The URL can be used to link to this page

Home My WebLink AboutCouncil 04/04/2005 P n.r hr_' AGENDA RENTON CITY COUNCIL REGULAR MEETING April 4,2005 Monday, 7:30 p.m. 1. CALL TO ORDER AND PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE 2. ROLL CALL 3. PROCLAMATION: Records and Information Management Month—April 2005 4. SPECIAL PRESENTATION: Puget Sound Regional Council Vision 2020 Award 5. PUBLIC HEARINGS: a. Petition for vacation of a portion of N. 14th St., east of Lake Washington Blvd.N. and Gene Coulon Beach Park(Petitioner: Pool Brothers Construction) b. Maplewood Addition Annexation—60%Notice of Intent to annex and zoning requirement for 60.5 acres located south of the Maple Valley Hwy. and north and west of the cedar River. 6. ADMINISTRATIVE REPORT 7. 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.) kiwi 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. 8. 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 March 21,2005. Council concur. b. Court Case filed on behalf of Renton Police Officers' Guild by Aaron D. Jeide,Cline& Associates, 999 3'd Ave.,Suite 3800, Seattle, 98104,alleging that the City has no legitimate interest in compelling Police Officer Steve Morris to submit to a mental evaluation. Refer to City Attorney and Insurance Services. c. Economic Development,Neighborhoods& Strategic Planning Department submits 10%Notice of Intent to Annex petition for the proposed Akers Farms Annexation, 13.61 acres located in the vicinity of 108th Ave. SE and SE 161'St.,and recommends a public meeting be set on April 18, 2005,to consider the petition. Council concur. d. Hearing Examiner recommends approval,with conditions,of the Aspen Woods Preliminary Plat; 46 single-family lots on 8.15 acres located on Hoquiam Ave.NE (PP-04-143). Council concur. e. Hearing Examiner recommends approval,with conditions,of the Parklane Court Preliminary Plat; 10 single-family lots on 4.3 acres located on Lyons Ave. NE (PP-04-142). Council concur. f. Police Department recommends approval of the Edward Byrne Memorial Justice Assistance Grant in the amount of$39,120 to help fund the Domestic Violence Advocacy Assistance Program. Council concur. g. Transportation Division recommends approval of Addendum#11 to LAG-84-006, airport lease kire with Aerodyne Aviation,to increase the leased square footage. Refer to Transportation (Aviation)Committee. (CONTINUED ON REVERSE SIDE) h. Transportation Systems Division recommends approval of the temporary street closures of Lake Washington Blvd.NE,in the vicinity of NE 50 St., for construction of the soldier pile wall. Closures to take place April 15 through July 15,2005. Refer to Transportation(Aviation) Committee. i. Transportation Systems Division recommends approval of an ordinance to increase the No' Transportation Capital Improvement Fund 317 by$2,382,300 for completion of transportation projects in 2005 and to reallocate the funds by project, Refer to Committee of the Whole. j. Utility Systems Division recommends approval of a contract with R.W. Beck, Inc. for the SW 34th St.Culvert Replacement Project design, in the amount of$116,049. Council concur. 9. CORRESPONDENCE a. Letter and e-mail from Suzanne Krom,President of Herons Forever, PO Box 16155, Seattle, 98116,regarding the critical areas ordinance. b. E-mail from Sam Pace,Seattle-King County Association of Realtors, 29839 154th Ave. SE,Kent, 98042,regarding the critical areas ordinance. c. E-mails from various parties concerning utility taxes on senior and/or disabled citizen utility bills. 10. UNFINISHED BUSINESS Topics listed below were discussed in Council committees during the past week. Those topics marked with an asterisk(*)may include legislation. Committee reports on any topics may be held by the Chair if further review is necessary. a. Finance Committee: Vouchers;Lodging Tax Funding for Renton Visitors Connection& Chambers Contract;Collection Services Agreement with AllianceOne Receivables Management b. Planning&Development Committee: Critical Areas Ordinance 11.,RESOLUTIONS AND ORDINANCES Ordinances for second and final reading: a. Henry Moses Aquatic Center Fees(1st reading 3/21/2005) b. Trench Restoration and Street Overlay Requirements (1$ reading 3/21/2005) c. R-1 Zone Community Separators (1 reading 3/21/2005) 12. NEW BUSINESS(Includes Council Committee agenda topics; call 425-430-6512 for recorded information.) 13. AUDIENCE COMMENT 14. ADJOURNMENT COMMITTEE OF THE WHOLE AGENDA (Preceding Council Meeting) Fire Station#12, 1209 Kirkland Ave.NE 6:00 p.m. City of Renton Disaster Preparedness/Response �jwwrr + 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 11:00 AM&9:00 PM,WED.&FRI.AT 9:00 AM&7:00 PM AND SAT.&SUN.AT 1:00 PM&9:00 PM RENTON CITY COUNCIL Regular Meeting April 4, 2005 Council Chambers Monday,7:30 p.m. MINUTES Renton City Hall CALL TO ORDER Mayor Kathy Keolker-Wheeler called the meeting of the Renton City Council to order and led the Pledge of Allegiance to the flag. ROLL CALL OF TERRI BRIERE,Council President;DENIS LAW; DAN CLAWSON;DON COUNCILMEMBERS PERSSON; MARCIE PALMER. MOVED BY BRIERE, SECONDED BY LAW, COUNCIL EXCUSE ABSENT COUNCILMEMBERS TONI NELSON AND RANDY CORMAN. CARRIED. CITY STAFF IN KATHY KEOLKER-WHEELER,Mayor;JAY COVINGTON, Chief ATTENDANCE Administrative Officer;ZANETTA FONTES,Assistant City Attorney; BONNIE WALTON, City Clerk; GREGG ZIMMERMAN, Planning/Building/Public Works Administrator; KAREN MCFARLAND, Engineering Specialist; ALEX PIETSCH,Economic Development Administrator;DON ERICKSON, Senior Planner; DEREK TODD,Assistant to the CAO; COMMANDER KATHLEEN MCCLINCY, Police Department. PROCLAMATION A proclamation by Mayor Keolker-Wheeler was read declaring the month of Records and Information April,2005, to be "Records and Information Management Month" in the City of Management Month-April, Renton and encouraging all citizens to recognize the important service 2005 performed by records and information professionals and to join in this special observance. SPECIAL PRESENTATION Economic Development Administrator Alex Pietsch announced that the Puget EDNSP: Airport Compatible Sound Regional Council(PSRC), an entity in charge of coordinating planning Land Use Program,VISION and growth management implementation for King,Pierce, Snohomish, and 2020 Award from PSRC Kitsap counties,honored Renton's Airport Compatible Land Use Program with its VISION 2020 award. He noted that PSRC annually recognizes projects that best demonstrate growth management and this is the fourth VISION 2020 award bestowed upon Renton within the past five years. Mr. Pietch stated that the project was completed in 2003 and 2004 and involved a significant amount of research due in part to the Airport's urban location. PUBLIC HEARINGS This being the date set and proper notices having been posted and published in Vacation: N 14th St,Pool accordance with local and State laws,Mayor Keolker-Wheeler opened the Brothers Construction,VAC- public hearing to consider the Pool Brothers Construction,LLC petition to 05-001 vacate an approximately 300-foot-long and 30-foot-wide portion of N. 14th St., located east of Lake Washington Blvd. N. and Gene Coulon Beach Park(VAC- 05-001). Karen McFarland,Engineering Specialist, stated that the petitioner plans to use the subject vacation area in a café and office development on the adjoining site to the south. She relayed that according to the petitioner, a larger lot will be created to allow for more attractive landscaping and for development in a manner consistent with the City's vision of the lakefront area. Ms. McFarland pointed out that the vacation area does not contain any City facilities. She also pointed out that no objections were raised when the vacation request was circulated to City departments and outside agencies. In conclusion,Ms. McFarland stated that staff recommends approval of the requested vacation. April 4,2005 Renton City Council Minutes Page 107 • Public comment was invited. Michael Luna, Sadler/Barnard &Assoc., Inc., 12714 Valley Ave. E., Sumner, 98390, stated that he represents the petitioner and is available to answer questions. There being no further public comment, it was MOVED BY CLAWSON, SECONDED BY PALMER, COUNCIL CLOSE THE PUBLIC HEARING. CARRIED. MOVED BY CLAWSON, SECONDED BY LAW, COUNCIL APPROVE THE REQUEST TO VACATE THE RIGHT-OF-WAY. CARRIED. Annexation: Maplewood This being the date set and proper notices having been posted and published in Addition, Maple Valley Hwy accordance with local and State laws,Mayor Keolker-Wheeler opened the public hearing to consider the 60%Notice of Intent to annex petition and R-8 zoning for the proposed Maplewood Addition Annexation; 60.5 acres, including the abutting SR-169 right-of-way,bounded on the north by Maple Valley Hwy. (SR-169), and on the west, south, and east by the north shore of the Cedar River. Don Erickson, Senior Planner, stated that the annexation area contains 161 single-family homes and abuts Renton on its north, west, and a portion of its southern boundary. He pointed out that the area is included in the proposed Fairwood Incorporation, and explained that Fairwood proponents filed their 10% incorporation petition on 2/1/2005, which creates a 90-day window(until 5/1/2005) to file the Notice of Intent to annex package with the Boundary Review Board(BRB). Mr. Erickson stated that filing of the Notice of Intent to annex package will allow the BRB to conduct a joint review of the proposed annexation and incorporation. He noted that failure to meet the 90-day window precludes future annexation to Renton if the Fairwood Incorporation is successful. Continuing,Mr.Erickson explained that the topography of the site is essentially flat above the Cedar River bank and virtually the entire site, with the exception of the lots north of SE 149th St.,is located within the flood hazard boundary. He reviewed the existing public services as follows: • Fire District#25 provides fire service and will continue to do so if the area is annexed. However, water pressure is an issue. • Maplewood Water Cooperative provides water service and will continue to do so if the area is annexed. • The area is not currently served by sewer but is located within Renton's designative sewer service area. Residents are not required to convert from septic to sewer upon annexation. • The area is within the Renton School District. Mr.Erickson indicated that the annexation site is zoned R-6 (six dwelling units per gross acre)under King County. Renton's Comprehensive Plan designates the site as Residential Single Family, for which R-8 (eight dwelling units per net acre) zoning is proposed. He noted that the City is reviewing a possible change in designation to Residential Low Density,for which concurrent zoning is R-4(four dwelling units per net acre). April 4,2005 Renton City Council Minutes Page 108 Mr.Erickson reviewed the fiscal impact analysis assuming 161 single-family homes in the area, and pointed out that the annual estimated cost to the City is $40,304. If all property owners decide to upgrade to sewer, the annual , estimated City cost would be$35,386. Mr. Erickson stated that the proposed annexation is consistent with BRB objectives and with City annexation policies. He noted the adequate level of parks, the costly and ongoing flood control challenge, the aging infrastructure, and the larger than normal annual subsidy. In conclusion,he reported that staff recommends the petition be accepted and that staff be authorized to invoke the BRB's jurisdiction in order to consider possible expansion of the proposed annexation area's boundaries if this is justified in terms of creating more reasonable service areas and reducing the City's cost in servicing the area. Public comment was invited. Bob Johnson, 15016 131st Ave. SE,Renton, 98058,expressed his disappointment with the method of processing the 60%petition. His concerns included the turning in of documents beyond the petition deadline, the proponent's access to letters rescinding signatures,the method of signature collection, and the delay in the availability of the petition and rescind letters to others. In response to Council President Briere's inquiry regarding his position on the annexation,Mr. Johnson stated that he favors whatever the majority of the community wants, and he felt the majority wants to remain in unincorporated King County. Mayor Keolker-Wheeler stated that unfortunately due to State laws regarding growth management, it is unlikely the area will remain unincorporated. Mr.Erickson pointed out that under State law,the proponents have as long as it takes to gather signatures; however,any signature older than six months must be removed from the petition. He explained that a tentative deadline had been established for the submittal of the petition to allow the City time to process the annexation within the 90-day window, as the City must submit the intent to annex package to the BRB by May 1st. Brian Lowery, 13112 SE 150th St.,Renton, 98058,relayed Lenora Blauman's (BRB Executive Secretary)comments at a recent Fairwood Task Force meeting regarding the BRB's simultaneous review of the annexation and incorporation petitions,and the Fairwood Incorporation feasibility study. He indicated that due to a lack of information, people may not have understood the purpose of the 60%petition. Mr. Lowery concluded that the whole process has been confusing and it has divided the community. Responding to Council President Briere's inquiry as to his position,Mr.Lowery stated that he prefers to stay within King County and expressed his displeasure with the land value based petition. Economic Development Administrator Alex Pietsch explained that if the City did not accept the 60%petition and the Fairwood Incorporation was successful, this area will be included in the City of Fairwood. He opined that it is unlikely that the Maplewood community can convince the BRB to exclude it from the City of Fairwood if the annexation petition is denied. Mr. Pietsch acknowledged that the process is very complicated, and reiterated that the only way the annexation proposal can be reviewed by the BRB in conjunction with April 4,2005 Renton City Council Minutes Page 109 the incorporation proposal is if the 60% petition is accepted and staff is authorized to ask the BRB to invoke its jurisdiction. Tom Judd, 13004 SE 151st St., Renton, 98058,pointed out that even if the Maplewood area is incorporated or stays within King County,Renton will still provide the public services. Mr. Judd expressed his support for the annexation, noting that there will be additional benefits to the area if annexed to Renton. Linda Gibson, 15031 135th Ave. SE,Renton, 98058, stated that she is against annexation to Renton and wants to stay in King County. She expressed her disappointment in the process used to acquire signatures, and noted the need for more time to clear up the negative information that has been circulated throughout the community. Additionally she stated that the Department of Health verified the soundness of the area's water system, and verified that the area does not have any more problems with its septic systems than any other location. Stephanie Lorenz, 13515 SE Maple Valley Rd.,Renton, 98058, stated that she is a proponent of the annexation effort, and submitted documentation showing what information the proponents have been circulating. In response to speaker Bob Johnson's comments,she explained that she acquired her knowledge about the rescinded petition signatures before the petition was filed. In response to the inquiry from Dave Alexander, 15036 135th Ave. SE,Renton, 98058, regarding the subject area's options,Mr. Pietsch explained that if Council asks the BRB to invoke jurisdiction, the BRB will conduct an in-depth review of the boundaries to determine what is best for the Maplewood area. He pointed out that the review will include the Fairwood Incorporation feasibility study, and that citizens can testify before the BRB. Responding to Mr. Alexander's inquiry regarding whether the annexation can be stopped,Mr. Pietsch stated that it can be stopped by Council not accepting the petition. However, if the petition is forwarded to the BRB, it is impossible to predict what action that body will take. In response to the Mayor's question regarding the possibility of a special election for the Maplewood Area,Assistant City Attorney Zanetta Fontes stated that the BRB does not have a procedure in place by which that can be accomplished. Responding to Council President Briere's inquiry regarding his position on the annexation proposal,Mr.Alexander stated that he wants to know which option is best for the neighborhood. Mr. Pietsch reported that he met one time with the Fairwood Incorporation Taskforce, and relayed that he had suggested that the Maplewood area be removed from the incorporation boundary. Mayor Keolker-Wheeler stated that it is frustrating to have something outside of the City's jurisdiction and the Maplewood area's jurisdiction driving this process. Judy Anders, 13133 SE 149th St.,Renton,98058,noted that she is a proponent of the annexation, and thanked City staff for their help throughout this process. There being no further public comment, it was MOVED BY PERSSON, SECONDED BY CLAWSON, COUNCIL CLOSE THE PUBLIC HEARING. CARRIED. April 4,2005 Renton City Council Minutes Page 110 MOVED BY CLAWSON, SECONDED BY LAW, COUNCIL: ACCEPT THE MAPL$WOOD ADDITION 60%DIRECT PETITION TO ANNEX; AUTHORIZE THE ADMINISTRATION TO FORWARD THE NOTICE OF INTENT PACKAGE TO THE BOUNDARY REVIEW BOARD; AUTHORI7.F,THE ADMINISTRATION TO INVOKE THE BOUNDARY REVIEW BOARD'S JURISDICTION IN ORDER TO CONSIDER POSSIBLE EXPANSION OF THE PROPOSED ANNEXATION AREA'S BOUNDARIES IF THIS IS JUSTIFIED IN TERMS OF CREATING MORE REASONABLE SERVICE AREAS AND REDUCING THE CITY'S COST IN SERVICING THE AREA; AND AUTHORI7F THE ADMINISTRATION TO PREPARE ORDINANCES FOR FUTURE ANNEXATION AND ZONING CONSISTENT WITH THE COMPREHENSIVE PLAN. CARRIED. ADMINISTRATIVE Chief Administrative Officer Jay Covington reviewed a written administrative REPORT report summarizing the City's recent progress towards goals and work programs adopted as part of its business plan for 2005 and beyond. Items noted included: * Last week, the City of Renton hosted its annual Volunteer Recognition Banquet with over 200 volunteers in attendance. In 2004,nearly 1,900 volunteers contributed nearly 62,000 hours of service. The value of these hours total over$1 million to the City and residents. * Henry Moses Aquatic Center season pass card sales and canopy rental reservations begin on April 11th at the Renton Community Center. The aquatic center opens on June 18th. * The City is seeking volunteers from neighborhoods, schools,businesses, and service clubs to work together on Saturday,April 23rd,to beautify a portion of NE 4th St. in recognition of Arbor Day and Earth Day. AUDIENCE COMMENT Jim Codling,American Power Boat Association Regional Manager, 1123 4th Citizen Comment: Codling- Ave.N.,Kent,98032,indicated that he is a member of the not-for-profit Gene Coulon Park Hydroplane sponsoring club of the hydroplane races at Gene Coulon Memorial Beach Park. Race He described the public safety measures the event organizers have in place for this free event, and noted that the services of the City's public safety personnel are not needed except in the case of an emergency. Since the event organizers are able to provide these services,Mr. Codling requested that the City review its costs associated with the event and provide mitigation. Citizen Comment: Laing- Bill Laing-Malcolmson, 13824 171st Ave. SE,Renton, 98059,stated that he Malcolmson-Gene Coulon and his family enjoy watching the boat races at Gene Coulon Park,appreciates Park Hydroplane Race the fact that the event is free, and wants the event to continue to be held in Renton. Citizen Comment: Crestanello Jim Crestanello,404 Grandey Way NE, Renton,98056,reported that he has -Gene Coulon Park been associated with boat racing for a long time, and he enjoys watching the Hydroplane Race free boat race event at Gene Coulon Park. Citizen Comment: Langlois- Karl Langlois, 10403 126th Ave. SE,Renton, 98056, said Renton is a beautiful Gene Coulon Park Hydroplane elevated venue for a boat race and pointed out that he knows many people who Race enjoy attending the free event. Mr. Langlois stressed that people will find something else to do if they have to pay to attend. April 4,2005 Renton City Council Minutes Page 111 Citizen Comment: Hough- William Hough, 16114 SE 132nd St., Renton, 98059, stated that he and his Gene Coulon Park Hydroplane family enjoy watching boat racing,and he is also a boat driver. Expressing his Race support for the Renton boat race, he noted that many people may not attend the event if there is a charge. Citizen Comment: Nguyen- Viet Nguyen,425 Vine St.,#416, Seattle, 98121, stated that he is the District King County Councilmember Director for Metropolitan King County Councilmember Reagan Dunn (District Dunn District Office, 6),and announced the opening of the council district office in the Renton Maplewood Addition Highlands at 2806 NE Sunset Blvd. Referring to the previous discussion Annexation regarding the Maplewood Addition Annexation, Mr.Nguyen acknowledged that the Fairwood Incorporation and Maplewood Addition Annexation issue is very complex and his office welcomes questions from the public about the issue in efforts to help clear up any misinformation. Citizen Comment: Mann- David Mann, 1424 4th Ave.,#1015, Seattle, 98101, spoke on behalf of Herons Sunset Bluff Preliminary Plat Forever regarding Council's decision on 3/21/2005 concerning the Sunset Bluff Appeal, SR 900 LLC& Preliminary Plat. Pointing out that Council has before them correspondence Herons Forever,PP-04-002 from SR 900 LLC representative David Halinen requesting reconsideration of that decision,Mr.Mann asked that Council not take any action to reconsider its decision. He noted that Council did not deny the plat as Herons Forever recommended, and instead adopted the Hearing Examiner's recommendation and conclusions. While he appreciates Mr.Halinen's suggestion to change the construction season, he stated that the change will adversely affect the herons. Mr. Mann indicated that Herons Forever is prepared to move forward with an appeal to Superior Court. (See page 113 for further discussion on this matter.) Citizen Comment: Baker- Lenny Baker, 20224 81st Ave. W.,Edmonds, 98026, stated that he was Gene Coulon Park Hydroplane surprised at the costs submitted by the City for his organization to hold a Race hydroplane race at Gene Coulon Park. He noted that other cities in which boat races are held have not asked for reimbursement, and many cities use these events as training sessions. Mr.Baker described the safety measures that are employed during the event,expressed his pleasure with holding the boat race in Renton,and pointed out that boat race spectators patronize Renton businesses. He asked that the City reduce or waive the costs associated with the boat race event. In response to Council President Briere's inquiry,Mayor Keolker-Wheeler stated that Council made a decision during budget deliberations to charge full cost for this event. Ms. Briere noted that many of the speakers indicated that the event does not need all the services that the City is charging for. Councilman Clawson explained that Renton is not experiencing budget problems as many other cities are because the City makes sure it is compensated for events such as this. He stated that he stands by his decision to obtain compensation. Councilman Persson expressed his concern regarding the shutting down of the boat launch for the weekend-long boat race event, and noted the impact on residents who want to launch their boats. He also noted that the loss of those boat launch fees is not included in the City's costs. MOVED BY BRIERE, SECONDED BY PERSSON, COUNCIL REFER THE REVIEW OF THE COSTS AND POSSIBLE SERVICES DUPLICATION ASSOCIATED WITH THE BOAT RACE EVENT TO THE ADMINISTRATION.* April 4,2005 Renton City Council Minutes Page 112 Councilman Law stated that the event should be cost neutral to taxpayers. *MOTION CARRIED. CONSENT AGENDA Items on the consent agenda are adopted by one motion which follows the listing. At the request of Councilwoman Palmer, items 8.h. and 8.i. were removed for separate consideration. Council Meeting Minutes of Approval of Council meeting minutes of March 21, 2005. Council concur. March 21, 2005 Court Case: Renton Police Court Case filed on behalf of the Renton Police Officers'Guild by Aaron D. Officers Guild, CRT-05-002 Jeide, Cline&Associates, 999 3rd Ave., Suite 3800, Seattle, 98104, alleging that the City has no legitimate interest in compelling Police Officer Steve Morris to submit to a mental evaluation. Refer to City Attorney and Insurance Services. Annexation: Akers Farms, Economic Development,Neighborhoods and Strategic Planning Department 108th Ave SE& SE 164th St submitted 10%Notice of Intent to annex petition for the proposed Akers Farms Annexation, 13.61 acres located in the vicinity of 108th Ave. SE and SE 164th St., and recommended a public meeting be set on April 18, 2005, to consider the petition. Council concur. Plat: Aspen Woods,Hoquiam Hearing Examiner recommended approval, with conditions,of the Aspen Ave NE,PP-04-143 Woods Preliminary Plat;46 single-family lots on 8.15 acres located at 852 and 864 Hoquiam Ave. NE(PP-04-143). Council concur. Plat: Parklane Court,Lyons Hearing Examiner recommended approval, with conditions,of the Parklane Ave NE,PP-04-142 Court Preliminary Plat; ten single-family lots on 4.3 acres located at the 100 block of Lyons Ave. NE(PP-04-142). Council concur. Police: Domestic Violence Police Department recommended approval of the Edward Byrne Memorial Advocacy Assistance Program, Justice Assistance Grant in the amount of$39,120 to help fund the Domestic Edward Byrne Memorial Violence Advocacy Assistance Program. Council concur. Justice Assistance Grant Lease: Aerodyne Aviation Transportation Systems Division recommended approval of Addendum#11 to Addendum#11, Airport,LAG- LAG-84-006,Airport lease with Aerodyne Aviation, to increase the leased 84-006 square footage. Refer to Transportation(Aviation) Committee. Utility: SW 34th St Culvert Utility Systems Division recommended approval of a contract in the amount of Replacement Design,RW $116,049 with R.W. Beck, Inc. for the SW 34th St. Culvert Replacement Beck Project design. Council concur. Added Item 8.k. Planning/Building/Public Works Department recommended approval of an Public Works: SW 27th St agreement with the Federal Reserve Bank of San Francisco regarding the SW Improvements,Bond Issuance, 27th St.parcel and the stormwater detention parcel, and recommended Federal Reserve Bank authorization to issue$3,000,000 in bonds to pay for the City's share of the SW Agreement 27th St. and Strander Blvd. extension project. Refer to Committee of the Whole. MOVED BY BRIERE, SECONDED BY LAW, COUNCIL APPROVE THE CONSENT AGENDA AS AMENDED TO REMOVE ITEMS 8.h.AND 8.i. FOR SEPARATE CONSIDERATION. CARRIED. Separate Consideration Transportation Systems Division recommended approval of the temporary Item 8.h. street closures of Lake Washington Blvd. NE, in the vicinity of NE 50th St., for Streets: Lake Washington Blvd the Lake Washington Blvd. Slip Plane Project. Closures to take place April 15 NE Temporary Closures through July 15,2005. April 4,2005 Renton City Council Minutes Page 113 MOVED BY PALMER, SECONDED BY BRIERE,COUNCIL CONCUR WITH CONSENT AGENDA ITEM 8.h. AS PRESENTED.* Councilman Persson requested that the detour be well marked on NE 44th St. *MOTION CARRIED. Separate Consideration Transportation Systems Division recommended approval of an ordinance to Item 8.i. increase the Transportation Capital Improvement Fund 317 by$2,382,300 for Transportation: Fund 317 2005 completion of transportation projects in 2005 and to reallocate the funds by Increase and Reallocation project. MOVED BY PALMER, SECONDED BY BRIERE,COUNCIL REFER CONSENT AGENDA ITEM 8.i. TO THE TRANSPORTATION(AVIATION) COMMITTEE. CARRIED. RECESS MOVED BY CLAWSON, SECONDED BY LAW, COUNCIL RECESS FOR FIVE MINUTES. CARRIED. Time: 9:10 p.m. The meeting reconvened at 9:16 p.m.;roll was called; all Councilmembers present except Nelson and Corman,previously excused. CORRESPONDENCE Two items of correspondence were read from Suzanne Krom,Herons Forever Citizen Comment: Krom- President,PO Box 16155, Seattle,98116, suggesting changes to the City's Critical Areas Ordinance proposed critical areas ordinance, including incorporation of the 1995 Harza fish study and report recommendations,referring to bulkheads as having negative environmental impacts, and P-1 pond dredging issues. Citizen Comment: Pace - Correspondence was read from Sam Pace, Seattle-King County Association of Critical Areas Ordinance Realtors,29839 154th Ave. SE, Kent, 98042,regarding the City's proposed critical areas ordinance. The correspondence also includes information prepared for the City of Kent pertaining to its critical areas updates. Citizen Comment: Various - Correspondence was read from: Joyce Ray, 201 Union Ave. SE,#101,Renton, Utility Taxes on Utility Bills 98059; Shirley Arthalony,201 Union Ave. SE,#35,Renton,98059; Renee Vandemaele, 201 Union Ave. SE,#250,Renton,98059; Connie Duncan, 201 Leisure Estates SE,#228,Renton,98059;Jean Webb,201 Union Ave. SE, #248,Renton,98059;Edie-Mae Lawyer,201 Union Ave. SE,#20,Renton, 98059;Eugene Olson, 201 Union Ave. SE,#233,Renton,98059;Jo Ann Olson,201 Union Ave. SE,#233,Renton, 98059; Sandel DeMastus, 1137 Harrington Ave.NE,Renton, 98056; and Wyona M. Moser, 201 Union Ave. SE,#160,Renton,98059; all asking for the removal or reduction of utility taxes on senior and disabled citizen utility bills. MOVED BY BRIERE, SECONDED BY CLAWSON, COUNCIL REFER THIS CORRESPONDENCE TO THE ADMINISTRATION. CARRIED. Added Correspondence was read from David L. Halinen,Halinen Law Offices P.S., Citizen Comment: Halinen- 10500 NE 8th St., Suite 1900,Bellevue, 98004,on behalf of the applicant SR Sunset Bluff Preliminary Plat 900 LLC,requesting reconsideration of Council's decision on 3/21/2005 Appeal,SR 900 LLC& regarding conditions of approval#2 and#3 for the Sunset Bluff Preliminary Herons Forever,PP-04-002 Plat. MOVED BY CLAWSON, SECONDED BY LAW,COUNCIL SUSPEND THE RULES AND ADVANCE TO AUDIENCE COMMENT. CARRIED. April 4,2005 Renton City Council Minutes Page 114 AUDIENCE COMMENT Mr.Halinen, author of the aforementioned correspondence, explained that the Citizen Comment: Halinen- requested change to condition#2 shortens the period within which forest Sunset Bluff Preliminary Plat clearing and hillside grading cannot occur(January 15th-July 31st to January Appeal, SR 900 LLC& 15th-June 30th), thus allowing a one-month longer construction season. He Herons Forever,PP-04-002 further requested that condition#3 be changed from stating: "The applicant shall not use any agents to dry or stabilize the soils that would alter the pH of the soils." to "The applicant shall not use soil amendments to achieve compaction standards that would alter the pH of the site's soils without the State of Washington Department of Ecology's prior approval of Best Management Practices for the particular soil amendments to be used." Continuing, Mr. Halinen commented on the following: the previous Sunset Bluff project appeal in which Council reversed the Hearing Examiner's decision to require an EIS (Environmental Impact Statement); the applicant's view that the record does not support seasonal timing limitations on construction; and the fact that this project would not fall under seasonal construction limitations if it were located in King County. Mr. Halinen pointed out that if Council agreed to change these two conditions now, the applicant would not appeal any of the project's conditions of approval to Superior Court. Citizen Comment: Merlino- Don Merlino, 1915 Maple Valley Hwy.,Renton, 98055, stated that he is the Sunset Bluff Preliminary Plat owner and contractor of the Sunset Bluff project, and explained that the project Appeal, SR 900 LLC& requires a large amount of excavation, embankment compaction, and clearing. Herons Forever,PP-04-002 He expressed his unhappiness with the current restriction on the length of the construction season, and emphasized that the requested change is to everyone's advantage in that it will reduce the number of construction seasons. Councilman Clawson stated that he wants more time to review the matter, and explained that this can be accomplished by the making of a motion to reconsider and then a motion to postpone the reconsideration until the next Council meeting. Assistant City Attorney Zanetta Fontes noted that the deadline for filing an appeal under the Land Use Petition Act(LUPA)in Superior Court for SR 900 LLC and Herons Forever is next Monday. Pointing out that there are a number of legal issues to consider including permit requirements and construction season limitations,Ms. Fontes indicated that it may be beneficial to have more time to review the matter. She affirmed that Council's options include: reconsider the matter this evening,postpone reconsideration until next week, or not reconsider the matter at all. In response to Councilman Clawson's inquiry regarding the timing of the appeals and the reconsideration,Ms. Fontes noted that the parties can voluntarily withdraw their LUPA appeals. Citizen Comment: Mann - David Mann, 1424 4th Ave.,#1015, Seattle, 98101,representing Herons Sunset Bluff Preliminary Plat Forever, asked that Council not use the LUPA appeal filing deadline as a reason Appeal, SR 900 LLC& to forgo further review of the matter. Herons Forever,PP-04-002 MOVED BY LAW, SECONDED BY BRIERE,COUNCIL RECONSIDER CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL#2 AND#3 OF THE COUNCIL'S DECISION (3/21/2005)ON THE SUNSET BLUFF PRELIMINARY PLAT.* mew April 4,2005 Renton City Council Minutes Page 115 *MOVED BY CLAWSON, SECONDED BY PERSSON, COUNCIL POSTPONE ITS DECISION ON THE MOTION TO RECONSIDER UNTIL THE NEXT REGULARLY SCHEDULED COUNCIL MEETING(4/11/2005). CARRIED. Responding to Council President Briere's inquiry regarding additional information, Ms.Fontes stated that Council is working from the record. Councilman Clawson and the Mayor also inquired as to the scope of the record and Council's options if it decides to reconsider the motion. Ms. Fontes stated that she will review the issues and report back to Council. UNFINISHED BUSINESS Finance Committee Chair Persson presented a report recommending approval Finance Committee of Claim Vouchers 235731 -236174 and four wire transfers totaling Finance: Vouchers $3,168,991.28; and approval of Payroll Vouchers 56349 -56581, one wire transfer, and 571 direct deposits totaling$1,843,096.57. MOVED BY PERSSON, SECONDED BY LAW,COUNCIL CONCUR IN THE COMMITTEE REPORT. CARRIED. Municipal Court: Collection Finance Committee Chair Persson presented a report recommending Services,AllianceOne concurrence in the staff recommendation to authorize the Mayor and City Clerk Receivables Management to sign the agreement for collection services with AllianceOne Receivables Management,Inc. MOVED BY PERSSON, SECONDED BY LAW, COUNCIL CONCUR IN THE COMMITTEE REPORT. CARRIED. EDNSP: Hotel/Motel Tax Finance Committee Chair Persson presented a report regarding the 2005 Renton Revenue Allocation to Renton Visitors Connection tourism marketing campaign funding. The Committee Visitors Connection, Chamber recommended concurrence in the staff recommendation to approve the contract of Commerce Contract with the Greater Renton Chamber of Commerce for a sixth year of the Renton Visitors Connection for its tourism marketing campaign, and allocate $116,000 of lodging tax collections toward that effort. The Renton Visitors Connection will provide oversight of the work program through regular meetings. The Committee further recommended that the Mayor and City Clerk be authorized to sign the contract. At the end of the year,the Chamber will submit to the Lodging Tax Advisory Committee a detailed financial report and include copies of all printed advertising material. MOVED BY PERSSON,SECONDED BY LAW, COUNCIL CONCUR IN THE COMMITTEE REPORT. CARRIED. RESOLUTIONS AND The following ordinances were presented for second and final reading and ORDINANCES adoption: Ordinance#5130 An ordinance was read amending Chapter 5-1,Fee Schedule,of Title V Community Services: Henry (Finance and Business Regulations) of City Code by setting Henry Moses Moses Aquatic Center Fees Aquatic Center pass card rates and canopy rental fees. MOVED BY LAW, SECONDED BY PALMER, COUNCIL ADOPT THE ORDINANCE AS READ. ROLL CALL: ALL AYES. CARRIED. Ordinance#5131 An ordinance was read amending Section 9-10-11 of Chapter 10, Street Development Services: Trench Excavations, of Title IX,Public Ways and Property, of City Code by revising Restoration &Street Overlay trench restoration and street overlay requirements. MOVED BY PERSSON, Requirements SECONDED BY PALMER, COUNCIL ADOPT THE ORDINANCE AS READ. ROLL CALL: ALL AYES. CARRIED. Ordinance#5132 An ordinance was read amending Chapter 4-2,Zoning Districts-Uses and Planning: R-1 Zone Standards,Chapter 4-3,Environmental Regulations and Overlay Districts, Community Separators Chapter 4-4, Citywide Property Development Standards, Chapter 4-6,Street and Utility Standards,and Chapter 4-11,Definitions, of Title IV (Development April 4,2005 Renton City Council Minutes Page 116 Regulations)of City Code to amend the R-1 residential low density zone in order to regulate clustered development and create an urban separator overlay designation. MOVED BY CLAWSON, SECONDED BY LAW, COUNCIL ADOPT THE ORDINANCE AS READ. ROLL CALL: ALL AYES. CARRIED. NEW BUSINESS Council President Briere announced that Council will tour the Broodstock Council: Broodstock Collection Facility area on April 19th, at 9:00 a.m. She noted that this is a tour Collection Facility Tour, for observation purposes only, and no public comment will be taken. 4/19/2005 AUDIENCE COMMENT Andrew Duffus, 9605 143rd Ave. SE, Renton, 98059, thanked Council for Citizen Comment: Duffus - adopting the ordinance regarding the R-1 zone community separators, and R-1 Zone Community pointed out that there will now be a permanent urban greenbelt in May Valley Separators that will be a legacy for the City. ADJOURNMENT MOVED BY PERSSON,SECONDED BY LAW, COUNCIL ADJOURN. CARRIED. Time: 9:54- / p.m. )661444A-t:Si t!/a,— Bonnie I.Walton,CMC, City Clerk Recorder: Michele Neumann April 4, 2005 RENTON CITY COUNCIL COMMITTEE MEETING CALENDAR Office of the City Clerk COUNCIL COMMITTEE MEETINGS SCHEDULED AT CITY COUNCIL MEETING April 4,2005 COMMITTEE/CHAIRMAN DATE/TIME AGENDA COMMITTEE OF THE WHOLE MON.,4/11 Council Vacancy Policy#800-10 (Briere) 6:30 p.m. *Council Conference Room* Approximately Federal Reserve Bank Agreement 7:00 p.m. Regarding 27th St. Stormwater Detention Parcel *Council Chambers* COMMUNITY SERVICES MON.,4/11 CANCET.T.ED (Nelson) FINANCE MON., 4/11 Vouchers; (Persson) 5:30 p.m. Lease Amendment with Eoscene for 4th & 6th Floors of 200 Mill Building PLANNING &DEVELOPMENT THURS., 4/07 McLendon Hardware Alley Vacation (Clawson) 1:45 p.m. Compensation *Council Conference Room* 2:00 p.m. Amberwood Phase II Preliminary Plat Appeal; Park Place Preliminary Plat Appeal *Council Chambers* PUBLIC SAFETY (Law) TRANSPORTATION (AVIATION) THURS.,4/07 Aerodyne Aviation Lease Addendum; (Palmer) 3:00 p.m. Transportation Capital Improvement Fund 317 Increase &Reallocation UTILITIES THURS.,4/07 Garbage Ordinance (Corman) 4:00 p.m. NOTE: Committee of the Whole meetings are held in the Council Chambers. All other committee meetings are held in the Council Conference Room unless otherwise noted. �► �3 CITY OF RENTON Mayor Kathy Keolker-Wheeler p rociami,ca-tcyn. Whereat; the management of records and information is critical to every business, organization, and government agency in facing the complexities of competition, customer service, and globalization; and Whereat; technologies for storing information are expanding the amounts of information that can be acquired, with increased longevity; and Whereat; the need to use information to create value and plan strategically is a driving force in today's world; and W he rec , control of records and information is necessary for reduction of risk and liability as well as for compliance with global standards; Now, 7Jherejore% I, Kathy Keolker-Wheeler, Mayor of the City of Renton, do*itse proclaim April 2005 to be e,crd/k c I nfo-rin tC lAcunag-ovn,ovitPlo-nthi in the City of Renton. I encourage all citizens to recognize the important service performed by records and information professionals and 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 4th day of April, 2005. -eatg454A -bdt.42.12.-1 Kathy Ke ker-Wheeler Mayor of the City of Renton, Washington va R4j` 1055 South Grady Way-Renton,Washington 98055-(425)430-6500/FAX(425)430-6523 RENTON ®This paper contains 50%recycled material,30%post consumer AHEAD OF THE CURVE `�FNTO� City of Renton PUBLIC INFORMATION HANDOUT April 4, 2005 STREET VACATION PETITION VAC-05-001 For additional information, please contact: Karen McFarland; City of Renton Technical Services 425.430.7209 DESCRIPTION: The City Council will hear a proposal requesting the vacation of a portion of N 14th Street east of Lake Washington Blvd N and Gene Coulon Beach Park. The requested vacation area is approximately 300' in length and 30' in width and is shown on the accompanying map exhibit. RECOMMENDATION: The Planning/Building/Public Works Department recommends that Council approve the request to vacate the right-of-way. SUMMARY: A vacation petition was received on January 24, 2005, from Matt Pool on behalf of Pool Brothers Construction, LLC. City Code requires that more than two-thirds (2/3) of the owners whose property abuts the right-of-way to be vacated must sign the petition. One- hundred percent (100%) of the abutting property owners have signed this petition. The portion of right-of-way included in this petition was dedicated as Morgan Avenue in the plat of CD Hillman's Lake Washington Garden of Eden Addition to Seattle No. 5 on October 21, 1904. This street has never been opened and thus, to date, no City funds have been spent to acquire or maintain any of the requested right-of-way. Furthermore, there are no City- owned facilities in the area of this vacation petition. The requested vacation area would be used in a café and office development on the adjoining site and would allow for superior development of the site. The petitioner also believes that this vacation would allow for the area to be more attractively landscaped and thus, ultimately produce a development more consistent with the City's vision of the lakefront area. None of the City Departments surveyed have objections to the vacation. As established by RCW 35.79.030, the vacation petition, if granted, must be approved by the City Council through ordinance after a public hearing is held. The City shall receive compensation in accordance with RCW 35.79.030 for the vacated right-of-way. The ordinance shall be recorded with King County once it is in effect. x Exhibit A Street Vacation VAC-05-001 Petitioner: Pool Brothers Construction, LLC 3 r I-405 co* co I. lit . d vtto et0 j/ tG Ilk._a I' Gene Coulon5‘f Beach Park N. 14th St. ��`�`\� Vacation Request iwllr __mgaiiiii Vicinity Map - ... " r•: ft f 0 .. . L _ . .. Lake... _ ... .. ._. . T,,,',_ r i. t. -sal ' 0 200 400 Washington Ittim = ---- EE ii I II? i isliiiil : iisiiii :;: - - - Gene / i 1: -c 1 :2400 `.. .. +�coulon `o' r__. t� :► Technical Services -- VYr. N iNik � w- PlanaBuildins/Publlc Yorke - K. McFarland WFeb. 25, 2005 -(\ �0151..' Public Hearing on STREET VACATION PETITION VAC~ 05 - 001 April 4, 2005 RENTON J-Jj :Es z r:44 0 U O LOCATION . _ 1/111‘aw 4110P- , _ _ _ I. -_ 1: MITI • Gene— .., _ __� Coulon I I- ■r Beach ME Park S,Q o cr • 7 AA Vii = 5 C-. 0i 1 :y Aitit Z -- ---------- - -I Lake WA Blvd N 0 p toi U 0 '^, 7. . a,' at , ,t i. : a 7.1 17i." '.4"E ," jL +''7 y7 ' `.0�7 1{ �'' y, "tag``a: ,�s ^'z.. ,s + r ,h 4;d'r ei . f f s xY�: � sem" +x''"ia'. • � �oat��x`�Y � ' � � Y," 3 q f �� `fY^"t �'�,,�"uf` �`y K 4 t';g t 'u�",r'k' ,S'i �lt,,x - - .a:< '3dxP,a�51 .• :.: 'Tn?I`" .. 'Jffi't5M ., a' ..r�> .. ea ".&s Y. �, v;�. ",,;„Y_ "�s*�•s't F�%6n *�i+S„ L i aeya.� s a....�ra.}a•.3 .s»�•,x, "a.«.�,..a.N �`_s x. •.. '; 4 s," d^x. ,x," +a.d..". ,°, • a ; ty� i� • i tea J� � •� ��v ` >i f y,f• sC a it 3�S Fx d# t3d tv� 44' � t3 �i,f aSaA�x�s X� ��E .°�'+" sad ai la} Sr r;,tit xj f ,x Js''v7s��t> ' rb rr' { t�✓ f Y��it�ttr'"., :n .-r �, v4 1 t 'x S a +'S xs' } ia,'1'r ." s+"'V e '- S 7•tY.7 s 4�{ ^'S a,`�;k.�€.�Yr.". >n .S M�r,..<s,.,, ..f.r,�»,5>rk��s ��r':.M'�r.:5�s.-b..b�t��T�`kt�...��.L.�6.<><,a^�w�v�„4�,S.nsrsit4� ».«:y.?�r.�.,•r�. �•.�";r.Z,.aa�«1s.'��h.`�....� <,�'+.,x� ,.�k NOLLVJO'T[ BACKGROUND • Petition received January 2005 • Pursuant to State and City Code, more than 2 / 3 of the abutting owners must sign the petition • 100% of abutting owners have signed BACKGROUND • Right- of-way dedicated in the plat of CD Hillman's Lake Washington Garden of Eden No. 5 on October 21 , 1904 . • Currently: There are NO City facilities in the right-of- way. PUBLIC BENEFIT • Request associated with the proposed café and office development on the adjoining site. • According to the petitioner, the public benefit would be to create a Larger lot allowing for the site to be more attractively Landscaped and developed in a manner more consistent with the City's vision of the lakefront area. RESEARCH / SURVEY • Vacation request was circulated to various City departments and outside agencies for review • No objections were raised RESEARCH / SURVEY Outside Agency Review Comments • QWEST and PSE have no facilities in the requested vacation area and have indicated that no easement is needed. • To date, Comcast and Electric Lightwave have not responded to the City's request for comments RECO1VIMENDATION The Planning/Building/Public Works Department recommends that Council approve the request to vacate the requested right-of-way. NEXT STEPS If Council approves this vacation petition: • Petitioner orders and submits an appraisal • Staff reviews the appraisal and returns to Council so that compensation can be set RECOMMENDATION The Planning/Building/Public Works Department recommends that Council approve the request to vacate the requested right-of-way. r' (VI O U N� *ow MAPLEWOOD ADDITION ANNEXATION PUBLIC HEARING CONSIDERATION OF 60% PETITION TO ANNEX, FUTURE ZONING,AND TRANSMITTAL OF NOTICE OF INTENT TO THE BOUNDARY REVIEW BOARD FOR KING COUNTY April 4, 2005 The City is in receipt of a 60% Direct Petition to Annex from property owners in the proposed Maplewood Addition Annexation area. This petition has been certified by the King County Department of Assessments as having signatures representing 60% or more of the area's assessed value. The subject 60.5-acre site is within Renton's Potential Annexation Area and is bounded on the north by the Renton—Maple Valley Road (SR-169), and on the west, south and east by the Cedar River. Renton abuts the annexation site on its north, west and a portion of its southern boundary, and unincorporated King County abuts it on its eastern, and a portion of its southern, boundary (see back of this handout). There currently are 161 single-family detached dwellings within it. Tonight's public hearing is first of two required to consider zoning on the site if it is annexed into the City. Currently, the subject site has King County's R-4 zoning and, upon annexation, would likely be zoned Renton's R-8 zone, consistent with the City's current Comprehensive Plan Land Use Map designation. The City, however, is processing a Comprehensive Plan Amendment, this year, that would change the land use map designation for this area from RS, Residential Single Family to RLD, Residential Low Density. If this amendment is successful later this year, R-4 zoning, which is more consistent with the area's existing density of approximately 3.3 units per net acre,would be applied to the annexation site. A previous public meeting on this proposed annexation was held on December 20, 2004 to consider the 10%Notice of Intent to Commence Annexation petition. Reviewing departments of the City, at that time, while not opposing this annexation did raise concerns about deficiencies in infrastructure that will eventually have to be addressed by the area's residents. If the Council decides to accept the 60%Petition to Annex, it will typically: 1. Authorize the Administration to forward the Notice of Intent package to the Boundary Review Board for King County; and, 2. Authorize the Administration to begin preparing ordinances for future zoning and effectuation of the annexation. The Administration is recommending that Council accept the certified 60% Petition to Annex and authorize it to transmit the Notice of Intent Package to the Boundary Review Board. It is Now also asking for the authority to begin preparing ordinances for future zoning, consistent with the Comprehensive Plan, and for acceptance of the annexation itself. Council Hearing Handout 01-12-04.doc\ • .., , - 7,11.1''''.'i,k4gis,,t;..,,ii,v. #,:vilm".1.,,,,,,,,::%‘7.„—. ...,,‘,:'*''r,t_'';:-.T1,xi,;'‘'c4.4:.;..„'''c'''''',.,I,,:.i:..;t,li.,.!::!:rk-'1/2,..,;iitkf'-.,'',..,,,,7A„iH..„.,4,:,!Z,..;4v'k:-:;.•'.',,.. .,,,,,,...,,: - ...,--." . ,_,,,,„„Tmou,, ,,,_-- . . . ---'7'.7i7-741 ,4 -4416,,,,di,:,-',' ',4'440';':'''-."'-.:0?4. ,� ...„,,,,,tmv,;,,,,::„.„..:...,,Nc.......,...t:.„... ,,,,,,,, .,, Ar...: ,,,,- � ros n -r `'`. .,,.,, � loliti � .rte F ':',„‘;‘,,,, :r.:''''''',.,-ilirtVallikl. ',,,.,'••'-e-.4.-i-',.. ''''' ..i.':';11.-1..,: - 'f 4:','-.;..;70,v,EVIA. 'z...e•-,,-.0!-;.:,,7-,,i,-,r,-;'•,,,x‘..•,7,,,,k,-,,t's74,7,-f-q.--•- :' -.",:-.91-.7.-.,,,, ,- , ' -, ,,,,,,•• --„,„:„./z-- - CD C. 00 _ .„,,,,,,,-,,,,..„. .,. _ li,,,,,;-f.„--.111 ,ir , :,40,.:-.\'' — '.:' i ''''' ' . . ' - ''''''' ''' ' o 6. h. ' , i 5 w +2lft - n1L1M .t "iuh .a � • .�n, • .' �. a • I ,n es 1 r 1� ii �f r 1� t..+� 2 ' t 'r �a."'•�,.d'}.-,r Ar 'h;r _ ra :'r • ��+,,�. '^� ')A,:tta' ts,;..�'"`v �„ `°. ,� .'$:-::.1.''',:',.'- S, ... .'::-.-...:','•-',:. . ., f� 1'.. � y". • - ," .�g+��'� ��,�'@ �ti ?+.r-... � ftg'''')..16:.4'` ' t• �� '� � � �3� r; e f 4 €�Fw � .',y 411, r..,� r1�' �" ''''''''''A'I'' t IiE!?!' tsr �To-k> �r j m r �, tt ,lt ,g r� ,*' 7 '�'«, i', s y.,t5 if 5+m a �' i.�''x` r � 7 • •p.' i:,, t2 y^s r -„ �.r`e „f:-.,,,,---.7‘ u .{: 1.i'.4 I''uM aY , '” @ 1 ',',u'f,m '.':}Y� S •'�D s}y'x `�"� M �B;. r' S !'" 4- �� N� � ' t��.-3�� t v��try'�`��i" � ti•f�^�� .,-...F,:4„...-.,--7- � �'(� a�,��a ` � � �'��`�� z � 4' .. "�fr'� ' ...� 'Qo Ynu.. dii ., .. ., fag ti ,,, ,.• � t t'G.- �.,,wy,�a amu, 'W»ta 2 ,- � � T✓' t"f;. ,� i 6;i d'j..,,,"i` ,� 1 --.1,-;7,,i,'.:--,..;,,,,-.., b,.. -,:4,-,-E,..,-,,..,,,,,;:-.4,-- h : dl a� a,,c y'k ..._ �+ ';4, " 'y L�lit�" a�5` . :i.i il'rr�7t ', v'"- .•r,''z. hs `"tY.;"-r s' 'F '.�'+'. to� P"`. �'� .+., ' +'�r uWi T��. .. ' ry t '• �`�,7,,r 'n, A � ..:.,� 'z„4"'w i -.r ..k� ,. iw; -, a d w =i 1`r. amu a�@ v d � �' � � �'Ka. � �.. .. . .� e�@t IIf� �t�a {1�� ' 'C� �',�{'' ,,,,� E , ..,x-'` `'�s.�., P k� �"u�`S �i,� = ��""` .., f-'��-;$j�, r,•,,,,14.... r ti V ,,,r��'�,r '.; �3. ,z � �., i, wN• 4f " i �'` �'�f �'��.�.,. � � 1.•:.:-,: ":41.,"-::,,,.'4.',"!!,:.. .':-.:;'-'. .§ �� :`� � � .121E*hr� ,,al i' C' r. • ' a � .47:1' , �� * �' til�49t p� `+��" �t '` -� • - .��'4., €` �r `\ �+ r ry2� 14,ik g � �1 t FSS "a. �.�r3,l ;r \h-0, ,: /, ylaplewood Addition Annexation 4 Publi(. Hearing to Consider 60 Petition to Annex and Future Zoning -loin 4.2005 1 : Doty cr a ,—,• \`£.`- i " :`,7:tt """"" Background L�, „- „bit .- \ + -,• .• w... .., • Resident Oit i 0 petition to commence s.m . ; ,�x anne'atioui proceeding;on December K 20u4 ;i11-'' d 20"`- • Counciheld public meeting nth proponents and !Park Terrace ", rnnhoniod circulation oft 60°o Direct Petition to,fim «i� Ent A� (w,, ' anney on lanuari 10.2005 t-- - i t,Llnannit- rr 2,., a a<1 •'i ' '- 717- • ii.\ reecn,ed oii`'n Direct Petition to Annex on \larch „� " 4 •'l I C -005 sio . ti, i-. y t • • ( iix teceived nonce that Countx Dept of Assessment, t��1 i� 1 had cerlitied the penton on ylarch iI) 2005 4'('.b"•'.'�' Into. sem. - At tonight*,meeting Council it must dee ids x~,hether to I accept the(Ai'''.Direct Petition to Annex and it it 7i1. • � n � d. ,.Vt hither to authonie the Administration to �,�; r • fon and the Notice of Intent package to the BRB Existing.. Conditions Existing Conditions • PA 1-V%'thin Rct •is Potential Annexation • .Annexation area included in proposed Fairisood Arai IncomorUon • Location South of\1apleg000d(iolt Course • Lur000d proponents file 10'„incorporation on betxvicen SE Renton Alaple Vallex Highway poition on February 1.2005 and the Cedar Rix or • yU-dai vt ind.ni, to file Notice of Intent Package to • Siic 6115 acres.including abutting SR lb') Annex s ith the BRB closes Max. I._2005 ROVi, • Failure to meet 90-dax window tiould preclude • Uses- 101 single-famiidwellings future annexation to Renton if Fairs+ood incorporation is successful • Boundaries-site abuts Renton on its north.xi est and porion of its southern boundary 1 41111.0010111111111111111111111111111111111, -.• -w-.,•A im...„ - ,..$A,F.,i„,-„...,177.,1 1 . i) - f \..1 7T-'-; /:,-73,71P`-\ ,-Nz,_----,ty.„„ i. ,_.. .2.4,,,f......„2. v r---__.,,,;, -...---,-„,,,,, ,-. ......;„: .,,t-Itk--,,- '..-, -,-.-:---:-..-4,-,#0,.........,,,,..,,,,--,..,:,,, /,' \ *,J,,:•-------- ___ i . , —10,440404%k .. --------A, .,4•L'-.• r 011*111*. '-, ''' if../..e0..-.:„-t-,J / , L.". . , 1 -.. ------ V —' ", . !'", '-,- •,...-1,, ,;.• 1 -e.,, ,,:,"'...P•i ' '. "'''.. .'' • '' .4.'.;:i. •' ': %,•;foii".•O''''.V."4,P,, If-'' s':41‘*.'i / ;i0",,,S.iv•ii.,,..44,, -., - (...,,, Nito 44‘,A,, ..--. ,.*.ite _, -.0.4b...*,-,,,, .....„...E„:„.„,j / -----\ r, -4k7p.:-.14-•-,),,,--:. •-... / --, _ --, ,, ,,„ .,-,-, - -'.',- - -- -. 4,..,.....r.,, ,,_''';;;I:::'`ic1/2 ::.47''''1'...P:4• f::.,s'nf..4, %:,'V.!.i rk-?,,pf / ------ i ; -' .t'P't't.-'-Vi.T.''.. , "**- -rP.47A9,:f...".,•',.,',-.1.',' ' '.. -.',,, .... • •N ._ _ //,r.\ ,•;t4:14.,f,;':''..; '''''' :\;-.'r. * '•••';',''';•:4-i.1.47-<;14)r ' -''' ''' ',4',.'.: \ ;$4,;:,4,,,,I.',;:.;',,- ,. . "„,,. , ,-.•,-.•,,...s ',...• ::, ,., "`,,:,, '.416' -A'. \ \ _ \ \ . I iik'L. ..,,4.:%.*- - . .,-.:;.:*;:;..4. , 0., , ..4'..„;,h.,,,NI,L. -._"„ ..14;i4,12 , \, ,--t-• \ Proposed Maplewood Addition Annexation -,...._- Pr000sed Maplewood Addition Annexation , ,,,, ,,,,,, --. •••-•• I &MO ' • . ..1q#74--tt.,,-..,'N.,., - . ..•,-.,4y..,,,,.., , . .... - ..„, . . .4, - , • 1 $11' :...,,. ' • . ,. . ..-. -•,..• V„ • '• . - .,. Villa Itite •',...ri, .---a Ulk • et....1`1,--.4,„,„* ' - . I ! '..,'•'' • ,aliolWr''-'- ' i . 'A's. '•1;4;:fk.f'''''","..-:• ' . . . .•• -, .1 ,,1,,i I-i •.!,...,1 '•- .> I - Y —__ ‘.\ '''.• 46...• , -- \\1;''''' r:•":110-^"` '' Existing Conditions - 1r -- \ • ,\ .7%.** Environmental ..- . p .04,,,,, .,, , \ ,• 7i • /..,, 0. ,.. .4.4,70. „.-- l•,. ,exio 6 4ti .,4, / • i muiizraph%-,..,:ntiall% --, i 4.- ••• .0. .....0-1'41 ----r. - ••/ ylle?%eV -•,--,____::' ---- : :i/0 I ...L.A ..400. greVii , , - , 4:it''.vow, • :ii‘ironmental constraint% ..,,,, -4-1. k$1, . . rA 411. t;,,,,, , ls — ,--- - ,int.Ltih, i,hide-11•;,\kith - i:44-4!,-. A,,j 'J.; to.rt.. * ,/,.. ... ,, , , , , _ i_ __ - - .14 ,1- A.- - 1\ " .— " -" •-ir \'' .- '...-, t•-•••• % ot'-il 14. titreei.t%locat,:d iii J. R xsithin ti., flood!ward ihow, 0; -i 't ''' houndw.„. , _ , 01, , . • , _ ,N .. - nlProposed Maplewood Addition Annexation (., ,O• IOW ad sE ',1" citt. ---..— -- ...- .- .-1..... 1 -.-., ..-c..- - .....„ 2 dr1,imam uolu+a-N,344111 4 del%as l purl nmd dal())uulu.+tl-;1.11M i ?-.:,: .J,r In rip 1 ;to s°r a -� V/ >. � nU•u>� �U n,ol n.oi1 � r.: slu.(1.r>i t t Nut one lawnPtl t21 .- 1 1 t1 ''.,`-.:-.0';. um07 it 1.10111'11731,r ,. '"' "; *Al uoiu'J �1np11 alyl.x,d �1: �� 1s1� ,1 I UIy t I,u.... , 1 � uo t J �[)i1rtA.•l �' .101 i r 1 t ¢ S ii ��` 'z,.y �, purl�t^I{ si UN).ld-.,�t) yuuri allms Rc II . tt 1,111_1,111 ) w ,.' a` lreuplsa-7.ei (JJJP au npi) 1t iis it, , r- 451 `�r�ypuri ueId duw-1 u uua2l .4 - W 3,. Uonr\alllll' �w-Z-1AA •:_ uoJ Il auIuoz uolun1 . . - :1 ay I. JI15, al.‘; 731.11110Z ie9.ua1od put 3uluo2 1tilualod put uot1tu tsau Osii put- uoluali uolltuftsac as putt uoiu2}1 dr15 iumo/umm)fury-y a.mili I `ll >iluolU multi aunnrlyo ul.sIglssod'put 50 l •._I ' 1''x, 1 �� '"'S In uogrlulol 041 u1 iva4115155r pino0 SII-)s,11111in e ,L ..r+ co.)of 11;,\00,1 M asooga CIlrnlua ra s-luaplsil l l (-tral ill np 61 ant:S.0.1,np 9 -y� uollc`,auula uodn 1?\\,-.K 01,Ildas lural 1-la.woa ` '9-a- `uluoZ 5111110) lu uiN 01 sopls,.1 salmbal m41 uultlloU SI014 0 !laplvold 441 :,:)15.10,...:.1,-.,w,. a 1 U Is21 al 1 SI U01Ua t SI1ot I Jr np ZI-t-IP11u,p1SJi1P 1 ! 1 21 f l It Vat urs J 4 4 F 1 l 110!11 u.I,a(1 youruittualap snit sayriu'\11,)0111 1011 urld d100) 1111410)auly ,_ 1404 llilra(.t luno) aluu slot it ra1r,uogau r� ur 041 uI sats1 andas u„our 00 aj21 0.041 nUTUO2 aUI1sIXpUt uotltu isaQ asn put .�1unop sat.titas Mind 01 pairvIi sanssi (r r3 } a6ue:;U IOL,pnom sauepunog- la,,a sso4•anssl 11C st amssa.id.IaII'.vv alrnbap f k, ';:a✓' Icu,s a Icc4os UOIUSH w4IIM- slOOyD$ • • .�z:10uIsiu ioj saal.u.las asagl to.1,71 sold IuaJJna17:1- uoilexauue jo asneoeq ND sl U ND .71.71111,.71.71111,J 1s a1iue4a lou pino vv aol Jas ail i ! � I paJmw - baJ s�aoas/o a6ue4o ON cIl m41L0121 5�0121)040 01 ulu anloa 411'' ,�_i eaJ''aolNas Jamas II 1)f, o\10ulsln olid-210.121.10.1-laps\old 001\.las galeas Aq s UPS't I anU10tro IOU sI a si palruolsap 51 a.vle.Iadoo.l.Ia1r. poo tvaldrl�; 'pt 11 Inc;Jamas hq pan as�;luaJJno sI a11S 13,,Isp Jalem luapuadapu ue angeJadoco JaleM poomaldelnl p0Jlnb_J IOU st_OI Alas 1012151-All.)OS 21x1V-a0l uas ay;Aq papinoid si 001/U9S Ja1eM- yIIjII1 Jal21 h paleu1Isap s uoluay UI IOU sI rOJV- saM11411 • i 51,0 41m Ioe.luoo Japun saat.l.tas alland 01 pa1t[a 1 sanssJ sl10uls1a46noJy1ao!AJasaJlj-ailj saat.uas ovind - suolupuoJ 3utlsix3 Relevant Boundary Review Fiscal Impact Analysis Board Objectives • General Fund cost and revenue implications • Preserx anon of natural neighborhoods and Assumes 161 existing single-family homes in area commmiities no chunge to neighborhood rennin • E se of physical boundaries. including but not limited Assumes current average assessed x alue of S 191.560 to bodies of water.highways,and land contours uses 6„th Cedar Rhee and llaph, I allrt'110714see' Annual Estimated Fiscal Impact-S40,104 cost to City per:sear in 21105 dollars • Creation and preservation of logical sen ice areas dn'c not chanCset/song srrrirc anus h01lnatir/C, • !fall propertx ow ners decide to upgrade to sewer g u'uts'r disn ret.schoo/thcfrIc1, sewer seri ire .\x erage assessed s glue likely increases to+5207,000 dr�n ret or fire pre°i'ewrk�n Teri ice prot x/er Annual Estimated Fiscal Impact to City after upgrade • Prevention of abnorinallx irregular boundanes- is reduced to 535.386 cost per year hounLiar:esair eizul rr and ioarstc°nt frith Retuon'� P.1.-1 Conclusion Conclusion, continued • ay.Renton's designated Potential • Adequate lexcl of parks alread, exist in I emits Annexation Area • Flood control likely to be costic and ongoing • licncrall, consistent with F'its policies for annexation challenge �� • Agino infrastructure oises a challenge for • Proba�Ic R-8 zimtng a consistent cath cunent Comp P� t Plan.RS land use'designation residents • L arer than nonnal annual subsidy required to • Proposed Comp Plan Amendment would change RS serxe area upon annexation i.e.not revenue neutral designation to RED IR-1 zoning would he more consistent with area's existing lower densityI • Ilosseser.addressing these shared issues through annexation is in the City's best interest • Relesant Boundary Rextess Board criteria is met Recommendation • Accept the 6(1° Direct PetitiLti to.Annex For the • \laple'v ood:'Addition Annexation • :Authorize the Administration to forward the Notice of .. 1 Intent Package to the Boundary Rex iew. Board • .authorize the Administration to Ins oke the Board Jurisdiction in order to consider possible expansion of the proposed annexation area's boundaries if this is justilied in terms crating more reasonable serxice s. area,and reducing the City's coat in servicing the arca ;11'. • Authotizc the Administration to begin preparing ordinances for future annexation and zoning consistent xcith the Comprehensixe Plan 4 fit • MAPLEWOOD ADDITION INFORMATION COMMITTEE 17V46" ANNEXATION PROCESS The Petition processing method was unfair to the home-owners. The Maplewood Information committee was informed that the petition deadline for completion was Friday,March 4th(the end of the first week of March) , and that as soon as it was turned in to the City Clerk it would become public information and copies would be available upon request. The actual turn-in was on Monday, March 7th. Seven valid letters to rescind signatures from the petition were received by the committee and turned in to the City Clerk on Friday, March 4th. The copy of the petition and letters should have been public information and available on Monday, but the City Clerk would not release them until Wednesday, March 9th On Friday,March 4th (the preset deadline),the petition fell short of the required 60% to pass. The deadline extension allowed the petitioners more time to collect an additional fifteen (15) signatures after the cut-off date. What methods were used to get these add on signatures? Although the petition and letters to rescind were not"public information"and not available until Wednesday,March 9th, all copies of the rescind letters were issued to the petitioner on Friday, March 4th. On Saturday, March 5th the petitioner used the rescind letters to follow-up and reinstate five homeowners,which were required to achieve the 60%. These were turned in on Monday, March 7th Previously, the committee had been told by City officials that we would have three days to follow-up after the petition was turned in, but no days were allowed for follow-up. Don Erickson told me he gave the rescind letters to, Stephanie Lorenz before they became public information because he had to treat her"like a contractor"since she is the petitioner. This appears to be unfair tactics,when one person can receive advance information before it becomes official. 'eft'447 WOC Prepared by Bob J son Reviewed and approved by the Maplewood Addition Information Committee /5"oi4) 13/ t Ave . Sc �'�� in 9s', S-(f1a.vttt: LA). rehZ Q,mm, . Ak 5 LI/412o O • More is Better ! At the Community Meeting on 2/23/05, The Boundary Review Board clearly stated that the 60% Renton Annexation Petition must be submitted to keep both of our options (becoming part of Renton or part of Fairwood) on the table. The Boundary Review Board makes the final decision based on the option(s) presented to them. OPTION 1: Fairwood Incorporation Maplewood Addition is included in the Fairwood Incorporation boundary. The Fairwood Task Force submitted their petition to the Boundary Review Board and is currently working on the next step of the process. OPTION 2: City of Renton Annexation to the City of Renton will be presented to the Boundary Review Board as an option ONLY IF the 60% petition is submitted by March 4. Would you like to sign the petition? Do you have questions? Would you like to help gather signatures? Contact Us Eric & Judy Anders 425-226-4166 Teresa Vay - 425-228-1808 Stephanie Lorenz 206-686-1025 Jack Lyons 425-255-7808 Dennis Kennedy 425-226-1085 Clint Arney 425-226-0323 Gary Lester 206-898-2048 The City of Renton Annexation Petition must be successful in order for our neighborhood to have more than one option (becoming part of Fairwood) in the eyes of the Boundary Review Board. Original Message From: Blauman,Lenora[mailto:Lenora.Blauman@METROKC.GOV] Sent:Thursday,March 03,2005 5:50 PM To: 'Stephanie Lorenz' Subject: Information for Tomorrow Hello Stephanie I will have a complete handout ready for tomorrow evening. For this evening, I can offer you the following: Both State law and King County policies call for unincorporated urban areas to transfer to "local governance" - which means "city" - either through annexation or incorporation. There are no deadlines for the transfer. But: • All policies support annexation or incorporation when one (or more) cities can govern a community. • No policies support unincorporated areas when one (or more)cities can govern a community. • In order to remain unincorporated, Maplewood citizens would have to demonstrate that no city can govern or serve the community. • Renton has already demonstrated capacity to govern. Information on Fairwood capacity to govern is pending. King County has stated that its government services will diminish to this area. • Historically, the Board has transferred unincorporated islands to cities. Examples are: City of Redmond-NE Rose Hills;City of Issaquah-Providence Point/Hans Jensen; City of Renton-Merlino Annexation; City of Renton-Merritt II. • The Board will not predict a decision in this matter. Its decision will be based on the law and the facts presented to the Board during the review process. Original Message From: Blauman, Lenora[mailto:Lenora.Blauman@METROKC.GOV] Sent:Friday,March 04,2005 9:40 AM To: 'Stephanie Lorenz' Subject: RE: Information for Tomorrow Here is a quick response to your questions- I will also address those questions this evening. The Board can simultaneously review incorporation, annexation (if there is an annexation application on file with the Board), and a request to remain unincorporated. The Board will make its decision for the future form of government for Maplewood Addition based upon numerous legal standards found in state law and county policy. Examples of those criteria are the State laws and County regulations that call for local jurisdictions (cities) to govern unincorporated urban areas. State laws also establish approximately 50 factors and nine objectives that the Board must consider in making a decision. These criteria include (but are clearly not limited to): consistency with comprehensive plans; geographic boundaries; current and future needs for municipal services; and adjustment of practical boundaries. Supporters of incorporation must use all applicable standards to demonstrate that incorporation better meets the criteria than annexation or remaining in King County. Supporters of annexation (if an annexation application is on file with the Board) must use all applicable standards to demonstrate that annexation better meets the criteria than incorporation or remaining in King County. Supporters of remaining unincorporated must use all applicable standards to demonstrate that the status quo better meets the criteria than incorporation or annexation. No 05 08:O5a WSBRB for KC 206-286-6803 p.2 Title 36 RCW: Counties 36.93.160 to compel the production by him of any records,books. (I) Population and territory; population density: land documents,public records or public papers. area and land uses; comprehensive plans and zoning, as (4)Within forty days after the conclusion of the final adopted under chapter 35.63. 35A.63,or 36.70 RCW: per hearing on the proposal, the board shall file its written capita assessed valuation:topography,natural boundaries and decision,setting forth the reasons therefor,with the board of drainage basins. proximity to other populated areas: the county commissioners and the clerk of each governmental existence and preservation of prime agricultural soils and unit directly affected. The written decision shall indicate productive agricultural uses: the likelihood of significant whether the proposed change is approved.rejected or growth in the area and in adjacent incorporated and unincor- modified and, if modified,the terms of such modification. posted areas during the next ten years; location and most The written decision need not include specific data on every desirable future location of community facilities; factor required to be considered by the board, but shall (2) Municipal services; need for municipal services; indicate that all standards were given consideration. Dissent- effect of ordinances, governmental codes,regulations and ing members of the board shall have the right to have their resolutions on existing uses; present cost and adequacy of written dissents included as part of the decision. governmental services and controls in area; prospects of (5)Unanimous decisions of the hearing panel or a governmental services from other sources;probable future decision of a majority of the members of the board shall needs for such services and controls; probable effect of constitute the decision of the board and shall not be appeal- proposal or alternative on cost and adequacy of services and able to the whole board. Any other decision shall be controls In area and adjacent area;the effect on the finances, appealable to the entire board within ten days. Appeals shall debt structure, and contractual obligations and rights of all be on the record,which shall be furnished by the appellant. affected governmental units; and but the board may,in its sole discretion,permit the lnuoduc- (3)The effect of the proposal or alternative on adjacent tion of additional evidence and argument. Decisions shall be areas, on mutual economic and social interests, and on the final and conclusive unless within ten days from the dam of local governmental structure of the county. ' said action a governmental unit affected by the decision or The provisions of chapter 43.21C RCW,State Environ- any person owning real property or residing in the area mental Policy, shall not apply to incorporation proceedings affected by the decision files in the superior court a notice covered by chapter 35.02 RCW. [1989 c 84 f 5; 1986'e 234 of appeal. § 33: 1982 c 220 § 2: 1979 ex.s.c 142 § 1; 1967 c 189 § The filing of such notice of appeal within such time 17.] limit shall stay the effective date of the decision of the board Severabulp-1951 c 220: See note following ACW 36.93.100. until such time as the appeal shall have been adjudicated or Incorporation proceedings exempt from stare environmental policy art. withdrawn. On appeal the superior court shall not take any RCW 0.21C.220 evidence other than that contained in the record of theik/..., hearing before the board. 36.93.180 Objectives of boundary review board. (6)The superior court may affirm the decision of the The decisions of the boundary review board shall attempt to board or remand the case for further proceedings;or it may achieve the following objectives; reverse the decision if any substantial rights may have been (1)Preservation of natural neighborhoods and conununi- prejudiced because the administrative findings, inferences, ties; conclusions, or decisions are: (2)Use of physical boundaries,including but not limited (a)In violation of constitutional provisions,or to bodies of water,highways.and land contours; (b)In excess of the statutory authority or jurisdiction of (3)Creation and preservation of logical service areas; the board,or (4)Prevention of abnormally irregular boundaries; (c)Made upon unlawful procedure,or (5)Discouragement of multiple incorporations of small (d)Affected by other error of law;or cities and encouragement of incorporation of cities in excess (a)Unsupported by material and substantial evidence in of ten thousand population in heavily populated urbiin areas: view of the entire record as submitted,or (6)Dissolution of inactive special purpose districts; (f)Arbitrary or capricious. (7)Adjustment of impractical boundaries; An aggrieved party may seek appellate review of any final (8) Incorporation as cities or towns or annexation to Judgment of the superior court in the manner provided by cities or towns of unincorporated areas which are urban in law as in other civil cases. [1988 c 202§40; 1987 c 477 § character;and 8: 1971 c 81 §97; 1969 ex.s.c III §9; 1967 c 189§ 16.] (9)Protection of agricultural and rural lands which are Severability-19511 c 202: See Dote following RCW 2.24.050. designated for long term productive agricultural and resource antral corporare powers—Taring. rertrtctions a:to area: RCW use by a comprehensive plan adopted by the county legisla- 35.21.010. tive authority. [1989 c 84§ 6; 1981 c 332§ 10; 1979 ex.s. c 142 § 2: 1967 c 189 § 18.1 36.93.170 Factors to be considered by board— seveeabwty-1981 a 332: See note following RCW 35.13.165. incorporation proceedings exempt from state environ- mental policy act. In reaching a decision on a proposal or 36.93.185 Objectives of boundary review board— an alternative, the board shall consider the factors affecting Water,sewer district annexations,mergers—Territory such proposal,which shall include,but not be limited to the not adjacent to district. The proposal by a water district or following: sewer district to annex territory that is not adjacent to the district shall not be deemed to be violative of the objectives (1942 Ed/ (Tide 36 RCW—pale 2231 RECEIVED 2005-FEB-28 07:4TAM FROM-206 296 6803 TO-John L Scott Renton PAGE 002 'pump of Ai °snard 'jnq 8 1Iou polls sji • : 4 E, •puaIID mat paIinui aan0� 01 AJI asnaid 'inq a)iIou 000 VI 'paao8 Maina)J AJopuno8 aqi jo lioglaq u0 A Round Table Discussion You're invited to attend,ask your questions and discuss the with future of the neighborhood at a small round table discussion Lenora Blauman from the with Lenora Blauman from the Boundary Review Board this Boundary Review Board Friday. Friday, March 4, 2005 With so much confusion in the neighborhood,the level of frustration is rising and it is difficult to know what the true 6:30 -7:15 PM facts are. Session One Considering that the final decision regarding the future governance of our neighborhood rests in the hands of the The buck stops with the BRB. Boundary Review Board,Lenora Blauman has offered her No Hype. No Rhetoric. time to meet with residents in a small round table format. Just accurate answers. It is Ms. Blauman's intention to provide unbiased explanations &clear,concise answers to your questions. Anders Residence This is your best opportunity to get reliable answers to your 13133 SE 149th Street questions from the source and thus insure that you are taking Directions: From the pump the position that you believe will be in your best interest. house,go west on 149 and 13133 is on the left. • Please RSVP ASAP. If you would like to bring a Please RSVP ASAP to neighbor,please let us know when you RSVP. Judy Anders 425-226-4166 Or • Each session is limited to 12 people. Stephanie Lorenz 425-917-1025 Signatures representing more than 60%of ownership of the neighborhood have been certified by King County. Your vote in favor of annexation tonight will allow for simultaneous review of annexation v. incorporation by the Boundary Review Board. The facts on the rescission issue 8 signed the original rescission. Of this 8: 5 rescinded their rescission when presented with documented fact. 1 didn't sign the petition in the first place. 1,who signed after the community meeting on 2/23,indeed rescinded his signature. 1 rescinded in favor of remaining unincorporated. City Clerk City of Renton 1055 South Grady Way Renton, WA 98055 March 5, 2005 This letter is intended to serve as notice that I rescind my rescission of the Maplewood Addition annexation petition. I support annexation. Signature Printed Name Renton, WA 98058 Address Tax ID Number . 0 7-0 CITY OF RENTON ..1 4. Economic Development,Neighborhoods and Strategic Planning .. —�� Alex Pietsch,Administrator Kathy Keolker-Wheeler, Mayor February 28, 2005 Residents of Maplewood Addition do Ms. Stephanie Lorenz 13515 SE Maple Valley Road Renton,Washington 98058 Dear Resident: This letter is to clarify, once again, the realities regarding water service in Maplewood Addition should the community elect to annex to the City of Renton. Stating it most simply, water service in your community will not change if the community annexes to Renton. Renton will not make any changes to the water system—including the installation of any metering devices—as long as the system remains in the ownership of the Maplewood Addition Water Cooperative(MAWC). If the community would like Renton to extend water service to the area, it would be the decision of the MAWC board and shareholders to request service subject to approval from the Boundary Review Board and King County. I hope this provides you with the information you need to make an informed decision regarding your governance future. Please feel free to call my staff or me(425-430-6592)if the City can be of further assistance. neerely, lex Piech (A7.-- incerely, 1055 South Grady Way-Renton,Washington 98055 RENTON ®This paper contains 50%recycled material,3050 post consumer A H F:1 D OF THE CURVE r e��► CITY OF RENTON ..up Planning/Building/PublicWorks Department Kathy Keolker-Wheeler, Mayor Gregg Zimmerman P.E.,Administrator March 2, 2005 Stephanie Lorenz 4735 NE 4th Street Renton, WA 98059 SUBJECT: LID FOR SEWERS INSTALLED TO SERVE THE MAPLEWOOD ADDITION Dear Ms. Lorenz: The question has been asked whether a property in an LID that is located on the corner of two streets would be assessed street frontage fees based upon both frontages. The answer to the question is almost assuredly not. The scenario that would prompt such a circumstance would be if the City used a simple front footage assessment method and applied that frontage along both the front yard and side yard of a lot where sewer was extended across both. In most instances this would not occur because the benefit to the corner lot of a developed parcel will most likely not be any greater than for an interior lot, and an LID assessment has to be equivalent to the benefit. An instance where this may occur would be for a larger lot where future subdivision may be benefited by the extensions of sewer that would serve future lots. In the Maplewood area,most of the lots are of similar size, so they would all have similar amounts for their assessments, except for those lots that have the ability to further subdivide. Larger lots that have large undeveloped portions that could be subdivided would pay an amount roughly equivalent to their benefit. This scenario seems highly unlikely, however, because of the flood plain, and the likelihood that the City will change the land use designation on its Comprehensive Plan for this area from Residential Single Family, which allows up to 8 units per net acre,to Residential Low Density, which allows up to a maximum of 4 units per net acre. The latter is closer to the area's current density of approximately 3.1 units per net acre. When the City determines assessment value,we look at all potential methods of distributing costs and look to the method that most closely equitably shares the costs of the LID, and in some cases, combines those methods to assure just that. One additional point that I would like to make once again, is that sewer service, when desired(or required by a determination of the King County Health Department)to this area will be by Renton regardless of • •-r the area annexes to Renton, is incorporated by Fairwood, or remains in u inco •orated 4 ing County. Sanitary Sewer Service Boundaries will not change based . .on an, of the abo- scenarios. S' c: ely,/ ,i, 7 f . • . M. ' .stense Wastewater Engineering Supervisor cc: Don Erickson,Senior Planner I-I.\File Sys\WW1'-WasteWater\WWP-03-0000 Correspondence-Wastewater\davec\Lorenz Letter.doc\Db1C\tb TI R E N T O N 1055 South Grady Way-Renton,Washington 98055 1� AHEAD OF THP. CURVE `P This paper contains 50%recycled material,30%post consumer ti Original Message From: David Christensen[mailto:Dchristen@ci.renton.wa.us] Sent: Friday,March 04, 2005 8:16 AM To: slorenz@johnlscott.com Cc:Donald Erickson Subject: Re: FW: Sanitary sewer Service to Maplewood Annexation Area Stephanie, The point of connection for the Maplewood Subdivision will be to the KC Metro Line, in fact,the City has already installed a stub into 131st Avenue SE to serve this area. However,all portions of the City system connect at some point to the KC Metro system,as they are the major conveyance and treatment agency for sewer. That said,it makes no difference where a local connection is relative to a KC Metro line in regards to how the City bills. The City of Renton is the billing agency for all connections within our system. The County does not bill for sewer service. Finally, the City, by ordinance,does charge at 1.5 times the City portion of the rate for customers outside our City limits. The important note is that it is only the City portion of the bill that we collect for that has this fee,currently$13.43 for in City and $20.15 for outside City limits. The County portion of the bill,collected by Renton remains at$25.60 whether in or out of the City. This was shown on the handout prepared by Don Erickson regarding differential of costs. Hopefully this answers your question. Dave Christensen 425.430.7212 >>> "Stephanie Lorenz" <slorenz@johnlscott.com> 03/03/2005 5:21:01 PM >>> Dave, Thank you for sending such an informative letter. It is really helpful. As I mentioned in my vm message, I need one last piece of info clarified. Apparently we have a neighborhood resident whom is related to one of the employees at water dist. 90. Said employee has stated that should our neighborhood hook up to sewer, Renton cannot charge 1.5 times the resident rate because the sewer is owned by KC metro. Can you clarify the cost of sewer for non city residents? Thanks in advance. Stephanie 4r4r ` 0:A- - '44111440:10,14 41040044110 tt8& Unincorporated Ki4 County : Annexatiozi to.tlte Incorporation to e' ,loposed City of Renton City.of Fair wood Will the total amount of No Yes Unknown tax that I pay go down? After adding Renton's 6% utility tax,the total on a $250,000 taxable valued property would he about $227 less in 2005. I currently have a senior No Change No Change No Change tax exemption. Will I still qualify? Will my current address No Yes Yes change? (As of yet undetermined) If,in the future,the Contracted service from Cedar City of Renton at same rate as Unknown neighborhood needs a River Water District or the other residents. (but likely to be contracted different source of City of Renton. **City rates services from Cedar River water,where will the are 1.5 times higher for non- Water District) water come from? residents. Can I keep my septic Yes Yes *Yes system? *not yet confirmed Will my yard be No No *No disturbed to Renton only requires sidewalks *not yet confirmed accommodate future for new developments. sidewalks? Will street lights Yes Yes Unknown continue to be paid for because it is currently being by MAWC? billed through the water district. How will services,such • Most services are contracted. •Renton is considered a full- Unknown as library,schools,and • School district would not service city with no 3`d party (most services are expected to fire,etc.be affected? change. contracting. be contracted out to County • Continued access to County • School district would not and/or other 3rd party library system. change. providers) ■ Residents would have access to both County and Renton libraries. If I call 911,who will KC Sheriff but the response Renton Fire and/or Renton Unknown come? times will be longer as Police. Estimated response (proposed contract service outlined in the service time is 3-6 minutes. with KC Sheriff) reduction plan for unincorporated KC. Will I get a discount at No Yes No Renton's new Aquatic A Summer Season Family A Summer Season Family Pass A Summer Season Family Center? Pass for non-residents in 2004 for City residents in 2004 was Pass for non-residents in 2004 was$280.00 $140.00 was$280.00 Will I get a discount at No Yes No the boat launch? Non-residents pay$10 per day Residents pay$5 a day to use Non-residents pay$10 per day to use the Coulon Park boat the Coulon Park boat launch. to use Coulon Park boat launch. launch. How will zoning change? King County zoning is R6SO. Renton zoning would be R-8. Unknown This zone allows between 6 to The City is currently looking at (as of yet undetermined) 9 units per gross acre. It also changing this to R-4. allows attached units such townhouses. 808L-99Z-9Zb suoki>!oer 980T-9ZZ-9Zb,(peuuaI s!uue0 Axa u s, e U M 8t0Z-686-90z aalsai klieg •uoililad uopexeuue 99Tv9ZZ9Zbsaapuy(pnr'80113 %09 auk J.o saanleu?is woo•aoaop!selpoohu!el•MMM el�� paiplJeo �(.uno0 aoao3�se1pooMa!e� A u `1110T u O,I e W u0 sn•eM•uoluaa10@uos)13uep JO Z8g9-0£t-9Z7 uoluaa to kI!9'uosmou3 uoa na•omoalaw@uewne!q•eaouai JO 0089-96Z-90Z paeog Maned kepunog alels'uewne1g eaouaj :loeluoo esea!d'uo!lewaolu!aaow a03 issaoons e Si uoililad uollexauud uoluaa%09 041 issaoans a sl uollllad uollexauud uoluau %009 ayl 11 With the annexation petition **According to the State Boundary Review Board: In order to remain unincorporated, certified,the process continues in the Maplewood citizens would have to following order: demonstrate that no city can govern or serve (completing these next steps will take months.) the community. 1. The City of Renton will hold a public hearing • All policies support annexation or and the City Council will vote to accept or incorporation when one (or more) cities reject the annexation petition. can govern a community. • No policies support unincorporated areas 2. If the Council votes to accept the petition,it when one (or more) cities can govern a will then be forwarded to the State Boundary community. Review Board(BRB). • The Board will not predict a decision on 3. The BRB will then simultaneously review this matter. Its decision will be based on information on Fairwood Incorporation, the law and the facts presented to the Board during the review process. Renton Annexation,and the possibility of remaining unincorporated.** 4. After formal review of all of the information In the months to come, we will continue to &a public hearing,the BRB will determine update you as new information becomes the future governance of our neighborhood. available. CITY OF RENTON MEMORANDUM DATE: April 4, 2005 TO: Terri Briere, Council President Members of the Renton City Council FROM: Kathy Keolker-Wheeler, 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 • This weekend, Studio East presents Beauty and the Beast at the Renton IKEA Performing Arts Center. Performances are scheduled at 11:00 a.m. and 1:00 p.m. on Saturday, April 9th, and at 1:00 p.m. on Sunday, April 10th. Tickets are $8 and can be purchased by calling 1-877-827-1100. ADMINISTRATIVE/JUDICIAL/LEGAL SERVICES DEPARTMENT • The April 2005 edition of CitySource, the City's newsletter to citizens and businesses, will be featured in the April 6th issue of the Renton Reporter. This edition will feature detailed information about Code Compliance violations; water-wise efforts; plans to beautify NE 4th street; Missoula Children's Theater; Friends of the Library outreach; Spring Recycling Day; new community resource telephone guides; March City Council highlights; and a calendar of upcoming events. CitySource can also be found on the City's website, www.ci.renton.wa.us, through the Spotlight section under the press release option. • Last week, the City of Renton hosted its annual Volunteer Banquet with over 200 volunteers in attendance. In 2004, nearly 1,900 volunteers contributed nearly 62,000 hours of service. The value of these hours total over$1 million to the City and our citizens. COMMUNITY SERVICES DEPARTMENT • Renton was "hopping" last weekend with teens! The Recreation Division Teen Program hosted the second annual "Flashlight Egg Hunt" on Friday, March 25th, at Liberty Park followed by a teen dance at the Community Center. Over 275 young people (ages 11 to 15) participated in this event, which was sponsored by Microsoft, McLendon Hardware, Athletic Supply, Wild Waves, Pizza Hut, and Tacoma Rainiers through donations for prizes. • On March 31st, the Renton Senior Activity Center hosted the annual Housing Fair for Senior Citizens. Representatives from Renton area housing projects were available to answer questions regarding the many housing options available to seniors. Over 200 senior citizens attended this year's housing fair. • Henry Moses Aquatic Center season passcard sales and canopy rental reservations begin Monday, April 11th, at the Renton Community Center. The Aquatic Center opens Saturday, June 18th Administrative Report April 4,2005 Page 2 • The Renton Historical Museum will present "Sisters in Time," a living history presentation, on Tuesday, April 5th at 1:00 p.m. at the Renton Historical Museum, 235 Mill Avenue S. Tickets are $2 for residents, seniors, and students and$3 for non-residents. Free admission for members. For tickets, please call 425-255-2330. ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT,NEIGHBORHOODS, & STRATEGIC PLANNING DEPARTMENT • The City is seeking volunteers from neighborhoods, schools, businesses, and service clubs to work together on Saturday, April 23rd, to beautify a portion of NE 4th Street in recognition of Arbor Day and Earth Day. This community-based effort will be the first phase of a City-supported effort to transform the corridor into a green space, lined with trees, shrubs, and flowers. To volunteer for this project, please call 425-430-6595. PLANNING/BUILDING/PUBLIC WORKS DEPARTMENT • The contractor for the Sunset Sewer Interceptor Phase II project plans to begin the road closure on Thursday, May 12`h, rather than the April start date that we had anticipated. They will begin their surveying and mobilizing after the detours and temporary traffic revisions are in place. The first day of actual digging will be on Monday, May 16th. We have notified Paccar and Boeing of the revised dates for the closure and will be passing out new flyers to Fry's Electronics and the businesses along Houser Way. Ulm &Twitizid-- LtAvit bai.a" From the desk of.. Jay Date: 3/a%6 5 hL To: i Subject: tta,l� -s .� t� hirlYz>// ,e gat--(_ 3/30 Def,/'A Le/A,ey came d 6-17 C-1 /hee> ma4/ az s /T,L, ,4 0770/ 7 124,drferfrn.Th- 5.4-11? 0- cry f- rtin‘f -ooxi5?2,6 eveia-z..,r4. CITY OF RENTON MAR 3 0 2005 RECEIVED (J CITY CLERK'S OFFICE U Chief Administrative Officer (425)430-6524 MAR. -28' 05 (MON) 14: 06 BILL PIERRE FORD SVC TEL:206-361-5526 P. 001 . gieticii -ik FAX TRANSMITTAL adrktz-0-074ed`'': V-oS DATE_ 9/Z Yl TIME `.~� 7 •�' PAGES ,,,),: INCLUDING COVER SHEET TO Oak k/l"/ /1 y N E ku C / f G `/C_ FROM - 11v AYr O,(Ci/L ,c, G-1c 174-, p- sA( MESSAGE; IM p/L GvetiyiG fi•R pa_2:ni4 7 -/ ' g_. /no n'N74- r'-c2 hA'1/ 12 cf/ 1-/W M7/ M,g-77/147 d- P11777Tr d1,14- C P OI/W/17/ 7 .54-4 (c-/P-r- ( A/G/ Z Fon gz &' uc /E (v z��r� Y 0 'x C o��(e r��'�7-r�/o ,42CY 2( c re k4 ' S0/14/E Z (z v1, , 7NfoL //4/1-7-(ox, Frac 70�• �' 'cJAc 7-#1 ve-y , ioV-7TA,4_,‘,.(_,_ „ , .. ,1_, e,(2 .V.-(; . 'G'- I-4' 42.c-- 7 ,- g-7 ,,,... . , PHONE FAX FORD SALES 364-2200 361-5515 FORD FLEET 361-5500 361-2309 ii ,^ FORD Fel 364-2200 361-5530 Pieiii . Ford FORD SERVICE 364-1095 361-5520 FORD BODY SHOP 361-5540 361-5507 FORD PAYROLL 361-5543 368-2293 &M N IEMAN LEASE "Buying is just the beginning of our relationship" 11525 Lake City Way Northeast • Seattle, Washington 98125 MAR. -28' 05 (MON) 1407 BILL PIERRE FORD SVC TEL:206-361-5526 P. 002 Dear Terri,Council President, Council Members, We are writing to you regarding the annual Renton Cup Regatta held at Gene Coulon Memorial Park in your city. This is the sixth year for the Limited Hydroplane race. The race dates are April 30th and May 1st 2005. Each year our club, Seattle Drag& Ski Sprint Boat Assoc. seeks to improve the quality of the event. This year will be no exception,with two fun afternoon racing venues. There is no charge to the public for our race. Community Services Recreation Division Manager Jerry Rerecich has advised us of a possible charge back to us for the Fire Truck and its services provided. i wanted to explain and discuss with you the fact that nowhere else in our 12 race season do we even use the fire department help at our events. Some of the cities we race in do use our race as a training exercise or an event to have the fireman's picnic and bring their families to enjoy the racing day, and in fact donate their fire departments ambulance but we are not asking for that. We have several rules that our Insurance Co. mandates for our APBA racing. 1. Each boat is equipped with a fire extinguisher at the boat. 2. Our club SD&S has at least six large 25 to 30 lb fire extinguishers space throughout the pit area and at the fuel dumps. 3. In addition we have four more located on the race course for back up if needed. 4. We have absorbent pads for clean up and absorbent material for control use. You can see that we don't need the expense or the extra equipment at the park. One of the things that some of our race sites do, is issue the permit and then send officers over to check and see that the conditions are all in place and ready to go. This is always a prerequisite to starting the event and they will throughout the two days of racing stop by to make sure all their conditions are met. We will still have an ambulance in place and will still notify Renton 911 of a problem,as we always have. In addition we have the Mercer Island Marine Patrol(two boats) and the Coast Guard Auxiliary (two boats) in place again this year as in the past. We, Seattle Drag& Ski Sprint Boat Assoc, are a not for profit State registered organization, and help various types of marine events, from high school swim meets, Seafair events,and the Lake Union fireworks show, all at no cost except expenses. Our members pay a modest fee($15.00)to join,and we run our amateur races around the Northwest. We would ask that you reconsider the Fire Truck charge; we don't need them in place, as noted above, and would request that this requirement be waived. Thanks for your attention to this matter. Yours Truly, • Commodore Seattle Drag & Ski Sprint Boat Assoc. MAR. -28' 05 (MON) 14:08 BILL PIERRE FORD SVC TEL:206-361-5526 P. 003 • 2005 RENTON RACE Estimated Budget APBA Sanction and Insurance Costs $3417.00 Inboard Promotions Fee $1900.00 Double Points Race Premium Mercer Island Marine Patrol $2000.00 Ambulance $1100.00 Crane and Fuel $ 840.00 Seattle Rescue and Patrol $ 600.00 Trophies $ 600.00 Seattle Drag and Ski $ 545.00 (Includes Truck Ins, Gas, Additional Rope, Radio Batteries, Flares if needed And services rendered( setup/teardown, PA System, Announcer)) Staring Line Barge and Transport $ 300.00 Toilets $ 225.00 Region 10 Fees $ 165.00 Total Expenses $11692.00 Total Entry Hees 38 Boats @ $100.00 ea $ 3800.00 Deficit Of The Race $ 7892.00 These expenses are based on last years budget and some minor increases in services purchased from necessary companies IE : Mercer island Marine Patrol, American Medical Response , APBA (This excludes prize money) Seattle Drag& Ski Sprint Boat Association Inc. Commodore Lenny Raker 425-8794166 cell 206-364-1095xt7356 wk 425-776-1847 hm MAR, -28' 05 (MON) 14:08 BILL PIERRE FORD SVC TEL: 2O6-361-5526 P. 004 Mayor: Kathy Keolker Wheeler Community Council Members President: Terri Briere President Pro Tern: Randy Corman Board Members: Toni Nelson Don Presson Dan Clawson Dermis Law Marcie Plamer Proposed Limited Hydroplane Race At Gene Coulon Memorial Park April 30th & May 1". I'm Lenny Baker representing Seattle Drag & Ski Sprint Boat Assoc. The hosting race club. I was at your council meeting last Monday March 21'. Thank you for the opportunity to speak about the race. Unfortunately I left out some very important information. In the hand out I had for you to review was a race budget. This shows the hard costs to run the race. As you can see the race is not a money making venture for us, and if additional costs are incurred of any amount, the race becomes even more financially impossible to run which would result in the cancellation of the race, which is, "a free event for all to enjoy." , We do not need the extra fire dept staff of the extra police officers that sometimes have been present in the past. No need for the maintenance crew to bring any sand bags or orange cones etc., as we do police our own fuel dumps and fueling of the boats. Your normal park patrol officers and park creware more than adequate. am requesting a complete waiver of any costs associated with the race! s I explained in my presentation our club members, Rescue/Safety team, S Coast Guard Aux boats and Mercer Island Marine Patrol, our crowd ontrol and security are sufficient to conduct the race as we have done this in any cities for many years where we race and to date have not incurred any osts. MAR. -28' 05 (MON) 14:09 BILL PIERRE FORD SVC TEL:206-361-5526 P. 005 We feel the positive and economic benefits For your community by far out way the need to Asses costs to our bottom line. Again may I reiterate the City of Renton Recreation Division for the last five years has called us to participate in your cities Renton River Days which we are happy to do. A quick response to my request would be appreciated as a long string of obligations rely on your answer. Yours truly, Lenny Baker Commodore Seattle Drag & Ski Sprint Boat Assoc. MAR. -28' O5 (MON) 14: 09 BILL PIERRE FORD SVC TEL:206-361-5526 N. Uu6 • rill Lenny Baker—Speaking about the i')ro.,osecl bolt race ::it a..ielt Memorial Park April 3011 Ma\ I represent the "Not For Profit" boat racing club Seattle Drag & Ski Sprint Boat Assoc Inc. (established in 1 962) I will explain the benefits of having the race and show that we are a sell- contained ellconta.ined group. (1 have passed out some information For you to look over) Each of the last live years (this year included) the City of Renton Recreation Division has call us to find out if we planned to have a race the upcoming year so the City event calendar could be tilled in. The Recreation Division wanted us to he a port of your summer festivities your Renton River Days. We are honored to participate. Membership of four local boat racing clubs will participate in the event, we estimate 38 race boats, ten to twelve safety and rescue boats, their crews, Families and friends- usually three to live people per boat and other support people will patronize your cities gas slations. auto parts stores, restaurants, last food restaurants, grocery stores and hotels. With sonic articles in the local newspapers and notices to the TV stations, public interest for the event will generate exposure 'icr your city, the line park \v� ii' Iu!' the race and will in turn create more revenue for VOW' comn!tirlii.y. .fhe economic impact oh this �'\`�I'it \'�ii: `',:l �1i. �):�lictl: y( ul cuminul:ily idl ci i}•:" Iti1.c )nanoi'. '.IV's l}iIUL !n 1 C; ',Il `+\I 1 la ., IIl!• Ij' r �. r• C,� s �i.;l� ll :-� � ,, �) ;lir S:Alt 11 .it l 'l. .\ _':i�l i). ..�, '� ..i:. 4 1 ,)I'�i i i l tll _ water Els LY\?ll :I on Hid. We have for boll narumcdic` !t1+. Mercer Island Malrinl. (' tLru!, l ` {..I:> Ala., i.)u:- u1•vl? R':;`',Ioi1 ret; ._a!1!. l l! _ .:1: i, r. ,I' ..lC'i! it_.. t!;, _li I I+`l alt i)'. ' I:1,; r the race course, For (Ile 1':!�.c bout I)lis. i i11 �i-.� !XIS!. ..10JtIiC. ..lJ!.�l', t!'. 1H•1'. MAR. -28' 05 (MON) 14: 10 BILL PIERRE FORD SVC TEL:206-361-552b P. UU / • midnight, which Thi'. Recreation "ll the rrvt'lltl� I:',,:', the boat launch lee lot. that duly. The budget page of the handout for the race shows the actual hard costs to run the race. If additional costs are incurred the race becomes financially impossible to run which would result In the cancellation of your event! Remember the City OI' Renton called us to participate in your Renton River Days festivities. We feel it's not necessary for any more community service people to attend over and above the normal daily contingency. Again our ricin` club is a "Not for Profit" club. In closing, consider all the positive and economical benefits for ha\ ing you event this year in your city. Thank You. CITY OF RENTON COUNCIL AGENDA BILL kiir+` AI#: -, SUBMITTING DATA: FOR AGENDA OF: 4/04/2005 Dept/Div/Board.. AJLS/City Clerk Staff Contact... Bonnie Walton AGENDA STATUS: Consent.... X SUBJECT: Public Hearing.. CRT-05-002; Court Case Correspondence.. Renton Police Officers'Guild vs. City of Renton and Renton Ordinance... Police Chief Garry Anderson Resolution... Old Business New Business Study Session.... EXHIBITS: Other.... Summons and Complaint RECOMMENDED ACTION: APPROVALS: Legal Dept Refer to City Attorney and Insurance Services Finance Dept.... Other FISCAL IMPACT: Expenditure Required... Transfer/Amendment.. Amount Budgeted Revenue Generated... SUMMARY OF ACTION: Summons and Complaint for Declaratory and Injunctive Relief filed in King County Superior Court by Aaron D. Jeide, Cline & Associates, 999 3rd Ave., Suite 3800, Seattle, 98104, on behalf of the Renton Police Officers' Guild, alleging that the City has no legitimate interest in compelling Police Officer Steve Morris to submit to a mental evaluation. kkoll CITY OF RENTON 1 MAR 2 2 2005 - ' EI `iFU RECEIVED Now MR? DEC 22 PM 3: 56 CITY CLERK'S OFFICE ' QR COUF 1 CLERKS iEATTt.E, WA IN THE SUPERIOR COURT OF THE STATE OF WASHINGTON IN AND FOR THE COUNTY OF KING • RENTON POLICE OFFICER'S GUILD, a'4- 2 - 4 0 1 5 3 - 4 KT' 1� NO. Plainti f 11 SUMMONS [20 Days] vs. 1 • CITY OF RENTON,a municipal 1 corporation,and, GARRY ANDERSON, ��or Chief of Police for the City of Renton. CIAt-tort/el 1, 12.61L rna-oiLlictinoat Defendants. Fo l i C e t h i f F 11 1: TO: CITY of RENTON, 1 GARRY ANDERSEON,Chief of Police for the City of Renton, DEFENDANTS. 1 A lawsuit has been started against you in the above-entitled court by the Renton Police 1• Officer's Guild,plaintiff. Plaintiff's claim is stated in the written complaint, a copy of which is 21 served upon you with this summons. 21 In order to defend against this lawsuit, you must respond to the complaint by stating your 24 defense in writing, and by serving a copy upon the person signing this summons within 20 days 2 after the service of this summons, excluding the day of service, or a default judgment may be SUMMONS- 1 CLINE&ASSOCIATES e n��amom'� Morris `d°` 999 THIRD AVE.,SUITE 3800 FILC"PSEATTLE,Yph.206.505-S2n. 22 -n 98504 1 entered against you without notice. A default judgment is one where Plaintiff is entitled to what • he asks for because you have not responded. If you serve a notice of appearance on the undersigned person, you are entitled to notice before a default judgment may be entered. You may demand that the Plaintiff file this lawsuit with the court. If you do so, the ' demand must be in writing and must be served upon the person signing this summons. Within 14 days after you serve the demand, the Plaintiff must file this lawsuit with the court, or the service on you of this summons and complaint will be void. If you wish to seek the advice of an attorney in this matter,you should do so promptly so ' that your written response,1if any, may be served on time. 1 Dated this_U.J day of December 2004. 11 Cline&Associates 1 • 1 By: James M.��'`�'e, WSBA#16244 1' Aaron D. Jeide, #34299 Cline &Associates 1 ' 999 Third Avenue, Suite 3800 Seattle, WA 98104 1: 206.505.5820 Attorney for Plaintiff 1 1: 1' 21 21 2• 2 SUMMONS-2 CLINE&ASSOCIATES Doc®`"`'"ea'°°P°a"`Samm°°s-Monis nattadoc 999 THIRD AVE.,SUITE 3800 SEATTLE,WA 98104 Ph•2O6-505-5/20 • Fx•206-SOS-SR21 1 CITY OF RENTON 2 MAR 2 2 2005 ?PO!! DEC 22 PM 3: 56 /:ys_m. 3 P' ":'•t" 0( ` + Y CITY CLERK'S OFFICE UR COURT CLERK 4 EATTLE. WA 5 6 7 IN THE SUPERIOR COURT OF THE STATE OF WASHINGTON 8 IN AND FOR THE COUNTY OF KING 9 RENTON POLICE OFFICER'S GUILD, ►�4 2 • 4 0 15 3 • 4 KN 10 NO. Plaintiff; 11 COMPLAINT FOR 12 vs. DECLARATORY AND CITY OF RENTON,a municipal INJUNCTIVE RELIEF 13 corporation, GARRY ANDERSON, Chief of Police for the City of Renton. *No"' 14 Defendant. 15 16 I. JURISDICTION AND VENUE 17 1.1 This court has jurisdiction under RCW Chapter 7.24, RCW Chapter 7.40, and 18 RCW 4.12.020.- 19 .12.020.19 1.2 Plaintiff Renton Police Officer's Guild ("Guild") is a labor organization doing 20 business in King County, Washington. 21 1.3 Defendant City of Renton ("City") is a local government located in King 22 County. 23 COMPLAINT FOR DECLARATORY CLINE&ASSOCIATES AND INJUNCTIVE RELIEF - 1 999 THIRD AVE.,SUITE 3800 c:v�rDocasectsgtao.PoBo vised Complaimeoc FILE rnPlf Ph.206.505.5R 0ATTLE0W o 9880, 40. 1 1.4 Defendant Garry Anderson is the Chief of Police for the City of Renton and 2 employed by the City of Renton, doing business in King County, Washington. 3 1.5 Venue for an action against King County resides in this Court pursuant to RCW 4 4.92.010. 5 H. BACKGROUND FACTS 6 2.1. The Guild is the recognized collective bargaining representative for all 7 commissioned and non-commissioned non-supervisory employees including Officer Steve 8 Morris of the Renton Police Department. 9 2.2 On December 14,2004 a memorandum was sent from the City of Renton Police 10 Department's Chief of Police, Garry Anderson, to City of Renton Police Officer Steve 11 Morris. The memorandum notified Officer Morris that he was being compelled to submit to 12 a mandatory "fitness for duty" evaluation from a Kathleen Decker, M.D., a psychiatrist on 13 December 24, 2004. The memo further stated that Officer Morris had triggered the 14 Personnel Early Warning System three(3)times due to absenteeism and failed to respond to 15 supervisory evaluations in 2002, 2003, and 2004 regarding unscheduled leave. No other 16 reasons for this compelled examination were given in writing to Officer Morris or the Guild. 17 2.3 Officer Morris has triggered the Personnel Early Warning System on three 18 occasions due to absences in the last three years. However, in 2002 Officer Morris depleted 19 his sick leave due to needing time off to care for his wife who had back surgery as well as 20 needing time off to care for his own documented back injury. In 2003, Officer Morris 21 exhausted his sick leave due to having to take care of his son who was severely ill over 22 several months. As a result of his son's illness, Officer Morris has had to be at home to care 23 COMPLAINT FOR DECLARATORY CLINE&ASSOCIATES AND INJUNCTIVE RELIEF -2 999 THIRD AVE.,SUITE 3800 C.Vdp DommrnAtento°PoliceiRevised Compiaistdoc SEATTLE,WA 98104 Ph.706-5fS-5R7O • Mr 206-505-S1M 1 for him while his wife is working part-time. In 2004, Officer Morris has used his sick leave 2 for his own personal sicknesses and for sicknesses of his family members. "ir✓ 3 2.4 The City of Renton and the Guild have contracted to be bound by the bargained 4 for collective bargaining agreement ("Agreement") currently in effect. The current 5 Agreement includes a bargained for employee Bill of Rights in Article 15. Section B(12)of 6 Article 15 requires that "psychological evaluations will be obtained in the least intrusive 7 manner as possible" and that prior to ordering a fitness for duty evaluation, the employee 8 shall sign a release form. The intent of Article 15(B)(12) is to ensure that the City of 9 Renton be able to articulate some reasonable suspicion before ordering such an evaluation. 10 Officer Morris has not agreed to sign such a release form because the City has not 11 articulated conduct that would give rise to a reasonable suspicion that Officer Morris is unfit 12 to perform his job. The City of Renton is in violation of the contract by ordering Officer 13 Morris to submit to an evaluation in the absence of the release. Furthermore,this evaluation 14 has been unilaterally scheduled by the City to take place on December 24, 2004. The 15 Holidays are stressful enough on all individuals, the City's actions unnecessarily compound 16 this stress and are therefore, not conducting an evaluation in the least intrusive manner 17 possible as required by Article 15(B)(12)of the Agreement. 18 2.5 The Renton Police Department has enacted a Personnel Early Warning System 19 policy as described in Section 35.1.15 of the General Orders Manual. The policy's 20 purported intent is to identify employee problems based on observed or exhibited behavioral 21 indicators. 22 2.6 Although it is noted that they are not inclusive, section IV of policy 35.1.15 lists 23 five (5) behavior indicators that may trigger the warning system. The City of Renton has COMPLAINT FOR DECLARATORY CLINE&ASSOCIATES AND INJUNCTIVE RELIEF -3 999 THIRD AVE.,SUITE 3800 C AM'Documents\Reason Po' `°m"ai°°` SEATTLE,WA 98104 Ph•7O6-SOS-SR2O♦ Fx-2O6-5O5-5R21 1 neither alleged nor notified Officer Morris that his behavior specifically meets any of the 2 enumerated criteria on the list. Likewise, section V of policy 35.1.15 lists seven(7)types of 3 incidents that would trigger a mandatory referral to the Personnel Early Warning System. 4 Again, the City has neither alleged nor notified Officer Morris that his conduct falls within 5 this list. In fact, section V(F) states that four(4) incidents of unscheduled leave will trigger 6 the mandatory referral to the warning system, and as addressed in the December 14, 2004, 7 memo, Officer Morris has only taken unscheduled leave on three(3)occasions. The City's 8 conduct is inconsistent with its own policies governing the Personnel Early Warning 9 System. 10 2.7 Policy 35.1.15(VI)(E) lists what actions the City can take if an employee 11 triggers the Personnel Early Warning System. The mandatory submission to a psychiatric 12 exam is not included in the list of actions available to the City. Again,the City's actions are 13 in violation of its own policy. 14 2.8 In 2002 and 2003, Officer Morris had to use sick leave due to his son being very 15 ill. Because his wife was working as well, Officer Morris had to take time off work to stay 16 at home with his son or take him to the doctor on numerous occasions. At some point Chief 17 Anderson inquired of Ralph Hyett,the Renton Police Officer's Guild President,why Officer 18 Morris's wife could not stay home with his son rather than Officer Morris missing work. 19 Other female officers have used similar amounts of sick leave time without being subject to 20 a fitness for duty examination. 21 2.9 In early December Hyett and other Guild representatives attended a labor 22 magement meeting with the Police Chief. Chief Anderson complained that sick leave 23 COMPLAINT FOR DECLARATORY CLINE&ASSOCIATES AND INJUNCTIVE RELIEF -4 999 THIRD AVE.,SUITE 3800 CAMyDoW�ws,a.rulice1Reviza me SEATTLE,WA 98104 Ph-206-SO5-SR2O•Fx-2O6-SO5-SR21 1 usage was excessive and that he was going to take steps to deter future sick leave use. The 2 Chiefs order to Morris to submit to a psychiatric examination followed shortly thereafter. 3 4 III. LEGAL BACKGROUND 5 3.1 Under the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA), 42 U.S.C. § 12112(d)(4)(A), "A 6 covered entity shall not require a medical examination and shall not make medical inquiries 7 of an employee as to whether such an employee is an individual with a disability or as to the 8 nature or severity of the disability, unless such examination or inquiry is shown to be job- 9 related and consistent with business necessity." The City of Renton is a "covered entity," 10 thereby triggering the ADA. The City of Renton has articulated no facts that show that the 11 compelled psychological examination of Officer Morris is"job-related"nor"consistent with 12 business necessity." Furthermore, under 42 U.S.C. § 12112(d)(4)(B), the Guild contends 13 that the alleged conduct of Officer Morris does not rise to the level necessary to justify the Nktre 14 City having a reasonable concern that Officer Morris is unable to perform his job duties. 15 3.2 The Fourth Amendment of the U.S. Constitution prohibits unreasonable searches and 16 seizures. The Guild contends that this evaluation is an unreasonable search under the Fourth 17 Amendment. The City of Renton has no legitimate interest in compelling Officer Morris to 18 submit to a mental evaluation in the absence of a reasonable suspicion that he is unable to 19 perform his job. The City can show no nexus between Officer Morris's taking of sick days 20 and a mental fitness for duty evaluation by a psychiatrist. Furthermore, Officer Morris's 21 expectation of privacy outweighs any interest the City of Renton may have in compelling 22 this evaluation. 23 COMPLAINT FOR DECLARATORY CLINE&ASSOCIATES Nov AND INJUNCTIVE RELIEF -5 999 THIRD AVE.,SUITE 3800 C%My DoemeaMeston poU Re dConP''�doc SEATTLE,WA 98104 Ph•206•505-5RM •Fx•206-505-SR21 • 1 3.3 The Due Process Clause of the Fifth and Fourteenth Amendments of the U.S. 2 Constitution affords individuals the right to privacy of their personal medical information 3 and records. The Guild contends that this compelled evaluation without Officer Morris's 4 authorization to release his personal medical information is unconstitutional. The City of 5 Renton has no legitimate interest in compelling Officer Morris to submit to a mental 6 evaluation in the absence of a reasonable suspicion that he is unable to perform his job. The 7 City can show no nexus between Officer Morris's taking sick days and a mental fitness for 8 duty evaluation by a psychiatrist Furthermore, Officer Morris's expectation of privacy 9 outweighs any interest the City of Renton may have in compelling this evaluation. 10 3.4 Washington State law under RCW 70.02.020 ensures that except as authorized a health 11 care provider or agent thereof may not disclose health care information about the patient to 12 any other person without the patient's written authorization. Officer Morris has not agreed 13 to authorize any health care provider to disclose his personal medical information to the .440 14 City of Renton. To do so would be a violation of RCW 70.02.020. Furthermore,to compel 15 Officer Morris to sign an authorization permitting the disclosure of his personal medical 16 information under the threat of discipline would be in violation of RCW 70.02.020. 17 3.5 RCW 49.60.180(3)states: "It is an unfair practice for any employer... to discriminate 18 against any person in compensation or in other terms or conditions of employment because 19 of age, sex, marital status,race,creed, color,national origin..." 20 21 IV. CLAIMS AND CAUSES OF ACTION 22 23 COMPLAINT FOR DECLARATORY CLINE&ASSOCIATES AND INJUNCTIVE RELIEF -6 999 THIRD AVE.,SUITE 3800 cAmy °°P°""Revis l Complaiot.doc SEATTLE,WA 98104 Ph-2A6-SAS-SR2O • Fx•2Ah-SAS-SR21 1 4.1 For reasons set forth above, the Guild contends that the City of Renton is in violation of 2 the Americans with Disabilities Act including but not limited to 42 U.S.C. § § 12112 3 (d)(4)(A) and 12112(d)(4)(B). 4 4.2 For reasons set forth above,the Guild contends that the City of Renton is in violation of 5 Officer Morris's Fourth Amendment constitutional right against unreasonable searches or 6 seizures. 7 4.3 For reasons set forth above, the Guild contends that the City of Renton is in violation of 8 Officer Morris's due process rights in the privacy of his medical information and records 9 under the Fifth and Fourteenth Amendments. 10 4.4 For reasons set forth above,the Guild contends that the City of Renton is in violation of 11 Officer Morris's right to privacy in his medical records under Washington State law, 12 including but not limited to RCW 70.02.020. 13 4.5 For reasons set forth above,the Guild contends that the City of Renton is in violation of lar..► 14 RCW 49.12.270 and RCW 49.12.287 for discriminating and disciplining Officer Morris for 15 using his sick leave time, as provided by the Agreement, for care for his family members. 16 4.6 For reasons set forth above,the Guild contends that the City of Renton is in violation of 17 RCW 49.60.180 for discriminating against Officer Morris based on sex resulting in adverse 18 effects to his employment. 19 20 V. REQUEST FOR RELIEF 21 5.1 The Guild seeks declaratory relief pursuant to RCW Chapter 7.24 that the City of 22 Renton's actions are unlawful; 23 COMPLAINT FOR DECLARATORY CLINE&ASSOCIATES Nese AND INJUNCTIVE RELIEF -7 999 THIRD AVE.,SUITE 3800 PolicaRevised` '"10oc SEATTLE,WA 98104 Ph-20(-505-SR20♦ Fx-2Ot-SOS-SR71 AIMEL. 1 5.2 The Guild seeks injunctive relief enjoining the City of Renton from compelling 2 Officer Morris to submit to a medical or mental evaluation or to waive his rights to privacy to 3 his medical and psychiatric records. 4 5.3 The Guild seeks injunctive relief enjoining the City of Renton from unlawfully 5 discriminating or retaliating against Officer Morris. 6 5.4 The Guild seeks reimbursement of attorney fees and costs for the bringing of this 7 action. 8 5.5 The Guild seeks whatever other relief the court deems appropriate. 9 10 Dated this day of December 2004. 11 Cline&Associates 12 13 By: James M , WSBA#16244 14 Aaron D. Jeide, WSBA#34299 Attorney for Plaintiff 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 COMPLAINT FOR DECLARATORY CLINE&ASSOCIATES AND INJUNCTIVE RELIEF -8 999 THIRD AVE.,SUITE 3800 44.010 CM,DoaueaslAmtoaPoticelReviadComptaictdoc SEATTLE,WA 98104 Ph-206-50S-S520•Fx•206-SOS-SR21 CITY OF RENTON MAR 2 2 2005 4141j0, CITY RECEIVED LER S BICE IN THE SUPERIOR COURT OF THE STATE OF WASHINGTON IN AND FOR THE COUNTY OF KING Renton Police Officer's Guild NO. 04-2-40153-4 KNT Order Setting Civil Case Schedule(*ORSCS) vs Plaintiff(s) City Of Renton et al ASSIGNED JUDGE McDermott 38 FILE DATE: 12/22/2004 Defendant(s) TRIAL DATE: 06/12/2006 A civil case has been filed in the King County Superior Court and will be managed by the Case Schedule on Page 3 as ordered by the King County Superior Court Presiding Judge. I. NOTICES NOTICE TO PLAINTIFF: The Plaintiff may serve a copy of this Order Setting Case Schedule (Schedule)on the Defendant(s)along with the Summons and Complaint/Petition.Otherwise, the Plaintiff shall serve the Schedule on the Defendant(s)within 10 days after the later of: (1)the filing of the Summons and Complaint/Petition or(2)service of the Defendant's first response to the Complaint/Petition,whether that response is a Notice of Appearance, a response, or a Civil Rule 12 (CR 12) motion. The Schedule may be served by regular mail,with proof of mailing to be filed promptly in the form required by Civil Rule 5 (CR 5). "I understand that I am required to give a copy of these docume to all parties in this case." Aaron c(e Print,Name Sign me Order Setting Civil Case Schedule(*ORSCS) REV.6/200 1 I. NOTICES (continued) NOTICE TO ALL PARTIES: All attorneys and parties should make themselves familiar with the King County Local Rules[KCLR]— especially those referred to in this Schedule. In order to comply with the Schedule, it will be necessary for attorneys and parties to pursue their cases vigorously from the day the case is filed. For example, discovery must be undertaken promptly in order to comply with the deadlines for joining additional parties, claims, and defenses, for disclosing possible witnesses[See KCLR 26], and for meeting the discovery cutoff date[See KCLR 37(g)]. SHOW CAUSE HEARINGS FOR CIVIL CASES [King County Local Rule 4(g)] A Confirmation of Joinder, Claims and Defenses or a Statement of Arbitrability must be filed by the deadline in the schedule. A review of the case will be undertaken to confirm service of the original complaint and to verify that all answers to claims, counterclaims and cross-claims have been filed. If those mandatory pleadings are not in the file, a Show Cause Hearing will be set before the Chief Civil or RJC judge. The Order to Show Cause will be mailed to all parties and designated parties or counsel are required to attend. PENDING DUE DATES CANCELED BY FILING PAPERS THAT RESOLVE THE CASE: When a final decree,judgment, or order of dismissal of all parties and claims is filed with the Superior Court Clerk's Office, and a courtesy copy delivered to the assigned judge, all pending due dates in this Schedule are automatically canceled, including the scheduled Trial Date. It is the responsibility of the parties to 1)file such dispositive documents within 45 days of the resolution of the case, and 2) strike any pending motions by notifying the bailiff to the assigned judge. Parties may also authorize the Superior Court to strike all pending due dates and the Trial Date by filing a Notice of Settlement pursuant to KCLR 41, and forwarding a courtesy copy to the assigned judge. If a final decree,judgment or order of dismissal of all parties and claims is not filed by 45 days after a Notice of Settlement, the case may be dismissed with notice. If you miss your scheduled Trial Date, the Superior Court Clerk is authorized by KCLR 41(b)(2)(A)to present an Order of Dismissal, without notice, for failure to appear at the scheduled Trial Date. NOTICES OF APPEARANCE OR WITHDRAWAL AND ADDRESS CHANGES: All parties to this action must keep the court informed of their addresses. When a Notice of Appearance/Withdrawal or Notice of Change of Address is filed with the Superior Court Clerk's Office, parties must provide the assigned judge with a courtesy copy. ARBITRATION FILING AND TRIAL DE NOVO POST ARBITRATION FEE: A Statement of Arbitrability must be filed by the deadline on the schedule if the case is subject to mandatory arbitration and service of the original complaint and all answers to claims, counterclaims and cross-claims have been filed. If mandatory arbitration is required after the deadline, parties must obtain an order from the assigned judge transferring the case to arbitration. Any party filing a Statement must pay a $220 arbitration fee. If a party seeks a trial de novo when an arbitration award is appealed, a fee of $250 and the request for trial de novo must be filed with the Clerk's Office Cashiers. NOTICE OF NON-COMPLIANCE FEES: All parties will be assessed a fee authorized by King County Code 4.71.050 whenever the Superior Court Clerk must send notice of non-compliance of schedule requirements and/or Local Rule 41. King County Local Rules are available for viewing at www.metrokc.gov/kcscc. Order Setting Civil Case Schedule (*ORSCS) REV.6/200 2 led II. CASE SCHEDULE ger' DEADLINE or Filing CASE EVENT EVENT DATE Needed Case Filed and Schedule Issued. Wed 12/22/2004 * Confirmation of Service[See KCLR 4.1]. Wed 01/19/2005 * Last Day for Filing Statement of Arbitrability without a Showing of Good Wed 06/01/2005 * Cause for Late Filing [See KCLMAR 2.1(a) and Notices on Page 2]. $220 arbitration fee must be paid DEADLINE to file Confirmation of Joinder if not subject to Arbitration. Wed 06/01/2005 * [See KCLR 4.2(a) and Notices on Page 2]. Show Cause hearing will be set if Confirmation is not filed. DEADLINE for Hearing Motions to Change Case Assignment Area. Wed 06/15/2005 [See KCLR 82(e)] DEADLINE for Disclosure of Possible Primary Witnesses Mon 01/09/2006 [See KCLR 26(b)]. DEADLINE for Disclosure of Possible Additional Witnesses Tue 02/21/2006 [See KCLR 26(b)]. DEADLINE for Jury Demand [See KCLR 38(b)(2)]. Mon 03/06/2006 * DEADLINE for Setting Motion for a Change in Trial Date Mon 03/06/2006 * [See KCLR 40(e)(2)]. DEADLINE for Discovery Cutoff[See KCLR 37(g)]. Mon 04/24/2006 DEADLINE for Engaging in Alternative Dispute Resolution [See KCLR Mon 05/15/2006 16(c)]. DEADLINE for Exchange Witness & Exhibit Lists & Documentary Exhibits Mon 05/22/2006 [See KCLR 16(a)(4)]. yrrr DEADLINE to file Joint Confirmation of Trial Readiness Mon 05/22/2006 * [See KCLR 16(a)(2)] DEADLINE for Hearing Dispositive Pretrial Motions[See KCLR 56; CR 56]. Tue 05/30/2006 Joint Statement of Evidence[See KCLR 16(a)(5)]. Mon 06/05/2006 * Trial Date[See KCLR 40]. Mon 06/12/2006 III. ORDER Pursuant to King County Local Rule 4[KCLR 4], IT IS ORDERED that the parties shall comply with the schedule listed above. Penalties, including but not limited to sanctions set forth in Local Rule 4(g)and Rule 37 of the Superior Court Civil Rules, may be imposed for non-compliance. It is FURTHER ORDERED that the party filing this action must serve this Order Setting Civil Case Schedule and attachment on all other parties. DATED: 12/22/2004 atatt46 ► • !• e PRESIDING JUDGE Order Setting Civil Case Schedule(*ORSCS) REV.6/200 3 IV.ORDER ON CIVIL PROCEEDINGS FOR ASSIGNMENT TO JUDGE READ THIS ORDER PRIOR TO CONTACTING YOUR ASSIGNED JUDGE This case is assigned to the Superior Court Judge whose name appears in the caption of this Schedule. The assigned Superior Court Judge will preside over and manage this case for all pre-trial matters. COMPLEX LITIGATION: If you anticipate an unusually complex or lengthy trial, please notify the assigned court as soon as possible. The following procedures hereafter apply to the processing of this case: APPLICABLE RULES: a. Except as specifically modified below, all the provisions of King County Local Rules 4 through-26 shall apply to the processing of civil cases before Superior Court Judges. CASE SCHEDULE AND REQUIREMENTS: A. Show Cause Hearing:A Show Cause Hearing will be held before the Chief Civil/Chief RJC judge if the case does not have confirmation of service on all parties, answers to all claims, crossclaims, or counterclaims as well as the confirmation of joinder or statement of arbitrability filed before the deadline in the attached case schedule.All parties will receive an Order to Show Cause that will set a specific date and time for the hearing. Parties and/or counsel who are required to attend will be named in the order. B. Pretrial Order.An order directing completion of a Joint Confirmation of Trial Readiness Report will be mailed to all parties approximately six(6)weeks before trial. This order will contain deadline dates for the pretrial events listed in King County Local Rule 16: 1)Settlement/Mediation/ADR Requirement; 2) Exchange of Exhibit Lists; 3) Date for Exhibits to be available for review; 4) Deadline for disclosure of witnesses; 5) Deadline for filing Joint Statement of Evidence; 6)Trial submissions, such as briefs, Joint Statement of Evidence,jury instructions; 7)voir dire questions, etc; 8) Use of depositions at trial; 9) Deadlines for nondispositive motions; 10) Deadline to submit exhibits and procedures to be followed with respect to exhibits; 11)Witnesses—identity, number, testimony; C. Joint Confirmation regarding Trial Readiness Report: No later than twenty one(21)days before the trial date, parties shall complete and file(with a copy to the assigned judge) a joint confirmation report setting forth whether a jury demand has been filed, the expected duration of the trial, whether a settlement conference has been held, and special problems and needs(e.g. interpreters, equipment), etc. If parties wish to request a CR 16 conference, they must contact the assigned court. Plaintiff/petitioner's counsel is responsible for contacting the other parties regarding said report. D. Settlement/Mediation/ADR: 1) Forty five(45)days before the Trial Date, counsel for plaintiff shall submit a written settlement demand. Ten (10)days after receiving plaintiffs written demand, counsel for defendant shall respond (with a counteroffer, if appropriate). 2)Twenty eight(28)days before the Trial Date, a settlement/mediation/ADR conference shall have been held. FAILURE TO COMPLY WITH THIS SETTLEMENT CONFERENCE REQUIREMENT MAY RESULT IN SANCTIONS. E. Trial: Trial is scheduled for 9:00 a.m. on the date on the Schedule oras soon thereafter as convened by the court. The Friday before trial, the parties should access the King County Superior Court website at www.metrokc.00v/kcsc to confirm trial judge assignment.Information can also be obtained by calling(206)205-5984. MOTIONS PROCEDURES: A. Noting of Motions • Dispositive Motions:All Summary Judgment or other motions that dispose of the case in whole or in part will be heard with oral argument before the assigned judge.The moving party must arrange with the courts a date and time for the hearing, consistent with the court rules. King County Local Rule 7 and King County Local Rule 56 govern procedures for all summary judgment or other motions that dispose of the case in whole or in part. The local rules can be found at www.metrokc.gov/kcscc. Nondispositive Motions:These motions,which include discovery motions,will be ruled on by the assigned judge without oral argument, unless otherwise ordered.All such motions must be noted for a date by which the ruling is requested; this date must likewise conform to the applicable notice requirements. Rather than noting a time of day,the Note for Motion should state'Without Oral Argument."King County Local Rule 7 governs these motions,which include discovery motions.The local rules can be found at www.metrokc.gov/kcscc. Motions in Family Law Cases not involving children: Discovery motions to compel, motions in limine, motions relating to trial dates and motions to vacate judgments/dismissals shall be brought before the assigned judge.All other motions should be noted and heard on the Family Law Motions Calendar. King County Local Rule 7 and King County Local Rule 94.04 govern these procedures. The local rules can be found at www.metrokc.gov/kcscc. Emergency Motions: Emergency motions will be allowed only upon entry of an Order Shortening Time. However, emergency discovery disputes may be addressed by telephone call, and without written motion, if the judge approves. Filing of Documents All original documents must be filed with the Clerk's Office. The working copies of all documents in support or opposition must be marked on the upper right corner of the first page with the date of consideration or hearing and the name of the assigned judge. The assigned judge's working copy must be delivered to his/her courtroom or to the judges' mailroom. Do not file working copies with the Motions Coordinator, except those motions to be heard on the Family Law Motions Calendar, in which case the working copies should be filed with the Family Law Motions Coordinator. Original Proposed Order: Each of the parties must include in the working copy materials submitted on fir any motion an original proposed order sustaining his/her side of the argument. Should any party desire a copy of the order as signed and filed by the judge, a preaddressed, stamped envelope shall accompany the proposed order. Presentation of Orders:All orders, agreed or otherwise, must be presented to the assigned judge. If that judge is absent, contact the assigned court for further instructions. If another judge enters an order on the case, counsel is responsible for providing the assigned judge with a copy. Proposed orders finalizing settlement and/or dismissal by agreement of all parties shall be presented to the assigned judge or in the Ex Parte Department. Formal proof in Family Law cases must be scheduled before the assigned judge by contacting the bailiff, or formal proof may be entered in the Ex Parte Department. If final orders and/or formal proof are entered in the Ex Parte Department, counsel is responsible for providing the assigned judge with a copy. C. Form: Memoranda/briefs for matters heard by the assigned judge may not exceed twenty four(24) pages for dispositive motions and twelve(12) pages for nondispositive motions, unless the assigned judge permits over-length memoranda/briefs in advance of filing. Over-length memoranda/briefs and motions supported by such memoranda/briefs may be stricken. IT IS SO ORDERED. FAILURE TO COMPLY WITH THE PROVISIONS OF THIS ORDER MAY RESULT IN DISMISSAL OR OTHER SANCTIONS. PLAINTIFF/PETITIONER SHALL FORWARD A COPY OF THIS ORDER AS SOON AS PRACTICABLE TO ANY PARTY WHO HAS NOT RECEIVED THIS ORDER. /2„4„,4 . PRESIDING JUDGE "err✓ CITY OF RENTON COUNCIL AGENDA BILL AI#: - Submitting Data: For Agenda of: itiss, Dept/Div/Board.. Economic Development, April 4, 2005 Neighborhoods, and Strategic Planning Staff Contact Don Erickson,x-6581 Agenda Status Consent X Subject: Public Hearing.. PROPOSED ANNEXATION Correspondence.. Akers Farms Annexation— 10%Notice of Intention to Ordinance Commence Annexation Proceedings Petition Resolution Old Business Exhibits: New Business Study Sessions Issue Paper,Annexation Petition Certification, 10% Information Petition Recommended Action: Approvals: Council concur to set a Public Meeting date for April Legal Dept X 18, 2005 Finance Dept Other LeFiscal Impact: Expenditure Required... Transfer/Amendment Amount Budgeted Revenue Generated Total Project Budget N/A City Share Total Project.. SUMMARY OF ACTION: The petitioners submitted this petition to the City Clerk on February 22, 2005 and the signatures were certified by the King County Department of Assessments on March 7, 2005. The proposed 12.99-acre annexation site is located in Renton's Potential Annexation Area immediately east of Nelson Middle School. It is bounded on the west by 108th Avenue SE,if extended, on the east approximately 200 feet east of 109th Avenue SE, and on the south by SE 164th Street. State law requires a public meeting with the proponents within 60-days of their submittal to consider their request. STAFF RECOMMENDATION: Council set April 18, 2005 for a public meeting to consider the 10%Notice of Intention to Commence Annexation Proceedings petition and future zoning for the proposed Akers Farms Annexation. If Council accepts the 10%Notice of Intention petition, staff recommends that it authorize circulation of a 60%Direct Petition based upon assessed value, for an expanded annexation area that includes the parcel to the immediate east, and the inclusion of the SE 164th Street right-of-way to the south. Such petition must specify on its face that future zoning will be R-8 (maximum eight units per net lkire acre) and that existing and future property owners will assume their fair share of the City's outstanding indebtedness,paying the same rate as all other property owners within the City. EDNSP/PAA/Annexations/Maplewood East/agnbill/de CITY OF RENTON vik"' ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT, NEIGHBORHOODS AND STRATEGIC PLANNING MEMORANDUM DATE: March 23, 2005 TO: Tern Briere, Council President City Councilmembers VIA: �� Mayor Kathy Keolker-Wheeler FROM: Alex Pietsch,Administrator ,1 / `' Economic Development,Neighborhoods and Strategic Planning Department STAFF CONTACT: Don Erickson(6581) SUBJECT: Proposed Akers Farm Annexation 10% Notice of Intent ISSUE: The City is in receipt of a Notice of Intent to annex about 10.84 acres by the direct petition method (Figure 1). State law requires that the Council holds 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. RECOMMENDATION: On the basis of the following analysis,the Administration recommends that Council accepts the 10% Notice of Intent petition. If Council concurs,the Administration recommends that it take the following actions(pursuant to RCW 35A.14.120): • Amend the proposed annexation area to include the abutting 2.46-acre parcel to the east,and that portion of SE 164th Street right-of-way, south of the expanded annexation; • Authorize the circulation of the 60%Direct Petition to Annex for the expanded 13.61-acre area; and, • Require that property owners within the proposed annexation area assume a proportional share of the City's outstanding indebtedness. BACKGROUND SUMMARY: The irregularly shaped Akers Farms Annexation site has not previously been considered for annexation to Renton. It is generally located south of SE 160th Street and east of the City of Renton limits(108th Avenue SE). lase 1. Location: The proposed 13.61-acre,irregular shaped,Akers Farms Annexation is located immediately east of Nelson Middle School. Its western boundary is 108th Avenue SE, if Proposed Akers Farms Annexation 10%Notice of Intent March 29,2005 Page 2 extended. Its northern boundary is the south side of SE 161St Street. It is bounded on the northeast by the Puget Sound Energy transmission line right-of-way. And, its eastern boundary is a hypothetical north-south line 45-feet east of 109t Avenue SE,if extended. Its southern boundary would be the south edge of the SE 164th Street. 2. Assessed value: The 2005 assessed valuation at current development is $968,000. 3. Natural features: The site slopes down to the north and is defined by the edge of a ridge in its SE corner as well as a ridge along the northeast corner(Figure 4,Topography). 4. Existing land uses: Existing development includes four single-family detached dwellings and their associated structures. All existing development is located along SE 164t Street. Existing lots vary in size from 0.34 acres up to 2.65 acres. One of the six lots is currently vacant(Figure 3,Existing Structures). 5. Existing zoning: King County zoning is R-8. R-8 allows up to a base density of eight units per gross acre, and up to 12 units per acre with incentives and transfer of density credits. 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. Water Utility. The subject area is within the water service area of Soos Creek Water and Sewer District by agreement under the East King County Coordinated Water System Plan. A certificate of water availability from the District will be required prior to the issuance of development permits within the subject area, following annexation to the City. Hydrant flow test and hydraulic analysis of the District's system will also be required for new development in the annexed area. The District must provide adequate water supply and pressure for new development within the City and must meet Renton's standards for fire protection and domestic water service. The City should verify that adequate water supply is available from the District's system for fire protection of new development. Sewers. The area is not currently served by sewer. Sewer exists in the City of Renton to the west. The southern part of the annexation site is within the Soos Creek Water and Sewer District and the northern portion of the annexation site is located within the Renton Sewer Service Area. Sewers would be extended by developer extension as the annexation area develops. Parks. The City has a shortfall of both neighborhood and community parkland in this area. The nearest public park is Thomas Teasdale Park, about a half mile to the west. Cascade Park in unincorporated King County is approximately a mile to the east. The projected cost of developing and maintaining parkland to a level consistent with the service levels in the City's Comprehensive Park,Recreation,and Open Space Plan is estimated to be$49,237. This one time estimated cost is above the estimated$43,522 the City would receive from its Parks Mitigation Fee,based upon the development of 85 new homes. Fire. The area is currently served by Fire District#40. Upon annexation,the City would*guy over fire prevention and suppression services for the 13.61-acre area. Proposed Akers Farms Annexation 10%Notice of Intent March 29,2005 Page 3 Police. With an estimated future population of approximately 218 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. Surface Water. The proposed annexation drains to the north into the east fork of Rolling Hills Creek, about a mile to the north. Staff notes that because of flooding problems in the lower reaches of this creek at the Renton Village site,future development should be subject to stream protection storm water detention standards,such as the 1998 King County Surface Water Design Manual,Level 2 or equivalent or stricter standards adopted by the City. Annual maintenance costs for the existing drainage system are estimated to be less than$100 per year,increasing to about$250 per year in the future,with full development. Transportation. Staff notes that additional transportation staff would not be required. They also note that upgrading 108th Avenue SE north of SE 164th Street would be the shared responsibility of the Renton School District and the developers of the property along its eastern edge. Additionally,they note that the cost of new curbs,gutters,sidewalks, and street lighting abutting the proposed annexation area and/or new access streets within the annexation area would be at the expense of existing property owners and/or future development. ANALYSIS OF THE PROPOSED ANNEXATION: 1. Consistency with the Comprehensive Plan: Renton'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 410s'' development pressure under the King County Comprehensive Plan,zoning, and subdivision regulations(Policies LU-36 and LU-37). The area would also be available for urbanization under Renton's Residential Single Family land use designation. Renton is the logical provider of most urban infrastructure and services to the area(Policy LU-38). Policy LU-43.1 states that,in general,the greater the contiguity with the city limits,the more favorable the annexation. The area proposed for annexation abuts the City limits along its western boundary for about 2,000 feet or about 60%of its perimeter. Also,the proposed annexation does not divide an existing established neighborhood(Policy LU-43.4). The area included in this annexation primarily consists of large,under-developed lots. 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 relatively under-developed at the current time. b. Use of physical boundaries, including but not limited to bodies of water, highways, and land contours; Except for a small area,boundaries follow existing city boundaries, streets,or parcel lines. c. Creation and preservation of logical service areas; Water and sewer service boundaries will not change. Neither will school district boundaries. — As noted above,Renton will take over the 13.61 acres now served by Fire District No.40 upon annexation. There will be no change in the garbage service provider for at least seven years,pursuant to state law. Proposed Akers Farms Annexation 10%Notice of Intent March 29, 2005 Page 4 ,o, d. Prevention of abnormally irregular boundaries; The new city boundary resulting from this annexation would be more regular than the existing City boundary. This boundary is considered interim as this area is located within Renton's PAA and further annexations are anticipated in this area in the future. 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. As noted above,there is a proposed incorporation in the area,but its western boundary is along 128th Avenue SE. 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 future. 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 not included in the area to the east that is being considered for incorporation, 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. No portions of the proposed annexation area are rural or designated for long term productive agricultural use in the King County or Renton Comprehensive Plans. 3. A fiscal analysis for the proposed annexation is attached. This analysis indicates that the proposed annexation would initially cost the City approximately$1,874 a year;however,at full development with an estimated 87 homes,the City would receive$4,787 more than it spends to serve the area. There is an estimated one-time cost of$49,237 for park acquisition and development,based on the estimated 218 people who would ultimately live here. CONCLUSION: The proposal is essentially consistent with relevant County and City annexation policies, as well as Boundary Review Board objectives for annexation. Reviewing staff has identified no impediments to the provision of City services to the area. Because the 10%Notice of Intent petition was signed by 100%of the property owners in the proposed area,staff is recommending that the boundaries of the annexation include the abutting SE 164t Street right-of-way to the south and be extended one parcel to the east,creating a more reasonable eastern *No' boundary(Figure 6). Attachments F Lv IPSIMUI161111"111 i Y.& i; S76)/ 7/e 4 /1111 111. Mr 41111/. ...k f . % is I EN ow i f/s 18th (NIII. Ilk -0, is.::$ !"E4t, CD0, ,wie",...fek, _LV \\-\ .< _ kift 4-. 4. . s, ��►► * �� .`t4r4 47/3 Puy #14" �� 1iiii ��aEA Or .1► a*4 :4 .1a■��►�: rr � gra 7\,.4w- MIN NMIliir Vim a Rik aw au ' ist . �i mi�►� i \ __1 \ t3161st5t NM p,Nk NI itC ` SE1E2nd-S 4 ill . SS V, ' a . -! illa vet�� - SC 1 ►►4th t ilk • * rte S 27th St I 1 i f I I \ Vi Pk WHIM / ...... I on Nis II 4 0.-. wink Nagium r ' 1 , " ili WIN oit 0 • OW -.14wmil „ _ < 66, " di i A vamb.." 0 ci, >. m al r* rA I aimi . a , 111,- Q f& Nil IMO Iiii mall1111 I -,r-s, Enkm_r 144 4 .1 -NI ■ ■ ,t %►. QVIpl ■miE mPétkWi1itoNI En ■•�1.! - - -INI- im . IL 66. iiSEC -E In Nam' ..-�■,. -c_ 16, t l st Proposed Akers Farms Annexation 0 600'tiiiwor'igure 1: Vicinity Map • Economic Development,Neighborhoods&Strategic Planning — — — City Limits 1 : 7200 +C)• A e Pietsch,Administrator G.Del Rosano Proposed Annex.Area 4 . .tO' I March 2005 k lot" '..?-'7,,,,;--4" 'd._ '37;t.-'1 .'�.e- L ; 1l.' 5�.P ' /+�}g ^+ y "" s' k xb xMv ig .. "Nit .. .y •; i i''FmA L', :.'' 'Pt's.'.''-'4:,•;4',--4r44"*.''t ;.� ,,_iii .i� Z t '�' �"�„ �€c y`i'p+?'�rT i` 1111'44yy 1. ::k .,_ SA � 0. .� ,$ .:. " .f[ ',ice S �' .k S' •� • .,. ..,„„„,t,,:...,,,,:.:::.,.._,.. ..,.e...,,,,7._. .41&:-,,,3:::..y,:.- ..,it.-4;,t1-..f,112; .�'i ,� » -.;3-,�� ha�sr 'Y3 ��..V. � LTi �: 1`^ F • '�. - #` a C T" "' i „{a 'amu., S4• a. �k.-.�C. g 3 S f � �i � � 4� at= t ,t r -1 � ?k axs t. fi +3'1 ' '�� '`.� Y ----F4,-=1,,,. .,,,,,,,,.. ..--7,77,...-',".. � • t s. r ova :*x-+ x ty ,�` see ...„.„........ 1i, ' i ,,;;\,,,..,,,,,,..„` 1,.. r • bk. .F . a, t :.'4".* , ,�'� „,r ..r ''t,:3 e '� N� 4��.di"'''''::W'' �5.��y' �r fi ;�. ----k---,,..,-. .".---1.,-,-._-,,,,, r '� , � A-11mill �. yFr... a+ t ,... ,. 5;111tH _ 4 js t FE R , , , .,, „ ., ,:.,, ,.„,,,,,, ..;,,,..„,„ ,.; ,„.: , ....,.....,.:...,. . :.:, ,... .... . , A r ' :::7: IA74 tt 1S 6 A ' .rte :1111Hrt*''.41.4°47:-1,11111", .4 J • Ti f t -,:.,...„,. .,... .. :-:. ,, ',':... ' .F .,ilk f- 'LFA ^YF 5.. ...-_,Am.,..„,,,„--„,. -p;.r<{ > { ) X ::'t,. r +w.., '# ,:l''' &r5 fi i a i W4. ' WW i i g '.;.„. ,. ,,,,,,,,,ft4;4.':,', :',-'--''''. ..• ,-A,1,,,;. ,1,7.4)! 1., \.. :•'-..,„ '',., JI014,144$:.L., ..,'".,1.,. ''' ; ' ! '• ' ihr ,. � t .,, 111 � s z "lr_ ;; i .,. i I w dabgp ..„., . . , rt 3 Ott , ',-,41--, ,- .11.14'-:- .1 j` '-. ,_.- . . ... .....:.„,„„,„ __ , ._ r 4 r r' r.r: ' '..71': . . 't''' ,• Ill':1 M£' l'AiM „.t ro t r'{r'':77.;:, .t, ,lllr4 ,s r'l a � . .UYS �� 'tl.�I.'i'�'7 iso "�" . • � Proposed Akers Farms Annexation 0 200 400 '�r►r=igure 2: Aerial Map T • Economic Development,Neighborhoods&Strategic Planning - - - City Limits 1 24 00 •C)• Alex fletsch,Administrator c.Del Rosario Proposed Annex.Area . I March 2005 1 1 0<> virvp Nli Ej 1 mi, 6.1...lir i . )' 1--- ° S 0 Efi r-L:: } -u- a t n�- t i _i_u_. 3 ❑ ❑ L_ ❑❑ S F ' fi • 0 D . _.. . . _ -o 11 Now mill 04 _❑❑❑ i •illiipiir ' xEllON t n c 4ELI]airCiEP ❑ d r I' 1111FI-1 oI_ I( 7J;J 8 0 L u c] Si Li__ LL. ThlppCs-1 M' n Proposed Akers Farms Annexation 0 200 400 'Figure 3: Existing Structures MapStructure = C T ®• Economic Development,Neighborhoods&Strategic Planning — — — City Limits 1 : 2400 • • Alex Retl Roscsarh,io Adminisiretor I I Proposed Annex.Area De -NTO- 1 March 2005 r \��/ / ,F- /J"� 120.73x X119.24 \ . __ f 141 f \\ 134 2 - X 51x x 122.32 \ / 1 \ _- 126.75' _ . • - ___ 1 - .. '40.18 ___ ------ x x •1 ____. _ it _ X in.47 137.14 x 1 128.{6 X26.32\i I - ' X128'59 x178.58 x x127.94 x127.99 , t 12X&86 36.M }}ii -4 _ ' _ �' 141.45 I., i. 118 -- 13419 X - x128.32 12344 12&50 x128.51 t x14018 x12340 x12840 X X ,- 38.43 X EE X2&73 1\ \ 125.: O 13352 141.76 ,39.20 X 1 -- - 1 \ -�_ 12 _. i x ---- 12&OB J 1 140.70 /X Xi7B.B4X12&40\ \\ x 1 ,40.47 �\ 131.15 _ \\ (` • 129.09 1 -[ '`I x ki,x //��4 X12&78 \l ,x { - } 110.41 ``� r - - f •��- T ,i"o-'. , _ 11 ) x :.20 X739'08 X x,3,.38 .T- tt _ I) \`� x,29,6 i- - x128.26 �. - �. 1 31.15 / X \ \ ! ( x139.50:' 1440.12 140.22 x131.40 x131.47I N. _ , x12S97 _ x129.41 - - - t "- -.ro.w `. 335X 130.97 � '. X139.36 x137.38 f (� ` X13.6Z x731.42 -___ J 129.39 129.26 i 'f' \ \.; i ` J \� . 137.31 X X 129.80 ` N. J8.66 x 131.27 129.48 J ; X129.91 `X129.15 --__ X137.73 X / _ _ _ iJ7.85 1X1.25 X x129.33 / t, `� r X `�q_ `__ x 13124 ' J a(\ - 131.15 ' :: _ _ , i X128'43 - Xi30.65_-_ 131.19 12&75 X 131.19 131 46 '- ti x131 13 X X X131.59 _ `� x133.14 ' 6.77 - -- -._- ( 12&52 1 -29' 13281 X X130.84 X130.90- X130.91 1 X 12&7< X 13362 `6,5.53 x12&S8 X - - .0 -`1�`\ ! _ _` - - x128.31 x133.08 "-_ � _ .--- ., \ , - :{ ,- x1 .75 132 E7__ 33.42 X X I "36.,7 \\ \ ' 129.77 X 137.N x138.8{ X13&82 X13&BJ \ ( � x12447/ x129. x1 X 132_ x 13&73 \ X ' 13314 x138.73 X \\ 1302434 13258 X133-24- - 133 47 ` X A .�_ X138.90 -� 138 50�. X1.P. 129.76 Xl • /- ,. . i X 49 X 1. / iJ4.60 / x139.17 xtJ93J 51 x129.89 13 82x .I X L* F - ,.-f - xi , L. / �-^ .X_ :.-T1 _ ,"„. Yom. X29.73 X ` 13284 X i 13&60 - :--Ye.'" s __ • 131.57 x t------ , X 13 20 ._ _ - _ - 135.80 , -- t'- - -X1�'�'"' 129 131.57 �-f ^_- �. _ X130.47 X <` X i S � t _ _ �__ ',13266 ', 13259 '�119.69,78.95 x13&82 S3&� - 131.73 x x176.63 13&85 - X 1 X.86 ii x1]6.21 X -^ - ---- --1 - x129.17 X 130.41 734.7 _ 129.6 x1 9.28 X 18.55 / 137.30, 138.41 140.51 _ 7641.1% 31 __.. ' X12&42 X _ 129.90 .-129.79 130.4' X X / 131 , - x17&27 ` X 137.26 ,Ill 129.72 �__ r- �". 1 63 129.43 x x,11.18 is,. '-x 1 ---`. ' 127.92- ,30.49 -. 7' X --- 1.39.7 X _ "X29.80 128.37 X 1324 137. . \ \ Xi 13292 129.29 X 0 Y X _ 29.79 138.15 X .. X �- 12&62 i 141,23 134.75 X 127.22 X 138.07 X x 1 r 53 X 128'75 x129.28 X x X23E1 x129.43 131.7 X 128.79 X 3 x140.43 x 128.33 x; h __. 1714,6 127.22 129.15 Proposed Akers Farms Annexation 0 200 400 so rror=igure 4:Topography Map im Interval Contours iMilill:'z:;':';;:':'::o .® • Economic Development,Neighborhoods&Strategic Planning - - - City Limits 1 : 2400 . � AlexRe[sch,Administrator I I Proposed Annex.Area G.Del Rosario IVSO I March 2005 2 --------.. Niertir IIP \ H 4 C { 7.N\ I( ( ) AVT:' 'if ,' -:1''' ' : SF 11 roc . t 1 ______ D . _ s_.._., 64tnt . ._ S 27tn St ......_ 1 1 _ 4Y , . _ , 0,2 ,___0/2 , , ____ > , , , _ itt ..., 016, (x) _ ___,_., 07 CD 06 CD_ proposed Akers Farms Annexation 0 300 600 ,ii. figure 5: Sensitive Areas Map Unclassified Coal Mine 1 : 3600 • Economic Development,Neighborhoods&Strategic Planning Hazard Boundary 4.®♦ Ail% Itsc,Admimstrator Moderate Slide Hazard — — — City Limits G.lid Rosario AT,gOI March 2005 Boundary I- i Proposed Annex.Area . 1lPr:'/'' V 6/6 ,\ V i it � nNu 1111 Ms MII II�Ionl a, S 18th I 11116. 1141 1.14 ;rem ■■mp 4kb. ii -fp.. v.) IL.Ati pi m oar • li I I‘ �j�� in 41 '�� I•1 c kt)_,-\\ Qoil Is* as•-/ 4. �� ♦♦♦•t v��• auggio0 Ai . oirip olgir 1 iiik" • 4fid 6- : „0 Or iit * 441) PI" IhTIII# awil ( SE t .w ■■I ■s 11111t. I IMP • �04 � ► 0 1 � I I I I I II11I ] I -L: 161st � l �• 0 \sE 1624 0- n. ' t ih i ft ►•t' - - i > Q • ____ I ' _C '0**Oil,(.4AN `=E-144th t 0 S 27th St , * In 1, ♦ 1. \\ IL'IIP. sis♦ ♦ ��7■■■■�• ■ > a to-- '‘waria cf) ... Irt. la • voit -wok -43-,_) rc) 0 iiih, mil IN' PM III a) °gm bE4W 6 -.Nil iii ri aii 0 Fri _ II cp -‹ t IIEr t N I ► I 7111)111111111I - � srN ' IMO la &Jim, - Rim iiiii MakCOWw iim L — — - . _ I!4 Q I - ■ .: ..) min = c_ ' 69til St NE �.I . ■ i— .. I I r— ,roposed Akers Farms Annexation 0 600 1200 Figure 6: Vicinity Map ' Economic Development,Neighborhoods&Strategic Planning — — — Clty LIR11ts 1 : /�/ 200 ®; "'ex p;etsch,nam;�,st ator Proposed Annex.Area .Del Rosario ANT• 1 March 2005 ANNEXATION FISCAL ANALYSIS SHEET FOR MAPLEWOOD EAST ANNEXATION Units Population AV Existing dev. 5 13 $968,000 Full dev. 87 218 $28,912,000 Name Assumptions: 2.5 persons/household $380,000 AV/new unit ........ ......... . $161300,000 AV/existing unit .................. Total revenues Existing Full Rate Existing $4;940:0 Regular levy $3,040 $90,784 3.14 Full ; ;$ 24;345 85 Excess levy $86 $2,563 0.08865 State shared revenues Rate (per cap) Existing Full Liquor tax $3.52 $45.76 $767.36 Liquor Board profits $5.04 $65.52 $1,098.72 Fuel tax-roads $14.46 $187.98 $3,152.28 Fuel tax-arterials $6.47 $84.11 $1,410.46 MVET $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 Camper excise $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 Criminal justice $0.36 $4.68 $78.48 Total $388.05 $6,507.30 Miscellaneous revenues Rate Existing Full Real estate excise* $40.86 $531.18 $8,907.48 Utility tax** $133.20 $666.00 $11,588.40 Fines&forfeits* $18.33 $238.29 $3,995.94 Total $1,435.47 $24,491.82 * Per capita ** Per housing unit-based on $2,220 annual utility billing @ 6%tax rate Total ongoing costs Per capita Existing Full Existing `'''::::fie,822 3 Contracted Services Alcohol $0.23 $2.95 $49.49 Public Defender $3.13 $40.74 $683.21 Jail $7.19 $93.50 $1,567.86 Subtotal $137.19 $2,300.55 Court/legal/admin. $57.08 $742.04 $12,443.44 Parks maintenance* $14.90 $193.70 $3,248.20 Police $282.00 $3,666.00 $61,476.00 Road maintenance** N/A $500.00 $3,248 Fire*** $1.25 $1,210.00 $36,140.00 Stormwater maintenance N/A $374.00 $703.00 Total $6,822.93 $119,559.19 *See Sheet Parks FIA **See Sheet Roads FIA *** Rate per$1,000 of assessed valuation (FD#25 contract) Net fiscal impact ............... `***$282/service call-.92 calls/MF & .74 calls/SF Existing 1:;874;08 Full iiMiiii$4,713$A$ One-time costs Parks acquisition &development(from Sheet Parks FIA): $49,237.00 Other one-time costs: $0.00 %o, Total one-time costs: i $4$;237.00 Revised 8-29 per Finance Memo $,* King County Nosy, 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.info(ametrokc.gov www.metroke.gov/assessor/ ANNEXATION PETITION CERTIFICATION THIS IS TO CERTIFY that the petition submitted February 24, 2005 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 Akers Farms Annexation, has 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 New Section of Revised Code of Washington, Section 35.13.002. 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 7th day of March, 2005 Scott Noble, King unty Assessor slow :..S,z02M /1-OS 00/ CITY OF RENTON F E B 2 2 2005 NOTICE OF INTENTION TO COMMENCE CITY RECEIVEDt CLERKS ANNEXATION PROCEEDINGS y'p7alr UNDER RCW 35A.14.120 (Direct Petition Method) (10%PETITION—AKERS FARMS ANNEXATION) TO: THE CITY COUNCIL OF SUBMITTED BY: Sir's4 Dom, THE CITY OF RENTON ADDRESS: ts",i 3 7 13g , ve se- City Hall, c/o City Clerk .f-te4„Ma-7 W/} ' -o cfr 1055 South Grady Way PHONE: 2 3 C 8-3 01-- Renton, WA 98055 Cell 2_06 l r/I l The undersigned are the owners of properties representing not less than ten percent (10%) of the assessed value of all property within the proposed annexation area which they 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.14.120, 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 legal description (Exhibit 2) and map (Exhibit 1) 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; and, 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. 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. Now Akers Farms Annexation Petition Page 1 of 2 WARNING: Every person who signs this petition with any other than his or her true name, or who 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 *4104 herein any false statement,shall be guilty of a 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.) { rv„, � PO 130x: cPc�s7{ 0CS8d0 of,3v S�2`ce� 1. ��fbS �c o•t l 1 fo5? )0 .1c)13 �t,Ct 41r.,0r. 00 g 00 o cO i 69 on 2. �� 12-CA/713t4 q6D.c1-- 3. (L(it/31-- . 10101 S L t 64+h 0033 %51 1 q 11003, "1— A4 Pes4eA Y&og 2 7 (51 jr 2 00 ; o iy�� O s. �1 �( 9f�� 6. 7. 8. 9. 10. Page 2 of 2 H:\DIVISION.S\P&TS\PLANNING\ANNEX110%Notice of Intent(rev's).doc\DE 02/08/05 , ,dle l�Al°39 gaii/ove » � •3;g027110 111 LOCATI31/8 2.0174 \ ';.oPEET:IBD Is Sar caves x" olr:9.e KING COUNTY ASSESSOR r_.-ems•°"a° "�'�• Y»• 3-r3 �� -t s,�s=��3o *r n r-1 1329.32 Gt fit.. 1�1 N 88 �u SE 160TH ST BOW LAKE PIPE LINE-SEATTLE CITY WATER ORD.7501 '� 7wDEED 2.483/76__ . ` ° t e/ O19' \` /•r2 :\,:\\\ \ ,4G, rse ,,.rs ao 1O.e•100 .. s ts h. + Y� 'V kbo 4 i'�� 1'J-/1%' U "s ` A n 8 ,M tic 51 ti "r- /j 1b 0as0 •o•�e ��a�o. 15 �B `` / 4- /20 iCt ">'�_ ► t5 1 a �FNreAr �!>•+�75 ORP.T.Li�A 1�pA;Rc'q w0..11,01. O • \ ...�J� .44111-00II*.W.3730 1 , 0 D(A �'' ••3•p ‘1.4 -ki �,\\*\%4 \\\, V � 04� \�' -\ 1keA5 1- w lt120 o 3k`` v. c • p7 —r ooto 1.A `, w v~ yy. ^�B�p A i2o • lo 4 a , Y.0 4 N.-4- o;10.�, '� •I o P 4. * ` ` \ y 2 !AOlt �3RD' 3 141'�f •e o. I S!•13 A.• .o4.G9 - /7.o pot+ 30 3o '• r2o��!1 • = we _SE 162 ND ST_ A rj © _ 09a..r-� - \ 1_44\.-. i E N l!•l0.1r 4. CV 3st. tl9./ '3 43 `13 to A 0. LI irp7.., yip \\C � • o alb e 1: E .'f. ,,H.,. ( ---(----..o%,.0 F CJf.sP YTW,. p1 di °4 79a�ab V C.---. !0 M I v Gc uo ti\ --' I. , . \ Ob W , 33��'C n U O 3 -c I. '.O 0'aa ' 7J 0. a O —- -ate, dpJ ! w � y w p e e �� ,se d.Is .,....934,,,,_ oy ; y� Nil q �, P r 1 a y so . ,+ %ter % 4 k s. A —7,7—--1,e \ el). s--1.41,.. 6�� ,000•D o I cc �'�j C J- 1 oaA ', / 2 el. �`p n�"�a 4 DS �'f :' asyu 5 o '• 9It/y� (/�`< c ) .so I It /3r I.s LE. 42.1.47 38[. ` 1.27 '�1 _ .+i8•el'••vc••w SE 164TH ST - A . /CJ !/G3$e .. n e - 4.3o `�0 0 II° '4c no So 701 C� re j0 js 4' / I 75 304 >S 76 roe 1371. I ree 3e 30 .237.24 I 11 9 1 H + I � q 1 aI ,,( ,�a0,u e` , ! + "v 12,5 V) tt 1619 !! POI , �' oya" :, 0,y` •� 11 ; I - y9OkkZ r7 k, 0 I •r.° , 0. 1 an OR , p1� 0° o• i 13e9.IsM ..• .• r•z e 'asp,° P • M 20 V �, � _ !t z.! h 2 13 t `• I:�B2a I rev 60), •s 0G90 ., vasa •►►• 066• o s n M3 u u�sa0 I3Z DI O . 3 12 b r I E_xic'rn' r 2!. . qt ,... Old Republic Title & Escrow i 4, , Parcel No. :008800 0830 Bldg ID#: Total A.V. :$50,000 Owner :Owens Ronald J Land :$50,000 Co Owner : Struct . Site Addr :*no Site Address* %Imprvd . Mail Addr :PO Box 58054 Renton Wa 98058 Levy Code :4250 Sale Date :10/02/1989 Doc# :1247 2004 Tax :$586.08 Sale Price . Deed :Quit Claim Excise Tax#:1089001 Loan Amt : Lender : Q:NE S:29 T:23N R:05E Land Use :300 VACANT,RESIDENTIAL Map Grid :656 E6 Zoning :R8so Nbrhd Code :030002 Bldg Name : Phone# . Plat :Akers Farms No.06 Census Tract: Block: Legal :BLK 10 LOT 2 AKERS FARMS#6 LESS Vol :42 Pg:15 :S 400 FT SUBJ TO TRANS LN R/W PROPERTY CHARACTERISTICS Bedrooms : 1st Floor SF Year Built . Bath Full 2nd Floor SF Eff Year . Bath 3/4 3+Floor SF Bldg Matl . Bath 1/2 Above Gmd SF : Bldg Cond : Other Rms : Bsmnt Finished : Bldg Grade : Dining Rm : Bsmnt Total SF : Interior . Fireplace Building SqFt Wall Matl . Stories Basement Type : Insulation . DeckBasement Grade : Heat Source : Deck Sq Ft : Bsmt Parking SF : Heat Type . PorchGarage Type Air Method Pool Attached Grg SF : Electric Svc : Units Detached Grg SF : Wtr Source :Water District Nuisance Carport SqFt Sewer Type : LAND INFORMATION VIEW INFORMATION St Access :Restricted Lot Sq Ft :97,138 View :None Mountain . St Surface Lot Acres :2.23 Lake/RiverMt.Rainier Wtr Front Lot Shape Lake Sammamish: Olympics . WtrFntLoc : Tde/Upind : Lake Washington: Cascades . WtrFmtFT : Topography : Puget Sound Territorial . Golf Adj :No Topo Probd : Seattle Skyline : Other . TRANSFER HISTORY OWNER(S) DATE DOC# PRICE DEED LOAN TYPE • • • • • REAL ESTATE SOLUTIONS 800-345-7334 Information compiled from various sources. Real Estate Solutions makes no representations or warranties as to the accuracy or completeness of information contained in this report. COMMONWEALTH LAPIDI NIS GAras SPACt►ROV!DID roe elCOPOtCS 1.13f,nru pneaAuc(OPIUM RECEIVED Philadelphia Penney Minis Ocr :► :1 or, 1,'89 Filed for Record at Request of ee�F BY 1K Veit • ,.r 1" Name RONALD J. OWENS C' Y 9'3. 10,•02 812.17 is 61 Address P.Q. BOX 58054 REC"' F 5.00 PI RECFEE 2.00 N City and Stata._RENTON, WASHINGTON 96058 CASHSL. **,,07.00 © 55 " • C) Quit Claim Deed THE GRANTOR ALBERT J. OWEIIS, A SINGLE PERSON for and in consideration of LOVE AND AFFECTION conveys and quit claims to RONALD J. OWENS the following described real estate,situated in the County of KING State of Washington, together with di alter acquired title of the grantor(s) therein: LOT 2, BLOCK 10, AKERS FARMS NO. 6, LESS THE SOUTH 400 FEET, VOLUME 42, PAGE 15, RECORDS OF KING COUNTY, WASHINGTON. KING COUNTY NO EXCISE TAX OCT 2 1e:S E1089001 Dated�j SEPTEMBER 26 19 89 • • ALBERT J. O tinividual) • Ely (Individual) (Pierian!) By (Secretary) STATE OF WASHINGTON ) STATE OF WASHINGTON I 59 ea On Oda day personally appeared before ma On this_l.11II_.day o ._ Ifl.__. before me.the andemigncd,a •otan P.• e in and for the Stale of Wash ALBERT.J__OWEf1S_ ... _._..__...„ infirm.duly commissioned and a •r, penonally appeared.____._... to m•known to be the Individual described in and f1c._BkS•.L,,,0 40 . who executed the within and foregoing instrument, and_.__._.____. and acknowledged that.„HE.._.„.aimed the mune to mo known to be the.........._» „..._..Pr• 'dent and__._._.____..Secretary, as.._.,M.I.S,......_free and voluntary act and deed, respectively,of—+..._...__. ._. for the uses and purposes therein mentioned. ihe corporation that ex Wed the foregoing trument,and acknowledged the said instrument to the free and volunta •et and deed of said torpor- • 1}tsrN"IVYthe uses an. purposes therein mentions.,and on oath stated that authorized to execute the said inst ument and that the seal GIVEN under my hand and oSdai seal this iV 0k.4.94,s th!ear('erateseal of said corporation. •12140d y `.ub�W,tn`''sen�•y4,al and official seal hereto affixed the day and year fleet elseY Public in an or the Stale of W r. . C. .-trotaily Public in and for the Stale of Washington. Ington,residing at.._..._J_.fol -i�__._. • .•• '-- FORM 3156 (Washington) 'F 0F * # Old Republic Title & Escrow Parcel No. :008800 0831 Bldg ID#: Total A.V. :$112,000 Owner :Badissy Zine/Najiba Trust Land :$112,000 Co Owner : Struct . Site Addr :10818 SE 164th St Renton 98055 %Imprvd . Mail Addr :4909 119th PI NE Kirkland Wa 98033 Levy Code :4250 Sale Date :11/25/2002 Doc# :872 Multi-parcel 2004 Tax :$1,406.44 Sale Price Deed :Quit Claim Excise Tax#:1923677 Loan Amt : Lender : Q:NE S:29 T:23N R:05E Land Use :002 RES,SINGLE FAMILY RESIDENCE Map Grid :656 D6 Zoning :R8so Nbrhd Code :030002 Bldg Name : Phone# . Plat :Akers Farms No. 06 Census Tract:258.01 Block:I Legal :BLK 10 LOT 2 AKERS FARMS#6 S 400 Vol :42 Pg:15 :FT PROPERTY CHARACTERISTICS Bedrooms : 1st Floor SF Year Built . Bath Full 2nd Floor SF Eff Year . Bath 3/4 3+Floor SF Bldg Matl . Bath 1/2 Above Gmd SF : Bldg Cond : Other Rms : Bsmnt Finished : Bldg Grade : Dining Rm : Bsmnt Total SF : Interior . Fireplace Building SqFt Wall Matl . Stories Basement Type : Insulation . Deck Basement Grade : Heat Source : Deck Sq Ft : Bsmt Parking SF : Heat Type . Porch Garage Type Air Method : Pool Attached Grg SF : Electric Svc : Units Detached Grg SF : Wtr Source :Water District Nuisance :Yes Carport SqFt Sewer Type :Public LAND INFORMATION VIEW INFORMATION St Access :Public Lot Sq Ft :59,677 View :None Mountain . St Surface :Paved Lot Acres :1.37 Lake/River Mt.Rainier : Wtr Front Lot Shape : Lake Samnamish: Olympics . WtrFntLoc : Tde/Upind : Lake Washington: Cascades . WtrFrntFT : Topography : Puget Sound Territorial . Golf Adj :No Topo Probd : Seattle Skyline : Other . TRANSFER HISTORY OWNER(S) DATE DOC# PRICE DEED LOAN TYPE :Badissy Zine/Najiba Trust :11/25/2002 872 :Quit Claim : . • • • kilid REAL ESTATE SOLUTIONS 800-345-7334 Information compiled from various sources. Real Estate Solutions makes no representations or warranties as to the accuracy or completeness of information contained in this report. QUIT CLAIM DEED ZINE AND NAJIBA BADISSY, a marned couple, hereby quit claims to ZINE AND NAJIBA BADISSY, trustee, or successor trustee(s)of the ZINE AND NAJIBA BADISSY TRUST DATED OCTOBER 2, 2002, (hereinafter referred to as"Assignee"), the following described real 6V estate m Kmg County, State of Washington ars 1 Tax Parcel Number 0088000831 Legal Description 2 10AKERS FARMS # 63 400FT 2 Tax Parcel Number 6843000290 C=7 Legal Descnption 15 2PONDEROSA ESTATES ADD rte+ Please see additional legal descnphons on Page 1 attached Dated this 2'day of OCTOBER, 2002. GRANTOR(S)AND TRUSTEE(S) 41L/1%AM /4141 ZIN' BADISSY NAJIBA BADISSY Amok .ia. * Old Republic Title & Escrow +4 Parcel No. :008800 0810 Bldg ID#:1 Total A.V. :$196,000 Owner :Dau Sinh V Land :$140,000 Co Owner : Struct :$56,000 Site Addr :10802 SE 164th St Renton 98055 %Imprvd :29 Mail Addr :15437 139th Ave SE Renton Wa 98058 Levy Code :4250 Sale Date :08/31/2004 Doc# :1393 2004 Tax :$2,518.62 Sale Price Deed :Quit Claim Excise Tax#:2066551 Loan Amt : Lender : Q:NE S:29 T:23N R:05E Land Use :002 RES,SINGLE FAMILY RESIDENCE Map Grid :656 D6 Zoning :R8so Nbrhd Code :030002 Bldg Name : Phone# : Plat :Akers Farms No.06 Census Tract:258.01 Block:1 Legal :BLK 10 LOT 1 AKERS FARMS#6 SUBJ Vol :42 Pg:15 :TO TRANS LN R/W PROPERTY CHARACTERISTICS Bedrooms :2 1st Floor SF :1,040 Year Built :1947 Bath Full :1 2nd Floor SF Eff Year . Bath 3/4 3+Floor SF Bldg Matl . Bath 1/2 Above Grnd SF :1,040 Bldg Cond :Avg Other Rms : Bsmnt Finished : Bldg Grade :Fair Dining Rm : Bsmnt Total SF :1,040 Interior . Fireplace Building SqFt :2,080 Wall Matl . Stories :1 Basement Type :Yes Insulation Deck Basement Grade : Heat Source :Gas Deck Sq Ft : Bsmt Parking SF : Heat Type :Frcd Air Porch Garage Type Air Method : Pool Attached Grg SF : Electric Svc : Units :1 Detached Grg SF : Wtr Source :Water District Nuisance :Yes Carport SqFt Sewer Type :Public LAND INFORMATION VIEW INFORMATION St Access :Public Lot Sq Ft :171,626 View :None Mountain . St Surface :Paved Lot Acres :3.94 Lake/River Mt.Rainier : Wtr Front Lot Shape Lake Sammamish: Olympics . WtrFntLoc : Tde/Upind : Lake Washington: Cascades . WtrFrntFT : Topography : Puget Sound Territorial . Golf Adj :No Topo Probd : Seattle Skyline : Other . TRANSFER HISTORY OWNER(S) DATE DOC# PRICE DEED LOAN TYPE :Dau Sinh V :08/31/2004 1393 :Quit Claim : . :Nguyen Huong Thi :08/18/1997 1059 .• :Nguyer Huong Thi/Hien Thi :11/06/1996 1281 :Quit Claim :Nguyen Huong Thi :01/25/1996 1415 :$100,000 :Special War:$90,000 :Line Of :Beneficial Industrial Loan Compa :08/29/1994 873 :$70,386 :Trustees . MIS REAL ESTATE SOLUTIONS 800-345-7334 Information compiled from various sources. Real Estate Solutions makes no representations or warranties as to the accuracy or completeness of information contained in this report. EXHIBIT"A" Lot(s) 1, Block 10,AKERS FARMS NO. 6, according to the plat thereof recorded in Volume 42 of Plats, page(s) 15, records of King County,Washington. SITUATE in the County of King, State of Washington. Property Address: 10802 Southeast 164th Street, Renton Washington 98055 ABBREVIATED LEGAL Lot(s) 1, Block 10,AKERS FARMS NO. 6. Tax Account No. 008800-0810-05 END OF EXHIBIT"A" 0725296 Page 2 ;3 �,*• Old Republic Title & Escrow Parcel No. :008800 0851 Bldg ID#:1 Total A.V. :$182,000 Owner :Mabry Troy L R Land :$80,000 Co Owner : Struct :$102,000 Site Addr :10902 SE 164th St Renton 98055 %Imprvd :56 Mail Addr :10902 SE 164th St Renton Wa 98055 Levy Code :4250 Sale Date :01/28/2004 Doc# :2614 2004 Tax :$2,320.51 Sale Price :$179,500 Deed :Special Warranty Excise Tax#:2015409 Loan Amt :$110,000 Lender :Abn Amro Mortgage Grou Q:NE S:29 T:23N R:05E Land Use :002 RES,SINGLE FAMILY RESIDENCE Map Grid :656 D6 Zoning :R8so Nbrhd Code :030002 Bldg Name : Phone# . Plat :Akers Farms No.06 Census Tract:258.01 Block:1 Legal :BLK 10 LOT 3 AKERS FARMS#6 E 75 Vol :42 Pg:15 :FT OF S 200 FT PROPERTY CHARACTERISTICS Bedrooms :3 1st Floor SF :1,150 Year Built :1961 Bath Full :1 2nd Floor SF Eff Year . Bath 3/4 3+Floor SF Bldg Matl . Bath 1/2 Above Grnd SF :1,150 Bldg Cond :Good Other Rms : Bsmnt Finished : Bldg Grade :Avg Dining Rm : Bsmnt Total SF : Interior . Fireplace :1 Building SqFt :1,150 Wall Matl . Stories :1 Basement Type : Insulation . Deck Basement Grade : Heat Source :Oil Deck Sq Ft : Bsmt Parking SF : Heat Type :Frcd Air Porch Garage Type Air Method : Pool Attached Grg SF : Electric Svc : Units :1 Detached Grg SF : Wtr Source :Water District Nuisance Carport SqFt Sewer Type :Public LAND INFORMATION VIEW INFORMATION St Access :Public Lot Sq Ft :15,000 View :None Mountain . St Surface :Paved Lot Acres :.34 Lake/River Mt.Rainier : Wtr Front Lot Shape : Lake Sammamish: Olympics . WtrFntLoc : Tde/Upind : Lake Washington: Cascades . WtrFrntFT : Topography : Puget Sound Territorial . Golf Adj :No Topo Probd : Seattle Skyline : Other . TRANSFER HISTORY OWNER(S) DATE DOC# PRICE DEED LOAN TYPE :Mabry Troy L R :01/28/2004 2614 :$179,500 :Special War:$110,000 :Convent :Wells Fargo Bank Of Mn Na :09/16/2003 1788 :$153,000 :Trustees . :Jeffers George D R/Thelma S G :07/25/1991 506 :Quit Claim . :Wells Fargo Bank Minnesota : • REAL ESTATE SOLUTIONS 800-345-7334 Information compiled from various sources. Real Estate Solutions makes no representations or warranties as to the accuracy or completeness of information contained in this report. s 20040128002614.001 ir. if i WHEN RECORDED RETURN TO I iJIfthIIIii TROYL R MABRY 20040128002 FIb FIOEt.ITY NATIO UCi 19 00a htrn✓ 10907 SE 164Th STREET PAGE001 of 001 RENTON,WA 98055 01/28/2004 15:58 unO E2015409 01/20/2004 15:50 KING COUNTTY, UA SA6LEE S$179,56 0100 PAGE001 OF 001 ®Chicago Title Insurance Company 2601 South 35th,Suite 100,Tacoma,Washington 98409 Fidelity Ntl Title-NDS " 75- -54.t4 SPECIAL WARRANTY DEED e /9 THE GRANTOR,WELLS FARGO BANK MINNESOTA,N.A AS TRUSTEE for and in consideration of ONE HUNDRED SEVENTY-NINE FIVE HUNDRED AND NO/100— Dollais ( $179,500 00 ),in hand paid,grant, bargain, sell, convey and confirm to TROY L.R.MABRY,A SINGLE MAN the following described real estate,situated in the County of KING ,State of Washington THE EAST 75 FEET OF THE SOUTH 200 FEET OF THE LOT 3,BLOCK 10,AKER'S FARMS NO `) 6,ACCORDING TO THE PLAT THEREOF RECORDED IN VOLUME 42 OF PLATS,PAGE 15, 1NG COUNTY,WASHINGTON The Gi antor for ITSELF and for ITS successors m interest do by these presents expressly limit the covenants of the deed to those herein expressed,and exclude all covenants arising or to anse by statutory or other implication,and do hereby covenant that against all persons whomsoever lawfully claiming or to claim by,through or under said Grantor and not otherwise, will forever warrant and defend the said described real estate %%IV, Tax Account Number 008800085105 22nd DATED January,2004 WELLS FARGO BANK MINNESOTA,NA AS TRUSTEE by Saxon Mortgage Services,Inc,Bra Merited* Mortgage Services,Inc ,it's attorney in fact BY At ette Hamilton,Vice President STATE OF Texas ss County of Tarrant On this 22°'day of January 2004 before we,the undersigned,a Notary Public in and for the State of Texas,duly commissioned and sworn,personally appeared Annette Hamilton,to me known to be the Vice President respectfully,of Saxon Mortgage Services,lac,iia Merited Mortgage Services Inc,the corporation that executed the foregoing instrument,and acknowledged the said instrument to be the free and voluntary act and deed of said corporation,for the uses and purposes therein mentioned,and oa oath stated that `ihL- authorised to execute the said instrument and that the seal affixed is the corporate seal of said corporation W»rias my hand and official seal hereto affixed the day and year first above written CX/ rise -e/ ('re Notary Public m for State of f-404 Residing at _ ----1 HELENL COCK NY COMMSSION EXPIRES 1 MARCH 5.2005 { 4011111F ,+ LI 4* Old Republic Title & Escrow i4 s" . Parcel No. :008800 0850 Bldg ID#:1 Total A.V. :$162,000 Owner :Segovia Francisco&Bruan R Etal Land :$144,000 Co Owner : Struct :$18,000 Site Addr :10832 SE 164th St Renton 98055 %Imprvd :11 Mail Addr :17048 SE 257th Kent Wa 98042 Levy Code :4250 Sale Date :03/19/1990 Doc# :1029 2004 Tax :$2,061.03 Sale Price :$93,000 Deed :Warranty Excise Tax#: Loan Amt : Lender : Q:NE S:29 T:23N R:05E Land Use :002 RES,SINGLE FAMILY RESIDENCE Map Grid :656 D6 Zoning :R8so Nbrhd Code :030002 Bldg Name : Phone# : Plat :Akers Farms No.06 Census Tract:258.01 Block:l Legal :BLK 10 LOT 3 AKERS FARMS#6 LESS Vol :42 Pg:15 :E 75 FT OF S 200 FT SUBJ TO TRANS :LN R/W PROPERTY CHARACTERISTICS Bedrooms :1 1st Floor SF :610 Year Built :1942 Bath Full :1 2nd Floor SF Eff Year . Bath 3/4 3+Floor SF Bldg Matl . Bath 1/2 Above Grnd SF :610 Bldg Cond :Good Other Rills : Bsmnt Finished : Bldg Grade :Low Dining Rm : Bsmnt Total SF : Interior . Fireplace Building SqFt :610 Wall Matl . Stories :1 Basement Type : Insulation . Deck Basement Grade : Heat Source :Electric Deck Sq Ft : Bsmt Parking SF : Heat Type :Elec\baseboard Porch Garage Type Air Method : Pool Attached Grg SF : Electric Svc : Units :1 Detached Grg SF : Wtr Source :Water District Nuisance :Yes Carport SqFt Sewer Type :Public LAND INFORMATION VIEW INFORMATION St Access :Public Lot Sq Ft :115,434 View :None Mountain . St Surface :Paved Lot Acres :2.65 Lake/River Mt.Rainier : Wtr Front Lot Shape Lake Sammamish: Olympics . WtrFntLoc : Tde/Upind : Lake Washington: Cascades . WtrFrntFT : Topography : Puget Sound Territorial . Golf Adj :No Topo Probd : Seattle Skyline : Other . TRANSFER HISTORY OWNER(S) DATE DOC# PRICE DEED LOAN TYPE :Segovia Francisco&Bruan R Etal :03/19/1990 1029 :$93,000 :Warranty . . • • Nid REAL ESTATE SOLUTIONS 800-345-7334 Information compiled from various sources. Real Estate Solutions makes no representations or wan-anties as to the accuracy or completeness of information contained in this report. 0 REG:Ivtll 11I:S DAT'• "- ... .. 1N.AN%ANIt.RICA li.m•.unrla.l THIS SPACEPROv,oEOcOnPtt!'°OEn5USE IIII I l'.‘;'4 RAM I' Int,h1.,..11,,(..mp.ln> nun FOn nLCo,e At REQUEST OF IiM i9 t S- it+011 , - KING COUNTY •,; ' . EXCISE TAX PAID . MAR 191990 • men nELenDfO RE,URti TO 11 225 ,,,n,. Norwest Escrow Co., Inc. Adt,,,r 19201 108th Avenue S.E. 0,0„4,, Renton Washington 98055 • bC Escrow 19988 j Statutory Warranty Deed J T1II.:GRANTOR DALE T. MILLER AND MARILYN J. MILLER, Husband 6 wife Q CN f.•n,mlin ••midr,,,liona! TEN DOLLARS AND.OT R GOOD AND VALUABLE CONSIDERATION ._ ,I1 , t CD inlwndpaid.romr,ntmd++•ormntsln FRANCISC /FU SEGOVIA, AN UNMARRIED PERSON, AND CD RUFO F. BgU JANDIfZENAIDA S. DRUAN, Husband & wife IT the hdl.n+'ing described n•al•VV.44 le.nitualni)in the County of I// RING State otlVa,hinxlnn: (Lot 3, Block 10, Aker's Farms Number 6, according to the plat"---r thereof recorded in Volume 42 of Plats, page 15, in King-County l Washingon, EXCEPT the east 75 feet of the south 200 feet thereof. J Subject- to easements, restrictions, covenants and reservations �� of record as disclosed to Grantees herein by Stewart Title Insurance 6.1companies preliminary report 11113/39, reviewed and accepted. F-+ Francisco i Segovia ufo 11 /.'Bruan J 1"y�r ` t. C- 2eaida S. Bruan • • :'l �' 90/Q3 1'=' 810:4 Gi RI:C1, F 5.00 RE:FEE 2.00 CIlSH5L- 14447.fti t li 1l,n,I March 14th .19 90 �',',e4.- ,, c. DALE T. MILLER MARILYN J. MILLER t''Q0..+'•N Edo ---BF. 1n4t.fi, -/ r 11,";`SS\OV01 1 I STATE OF WASIt1\GTON t.'C�TgTF OF b' IJNCTON I t'ttr•N'ry o KING" s. ZQ t o fv, z M on thea,toe per..•nnfy nt'p.ared Mh,rr me�J'• #. t I V do of t' y :'Vj j ,►�ndetsit;ned,a Notary Public in and for the State of Wash- _ Dale T. & Marilyn J. MI11el;...,-.7.2b 6,rlr1 tiolrunis.+fonedand sworn.personallyappeared......_....._....... ..... • to nw known n,t...the individual ducats,)in am) ",,,''' • ssloi exr,srn•dtiwwithin rind forrw,int:instrument. and and srkm,n•Ir,lc,.)thin ................_....._........_. .... they aits,d the carne ........Secretary, as their fn•r and voluntary net and deed. to°'r known to be the PraWrnl and..... Secretary, „spect or (or thy use.nmi purposes therein mentioned. 1hr cor/pporati n•that rreruted the foregoing instrument,tad acknowledged .;;t C the acid in trument to he the free and voluntary act and deed of said MVO.I, alien.for the urn and purposes therein mentioned,and an oath staled that 3 91VI.N under my hand and"Ririnl ern)this °1Bxrd is the corporate sent of Raid corporation.to execute o the said instrument and that the seal •�� —� rporollon ':f .. —0 . '.day nfNarch . . ,."..�, .19...29 a carnes my hand and official seal hereto affixed the day and year first L/et� . .- /_tt-( nbnvewriticn .................Noy.._ub...... and _.._._.te o•.._.ash......to.......... Notary 'ubhc in and for thJ Stale of Wash. Notary 1'uWic in and for Thr State of Washington. • ingtnn.residing at L,+,--, residing at......_....._... 1i l My appointment expires://ie!../4�_<..). My appointment expires: .......... ' I.P 9.10 ti cern No.w-sta no..11.711 C i O CITY OF RENTON COUNCIL AGENDA BILL AI N: Submitting Data: For Agenda of: 4/4/2005 Noe' Dept/Div/Board.. Hearing Examiner Staff Contact Fred J. Kaufman, ext. 6515 Agenda Status Consent X Subject: Public Hearing.. Correspondence.. Aspen Woods Preliminary Plat Ordinance File No. LUA-04-143, PP, ECF Resolution Old Business Exhibits: New Business Hearing Examiner's Report and Recommendation Study Sessions Legal Description and Vicinity Map Information Recommended Action: Approvals: Legal Dept Council Concur Finance Dept Other Fiscal Impact: Expenditure Required... N/A Transfer/Amendment Amount Budgeted Revenue Generated Total Project Budget City Share Total Project.. SUMMARY OF ACTION: The Hearing Examiner's Report and Recommendation on the Aspen Woods Preliminary Plat was published on March 1, 2005. The appeal period ended on March 15, 2005. The Examiner recommends approval of the proposed preliminary plat subject to the conditions outlined on pages 7 and 8 of the Examiner's Report and Recommendation. Conditions placed on this project are to be met at later stages of the platting process. STAFF RECOMMENDATION: Recommends approval of the Aspen Woods Preliminary Plat with conditions as outlined in the Examiner's Report and Recommendation. Rentonnet/agnbill/ bh March 1, 2005 OFFICE OF THE HEARING EXAMINER Nome CITY OF RENTON Minutes APPLICANT: Brian Mannelly Harbour Homes 3400 9'h Avenue S., #120 Federal Way, WA 98003 OWNERS: Estate of Dennis G. Spiry 11832 142nd Ave SE Renton, WA 98059 Tina and Kenneth Kiger 11826 142nd Ave SE Renton, WA 98059 Kimberly Ann Siegrist 12240 142nd Ave SE Renton, WA 98059 Aspen Woods Preliminary Plat File No.: LUA 04-143, PP, ECF LOCATION: 852 and 864 Hoquiam Avenue NE and an abutting vacant parcel to the south SUMMARY OF REQUEST: Approval for a 46-lot subdivision of an 8.15-acre, three parcel site intended for detached single-family homes. SUMMARY OF ACTION: Development Services Recommendation: Approve subject to conditions DEVELOPMENT SERVICES REPORT: The Development Services Report was received by the Examiner on January 25,2005. PUBLIC HEARING: After reviewing the Development Services Report, examining available information on file with the application, field checking the property and surrounding area; the Examiner conducted a public hearing on the subject as follows: MINUTES The following minutes are a summary of the February I, 2005 hearing. The legal record is recorded on CD. The hearing opened on Tuesday, February 1, 2005, at 9:15 a.m. in the Council Chambers on the seventh floor of the Renton City Hall. Parties wishing to testify were affirmed by the Examiner. Aspen Woods Preliminary Plat File No.: LUA-04-]43, PP, ECF March 1, 2005 Page 2 The following exhibits were entered into the record: Exhibit No. 1: Yellow file containing the original Exhibit No. 2: Neighborhood Detail Map application, proof of posting, proof of publication and other documentation pertinent to this request. Exhibit No. 3: Preliminary Plat Plan Exhibit No. 4: Grading Plan Exhibit No. 5: Utilities Plan Exhibit No. 6: Tree Cutting/Land Clearing Plan Exhibit No. 7: Conceptual Street Tree Plan Exhibit No. 8: Zoning Map Exhibit No. 9: ERC Mitigation Measures The hearing opened with a presentation of the staff report by Nancy Weil, Senior Planner, Development Services, City of Renton, 1055 S Grady Way, Renton, Washington 98055. The site is located on the east side of Hoquiam Avenue between NE 41h Street and Sunset Boulevard. There currently are two single-family residences and some associated accessory structures on the site. The site was annexed as part of the Johnson Annexation from King County in October 2004 and at that time was rezoned to Residential—8 zoning. Access to the property will be via two points of access off of Hoquiam. Internal streets will be known as NE 7'h and NE 8''as well, there will be another internal street to be known as Kitsap Avenue NE. There will also be two private easements, one in the northeast corner and the second easement is in the south corner. *41200 There are no critical areas on the City maps, however wetland delineation was provided by a wetland consultant. It was found that there were two small wetlands on the site but they are not regulated by code. The site will be served by a retention detention system combined with a detention pond on Tract A. The site will also require a sewer lift station. The site is vegetated, the tree clearing plan identifies 123 substantial trees that will be removed,the city will require two trees per each new lot. The Environmental Review Committee issued a Determination of Non-Significance—Mitigated for the project, which included five mitigation measures. No appeals of the determination were filed. It was found that the proposed development is in compliance with the Comprehensive Plan designation for Residential Single Family. This proposal is vested under the R-8 zoning development standards that were in effect prior to the code changes. A net density of the development would be 7.0 dwelling units per acre, which is within the allowed range. Minimum lot size for the R-8 zoning density is 4,500 square feet, all lots are in compliance with this requirement. As far as the standards for setbacks, building standards for height and lot coverage and required off street parking it appears that as proposed the site can comply with all the requirements. However,those requirements will be verified at the point of building permit submission for the individual structures. The proposed site does meet at the requirements for lot arrangement, size, shape and orientation. The proposed lots appear to have sufficient building area for the development of suitable detached single-family homes. It is recommended that Aspen Woods Preliminary Plat File No.: LUA-04-143, PP, ECF March 1, 2005 Page 3 Nape Lots 7, 8, and 9 take access via an easement across Lot 7, also the same thing would take place with Lots 17, 18 and 19. The stubbed street to the south and the necessary turnaround on Lot 17 does make that lot undevelopable. The applicant is aware of that restraint at the current time. There is no additional right-of-way dedication for Hoquiam, street improvements will be required for all the internal streets. The lots abutting Hoquiam will not gain any direct access to Hoquiam but to the internal streets. A homeowner's association or maintenance agreement is suggested for the development, which would be responsible for any common improvements and/or tracts within the plat. Traffic, Park and Fire Mitigations fees were required. The site is a gentle downward slope from west to east with a range of 3 to 10 percent. Staff did discuss with the applicant the feasibility of reserving significant trees along the perimeter of the site, it appears due to site grading and proposed grade changes as well as expected land disturbance, it is unlikely overtime these trees would survive. The geotechnical report concludes that the existing soils are suitable for the 46-lot proposed development. Temporary Erosion and Sediment Control Plan and the use of Best Management Practices would serve to mitigate potential erosion and off-site sedimentation impacts. The subject site is located within the Renton School District boundaries and they have indicated that they can accommodate the new students. The site is located in the May Creek Drainage Basin. The development will meet the drainage requirements of the 1998 King County Storm Water Manual standards. The 16,466 square foot storm water retention/detention tract is located at the southeast corner of the site at what will be the corner of NE 7`h Street and Kitsap Avenue NE. The drainage facility is being sized to accommodate all 46 lots within the subject plat. The applicant will provide a Certificate of Water Availability, showing that the District's system can provide a minimum of 1, 000 gpm of available fire flow per fire hydrant. Luay R. Joudeh, Engineer with D.R. Strong, 10604 NE 38th Place, Ste. 101, Kirkland, WA 98033 stated that he is the project engineer and represents Harbour Homes,the applicant. In regards to the condition #4 which speaks to the homeowner's association in order to take care of some landscape tracts and easements. He would recommend that the staff be asked to reconsider the language as far as which portions of that subdivision will require the homeowner's association to maintain those areas. Easements A and B should be maintained by those properties that are users of those easements. (Easement A responsibility would be Lots 7, 8 and 9, and Easement B would be the responsibility of Lots 17, 18 and 19). The second issue is a safety issue that requires solid fencing and thick landscaping around storm drainage ponds. It could become a safety issue with children climbing over fences and falling into the pond, with think vegetation and solid fencing it is impossible for the public to see what is going on. Most jurisdictions in this area would recommend the use of vinyl coated chain link fencing. This type of fence has a greater durability than a solid wood fence. The Examiner stated that he must have the ability to release the storm water into the wetland adjacent to the site, not overburden it but to make sure that the wetland maintains it viability, and secondly, the water availability so it is clear that domestic drinking water is available from the outside water district. 'fine Mr. Joudeh stated that the natural discharge on the site is along the eastern boundary line,obviously the areas where the storm drainage pond is located is one of those natural discharge points. The proximity of the wetland mom Aspen Woods Preliminary Plat File No.: LUA-04-143, PP, ECF March 1, 2005 Page 4 to the eastern boundary line would allow the spilling of surface water should an easement become unavailable. They are working with the developer to the east and there are discussions about doing a joint facility to accommodate this storm drainage pond along with their storm drainage pond. They have also been working with the developer to the east to obtain a drainage easement to allow them to discharge into the wetland. He did believe that they had the water availability certificate from the Water District. Kayren Kittrick, Development Services stated that the sewer lift station, if both the south and the southeast come in they will all be connected together and there will be no need for a lift station. Aspen Woods coming in first gets to spend a little more money and they will have to lift to Hoquiam. The temporary turnaround does mean that the developer does lose a lot. There usually is a covenant on the face of the plat that the half bulb would only go away and Lot 17 become available at the time the road is built. Ms. Kittrick stated that they did have the water availability certificate dated August 29, 2004. John Merlino, Harbour Homes, 3400 9'" Avenue South, Ste. 101, Federal Way, WA 98003 commented on the fencing materials of solid wood. They just recently completed the project known as Marine Highlands and the storm ponds there hold a significant amount of water. As a parent or concerned adult, to know that a child got inside the pond and couldn't get out and potentially drown with nobody able to see it due to the solid screening. He strongly encouraged staff to allow any applicant to construct with a vinyl chain link fence. The Examiner stated that is seems that the fencing is a code requirement and that in order to change it some code modifications would have to be necessary. Ms. Kittrick confirmed that was correct. If it is policy it is easily modified, if it is code there is a modification process that must be followed. The Examiner called for further testimony regarding this project. There was no one else wishing to speak, and no further comments from staff. The hearing closed at 10:01 a.m. FINDINGS, CONCLUSIONS & RECOMMENDATION Having reviewed the record in this matter,the Examiner now makes and enters the following: FINDINGS: 1. The applicant, Brian Mannelly, filed a request for a 46-lot Preliminary Plat. 2. The yellow file containing the staff report,the State Environmental Policy Act (SEPA) documentation and other pertinent materials was entered into the record as Exhibit#1. 3. The Environmental Review Committee (ERC),the City's responsible official issued a Determination of Non-Significance- Mitigated(DNS-M). 4. The subject proposal was reviewed by all departments with an interest in the matter. 5. The subject site is located at 852 and 864 Hoquiam Avenue NE as well as an unaddressed parcel south of those parcels. The subject site is located on the east side of Hoquiam (142nd Avenue SE,King County address) and is located north of SE 121st Street (King County address). The subject site is located on the eastern edge of the City north of NE 4th Street. Aspen Woods Preliminary Plat File No.: LUA-04-143, PP, ECF March 1, 2005 Page 5 Nose 6. The map element of the Comprehensive Plan designates the area in which the subject site is located as suitable for the development of single-family use, but does not mandate such development without consideration of other policies of the Plan. 7. The subject site is currently zoned R-8 (Single Family - 8 dwelling units/acre). 8. The subject site was annexed to the City with the adoption of Ordinance 4498 enacted in February 1995. 9. The subject site is approximately 8.15 acres or 355,014 square feet. The parcel is irregularly shaped as it steps around some other parcels fronting along Hoquiam. The subject site is approximately 660 feet wide (north to south) by approximately 640 feet deep. The site has approximately 370 feet of frontage along Hoquiam. 10. Two single-family homes that are located on the subject site would be removed if the plat is approved. 11. The subject site slopes downward to the southeast with grades ranging up to 15 percent. There are two small, unregulated wetlands on the subject site that would be filled. There are no other critical areas on the subject. 12. The subject site contains both coniferous and deciduous trees as well as shrubs and a variety of other plants. The applicant proposes to remove all vegetation including approximately 123 substantial trees to allow site preparation for roads, building pads and driveways. The applicant proposes a small landscape tract at the northwest corner of the site by one of the entrance roads. ''fir►` 13. The applicant proposes importing approximately 16,862 cubic yards of fill to level the site including the approximately 2,700 square feet of non-regulated wetland. 14. The applicant proposes dividing the 8.15 acres into a 46-lot subdivision. The lots would be arranged along three new streets including two new east-west streets,NE 7th and NE 8th Streets, and a north south street, Kitsap Avenue NE. NE 8th Street would run east and then curve south where it would become Kitsap. NE 7th Street would be south of NE 8th and it would cross Kitsap where it would currently end as a stubbed street at the eastern edge of the property. It would eventually connect to the east. Similarly, Kitsap would terminate in a stub street at the southern edge of the subject site. 15. A new interior block with two tiers of lots would be created between Hoquiam,NE 7th,NE Sth and Kitsap. Generally, three tiers of lots would be created north of 8th, south of 7th and east of Kitsap. 16. Proposed Lots 8 and 9 in the northeast corner of the site and Proposed Lots 18 and 19 in the southwest corner of the site would be served by private access roadway. All of the other lots would be located on public roads although Proposed Lots 7 and 17 could share the private access points. Staff recommended that these two lots use the easements to reduce the number of adjacent driveways and roadway intersections. 17. Staff has noted that the current terminus of Kitsap needs to be a developed turnaround over a portion of Proposed Lot 17. Lot 17 could not be developed until Kitsap is extended as a connecting through street. Staff recommended that potentially making the easement serving Lots 18 and 19 a half street might be appropriate. 18. The proposed lots are all generally rectangular and range in size from 4,752 square feet to 8,350 square feet. Aspen Woods Preliminary Plat File No.: LUA-04-143, PP, ECF March 1, 2005 Page 6 19. A number of corner lots will be created and staff noted that they all provide appropriate radius curves and appropriate lot width. 20. The density for the plat would be 7.0 dwelling units per acre after roadways. 21. The proposed plat is in the May Creek drainage basin. Proposed Tract A located at the southeast corner of NE 7th and Kitsap would be used for stormwater detention. The pond would be designed to comply with the 1998 King County standards, Level 2 flow control. Water would then flow into an offsite wetland east of the site. Certain safety requirements are required for holding ponds and staff has recommended screening. An easement to release water to the adjacent property will be required. 22. The subject site is located within the Renton School District. The project is expected to generate approximately 20 school age children. These students would be spread across the grades and would be assigned on a space available basis. 23. The development will increase traffic approximately 10 trips per unit or approximately 460 trips. 24. A sewer lift station will probably be required. 25. The subject site will be served by Water District 90. 26. Staff noted that one of the proposed landscape trees might contain a poisonous fruit and recommended that it be replaced with something less deleterious. *410 CONCLUSIONS: 1. The proposed plat of 46 lots appears to serve the public use and interest. While it would have been nice if some of the larger significant trees could have been saved, it appears that the nature of small-lot development makes it rather difficult to preserve larger trees while carving out building pads, roads and driveways. The plat creates almost an entire complex of very regular, rectangular lots and rectilinear streets. 2. While there were two small wetlands on the site, they are unregulated and will be filled. Stormwater from the subject site will be used to recharge wetlands adjacent to the site preserving natural amenities located near, if not on the subject site. 3. The plat will create additional housing opportunities in an area where urban services such as water and sewer are either available or can readily be extended to serve the new population. 4. The applicant will create additional traffic but it appears that it can be handled by the proposed gridded street system with potential access created for adjoining properties. Staffs recommendation of a half street westerly from the stub end of Kitsap seems appropriate and extends the potential for further enhancement of the grid system. The Fire Department will have to approve the turnaround design of Kitsap and Proposed Lot 17 will not be able to be developed until Kitsap provides an appropriate outlet. In addition,the applicant will be providing mitigation fees to help offset it impacts on the City's transportation infrastructure. Aspen Woods Preliminary Plat File No.: LUA-04-143, PP, ECF March I, 2005 Page 7 Norse 5. This property is surprisingly free of the type of constraints that afflict many developments. It has no regulated wetlands or slopes and no significantly hard to access interior lots. in conclusion, the City Council should approve the preliminary plat. RECOMMENDATION: The City Council should approve the 46-lot Preliminary Plat subject to the following conditions: 1. The applicant shall comply with the ERC conditions. 2. The applicant shall create a half street westerly from the stub end of Kitsap to the further enhancement of the grid system. 3. The Fire Department will have to approve the turnaround design of Kitsap and Proposed Lot 17 will not be able to be developed until Kitsap provides an appropriate outlet. The development restriction for Proposed Lot 17 shall appear on the face of the plat. 4. The applicant shall be required to show the access easements "A"and "B" as easements across Lots 7, 8, 17, and 18 accordingly prior to the recording of the final plat. The satisfaction of this requirement is subject to the review and approval of the Development Services Project Manager. 5. The applicant shall be required to place a note on the face of the plat requiring access for Lot 7 to be from access easement "A" and Lot 17 to be from access easement "B". Additionally, no 44lioe direct access from any lot within the plat shall be allowed onto Hoquiam Avenue NE. The satisfaction of this requirement is subject to the review and approval of the Development Services Project Manager, prior to the recording of the final plat. 6. The applicant shall be required to install a "Private Road"sign with addresses being served from the private drives at the intersections of the private roads and the proposed 42-foot wide internal public street, prior to the recording of the final plat. 7. A homeowner's association or maintenance agreement shall be created concurrently with the recording of the final plat in order to establish maintenance responsibilities for all shared improvements (landscape Tract B, access easements, stormwater Tract A) of this development. A draft of the document(s)shall be submitted to the City of Renton Development Services Division for review and approval by the City Attorney and Property Services section prior to the recording of the final plat. 8. The applicant shall obtain a demolition permit and complete all inspections and approvals for all buildings located on the property prior to the recording of the final plat. The satisfaction of this requirement is subject to the review and approval of the Development Services Project Manager. 9. The applicant shall comply with the conceptual street tree plan with following changes: the proposed Kolereuteia paniculata (Golden raintree)shall be replaced with a similar type and size tree to be a minimum caliper of 1-1/2 inches (deciduous)or 6-8 feet in height(conifer). The satisfaction of this requirement is subject to the review and approval of the Development `*me Services Project Manager and shall be planted prior to final building permit inspection. Aspen Woods Preliminary Plat File No.: LUA-04-143, PP, ECF March 1, 2005 Page 8 10. The applicant shall be required to have all drainage facility maintenance agreements and easements ready to record, prior to the recording of the final plat. 1 1. The applicant shall be required to install a sight obscuring landscape/fencing buffer along the western and northern sides of the detention facility (Tract A). This condition shall be subject to the review and approval of the Development Services Division prior to final plat approval. 12. The applicant shall provide a Certificate of Water Availability, showing that the District's system can provide a minimum of 1,000 gpm of available fire flow per fire hydrant. The submittal of the certificate shall be required at the time of the construction plan for review and approval of Development Services Division. ORDERED THIS 1st day of March 2005. 4-1--"j FRED J. KAUFI\CNN HEARING EXAMINER TRANSMITTED THIS 1st day of March 2005 to the parties of record: Nancy Weil John Merlino Brian Mannelly 1055 S Grady Way Harbour Homes Harbour Homes Renton, WA 98055 3400 9111 Avenue S., #120 3400 9th Avenue S.,#120 Federal Way, WA 98003 Federal Way, WA 98003 Kayren Kittrick 1055 S Grady Way Luay R. Joudeh, P.E. Estate of Dennis G. Spiry Renton, WA 98055 D. R. Strong, Engineers 11832 142nd Ave SE 10604 NE 38'' Place,#101 Renton, WA 98059 Kirkland, WA 98033 Tina and Kenneth Kiger 11826 1421'd Ave SE Kimberly Ann Siegrist Renton, WA 98059 12240 142nd Ave SE Renton, WA 98059 TRANSMITTED THIS 1st day of March 2005 to the following: Mayor Kathy Keolker-Wheeler Stan Engler, Fire Jay Covington, Chief Administrative Officer Larry Meckling, Building Official Julia Medzegian, Council Liaison Planning Commission Larry Warren, City Attorney Transportation Division Gregg Zimmerman, PBPW Administrator Utilities Division Alex Pietsch, Economic Development Neil Watts, Development Services Jennifer Henning, Development Services Janet Conklin, Development Services Stacy Tucker, Development Services King County Journal Aspen Woods Preliminary Plat File No.: LUA-04-143, PP, ECF March 1, 2005 Page 9 Pursuant to Title iV, Chapter 8, Section 100Oof the City's Code, request for reconsideration must be filed in writing on or before 5:00 p.m.,March 15,2005. 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.,March 15,2005. 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 Com t. The Doctrine applies not only to the initial public hearing but to all Requests for Reconsideration as well as Appeals to the City Council. rrr► 4. 1111,All 1111111 1111 w w 11!11Q 1_____1111.11 IIIIIIIrllIl 1- NE 9TH STill z La Z a 3 Qs '- a 0 0 I� ft Q _ a z � 4`- , K\a\rss' t\3�m-3ND4166a.9 9/z3/zoo4 1:2.47 PM VST C0PYR/o1T©2004.DA STRONG Ct 2AIIG[Nc91EOt5 94G fit rS ASPEN WOODS NEIGHBORHOOD DETAIL MAP D.R. STRONG �' = 2001 Consulting(.9.%••••a'1. U4G9+e+ECRs•PLANNCRS ••SLIMEYORS 11604 NE 391A PLACE sax to I%117 o.MA 96033 (423)937-3063 /-900-962-1402 FA%(423)627-2427 s--. .!L•1 1 DESCRIPTION: THE SOUTHEAST QUARTER OF THE SOUTHWEST QUARTER OF THE NORTHEAST QUARTER OF SECTION 10, TOWNSHIP 23 NORTH, RANGE 5 EAST, W.M., IN KING COUNTY, WASHINGTON; EXCEPT THE SOUTH 138.00 FEET OF THE WEST HALF THEREOF; EXCEPT THE NORTH 132.00 FEET OF THE WEST 180.00 FEET THEREOF; EXCEPT COUNTY ROAD. ' ( (I 1 I • !NERAO= • C • I. 04 000114/101 601 410/7 ALL x4010..w 000110110 10,100,Is,400 00Y 01,040.147 10 1K 17,0400.Or 140 • NE 1/4, SEC. 10, TIN?. 23 N., RGE. 5 E, W.M. Weldon (""41111°".vOrC011011°` L IC O01040171.6444 114.A11.10004..11,1011.0 ro 0001100 001014*410x40400011{4 1011*100610/076.140 10.011R10 MOO OW.. IN?400001 600O 07 6[00110101011 4*Ta 10.0.00.110.000.01/1.10.It...MO M OVUM 0100 1111 000tH 44 4•x14 . Y *1001 My 11(.0x4.0 m 0.014.04.W al MT 00000.011 0 01.00110S fa **110 141 0401 OWeN. Mao 4101 01 101L4r*R 170111x700 CI TK 07.11.41104 . 4/00/00010 0411 N 40040*1 001000 47 W UM 0007 R 00 01111E 41 0TU,47 1.01 W 114.1Y010.K 0040440• _ MR 011 0100114 MC 0010110000 1414 ^ L^. 4. TOt 001700/7 R 10 WY ALL 110100114 010110111040 01110111 Kat M.S.0117011444 01MCNKL UNLF a On T - �-•._- -/ PR. .V10100M0M,10 OT44 u 1100011 TO 101 AMOK.a 0R 1114017{,[00x11 mow 10 1r C6)14YCT0, _4444. .. '- •_.•• \� S 0R 630.0.001•.40K11111K IH 41 0006 MO„Il MA0T4 MM..OWN!AMA;101.4{OW KW alt 4444_. y •__ .._4_744 1 I 2 1 J I 4 I _. I 4+wn.o 11 F MA WM 001010 POW.111 O400WY.M 0140.K Vol//IPtlri Hi0I1a. 041(40001.1.00 M(l0 R 700010 x TI( • S I I- 6-• I!' 7 ! I MO VOW*01001 MKORCF j .m0� Y,,.N Url.404 011.N4p I,Lr., N•At I wJ.NFNI 6 1 I. ML 1170.101411....WO MW 4.1,10.4 04441411 AIR 0100 040.00 0pNKa KKW 4114140 0P 401.00 04104 0, LANDSCAPE Iw.1.m,.I I w,. I I i I wJ.NFN I 9 1 w Y•W4 r 011 4141. TRACT'D' • ! j IAA/41.4.4 I I 4 o4gs AK m M 447004.044 to1$u•Ir 14.114[0 Vol*44 41aNa I ! I Y A I . r I'1•.1iIrat• • .0 0nK0 040 041 1.0'0 0 .11f.An AMY Wow.:10110.0 nw*0100000..1...(00.14x4 00 *� 1./ ' V �5.*11M)��4M .?,C;'Y yr4 11Y7japo 1••-- •' }.MSIR(` 14 MAW. xil..Lout moo 00.uu 1 Or awr(u. I+/ C i 1 - 11100 - ''4.Y.• tsi1L3►IY��' 0. KA a A root a 014 040. .1 L.0..00.10.0 WI V1 1 ;y r.-� C.1.1 AK K KLCN MG 0411 49 im M1..0 DULL A[CUR.M*NIW or .1� 4:=011 ..,' 0•^'- ♦ AAA�1 r•rap0 111.•4. M[400004 bWL1 A,[m..m-4.b,ou•04 Yu a$OY«mow.1r 40141$0411041 41 = 1 • ilhi 1 O K __I�� 00005 000011 T4.040,110 Ow C..101,1 Mu 410 ow...1 1t 10 O(nope YULL 401.4 A ow.a r a O<I < j..-._.. ® Y/J.NF Wab�' UI[MMY MOMS 10440 W 0 Imo 01'4010 01 00100401(400014 ``/ ♦�0 � %L 11 ALL,4x010 WM..641 004004.14 K no{U40.LC Wm..Or rt..(r nit.....OW..6 a x001.10.. • 1:4 • \ r 4._ 11 111(000$004 001410101 1 K11.WL4 101 YN1114N4a 04...Ad aKNO 0401WF00.W1L.04.141c..“•r I. fLxJ '^_�� -' ,fi' \ I 1 ._ Am� 11 4 000101 014$64411 .. /..• 1 I 42 (' 1 43 I I \ 11.,. . \k0 \ .. `�� 410!4«Ln• _..I .. 1401111101•Awe W6ar x10041..4 u n11 a 6.01.40.00,Al M TK a 0011.0111E mows m,41N.K _. \!,i�1 301 I J9 l�D f w. 1 .,* N ,.,110 I.,,An.a4 I J 41174 46 ! 4 6 �i :- LA0101d01(*44,01 641*1111 ALL 11.10.,WR404J 0110 401010*ION 04 n,Im a 404 RN 0044,10x( . •II • 4r:.70.00 10�.4.41 I 1.4 ')4\I\e 0J 0 wJ,114 wJ.AM _..I Tut 1404,. .01001041.411004 T4 41140$1.14.0011104th 1.41.o.u 447111 I.1101000.01 C.UC4•r nM(.0.11. !'�I'�'' I I_1 ,J•„I 1 \ •_ I_.. _...1 �......... ,_J ', a ! . ?� . t 2 .1p111iR11 O 001;.MKR 40 Wog.*.;ma Y.01RMW0 110 L.414K.0t u6K4 MN T4 IOU 4,04x1110 MO..011 ••.•_..••_•• !'�, I,. 10104.110•0111111414 Axe a 00*O*11401 14..44 K xn41nK0.W0p0*1 114 O.04 Ia TN 11,114 a i r4E 0100410 41 "t__-_44_44.-7474_-7.744 K. I'<I 10.00014 R 10111(11011101«U0a0L WKN NO 1 00100,UMA.I Sou u 00101000 II It(0110...lg..440. \ / 01.11‘.-----I-I'--.- '�.._.-._,.._.__....__ K 00414 JMt 11TNm6 WRN.(O 1sK M Cord.401 MY 0010 TO gK Wr 4114. up 1401.0 111*..ma if,l/ 1 r _. ` } ,• ,� ,3 =TOM,�«001.OWN 0040004 s WMO.YOUKr NW x11 Cl OA•0110111.FIt 411 a 464001 644 u 041(0(0•r 04*Tut �M�0M ...),Pel.'••• ••x-•• I I •_., J2 3, • �•, 01 044'7.C.. I I 14 °WIN 10•(04 04.4 K NALuo.Or.004040 lou 1!041010 047x4 0.0.00 Wt141n WOl AK00WD 01.0 N �1` , I li 11 / I / I (.004$00 COMM TIMM YAr K 140;.4W Or.11010044 x01 0.4-WM taxpl 7140 10,0(104 a•wbMl U;a 410%.•. 11 II 7 36 1 3S 0034 33 I / / 30 I I 29 ,� \ 07 110 4 WPM 6041 u,; *R YNn.w*.0111b Kcuw moi .4)0 wRK. .{ I J.41100 I 1.11 I (.,. ! I--,,-1 i .,..1 I My,.11.11 El ! 11.«,r 1 14.01«F , 1441. E..CI' _. ~14 ._. 'L 04041.40 we a T.(r... 7 0*1 u,wla.010 a T<Tan w T<.Kwrv4 0411«(T.( 01*001U1r a.w.«14 1 4 I 0.r.,., 1 4 -f II 04x1100 0*M(Lot 011011. 0ww4*1140 n 011;W0 TRO M(Mt 4(101011411 a T.(01.9...041 foods +yZgb{ r ,m4 , , I 'AI S . , ,..._ __.J , _ _. , ► ,- %•'1' , 040 W.•14..x11.1477.1 T4 01.601.WV. A� ,1 4g 4444. ;I.'i�'�^ IRi / `vVJ -, .._ 440 1 'V-{i1 - '4.y-', '�f 4011.0o 1 �9: I•' Vk slA iFI A.�'•li/ 11=y^� �.r A� r'i rN I 1 ,4•�n4MM �'+�IIEixOb'4$004 1 'x \ 11 04/ �).r.�l✓r., Q p / i `C�_,l �♦ '�r��,�'• -fr4001uMq A '- 0.4,3,401 a 0041•rwt oml xo1*0100(woo j____, emir. :R �.IS'' �1y: 10 ra N( %R. .-_.I k 0'I h4' M.i0*�y _ !�' :/ ; - `-1 j i '-1�w, OIl144#0 K.0_4 444110 MIM.I.,/i. a .-• I _ I I . I • •24 _I I Y5 4 I I y 1 26 11`1 27 I I ♦� \•>' I v I. 0 • 004 OaJAu 111 m;n1µ .. 111111/01 041,.1411 I VJJ 4,1.60 I I Y,, MAO w.,.4,. 4I.401.11 1 1 U`4 I 28 4• �,,, 1 ( I wnnN 1 0401 N,As 1 N4u .. !� DETENTION w6 0404.a 4.04.01 11/4,: AD O.Mt M.110.01 ONO old a...411 01$0. { ••• ••• Mel 04/44. ..•-1111II. . il ",•4S I I ......• 011 I, 'u 004..1.1M.O.M1KL 000111.1..0. ,III'11::11'..' 1 I II II 001011,040 0111 I. ill .J I '•' ► D.R. STRONG 16 } te 1«w*.x 4047....4. c X19 IwJ. ,.& wJ +. t i ,S IL Mol�low/A1 0 DIAGRAM 6!qm•�• w» RM.tTw1a4 \, wJ.NLK i (.• _ 4 `'1,.,; 4 04!4.0= K11Wn a 101411 W 411:1•r 1i�:` "11'0,1- 4.1'; 0 , - _J -, ACCESS EASEMJs3•a+, (/,ij I if 41110011 MA.) tf','.� SAN rrJ.N,.N J 470411[111 0401! om 0x10 1c4L (T A �' 31:, 41, .- _...-+«_.......� -..- 11 04. II Papas wN Rv.Ta.1ax411 A•.xe0K4 100.010 f:1010(49(LAJ 0404 IC r NMI 1077 • STREET TREE REQUIREMENTS W(R 001111 L0, i. IVO: DAM 09..14-04 100301 N00 04164 J • NE 1/4, SEC. 10, TWP. 23 N., RGE. 5 E, W.M. ^ • ,,«:;;v MATCHUNE 18+25 SEE SHEET RIGHT11 '5'IX!:1:1!:::J I '',41'.; . . yj •.. a m. ,w•.4 ' sr%vvr r ' ,...4'.1 •I, i ." I, .•/ h /04104110141 • � r 3� I • 1 I 71r r..,••r. fir. r .ti.,.xi. .r r M-;ti 1 r v mx•, f:-,....!,,,...pi. +, r ,",.'n.;yw a'rj ,xat,n v rO ,.rrii, 1 , ��,� ITh �� I na �i• r. rx;w < 4:, �`i.? ® ..r•` . .r..� 1 i,1 , i;I,. I .v r f p».. - r, tel 4/ ,lr^ fig . ...I res LANOSCAPC «479 lee nti .f8\, _Y� r J!✓✓� 1 S.r, �.. I� i,n .�, .J. II Y I TRACT'8• I ` .• rf r I 3:7r /,itu j r , 11• . ''rf"^ 1 I- „r M. . 1 a � r°r u 1 d�.y remises.- -...�'t' q` { ° ,ii ,l ��,,yy ,r..»x rir "` __: r', .7....• del. '"�1 ' .'i;:t 7141-en"-a-Tr-r""--, P.F3w•, _49E+Avc, CG..S ..iT'r•'kY"-,ArL1"r.i.nCNi:iZ1w'L",.'1tAi tiit,�� ...� /, rIrl' .a. ' N..a -a•4..,w ,+ �ir�f .'.' ,2a>, .:. .� , I� : r...' .I `€;,' S {SIa '+"'' ,;liCi.--.--...- ,1�G1M.:C m•"'r�:.�1..'P 7� -•1 8 Vic„•, .M '} t >•'tw�vu31. ,Ss„,tui:. uvrd >>ao�tro205a®� 7 4t, law le,, ^4 i''tr 5.741 i' � 9`..;j ..._. .....- •�. �y.n. r..Iw"n.. w ne" ��M\A'Y�+' r ,,,,:,..,..1.1,,......_,� ''�' lY'FL il: 2� �`� 1 ;x•, • ' r• y 'wi4 l.., � \..,u,«• un.x. ,a<Irraw,. , y ,,, iti" is !'e-; y ♦ , r' ,�, r ..t- `r•'• J' I'!. L� 1 k{: J8 �e:p:r':. d.kr •,n��J��lr .n}).. I IIwr.� ,n:� �.' `1131 Illi !�•r �i�'' h3 ,Y • .\ r. r r;•' ( t' �- 1 r, :1 Yiiii,t w � „, ‘,.:-...r., r .. ;Y1H� �r 1 I. w aT.7.4ai t7. r„..-.... .t„” C.I c`j an ��t �Itl - '.: l - iv Ih'i i �` x , ....«..-... ,a ';':1401k. ,• 'ORP4 - 1 .1. --1 til .5 ( � I 14 �l L't • ill 1 .... g n.., r ^' I rimy.. IN,' ' r _ �1QQ , N i j r 1" t'�n )SV I , i r. wt ' t..`(20 ��r/�5�i� h77 r.. �l •/�.�{ r ,a.w.,s ;r fa•. !I"{,,ttr QQ • r..n... 'Y de _•) '� u � r» ;.....i; l di, •' wat F� '• 14' !�w i`� r11; r r...... r�._ uu11 a •l u, ;1 'I '"1.. • , .,11 ;3tQ '1 ,� "'�' _. 3 Fel, t ft. :�y .fj ��M ';9999€ '1JI5t � .�"... •..nio,�xe• r �� E6�� I�t'a ,^.r.._ I�f M,IMd n N I r,—.1., a�.;,—. +r,.+. �� ..•.a..,r..•�.1 it r► . �/i R �.. .ter , J7- M,a f' I . piJp Jfi �GAo3a__"+titer'=°,.T.:N_F Tyi2',4r'liGta-.s. F-z,.w....•vm..�.4,aLa�,...� • �,ar4-rs• ,. rf �� i�ww .: I;. t;'i; F ,.o,,,m v a wa'qq w'�� raa A �/r►:rtil'�6:Ct/� y� .�y�J67I:_ Ii�{L.CY,gISPaI •`- �.T'""ao"' .� •�"'.'.. ;i •t 0440 0/iH.'..1�, ,..V.. .,r r.crsoww+w..n,r_6tTIiGiilrt�TJ,I,48,g1' -813ifasu VOQ.'�waia B^�t�r L�/D�' �Q' i r•a�wr��e», .:.. ",,s It 7 Ib 1011. 41 �'I � � w2 -ii Tit s.�; i �,.rxur.,"w+.•..mn"7*^.�4� r,% YR=�1S1 Y �— — — —� :,, ....:,- . €I r • 'Y I., / `��1111116.'77 LZ ��r�!'� r tido�1 Y � a. �.�a4^�•�.erwn.r,or.� x«,. pr•. �1. .• ..' a L.x ! t: �: Fti aFP/��p� 1 x' r q��- �r;: �+ I !.;.. ., 0 %* ..... fit" 2• , ^• 111111"' !,� 4,-.....:,„1-�u �. gq�� - 1 11`• 11, I ` 1.xYi{. oaw nir, t `:grt v ` , *49 '.4I:.� ..> !1. �\ i.1,,,..:.,,,, rfy , .nT•A N ra wK �:::.: ` �'( ' j. I�II�:_� r�..�I rj_.'kr,�O? 111110,11 1tjii ::, a JJ O UA0001.0111/»04 `•ill 1 .ra.."aw x CA/ .... .. _moi=�. �� : it€. tiler'•_4� I•. I, ge ', _ - :,(;�� gti,i7 rI �`3, O wl�.ua.�n one 1f'.4, Ii 114; r' ,e4i JM VINO I A D S i I . i ) r. +I 101 fir, ( i !;;Alt�rtil 5Y.»... , .�a•. ...w,•..•. I 5 t.p� i• • 4 aurn•o,r...w»o„s I:a: $ :11 1,-.7vn.c..r.. D.R. .'.. .... 1, `R= ."2s +i�j l'I '`€` %15 1 anus. MATCHUNE 18+25 SEE SHEET W7 '�'ww..rlp":.+ IiN �s c..y' { qc' 1 I II11IIJt4JM�<IDARt�lSaMIts� �.� 0 (. 1: /111 , y.+r.+; F 7Pi , G• ��E�MMI SA:1L��UMUL•Ea�� 'T+r"w .•n.ar r, r'.. , d`.'+ ...........am.n....,w w..• �r Q-A�,/.,7;j, l�tQ[1��141v:1L�IMIL rt•,�ES•:r�� . . 1 ' •y'ill'.reNV m�, ®I III I!'� ,LI.1�� Veil A 1 i'lQ1r�:1fI..111!♦e1A2111t•t<1CJSt♦ ( 1 — — — ry ® �� 1hr'9 " i:�e�Pis�9.�� .,Q .��...::� tttttr�fa5i�a vti��Esleci�ali� arvter UM Y. .�— �'•-1=1 '" ••» r t�I�pltall�r♦.iLL•r:�E:uua�UVEMIIIIMIIIIIIIII t� aaaw uAJ :- l� (PVC i;r"t MN,.41 Mt xr- 3.. t3'r r rr.,6 N.ii .�- ..�: --- -rttt�laL:l.�ttE'•ncaF•r.ttE,[;•r`trl ►.G1eT O.tlK01,IJtJ �4 m.,a r.o k J-' -� I ... e., �x��atr�:�L:11•IMr rntw�ra•:r�� • ® .� 4 :® ttl�t�Eetr1611 ulE4f166�1Quen1•tE:I�v� RML t»-S�-o� r �,I �r�lau��:[:,Lu'l.L'7:lr�utl LFcat<Sel1t{! i\ • r\ , �r�Ectr�:c•_acts+:,,ta�Erntac�mtur�Y� 04111 .�u..�au..s:�,u+u.�,atatss..,tt1.�� "IT C6 0, m rs+u�trtmrac•.a:r:lsxl:;�t�cuurt��atlltttass 12 .• �.v..,,••r". ., m.w. 4,.....,„<O.,.K.,06,..,,o.1,04 71000(47.4(41.< CITY OF RENTON COUNCIL AGENDA BILL AI#: T. e. Le Submitting Data: For Agenda of: 4/4/2005 Dept/Div/Board.. Hearing Examiner Staff Contact Fred J. Kaufman, ext. 6515 Agenda Status Consent X Subject: Public Hearing.. Correspondence.. Parklane Court Preliminary Plat Ordinance File No. LUA-04-142, PP, ECF Resolution Old Business Exhibits: New Business Hearing Examiner's Report and Recommendation Study Sessions Legal Description and Vicinity Map Information Recommended Action: Approvals: Legal Dept Council Concur Finance Dept Other Fiscal Impact: Expenditure Required... N/A Transfer/Amendment Amount Budgeted Revenue Generated Total Project Budget City Share Total Project.. SUMMARY OF ACTION: The Hearing Examiner's Report and Recommendation on the Parklane Court Preliminary Plat was published on February 24, 2005. The appeal period ended on March 10, 2005. The Examiner recommends approval of the proposed preliminary plat subject to the conditions outlined on page 9 of the Examiner's Report and Recommendation. Conditions placed on this project are to be met at later stages of the platting process. STAFF RECOMMENDATION: Recommends approval of the Parklane Court Preliminary Plat with conditions as outlined in the Examiner's Report and Recommendation. Rentonnet/agnbill/ bh February 24, 2005 OFFICE OF THE HEARING EXAMINER Noe CITY OF RENTON Minutes APPLICANT/OWNERS: Ronald &Janice Knight Shigeki Marui PO Box 6 Renton, WA 98057 APPELLANT: Aaron Fletcher 5633 NE l s`Circle Renton, WA 98059 Parklane Court Preliminary Plat File No.: LUA 04-142, ECF, PP LOCATION: 100 Block of Lyons Avenue NE SUMMARY OF REQUEST: Approval for a 10-lot subdivision of a 4.3-acre site intended for detached single-family homes. SUMMARY OF ACTION: Development Services Recommendation: Approve subject to conditions DEVELOPMENT SERVICES REPORT: The Development Services Report was received by the Examiner on January 18, 2005. PUBLIC HEARING: After reviewing the Development Services Report, examining available information on file with the application, field checking the property and surrounding area; the Examiner conducted a public hearing on the subject as follows: MINUTES The following minutes are a summary of the January 25, 2005 hearing. The legal record is recorded on CD. The hearing opened on Tuesday, January 25, 2005,at 9:03 a.m. in the Council Chambers on the seventh floor of the Renton City Hall. Parties wishing to testify were affirmed by the Examiner. An environmental appeal was filed by Aaron Fletcher,this item will be heard first. In an administrative appeal the appellant does have the burden of demonstrating that the City's action was erroneous,the City does not have to respond if they do not believe enough facts have been introduced. The City Attorney's office has filed a Motion to Dismiss the Appeal. Exhibit No. 1: Appeal file Exhibit No. 2: Yellow file containing the original application, proof of posting, proof of publication and other documentation pertinent to this request. NOW Parklane Court Preliminary Plat File No.: LUA-04-142, ECF, PP February 24, 2005 Page 2 , W Exhibit No. 3: Aerial Map Exhibit No. 4: Area Map Aaron Fletcher, 5633 NE 1st Circle, Renton, WA 98059 stated that in looking at the mitigated measures on the wetlands he did not think it was sufficient based on the wildlife and the homeowners adjacent to the area. A 75- foot buffer does not substantiate the overall cost value for being on the protected greenbelt. This appeal is twofold, one is the decrease in value due to displacing and building on the majority of the wetlands and the other would be since the building on the adjacent wetlands area, there has been a huge decrease in the frogs, deer and other wildlife in the wetlands areas. It appears that the mitigations measures placed on that particular area was not sufficient to protect the investment of the adjacent homeowners. He stated that he did not bring biologists and other experts to testify, he would just like to see everyone do the right thing where the buffers and mitigation measures are concerned. Upon questioning by Ann Nielsen, Assistant City Attorney, City of Renton, Mr. Fletcher stated that he did live in the City of Renton. Being shown an aerial map, Mr. Fletcher identified the area known as Parklane Court, and identified where his property was located in relation to the Parklane Court site. The wetlands closest to him would be B, C and D, as labeled on the map. No technical studies relating to the wildlife in that area have been done. The reduction of wildlife in that area is solely based on being a homeowner in the area. Since the development of an adjacent plat there has been a decline. Wetland E is not the closest wetland to his property, and he was not aware that it was a Class 3 wetland and required a 35-foot buffer. He also was not aware that Wetland B was to be expanded and that there would not be a loss in the total wetland area. One of the major concerns is the decrease in property values and the second concern would be the decrease in wildlife. Nftwir The Examiner stated that socio-economic issues are not part of a SEPA review process. That may be something that can be discussed in the plat. It appears that more of the statements made by Mr. Fletcher belong more directly to the underlying plat than SEPA. The SEPA determination can be challenged, however, his information was marginal at best as any kind of testimony of submissions of proof other than the photographs. Ms. Nielsen's motions and comments show a lack of information that will help him make a decision in your favor for the appeal. Ms.Nielsen stated that she did not feel it necessary to call witnesses and would rest at this time. Mr. Fletcher stated that he had nothing further and would hold comments for the plat hearing. The Examiner called for further testimony regarding this project. There was no one else wishing to speak, and no further comments from staff. The hearing closed at 9:24 a.m. The hearing for the Preliminary Plat opened at 9:25 a.m. in the Council Chambers on the seventh floor of the Renton City Hall. Parties wishing to testify were affirmed by the Examiner. The following exhibits were entered into the record for the Preliminary Plat approval: Exhibit No. 1: Yellow file containing the original Exhibit No. 2: Neighborhood Map application, proof of posting, proof of publication and other documentation pertinent to this request. Nod Parklane Court Preliminary Plat File No.: LUA-04-142, ECF, PP February 24, 2005 Page 3 Nifirree Exhibit No. 3: Preliminary Plat Plan Exhibit No. 4: Utilities Plan Exhibit No. 5: Grading Plan Exhibit No. 6: Drainage Control Plan Exhibit No. 7: Clearing Limits Plan Exhibit No. 8: Zoning Map Exhibit No. 9: Mitigation Measures The hearing opened with a presentation of the staff report by Susan Fiala, Senior Planner, Development Services, City of Renton, 1055 S Grady Way, Renton, Washington 98055. The current zoning for the plat is Residential-4, however, the project is vested under the R-5 Development Standards that were in place prior to the new zoning code that became effective November 10, 2004. The subject property is 4.3 acres which are to be subdivided into 10 lots and two tracts. Tract A contains a Category 2 wetland and associated 50-foot buffers, Tract B would contain the storm drainage facility. It is designated Residential Low Density on the Comprehensive Land Use map. It is located in the eastern portion of the City of Renton. The site would be accessed via Lyons Avenue NE through a new internal public road, labeled as Road A, it would be a reduced right of way of 42 feet with the appropriate pavement and sidewalk on each side. it would be reduced down to a private access easement to serve Lots 5, 6, and 7. Lots 1 - 4 and Lots 8 - 10 would be served by the new internal Road A. There are five wetlands on this plat, three of which are unregulated. One is located in Tract A, and the second, a 41.9 Category 3, located in the northern edge along Lots 2, 3, and 4. The applicant is proposing the appropriate wetland mitigation for both the wetland fill and any buffer enhancements. The Examiner asked that Ms. Fiala explain the terms "paper fill" or"map fill". Ms. Fiala stated that a paper fill is not actually a filling of the wetland, the only portion of the wetland that would be filled is that portion in Lots 2, a small portion in the northeast corner of Lots 3 and 4. That wetland would be filled and then be compensated in Tract A for the appropriate ratios as well as any enhancement requirements. Basically it means that no building or filling with new import soils may take place. The Environmental Review Committee issued a Determination of Non-Significance—Mitigated for the project, which included eleven mitigation measures. One appeal was filed and was heard prior to this plat hearing today. The Comprehensive Plan Land Use designation is Residential Low Density(RLD). All policies of the Land Use, Housing, and Environmental Elements have been met. This plat has a net density of 2.98 du/ac which meets the requirements for the R-5 zoning designation. All lots meet or exceed the requirements for the R-5 zone. All lots comply with the setback standards and would be verified at the time of individual building permit review. The proposal's compliance with all building standards would be verified prior to the issuance of individual building permits. The side lot lines of the proposed lots are at right angles to street lines. All lots would gain access to public roadways either directly or via private access easements. All lots are rectangular in shape, they satisfy the minimum lot area, width and dimension requirements of the R-5 zone. Two corner lots would be created and the radius for each for each of these lots would be 25-feet which does meet code. Parklane Court Preliminary Plat File No.: LUA-04-142, ECF, PP February 24, 2005 Page 4 The plat is required to installed frontage improvements along both Lyons Avenue NE and Nile Avenue NE. Nile Avenue NE would require half street improvements including half pavement width, curb, gutter and sidewalks unless deferred by the Board of Public Works. No direct access from any lot onto Lyons Avenue NE would be allowed. Traffic, Park and Fire Mitigations fees were imposed on the project. A homeowner's association or maintenance agreement is suggested for the development, which would be responsible for any common improvements and/or tracts within the plat. The plans indicate that all vegetation,except for that within the sensitive areas, would be removed for the development of the plat. As a result, staff recommends that the applicant be required to plant two ornamental trees within the front yard setback area for all lots within the plat. The site is located within the Renton School District and they have indicated that they have sufficient room to accommodate the students generated from this development. The proposed development is within the water service area of Water District 90. The City has not been provided with a water availability letter. Staff recommends approval of the plat subject to four conditions. Ron Knight, PO Box 6, Renton, WA 98057 stated that he is the developer of the plat. The tree survey that was done for the site shows that the majority of quality trees are in the buffer area around the wetlands. There are very few quality trees in the building area, mostly cottonwoods and alders, mostly trees that have blown over during a windstorm. They potentially pose a hazard to the homes when they are built. Regarding Nile Avenue street improvements, he stated that he understood that Nile Avenue was a closed street and was going to remain a closed street. This is the first knowledge that he has had regarding improving that area. Emma's Plat and Parkside Court have not been required to make street improvements to Nile Avenue. Joe Hopper, Peterson Consulting Engineers, 4030 Lake Washington Blvd.NE, Ste. 200,Kirkland, WA 98033 stated that he was not aware that Nile Avenue would be an open through roadway. The neighboring properties to the north and south that have been developed in the last few years have had no stipulations for road improvements. Kayren Kittrick, Development Services stated that Nile Avenue by code would have to be improved. However, it is very apparent with the wetlands etc that it would not be at all feasible, it would do more damage than good. Nile is not designated as a collector, it simply means that a little paperwork needs to be done and have the applicant officially ask for that to be removed. The Examiner called for further testimony regarding this project. There was no one else wishing to speak, and no further comments from staff. The hearing closed at 9:51 a.m. FINDINGS, CONCLUSIONS & RECOMMENDATION Having reviewed the record in this matter, the Examiner now makes and enters the following: FINDINGS ON THE APPEAL: Parklane Court Preliminary Plat File No.: LUA-04-142, ECF, PP February 24, 2005 Page 5 1. The appellant, Aaron Fletcher, filed an appeal of a Determination of Non-Significance - Mitigated (DNS-M) issued for a proposed preliminary plat that would create 10 single-family lots. 2. The appeal was filed in a timely manner on January 10, 2005. 3. In reviewing the plat application the City subjected the application to its ordinary SEPA review process. The City, in the course of and as a result of its SEPA review, issued a Determination of Non- Significance- Mitigated for the project. The Determination of Non-Significance - Mitigated (hereinafter DNS-M)contained 11 conditions. 4. The appellant objected to what were termed inadequate mitigation measures particularly in regards to a wetland and wildlife habitat. He also objected to what would possibly be a decrease in property value for the surrounding homes, including his own home. 5. The appellant was unaware that there were protective buffers required between new development and protected wetlands. The appellant was also unaware that the applicant proposed enlarging one of the wetlands as a compensation measure and that there would be no loss of protected wetlands. 6. The subject site is located in the 100 block of Lyons Avenue NE at SWI 100 Sunset Boulevard. 7. The appellant introduced no expert testimony and relied on his opinions of the impacts of the proposal. CONCLUSIONS: 1. The decision of the governmental agency acting as the responsible official is entitled to substantial weight. Therefore,the determination of the Environmental Review Committee (ERC), the city's responsible official, is entitled to be maintained unless the appellant clearly demonstrates that the determination was in error. 2. The Determination of Non-Significance in this case is entitled to substantial weight and will not be reversed or modified unless it can be found that the decision is "clearly erroneous." (Hayden v. Port Townsend, 93 Wn 2nd 870, 880; 1980). The court in citing Norway Hill Preservation and Protection Association v. King County Council, 87 Wn 2d 267, 274; 1976, stated: "A finding is `clearly erroneous' when although there is evidence to support it,the reviewing court on the entire evidence is left with the definite and firm conviction that a mistake has been committed." Therefore, the determination of the ERC will not be modified or reversed if it can meet the above test. For reasons enumerated below, the decision of the ERC is affirmed. 3. The clearly erroneous test has generally been applied when an action results in a DNS since the test is less demanding on the appellant. The reason is that SEPA requires a thorough examination of the environmental consequences of an action. The courts have, therefore, made it easier to reverse a DNS. A second test, the"arbitrary and capricious"test is generally applied when a determination of significance (DS) is issued. In this second test an appellant would have to show that the decision clearly flies in the face of reason since a DS is more protective of the environment since it results in the preparation of a full disclosure document, an Environmental Impact Statement. 4. An action is determined to have a significant adverse impact on the quality of the environment if more than a moderate impact on the quality of the environment is a reasonable probability. (Norway, at 278). mow Parklane Court Preliminary Plat File No.: LUA-04-142. ECF, PP February 24, 2005 Page 6 Since the Court spoke in Norway, WAC 197-11-794 has been adopted, it defines"significant" as follows: Significant. (1)"Significant" as used in SEPA means a reasonable likelihood of more than a moderate adverse impact on environmental quality. (2) Significance involves context and intensity...Intensity depends on the magnitude and duration of an impact.... The severity of the impact should be weighed along with the likelihood of its occurrence. An impact may be significant if its chance of occurrence is not great, but the resulting environmental impact would be severe if it occurred. 5. Also redefined since the Norway decision was the term "probable." Probable. "Probable"means likely or reasonably likely to occur, ... Probable is used to distinguish likely impacts from those that merely have a possibility of occurring, but are remote or speculative. (WAC 197-11-782). 6. Impacts also include reasonably related and foreseeable direct and indirect impacts including short-term and long-term effects. (WAC 197-11-060(4)(c)). Impacts include those effects resulting from growth caused by a proposal. as well as the likelihood that the present proposal will serve as precedent for future actions. (WAC 197-11-060(4)(d)). Environmental impact is also related to the location. A development whether an office building or a single-family development may or may not create impact depending on the existing surroundings. '4,100 7. The appellant did not produce any evidence that would lead this office to reverse the determination of the ERC. The appellant does have the burden of showing the impacts would be significant or showing that the normal regulations coupled with the ERC' s Mitigation Document do not provide adequate mitigation. 8. The reviewing body should not substitute its judgment for that of the original body with expertise in the matter, unless the reviewing body has the firm conviction that a mistake has been made. This office cannot conclude that the ERC made a decision that should be reversed. 9. The determination of the Environmental Review Committee is to be affirmed if the evidence does not support a reversal. The evidence does not support a reversal. DECISION: The decision of the ERC is affirmed. FINDINGS ON THE PRELIMINARY PLAT: 1. The applicant, Ronald and Janice Knight and Shigeki Marui, filed a request for a 10-lot Preliminary Plat. 2. The yellow file containing the staff report,the State Environmental Policy Act(SEPA) documentation and other pertinent materials was entered into the record as Exhibit#1. Parklane Court Preliminary Plat File No.: LUA-04-142, ECF. PP February 24. 2005 Page 7 3. The Environmental Review Committee(ERC),the City's responsible official issued a Determination of Non-Significance - Mitigated (DNS-M). An appeal of the SEPA decision was filed and the appeal hearing was held concurrent with the hearing on this plat. The appeal was denied. 4. The subject proposal was reviewed by all departments with an interest in the matter. 5. The subject site is located in the 100 block of Lyons Avenue NE. The subject site is on the east side Lyons just south of NE 2nd Street. Nile Avenue NE (148th Avenue SE in King County) runs along the eastern boundary of the subject site. 6. The map element of the Comprehensive Plan designates the area in which the subject site is located as suitable for the development of low density residential uses, but does not mandate such development without consideration of other policies of the Plan. 7. The subject site is currently zoned R-4 (Single Family-4 dwelling units/acre). Since the application was submitted while the site was zoned R-5, the applicant is entitled to have the proposed plat reviewed under the R-5 standards. 8. The subject site was annexed to the City with the adoption of Ordinance 4876 enacted in December 2000. 9. The subject site is 4.3 acres or 188,542 square feet. The parcel is approximately 313 feet wide (north to south) along Lyons and approximately 600 feet deep. fir►' 10. The subject site was characterized as generally flat with slopes downward near the south central area of the site where wetlands are found. 1 1. There are five separate wetlands on the subject site. Wetland A, at 1,329 square feet, is located in the southwestern portion of the subject site. Wetland B, a linear wetland that continues off the site, is located in the eastern portion of the site. It is approximately 18,577 square feet and is a Category 2 wetland. Wetland C, at approximately 540 square feet, is located in the northeast portion of the site. Wetland D, approximately 367 square feet, is also located in the northeast portion of the subject site. Wetland E, with approximately 8,166 square feet located on the subject site, is located on the north portion of the subject site. Wetland E is a Category 3 wetland and portions have been converted or cleared to create lawn. 12. The applicant proposes filling Wetlands A, C and D which were found to be non-regulated or have few wetland functions. The applicant also proposes filling approximately 3,309 square feet of Wetland E and treating the rest as a paper fill, meaning that it will be treated as if filled, not require a full buffer. As compensation the applicant will create 9,802 square feet of new wetland around Wetland B and enhance approximately 17,624 square feet of existing Wetland B. The enhancement would create deeper emergent wetland areas, add snags and woody material to naturalize the wetland and add native plants. Degraded buffer areas would also be enhanced in the vicinity of the stormwater pond. 13. The applicant also proposes buffer averaging in accordance with code(RMC 4-3-050M). The buffer around the west and north sides of Wetland B would be reduced to 25 feet and replaced with 16,788 square feet of buffer in the southeast portion of the site. The buffer and wetland would be placed in **roeTract A and protected. Parklane Court Preliminary Plat File No.: LUA-04-142, ECF, PP February 24, 2005 Page 8 40100 14. The applicant proposes removing trees in the areas outside of the sensitive areas and plant wetland related vegetation in the wetland and buffer areas. Staff has recommended that two trees be planted in the front yard of each new lot. 15. The applicant proposes dividing the subject site into 10 lots. The lots would generally be in two tiers north and south of a new road off of Lyons Avenue NE. The north tier would contain seven lots and the south tier would contain 3 lots. The new road would be a public road that ends in a hammerhead turnaround. An easement roadway would provide access to the easternmost interior lots, Proposed Lots 5, 6 and 7 and the storm drainage tract, Tract B. 16. Staff has recommended that Proposed Lots 1 and 8 which would have frontage along Lyons Avenue be restricted to access from the new roadway to limit the number of driveways and turning movements along Lyons. 17. The subject site is located within the Renton School District. The project is expected to generate approximately 4 or 5 school age children. These students would be spread across the grades and would be assigned on a space available basis. 18. The density for the plat would be 2.98 dwelling units per acre after subtracting sensitive areas and roadways. Approximately a third of the site is sensitive areas or buffers. 19. The development will increase traffic approximately 10 trips per unit or approximately 100 trips for the 10 single-family homes. Approximately ten percent of the trips, or approximately 16 additional peak hour trips will be generated in the morning and evening. 20. Stormwater will be conveyed to Tract B for water quality treatment and then to the wetland where it will flow offsite ultimately entering Maplewood Creek. The system will be designed to meet the King County 1998 Manual, Level 2 controls. 21. Sewer service will be provided by the City while domestic water will be provided by Water District 90. CONCLUSIONS: 1. The proposed plat appears to serve the public use and interest. The applicant will be protecting the natural features on the site, namely the wetlands, as envisioned by the Comprehensive Plan's environmental policies and goals. While the applicant will be filling the smaller, generally non- functional wetlands, compensation will be provided by enlarging and enhancing the quality wetlands, Wetlands 13 and E, creating a more coherent and improved wetland environment. Buffers wi;i be established to protect the integrity of the wetlands and the development has been concentrated on the western portion of the property that is not constrained by natural features. 2. Development of the site will provide additional larger lot, single-family home sites for those wanting such property. It will be integrated with natural features but in an area where urban services are also available. 3. The development will pay various mitigation fees to offset its impacts on parks, emergency services and roads. It will also increase the general tax base of the City while meeting the City's obligation to provide additional housing stock. Parklane Court Preliminary Plat File No.: LUA-04-142, ECF, PP February 24, 2005 Page 9 " mai 4. The applicant has managed to create generally rectangular lots and access to the lots via a combination of public and private roadways appears reasonable. Since Lyons Avenue is intended as an arterial, limiting unnecessary turning movements from driveways appears reasonable. Therefore, the staff recommendation to limit access to Proposed Lots 1 and 8 to the new east-west roadway is appropriate. 5. In conclusion, the proposed plat is a reasonable use of the subject property, protects sensitive lands and should be approved by the City Council. RECOMMENDATION: The City Council should approved the proposed 10-lot Preliminary Plat subject to the following conditions: 1. The applicant shall comply with the conditions imposed by the ERC. 2. No direct vehicular access shall be allowed onto Lyons Avenue NE from any lot within the plat. This condition shall be placed on the face of the final plat prior to recording. 3. A homeowner's association or maintenance agreement shall be created concurrently with the recording of the final plat in order to establish maintenance responsibilities for all shared improvements, including fences, landscaping, utilities, private easements, etc. A draft of the document(s), if necessary, shall be submitted to the City of Renton Development Services Division for review and approval by the City Attorney and Property Services section prior to recording of the final plat. 4. The applicant shall be required to plant two new approved trees within the 20-foot front yard setback area of all lots within the plat. The applicant shall be required to record a restrictive covenant against the property prior to final plat recording,which indicates that two trees are required to be planted within the front yard setback area of each now lot. This condition shall be subject to the review and approval of the Development Services Division and the trees shall be planted prior to final building permit inspection. 5. The applicant shall submit a Certificate of Water Availability to Development Services prior to recording of the final plat. ORDERED THIS 24''' day of February 2005. FRED J. KAUF N HEARING EXA INER TRANSMITTED THIS 24`'' day of February 2005 to the parties of record: Susan Fiala Ronald &Janice Knight Aaron Fletcher 1055 S Grady Way Shigeki Marui 5633 NE IS' Circle Renton, WA 98055 PO Box 6 Renton, WA 98059 Renton, WA 98057 Parklane Court Preliminary Plat File No.: LUA-04-142, ECF, PP February 24, 2005 Page 10 Joe Hopper Kayren Kittrick Peterson Consulting Engineers 1055 S Grady Way 4030 Lake Wash Blvd.NE, Ste 200 Renton, WA 98055 Kirkland, WA 98033 TRANSMITTED THIS 24th day of February 2005 to the following: Mayor Kathy Keolker-Wheeler Stan Engler, Fire Jay Covington, Chief Administrative Officer Larry Meckling, Building Official Julia Medzegian, Council Liaison Planning Commission Larry Warren, City Attorney Transportation Division Gregg Zimmerman, PBPW Administrator Utilities Division Alex Pietsch, Economic Development Neil Watts, Development Services Jennifer Henning, Development Services Janet Conklin, Development Services Stacy Tucker, Development Services King County Journal Pursuant to Title IV, Chapter 8, Section 100Gofthe City's Code, request for reconsideration must be filed in writing on or before 5:00 p.m.,March 10,2005. 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 fora 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 lie 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.,March 10,2005. 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 ally 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. Fr HICAGO TITLE INSURANCE COMFY- SHORT PLAT CERTIFICATE Order No.: 1129710 SCHEDULE A ,, (Continued) LEGAL DESCRIPTION PARCEL A: THE SOUTH HALF OF TRACT 12, BLACK LOAM FIVE ACRE TRACTS, ACCORDING TO THE PLAT THEREOF, RECORDED IN VOLUME 12 OF PLATS, PAGE 101, IN KING COUNTY, WASHINGTON. PARCEL B: THE NORTH HALF OF TRACT 12, BLACK LOAM FIVE ACRE TRACTS, ACCORDING TO THE PLAT THEREOF, RECORDED IN VOLUME 12 OF PLATS, PAGE 101, IN KING COUNTY, WASHINGTON. CHICAGO TITLE INSURANCE COMPANY ( ( ( .., F6 • 15 T23N R5E W 1/2 ; I ' 70 • n n 9 C/3 •' ` / 140th Ave. :=_-_ _,----/''� I a ft t..1 140th Aver SI n • i Vi) mmembnomme. 'r...'' L._ 0 .....,""..e.--..-'i ..,... t L______r--L______-- \--- 1--... CZ i ® tai.. O Pi �- 142nd Ave. SE �-, 142 7nd Ave. SE; 1 ......... ______, -_______.: S F____CO iV tilfi ti ---- a ) ,143rd Ave. SE 143rd Ave. SE 7 c3F Z 1 N . SE CO l " ' c ,. 144th Ave.)All • 144th Ave. SE Jericho Ave Nf._ co z - --- 45th Ave. SE, j ,'-- • - • .. ::. Cco t-.) 146th Ave. SE L ons Ave. NE -„i,, •ns= - cst J WM0 e. - - I — -iL I A . tsJ 'i• JS C i, , -,:, Z i C - �� ile Arv1 p:i z.-__ 148th Pl. SEL . __ ,, - I ' ` :,,,,, tri 011 149th Pl. SE `. OLit r.. . t - X� ON ? 1_f. r t� ''yrs: i�/� �-►ti 1 /� t "'� _� _. ._..._.. _ -... .... . ......... . .... . . _.-.... .. _-..-..... , il 1 g1. sT m" 1 e Tull`. 7iitP [�,��1 • s3r�1 '* 63 4 me. ,t� �F� +: �. •� 7.•j ® n) - • lit 4 ., _et. e 51 1 ti 4!in tool ge, 11 II _. ° e ,ria ■ - 0 ® e n .. `. M..' lir h• 1 9 u Oe SCALE ® I, a �C[1_ Mt i 4 0 Let �mx P ac 3 W3Plt.® w® Mil e . OL9 En � e gir P w,.®_ Oi z • i 999 ute. o :f3'll OW ; k rl� v c o ii,m la • .a...w..0•., ,tet . C OP .. 11412 22 o O.. O i. �_ !!1!i!!R!!l�bI'' �, .tri ,©.��;. . m 7,_._° ,� 1!U�a�a7, 'ETERSD j 111111 ��1211I: � ; ...° � 1�R � . © o SHORT P signing �(� P 101:1)S4tattling @ 0 " v ® rairk"iii* .e �a •o 041 . o PLAT o INN �O w w ® gitIle, /"'7ya 11. if• Ys F f�./ O T Chi M S rr „r„.44 • M K J s,...® l �Iii�sp °i tN 82• e�l� '�: Hata t E ..it .at.t194 < W IMIIEIIIMIIIIMLLIR . 11.11N 1 r 20 ri L r MMA S PLAT �; _ 01 i r r F �II; E•t7eTn at. • I 4. I I im, CD�RT 1 1 i i i lo g; tii 15-1.1-1, �y h 1+1, we PARKSIDE IrN1 ;•,nw..� e 0 aF 136THetH.�.I•..:.�.rSL a� . Y 11.11 2 151 W.= f I 110';',?..::' 0 d ,r � 1,Il Maplewood 1111=r O IR : Maplewood { `1 - ■ it4togiouNeighborhood Park Neighborhood Park 1- ` I ` tyTem , a 1 iAfl . re60TaNXIIMPfliRKiiiwww0000w®Rg- i.. o jot M 45ifik.Ntra-S223135gRIIIIIII1101114al-Cti =IF" .J . 11111 co , /� ~ �' •0.E. olio Mr•►L. • ' � IS. 4 Ii. .1 _fV _ of o • � _. ' FIVE < ACRE 1 i 111 CITY OF RENTON COUNCIL AGENDA BILL AI#: .p Submitting Data: Sergeant Mark Day For Agenda of: April 4,2005 Dept/Div/Board.. Police Department Staff Contact Mark Day,XT 7566 Agenda Status Consent X Subject: Public Hearing.. Edward Byrne Memorial Justice Assistance Correspondence.. Grant to fund the Domestic Violence Advocacy Ordinance Assistance Program Resolution Old Business Exhibits: New Business (1) Issue Paper Study Sessions (2) Copy of 2005 Justice Assistance Grant Application Information Recommended Action: Approvals: Council Concur Legal Dept Finance Dept Other Fiscal Impact: Expenditure Required... Transfer/Amendment Amount Budgeted Revenue Generated Total Project Budget City Share Total Project SUMMARY OF ACTION: The City of Renton Police Department is applying for the Edward Byrne Memorial Justice Assistance Grant to help fund our Domestic Violence Advocacy Assistance Program. There is $39,120 in funding available. The grant requires no contributing funds for eligibility. The duration of the grant is for four years from approval by the Office of Justice Programs. It does require that the application, in its entirety,be made available to the Mayor and City Council for a minimum of 30 days prior to submitting it for their review and comment. The application and any future amendments must also be made available to the general public with an opportunity to comment to the extent applicable by law or established procedure makes such an opportunity available. The application will be published on the City's website and copies will be available in the City Clerk's Office and the Police Department for public review. STAFF RECOMMENDATION: Council concur and authorize the Mayor to sign the Edward Byrne Memorial Justice Assistance Grant. Rentonnet/agnbill/ bh City Of Renton Police Department Issue Paper DATE: March 22, 2005 TO: Council President Terri Briere Members of the Renton City Council VIA: Mayor Kathy Keolker-Wheeleri FROM: Garry Anderson, Chief of Police (XT 7503) STAFF CONTACT: Sergeant Mark Day, Investigations Division (XT 7566) SUBJECT: Issue Paper—Local Law Enforcement Block Grant ISSUE: The Police Department is currently applying for the Edward Byrne Memorial Justice Assistance Grant. The Grant has $39,120.00 available to be used to assist in funding the Department's Domestic Violence Advocacy Assistance Program. The grant requires no *ow matching or contributing funds from the City and extends over a four-year period. It requires the completed application be available to the Mayor and Council for review and comment for a 30-day period prior to submitting it for approval to the Office of Justice Programs and the Bureau of Justice Assistance Office. The grant requires that the application also be made available to the general public for review and comment during that same 30-day period, which can be done via the City's web site. BACKGROUND: The Police Department has received funding for its advocacy program through the Local Law Enforcement Block Grant Program for 2002, 2003, and 2004. The Edward Byrne Memorial Justice Assistance Grant or JAG has replaced that program. RECOMMENDATION: Council concur and authorize the Mayor to sign the Edward Byrne Memorial Justice Assistance Grant. Page 1 of 2 APPLICATION FOR 2. DATE SUBMI'TI ED Applicant Identifier FEDERAL ASSISTANCE 1. TYPE OF SUBMISSION 3. DATE RECEIVED BY State Application Identifier STATE ,.pplication Non-Construction 4. DATE RECEIVED BY Federal Identifier FEDERAL AGENCY 5.APPLICANT INFORMATION Legal Name Organizational Unit City of Renton Police Department Investigation's Division Address Name and telephone number of the person to be contacted on matters 1055 So. Grady Way involving this application Renton, Washington 98055-3232 Harris,Tina (425)430-6654 6. EMPLOYER IDENTIFICATION NUMBER (EIN) 7. TYPE OF APPLICANT 91-6001271 Municipal 8. TYPE OF APPLICATION 9. NAME OF FEDERAL AGENCY New Bureau of Justice Assistance 10. CATALOG OF FEDERAL DOMESTIC ASSISTANCE 11. DESCRIPTIVE TITLE OF APPLICANT'S PROJECT NUMBER: 16.738 CFDA EDWARD BYRNE MEMORIAL JUSTICE Domestic Violence Advocacy TITLE: ASSISTANCE GRANT PROGRAM Assistance Program 12. AREAS AFFECTED BY PROJECT City of Renton, serving the the citizens residing within the city limits of the City of Renton, Washington, county of King 13. PROPOSED PROJECT 14. CONGRESSIONAL Start Date: October 01, 2004 DISTRICTS OF End Date: October 01, 2008 a. Applicant b. Project WA08 WA09 15. ESTIMATED FUNDING 16. IS APPLICATION SUBJECT Federal $39,120 TO REVIEW BY STATE EXECUTIVE ORDER 12372 Applicant $0 PROCESS? State $0 Program is not covered by E.O. Local $0 12372 )ther $0 NomProgram Income $0 17. IS THE APPLICANT DELINQUENT ON ANY https://gmsgrants.ojp.usdoj.gov/gmsexternal/applicationReview.do?print=yes 3/22/05 Page 2 of 2 TOTAL $39,120 FEDERAL DEBT? N 18. TO THE BEST OF MY KNOWLEDGE AND BELIEF, ALL DATA IN THIS APPLICATION 'REAPPLICATION ARE TRUE AND CORRECT,THE DOCUMENT HAS BEEN DULY AUTHORIGLD Y GOVERNING BODY OF THE APPLICANT AND THE APPLICANT WILL COMPLY WITH THE ATTACHED ASSURANCES IF THE ASSISTANCE IS REQUIRED. r https://gmsgrants.ojp.usdoj.gov/gmsexternal/applicationReview.do?print=yes 3/22/05 Byrne Justice Assistance Grant Program Page 1 of 2 0 �`"titi Byrne Justice Assistance Grant Program 2005-F3454-WA-DJ .t17;.. Application Correspondence Switch to ... I Application Handbook Applicant Information Overview Verify that the following information filled is correct and fill out any missing information. To save changes, click on the "Save and Continue" button. Applicant Information *Is the applicant delinquent on any c Yes f:) No federal debt• Proiect Information *Employer Identification Number(EIN) 91 - J60012711 Budget d *Type of Applicant Municipal PrAttachments Type of Applicant(Other): ________ -- Assurances and *Organizational Unit Investigation's Divisiorj Certifications *Legal Name (Legal Jurisdiction Name) [City of Renton Police Review SF 424 *Vendor Address 1 11055 So. Grady Way,j Submit Application Vendor Address 2 *Vendor City Renton elp/Frequently ........... ..a.__...i 'Illil sked Questions Vendor County/Parish King GMS Home *Vendor State !Washington -- _ Aji *Vendor ZIP r9T3737 3232 Need help for ZIP+4? Log Off Please provide contact information for matters involving this application *Contact Prefix: IMS. Contact Prefix (Other): I *Contact First Name: (Tina _ _^ Contact Middle Initial: *Contact Last Name: [Harris �I Contact Suffix: !Select a Suffix Contact Suffix (Other) : ! _ *Contact Title: [Director *Contact Address Line 1: 11055 So. Grady Way _..__._1 Contact Address Line 2: [ __-__ ---------._----.-..___j *Contact City Renton I https://gmsgrants.ojp.usdoj.gov/gmsexternal/applicantlnformation.do 3/22/05 Byrne Justice Assistance Grant Program Page 2 of 2 Contact County: 'King *Contact State: Washington *Contact Zip Code: 198055 - 3232 Need help for ZIP+4? �.r *Contact Phone Number: 1721.-11430 16654 Ext: Contact Fax Number: 1425 430. 17505 *Contact E-mail Address: [tharris@ci.renton.wa.us https://gmsgrants.ojp.usdoj.gov/gmsexternal/applicantInformation.do 3/22/05 Byrne Justice Assistance Grant Program Page 1 of 1 Byrne Justice Assistance Grant Program 2005-F3454-WA-DJ 0 Application Correspondence (Switch to ... Application Handbook Project Information Overview *Descriptive Title of Applicant's Project Domestic Violence Advocacy Assistance Program Applicant Information Project Information *Areas Affected by Project City of Renton, serving the the citizens residing within Budget and the city limits of the City of Renton, Washington, county Program of King _------------_--_ ___-__-_ ----------- ----- Attachments Proposed Project Assurances and *Start Date October 01 12004 10 Certifications *End Date October it OF-112008a 2008 a Review SF 424 *Congressional Districts of Submit Application Congressional District 01, WA i_Y; Project Congressional District 02, WA f Congressional District 03, WA leip/Frequently Congressional District 04, WA 1, sked Questions --- - - *Estimated Funding GMS Home Federal 39120 .00 Log Off Applicant $IO_----------------I .00 State $ 10 _ # .00 Local $I0 _j .00 Other $ 10 _ _ 1 .00 1 Program Income $10_______ .00 TOTAL $ 139120mm j .00 t )31 https://gmsgrants.ojp.usdoj.gov/gmsexternallprojectInformation.do 3/22/05 • Byrne Justice Assistance Grant Program Page 1 of 1 Byrne Justice Assistance Grant Program 2005-F3454-WA-DJ Application Correspondence Switch to ... Application Handbook Budget and Program Attachments Overview This form allows you to upload the Budget Detail Worksheet, Program Narrative and other Program attachments. Click the Attach button to continue. Applicant Information Grant Review.doc Project Information Budget Narrative.doc Budget and Program Narrative.doc Program Attachments Click on the Attach Button to upload an attachment Assurances and Certifications Review SF 424 Your files have been successfully attached, but the application has not been submitted to OW. Please continue with your application. Submit Application -ips for successful Now upload GMS Home Log Off https://gmsgrants.ojp.usdoj.gov/gmsexternal/budget.do 3/22/05 ' Byrne Justice Assistance Grant Program Page 1 of 2 • Byrne Justice Assistance Grant Program 2005-F3454-WA-DJ , ` NikiseApplication Correspondence Switch to ... I Application Handbook Assurances and Certifications Overview To the best of my knowledge and belief, all data in this application/preapplication is true and correct, the document has been duly authorized by the governing body Applicant of the applicant and the applicant will comply with the attached assurances if the Information assistance is awarded. Project Information Your typed name, in lieu of your signature represents your legal binding acceptance of the terms of this application and your statement of the veracity of Budget and the representations made in this application. The document has been duly Program authorized by the governing body of the applicant and the applicant will comply Attachments with the following: Assurances and 1. Assurances Certifications 2. Certifications Regarding Lobbying; Debarment, Suspension and Other Responsibility Matters; and Drug-Free Workplace requirements. Review SF 424 If you are an applicant for any Violence Against Women grants, this includes the Submit Application Certification of Compliance with the Statutory Eligibility Requirements of the Violence Against Women Act. lelp/Frequently *prefix: Mr. wAsked Questions _____ .- ___ Prefix (Other): i GMS Home *First Name: IMark Log Off Middle Initial: EI *Last Name: [Day Suffix MEE Suffix (Other): I *Title: [Sergeant �_j *Address Line 1: 11055 So. Grady Way Address Line 2: *city: [Renton County: (King .._i *State: Washington i *Zip Code: 198055 j -175T *Phone: 425 -F571 -[7566 Ext : -7 https://gmsgrants.ojp.usdoj.gov/gmsexternal/applicationAssurance.do 3/22/05 Byrne Justice Assistance Grant Program Page 2 of 2 Fax: 425 -FT 17505 *E-mail: Jmday@ci.renton.wa.ui Pi I have examined the information provided here regarding the signing .►' authority and certify it is accurate. I am the signing authority, or have been delegated or designated formally as the signing authority by the appropriate authority of official, to provide the information requested throughout this application system on behalf of this jurisdiction. Information regarding the signing authority, or the delegation of such authority, has been placed in a file and is available on-site for immediate review. Nor https://gmsgrants.ojp.usdoj.gov/gmsexternal/applicationAssurance.do 3/22/05 Program Narrative (Attachment 1) In April of 2003 the Domestic Violence Victim Advocacy program within the Renton Police Department was created to assist the victim(s) and children of domestic violence within the City of Renton. This program is currently funded with the assistance from the LLEBG grant. In 2004 the Renton Police Department had 2,092 domestic violence calls for service. The domestic violence victim advocate had 802 new victim cases and 5,315 follow up contacts. The city prosecutor filed 532 domestic violence cases with others being dismissed for a variety of reasons. The advocate will attempt to contact the victim(s) as soon as possible to offer victim services. Victim services include; safety planning, prevention and awareness, protection order, no contact orders, emergency shelter, food, clothing, transportation, phone cards, 911 cell phones, community resources, interpreter services, court advocacy, victim notification upon release of batter and additional services as needed. The DV Victim Advocate will assist with the Renton Domestic Violence Task Force in the effort to create awareness about domestic violence and to make the necessary changes for the protection of the victim(s) and their children. The prevention and education of the DV program is very important to create an opportunity for the community to learn about domestic violence in the community and allow people to understand the dynamics of this personal violent crime. On going training is needed for the growth of the program and for the ability to deliver the most recent, accurate and appropriate services to and for the victim. Training would include the advocate, detective, administration, patrol officers, probation and prosecutor. This grant will allow for the Renton Police Department to offer emergency services and information to the victim until the victim is able to access a local community program or until the victim is able to find a safe location to move. This information could be tracked using a case number and the date of service. Prevention and Education could be tracked using the events and the items used to educate the community along with the number of those that attended. Any and all training would be brought back to the Renton Police Department and shared in briefings and in on going training. This information would also be given to the Renton Domestic Violence Task Force and to the local domestic violence programs. The award of this grant would greatly benefit the victims of domestic violence and help to educate the community on the topic of domestic violence in the City of Renton. Budget Narrative (Attachment #2) $39,120 Award Amount Administrative Cost of 10% = 3,912 Ten percent of the administrative cost would be used to oversee this budget. Supplies $1,000 X 4 years = 4,000 Supplies would be used yearly to maintain the needs of the Domestic Violence Victim Advocacy Program. Prevention and Education $2,000 x 4 years = 8,000 In an attempt to eliminate domestic violence, prevention and education is extremely important. Prevention and education could include, community events, presentations, brochures, 'fir give-a-ways, Renton's domestic violence task force and items or information that will create an awareness on the topic of domestic violence. Training $2,000 X 4 years = 8,000 Training is very important for the continued knowledge and education of the program. This training would be used by the domestic violence victim advocate, detectives, patrol officers, administration, probation and prosecutor. Direct Victim Services $3,802 X 4 years = 15,208 These services are vitally important for the victim(s) and children when they are leave an abusive situation. These services are important until temporary or long term shelter is found. Emergency hotel vouchers $2,000, food vouchers $1,000, clothing vouchers $1,000, and travel vouchers $700. Review narrative On March 18, 2005,I submitted an Email to Stephen Meyer of the Edward Byrne Memorial Justice Assistance Grant. The Email was a request for a date extension of 30 days beyond the March 31, 2005 deadline for submitting our grant application. Our completed grant application was made available for review to the Mayor's office and the City Council at 0900 hours of March 22, 2005. On March 22, 2005, the completed grant in its entirety was published on the City of Renton website and made accessible to the public to include citizens, neighborhoods, and community organizations to the extent applicable law or established procedure makes such an opportunity available for review and or comment. Any amendments or future amendments to this application will also be published on the Website and made available for public comment and review as prescribed by law or established procedures. The City Of Renton Website is readily accessible for review by the general public, the citizenry of the City of Renton, neighborhood representatives, and organizational officers. The comments,concerns and inquires of the application and its process by the Mayor, City Council, and the citizenry will be addressed, considered and potentially acted upon *ow, at the conclusion of the review period. 4r✓ CITY OF RENTON COUNCIL AGENDA BILL AI#: 3 Submitting Data: Planning/Building/Public Works For Agenda of: Dept/Div/Board.. Transportation Division April 4, 2005 Staff Contact Ryan Zulauf,x7471 Agenda Status Consent Subject: Public Hearing.. Aerodyne Aviation Lease Addendum 11-05 to Lease Correspondence.. Agreement 84-006 Ordinance Resolution Old Business Exhibits: New Business X Issue Paper Study Sessions Lease Addendum 11-05 Information Recommended Action: Approvals: Refer to Transportation/Aviation Committee Legal Dept X Finance Dept Other Fiscal Impact: Expenditure Required... Transfer/Amendment Amount Budgeted Revenue Generated $7,956.39 Total Project Budget City Share Total Project.. • SUMMARY OF ACTION: Approval is requested of a lease addendum documenting an increase in leased square footage to Aerodyne Aviation's Lease Agreement, LAG 84-006. STAFF RECOMMENDATION: Recommend approval of Lease Addendum 11-05 to the Aerodyne Aviation lease, LAG 84-006, to increase the leased square footage. Rentonnet/agnbill/ bh CITY OF RENTONPLANNINGBUILDING/PUBLIC WORKS DEPARTMENT MEMORANDUM DATE: April 4, 2005 TO: Terri Briere, Council President Members of the Renton City Council VIA: Mayor Kathy Keolker-Wheeler FROM: N1� Gregg Zimmerman, Administrator Planning/Building/Public Works STAFF CONTACT: Ryan Zulauf, Airport Manager(x7471) SUBJECT: Aerodyne Aviation Lease Addendum 11-05 to Lease Agreement 84-006 ISSUE: `tt.r Approval is requested for a lease addendum documenting an increase in the leased square footage to Aerodyne Aviation's lease, LAG 84-006. RECOMMENDATION: Recommend approval of Lease Addendum 11-05 to Aerodyne Aviation's lease, LAG 84-006, to increase the leased square footage. BACKGROUND SUMMARY: Aerodyne Aviation, aka South Cove Ventures, LLC, has been leasing hangar and office space on the south end of the Airport since 1999. Their lease has an expiration date of 2006,with a 10 year extension. As a result of the Airport's Airside/Landside Separation Improvement Project of 2002, Aerodyne Aviation's leased area was reconfigured and increased to accommodate the relocation of the airport perimeter fencing and main vehicle gate at the south entrance to the airfield. Aerodyne Aviation's leased area was increased by 9,455 square feet, or$1,551.56 per year. H:FileSys/Air/Projects/Tasks/Agenda Bills/Aerodyne Addendum 11-05 Iss paper SECTION 18, TOWNZHiP 23 N TH, RANGE 5 EAST, W.M. IN KING CITY OF RENTON, KINK BOUNTY, WASHINGTON . ATTY OF RENTON RENTON MUNICIPAL AIRPORT ( )• TIE DOWN LEASE AREA X-21 LEGA.DESCRIPTION A A PARCEL OF LAND SITUATED IN THEQUARTER OF # SECTION 18,TOWNSHIP 23 NORTH,RANGE 5E1y�i ,W.M. IN'10NG COUNTY,WASHINGTON DESCRIBED AS FOLLOWS: �55-\e , r______-, COMMENCING AT THE INTERSECTION OF CENTERUNFS OF ART l 4 AIRPORTWAY AND LOGAN AVENUE NORTH IN THE CITY OF RENTON; 'Ps eto t' THENCE N8730'17111,A DISTANCE OF 862.23 FEET; '.,, .P .�,� P UNE TABLE THENCE N0729'43'E,A DISTANCE OF 151.41 FEET; �o UNE LENGTH BEARING THENCE N8730'17'W,A DISTANCE OF 224.96 FEET TO THE L1 8.25' N80'07'16"W TRUE POINT OF BEGINNING; ' L2 6.46' N70'25'17W , THENCE NO4'49'431,4 A DISTANCE OF 188.11 FEET; , a ' L3 6.40' N6309'171Y THENCE N5506'521:,A DISTANCE OF 55.74 FEET; r 4 THENCE S45'57'14'E,A DISTANCE OF 37.51 FEET TO A POINT J. L4 7.20' N39'5'S6'W CURVE TO THE RIGHT HAVING A RADIUS OF 93.80 FEET AND A''...• 15 9.47' N39 S8'43'W o��', • CENTRAL ANGLE OF 18'29.22': a 16 6.94' N43'50'47E • THENCE SOUTHEAST ALONG THE ARC A DISTANCE OF 30.27 FEET; L7 7.60' N5T18'481W THENCE S272755'E,A DISTANCE OF 90210095.8:97236S: L8 14.19' S49'OS'131Y THENCE S8T52'25'E,A DISTANCE4-11 OF ; T leant THENCE S4T09'S4'E A DISTANCE OF : THENCE S0T29'431W,A()STANCE OF 27.45 FEET; THENCE N8T24'01'W,A DISTANCE OF 26.07 FEET; �� illiF „ , THENCEE N7N8007'161W,AA DISTANCE OFOF 8.2546 FEET; //r& THENCE N63'09171V,A DISTANCE OF 6.40 FEET: THENCE N47'31'561W,A DISTANCE OF 7.20 FEET; 40,046 SQ.FT. THENCE N3758'431W,A DISTANCE OF 9.47 FEET; 0.919 ACRES \ THENCE N35'25'251Y,A DISTANCE OF 59.46 FEET; THENCE NO4'53'141W,A DISTANCE OF 17.51 FEET; THENCE N34'54'321/ A DISTANCE OF .44 FEET; ::,2' \\`C^ — THENCE N34'S4'32'Y1,A DISTANCE OF 24.27 FEET; 69.37' 8.60' V0 (,.>-: THENCE N5718'481Y,A DISTANCE OF 7.60 FEET; N8T39'45'W 40.81' k19•�1^l1 N8748'051W N8716'021.1 > ;. �r' THENCE S49'OS'13'W,A DISTANCE OF 14.19 FEET; TPOB `RN8T36'221Y 1 ss��y. THENCE N8736'2YW,A DISTANCE OF 40.81 FEET; — N8T30'17'W S • k Ij“ THENCE NBT16'021Y,A DISTANCE OF 87.60 FEET; \ THENCE N8T48'OS'W,A DISTANCE OF 69.37 FEET: 224.96' — THENCE N8739'45'W,A DISTANCE OF 88.22 FEET; ,....•..” THENCE S5014'311Y,A DISTANCE OF 1.80 FEET; `(,,� THENCE S58'14'571V,A DISTANCE OF 47.98 FEET TO THE TRUE \liy POINT OF BEGINNING._,_/ y?-,�a,, 2• \ CONTAINING 40,046 SQUARE FEET OR 0.919 ACRES, MORE OR { d• LESS. //__ W / d; (.I N H. .7 Ea / 'Alfr1ff r 4.,h I 26.07' o w Luz z— 148724 6 Q — T PROF2 TY UNE I1 0 50' 5' 0 0' 00' N87'30'1711/ ANORTH' SCALE IN FEET 86—WAY p. RPORf — _ POINT OF COMMENCEMENT TM .a A#C:Proeum ° DJJMS '''fnroe''"64LOT DUANE H1,RfMACI k ASSOCIATES, INC. .: .:lam 661/6 9.. LEASE EXHIBIT A . R.� 19.64 6449 .. .s . or �: ORL ---SurueWWrs--- ""MO RI ”` .� RENTON MUNICIPAL AIRPORT =... 16926 woo0auc- xm 6664 6-107 (425)465-5355 "'"0"" TIE DOWN LEASE AREA 16:000.94.11,41.4511467044 96672 FAT(4251 463-4150 :nmm 161115410110.a � LAG 006-84 Addendum#11-05 ADDENDUM TO LEASE AGREEMENT (City of Renton to South Cove Ventures, LLC, dba Aero Dyne Aviation) THIS ADDENDUM to Lease Agreement 006-84 is effective as of the date of execution by the City of Renton, as indicated on the last page of this addendum. RECITALS: WHEREAS, on September 1, 1984, Plane Space Investments, Inc. entered into Lease Agreement LAG 006-84, and leased four contiguous parcels at the south end of the Airport, consisting of three unimproved parcels of 39,030 square feet, referred to as the Vehicle Parking Lot, East Tiedown Area and West Tiedown Area, and one improved parcel of 42,936 square feet consisting of an existing hangar building, and WHEREAS, on September 2, 1994, Plane Space Investments assigned Lease LAG 006- 84, in its entirety, to Puget Sound Industries, Inc., and WHEREAS, on March 25, 1997, Puget Sound Industries assigned Lease LAG 006-84, in its entirety, to Cliff Howard and Fred Bahr, and WHEREAS, on April 29, 1999, Cliff Howard and Fred Bahr assigned Lease LAG 006-84, in its entirety, to South Cove Ventures, LLC, and WHEREAS, Southcove Ventures, LLC leases four adjacent parcels, totaling 81,966 square feet, and WHEREAS, post-September 11, 2001, security measures required that the City replace the airport perimeter fencing and install automated gates at specific locations around the airport, and WHEREAS, one of the areas identified for improvement was the fencing and the then- existing electric gate bordering South Cove Ventures' two of the three unimproved parcels, which included the West Side Tiedown Area and East Tiedown Area, and WHEREAS, as a result of the relocation of the fencing and replacement of the electric gate, the two unimproved parcels were combined to create a new unimproved parcel of 40,046 square feet, and WHEREAS, the South Cove Ventures' newly created parcel and existing vehicle parking lot square footage has been increased to a total unimproved leased area of 48,485 square feet, and an improved leased area of 42,936 square feet, for a total leased area of 91,421 square feet, and WHEREAS, the City is requiring South Cove Ventures to create and maintain three transient aircraft tiedown spaces within their newly created unimproved parcel, and LAG 006-84 Addendum#11-05 %we WHEREAS, the City is requiring that South Cove Ventures maintain a fifteen foot (15') buffer along the southern edge of the adjacent taxilane as shown in Exhibit A, and this buffer will be kept free of any obstructions that might interfere with aircraft movement along the adjacent taxilane. NOW, THEREFORE, IT IS HEREBY AGREED AND COVENANTED BY AND BETWEEN THE CITY OF RENTON AND SOUTH COVE VENTURES, LLC, AS FOLLOWS: WITNESSETH: 1. Lessor and Lessee do hereby agree to amend Paragraph 1 of South Cove Ventures' lease, LAG 006-84, to increase its unimproved leased area by 9,455 square feet, for a total unimproved ground lease area of 48,485 square feet (39,030 + 9,455 =48,485), identified in Exhibit A; and 2. Lessor and Lessee do hereby agree that Exhibit A, Legal Description, attached hereto, is made a part hereof; and 3. Lessor and Lessee do hereby agree to an annual unimproved land rent of$7,956.39 (48,485 x $0.1641 = $7,956.39) for the 48,485 square feet of unimproved land identified in Exhibit A; and 4. Lessor and Lessee do hereby agree that Lessee will designate, within South Cove Ventures' unimproved leased area, three parking spaces to be used for transient aircraft parking; and 5. Lessor and Lessee do hereby agree that Lessee will mark each designated transient aircraft parking space with traffic-yellow painted squares and maintain these three designated transient parking spaces at no cost to the City; and 6. Lessor and Lessee do hereby agree that Lessee will provide the transient aircraft parking spaces to the flying public in a manner consistent with current Airport transient aircraft parking practices; and 7. Lessor and Lessee do hereby agree that Lessee will maintain a fifteen foot(15')buffer along the southern taxilane as shown in Exhibit A, and this buffer will be kept free of any obstructions that might interfere with aircraft movement along the adjacent taxilane. 8. All other terms and conditions of the original Lease Agreement shall remain in full force and effect. Lease Agreement 006-84 2 City of Renton to South Cove Ventures,dba Aero Dyne Aviation LAG 006-84 Addendum#11-05 SOUTHCOVE VENTURES, LLC CITY OF RENTON dba AERO DYNE AVIATION a Municipal Corporation a Washington Corporation Mayor Kathy Keolker-Wheeler Title Bonnie Walton, City Clerk Date Approved as to legal form: `fir✓' H.\AIR Admin\Real Property Management\Leases and Op permits\Aerodyne\Leases\006-84 Add 11-05.doc Lease Agreement 006-84 3 City of Renton to South Cove Ventures,dba Aero Dyne Aviation CITY OF RENTON COUNCIL AGENDA BILL AI#: q,� 1/4100, Submitting Data: Planning/Building/Public Works For Agenda of: April 4,2005 Dept/Div/Board.. Utility Systems Division/Surface Water Utility Staff Contact Ron Straka(ext. 7248) Agenda Status: Allen Quynn(ext. 7247) Consent X Subject: Public Hearing.. Consultant contract with R.W. Beck, Inc., to provide Correspondence.. preliminary engineering design and permitting for the Ordinance SW 34th Street Culvert Replacement Project. Resolution Old Business Exhibits: New Business Issue Paper Study Sessions Consultant Scope of Work,Budget and Schedule Information Site Photos Recommended Action: Approvals: Council Concur Legal Dept X Finance Dept Risk Management X Fiscal Impact: 1/400, Expenditure Required... $116,049 Transfer/Amendment Amount Budgeted $116,049 Revenue Generated Total Project Budget $150,000 (approved 2005 City Share Total Project.. $150,000 adjusted appropriation) SUMMARY OF ACTION: The SW 34th Street culvert crossing of Springbrook Creek is a significant restriction to flows in the creek, which contributes to upstream flooding problems in the south Renton valley. The need to replace the existing 72"culverts crossing Springbrook Creek is identified in the East Side Green River Watershed Project(ESGRWP)Plan and EIS,issued in September 1997. The proposed consultant contract authorizes R. W. Beck, Inc.,to complete preliminary engineering design and permitting. R.W. Beck, Inc.,is listed on the Utility System Division's Annual Consultant Roster. The consultant contract will be funded through the aproved Surface Water Utility 2005 adjusted capital improvement program budget for the SW 34m Street Culvert Replacement Project. The approved 2005 budget for the SW 34th Street Culvert Replacement Project is$150,000. STAFF RECOMMENDATION: Authorize the Mayor and City Clerk to execute the proposed preliminary engineering design and permitting consultant contract with R. W. Beck, Inc., for the SW 34th Street Culvert Replacement Project, in the amount of$116,049. H:\File Sys\SWP-Surface Water Projects\SWP-27 - Surface Water Projects(CIP)\27-3223 SW 34th St Culvert Replacement Project\1103 Contracts\agendabill.doc\AQ\tb CITY OF RENTON PLANNING/BUILDING/PUBLIC WORKS MEMORANDUM DATE: March 25, 2005 TO: Terri Briere, Council President Members of the City Council VIA: J - �Kathy Keolker-Wheeler, Mayor FROM: Gregg Zimmerman, Administrator STAFF CONTACT: Ron Straka, Surface Water Utility Supervisor(ext. 7248) Allen Quynn, Surface Water Project Manager(ext. 7247) SUBJECT: Consultant Contract for the SW 34th Street Culvert Replacement Project, Preliminary Engineering Design and Permitting ISSUE: The Planning/Building/Public Works Department requests approval of a consultant contract *400 authorizing R. W. Beck, Inc., to complete preliminary engineering design and permitting for the SW 34th Street Culvert Replacement Project. RECOMMENDATION: Authorize the Mayor and City Clerk to execute the proposed preliminary engineering design and permitting consultant contract with R. W. Beck, Inc., for the SW 34th Street Culvert Replacement Project, in the amount of$116,049. BACKGROUND: In September 1997, the East Side Green River Watershed Project (ESGRWP) Final Plan and EIS was issued by the City. The ESGRWP identified several projects on Springbrook Creek that would significantly reduce flooding in the valley. The Surface Water Utility has already implemented several elements of the ESGRWP Plan, including completion of the SW 27th Street Culvert Replacement Project and widening of about 500 feet of Springbrook Creek,just upstream of SW 16th Street, which was completed in conjunction with the Oakesdale Avenue Phase One Extension Project. The SW 34th Street Culvert Replacement Project is also an element of the ESGRWP Plan and EIS. The SW 34th Street culvert crossing is a significant restriction to flows in Springbrook Creek and, thus, is a major contributor to the upstream flooding problems experienced in the '4ar. Council/SW 34th Street Consultant Contract March 25,2005 Page 2 of 2 Slam south Renton valley. The proposed consultant contract is for the preliminary engineering design and permitting of the SW 34th Street Culvert Replacement Project. The SW 34th Street Culvert Replacement Project will consist of replacing four, undersized 72" diameter culverts that convey Springbrook Creek across SW 34th Street, in the valley, between Oakesdale Avenue SW and Lind Avenue SW. These culverts are a major restriction in flows, which contributes to the flooding problems in portions of the south valley during storm events, including portions of SW 34th Street, Lind Avenue SW, and SW 39th Street. The proposed culvert will most likely be a 3- or 4-sided box culvert, however, the exact type and size of culvert will be determined during the preliminary engineering design and permitting process. The approved 2005 adjusted budget for the SW 34th Street Culvert Replacement Project is $150,000. The cost of the proposed preliminary engineering design and permitting consultant contract is $116,049. The remaining balance in the project account of$33,951 will be used to cover City staff time and unanticipated extra work items identified during preliminary engineering design and permitting. The work included in the proposed SW 34th Street Culvert Replacement Project preliminary engineering design and permitting consultant contract will be completed this year. It is anticipated that final design will be completed in 2006, with project construction to occur in the summer of 2007. The funding for final design and construction of the culvert replacement will be appropriated in the 2006 and 2007 budgets, respectively. The Surface Water Utility 6-year Capital Improvement Program Budget for the SW 34th Street Culvert Replacement Project includes $1,000,000, as the total project cost for design, permitting, and construction. The preliminary engineering design work will provide a better estimate of the project's construction cost. The contract scope of work and budget include both Phase I and Phase II engineering design work. Phase II is in draft form, as final design costs may change, depending on the results of Phase I preliminary engineering design. In addition,there is insufficient budget this year to fund both Phases. This consultant contract only authorizes the Phase I Preliminary Design, Scope of Work, and Budget. CONCLUSION: The Planning/Building/Public Works Department recommends approval of a consultant contract authorizing R. W. Beck, Inc.,to complete preliminary engineering design and permitting for the SW 34th Street Culvert Replacement Project. Construction of the SW 34th Street Culvert Replacement Project will provide a significant reduction in upstream flooding levels. cc: Lys Hornsby,Utility Systems Division Director H:\File Sys\SWP-Surface Water Projects\SWP-27-Surface Water Projects(CIP)\27-3223 SW 34th St Culvert Replacement Project\1103 Contracts\Issue Paper.DOC\AQ\tb EXHIBIT A-SCOPE OF WORK City of Renton SW 34th Street Culvert Replacement Project March 23,2005 General Replacement of the SW 34th Street Culvert crossing at Springbrook Creek is identified as a project in the City's East Side Green River Watershed Plan and EIS (ESGRWP)(1997, R. W. Beck). The existing arch culverts are a capacity restriction. Replacing the culverts with larger structures will reduce upstream water levels and help to alleviate existing flooding problems. The ESGRWP identified the replacement culvert to be two side-by-side 30-foot wide and 8-feet high three-sided box culverts. This scope includes pre-design,permitting assistance, wetland delineation, survey and mapping, geotechnical work, and final design. The project is planned in two phases. Phase 1 includes pre- design and permitting activities. Phase 2 includes final design and some permitting assistance for the culvert replacement. The work for Phase 1 is well defined and a fixed budget is established. The work for Phase 2 is not well defined at this time and the budget is considered preliminary. This contract is for the work of Phase 1 and it is the intent to supplement this work and finalize the budget for Phase 2 following completion of the Phase 1 work. Items to be Provided by the City: Now 1. All City standards that apply to this project. 2. As-built drawings of the utilities located in the project area. 3. City utilities field marked prior to field surveying 4. Any permits or property access agreements required for wetland delineation, survey or geotechnical work. It is assumed that the City will obtain all property entry approvals. 5. Any soils information available from past investigations. 6. City Bench Marks Phase I - Pre-design Task 1 - Project Management This task includes project management activities associated with the completion of Phase I of the project. These activities include the following: 1. Project Management Plan. The Consultant will develop a Project Management Plan which describes this scope of work, staff assignments, budgets,the project schedule, invoice requirements, and other important project requirements. 2. Project Administration. Project administration includes contract administration, preparation of subconsultant agreements, monthly invoice preparation, monitoring Page 2 progress by subconsultants, monthly project progress monitoring and reporting, project filing, and project close-out. 3. Client Coordination. Client coordination includes routine coordination with the client as well as at least one meeting with the City. 4. An allowance is included in this task for reconsideration of the scope of work and budget for Phase 2. Products: • Project Management Plan, progress reports, and invoices. • Modified Phase 2 scope of work/work plan. Task 2 - Surveying and Mapping A subconsultant to R.W. Beck (Duane Hartman& Associates, Inc)will provide surveying and mapping services. This work will include preparation of a topographic survey for an area of 250-feet along the road by 300-feet along the creek parallel to the intersection of S.W. 34th Street and the centerline of the four 72-inch culverts that carry Springbrook Creek under the road. The mapping will locate all features such as underground utilities, overhead utilities, culverts,paving,roadway striping, signs, walkways, etc. Spot elevations will be observed on 25- foot centers and all grade and surface breaks over the 250' x 300' site. The Underground Utilities Center will be contacted to schedule a full paint-out within the mapping limits. Record will be kept of the data and time as each utility company completes their paint-out or confirm that they have no system in the area. A survey crew will locate and code all paint-out and pot-holing discoveries. Sanitary and storm sewer manholes that fall within the mapping area will be located and opened to acquire invert elevations and sizes of all apparent pipes. All manholes that have pipes running through the mapping area will be located and dipped accordingly. The ordinary high water level and wetland boundary flags set by the environmental consultant will be field located. The field mapping will be reduced and compiled at a scale, contour interval and AutoCAD release of the City's choice. The City is currently using Autodesk Map 2004. Drafting and layering standards will also be according to the City Survey and Drafting Standards (the Consultant can download this information from the City's Buzzsaw site). The City's input will need to be made prior to final completion. The final map will include all spot elevations as needed to prepare the break lines for the DTM that generates the subsequent contours. Vertical datum will be NAVD-88 from City of Renton benchmarks. The map will show the centerline and right of way lines for S.W. 34th Street located from existing City street monuments. Horizontal datum will be NAD-83(91), Washington State Coordinates,North Zone from City published monuments. The final map will include datum notes and City of Renton benchmark locations with published numbers and elevations. File: 00-00000-60310-6907 Final Scopc34th Street.DOCScope34th Street 3 21 05.doc Page 3 Potholing of existing underground utilities will be done by APS. The budget is based upon no more than 10 pot holes. Prior to performing the potholing,the Consultant will notify the City to Nisse review and approve the number and locations of potholes during a meeting at the site. Utilities under the sidewalks may require full panel replacement depending upon the City's ordinances. The cost for such replacement, if necessary, is not included. Products • Hard copy plot of the preliminary map for review and modification as needed. • One (1) CD containing the final base map with DTM and break points all in AutoCAD.DWG files (vs. 2004) Task 3 - Geotechnical Investigation HWA GeoSciences Incorporated, a subconsultant to R. W. Beck,will be responsible for the geotechnical investigation. Work to be performed under this task includes: • Review of readily available geotechnical and geologic data for the project area(e.g., 27th Street Culvert replacement project geotechnical study and Oakesdale Avenue Extension geotechnical study) • Coordination of field activities with the project team. • Drilling of two 60-foot maximum depth borings; one on each side of the planned culvert location. Borings of this depth will provide information for piles, if required. One of the borings will be developed as a monitoring well, if desired by the City. °' • Collection and data logging of one composite soil/sediment sample from selected locations and depths (up to 24 inches) representative of the soils to be removed during construction. Samples will be field screened for organic vapors by headspace analysis using a photoionization detector(PID). • Geotechnical laboratory testing in accordance with appropriate American Society of Testing Materials standards to characterize the engineering characteristics of typical soils encountered in the borings. Tests will include moisture content, grain size analyses, organic content and Atterberg Limits, as appropriate. • Submission of a composite environmental sample to an accredited analytical laboratory for the following analyses: Analysis Method Total Petroleum Hydrocarbons(TPH) WTPH-D extended Volatile organic compounds(VOCs)* SW846#8260/5035A Semivolatile organic compounds(SVOCs) SW846#8270 Pesticides, Polychlorinated biphenyls(PCBs) SW846#8081 Priority pollutant Metals: SW846#6000/7000 series (antimony, arsenic, beryllium,cadmium, chromium,copper,lead,mercury, nickel, selenium,silver,thallium, and zinc) File: 00-00000-60310-6907 Final Scope34th Street.D(X:Scope34th Street 3 11 05.doc Page 4 TCLP metals-if any total metal exceeds criteria TCLP Akise *The VOC sample will be collected per Method 5035A(not composited),from one of the grab samples,based on field screening results. • Engineering analysis and evaluation of data derived from the subsurface investigations. • Preparation of a geotechnical report containing the results of the geotechnical investigation, including a site plan showing the boring locations, soil profile logs, laboratory test results, and recommendations for culvert design and construction, including foundation recommendations (also shallow foundation option, if appropriate for a 4-sided box culvert) and lateral pressure recommendations (static loading condition and dynamic earthquake increment), cut and fill requirements, backfill requirements, estimates of long-term settlement at approach sections, and construction dewatering. • Preparation of a separate environmental letter report with the analytical results and recommendations for soil handling, disposal,health and safety, and regulatory compliance during construction. This will include drop-in text for project specifications dealing with handling and disposal of contaminated soils. Assumptions: • City will obtain approvals from the King County Drainage District. • Consultant will obtain street right-of-way permit and provide any required traffic control plans. Products: • Draft and Final geotechnical report. Photo-ready originals will be provided with final report. Task 4— Environmental Investigations/Permitting Jones & Stokes (J&S), a subconsultant to R. W. Beck, will be responsible for the environmental investigations and permitting. This work includes the following subtasks. Task 4.1 — Data Collection and Review The data collection phase of the project will include the following: • Internet search of US Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS) and National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS) web sites regarding potential threatened or endangered species,potential threatened or endangered salmon use of the project area and vicinity. • Acquire and review Washington State Department of Fish and Wildlife (WDFW) Priority Habitat and Species (PHS) Maps. • Contact local WDFW Biologist regarding fish and wildlife use of the project area and vicinity. • Review applicable Springbrook Creek documents. Now File: 00-00000-60310-6907 Final Scopc34th Street.IXX;Scope3'tth Street 3 21 OS.doc Page 5 Task 4.2 — Field Study—Wetlands Delineation, and Fish and Wildlife ,,. Reconnaissance Level Survey Biologists will visit the site to assess potential habitat for threatened or endangered species,to evaluate existing fish habitat conditions, to determine the boundaries of any wetlands within and immediately adjacent to the project footprint, and to assess the potential for project impacts. Because the project will not be limited to the existing culvert area, it is assumed that a wetland delineation will be necessary. Wetlands within 100 feet of SW 34th Street to a distance of 100 feet to either side of the existing culvert on both sides of SW 34th Street will be delineated. The wetland delineation will follow US Army Corps of Engineers 1987 methodology, and wetland boundaries and sample plots will be marked with flagging for survey under Task 2. The ordinary high water mark (OHWM) of Springbrook Creek within the survey area will also be flagged. A wetland delineation and stream reconnaissance report will be prepared to meet the requirements of Renton City Code 4-3-050, 4-3-090 and 4-8-120 . This report will include base maps prepared under Task 2. Task 4.3— Environmental Input to Culvert Replacement Alternatives Biologists will assist the project team in pre-design alternatives analysis and will analyze up to three alternative culvert options for their relative potential for environmental impacts and permitting issues. This task assumes one on-site meeting to review the project with the project team and the Washington Department of Fish and Wildlife local habitat biologist. Task 4.4— Environmental Team Project Management and Meetings `fir Environmental team project management will entail supervising the day to day activities of the environmental team; facilitating communication with the project team and the City staff; responding to requests for information from the project team, City staff and various permitting agencies; initiating requests for information to project team, City staff and various permitting agencies; scheduling project meetings with City staff and project team; and delivering the items outlined in each Task identified in the Scope of Services. This task also assumes that the environmental team project manager would attend a meeting with project team and the City personnel to discuss environmental permitting issues. Products: • Wetland and OHW sketch map • Wetland delineation and stream reconnaissance report. Task 5 - SW 34th Street Culvert Replacement Pre-design Study This task includes pre-design of the culvert replacement. The pre-design study shall identify the type, size and location for the replacement culvert. The ESGRWP identifies the replacement culvert to be two side-by-side 30-foot wide and 8-feet high three-sided box culverts. Multiple four-sided box culverts may be considered if the geotechnical investigations indicate that a shallow foundation support may suffice. The investigation will focus on single or multiple three- or four-sided box culverts. However,replacement with a bridge or raising the road will also be considered, but at a higher level (i.e., a broader analysis to determine if these alternative are Norio, worth considering further). File: 00-00000.60310-6907 Final Scope34th Street DOCScope31th Street 3 21 05.doc Page 6 For alternative comparison, headlosses will be compared with a HEC-RAS model. Following determination of the preferred design,the design will be confirmed using the FEQ Hydraulic Nifty computer model developed by the Consultant under the recent supplement to the ESGRWP (Beck, 2004). . The evaluation will include cost estimates and headlosses for the 100-year storm event for future land use conditions. The headlosses shall be based upon the assumption that the downstream and upstream conveyance systems are improved. Thus,the FEQ model representing the fully improved drainage system as recommended in the ESGRWP will be used. A preliminary objective is that the culvert be sized such that it not create a headloss in excess of 0.1 foot. The upstream water surface elevations at key target locations will be compared to those presented in the ESGWP supplement. Debris is not expected to be a problem. For the preferred culvert size/configuration,pre-design drawings including preliminary plan and profiles will be developed and described in a pre-design report. The pre-design report will also include a discussion on the following items: • approach for providing foundation support • approach for dewatering • cost estimates • traffic impacts and mitigation measures • structure design criteria and hydraulic analysis results • utility conflicts and recommended utility relocations and/or protection measures • environmental considerations (wetlands, vegetation/wildlife habitat, water/sediment '041ar, quality, construction season limitations) • permits required and suggested schedule • right-of-way needs (temporary and permanent, including contractor staging) • potential for scour or sediment deposition • fish passage impacts and recommended habitat measures, if any • temporary stream bypass recommendations Products: • Draft Pre-design Report, 4 copies. The report will include the geotechnical investigations as an appendix. • Final Pre-design Report, 4 copies and photo-ready original. • Digital (electronic) copies of the report and drawings. File: 00-00000-60310-6907 Final Scope34th Street.IXX;Scope34th Street 3 21 05.doc Page 7 Task 6— Environmental Permitting The Consultant will prepare environmental permits based on the recommended culvert configuration in the pre-design document. Task 6.1 - Preparation of Draft SEPA Checklist The Consultant will prepare the State Environmental Protection Act (SEPA) environmental checklist,which will identify potential adverse environmental impacts due to the project. It is assumed that the City of Renton will serve as the "lead agency" in the SEPA environmental review process and will make a determination as to the significance of the potential adverse environmental impacts. Task 6.2— Preparation of Final SEPA Checklist The Consultant will revise the SEPA environmental checklist to address comments to the Draft checklist received from the project team and City personnel. It is assumed that there would be one review cycle. Task 6.3— Preparation of Draft JARPA including Biological Assessment (BA)/Stream Study and Wetland Report The Consultant will prepare the draft JARPA for the project including a BA/stream study, and wetland report. The BA will follow guidelines published by the USACE,NMFS, and USFWS, and will also satisfy the City of Renton's requirements for"stream or lake study, standard" No"'' (Draft best available science regulation amendments January 26, 2005). The BA/stream study will evaluate potential effects of the project on federally listed threatened and endangered species, critical habitat, and essential fish habitat. It is anticipated that the BA would evaluate potential effects of the project to bald eagles (Haliaeetus leucocephalus) bull trout (Salvelinus confluentus), chinook salmon(Oncorhynchus tshawytscha) as well as "essential fish habitat" (EFH) for chinook salmon and coho salmon(Oncorhynchus kisutch). Copies of the draft BA/stream study and wetland report will be submitted to the project team and the City of Renton for review and comment. The wetland report will expand on the wetland delineation report that will be prepared under Task 4, adding an analysis of impacts and proposed mitigation if necessary Task 6.4— Preparation of final JARPA The Consultant will revise the draft JARPA as required to address revision comments by the City and project team. Three copies of the Final JARPA will be provided to the City of Renton. Copies of the Final JARPA will also be submitted to the WDFW for Hydraulic Project Approval (HPA),the Washington State Department of Ecology(Ecology) for 401 Water Quality Certification,the USACE for Section 10 and Section 404 permits, and the City of Renton for Shorelines permit. It is noted that the Final JARPA submitted for the Hydraulic Project Approval will likely not be submitted until more detailed design (likely using some of the 60% design information) is available. This will be in the early stages of the Phase 2 work. It is also noted that the application for the Hydraulic Project Approval cannot be submitted until the SEPA err process is complete. File: 00-00000-60310-6907 Final Scope34th Street.DOCScope3lth Street 3"1 05.doc Page 8 Task 6.5— Response to Agency Comments `fir If required, the Consultant will address agency comments to the Final JARPA and attachments, and re-submit. It is assumed that this task will only involve clarification and will not require additional fieldwork or analysis. The budget assumes that comments do not result in changes to the project such that wetland or stream impacts and/or mitigation requirements presented in the JARPA would be affected. Products: • Draft SEPA environmental checklist ■ Final SEPA environmental checklist • Draft JARPA including wetland delineation and mitigation report and BA • Final JARPA submitted to the City, WDFW, Ecology and USACE *time File: 00-00000-60310-6907 Final Scope34th Street.IXX'Scope34th Street 3 11 05.doe Page 9 Noe Phase 2 — Design Phase 2 includes the preparation of contract documents for the construction of the SW 34th Street Culvert Replacement Project including drawings, specifications, and construction cost estimate and some environmental permitting assistance associated with the application for the Hydraulic Project Approval. The final design will be based upon the Phase 1 findings, as amended by permit approval conditions. Because the exact nature of the improvements are not fully defined, the following scope of work and budget for this phase is preliminary. Task 7 - Project Management This task includes project management activities associated with Phase 2 of the project. Activities: 1. Project Administration. Project administration includes contract administration, preparation of subconsultant agreements, monthly invoice preparation,monitoring progress by subconsultants,monthly project progress monitoring and reporting,project filing, and project close-out. 2. Client Coordination. Client coordination includes routine coordination with the client Project Management Plan, progress reports, and invoices. Products: 4110r ■ Progress reports, and invoices Task 8 - Final Design The Consultant will prepare engineering design plans, technical specifications (including Division 1) and construction cost estimates. The Phase 1 pre-design document is assumed to reflect preliminary design at approximately 30% complete. The City will be responsible for preparing the general requirement(front end) of the contract specifications,with the exception of the schedule of price (bid item summary). The Consultant will incorporate agencies' input as available during design from Task 2.5. However, it is likely that the permit approvals will not be available until after the project documents have been authorized for bidding. Changes that may be required by permit conditions after the completion of the final design will be considered extra work. Task 8.1 — Prepare 60% Plans, Specifications and Cost Estimate The Consultant will prepare a 60%design submittal for review. The 60% submittal shall include drawings,technical specifications, and a construction cost estimate. The basis for the technical specifications will be the 1996 Standard Specifications prepared by the Washington State Department of Transportation and the American Public Works Association (Standard Specifications). The Consultant will write sections of the technical specifications for items not included in the Standard Specifications. Text will be in MS Word format. The City will provide current copies of the WSDOT Amendment and GSPs for the Consultant's use. The Consultant File: 00-00000-60310-6907 Final Scope34th Street.DO Scope3'lth Street 3 21 05.doc Page 10 will also prepare the bid table. For budgeting the level of effort, it is assumed that the number of bid items will not exceed 40. The City will be responsible for incorporating the technical Now specifications into complete Contract Documents. The Consultant will prepare a planting plan drawing,planting drawing details, and planting specifications for the area to be designated as mitigation for wetland and streambank impacts. It is assumed that any mitigation, if required, will be on-site within the project area already surveyed. The design work will include a conceptual plan for temporary diversion of creek flows during construction. Although some of the parameters developed as part of this plan may be included in the specification,the temporary bypass plan will not be explicitly included in the plans. The conceptual plan will be used to assess the constructability of the design and aid in developing a construction cost estimate and permitting. The construction contractor will be required to prepare a detailed plan for diversion of the creek. The budget includes one meeting with the City to review design issues. It is anticipated that fifteen(15) drawings will be sufficient to adequately describe the work and the engineering fee estimate is based on the following drawing list: 1. Title sheet,location map, legend and index of drawings. 2. Plan and profile sheet for Culvert Replacement at 1"=10' scale. 3. Civil Sections. Culvert and channel approach sections. 4. Miscellaneous Civil Sections. 5. Utility Relocation Plan and Profiles, Sht. 1 (water/sewer) 6. Utility Relocation Plan and Profiles, Sht.2 (60", 36",and 12") 7. Utility Relocation Details 8. Temporary Water Pollution/Erosion Control 9. Structural Plan 10. Structural Sections, Sht 1 11. Structural Sections, Sht 2 12. Structural Details, Sht 1 13. Wingwall Elevations and Details 14. Landscaping/Revegetation Plan 15. Landscaping/Revegetation details Utilities The Consultant shall prepare the design for the water line and service relocation, and the sewer line protection (or relocation). The Consultant will meet with the City's utility department and determine requirements and locations for utility relocations. It is assumed that the other private utilities will be responsible for relocating their facilities and that the contractor will need to coordinate with these utilities. The other utility relocations will be designed by the respective utilities and provided to the Consultant for inclusion in the plans (i.e., showing new alignment). A budget of 4 hours per utility is included to incorporate the utilities' plans into the bid documents. It is assumed that the City will coordinate the effort with the utility companies. Noe File: 00-00000-60310-6907 Final Scopc34th Strcet.D(X:Scopc34th Street 3 21 05.doc Page 11 Water Quality Treatment Concept Design 446.0' A conceptual plan will be developed for water quality treatment of dewatering water. The conceptual plan will be shown on the drawings along with additional requirements in the specifications to meet the Department of Ecology standards. The contractor will be required to submit a final water quality treatment plan. Task 8.2—90% Plans, Specifications and Cost Estimate The City will provide written comments to the Consultant on the 60% design submittal. It is assumed that the City comments will be combined on one set of plans and specifications. In addition, the City will provide the City-prepared portion of the Contract Documents for review by the Consultant. The Consultant will address the comments and submit 90%Plans, Specifications and Cost Estimate. Task 8.3 — Final Plans, Specifications and Cost Estimate The City will provide written comments to the Consultant on the 90%design submittal. It is assumed that the City comments will be combined on one set of plans and specifications. The Consultant will address the comments and submit Final (bid ready)Plans, Specifications and Cost Estimate. Task 4 Products: err•° • 60% Plan submittal (1 full size and 1 half-size set of plans, 1 set of Technical Specifications, and cost estimate) • 90%Plan submittal (1 full size and 1 half-size set of plans, 1 set of Technical Specifications, and cost estimate) • Final Bid-Ready Plan Submittal (1 full size and 1 half-size set of stamped, camera- ready original plans, 1 set of Technical Specifications, and cost estimate) Other assumptions include the following: 1. The City will be responsible for printing and reproduction. 2. The City will perform any coordination required with utility or property owners. 3. Construction easements, if required, shall be prepared and obtained by the City. 4. No significant wetland mitigation will be required. 5. A budget allowance of 8 hours is included for a traffic control plan. It is assumed that the traffic control plan can be described in the specifications and no drawings are required, other than including the City's standard traffic control plan details. 6. It is assumed that the placement of spawning gravels along the channel bottom will be adequate for fish passage (i.e., no specific fish habitat features are proposed other than planting and use of woody debris in the channel bottom). File: 00-00000-60310-6907 Final Scope34th StreetDOCScope3'lth Street 3 21 05.doc Page 12 7. A specific dewatering plan will not be included. Criteria for dewatering are giving in the 4460, geotechnical report. The Contractor will be responsible for a dewatering plan. 8. The Phase 1 survey information will be adequate for Phase 2 design work. Task 9 - Geotechnical Consultation during Design The geotechnical engineer shall review the 90% submittal and provide comment. The purpose of the review is to ensure the design is in compliance with the geotechnical recommendations regarding geotechnical issues such as materials, dewatering requirements, compaction requirements, and pile driving requirements. The geotechnical engineer shall also be available to provide input on the design via telephone. Products: • Review comments on 90% Plan submittal and miscellaneous input. Task 10 -Assistance During Bidding The Consultant shall assist the City as requested by the City, during the bidding process. The services shall include responding to contractor's questions,preparing technical revisions for including in an addenda, attending a pre-bid conference (if desired), and recommendation for award of contract. Due to the nature of this type of work, this will be performed on a time and materials basis. For the purpose of the budget, we are assuming a maximum of 16 hours will be required. *time Task 11-Allowance for Additional Services An allowance is included in the overall contract budget for additional services. The allowance budget is $10,000 and shall not be used without prior written authorization from the City. Some items that may be performed under this allowance are listed below. • Additional Field Surveying Services to Supplement Phase I mapping. • Bidding Assistance, including preparation of addenda beyond the estimated budget of 16 hours • Modification of design, if required, due to permit acquisition • Additional effort that could be required if the project schedule is extended • Assistance during construction Other Assumptions • The City will agree to use language in the construction contract documents relating to service furnished under this agreement, including terms which provide; • Contractor shall indemnify and hold harmless City and Beck from any and all loss, damage, claim, or liability (including, without limitation, reasonable attorney's fees) incurred by City or Contractor and arising from work performed for City by contractor or its subcontractors;provided, however, that City and Beck shall not be indemnified for any loss, damage, claim, or liability resulting solely from the negligent acts, errors, File: 00-00000-60310-6907 Final Scope34th Street.DOCScope31th Street 3?105.doc Page 13 or omissions of City or Beck; if there is concurrent negligence then liability shall be ;yam,. apportion by percentage of fault; and, ■ Contractor shall maintain commercial general liability insurance (CGL) and, if necessary, commercial umbrella insurance with a limit not less than that shown in the following table. If CGL insurance contains a general aggregate limit, it shall apply separately to this Agreement or project developed under this Agreement. Minimum Insurance Estimated Bid $2,000,000 Under$5,000,000 $5,000,000 $5 to$10 million • Contractor shall include as additional insureds City and R.W. Beck Inc. This insurance shall apply as primary insurance with respect to any other insurance or self-insurance program afforded by the contractor. Contractor shall furnish the City and Beck with certificate of insurance including endorsements naming them as additional insured. File: 00-00000-60310-6907 Final Scope34th Street.DOC • . . . ... Page 14 EXHIBIT B-SCHEDULE Nitire City of Renton SW 34th Street Culvert Replacement Project— Phase 1 The proposed schedule is as follows: Description Due Date Notice to Proceed April 11,2005 PHASE 1 Task 1 -Project Management Ongoing Task 2—Survey and Mapping May 15,2005 Task 3—Geotechnical Investigations May 21,2005 Task 4—Environmental Investigations May 21,2005 Task 5 - Draft Pre-Design Report June 1,2005 - City Review June 15,2005 - Final Pre-Design Report July 1,2005 Task 6- Environmental Permits Task 6.1 Draft SEPA checklist July 15, 2005 Task 6.2 Final SEPA checklist August 1,2005 Task 6.3 Draft JARPA July 1,2005 Task 6.4 Final JARPA August 1,2005 ,o, (Note Final JARPA with HPA application to be submitted after completion of SEPA process and likely into the Phase 2 design) PHASE 2 Assume NTP January 2,2006 Task 7- Project Management Ongoing Task 8- Final Design Task 8.1 -60%Design February 15,2006 Task 8.2 -90%Design March 15,2006 Task 8.3 Final Design April 15,2006 err File: 00-00000-60310-6907 Final Scope34th Street.IXX;Scope31th Street 3 11 05.doc • City of Renton EXHIBIT C W 34th Street Culvert Replacement roject Budget Subtask Summary Revised 3-23-05 Phase 1 Hours Charges Task R.W.Beck R.W.Beck General Travel Subcontractor (Subtotal- Total No. TasklSubtask Labor Labor Revenue Expenses Expenses Charges All Expenses) Charges 1.00 Project Management-Phase 1 0.0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 1.10 Project Management Plan 9.0 $1,061 $43 $0 $0 $43 $1,104 1.20 Project Administration(5 mo.$) 65.0 $7,028 $183 $0 $0 $183 $7,210 1.30 Client Coordination 18.0 $2,444 $60 $40 $0 $100 $2,544 1.40 Phase 2 Workplan 6.0 $815 $20 $0 $0 $20 $835 2.00 Surveying and Mapping 8.0 $827 $38 $0 $13,841 $13,879 $14,705 3.00 Geotechnical Investigations 12.0 $1,378 $56 $0 $24,085 $24,141 $25,519 4.00 EnvironmentalInvestiagions/Permitting 0.0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 4.10 Data Collection and Review 0.0 $0 $0 $0 $2,562 $2,562 $2,562 4.20 Field Study 0.0 $0 $0 $0 $883 $883 $883 4.30 Evironmental Input to Alternatives 8.0 $827 $37 $0 $2,877 $2,914 $3,740 4.40 Environmental Team PM and Mtgs 0.0 $0 $0 $0 $4,200 $4,200 $4,200 5.00 Culvert Replacement Pre-design Study 0.0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 5.10 Hydraulic Modeling 28.0 $4,034 $145 $0 $0 $145 $4,179 5.20 Layout Pre-design Alternatives 68.0 $6,907 $345 $40 $0 $385 $7,292 5.30 Cost Estimates 18.0 $1,881 $90 $0 $0 $90 $1,971 5.40 Other Design Considerations(Env.,Utility,etc.) 28.0 $2,660 $135 $0 $0 $135 $2,795 5.50 Draft Report 48.0 $4,627 $220 $0 $0 $220 $4,847 5.60 Final Report 24.0 $2,338 $115 $0 $0 $115 $2,453 6.00 Environmental Permitting 0.0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 6.10 Preparation of Draft SEPA Checklist 4.0 $491 $20 $0 $2,258 $2,278 $2,769 6.20 Preparation of Final SEPA Checklist 1.0 $84 $5 $0 $1,334 $1,339 $1,422 6.30 Preparation of Draft JARPA,BA,Wetland Report 28.0 $2,660 $135 $0 $16,422 $16,557 $19,217 6.40 Preparation of Final JARPA 3.0 $330 $13 $0 $4,074 $4,087 $4,416 6.50 Response to Agency Comments 0.0 $0 $0 $0 $1,386 $1,386 $1,386 Totals 376.0 $40,391 $1,658 $80 $73,921 $75,659 $116,049 Phase 2 Hours Charges Task R.W.Beck R.W.Beck General Travel Subcontractor (Subtotal- Total No. TasklSubtask Labor Labor Revenue Expenses Expenses Charges All Expenses) Charges 7.00 Project Management-Phase 2 82.0 $9,724 $248 $0 $0 $248 $9,971 8.00 Final Design 0.0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 8.10 60%Plans,Specs,Cost Estimate 375.0 $36,855 $1,775 $40 $2,276 $4,091 $40,946 8.20 90%Plans,Specs,Cost Estimate 282.0 $27,897 $1,325 $40 $399 $1,764 $29,661 8.30 Final Plans,Specs,Cost Estimate 126.0 $12,781 $585 $0 $599 $1,184 $13,964 9.00 Geotechnical Consultation During Design 8.0 $827 $35 $0 $2,100 $2,135 $2,962 10.00 Assistance During Bidding 19.0 $2,378 $75 $40 $0 $115 $2,493 11.00 Allowance for Additional Services 81.0 $10,201 $295 $40 $0 $335 $10,536 Totals 973.0 $100,662 $4,338 $160 $5,374 $9,871 $110,534 Project Totals(Phase 1 and 2) 1,349.0 $141,053 $5,995 $240 $79,295 $85,530 $226,583 City of Renton EXHIBIT C V34th Street Culvert Replacement )iirrrtibor Revenue Summary Phase 1 Enter names and rates from left to right Task Totals Giseburt, Gorry,Lisa Lippold,Richard Nupcharoen, Kuo,Jeanette McLellan,Trade Select Name,Class,OR Michael S. Marie M. Weber,Mary B. Dacha Marie Ruud Lynn Bjork,Jack C. Default Rate** $161.70 $83.90 $137.72 $141.14 $85.11 $85.87 $75.01 $177.92 Manual Rate Task Default or Manual Default Default Default Default Default Default Default Default No. Task Effective Labor Rate $161.70 $83.90 $137.72 $141.14 $85.11 $85.87 $75.01 $177.92 Hours Revenues 1.00 Project Management-Phase 1 0.0 $0 1.10 Project Management Plan 4.0 2.0 2.0 1.0 9.0 $1,061 1.20 Project Administration(5 mo.$) 21.0 8.0 24.0 12.0 65.0 $7,028 1.30 Client Coordination 12.0 6.0 18.0 $2,444 1.40 Phase 2 Workplan 4.0 2.0 6.0 $815 2.00 Surveying and Mapping 2.0 6.0 8.0 $827 3.00 Geotechnical Investigations 2.0 6.0 4.0 12.0 $1,378 4.00 Environmental Investiagions/Permitting 0.0 $0 4.10 Data Collection and Review 0.0 $0 4.20 Field Study 0.0 $0 4.30 Evironmental Input to Alternatives 2.0 6.0 8.0 $827 4.40 Environmental Team PM and Mtgs 0.0 $0 5.00 Culvert Replacement Pre-design Study 0.0 $0 5.10 Hydraulic Modeling 4.0 24.0 28.0 $4,034 5.20 Layout Pre-design Alternatives 4.0 24.0 16.0 24.0 68.0 $6,907 5.30 Cost Estimates 2.0 12.0 4.0 18.0 $1,881 5.40 Other Design Considerations(Env.,Utili 4.0 24.0 28.0 $2,660 5.50 Draft Report 6.0 24.0 2.0 8.0 8.0 48.0 $4,627 5.60 Final Report 4.0 12.0 4.0 4.0 24.0 $2,338 6.00 Environmental Permitting 0.0 $0 .10 Preparation of Draft SEPA Checklist 2.0 2.0 4.0 $491 .20 Preparation of Final SEPA Checklist 1.0 1.0 T $84 6.30 Preparation of Draft JARPA,BA,Wetlan 4.0 24.0 28.0 $2,660 6.40 Preparation of Final JARPA 1.0 2.0 3.0 $330 6.50 Response to Agency Comments 0.0 $0 0.0 $0 Total Hours 78.0 161.0 26.0 24.0 36.0 38.0 13.0 0.0 376.0 Total Revenues $12,613 $13,508 $3,581 $3,387 $3,064 $3,263 $975 $0 $40,391 Phase 2 Enter names and rates from left to right Task Totals Giseburt, Gorry,Lisa Lippold,Richard Nupcharoen, Kuo,Jeanette McLellan,Trade Select Name,Class,OR Michael S. Marie M. Weber,Mary B. Dacha Mane Ruud Lynn Bjork,Jack C. Default Rate** $161.70 $83.90 $137.72 $141.14 $85.11 $85.87 $75.01 $177.92 Manual Rate Task Default or Manual Default Default Default Default Default Default Default Default No. Task Effective Labor Rate $161.70 $83.90 $137.72 $141.14 $85.11 $85.87 $75.01 $177.92 Hours Revenues 7.00 Project Management-Phase 2 36.0 18.0 18.0 8.0 0.0 80.0 $9,477 8.00 Final Design 0.0 $0 8.10 60%Plans,Specs,Cost Estimate 24.0 160.0 60.0 120.0 364.0 $35,781 8.20 90%Plans,Specs,Cost Estimate 24.0 110.0 40.0 100.0 274.0 $27,130 8.30 Final Plans,Specs,Cost Estimate 16.0 60.0 16.0 30.0 122.0 $12,378 9.00 Geotechnical Consultation During Design 2.0 6.0 8.0 $827 10.00 Assistance During Bidding 8.0 8.0 3.0 19.0 $2,378 11.00 Allowance for Additional Services 40.0 35.0 4.0 79.0 $9,955 0.0 $0 0.0 $0 Total Hours 150.0 397.0 123.0 0.0 250.0 18.0 8.0 0.0 946.0 Total Revenues $24,255 $33,308 $16,940 $0 $21,278 $1,546 $600 $0 $97,926 r • City of Renton EXHIBIT C SW 34th Street Culvert Replacement Subcontractor Costs ,moi Phase 1 Enter Names and Rates Task Totals Jones and Name Stokes DHA HWA Beck Cost $1.00 $1.00 $1.00 Client Rate' %Mark-up or Fixed Task Rate" %Mark-up %Mark-up %Mark-up Cost to Client+ Beck Cost+ Beck Sub No. TasklSubtask Final Bill Rate $1.05 $1.05 $1.05 Hours Cont** Cont*' Profit 1.00 Project Management-Phase 1 - $0 $0 $0 1.10 Project Management Plan - $0 $0 $0 1.20 Project Administration(5 mo.$) - $0 $0 $0 1.30 Client Coordination - $0 $0 $0 1.40 Phase 2 Workplan - $0 $0 $0 2.00 Surveying and Mapping 13,182.0 13,182.0 $13,841 $13,182 $659 3.00 Geotechnical Investigations 22,938.0 22,938.0 $24,085 $22,938 $1,147 4.00 Environmental Investiagions/Permitting - $0 $0 $0 4.10 Data Collection and Review 2,440.0 2,440.0 $2,562 $2,440 $122 4.20 Field Study 841.0 841.0 $883 $841 $42 4.30 Evironmental Input to Alternatives 2,740.0 2,740.0 $2,877 $2,740 $137 4.40 Environmental Team PM and Mtgs 4,000.0 4,000.0 $4,200 $4,000 $200 5.00 Culvert Replacement Pre-design Study - $0 $0 $0 5.10 Hydraulic Modeling - $0 $0 $0 5.20 Layout Pre-design Alternatives - $0 $0 $0 5.30 Cost Estimates - $0 $0 $0 5.40 Other Design Considerations(Env.,Utility,etc.) - $0 $0 $0 5.50 Draft Report - $0 $0 $0 5.60 Final Report - $0 $0 $0 6.00 Environmental Permitting - $0 $0 $0 6.10 Preparation of Draft SEPA Checklist 2,150.0 2,150.0 $2,258 $2,150 $108 6.20 Preparation of Final SEPA Checklist 1,270.0 1,270.0 $1,334 $1,270 $64 �r 6.30 Preparation of Draft JARPA,BA,Wetland Rep 15,640.0 15,640.0 $16,422 $15,640 $782 6.40 Preparation of Final JARPA 3,880.0 3,880.0 $4,074 $3,880 $194 6.50 Response to Agency Comments 1,320.0 1,320.0 $1,386 $1,320 $66 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 Total Hours 34,281.0 13,182.0 22,938.0 70,401.0 $73,921 $70,401 $3,520 Total Labor Charges to Client+Cont*' $35,995 $13,841 $24,085 Beck Labor Profit $1,714 $659 $1,147 Phase 2 Enter Names and Rates Task Totals Jones and Name Stokes DHA HWA Beck Cost $1.00 $1.00 $1.00 Client Rate* %Mark-up or Fixed Task Rate" %Mark-up %Mark-up %Mark-up Cost to Client+ Beck Cost+ Beck Sub No. TasklSubtask Final Bill Rate $1.05 $1.05 $1.05 Hours Cont** Cont*" Profit 7.00 Project Management-Phase 2 - $0 $0 $0 8.00 Final Design - $0 $0 $0 8.10 60%Plans,Specs,Cost Estimate 2,168.0 2,168.0 $2,276 $2,168 $108 8.20 90%Plans,Specs,Cost Estimate 380.0 380.0 $399 $380 $19 8.30 Final Plans,Specs,Cost Estimate 570.0 570.0 $599 $570 $29 9.00 Geotechnical Consultation During Design 2,000.0 2,000.0 $2,100 $2,000 $100 10.00 Assistance During Bidding - $0 $0 $0 11.00 Allowance for Additional Services - $0 $0 $0 - $0 $0 $0 Total Hours 3,118.0 - 2,000.0 5,118.0 $5,374 $5,118 $256 Total Labor Charges to Client+Cont*` $3,274 $0 $2,100 Beck Labor Profit $156 $0 $100 ( ( ( . City of Renton EXHIBIT C SW 34th Street Culvert Replacement j Office Expenses and Temporary Labor Costs Phase 1 Estimate Units Used Expense Reproduction Services Temporary Labor Color Fax Internal I External Level 1 I Level 2 Printing Estimate Dollar Costs Task Totals Task Unit Computer No.ofpages Hours Pages Pages Phone Postage/ Internal Supplies/ No. Task/Subtask Unit Cost Charges $0.10 $0.05 $20.00 $15.00 $0.50 $1.00 Delivery Rentals" Misc Cost 1.00 Project Management-Phase 1 $0.00 $0.00 1.10 Project Management Plan $27.50 300 $42.50 1.20 Project Administration(5 mo.$) $182.50 $182.50 1.30 Client Coordination $60.00 $60.00 1.40 Phase 2 Workplan $20.00 $20.00 2.00 Surveying and Mapping $35.00 50 $37.50 3.00 Geotechnical Investigations $55.00 20 $56.00 4.00 Environmental lnvestiagions!Permitting $0.00 $0.00 4.10 Data Collection and Review $0.00 $0.00 4.20 Field Study $0.00 $0.00 4.30 Evironmental Input to Altematives $35.00 30 $36.50 4.40 Environmental Team PM and Mtgs $0.00 $0.00 5.00 Culvert Replacement Pre-design Study $0.00 $0.00 5.10 Hydraulic Modeling $130.00 300 $145.00 5.20 Layout Pre-design Alternatives $330.00 300 $345.00 5.30 Cost Estimates $85.00 100 $90.00 5.40 Other Design Considerations(Env.,U $130.00 100 $135.00 5.50 Draft Report $205.00 300 $220.00 5.60 Final Report $100.00 300 $115.00 6.00 Environmental Permitting $0.00 $0.00 6.10 Preparation of Draft SEPA Checklist $15.00 100 $20.00 6.20 Preparation of Final SEPA Checklist $5.00 $5.00 6.30 Preparation of Draft JARPA,BA,Wed $130.00 100 $135.00 6.40 Preparation of Final JARPA $12.50 $12.50 6.50 Response to Agency Comments $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 Total Units $0.00 $2,000.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 Total Cost $1,557.50 $0.00 $100.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $1,657.50 Phase 2 Estimate Units Used Expense Reproduction Services Temporary Labor Color Fax Internal I External Level 1 I Level 2 Printing Estimate Dollar Costs Task Totals Task Unit Computer No.ofpages Hours Pages Pages Phone Postage/ Internal Supplies/ No. TasklSubtask Unit Cost Charges $0.10 $0.05 $20.00 $15.00 $0.50 $1.00 Delivery Rentals" Misc Cost 7.00 Project Management-Phase 2 $245.00 50 $247.50 8.00 Final Design $0.00 $0.00 8.10 60%Plans,Specs,Cost Estimate $1,760.00 300 $1,775.00 8.20 90%Plans,Specs,Cost Estimate $1,310.00 300 $1,325.00 8.30 Final Plans,Specs,Cost Estimate $570.00 300 $585.00 9.00 Geotechnical Consultation During Desk $35.00 $35.00 10.00 Assistance During Bidding $75.00 $75.00 11.00 Allowance for Additional Services $295.00 $495.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 Total Units $0.00 $950.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 Total Cost $4,290.00 $0.00 $47.50 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $4,337.50 Note: Travel Expenses added separately ( ( ( • I City of Renton EXHIBIT C SW 34th Street Culvert Replacement Project Budget Subtask Summary Revised 3-23-05 Phase 1 Task R.W.Beck Direct Labor Overhead Labor+OH Profit Total General Travel Subcontractor (Subtotal- Total No. TasklSubtask Labor (186.05%) (15%) Expenses _ Expenses Charges All Expenses) Charges 1.00 Project Management-Phase 1 0.0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 1.10 Project Management Plan 9.0 $323 $600 $923 $138 $1,061 $43 $0 $0 $43 $1,104 1.20 Project Administration(5 mo.$) 65.0 $2,136 $3,975 $6,111 $917 $7,028 $183 $0 $0 $183 $7,210 1.30 Client Coordination 18.0 $743 $1,382 $2,125 $319 $2,444 $60 $40 $0 $100 $2,544 1.40 Phase 2 Workplan 6.0 $248 $461 $708 $106 $815 $20 $0 $0 $20 $835 2.00 Surveying and Mapping 8.0 $251 $468 $719 $108 $827 $38 $0 $13,841 $13,879 $14,705 3.00 Geotechnical Investigations 12.0 $419 $779 $1,198 $180 $1,378 $56 $0 $24,085 $24,141 $25,519 4.00 Environmental Investiagions/Permitting 0.0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 4.10 Data Collection and Review 0.0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $2,562 $2,562 $2,562 4.20 Field Study 0.0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $883 $883 $883 4.30 Evironmental Input to Alternatives 8.0 $251 $468 $719 $108 $827 $37 $0 $2,877 $2,914 $3,740 4.40 Environmental Team PM and Mtgs 0.0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $4,200 $4,200 $4,200 5.00 Culvert Replacement Pre-design Study 0.0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 5.10 Hydraulic Modeling 28.0 $1,226 $2,282 $3,508 $526 $4,034 $145 $0 $0 $145 $4,179 5.20 Layout Pre-design Altematives 68.0 $2,100 $3,906 $6,006 $901 $6,907 $345 $40 $0 $385 $7,292 5.30 Cost Estimates 18.0 $572 $1,064 $1,636 $245 $1,881 $90 $0 $0 $90 $1,971 5.40 Other Design Considerations(Env.,U 28.0 $809 $1,505 $2,313 $347 $2,660 $135 $0 $0 $135 $2,795 5.50 Draft Report 48.0 $1,407 $2,617 $4,024 $604 $4,627 $220 $0 $0 $220 $4,847 5.60 Final Report 24.0 $711 $1,322 $2,033 $305 $2,338 $115 $0 $0 $115 $2,453 6.00 Environmental Permitting 0.0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 6.10 Preparation of Draft SEPA Checklist 4,0 $149 $278 $427 $64 $491 $20 $0 $2,258 $2,278 $2,769 6.20 Preparation of Final SEPA Checklist 1.0 $26 $47 $73 $11 $84 $5 $0 $1,334 $1,339 $1,422 6.30 Preparation of Draft JARPA,BA,Wetl 28,0 $809 $1,505 $2,313 $347 $2,660 $135 $0 $16,422 $16,557 $19,217 6.40 Preparation of Final JARPA 3.0 $100 $186 $287 $43 $330 $13 $0 $4,074 $4,087 $4,416 6.50 Response to Agency Comments 0.0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $1,386 $1,386 $1,386 Totals 376.0 $12,278 $22,844 $35,122 $5,268 $40,391 $1,658 $80 $73,921 $75,659 $116,049 - ' ' ., 'r� '.: •'; •�r. 7-'''7'''' 3,..,..z,,,,..,-- ; ;w . s �{ , ` z z° lwg zF#s�,b€� , , $° ;. :r.r '1F , ,, ,44,4- zv - �"' i y3; . e'' g d :.£c ,� '1- sy �4FtIi , 4ii '' , yever « � .,5•4..,;„,,,.,&,- 1Yrs • 3 ;',P �k:1^? .. ,, .., ,`i ; 1 �� ` i 3.m p<. viz% iu ' " J cFys1,...',,,f, : E > fl j � ' dm � `� ryq1 ;� As su . � J . . Yi&, � � s � a -.4 ? > d*iS-. ,» . � r� �� e l. s 5 . 'K y x Vit.- a i s .{ f ,,::.t ;• : ` , SW 34th Street Culvert Crossing Looking North Dated March 22, 2005 ; : i g' - � �:h as 4 w' p r ', rt. ' 7 • w SW 34th Street Culvert Crossing Looking North During the February 8, 1996 Flood Event CITY OF RENTON COUNCIL AGENDA BILL AI#: g h Submitting Data: Planning/Building/Public Works For Agenda of: April 4, 2005 litope Dept/Div/Board.. Transportation Systems Staff Contact Jason Fritzler (ext. 7243) Agenda Status Consent Subject: Public Hearing.. Lake Washington Boulevard Slip Plane Project Correspondence.. Road Closure Ordinance Resolution X Old Business Exhibits: New Business Issue Paper Study Sessions Vicinity Map Information Resolution Recommended Action: Approvals: Legal Dept X Refer to Transportation Committee Finance Dept Other Fiscal Impact: Expenditure Required... Transfer/Amendment Amount Budgeted Revenue Generated Total Project Budget $640,000 City Share Total Project.. SUMMARY OF ACTION: On February 22,2005 Council approved the award of the construction contract to Northwest Cascade to construct the soldier pile wall on Lake Washington Boulevard(see attached minutes). The project will install a 200-foot soldier pile wall with 50-foot tiebacks on the west side of Lake Washington Boulevard NE in the vicinity of NE 50th Street and repair the damaged sections of roadway in the vicinity of the slide area. A full closure of Lake Washington Boulevard NE in the vicinity of NE 50th Street will provide shorter construction duration, lower costs to the project,and create a safer environment for the traveling public. Approximately 300 feet of Lake Washington Boulevard NE will be closed to traffic from Monday through Friday during the hours of 8:30 AM to 5:30 PM. The roadway will be opened during the evening hours and over the weekends. The planned closure dates are April 15 through July 15, 2005. These dates are contingent on the contractor's actual start date and may need to be rescheduled accordingly. STAFF RECOMMENDATION: Council concurs with the temporary street closures of Lake Washington Boulevard NE, in the vicinity of NE 50th Street, during the planned closure dates of April 15 through July 15, 2005. H:\Division.s\TRANSPOR.TAT\DESIGN.ENGUASON\Projects\Lake Washington Boulevard Slide\City Correspondence\Road Closure Agenda Bill.DOC CITY OF RENTON PLANNINGBUILDING/PUBLIC WORKS DEPARTMENT MEMORANDUM DATE: April 4, 2005 TO: Terri Briere, Council President Members of the Renton City Council VIA: Mayor Kathy Keolker-Wheeler FROM: Gregg Zimmerman, PB/PW Administrator STAFF CONTACT: Jason Fritzler, Transportation Engineer(ext. 7243) SUBJECT: Lake Washington Boulevard Slip Plane Project Road Closure ISSUE: A full closure of Lake Washington Boulevard NE in the vicinity of NE 50th Street will *ow provide shorter construction duration, lower costs to the project, and create a safer environment for the traveling public. Approximately 300 feet of Lake Washington Boulevard NE will be closed to traffic from Monday through Friday during the hours of 8:30 AM to 5:30 PM. The roadway will be opened during the evening hours and over the weekends. The planned closure dates are April 15 through July 15, 2005. These dates are contingent on the contractor's actual start date and may need to be rescheduled accordingly. A detour plan is attached. RECOMMENDATION: Council concurs with the temporary street closures of Lake Washington Boulevard NE, in the vicinity of NE 50`h Street, during the planned closure dates of April 15 through July 15, 2005. BACKGROUND SUMMARY: After the March 2001 earthquake, Golder Associates had revealed to the City of Renton that the slope along Lake Washington Boulevard NE had moved. This was made clear by the large ''rr Terri Briere,Council President Members of the Renton City Council April 4,2005 Page 2 Noe Re: Issue Paper: Lake Washington Boulevard Slip Plane Project Road Closures arc-shaped crack in the roadway. In March 2003, during a site visit, the Coal Creek Utility District expressed concern for their sewer line that had moved since the 2001 earthquake. Additionally, the crack in the southbound lane of Lake Washington Boulevard NE had become larger, both vertically and horizontally. On February 22, 2005, Council approved the award of the construction contract to Northwest Cascade to construct the soldier pile wall on Lake Washington Boulevard(see attached minutes). The City is now prepared to repair the slide area by installing a 200-foot soldier pile wall with 50-foot tiebacks on the west side of Lake Washington Boulevard NE in the vicinity of NE 50th Street and repair the damaged sections of roadway in the vicinity of the slide area. The existing roadway section is two 11-foot lanes with little to no shoulder. Large drilling equipment, cranes that will be maneuvering large I-beams over the roadway, and large stockpiles of soil will make the work zone extremely hazardous. These issues along with high traffic control costs and an increase in project duration make the road closure a viable solution. Advanced warning signs to the north and south of the construction zone will be erected prior to the actual road closure. These signs will indicate the location, dates and times of the road closure. Local access for individuals who live in the vicinity of the work zone will be allowed access in and out of the barricades. Per City Code, the public will have advanced notification of the closure dates prior to construction beginning and updates as the construction progresses. Attachments cc: Sandra Meyer,Transportation Systems Director Leslie Lahndt,Transportation Design Supervisor \Division.s\TRANSPOR.TAT\DESIGN.ENGUASON\Projects\Lake Washington Boulevard Slide\City Correspondence\Road Closure Issue Paper.doc February 28,2005 Renton City Council Minutes Page 63 Planning &Development Planning and Development Committee Chair Clawson presented a report Committee regarding the R-1 zone community separators. The Committee recommended Planning: R-1 Zone concurrence in the staff recommendation to approve the City Code Title IV err Community Separators (Development Regulations)amendment creating Urban Separator Overlay Regulations and amending the R-1 zone to require mandatory clustering of development outside of the contiguous open space mapped within the Urban Separator. The Committee also recommended that the minimum lot size for clustered development in the R-1 zone be changed to 10,000 square feet. The Committee further recommended that the ordinance regarding this matter be presented for first reading. MOVED BY CLAWSON, SECONDED BY LAW,COUNCIL CONCUR IN THE COMMITTEE REPORT. CARRIED. 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 February 14, 2005. Council concur. February 14, 2005 Vacation: 140th Ave SE, City Clerk reported receipt of$16,500 compensation paid by petitioner,as set Conner Homes,VAC-04-001 by Council on 10/25/2004, and recommended adoption of an ordinance to finalize the Conner Homes vacation of a portion of 140th Ave. SE, located between SE 132nd St. and SE 136th St.; VAC-04-001. Council concur. (See page 65 for ordinance.) CAG: 05-008,Lake City Clerk reported bid opening on 2/22/2005 for CAG-05-008,Lake Washington Blvd Slip Plane, Washington Blvd. Slip Plane;seven bids;engineer's estimate$436,860;and Northwest Cascade submitted staff recommendation to award the contract to the low bidder, Northwest Cascade,Inc., in the amount of$440,000. Council concur: Ntilliev Court Case: Boeing Court Case filed on behalf of Boeing Employees Flying Association, Inc.,by Employees Flying Association, Philip T. Mattern, Demco Law Firm,P.S., 5224 Wilson Ave. S., Suite 200, CRT-05-001 Seattle, 98118, regarding the removal of underground fuel tanks from leased property at the Renton Airport. Refer to City Attorney and Insurance Services. Community Services: 200 Mill Community Services Department recommended approval of the emergency Bldg,Emergency Repair of repair of two elevators located at the 200 Mill Building in the amount of Elevators $38,156.16. Council concur. Annexation: Wedgewood Economic Development,Neighborhoods and Strategic Planning Department Lane, 144th Ave SE& 148th submitted 60%notice of intent to annex petition for the proposed Wedgewood Ave SE Lane Annexation,and recommended a public hearing be set on 3/14/2005 to consider the petition and future zoning; 35.68 acres located between 144th Ave. SE and 148th Ave.SE. Council concur. EDNSP:Renton Lodging Tax Economic Development,Neighborhoods and Strategic Planning Department Advisory Committee recommended the appointment of Kim Hart,general manager of the Appointment TownePlaceSuites and SpringHill Suites by Marriott,to the Renton Lodging Tax Advisory Committee to fill the vacancy left by Terry Godat. Council concur. Development Services: Legal Division recommended adoption of an ordinance that amends City Code Abandoned &Junk Vehicles, Chapter 6-1,Abandoned Vehicles,by adding definitions,expanding the scope City Code Amend of junk vehicles to include parts thereof, adding explanatory language, and criminalizing violations. Refer to Public Safety Committee. Now Municipal Court: Probation Municipal Court requested authorization to hire a Probation Officer at Step D Officer Hire at Step D of the salary range. Refer to Finance Committee. 41/4 I 4? --------.Q / ,_ ?.-\I— PROP08EGDETOUR RDD E I N118114 AVE SE a __(__-I le r2_ jY,,,^IF . _ m /1111 r 0 © � (e�7" ��eee IliiiLL17�� S L WA" 112TH AVE SE \ { F PROJECT AREA A( z 5.0 MAP OF PROPOSED DETOUR ROUTE NOT TO SCALE Ill E POST WE STD.PLAHOSO On p, -.TOIL ATTAOSIEIR 70 WOOD POST it.* iii III et1g, T--- DN068TY pBOf POET POST INSTALLATION TABLE DRILL ROLES WAD PHA P001 POST SIZE HOLE DEPTH' NOTCH OEPTWIIOIE TRAFFIC CONTROL PLAN NOTES. 1: TO MON FACE NBTAUADOR Dem) (FEET) DIAMETER(INCH.) 1. ALL NONAGE SMALL BE INSTALLED PER WASHINGTON STATE DEPARTMENT OF TRANPORTATION STANDARD THROlpIIapN POST �- SPECIFICATIONS FOR WOOD NEST INSTALLATION(SE DETAIL 1,SHEET CREO). y:.-j f',1:12.,),_ t%♦ 7� NOTREQD . ' _ !%8 1'4' 1•10 2. ALL SIGNS USED FOR DETOUR NS P41)S TER C TION O TO WS00T STANDARD SPECIFICATIONS FOR SIGNS. DIRECTION p,O. 2. THE NUMBER NEM TO THE SIGHS N THE INTERSECTION DETAILS SHOWN ON SHEETS 4.00 ANO 6.00 INDICATES r 1 OP TRIAD° 8X8 rIAN,SHEf.'1® •yQPOer 8x• !'O r THESTANOMOWBOOTSIGN NUMBER. N405.WACTDD V DROOD 8x10 S-0' NOT REO'D 3. ALL APPl1CABLE TRAFFIC CONTROL DEVICES(STOPLICRGTB,ETC.)SHALL 00 MODIFIED AS SECURED SE THE CITY su��.eLTr (( „ (v;y-;tu1LSIG1 rR' 8X10 B.O. NOT RECIDDS DEC TON FOR TIE DIARATION OF THE DETOUR. :i !. TWO FLANINGINARTANG LENTS(TYPE'A`, 8X12 WE NOT RL'OD MUTCp)8141LBE USED ID MIAICTFE TYPE MSIPPM,ADF.6 AT NWT ELEVATION SINGLE POST SINGLE POST DETAL 'ANNUM EMBEDMENT OUIDEIl4$PER WSOOT 2003 SI6. P/OOGLTD CLOSURE OF THE ROAD.CONTRACTOR kiwi NOTIFY AND COORDINATE WTTH EMERGENCY SERVICES. T AN' «rs aaLOa" AM CITY OF /20/0I "mIR RENTON TRAFFIC CONTROL PLAN MAP _ e WSDOT STANDARD BION POSTINSTALLATION DETAIL _ «�,E,y AND SIGN INSTALLATION DETAILS y NOT TO SCALES MIT PaRM^v/Bwla�v/Pwk ww,.D,PLC3.00 s K OOR**GOANDDRA10N0.WOImIS 1*2M MOON IYN�p4A DM NO. REVISION 8T OOZE MPN «� w" «IS IA1—INTNIN NAA , it ( ( ( In cn I 4 (wxYMrI1Rw.) T./V-. N VAR WA..0.1P CL 367 0 IN. MN BLVD xmB ��TT00 N4/D N (INR%ASN OM)i 9 r O Tav d NF/D �N i NNF.wAr REMEp IN "Zsir: I- ur SE BE Nm eT / L INNT117 Ci A • : 11IlF g MSM Bf� ,/ND , RE PRIV IYUiGYK1W®1 R1 i�i. . g se inti s IU _ (l.a WARN ELw) iMAKrEND-+1 1=2:2=1 C MN AKIN /7 IV _ 0 (UNRRA.MVO)_ ® INTERSECTION OF LAKE WASHINGTON BOULEVARD AND 112TH AVENUE SE ® INTERSECTION OF SE BETH STREET AND 112TH AVENUE SE NOT TO SCALE NOT TO SCALE NNFYMY BETWEEN r-- 1 r—1171 AK6ENAK fI11f111AK • SE WM ST WAN.00•0. J N lNR p,�.� thT( PE) _-1 TRAFFIC CONTROL FLAN NOTES. 1. SPECIFICATIONS FOR E INSTALLEDWOOD POST BTNIATIOI(SEE DETA0. SHEET 0.3.00). WASHINGTON STATE DEPARTMENT OF TRNIPORTATION STANDARD ,s 2. ALL SIGNS USED FOR DETOUR MARK/NOS SHALL CONFORM TO WSDOT$TANDMD SPECIFICATIONS FOR BOHS. (LAKEWallxw.) 6 TRE WALSER NEST TO THE SONS IN THE INTERSECTION DETM.S&gWN ON SHEETS LOS AND AND SCO INDICATES A4 lig - - THE IIiNIDANDWSDOTBONNUMBER n♦ 1,il p'''`�, `�� l 1 1 J. OF APPUCAB(E TRAFFIC CONTROL DEVICES(STOPLIGHT&ETC.)SHALL BE MODIFlED AS REQUIRED Sr THE CRY U. i. "`WW>617C9F77 OF RENTON FOR1HE DURATION OF THE DETOUR 4. TWO FLAMING WARNING LAMS(TYPE'A',MUTCO)WW1 BE USED TOMARK INE TYPE 111 BARRICADES AT NIGHT. S. PRIOR TO CLOSURE OF THE ROAD,CONTRACTOR MUST HOMY AND COORDINATE WON EMERGOLOY BOWELwIlTiE MIA 20/0 4 e INTERSECTION OF SE 68TH STREET AND 118TH AVENUE SE _ ..... nW "'/'r .. WS -, I +. I DATUI iR RIENTON TY TionRL SEEN BkOul ar! TRAFFIC CONTROL PLAN INTERSECTION OF /�� KNOT TO SCALE _ DETAILS 1 yIN 4.00 GW4 IPHu0W0N10)00,300IR111071000 1000 MAMA MN LORA CAM N0. RENS., _ Si DATE 1FPN �� X16 ViiIN NiNINIAIA . v) v) a a a 1, 4 x TYPE RI IIARRIf..01 gs S I Rtw4=al 3 I 5on " ii (WE WASH.B.O.) AUM WASH.Nom SE MN (\\ L E IW�ArM� f IE MO wAv, 70, (FEMEMO.3 L ci (1-N%WAVIaw.1 '- RF igi l _ LIKE WASH Rw. >Q IA L 7 OY WA YM Ya 0 66 MN of 4 >oP I EM A� =MI1:1 .654L J >m W2� II 9 W»A e INTERSECTION OF SE 76T11ST AND 116TH AVE SE NOT TO SCALE INTERSECTION OF LAKE WASHINGTON BOULEVARD AND SE 76T11 STREET NOT TO SCALE TRAFFIC CONTROL PVN NOTES: 1.AU.61GNAGE SHALL BE INSTALLED PER WASHINGTON STATE DEPARTMENT OF TPANPORTATION STANDARD SPECIFICATIONS FOR WOOD POST INSTALLATION(SEE DETAL 2,SHEET SOO). 2.ALL SIGNS USED FOR DETOUR MARKINGS SHALL CONFORM TO WSDOT STANDARD SPECIFICATIONS FOR SIGNS.THE NUMBER MDR TO THE SIGNS IN THE INTERSECTION DETAILS SHOARI ON W,q2"/Ac / SHEETS 4.00 AND 6.00 INDICATES THE STANDARD NUMBER. P '/ SDOT SION NUMBER. S.AU.APPUCALE TRAFFIC CONTROL DEVICES(STOPLIGHTS.ETC.)SHALL BE MODIFIED AS REWIRED BY THE CITY OF RENTON FOR THE DURATION OF THE DETOUR 6.TWO FLASHING WARNING LIGHTS(TYPE•A',MUTCD)SHALL BE USED TO MARK THE TYPE S BARRICADES AT NIGHT. 6.PRIOR TO 0.OSUPE OF THE ROAD.CONTRACTOR MUST NOSEY AND COON:MATE WITH EMERGENCY FEMMES. `.... HIS "='7". �� CITY OF /2U/a ^' - 1"'INA. LJ_`..N RENTON TRAFFIC CONTROL PLAN INTERSECTION _ _ �loW4a � DETAILS 2 FIorw.g/d,Rdig/FINN WRHu aµ C5.00 KY.W'TMriO4 3.033U FMOVIORNA10%1 ORAE/,R9NYH.IUI loot GSM N0. RMSION W %X OFR "m+0. — S MI6 A-NNNNAIA F- 1 tw."-"'" (''' ( . U7 N a a a say Q d' N ® Fp IME WASITYbTM Mw. ` SEM TTWAY OLCOED W30.i .J3 MOW MOO". TQ MO.,. TO SE NWTN.L®AT .A.ST POUR NI DAYS BOOZE ROAD CLOSURE SOO V-0. LTI LMETAE AT 6E TERD TEM WAY Mw. if § CLOS" — Mt3® MOM 40DAY-M i--� `8E)YiOWAY� Tb.1.00".TO BE MSTM® LAT �� (FAST FOUR MOW. iil BEFORE ipAO CLOW. — WINO WAY * ''' be V MN® j ®R4Q L f0 CS WORK ZONE • / \\_` AT 9Eram NAY ODE® MOW MODAYM TO WO". E00 TOBEKTM..AT IFMTFOUR(q OWE i WORD MVD CLOSURE (CITY CCDE MK / . Bao Wt. i //\_ waET O DIAGRAM OF ROAD CLOSURE AT PROJECT SITE AND SE 73RD WAY CROSS STREETS C6.o0 NOT TO SCALE 1 TRAFFIC CONTROL RAN NOTES: • I.A. V I.ALL 810N1GE SHALL BE INSTALLED PER WABHINOTON STATE DEPARTMENT OF TMN PORTATON STANDARD SPECIFICATIONS FOR W000 r. POST INSTALLATION(SEE MAL 2 SHEET&on �' j ��, 2 NJ.stews USED FOR DETOUR MIRKDNGS SHALL CONFORM TO MOOT STANDARD SPECT CATONS FOR BONS.THE NUMBER NEM TO THE SIGNS IN THE INTERSECTION DETAILS SHOWN ON SHEETS 4.00 AND 540 IDBaTES THE STANDARD WNDOTSGN NUMBER 2 ALL APPU ASIE TRAFFIC CONTROL DEVICES(STOPUGHTS.ETC)SHALL SE MODIFIED AS REQUIRED BYDEWY OF RENTON FOR THE .•, M'.,,s r+• DURATION OF THE DETOUR I.TWO FLASHING WARNING LGM HTS(TYPE'A.MUTCDI 8NALL BE TO MARIONE TYPE BARRICADES AT NIGHT. w r NTS re{Lt .• A� OS/30/ON �.�r CITY OF LPPoORTOCLOSURE OFTHE ROAD.CONTRACTOR iBIBTNOTIFY AFACOOROIRA7EWRHFIAEROEN7YSERVICES. — — wM� ilk► RENTON TRAFFIC CONTROL PLAN WORK �°- - '"" �� IMTw AREA DETAILS A..044.09.0140.(0404...0..114Id.aSASEI ITN IwWtaa M. Re,�s10M LIT DATE MRPR www6 :ay �P C6.00 A-NINININIAIA 1 I --- mug derik II 6 _ 'm Awl rm -----1 sit 6Cifi st. It es= aon. . I i i •-u 1•7541 -., *so!ilk. 1 11111 : 11444.41 1 iwA .„„La.,'1 t.'410641.2 Noise .diiiri:e. II p. Emillgn, lum 0 Eh lit 1 el — 311..1:1, • in I 0 11IMM 4 _i illaii.-.: 1: .. c.2 Et, I - 111 0 I .... ca .,7„.,...___IT— ..........._..... it III NIL Project ji no Nor Location h A SE 72nd St. .47; 1 , 1 I FAlA ll i ... .... CRIS ., „.....# AlWEI! .... pm IMF mai , : :-~j11111111 ME 44.t. ic 61,/gui mi.. i IN mull 101111P11111 Km mar .04,013 • .. Aim NIL , . . / 1114.,0i of El ih... 2 um" . , ,... MIN --,r- , SE 80th „.... i '-', 1 I 11 .. y 1 NE 4 3rd 'l .. 1 ,:: I 1 , . --, Vicinity Map CITY OF RENTON, WASHINGTON "*k,,,,,, RESOLUTION NO. A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY OF RENTON, WASHINGTON, AUTHORIZING THE TEMPORARY CLOSURE OF THE NORTH AND SOUTHBOUND LANES OF LAKE WASHINGTON BOULEVARD, IN THE VICINITY OF NE 50TH ST., DURING THE PERIOD OF APRIL 15TH, 2005 AND JULY 15TH 2005, FOR THE LAKE WASHINGTON BOULEVARD SLIP PLANE PROJECT. WHEREAS, the City of Renton plans to construct a soldier pile wall on the west side of Lake Washington Boulevard in the vicinity of NE 50th St. to remedy an existing unstable slope condition; and WHEREAS, this construction activity will require temporary street and lane closures of approximately 300 feet of Lake Washington Boulevard in the vicinity of NE 50th St.; and WHEREAS, to facilitate this construction and allow for a safe condition for both vehicles and pedestrians to do this work under a temporary street closures; and WHEREAS, pursuant to City Code section 9-9-3 the City Council is to authorize such closures by means of a Resolution; NOW, THEREFORE, THE CITY OF RENTON, WASHINGTON, DO ORDAIN AS FOLLOWS: SECTION I. The above recitals are found to be true and correct in all respects. SECTION II. The City Council does hereby authorize the temporary closures of Lake Washington Boulevard, during the hours of 8:30 am to 5:30 pm, to occur during the period April 15, 2005 to July 15, 2005, to allow the contractor to install the soldier pile wall and restore the roadway pavement. Noir, RESOLUTION NO. PASSED BY THE CITY COUNCIL this day of , 2005. Bonnie I. Walton, City Clerk APPROVED BY THE MAYOR this day of , 2005. Kathy Keolker-Wheeler, Mayor Approved as to form: Lawrence J. Warren, City Attorney Date of Publication: C:\DOCUME-I\CBRUND--I\LOCALS-I\Temp\GWVi ver\Street Closure Resolution.doc CITY OF RENTON COUNCIL AGENDA BILL AI#: Submitting Data: Planning/Building/Public Works For Agenda of: Dept/Div/Board.. Transportation Systems April 4, 2005 Staff Contact Sharon Griffin, Ext.7232 Agenda Status Consent Subject: Public Hearing.. Correspondence.. 2005 Transportation Capital Improvement Fund Budget Ordinance X Increase and Project Reallocation Resolution Old Business Exhibits: New Business X Issue Paper Study Sessions 2005 Reallocation Summary Information Ordinance 2005-2010 Six-Year TIP Summary of Funding Sources 2005 Preliminary Budget,Fund 317 Sheet Recommended Action: Approvals: Refer to the Committee of the Whole Legal Dept X Finance Dept X Other Fiscal Impact: Expenditure Required... $ 2,382,300 Transfer/Amendment $ 2,382,300 Amount Budgeted $ 7,986,500 Revenue Generated $ 4,195,800 (approx.) Total Project Budget $10,368,800 City Share Total Project.. $ 6,173,000 SUMMARY OF ACTION: An appropriation of$10,368,800 for the Transportation Capital Improvement Fund 317 will be required to complete transportation projects in 2005. The original budget of$7,986,500 will be increased by$2,382,300 from the Fund 317 fund balance. The ordinance will increase the budget and reallocate the funds by project. The "2005 Reallocation Summary" lists the projects and proposed budget. STAFF RECOMMENDATION: Approve the 2005 Fund 317 budget increase and project reallocation as identified in the"2005 Reallocation Summary" and present the ordinance for first reading. H:1Trans\Ping\Sharon\Agenda Bills\AB 2005 Budget Increase and Reallocation CITY OF RENTON PLANNING/BUILDING/PUBLIC WORKS DEPARTMENT MEMORANDUM DATE: April 4, 2005 TO: Terri Briere, Council President Members of Renton City Council VIA: -1-1-60)3Kathy Keolker-Wheeler, Mayor FROM: Gregg Zimmerman,Administrator STAFF CONTACT: Sharon Griffin, Transportation Program Development Coordinator (extension 7232) SUBJECT: 2005 Transportation Capital Improvement Fund Budget Increase and Project Reallocation `oe ISSUE A 2005 appropriation of$10,368,800 for the Transportation Capital Improvement Fund 317 will be required to construct transportation projects. The original budget of$7,986,500 will be increased by $2,382,300 from the Fund 317 fund balance. The ordinance will increase the budget and reallocate the funds by project. The "2005 Reallocation Summary" lists the projects and proposed budget. RECOMMENDATION Approve the 2005 Fund 317 budget increase and project reallocation as identified in the "2005 Reallocation Summary" and present the ordinance for first reading. BACKGROUND An appropriation of$10,368,800 is needed to complete a very aggressive construction program. A number of our projects, which were expected to go to construction in 2004,were delayed. We anticipate completing construction on seven projects in 2005, as well as starting construction on two others. Terri Briere,Council President Members of Renton City Council April 4,2005 Page 2 Re: 2005 Transportation Capital Improvement Fund Budget Increase and Reallocation The projects include improvements to roadways, sidewalks, intersections, signals, and a bridge. We need the budget increase of$2,382,300 to meet our goals. Details on specific projects are below, and a spreadsheet is attached identifying project reallocations ("2005 Reallocation Summary"). The 2004 fund balance (Dec. 31) is $10,539,176. The table below summarizes the budget adjustment. Budget Adjustment Table 2005 Budget $ 7,986,500 Budget Adjustments Per this Ordinance 2,382,300 2005 Adjusted Budget $ 10,368,800 PROJECT DETAILS The following project descriptions detail the circumstances requiring the changes. Overall reasons for the changes %re • Unexpected revenue from grant awards forces movement on the project. • Approval of King County Metro mitigation funding toward specific projects moves a project forward. • Development plans from private sources spurs design and construction funding. • Decisions to fund ongoing programs at a higher level to maintain or increase levels of service adds to the bottom-line expenditures. SPECIFIC PROJECTS Benson Road Pedestrian Project TIP#17 New Transportation Improvement Board (TIB) grant Originally, the Benson Road Project had four sidewalk sections included in the original scope as set forth in the TIB grant application. These sections included: 1. 1,000 lineal feet near the 1-405 overpass; 2. 230 lineal feet from Eagle Ridge Drive South extending to the south; 3. 220 lineal just north of Eagle Ridge Drive South near the transmission lines; 4. 330 lineal feet from South 26th Street extending to the north. 14.10 I-I:\Trans\Ping\Sharon\Issue Papers\IP 2005 Budget Increase and Reallocation.doc Terri Briere,Council President Members of Renton City Council April 4,2005 Page 3 Re: 2005 Transportation Capital Improvement Fund lolko ` Budget Increase and Reallocation The WSDOT I-405 Project Team has recently been in contact with the City regarding a Nickel Package Project that would affect the 1,000 lineal feet of sidewalk in the vicinity of I-405 that the City originally planned to construct. It has been decided that the City will not construct this portion of the Benson Road Project and that WSDOT would place sidewalk, curb, and gutter as a part of the Nickel Package Project scheduled in 2007. The current amount budgeted for this project is $459,400. The City has acquired a TIB grant in the amount of$150,000 with a 69% City match of$331,900. The amount required to design and construct the remaining three sections is estimated to be $215,400. Walkway Program TIP #9 Increase level of program funding The Walkway Program was scheduled to design and construct sidewalks in the Highlands. Construction cost was estimated to be $166,000 and King County Metro mitigation funds are to be used. In January 2005, a Street Preservation Task Force identified a Maplewood Glen Neighborhood sidewalk as a top priority to rehabilitate. It is recommended by the task force to utilize up to $300,000 of Walkway Program money to re-construct a sidewalk in the Maplewood Glen Neighborhood due to its poor condition requiring replacement. Both the Highlands and Maplewood sidewalks will be funded through the Walkway Program. Nape The current 2005 budget appropriation of$236,600 is proposed to be raised to $500,000 in order to accommodate the addition of the Maplewood Glen Neighborhood sidewalk. The downtown curb ramps will be funded through the CBD Bike and Pedestrian Connections Program, TIP #26. The Benson Road Pedestrian Project, the Walkway Program projects, and the CBD Bike and Pedestrian curb ramps are being designed under one consultant contract. Street Overlay Program TIP #1 Increase level of program funding Based upon a review of the streets within the planned overlay program, it was found that an additional $300,000 would be needed to fully complete the scheduled 2005 Victoria Park Neighborhood overlay. The streets in this neighborhood have become so deteriorated, additional funding is necessary to do adequate patching prior to overlaying them. With the proper preparation,the overlay will last longer, raising the cost/benefit to the City. The current 2005 budget appropriation of$405,000 is proposed to be raised to $705,000 in order to meet this need. fire H:\Trans\Ping\Sharon\Issue Papers\IP 2005 Budget Increase and Reallocation.doc Terri Briere,Council President Members of Renton City Council April 4,2005 Page 4 Re: 2005 Transportation Capital Improvement Fund rrr Budget Increase and Reallocation South Renton Project TIP#12 Metro mitigation project This project improves the intersection at South 4th and Burnett Avenue South, adjacent to the South Renton Neighborhood. It includes intersection channelization improvements,minor traffic signal improvements, and, improvements to the railroad crossing. Funding for this project was initiated with $175,000 of King County Metro mitigation money. $40,000 was identified for design, $75,000 for street overlay, and $60,000 was reserved for construction(with Council concurrence). Approximately$40,000 has been spent to-date on design. $135,000 of the Metro mitigation funding remains (including the reserve). The estimated cost of construction for this project is $265,000. This does not include the overlay cost; the overlay will occur independent of the project, most likely in 2006. The current 2005 budget appropriation is $18,200. South Lake Washington TIP #10 Development project Roadway Improvements The roadway improvements were initiated by the Council to complement a large development Norie project on the Boeing Company's property. $1,500,000 from the City's General Fund was allocated to the Transportation Fund for 30% design in 2004. A consultant contract for $1,356,486 was awarded to complete 30%design for roadway improvements needed to support District 1. Approximately $549,000 remains. Design beyond 30% and construction cannot begin until the developer has started development of their site plan, schedules, franchise utility needs, storm sewer, etc. for the property. The City expects this could start sometime in 2005. There is a need to continue the Transportation design in 2005. To that end, the proposed allocation for 2005 is proposed at$1,100,000. The current 2005 budget has no funding. Sunset/Duvall Intersection TIP#29 Hazard Elimination Safety (HES) grant The intersection project gained momentum with the award of a $396,000 federal Hazard Elimination Safety (HES) grant. Originally, some of the intersection improvements were included in the City's Duvall Avenue widening project. Upon receiving the grant, they were shifted to the intersection project (increasing the project cost), because the intersection must be done earlier than the widening. Also increasing the costs were additional drainage items not evident at the time of the original estimate, and greater than anticipated in-house design efforts to obtain required WSDOT approval ($11,000). The construction cost increases reflect the current construction estimate, as design of the project nears 60%completion. The current 2005 budget appropriation is $381,000. The request is for$818,700. 'fir' H:\Trans\Ping\Sharon\Issue Papers\IP 2005 Budget Increase and Reallocation.doc Terri Briere,Council President Members of Renton City Council April 4,2005 Page 5 Re: 2005 Transportation Capital Improvement Fund *se Budget Increase and Reallocation Attachments cc: Sandra Meyer,Transportation Systems Director Nick Afzali,Transportation Planning and Programming Manager Sharon Griffin,Transportation Program Development Coordinator Transportation Systems Division Project Managers Nenita Ching,P/B/PW Administrative Analyst David Lemenager,FIS/IS Accounting Assistant Constance Brundage,Administrative Secretary `fir► H:\Trans\Ping\Sharon\Issue Papers\IP 2005 Budget Increase and Reallocation.doc Transportation Division 2/22/2005 Fund 317 2005 Reallocation Summary vii,. Project Proposed TIP Project Title Number 2005 Budget Change 2005 Budget Comment • Additional funding needs+2005 1 Street Overlay Program 317.012108 $ 405,000 $ 300,000 $ 705,000 budget. See Note 1. 2 SR 167/SW 27th St/Strander By 317.012138 10,000 (5,000) 5,000 Reduced request$5,000 for 2005. Completes 30%design for entire project. Recent federal award of 3a Strander By/SW 27th St Connect. 317.012239 800,000 10,000 810,000 $750,000. See Note 2. Complete final design for Ph.1, 3b Strander By, Phase 1,Segment 1 * 317.012239 210,000 210,000 Segment 1. See Note 2. TIB and Metro mitigation funding. Construct Ph 1 in 2005. Prepare PS&E package for Ph 2 with possible additional design($100k)due to 4 SR 169 HOV-140th to SR900 317.012175 10,000 1,107,800 1,117,800 Maintenance facility. See Note 3. 5 Renton Urban Shuttle(RUSH) 317.012163 5,000 - 5,000 Same as 2005 budget. 6 Transit Program 317.012109 20,400 - 20,400 Same as 2005 budget. $12,000 for additional work required to coordinate with Sound Transit and for 7 Rainier Av Corridor Study/Improv. 317.012193 20,000 63,100 83,100 additional project needs. Reduced$305,300 from 2005 budget; final report,public outreach,consultant 8 NE 3rd/NE 4th Corridor 317.012176 315,300 (305,300) 10,000 for first project. $166,000 Metro mitigation funding for Highlands. Maplewood added. See 9 Walkway Program 317.000009 236,600 263,400 500,000 Note 4. New developer.Site plan being developed.Rough estimate to complete 10 S Lake Wash. Roadway Improv. 317.012306 - 1,100,000 1,100,000 100%design.See Note 5. 11 SR 169 Corridor Study 317.012401 50,000 - 50,000 Same as 2005 budget. Construction was underfunded;new 4411110, construction estimate;includes$60,000 12 South Renton Project 317.012194 18,200 246,800 265,000 reserve;includes railroad cost. 13 1-405 Improvements in Renton 317.012210 30,000 - 30,000 Same as 2005 budget. 14 Project Development/Predesign 317.012150 175,000 - 175,000 Same as 2005 budget. Same as 2005 budget. Potential need 15 NE 4th St/Hoquiam Av NE 317.012209 344,900 - 344,900 for increase at project bid. 16 Rainier Av-SW 7th to 4th PI 317.012308 585,000 (265,000) 320,000 Reduced request for 2005. TIB funding. Construction 2005. Project scope reduced to coordinate 17 Benson Rd-S 26th to Main 317.012309 459,400 (244,000) 215,400 with WSDOT nickel project. 18 Arterial Circulation Program 317.000029 200,000 - 200,000 Same as 2005 budget. Bridge inspections this year,load rate Wells Ave.Bridge,prepare May Creek 19 Bridge Inspection&Repair 317.000106 40,000 6,300 46,300 BRAC application. For project completion. Funding 20 Loop Replacement Program 317.000016 20,000 12,000 32,000 needed for 2004 bill still pending. 21 Sign Replacement Program 317.012113 7,500 - 7,500 Same as 2005 budget. 22 Pole Program 317.000091 25,000 - 25,000 Same as 2005 budget. 23 Sound Transit HOV Direct Access 317.012171 10,000 - 10,000 Same as 2005 budget. 24 Traffic Safety Program 317.012115 80,000 (40,000) 40,000 Reduced$40,000 in 2005. 25 Traffic Efficiency Program 317.012162 251,900 - 251,900 Same as 2005 budget. 26 CBD Bike& Ped.Connections 317.012185 50,000 (200) 49,800 Finish upgrading all ramps. 27 Arterial Rehab. Prog. 317.012186 195,000 - 195,000 Average expenditure on program. 28 Duvall Ave NE 317.012123 1,258,700 (408,700) 850,000 Defer additional costs to 2006. Federal HES grant of$396,000. Construction cost estimate increase. Bids will determine actual construction 29 Sunset/Duvall Intersection 317.012301 381,000 437,700 818,700 funding needs. 30 RR Crossing Safety Prog. 317.012166 5,000 - 5,000 Same as 2005 budget. 31 TDM Program*7 317.012135 64,200 64,200 Same as 2005 budget. Same as 2005 budget;update LOS 32 Trans Concurrency 317.012107 40,000 40,000 program. H\Trans\Ping\sharon\budget\2005 Reallocation Summary Transportation Division 2/22/2005 Fund 317 2005 Reallocation Summary t NIlov Project Proposed TIP Project Title Number 2005 Budget Change 2005 Budget Comment 33 Missing Links Program 317.012106 30,000 - 30,000 Same as 2005 budget. Reduced$15,000 in 2005;do in-house, 34 GIS Needs Assessment 317.012206 35,000 (15,000) 20,000 no consultant. 35 Grady Wy Corridor Study 317.012127 35,000 (15,000) 20,000 Reduced$15,000 in 2005. 36 Bicycle Route Dev. Program 317.012173 20,000 - 20,000 Same as 2005 budget. Defer$92,000 to 2006 or later, 37 Lake Wash. By-Park to Coulon Pk 317.012121 79,500 (78,000) 1,500 remaining construction delayed. 38 Interagency Signal Coord. 317.012140 12,000 (7,000) 5,000 Reduced request$7,000 for 2005. Maintenance continues on both Phase 1 39 Environmental Monitoring 317.012187 85,000 - 85,000 and 2. 40 Trans-Valley&Soos Creek Corr. 317.012191 5,000 (3,000) 2,000 Reduced$3,000 in 2005. 41 WSDOT Coordination Program 317.012146 10,000 5,000 15,000 Need input on needs for 2005. 42 1%for the Arts 317.012112 50,000 (20,000) 30,000 Reduced$20,000 in 2005. 43 Arterial HOV Program 317.012160 10,000 (5,000) 5,000 Reduced$5,000 in 2005. Reduced$10,000 in 2005;initiate in- 44 Park-Sunset Corridor 317.012177 25,000 (10,000) 15,000 house corridor study. Same as 2005 budget;initiate in-house 45 Lind Av-SW 16th-SW 43rd 317.000024 5,000 - 5,000 corridor study. King Co.lead;schedule unknown. See 46 Benson Rd S/S 31st St 317.012129 61,500 (61,500) - Note 6. 47 Logan Av Concrete Panel Repair 317.012303 - - - Programmed for 2008. 48 Carr/Mill Signal 317.012304 5,000 (3,000) 2,000 Reduced$3,000 in 2005. Reduced$22,600 in 2005;King Co. 49 Transit Priority Signal System 317.012174 30,000 (22,600) 7,400 expenditure no longer included. 50 Transit Center Video 317.012208 10,000 - 10,000 Same as 2005 budget. 51 Houser Wy S-Main to Burnett 317.012213 - - - Programmed for 2008. King Co.lead;Renton's contribution 52 Trans Valley ITS 317.012211 5,000 45,000 50,000 from 2004 budget;P.O.in process. Go to ad and construct this year. 53 Lake Wash. By Slip Plane 317.012302 10,600 526,500 537,100 Design is complete. Construction will continue until May 54 Monster Road Bridge 317.012307 12,000 456,700 468,700 2005. Reduced$23,500. Completed. Federal and State audit passed. Need funds for 55 SW 7th St./Lind Ave SW 317.012153 26,500 (23,500) 3,000 project closeout and WSDOT billings. _ Reductions: -$983,600 Right-of-way (King County will do directly);most construction costs deferred to 2006. 56 Duvall Ave NE-King County 317.012305 1,311,300 (876,200) 435,100 Increased design costs. Reserved for currently unknown capital Strander Reserve - project. Total Sources $ 7,986,500 $ 2,382,300 $ 10,368,800 * If funding received for Stander, Ph. 1, Segment 1 construction. $ 3,000,000 General fund or bonding. $ 13,368,800 NOTES 1. The 2005 overlay project requires additional funding due to poorer condition of streets. 2. Total request for 3a and 3b is$1,020,000(construction not included). 3. Phase 1.Will adjust allocation based upon actual low bid when known. 4. Maplewood Glen sidewalk replacement added to 2005 program. 5. Design contract for full design likely to occur this year.Timing unknown.$lmillion or more is estimated to complete design District 1. Bonding anticipated. 6. City has committed an upper limit of 200,000.Will return to Council should project materialize in 2005. H\Trans\Ping\sharon\budget\2005 Reallocation Summary CITY OF RENTON, WASHINGTON *we ORDINANCE NO. AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF RENTON, WASHINGTON, APPROPRIATING FUNDS FROM THE TRANSPORTATION CAPITAL IMPROVEMENT FUND BALANCE, INCREASING TUJ 2005 BUDGET, AND REALLOCATING THE EXPENDITURES IN SPECIFIC TRANSPORTATION IMPROVEMENT PROJECTS. WHEREAS, it is necessary and advisable to amend the 2005 budget to accommodate new grants and other revenue and corresponding expenditures to complete transportation projects; NOW, THEREFORE, THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF RENTON, WASHINGTON,DOES ORDAIN AS FOLLOWS: SECTION I. The following adjustments are hereby allowed and established in fund listed below: Budget 2005 Adjustments Adjusted Fund 2005 Budget Per this Budget Ordinance 317 Transportation Capital Fund $ 7,986,500 $ 2,382,300 $ 10,368,800 SECTION II. A list of all individual budget adjustments in the Transportation Capital Fund is hereby attached and is available for public review in the office of the City Clerk,Renton City Hall. SECTION III. This ordinance shall be effective upon its passage, approval,and five days after publication. 1 ORDINANCE NO. Nowe PASSED BY THE CITY COUNCIL this day of ,2005. Bonnie I. Walton,City Clerk APPROVED BY THE MAYOR this day of ,2005. Kathy Keolker-Wheeler,Mayor Approved as to form: Lawrence J. Warren, City Attorney Date of Publication: ORD:1172:2/22/05:ma 2 • CITY OF RENTON PLANNING/BUILDING/PUBLIC WORKS TRANSPORTATION SYSTEMS DIVISION 2005 -2010 SIX-YEAR TIP SUMMARY OF FUNDING SOURCES Period ITEM Period Total 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 SIX-YEAR PROJECT COSTS: Project Development 3,550,900 683,400 674,100 589,600 514,600 539,600 549,600 Precon Eng/Admin 8,667,940 1,753,900 297,400 616,100 5,360,540 485,000 155,000 R-O-W(includes Admin) 10,595,242 1,451,242 3,100,000 2,044,000 4,000,000 Construction Contract Fee 1271099,323 3,404,723 7,663,000 1,799,000 17,877,600 47,733,500 48,621,500 Construction Eng/Admin 13,235,800 364,100 867,200 190,100 1,989,400 4,896,500 4,928,500 Other 1,065,100 329,100 209,000 169,500 122,500 122,500 112,500 Sub-TOTAL SIX-YEAR COST 164,214,305 7,986,465 9,710,700 3,364,300 28,964,640 55,821,100 58,367,100 SOURCE OF FUNDS: 1/2 Cent Gas Tax 2,100,000 350,000 350,000 350,000 350,000 350,000 350,000 Business License Fee 9,600,000 1,600,000 1,600,000 1,600,000 1,600,000 1,600,000 1,600,000 *Eliminated by 1-776. . Grants In-Hand 6,529010 1,911,329 2,896,133 561,115 392,947 767,586 Mitigation In-Hand 6,135,043 1,995,291 2,004,567 803,985 915,400 342,900 72,900 L.I.D.'s Formed Other In-Hand 8,136,645 2,129,845 2,860,000 49,200 2,999,200 49,200 49,200 Sub-TOTAL SIX-YEAR FUNDED 32,500,798 7,986,465 9,710,700 3,364,300 6,257,547 3,109,686 2,072,100 Grants Proposed 8,726,000 3,026,000 1,700,000, 4,000,000 Mitigation Proposed 60,000 60,000 L.I.D.'s Proposed Other Proposed 8,054,000 1,765,000 3,144,000 3,145,000 Undetermined 114,873,507 17,856 093 47,867,414 49150,000 TOTAL SOURCES-FUNDED&UNFUNDED 164,214,305' 7, 86,465 9,710,700 3,364,300 28,964,640 55821100 58;367,100 eunma earn 07/2602004 oat 4 -2 FINAL \, Fund 317,Transportation Capital Improvement Fund This fund supports City of Renton Transportation projects and projects linked with various State and Federal Funding programs. Many of the projects are dependent on acquisition of outside grants, formation of LID's and mitigation revenue. Investment earnings generated on the fund balance throughout the year are credited to the General Fund. Table 6-33. Fund 317, Transportation Capital Improvement Fund 2002 2003 2004 2004 .. 2005 Change Item Actual Actual Budget Actual• Budget 04/05 REVENUE: Per Capita Business License Fees 1,790,890 1,667,475 1,936,400 1,600,000 -17.4% Transportation Grants 2,277,504 2,114,881 2,150,000 1,920,500 -10.7% Local Vehicle License Fee/Transp 466,822 11,683 350,000 0 -100.0% King County Mit 0 0 0 0 N/A Charges for Svcs/Plan Sales,Misc 515 1,126 0 0 N/A King County Reimbursement-Duval Ave 0 0 0 1,311,300 100.0% Miscellaneous 0 0 0 0 N/A Trf-In Fm 000 0 575,000 0 0 N/A Trf-In Fm 220 0 425,000 0 0 N/A Trf-In Fm 301 0 0 1,500,000 0 -100.0% Trf-In Fm 305 1,200,000 558,300 1,389,300 1,313,400 -5.5% Trf-In Fm Arterial Str Fd/Overlay Prgm 353,500 353,500 0 0 N/A .) TOTAL NEW REVENUE 6,089,231 5,706,965 7,325,700 6,145,200 -16.1% Nor` Use of Prior Yr Revenue 0 0 1,134,700 1,841,300 62.3% TOTAL RESOURCES 6,089,231 5,706,965 8,460,400 7,986,500 -5.6% EXPENDITURES: TBZ Planning Studies 0 0 0 0 N/A Professional Services 136,146 125,495 140,000 125,000 -10.7% Transportation Projects 4,629,221 4,136,863 8,320,400 7,861,500 -5.5% Other Financial Sources 14,192 0 0 0 N/A TOTAL COMMITTED EXPENDITURES 4,779,559 4,262,358 8,460,400 7,986,500 -5.6% Increase to Reserves 0 0 0 0 N/A TOTAL EXPENDITURES 4,779,559 4,262,358 8,460,400 7,986,500 -5.6% Fund Balance,January 1 5,537,618 6,847,290 8,291,897 7,157,197 -13.7% Total New Revenue 6,089,231 5,706,965 7,325,700 6,145,200 -16.1% Total Committed Expenditures (4,779,559) (4,262,358) (8,460,400) (7,986,500) -5.6% Undesignated Fund Balance,Dec 31 6,847,290 8,291,897 7,157,197 5,315,897 -25.7% 441411100 Budget by Fund 6-35 Added /ein Cl I OF RENTON COUNCIL AGENDA BILL Submitting Data: Planning/Building/Public Works For Agenda of: April 4, 2005 Dept/Div/Board.. Department Administration Staff Contact Gregg Zimmerman (Ext. 7311) Agenda Status Consent X Subject: Public Hearing.. Agreement with the Federal Reserve Bank Regarding Correspondence.. the 27th Street Parcel/Storm water Detention Parcel Ordinance Resolution Old Business Exhibits: Issue Paper New Business X 60% Road Design Cost Estimate Study Sessions Information Agreement Roadway Graphic Recommended Action: Refer to Committee of the Whole, April 11, 2005 Approvals: Legal Dept X Finance Dept X Other Fiscal Impact: Expenditure Required... $3,000,000.00 Transfer/Amendment Amount Budgeted $0.00 Revenue Generated $3,000,000.00 Total Project Budget $0.00 (Bond Issue) City Share Total Project.. $3,000,000.00 SUMMARY OF ACTION: Enter into an Agreement with the Federal Reserve Bank to construct segment 1 of the SW 27th St./Strander Blvd. Extension project. This will be a five-lane segment extending from Oakesdale Ave. SW west to the access driveway to the proposed Federal Reserve Bank. This project will include a water quality/detention pond shared by the City and the Federal Reserve Bank. The Federal Reserve Bank will pay for the water line, the sewer line, franchise utilities, and a proportionate share of the storm water detention tract and facility. The City's cost will be approximately $3,000,000.00 and will be obtained through issuance of bonds. STAFF RECOMMENDATION: Authorize the Mayor and City Clerk to execute the Agreement with the Federal Reserve Bank Regarding the 27th Street Parcel/Storm water Detention Parcel. Authorize the Administration to issue $3,000,000.00 in bonds to pay for the City's share of the roadway project. Rentonnet/agnbill/ bh CITY OF RENTON PLANNING/BUILDING/PUBLIC WORKS DEPT. MEMORANDUM DATE: April 4, 2005 TO: Terri Briere, Council President Members of the Renton City Council VIA: Kathy Keolker-Wheeler, Mayo FROM: Gregg 6nfinerman, PBPW Administrator STAFF CONTACT: Gregg Zimmerman (x-7311) SUBJECT: Agreement with the Federal Reserve Bank Regarding the 27th Street Parcel/Storm water Detention Parcel ISSUE: The Administration has conducted negotiations with the Federal Reserve Bank to build Segment 1 of the first phase of the SW 27th St./Strander Blvd. roadway project. These negotiations have resulted in preparation of the attached Agreement (the "Agreement") with the Federal Reserve Bank regarding the 27th Street Parcel/Storm water Detention Parcel. This Agreement establishes the respective responsibilities of the City of Renton and the Federal Reserve Bank to fund and construct this segment of the roadway project along with storm water facilities and City and franchise utilities. The City's share of the cost of the project would be financed through issuance of bonds. RECOMMENDATION: Authorize the Mayor and City Clerk to execute the Agreement with the Federal Reserve Bank Regarding the 27th Street Parcel/ Storm water Detention Parcel. Authorize the Administration to issue $3,000,000.00 in bonds to pay for the City's share of the roadway project. BACKGROUND: For a number of years the City has been working on the planning and design of a five- lane arterial roadway that would connect SW 27th Street in Renton with Strander Blvd. in Tukwila. Such a roadway would benefit Renton and the region by providing another much-needed east-west trans-valley corridor to improve freight and commuter mobility, remove traffic from the congested SW 43`d/S. 180th St. Corridor, and provide access to the Longacres Commuter Rail Station from the east. This roadway would also improve access to the Renton Valley and support economic development in this area of the City. H:\Div is ions\ADMIN\GREGG\FRBagreementissue.doc\g Page 2. The Strander/SW 27th Street Extension project is very costly because it involves grade- separated crossings over two rail lines. Development of the project has been slowed by the need to obtain adequate funding. The City entered into an Agreement with the Boeing Company that resulted in the dedication of a 90-foot wide right-of-way through the Boeing Longacres property to accommodate the roadway project. An opportunity has now presented itself to build an approximately 1,700-foot segment of the roadway starting in late 2005 or early 2006. This segment would extend from Oakesdale Ave. westward to the driveway of the proposed Federal Reserve Bank facility located on the Boeing Longacres property. In late 2004 the City Council approved use of $197,437 of transportation improvement funding to design this segment of the project. Early construction of this segment of the road would yield several benefits. The cost of the roadway segment would be identified as local matching funds for our ongoing grant applications for the Strander Extension project. This would improve our chances of securing additional grant funding. It would also demonstrate the City's resolve to build the roadway to other important stakeholders such as Tukwila, the Boeing Company, Sound Transit, and our State and Federal legislators who have recently worked to secure financial support for the project. It would provide a high quality primary access roadway for the Federal Reserve Bank and add incentive for future development of the Longacres site. The proposed joint use of a water quality/detention pond for both the FRB facility and segment 1 of the roadway will result in a savings of approximately $1,000,000 compared to the cost of a concrete vault under the roadway. A financial analysis indicates that development of the FRB facility will result in one-time tax revenues of approximately $200,000 and annual revenues of$130,000 which could be used to offset the cost of debt service for the bonds. In addition to these considerations, construction of segment 1 of the roadway will help to satisfy a condition of the earlier Boeing Agreement that would allow the 90-foot right-of-way to revert back to Boeing ownership if the road is not built. For these reasons the Administration strongly recommends that the City enter into the Agreement with the Federal Reserve Bank to construct segment 1 of the first phase of the SW 27th Street/Strander Blvd. Extension project. Construction of Segment 1 of the first phase of the Strander Blvd. Extension project would be funded by issuance of bonds in the amount of$3,000,000.00. Approval of this Agreement is therefore reliant on Council approval of the issuance of bonds in the amount needed to build this project. It is the Administration's intention to roll this bond issuance into the proposed bond issuance to build the Lakeshore Landing roadway and utility improvements. PROVISIONS OF THE AGREEMENT: The main provisions of the Agreement are as follow: > The schedule of construction for the road shall be no later than is set forward in Schedule D of the Agreement. H:\Div is ion.s\ADMIN\GREGG\FRB agreementissue.doc\g Page 3. ➢ The water line shall be paid for by the Federal Reserve Bank and the property seller except that any costs in excess of$278,815 shall be borne by the City. ➢ The sewer line shall be paid for by the Federal Reserve Bank and the property seller except that any costs in excess of$90,000 shall be borne by the City. ➢ The Federal Reserve Bank shall pay for design and construction of the franchise utilities (i.e. electricity, natural gas, cable television, data/voice communications, etc.). If the franchise utility plans are available they will be placed into the roadway contract documents so that installation of the franchise utilities can be coordinated with the road construction. ➢ Provisions that the Federal Reserve Bank and the City have rights to complete the project and be compensated for their work in case of default of the other agency. ➢ The Federal Reserve Bank shall purchase the Stormwater Detention parcel at a cost estimated to be $847,484.00. This parcel shall be the site of a water quality/detention facility jointly used by the Federal Reserve Bank and the City road project. Each party shall pay their proportionate share of both the cost of this parcel and the cost of the design and construction of the water quality/detention facility based upon the amount of peak runoff calculated to enter the facility from the two respective projects. The Federal Reserve Bank shall purchase the property and the City shall reimburse them upon substantial completion of the construction of the water quality/detention facility. ➢ The Federal Reserve Bank shall design the water quality/detention facility and the plan drawings shall be incorporated into the road project plan set. The City shall construct this facility as part of the roadway construction project. ➢ The Stormwater Parcel and the water quality/detention facility shall be dedicated to the City by the Federal Reserve Bank. The City shall be responsible for operating the facility and performing basic (functional) and enhanced maintenance (aesthetic) items on the facility. All costs of basic maintenance shall be borne by the City, and all costs of enhanced maintenance shall be borne by the Federal Reserve Bank. However, should the City require that certain aesthetic gateway features be incorporated into the detention pond design, the City shall be responsible for the costs of maintaining such features. cc: Jay Covington Larry Warren Alex Pietsch Sandra Meyer Leslie Lahndt Rob Lochmiller H:\Division.s\ADMIN\GREGG\FRBagreementissue.doc\g OPINION OF COST Perteet Inc. Strander Boulevard Extension Project - Stage 1 East of RR Tracks to Oakesdale Ave. SW 60% ESTIMATE February 2005 ITEM UNITS QUANTITY UNIT PRICE AMOUNT CHEDULE A-Roadwa Improvements ,m.._. Mobilization (10%) LS 1 $171,900 $171,900 SPCC Plan LS 1 $3,000 $3,000 Record Drawings LS 1 $6,000 $6,000 Traffic Control Labor HR 1920 $36 $69,120 Temporary Traffic Control Devices LS 1 $10,000 $10,000 Sawcut LF 155 $3 $465 Remove Existing ACP SY 4480 $7 $31,360 Remove Existing Cement Concrete SY 280 $7 $1,960 Clearing and Grubbing AC 4 $5,000 $20,000 Remove Structure and Obstruction LS 1 $5,000 $5,000 Roadway Excavation Including Haul CY 1200 $15 $18,000 Structure Excavation,Class B Incl. Haul CY 1150 $15 $17,250 Shoring or Extra Excavation Class B SF 2450 $1 $2,450 Gravel Borrow, Incl. Haul TON 38700 $13 $503,100 Crushed Surfacing Top Course TON 280 $22 $6,160 Crushed Surfacing Base Course TON 2270 $22 $49,940 Hot Mix Asphalt Class 1/2"PG 58-22 TON 2740 $50 $137,000 Hot Mix Asphalt Class 1" PG 58-22 TON 5340 $50 $267,000 Storm Sewer Pipe, 8"Dia. LF 10 $35 $350 Storm Sewer Pipe, 12"Dia. LF 880 $35 $30,800 Storm Sewer Pipe, 18"Dia. LF 430 $45 $19,350 Storm Sewer Pipe, 24"Dia. LF 400 $55 $22,000 D.I. Storm Sewer Pipe, 12"Dia. LF 90 $55 $4,950 Catch Basin Type 1 EA 16 $1,200 $19,200 Catch Basin Type 2 48 In. Diam. EA 6 $2,000 $12,000 Catch Basin Type 2 54 In. Diam. EA 4 $2,500 $10,000 Adjust Catch Basin EA 4 $250 $1,000 Control Structure EA 1 $5,000 $5,000 Flow Dispersal Structure EA 1 $5,000 $5,000 Precast Detention Vault EA 1 $65,000 $65,000 ESC Lead DAY 24 $150 $3,600 Inlet Protection EA 34 $100 $3,400 Silt Fence LF 2850 $4 $11,400 Erosion/Water Pollution Control FA 1 $30,000 $30,000 Columnar Street Tree(2"Cal.) EA 96 $270 $25,920 Flowering Tree(2"Cal.) EA 26 $270 $7,020 Conifer Tree (8'-10' Ht.) EA 9 $125 $1,125 Groundcover(1 Gal. @18"o.c.) 1 EA 2825 $7 $19,775 Topsoil Type A CY 810 $35 $28,350 Sod SY 1480 $9 $13,320 Mulch CY 40 $35 $1,400 Irrigation SF 19680 $1 $19,680 12" Depth Root Barrier LF 1920 $7.50 $14,400 18" Depth Root Barrier LF 1920 $8 $15,360 Gravel Backfill for Dry Wells LS 1 $500 $500 Erosion Control Seed SF 25300 $0.10 $2,530 Seeding, Fertilizing, and Mulching AC 1.1 _ $3,500 $3,850 Cement Concrete Traffic Curb and Gutter LF 4350 _ $15 $65,250 Cement Conc. Sidewalk SY 1220 $25 $30,500 OPINION OF COST Perteet Inc. Strander Boulevard Extension Project - Stage 1 East of RR Tracks to Oakesdale Ave. SW 60% ESTIMATE February 2005 ITEM UNITS QUANTITY UNIT PRICE AMOUNT Cement Conc. Sidewalk Ramp Type 113 EA 6 $1,000 $6,000 12' Cement Conc. Sidewalk Ramp EA 3 $2,000 $6,000 Illumination System LS 1 $42,000 $42,000 Traffic Signal System LS 1 $17,000 $17,000 Type 3 Barricade EA 8 $500 $4,000 Permanent Signing LS 1 $4,200 $4,200 Paint Line LF 3100 $0.20 $620 Plastic Wide Line LF 220 $3 $660 Plastic Stop Line LF 190 $5 $950 Plastic Crosswalk Line SF 1260 $5 $6,300 Plastic Traffic Arrow EA 4 $50 $200 Contingency(15%) $257,900 Total Schedule A $2,157,565 SCHEDULE B Water /L7 , OOO Contingency(15%) ( f?Pi\ \ $0 Sub Total Schedule B �\j6(j '/-- $0 Sales Tax(@ 8.8%) FRIS C,® Sr) $0 Total Schedule B $0 CHEDULE C-.Sanity Sewer , Contingency(15%) $0 (F-12,0 coefiri,N, Sub Total Schedule C $0 Sales Tax(@ 8.8%) _$0 Total Schedule C $0 Crjva5 VlA CI i(In _ L7rci - 251CYz 4e 6as90 Contingency(15%) $0 Total Schedule D $0 Total Estimated Construction Cost 1 1 1 1 $2,157,565 • CIT yr OF RENToN STRANDER BOULEVARD EXTENSION PROJECT - STAGE 1 x XT • `/ sw rni sT 1110N Phi ';<, AND VICINITY MAP "� 0o*Al IONS A�I' IONS •-- I r =w,eTR st CONTROL PLAN \ j°1, ��'SION AND SEDIMENT �� kro �` 1i ,,, „ PROJECT SI LAN ' r \ . \I =I PLAN sTw+ R BLVD — = DETAIL — �� S" ST L =1 & IG, AND ILLUMINATION © 1 t W —I In a5 1 S SW 34TH ST 11 I / 12 41,1- , . _ ■ 1 „W, U I SW 41ST ST o 1/) N S leoTN ST SW 431to ST ' I (S 180TH 5T) –.."Sli iJ) I / / I I ® �I VICINITY MAP NOT TO SCALE VIEW . NONE - CI T RINT Perteet... R E P sus Casst-,roo+aeoa,e..m TION I I DATUM Plannmnn, ��'`� c.«CAPA^ ^m,9 �. q/Building/Pubs NO. REVISION BY DATE APPR .^4444 STRANDER BOULEVARD ., \ ,.., \\'' a WI w �� Q �� G 4 +_ Federal Reserve Bank Streetacape p f i ra `1 Refined edge with mowed grass lawn w ' hlo street trees to this area Y S or II •Different street tree type in this area i P y r . b' • • 'C _ Tii � 4 ` ;mat ..•�41 - - ii 0 50' 100' 200' NORTH r"—"L_.! 1 ___..._______ H� aKk A 66 laird c.'' "Strcindor Bouiuvard Laidsc, pc Concept PLi _ ..... . +.rnx.. t AGREEMENT (REGARDING 27TH STREET PARCEL/STORMWATER DETENTION PARCEL) This Agreement ("Agreement') is made and entered into as of April_, 2005, by and between THE CITY OF RENTON, a municipal corporation (the "City'), and THE FEDERAL RESERVE BANK OF SAN FRANCISCO ("FRB'). RECITALS A. Pursuant to the terms and conditions of that certain Real Property Purchase and Sale Agreement (the "Purchase Agreement') dated November 5, 2004, between FRB, as buyer, and Longacres Park, Inc., as seller ("Seller'), FRB has agreed to purchase approximately 10.8 acres of real property located within an area anticipated to be developed into an office park to be known as Longacres Office Park(the "Subject Property'). B. The Subject Property includes a parcel of real property of approximately 9.6 acres that will be legally established by a Binding Site Plan amendment on which FRB intends to construct a facility for its Seattle-area branch administration, cash processing and storage operations (the "FRB Parcel'), and an additional parcel of approximately 1.2 acres identified as "Tract D" on that certain Boeing Longacres Property Amended Binding Site Plan approved by the City of Renton on December 16, 2002 and recorded in the land records of King County, Washington in Volume 219 of plats at Pages 67 through 73, inclusive, under Recording No. 20040108000164 (the "Stormwater Detention Parcel'). The Subject Property is located immediately south of a 90-foot wide right-of-way extending from Oaksdale to the Burlington Northern railroad tracks that abuts the westerly boundary of the Boeing Longacres Office Park (the "27th Street Parcel'). The 27th Street Parcel is intended to be improved as a five-lane extension of Southwest 27th Street and utilized as a public street and utility corridor. The 27th Street Parcel constitutes only a segment (called the "Phase I Segment") of the planned extension of Southwest 27th Street, and such extension extends to the west of Oaksdale. The 27th Street Parcel was previously dedicated by Seller to the City pursuant to that certain Strander Agreement between the City and Seller dated December 4, 2002 (the "Strander Agreement'). The Subject Property, FRB Parcel, Stormwater Detention Parcel, and the 27th Street Parcel are each depicted on the conceptual site plan attached hereto as Exhibit A, and are each legally described on Exhibit B. C. The parties have entered into this Agreement, among other reasons, to set forth their respective obligations with respect to development, construction, ownership, use and maintenance of(i) the street, utilities, and related improvements to be located on and within the 27th Street Parcel (the "27th Street Improvements," which includes the street, median, traffic signals, signs, and markings, curbs, gutters, sidewalks, certain municipal utilities and easements for franchise utilities, drainage facilities, landscaping, and all other improvements of any kind and nature within the 27th Street Parcel), and (ii) the stormwater detention facilities to be located on the Stormwater Detention Parcel (the "Stormwater Detention Facilities," which includes the culverts, pipes, excavation work, earth berms, lining, AGREEMENT PAGE 1 #297409 18173-002.07 60HD03!.Doc landscaping, signage, and all other improvements of any kind and nature within the Stormwater Detention Parcel ). AGREEMENTS In consideration of the mutual covenants and promises contained herein, and for other good and valuable consideration, the receipt and sufficiency of which are hereby acknowledged, the City and FRB agree as follows: 1. 27th Street Improvements. 1.1 Plans and Specifications. Attached hereto as Exhibit C are the plans and specifications (in their current state) for the 27th Street Improvements. FRB hereby approves such plans and specifications in their current state of detail. The City shall proceed with reasonable diligence to complete such plans and specifications with all detail required for bidding and contracting for construction of the 27th Street Improvements, and shall periodically provide FRB with updated plans and specifications in accordance with the deadlines set forth in Exhibit D. Within 5 business days of receiving updated plans for the 27th Street Improvements, FRB shall notify the City if FRB has any questions, comments, or objections to such plans and specifications, in which case the parties shall meet and diligently attempt to work out any differences. FRB's failure to notify the City of any objections to such plans or specifications within such 5 business day period shall constitute FRB's acceptance and approval of such plans. In the process of completing such plans and specifications, the City shall also consult with FRB before making any substantial changes to or deviations from the plans attached hereto as Exhibit C or any updated plans previously provided to FRB. The City shall obtain FRB's final written approval of the 100% completed bid- ready plans and specifications for the 27th Street Improvements before submitting such plans and specifications to contractors for bidding and before entering into any contracts for construction of the 27th Street Improvements. FRB's approval of such final bid-ready plans and specifications shall not be unreasonably withheld or delayed, and FRB's failure to object to such final plans within 5 business days after it has received them shall be deemed to constitute approval of the plans. Any material changes in excess of $30,000 to the plans and specifications, including but not limited to change orders or field changes occurring during the construction process, shall be subject to FRB's prior written approval, but such approval shall not be unreasonably withheld or delayed and shall be deemed given if FRB has not responded in writing with objections within 5 business days after receiving notice of such proposed changes. 1.2 Schedule. Subject to FRB's rights under Section 1.6, below, the City shall commence and/or continue with design, permitting, environmental review, development, and construction of the 27th Street Improvements in a timely and workmanlike manner and shall diligently attempt to proceed with and complete all such tasks in accordance with the milestones and deadlines included in the schedule set forth on Exhibit D. Subject to any further delay that may be allowed as a result of a Force Majeure Event, the City's failure to meet any milestone or deadline within the"grace period"shown on such schedule shall constitute a default hereunder. AGREEMENT PAGE 2 #297409 18173-002.07 60H003!.00c 1.3 Franchise Utilities. The City shall also grant to private utilities such franchise rights to construct utilities over the 27th Street Parcel as are shown in the plans and specifications or are needed for installation of the franchise utilities. 1.4 Costs. The City shall obtain necessary funding and bear all costs associated with the design, development and construction of the 27th Street Improvements, except for (i) the costs of the franchise utility extensions, and (ii) the portion of the costs associated with design and construction of the water and sewer extensions for which FRB is required to pay or reimburse the City as described below.. 1.4.1 Water and sewer utility extensions will be designed and constructed by the City of Renton. All costs associated with designing and constructing the water line extension and sewer line extension (referred to respectively herein as the "Water Line Costs" and "Sewer Line Costs", as further defined below) shall be allocated between FRB (with contributions from Seller, as described below) and the City as follows: • The first$278,815 of Water Line Costs shall be allocated to and borne by FRB (with contributions from Seller, as described below), with the City to be solely responsible for any additional Water Line Costs in excess of such cap; and • The first$90,000 of Sewer Line Costs shall be allocated to and borne by FRB (with contributions from Seller, as described below), with the City to be solely responsible for any additional Sewer Line Costs in excess of such cap. 1.4.2 The City shall invoice FRB on a periodic (but not more frequently than monthly) basis for any Water Line Costs or Sewer Line Costs for which it is seeking reimbursement or payment from FRB under this Section and, at the request of FRB, will provide FRB with contractor invoices, progress reports, or other documentation evidencing such costs. FRB agrees to pay or reimburse the City for such invoices within sixty (60) days after receipt thereof. Any such payments that are not paid when due shall accrue interest at a rate equal to 10% per annum. Although Seller is not a party and is not contractually obligated under this Agreement, the City acknowledges and agrees that FRB and Seller have entered into a side agreement pursuant to which Seller has agreed to pay or reimburse the City for a portion of the Water Line Costs and Sewer Line Costs for which FRB is responsible under this Agreement. 1.4.3 Franchise utilities (i.e., electricity, natural gas, cable television, data/voice communications, etc.) will be constructed at the expense of the FRB and/or the Seller. The City is in no way responsible for the design or construction of franchise utilities. 1.4.4 In the event that any portion of the 27th Street Improvements is developed or constructed by FRB pursuant to Section 1.6 below or as otherwise agreed between FRB and the City, the City shall reimburse FRB for any costs incurred by FRB in connection therewith (including but not limited to customary and reasonable construction management fees and a customary and reasonable allowance for general contractor profit and overhead). Such reimbursement shall be made on an ongoing, periodic basis in a schedule to be mutually established by the City and FRB not to exceed three years. Any AGREEMENT PAGE 3 #297409 18173-002.07 60HD03!.00c amounts not reimbursed by the City when due pursuant to such schedule (and in any event not later than three (3) years after completion of such improvements) shall thereafter accrue interest at a rate equal to 10% per annum. 1.4.5 For purposes of this Section 1.4, "Water Line Costs" shall mean any reasonable, out-of-pocket costs of planning, designing, permitting, and constructing the water line extension, including but not limited to the following reasonable out-of-pocket costs: design fees, architectural fees,engineering fees, consultants'fees, contractors'and subcontractors'fees, attorneys'fees and costs for permit processing, construction management and supervision fees, document preparation costs, plan check or administrative review fees, permit fees, survey costs, bond premiums and costs, bid costs, construction costs, industrial, property, liability and other insurance costs, surety and indemnity costs, materials and supplies costs, equipment costs, labor costs, testing and monitoring costs, inspection fees, maintenance and repair costs incurred prior to completion of the water line extension, and all other costs of any kind whatsoever reasonably necessary for construction of the water line extension. 1.4.6 For purposes of this Section 1.4, "Sewer Line Costs" shall mean any reasonable, out-of-pocket costs of planning, designing, permitting, and constructing the Sewer line extension, including but not limited to the following reasonable out-of-pocket costs: design fees, architectural fees, engineering fees, consultants'fees, contractors' and subcontractors'fees, attorneys'fees and costs for permit processing, construction management and supervision fees, document preparation costs, plan check or administrative review fees, permit fees, survey costs, bond premiums and costs, bid costs, construction costs, industrial, property, liability and other insurance costs, surety and indemnity costs, materials and supplies costs, equipment costs, labor costs, testing and monitoring costs, inspection fees, maintenance and repair costs incurred prior to completion of the sewer line extension, and all other costs of any kind whatsoever reasonably necessary for construction of the sewer line extension. 1.5 Construction Coordination to Ensure Access to Subject Property. Prior to commencement and after completion of the 27th Street Improvements, FRB shall have free and unlimited access to the 27th Street Parcel and any existing improvements located thereon for purposes of accessing the Subject Property, developing the Subject Property, and constructing improvements thereon. Following commencement of construction of the 27th Street Improvements, FRB and the City shall coordinate their respective construction activities and work cooperatively so as to enable and preserve for FRB reasonable vehicular access to the Subject Property, and shall schedule the construction of the 27th Street Improvements so as to facilitate such access, so long as FRB's use of the 27th Street Parcel does not unreasonably interfere with completion of the 27th Street Improvements. The FRB shall be responsible for any and all costs associated with repairing any damage to the 27th Street improvements during or after its construction, to the extent such damage is caused by FRB or its contractors while using the parcel to access the FRB site during the period of construction of FRB facilities. 1.6 FRB Right to Complete Upon City Default. If design, development or construction of the 27th Street Improvements at any time falls behind the schedule of milestones and deadlines shown in Exhibit D by more than the applicable "grace period" shown therein (subject to AGREEMENT PAGE 4 #297409 18173-002.07 60H003!.00C extension upon the occurrence of a"Force Majeure Event", as defined below), FRB may give written notice of such tardiness to the City, and upon receipt of such notice, the City shall have an additional"cure period" as shown in Exhibit D to accelerate the design, development, and construction of the 27th Street Improvements so that no unsatisfied milestone or deadline on such schedule remains behind schedule by a margin of time that is more than the applicable grace period. However, if, after receipt of such notice and expiration of such additional cure period, the design, development, or construction of any unsatisfied item on the schedule for the 27th Street Improvements remains behind schedule by a margin longer than the applicable grace period, FRB may, by written notice to the City, state that the City is in default and elect to complete all or a portion of the 27th Street Improvements, or may complete temporary improvements on the 27th Street Parcel for purposes of providing access and utilities to the Subject Property in accordance with Section 1.3. With respect to any such temporary improvements that FRB elects to complete upon City default, the City shall be obligated under Section 1.4.4 to reimburse FRB for the cost of such improvements only to the extent that such temporary improvements are incorporated into and become part of the 27th Street Improvements. In addition, in the event that incorporating such temporary improvements into the 27th Street Improvements causes the City to incur additional expenses (other than such reimbursement obligation), the amount of such expenses shall be deducted from the City's reimbursement obligation with respect to such temporary improvements. Any entry of FRB onto the 27th Street Parcel for completion of all or a portion of the 27th Street Improvements or for construction of temporary improvements shall be subject to the following terms and conditions: 1.6.1 Easement. To the extent a temporary easement is necessary, the City hereby grants to FRB a temporary easement to FRB on, over and under the 27th Street Parcel for the purposes of enabling FRB to access the Subject Property by vehicle over the 27th Street Parcel, and for the purposes of constructing (i)such portion of the 27th Street Improvements (including but not limited to the road, drainage, and utilities) as FRB may elect to construct or (ii)any other temporary improvements over the 27th Street Parcel to enable vehicular access after the City has been notified that it is in default pursuant to this Section 1.6. This subsection 1.6.1 is a presently effective grant of such easement, but upon FRB's demand after the City has failed to cure a default under this Section 1.6 within the applicable cure period, the City shall execute, have notarized, and deliver to FRB for recording such Memorandum of Easement as FRB may reasonably require, so long as such Memorandum of Easement is consistent with the terms hereof. Such temporary easement shall terminate when the 27th Street Improvements have been completed and the road and utilities thereon are available for public use by FRB, as owner of the Subject Property. 1.6.2 FRB Discretion as to Completion. If FRB elects to exercise its rights to complete particular 27th Street Improvements, it shall first consult with the City as to its plans, and the parties shall attempt to reach agreement on FRB's construction activities and the arrangements for payment or reimbursement therefor by the City. If the 27th Street Improvements are not yet commenced, and no contract has been signed for the construction of them, and FRB does not want to assume the responsibility for completing all of the 27th Street Improvements, FRB may construct whatever portion of the 27th Street Improvements it deems reasonable, or may construct or install such temporary facilities, including but not limited to a temporary two-lane gravel or asphalt road or temporary utilities, to provide AGREEMENT PAGE 5 #297409 18173-002.07 6DHo03!.00c temporary vehicular access and utilities to the FRB property. FRB may also at any time elect not to construct any improvements on the 27th Street Parcel if the City is not making payment or reimbursement when due as agreed to between the parties. 1.6.3 Assignment of Contracts. Should the City fall behind the schedule of milestones and deadlines shown in Exhibit D by more than the applicable "grace period" shown therein, FRB may elect to engage other contractors to commence or complete such work as is necessary to provide access and City utilities to the FRB. The City's duty to reimburse the FRB shall be as detailed in Section 1.4 herein. The FRB shall be required to provide the City with copies of all contractor, subcontractor, consultant, or other invoices for which FRB is seeking reimbursement. 1.6.4 Permits. The City shall cooperate to the fullest extent permitted by law in processing or joining in applications for any permits or permit modifications that may be required but have not yet been obtained, or for any permits needed for such temporary improvements as FRB may elect to construct on the 27th Street Parcel. Furthermore, the City shall process any such permit applications on an expedited basis to the fullest extent allowed by law. The City shall not withhold, delay, or intentionally and unreasonably condition any such permits for 27th Street Improvements or temporary improvements on the 27th Street Parcel merely to avoid its payment or reimbursement obligations hereunder, nor shall it withhold, delay, or intentionally and unreasonably condition any permit processes for the improvements to be constructed on the Subject Property merely to avoid or delay its payment or reimbursement obligations hereunder. However, the City shall be entitled to exercise its municipal functions in a lawful and reasonable manner, consistent with its normal practices and all applicable laws, codes, and ordinances. 1.6.5 Intervention Permitted Only Upon City Default. Notwithstanding the foregoing, FRB acknowledges and agrees that it shall have no right to intervene in the City's design, permitting, environmental review, development and construction of the 27th Street Improvements, and shall have no right to construct the 27th Street Improvements or any temporary improvements on the 27th Street Parcel at the City's expense so long as the City proceeds with the design, permitting, environmental review, development, and construction of the 27th Street Improvements in accordance with the schedule attached as Schedule D, or within the applicable grace periods provided for in such schedule, in each instance subject to delays permitted by Force Majeure Events. 1.7 Force Majeure. To the extent any delay in completion of the 27th Street Improvements is caused by a Force Majeure Event, the 27th Street Milestone Deadlines shall be extended by the period of delay that reasonably and unavoidably occurs as a direct result of such Force Majeure Event. For purposes of this Agreement, "Force Majeure Event" shall mean any event beyond the reasonable control of the parties, including, without limitation: (a) acts of God including fire, storm, flood, earthquake, or other casualty, (b)war, civil commotion, or enemy or hostile government action that impacts a substantial portion of the construction activities in King County, Washington, (c) unavoidable delays in federal or agency processes or judicial orders, (d) strike or work stoppage, (e) unavailability of materials necessary to complete portions of the work, (f) discovery of archeological sites which require work stoppage or substantial reordering of work, causing substantial delay,or(g)discovery of contaminated soils AGREEMENT PAGE 6 #297409 18173-002.07 6DHD03!.Doc or material requiring clean up; provided, however, that precipitation or other adverse weather must be extraordinary, deviant from seasonal, periodic, or daily norms or must cause extraordinary difficulties on the work site before it will be recognized as a Force Majeure event. Notwithstanding any other provision of this Agreement, FRB's rights under Sections 1.6, 3.7, or elsewhere in this Agreement to intervene and complete some or all of the 27th Street Improvements, temporary improvements in lieu thereof, or the Stormwater Detention Facility shall not be delayed by more than 90 days due to a Force Majeure Event if such Force Majeure Event would not affect FRB (e.g., if the Force Majeure Event was a City strike that prevented the City but not FRB from completing such projects), even though such Force Majeure Event may excuse performance and cause the City not to be in default under this Agreement. 2. Acquisition of Stormwater Detention Parcel; Allocation of Purchase Price. Under the terms of the Purchase Agreement, the purchase price for all of the Subject Property is $16.212963 per square foot of gross area within the Subject Property(estimated to be$7,627,356, assuming approximately 10.8 acres or 470,448 square feet). Such total purchase price shall be allocated pro rata between Stormwater Detention Parcel and the FRB Parcel in accordance with their relative square footages, thereby establishing the "Stormwater Detention Parcel Purchase Price"(estimated to be $847,484, assuming that the Stormwater Detention Parcel is 1.2 acres or 52,272 square feet, or approximately 11.11% of the total area of the Subject Property). The Stormwater Detention Parcel Purchase Price shall then be allocated between the City and FRB in accordance with their respective "Stormwater Percentages", as such term is defined in Section 3.2. The City shall reimburse FRB an amount equal to the City's Stormwater Percentage of the Stormwater Detention Parcel Purchase Price upon substantial completion of construction of the Stormwater Detention Facility, and in any event not later than March 1, 2007. 3. Construction, Ownership, Operation and Maintenance of Stormwater Detention Facilities. 3.1 Overview of Steps of Transaction. 3.1.1 The parties intend that the Stormwater Parcel will be initially acquired and owned by FRB, but will be dedicated to the City within 30 days after the closing of the sale of the same to FRB ("Closing"). 3.1.2 Concurrently with FRB's acquisition of the Stormwater Parcel, FRB and the City of Renton shall execute an "Agreement for Easement and Covenants Regarding Stormwater Detention Facilities" in the form attached hereto as Exhibit H (the "Stormwater Detention Facilities Easement). Such instrument shall grant a stormwater drainage, detention, and maintenance easement to the City for the benefit of the 27th Street Parcel and to FRB for the benefit of the FRB Parcel, and shall memorialize the perpetual covenants that shall run with ownership of both parcels relating to perpetual use of the Stormwater Parcel solely for stormwater detention and landscaping and maintenance of the Stormwater Parcel. 3.1.3. FRB will design the Stormwater Detention Facilities in the Stormwater Parcel in accordance with plans and specifications approved by the City in writing. The City shall construct AGREEMENT PAGE 7 #297409 18173-002.07 6oro03!.Doc the Stormwater Detention Facility as part of the 27th Street Improvements. The costs of all such design, permitting, environmental review, development, and construction, as well as any ongoing maintenance, shall be allocated between and shared by the City and FRB as described herein. 3.1.4 FRB shall dedicate and convey ownership of the Stormwater Parcel to the City within 30 days after Closing, but the Stormwater Detention Facilities Easement that benefits the City (as owner of the 27th Street Parcel)and FRB (as owner of the FRB Parcel), shall remain in effect. 3.1.5 Even after the City acquires the Stormwater Parcel by dedication, the costs of ongoing maintenance of the Stormwater Parcel shall continue to be allocated between and shared by the City and FRB as described herein and in the Stormwater Detention Facilities Easement, and this Agreement shall continue in existence perpetually as a covenant running with ownership of the FRB Parcel and the 27th Street Parcel, or until the owners of such parcels mutually agree in writing to modify or terminate the Stormwater Detention Facilities Easement any applicable provisions of this Agreement. 3.2 Allocation of Detention Capacity; Stormwater Percentages of the Parties. The total gross detention capacity of the Stormwater Detention Facilities to be constructed in the Stormwater Parcel is estimated to be 212,865 cubic feet. Of this total, the City and FRB hereby agree that this total capacity shall be allocated between the City, for the benefit of the 27th Street Parcel, and FRB, for the benefit of the FRB Parcel, in the following manner, resulting in the following "Stormwater Percentages"for purposes of allocating and sharing certain costs under this Agreement: Party Detention Capacity(cubic feet) Stormwater Percentage FRB 114,947.1 cubic feet 55% City of Renton 97,917.9 cubic feet 45% Totals: 212,865 cubic feet 100% Each of FRB, as owner of the FRB Parcel, and the City, as owner of the 27th Street Parcel, agrees to design, permit, and construct stormwater drainage and/or detention facilities so that the amount of stormwater detention that it is permitted to utilize within the Stormwater Detention Facilities (based on calculations made under the Washington Department of Ecology Stormwater Management Manual for Western Washington, August 2001 edition) will not exceed its share of such detention capacity as shown above. If the Stormwater Detention Facilities shall ever become overloaded or shall fail because FRB or the City has violated this provision, then the party who is guilty of such violation shall be solely obligated to repair and to pay for the cost of repair of any damage to the Stormwater Detention Facilities or to the parcel owned by the other party that was caused by such violation, and shall promptly commence the design, permitting, and construction of such additional stormwater drainage or detention facilities on its respective parcel as are required for such party not to be in violation of this provision governing the allocation of the total capacity of the Stormwater Detention Facilities. AGREEMENT PAGE 8 #297409 18173-002.07 6oHo03!.Doc 3.3 Plans and Specifications. Attached hereto as Exhibit E are the plans and specifications (in their current state) for the Stormwater Detention Facilities, which include approximately 50% of the total estimated required engineering and construction detail. The City hereby approves such plans and specifications in their current state of detail. FRB shall proceed with reasonable diligence to complete such plans and specifications with all detail required for bidding and contracting for construction of the Stormwater Detention Facilities and shall periodically provide the City with updated plans and specifications in accordance with the deadlines set forth in Exhibit F. Within 5 business days of receiving updated plans for the Stormwater Detention Facilities, the City shall notify FRB if the City has any questions, comments, or objections to such plans and specifications, in which case the parties shall meet and diligently attempt to work out any differences. The final plans for the Stormwater Facility will be turned over to the City and will be incorporated into the 27th Street Improvement Plans. In the process of completing such plans and specifications, FRB shall also consult with the City before making any substantial changes to or deviations from the plans attached hereto as Exhibit E or any updated plans previously provided to the City. FRB shall obtain the City's final written approval of the 100% completed bid-ready plans and specifications for the Stormwater Detention Facilities before the plans will be incorporated into the 27th Street Improvement Plans. The City's approval of such final bid-ready plans and specifications shall not be unreasonably withheld or delayed. After the plans have been incorporated into the 27th Street Improvements Plans, any material changes to the plans and specifications, including but not limited to change orders or field changes occurring during the construction process, shall be subject to the FRB's prior written approval, but such approval shall not be unreasonably withheld and shall be deemed given if the FRB has not responded in writing with objections within 5 business days after receiving notice of such proposed changes. All time periods for review in this Section, apply to both the FRB and to the Public Works Department in its engineering capacity and as investor in the facility, but do not apply to the Development Services Division in its capacity of providing regulatory review and approval. 3.4 Schedule. Subject to the City's rights under Section 3.8, below, FRB shall commence and/or continue with design of the Stormwater Detention Facilities in a timely and workmanlike manner and shall diligently attempt to proceed with and complete all such tasks in accordance with the milestones and deadlines included in the schedule set forth on Exhibit F. Likewise, subject to the FRB's rights under Section 3.8 below, the City shall commence and/or continue with environmental review and construction of the Stormwater Detention Facilities in a timely and workmanlike manner and shall diligently attempt to proceed with and complete all such tasks in accordance with the milestones and deadlines included in the schedule set forth in Exhibit D. Subject to any further delay that may be allowed as a result of a Force Majeure Event, the City's failure to meet any milestone or deadline within the "grace period" shown on such schedule shall constitute a default hereunder. 3.5 Allocation and Payment of Shared Costs. All "Shared Costs" associated with the design, permitting, environmental review, development, and construction of the Stormwater Detention Facilities shall be allocated between the City and FRB pro rata in accordance with their respective Stormwater Percentages. For purposes of this Agreement, the term "Shared Costs" shall mean all reasonable, out-of-pocket costs of planning, designing, permitting, and constructing the Stormwater Detention Facilities (regardless of whether such costs were incurred before or after the date of this AGREEMENT PAGE 9 #297409 18173-002.07 6oHD03!.Doc Agreement), including but not limited to the following reasonable costs: design fees, architectural fees, engineering fees, consultants' fees, contractors' and subcontractors' fees, attorneys' fees and costs for permit processing, construction management and supervision fees, document preparation costs, plan check or administrative review fees, permit fees, survey costs, bond premiums and costs, bid costs, construction costs, industrial, property, liability and other insurance costs, surety and indemnity costs, materials and supplies costs, equipment costs, labor costs, testing and monitoring costs, inspection fees, maintenance and repair costs, and all other costs of any kind whatsoever arising out of or reasonably necessary for construction of the Stormwater Detention Facilities. FRB shall provide the City with a breakdown of the estimated costs of design. The City shall provide the FRB with a breakdown of the estimated costs of environmental review, permitting development and construction. The City, throughout construction, and until final closeout and payment, will maintain separate books accounting for and recording costs to be reimbursed. Each party agrees to pay its Stormwater Percentage of Shared Costs, or, if its Stormwater Percentage of such Shared Costs is advanced by the other party (which is anticipated to be the case as FRB advances funds to design the Stormwater Detention Facilities), to reimburse the other party for such advanced portion within 30 days after final completion of the Stormwater Detention Facilities. Any amounts not so reimbursed within 30 days of a party's receipt of a demand for reimbursement with supporting invoices shall accrue interest at a rate equal to 10% per annum. 3.6 Construction Coordination. The City and the FRB shall create a Construction Project Coordination Team and an Executive Team. Whenever conflicts arise on the construction of Southwest 27th Street, the access to the FRB site, or the Detention Facility, the Construction Project Coordination Team shall meet and attempt to resolve those problems. The Construction Project Coordination Team shall consist of technical representatives from the City and the FRB with the technical expertise in the particular area at issue. There shall also be created a Construction Executive Team which shall resolve all policy or discretionary issues not resolved by the Construction Project Coordination Team. 3.7 FRB Right to Complete Stormwater Detention Facility Upon City Default. If construction of the Stormwater Detention Facilities at any time falls behind the schedule of milestones and deadlines shown in Exhibit D by more than the applicable "grace period" shown therein (subject to extension upon the occurrence of a "Force Majeure Event", as defined below), the FRB may give written notice of such tardiness to the City, and upon receipt of such notice, the City shall have an additional "cure period" as shown in Exhibit D to accelerate the construction of the Stormwater Detention Facilities so that no unsatisfied milestone or deadline on such schedule remains behind schedule by a margin of time that is more than the applicable grace period. However, if, after receipt of such notice and expiration of such additional cure period, the construction of any unsatisfied item on the schedule for the Stormwater Detention Facilities remains behind schedule by a margin longer than the applicable grace period, the FRB may, by written notice to the City, elect to complete all or a portion of the Stormwater Detention Facilities, or may complete temporary improvements on the Stormwater Parcel for purposes of providing adequate stormwater detention for the FRB facility, with all costs advanced by the FRB constituting Shared Costs that are to be allocated between and shared by the City and FRB in accordance with their Stormwater Percentages. Delay by the FRB in providing the final design plans and specifications for the Facility to the City shall not be considered in any default and shall constitute an extension of all timelines and grace AGREEMENT PAGE 10 #297409 18173-002.07 60H003!.DOC periods under Exhibit D. Any entry of the FRB onto the Stormwater Parcel for completion of all or a portion of the Stormwater Detention Facilities or for construction of temporary improvements shall be subject to the following terms and conditions: 3.7.1 FRB Discretion as to Completion of the Stormwater Detention Facility. The FRB shall consult with the City as to its plans for the Stormwater Detention Facilities and the parties shall attempt to reach agreement on the City's construction activities and the arrangements for payment or reimbursement therefor by the FRB. However, lacking such agreement, the FRB shall have discretion to construct such improvements as the FRB believes are necessary or appropriate for the FRB to establish adequate stormwater detention facilities to accommodate the needs and requirements of the FRB facility within a time frame that will avoid any delay in the FRB's construction of the FRB facility. If the Stormwater Detention Facilities are substantially commenced and already partially complete and the FRB believes that it will achieve efficiencies and cost savings by completing the Stormwater Detention Facilities in complete or substantial accordance with the plans and specifications, the FRB may, in its sole discretion, elect to proceed with a full completion of all of the Stormwater Detention Facilities according to the approved plans and specifications, and the City shall be obligated to pay its Stormwater Percentage of all costs thereof. Conversely, if the Stormwater Detention Facilities are not yet commenced or are in very early stages of grading and construction and the FRB does not want to assume the responsibility for completing all of the Stormwater Detention Facilities, the FRB may construct whatever portion of the Stormwater Detention Facilities it deems reasonable, or may construct or install such temporary facilities, including but not limited to a temporary pond or temporary filtration or detention barriers. In that event, the City shall pay its Stormwater Percentage of the costs of any and all improvements undertaken by the FRB that will be incorporated into the permanent Stormwater Detention Facilities, but the City shall not be obligated to pay the costs of any temporary improvements that will need to be removed and will not be incorporated into the permanent Stormwater Detention Facilities. The FRB may also at any time elect not to construct any improvements on the Stormwater Parcel if the City is not making payment or reimbursement when due or is declining to acknowledge its obligation to make payment or reimbursement therefor. 3.7.2 Assumption of Construction of the Stormwater Detention Facility. Should the City fall behind the schedule of milestones and deadlines shown in Exhibit D by more than the applicable 'grace period" shown therein, the FRB may elect to engage other contractors to commence or complete such work as is necessary to provide storm water treatment and detention for the FRB facility. The City's duty to reimburse the FRB shall be as detailed in Section 1.4 herein. The FRB shall be required to provide the City with copies of all contractor, subcontractor, consultant, or other invoices for which FRB is seeking reimbursement. 3.7.3 Permits. The City shall cooperate to the fullest extent permitted by law in processing or joining in applications for any permits or permit modifications that may be required but have not yet been obtained, or for any permits needed for such temporary improvements as the FRB may elect to construct on the Stormwater Parcel. AGREEMENT PAGE 11 #297409 18173-002.07 6DH003!.00c 3.7.4 Intervention Permitted Only Upon City Default. Notwithstanding the foregoing, the FRB acknowledges and agrees that it shall have no right to intervene in the City's permitting, environmental review, development and construction of the Stormwater Detention Facilities, and shall have no right construct the Stormwater Detention Facilities or any temporary improvements on the Stormwater Parcel at the City's expense so long as the City proceeds with the permitting, environmental review, development, and construction of the Stormwater Detention Facilities in accordance with the schedule attached as Schedule D, or within the applicable grace periods provided for in such schedule, in each instance subject to delays permitted by Force Majeure Events. 3.8 Final Completion; Dedication to City. Upon substantial completion of the Stormwater Detention Facilities, the City shall provide the FRB with written notice of such completion. Upon receipt of such notice, the FRB shall have 30 days to inspect the Stormwater Detention Facilities in the presence of representatives of the City, the City's stormwater engineer, and the City's general contractor, to verifythat such facilities have been constructed in accordance with the final bid-ready plans and specifications that were previously provided to the City by FRB, subject to such further change orders and field changes that the FRB has previously approved. At any time during such 30 day period, the FRB may provide the City with a list of punch-list items that need to be completed or other corrections that need to be made in order for the Stormwater Detention Facilities to be in full accordance with the plans and specifications. If the FRB does not provide the City with punch list items or notify the City of other corrections that need to be made within such 30-day period, the Stormwater Detention Facilities will be deemed finally complete. The Stormwater Detention Facilities will also be deemed finally complete upon the City's completion of any required punch list items or other corrections. FRB shall dedicate and transfer the Stormwater Parcel to the City within 30 days after Closing of FRB's initial acquisition of the Stormwater Parcel, and the City agrees that it shall accept such dedication. Each party agrees that it shall execute such documents and take such other actions as reasonably necessary to complete such dedication. Such dedication shall require that the City perpetually use the Stormwater Parcel solely for purposes of stormwater detention and solely for the benefit of the 27th Street Parcel and the FRB Parcel, as described herein and in the Stormwater Detention Facilities Easement. The City agrees that it shall continue to own the 27th Street Parcel solely for stormwater detention purposes and shall not voluntarily convey ownership thereof to any other party unless otherwise consented to by the owner of the FRB Parcel. Along with dedication to the City, the FRB shall assign to the City any and all warranties, rights under contracts, or other documents related to the design of the Stormwater Detention Facilities and necessary to put the City in the FRB's position with respect to enforcing warranties, rights to compel repairs, and rights to compel replacement of defective work. 3.9 Ongoing Operation and Maintenance; Allocation of Costs. Following completion of the Stormwater Detention Facilities, the City shall be responsible for operating, maintaining, and repairing the Stormwater Detention Facilities in accordance with the Stormwater Detention Facilities Maintenance Schedule attached hereto as Exhibit G (the "Stormwater Detention Facilities Maintenance Schedule'). The City shall perform such maintenance tasks as are specifically identified as "Basic Maintenance Items"or "Enhanced Maintenance Items"on Exhibit G and shall perform such other AGREEMENT PAGE 12 #297409 18173-002.07 6oHo03Looc repairs, replacements, and maintenance as are required to continuously preserve the Stormwater Detention Facilities and the Easement Area in a neat, clean, and safe condition, in compliance with all statutes, ordinances, and other laws, and in conformity with all permit conditions, restrictions, and other requirements established with respect to the Easement Area under the binding site plan under which the Easement Area was created or is governed, and under any permit conditions associated with the permits and approvals given with respect to the 27th Street Parcel and the FRB Parcel. If at any time the City fails to perform such maintenance, FRB may elect, by providing written notice to the City, to perform such maintenance. All costs of the of the"Basic Maintenance Items"shall be borne by the City, and all costs of the"Enhanced Maintenance Items"set forth in the Stormwater Detention Facilities Maintenance Schedule shall be borne by the FRB. If the City incorporates a special aesthetic gateway feature, the City shall be responsible for the extra"Enhanced Maintenance"costs due to that feature. Each party agrees to pay its share of the costs of the Basic and Enhanced Maintenance Items, and if its share is advanced by the other party, to reimburse the other party for such share, within 30 days after receipt of such party's periodic(but not more frequently than monthly)invoices or demands therefor. Any amounts not so reimbursed within 30 days of a party's receipt of a demand for reimbursement with supporting invoices shall accrue interest at a rate equal to 10% per annum. No major capital improvements or replacements to the Stormwater Detention Facilities or changes to the Stormwater Detention Facilities Maintenance Schedule shall be made without the prior written approval of both FRB and the City. 3.10 Covenants Running with the Land. The Stormwater Detention Facilities Easement and the provisions of this Section 3 imposing ongoing obligation upon the parties which are intended to continue perpetually and indefinitely (including but not limited to the obligations under Section 3.9 relating to dedication and ownership and the obligations under Section 3.10 requiring the City to perform all tasks identified on the Stormwater Detention Facilities Maintenance Schedule and requiring the City and FRB in Section 3.10 to pay their respective Stormwater Percentages of the costs of the Enhanced Maintenance Items shown on such schedule) shall be perpetual, shall be deemed covenants running with the land, and shall inure to the benefit of, and shall be binding upon, FRB, as owner of the FRB Parcel, and the City, as owner of the 27th Street Parcel, and their respective successors, grantees, heirs and assigns. Public notice of such perpetual covenants shall be included as part of the Stormwater Detention Facilities Easement Agreement. 4. City and Franchise Utilities. 4.1 City Utilities: This Agreement addresses stormwater collection, retention, treatment and discharge, and water and sewer utilities. The City will design and construct the public portion of the water and sanitary sewer utilities, meaning the portions that lie within the proposed 27th Street Parcel and proposed City easements. 4.1.1. The public sanitary sewer will be a 12-inch line from the existing King County sewer interceptor and will extend south across Southwest 27th Street and into the FRB Parcel with a 12-inch stub provided to the westerly property at the end of the joint-use driveway. The FRB will reimburse the City for the cost of this facility, subject to the cap set forth in Section 1.4.1. AGREEMENT PAGE 13 #297409 18173-002.07 6DHDO3!.DOC 4.1.2. The public water line will be a 12-inch water line and appurtenances within Southwest 27th Street, along with 2- 12-inch water stubs to the FRB Parcel. The maximum available fire flow from this 12-inch water line is 2,500 gallons per minute, at 20 psi residual pressure. FRB is responsible for the design and installation of an interior looped water line around the FRB Parcel within an easement on the FRB Parcel. If the required fire flow for the FRB facility as determined by the Renton Fire Department exceeds 2,800 gallons per minute, a second parallel 12-inch water line within Southwest 27th Street will be required and shall be constructed by the City. The FRB will reimburse the City for the cost of the first 12-inch public water line in SW 27th Street, subject to the cap set forth in Section 1.4.1. FRB is responsible for all costs associated with the design and construction of the second 12-inch parallel line in Southwest 27th Street if this second line is required to meet the fire flow requirements for FRB's facility. 4.1.3. The FRB shall design, construct and pay full cost for the private water, sewer, and stormwater lines needed for the FRB facility. These private lines include stormwater lines and detention and water quality facilities other than the Stormwater Detention Parcel, the sidesewer(s) to the FRB facility, and the water services(s)and appurtenances downstream of the water meter(s). 4.2 Franchise Utilities. The FRB facility will require franchise utilities which may include electricity, natural gas, cable television, data/voice communications, etc. The FRB shall be responsible for contacting the franchise utility providers and paying for and obtaining the design for such utilities. The FRB shall provide franchise utility construction plans to the City, and coordinate the timing of installation of such franchise utilities with the City, so that the City may incorporate the design and construction of the franchise utilities into its design and construction of SW 27th. To the extent that the franchise utilities cross under or are included within the construction of SW 27th, the FRB shall coordinate the installation of the franchise utilities so that the installation of such franchise utilities shall not interfere with the construction of SW 27th. In the event that the franchise utility construction plans have not been furnished by FRB to the City in a time frame that allows them to be incorporated into the contract documents for the construction of Southwest 27th Street, then the franchise utilities construction will not be part of the Southwest 27th Street project. In this case the franchise utilities shall be designed in such a way as to minimize the need to excavate portions of Southwest 27th Street that were previously installed. 5. Effectiveness. This Agreement shall take effect and shall become binding on the parties upon mutual execution hereof. However, if, for any reason FRB fails to acquire the Subject Property (including both the FRB Parcel and the Stormwater Parcel) on or before December 31, 2005, then this Agreement shall immediately become null and void. In addition, if, prior to acquisition of the Subject Property, FRB determines that purchase of the Subject Property is not feasible for its intended uses, or if FRB is at any time adjudged not to have rights to purchase the Subject Property, then FRB may elect, by written notice to the City, to terminate and cancel this Agreement. Upon any termination of this Agreement, neither party shall have any further obligation to the other party hereunder; provided, however, that to the extent that FRB has incurred costs in designing the Stormwater Detention Facilities that have not been reimbursed by the City and the City desires to use any portion of the plans and specifications for such facilities, FRB shall have a right to recover an equitable portion of such unreimbursed costs as a condition of allowing the City to use such plans and specifications. To the extent that the City has incurred Water AGREEMENT PAGE 14 #297409 18173-002.07 6oH0031.00c • Line Costs or Sewer Line Costs that have not been reimbursed by FRB pursuant to this agreement, upon FRB's withdrawal from this Agreement, FRB shall reimburse the City for such costs, up to the applicable caps. This Section shall survive this Effectiveness Section and shall be effective despite the rest of this Agreement becoming null and void. 6 Continued Effectiveness of Strander Agreement. The Strander Agreement between the City and Seller shall remain in full force and effect, notwithstanding execution and delivery of this Agreement. Nothing contained herein shall affect or modify in any way the City and Seller's rights and obligations under the Strander Agreement. 7. Miscellaneous 7.1 Notices. All notices, demands, requests, consents and approvals which may, or are required to, be given by any party to any other party hereunder shall be in writing and shall be deemed to have been duly given if: (i)delivered personally, (ii)sent by a nationally recognized overnight delivery service or local messenger service, (iii)electronically transmitted via facsimile transmission with fax machine printout of confirmation of receipt prior to 4:30 p.m. on a business day and a hard copy ovemighted the next business day thereafter, or (iv)if mailed or deposited in the United States mail and sent by registered or certified mail, return receipt requested, postage prepaid to the following addresses or to such other addresses as either party hereto may from time to time designate in writing and deliver in a like manner: To FRB: Federal Reserve Bank of San Francisco 101 Market Street San Francisco, CA 94105 Attn: John F. Moore First Vice President, Chief Operating Officer Phone No. (415)974-2071 Fax No. (415)974-2113 with a copy to: Federal Reserve Bank of San Francisco 101 Market Street, Mail Stop 730 P.O. Box 7702 San Francisco, CA 94105-1530 Attn: Shirley Ng Thompson Associate General Counsel, Legal Division Phone No. (415) 974-2820 Fax No. (415) 974-2800 and a copy to: Federal Reserve Bank of San Francisco 101 Market Street, Mail Stop 730 P.O. Box 7702 AGREEMENT PAGE 15 #297409 18173-002.07 60H003LooC San Francisco, CA 94105-1530 Attn: Randy Balducci Director, District Facilities Management Phone No. (415)974-2753 Fax No. (415) 974-2400 and a copy to: Hillis Clark Martin &Peterson 500 Galland Building 1221 Second Avenue Seattle, WA 98101-2925 Attn: Michael F. Schumacher Phone No. (206)623-1745 Fax No. (206)623-7789 To the City: Renton City Hall—5th Floor 1055 South Grady Way Renton, Washington 98055 Attn: Gregg Zimmerman Planning/Building/Public Works Administrator Phone No. (425)430-7311 Fax No. (425)430-7241 and a copy to: Renton City Hall—6th Floor 1055 South Grady Way Renton, Washington 98055 Attn: Alex Pietsch Economic Development/Neighborhoods/Strategic Planning Administrator Phone No. (425)430-6592 Fax No. (425)430-7300 and a copy to: Warren Barber& Fontes, P.S. Attorneys at Law 100 South Second Street Post Office Box 626 Renton, Washington 98057 Attn: Larry Warren City Attorney Phone No. (425)255-8678 Fax No. (425) 255-5474 AGREEMENT PAGE 16 #297409 18173-002.07 60H003!.00c All notices shall be deemed complete upon actual receipt or refusal to accept delivery. 7.2 Indemnity. Each party hereby agrees to defend, indemnify, and hold harmless the other party against any claims, liability, or loss that may be incurred by or asserted against the other party arising out of the negligence or willful misconduct of the indemnifying party or the breach by the indemnifying party of its obligations hereunder. 7.3 Amendment, Waiver. No addendum, supplement, modification, termination or amendment of this Agreement may be made except by written agreement of the parties. None of the conditions of this Agreement shall be considered waived by FRB or the City unless FRB or the City issues a written notice of such waiver. No waiver of any particular instance of default shall apply to any other past, present, or future instance of default unless expressly stipulated in such waiver„ and each and every covenant, agreement, term and condition of this Agreement shall continue in full force and effect with respect to any other then existing or subsequent breach thereof that has not specifically been waived in writing. All the terms, provisions, and conditions of this Agreement shall inure to the benefit of and be enforceable by the parties'respective successors and assigns. 7.4 Captions. The captions of this Agreement are for convenience and reference only and in no way define, limit or describe the scope or intent of this Agreement. 7.5 Merger of Prior Agreements. This Agreement and the exhibits hereto constitute the final and complete agreement between the parties with respect to the subject matter hereof, and supersede all prior agreements and understandings between the parties hereto relating to the subject matter of this Agreement. 7.6 No Joint Venture; No Third Party Reliance. It is not intended by this Agreement to, and nothing contained in this Agreement shall, create any partnership, joint venture or other arrangement between the parties. No term or provision of this Agreement is intended to be, or shall be, for the benefit of any person, firm, organization or corporation not a party hereto, and no such other person, firm, organization or corporation shall have any right or cause of action hereunder. 7.7 Governing Law; Time. Pursuant to the Federal Reserve Act(12 U.S.C. 632), this Agreement shall be governed and construed according to the laws of the United States and the United States District Court for the Western District of Washington shall have original jurisdiction. In the event of a determination that there is no applicable federal law , the laws of the State of Washington shall govern without regard to its conflicts of law rules. Time is of the essence of this Agreement. 7.8 Incorporation of Exhibits. All exhibits attached hereto or referenced herein are incorporated in this Agreement. 7.9 Severability. In the event that any one or more of the provisions contained in this Agreement shall for any reason be held to be invalid, illegal or unenforceable in any respect, the party who was seeking enforcement of such provision or who would otherwise be primarily benefited by such AGREEMENT PAGE 17 #297409 18173-002.07 60H003!.DOC provision may determine whether or not such invalid provision was essential to the overall agreement contemplated hereby, and may issue a written notice to the other party electing either to invalidate this Agreement in its entirety or to continue this Agreement in full force and effect without such invalidated provisions, as if such invalidated provision had not been contained herein. 7.10 Counterparts. This Agreement may be executed in counterparts, each of which shall be deemed an original, and all of such counterparts together shall constitute one and the same instrument. In addition, the parties hereto agree that this Agreement may be delivered either by a party or its counsel by fax machine to the other party or its counsel and that signatures so transmitted constitute original signatures and are binding on the party so signing. Upon request, the parties shall further deliver between themselves actual originally signed copies or counterparts, but such further delivery, or failure thereof, shall not affect the validity or timing of this Agreement. 7.11 Gratuities. The City and FRB prohibit their employees from using their official position for personal advantage and from accepting any personal advantage from anyone under circumstances which might reasonably be interpreted as an attempt to influence the employee in the conduct of his or her official duties. Neither the City nor FRB shall not extend any gratuity or special favor to any FRB employee under such circumstances 7.12 Taxes. FRB is exempt from the payment of all taxes except those upon real property by virtue of Section 7 of the Federal Reserve Act (12 U.S.C. 531), and therefore, any sales or other taxes, levies, duties or assessments due in connection with any construction activities carried out by FRB pursuant to this Agreement shall be paid by FRB's contractors to the extent required under applicable state or local statutues. The City shall cause any and all taxes, levies, duties, and assessments of every nature due in connection with the City's construction activities under this Agreement to be paid by the City, its contractors, or other appropriate parties, as required under Washington law, and FRB shall not be responsible for payment of such taxes, levies, duties, or assessments. Notwithstanding the foregoing, however, FRB agrees that any such taxes, levies, duties, or assessments paid by the City or its contractors in connection with construction of the Water Line or Sewer Line and included in the total contract price for such work shall be deemed"Water Line Costs"or"Sewer Line Costs", as applicable, for purposes of FRB's reimbursement and/or payment obligations under Section 1.4, above, and that any such taxes, levies, duties, or assessments paid by the City or its contractors in connection with construction or maintenance of the Stormwater Detention Facilities and included in the total contract for such work shall be deemed "Shared Costs"in which FRB shall share in accordance with Sections 3.5 and 3.9, above, as applicable. 7.13 Audits and Records. Both parties shall keep accurate records and books of account showing any charges, disbursements, and expenses for which the other party may be responsible therefore. Both parties shall keep these records and books of account for a period of at least 4 years after such charges became due. All such records shall be open to audit, review, and copying by the other party. Such records include, but are not limited to, accounting records, written policies and procedures; original estimates; estimating worksheets; correspondence; memoranda; recordings; and any other supporting AGREEMENT PAGE 18 #297409 18173-002.07 6DHo03!.000 information reasonably required by the other party to substantiate any charges related to Agreement. Records shall be available to the other party or authorized representative at mutually convenient times. 7.14 Payment by ACH. All payments made by FRB and otherwise due under this Agreement shall be made by automatic deposit (ACH). FRB's obligation to make payments is conditioned upon the City making appropriate and effective ACH payment arrangements with its financial institution and providing the necessary paperwork, forms, and account number(s) to FRB. The City shall provide the necessary information to FRB prior to FRB's making any payments for goods and/or services provided. The City shall contact FRB's Accounts Payable Department at 415-974-2645 to obtain FRB's specific requirements for putting this mechanism into place. 7.15 Separate Contracting and Accounting For Shared Cost Items. The City shall separately account for, and shall require all contractors to separately track and invoice, each of the Water Line Costs, Sewer Line Costs, and any Shared Costs or other costs with respect to the Stormwater Detention Facilities (with the work with respect to which such shared costs are incurred referred to herein collectively as the "Shared Cost Work'), separate and apart from any other construction costs related to work performed by the City or its contractors pursuant to this Agreement. To the extent that any such costs are indivisible or otherwise cannot be clearly attributed to the Shared Cost Work versus other work performed under this Agreement, such costs shall be allocated between such work items on a pro rata or other equitable basis. In addition, in bidding out the Shared Cost Work, the City shall define separate scopes of work and, to the extent feasible, shall award the contract to the bidder with the most competitive pricing for each of the Water Line, Sewer Line, and the Stormwater Detention Facilities. The parties have executed this Agreement as of the date first set forth above. THE CITY OF RENTON By Name: Title: AGREEMENT PAGE 19 #297409 18173-002.07 6oHo03!.00c Ark THE FEDERAL RESERVE BANK OF SAN FRANCISCO By Name: Title: #297409 18173-002.07 6dhd031.doc 3/31/2005 • AGREEMENT PAGE 20 #297409 18173-002.07 60H003!AOC STATE OF ss. COUNTY OF On this day personally appeared before me , to me known to be the of , the that executed the foregoing instrument, and acknowledged such instrument to be the free and voluntary act and deed of such , for the uses and purposes therein mentioned, and on oath stated that he/she was duly authorized to execute such instrument. GIVEN UNDER MY HAND AND OFFICIAL SEAL this day of , 200_. Printed Name NOTARY PUBLIC in and for the State of residing at My Commission Expires AGREEMENT PAGE 21 #297409 18173-002.07 6DH003!.00c 40, STATE OF } ss. COUNTY OF On this day personally appeared before me , to me known to be the of , the that executed the foregoing instrument, and acknowledged such instrument to be the free and voluntary act and deed of such , for the uses and purposes therein mentioned, and on oath stated that he/she was duly authorized to execute such instrument. GIVEN UNDER MY HAND AND OFFICIAL SEAL this day of , 200_. Printed Name NOTARY PUBLIC in and for the State of residing at My Commission Expires AGREEMENT PAGE 22 #297409 18173-002.07 60Ho03!.00C List of Exhibits EXHIBIT A Conceptual Site Plan of Properties EXHIBIT B Legal Description of Properties EXHIBIT C Plans and Specifications for 27th Street Improvements EXHIBIT D Construction Schedule for 27th Street Improvements EXHIBIT E Plans and Specifications for Stormwater Detention Facilities EXHIBIT F Construction Schedule for Stormwater Detention Facilities EXHIBIT G Maintenance Schedule for Stormwater Detention Facilities EXHIBIT H Form of Stormwater Detention Facilities Easement Agreement LIST OF EXHIBITS AGREEMENT PAGE 23 #297409 18173-002.07 6oHo03!.00c Asimmilmmommimmommoisr EXHIBIT A Conceptual Site Plan of Properties AGREEMENT EXHIBIT A #297409 18173-002.07 6DHDO31.00c a 4.0> ! w ± w , a V 1i 1.41 01ti2 ems`• t i ��: a ie. \V ., j .x. •«_,xxxni )'n:(1..<;f—n:f4F1 n:r�(C:r:r�,' *\� f\: x c �xx �xx cxxxi�� e. �Oti i tn.0 noutrt 0.0 00 00 Il lr 6 r ,' ;09.525RBSF PARCEL VI, o i .z--; ACRES ,V �� 0 a 6 9• r EI ^� `/ 111r %.•..‘\0 7 •411, :01w0::)...00•01......•:, 00, 11 • I-.' �._.-. _-aIr 4 `, 6u9nrrtc"1117.171 ,).'.._ _ `. — —�� ,..• \ �►` • d SITE AREA CALCULATIO.s <>B SHEET • �� A�� w w a.e«.aole9..1 I.I.eM lm annals a a 016.91 —�I,li�''-'="00,-.. •. eE*., I 'v.w ' e.w 9 S. • al0.03 3' Y fa ss.«.I.a Wel«. .� y►Y "*".„,,00 a A » xul Y. ,, .» w.� .m... �oSe�. .swim, ,►� '>:;)""e m.y.of.a.m9.,4 me...rwP.r,a,..rn:. a...M.:m ro¢.Ar.-.w rrn.o .. n Mribl.""lii lI�� Yx A..n.,rt.n rua nag `v'- vE.u1M•19.500 Y111 '~� P.rpma.20t,nt Y. r _Al = � rftN9.Y�• wtaas l.lo.NI ee««ra mw,aa)of.«r aawa.a • f I. � ` Idn9 •1 us. •'. ._. 1 _� o)BAR ae9.p Go..I Floor-10,129 SF.2M fl -1]046 SF. •• ... _._. •) STORMWATER e) neer. 0• Y e 5-95.755 • DETENTION POND e)s... team G.m.Fa./Faa-Asn Y .• caD rlESExS� - TRACTD qP.�c En�r b.l.GwM ra./1.1a..so Yow. r.vlrPnocEunc aFv6 - nuc P.Nwor7.275 ACRES .,,me«el elal eWK.r ewa.9•a grade...i9: 0SPm • P«9m9.2.r.w..er wr..rn 7 v.emla ny ..•raar..e...w..a ma..•m•.{ I rail!! .�� ! ..P.�aoo Y wa waw.rgdrn,ps.,...04 1500 4 ... ..-....0000 ''��-C ! te.m...ally W llra«.r•00•...41.b ma a. '_ to me.mee..1.ar s..e.0 w.a naw..P..a t«r It.._1' 'fib bio C r x,.e..e.a.:w»y.M..a.ra.r..t II St...2 95 gate«9..201 C.nmct 20 mac.n 9».p ou.6 ' ADA 5 E 9"E•gal(1 m..) s ice 1 a os ail / Iowa,laap 0 P.Yn9 M.ar+Pw m.IP. «ma nlwa) PAW.La A(*kw AM.) 0ECURE ntucx cater r .� `.,r. In er.al.4.592 Y 1 f -�—1• __If. I / lannalr1.1.........1 5'•amt)•1.520 Y ' �); • �1� (E' „, / ••hlr+IrNmm.rrMmw.,]fi a PKn,«w 1...11_1' �� pAR.WC 101 B(•taN) «wlm-•34,7157 i .1000 0 IMO Y If / «..t«Md..(n2ma9 5'oaml).4})1 Y �r --��,, ` .......0.ace....10.51 a 9«9.9«. �� • . • ..._' � 'at 4 �Y •20 01100 0000 9n a mad.00 U.1020 0 wan.. OEa LOMaq/ / em U..O.1.•ln«L ..bt nECr4.0 II 6r ,�� y) I' 111 /�y WEDS S :1 #0000 (/�J�,d] /1 01t. illiriplW El• V .00 m. � as,«c yJ rr ..nor .. akinakinaaeNrtEn' LLL ARCHITECTURAL ONEARp9npp .0,4'K.5� 817E PLAN �' Ea.. r•6PP . •� Draw M / 1111111) 10.9 11/14.o4 n..oLaaw A010 • EXHIBIT B Legal Description of Properties Subject Property: Lot 33 and Tract D, as shown in the Boeing Longacres Property Amended Binding Site Plan recorded in Volume of Plats at Pages _through , inclusive, under Recording No. in the official records of King County, Washington. FRB Parcel: Lot 33, as shown in the Boeing Longacres Property Amended Binding Site Plan recorded in Volume of Plats at Pages through , inclusive, under Recording No. in the official records of King County, Washington. Stormwater Parcel: Tract D, as shown in the Boeing Longacres Property Amended Binding Site Plan recorded in Volume of Plats at Pages _ through , inclusive, under Recording No. in the official records of King County, Washington. 27th Street Parcel: Tract F, as shown in the Boeing Longacres Property Amended Binding Site Plan recorded in Volume of Plats at Pages _ through , inclusive, under Recording No. in the official records of King County, Washington. AGREEMENT EXHIBIT B #297409 18173-002.07 6oHD031.00c EXHIBIT C Plans and Specifications for 27th Street Improvements In lieu of attachment, reference is hereby made to those certain Plans and Specifications known as the Strander Boulevard Extension - Stage 1, 60% Review drawings dated 2/1/05, and prepared by Perteet, Inc. AGREEMENT EXHIBIT C #297409 18173-002.07 601-10031.DOC EXHIBIT D Schedule for Plans, Specifications, Bidding, Contracting&Construction of 27th Street Improvements Grace Cure Milestone/ Period Period Deadline (days) (days) Item NEPA or SEPA deadlines or milestones 7/01/2005 45 20 60% of engineering and construction detail to be complete, incorporated into plans and specifications, and provided to FRB 1/01/2006 * 100% of engineering and construction detail to be complete, incorporated into plans and specifications, and provided to FRB for FRB approval 7/15/2006 * * Public submission of bid request for construction of 27th Street Improvements/Go out to Advertisement 8/01/2006 60 20 Selection of Contractor for 27th Street Improvements 9/01/2006 60 20 Execution of general construction contract and any trade-specific contracts for 27th Street Improvements** Construction Milestones and Completion 3/01/2007 60 30 Construction Complete *The City of Renton cannot complete design until several approvals and reviews are completed including: Environmental NEPA, R-O-W certification, R-O-W plans, detention pond design (FRB to complete), Franchise Utilities agreement, and Federal approvals. ** The schedule assumes that construction of the road can occur while construction of the FRB building is ongoing. The City will make every effort to complete the road as soon as possible. AGREEMENT EXHIBIT D #297409 18173-002.07 6oHD03!.Doc EXHIBIT E Plans and Specifications for Stormwater Detention Facilities In lieu of attachment, reference is hereby made to those certain Plans and Specifications known as the Federal Reserve Bank— Seattle Building Project 50% Design Development Review, drawings C510, C511 dated 3/4/05, and prepared by BOORA Architects and KPFF Engineering. AGREEMENT EXHIBIT E #297409 18173-002.07 60HD03!.00c EXHIBIT F Construction Schedule for Stormwater Detention Facilities Design of Plans and Specifications,Bidding,and Contracting Grace Cure Milestone/ Period Period Deadline (days) (days) Item [what NEPA or SEPA deadlines or milestones may we_propose?] 2005 %of engineering and construction detail to be complete,incorporated into plans and specifications,and provided to City /--/2005 100%of engineering and construction detail to be complete,incorporated into plans and specifications,and provided to City for City approval I 12005 Submission of bid requests for construction of Stormwater Detention Facilities I 12005 Selection of Contractor for Stormwater Detention Facilities _I_I 2005 Execution of general construction contract and any trade-specific contracts for Stormwater Detention Facilities Construction Milestones and Completion __/_/2005 Excavation and grading commenced AGREEMENT EXHIBIT F #297409 18173-002.07 601-003!.DOC EXHIBIT G Maintenance Schedule for Stormwater Detention Facilities Basic Maintenance Items: Frequency or Est.Total Est.Cost of Time of Year Hours of Labor or Labor Replacement Description of Labor or Replacement or Repair Components Estimated Total Annual Cost: AGREEMENT EXHIBIT G #297409 18173-002.07 6DH003!.DOC Maintenance Schedule for Stormwater Detention Facilities Enhanced Maintenance Items: Frequency or Est.Total Est.Cost of Time of Year Hours of Labor or Labor Replacement Description of Labor or Replacement or Repair Components Estimated Total Annual Cost: AGREEMENT EXHIBIT G #297409 16173-002.07 60HD03!.Doc EXHIBIT H Form of Stormwater Detention Facilities Easement Agreement Recording Requested By: First American Title Insurance Company When Recorded,Return to: HILLIS CLARK MARTIN&PETERSON, P.S. Attention: Michael F. Schumacher 500 Galland Building 1221 Second Avenue Seattle, WA 98101-2925 AGREEMENT FOR EASEMENT AND COVENANTS REGARDING STORMWATER DETENTION FACILITIES Grantor: (1)THE FEDERAL RESERVE BANK OF SAN FRANCISCO (2)CITY OF RENTON ❑Additional on page Grantees: (1)THE FEDERAL RESERVE BANK OF SAN FRANCISCO; (2)CITY OF RENTON (3)LONGACRES PARK,INC. ❑Additional on page Legal Description(abbreviated): 0 Additional on: EXHIBITS A&B Assessor's Tax Parcel ID#s: Reference Nos.of Documents Released or Assigned: n/a AGREEMENT EXHIBIT H—PAGE 1 #297409 18173-002.07 60H003!.Doc This Agreement for Easement and Covenants Regarding Stormwater Detention Facilities (this "Easement Agreement'), dated for reference purposes as of , 2005, is made and entered into by and between THE FEDERAL RESERVE BANK OF SAN FRANCISCO ("FRB") and THE CITY OF RENTON (the "City'). [Notice to Recorder: FRB is currently the sole owner of the Easement Area described below, but because the City ultimately intends to acquire ownership of such Easement Area by dedication and because FRB and the City have both undertaken certain cost-sharing or other obligations with respect to the Easement Area to benefit the other party, both FRB and the City have been shown as both "Grantors" and "Grantees"under this Easement Agreement.] RECITALS A. FRB is the current owner of the real property described on Exhibit A attached hereto (the "Easement Area'). FRB is also the owner of the real property identified as the "FRB Parcel"on Exhibit B attached hereto. The City is the owner of the real property identified as the "27th Street Parcel"on Exhibit B attached hereto. The Easement Area, FRB Property, and 27th Street Parcel are each depicted on Exhibit C attached hereto. B. FRB and the City are each parties to that certain Agreement dated 2005 (the "Agreement'). Pursuant to and as contemplated in the Agreement, the City is constructing or shall construct certain "Stormwater Detention Facilities" on the Easement Area, which Stormwater Detention Facilities are intended for the benefit of the FRB Parcel and the 27th Street Parcel (collectively, the "Benefited Parcels'). It is intended that the ownership of the Easement Area will be dedicated and conveyed to the City. C. After acquiring title to the Easement Area, the City has agreed to perform certain tasks and responsibilities relating to maintenance and upkeep of the Easement Area. However, the City and FRB, as owners of the Benefited Parcels, have agreed to share the costs of such maintenance and upkeep in accordance with the terms and conditions set forth in the Agreement. Longacres Park, Inc. ("Longacres"), the owner of certain property located adjacent to the FRB Parcel and legally described and identified on Exhibit B as the "Longacres Parcels", is listed as a beneficiary under this agreement solely for purposes of Section 6, below, related to any amendments or modifications of this Agreement. D. The parties have executed this Easement Agreement to (i) establish permanent stormwater drainage easements on Easement Area for the benefit of FRB and the City, as the owners of the FRB Property and the 27th Street Parcel, respectively, and (ii) provide public notice of the perpetual covenants, conditions and restrictions set forth in the Agreement, which covenants shall constitute covenants the run with the land and benefit and bind all successors and assigns who own such parcels. AGREEMENT EXHIBIT H-PAGE 2 #297409 18173-002.07 60H003!.DOC EASEMENTS AND AGREEMENTS In consideration of the mutual promises and covenants set forth herein and in the Agreement, and for other good and valuable consideration, the receipt and sufficiency of which are hereby acknowledged, the parties hereby agree as follows: 1. Grant of Easement. FRB, in its capacity as owner of the Easement Area, hereby conveys and grants to the City, in its capacity as owner of the 27th Street Parcel, and to FRB, in its capacity as owner of the FRB Parcel, a non-exclusive perpetual easement (the "Easement") under, over, and across the Easement Area for the purpose of installing, constructing, operating, inspecting, maintaining, repairing, replacing, and using the Stormwater Detention Facilities in accordance with the terms of the Agreement, including without limitation, the right to operate, inspect, maintain, repair, replace, and use the same for purposes of detaining stormwater emanating or flowing from the FRB Property and the 27th Street Parcel. 2. Allocation of Stormwater Detention Capacity According to Stormwater Percentages; Liability for Violation. Of the total detention capacity of the Stormwater Detention Facilities, 55% shall be allocated to the FRB Parcel for stormwater flowing from the FRB Property, and 45% shall be allocated to the City for stormwater flowing from the 27th Street Parcel (such percentages are referred to as the "Stormwater Percentages" of each such property). The owner of each Benefited Parcel agrees to design, permit, and construct stormwater drainage and/or detention facilities on its parcel so that the amount of stormwater detention that it is permitted to utilize within the Easement Area, based on calculations made under the Washington Department of Ecology Stormwater Management Manual for Western Washington, August 2001 edition, will not exceed its Stormwater Percentage of the total detention capacity of the Stormwater Detention Facilities. If the Stormwater Detention Facilities shall ever become overloaded or shall fail because the owner of either Benefited Parcel has violated this provision, then the owner of the Benefited Parcel who is guilty of such violation shall be solely obligated to repair and to pay for the cost of repair of any damage to the Stormwater Detention Facilities or to the other Benefited Parcel that was caused by such violation, and shall promptly commence the design, permitting, and construction of such additional stormwater drainage or detention facilities on its respective Benefited Parcel as are required for such party not to be in violation of this provision governing the allocation of the total capacity of the Stormwater Detention Facilities. 3. Construction of Stormwater Detention Facilities. The Stormwater Detention Facilities shall be constructed, and all associated construction costs shall be allocated, in accordance with the terms of the Agreement. 4. Dedication of Easement Area; Easement Survives. Within 30 days after the closing of the sale of FRB's purchase of the Easement Area from Longacres (which closing is occurring contemporaneously with recordation of this Easement Agreement), FRB shall have the right to dedicate the Easement Area to the City, and the City shall accept such dedication and assume ownership of the Easement Area and shall perpetually use the Easement Area solely for purposes of stormwater detention AGREEMENT EXHIBIT H—PAGE 3 #297409 18173-002.07 6DHo03!.00c and solely for the benefit of the 27th Street Parcel and the FRB Parcel. Notwithstanding such dedication and transfer, the Easement granted hereunder to FRB and the City for the benefit of the Benefited Parcels shall survive and shall continue in effect perpetually, unless modified by a written instrument executed and delivered by the then-current owners of the Easement Area, the FRB Property, the 27th Street Parcel, and, pursuant to Section 6, the Longacres Parcels. 5. Maintenance of Stormwater Detention Facilities; Allocation of Costs. Upon such dedication and transfer, the City shall own and shall continue to own the Easement Area, and the City shall thereafter perform all of the maintenance and upkeep tasks and responsibilities described in the Agreement, and shall perform such other repairs, replacements, and maintenance as are required to continuously preserve the Stormwater Detention Facilities and the Easement Area in a neat, clean, and safe condition, in compliance with all statutes, ordinances, and other laws, and in conformity with all permit conditions, restrictions, and other requirements established with respect to the Easement Area under the binding site plan under which the Easement Area was created or is governed, and under any permit conditions associated with the permits and approvals given with respect to the 27th Street Parcel and the FRB Parcel. The costs of such maintenance shall be allocated between and shall by paid by FRB, as owner of the FRB Parcel, and the City, as owner of the 27th Street Parcel, in accordance with the cost- sharing provisions of the Agreement. 6. Covenants Running with the Land; No Merger; Termination. The Easement and the agreements contained herein and in the Agreement shall be deemed covenants running with the land and shall inure to the benefit of,and shall be binding upon the owners of the FRB Parcel, the 27th Street Parcel, and the Easement Area, together with their respective successors, grantees, heirs and assigns. Notwithstanding FRB's or any future owners ownership of both the Easement Area and either Benefited Parcel, the Easement and covenants established hereby and under the Agreement are not intended and shall not be deemed to have merged with the fee interest in such properties. The Easement and the covenants referenced herein and established hereby may be modified or terminated only by the recording of an amendment or notice of termination executed by all of the owners of the Easement Area, the FRB Parcel, the 27th Street Parcel, and each of owners of the Longacres Parcels (who shall be deemed beneficiaries under this Easement Agreement solely for purposes of this Section 6, and not for any other purpose, and who shall not have any other rights or obligations under this Easement Agreement). 7. Incorporation and Notice of Agreement. The terms and conditions of the Agreement are hereby incorporated by reference. Any party acquiring an interest in the FRB Parcel, the 27th Street Parcel, or the Easement Area is hereby notified and instructed to obtain a copy of the Agreement, certified as current, true, and accurate by the owners of such parcels, and shall in any event be bound by the terms of this Easement Agreement and the Agreement. For this purpose, the parties can be contacted at the following addresses or by such other addresses as may then be on file with the County Assessor as to the owners of such parcels: AGREEMENT EXHIBIT H—PAGE 4 #297409 18173-002.07 60H003!.DOC FRB: Federal Reserve Bank of San Francisco 101 Market Street San Francisco, CA 94105 Attn: Chief Operating Officer with a copy to: Federal Reserve Bank of San Francisco 101 Market Street, Mail Stop 730 P.O. Box 7702 San Francisco, CA 94105-1530 Attn: Legal Division and a copy to: Federal Reserve Bank of San Francisco 101 Market Street, Mail Stop 730 P.O. Box 7702 San Francisco, CA 94105-1530 Attn: Director, District Facilities Management Renton City Hall—5th Floor To the City: 1055 South Grady Way Renton, Washington 98055 Attn: Gregg Zimmerman Planning/Building/Public Works Administrator Renton City Hall—6th Floor and a copy to: 1055 South Grady Way Renton, Washington 98055 Attn: Alex Pietsch Economic Development/Neighborhoods/Strategic Planning Administrator and a copy to: Warren Barber& Fontes, P.S. Attorneys at Law 100 South Second Street Post Office Box 626 Renton, Washington 98057 Attn: Larry Warren City Attorney AGREEMENT EXHIBIT H—PAGE 5 #297409 18173-002.07 6o1o03!.00c 8. Attorneys' Fees. If, by reason of any default hereunder on the part of either party, the other party employs an attorney, the defaulting party shall pay the non-defaulting party's costs, expenses and attorneys'fees reasonably expended or incurred in connection therewith. EXECUTED as of the date first above written. FEDERAL RESERVE BANK OF SAN FRANCISCO [FRB in its capacity as owner of the Easement Area and grantor of the Easement] By Name: Title: FEDERAL RESERVE BANK OF SAN FRANCISCO [FRB in its capacity as owner of the FRB Parcel, grantee of the Easement, and obligor under its obligation to share costs of maintaining By the Easement Area] Name: Title: THE CITY OF RENTON [City in its capacity as owner of the 27th Street Parcel, grantee of the Easement, and obligor under its obligation to share costs of maintaining By the Easement Area] Name: Title: AGREEMENT EXHIBIT H—PAGE 6 #297409 18173-002.07 61m03!.00c STATE OF } ss. COUNTY OF On this day personally appeared before me , to me known to be the of , the that executed the foregoing instrument, and acknowledged such instrument to be the free and voluntary act and deed of such , for the uses and purposes therein mentioned, and on oath stated that he/she was duly authorized to execute such instrument. GIVEN UNDER MY HAND AND OFFICIAL SEAL this day of , 200_. Printed Name NOTARY PUBLIC in and for the State of residing at My Commission Expires AGREEMENT EXHIBIT H—PAGE 7 #297409 18173-002.07 60Ho031ooc STATE OF ss. COUNTY OF On this day personally appeared before me , to me known to be the of , the that executed the foregoing instrument, and acknowledged such instrument to be the free and voluntary act and deed of such , for the uses and purposes therein mentioned, and on oath stated that he/she was duly authorized to execute such instrument. GIVEN UNDER MY HAND AND OFFICIAL SEAL this day of , 200_. Printed Name NOTARY PUBLIC in and for the State of residing at My Commission Expires AGREEMENT EXHIBIT H-PAGE 8 #297409 18173-002.07 60H003!.00c • STATE OF ss. COUNTY OF On this day personally appeared before me , to me known to be the of , the that executed the foregoing instrument, and acknowledged such instrument to be the free and voluntary act and deed of such , for the uses and purposes therein mentioned, and on oath stated that he/she was duly authorized to execute such instrument. GIVEN UNDER MY HAND AND OFFICIAL SEAL this day of , 200_. Printed Name NOTARY PUBLIC in and for the State of residing at My Commission Expires AGREEMENT EXHIBIT H—PAGE 9 #297409 18173-002.07 6oH003!.Doc • Exhibit A (to Stormwater Detention Facilities Easement Agreement) Legal Description of Easement Area (to be completed upon recordation of the Amended Binding Site Plan) Tract D, as shown in the Boeing Longacres Property Amended Binding Site Plan recorded in Volume of Plats at Pages _ through , inclusive, under Recording No. in the official records of King County, Washington. AGREEMENT EXHIBIT H—PAGE 10 #297409 18173-002.07 619HD03!.Doc • Exhibit B (to Stormwater Detention Facilities Easement Agreement) Legal Description of Grantees' Property (to be completed upon recordation of the Amended Binding Site Plan) 27th Street Parcel: Tract F, as shown in the Boeing Longacres Property Amended Binding Site Plan recorded in Volume of Plats at Pages _ through , inclusive, under Recording No. in the official records of King County, Washington. FRB Parcel: Lot 33, as shown in the Boeing Longacres Property Amended Binding Site Plan recorded in Volume of Plats at Pages _ through , inclusive, under Recording No. in the official records of King County, Washington. Longacres Parcels: Lots 27 through 32, inclusive, and Tract H, as shown in the Boeing Longacres Property Amended Binding Site Plan recorded in Volume of Plats at Pages_through , inclusive, under Recording No. in the official records of King County, Washington. AGREEMENT EXHIBIT H-PAGE 11 #297409 18173-002.07 60H003!.Doc Exhibit C (to Stormwater Detention Facilities Easement Agreement) Map With Depiction of Properties [Attach sheet 7 of 7 of Amended Binding Site Plan.] AGREEMENT EXHIBIT H-PAGE 12 #297409 18173-002.07 6DHo03!.DOC a 691011AfieXida4te& 44..$405.. Herons Forever comments COriG le-tier d One e-mail) Critical Areas Ordinance CITY OF R TON Page 1 of 2 MAR � � 2005 R CL.F'IF D CITY CLERK 3 OFFICE Suzanne Krom, President Herons Forever POB 16155 Seattle, WA 98116 March 28, 2005 City of Renton Renton City Hall 1055 South Grady Way Renton, WA 98055 Subject: proposed Critical Areas Ordinance Dear Councilmembers, Please accept this letter as the official comments for Herons Forever on the above- mentioned action. I am president of Herons Forever, a 450-member non-profit organization involved with the preservation of Renton's Black River Riparian Forest since 1989. Our members live and work throughout the Puget Sound region. A large number are Renton residents. Sow Herons Forever has been involved in the public process with land use issues as it relates to the Black River Riparian Forest area since our inception. My comments regarding the proposed Critical Areas Ordinance are as follows: 1. We encourage Renton to incorporate the recommendations from the Harza fish study and report, titled "Final Report Comprehensive Fisheries Assessment of the Mill Creek, Garrison Creek, and Springbrook System," dated June 1995. It was a multijurisdictional study headed by the City of Kent that involved the City of Renton and Ron Straka, both of whom are named in the Acknowledgements section. This study documented chinook salmon, along with many other species of fish, using the Black River Pump Station (BRPS) fish ladder to enter the P1 Pond, then migrate up through the Springbrook, Garrison, Mill Creek systems. The BRPS is likely the sole vehicle allowing fish to enter the P1 Pond, and Springbrook, Garrison, and Mill Creek systems. This makes the BRPS and P1 Pond critically important for fish, including chinook salmon, using this creek system. The report includes recommendations for improvements to the BRPS that make it more fish friendly while not requiring an expensive overhaul of the dam. Herons Forever comments Critical Areas Ordinance Page 2 of 2 'tom 2. During the reading of the proposal, it was my understanding that bulkheads were referred to as "significant environmental improvements." In fact, creating bulkheads converts riparian or near-shore habitat to upland habitat, which is destructive not constructive. Bulkheads should be regarded as having significant negative environmental impacts. Thank you for the opportunity to comment on this proposed ordinance. Please contact me if you have questions. Sincerely, Suzanne Krom '0rrr From: suzanne krom <szkrom@juno.com> To: <council@ci.renton.wa.us> Date: Thu, Mar 31, 2005 3:27 AM Subject: Re: Critical Areas Ordinance comments Dear Councilmembers, In addition to the two points I bring up in my comment letter of March 28, there is another related concern that should be evaluated for inclusion into Renton's CAO. The muddy base of the P1 Pond has been rising steadily over the years. If allowed to continue, it is my understanding that the area will turn into a mudflat that is wet only during our rainy season.As this pond deteriorates, so too does its ability to support aquatic life, including fish, frogs, and snakes, all of which are important to the Black River herons for food. In addition, the health of this pond plays an important role in the overall health of the Springbrook/Garrison/May Creek system. At some point in the near future the P1 Pond will likely need to be dredged. The short-term challenge will be in controlling the hazardous substances released when this work is conducted. Currently the muddy base caps a 20-year accumulation of toxins that have flowed downstream until becoming trapped by the pump plant. In a study conducted several years ago, the water quality of the P1 Pond was determined to be highly contaminated. During construction of the pond in the mid-1980s, the spoils dumped onto the northwest tract of the Black River Riparian Forest(closest to the Pump Plant, bordered on the south by Oaksdale) rendered that section Aliso hazardous. Department of Ecology determined that the land could not be developed unless it was cleaned up. For this and other reasons, the City purchased the tract, thereby eliminating the need for cleanup. The P1 Pond has likely accumulated far more toxins than existed before, generated by Queen City Farms and other highly contaminated industrial runoff and nonpoint pollution. I request that Herons Forever be involved in any discussions and planning for this dredging activity. Sincerely, Suzanne Krom, President Herons Forever On Mon,28 Mar 2005 16:54:38-0800 suzanne krom <szkrom@juno.com>writes: Please accept these comments from Herons Forever.A signed hardcopy of my letter will follow in the mail. Suzanne Krom eorrespaidence 41-4405- From: y05- From: Jay Covington To: Pietsch,Alexander; sampace@concentric.net; Walton, Bonnie; Warren, Larry Nape Date: 3/30/2005 4:31:31 PM Subject: Fwd: Renton CAO Sam, thanks for forwarding this information to us. It was good to talk to you today. By this email, I'm forwarding your documents along to staff for their information. I believe Renton is on the same track you suggest, in that we have tried to develop findings that either support BAS, or give justification for using other science in determining our recommendations for Renton's Critical Areas Ordinance. I'm also forwarding your email to Bonnie Walton, our City Clerk. While the public hearing on this matter was closed Monday night, I'm sure your comments will be considered by the Committee as it deliberates prior to making a recommendation to the full Council. Jay >>> "Sam Pace" <SamPace@concentric.net> 3/30/2005 3:45:13 PM >>> TO: Mayor Kathy Keolker-Wheeler Mr. Jay Covington, City Administrator City Council Planning and DevelopmentCommittee Members FROM: Sam Pace Housing Specialist, Seattle-King County Association of REALTORS RE: Renton Critical Areas Update , DATE: March 30, 2005 Nifty Dear Mayor Keolker-Wheeler, Mr. Covington, and Councilmembers Law, Clawson and Palmer: I'm writing to you regarding three items related to the City's update of its critical areas protections: I. Findings Attached (in the event it may be of value or assistance for Renton in connection with the City's update of the CAO) is an e-copy draft of some ideas for"CAO-Related Findings"that I prepared for the consideration of the Kent City Council in connection with the forthcoming adoption of Kent's Critical Areas updates. These have not yet been blessed by the Kent Council or staff, but were simply provided to them in an attempt to try to be of assistance, particularly if the City determines that some of the City's approach may be outside the range of alternatives that Best Available Science (BAS)alone would support. In the WEAN decision (referenced in the attached Findings)the Court of Appeals indicated in dicta that Findings would be needed if a municipality determined that some of its approach is outside the range of alternatives that Best Available Science (BAS)alone would support. (We understand the guidance from the Court of Appeals in WEAN was contained in dicta because there were not findings available to support Island County's decision regarding its environmental protection, and thus this guidance from the Court was not required to dispose of that particular case). As reflected in these draft Findings for Kent, given the substantial deficiencies in the BAS and the lack of any data to indicate existing protections in Kent are legally deficient, there is some reason to doubt that Kent's approach would fall outside the range of alternatives that BAS alone would support. Nevertheless, since the City's consultants indicated they thought such would be the case, Findings may help to buttress the City's position in the event of an unmerited appeal. Subsequent to the preparation of these draft ideas for the development of CAO-Related Findings, there were a couple of additional ideas that occurred to me as possible areas for Findings that are not included in this preliminary draft which I prepared in connection with Kent's update of that City's critical areas v protections: 1. They could consider including some additional language that fleshes out the history of the City's existing non-regulatory program (maybe identify the number of CIP critical areas projects, approximate dollar value, projects of special significance, staff analysis that the projects have been undertaken successfully, etc.) 2. Having identified some of the rather serious limitations in the BAS, it might be worthwhile to add some language to indicate that although the City incorporated BAS in some areas, it did so in an overabundance of caution about trying to avoid even an unmerited appeal, and in a effort to placate some of the folks, and NOT because (1)the BAS demonstrated any deficiencies in the City's critical area protections, or(2)the City's protections of critical areas are legally deficient. II. Non-Regulatory Programs You will note in these draft Findings a reference to the creation of a more formalized "non-regulatory" program to protect wetlands as part of the City of Kent's CIP program. This builds on the long-standing effort by the City of Kent(as part of its CIP program)to identify, preserve and remediate significant critical areas that may have been compromised in some way during earlier times when the City's current stronger environmental regulations were not yet in place, or when annexed areas were still under the control of King County. Kent's approach will likely include an "Early Actions"provision in connection with the Non-Regulatory Program. These"Early Actions" in 2005 are structured to be dependent upon funding from the state, and would not require City monies. The City receiving from DOE/CTED the funding necessary to undertake the"Early Actions" is the"trigger"which creates an obligation on the part of the City to commence that work within 30 days of receipt of the funding. The Early Actions ended up being structured this way(with Ecology/CTED having the responsibility to find non-city funding to pay for the Early Actions in 2005)because the 2005 budget for the City was already set, and Ecology was making requests that Kent undertake portions of the non-regulatory program almost immediately(within 30-60 days)to demonstrate "the City's good faith." (The "good faith" reference by Ecology seemed to me, personally, to come out of left field, especially given the fact that, so far as I'm aware, the City of Kent has a long history of undertaking such actions on its own without the necessity for any intervention on the part of Ecology to mandate the program as part of the City's CIP). As a practical matter, this amounted to a financially impossible demand on the City by Ecology. In response, I suggested that the City merely develop the work plan for non-regulatory actions during 2005, (which would allow the City to plan for Non-Regulatory Program cost in the budgets for 2006 and subsequent years). If Ecology wanted the City to do more during 2005 than simply develop the work plan for future years, Ecology could pay for it. Essentially, this would allow Ecology to gain control of whether or not the Early Actions get started in 2005. But Ecology would have to"fish or cut bait" in terms of coming up with non-city revenues to cover the cost of the Early Actions. A critically important question the City of Kent will need to examine is this:Are Ecology's cost estimates for that work realistic? That is, will the money Ecology and CTED propose to find for the City be sufficient to cover the cost of doing those Early Actions which Ecology desires be completed by the City in 2005 as a"sign of good faith"? I have the sense Kent's staff may think the Early Actions work plan Ecology has laid out for the City might cost about$150,000,which I think may be more than Ecology's cost estimates for the work. A copy of the DRAFT Non-Regulatory Program language is also attached in the event it may be of value. III. CAO Language *we development are not aware of any local data to indicate the City's current environmental regulations and development standards are insufficient to protect wetland values and functions. The glaring absence of any such data, or studies, that demonstrate a deficiency in the City of Renton's existing critical areas protections tends to support the following observations: 1. There is no basis for a presumption that Renton's existing environmental protections for critical areas are legally insufficient. This observation is strengthened significantly by the fact that Ecology's own Peer Reviewers concluded the BAS assembled by the Department of Ecology is insufficient to substantiate the notion that existing protections are legally insufficient. Those comments by Ecology's Expert Peer Reviewers (and Ecology's responses) are reflected in the attached Findings. In response to the BAS deficiencies identified by Ecology's own Expert Peer Reviewers, Ecology has attempted to"write around"the problem by relying upon what it refers to as"Basic Principles"such as: § Water runs downhill § Large sediment settles out of moving water faster than small sediment § Wildlife fills a niche The deficiency in Ecology's BAS do not make the extreme extrapolations from agricultural studies and/or forestry studies applicable to a built urban environment like Renton that is characterized by strong stormwater protections, strong clearing and grading restrictions, steep slopes regulations, existing critical area buffers, existing stream buffers and a whole host of other currently existing environmental protections that are not typically available to protect critical areas in agricultural and/or forestry settings. It's like the Nirr difference between "night"and "day"and the difference between the two is not eliminated, or even significantly narrowed, by citation to the Basic Principles upon which Ecology attempts to rely. 2. There is no legal precedent that we have found which requires the City to adopt the same critical areas amendments that other cities may, or may not, be adopting in order to be politically correct, or to have a legally sufficient CAO. That is simply not the legal standard in this State, as we understand it. 3. The decision about which standards to adopt are the province of the City, and are not subject to a veto power by any state agency, or other special interest. From the review that we have been able to conduct thus far of the City's proposed update of its critical areas protections, Renton seems to be embarked upon a reasonable, balanced approach that positions the City well, not only to continue to protect critical areas consistent with state law, but also to allow the City to continue to pursue its other Comprehensive Planning Responsibilities under RCW 36.70A, the King County Countywide Planning Policies, and the City's Comprehensive Plan. We continue to be concerned that the City needs to retain the flexibility to address those additional responsibilities while continuing to protect critical areas consistent with the requirements of state law. We would note the Masterbuilders Association has indicated they have some interest in discussing four rather small remaining issues that are somewhat technical in nature, and we trust the City will have the opportunity to consider those matters, perhaps at tomorrow's Council Committee meeting, but in any event prior to any final action on the City's update of its CAO. I would be most appreciative if you would add these comments to the City's record in this matter. yam,,. Thank you for the opportunity to offer these comments, and to provide you with the attached documents. If you have any questions, comments or concerns, or if we can be of any assistance, please do no hesitate to let me know. Ned Sincerely, Sam Pace Sam Pace, JD, MBA, GRI Housing Specialist Seattle-King County Association of REALTORS® 29839- 154th Ave. SE Kent, WA 98042-4557 sampace@concentric.net Direct: (253)630-5541 Fax: (253)630-5542 Cell: (253)569-2663 CC: Clawson, Daniel; Keolker-Wheeler, Kathy; Law, Denis; Palmer, Marcie DRAFT DRAFT DRAFT DRAFT DRAFT DRAFT Recommended Action: The City Council should adopt, (by resolution ? ),the following additional "Findings" in connection with the ordinance(s)to amend KCC 15.08 regarding PUDs and KCC 11.06 regarding Critical Areas updates. Rationale For Recommendation: 1. The Growth Management Act not only requires early and continuous public participation, the Hearings Boards have made it clear the opportunities for the public must in fact be meaningful. For it to be meaningful, citizens must have the opportunity to know why the City is taking action, and the findings the City is making, not just what policy is being adopted. To this end, cities are required to "Show Their Work" and these Findings support the City's efforts in this regard. 2. Providing additional "Findings" is consistent with, and appears to be required by the WEAN case. In the WEAN case (WEAN v. Island County, No 50736-2-I, June 7, 2004) the Court to Appeals provided in dicta that: "...under the GMA, (a municipality) is required to balance the various goals of GMA set sigoar forth in RCW 36.70A.020. It is also true that when balancing those goals in the process of adopting a plan or development regulation under GMA, a local jurisdiction must consider BAS regarding protection of critical areas. This does not mean that the local government is required to adopt regulations that are consistent with BAS because such a rule would interfere with the local agency's ability to consider the other goals of GMA and adopt an appropriate balance between all the GMA goals. However, if a local government elects to adopt a critical area requirement that is outside the range that BAS alone would support, the local agency must provide findings explaining the reasons for its departure from BAS and identifying the other goals of GMA which it is implementing by making such a choice. "(Emphasis added) 3. These additional Findings supplement the City's extensive record in connection with the amendments to KCC 15.08 regarding PUDs and KCC 11.06 regarding Critical Areas updates. Findings 1. The Growth Management Act (GMA)requires the City to review its ordinances that protect Critical Areas in the City of Kent. It also requires that the City modify those ordinances where appropriate, but does not require the City to presume existing environmental regulatory protections are legally inadequate. 1 2. Existing Environmental Protections Are Sufficient To Discharge The City's Legal Responsibilities Regarding Critical Areas: A. The City Council has been presented with testimony that indicates that Kent's current set of strong environmental protections are doing a good job of protecting critical areas in the City. While there were some problems associated with earlier less stringent environmental regulations (including but not limited to earlier King County regulations and City regulations),the City has acted where appropriate to strengthen environmental regulatory standards, and to implement non-regulatory protections for critical areas in the City of Kent. B. There is no credible local evidence or data that demonstrate that the strong environmental protections currently in place in Kent are insufficient to provide the required environmental protections of critical area in the City of Kent. C. There are three reasons Kent already has strong environmental protections in place: (1) We have a strong commitment to the environment in the City of Kent; and (2) When problems have become evident in the past, the City of Kent has made adjustments to the City's regulatory enactments to ensure those problems are not repeated; and (3) The City of Kent has for many years implemented (as part of its Capital Investment Program in the City's Comprehensive Plan) a program of non-regulatory preservation and remediation of critical areas where indicated. 3. Best Available Science (BAS) A. To assist the City in connection with the utilization of Best Available Science in the review of the City's Critical Areas and the update of the City's Critical Areas regulations,the City enlisted the assistance of outside consultants who have been working with our own city staff, and city officials, to conduct a review of Best Available Science. B. The City has not only assembled a wealth of BAS, the members of the City Council, City staff, and the consultants hired by the City have substantively and carefully considered it. Where appropriate to do so, it has been incorporated in the City's revisions to Kent's Critical Areas regulations. C. The record and public hearing testimony, and the work of the Critical Areas Focus Group assembled at the request of the Department of Ecology, indicate very 2 clearly that the scientific literature that has been presented to the City is not based Now on Kent's local conditions. D. The City's consultants pointed out on the public hearing record that there is no local data that demonstrates the efficacy of, or which would justify, increasing the City's existing buffers. There is no local data that demonstrate the City's current buffers and environmental protections are inadequate to protect critical areas. E. Very little of the BAS literature that is available, if any, involves urban areas with Kent's particular soils, climate, topography, ground cover, existing regulatory protections and non-regulatory program of preservation and enhancement of critical areas. Instead, as the City's consultant and other commentators have noted,much of the scientific literature that is available is based on (1) studies of agriculture and timber properties; (2) studies from areas of the country that have physical characteristics, flora, fauna, soils and climates different from ours, and/or(3) studies of situations that did not have the kinds of environmental protections available that are present in the City of Kent. Examples of such environmental protections include, but are not limited to: • Kent's existing stormwater regulations, • Kent's existing clearing and grading regulations, • Kent's existing steep slopes regulations, • Kent's existing wetland buffer regulations, • Kent's existing stream buffer regulations • Kent's existing critical areas regulations, and • Other provisions in our City code. F. During the Critical Area Focus Group process, members of the Focus Group asked the Washington Department of Ecology Wetlands Specialists if any of the approximately 17,000 BAS studies the Department reviewed (or the approximately 1,500 the Department cited) involved studies of environments similar to Kent. Ecology indicated there were no such studies in the voluminous materials regarding BAS that the Department had assembled. In response to that answer, since the Department of Ecology indicated there were no studies of urban environments similar to Kent, members of the Focus Group then asked the Department of Ecology to identify the study(in the BAS the Department of Ecology had assembled) that was most relevant to Kent. The Department of Ecology indicated it was not able to do so because relevance depended upon what buffer function was being examined. In response to that answer, members of the Focus Group pointed to the following five different buffer functions identified in the Department of Ecology's PowerPoint slides that had been provided to the Focus Group, and asked the Now3 Department to identify the most relevant BAS study for each of those five different buffer functions: (1) Removing course sediment (2) Removing fine sediment (3) Removing N or P (4) Screening wildlife from impacts (5) Wildlife habitat (wetland species) The Department of Ecology indicated it would not be possible to identify the most relevant study for an urban area like Kent for any of the five different priority buffer functions that the Department of Ecology focused upon in the PowerPoint materials it presented to the City's Critical Areas Focus Group. The Department of Ecology assembled voluminous BAS which requires extreme extrapolations because the BAS (1) involved studies of agriculture and timber properties; (2) involved studies from areas of the country that have physical characteristics, flora, fauna, soils and climates different from Kent, and/or(3) involved studies of situations that did not have the kinds of regulatory and non- regulatory environmental protections available that are present in the City of Kent. "Volumes of studies" are not a substitute for relevant BAS which demonstrates that in urban areas like Kent, the City's existing regulatory and non-regulatory protections are insufficient to protect critical area functions and values. NIS G. The City is mindful and aware of the fact that when the Department of Ecology submitted its compilation of Best Available Science to the Expert Peer Reviewers selected by the Department, the analysis provided by those experts included the following statements, which are reflected in Summary of Significant Comments, Draft Volume 1 Synthesis of the Science Freshwater Wetlands in Washington State, dated 6/8/2004, along with the Department's formal response: Chapter 7, Comment 55: "55. Comment: I disagree with the conclusions regarding the adequacy of data sources. There is no analysis presented on how effective local regulations have been at protecting wetlands or wetland functions. There is no assessment addressing or quantifying to what extent the cumulative losses to aquatic functions are or are not occurring in Washington State under existing wetland CAO ordinances. There is no analysis of how the range of existing development review standards (including clearing and grading permits, extensive stormwater management requirements, CAO requirements, and other mitigations) may or may not be adequately protective of wetlands and aquatic environments in Washington State. 4 Response: We were unable to find any written information, either peer reviewed, expert opinion, or anecdotal, discussing the effectiveness of local regulations at protecting wetlands and their functions. We will be revising the text, however, to explain our reasoning that the existing efforts are not adequate in the State." Chapter 7, Comment 57: "57. Comment: Ecology has not presented convincing evidence that under currently imposed CAOs consistent and significant losses in wetland functions are occurring statewide. While wetland CAOs vary widely across the state, there have been no quantifications of the overall performance of these programs and no real systematic evaluation of their effectiveness or deficiencies. There is no consideration of how stormwater management requirements, grading permit requirements, and other mitigations are implemented to protect critical areas and under what circumstances these are sufficient or inadequate. While there is no question upland development affects non-water or wetlands dependent wildlife, there is little information presented in the document that shows, in Washington, wetland dependent wildlife are declining or otherwise being impacted by CAOs standards that are inadequate. Upland wildlife also requires certain protections under GMA, and governments must specify fish and wildlife habitat conservation areas to maintain the viability of wildlife populations. Wetlands and wetland buffers should not necessarily be designed to maintain non-wetland dependent upland wildlife. Response: see response to Comment 55." In response to this significant, and critically important, deficiency in the BAS assembled by the Department of Ecology, the Department appears to have attempted to "write around" the problem by reference to some fundamental laws of physics, which the Department refers to as "Basic Principles," including but not limited to the general notions that: Water Moves Downhill, Larger Sediment Settles Out of Moving Water Faster Than Smaller Sediment, Different Species Fill Similar Niches, etc. Such an approach is not persuasive in filling the gaping hole in the Department's BAS, or in attempting to demonstrate the City's regulatory and non-regulatory critical areas protections are legally insufficient. H. When the Department of Ecology indicated in the Focus Group that it would prefer an increase in the City's buffers, its representative prefaced the Department's remarks with the words, "Setting the issue of balancing aside..." (which is reference to the decision of the Washington Court of Appeals in the Nome 5 WEAN case where the Court indicated municipalities are "required" to balance the environmental provisions in GMA with the Act's other Planning Goals). The pursuit of a single environmental agenda to the exclusion of all the City's other responsibilities under the Growth Management Act is ill-advised, especially when there is absolutely no credible data whatsoever from the Department of Ecology, environmental interests or other members of the public which indicate the City's existing program of regulatory and non-regulatory protections of Critical Areas is failing to protect the functions and values of critical areas in Kent. The fact that Kent may, or may not, chose to follow in lock step with the political decisions of other elected officials in other jurisdictions does not make the City's environmental protections legally insufficient. J. The recommendations the City has received from its consultant are based upon what Best Available Science alone would support. While the City's consultants and staff have tried to be sensitive to the other considerations the City must address under GMA, and while the Council is appreciative their efforts in this regard, in the final analysis the responsibility and authority for balancing the CAO development regulations with the other GMA Goals (as well as addressing any other legal, social and political considerations), belongs exclusively to the elected officials of this City. 4. Balancing &Departure From What Best Available Science (BAS) Alone Would Support The City's consultants have analyzed the areas where the City's approach to the update of its critical areas regulations might depart from what Best Available Science alone would support. To the extent the City's approach departs from what BAS alone would support, the City does so for the following reasons: A. The City Council must weigh not only the current level of environmental protections and the alternatives that Best Available Science alone would support, but also the rest of the Planning Goals the City is required to pursue under the state's Growth Management Act. Those goals are set out in state law at RCW 36.70A.020, and they include the following: Urban growth Reducing sprawl Transportation Affordable Housing Economic development Property rights Permits weS 6 Natural resource industries Open space and recreation The Environment Citizen participation and coordination Public facilities and services, and Historic preservation RCW 36.70A.020 makes it very clear that each of these goals stand on an equal footing. B. Economic Development RCW 36.70A.020 (5)requires that the City encourage economic development within the limits of our natural resources. Additionally, the City must do so in a manner that promotes economic opportunity for all citizens, especially for unemployed and for disadvantaged persons, and also in a manner that promotes the retention and expansion of existing businesses, and the recruitment of new businesses. The state statute reflects a recognition that for most of our citizens, real Quality of Life begins with a good job in a company that has great prospects. The City's record reflects that: (1) Adopting an approach that BAS alone would support would be inconsistent with the City meeting its responsibility to encourage Economic Development. It would not only fail to encourage Economic Development, it would actually cause harm in the City of Kent in this regard. (2) As an example, the record from the City's public hearing includes the testimony from 0 Boy! Oberto, an important employer in the City that would not be able to expand their company's facilities at their present location if the buffer requirements are increased. The opportunity for approximately 40 new jobs would be lost. (3) The situation presented by the 0 Boy! Oberto example is especially relevant for the following additional reasons: (a) First, the representative of the company testified that in order for their business to be successful, if they could not expand in Kent the company would have to consider moving its entire operation to Oregon. (b) Second, if that happened, approximately 60 additional jobs (60 in addition to the 40 associated with the aforementioned expansion) could also be lost. 7 (c) Additionally, the firm testified that based on their review of the issue (including review of the issue with expert advisers), off-site mitigation would be prohibitively expensive. (d) The City Council is also mindful of the following: 1. The company already has a facility in Albany, Oregon, which serves to make the company's statement especially credible and disconcerting. 2. Losing such a large employer would be inconsistent with the City's responsibility to encourage retention of existing businesses. The City must adopt regulatory frameworks that operate in a way that encourages such firms to stay, not in a manner that drive them out of town. 3. It will be significantly more difficult to attract new firms to the City of Kent if the City cannot keep the firms that are already here. The City is supposed to be encouraging the recruitment of new firms,not creating reasons for them to have new doubts about locating in our City. 4. This company has received an Employer of the Year award from the Chamber of Commerce in connection with its diversity efforts that provide opportunities for people who may be at a competitive disadvantage when trying to obtain employment in a stellar company. It does not escape the attention of the City Council that opportunities for such workers are an expressed objective of RCW 36.70A.020(5). Kent needs more companies (not fewer companies) that provide good jobs and opportunities for upward mobility to potentially disadvantaged workers. An important first step in this regard is to retain such employers who are already here in our City. 5. The example of 0 Boy! Oberto is especially poignant, and deserves such extensive comment in these findings,because (even if one were to set aside all of the considerable deficiencies in the available BAS), it encapsulates in a single example a vivid and unsettling illustration of the many reasons why adopting "critical area buffer requirements that BAS alone would support"would be a really bad public policy decision for the City of Kent, for the working families of our community, for disadvantaged persons, and for the future Economic Vitality of Our Community. (4) GMA requires that we seek to encourage the expansion of existing businesses within the limits of our natural resources. Expanding the 8 buffers would have just the opposite effect, which would be especially disconcerting in light of the information in the record that our existing buffers (in combination with the City's other environmental regulations and non-regulatory programs) are working well, and the lack of any local data whatsoever to demonstrate the City's regulatory and non-regulatory environmental protections for critical areas are legally insufficient. (5) In addition to the example of 0 Boy! Oberto, the City's record in this matter also includes testimony from commercial real estate experts with decades of experience in the City who provided the City with other specific examples of how expanded buffers would constrain other commercial properties in the City in ways that would essentially preclude commercial development. When GMA was passed in 1990, it included a requirement to preclude development in critical areas. Within a year the legislature realized that was a bad idea. As a result, in 1991 the requirement was deleted and the law was amended to instead require protection of wetlands. Kent does so. But expanding the buffers would take the City back in the direction the legislature recognized was a bad idea. (6) Moreover, if Kent is going to be able to recruit new businesses, the City must have properties available where they can locate. There is specific expert testimony in the record demonstrating that increasing buffers would serve to effectively take properties out of the marketplace. The reasonably foreseeable result of that action will be to raise the price of the remaining building sites. That, in turn, will likely have the effect of limiting the firms that are in a financial position to locate in Kent, and/or increase the costs and financial risk for firms that decide to take such a chance. Creating such a situation is not consistent with RCW 36.70A.020(5), or with the long-term best interests of our City. (7) While not the primary focus of these concerns, there is an additional dimension of this matter that involves the likely effects of larger buffers on the City's ability to encourage the retention, expansion and recruitment of businesses. It involves the following two realities: • The manner in which a city is perceived can materially affect decisions about where businesses choose to remain, to expand, or to locate, and • The decisions made by high profile businesses in the Community can materially affect such perceptions. There is no one single "silver bullet" that can "make" a City's reputation for economic vitality,but a misdirected projectile, or a single negative Aft" event, can cause a serious injury to the way a jurisdiction is perceived. 9 While the City's record indicates a variety of types of businesses would be adversely affected by the larger buffers, it does not escape the City Council's attention that even high profile businesses such as 0 Boy! Oberto and Reber Ranch have indicated they would be very seriously compromised. When such high profile businesses (some might even say "near-icon-like"businesses for the City of Kent) are among those who make significant decisions based on being materially and adversely affected, it can send a damaging ripple affect through the community that is significantly larger than simply the effects for the specific high profile businesses. The recognition of this market-based reality was a material consideration for the Governor and Legislature when they acted deliberatively and decisively to try to ensure that the next generation of Boeing airplanes is built in Washington State. And when they were successful in getting Boeing to stay, they understood the importance of trying to affect public perceptions by publicizing that success as an important part of the State's efforts to attract other employers and jobs. Conversely,when efforts to retain businesses are not successful, the damage that can result to a City's reputation is equally predictable. For example: Ntild • When Genie Industries chose to leave the City of Redmond, it was a significant "black eye" for the reputation of that City. • The City of Renton has worked extremely hard to earn a reputation as a good place for the expansion and location of businesses. But when Zones (one of the 10 largest employers in the City) chose to leave Renton, the City's reputation took a significant hit. Unlike the State's efforts to publicize its success in retaining Boeing, none of these cities sought to publicize the fact that they lost important employers and jobs, and for good reason. The requirement to update our CAO is not, and must not be allowed to become, a suicide pact concerning our City's Economic Vitality. Kent cannot ignore, or simply give lip service to, the realities of what will be required for the City to be successful in our efforts to discharge our statutory responsibilities for Economic Development and Economic Vitality under RCW 36.70A.020(5). 10 C. Housing RCW 36.70A.020(4)requires Kent encourage the availability of affordable housing for all economic segments of the population. The City's record includes testimony from a number of members of the public who explained, and offered specific credible examples, which demonstrate that increasing buffers would decrease the capacity of the remaining land supply to accommodate housing. Moreover, as supply shrinks relative to demand, that will create even more market pressure for higher home prices, and higher rents. A professional Housing Specialist from the Association of REALTORS offered verbal testimony, a PowerPoint presentation and extensive written testimony to the City. The REALTORS provided expert comment on the issue of our critical areas regulation updates both before the Land Use Planning Board, and again at the City Council Public Hearings. A number of disconcerting conclusions emerge from the testimony the City received on the effects larger buffers would have on housing in the City,but the Council is left with four impressions that remain particularly compelling and relevant with regard to Kent's responsibilities under the GMA Housing Goal: (1) The fundamental focus of GMA Goal #4 is the affordability of housing for all economic segments of the population. In fact, the Countywide Planning Policies place the CPP Appendix 2 targets for Total Housing Production, and the CPP AH-2 and Appendix 3 Affordable Housing Targets, on an equal footing. (2) Increasing buffers will decrease housing capacity, which in-turn impedes housing supply. Reducing supply relative to demand causes prices to go up. That would harm housing affordability in Kent, not encourage it. The City's Comprehensive Plan and development regulations are suppose to help make housing more affordable for working families in Kent, for senior citizens on fixed incomes, and for residents who are, or who might become, homeless. Increasing buffers would not only fail to encourage affordability(as required by RCW 36.70A.020[4]), and also fail to maintain the status quo, it would go in exactly the opposite direction and serve to make housing in our City less affordable. (3) Although Kent is keeping pace with its responsibilities for total housing production, the City's ability to meet its Countywide Planning Policy Housing Targets for Low Income households and Moderate Income households remains much more problematic. Increasing the size of buffers can only make it worse. Under the Countywide Planning Policies Frame Work policies, those affordable housing targets stand on an equal r footing with the City's total housing production targets. 4414. 11 (4) The GMA language of Goal 4 is clear: It doesn't say Kent must avoid harm to housing affordability. Rather, it requires Kent actually take affirmative steps to encourage housing to be more affordable. Housing affordability is a giant problem in King County, and Kent is not exempt from that situation,which is precisely why Kent's progress in meeting the City's housing targets for Low and Moderate Income households is already less than the Council would prefer given the affordability targets in Countywide Planning Policy AH-2 and CPP Appendix 3. D. Reducing Sprawl RCW 36.70A.020(2) requires the City to reduce sprawl. The testimony in the City's record is clear that increasing buffer requirements will cause a reduction in the City's capacity to accommodate new housing. The City's record in this regard includes not only public hearing testimony by property owners and members of the development community, it also includes a very specific reference by the Association of REALTORS to that fact that page 17 of the King County 2002 Buildable Land Inventory Report (prepared for all King County jurisdictions, including the City of Kent, in connection with the 2004 Comprehensive Plan and Critical Areas updates in all King County jurisdictions) states: "Development restrictions associated with (updates to critical areas ordinances based on 'best available science') will have an impact on the developable land supply..." Reducing the supply of housing will contribute to the growing problems of King County's un-accommodated growth that is both sprawling up and down the I-5 corridor beyond the County's borders, and sprawling "leap-frog" across the County's rural areas to counties east of Snoqualmie Pass. As the Association of REALTORS and members of the King County Council and the GMPC have explained for more than a year, even though King County did a fairly good job with its housing targets for total units constructed, from 1993 to 2000 jurisdictions in King County failed to accommodate 44% of the actual demand for housing that accompanied net increases in employment inside the County's borders. The actual demand created by job growth during the period was for 133,505 new dwelling units countywide,but only 75,000 were added to the housing supply, creating a deficit of 58,505 homes countywide. The Countywide Planning Policies anticipated 103,553 King County workers (1.77 workers per household) would live in those 58,505 homes. If those 103,553 workers make just two commute trips each day(one trip into work from outside King County, and one trip back home) those workers alone add more than 207,000 additional multi-county daily commutes to the region's growing congestion problems. As they do so, sprawl worsens. 12 „,o That sprawl comprises the environment (including air quality), increases congestion, compromises freight mobility and economic competitiveness, and makes solving the region's transportation challenges significantly more difficult than it otherwise would be. Such a result is not theory. It's already occurring, and having Kent add to the problem by reducing our existing capacity to accommodate homes for the family wage earners who work in our City would be inconsistent with Goal 2 of the Growth Management Act. Evaluated on balance, that is not a good idea. Critical areas amendments that move the City in such a direction must be rejected in favor of a more balanced and comprehensive view of Quality of Life. E. Property Rights RCW 36.70A.020(6)requires the City to protect the property rights of landowners from arbitrary and discriminatory actions. During the public hearing, City staff indicated that some of the developments that occurred on East Hill prior to the imposition of the City's current strong environmental protections had created problems on the valley floor. Staff also indicated the City has been pursing a number of capital improvement projects to Norse remediate that situation. In addition, staff also indicated they were attempting to augment those efforts by trying to get as much as they could in the way of bigger buffers. It is the City Council's position that if such action occurs, it must be done with voluntary market-rate incentives in a manner that does not unfairly burden new projects with the responsibility to atone for the sins of others. In the case of Dolan vs. City of Tigard the United States Supreme Court said that there must not only be a "nexus” between the a property owner's project and the burden a city imposes, but the burden a city imposes must be roughly "proportional" to the problems created by the specific project. In addition, the Court said a city's actions must be supported by a "site-specific" analysis. During the City's public hearings there was a specific reference to the Dolan decision by the Association of REALTORS. The REALTORS made the reference to Dolan in connection with specific remarks made by City staff, and indicated that for the City to try to "get all we can" from current applicants to solve problems created by others at an earlier time under a different regulatory framework was like asking the last person entering the theater to "buy the popcorn for everybody." Taking such an approach on the basis of the record that is before the City would not be fair, and the City Council elects to adopt an approach that is more balanced, and fairer. w 13 F. At least one environmental organization has openly expressed an interest in filing an appeal of the City's update of Kent's critical areas protections. In addition, the Council is also aware that King County's actions are already under appeal to the Central Puget Sound Growth Management Hearings Board by the Association of REALTORS, in part because of the manner in which the County's Critical Areas Update compromised the ability of the County to discharge its other responsibilities under GMA. While the REALTORS did not make any threats, they were very candid in observing (in the verbal testimony augmenting their extensive written comments) that the scope of potential legal challenges is much broader than simply the risk of a challenge from a single focus environmental concern. As a result, the City cannot, and should not,make a decision out of fear over who will, or who might, challenge the City. Instead, in amending KCC 15.08 and 11.06, the City Council elects to: • Discharge its responsibilities as the elected decision makers for the City, rather than delegating that right and responsibility to any outside agency or interest, • Exercise the Council's right to make an independent analysis of the BAS, (including identifying deficiencies in the data and/or analysis), and incorporating BAS where required, • Recognize that the CAO update is part of a larger comprehensive planning effort under GMA, • Recognize that the City must ascertain and account for the cumulative impacts of the imposition of new regulations (including impacts that extend beyond a narrowly focused fixation on environmental values to the exclusion of all others values in the City), which is why the GMA requires the Comprehensive Plan and CAO to be considered contemporaneously, • Do the kind of balancing described by the Court of Appeals in the WEAN decision, • Undertake such balancing based on a comprehensive view of what is required for Quality of Life in our City; That kind of comprehensive view is at the very core of comprehensive planning under GMA, these findings, and the City's approach in updating KCC 15.08 and 11.06, and • Focus on what's best for the long-term future of the City of Kent and our residents. 14 *iiiifj- tiltATa'agejtfoRlr45' Sec. 11.06.6870 Non-regulatory protections of Critical Areas 1. The City shall produce by December 31, 2005, a work plan for the development, funding and implementation of a Non-Regulatory Critical Areas Program for the City of Kent to acquire and preserve significant critical areas within the City. 2. The work plan for the City's Non-Regulatory Critical Areas Program shall build upon the City's existing non-regulatory efforts to protect and acquire significant critical areas within the City, and will include the following: A. In cooperation with the Department of Ecology, and building upon both the City's substantial existing mapping of critical areas and the City's existing database regarding critical areas, the City will identify significant critical areas within the City. �rrr+ B. Based on this identification of significant critical areas, the City will develop a plan to acquire, and preserve or enhance, those significant critical areas within the City that are crucial for water quality and/or wildlife habitat. C. The City will identify funding sources to facilitate the implementation of the Non-Regulatory Critical Areas Program within time frames the City shall identify. D. The critical areas acquisition, and preservation or enhancement,projects that are part of the City's Non-Regulatory Critical Areas Program shall be included in the Capital Facilities Element, and the six-year CIP program, of the City's Comprehensive Plan, consistent with the time frames identified in paragraph 2. C. of this section. E. The Non-Regulatory Critical Areas Program shall be integrated with a comprehensive citywide stormwater management program to provide for water quality and hydrologic functions. 3. In addition to the elements of the Non-Regulatory Critical Areas Program identified in Section 2,the City will undertake Non-Regulatory Critical Areas Program "Early Actions" prior to December 31, 2005, as follows: A. In cooperation with the Department of Ecology, the City will develop a prioritized list of Non-Regulatory Critical Areas Program "Early Actions." B. The City will begin to undertake the Non-Regulatory Critical Areas Program "Early Actions" within 30 days of the Department of Ecology and/or the Department of Community Trade and Economic Development securing and providing to the City the funding necessary to implement those early actions. C. The funding for the Non-Regulatory Critical Areas Program "Early Actions" maybe acquired by the Department of Ecology and/or the Department of Community Trade and Economic Development from a variety of sources from within, or from without, state government,but will not include City of Kent funds. Sec. 11.06.670 Non-regulatory protections of Critical Areas The City shall produce by December 31, 2005, a work plan for the development, funding and implementation of a Non-Regulatory Critical Areas Program for the City of Kent to acquire and preserve significant critical areas within the City. correspondence. 05- E-mails) s From: "Joyce Ray"<jrandww@comcast.net> To: <council@ci.renton.wa.us> /® (/ Qd Y414rr Date: Mon, Mar 28, 2005 12:12 PM Subject: RentonTaxes on Seniors and Disabled I understand that there is a possibility of removing Renton utility taxes from senior and/or disabled's bills. Let me add my encouragement. There are a large number of seniors here where I live who are in their 80's and 90's and living on fixed incomes. We have had people move out who could not really handle another$10 or $15 raise in their lease charges. As we get older and inflation whittles away at our fixed pensions,we need help. Please consider seriously removing these taxes as other communities have. Sincerely, Joyce Ray, President, Leisure Estates Residents Association 201 Union Ave. SE Unit 101 Renton 98059 Noire • From: Shirley A Arthalony<s.arthalony@juno.com> To: <council@ci.renton.wa.us> Ione Date: Mon, Mar 28,2005 2:19 PM Subject: Renton Taxes on Seniors and Disabled Subject: Renton Taxes on Seniors and Disabled I understand that there is a possibility of removing Renton utility taxes from senior and/or disabled's bills. Let me add my encouragement. There are a large number of seniors in Leisure Estates Mobile Home Park where I live who are living on fixed incomes. We have had people move out who could not really handle another$10 or $15 raise in their lease charges. As we get older and inflation whittles away at our fixed pensions, we need help. Please consider seriously removing these taxes as other communities have. Sincerely, Shirley Arthalony Leisure Estates Residents Association 201 Union Ave. SE Unit 35 Renton 98059 fir►. From: <Reneevandemaele@aol.com> To: <council@ci.renton.wa.us> fro' Date: Mon, Mar 28, 2005 5:13 PM Subject: City taxes for Seniors and Disabled persons Hello, Those of us on fixed incomes are having difficulty with increasing prices on so many necessities. Please consider taking the city tax off of the Qwest bill and the Puget Sound Energy bill. Also, the people who have cable TV would like to have the city tax taken off of the Comcast bill. Please consider these requests as you work out your budget. Thank you, Renee Vandemaele Leisure Estates 201 Union AVE SE#250 Renton 98059 425 430 1024 °fir' Now From: connie <cjkreie@earthlink.net> To: <council@ci.renton.wa.us> Noe Date: Mon, Mar 28, 2005 9:51 PM Subject: renton city taxes on seniors and disabled I have heard there is a chance of removing Renton utility taxes from senior and disabled's bills. Please give a lot of consideration to this. I live here at Leisure Estates Mobile Home Park, where a lot of us live on fixed incomes. With everything going up in price,this plan would help alot. Thank you for your time and please really consider removing these taxes. Sincerely, Connie Duncan 201 Leisure Estates SE #228 Renton, Wa 98059 err From: Tami Dauenhauer To: Medzegian, Julia; ORG_CITY_COUNCIL 'fir Date: 3/29/2005 8:31:49 AM Subject: Citizen Call RE Utility Taxes On March 29th, an elderly citizen by the name of Jean Webb called the Council line, asking that the City utility tax be removed. She said she doesn't quite qualify for the reduced utility rate, but her medical expenses (co-pays)are so high that sometimes she must choose between paying her utility bill and buying her medication. She said she did not need a response back from Council, but she did leave the following information: Jean Webb 201 Union Avenue SE, #248 Renton, WA 98059 (425)254-0245 Noire o From: <ediemae@maxxconnect.net> To: <council@ci.renton.wa.us> Date: Tue, Mar 29, 2005 2:50 PM Subject: Renton taxes on Seniors/Disabled I understand there is a possibility that the City of Renton may be removing utility taxes from seniors (and/or disabled persons) bills. I would very much like to encourage this action. I live in a senior retirement park-most of whom are in their 80's and 90's and therefore living on very fixed incomes. People have had to give up their homes here because they could not handle another $10, $15 or more raise in their lease charges. This is a real put down to our senior population. A good many of these good people have no way of increasing their incomes, and inflation just keeps whittling away at their quality of life. We really need your help. I have lived in the Renton area all of my life(71 years)and love this city. I really feel that the seniors are the backbone of our area. Please seriously consider removing these taxes from our seniors as many other communities/areas have done. Thank you for your consideration. Sincerely, Edie-Mae Lawyer 201 Union Avenue SE Space No. 20 Renton, 98059 From: Eugene D Olson <eugolson@juno.com> To: <council@ci.renton.wa.us> 4r►" Date: Tue, Mar 29, 2005 6:33 PM Subject: Taxes I understand that there is a possibility of removing Renton utility taxes from senior and/or disabled's bills. Let me add my encouragement. There are a large number of seniors here where I live who are in their 80's and 90's and living on fixed incomes. We have had people move out who could not really handle another$10 or $15 raise in their lease charges. As we get older and inflation whittles away at our fixed pensions,we need help. Please consider seriously removing these taxes as other communities have. Sincerely, Eugene Olson 201 Union Ave. SE Unit 233 Renton 98059 *low From: Eugene D Olson <eugolson@juno.com> To: <council@ci.renton.wa.us> *law Date: Tue, Mar 29, 2005 6:33 PM Subject: Taxes I understand that there is a possibility of removing Renton utility taxes from senior and/or disabled's bills. Let me add my encouragement. There are a large number of seniors here where I live who are in their 80's and 90's and living on fixed incomes. We have had people move out who could not really handle another$10 or $15 raise in their lease charges. As we get older and inflation whittles away at our fixed pensions, we need help. Please consider seriously removing these taxes as other communities have. Sincerely, Jo Ann Olson 201 Union Ave. SE Unit 233 Renton 98059 �rrr From: "angelsandel" <angelsandel@aol.com> To: <Dpersson@ci.renton.wa.us> err+ Date: 3/29/2005 6:54:16 PM Subject: RE: Utility taxes Hello, I do help support the reduction of the tax on utilities for those over 65, and disabled. Some live on under 500.00 a month. And a demograftic was taken for housing recently and stated that we have over 1,400.00 senior's in renton highlands area alone that are 75.00 and receive under 15,000 per year to live on. And that there are those 65 and over over 2,000. Being disabled I know how tight it gets between paying utilities with the constint raises and something needs to be done to help the elderly and disabled. Thank you *iv for your consideration. Sande) DeMastus 1137 Hgrrirliov► Ave. NE' Advocate Wehtbn, Wfi 770$4 CC: "City council" <Dpersson@ci.renton.wa.us> Added &orrespoden.ce A9era - -dem q, , From: "Wyona Moser" <W.Moser.@comcast.net> 1/_t�_ 0s To: <council@ci.renton.wa.us> Date: Fri, Apr 1, 2005 9:29 AM Subject: City of Renton Utiliity tax Senior Relief Anything you can do to remove the tax burden from seniors would be greatly appreciated. I'm a senior almost 70 and live in Leisure Estates Mobile Home Park. Each year becomes more difficult to make ends meet. All expenses keep going up, especially drugs and land rental. If you would eliminate the Renton Utility tax for seniors it would be very helpful for me. Thank you. Wyona M. Moser 201 Union Ave SE#160 Renton, WA 98059 (425)277-1915 SENT 8Y: LAW OFFICES; 253 272 9876 4;MAR-31 -05 11 :58AM; PAGE 2 -;t TY OF RENTON z t'y s r 3, a': HALINEN LAW OFFICES, P.S. A Professional Service Corporation RECEIVED Y&ERICSOFFICE David L Halinen, P.E. Bellevue Place/ Bank of America Bldg. (425) 454-8272 davidhalinen@haliaezztaw.com 10500 NE 8'h, Suite 1900 Fax (425) 646-3467 Bellevue, Washington 98004 (.G?/ March 31, 2005 laddid 64)114,471661 4 etODS VIA FAX AND E-MAIL (Bwalton(&ci.renton.wa.us) Renton City Council c/o Renton City Clerk 1055 S. Grady Way, Seventh Floor Renton, Washington 98055 Re: Proposed"Sunset Bluff'Residential Subdivision(Renton File No. LUA 04-002, EC, PP) Applicant SR 900 L.L.C.'s Request for Reconsideration in Regard to Conditions of Approval 2 and 3 of the Council's March 21, 2005 Preliminary Plat Approval Decision Dear Council Members: I am writing on behalf of my client SR 900 L.L.C., the "Sunset Bluff'Residential Subdivision applicant, to respectfully request that, pursuant to Robert's Rules of Order concerning reconsideration, you reconsider Conditions of Approval 2 and 3 of the Council's March 21, 2005 preliminary plat approval decision. Those two conditions currently state: 2. The forest clearing and hillside grading shall not occur between January 15 and July 31 in any year that such work is necessary. 3. The applicant shall not use any agents to dry or stabilize the soils that would alter the pH of the soils. As explained below, the applicant wishes you to consider modifications to both of those two conditions. Condition 2 Condition 2 as currently drafted fails to leave the applicant a reasonable portion of our area's usually short dry season within which to accomplish the forest clearing and hillside grading. The project involves roughly 22 acres of site logging and clearing and roughly 200,000 cubic yards of site grading. With Condition 2's prohibition on forest clearing and hillside grading between January 15 and July 31, as a practical matter the applicant will likely be forced to only perform forest clearing work during the first construction season and then perform hillside grading during one or more subsequent construction seasons. Multiple construction seasons to accomplish the work will drive up project construction costs and create undue delay. SENT BY: LAW OFFICES; 253 272 9876 4;MAR-31 -05 11 :59AM; PAGE 3/6 Renton City Council c/o Renton City Clerk March 31, 2005 Page 2 While the City has not met its burden of proof in this case to legally justify the imposition of any construction season limits (see, e.g., Isla Verde v. Camas, 146 Wn.2d Remember that in the City Council's November 8, 2005 reversal of the Hearing Examiner's decision concerning Herons Forever's SEPA threshold determination appeal, the Council concluded that Heron's Forever's evidence of Sunset Bluff impacts upon the heron colony was merely speculative. The Council's Finding of Fact 31 stated in relevant part: Herons Forever's experts. . .suspect that the proposed grading on this property,over 1,000 feet from the heron colony, might have an impact on the colony . . . . Anecdotal evidence indicates that the development of an office park within 500 feet of the colony may have caused the colony to move to the north and west and abandon the main nest. . . . One can only speculate as to the cause of the move. One can also only speculate as to the effect on the herons of clearing the development site.. .. There was no concrete testimony at the hearing regarding probable significant adverse effects on the herons caused by upslope clearing at a distance starting at over 1,000 • feet of the heronry. (Emphasis added.) Likewise,the Council's Conclusion 11 states in relevant part: "[tlhe testimony of Herons Forever was,in great part,based upon speculation. There is a lot that is unknown about the behavior of herons and what might affect them, but that field of study is far beyond what could be required of this developer. In general, the developer presented studies of the proposal,while Herons Forever responded by criticizing the studies and presented general,non-site specific testimony. Herons Forever's site specific testimony was of logging and building occurrences which were much closer to the heronry than the proposed development." (Emphasis added.) Remember also that the record demonstrates that less than seven years ago,Heron's Forever's own expert witness Dr.Kate Stenberg was the Wildlife Program Manager for the King County Wildlife Program. In a June 12, 1998 letter to Renton Development Services'Jennifer Toth Henning(Exhibit 15)concerning the then-proposed development of the Black River Tract B office project(also known as the"Black River Corporate Park",which was then proposed within about 500 feet of the Black River heron colony),Dr. Stenberg stated on page 2 under the subheading"Seasonal Construction Restrictions"that "There should be no construction during the nesting season within a larger buffer zone of about 1000 feet. The nesting season for these non-migratory birds is approximately January 15 through June 30m." (Emphasis added.) In a July 1, 1998 letter to Renton Development Services'Jana Huerter(Exhibit 16)also concerning the Black River Corporate Park project,Dr.Stenberg similarly stated that: "[T]here should be no construction between January 15th and June 30th within 800 to 1000 feet of the rookery. (Emphasis added.) The 1991 Memorandum of Agreement (MOA) among the City of Renton, private property owners to the south, and interested environmental groups concerning the Black River heron colony(of which Suzanne Krom was a key player) specified a seasonal construction window that had an SENT BY: LAW OFFICES; 253 272 9876 4;MAR-31 -05 12:00PM; PAGE 4/6 Renton City Council c/o Renton City Clerk March 31, 2005 Page 3 740 (2002)(where the Washington Supreme Court held that "under RCW 82.02.020 the burden of establishing that a condition is reasonably necessary as a direct result of the proposed development is on the City"--emphasis added), the applicant would be willing at this point to accept Condition 2 if the Council revises it to read as follows: 2. The forest clearing and hillside grading shall not occur between January 15 and June 30 in any year that such work is necessary. The extra month of the construction season afforded by this change would reduce the number of construction seasons that would be necessary to construct the project, something that everyone involved here should prefer. Condition 3 Condition 3 is not called-for as currently drafted. No legal standard exists as to "pH of the soils" and there is no basis in the record for Condition 3's blanket prohibition on the use of "drying agents that would alter the pH of the site's soils". The relevant issue relating to pH for this project is not whether the pH of the site's soils would be altered by the use of drying agents (more accurately called "soil amendments"2) but, annual end date of June I5'", Dr. Ken Raedcke,the applicant's heron expert,testified that he was unaware of any projects in King County lying outside of a 1,000 foot radius from a heron colony in which seasonal construction limits had ever been imposed. Renton Senior planner Jason Jordan testified on May 10,2004 that "The discussion of a construction season window was discussed heavily at the Environmental Review Committee. And well so, because many of the letters that we received indicated that a construction season may be appropriate. But, ultimately, the Staff and the Environmental Review Committee ultimately felt that the project,the location of the project, the design of the project, the proximity of the project to the heron colony,in itself, was a mitigation factor,a mitigating factor.That's why there is no specific construction season placed on as a mitigation measure for the project" (Emphasis added.) In addition,just effective January 1, 2005, the Metropolitan King County Council has updated its Critical Areas Ordinance to provide for seasonal clearing and grading limitations that only extend 924 feet from heron colonies. In sum, there is simply no justification for any forest clearing and hillside grading limitations on the Sunset Bluff site,a site that ranges from 1,000 to 1,600 feet away from the nearest heron nest. 2 The proper term in the construction industry is "soil amendments". They are used to improve compaction of soil fills on construction sites. Cement kiln dust and cement treated base are often used as soil amendments. Especially with a limitation on the construction season of the sort set forth in Condition 2 (even with the modifications to that condition that the applicant would be willing to accept), the use of soil amendments may be of critical importance in connection with site grading on the Sunset Bluff site. 4r►, SENT BY: LAW OFFICES; 253 272 9876 4;MAR-31 -05 12:00PM; PAGE 5/6 Renton City Council c/o Renton City Clerk March 31, 2005 Page 4 rather, whether, if soil amendments are used, the resulting storm water runoff from the site would cause a violation of applicable State water quality standards in relation to pH. As a matter of State law, coverage under the consolidated National Pollutant Discharge System and State Waste Discharge General Permit for Stormwater Discharges Associated with Construction Activities ("NPDES Permit") must be obtained for the Sunset Bluff development from Ecology. Special Condition S5 of the NPDES Permit specifies that: "The permittee is responsible for achieving compliance with state of Washington surface water quality standards (Chapter 173-201A WAC), sediment management standards (Chapter 173-204 WAC), ground water quality standards (Chapter 173-200 WAC), and human health based criteria in the National Taxies Rule (Federal Register, Vol. 57,No. 246, Dec. 22, 1992,pages 60848-60923)." (Emphasis added.) To insure that these standards will be met, the NPDES Permit requires that Best Management Practices ("BMPs") be specified in a Stormwater Pollution Prevention Plan ("SWPPP"). When soil amendments are to be used, special BMPs relating to soil amendments are necessary in order to assure compliance with the portions of the above-noted standards relating to pH, standards that assure that downstream waters are not going to be harmed. That being the case, a blanket prohibition on the use of soil amendments (which is what Condition 3 essentially is) is not needed here and is thus an unduly burdensome (and legally improper) condition of approval, one that will likely and unnecessarily further lengthen the period of site construction work. While State law fully addresses the pH concern and no special condition of approval is fairly called-for here, a revised Condition 3 that the applicant would accept at this point dealing with the pH issue is as follows: 3. The applicant shall not use soil amendments to achieve compaction standards that would alter the pH of the site's soils without the State of Washington Department of Ecology's prior approval of Best Management Practices for the particular soil amendments to be used. This revised condition would assure the City that the goal of water quality protection will be achieved while not needlessly prohibiting a construction practice that the State of Washington Department of Ecology, the agency with expertise and regulatory authority in the field of water quality, may well conclude is appropriate as part of its permitting process. SENT BY: LAW OFFICES; 253 272 9876 4;MAR-31 -05 fi2-78fiPM- PAGE 6/6 1 15'8 Am -.IT`/OF RENTON Renton City Council MAR 3 0 2Q05 c/o Renton City Clerk March 31, 2005 RECEIVED ,ITY CLERK'S OFFICE Page 5 Please let us know if you have any questions concerning the above. Sincerely, HALINEN LAW OFFICES, P.S. David L. Halin SR 900 L.L.C. Attn: Don Merlino Lawrence J. Warren, City Attorney David Mann, Esq. ii m FINANCE COMMITTEE REPORT Date 1 a_3 April 4, 2005 APPROVAL OF CLAIMS AND PAYROLL VOUCHERS The Finance Committee approves for payment on April 4, 2005, claim vouchers 235731-236174 and 4 wire transfers, totaling $3,168,991.28 , and 571 direct deposits, payroll vouchers 56349-56581, and 1 wire transfer, totaling $1,843,096.57 . r"" 1 Don Persson, Chair i•lc4 uYt R4-1cAnc1 ctm C e-- Toni Nelson, Vice-Chair W ) -4/ De is Law, Member FrirH k 9t. FINANCE COMMITTEE Date o?OOS COMMITTEE REPORT April 4,2005 Collections Services Agreement (Referred March 14, 2005) The Finance Committee recommends concurrence in the staff recommendation to authorize the Mayor and City Clerk to sign the Agreement for Collections Services with AllianceOne Receivables Management, Inc. 47) Don Persson, Chair NO+ LAIR 1Ct afria— Toni Nelson, Vice Chair )kattas. Denis W. Law, Member cc: Joe McGuire,Court Services Director Mike Webby,HR/RM Administrator Linda Parks,Finance Analyst Supervisor Mike Wilson,Interim F&IS Administrator Tete V-01005" FINANCE COMMITTEE COMMITTEE REPORT April 4, 2005 2005 Renton Visitors Connection Tourism Marketing Campaign Funding (Referred March 7, 2005) The Finance Committee recommends concurrence in the staff recommendation to approve lite. contract with the Greater Renton Chamber of Commerce for a sixth year of the Renton Visitors Connection for its tourism marketing campaign and allocate $116,000 of Lodging Tax collections toward that effort. The Renton Visitors Connection will provide oversight of the work program through regular meetings. The Committee further recommends the Mayor and City Clerk be authorized to sign the contract. At the end of the year, the Chamber will submit to the Lodging Tax Advisory Committee a detailed, financial report and include copies of all printed advertising material. r' /77"--2 Don Persson, Chair — IV o4 lM 14 ►d[�ri(��" Toni Ne son, Vice Chair /-WAAK Denis W. Law, Member cc: Alex Pietsch Mike Wilson /st 21 05— adrea CITY OF RENTON, WASHINGTON ORDINANCE NO. 5450 AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF RENTON, WASHINGTON, AMENDING CHAPTER 5-1, FEE SCHEDULE, OF TITLE V (FINANCE AND BUSINESS REGULATIONS) OF ORDINANCE NO. 4260 ENTITLED "CODE OF GENERAL ORDINANCES OF THE CITY OF RENTON, WASHINGTON" BY SETTING AQUATIC CENTER PASS CARD RATES AND CANOPY RENTAL FEES. WHEREAS,the City of Renton wishes to provide to its citizens the most cost effective services possible; and WHEREAS,the City Council has adopted a policy that the Aquatic Center Admission fees shall cover the costs of services; NOW THEREFORE,THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF RENTON, WASHINGTON DOES ORDAIN AS FOLLOWS: SECTION L Section 5-1-7 of Chapter 5-1,Fee Schedule, of Title V(Finance and Business Regulations)of Ordinance No. 4260 entitled"Code of General Ordinances of the City of Renton, Washington"is hereby amended to read as follows: 5-1-7: AQUATIC CENTER ADMISSION FEES: Admission for the Aquatic Center shall be as follows: Resident Children 4 and younger Free Non-resident Children 4 and younger Free DAT Y USE SEASON PASS Resident Youth 5-12 $4.00 $48.00 Non-resident Youth 5-12 $6.00 $72.00 Resident Teen 13-17 $5.00 $60.00 Non-resident Teen 13-17 $8.00 $96.00 1 ORDINANCE NO. Resident Adult $6.00 $72.00 Non-resident Adult $12.00 $144.00 Resident Senior $5.00 $60.00 Non-resident Senior $6.00 $72.00 Resident Lap Swim Only $3.00 $36.00 Non-resident Lap Swim Only $4.00 $48.00 Resident Family Rate* n/a $168.00 Non-resident Family Rate* n/a $288.00 *A family is defined as a group of four of which at least one,but not more than two, are adults. The family season pass card rate is based on a family of four persons. A flat rate of$25 will be charged for each additional family member. All persons must reside at the same address. Group Rates—for groups of 10 or more: Resident Rates: $5.00 per person Non-Resident Rates: $8.00 per person. Staff has the authority to offer discounted daily rates for partial sessions or Renton-only events. Locker Rental $0.25 Resident Swimming Lessons, per session $40.00 Non-resident Swimming Lessons, per session $48.00 Canopy Rental Fees(includes canopy and admission for one leisure swim session): Henry Moses Party Tent#1 (10' x 20' for up to 25 guests): Resident Rate, per session $150.00 Non-resident Rate,per session $180.00 Henry Moses Party Tent#2 (10' x 10' for up to 15 guests): Resident Rate: $100.00 Non-resident Rate: $120.00 All-Inclusive Rentals: $995 for a 2-hour rental 2 • - ORDINANCE NO. SECTION IL This ordinance shall be effective on its passage, approval, and 30 days after publication. PASSED BY THE CITY COUNCIL this day of , 2005. Bonnie I. Walton, City Clerk APPROVED BY THE MAYOR this day of , 2005. Kathy Keolker-Wheeler, Mayor Approved as to form: Lawrence J. Warren, City Attorney Date of Publication: ORD.11682/14/05:ma 3 /St 4-4, 34/-os ,ow 3-za -as CITY OF RENTON, WASHINGTON S/_ A?OD5 ORDINANCE NO. 5/.3 AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF RENTON, WASHINGTON, AMENDING SECTION 9-10-11 OF CHAPTER 10, STREET EXCAVATIONS, OF TITLE IX, PUBLIC WAYS AND PROPERTY, OF ORDINANCE NO. 4260 ENTITLED "CODE OF GENERAL ORDINANCES OF THE CITY OF RENTON, WASHINGTON" BY REVISING TRENCH RESTORATION AND STREET OVERLAY REQUIREMENTS. THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF RENTON, WASHINGTON, DOES ORDAIN AS FOLLOWS: SECTION I. Section 9-10-11 of Chapter 10, Street Excavations, of Title IX, Public Ways and Property, of Ordinance No. 4260 entitled "Code of General Ordinances of the City of Renton, Washington"is hereby amended to read as follows: TRENCH RESTORATION AND STREET OVERLAY REQUIREMENTS A. Purpose: The purpose of this code section is to establish guidelines for the restoration of City streets disturbed by installation of utilities, and other construction activities. Any public or private utilities, general contractors, or others permitted to work in the public right-of-way will adhere to the procedures set forth in this policy. B. Definition: Engineer: The term engineer shall denote the City project manager, inspector and/or plan reviewer,or their designated representative. C. Application: The following standards in this Section shall be followed when doing trench or excavation work within the paved portion of any City of Renton right-of-way. Modifications or exemptions to these standards may be authorized by the Planning/Building/Public Works Administrator, or authorized representative, upon written 1 • ORDINANCE NO. request by the permittee, the permittee's contractor or engineer, and demonstration of an equivalent alternative. D. Hours of Operations: Hours for work within the roadway for asphalt overlays or trench restoration shall be as directed by the Traffic Control Plan requirements and as approved by the Traffic Operations Engineer. E. Inspection: The Engineer may determine in the field that a full street-width (edge-of- pavement edge-of- pavement to edge-of-pavement)overlay is required due to changes in the permit conditions such as,but not limited to the following: 1. There has been damage to the existing asphalt surface due to the contractor's equipment. 2. The trench width was increased significantly or the existing pavement is undermined,or damaged. 3. Any other construction related activities that require additional pavement restoration. F. City of Renton Standards: All materials and workmanship shall be in accordance with the City of Renton Standard and Supplemental Specifications (current adopted version) except where otherwise noted in these Standards. Materials and workmanship are required to be in conformance with standards for the Standard Specifications for Road Bridge, and Municipal Construction prepared by the Washington State Chapter of the American Public Works Association (APWA) and the Washington State Department of Transportation (WSDOT) and shall comply with the most current edition, as modified by the City of Renton Supplemental Specifications. 2 ORDINANCE NO. 1. An asphalt paver shall be used in accordance with Section 5-04.3(3) of Standard Specifications. A "Layton Box" or equal may be used in place of the power-propelled paver. Rollers shall be used in accordance with Section 5-04.3(4)of the Standard Specifications. "Plate Compactors"and"Jumping Jacks"SHALL NOT be used in lieu of rollers. 2. Trench backfill and resurfacing shall be as shown in the City of Renton Standard Details, unless modified by the City Permit. Surfacing depths shown in the Standard Details are minimums and may be increased by the Engineer to meet traffic loads or site conditions. 3. Requirement For Patching,Overlay,and Overlay Widths: All trench and pavement cuts shall be made by sawcut or by grinding. Sawcuts or grinding shall be a minimum of one foot (1') outside the trench width. The top two inches (2") of asphalt shall be ground down to a minimum distance of one foot (1') beyond the actual outside edges of the trench and shall be replaced with two inches(2")of Class B asphalt,per City of Renton Standard Plan#HR- 23 (SP Page H032A). At the discretion of the engineer, a full street width overlay may be required. Lane-width or a full street-width overlay will be determined based upon the location and length of the proposed trench within the roadway cross-section..Changes in field conditions may warrant implementation of additional overlay requirements. a. Trenches(Road Crossings): (1) The minimum width of a transverse patch (road crossing) shall be six and one-half feet (6.5'). See City of Renton Standard Plan Drawing #HR-23 (SP Page: H032A). (2) Any affected lane will be ground down two inches (2") and paved for the entire width of the lane. 3 ORDINANCE NO. (3) The patch shall be a minimum of one foot (1') beyond the excavation and patch length shall be a minimum of an entire traveled lane. (4) If the outside of the trenching is within three feet (3') of any adjacent lane line,the entire adjacent traveled lane affected will be repaved. (5) An area including the trench and one foot (1') on each side of the trench but not less than six and one half feet (6.5') total for the entire width of the affected traveled lanes will be ground down to a depth of two inches (2"). A two-inch (2") overlay of Class B asphalt will be applied per City standards. b. Trenches Running Parallel with the Street: (1) The minimum width of a longitudinal patch shall be four and one- half feet(4.5'). See City of Renton Standard Plan Drawing#HR-05 (SP Page H032). (2) If the trenching is within a single traveled lane, an entire lane- width overlay will be required. (3) If the outside of the trenching is within three feet (3') of any adjacent lane line,the entire adjacent traveled land affected will be overlaid. (4) If the trenching is greater than, or equal to 30% of lane per block (660 foot maximum block length), or if the total patches exceed 12 per block, then the lanes affected will be overlaid. Minimum overlay shall include all patches within the block section. (5) The entire traveled lane width for the length of the trench and an additional ten feet (10') at each end of the trench will be ground down to a depth of two inches (2"). A two-inch(2")overlay of Class B will be applied per City standards. 4 ORDINANCE NO. c. Potholing - Pot holing shall meet the same requirements as trenching and pavement restoration. Potholing shall be a minimum of one foot(1')beyond the excavation. All affected lanes will be ground down to a depth of two inches (2") and paved not less than six and one half feet (6.5') wide for the entire width of the lane. Potholes greater than five feet (5') in length, width or diameter shall be restored to trench restoration standards. In all cases potholes shall be repaired per Renton Standard Plan #HR05 (SP Page 11032). Restoration requirements utilizing vactor equipment will be determined by the engineer. 4. Pavement Removal In Lieu Of Grinding: The contractor in all cases can remove the pavement in the replacement area instead of grinding out the specified two inches (2") of asphalt. Full pavement replacement to meet or exceed the existing pavement depth will be required for the area of pavement removal. 5. Trench Backfill and Restoration Construction Requirements: a. Trench restoration shall be either by a patch or overlay method, as required and indicated on City of Renton Standard Plans#HR-05, HR-23, and HR-22 (SP Pages #1032,H032A, and H033). b. All trench and pavement cuts,which will not be overlaid,shall be made by sawcut or grinding. Sawcuts shall be a minimum of two feet (2') outside the excavated trench width. c. All trenching within the top four feet (4') shall be backfilled with crushed surfacing materials conforming to Section 4-04 of the Standard Specifications. Any trenching over four feet (4') in depth may use materials approved by the Engineer or Materials Lab for backfilling below the four-foot(4')depth. 5 ORDINANCE NO. If the existing material (or other material)is determined by the Engineer to be suitable for backfill, the contractor may use the native material except that the top six inches (6") shall be crushed surfacing top course material. The trench shall be compacted to a minimum ninety-five percent (95%) density, as described in Section 2-03 of the Standard Specifications. In the top six feet (6') of any trench, backfill compaction shall be performed in 8 to 12-inch lifts. Any trench deeper than six feet(6') may be compacted in 24 inch lifts,up to the top six-foot(6')zone. All compaction shall be performed by mechanical methods. The compaction tests may be performed in four-foot (4') vertical increments maximum. The test results shall be given to the Engineer for review and approval prior to paving. The number and location of tests required shall be determined by the Engineer. d. Temporary restoration of trenches for overnight use shall be accomplished by using MC mix (cold mix), Asphalt Treated Base (ATB), or steel plates, as approved by the Engineer. ATB used for temporary restoration may be dumped directly into the trench, bladed out and rolled. After rolling, the trench must be filled flush with asphalt to provide a smooth riding surface.rlf the temporary trench restoration does not hold up, the Contractor shall repair ,the patch within eight hours of being notified of the problem by the City. This requirement, applies 24 hours per day, seven days per week. In the event that the City determines to repair the temporary patch, the Contractor shall reimburse the City in an amount that is double the City's costs in repairing the patch,with the second half of the reimbursement to represent City overhead and hidden costs.] e. Asphalt Concrete Class E or Class 13 shall be placed to the compacted depth as required and indicated on City of Renton Standard Plans #HR-05, HR-23, and HR-22 6 ORDINANCE NO. (SP Pages #11032, H032A, and 11033) or as directed by the Engineer. The grade of asphalt shall be AR-4000W. The materials shall be made in conformance with Section 9-02.1(4) of the Standard Specifications. f. Tack coat shall be applied to the existing pavement at edge of saw cuts and shall be emulsified asphalt grade CSS-1, as specified in Section 9-02.1(6) of the Standard Specifications. Tack shall be applied as specified in Section 5-04 of the Standard Specifications. g. Asphalt Concrete Class E or Class B shall be placed in accordance with Section 5-04 of the Standard Specifications; except those longitudinal joints between successive layers of asphalt concrete shall be displaced laterally a minimum of twelve inches (12"), unless otherwise approved by the Engineer. Fine and coarse aggregate shall be in accordance with Section 9-03.8 of the Standard Specifications. All street surfaces,walks or driveways within the street trenching areas shall be feathered and shimmed to an extent that provides a smooth-riding connection and expeditious drainage flow for the newly paved surface. Feathering and shimming shall not decrease the minimum vertical curb depth below four inches (4") for storm water flow. The Engineer may require additional grinding to increase the curb depth available for storm water flow in areas that are inadequate. Shimming and feathering as required by the Engineer shall be accomplished by raking out the oversized aggregates from the Class B mix as appropriate. Surface smoothness shall be per Section 5-04.3(13) of the Standard Specifications. The paving shall be corrected by removal and repaving of the trench only. Asphalt patch depths will vary based upon the streets being trenched. The actual depths of asphalt and the work to be 7 ' ORDINANCE NO. performed shall be as required and indicated on City of Renton Standard Plans #HR-05, HR-23, and HR-22 (SP Pages#11032, H032A, and H033). Compaction of all lifts of asphalt shall be a minimum ninety-two percent (92%) of density as determined by WSDOT Test Method 705. The number of tests required shall be determined by the Engineer. Testing shall be performed by an independent testing lab with the results being supplied to the Engineer. Testing is not intended to relieve the contractor from any liability for the trench restoration. It is intended to show the inspector, and the City, that the restoration meets these specifications. h. All joints shall be sealed using paving asphalt AR-4000W. i. When trenching within the unpaved roadway shoulder(s), the shoulder shall be restored to its original condition,or better. j. The final patch shall be completed as soon as possible and shall not exceed fifteen(15)working days after first opening the trench, This time frame may be adjusted if delays are due to inclement paving weather or other adverse conditions that may exist. However, delaying of final patch or overlay work is subject to the Engineer's approval. The Engineer may deem it necessary to complete the work within the fifteen (15) working day time frame and not allow any time extension. Should this occur, the Contractor shall perform the necessary work, as directed by the Engineer. k. A City of Renton Temporary Traffic Control Plan (from Renton Transportation Engineering) shall be submitted and approved by the Engineer a minimum of three(3)working days prior to commencement of work. 8 ORDINANCE NO. 6. Removal of Utility Locate Markings from Sidewalks Required: The Permittee will be required to remove utility locate marks on sidewalks only within the Downtown Core Area. The permittee shall remove the utility locate marks within 14 days of job completion. SECTION II. This ordinance shall be effective upon its passage,approval, and 30 days after publication. PASSED BY THE CITY COUNCIL this day of ,2005. Bonnie I. Walton, City Clerk APPROVED BY THE MAYOR this day of , 2005. Kathy Keolker-Wheeler, Mayor Approved as to form: Lawrence J. Warren,City Attorney Date of Publication: ORD.1130:2/14/05:ma 9 l read i)v • -Revised 5-25-0S- (See. - Q5-OS(sea rts. 3,4, 7-9, t� 13, is) CITY OF RENTON, WASHINGTON adrea S+/,ad05- ORDINANCE NO. 5/302 AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF RENTON, WASHINGTON, AMENDING CHAPTER 4-2, ZONING DISTRICTS — USES AND STANDARDS, CHAPTER 4-3, ENVIRONMENTAL REGULATIONS AND OVERLAY DISTRICTS, CHAPTER 4-4, CITY-WIDE PROPERTY DEVELOPMENT STANDARDS, CHAPTER 4-6, STREET AND UTILITY STANDARDS, AND CHAPTER 4-11, DEFINITIONS, OF TITLE IV (DEVELOPMENT REGULATIONS) OF ORDINANCE NO. 4260 ENTITLED "CODE OF GENERAL ORDINANCES OF THE CITY OF RENTON, WASHINGTON" TO AMEND THE R-1 RESIDENTIAL LOW DENSITY ZONE IN ORDER TO REGULATE CLUSTERED DEVELOPMENT AND CREATE AN URBAN SEPARATOR OVERLAY DESIGNATION. WHEREAS, the King County Countywide Planning Policies designate certain properties in the County as "Urban Separators"; and WHEREAS, Countywide Planning Policy LU-27 calls for the preservation of urban separators as permanent low density lands which protect adjacent resource lands, Rural Areas, and environmentally sensitive areas; and WHEREAS, Urban Separators are intended to create open space corridors within and between Urban Areas which provide environmental, visual, recreational and wildlife benefits; and WHEREAS, Countywide Planning Policy LU-27 establishes that maintenance of urban separators is a regional as well as local concern and further provides that modifications to development regulations should have King County review and concurrence; and WHEREAS, the City of Renton has coordinated review of the proposed Urban Separator regulations with King County staff and elected officials; and 1 ORDINANCE NO. WHEREAS, applicable Metropolitan King County Code, Title 21A.12.030.17, establishes standards within R-1 zoning, including a fifty percent contiguous open space requirement and mandatory clustered development outside these corridors; and WHEREAS, the City Council adopted Community Design Element policies that designate certain low-density residential and resource areas as Urban Separators, to provide physical and visual distinctions between Renton and adjacent communities, and to define Renton's boundaries; and WHEREAS, the City Council created a Residential Low Density Designation to map Urban Separators; and WHEREAS, the Renton City Council determined that Renton development standards should address the same or better level of protection for Urban Separators as is provided by King County regulations; NOW, THEREFORE, THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF RENTON, WASHINGTON, DOES ORDAIN AS FOLLOWS: SECTION I. Section 4-2-110.A, Development Standards for Single Family Residential Zoning Designations, of Chapter 2, Zoning Districts—Uses and Standards, of Title IV (Development Regulations) of Ordinance No. 4260 entitled"Code of General Ordinances of the City of Renton, Washington" is hereby amended to read as shown on Exhibit A. SECTION II. Subsection 4-2-110.D.3 of Section 4-2-110.D, Conditions Associated with Development Standards Table for Single Family Residential Zoning Designations, of Chapter 2, Zoning Districts—Uses and Standards, of Title IV (Development Regulations) of Ordinance No. 4260 entitled "Code of General Ordinances of the City of Renton, Washington" is hereby amended, to read as follows: 2 ORDINANCE NO. 3. Clustering is allowed to meet objectives such as preserving significant natural features,providing neighborhood open space, or facilitating the provision of sewer service. Within designated urban separators, clustering is required, consistent with the provision of Section 4-3-110, Urban Separator Overlay Regulations. a. The maximum net density requirement shall not be exceeded except that within Urban Separators a density bonus may be granted allowing the total density to achieve one dwelling unit per gross contiguous acre for projects that meet the following criteria. (1) Provision of native vegetation cover on 65% of the gross area of all parcels in the land use action, including both the area within and outside the open space corridor, with either existing or new vegetative cover, and at least one of the following additional criteria. (i) Enhancement of wetlands is provided at a ratio of one-half acre enhanced for one acre delineated within the Urban Separator pursuant to Section 4-3-050M 12b. Evaluation Criteria, and Section 4-3-050M 12.c. Wetlands Chosen for Enhancement. Enhancement proposed for a density bonus may not also be used for a mitigation for other wetland alterations. (ii) Legal non-conforming uses are removed from the site and/or brought into conformance with Renton standards. (iii) Natural surface pedestrian . trails, with public access, �. are provided as part of an adopted trail system or, where there is no planned trail system, in a configuration approved by the Reviewing Official. (iv) In the absence of either wetlands or legal non-conforming uses on the site, public access and trails shall be required to the satisfaction of the Reviewing Official. 3 ORDINANCE NO. (2) Parcels within the Urban Separator may be combined into larger contiguous holdings to allow platting under-to achieve bonus density, however existing legal lots shall not be reduced in land area for the purpose of transferring density unless such lots are included in a proposed plat. b. The area of individual lots shall not be less than 10,000 sq. ft. SECTION III. A new Section, 4-3-110, of Chapter 4-3, Environmental Regulations and Overlay Districts, of Title IV (Development Regulations) of Ordinance No. 4260 entitled "Code of General Ordinances of the City of Renton, Washington" is hereby added, to read as follows: 4-3-110 URBAN SEPARATOR OVERLAY REGULATIONS: A. PURPOSE: The purpose of this section is to implement the Urban Separators policies in the Community Design Element of the Comprehensive Plan and the King County Countywide Planning Policies. The intent is to provide physical and visual distinctions between Renton and adjacent communities, define Renton's boundaries and create contiguous open space corridors within and between urban communities, which provide environmental, visual, recreational and wildlife benefits. Urban Separators shall be permanent low-density lands that protect resources and environmentally sensitive areas. B. APPLICABILITY: This section shall apply to subdivisions and building permits on lands within designated Urban Separators as shown in the Urban Separators Maps. C. URBAN SEPARATORS MAPS: 4 • ORDINANCE NO. Z S ,; . . "Pk �j May Vail �eY Rd 9Ston Lafi ih. ME ° 7 11116. a CO _ __/kir '-,1 ) itillrilin IMI W . 5t�� tif .tnC Alm �w ■■■■ a . �TLi1I:2;1I ow M IMMI I limn Mt iimmumw -- 41 A May Valley Urban Separator Overlay contiguous Open space C;i c " "'"'"° F Urban Separator Boundary 5 ORDINANCE NO. 2. Talbot Urban Separator J( sw 41st Stl t VS 1 nrjp if i a _ c.....)............_, , , ...w. , INvi sl, ,.., S17Sth ' Amos ) - No to, 111 OA'rei.. /11/00 utth, ItamicAririne - S 4A?st'witalri \I .171111".9.:Ak - V --"-I Lfk17- ca ..z..,. --0--. : All ,,N-4.41111. / AN, , , _____ yr ,. . .. _J ri sC .1A-11 ittE ,17') IIIIMIE 1,. r----Alir 1 L 1 lipti q 111 . L.-.• L. Hi ilk• • IP %In -- 41111111111 --.--", z-2'1 —11111111611111 0 1 , ---1.to Nimemo ,,L Item wk. Er --1-' 11111 Willa WTI Lill II 7:-. \ii I i l'71 0 411.4k"aim et %1MM --1 . , molt num IliEN ibli S'th ' 'KM P La lil am VIII lite 1 IS \ 6 tallarird inambia,a , r: ion I. i44.3 allilinii-at all ilt Me 111 so 1 . 'i 1 -11111V11.11.11_111111 =Pim mg, lit I ••LIL'4 in 11. 1111111M 2 r, ill .1 •: \,: nog:a g: NII1 ,..wal .ra in . ."... lb J wriii• .1. 111114144 Moo ma, ) , 4 ir ail' ithll I 4, 4111111111 11 = V 111 'VIM *Ali Wit//Ile 41% sum mis ialham a MN IBM In EON Mtn jj ja,41 1111.. 91 WE NW. .11 ImS.MEI Ile memi WI _ ;_ II I -quit tEir. slim I,. 2 RN ' • = ibik 3 en el ems i 7 s GO limn • ,a -no - wee NI UP 1 81111111111!1111111111 11111 IIILI 1111111111 ga Wk. Tit IlegrAtillibl PRA ti -E: NM --- C I t p MOM ma t.213 12 Ism - OPinga 11W14. a . Ng .Pe r umi '.. 1 ,--. MO a III±-- '; gimuliti mi PAv n mom ,a,„0..0 2a 04,#4114 _E SINN In 02 CO IIIM 16.1.111424 4,4.4....m - IMR -O: OM nom:- : r--'----7-1 Talbot Urban Separator F:,-i 01:-o v I 0,1<, 4 Vt+1 , Ales F..,:-., '1/4.:,.,:i a:I i•i IMMIND I Sc panIce 15,,,,n:.;("v , 2 41 Axt•;:ito-,.I I 6 ORDINANCE NO. D. ADMINISTRATION: 1. Review Process: Applications subject to Urban Separator Regulations shall be processed as a component of the governing land use process. 2. Authority: The Reviewing Official shall have the authority to approve with conditions, or deny proposals based on the provisions of the Urban Separator Overlay Regulations. E. URBAN SEPARATOR OVERLAY REGULATIONS: 1. Contiguous Open Space Corridor Established. A designated contiguous open space corridor is established as shown on the Urban Separators Overlay Map in Section 4-3-110.J. 2. Dedication of Open Space Required. a. Approval of a plat, and/or building permit on an undeveloped legal lot in the Urban Separator Overlay shall require dedication of 50% of the gross land area of the parcel or parcels as a non-revocable open space tract retained by property owner, or dedicated to a homeowners association or other suitable organization as determined by the Reviewing Official. Acreage in tracts may include critical areas and/or critical area buffers. At a minimum, open space shall be connected to another contiguous open space parcel by a fifty foot (50') corridor. b. Existing residences, existing accessory uses and structures, existing above ground utilities located in the tract at the time of designation and new small and medium utilities shall not count toward the 50% gross land area calculation s.pu.'e except for storm water ponds designed with less than 3:1 engineered slopes and enhanced per techniques and landscape requirements set forth in the publication the "Integrated Pond"King County Land and Water Resources Division. 7 ORDINANCE NO. c. Approval of a building permit for an addition of 300 square feet for .1 primary use structure or 500 square feet for an accessory structure shall require recordation of a conservation easement, protective easement or tract and deed restriction lc-- critical areas and critical area butlers located within the ContiL nous Open pace Corridor pursuant to Section 4-3-050.G, Native Growth Protection Areas,, - . . . "ritiett4 area-buffers located within- .. s-Open-Space Corridor. d. Land dedicated as open space shall be located within the mapped Contiguous Open Space Corridor unless a modification is approved pursuant to Section 4-3- 110.B.6. 3. Uses Allowed In Contiguous Open Space. a. Passive Recreation with no development of active recreation facilities except within a municipal park. b. Natural surface pedestrian trails. c. Animal husbandry(small, medium and large)provided that fencing is subject to the conditions in 4-3-110.E.3.g, below. d. Existing residences and accessory uses and structures. e. Small and medium utilities and large underground utilities. f. Access Easements. (1) Utilities easements and emergency service access roads may be located within Contiguous Open Space Corridors for the limited purpose of providing service to parcels platted after March 2005, for which there is no practical alternative way to provide service. Utilities and emergency service easements shall be developed with permeable surface treatment. 8 ORDINANCE NO. (2) Private access easements for ingress and egress may be located within Contiguous Open Space in the limited instance where there is no alternative access to a pre- existing legal lot, but shall not serve lots platted after March 2005. g. Fencing or similar structures and/or hedges or similar landscape features on pons-the property or casement boundary of properties abutting and within the Contiguous Open Space Corridor shall not create a solid barrier. Where required to protect wetlands pursuant to Section 4-3-050.M.7.c, fencing shall be the minimum necessary. 4. Uses in Portions of the Urban Separator Outside the Established Contiguous Open Space Corridor. a. Uses shall be consistent with Section 4-2-060 and 4-2-070.B. Residential-1 Zone, one dwelling unit per net acre. b. Development shall be clustered outside the Contiguous Open Space Corridor mapped in 2-3-110.J. 5. Standards Within Entire Urban Separator. a. Forest/vegetation clearing shall be limited to a maximum of 35% of the gross acreage of the site except: (1) The percentage of forest/vegetation coverage may be increased to qualify for the density bonus allowed in Section 4-2-110.D. (2) The Reviewing Official may modify the percentage of forest/vegetation retention if determined necessary to meet the surface water retention/detention standards of Section 4-3-110.E.7. (3) The Reviewing Official may approve forest/vegetation clearing greater than 35% of individual building sites to allow grading for a home site provided that: 9 ORDINANCE NO. (i) A landscape plan is provided for each building site showing compensating re-planting of species with the same or better water retention and erosion control functions. (ii) 5% additional replacement landscaping per site is provided (iii) Plant caliper is determined by the Reviewing Official to be sufficient to achieve needed water retention and erosion control functions, and (iv) Individual trees or stands of trees are retained when feasible. Feasibility is defined as locations and tree health sufficient to ensure continued viability of the tree and safety of structures within the developed portion of the lot and (v) The landscape plan provides massing of plant material to create either a connection to required open space or is of sufficient size to create functional wildlife habitat. b. If the existing cleared area of a site, as of March 21, 2005 is greater than 35%, approval of a plat shall require re-planting of forest/vegetative cover. c. Forest/vegetation cover may include a combination of Northwest native vegetation including conifer, deciduous trees and shrubs sufficient to provide water retention and erosion control, as determined appropriate by the Reviewing Official. The Reviewing Official shall determine whether existing vegetation provides functions to meet forest/vegetation coverage standards, and shall require additional plantings if existing vegetation is found to be insufficient. d. Stormwater management shall comply with the 2005 King County Surface Water Design Manual Conservation Flow Control Area Level 2 Clow control standards. 10 ORDINANCE NO. e. Private access easements and improvements shall be established at the minimum standard needed to meet public safety requirements. f. Landscape plans required in Section 4-4-070 shall include retention/re-planting plans as applicable, consistent with standards and plant lists in King County Department of Natural Resources and Parks Water and Land Resources Division Publication "Going Native." 6. Modification of Mapped Contiguous Open Space. The Reviewing Official may modify the open space configuration where: a. Site specific data confirms that the adopted Contiguous Open Space Corridor map includes more than the required gross area for any parcel, or b. The applicant can demonstrate a configuration of contiguous open space that provides better or equal provision of the open space requirement. Modifications to the Contiguous Open Space Corridor shall be re-mapped during the City's annual Title IV review process. SECTION IV. Section 4-4-040.B of Chapter 4, City-Wide Property Development Standards, of Title IV (Development Regulations) of Ordinance No. 4260 entitled "Code of General Ordinances of the City of Renton, Washington" is hereby amended to read as follows: B. APPLICABILITY. The provisions and conditions of this Section regulating height are not applicable to fences or barriers required by state law or by the zoning provisions of the Code to surround and enclose public safety installations, school grounds, public playgrounds, private or public swimming pools and similar installations and improvements. Fences, and hedges within the Urban Separator Overlay are also subject to requirements of the Urban Separator Overlay Regulations (see Section 4-3-110). 11 ORDINANCE NO. SECTION V. Section 4-4-130.0 of Chapter 4, City-Wide Property Development Standards, of Title IV (Development Regulations) of Ordinance No. 4260 entitled "Code of General Ordinances of the City of Renton, Washington" is hereby amended to read as follows. C. ALLOWABLE TREE CUTTING ACTIVITIES. Tree cutting and associated use of mechanical equipment is permitted as follows, except as provided in subsection D.2 of this Section, restrictions for Critical Areas, and in Section 4-3- 110.E.5.b, Urban Separator Overlay Regulations. 1. Emergency Situations: Removal of trees and/or ground cover by the City and/or public or private utility in emergency situations involving immediate danger to life or property, substantial fire hazards, or interruption of services provided by a utility. 2. Dead, Dangerous, or Diseased Trees: Removal of dead, terminally diseased, damaged, or dangerous ground cover or trees which have been certified prior t+i rent() a as such by a forester, registered landscape architect, or certified arborist, selection of ,;r: _ t;'., ; to be approved by the City based on the type of information required, or tilt r,; approved by the City. the .7. a -1 -ir-remevak 3. Maintenance Activities/Essential Tree Removal—Public or Private Utilities, Roads and Public Parks: Maintenance activities including routine vegetation management and essential tree removal for public and private utilities, road rights-of-way and easements, and parks. 4. Installation of SEPA Exempt Public or Private Utilities: Installation of distribution lines by public and private utilities provided that such activities are categorically exempt from the provisions of the State Environmental Policy Act and RMC 4-9-070, Environmental Review Procedures. 12 ORDINANCE NO. 5. Existing and Ongoing Agricultural Activities: Clearing associated with existing and ongoing agricultural activities as defined in chapter 4-11 RMC, Definitions. 6. Commercial Nurseries or Tree Farms: Clearing or cutting of only those trees which are planted and growing on the premises of a licensed retailer or wholesaler. 7. Public Road Expansion: Expansion of public roads. 8. Site Investigative Work: Site investigative work necessary for land use application submittals such as surveys, soil logs, percolation tests, and other related activities including the use of mechanical equipment to perform site investigative work provided the work is conducted in accordance with the following requirements. a. Investigative work should not disturb any more than five percent (5%) of any protected sensitive area described in subsection D.2 of this Section, Restrictions for Critical Areas, on the subject property. In every case impacts shall be minimized and disturbed areas restored. b. In every location where site investigative work is conducted, disturbed areas shall be minimized, and immediately restored. c. A notice shall be posted on the site by the property owner or owner's agent indicating that site investigative work is being conducted, and that the work must minimize disturbance to the critical areas identified in subsection D.2 of this Section, Restrictions for Critical Areas. d. No site investigative work shall commence without first notifying the Director or his or her designee in advance. 13 ORDINANCE NO. 9. Allowable Minor Tree Cutting Activities: Tree cutting and associated use of mechanical equipment is permitted as follows, except as provided in subsection D2 of this Section, Restrictions for Critical Areas: a. On a developed lot or on a partially developed lot less than one-half(1/2) of an acre any number of trees may be removed; b. On a partially developed lot greater than one-half(1/2) of an acre or on an undeveloped lot provided that: i. No more than three (3) trees are removed in any twelve (12) month period from a property under thirty five thousand (35,000) square feet in size; and ii. No more than six (6) trees are removed in any twelve (12) month period from a property over thirty five thousand (35,000) square feet in size. LOT T'r'PE.; weerr.••PAR T:4LLi CE`,ELO! EE. r uiJ:±EvELC,PE( f` • F? L. -l. YELOPEC ti iii. Rights-of-Way Unobstructed: In conducting minor tree cutting activities, rights-of-way shall not be obstructed. 10. Landscaping or Gardening Permitted: Land clearing in conformance with the provisions of subsection C.9 of this Section, Allowable Tree Cutting Activities, and subsection D.2, Restrictions for Critical Areas, is permitted on a developed lot for purposes of landscaping or gardening. Land clearing in conformance with the provisions of subsection C.9, Allowable Minor Tree Cutting Activities, and subsection D.2, Restrictions for Critical Areas, is permitted 14 ORDINANCE NO. on a partially developed or undeveloped lot for purposes of landscaping or gardening provided that no mechanical equipment is used. 11. Operational Mining/Quarrying: Land clearing and tree cutting associated with previously approved, operational mining and quarrying activities. 12. Modification of Existing Utilities and Streets (not otherwise exempted by RMC 4- 3-050.C.7)by Ten Percent (10%) or Less: Overbuilding (enlargement beyond existing project needs) or replacement and/or rehabilitation of existing streets, provided the work does not increase the footprint of the structure, line or street by more than ten percent (10%) within the critical area and/or buffer areas. SECTION VI. Section 4-6-030.F of Chapter 6, Street and Utility Standards, of Title IV (Development Regulations) of Ordinance No. 4260 entitled "Code of General Ordinances of the City of Renton, Washington"is hereby amended to read as follows: F. DRAINAGE PLAN DESIGN CRITERIA, DRAFTING STANDARDS AND CONTENTS: The drainage plan shall be prepared in conformance with the Department's construction plan drafting standards and contents, the City's Standard Specifications for Municipal Construction and Standard Detail documents, and the design criteria, construction materials, practices and standard details contained in chapters 3, 4, and 5 of the current King County Surface water design manual; provided that the Department's standards and design criteria will take precedence and prevail in any interpretation of conflicting or contradictory standards and design criteria, and provided, further, that within designated Urban Separators regulated in 4-- Section 4-4-110, the 2005 King County Surface Water Design Manual Conservation Flow Control Area Level 2 flow control standards are required. 15 ORDINANCE NO. SECTION VI. Section 4-11-150.0 of Chapter 11, Definitions, of Title IV (Development Regulations) of Ordinance No. 4260 entitled "Code of General Ordinances of the City of Renton, Washington" is hereby amended by adding the following definition of Open Space, Contiguous, Urban Separator, to read as follows: Open Space, Contiguous, Urban Separator: Land permanently set aside as open space located in recorded tracts. Contiguous open space lands may include critical areas, such as wetlands and steep slopes, and wetland buffers, as well as stormwater ponds enhanced per the techniques and landscape requirements set forth in The Integrated Pond, King County Water and Land Resources Division. SECTION VII. This ordinance shall be effective upon its passage, approval, and five days after its publication. PASSED BY THE CITY COUNCIL this day of , 2005. Bonnie I. Walton, City Clerk APPROVED BY THE MAYOR this day of , 2005. Kathy Keolker-Wheeler, Mayor Approved as to form: Lawrence J. Warren, City Attorney Date of Publication: 16 ORDINANCE NO. ORD.1175:3/9/05:ma 17