliance For South End I hereby apply for membership in Alliance For South End,A Washington Non-Profit Corporation. • Printed Name 7 / /S-C. 7 Signature I; , I ..S1 Address 2 a► - cru 41,1 Phone Z - - C, 5 5-J Date T . 2 - 2-00 Election By Directors ove ' dlydual was elected tom membership by the Board ofDirectors on 2006. Dated this .al, day of .t 2006. By Secretary O SANDNGSIPE EMMYDOCU SIDATAIp CSWIpSTl BLDwnw aonvrn..u..... . .. ---. OT/C-T'J ,fl 11, g Rn Inn ..ter. 1.n 1 M... .__ I ELectionDirectorsBY T � bove Tem] was elected to membership the 2 F b Y Board of Du-eCto o 006. � Dated this day of . 2006. By ' _ L, __ f_ Secretary coocui.farrs AND SEfl lGS PI ,Ii tom,DQCUMENTSs DATA oCSMESTFIE Dwo N PROFIMEMBERSHIP FORMDpC ENLARGEMENT OF FOOTER EXHIBIT A �1rr►' EXHIBIT B Excerpt of Bylaws for ASE BYLAWS OF ALLIANCE FOR SOUTH END ARTICLE 1 MEMBERSHIP Section 1.1 EIection of Members. The members of the corporation(`Members") shall consist of individuals, domestic or foreign profit or nonprofit corporations, general or limited partnerships, associations or other entities (each, a"Person")that have each of the following qualifications,as determined by the board of directors in its sole discretion: (a) The Person will support the purposes of the corporation will not have a conflict with supporting and the purposes of the corporation. (b) The Person has paid dues to the corporation in such amounts and at such times as the board of directors may establish by resolution_ (c) The Person has made such applications or entered into such agreements as the board of directors may require. (d) The Person has been elected as a Member by the board of directors at any meeting thereof. Section L2 Rights of Members. The rights of the Members shall be exclusively as follows, and none of the Member shall have any other rights whatsoever: • (a) The Members shall have voting rights with regard to the question of whether to approve a plan of merger or consolidation, pursuant to RCW 24.03.195(1). (b) The Members shall have voting rights with:regard to the question of whether to approve a sale, Iease,exchange, or other disposition of ail,or substantially all, the property and assets of the corporation not in the ordinary course of business,pursuant to RCW 24.03.215(1). (c) The Members shall have voting rights with regard to the question of whether to approve the voluntary ' of the corporation,pursuant to RCW 24.03.220(1).dissolution and windingup 1 of 2 pages QT iCT' ! cni un_i �o i.n. Da i is i lora i r.r r orara�_ora—max • 9T'd 1ilol (d) The Members shall have voting rights with regard to the question of whether to approve a plan of distribution,pursuant to RCW 24.03.230(1). Section 1.3 Certificates of Membership. Certificates of membership in the corporation may be issued. If issued, they shall be numbered, and the respective Members' names shall be entered in the membership register of the corporation as the certificates are issued_ Certificates, if any are issued, shall bear the Member's name and shall be signed by the president or the secretary_ Section 1.4 Status of Membership. Membership in the corporation shall be personal, shall not survive the death of any individual Member,and may not be transfer-ed by operation of law or by any other means. Section 1.5 Termination of membership. Membership in the corporation may be terminated (a) for any action by a Member that is detrimental to the best interests of the corporation, (b)or for failure to actively support corporate purposes, or to actively participate in corporate activities, or(c)for failure continually to meet the qualifications of a Member pursuant to Section 1.1 of these Bylaws.Removal shall require the affirmative vote of the board of directors. In the event that any such termination is contemplated, the board of directors shall notify the Member in a record of the reasons for the proposed action, and of the time and place of the meeting of the board of directors at which termination is to be considered, not later than ten (10)days prior thereto. Prior to the meeting, the subject Member responsestothe stated reasons be entitled submit written reasons for termination. At the option of the Board, the termination may be immediate, without prior notice, but with full post termination appeal proCeedings. • QT/QT•-J Zoftpages September 5, 2006 DECISION OF THE HEARING EXAMINER ON MATTERS OF STANDING AND JURISDICTION BROUGHT BY ATTORNEYS FOR ALLIANCE FOR SOUTH END (ASE) AND PROGRESSIVE ALLIANCE FOR A SUSTAINABLE SOUTHEND (PASS) While some background may help frame this decision, elaborate details and history need not be provided at this time as the only issues currently are whether the parties have standing to bring challenges of the City's actions and whether the Hearing Examiner has jurisdiction to hear the challenges if the parties do have standing. This matter concerns City decisions regarding The Landing, a land use project proposed for approximately 47 acres in north Renton. The land, in the main, was property used by the Boeing Company for its airplane business and vacated as the company consolidated its operations toward the north and west. With the potential for the land to be developed or redeveloped the City of Renton conducted an environmental review of proposed changes to its Comprehensive Plan and Zoning Code and potential land use changes for the property. The City issued an Environmental Impact Statement(EIS). The adequacy of the EIS was appealed and after a public hearing on the appeal, the appeal was denied. The appellant in that matter is a member of one of two groups challenging current decisions regarding the current proposal. Subsequently, Boeing sold off some of the acreage and a developer offered a development plan. The City held a public hearing and approved Ordinance 5107, a Planned Action Ordinance. That ordinance designated as Planned Actions uses and activities described in the FEIS and subject to mitigation measures that had been separately proposed as part of a Development Agreement originally agreed to by Boeing and the City. That ordinance further allowed changes to that or other proposals that fell within the scope and character of the original plan. The original developer abandoned their original plans and the property changed hands to the current applicant. New plans were submitted and found by the Director of Development Services (Director) to be in conformance with the original Planned Action. The proposal was approved as a Planned Action and the Master Site Plan was approved. These actions by the director apparently removed any need for subsequent public hearings or environmental analysis of the new proposal. An appeal of the City's proposed infrastructure improvements in the area where the subject proposal would be developed had been initially filed but was withdrawn. Two separate citizen groups filed appeals of the City's action or actions. No individual filed an appeal on his or her own behalf. The City and the underlying applicant, Harvest Partners (Applicant), challenged the standing of the two groups that brought the appeals. At a Pre-hearing Conference the issue of standing as well as the Examiner's jurisdiction to hear the appeals were defined as issues to be resolved prior to any public hearing on the merits of the appeal or appeals. The various parties submitted motions and responses and oral argument was heard on the motions. Hearing Examiner Decision September 5, 2006 Page 2 The parties to the proceeding are the City, the applicant and the two citizen groups. Standing to Bring the Appeals: The Hearing Examiner Ordinance in part provides the following language on appeals: RMC 4-8-110(E)(3) E APPEALS TO EXAMINER OF ADMINISTRATIVE DECISIONS AND ENVIRONMENTAL DETERMINATIONS: (Amd. Ord. 4827, 1-24-2000) 1. Applicability and Authority: a. Administrative Determinations: Any administrative decisions made may be appealed to the Hearing Examiner, in writing, with the Hearing Examiner, Examiner's secretary or City Clerk. (Ord. 4521, 6-5-1995) b. Environmental Determinations: Except for permits and variances issued pursuant to RMC 4-3-090, Shoreline Master Program Regulations, when any proposal or action is granted, conditioned, or denied on the basis of SEPA by a non-elected official, the decision shall be appealable to the Hearing Examiner under the provisions of this Section. 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. 2. Optional Request for Reconsideration: See RMC 4-9-070N. (Ord. 5153, 9-26-2005) 3. Standing: a. Standing for Filing Appeals of the City's Environmental Determinations: Appeals from environmental determinations as set forth in subsection Elb of this Section or RMC 4-9-070N may be taken to the Hearing Examiner by any person aggrieved, or by any officer, department, board or bureau of the City affected by such determination. Any agency or person may appeal the City's compliance with chapter 197-11 WAC for issuance of a Threshold Determination. A person is aggrieved when all of the following conditions are met: The decision is prejudiced or is likely to prejudice that person; the person's asserted interests are among those that are required to be considered by the City when it made its decision; and a decision in favor of that person would substantially eliminate or redress the prejudice to that person caused or likely to be caused by the decision; and prejudice means injury in fact. (Ord. 3891, 2-25-1985; Ord. 5153, 9-26-2005) b. Standing for Appeals of Administrative Determinations other than Environmental: Appeals from administrative determinations of the City's land use regulation codes and from environmental determinations required by the Renton environmental review regulations may be taken to the Hearing Examiner by any person aggrieved, or by any officer, department, board or bureau of the City affected by such determination. (Ord. 3454, 7-28-1980) c. Special Standing Requirements for Appeals of Administrative Determinations Relative to the Tree Cutting and Land Clearing Regulations: Hearing Examiner Decision September 5, 2006 Page 3 Any individual or party of record who is adversely affected by such a decision may appeal the decision to the City's Hearing Examiner pursuant to the procedures established in this Section. (Ord. 4351, 5-4-1992) d. Special Standing Requirements for Appeals of Decisions Relating to Master Site Plans: Any appellant must be seeking to protect an interest that is arguably within the zone of interest to be protected or regulated by this Title must allege an injury in fact, and that injury must be real and present rather than speculative. (Ord. 4551, 9-18-1995) One citizen group is identified as the "Alliance for South End" (hereinafter, ASE). They challenged two actions: The Director's decision designating "The Landing" as a planned action; The Director's decision approving the Master Plan for "The Landing." The only member of ASE identified was Brad Nicholson. He lives northeast of the project area. He drives through the area where the project is proposed. He also uses the nearby Coulon Park. He has identified traffic as an issue that would affect him. He also identified impacts to the water quality of Lake Washington as an issue that concerns him. He also identifies himself as someone who might shop,work or live in the area that would be developed if The Landing were approved. It was Mr. Nicholson, as an individual, who challenged the original EIS prepared for the City's Comprehensive Plan amendments and Zoning Code amendments. The second group is identified as "Progressive Alliance for a Sustainable Southend" (hereinafter, PASS). This second group appealed three actions: The Director's decision on the Master Site Plan The Planned Action decision on the roadwork and utility improvements The Planned Action decision on "The Landing." Two PASS members specifically identified are Patrick Kik and Sheila Pratt. Mr. Kik is a member of United Food and Construction Workers Local 21, which is a member of PASS. He lives at 530 Burnett Avenue North in Renton, Washington, a few blocks south of the proposed development. He has resided there since May 1997. He maintained that he wanted to be involved in the review process. He noted traffic and construction would affect him. Ms Pratt, according to her signed Declaration, lives at 300 Vermont (sic: Most likely Vuemont) Place Northeast in Renton, Washington, also a few blocks from the proposed development. She wants to be involved because anything that occurs on that site would affect her due to her proximity to the proposed development. Traffic was identified as one area that concerns and would affect her. Her use of Coulon Memorial Park would be affected by more users, parking dynamics and pollution to Lake Washington adjacent to the park. Hearing Examiner Decision September 5, 2006 Page 4 *411140* Since neither appeal was filed by any of the named individuals, the associations or groups they belong to can only have standing if some member of the association would have standing. Int'l Ass'n of Firefighters, Local 1789 v. Spokane Airports, 146 Wn.2d 207, 213, 45 P.3d 186 (2002). The first group to be considered would be ASE, the group in which Mr. Nicholson is a member. The attorney representing ASE also represents Westfield, WEA Southcenter LLC, a business which owns and operates a large shopping center, Southcenter, located in Tukwila, Washington, a few miles southwest of the current proposal's location. The business, the attorney admitted is involved in providing at least some funding for this litigation and is on record (press releases and announcements - citations omitted) as opposing this development. Both the City and applicant challenged the standing of ASE based on the association of Westfield with this litigation and its funding. They challenged ASE as a shell corporation intending to directly impede the subject proposal by indirect means that Westfield could not do directly. Westfield, as an economic competitor has no standing to bring an appeal. Evidence presented at the hearing was the membership application of Mr. Nicholson and the bylaws of ASE. The membership application contains the following footer text: "C:\DOCUMENTS AND SETTING/PETER/MY DOCUMENTS/DATA/DOC/WESTFIELD/NON PROFIT/MEMBERSHIP FORM.DOC" New (Exhibit A, Membership Application - Alliance for South End that Mr. Nicholson submitted for membership in ASE) The Bylaws of ASE provide the voting rights of members of ASE: Section 1.2 Rights of Members. The rights of the Members shall be exclusively as follows, and none of the Member(sic) shall have any other rights whatsoever: (a) The Members shall have voting rights with regard to the question of whether to approve a plan of merger or consolidation, pursuant to RCW 24.03.195(1). (b) The Members shall have voting rights with regard to the question of whether to approve a sale, lease, exchange, or other disposition of all, or substantially all, the property and assets of the corporation not in the ordinary course of business, pursuant to RCW 24.03.215(1). (c) The Members shall have voting rights with regard to the question of whether to approve the voluntary dissolution and winding up of the corporation,pursuant to RCW 24.03.220(1). (d) The Members shall have voting rights with regard to the question of whether to approve a plan of distribution, pursuant to RCW 24.03.230(1). (Exhibit B) At the hearing this office in trying to understand the relationship of ASE's members and specifically Mr. Nicholson's relationship to the litigation and also guided the litigation asked: "Who %mr is driving the car?" Hearing Examiner Decision September 5, 2006 Page 5 NIS Staying with the "who is driving the car" analogy: Mr. Nicholson has no official say in the course or direction that this litigation will take. He cannot steer the litigation with any vote he can take. ASE's attorney noted Mr. Nicholson has a say in the litigation. It is easy to say that he can provide input but there is nothing he can do to control where it goes. He has no vote in the organization that controls or governs or even gently directs the appeal. ASE merely uses his "stature" as an affected person to give it standing. Okay, granted, if there were 3 or more members of ASE, Mr. Nicholson would only be one voice. The other members could outnumber and outvote him. Except, clearly, those others cannot out vote him since none of them has a vote. Steering ahead with this "who is driving" analogy, one has to determine what is being driven. Sometimes folks being driven have a say in the route and sometimes they don't. In a car pool they have a say. On a public bus they do not. In some cases they can get off(bus) and at other times, they are on for the ride until it reaches a predetermined destination (airplane). With a bus, the conveyance may still be driven but no one is onboard any longer. A bus goes to the last stop even if there is no longer anyone on board. The course of the bus was clear from the start and that's where the bus goes. Can this litigation continue if there are no riders? ASE only has standing while there are members and while there are members with standing, that is, persons with the potential to be injured if they don't get a reasonable resolution of their appeal. Which itself brings up an interesting point- what if the membership dissolves, that is fades away, without dissolving ASE officially? Does ASE have any standing if there were no members any longer even if they or he did exist when the appeal was filed? The appellants labeled Mr. Nicholson a "poster child" (ASE's response to applicant's motions to dismiss for lack of standing, Page 1) for the type of person within the zone of interest of SEPA. He could actually be a "poster child" of a "straw man" for an organization which has no meaningful substance. The definition of a "straw man" is: A third party used in some transactions as a temporary transferee to allow the principal parties to accomplish something that is otherwise impermissible." (Black's Law Dictionary, Seventh Edition) We have a litigant or litigants, if one accepts that there are other members of ASE (although there was no proof of their existence or their individual attributes of standing), who have no control of the litigation. The Bylaws of ASE specifically limit the participation, at least, in any voting that might control or influence the actions of the corporation. An interesting side note is that variously ASE's Attorney noted that: (1) there were "no members" in its initial filing with the Secretary of State; (2) then in pleadings indicated that was a mistake and it should have said "no voting members"; (3)but the `.. Hearing Examiner Decision September 5, 2006 Page 6 bylaws provide a vote. Although as seen above, the vote is very limited and provides no control of this litigation. A series of mistakes was identified by the parties in some of the various filings in this matter. They do cast a bit of a shadow over some of the evidence. So as noted above, if there are a number of other members of ASE, Mr. Nicholson would not necessarily get to call the shots or "drive" the bus or steer the litigation. But there is no evidence that even a real majority of ASE's members can do anything to control the course of this appeal. The bylaws give neither Mr. Nicholson nor any other individual member nor a majority of the members any right to control the appeal. Since ASE filed an appeal and its attorney continues to make appearances one has to presume someone or some entity, somewhere is in charge, calls the shots, directs the flow and pays for the litigation. It is certainly not Mr. Nicholson. He has no vote on litigation matters nor do any of ASE's "members." That footer shown above could be somewhat telling in determining who is directing the litigation on behalf of ASE. Mr. Nicholson's Membership Application has a footer that identifies, presumably, that document's computer storage origins. The footer line contains the following text: "C:\DOCUMENTS AND SETTING/PETER/MY DOCUMENTS/DATA/DOC/WESTFIELD/NON PROFIT/MEMBERSHIP FORM.DOC" That footer line would seem to indicate that Westfield's legal business and the ASE association's litigation might be handled or originate together. It would merge the potential interests of the two. Again, recall that Westfield is a competitor of the underlying applicant for the land use decisions being challenged. Or the "footer" could be just one more mistake in the way this matter was handled by Westfield's and ASE's attorney. It might have been a mistake in how the document was initially created in whatever word processing software was used. But ASE's attorneys have been frank. There have been no real attempts to hide the fact that Westfield employs them and actually pays some of the bills for ASE. But this blending, merging or blurring of the lines of control all lead to the inevitable question of who controls the litigation and whose interest is being served by the litigation. The conclusion would appear to be inescapable - Westfield is paying some of the bills and no one else, neither Mr. Nicholson nor any other individual or majority of ASE has been • identified as being a principle litigant who can direct the litigation of this appeal. So even if this office were to acknowledge that Mr. Nicholson might have standing under this office's normal inclination to liberally grant standing to an individual who can show some interest in a matter, Mr. Nicholson did not file the appeal in his own right. Sticking with our transportation analogy just a bit longer—Mr. Nicholson hitched his cart to the wrong horse and now has no control or say in this litigation. Mr. Nicholson has no ability to do much in his "non-voting" capacity as a mere member. But Mr. Nicholson is not alone(if there are other members of ASE) as no member of ASE or the combined membership of ASE can do anything with this litigation. It may be unfortunate to preclude Mr. Nicholson's right to have his standing ascertained or appeal heard but he tied his rights, if any, to an association that granted him no rights to direct litigation. Nov► He chose that course rather than file an appeal in his own right. mom. Hearing Examiner Decision September 5, 2006 Page 7 While one generally "pierces the corporate veil" to get at underlying persons or assets, it is generally done so that justice can prevail. Discard the corporate veil in this case and what we find is a competitor, Westfield Corporation. They own the nearby Southcenter Shopping Center. They appear to be paying a good portion of the litigation, employ the attorney who is representing ASE and may have control over the litigation. Although, this office finds no evidence that Westfield controls the litigation, this office finds that no one really seems to control ASE and the attorneys in this matter. ASE, again, has no voting members controlling the appeal. The bylaws provide the ASE membership with a limited range of power and none that go to the heart of who controls this litigation. In SODERBERG ADV. v. KENT-MOORE CORP. 11 Wn. App. 721, 734, 524 P.2d 1355 (1974) the court found: " The court could conclude from the evidence here and reasonable inferences therefrom that KM used its undue domination and control, through KM personnel with a primary loyalty to KM, to obtain and then avoid payment for essential services from which KM expected to receive great benefit. The domination was so complete that "the controlled corporation [had], so to speak, no separate mind, will or existence of its own and [was] but a business conduit for its principal." 1 W. Fletcher, Private Corporations § 43, at 205 (perm. ed. rev. 1963). In Seattle Ass'n of Credit Men v. Daniels, 15 Wn.2d 393, 396, 130 P.2d 892(1942), the court in discussing the doctrine of disregard quoted the following with approval from Pittsburgh Reflector Co. v. Dwyer&Rhodes Co., 173 Wash. 552, 555, 23 P.2d 1114 (1933): "In order to justify the judicial disregard of corporate identities, one, at least, of two things must clearly appear. Either the dominant corporation must control and use the other as a mere tool or instrument in Carrying out its own plans and purposes so that justice requires that it be held liable for the results, or there must be such a confusion of identities and acts as to work a fraud upon third persons." Even if both things must be shown as suggested in Sommer v. Yakima Motor Coach Co., 174 Wash. 638, 26 P.2d 92 (1933) (decided prior to Seattle Ass'n of Credit Men v. Daniels, supra), the court could and did conclude from the evidence that both things had been proved. Footnote 1, supra. See J.I. Case Credit Corp. v. Stark, supra at 475. See also Forest Hill Corp. v. Latter& Blum, Inc., 249 Ala. 23,29 So. 2d 298 (1947); Linco Servs., Inc. v. DuPont, 239 Cal. App. 2d 841, 49 Cal. Rptr. 196 (1966); Dillard& Coffin Co. v. Richmond Cotton Oil Co., 140 Tenn. 290,204 S.W. 758 (1918). KM in good conscience can scarcely complain if the trial court determined that to recognize the separate entity of PK under the peculiar circumstances here would in effect place the court in the untenable position of assisting in the accomplishment of a breach of duty owing to plaintiff." As was noted at the hearing, there is clearly no case on point. Most cases declaring an organization without standing have found that no individual member had sufficient standing on their own right. Or the claims made on behalf of the association were too personal to the members and could not be Hearing Examiner Decision September 5, 2006 Page 8 liamy attached to an association. But those cases that found a lack of standing can still be elucidating. Here we have an organization in which no member can call the shots. See, e.g., Save a Valuable Environment(SAVE) v. City of Bothell, 89 Wn.2d 862, 866-67, 576 P.2d 401 (1978); Lujan v. Defenders of Wildlife, 504 U.S. 555, 561, 112 S.Ct. 2130, 2136, 119 L.Ed.2d 351 (1992). International Ass'n of Firefighters, Local 1789 v. Spokane Airports, 146 Wn.2d 207, 213-14, 45 P.3d 186 (2002); Des Moines Marina Ass'n v. City of Des Moines, 124 Wn. App. 282, TIMBERLANE v. BRAME 309 79 Wn. App. 303, 901 P.2d 1074. This office finds that ASE does not have standing. It is a mere shell created by the applicant's potential competitor, Southcenter/Westfield for the purpose of thwarting a competitor's proposed development. This brings us to the standing of PASS. Since the underlying nature of the association was never challenged nor evidence produced to make it suspect as to its aims, it would appear that PASS has members who individually could have standing and as such, PASS has standing to bring its appeal or appeals. The two identified members both live close to the proposed project. They could be affected by the traffic generated by the proposed development. They could be affected by the construction of the project itself. One of them uses a park that could further be affected by additional residents that would occupy proposed residences. Those interests appear to be within the zone of interests the appeal provisions were intended to protect. The increased traffic could slow down their respective commutes, increase roadway congestion and possibly lead to increased risk of accidents. They could suffer injury in fact. It will be up to the appellants to prove their,case to prevail in obtaining the remedy they seek but they have the right to present a case for review. Jurisdiction to Hearing the Appeal: Repeating again for clarity, the Hearing Examiner Ordinance in part provides the following language on appeals: RMC 4-8-110(E)(3) • E APPEALS TO EXAMINER OF ADMINISTRATIVE DECISIONS AND ENVIRONMENTAL DETERMINATIONS: (Amd. Ord. 4827, 1-24-2000) 1. Applicability and Authority: a. Administrative Determinations: Any administrative decisions made may be appealed to the Hearing Examiner, in writing, with the Hearing Examiner, Examiner's secretary or City Clerk. (Ord. 4521, 6-5-1995) b. Environmental Determinations: Except for permits and variances issued pursuant to RMC 4-3-090, Shoreline Master Program Regulations, when any proposal or action is granted, conditioned, or denied on the basis of SEPA by a non-elected official, the decision shall be appealable to the Hearing Examiner under the provisions of this Section. Nosy Hearing Examiner Decision September 5, 2006 Page 9 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 , 4,0100 issue is concerned. 2. Optional Request for Reconsideration: See RMC 4-9-070N. (Ord. 5153, 9-26-2005) 3. Standing: a. Standing for Filing Appeals of the City's Environmental Determinations: Appeals from environmental determinations as set forth in subsection Elb of this Section or RMC 4-9-070N may be taken to the Hearing Examiner by any person aggrieved, or by any officer, department, board or bureau of the City affected by such determination. Any agency or person may appeal the City's compliance with chapter 197-11 WAC for issuance of a Threshold Determination. A person is aggrieved when all of the following conditions are met: The decision is prejudiced or is likely to prejudice that person; the person's asserted interests are among those that are required to be considered by the City when it made its decision; and a decision in favor of that person would substantially eliminate or redress the prejudice to that person caused or likely to be caused by the decision; and prejudice means injury in fact. (Ord. 3891, 2-25-1985; Ord. 5153, 9-26-2005) b. Standing for Appeals of Administrative Determinations other than Environmental: Appeals from administrative determinations of the City's land use regulation codes and from environmental determinations required by the Renton environmental review regulations may be taken to the Hearing ter" Examiner by any person aggrieved, or by any officer, department, board or bureau of the City affected by such determination. (Ord. 3454, 7-28-1980) c. Special Standing Requirements for Appeals of Administrative Determinations Relative to the Tree Cutting and Land Clearing Regulations: Any individual or party of record who is adversely affected by such a decision may appeal the decision to the City's Hearing Examiner pursuant to the procedures established in this Section. (Ord. 4351, 5-4-1992) d. Special Standing Requirements for Appeals of Decisions Relating to Master Site Plans: Any appellant must be seeking to protect an interest that is arguably within the zone of interest to be protected or regulated by this Title must allege an injury in fact, and that injury must be real and present rather than speculative. (Ord. 4551, 9-18-1995) It appears on the face of the appeal that the action or actions challenged were those of the Director. Those appear to be the type of decisions that fall within the jurisdiction of the Hearing Examiner. The appeal of PASS may proceed with the following guidance: The party may not challenge the underlying ordinance (Ordinance 5107) since this office cannot review decisions of the City Council. The Planned Action and Master Plan decisions of the Director can be challenged. Hearing Examiner Decision September 5, 2006 Page 10 Decision: The appeal of ASE is dismissed, as they have no standing. The appeal of PASS may proceed to arguments on the merits. ORDERED THIS 5th day of September 2006. VcIA FRED J. KA MAN 1. HEARING EXAMINER TRANSMITTED THIS 5th day of September 2006 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 %%o,,, Seattle, WA 98101 Claudia M. Newman Brad Nicholson King County Journal Newspaper Bricklin Newman Dold LLP 2811 Dayton Avenue Attn: Dean Radford 1001 Fourth Ave., Ste. 3303 Renton, WA 98056 600 Washington Ave S Seattle, WA 98154 Kent, WA 98032 Renton Reporter Attn: Oscar Halpert PO Box 130 Kent, WA 98032 TRANSMITTED THIS 5th day of September 2006 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 Nft, King County Journal ,rrrrr► Hearing Examiner Decision September 5, 2006 Page 11 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., September 19, 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, 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$75.00 and meeting other specified requirements. Copies of this ordinance are available for inspection or purchase in the Finance Department, first floor of City Hall. An appeal must be filed in writing on or before 5:00 p.m., September 19, 2006. If the Examiner's Recommendation or Decision contains the requirement for Restrictive Covenants, the executed Covenants will be required prior to approval by City Council or final processing of the file. You may contact this office for information on formatting covenants. The Appearance of Fairness Doctrine provides that no ex parte(private one-on-one) communications may occur concerning pending land use decisions. This means that parties to a land use decision may not communicate in private with any decision-maker concerning the proposal. Decision-makers in the land use process include both the Hearing Examiner and members of the City Council. All communications concerning the proposal must be made in public. This public communication permits all interested parties to know the contents of the communication and would allow them to openly rebut the evidence. Any violation of this doctrine would result in the invalidation of the request by the Court. The Doctrine applies not only to the initial public hearing but to all Requests for Reconsideration as well as Appeals to the City Council. EXHIBIT Membership Application - Alliance For South End I hereby apply for membership in Alliance For South End, A Washington Non-Profit Corporation. Printed Name ' aze /.' c_A f. Signature ' jar,. a _ Addressku--e 1 1 ���y , _ T Phone 9 2 V-111-,S" 66 Date /224 " 2/ 7_0ki Election By Directors Tlrepbove ipddi dual was elected to membership by the Board of Directors on itV �� , 2006. to Dated this D day of p,. 2006. By • (42a/(T Secretary C:\DOCUMENTS AND SEITINGS\PETER\My DOCUMENTS\DATA\DOCSIWE$TFD3LINON PROMMEMBERSHIP FORM.DOC s , Ns Election By Directors T1 es bove ipd dual was elected to membership by the Board of Directors on w li , , 2006. tl\ ,.._/-)4 Dated this day of /VI 61. 2006. 6...„.; By iu 77_ Secretary Now C:\DOCUMENTS AND SETTINGS\PETER\MY DOCUMENTS\DATA\DOCS\WESTFIELD\NON PROFIT\MBMBERSHIP FORM.DOC . ENLARGEMENT OF FOOTER EXHIBIT A EXHIBIT B Nisof Excerpt of Bylaws for ASE BYLAWS OF ALLIANCE FOR SOUTH END ARTICLE 1 MEMBERSHIP Section 1.1 Election of Members. The members of the corporation("Members") shall consist of individuals, domestic or foreign profit or nonprofit corporations, general or limited partnerships, associations or other entities (each, a "Person")that have each of the following qualifications, as determined by the board of directors in its sole discretion: (a) The Person will support the purposes of the corporation and will not have a conflict with supporting the purposes of the corporation. (b) The Person has paid dues to the corporation in such amounts and at such times as the board of directors may establish by resolution. -ore (c) The Person has made such applications or entered into such agreements as the board of directors may require. (d) The Person has been elected as a Member by the board of directors at any meeting thereof. Section 1.2 Rights of Members. The rights of the Members shall be exclusively as follows, and none of the Member shall have any other rights whatsoever: . (a) The Members shall have voting rights with regard to the question of whether to approve a plan of merger or consolidation, pursuant to RCW 24.03.195(1). (b) The Members shall have voting rights with regard to the question of whether to approve a sale, lease, exchange, or other disposition of all, or substantially all, the property and assets of the corporation not in the ordinary course of business, pursuant to RCW 24.03.215(1). (c) The Members shall have voting rights with regard to the question of whether to approve the voluntary dissolution and winding up of the corporation,pursuant to RCW 24.03.220(1). 1 of 2 pages (d) The Members shall have voting rights with regard to the question of whether to approve a plan of distribution, pursuant to RCW 24.03.230(1). .4010 Section 1.3 Certificates of Membership. Certificates of membership in the corporation may be issued. If issued, they shall be numbered, and the respective Members' names shall be entered in the membership register of the corporation as the certificates are issued. Certificates, if any are issued, shall bear the Member's name and shall be signed by the president or the secretary. Section 1.4 Status of Membership. Membership in the corporation shall be personal, shall not survive the death of any individual Member, and may not be transferred by operation of law or by any other means. Section 1.5 Termination of Membership. Membership in the corporation may be terminated(a) for any action by a Member that is detrimental to the best interests of the corporation, (b) or for failure to actively support corporate purposes, or to actively participate in corporate activities, or(c) for failure continually to meet the qualifications of a Member pursuant to Section 1.1 of these Bylaws. Removal shall require the affirmative vote of the board of directors. In the event that any such termination is contemplated, the board of directors shall notify the Member in a record of the reasons for the proposed action,and of the time and place of the meeting of the board of directors at which termination is to be considered, not later than ten(10) days prior thereto. Prior to the meeting,the subject Member shall be entitled submit written responses to the stated reasons for termination. At the option of the Board,the termination may be immediate, without prior notice, but with full post termination appeal proceedings. • 2 of 2 pages CITY OF RENTON COUNCIL AGENDA BILL I AI#: kills Submitting Data: Planning/Building/Public Works For Agenda of: October 2, 2006 Dept/Div/Board.. Development Services Staff Contact Larry Meckling(ext. 7280) Agenda Status Consent X Subject: Public Hearing.. Request to fill the vacant Building Inspector- Correspondence.. Combination position(Grade A21)at Step D of the Ordinance salary schedule. Resolution Old Business Exhibits: New Business Issue Paper Study Sessions Information Recommended Action: Approvals: Council Concur Legal Dept Finance Dept X Other Fiscal Impact: Expenditure Required... Transfer/Amendment Amount Budgeted Revenue Generated Total Project Budget City Share Total Project.. SUMMARY OF ACTION: Authorization is needed to fill the vacant Building Inspector-Combination position(Grade A21) at Step D of the salary schedule. City policy(300-41)requires that Council approve the filling of positions at salary ranges above Step C. This request is needed to allow the Development Services Division to offer a more competitive salary to the selected applicant with the professional qualifications and capabilities needed for this position. STAFF RECOMMENDATION: Authorize the Development Services Division to hire the vacant Building Inspector- Combination position(Grade A21)at Step D of the salary schedule. Rentonnet/ag►bill/ bh et) PLANNING/BUILDING/ • cz, , PUBLIC WORKS DEPARTMENT MEMORANDUM DATE: September 22, 2006 TO: Randy Corman, Council President Members of the Renton City Council VIA: Kathy Keolker, May t r, FROM: Gregg Zimmerm ministrator STAFF CONTACT: Larry Meckling, Building Official (ext. 7280) SUBJECT: Request to Fill the Vacant Building Inspector— Combination Position (Grade A21) at Step D of the Salary Schedule ISSUE: Should authorization be granted to the Development Services Division to fill the vacant Building Inspector—Combination position(Grade A21) at Step D of the salary schedule? RECOMMENDATION: Authorize the Development Services Division permission to fill the vacant Building Inspector—Combination position (Grade A21) at Step D of the salary schedule. BACKGROUND SUMMARY: The Planning/Building/Public Works Department requests authorization to fill the vacant Building Inspector—Combination position(Grade A21) Step D of the salary schedule. City Policy(300-41)requires that Council approve the filling of vacant positions at salary ranges above Step C. This request is needed to allow Development Services to offer a more competitive salary to the selected qualified applicant. The Development Services Division would like to offer this position to a highly qualified candidate, who is currently listed on the City's eligibility list for this position. The Development Services Division believes that based on his experience and expertise,this candidate will be a significant asset to the City. The qualified applicant will have to take a significant pay cut to accept the Building Inspector—Combination position at its current opening salary, Step C of the salary schedule. The candidate has indicated that he will accept this position if the City will offer a higher salary within the established salary schedule of the position. The Building Inspector—Combination salary range is $52,308 loire per year(Step A) to $63,744 per year(Step E). h:\division.s\develop.ser\const.ser\amber\agenda bills\shuey-issue paper.doc Council/BI-C Salary Page 2 of 2 September 22,2006 The qualified applicant has a degree from Shoreline Community College in Building, Plumbing,and Mechanical Studies and Blueprint Reading Studies. Past work history includes one year employment with the City of Bothell. In addition to this, the candidate has also been employed as a Building Official with the City of Black Diamond for 12 years where his responsibilities included all stages of building inspection, plan review, and code enforcement. The responses to the reference checks have all been positive. CONCLUSION: The Planning/Building/Public Works Department requests authorization to fill the vacant Building Inspector—Combination position(Grade A21) at Step D of the salary schedule. cc: Mike Webby, Human Resources Administrator Neil Watts,Development Services Director Larry Meckling, Building Official File *46100 h:\division.s\develop.ser\const.ser\amber\agenda bills\shuey-issue paper.doc CITY OF RENTON COUNCIL AGENDA BILL AI#: 1/4660, Submitting Data: For Agenda of: Dept/Div/Board.. Economic Development, October 2, 2006 Neighborhoods, and Strategic Planning Staff Contact Don Erickson, x-6581 Agenda Status Consent X Subject: Public Hearing.. PROPOSED ANNEXATION Correspondence.. Marshall - 10% Notice of Intention Petition Ordinance Annexation Petition Certification Resolution Old Business Exhibits: New Business Issue Paper Study Sessions Annexation Petition Certification Information 10% Notice of Intent Petition Recommended Action: Approvals: Council concur to set a Public Meeting date for Legal Dept X October 16, 2006 Finance Dept Other Fiscal Impact: Expenditure Required... Transfer/Amendment Amount Budgeted Revenue Generated Total Project Budget N/A City Share Total Project.. SUMMARY OF ACTION: The petitioners initially submitted their petition to the City Clerk on July 31, 2006, but subsequently asked that the petition be held in abeyance while they applied for a waiver of the $2,500 filing fee. Council considered the applicant's request and waived the application fee on August 21, 2006. The 10% Notice of Intent petition was officially accepted by the City Clerk as of August 21, 2006. The signatures on the petition were certified by the King County Department of Assessments on September 12, 2006. The proposed 7.6-acre annexation site is located within Renton's Potential Annexation Area and is an unincorporated island surrounded on all sides by the City. It is generally located west of Duvall Avenue NE and one block north of NE Sunset Boulevard. Duvall Avenue NE borders it on the east and Anacortes Avenue NE, if extended, on the west. State law requires the Council to hold a public meeting with the proponents to consider their request, within 60-days of their revised submittal date. STAFF RECOMMENDATION: Council set October 16, 2006, for a public meeting to consider whether to accept or reject the 10% Lot Notice of Intention to Commence Annexation Proceedings petition for the proposed Marshall Annexation. EDNSP/PAA/Annexadons/Marshall Annexation/agnbill/de U��Y �e CITY OF RENTON .�� + ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT, NEIGHBORHOODS AND '�NTO� STRATEGIC PLANNING MEMORANDUM DATE: September 19, 2006 TO: Randy Corman, Council President City Councilmembers VIA: .1' Mayor Kathy Keolker K FROM: ` Alex Pietsch, Administrator jr-‘%, e Economic Development, Neighborhoods and Strategic Planning Department STAFF CONTACT: Don Erickson (6581) ``fir►. SUBJECT: Proposed Marshall Annexation 10% Notice of Intent ISSUE: The City is in receipt of a Notice of Intent petition to commence annexation proceedings for approximately 7.6-acres using the direct petition method (Figure 1). State law requires that the Council hold a public meeting with annexation proponents within 60-days of receipt of a 10% Notice of Intent petition, to decide whether to accept, reject, or geographically modify the proposal, whether to require the assumption of bonded indebtedness, and whether to require the simultaneous adoption of city zoning if the proposed annexation is successful. Because the applicants sought a waiver of the $2,500 filing fee, the official date of acceptance of this annexation is August 21, 2006. RECOMMENDATION: On the basis of the following analysis, the Administration recommends that Council accept the 10% Notice of Intent petition. If Council concurs, the Administration recommends that it take the following actions (pursuant to RCW 35A.14.120): • Accept the 10% Notice of Intent to Commence Annexation Proceedings petition %we • Authorize the circulation of the 60% Direct Petition to Annex for the 7.6-acre area Proposed Marshall Annexation 10% Notice of Intent September 22, 2006 Page 2 • Require that property owners within the proposed annexation area assume a proportional share of the City's outstanding voted indebtedness and accept zoning consistent with the Comprehensive Plan. BACKGROUND SUMMARY: The rectangular-shaped proposed Marshall Annexation site has not previously been considered for annexation. Annexations in 1974 and 1975 blocked this area off to the east and south, making it an unincorporated island. With the City currently annexing out to the Urban Growth Boundary at 148th Avenue SE, this area can no longer be efficiently served by King County's Road Division or Sheriff's Office. 1. Location: The proposed 7.6-acre,rectangular-shaped, Marshall Annexation is located adjacent and immediately west of Duvall Avenue NE,just north of the commercial development at the northwest corner of Duvall Avenue NE and NE Sunset Boulevard. Its western boundary is Anacortes Avenue NE, if extended, and its northern boundary is NE 17th Street, if extended. 2. Assessed value: The 2006 assessed valuation for the subject annexation site, at current development, is $5,761,300. 3. Natural features: The site slopes southward and is defined along a portion of its southern boundary by a retaining wall. The proposed annexation drains to Honey Creek via City facilities on Duvall Avenue NE. 4. Existing land uses: Existing development includes twenty-five single-family detached dwellings and their associated structures. Most existing development(14 dwellings) is located along SE 107th Place (a through street)with the remaining 13 dwellings located on SE 107th Street(a partial, non-through street). Existing lots vary in size from 7,881 square feet up to 0.6-acres (Figure 3, Existing Structures). 5. Existing zoning: King County zoning is R-4. This zoning allows a base density of four units per gross acre, and up to 6 units per gross acre with incentives and/or transfer of density credits. At this density, this zoning is comparable to Renton's R-8 zone (8 units per net acre). 6. Comprehensive Plan: Renton's Comprehensive Plan designates the subject annexation site as Residential Single Family(RS). This designation would allow R-8 zoning at a maximum density of eight units per net acre. 7. Public services: All responding departments and divisions noted that the annexation represents a logical extension of their respective services and systems. Specific comments follow. Water Utility. The subject proposed annexation is within Renton's water service area. Because of how this area developed, it lacks a standard 8-inch water line and, instead, is served by a 2-inch line. This latter line is inadequate to meet the required minimum fire flow demand of 1,000 gallons per minute. Utility staff notes that the existing line will eventually need to be replaced with an 8-inch water line with new fire hydrants. In order Proposed Marshall Annexation 10% Notice of Intent September 22, 2006 Page 3 for this to happen, residents will first have to dedicate a 15-foot wide utility easement to the City. Sewers. The area is not currently served by sewer. Sewer exists in the City of Renton to the west and south. The annexation site is located within the Renton Sewer Service Area and future sewers would be extended by developer extension, as the annexation area develops. Parks. The City has a shortfall of both neighborhood and community park land in this area. The nearest public park is Kiwanis Park, about three-quarters of a mile to the west. Maplewood Park in unincorporated King County is approximately a half mile to the southwest. The projected prorated cost of developing park land for future development within the annexation site, to a level consistent with the service levels in the City's Comprehensive Park, Recreation, and Open Space Plan, is an estimated $24,679. Because the area is basically already built-out, there are no anticipated parks mitigation fees that would normally reduce this amount. Fire. The area is currently served by Fire District#25. Renton currently provides fire suppression services to the District under contract. Upon annexation, the City would continue to provide fire prevention and suppression services for the 7.6-acre area, but do so as a basic City service rather than under contract with another district. Police. With an estimated existing population of approximately 58 people for this annexation, the Police Department states that there will eventually be a need for additional officers to serve this and other recent annexations. Police estimate that the area will generate the equivalent of one annual call for service for each of the estimated 58 residents living there. Surface Water. The 7.6-acre annexation is located in the Honey Creek sub-basin of the May Creek basin and drains to Honey Creek via City facilities on Duvall Avenue NE. Because of the sensitivity of downstream areas, if the site was to redevelop, utilities staff recommend the use of the 2005 King County Surface Water Design Manual, Level 2 water quality treatment standards. Annual surface water operation and maintenance costs for this 7.6-acre area are estimated to be approximately$1,809 per year. Transportation. Staff notes that SE 107th Street is privately owned and would remain so in the foreseeable future. SE 107th Place is likely to need improvement but would do so primarily as the responsibility of the abutting property owners. Improvements could include curbs, sidewalks, appropriate drainage, and illumination. Street maintenance estimates that $25,000 needs to be spent immediately for patching and a surface overlay. ANALYSIS OF THE PROPOSED ANNEXATION: 1. Consistency with the Comprehensive Plan: firRenton's Comprehensive Plan annexation policies generally support this proposed annexation. The subject site is within the City's Potential Annexation Area and has been subject to development pressure under the King County Comprehensive Plan, zoning, and subdivision regulations (Policies LU-36 and LU-37). The area would also be Proposed Marshall Annexation 10% Notice of Intent September 22, 2006 Page 4 available for urbanization under Renton's Residential Single-Family(RS) land use designation. Renton is the logical provider of urban infrastructure and services to the area(Policy LU-38), particularly since it now surrounds this unincorporated island. Policy LU-43.1 states that, in general, the greater the contiguity with the city limits,the more favorable the annexation. In this case, the city limits represent 100% of the proposed annexation's perimeter. Also, the proposed annexation does not divide an existing established neighborhood(Policy LU-43.4). 2. Consistency with the Boundary Review Board Objectives: (from RCW 36.93.180) a. Preservation of natural neighborhoods and communities; The proposed annexation would cause no disruption to the larger community. As noted above,the site is developed at the current time with little anticipated new development in the foreseeable future. b. Use of physical boundaries, including but not limited to bodies of water, highways, and land contours; Boundaries for this annexation are coterminous with existing City boundaries. c. Creation and preservation of logical service areas; Water and sewer service boundaries will not change. Neither will school district NIS boundaries. As noted above, upon annexation, Renton will take over the 7.6-acres it now provides fire and water services to. Pursuant to state law,there will be no change in the garbage service provider for at least seven years. Because the City surrounds this unincorporated island, it is not feasible for King County to efficiently serve it, whereas Renton can. d. Prevention of abnormally irregular boundaries; The new city boundary resulting from the elimination of this island would be more regular than the existing City boundary. e. Discouragement of multiple incorporations of small cities and encouragement of incorporations of cities in excess of ten thousand population in heavily populated urban areas; Not applicable. No incorporations are proposed in this area. f Dissolution of inactive special purpose districts; Not applicable. There are no inactive special purpose districts here. g. Adjustment of impractical boundaries; This annexation is not being proposed to adjust what are considered impractical boundaries. Further annexations in this portion of Renton's PAA are anticipated in the near future. Proposed Marshall Annexation 10% Notice of Intent September 22, 2006 Page 5 h. Incorporation as cities or towns or annexation to cities or towns of unincorporated areas which are urban in character; King County has designated this area for urban development because of its location within the Urban Growth Boundary. The County has also indicated that it wants to divest itself from providing urban services to these unincorporated urban areas by turning them over to cities. Because the subject site is within Renton's PAA and is surrounded by the City, annexation is appropriate. i. Protection of agricultural and rural lands which are designated for long term productive agricultural and resource use by a comprehensive plan adopted by the county legislative authority. Not applicable. 3. A fiscal analysis for the proposed annexation is attached. This analysis indicates that the proposed annexation would initially cost the City approximately$2,632 a year; however, because no new development is currently anticipated, the City would likely encumber this for a number of years until upgrades in water and sewer occur and redevelopment begins to occur. There is an estimated one-time pro-rated cost to the City of$24,679 for parks acquisition and development for the 58 new City residents. CONCLUSION: sift,* The proposed Marshall Annexation is essentially consistent with all relevant County and City annexation policies, as well as the Boundary Review Board's objectives for annexation. Reviewing staffs have identified no impediments to the provision of City services to the area. Attachments —w , MARSHALL ANNEXATION Units Population AV Existing dev. 25 58 $5,761,000 Full dev. 25 58 $5,761,000 *01.00 Assumptions: 2.3 persons/household $230,440 AV/existing unit $500,000 AV/new SF home Revenues : ! Total revenues Existing Full Rate Existing $29,04278 Regular levy $18,138 $18,138 3.14843 Full $29,042.=78 Excess levy $453 $453 0.07861 State shared revenues Rate (per cap) Existing Full Liquor tax $3.93 $227.94 $227.94 Liquor Board profits $7.41 $429.78 $429.78 Gas tax- unrestricted $23.69 $1,374.02 $1,374.02 MVET $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 Camper excise $0.75 $43.50 $43.50 Criminal justice $0.22 $12.76 $12.76 Total $2,088.00 $2,088.00 Miscellaneous revenues Rate Existing Full Real estate excise* $48.57 $2,817.06 $2,817.06 Utility tax** $133.20 $3,330.00 $3,330.00 Surface Water Utility $1,200.00 $1,200.00 Fines &forfeits* $17.53 $1,016.74 $1,016.74 Total $8,363.80 $8,363.80 *iimi * Per capita ** Per housing unit-based on $2,220 annual utility billing @ 6%tax rate Costs:: ;iii: Total ongoing costs Per capita Existing Full Existing :$31,5775 Contracted Services Full 'iii;11 674:75 Alcohol $0.19 $11.02 $11.02 Public Defender $4.68 $271.44 $271.44 Jail $8.56 $496.48 $496.48 Subtotal $778.94 $778.94 Court/legal/admin. $66.92 $3,881.36 $3,881.36 Parks maintenance* $14.90 $864.20 $864.20 Police $276.89 $16,059.62 $16,059.62 Surface Water 0& M $1,809.00 $1,809.00 Road maintenance** N/A $1,080.38 $1,080 Fire*** $1.25 $7,201.25 $7,201.25 Total $31,674.75 $31,674.75 *See Sheet Parks FIA **See Sheet Roads FIA *** Rate per$1,000 of assessed valuation (FD#25 contract) Net fiscal impact Existing i i i E i 2, 3 9? Full ::::: :::42.631>97 anesti0.*.opts Parks acquisition &development(from Sheet Parks FIA): $24,679.00 Other one-time costs: $0.00 Total one-time costs: ' $Z:4 6 9 O0`40, Revised 8-29 per Finance Memo .4-\\ King County 440✓ Department of Assessments Scott Noble King County Administration Bldg. Assessor 500 Fourth Avenue,Room 708 Seattle,WA 98104-2384 (206)296-5195 FAX(206)296-0595 Email:assessor.into@metrokc.gov www.metrokc.gov/assessor/ ANNEXATION PETITION CERTIFICATION THIS IS TO CERTIFY that the petition submitted August 28, 2006 to the King County Department of Assessments by Don Erickson, Senior Planner for the City of Renton, supporting the annexation to Renton of the properties described as the Marshall Annexation, have been examined, the property taxpayers, tax parcel numbers, and assessed value of properties listed thereon carefully compared with the King County tax roll records, and as a result of such examination, found to be sufficient under the provisions of the Revised Code of law Washington, Section 35A.01.040. The Department of Assessments has not verified that the signature on the petition is valid through comparison with any record of actual signatures, nor that the signature was obtained or submitted in an appropriate time frame, and this document does not certify such to be the case. Dated this 12th of September, 2006 &TT' Scott Noble, King County Assessor 63,.®1202M /q-06-©0( . CITY OF ROTION JUL 3 1 2006 NOTICE OF INTENTION TO COMMENCE crryFARKCEIvikE ANNEXATION PROCEEDINGS dee ( t ived hy UNDER RCW 35A.14.120 eounci/ S-N-2006 (Direct Petition Method) (10%PETITION—MARSHALL ANNEXATION) TO: THE CITY COUNCIL OF SUBMITTED BY: 74rxrles cp G ftgsoc, THE CITY OF RENTON ADDRESS: (0133 1331113 fl ve 8e City Hall, do City Clerk `rv±c ) it JIn Q 1055 South Grady Way PHONE: U0,5-- `a1 (- (saTi Renton, WA 98055 The undersigned are qualified electors resident in the proposed annexation area who represent not less than ten percent(10%) of the votes cast in the last general election and who desire to annex to the City of Renton. We hereby advise the City Council of the City of Renton that it is our desire to commence annexation proceedings under the provisions of RCW 35A.14.020, of all or any part of the area described below. The territory proposed to be annexed is within King County, Washington, and is contiguous to the City of Renton. A map (Exhibit 1) and legal description (Exhibit 2) are included as part of this petition. The City Council is requested to set a date not later than sixty days after the filing of this request for a public meeting with the undersigned. 1. At such meeting, the City Council will decide whether the City will accept, reject or geographically modify the proposed annexation; 2. The City Council will decide whether to require simultaneous-adoption of a proposed zoning regulation; '3. The City Council will decide whether to require the assumption of a proportional share of existing city indebtedness by the area to be annexed; and 4. The City Council will decide whether to adopt a resolution This page is the first of a group of pages containing identical text material. It is intended by the signers that such multiple pages of the Notice of Intention be presented and considered as one Notice of Intention. It may be filed with other pages containing additional signatures which cumulatively may be considered as a single Notice of Intention. Peck Annexation Petition Page 1 of 2 • Marshall Annexation WARNING: Every person who signs this petition with any other than his or her true name, or who No knowingly signs more than one of these petitions, or signs a petition seeking an election when he or she ,. is not a legal voter, or signs a petition when he or she is otherwise not qualified to sign, or who makes herein any false statement,shall be guilty ofa misdemeanor. The undersigned have read the above petition and consent to the filing of this petition. (Names of petitioners should be in identical form as the name that appears on record in the title to the real estate.) EBF �, r 6 tis a ` ff '/tvob g'- dIcy' c c/Grk /365/ SEt 7/A s_ 516 97o-ol3b Pk 000 1. l el4t 1Zen+n, 6u1 96059 2. 7140 . r' / to 3.2 l3 4rPfa s'I 97o.oit9 2 i 7cc 0/0-4467- ��. R4 rS 127,4-tvt6id -11 't/r f /3�q4' 5-5707 /0� 3t45oco- 3. 'd3fa,tX� hictfrI, .7 Pe,, r a n u/kt Wok 11/ av /-t!PI / 4/5- /1 7 Ad: 7 3/0001 0o0 411-1, uift 7 �/� �� /3G�/I SE /0714 SI- �f - ot3 s. 0y •ug(as A cwt;(I �h w4 gs 059 ��% v� ik 0 16-7/c.56 43014/60' 3115-000..0010 fly, 0,00 6. gPfl°6 latiV\-) 12e4/4-nq )1/4- J0-57 7. 8. 9. l0. 38.3 700 i Page 2 of 2 HADMSION.SIP&TSIPLANNINGIANNExiio%Notice of Intent(rev's).dockie 06T28/06 (2,3 % .r. Exhibit 1. INZink . ••• III im - Q :! fair' i icy c Ea eta MEW iroidlull r� W�*Ma_ EMI J Eta ffmeitib ,'! !I7 1 .v Aviv mann lamp1iiri ayeWaiJw44A //�1 W.12 fa IC *i •i NatillO u� dt ■ / m i`iyi ■ w �� w► a �t LIMEi�1/1rR■1le • �w min1•� /1E[1111//1 Ig ■■ i■ N�i���+�fi l��t ///►�,� �,fifth �■ n�,1i'w'f r►. ,;,,■ AI11E1. ..■��fiminags unlink' :� o- : ._ it mug ■��� W�1�1 a: ring urswilw� 111IIIr �►�' . .� ri �= = ►: �rr►,„j. .e ...== % t7" W: EM MI I "fil 4011 aim iff $$#"4411141 rilluid14.0 111111ad t Pit/441 wriMill t/ Mal r(i!tItE3 41 ;r; wen -Ilrii b 41 mg 4/111 Vi, f il lip' :11114 �` ii R. i�� 16111111 ". IV _ ,1 MI 1 .mss ►�i Illit " i; pi-yridillat-11 /► ‘.11_011111C1.11111 01 ,� �1 ■O �..�■ .. � �� ■ liiik 4/11 1: 71, F,' '' I nu if! mr.: lehit411114" \'‘5'10 IM' se INN li 6111 Ita fa \•\,-c' aim _/fir VAtz, ran',�f��roam o. ■err aim ■' - .. i , Imi. REM, di ES : • ?.i ■� ■ ■ ,. ,. ► iiil M 11111111111.11111M111 Nab tiiI!!! cIT aulf►�iO 411 II lIrd =mom own 1 ITV /WV ri ll154 ■iiI at 111111M 111111111111►1,II■ 1113 imos sA ��MIL MI a- iki � ■ �1■ u ■ .�■ 110th St1117VInw� g z.1■ 1■lauill ■■ s 1 VAirate guiiimix ■g 1Ip Alm III L am ip '111� rnt;I�.... ■■■■■■ IMO iil/llln� arm. .�� .� iidiri illilllull • �, - pir a J ism .�� ��� 1111 MN ■ %rata&� 9th !NMI -or s um � Tiri POI k fa LII iii ftlt :1 � NE 8th St : a rj • IV: ■/m ambenui ■IIIIMMa • mg. VAI MOM Frill ' iii,1/1►G1 f+/7i11G'1/I�� I%AS: w�11■ M� 4M1 Proposed Marshall Annexation 0 800 160 Vicinity Map :_ .iiiii 0 0 t T omic Development,Nps &wt* 1 : 9600 �� –—– City Limits it V ,,,,• wa gigas Study Area Exhibit 2 • PROPOSED MARSHALL ANNEXATION LEGAL DESCRIPTION That portion of the Southwest quarter of Section 3, Township 23 North,Range 5 East, W.M., in King County, Washington,lying southerly of the existing City Limits of Renton, as annexed by Ordinance No. 2824, westerly of the existing City Limits of Renton, as annexed by Ordinance No. 2945, northerly of the existing City Limits of Renton, as annexed by Ordinance No. 2894, and easterly of the existing City Limits of Renton,as annexed by Ordinance No. 2000. lard 9 CITY OF RENTON COUNCIL AGENDA BILL AIA': Submitting Data: Planning/Building/Public Works For Agenda of: Dept/Div/Board.. Transportation Systems Division October 2, 2006 Staff Contact Robert Lochmiller (x7303) Agenda Status Consent X Subject: Public Hearing.. South Lake Washington Roadway Improvements Correspondence.. Project Construction Management Service Ordinance W&H Pacific, Inc. Resolution Supplemental Agreement#7 (CAG 04-013) Old Business Exhibits: New Business X Issue Paper Study Sessions Supplemental Agreement#7 Information Recommended Action: Approvals: Legal Dept Council Concur Finance Dept Other Fiscal Impact: 318.012306 Expenditure Required... $123,101.12 Transfer/Amendment $123,101.12 Amount Budgeted $1,751,000.00 Revenue Generated ‘400, Total Project Budget $ 23,291,000.00 City Share Total Project... SUMMARY OF ACTION: Supplemental Agreement#6 with W&H Pacific, Inc. included services during the project advertisement period and during construction for design support. These services were estimated to be roughly$65,000 at the time the supplement was put together. During the bid advertisement, the City went forth with additional design work that included adding new design/construction work on Garden Avenue North (new signal at Garden Avenue and North 10th Street and signal modifications to Garden Avenue North and North 8th Street). After the bid opening, design changes were made to decrease the tree spacing from 100 foot spacing to 30 foot spacing in the development area and to redesign the illumination on North 10th Street using lower height lighting. These revisions accounted for approximately 70 sheet revisions to the original construction contract documents. The work associated with these two changes totaled$123,101.12. This supplement is intended to pay for the two major changes encountered during and after the bid advertisement of the project. This will allow the original amount budgeted on construction services to remain for on-call services during the remaining construction duration of the project. Staff recommends that$123,101.12 be transferred from the project's contingency account to the project's construction management account to pay for the additional costs. STAFF RECOMMENDATION: Authorize the Mayor and City Clerk to execute the supplemental agreement with W&H Pacific, Inc. itowe in the amount of$123,101.12 for design and construction engineering support for the South Lake Washington Roadway Improvements. A' ti`SY O� PLANNING/BUILDING/�� PUBLIC WORKS DEPARTMENT �'�N�O� M E M O R A N D U M DATE: October 2, 2006 TO: Randy Corman, Council President Members of the Renton City Council VIA: ' Kathy Keolker, Mayo FROM: Gregg Zimmermk; ministrator STAFF CONTACT: Rob Lochmiller, Transportation Design Project Manager (x7303) SUBJECT: South Lake Washington Roadway Improvements Project Construction Management Service W&H Pacific, Inc. Supplemental Agreement#7 (CAG 04-013) ISSUE: `a•r Should Council authorize the Mayor and City Clerk to execute the supplemental agreement with W&H Pacific, Inc. in the amount of$123,101.12 for the South Lake Washington Roadway Improvements? RECOMMENDATION: Authorize the Mayor and City Clerk to execute the supplemental agreement with W&H Pacific, Inc. in the amount of$123,101.12 for design and construction engineering support for the South Lake Washington Roadway Improvements. BACKGROUND: Supplemental Agreement#6 with W&H Pacific, Inc. included services during the project advertisement period and during construction for design support, these services were estimated to be roughly$65,000 at the time the supplement was put together. During the bid advertisement, the City went forth with additional design work that included adding new design/construction work on Garden Avenue North(new signal at Garden Avenue North and North 10th Street and signal modifications to Garden Avenue North and North 8th Street). After the bid opening, design changes were made to decrease the tree spacing from 100 foot spacing to 30 foot spacing in the development area and to redesign the illumination on North 10th "ter'' Street using lower height lighting. These revisions accounted for approximately 70 sheet revisions to the original construction contract documents. The work associated with these two changes totaled $123,101.12. Randy Corman,Council President Members of the Renton City Council Page 2 of 2 October 2,2006 This supplement is intended to pay for the two major changes encountered during and after the bid advertisement of the project. This will allow the original amount budgeted on construction services to remain for on-call services during the remaining construction duration of the project. Staff recommends $123,101.12 be reallocated from the project's contingency account to the project's construction management account to pay for the additional costs. The project's contingency was originally budgeted at$1,847,760 and, with the requested transfer, $1,724,658.88 will remain in the contingency budget. cc: Peter Hahn,Deputy PB/PW Administrator—Transportation Bob Hanson,Transportation Design Supervisor Rob Lochmiller,Transportation Design Project Manager Connie Brundage,Transportation Administrative Secretary H\Division.s\TRANSPOR.TAT\DESIGN ENG\Rob\Boeing Redevelopment\Contract\W&H\Supplement#7\Issue Paper-W&H Supp 7 060912 doc { { Washington State �1 Department of Transportation Organization and Address Supplemental Agreement Number 7 W&H Pacific 3350 Monte Villa Parkway Original Agreement Number Bothell, WA 98021 CAG 04-013 Phone: 425-951-4860 Project Number Execution Date Completion Date 12/31/2007 Project Title New Maximum Amount Payable So Lake Washington Roadway Improvements $ 2,928,870.12 Description of Work Additional design and coordination services The Local Agency of City of Renton desires to supplement the agreement entered into with W&H Pacific and executed on 1/29/2004 and identified as Agreement No. CAG 04-013 All provisions in the basic agreement remain in effect except as expressly modified by this supplement. The changes to the agreement are described as follows: � I Section 1, SCOPE OF WORK, is hereby changed to read: The original scope of services is amended to inchnde addtional services as described in detail in the attached Exhibit B. II Section IV, TIME FOR BEGINNING AND COMPLETION, is amended to change the number of calendar days for completion of the work to read: remains the same i 2/31/07 III Section V, PAYMENT, shall be amended as follows: increases the contract ley$123,101.12 as detailed in the attached Exhibit F. as set forth in the attached Exhibit A, and by this reference made a part of this supplement. If you concur with this supplement and agree to the changes as stated above, please sign in the appropriate spaces below and return to this office for final action. By: By: r AOI low Consultant Signature Approving Authority Signature DOT Form 140-063 EF Date Revised 9/2005 arrr Exhibit B Supplement#7 City of Renton South Lake Washington Roadway Improvement Project Scope of Work July 2006 1. Stake Archeological dig points(Rob email—5/30/06). 2. Stake Temp. Construction Easement for Boeing's Security fence placement.(Rich—verbal 6/8/06) 3. Redesign work for lighting, landscaping revision(Rich—6/14/06). Attended Meeting on 6/19/06. Perform light calculations at different pole heights. Redesign street lights to use 14'and 16'poles spaced at 60 foot intervals. Redesign tree walls and spacing to 30'intervals. This work also includes lighting calculations, layout of poles and J boxes,relocating fire hydrants,relocating joint utility trench,revising irrigation,revising signing,revising sidewalk construction notes and revising crosswalk locations Prepare quantities for change order. 4. Redesign storm facilities at Entertainment Blvd.and Park Ave.N. (5/17/06). Revisions needed to accommodate new driveway configuration. vged 5. Relocation of signal control cabinets(Rich verbal—6/19/06). Prepared exhibits for City and H.P.to review. Prepare Plan Revisions to show new locations at N. 10th and Park Ave.N.and N. 10th and Logan Ave N. 6. Legal Descriptions of Fry's(Rob email—6/24/06). Prepare legal descriptions and exhibit maps for two locations along Garden Ave. 7. Garden Ave.Channelization Revisions(Rich—6/27/06). Prepare Plan Revisions to detour plan sheets TC 02 and 03. The channelization was changed from a four lane to a three lane configuration. 8. Re-evaluation Roundabout Fire Truck Turns(Rob—6/23/06). Prepare Auto Turn exhibits. 9. Addendum#4 Work(Rich/Rob—5/17/06). Prepare plan revisions for Entertainment Blvd. and Park Ave.N.for changing of driveway to intersection and making the intersection a color cement concrete pattern. Prepare plan revisions for added work at Garden Ave.N. Work includes temp signal at Fry's driveway and intersections. improvements at Garden& 8th. Add a Schedule F to contract. Prepare plan sheets,specifications and estimate. P\City of Renton1031636\Management\Transfers\Old WHP Folders\Office\Word\supple?words 082906.doc So Lake Was ,,con Roadway Improvements Supplement# Exhibit E Date:July 21,2006 Additional project work Labor Hour Estimate Schedule Project Project Senior Surveyor Project Project Principal Manager Engineer Designer Technician Surveyor Crew Clerical Hours Cost Hrs(ej Hrs(82 Hrs(81 Hrs fp, Hrs a Hs n Hs @ Hrs @_ Project Tasks $ 60.00 $ 55.00 $ 42.00 $ 35.00 $ 30.00 $ 45.00 $ 53.00_$ 22.00_ 1.Project Management&Administration 0 $0.00 2.Archeological Staking _ __ 0 $0.00 3.Contraction Easement Staking 0 $0.00 4.Redesign work light,trees 40 96 200 260 616 $21,632.00 5.Storm redesign _ 1 4 6 16 27 $913.00 6.Relocation of Service Cabinets0 $0.00 7.Legal Descriptions _ 0 $0.00 8.Garden Channelization Revisions 1 _ 4 24 32 61 $2,023.00 9.Roundabout Fire Truck 0 $0.00 10.Addendum#440 80 160 160 16 456 $16,312.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 Labor Subtotal 0 82 _ 184 390 488 0 0 16 1160 $40,880.00 Overhead (Labor"169.306%) $69,212.29 Fee labor'30% $12,264.00 Total Labor $122,356.29 EXPENSES Cost Expenses Item Quantity Unit per Unit Cost Mileage 1000 Miles $0.445 $445.00 Plots 100 ea. $3.00 $300.00 Total Expenses $745.00 Subconsultant Contract Subcontractor Amount Cost Berryman&Henegar $0.00 Kleinfelder $0.00 Kdd $0.00 Total Subconsultants $0.00 Subtotal $123,101.29 Contingency $0.00 TOTAL $123,101.29 C:\Documents and Settings\SRichardLocal Settings\Temporary Internet Files\OLKA\revisedsupp#7 7-21-06.xls r CITY OF RENTON COUNCIL AGENDA BILL 1 AI#: 1 Submitting Data: Planning/Building/Public Works For Agenda of: rr+e Dept/Div/Board.. Transportation Systems October 2, 2006 Staff Contact James Wilhoit, ext. 7319 Agenda Status Consent X Subject: Public Hearing.. S. 4th Street&Burnett Avenue S. Traffic Improvements Correspondence.. CAG 05- 078 Ordinance Valley Electric Resolution Old Business Exhibits: New Business - X Final Pay Estimate Study Sessions Notice of Completion Information Recommended Action: Approvals: Legal Dept Council Concur Finance Dept Other Fiscal Impact: 317.012194.016 Expenditure Required... $ 2,084.30 Final Pay Est. Transfer/Amendment. N/A $10,128.38 Retainage Amount Budgeted $202,567.55 Revenue Generated -0- Total Project Budget $202,567.55 City Share 100% SUMMARY OF ACTION: The project started on August 8, 2005, and was completed on December 21, 2005. The original contract amount was $178,085.30. The final contract amount is$202,567.55, an increase of$24,482.25 over the original contract amount. After substantial completion of the contract and payment of the remaining balance at that time(less retainage) it was discovered that, in the course of demolishing the existing curb and gutter on the southeast corner of the intersection that was required as part of the project, the contractor had damaged the signal induction loops for northbound traffic that were not indicated in the plans. The City requires the loops be replaced and put into functioning operation. It is City policy that any work done to remedy damage in the course of construction be done by the contractor. Since the damage was not the fault of the contractor it was agreed there should be an equitable adjustment to cover the cost of the work. Change Order(CO) 10 added this work for$2,194,with no additional time and no additional workdays charged while this work was completed. In addition to CO 10, CO's 1 through 9 added a total of$17,706.72 to the contract amount. The remaining$4,581.53 increase from the original contract amount was due to net increases in quantities. STAFF RECOMMENDATION: Accept completion of the project, payment of the final pay estimate in the amount of$2,084.30, and Iliwirelease retainage for the full project in the total amount of$10,128.38 after sixty(60) days, subject to the required authorization. H:\Division.s\TRANSPOR.TAT\DESIGN.ENG\jwiihoitl4thbumett\payest4\4thBumFinatpayAGENDA BILL.doc TO: FINANCE DIRECTOR 9/5/2006 FROM: TRANSPORTATION SYSTEMS DIRECTOR CONTRACTOR: Valley Electric CONTRACT NO. CAG05-078 ESTIMATE NO. 4-FINAL PROJECT: South 4th St And Burnett Ave.S Traffic Improvements 1. CONTRACTOR EARNINGS THIS ESTIMAIE $ 2.194 00 .,, 2. SALES TAX(a), N/A $ - 3. TOTAL CONTRACT AMOUNT THIS ESTIMATE $ 2,194.00 k---- 4. 4. EARNINGS PREVIOUSLY PAID CONTRACTOR $ 190.354.87 5. * EARNINGS DUE CONTRACTOR THIS ESTIMATE $ 2,084.30w 6. SUBTOTAL-CONTRACTOR PAYMENTS $ 192,439.17 f 7. RETAINAGE ON PREVIOUS EARNINGS $ 10.018.68 8. ** RETAINAGE ON EARNINGS THIS ESTIMATE $ 109.70 9. SUBTOTAL-RETAINAGE $ 10,128.38 L' 10. SALES TAX PREVIOUSLY PAID 11. SALES TAX DUE THIS ESTIMATE $ - 12. SUBTOTAL-SALES TAX $ - * (95%xLLNEI) ** (RETAINAGE: 5%) GRAND TOTAL: $ 202,567.55 v . FINANCE DEPARTMENT ACTION: PAYMENT TO CONTRACTOR(Lines 5 and 11): Now ACCOUNT 317/012194/016.5950.0030.67.000000/25537/5354 $ 2,084.30\- RETAINED AMOUNT(Line 8): ACCOUNT 317/012194/016.5950.0030.67.000000/25537/5354 $ 109.70 ki TOTAL THIS ESTIMATE $ 2,194.00 CHARTER 116,LAWS OF 1965 CITY OF RENTON CERTIFICATION I,THE UNDERSIGNED DO HEREBY CERTIFY UNDER PENALTY OF PERJURY,THAT THE MATERIALS HAVE BEEN FURNISHED,THE SERVICES RENDERED OR THE LABOR PERFORMED AS DESCRIBED HEREIN,AND THAT THE CLAIM IS A JUST,DUE AND UNPAID OBLIGATION AGAINST THE CITY OF RENTON,AND THAT I AM AUTHORIZED TO AUTHENTICATE AND CERTIFY TO SAID CLAIM SIGNED: • Run Date: 9/05/2006 City of Renton - Transportation Page 1 of 3 Run Time:1:29 pm PROJECT PAY ESTIMATE Project:South 4th St And Burnett Ave.S Traffic Improvements Estimate No. 4 3/28/2006-8/31/2006 Engineer:James P.Wilhoit Vendor:' 11 '1' "`" '" PO Number: Project Number:012194 ;.:x ,nH.,'3n.,,. ,.'. :" ' Total Authorized: $178,085.30 ": - ,, .: -.,::" ;'`._.- Revised Total Authorized w/CO: ' $197,986.02 Contract No:CAG05-078 ••i'• ?-N.,,�;-.,; -s;,=v:� , Award Date 8/03/2005 ,; ' ' . l'!,,:, a'' Contract Working Days: 60 Notice To Proceed: 8/08/2005 ' ;` )) sr 4ikC Contract 11 Previous 1 This Estimate 1 Total Work Completed1Percent 111,111.5114% ;',11.11:,..111,447,,,,, • L St(,iy. 1 Adj.Quantity 1 Unit Price 1 Total Price Qty Qty I Amount ; Qty Amount I Complete 01 Mobilization LS. 1.0000 9.000.0000 9,000.00 1 0000 0 0000 0 00 1 0000 9,000.00 100 02 Sawcut LF 630.0000 11 7500 7.402 50 501 5000 0 0000 0 00 501.5000 5,892 63 80 03 Remove Asphalt Concrete Pavement, SY 272 0000 43.4000 11,804 80 245.5000 0 0000 0 00 245.5000 10,654.70 90 Including Haul 04 Remove Cement Concrete Sidewalk, SY 126 0000 42.0000 5,292.00 147.00001 0.0000 i 0.00 147.0000: 6,174.00; 117 Including Haul ! 1 274.0000 16.0000 4,384.00 320.0000 0.0000 - 1 05 Remove Cement Concrete Curb and LF 0.00' 320.0000 5,120.001 117 Gutter, Including Haul 1 i 06 Roadway Excavation Incl. Haul LS 1.0000 i_ 4,972,0000 4,972.00 1.0000 0.0000 0.00 1.0000. 4,972.001 100 07 Cement Concrete Curb and Gutter LF 350.0000 L 33.0000 11,550.00 347.0000 0.0000 0.001 347.0000 11,451.001 99 1 08 Cement Conc.Sidewalk SY 281.0000 51.0000 14,331.00 280.3000,1_ 0.0000 0.00 280.3000 14,295.301 100 09 Asphalt Conc.Sidewalk � TON 2.0000 312.0000 624.00 2.0000 0.0000; 0.001 2.0000 624.00 100 11 - l----- ----- -A- 8.0000-0 8 000- 1 0 - - - - -_ -. 1,650.0000 i O.00 8.0000 13,200.00 100 {--- - -- . - -- 13,200.00! --- -- - - - 10 Treated Base RampTON 14.0000 �, 9.6000 2,995.20. 69 Cement Conc.Curb 8.0000 0.0000 { ,Asphalt312.0000� 4,368.00 9.6000� 0.0000 12 Asphalt Concrete Pavement Cl. B TON 11.0000 312.0000' 3,432.00 34.7000, 0.0000 0.00 34 7000' 10,826.40 315 13 Catch Basin Type 1 EA' 1.0000 2,490.0000 2,49000 1.0000 0.0000 0 00 1 0000 2,490.00 100 I 14 48"Type-II CB LS 1.0000 5,174 0000 5,174 00 1.0000 0.0000 • 0 00 1 0000 5,174.00 100 15 Reconnection of Existing Pipes to New LS 1.0000 1,034 0000 1,034.00 1.0000 0 0000 0 00 1.0000 1,034.00 100 Drainage Structure I E 16 Ductile Iron CL.52 Strom Sewer Pipe LF 35.0000 93.0000 3,255 00 35.0000 0.0000 0.00 35.0000 3,255.00 100 ;Storm Pipe,8"Diameter 17 (Traffic Signal and Illumination System LS 1.0000 68,900.0000 68,900.00 1 0000 0.0000 0.00 1.0000 68,900.00 100 Complete 18 (Permanent Signing EA, 4.0000 475.0000 1,900,001 4.0000 0.0000 0.001 4.000014 00001 1,900.00! 100 19 Remove ExistingTraffic Markings LS' 1.0000' 1,366.0000 1,366001 1.0000 0.0000 O00 1.0000 1,366.00 100 .0Plastic Crosswalk Stripe SF' 230.0000 3.6000 366.00258.00001 258.0000; 928.80' 112 - a s I 4.50001. 279.001 40.0000 0.0000 0.001- 40.0000- - 0.001 - - 0.0 22 Traffic Arrow EA 3.0000 � --- 180.001 65 21 Plastic StopBar LFI62.0000 ' 0.0000, 0.00 1.0000 85.00 33 85.00001 255.00 1.0000 - - - ---- -- ---- __ - Run By: ' 'nes P. Wilhoit liGenerated by 'Software Product f ... ( Run Date: 4 .006 City of Rena - Transportation Page 2 of 3 Run Time:1:29 pm PROJECT PAY ESTIMATE Project:South 4th St And Burnett Ave.S Traffic Improvements Estimate No. 4 3/28/2006-8/31/2006 Engineer:James P.Wilhoit Vendor: :140ktkkTleptn'ti; ' ' ,1, ' . PO Number: " Total Authorized $178,085.30 ' 0*T. 'eteititidOil UM L Contract .--.., i Previous This Estimate , Total Work Completed'1 Percent , . .._ No.,. ' 1 1 Quantity ; Adj.Quantity I Unit Price Total Price ; Qty Qty ' Amount Qty 1 Amount Complete 23 Paint Stripe,4-in Skip Center, Lane, or LF 150.0000 1 2000 180.00 140.0000 0.0000 0.00 140.0000 168.00. 93 Edge - - -- - - I 24 ;Raised Pavement Markers . LF1 645.0000, 3.2000 I 2,064.001 619.00001 0.0000 t 0.0011 619.00001 1,980.801 96 01 !Replace lid for existing Type III 1-box 1 LSI 1.0000 316.0000! 316.00 1.00001 0.0000 0.001 1.0000 316.001 100 Iwith H-20 lid , 1 ' 1 1 , 1 iL [ . -[ 02 Remove/replace RR crossing pavement I LS 1.0000 I 1,331.00001 1,331.001 1.0000 0.00001 0.00; 1.0000 1,331.00 i 100 marking WS west leg 1 I i 1 I 1 , , 03 Perform Extra Signal Pole Fdn. Exc.To FA 1.0000 ' 317 6600 i 317.66 1.0000 0.0000 0.00 1.0000 317.661 100 Remove Unforseen Conc I I ___L 1 i 1 _ 1 , 04 Adj.Ex.J-Boxes To Provide ADA-Req'd FA 1.0000 201.1900 I 201.191 1.0000 0.00001 i 0.00 I 1.00001. 201.191 100 1 1Clearances-CurbRamps ___ . . . . 05 I Install trench drain and drain line in I LSI 1.00001 5,549.6000' 5,549.60 1.00001 0.0000 0.00 1 0000 5,549.60 100 1s/walkon SE corner . 1 06 2nd mobilization For striping/chann/pvmt, LS1.0000 448.0000 448 00 1 0000 0.0000 0.00 1 0000 448.00 100 1Marking Work 07 !Replace Junction Box LS 1 0000 3,112.6600 3,112.66 1 0000 0.0000 0 00 1 0000 3,112.66 100 08 i Remove bricks&obstructions and FA, . 1.0000 3,335.0900 3,335 09 1.0000 0 0000 0 00 1.0000 3,335.09 100 1replace w/crushed Rock 09 I Provide labor/equip.-addl.ACP ' FA1 1 1.0000 3,095.5200 3,095.52 1.0000 0.00001 0.00 1.0000 3,095.521 100 Iremoval/repl., Far NE Crnr -- - - -- - - I , I ' 1 __. _ _ i .. _ 10 'Replace 2 Damaged lnduc. Loops On 1 LS 1 1.0000 2,194.00001 2,194.00, 0.00001 1.00001 2,194.001 1.00001 2,194.00, 100 1 1Burnett Av S For NB Traff 1 1 1I 1 i i 1 i . _ _ _L_ LI I _ _-_________________. Run By: James P. Wilhoit •Generated by a Sharpe Software Product Run Date:9105/2006 City of Renton -Transportation Page 3 of 3 Run Time:127 pm PROJECT PAY ESTIMATE Project:South 4th St And Burnett Ave.S Traffic Improveme Estimate No. 4 3/28/2006-8/31/2006 Engineer James P.Wilhoit Vendor:r!lralley elcti:it:`.' ''eti:i, >t4'•" ;t 4';;;;i PO Number: T.. :a....,.,.•............ .''"'1.,,,,',....d.-0 ... ..m., u. . .... /tern: ,...: •Dr3sxlptiiytY :::;.,, UN "Contract.,, ;,�a:'•: , '':�= E.�Total Authorized* $178.085.30 Prevlous _ This Estimate Total Work Completed Percent NQ• Quantity ' Adj.Quandt} Unit Price r .Total Price Qty . ' Qty I Amount Qty• Amount Complete, Percent of Amt Completed: 114% Amount this estimate: _ 1 $0.00 Resident Engineer Date Percent of Days Completed: 463% C/O Total o Date: $19,900.72 Contractor Started: 8/08/2005 Total Wor Completed to Date: $182,666.83 Working Days Started: 8/08/2005 Materials n Hand: $0.00 Construe on En ear Date Original Completion: 10/28/2005 Materials On Hand Deduction: $0.00 9 P Overall Total Completed: $202,567.55 /1 • peer Jr (/ Non-Working Days: 42 Deduct 5.00% Retention $(10,128.38) ( 61A,- . ." ' 1 / ��L���� _. Time Extension Days: 0 Retention Withheld this Estimate $(109.70) Construction Manager Date Estimated Completion: 12/2712005 Retention Withheld to Date: $(10,128.38) Actual Completion: 12l2i/2005 Retention Released to Date: $0.00 2( -G pOther Deductions: $0.00 Confractor"s Representative Date Total Deductions: $(10,128.38) Total Due to Date: $192,439.17 _. Deduct lanc Previous t � $(190,,084.3) Balance Due This Estimate: $2,084.30 3y: James P.Wilhoit ° Generated by a Sharps S rodnct t , ��F,srnre State of Washington Reg.No.: 4 Department of Revenue Audit Procedures&Administration Date: September 18, 2006 est,„ 1889 PO Box 47474 NowOlympia,Washington 98504-7474 NOTICE OF COMPLETION OF PUBLIC WORKS CONTRACT From: DEPARTMENT USE ONLY City of Renton Assigned To 1055 South Grady Way Renton, WA 98055 Date Assigned Notice is hereby given relative to the completion of contract or project described below. Description of Contract CAG 05-078 S. 4th Street& Burnett Avenue S. Traffic Improvements Contractor's Name Valley Electric Telephone No. (425) 407-0832 Contractor's Address 1100 Merrill Creek Parkway Everett, WA 98203 Date Work Commenced Date Work Completed Date Work Accepted August 8, 2005 December 21, 2005 December 21, 2005 'i""' Surety or Bonding Co. Fidelity and Deposit Company of Maryland Agent's Address Hub International P. O. Box 3018 Bothell, WA 98041 Contract Amount: $ 178,085.30 Amount Disbursed: $ 192,439.17 Additions or Reductions: $ 24,482.25 Amount Retained: $ 10,128.38 Sales Tax: $ Total: $ 202,567.55 Total $ 202,567.55 By (Disbursing Officer) Phone No: The Disbursing Officer must complete and mail THREE copies of this notice to the Department of Revenue, Olympia,Washington 98504-7474, immediately after acceptance of the work done under this contract. NO PAYMENTS SHALL BE MADE FROM RETAINED FUND until receipt of Department's certificate,and then only in accordance with said certificate. Nome FORM REV 31 0020(12-92) H:\Division.s\TRANSPOR.TATIDESIGN ENG1iwilhoit14thbumett1payest414thbCOMPFORM.000 1 A ,'Tri^ 771 BY u;i:irCL Date /6'"ZA496 COMMUNITY SERVICES COMMITTEE REPORT October 2, 2006 Parks Commission: Appointments of Mr. Al Dieckman and Mr. Larry Reymann (September 11, 2006) The Community Services Committee recommends concurrence in the staff recommendation to approve Mayor Keolker's appointment of Mr. Al Dieckman to the Parks Commission for a term expiring on June 1, 2010 and Mr. Larry Reymann for a term, previously held by Marjorie Richter, expiring on June 1, 2008. sae`. �.��� ---- ------------ Toni Nelson, Chair VCiAti.L.,laikki,C_______ Marcie Palmer, Vice Chair Dan Clawson, Member Cef ferry ih jasA #'ya ni a Peter Renner Jerry Rerecich Ar7.77W73 CY C 7 ;L Date 0-a-QotM2 COMMUNITY SERVICES COMMITTEE REPORT October 2, 2006 Art Project for New City Park (September 11, 2006) The Community Services Committee recommends concurrence in the staff recommendation to approve etched stainless steelcurved panels as a 1% for Public Arts Project at the new City park, located at NE Union St. and 1st Street NE, and approved the total budget of$10,000 from Fund 125. Toni Nelson, Chair 76,0(11 Yci2 4 4 Marcie Palmer, Vice Chair -Not in Attendance- Dan Clawson, Member C'e: Terry l-iriasA;yarr►a- Pefcr Renner l??i eAael &alley D led. i0-2-aa96 CITY OF RENTON, WASHINGTON RESOLUTION NO. 3836 A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY OF RENTON, WASHINGTON, SETTING A HEARING DATE TO VACATE A 30' BY 60' PORTION OF 140TH AVE. SE (FIELD AVE. NE) NORTH OF NE 2ND STREET (ESM CONSULTING ENGINEERS; VAC-06-004) WHEREAS, a Petition has been filed with the City Clerk of the City of Renton on or about August 17, 2006, pursuant to the requirements of RCW 35.79, petitioning for the vacation of a portion of 140th Ave. SE north of NE 2nd Street, as hereinafter more particularly described, and said petition having been signed by the owners of more than two-thirds (2/3) of the property abutting upon said street sought to be vacated, and same being described as follows: See Exhibit "A" attached hereto and made a part hereof as if fully set forth herein [A 30' by 60' section of 140th Avenue SE (Field Avenue NE) north of NE 2nd Street] NOW, THEREFORE, THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF RENTON, WASHINGTON, DOES RESOLVE AS FOLLOWS: SECTION I. That November 6, 2006, at the hour of 7:00 P.M. at the City Council Chambers at City Hall, Renton, King County, Washington, is hereby fixed as the time and place for a public hearing to consider the aforesaid Petition for vacating a 30' by 60' section of 140th Avenue SE north of NE 2nd Street, which said hearing date is not more than sixty nor less than twenty days from the date of passage of this Resolution. SECTION II. The City Clerk is hereby authorized and directed to give notice of the time and date of this hearing as provided by RCW 35.79.020 and any and/or all persons interested therein or objecting to this vacation may then appear and be heard thereon, or they 1 RESOLUTION NO. may file their written objections thereto with the City Clerk at or prior to the time of hearing on the vacation. SECTION III. The City Council shall determine, as provided by RCW 35.79.030, as to whether an appraisal shall be secured to determine their fair market value of the property sought to be vacated as provided for in Ordinance No. 4266, and the amount of compensation to be paid by the Petitioner-Owners to the City for such vacation. The City likewise reserves the right to retain an easement for public utility and related purposes. PASSED BY THE CITY COUNCIL this day of , 2006. Bonnie I. Walton, City Clerk APPROVED BY THE MAYOR this day of , 2006. Kathy Keolker, Mayor Approved as to form: Lawrence J. Warren, City Attorney RES.1212:9/26/06:ma 2 EXHIBIT "A" STREET VACATION LEGAL DESCRIPTION The north 60 feet of the east 30 feet of Lot 4 of King County Short Plat No.882065, Recording Number 8303160822, described as follows: Commencing at the North quarter corner of Section 15, Township 23 North, Range 5 East, of the Willamette Meridian in King County, Washington; thence South 00°28'00" East, along the East line of the Northwest quarter of said Section 15, a distance of 937.25 feet to the Northeast corner of Lot 4 of King County Short Plat Number 882065 and the True Point of Beginning; thence continuing South 00°28'00", along said East line, a distance of 60.00 feet; thence North 89°15'45" East, parallel with the North line of said Lot 4, 30.00 feet; thence North 00°28'00" West,parallel with said East line, 60.00 feet,to the North line of Said Lot 4; thence South 89°15'45" East, a distance of 30.00 feet to the True Point of Beginning. Containing an area of 1800 Square Feet or 0.04 Acres more or less. All situate:in the City of Renton, County of King, State of Washington. q.14/19C9 <4Qv p M s ��0 I Z ( q 38965 �sro,gCC/ A � EXPIRES 5-23-07 EXHIBIT "B" 30' X 60' STREET VACATION _ 10 North quarter corner 15 X Section 15, Township I 23 north, Range 5 east, W.M. in Ir-) �i rn i . • o 1 / 4- •, O i I L_\l L ' N 0 S89 °15 ' 45"E 215. 05 ' COcri 0 185. 00 ' Q30.00' 1 = 50' 1\1800 r NSq.Ft. Q � Vii••-1"- � D co o L30.00' n co S89 °15'45"E a- N- 30.00' ' :l L 3 o Lot 4 0 oo Q cu O 0 O 0 CU z S89 °15 ' 45"E 215. 05 ' ��Q of WA 6,/�qa CENTRE " . /- , -, O :Art TN 7,1 ,Por „:. -I 0 - ., , `,f,9 38965 \��``' r Surveying, Inc., P.S. 2041 4,, 5 33701 9th Avenue South - Federal Way, WA 98003 LAN 253-661-1901 main 253-661-7719 fax Renton School Board Good News Announcements September 27, 2006 1. Brett Crueger, social studies teacher and department chair at Hazen High School recently received the Washington State University "Educators in Excellence" award. The award honors individuals who have made a real difference in the lives of students. Brett was nominated for the award by WSU freshman and recent Hazen graduate Briana Alzola, who said of Brett, "Over my four years at Hazen High School, Brett Crueger was more to me than just a teacher, he was a mentor and a friend. He challenged me mentally and emotionally and helped me grow as a person. I can honestly say I would not be the person I am today if not for him." 2. During the summer, Renton High School orchestra, led by director Nancy Dosch, auditioned and was accepted to perform at Disneyland. Nancy had the orchestra's fall concert video taped as part of the audition. Students, parents and staff helped raise money for the trip by working concession stands at Seattle Mariner's and Seahawk's games. This year, the orchestra hopes to audition for a performance at Carnegie Hall in New York. 3. Students in Renton High School's Family, Career and Community Leaders of America (FCCLA) program recently won a silver medal in a national competition held in Nashville, Tenn. Student projects included creating a business plan for a small business using skills learned in the classroom and sound business practices. The week- long event included many leadership workshops, activities for students and the competition. More than 50 chapters from high schools throughout the U.S. competed in the event. 4. The Renton PTSA Council was recently invited by the Evergreen City Ballet to host their Reflections Training workshop at the Ballet's new headquarters in the renovated McClendon's building in downtown Renton. The PTSA Council was able to use the board room to conduct the training with local PTA Reflections chairs and PTA leaders. The volunteers had a great time and were excited to network with our local businesses. 5. Renton School Board President Al Talley recently addressed parents and community members at Martin Luther King Jr. Memorial Baptist Church, answering questions on how to better help their children do well in school. Al's presentation made an impact that is still being talked about a week later. Those who did not attend the presentation are hearing the about it and are asking to have Al back. Church representatives are hoping to set up an ever bigger presentation in the near future. 6. Two recent graduates of district high schools were selected to have their poems published in a new anthology of local writers. Poems from Woneata Hart of Lindbergh High and Betty Jo Fenceroy of Renton High were two of the 19 selected pieces from thousands of entries included in the collection which was released at a celebration at the downtown Seattle library. These and other district students worked with professional writers as part of the Writers in the Schools program which brings writers to public schools to inspire students' understanding of the human experience through reading, writing, and performance. Lindbergh High will host the program again this year.