No preview available
HomeMy WebLinkAboutCouncil 04/18/2005 AGENDA RENTON CITY COUNCIL ‘1001 REGULAR MEETING April 18, 2005 Monday,7:30 p.m. 1. CALL TO ORDER AND PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE 2. ROLL CALL 3. SPECIAL PRESENTATION: Fire Department Employee Recognition Awards 4. PUBLIC MEETING WITH THE INITIATOR: Akers Farms Annexation- 10%Notice of Intent to annex petition for 13.61 acres bounded by 108th Ave. SE, 109th Ave. SE, and SE 164th St. 5. PUBLIC HEARING: Vacation petition for walkway located between NW 6th St. and Rainier Ave. N. (Petitioner: Jack D. Alhadeff,JDA Group) 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.) 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 April 4, 2005. Council concur. b. Approval of Council meeting minutes of April 11, 2005. Council concur. c. City Clerk reports bid opening on 4/12/2005 for CAG-05-033,Hoquiam Pl. NE & SR-900 Storm System;eight bids; engineer's estimate $32,928.32; and submits staff recommendation to award the contract to the low bidder, Young Life Construction, in the amount of$25,164.35. Council concur. d. City Clerk reports bid opening on 4/5/2005 for CAG-05-031,Central Business District Utility Replacement; seven bids; engineer's estimate$672,006.94; and submits staff recommendation to award the contract to the low bidder, Americon, Inc. dba TAB Enterprises, in the amount of $709,109.50. Approval is also sought to transfer funds to cover the costs. Refer to Utilities Committee. e. Court Case filed on behalf of Kenneth and Carolyn Burns by Zabrina Jenkins, Garvey, Schubert &Barer, 1191 2nd Ave., Seattle, 98101, who seek compensation for flood damage that occurred on 10/20/2003 at their residence allegedly as a result of the City's storm system improvement construction project. Refer to City Attorney and Insurance Services. f. Court Case filed on behalf of Herons Forever by David S. Mann, Gendler& Mann,LLP, 1424 4th Ave., Suite 1015, Seattle,98101, requesting review of Renton's land use decisions regarding the Sunset Bluff development project. Refer to City Attorney and Insurance Services. (CONTINUED ON REVERSE SIDE) I g. Court Case filed on behalf of SR 900 LLC and Quarry Industrial Park, LLC, by David L. Halinen,Halinen Law Offices, P.S., 2115 N. 30th St., Suite 203,Tacoma, 98403, requesting review of Renton's land use decisions regarding the Sunset Bluff residential development project. r+� Refer to City Attorney and Insurance Services. h. Community Services Department recommends approval of an amendment to the lease with Vykor, Inc. (LAG-02-002)for space on the 1st and 5th floors of the 200 Mill Building, to extend the lease for an additional three to five year term. Refer to Finance Committee. i. Community Services Department recommends approval of the 2005 interlocal agreement for waterfowl management (egg addling, lethal control, and population monitoring), at a cost of $2,410. Council concur. (See 11. for resolution.) j. Development Services Division recommends acceptance of the dedication of additional right-of- way at the corner of Jones Ave. NE and NE 24th St. to fulfill a requirement of the Bartell Short Plat(SHP-04-007). Council concur. k. Hearing Examiner recommends approval, with conditions, of the Christelle Ridge Preliminary Plat, 22 single-family lots on 3.54 acres located at SE 95th Way and Anacortes Ave. NE (PP-04- 100). Council concur. I. Transportation Systems Division recommends approval of Supplemental Agreement No. 5 to CAG-01-071, agreement with Perteet Engineering, Inc., for additional work in the amount of $38,650 for the Maple Valley Hwy. (SR-169)Improvements Project. Refer to Transportation (Aviation) Committee. m. Transportation Systems Division recommends approval of Supplemental Agreement No. 2 to CAG-04-013, agreement with W&H Pacific, for additional work in the amount of$927,329.59 for the South Lake Washington Roadway Improvements Project. Refer to Transportation (Aviation)Committee. n. Utility Systems Division recommends approval of the residential cleanup program known as Clean Sweep Renton, and requests approval to appropriate$400,000 from the Solid Waste Utility fund balance to cover the costs of the program. Refer to Utilities Committee. 9. CORRESPONDENCE 10. UNFINISHED BUSINESS 11. RESOLUTIONS AND ORDINANCES Resolution: 2005 Water Fowl Management Program interlocal agreement (see 8.i.) Ordinances for first reading: a. Shoreline and critical areas policy amendments to the Comprehensive Plan (Council approved 4/11/2005) b. Shoreline Master Program regulations amendments (Council approved 4/11/2005) c. Critical areas regulations amendments(Council approved 4/11/2005) Ordinance for second and final reading: Increase 2005 Transportation Capital Improvement Fund 317 and reallocate funds for specific projects (1st reading 4/11/2005) 12. NEW BUSINESS (Includes Council Committee agenda topics;call 425-430-6512 for recorded information.) 13. AUDIENCE COMMENT 14. ADJOURNMENT (CONTINUED ON NEXT PAGE) C- COMMITTEE OF THE WHOLE AGENDA (Preceding Council Meeting) 2507 Park Pl. N. 6:00 p.m. Kenmore Air Noise Demonstration • 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 18, 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; TONI COUNCILMEMBERS NELSON; RANDY CORMAN; DON PERSSON; MARCIE PALMER. CITY STAFF IN KATHY KEOLKER-WHEELER,Mayor; JAY COVINGTON,Chief ATTENDANCE Administrative Officer; LAWRENCE J. WARREN, City Attorney; BONNIE WALTON, City Clerk; GREGG ZIMMERMAN,Planning/Building/Public Works Administrator; DAVE CHRISTENSEN, Utility Engineering Supervisor; DON ERICKSON, Senior Planner; CHIEF LEE WHEELER,DEPUTY CHIEF LARRY RUDE,DEPUTY CHIEF ART LARSON,Fire Department; COMMANDER TIM TROXEL, Police Department. SPECIAL PRESENTATION Fire Chief Lee Wheeler recognized the following Fire Department Fire: Employee Recognition administration, training, and prevention employees: Employee of the 1st Quarter, 2004: Nethel Root, Office Assistant III Employee of the 2nd Quarter, 2004: Charlie Andrews,Fire Inspector Employee of the 3rd Quarter, 2004: Stan Engler,Fire Marshal/Battalion Chief Employee of the 4th Quarter, 2004: Art Larson,Deputy Chief Chief Wheeler recognized the following firefighters: Firefighter of the 4th Quarter, 2003: Mark Bailey Firefighter of the 1st Quarter, 2004: Rick Myking Firefighter of the 2nd Quarter, 2004: Chuck Hagood Firefighter of the 3rd Quarter, 2004: Gary Harsh Chief Wheeler announced that Gary Harsh was also chosen as the 2004 Firefighter of the Year. PUBLIC MEETING This being the date set and proper notices having been posted and published in Annexation: Akers Farms, accordance with local and State laws,Mayor Keolker-Wheeler opened the 108th Ave SE&SE 164th St public meeting to consider the 10%Notice of Intent to annex petition for the proposed Akers Farms Annexation; 10.84 acres bounded by 108th Ave. SE, if extended, on the west, 109th Ave. SE,if extended, on the east, SE 160th St., if extended, on the north, and SE 164th St. on the south. Don Erickson, Senior Planner,noted that staff recommends the expansion of the annexation boundaries to include the abutting SE 164th St. right-of-way, as well as the abutting 2.46-acre parcel to the east. He explained that the area contains four single-family dwellings, and slopes down to the north at a 3% slope. The site also contains an unclassified coal mine hazard area. Regarding the public services,Mr.Erickson stated that the site is within Fire District#40, the water service area of the Soos Creek Water and Sewer District, the sewer service area of Renton and the Soos Creek Water and Sewer District, and the Renton School District. Mr. Erickson indicated that existing King County zoning is R-8 (eight dwelling units per gross acre). The Renton Comprehensive Plan designates the area as Residential Single Family, which allows for R-8 (eight dwelling units per net • April 18,2005 Renton City Council Minutes Page 137 acre)zoning. He reported that despite the smaller than normal annexation area, the limitation of future development to 69 or fewer lots, and the poor connectivity to Renton because of a power line corridor, the annexation proposal provides a potential catalyst for annexing a larger area to the east, and facilitates upgrading a portion of Benson Hill under Renton's development standards. Continuing,Mr. Erickson reported that the fiscal impact analysis indicates a deficit of$2,007 at current development, and a surplus of$2,226 at full development. He noted the estimated one-time parks acquisition and development cost of$36,564. In conclusion,Mr.Erickson stated that the proposed annexation is generally consistent with City policies and Boundary Review Board criteria. He noted the potential downstream flooding of Rolling Hills Creek, and staffs suggestion for Level 2 flow control for new development. He also noted that while no major service issues were identified, the Police Department pointed out the eventual need for more staffing due to the cumulative impact of recent annexations. Public comment was invited. There being none, it was MOVED BY CLAWSON, SECONDED BY NELSON,COUNCIL CLOSE THE PUBLIC MEETING. CARRIED. MOVED BY CLAWSON, SECONDED BY LAW, COUNCIL: ACCEPT THE AKERS FARMS 10%PETITION TO ANNEX;EXPAND THE PROPOSED ANNEXATION TO INCLUDE THE ABUTTING STREET RIGHT-OF-WAY AND THE 2.46-ACRE PARCEL TO THE EAST; AND AUTHORi7R CIRCULATION OF THE 60% PETITION TO ANNEX, STIPULATING THAT PROPERTY OWNERS AGREE TO R-8 ZONING CONSISTENT WITH THE COMPREHENSIVE PLAN'S RESIDENTIAL SINGLE FAMILY DESIGNATION,AND THAT PROPERTY OWNERS ASSUME A PROPORTIONAL SHARE OF THE CITY'S EXISTING OUTSTANDING INDEBTEDNESS. CARRIED. PUBLIC HEARING This being the date set and proper notices having been posted and published in Vacation: Walkway,NW 6th accordance with local and State laws,Mayor Keolker-Wheeler opened the St&Rainier Ave N,JDA public hearing to consider the street vacation petition submitted by Jack D. Group,VAC-05-002 Alhadeff on behalf of JDA Group LLC for a 187-foot-long and 10-foot-wide walkway, located between NW 6th St. and Rainier Ave. N. (VAC-05-002). Dave Christensen,Utility Engineering Supervisor, reported that City facilities contained within the right-of-way area include a sewer main and water line, and the area is part of a stormwater drainage corridor. He explained that the petitioner plans to use the right-of-way in the proposed Sixth Street Short Plat for development of the adjacent parcels. Mr. Christensen pointed out that the petition did not receive any objections from City departments and outside agencies; however, the Utilities Systems Division requested that an easement be retained over the entire right-of-way, and that grading and filling not be allowed within the easement area. He indicated that Puget Sound Energy may have facilities within the vacation area. In conclusion,Mr. Christensen stated that staff recommends approval of the vacation request. Public comment was invited. There being none, it was MOVED BY CLAWSON, SECONDED BY NELSON,COUNCIL CLOSE THE PUBLIC HEARING. CARRIED. April 18,2005 Renton City Council Minutes Page 138 MOVED BY CLAWSON, SECONDED BY LAW, COUNCIL APPROVE THE REQUEST TO VACATE SUBJECT TO THE FOLLOWING CONDITIONS: A UTILITY EASEMENT BE RETAINED OVER THE ENTIRE RIGHT-OF-WAY; NO GRADING OR FILLING BE ALLOWED WITHIN THE EASEMENT AREA; AND THE PETITIONER PROVIDE SATISFACTORY PROOF THAT OUTSIDE UTILITIES HAVE RECEIVED AND ARE SATISFIED WITH ANY EASEMENTS NECESSARY TO PROTECT THEIR FACILITIES WITHIN THE AREA. 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: * The Renton Youth Council received two grants through United Way of King County. A South Community Council Venture Fund grant in the amount of$5,000 will be distributed as mini-grants to local Renton groups supporting youth. A Youth Planning Grant in the amount of$150 will be used for a survey project to be conducted by the Renton Youth Council. * In recognition of Arbor Day and Earth Day, over 200 volunteers will work together on a community-based project to transform the NE 4th St. Corridor into a beautiful green space lined with trees, shrubs, and other vegetation. The event takes place at 8:00 a.m. on April 23rd. * A community notification meeting is scheduled for April 25th, at 7:00 p.m. in the Social Hall of the First Baptist Church. The purpose of the meeting is to provide general information regarding Washington's sex offender notification laws and Renton Police Department's policy and practice when monitoring sex offenders living in our community. 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 April 4, 2005. Council concur. April 4, 2005 Council Meeting Minutes of Approval of Council meeting minutes of April 11, 2005. Council concur. April 11, 2005 CAG: 05-033,Hoquiam PI NE City Clerk reported bid opening on 4/12/2005 for CAG-05-033,Hoquiam Pl. &SR-900 Storm System, NE&SR-900 Storm System; eight bids; engineer's estimate$32,928.32; and Young Life Construction submitted staff recommendation to award the contract to the low bidder, Young Life Construction, in the amount of$25,164.35. Council concur. CAG: 05-031, Central City Clerk reported bid opening on 4/5/2005 for CAG-05-031, Central Business Business District Utility District Utility Replacement; seven bids; engineer's estimate$672,006.94; and Replacement,Americon submitted staff recommendation to award the contract to the low bidder, Americon,Inc. dba TAB Enterprises, in the amount of$709,109.50. Approval was also sought to transfer funds to cover the costs. Refer to Utilities Committee. Court Case: Kenneth& Court Case filed on behalf of Kenneth and Carolyn Burns by Zabrina Jenkins, Carolyn Burns, CRT-05-003 Garvey, Schubert&Barer, 1191 2nd Ave., 18th Floor, Seattle, 98101, who seek compensation for flood damage that occurred on 10/20/2003 at their residence allegedly as a result of the City's storm system improvement construction project. Refer to City Attorney and Insurance Services. April 18,2005 Renton City Council Minutes Page 139 Court Case: Herons Forever, Court Case filed on behalf of Herons Forever by David S. Mann, Gendler& CRT-05-005 Mann,LLP, 1424 4th Ave., Suite 1015, Seattle, 98101,requesting review of Renton's land use decisions regarding the Sunset Bluff development project. Refer to City Attorney and Insurance Services. Court Case: SR 900 LLC & Court Case filed on behalf of SR 900 LLC and Quarry Industrial Park,LLC by Quarry Industrial Park, CRT- David L. Halinen,Halinen Law Offices,P.S., 2115 N. 30th St., Suite 203, 05-004 Tacoma, 98403,requesting review of Renton's land use decisions regarding the Sunset Bluff residential development project. Refer to City Attorney and Insurance Services. Lease: Vykor,200 Mill Community Services Department recommended approval of an amendment to Building(1st&5th Floors), the lease with Vykor,Inc. (LAG-02-002)for space on the 1st and 5th floors of LAG-02-002 the 200 Mill Building,to extend the lease for an additional three to five year term. Refer to Finance Committee. Community Services: 2005 Community Services Department recommended approval of the 2005 interlocal Waterfowl Management agreement for waterfowl management(egg addling,lethal control, and Interlocal Agreement population monitoring), at a cost of$2,410. Council concur. (See later this page for resolution.) Development Services: Bartell Development Services Division recommended acceptance of the dedication of Short Plat,ROW Dedication, additional right-of-way at the corner of Jones Ave. NE and NE 24th St. to fulfill Jones Ave NE&NE 24th St a requirement of the Bartell Short Plat(SHP-04-007). Council concur. Plat: Christelle Ridge, SE 95th Hearing Examiner recommended approval,with conditions, of the Christelle Way,PP-04-100 Ridge Preliminary Plat; 22 single-family lots on 3.54 acres located at SE 95th Way and Anacortes Ave.NE(PP-04-100). Council concur. CAG: 01-071,Maple Valley Transportation Systems Division recommended approval of Supplemental Hwy HOV,Perteet Agreement No. 5 to CAG-01-071,agreement with Perteet Engineering,Inc.,for Engineering additional work in the amount of$38,650 for the Maple Valley Hwy. (SR-169) Improvements Project. Refer to Transportation(Aviation)Committee. CAG: 04-013,North Renton Transportation Systems Division recommended approval of Supplemental Infrastructure Improvements, Agreement No. 2 to CAG-04-013, agreement with W&H Pacific,for additional W&H Pacific work in the amount of$927,329.59 for the South Lake Washington Roadway Improvements Project. Refer to Transportation (Aviation)Committee. Utility: Clean Sweep Renton Utility Systems Division recommended approval of the residential cleanup Program program known as Clean Sweep Renton, and requested approval to appropriate $400,000 from the Solid Waste Utility fund balance to cover the costs of the program. Refer to Utilities Committee. MOVED BY BRIERE, SECONDED BY PERSSON,COUNCIL APPROVE THE CONSENT AGENDA AS PRESENTED. CARRIED. RESOLUTIONS AND The following resolution was presented for reading and adoption: ORDINANCES Resolution#3749 A resolution was read authorizing the Mayor and City Clerk to enter into an Community Services: 2005 interlocal agreement for the Waterfowl (Canada Goose)Management Program Waterfowl Management for the year 2005. MOVED BY LAW, SECONDED BY PALMER,COUNCIL Interlocal Agreement ADOPT THE RESOLUTION AS READ. CARRIED. The following ordinances were presented for first reading and referred to the Council meeting of 4/25/2005 for second and final reading: • April 18,2005 Renton City Council Minutes Page 140 Planning: Critical Areas& An ordinance was read adopting the shoreline and critical areas policy Shoreline,Comprehensive amendments to the City's 1995 Comprehensive Plan,maps, and data in Plan Amendments conjunction therewith. MOVED BY CLAWSON, SECONDED BY CORMAN, COUNCIL REFER THE ORDINANCE FOR SECOND AND FINAL READING ON 4/25/2005. CARRIED. Planning: Critical Areas, An ordinance was read amending Chapter 3,Remedies &Penalties, of Title I Shoreline Master Program (Administrative); and Chapter 3,Environmental Regulations and Overlay Regulations Districts, Chapter 8,Permits -General and Appeals; Chapter 9,Permits- Specific; Chapter 10,Legal Nonconforming Structures,Uses, and Lots; and Chapter 11,Definitions; of Title IV (Development Regulations)of City Code to amend the Shoreline Master Program regulations. MOVED BY CLAWSON, SECONDED BY LAW, COUNCIL REFER THE ORDINANCE FOR SECOND AND FINAL READING ON 4/25/2005. CARRIED. Planning: Critical Areas An ordinance was read amending Chapter 3,Environmental Regulations and Regulations Special Districts; Chapter 4,Citywide Property Development Standards; Chapter 8,Permits-General and Appeals; Chapter 9,Permits -Specific; Chapter 10,Legal Nonconforming Structures, Uses, and Lots; and Chapter 11, Definitions, of Title IV (Development Regulations)of City Code to include critical areas regulations. MOVED BY CLAWSON, SECONDED BY LAW, COUNCIL REFER THE ORDINANCE FOR SECOND AND FINAL READING ON 4/25/2005. CARRIED. The following ordinance was presented for second and final reading and adoption: Ordinance#5134 An ordinance was read amending Ordinance 5110 relating to the annual City of Transportation: Fund 317 2005 Renton 2005 Budget by appropriating funds from the Transportation Capital Increase and Reallocation Improvement Fund balance, increasing the 2005 Budget, and reallocating the expenditures in specific transportation improvement projects. MOVED BY PALMER, SECONDED BY CORMAN, COUNCIL ADOPT THE ORDINANCE AS READ. ROLL CALL: ALL AYES. CARRIED. ADJOURNMENT MOVED BY LAW, SECONDED BY NELSON, COUNCIL ADJOURN. CAR__RIED. Time: ''8--:1997 p.m. B Bonnie I. Walton, CMC, City Clerk Recorder: Michele Neumann April 18, 2005 RENTON CITY COUNCIL COMMITTEE MEETING CALENDAR Office of the City Clerk • COUNCIL COMMITTEE MEETINGS SCHEDULED AT CITY COUNCIL MEETING April 18, 2005 I COMMITTEE/CHAIRMAN DATE/TIME AGENDA COMMITTEE OF THE WHOLE MON., 4/25 Business Plan Revisions (Briere) 6:30 p.m. *Council Conference Room* COMMUNITY SERVICES MON.,4/25 Pets at Gene Coulon Beach Park (Nelson) 4:00 p.m. FINANCE MON.,4/25 Vouchers; (Persson) 5:30 p.m. Issaquah School District Impact Fees; Lease Amendment with Vykor for Spaces at 200 Mill Building PLANNING &DEVELOPMENT THURS., 4/21 CANCELLED (Clawson) PUBLIC SAFETY MON., 4/25 Jail Interlocal Agreements (Law) 5:00 p.m. TRANSPORTATION (AVIATION) THURS., 4/21 Maple Valley Hwy/SR-169 Improvements (Palmer) 2:00 p.m. Contract; South Lake Washington Blvd. Roadway Improvements Contract; Aerodyne Aviation Lease Addendum; Airport Development Study UTILITIES THURS., 4/21 Central Business District Utility (Corman) 4:00 p.m. Replacement Project Bid Award; Clean Sweep Renton Program 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. ‘f‘NrcO AKERS FARMS ANNEXATION PUBLIC MEETING COUNCIL CONSIDERATION OF PROPOSED ANNEXATION WITH R-8 ZONING April 18, 2005 The City is in receipt of a 10% Notice of Intention to Commence Annexation Petition from property owners in the proposed annexation area. This petition has signatures representing 100% of the area's original 10.53-acres. The subject site is within the City's Potential Annexation Area and is designated Residential Single Family (RS) on the City's Comprehensive Plan Land Use Map. It is bordered by the City limits on its western,northern, and northeasterly boundaries and lies generally between 108th Avenue SE, if extended, on the west and 109th Avenue SE, if extended, on the east. It is bordered by SE 160th Street, if extended, on the north, and SE 164th Street on the south (see back side of this notice). Council is being asked to consider whether it wants to accept the 10% Notice of Intent petition for the annexation as currently proposed, whether it wants to amend the proposed boundaries, or whether it wants to reject this annexation at this time. The Administration is recommending that Council expand the boundaries of the proposed annexation to include the abutting SE 1641 Street right-of-way, as well as the abutting 2.46-acre parcel to the east. This site currently has King County's R-8 zoning and there are four single-family detached dwellings on the originally proposed area. Proposed prezoning is R-8 (8 units per net acre). This zoning is approximately less dense than what would be allowed under the County's R-8 zoning (without bonuses). Renton's zoning deletes critical areas and streets from a site's gross acreage whereas the County's zoning does not. Also, the County's zoning allows both attached and detached units to be built in the R-8 zone. With the City's proposed R-8 zoning, the enlarged site of 12.99 acres could accommodate approximately 83 single-family detached dwelling units, at full development, assuming no significant environmental constraints exist. Under state law, direct petitions to annex are initiated by property owners representing at least 10% of the annexation area's assessed value. Council is required to hold a public meeting with the proponents within 60 days of its submittal to decide whether it will accept, reject or geographically modify the proposed annexation. Reviewing departments of the City consider this annexation to be a reasonable extension of their respective service areas and raised no major obstacles to annexation. Both the Renton Wastewater Utility and the Soos Creek Water and Sewer District serve the site. It is also within Fire District#40. If the Council decides to accept this annexation as proposed or modified, it will typically: 1. Authorize the circulation of a 60% Direct Petition to Annex, based upon assessed value; 2. Decide whether to require the simultaneous adoption of zoning upon annexation, consistent with the City's Comprehensive Plan Land Use Map; and, 3. Decide whether to require property owners within the annexation area to assume their fair share of the City's existing indebtedness. Council Hearing Handout 04-18-05.doc\ la <C, S 7c5), IFINIMMI111111111 MI ; lb`AM MI Olt IOW or, Il ? i , is ion ow spo autett I N. AP 410 a wgiiiAliwa mil 11 1 S 18th Empwa now 0416„ 111 A 4ik gg A • w Iii 10 464 svim mar • A, V*wasso. - ar -41, iv- ii, a , - • lir 4111r it 0, ER Iliway.* *4 to, 1 41 .141,4 AVM! I &Vow A akir*A# "pla 1 P .100 r 4millrob," fa 1 u". 1 rill 1"111."Ait ,_41.44 "MOM illatgl 1 aggoirriffillfrifingsliiiiiien i • s Lam kw 40; aii am uraii liPsweami will us on gm.I I I I I ra II I IF -f4 1.111 411i1111111111111101111111111F 16 st St 911111 :-.1 11119Mill # it 44 04 0- OS V. i - 1 1 MIN •104 • 4 11/m4 0 / I_S 27th St I Fj0 4 t h ,t .4 alp. ::: RANO IA*..A it* ill l iitu , 1 0 W 21 , , 011P" im 0 • gr fs granowi ____,,„ (... win Mt UM Vse *MI - ii--•, ' I) --- 1 Lc )-' 1 - um 40111 dalti 3 Illii Ii,. := `1111111111 , +"----i-J--zt-- r ilk # Ill num , ...... NE .-- MO _ ij 1111111 0 to, • le EN NM IL % et . IN El , LIT! i l'i ) , , 1 . S 6; th I P4 \ , .. .. ...c Elam mial - IN61 1 T z -47'-. atil MU II .. ' :11116L-t St =mi. -ir- Proposed Akers Farms Annexation 0 600 1200 Figure 6:Vicinity Map ......:-...-„..--..../....... — —— cit/Limits 1 : 7200 Proposed Annex Area Council Hearing Handout 04-1 8-05.doc\ I/ \ ,....-, , .- Akers Farms Annexation iL.1-,exat.-4 P,',: E.;~,-,, 2". .:-- .. , . . ,1 1 / . ,4:0,--.Aist--,I.7-. .. ,.,-. /- :s-.T s 11..ii, Existing Conditions . .., . .„(4.101.54,,,,e--.: ;,:,;,.. ills i ,,,i-p-;--- .:.. A IN ,,,;- : ?A.A. tun Rentoi's Potc•r:,:lt'-,..‘,‘E.-.cr,Arca ,4,4 k "IT-%-.41-."Riie, 'i '''; la 'T.; , ..,..:-.?”Td Mon 1 i -goe.:litr.t4%: __,..41.7....., 4! Locst.c,n-East of Benson F,'..7 ..1 S F.,:',d sz:.:th of !1'4=`,p-tts,*": ciii! ' ..e.t.t.411 41 alli1401.111Vialin Paget Dr;ve SE 1 fio bill 7. - , ,..? or,Cr, & Paw....r \ ' Addition ' —"•-• 41 5izE-t 10.84 acres.er .a.. ,c1,,d;ng a z.,...,-:s. .,sA RO;; ..r(i.V•t. • ,` ''i so i 11,4".Ar *-->i'"-.4.- • '. I '111,42"4.4 Uces.Four .,'**4-. -—'.` ,• ....t.titir--r 4iii i'.1446 * , ' Eo.irdlrics-.Y,-c,abLts Rcr,,,crl 0- „s.l'.'.: t3r;1, ,-,, '-.•ti . Allirma.,s 1 ,h, 12•?* ' ' 111694,1 ..-do•:'::. of''' '' nor t em and northeaster n t;-:,....1.-:.7...s. It abuts SE .. „_..... -, t,, ,' , f. P ,...„Maud= 164” Sticot on the south.1 Existing Conditions - Vicinity Existing Conditions - Structures 11121111knaln IVIlifer.. 440 ih6,kik=11..T.:A04fil,..411 lik ...-..„-,,......f.t.:,.... Varet Illiw;ive....,,,,,t,F4...en . ..th.:,„..,....,...,..".v.v..:., t ,.. , '''' 111111 COSO.Fikerre hc...,cc cn stri ,----, ',0 SE :: SC-1,c 1 $44 'rt."lid 111 ,- no VitilLi ;...tra Rai 1.,g,t!''' =VZ.;;;, ilarj alit.i.,i fil LAN irgi Ini=14 N it mil) Ni.ap *A...Mr-inn 1,0" "• :t"'il kIlli,, .., umm. _11 ' '...: ' n §,..T- „t,1318 savialf' ,tr Ili I LI N LI 1 I karifililibrall MN 4 4 At!I t arl WARP 1111 I Wit I &Ulna imo MUM 1 cq . , . - . --...-; ..... _ . , . ,-,-- .. . , , (5).) .c...) ifi. . . = ' - ..;.4.• 41 * .... - •, .,. e .t ,,,--• • ' - tV. . •:– . . .. 'I'•',_ ,, 0 a:4---(!---1 .... . ,. .... • .• .., 1,,o,,, ,,, ,' ...:!,,, ,...,., -, . ,, ..' :.,.,. '',*...i.",;?. . -• - :i -C!) r .,... . ., '':4% :,,, *II', •–. 5<– .._ .- - II.. , -:. .. ,, '3• im—s,* .. _, „., ,.,._ ._ .. .,_.. .:,...., , ..„...... ,..: ', , I. 7 0141 '":-..7',', ...•,.... -:',..,..-::"f'',..rirlill i 2 , ,, _.. --, *124.41.4.-_L''-,,,--.,..s..,:.",',',,''•'' ,.41710MINI:f ' ›... 46'4715.1 1, ,- , --•-''.., ,-.4FlmINkji 4i,'• :;.; --4,,,, • 1 f :7 V ‘..,'-:.,''' • -:..,. '"'-.' 7:'''... '0All .; •___ , ":; --, 0- ,:• X A',',--',-,-,--,?,-,', 1'4%,)" 'NOP ' 1r , t.t,i s, '1 ;r1 ,IMO I— ",'•.;:11'A\ t i !1' )' '.4f . . i:: ,i,...„:,„,,. i_:: , ,.„.. . rw. . *, `' :. '..,=" • 0. ?„,,,,, . ' '1:4, :, '' '-,,' "1:3 +.1 ,:•':" ‘ . ... t '-• • 1 ' - ' 0 1E3 F i'.: ',-.5- ',`-^. 4 . .::. S..; ' T.,•-='=„ 0 = 0 L„_ i---- ' CD) -:!‘-.'ilt:1 '-• „::,;.., •— = ..,-, .,. LLI .--;< LLI • King County Comp Plan Designation Renton Comp Plan Designation and and Current Zoning Proposed Zoning rr FRI4 k ria I ; itk.',Ititu!i.11.4 - &kn. ,Tti,11.7, 511 t FrNt. 6., •w , , • - ' - 10, -Rt•siiii th;Dioi 04' 11 (tic tfil ri;1 ticritiii iti;r3 - - Jt•:::1,!..i - ;:m ' ;miff; uittim Relevant City Annexation Policies Relevant Boundary Review Board Criteria Preservation of natural neighbortiocds- PoLoy 1.11-36, trio Use of!Physical bc'..indanies includ:n311:e' y's a (jr., cin-,ent of 1,1;4,,v,,-.OC' land contours- - - - Policy 111-31.T[-e tft,tr ti tt"„-*;.." t'i tn•-: CreatIonoil praser-wton o octica!SEJWC,r2 ir-t;r3 cf.!' f,r zii,iy.)11 Prevention ofabnonmeyi hcr — Pc cyj.tJ3 Sinq-c-t ms;!'` cir Incorporation or annexation tooit,es of unincorporated bi ser./ areas Which are urban in character- Issues Fiscal Impact Analysis HCiHi OCT • • • General cost and revenuc imclicat ors +C":, zco As ' iL0 Ira •.3 Ptir.-tin; fti• 0 t t C:;,••...• i• ..si .-E n.t.c..;•jrc -. - dit vri•1 age Fiscal Impact Analysis as Proposed Conclusion Current Full Cerlera:y Consists ,t v tit Dev elo})mcnt Dcv elopment _ �s± _ f C pd ,ii[, RevenuesS-1,816 S90,905 sincle',3;i) rezones (,rn rally Costs So S23 594,62 Cr:,c.;ila Surplus (52,007) S2,226 Potential catalyst for(Jo.E ,c ens of at^..) Deficit l rt ;; „Icor pro Pete.ic�.n u., _�.ia �.at full re op ter don ,im P, \‘..11, ;�t. ,"1 11) n,nt('o>t ot'01%1,14Xtri)u1a1,1,:tothi Conclusion, continued Recommended Motion: Surface\Nater indicates some pote alai downstream Accept Akers Farms i0 ,Notice of Intent to Commence flooding of Hills Creek.-st:Hests Level 2" Annexation petition flow control for nevi do elopnrOnt Expand the proposed annexa ion to include g.),!..trcj street right-of-way and 0,-;.•2., a acre parcel irn iied a:ely ko ma,or serv,ce Issues ice'it','led although Police to the east.at Ilttlt8l'y p" ')v' . ,5t urf(ary and others nore e mi' sea ,ct of recent annexations cull'even.ua iy mean more staff Author zee circulation of 63 ,D sect Pi tition to ran ios st pulatm g: Best interests and?enera welfare of City served, parlc,ilarly:fit facilitates higher quality development ..u of ths po.ion of Benson Nisi • 4 f •L •0. City of Renton PUBLIC INFORMATION HANDOUT April 18, 2005 STREET VACATION PETITION VAC-05-002 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 walkway east of NW 6th Street. The requested vacation area is approximately 187' in length and 10' in width and is shown on the accompanying map exhibit. SUMMARY: A vacation petition was received on January 26, 2005, from Jack D. Alhadeff on behalf of JDA Group LLC and I.D. Kline Corporation, 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 kr✓ 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 a walkway in the plat of the Woody Glen Addition on September 26, 1950. City-owned facilities in the area of this vacation petition include an 8" sewer main and a 4" water line. Additionally, the right-of-way area is part of a stormwater drainage corridor. The Community Services Department noted that this right-of-way is "not identified as part of the trail system." The petitioner plans to use the requested vacation area in the proposed Sixth Street Short Plat. According to the petitioner, the public benefit provided by the proposed vacation would be to allow development of the adjacent parcels. The petitioner also believes that, although this area was intended as a pedestrian walkway, the "steep slopes and lack of connectivity" have caused this walkway to remained undeveloped. 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. A Vicinity Map Street Vacation VAC-05-002 Petitioner: iDA Group, LLC and ID Kline Corp., LLC 4IlNW6thSt c� Area of Vacation Request Vicinity Map J _ m1� 0 100 200 - I!!5 'j\ginrtM' Municipal 1 :1200 _ IIIIH4 r Airport Technical Services Q.11) YarMawdins/Public Works )\.ii 4 IIIIII� r--S No , 9002 `sin. J! dy Zoo - go -DvA NOLLLLd NOLLYDVA uo SutaVag oilgnd LI_ 1 ( O7r )3 • o � if O E-40 , MIM " ii 'z' nil- 0. �., ' i se IN INN TJodaib -- ,� - - led!O!Unw i uo1.ue 1 4: 1 \= == igl - [4 0 � j ,:__:18 ,. lsenbam ��w �uoReoeiv � \, J.o east/ :iii ili eh. T III �!� f 11111 1 :11 ii [ flli ► IUlf NOIILVOO'I LOCATION 0 . 3).% NW 6t" St ' 187/ (I) 2 LOCATI ON ...,...„.„,:„.„...:-i';'-'7,,,''',"::,.,":„'•*•, .•.... „....,„ to.; bs ` 15�y� rs...,. ,„,„,,, ,A;,4?;:.:''''' ��, _ .,•-e„ ..„,,,,,z,T,--, �Y,,iy� * 4� s !v , f }s3 �..f .. ,,.f, , _ ., .,,,.....,-7,i,., j:',..4,v,A,si-1:),T,,,,,\,;A...,.k...;‘,4,,,,..1.--*„:',..,. ,, , ,. f' , ", 14„! 4 a '?:,....`;',-;'.2,14 m,, a,-,..,,:.::..,:::,;..44:,:,i.."44...„,....., p, e A< - .+� "..".--....-;4241 .`: �. r'F I t� �� �� y�n. Aro �`,a �t1 <`�� '.�✓ ��w ��"�fiY#' ::::.;:.,,: ;,:yr a, py a x rr �,4'A'":2 $ , t. y „I.� N�` !;'..'±I':'-' d�,6 t" ' , '''.47.4kpsi' .f'`)),� p'' .F „%'. .+ ;! xr g « •ly 4; ^. r wry' X''..; #'�'� iR` w�firw, i.,,.,.,:t,',i;',Z.,...*;,,,.., :i.,,,,-,4,.,,!.k.,,4 s .`s tet•. ' :,.!....•..„‘,.,.. µ r E ,,. ' it d ,,0 fr.,4•,',., .k ,'--: ',::'--. . , +{ sb ,nn,r �4 c ti y, ��. ° tom, W. . '. ;pori ..- ,,,i':. •h Ti� b f • • 4 ,-,i5- •'N,,,,',,,,, V{jh 3v k '�s �3 ''',4.Q;;'',.0 � Y j 'S 1:- a �` bs' 2 2'+*I ''':'•••:7•'• ,�.# ,� ° `7 tri {f^.Y2 lY�' Atl` `5 s a�4 l� S i �a?*,..';',:',1':';'' •' t °'K' A ��,f� ';; `x i aSL•13 LAND USE ACT d�ttv;' ,, „ , ._.:.,„•.......,.„..,...„.... .. .2,.., .f.i;f:.".';'-'''':' ‘Il'.'''''';'::;:'-r;r : ^; •':^Tr.1�S,<: Vis. 4s t',' r s ,1� ,., �> a , t... ticTE �� w, t .i s;-Yp y, 't.,'''•,',,,1'; &f` '.z::a t` '` ;y.. .,.» ..,. «, It li.,,,t...4r.:# 3,..-•„..„,.:!, :,!,,,..... s f t xiP a, s Eft j�� r f ��� X .,,,::„,:„,,,„,„..., :„.,::.:....:,.,,,-„,...„!.:„..,....,„,..... ,...„,,,.„:„,,,,,.,..„,,,:.,,,,,,..,•,,,:,„:„:„.„„:„:„..::„.,„:„.„,,,,,,,,,,,.„,.:.,,.,,,,..r::,,,,,::„:„..,,,,,,,,.,,,,,,,,!:,,,.;,",.,7„ .., ., ••%5 z ''. h .. asty a� y a3�1''a a '4` �a;x ° <w. - .. w, ._„�" `o�ss '.3rvz,�„"4� tea: . � - ' 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 the Woody Glen Addition on September 26 , 1 • City-owned facilities include: an 8" sewer main a 4 " water line • Also, future storm water improvements planned for area PUBLIC BENEFIT • Request associated with the proposed Sixth Street Short Plat. • According to the petitioner, the public benefit would be to allow development of the adjacent parcels. • The petitioner also contends that, although intended as a pedestrian walkway, the "steep slopes and lack of connectivity" have caused this walkway to remained undeveloped. NOTIFICATION • Notice was given to all property owners along NW 6th Street. • To date, staff has received one call regarding this petition. • Caller inquired about the vacation process and the effect of the requested petition. The caller indicated that he had no objection to the vacation and was pleased with the proposed development. RESEARCH / SURVEY • Vacation request was circulated to various City departments and outside agencies for review • No objections were raised RESEARCH / SURVEY Internal Review Comments • Utility Systems Division (PBPW) : — Wastewater and Surface Water Utilities request that an easement be retained over the entire right-of-way — Water Utility requests that an easement be retained over the entire right-of-way and and that no grading or filling be allowed within the easement area RESEARCH / SURVEY Internal Review Comments • Community Services Department: — Notes that this right-of-way is "not identified as part of the trail system" and that it has no objection to the petition to vacate. RESEARCH/ SURVEY Outside Agency Review Comments • QWEST and Electric Lightwave have no facilities in the requested vacation area and have indicated that no easement is needed. • PSE has indicated that it may have facilities within the requested vacation area. • To date, Comcast has not responded to the City's request for comments. The Planning/Building/Public Works Department recommends that Council approve the request to vacate subject to the following conditions: ✓ A utility easement for the City shall be retained over the entire right-of-way area; ✓ No grading or filling shall be allowed within this easement area; s( The petitioner shall provide satisfactory proof that outside utilities have received and are satisfied with any easements, which are necessary to protect their facilities in the requested vacation area. 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 CITY OF RENTON MEMORANDUM DATE: April 18, 2005 TO: Tern 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 • The recently released Association of Washington Cities State of Cities Report is now available in the Spotlight section of the City's website, www.ci.renton.wa.us. This report assesses the fiscal health of Washington cities and is based on a survey completed by three-fourths of Washington's cities and towns, representing 94% of the state's municipal population. COMMUNITY SERVICES DEPARTMENT • Last week, more than 500 children registered during the first week of registration for the City's 2005 Summer Day Camps. • Fourteen members of the Renton Youth Council participated in National Youth Service Day on Saturday, April 16th, by assisting in the revitalization project for Kinnear Park located on the Seattle waterfront. United Way of King County organized this event. • The Renton Youth Council applied for and received two grants through United Way of King County. A $5,000 grant was awarded from the South Community Council Venture Fund for a Renton Youth Enrichment and Support project. The Renton Youth Council will distribute the funds as mini-grants to local Renton groups supporting youth. The second, a Youth Planning Grant of$150, will be used for a survey project to be conducted by the Renton Youth Council. • The Parks Division will be contracting for removal of twelve large trees, which will be replaced with tree species more compatible to individual locations. It is expected the work will be completed by the end of May. The specific locations are: -Fire Station 12-one Douglas fir tree-insufficient space between trees -Fire Station 13 -two London planetrees -damage to curb and parking lot -Burnett Ave S/S 5th St. -two London planetrees -damage to curb, parking lot, and street -Burnett Linear Park-one London planetree -advanced decay -Liberty Park-three sycamore maples -advanced decay -Airport Way -one Norway maple along Airport Way-damage to sidewalk and parking lot -Philip Arnold Park—two big leaf maples—advanced decay Administrative Report April 18,2005 Page 2 • The Washington Community Forestry Council will hold its regular meeting at Renton City Hall on Wednesday, April 20t. Between noon and 1:00 p.m.,the WCFC will give the City a flowering tree that will be planted near the entrance of City Hall and present two Urban Forestry Partnership Awards for tree planting projects at the Renton Parks Division's Black River Riparian Forest. The Forestry Council will present the awards to the King Conservation District(KCD) and the Friends of the Black River for their work on the north boundary-planting project and to Doris Yepez for her tree-planting project along Oakesdale Avenue. • The Friends of the Library group is recruiting new volunteers to help organize the library's annual book sale. In the future, this group hopes to plan other events and activities to promote the library. If you are interested in joining this organization, sign up at the Library Information Desk, call 425-430-6610, or attend the Friends of the Library meeting on Thursday, April 21st,at 1:30 p.m. in the Liberty Park Community Building, 1101 Bronson Way North. • Children and youth from kindergarten through 12th grade are invited to audition for the Missoula Children's Theater production of Hansel and Gretel. Auditions will be held on Monday, April 25th, from 4:30 to 6:30 p.m. at the Renton Community Center, 1715 Maple Valley Highway. For more information, or to register for an audition, call 425-430-6700. ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT,NEIGHBORHOODS, & STRATEGIC PLANNING DEPARTMENT • In recognition of Arbor Day and Earth Day,over 200 volunteers will work together on a community-based project to transform the NE 4th Street Corridor into a beautiful green space lined with trees, shrubs, and other vegetation. This event will take place on Saturday, April 23`a,beginning at 8:00 a.m. and ending when the plantings are complete. A picnic will be held after the event to thank the volunteers who worked on the project. For more information, please contact Norma McQuiller at 425-430-6595. PLANNINGBUILDING/PUBLIC WORKS DEPARTMENT • For two weeks,beginning April 13th, the City anticipates that four to six Boeing 737s will be returning to the Renton Municipal Airport. This increased inbound 737 traffic is the result of construction-related closures of the main runway at Boeing Field/King County International Airport. This may also drive a few more business jets to Renton when their main runway is affected by this construction. • King County announced that the weekday operating hours of the Bow Lake and Factoria Transfer Stations will be extended, effective May 9, 2005. Bow Lake operations will increase from 22 to 24 hours on weekdays and Factoria will be extended from 7:30 p.m. to 11:30 p.m. on weekdays. Hours at all other stations, including Renton, will remain the same. For details,call the King County Solid Waste Division. • A meeting has been scheduled on April 26th with representatives from Renton,Tukwila, and the Sound Transit Board to discuss features,timing, and cost participation in several important transit-related transportation projects in Renton and Tukwila: the proposed I-405/North 8th Street HOV direct access interchange; the Strander Boulevard Extension; the Rainier Avenue/Hardie Avenue Corridor; and the permanent Longacres Commuter Rail Station. POLICE DEPARTMENT • A community notification meeting is scheduled for Monday,April 25th,at 7:00 p.m. in the Social Hall of the First Baptist Church, 255 Hardie Avenue SW. The purpose of this meeting is to provide general information regarding Washington's sex offender notification laws and Renton Police Department's policy and practice when monitoring sex offenders living in our community. Information regarding personal and family safety will also be available. • CITY OF RENTON COUNCIL AGENDA BILL AI#: 3 ., G , .. _. SUBMITTING DATA: FOR AGENDA OF: April 18, 2005 Dept/Div/BoardAJLS/City Clerk Staff Contact Bonnie Walton AGENDA STATUS: Consent X SUBJECT: Public Hearing.. Bid opening on April 12, 2005, for CAG-05-033, Correspondence.. Hoquiam Pl. NE& SR-900 Storm System Project Ordinance Resolution Old Business.... EXHIBITS: New Business.... Staff Recommendation Study Session... Bid Tabulation Sheet(8 bids) Other RECOMMENDED ACTION: APPROVALS: Legal Dept Council concur Finance Dept.... Other FISCAL IMPACT: 1/4Expenditure Required... $25,164.35 Transfer/Amendment.. iir Amount Budgeted Revenue Generated... Total Project Budget... $350,000.00 City Share Total Project... SUMMARY OF ACTION: I ; Engineer's Estimate: $32,928.32 RECOMMENDED ACTION: In accordance with Council procedure, bids submitted at the subject bid opening met the following three criteria: There was more than one bid,the low bid was within the project budget, and there were no irregularities. Therefore, staff recommends acceptance of the low bid submitted by Young Life Construction in the amount of$25,164.35. L CITY OF RENTON PLANNING/ BUILDING/ PUBLIC WORKS MEMORANDUM DATE: April 13, 2005 TO: Bonnie Walton, City Clerk FROM: ai Ron Straka, Surface Water Utility Supervisor (ext. 7248) STAFF CONTACT: Daniel Carey, Surface Water Utility Project Manager (ext. 7293) SUBJECT: Hoquiam PL NE/ SR 900 Storm System Project, SWP-27-3225 Construction Bid Award Recommendation The bid opening for the Hoquiam PL NE/ SR 900 Storm System Project, SWP-27-3225 was held on April 12, 2005, at 2:30 p.m. Eight (8)bids were received. The Engineer's Estimate for the project construction cost was $32,928.32. The low bid for the project was $25,164.35 (including sales tax) from Young Life Noe Construction. The Surface Water Utility has reviewed the low bid for completeness, inclusion of all required forms, acknowledgments of addenda, bid bond, and mathematical correctness of the bid. All the paperwork is in order. One bidder rounded some bid amounts. The Surface Water Utility checked the unit prices and corrected the mathematic errors. The bid from Celtic Concrete changed from $34,707.02 to $34,705.92. The change did not affect the order of the bidders. The low bid of$25,164.35 is within the amount that the Surface Water Utility has budgeted for the project. The project will be funded from account number 421.000600.018.5960.0038.65.065015, the Small Drainage Projects Program. The approved 2005 Capitol Improvements Program (CIP) budget is $350,000, including $180,000 in the 2005 CIP, and$170,000 in the proposed carry forward budget. There is currently$330,000 of unencumbered funds in the account. The bid award for the Central Business District Utility Replacement Project, on the April 18, 2005, Council Agenda, will require approximately$191,000 from the account for the Surface Water Utility portion of the project construction. The Central Business District Project and the Hoquiam PL N/ SR 900 Storm System Project will require approximately $217,000 from the account. There are sufficient funds in the 2005 Small Drainage Project Program account to fund construction and staff costs for the Hoquiam PL NE/ SR 900 Storm System project. Walton/Hoquiam Bid Award Recommendation April 13,2005 Page 2 of 2 The low bid meets the following conditions for award: 1. The low bid must be within the total project budget; 2. There must be more than one bidder; and 3. The lowest, responsible, responsive bid contains no significant irregularities. The Surface Water Utility, therefore,recommends that this item be placed on the April 18, 2005, consent agenda for Council concur. Staff further recommends that Council award the construction contract to the lowest responsive, responsible bidder, Young Life Construction, for the amount of$25,164.35. Attached for your reference, is a bid tabulation showing the Engineer's Estimate, the low bid, and the other seven (7) bids submitted. I am also returning the bid documents from the other seven (7)bidders to you for the City Clerk's files. If you have any questions, please contact Daniel Carey, Project Manager. Attachments cc: Gregg Zimmerman,PBPW Administrator Lys Hornsby,Utility Systems Division Director H:\File Sys\SWP - Surface Water Projects\SWP-27 - Surface Water Projects (CIP)\27-3225 Hoquaim PL NE\1000-1 Corrspd-City\050413 Award-Clerk.doc\DWC\tb CITY OF RENTON BID TABULATION SHEET 'ii..PROJECT: Hoquiam Pl. NE &SR-900 Storm System Project; CAG-05-033 DATE: April 12, 2005 FORMS BID BIDDER Bid Triple Includes 8.8%Sales Tax Bond Form Americon,Inc./TAB Enterprises X X $41,888.00 23020 SE 272nd St. Maple Valley,WA 98038 Judith F. Sherbon Celtic Concrete X X $31,707.02 6640 211th Pl. NE $34,705.92 * Redmond,WA 98053 Damian Howard Construct Co. X X $44,418.69 1621 Pease Ave. Sumner,WA 98390 Cy Morse Dennis R. Craig Construction,Inc. X X $39,522.25 PO Box 595 Redmond,WA 98073-0595 Janie Craig GMT Inc. check X $34,805.12 PO Box 82002 Kenmore, WA 98028 G. G. Suarez Kemper Construction Corporation X X $35,506.88 PO Box 332 Redmond,WA 98073 William P. Kemper Road Construction Northwest, Inc. X X $49,107.97 PO Box 3435 Renton,WA 98056 Peter J. Kenney Young Life Const. X X $25,164.35 PO Box 7724 Bonney Lake,WA 98390 Ron Bobbitt ENGINEER'S ESTIMATE TOTAL: $32,928.32 *corrected LEGEND: Fomes:Triple Form Non-Collusion Affidavit,Anti-Trust Claims,Minimum Wage Project Title: Hoquiam PL NE/SR-900 Storm System Project City of Renton Young Life Constr. BID DATE: April 12 ,2005 Engineers Estimate Item Unit Est. Unit Bid Unit Bid No. Description Quantity Price Amount Price Amount 1 Mobilization Lump Sum 1 2,500.00 2,500.00 3,500.00 3,500.00 2 Construction Survey, Staking, and As-Built Lump Sum 1 2,500.00 2,500.00 1,500.00 1,500.00 3 Traffic Control Lump Sum 1 3,000.00 3,000.00 1,500.00 1,500.00 4 Erosion Control Lump Sum 1 500.00 500.00 500.00 500.00 5 Trench Excavation Safety Systems Lump Sum 1 500.00 500.00 2,000.00 2,000.00 6 Driveway Excavation and Grading Square Feet 2,000 1.50 3,000.00 1.00 2,000.00 7 Crushed Surfacing Ton 50 20.00 1,000.00 22.00 1,100.00 8 Asphalt Conc. Pavement Class B Ton 26 85.00 2,210.00 65.00 1,690.00 9 8-inch Dia. Ductile Iron Storm Pipe Linear Feet 11 55.00 605.00 30.00 330.00 10 8"x 6"DI Cross and PVC Pipe Installation Lump Sum 1 500.00 500.00 400.00 400.00 11 12-inch Dia. CPEP Storm Pipe Linear Feet 45 50.00 2,250.00 15.00 675.00 12 Import Trench Backfill Ton 30 10.00 300.00 15.00 450.00 13 Quarry Spalls Ton 16 27.00 432.00 15.00 240.00 14 Catch Basin Type I Each 1 800.00 800.00 600.00 600.00 15 Catch Basin Type II,48-inch Each 1 2,500.00 2,500.00 2,500.00 2,500.00 16 Remove Rock Wall Lump Sum 1 2,000.00 2,000.00 750.00 750.00 17 Construct Rock Wall Ton 24 130.00 3,120.00 40.00 960.00 18 Gravel Backfill For Drains Ton 6 35.00 210.00 20.00 120.00 19 Sawcutting Linear Feet 46 3.00 138.00 4.00 184.00 20 Remove, Replace Conc. Sidewalk Square Yard 6 50.00 300.00 65.00 390.00 21 Remove, Replace Conc Curb and Gutter Linear Feet 10 30.00 300.00 30.00 300.00 22 Remove& Restore Wooden Fence Linear Feet 20 30.00 600.00 7.00 140.00 23 Restoration,Topsoil, Seeding Lump Sum 1 500.00 500.00 800.00 800.00 24 Minor Changes Lump Sum 1 500.00 500.00 500.00 500.00 Subtotal $30,265.00 Subtotal $23,129.00 '-� , 8.8%Tax $2,663.32 Tax $2,035.35 By: D (/�.g„,...7i /7 -/2-0S Total $32,928.32 Total $25,164.35 BidT )412 Hoquiam.XLS (.. e Page 1 • ( ( ( , Project Title: Hoquiam PL NE/SR-900 Storm System Project Celtic Concrete GMT Inc. Kemper Constr. Co. BID DATE: April 12 .2005 Item Unit Est. Unit Bid Unit Bid Unit Bid No. Description Quantity Price Amount Price Amount Price Amount 1 Mobilization Lump Sum 1 2,000.00 2,000.00 6,400.00 6,400.00 3,000.00 3,000.00 2 Construction Survey, Staking, and As-Built Lump Sum 1 500.00 500.00 2,000.00 2,000.00 800.00 800.00 3 Traffic Control Lump Sum 1 1,500.00 1,500.00 450.00 450.00 2,500.00 2,500.00 4 Erosion Control Lump Sum 1 600.00 600.00 900.00 900.00 300.00 300.00 5 Trench Excavation Safety Systems Lump Sum 1 1,500.00 1,500.00 500.00 500.00 300.00 300.00 6 Driveway Excavation and Grading Square Feet 2,000 1.05 2,100.00 2.75 5,500.00 1.50 3,000.00 7 Crushed Surfacing Ton 50 22.00 1,100.00 30.00 1,500.00 30.00 1,500.00 8 Asphalt Conc. Pavement Class B Ton 26 192.30 4,999.80 125.00 3,250.00 140.00 3,640.00 9 8-inch Dia. Ductile Iron Storm Pipe Linear Feet 11 72.72 799.92 40.00 440.00 100.00 1,100.00 10 8"x 6" DI Cross and PVC Pipe Installation Lump Sum 1 300.00 300.00 750.00 750.00 1,200.00 1,200.00 11 12-inch Dia. CPEP Storm Pipe Linear Feet 45 144.44 6,499.80 28.00 1,260.00 35.00 1,575.00 12 Import Trench Backfill Ton 30 63.33 1,899.90 25.00 750.00 22.00 660.00 13 Quarry Spalls Ton 16 50.00 800.00 25.00 400.00 22.00 352.00 14 Catch Basin Type I Each 1 900.00 900.00 1,000.00 1,000.00 950.00 950.00 15 Catch Basin Type II,48-inch Each 1 1,500.00 1,500.00 2,800.00 2,800.00 2,800.00 2,800.00 16 Remove Rock Wall Lump Sum 1 500.00 500.00 300.00 300.00 600.00 600.00 17 Construct Rock Wall Ton 24 41.66 999.84 20.00 480.00 120.00 2,880.00 18 Gravel Backfill For Drains Ton 6 100.00 600.00 25.00 150.00 18.00 108.00 19 Sawcutting Linear Feet 46 10.86 499.56 5.00 230.00 5.00 230.00 20 Remove, Replace Conc.Sidewalk Square Yard 6 75.00 450.00 80.00 480.00 120.00 720.00 21 Remove, Replace Conc Curb and Gutter Linear Feet 10 25.00 250.00 70.00 700.00 96.00 960.00 22 Remove&Restore Wooden Fence Linear Feet 20 25.00 500.00 25.00 500.00 48.00 960.00 23 Restoration,Topsoil, Seeding Lump Sum 1 600.00 600.00 750.00 750.00 2,000.00 2,000.00 24 Minor Changes Lump Sum 1 500.00 500.00 500.00 500.00 500.00 500.00 Subtotal $31,898.82 Subtotal $31,990.00 Subtotal $32,635.00 D. %�- � 7 7'/Z_Ds Tax $2,807.10 Tax $2,815.12 Tax $2,871.88 By: / Total $34,705.92 Total $34,805.12 Total $35,506.88 BidTab-050412 Hoquiam.XLS Page 2 Project Title: Hoquiam PL NE/SR-900 Storm System Project Dennis R Craig Constr. Americon Inc Construct Co. BID DATE: April 12 ,2005 dba as Tab Enterprises Item Unit Est. Unit Bid Unit Bid Unit Bid No. Description Quantity Price Amount Price Amount Price Amount 1 Mobilization Lump Sum 1 3,032.00 3,032.00 3,000.00 3,000.00 10,100.00 10,100.00 2 Construction Survey, Staking, and As-Built Lump Sum 1 495.00 495.00 450.00 450.00 1,200.00 1,200.00 3 Traffic Control Lump Sum 1 5,340.00 5,340.00 3,000.00 3,000.00 2,300.00 2,300.00 4 Erosion Control Lump Sum 1 708.00 708.00 500.00 500.00 300.00 300.00 5 Trench Excavation Safety Systems Lump Sum 1 500.00 500.00 1,500.00 1,500.00 1,400.00 1,400.00 6 Driveway Excavation and Grading Square Feet 2,000 1.05 2,100.00 1.00 2,000.00 0.60 1,200.00 7 Crushed Surfacing Ton 50 20.29 1,014.50 25.00 1,250.00 29.00 1,450.00 8 Asphalt Conc. Pavement Class B Ton 26 130.25 3,386.50 150.00 3,900.00 210.00 5,460.00 9 8-inch Dia. Ductile Iron Storm Pipe Linear Feet 11 125.85 1,384.35 80.00 880.00 115.00 1,265.00 10 8"x 6"DI Cross and PVC Pipe Installation Lump Sum 1 2,689.22 2,689.22 1,000.00 1,000.00 820.00 820.00 11 12-inch Dia. CPEP Storm Pipe Linear Feet 45 70.98 3,194.10 100.00 4,500.00 43.00 1,935.00 12 Import Trench Backfill Ton 30 25.25 757.50 20.00 600.00 23.00 690.00 13 Quarry Spalls Ton 16 26.59 425.44 25.00 400.00 29.00 464.00 14 Catch Basin Type I Each 1 1,040.00 1,040.00 2,000.00 2,000.00 1,000.00 1,000.00 15 Catch Basin Type II,48-inch Each 1 2,890.00 2,890.00 3,000.00 3,000.00 2,700.00 2,700.00 16 Remove Rock Wall Lump Sum 1 751.15 751.15 1,500.00 1,500.00 700.00 700.00 17 Construct Rock Wall Ton 24 93.25 2,238.00 175.00 4,200.00 130.00 3,120.00 18 Gravel Backfill For Drains Ton 6 41.24 247.44 25.00 150.00 50.00 300.00 19 Sawcutting Linear Feet 46 3.00 138.00 15.00 690.00 7.00 322.00 20 Remove, Replace Conc. Sidewalk Square Yard 6 151.50 909.00 80.00 480.00 140.00 840.00 21 Remove, Replace Conc Curb and Gutter Linear Feet 10 45.60 456.00 50.00 500.00 80.00 800.00 22 Remove&Restore Wooden Fence Linear Feet 20 67.97 1,359.40 50.00 1,000.00 38.00 760.00 23 Restoration,Topsoil, Seeding Lump Sum 1 770.00 770.00 1,500.00 1,500.00 1,200.00 1,200.00 24 Minor Changes Lump Sum 1 500.00 500.00 500.00 500.00 500.00 500.00 Subtotal $36,325.60 Subtotal $38,500.00 Subtotal $40,826.00 By: L�-/2-Os Tax $3,196.65 Tax $3,388.00 Tax $3,592.69 Total $39,522.25 Total $41,888.00 Total $44,418.69 i BidT )412 Hoquiam.XLS (.. ( Page 3 4 ( ( ( , Project Title: Hoquiam PL NE/SR-900 Storm System Project Road Constr. NW Inc. Bidder#9 Bidder#10 BID DATE: April 12 ,2005 Item Unit Est. Unit Bid Unit Bid Unit Bid No. Description Quantity Price Amount Price Amount Price Amount 1 Mobilization Lump Sum 1 5,000.00 5,000.00 0.00 0.00 2 Construction Survey, Staking, and As-Built Lump Sum 1 2,500.00 2,500.00 0.00 0.00 3 Traffic Control Lump Sum 1 4,000.00 4,000.00 0.00 0.00 4 Erosion Control Lump Sum 1 2,000.00 2,000.00 0.00 0.00 5 Trench Excavation Safety Systems Lump Sum 1 2,000.00 2,000.00 0.00 0.00 6 Driveway Excavation and Grading Square Feet 2,000 2.00 4,000.00 0.00 0.00 7 Crushed Surfacing Ton 50 45.00 2,250.00 0.00 0.00 8 Asphalt Conc. Pavement Class B Ton 26 125.00 3,250.00 0.00 0.00 9 8-inch Dia. Ductile Iron Storm Pipe Linear Feet 11 75.00 825.00 0.00 0.00 10 8"x 6"DI Cross and PVC Pipe Installation Lump Sum 1 500.00 500.00 0.00 0.00 11 12-inch Dia. CPEP Storm Pipe Linear Feet 45 75.00 3,375.00 0.00 0.00 12 Import Trench Backfill Ton 30 45.00 1,350.00 0.00 0.00 13 Quarry Spalls Ton 16 45.00 720.00 0.00 0.00 14 Catch Basin Type I Each 1 1,000.00 1,000.00 0.00 0.00 15 Catch Basin Type II,48-inch Each 1 4,000.00 4,000.00 0.00 0.00 16 Remove Rock Wall Lump Sum 1 2,000.00 2,000.00 0.00 0.00 17 Construct Rock Wall Ton 24 125.00 3,000.00 0.00 0.00 18 Gravel Backfill For Drains Ton 6 45.00 270.00 0.00 0.00 19 Sawcutting Linear Feet 46 11.00 506.00 0.00 0.00 20 Remove, Replace Conc. Sidewalk Square Yard 6 75.00 450.00 0.00 0.00 21 Remove, Replace Conc Curb and Gutter Linear Feet 10 75.00 750.00 0.00 0.00 22 Remove&Restore Wooden Fence Linear Feet 20 22.00 440.00 0.00 0.00 23 Restoration,Topsoil, Seeding Lump Sum 1 450.00 450.00 0.00 0.00 24 Minor Changes Lump Sum 1 500.00 500.00 0.00 0.00 Subtotal $45,136.00 Subtotal $0.00 Subtotal $0.00 Tax $3,971.97 Tax $0.00 Tax $0.00 By: D. (' y-/2-03 Total $49,107.97 Total $0.00 Total $0.00 BidTab-050412 Hoquiam.XLS Page 4 CITY OF RENTON COUNCIL AGENDA BILL AI#: 8'. 1410.0, Submitting Data: For Agenda of: 4/18/2005 Dept/Div/Board.. City Clerk Staff Contact Bonnie Walton Agenda Status Consent X Subject: Public Hearing.. Bid opening on 4/5/2005 for CAG-05-031; Central Correspondence.. Business District Utility Replacement Project Ordinance Resolution Old Business Exhibits: New Business Staff Recommendation Study Sessions Issue Paper Information Bid Tab (seven bids) Recommended Action: Approvals: Refer to Utilities Committee Legal Dept Finance Dept X Other Fiscal Impact: Expenditure Required... $709,109.50 Transfer/Amendment $220,000 Amount Budgeted Revenue Generated Total Project Budget $739,700 City Share Total Project.. SUMMARY OF ACTION: The Utility Systems Division received bids for the construction of the Central Business District Utility Replacement Project. As part of this project,each of the three utilities is replacing facilities. The cost portion for the Wastewater and Water Utilities is above the amounts they have budgeted for their work. To move forward with the project, the City will need to transfer budget authority to cover costs and award the project. In accordance with Council procedure, bids submitted at the subject bid opening met the following criteria: There was more than one bid, and there were no irregularities. The low bid submitted by Americon,Inc., dba TAB Enterprises in the amount of$709,109.50, however, was above the amount budgeted for the project. Therefore, staff recommends referral of the bid to the Utilities Committee for discussion of funding. STAFF RECOMMENDATION: • Transfer funds totaling$100,000 from Wastewater account 45395 (Sewer Main Extension— Sunset Ph II) to account 45405 and funds totaling $120,000 from Water account 55170 (Water Main Rehabilitation) to account 55290 to cover the additional costs of their portion of the project. • Award the Central Business District Utility Replacement project to Americon Inc. d/b/a TAB Enterprises, in the amount of$709,109.50. CITY OF RENTON *0.r PLANNINGBUILDING/PUBLIC WORKS MEMORANDUM DATE: April 8, 2005 TO: Bonnie Walton, City Clerk FROM: Mike Benoit, Wastewater Engineer(ext. 7206)��j� SUBJECT: Central Business District Utility Replacement Bid Award The Planning/Building/Public Works Department has reviewed the bids submitted for the Central Business District Utility Replacement project and recommends that the bid be awarded to Americon, Inc. d/b/a TAB Enterprises. We are requesting that an agenda bill be prepared for the Council Meeting on April 18, 2005. For your convenience, I have attached and emailed a draft agenda bill copy. As part of the recommendation to award, we are recommending the transfer of funds to cover the project. This will necessitate that the issue be referred to the Utilities Committee. We anticipate Now this will be on the Utilities Committee Committee Meeting Agenda on April 21. The bid opening was Tuesday, April 5, 2005. There were seven bids received. The low bidder was Americon, Inc. d/b/a TAB Enterprises, with a bid of$709,109.50. The engineer's estimate was $672,006.94. The project includes work for the Surface Water, Wastewater and Water Utilities. The project budget amount is not sufficient for the Wastewater and Water portion of the project. We are requesting a transfer of funds,per the attached issue paper. Attachments cc: Julia Medzegian,Council Secretary Slime H:\File Sys\WWP-WasteWater\WWP-27-2988 Wells Ave S Utility Replacement\Award-Clerk.doc\MABtp CITY OF RENTON PLANNINGBUILDING/PUBLIC WORKS MEMORANDUM DATE: April 8, 2005 TO: Terri Briere, Council President Members of the Renton City Council VIA: ,$'`,,,.) Mayor Kathy Keolker-Wheeler��y FROM: • la Gregg Zimmermah!Aministrator STAFF CONTACT: Mike Benoit, Wastewater Engineer (ext. 7206) SUBJECT: Central Business District Utility Replacement Project Bid Award ISSUE: The Utility Systems Division advertised and received bids for a proposed project to replace utilities in the Central Business District(Wells Ave S &Williams Ave S between S 2nd Street and S 3rd Street). We received seven bids on the project. The low bidder was Americon Inc. d/b/a TAB Enterprises, with a bid amount of$709,109.50. This bid amount is above the engineer's estimate of$672,006.94. The existing budget authority for the project is not sufficient to cover construction of the project. RECOMMENDATION: • Transfer funds totaling $100,000 from Wastewater account 45395 (Sewer Main Extension— Sunset Ph II)to account 45405 and funds totaling $120,000 from Water account 55170 (Water Main Rehabilitation)to account 55290 to cover the additional costs. • Award the Central Business District Utility Replacement project to Americon Inc. d/b/a TAB Enterprises, in the amount of$709,109.50. BACKGROUND SUMMARY: The Wastewater Utility needs to repair a broken portion of the sewer main in Wells Ave South. The age and condition of the sewer in both Wells and Williams,between S 2nd Street and S 3rd Street,makes it necessary to replace them in their entirety. Council/Central Utility Replacement April 8,2005 Page 2 of 3 Prior to the restoration of the roadways, which will include a full-width asphalt overlay, the No ,; Water Utility needs to replace an existing old and undersized water line with a new 12-inch water line in Williams Ave South, in order to improve the fire protection to the downtown area. The Surface Water Utility will also be replacing an old and undersized storm water line and adding catch basins to improve the drainage in Wells Ave South and Williams Ave South. The replacement of existing substandard utilities, prior the reconstruction of the roadway, is consistent with City policy to avoid impact to the public and to reduce future repair and maintenance costs. The Utilities Division advertised and received bids for the proposed project. The low bidder was Americon Inc. d/b/a TAB Enterprises,with a bid amount of$709,109.50. The existing budget authority for the project is not sufficient to cover construction of the project. We are requesting a transfer of funds as follows: Wastewater: The estimated construction cost for the sanitary sewer portion of this project is $269,684.19. At the end of fiscal year 2004, the Wastewater Utility has a remaining balance of$240,000 in the capital improvement project account for the replacement of sewers in the downtown area(account no. 421.000400.018.5960.0035.65.45300). This balance will be carried forward into the 2005 budget. In 2005, the Wastewater Utility budgeted $2,700,000 for the Sunset Interceptor Phase II, Nr, which includes a $2,200,000 carry forward from 2004. The Wastewater Utility requests the transfer of$100,000 from the Sunset Interceptor Phase II budget (account no. 421.000400.018.5960.0035.65.045500/045395) to the downtown sanitary sewer replacement budget (account no. 421.000400.018.5960.0035.65.045300/045405)to cover the balance needed to construct this project. The total proposed budget amount of $340,000 is sufficient to cover the contract, project management, inspection, and a contingency for unforeseen conditions. This transfer will not increase the Wastewater Utility's total appropriation for 2005 and will not impact the Sunset Interceptor Phase II project planned for 2005. Water: The estimated construction cost for the new water line in Wells Avenue South including contingency and administration is $269,700. At the end of fiscal year 2004,the Water Utility has a remaining balance of$149,700 in the capital improvement project account for the replacement of water lines in the downtown area(account no. 421.000500.018.5960.0034.65.55290). This balance will be carried forward into the 2005 budget. In 2005, the Water Utility budgeted $1,100,000 for the replacement of water lines in various areas of the City, including Talbot Hill, SW 27th Street, and Duvall Ave NE. The Water Utility requests the transfer of$120,000 from the 2005 water main replacement budget(account no. 421.000500.018.5960.0034.65.55170)to the downtown water main "%,,,,,r replacement budget (account no. 421.000500.018.5960.0034.65.55290) to cover the H:\File Sys\WWP-WasteWater\WWP-27-2988 Wells Ave S Utility Replacement\ISSUE01 revised3.doc\MABtp Ask Council/Central Utility Replacement April 8,2005 Page 3 of 3 balance needed to construct this project. This transfer will not increase the Water Utility's total appropriation for 2005 and will not impact the remaining water line replacement projects planned for 2005. The Surface Water Utility's portion of the construction bid is $190,968.00. For 2005, Surface Water has $350,000 budgeted (account no. 421.000600.018.5960.0038.65.065015) for the project, including $170,000 as part of the carry forward process currently being prepared by Finance. The total Surface Water budget is sufficient to cover the costs for the surface water portion of the contract. The cost and budget for each utility would be: Utility Cost Share Original Budget Revised Budget Surface Water $190,968.00 $350,000 $350,000 Wastewater $269,684.19 $240,000 $340,000 Water $248,457.31 $149,700 $269,700 Total $709,109.50 $739,700 $959,700 CONCLUSION: *401 The budget authority should be adjusted to cover the cost of the project and the project should be awarded to Americon Inc. d/b/a TAB Enterprises. cc: Lys Hornsby,Utility Systems Director Dave Christensen,Wastewater Engineering Supervisor Abdoul Gafour,Water Utility Engineering Supervisor Ron Straka, Surface Water Utility Engineering Supervisor Daniel Carey,Surface Water Engineer H:\File Sys\WWP-WasteWater\WWP-27-2988 Wells Ave S Utility Replacement\1SSUE01 revised3.doc\MABtp CITY OF RENTON BID TABULATION SHEET ,PROJECT: Central Business District Utility Placement Project; CAG-05-031 DATE: April 5,2005 FORMS BID BIDDER Bid Combined Proposal/ Bond Triple Form Kar-Vel Construction X X $8084344 PO Box 58275 $801,704.77 * Renton, WA 98058 Mike Waldner LASER Underground Utilities&Earthworks, Inc. X X $1,068,098.83 6632 S. 191st Pl., Suite E-104 Kent,Washington 98032 Bret Lane Pivetta Brothers Construction, Inc. X X $826,413.94 PO Box 370 Sumner,WA 98390 Mark Pivetta R.L. Alia Company X X $758,126.02 444vis,,,107 Williams Ave. S. $798,164.42 * Renton,WA 98055 Richard L.Alia Road Construction Northwest, Inc. X X $947508.30 PO Box 3435 $947,158.30 * Renton,WA 98056 Peter J. Kenney TAB Enterprises X X $709,109.50 23020 SE 272nd St. Maple Valley,WA 98038 Earl M. Soushek West Coast Construction Co.,Inc. X X $912,814.90 PO Box 419 Woodinville,WA 98072 Hunter Sather % ✓ENGINEER'S ESTIMATE TOTAL: $672,006.94 LEGEND: *corrected Forms:Triple Form:Non-Collusion Affidavit,Anti-Trust Claims,Minimum Wage BID Tab Page 1 Project Title: CENTRAL BUSINESS DISTRICT City of Renton Americon Inc.TAB Enterprises BID DATE:4/05/05 2:30 PDT UTILITIES REPLACEMENT Engineers Estimate Low Bid Item Description Unit Est. Unit Bid Unit Bid No. Quantit Price Amount Price Amount ! A01 Mobilization&Demobilization Schedule A Lump Sum 1 $25,000.00 $25,000.00 $30,000.00 $30,000.00 A02 Trench Excavation Safety Systems Schedule A Lump Sum 1 $5,000.00 $5,000.00 $7,500.00 $7,500.00 A03 Construction Surveying,Staking,and As-Builts Sched A Lump Sum 1 $10,000.00 $10,000.00 $6,000.00 $6,000.00 A04 Traffic Control Schedule A Lump Sum 1 $10,000.00 $10,000.00 $20,700.00 $20,700.00 A05 Temporary Erosion/Sedimentation Controls Schedule A Lump Sum 1 $5,000.00 $5,000.00 $2,800.00 $2,800.00 A06 Re-establish existing Monuments Each 2 $1,000.00 $2,000.00 $575.00 $1,150.00 A07 Furnish and Install 8"C900 PVC Sewer Pipe Linear Foot 964 $65.00 $62,660.00 $48.00 $46,272.00 A08 Furnish and Install 6"C900 PVC Side Sewer Pipe Linear Foot 575 $60.00 $34,500.00 $45.00 $25,875.00 A09 Furnish and Install Type B 54"Shallow Sanitary Sewer Manhole Each 4 $3,500.00 $14,000.00 $2,600.00 $10,400.00 A10 Furnish and Install 54"Diam.Sanitary Sewer Manhole Each 2 $3,500.00 $7,000.00 $5,300.00 $10,600.00 All Connect Exist San Sewer to New San Sewer Struct Each 4 $1,500.00 $6,000.00 $1,700.00 $6,800.00 Al2 TV Inspection of Sanitary Sewers Linear Foot 964 $1.75 $1,687.00 $1.50 $1,446.00 A13 Locate and Abandon Sanitary Sewer Manhole Each 2 $1,500.00 $3,000.00 $2,000.00 $4,000.00 A14 Furnish and Install 12"Ductile Iron Water Main Pipe&Fittings Linear Foot 640 $75.00 $48,000.00 $86.00 $55,040.00 A15 Furnish and Install 12"Diameter Gate Valve Assembly Each 4 $1,200.00 $4,800.00 $2,000.00 $8,000.00 Al 6 Furnish and Install 8"Diameter Gate Valve Assembly Each 1 $900.00 $900.00 $1,200.00 $1,200.00 A17 Furnish and Install 6"Diameter Gate Valve Assembly Each 2 $700.00 $1,400.00 $750.00 $1,500.00 A18 Furnish and Install 4"Diameter Gate Valve Assembly Each 1 $500.00 $500.00 $650.00 $650.00 A19 Furnish and Install Fire Hydrant Assembly Each 4 $3,000.00 $12,000.00 $3,200.00 $12,800.00 A20 Connection to 12"Water Main Wells Ave S(Approx Sta 20+22) Lump Sum 1 $1,500.00 $1,500.00 $6,200.00 $6,200.00 A21 Connection to 4"Water Main Wells Ave S(Approx Sta 23+18) Lump Sum 1 $1,500.00 $1,500.00 $4,500.00 $4,500.00 A22 Connection to 8"Water Main Wells Ave S(at Approx Sta 25+54) Lump Sum 1 $1,500.00 $1,500.00 $5,000.00 $5,000.00 A23 Connection to 6"Water Main Wells Ave.S(at Approx Sta 26+15) Lump Sum 1 $1,500.00 $1,500.00 $6,700.00 $6,700.00 A24 Connection to Water Mains Williams Ave.S(at Approx Sta 15+61 &16+01) Lump Sum 1 $2,000.00 $2,000.00 $17,250.00 $17,250.00 A25 Furnish and Install 3/4"Water Service Connection Each 10 $750.00 $7,500.00 $860.00 $8,600.00 A26 Furnish and Install 1"Water Service Connection Each 3 $1,000.00 $3,000.00 $1,200.00 $3,600.00 A27 Furnish and Install 1-1/2"Water Service Connection Each 1 $1,200.00 $1,200.00 $2,000.00 $2,000.00 A28 Concrete Thrust Blocking and Dead-Man Anchor Blocks Cubic Yard 10 $140.00 $1,400.00 $250.00 $2,500.00 A29 Joint Bonding Thermite Weld Lump Sum 1 $2,000.00 $2,000.00 $5,700.00 $5,700.00 A30 Cathodic Protection Test Stations(All Types) Each 4 $1,100.00 $4,400.00 $2,000.00 $8,000.00 A31 Removal and Replacement of Unsuitable Foundation Material Ton 165 $20.00 $3,300.00 $50.00 $8,250.00 A32 Select Imported Trench Backfill Ton 2,180 $15.00 $32,700.00 $15.00 $32,700.00 A33 Asphalt Class'B'Patch Inc.CSTC Square Yard 1,825 $40.00 $73,000.00 $26.00 $47,450.00 A34 2"Deep Grind and Asphalt Overlay Class'B' Square Yard 5,600 $10.00 $56,000.00 $10.00 $56,000.00 A35 Replace Pavement Markings and Traffic Buttons Lump Sum 1 $1,000.00 $1,000.00 $3,450.00 $3,450.00 k. /2005 (L. ( ( ( D Tab ( Page 2 Project Title: CENTRAL BUSINESS DISTRICT City of Renton Americon Inc.TAB Enterprises BID DATE:4/05/05 2:30 PDT UTILITIES REPLACEMENT Engineers Estimate Low Bid Item Description Unit Est. Unit Bid Unit Bid No. Quantit Price Amount Price Amount A36 Remove and Replace Sidewalk&Driveway Square Yard 220 $60.00 $13,200.00 $55,00 $12,100.00 A37 Remove and Replace Curb&Gutter Linear Foot 150 $35.00 $5,250.00 $30.00 $4,500.00 A38 Removal of Paint and Other Markings on Curb&Sidewalk Lump Sum 1 $1,000.00 $1,000.00 $3,000.00 $3,000.00 Subtotal Schedule A $466,397.00 $490,233.00 Tax $41,042.94 $43,140.50 Total Schedule A $507,439.94 $533,373.50 Schedule B B01 Mobilization&Demobilization Schedule B Lump Sum 1 $12,000.00 $12,000.00 $15,000.00 $15,000.00 B02 Trench Excavation Safety Systems Schedule B Lump Sum 1 $3,000.00 $3,000.00 $5,000.00 $5,000.00 B03 Construction Surveying,Staking,and As-Builts Sched B Lump Sum 1 $3,000.00 $3,000.00 $5,000.00 $5,000.00 B04 Traffic Control Schedule B Lump Sum 1 $10,000.00 $10,000.00 $15,000.00 $15,000.00 B05 Temporary Erosion/Sedimentation Controls Schedule B Lump Sum 1 $1,500.00 $1,500.00 $3,000.00 $3,000.00 B06 Furnish and Install 12"Ductile Iron Storm Pipe Linear Foot 165 $62.00 $10,230.00 $60.00 $9,900.00 B07 Furnish and Install 8"Ductile Iron Storm Pipe Linear Foot 320 $58.00 $18,560.00 $50.00 $16,000.00 B08 Furnish and Install 12"CPEP Pipe Linear Foot 362 $50.00 $18,100.00 $40.00 $14,480.00 B09 TV Inspection of Storm Sewers Linear Foot 544 $1.75 $952.00 $1.50 $816.00 810 Furnish and Install Type 2 Catch Basin Each 9 $2,000.00 $18,000.00 $2,300.00 $20,700.00 811 Furnish and Install Type 1L Catch Basin Each 1 $1,000.00 $1,000.00 $1,400.00 $1,400.00 B12 Furnish and Install Concrete Inlet Each 18 $800.00 $14,400.00 $650.00 $11,700.00 B13 Plug Existing Pipe Each 7 $150.00 $1,050.00 $250.00 $1,750.00 B14 Connect New 12"Storm to Existing Manhole Each 2 $250.00 $500.00 $1,200.00 $2,400.00 B15 Reconnect Existing Storm Pipe to New Type 2 Catch Basin Each 6 $150.00 $900.00 $1,200.00 $7,200.00 B16 Pothole over Existing Underground Telecom Each 3 $350.00 $1,050.00 $600.00 $1,800.00 B17 Pothole and Relocate Unknown Utility through Storm Line Lump Sum 1 $350.00 $350.00 $2,500.00 $2,500.00 B18 Pothole Existing Storm Main at Sta 16+21 Lump Sum 1 $350.00 $350.00 $2,500.00 $2,500.00 819 Removal and Replacement of Unsuitable Foundation Material Ton 40 $20.00 $800.00 $50.00 $2,000.00 B20 Select Imported Trench Backfill Ton 390 $15.00 $5,850.00 $15.00 $5,850.00 B21 Asphalt Class'B'Patch Inc.CSTC Square Yard 740 $40.00 $29,600.00 $26.00 $19,240.00 B22 Remove and Replace Sidewalk&Driveway Square Yard 130 $60.00 $7,800.00 $55.00 $7,150.00 B23 Remove and Replace Curb&Gutter Linear Foot 145 $35.00 $5,075.00 $30.00 $4,350.00 B24 Install Sidewalk Curb Ramp Each 1 $500.00 $500.00 $1,000.00 $1,000.00 Total Schedule B $164,567.00 $175,736.00 Total Schedule A&B $672,006.94 $709,109.50 04/07/2005 BID Tab Page 3 Project Title: CENTRAL BUSINESS DISTRICT R. L.Alia Kar-Vel Construction BID DATE:4/05/05 2:30 PDT UTILITIES REPLACEMENT Item Description Unit Est. Unit Bid Unit Bid No. Quantit Price Amount Price Amount A01 Mobilization&Demobilization Schedule A Lump Sum 1 $54,000.00 $54,000.00 $56,000.00 $56,000.00 A02 Trench Excavation Safety Systems Schedule A Lump Sum 1 $500.00 $500.00 $500.00 $500.00 A03 Construction Surveying,Staking,and As-Builts Sched A Lump Sum 1 $7,000.00 $7,000.00 $6,000.00 $6,000.00 A04 Traffic Control Schedule A Lump Sum 1 $5,000.00 $5,000.00 $2,300.00 $2,300.00 A05 Temporary Erosion/Sedimentation Controls Schedule A Lump Sum 1 $500.00 $500.00 $600.00 $600.00 A06 Re-establish existing Monuments Each 2 $200.00 $400.00 $500.00 $1,000.00 A07 Furnish and Install 8"C900 PVC Sewer Pipe Linear Foot 964 $82.00 $79,048.00 $92.00 $88,688.00 A08 Furnish and Install 6"C900 PVC Side Sewer Pipe Linear Foot 575 $87.00 $50,025.00 $89.00 $51,175.00 A09 Furnish and Install Type B 54"Shallow Sanitary Sewer Manhole Each 4 $2,500.00 $10,000.00 $6,300.00 $25,200.00 Al0 Furnish and Install 54"Diam.Sanitary Sewer Manhole Each 2 $2,700.00 $5,400.00 $6,200.00 $12,400.00 A11 Connect Exist San Sewer to New San Sewer Struct Each 4 $1,000.00 $4,000.00 $1,400.00 $5,600.00 Al2 TV Inspection of Sanitary Sewers Linear Foot 964 $2.00 $1,928.00 $2.00 $1,928.00 A13 Locate and Abandon Sanitary Sewer Manhole Each 2 $1,000.00 $2,000.00 $3,000.00 $6,000.00 A14 Furnish and Install 12"Ductile Iron Water Main Pipe&Fittings Linear Foot 640 $71.00 $45,440.00 $112.00 $71,680.00 A15 Furnish and Install 12"Diameter Gate Valve Assembly Each 4 $1,500,00 $6,000.00 $1,400.00 $5,600.00 A16 Furnish and Install 8"Diameter Gate Valve Assembly Each 1 $600.00 $600.00 $900.00 $900.00 A17 Furnish and Install 6"Diameter Gate Valve Assembly Each 2 $800.00 $1,600.00 $500.00 $1,000.00 A18 Furnish and Install 4"Diameter Gate Valve Assembly Each 1 $300.00 $300.00 $500.00 $500.00 A19 Furnish and Install Fire Hydrant Assembly Each 4 $12,000.00 $48,000.00 $3,500.00 $14,000.00 A20 Connection to 12"Water Main Wells Ave S(Approx Sta 20+22) Lump Sum 1 $4,000.00 $4,000.00 $6,500.00 $6,500.00 A21 Connection to 4"Water Main Wells Ave S(Approx Sta 23+18) Lump Sum 1 $2,500.00 $2,500.00 $3,100.00 $3,100.00 A22 Connection to 8"Water Main Wells Ave S(at Approx Sta 25+54) Lump Sum 1 $3,500.00 $3,500.00 $3,800.00 $3,800.00 A23 Connection to 6"Water Main Wells Ave.S(at Approx Sta 26+15) Lump Sum 1 $5,000.00 $5,000.00 $3,300.00 $3,300.00 A24 Connection to Water Mains Williams Ave. S(at Approx Sta 15+61 &16+01) Lump Sum 1 $7,200.00 $7,200.00 $13,000.00 $13,000.00 A25 Furnish and Install 3/4"Water Service Connection Each 10 $950.00 $9,500.00 $1,400.00 $14,000.00 A26 Furnish and Install 1"Water Service Connection Each 3 $1,025.00 $3,075.00 $1,500.00 $4,500.00 A27 Furnish and Install 1-1/2"Water Service Connection Each 1 $2,000.00 $2,000.00 $3,400.00 $3,400.00 A28 Concrete Thrust Blocking and Dead-Man Anchor Blocks Cubic Yard 10 $150.00 $1,500.00 $65.00 $650.00 A29 Joint Bonding Thermite Weld Lump Sum 1 $1,000.00 $1,000.00 $1,500.00 $1,500.00 A30 Cathodic Protection Test Stations(All Types) Each 4 $1,000.00 $4,000.00 $1,200.00 $4,800.00 A31 Removal and Replacement of Unsuitable Foundation Material Ton 165 $15.00 $2,475.00 $2.00 $330.00 A32 Select Imported Trench Backfill Ton 2,180 $20.00 $43,600.00 $5.00 $10,900.00 A33 Asphalt Class'B'Patch Inc.CSTC Square Yard 1,825 $50.00 $91,250.00 $40.00 $73,000.00 A34 2"Deep Grind and Asphalt Overlay Class'B' Square Yard 5,600 $11.00 $61,600.00 $10.35 $57,960.00 A35 Replace Pavement Markings and Traffic Buttons Lump Sum 1 $2,700.00 $2,700.00 $5,000.00 $5,000.00 Asi, ./2005 .. . . ( ( 'ID Tab Page 4 Project Title: CENTRAL BUSINESS DISTRICT R.L.Alia Kar-Vel Construction BID DATE:4/05/05 2:30 PDT UTILITIES REPLACEMENT Item Description Unit Est. Unit Bid Unit Bid No. Quantit) Price Amount Price Amount A36 Remove and Replace Sidewalk&Driveway Square Yard 220 $46.00 $10,120.00 $65.00 $14,300.00 A37 Remove and Replace Curb&Gutter Linear Foot 150 $30.00 $4,500.00 $30.00 $4,500.00 A38 Removal of Paint and Other Markings on Curb&Sidewalk Lump Sum 1 $1,000.00 $1,000.00 $1,500.00 $1,500.00 Subtotal Schedule A $582,261.00 $577,111.00 Tax $51,238.97 $50,785.77 Total Schedule A $633,499.97 $627,896.77 Schedule B 801 Mobilization&Demobilization Schedule B Lump Sum 1 $15,000.00 $15,000.00 $17,000.00 $17,000.00 B02 Trench Excavation Safety Systems Schedule B Lump Sum 1 $500.00 $500.00 $300.00 $300.00 803 Construction Surveying,Staking,and As-Builts Sched B Lump Sum 1 $3,500.00 $3,500.00 $2,000.00 $2,000.00 B04 Traffic Control Schedule B Lump Sum 1 $5,000.00 $5,000.00 $500.00 $500.00 B05 Temporary Erosion/Sedimentation Controls Schedule B Lump Sum 1 $500.00 $500.00 $300.00 $300.00 B06 Furnish and Install 12"Ductile Iron Storm Pipe Linear Foot 165 $72.73 $12,000.45 $84.00 $13,860.00 B07 Furnish and Install 8"Ductile Iron Storm Pipe Linear Foot 320 $47.00 $15,040.00 $74.00 $23,680.00 B08 Furnish and Install 12"CPEP Pipe Linear Foot 362 $63.00 $22,806.00 $66.00 $23,892.00 B09 TV Inspection of Storm Sewers Linear Foot 544 $2.00 $1,088.00 $1.50 $816.00 B10 Furnish and Install Type 2 Catch Basin Each 9 $1,200.00 $10,800.00 $1,800.00 $16,200.00 B11 Furnish and Install Type 1L Catch Basin Each 1 $800.00 $800.00 $1,000.00 $1,000.00 B12 Furnish and Install Concrete Inlet Each 18 $600.00 $10,800.00 $800.00 $14,400.00 B13 Plug Existing Pipe Each 7 $200.00 $1,400.00 $160.00 $1,120.00 B14 Connect New 12"Storm to Existing Manhole Each 2 $1,000.00 $2,000.00 $1,100.00 $2,200.00 B15 Reconnect Existing Storm Pipe to New Type 2 Catch Basin Each 6 $400.00 $2,400.00 $750.00 $4,500.00 B16 Pothole over Existing Underground Telecom Each 3 $900.00 $2,700.00 $250.00 $750.00 B17 Pothole and Relocate Unknown Utility through Storm Line Lump Sum 1 $1,000.00 $1,000.00 $2,000.00 $2,000.00 B18 Pothole Existing Storm Main at Sta 16+21 Lump Sum 1 $900.00 $900.00 $150.00 $150.00 B19 Removal and Replacement of Unsuitable Foundation Material Ton 40 $15.00 $600.00 $2.00 $80.00 B20 Select Imported Trench Backfill Ton 390 $20.00 $7,800.00 $14.00 $5,460.00 B21 Asphalt Class'B'Patch Inc.CSTC Square Yard 740 $50.00 $37,000.00 $40.00 $29,600.00 B22 Remove and Replace Sidewalk&Driveway Square Yard 130 $46.00 $5,980.00 $65.00 $8,450.00 B23 Remove and Replace Curb&Gutter Linear Foot 145 $30.00 $4,350.00 $30.00 $4,350.00 B24 Install Sidewalk Curb Ramp Each 1 $700.00 $700.00 $1,200.00 $1,200.00 Total Schedule B $164,664.45 $173,808.00 Total Schedule A&B $798,164.42 $801,704.77 04/07/2005 BID Tab Page 5 Project Title: CENTRAL BUSINESS DISTRICT Pivetta Brothers Construction West Coast Construction BID DATE:4/05/05 2:30 PDT UTILITIES REPLACEMENT Item Description Unit Est. Unit Bid Unit Bid No. Quantit Price Amount Price Amount A01 Mobilization&Demobilization Schedule A Lump Sum 1 $51,000.00 $51,000.00 $70,000.00 $70,000.00 A02 Trench Excavation Safety Systems Schedule A Lump Sum 1 $5,000.00 $5,000.00 $10,000.00 $10,000.00 A03 Construction Surveying,Staking,and As-Builts Sched A Lump Sum 1 $13,500.00 $13,500.00 $6,000.00 $6,000.00 A04 Traffic Control Schedule A Lump Sum 1 $53,335.00 $53,335.00 $56,000.00 $56,000.00 A05 Temporary Erosion/Sedimentation Controls Schedule A Lump Sum 1 $12,500.00 $12,500.00 $500.00 $500.00 A06 Re-establish existing Monuments Each 2 $1,000.00 $2,000.00 $650.00 $1,300.00 A07 Furnish and Install 8"C900 PVC Sewer Pipe Linear Foot 964 $55.00 $53,020.00 $70.00 $67,480.00 A08 Furnish and Install 6"C900 PVC Side Sewer Pipe Linear Foot 575 $52.00 $29,900.00 $77.00 $44,275.00 A09 Furnish and Install Type B 54"Shallow Sanitary Sewer Manhole Each 4 $2.600.00 $10,400.00 $3,500.00 $14,000.00 A10 Furnish and Install 54"Diam.Sanitary Sewer Manhole Each 2 $2,800.00 $5,600.00 $4,000.00 $8,000.00 A11 Connect Exist San Sewer to New San Sewer Struct Each 4 $3,000.00 $12,000.00 $1,000.00 $4,000.00 Al2 TV Inspection of Sanitary Sewers Linear Foot 964 $2.50 $2,410.00 $2.00 $1,928.00 A13 Locate and Abandon Sanitary Sewer Manhole Each 2 $1,000.00 $2,000.00 $500.00 $1,000.00 A14 Furnish and Install 12"Ductile Iron Water Main Pipe&Fittings Linear Foot 640 $67.50 $43,200.00 $85.00 $54,400.00 A15 Furnish and Install 12"Diameter Gate Valve Assembly Each 4 $1,730.00 $6,920.00 $2,000.00 $8,000.00 A16 Furnish and Install 8"Diameter Gate Valve Assembly Each 1 $939.00 $939.00 $1,000.00 $1,000.00 A17 Furnish and Install 6"Diameter Gate Valve Assembly Each 2 $600.00 $1,200.00 $800.00 $1,600.00 A18 Furnish and Install 4"Diameter Gate Valve Assembly Each 1 $436.00 $436.00 $500.00 $500.00 A19 Furnish and Install Fire Hydrant Assembly Each 4 $2,565.00 $10,260.00 $3,500.00 $14,000.00 A20 Connection to 12"Water Main Wells Ave S(Approx Sta 20+22) Lump Sum 1 $5,364.00 $5,364.00 $7,000.00 $7,000.00 A21 Connection to 4"Water Main Wells Ave S(Approx Sta 23+18) Lump Sum 1 $2,431.00 $2,431.00 $2,000.00 $2,000.00 A22 Connection to 8"Water Main Wells Ave S(at Approx Sta 25+54) Lump Sum 1 $2,935.00 $2,935.00 $5,000.00 $5,000.00 A23 Connection to 6"Water Main Wells Ave.S(at Approx Sta 26+15) Lump Sum 1 $2,446.00 $2,446.00 $6,000.00 $6,000.00 A24 Connection to Water Mains Williams Ave. S(at Approx Sta 15+61 & 16+01) Lump Sum 1 $7,845.00 $7,845.00 $7,000.00 $7,000.00 A25 Furnish and Install 3/4"Water Service Connection Each 10 $1,395.00 $13,950.00 $1,000.00 $10,000.00 A26 Furnish and Install 1"Water Service Connection Each 3 $1,395.00 $4,185.00 $1,400.00 $4,200.00 A27 Furnish and Install 1-1/2"Water Service Connection Each 1 $2,954.00 $2,954.00 $3,000.00 $3,000.00 A28 Concrete Thrust Blocking and Dead-Man Anchor Blocks Cubic Yard 10 $155.00 $1,550.00 $650.00 $6,500.00 A29 Joint Bonding Thermite Weld Lump Sum 1 $3,500.00 $3,500.00 $4,000.00 $4,000.00 A30 Cathodic Protection Test Stations(All Types) Each 4 $1,567.00 $6,268.00 $2,000.00 $8,000.00 A31 Removal and Replacement of Unsuitable Foundation Material Ton 165 $22.00 $3,630.00 $25.00 $4,125.00 A32 Select Imported Trench Backfill Ton 2,180 $12.00 $26,160.00 $20.00 $43,600.00 A33 Asphalt Class'B'Patch Inc.CSTC Square Yard 1,825 $56.00 $102,200.00 $51.00 $93,075.00 A34 2"Deep Grind and Asphalt Overlay Class'B' Square Yard 5,600 $7.90 $44,240.00 $15.00 $84,000.00 A35 Replace Pavement Markings and Traffic Buttons Lump Sum 1 $5,000.00 $5,000.00 $3,000.00 $3,000.00 . . 1/2005 (.. ( !DTab ( _ Project Title: CENTRAL BUSINESS DISTRICT Pivetta Brothers Construction West Coast Construction BID DATE:4/05/05 2:30 PDT UTILITIES REPLACEMENT Item Description Unit Est. Unit Bid Unit Bid No. Quantity Price Amount Price Amount A36 Remove and Replace Sidewalk&Driveway Square Yard 220 $33.00 $7,260.00 $40.00 $8,800.00 A37 Remove and Replace Curb&Gutter Linear Foot 150 $28.00 $4,200.00 $30.00 $4,500.00 A38 Removal of Paint and Other Markings on Curb&Sidewalk Lump Sum 1 $4,000.00 $4,000.00 $1,000.00 $1,000.00 Subtotal Schedule A $565,738.00 $668,783.00 Tax $49,784.94 $58,852.90 Total Schedule A $615,522.94 $727,635.90 Schedule B B01 Mobilization&Demobilization Schedule B Lump Sum 1 $19,000.00 $19,000.00 $18,000.00 $18,000.00 B02 Trench Excavation Safety Systems Schedule B Lump Sum 1 $1,000.00 $1,000.00 $5,000.00 $5,000.00 803 Construction Surveying,Staking,and As-Builts Sched B Lump Sum 1 $6,500.00 $6,500.00 $4,000.00 $4,000.00 804 Traffic Control Schedule B Lump Sum 1 $22,000.00 $22,000.00 $14,000.00 $14,000.00 B05 Temporary Erosion/Sedimentation Controls Schedule13 Lump Sum 1 $4,000.00 $4,000.00 $200.00 $200.00 B06 Furnish and Install 12"Ductile Iron Storm Pipe Linear Foot 165 $67.00 $11,055.00 $59.00 $9,735.00 B07 Furnish and Install 8"Ductile Iron Storm Pipe Linear Foot 320 $58.00 $18,560.00 $55.00 $17,600.00 B08 Furnish and Install 12"CPEP Pipe Linear Foot 362 $48.00 $17,376.00 $43.00 $15,566.00 B09 TV inspection of Storm Sewers Linear Foot 544 $2.50 $1,360.00 $2.00 $1,088.00 610 Furnish and Install Type 2 Catch Basin Each 9 $850.00 $7,650.00 $2,500.00 $22,500.00 B11 Furnish and Install Type 1L Catch Basin Each 1 $1,800.00 $1,800.00 $1,000.00 $1,000.00 812 Furnish and Install Concrete Inlet Each 18 $725.00 $13,050.00 $600.00 $10,800.00 B13 Plug Existing Pipe Each 7 $650.00 $4,550.00 $100.00 $700.00 814 Connect New 12"Storm to Existing Manhole Each 2 $2,450.00 $4,900.00 $1,000.00 $2,000.00 B15 Reconnect Existing Storm Pipe to New Type 2 Catch Basin Each 6 $2,450.00 $14,700.00 $500.00 $3,000.00 B16 Pothole over Existing Underground Telecom Each 3 $360.00 $1,080.00 $400.00 $1,200.00 817 Pothole and Relocate Unknown Utility through Storm Line Lump Sum 1 $360.00 $360.00 $1,500.00 $1,500.00 B18 Pothole Existing Storm Main at Sta 16+21 Lump Sum 1 $4,800.00 $4,800.00 $400.00 $400.00 B19 Removal and Replacement of Unsuitable Foundation Material Ton 40 . $22.00 $880.00 $25.00 $1,000.00 B20 Select Imported Trench Backfill Ton 390 $12.00 $4,680.00 $20.00 $7,800.00 B21 Asphalt Class'B'Patch Inc.CSTC Square Yard 740 $56.00 $41,440.00 $51.00 $37,740.00 B22 Remove and Replace Sidewalk&Driveway Square Yard 130 $33.00 $4,290.00 $40.00 $5,200.00 823 Remove and Replace Curb&Gutter Linear Foot 145 $28.00 $4,060.00 $30.00 $4,350.00 B24 Install Sidewalk Curb Ramp Each 1 $1,800.00 $1,800.00 $800.00 $800.00 Total Schedule B $210,891.00 $185,179.00 Total Schedule A&8 $826,413.94 $912,814.90 04/07/2005 BID Tab Page 7 Project Title: CENTRAL BUSINESS DISTRICT Road Construction Northwest Laser Underground Utilities BID DATE:4/05/05 2:30 PDT UTILITIES REPLACEMENT Item Description Unit Est. Unit Bid Unit Bid No. Quantit Price Amount Price Amount A01 Mobilization&Demobilization Schedule A Lump Sum 1 $25,000.00 $25,000.00 $50,000.00 $50,000.00 A02 Trench Excavation Safety Systems Schedule A Lump Sum 1 $25,000.00 $25,000.00 $15,000.00 $15,000.00 A03 Construction Surveying,Staking,and As-Builts Sched A Lump Sum 1 $20,000.00 $20,000.00 $10,000.00 $10,000.00 A04 Traffic Control Schedule A Lump Sum 1 $50,000.00 $50,000.00 $50,000.00 $50,000.00 A05 Temporary Erosion/Sedimentation Controls Schedule A Lump Sum 1 $5,000.00 $5,000.00 $1,500.00 $1,500.00 A06 Re-establish existing Monuments Each 2 $1,000.00 $2,000.00 $700.00 $1,400.00 A07 Furnish and install 8"C900 PVC Sewer Pipe Linear Foot 964 $45.00 $43,380.00 $100.00 $96,400.00 A08 Furnish and Install 6"C900 PVC Side Sewer Pipe Linear Foot 575 $55.00 $31,625.00 $95.00 $54,625.00 A09 Furnish and Install Type B 54"Shallow Sanitary Sewer Manhole Each 4 $5,000.00 $20,000.00 $3,000.00 $12,000.00 A10 Furnish and Install 54"Diam.Sanitary Sewer Manhole Each 2 $6,000.00 $12,000.00 $4,000.00 $8,000.00 All Connect Exist San Sewer to New San Sewer Struct Each 4 $3,000.00 $12,000.00 $3,000.00 $12,000.00 Al2 TV Inspection of Sanitary Sewers Linear Foot 964 $2.00 $1,928.00 $1.00 $964.00 A13 Locate and Abandon Sanitary Sewer Manhole Each 2 $2,000.00 $4,000.00 $2,000.00 $4,000.00 A14 Furnish and Install 12"Ductile Iron Water Main Pipe&Fittings Linear Foot 640 $75.00 $48,000.00 $100.00 $64,000.00 A15 Furnish and Install 12"Diameter Gate Valve Assembly Each 4 $2,000.00 $8,000.00 $1,800.00 $7,200.00 A16 Furnish and Install 8"Diameter Gate Valve Assembly Each 1 $1,500.00 $1,500.00 $1,000.00 $1,000.00 A17 Furnish and Install 6"Diameter Gate Valve Assembly Each 2 $1,000.00 $2,000.00 $800.00 $1,600.00 A18 Furnish and Install 4"Diameter Gate Valve Assembly Each 1 $900.00 $900.00 $600.00 $600.00 A19 Furnish and Install Fire Hydrant Assembly Each 4 $4,000.00 $16,000.00 $3,000.00 $12,000.00 A20 Connection to 12"Water Main Wells Ave S(Approx Sta 20+22) Lump Sum 1 $10,000.00 $10,000.00 $6,000.00 $6,000.00 A21 Connection to 4"Water Main Wells Ave S(Approx Sta 23+18) Lump Sum 1 $7,000.00 $7,000.00 $4,000.00 $4,000.00 A22 Connection to 8"Water Main Wells Ave S(at Approx Sta 25+54) Lump Sum 1 $9,000.00 $9,000.00 $5,000.00 $5,000.00 A23 Connection to 6"Water Main Wells Ave.S(at Approx Sta 26+15) Lump Sum 1 $8,000.00 $8,000.00 $5,000.00 $5,000.00 A24 Connection to Water Mains Williams Ave.S(at Approx Sta 15+61 &16+01) Lump Sum 1 $8,000.00 $8,000.00 $12,000.00 $12,000.00 A25 Furnish and Install 3/4"Water Service Connection Each 10 $1,000.00 $10,000.00 $1,000.00 $10,000.00 A26 Furnish and Install 1"Water Service Connection Each 3 $1,500.00 $4,500.00 $1,200.00 $3,600.00 A27 Furnish and Install 1-112"Water Service Connection Each 1 $2,000.00 $2,000.00 $2,500.00 $2,500.00 A28 Concrete Thrust Blocking and Dead-Man Anchor Blocks Cubic Yard 10 $1,000.00 $10,000.00 $400.00 $4,000.00 A29 Joint Bonding Thermite Weld Lump Sum 1 $4,000.00 $4,000.00 $3,000.00 $3,000.00 A30 Cathodic Protection Test Stations(All Types) Each 4 $1,000.00 $4,000.00 $2,000.00 $8,000.00 A31 Removal and Replacement of Unsuitable Foundation Material Ton 165 $75.00 $12,375.00 $30.00 $4,950.00 A32 Select Imported Trench Backfill Ton 2,180 $25.00 $54,500.00 $15.00 $32,700.00 A33 Asphalt Class'B'Patch Inc.CSTC Square Yard 1,825 $25.00 $45,625.00 $65.00 $118,625.00 A34 2"Deep Grind and Asphalt Overlay Class'B' Square Yard 5,600 $15.00 $84,000,00 $12.00 $67,200.00 A35 Replace Pavement Markings and Traffic Buttons Lump Sum 1 $4,000.00 $4,000.00 $5,000.00 $5,000.00 w 1/2005 t ( ( '7 Tab ( ay,- ... Project Title: CENTRAL BUSINESS DISTRICT Road Construction Northwest Laser Underground Utilities BID DATE:4105/05 2:30 PDT UTILITIES REPLACEMENT Item Description Unit Est. Unit Bid Unit Bid No. Quantity Price Amount Price Amount A36 Remove and Replace Sidewalk&Driveway Square Yard 220 $75.00 $16,500.00 $80.00 $17,600.00 A37 Remove and Replace Curb&Gutter Linear Foot 150 $75.00 $11,250.00 $80.00 $12,000.00 A38 Removal of Paint and Other Markings on Curb&Sidewalk Lump Sum 1 $2,000.00 $2,000.00 $2,000.00 $2,000.00 Subtotal Schedule A $635,083.00 $725,464.00 Tax $55,887.30 $63,840.83 Total Schedule A $690,970.30 $789,304.83 Schedule B B01 Mobilization&Demobilization Schedule B Lump Sum 1 $25,000.00 $25,000.00 $20,000.00 $20,000.00 B02 Trench Excavation Safety Systems Schedule B Lump Sum 1 $5,000.00 $5,000.00 $5,000.00 $5,000.00 B03 Construction Surveying,Staking,and As-Builts Sched B Lump Sum 1 $3,000.00 $3,000.00 $5,000.00 $5,000.00 B04 Traffic Control Schedule B Lump Sum 1 $15,000.00 $15,000.00 $20,000.00 $20,000.00 B05 Temporary Erosion/Sedimentation Controls Schedule B Lump Sum 1 $2,000.00 $2,000.00 $1,000.00 $1,000.00 606 Furnish and Install 12"Ductile Iron Storm Pipe Linear Foot 165 $75.00 $12,375.00 $120.00 $19,800.00 507 Furnish and Install 8"Ductile Iron Storm Pipe Linear Foot 320 $75.00 $24,000.00 $110.00 $35,200.00 808 Furnish and Install 12"CPEP Pipe Linear Foot 362 $75.00 $27,150.00 $100.00 $36,200.00 609 TV Inspection of Storm Sewers Linear Foot 544 $2.00 $1,088.00 $1.00 $544.00 B10 Furnish and Install Type 2 Catch Basin Each 9 $4,500.00 $40,500.00 $1,500.00 $13,500.00 B11 Furnish and Install Type 1L Catch Basin Each 1 $2,000.00 $2,000.00 $1,800.00 $1,800.00 812 Furnish and Install Concrete Inlet Each 18 $900.00 $16,200.00 $1,200.00 $21,600.00 513 Plug Existing Pipe Each 7 $700.00 $4,900,00 $500.00 $3,500.00 614 Connect New 12"Storm to Existing Manhole Each 2 $2,000.00 $4,000.00 $2,500.00 $5,000.00 B15 Reconnect Existing Storm Pipe to New Type 2 Catch Basin Each 6 $2,000.00 $12,000.00 $800.00 $4,800.00 B16 Pothole over Existing Underground Telecom Each 3 $1,000.00 $3,000.00 $1,000.00 $3,000.00 B17 Pothole and Relocate Unknown Utility through Storm Line Lump Sum 1 $10,000.00 $10,000.00 $3,000.00 $3,000.00 B18 Pothole Existing Storm Main at Sta 16+21 Lump Sum 1 $2,000.00 $2,000.00 $1,000.00 $1,000.00 B19 Removal and Replacement of Unsuitable Foundation Material Ton 40 $55.00 $2,200.00 $35.00 $1,400.00 620 Select Imported Trench Backfill Ton 390 $25.00 $9,750.00 $15.00 $5,850.00 621 Asphalt Class'B'Patch Inc.CSTC Square Yard 740 $25,00 $18,500.00 $65.00 $48,100.00 622 Remove and Replace Sidewalk&Driveway Square Yard 130 $55.00 $7,150.00 $80.00 $10,400.00 B23 Remove and Replace Curb&Gutter Linear Foot 145 $55.00 $7,975.00 $80.00 $11,600.00 B24 Install Sidewalk Curb Ramp Each 1 $1,400.00 $1,400.00 $1,500.00 $1,500.00 Total Schedule B $256,188.00 $278,794.00 Total Schedule A&B $947,158.30 $1,068,098.83 04/07/2005 BID Tab Page 9 Project Title: CENTRAL BUSINESS DISTRICT Average Bid Low Bid Compared BID DATE:4/05/05 2:30 PDT UTILITIES REPLACEMENT to Engineers Estimate Item Description Unit Est. Unit Bid %of %of No. Quantity Price Amount Average Estimate A01 Mobilization&Demobilization Schedule A Lump Sum 1 $48,000.00 $48,000.00 62.50% 120.00% A02 Trench Excavation Safety Systems Schedule A Lump Sum 1 $9,071.43 $9,071.43 82.68% 150.00% A03 Construction Surveying,Staking,and As-Builts Sched A Lump Sum 1 $9,785.71 $9,785.71 61.31% 60,00% A04 Traffic Control Schedule A Lump Sum 1 $33,905.00 $33,905.00 61.05% 207.00% A05 Temporary Erosion/Sedimentation Controls Schedule A Lump Sum 1 $3,342.86 $3,342.86 83.76% 56.00% A06 Re-establish existing Monuments Each 2 $660.71 $1,321.43 87.03% 57.50% A07 Furnish and Install 8"C900 PVC Sewer Pipe Linear Foot 964 $70.29 $67,755.43 68.29% 73.85% A08 Furnish and Install 6"C900 PVC Side Sewer Pipe Linear Foot 575 $71.43 $41,071.43 63.00% 75.00% A09 Furnish and Install Type B 54"Shallow Sanitary Sewer Manhole Each 4 $3,642.86 $14,571.43 71.37% 74.29% A10 Furnish and Install 54"Diam.Sanitary Sewer Manhole Each 2 $4,428.57 $8,857.14 119.68% 151.43% A11 Connect Exist San Sewer to New San Sewer Struct Each 4 $2,014.29 $8,057.14 84.40% 113.33% Al2 TV Inspection of Sanitary Sewers Linear Foot 964 $1.86 $1,790.29 80.77% 85.71% A13 Locate and Abandon Sanitary Sewer Manhole Each 2 $1,642.86 $3,285.71 121.74% 133.33% A14 Furnish and Install 12"Ductile Iron Water Main Pipe&Fittings Linear Foot 640 $85.21 $54,537.14 100.92% 114.67% A15 Furnish and Install 12"Diameter Gate Valve Assembly Each 4 $1,775.71 $7,102.86 112.63% 166.67% A16 Furnish and Install 8"Diameter Gate Valve Assembly Each 1 $1,019.86 $1,019.86 117.66% 133.33% A17 Furnish and Install 6"Diameter Gate Valve Assembly Each 2 $750.00 $1,500.00 100.00% 107.14% A18 Furnish and Install 4"Diameter Gate Valve Assembly Each 1 $555.14 $555.14 117.09% 130.00% A19 Fumish and Install Fire Hydrant Assembly Each 4 $4,537.86 $18,151.43 70.52% 106.67% A20 Connection to 12"Water Main Wells Ave S(Approx Sta 20+22) Lump Sum 1 $6,437.71 $6,437.71 96.31% 413.33% A21 Connection to 4"Water Main Wells Ave S(Approx Sta 23+18) Lump Sum 1 $3,647.29 $3,647.29 123.38% 300.00% A22 Connection to 8"Water Main Wells Ave S(at Approx Sta 25+54) Lump Sum 1 $4,890.71 $4,890.71 102.23% 333.33% A23 Connection to 6"Water Main Wells Ave.S(at Approx Sta 26+15) Lump Sum 1 $5,206.57 $5,206.57 128.68% 446.67% A24 Connection to Water Mains Williams Ave.S(at Approx Sta 15+61 &16+01) Lump Sum 1 $10,327.86 $10,327.86 167.02% 862.50% A25 Furnish and Install 3/4"Water Service Connection Each 10 $1,086.43 $10,864.29 79.16% 114.67% A26 Furnish and Install 1"Water Service Connection Each 3 $1,317.14 $3,951.43 91.11% 120.00% A27 Furnish and Install 1-1/2"Water Service Connection Each 1 $2,550.57 $2,550.57 78.41% 166.67% A28 Concrete Thrust Blocking and Dead-Man Anchor Blocks Cubic Yard 10 $381.43 $3,814.29 65,54% 178.57% A29 Joint Bonding Thermite Weld Lump Sum 1 $3,242.86 $3,242.86 175.77% 285.00% A30 Cathodic Protection Test Stations(All Types) Each 4 $1,538.14 $6,152.57 130.03% 181.82% A31 Removal and Replacement of Unsuitable Foundation Material Ton 165 $31.29 $5,162.14 159.82% 250.00% A32 Select Imported Trench Backfill Ton 2,180 $16.00 $34,880.00 93.75% 100.00% A33 Asphalt Class'B'Patch Inc.CSTC Square Yard 1,825 $44.71 $81,603.57 58.15% 65.00% A34 2"Deep Grind and Asphalt Overlay Class'B' Square Yard 5,600 $11.61 $65,000.00 86.15% 100.00% A35 Replace Pavement Markings and Traffic Buttons Lump Sum 1 $4,021.43 $4,021.43 85.79% 345.00% Att..//2005 (6, ts . ( _'0 Tab row.. Project Title: CENTRAL BUSINESS DISTRICT Average Bid Low Bid compared BID DATE:4/05/05 2:30 PDT UTILITIES REPLACEMENT to Engineers Estimate Item Description Unit Est. Unit Bid %of %of No, Quantity Price Amount Average Estimate A36 Remove and Replace Sidewalk&Driveway Square Yard 220 $56.29 $12,382.86 97.72% 91.67% A37 Remove and Replace Curb&Gutter Linear Foot 150 $43.29 $6,492.86 69.31% 85.71% A38 Removal of Paint and Other Markings on Curb&Sidewalk Lump Sum 1 $2,071.43 $2,071.43 144.83% 300.00% Subtotal Schedule A $606,381.86 80.85% 105.11% Tax $53,361.60 80.85% 105.11% Total Schedule A $659,743.46 80.85% 105.11% Schedule B 801 Mobilization&Demobilization Schedule B Lump Sum 1 $18,428.57 $18,428.57 81.40% 125.00% 802 Trench Excavation Safety Systems Schedule B Lump Sum 1 $3,114.29 $3,114.29 160.55% 166.67% B03 Construction Surveying,Staking,and As-Builts Sched B Lump Sum 1 $4,142.86 $4,142.86 120,69% 166.67% B04 Traffic Control Schedule B Lump Sum 1 $13,071.43 $13,071.43 114.75% 150.00% B05 Temporary Erosion/Sedimentation Controls Schedule B Lump Sum 1 $1,571.43 $1,571.43 190.91% 200.00% B06 Furnish and Install 12"Ductile Iron Storm Pipe Linear Foot 165 $76.82 $12,675.06 78.11% 96.77% 607 Furnish and Install 8"Ductile Iron Storm Pipe Linear Foot 320 $67.00 $21,440.00 74.63% 86.21% B08 Furnish and Install 12"CPEP Pipe Linear Foot 362 $62.14 $22,495.71 64.37% 80.00% 609 TV Inspection of Storm Sewers Linear Foot 544 $1.79 $971.43 84.00% 85.71% B10 Furnish and Install Type 2 Catch Basin Each 9 $2,092.86 $18,835.71 109.90% 115.00% B11 Furnish and Install Type 1L Catch Basin Each 1 $1,400.00 $1,400.00 100.00% 140.00% B12 Furnish and Install Concrete Inlet Each 18 $782.14 $14,078.57 83.11% 81.25% 613 Plug Existing Pipe Each 7 $365.71 $2,560.00 68.36% 166.67% B14 Connect New 12"Storm to Existing Manhole Each 2 $1,607.14 $3,214.29 74.67% 480.00% 615 Reconnect Existing Storm Pipe to New Type 2 Catch Basin Each 6 $1,157.14 $6,942.86 103.70% 800.00% B16 Pothole over Existing Underground Telecom Each 3 $644.29 $1,932.86 93.13% 171.43% B17 Pothole and Relocate Unknown Utility through Storm Line Lump Sum 1 $2,908.57 $2,908.57 85.95% 714.29% B18 Pothole Existing Storm Main at Sta 16+21 Lump Sum 1 $1,678.57 $1,678.57 148.94% 714.29% 819 Removal and Replacement of Unsuitable Foundation Material Ton 40 $29.14 $1,165.71 171.57% 250.00% B20 Select Imported Trench Backfill Ton 390 $17.29 $6,741.43 86.78% 100.00% B21 Asphalt Class'B'Patch Inc.CSTC Square Yard 740 $44.71 $33,088.57 58.15% 65.00% B22 Remove and Replace Sidewalk&Driveway Square Yard 130 $53.43 $6,945.71 102.94% 91.67% B23 Remove and Replace Curb&Gutter Linear Foot 145 $40.43 $5,862.14 74.20% 85.71% B24 Install Sidewalk Curb Ramp Each 1 $1,200.00 $1,200.00 83.33% 200.00% Total Schedule B $206,465.78 85.12% 106.79% Total Schedule A&B $866,209.24 04/07/2005 ( ( "ID Tab Page 6 Project Title: CENTRAL BUSINESS DISTRICT Pivetta Brothers Construction West Coast Construction BID DATE:4/05/05 2:30 PDT UTILITIES REPLACEMENT Item Description Unit Est. Unit Bid Unit Bid No. Quantit Price Amount Price Amount A36 Remove and Replace Sidewalk&Driveway Square Yard 220 $33.00 $7,260.00 $40.00 $8,800.00 A37 Remove and Replace Curb&Gutter Linear Foot 150 $28.00 $4,200.00 $30.00 $4,500.00 A38 Removal of Paint and Other Markings on Curb&Sidewalk Lump Sum 1 $4,000.00 $4,000.00 $1,000.00 $1,000.00 Subtotal Schedule A $565,738.00 $668,783.00 Tax $49,784.94 $58,852.90 Total Schedule A $615,522.94 $727,635.90 Schedule B B01 Mobilization&Demobilization Schedule B Lump Sum 1 $19,000.00 $19,000.00 $18,000.00 $18,000.00 B02 Trench Excavation Safety Systems Schedule B Lump Sum 1 $1,000.00 $1,000.00 $5,000.00 $5,000.00 B03 Construction Surveying,Staking,and As-Builts Sched B Lump Sum 1 $6,500.00 $6,500.00 $4,000.00 $4,000.00 B04 Traffic Control Schedule B Lump Sum 1 $22,000.00 $22,000.00 $14,000.00 $14,000.00 B05 Temporary Erosion/Sedimentation Controls Schedule B Lump Sum 1 $4,000.00 $4,000.00 $200.00 $200.00 B06 Furnish and Install 12"Ductile Iron Storm Pipe Linear Foot 165 $67.00 $11,055.00 $59.00 $9,735.00 B07 Furnish and Install 8"Ductile Iron Storm Pipe Linear Foot 320 $58.00 $18,560.00 $55.00 $17,600.00 B08 Furnish and Install 12"CPEP Pipe Linear Foot 362 $48.00 $17,376.00 $43.00 $15,566.00 B09 TV Inspection of Storm Sewers Linear Foot 544 $2.50 $1,360.00 $2.00 $1,088.00 B10 Furnish and Install Type 2 Catch Basin Each 9 $850.00 $7,650.00 $2,500.00 $22,500.00 B11 Furnish and Install Type 1L Catch Basin Each 1 $1,800.00 $1,800.00 $1,000.00 $1,000.00 B12 Furnish and Install Concrete Inlet Each 18 $725.00 $13,050.00 $600.00 $10,800.00 B13 Plug Existing Pipe Each 7 $650.00 $4,550.00 $100.00 $700.00 B14 Connect New 12"Storm to Existing Manhole Each 2 $2,450.00 $4,900.00 $1,000.00 $2,000.00 B15 Reconnect Existing Storm Pipe to New Type 2 Catch Basin Each 6 $2,450.00 $14,700.00 $500.00 $3,000.00 B16 Pothole over Existing Underground Telecom Each 3 $360.00 $1,080.00 $400.00 $1,200.00 B17 Pothole and Relocate Unknown Utility through Storm Line Lump Sum 1 $360.00 $360.00 $1,500.00 $1,500.00 B18 Pothole Existing Storm Main at Sta 16+21 Lump Sum 1 $4,800.00 $4,800.00 $400.00 $400.00 B19 Removal and Replacement of Unsuitable Foundation Material Ton 40 . $22.00 $880.00 $25.00 $1,000.00 B20 Select Imported Trench Backfill Ton 390 $12.00 $4,680.00 $20.00 $7,800.00 B21 Asphalt Class'8'Patch Inc.CSTC Square Yard 740 $56.00 $41,440.00 $51.00 $37,740.00 B22 Remove and Replace Sidewalk&Driveway Square Yard 130 $33.00 $4,290.00 $40.00 $5,200.00 B23 Remove and Replace Curb&Gutter Linear Foot 145 $28.00 $4,060.00 $30.00 $4,350.00 B24 Install Sidewalk Curb Ramp Each 1 $1,800.00 $1,800.00 $800.00 $800.00 Total Schedule B $210,891.00 $185,179.00 Total Schedule A&B $826,413.94 $912,814.90 04/07/2005 BID Tab Page 7 Project Title: CENTRAL BUSINESS DISTRICT Road Construction Northwest Laser Underground Utilities BID DATE:4/05/05 2:30 PDT UTILITIES REPLACEMENT Item Description Unit Est. Unit Bid Unit Bid No. Quantit Price Amount Price Amount A01 Mobilization&Demobilization Schedule A Lump Sum 1 $25,000.00 $25,000.00 $50,000.00 $50,000.00 A02 Trench Excavation Safety Systems Schedule A Lump Sum 1 $25,000.00 $25,000.00 $15,000.00 $15,000.00 A03 Construction Surveying,Staking,and As-Builts Sched A Lump Sum 1 $20,000.00 $20,000.00 $10,000.00 $10,000.00 A04 Traffic Control Schedule A Lump Sum 1 $50,000.00 $50,000.00 $50,000.00 $50,000.00 A05 Temporary Erosion/Sedimentation Controls Schedule A Lump Sum 1 $5,000.00 $5,000.00 $1,500.00 $1,500.00 A06 Re-establish existing Monuments Each 2 $1,000.00 $2,000.00 $700.00 $1,400.00 A07 Furnish and Install 8"C900 PVC Sewer Pipe Linear Foot 964 $45.00 $43,380.00 $100.00 $96,400.00 A08 Furnish and Install 6"C900 PVC Side Sewer Pipe Linear Foot 575 $55.00 $31,625.00 $95.00 $54,625.00 A09 Furnish and Install Type B 54"Shallow Sanitary Sewer Manhole Each 4 $5,000.00 $20,000.00 $3,000.00 $12,000.00 Al0 Furnish and Install 54"Diam.Sanitary Sewer Manhole Each 2 $6,000.00 $12,000.00 $4,000.00 $8,000.00 All Connect Exist San Sewer to New San Sewer Struct Each 4 $3,000.00 $12,000.00 $3,000.00 $12,000.00 Al2 TV Inspection of Sanitary Sewers Linear Foot 964 $2.00 $1,928.00 $1.00 $964.00 A13 Locate and Abandon Sanitary Sewer Manhole Each 2 $2,000.00 $4,000.00 $2,000.00 $4,000.00 A14 Furnish and Install 12"Ductile Iron Water Main Pipe&Fittings Linear Foot 640 $75.00 $48,000.00 $100.00 $64,000.00 A15 Furnish and Install 12"Diameter Gate Valve Assembly Each 4 $2,000.00 $8,000.00 $1,800.00 $7,200.00 A16 Furnish and Install 8"Diameter Gate Valve Assembly Each 1 $1,500.00 $1,500.00 $1,000.00 $1,000.00 A17 Furnish and Install 6"Diameter Gate Valve Assembly Each 2 $1,000.00 $2,000.00 $800.00 $1,600.00 A18 Furnish and Install 4"Diameter Gate Valve Assembly Each 1 $900.00 $900.00 $600.00 $600.00 A19 Furnish and Install Fire Hydrant Assembly Each 4 $4,000.00 $16,000.00 $3,000.00 $12,000.00 A20 Connection to 12"Water Main Wells Ave S(Approx Sta 20+22) Lump Sum 1 $10,000.00 $10,000.00 $6,000.00 $6,000.00 A21 Connection to 4"Water Main Wells Ave S(Approx Sta 23+18) Lump Sum 1 $7,000.00 $7,000.00 $4,000.00 $4,000.00 A22 Connection to 8"Water Main Wells Ave S(at Approx Sta 25+54) Lump Sum 1 $9,000.00 $9,000.00 $5,000.00 $5,000.00 A23 Connection to 6"Water Main Wells Ave.S(at Approx Sta 26+15) Lump Sum 1 $8,000.00 $8,000.00 $5,000.00 $5,000.00 A24 Connection to Water Mains Williams Ave.S(at Approx Sta 15+61 &16+01) Lump Sum 1 $8,000.00 $8,000.00 $12,000.00 $12,000.00 A25 Furnish and Install 3/4"Water Service Connection Each 10 $1,000.00 $10,000.00 $1,000.00 $10,000.00 A26 Furnish and Install 1"Water Service Connection Each 3 $1,500.00 $4,500.00 $1,200.00 $3,600.00 A27 Furnish and Install 1-1/2"Water Service Connection Each 1 $2,000.00 $2,000.00 $2,500.00 $2,500.00 A28 Concrete Thrust Blocking and Dead-Man Anchor Blocks Cubic Yard 10 $1,000.00 $10,000.00 $400.00 $4,000.00 A29 Joint Bonding Thermite Weld Lump Sum 1 $4,000.00 $4,000.00 $3,000.00 $3,000.00 A30 Cathodic Protection Test Stations(All Types) Each 4 $1,000.00 $4,000.00 $2,000.00 $8,000.00 A31 Removal and Replacement of Unsuitable Foundation Material Ton 165 $75.00 $12,375.00 $30.00 $4,950.00 A32 Select Imported Trench Backfill Ton 2,180 $25.00 $54,500.00 $15.00 $32,700.00 A33 Asphalt Class'B'Patch Inc.CSTC Square Yard 1,825 $25.00 $45,625.00 $65.00 $118,625.00 A34 2"Deep Grind and Asphalt Overlay Class'B' Square Yard 5,600 $15.00 $84,000.00 $12.00 $67,200.00 A35 Replace Pavement Markings and Traffic Buttons Lump Sum 1 $4,000.00 $4,000.00 $5,000.00 $5,000.00 APIN.,1/2005 (.. ( ( ( ')Tab Page 8 Project Title: CENTRAL BUSINESS DISTRICT Road Construction Northwest Laser Underground Utilities BID DATE:4/05/05 2:30 PDT UTILITIES REPLACEMENT Item Description Unit Est. Unit Bid Unit Bid No. Quantity Price Amount Price Amount A36 Remove and Replace Sidewalk&Driveway Square Yard 220 $75.00 $16,500.00 $80.00 $17,600.00 A37 Remove and Replace Curb&Gutter Linear Foot 150 $75.00 $11,250.00 $80.00 $12,000.00 A38 Removal of Paint and Other Markings on Curb&Sidewalk Lump Sum 1 $2,000.00 $2,000.00 $2,000.00 $2,000.00 Subtotal Schedule A $635,083.00 $725,464.00 Tax $55,887.30 $63,840.83 Total Schedule A $690,970.30 $789,304.83 Schedule B B01 Mobilization&Demobilization Schedule B Lump Sum 1 $25,000.00 $25,000.00 $20,000.00 $20,000.00 B02 Trench Excavation Safety Systems Schedule B Lump Sum 1 $5,000.00 $5,000.00 $5,000.00 $5,000.00 B03 Construction Surveying,Staking,and As-Builts Sched B Lump Sum 1 $3,000.00 $3,000.00 $5,000.00 $5,000.00 B04 Traffic Control Schedule B Lump Sum 1 $15,000.00 $15,000.00 $20,000.00 $20,000.00 B05 Temporary Erosion/Sedimentation Controls Schedule B Lump Sum 1 $2,000.00 $2,000.00 $1,000.00 $1,000.00 B06 Furnish and Install 12"Ductile Iron Storm Pipe Linear Foot 165 $75.00 $12,375.00 $120.00 $19,800.00 807 Furnish and Install 8"Ductile Iron Storm Pipe Linear Foot 320 $75.00 $24,000.00 $110.00 $35,200.00 B08 Furnish and Install 12"CPEP Pipe Linear Foot 362 $75.00 $27,150.00 $100.00 $36,200.00 809 TV Inspection of Storm Sewers Linear Foot 544 $2.00 $1,088.00 $1.00 $544.00 B10 Furnish and Install Type 2 Catch Basin Each 9 $4,500.00 $40,500.00 $1,500.00 $13,500.00 B11 Furnish and Install Type 1L Catch Basin Each 1 $2,000.00 $2,000.00 $1,800.00 $1,800.00 B12 Furnish and Install Concrete Inlet Each 18 $900.00 $16,200.00 $1,200.00 $21,600.00 B13 Plug Existing Pipe Each 7 $700.00 $4,900.00 $500.00 $3,500.00 B14 Connect New 12"Storm to Existing Manhole Each 2 $2,000.00 $4,000.00 $2,500.00 $5,000.00 B15 Reconnect Existing Storm Pipe to New Type 2 Catch Basin Each 6 $2,000.00 $12,000.00 $800.00 $4,800.00 B16 Pothole over Existing Underground Telecom Each 3 $1,000.00 $3,000.00 $1,000.00 $3,000.00 B17 Pothole and Relocate Unknown Utility through Storm Line Lump Sum 1 $10,000.00 $10,000.00 $3,000.00 $3,000.00 B18 Pothole Existing Storm Main at Sta 16+21 Lump Sum 1 $2,000.00 $2,000.00 $1,000.00 $1,000.00 B19 Removal and Replacement of Unsuitable Foundation Material Ton 40 $55.00 $2,200.00 $35.00 $1,400.00 B20 Select Imported Trench Backfill Ton 390 $25.00 $9,750.00 $15.00 $5,850.00 B21 Asphalt Class'B'Patch Inc.CSTC Square Yard 740 $25,00 $18,500.00 $65.00 $48,100.00 B22 Remove and Replace Sidewalk&Driveway Square Yard 130 $55.00 $7,150.00 $80.00 $10,400.00 B23 Remove and Replace Curb&Gutter Linear Foot 145 $55.00 $7,975.00 $80.00 $11,600.00 B24 Install Sidewalk Curb Ramp Each 1 $1,400.00 $1,400.00 $1,500.00 $1,500.00 Total Schedule B $256,188.00 $278,794.00 Total Schedule A&B $947,158.30 $1,068,098.83 04/07/2005 BID Tab Page 9 Project Title: CENTRAL BUSINESS DISTRICT Average Bid Low Bid Compared BID DATE:4/05/05 2:30 PDT UTILITIES REPLACEMENT to Engineers Estimate Item Description Unit Est. Unit Bid %of %of No. Quantity Price Amount Average Estimate A01 Mobilization&Demobilization Schedule A Lump Sum 1 $48,000.00 $48,000.00 62.50% 120.00% A02 Trench Excavation Safety Systems Schedule A Lump Sum 1 $9,071.43 $9,071.43 82.68% 150.00% A03 Construction Surveying,Staking,and As-Builts Sched A Lump Sum 1 $9,785.71 $9,785.71 61.31% 60,00% A04 Traffic Control Schedule A Lump Sum 1 $33,905.00 $33,905.00 61.05% 207.00% A05 Temporary Erosion/Sedimentation Controls Schedule A Lump Sum 1 $3,342.86 $3,342.86 83.76% 56,00% A06 Re-establish existing Monuments Each 2 $660.71 $1,321.43 87.03% 57.50% A07 Furnish and Install 8"C900 PVC Sewer Pipe Linear Foot 964 $70.29 $67,755.43 68.29% 73.85% A08 Furnish and Install 6"C900 PVC Side Sewer Pipe Linear Foot 575 $71.43 $41,071.43 63.00% 75.00% A09 Furnish and Install Type B 54"Shallow Sanitary Sewer Manhole Each 4 $3,642.86 $14,571.43 71.37% 74.29% A10 Furnish and Install 54"Diam.Sanitary Sewer Manhole Each 2 $4,428.57 $8,857.14 119.68% 151.43% A11 Connect Exist San Sewer to New San Sewer Struct Each 4 $2,014.29 $8,057.14 84.40% 113.33% Al2 TV Inspection of Sanitary Sewers Linear Foot 964 $1.86 $1,790.29 80.77% 85.71% A13 Locate and Abandon Sanitary Sewer Manhole Each 2 $1,642.86 $3,285.71 121.74% 133.33% A14 Furnish and Install 12"Ductile Iron Water Main Pipe&Fittings Linear Foot 640 $85.21 $54,537.14 100.92% 114.67% A15 Furnish and Install 12"Diameter Gate Valve Assembly Each 4 $1,775.71 $7,102.86 112.63% 166.67% Al 6 Furnish and Install 8"Diameter Gate Valve Assembly Each 1 $1,019.86 $1,019.86 117.66% 133.33% A17 Furnish and Install 6"Diameter Gate Valve Assembly Each 2 $750.00 $1,500.00 100.00% 107.14% A18 Furnish and Install 4"Diameter Gate Valve Assembly Each 1 $555.14 $555.14 117.09% 130.00% A19 Furnish and Install Fire Hydrant Assembly Each 4 $4,537.86 $18,151.43 70.52% 106.67% A20 Connection to 12"Water Main Wells Ave S(Approx Sta 20+22) Lump Sum 1 $6,437.71 $6,437.71 96.31% 413.33% A21 Connection to 4"Water Main Wells Ave S(Approx Sta 23+18) Lump Sum 1 $3,647.29 $3,647.29 123.38% 300.00% A22 Connection to 8"Water Main Wells Ave S(at Approx Sta 25+54) Lump Sum 1 $4,890.71 $4,890.71 102.23% 333.33% A23 Connection to 6"Water Main Wells Ave.S(at Approx Sta 26+15) Lump Sum 1 $5,206.57 $5,206.57 128.68% 446.67% A24 Connection to Water Mains Williams Ave. S(at Approx Sta 15+61 &16+01) Lump Sum 1 $10,327.86 $10,327.86 167.02% 862.50% A25 Furnish and Install 3/4"Water Service Connection Each 10 $1,086.43 $10,864.29 79.16% 114.67% A26 Furnish and Install 1"Water Service Connection Each 3 $1,317.14 $3,951.43 91.11% 120.00% A27 Furnish and Install 1-1/2"Water Service Connection Each 1 $2,550.57 $2,550.57 78.41% 166.67% A28 Concrete Thrust Blocking and Dead-Man Anchor Blocks Cubic Yard 10 $381.43 $3,814.29 65.54% 178.57% A29 Joint Bonding Thermite Weld Lump Sum 1 $3,242.86 $3,242.86 175.77% 285.00% A30 Cathodic Protection Test Stations(All Types) Each 4 $1,538.14 $6,152.57 130.03% 181.82% A31 Removal and Replacement of Unsuitable Foundation Material Ton 165 $31.29 $5,162.14 159.82% 250.00% A32 Select Imported Trench Backfill Ton 2,180 $16.00 $34,880.00 93.75% 100.00% A33 Asphalt Class'B'Patch Inc.CSTC Square Yard 1,825 $44.71 $81,603.57 58.15% 65.00% A34 2"Deep Grind and Asphalt Overlay Class'B' Square Yard 5,600 $11.61 $65,000.00 86.15% 100.00% A35 Replace Pavement Markings and Traffic Buttons Lump Sum 1 $4,021.43 $4,021.43 85.79% 345.00% //2005 t ( ' DTab ( Page 10 Project Title: CENTRAL BUSINESS DISTRICT Average Bid Low Bid L ompared BID DATE:4/05/05 2:30 PDT UTILITIES REPLACEMENT to Engineers Estimate Item Description Unit Est. Unit Bid %of %of No. Quantity Price Amount Average Estimate A36 Remove and Replace Sidewalk&Driveway Square Yard 220 $56.29 $12,382.86 97.72% 91.67% A37 Remove and Replace Curb&Gutter Linear Foot 150 $43.29 $6,492.86 69.31% 85.71% A38 Removal of Paint and Other Markings on Curb&Sidewalk Lump Sum 1 $2,071.43 $2,071.43 144.83% 300.00% Subtotal Schedule A $606,381.86 80.85% 105.11% Tax $53,361.60 80.85% 105.11% Total Schedule A $659,743.46 80.85% 105.11% Schedule B B01 Mobilization&Demobilization Schedule B Lump Sum 1 $18,428.57 $18,428.57 81.40% 125.00% B02 Trench Excavation Safety Systems Schedule B Lump Sum 1 $3,114.29 $3,114.29 160.55% 166.67% B03 Construction Surveying,Staking,and As-Builts Sched B Lump Sum 1 $4,142.86 $4,142.86 120.69% 166.67% B04 Traffic Control Schedule B Lump Sum 1 $13,071.43 $13,071.43 114.75% 150.00% B05 Temporary Erosion/Sedimentation Controls Schedule B Lump Sum 1 $1,571.43 $1,571.43 190.91% 200.00% B06 Furnish and Install 12"Ductile Iron Storm Pipe Linear Foot 165 $76.82 $12,675.06 78.11% 96.77% B07 Furnish and Install 8"Ductile Iron Storm Pipe Linear Foot 320 $67.00 $21,440.00 74.63% 86.21% B08 Furnish and Install 12"CPEP Pipe Linear Foot 362 $62.14 $22,495.71 64.37% 80.00% B09 TV Inspection of Storm Sewers Linear Foot 544 $1.79 $971.43 84.00% 85.71% 810 Furnish and Install Type 2 Catch Basin Each 9 $2,092.86 $18,835.71 109.90% 115.00% B11 Furnish and Install Type 1L Catch Basin Each 1 $1,400.00 $1,400.00 100.00% 140.00% 812 Furnish and Install Concrete Inlet Each 18 $782.14 $14,078.57 83.11% 81.25% B13 Plug Existing Pipe Each 7 $365.71 $2,560.00 68.36% 166.67% B14 Connect New 12"Storm to Existing Manhole Each 2 $1,607.14 $3,214.29 74.67% 480.00% B15 Reconnect Existing Storm Pipe to New Type 2 Catch Basin Each 6 $1,157.14 $6,942.86 103.70% 800.00% B16 Pothole over Existing Underground Telecom Each 3 $644.29 $1,932.86 93.13% 171.43% B17 Pothole and Relocate Unknown Utility through Storm Line Lump Sum 1 $2,908.57 $2,908.57 85.95% 714.29% B18 Pothole Existing Storm Main at Sta 16+21 Lump Sum 1 $1,678.57 $1,678.57 148.94% 714.29% B19 Removal and Replacement of Unsuitable Foundation Material Ton 40 $29.14 $1,165.71 171.57% 250.00% B20 Select Imported Trench Backfill Ton 390 $17.29 $6,741.43 86.78% 100.00% 821 Asphalt Class'B'Patch Inc.CSTC Square Yard 740 $44.71 $33,088.57 58.15% 65.00% B22 Remove and Replace Sidewalk&Driveway Square Yard 130 $53.43 $6,945.71 102.94% 91.67% B23 Remove and Replace Curb&Gutter Linear Foot 145 $40.43 $5,862.14 74.20% 85.71% B24 Install Sidewalk Curb Ramp Each 1 $1,200.00 $1,200.00 83.33% 200.00% Total Schedule B $206,465.78 85.12% 106.79% Total Schedule A&B $866,209.24 04/07/2005 M CITY OF RENTON COUNCIL AGENDA BILL Iiiiiiire AI#: Or SUBMITTING DATA: FOR AGENDA OF: 4/18/2005 Dept/Div/Board.. AJLS/City Clerk Staff Contact...Bonnie Walton AGENDA STATUS: Consent.... X SUBJECT: Public Hearing.. CRT-05-003; Court Case Correspondence.. Kenneth and Carolyn Burns vs. City of Renton Ordinance... 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.... kriiie Other FISCAL IMPACT: Expenditure Required... Transfer/Amendment.. Amount Budgeted Revenue Generated... SUMMARY OF ACTION: Summons and Complaint for Damage to Real Property filed in King County Superior Court on behalf of Kenneth and Carolyn Burns by Zabrina Jenkins, Garvey, Schubert &Barer, 1191 2nd Ave., Seattle, 98101, who seekcompensation for flood damage that occurred on 10/20/2003 at their residence, 974 Anacortes Ct. NE, allegedly as a result of the City's storm system improvement construction project. I CITY OF RENTON 1 '�" APR 1 1 2005 2TIE it�lTY ti^I R c't RECEIVED .7014 KING' COL � �5 CITY CLERK'S OFFICE 3 PR M 4 KNT DEPARTMENT `: JUDICIAL ADMIMIS T rti-. i"'I 5 6 7 Court Use only above—This space for Messenger Use. 8 9 10 11 12 13 IN THE SUPERIOR COURT OF THE STATE OF WASHINGTON 14 IN AND FOR THE COUNTY OF KING '4'"" KENNETH and CAROLYN BURNS, a marital 15 community, , 4 16 Plaintiffs, x KN NO. 0541.,c, " 17 SUMMONS vs. (20 Days) 18 rr C Apr CITY OF RENTON, a municipality mo"""t otoroty 19Defendant. 1 Ott 20 FUN icavnt4141 it- 21 t21 THE STATE OF WASHINGTON TO: City of Renton,Defendant 22 A lawsuit has been started against you in the above-entitled court by Plaintiffs. 23 Plaintiffs' claim is stated in the written Complaint, a copy of which is served upon you with 24 this Summons. 25 In order to defend against this lawsuit,you must respond to the Plaintiffs by stating your 26 defense in writing, and serve a copy upon the undersigned attorney for Plaintiffs within 20 days LAWstow �.�'OFFICES C� GARVEY,�lUBERT&BARER SUMMONS- 1 A PARTNERSHIP OF PROFESSIONAL CORPORATIONS EIGHTEENTH FLOOR SEA_DOCS:751455.I 1191 SECOND AVENUE SEATTLE,WASHINGTON 98101-2939 (206)464-3939 1 after the service of this summons, excluding the date of service, or a default judgment may be 2 entered against you without notice. A default judgment is one where Plaintiffs are entitled to 3 what it asks for because you have not responded. If you serve a notice of appearance on the 4 undersigned attorney, you are entitled to notice before a default judgment may be entered. 5 You may demand that the Plaintiffs file this lawsuit with the Court. If you do so, the 6 demand must be in writing and must be served upon the Plaintiffs. Within 14 days after you 7 serve the demand, the Plaintiffs must file this lawsuit with the Court, or the service on you of 8 this summons and complaint will be void. 9 If you wish to seek the advice of an attorney in this matter,you should do so promptly 10 so that your written response, if any,may be served on time. 11 This summons is issued pursuant to Rule 4 of the Superior Court Civil Rules of the 12 State of Washington. 13 ! DATED this%r day of April,2005. 14 GARVEY, SCHUBERT& BARER 15 16 By Ai,,,, _AL 4013.A. - a• na Jenkins if BA#31262 17 A •rneys for '1.' tiffs Kenneth and 18 C olyn B s 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 *41.00 LAW OFFICES GARVEY,SCHUBERT&BARER SUMMONS-2 A PARTNERSHIP EIGHTEENTH OF FLOOR CORPORATIONS SEA_DOCS:751455.11191 SECOND AVENUE SEATTLE,WASHINGTON 98101-2939 (206)464-3939 CITY OF RENTON IA 1 � j. APR !01 2005 ikeiwe 2 RECEIVED K11•10 „ 4 VIS S CITY CLERK'S OFFICE 3 PN� 4 ( 0.v._k 1.-D,01\015'" 5 6 • 7 Court Use only above this line. 81 IN THE SUPERIOR COURT OF THE STATE OF WASHINGTON 9 IN AND FOR THE COUNTY OF KING KENNETH and CAROLYN BURNS, a marital 10 community, NO. 05 - 2 - 11 284 1 J(N 11 Plaintiffs, 12 vs. COMPLAINT FOR DAMAGE TO REAL PROPERTY 13 CITY OF RENTON, a municipality. 14 Defendant. irrr 15 16 Plaintiffs Kenneth and Carolyn Burns ("Burns") by and through their undersigned 17 attorneys hereby complain and allege as follows: 18 I. PARTIES 19 1. Plaintiffs at all material times hereto were and are husband and wife, 20 constituting a marital community under the laws of the State of Washington, and residing in 21 22 King County. 23 2. Defendant City of Renton("City") is a municipality in the State of Washington. 3. The City of Renton Planning/Building and Public Works Department is the 24 water and sewer(including storm sewer)utility operated by the City. 25 26 GARVEY SCHUBERT BARER A PARTNERSHIP OT�ROFESSIONAL CORPORATIONS eighteenth floor 1191 second avenue COMPLAINT FOR DAMAGE TO REAL PROPERTY- I s e a t t l e, w a s h i n g t o n 98101-2939 206 464-3939 SEA_DOCS.724768.1[12075-00100) 1 II. JURISDICTION AND VENUE 2 4. Pursuant to RCW 2.08.010, this Court has subject matter jurisdiction over this 3 action. 4 5. Pursuant to RCW 4.28.080, this Court has personal jurisdiction over the 5 defendant. 6 6. Plaintiff has satisfied the filing requirements of RCW 4.96.010(1). 7 7. Pursuant to RCW 4.12.020 and 4.12.010, venue is proper in King County 8 because the action relates to damage to real property located in King County. 9 III. OPERATIVE FACTS 10 8. Plaintiffs reside at what is commonly known as 974 Anacortes Court Northeast, 11 Renton,Washington 98059 (the"Burns property"). 12 9. Sometime in 2003, the City began a construction project to widen the storm 13 drainage system in the Highlands neighborhood of Renton, Washington. This project included 14 disconnecting the storm drainage system servicing Anacortes Court Northeast. Thereafter, the 15 storm drainage system for Anacortes Court Northeast was not operational. 16 10. On October 20, 2003, rainwater overflowed the level of the curb and sidewalk 17 on Anacortes Court Northeast, and flooded the Burns' property. The water level rose to 18 approximately 12 inches in the garage and the lower level of the house. 19 11. The flood water caused substantial damage to the Burns' property. 20 12. It has cost the Burns over $21,000.00 to repair the damage and restore the 21 Burns' property to the condition it was in before the flood damage. 22 IV. CAUSE OF ACTION: DAMAGE TO REAL PROPERTY 23 13. Burns re-alleges and reincorporates herein by reference each and every 24 allegation above as though fully set forth herein, and further alleges as follows: 25 14. Defendant City disconnected the storm drainage system on Anacortes Court 26 Northeast, Renton Washington. As a result of the inoperable storm system, rainwater entered GARVEY SCHUBERT BARER A PARTNERSHIP UI-PHOFES5IONAL CORPORATIONS eighteenth floor 1 91 second ' COMPLAINT FOR DAMAGE TO REAL PROPERTY-2 s e a t t l e,1 avenue w a s h i n g t o n 98101-2939 206 464-3939 SEA_DOCS:724768.1 [12075-001001 1 into the garage and lower level of the Burns' property and flooded the property. The City was `' ✓ 2 negligent in causing and/or not preventing rainwater from entering and flooding the Burns' 3 property. 4 15. The Burns have suffered damages as a result of the City's negligence. 5 16. The City is liable for all damages incurred by the Burns on account of the City's 6 negligence. 7 V. PRAYER FOR RELIEF 8 WHEREFORE, Plaintiffs Kenneth and Carolyn Burns pray for judgment against the 9 Defendant,jointly and severally, as follows: 10 A. For judgment for damages suffered by Plaintiffs in an amount to be proven at 11 trial; 12 B. For an award of attorneys' fees and costs incurred herein; and 13 C. For such other and further relief as the Court deems just and equitable under the 14 circumstances. *ow 15 DATED this /S% day of April, 2005. 16 GARVEY SCHUBERT BARER 17 18 By 4, / . , / 1Jp 19 • Anna Je • •,WSBA#31262 • ttorneys '. laintiffs Kenneth and 20 arolyn • s 21 22 23 { 24 25 26 Nlow GARVEY SCHUBERT BARER A PARTNERSHIP c ROEESSIONAL CORPORATIONS eighteenth floor 1191 second avenue COMPLAINT FOR DAMAGE TO REAL PROPERTY-3 S e a t t l e, w a s h i n g t o n 98101-2939 206 464-3939 SEA_DOCS:724768.1 [12075-00100] CITY OF RENTON APR 1 1 2005 RECEIVED CITY CLERK'S OFFICE IN THE SUPERIOR COURT OF THE STATE OF WASHINGTON IN AND FOR THE COUNTY OF KING BURNS NO. 05-2-11284-1 KNT Order Setting Civil Case Schedule(*ORSCS) vs Plaintiff(s) RENTON ASSIGNED JUDGE Cayce 50 FILE DATE: 04/04/2005 Defendant(s) TRIAL DATE: 10/02/2006 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 documents to all parties in this case." Print Name Sign Name rrr Order Setting Civil Case Schedule(*ORSCS) REV.6/200 1 I. NOTICES (continued) vstii 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 IL CASE SCHEDULE DEADLINE or Filing CASE EVENT EVENT DATE Needed Case Filed and Schedule Issued. Mon 04/04/2005 * Confirmation of Service[See KCLR 4.1]. Mon 05/02/2005 * Last Day for Filing Statement of Arbitrability without a Showing of Good Mon 09/12/2005 * 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. Mon 09/12/2005 * [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. Mon 09/26/2005 [See KCLR 82(e)] DEADLINE for Disclosure of Possible Primary Witnesses Mon 05/01/2006 [See KCLR 26(b)]. DEADLINE for Disclosure of Possible Additional Witnesses Mon 06/12/2006 [See KCLR 26(b)]. DEADLINE for Jury Demand[See KCLR 38(b)(2)]. Mon 06/26/2006 * DEADLINE for Setting Motion for a Change in Trial Date Mon 06/26/2006 * [See KCLR 40(e)(2)]. DEADLINE for Discovery Cutoff[See KCLR 37(g)]. Mon 08/14/2006 DEADLINE for Engaging in Alternative Dispute Resolution [See KCLR Tue 09/05/2006 16(c)]. DEADLINE for Exchange Witness& Exhibit Lists& Documentary Exhibits Mon 09/11/2006 [See KCLR 16(a)(4)]. *ow DEADLINE to file Joint Confirmation of Trial Readiness Mon 09/11/2006 * [See KCLR 16(a)(2)] DEADLINE for Hearing Dispositive Pretrial Motions [See KCLR 56; CR 56]. Mon 09/18/2006 Joint Statement of Evidence[See KCLR 16(a)(5)]. Mon 09/25/2006 * Trial Date [See KCLR 40]. Mon 10/02/2006 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: 04/04/2005 f20,,,,te. ' PRESIDING JUDGE 'ftw'r 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 �+�I 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; Nod 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 or as soon thereafter as convened by the court. The Friday before trial, the parties should access the King County Superior Court website at www.metrokc.gov/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 Family Law Local Rules 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. Ouse Original Proposed Order: Each of the parties must include in the working copy materials submitted on 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. [2u24 ` &Ct. PRESIDING JUDGE CITY OF RENTON COUNCIL AGENDA BILL AI#: �^` SUBMITTING DATA: FOR AGENDA OF: 4/18/2005 Dept/Div/Board.. AJLS/City Clerk Staff Contact... Bonnie Walton AGENDA STATUS: Consent.... X SUBJECT: Public Hearing.. CRT-05-005; Court Case Correspondence.. Herons Forever v. City of Renton, SR 900 LLC, and Quarry Ordinance... Industrial Park,LLC Resolution... Old Business New Business Study Session.... EXHIBITS: Other.... Summons and Land Use Petition 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 Land Use Petition filed in King County Superior Court on behalf of Herons Forever by David S. Mann, Gendler&Mann, LLP, 1424 4th Ave., Suite 1015, Seattle, 98101,requesting review of Renton's land use decision regarding the Sunset Bluff development project (PP-04-002). CITY OF RENTON APR 1 1 2005 Now, 2 RECEIVED 3 CITY CLERK'S OFFICE 4 5 6 7 IN THE SUPERIOR COURT OF THE STATE OF WASHINGTON 8 IN AND FOR KING COUNTY 9 HERONS FOREVER, 10 Petitioner, NO. 11 v. 12 SUMMONS 13 CITY OF RENTON, a municipal corporation; SR 900 LLC, a Washington 14 Corporation; and QUARRY 15 INDUSTRIAL PARK, LLC, a 4Vl4 ityWashington Corporation 16 & r C Respondent. N8 19t int-otAA-t'A-61- 17 18 TO THE RESPONDENT, City of Renton 19 AND TO: SR 900 LLC/Quarry Industrial Park LLC 20 A lawsuit has been started against you in the above-entitled Court by Herons Forever, 21 petitioner. Petitioner's claim is stated in the written Land Use Petition, a copy of which is 22 served upon you with this Summons. 23 24 In order to defend against this lawsuit, you must respond to the Land Use Petition by 25 stating your defense in writing, and serve a copy upon the undersigned attorney for the 26 plaintiffs within 20 days if service of this Summons is made upon you within the State of 27 Washington,or within 60 days if service is made upon you outside of the State of Washington, 28 GENDLER&MANN,LLP 1424 Fourth Avenue,Suite 1015 Seattle,WA 98101 SUMMONS 1 CpPhone: (206)621-8868 �Uj Fax: (206)621-0512 1 excluding the day of service,or a default judgment maybe entered against you without notice. 2 A default judgment is one where the plaintiffs are entitled to what they ask for because you 3 have not responded. If you serve a notice of appearance on the undersigned attorney,you are 4 5 entitled to notice before a default judgment may be entered. 6 You may demand that the plaintiffs file this lawsuit with the Court. If you do so,the 7 demand must be in writing and must be served upon the plaintiffs. Within 14 days after you 8 serve the demand,the plaintiffs must file this lawsuit with the Court, or the service on you of 9 this Summons will be void. 10 11 If you wish to seek the advice of an attorney in this matter,you should do so promptly 12 so that your written response, if any,may be served on time. 13 This Summons is issued pursuant to Rule 4 of the Superior Court Civil Rules of the 14 State of Washington. 15 Dated this if qday of April, 2005 16 17 Respectfully submitted, 18 GENDLER &MANN, LLP 19 20 IA 21 )"avid . Mann 22 WSBA No. 21068 Attorneys for Petitioner 23 24 25 26 27 28 'quid GENDLER&MANN,LLP 1424 Fourth Avenue,Suite 1015 Seattle,WA 98101 SUMMONS - 2 Phone: (206)621-8868 Fax: (206)621-0512 CITY OF RENTON 1 APR 1 1 2005 2 RECEIVED CITY CLERK'S OFFICE 3 4 5 6 7 IN THE SUPERIOR COURT OF THE STATE OF WASHINGTON 8 IN AND FOR KING COUNTY 9 HERONS FOREVER, a Washington 10 non-profit corporation. NO. 11 Petitioner, 12 v LAND USE PETITION 13 CITY OF RENTON, a municipal 14 corporation; SR 900 LLC, a Washington corporation; and QUARRY "'is, 15 INDUSTRIAL PARK, LLC, a 16 Washington corporation. 17 Respondent. 18 Pursuant to RCW 36.70C.070,Herons Forever alleges as follows in support of its Land 19 Use Petition. 20 21 1. NAME AND MAILING ADDRESS OF THE PETITIONER 22 Herons Forever 4819 49th Ave., SW 23 Seattle, WA 98116 24 2. NAME AND MAILING ADDRESS OF PETITIONER'S ATTORNEY 25 Petitioner's attorneys are David S. Mann and Gendler& Mann, LLP. Their mailing 26 27 address is 1424 Fourth Avenue, Suite 1015, Seattle, WA 98101. 28 GENDLER&MANN,LLP 1424 Fourth Avenue,Suite 1015 Seattle,WA 98101 LAND USE PETITION - 1 ©op n Phone: (206)621-8868 ,�// Fax: (206)621-0512 1 3. NAME AND MAILING ADDRESS OF LOCAL JURISDICTION 2 WHOSE LAND USE DECISION IS AT ISSUE 3 The local jurisdiction whose land use decision is at issue is the City of Renton. Its 4 mailing address is 1055 S. Grady Way, Seventh Floor, Renton, Washington, 98055. 5 4. IDENTIFICATION OF THE DECISION-MAKING BODY 6 OR OFFICER, WITH COPY OF DECISION 7 The decisions at issue were made by the Renton City Council in their November 8, 8 2004 reversing the City's Hearing Examiner decision on Herons Forever's SEPA appeal;and 9 their March 21, 2005 Decision approving the Sunset Bluff preliminary plat. Copies of both 10 11 decisions are attached hereto. 12 5. IDENTIFICATION OF EACH PERSON TO BE MADE A PARTY UNDER RCW 36.70C.040(2)(b) THROUGH (d) 13 14 The persons to be made parties pursuant to RCW 36.70C.040(2)(b) through (d) are: 15 SR 900 LLC Quarry Industrial Park, LLC 16 9125 10th Avenue South 17 Seattle, WA 98108 18 The applicants are represented by: 19 David Halinen 20 Halinen Law Offices 10500 NE 8th St., Suite 1900 21 Bellevue, WA 98004 22 6. FACTS DEMONSTRATING THE PETITIONER HAS STANDING 23 TO SEEK JUDICIAL REVIEW UNDER RCW 30.70C.060 24 6.1 Petitioner Herons Forever in a non-profit corporation with more than 450 25 members that live and work in the Puget Sound region,including the City of Renton. Herons 26 Forever was formed in 1989 to protect the resident coastal great blue heron colony located in 27 Renton's Black River Riparian Forest. By 1996 Herons Forever had helped secure$8 million 28 GENDLER&MANN,LLP 1424 Fourth Avenue,Suite 1015 Seattle,WA 98101 Phone: LAND USE PETITION - 2 Fax (206)621 5128 1 in public funds to purchase the nearly 60 acres of private land buffering the herons' nest sites. 2 Today, 90 acres is protected public open space. 3 6.2 The Black River Riparian Forest is a rich oasis for the animals that live there. 4 5 It is home to the largest great blue heron colony in the tri-county area (King, Pierce and 6 Snohomish Counties). During the 2003 season alone, the heron colony had approximately 7 135 active heron nests. The Black River Riparian Forest also provides habitat for a myriad 8 of other wildlife. Native birds such as the Bald Eagle,great horned owls,hooded mergansers, 9 wood ducks,and neotropical migrants such as the common yellowthroats,wilson's warblers, 10 11 and western tanagers, all live in the Black River Riparian Forest and forage in the hillside to 12 the north. The Black River Riparian Forest is one of the last protected lowland deciduous, 13 riparian forests remaining in the Puget Sound. Herons Forever believes that the protection 14 and preservation of the Black River Riparian Forest, and in particular, its great blue heron *iree 15 colony, is crucial to its mission and to its members. 16 17 6.3 The Sunset Bluff preliminary plat is proposed for the property immediately 18 adjacent to and upgradient from the Black River Riparian Forest. Unless properly conditioned, 19 the preliminary plat will significantly impact the riparian forest and its resident wildlife 20 population,including specifically the great blue heron colony. The City of Renton's decision 21 reversing the City Hearing Examiner's decision that an environmental impact statement was 22 23 necessary,and approving the preliminary plat without sufficient conditions to protect the heron 24 colony will significantly prejudice Herons Forever and its members. 25 6.4 Herons Forever's interests are among those the City of Renton was required to 26 consider when it made its land use decision. 27 28 GENDLER&MANN,LLP 1424 Fourth Avenue,Suite 1015 Seattle,WA 98101 Phone: (206)621-8868 LAND USE PETITION - 3 Fax: (206)621-0512 1 6.5 A judgment in favor of Herons Forever would substantially eliminate or redress 2 the prejudice to Herons Forever and its members because it would reverse the land use 3 decision which is the cause of the adverse impacts identified herein. 4 5 6.6 Petitioner Herons Forever has exhausted its administrative remedies to the 6 extent required by law. Herons Forever appealed the City's original SEPA determination of 7 non-significance to the City Hearing Examiner. The Examiner ruled in favor of Herons 8 Forever and required preparation of an environmental impact statement. The Hearing 9 Examiner's decision was reversed by the City Council on an appeal filed by the applicant. 10 11 Herons Forever participated in the administrative appeal to the City Council. Herons Forever 12 then participated before the City Council in its review of the preliminary plat recommendation 13 issued by the Hearing Examiner. 14 7. SEPARATE AND CONCISE STATEMENT OF EACH ERROR 15 ALLEGED TO HAVE BEEN COMMITTED 16 Herons Forever alleges that the City of Renton committed the following errors: 17 7.1 The City Council erred in its November 8, 2004 decision granting the appeal 18 of the applicant SR 900 LLC and reversing the City Hearing Examiner's August 3, 2004 19 20 Decision requiring preparation of an environmental impact statement (EIS) under the 21 Washington State Environmental Policy Act,Ch.43.21 RCW("SEPA"). The City Council's 22 decision is an erroneous interpretation of the law,is not supported by substantial evidence,is 23 a clearly erroneous application of the law to the facts and was outside the authority or 24 jurisdiction of the City Council. 25 26 7.2 The City Council erred in its March 21, 2005 decision approving the 27 preliminary plat for Sunset Bluff. The preliminary plat does not make adequate provisions 28 GENDLER&MANN,LLP 1424 Fourth Avenue,Suite 1015 Seattle,WA 98101 LAND USE PETITION - 4 Phone: (206)6214868 Fax: (206)621-0512 I to protect the public health, safety and welfare and is not in the public interest. The City 2 Council's decision is an erroneous interpretation of the law, is not supported by substantial 3 evidence, and is a clearly erroneous application of the law to the facts. 4 5 8. STATEMENT OF FACTS 6 8.1 In January, 2004, SR 900 LLC submitted an application and SEPA 7 environmental checklist seeking to subdivide a 26.26 acre site into 65 lots for detached single 8 family residences. 9 8.2 The City of Renton Environmental Review Committee("ERC")reviewed the 10 11 SEPA checklist and application material in closed session and issued a SEPA Determination 12 ,of Non-significance with mitigation("DNS"). 13 8.3 The City's DNS was not based on sufficient evidence to evaluate the probable 14 significant environmental impacts on the downgradient Black River Riparian Forest wetland ire 15 system that would be caused by development of the proposed subdivision on the hillside above 16 17 the riparian forest wetland system. The SEPA checklist and DNS did not even identify the 18 presence of the large downgradient wetland system. 19 8.4 The City's DNS was not based on sufficient evidence to evaluate the probable 20 significant impacts that clearing,grading and construction of the proposed subdivision would 21 have on the heron colony within the Black River Riparian Forest. The environmental 22 23 checklist and DNS did not identify the proper location of the herons and did not evaluate any 24 noise or other construction impacts on the heronry. 25 8.5 The City's DNS was not based on sufficient evidence to evaluate the probable 26 significant impacts of increased human and pet interactions on the adjacent Black River 27 Riparian Forest heron colony. "fir► 28 GENDLER&MANN,LLP 1424 Fourth Avenue,Suite 1015 Seattle,WA 98101 Phone: X206)621-8868 LAND USE PETITION - 5 Fax: (206)621-0512 1 8.6 Based on the numerous deficiencies in the DNS and environmental checklist, 2 Herons Forever filed a timely administrative appeal of the SEPA determination with the City 3 of Renton's Hearing Examiner. 4 5 8.7 After a lengthy evidentiary hearing involving multiple experts on herons, 6 hydrology and wetlands, on August 3, 2004, the City of Renton's Hearing Examiner issued 7 extensive findings and a decision reversing the ERC's SEPA DNS and reversed the application 8 for preparation of an environmental impacts statement. The Hearing Examiner's August 3, 9 2004 findings and conclusions were supported by substantial evidence and are incorporated 10 11 by reference herein. 12 8.8 On August 17,2004,the applicant SR 900 LLC filed an administrative appeal 13 of the Hearing Examiner's SEPA determination to the Renton City Council. 14 8.9 The City Council's review was based on a closed record. No new evidence was 15 taken. 16 17 8.10 While the Hearing Examiner's factual findings were based on substantial 18 evidence, and the Hearing Examiner heard and judged the credibility of the numerous 19 witnesses,on November 8,2004,the City Council substituted their judgement for that of the 20 Hearing Examiner and reversed many of the Hearing Examiner's factual findings. The City 21 Council also reversed the Hearing Examiner's ultimate decision that an EIS was necessary. 22 23 8.11 Herons Forever appeals the City Council's decision reversing the Hearing 24 Examiner's SEPA decision. 25 8.12 After reversal of the Hearing Examiner's SEPA decision,the preliminary plat 26 was remanded to the Hearing Examiner for a recommendation on the preliminary plat. 27 28 GENDLER&MANN,LLP 1424 Fourth Avenue,Suite 1015 Seattle,WA 98101 LAND USE PETITION - 6 Phone: (206)621-8868 Fax: (206)621-0512 1 8.13 The Hearing Examiner reviewed the proposed preliminary plat and ``r 2 recommended either approval with significant additional conditions, or denial. 3 8.14. The Renton City Council then reviewed the Hearing Examiner's 4 5 recommendation on the preliminary plat. On March 21, 2005, the Renton City Council 6 approved the preliminary plat with the Hearing Examiner's proposed conditions. The City 7 Council rejected Herons Forever's appeal requesting denial of the preliminary plat in accord 8 with the Hearing Examiner's alternate recommendation of denial. 9 8.15 This appeal follows. 10 11 9. REQUEST FOR RELIEF 12 Petitioner requests the following relief: 13 a. Issuance of an order directed to the City to produce its record so that the same 14 may be reviewed by the court. Now 15 b. Entry of an order reversing the City Council's decisions. 16 17 c. An award of petitioner's costs and reasonable attorneys' fees, to the extent 18 authorized by law. 19 d. Such further relief as the court deems just and necessary. 20 Dated this ([ day of April, 2005. 21 22 Respectfully submitted, 23 GENDLER&MANN, LLP 24 25 26 By: l� vid S. Mann 27 W SBA No. 21068 Nage 28 Attorneys for Petitioner GENDLER&MANN,LLP 1424 Fourth Avenue,Suite 1015 Seattle,WA 98101 Phone: (206)621-8868 LAND USE PETITION - 7 Fax: (206)621-0512 I/tru^s Frit-4,e - Cativitri A'-v APPROVES By Pc(', CMT COUNCIL. Date i!-8-,2004/ PLANNING & DEVELOPMENT COMMITTEE November 8,2004 SUNSET BLUFFS APPEAL MAJORITY REPORT File WA 04-002, ECF, PP (Referred 9/13/04) The Planning and Development Committee heard this appeal on October 21, 2004. After reviewing the record, the written presentations of both parties and hearing oral argument, the majority of the Committee finds that the evidence submitted by Herons Forever was too speculative to sustain its burden of proof before the Hearing Examiner. The majority of the Committee recommends that the full Council reverse the Hearing Examiner and affirm the decision of the ERC. The Committee Committp.furtkettetommends that the Council adopt the following amended Findings and'Conclusipns to the Hearing Examiner's Report and Decision dated August 3, 2004. ._. AM LADED FINDINGS AND CONCLUSIONS I. Finding of Fact 12. 'hi sentence is amended-to read: "The southwestern'cOrner of-the site,( 8‘acres)is zoned RC(Resource Conservation)." II. Findingof Fact 27. Th€ third sentence is amended to read: "West is another . 44014 RM-I district with multiple family units and:industrially zoned property in the City.of Renton that is developed and undeveloped, including a closed quarry site, currently used as a contractor's office, equipment and Material storage, recycling and concrete batching." III. Finding of Fact 2'8=is:,amended to add 0�Sentence: "Ms. Sheldon did no study of the biological effects of the c iahge in release rate of the retained stormwater. The retention system was designed according to the King County manual for detention, treatment and controlled release." IV. Finding of Fact 29 is amended to add a sentence: "Mr. Rozeboom testified in general terms but without the support of any study or quantitative analysisof the actual effects of the changes in the hydroperiod." V. Finding of Fact 31 is amended to read: "Herons Forever's experts have monitored heron recently and indicated that the birds reacted hostilely to intrusive activities in both this_heronry and in others in the Puget Sound Area. They suspect that the proposed grading on this property,over 1,000 feet from the heron colony, might have an impact on the colony. Reports indicate that the birds were flushed and severely disturbed by logging just south of the railroad tracks at the western edge of the riparian forest, but very near to that colony. Anecdotal evidence indicates that the development of an office park within 500 feet of the colony may have caused the Planning and Development ,hmittee Report ) Nov. 8,2004 Page 3 helped create the conditions that attracted the herons in the first instance, and has i.r expended : :bs!.antia ,Iforl and resources in protecting the ons and their surroundings." XII. Conclusion 2, the last sentence is stricken. XIII. Conclusion 7 is amended by striking the second and third sentence. XIV. Conclusion 9 is amended by striking the last sentence. XV. Conclusion 10 is amended by adding a sentence, as follows: "Earthwork shall be limited to the dry months—except for minor earthwork, such as finish grading." XVI. Conclusions 11 through 28 are stricken. XVII. A new Conclusion 11 is added. "The.burden of proof is on Herons Forever. • As previously stated,the decisioj of the IRC is entitled to substantial weight. While its good intentions are not questioned,the tesifiiony of Herons Forever was, in great part,based upon speculation.'.Thereeis a lot that is`ui known 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. hi general, the developer-:pre'' ented studies of the proposal; while Herons Forever responded by criticizing'the-studies and presented general, non-site specific testimony T4*on ;Forever's site specific testimony was of logging and building occurrences=whiCh were`much closer:to the heronry than the proposed development." XVIII. The Decision is amended to read: "The decision of the ERC is affirmed." • • 'z .t..j/(//4, 0", Terri Briere, • air • dvt. Don Persson, substitute member C- Gregg Zimmerman Jason Jordan- -lila ordan-lf a 161,114-0- Now 1,114- i- • MINORITY REPORT NOT ADOPTE MAJORITY REPORT PLANNING & DEVELOPMENT COM:,.ITTEE ADOPTED INSTEAD. COMMITIr:.'-. LIPORri VOTE OF 4 70 3. 11-8-^ November 8, 2004 SUNSET BLUFFS APPEAL MINORITY REPORT File LUA 04-002, ECF, PP (Referred 9/13/2004) I respectfully dissent from the report of the majority of the Committee and recommend that the Council affirm the decision of the Hearing Examiner and require an EIS. Herons Forever presented testimony of qualified experts who stated their opinions that the project as proposed would be likely to disturb the heron colony in ways that would diminish the productivity and could result in the herons abandoning nests in the Black River Riparian Forest over time. SR'9O I,LC's experts disagreed with these experts and stated that the impacts would be rriinirrial. ." The Hearing Examiner copisidered the'evidence arid made-find gs of fact. In general he tr=t. merely summarized the conflicting testimony of the expertg`wit ,ut deciding which expert gave the most credibl`e'=opinion, I z1it sp itiicall"y determine that the testimony of SR 900 LLC's primary expert, Dt:°Ke?jaedke,\ ho wrote the' eport submitted to the ERC, appeared to lack scientific b sis'4.W s"not:credible. r. l $edke testified that herons in general are not disturbed by huan activities near their nests, and that the *01101 development would have no significant MiPact.iiriAlie heron color-ill. Dr.Raedke's resume shows that he is an expert on deer and elk;not herons. He mainly relied on a master's thesis written over 10 years ago by a master's student, Ms. Stabins. Other researchers attempting to,verify her nest counts'haye not validated her research. He also cited studies from other states:and Canada ratli than local"studies. In contrast, Herons Forever presented Kate Stenberg,Ph.D., a heron expert who has monitored herons in the Puget Sound region and, specifically,at the Black River Riparian Forest, and Patricia Thompson, a wildlife biologist with Washington Department of Fish and Wildlife. Their testimony was specific to Western Washington and to the Black River heron colony. Dr. Stenberg and Ms. Thompson demonstrated much greater familiarity with the research on herons than Dr. Raedke. They described a dramatic decline of heron colonies in King County, while the Black River colony has thrived. Dr. Stenberg identified specific impacts that were not considered by the ERC. Increased runoff and lawn chemicals from the development may disturb the large wetland on the development where the herons feed, and nesting trees may be killed. Noise construction noise will be more intense because the development is above the nesting area. A construction season limitation to avoid disturbance during nesting was not considered by the ERC. PLANNING & DEVELOPMENT t,r7RO ED BY 1 COMMITTEE REPORT MT COUNCIL March 21, 2005 Date 3-A/46'6`4/ TILti1 `..PIaW PLAT APPEAL ,Pile FIT = ,'.PP, CF (Referred :1/24/05) The Planning and Development Committee heard this appeal on March 17, 2005. After reviewing the record,the written presentations by both parties,and having heard oral argument;the Committee finds that there were no substantial errors in fact or law and recommends that the full Council affirm the Hearing Examiner's decision with the following clarifications: 1. The Hearing Examiner at conclusion#9 on page 22 of his report and recommendation urged the City Council to deny the plat because it does not take advantage of the natural amenities of the site in a suitable fashion and does not do neatly enough to attempt to protect the nearby Heron colony from the proposed.plats development impacts. However,the Examiner in his recommendation suggests that if the Council approves the plat;certain co. ,ditions should be applied, The plat should be approved according to the conditic#t s.set fdlin the Examiner's report and recommendation as set forth in conditions 1-15 on pages 22 aid 23: 2. There is some confusion ai5ont the fencing. Fencing issfeenRinakled in item 9 of the conditions to the Examiner's recommendatipn.and agaitintite,m,12 of the Exam3ner s conditions. These two conditions can be satisfied by two fences;pninef Offi101he residenc s from the drainage pond,and. a second fence at the toe of the slope at the,prosperty linie�between tie subject property generally to Nome the South. s_- 3: Recommendation#4 on page 2 of the Examiner's .e`port should be:aamended to read: "The applicant shall hydroseidany open space withtt native :rbs, shrubs,wildflowers, trees and shrubs. This WW1 help,re uce the teinp9ral fmpA of the clearing,by planting materials that alirhdy have.si me siz ;to then , his willalso introduce trees back into the mix,which are rite ., _ayry Thr adeq ,tc° uffering. Trees in the mix should also help stabilize the steep,regr`a e 1 slope. The plantings should be monitored for a minimum of 5 to 10 years to ensure that they are established. Plants that do not surviveshould be replanted. The plant mix should-contain a mix of both deciduous trees(for heron nest materials) and coniferous(for screening)." • Dan Clawson,Chair 644;17 W . Denis Law,Vice Chair )erhijAIL/cLOVI Marcie Palmer, Member CITY OF RENTON 1 APR 1 1 2005 2 RECEIVED CrTY CLERK'S OFFICE 3 4 5 6 7 IN THE SUPERIOR COURT OF THE STATE OF WASHINGTON 8 IN AND FOR KING COUNTY 9 HERONS FOREVER, a Washington 10 non-profit corporation. NO. 11 Petitioner, 12 v. DECLARATION OF SERVICE 13 CITY OF RENTON, a municipal 14 corporation; SR 900 LLC, a Washington 15 corporation; and QUARRY INDUSTRIAL PARK, LLC, a 16 Washington corporation. 17 Res•ondent. 18 19 STATE OF WASHINGTON ) 20 ) ss. 21 COUNTY OF KING ) 22 I, SARAH GRANT, under penalty of perjury under the laws of the State of 23 24 Washington, declare as follows: 25 I am the legal assistant for Gendler&Mann,LLP,attorneys for Petitioner. On the date 26 and in the manner indicated below,I caused the Summons and Land Use Petition to be served 27 on the following parties in the manner shown: 28 GENDLER&MANN,LLP 1424 Fourth Avenue,Suite 1015 Seattle,WA 98101 DECLARATION OF SERVICE - 1 Phone: (206)621-8868 /�� O PY Fax: (206)621-0512 C 1 None 2 City Clerk SR 900 LLC 3 City of Renton Quarry Industrial Park LLC 1055 South Grady Way 9125 10th Avenue South 4 Renton, WA 98055 Seattle, WA 98108 5 ByUnited States Mail [ ) M By United States Mail 6 bel By Legal Messenger [ ] By Legal Messenger [ ] By Facsimile [ ] By Facsimile 7 [ ] By electronic mail [ ] By electronic mail 8 [ ) By Federal Express/Express Mail [ ] By Federal Express/Express Mail 9 Lawrence J. Warren David Halinen City Attorney Halinen Law Offices 10 City of Renton 10500 NE 8th Street, Suite 1900 11 1055 South Grady Way Bellevue, WA 98004 Renton, WA 98055 12 b4 By United States Mail [>(] By United States Mail [ ] By Legal Messenger 13 [ ] By Legal Messenger [ ] By Facsimile 14 [ ) By Facsimile [ ] By electronic mail [ ] By electronic mail [ ] By Federal Express/Express Mail err 15 [ ] By Federal Express/Express Mail 16 17 DATED this \\ day of cl)-pN:A , 2005, at Seattle, Washington. 18 19 20 <,L 21 SARAH GRANT 22 23 24 25 26 27 litrrr 28 GENDLER&MANN,LLP 1424 Fourth Avenue,Suite 1015 Seattle,WA 98101 Phone: (206)621-8868 DECLARATION OF SERVICE - 2 Fax: (206)621-0512 gillb. CITY OF RENTON APR 1 1 2005 !t:Ys anI. RECEIVED CITY CLERK'S OFFICE KING COUNTY SUPERIOR COURT CASE ASSIGNMENT DESIGNATION and CASE INFORMATION COVER SHEET (cics) In accordance with LR82(e),a faulty document fee of$15 will be assessed to new case filings missing this sheet pursuant to King County Code 4.71.100. CASE NUMBER: CASE CAPTION: !kf'O11 S f r fiG r V • C il`Y D P RGKIoN Qf. QI• I certify that this case meets the case assignment criteria,described in King County LR 82(e),for the: Seattle Area,defined as: All of King County north of Interstate 90 and including all of the Interstate 90 right-of-way;all the cities of Seattle,Mercer Island,Bellevue,Issaquah and North Bend;and all of Vashon and Maury Islands. XKent Area, defined as: All of King County south of Interstate 90 except those areas included in the Seattle Case Assignment Area. Signature of Petitioner/Plaintiff Date orcas,,tenAA, 4i— Signature of Attorney for Date Petitioner/Plaintiff 2(OG � WSBA Number *44110 1 L: forms/cashiers/cics Rev 01/05 COPY KING COUNTY SUPERIOR COURT CASE ASSIGNMENT DESIGNATION and CASE INFORMATION COVER SHEET Please check one category that best describes this case for indexing purposes. Accurate case indexing not only saves time but helps in forecasting judicial resources. A faulty document fee of$15 will be assessed to new case filings missing this sheet pursuant to Administrative Rule 2 and King County Code 4.71.100. APPEAL/REVIEW ADOPTION/PATERNITY Administrative Law Review(ALR 2)* Adoption(ADP 5) DOL Implied Consent—Test Refusal—only RCW 46.20.308 Challenge to Acknowledgment of Paternity(PAT 5)* (DOL 2)* DOL-all other appeals(ALR 2)* Challenge to Denial of Paternity(PAT 5)* Confidential Intermediary(MSC 5) CONTRACT/COMMERCIAL Establish Parenting Plan-Existing King County Paternity (MSC 5)* Breach of Contract(COM 2)* Initial Pre-Placement Report(PPR 5) Commercial Contract(COM 2)* Modification(MOD 5)* Commercial Non-Contract(COL 2)* Modification-Support Only(MDS 5)* Meretricious Relationship(MER 2)* Paternity,Establish/Disestablish (PAT 5)* Third Party Collection(COL 2)* Patemity/UIFSA(PUR 5)* Out-of-State Custody Order Registration (FJU 5) DOMESTIC RELATIONS Out-of-State Support Order Registration(FJU5) Annulment/Invalidity(INV3)* Relinquishment(REL 5) with dependent children?Y/N;wife pregnant?Y/N Relocation Objection/Modification(MOD 5)* Child Custody(CUS 3)* Rescission of Acknowledgment of Paternity(PAT 5)* Nonparental Custody(CUS 3)* Rescission of Denial of Paternity(PAT 5)* Dissolution With Children (DIC 3)* Termination of Parent-Child Relationship(TER 5) Dissolution With No Children(DIN 3)* wife pregnant?Y/ N Enforcement/Show Cause-Out of County(MSC 3) Establish Residential Sched/Parenting Plan(PPS 3)*££ Establish Supprt Only(PPS 3)*££ DOMESTIC VIOLENCE/ANTIHARASSMENT Legal Separation(SEP 3)* Civil Harassment(HAR 2) with dependent children?Y/N;wife pregnant?Y/N Confidential Name Change(CHN 5) Mandatory Wage Assignment(MWA 3) Domestic Violence(DVP 2) Modification(MOD 3)* Domestic Violence with Children(DVC 2) Modification-Support Only(MDS 3)* Foreign Protection Order(FPO 2) Out-of-state Custody Order Registration(FJU 3) Vulnerable Adult Protection(VAP 2) Out-of-State Support Court Order Registration(FJU 3) Reciprocal,Respondent Out of County(ROC 3) Reciprocal,Respondent in County(RIC 3) Relocation Objection/Modification(MOD 3)* ££Paternity Affidavit or Existing/Patemity is not an issue and NO other case exists in King County*The filing party will be given an appropriate case schedule. **Case schedule will be issued after hearing and findings. Skase 2 L: forms/cashiers/tics Rev 01/05 KING COUNTY SUPERIOR COURT CASE ASSIGNMENT DESIGNATION and CASE INFORMATION COVER SHEET Please check one category that best describes this case for indexing purposes. Accurate case indexing not only saves time but helps in forecasting judicial resources. A faulty document fee of$15 will be assessed to new case filings missing this sheet pursuant to Administrative Rule 2 and King County Code 4.71.100. PROPERTY RIGHTS PROBATE/GUARDIANSHIP Condemnation/Eminent Domain(CON 2)* Absentee(ABS 4) Foreclosure(FOR 2)* Disclaimer(DSC4) XLand Use Petition(LUP 2)* Estate(EST 4) Property Fairness(PFA 2)* Foreign Will(FNW 4) Quiet Title(QTI 2)* Guardian(GDN4) Unlawful Detainer(UND 2) Limited Guardianship(LGD 4) Minor Settlement (MST 4) JUDGMENT Notice to Creditors—Only (NNC 4) Confession of Judgment(MSC 2)* Trust(TRS 4) Judgment,Another County,Abstract(ABJ 2) Trust Estate Dispute Resolution Act/POA(TDR 4) Judgment,Another State or Country(FJU 2) Will Only—Deceased (WLL4) Tax Warrant(TAX 2) Transcript of Judgment(TRJ 2) TORT,MEDICAL MALPRACTICE Hospital(MED 2)* OTHER COMPLAINT/PETITION Medical Doctor(MED 2)* Action to Compel/Confirm Private Binding Arbitration(MSC 2) Other Health Care Professional(MED 2)* Certificate of Rehabilitation(MSC 2) Change of Name(CHN 2) TORT,MOTOR VEHICLE Deposit of Surplus Funds(MSC 2) Death(TMV 2)* Emancipation of Minor(EOM 2) Non-Death Injuries(TMV 2)* Frivolous Claim of Lien(MSC 2) Property Damage Only(TMV 2)* Injunction(INJ 2)* Interpleader(MSC 2) TORT,NON-MOTOR VEHICLE Malicious Harassment(MHA 2)* Asbestos(PIN 2)** Non-Judicial Filing(MSC 2) Implants(PIN 2) Other Complaint/Petition(MSC 2)* Other Malpractice(MAL 2)* Seizure of Property from the Commission of a Crime(SPC 2)* Personal Injury(PIN 2)* Seizure of Property Resulting from a Crime(SPR 2)* Products Liability(TTO 2)* Structured Settlements(MSC 2)* Property Damage(PRP 2)* Subpoena(MSC 2) Wrongful Death(WDE 2)* Tort,Other(TTO 2)* WRIT Habeas Corpus(WHC 2) Mandamus(WRM 2)** Review(WRV 2)** *The filing party will be given an appropriate case schedule.**Case schedule will be issued after hearing and findings. 3 L:forms/cashiers/cics Rev 01/05 0, CITY OF RENTON COUNCIL AGENDA BILL illsie AI#: Y �(((///�JJ ~ SUBMITTING DATA: FOR AGENDA OF: 4/18/2005 Dept/Div/Board.. AJLS/City Clerk Staff Contact... Bonnie Walton AGENDA STATUS: Consent.... X SUBJECT: Public Hearing.. CRT-05-004; Court Case Correspondence.. ' SR 900 LLC and Quarry Industrial Park,LLC v. Ordinance... City of Renton and Herons Forever Resolution... Old Business New Business Study Session.... EXHIBITS: Other.... Summons and Land Use Petition RECOMMENDED ACTION: APPROVALS: Legal Dept Refer to City Attorney and Insurance Services Finance Dept.... . . Other 4161.1 FISCAL IMPACT: Expenditure Required... Transfer/Amendment.. Amount Budgeted Revenue Generated... SUMMARY OF ACTION: Summons and Land Use Petition filed in King County Superior Court on behalf of SR 900 LLC and Quarry Industrial Park,LLC, by David L. Halinen, Halinen Law Offices, P.S., 2115 N. 30th St., Suite 203,Tacoma,98403,requesting review of Renton's land use decisions regarding the Sunset Bluff residential development project (PP-04-002). . 1 2 3 RAT IGN 4 ;ITS'OF RENTON 5 APR 1 1 2005 c2:14op.m. 6 RECEIVED CLERK'S OFFICE 7 IN THE SUPERIOR COURT OF THE STATE OF WASHINGTON 8 IN AND FOR THE COUNTY OF KING 9 ) In re: Land Use Petition of SR 900 L.L.C., a ) NO. 05 - 2 s 11 95 0 1 } NT 10 Washington limited liability company, and ) QUARRY INDUSTRIAL PARK, LLC, a ) 1 l Washington limited liability company, ) SUMMONS 12 Petitioners, ) ) 13 v. CITY OF RENTON, a Washington municipal ) C C. jar 14 corporation, and HERONS FOREVER, a ) (1).4A-11- '_ 15 Washington non-profit corporation, ) Art. Respondents. ) p,e eii adfl//'215 1/ 16 ) 17 18 TO: Respondent CITY OF RENTON 19 AND TO: Respondent HERONS FOREVER 20 Petitioners have started an action in the above—entitled Court requesting review of the 21 land use decisions dated November 8, 2004 and March 21, 2005, pursuant to the Land Us: 22 Petition Act, Chapter 36.70C. RCW. Petitioners' claims are stated in the written Petition, . 23 copy of which is served upon you with this Summons. 24 HALINEN LAW OFFICES,P.S. SUMMONS 1 AProfessionalSernrcrCorpornbon Page2115 North 39h Street,Suite 203 Tacoma,WA 98403-3397 (206)493-4684/(253)627-6680 (253)272-9876 FAX An initial hearing will be set no sooner than thirty-five days and no later than fifty 2 days after the Petition is served on the parties. 3 You may, but need not, file an answer to the Petition. If you serve a Notice o 4 Appearance on the undersigned attorney, you are entitled to notice before a default judgment 5 may be entered. A default judgment is one where Petitioners are entitled to what they ask fo 6 because you have not responded. 7 Within fourteen days after service of the Petition on you, you shall disclose to tin 8 undersigned attorney the name and address of any person whom you know may be neede. 9 for just adjudication of the Petition. The Petitioners shall promptly name and serve any suc 10 person whom the Petitioners agree may be needed for just adjudication. If such person is no! i l named and served by Petitioners prior to the initial hearing, failure to join persons needed fo 12 just adjudication shall be waived unless you raise this issue by timely motion noted to b: 13 heard at the initial hearing. 14 If you wish to seek the advice of an attorney in this matter, you should do so promptl 15 so that your written response, if any, may be served on time. 16 DATED this 11th day of April, 2005. 17 18 HALINEN LAW OFFICES, P.S. 19 t � 20 By: p. • David L. Halin-n 21 WSBA #15923 22 Of Attorneys for Petitioners SR 900 L.L.C. and Quarry Industrial Park, LLC 23 24 HALINEN LAW OFFICES,P.S. SUMMONS — Page 2 A Professional Service Corporation 2115 North 30'h Street,Suite 203 Tacoma,WA 98403-3397 (206)443-4684/(253)627-6680 (253)272-9876 FAX T. 2 ":I Y OF RENTON 3 4 APR 1 1 2005 .2:110 p.m. RECEIVED 5 CITYCLERK'S OFFICE 6 IN THE SUPERIOR COURT OF THE STATE OF WASHINGTON 7 IN AND FOR THE COUNTY OF KING 8 SR 900 L.L.C., a Washington limited liability ) 9 company, and QUARRY INDUSTRIAL ) PARK, LLC, a Washington limited liability ) 10 company, ) 0 5 — 2 — 119 5 0 — 1 Ic NT NO. 11 Petitioners, ) 17 v. ) LAND USE PETITION ) 13 CITY OF RENTON, a Washington municipal ) corporation, and HERONS FOREVER, a ) Washington non-profit corporation, ) 14 ) Respondents. ) 15 ) 16 Pursuant to the requirements of RCW 36.70C.070, Petitioners state and allege as 17 follows: 18 19 I. Names and Mailing Addresses of the Petitioners 20 1. The Petitioners are SR 900 L.L.C., a Washington limited liability company, 21 (the "Applicant" in the proceedings below and referred to as such herein or as "SR 900 22 LLC"), which is the owner of the site of the subject proposed residential subdivision, and 23 QUARRY INDUSTRIAL PARK, LLC, a Washington limited liability company (`QIP"), 24 which is the owner of land abutting that site (across which land, with QIP's consent, a road Page 1 HALINEN LAW OFFICES,P.S. LAND USE PETITION - Pa g A Professional Service Corporation 2115 North 30th Street,Suite 203 COPYTa06)4mWA 98403- 977 (2 443-4684/(253)627-6680 (253)272-9876 FAX is proposed in conjunction with the proposed residential subdivision). The Applicant's mailing address is "SR 900 L.L.C., 9125-10th Avenue South, Seattle, Washington 98108- 2 3 4612". QIP's mailing address is "Quarry Industrial Park, LLC, 9125-10th Avenue South, 4 Seattle, Washington 98108-4612". 5 IL Names and Mailing Addresses of the Petitioners' Attorneys 6 2. The Petitioners' attorneys are David L. Halinen and Halinen Law Offices, 7 P.S. and Richard L. Settle and Foster Pepper & Shefelman, PLLC. Their mailing 8 addresses are "David L. Halinen, Halinen Law Offices, P.S., 2115 N. 30th Street, Suite 9 203, Tacoma, Washington 98403-3397" and "Richard L. Settle, Foster Pepper & 10 Shefelman, PLLC, 1111 31.`1 Ave Ste 3400, Seattle, Washington 98101". 11 III. Name and Mailing Address of the Local Jurisdiction 12 Whose Decisions Are at Issue 13 3. Respondent CITY OF RENTON (the "City"), a political subdivision of the 14 State of Washington, is the local jurisdiction whose decisions are at issue. The City's 15 mailing address is "City of Renton do Renton City Clerk, 1055 S. Grady Way, Seventh 16 Floor, Renton, Washington 98055". 17 IV. Identification of the Local Jurisdiction's 18 Decision-Making Body and Decisions 19 4. The local jurisdiction's decision-making body is the RENTON CITY 20 COUNCIL (hereinafter, the"City Council" or"Council"). 21 5. Two City Council decisions are the subject of this Land Use Petition, both 22 of which relate to the Applicant's proposed 65-lot "Sunset Bluff' residential subdivision 23 development project in Renton: 24 HALINEN LAW OFFICES,P.S. LAND USE PETITION - Page 2 A Professional Service Corporation 2115 North 30th Street,Suite 203 Tacoma,WA 98403-3397 (206)443-4684/(253)627-6680 (253)272-9876 FAX (a) Council Decision 1: The City Council's November 8, 2004 grant (in substantial part) of an appeal by the Applicant to reverse an August 3, 2 3 2004 decision by the City of Renton Hearing Examiner (the 4 "Examiner") that had granted respondent Herons Forever's SEPA 5 threshold determination appeal to the Examiner of a determination of 6 [environmental] non-significance-mitigated (DNS-M) for Applicant's 7 proposed Sunset Bluff project that the City of Renton's Environmental 8 Review Committee ("ERC") had issued on February 24, 2004--a copy 9 of the minutes of the Council's November 8, 2004 meeting summarizing 10 the Council's action (Attachment A hereto), a copy of the November 8, 11 2004 Majority Report of the Council's Planning & Development 12 Committee that the full Council adopted (Attachment B hereto), a copy 13 of the Examiner's August 3, 2004 underlying decision that the Council 14 15 reversed (Attachment C hereto) and a copy of the ERC's February 24, 16 2004 SEPA threshold determination (DNS-M) that the Examiner 17 reversed (Attachment D hereto) are all herewith attached (and,for the 18 convenience of the court and the parties, a copy of the portion of the 19 Examiner's August 3, 2004 underlying decision--from page 46 thereof 20 to the end of it with the amendments made to the Findings of Fact and 21 Conclusions interlineated thereon--is attached as Attachment E);1 and 22 23 I While the Petitioners strongly agree with Council Decision l's reversal of the Hearing 24 Examiner's underlying decision (the decision that had reversed the Environmental Review Committee's SEPA threshold Determination of Nonsignificance-Mitigated) and most of the Council's Findings of Fact and Conclusions in support of that decision, in this Land Use HALINEN LAW OFFICES,P.S. LAND USE PETITION - Page 3 A Professional Service Corporation 2115 North 30th Street,Suite 203 Tacoma,WA 98403-3397 (206)443-4684/(253)627-6680 (253)272-9876 FAX (b) Council Decision 2: The City Council's March 21, 2005 approval (subject to conditions) of the Applicant's proposed preliminary plat 2 3 following cross-appeals by the Applicant and by Respondent Herons 4 Forever of a December 20, 2004 report by the Examiner setting forth 5 findings of fact, conclusions and alternative recommendations 6 concerning the proposed preliminary plat--a copy of the minutes of the 7 Council's March 21, 2005 meeting summarizing the Council's action 8 (Attachment F hereto), a copy of the March 21, 2005 Planning & 9 Development Committee Report that the full Council adopted 10 (Attachment G hereto) and a copy of the Examiner's December 20, 11 2004 underlying decision that the Council affirmed (Attachment H 12 hereto) are all herewith attached.2 13 While Petitioners obviously agree with. the Council's approval of the plat 14 15 application, Petitioners legally challenge certain extremely onerous, unnecessary, unlawful, 16 and unconstitutional conditions imposed on the plat approval in Council Decision 2. 17 6. Council Decisions 1 and 2 are "Land use decisions" under RCW 18 36.70C.020(1)(a) because they embody the final determination of the City of Renton's 19 20 Petition the Petitioners (a) challenge and appeal certain of the Findings of Fact and 21 Conclusions that are set forth in Decision 1 and (b) assert other grounds for rejection of Herons Forever's SEPA threshold determination appeal to the Renton Hearing Examiner, 22 which will be relevant if Heron's Forever files a land use petition appealing Council Decision 1. 23 2 In this Land Use Petition the Petitioners challenge and appeal certain of the Findings of 24 Fact, Conclusions and Conditions of Approval set forth (and/or adopted by reference) in Council Decision 2. HALINEN LAW OFFICES,P.S. LAND USE PETITION - Page 4 A Professional Service Corporation 2115 North 30th Street,Suite 203 Tacoma,WA 98403-3397 (206)443-4684/(253)627-6680 (253)272-9876 FAX body with the highest level of authority (authority to hear appeals) to make the 1 determination on "[a]n application for a project permit or other governmental approval 2 3 required by law before real property may be improved, developed . . . or used . . . ." 4 V. Identification of Each Person to be Made a Party Under RCW 36.70C.040(2)(b) through (d) 5 7. Respondent Herons Forever is a party hereto under RCW 36.70C.040(2)(d). 6 Heron's Forever was named in both Council Decisions 1 and 2 and filed appeals to City of 7 Renton quasi-judicial decision makers regarding the proposed Sunset Bluff residential 8 9 subdivision at issue in this case. 10 VI. Facts Demonstrating That the Petitioners Have Standing to Seek Judicial Review Under RCW 36.70C.060 11 8. The Applicant has standing under RCW 36.70C.060 to seek judicial review 12 of Council Decisions 1 and 2 because, in relation to subsection(1) thereof: 13 (a) The Applicant is the applicantfor the "Sunset Bluff' residential 14 15 subdivision, the proposed subdivision of land that is the subject of both 16 of the Council Decisions; and 17 (b) The Applicant is the owner of the land concerning which the "Sunset 18 Bluff'residential subdivision is proposed. 19 9. Petitioner QIP has standing under RCW 36.70C.060 to seek judicial review 20 of Council Decisions 1 and 2 because, in relation to subsection (1) thereof, (a) QIP is the 21 owner of land abutting the Sunset Bluff site on which a portion of a proposed public street 22 cul-de-sac and a proposed emergency vehicle access road are proposed in conjunction with 23 and to support the development of the proposed Sunset Bluff residential subdivision and 24 (b) a portion of the land use decision thereby relates to QIP's abutting land. HALINEN LAW OFFICES,P.S. LAND USE PETITION - Page 5 A Professional Service Corporation 2115 North 30'h Street,Suite 203 Tacoma,WA 98403-3397 (206)443-4684/(253)627-6680 (253)272-9876 FAX VII. Statements of Error Petitioners hereby challenge and appeal (a) certain of the Findings of Fact and 2 3 Conclusions underlying Council Decision 1 and Council Decision 2 and (b) certain of the 4 Conditions of Approval set forth in Council Decision 2 as described in this Section VII. 5 A. Statements of Error Relating to Council Decision 1 6 10. Examiner's Finding of Fact 17 underlying Council Decision 1 is "not 7 supported by evidence that is substantial when viewed in light of the whole record before 8 the court" for purposes of RCW 36.70C.130(1)(c) because the Examiner distorted the 9 Renton Development Services Division's Staff Report statement on page 3 of the report 10 that "the applicant has proposed to remove the majority of the on-site vegetation" 11 (emphasis added) in saying in this Finding of Fact that "Staff noted that "almost all the 12 vegetation would be removed from the subject site" (emphasis added) and then quoting 13 the Staff Report's statement for support. In fact, the Applicant proposes to leave 4.7 acres 14 15 of the 26.26-acre Sunset Bluff site (i.e., 18 percent of the site) perpetually undisturbed 16 within a native growth protection easement. 17 11. Examiner's Finding of Fact 19 underlying Council Decision 1 is "not 18 supported by evidence that is substantial when viewed in light of the whole record before 19 the court" for purposes of RCW 36.70C.130(1)(c) because in this finding the Examiner (a) 20 resorted to a single, contextless, emotionally charged adjective to describe the proposed 21 grading activity(callinit"immense")rather than factually describing the gradingthat was 22 contemplated and (b) falsely stated that the grading activity"will reshape the entire parcel" 23 (emphasis added) even though the record is replete with evidence of the proposed 4.7-acre 24 native growth protection easement. LAND USE PETITION Page 6 HALINEN LAW OFFICES,P.S. g A Professional Service Corporation 2115 North 30th Street,Suite 203 Tacoma,WA 98403-3397 (206)443-4684/(253)627-6680 (253)272-9876 FAX 12. Examiner's Finding of Fact 24 underlying Council Decision 1 is "not 1 supported by evidence that is substantial when viewed in light of the whole record before 2 3 the court" for purposes of RCW 36.70C.130(1)(c) in that, although it briefly mentions that 4 "the rezone of the site was accompanied by a development agreement" and notes that the 5 agreement "requires the construction of a 6-foot fence along the south side of the 6 development" and "provides that the development contain not more than 69 detached 7 residential units", it improperly fails to state any of the following key facts (the "Site's 8 Zoning History and Development Agreement Key Facts"): 9 (a) Prior to the City's 2001 annexation of the portion of the site that was 10 then in unincorporated King County, the site's overall zoning gave the 11 Sunset Bluff site a potential of 842 multi-family units plus 1.5 million 12 square feet of office development; 13 (b) In contemplation.of the then-pending annexation, in 200.1 the Renton 14 15 City Council adopted RM-I (Residential Multi-family-Infill) zoning for 16 all of the site(other than the 1.08 RC-zoned acres in the site's southwest 17 corner), subject to a development agreement (Exhibit 59) that allowed 18 only up to 260 multi-family residential units on the site; 19 (c) The current development agreement (which superseded the first one) 20 was executed between Petitioner Sunset Bluff LLC and the City of 21 Renton pursuant to RCW 36.70B.170 and as authorized by the Renton 22 City Council during 2003 in conjunction with both (1) a comprehensive 23 plan land use map amendment of a 25.18-acre portion of the site from 24 RM-I to the Residential Options designation(RO) and (2) a site-specific HALINEN LAW OFFICES,P.S. LAND USE PETITION - Page 7 A Professional Service Corporation 2115 North 30th Street,Suite 203 Tacoma,WA 98403-3397 (206)443-4684/(253)627-6680 (253)272-9876 FAX rezone (downzone) of that portion of the site from its previous RM-I 1 zoning to the City's R-10 zone following a public hearing that Suzanne 2 3 Krom, the president of Herons Forever,participated in; 4 (d) The City's Environmental Review Committee issued a declaration of 5 nonsignificance (DNS) concerning the comprehensive plan amendment 6 and rezone in view of the then-proposed development agreement's 7 special development standards and no appeal(s) of the DNS were timely 8 filed; 9 (e) The 2003 comprehensive plan land use map amendment, the downzone 10 and the development agreement's special development standards were 11 all intended to mitigate the potential for development impacts to the 12 Black River heron colony about which Herons Forever had expressed 13 . concerns to the City; 14 15 (f) The agreement's special development standards provides (1) a 16 prohibition on construction of residential or recreation buildings on the 17 site within 100 feet of the portion of the Burlington Northern and Santa 18 Fe Railroad right-of-way that abuts the Sunset Bluff site's south 19 boundary, (2) an allowance for only up to 69 single-family residential 20 lots for single-family detached homes,3 and (3) a requirement for 21 installation of a fence along the south side of the development--all of 22 which provide mitigation for the contemplated residential development 23 24 HALINEN LAW OFFICES,P.S. LAND USE PETITION - Page 8 A Professional Service Corporation 2115 North 30th Street,Suite 203 Tacoma,WA 98403-3397 (206)443-4684/(253)627-6680 (253)272-9876 FAX of the Sunset Bluff site in relation to the heron colony to the south, the 1 nearest point of which lies 900 feet south of the railroad right-of-way 2 3 (1,000 feet south of the nearest edge of the site); 4 (g) The agreement states that stormwater facilities are anticipated to be 5 constructed along the southerly portion of the site in conjunction with 6 residential development of the site; 7 (h) Herons Forever did not appeal any of the City Council decisions 8 approving the site's comprehensive plan land use map amendment, 9 rezone or development agreement or the SEPA threshold determination 10 underlying those decisions; 11 (i) The agreement provided(in Section 5 thereof)that: 12 "Development of the Property shall not be subject to a new zoning 13 ordinance or an amendment to a zoning ordinance or to a 14 15 development regulation or standard adopted by the City after the 16 effective date of this Development Agreement unless (a) otherwise 17 provided in this Development Agreement or (b) agreed to by the 18 owner(s) of any of the portion(s) of the Property to which such new 19 zoning ordinance or an amendment to a zoning ordinance or 20 development regulation or standard shall apply or (c) in the case of a 21 new or amended development regulation the regulation is one that the 22 23 24 3 But for the development agreement's 69-unit restriction on the number of single-family detached homes allowed on the site, the site's R-10 zoning would have allowed up to 13 single-family detached units per net developable acre of the site. HALINEN LAW OFFICES,P.S. LAND USE PETITION - Page 9 A Professional Service Corporation 2115 North 30th Street,Suite 203 Tacoma,WA 98403-3397 (206)443-4684/(253)627-6680 (253)272-9876 FAX City was required to adopt or amend because of requirements of state or federal law" (emphasis added); and 2 3 (j) Under RCW 36.70B.180, "[a] permit or approval [such as plat 4 approval] issued by the county or city after the execution of the 5 development agreement must be consistent with the development 6 agreement." 7 13. Examiner's Finding of Fact 27 underlying Council Decision 1 (as amended 8 in Council Decision 1) is "not supported by evidence that is substantial when viewed in 9 light of the whole record before the court" for purposes of RCW 36.70C.130(1)(c) in that it 10 misleadingly refers to a "closed quarry site" adjacent to the west of the Sunset Bluff site 11 even though the record makes clear beyond any dispute that the industrial-zoned property 12 to the west of the site (the property that is owned by Petitioner QIP) has on it a major 13 outdoor heavy industrial facility involving .construction materials recycling activities, 14 15 concrete batching, outdoor equipment and material storage, and a contractor's office. 16 14. The fifth sentence of Examiner's Finding of Fact 28 underlying Council 17 Decision 1 (as amended in Council Decision 1) is "not supported by evidence that is 18 substantial when viewed in light of the whole record before the court" for purposes of 19 RCW 36.70C.130(1)(c) in that it asserts that statements made by one of the appellant's 20 witnesses, wetland biologist Dianne Sheldon, concerning changes in drainage releases that 21 she contends will result from the proposal (statements purportedly summarized in the first 22 23 24 HALINEN LAW OFFICES,P.S. LAND USE PETITION - Page 10 A Professional Service Corporation 2115 North 30th Street,Suite 203 Tacoma,WA 98403-3397 (206)443-4684/(253)627-6680 (253)272-9876 FAX four sentences of Finding of Fact 28) "had not been assessed by the documentation available to the ERC4 and public" when, in fact, the record demonstrates that: 2 3 (a) The main points made by Ms. Sheldon had been included in: 4 (i) A February 7, 2004 letter (Exhibit 80) from another one of 5 Herons Forever's expert witnesses, Kate Stenberg of Quailcroft 6 Environmental Services, to planner Jason Jordan of the City of 7 Renton Development Services Division, a letter that was 8 included in the City's Sunset Bluff project file (Exhibit 1), a file 9 that was available for review by the public; and 10 (ii) A February 9, 2004 letter from Becky Stanley of the Sierra 11 Club's Cascade Chapter to Mr. Jordan, a letter that was also 12 contained in the Exhibit 1 file and available for review by the 13 public; and • • 14 15 (b) Mr. Jordan had testified that the ERC had considered the points made in 16 both of those letters before it issued the DNS-M concerning the Sunset 17 Bluff proposal; and 18 (c) Mr. Jordan, the Development Services Division's representative at the 19 appeal hearing, testified at the end of the hearing that nothing that he 20 had heard during the course of the hearing would have caused him to 21 make a different recommendation to the ERC. 22 23 24 4 The"ERC" is the City's Environmental Review Committee,which serves as the"SEPA Responsible Official" for purposes of WAC 197-11-788. HALINEN LAW OFFICES,P.S. LAND USE PETITION - Page 11 A Professional Service Corporation 2115 North 30th Street,Suite 203 Tacoma,WA 98403-3397 (206)443-4684/(253)627-6680 (253)272-9876 FAX 15. Examiner's Finding of Fact 30 underlying Council Decision 1 is "not 1 2 supported by evidence that is substantial when viewed in light of the whole record before 3 the court" for purposes of RCW 36.70C.130(1)(c) in that it: 4 (a) Twice asserts that grading to a depth of 70 feet was proposed despite 5 the fact that the project drawings in the record show grading ranging 6 from 0 feet to a maximum depth of only about 35 feet and the 7 Applicant's engineer specifically testified as to such a maximum depth 8 of grading; 9 (b) Asserts (i) in the first sentence thereof that Mr. Butail testified that the 10 [soil] test pits "only went to a depth of 17 feet", (ii) in the fourth 11 sentence thereof that Mr. Butail "testified that the normal standard of 12 care is to test bore to at least the level of excavation" and (iii) in the 13 fourth sentence thereof that he "suggested that on a site with steep 14 15 slopes such as this, waiting for field results during actual excavation and 16 reacting at that time to discoveries would be improper and could be 17 disastrous" but misleadingly fails to note in this finding that five 18 borings ranging in depth between 30 and 73 feet had already been 19 performed (the descriptions of those borings were submitted into the 20 record as part of Exhibit 20, the Geotechnical Engineering Study 21 Addendum); and 22 (c) Misleadingly fails to note that, during cross-examination by the 23 Applicant's attorney, Mr. Butail admitted that (i) he realized that the 24 proposed subdivision is currently being reviewed by the City as part of HALINEN LAW OFFICES,P.S. LAND USE PETITION - Page 12 A Professional Service Corporation 2115 North 30th Street,Suite 203 Tacoma,WA 98403-3397 (206)443-4684/(253)627-6680 (253)272-9876 FAX • the preliminary plat process,5 (ii) he realized that the City will 1 subsequently conduct a construction plan review process, (iii) during 2 3 that subsequent process more detailed engineering and further analyses 4 are ordinarily done when needed to address the details of the concerns 5 that he expressed during the hearing, (iv) if he were the project engineer 6 during that process he would make sure that those details were attended 7 to, and (v)he anticipated that that could be accomplished. 8 16. Examiner's Finding of Fact 35 underlying Council Decision 1 is "not 9 supported by evidence that is substantial when viewed in light of the whole record before 10 the court" for purposes of RCW 36.70C.130(1)(c), in view of the fact that, among other 11 things: 12 (a) That finding's last sentence asserts that Herons Forever's witness Dr. 13 Stenberg "mentioned that the Washington State Department of Fish and 14 15 Wildlife has made recommendations for working around heron colonies 16 and they found that working within approximately 2,600 feet creates 17 problems and recommended 3,200 feet as a distance in which no 18 construction or logging occur" but that statement is directly refuted by 19 20 5 Subsection(4) of RCW 58.17.020 (Definitions), a portion of Chapter 58.17 RCW (Plats— Subdivisions—Dedications), states: 21 (4) "Preliminary plat" is a neat and approximate drawing of a proposed 22 subdivision showing the general layout of streets and alleys, lots, blocks, and 23 other elements of a subdivision consistent with the requirements of this chapter. The preliminary plat shall be the basis for the approval or disapproval of 24 the general layout of a subdivision. (Emphasis added.) HALINEN LAW OFFICES,P.S. LAND USE PETITION - Page 13 A Professional Service Corporation 2115 North 30th Street,Suite 203 Tacoma,WA 98403-3397 (206)443-4684/(253)627-6680 (253)272-9876 FAX the hearing testimony of the Washington State Department of Fish and Wildlife's ("WDFW's") Patricia Thompson, a witness that Herons 2 3 Forever called to testify, who stated that WDFW recommends (but does 4 not have any regulations requiring) a "permanent protection buffer [of 5 300 meters or 928 feet], into which, basically, no intrusion should 6 occur" and "where no activity is supposed to take place" and a 7 "construction buffer [of 1,000 meters], where timing restrictions are 8 imposed on logging and construction" (emphasis added);6 and 9 10 11 6 At the May 10, 2004 continuation of the hearing below, the Applicant called Dr. Ken Raedeke to testify and present documentary surrebuttal evidence as to the baseless 12 nature of the WDFW recommendations (and to provide other surrebuttal testimony and evidence). (The Applicant did so after, at the end of the April 29, 2004 day of hearing, the 13 Hearing Examiner had on the record okayed the applicant calling Dr. Raedeke back to testify and none of the other parties to the proceeding raised any objections thereto.) 14 15 Even though the Hearing Examiner had assented to the return of Dr. Raedeke, when the Applicant actually called him to testify on May 10, 2004 (after he had made substantial 16 preparations for his testimony during the intervening twelve-day period), the Hearing Examiner nevertheless refused to permit him to provide any such surrebuttal testimony or 17 other evidence despite the Applicant's insistence that such testimony and other evidence was proper and should be allowed. The Applicant immediately sought to make an offer of 18 proof but the Examiner(a) limited it to the marking of(unadmitted) Exhibits 84 through 90 and (b) refused to allow Dr. Raedeke from explaining what they were about and why they 19 were being proffered. On May 13, 2004, the Applicant then submitted a detailed, 11-page "Motion to Reopen the Hearing to Allow Surrebuttal Testimony" and followed up with a 20 five-page May 24, 2004 Reply but the Hearing Examiner summarily denied the motion on 21 the ground that the"strict rules of evidence" do not apply to administrative hearings. 22 In the Applicant's June 11, 2004 Closing Brief, the Applicant set forth two pages of argument addressing the legal and constitutional due process violations (including violation 23 of Washington's Appearance of Fairness Doctrine) that occurred when the Examiner refused to allow the surrebuttal testimony. However, in the Hearing Examiner's August 3, 24 2004 underlying decision reversing the ERC's SEPA threshold determination, the Hearing Examiner totally disregarded the Applicant's argument. In Council Decision 1, the City Council likewise disregarded the Applicant's arguments regarding those violations. The HALINEN LAW OFFICES,P.S. LAND USE PETITION - Page 14 A Professional Seance Corporation 2115 North 30th Street,Suite 203 Tacoma,WA 98403-3397 (206)443-4684/(253)627-6680 (253)272-9876 FAX (b) That finding's last sentence asserts that "in urban King County studies 1 have found colonies shrink where there is development within 1,000 2 3 feet" despite the fact that (a) no such studies to that effect were 4 produced or directly referenced anywhere in the record and (b) to the 5 contrary the Amy Stabins study on Great Blue Herons in King County 6 (a complete copy of which is in the record as Exhibit 40) found not only 7 no such correlation between shrinking of heron colonies and 8 development within 1,000 feet but an inverse correlation (i.e., colony 9 success or failure was to some extent positively related to the amount of 10 human disturbance around the nests—a summary of that phenomenon 11 that the Stabins study found was set forth on pages 7 and 8 of the Great 12 Blue Heron Assessment for the Sunset Bluff Residential Subdivision 13 prepared by University of Washington research professor and wildlife 14 15 consultant Ken Raedeke, PhD (Exhibit 39) and described further in Dr. 16 Raedeke's hearing testimony). 17 17. The first sentence of Examiner's Finding of Fact 37 underlying Council 18 Decision 1 (the sentence that reads: "Dr. Stenberg noted that Fish and Wildlife 19 recommendations were based on the best available science") is improper because, for 20 purposes of RCW 36.70C.130(1)(a), the Hearing Examiner engaged in unlawful procedure 21 and, for purposes of RCW 36.70C.130(1)(f), the Hearing Examiner violated the 22 constitutional rights of the Applicant by violating the Appearance of Fairness doctrine and 23 24 Examiner's procedural error and corresponding due process violations were perpetuated by the City Council and are appealed to this court,below. HALINEN LAW OFFICES,P.S. LAND USE PETITION - Page 15 A Professional Service Corporation 2115 North 30th Street,Suite 203 Tacoma,WA 98403-3397 (206)443-4684/(253)627-6680 (253)272-9876 FAX other legal and constitutional due process rights of the Applicant in refusing to allow the Applicant to present surrebuttal testimony and evidence that would have demonstrated that 2 3 the Fish and Wildlife recommendations were not only not "based on best available 4 science"but were without any scientific basis. 5 18. The last sentence of Examiner's Finding of Fact 37 underlying Council 6 Decision 1 (the sentence that reads: "She [Dr. Stenberg] recommended mid-January to the 7 end of July, which does not accommodate fully the late nesters") is improper because, for 8 purposes of RCW 36.70C.130(1)(c), the recommendation contained in that sentence is"not 9 supported by evidence that is substantial when viewed in light of the whole record before 10 the court" (evidence that, among other things, demonstrated that the Black River Heron 11 colony expanded even immediately following logging and grading that occurred within 12 two or three hundred feet of the Black River heron colony during February 1987). 13 19. Examiner's Finding of Fact 38 underlying Council Decision 1 is "not 14 15 supported by evidence that is substantial when viewed in light of the whole record before 16 the court" for purposes of RCW 36.70C.130(1)(c) and is a statement of rank speculation, a 17 statement that Dr. Ken Raedeke refuted during his hearing testimony as baseless. 18 20. Examiner's Finding of Fact 39 underlying Council Decision 1 is "not 19 supported by evidence that is substantial when viewed in light of the whole record before 20 the court" for purposes of RCW 36.70C.130(1)(c). Also, it is legally irrelevant to the issues 21 in this case and its inclusion "is an erroneous interpretation of the law, after allowing for 22 such deference as is due the construction of a law by a local jurisdiction with expertise" for 23 purposes of RCW 36.70C.130(1)(b). 24 HALINEN LAW OFFICES,P.S. LAND USE PETITION - Page 16 A Professional Service Corporation 2115 North 30th Street,Suite 203 Tacoma,WA 98403-3397 (206)443-4684/(253)627-6680 (253)272-9876 FAX 21. Examiner's Finding of Fact 40 underlying Council Decision 1 is "not supported by evidence that is substantial when viewed in light of the whole record before 2 3 the court" for purposes of RCW 36.70C.130(1)(c) and is irrelevant and unfairly prejudicial, 4 especially in view of(a) the demonstrated growth of the Black River heron colony over its 5 roughly 20-year history and (b) Dr. Ken Raedeke's testimony as to natural fluctuations in 6 wildlife populations over time and the lack of any demonstrated causal connection between 7 the heron colony and the events referred to by Ms. Krom that are noted in that Finding of 8 Fact. 9 22. Examiner's Finding of Fact 41 underlying Council Decision 1 is "not 10 supported by evidence that is substantial when viewed in light of the whole record before 11 the court" for purposes of RCW 36.70C.130(1)(c) and is irrelevant and unfairly prejudicial, 12 especially in view of the most likely cause of the move: the documented eagle predation 13 that occurred just prior to the construction of the Black River Corporate Park building to 14 15 the south of the "main colony tree" (i.e., the main nest tree in the area where the heron 16 colony primarily started during the mid-1980s), predation that the hearing testimony of 17 both Dr. Ken Raedeke and Ms. Theresa Dusek indicated would cause the heron to seek the 18 current nesting area, an area where there is more shelter against eagle predation than in the 19 trees within the original"main colony" area. 20 23. The entirety of the last sentence of Examiner's Finding of Fact 42 21 underlying Council Decision 1 (as amended in Council Decision 1) is "not supported by 22 evidence that is substantial when viewed in light of the whole record before the court" for 23 purposes of RCW 36.70C.130(1)(c). 24 HALINEN LAW OFFICES,P.S. LAND USE PETITION - Page 17 A Professional Service Corporation 2115 North 30th Street,Suite 203 Tacoma,WA 98403-3397 (206)443-4684/(253)627-6680 (253)272-9876 FAX 24. Examiner's Finding of Fact 49 underlying Council Decision 1 is "not 1 2 supported by evidence that is substantial when viewed in light of the whole record before 3 the court" for purposes of RCW 36.70C.130(1)(c) in that it asserted that the depressional 4 wetland (which lies in the City park to the south of the railroad right-of-way south of the 5 site) is about "3.5 feet" at its deepest while no evidence in the record concerning the depth 6 indicates a 3.5-foot depth but Dr. Ed McCarthy's Wetland Hydrologic Assessment report 7 (Exhibit 33)indicates that it is about"3.2 feet" at its deepest. 8 25. The second sentence of Examiner's Finding of Fact 52 underlying Council 9 Decision 1 (the sentence that reads "[One nest is visible in winter") is misleading and thus 10 "not supported by evidence that is substantial when viewed in light of the whole record 11 before the court" for purposes of RCW 36.70C.130(1)(c) in failing to more fully state (to 12 provide the relevant context) that, due to the forest in the City park in which the heron 13 colony is. located, only one nest of the more than 130 active nests in the subject heron 14 15 colony is visible from the Sunset Bluff site during the winter and that none of them are 16 visible from the site during the rest of the year. 17 26. The last clause of the next to the last sentence as well as the entirety of the 18 last sentence of Examiner's Finding of Fact 54 underlying Council Decision 1 contain 19 misleading distortions of Dr. Ken Raedeke's testimony and as such are "not supported by 20 evidence that is substantial when viewed in light of the whole record before the court" for 21 purposes of RCW 36.70C.130(1)(c). In addition, Finding of Fact 54 is misleading for its 22 omission of many of the very relevant points relating to Black River Heron Colony Buffers 23 set forth in Section 3.2 of Dr. Raedeke's report concerning the Black River Heron Colony 24 LAND USE PETITION -Page 18 HALINEN LAW OFFICES,P.S. A Professional Service Corporation 2115 North 30th Street,Suite 203 Tacoma,WA 98403-3397 (206)443-4684/(253)627-6680 (253)272-9876 FAX in relation to the Sunset Bluff proposal (Exhibit 39), points that are crucial to 1 understanding the factual context of the surroundings of the Black River Heron Colony. 2 3 27. Examiner's Findings of Fact 55 through 59 underlying Council Decision 1, 4 which are based upon the hearing testimony of WDFW's Patricia Thompson, are all 5 improper because, for purposes of RCW 36.70C.130(1)(a), the Hearing Examiner engaged 6 in unlawful procedure by violating the Appearance of Fairness doctrine and other legal and 7 constitutional rights of the Applicant in refusing to allow the Applicant to put on 8 surrebuttal testimony and evidence in response to Ms. Thompson's testimony. Further, 9 Findings of Fact 55 through 59 are "not supported by evidence that is substantial when 10 viewed in light of the whole record before the court" for purposes of RCW 11 36.70C.130(1)(c). 7 12 13 14 7With respect to Finding of Fact 57, in contrast to the speculative testimony of Herons 15 Forever's witnesses, the Applicant introduced into the record through the testimony of Dr. Ken Raedeke (in addition to his own report, Exhibit 39, and copies of other heron study 16 reports) a copy of the report of Amy J. Stabins' study of Great Blue Herons in King County (Exhibit 40), which was a statistical analysis of collected field data concerning heron 17 colonies throughout King County. On page 57 thereof, the report concludes: 18 The probability of colony success increases as the proportion of areas of high human activity increases. Perhaps the colonies gain some protection from 19 bald eagle predation by their proximity to human activity. Eagles may be reluctant to stay within close proximity to humans for the time it takes to predate 20 a sufficient number of nests to lower the overall productivity of the colony. 21 (Emphasis added.) Also, on page 3 thereof,the Stabins report notes that: 22 In a 1991 survey of all known heron colonies in King County, Stabins and 23 Raedeke (1992) found that the effective buffer around colonies ranged from 17 to 91 meters, with the average at 49.8 meters. The effective buffer is the distance 24 from the edge of a colony site to the nearest human activity. (Emphasis added.) HALINEN LAW OFFICES,P.S. LAND USE PETITION - Page 19 A Professional Service Corporation 2115 North 30th Street,Suite 203 Tacoma,WA 98403-3397 (206)443-4684/(253)627-6680 (253)272-9876 FAX 28. Examiner's Findings of Fact 62 and 63 underlying Council Decision 1 are both "not supported by evidence that is substantial when viewed in light of the whole 2 3 record before the court" for purposes of RCW 36.70C.130(1)(c) because these findings of 4 fact are based solely upon purported materials that are not in the record. 5 29. The last sentence of Examiner's Conclusion 9 (as amended in Council 6 Decision 1) is (a) "an erroneous interpretation of the law" for purposes of RCW 7 36.70C.130(1)(b) and/or (b) a "clearly erroneous application of the law to the facts" for 8 purposes of RCW 36.70C.130(1)(d) and/or(c) is outside the authority of the Examiner and 9 City Council to decide inasmuch as the Applicant raised numerous other issues before the 10 Examiner and Council in relation to Herons Forever's SEPA threshold determination 11 appeal including, without limitation, issues set forth and described in: 12 (i) The Applicant's May 13, 2004 Motion to the Hearing Examiner to 13 Reopen the Hearing to Allow Surrebuttal Testimony and the Applicant's 14 15 May 24, 2004 Reply; 16 (ii) The Applicant's June 11, 2004 Closing Brief following the close of the 17 hearing before the Examiner; 18 (iii) The Applicant's August 17, 2004 Appeal to the City Council of the 19 Examiner's August 3, 2004 Decision concerning Herons Forever's SEPA 20 threshold determination appeal; and 21 (iv) The Applicant's October 21, 2004 Oral Argument Outline submitted to 22 the Renton City Council's Planning & Development Committee and the 23 actual oral argument made by the Applicant's attorneys before that 24 committee. HALINEN LAW OFFICES,P.S. LAND USE PETITION - Page 20 A Professional Service Corporation 2115 North 30th Street,Suite 203 Tacoma,WA 98403-3397 (206)443-4684/(253)627-6680 (253)272-9876 FAX All of those other issues raised therein by the Applicant are incorporated herein by 1 reference. 2 3 30. The second, third and fourth sentences of Examiner's Conclusion 10 (as 4 amended in Council Decision 1) are "not supported by evidence that is substantial when 5 viewed in light of the whole record before the court" for purposes of RCW 6 36.70C.130(1)(c) because those sentences are based solely upon purported materials that 7 are nowhere in the record. 8 B. Statements of Error Relating to Council Decision 2 9 31. Examiner's Finding of Fact 2 underlying Council Decision 2 is "not 10 supported by evidence that is substantial when viewed in light of the whole record before 11 the court" for purposes of RCW 36.70C.130(1)(c) in that it refers to a "Determination of 12 Non-Significance" when in fact the City's ERC had issued a "Determination of Non- 13 Significance-Mitigated"with 26 mitigation measures. 14 15 32. Examiner's Finding of Fact 6 underlying Council Decision 2 is "not 16 supported by evidence that is substantial when viewed in light of the whole record before 17 the court" for purposes of RCW 36.70C.130(1)(c) in that it misstates the locations of the 18 site's two zoning classifications8 (despite the accurate description of the site's zoning set 19 20 8 This finding of fact currently states: 21 The subject site is located in two zoning districts. The majority of the site 22 (25.18 acres), predominantly the northern and western portions of the site, is zoned R-10 (Residential; 10 dwelling units per acre). The southeastern 23 corner of the site(1.08 acres) is zoned RC (Resource Conservation). 24 (Emphasis added.) In contrast, the record demonstrates that 1.08 acres at the southwestern corner of the site are zoned RC and that all of the rest of the site is zoned R-10. HALINEN LAW OFFICES,P.S. LAND USE PETITION - Page 21 A Professional Service Corporation 2115 North 30th Street,Suite 203 Tacoma,WA 98403-3397 (206)443-4684/(253)627-6680 (253)272-9876 FAX forth in the Applicant's subdivision application materials that were submitted to the City 1 and contained in Exhibit 1). 2 3 33. Examiner's Finding of Fact 7 underlying Council Decision 2 is "not 4 supported by evidence that is substantial when viewed in light of the whole record before 5 the court" for purposes of RCW 36.70C.130(1)(c) in that, taking into consideration the 6 Hearing Examiner's strident rhetoric against the applicant (and, implicitly, against the City 7 Council's prior zoning decisions for the property) made in Examiner's Conclusions 29 and 8 910 underlying Council Decision 2, the finding fails to set forth the Site's Zoning History 9 10 9 Hearing Examiner's Conclusion 2 underlying Council Decision 2 states in relevant part: 11 The proposed plat will not serve the public use and interest if the heron colony 12 located down slope of the site is not protected from the impacts of the proposed development. The clearing of the forest and the substantial grading that will 13 occur this close to the heron colony will have an affect on that colony. It can be lessened by appropriate mitigation and with some additional conditions. If the 14 applicant is not willing to do at least a minimum amount to avoid affecting 15 the heronry, that a great public resource, the colony, and the public's expenditure of approximately Eight Million Dollars ($8,000,000.00) could be 16 jeopardized. The applicant needs to work in conjunction with the heron colony and its nesting needs and activities. . . . 17 (Emphasis added.) 18 10 Hearing Examiner's Conclusion 9 underlying Council Decision 2 states in relevant part: 19 This office will now make another recommendation to the City Council. This 20 office would urge the City Council to overturn the primary recommendation to 21 approve the proposed plat and require the applicant to formulate a design that preserves more of the native vegetation, works with the natural terrain features 22 of the site and clusters the homes. This office urges the City Council to deny the plat because it does not take advantage of the natural amenities of the 23 site in a suitable fashion and does not do nearly enough to attempt to protect the nearby heron colony from the proposed plat's development 24 impacts. The proposed plat merely exploits the site, cutting down most of the trees on approximately 20 acres, severely disturbs the natural contours of the site and does not create a layout of homes designed to work in and around the HALINEN LAW OFFICES,P.S. LAND USE PETITION - Page 22 A Professional Service Corporation 2115 North 30th Street,Suite 203 Tacoma,WA 98403-3397 (206)443-4684/(253)627-6680 (253)272-9876 FAX and Development Agreement Key Facts described in paragraph 12, above. Those key background facts established in the record disabuse the Examiner's suggestion in 2 3 Conclusion 2 that the Applicant has not done at least a "minimum amount" to avoid 4 affecting the heronry. Examiner's Finding of Fact 7 was in error for failing to set these facts 5 forth. 6 34. While Examiner's Finding of Fact 8 underlying Council Decision 2 may 7 contain a truism (i.e., in a literal sense,it might be true that the City's Comprehensive Plan's 8 map element never mandates development within any of the Land Use Map designations 9 regardless of "other policies of the Plan"), that Finding of Fact is irrelevant and "not 10 supported by evidence that is substantial when viewed in light of the whole record before 11 the court" for purposes of RCW 36.70C.130(1)(c) and "is an erroneous interpretation of the 12 law, after allowing for such deference as is due the construction of a law by a local 13 jurisdiction with expertise" for purposes of RCW 36.70C.130(l)(b) in that nothing about 14 15 that finding of fact had a legitimate bearing on the decision before the City Council (but the 16 current Development Agreement between the Applicant and the City provides the Applicant 17 with a contractual expectation under Section 5 thereunder and an expectation under RCW 18 36.70B.180 that the Applicant will be permitted to develop the Sunset Bluff property in 19 accordance with the site's zoning and the City's development regulations and standards in 20 effect on the December 10, 2003 effective date of the Development Agreement (including 21 22 terrain. This second recommendation is unusual but not unique. In some 23 instances, this office has recommended that a project be denied but suggested how it might be modified or conditioned such that it might be appropriate. This 24 recommendation merely reverses that method. (Emphasis added.) HALINEN LAW OFFICES,P.S. LAND USE PETITION - Page 23 A Professional Service Corporation 2115 North 30th Street,Suite 203 Tacoma,WA 98403-3397 (206)443-4684/(253)627-6680 (253)272-9876 FAX the special development standards set forth in the agreement), points that should have been set forth in Finding of Fact 8 or in one of the Examiner's Conclusions. 2 3 35. Examiner's Finding of Fact 9 underlying Council Decision 2 is "not 4 supported by evidence that is substantial when viewed in light of the whole record before 5 the court" for purposes of RCW 36.70C.130(1)(c) in that it inaccurately refers to the 6 "subject site" being annexed to the City with the adoption of Ordinance 4891 in February 7 2001 when the record indicates that only a portion of the site was annexed then (the balance 8 of the site having already been within the City limits). 9 36. Examiner's Finding of Fact 10 underlying Council Decision 2 is "not 10 supported by evidence that is substantial when viewed in light of the whole record before 11 the court" for purposes of RCW 36.70C.130(1)(c) in that it includes a quotation from page 12 10 of the Staff Report to the Hearing Examiner that contains a statement of tree size that is 13 without any support in the record, a statement that the applicant had demonstrated to the 14 15 Hearing Examiner to be untrue on pages 39 and 40 of the Applicant's Closing Brief 16 submitted to the Hearing Examiner. 17 37. Examiner's Finding of Fact 11 underlying Council Decision 2 is "not 18 supported by evidence that is substantial when viewed in light of the whole record before 19 the court" for purposes of RCW 36.70C.130(1)(c) in that (a) a simple review of the site's 20 existing ground elevation contours depicted on the preliminary plat drawing (which is based 21 upon a field topographic survey preared by Barghausen Consulting Engineers, Inc.) (pari 22 23 24 LAND USE PETITION Page 24 HALINEN LAW OFFICES,P.S. g A Profes,lonal Service Cnrporatum 2115 North 30th Street,Suite 203 Tacoma,WA 98403-3397 (206)443-4684/(253)627-6680 (253)272-9876 FAX of Exhibit 1) indicates that the site is only about 120 feet high, not 200 feet high i 1 and (b) 2 the contours on the drawing make clear that the site's slope is south-southwest facing, not 3 "south-southeast facing" as set forth in this finding of fact. 4 38. Examiner's Finding of Fact 14 underlying Council Decision 2 is "not 5 supported by evidence that is substantial when viewed in light of the whole record before 6 the court" for purposes of RCW 36.70C.130(1)(c)in that: 7 (a) Its emotionally-charged assertion of"vast grading" that "will reshape the 8 entire parcel" is misleading and an overstatement of what the proposal 9 actually involves (in view of the fact that the proposal includes a 4.70- 10 acre Native Growth Protection Easement for perpetual open space); and 11 (b) The quotation that the finding takes from the Staff Report does not say 12 that "almost all the vegetation would be removed from the subject site" 13 (emphasis added) as the finding asserts but, rather, that"the applicant has 14 15 16 11 Existing ground elevations at the north(top) and south (bottom) edges of the Sunset Bluff site (at the three positions selected along the site from east to west that are described in the 17 table's first column) are set forth in the following table: 18 Position ... (From Existing Elevation at Existing Elevation ' Elevation West to East) AlongNorth Boundaryatat•South BoundaryDifferential ;� 19 the Site 4 (Top) in feet (Bottom) in feet ? (Height)in feet West Edge 161 31 130 Midpoint Between 21 West Edge and Entry 144 29 .1115 Road Intersection22 Entry Road 150 ' 38 ' 112 Intersection 23 �,,� :._.. .<_... ,.. � �.� '�'��:d;�4; �;. :,�-�: �;�. �:����� . Avera e: 119 feet 24 HALINEN LAW OFFICES,P.S. LAND USE PETITION - Page 25 A Professional Service Corporation 2115 North 30th Street,Suite 203 Tacoma,WA 98403-3397 (206)443-4684/(253)627-6680 (253)272-9876 FAX proposed to remove the majority of the on-site vegetation" (emphasis 1 added). 2 3 39. Examiner's Finding of Fact 15 underlying Council Decision 2 is "not 4 supported by evidence that is substantial when viewed in light of the whole record before 5 the court" for purposes of RCW 36.70C.130(1)(c) in that its summary of the proposed lot 6 sizes is in substantial error and there is no evidence in the record to substantiate the 7 Examiner's summary. (Sheet 1 of the preliminary plat drawings (part of Exhibit 1) sets 8 forth a list of the square footages of all of the proposed lots.) 9 40. The next to the last sentence of Examiner's Finding of Fact 16 underlying 10 Council Decision 2 is "not supported by evidence that is substantial when viewed in light of 11 the whole record before the court" for purposes of RCW 36.70C.130(1)(c) in that that 12 sentence is (a) needlessly vague in regard the proposed native growth protection easement's 13 size (currently using understatement in saying that itcould consist of"much of Tract C"—a 14 15 tract that is proposed to be 5.2 acres in size—rather than "4.70 acres of Tract C" as the 16 record demonstrates, which is equal to 90 percent of Tract C) and (b) needlessly unclear and 17 potentially misleading as to whether the phrase "a portion of it" refers to the native growth 18 protection easement(which it should not) or the balance of Tract C (which it should). 19 41. The last sentence of Examiner's Finding of Fact 19 underlying Council 20 Decision 2 is "not supported by evidence that is substantial when viewed in light of the 21 whole record before the court" for purposes of RCW 36.70C.130(1)(c) in that that sentence 22 is based upon the false premise that Proposed Lot 39 abuts property that is designated RC 23 24 As the table shows, the average height of the site over the three indicated positions is only about 120 feet,not 200 feet. HALINEN LAW OFFICES,P.S. LAND USE PETITION - Page 26 A Professional service Corporation 2115 North 30th Street,Suite 203 Tacoma,WA 98403-3397 (206)443-4684/(253)627-6680 (253)272-9876 FAX on the City's zoning map. As is clear from an examination of Sheet 1 of the 11-sheet set of preliminary plat drawings (part of Exhibit 1), a roughly one-foot wide gap lies between Lot 2 3 39 and the RC-zoned area of the site. 4 42. The "suggest[ion] that larger lots may be necessary to work around the 5 steeper terrain" set forth in the first sentence of Examiner's Finding of Fact 21 underlying 6 Council Decision 2 is "not supported by evidence that is substantial when viewed in light of 7 the whole record before the court" for purposes of RCW 36.70C.130(1)(c) in that that 8 sentence is made without any support or justification in the record and is flatly contradicted 9 by the project's design drawings in the record and by the hearing testimony of the 10 Applicant's civil engineer Hal P. Grubb, P.E. 11 43. Examiner's Finding of Fact 23 underlying Council Decision 2 is "not 12 supported by evidence that is substantial when viewed in light of the whole record before 13 the court" for purposes of RCW 36.70C.130(1)(c) in that it radically oversimplifies and 14 15 substantially mischaracterizes the proposed drainage system described in the record. 16 44. The first sentence of Examiner's Finding of Fact 24 underlying Council 17 Decision 2 is "not supported by evidence that is substantial when viewed in light of the 18 whole record before the court" for purposes of RCW 36.70C.130(1)(c) in that that sentence 19 erroneously refers to a "4.5-acre wetland" Category 1 wetland rather than the undoubtedly- 20 intended, approximately 3-acre Category 1 wetland that straddles a part of the easterly 21 portion of the site's south boundary(with only about 6,078 square feet—about 14/100ths of 22 an acre—of that wetland lying on the site). In addition, the uses of the word "it" in the 23 24 HALINEN LAW OFFICES,P.S. LAND USE PETITION - Page 27 A Professional Service Corporation 2115 North 30th Street,Suite 203 Tacoma,WA 98403-3397 (206)443-4684/(253)627-6680 (253)272-9876 FAX second and third sentences of Finding of Fact 24 make those two sentences vague and misleading. 2 3 45. The last sentence of Examiner's Finding of Fact 27 underlying Council 4 Decision 2 is "not supported by evidence that is substantial when viewed in light of the 5 whole record before the court" for purposes of RCW 36.70C.130(1)(c) in that that sentence 6 is misleading and erroneous in its reference to the "natural ebb and flow of storm water 7 across the subject site" and in its assertion that "its release rate and quantity will not match 8 the natural conditions." (Emphasis added.) 9 46. The fourth and fifth sentences of Examiner's Finding of Fact 28 underlying 10 Council Decision 2 are "not supported by evidence that is substantial when viewed in light 11 of the whole record before the court" for purposes of RCW 36.70C.130(1)(c) in that: 12 (a) With respect to the fourth sentence, the record demonstrates beyond 13 dispute that (i) the industrially zoned property referred to the west (i.e., 14 15 the QIP Property) is actually in the City of Renton rather than in 16 unincorporated King County(having been annexed to the City along with 17 a part of the Sunset Bluff site under Ordinance 4891) and (ii) that 18 property is the site of a major outdoor heavy industrial facility involving 19 construction materials recycling activities, concrete batching, outdoor 20 equipment and material storage, and a contractor's office. 21 (b) With respect to the fifth sentence, the record demonstrates that although 22 quarrying has ceased on that industrial property, it is misleading to refer 23 to that property as merely a "closed quarry site" because of the active, 24 above-noted major outdoor heavy industrial uses on that site. HALINEN LAW OFFICES,P.S. LAND USE PETITION - Page 28 A Professional Service Corporation 2115 North 30th Street,Suite 203 Tacoma,WA 98403-3397 (206)443-4684/(253)627-6680 (253)272-9876 FAX 47. Examiner's Findings of Fact 29 and 31 underlying Council Decision 2 are 2 "not supported by evidence that is substantial when viewed in light of the whole record 3 before the court" for purposes of RCW 36.70C.130(1)(c). Further, those findings of fact 4 reiterate assertions by the Examiner that, for the most part, were amended by the City 5 Council in Council Decision 1's amended Finding of Fact 31 and in the Council's new 6 Conclusion 11. Under the legal principle of quasi-judicial collateral estoppel, the Council's 7 findings and conclusions rendered in Council Decision 1 are binding on the Hearing 8 Examiner and the Council in relation to Council Decision 2. Thus, Examiner's Findings of 9 Fact 29 and 31 underlying Council Decision 2 are based upon "an erroneous interpretation 10 of the law" for purposes of RCW 36.70C.130(1)(b) and are "outside the authority or 11 jurisdiction of the body or officer making the decision"under RCW 36.70C.130(1)(c). 12 48. Examiner's Finding of Fact 34 underlying Council Decision 2 is "not 13 supported by evidence that is substantial when viewed in light of the whole record before 14 15 the court" for purposes of RCW 36.70C.130(1)(c) in that it omits the overwhelming 16 evidence adduced during the hearing below that: 17 (a) Sharply contradicted the need for any seasonal construction window at a 18 site as distant from the Black River Heron Colony as is the Sunset Bluff 19 site; and 20 (b) Indicated an earlier end date would be appropriate on sites that are close 21 enough to the heron colony (not this site) where a seasonal construction 22 window may be justified. 23 49. In addition, by violating the Appearance of Fairness doctrine and other legal 24 and constitutional due process rights of the Applicant in refusing to allow the Applicant to HALINEN LAW OFFICES,P.S. LAND USE PETITION - Page 29 A Professional Service Corporation 2115 North 30th Street,Suite 203 Tacoma,WA 98403-3397 (206)443-4684/(253)627-6680 (253)272-9876 FAX put on surrebuttal testimony and evidence that would have controverted the testimony that 2 led to the findings in Finding of Fact 34, Examiner's Finding of Fact 34 is improper 3 because (a) for purposes of RCW 36.70C.130(1)(a), the Examiner engaged in unlawful 4 procedure, (b) for purposes of RCW 36.70C.130(1)(e), he exceeded his authority or 5 jurisdiction, (c) for purposes of RCW 36.70C.130(1)(b) he erroneously interpreted the law, 6 and (d) for purposes of RCW 36.70C.130(1)(f), the Examiner violated the legal and 7 constitutional rights of the Applicant. 8 50. Examiner's Finding of Fact 36 underlying Council Decision 2 is "not 9 supported by evidence that is substantial when viewed in light of the whole record before 10 the court" for purposes of RCW 36.70C.130(1)(c) because this finding is based solely upon 11 purported materials that are not in the record. 12 51. The last sentence of Examiner's Conclusion 1 underlying Council Decision 2 13 is "an erroneous interpretation of the law" for purposes of RCW 36.70C.130(1)(b) because, 14 15 contrary to the Examiner's suggestion there, the starting point for a subdivision review is 16 not a"reasonable use" test. Ordinarily, an analysis of a proposed subdivision would involve 17 a review in light of (a) RCW 58.17.110's "factors to be considered" and (b) the City's 18 "subdivision . . . ordinance, and zoning or other land use control ordinances, in effect on the 19 land" at the time a fully completed application for preliminary plat approval of the 20 subdivision . . . has been submitted to the appropriate . . . city . . . official" (RCW 21 58.17.033(1)), with the analysis and ultimate decision to be tempered by other legal and 22 constitutional limitations upon the City's decision-making powers. However, in this case, 23 because of the December 10, 2003 Development Agreement between the Applicant and the 24 City of Renton,the City has already agreed(in Section 5 thereof) that: HALINEN LAW OFFICES,P.S. LAND USE PETITION - Page 30 A Professional Service Corporation 2115 North 30th Street,Suite 203 Tacoma,WA 98403-3397 (206)443-4684/(253)627-6680 (253)272-9876 FAX Development of the Property shall not be subject to a new zoning ordinance or an amendment to a zoning ordinance or to a development regulation or 2 3 standard adopted by the City after the effective date of this Development 4 Agreement unless (a) otherwise provided in this Development Agreement or (b) 5 agreed to by the owner(s) of any of the portion(s) of the Property to which such 6 new zoning ordinance or an amendment to a zoning ordinance or development 7 regulation or standard shall apply or (c) in the case of a new or amended 8 development regulation the regulation is one that the City was required to adopt 9 or amend because of requirements of state or federal law. Any development 10 permit or approval issued by the City for the Property during this 11 Development Agreement's term must be consistent with this Development 12 Agreement. 13 (Emphasis added.) Likewise,RCW 36.70B.180 states: 14 15 Unless amended or terminated, a development agreement is 16 enforceable during its term by a party to the agreement. A development 17 agreement and the development standards in the agreement govern during 18 the term of the agreement, . . . and may not be subject to an amendment to a 19 zoning ordinance or development standard or regulation or a new zoning 20 ordinance or development standard or regulation adopted after the effective date 21 of the agreement. A permit or approval issued by the . . . city after the 22 execution of the development agreement must be consistent with the 23 development agreement. 24 HALINEN LAW OFFICES,P.S. LAND USE PETITION - Page 31 A Professional Service Corporation 2115 North 30th Street,Suite 203 Tacoma,WA 98403-3397 (206)443-4684/(253)627-6680 (253)272-9876 FAX (Emphasis added.) Thus, except in the three instances provided in this excerpt from the Development Agreement and provided in RCW 36.70B.180, the only City zoning ordinance 2 3 or development regulations or standards that are to be considered for the review of the 4 Sunset Bluff application are those that were in effect on December 10, 2003, including those 5 contained in the agreement itself. 6 52. Examiner's Conclusions 2 and 3 underlying Council Decision 2 are "not 7 supported by evidence that is substantial when viewed in light of the whole record before 8 the court" for purposes of RCW 36.70C.130(l)(c). They presuppose that the proposed 9 development will adversely impact the heron colony, a presupposition that directly 10 contradicts the City Council's Amended Finding of Fact 31 and Amended Conclusion 11 in 11 the SEPA Threshold Determination Appeal phase of this case that the purported adverse 12 impacts of the proposed subdivision to the heron were speculative, a conclusion 13 overwhelmingly grounded in the record. In view of the evidence in the whole record that is 14 15 before the court, no construction season window is justified for heron protection on this site 16 given (a) the great distance between the site and the heron colony, (b) the protective forest 17 in the City park between the Sunset Bluff site and the heron colon and (b) the fencing 18 required along the south edge of the development (as well as the fencing existing along the 19 south edge of the railroad right-of-way). 20 53. Under the legal principle of quasi-judicial collateral estoppel, the Council's 21 findings and conclusions rendered in Council Decision 1 are binding on the Council 22 concerning Council Decision 2. Thus, Examiner's Conclusions 2 and 3 underlying Council 23 Decision 2 are based upon "an erroneous interpretation of the law" for purposes of RCW 24 HALINEN LAW OFFICES,P.S. LAND USE PETITION - Page 32 A Professional Service Corporation 2115 North 30'Street,Suite 203 Tacoma,WA 98403-3397 (206)443-4684/(253)627-6680 (253)272-9876 FAX 36.70C.130(1)(b) and are "outside the authority of jurisdiction" of the Examiner and the 1 2 Council, under RCW 36.70C.130(1)(e). 3 54. In view of paragraphs 12 and 33, above (which note the two major 4 downzones of the site that the applicant has already endured and the special development 5 standards in the Development Agreement currently in effect that the Applicant and the City 6 agreed to, actions taken in large part to respond to heron-related concerns raised by Herons 7 Forever's Suzanne Krom), Conclusion 2's suggestion that the Applicant has not so far done 8 anything to avoid affecting the heronry12 is "not supported by evidence that is substantial 9 when viewed in light of the whole record before the court" for purposes of RCW 10 36.70C.130(1)(c). 11 55. Examiner's Conclusions 2 and 3 left unchanged by the City Council make 12 clear that the City now thinks that it has not acquired as extensive a property for its park as 13 it might need to promote and protect a special, purportedly sensitive public land use within 14 15 it, the heron colony. Imposing unprecedentedly burdensome new development conditions 16 upon the Sunset Bluff project like the seasonal construction limits contemplated by 17 Conclusions 2 and 3 and by Condition of Approval 2 (a condition that amounts to 18 condemnation of a negative easement on private property for the benefit of the City's 19 20 12 The fourth and fifth sentences of Conclusion 2 state: 21 If the applicant is not willing to do at least a minimum amount to avoid 22 affecting the heronry, that a great public resource, the colony and the public's expenditure of approximately Eight Million Dollars ($8,000,000.00) could be 23 jeopardized. The applicant needs to work in conjunction with the heron colony and its nesting needs and activities. 24 (Emphasis added.) HALINEN LAW OFFICES,P.S. LAND USE PETITION - Page 33 A Professional Service Corporation 2115 North 30th Street,Suite 203 Tacoma,WA 98403-3397 (206)443-4684/(253)627-6680 (253)272-9876 FAX special public land use) rather than purchasing additional land or easements to promote and protect that special public land is: 2 3 (a) A breach of the Development Agreement; 4 (b) A violation of RCW 36.7013.180; 5 (c) A violation of RCW 82.02.020—see Isla Verde v. Camas, 146 Wn.2d 6 740; 49 P.3d 867 (2002) ("under RCW 82.02.020 the burden of 7 establishing that a condition is reasonably necessary as a direct result of 8 the proposed development is on the City", 146 Wn.2d at 755-56, 9 emphasis added) and Benchmark v. Battleground, 146 Wn.2d 685; 49 10 P.3d 860 (2002); 11 (d) A violation of the limitations set forth in RCW 43.21C.060 and WAC 12 197-11-660(1)(a) through (e) for the imposition of conditions to mitigate 13 environmental impacts; 14 15 (e) A violation of portions of the Growth Management Act, Chapter 36.70A 16 RCW;13 17 (f) A regulatory taking (and/or a direct taking of private property, an 18 easement or other servitude) for public purposes without just 19 compensation under the Fifth Amendment to the U.S. Constitution and 20 under the Washington Constitution—see, e.g., Mission Springs, Inc. v. 21 22 23 13 Including, for example, RCW 36.70A.020's urban growth, sprawl reduction and property rights planning goals as well as the requirements that local governments accommodate 24 growth at urban densities in cities and other urban growth areas under RCW 36.70A.110. HALINEN LAW OFFICES,P.S. LAND USE PETITION - Page 34 A Professional Service Corporation 2115 North 30th Street,Suite 203 Tacoma,WA 98403-3397 (206)443-46841(253)627-6680 (253)272-9876 FAX Spokane, 134 Wn.23 947; 954 P.2d 250 (1998) (noting that "ft]he talisman of a taking is government action which forces some private 2 3 persons alone to shoulder affirmative public burdens `which, in all 4 fairness and justice, should be borne by the public as a whole") and 5 Orion v. State, 109 Wn.2d 621; 747 P.2d 1062 (1987) (holding that a 6 compensable regulatory taking may be caused by regulations or other 7 development restrictions imposed upon private land development when 8 those regulations or restrictions have the purpose and effect of enhancing 9 the value of public property) and a "damaging" of private property for 10 public purposes without just compensation in violation of the 11 Washington Constitution; 12 (g) A violation of substantive due process by not being reasonably necessary 13 to protect the heron colony and by being unduly oppressive—see, e.g., 14 15 Guimont v. Chuck Clarke, 121 Wn.2d 586 (1993) (holding that a 16 statewide Mobile Home Relocation Assistance Act requirement that park 17 owners contribute money toward the tenants' relocation costs was 18 "unduly oppressive" in placing the burden of a societal-wide housing 19 problem upon the shoulders of a few); 20 (h) A violation of procedural due process because, as Examiner's Conclusion 21 4 underlying Decision 2 indicates, Condition of Approval 2 is based upon 22 RCW 58.17.110(2)'s vague "public use and interest test", the type of 23 vague test held unconstitutionally vague in Anderson v. Issaquah 70 Wn. 24 App. 64; 851 P.2d 744 (1993) and Burien Bark Supply v. King County, HALINEN LAW OFFICES,P.S. LAND USE PETITION - Page 35 A Professional Service Corporation 2115 North 30th Street,Suite 203 Tacoma,WA 98403-3397 (206)443-4684/(253)627-6680 (253)272-9876 FAX 106 Wn. 2d 868; 725 P.2d 994 (1986) ("ftJhe purpose of the void for 2 vagueness doctrine is to limit arbitrary and discretionary enforcements 3 of the law"); and 4 (i) A violation of the equal protection limitations of the U.S. Constitution 5 and the Washington Constitution. 6 56. The first sentence of Examiner's Conclusion 4 underlying Council Decision 2 is"not supported by evidence that is substantial when viewed in light of the whole record 8 before the court" for purposes of RCW 36.70C.130(1)(c). In addition, that sentence is based 9 upon"an erroneous interpretation of the law"for purposes of RCW 36.70C.130(1)(b) and/or 10 an "unlawful procedure or a failure to follow a prescribed process" for purposes of RCW 11 36.70C.130(l)(b) and/or an action "outside the authority" of the Examiner and Council for 12 purposes of RCW 36.70C.130(1)(e) because that sentence contradicts Council Decision l's 13 14 amended Finding of Fact 31 and new Conclusion 11 in violation of the principle of quasi- 15 Judicial collateral estoppel. 16 57. Because the second sentence under Examiner's Conclusion 4 underlying 17 Council Decision 2 is predicated upon the first sentence, no lawful predicate exists for the 18 second sentence and, therefore, the second sentence is also (a) "not supported by evidence 19 that is substantial when viewed in light of the whole record before the court", (b) "an 20 erroneous interpretation of the law", (c) a "clearly erroneous application of the law to the 21 facts" and (d) unconstitutional—see paragraph 55, above, for a list of the breaches and 22 violations involved. 23 24 HALINEN LAW OFFICES,P.S. LAND USE PETITION - Page 36 A Professional Service Corporation 2115 North 30th Street,Suite 203 Tacoma,WA 98403-3397 (206)443-4684/(253)627-6680 (253)272-9876 FAX 58. The first two sentences of Examiner's Conclusion 5 underlying Council 2 Decision 2 involve the Examiner's speculation as to potential legal arguments that may or 3 may not be made by the Applicant, are improper and should be stricken. 4 59. The last five sentences of Examiner's Conclusion 5 underlying Council 5 Decision 2 are (a) "not supported by evidence that is substantial when viewed in light of the 6 whole record before the court", (b) based upon"an erroneous interpretation of the law", and 7 (c) involve a "clearly erroneous application of the law to the facts". They ignore or 8 otherwise disregard: 9 (a) The Development Agreement between the Applicant and the City, a 10 legally binding contract that (i) established agreed-upon special 11 development standards for heron colony-related mitigation in relation to 12 development of up to 69 single-family residences on the site (a range that 13 the 65-lot Sunset Bluff proposal falls within) and (ii) under Section 5 14 15 thereof prohibits the City from subjecting development of the property to 16 a "new zoning ordinance or an amendment to a zoning ordinance or to a 17 development regulation or standard adopted after the [agreement's 18 December 10, 2003] effective date"; 19 (b) The 26-SEPA mitigating measures imposed by the City's Environmental 20 Review Committee, measures that embody standards that the applicant 21 voluntarily agreed-to (with revisions to measures 24 and 25, revisions 22 that the City and the Applicant (and Herons Forever) stipulated to at the 23 first day of the SEPA appeals hearing below), as the Applicant had the 24 prerogative of doing under Section 5 of the Development Agreement, as HALINEN LAW OFFICES,P.S. LAND USE PETITION - Page 37 A Professional Service Corporation 2115 North 30th Street,Suite 203 Tacoma,WA 98403-3397 (206)443-4684/(253)627-6680 (253)272-9876 FAX well as the particular conditions of preliminary plat approval that the 1 Applicant has not objected to; 2 3 (c) The City's voluminous Development Regulations (which are codified in 4 Renton Municipal Code Title 4) that were in effect on December 10, 5 2003; and 6 (d) Applicable state laws and regulations, including state water quality 7 standards that the Applicant will be required to adhere to by virtue of the 8 coverage under the consolidated National Pollutant Discharge System 9 and State Waste Discharge General Permit for Stormwater Discharges 10 Associated with Construction Activities ("NPDES Permit") that the 11 Applicant must obtain for the Sunset Bluff development from the State of 12 Washington Department of Ecology. 13 60. The last sentence of Examiner's Conclusion 6 underlying Council Decision 2 14 15 is "not supported by evidence that is substantial when viewed in light of the whole record 16 before the court" for purposes of RCW 36.70C.130(1)(c) (and, as a practical matter, the 17 sentence is so vague as to be virtually meaningless). The Applicant's engineer Hal P. Grubb 18 testified during the hearing that the proposed design of the subdivision does work with the 19 site's existing contours given the various site constraints that exist. Further, during the 20 March 17, 2005 oral arguments before the City Council's Planning & Development 21 Committee concerning the cross-appeals of the Hearing Examiner's December 20, 2004 22 recommendations by the Applicant and Herons Forever, Jennifer Henning, the Principal 23 Planner for the City of Renton Development Services Division, explained to the Committee 24 that the Sunset Bluff subdivision's proposed design was a "clustering solution", the "best HALINEN LAW OFFICES,P.S. LAND USE PETITION - Page 38 A Professional Service Corporation 2115 North 30th Street,Suite 203 Tacoma,WA 98403-3397 (206)443-4684/(253)627-6680 (253)272-9876 FAX solution in Staff's view" and "the recommendation we have made consistently throughout 1 the project". 2 3 61. Both (i) the clause "the applicant should also limit the use of any agents to 4 dry or stabilize the soils that would alter the pH of the soils" in the first sentence of 5 Examiner's Conclusion 8 underlying Council Decision 2 and (ii) corresponding Condition 6 of Approval 3 listed on page 22 of the Recommendation section of the Hearing Examiner's 7 December 20, 2004 report (a) are "not supported by evidence that is substantial when 8 viewed in light of the whole record before the court" for purposes of RCW 9 36.70C.130(1)(c), (b) are based upon "an erroneous interpretation of the law, after allowing 10 for such deference as is due the construction of a law by a local jurisdiction with expertise" 11 for purposes of RCW 36.70C.130(1)(b), (c) exceed the authority of the Examiner and 12 Council for purposes of RCW 36.70C.130(1)(e), (d) are based upon a "clearly erroneous 13 application of the law to the facts" for purposes of RCW 36.70C.130(1)(d) and (e) violate 14 15 the constitutional rights of the Petitioners for purposes of RCW 36.70C.130(1)(0. No legal 16 standard exists as to "pH of the soils" and there is no basis in the record for Condition of 17 Approval 3's blanket prohibition on the use of"drying agents that would alter the pH of the 18 site's soils". The relevant issue relating to pH for the Sunset Bluff project is not whether the 19 pH of the site's soils would be altered by the use of"drying agents" (substances that are 20 more accurately referred-to in the construction industry as "soil amendments") but, rather, 21 whether, if soil amendments are used, the resulting storm water runoff from the site would 22 cause a violation of applicable State water quality standards in relation to pH. Pursuant to 23 Chapter 173-226 WAC, the developer of the Sunset Bluff project must obtain coverage 24 under the consolidated National Pollutant Discharge System and State Waste Discharge HALINEN LAW OFFICES,P.S. LAND USE PETITION - Page 39 A Professional Service Corporation 2115 North 30th Street,Suite 203 Tacoma,WA 98403-3397 (206)443-4684/(253)627-668(1 (253)272-9876 FAX • General Permit for Stormwater Discharges Associated with Construction Activities ("NPDES Permit") from the State of Washington Department of Ecology. Special 2 3 Condition S5 of the NPDES Permit specifies that: 4 "The permittee is responsible for achieving compliance with state of 5 Washington surface water quality standards (Chapter 173-201A WAC), 6 sediment management standards (Chapter 173-204 WAC), ground water 7 quality standards (Chapter 173-200 WAC), and human health based 8 criteria in the National Toxics Rule (Federal Register, Vol. 57, No. 246, Dec. 9 22, 1992, pages 60848-60923)." 10 (Emphasis added.) To insure that these standards are met, the NPDES Permit requires that 11 Best Management Practices ("BMPs") be specified in a Stormwater Pollution Prevention 12 Plan("SWPPP") for a construction project. When soil amendments are to be used as part of 13 a project, special BMPs relating to soil amendments are used in order to assure compliance 14 15 with the portions of the above-cited water quality standards relating to pH. That being the 16 case, no justification exists for a prohibition on the use of soil amendments (or "drying 17 agents"), rendering Conclusion 8's "the applicant should also limit the use of any agents to 18 dry or stabilize the soils that would alter the pH of the soils" clause and corresponding 19 Condition of Approval 3: 20 (a) A breach of the Development Agreement; 21 (b) A violation of RCW 36.70B.180; 22 (c) A violation of RCW 82.02.020; 23 24 HALINEN LAW OFFICES,P.S. LAND USE PETITION - Page 40 A Professional Service Corporation 2115 North 30th Street,Suite 203 Tacoma,WA 98403-3397 (206)443-4684/(253)627-6680 (253)272-9876 FAX (d) A violation of the limitations set forth in RCW 43.21C.060 and WAC 197-11-660(1)(a) through (e) for the imposition of conditions to mitigate 2 3 environmental impact; 4 (e) A regulatory taking of private property for public benefit without just 5 compensation under the Fifth Amendment to the U.S. Constitution and 6 under the Washington Constitution or a damaging of private property for 7 public benefit without just compensation under the Washington 8 Constitution; 9 (f) A violation of substantive due process; 10 (g) A violation of procedural due process by being "void for vagueness" to 11 the extent that they are predicated on RCW 58.17.110(2)'s vague "public 12 use and interest test" and 13 (h) . A violation of the equal protection limitations of the U.S. Constitution 14 • 15 and the Washington Constitution. 16 62. Examiner's Conclusion 9 underlying Council Decision 2 is (a) "not i7 supported by evidence that is substantial when viewed in light of the whole record before 18 the court" for purposes of RCW 36.70C.130(1)(c), (b) based upon "an erroneous 19 interpretation of the law, after allowing for such deference as is due the construction of a 20 law by a local jurisdiction with expertise" for purposes of RCW 36.70C.130(1)(b), and (c) 21 based upon a "clearly erroneous application of the law to the facts" (and, if the 22 recommendation of denial set forth in Conclusion 9 had been implemented by the City 23 Council, the denial would have violated the constitutional rights of the Petitioners for 24 purposes of RCW 36.70C.130(1)(0). Further, because the City Council did not follow the HALINEN LAW OFFICES,P.S. LAND USE PETITION - Page 41 A Professional Service Corporation 2115 North 30th Street,Suite 203 Tacoma,WA 98403-3397 (206)443-4684/(253)627-6680 (253)272-9876 FAX 1111/11 recommendation of denial set forth in Conclusion 9, that conclusion is now irrelevant and improper and should be invalidated on that ground alone. 2 3 63. The failure of Condition of Approval 1 listed on page 22 of the 4 Recommendation section of the Hearing Examiner's December 20, 2004 report to only refer 5 to one of the two modifications to the SEPA mitigation measures (the "conditions imposed 6 by the ERC") stipulated to by the parties on the first day of the SEPA appeals hearing(April 7 20, 2004) (i.e., "the accord with the applicant on the traffic separator along Sunset 8 Boulevard"—modified SEPA Mitigation Measure 24)is (a) "not supported by evidence that 9 is substantial when viewed in light of the whole record before the court" for purposes of 10 RCW 36.70C.130(1)(c), and (b) based upon "an erroneous interpretation of the law, after 11 allowing for such deference as is due the construction of a law by a local jurisdiction with 12 expertise" for purposes of RCW 36.70C.130(1)(b), and (c) based upon a"clearly erroneous 13 application of the law to the facts". On the record at that day of the hearing, the parties 14 15 stipulated that the phrase "prior to the recording of the preliminary plat" in SEPA 16 Mitigation Measure 25 would be revised to state "prior to the recording of the final plat". 17 Accordingly, Condition of Approval 1 should be amended to reflect that stipulated 18 modification of SEPA Mitigation Measure 25,14 19 20 21 14 It would be appropriate to amend Condition of Approval 1 to state as follows: 22 The applicant shall comply with the SEPA Mitigation Measures imposed by the 23 ERC (with the modifications to Mitigation Measures 24 and 25 stipulated to by the parties as requested in the applicant's MDNS appeal to the Hearing 24 Examiner). HALINEN LAW OFFICES,P.S. LAND USE PETITION - Page 42 A Professional Service Corporation 2115 North 30th Street,Suite 203 Tacoma,WA 98403-3397 (206)443-4684/(253)627-6680 (253)272-9876 FAX 64. Condition of Approval 4 as amended by the City Council's (and set forth in the minutes of the Council's March 21, 2005 Regular Meeting) is (a) "not supported by 2 3 evidence that is substantial when viewed in light of the whole record before the court" for 4 purposes of RCW 36.70C.130(1)(c), (b)based upon "an erroneous interpretation of the law, 5 after allowing for such deference as is due the construction of a law by a local jurisdiction 6 with expertise" for purposes of RCW 36.70C.130(1)(b), (c)based upon a"clearly erroneous 7 application of the law to the facts" for purposes of RCW 36.70C.130(1)(d), (d) violates the 8 constitutional rights of the Petitioners for purposes of RCW 36.70C.130(1)(f), and (e) 9 exceeds the authority of the Council for purposes of RCW 36.70C.130(1)(e). Unlike the 10 Hearing Examiner's Recommended Condition of Approval 4, the Council's amended 11 Condition of Approval 4 would involve trees, with the contemplation of those trees 12 providing"heron nest materials" and "screening" for the heron colony. With (a) a mostly- 13 forested 100-acre City park for the heron,. (b) other nearby forested lands and (c) the 14 15 Applicant proposing 4.7 forested acres of the Sunset Bluff site in a perpetual native growth 16 protection easement, the heron colony obviously has no pressing need for more nesting 17 materials from the Sunset Bluff site (and, further, with the proposed 4.7 forested acres of 18 19 15 That Council-amended condition states: 20 The applicant shall hydroseed any open space with native forbs, shrubs, 21 wildflowers, trees and shrubs. This will help reduce the temporal impact of the clearing, by planting materials that already have some size to them. This will 22 also introduce trees back into the mix, which are necessary for adequate buffering. Trees in the mix should also help stabilize the steep, regraded slope. 23 The plantings should be monitored for a minimum of 5 to 10 years to ensure that they are established. Plants that do not survive should be replanted. The plant 24 mix should contain a mix of both deciduous trees (for heron nest materials) and coniferous (for screening). HALINEN LAW OFFICES,P.S. LAND USE PETITION - Page 43 A Professional Service Corporation 2115 North 30'"Street,Suite 203 Tacoma,WA 98403-3397 (206)443-4684/(253)627-6680 (253)272-9876 FAX Sunset Bluff site native growth protection easement, the Applicant has done more than its fair share of providing for them). (If the City Park's purportedly sensitive public use (the 2 3 heron colony), needed more nesting materials, the City would have the obligation to 4 condemn the lands necessary to provide trees for support of that use.) As to screening the 5 heron colony from the proposed development, the record demonstrates no such need (see 6 paragraph 25, above) plus, under the principle of quasi-judicial collateral estoppel, the 7 Council is bound to its determinations made under Amended Finding of Fact 31 and new 8 Conclusion 11 of Council Decision 1 that the allegations of Sunset Bluff development 9 impact upon the distant heron colony were speculative. Trees on the steep slopes may over 10 time block the southward view from the planned homes of the Kent Valley and Mount 11 Rainier, devaluing the homes and lots. Further, most of the proposed open space areas that 12 are to be cleared are to be graded with steep slopes on the order of 2 horizontal to 1 vertical. 13 Contrary.to the condition's assertion that "trees in the mix should also help stabilize the 14 15 steep, regraded slope", it seems more likely that trees on those slopes could destabilize them 16 (whereas the Examiner's proposed Condition of Approval 4's native forbs, shrubs, 17 wildflowers and grass would not). The Council did not take any of these things into 18 consideration. This condition is: 19 (a) A breach of the Development Agreement; 20 (b) A violation of RCW 36.70B.180; 21 (c) A violation of RCW 82.02.020; 22 (d) A violation of the limitations set forth in RCW 43.21 C.060 and WAC 23 197-11-660(1)(a) through (e) for the imposition of conditions to mitigate 24 environmental impact; HALINEN LAW OFFICES,P.S. LAND USE PETITION - Page 44 A Professional Service Corporation 2115 North 30th Street,Suite 203 Tacoma,WA 98403-3397 (206)443-4684/(253)627-6680 (253)272-9876 FAX (e) A regulatory taking (and a direct taking of private property, an easement or other servitude) for public purposes without just compensation in 2 3 violation of the Fifth Amendment to the U.S. Constitution and under the 4 Washington Constitution and a"damaging" of private property for public 5 purposes without just compensation in violation of the Washington 6 Constitution; 7 (f) A violation of substantive due process; 8 (g) A violation of procedural due process by being "void for vagueness" to 9 the extent that they are predicated on RCW 58.17.110(2)'s vague "public 10 use and interest test"; and 11 (h) A violation of the equal protection limitations of the U.S. Constitution 12 and the Washington Constitution. 13 14 VIII. Statement of Facts 15 65. Petitioner SR 900 L.L.C. is the owner of the following real property in King 16 County, Washington (the"Sunset Bluff Site"), an approximately 26.26-acre parcel of land: 17 Lot 1 of SR 900 L.L.C. Lot Line Adjustment (City of Renton Lot Line 18 Adjustment No. LUA-03-124-LLA), as per plat recorded under Recording No. 19 20040311900015. 20 Petitioner QIP is the owner of the following real property in King County, Washington 21 (the"QIP Property"): 22 Lots 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 10, 11, 12 and 25B of Junction Addition, as per plat 23 recorded in Volume 12 of Plats, Page 75, records of King County; 24 HALINEN LAW OFFICES,P.S. LAND USE PETITION - Page 45 A Professional Service Corporation 2115 North 30th Street,Suite 203 Tacoma,WA 98403-3397 (206)443-4684/(253)627-6680 (253)272-9876 FAX TOGETHER WITH that portion of Beacon Coal Mine Company Road (which 2 road was deeded to King County by Deed recorded under Recording No. 3 1702983) adjoining said lots, which portion was vacated under King County 4 Commissioners' Journal Volume 29, Page 3; 5 66. The Sunset Bluff site has a heavy tree cover and is considered to be a 6 second-generation forest. A tree coring study of the forest on the site performed just prior 7 to the filing of the preliminary plat application demonstrated the forest to be "less than 50 8 years old with most trees determined to be 39 to 45 years old." Trees on the site consist of 9 maples, alders, cottonwoods, firs, and cedars. The site is also vegetated with blackberry 10 vines and other forest vegetation. 11 67. The roughly crescent-shaped Sunset Bluff site is sandwiched between a state 12 13 highway to the north(SR 900, also known as "SW Sunset Boulevard") and a freight rail line 14 to the south. The site of the former Black River Quarry(now used as a major outdoor heavy • 15 industrial facility) abuts the southerly portion of the site's west boundary and a 240-unit 16 apai tment development abuts the northerly portion of the site's west boundary. An existing 17 townhouse development lies to the east-southeast. Primarily single-family developments lie 18 north of SW Sunset Boulevard. South of the freight rail line lies a 100-acre City park that is 19 surrounded by development—the former quarry site to the northwest, the rail line to the 20 northwest, north and northeast, the townhouses to the northeast, the Metro sewage treatment 21 plant to the southwest, other industrial uses to the south and an extensive complex of offices 22 to the southeast. (See Exhibit 37 and Exhibit 77 color aerial photos.) 23 24 68. During the mid-1980s, a small number of great blue herons birds that are not a threatened or endangered species--took up residence in roughly the center of what is HALINEN LAW OFFICES,P.S. LAND USE PETITION - Page 46 A Professional Service Corporation 2115 North 30th Street,Suite 203 Tacoma,WA 98403-3397 (206)443-4684/(253)627-6680 (253)272-9876 FAX now the City park, a park that is open to the general public. In that park, people can walk their dogs, ride their bikes, play their boom boxes, bring in their screaming kids or crying 2 3 babies—basically anything that they may want to do. During the early 1990s, the City 4 acquired the park property pursuant to a settlement agreement with several environmental 5 groups who wished to protect the heron colony--and have a convenient place for observing 6 it up close and giving educational tours. 7 69. In 2003, the City of Renton zoned the Sunset Bluff site for single-family 8 residential development and entered in a development agreement with the Applicant 9 concerning the site. Details of the site's zoning history and the development agreement are 10 set forth in paragraph 12, above. 11 70. On January 16, 2004, the Applicant submitted to the City of Renton an 12 application for a proposed 65-lot residential subdivision development on the site named 13 "Sunset Bluff Residential Subdivision" consistent with the development agreement, the 14 .. . 15 site's zoning and the City's development regulations. The layout of the proposed lots 16 affords southerly views of Mt. Rainier and the Kent Valley. 17 71. Vegetation is proposed to be retained within a 4.70-acre Native Growth 18 Protection Easement (part of proposed Tract C) in the eastern portion of the site (about 18 19 percent of the site's total area). The balance of the site is anticipated to be cleared of 20 vegetation in conjunction with site grading. 21 72. The site layout involves a row of lots clustered along both sides of a 22 centrally-located east-west street proposed to extend through the site, with the centerline of 23 the street for the most part anticipated to be constructed at a grade close to matching 24 existing grade. Cuts are to be generally located north of the street and fills are to be located HALINEN LAW OFFICES,P.S. LAND USE PETITION - Page 47 A Professional Service Corporation 2115 North 30th Street,Suite 203 Tacoma,WA 98403-3397 (206)443-4684/(253)627-6680 (253)272-9876 FAX generally south of the street. By creating the proposed cut slope in Tract A (i.e., to the north 1 2 of the north tier of lots) and by creating the proposed fill slope along the north part of Tract 3 B (i.e., immediately to the south of the south tier of lots), relatively-flat functional lots can 4 be developed in their proposed sizes and locations. Also, in order to form the proposed 5 storm water detention pond near the site's south edge, some cutting and some filling at the 6 south end of the site is anticipated. 7 73. Because of the site's generally steep slopes, no way of laying out the lots, 8 street and pond appears to exist that would be more efficient from a site grading perspective. 9 The location of the easterly end of the proposed street is dictated by the need to (a) connect 10 to SW Sunset Boulevard at a relatively low point and (b) maintain suitable street slopes 11 down to the west into the easterly portion of the heart of the site where the lots are to begin. 12 74. Thirty-seven of the proposed lots are in the 4,000 to 4,999 square foot range 13 • whiletwenty-four are in the 5,000 to 5,999 square foot range. Lot 42's proposed size is -• 14 - . . • 15 slightly greater than 6,000 square feet and Lot 41's proposed size is not quite 6,600 square 16 feet. The largest of the proposed lots, Lots 1 and 38 (which occupy the east and west ends 17 of the north tier of lots and are somewhat irregularly-shaped) have proposed sizes of 18 slightly more than 10,000 square feet and slightly more than 9,600 square feet, 19 respectively. 20 75. Storm water runoff is discharged onto the site through nine culverts 21 extending south from SW Sunset Boulevard's road embankment. The concentration of 22 water discharging onto the site from those culverts is not a natural phenomenon. Those 23 culverts have all been installed in conjunction with the construction of SW Sunset 24 Boulevard and upstream development. One of the culverts is an 18-inch diameter pipe that HALINEN LAW OFFICES,P.S. LAND USE PETITION - Page 48 A Professional Service Corporation 2115 North 30th Street,Suite 203 Tacoma,WA 98403-3397 (206)443-4684/(253)627-6680 (253)272-9876 FAX conveys storm water runoff and other flows from properties lying north of SW Sunset 1 Boulevard and discharges those waters into the Sunset Bluff site's on-site stream channel, 2 3 which drains into the Category 1 wetland. (That wetland has no outlet due to the railroad 4 cutting off any surface water connection to downstream waters.) The other eight culverts 5 discharge storm water runoff onto the site from relatively small portions of SW Sunset 6 Boulevard (and, in some cases, from small undeveloped portions of existing lots lying ' immediately to the north of SW Sunset Boulevard). That water ultimately drains into (a) a 8 ditch located in the railroad right-of-way immediately south of the site (from the westerly 9 seven of those eight culverts) and (b) the Category 1 wetland (from the easterly most of 10 those culverts). Water in that railroad ditch drains into two 12-inch culverts that extend 11 beneath the railroad tracks and discharge to the south. 12 76. In conjunction with the proposed public street and utility crossing of the on- 13 site intermittent stream, a catch basin is planned to be connected onto the end of the 18- 14 . 15 inch diameter culvert that currently discharges into the on-site stream channel and a 24- 16 inch diameter storm drain will be extended south just past the south edge of the fill for the 17 proposed public street. The discharge from the easterly most existing culvert is to be 18 routed to drain into an intermediate Type 2 catch basin along the route of that 24-inch 19 diameter storm drain. All of the other seven existing culverts will be extended a short 20 distance south to connect to an interceptor storm drain system that will route the upstream 21 flows from those culverts through the site in a pipe system along the property lines of the 22 proposed lots and/or along the site's western edge to a "bubble-up catch basin" near the 23 site's south edge so that those flows will drain into the railroad ditch. This bypass system 24 HALINEN LAW OFFICES,P.S. LAND USE PETITION - Page 49 A Professional Service Corporation 2115 North 30th Street,Suite 203 Tacoma,WA 98403-3397 (206)443-4684/(253)627-6680 (253)272-9876 FAX will avoid contribution of those upstream offsite flows to the site's stormwater detention 1 system and will maintain the existing drainage basins. 2 3 77. The site's storm water runoff will be tributary to the proposed storm water 4 detention pond system. The discharge from that system will be designed to match existing 5 peak runoff rates from the site in accordance with the calculation methodology provisions 6 and requirements of the 1998 King County Surface Water Design Manual. 7 78. On February 24, 2004, the City's Environmental Review Committee (the 8 City's SEPA Responsible Official), issued a SEPA threshold determination for the Sunset 9 Bluff proposal (Attachment D hereto), a determination of non-significance-mitigated 10 (DNS-M) that imposed 26 mitigating measures. 11 79. Herons Forever filed an appeal to the City's Hearing Examiner challenging 12 the DNS-M. (The Applicant also filed an appeal seeking revisions to two of the mitigating 13 measures set forth in the DNS-M, revisions.that the Applicant, the City and Herons Forever. 14 15 stipulated to on the first day of the SEPA appeal hearing April 20,2004.) 16 80. Following several days of hearing concerning Herons Forever's SEPA 17 threshold determination appeal and concerning the proposed preliminary plat, on August 3, 18 2004, in a written decision (Attachment C hereto), the Examiner reversed the ERC's DNS- 19 M and required preparation of an environmental impact statement for the Sunset Bluff 20 proposal. 21 81. The Applicant appealed the Examiner's August 3, 2004 decision to the 22 Renton City Council. Following oral arguments before the City Council's Planning & 23 Development Committee, on November 8, 2004 the Committee issued a majority report to 24 the full City Council (Attachment B hereto) recommending to the full Council that the HALINEN LAW OFFICES,P.S. LAND USE PETITION - Page 50 A Professional Service Corporation 2115 North 30th Street,Suite 203 Tacoma,WA 98403-3397 (206)443-4684/(253)627-6680 (253)272-9876 FAX • Applicant's appeal be granted setting forth numerous recommended amendments to the 1 findings of fact and conclusions that had been set forth in the Examiner's decision. That 2 3 same evening, noting that the majority of the Committee had found that evidence submitted 4 by Herons Forever was too speculative to sustain its burden of proof before the Hearing 5 Examiner, the City Council approved the Committee's majority report—see the City 6 Council meeting minutes, Attachment A hereto,beginning on page 392 thereof 7 82. On December 20, 2004, the Examiner issued a report to the City Council 8 (Attachment H hereto) setting forth findings of fact, conclusions and two alternative 9 recommendations concerning the proposed preliminary plat. The Applicant and Herons 10 Forever, each aggrieved by aspects of the Examiner's report, each filed an appeal to the 11 City Council. The Applicant also filed a reply letter to the Council concerning Herons 12 Forever's appeal and Herons Forever filed a reply letter to the Council concerning the 13 Applicant's appeal. • 14 15 83. Following oral arguments before the City Council's Planning & 16 Development Committee, on March 21, 2005, the Committee issued a report to the full 17 City Council (Attachment G hereto) recommending that the Sunset Bluff application be 18 approved subject to the Examiner's recommended conditions of approval with a few 19 clarifications and a modified condition of approval 4. That evening, the City Council 20 approved that Committee report—see the City Council meeting minutes, Attachment F 21 hereto,beginning on page 95 thereof 22 84. For ease of review of the Statements of Error in Section VII, above, 23 numerous other facts have been included along with those statements in paragraphs 10 24 through 64. HALINEN LAW OFFICES,P.S. LAND USE PETITION - Page 51 A Professional Service Corporation 2115 North 30th Street,Suite 203 Tacoma,WA 98403-3397 (206)443-4684/(253)627-6680 (253)272-9876 FAX IX. REQUEST FOR RELIEF WHEREFORE, Petitioners SR 900 LLC and Quarry Industrial Park, LLC request 2 3 that this Court: 4 (i) Find that, in view of RCW 36.70C.120(1), Petitioner SR 900 LLC's due 5 process rights were denied by virtue of the Renton Hearing Examiner's refusal to allow 6 Applicant the opportunity to have Dr. Ken Raedeke testify and present documentary 7 surrebuttal evidence; 8 (ii) Enter an order allowing the Petitioners to supplement the record pursuant to 9 RCW 36.70C.120(2)(b) by means of either (a) an evidentiary hearing at which the 10 Applicant would be allowed to have Dr. Ken Raedeke provide surrebuttal testimony and 11 present surrebuttal documentary evidence that had been improperly foreclosed by the 12 Renton Hearing Examiner or (b) a written declaration from Dr. Raedeke and attached 13 exhibits; 14 15 (iii) Enter judgment for Petitioners affirming the Council's ultimate decision in 16 Council Decision 1 (i.e., reversing the Hearing Examiner grant of Herons Forever's SEPA 17 threshold determination appeal and affirming the ERC's determination of nonsignificance- 18 mitigated)but reversing the decision in part by: 19 (a) Invalidating those particular underlying Findings of Fact and Conclusions 20 (or the particular portions thereof) that Petitioners have challenged and 21 appealed in section VI1.A (Statements of Error Relating to Council Decision 22 1) set forth in paragraphs l 0 through 30, above (on pages 6 through 21); 23 and 24 LAND USE PETITION Page 52 HALINEN LAW OFFICES,P.S. g A Professional Service Corporation 2115 North 30th Street,Suite 203 Tacoma,WA 98403-3397 (206)443-9689/(253)627-6680 (253)272-9876 FAX (b) Entering substitute findings of fact and conclusions (or, in the alternative, remanding Council Decision I to the Renton City Council for modification 2 3 of the Findings of Fact and Conclusions to be consistent with the decision of 4 this court); and 5 (iv) Enter judgment for Petitioners affirming the Council's ultimate decision in 6 Council Decision 2 to approve SR 900 LLC's preliminary plat application but reversing the 7 decision in part by: 8 (a) Invalidating those particular underlying Findings of Fact and Conclusions 9 (or the particular portions thereof) that Petitioners have challenged and 10 appealed in section VII.B (Statements of Error Relating to Council Decision 11 2) set forth in paragraphs 31 through 64, above (on pages 21 through 45); 12 and 13 (b) Invalidating Conditions of Approval 1, 2, 3 and 4 (as 4 was amended by 14 15 Council Decision 2); 6 (c) Entering the following substitute conditions of preliminary plat approval 17 for invalidated Conditions of Approval l and 4: 18 "1. The applicant shall comply with the SEPA Mitigation Measures 19 imposed by the ERC (with the modifications to Mitigation 20 Measures 24 and 25 stipulated to by the parties as requested in 21 the applicant's MDNS appeal to the Hearing Examiner)." 22 "4. The applicant shall hydroseed any cleared open space with 23 native forbs, shrubs and wildflowers and not merely grass." 24 LAND USE PETITION Page 53 HALINEN LAW OFFICES,P.S. �' A Professional Service Corporation 2115 North 30,h Street,Suite 203 Tacoma,WA 98403-3397 (206)493-9689!(253)627-6680 (253)272-9876 FAX (c) Entering substitute findings of fact and conclusions (or, in the alternative, remanding Council Decision 2 to the Renton City Council for modification 2 3 of the Findings of Fact and Conclusions to be consistent with the decision 4 of this court); 5 (v) Award Petitioners their reasonable attorneys' fees and costs; and 6 (vi) Grant such other and further relief as this Court deems just and proper. 7 DATED this 11th day of April, 2005. 8 HALINEN LAW OFFICES, P.S. 9 10 By: 11 David L. H.inen WSBA#159 3 12 Of Attorneys for Petitioners SR 900 L.L.C. and Quarry Industrial Park, LLC 13 14 FOSTER PEPPER & SHEFFELMAN, PLLC 15 16 jZ By: ed„:ce.-(A‘,, or 17 Richard L. Settle 9 % _ WSBA#3075 / • '' w 18 Of Attorneys for Petitioners SR 900 L.L.C. and Quarry Industrial Park, LLC 19 20 21 22 23 24 HALINEN LAW OFFICES,P.S. LAND USE PETITION - Page 54 A Professional Service Corporation 2115 North 30th Street,Suite 203 Tacoma,WA 98403-3397 (206)443-4684/(253)627-6680 ("7.21'1'71 0074 r A V VERIFICATION MICHAEL J. MERLIN() declares, under penalty of perjury under the laws of the 2 State of Washington, as follows: That he is a trustee of manager "Donald J. and Joan P. 3 Merlino Family Trust No. 1 under agreement dated 8/9/90", a trust member of SR 900 L.L.C., the Washington limited liability company that is a Petitioner; that he has read the 4 foregoing LAND USE PETITION and knows the contents therein; and verifies that the factual allegations therein contained are true to the best of his knowledge. 5 DATED this 11th day of April, 2005 at Renton, King County, Washington. 6 7 8 �� %��fsi[its MICHAEL J. ERLINO 9 10 11 12 13 C:\CF\2422\008\L-U-PET Fl.doc • 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 LAND USE PETITION Page 55 HALINEN LAW OFFICES,P.S. g A Professional Service Corporation 2115 North 30th Street,Suite 203 Tacoma,WA 98403-3397 (206)443-4684/(253)627-6680 17511 777.Oe7c F A Y - :;p4 .OF RENTON 4,)P I 1 2005 et:S/OP.M RECEIVED I I Y.CLERK'S OFFICE IN THE SUPERIOR COURT OF THE STATE OF WASHINGTON IN AND FOR THE COUNTY OF KING SR 900 LLC & QUARRY INDUSTRIAL PARK LLC NO. 05-2-11950-1 KNT Order Setting Case Schedule (Land Use Petition Petitioner(s) vs - RCW 36.70C) (*ORSCS) CITY OF RENTON & HERONS FOREVER ASSIGNED JUDGE Heavey 20 FILE DATE: 04/11/2005 Respondent(s) TRIAL DATE: 09/12/2005 A Petition Seeking Review of a Land Use decision under the Revised Code of Washington (RCW) 36.70C 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 THE PERSON (PETITIONER)SEEKING REVIEW OF A LAND USE DECISION MUST: 1 File a Land Use Petition within the time frames as instructed by applicable RCW 36.70C.040. 2. Serve a copy of the Land Use Petition and this Order Setting Case Schedule (Land Use Petition) (including these Notices) on all other parties to this action. You, as the person who started this Petition, must make sure the other person and/or agency is notified of your action and gets a copy of the Schedule. See Revised Code of Washington RCW 36.70C.040(5). Your signature must appear on this form showing that you understand that you must make sure the other person and/or agency gets a copy of this form. 3. Pay the statutory filing fee to the Clerk of the Superior Court in which the Petition is filed. NOTICE TO ALL PARTIES: All attorneys and parties should make themselves familiar with the rules of the court -- 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 appeals vigorously from the day they are filed. All events must occur promptly. If they are late, the Superior Court Clerk is authorized by the King County Superior Court Local Rules to schedule the petition for a dismissal hearing. "1 understand that 1 am req ire to give a co of these.doc ents t pa iel in this case." j)-t(-'i'c----e // Y� t / � Print Name Sign ame Order Setting Case Schedule (Land Use Petition - RCW 36.70C) (*ORSCS) REV.6/200 1 I. NOTICES (continued) STIPULATION/MOTION TO CHANGE INITIAL HEARING: Parties may file a stipulation or any party may file a motion to change the initial hearing prior to the deadline as shown on the Schedule. A copy of the stipulation or motion must be filed with the assigned Judge. Preliminary hearings must be set on Fridays. Stipulated change of hearing dates must be within +/- 7 days of the original date and must be approved by the assigned judge. MOTIONS ON JURISDICTIONAL AND PROCEDURAL ISSUES: Motions on jurisdictional and procedural issues shall comply with Civil Rule 7 and King County Local Rule 7, except that the minimum notice of hearing requirement shall be 8 days. PENDING DUE DATES CANCELED BY FILING PAPERS THAT RESOLVE THE CASE: When a final decree, judgment, or order of dismissal of all 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 of 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 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. 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 as per Local Rule 4 and/or dismissal of actions as per Local Rule 41. King County Local Rules are available for viewing at www.metrokc.gov/kcscc. Order Setting Case Schedule(Land Use Petition - RCW 36.70C) (*ORSCS) REV.6/200 2 II. CASE SCHEDULE DEADLINE or Filing CASE EVENT EVENT DATE Needed Petition for Review of Land Use Decision Filed and Schedule Issued [See Mon 04/11/2005 * RCW 36.70C.040]. DEADLINE to Contact Assigned Judge to Confirm Initial Hearing [See Mon 04/18/2005' RCW 36.70C.080]. DEADLINE to Stipulate or File a Motion for Change of Hearing Date or Mon 05/09/2005 * Adjustment of Schedule [See RCW 36.70C.080(1);RCW 36.70.090)]. Initial Hearing on Jurisdictional and Preliminary Matters(FRIDAYS ONLY) Fri 06/03/2005 [See RCW 36.70C.080)]. DEADLINE for Filing Certified Copy of the Local Jurisdiction Record [See Thu 07/14/2005 * RCW 36.70C.110]. DEADLINE for filing Brief of Petitioner[See RCW 36.70C.080(4)]. Mon 08/08/2005 * DEADLINE for filing Brief of Respondent[See RCW 36.70C.080(4)]. Mon 08/29/2005 * DEADLINE for filing Reply Briefs[See RCW 36.70C.080(4)]. Tue 09/06/2005 * Review Hearing/Trial Date [See RCW 36.70C.090]. Mon 09/12/2005 III. ORDER Pursuant to the Revised Code of Washington (RCW 36.70C) the King County Superior Court issues an Order Setting Case Schedule (Land Use Petition)when a Land Use Petition is filed with the King County Superior Court. It is ORDERED that all parties involved in this action shall comply with the schedule listed above and that failure to meet these event dates will result in the dismissal of the petition. It is FURTHER ORDERED that the party filing this action must serve this Order Setting Case Schedule(Land Use Petition) and attachment on all other parties. DATED: 04/11/2005 12ta,,te ' PRESIDING JUDGE Order Setting Case Schedule (Land Use Petition - RCW 36.70C) (*ORSCS) REV.6/200 3 ATTACHMENT A RENTON CITY COUNCIL Regular Meeting November 8, 2004 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 DON PERSSON, Council President;RANDY CORMAN; TONI NELSON; COUNCILMEMBERS DAN CLAWSON;DENIS LAW; TERRI BRIERE; MARCIE PALMER. CITY STAFF IN KATHY KEOLKER-WHEELER,Mayor;JAY COVINGTON,Chief ATTENDANCE Administrative Officer;LAWRENCE J.WARREN,City Attorney;BONNIE WALTON,City Clerk; GREGG ZIMMERMAN,Planning/Building/Public Works Administrator;JENNIFER HENNING; Principal Planner;JASON JORDAN, Senior Planner;RONALD STRAKA,Utility Engineering Supervisor;ALEX PIETSCH,Economic Development Administrator; BEN WOLTERS,Economic Development Director;VICTORIA RUNKLE,Finance and Information Services Administrator; SYLVIA DOERSCHEL,Finance Analyst Supervisor;JILL MASUNAGA,Finance Analyst III; DEREK TODD, Assistant to the CAO; COMMANDER CHARLES MARSALISI,Police Department. SPECIAL PRESENTATION Jane Lamensdorf-Bucher, Watershed Coordinator; Jean White,Early Action ESA: WRIA 8 Draft Chinook Projects Coordinator; and Sally King,Land Use Coordinator; with King County Salmon Conservation Plan Water Resource Inventory Area 8 (WRIA 8)gave a presentation on the Draft Chinook Salmon Conservation Plan for the Lake Washington/Cedar/Sammamish Watershed. Ms. Lamensdorf-Bucher stated that salmon in the watershed are threatened. Puget Sound Chinook and Bull Trout are listed on the Federal Endangered Species Act, and Puget Sound Coho are a candidate for possible listing. She noted that one of the reasons for the decline in salmon is habitat degradation and loss. Ms. Lamensdorf-Bucher explained that the main bodies of water in WRIA 8 are the Cedar River Basin, Sammamish River Basin,Lake Washington,Lake Sammamish, and Puget Sound Nearshore. She detailed the related efforts of WRIA 9 and Puget Sound Shared Strategy, and explained that WRIA 8 is made up of the Steering Committee, which oversees development of the plan, and the Lake Washington/Cedar/Sammamish Watershed Forum, which reviews and approves the plan. Reporting that the public review draft of the plan will be released on November 12th,Ms.Lamensdorf-Bucher reviewed the content of the plan and the recommendations for implementation,noting the importance of local government input. After public and local review,the final Chinook plan will be submitted to the WRIA 8 Forum in February 2005, and then to the jurisdictions in May 2005. She indicated that Federal and State funding sources can be better influenced by working together as a unified watershed. Continuing,Ms. White discussed the habitat protection and restoration projects that are recommended in this area. Explaining that the lower Cedar River and Southern Lake Washington areas are very important for the Chinook, she pointed out that restoring conditions in Lake Washington are as beneficial as restoring the lower Cedar River. Ms. White detailed the current habitat conditions and made recommendations as to how to improve the conditions for November 8,2004 Renton City Council Minutes Page 389 the various sections in this area, including the Maplewood Reach 4 (SR-169 area), Cedar River Reach 2 (Logan Ave. to I-405), Cedar River Reach 3 (I-405 to SR-169),mouth of the Cedar River Mouth to Logan Ave. (Reach 1), and Southern Lake Washington. Continuing,Ms. King reviewed land use actions, and pointed out that they should be voluntary,should build on existing efforts such as the Growth Management Act and critical areas ordinances, should focus on incentives, and should encourage growth in urban areas. Listing the land use recommendations for the lower Cedar River area, she noted that Renton's efforts to encourage growth and revitalize its urban center helps protect rural salmon habitat. Recommendations for land use include enforcement, encouraging redevelopment restoration through regulatory flexibility and incentives, and using tools such as stormwater management,clustering, and low impact development for riparian areas and forest cover and open space. Ms. King listed the land use action recommendations for the southern Lake Washington shorelines, which include protecting the remaining shoreline through critical areas ordinances and the Shoreline Master Program,prohibiting new bulkheads, and following NOAA Fisheries (National Marine Fisheries Service) salmon-friendly dock guidelines. In conclusion,Ms. Lamensdorf- Bucher expressed her appreciation with Renton's involvement in the development of the salmon conservation plan. Councilman Clawson,who represents the City in this effort, stated that the speakers have been responsive to Renton's concerns. He stressed that recovering the Chinook salmon in this urban area is very challenging, and it will take a group effort. Chief Administrative Officer Jay Covington stated that a lot of work went into this plan, and noted that the region and the State will benefit from the work that has been done. PUBLIC HEARINGS This being the date set and proper notices having been posted and published in Planning: Planned Action accordance with local and State laws,Mayor Keolker-Wheeler opened the (Lakeshore Landing), Boeing public hearing to consider the Lakeshore Landing Planned Action for Surplus Property redevelopment of the surplus Boeing property located at the south end of Lake Washington; Developer: Center Oak Properties,LLC. Jason Jordan, Senior Planner,described the subject area, which is located north of N. 8th St.,east of Logan Ave. N.,and west of Garden Ave. N. He reviewed the project history as follows: —Environmental Impact Statement(EIS)completed in October 2003. —Comprehensive Plan Amendment completed in December 2003. —The City and Boeing established a development agreement in December 2003. —The development agreement included a conceptual urban retail plan. —The conceptual urban retail plan was approved in October 2004. Mr. Jordan explained that the conceptual plan is approximately 53 to 55 acres, including the right-of-way area. Approximately eight acres of the site will be utilized to create new public streets and access ways, including a parkway design with landscaped medians for the extension of Logan Ave. N., the realignment of Park Ave. N.,and the extension of N. 8th and N. 10th Street. The developer is proposing high quality retail,office, and residential opportunities. Mr. Jordan reported that the development will be predominately retail,designed to Urban Center North Development Standards, and required to meet the new Urban Center Design Guidelines. , November 8,2004 Renton City Council Minutes Page 390 Continuing,Mr. Jordan said the conceptual plan ranges from 597,000 to 800,000 square feet, and the potential tenants may include a large format retailer, a movie theater, and a mix of specialty tenants and restaurants. He also reviewed the potential building's bulk, size, and scale. Mr. Jordan stated that staff requests approval of Planned Action legislation, which would be combined with the approved EIS and development agreement. The legislation will streamline the permitting process by utilitizing existing environmental documentation as allowed by RCW 43.21C.031 and WAC 197-11-164, 168, and 315. Public comment was invited. Correspondence was read from Richard D. Zwicker,North Renton Neighborhood Association President,PO Box 326,Renton, 98057, stating that the association offers support and assistance in the development of the Lakeshore Landing project. He noted that the project will be located in one of the oldest neighborhoods in the City, and asked that care be taken in the development of properties between N. 6th and N. 8th Streets, which will be the sole buffer between the neighborhood and the shopping center. Additionally, Mr. Zwicker asked that Logan Ave. N. be opened and connected to Park Ave. N., and that the City mitigate the negative impact of the impending construction. Ray Giometti, 323 Pelly Ave. N., Renton, 98055, stated that redevelopment of the Boeing property represents an opportunity for the City of Renton to establish its vision for responsible growth in the future. However, the future growth should not negatively impact the City or its residents. Mr. Giometti asked that North Renton neighborhood be taken into consideration during this process,and recommended that Logan Ave.N. be extended and opened in the first phase of development. He expressed concern regarding the peak traffic figures expressed in the EIS, and the haste at which this project is going forward. Mr. Giometti indicated that failure to address traffic issues now will result in future development of the site exceeding original traffic estimates and creating future traffic problems in the City. Mike O'Donin,423 Pelly Ave.N.,Renton, 98055,expressed his excitement about the project, saying it is a great opportunity for the City. Mr. O'Donin suggested that Logan Ave. N. be opened as soon as possible, and he voiced his concern about the flow of traffic and the safety of children,noting that people drive through the surrounding side streets in order to avoid the traffic signals. George Daniels, 215 Garden Ave. N.,Renton,98055, stated that the North Renton Neighborhood Association is growing, and the neighborhood wants to be a part of the development process. He expressed his excitement for the project, and asked that the City stay on task, stay within the laws, consider the neighborhood's needs, and grow effectively rather than just grow for the sake of growth. Larry Reymann, 1313 N. 38th St.,Renton, 98055, stated his hope that the project interfaces with Gene Coulon Park, and emphasizes and extends the natural habitat as much as possible. He suggested that the development be pedestrian friendly, and utilize mass transit to enhance the future of this entire area. Fred Bruning, Center Oak Properties President, 649 NW 12th St., Gresham, OR, 97030, stated his intent to create a very pedestrian-friendly and November 8,2004 Renton City Council Minutes Page 391 community-friendly development, and noted that the project is moving forward quickly due to competition for key tenants. Mr. Bruning said Center Oak Properties'goals are to: create a project the City of Renton and the community will be proud of,make sure that the project connects very well with the greater community, and vitalize the historic downtown area. He stressed that Center Oak Properties welcomes comments and takes them to heart. Alex Pietsch,Economic Development Administrator, stated that in the development agreement with Boeing, the City agreed to construct new roads, and new water,stormwater, and sewer utility lines. This includes the extension of Logan Ave. N. to Park Ave. N., which will occur in conjunction with the construction of this project. There being no further public comment, it was MOVED BY CLAWSON, SECONDED BY CORMAN, COUNCIL CLOSE THE PUBLIC HEARING. CARRIED. MOVED BY BRIERE, SECONDED BY PALMER, COUNCIL ADOPT THE PLANNED ACTION LEGISLATION AS DRAFTED BY THE CITY ATTORNEY,WHICH ALLOWS THE DEVELOPER TO UTILIZE THE EXISTING ENVIRONMENTAL DOCUMENTATION AS REDEVELOPMENT OF THE SITE OCCURS,AND REQUIRES THE DEVELOPER TO COMPLY WITH THE APPROVED EIS, CONCEPTUAL URBAN RETAIL PLAN,APPROVED DEVELOPMENT AGREEMENT, AND URBAN CENTER NORTH DEVELOPMENT STANDARDS AND DESIGN GUIDELINES. CARRIED. Budget: 2005 Annual City of This being the date set and proper notices having been posted and published in Renton accordance with local and State laws,Mayor Keolker-Wheeler opened the public hearing to consider 2005 City of Renton Preliminary Budget and revenue sources. Victoria Runkle,Finance and Information Services Administrator,reported that the proposed 2005 Budget, in the amount of$149,392,500, is a one percent increase above the 2004 Budget. The General Governmental Budget, in the amount of$69,106,300,comprises 46% of the total budget and is a 4.7% increase above the 2004 Budget. Ms. Runkle pointed out that the general fund revenues are estimated to be lower than expenditures by$1.1 million, and available fund balance is anticipated to be used to meet the expenditures. Continuing,Ms. Runkle stated that the 2005 Budget priorities include implementation of the REACT and RENSTAT programs, lowering internal service and management service levels, and changing service levels that can be provided in a different way. She noted that the enterprise funds (water, sewer, surface water, solid waste,golf course and airport)comprise 34% of the total budget. The proposed 2005 Budget includes a 1.6% increase in City water and sewer service rates, and a pass-through King County waste treatment rate increase. Concluding,Ms.Runkle stated that a one percent property tax levy increase is recommended for 2005, and the 2005 total property tax levy is estimated to be $21 million. She pointed out that since the total property tax assessed valuation is decreasing, the City's tax rate will decrease by at least two cents per thousand. November 8,2004 Renton City Council Minutes Page 392 Public comment was invited. There being none, it was MOVED BY LAW, SECONDED BY PALMER, COUNCIL CLOSE THE PUBLIC HEARING. CARRIED. APPEAL City Attorney Larry Warren noted that some e-mails were sent to the City Appeal: Sunset Bluff Council related to the appeal of the Sunset Bluff Preliminary plat. He Preliminary Plat, SR 900 LLC, explained that Council is not allowed to have ex parte communications with PP-04-002 any parties, and is limited to reviewing material already on record. The City Attorney then inquired as to whether any Councilmember opinion was swayed as a result of the e-mail. Not having heard any Councilmember comment, Mr. Warren stated that no Councilmember was influenced. Planning &Development Planning and Development Committee Chair Briere presented a majority report Committee Majority Report regarding the appeal filed by SR 900,LLC of the Sunset Bluff Preliminary Plat Appeal: Sunset Bluff (PP-04-002). The Committee heard the appeal on 10/21/2004. After reviewing Preliminary Plat,SR 900 LLC, the record,the written presentations of both parties and hearing oral argument, PP-04-002 the majority of the Committee found that the evidence submitted by Herons Forever was too speculative to sustain its burden of proof before the Hearing Examiner. The majority of the Committee recommended that the full Council reverse the Hearing Examiner and affirm the decision of the ERC (Environmental Review Committee). The Committee further recommended that the Council adopt the following amended findings and conclusions to the Hearing Examiner's report and decision dated 8/3/2004. AMENDED FINDINGS AND CONCLUSIONS I. Finding of Fact 12. The last sentence is amended to read: "The southwestern corner of the site (1.08 acres) is zoned RC(Resource Conservation)." II. Finding of Fact 27. The third sentence is amended to read: "West is another RM-I(Residential Multi-Family Infill)district with multiple family units and industrially zoned property in the City of Renton that is developed and undeveloped, including a closed quarry site,currently used as a contractor's office,equipment and material storage,recycling and concrete batching." III. Finding of Fact 28 is amended to add a sentence: "Ms. Sheldon did no study of the biological effects of the change in release rate of the retained stormwater. The retention system was designed according to the King County manual for detention treatment and controlled release." IV. Finding of Fact 29 is amended to add a sentence: "Mr. Rozeboom testified in general terms but without the support of any study or quantitative analysis of the actual effects of the changes in the hydroperiod." V. Finding of Fact 31 is amended to read: "Herons Forever's experts have monitored heron recently and indicated that the birds reacted hostilely to intrusive activities in both this heronry and in others in the Puget Sound Area. They suspect that the proposed grading on this property,over 1,000 feet from the heron colony,might have an impact on the colony. Reports indicate that birds were flushed and severely disturbed by logging just south of the railroad tracks at the western edge of the riparian forest, but very near to that 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. This may have also been caused by termination of blasting at the quarry to the west. One can only speculate as to the cause of the November 8,2004 Renton City Council Minutes Page 393 move. One can also only speculate as to the effect on the herons of clearing the development site. The area does serve as a source of twigs and possibly forage for food, and this will be eliminated. Work will occur at or above the nesting level, and maps appear to indicate that this will be out of sight of the nests, and flying birds will be able to view the clearing. 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." VI. Finding of Fact 32 is amended to read: "The changes to the seasonal wetlands were raised as to how the changes would affect the food sources of the heron. This testimony was based on the conclusion by Mr. Rozeboom that there would be a risk of significant adverse effects caused by increases in water depth in the closed depression. This conclusion is not based on any quantitative analysis. The testimony of the effects on food sources is not based on a site-specific study." VII. In Finding of Fact 42, the last sentence is amended to read: "These visits to the trail may be affecting the herons in some fashion." VIII. Finding of Fact 43 is amended by striking the 7th sentence and substituting in its place: "Minor earthwork, such as finish grading, may occur year round." IX. Finding of Fact 49 is amended by adding the following: "The increased runoff volumes from the site would likely increase average depth in the wetlands by one to two inches in the winter and by less than one inch in the summer. Predicted changes in water levels and duration in the depressional wetland would have only a negligible impact. These conclusions are based on the use of a King County methodology. Although Dr.McCarthy made certain assumptions,which may lessen the value of the study, the information remains unrebutted and is the only quantitative information presented." X. Finding of Fact 60 is stricken. XI. Finding of Fact 61 is added, which reads: "Some historical perspective is necessary. The ERC was aware of this history. The Black River Riparian Forest has been an existing feature in the area. The City participated in constructing the P-1 forebay. About the time the forebay was constructed,the herons were first noticed. Over a period of time the City sought grants to acquire the Black River Riparian Forest. The City acquired part of the forest by dedication as part of City approvals. The City used grants and its own money to negotiate and acquire, in several stages, approximately 100 acres of property encompassing and surrounding the heronry, where it previously existed and where it is now located. Over$8 million has been expended on this effort. The City helped create the conditions that attracted the herons in the first instance, and has expended substantial effort and resources in protecting the herons and their surroundings." XII. Conclusion 2,the last sentence is stricken. XIII.Conclusion 7 is amended by striking the second and third sentence. XIV. Conclusion 9 is amended by striking the last sentence. November 8,2004 Renton City Council Minutes Page 394 XV. Conclusion 10 is amended by adding a sentence, as follows: "Earthwork shall be limited to the dry months -except for minor earthwork, such as finish grading." XVI. Conclusions 11 through 28 are stricken XVII. A new Conclusion 11 is added: "The burden of proof is on Herons Forever. As previously stated, the decision of the ERC is entitled to substantial weight. While its good intentions are not questioned, the 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." XVIII.The Decision is amended to read: "The decision of the ERC is affirmed."* Planning & Development Planning&Development Committee Vice Chair Clawson presented a minority Committee Minority Report report regarding the appeal filed by SR 900,LLC of the Sunset Bluff Appeal: Sunset Bluff Preliminary Plat(PP-04-002). I respectfully dissent from the report of the Preliminary Plat, SR 900 LLC, majority of the Committee and recommend that the Council affirm the decision PP-04-002 of the Hearing Examiner and require an EIS (Environmental Impact Statement). Herons Forever presented testimony of qualified experts who stated their opinions that the project as proposed would be likely to disturb the heron colony in ways that would diminish the productivity and could result in the herons abandoning nests in the Black River Riparian Forest over time. SR 900 LLC's experts disagreed with these experts and stated that the impacts would be minimal. The Hearing Examiner considered the evidence and made findings of fact. In general,he merely summarized the conflicting testimony of the experts without deciding which expert gave the most credible opinion. He did specifically determine that the testimony of SR 900 LLC's primary expert, Dr. Ken Raedke, who wrote the report submitted to the ERC,appeared to lack scientific basis and was not credible. Dr.Raedke testified that herons in general are not disturbed by human activities near their nests, and that the development would have no significant impact on the heron colony. Dr.Raedke's resume shows that he is an expert on deer and elk, not herons. He mainly relied on a masters thesis written over ten years ago by a masters student,Ms. Stabins. Other researchers attempting to verify her nest counts have not validated her research. He also cited studies from other states and Canada rather than local studies. In contrast,Herons Forever presented Kate Stenberg, Ph.D., a heron expert who has monitored herons in the Puget Sound region and specifically at the Black River Riparian Forest, and Patricia Thompson, a wildlife biologist with Washington State Department of Fish and Wildlife. Their testimony was specific to Western Washington and to the Black River heron colony. Dr. Stenberg and Ms. Thompson demonstrated much greater familiarity with the November 8,2004 Renton City Council Minutes Page 395 research on herons that Dr.Raedke. They described a dramatic decline of heron colonies in King County,while the Black River colony has thrived. Dr. Stenberg identified specific impacts that were not considered by the ERC. Increased runoff and lawn chemicals from the development may disturb the large wetland on the development where the herons feed, and nesting trees may be killed. Noise construction noise will be more intense because the development is above the nesting area. A construction season limitation to avoid disturbance during nesting was not considered by the ERC. Ms. Thompson recommended a site-specific management plan designed with the assistance of her department so that after construction the impacts of pets and people from the development could be minimized. Dyane Sheldon,a wetlands biologist, stated that the change in runoff from the development could change the timing as well as volume of water feeding wetlands on and off the development that needs to be assessed and was not considered by the ERC. Bill Rozeboom testified that further studies of water runoff volumes are needed. The majority of this Committee concluded that this evidence is "too speculative to sustain [Heron Forever's] burden of proof." But it is SR 900 LLC,not Herons Forever, which has the burden of proof at this hearing. It must show that the Hearing Examiner made a substantial error of fact or law. Otherwise, the Hearing Examiner's decision must stand. SEPA(State Environmental Policy Act)law requires an EIS unless all of the likely significant adverse impacts have been considered first. An adverse impact does not need to be proved with exact certainty. WAC 197-11-330 specifically states that"several marginal impacts when considered together may result in a significant adverse impact," and that "for some proposals, it may be impossible to forecast the environmental impacts with precision, often because some variables cannot be predicted or values cannot be quantified." The WAC recognizes that a development proposal may involve "unique and unknown risks to the environment." Scientific knowledge of Great Blue Herons is in its early stages, and it is not reasonable to expect exact predictions of the effect of the development on the Black River colony. The Hearing Examiner's conclusions were carefully crafted based on his findings of fact, applying his extensive knowledge of SEPA law. He specifically listed the likely impacts on the ecosystem that the herons rely on from construction and occupation of the development. He required only a limited review of five issues so that experts under supervision of City staff could weigh the conflicting testimony and provide information needed so that the project can go forward while protecting the herons. After the EIS, SR 900 LLC will have further opportunity to appeal any mitigation measures it may find unreasonable. The Hearing Examiner did not make a substantial error of fact or law. The Council should affirm his decision. *MOVED BY BRIERE, SECONDED BY PERSSON, COUNCIL CONCUR IN THE MAJORITY COMMITTEE REPORT* Councilman Corman reported that he was impressed with both reports, and stated that the minority report seems to acknowledge the Hearing Examiner's November 8,2004 Renton City Council Minutes Page 396 path wherein this project could go forward but there is an intent to get an EIS that does not currently exist. Councilman Clawson agreed,explaining the only decision that was reversed was whether or not there should be an EIS to resolve some of the conflicting testimony of the experts. The EIS would resolve the conflicting testimony, and then the project could move forward with mitigation that would address those concerns. Mr. Corman stated that this project is likely to require the EIS, whether it is decided by the Council or King County Superior Court. Councilmember Briere emphasized that the ERC did a thorough job of looking at the project, and recommended certain mitigation measures. She agreed that the testimony was conflicting. Mr. Clawson explained that Dr. Stenberg submitted a letter to the ERC; however,her testimony before the Hearing Examiner was much more detailed. Also, the ERC did not have the analysis of the runoff and biology issues. He stated that the question is "how much different information is there?" Stressing that he spent many hours studying the record, Councilmember Clawson detailed examples of information that was considered by the Hearing Examiner but not by the ERC. He concluded that the Hearing Examiner had substantially more information than the ERC. Councilman Corman stated that he is supportive of the herons, and noted the Council did support expending monies to acquire the forest. He recognized that development will occur;however,what is to be determined is the path that leads to the development. Mr. Corman voiced his support for the minority report. Councilwoman Briere explained that the Planning and Development Committee has reviewed this project over the years,and a development agreement exists between the City and SR 900 LLC. Thus, many of the issues have already been looked at. She pointed out that the project was originally going to be multi- storied apartment complexes, and now the proposal consists of substantial buffers surrounding single-family homes. Ms.Briere stated that the herons are acknowledged by making the project as small as it is. Councilman Clawson commented on the testimony received,noting that it was very confusing. He reviewed the law, and the court cases cited by the Hearing Examiner in his report. He detailed his interpretation of the WAC sections that pertain to these issues,and quoted WAC 197-11-330(5) "Threshold Determination Process," which is about whether an EIS is needed, and WAC 197-11-782 "Probable," which defines probable as "likely or reasonably likely to occur." Stating that not a lot is known about the herons,Mr. Clawson emphasized that it would be a significant environmental impact if some or all of the herons were to stop nesting in the forest, or if their productivity dropped. He added that there is uncertainty, the situation is unique, and it has not been studied. Councilwoman Briere stated that the testimony revealed a number of things that could affect the herons that might not have anything to do with this project. She pointed out that the rookery is surrounded on three sides with industry, and an office development is located within 500 feet. The subject project is located 1,000 feet away from the rookery, and is significantly smaller than some of the November 8,2004 Renton City Council Minutes Page 397 surrounding developments. She noted that the belief that this project would have more impact on the herons than what already exists near the site did not seem right. • *MOTION TO ADOPT THE MAJORITY COMMITTEE REPORT. ROLL CALL: FOUR AYES: PERSSON,NELSON,LAW, BRIERE; THREE NAYS: CORMAN,CLAWSON, PALMER. MOTION CARRIED. (See later this page for related audience comment and page 399 for correspondence.) RECESS MOVED BY NELSON, SECONDED BY CORMAN,COUNCIL RECESS FOR FIVE MINUTES. CARRIED. Time: 9:30 p.m. The meeting was reconvened at 9:37 p.m.; roll was called; all Councilmembers present. 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 2004 and beyond. Items noted included: * Beginning on Veterans Day, a new exhibit will be featured at the Renton Historical Museum commemorating the sacrifices of Renton's uniformed men and women during the World Wars. * Valley Community Players will present the holiday comedy My Three Angels at Carco Theatre,from November 19th through December 12th. Call 425-226-5190 for information. * Comment is invited on the draft Chinook Salmon Conservation Plan at an open house on November 16th at the Maplewood Golf Course Club House. The public review period runs from November 12th to December 16th. The draft plan can be accessed via King County's website at www.metrokc.gov. EDNSP: Federal Reserve Bank Mayor Keolker-Wheeler announced that the Federal Reserve Bank has Branch,Locate to Renton completed a purchase and sale agreement with Boeing to purchase 10.8 acres in the Longacres Office Park in Renton for a regional branch. The building is estimated to be 94,000 square feet and is scheduled to be completed in late 2007. She noted that the City will work hard to make sure the SW 27th St. and Strander Blvd. extension project is completed. AUDIENCE COMMENT Georgina Kerr, 3834 S. 116th St.,Tukwila, 98168,expressed the importance of Citizen Comment: Kerr- habitat conversation,pointing out that salmon are a resource and they need an Habitat Preservation assured continuance of healthy water and good habitat. Noting that some communities do not value habitat, she stated that in the future people will come here from all over the world to see the salmon-filled rivers and the heron rookery. Additionally,Ms. Kerr stated that development does have negative effect on the habitat,and she encouraged the City to think about the future and the value of this resource. Citizen Comment: Johnson- Diane Johnson, 3042 Garlough Ave. SW, Seattle,98116, stated that she works Sunset Bluff Preliminary Plat in Renton,and noted that the City's gateway sign on SW Grady Way depicts a Appeal, SR 900 LLC,PP-04- heron. She explained that although she is not opposed to development, it is 002 important that the development not disturb the heron colony at Black River Riparian Forest. Ms. Johnson described how much she enjoys the forest, and requested that the development's impact on the environment be studied, and that the developer mitigate impacts to the heron's habitat. She pointed out that the forest is an economic and natural asset for Renton. November 8,2004 Renton City Council Minutes Page 398 Citizen Comment: Krom- Susan Krom,PO Box 16155, Seattle,98116,representing Herons Forever, Sunset Bluff Preliminary Plat expressed her disappointment in the Council's decision regarding the appeal of Appeal, SR 900 LLC, PP-04- the Sunset Bluff Preliminary Plat. She stated that Herons Forever will now 002 consider taking this matter to Superior Court. Ms. Krom explained that her • efforts to protect the heron colony are so that future generations can enjoy this remarkable treasure, and pointed out that the population of this particular sub- species of heron is in decline. Citizen Comment: Ryan - Colin Ryan,6715 S. 122nd St., Seattle, 98178, stated his support for the type of Planned Action (Lakeshore development that is going to be built on the surplus Boeing property. He stated Landing), Boeing Surplus that the project appears that it will become a core area rather than throughways Property such as the Southcenter area in Tukwila. He indicated that it is good to locate developments which combine retail, office,and residential near downtown areas,rather than just retail development. Mr. Ryan added that he also supports the protection of herons. Citizen Comment: Mega- Matt Mega, 8050 35th Ave. NE, Seattle,98115,representing Seattle Audubon, Habitat Preservation stated that many land use strategies were discussed during the WRIA 8 presentation to protect salmon habitat and water quality. He pointed out that retrofitting neighborhoods to meet this end is expensive, and it is more practical to employ these strategies prior to development. Mr. Mega explained that although it is challenging to balance private development and habitat preservation, it can be achieved, especially if Renton has high standards and demands high quality projects from developers. MOVED BY CLAWSON, SECONDED BY CORMAN, COUNCIL EXTEND THE AUDIENCE COMMENT TIME PERIOD TO ALLOW ONE MORE SPEAKER. CARRIED. Citizen Comment: Yepez- Doris Yepez, 16444 SE 135th St.,Renton, 98059, expressed her concern about Sunset Bluff Preliminary Plat the Sunset Bluff development near the Black River Riparian Forest. Appeal,Black River Channel Additionally, she announced that she received a$28,349 King County Restoration Project waterworks grant to conduct restoration work on the south side of the Black River Channel off of Monster Rd. SW,between the Black River Pumping Station and the Monster Rd. Bridge. Ms. Yepez stated that the goal of the restoration project is to create a buffer from the street, and to provide shade and food sources for the salmon. She asked for the City's support with this project, and noted that a community outreach meeting will be held on November 16th. 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 November 1,2004. Council concur. November 1, 2004 Public Works: Surplus of City- City Clerk reported bid opening on 10/26/2004 for the sale of old Fire Station Owned Property, 901 #12, located at 901 Harrington Ave. NE; one bid;minimum acceptable bid Harrington Ave NE $427,500; and submitted staff recommendation to sell the property to the bidder,Eric and Jie Haywood, in the amount of$427,500, plus excise tax. Council concur. Community Services: Community Services Department recommended approval of a three-year lease Edlund/Korum Property Lease and caretaker's agreement with Leroy Coffman to perform caretaker duties and &Caretaker Agreement,Leroy pay$500 in rent per month for the Edlund/Korum property on Carr Road, Coffman which the City purchased for future development of a park. Refer to Finance Committee. November 8,2004 Renton City Council Minutes Page 399 Annexation: Querin,Hoquiam Economic Development,Neighborhoods and Strategic Planning Department Ave NE& SE 112th St submitted 10%Notice of Intent to annex petition for the proposed Querin Annexation, and recommended a public meeting be set on 11/22/2004 to consider the petition; 10.14 acres located in the vicinity of Hoquiam Ave. NE, SE 112th St., and SE 114th P1. Council concur. Annexation: Maplewood East, Economic Development, Neighborhoods and Strategic Planning Department SE 136th St& 156th Ave SE submitted 60%Notice of Intent to annex petition for the proposed Maplewood East Annexation,and recommended a public hearing be set on 11/22/2004 to consider the petition and R-4 zoning; 26.14 acres located in the vicinity of 152nd Ave. SE, 156th Ave. SE, and SE 136th St. Council concur. Rezone: Kennydale Hearing Examiner recommended approval of a rezone of a 6.68-acre site Elementary School, NE 28th located at 1700 NE 28th St. from R-8(Residential Single Family, eight St,R-8 to R-8(P) dwelling units per acre)to R-8 with a P-suffix designation; R-04-101 (Kennydale Elementary School). Council concur. MOVED BY PERSSON, SECONDED BY CORMAN, COUNCIL APPROVE THE CONSENT AGENDA AS PRESENTED. CARRIED. Added The following correspondence was read into the record in support for and CORRESPONDENCE protection of the Black River Riparian Forest habitat and heron colony, in Citizen Comment: Various- relation to the appeal of the Sunset Bluff Preliminary Plat(PP-04-002): Donna Sunset Bluff Preliminary Plat Kostka,Grants Coordinator,Heron Habitat Helpers, 2420 30th Ave. W., Appeal, SR 900 LLC,PP-04- Seattle,98199; Glenn Herlihy, 2337 18th Ave. S., Seattle, 98144; Julia Chase, 002 8145 29th St. SW, Seattle, 98126;Nancy O'Neal, 390 Taylor Ave. NW,#401, Renton,98055; Kevin Jones 3228 38th Ave. SW, 98126; Paula Crockett & Martin Gibbins,5714 138th P1. SE,Bellevue, 98006; and Stacie Finnelly, 2801 179th Ave.NE,Redmond,98052. UNFINISHED BUSINESS Finance Committee Chair Corman presented a report regarding the Gene Finance Committee Coulon Memorial Beach Park Boat Launch Repair Project(CAG-04-133). The CAG: 04-133, Gene Coulon Committee recommended concurrence in the staff recommendation that Park Boat Launch Repair, Council authorize the use of$69,097.71 in excess budget from completed Skaar Construction projects,accept the low bid submitted by Skaar Construction,Inc. for the project, and authorize the Mayor and City Clerk to sign the contract in the amount of$119,379.71. MOVED BY CORMAN, SECONDED BY NELSON, COUNCIL CONCUR IN THE COMMITTEE REPORT. CARRIED. Finance: Vouchers Finance Committee Chair Corman presented a report recommending approval of Claim Vouchers 231615 -232025 and one wire transfer totaling $2,566,851.04; and approval of Payroll Vouchers 54202-54436, one wire transfer,and 570 direct deposits totaling$1,795,529.43. MOVED BY CORMAN, SECONDED BY LAW,COUNCIL CONCUR IN THE COMMITTEE REPORT. CARRIED. Community Services Community Services Committee Chair Nelson presented a report regarding the Committee 2004 neighborhood grant projects (second round). The Committee concurred EDNSP: 2004 Neighborhood in the recommendation of staff to approve the following grant applications: Grant Program 1. Emerald Garden Homeowners Association -Landscape around detention pond located on corner of Dayton Ave. NE and NE 20th St. ($5,547). 2. Falcon Ridge Homeowners Association -Landscape around exposed electrical boxes and add picnic tables to the common area($1,182). November 8,2004 Renton City Council Minutes Page 400 3. LaCrosse Homeowners Association -Improve two common area open spaces with the addition of benches, tables, and light landscaping($2,787). 4. Maplewood Gardens Neighborhood Association -Develop small urban park within the neighborhood on public right-of-way at SE 11th St. ($2,870). 5. Monterey Terrace Neighborhood Association -Restore and upgrade the current entrance sign and landscaping($6,269). 6. Talbot Hill Neighborhood Association -Landscape the area surrounding the neighborhood entrance sign at S. 17th St. and Talbot Rd. S. ($10,278). 7. Winsper Homeowners Association-Landscape the main entrance located at S. 32nd and Talbot Rd. S. ($8,181). 8. Honey Creek Ridge Homeowners Association-Plantings in seven traffic circles and adding two picnic tables within the common area($1,437). The Committee also recommended approval to fund the following administrative newsletter applications: 1. Maplewood Glen Neighborhood Association -Annual printing expenses for newsletter printed and hand delivered quarterly($162). 2. Summerwind Homeowners Association-Annual printing and postal expenses for a quarterly newsletter($216).* Councilwoman Nelson reported that this is the first year the City received grant requests exceeding the$50,000 budget; therefore, each of the associations received less money than they requested so that all eight projects could be funded. Additionally, she expressed her appreciation for the positive results of the Neighborhood Grant Program. *MOVED BY NELSON, SECONDED BY CORMAN, COUNCIL CONCUR IN THE COMMITTEE REPORT. CARRIED. Transportation(Aviation) Transportation (Aviation)Committee Chair Palmer presented a report Committee recommending concurrence in the staff recommendation to approve Addendum Airport: Pro-Flight Aviation #1 to the Pro-Flight Aviation, Inc.Airport lease(LAG-99-002) to increase the Lease, Addendum#1,LAG- leased area, allow for fuel storage and fuel sales to the public,and provide for 99-002 an increase in the ground rental rate using the Consumer Price Index for Urban Seattle. The ground lease rate increases from$0.3066 per square foot to $0.3287 per square foot, increasing the annual ground lease revenue from $9,342.41 to$11,700.08. The Committee further recommended that the Mayor and City Clerk be authorized to sign the lease addendum with Pro-Flight Aviation,Inc. MOVED BY PALMER, SECONDED BY BRIERE, COUNCIL CONCUR IN THE COMMITTEE REPORT. CARRIED. RESOLUTIONS AND The following ordinance was presented for first reading and referred to the ORDINANCES Council meeting of 11/15/2004 for second and final reading: Planning: Planned Action An ordinance was read designating a Planned Action for the Lakeshore Landing (Lakeshore Landing), Boeing development, approximately 55 acres located between Logan Ave. N. to the Surplus Property west and Garden Ave. N. to the east, N. 8th St. to the south, and east of the Boeing manufacturing operations on the west. MOVED BY BRIERE, SECONDED BY NELSON,COUNCIL REFER THE ORDINANCE FOR SECOND AND FINAL READING ON 11/15/2004. CARRIED. November 8,2004 Renton City Council Minutes Page 401 ADJOURNMENT MOVED BY NELSON, SECONDED BY CORMAN, COUNCIL ADJOURN. CARRIED. Time: 10.23 p.m. efrilLY14.1. .• (A),2l67t2 Bonnie I. Walton, CMC, City Clerk Recorder: Michele Neumann November 8, 2004 RENTON CITY COUNCIL COMMITTEE MEETING CALENDAR Office of the City Clerk COUNCIL COMMITTEE MEETINGS SCHEDULED AT CITY COUNCIL MEETING November 8, 2004 COMMITTEE/CHAIRMAN DATE/TIME AGENDA COMMITTEE OF THE WHOLE MON., 11/15 Emerging Issues (Persson) 5:00 p.m. *Council Conference Room 5:30 p.m. 2005 Budget Presentation and Deliberations *Council Chambers* COMMUNITY SERVICES (Nelson) FINANCE (Corman) PLANNING &DEVELOPMENT (Briere) PUBLIC SAFETY MON., 11/15 Municipal Jail Bookings &Fees (Law) 4:30 p.m. TRANSPORTATION (AVIATION) (Palmer) UTILITIES (Clawson) 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. ATTACHMENT B APPPOVED BY circ C n CSL PLANNING & DEVELOPMENT COMMITTEE bate COMMITTEE REPORT November 8, 2004 SUNSET BLUFFS APPEAL MAJORITY REPORT File LUA 04-002., ECF, PP (Referred 9/13/04) The Planning and Development Committee heard this appeal on October 21,2004. After reviewing the record, the written presentations of both parties and hearing oral argument, the majority of the Committee finds that the evidence submitted by Herons Forever was too speculative to sustain its burden of proof before the Hearing Examiner. The majority of the Committee recommends that the full Council reverse the Hearing Examiner and affirm the decision of the ERC. The Committee further recommends that the Council adopt the following amended Findings and Conclusions to the Dearing Examiner's Report and Decision dated August 3, 2004. AMENDED FINDINGS AND CONCLtSIONS I. Finding:of Fact 12. The„last sentence is amended to read: "The southwestern corner of the.site (1 0$ acres) is zoned RC (Resource Conservation).” II. Finding of Fact 27. T;he;third sentence is amended to read: "West is another • RM-I district with multiple family units and industrially zoned property in the City of Renton that is developed and undeveloped,including a c sed quarry site, currently used as a contractor's office, equipment and Material,storage, recycling and concrete batching." III. Finding of Fact 28^is,,aMended to add a'sentence: "Ms. Sheldon did no study of the biological effects of the change in release rate of the retained stormwater. The retention system was designed according to the King County manual for detention, treatment and controlled release." IV. Finding of Fact 29 is amended to add a sentence: "Mr. Rozeboom testified in general terms but without the support of any study or quantitative analysisof the actual effects of the changes in the hydroperiod." V. Finding of Fact 31 is amended to read: "Herons Forever's experts have monitored heron recently and indicated that the birds reacted hostilely to intrusive activities in both this.heronry and in others in the Puget Sound Area. They suspect that the proposed grading on this property, over 1,000 feet from the heron colony, might have an impact on the colony. Reports indicate that the birds were flushed and severely disturbed by logging just south of the railroad tracks at the western edge of the riparian forest, but very near to that colony. Anecdotal evidence indicates that the development of an office park within 500 feet of the colony may have caused the Planning and Developme ommittee Report Nov. 8, 2004 Page 3 helped create the conditions that attracted the herons in the first instance, and has expended substantial effort and resources in protecting the herons and their surroundings." XII. Conclusion 2, the last sentence is stricken. XIII. Conclusion 7 is amended by striking the second and third sentence. XIV. Conclusion 9 is amended by striking the last sentence. XV. Conclusion 10 is amended by adding a sentence, as follows; "Earthwork shall be limited to the dry months—except for minor earthwork, such as finish grading." XVI. Conclusions 11 through 28 are stricken. XVII. A new Conclusion 11 is added. "The burden of proof is on Herons Forever. As previously stated, the decision of the ERC is entitled to substantial weight. While its good intentions are not questioned, the 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." XVIII. The Decision is amended to read: "The decision of the ERC is affirmed." • Terri Briere,.! air cm Don Persson, substitute member C: Gregg Zimmerman Jason Jordan 4Aat Kaut44-4-0--i ATTACHMENT C August 3, 2004 OFFICE OF THE HEARING EXAMINER CITY OF RENTON REPORT AND DECISION APPELLANTS: SR 900 LLC Quarry Industrial Park LLC 9125 10th Avenue South Seattle, WA 98108 RECEIVED Herons Forever Suzanne Krom AUG 0 6 2004 4715-1/2 36"'Avenue SW Seattle, WA 98126 HALINEN LAW OFFICES, P.S. CONTACTS: David Halinen Halinen Law Offices 10500 NE 8th Street, Suite 1900 Bellevue, WA 98004 David Mann Attorney at Law 142-1 fourth Avenue, Suite 1015 Seattle, WA 98101 File No.: LUA 04-002, PP, ECF LOCATION: 1100 Block of SW Sunset Boulevard SUMMARY OF REQUEST: Approval for a 65-lot subdivision of a 26.26-acre site intended for detached single-family homes. SUMMARY OF ACTION: Development Services Recommendation: Approve subject to conditions SUMMARY OF APPEAL: Appeal of SEPA determination PUBLIC HEARING: After reviewing the Appellants' written requests for a hearing and examining available information on file,the Examiner conducted a public hearing on the subject as follows: MINUTES The following minutes are a summary of the April 20, 2004 hearing. The legal record is recorded on CD. The hearing opened on Tuesday, April 20, 2004, at 8:35 a.m. in the Council Chambers on the seventh floor of the Renton City Hall. Parties wishing to testify were affirmed by the Examiner. Parties present: Zanetta Fontes, Assistant City Attorney 4 1 Sunset Bluff SEPA Appeal File No.: LUA-04-002, ECF, PP August 3, 2004 Page 2 David Halinen, representing SR 900 LLC, the Applicant Halinen Law Offices 10500 NE 5111 Street, Suite 1900 Bellevue, WA 98004 David Mann, representing Herons Forever Attorney at Law 1424 Fourth Avenue, Ste. 1015 Seattle, WA 98101 The following exhibits were entered into the record: Exhibit No. 1: Yellow file containing the original Exhibit No.2: Bill Rozeboom Resume application, various reports,correspondence file, SEPA documents, and Staff analysis for the ERC, and the Staff report on the Plat. Exhibit No. 3: Letter dated March 24, 2004 with Exhibit No. 4: Copy of the City of Renton, Rivers review of environmental checklist and accompanying and Wetlands map reports by Mr. Rozeboom. Exhibit No. 5: Storm Water PBPW Technical Exhibit No. 6: Enlarged version of Exhibit 5, Services, topographic map showing railroad, Riparian Forest and pond Exhibit No. 7: Letter dated March 15, 2004 with Exhibit No. 8: Dyanne Sheldon Resume geotechnical findings of Mr. Anil Butail Exhibit No. 9: Letter dated April 10, 2004 with Exhibit No. 10: Color version of Plat Map findings and conclusions of Ms. Dyanne Sheldon Exhibit No. 11: Kate Stenberg,Ph.D. Resume Exhibit No. 12: A letter dated April 18, 2004 covering Dr. Stenberg's review and findings and conclusions. Exhibit No. 13: Aerial photograph foldout from the Exhibit No. 14: Newspaper article from the King Environmental Checklist with the bulls eye around the County Journal dated February 28,2004 main nest on the island in the P-1 channel Exhibit No. 15: Letter dated June 12, 1998 from Dr. Exhibit No. 16: Letter dated July I, 1998 from Dr. Stenberg, addressed to Jennifer Toth Henning, Sr. Stenberg, addressed to Jana Huerter,the then Land Planner, City of Renton Development Services, Use Supervisor, City of Renton Development Services referring to Black River Tract B development Division, in reference to Black River Corporate Park proposal. Tract B. Exhibit No. 17: April 20, 2004 letter from Suzanne Exhibit No. 18: Additional aerial view of subject site Krom. Exhibit No. 19: Scott Dinkelman Resume Exhibit No.20: Geotechnical Engineering Study Addendum dated April 19, 2004. Sunset Bluff SEPA Appeal File No.: LUA-04-002, ECF, PP _ August 3,2004 Page 3 Exhibit No. 21: 11a1 Grubb Resume Exhibit No. 22: Copy of Plat map used by Mr. Grubb during his testimony Exhibit No. 23: Sunset Bluff Preliminary Plat Offsite Exhibit No. 24: Existing Basin Areas and Storm Basins Water Flow Exhibit No. 52: Resume of Dr. Ed McCarthy Exhibit No. 53: Figure 1 from Dr. McCarthy's report Exhibit No. 54: Evapotranspiration Modeling by Dr. Exhibit No. 55: 1994 King County Comprehensive McCarthy Planning Map Exhibit No. 56: 2000 City of Renton map, created at Exhibit No. 57: 1996 Study Area Martin Luther King time of annexation showing King County zoning. Exhibit No. 58: Heron Rookery Radius Exhibit No. 59: August 2000 Development Agmt. Exhibit No. 60: Marked aerial photo showing the Exhibit No. 61a: Existing proposed cross section for polygon of the herons showing a cross section of Sunset Bluff(small size) Exhibit 61. Exhibit No. 61b: Full size photo of Exhibit 61a Exhibit No. 62: Aerial topography map showing Exhibit No. 63: King County GIS system map some of the basins in the cross section showing the Black River open space and park areas. WRIA#9 Habitat Projects Exhibit No. 64a: Photograph showing view south Exhibit No. 64b: Photograph showing view from the from railroad tracks towards the heronry and open south trail south of the P-1 forebay. space. Exhibit No. 64c: Photograph showing the herons and Exhibit No. 65: Letter dated June 21, 1991 from their locations in the trees in the colony. Jones and Stokes, Status of the Black River Great Blue Heron Colony as of June 18, 1991. Exhibit No. 66: The Sunset Bluff Plat Hearing by Exhibit No. 67: Burlington Northern Railroad e-mail reference. to Mr. Halinen re:trips per day Exhibit No. 68: Resume of Emmett Pritchard Exhibit No. 69: Report dated April 26,2004 by Emmett Pritchard Exhibit No. 70: Rainfall report from the Seattle Exhibit No. 71: Resume of Dr. Ken Raedeke Times printed from a web page Exhibit No. 72: Graph showing Great Blue Heron Exhibit No. 73: Graph showing US—Washington numbers from the Christmas Bird Counts conducted Great Blue Heron count conducted by the Audubon by the Audubon Society Society. Exhibit No. 74: Correction to page 29, figure 3 for Exhibit No. 75: Carlson and McLean Article dated the year 2003 1996 Sunset Bluff SEPA Appeal File No.: LUA-04-002, ECF, PP August 3, 2004 Page 4 Exhibit No. 76: Memo by Dr. Raedeke from Dr. Exhibit No. 77a: May 7, 2004 aerial photo Butler's book. Exhibit No. 77b: Large size aerial photo of Exhibit Exhibit No. 78: Environmental Hearing Examiner 77a, dated May 7, 2004 and Council Review Process Exhibit No. 79: Letter from Suzanne Krom dated Exhibit No. 80: Letter from Quailcroft signed by Dr. February 8, 2004 Kate Stenberg dated February 7, 2004 Exhibit No. 81: City Parks Map dated 2002 Exhibit No. 82: Kinko fax from Shelly Anderson Exhibit No. 83: Faxed letter from Shelly Anderson Exhibit No. 84: Koontz/Rickoski Report Exhibit No. 85: Bowman/Siderius Report Exhibit No. 86: Memo to the Hearing Examiner from Emmett Pritchard dated May 10, 2004 Exhibit No. 87: Heron Survey Report for the Exhibit No. 88: Packet of information re: seasonal Redmond Towne Center dated 10/1/98 timing of activities for herons and 3 Publications Exhibit No. 89: Washington Department of Game Exhibit No. 90: Washington Department Fish and publication,the Great Blue Heron of King County, Wildlife PHS Management Recommendations,the Washington dated July 1981 Great Blue Heron dated 1999 Exhibit No. 91: Review of Geotech addendum by Mr. Exhibit No. 92: Photo 1 shows the look of a new Anil Butail fresh heron nest; Photo 2 heron incubating eggs on nest Exhibit No. 93: Photo of nests from the main colony, Exhibit No. 94: Photo of main colony nests with no older, gray nests herons, 3-31-04 Exhibit No. 95: Photo of main colony nests taken 2- Exhibit No. 96: Photo of the main colony 3-31-04 28-03 showing lots of activity Exhibit No.97: Photo taken of the protected forest 3- Exhibit No.98: Photo of protected forest showing 17-04,the nests are occupied chick and adult in nest 5-05-04 Exhibit No. 99: photo showing south path to pond Exhibit No. 100: February 19, 1987 a letter by with vegetation Ronald G.Nelson of the City of Renton, Building and Zoning Director to First City Development, Ms. Barbara Moss Exhibit No. 101: Letter from Ronald G.Nelson to Exhibit No. 102: DNR good for 1 year dated March Bogle&Gates 2, 1987-March 2, 1988 The Examiner inquired if the appeal by Mr. Halinen was still pending. Mr. Halinen stated that from his discussions with Mr. Jordan that the City staff has agreed to the revisions/corrections that were proffered in the appeal statement. Mr. Jordan confirmed that that was correct. It still requires an appeal, but staff has no } Sunset Bluff SEPA Appeal File No.: LUA-04-002, ECF, PP August 3, 2004 Page 5 objections to the stated revisions. The conditions need to be reworded, part of the appeal and decision would have to be reworded per the suggestions. That process is pending. 1\Mr. Halinen stated that these are minor corrections, there was some vagueness as to Mitigation Measure #24 which dealt with the original statement in reference to a pedestrian pass-through refuge area in Sunset Boulevard NE. There was some concern that a crosswalk might be implied or inferred by that statement. After consultation with Mr.Zimmerman, it was confirmed that that was not the intention, he did, however want a raised median area, and so a modified condition was developed which is set forth in the corrected portion. There is nothing to add, given the stipulation that Mr. Jordan has indicated. It is asked that the Examiner approve the correction as set forth. As to Mitigation Measure#25, there was simply an oversight referring to "prior to the recording of the preliminary plat"versus what was intended, "prior to the recording of the final plat". It is urged that you approve both of these corrections as stipulated by Mr. Jordan on behalf of the City. The Examiner agreed, and noted that this would simplify this morning's process somewhat. The Examiner asked if there were any other preliminary matters, there being none, it was confirmed that there was only one appellant and they would have the burden and go first. Jason Jordan, Senior Planner, Development Services Division stated that before the Examiner today was the Sunset Bluff Preliminary Plat SEPA application. The project is generally located in the northwest corner of the City of Renton directly south of SW Sunset Boulevard also known as Martin Luther King, SR 900 and immediately north of the Burlington Northern Santa Fe Railroad and then north of the Black River Riparian Forest. The applicant is requesting Hearing Examiner,Preliminary Plat Approval and SEPA Review of a 26.26- acre site and developing that into 65 single-family lots. The proposed lots range in size from approximately 4,000 square feet up to 5,000 square feet. Access to the site is proposed off of SW Sunset Blvd, one entryway located in the southeastern corner of the site. The applicant is proposing three tracts; Tract A located north of the lots, between the lots and SW Sunset Blvd., Tract B located south of the lots between that and the southern boundary that will contain the drainage facility,and finally Tract C a combination of some steep slopes and wetland area. David Mann stated that he was not going to give an extensive opening argument, a letter was submitted to the Examiner on April 19, 2004. It is their belief that at the end of the day, there will be a definite and confirmed conviction that a mistake was made by the City of Renton in approving the Determination of Non-Significance for this proposal. Evidence will be presented on all six of the issues identified in the letter. The one change today is that Robert Butler,Ph.D. is not able to be here and so will not be testifying, instead, Dr. Butler has submitted a letter to Kate Stenberg that she will present. Bill Rozeboom, Sr. Engineer,NW Hydraulic Consultants, 16300 Christianson Road, Ste. 350,Tukwila, WA 98188 stated his qualifications. Mr. Rozeboom's resume was entered at Exhibit 2. Upon questioning by Mr. Mann,Mr. Rozeboom stated that he was asked by Herons Forever to review the environmental checklist and the accompanying reports and did prepare a letter dated March 24, 2004 addressed to Mr. Mann with his comments. There are concerns over the projects effects on the closed depression wetland located in the Black River Riparian Forest, and the receiving water for the proposed development. The downstream analysis prepared for the development says that the water will go through two culverts, underneath the railway grade and then find it's way into the P-1 Pond,which is a pump station pond from the Black River Springbrook Creek system into the Green/Duwamish system. The missing link is how the water physically gets from the railway tracks to the P-1 Pond,that is where potential concerns arise, and those are the issues raised here. From the best available information,that area is a closed depression wetland with a very limited drainage basin area under existing conditions. The first point to be made about the area of the Black River Riparian Forest is that it is a wetland. The City of Renton's wetland mapping identifies almost the entire forest area as a wetland. The Environmental Checklist talks about the culverts under the railway track and discusses that the culvert discharges to wetlands or wetland areas. The second point of interest is what the nature of that wetland is and what supports its hydrology Sunset Bluff SEPA Appeal File No.: LUA-04-002, ECF, PP August 3,2004 Page 6 and how does it drain. A Topographic Mapping from the City's storm drain book and an AutoCAD drawing that enlarges the area of the development site including the Riparian Forest were presented. The purpose of the second map is to provide the topographic information at a more legible scale. What is seen on these maps is a very closed depression. It is not clear from the drawing how big the closed depression is or how deep it would get, there has been no outlet identified to that closed depression. What that means is that the water inflow to the area would tend to pond and seep out very slowly, at some point it would overflow and overtop. The hydrology of that system is not well understood and that is one of the concerns, it is not possible to say how well it functions. The water supply into the wetland under present conditions is a very limited tributary basin area, the development site probably counts for one-half of the total tributary basin area to the Riparian Forest depression wetland. The development site also produces very little run off,the soils report of the area shows that it is a sandy soil, highly pervious, even the runoff that is coming from Sunset Boulevard is almost always infiltrating into the ground. The issue is that when the site is developed and you add nine acres of pervious surface, it is going to produce a lot of water and when all that additional water goes into the closed depression, it's going to have a bathtub effect and pond up. The closed depression nature of the wetland makes it very vulnerable to increased volume changes and the point raised is that the downstream analysis has not been sufficient because it has not characterized the hydrology of this receiving wetland and the wetland is very vulnerable because of the closed depression nature of the system. The project will increase the volumes into the wetland for two reasons. The first being converting these nine acres of forested sandy soil to impervious surface and piping that down to the bottom. The second reason that the project is going to increase the hydrology or the water supply into this closed depression is the treatment of the Sunset Blvd. Presently there is a number of culverts which come under the roadway and the analysis of the property says that the water from that culvert almost always infiltrates into the soil, what the development proposes is to build parallel interceptor trenches, a number of catch basin inlets to capture all the water so the development site stays dry and to tightline all that runoff from Sunset Blvd. down to the bottom of the site through the railway culverts and then into the closed depression wetland. The input of these findings suggests that the combination of circumstances here says that the closed depression that is vulnerable to increased volume changes and the development proposal is certain to increase the volumes into that system and the impacts are simply not known. The Examiner stated that he thought they were proposing a fairly large detention pond system on the north side of the railroad tracks on the subject site. Mr.Rozeboom stated that that was correct. The detention pond will be effective in controlling peak flows of the erosive flows, but the detention pond will have no impact at all on the volumes. Ms. Fontes asked if the impacts, at this time, were known? Mr. Rozeboom stated that it is known that there are impacts,but they cannot quantify hydraulically how deep the water will get. The nature of the development will absolutely increase the runoff volumes very significantly. It will raise the level of water in the wetland of the Riparian Forest. From a hydrology perspective,the impact is that they are changing the depth of water,and the duration of flooding. Upon questioning by Mr. Halinen,Mr. Rozeboom stated that the estimate was that the sensitive site occupies one-half of the upland basin area tributary to the wetland. No quantitative calculations with respect to the levels of water in the downstream wetland were done. There is a risk of significant adverse impacts that warrant further investigation. Upon further questioning by Mr. Mann, Mr. Rozeboom stated that he would not want to characterize it as a mistake on the part of the City of Renton to not have investigated further the quantity of water running off and the size of the hydrology impact, but rather as an oversight. Sunset Bluff SEPA Appeal File No.: LUA-04-002, ECF, PP August 3, 2004 Page 7 Anil Butail, Geotechnical Engineer, 12525 Willows Road, Suite 80, Kirkland, WA 98034 stated his qualifications and work experience. He further stated that he was asked by Herons Forever to review the Environmental Checklist and accompanying reports. He focused primarily on the geotechnical aspects of this project. A March 15, 2004 letter of Mr. Butail's findings was entered as Exhibit 7. The proposed development calls for removal of all of the vegetation from the western two-thirds of the project prior to any work being done. Once that is done there's going to be a large amount of earthwork which will entail excavations on the uphill side of the project placing large amounts of fill on the downhill side of the project, excavation of large amounts of material for construction of the pond and placing large amounts of fill for the access road into the project. Based on the drawings that have been prepared, the exposed excavation immediately on the downhill side of Sunset could be as high as 70-feet. The fills on the downhill side of the access road, which will be used to support these lots,could be as much as 40-feet high and cuts for the pond are also going to be as much as 40-feet high. This is a very large amount of earthwork for a steeply sloping site and a site that has considerable sensitive areas. The cuts and fills that are proposed on the site will probably be part of a balanced earthwork operations, the material that is cut from the uphill side of the road will be used as fill on the downhill side of the road. Looking at the information that is presented in the Earth Consultant's Report, the materials that are encountered in the test pits are extremely wet. Most of the soils shown in the test pits have moisture contents in excess of 20% and the workable moisture range for these materials is on the order of between 12% and 15%. With this kind of moisture variation these soils will be extremely difficult to compact. Without extensive drying and considering work will probably be done during the summer season and considering that the amount of earthwork is going to be extensive, it seems that these materials cannot be reused as fill unless there are significant chemical additives such as cement or lime kiln dust added to make the soil workable. There are cuts of as much as 70-feet proposed below Sunset,the test excavations that have been done by Earth Consultants the maximum depth of exploration is seventeen and one-half feet which tells that it is unknown what will be excavated when the actual earthwork is done on the site. The ground water conditions on the site have not been characterized, it is not known where the groundwater will be encountered, if it is encountered, what provisions can be made to handle the groundwater and also what impact the groundwater conditions will have on the stability. There is discussion in the Earth Consultants report of slope stability,this is a very serious issue. There is discussion in the report that the minimum safety factor that has been calculated is 1.9, there is some soil parameters that are discussed in the report that are probably reasonable, but with regard to the safety factor of 1.9,that does not seem correct, the actual safety factors will be much lower than that and with the proper ground water characterization he believes that there is a serious instability issue below both Sunset Boulevard and adjacent to the proposed pond locations. The plan also shows several series of rockeries stacked on top of each other,the schematics shown are most certainly not suitable for the conditions existing at the site and are in a configuration that is just asking for instability to occur. The Examiner asked what level of analysis would generally be recommended for a site such as this, it has been pointed out that some of the test pits go down to about seventeen and one-half feet,there is going to be excavations of up to 70 feet, does an applicant on a hillside like this generally bore the full depth,or do they discover some of these things while they would be developing the site? Mr. Butail answered that on a site like this it would be disastrous to wait until construction to discover all of the soil conditions. All explorations have to go down to at least 15 to 20 feet below the maximum anticipated depth of excavation. The standard of care in the industry is to go down at least to the depth of the proposed excavation and when there are uncertainties in projects like this, it is necessary to go even further than that. Sunset Bluff SEPA Appeal File No.: LUA-04-002, ECF, PP August 3, 2004 Page 8 Upon questioning by Ms. Fontes, Mr. Butail stated that the negative impact was one of serious instability on the property. I-le also was aware that there was a second opinion sought by the City of Renton regarding the geotechnical aspects of this project and that he has read that second report. Upon questioning by Mr. Halinen, Mr. Butail stated that he sometimes phases his investigations concerning geotechnical site investigations and that sometimes he starts with test pits and then moves onto project borings. He further stated that he had no knowledge that any geotechnical borings have subsequently been done at the site. The Examiner asked if the ERC would also be surprised to learn that borings have been done? Ms. Fontes stated that the new boring information was not available to the ERC. Upon further questioning by Mr. Halinen,Mr. Butail stated that he had been out to the site but that he had not done any explorations on the site or any lab testing relating to this project. Dyanne Sheldon, 5031 University Way NE, Seattle, WA 98105 stated her qualifications and work experience. Her resume was entered as Exhibit 8. She further stated that she was asked by Herons Forever to review the Environmental Checklist and associated reports submitted to the City of Renton for this proposal. A letter dated April 10, 2004 covering her review and findings and conclusions was marked Exhibit 9. The materials reviewed were supplied to her by 1-Herons Forever and included the SEPA checklist with the associated technical reports, a wetland report conducted in the year 2000 and a wildlife report also done in the year 2000. She also reviewed Mr. Rozeboom's report that was prepared for this hearing and various plan sheets that were made available to her. She was not provided with a complete plan set. She has visited the area surrounding the site, walked the railroad grade, looked at the wetland within the Riparian Forest and what can be determined by looking at the technical documents that were submitted and being out on site are a series of items. First it seems that additional fieldwork should be done on the site to determine if there is additional wetlands on the site. Based on the geotechnical report that was submitted by Earth Consultants in January of this year,that report shows that in the area of proposed Lot 60 in the southeast corner of project area,test pit#9 identifies that there was saturation within one foot of the surface at the time of their work and there was additional saturation slightly deeper in the hole. From a wetlands perspective, saturation within a foot of the surface may be reason to go back out and do a secondary look. The work that was done on this site makes passing reference that the soils on the hillside are so pervious that there would not likely be wetlands on the hill slope and from looking at the soils reports on a peripheral level that may be true, however,there is an on-site report in January that shows the saturated soils conditions within a foot. The other soil test pits that were in that report do not show that same level of soil saturation which is why this information was pulled out for that particular pit. The Examiner asked about the Category 3 wetland that was not protected by the City. Ms. Sheldon stated that that was in the southwest corner of the proposed project. The implications of the project itself on the off-site wetlands, the project has attempted to set aside the significant wetland on the site, which is in the southeast corner. It has to most extent avoided direct impact to the small unregulated wetland in the southwest corner,but the area of greatest concern is the off-site wetland itself. When looking at this site, and understand, based on Mr. Butail's and Mr. Rozeboom's testimony that not only will this site be cleared, but it will be massively regraded and that the soils by and large on the surface layers are in existing conditions quite pervious. By regarding this site and placing infiltration trenches at the top Sunset Bluff SEPA Appeal File No.: LUA-04-002, ECF, PP August 3,2004 Page 9 of the grade and at various locations down the site, those infiltration trenches and galleries are designed to catch sub-surface flows and bring them down to the detention pond. What happens in this detention pond is that the volume of water that falls out of the sky doesn't change because of this project but what happens to that volume of water that hits this site in the future changes it dramatically because of what is proposed. The volume of water remains constant, it is rapidly transmitted through the pipe system down to the pond and from that pond that same volume of water is transmitted at an increased rate into the down stream receiving wetlands. It isn't the volume of water that changes, it is the rate of the water getting into that wetland that changes. There is abundant scientific literature about the consequences of that change in the hydroperiod on wetlands. One of the most significant effects is the change in the contributing area,the change by grading, logging and clearing, on the subsequent hydroperiod of the receiving wetlands. This effect has not been assessed for this project. It simply has been dismissed that by discharging the water to these existing culverts under the railroad grade that there will be no adverse effect downstream,that has not been adequately addressed. The 1998 King County Manual is designed to look at water as an inert substance and as a scientist she is testifying that that is fallacy, that looking at water as an inert substance that it does not have a causative effect on biological and ecological function is a failure to be assessed through the SEPA process. The detention pond controls the rate of the flow it doesn't control the duration of the flow. There is a large bowl of water represented by the precipitation and that volume of water is either poured out all at once, which the project does not do because the manual precludes that from happening, or that same volume of water flows out of a small orifice for a longer duration. The soils that are present on the site now slow the movement of the water. If one could follow a water drop, it could take days or perhaps longer for it to move through this site, under the railroad grade and into the wetland below. By putting the whole system in the pipe, once the areas are converted to lawn grass they will function in essence like impervious surface. They will no longer function like forested upland soils that allow infiltration at a moderate rate. The research shows that the results of appropriately applied storm water management provisions result in an increase in water level fluctuations in the receiving wetlands. It isn't that the engineering is poorly done, it is that what the science tells us is that because of those engineering requirements there's a biological consequence and it is documented in the literature. There is literature that has been collected both here in the Pacific Northwest and she is the primary author of a recent document just published by the Department of Ecology that represents a ten year synthesis of the implications of the science and management of wetlands in Washington State. That document is precedent setting, it is the best available science that's being created by ecology for local jurisdictions to update their critical area ordinances and that finding about the consequences of the storm water on natural systems is consistent throughout the area. These detention ponds are designed from an engineering standpoint to what's called"cut off the peak" which means they are simply designed to take the top of the big surge of the flows and hold that volume back, but some of these systems are designed to literally empty out at the bottom so that at the next storm event they can fill back up again. One of the primary concerns of the DNS on this project is that there was no evaluation of that downstream system and of the wetland below. There is a location where water appears to be flowing from the north side of the railroad grade and when going to an appropriate location on the south side of the railroad grade there didn't appear to be any flows that came through that particular culvert. There was no analysis from the ecologists about the consequences of taking the flows from this site and directing them through two 12-inch culverts into the receiving wetland on the other side. The research shows that when we change the hydroperiod in wetlands there are only certain plant communities that are adaptable to those kind of fluctuating water levels, basically a wetland fills up after a storm event and then it drains back out. There's no evaluation on this site whether or not a potential change in hydroperiod would affect the forested condition on this site, it may very well might. In addition, there is the entire insect or invertebrate community and amphibian community that would be present in that down stream wetland that research shows have changes in the hydroperiod with measurable significant Sunset Bluff SEPA Appeal File No.: LUA-04-002, ECF, PP August 3,2004 Page 10 adverse effect on those gilled animals, on the insects and amphibians. The research is very clear, changes in hydroperiod cause adverse effect in these down stream systems, those changes from this project have not been evaluated and were not asked to be evaluated. In referring to the change in hydroperiod or storm driven events, when it rains the wetland down below may be changed in future conditions from existing conditions. We may have larger volumes of water getting to the wetland more quickly. On an annual cycle, because we have removed the sponge of the soils from this proposed site, we will have less water coming into the wetland earlier in the spring, so when our natural drought cycle begins here in the Northwest, and we start to get fewer storm events, those soils are no longer functioning as a sponge. There is no reserve present on the site and so we have less water coming into the wetland down stream on an annual cycle and in the fall the water will get to the wetland much more quickly. The only thing anyone has to go by are the soil test pits, the top layers are quite pervious, except for test pit#9, we are seeing moisture, but not a great deal of saturation. However, if you look at the analysis in the geotech report,the lower reaches of those test pits are saturated, so the soils are not sand all the way down, they are not pervious all the way down. Upon questioning by Mr. Mann, Ms. Sheldon stated that the proposed lawn grass would in essence function as if it is an impervious area. When you grade soils and move them around,you absolutely destroy that interior structure of the soil and in fact, often times in construction practices there is a call for a 95% compaction in replaced soils. Ms. Sheldon stated that the applicant themselves have not proposed infiltration. Again looking at the illustration, all the light green areas as Mr. Butail has testified are massively regraded and it isn't appropriate to re-infiltrate into regraded soils especially on the downside, you would logically infiltrate at the top of the slope, you would not infiltrate at the top of the building lots, but rather at the back of the building lots. Mr. Butail has testified that that is 40 feet of fill and you would not want to re-infiltrate water into fill soils. If they are going to re-infiltrate anyplace logically, they would bring the infiltration trenches to the toe of the proposed fill or beyond the toe of the proposed fill so that they don't end up saturating the toe of their structural fill. Upon questioning by Ms. Fontes, Ms. Sheldon cited the source of information as the applicant's own habitat wildlife assessment and stream study report from this January. The 80 feet of stream that will be lost is where the access road crosses the stream. It is immediately to the west of Oakesdale Avenue SW and the east of the first lots of the plat. According to information received this morning,this stream is not regulated by the City. If it is not regulated by the City of Renton, it does not have to be compensated for per the City of Renton's regulations.It may have to be assessed and permitted by other state agencies and perhaps even federal agencies. Upon questioning by Mr. Halinen,Ms. Sheldon replied that they were required to look for saturated soil conditions all year round,but what was done when looking at these log pits was compare the data in the logs and found that test pit#9 was the only one that the geotech report talks about saturation within a foot of the surface. Kate Stenberg, Ph.D.,23022 SE 48th Street, Sammamish, WA 98075 stated her qualifications and experience. Her resume was entered as Exhibit 11. She has been involved in monitoring Herons in King County and Puget Sound including the Black River Heron colony and its surrounding habitats for over a decade. She was asked by Herons Forever to review the environmental checklist and other information provided by the City of Renton. A letter dated April 18, 2004 covering her review and findings and conclusions was marked Exhibit 12. There are very likely to be significant environmental impacts that have not been evaluated. These include impacts to the wetland and wetland species down stream of the site, construction activity impacts, impacts from clearing the entire hillside of vegetation, noise and light impacts from the development once it is occupied and impacts from human and pet activity that is generated from the hillside. Sunset Bluff SEPA Appeal File No.: LUA-04-002, ECF, PP August 3, 2004 Page 11 The Black River Great Blue Heron Colony is the largest in King, Pierce and Snohomish Counties, it is among the top ten in Puget Sound, it currently supports about 130 nests. It is a little difficult to get an exact number this time of year because the birds are building new nests and this time of year when the leaves are out, it is difficult to spot them. Nest counts are typically done at the end of the season with the leaves fall. The Black River Heron Colony has grown in recent years even though other colonies in King County have disappeared. It's important to note that the Great Blue Heron in this region is a unique sub-specie. What we have in this area is the Coastal Great Blue Heron, it is only found in Western Washington, Western British Columbia, and a little bit of Southern Alaska. Overall, the population of the Coastal Great Blue Heron is declining. The current numbers that were reported at the last International Heron Working Group were about a 6% decline per year. According to Dr. Robert Butler, whose letter is attached to her report,the population in Western Washington is about 4,000 individuals at this time. That makes the Black River Heron Colony about 6% of the population in Washington. The Canadians have been very alarmed by the decline in the populations that they are seeing and they have taken steps to list the Coastal Great Blue Heron as a"species of concern"which is similar to a "sensitive" classification under our endangered species act. They are also working towards putting together the information necessary to upgrade that listing to one of"threatened". What we have seen so far today is a very simple story, it's one that we see all around the region, water that used to infiltrate into a forested hillside will now be piped and tightlined directly to the bottom of that hillside. The vegetation is removed from the hillside,the impervious surfaces are increased and all of this results in more water leaving the site and in this case going directly into the Black River Riparian Forest. Some common situations that we see may be beavers moving into an area, they dam something up then start getting more water held in a wetland area for a longer period of time,the vegetation changes, it changes not only from this change in duration and volume but it changes from the water level fluctuations as well. The water goes up higher, drops down lower at different times of the year than it does currently. That also changes the vegetation. It's possible that what that would mean in the Riparian Forest is that some of that forested vegetation would start to die. There will be a change in the vegetation that is buffering the heron colony from surrounding developments and activities. There has not been a wetland delineation on the City's properties, so it is not clear whether or not the nest trees themselves would be effected by these changes, but that is another risk that needs to be looked at carefully. The Examiner asked if all the studies help if the site is still developed? In other words, it was just indicated the vegetation could die, even if we studied it to the nth degree and decided the project should go ahead, but we still don't know what the outcome is, we still don't know if the vegetation would die. Additional study won't really answer that question, Dr. Stenberg stated that some additional study would definitely give some indicators to that question, because if you knew more about the depressional wetland, what sort of outlet it had,what kind of water level elevations might be expected to be retained there,those would start to answer some of those questions. There may be different design changes that could be made on the hillside that would address some of those impacts. Changes in hydrology and vegetation also impact other wildlife in the area. The studies that have been done in this region show that amphibians are very vulnerable to changes in water level fluctuations. The simple example is that amphibians lay their egg masses in seasonal wetlands at a particular place in the water column, then when you have up stream development that changes the hydroperiod and the water lever fluctuations. Perhaps there is more water in the wetland that comes in in a spring storm, the eggs don't move because they are attached to vegetation, but if the water level rises then suddenly they are deeper in the water column than mama frog wanted them to be, or if the water level drops,then suddenly maybe they are exposed. Either case they don't survive and reproduce nearly as well. Herons depend on amphibians quite a bit for a food source during some fairly critical times in their life cycle. When the adults are brooding on the nests they rely on food sources Sunset Bluff SEPA Appeal File No.: LUA-04-002, ECF, PP August 3, 2004 Page 12 that are close at hand for a quick snack. They don't have the opportunity to leave the nest for very long. The other critical period of time when amphibians seems to be a very important food source is when the juveniles are first learning to forage for themselves. This is after they leave the nest in the late summer, early fall, fish are kind of tricky to catch, and it takes them a while to figure it out, so in the meantime, they do seem to eat a lot of frogs and small mammals. The other group of animals that we see quite a bit of change to when the water level fluctuations change, when the hydroperiod changes in wetlands is the invertebrate community. The invertebrates are the ones that the amphibians are relying on, and so on up the chain. We also do see around this region when we get development on hillsides above wetlands that the water isn't held in those forest soils on the hillside, it is not held in slope wetlands, it is released very quickly, when it rains the water goes to the bottom of the hill very quickly, it goes to the wetland very quickly after the storm events. It is not in the hillside to be released during the summer. Then what we see is more water in the wet periods, less water in the dry periods. A concern may be that if that change occurs, and we see less water in the wetland surrounding the heron colony and in the P-1 pond,that could effect the food resources again for those late summer, critical feeding periods. There are several water quality concerns; the runoff from the urban neighborhoods to the north and from SR 900 that is described in the application as coming onto the site at the top of the hill through a set of eight culverts, currently runs down across the hillside,through these forested soils,through the forest, for the entire length of the hillside. That provides quite a bit of water quality improvement to that urban runoff that is coming off SR 900. There were some indications that in the past there have been concerns about failing septic systems in the neighborhoods to the north as well. The quality of the water that is coming onto the site at the top of the hill is maybe not the best and under this proposal the way she reads the drainage diagrams, that water would be captured at the top of the hill,to address concerns about slope stability, and piped to the bottom of the hill and then discharged directly into the Black River Riparian Forest. So all of that filtering will no longer occur. The extensive regrading is likely to require some fill material to be brought in or some sort of soil amendments. There is a concern that additives, even something like concrete on a steep hillside, can impact the water quality at the bottom of the hillside. Single family homes, people are fairly notorious for their poor lawn management practices,there is often an increase in pesticides and fertilizers and again all of the runoff from these lots because of the site conditions, there is no where for it to infiltrate and get that kind of water quality treatment, so it again is just going to the bottom of the hill and then out into the Black River Riparian Forest. Both the water quality and quantity concerns would effect all of the wildlife in Black River, including the threatened Chinook, Coho, the Bald Eagles and all of the other non-listed species such as the water fowl,the diversity of birds, amphibians and mammals that occur down there. It is the design of the site that creates more impacts than it needs to for that level of development. The distance to the colony is more like 950 feet rather than the 1100 feet that was listed in the environmental checklist and reviewed by the City. The number that was in the application seems to have been measured from the main colony, which is a portion of the Great Blue Heron Colony and is not where the bulk of the nests are now. It also was measured from the center of that area and when dealing with a Great Blue Heron colony, which is really a polygon,you need to measure from the edge of the nearest nest to whatever the activity is you are measuring to, not the center of the colony. The Department of Fish and Wildlife has prepared management recommendations for Great Blue Herons and they did an extensive literature review in putting those management recommendations together. In studies they found that construction within 2600 feet was a problem for herons and they recommend that no construction or logging occur within 3200 feet. Obviously in an urban situation maybe that's not the most reasonable recommendation, but that is what is coming out of the State. In urban King County studies,the researchers have found that the colony size decreases when there is development within a thousand feet. Now this proposal is well within all of those parameters so an impact to the heron Sunset Bluff SEPA Appeal File No.: LUA-04-002, ECF, PP August 3,2004 Page 13 colony needs to be thought about. In 1998 the City of Renton approved an office park to the south and east of the heron colony. At that time, the closest part of the office park was less than 500 feet to the main colony. The main colony was the center of concentration of the heron nests of the colony. What we have seen in the following years is that the herons have been moving away from that office park, they have been more preferentially nesting in what is now called the protected forest, the polygon labeled "PF", and in fact this year, that main colony is unoccupied. The reproductive success in the main colony in the years following the office park construction and occupation was lower than the success of nests in the protected forest. It's taken some time,but we are seeing an impact of development 500 feet to this colony. The proposal, of course, is further away, but it is also above the colony. Nesting herons are more sensitive to disturbances above their nests as they are also very sensitive to disturbances directly beneath the nests, but activities that are on the same elevation but off to the side at some distance,those they seem to adapt to maybe a little better. It also seems that the construction noises from the hillside will carry further because of the elevation, because of the removal of all of the vegetation, noise carries further when it is going through open air and isn't bouncing off the ground or running into intervening vegetation. None of this was considered in the City's analysis. There also was discussion in the application that the herons tolerated the blasting from the rock quarry some distance away for years. So clearly, they are not concerned about noises. A number of things to consider on that point,again the blasting noise was further away from the colony than either this development or other developments that we've discussed and that blasting stopped a few years ago, we haven't been able to pinpoint the date exactly, but it seems that it may have been early 2002 and there has been a tremendous growth in that protected forest area since that has happened. The size of the protected forest doubled in 2002. The colony is broken into two pieces,the main colony which is located on the island in the P-1 pond, and then there is the larger polygon area that just by common usage is being called the protected forest. It is just a portion of the heron colony itself. The Examiner inquired if these changes could be due to the change in water lever and weather of the last couple years that might have lead to the expansion, there may be more food sources,the wetland is not drying out or is wetter or dryer, again, we don't necessarily know because no one has been studying the direct implications of any of the natural systems on this heron colony either? In 2002 there may have been some other shift that also encouraged their growth and expansion. Dr. Stenberg stated that there are a number of things to keep in mind,the trees in the portion of the colony that we call the protected forest did not change over this time period. Prior to the commercial development being approved to the south and east of the main colony,the area that is called the main colony was the preferred nesting location. That is the area that when the birds arrived back in the early spring and January that they would go to first to select nests. The dominant birds in the colony would get there first and they would go to the main colony. It wasn't until the main colony was full,that birds would be forced to move over and try to nest in the area called the protected forest. What we see after the commercial development is approved and then even more dramatically after the blasting stopped, is that the protected forest area becomes the preferred nesting location. So now when the dominant birds arrive in the spring,the first place they go to is the protected forest. The best nests are there,the best birds are there. The number of nests in the main colony declined slowly over the years, it was 40 nests a couple of years ago, it was 22 nests last year,this year there is nobody there at all. In terms of larger global changes, I don't think that is what we are seeing here, we are seeing a response to what's been going on just around this colony. For construction activities, seasonal construction limits are a pretty simple way to mitigate for impacts. They need to be site specific, however,the Black River Herons arrive at this site in mid-January, which is very early compared to other colonies in the region. They occupy those nests until late August and that's because they don't all start nesting on the l s`of February. The Department of Fish and Wildlife recommends a seasonal construction limit of between mid-February to the end of July within a thousand feet of heron colonies. Because this particular colony starts so early, we recommend mid-January until Sunset Bluff SEPA Appeal File No.: LUA-04-002, ECF, PP August 3, 2004 Page 14 the end of July. Those late August nesters, if they are still nesting into late August,they tend to be a little less sensitive to disturbances. They also tend to be a little less successful. It is important to know in terms of the site conditions of this particular colony that the north side of the colony has effectively a much larger buffer than there is on the south side. The distance from the colony to existing activity, such as SR 900,the Sunset View Apartments,the neighborhoods further up the hill, that distance is much further on the north side than on the south side. We have observed that this colony is much more sensitive to activity on the north side. On the north side they react much more like a colony you would expect to find in a rural area than they do from activities coming at them from the other side. Larger buffers that would be imposed on a more sensitive colony makes sense for the north side of this colony. The Department of Wildlife recommends 1,000-foot buffers. With regard to impacts from clearing vegetation off the hillside,clearing the forested cover which is described in the City's staff report as heavily wooded with trees ranging from 36 inches in diameter to 48 inches in diameter, which are very large trees. Removing that kind of forest will impact the water quality and quantity downstream and that has been discussed already. The loss of the vegetation on the hillside is a big loss of habitat and it is also a loss of key habitat features for the herons. The herons use that hillside for resting, they forage in the large Category 1 wetland and they use that forest as a source of twigs for their nesting material. In the urban area we are finding that twigs are becoming an increasingly scarce resource. The Category 1 wetland on the hillside is critical foraging area for the juveniles, it is close to the colony so it is an important place for them to go to when they are first learning to fly, it's an important place for them to find those easy food sources. Studies in King County have shown that herons will forage up to 150 feet from the edge of wetlands when they are looking for those easy food sources,the small mammals,the amphibians,things like that. We would recommend that that Category 1 wetland retain a 150-foot buffer to protect that wildlife value. The hillside forest may also at some point serve as an alternate nest sites in the future, as urbanization occurs, suitable nesting locations become more and more limiting. We are seeing that with the loss of colonies throughout urbanized Puget Sound, like the Black River Riparian Forest where we have a fairly large protected area, whether it is attracting the birds from different colonies that have disappeared or if this is all internal growth is tough to tell, but this colony is doing well because it does have a good forest around it. The hillside vegetation is part of that success. It is important to assess the potential impacts and we don't believe that that has been done. These are some of the things that are potential impacts. Hydro-seeding with grasses is not really mitigation for the removal of that heavily wooded hillside. With the staff report describing the trees on that hillside as being 36-48 inches in diameter,replanting some trees at a minimum would seem more reasonable. The landscaping condition found in the staff report and recommendations also seems rather vague and does not appear to directly address mitigation of the loss of vegetation. The noise and light impacts once the development is occupied were not addressed in any of the materials reviewed. Current activities that occur around the heron colony are primarily during the daylight hours. Commercial parks, the office parks are occupied during general working hours. The recreational activities that occur in the Black River Riparian Forest again are primarily daylight hours, because there are no lighted paths in that region. Another observation that is very relevant to this situation, observers have noted that there is a tremendous amount of new nests being built in the protected forest in recent years, the nests are not built any further west than a point where you start to see the Sunset View Apartments. In Figure 4 from her report, on the right side of the line you can see the nests that have been built in the protected forest, and there is a light spot showing up in Sunset Bluff SEPA Appeal File No.: LUA-04-002, ECF, PP August 3, 2004 Page 15 the hillside on the left side of the line, that is where the Sunset View Apartments become visible. It is possible that the activity and light from those apartment, which is above the heron nests. that that activity from that existing development is acting as a deterrent for further expansion of the heron colony in a westerly direction. It is also important to keep in mind that even if noise and light and activity doesn't cause the herons to leave directly, it may stress them which can ultimately effect reproductive success and that may take a while to detect. The proposed development is going to be at an elevation of about 115 feet, that would be the level of the lots. The lighting on homes and street poles would be somewhat higher than that. The heron nests are in trees at a ground elevation of about 30 feet,the nests are about 50-75 feet above that, that puts them at an elevation of about 80-100 feet. There is lighting on the hillside at something greater than 115 feet, with the nests at about 85-90 feet, the light will be above the nests, it will be shining down into the Black River Riparian Forest and a simple requirement for commercially available shielded lighting may not be enough to prevent the glare from getting into the Black River Riparian Forest. The ERC did not appear to consider the site-specific characteristics of topography, the existing vegetation,the impacts of the past surrounding developments or the nature of the activity that's proposed in developing its conclusions and its mitigation measures. Some fencing has been required, it's a little unclear as to where that fence is supposed to be and there seems to be some contradictory conditions. On the north side there is not the same kind of natural barrier, there is a small amount of activity, people come off of Naches Avenue,there is a dry roadway. There is a vegetation restoration site on the north side by the railroad tracks and a person who monitors that site reports that there very rarely are other people in that area. Whereas, on the south side there could be more people visiting the site. The other difference on the north side is that the wetland areas are there,there are a lot of dry spaces, a lot of hummocks, it is not a water pond like the south side. There is opportunity for access very close to the nests. It is fairly likely that there will be human activity and pets coming down off the hillside into the north part of the Black River Riparian Forest. There's no open space provided for within the development,the green areas that are shown on the various plat maps are 50% slopes with some grass on them. There also is no provision for any sort of a sidewalk connection along SR 900 to off-site facilities that may be present. The obvious place to go is down the hill. There are some fence conditions mentioned, a fence material should be durable, wood fences may not last as long as the development lasts. There are conflicting conditions for a split rail fence in one portion of the reports and a solid wood fence in other portions of the report. It is not clear what design the City had in mind. The emergency access road that is proposed to extend off the site to the west should also be gated with a solid gate that is difficult to climb over and that would provide a safety measure to prevent children from getting into the rock quarry or down onto the railroad tracks, as well as help mitigate these impacts to the heron colony. In conclusion, it seems that the City's review was based on some erroneous information and definitely incomplete information and it is recommended that their evaluation of impacts be revised. There are a number of probable adverse impacts to water quality,water quantity,to the sensitive fish and wildlife including the significant heron colony and the threatened Chinook, that those impacts are likely to occur from construction noise and activity, the loss of the hillside vegetation, changes in noise, light and glare and human and pet activity that occurs after occupancy. Her report also includes a number of suggested conditions that might help to mitigate for some of the impacts after there's been a more thorough analysis of those impacts. Upon further questioning by Ms. Fontes, Dr. Stenberg responded that the 950 feet designated on Exhibit 12 is an approximate number. That distance is from the protected forest to the property line of the proposed development. The P-1 channel extends to the south and turns into Springbrook Creek and also goes westerly to the pump station Sunset Bluff SEPA Appeal File No.: LUA-04-002, ECF, PP August 3, 2004 Page 16 Dr. Stenberg stated that the Sunset View Apartments are located northwest of the subject property. The arrow in Fig 4 is pointed at the Apartments, but it is almost impossible to tell which particular building in that complex is showing. Any point to the west of this line,the herons might not build because of the human structure of Sunset View. Upon further questioning by Ms. Fontes,Dr. Stenberg stated that there were nests,just no active nests in the old main colony. The heron came in and tried to nest,they laid eggs,the eagles came in repeatedly and predated on those eggs and eventually somewhere around mid-April the heron gave up. The bald eagle predation has more to do with the nesting success at the end of the season rather than the formation of the nests. The monitoring of Great Blue Heron colonies in Puget Sound has become a lot more systematic in recent years. The number of nests is a result in the increase of the number of birds using that particular location. It does not mean that there has been an increase in the population generally because we have seen a corresponding decline in the number of colonies in other locations. As far as in increase in the number of Great Blue Herons in the Northwest, the indications are that the number of herons in Western Washington is declining. The International Heron Working Group is a coordinated effort between Canada and Washington scientists to track the Great Blue Herons to try and get some better systematic numbers on exactly what is happening with the population and the indications are, the best available data at this point in time is that the population is declining. The population of Bald Eagles seems to be increasing. We don't know if there is a correlation between these facts,there are a lot of other factors impacting the Great Blue Herons including increased levels of development close to nests, we see a lot more human activity, a lot more development, both impact food sources, one of the big concerns in this area is the loss of the wetland habitat as you go down the Green River valley. Lack of suitable nesting sites is another big factor, there is a lot of things that seem to be impacting the herons. We are finding that the bald eagles, because they are more of a scavenger species,they are a little more opportunistic in searching for food resources and when there is suitable habitat, meaning a suitable nest structure, they are nesting more and more frequently in the urban areas. The herons have not acclimated to the Corporate Park, what we have seen is that they are moving away from it and giving themselves that distance back again. They have moved to the west away from that office park. The blasting in the quarry area went on for quite a number of years, but it did stop a few years ago. It is unclear exactly how long or how much blasting went on, but since it has ceased,the herons have moved closer and built more nests in that direction. This particular colony does show a greater sensitivity from some directions. Each colony is different and we certainly can find examples, as stated earlier some colonies have chosen to live closer to urban development. We also see our biggest colonies in more rural areas where they are not subject to disturbances. Mr. Halinen presented Dr. Stenberg with a Newspaper article from the King County Journal dated February 28, 2004 and stated that in trying to reconcile her testimony with the article regarding a rookery being established in Medina Park directly over a walking trail and the herons seem to be doing well even though they are close to people versus the colony in Renton that wants to stay far away from people. Is there anything that explains this difference? Dr. Stenberg stated that this is a very small group of herons, 4 nests, and that they moved into the park in its existing condition. There are very large trees that overhang a pond and the herons were successful last year, and have come back this year. It is unclear if all four nests are occupied this year,but this is the sort of thing that is seen quite often in an urban area. What we see from the Dept of Fish and Wildlife and the studies that have been done in this region is that the larger colonies, the ones that are more significant to the population as a whole, do tend to be more sensitive, want a little more room around them. When you have this kind of situation with a very urban park, it's landscaped, the people are moving, people are walking on the paths constantly, there is a very small stand of trees available to them,you get very small groups and they don't persist. .t Sunset Bluff SEPA Appeal File No.: LUA-04-002, ECF, PP August 3, 2004 Page 17 The Examiner stated that there was a further paragraph talking about the herons landing on residential docks, but taking off when humans get within 100 feet, however, they will stay with boats and jet skis going by. So obviously the people seem to be more of a threat than these other things, they flush at different signals. Mr. Halinen handed Dr. Stenberg a letter dated June 12, 1998 that she signed, addressed to Jennifer Toth Henning, Sr. Planner, City of Renton Development Services that refers to Black River Tract B development proposal. Would you focus on the top of page two, dealing with your recommendation for an optimal buffer width of 600 feet or larger? Is this the same basic heron rookery we are dealing with today? Dr. Stenberg stated that this was in reference to the commercial development that was proposed at that time on the south and east side of the main colony area. It also was in response to the official stance of King County in terms of buffer widths. If you look a littler further down on the same page, under seasonal construction restrictions, we do say that there should be no construction during the nesting season within a buffer zone of 1000 feet. There's a difference between allowing development to occur and allowing that construction activity to occur. Those are two different impacts, we were trying to address different things there. Also, for the development on the south and east, it's in an area where it's closer, it's on that side of the colony where you've got higher levels of activity. We were not looking at issues to the north of the colony at that time. Mr. Halinen stated that in communication from Burlington Northern Santa Fe Railroad, they said two freight trains per day, Monday through Saturday use that section of tracks. Dr. Stenberg stated that there is a road that somebody graded and never really built that goes off the end of Naches towards the railroad tracks. Occasionally you see someone back in there, but that's really not an area that gets any use currently. Upon questioning by Mr. Mann, Dr. Stenberg stated that if she were writing those same letters today(Exhibits 15 and 16) her recommendations, given the increase in knowledge of herons and of this coastal sub-species, in particular the Black River Heron Colony, would follow the letter she recently wrote. In 1999 all up and down the Puget Sound region we saw a lot of bald eagle predation and we saw a lot of colonies abandon mid-season, at that time there were a few colonies that were being monitored carefully, Black River being one of those. All of a sudden the reports started to trickle in that this colony abandoned and that colony abandoned, etc.,the heron wildlife community in general sat up and took notice and since that time we have been much more systematic about monitoring. The International Heron Working Group formed to do more systematic studies and look at different issues of the heron's biology and what might be going on out there for them. So yes, we do have an increase in knowledge. The decline of the population in Washington does raise the level of concern and that decline has been well documented by folks that are studying the herons specifically. Because they are a large visible bird there is a general perception in the general population that the herons are doing just fine, but as the wildlife community and specifically the heron community has really sat down and started to look at this issue, there is still quite a bit of concern about the population. We're not finding that things are just fine. Mr.Halinen inquired further stating, my question was, isn't it true that in your statement a moment ago, if you were rewriting these letters today there would be different recommendations and that is based, at least in part, upon your premise that these birds are in a population decline, is that correct? Dr. Stenberg replied that it is a part of the consideration but it's not a direct factor in the specific recommendations. Sunset Bluff SEPA Appeal 1' File No.: LUA-04-002, ECF, PP August 3,2004 Page 18 Upon questioning by Ms. Fontes, Dr. Stenberg stated that with respect to seasonal limitations on construction we are talking about outdoor construction, clearing and grading. The maintenance of the homes are conditions that would apply to the development of the plat, the City has no authority to extend seasonal limitations to individual lots or homes. Everybody that moves into that development will be educated on the herons and they will all be active heron monitors and they will all understand that they cannot be out banging around and adding new things on their houses in the early part of the nesting season. We would support a seasonal construction limitation for the initial home construction as well as the site clearing and grading, usually there are provisions for exceptions. Mr. Halinen inquired if that's true regardless of distance away, is that what you are saying? Do you know how far the farthest homes are? The Examiner stated that it is approximately 950 feet to the south edge of the site and the width of the site looks about 950 to 1000 feet. Dr. Stenberg stated that it is not that far, with the aerial photos and the topography rising, she was not sure that the scale was going to stay the same across the photo. The site appears to be only about 600 feet deep. She would like to see all analysis of noise impacts and how the noise would attenuate as it goes off the hillside with no intervening vegetation to the heron nests. That would be a factor to consider. Ms.Fontes: Specifically with respect to Exhibit 12, City is going to object to Fig 4, the one with the line in it. The witness testified she was not with the person who took it and can only guess where it was taken from. There is an arrow directed at what could be a structure, she could not testify what that structure was or where it was. In her testimony, she implied that there was some correlation between being able to maybe see what could be a building and the fact that the nests don't come any further west, the person who took this picture is not here to testify and there are a host of questions on this photograph and there is no one to cross examine. Mr. Mann: The person who took the photo is here in the room today and Suzanne Krom, who was there standing next to him, can verify everything in the photo. The Examiner: Perhaps it could be admitted separately.Normally everything is admitted. Depending on the direction of angle, what's west and what's north, depending on the focal point of that photograph it could be anywhere. It will be admitted with the report. Suzanne Krom, President, Heron's Forever, 4715-1/2 361h Avenue SW, Seattle, WA 98126 stated that Heron's Forever was formed in 1989. She has headed up the organization the entire time. The organization consists of more than 400 members from the Puget Sound area. The group was formed to protect the Black River Riparian Forest and their sole focus has been to monitor the heron colony and to protect them. In 1989 the only section of the Black River Riparian Forest that was protected was actually the protected forest which was a City designation, that's where the name came from. It is the forested area, on the south edge of the P-1 Pond. The main colony located on the small island is where the herons began nesting in 1986. During the past 15 years they have worked with the City to acquire public funds to purchase a good part of this land. Tract A was acquired,the tract closest to the pump plant and then the section they were not able to purchase was the section right on the corner of SW 7th and Oakesdale. The Seattle Audubon Society, Sierra Club, and Heron Habitat Helpers participate in all activities supporting Heron's Forever. Recently,the Heron Coalition was formed in response to increased interest on the part of the public. Eight million dollars in public funds was dedicated for use as acquisition funds to purchase the Black Sunset Bluff SEPA Appeal File No.: LUA-04-002, ECF, PP August 3, 2004 Page 19 River Riparian Forest, millions of people in King County, the State and Renton are stake holders in this site. It was deemed worthy of acquisition and protection by elected officials. From the monitoring, the long-term trends prior to 2002 were of relatively slow growth in the colony. Once the development went in, the numbers stopped increasing and slowly started to decrease. The current conditions within the heron colony are that the walking trail along the south edge of the P-1 Pond is well used. All human activity takes place along this trail, virtually no activity takes place in the north section of the Black River Riparian Forest between the hillside and the heron colony. In addition all human activity takes place during the daylight hours, little to no activity takes place at night,there are no lighted pathways and there are no residential areas in the neighborhood. Ms. Krom was present when the photo, known as Figure 4 in Exhibit 12, was taken. They were standing in the upper meadow which provided a little more visibility to see where the heron nests stopped. They were trying to see why the nests were stopping at this point. While evaluating that,they were standing directly in line with the eastern most structure for the Sunset View Apartments. Before that development went in on the corner of SW 7th and Oakesdale, the productivity of the main colony was very high, on the scale of 2.4 to 2.6 chicks per nest. It is usually somewhere between 1.9 and 2.1. Once those buildings went in,the productivity started going down. Right now we have zero productivity. The Examiner: Is it true that the herons manage to kill the trees that they nest in, which makes them less desirable as nesting sites also. Ms. Krom stated that that is something they are aware of,there is acid in the droppings and it causes cottonwoods,that are not a long lasting tree, to die sooner. In the protected forest,the colony is very productive this year. Ms. Fontes referring to Exhibit 18 asked, if Ms. Krom could indicate where it was that she were standing with the gentleman who took this picture, when this picture was taken? Ms. Krom had some trouble identifying the location from the map and asked if Mr. Hamilton could come forward to show the specific location. Mike Hamilton was the person actually taking the photograph in question. Mike Hamilton,20418 NE 41st Street, Sammamish, WA 98074 placed an"X" on the map to show the approximate location from which the photo was taken. It is to the east of the path, approximately 25' to 50'. The Examiner stated that on Exhibit 18 Mr. Hamilton indicated approximately where he was standing when he took the photograph, the question is, did you shoot straight up toward the demarcation that was shown in Fig 4, sort of the break where there are herons to the east and no herons to the west? Mr. Hamilton stated that the way the photo was planned was to produce a photo that included what was perceived to be the eastern most building of the apartment complex which also included the western most portions of the protected forest nests. He did not have a compass at the time so it is a guess that the camera axis was pointed north, northwest which makes it about 22 degrees off of due north. That is a guess, the error bars would be perhaps+/- 10 degrees. He put no text or markings of any kind on the photo. The arrow is pointing to part of the apartment complex, it is the eastern most structure. It was our intent to produce a photo that would show the eastern most part of the Sunset View Apartments and the western most part of the protected forest. Sunset Bluff SEPA Appeal File No.: LUA-04-002, ECF, PP August 3,2004 Page 20 The Examiner stated the issues of the SEPA Appeal are narrow and focused. We are looking to determine whether the City made an appropriate decision in issuing a mitigated DNS that is, they decided that the project did not have significant adverse conditions that couldn't be mitigated with a list of about 26 conditions, and if you can add to that, otherwise, again if people want to testify against the project and for the herons, there will be an opportunity for that, if people have questions about the proposal itself,other than the SEPA, there will be an opportunity for that type of question,there will be opportunities at the plat hearing to also suggest modifications to the project and, of course, suggest that it be denied. It is up to the Hearing Examiner to make a recommendation to the Council, the Council would take final action on the plat. Is there any public testimony at this point? Discussion ensued as to whether public testimony was appropriate during the SEPA appeal hearing. The following testimony was heard. Mr. Marsh 3434 14`x' Avenue W, Seattle, WA 981 19 stated that lie was not called as an expert witness, but does hold a Ph.D. in zoology with studies in population ecology and would like to comment on the broad issue of whether we should be taking more habitat from the Great Blue Herons. Ms. Fontes stated that is sounds like a SEPA issue to her. Mr. Marsh stated that because humans in western civilization have taken what is now known as private ownership of specific areas of land and assigned a monetary value to them we engage in this legal gymnastics that we have seen today. Herons care little for these concerns, but they are affected throughout their range in Puget Sound and the Georgia Straits by increasing conversion of native vegetation and increasing human intrusion and disturbance. The success and persistence of a population of animals depends on its members being able to secure enough energy to replace what they lose in growth and activity. Any disturbance resulting in increased activity causing them to fly may mean that the balance is tipped adversely so that energy for egg production,or growth of young is lost. If this City has any responsibility for the Great Blue Heron Colony in the Black River Riparian Forest it should consider that the proposed development of the hillside forest north of the heron colony represents the elimination of a portion of the available habitat for the herons and the introduction of a very disturbing period of construction activity. Including the felling of the forest in their plain view and hearing. Subsequent to this disturbance there would be a long-term source of disturbance visible to or at a greater elevation of the heron nests which Dr. Stenberg has mentioned as a serious consideration. If the loss of the hillside habitat and the introduction of disturbing elements to their environment here may convert one of the few growing heron colonies to another declining one. Barak Gale, Social Action Chair and Member of the Board of the congregation Eitz Or in Seattle, 6522 42"d Ave NE, Seattle, WA 98115 stated that last Saturday, after services he and few congregants made a visit to the Black River Riparian Forest and watched the herons fly to and from the trees while repairing their nests. He shared a very short tale about blessings. He tutors several 12-year olds in preparation for bar and bat-mitzvahs, one boy, in his portion, has the most ancient blessing in the entire bible. In his speech he comments on that blessing where God shines his light upon you saying that when he's out walking in nature that's when he feels God's light shining and I want all children to be able to feel God's light in nature,now and in the future. He further shared an interpretive rendition of the priestly blessing. If it is found that such trail is, in fact, damaging to the heron population, lie would be very supportive of not having the privilege of visiting the area and letting the creature be in peace. After the break, scheduling for the Plat hearing and the continuation of the SEPA appeal were discussed: Sunset Bluff SEPA Appeal File No.: LUA-04-002, ECF, PP August 3, 2004 Page 21 The SEPA Appeal hearing will continue on the Thursday, April 2911, at 9:00 a.m. Testimony will be heard from people who cannot come to a Plat hearing, the Plat hearing will be next Tuesday, April 27 at 9:00 am. Angela Romig, 305 Kensington Avenue S., Kent, WA 98030 stated that she is a 6"' grade teacher, and when she told her class that she would not be at school today, that she would be at a hearing to save the herons, they cheered. They were proud that she would be standing up for the herons. Many urban/suburban children have grown up surrounded by development, the heron nesting site is a real gem in the overabundance of development in our area. We have the opportunity to save this last vestige of wilderness in our midst, not only for ourselves but for our children. May they marvel and cherish the beauty of these birds in a setting untouched by bulldozers and construction for years to come. Sally Neary, 1190 Union Avenue NE, Renton, WA 98059 stated that she came today as a cheerleader for the herons. She opposes this development because it affects her quality of life as a Renton citizen. She moved here from New York State seven years ago to work for Boeing and she has been impressed and pleased since then with the efforts to beautify the downtown area and bring people back to it. Her favorite discovery was the heron colony right on the fringe of downtown. She has enjoyed relaxing and connecting with nature without having to leave the city. This unique pocket of wildlife helps make Renton a livable city for her and her neighbors. She is not opposed to development per se, in fact I applaud Mr. Merlino's efforts to build in town rather than contribute to sprawl. Urban development such as the homes in the Transit Center area, and the new Sam's Club provide more opportunities for Renton residents. She opposes this development not only because she believes that it is fiscally irresponsible. King County invested almost$8 million to acquire the Black River site for the citizens of Renton, and as taxpayers they have the right and the obligation to see that the investment is protected. One private developer's needs should not be allowed to jeopardize what belongs to all of us. It is hoped that those in power will value this resource and do their best to protect it for us and for future generations. Jerry Holmes, 408 Index Place NE, Renton, WA 98056 stated that he is affiliated with an organization called Friends of the Black River. A request was made that there be a moratorium on heavy outdoor construction of the project during the heron's nesting season. Friends of the Black River do think this is a prudent mitigation in regards to this project. Returned to the SEPA hearing Scott Dinkelman, Geotechnical Consultant, Earth Consultants, 1805 136t6 Place NE, Suite 201, Bellevue, WA 98005. Upon questioning by Mr.Halinen,Mr. Dinkelman explained his background and connection with this project. Earth Consultants were brought on last fall to prepare a geotechnical engineering study. In November 2003 they dug 15 test pits, using that information a preliminary slope stability analysis was done as well as a preliminary geotechnical engineering study dated January 9, 2004. As part of the January 9 study, it was recommended that additional exploration be performed due to the depth of the cuts that were planned,the test pits that were dug couldn't get down to the bottom of the excavations as well as there were some fills being placed at the tops of some of the site slopes. In March 2004 that work was started, five additional borings were done, one to a depth of 73 feet, one to a depth of 50 feet and three other borings to a depth of about 30 feet. The samples collected from the borings and the rock core were sent to the lab and tests were performed. The soils on site consist primarily of silty sands. The site soils are fairly fine-grained and moisture sensitive. Summer construction would allow the soils to be aerated and dried back to optimum moisture at which point Sunset Bluff SEPA Appeal File No.: LUA-04-002, ECF, PP August 3,2004 Page 22 they could be compacted, a 95% compaction criteria was specified. The intention has always been to use the site materials as structural fill. The slope stability test done for the original report was fairly preliminary, there was not a lot of soils data and certainly nothing much deeper than 15-17 feet. With the borings that were done more recently, more samples were obtained from a deeper depth as well as samples that could be tested for their strength properties. The slope stability analyses was rerun, some adjustments were made to the grading plan from the time the preliminary study was put together, using the values that were obtained from the additional testing and the borings,the factors against sliding actually went up slightly. The factor of safety is the ratio of the driving forces such as gravity, slope inclination and water pressures. A factor safety of 1 means you are at a point of immanent failure. Based on the additional analysis,things are stable, it is slightly better than what we had expected based on the preliminary analysis. Upon questioning by the Examiner, Mr. Dinkelman stated that the emergency road was a large rock fill that had been built at the quarry. Mr. Dinkelman further stated that he didn't believe there were any 70-foot fills, he would rather defer that to the civil engineer since it is something that he does not really get involved with. Upon questioning by Mr. Halinen, Mr. Dinkelman stated that Dyanne Sheldon was making an inference off of the soils that were encountered in the original report,there was some seepage at that location,the test pits were dug in November, a fairly wet time of the year, seepage was encountered at one foot which could have just been some surface water that was coming into the test pit. The person doing the logging of the test pits was an engineering geologist and not a wetlands biologists, the information that is on the logs cannot be inferred as reflective as what a wetlands biologist would ascertain the moisture content to be. Upon questioning by Mr. Mann, Mr. Dinkelman stated that the test sheets, part of Exhibit 1,the test pit logs and the soil are showing, for example test pit 5, is moist to wet in the first 10-30 feet. The soils will hold some moisture but they are certainly not permeable soils. Slopes are often engineered at 50% and typically we'll put together a preliminary report fully anticipating that eventually we would be able to go out there and drill some borings. We recommended prior to the final construction drawings that the borings be done. If we had found something unusual in our test pits we would have recommended that we go out and do the borings before we issued our preliminary report. We actually found fairly favorable soil conditions in our test pits. We were also surprised to find the bedrock in our test pits,we were expecting different soil types based on the client's experience with the site. The slope stability analysis was performed before the January 9 report was issued. Advance site borings were done at the site,samples collected and taken to a soils testing lab and tested for moisture, density and direct sheer, which gave us the friction and cohesion values of the soils. That information was put into a computer model that calculated the factors of safety. It was recommended that more drilling work would be needed. The soils should be aerated. It was the contemplation that the heat of the summer months would be enough to dry out the soils, it certainly is a large enough site that you could spread the soils out and aerate them. We were talking about 160,000 or 180,000 cubic yards of soil that would be moved around on this site. Ms. Fontes asked if the site would be large enough to accommodate all of that soil to dry it out? Mr. Dinkelman responded that it is just something that goes on during the earthwork construction process, as you spread the soils out in a lift, you may work them during the course of a hot summer day and try to get the moisture down. Sunset Bluff SEPA Appeal File No.: LUA-04-002, ECF, PP August 3, 2004 Page 23 Upon questioning by Ms. Fontes, Mr. Dinkelman stated that perched seepage develops when you have a soil with a flow profile that varies in density or soil type as water migrates vertically through the soil profile it encounters these different layers and when it encounters a layer that has a different permeability characteristic either due to density or different soil type, the water will become perched and it will sit on top of that layer and then usually that layer will have some kind of a dip to it and then the water will start traveling laterally along that profile. At a certain elevation it will fluctuate, but it is there year round and it is uniform. The addendum was put together in order to respond to issues and provide some additional information with respect to the borings. Based on his experience with similar projects, he believes the project is feasible the way it is shown. The Examiner asked if this site could be developed without a lot of manipulations? Without grading it down 70 feet or up 40 feet, there's going to be a lot of fill and balancing of fill. 160,000 cubic yards,that's a very large change in the site. Mr. Dinkelman stated that he was not sure that he could answer that question, it depends on what you consider development. They could build one house with a very large yard, it's hard to say. The Examiner stated that Newport Hills was on fairly steep slopes,they've managed to develop it without flattening in out,bringing the top of the hill down to the bottom and the bottom up towards the top and coming up with some median. This site could be developed in some fashion like that. You're the geotech, you've done borings on the site, you've been on the site, do we need to manipulate this site that much? Mr. Halinen stated that there had a better expert for this question, who has studied this very issue and intends to address that question. Mr. Mann stated that he would like to know if the geotech on the site has an answer for that from the geological viewpoint. The question is valid and the geologists should be able to testify whether or not these soils are stable enough. Mr. Dinkelman stated the only way he could respond to it is that they have developed similar sites in the past, so it certainly is a feasible project,they would not have issued a report if it weren't. If you are building on level building lots,then the earthwork needs to be done. The soils will be difficult to work if wet. If the soils become wet and cannot be compacted they will need to use a drier material or dry them out. It also says that the soils need to be protected so that if we see a rainstorm coming we need to get the site sealed so the rain doesn't soak in and saturate the soils. Hal Grubb, Civil Engineer,Barghausen Consulting Engineers 18215 72"d Avenue South,Kent, WA 98032 gave a description of his professional background and work history at Barghausen. His involvement in this project was to help evaluate the site and determine how to develop this for single-family development and to determine the basic design consideration for elevations and storm drainage control as well as the utilities consisting of water and sewer systems. Mr. Halinen stated that he was prepared to discuss the storm drainage design, but because of the questions that were posed by the Examiner to Mr. Dinkelman, could he provide an overview of the site grading constraints and how they have played into the design proposal. In particular, perhaps you could explain why the roadway was designed the way it was. Mr. Grubb responded that because of the existing slope of the grounds you have to take those existing slopes into consideration laying out roadways, lots, utilities, et cetera. After several reiterations they worked out a Sunset Bluff SEPA Appeal File No.: LUA-04-002, ECF, PP August 3,2004 Page 24 profile of the road to match pretty close to the existing elevation to come up with lots on the uphill side that were in a cut section, the lots on the downhill side in a fill section. The road itself fairly close to the existing ground as measured along the centerline. First we worked out a location of where the road can connect to SR 900. We come into the site at a fairly steep curve horizontally to limit the impact on this undisturbed area. The actual lot sizes are fairly small to limit how much area needs to be graded to accommodate the type of housing proposed. In the back you have a 2:1 slope going down and you have a flat pad, then you have the road which is pretty much at the existing ground elevation, and then you have a fairly flat pad which is in a fill situation, then a slope going down to the rockery/retaining wall set up that is on one side of the storm drainage pond facility. Either way it has been done on a number of single family development projects like this with the help of geotechnical. Upon questioning by The Examiner, Mr. Grubb stated that when they do plats with small lots like these, these are meant to have flat pad type typically two-story houses, very common that we see on developments like this. To limit the disturbance in there is something that creates the need to typically have a bigger lot, it's difficult to put in a house product on small lots effectively when you have a great deal in elevation such as daylight basements, which we sometimes do, but will sometimes do on larger lots on downhill side of roadways, because daylight basements are typically older style and builders usually want them on bigger lots if they are going to do that. Doing the type of things you are talking about might cut down a little bit on where your catch point is on the slope,you might be able to bring the slope down a little bit if you did some tuck under houses. You are not going to get rid of the slope, you might cut it back a little bit, but you won't get rid of it. We have a very elongated narrow pond, which is good for water quality. Narrowing up this pond starts to become ineffective to provide the storage requirements that our calculations showed that we needed to have. There are some sensitive areas in Tract C. It would seem that open pond facilities are more advantageous than enclosed vaults, you get a little better water quality, you get a little better function, you can plant the side slopes, the tops, it provides a little buffer and having that pond as opposed to a vault underground would probably enhance the protection measures for the herons. There are walls retaining some of that fill if you eliminate the pond, obviously the fill is going to come down someplace. He did not know where the bottom would be, but it would be further down than where the current bottom is located. The wall could be built abutting the rear property lines of the south tier of lots, but that does not limit your disturbance area. These walls are predominately a fill material and they are eight to ten foot maybe. The Examiner inquired if they could not build multi-family housing rather than single-family homes. Ms. Fontes stated that the development agreement was signed December 10,2003,the maximum number of residential units that may be permitted on the property are 69 units and all such units shall only be single-family detached units on individual residential lots. Mr. Grubb continued stating that he has identified predominately three areas that streams come into the site. These three basins have been evaluated using the King County's KCRTS model, which is a requirement out of the 1998 King County Storm Drainage manual, and determine the flow rates coming from each one of these culverts going through the site. At the low end of the site are the two culverts that cross under the railroad tracks, both 12"culverts that drain into this wetland area. The Examiner asked that the State built some culverts that drain just the roadway, and of course,just the roadway is probably where we get a number of contaminants from cars that use the roadway and those drain directly on the site like some of these other culverts,but then they flow across the site in some fashion and if sz Sunset Bluff SEPA Appeal File No.: LUA-04-002, ECF, PP August 3,2004 Page 25 you start tight lining or catching this at the top of the site close to the road then you will he delivering that pretty much directly down without the benefit of slow migration across the 750 feet of slope and width that the site provides now, including going down to the bedrock at 17 feet or wherever. Mr. Grubb stated that they will be tightlining them through the site. It will carry the water down faster than it gets there now. He does not know how much treatment the water will get on the site. The eastern portion of the site through the stream course, enters the stream and then ends up in the wetland area that is standing water, there is no outlet from this system, at least via pipe. That is part of the native growth protection, most of the wetland is offsite, but part of it is onsite. There is a 100 foot buffer required onsite. The stream is not regulated by the City, the only part they intend to alter is what it takes to get underneath the road. The Department of Fisheries would rather us not do any more work in that stream than we have to, which is pretty standard anyway. On Exhibit 22 which shows a reduction of the development site,the piping of the upstream basin was going to go around and through the site. The blue line designates the route of where that water will travel through the site. The culvert on the western side will be intercepted at the top of the slope of the proposed cut and piped around and bypass underneath the road and bypass the pond and discharge to the natural discharge point which is that western existing culvert that is under the railroad tracks. The center existing culvert draining onto the site, as well as the one that's towards the west will be connected at some point and it will be piped around the pond facility as well and will combine with the outlet of the pond and discharge to that natural location which is the other existing culvert that goes under the railroad tracks. The top of the proposed cuts as well as the toe of the proposed cuts behind the lots will have interceptor drain systems to capture surface water that will be coming off the slope during rainfall events,those pipes will be connected into the pond system. That is just more of a safety feature to keep the stability of the side slopes from being a problem. The detention of water quality pond facility is like the rest of the drainage control system on here, is designed in accordance with the 1998 King County Storm Drainage Manual which incorporates a level and flow requirement, the runoff from the development portion of the area which is predominant lots and the roads and side slopes will discharge into the pond on the western end in this area and eventually leave the pond at the opposite ends. The pond is a combined detention and water quality pond which means that in non-rainfall events there will be between three to four feet of standing water at all times. During the rainfall events the detention requirement will come into play, that three to four foot depth of water will fluctuate and get deeper and have a controlled release device at a control structure at the east end of the pond that will meter water out. The outlet of the pond facility which incorporates those upstream pipes will be an energy dissipater which will be what a manhole with a large beehive grate to keep erosion from being a concern at that particular location. The water from this point goes directly into the existing pipe that is under the railroad. The hearing re-opened on Thursday, April 29, 2004, at 9:04 a.m. in the Council Chambers on the seventh floor of the Renton City Hall. This is a continuation of the hearing which began on Tuesday, April 20, 2004. The applicant was calling witnesses. Parties wishing to testes were affirmed by the Examiner. Dr. Ed McCarthy, 9957 1715'Avenue SE, Renton, WA 98059 gave a description of his professional background and work history. His objective was to look at the hydrology of this depressional wetland that's been referred to in earlier testimony and he performed a quantitative assessment of the impacts of the proposed project on the hydrology of this depressional wetland. The Examiner inquired if the ERC had this information at the time of making their decision. It was determined that they did not. Dr. McCarthy continued,the first step in this assessment was identifying what this depressional wetland is. The crosshatched area is the area that would constitute the depressional part of the wetland. This area has no outlet except when it overflows. Some of the characteristics of this wetland depression are that it is about 10.5 acres in Sunset Bluff SEPA Appeal File No.: LUA-04-002, ECF, PP August 3, 2004 Page 26 size, the deepest part is about 3.5 feet deep and it contains over a million cubic feet of storage. The underlying soils are silty that all pass a 4200 sieve. The permeability of that soil is in the range of 10 to the minus 3'd cm per second and 10 to the minus 4th cm per second. The 10 to the minus 4th is the slower rate and that is the one used in the model. Having a higher infiltration rate,the potential impacts from the project would be less. The next step in the process is to discover what in the area drains to the wetland now,this is largely driven by the topography. The boundaries were field verified, used aerial photos to determine what the cover types are for the land areas contributing to there,Table 1 in his report summarizes that for each of the sub-basins that were delineated. The site was also broken out as a sub-basin so that a comparative study could be done. It looks at the hydrology of the wetland under existing forested conditions on the site and then the only thing changed for the proposed development conditions was what would occur on the site with the proposed development. There would be clearing, grading of the site, construction of the homes and the addition of impervious area. There would also be associated changes in the way that upstream off-site water flows across the project site. There has been testimony that some of the runoff from SR 900 and some of the off-site residential areas drain across the site and have the attenuation from this current drainage course. The changes would mean that water that now flows across the top would be collected and discharged at the bottom. The model looks at the changes in stage of the wetland. The current hydroperiod of the wetland was studied, that is the changes in stage through time. In the model KCRTS (King County's Model)was used which is based on the HSPF (Hydrologic Simulation Program Fortran) model which is commonly used in the Puget Sound area for basin studies. The model is calibrated to regional soils. The model is used extensively to model storm water facilities and have used it in the past in similar types of wetlands. One of the key impacts from any development is that when you remove the forest and replace it with impervious surfaces and lawns, the surface generated runoff will increase. That is what the model predicted here, under existing conditions,the model predicted about 115 acre feet of runoff per year that would increase to 145 acre feet with the proposed development. This is an average annual per year. If this is going to have an impact on the wetland,you first have to look at the size of the wetland and the storage provided in that wetland. If the wetland is relatively big with a lot of storage then a relatively small amount of change in volume will not impact it. The other thing you need to look at is what else is contributing to the wetland, is this increase in volume small or large relative to the other contributing basins and then you have to look at the outflow characteristics of the wetland, in this case it is mostly infiltration and occasionally the wetland has predicted over top. There is a 25% increase, but that is typical, soil that doesn't have much opportunity for infiltration. About two weeks ago he did go to the site and observe and measure high water marks on the tree about 42". That is consistent with what had been suggested was the maximum depth of 3.5 feet based on my delineation with the photography map. After running the model for 50 years of rainfall data, the model predicted the stages in the wetland through time. In Figure 3 from the report are the model results. The line represented with the diamond shape pattern,the lower line of the two are the average monthly stages in the wetland for the 50-year period. The model takes all the hourly values in all the Octobers for the 50-year period and came up with a single average. The average stage in October was predicted to be .5 feet under existing conditions. It reaches an average high in January and reaches zero in July. When you compare what the changes due to the development on the site, you see a slight increase on the order of about an inch. For existing conditions, the model predicts the runoff from all the contributing basins,that runoff is then routed through the wetland and the wetland is modeled as a reservoir, it has a depth and storage for every depth, so that as water comes in that wetland fills up and the model keeps a tally on that and the only way the water leaves the wetland is through infiltration which as the wetland fills up there is more surface area,the wetland in inundated and so the infiltration goes up,the model keep tract of that and with large events or extremely wet months the wetland might fill up and overtop, in which case that was modeled as a large broad crested weir and so it is just like a bathtub overflowing. The other way the water leaves the system is evaporation. That is one part that the model neglects and that would be more significant in the summer months. One inch is nothing to worry about, it Sunset Bluff SEPA Appeal File No.: LUA-04-002, ECF, PP August 3,2004 Page 27 is not a significant impact. This wetland does have wide range fluctuations in the water stages currently,those are depicted in Figure 4 of Dr. McCarthy's report. In comparing the volume that goes to the wetland now and after the development there will be on average 25% more. The detention pond is intended to regulate the speed with which, and the time in which the runoff makes it to the wetland. It will provide attenuation of the flow up to the 10-year event, up to the 10-year event it will match the existing conditions in terms of flow rate from the site,above the 10-year there will be some attenuation, but nothing substantial. The wetlands are a relatively large system and that is what is in favor of the wetland mostly. Between himself and Barghausen,they located all the important culverts. There were two culverts that were identified crossing the railroad grade going into the wetland. There are culverts that were identified crossing SR 900 onto the site, those were not modeled per se. The west culvert was relatively dry when he was out there, so he did not observe flow toward the west either. The model predicts two components of flow, one is surface runoff and the other is interflow which is shallow ground water. It represents both components. The King County Model, for till predict a high runoff rate for lawn and pasture cover types, for forest that would not be true. Forest will hold more water. The layer of the till 2-3 feet down where it's more dense,the King County Model assumes that that is going to be impermeable. Two to four feet is the average for more permeable soil, the models are not exact. The till soil is representative of what is on the site in the sense that there is a restrictive layer at some depth down. The way the KCRTS (King County Runoff Time Series)has been calibrated is on a regional scale, it has been calibrated for a watershed, so you can't really look at one test pit on something that is highly variable over the watershed or even over a 10-acre site, so the way the model is calibrated is that there might be a gauge station at the bottom of that basin and the response to the storm is measured and that's related back to the characteristics to the soil and the cover type and a whole host of different variables. There was no gauge station to relate back to the model for this site. The evapotranspiration rate for the tree cover that is currently on the site changes on a monthly level. So you can see in the winter months it's a very small component. Inches of water, a rainfall equivalent, instead of falling down, it is going up. PET is the Potential Evapotranspiration. By potential that is what would evaporate and be used by the trees, if the water were in fact available in the root zone. Many times in the dry part of the year that water might not be available and so the trees sort of go into a deficit. Assuming the water is available, it gets up to about three and a half inches for the months of June and July,you will see people who will irrigate, put on half an inch of water twice a week to keep up with this rate. The trees would be a little higher. Rebecca Lind, City of Renton, Planning Manager,Economic Development Neighborhoods and Strategic Planning,responsible for the group that does Comprehensive Planning Rezones, stated that she was familiar with the rezone history of the subject site. The 26-acres in question was originally split in two parcels, one in King County and the other in the City of Renton. The portion in King County was designated as Commercial Outside Centers. In 1994 the other parcel was annexed into the City of Renton and was zoned as Office. In 2000 the zoning designation of Office remained in place in King County until the property was annexed into the City of Renton. In the year 2000 the City received a Comprehensive Plan Amendment application for this property. 15.74 acres in King County designated Commercial Office and 8.47 acres in Renton designated Commercial Arterial. In 2000 an application was received to change zoning to Residential Multi-Family Infill. In 2001 the entire 26 acres was changed to Residential Multi-Family Infill. Later discussions occurred regarding the heron rookery and how future development with multi-family on this site might impact that rookery. Under the Office zoning there could have been 48 dwelling units per acre and 842 multi-family units, on the county portion it could have only been office, there could have been a total of 1.5 Sunset Bluff SEPA Appeal File No.: LUA-04-002, ECF, PP August 3, 2004 Page 28 million square feet of office development as a mixed use combined with the residential. In August 2000 a development agreement was reached limiting the multi-family designation to 260 units. Part of this was to create a buffering from the rookery, a 100 foot setback was imposed for residential and recreation buildings from the railroad right-of-way and there was a requirement for construction of a six foot high fence along the south side of the development, along its entire length that was intended to protect the heron rookery. In February 2001 the City annexed the site along with some other acreage. The City received another Comprehensive Plan Amendment application for a further down zone of the property to Residential Options. The development agreement was also amended that limited the development to 69 single-family homes, the other conditions remained in tact. Theresa Dusek, Barghausen Engineers, 18215 72"d Avenue South, Kent, WA 98032 introduced several exhibits for discussion. She stated that she has worked on several projects in the Black River area and has been visiting this specific site since the spring of 2000. In 2003 the wetland conditions on the site were verified to have not changed and that regulations would still apply as current. It has been determined that there are no fish in the pond, the pond does not have a surface water connection to downstream fish bearing waters and that the stream itself does not contain fish. She is the author of the Habitat Wildlife Assessment and Stream Study Report, dated January 9, 2004 from the Sunset Bluff residential subdivision. This report described the forested condition of the site, it describes the general wildlife that was seen during the brief visits, it includes a record review of the Washington State Fish and Wildlife database for threatened, endangered and sensitive and priority species and the National Heritage database review for threatened, endangered, and sensitive plant species and review for special and/or protected habitats. The site is designated as an urban open space. The heron has been designated by Fish and Wildlife as a priority species because of their breeding tendencies.The trees and the nesting areas are protected, the birds are protected as a non-game species and they are not allowed to be hunted or harassed. Exhibit 60 discusses the visibility of the herons to the new neighborhood and the surrounding neighborhoods. During the winter when there are no leaves on the trees, there is one nest that is visible from the site,the remainder of the protected forest is not visible. When leaf out occurs that nest is not visible unless you are standing on Sunset Boulevard,then the nest is visible over the top of the trees. Exhibit 61 starts at the east end of the site, showing the right-of-way for SR 900, and an area that is not part of the site. The trees in this location have been surveyed to be 295 feet in elevation. The cuts in this area are proposed to be 34 feet. The fill on the site is proposed at 18 feet maximum depth. On the exhibit four ranges of trees were identified. Tree#2 has an elevation of 98 feet,tree#3 has an elevation of 175 feet, as you continue on the trees are in the protected forest heron colony,those trees vary in elevation from 150 feet to 170 feet. The highest nest was 130 feet in elevation. From the site to the tree areas,tree#3 is located approximately 600 feet from the southern boundary of the site and the heron colony is located approximately 980 feet from the southern boundary. A site line was established from the residences proposed for the site,the second floor was used as the site line going to the protected forest area. Photo Exhibit 64a is a view from the railroad tracks towards the heron colony in the Black River open space taken in April 2004. The two taller trees are the ones previously marked as Tree#2. The background area grouping of trees is the Tree#3 area. When the surveying and photos were taken they did not see any birds flushing. There were birds overhead, flying, going about their normal daily business. In a letter from Jones and Stokes, a Wildlife and Natural Resource consulting firm, they were asked to look at the eagles preying on the herons and where the herons were moving into the forest in 1991. The herons Sunset Bluff SEPA Appeal File No.: LUA-04-002, ECF, PP August 3, 2004 Page 29 abandoned their nests on the island and tried to form nest areas in the trees to give them more protection from the bald eagles, those nests were not successful and the colony was abandoned, the herons were not successful in breeding that year. Photo Exhibit 64c shows the nesting that is going on in the trees, these trees are in the Tree #4 area and most of the nests are near the P-1 forebay. Exhibit 62 is the metric topographic map from the City of Renton's GIS system, the site is overlaid on it with the tract locations, the road,the lots and some of the basins that were discussed earlier. Ground elevations have been provided of the Sunset View Apartments. SR 900 elevation begins at 223 feet, going to the east it drops to 190 feet, then 163 feet and at the entrance to the Sunset Bluff project the elevation is 155 feet. Exhibit 63 shows the water resource inventory. After discussion regarding figure 4 in Exhibit 12, the Examiner ruled that the photo will be admitted. A comment was made earlier regarding sensitive areas and mitigation that would be required for them, when she was talking about sensitive areas she was meaning critical habitat as described in her report that would be in reference to the City's codes and references. The only critical habitat located on the Sunset Bluff site is the Category 1 wetland. Mr. Halinen inquired if testimony that was given during the Plat hearing would be included in the Examiner's consideration when making his decision. The Examiner agreed that all testimony would be considered. Exhibit 66 will be the Plat hearing by reference. Upon questioning by Ms. Fontes, Ms. Dusek responded that the area of logging was between tree #2 and tree #3 on Exhibit 61a. No logging has been done in the area between tree#3 and tree#4 on Exhibit 61a. Upon questioning by Mr. Mann, Ms. Dusek responded that regarding Exhibit 65 and the aerial photo the logging started in 1987 sometime in March through mid-summer. She learned this information from Jones and Stokes and from past testimony at past hearings. She did not review any stop work orders or correspondence which referenced herons taking flight when the logging first started. She was not aware if the City did issue a stop work order. The only information as to the impact on the herons during the logging in 1987 is the nest information that was provided in the Department of Fish and Wildlife's documents. Emmett Pritchard, Raedeke Associates, 5711 NE 63`d Street, Seattle, WA 98115 gave a description of his professional background as a wetland ecologist and work history. In regard to the Sunset Bluff proposal, he was asked to visit the site to examine the vegetation communities that are growing there, look at the existing conditions and see what he could find in terms of the current hydrologic regime, positioning of various trees and make an assessment of whether or not based on the hydrologic analysis whether there would be any damage to the trees as a result of the development of the Sunset Bluff site. On the site he found three distinct forested vegetation communities in the wetland basin that would be receiving discharge from the Sunset Bluff site. The first community was located in the northern portion of the basin that was logged in 1987. There were primarily Cottonwood trees 8"-14" in diameter and 50 feet tall, it was receiving storm water or flood water at times during the past season. There were watermarks at the base of some of the trees indicating that there had been standing water as deep as 12"-14" during the past year. There did not appear to be any snags or dead trees, it appeared to be in relatively good health. The second community was toward the center of the wetland basin dominated by Pacific Willow with indication that there may have been more inundation of water. There were watermarks on the trees 36"-40"above the ground. The trees seem Sunset Bluff SEPA Appeal File No.: LUA-04-002, ECF, PP August 3, 2004 Page 30 to be adapting to existing conditions. The third community was on the upland hummocks, there were several hummocks fringing this southern portion of the wetland basin, they were 4-6 feet higher than the bottom of the basin. These are drier areas, the trees were more mature, a number of large Cottonwood trees, one was in excess of 50" in diameter, there was also a large Oregon Ash that was about 40" in diameter. The larger trees would not be affected by a 1"-2" difference in flood stage during any time of the year. What was observed indicated that there was a widely fluctuating regime of inundation during the year. In the bottom of the basin there was no water at the surface,there was water at the discharge point at the easterly culvert, however that flowed down the slope into the basin about 75 feet before infiltrating into the soil and from there on did not encounter any water at the surface. Upon questioning by Mr. Mann, Mr. Pritchard stated that the watermarks were an assumption that they were from this year and not previous years. No weather records were reviewed for this report. Mr. Mann referred to a Seattle Times article dated October 22 regarding a rainfall that set the all time record for the Seattle area. Mr. Pritchard did not recall reading this article, but he did remember the rainfall that day. It is possible that the watermarks observed on the trees were from this one day record rainfall from last October. The probability is low since this rainfall happened so early in the season. The past year's rainfall through January was normal to low. Dr. Ken Raedeke, 5711 NE 63rd Street, Seattle, WA 98115 stated his credentials and past studies. There have been some issues about the status of the Great Blue Herons, all published data that we have shows that the herons are increasing in numbers across North America with the possible exception of British Columbia. Starting in 1950 up until the current time largely of an increasing population. The Audubon Society's Christmas Bird Count for the US/Washington shows the numbers going up and down, but basically it is a horizontal trend. The numbers are relatively stable,the big dips most likely represent years in which there is substantial nest failure and there were fewer young the following year to nest. From 1984 when the herons were first counted there has been a 3.5% increase in their numbers. In King County there has also been an increase in active heron colonies in the last two decades. If this colony were to be abandoned, most of the herons would go to satellite colonies. That has happened several times, there are other colonies,one just east of the runway of the Renton airport. They would likely go to other areas where there is nesting habitats and form new colonies. The Peasley Canyon colony is inactive. The Great Blue Heron is listed as a priority species in Washington State due to its aggregated breeding behavior. The Black River Colony is thriving, in 2003 there were 135 birds,this data is from the Stabins thesis. Productivity in the colony was very high in 2002 after much of the clearing and grading was done on the Black River Corporate Park. When the City of Renton staff did their SEPA review they had extensive database available on the Black River heron that had been developed over time with various projects, there is a substantial body of published literature, there was substantial public expert testimony in the previous projects and a substantial amount of factual information provided to them. In discussions with the SEPA committee,they were well aware of all those bodies of information. The proposed site plan provides distance buffers that meet or exceed those proposed for the Black River Corporate Park. This project meets or exceeds the guidelines proposed by the Department of Fish and Wildlife. Carlson and McLean Article dated 1996 looked at 19 different colonies in Canada and they characterized the condition outside these colonies and compared habitat conditions surrounding the colonies with regards to disturbance and other activities against activities in the colonies such as productivity. The buffers don't provide much protection for heron colonies,there was no correlation between the size of the buffer around the colony Sunset Bluff SEPA Appeal File No.: LUA-04-002, ECF, PP August 3, 2004 Page 31 and productivity and long-term survival of the colony. The barriers to getting into the colony would be the most effective. In 1991 Dr. Butler recommended 300 meters, however in 1997 in Dr. Butler's book he has stepped back from that recommendation. Barriers that reduced human foot traffic under colonies had stronger effect on the number of herons than buffer zones around the colony. Barriers included fences, water and land that made access difficult for human beings. The Examiner inquired if it would be possible to monitor the impacts of lumbering, logging, chain-sawing, and clearing the site, and then to see how much the herons would flush, if they did not come back that day or the next, and then be able to put a halt to the work? Dr. Raedeke stated that the problem is having a causal relationship, we have to look at what is really causing the problems. There would be some value in looking at that. It would be worthwhile to set up a monitoring system to see if there is an impact, but there would have to be some clear criteria of what that would be and some sort of arbitration panel to make decisions. There does not seem to be any relationship to the Black River Business Park, the herons were in the trees nesting before that and they are still there nesting after the construction and day to day business in that area. One other reason that the herons may be shifting further over is the fact that the trees in the main colony area are starting to deteriorate. In Ms. Stabins thesis,there was inventory done on all the colonies in King County and found out what their current status was,then went through the records to determine what had happened over time. Her next step was to find out what habitat factors are influential on heron colonies success, productivity, duration and size. Using relative sophisticated geographic information, using 660 foot buffers around each colony, did a habitat inventory and then characterized how much of the area within those buffers were high disturbance areas, human disturbance, roads and other factors. The distance to human activity, distance to salt water, distance to active bald eagle nests as well as number of years active was calculated and then a regression analysis was done to compare colony productivity versus those colony characteristics listed above and the long term success or failure of those colonies was calculated. This calculation used variables that were in the model, human activity never entered the model. The result of the regression analysis shows that none of those independent variables made any difference on productivity. The success or failure of a colony was related to the number of nests in the colony, the larger the colony the more likely it will persist over time. The amount of high human activity within the buffer appeared to not impact the success of the colony. The Black River colony is doing well today. A condition for construction moratorium is not necessary as there are people in the area,trains, construction going on all the time in the area of the Black River colony and it does not seem to have had any effect on the herons. The herons do not seem to flush from the north side, but walking on the south side of the heronry,they do seem to flush very easily. Upon questioning by Mr. Halinen, Dr. Raedeke stated given all that is known about the situation and these herons and the Sunset Bluff project, and without any additional mitigating conditions being imposed he does not believe that the project will have an impact on the herons. In 1986, 1987, and 1988 the heron numbers increased while logging could have been going on, it is not clear when the disturbance actually took place, if it was during the early spring and summer or later into the fall, but it did not affect the population growth in that colony. To the best of his knowledge, he does not know of any construction season limitations being imposed on any other projects outside of a 1,000-foot radius of a heronry in King County. The Black River Business Park had a January through June limitation of 550 feet,there could have been others under 1,000 feet. In trying to protect the herons and the nesting sites, leaving some of the trees and not clear cutting the entire property could have some effect on the herons, but not significantly add to their preservation. Sunset Bluff SEPA Appeal File No.: LUA-04-002, ECF, PP August 3, 2004 Page 32 Upon questioning by Ms. Fontes, Dr. Raedeke stated that keeping trees on the development site and according to the Stabins thesis, keeping trees would not make a measurable difference. People living at a location close to the heron does not seem to have made any impact according to the Stabins thesis. Just having people nearby does not necessarily make it good or bad for the heron colony. Aggression against the heron does cause a problem. Partying late at night, people throwing sticks and other things at the heron,these are the things that have been found to influence the birds. At the south end of the heron colony, across the water there is a trail that people walk, and there are actually tours taking place there, which has a negative impact on this colony. Anytime you cause the birds to flush from their nests, there will be an impact on the birds. This could be a significant impact in the lean years. There should be a no-entry zone around the pond to protect the herons. The use of that trail in an impact, it upsets the balance, nesting and foraging habits of the herons. Upon questioning by Mr. Mann, Dr. Raedeke stated regarding the Carlson/McLean Study that the 1,000-meter recommendation was not necessary if there is no correlation between the size of buffers and the productivity in those colonies. The areas were already logged and cleared and graded, there was ongoing activity, farm equipment, vehicle traffic, train, low-flying aircraft. The mechanical disturbances were less intrusive than foot traffic. He did not know of any areas where the herons have been flushed and never come back. He could not answer how many flushes it would take before you pushed the birds too much and they would not come back. Patricia Thompson, Wildlife Biologist, Washington State Department of Fish and Wildlife, 16018 Mill Creek Blvd., Mill Creek, WA 98012 stated her job description and work history involving surveys at heron colonies, occupancy surveys on a yearly basis in mostly King County, but some in Snohomish County as well. She relies heavily on volunteer monitors of the heron colonies, and for the Black River colony she has relied heavily on Suzanne Krom who has monitored the colony for close to 12 years. Much of the data in the Raedeke report is quite old and is not reflective of the conditions today in the Puget Sound area. Some of the colonies that are recorded really are only 2-4 nest colonies which don't really qualify as a colony. Some of the colonies listed in the table do not exist any more. In 2003 and 2004 we cannot include all the colonies that are presented in the report, they are no longer there. The 1985 study referred to is basically 20 year old, some of these colonies have been abandoned, it was suggested that if and when a colony abandons they might re-establish a colony nearby, the problem with that is there have been no colonies found that have relocated, that is known for sure,that it is those same birds that came from the abandoned colony. In the Puget Sound area colony fragmentation and abandonment in slightly greater numbers than before,they do not seem to be replacing the large colonies, but rather two or three nest groupings. Many of the land use conditions have changed in that 20-year period that could have effected some of the wildlife population due to the destruction of the wildlife habitat. Don Norman's data in the reports are 10 years old and don't reflect the current conditions with the more • fragmentation of the colonies and the increase in the bald eagle populations and the eagle predation on the heron colonies. Dr. Raedeke also used and compared studies that are not in Puget Sound,there have not been the increase in colonies and nests that this data reports. In fact,there is enough alarm to initiate a very large study on nesting and productivity of herons. It would be appropriate to compare the biology of species across North America, for example, herons lay 3 eggs per nest that is reasonably consistent, it is more difficult to extrapolate the health of a regional population, particularly a sub population. The Faninni sub-population exists here in the Puget Sound area. The McLean study was from Ohio, and some of the data in Dr. Raedeke's report was from the Mid-West, Alberta, Canada and New York and Louisiana. Those ecosystems are so entirely different from the Puget Sound area, comparing the health of our colonies with those so far away and in such different conditions. When collecting data regarding heron colonies, one needs to look very closely at the way and frequency the data was collected. Bar graphs can be misleading, the early years can be very sketchy about the heron data that were collected,the later years could be more intensive. The data taken was not under strict protocol in the 1980's and early 1990's. The Heron Working Group is attempting to set strict protocol for data collection among the heron Sunset Bluff SEPA Appeal File No.: LUA-04-002, ECF, PP August 3, 2004 Page 33 groups so that some degree of reliability and accuracy can help determine the health of the Puget Sound populations. There are no longer 13 colonies in King County, there are only 9 colonies because of the colonies that have abandoned since Ms. Stabins study. The WDFW Heron Occupancy report shows 100 fewer nests in 2003 than in 2000 in King County. Ms. Stabins data numbers vary widely from others at the same colony. At the Redmond Towne Center in 1997 there were three nests, 1998 the number jumped to 15 and then in 2000 it jumped to 22. The following year in 2001 a different observer reported 6 nests, anything could have happened in that time, but the high numbers were very surprising. In 2003 Don Norman reported 8 nests. This year the colony was occupied with about 8 nests but the colony has failed this year, the area appears to be deserted. A new Great Blue Heron nest could be surprisingly small and you wonder how three chicks can fit into that nest. As the nests get older,they add sticks to the nest and the nests become bigger and bigger. Those tend to stick to the trees, a new nest can blow out more quickly. We are not getting our re-establishment of the abandoned nests as the Raedeke report mentioned. It could be that the Spencer property herons are the Towne Center herons, but there is no way that we can know that. The birds are not marked nor were they followed. The relocation of the Peasley Canyon colony or the Dumas Bay colony have not been found. Those were two rather large colonies that contributed to the population numbers. She raised the question as to why it is so incontrovertible when a heron flushes off the pond as observers walk on the trail but it is not incontrovertible and it could be something else when a whole colony flushes due to sudden noise or construction. The same rigorous study should be applied to the visitors on the trail that flush the herons as Dr. Raedeke would like on the development disturbance. The Black River colony is a healthy colony, she agreed with Dr. Raedeke that it has been growing, it is an exceptional colony for the King County area. We are not gaining more colonies on the level of the Black River colony. In Dr. Raedeke's report there was no distinction between the large and small colony counts. The smaller satellite colonies cannot be compared to the Black River colony. In the report, Dr. Raedeke states that abandonment is always made due to some development or new disturbance, implying that it was incorrect to consider development as a factor of disturbance. It would help if the report suggested how to prove cause and effect after a development and the colony abandons. It is correct that there are several factors of which development and a disturbance from development are one and it would be good to know how to determine that. In the Spencer project a 250-foot buffer was allowed for townhomes under the heron colony. That colony did abandon, we don't know for what reason,there was bald eagle predation on those nests but it is not know if that was due to the increased pressure by the townhomes and the human activity so close to it. The actual cause of some abandonment is from the activities in the development. The conservative stance must be taken for this colony in order to preserve its viability. We must be very careful with what we do around this colony. The possibility of abandonment or decreased productivity should be taken very seriously in this colony. It contributes 6% of King County population. There are several phases of development,the first is where the development is put in,the land clearing, the grading, the outside construction and the inside construction; second is the people moving in and their activities, and phase three is the direct effect of developments that go in and not a coincidental event. Raedeke states so much noise and disturbance around the Black River colony, the question then becomes when will it be too much for these herons? What is the development that is going to break the back of that heron colony and how much can they take. Some of the bullets presented in the history and status section are lacking Sunset Bluff SEPA Appeal File No.: LUA-04-002, ECF, PP August 3,2004 Page 34 the dates as to when those development activities occurred. The ones without dates might have been conditioned to occur outside the nesting season, those activities would have been fixed not to have an effect on the colony as much as possible. The main colony, we cannot say it has been abandoned because it has not been five years, but the birds have pretty much moved out of the main colony which is the closest proximity to the development 500 feet away. One cannot assume that those birds are going to go back into that colony, it might not be suitable for them anymore, it would be better to preserve enough habitat on the hillside for replacement nesting habitat. If you preserve habitat on the hillside, get creative with the layout of the site plan, when you preserve habitat for those umbrella species,you are preserving habitat for other species and in this area there is a good number of new migrant species. Because of the extensive development and human activity around the colony already it's very important to save as much of the habitat around the colony for expansion. Because the colony is growing, this colony should not be limited by the lack of nest trees or closeness to the foraging area. To sustain the growth of this colony, large enough buffers and barriers should be left and barriers such as fences should be constructed to prevent those secondary effects of vandalism, climbing the trees, rock parties, beer parties under the colony. Effort needs to be made to prevent people from entering the colony from the north side. Because this colony is so important it's a growing healthy colony, she suggests invoking a site specific management plan as provided for in the Department of Fish and Wildlife management recommendations. These recommendations provide that should priorities need be set, larger colonies should receive more protection than smaller colonies. By definition the Black River Heron Colony is a larger colony so therefore should be afforded as much protection as it can get. A larger colony is one that is greater than 50 nests. There is a Permanent Protection Buffer into which basically no intrusion should occur. People do walk in those areas, there are some trails, then there is a construction buffer. The Protection Buffer where no activity is to take place is the 300 meters(928 feet),the Construction Buffer is a timing restriction buffer that is imposed on logging and construction to 1 000 meters(3, 200 feet). The window for the Construction Buffer is February 15 • to July 31 ill the management recommendations, but the management recommendations allow for site specific management plans. The Construction Buffer has nothing to do with homeowner activities. People often forget and confuse the Construction Buffer with the Protection Buffer. These are strictly recommendations, the Department of Fish and Wildlife does not regulate heron habitat. The Examiner stated that unless the Department of Fish and Wildlife comes up with the money to purchase this property, it is private property and as such, they are entitled to develop it, not necessarily to the detriment to the surrounding environment. Ms.Thompson continued that there has not been a lot of experience in creating buffers for colonies that aren't on the level with it. It has been demonstrated that some the nests might be line of site to the homes. That might be one of the things that might be taken into consideration when creating buffers and barriers for this site. This would be the first colony where a management plan could be put into practice. Dumas Bay colony has several homes that have been constructed at line of site and above,there were not management plans and the colony abandoned. Mr. Mann stated that Ms. Thompson was provided a copy of Dr. Raedeke's report and was asked to come here and provide comments on that report. Ms.Thompson stated that was correct. Upon questioning by Ms. Fontes, Ms.Thompson stated that she first heard about the Sunset Bluff project several months ago, not exactly sure of the date. Could have heard about it in a number of ways, she does not receive official notices from the City unless she has been a party of record and it could have been in that capacity that I heard about this project, she had given comments to the City previously regarding the Black River Colony. She has not seen the Environmental Check List for the Sunset Bluff project. She cannot speak for the habitat biologist, it is the role of the habitat biologist to review the Environmental Check List, that is not one of her specific roles. Fish and Wildlife was notified informally of this project. She continued to state that Sunset Bluff SEPA Appeal File No.: LUA-04-002, ECF, PP August 3, 2004 Page 35 the Fish and Wildlife Department was given the opportunity to comment in an informal manner and that notification of this project was informally given to them. Jason Jordan stated that a notice of application was sent out, that application has a project description and the comprehensive plan regulations, the proposal, the permits that are being requested, in addition to that the proposed mitigation measures are listed and lastly a neighborhood exhibit is included showing where the project is located. Upon further questioning by Ms. Fontes, Ms. Thompson stated that Ms. Krom has been a volunteer helping to monitor the herons in the Black River colony. There is no contrary study here today to the 20 year old study done in Indiana. In order to track the number of herons in the Puget Sound area,there has been no set protocol because data has been collected in different ways over the years. So what the Heron Working Group is trying to do is come up with a protocol that we can say we are able to count reasonably accurately or at least get a sample of the population size in the Puget Sound area and hopefully it will be a good method. Counting colonies, counting nests is a good start if it's done consistently,the same way year after year. In the Jensen and Bowers study they state that for every study that would say that development was a good thing there probably is corresponding study that says it's not a good thing. We don't know how development effects a lot of the species around here, that is why we should take the conservative approach since there is so much development around the Black River colony already that we don't know at what point it is going to be too much, this being a reasonably large development, clearing the hillside and terracing the hillside it is pretty severe. The construction buffer in the management recommendations is stated as being a thousand meters. The second phase is people actually moving into the development,there is no restriction on that at all. The third phase is that people are living there, they walk into the heron colony and those kinds of things, that does not affect the heron colony, once people move in. In the case of a road needing to be completely resurfaced, that would be a timing restriction. We would have to look at it and determine the status of the colony and where the nests are and when it could be done and how much noise it would cause. It would not be as drastic as building a whole development. Some things are done site specifically and action by action. It is usually triggered by somebody notifying me that that activity is going to take place and then we will get together and determine the status of the colony,what time of year can you do it, are the herons closer to the site or farther away from the site,there are so many questions to ask to get to that. We learn about actions around a particular heron colony when we are notified by somebody and then these management recommendations are just given to either the proponent or the City as recommendations. If they need help interpreting them or help doing a site-specific management plan, we can step in and help. We'do not crack down, we do not have any regulatory authority over Great Blue Heron colonies or their habitat. It is the cities and counties that have the ordinances and the comp plans. What we do is provide the recommendations hopefully for their assistance, to be able to come up with the management plans. We don't jump in at any time unless we are asked. Mr. Mann stated that he had provided Dr. Stenberg a copy of Dr. Raedeke's report and Ms. Stabins paper and various other papers referenced today. Dr. Stenberg stated that she had reviewed those documents. There were two very broad areas in Mr. Raedeke's report one dealing with the status of the Great Blue Herons and the other with their responses to disturbances. Sunset Bluff SEPA Appeal File No.: LUA-04-002, ECF, PP August 3, 2004 Page 36 First to deal with the status of Great Blue Herons again as a reminder we are dealing with a sub-species called the Coastal Great Blue Heron, this is different from the species that you find throughout North America. Information and conclusions drawn from studies in other parts of the country may not be as relevant. The Christmas Bird Count data was presented today there are some problems over time more routes have been added, there has been more effort, more people participate in that activity and the other thing that seems to be coming up occasionally,the trend dates on the Christmas Bird Count don't seem to work as well for the very large, easily observable species that congregate. If you find a bunch of herons on a winter foraging ground during your Christmas Bird Count that can be an anomaly because you could just as easily miss them by how you time your route. It's interesting information, but it maybe is not the best. The researchers in British Columbia have observed an approximate 6% decline. That number was confirmed by recent research and reported at the last International Heron Working Group meeting in late 2003. A lot of the information in Mr. Raedeke's report is based on trend predictions from information gathered 20 years ago which is probably not relevant to today's population. If we really were seeing this clear increase in the population of 10% a year as he reports, it seems very unlikely that the Canadian Wildlife Service would have listed the Great Blue Heron as a species of concern, nor would they continue to do this intensive monitoring and research effort to see whether or not it was needed to list them as threatened. Looking through Ms. Stabins thesis, she has a table of all the colonies that they had any repots of in King County, on that table there are 30 colonies listed, of the 30 possible colonies in King county when Ms. Stabins went out to do her field work in the year 2000, she was only able to find 13 active colonies. Of those 13 active colonies, as Ms. Thompson has testified, we only have 9 here in 2004 and a couple of those are not active now. We actually are down to about 7 of the 13 we had in 2000. The applicant also seems to imply that a lot of this decrease in colony numbers has been due to very small colonies abandoning their locations,however,the information provided by the applicant shows that the Vashon/Maury Island colony was over 100 nests, it is no longer active and has been abandoned, Peasley Canyon reached a recorded peak of 47 nests, Dumas Bay was at one time maybe as much as 55 nests, all three of those King County colonies have been unoccupied for a number of years. In 2000 Ms. Stabins work was double-checked by a number of independent researchers that same year, it was found that she consistently miscounted the number of nests in the colonies she was surveying. That has raised a lot of concerns among the heron community about relying too much on that particular data. The current population estimate for the coastal Great Blue Heron in Western Washington is now about 4000 individuals, we did hear quite a bit about how difficult it is to come up with a number, but that is an estimate that the State is currently using. That's the number that is cited by Dr. Butler in his letter and it is also the number that was presented just this last weekend by the Washington State Department of Fish and Wildlife in a report to the Wildlife Diversity Advisory Council. This Advisory Council is a group of people appointed by the Department Director to advise the Department Director on wildlife diversity issues and she has been a member of that council since it was formed in 1997. It was also reported last weekend that the Washington Department of Fish and Wildlife is preparing to mount a foraging ground survey to continue and try improve the accuracy of the data that we have on the status of the Great Blue Heron in Washington. Ms. Thompson also mentioned that monitoring effort, again if the existing data really did show a clear increasing trend, in this atmosphere of budget cuts and tight funding, that the State would be willing to incur that type of monitoring expense for this species. In Exhibit 63, Ms. Dusek presented a map of parks in the area surrounding the Black River Heron colony and what that does, it highlights some of the areas that are very close to the colony that are used by the herons for foraging. That map can be misleading and it may imply that there are a lot of areas that they could move to for nesting, a lot of those parks do not have the large stands of trees necessary, but a lot of those areas may provide foraging grounds. What that says, is that if we have a chance of maintaining the colony at Black River that they will continue to have enough foraging areas in the surrounding vicinity, there is a higher likelihood of being successful and continuing to persist here. Sunset Bluff SEPA Appeal File No.: LUA-04-002, ECF, PP August 3, 2004 Page 37 In terms of the status of the Great Blue Herons,the conclusions of her April 1811' letter are unchanged by these recent submittals. The Coastal Great Blue Heron sub-species appears to be declining, there is considerable international concern about the status of this sub-species, both in Canada and Washington State, and the Black River Heron Colony itself is especially significant as it represents almost 6% of the Western Washington population in one location. This is not really the place to start experimenting with disturbances, if you start work and you see a problem, assuming that it is reported property, by the time that work is stopped, it may very well be too late. It's just too significant a colony to be trying to do these kinds of experiments. Disturbances come in may forms including construction noise, loss of natural vegetation, loss of habitat, light and glare, and human activity and pet intrusions. The applicant notes that water features like ponds that act like a moat and fences can be very effective barriers that may increase the nesting success of herons, we do concur that those types of barriers are very important protective features, however, those types of features do not exist on the north side of the Black River Heron Colony. There is a partial fence with three large gaps in it along the railroad tracks, that does not form a harrier. There is no water barrier, The Black River Heron colony is protected on the south by the P-1 pond, this is a water feature that acts as a moat,you do see the human activity down there on that southern edge of the pone. That human activity is constrained by the pond and is thus very predictable to the herons. The human activity along the southern edge is also screened increasingly by the growth of shrubs and trees right along the pond's edge that is starting to act very much as a viewing blind. There are some gaps and there may be some things that the City may want to look at in how that site is managed,there are some real differences between the north and south sides. The Black River Heron colony is also very sensitive to disturbances from the north side. They react to disturbances and activities on the north side like a more rural type of colony in an undisturbed location and not like an urban colony. The observations of several monitors confirm that the herons are more sensitive to human activity at distances up to a thousand feet on the north side, currently the level of activity on the north side is very low and so we see a successful colony. In the Master's Thesis that was submitted by Ms. Stabins, she selected one buffer width value to represent the buffer width and conditions around an entire colony, Black River has quite a bit of activity fairly close on one side and a very large distance on the other side with no activity,that sort of course filter is probably going to lead to some misleading results. It is going to misrepresent the actual conditions. It was also reported that there correlation with colony success and human activity and as Dr. Raedeke pointed out correlation is not causation, we can probably find a very strong correlation between drinking water and dying. In urban King County where there were only 13 colonies left in 2000 all of those would be expected to have some level of human activity around them. Now in 2004 we have fewer colonies, so, where is the cause and effect, it's not as clear. The data would show over that time period that it would be very dangerous to try and conclude that human activity was actually a factor in success. The logging around the colony that happened in 1987 has been mentioned. That happened when the colony was very small that no further disturbances or permanent habitat alterations occurred in subsequent years and the trees were allowed to re-grow there. We also do not know that they flourished in 1987 as was reported as we have no productivity data, all we have is a nest count. The Carlson and McLean paper has been presented as another study that purports to show that the buffer size is not a factor in colony success. When you look at that study, some of the colonies with the largest buffers also had good barriers and no human activity in those buffers, there seems to be a confounding issue going on there. They were measuring buffer width,they were measuring human activity and they maybe didn't get them separated independently as we might like. This colony is well within the parameters reported in the literature for the area where the heron colony is likely to be sensitive to disturbances such as clearing, grading and construction activities. There has been quite a bit of testimony about the elevation of the development in relation to the colony placing noise, lights and activity at or about the level of existing nests and that there will be virtually no screening between the nests and the development particularly once the hillside is cleared. The potential impacts from light and the activity during construction and occupancy are therefore likely to extend further than they would if the development were on Sunset Bluff SEPA Appeal File No.: LUA-04-002, ECF, PP August 3, 2004 Page 38 the same elevation as the colony. The Black River Heron colony has responded to past disturbances, we have done some experiments here already, we have observed that the colony expanded westward significantly after the quarry blasting stopped and that it moved away from the commercial office park that was approved fairly close to the main colony to the extent that the main colony is not occupied this year. In that situation, there is a water barrier between the commercial park and the main colony, despite the water barrier we have still seen those birds move away from that location. They have actually been finding in recent years that herons do quite a bit of foraging at night. There has also been quite a bit made of the bald eagle predation. Bald eagle predation is not as permanent a change as a change due to habitat loss or development. The conclusions of her April 18 letter are unchanged by this new information, fences and water moats can provide effective barriers to disturbance, there are no natural barriers to disturbances originating on the north side of the colony currently and the Black River herons are very sensitive to disturbances at much greater distances on the north side than they are on the south side. The colony does appear to have reacted to past disturbances and developments at some distance from the colony. It is still her opinion that there will be significant adverse environmental impacts from the development as it is proposed currently. There were a number of recommendations in her April 18 letter and she has seen nothing that would change the need for those recommendations. A seasonal construction window restricting all outdoor construction, land clearing and grading between January 15 and July 31, those are dates that are based specifically on the nesting chronology of the Black River Heron colony, the average dates that the state recommends are February 15 to July 31, we have consistently seen the Black River Herons arrive and begin staging on January 15. The Black River Heron colony and many other colonies do fledging much later than July 31, Black River has been observed not fledging until mid-September in some years,the reality of the situation is that birds that fledge that late in the season may not make it, they don't have as much time to learn how to forage and get enough size on them before winter really sets in, in an effort to be reasonable, we are suggesting the July 31 date. She cannot recommend experimenting with the nesting season and so the idea of having a monitor out there and if they seem disturbed then the construction will stop,all of the signs of disturbance may not be recognized and again there's problems of stopping in time, we don't know what those parameters would be and given the significance of this colony we cannot recommend that. It is still recommended that the pre-development water quantities and quality leaving the hillside do not change. One of the concerns that is a real problem with developments where we see downstream impacts, downstream areas get more water for longer periods of time. We have heard testimony that the downstream wetland seems to have quite a bit of water level fluctuation,that's only part of the water regime puzzle. There is also the issue of the length of inundation,a lot of these tree species that occur down in that area are adapted to having their feet wet, if you will, during the winter months when it is typically very wet here. October,November even January and February,they are fine with that. The problem is that if the water then stays longer than the season, if we find that they are still under a couple of feet of water into April,May and even early June,during the growing season,that's when we start to see the changes in vegetation,and changes in habitat. Retaining as much of the natural existing vegetation on the hillside would be important, providing some durable fencing around at least three sides of the developed area, gating the emergency access road to prevent human intrusions down into the quarry and around that way. It would be important to replant with native evergreen trees and shrubs in disturbed areas to try and recreate as much screening as possible. It has been mentioned to establish a buffer of 150 feet around the large Category 1 wetland on the property, as that is critical foraging habitat for the herons. Minimizing the outdoor lighting, making sure that is shielded so that it does not shine down into the Black River Riparian Forest and into the nests, some things to think about there are street lighting where they may be on a pole and higher,there might be some creative ideas to make sure that street lighting is on shorter poles so that it illuminates just the property and not offsite areas. Developer installed landscaping should include a very large proportion of native plants to reduce the need for fertilizers, water and pesticides. Sunset Bluff SEPA Appeal File No.: ILA-04-002, ECF, PP August 3, 2004 Page 39 Mr. I-Ialinen inquired if Dr. Stenberg was aware of the June 15 construction limitations that was set forth in the memorandum agreement that has been referred to previously. Dr. Stenberg stated she had seen it and that nobody was very happy with that decision. It was considered at the time to be way too early. It would seem that the developer would have been happier with it than some other options. Kayren Kittrick, Development Services Division, Development Engineering Supervisor stated that primarily there are pits that are bored down to a certain depth, not necessarily the same depth as what will be graded for the development. At some point there is a requirement that before the development is allowed to be built, they are going to have to make borings down to the depth of the grading for the development. If this is not done before the construction,the developer is not allowed a building permit. The building code requires that when they start building foundations the recommendations generally tell them to go down to a sound depth, if they have to take away more material and over excavate because they found junk, then they will dig deeper until they come up with something where they can refill and build the foundations. As to the stability of slopes, anything over four feet has to have a separate building permit, it will not be issued until it has been reviewed for that. They will have to prove stability to a third party before a building permit will be issued. Monday, May 10, 2004 hearing reconvened at 9:02 a.m. Patricia Thompson returned for cross-examination by Mr. Halinen. Upon questioning by Mr. Halinen,Ms. Thompson stated that she had found some problems with Ms. Stabins data and that she had stated that in looking at some of Ms. Stabins data her numbers vary widely from other observers at the same colony, it happened in the Redmond Towne Center colony in 1997 there were three recorded nests. Her testimony was to show that the number that Ms. Stabins came up with were different than the numbers that other observers had come up with. She didn't want to sound like it was a heavy criticism on Ms. Stabins, she did not want to call into question Ms. Stabins integrity, but do want to make the observation that her numbers did differ from other observers numbers and they always tended to be more that what other people saw. Again Mr. Halinen read a quote from Ms. Thompson's previous testimony, "In 1998 in Ms. Stabins thesis the number of nests jumped to 15,and then in 2000 it jumped to 22 and I have to admit that I was a bit chagrined at that because I thought I had missed a bunch of nests when I was out there counting nests at the colony". When you said you thought you had missed a bunch of nests,wasn't what you were saying that you really had not missed a nest that Ms. Stabins must have been wrong. Isn't that your point? Ms. Thompson responded that if Ms. Stabins had seen all those nests, she wondered why she had not seen them and went out to verify if in fact they were there or she missed them. She did not see any other nests, she was out there at approximately the same time, nests don't come and go within a week or two period. Upon questioning by Mr. Halinen if these statements were calculated to call into question the credibility of Ms. Stabins as a researcher, Ms. Thompson stated they were in her rebuttal to call into question the numbers that she had found not to call into question her ability as a researcher, but they were different than what other observers had found and that was the point for that. The observers were she, Don Norman and, Dr. Stenberg had • Sunset Bluff SEPA Appeal File No.: LUA-04-002, ECF, PP August 3, 2004 Page 40 volunteers from King County supplying data for the Department of Fish and Wildlife as well, she did not have their names. Upon further questioning by Mr. Halinen, Ms. Thompson stated that in reference to the question about closing a park, there is a park across the street and then there is a place opposite the heron colony where there are trails. Mr. Halinen showed Ms. Thompson an aerial photo. Ms. Thompson continued stating that on Oakesdale Avenue there is a small park area,there is a creek running through the area. Mr. Halinen was not referring to that park, but to the area north of Oakesdale Avenue which is the park that contains the heron colony. Ms. Thompson stated there were trails there throughout the area. She does not support the closure of that southern trail. Jason Jordan explained that the area south of the pond is actually a park and the area south of Oakesdale is not a park but a part of the Metro Treatment site. Ms. Thompson stated that she would not encourage closing the trails because that is used by people that appreciate wildlife and the ponds. She does water fowl surveys in the winter. She has not experienced the flushing that Dr. Raedeke said he had, so she is not sure there is all that much to be concerned about with that south trail. The north side is a lot more sensitive that the south side. The north side is more under the nests and that tends to disturb the herons more. There is an established trail on the south side that keeps people in a predictable area. People do walk the trail on the north side Mr. Halinen stated, during your April 29 testimony you said "what I do want to emphasize again is, some other people have emphasized that the main colony has been, we can't quite yet say abandoned because it hasn't been five years, but the birds have pretty much moved out of the main colony which is in the closest proximity to the development 500 feet away." Are you referring to the Black River Corporate Park that lies to the southeast of the colony? Ms. Thompson stated that was correct. We cannot rule out that the main colony was abandoned due to the construction of the Black River Corporate Park. She suggests that maybe that they revisit the design of the site to possibly preserve some of the trees and the habitat on the hillside. She has not been able to look at the site plan that carefully,there are many times she has worked with the client during the site management plan process to look at the site plan and say maybe we can move this here and see how we can preserve some of the habitats. We have only the date that has been collected by the volunteers that shows the actual movement of the herons away from that Corporate Park site, we do not have a scientifically designed program that has collected date on that. • Observations have been taken all the way around, basically from north and south and then when the herons are gone you actually go under the colony and you can pretty much tell which nests were active and which were not active. The Examiner questioned where these heron go after July or August. The species don't migrate,they stay in the Puget Sound area where other heron species move around more. Ms. Thompson stated that was correct,there have been no marking or radioing studies to find out where other herons move around. There's just been very little data on that, so they apparently disperse away from the nesting site,there will be herons there,they have seen herons there in the winter, some that stay the full year. Mr. Grubb explained that they had reproduced the aerial photo from Exhibit 13 and added more information. There are now two offset lines from the edge of the polygon, a 300 meter offset line and a 1000 meter offset line Sunset Bluff SEPA Appeal File No.: LUA-04-002, ECF, PP August 3, 2004 Page 41 to show how that relates to the city streets. The City of Renton city limits line was added in relation to the site and the colony and some additional street callouts to give a better idea of where streets are in relation to the offset lines. A proposed native growth protection easement is defined in a red crosshatch. Jason Jordan, Sr. Planner Development Services, City of Renton stated that he is the project manager for the Sunset Bluff project since the initial submittal application to the City of Renton. Some information was given to the Hearing Examiner during the Preliminary Plat Hearing. Upon questioning by Ms. Fontes, Mr. Jordan stated that there is a set procedure that is given to folks that are interested in the application process for a preliminary plat with SEPA review. Jason walked everyone through the details of the process. This process was followed in the Sunset Bluff project, however there was some additional time taken in accepting the application because there was a substantial amount of information submitted. The comment period was extended a couple of extra weeks. From the comment period,two letters were pulled for consideration today, one was from Suzanne Krom dated February 8, 2004 and one from Quailcroft Environmental Services dated February 7, 2004 and signed by Dr. Kate Stenberg. These letters were available to the ERC for their consideration. The Washington Department of Fish and Wildlife was given a notice of application, a SEPA environmental checklist and its attachments, and photo reproductions of the site plans and exhibits that were included in the original application. Jason further explained how the staff report is put together and what is contained in that report that goes to the ERC. The earth and slope hazards were reviewed including geotechnical analysis and hazard review. Drainage was reviewed both surface and wetland areas. Animals and habitat were studied, as well as fire prevention, transportation, parks and lastly air and noise. This was a mitigated DNS with specific mitigation measures. The discussion of a construction season window was heavily discussed at the environmental review because many of the letters that we received indicated that a construction season may be appropriate. Ultimately the staff and the ERC felt that the location and design of the project,the proximity of the project to the heron colony in itself was a mitigating factor. That is why there is no specific construction season placed as a mitigation measure for the project. There was a development agreement with Merlino in which he could develop only 69 single-family lots. There is a 100 foot setback required from the railroad right-of-way or the southern property boundary, as well there was a third requirement regarding fencing. The development agreement was presented to the ERC for consideration. If a 1000-foot circle were drawn around the heron colony, no part of the proposed project would fall within that circle. The distance from the trail on the south side of the heron colony is 250 to 350 feet. The land on which the heron colony is located is a 120-acre park owned by the City of Renton. There are several noise sources that are near the proposed site,they include commercial warehouses to the south and east,Metro wastewater treatment plant directly south of the subject site,there are multi-family complexes directly to the northeast and northwest, and then there is the Stoneway quarry site, and transfer station for disposal. It is a fairly industrial part of the City. The City did seek a second opinion regarding the geotechnical information,that is Code mandated when there are protected slopes and high landslide hazards. All the information was available to the ERC. Some additional borings have been done since the ERC issued its recommendations and mitigation measures. This is fairly typical for the geotechnical analysis. To make one clarification,the land immediately north of the sewer treatment,just south of Oakesdale Avenue SW that is not a City park, but it is a King County Park, at least as of 2002 when the City Parks Map was printed. Sunset Bluff SEPA Appeal File No.: LUA-04-002, ECF, PP August 3, 2004 Page 42 Upon questioning by Mr. Mann,Mr. Jordan stated that he began working with the City of Renton December 20, 1999. The three ERC administrators are Gregg Zimmerman, the Planning, Building, Public Works Administrator, Dennis Culp the Community Facilities Administrator, and Lee Wheeler, the Fire Chief. The drainage basin area was reviewed and both wetlands on-site, the regulated and the non-regulated wetland in the native growth protection area, consideration was also given to the depressional wetland feature south of the subject site by the ERC. Upon questioning by Mr. Halinen, Mr. Jordan stated that he is aware of the amount of time it takes to get through the infrastructure construction. Less complicated sites could take two to three months to complete the earthwork and grading that is necessary. A site like this could be expected to take the entire building season of spring to late fall. The geotechnical experts both said no construction for grading purposes or slope purposes was proposed. Upon questioning by The Examiner, Mr. Jordan stated that the ERC does not review the plat layout, they attempt to stick to the environmental conditions. As it is known,they do merge into each other. Alternatives in terms of pond location and design were discussed, internal access and the intersection with SW Sunset was discussed and different alternatives were evaluated. Lastly,the location of the houses, the ERC felt that with the screening along Sunset Boulevard and then the housing and the detention facility along with the native growth protection area in the southeastern corner of the site,that that layout was sufficient. Many of the letters that were received discussed clustering and even some gave some ideas of what should be done and where the lots should be located, that's why the ERC moved into that realm; If the ERC added a mitigation measure that effectively changed the plat,the ERC has never come back saying that the builder has to redesign the plat, but the ERC has imposed conditions knowing, in fact, if the developer adheres to this condition they will lose two or three lots. That option was discussed, but there were no specific recommendations for change. Mr. Mann stated that he was going to have Ms. Krom testify about the faxed letter from Shelly Anderson because of their communications with each other over the years. However, since Ms. Thompson is still here, there was a question posed to her this morning about that letter, and she has now had a chance to read it, if The Examiner would like to ask her about that. The Examiner stated that Ms. Shelly Anderson sent faxes this morning, she describes some logging and clear cutting which has been referred to in the past about it having occurred and has grown back in, you can see it on the drawings that the vegetation looks slightly different in the aerials. Apparently the heron reacted to the fact that the area was clear-cut in February of 1987. The heron abandoned the colony and did not do very well that year, although they did come back eventually. Dr. Raedeke is a heron expert and Ms.Thompson represents Fish and Wildlife and while they are still here, is this something unusual, is this the kind of thing the City needs to be concerned about. He is looking to see if a construction window, not for erosion control and stormwater but to protect the heronry if necessary might be an appropriate idea. Dr. Raedeke stated that he did not know Ms. Anderson, this clear cutting was much closer than anything proposed for this project. The project site is over 1000 feet away from the herons and it doesn't seem to have any relevance since there have been other activities such as that further out. The Washington Department of Wildlife in 1987 reported 9 nests, 1988, the year after this disturbance, there were 22 nests, 1989 there were 24 nests, 1990 there were 37 nests. There may have been some disruption during a period in the colony, but it does not seem to have had a numerical effect. Sunset Bluff SEPA Appeal File No.: LUA-04-002, ECF, PP August 3, 2004 Page 43 The relevance to this project is that this site is over 1000 feet away. One of the issues with the 1000-meter construction moratorium is first, where did it come from and what is the basis for that. The citations for 1000 meter come from two reports. The Examiner stated that the birds are wild,they are in a somewhat natural setting, is there any way logging 20- acres of forest on a slope above their nests is not going to affect the birds. Dr. Raedeke stated that he did not think there would be any measurable impact to these herons. If you look at all the other activities that are going on within that same range of distances, from sewage treatment plants to highways to railroad tracks to stone quarry activities, it does not seem to be an impact to the herons. Dr. Butler in his letter, stated that this is a very habituated colony, they have been growing strongly with those disturbances. Ms. Thompson stated that what Ms. Anderson saw sounds like a typical reaction of a heron colony to a major disturbance. If the threat is a one-time event, they can settle back down on the nests, if it is a very disruptive event, and they are not convinced that it is a one-time event, they could abandon. The heron colony's general reaction to the clear cutting of this site, that would also be a disruptive event for this colony. It is a drastic change in the environment. The conservative approach would be the best way to go. Something on this magnitude during the nesting season has potential to disturb this colony. This is nothing that can be predicted, if it takes several years for a colony to recover, as after the 1987 logging,that can be quite an impact on the population, it could take six to ten years for the colony to come back. Anil Butail, after being sworn in stated that he had reviewed Exhibit 20, a geotech addendum. A memo was prepared by him and sent to the Examiner dated April 26 in which he summarized his review of the report. One of his earlier questions was that there had not been sufficient deep sub-surface exploration conducted on the property and that to a certain extent has been addressed. The explorations that have been done are primarily in the middle and lower portions of the property, there is no exploration in the area immediately below Sunset Avenue which is of some concern. The lack of proper characterization of ground water on the site is of greater concern, during the previous hearing people stated that they were convinced that there was no deep ground water on the site, the only way to property characterize what the conditions are on a site like this is to install observation wells on the site and watch them for a period of time to see how the levels change. He took the cross sections and soil properties presented in the addendum and properties used in their analysis and constructed his own computer models. The computer program used, Winstabl,was the same as theirs, however the results he received were different than what Earth Consultants found. There appears to be a significant difference between the numbers they reported and the numbers that he calculated. These numbers are huge, the larger the number the safer the situation should be,but his numbers were all much lower than the minimum requirements and lower than what Earth Consultants found and that leads him to be concerned for the safety of the project. He could not explain the difference, he used their cross sections and their soil properties that they presented in their report. Upon questioning by Ms. Fontes, Mr. Butail stated that the proposed grading would have a significant impact on the stability of the slopes. The stability will be reduced considerably as a result of the proposed grading. If the stability can be demonstrated, it will eliminate concerns. Upon questioning by Mr. Halinen,Mr. Butail stated that there are always differences in safety factors of the different types of circles, different levels of circles, different locations of circles,that is the way that the program is used, you evaluate all of these conditions when you make your conclusions. The factors used in his conclusions were both shallow and deep-seated circles. Sunset Bluff SEPA Appeal File No.: LUA-04-002, ECF, PP August 3, 2004 Page 44 When Ms. Krom came to him and talked, he told her very clearly that he would make the evaluation of the stability, an evaluation of the impacts of the proposed grading on the project,that was all he could do. If the • proposed grading does have adverse impacts then it is up to the project engineer to come up with appropriate mitigation measures for those impacts. There are always solutions. Upon questioning by The Examiner, Mr. Butail stated that any project can be built as long as it is properly designed and properly constructed. Unfortunately, over here we have serious potential impacts to stability which have not been properly considered in the design of the project and these impacts have not been addressed as to how they will be mitigated. The Examiner stated that the Geotechs would be required to be on site, as something fails on a cut, presumably they would have to be out there addressing it, or are you saying that on the first cut the entire hillside may slough down into the railroad grade and the depression. Mr. Butail stated that that is essentially correct, however,the conditions that have been analyzed are supposedly representative of long-term design configurations and those conditions have not been properly addressed and have not been properly mitigated. Upon questioning by Mr. Halinen, Mr. Butail stated that he was aware that they currently were in the preliminary plat process and that there is a construction plan review process that will follow the approval of the preliminary plat and that more detailed analysis will be performed as needed. Suzanne Krom in response to testimony by Mr. Jordan and Exhibit 78 stated that she did receive a copy of Notice of Application. She then requested the Application (Environmental Checklist) and it took at least 2 weeks to receive it. The Public Comment period ended February 9`b and she received the Checklist on February 5"'. She asked twice for an extension on the comment period and one week past the comment period deadline she received notification that the deadline had been extended. Dr. Raedeke has testified that there are approximately 15 herons in the main colony. Ms. Krom stated that absolutely the main colony is silent as compared to the protected forest where there is the sound of constant noisy vocalization from the nestlings. This past week on two separate visits,on one visit she observed 22 herons entering and leaving the protected forest,there were no herons going anywhere near the main colony. Ms. Krom provided eight photographs which allow a comparison between the main colony and the protected forest. When she has visited the south side along the trail,the path is heavily vegetated. The heron colony is not visible from this path. In terms of flushing there may be an individual heron that will take flight. The south path has been used since 1980,the heron colony was established after the pond was dredged which was dredged in 1984 or 1985. The colony was established in spring of 1986 with three nests. Ms. Anderson was involved with the dredging of the P-1 Pond and they first met in February of 19,89. The letter from Shelly Anderson dated May 10, is fully consistent with the discussions that were held between Ms. Anderson and Ms. Krom. There were two separate instances of logging, one in early February that took a day or two and then there was a second incident a week or two later that lasted a day or two. In the City of Renton files she found a number of documents, the first was dated February 19, 1987 a letter by Ronald G.Nelson of the City of Renton, Building and Zoning Director to First City Development,Ms. Barbara Moss, which states that a stop work order was placed on the subject property located at 500 Naches Avenue SW. Information was Sunset Bluff SEPA Appeal File No.: LUA-04-002, ECF, PP August 3,2004 Page 45 obtained that the Blue Heron population on this site is being jeopardized by the work being performed, tree cutting, grading. The stop work order will remain in effect until all issues have been reviewed and evaluated. A second letter dated February 24, 1987 from Ronald G. Nelson to Bogle & Gates, Mr. Charles R. Blumenfeldt, the subject of the letter is to question the stop work order by the City, the new information indicates significant adverse environmental impacts and to proceed would be detrimental to all concerned. The Environmental Review Committee chose to withdraw their determination of non-significance. The State DNR form that was filled out March 2, 1987 which does allow logging to continue, but there are conditions. The form is good for a one-year period, activities outlined were to be halted in four days and no activities could resume until August 1, 1987 or whenever the young herons leave the nests. Upon questioning by Ms. Fontes, Ms. Krom stated that she collected the just presented letters from the City of Renton clerk's office this past Friday. She did know about the pre-application for the Sunset Bluff project, but she had no details. Once she knew that the documents were in the hands of the City staff, she did come into City Hall to look at the documents. At that time she asked for a photocopy of the documents and did not receive them until May 5. She stated that Michael Hamilton took the photos presented today and that she was with him when some of them were taken, but not all of them. When referring to the main colony, she is talking about the four cottonwood trees on the little island and the nests that are in those trees. Upon questioning by Mr. Halinen, Ms. Krom stated the nests in the main colony were not more subjected to eagle predation than the ones in the protected forest due to the fact that the conditions in the main colony are very similar to those in the protected forest. There was eagle predation in 1999, it is impossible to say what causes herons to abandon their nests. When the development went in in 2000 there has been a constant decline in the main colony. When you compromise a system like that you open it up to predators that will be looking for a more vulnerable system and the eagles found that in the main colony. In Exhibit 102 it says that the logging may continue outside a 700-foot radius. Ms. Krom wrote a letter dated February 8, 2004 addressed to Jason Jordan where she referred to the threshold determination that was presented by the ERC. The actual ERC determination was signed February 24, 2004 and the publication date is March 1, 2004, however, Ms. Krom had spoken to Mr. Jordan and he told her that a DNS-M was to be issued. Mr.Mann asked if she had discussed this project several times with Mr. Jordan after the issuance of the Notice of Application Optional DNS and attended the public hearing. Ms. Krom stated that she had talked with Mr. Jordan and that he did tell her that a DNS would be issued. Upon questioning by Ms.Fontes, Mr. Hamilton explained the locations he was in when taking the photos for Exhibit 92—99. He also described the type of equipment that he used in taking those photos. The Examiner stated that if a closing brief was to be submitted by the applicant that would be fine, the appellant will be given an opportunity to respond but it will also have to be timely. Ms. Fontes gave her closing statement. The sole purpose of the attack on the application is because there are people who want no development at this location, but they are not willing to pay the money to buy the land to keep it from being developed. The City is in a difficult spot, there is a land owner who by law is entitled to use his land, certain restrictions may be imposed but they have to be reasonable and within the law. The standard that has to be imposed for a SEPA review is found in the WAC. There has to be a significant likelihood that there's going to be something more than a moderate adverse impact of environmental quality. How reasonable is it,the severity of the alleged impact,that should be weighted against and along with the likelihood that is i J Sunset Bluff SEPA Appeal File No.: LUA-04-002, ECF, PP August 3,2004 Page 46 going to occur. Geotechnical experts have testified, but the fact is that the City will not give them a building permit if they cannot prove stability of the site. If while they are building they cannot prove maintained stability of the site, they are stopped. Fish and Wildlife have testified and that agency chose not to comment at the ERC hearing. This is not the first time that has happened, in fact it is a pretty normal pattern with Fish and Wildlife,they don't comment and then they come in to the hearing at the last minute and talk about all the things that they would like. The bottom line is that this development is more than a thousand feet away from the heron colony. In any event the proposal is well outside the 1000-foot marker. The window of time seems ludicrous, we have heard that there is going to be disruption to the heronry because of this project, if you impose a seasonal construction period it is going to mean that the project is going to go over a period of several years. We will have disruption of the heronry for several years. Consider at attachment to Dr. Stenberg's report, between 1988 and the year 2003, the number of nests grew by 600% over a 15-year period. There were all kinds of production and construction in that location for a couple of years that there are no numbers and a couple of years that the numbers were down because of eagle predation. There is no linkage between the construction and the work done. So when we look at the standard that you must impose that there be a reasonable likelihood that there is more than a moderate adverse impact to environmental quality and that it cannot be speculative. There was no causal connection, there were many theories and requests for surveys, but there is no clear connection between the things about which they complain and the adverse impact that they feared would occur. That's the standard that they have to meet and they have not met it. Their own experts have contradicted themselves about water in the lower depression area. Ms. Sheldon was asked about the volume of water and she said there is only going to be so much rain, we can't affect that. Mr. Rozeboom talked about the fact that there was going to be an increase in water. These two experts cannot agree. Ms. Thompson testified that she was not in support of the idea of closing down the south side trail. She stated that it is used by people that appreciate the wildlife. It sounds like the Civil War,the North vs. the South. The people from the south appreciate the wildlife and they should be able to keep that trail open. The people from the north presumably do not appreciate the wildlife and they should not be allowed to use their land as they see fit. Mr. Hamilton testified that they were looking for a picture that could show the nests on one side and a building on the other side of the picture. The Examiner set the following schedule for briefs: Mr. Halinen's brief will be due May 17, by 5:00 p.m. Mr. Mann's brief will be due May 24, by 5:00 p.m. 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 12:55 p.m. FINDINGS, CONCLUSIONS & RECOMMENDATION Having reviewed the record in this matter,the Examiner now makes and enters the following: FINDINGS: 1. The appellants, Herons Forever(a private organization)and SR900 LLC, the underlying applicant, filed appeals of a Determination of Non-Significance- Mitigated (DNS-M) issued for a proposed preliminary plat that would create 65 single family lots on an approximately 26.26 acre parcel. Sunset Bluff SEPA Appeal File No.: LUA-04-002, ECF, PP August 3, 2004 Page 47 2. The two appeals were filed separately by the respective parties. Both appeals were filed on March 15, 2004 and both were filed in a timely manner. 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 26 conditions. 4. The appellant-applicant objected to Mitigation Condition Number 24 and sought a correction of language in Condition 25. Condition 24 stated: "The applicant shall be required to install a raised median with pedestrian pass-through/refuge area in Sunset Boulevard NE, west of the access street. This condition shall be subject to the review and approval of the Development Services Division in conjunction with WASHDOT and shall be completed prior to final plat approval." Condition 25 stated: "The applicant shall pay the appropriate Traffic Mitigation fee based on a rate of$75.00 per net new average trip generated by the project prior to the recording of the preliminary plat." 5. The language that the appellant sought to correct was directed at the fact that a"preliminary plat" is not recorded. Final plats are recorded and the appellant applicant wanted the wording to be changed from "preliminary plat"to"final plat." 6. Regarding Condition 24,the appellant-applicant wanted the condition changed to read: "West of the project's public access street intersection with SW Sunset Boulevard,the applicant shall be required to install within SW Sunset Boulevard a raised median that is at least 8 feet wide for a length that need not exceed 40 feet. (No pedestrian crosswalk across SW Sunset Boulevard is intended or required.) This condition shall be subject to review and approval of the Development Services Division in conjunction with WSDOT." 7. As the hearing opened,the appellant-applicant indicated that staff generally addressed their concerns and that they only desired that the Hearing Examiner issue a decision incorporating their agreement and that the appeal was otherwise settled. 8. Herons Forever,the other appellant raised a number of objections to the determination and raised a number of issues. Six points or grounds for the appeal were raised as noted: "1. The DNS fails to adequately describe and analyze the change in surface water and shallow groundwater hydrology that will be created by the subdivision and the resulting impacts to the downgradient wetlands, wetland species and herons. 2. The DNS fails to adequately describe, analyze and mitigate the significant impacts to the Black River heronry caused by activities during construction, including but not limited to,clearing, grading, roadbuilding, infrastructure and home building. 3. The DNS fails to adequately describe, analyze and mitigate the significant impacts to the Black River heronry caused by the clearing of virtually all of the trees from the subject property. Sunset Bluff SEPA Appeal File No.: LUA-04-002, ECF, PP August 3, 2004 Page 48 4. The DNS fails to adequately describe, analyze and mitigate the significant impacts to the Black River heronry caused by increased human and pet interactions from the preliminary plat once built and occupied. 5. The DNS fails to adequately describe, analyze and mitigate the significant impacts to the Black River heronry caused by increased noise, light and glare from the preliminary plat once built and occupied_ 6. The DNS fails to adequately describe, analyze and mitigate the significant safety impacts likely to result (sic)earth movements associated with the proposed clearing and grading for roadways, houses and the proposed stormwater retention pond." 9. The subject site is located at SW1 100 Sunset Boulevard. The subject site is located on the south side of Sunset. The majority of the site is west of Powell Avenue SW if it were extended south. 10. While it would appear that the subject site has a long frontage along Sunset Boulevard, the City approved a lot line adjustment that separated the majority of the subject site from its frontage along Sunset(allowing the applicant to avoid installing any frontage improvements along the frontage) 11. The subject site is approximately 26.26 acres in size. The subject site is curved or crescent shaped and is approximately 2,400 feet long(east to west) by approximately 600 feet deep although it tapers to a very narrow point at its eastern end. The lot line adjustment noted above severed a large portion of the site's frontage along Sunset Boulevard creating a very long and very narrow separate lot. 12. The subject site is located in two zoning districts. The majority of the site(25.18 acres), predominantly the northern and western portions of the site, is zoned R-10(Residential; 10 dwelling units per acre). The southeastern corner of the site(1.08 acres) is zoned RC (Resource Conservation). 13. The map element of the Comprehensive Plan designates the area in which the subject site is located as suitable for the development of residential options and rural residential uses, but does not mandate such development without consideration of other policies of the Plan. 14. Access to the site would be via a new street intersecting Sunset Boulevard from the south. The new street would be located between Powell Avenue SW and Oakesdale Avenue SW. Both of those streets intersect Sunset Boulevard from the north. 15. The subject site has a heavy tree cover. The staff report stated: "The site is heavily treed and is considered to be a second-generation forest(approximately 50 years in age). and native vegetation covers most of the site." (Page 3, Staff Report) "The site is heavily wooded with Maple,Alder, Cottonwood, Fir, and Cedar trees ranging in size from 36- inches to 48-inches in diameter and is also vegetated with blackberry vines and other forested vegetation - most of which would be removed during site preparation activities." (Page 10, Staff Report) 16. The applicant during the course of the appeal disputed the forest makeup or characterization. 17. Staff noted that almost all the vegetation would be removed from the subject site: "As a result of the preliminary plat, the applicant has proposed to remove the majority of the on-site vegetation and perform approximately 160,000 cubic yards of earthwork activity." (Page 3, Staff Report) 18. Also disputed were the staff report comments that retaining walls or cuts of 30 feet and fills of 20 feet were required. Sunset Bluff SEPA Appeal File No.: LUA-04-002, ECF, PP August 3,2004 Page 49 "The grading activity will modify the site slopes, increasing the existing slope gradient from 15% -20% to slopes in the range of 40% - 50% on the south and north sides of the proposed building lots. As a result of the proposed cuts and fills associated with the building pads and road development, the geotechnical report recommends that the applicant be required to maintain a 25-foot building setback from the top or toe of any 50% plus proposed slope." (Page 11, Staff Report) 19. The applicant will be creating slopes that actually are defined as protected. Immense grading activity will reshape the entire parcel and remove all vegetation on approximately 20 acres. 20. A secondary, independent geotechnical review requested by staff added an additional condition. That additional condition required "additional embedment or erosion control."(Page 12, Staff Report) 21. The staff report located the subject site vis a vis the heron colony but it appears that it used the location of what had been the main nest tree that apparently has been abandoned. "Finally, the site is located approximately 1,100 feet form the main heron nesting tree location within the City of Renton's Black River Riparian Forest." (Page 3, Staff Report) 22. Staff described the site's slopes as: "The site is characterized by having sensitive and protected slopes ranging from 10 to 50% plus in degree." (Page 3, Staff Report) 23. Staff noted that open space would be provided on the site: "The applicant has included three open space and/or utilities tracts throughout the project site that total over 16 acres." (Page 3, Staff Report) Most of this open space would be lawn areas above and below the actual homes or the retention pond surface. It would generally not be forest or larger native vegetation. 24. The rezone of the site was accompanied by a development agreement. That agreement requires the construction of a 6-foot fence along the south side of the development for the length of the development. It also provides that the development contain not more than 69 detached single-family housing units. 25. Approximately 5.68 acres of the site are deducted for roads,high landslide hazards area, sensitive slopes, wetlands(page 7, Staff Report) arriving at a net density of 3.2 dwelling units per acre on the resultant 20.58 acres. 26. The site can be described as a 200 foot high, south-southeast facing slope that descends from Sunset Boulevard to the railroad right-of-way. 27. The property north of the subject site across Sunset is zoned R-8 (Residential; 8 dwelling units per acre) and is in King County, R-6, and is a mix of developed and undeveloped property. East of the site is RM-I zoning (Multiple Family) developed with multiple family uses. West is another RM-I district with multiple family units and industrially zoned property in King County that is developed and undeveloped including a closed quarry site. The quarry site would provide a route for an emergency access road for the proposed development. Sunset Bluff SEPA Appeal File No.: LUA-04-002, ECF, PP August 3,2004 Page 50 28. Ms. Sheldon, a wetlands biologist, discussed the changes that will occur in hydroperiodicity due to the massive grading and alteration of the soils. The porous soils will be removed or compacted to allow the grading to achieve stable slopes and firm foundations. The volume of water(rain)that reaches the site will remain constant(taking into account normal yearly variations in rainfall) but it will be stored and released differently. Rather than stored in some manner by the natural soils, it will be channeled to the detention pond and released to the riparian forest differently than natural release. This had not been assessed by the documentation available to the ERC and public. She pointed out that while the project will meet design standards to retain water that does not address, in this case, the biological or ecological effects of altering the way this hillside now affects the water. The King County manual, in this regard, treats water as an inert substance to be handled, conveyed and detained but does not deal as effectively with its biological component. Releasing the water in a naturally controlled subsurface manner is different than channeling it over or around compacted soils. 29. The appellants introduced evidence from Bill Rozeboom that questioned the effect of clearing the forest from the hillside and channeling water that enters the site from offsite. The appellants want to know how the clearing and channeling of water affects the riparian forest and its hydrology. The receiving area,the riparian forest and its wetland, are what is defined as a closed depression that is like a bathtub but without any outlet. Water flows into it but unless it tops the confines of the closed basin, it does not directly flow to the P-1 Pond. It either slowly evaporates or percolates through the walls of the basin. Currently, the undeveloped subject site releases water from storm events and normal rain slowly to the closed depression. The appellants argue that the impacts of altering the vegetation, slopes and method of channeling water is unknown and has not been adequately studied or addressed. A term of art,"hydroperiod", was used to focus the discussion on the impacts of changing how and when water reaches the depression after it reaches the subject site now and then after its terrain and vegetation are dramatically altered. The issue was defined as not the amount of water that reaches the wetland or closed depression but the time frame, seasonally of the water flow. It was explained by the witness that the detention pond will control peak flows but not the volume of water and not the complete timing of the release. 30. Anil Butail, a geotechnical engineer, provided testimony questioning the amount of information gleaned from the test pits that only went to a depth of approximately 17 feet whereas grading to a depth of approximately 70 was shown in the submissions, how the damp soils would be reworked on the site to make them suitable for foundation work, whether chemical additives might be necessary that could leach to the wetland areas. He questioned some of the stability information near Sunset and above the sensitive eastern slopes where the access road will be carved out as well as stability near and above the large detention pond. He did not believe that the 1.9 or 2.1 safety factor was appropriately calculated given the ground water characterizations. He testified that the normal standard of care is to test bore to at least the level of excavation, here approximately 70 feet, and that going 15 to 20 feet below the proposed excavation depth is reasonable. He suggested that on a site with steep slopes such as this, waiting for field results during actual excavation and reacting at that time to discoveries would be improper and could be disastrous. Using the applicant's data he determined that the safety factor was approximately 1.5 rather than the 2.1 safety factor that the applicant's representatives found. He noted that the lower safety factor of 1.5 is a borderline value. He also indicated that there was little indication of the safety factor just below Sunset Boulevard. 31. The only experts that have actually worked with or monitored heron recently or that were subject to cross- examination indicated that the birds have reacted hostilely to intrusive activities in both this heronry and in others in the Puget Sound region. Based on their extensive knowledge of these birds,they suspect that the proposed grading on the property adjacent to the colony will definitely have an impact. Reports appear to indicate that the birds were flushed and severely disturbed by logging just south of the railroad tracks at the western edge of the riparian forest area. The anecdotal evidence appears to show that the development of Sunset Bluff SEPA Appeal File No.: LUA-04-002, ECF, PP August 3,2004 Page 51 the office park complex at the north end of Naches also caused a reaction in the heron and may he responsible for the colony's move north and west and to their abandoning what has been termed the main nesting tree or colony. While no one can be sure what the impacts will be of the overall development and eventual population change it seems clear that the immensity of the proposed clearing and grading, if not the homes and people will spur some reaction on the part of the heron. The site, at least some of which appears to be their habitat, will be disturbed. Areas where they gather twigs and possibly forage for food will be clear-cut and almost all vegetation will be gone. Forest vegetation will be replaced by open space, detention pond, lawn and maybe smaller shrubs. The work will occur at or above the nesting level and while the maps appear to indicate that this would be out of sight of the nests, the birds will be flying above the nests and the shelter and visual screen and buffer that the upslope forest provided will be gone or will be removed possibly during nesting season. 32. The changes to the seasonal wetland were again raised as an issue since the results of grading and drainage changes could affect food sources for the heron. These impacts were not analyzed leaving a gap in knowledge. Changes in water level would affect amphibians which heron, particularly newly fledged young heron, depend on as food sources. Similarly, changing water levels would affect invertebrate and insect populations affecting animals further up the food chain. None of the results of possibly changing the water flows were studied. 33. Doctor Sten berg questioned what affect to water quality might occur since water flowing across Sunset now flows across the site, into the soils and exits at the bottom of the hill receiving a level of treatment in the natural percolation process. After the site is developed and to maintain slope stability, this offsite water would be piped faster down the hill and receive substantially less natural treatment. It will also be routed around the new detention pond and not receive any treatment in that pond. She also wondered about the possible addition of soil additives to stabilize the slope and noted homeowners are not exacting in their use of fertilizers and pesticides for lawn care once the site is developed. 34. She also pointed out the measurements to the colony reflect a radius from the older colony and pinpoint the location whereas the colony is more a polygon and she concluded that the heronry is approximately 950 feet not the 1 100 feet noted in the staff report. 35. She mentioned that the Washington State Department of Fish and Wildlife has made recommendation for working around heron colonies and they found that working within approximately 2,600 feet creates problems and recommended 3,200 feet as a distance in which no construction or logging occur. This office does note that such a setback could eliminate most development of this private property. But she noted that in an urban setting where the birds were subject to more intrusions that may not be reasonable. In urban King County studies found colonies shrink when there is development within 1,000 feet. 36. She referenced the 1998 construction of the office park within 500 feet of the colony and noted that now the colony has all but, if not totally, abandoned the main colony and moved to what is called the protected forest further to the west and north. 37. Dr. Stenberg noted that Fish and Wildlife recommendations were based on the best available science. She noted this colony arrives at its nests earlier and some stay a bit later and that the window should accommodate this local variation from other colonies. She recommended mid-January to the end of July, which does not accommodate fully the late nesters. 38. She noted that this colony appears to react more to disturbances from the north where there is currently more forest cover and generally less anticipated intrusions and seem less disturbed by southerly-based disturbances. Sunset Bluff SEPA Appeal File No.: LUA-04-002, ECF, PP August 3,2004 Page 52 39. Ms. Krom testified and noted that most activity occurs along the south trail system and viewing area and that little activity occurs on the north side of the colony. Also it was pointed out that most activity occurs during daylight hours since most of the development east, south and west is commercial development or office or industrial uses which do not have much in the way of evening activity. The proposed development would be some of the first development to occur north since the colony was established and would introduce a more permanent,daily population including evening hour activity and more lighting. 40. Ms. Krom testified that the main colony productivity declined substantially after the development at SW 7th and Naches. Then the main colony appeared to be abandoned and the heron moved to the area termed the "protected forest" which is north or northwest. The timing of this move also seemed to have corresponded with the termination of the blasting at the quarry which was located west of the subject site. 41. She indicated that there did not appear to be any change to the trees in the main colony such as dead or dying trees to cause the shift. 42. It was clear the heron colony attracts a lot of attention from the general public. They visit during the nest season to watch the activity. They walk the trail and use some viewpoints. Some folks may wander another trail to the north or rear of the colony but it does not seem to be popular. These visits to the trail may be affecting the heron in some fashion but that would not necessarily justify intensifying or adding more impacts such as the applicant's proposal without more study. 43. Scott Dinkelman,the applicant's geotechnical consultant discussed the borings. He updated information with new borings that were conducted after the initial environmental review. This new information was not seen by the ERC. It was revealed at the public hearing on the appeal. These new, deeper borings show that the site can be worked safely. He testified that it was always expected that it would be a summer construction type project due to moisture sensitive soils. This means that there should probably be no earthwork during the normal rainy season. This information does not appear in the geotechnical report and a seasonal grading"window"was not part of the ERC's recommendations. He noted that the original soils report was fairly preliminary. 44. He disagreed with the Barghausen wetland report prepared for the applicant for this project that characterized the soils on the site as well drained. He noted that he would not characterize the soils as well drained. 45. He noted that they would have to dry the soils in the summer as they work the lifts. But the report did not contain any recommendations to this affect. . 46. Mr. Grubb was the civil engineer for the project. He noted that the road is designed to basically follow the existing grades. Homes would be built on cuts upslope and fills down slope from the roadway. The intersection with Sunset, its angle and sight distance, were important and constrained the design of the roadway thereafter. He noted that the extensive grading for lots appears necessary to accommodate the small lot sizes and home design where daylight basements are not necessarily appropriate. 47. Mr. Grubb explained the drainage basins that drain across the subject site. The largest basin, approximately 43 acres, feeds a stream that is unregulated due to its small size and lack of fish. The only impact of this flow is that the access roadway will cross the stream. Except for the proposed road crossing,the stream flows in an area that will not be developed and feeds the site's protected wetland at the toe of the eastern slope. A 14.4 acre basin also feeds through the site as well as two smaller 4.7 acre and 6.6 acre basins north Sunset Bluff SEPA Appeal File No.: LUA-04-002, ECF, PP August 3,2004 Page 53 of Sunset that cross the site after exiting culverts under Sunset. The state has also collected water from Sunset and that flows across the site. 48. Almost all water that enters the site from external properties, that does not enter the site as precipitation, will be captured and piped around the site and released more or less at its natural exit. The water will receive no particular treatment nor will it be slowed by the soils on the site or absorbed by vegetation (evapotranspiration). Water that falls on the site will be detained in a detention pond at the bottom of the slope near the railroad tracks. He testified that the long skinny pond enhances water quality treatment. Storm water will also be directed around retaining walls or rockeries to protect those features. 49. Dr. McCarthy was the applicant's hydrologist. He discussed the riparian forest and its prominent feature just south of the subject site and railroad tracks, the depressional wetland. It is about 10.5 acres. It is about 3.5 feet deep at its deepest and has a million cubic feet of storage. He noted that the change would be an increase from approximately 115 acre-feet of runoff under current conditions to 145 acre-feet after development in an average year. This was not considered a significant change given the capacity of the wetland. He had not actually observed any flows on the site or to the wetlands. It was based on modeling the flows and on the soils maps not on the actual borings or the results revealed by those borings. It was noted that most of this was new information that was not available to the ERC or public prior to the hearing. 50. Rebecca Lind testified for the applicant. She stepped through the various downzones that occurred, including considerations for buffering the heronry. Each rezone action or Comprehensive Plan amendment, in general, reduced the overall intensity of development that could occur on the site. The applicant or predecessor in interest sought some of these actions. 51. Ms. Dusek prepared the Habitat Wildlife Assessment and Stream Study Report for the applicant. No fish were found on the site or its wetlands or the stream on the site. The heron are designated by Fish and Wildlife as a priority species,trees and nesting areas are protected and the birds cannot be hunted or harassed. There is a need to identify potential impacts on them but there is no requirement to replace habitat. 52. Ms. Dusek using a variety of cross-section exhibits demonstrated that the heron nests are not visible from the site when the trees leaf out which generally occurs in April. One nest is visible in winter. Elevation profiles show the nest elevations,the tree screening at mid-range and the profile of the site and proposed buildings. This information reportedly shows that the heronry will not be visible from most of the site even after developed and that the site would in turn, not be visible by the heron in their nests. A fence that is required in the Development Agreement should help limit entry from the north. 53. Mr. Pritchard testified as an expert in wetland ecology. His assessment was not available to the ERC and was conducted for the public hearing. The forest showed good,vigorous growth and no snags. There were some very large trees on upland hummocks. Cottonwood trees of 14"to 18"caliper at chest height and some large specimens 40"to 50". Water marks on trees varied from 12"to 14"to 36"to 40". The water marks could have been caused by the large October storm event or could be seasonal. He had not reviewed weather records. A variation of 1"to 2" should not affect the larger trees and excess inundation should flow over the south edge of the depressional wetland into the P-1 pond. 54. Doctor Raedeke testified as a wildlife and heron expert for the applicant. He relied on a number of studies of heron. He indicated that with the possible exception of British Columbia, herons appeared to be increasing in number. He has been involved in heron projects around Puget Sound. His testimony made this project seem like a"non-event" in terms of potential impacts to this colony. He noted that if the birds are displaced, they relocate to other locations. Whereas Dr. Stenberg testified that due to concerns about Sunset Bluff SEPA Appeal File No.: LUA-04-002, ECF, PP August 3, 2004 Page 54 numbers, they are trying to refine the counting methodologies. They also formed an international working group because of those declining numbers. There are limited locales for heron colonies due to the nature of the trees, the forest and the wetland environment they prefer. Doctor Raedeke noted that buffers per se do not necessarily protect the heron but barriers to entry are a better option. The buffer proposed in this case meets or exceeds past recommendations. He characterized a construction zone moratorium as illogical and punitive this far away from the colony. He noted that the birds do habituate to disturbances but noise and activity does cause them to flush. He did note that it might be better to leave some habitat and that monitoring to see what happens and react accordingly probably should be done. 55. Ms. Thompson, Washington Fish and Wildlife Department, represented that department and testified in her official capacity. She admitted that the state did not appear to comment earlier in the review process for this application. She noted that while this colony appears to be thriving, others have been reduced in numbers and two larger ones; Peasley Canyon and Dumas Bay have been abandoned. Some small two-nest colonies may be satellite colonies. The 1985 study is 20 years old and out of date. They see more fragmentation of colonies and more abandonment. Of the 13 colonies mentioned in that report only 9 remain. Some of the studies cited by the applicant's representative are from a different subspecies of heron and the information and characteristics do not carry over. She noted that Alberta, NY and Louisiana have entirely different ecosystems. She noted that the Stabins study showed perceived increases in nests but that does not seem to be verifiable. Others including herself found smaller numbers than Stabins. There have been increased efforts of late to establish a clear methodology and protocol. The number of nests has decreased by approximately 100 in 2003 versus 2000. She noted that suitable habitat is limited for nesting and foraging. 56. Stabins data also varied from other data collected and it was noted that the increase seen in the Redmond Towne Center colony went from 22 nests reported by Stabins in 2000 to 6 nests in 2001 and the colony has since failed. But Ms.Thompson noted that with no formal protocol, the number differences might be explained by different reporting methods or possibly flawed data. 57. There was speculation that more disturbances actually might increase success. It was not known why this might be true since the heron do flush and react but possibly, eagles, which have attacked colonies are even more disturbed by human intrusion, have moved further away from the intrusions. 58. Ms. Thompson was in favor of site-specific management plans. Incontrovertible is that walking and sudden noise will flush the birds. The larger colony may need more protection, more habitat reserve and reasonable buffer in terms of no intrusion, approximately 300 meters, and a construction window in terms of time(nest related) and distance, 1,000 meters. 59. She noted that this colony represents approximately six percent(6%)of the heron of King County and therefore, experimenting on them is not a good idea as it represents too significant a colony. 60. The applicant's expert would have us believe that birds that have been identified as very flighty, easily flushed and shy, have been mischaracterized and are helped and flourish because of human activity. This testimony alone, even a suggestion that is the case robs most of his testimony of credibility and makes the conclusions suspect, or fairly lacking in science. It would appear that the testimony relies on predominately one source,a Masters student and he was her advisor. It also is a source that was not subject to cross- examination. 61. Mr. Jordan testified that the ERC considered the design of the complex and its proximity or lack thereof, to the heron colony when issuing its decision and omitting a construction window. They required a second opinion on the slopes and modified the decision to accommodate those additional recommendations. They noted the trail distance and that tours were given showing the heron a bit less sensitive than expected. They Sunset Bluff SEPA Appeal File No.: LUA-04-002, ECF, PP August 3, 2004 Page 55 also considered the existing and surrounding uses and noise sources including the railroad, quarry, industrial uses and the treatment plant. They did anticipate additional geotechnical information as development and plans were developed. Staff did not recommend a construction season to work around either the wet season or for the heron's nesting behavior and timing. 62. This office issued a decision in an appeal supporting the City's determination that no site clearing, grading or similar work would occur on the Debar Property(File Number: LUA-01-58) adjacent to May Creek. The City was concerned with the stability of that steep slope and the sensitive nature of May Creek. In that matter the applicant challenged a condition imposed by the ERC that read: "The applicant shall limit site disturbance including clearing, grading, utility, and roadwork activities to occur during the relatively dry months of April through October." The ERC imposed this condition to limit work to the dry season in spite of the fact that the then applicant introduced expert testimony that the site could be worked during the wet season and that the ground stability would not be jeopardized. 63. In Emma's Plat(file Number: LUA-04-025)the ERC imposed a specific condition on earthwork activity where a wetland was involved but where slopes were less than 5%. The ERC condition was: "1. The applicant shall be required to perform all earthwork activities during the dry summer months of August through October. This condition shall be subject to review and approval of the Development Services Division." 64. The jurisdiction for the Hearing Examiner in appeals can be found in Section 4-8-110.E APPEALS TO EXAMINER OF ADMINISTRATIVE DECISIONS AND ENVIRONMENTAL DETERMINATIONS: (Amd. Ord. 4827, 1-24-2000) 1. Applicability and Authority: a. Administrative Determinations: Any administrative decisions made may be appealed to the Hearing Examiner, in writing, with the Hearing Examiner, Examiner's secretary or City Clerk. (Ord. 4521, 6-5-1995) b. Environmental Determinations: Except for permits and variances issued pursuant to RMC 4-3-090, Shoreline Master Program Regulations,when any proposal or action is granted, conditioned, or denied on the basis of SEPA by a nonelected official,the decision shall be appealable to the Hearing Examiner under the provisions of this Section. c. Authority: To that end,the Examiner shall have all of the powers of the office from whom the appeal is taken insofar as the decision on the particular issue is concerned. 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." Sunset Bluff SEPA Appeal File No.: LUA-04-002, ECF, PP August 3, 2004 Page 56 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 reversed. 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). 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 remoat 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 197-1 1-060(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. 7. In this case we have approximately 26 acres of forested property located uphill from a City park that for the most part is a unique riparian forest and wetland environment and one that contains one of the larger heron colonies in King County. It appears very reasonable to explore in more detail the probable impacts of developing the subject site as proposed as well as possible alternatives. What is clear is that the conditions imposed by the ERC are more compliance measures that do not necessarily mitigate the impacts of this development. 8. The applicant suggests that the appellant should have challenged this project earlier in the process. This argument is not persuasive. The appellant may not have objected to single-family uses on this site. The appellant might have relied on the very SEPA review process now occurring to help mitigate impacts of single-family development on this site. Many have suggested in the past that mere map changes are insufficient to challenge a land use action when no physical changes are proposed. Instead it has been suggested that when real development is proposed, SEPA and the parties could get a better handle on the Sunset Bluff SEPA Appeal File No.: LUA-04-002, ECF, PP August 3,2004 Page 57 potential impacts. That is exactly what has happened in this case. A concrete proposal has allowed the various parties to analyze what is proposed and what its impacts might be. The appellants have a right to challenge the proposal at this time even if they did not challenge it earlier. 9. The applicant's attorney attempted to paint the appellant's representative as a zealot willing to do anything to protect the heron and prevent development. This is not a characterization that this office needs to decide. The issues in this case are whether the ERC made the appropriate determination and whether this project will have more than a moderate impact on the quality of the environment. The motivation, at least, at this point does not matter. If the proposal will have more than moderate impact on the environment then a Determination of Significance should have been issued by the ERC. 10. The record shows that the ERC relied on past experience with development on steep hillsides, or adjacent to wetlands and near the heron colony. The record reveals that when development on or near a steep sensitive hillside was proposed near May Creek, the ERC imposed a condition for special reporting and limited work to the dry season. (See above) The ERC even defended that decision in the face of an appeal and expert evidence that the development could proceed during the wet seasons. Similarly, in Emma's Plat the ERC imposed a condition limiting earthwork to the dry months. In this case the applicant 's expert indicated that it was presumed that the development would be seasonally limited. No such condition appears in writing. 11. Besides not imposing a"wet-season" limitation on working on the steeper hillside, the ERC imposed no construction window to lessen impacts on nesting heron. It would appear that they did consider the horizontal distance between the subject site and the heronry. But there appears to be evidence that the vertical offset could adversely affect the heron including the loss of dense cover in an area where it has long existed. While there are other large complexes in the area,the ones north of the site are both more remoat and were apparently established when the heron began establishing their colony. 12. The City's obligation to is to fully and fairly determine the potential impacts of developing this property in the manner proposed by the applicant. That is the City must analyze the impacts of removing approximately 20 acres of mature forest from a slope that varies from 20 to 40 percent and that is located upslope from a sensitive riparian forest that is inhabited by a large colony of heron. The ERC's report does not contain any particular information on the complex mesh of slope-wetland-heron. It is as if there were an implicit admission that the City and its planners and probably the decisionmaker already know about the impacts of development in these kinds of environments and that documenting them would be unnecessary or redundant. This ignores the fact that the general public does not have this information and cannot intelligently comment in the absence of such information. The failure to further explore the impacts and consequences of a specific proposal also ignores the fact that occasionally a full exploration of the probable impacts might lead to better design, particularly for a non-routine site or one with significant features or attributes. This does not mean an EIS can be demanded in the absence of a showing that a proposal will have more than a moderate impact on the quality of the environment. In this case the nature of the proposal,the nature of the subject site and the nature of the surrounding area requires more disclosure and more analysis. 13. SEPA requires review"at the earliest possible point in the planning and decision-making process"(WAC 197-11-055(2). This review should be performed prior to irrevocable commitment of either resources or land. It is apparent that the SEPA determination required at this,the earliest time when alternatives can be realistically considered,would be to require an EIS. By attempting to eliminate the full disclosure mandated by SEPA, the applicant may be foreclosing reasonable and better alternatives for the site. They may be committing to a course of action that has not been fully explored. SEPA demands more in this case. The approval of the proposed development without a SEPA study would foreclose considering alternative development scenarios such as clustering the single family homes, using detention vaults in conjunction with storm water control, utilizing the topography with less drastic an alteration of the slope as is now Sunset Bluff SEPA Appeal File No.: LUA-04-002, ECF, PP August 3,2004 Page 58 proposed. Then again, a full study might fully support the current proposal as the best development alternative or, at least, a more than reasonable method of allowing development on the subject site. 14. This decision should not be read to discount or dismiss most of the rebuttal testimony provided by the applicant. Rather what this decision does is conclude that the information provided does not mitigate the impacts of the proposal on the quality of the environment, impacts such as its total forest and vegetation removal from approximately 20 acres, its grading of slopes varying from 20%to 40% on approximately 20 acres, its alteration of hydrology that will affect the hydroperiod of the riparian forest, or its proximity to the heron colony. Also important is the fact that none of this supplemental information was available in a timeframe where it could help the public knowledgeably comment on this project. This supplemental information was presented in an appeal hearing, not a forum where it could easily be digested and certainly not in a format where the general public could read it, comment on it and rebut it. The information is late and does not help weigh the impacts and possibly derive alternatives that might lessen the impacts. 15. In addition,the applicant's supplemental information, as noted above, in many cases conflicts with the information submitted by the appellants. This information needs to be laid out side-by-side and sorted and sifted in a way that only an Environmental Impact Statement can provide. This information needs to be assembled by an expert team that is managed by the City,the agency with jurisdiction and which is in charge of gathering such full disclosure information. Frankly, right now, we have a battle of experts and it may ultimately come down to that but only after the full disclosure mandated by SEPA. 16. This does not mean that an exhaustive study of the development of the site is necessary. It appears that the appellants and others who have written about this proposal have focused on certain issues. Those are clearly the areas that need to be studied. The issues that need particular analysis are: a). The hydrology of the site and its affect on the riparian forest including hydroperiod, b). Habitat alteration and water quality, c). The slope stability, d). The affects of the loss of vegetation and regrading of approximately 20 acres of mature forest, and the impacts of tree removal and grading and construction noise on the heron colony, e). The impacts of the potential new residential population including noise and light and glare on the heron colony 17. Studying minimum and maximum development and mid-range development alternatives does not mean that the ultimate development cannot be constructed as the applicant envisions. The focused EIS only serves as a full disclosure document. One has to remember that while the document serves the needs of the decisionmaker, it truly serves the needs of those who need information to formulate appropriate questions for the decisionmaker-that is neighbors and other interested persons who may not be as knowledgeable of development results as City staff. 18. It is misguided to believe that because the applicant's proposal will comply with code that it is a measure of successful mitigation. One has to hope, if not presume, that all projects will meet their minimum code requirements or they should not be permitted. If merely complying with code for achieving slope stability, or stormwater detention ended the environmental analysis,there would be no need for SEPA review. While Sunset Bluff SEPA Appeal File No.: LUA-04-002, ECF, PP August 3, 2004 Page 59 this is a tact that some have sought in the legal environmental arena, SEPA review is still required since projects that meet code may still have a significant impact on the quality of the environment. This office in its handout on dealing with environmental appeals notes the development of Gene Coulon Park, a gem of a park along Lake Washington's shoreline, an almost incontrovertible asset, was constructed only after an Environmental Impact Statement was prepared. While that was a number of years ago, the principles of environmental review are still intact. "A threshold determination shall not balance whether the beneficial aspects of a proposal outweigh its adverse impacts, but rather, shall consider whether a proposal has any probable significant adverse environmental impacts under the rules stated in this section. For example, proposals designed to improve the environment, such as sewage treatment plants or pollution control requirements, may also have significant adverse environmental impacts."(WAC 197-11-330(5). 19. If a project will have more than a moderate impact on the quality of the environment and all of its impacts have not been mitigated, then an EIS, an environmental full-disclosure document, is required. In this case, once again, we have a proposal that will result in the clearing of absolutely all vegetation and stripping of topsoils on a very steep hillside above a City park and above a significant heron colony. We have a project that will change the rate of flow for storm water. We have a proposal that will potentially alter the constituents (contaminants from Sunset or herbicides and pesticides and fertilizers) of that flow. This is because the stormwater that now percolates into the natural soils will be channeled around the subject site or fall on a very compacted soil surface. We have a project that will alter an area that the heron may use for nest-building materials and possible foraging. These are significant impacts that have not been mitigated. Could there be more suitable development? Nothing in the development agreement or code forbids this project,developed in a sensitive location, from having a unit count of less than 69 units if it would be more suitable for this location. 20. This office has recognized in the past and again recognizes one issue that makes this decision problematic. This office not only reviews the SEPA appeal but is in the position of a decisionmaker("recommendation maker"to the City Council in this case). As the decisionmaker, more information is always welcome but not just for the sake of exploring minutia or delaying the ultimate decision. This decisionmaker would like to have more information on alternatives for developing this site. 21. While development of private property is essential and the development of additional housing in the City is encouraged not every development plan serves the public use and interest, a prime component of the review criteria for a plat. It would appear that the city and other governmental agencies expended a large sum of money not merely to protect a riparian forest, but a heron colony-an ecosystem. It would appear reasonable to take some additional measures to analyze the impacts and possible alternatives to protect that unique resource. 22. While not in any manner attempting to prejudge the next series of environmental documents that come out of this process,the appellants need to be mindful that this is private property and that once reasonable environmental information is compiled,the challenges will be harder. Disclosing the impacts of the development and even providing alternative development ideas does not mean that the subject site will not be developed as proposed by the applicant. SEPA does not necessarily prohibit development that will have an impact on heron,trees, rivers or wetlands. It requires an informed decisionmaker who then decides if there are acceptable impacts and even losses. 23. 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. There is no doubt that the reviewing agency erred in its determination. The plat is a major action that will significantly affect the quality of the environment. The proposed plat is a major action that will have more than a moderate Sunset Bluff SEPA Appeal File No.: LUA-04-002, ECF, PP August 3,2004 Page 60 impact on the quality of the environment. The mitigation measures imposed by the ERC do not fully mitigate the impacts of developing this site. Too many questions on environmental issues are still unanswered. Repeating the obvious: we have a heron colony and the impacts of this development on that colony and its environment need more analysis. It is possible that the development of environmental information will accomplish both the preservation of the heron colony and permit the development of the private property. 24. The appealing party must prevail on this appeal. A DNS, even a mitigated DNS, would be inappropriate for this proposal. First, at this point, without more information, it truly is hard to understand what mitigation, that is, what conditions, would be sufficient to offset the potential impacts. In order to mitigate a proposal, one needs to fully understand the impacts. The information now in the record does not provide the necessary information at this time. Full environmental disclosure should provide the necessary information and that means the preparation of an EIS. 25. Again, the record is replete with a great deal of conflicting and contradictory information provided by hired or voluntary experts. A concise EIS prepared under the City's auspices should provide a neutral document with more balanced presentation. 26. Since Section 4-8-1 10-E-1-c grants this office"all of the powers of the office from whom the appeal is taken insofar as the decision on the particular issue is concerned"this office will issue a Determination of Significance. 27. The determination of the Environmental Review Committee is reversed. A Determination of Significance is substituted in its place. 28. Having reached the conclusion that an EIS is required,no purpose would be served in reviewing the proposed plat request for the subject site. The evaluation performed by the EIS may demonstrate that the proposed plat needs modification. DECISION: The decision of the ERC is reversed. A Determination of Significance will replace the decision of the ERC. ORDERED THIS 31d day of August,2004. FRED J.KAUF N HEARING EXAMINER TRANSMITTED THIS 31d day of August,2004 to the parties of record: Jason Jordan David Hallinen Zanetta Fontes 1055 S Grady Way 10500 NE 8th Street, Suite 1900 Assistant City Attorney Renton, WA 98055 Bellevue, WA 98004 Renton, WA 98055 Kayren Kittrick David Mann Suzanne Krom 1055 S Grady Way 1424 Fourth Avenue, Suite 1015 4715-1/2 36`h Avenue SW Renton, WA 98055 Seattle, WA 98101 Seattle, WA 98126 Sunset Bluff SEPA Appeal File No.: LUA-04-002, ECF, PP August 3,2004 Page 61 Bill Rozeboom Anil Butail Dyanne Sheldon NW Hydraulic Consultants Geotechnical Engineer 5031 University Way NE 16300 Christianson Rd, Ste. 350 12525 Willows Road, Suite 80 Seattle, WA 98105 Tukwila, WA 98188 Kirkland, WA 98034 Kate Stenberg, MD Michael Hamilton Mr. Marsh 23022 SE 48t' Street 20418 NE 41st Street 3434 l4"Avenue W Sammamish, WA 98075 Sammamish, WA 98074 Seattle, WA 98119 Barak Gale Angela Romig Sally Near}, 6522 42nd Avenue NE 305 Kensington Avenue S 1 190 Union Avenue NE Seattle, WA 98115 Kent, WA 98030 Renton, WA 98059 Jerry Holmes Scott Dinkelman Hal Grubb 408 Index Place NE Earth Consultants Barghausen Consulting Engineers Renton, WA 98056 1805 136"Place NE, Suite 201 18215 72"d Avenue South Bellevue, WA 98005 Kent, WA 98032 Ed McCarthy, Ph.D Rebecca Lind Theresa Dusek 9957 171St Avenue SE 1055 S Grady Way Barghausen Consulting Engineers Renton, WA 98059 Renton, WA 98055 18215 72" Avenue South Kent, WA 98032 Emmett Pritchard Dr. Ken Raedeke Patricia Thompson Raedeke Associates Raedeke Associates Department of Fish and Wildlife 5711 NE 631d Street 5711 NE 63'd Street 16018 Mill Creek Blvd Seattle, WA 98115 Seattle, WA 98115 Mill Creek, WA 98012 Ivana Halvorsen Kevin L.Jones, P.E. Patricia Sumption Barghausen Consulting Engineers The Transpo Group 10510 11"Avenue NE 18215 72"d Avenue South 11730 118"Ave NE, Suite 600 Seattle, WA 98125 Kent, WA 98032 Kirkland,WA 98034 Brenda Buchanan 10840 14th Avenue S. Seattle, WA 98125 TRANSMITTED THIS 3rd day of August,2004 to the following: Mayor Kathy Keolker-Wheeler Larry Rude, Fire Jay Covington, Chief Administrative Officer Larry Meckling,Building Official Julia Medzegian, Council Liaison Planning Commission Larry Warren, City Attorney Transpiration 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 All Parties of Record Sunset Bluff SEPA Appeal File No.: LUA-04-002, ECF, PP August 3, 2004 Page 62 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.,August 17, 2004. 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.,August 17,2004. If the Examiner's Recommendation or Decision contains the requirement for Restrictive Covenants,the executed Covenants will be required prior to approval by City Council or final processing of the file. You may contact this office for information on formatting covenants. The Appearance of Fairness Doctrine provides that no ex parte(private one-on-one) communications may occur concerning pending land use decisions. This means that parties to a land use decision may not communicate in private with any decision-maker concerning the proposal. Decision-makers in the land use process include both the Hearing Examiner and members of the City Council. All communications concerning the proposal must be made in public. This public communication permits all interested parties to know the contents of the communication and would allow them to openly rebut the evidence. Any violation of this doctrine would result in the invalidation of the request by the Court. The Doctrine applies not only to the initial public hearing but to all Requests for Reconsideration as well as Appeals to the City Council. Exhibit No. 1: Yellow file containing the Exhibit No.2: Bill Rozeboom Resume original application, various reports, correspondence file, SEPA documents, and Staff analysis for the ERC, and the Staff report on the Plat. Exhibit No.3: Letter dated March 24, 2004 Exhibit No. 4: Copy of the City of Renton, with review of environmental checklist and Rivers and Wetlands map accompanying reports by Mr.Rozeboom. Exhibit No. 5: Storm Water PBPW Technical Exhibit No. 6: Enlarged version of Exhibit 5, Services, topographic map showing railroad,Riparian Forest and pond Exhibit No. 7: Letter dated March 15,2004 Exhibit No. 8: Dyanne Sheldon Resume with geotechnical findings of Mr. Anil Butail Exhibit No. 9: Letter dated April 10, 2004 Exhibit No. 10: Color version of Plat Map with findings and conclusions of Ms. Dyanne Sheldon Exhibit No. 11: Kate Stenberg,Ph.D. Resume Exhibit No. 12: A letter dated April 18,2004 covering Dr. Stenberg's review and findings and conclusions. Exhibit No. 13: Aerial photograph foldout Exhibit No. 14: Newspaper article from the from the Environmental Checklist with the King County Journal dated February 28, 2004 bulls eye around the main nest on the island in the P-1 channel Exhibit No. 15: Letter dated June 12, 1998 Exhibit No. 16: Letter dated July 1, 1998 from from Dr. Stenberg, addressed to Jennifer Toth Dr. Stenberg, addressed to Janna Herter,the Henning, Sr. Planner, City of Renton then Land Use Supervisor, City of Renton Development Services, referring to Black Development Services Division, in reference to River Tract B development proposal. Black River Corporate Park Tract B. Exhibit No. 17: April 20, 2004 letter from Exhibit No. 18: Additional aerial view of Suzanne Krom. subject site Exhibit No. 19: Scott Dinkelman Resume Exhibit No.20: Geotechnical Engineering Study Addendum dated April 19,2004. Exhibit No.21: Hal Grubb Resume Exhibit No.22: Copy of Plat map used by Mr. Grubb during his testimony Exhibit No.23: Sunset Bluff Preliminary Plat Exhibit No.24: Existing Basin Areas and Offsite Basins Exhibit Storm Water Flow Exhibit Exhibit No.25: Letter from James Rasmussen Exhibit No.26: Overall Map for Sunset Bluff of the Duwamish Tribe Project showing emergency road access Exhibit No.27: New legal description for Exhibit No.28: Illustration of where the Sunset Bluff project boundary line adjustment occurred. Exhibit No. 29: Sheet 3 of 11 for Road Exhibit No. 30: Roadway Cross Sections Grading Plan Exhibit No. 31: Shows Cross sections (Exh. Exhibit No. 32: Stream with cross section 30)on the Plat Plan showing rockeries that will be used in the project Exhibit No.33: Wetland Hydrology Analysis, Exhibit No. 34: Washington DOT letter dated dated April 19, 2004 March 3, 2004 Exhibit No. 35: Resume of Theresa Dusek Exhibit No.36: Letter from Larry Fisher, Department of Fish and Wildlife Exhibit No.37: Aerial photo of the site with Exhibit No.38: Aerial photo showing location of lots. distances from Heron nests to lot lines. Exhibit No. 39: A Great Blue Heron Exhibit No. 40: Analysis of Great Blue Assessment Report by Dr. Ken Radkhe. 2004 Herons in King County by Amy J. Stabins. 2001 Exhibit No. 41: Exhibit 18 with new markings Exhibit No. 42: Letter by Theresa Dusek showing inlet/outlet to wetlands dated April 19, 2004 with summary of the off-site wetland system and depression south of the site. Exhibit No. 43: November 27,2002 Hearing Exhibit No. 44: Newspaper article(Becky Examiner Decision, City of Seattle Stanley) Exhibit No. 45: Drawing showing the existing Exhibit No. 46 Drawing showing where the cyclone fence new fencing should be located (Suzanne Krom) Exhibit No. 47: Suzanne Krom testimony Exhibit No.48: Susan Andrich testimony packet dated 4/20/2004 Exhibit No. 49: Photo by Ms. Dusek of the Exhibit No.50: Photo of dirt road located on trails Sunset Bluff property by Ms. Dusek Exhibit No. 51: Photo showing the westerly most point of the project site by Ms. Dusek Exhibit No. 52: Resume of Dr.Ed McCarthy Exhibit No. 53: Figure 1 from Dr. McCarthy's report Exhibit No. 54: Evapo Transpiration Exhibit No.55: 1994 King County Modeling by Dr. McCarthy Comprehensive Planning Map • Exhibit No. 56: 2000 City of Renton map, Exhibit No. 57: 1996 Study Area Martin created at time of annexation showing King Luther King County zoning. Exhibit No. 58: Heron Rookery Radius Exhibit No. 59: August 2000 Development A gmt. Exhibit No. 60: Marked aerial photo showing Exhibit No. 61a: Existing proposed cross the polygon of the herons showing a cross section for Sunset Bluff(small size) section of Exhibit 61. Exhibit No. 61b: Full size photo of Exhibit 61a Exhibit No. 62: Aerial topography map Exhibit No. 63: King County GIS system map showing some of the basins in the cross section showing the Black River open space and park areas. WRIA 49 Habitat Projects Exhibit No. 64a: Photograph showing view Exhibit No. 64b: Photograph showing view south from railroad tracks towards the heronry from the south trail south of the P-1 forebay. and open space. Exhibit No. 64c: Photograph showing the Exhibit No. 65: Letter dated June 21, 1991 herons and their locations in the trees in the from Jones and Stokes, Status of the Black colony. River Great Blue Heron Colony as of June 18, 1991. Exhibit No. 66: The Sunset Bluff Plat Hearing Exhibit No. 67: Burlington Northern Railroad by reference. e-mail to Mr. Halinen re: trips per day Exhibit No. 68: Resume of Emmett Pritchard Exhibit No. 69: Report dated April 26,2004 by Emmett Pritchard Exhibit No. 70: Rainfall report from the Exhibit No. 71: Resume of Dr. Ken Raedeke Seattle Times printed from a web page Exhibit No. 72: Graph showing Great Blue Exhibit No.73: Graph showing US— Heron numbers from the Christmas Bird Washington Great Blue Heron count conducted Counts conducted by the Audubon Society by the Audubon Society. Exhibit No.74: Correction to page 29,figure Exhibit No.75: Carlson and McLean Article 3 for the year 2003 dated 1996 Exhibit No. 76: Memo by Dr. Raedeke from Exhibit No. 77a: May 7, 2004 aerial photo Dr.Butler's book. Exhibit No. 77b: Large size aerial photo of Exhibit No.78: Environmental Hearing Exhibit 77a, dated May 7,2004 Examiner and Council Review Process Exhibit No. 79: Letter from Suzanne Krom Exhibit No. 80: Letter from Quailcroft signed dated February 8, 2004 by Dr. Kate Stenberg dated February 7,2004 • Exhibit No. 81: City Parks Map dated 2002 Exhibit No. 82: Kinko fax from Shelly Anderson Exhibit No. 83: Faxed letter from Shelly Exhibit No. 84: KoontzlRickoski Report Anderson Exhibit No. 85: Bowman/Siderius Report Exhibit No. 86: Memo to the Hearing Examiner from Emmett Pritchard dated May 10, 2004 Exhibit No. 87: Heron Survey Report for the Exhibit No. 88: Packet of information re: Redmond Towne Center dated 10/1/98 seasonal timing of activities for herons and 3 Publications Exhibit No. 89: Washington Department of Exhibit No. 90: Washington Department Fish Game publication,the Great Blue Heron of and Wildlife PHS Management King County, Washington dated July 1981 Recommendations, the Great Blue Heron dated 1999 Exhibit No. 91: Review of Geotech Exhibit No. 92: Photo 1 shows the look of a addendum by Mr. Anil Butail new fresh heron nest; Photo 2 heron incubating eggs on nest Exhibit No. 93: Photo of nests from the main Exhibit No. 94: Photo of main colony nests colony, older, gray nests with no herons, 3-31-04 Exhibit No. 95: Photo of main colony nests Exhibit No. 96: Photo of the main colony 3- taken 2-28-03 showing lots of activity 31-04 Exhibit No. 97: Photo taken of the protected Exhibit No. 98: Photo of protected forest forest 3-17-04, the nests are occupied showing chick and adult in nest 5-05-04 Exhibit No. 99: photo showing south path to Exhibit No. 100: February 19, 1987 a letter by pond with vegetation Ronald G. Nelson of the City of Renton, Building and Zoning Director to First City Development,Ms. Barbara Moss Exhibit No. 101: Letter from Ronald G. Exhibit No. 102: DNR good for 1 year dated Nelson to Bogle&Gates March 2, 1987-March 2, 1988 CITY OF RENTON PlanningBuilding/PublicWorks Department Kathy Keotker-wheeler, Mayor , Gregg Zimmerman P:E.,Administrator , ATTACHMENT D February 24, 2004 RECEIVED paid Halinen FEB 2 7 2004 105000n Law Offices II�C�v a AW � n•, NE 8th Street, Suite 1900 Itn • • Bellevue,WA 98044 SUBJECT: Sunset Bluff Preliminary Plat LUA-04-00LUA-04-002, ECF, PP • Dear Mr. Halinen: • This letter is written on behalf of the Environmental Review Committee (ERC) and is to advise you that they have completed their review of the subject project. The ERC issued a threshold Determination of Non-Significance-Mitigated with Mitigation Measures. Please refer to the enclosed Mitigation Measures • document. Appeals of the environmental determination must be filed in writing on or before 5:00 PM March ' 15, 2004: Appeals must be filed in writing together with the required $75.00 application fee with: Hearing Examiner, City of Renton, 1055.South Grady Way, Renton, WA 98055. Appeals.:to the Examiner are • • governed by City of Renton Municipal Code Section 4-8-110.B. , Additional information regarding the appeal process may be obtained from the Renton City Clerk's Office, (425)40-6510. • If the Environmental Determination is appealed,a public hearing date will be set and all parties notified. The preceding information will assist you in,planning for implementation of your project and enable you to exercise your appeal rights more fully, if you choose to do so. If you have any questions or desire • •clarification of the above, please call me at(425)430-7219. • For the Environmental Review Committee, . • • Jason E: Orden Senior Planner • Cc: SR 900 LLC ./Owner • Parties of Record Enclosure • • • • • DNSM-Letter.doc 1055 South Grady Way-Renton;Washington 98055 RENTON AHEAD OF THE CURVE e«, This paper contains 50%recycled material,30%post consumer V r • CITY OF RENTON DETERMINATION OF NON-SIGNIFICANCE-MITIGATED • MITIGATION MEASURES PROJECT NAME: Sunset Bluff Preliminary Plat APPLICATION NO(S): LUA-04-002, ECF, PP • APPLICANT: SR 900 L.L.C. LOCATION OF PROPOSAL: 1100 Block of SW Sunset Boulevard NE DESCRIPTION OF PROPOSAL: The applicant is requesting Environmental (SEPA) Review and Hearing Examiner Preliminary Plat review for the subdivision of a 26.26-acre site into 65 lots, which are intended for the eventual detached single-family residences. The lots are proposed to range in size from approximately 4,000 square feet up to approximately 5,000 square feet. The majority of the property is located within the R-10 zoning designation, with the exception of the southwestern corner of the site, which is designated RC (Resource Conservation). LEAD AGENCY: The City of Renton Department of Planning/Building/Public Works Development Planning Section MITIGATION MEASURES: 1. During project construction, where practical, the applicant shall be required to maintain vegetation buffers around cleared areas. This condition shall be subject to the review and approval of the Development Services Division; 2. During project construction, the applicant shall be required to cover exposed soil stockpiles. This condition shall be subject to the review and approval of the Development Services Division; 3. During project construction, the applicant shall be regUired.to:hydroseed or place straw mulch in areas where grading is completed. This condition shall be subject`to;thereview and approvalof the Development Services Division; 4. During project construction; the applicant shall be.required to divert water away from the top of slopes. This condition shall be subject to the review and approval of the Development Services Division; 5. During project construction, the applicant shall be required to use silt fences and straw bales around the lower portions of the site perimeter. This condition shall be subject to the review and approval of the Development Services Division; 6. During project construction, the applicant shall be required to coordinate clearing, excavation and erosion control to reduce exposed areas. This condition shall be subject to the review'and approval of the Development Services Division; 7. The applicant shall be required to provide a 50-foot construction setback from the existing landslide feature. This condition shall be noted o n the face of the final plat drawings prior to recordation a nd subject to the review and approval of the Development Services Division; 8. The applicant shall be required to maintain a 25-foot building setback from the top or the toe of any 50% plus proposed slope. This condition shall be noted on the face of the final plat drawings prior to recordation and subject•to the review and approval of the Development Services Division; 9. During project construction, the applicant shall be required to design the erosion and sediment control subject to the Department of Ecology's Erosion and Sediment Control Requirements as outlined in Volume II of its storm water management manual; 10. During project construction, the applicant shall be required to provide weekly reports on the status and condition of thee erosion control plan with any recommendations of change or revision to maintenance schedules or installation from the project engineer to the Public Works Inspector; 11. The applicant shall be required to obtain all the necessary permits and repair the rockery supporting the hillside south of the proposed 20-foot wide emergency access roadway prior to final plat approval. This condition shall be subject to the review and approval of the Development Services Division; 12. The applicant shall be required to provide the City's Development Services Division with a weekly erosion control plan during project construction in the wetter winter months (October — March). The plan shall be subject to the • review and approval of the Development Services Division; 13. The applicant shall be required to provide additional embedment, erosion protection or both for the lower rocks within the proposed rockeries. This condition shall be subject to the review and approval, in consultation with the project engineer, of the Development Services Division; M . '4" 14. The applicant shall appropriately design the surface water drainage system to comply with the 1998 King County Surface Water Design Manual. The satisfaction of this requirement shall be subject to the review and approval of the Development Services Division prior to the issuance of Construction Permits for the project; 15. The applicant shall comply with the Wetland Study Report and Delineation Plan prepared by Theresa R. Henson Consulting dated August 29, 2000. The satisfaction of this requirement shall be subject to the review and approval of 'the Development Services Division prior to the recording of the plat; 16. Prior to site preparation and construction of improvements and residences, the applicant shall install silt fencing with brightly colored construction flags to indicate the boundaries of the proposed Native Growth Protection Easement. The satisfaction of this requirement shall be subject to the review and approval of the Development Services Division; 17. Prior to final plat approval the applicant shall install permanent signage and fencing (i.e., wood split rail) in order to prevent intrusion and provide identification of the Native Growth Protection Easement area. The satisfaction of this requirement shall be subject to the review and approval of the Development Services Division prior to the recording of the plat; 18. The applicant shall establish a Native Growth Protection Easement for all wetland areas and buffers. A draft copy of the easement s hall b e a pproved by the C ity's Property Services Section a nd the C ity Attorney prior t o final p lat recording. The satisfaction of this requirement shall be subject to the review and approval of the Development Services Division prior to the recording of the plat; 19. The applicant shall pay the appropriate Fire Mitigation Fee based on a rate of$488.00 per new single-family lot. The payment of the fee is required prior to the recording of the plat; 20. The applicant shall be required to construct a westbound_left-turn lane on SW Sunset Boulevard near the intersection of the proposed public access street entrance and SW SunsetBoulevard; 21. The applicant shall be required to construct frontage improvements on the south side of SW Sunset Boulevard east of the proposed public access street. This condition shall be subject to the review and approval of the Development Services Division; 22. The applicant shall be required to construct frontage improvements along the south side of the widened section of SW Sunset Boulevard west of the access street. This condition shall be subject to the review and approval of the Development Services Division; 23. If relocation of the transit stop is necessary, the applicant shall be required to'relocate the transit stop east of the proposed street. This condition shall be subject to:the review and approvalof the Development Services Division; 24. The applicant shall be required to install a raised median with pedestrian pass-through/refuge area in Sunset Boulevard NE, west of the access street. This condition shall be subject'to the review and approval of the Development Services Division in conjunction with WASHDOT and shall be completed prior to final plat approval; 25. The applicant shall pay the appropriate Traffic Mitigation Fee based on a rate of $75.00 per net new average trip generated by the project prior to the recording of the preliminary plat; and, 26. The applicant shall pay the appropriate Parks Mitigation Fee based on a rate of $530.76 per new single-family lot. The payment of the fee is required prior to the recording of the plat. DNSM-Mitigation Measures.doc Sunset Bluff SEPA Appeal ATTACHMENT E File No.: LUA-04-002, ECF, PP August 3, 2004 NOTE: This is a copy of a portion of the Page 46 Hearing Examiner's August 3, 2004 underlying decision (page 46 to the end), with November 8, 2004 City Council amendments made to the Findings of Fact and Conclusions interlineated hereon, time that has happened, in fact it is a pretty normal pattern with Fish and Wildlife, they don't comment and then they come in to the hearing at the last minute and talk about all the things that they would like. The bottom line is that this development is more than a thousand feet away from the heron colony. In any event the proposal is well outside the 1000-foot marker. The window of time seems ludicrous, we have heard that there is going to be disruption to the heronry because of this project, if you impose a seasonal construction period it is going to mean that the project is going to go over a period of several years. We will have disruption of the heronry for several years. Consider at attachment to Dr. Stenberg's report, between 1988 and the year 2003,the number of nests grew by 600% over a 15-year period. There were all kinds of production and construction in that location for a couple of years that there are no numbers and a couple of years that the numbers were down because of eagle • predation. There is no linkage between the construction and the work done. So when we look at the standard that you must impose that there be a reasonable likelihood that there is more than a moderate adverse impact to environmental quality and that it cannot be speculative. There was no causal connection, there were many theories and requests for surveys, but there is no clear connection between the things about which they complain and the adverse impact that they feared would occur. That's the standard that they have to meet and they have not met it. Their own experts have contradicted themselves about water in the lower depression area. Ms. Sheldon was asked about the volume of water and she said there is only going to be so much rain, we can't affect that. Mr. Rozeboom talked about the fact that there was going to be an increase in water. These two experts cannot agree. Ms.Thompson testified that she was not in support of the idea of closing down the south side trail. She stated that it is used by people that appreciate the wildlife. It sounds like the Civil War, the North vs. the South. The people from the south appreciate the wildlife and they should be able to keep that trail open. The people from the north presumably do not appreciate the wildlife and they should not be allowed to use their land as they see . fit. Mr. Hamilton testified that they were looking for a picture that could show the nests on one side and a building on the other side of the picture. The Examiner set the following schedule for briefs: Mr. Halinen's brief will be due May 17, by 5:00 p.m. Mr. Mann's brief will be due May 24, by 5:00 p.m. 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 12:55 p.m. FINDINGS, CONCLUSIONS &RECOMMENDATION Having reviewed the record in this matter,the Examiner now makes and enters the following: FINDINGS: 1. The appellants, Herons Forever(a private organization)and SR900 LLC, the underlying applicant, filed appeals of a Determination of Non-Significance- Mitigated (DNS-M) issued for a proposed preliminary plat that would create 65 single family lots on an approximately 26.26 acre parcel. • Sunset Bluff SEPA Appeal File No.: LUA-04-002, ECF, PP August 3, 2004 Page 47 2. The two appeals were filed separately by the respective parties. Both appeals were filed on March 15, 2004 and both were filed in a timely manner. 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 26 conditions. 4. The appellant-applicant objected to Mitigation Condition Number 24 and sought a correction of language in Condition 25. Condition 24 stated: "The applicant shall be required to install a raised median with pedestrian pass-through/refuge area in Sunset Boulevard NE, west of the access street. This condition shall be subject to the review and approval of the Development Services Division in conjunction with WASHDOT and shall be completed prior to final plat approval." Condition 25 stated: "The applicant shall pay the appropriate Traffic Mitigation fee based on a rate of$75.00 per net new average trip generated by the project prior to the recording of the preliminary plat." 5. The language that the appellant sought to correct was directed at the fact that a"preliminary plat" is not recorded. Final plats are recorded and the appellant applicant wanted the wording to be changed from "preliminary plat"to "final plat." 6. Regarding Condition 24,the appellant-applicant wanted the condition changed to read: "West of the project's public access street intersection with SW Sunset Boulevard, the applicant shall be required to install within SW Sunset Boulevard a raised median that is at least 8 feet wide for a length that need not exceed 40 feet. (No pedestrian crosswalk across SW Sunset Boulevard is intended or required.) This condition shall be subject to review and approval of the Development Services Division in conjunction with WSDOT." 7. As the hearing opened, the appellant-applicant indicated that staff generally addressed their concerns and that they only desired that the Hearing Examiner issue a decision incorporating their agreement and that the appeal was otherwise settled. 8. Herons Forever,the other appellant raised a number of objections to the determination and raised a number of issues. Six points or grounds for the appeal were raised as noted: "1. The DNS fails to adequately describe and analyze the change in surface water and shallow groundwater hydrology that will be created by the subdivision and the resulting impacts to the downgradient wetlands, wetland species and herons. 2. The DNS fails to adequately describe, analyze and mitigate the significant impacts to the Black River heronry caused by activities during construction, including but not limited to, clearing, grading, roadbuilding, infrastructure and home building. 3. The DNS fails to adequately describe, analyze and mitigate the significant impacts to the Black River heronry caused by the clearing of virtually all of the trees from the subject property. Sunset Bluff SEPA Appeal File No.: LUA-04-002, ECF, PP August 3,2004 Page 48 4. The DNS fails to adequately describe, analyze and mitigate the significant impacts to the Black River heronry caused by increased human and pet interactions from the preliminary plat once built and occupied. 5. The DNS fails to adequately describe, analyze and mitigate the significant impacts to the Black River heronry caused by increased noise, light and glare from the preliminary plat once built and occupied. 6. The DNS fails to adequately describe, analyze and mitigate the significant safety impacts likely to result (sic)earth movements associated with the proposed clearing and grading for roadways, houses and the proposed stormwater retention pond." 9. The subject site is located at SWI 100 Sunset Boulevard. The subject site is located on the south side of Sunset. The majority of the site is west of Powell Avenue SW if it were extended south. 10. While it•would appear that the subject site has a long frontage along Sunset Boulevard, the City approved a lot line adjustment that separated the majority of the subject site from its frontage along Sunset(allowing the applicant to avoid installing any frontage improvements along the frontage) 1 1. The subject site is approximately 26.26 acres in size. The subject site is curved or crescent shaped and is approximately 2,400 feet long(east to west) by approximately 600 feet deep although it tapers to a very narrow point at its eastern end. The lot line adjustment noted above severed a large portion of the site's frontage along Sunset Boulevard creating a very long and very narrow separate lot. 12. The subject site is located in two zoning districts. The majority of the site(25.18 acres), predominantly the northern and western portions of the site, is zoned R-10 (Residential; 10 dwelling units per acre). The --soti+Itt.tr,44elpi corner of the site (1.08 acres) is zoned RC(Resource Conservation). southwestern 13. ie map element of the Comprehensive Plan designates the area in which the subject site is located as suitable for the development of residential options and rural residential uses, but does not mandate such development without consideration of other policies of the Plan. 14. Access to the site would be via a new street intersecting Sunset Boulevard from the south. The new street would be located between Powell Avenue SW and Oakesdale Avenue SW. Both of those streets intersect Sunset Boulevard from the north. 15. The subject site has a heavy tree cover. The staff report stated: "The site is heavily treed and is considered to be a second-generation forest(approximately 50 years in age). and native vegetation covers most of the site." (Page 3, Staff Report) "The site is heavily wooded with Maple, Alder, Cottonwood, Fir, and Cedar trees ranging in size from 36- inches to 48-inches in diameter and is also vegetated with blackberry vines and other forested vegetation - most of which would be removed during site preparation activities." (Page 10, Staff Report) 16. The applicant during the course of the appeal disputed the forest makeup or characterization. 17. Staff noted that almost all the vegetation would be removed from the subject site: "As a result of the preliminary plat, the applicant has proposed to remove the majority of the on-site vegetation and perform approximately 160,000 cubic yards of earthwork activity." (Page 3, Staff Report) 18. Also disputed were the staff report comments that retaining walls or cuts of 30 feet and fills of 20 feet were required. Sunset Bluff SEPA Appeal File No.: LUA-04-002, ECF, PP • August 3, 2004 Page 49 "The grading activity will modify the site slopes, increasing the existing slope gradient from 15% - 20% to slopes in the range of 40% - 50% on the south and north sides of the proposed building lots. As a result of the proposed cuts and fills associated with the building pads and road development, the geotechnical report recommends that the applicant be required to maintain a 25-foot building setback from the top or toe of any 50% plus proposed slope." (Page 11, Staff Report) 19. The applicant will be creating slopes that actually are defined as protected. Immense grading activity will reshape the entire parcel and remove all vegetation on approximately 20 acres. 20. A secondary, independent geotechnical review requested by staff added an additional condition. That additional condition required "additional embedment or erosion control."(Page 12, Staff Report) 21. The staff report located the subject site vis a vis the heron colony but it appears that it used the location of what had been the main nest tree that apparently has been abandoned. "Finally,the site is located approximately 1,100 feet form the main heron nesting tree location within the City of Renton's Black River Riparian Forest." (Page 3, Staff Report) 22. Staff described the site's slopes as: "The site is characterized by having sensitive and protected slopes ranging from 10 to 50% plus in degree." (Page 3, Staff Report) 23. Staff noted that open space would be provided on the site: "The applicant has included three open space and/or utilities tracts throughout the project site that total over 16 acres." (Page 3, Staff Report) Most of this open space would be lawn areas above and below the actual homes or the retention pond surface. It would generally not be forest or larger native vegetation. 24. The rezone of the site was accompanied by a development agreement. That agreement requires the construction of a 6-foot fence along the south side of the development for the length of the development. It also provides that the development contain not more than 69 detached single-family housing units. 25. Approximately 5.68 acres of the site are deducted for roads, high landslide hazards area, sensitive slopes, wetlands(page 7, Staff Report) arriving at a net density of 3.2 dwelling units per acre on the resultant 20.58 acres. 26. The site can be described as a 200 foot high, south-southeast facing slope that descends from Sunset Boulevard to the railroad right-of-way. 27. The property north of the subject site across Sunset is zoned R-8 (Residential; 8 dwelling units per acre) and is in King County, R-6, and is a mix of developed and undeveloped property. East of the site is RM-I zoning(Multiple Family) developed with multiple family uses. West is another RM-I district with multiple family units and industrially zoned propert • • . • that is developed and undeveloped including a closed quarry site. The quarry site would srovide a route for an emergency access road for the proposed development. in the City of Renton Sunset Bluff SEPA Appeal File No.: LUA-04-002, ECF, PP e Ms. Sheldon did no study of the biological effects of the August 3,2004 change in release rate of the retained stormwater. The Page 50 retention system was designed according to the King County manual for detention treatment and controlled release. 28. Ms. Sheldon, a wetlands biologist, discussed the changes that will occur in hydroperiodicity due to the massive grading and alteration of the soils. The porous soils will be removed or compacted to allow the grading to achieve stable slopes and firm foundatio»s. The volume of water(rain)that reaches the site will remain constant(taking into account normal yearly variations in rainfall) but it will be stored and released differently. Rather than stored in some manner by the natural soils, it will be channeled to the detention pond and released to the riparian forest differently than natural release. This had not been assessed by the documentation available to the ERC and public. She pointed out that while the project will meet design standards to retain water that does not address, in this case, the biological or ecological effects of altering the way this hillside now affects the water. The King County manual, in this regard,treats water as an inert substance to be handled, conveyed and detained but does not deal as effectively with its biological component. Releasing the water in a naturally controlled subsurface manner is different than channeling it over or around compacted soils. 29. The appellants introduced evidence from Bill Rozeboom that questioned the effect of clearing the forest from the hillside and channeling water that enters the site from offsite. The appellants want to know how the clearing and channeling of water affects the riparian forest and its hydrology. The receiving area,the riparian forest and its wetland, are what is defined as a closed depression that is like a bathtub but without any outlet. Water flows into it but unless it tops the confines of the closed basin, it does not directly flow to the P-1 Pond. It either slowly evaporates or percolates through the walls of the basin. Currently, the undeveloped subject site releases water from storm events and normal rain slowly to the closed depression. The appellants argue that the impacts of altering the vegetation, slopes and method of channeling water is unknown and has not been adequately studied or addressed. A term of art, "hydroperiod", was used to focus the discussion on the impacts of changing how and when water reaches the depression after it reaches the subject site now and then after its terrain and vegetation are dramatically altered. The issue was defined as not the amount of water that reaches the wetland or closed depression but the time frame, seasonally of the water flow. It was explained by the witness that the detentio pond will control peak flows but not the volume of water and not the complete timing of the release.f 'r. Roze.00m testi ie. in general terms but without the su..ort of an stud or Iuantitative anal sis of the actual effects of the chanes in the hydroperiod. 30. And Butall, a geotechnicatengineer, provided testimony questioning le amount of information gleaned from the test pits that only went to a depth of approximately 17 feet whereas grading to a depth of approximately 70 was shown in the submissions, how the damp soils would be reworked on the site to make them suitable for foundation work, whether chemical additives might be necessary that could leach to the wetland areas. He questioned some of the stability information near Sunset and above the sensitive eastern slopes where the access road will be carved out as well as stability near and above the large detention pond. He did not believe that the 1.9 or 2.1 safety factor was appropriately calculated given the ground water characterizations. He testified that the normal standard of care is to test bore to at least the level of excavation, here approximately 70 feet, and that going 15 to 20 feet below the proposed excavation depth is reasonable. He suggested that on a site with steep slopes such as this, waiting for field results during actual excavation and reacting at that time to discoveries would be improper and could be disastrous. Using the applicant's data he determined that the safety factor was approximately 1.5 rather than the 2.1 safety factor that the applicant's representatives found. He noted that the lower safety factor of 1.5 is a borderline value. He also indicated that there was little indication of the safety factor just below Sunset Boulevard. proposed grading on the property adjacent to the colony will definitely have an impact, Reports appear to .- — " . •'- e . e • - ■. • • Sunset Bluff SEPA Appeal File No.: LUA-04-002, ECF, PP August 3, 2004 Page 51 the officepark- _e .. .. - . . . . -- . -• - • -- _ . . -• . Besting - - - - - • • e e • - hernas and p-:: - - - - - _ - - ahelter an: .' .. - -- . - - . - -- et : e --_ • - 1..2•-.. e • - - • See next pag' J 32. .• '- - -- - - .:•-:_ . . . flows wcrc studied. See next pag� 33. Doctor Stenberg questioned what affect to water quality might occur since water flowing across Sunset now flows across the site, into the soils and exits at the bottom of the hill receiving a level of treatment in the natural percolation process. After the site is developed and to maintain slope stability,this offsite water would be piped faster down the hill and receive substantially less natural treatment. It will also be routed around the new detention pond and not receive any treatment in that pond. She also wondered about the possible addition of soil additives to stabilize the slope and noted homeowners are not exacting in their use of fertilizers and pesticides for lawn care once the site is developed. 34. She also pointed out the measurements to the colony reflect a radius from the older colony and pinpoint the location whereas the colony is more a polygon and she concluded that the heronry is approximately 950 feet not the 1 100 feet noted in the staff report. 35. She mentioned that the Washington State Department of Fish and Wildlife has made recommendation for working around heron colonies and they found that working within approximately 2,600 feet creates problems and recommended 3,200 feet as a distance in which no construction or logging occur. This office does note that such a setback could eliminate most development of this private property. But she noted that in an urban setting where the birds were subject to more intrusions that may not be reasonable. In urban King County studies found colonies shrink when there is development within 1,000 feet. 36. She referenced the 1998 construction of the office park within 500 feet of the colony and noted that now the colony has all but, if not totally, abandoned the main colony and moved to what is called the protected forest further to the west and north. 37. Dr. Stenberg noted that Fish and Wildlife recommendations were based on the best available science. She noted this colony arrives at its nests earlier and some stay a bit later and that the window should accommodate this local variation from other colonies. She recommended mid-January to the end of July, which does not accommodate fully the late nesters. 38. She noted that this colony appears to react more to disturbances from the north where there is currently more forest cover and generally less anticipated intrusions and seem less disturbed by southerly-based disturbances. 31. Herons Forever's experts have monitored heron recently and indicated that the birds reacted hostilely to intrusive activities in both this heronry and in others in the Puget Sound Area. They suspect that the proposed grading on this property, over 1,000 feet from the heron colony, might have an impact on the colony. Reports indicate that the birds were flushed and severely disturbed by logging just south of the railroad tracks at the western edge of the riparian forest, but very near to that 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. This may have also been caused by termination of blasting at the quarry to the west. 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. The area does serve as a source of twigs and possibly forage for food, and this will be eliminated. Work will occur at or above the nesting level, and maps appear to indicate that this will be out of sight of the nests, and flying birds will be able to view the clearing. 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. 32. The changes to the seasonal wetlands were raised as to how the changes would affect the food sources of the heron. This testimony was based on the conclusion by Mr. Rozeboom that there would be a risk of significant adverse effects caused by increases in water depth in the closed depression. This conclusion is not based on any quantitative analysis. The testimony of the effects on food sources is not based on a site specific study. • Sunset Bluff SEPA Appeal File No.: LUA-04-002, ECF, PP August 3,2004 Page 52 39. Ms. Krom testified and noted that most activity occurs along the south trail system and viewing area and that little activity occurs on the north side of the colony. Also it was pointed out that most activity occurs during daylight hours since most of the development east, south and west is commercial development or office or industrial uses which do not have much in the way of evening activity. The proposed development would be some of the first development to occur north since the colony was established and would introduce a more permanent, daily population including evening hour activity and more lighting. 40. Ms.Krom testified that the main colony productivity declined substantially after the development at SW 7th and Naches. Then the main colony appeared to be abandoned and the heron moved to the area termed the "protected forest"which is north or northwest. The timing of this move also seemed to have corresponded with the termination of the blasting at the quarry which was located west of the subject site. 41. She indicated that there did not appear to be any change to the trees in the main colony such as dead or dying trees to cause the shift. 42. It was clear the heron colony attracts a lot of attention from the general public. They visit during the nest season to watch the activity. They walk the trail and use some viewpoints. Some folks may wander another trail to the north or rear of the colony but it does not seem to be popular. These visits to the trail may be affecting the heron in some fashion but that would not necessarily justify intensifying or adding more 43. Scott Dinkelman, the applicant's geotechnical consultant discussed the borings. He updated information with new borings that were conducted after the initial environmental review. This new information was not seen by the ERC. It was revealed at the public hearing on the appeal. These new, deeper borings show that the site can be worked safely. He testified that it was always expected that it would be a summer construction type project due to moisture sensitive soils. This means that there should probably be no -- _ _ ' •_ •_ •. . _. _ . -is information does not appear in the geotechnical report and a seasonal grading"window"was not part of the ERC's recommendations. He noted that the original soils report was fairly preliminary. Minor earthwork, such as finish grading, may occur year round. 44. He disagreed with the Barghausen wetland report prepared for the applicant for this project that characterized the soils on the site as well drained. He noted that he would not characterize the soils as well drained. 45. He noted that they would have to dry the soils in the summer as they work the lifts. But the report did not contain any recommendations to this affect. . 46. Mr. Grubb was the civil engineer for the project. He noted that the road is designed to basically follow the existing grades. Homes would be built on cuts upslope and fills down slope from the roadway. The intersection with Sunset, its angle and sight distance, were important and constrained the design of the roadway thereafter. He noted that the extensive grading for lots appears necessary to accommodate the small lot sizes and home design where daylight basements are not necessarily appropriate. 47. Mr. Grubb explained the drainage basins that drain across the subject site. The largest basin, approximately 43 acres, feeds a stream that is unregulated due to its small size and lack of fish. The only impact of this flow is that the access roadway will cross the stream. Except for the proposed road crossing, the stream flows in an area that will not be developed and feeds the site's protected wetland at the toe of the eastern slope. A 14.4 acre basin also feeds through the site as well as two smaller 4.7 acre and 6.6 acre basins north Sunset Bluff SEPA Appeal File No.: LUA-04-002, ECF, PP August 3,2004 Page 53 of Sunset that cross the site after exiting culverts under Sunset. The state has also collected water from Sunset and that flows across the site. 48. Almost all water that enters the site from external properties, that does not enter the site as precipitation, will be captured and piped around the site and released more or less at its natural exit. The water will receive no particular treatment nor will it be slowed by the soils on the site or absorbed by vegetation (evapotranspiration). Water that falls on the site will be detained in a detention pond at the bottom of the slope near the railroad tracks. He testified that the long skinny pond enhances water quality treatment. Storm water will also be directed around retaining walls or rockeries to protect those features. 49. Dr. McCarthy was the applicant's hydrologist. He discussed the riparian forest and its prominent feature just south of the subject site and railroad tracks,the depressional wetland. It is about 10.5 acres. It is about 3.5 feet deep at its deepest and has a million cubic feet of storage. He noted that the change would be an increase from approximately 115 acre-feet of runoff under current conditions to 145 acre-feet after development in an average year. This was not considered a significant change given the capacity of the wetland. He had not actually observed any flows on the site or to the wetlands. It was based on modeling the flows and on the soils maps not on the actual borings or the results revealed by those borings. It was noted that most of this was new information that was not available to the ERC or public prior to the hearing.e See next page. 50. Rebecca Lind testified for the applicant. She stepped through the various downzones that occurred, including considerations for buffering the heronry. Each rezone action or Comprehensive Plan amendment, in general, reduced the overall intensity of development that could occur on the site. The applicant or predecessor in interest sought some of these actions. 51. Ms. Dusek prepared the Habitat Wildlife Assessment and Stream Study Report for the applicant. No fish were found on the site or its wetlands or the stream on the site. The heron are designated by Fish and Wildlife as a priority species, trees and nesting areas are protected and the birds cannot be hunted or harassed. There is a need to identify potential impacts on them but there is no requirement to replace habitat. 52. Ms. Dusek using a variety of cross-section exhibits demonstrated that the heron nests are not visible from the site when the trees leaf out which generally occurs in April. One nest is visible in winter. Elevation profiles show the nest elevations,the tree screening at mid-range and the profile of the site and proposed buildings. This information reportedly shows that the heronry will not be visible from most of the site even after developed and that the site would in turn, not be visible by the heron in their nests. A fence that is required in the Development Agreement should help limit entry from the north. 53. Mr. Pritchard testified as an expert in wetland ecology. His assessment was not available to the ERC and was conducted for the public hearing. The forest showed good, vigorous growth and no snags. There were some very large trees on upland hummocks. Cottonwood trees of 14"to 18"caliper at chest height and some large specimens 40"to 50". Water marks on trees varied from 12"to 14"to 36"to 40". The water marks could have been caused by the large October storm event or could be seasonal. He had not reviewed weather records. A variation of 1"to 2"should not affect the larger trees and excess inundation should flow over the south edge of the depressional wetland into the P-1 pond. 54. Doctor Raedeke testified as a wildlife and heron expert for the applicant. He relied on a number of studies of heron. He indicated that with the possible exception of British Columbia, herons appeared to be increasing ill number. He has been involved in heron projects around Puget Sound. His testimony made this project seem like a"non-event" in terms of potential impacts to this colony. He noted that if the birds are displaced,they relocate to other locations. Whereas Dr. Stenberg testified that due to concerns about 49. ADD: The increased runoff volumes from the site would likely increase average depth in the wetlands by i to 2 inches in the winter and by less than one inch in the summer. Predicted changes in water levels and duration in the depressional wetland would have only a negligible impact. These conclusions are based on the use of a King County methodology. Although Dr. McCarthy made certain assumptions, which may lessen the value of the study, the information remains unrebutted and is the only quantitative information presented. Sunset Bluff SEPA Appeal File No.: LUA-04-002, ECF, PP August 3, 2004 Page 54 numbers, they are trying to refine the counting methodologies. They also formed an international working group because of those declining numbers. There are limited locales for heron colonies due to the nature of the trees, the forest and the wetland environment they prefer. Doctor Raedeke noted that buffers per se do not necessarily protect the heron but barriers to entry are a better option. The buffer proposed in this case meets or exceeds past recommendations. He characterized a construction zone moratorium as illogical and punitive this far away from the colony. He noted that the birds do habituate to disturbances but noise and activity does cause them to flush. He did note that it might be better to leave some habitat and that monitoring to see what happens and react accordingly probably should be done. 55. Ms. Thompson, Washington Fish and Wildlife Department, represented that department and testified in her official capacity. She admitted that the state did not appear to comment earlier in the review process for this application. She noted that while this colony appears to be thriving, others have been reduced in numbers and two larger ones; Peasley Canyon and Dumas Bay have been abandoned. Some small two-nest colonies may be satellite colonies. The 1985-study is 20 years old and out of date. They see more fragmentation of colonies and more abandonment. Of the 13 colonies mentioned in that report only 9 remain. Some of the studies cited by the applicant's representative are from a different subspecies of heron and the information and characteristics do not carry over. She noted that Alberta,NY and Louisiana have entirely different ecosystems. She noted that the Stabins study showed perceived increases in nests but that does not seem to be verifiable. Others including herself found smaller numbers than Stabins. There have been increased efforts of late to establish a clear methodology and protocol. The number of nests has decreased by approximately 100 in 2003 versus 2000. She noted that suitable habitat is limited for nesting and foraging. 56. Stabins data also varied from other data collected and it was noted that the increase seen in the Redmond Towne Center colony went from 22 nests reported by Stabins in 2000 to 6 nests in 2001 and the colony has since failed. But Ms. Thompson noted that with no formal protocol,the number differences might be explained by different reporting methods or possibly flawed data. 57. There was speculation that more disturbances actually might increase success. It was not known why this might be true since the heron do flush and react but possibly, eagles, which have attacked colonies are even more disturbed by human intrusion, have moved further away from the intrusions. 58. Ms. Thompson was in favor of site-specific management plans. Incontrovertible is that walking and sudden noise will flush the birds. The larger colony may need more protection, more habitat reserve and reasonable buffer in terms of no intrusion, approximately 300 meters, and a construction window in terms of time(nest related) and distance, 1,000 meters. 59. She noted that this colony represents approximately six percent(6%)of the heron of King County and therefore, experimenting on them is not a good idea as it represents too significant a colony. 60. Tho applicant's expert would have us believe that birds that have been identified as very flighty, easily 61. Mr. Jordan testified that the ERC considered the design of the complex and its proximity or lack thereof, to the heron colony when issuing its decision and omitting a construction window. They required a second opinion on the slopes and modified the decision to accommodate those additional recommendations. They noted the trail distance and that tours were given showing the heron a bit less sensitive than expected. They Sunset Bluff SEPA Appeal File No.: LUA-04-002, ECF, PP August 3, 2004 Page 55 also considered the existing and surrounding uses and noise sources including the railroad, quarry, industrial uses and the treatment plant. They did anticipate additional geotechnical information as development and plans were developed. Staff did not recommend a construction season to work around either the wet season or for the heron's nesting behavior and timing. Q See next page 62. This office issued a decision in an appeal supporting the City's determination that no site clearing, grading or similar work would occur on the Debar Property(File Number: LUA-01-58) adjacent to May Creek, The City was concerned with the stability of that steep slope and the sensitive nature of May Creek. In that matter the applicant challenged a condition imposed by the ERC that read: "The applicant shall limit site disturbance including clearing, grading, utility, and roadwork activities to occur during the relatively dry months of April through October." The ERC imposed this condition to limit work to the dry season in spite of the fact that the then applicant , introduced expert testimony that the site could be worked during the wet season and that the ground stability would not be jeopardized. 63. In Emma's Plat(file Number: LUA-04-025) the ERC imposed a specific condition on earthwork activity where a wetland was involved but where slopes were less than 5%. The ERC condition was: "1. The applicant shall be required to perform all earthwork activities during the dry summer months of August through October. This condition shall be subject to review and approval of the Development Services Division." 64. The jurisdiction for the Hearing Examiner in appeals can be found in Section 4-8-1 10.E APPEALS TO EXAMINER OF ADMINISTRATIVE DECISIONS AND ENVIRONMENTAL DETERMINATIONS: (Amd. Ord. 4827, 1-24-2000) 1. Applicability and Authority: a. Administrative Determinations: Any administrative decisions made may be appealed to the Hearing Examiner, in writing, with the Hearing Examiner, Examiner's secretary or City Clerk. (Ord. 4521, 6-5-1995) b. Environmental Determinations: Except for permits and variances issued pursuant to RMC 4-3-090, Shoreline Master Program Regulations, when any proposal or action is granted,conditioned, or denied on the basis of SEPA by a nonelected official, the decision shall be appealable to the Hearing Examiner under the provisions of this Section. c. Authority: To that end, the Examiner shall have all of the powers of the office from whom the appeal is taken insofar as the decision on the particular issue is concerned. • 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." 61. Some historical perspective is necessary. The ERC was aware of this history. The Black River Riparian Forest has been an existing feature in the area. The City participated in constructing the P-1 forebay. About the time the forebay was constructed, the herons were first noticed. Over a period of time the City sought grants to acquire the Black River Riparian Forest. The City acquired part of the Forest by dedication as part of City approvals. The City used grants and its own money to negotiate and acquire, in several stages, approximately 100 acres of property encompassing and surrounding the heronry, where it previously existed and where it is now located. Over $8 million has been expended on this effort. The City helped create the conditions that attracted the herons in the first instance, and has expended substantial effort and resources in protecting the herons and their surroundings. Sunset Bluff SEPA Appeal • File No.: LUA-04-002, ECF, PP August 3, 2004 Page 56 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 reversed. 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). 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 remoat 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. • 7. In this case we have approximately 26 acres of forested property located uphill from a City park that for the most part is a unique riparian forest and wetland environment and one that contains one of the larger heron colonies in King County. ... . - . , . .; - - - ; - - - ,_ - - - 8. The applicant suggests that the appellant should have challenged this project earlier in the process. This argument is not persuasive. The appellant may not have objected to single-family uses on this site. The appellant might have relied on the very SEPA review process now occurring to help mitigate impacts of single-family development on this site. Many have suggested in the past that mere map changes are • insufficient to challenge a land use action when no physical changes are proposed. Instead it has been suggested that when real development is proposed, SEPA and the parties could get a better handle on the Sunset Bluff SEPA Appeal File No.: LUA-04-002, ECF, PP August 3, 2004 Page 57 potential impacts. That is exactly what has happened in this case. A concrete proposal has allowed the various parties to analyze what is proposed and what its impacts might be. The appellants have a right to challenge the proposal at this time even if they did not challenge it earlier. 9. The applicant's attorney attempted to paint the appellant's representative as a zealot willing to do anything to protect the heron and prevent development. This is not a characterization that this office needs to decide. The issues in this case are whether the ERC made the appropriate determination and whether this project will have more than a moderate impact on the quality of the environment. - _ ' - . Determination of Significance should have been tLE issuk,d by 10. The record shows that the ERC relied on past experience with development on steep hillsides, or adjacent to wetlands and near the heron colony. The record reveals that when development on or near a steep sensitive hillside was proposed near May Creek, the ERC imposed a condition for special reporting and limited work to the dry season. (See above) The ERC even defended that decision in the face of an appeal and expert evidence that the development could proceed during the wet seasons. Similarly, in Emma's Plat the ERC imposed a condition limiting earthwork to the dry months. In this case the applicant 's expert indicated that it was presumed that the development would be seasonally limited. No such condition appears in writing. OEarthwork shall be limited to the dry months - except for minor earthwork, such as finish grading. --:..G _. ..s.sv.,.,ss�„T�r�ee6YleS�el seimmiti e�'!w_ •. ho ' ontal distance between the subject site and the heronry. But there appears to be evidence that t .. vertical offset could adversely affect the heron including the loss of dense cover in an area wher- • has long existed. While there are other large complexes in the area, the ones north of the site are both ore remoat and were apparently established when the heron began establishing their colony. 12. The City's obligation . is to fully and fairly determine the potential impacts of d- 'eloping this property in the manner proposed by t - applicant. That is the City must analyze the impa. s of removing approximately 20 acres of mature forest fron . slope that varies from 20 to 40 percent ani hat is located upslope from a sensitive riparian forest that is in':bited by a large colony of heron. T - ERC's report does not contain any particular information on the comple mesh of slope-wetland-hero . It is as if there were an implicit admission that the City and its planners a•. probably the decis'o imaker already know about the impacts of development in these kinds of environments ..d that docu • -rating them would be unnecessary or redundant. This ignores the fact that the general public does •lit h. - this information and cannot intelligently comment in the absence of such information. The failure to f er explore the impacts and consequences of a specific proposal also ignores the fact that occa •scally ull exploration of the probable impacts might lead to better design, particularly for a non-routi • site or one wi • significant features or attributes. This does not mean an EIS can be demanded in th- . .sence of a showing •t a proposal will have more than a moderate impact on the quality of th- nvironment. In this case the .tire of the proposal,the nature of the subject site and the nature of the ..rrounding area requires more disclos b e and more analysis. 13. SEPA requires review"a le earliest possible point in the planning and decisio aking process"(WAC 197-11-055(2). This view should be performed prior to irrevocable commitment . either resources or land. It is apparer• that the SEPA determination required at this, the earliest time when <lternatives can be realistically c• sidered,would be to require an EIS. By attempting to eliminate the full dis. osure mandated by SEPA, e applicant may be foreclosing reasonable and better alternatives for the site. The ay be comm. mg to a course of action that has not been fully explored. SEPA demands more in this cas-. The ap. oval of the proposed development without a SEPA study would foreclose considering alternative See new Conclusion 11 and amended Decision on next page. 11. The burden of proof is on Herons Forever. As previously stated, the decision of the ERC is entitled to substantial weight. While its good intentions are not questioned, the 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-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. DECISION: The decision of the ERC is affirmed. Sunset Bluff SEPA Appeal File No.: LUA-04-002, ECF, PP August 3, 2004 Page 58 _ .. . a 1 S • 14. Thi decision should not be read to discount or dismiss most of the rebuttal testimony provided by the appli'int. Rather what this decision does is conclude that the information provided does not mitigate e impacts of the proposal on the quality of the environment, impacts such as its total forest and veget. • on removal f sm approximately 20 acres, its grading of slopes varying from 20% to 40% on approxi ately 20 acres, its alte ation of hydrology that will affect the hydroperiod of the riparian forest, or its pre. imity to the heron colony. e Iso important is the fact that none of this supplemental information was avai .ble in a timeframe where 't could help the public knowledgeably comment on this project. This s .plemental information was pr-seinedin an appeal hearing, not a forum where it could easily be di:•sted and certainly not in a format where .le general public could read it, comment on it and rebut it. no information is late and does not help weigh he impacts and possibly derive alternatives that might les 'on the impacts. 15. In addition, the applicant's 51 splemental information, as noted above, in many ases conflicts with the information submitted by the a•.ellants. This information needs to be laid •ot side-by-side and sorted and sifted in a way that only an Envir•'mental Impact Statement can provide. his information needs to be assembled by an expert team that is ianaged by the City, the agency w' 1 jurisdiction and which is in charge of gathering such full disclosure information. Frankly, right .w, we have a battle of experts and it may ultimately come down to that but on after the full disclosure landated by SEPA. 16. This does not mean that an exhaustive study • the developme t of the site is necessary. It appears that the appellants and others who have written about th'. proposal .ve focused on certain issues. Those are clearly the areas that need to be studied. The issues that n-ed pa icular analysis are: a). The hydrology of the site and its affect on th• i earian forest including hydroperiod, b). Habitat alteration and water quality, c). The slope stability, d). The affects of the loss of ve:etation and regrading of ap• oximately 20 acres of mature forest, and the impacts of tre: removal and grading and constr.ction noise on the heron colony, e). The impacts of the pot- tial new residential population including not•• and light and glare on the heron colony 17. Studying minimum . d maximum development and mid-range development alternati -s does not mean that the ultimate devel•.ment cannot be constructed as the applicant envisions. The focuses IS only serves as a full disclosure 'ocument. One has to remember that while the document serves the nee.'of the decisionmake•, it truly serves the needs of those who need information to formulate appropri. e questions for the deci• onmaker-that is neighbors and other interested persons who may not be as know :s geable of develop' •nt results as City staff. 18. It is isguided to believe that because the applicant's proposal will comply with code that it is a meas' e of su'cessful mitigation. One has to hope, if not presume, that all projects will meet their minimum code _ • � . _ . _. - _ __ : .- eemp g eerie -- •. - - _' ' -- • :- . •.• , Sunset Bluff SEPA Appeal File No.: LUA-04-002, ECF, PP August 3, 2004 Page 59 • i •handout on dealing with environmental appeals notes the development of Gene Coulon Park, aem of . par' along Lake Washington's shoreline, an almost incontrovertible asset, was constructed only after ai Envie omental Impact Statement was prepared. While that was a number of years ago, the principle .f environ ental review are still intact. "A thres *Id determination shall not balance whether the beneficial aspects of a proposal e tweigh its adverse im...cts, but rather, shall consider whether a proposal has any probable signific. t adverse environmenta •mpacts under the rules stated in this section. For example, proposals ••signed to improve the env onment, such as sewage treatment plants or pollution control reqs•rements, may also have significant ae erse environmental impacts."(WAC 197-11-330(5). 19. If a project will have more .-ran a moderate impact on the quality of the environm it and all of its impacts have not been mitigated, thei .n EIS, an environmental full-disclosure docume-t, is required. In this case, once again, we have a proposa iat will result in the clearing of absolutely a vegetation and stripping of topsoils on a very steep hillside a:eve a City park and above a significant eron colony. We have a project that will change the rate of flow for orm water. We have a proposal tl .t will potentially alter the constituents (contaminants from Sunse or herbicides and pesticides a d fertilizers) of that flow. This is because the stormwater that now percola :s into the natural soils w. be channeled around the subject site or fall on a very compacted soil surface. We I s ve a project that wil alter an area that the heron may use for nest-building materials and possible foraging. These are signi cant impacts that have not been mitigated. Could there be more suitable development? No'•ing in the •-velopment agreement or code forbids this project, developed in a sensitive location, from hal,' g a u it count of less than 69 units if it would be more suitable for this location. 20. This office has recognized in the past and again reco•niz: one issue that makes this decision problematic. This office not only reviews the SEPA appeal but •s in the ..sition of a decisionmaker("recommendation maker"to the City Council in this case). As the decisionmak- more information is always welcome but not just for the sake of exploring minutia or . laying the Ultima : decision. This decisionmaker would like to have more information on alternatives f. developing this site. 21. While development of private propert, is essential and the developmen of additional housing in the City is encouraged not every development . an serves the public use and interest, . prime component of the review criteria for a plat. It would appe. • that the city and other governmental agen,ies expended a large sum of . money not merely to protect a •parian forest, but a heron colony-an ecosyste •. It would appear reasonable to take some add' onal measures to analyze the impacts and possible : ternatives to protect that unique resource. 22. While not in any man] r attempting to prejudge the next series of environmental docu 'ents that come out of this process,the . .pellants need to be mindful that this is private property and that once reasonable environmental information is compiled,the challenges will be harder. Disclosing the impac of the development ai . even providing alternative development ideas does not mean that the subject .ite will not be developed .s proposed by the applicant. SEPA does not necessarily prohibit development tha,will have an impact : i heron,trees, rivers or wetlands. It requires an informed decisionmaker who then decrees if there are .cceptable impacts and even losses. 23. Th- eviewing body should not substitute its judgment for that of the original body with expertise in the 1 .tter, unless the reviewing body has the firm conviction that a mistake has been made. There is no doubt Sunset Bluff SEPA Appeal File No.: LUA-04-002, ECF, PP August 3, 2004 Page 60 = -•_ - e e: e e' . e. Too many questions on environmental issues aro stil unansw-red. Repeating the obvious: we have a heron colony and the impacts of this develop]. nt on that colony ails 'ts environment need more analysis. It is possible that the development of env' onmental information w' accomplish both the preservation of the heron colony and permit the • •velopment of the private property. 24. The appealing party must • '•vail on this appeal. A DNS,even a mitigate. •NS, would be inappropriate for this proposal. First, at this poi without.more information, it truly is and to understand what mitigation, that is, what conditions, would be . ficient to offset the potential ' pacts. In order to mitigate a proposal, one needs to fully understand the impa . The information i ► in the record does not provide the necessary information at this time. Full en ' onmental d'. osure should provide the necessary information and that.means the preparation of an EIS. 25. Again, the record is replete with a great deal e .conflict] and contradictory information provided by hired or voluntary experts. A concise EIS prep. ed under the Cit . auspices should provide a neutral document with more balanced presentation. 26. Since Section 4-8-1 10-E-1-c : . its this office"all of the powers of the fice from whom the appeal is taken insofar as the decisis on the particular issue is concerned"this offic ill issue a Determination of Significance. 27. The determina '.n of the Environmental Review Committee is reversed. A Determina of Significance is substitute. 'n its place. 28. Having reached the conclusion that an EIS is required, no purpose would be served in reviewing the pe -e e . e - - -- - -• •- - - -• - • - •- . - c.- proposed plat needs modification. DECISION: affirmed The decision of the ERC is roverced. • :_ : • . _• _ - _ _.•__ . •. . _ .- ,•- • - - • • ORDERED THIS 3'd day of Augu3t,2001. .x( November 8.-2004 by the Renton City Council • Q A. C • `+.d«" FRED J. KAUF N • rd • Jason Jordan David Hallinen Za `•s 1055 S Grady Way 10500 NE 8111 Street, Suite 19� sss Cant City Attorney Renton, WA 98055 Bellevue, WA 9:_�.'' Renton, WA 98055 Kayren Kittrick David Mann Suzanne Krom 1055 S Gr.. -..y 1424 Fourth Avenue, Suite 1015 4715-1/2 36th Avenue SW s :n, WA48A35- — • •- - Settle;. • 1 ;. . : .. - ... . ATTACHMENT F RENTON CITY COUNCIL Regular Meeting March 21, 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; MARCIE PALMER; DON PERSSON; COUNCILMEMBERS TONI NELSON;DAN CLAWSON;DENIS LAW. MOVED BY BRIERE, SECONDED BY LAW,COUNCIL EXCUSE ABSENT COUNCILMEMBER RANDY CORMAN. CARRIED. CITY STAFF IN KATHY KEOLKER-WHEELER, Mayor; JAY COVINGTON,Chief ATTENDANCE Administrative Officer; LAWRENCE J. WARREN, City Attorney;BONNIE WALTON, City Clerk; GREGG ZIMMERMAN,Planning/Building/Public Works Administrator; RYAN ZULAUF, Airport Manager; SANDRA MEYER, Transportation Systems Director;ALEX PIETSCH,Economic Development Administrator;REBECCA LIND,Planner Manager;JUDGE TERRY JURADO,Municipal Court; JOE MCGUIRE,Municipal Court Services Director;DEREK TODD,Assistant to the CAO; COMMANDER FLOYD ELDRIDGE,Police Department. SPECIAL John Sibold,Director of Aviation with the Washington State Department of PRESENTATIONS Transportation presented the City with the 2004 "Aviation Star of the Year" Airport: Compatible Land Use award for its Airport Compatible Land Use Program. Mr. Sibold read a letter Program,WSDOT Aviation from the Secretary of Transportation,Douglas B. MacDonald, thanking the City Star of the Year Award for its effort to protect the Airport for future generations. Noting the increasing development pressures around airports, Secretary McDonald indicated that it takes vision and courage to protect airports as essential public facilities. The letter concluded by applauding the City for implementing a comprehensive plan that recognizes the value of the Renton Airport to the State and local economies, and thanking the Planning Commission, Council, City staff and citizens for their efforts in developing the program. Councilman Persson and Mayor Keolker-Wheeler expressed their appreciation to City staff members Ryan Zulauf, Sandra Meyer, and Elizabeth Higgins, and to Councilmember Palmer for all their hard work on the program. Municipal Court: 2004 Annual Municipal Court Services Director Joe McGuire and Municipal Court Judge Report Terry Jurado presented the 2004 annual report of the Renton Municipal Court. • Mr.McGuire reported on the Washington State Supreme Court's ruling regarding the driving while license suspended statute, and on the resulting negative effect of this decision on the Municipal Court's revenue. He noted that legislation has been introduced to address this matter, and if passed, the changes felt in the criminal justice system as a result of the ruling will be reversed by the end of 2005. Mr. McGuire noted some personnel changes, which included the elimination of a Judicial Specialist position, the reclassification of a Judicial Specialist to a Judicial Specialist/Trainer, and the addition of a Probation Clerk position. He reviewed the court's revenues and expenditures for 2004, noting the revenue shortfall of$122,500 and the expenditure savings of$82,828. Mr. McGuire emphasized that the court uses its resources in the best way possible, and continues to find ways to be more efficient. March 21,2005 Renton City Council Minutes Page 92 Continuing,Judge Jurado reported that another factor negatively affecting court revenues is a decision of the Washington State Judicial Ethics Advisory Committee regarding the collection of costs as a result of agreements with defendants. Due to the decision that the costs collection is unlawful, he noted that the agreements are no longer possible. Judge Jurado also reviewed the reasons for his finding that a portion of Renton's criminal trespass ordinance is unconstitutional. Responding to Mayor Keolker-Wheeler's inquiries,Judge Jurado described the traffic infraction calendar process, and explained the reasons why domestic violence cases are dismissed. PUBLIC HEARING This being the date set and proper notices having been posted and published in Planning: Critical Areas accordance with local and State laws,Mayor Keolker-Wheeler opened the Ordinance public hearing to consider Renton's Best Available Science critical areas regulations and Shoreline Master Program Growth Management Act integration proposal. Lisa Grueter, consultant with Jones & Stokes Associates, stated that the purpose of the proposal is to meet Growth Management Act (GMA) and Shoreline Management Act(SMA) mandates, as well as Renton's Comprehensive Plan and goals for critical area protection, taking into consideration Renton's urban and environmental context. She noted that the City's protection of critical areas is multifaceted, and includes City ownership of some sensitive lands,regional collaboration with other jurisdictions,capital improvement programming,and critical area regulations. Ms. Grueter reviewed the City's current regulations,and listed the steps that have been taken so far in the development of the proposal. In regard to the State requirements,Ms. Grueter explained that the GMA requires protection of the following critical areas: wetlands,areas with a critical recharging effect on aquifers used for potable water, fish and wildlife habitat conservation areas,frequently flooded areas, and geologically hazardous areas. GMA also requires the use of Best Available Science(BAS) in City policies and regulations, which is defined as the use of information generated from a valid scientific process. The SMA requires that the Shoreline Management Program(SMP) be a part of the Comprehensive Plan, and that the City provide equivalent protection for shorelines of the State. She pointed out that the City must be able to demonstrate how BAS has been included in its plans and regulations. Ms. Grueter then reviewed the four main components of the City's proposal. 1. BAS Review. Ms. Grueter relayed that consultants conducted BAS literature reviews for both streams and wetlands. Additionally, an example code comparison was conducted on aquifer recharge, flood hazards,geologic hazards, and procedures. 2. Policy Amendments. Ms. Grueter noted the movement of the SMP policies to the Comprehensive Plan land use and environment elements. She also noted the addition of two shoreline topics, and the restructuring of the shoreline use priority policies. Ms. Grueter indicated that the environment element is the City's main focus, with its rivers and stream policies and floodplain policies. March 21,2005 Renton City Council Minutes Page 93 3. SMP Map Amendments. Ms. Grueter explained that the amendments address the map and text inconsistencies on the Black River, address the unclassified areas on the Cedar River, and clarify interpretation of aquatic environments. 4. Regulation Amendments. In regard to streams, Ms. Grueter stated that a stream classification system, stream buffers, and stream mitigation standards are proposed with the following principles: no net loss of stream function; inner and outer buffers (standard un-enhanced buffers and reduced buffers with enhancements); and standard and flexible review processes. She then reviewed the class system for water types as follows: Class 1 -Shorelines of the State(Salmonid Bearing) -Lake Washington,May Creek, Cedar River, Black River, Springbrook Creek. Class 2-Salmonid Bearing Stream-Examples are portions of Honey Creek, Maplewood Creek, and Panther Creek. Class 3-Year Round,Non-Salmonid Bearing -Examples are Kennydale Creek, and Rolling Hills Creek. Class 4-Intermittent,Non-Salmonid Bearing-Examples are portions of Maplewood Creek and Gypsy Creek. Class 5 -Artificial, Non-Salmonid Bearing -Where no natural channel existed before. For the critical areas regulations,Ms. Grueter illustrated the processes for the different regulations and stream types using flow charts. She pointed out that Class 1 is different because it is in the SMP, and therefore administrated differently since it is a shared responsibility with the State. There are no shoreline exemptions in Class 1; some are exempt from a permit but none are exempt from the requirements. Additionally, Ms. Grueter used examples of already developed sites to further illustrate the processes. Continuing with the regulation amendments, Ms. Grueter explained that for the wetlands approach, the regulations retain the current wetland class system; retain standard buffers, but require that all proposals review whether criteria are met for increased buffers; and modify some exemptions to reduce potential for cumulative impacts. She reported that consultant Parametrix who conducted the initial BAS review,also assessed the characteristics of 17 representative wetlands in Renton and its Potential Annexation Area, and compared the City's and the Department of Ecology's differing methods of classifying wetlands and establishing buffers to protect existing functions and values. Ms. Grueter stated that the consultant determined that the City's classification system-together with its buffer requirements, its process to determine whether there is criteria that shows when a wider than standard buffer is appropriate, and its other code requirements -is sufficient to protect functions and values of wetlands in the City. She noted that minor regulation amendments are also proposed for the other critical areas. Moving on, Ms. Grueter stated that continents were received over time from State agencies, interest groups, and property owners. Responses to the comments included pointing out the flexibility of the regulations, or recommending additional supplemental amendments. She noted that the responses and supplemental recommendations concerned: existing and new March 21,2005 Renton City Council Minutes Page 94 development and streams and lakes,criteria for Class 1 water buffer reduction, wetland exemption, wetland buffers, wildlife habitat, and other housekeeping and clarification changes. In conclusion,Ms. Grueter reported that the next steps are for the Planning and Development Committee to consider the comments from the public hearing, and then present its recommendations to the full Council in April. She pointed out that the State needs to approve the shoreline amendments; therefore, they will not immediately go into effect. Alex Pietsch,Economic Development Administrator, said 1) the City is responding to the State's requirement to update the critical areas regulations, and 2) the City has taken an approach to balance the goals of protecting the shorelines and wetlands with the Growth Management Act, as development in urban areas needs to continue. Public comment was invited. Correspondence was read from John Mauro,Livable Communities Coalition Director, 1617 Boylston Ave., Suite 201,Seattle, 98122, suggesting five major improvements to the critical areas ordinance update concerning strengthening wetland protection, strengthening stream and riparian area protection, improving fish and wildlife habitat conservation areas protection, imposing substantive penalties for violations, and incorporating the "precautionary principle" that states that conservation planning should err on the side of protecting too much rather than protecting too little. Jerry Brennan,3405 Lake Washington Blvd. N.,Renton, 98056, stated that he is one of many affected by the proposed change in buffers from 25 to 100 feet, and noted that BAS has changed over the approximately five years in which he has been trying to install a dock. He asked that Council not conduct second and final reading of the ordinance earlier than April 11th to allow him time to complete his project. Chuck Pillon, 15753 SE Renton-Issaquah Rd.,Renton, 98059, stated that he is a 24-year veteran of law enforcement and has studied the public safety issues affected by BAS. He indicated that large woody debris in rivers and streams is supported by BAS, and he expressed concerns regarding the potential hazards of these debris installations to swimmers,and the potential risks to governmental entities. Mr. Pillon suggested that caution be used when applying BAS, especially when it affects public safety. Becky Stanley,Conservation Chair for the Cascade Chapter of the Sierra Club, 4108 48th Ave. S., Seattle,98118, stated that Renton's critical areas ordinance does not adequately protect water quality, and she expressed concerns about the following: 1)the exemption from protection of all wetlands less than 2,200 square feet, 2) the protection of only three categories of habitat for fish and • other wildlife, and 3)the stream and wetland buffers are not defensible as BAS. David Halinen, 10500 NE 8th St., Suite 1900,Bellevue, 98004, expressed his opposition to the proposed changes to eliminate the Class 2 wetland exemption and to reduce the Class 3 wetland exemption. He indicated that conceptually, the smaller wetlands have a relatively de minimis effect on the environment, and the current exemptions were carefully considered and balanced with property rights issues. If the changes are made as recommended, Mr.Halinen suggested that at a minimum, a 1,000 foot exemption for Class 2 wetlands be allowed. March 21,2005 Renton City Council Minutes Page 95 Jim Bonwell, 9616 146th Ave. SE,Renton,98055, stated that his property contains a Class 1 stream and salmon, and a wetland is located to the east of his property. He expressed concerns regarding the way property is developed, and described the effect a nearby horse farm has on a wetland located downstream from it. Mr. Bonwell pointed out that people must pay attention to how their property maintenance and development practices affect the water quality, habitat, and vegetation on his and other properties. In response to Councilman Clawson's inquiry regarding large woody debris, Andy Kindig,consultant with A.C. Kindig & Co., stated that the placement of woody debris usually has to do with a restoration project, which is not within the confines of the critical areas ordinance. Mr. Clawson indicated that characterizing the critical areas ordinance as an endangerment to children who swim is unreasonable. Councilman Persson stated that if someone is already in the process of obtaining a permit,the old rules still apply. City Attorney Larry Warren said that is generally true; however,depending on whether the development regulations or the environmental regulations are involved, an exception could be raised. There being no further public comment, it was MOVED BY CLAWSON, SECONDED BY PALMER, COUNCIL CLOSE THE PUBLIC HEARING. CARRIED. APPEAL Planning and Development Committee Chair Clawson presented a report Appeal: Sunset Bluff regarding the appeals filed by SR 900 LLC and Herons Forever on the Sunset Preliminary Plat, SR 900 LLC Bluff Preliminary Plat(PP-04-002). The Committee heard this appeal on &Herons Forever,PP-04-002 3/17/2005. After reviewing the record, the written presentations by both parties,and having heard oral argument, the Committee found that there were no substantial errors in fact or law and recommended that the full Council affirm the Hearing Examiner's decision with the following clarifications: 1. The Hearing Examiner at conclusion#9 on page 22 of his report and recommendation urged the City Council to deny the plat because it does not take advantage of the natural amenities of the site in a suitable fashion and does not do nearly enough to attempt to protect the nearby Heron colony from the proposed plat development impacts. However,the Hearing Examiner in his recommendation suggests that if the Council approves the plat,certain conditions should be applied. The plat should be approved according to the conditions set forth in the Hearing Examiner's report and recommendation as set forth in conditions 1-15 on pages 22 and 23. 2. There is some confusion about the fencing. Fencing is recommended in item 9 of the conditions to the Hearing Examiner's recommendation and again in item 12 of the Hearing Examiner's conditions. These two conditions can be satisfied by two fences, one separating the residences from the drainage pond,and a second fence at the toe of the slope at the property line between the subject property generally to the south. 3. Recommendation#4 on page 2 of the Hearing Examiner's report should be amended to read: "The applicant shall hydroseed any open space with native forbs, shrubs, wildflowers, trees, and shrubs. This will help reduce the temporal impact of the clearing,by planting materials that already have some size to them. March 21,2005 Renton City Council Minutes Page 96 This will also introduce trees back into the mix, which are necessary for adequate buffering. Trees in the mix should also help stabilize the steep, regraded slope. The plantings should be monitored for a minimum of five to ten years to ensure that they are established. Plants that do not survive should be replanted. The plant mix should contain a mix of both deciduous trees (for heron nest materials)and coniferous (for screening)." MOVED BY CLAWSON, SECONDED BY LAW, COUNCIL CONCUR IN THE COMMITTEE REPORT. 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: * The public is invited to learn about Renton's publicly-funded entities during a State of the Community event beginning at 6:00 p.m. on March 29th, at the Renton IKEA Performing Arts Center. This free event will showcase the City of Renton, Renton Technical College, Renton School District, and Valley Medical Center. One representative from each entity will present plans for 2005 and beyond, explain their funding sources, detail a few challenges, and recount some accomplishments. * The Renton Community Resource Telephone Directory is now available in Cambodian, Chinese, English, Korean, Laotian, Punjabi, Russian, Somali, Spanish, Tagalog, and Vietnamese. AUDIENCE COMMENT Shirley Andrews,9606 143rd Ave. SE,Renton, 98055; Thomas Foster, 6450 Citizen Comment: Various - Southcenter Blvd.,#106,Seattle, 98188; Jean Rollins, 9605 143rd Ave. SE, R-1 Zone Community Renton,98059;Andrew Duffus,9605 143rd Ave. SE,Renton, 98059; and Separators Debra Rogers,5326 NE 22nd Ct., Renton, 98059; expressed appreciation for the City's work on the R-1 zone community separators, and urged Council to advance the subject ordinance to second and final reading this evening. Citizen Comment: Baker- Lenny Baker,20224 81st Ave. W.,Edmonds, 98026,submitted a letter to the Gene Coulon Park Hydroplane Council and said he represents Seattle Drag& Ski Sprint Boat Association, a Race not-for profit organization, which will hold a limited hydroplane race at Gene Coulon Memorial Beach Park on April 30th and May 1st. Mr. Baker indicated that there is lot of public interest in this event,and he described how Renton will economically benefit from the race. Mr. Baker also reviewed how the association organizes the event, and the measures that are taken to protect the racers and spectators, both in the water and on land. Citizen Comment: Krom- Suzanne Krom, President of Herons Forever, PO Box 16155, Seattle, 98116, Sunset Bluff Prelimiinary Plat thanked Council for its decision on the Sunset Bluff Preliminary Plat appeal. Appeal, SR 900 LLC& Herons Forever,PP-04-002 RECESS MOVED BY NELSON, SECONDED BY PERSSON, COUNCIL RECESS FOR FIVE MINUTES. CARRIED. Time: 9:14 p.m. The meeting reconvened at 9:21 p.m.;roll was called; all Councilmembers present except Corman, previously excused, and Clawson. Councilman Clawson arrived at 9:23 p.m. CONSENT AGENDA Items on the consent agenda are adopted by one motion which follows the listing. March 21,2005 Renton City Council Minutes Page 97 Council Meeting Minutes of Approval of Council meeting minutes of March 14, 2005. Council concur. March 14, 2005 Appeal: Ridgeview Court City Clerk reported appeal of Hearing Examiner's recommendation on the Preliminary Plat, Cliff Ridgeview Court Preliminary Hat (PP-04-131); appeal filed by Sean K. Howe, Williams, PP-04-131 524 2nd Ave., Suite 500, Seattle, 98104,representing Cliff Williams of Ridgeview Court,LLC on 3/7/2005, accompanied by required fee. Refer to Planning and Development Committee. Vacation: Walkway,NW 6th City Clerk submitted petition for vacation of portion of unimproved road St&Rainier Ave N,VAC-05- (walkway)between NW 6th St. and Rainier Ave. N.;petitioner Jack D. 002 Alhadeff, 95 S.Tobin St.,#201,Renton, 98055 (VAC-05-002). Refer to Planning/Building/Public Works Administrator; set public hearing on 4/18/2005 to consider the petition. (See page 99 for resolution setting public hearing.) Community Services: Henry Community Services Department recommended approval of an ordinance Moses Aquatic Center Fees setting new fees and increasing fees at the Henry Moses Aquatic Center. Council concur. (See page 100 for ordinance.) Community Services: Heather Community Services Department recommended approval of a contract in the Downs Park Development amount of$167,148 with J.A. Brennan Associates,PLLC for Heather Downs Architectural Services,JA Park development architectural design services. Council concur. Brennan Associates Lease: Eoscene,200 Mill Community Services Department recommended approval of an amendment to Building(4th&6th Floors), the lease with Eoscene Corporation(LAG-02-003)for space of the 4th and 6th LAG-02-003 floor of the 200 Mill Building for additional space and a lease term extension through 6/30/2010. Refer to Finance Committee. Plat: Laurelhurst Phase 1, Development Services Division recommended approval,with conditions, of the Duvall Ave NE,FP-04-160 Laurelhurst Phase 1 Final Plat; 69 single-family lots on 15.7 acres located on the west side of Duvall Ave. NE at NE 2nd St. (FP-04-160). Council concur. (See page 99 for resolution.) Planning: 2004 Countywide Economic Development,Neighborhoods and Strategic Planning Department Planning Policies Amendments recommended adoption of a resolution ratifying the 2004 amendments to the Growth Management Planning Council's Countywide Planning Policies. Council concur. (See page 99 for resolution.) Annexation: Maplewood Economic Development,Neighborhoods and Strategic Planning Department Addition,Maple Valley Hwy submitted 60%Notice of Intent to annex petition for the proposed Maplewood Addition Annexation, and recommended a public hearing be set on 4/4/2005 to consider the petition and R-8 zoning; 60.5 acres bounded by Maple Valley • Hwy. and the Cedar River. Council concur. Plat: Barbee Mill,Lake Hearing Examiner recommended approval, with conditions,of the Barbee Mill Washington Blvd N,PP-02- Preliminary Plat; 115-lot subdivision on 23 acres intended for townhouse units 040 located at 4201 Lake Washington Blvd. N. (PP-02-040). Council concur. Solid Waste: Garbage Legal Division recommended approval of revisions to the garbage ordinance to Ordinance Revisions clarify and add definitions, to make garbage collection mandatory with certain limited exceptions, to add and clarify violations, and to criminalize violations. Refer to Utilities Committee. MOVED BY BRIERE, SECONDED BY PALMER, COUNCIL APPROVE THE CONSENT AGENDA AS PRESENTED. CARRIED. March 21,2005 Renton City Council Minutes Page 98 CORRESPONDENCE City Attorney Warren advised that the following letters regarding the appeal of Citizen Comment: Chamberlin the Ridgeview Court Preliminary Plat (PP-04-131) may contain information &Halinen-Ridgeview Court that is outside the record that was before the Hearing Examiner. The Preliminary Plat Appeal, Cliff correspondence may be referred; however, it may or may not be able to be Williams, PP-04-131 considered when it comes before the Planning and Development Committee and the full Council. Letters were entered from Kevin Chamberlin,Highlands Post Office Station Manager, 17200 116th Ave. SE,Renton, 98059, and from David L. Halinen, Halinen Law Offices,P.S., 10500 NE 8th St., Suite 1900, Bellevue, 98004. With the understanding that the Planning and Development Committee may or may not be able to consider them, it was MOVED BY CLAWSON, SECONDED BY LAW, COUNCIL REFER THE TWO ITEMS OF CORRESPONDENCE TO THE PLANNING AND DEVELOPMENT COMMITTEE. CARRIED. UNFINISHED BUSINESS Transportation (Aviation)Committee Chair Palmer presented a report Transportation (Aviation) recommending concurrence in the staff recommendation to approve amending Committee City Code 9-10-11,Trench Restoration and Street Overlay Requirements and Development Services: Trench standard details. The amendments will establish guidelines for the restoration Restoration &Street Overlay of City streets disturbed by installation of utilities and other construction Requirements activities, and will apply to any public or private utilities, general contractors, or others permitted to work in the public rights-of-way. The Committee further recommended that the ordinance regarding this matter be presented for first reading. MOVED BY PALMER,SECONDED BY PERSSON, COUNCIL CONCUR IN THE COMMITTEE REPORT. CARRIED. (See page 100 for ordinance.) Transportation: SR-169 Transportation(Aviation)Committee Chair Palmer presented a report Corridor Improvements, recommending concurrence in the staff recommendation to approve a resolution Supporting Legislative for the purpose of supporting the SR-169 Improvement Consortium's efforts to Funding obtain State legislative funding as part of the SR-169 Corridor improvements in the amount of$4 million to be completed as funding becomes available. The Committee further recommended that the resolution regarding this matter be presented for reading and adoption. MOVED BY PALMER, SECONDED BY PERSSON,COUNCIL CONCUR IN THE COMMITTEE REPORT. CARRIED. (See page 100 for resolution.) Streets: Sunset Blvd N,NE Transportation (Aviation)Committee Chair Palmer presented a report Sunset Blvd&Houser Way recommending concurrence in the staff recommendation for the temporary lane Tunnel Temporary Closures closures of Sunset Blvd. N. and NE Sunset Blvd. and the temporary full closure of the Houser Way Tunnel and Sunset Blvd. NE. The Committee further recommended that: • "Notice of Traffic Revision/Construction" signs be erected at key intersections at least two weeks prior to construction to give motorists advanced notice of potential delays and alternate routes. • Modify traffic signal timing to minimize traffic delays. • Work with the Renton Police Department to provide increased patrol car visibility surrounding the construction area and along its posted detour routes. March 21,2005 Renton City Council Minutes Page 99 • Inform the public of the closures and detour routes through mail flyers, community meetings and events,and local news media. • Coordinate closures with affected businesses such as PACCAR and the Renton School District. The Committee further recommended that the resolution regarding this matter be presented for reading and adoption.* Councilwoman Palmer stated that the closures are for infrastructure improvements for the Highlands area, and information about the closures is being dispersed throughout the community. *MOVED BY PALMER, SECONDED BY PERSSON, COUNCIL CONCUR IN THE COMMITTEE REPORT. CARRIED. (See page 100 for resolution.) Utilities Committee Utilities Committee Vice Chair Clawson presented a report regarding the Public Works: Cedar River broodstock collection facility. The Committee recommended concurrence in Broodstock Collection the recommendation to approve the I-405 site as the best location for a (Sockeye Hatchery)Facility, broodstock collection facility within Renton City limits provided that the Seattle Public Utilities Project following issues can be negotiated to the satisfaction of the City: • Seattle Public Utilities (SPU)provides adequate mitigation for impacts of construction and operation of the broodstock facility on City lands and activities, including, but not limited to, impacts on spawning behavior, parks use,aesthetics, surface water, recreation,public safety,riparian habitat,Parks Master Plan, and Narco Rd. maintenance. • Washington State Department of Fish and Wildlife modifies the Hydraulic Project Approval for the dredging project to address potential impacts from the broodstock facility on the City's mitigation requirements. • SPU supports future maintenance dredging and provides monitoring for fish activity at and below the broodstock facility. Upon Council concurrence with this recommendation, staff will pursue negotiations with SPU regarding permitting and construction of the broodstock facility at the 1-405 site. MOVED BY CLAWSON, SECONDED BY PERSSON, COUNCIL CONCUR IN THE COMMITTEE REPORT. CARRIED. RESOLUTIONS AND The following resolutions were presented for reading and adoption: ORDINANCES Resolution#3742 A resolution was read setting a public hearing date on 4/18/2005 to vacate a Vacation: Walkway,NW 6th ten-foot wide platted walkway approximately 187 feet in length,connecting St&Rainier Ave N,VAC-05- NW 6th St. to Rainier Ave. N. (Jack D.Alhadeff,JDA Group; VAC-05-002). 002 MOVED BY CLAWSON, SECONDED BY PALMER,COUNCIL ADOPT THE RESOLUTION AS READ. CARRIED. Resolution#3743 A resolution was read approving the Laurelhurst Phase 1 Final Plat; Plat: Laurelhurst Phase 1, approximately 15.7 acres located in the vicinity of Duvall Ave. NE, west of NE Duvall Ave NE, FP-04-160 2nd St. (FP-04-160). MOVED BY CLAWSON, SECONDED BY PALMER, COUNCIL ADOPT THE RESOLUTION AS READ. CARRIED. Resolution#3744 A resolution was read ratifying the 2004 amendments to the Growth Planning: 2004 Countywide Management Planning Council's Countywide Planning Policies. MOVED BY Planning Policies Amendments BRIERE,SECONDED BY PERSSON, COUNCIL ADOPT THE RESOLUTION AS READ. CARRIED. March 21,2005 Renton City Council Minutes Page 100 Resolution#3745 A resolution was read authorizing the temporary closure of the northbound Streets: Sunset Blvd N,NE lanes of Sunset Blvd. N. (N. 3rd St. to I-405), the Houser Way Tunnel, and the Sunset Blvd&Houser Way eastbound lanes of NE Sunset Blvd. (Sunset Blvd. NE to Harrington Ave. NE.); Tunnel Temporary Closures and temporary total closure of portions of Sunset Blvd. NE. MOVED BY PALMER, SECONDED BY PERSSON, COUNCIL ADOPT THE RESOLUTION AS READ. CARRIED. Resolution#3746 A resolution was read supporting legislative funding from the 2005 Washington Transportation: SR-169 State Legislature for certain road improvement projects on SR-169 to Corridor Improvements, significantly increase the level of service. MOVED BY PALMER, Supporting Legislative SECONDED BY PERSSON,COUNCIL ADOPT THE RESOLUTION AS Funding READ. CARRIED. The following ordinances were presented for first reading and referred to the Council meeting of 4/4/2005 for second and final reading: Community Services: Henry An ordinance was read amending Chapter 5-1,Fee Schedule, of Title V Moses Aquatic Center Fees (Finance and Business Regulations)of City Code by setting Henry Moses Aquatic Center pass card rates and canopy rental fees. MOVED BY LAW, SECONDED BY NELSON,COUNCIL REFER THE ORDINANCE FOR SECOND AND FINAL READING ON 4/4/2005. CARRIED. Development Services: Trench An ordinance was read amending Section 9-10-11 of Chapter 10, Street Restoration &Street Overlay Excavations, of Title IX, Public Ways and Property, of City Code by revising Requirements trench restoration and street overlay requirements. MOVED BY BRIERE, SECONDED BY PALMER, COUNCIL REFER THE ORDINANCE FOR SECOND AND FINAL READING ON 4/4/2005. CARRIED. Planning: R-1 Zone An ordinance was read amending Chapter 4-2,Zoning Districts -Uses and Community Separators Standards, Chapter 4-3,Environmental Regulations and Overlay Districts, Chapter 4-4,Citywide Property Development Standards, Chapter 4-6, Street and Utility Standards,and Chapter 4-11,Definitions, of Title IV(Development 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.* Councilman Clawson acknowledged the requests to advance this ordinance for second and final reading; however, he noted that ordinances are not advanced unless there is a critical reason for doing so. *MOVED BY CLAWSON, SECONDED BY LAW, COUNCIL REFER THE ORDINANCE FOR SECOND AND FINAL READING ON 4/4/2005. CARRIED. NEW BUSINESS Responding to Councilman Persson's inquiry regarding the necessity of Police: Criminal Trespass reviewing the City's criminal trespass ordinance since the Municipal Court Ordinance Judge found a portion unconstitutional, City Attorney Warren pointed out that City Code contains a reference in its criminal code to the State trespass ordinance. Therefore,Renton does have a current, valid and enforceable trespass ordinance. He relayed that the ordinance the Judge found to be illegal is contained in another part of City Code. School District: Activities Councilwoman Nelson reviewed the various announcement,events, and activities of the Renton School District, including: the qualification of three Renton High School speech and debate team members to compete at the March 21,2005 Renton City Council Minutes Page 101 National Forensic League tournament in Philadelphia, the qualification of more than 300 students at Nelson Middle School for induction in the National Junior Honor Society, and the nomination of five Renton High School students for the 2005 Diversity Makes a Difference awards. ADJOURNMENT MOVED BY LAW, SECONDED BY NELSON, COUNCIL ADJOURN. CARRIED. Time: 9:46 p.m. 8611 w& Bonnie I. Walton,CMC, City Clerk Recorder: Michele Neumann March 21, 2005 RENTON CITY COUNCIL COMMITTEE MEETING CALENDAR Office of the City Clerk COUNCIL COMMITTEE MEETINGS SCHEDULED AT CITY COUNCIL MEETING March 21,2005 COMMITTEE/CHAIRMAN DATE/TIME AGENDA COUNCIL WORKSHOP MON., 3/28 Identifying Emerging Issues; 8:00 am-9:00 pm Review &Revise Six-Year Business Plan; &TUES., 3/29 Economic Development Issues; 8:00 am-3:00 pm Neighborhood Redevelopment Issues; Annexation Issues *Renton Technical College Technology Resource Center Room 111-C* COMMITTEE OF THE WHOLE MON., 3/28 CANCELLED (Briere) MON.,4/04 City of Renton Disaster 6:00 p.m. Preparedness/Response (briefing only) *Fire Station#12 1209 Kirkland Ave. NE* COMMUNITY SERVICES MON., 3/28 CANCELLED (Nelson) FINANCE MON., 3/28 CANCEL'FD (Persson) MON., 4/04 Vouchers; 4:30 p.m. Lodging Tax Funding for Renton Visitors Connection &Chambers Contract; Collection Services Agreement with AllianceOne Receivables Management PLANNING &DEVELOPMENT THURS., 3/31 Critical Areas Ordinance (Clawson) 11:30 a.m. PUBLIC SAFETY • MON.,4/04 CANCEI.I.ED (Law) TRANSPORTATION (AVIATION) (Palmer) UTILITIES (Corman) 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. ATTACHMENT G PLANNING & DEVELOPMENT . ;717, .,TED RV 1 COMMITTEE REPORT x:17 COUNCIL March 21, 2005 Date 3-al-aao4/ SUNSET BLUFF PRELIMINARY PLAT APPEAL File LUA-04-002, PP, ECF (Referred 1/24/05) The Planning and Development Committee heard this appeal on March 17, 2005. After reviewing the record, the written presentations by both parties, and having heard oral argument,the Committee finds that there were no substantial errors in fact or law and recommends that the full Council affirm the Hearing Examiner's decision with the following clarifications: I. The Hearing Examiner at conclusion#9 on page 22 of his report and recommendation urged the City Council to deny the plat because it does not take advantage of the natural amenities of the site in a suitable fashion and does not do nearly enough to attempt to protect the nearby Heron colony from the proposed plats development impacts. However, the Examiner in his recommendation suggests that if the Council approves the plat, certain conditions should be applied. The plat should be approved according to the conditions set forth in the Examiner's report and recommendation as set forth in conditions 1-15 on pages 22 and 23. 2. There is some confusion about the fencing. Fencing is recommended in item 9 of the conditions to the Examiner's recommendation and again in item 12 of the Examiner's conditions. These two conditions can be satisfied by two fences,one separating the residences from the drainage pond, and a second fence at the toe of the slope at the property line between the subject property generally to the South. 3. Recommendation#4 on page 2 of the Examiner's report should be amended to read: "The applicant shall hydroseed any open space with native forbs, shrubs, wildflowers, trees and shrubs. This will help reduce the temporal impact of the clearing, by planting materials that already have some size to them. This will also introduce trees back into the mix, which are necessary for adequate buffering. Trees in the mix should also help stabilize the steep,regraded slope. The plantings should be monitored for a minimum of 5 to 10.years to ensure that they are established. Plants that do not survive should be replanted. The plant mix should contain a mix of both deciduous trees (for heron nest materials) and coniferous (for screening)." Dan Clawson, Chair . 1 1 Denis Law,Vice Chair AtiA)/64(9 / Marcie Palmer,Member CC: Tennifer flenninq Neil Wafts Larry y Warre.44 ATTACHMENT H • December 20, 2004 OFFICE OF THE HEARING EXAMINER CITY OF RENTON Minutes APPLICANT: SR 900 LLC Quarry Industrial Park LLC 9125 10th Avenue South Seattle, WA 98108 CONTACT: David Halinen Halinen Law Offices 10500 NE 8'h Street, Suite 1900 Bellevue, WA 98004 File No.: LUA 04-002, PP, ECF LOCATION: 1100 Block of SW Sunset Boulevard NE SUMMARY OF REQUEST: Approval for a 65-lot subdivision of a 26.26-acre site intended for detached single-family residences. SUMMARY OF ACTION: Development Services Recommendation: Approve subject to conditions DEVELOPMENT SERVICES REPORT: The Development Services Report was received by the Examiner on March 16,2004. 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 Apri127, 2004 hearing. The legal record is recorded on CD. The hearing opened on Tuesday, April 27, 2004, at 9:01 a.m. in the Council Chambers on the seventh floor of the Renton City Hall. Parties wishing to testify were affirmed by the Examiner. This morning's item is actually a continuation of last Tuesday's hearing, although we are going to deal with the preliminary plat, which is a land use matter,Thursday morning at 9:00 a.m., the SEPA Appeal hearing will continue. It was determined that due to the nature of the SEPA Appeal and the Preliminary Plat hearings the Exhibit list should be continued, rather than start a new list. The following exhibits were entered into the record: Exhibit No. 25: Letter from James Rasmussen of the Exhibit No. 26: Overall Map for Sunset Bluff Project Duwamish Tribe showing emergency road access Sunset Bluff Preliminary Plat File No.: LUA-04-002, PP, ECF December 20, 2004 Page 2 Exhibit No. 27: New legal description for Sunset Exhibit No. 28: Illustration of where the boundary Bluff project line adjustment occurred. Exhibit No. 29: Sheet 3 of 11 for Road Grading Plan Exhibit No. 30: Roadway Cross Sections Exhibit No. 31: Shows Cross sections (Ex. 30)on the Exhibit No.32: Stream with cross section showing Plat Plan rockeries that will be used in the project Exhibit No. 33: Wetland Hydrology Analysis,dated Exhibit No. 34: Washington DOT letter dated March April 19, 2004 3, 2004 Exhibit No. 35: Resume of Theresa Dusek Exhibit No. 36: Letter from Larry Fisher,Department of Fish and Wildlife Exhibit No. 37: Aerial photo of the site with location Exhibit No. 38: Aerial photo showing distances from of lots. Heron nests to lot lines. Exhibit No. 39: A Great Blue Heron Assessment Exhibit No. 40: Analysis of Great Blue Herons in Report by Dr. Ken Radkhe. 2004 King County by Amy J. Stabins. 2001 Exhibit No. 41: Exhibit 18 with new markings Exhibit No. 42: Letter by Theresa Dusek dated April 19, showing inlet/outlet to wetlands 2004 with summary of the off-site wetland system and depression south of the site. Exhibit No. 43: November 27, 2002 Hearing Exhibit No. 44: Newspaper article (Becky Stanley) Examiner Decision, City of Seattle Exhibit No. 45: Drawing showing the existing Exhibit No. 46: Drawing showing where the new cyclone fence fencing should be located (Suzanne Krom) Exhibit No. 47: Suzanne Krom testimony packet Exhibit No. 48: Susan Andrich testimony dated 4/20/2004 Exhibit No. 49: Photo by Ms. Dusek of the trails Exhibit No. 50: Photo of dirt road located on Sunset Bluff property by Ms. Dusek Exhibit No. 51: Photo showing the westerly most point of the project site by Ms. Dusek The hearing opened with a presentation of the staff report by Jason Jordan, Senior Planner, Development Services, City of Renton, 1055 S Grady Way, Renton, Washington 98055.The subject site is located south of SW Sunset Boulevard, north of the Black River Riparian Forest in the northwestern portion of the Renton City limits. The 26.26-acre site would be subdivided into 65 lots intended for detached single-family homes. The lots range in size from approximately 4,000 up to 5,000 square feet. The majority of the property is located within the R-10 zoning designation, and the southwest corner of the site is zoned RC (Resource Conservation). The applicant has proposed three open space and/or utility tracts throughout the site that total over 16 acres. Tract A is proposed to be a 3.8-acre open space tract located north of the proposed lots and south of SW Sunset Boulevard. Tract B is proposed to be a 7.32-acre water quality detention facility,that Tract is located south of Sunset Bluff Preliminary Plat File No.: LUA-04-002, PP. ECF December 20, 2004 Page 3 the proposed lots and north of the southern property boundary. Tract C is approximately 5.2 acres located in the southeastern corner of the site and contains regulated slopes and a wetland. The applicant has proposed to leave Tract C in a native growth protection easement. Access to the development is proposed via a new internal 42-foot wide public right-of-way, referred to as Road A, it intersects with SW Sunset Boulevard in the northeastern corner of the site, and would be dedicated to the City. It would terminate in a proposed cul-de-sac located off site on the adjacent quarry property and then continue with a 20-foot emergency access road down to Monster Road SW. The subject site contains high erosion and landslide hazards, critical and sensitive slopes and wetlands. The Environmental Review Committee issued a Determination of Non-Significance-Mitigated with 26 measures. Two appeals were issued for the project, one by the applicant with regards to SEPA mitigation measures 24 and 25, another filed by Heron's Forever with regard to the ERC's determination for a DSN-M. The net acreage of the site is approximately 20.58 acres. The proposal for 65 units on the site would arrive at a net density of 32 du/acre. This does not meet minimum density requirement, however this can be waived if the applicant can show that the density cannot be achieved due to sensitive slopes. In this case, the R-1 0 zoning is set for a minimum density of 7 du/acre. Since there are hardship critical areas that have actual physical constraints on the site, then through this exemption the reviewing body can waive the minimum density requirements. The RC zoning has not been factored in due to Lot 39 being completely outside the RC zone. A storm water detention facility will be developed in the RC zone which is allowed. All lots exceed the minimum lot width and depth requirement for the R-10 zone with single-family residences. Proposed Lot 39 is abutting property designated RC on the City's zoning map, therefore, that lot will require a 25-foot setback. Each lot satisfies the minimum lot area and dimension requirements of the R-10 zone and all lots appear to have sufficient building areas for the development of suitable detached single-family homes. The public right-of-way internal to the site is proposed at a reduced right-of-way width of 42 feet, along with curbs, gutter, sidewalks, and street lighting. Street improvements, including paving, curb, gutter, and sidewalks are required along SW Sunset Boulevard, east of the proposed intersection. Due to the presence of steep slopes along this portion of the site, the applicant has requested a modification for a reduced right-of-way width, which was approved by the Development Services Division. The emergency access appears to have some issues, it was put together without permits from King County and now without the City of Renton. The applicant has been working with Code Enforcement staff,they are in the process of evaluating the best way to rebuild the rockery. It was required that the applicant provide a geotechnical study specifically addressing this proposed emergency access. In that study it was noted that there was some erosion of the rocks that were holding back that wall. They are continuing to monitor and review the area, they will pull back the illegal wall and construct a wall that will meet the geotechnical requirements and all the applicable City building permits associated with the wall. The majority of the proposed site development would be limited to the western two-thirds of the site where the single family lots would be cut into the southeast sloping site. Most of the eastern third of the site is proposed to be Tract C, a native growth protection easement with the exception of the roadway that runs north of that area. No development is proposed to go into any critical slope or wetland or high landslide hazard. The access road avoids the critical areas. This is a hillside subdivision. The site is heavily wooded with Maple, Alder, Cottonwood, Fir and Cedar trees ranging in size from 36 to 48-inches in diameter and is also vegetated with blackberry vines and other forested vegetation. Tracts A and B would have everything removed, Tract C would remain in its vegetated state. Sunset Bluff Preliminary Plat File No.: LUA-04-002, PP. ECF December 20, 2004 Page 4 160,000 cubic yards of earthwork activities have been proposed in order to get the correct grades for the building pads. The Examiner inquired as to the existence of a Wildlife survey addendum. Mr. Halinen stated that they did have that and it would be submitted later today. As part of the proposed development, cuts up to 30 feet and fills of up to 20 feet thick are planned in order to provide level building pads and moderately sloped roadways. The geotechnical report recommends that the applicant be required to maintain a 25-foot building setback from the top or the toe of any 50% plus proposed slope. There are no known coal mine hazards in the vicinity of the site. As required by Code, staff directed the applicant to have the geotechnical report reviewed by a secondary geotechnical engineering consulting firm. This was done on February 8, 2004 and their analysis concluded that the initial analysis was sufficient, provided that one additional condition be placed on the project, which requires additional embedment, erosion protection or both be utilized for the lower rocks within the proposed rockeries. In order to minimize the impact to the P-1 Channel and the City of Renton's Black River Riparian Forest and the heron rookery within the public open space south of the proposed development, staff recommends that the applicant be required to construct a solid six-foot high wood fence beginning at the most western property line and ending at the northeastern property line. Traffic, Park and Fire Mitigations fees are proposed. The site is located within the boundaries of the Renton School District. The School District has indicated that they can accommodate the additional students. The drainage report shows that there are several culverts along SW Sunset Blvd that drain into the specific site and some drain directly into Tract C, there are two culverts that go under the railroad tracks that drain into the Black River Riparian Forest wetland area. The stormwater will be routed through a series of pipes and catch basins into a large stormwater detention pond located within proposed Tract B.The project is subject to the 1998 King County Surface Water Design Manual A homeowner's association or maintenance agreement for any shared utilities including the drainage facility should be established with review by the Development Services Division. The applicant is also required to landscape around the water quality detention facility. The proposed plat is within the City of Renton Water and Sewer service areas. The developer will be required to install and extend the City's water main for fire protection and domestic water service. The site is also served by the City of Renton sanitary sewer system, however, the applicant will be required to extend the City's sewer main or construct a sanitary sewer lift station. Staff recommends approval of this preliminary plat subject to six conditions. Ivana Halvorsen, Project Planner, Barghausen Consulting Engineers, 18215 720 Avenue South,Kent, WA 98032 stated that the applicant generally concurs with the staff report that the project meets both the Renton City Code as well as RCW 58.17.110. • Sunset Bluff Preliminary Plat File No.: LUA-04-002, PP, ECF December 20, 2004 Page 5 The 65 proposed lots have been centered on the site to make the project the most consistent in terms of access, providing gradual roadways rather than very steep roadways, as well as providing lots that are buffered from the rather busy highway of SR 900. The staff report states that proposed road grades range from 1-15%, the maximum proposed slope at this time is actually l2% grade for the roadway and the emergency access slope is less that 12%. On sheet one of eleven, the legal description should be updated with a new boundary line adjustment, the new recording number is: 2004-03-11900015 recorded March 11, 2004. The boundary adjustment removes the vegetative buffer between the site and SW Sunset Blvd. The Examiner inquired if this was no longer a part of the plat, then whose property is it? Mr. Jordan stated it is not part of the plat, it is a Tract that belongs to SR 900 LLC and they are responsible for it. The City did approve this boundary adjustment. Mr. Halinen stated that on Exhibit 27 it has been noted that a native growth easement has been imposed on this Tract subject to a water main easement shown on the drawing. Ms. Halvorsen stated that the Renton School District has worked with them to determine bus stop locations and walking conditions for students. Students on this side of SW Sunset Blvd are all bussed, there are existing bus stops at both Empire Apartments as well as Sun Pointe Townhomes. The school district stated that they would have a new bus stop to serve children of this plat. The Examiner inquired as to what was required of this property as far as improvements along Sunset? Mr. Jordan stated that they are required to do traffic improvements up the intersection of the new roadway from the southeastern corner of the site up to the new roadway where it intersects with SW Sunset Blvd, they will be required to provide improvements along that portion of the subject site. The Examiner inquired as to why not west of there? Mr. Jordan stated the ERC determined that the subject site no longer abuts SW Sunset Blvd due to the lot line adjustment and the other reason what they thought there was a safety concern there that the sidewalk continuing along that portion of SW Sunset Blvd due to traffic patterns in that area. He referred the rest to Traffic and/or Kayren Kittrick. Ms. Halvorsen referred to the native growth protection easement in Tract C, the staff report incorrectly states that all of Tract C will be set aside as a native growth protection easement. There is a delineated hatched area that is the native growth protection area which comprises 4.7 acres and what has been excepted from the native growth protection area is approximately 50 feet south of SW Sunset Blvd that is necessary for grading to accommodate frontage improvements and sight distance issues. The staff report indicates the emergency access to the west of the Quarry Industrial Park site down to Monster Road, the Quarry Industrial Park site is a Merlino Family Limited Liability Company, SR 900 LLC is also a Merlino Family Limited Liability Company, they are separate companies but they work closely together and there is an absolute agreement that the easement will be granted from Quarry Industrial Park LLC to the City of Renton for the purpose of the emergency access route. There was some question as to the length of cul-de-sac and length of the emergency access road, based on the profiles based within plans, the cul-de-sac road is approximately 2,200 feet in length from it's beginning at SW Sunset Bluff Preliminary Plat File No.: LUA-04-002, PP, ECF December 20, 2004 Page 6 Sunset Blvd to the center line of the cul-de-sac. The emergency access road is 2,700 feet from the centerline of the cul-de-sac to its terminus on Monster Road SW. The Examiner inquired about the location of the stormwater detention pond. There are water quality reasons to have an open water pond at the bottom of the slope, but also the fact that we are clearing a huge amount of acreage adjacent to a sensitive heron rookery whether we are within a window of 900 feet or 1,000 feet. What is the potential of putting the detention pond under the road, up on the top of the slope leaving the forest in this area and as a planning concept we would be saving trees, we would not be clearing about a third of the property, does it work? Ms. Halvorsen stated that Hal Grubb from their office has taken a little bit of extra time to evaluate other alternatives to the open pond scenario from a land use point of view would the impact be less, perhaps. When you have underground systems on a terrain that is sloped consistently in one direction the ability to get the required amounts of cover on the uphill and downhill side of an underground structure creates problems. The project is not adjacent to the heron rookery, there is an intervening property. The Examiner stated that birds are sensitive. They are birds,they are not people so we can't ask them if a thousand feet makes a difference or 900 feet makes a difference, from a land use prospective, providing more landscape buffer or not cutting down every tree within the pond area at the lower portion of the slope might protect the birds a little more. Ms. Halvorsen stated that she could not answer that, she didn't know what the birds like either. Hal Grubb has evaluated the conditions of the site and this layout provides a terraced type of development. The pond is put at the lower end of the site because the drainage goes to the lower end of the site. Hal Grubb, Civil Engineer, Barghausen Consulting Engineers, 18215 72°d Avenue S, Kent, WA 98032 stated that he would like to clarify a few items related to the engineering aspects of the project especially the stormwater alternatives, on the thought of looking at some underground alternatives options as opposed to an above ground open storm pond facility. This subject property with the grades that it has on the existing topography of the site, there were a number of concepts of how to lay out the site that could accommodate the goals and codes that are imposed. The location of the roadway as it is depicted provides a connection to SR 900 that gives the best flexibility for the elevation of the roadway internal to the plat in relation to the existing ground. The purpose of the location of the connection and plan view was to provide a connection on the SR 900 that is low in elevation, allows us to have an elevation that is starting lower than if it was uphill further. There was a thought of doing the connection opposite of Oakesdale, the problem is that it is higher in elevation, it's also a whole lot closer to the first row of lots are,the problem is we are further up in the air. The connection location was the most desirable because of the grades on site,the grades on site being the goal to get the grades to dive down as quick as possible so they are at the existing ground elevation to do a row of lots on each side of the roadway. The intent to have the least grading impact is to provide a proposed roadway profile that closely matches the existing profile as much as possible. Sight distance criteria must be met on proposed roadway profiles, you cannot go up too fast or down too fast without being in conflict with the State's guidelines for sight distance. The horizontal configuration works with the existing grades, the grading that goes along with this roadway is to cut into the bank on the uphill lots with cuts about 30 feet,there was earlier testimony about some 70 foot cuts which is not correct. The fills get up to almost 35 feet in depth.The storm drainage control system that accommodates the project must accommodate erosion control measures on a temporary basis and then permanent detention of water quality measures under a permanent basis. Sunset Bluff Preliminary Plat File No.: LUA-04-002, PP, ECF December 20, 2004 Page 7 When the site is graded, there needs to be temporary erosion control pond facilities that meet the manual's requirements. On a steep site it is fairly difficult to do, what the pond does being down on the low part of the site, it would be roughed in before all the mass grading is done on site, any runoff that occurs in a storm event would flow into this pond facility and provide erosion control measures in accordance with the King County Manual. The option of putting the permanent facility underground, the volumes do not change. The vaults have to be flat to work, a typical vault that can be built under a loading condition or traffic bearing conditions, is usually around 20 feet wide, the problem is there is a road that could handle a vault about 20 feet vide and that barely leaves room for utilities to pass around it, water, sewer, etc. A vault of that width with a fairly deep section, 10-11 feet deep,you would need about six vaults that are about 200 feet long that must be flat in profile and width, those six vaults would have to be laid out in this profile to accommodate a minimum one foot of cover over the vault and a maximum of seven foot of cover. That is if the lots are graded flat with the roadway, on the downhill lots where you have a daylight basement, it requires more vaults on the downhill side to accommodate downspouts, drains that are lower than the roadway. Those vaults would need to be in the backyards of the downhill lots which limits to a 25-foot setback. To put the storm system in an underground system is very difficult to put in that many vaults. It is possible to do some vaults up above and a smaller pond. Some of the trees might be saved. The grading for the lots takes up quite a bit of area. The toe of the slope of the fill, and the reason for the retaining walls is to take up some of that area. The bigger these facilities are the more efficient they appear to work. Our recommendation is to go with a long skinny pond to limit the grading and better water quality, there is a long way from the inlet pipe to the outlet pipe. Mr. Grubb showed the plat with cross sections for roadways and why the roads need to be where they have been proposed. There are a series of rockeries that are stair-stepped, this was found to be the most stable. Off-site, the emergency access road when it goes beyond the cul-de-sac, the alignment for that is under review at the present time. Mr. Halinen stated that an additional Hydrology Analysis Assessment was done on April 19, 2004. It is being submitted today to support the proposition that appropriate and adequate provisions for drainage have been made as relates to the plat. There were questions raised by the SEPA appellants, Heron's Forever, concerning drainage. Grubb stated that underground vaults are very expensive,the cost of six vaults would be close to $1.2 and 2.5 million for construction costs. The vault system is the best way to go, but the cost is often prohibitive. The ponds as proposed here with these rockery retaining walls added is probably a$150 to $200 thousand facility. The King County Storm Drainage Manual allows a couple methods of water quality treatment,the most common is a wet pond, that means a pond that has at least three feet deep standing water in it at all times, unless it evaporates during the summer,that is not meant to gravity drain out. Kevin L. Jones, P.E., Sr. Transportation Engineer, The Transpo Group, 11730 118th Ave NE, Suite 600, Kirkland, WA, 98034 stated that he was the person responsible for the traffic survey submitted in this project. Upon further questioning by Mr. Halinen, he responded that it is preferred to align new access roads with existing roadways, however, given the constraints described earlier, it was recommended that the roadway be shifted east. The location identified was appropriate because it meet the Washington State DOT, as well as the City of Renton requirements for sight distance. in looking at intersections that are offset, the preferred situation is similar to this one where the road is offset by approximately 200 feet from the existing road. This offset situation does meet State standards. Sunset Bluff Preliminary Plat File No.: LUA-04-002, PP, ECF December 20, 2004 Page 8 Draft plans for the proposed channelization at the access point were submitted to WASHDOT for review and comment, there has been no response as of today. The Examiner inquired as to the pedestrian pass through. Mr. Jones replied that the City's intent was to provide not so much a formalized pedestrian crossing with cut mit sections accommodating wheel chairs, etc., instead the intent was to provide a raised median so that if a pedestrian was to choose to cross the roadway, there would be some buffer of protected area for them to get across, without the median mid street,the crossing would be very difficult. The speed limit on Sunset adjacent to the site is 35 M.P.H., it changes to 50 just west of 80th Ave S. All that was taken into consideration when the recommendation was made for the crossing. A raised median is a measure that provides safe harbor for the pedestrian. Mr. Halinen asked to comment on the fence issue discussed by Mr. Jordan. The issue was left open as to where the fence might be placed, on the southern boundary, or behind the property lines or somewhere in between. At this point it seems that the fence may be located along the south boundary, it may well be a chain link fence along the back edge of the lots. For safety considerations and considerations relating to the pond and storm water, but it seems that a chain link fence along the back of the lots should suffice for keeping kids off the slope and out of the pond. Theresa Dusek, Barghausen Engineering, 18215 72"d Ave S, Kent, WA 98032 stated that she was the biologist who created several of the documents that are being presented today. She started visiting the Sunset Bluff site in the spring of 2000 and is the author of the Wetland Delineation Report dated August 29, 2000. That document indicates that there are two wetlands on the site, one located along the eastern portion of the site along the south boundary, the second is a larger pond area located offsite and approximately three acres in size. The wetland is a Category 1 wetland because of its size, component of open water and the component of scrub shrub material in the wetland system. It must have a 100' buffer along the western edge down to the wetland. There will be 200-250' variable in the northeasterly and north directions. Part of this is for steep slope issues, however this entire area which totals out to approximately 4.5 acres will be set aside as native growth protection easement. The other wetland area is located along the southern boundary towards the west, it is not regulated by the City, the applicant has opted not to fill this wetland but to leave it in place In addition to the wetland issues,there has been some concern regarding the area near Lot 60, a report indicated that there were moist and wet soils within a foot and a half of the surface. This entire site has been looked at for wetland plant material. For wetland delineation, a smaller hole is dug, about 18-20"deep,the soils are identified to see if they are actually saturated soils, meaning that all core spaces are filled. That condition was not found on this site anyplace other than the Class 1 wetland and the small non-regulated wetland. There is a stream on site that is between Oakesdale Avenue and 80th, that stream comes down the site. crosses under an existing roadway and then flows down the hillside at a fairly steep angle. It has been identified as a Class 4 stream because it appeared that the stream had no fish bearing capacity and does not discharge to fish bearing waters down stream. In addition she is the author of the Habitat and Wildlife Assessment and Stream Study Report dated January 9, 2004 for this site. This report outlines the condition of the site and identifies the wetlands,the stream corridor and the forested condition on the site. Exhibit 38 was entered which shows distances from the polygon on the map and distance from that polygon edge to the site. The polygon follows the edge of the trees, including the entire tree,not just the nest. As it heads to the north it takes in a tree that has had herons nesting in it in 1989 and 2000 and then comes around and takes in the nest colony on the island. There have been no heron nests in the polygon area this last year or the Sunset Bluff Preliminary Plat File No.: LUA-04-002, PP, ECF December 20, 2004 Page 9 previous spring, however, there is a tree next to the pump station that has been known to have herons nesting in it, it's unknown if there are herons nesting in it currently. Most of the nests are located on the south end of the trees, there are a few that are on the north end, that entire area is included in the polygon. Distances on this indicate approximately 1,000 feet to the property line,the distance to the nearest lot line is approximately 980 feet to the south property line. Mr. Halinen submitted for the record Exhibit 39, A Great Blue Heron Assessment Report by Dr. Ken Radkhe. Mrs. Dusek indicated that her report for the Wildlife Habitat Assessment and the Stream Study Report discusses the herons, identifies where they are located,their distance from the site and evaluates some general impacts based on what's been known about surrounding properties and this particular heron rookery. Mr. Radkhe's report is a more updated report that has information regarding this rookery that has been studied up to 2002. In her January 9 Wildlife Habitat Report she reviews the issues such as distance to the heron colony and distances that past projects have been to the heron colony when being constructed.It also discusses information regarding the buffering of the trees, potential noise impacts, the neighborhood domestic impacts that people have been concerned about and the use by these 65 homes of their residence of the open space park, which is a public park for use by City of Renton residents. Deterrents for people coming onto the site is the fence area at the back side of the lots or the storm water pond or the south side of the property, the other is the railroad grade, the next is a fence that is located south of the railroad grade, it does have two opening to allow railroad personnel to be able to access and to allow many of the local residents also access in there and go to the Class I wetland which many of them do to review and look at the herons in a closer situation while they are feeding. From the railroad grade which is about 100 feet wide there is another area that has been cleared and filled back in 1987, it's a distance of 200-300 feet wide from that area that was cleared in 1987 that is now vegetated with smaller trees, shrubs, also restoration area that's been planted along those fills, then the fill slope drops down approximately 5-8 feet and is filled with concrete, asphalt and other kinds of debris, then it drops down into a depressional overflow type wetland. The wetland system has two areas that it overflows. The depression area is filled with Pacific Willow, as you move out of the wetland and into the protected forest area and into the P-1 forebay, a detention facility constructed in approximately 1984, to protect from back flooding from the Green River and also to work and function as a storm water detention facility for all of the developments out here in the Black River and River Tech corporate park areas. The depression area is likely a part of the old Black River channel that was abandoned years ago and is a remnant of that. On the north side of the pump station there is a trail, gravel roadway,that comes around following the south side of the railroad grade,continues all the way around until the dead end cul-de-sac of Naches. This is a signed public trail originally constructed as a roadway access for the P-1 pump station and is currently used as part of the open space and as a trail. There are designations for no vehicles, no camping, no fires, but no designations for not walking or pets. Last spring and fall it was identified that there are numerous residents of City of Renton that utilize that trail system. Several of the individuals indicated that they do walk their pets,they are leashed due to the coyotes that are in that area. To the west of the Springbrook Creek there is a Black River Trail that is part of the interurban trail system that goes from the Pacific Algona area all the way up through and into the Renton/Tukwila area. Bicyclers occasionally use it since that trail where it is paved has a bicycle path, it is mostly used by pedestrians. This trail is approximately 200 feet to the nearest nesting trees for the herons. It is well separated by the P-1 forebay and islands in the P-1 forebay. Sunset Bluff Preliminary Plat File No.: LUA-04-002, PP, ECF December 20, 2004 Page 10 The visible ability to see from the development site to the heron nests during the spring, the largest nest trees are again on the island and during the spring months before the leaves leaf out, one, maybe two nests are visible from Sunset Boulevard (SR 900). Along the railroad grade one nest is visible prior to leaf out, after 1.of out the only place that you can see nests from this side of the site is if you are standing up on SR 900, which is approximately 80 feet higher than where this development is going to occur. The Examiner inquired if you removed all trees from the subject site,Tract A, 65 lots and then Tract B the wetland area, you won't have any trees that leaf out in the spring and summer. Mrs. Dusek stated you still have all the trees that leaf out within the open space. From the railroad grade it is about 30 feet in elevation to where the roadway would be constructed,the existing elevation is about 100 feet. There is about a 70-foot difference. When you are on top of Sunset Blvd you are not looking through those trees on site,there is a gap in Sunset Blvd in the trees that you can see over the top of the site, not through the trees on the site and into the heron rookery. Tract A, which is planned open spaces that will be disturbed and re- vegetated. Hydro-seeding means not just low growing grasses but includes broad forbs, wildflowers, shrub seed which can be plant material up to 20-feet tall. In conclusion there is about 16.33 acres of the site that will be impacted and re-vegetated or left in its natural state. The development portion of the site with the lots and roadways is the remainder of the site. Lunch Break taken at 12:15. At 2:30 p.m. the Hearing Examiner called the hearing back to order, asking for testimony from the general public regarding this proposed plat. Donna Kostka, 2420 30th Avenue West, Seattle, WA 98199 stated that she has a PhD in Outdoor Recreation Planning and Ecology. She is a Certified Ecologist, retired and most important to this hearing she has direct experience with the Great Blue Heron colony in Kiwanis Ravine. This colony is about the fourth largest in King County and the largest colony in the City of Seattle. It is very important to consider the views of the birds. People today have used language such as"no visual impacts". Cottonwood trees grow 75-100 feet tall. When the birds look out,their eye view is going to be of what is happening on the slope. In the City of Seattle,the written opinion of the Hearing Examiner was dated November 27, 2002. The situation involved the heron colony in Kiwanis Ravine, a four-story condominium building was proposed an estimated 1,000 feet from the colony and would contain a rooftop garden. It was stated that the garden would be potentially disturbing to the colony. It was determined that the rooftop garden be forgiven and the money it would have cost was instead given to a neighborhood goodwill project. The Development Services Department suggested it be put into some street islands,the heron group appealed and suggested instead that the money be put into Kiwanis Ravine which needed some restoration work. The Hearing Examiner made a decision that stated that there would be the elimination of the rooftop garden and that the $30,000 would go toward restoration in Kiwanis Ravine. SEPA conditions further stated that there would be tree removal, construction of fences and external construction between February 1 and July 31. Matt Mega, Seattle Audubon Society, 8050 35th Avenue NE, Seattle, WA 98115 stated that lie is a professionally licensed Land Use Planner and trained as a landscape architect. He was here to insure the proposed Sunset Bluff development does not adversely impact the heron colony and the entire Black River Riparian Forest, but also to raise awareness to some of the bigger picture issues. In the last 10 years Renton has grown by 20%, with just over 50,000 people. While it is important for the City to grow, it is important to remember why people choose Renton as a place to live. The Black River Riparian Forest is a critical element in attracting new residents to the City and insuring a high quality of life. As a citizen of King County,as an Sunset Bluff Preliminary Plat File No.: LUA-04-002, PP, ECF December 20, 2004 Page 11 employee of an organization that to preserve quality of a habitat and most importantly as a professional land use planner, it baffles me to see this development proposal go forward as is. The best evidence as to why this proposal should not go forward conies from the City of Renton itself, on page 3 of the Staff Report it states, "the site is heavily wooded, trees ranging in size from 36"-40" in diameter with other forest vegetation would be removed during site activities. Earthwork activities are estimated at 160,000 cubic yards, the extensive grading activities proposed on site will result in roadway grading ranging from 1% to 15% (corrected to 12% this morning)" These issues are critical pieces as to why this should not go forward. The only way to reduce the environmental impact of this site is to do a better job working with the site. We should be asking ourselves, since the site is adjacent to a protected forest with a regionally unique heron colony, how do we develop the site to reduce the risk of impact and insure this local treasure is not lost. The City should take the responsibility and send the developer back to the drawing board and demonstrate a less disturbing plan. This is highly unlikely, so lie has prepared a few detailed suggestions. The lower one-third of the site should be kept undisturbed. Existing vegetation throughout the site should be preserved. Stormwater should be managed to the extent feasible to mimic existing conditions. To accomplish these goals the site would need to have the homes clustered at the upper portion of the site, this may mean fewer units, however, a buffer will be preserved between the development and the heron colony which will be a proactive measure to avoid negative impacts. In the Mayor's State of the City Address on February 2004, she stated that growth is good for the City, but "we have reached a point when we don't have to settle for whatever we get, we will foster development that will compliment what is special and unique to the City of Renton". There is nothing more unique than the largest heron colony in the region, but the adjacent development that increases the risk to this colony is certainly settling for something less than desirable. He would also like to see performance bonds put up by the builder to insure all the geotech issues that have been brought up today, to insure that hydro-seeding will include shrubs and forbs that were mentioned earlier, and lastly to insure that the $8 million of public investment for the heron colony, that if in fact, this development does adversely affect the colony, the City, County and the State could recover some of those dollars. Michael Hamilton, 20418 NE 21st Street, Sammamish, WA 98074 stated that he recently went to the Black River Riparian forest to first, check on the usage of the trail along the north side of the forest and have rarely seen any person there except for evidence of homeless people. He has seen tents on both the developer's property and the ground of the Black River Riparian Forest. There was a statement earlier regarding two heron nests in the clumps of trees nearest to the pump station. Over the last three years there have been no herons nesting in those trees. Today upon examining those trees,there are no heron nests and heron nests do not disappear quickly, so if they were there prior to three years, it was some time. He expressed concern of encroachment by humans into the Riparian Forest,there is easy access right now. Today lie walked to the lowest part of the depression, and got within 100 feet of the P-1 pond in the middle of the forest. The surrounding ground is dry, anyone could make it all the way to the pond and then proceed east or west into the heron area. Becky Stanley, 4108 48''Avenue South, Seattle, stated that she is the conservation chair of the South King County Group of the Sierra Club and that she has a B.S. in Botany from the University of Washington. She is including remarks from Mark Kraft, Kelly Turner, Erin Reilly, Lisa Decker,Judy Brey, Annie Gulik, and Kathy Stanley. The applicant was approached several times with offers to purchase this property for preservation, these offers were ignored. There was a similar situation on Camano Island where a property owner was going to sell his property and then discovered a large heron colony living on the property. He allowed conservation groups to have the time to gather money to purchase the property. Upon hearing about the potential use of this property, the group did research on the applicant, it was alarming and as such they feel that special conditions need to be met by this applicant who has a demonstrated record of soil and water contamination and also of non-compliance in environmental areas. One example was in the late Sunset Bluff Preliminary Plat File No.: LUA-04-002, PP, ECF December 20, 2004 Page 12 '80's at 1950 Maple Valley Highway, Stoneway Concrete Inc. It was discovered that thousands of gallons of contaminated water had been discharged from the concrete plant directly into the Cedar River, this practice occurred for a two year period during which Stoneway was repeatedly ordered by King County regulatory authorities to stop. in 1995 a case US vs. Gary Merlino Construction Inc., and the applicant was fined $70,000 for two clean water act violations. The Examiner asked that the testimony be focused on this site and not what the applicant may or may not have done on other sites in the past. Becky Stanley stated that there was one small connection that later the applicant was found to be polluting the aquifer at that same position. There is a note in Renton's records,a communication between the applicant and the City Attorney that discusses the Sunset Bluff annexation and rezone as a part of the deal to get the applicant to move off of the aquifer. This part of the deal was scratched, at least from Renton's records,but Sunset Bluff was subsequently annexed and rezoned as requested by the applicant. Closer to the Riparian Forest is a concrete recycling plant and about five years ago there was a large runoff from a pipe that runs from the concrete recycling plant down towards the pump station. There was an event that appears to have caused the death of several trees at the end of that pipe. In light of the other issues relating to the applicant it makes us concerned about what might have been coming out of that pipe. The location of the stormwater pipes is very important. There are conditions that they would like to recommend to the plat, the potential owners should be informed about the odors that come from the Renton Sewage Treatment Plant,the applicant should not be allowed to used chemical drying agents or stabilizing agents not limited to, but including ammonia phosphate flyash, lime kiln dust, cement or lime, all these are of a higher ph and these chemicals can alter soil and water quality which can result in harming the natural plant and wildlife in the area. All soils imported to the site should adhere to a clean fill sampling. The plat should be conditioned with strong anti-fireworks rules and enforcement. All yards should have 12" of topsoil added and tilled in before seeding, this helps to reduce runoff. Remove invasive species from the property and replace with native vegetation. Patricia Sumption, Friends of the Green River and Heron's Forever, 10510 11'x'Avenue NE, Seattle, WA 98125 stated that it is not a good idea to be doing this development this close to the heron colony. That would be the preferred alternative,to just not have the development occur at this place. There are already some developments at the north side and along Sunset Way, those existing development are impacting the heron colony. The herons are moving their nests away from those existing developments, if another development goes in, basically in the same area, you will be adding to the impact that the herons seem to be avoiding,they don't like being as close or any closer than they are now to development. There is concern about taking out native soils, making cuts in the hillside, to have the least impact on the herons the slope should be maintained as natural as possible in terms of hydrology and in the profile of the slope. It appears that the intent of the applicant is to remove almost every tree that is on the site, they don't want trees on the north side of the property because one might fall on a house, and they don't want trees on the south side, of any size. It is necessary to consider what is best for the herons, it's what the herons see, the heron colony could be at eyelevel with the people living on the hillside. This could affect all wildlife, not just the herons. The impact of noise is going to increase and should be kept below the maximum level that can be tolerated by the herons. We heard today that there is a stream coming into the western part of the site that stream runs into the pond and if that is true,then there is an outlet to the pond, either the stream continues on somewhere, or it seeps into the ground and becomes part of the ground water which connects ultimately to the Green /Duwamish River. So whether or not that stream has fish in it, it is part of a system that has fish in it including threatened Chinook Salmon and the water quality that is impacted by that stream or by any other stream or ground water coming down off this site is going to have an effect on streams and rivers with fish. Sunset Bluff Preliminary Plat • File No.: LUA-04-002, PP, ECF December 20, 2004 Page 13 It should be required that the hydro-seeding in the upper north corner should be done with native plants rather than lawn seed. The water detention pond could contribute to the insect population, and people living in these new homes could begin intensive spraying for these insects which then leads to more pollution and other issues in regards to the herons and other wildlife in the area. We need to respect the fact that citizens from all over King County love the herons and want to go and watch them, the money for this was not just the City of Renton, it was from people all over King County, people want to make sure they are preserved when you get a good look at them. Brenda Buchanan, 10840 14`x' Avenue South, Seattle, WA stated that the proposed project makes drastic changes to the topography and water runoff of the area and these changes would adversely affect the unique heron colony and other wildlife adjacent to the property. The developer is not very good at keeping to the laws, in today's case, they are not in good faith even planning on keeping to those laws. They don't want to build a sidewalk for public safety, it's difficult to build a daylight basement, when they say difficult, it means that it costs more money, even though it might be better for the community. There should be an impartial third party retained to oversee the environmental mitigation to protect that$8 million investment in the area. The City of Renton does so much business with Mr. Merlino, it does not seem that they could be impartial in this case. In clearing the areas for the construction of the homes, the wildlife living in that area currently, if they survive the clearing, etc, will have to move somewhere, will most likely move downhill and into the Riparian Forest and that will put further pressure on the herons and their habitat. Suzanne Krom, Heron's Forever, 4715-1/2 - 36`x' Avenue SW, Seattle, WA 98126 stated that she represents Heron's Forever, founded 1989 to protect the resident coastal Great Blue Heron colony in the Black River Riparian Forest. Black River is home to the largest Great Blue Heron colony in King, Snohomish and Pierce Counties. Because of this colony, Black River has become one of the most valuable pieces of property in Renton, with 135 active nests it contains almost 6% of the State's total population of the sub-species. The 65- home development proposed for this hillside is too large, because of the steep unstable slopes and its close proximity to the heron colony. The hillside is critically important to the health of Black River. Herons at this Black River colony are the only ones that have been observed defending their young from eagles and hawks. Herons at other colonies typically flee instead of taking a strong defensive response. An accurate habitat assessment should be required to fully evaluate the potential for significant adverse impacts to the Black River and its critical areas. A letter dated April 8, 2004 was sent to City of Renton from King County Council members in which they requested a thorough environmental review of the development,they urge Renton to carefully consider the impacts this development could have on the large Great Blue Heron colony populating the Black River. They remind Renton that this site was funded in large part by King County tax dollars and have a vested interest in seeing that the property is adequately protected. The Great Blue Heron depend on this hillside,they were seen this past Sunday flying from the protected forest to the hillside. They use the large wetland at the southeastern edge of the proposed Sunset Bluff development for feeding and resting. New fledglings use the wetland as a training ground for learning how to hunt for food. This hearing represents the culmination of 15 years of work with this site. Land use is not her expertise, nor it marketing, grant writing, publicity or heading up a board or a community organization. She is here because this site is about life and the importance it holds for the community. it needs to be treated well so it will flourish forever and so that our taxpayer money that was used to buy it was money well spent. Suzanne Krom spoke to some of the comments she had heard during the hearings, including the number of people that are visiting the site, she has seen only one other person in all the trips she has made to the site; screening referred to by biologist is marginal in winter and early spring when the herons are the most skittish; Sunset Bluff Preliminary Plat File No.: LUA-04-002, PP, ECF December 20, 2004 Page 14 hillside is used to collect twigs and foraging for the herons, they do not like to travel far for these things; and, in Exhibit 38, the western most nest is under the"N" not the "R" as previously stated. The Black River Riparian Forest is the best of what is left, if this colony is compromised the numbers will go down because there is no habitat to support a colony of this size. If and when that hillside is cleared,there should be great caution in terms of when the clearing takes place. You don't want to clear during nesting season or other sensitive times. Fencing should be placed close to the homes to protect the forest area. Would like to appeal to City Council to ask that the public access to the north entrance be closed off to protect the heron colony. The following is a list of recommendations: clustering units in the northern corner of the site, impose a seasonal construction window between January 15 and July 31, insure that pre-development water quantities and quality leaving the hillside do not change, surface water runoff to the Black River Riparian Forest should remain at predevelopment levels, hydroperiod data collector should be done for one water year(October to October), retain existing vegetation and plant conifers, 6' high fence on three sides of the site leaving the side along Sunset Blvd open, wood fence is preferred because it is difficult to climb, a homeowner's association should inspect the fence twice a year and repairs made, the emergency road should be gated, performance bond for 5 gears, developer installed landscaping should include native plants, no mosquito abatement should be allowed near any of the wetlands or the Black River property, establish a buffer of 150' around the wetland near the eastern edge of the proposal, minimize outdoor lighting and shield light fixtures to direct light and glare away from the Black River Riparian Forest, woody debris should be retained on site for the use by the herons when constructing their nests. The Examiner inquired if a tree survey had been done and Mr. Jordan stated that the tree survey was waived for the preliminary plat,the applicant met with the principal planner and they decided that since the site was so heavily forested the time and cost involved would be prohibitive, they did a general canopy cover area using aerial photos and from that they highlighted the areas that would not be cleared. A tree survey is required by code, but it also allows it to be waived under certain conditions. Theresa Dusek stated that there were a few brief issues she wished to provide rebuttal on; on Exhibit 38 Ms. Krom mentioned the location of the west end of that Exhibit. On the original exhibit, that end of the system was not closed, for purposes of discussion there was a hand written approximation of where that was, if the furthest nests are under the"H" or the"N" is insignificant at this time. They were looking at the actual trees, not just the nest sites. The other issue was the western most tree near the P-1 pump station that there has never been any nesting in that location, in the Jones and Stokes report done in 1991 for status of the herons provided to the City of Renton, that was to look at why the herons were abandoning these area was because of the eagles. There were several locations on that particular island where they were trying to nest and that is circled on Exhibit 38. Entered Exhibits 49, 50 and 51 to give some perspective on things being discussed. On 49 what looks like a road is actually a trail along the north side of the heron colony in the open space. The bottom photo on the page is the fill slope face before you enter into the depressional wetland area about 10 feet west of the eastern most culvert that crosses under the railroad tracks. Exhibit 50 shows the dirt road that is located on the Sunset Bluff property and it is a view to the west. The second photo gives a perspective of the trees located on the site. Exhibit 51 shows the very western most point of the project near the lots that are closest to the heron colony, near where the cul-de-sac goes off site. Several of the trees have actually been chocked to death by the ivy growing in the area. Suzanne Krom stated that she had gone back to the north side of Tract C, where the railroad tracks are located, between the tracks and the heron colony and she almost never sees anyone in that area,the one time she did see someone this year,they were running their dog off leash. Sunset Bluff Preliminary Plat File No.: LUA-04-002, PP, ECF December 20, 2004 Page 15 Kayren Kittrick, Development Services Division stated that in response to prior questions, standing water in the pond of 3-4 feet, a fence is required. A question was presented in regard to the emergency access road and the 5,000 foot cul-de-sac off site, in response, this happens occasionally when you have properties that are owned by the same entities in some form they can grant themselves or more importantly especially with the cul-de-sac, they will be dedicating that to the City, it is going to become part of the street and road system. This road will have to be securely gated. In addition the emergency access is required by the Fire Department. Sower system will be their determination with the City's approval. As to the sidewalk and crossing, the line was adjusted due to the fact that trying to build a sidewalk would have removed all the trees on that side, and it was preferred that the trees remain. There is no sidewalk further to the west, there will be sidewalks built towards the City of Renton, the east, it appears that there is a bus stop in that vicinity. Jason Jordan, stated that he had no changes at this point. The Examiner called for further testimony regarding this project. There was no one else wishing to speak, and no further comments from staff. The hearing closed at 4:25 p.m. FINDINGS, CONCLUSIONS & RECOMMENDATION Having reviewed the record in this matter,the Examiner now makes and enters the following: FINDINGS: 1. The applicant, SR900 LLC, filed a request for a Preliminary Plat that would create 65 single family lots on an approximately 26.26 acre parcel. 2. The two appeals were filed objecting to the Determination of Non-Significance. Both appeals have been resolved at this time with the City Council upholding the Determination of the ERC. 3. The subject site is located at SW 1100 Sunset Boulevard. The subject site is located on the south side of Sunset. The majority of the site is west of Powell Avenue SW if it were extended south. 4. While it would appear that the subject site has a long frontage along Sunset Boulevard, the City approved a lot line adjustment that separated the majority of the subject site from its frontage along Sunset. This action will preserve the trees and shrubs in this area but no frontage improvements will be done to this section of Sunset Boulevard. 5. The subject site is approximately 26.26 acres in size. The subject site is curved or crescent shaped and is approximately 2,400 feet long(east to west)by approximately 600 feet deep although it tapers to a very narrow point at its eastern end. The lot line adjustment noted above severed a large portion of the site's frontage along Sunset Boulevard creating a very long and very narrow separate lot. 6. The subject site is located in two zoning districts. The majority of the site(25.18 acres), predominantly the northern and western portions of the site, is zoned R-10 (Residential; 10 dwelling units per acre). The southeastern corner of the site (1.08 acres) is zoned RC (Resource Conservation). 7. The rezone of the site was accompanied by a development agreement. That agreement requires amongst other things, the construction of a 6-foot fence along the south side of the development for the length of the development. It also provides that the development contain not more than 69 detached single-family housing units. Sunset Bluff Preliminary Plat File No.: LUA-04-002, PP, ECF December 20, 2004 Page 16 8. The map element of the Comprehensive Plan designates the area in which the subject site is located as suitable for the development of residential options and rural residential uses, but does not mandate such development without consideration of other policies of the Plan. 9. The subject site was annexed to the City with the adoption of Ordinance 4891 enacted in February 2001. 10. The subject site has a heavy tree cover. The staff report stated: "The site is heavily treed and is considered to be a second-generation forest (approximately 50 years in age)." (Page 3, Staff Report) "The site is heavily wooded with Maple,Alder, Cottonwood, Fir, and Cedar trees ranging in size from 36-inches to 48-inches in diameter and is also vegetated with blackberry vines and other forested vegetation - most of which would be removed during site preparation activities." (Page 10, Staff Report) 11. The site can be described as a 200 foot high, south-southeast facing slope that descends from Sunset Boulevard to the railroad right-of-way. 12. Staff described the site's slopes as: "The site is characterized by having sensitive and protected slopes ranging from 10 to 50% plus in degree."(Page 3, Staff Report) 13. There was some question about the extent or height of some of the cuts and fills. The staff report contained the following statement: "The grading activity will modify the site slopes, increasing the existing slope gradient from 15% -20%to slopes in the range of 40%- 50%on the south and north sides of the proposed building lots. As a result of the proposed cuts and fills associated with the building pads and road development,the geotechnical report recommends that the applicant be required to maintain a 25-foot building setback from the top or toe of any 50% plus proposed slope." (Page 11, Staff Report) The engineer testified that cuts and fills should be not much more than 30 to 35 feet. 14. Vast grading activity will reshape the entire parcel and remove all vegetation on approximately 20 acres. Staff noted that almost all the vegetation would be removed from the subject site: "As a result of the preliminary plat, the applicant has proposed to remove the majority of the on-site vegetation and perform approximately 160,000 cubic yards of earthwork activity." (Page 3, Staff Report) 15. The proposed lots range in size from approximately 4,000 up to 5,000 square feet. 16. The applicant has proposed three open space and/or utility tracts throughout the site that will total over 16 acres. Tract A is proposed to be a 3.8-acre open space tract located north of the proposed lots and south of SW Sunset Boulevard. Tract B is proposed to be a 7.32-acre water quality detention facility. That Tract is located south of the proposed lots and north of the southern property boundary. Tract C is approximately 5.2 acres located in the southeastern corner of the site and contains regulated slopes and a Sunset Bluff Preliminary Plat File No.: LUA-04-002, PP, ECF December 20, 2004 Page 17 wetland. The applicant has proposed to leave much of Tract C in a native growth protection easement but a portion of it would be graded to accommodate frontage improvements access and sight distance concerns. Tracts A and B would have all vegetation removed. 17. Access to the site would be via a new street intersecting Sunset Boulevard from the south. The new street would be located between Powell Avenue SW and Oakesdale Avenue SW. Both Powell and Oakesdale intersect Sunset Boulevard from the north. The new street would be a 42-foot wide public right-of-way. It would intersect with SW Sunset Boulevard in the northeastern corner of the site. The road would be a dedicated public street. It would terminate in a proposed cul-de-sac located off site on the adjacent quarry property and then continue with a 20-foot emergency access road down to Monster Road SW. Staff indicated that the cul-de-sac would have to be dedicated also. While the parties preferred to align the new roadway with one of the roads north of Sunset, sight distance constraints as well as topographical constraints generally favored the proposed location. The offset is approximately 200 feet from the existing intersection. This offset situation does meet State standards. 18. Approximately 5.68 acres of the site are deducted for roads, high landslide hazards area, sensitive slopes and wetlands (page 7, Staff Report) arriving at a net acreage of 20.58 acres. The proposal for 65 units on the site would arrive at a net density of 3.2 du/acre. This would not meet the minimum density requirement in the R-10 Zone. But those minimum requirements may be varied if the applicant can show that the density cannot be achieved due to sensitive slopes. The site is affected by steep slopes and wetlands. 19. There will be two tiers of lots aligned along the north and south side of the access road. Staff noted that all of the lots exceed the minimum lot width and depth requirement for the R-10 zone with single-family residences. Since Proposed Lot 39 abuts property designated RC on the City's zoning map that lot requires a 25-foot setback. 20. The proposed emergency access road was constructed without permits from King County. It is under review. A geotechnical study specifically addressed this proposed emergency access. Staff noted that it would have to meet geotechnical requirements and all the applicable City building permit requirements. 21. This proposal is a hillside subdivision that suggests that larger lots may be necessary to work around the steeper terrain. The geotechnical report recommends that the applicant be required to maintain a 25-foot building setback from the top or the toe of any 50% plus proposed slope. There were other geotechnical conditions imposed by the ERC that will have to be complied with by the applicant. 22. The site is located within the boundaries of the Renton School District. The development would generate approximately 25 students. The School District has indicated that they can accommodate the additional students. 23. There are culverts along SW Sunset Blvd that channel water under the roadway and onto the subject site. Culverts at the bottom of the subject site's slope drain under the railroad tracks that drain into the Black River Riparian Forest wetland area. The applicant proposes that all stormwater be routed through a series of pipes and catch basins into a detention pond located in Tract B. The 1998 King County Surface Water Design Manual will govern this project. 24. The Category 1 wetland of approximately 4.5 acres will be retained. While it requires a 100 foot buffer, more will be preserved due to the slopes adjacent to it. It will be set aside as native growth protection easement. Another wetland area is located near the southwest and while not regulated by the City it will be retained. Sunset Bluff Preliminary Plat File No.: LUA-04-002, PP, ECF December 20, 2004 Page 18 25. A stream flows through the site in the vicinity of Oakesdale Avenue. It does not appear to support any fish and is classified as a Class 4 stream. The corridor will be preserved although the access road will cross it. 26. The applicant's witness indicated that Tract A, the open space above the plat lots, could be planted with more than just grass and suggested forbs, wild flowers, and shrubs that could grow to 20-feet tall. 27. The site's storm drainage will be managed under King County manual regulations. It was noted that the King County manual, in this regard, treats water as an inert substance to be handled, conveyed and detained but does not deal as effectively with its biological component. Releasing the water in a naturally controlled subsurface manner is different than channeling it over or around compacted soils. The natural ebb and flow of storm water across the subject site and to the riparian forest will be altered and its release rates and quantity will not match the natural conditions. 28. Property north of the subject site across Sunset is located in the City(zoned R-8 (Residential; 8 dwelling units per acre) and in King County, (zoned R-6, Residential). That property is a mix of developed and undeveloped property. Property east of the site is zoned RM-I (Multiple Family) and is developed with multiple family uses. The zoning west is a mix with another City RM-I district with multiple family units and industrially zoned property in King County. A closed quarry is west of the site. The quarry site would provide a route for an emergency access road for the proposed development. 29. The subject site is located within approximately 1,000 to 1,500 feet from the heron colony located in the Black River Riparian Forest, which is a City park. The distance calculations have varied since the colony is a multisided polygon, the main nest tree appears to be abandoned placing the colony slightly outside of what had been its location for a number of years. The colony is a main focus of many residents of the City of Renton as well as nearby residents of King and surrounding counties. People are very concerned that the development of the subject site will jeopardize the colony and scare away the birds. The colony is located south of the bottom of the sloping subject site. Water draining from the subject site recharges the riparian wetland that forms the northern border of the colony area. The heron apparently forage on the subject site's hillside forest and collect twigs and woody debris for nest building. The heron are shy birds and do react to intrusions that come too close to their nest areas. It was noted that this colony appears to react more to disturbances from the north where there is currently more forest cover and generally less anticipated intrusions and seem less disturbed by southerly-based disturbances. 30. This colony represents approximately six percent(6%)of the heron of King County and therefore, it represents a significant colony in terms of size and overall population of heron in the area. 31. The subject site itself is not the primary nesting site for the heron but it appears to be used for foraging and collecting twigs for nest building. Whatever use the heron make of the forested site will be severely altered with the removal of 20 acres of forest vegetation. The removal of the forest and the grading and construction activities on the site will also affect the heron. Reports indicate that the birds were flushed and severely disturbed by logging just south of the railroad tracks at the western edge of the riparian forest area. Anecdotal evidence appears to show that the development of the office park complex at the north end of Naches also caused a reaction in the heron and may be responsible for the colony's move north and west and to their abandoning what has been termed the main nesting tree or colony. Besides the new homes, open space, detention pond, lawn and maybe smaller shrubs will replace Brest vegetation. All of the clearing, grading and construction work will occur at or above the nesting level of the birds. While the maps appear to indicate that this would be out of sight of the nests,the birds will be flying above the nests and the shelter and visual screen and buffer that the upslope forest provided will Sunset Bluff Preliminary Plat File No.: LUA-04-002, PP, ECF December 20, 2004 Page 19 be gone or will be removed possibly during nesting season. In addition,the noise of all of that very heavy construction activity will definitely be heard offsite. 32. A number of witnesses were concerned about the impacts that this development would have on the heron colony that lies south of the subject site. A number of conditions were suggested to avoid or lessen the impact on the heronry. Foremost among the suggestions was that the subject site not be developed. That would deprive the owner of this private property of their right to use and develop the subject site. 33. The range of suggestions were wide and include among other things: Clustering the development and preserving more of the on-site forest and slopes. Managing storm water to retain the natural periodicity of water flow to the riparian forest parkland south of the site was suggested. That no drying agents or stabilizing agents not limited to, but including ammonia phosphate flyash, lime kiln dust, cement or lime, be used that would alter the natural pH of the soils. If soil were imported, that all soils imported to the site should adhere to a clean fill sampling. Fencing should be placed close to the homes to protect the forest area keeping intrusions further from the heronry. Developer installed landscaping should include native plants and that no mosquito abatement should be allowed near any of the wetlands or the Black River property. Outdoor lighting should be minimized and shielded light fixtures used to direct light and glare away from the Black River Riparian Forest. That woody debris be retained on site for the use by the herons when constructing their nests 34. The Washington State Department of Fish and Wildlife as well as another heron expert recommended: A seasonal construction window between January 15 and July 31 to insure that development does not unduly affect the heron during their sensitive reproductive cycle including nest building, egg laying, brooding and fledging. The department has made recommendations for working around heron colonies and they have found that working within approximately 2,600 feet creates problems and recommended 3,200 feet as a distance in which no construction or logging occur. This office does note that such a setback could eliminate most development of this private property. But the witness noted that in an urban setting where the birds were subject to more intrusions that may not be reasonable. In urban King County studies found colonies shrink when there is development within 1,000 feet. The development is not proposed for that close but it is on property ecologically and environmentally closely associated with the riparian forest and heron colony. It was noted that Fish and Wildlife recommendations were based on the best available science. It was also noted that this colony arrives at its nests earlier and some stay a bit later and that the window should accommodate this local variation from other colonies. It was recommended that heavy activity such as clearing the forest and grading the site observe a window of mid-January to the end of July, which does not accommodate fully the late nesters. 35. Mr. Dinkelman for the applicant testified as follows: Sunset Bluff Preliminary Plat File No.: LUA-04-002, PP. ECF December 20, 2004 Page 20 ...The site soils are fairly fine grained, they are moisture sensitive soils. From the get-go it was anticipated that the project would be a summer construction season type project and that's when we felt it would be appropriate to do the earthwork at the site,just because it would allow the soils to be aerated and dried back to optimum moisture at which point they could be compacted, we specified a 95%compaction criteria." 36. In similar hillside sites the ERC and City have imposed conditions similar to the following: "The applicant shall limit site disturbance including clearing, grading, utility, and roadwork activities to occur during the relatively dry months of April through October." This second construction window, it will be noted could correspond and complement the window that would attempt to protect the heron during their nesting activity. 37. The subject site will be served by the City water and sewer systems. 38. The proposed 65 homes would generate approximately 650 additional trips per day on the road system with approximately ten percent of those trips, 65 trips, occurring in the peak hours for commuting traffic. CONCLUSIONS: First, this office concludes that the applicant is entitled to develop the subject site. It is private property and that carries with it an inherent right of use. The issue therefore, would be what is an appropriate use for the subject site given its sensitive terrain features and its sensitive location adjacent to the largest heron colony in King County. 2. The proposed plat will not serve the public use and interest if the heron colony located down slope of the site is not protected from the impacts of the proposed development. The clearing of the forest and the substantial grading that will occur this close to the heron colony will have an affect on that colony. It can be lessened by appropriate mitigation and with some additional conditions. If the applicant is not willing to do at least a minimum amount to avoid affecting the heronry,that a great public resource, the colony, and the public's expenditure of approximately Eight Million Dollars($8,000,000.00)could be jeopardized. The applicant needs to work in conjunction with the heron colony and its nesting needs and activities. it also needs to work on the steep slopes at the appropriate time of the year. The subject site should not be altered when the heron are building nests and laying eggs and fledging their young. Heavy machinery and tree felling will have an affect on the heron. A past attempt to cut trees near the colony resulted in flight behaviors and severely disturbed the birds. It was halted in a timely fashion and did not create long-term problems. The trees on this site are above the nests in the flight view of the birds. The forest is also one that the birds use for gathering materials for nest building. Additionally, we have the applicant's witness testifying that the site's soils should not be disturbed or worked during the normal wet season. The geotechnical engineer himself testified that this was the type of location that would he a dry weather grading project and simply anticipated it would be limited to dry weather grading. Since the heron nesting season overlaps the rainy season to some extent, adjusting work on the site to refrain from working during approximately mid-January to end of July should work. Clearly, this would affect the timing of the project. It might even delay the final occupancy of the project. This is not necessarily unreasonable. Sunset Bluff Preliminary Plat File No.: LUA-04-002, PP, ECF December 20, 2004 Page 21 3. Frankly, and not to deride the applicant's property rights or the need for additional housing in the City, the addition of 65 housing units, in the overall scheme of things is not critical to the City's objectives and goals. While 65 new homes would not be insignificant, when balanced against the potential loss of a critical percentage of the heron in the Puget Sound region, six percent of the county population and one in which the City, County and other governments have invested substantial amounts of money, some caution to try to preserve and protect that colony appears warranted. The investment of funds in the riparian forest cannot be divorced from the heron that occupy that forest. It appears clear that the forest itself was not the motivator for purchasing the habitat in which the heron live. The funds were most likely expended because the heron resided therein. Taking some extra caution and time is appropriate to save this unique resource. 4. While no one can be sure what the impacts will be of the overall development and eventual population change it seems clear that the immensity of the proposed clearing and grading, if not the homes and people will spur some reaction on the part of the heron. Therefore, in order for this proposed plat to serve the public use and interesting in a minimal fashion, the forest and hillside should not be disturbed between January 15 and July 31. 5. The applicant will argue that all mitigation was resolved in their favor by the SEPA appeal. That would be a misreading of the law. SEPA impacts are those that determine whether or not an environmental impact statement is necessary. Projects have impacts that do not have a significant impact on the quality of the environment to the extent that an EIS should be prepared but there are impacts that require mitigation. So while clearing twenty-odd acres and building 65 homes might not require an EIS, those actions do have impacts not only on the subject site but also on the surrounding community. A plat is not without impacts beyond those that weigh heavily on the environment. This plat adjacent to the heronry should be mitigated. This plat located on very steep slopes has impacts which should be mitigated. 6. Given the above discussion, the proposed plat does create additional housing choices in the City. It creates additional housing stock. The proposed plat does meet the minimum requirements of the Zoning Code—the lots meet the dimensional standards. Setback and yard standards will be checked when building permits are submitted. The lots are generally rectangular. The plat does not meet the density standards but flexibility is permissible when the property is constrained by natural features such as steep slopes or other critical areas. The plat generally complies with the housing elements of the Comprehensive Plan. As noted above,the plat does not necessarily meet a variety of the environmental policies where the plat would work in and around the natural contours and minimize the disturbance of the natural slope. 7. It would appear that the proposed roadway system including the emergency access will serve the residents and provide for emergency access once the secondary access road is redesigned and rebuilt to meet existing standards. 8. In addition to the conditions noted above that would create a working window to protect the heron from the worst disturbances of construction,the applicant should also limit the use of any agents to dry or stabilize the soils that would alter the pH of the soils. The applicant shall hydroseed any open space with native forbs, shrubs and wildflowers and not merely grass. The applicant shall plant native vegetation as landscaping on the individual lots or create a homeowners association that requires homeowners to plant and maintain native vegetation. The homeowners association shall provide future residents with information about the heronry and suggest that homeowners use no or limited amounts of herbicides or pesticides on their properties. If soils need to be imported for fills those soils shall be Sunset Bluff Preliminary Plat File No.: LUA-04-002, PP, ECF December 20, 2004 Page 22 tested and found free of contaminants. Outdoor lighting should be minimized and shielded light fixtures shall be used to direct light and glare away from the Black River Riparian Forest. The fence that is required should be constructed as far from the heronry and riparian forest as practical, that is as close to the new homes as possible to provide as large a separator or buffer as possible and to limit intrusion by people and pets. 9. This office will now make another recommendation to the City Council. This office would urge the City Council to overturn the primary recommendation to approve the proposed plat and require the applicant to formulate a design that preserves more of the native vegetation,works with the natural terrain features of the site and clusters the homes. This office urges the City Council to deny the plat because it does not take advantage of the natural amenities of the site in a suitable fashion and does not do nearly enough to attempt to protect the nearby heron colony from the proposed plat's development impacts. The proposed plat merely exploits the site, cutting down most of the trees on approximately 20 acres, severely disturbs the natural contours of the site and does not create a layout of homes designed to work in and around the terrain. This second recommendation is unusual but not unique. In some instances this office has recommended that a project be denied but suggested how it might be modified or conditioned such that it might be appropriate. This recommendation merely reverses that method. RECOMMENDATION: The City Council if it approves the plat, should impose the following conditions on the proposal: 1. The applicant shall comply with the conditions imposed by the ERC modified to reach accord with the applicant on the traffic separator along Sunset Boulevard. 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. 4. The applicant shall hydroseed any open space with native forbs, shrubs and wildflowers and not merely grass. 5. The applicant shall plant native vegetation as landscaping on the individual lots or create a homeowners association that requires homeowners to plant and maintain native vegetation. 6. The homeowners association shall provide future residents with information about the heronry and suggest that homeowners use no or limited amounts of herbicides or pesticides on their properties. 7. If soils need to be imported for fills those soils shall be tested and certified free of contaminants. 8. Outdoor lighting should be minimized and shielded light fixtures shall be used to direct light and glare away from the Black River Riparian Forest. 9. The fence that is required shall be constructed as far from the heronry and riparian forest as practical, that is as close to the new homes as possible. 10. The applicant shall be required to dedicate all necessary public right-of-way and obtain and record the necessary easements for the placement and construction of the cul-de-sac and 20-foot wide emergency Sunset Bluff Preliminary Plat File No.: LUA-04-002, PP, ECF December 20, 2004 Page 23 access roadway prior to or in conjunction with recording the final plat. This condition shall be subject to the review and approval of the Development Services Division. 11. The applicant shall be required to clearly note and show on the construction plans the location of the mailboxes for the proposed residences. In addition, the applicant shall be required to place"NO PARKING" signage near the mailboxes prior to recording the final plat. This condition shall be subject to the review and approval of the Development Services Division. 12. The applicant shall be required to construct a solid six-foot high wood fence beginning at the western most property line and ending at the northeastern property line(adjacent to SW Sunset Boulevard). The fence shall be located south of the proposed single-family lots and the new public right-of-way(Road A) and extent to SW Sunset Boulevard. The condition shall be completed prior to recording the final plat and be subject to the review and approval of the Development Services Division. 13. The applicant shall be required to place"NO PARKING" signage along the 20-foot wide emergency access easement prior to recording the final plat. This condition shall be subject to the review and approval of the Development Services Division. 14. A homeowner's association or maintenance agreement shall be created concurrently with tite recording of the plat in order to establish maintenance responsibilities for all shared improvements within this development including the emergency access roadway. 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 the recording of the final plat. 15. The applicant shall be required to landscape around the water quality/detention facility with native drought-resistant vegetation. This condition shall be completed prior to recording the final plat and be subject to the review and approval of the Development Services Division. ORDERED THIS 20th day of December 2004. r tAx, FRED J. KAUFVN HEARING EXAMINER TRANSMITTED THIS 20th day of December, 2004 to the parties of record: Jason Jordan SR 900 LLC David Halinen 1055 S Grady Way Quarry Industrial Park LLC Halinen Law Offices Renton, WA 98055 9125 10'i'Avenue S 10500 NE 8`11 Street, Ste. 1900 Seattle, WA 98108 Bellevue, WA 98004 Sunset Bluff Preliminary Plat File No.: LUA-04-002, PP, ECF December 20, 2004 Page 24 Kayren Kittrick 1055 S Grady Way David Mann Suzanne Krom Renton, WA 98055 Attorney at Law Herons Forever 1424 Fourth Ave, Ste. 1015 4715-1/2 36'x' Avenue SW Ivana Halvorsen Seattle, WA 98101 Seattle, WA 98126 Project Planner Barghausen Consulting Engineers Hal Grubb Theresa Dusek 18215 72nd Avenue South Civil Engineer Barghausen Consulting Engineers Kent, WA 98032 Barghausen Consulting Engineers 18215 72nd Avenue South 18215 72nd Avenue South Kent, WA 98032 Kent, WA 98032 Kevin L. Jones, P.E. Matt Mega Donna Kostka Sr.Transportation Engineer Seattle Audubon Society 2420 30'x' Avenue W The Transpo Group 8050 35th Avenue NE Seattle, WA 98199 11730 118th Avenue NE, Ste. 600 Seattle, WA 98115 Kirkland, WA 98034 Michael Hamilton Patricia Sumption 20418 NE 21s' Street Becky Stanley 10510 1 ill' Avenue NE Sammamish, WA 98074 4108 48'x' Avenue S Seattle, WA 98125 Seattle, WA Brenda Buchanan 10840 14th Ave S Seattle, WA TRANSMITTED THIS 20th day of December 2004 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 1000of the City's Code, request for reconsideration must be filed in writing on or before 5:00 p.m.,January 3,2005. 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.,January 3,2005. Sunset Bluff Preliminary Plat File No.: LUA-04-002, PP. ECF December 20, 2004 Page 25 If the Examiner's Recommendation or Decision contains the requirement for Restrictive Covenants, the executed Covenants will be required prior to approval by City Council or final processing of the file. You may contact this office for information on formatting covenants. The Appearance of Fairness Doctrine provides that no ex parte(private one-on-one) communications may occur concerning pending land use decisions. This means that parties to a land use decision may not communicate in private with any decision-maker concerning the proposal. Decision-makers in the land use process include both the Hearing Examiner and members of the City Council. All communications concerning the proposal must be made in public. This public communication permits all interested parties to know the contents of the communication and would allow them to openly rebut the evidence. Any violation of this doctrine would result in the invalidation of the request by the Court. The Doctrine applies not only to the initial public hearing but to all Requests for Reconsideration as well as Appeals to the City Council. • -moi'.; i —' ----_--- - R-8 i I 12_Jth__St__ foo I ./// Ir �_ . . _____ z,.._ ..• .. .,„,,,.,_,.,::\_\..._ r__________.,\\ ....._________ i "--'.------- it. \wi `\ c4 h_st._______ \---1 _ _________:,,,, ,,, i .2.,, , , i.,_y__;_. -------,, _________ L.) ___ ,,‘„,..____-_-: ( ____________ i . . N.,....-,, , . : ..... , i , ,x.: r.,_ ,. --....,. -...4 i___________§.11....ro l ..` _:A. � tiii .._NH • R-8<P .i ,� rim/�. 'P� Q @ t-► w I H �, y8 N '►rte h .l v - ;• :_ N/ ..., . , R C,/-1 , \ RM—I - .. S � r SWw 51, C as \ — RC(P) b - RC(P) • LK -- S CD IM I C❑ K...) ,f Crl s 7th st. IR4<P, CD, A-IM I'M TM IE G2 - 24 T23N R4E E 1/2 F2 Y • p . zoo Io 'F� ZONING ————Renton d�Matti ® ' TECHNICAL SERVICES 13 T23N R4E E 1/2 4313 326W, WA 0'23.4 RENTON h • 'Lrs 1 Bf9C0ry YL- aII��+ r It a ., t, 9 , 0,� NEIGHBORHOOD DETAIL MAP RENTON__ .-74.....„,..-„,v..-....„....r,„.:_-_, ___ o°h �: „` , , '" V•"-_,i. SUNSET BLUFF PRELIMINARYNORTH •„-'li a • PLAT � � r r",a °� � Ed ' t��E� s' I� ihua —`}” •I 1'z.200 +t �r ,..�;�I142 pi: _ r--.- '`�. r•. .�ri1:J�*r fly taC I _ 17 + d�� Q' F. •vim+ i'z I I rest, .". 1• "II •a.,,...47.4.,...-: WA 1 14b' iirolfnit 11. , •• A,t1Y1al +I�44 n..-i'--'•,..4 o r,n'" I '- "y, 1°4s v 6.1." yii� N d r GAS'\s ~ �\ Ella , 7.�oI.�,�Y 1 "' S.G['�l Y _ a�/!A 1�l� �T•'I a 1 4 ... i �'�' r4 -c.P q \ ' +� n 'r. i�i,i 45 , a :a9,,'E. r a \ p • hLS',LJ�L�.1�ir�. 1�� ..-+;...• Y ��ff _l' Ir w-w;. , àA1i q ,-. _ sr I �1 rii �1"'.... '; °., 14 72 rn m IK'�V � 7 �pirgit, wW { Ir1i = i ~ ��_ 6'.'-' mkt; \ I OF7� ail,ilimmetwi. Mai%� k ^: 4 b i Qi�9i n '_SO4,Ito*s .,I "0 _�>� 9 " �i�i: > /l`.1, Cy N S �'�+� ` • • 0 .A. �_•+•i-.__.»I-� RAaT c.•' ._,.OT FF cc. ��°j I�� • 1 .' �� �I , . "^�1‘110 +�; .:f �'_N a � 1 •4„y kr. .a __ °h° nWl_. V' ...IY] 1 ��� � NEIN 4 • ��' '+ "'fin _ , • `1 � - I ”rr 15r` . `� 0 S it se� ` :�l 0/� th, li'NU 7l� x I"" 4 y,', �i.w i .n 1. 132N 1 _ 0 ST 1 . - I,..wii>7 Y E' hi I �- —ns rn — T- — — ,_ Awa] an - .� ..,r -4 ; "�n.1�5!on s I ft"a, -- -i® w. ��--1 ilk� � 7111111-11 YA 777 , N+ �,.•. 1 I o , °,,.. r .r . • Q.0 '''''-4k,--_,....„ 4 9 ' 411111114 3 ,. 2p rigilir.,„,..,..---mall ��� ` � a . r-•' �\ /,;‘'P <� L7. El .» IP:4' '' + C"IV �f -fir aae. _ vrcroa,�sS% f,, r�s �aR' . 5• ® I-� "GFPM,`` y IN , �/R.E /JSTN 37; `r r Nq + � [ 7 �' Q��b 3 GAG a +, �p 4 P , l���N + ... • �`" I Y Nit s Z �_` ° ® osrti 7ny r� k Cr$ 'p - vERi w;. + `,r � at--! s1 el T4S\14I•o�e+,',I bap ,, e5 !.. F•t •D.' , � n t '�7e74h I' _ '. i f� r'iReF•- ”Na- !:�• •j 'r q T Na y.��.�3�/ ,,,,�zr IIr •.1 �1441114.4140. ---5-;-----4111 *4 'N F,13'„in-r\ i y W .p., 0...,. ` ar°.v ,. 1. 6 �,t Jo h `.q4 � `���1�7 `ht¢p� rrl� �, a 11 . , ` `moi j'"_•.�cD E l°° VI , ,1 ,L`' ,�.��y`,.'-i•Q W S-4F7 .T.14., 414w r ,a r D� u!•al Sse iba AR "tie, 'RA.-,-.174 ••----,rth;le"g*su.. r . ;A. 1 L.I i E 0.•JL y /1,I� • / i'1•.1t y_I I2 Mn. Y � S 54.21-4 7 $ 5 4 7 . ,✓'LIi ,.� Sµ y ,� ''`i Jy, � �� 9�jt i f'y, 4 05 q iQ !!�' �. •c 0. •O p%T41• 141V4 n if iff`,�,f A ]L 7 "/ `4.(; , 4 , ,-,.�.. .�'el{'b. tir'''vc,.\\40C / ice% \ � � yto w �,tpqu • Y. /'�',1' 1O t�,s�- ;• ,IP:�. ..tif Nx e,J. �.,•� ) I ��`v R�s.ckS \ , -`4w ,' ;,4 f, � •f it,,,. � �itYP:%' e��a , r' i„ \ _ � �sF S PRS ,.. 1 \ a m N3C?,^ � ., �.. . \ Q sw �• �r zae '�//i�__ 4 � 9�- ;.._r `J ,18 1 \1klziM��, W 0n gM��..lIY•�if' �^i7�,br��'i�- i ,,?,,:# •�� +�'Al .,i'1,,\ .� 1C ,,.\ 11014H//\*_, 1 2:'' :71.1414...",....71 .prill-ji..''.1..4 : :,>:),...?”:'" fj r 1 ; '---;:-.,..,_ -R. 1 Abr,/".,1,/hp c., ','t..41,, G., ,22Q ! -+ yams00011111103itiiiii l�. W (N 0 i 0 N T C C N N I C A L mmn uR. + - -- ) _ v lc f"'"=!a T•a1i7�7 i w I ` I:m a N .. yM .s�' . • i ••. ?; F"' \ I� I 1 —_ __7______ __= ham i�y� 4Ny,.. '.z" °NSTER 4 .�'.�k - A 3 H 1 17•.D TO 1 1 T E C H N C% �A LI"IC - 1� ``� -+,. `�^ � 70 \ CENTER 1 , 171 { E N T `•^ W \'/ 1\ Nr Y it N 1 E'a �� \�: � � .. ., ( I AP ATLAi0/ .A.1.7t� =••-•...."..-"•==.1.-r... uarNe I� - r,,',l sw-•Tr ly u- /� `r ..° _ -\/ M.T...-.-. .�.�.-. •SIR_.-._rrw -..ST.._..._.-.__.-._._._.J. ......,,..'.....L.,'"rn. ��`� .... i...'$:.2.,-:-. 7,.... I '�. I `J 'ATLAS o/ TTL �..,.:-.-,7--4..-7-...7.—..opt-MATTEL[ I - —�__ a -c" .� ....r.......----•-..........?... PRELIMINARY ROAD AND DRAINAGE PLAN 91I ( -11FOR LEGEND; _ _ � 1 IS. CORK MCI wa ww O narow wow.. +- r-1� SUNSET BLUFF VI ir PPM=TR I WC.1....1.... IIpOIY.M[NIO..Mf 1 I T TA PORTION OF THE 81/2 OF , SHIP 23 N,RANGE 4 E,W.M _ u�cN •,� ,,,o �K RENTOSEC170NN,WASHINGTO13TOWNN „a,o,a r c i a ® „Iowa KW N,cu' CIRIIN1 15.11 KOOK UK - ~OM wRa 0,,K K [[�� ..cro=IOW 5100.0 UK ra0ra.a wl[II KW 0 [��j m ©1. oa,WNl wwica USC —�— aoa1.1C.,015X1 --_�)-- LL. ..ana.a ro111ou. Ci _' � 0lID 310X5[UNC ..G0®M. a 11'COAG 1 a 1C'moo. UMW VOW SMp UNC —_-.0 cutaf _—_ _ ,_'�� r�avaa.Dana+ c,� aY __ +,�,. -T.__ 414---7-------------,,...........S(IPu.._ MOUSED WNW scwa UK NORM SPOT acv mNs Z S __--=---- -,- b �- 4 c ;_,^'CT a(� aanNo swur.rtr awu 02*0.1 /.) =MO star Euwnaru r a 7 1`''-'---- --t-------- ---- "i rev -K4iW..,, yr ' a \� �S/� r.mosa_ ^�t }S ': Jr's r",•"--.. :1". / a ♦s►, '�c4..'.,,,,..;,.,4t.'41•1/."••••1•1;-: BOJ ave ..vwm arnw�r san wwai.e rwosa uwuos • y ill /4��..��-^- '� �'- • r a--,, v.orozco:wort snu auuour 1ov Moo=CCKACT o .�` Z .. ..."1,,,,,-.AZ ^`w �•••• �� •- W \_ :7 ,i,•<<" v.owm wrKr r.mar E � �,�y �•'^'- +;�Pt y`�'•% -.:�,...,,,,==.___„,,...,..-„,—__ ,..„,...-,,,._.,-.4%•01,..--_.7..---_%... Ilr—,-:s^ �"-'rI��"((" �I---) -a. it," I'i•El. i6Z1 _ t l$$$r�" �� -_ rt:3 ..owa au a>. p,z ;;r nFrosC "'" �o"rr111 ••_ �� �`, -:-v-�-. --- - ,:.j ..Z ,� // -yr F!.R.. 1aa ., -y°.v[ ]- „s `-:..a'ct51r 'f*,s�.�r�...► .,...-.-.•., __,.,.:.-ra✓.w_--"'=�, "^ �° ,^_ . \ 1 \ �i2� ,41 ,..— -, ,„.;-,-.1.,.,:y -.% U C F.. .__ Im m-" 5C ----.,::.,,,..7._.,:.4::' ,—,„,_ ,✓y'��yy� �1. _� /N,z, l .�t�.,� '` P' P O `Q' 3 ,„: U.,II”aN d 9 �..- q?�(Y_ `~ �, �Q .'�t., .\ O i^" °^off' , !Z-t-f- :cT a ' . ;71„"„^ �'.a l V -•_. O`_. Ea s. tto orncw<.c[[NM,VONUKK010. N .0 71 ..ovos[7.,Ma4'-orn_Nr. CS' C' / r►�T-.:L� ! "°.'rye; i% � �1 `'"!swou..'Gw,;s ,-\\w$`C� \ p S£ aEx0EN0r v[Mui' i ��" '`Tyltle ,r l...ytiertxcTrro:e+�=_ l .1 _ � ^a°yl \ wwun.w. OOc> N .cccv. --ix .+t,., ..+.r te-- ,.- ,\' 7' --A,_"•-`44,,;';',-7;.,ka \�i E in I�OBEs' u*Eo,n1°�1ww3 ,F`%%�id z��is;,,`y !�..'+' i 06 ash�'g`�.. h � `�\ ` ��, �"h + 9` e�.e'a �\'t�\i �\ `� �id '`P/ 2 � Iia �/ �yosc cJ L S•\ \ 1 . / y// ' G '.x"" _ 91'p ..f7 .. \N 4•� b,gnr>t _ _:__ ♦ `� .tic.♦ .y\a� 'O,- Q - ,;�',*,>cn �, � .,'F'� .� •"'� - '''i_.:=-�.. __-- T.cP,c' V.'1:�`'\� rut _ :t i♦d♦ �rw♦ t P •� k - dig`r•s•`i n►"�' „-.r--..".^ _ .u ,+yrZ ,R+}, ._ _ �•.,11♦J ,k,Sti.T•r c \�.l a \ �i` wC�T _ -._"'� - r-8,,,,..,••••04...r,, aGcio.-�,-. ♦ ♦♦y, a ��a e♦�, 'n \ / �i :�"I�� �� 3_ 9/ B BP.RAILROAD �c�ioi♦riesiisf0: �� PROPOSEDo C1PE. c - ,� •_' oc`7i^cwc.. .�^ ♦ ;4f♦caa�♦♦i et-ia: '" �•a•i oes♦a •f.o •.e. a• \v. a 11 iii " ' I III • ? 11♦♦ ;J ♦♦C ♦ �, ROiERION EN! ~ l 1 ill ♦•Pt♦l,.Oa al♦a♦ ♦�♦f�♦�.J♦! _♦ v. .� PJC�t♦I♦ 'VA Ni‘ USC uu pp Y CUP • O M 1♦♦r♦ra•,4J♦♦J�vy ,,,. ¢r'e ao J> r ♦.♦ IN CUNC11 ♦•!t s J� ♦ O c S «i^♦1�1 ,JI'PS' 1 •".4•46,,,,...•!..1,---2 ,.•• e o S4 t e r+Q♦ g _ F 1 ♦� a �c -.1"f•;',"•-,,,,Z.:•••:---.1,,,,,,•,2 • A��� R e y Rr` ♦ter♦r ?4; P r}t,rJJ o♦ *A`45,....\ � 4 1 s' I�i iI :,\r 35.8 3r Orr r Cri♦ \ y f 1 "'lll s: aar °rJ s°s•.r♦i♦i -•. ��'V .7 3 g-. I' r3 �aJ .'S--- •••♦♦.Ja �n gg • s♦♦ g \ \�\\ s•' •.•••••,i.• \. %�� -,r_ g `.\��� �'\�� `V\`\���ti 11�,1"1��li`.��"� s► ♦♦••�♦_ \ate m a a I ! gCcfF o v'p�, i `�► Jg� , 4 *, -,..t... _,E , . ...,,9 ,,.. .;.. Z•5 0.see s,�o• _ I CITY OF RENTON Oer•AKTM6NT Or.',AK..WOAK6 O Z 00 t fi OVERALL PROJECT PLAN r 1'* v FOR SUNSET BLUFF q qq�•-p2ca0• .po 1 rfQ"�I .m.,.1 A PORTION OF THE S 1/2 OF SECTION 13,TOWNSHIP 23 N.RANGE 4 E,W.M., RENTON,WASHINGTON e a V S.W.SUNSET BLVp, P oo ' r , -LW , F _ ; _ � 0X60I9 � Orr�R.o... .,.., wni O4ppm o\rw� d ` rzr 12 IA (j outtwrn wxti[ II "`�'"P'0 J / SUNSET BLU \\ �� ��i i u 5 o'"^"„ PROJECT BETE " �l /.1 d 1,./".V.. i 1:1 `� oracowr wwor' i./ i 44 I rang eom _,::,•./ \` i� I E - .....-_.- \\ W 1 g ' / 7/ - ; CII'!Km ig J 1 O I `r a-g-as') CITY OF RENTON ocr-..nrMewy on PUSUC Wa 0.. Jun Q ' :ow+m JYN au�I'Caa' INLJ, 0 CITY OF RENTON COUNCIL AGENDA BILL AI#: ?. j ' Submitting Data: For Agenda of: 4/18/05 Dept/Div/Board.. Community Services/Facilities Staff Contact Peter Renner Ext. 6605 Agenda Status Consent X Subject: Public Hearing.. Lease Amendment with Vykor,Inc. Correspondence.. Ordinance Resolution Old Business Exhibits: New Business Issue Paper—Lease Amendment with Vykor for Study Sessions extended term Information Draft Lease Amendment Recommended Action: Approvals: Refer to Finance Committee Legal Dept x.... Finance Dept..x... Other Fiscal Impact: Expenditure Required... $15,000.00(est.)— Transfer/Amendment painting, carpet cleaning, ceiling tiles; $42,559.81 - $76,644.00 in commissions; $9,162.00 security deposit refund Amount Budgeted $100,806.00 Revenue Generated $1,021,924 for 5 yrs.,$567,464 for 3 yrs. Net to the City is$380,530 for 5 yrs.,$180,054 for 3 yrs. Total Project Budget $100,806.00 City Share Total Project.. SUMMARY OF ACTION: A tenant on the 1'and 5th floor of the 200 Mill Building,Vykor, Inc., is nearing the end of their original lease term,April 30, 2005. They are seeking a lease amendment for an additional three to five-year period. The business terms of the proposed Lease Amendment have been favorably reviewed by our real estate team and by City staff. Legal and Risk Management have reviewed the proposed Lease Amendment document. STAFF RECOMMENDATION: Council authorize the Mayor and City Clerk to sign the proposed Lease Amendment with Vykor,Inc. Rentmmet/agnbill/ bh MEMORANDUM es tn, CITY OF RENTON COMMUNITY SERVICES 0 Committed to Enriching Lives 0 TO: Terri Briere, Council President Members of the Renton City Council VIA: Kathy),Lf' Keolker-Wheeler,Mayor FROM: Dennis Culp, Community Services Administrator • STAFF CONTACT: Peter Renner,Facilities Director(x6605) SUBJECT: Lease Amendment with Vykor,Inc. DATE: April 11, 2005 fir. Issue: Should the Council authorize the Mayor and the City Clerk to sign a Lease Amendment with Vykor Inc., for space on the 1st and 5th floors of the 200 Mill Building? Recommendation: Council authorize the Mayor and City Clerk to sign the Lease Amendment. Background: • Vykor signed an original three-year lease with the City for all of the 5th floor and most of the 1st floor(14,600 rentable square feet, 30%of the total) of the 200 Mill Building in March 2002. As a condition of that lease, the City spent$175,920.00 ($12.00/ft) on tenant improvements and gave Vykor the use of systems furniture left by a previous tenant. The lease was structured as a full-service lease. • During the original lease period,there were two occasions that Vykor failed to pay rent for three-month periods because of cash flow problems. The rent was later paid,with penalty. However,Vykor secured $10M in financing in July 2004, reducing the possibility of cash issues for years to come. • The City's property manager, GVA Kidder Matthews,presented a proposal for renewal at $17.00 per foot. At the tenant's request,the proposal included $12.00 per foot for tenant improvements/remodeling. • Shortly thereafter, Vykor retained a broker,Meriwether Partners,to represent its interests. They commissioned a space needs analysis that indicated Vykor could Terri Briere,Council President April 11,2005 Page 2 of 2 manage with roughly 3,000 square feet less if it was all on one floor. Meriwether Partners solicited competitive proposals from two other landlords in the area. The other landlords' proposals contained aggressive rent rates, included $14.00 and $18.00 respectively in tenant improvement allowances,had"free"rent periods, and one even contained a moving allowance on a five-year lease. • GVA Kidder Matthews was given the final opportunity to propose a competitive lease. The proposal was adjusted to compensate for several factors: the advantage of no moving costs; the difference in square footage between Vykor's current footprint at 200 Mill and the competitive alternatives; and the elimination of major tenant improvements. • In the meanwhile, GVA Kidder Matthews aggressively toured the space with other potential tenants. One of these was interested in only the 1st floor; that would have left a vacancy of 6,000 feet on the 5th floor. The other potential tenant preferred a newer location closer to Seattle. Either of these tenants would have required substantial tenant improvement allowances. • The business points of the amended three-year lease are as follows: o Reflecting the current market,the proposed new rents start at$13.50 per square foot and include free rent periods comparable to competitive offers. o There is a two-year extension option that increases the rents to $15.00 and $16.00 in the final two years,with no free rent periods. o There is a small tenant improvement accommodation that should expense less than $1 per square foot. o Total commissions are $42,559.81 to $76,644.30 depending on lease length. o Maintaining a last-month security deposit results in a partial refund to Tenant of$9,162.00,because of lower rents. o Gross revenue is $1,021,924.10 for a 5-year term, and $567,464.10 for a 3- year term. Net after operating expenses,tenant improvements, and commissions is $380,529.80 for a 5-year term, and $180,054.29 for a 3- year term. Conclusion: This lease has lower net revenue per square foot than some other tenants' leases. However, it preserves cash flow to the City, and compares favorably to the alternative of a period of vacancy, followed by similar rents to a new tenant who would also require substantial tenant improvements. The lease structure with increased rents in the option period reflects the expectation of an improving commercial real estate market. cc: Jay Covington,Chief Administrative Officer Michael Wilson,Interim Finance/IS Administrator Larry Warren,City Attorney FIRST AMENDEMENT TO LEASE This First Amendment to Lease (the "First Amendment") is made as of April X, 2005 between The City of Renton,Washington,a Washington municipal corporation("Landlord")and VYKOR,INC.,a Delaware corporation("Tenant"). A. Landlord and Tenant entered into an Office Lease dated as of March 11, 2002 (the"Lease") pursuant to which Tenant is leasing certain premises consisting of approximately 14,660 square feet, commonly know as Suites 100 & 500 (the "Premises"), and located on the first floor and fifth floor of a building located at 200 Mill Avenue South, in Renton, Washington (the `Building"). The Premises are more particularly described in the Lease. Capitalized terms used in this Amendment and not otherwise defined shall have the meanings given to them in the Lease. B. Landlord and Tenant have agreed to extend the term of the Lease and make certain other modifications to the Lease as provided in this Amendment. AGREEMENT: NOW,THEREFORE,for good and valuable consideration, the receipt and sufficiency of which is hereby acknowledged,the parties hereto agree as follows: 1. Expiration Date. Section 1 (g) of the Lease is amended to provide that the Expiration Date of the Lease is extended to April 30,2008. 2. Base Year. Section 1 (k) of the Lease is amended to provide that the Base Year is calendar year 2005. 3. Minimum Monthly Rent. Section 1 (i) of the Lease is amended to provide that the Nitre Minimum Rent shall be as follows: Period Monthly Amount March 1,2005—April 30,2005: $0.00 per month May 1,2005—April 30,2006 $16,747.01 per month May 1,2006—June 15,2006: $0.00 per month June 16,2006—June 30: $8,551.67 per month July 1,2006-—April 30,2007: $17,103.33 per month May 1,2007—June 15,2007: $0.00 per month June 16,2007—June 30,2007: $9,773.33 per month July 1,2007—April 30,2008: $17,714.17 per month Minimum Monthly Rent is payable in accordance with Section 5 of the Lease. Rent for any partial month shall be prorated. 4. Security Deposit. Section 1(1) is amended to provide that the amount of the Security Deposit for purposes of Section 6 of the Lease shall be reduced to $15,576.25. In addition, the second paragraph of Section 6 is hereby deleted. Landlord is currently holding a Security Deposit in the amount of $24,738.25. Landlord agrees to refund the amount of the excess to Tenant within thirty(30)days following the full execution of this Amendment. 5. Improvements. Landlord, at its sole cost and expense, will provide minor touch-up painting, clean the carpets, and replace damaged (and/or stained) ceiling tiles. Such work must be completed at mutually acceptable times,but in all events will be completed before June 30,2005. 6. Elevator Upgrades. Landlord acknowledges that the efficiency of Tenant's operations in the Building is substantially impacted when the Building's elevators are functioning at a sub-standard level. Landlord acknowledges that Tenant's decision to enter into this Amendment is based, in part, on Landlord's assurances that Landlord is committed to repairing the elevators and consistently maintaining *41010 them in a manner consistent with other office buildings in the Renton and Seattle sub-markets, which should provide reliable service to Tenant. Accordingly,Landlord agrees as follows: (a) Landlord will repair the existing elevator cab doors in the Building elevators as soon as reasonably possible. One cab door will be replaced by March 1, 2005, and the other on or before November 30,2005. (b) Landlord shall contract with a professional elevator company to provide regular maintenance to work to cause the Building elevators to function and operate in a first class manner consistent with the operation of a first class office building. Without limiting the generality of the preceding sentence, Landlord shall provide regular maintenance of the elevator equipment per industry standards and Landlord will take reasonable measures to insure the ongoing operation of the elevator equipment within the Building. If the Building elevators are not both functioning to a reasonable level, consistent with similar office buildings in the Renton and Seattle sub-markets, Tenant will give Landlord written notice specifying the problem or problems with the Building elevators. Landlord shall have thirty(30) days after receiving such a notice to affect a repair of the problem, so the Building elevators are fully functional and operational. If Landlord fails to timely solve the problem with the Building elevators, and has not reasonably initiated such repairs, then following a second notice from Tenant and thirty (30) day cure period to have reasonably commenced such repairs, then the Monthly Minimum Rent payable by Tenant pursuant to the Lease will be reduced by twenty percent (20%) until the problems are solved and the Building elevators are again fully functional and operational. This provision shall specifically exclude natural disasters,acts of God,or other natural perils,out of the landlord's control. 7. Building Security. Landlord acknowledges that Tenant has concerns regarding security Nod and safety at the Building. Landlord agrees to implement, no later than April 1, 2005, reasonable and customary security enhancements including a roving after-hours security patrol, making available an employee escort service to the parking lot after-hours, and consistent pre-opening presence by a building engineer. In addition, Landlord will work with the Renton police department to continue and possibly increase the current daily patrols of the Building and surrounding trade area. 8. Option to Extend. Paragraph 45 is hereby deleted from the Rider attached to the Lease,and Landlord hereby grants to Tenant the right,at its sole and personal option,to extend the term of the Lease for a period of two (2) years commencing May 1, 2008, and expiring April 30, 2010 (the "Extended Term") upon each and all of the following terms and conditions: (a) Tenant must give Landlord written notice exercising its extension option (the "Notice of Exercise")at least six(6)months(but not more than nine(9)months)prior to the Expiration Date, time being of the essence(i.e.,the Notice of Exercise must be received by Landlord between August 1,2007 and October 1, 2007. If the Notice of Exercise is not so given and received, then this option shall automatically expire and this Lease shall terminate on the Expiration Date. (b) Tenant is not in default under the Lease beyond any applicable cure period,either at the time the Notice of Exercise is given and received or as of the date that the Extended Term would commence. (c) All of the terms and conditions of the Lease shall apply during the Extended Term, except(i)the Minimum Monthly Rent payable during the Extended Term shall be$15.00 per rentable square foot per annum for the period from May 1, 2008 to April 30, 2009, (ii)the Minimum Monthly Rent for the period from May 1,2009 to April 30,2010 shall be$16.00 per rentable square feet per annum. 9. Right of First Refusal. Paragraph 44 is hereby deleted from the Rider attached to the Lease, and Landlord hereby grants to Tenant the right of first refusal to lease any un-leased space on the second and sixth floors of the Building that is available for lease on the following terms and conditions(the Niftre "RFR Space"). Such right of first refusal shall be subject and subordinate to any rights of first refusal,rights of first offer,extension options or expansion options currently held by any other tenants in the Building,which are set forth on Exhibit A attached. If Landlord presents an offer to a third party to lease all or any part of the RFR Space,Landlord shall notify Tenant in writing(an"RFR Notice")of all of the material terms of the offer. Tenant shall then have seven(7)business days in which to notify Landlord in writing that it irrevocably elects to lease the RFR Space in question on the exact terms offered to the third party in the RFR Notice(including the proposed term of the lease),with the sole exception that Tenant may change the tenant improvements to be provided by Landlord, if any, with the understanding that Landlord will not be obligated to pay more for Tenant's tenant improvements than Landlord would have been obligated to pay for the third party's tenant improvements. If Tenant fails to deliver to Landlord such written notice within such deadline,Tenant shall be deemed to have waived its right of first refusal,in which case Landlord shall be free to lease the RFR Space in question to the third party on the terms contained in the RFR Notice. If subsequent negotiations with the third party yield changes to the terms offered to Tenant,so that the economic value of the terms is better than what was offered to Tenant in the RFR Notice, Landlord shall be required to re-offer the RFR Space in question to Tenant in the manner provided above,with the exception that Tenant shall be required to respond within three (3)business days. 10. Parking. Paragraph 43 in the Rider attached to the Lease is amended to provide that Tenant will be entitled to 4.0 parking stalls per 1,000 rentable square feet of the Premises, at no charge to Tenant or its employees during the initial lease term and the Extended Term(April 30,2010). 11. Assignment and Subletting. The following paragraph is added to Section 25 of the Lease: (j) Permitted Assignments and Subleases. Notwithstanding any of the other provisions in this Section 25, or any other provision in this Lease, Tenant may assign this Lease or sublease the Premises, or any part thereof, to: (i) a parent or subsidiary of Tenant; (ii) any corporation controlling, controlled by or under common control with, Tenant; (iii) a successor corporation related to Tenant by merger, consolidation,non-bankruptcy reorganization or government action; or(iv)an entity that acquires substantially all of Tenant's assets provided that such entity has a net worth equal to or greater than $5,000,000; however, Tenant shall give Landlord written notice of any of the foregoing assignments or subleases within thirty (30) days following the effective date thereof. In addition, the restrictions on transfers in this Section 25 do not apply to the sale or other transfer of Tenant's capital stock pursuant to: (1) a merger, consolidation or non-bankruptcy reorganization of Tenant;(2)any transaction related to a private placement, initial or subsequent public offering, or other public sale; (3) any transfer or sale of stock among existing shareholders of Tenant;or(4)any activity in any stock option programs of Tenant. The transfers described in this Paragraph 25(j) shall not require the prior consent of Landlord, and shall not be subject to the terms of Paragraphs 25(f)or 25(g)above or any similar provisions located elsewhere in this Lease. 12. Conflict. If there is a conflict between the terms and conditions of this Amendment and the terms and conditions of the Lease,the terms and conditions of this Amendment shall control. Except as modified by this Amendment, the terms and conditions of the Lease shall remain unchanged and in full force and effect. 13. Authority. The persons executing this Amendment on behalf of the parties hereto represent and warrant that they have the authority to execute this Amendment on behalf of said parties and that said parties have the authority to enter into this Amendment. `Oris✓ 14. Brokers. (a) Landlord and Tenant acknowledge that GVA Kidder Mathews represents Landlord in connection with this Amendment, and Meriwether Partners LLC represents Tenant. Landlord *44001 will pay GVA Kidder Mathews such commissions and fees as are due and payable to it in connection with this Amendment. Landlord also shall pay to Meriwether Partners LLC a brokerage fee equal to five percent (5%) of the gross rents payable over the period from March 1, 2005 to April 30, 2008, upon the execution of this Amendment. If Tenant exercises its option to extend the term of the Lease pursuant to Paragraph 8 of this Amendment, or Tenant elects to expand the Premises pursuant to Paragraph 9 of this Amendment, and Meriwether Partners LLC is the procuring agent on behalf of Tenant, Landlord shall pay Meriwether Partners LLC additional brokerage commissions equal to five percent (5%) of the gross rent payable over the extended term for the Lease Extension and or with respect to the expansion space, as applicable. (b) Tenant and Landlord each represent and warrant to the other that except for the broker names in subparagraph(a)above,neither has had any dealings or entered into any agreements with any other person, entity, broker or finder in connection with the negotiation of this Amendment, and no broker,person, or entity is entitled to any commission or finder's fee in connection with the negotiation of this Amendment,. and Tenant and Landlord each agree to indemnify, defend and hold the other harmless from and against any claims, damages, costs, expenses, attorneys' fees or liability for compensation or charges which may be claimed by any such broker,finder or other similar party as a result of any dealings, actions or agreements of the indemnifying party. 15. Confidentiality. Tenant agrees not to disclose the terms and conditions of this Amendment to any person or entity(including,but not limited to the other tenants of the Building)except for Tenant's accountants, attorneys,real estate advisors and other consultants, or as required by applicable law or court order or process. Nothing contained in this section shall prevent Tenant from producing this Amendment in a legal proceeding if such production is legally required of Tenant. IN WITNESS WHEREOF,the parties hereby execute this First Amendment as of the date first written above. LANDLORD The City of Renton,Washington,a Washington municipal corporation By: Kathy Keolker-Wheeler Its: TENANT Vykor,Inc.,a Delaware corporation By: Its: By: Its: CITY OF RENTON COUNCIL AGENDA BILL AI#: d !` . Submitting Data: For Agenda of: ce; Dept/Div/Board.. Community Services/Parks Maintenance April 18,2005 Staff Contact. Leslie Betlach,Parks Director(X6619) Agenda Status Consent. X Subject: Public Hearing.. Interlocal Agreement for Waterfowl Management Programponedence.. Ordinanc Resolution. Old Business Exhibits: New Business 1. 2005 Interlocal Agreement Study Sessions 2. Resolution Information Recommended Action: Approvals: Council Concur. Legal Dept X Finance Dept. Other Fiscal Impact: None Expenditure Required... $2,410.00 Transfer/Amendment. N/A Amount Budgeted $2,410.00 Revenue Generated N/A 101.000000.020.5760.0010.41.000040 Total Project Budget $2,410.00 City Share Total Project.. $2,410.00 SUMMARY OF ACTION: The Interlocal Agreement provides joint funding for the continuation of an egg addling program and monitoring. The program will assist each party in maintaining and managing public sites that are impacted by a surplus of waterfowl. This is the thirteenth year the City of Renton has participated in this program. The required expenditure of$2,410.00 is the same amount as for 2004. Wildlife Services,upon the City's request and coordination through the Parks Division, will implement the program that includes addling eggs, lethal control and monitoring as requested by the Waterfowl Management Committee, subject to terms and conditions of a permit to be issued by the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. This will be done on a case by case basis in situations where an overpopulation of Canada geese may impact human health and safety, such as potable water contamination,bird aircraft strikes, disease transmission or other situations as determined by Waterfowl Management Committee members. STAFF RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommends the acceptance of the 2005 Interlocal Agreement. Agency and corporate members acknowledge that participation includes a request to Wildlife Services for direct assistance to remove Canada geese,and will rely on the experience and expertise of Wildlife Services to identify locations where goose removal is appropriate. Participants may identify locations where control is not to be carried out within their jurisdiction. Staff recommends that Council adopt the new resolution authorizing the Mayor and City Clerk to enter into an Interlocal Agreement for Waterfowl(Canada Goose)Management Program for 2005 and thereafter as long as the costs remain relatively constant for roughly equivalent efforts. H:\CS ADMIN\Terry F\InterlocalAGBlLL.doc/ CITY OF RENTON Community Services Department US;Y O� • 7.71R • Nene 0 Committed to Enriching Lives 0 MEMORANDUM DATE: April 6, 2005 TO: Terri Briere, Council President Members of the Renton City Council VIA: .P Kathy Keolker-Wheeler, Mayor ,kLt FROM: Dennis Culp, Community Services Administrator AAVAA STAFF CONTACT: Leslie Betlach, Parks Director(x6619) Terrence J. Flatley, Parks Maintenance Manager(x6601) SUBJECT: 2005 Interlocal Agreement for Waterfowl Management Program ISSUE: Should the City of Renton continue to participate in and provide funding for regional waterfowl management and enter into the 2005 Interlocal Agreement for Waterfowl Management Program? Participation and funding includes egg addling, lethal control, population monitoring and census, mainly of Canada Geese within King County. The program will assist the twelve member agencies to maintain and manage public sites that are impacted by a surplus of waterfowl. Now RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommends the acceptance of the 2005 Interlocal Agreement. Staff also recommends the Council adopt the Resolution authorizing the City to enter into the 2005 Interlocal Agreement for Waterfowl (Canada Goose) Management Program(and thereafter as long as costs remain relatively constant for roughly equivalent services). BACKGROUND SUMMARY: The Interlocal Agreement provides joint funding for the continuation of an egg addling program and study. This program will assist each party in maintaining and managing public sites that are impacted by a surplus of waterfowl. This is the thirteenth (13t) year the City of Renton has participated in this program. The required expenditure of$2,410.00 is the same rate allocated during 2004. In addition to the Interlocal Agreement for Waterfowl Management Program,the City of Renton is contracting with a Goose Control Operator for supplemental goose control services at Gene Coulon Park. CONCLUSION: The Interlocal Agreement will allow the City of Renton to partner with other cities in the Lake Washington basin to reduce and alleviate human health concerns including contamination of water and grounds in recreation areas. Wildlife Services will provide a goose control program, which will include technical assistance, lethal control, egg addling and population monitoring. Attachments C: Jay Covington,Chief Administrative Officer Mike Wilson,Interim Administrator Finance/IS Larry Warren,City Attorney H:\CS_ADMIN\Terry F\InterlocalContractlssue.doc 2005 Interlocal Agreement for Waterfowl (Canada Goose) Management Program City of Renton n:staffosp\dh\waterfivl\agreemnt\Inter2000 1 Nikaw 2005 INTERLOCAL AGREEMENT FOR WATERFOWL (CANADA GOOSE) MANAGEMENT PROGRAM WHEREAS, Chapter 39.34.040 RCW(Interlocal Cooperation Act)permits local government units to make the most efficient use of their powers by enabling them to cooperate with other localities on a basis of mutual advantage and thereby to provide services in a manner pursuant to forms of government organization that will accord best with recreational,park and natural resources and other factors influencing the needs and development of local communities and WHEREAS,the various agencies, cities, counties, Washington State and agencies of the Federal Government listed in Exhibit A-Page 6 of this Agreement,desire to manage waterfowl, especially Canada Geese; and WHEREAS, all parties require assistance from the Wildlife Services Program of the U.S. Department of Agriculture,to reduce negative impacts on water quality,minimize resource damage, ensure safety from disease for park visitors, and enhance other property managed; and WHEREAS,information dating to a 1989 Waterfowl Research Project done by the University of Washington and current data indicates a large surplus of geese and other waterfowl species in the greater Seattle area; and WHEREAS,this program will be an ongoing resource management activity attempting to maintain a manageable number of birds on a year-to-year basis; and NOW,THEREFORE, in consideration of the covenants herein, it is mutually agreed as follows: SECTION I -PURPOSE The purpose of this Agreement is to provide joint funding for an egg addling program, lethal control,population monitoring and census; mainly of Canada Geese, within King County. This program will assist each party in maintaining and managing public and selected and approved private sites that are impacted by a surplus of waterfowl. 'taw n:staffosp\dh\waterfwl\agreemnt\Inter2000 2 SECTION II - SCOPE OF PROGRAM Wildlife Services (WS)will receive funds from each participating member for the continuation of an egg addling program, lethal control and evaluation during spring and summer 2005. Using best management practices WS will carry out an egg addling program, seeking as many accessible nesting areas as possible and will make every effort to minimize damage to the surrounding environment. WS will also implement a program of"lethal control" as requested by the Waterfowl Management Committee, subject to the terms and conditions of a permit to be issued by the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. This will be done on a case by case basis in situations where an over population of Canada geese may result in an impact on human health and safety, such as potable water contamination, bird aircraft strikes, disease transmission or other situations as determined by WMC members. Agency and corporate participants acknowledge by approval signature (below) that their participation includes a request to WS for direct assistance through the removal of Canada geese, and will rely on the experience and expertise of WS to identify locations where goose removal is appropriate. Participants may identify locations where control is not to be carried out. Approved by: for City of Renton, Washington Agency Date: WS will provide an annual report to the members of the WMC which will include information regarding egg addling, the general location of nests and number of eggs addled, number of geese removed, difficulties encountered and whatever other information would be valuable to the WMC. 2005 will be the thirteenth year of an egg addling program and the sixth year utilizing "lethal control". All methods and tools utilized to accomplish addling and "lethal control" activities in 2004 will again be used in 2005. A census of urban Canada Geese will be conducted during 2005,however as in 2004 these census counts will be expanded using staff from local agencies and participants at times and places to be specified. Where possible, educational programs will be initiated to inform the public about urban Canada Geese,the associated problems, and the efforts of this committee at addressing those problems. SECTION III - RESPONSIBILITIES Each party, represented on the Waterfowl Management Committee, as shown on Exhibit "A", and incorporated by reference herein,will share in the ongoing review of the programs carried out by WS. Each party agrees that if necessary, an Oversight Committee will be appointed to monitor and report back to the general committee on a regular basis. Three members of the Committee will make up the Oversight Committee chaired by the City of Seattle representative. SECTION IV -COMPENSATION The total cost of the 2005 waterfowl management program shall not exceed Thirty-two thousand, one hundred sixty dollars ($32,160). Each party shall contribute to the financial costs of the program as shown in Table I. SECTION V -TERM AND EXTENSION The Term of this Agreement is from January 1, 2005 to December 31, 2005. This Agreement may be extended in time, scope or funding by mutual written consent from all parties referenced herein. SECTION VI - TERMINATION This agreement may be unilaterally terminated by any of the parties referenced herein or Wildlife Services upon presentation of written notice to the Oversight Committee at least 30 days in advance of the severance date shown in Section V. Should termination of this agreement occur without completion of the egg addling, each party shall pay only its' pro rata share of any expenses incurred under the agreement at the date of the termination, and each party shall receive copies of all products resulting from the addling activities up to the time of the termination. SECTION VII - DELIVERABLE Wildlife Services will make every effort to conduct a 1,000-2,000 egg addling program. Field conditions or changing conditions may increase or decrease these numbers. Lethal control will be implemented as necessary and the total numbers are established by the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service Permit. Participants will receive a report on the number of eggs addled and geese euthanized in 2005. Nome 4 SECTION VIII -FILING As provided by RCW 39.34.040,this agreement shall be filed prior to its entry and force with the City or County Clerks of the participating parties,the County Auditor and the Secretary of State,and, if found to be necessary, with the State Office of Community Affairs as provided by RCW 39.34.120. SECTION IX-LIABILITY Each party to this agreement shall be responsible for damage to person or property resulting from the negligence on the part of itself, its employees, its agents or its officers. No party assumes any responsibility to another party for the consequences of any act or omission of any person, firm, or corporation not at party to this agreement. 5 EXHIBIT A 2005 WATERFOWL MANAGEMENT COMMITTEE PARTICIPANTS fire City of Bellevue Pat Harris City of Kent Quientin Pohl City of Kirkland ..Mike Metteer City of Mercer Island Mike Elde City of Mountlake Terrace Don Sarcletti City of Renton Terrence Flatley City of SeaTac Curt Brees City of Seattle Department of Parks and Recreation ..Barbara DeCaro City of Woodinville ..Brian Meyer University of Washington Charles Easterberg U.S.D.A. Wildlife Services .Mike Linnell U.S.D.I. Fish and Wildlife Service ..Brad Bortner Now 6 TABLE I AGENCIES CONTRIBUTIONS City of Bellevue 2410 Nioid City of Kent 2410 City of Kirkland 2410 City of Mercer Island 2410 City of Mountlake Terrace 2410 City of Renton 2410 City of SeaTac 2410 City of Woodinville 2410 Seattle Department of Parks and 3700 Recreation City of Woodinville 2410 University of Washington 2410 All checks will be made payable to the USDA-APHIS-ADC,earmarked for the Wildlife Services and sent to the following addresses: Mr.Roger Woodruff State Director-Wildlife Services Program U.S.Department of Agriculture 720 O'Leary Street Northwest Olympia,Washington 98502 (360)753-9884 In case of procedural questions regarding this project,please contact: Maggie Rayls,Administrative Officer Wildlife Services Program (360)753-9884 FAX: 753-9466 For questions regarding implementation of control measures and census,please contact: Mike Linnell 360-753-9884 mike.a.linnell@usda.gov SECTION X. - SEVERABILITY ...If any section of this agreement is adjudicated to be invalid, such action shall not affect the validity of any section so adjudged. This agreement shall be executed on behalf of each party by its authorized representative. It shall be deemed adopted upon the date of execution by the last so authorized representative. 7 This agreement is approved and entered into by the undersigned county and local government units,university and other private parties. City of Bellevue City of Renton By: By: Patrick Foran,Director of Parks and Community Kathy Keolker-Wheeler,Mayor Services Date: Date: City of Kent City of SeaTac By: By: John Hodgson,Director Calvin Hoggart,City Manager Date: Date: City of Kirkland Seattle Department of Parks and Recreation By: By: David Ramsey,City Manager Kenneth R.Bounds, Superintendent Date: Date: City of Mercer Island City of Woodinville By: By: Rich Conrad,City Manager Donald D.Rose,City Manager_ Date: Date: University of Washington City of Mountlake Terrace By: By: Karen VanDusen Name/Title: Director of Env.Health&Safety NitreDate: Date: Nlrr+ 8 WORK PLAN/FINANCIAL PLAN Cooperator: Waterfowl Management Committee(WMC) Contact: Barb DeCaro,206-615-1660 Cooperative Service Agreement No.: 05-73-53-2065 (TF) Accounting Code: 58373-53729 Location: King and Snohomish Counties Dates: January—December 2005 In accordance with the Cooperative Service Agreement between the Waterfowl Management Committee and the United States Department of Agriculture(USDA),Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service (APHIS), Wildlife Services(WS),this Work Plan sets forth the objectives, activities and budget of the wildlife control activities for the period of January—December 2005. Program Objective/Goals To reduce/alleviate property damage and human health and safety concerns including contamination of potable water and recreational areas for the entities of the WMC. WS will provide a wildlife damage management program which will include technical assistance,population monitoring, and population control (reduction in the number of geese utilizing certain areas). , id Plan of Action 1. APHIS-WS will provide technical assistance upon request, including on-site evaluation of problem areas. 2. APHIS-WS will conduct monthly surveys of Canada geese in the Seattle area according to the established survey route. Additional surveys may also be conducted. 3. APHIS-WS will conduct a direct control program (egg addling and lethal control)to reduce damage in designated areas as requested by WMC participants. 4. Each member of the WMC will indicate to APHIS-WS whether their participation includes a request to APHIS-WS to remove Canada geese. Participants will rely on the experience and expertise of APHIS-WS to identify locations where egg addling and goose removal is appropriate. Participants may identify locations where control is not to be carried out. 5. Direct control projects will be conducted during the period,March through August 2005. During nesting season, WS will conduct an egg addling program within the jurisdictional boundaries represented by the WMC. During the molt season,flightless geese will be captured in drive traps and euthanized. Alternative methods for goose removal that are analyzed and discussed in the Environmental Assessment for Management of Conflicts Associated with Non- migratory(Resident) Canada Geese in the Puget Sound Area may also be used. 6. APHIS-WS will be responsible for disposal of Canada geese. 7. APHIS-WS will provide a status report to members of the Inter-local at the annual WMC meeting. Entities of the WMC will provide assistance with security measures, including police protection if requested by APHIS-WS. 8. The District Supervisor in the APHIS-WS District Office in Poulsbo will supervise this project and can be reached at Area Code(360) 337-2778. Roger Woodruff, State Director, Olympia, WA,will monitor this project and can be reached at Area Code (360) 753-9884. 9. In accordance with the Debt Collection Improvement Act(DCIA) of 1996, bills issued by APHIS-WS are due and payable within 30 days of receipt. The financial point of contact for this Work Plan/Financial Plan is Roberta Bushman,Administrative Officer,who can be reached at 360-753-9884. BUDGET Listed below are the costs of the wildlife control program outlined above: Salary& Benefits $ 24,660 .r Vehicle Use 4,000 Supplies 1,500 Travel 2,000 TOTAL $ 32,160 WATERFOWL MANAGEMENT COMMITTEE 1600 DAKOTA STREET SEATTLE,WA 98108 Date UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE ANIMAL AND PLANT HEALTH INSPECTION SERVICE WILDLIFE SERVICES State Director,WA/AK Date Director, Western Region Date CITY OF RENTON, WASHINGTON RESOLUTION NO. A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY OF RENTON, WASHINGTON, AUTHORIZING THE MAYOR AND CITY CLERK TO ENTER INTO AN INTERLOCAL AGREEMENT FOR WATERFOWL (CANADA GOOSE) MANAGEMENT PROGRAM FOR THE YEAR 2005. WHEREAS, it has been determined that the City of Renton has a large surplus of Canadian Geese within its jurisdiction; and WHEREAS, the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service and the State of Washington have agreed to continue an egg addling program, and provide lethal control and to provide population monitoring and census; and WHEREAS, the costs for this procedure would be shared with a number of jurisdictions including the City of Renton; and WHEREAS, it is necessary to document the agreement between the parties; NOW, THEREFORE, THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF RENTON, WASHINGTON, DOES RESOLVE AS FOLLOWS: SECTION L The above findings are true and correct hi all respects. SECTION IL The Mayor and City Clerk are hereby authorized to enter into an Interlocal Agreement for Waterfowl(Canada Goose)Management Program for the year 2005 and thereafter as long as the costs remain relatively constant for roughly equivalent efforts. PASSED BY THE CITY COUNCIL this day of , 2005. Bonnie I. Walton, City Clerk Nimd 1 RESOLUTION NO. Istaie APPROVED BY THE MAYOR this day of , 2005. Kathy Keolker-Wheeler, Mayor Approved as to form: Lawrence J. Warren, City Attorney RES.1107:4/7/05:ma 2 CITY OF RENTON COUNCIL AGENDA BILL AI#: Submitting Data: Planning/Building/Public Works For Agenda of: April 18, 2005 Dept/Div/Board.. Development Services Division Staff Contact Carrie K. Olson x7235 Agenda Status • Consent X Subject: Public Hearing.. Acceptance of additional right-of-way to comply with Correspondence.. City of Renton code for new short plats and the Bartell Ordinance Short Plat LUA-04-007. Resolution Old Business Exhibits: New Business Deed of Dedication Study Sessions Exhibit Map Vicinity Map Information Hearing Examiner's Report Recommended Action: Approvals: 1111.0 Council concur Legal Dept X Finance Dept X Other Fiscal Impact: N/A Expenditure Required... Transfer/Amendment Amount Budgeted Revenue Generated Total Project Budget City Share Total Project. SUMMARY OF ACTION: The area to be dedicated for additional right-of-way is at the corner of Jones Ave NE and NE 24th Street. Bartell Short Plat, LUA04-007 is required by a Hearing Examiner's decision to dedicate a 15-foot corner radius (approx. 46.0 sq.ft.) to insure proper turning radius at street corners for emergency vehicles. Council acceptance of said right-of-way should be completed prior to recording deed with the short plat. STAFF RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommends that Council authorize the Mayor and City Clerk to execute the Deed of Dedication. I:\PlanReview\COLSON\Shortplats 2005\Bartell SHPL 04m AGNBILL.doc Niko"'' Return Address: City Clerk's Office City of Renton 1055 South Grady Way Renton,WA 98055 DEED OF DEDICATIONProperty Tax Parcel Number:336/33°..-40D Project File N: _ .007_ Ham- ,Street Intersection ' -J 4 ie— Rehresee Nuebsr(s)of Documents�*ed or released.Additional reference numbers a 1. NE sr Graator(e):t?ob'r4 >♦ rfetl, Grantee(s): t 1'' &cls UrSz,k NAtk; act]. City of Renton,a Mtmicipal Corporation LEGAL DESCRIPTION: (Abbreviated orfull legal must go here. Additional legal on page ) 11Lc_ .U, tt& H•c t rP' Loo- 714/ t C,D.# •Ins Cake, 6✓asi•:tit Garde^ o-P /VD. y, bbl(rnc 11, Pat" 8Z -(see 4 H c , 1:4" 4 I The Grantor,for and in ' '�' �e•�r;�T consideration of mutual benefits conveys,quit claims,dedicates and donates to the Grantee(s)as named above,the above deaaibed real estate situated in the County of King,State of Washington. IN WITNESS WHEREOF,I have hereunto set my hand and seal the day and year as written below. Approved andAtom /701/1-�tjedf f Grantor(s):7,d«" r ,'s'k'ew yntee(s): City of Renton )c9L //, 6e,rj,e6W �`� Mayor ,./ City Clerk A1D(YIDUAL tro*iw of STATE OF WASHINGTON )SS ACKNOWLEDOWINT COUNTY OF KING `' N ..' � I certify that I know or have satisfactory evidence that/JL,h et M. ! .-f �'f rtftul box /j!L!2 ff signed this ralnunent and e f'e, bilged it to be his/her/theirhis/her/theirfree and voluntary act for the T+ purposes •Y r. mentioned In the instrument. t i,9 Agir 8L.JC Notary ' � •tic in or taof •- 2 3 �� Notary(Print) �/ r n �' - 2 }� ° .. My appointment expires: t/Ll „, WAS Dated: 3-/9-05— DEED-DOC -f9-05—DEED-DOC Patio NON,' latise INDIVIDUAL FORM OFACAWOWLEDCMINT Notary Seal must be within box STATE OF WASHINGTON )ss .•N..\\ COUNTY OF KING ) tik,M• 11/RA tits I certify that I know or have satisfactory evidence that Il f �gSip' F , % O� +-o; I/ acknowledged it to signed this instrument and U N0TAR / g -/their Gee and voluntary act for the uses and purposes �,! Y rn; mentioned is the instrument i N.. LIC v'• i bw' .c" : tit O. 9.06•..'0? •j Notary Public in F and for the State of ashington <<��I,V,AsHiN�, Notary(Print) d2/ I�zi.,fred- My appointment expires: ,23,,-047 Dated: 3-.2 i - e'c ATIM FORM OF Notary Seal must be within box STATE WASHINGTON )ss ACKNOWLEDGMENT COUNTY OF KING ) ;\A�..F A,c7-,.- t, I?certify that I know or have satisfactory evidence that ��' '� �I +t kit :7,::':,,..,,,-., ,1� ���Jr stated hd was/weresigned this instrument,on oath `.'•s;. '.•'• ip �thcy authorized to execute the instrument and r'? %TA, }- .:,; e acknowledged it as the and c3 ir' % of to be the frac and union ` �''' voluntary act of such Perry/parties for the uses and U ._'._ ,.:. //^// ''� porno.-:mentioned in the instrument. No Public ' forth State of„,..r' _ No (Print) I . (ii -3- My appointment expires: -, 9-0 iji • Dated: 3 -A/,oj CORPORA=FORM OPACINORINDCMINT .Notary Seal must be within box STATE OF WASHINGTON )SS COUNTY OF KING ) far this day of ,19 ,before me personally appeared be tome known to executed the whin of the corporalon that instrument,and acknowledge the said instrument to be the free and voluntary act and deed of said corporation,for the uses and purposes therein mentioned,and each on oath stated that he/she was authorized to execute said instrument and that the seal affixed is the corporate seal of said corporation. Notary Public in and for the State of Washington Notary(Print) My appointment expires: Dated: DMID.DOC Paas 2 r Attachment "A" Bartell Short Plat Right of Way Dedication Beginning at the Northwest corner of lot 294 of C.D. Hillman's Lake Washington Garden of Eden, Division No. 4 as recorded in Volume 11 of Plats, page 82, records of King County, Washington; thence North 88°06'54" East, along the North line of said Lot 294, a distance of 14.63 feet to a point of cusp on a curve concave to the Southeast having a radius of 15.00 feet and a central angle of 88°34'30" and being subtended by a chord which bears South 43°49'39" West 20.95 feet; thence Southwesterly along said curve, a distance of 23.19 feet to the West line of said Lot 294; thence North 00°2T36" West, along said West line, a distance of 14.63 feet to the True Point of Beginning. Containing 46 square feet more or less. Situate in the SE 'A of the SE 'A of Section 4 Township 23 North Range 5 East of the Willamette Meridian, County of King, State of Washington. 3-0-65 H.cie �y 1 ' 1.100 X 05.23.20 05, LIMITED POWER OF ATTORNEY BE IT KNOWN,that UeS2.4)!a Ilse k e ws C L has made and appointed,and by these presents 1 does make and appoint PARA- 14 64✓-tf t f true and lawful attorney for him/Lh r and in his/her name,place and stead,forthe following specific and limited purposes only: s]1 Vii, . !te 1,6 `e,e -to SL-1-f'141- R 5� 4 1715- APE: t/ % e j 2Pc, k4cos- , giving and granting said attorney,full power and authority to do and perform all and every act and thing whatsoever necessary to be done in and about the specific and limited premises(set out herein)as fully,to all intents and purposes,as might or could be done if personally present,with full power of substitution and revocation,hereby ratifying and confirming all that said attorney shall lawfully do or cause to be done by virtue hereof. IN WITNESS WHEREOF,I have hereunto set my hand and seal this /1 day of r� R_ CN ,2005 ifi724(4 & L.S. lisav Sworn to before me this j7 day of /71 fIR C ff ,20 RAQ4- NOTARY PUBLIC t3LEt+DA k ROIEQTS I NOTARY PUBLIC STATE OF WASHINGTON ,VAINIS.SION EXPIRES DEMMy Commission Expires: 2196--_t 1(1-61 1 4140, Attachment "B" Bartell Short Plat Right of Way Dedication SE 1/4, SE 1/4 Sec. 4, TWP 23N, RNG 5E. m N88'06'54"E NE 24th Street - 14.63' Curo) Area of Dedication Zv 46 square feet L=23.19' A=88'34'30" R=15.00' W z 0 rs \-\‘‘"''' "r.` II ;% ‘--�`A J ter, 04. ,r O 40-0 not to scale31t. 8' N A S / c,JO(� # ; n71 % 0..+r G"1 i q 3,9625 � J6o �`P eciST EBF rat, LAO , EXPIRES�������5��23'�2005 lUw iiriiP , I r- , '"• "'" ' ' ' ' ' i • . i I ‘ \ t$71r. to-Y rt 1 1. _r-----I--T- .--r-r. ....r'i i ! ! ! n \ .•L........,:: lib11 + ,.•°' -412-11. I 1 I l' -1".40 I / i / i I 1 , 1I, II ! Ili 1ili"""•-'i CO I ' I I I , . i • ' j li e--....1----4.... .., ....; 1111r11111 , II f R 8 '; ', tt-„, , r , ; .............1 , t .-t„ i ) • , . I ;, , 1 ,,,, i p q , , , t... -0 kribS Alto . NE, 8 1 ; , IT-0 1 ! 1 I Jo e$ Ave.i. NE ! !! 1 d i al, , , 1 , 1 , , I ‘ ' ''1.. ' ''' 7...H.... ii 1 i , • -,.•;( R-I-e-- 1" 1 ' 1_ 1 I L i I 1 , ili , 1 •, , 1 ! ! ! ! I i...._....... ....., . ,. 1 . , . , ; ! I.,. J...„ .......I. . , 1 , 1 , • , ,•••-•-= i •"'""" • r I i d•zi ile .rte'rwliqk Ave,' N . 1 .,./ 73 . . ; , • ; ; I till ! ! ! . •, 1 r* 1,41,„ ; [RI-8 ' c ) I 1 1 i ! i \ •; . f ' ; 1 —• 7-.3. 1 i 1 • CD 1 1 :„....\; .............; , ; l'I.• • a op ci) L i i 1 R.+8 ,I ____..........„. ,i • -7--•,......./ f:::c--- i. Qat....1 1 •nter,i7"7 .7;. -1- -•'''''•• • tdOnterer Ave-cA;„ , . , '. i co --;;;;;;1 , 'zia-. 1 . . i ! 1-. ' c--•••• i 1 i 1 I ,T • , i l• ....),,......._....._ • I .....1 I I •! i I ,• • ••• '-' , 7•AIVert,'.,,NE- '/L)1 I I I I-I I I li I L I I: _II IINi• 1 i I, 1 i 1,, I •••• , ; , 1.‘ t•-• -i , 1.m..i -- ...cia.....t__.,.....frii ,..1 _fr.1, 1 op ; ITT- ! T 4-1-1— t24".-I,,, , I ; I "1 I I , , I , I .......... MI 1 I , IL 1 i I......1,........ : t.a)..,........... ........... .-q-r‘, i 1 1 1 i ,-1, r---11 ( 1 t t'1 NE; ......jiii;;;;-•;;; •—i- •Q-11 reY C — / b , • , ... ,; 11 , , , , ; , 8 , NE,. • ; III 1 , , iii! •-•1• 1 ; ' ,.. ..11 , ', 1 , , , .---, (Al er,4eeil Aye. ; N.E,.....r ;;-;••••••••, ; , , ; ; , 1; • • t , •11 , 1 , 11 , . 1, , ,, , , , • , . , . , ; z , II • , 1 , ',..: i , • • , • , „ „ , . . ,, • . , ....... .. ,__,,,, . , t•• • ' ••!•••• 1••••••;......,.,.;...... , ' ......i L i , , , 1 •• t-xl• ' C7 i • = . ,1 1. ?Fl............. ------1-1 I .L. , (.....1 , , / , \ ,i „I NE ' i• tzi I i • , , 1 , 1 , ,........-.. •••_____i • , ) , , ..: IL ..., , , , i•••CO ' Blame Me., 1}.4.r.i r--1- '..." •- ' ,, _ 701t.c,,N.... , 1 i ; , - --,- ;'. i. . .,. ... I , t\D 1. ..1 ! ; i........ ........:......; ..'r 1 .g 1 './'''' ' " ,' • '..." ."-TOD 1.- 1-1-7 I- (C4 1 j 1 1 ! !, i I.'....- .-"""".1 • ! - ..Crtr L“...,..,.„,.. : y 1 1. • 9 " IN , . 1 r r 1 1 i i .x,1\ i a na a CO.Ti.:;:., ••••R 1 i , I . "'`......... !. , I ! • :/Th I111, 1.. I . I ; e "7....1.""" 01, I ; Ns\1.74:j 1 I ! 1 I s Ci) , :.1,-1-1-k . . CC) ., I . , I Li. I ii----""*"••• 7-771-7... i -1 ..1 I A , .44'e• 11, 1.V.i.- 1 1 ,... ; -_1._ •••••r•I r-'. r.' I.-...! .• c-s- . . ,... . .- I i 1 1Thi il ;ay; r - rD4yt. ---bi. ...iri 1 ! 11, , ! , 1 I . i , . o....1 1.....,..•.,..... r.,••••,• •••• , Lit IVOgob) _. ..... .lyit'oir , . ,.\,x....... , , -- , ww , 1-3 ... i 1 ; , , AlLv1r1. I r-,s1 1 . • • , ....t, 1.. . , i - - 1,- .1. .,111.-- -Q. ; f.. Ti.1.!''.r t."--1.- !! ! ••••• ' ' I i ! •I i'. .Ye! c°I , I Ahrb I NV .................'....1. ....1!--...!....*.4.! i.......„.”.........1...,. 1 , Z tk. • •(::),:. I ILI .........R 1,, ......ii •I .Iti, ...-... o.. .0 !!. 1 • :!I!, . . 1 r , 1 1 1 ...e ..-•—•,•••-•••••••,-..-., 0 r . -... ..,.....,...... ,—...-..., I ! • • cal . X 1 , A ".""s'};;;;;••• . 7"4,,, , .., -D--; VII .C - I I 11........-W . , . . . . ......... . ,........ . „......... tt 1::// Dd / ''.• CO C.4 : . • • -20••••••••! ..i; ( ! ......... . ... . I 1." ........ Impah. i ....,.... ...............;,, • ••••- Zit Al asu IsIEZI, t • sa ) -mr--- -- ri May 4,2004 OFFICE OF THE HEARING EXAMINER CITY OF RENTON 2 C 5iON REPORT AND APPLICANT: Bob and Alina Bartell 1725 NE 24th Street Renton, WA 98055 CONTACT: Mel Daley DMP, Inc. 726 Auburn Way North Auburn, WA 98002 Bartell Short Plat File No.: LUA-04-007, SHPL-H, V-H, ECF LOCATION: 1725 NE 24th Street SUMMARY OF REQUEST: Subdivide an approximately 1.72-acre site into 9 lots intended for the development of 8 new detached single-family homes. SUMMARY OF ACTION: Development Services Recommendation: Approve with conditions DEVELOPMENT SERVICES REPORT: The Development Services Report was received by the Examiner on April 6,2004. 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 April 13,2004 hearing. The legal record is recorded on CD. The hearing opened on Tuesday,April 13, 2004,at 9:04 a.m. in the Council Chambers on the seventh floor of the Renton City Hall. Parties wishing to testify were affirmed by the Examiner. The following exhibits were entered into the record: Exhibit No. 1: Yellow file containing the original Exhibit No.2: Zoning Map application,reports, staff comments,and other material pertinent to the review of the project ``r+ Bartell Short Plat File No.: LUA-04-007 SHPL-H, V-H, ECF May 4, 2004 Page 2 Ned Exhibit No.3: Short Plat Plan Exhibit No.4: Utility Plan Exhibit No. 5: Tree Cutting/Land Clearing Plan Exhibit No.6: Revised Short Plat Plan Exhibit No. 7: Copy of Existing Pond and Proposed Future Stream Restoration The hearing opened with a presentation of the staff report by Kristina Catlin, Planner, Development Services, City of Renton, 1055 S Grady Way, Renton, Washington 98055. The parcel is approximately 1.72 acres,there is an existing stream channel in the southwest corner of the site and a human-made pond connected to that. The applicant is proposing several stream restoration activities on the site that will rework this area. This project went before the Environmental Review Committee, a Determination of Non-Significance -Mitigated with four mitigation measures was issued. No appeals were filed. The subject site is designated Residential Single Family(RSF),the proposal is consistent with this designation. The proposed density of the short plat is 5.66 dwelling units per acre,which is within the allowed density range of the R-8 zone. The stream buffer was not deducted in the calculation because the stream is not classified as a critical area. Most of the proposed lots exceed 4,500 square feet which meets the required minimum dimensions for the R-8 zone. Lots 4, 5 and 6 do not meet the minimum width requirement. They are classified as a pipestem lot, which has a minimum pipestem width of 20 feet. Lots 5 and 6 do not meet that requirement, Lot 5 at the narrowest portion is just over 15 feet and Lot 6 is a triangular shaped lot and the point is considered to have a 0 lot width. The lot lines between Lot 5 and Lot 6 can be adjusted so that they can be considered pipestem lots. All setbacks, with the adjustment to Lots 4, 5, and 6, meet the requirements for the R-8 zone. Each of the proposed lots would support the construction of one detached unit. Accessory structures are permitted at a maximum number of two per lot at 720 square feet each,or one per lot at 1,000 square feet. Compliance with the building standards will be verified prior to the issuance of building permits for proposed structures on the eight new lots. No parking will be permitted within the proposed private street, since the street is required as emergency access to the proposed lots. The proposed private street will be posted with "No Parking—Fire Lane"signs. Staff recommends that Lot 3 be required to take access from the private street. Also along NE 24`h Street,Lot 9 has frontage on NE 24th but also contains the easement that will serve Lot 7. Staff recommends that Lot 9 be required to access from this driveway easement. Each of the proposed lots satisfies the minimum lot area requirements of the R-8 zone. Lots 5 and 6 need to be altered to comply with the minimum lot width and depth. With approval of staff recommendations,Lots 1,2, and 8 would be the only lots with direct driveway access to pubic right-of-way. Due to concerns raised from the neighbors to the east over the proximity of the shared driveway to the east property line,the applicant will be required to install a 6-foot solid fence along the length of the shared driveway easement prior to recording the short plat. Full street improvements along NE 24`h Street and Jones Avenue NE will be required. These improvements will encroach onto the required stream buffer,therefore, a land variance is being requested also. A Traffic Mitigation fee is required. The subject site is rectangular in shape and relatively flat. The site is predominantly vegetated with grass,trees and landscaping associated with the existing residence. The applicant intends to remove approximately 40 trees, 4411, Bartell Short Plat File No.: LUA-04-007 SHPL-H, V-H,ECF May 4, 2004 Page 3 the majority of which are fruit trees. The applicant intends to take care to preserve the existing large trees along the stream and the southern property line. Police and Fire have indicated that sufficient resources exist to furnish services to the proposed development provided that a Fire Mitigation Fee be paid. A Park Mitigation Fee is required. The site is located within the boundaries of the Renton School District and they have indicated that they can accommodate the increased student enrollment. Several surface water features exist in and around the subject property. The human-created pond is not regulated by the City's Critical Area regulations, the stream is subject to a 25-foot buffer under the Tree Cutting and Land Clearing regulations. The street improvements will require a land variance. The objective of the stream restoration project is to return the stream to some semblance of what it was before it was altered to be diverted into this pond. Correspondence was received from the owners directly upstream, south of the property, stating that there have been some past issues of flooding on the property that resulted from blockages in the culverts. They had concerns about the appearance of the proposed detention facility. The ERC recommended that the applicant install a grate on the culvert that goes under Jones Avenue NE in order to help some of the blockage problems. This site is located within an aquifer protection zone and a water system development charge per new single family lot will be required prior to issuance of the construction permits. The project falls within two sewer assessment districts, the Jones Avenue Sewer Assessment Sewer District and West Kennydale Sewer Assessment Sewer District. Sewer assessment fees are required for each of the Sewer Districts. With regard to the required variance,there are several criteria which must be evaluated for the variance. The variance that is needed is a variance from the 25 foot no touch buffer around a stream, in this case the buffer extends east onto the property and west onto Jones Avenue NE. Any alterations within that right-of-way will fall within that buffer. In this case a variance from the tree cutting and land clearing regulations is necessary because of the presence of the stream in the southwest corner of the property. The existing stream runs parallel to Jones Avenue NE,which is also within the stream buffer, and the requirement for a 25-foot buffer from the ordinary high mark of the stream,without this variance the applicant would be unable to install the street improvements that the City of Renton requires. The Examiner inquired as to what the hardship actually was. Ms. Catlin explained that there are two requirements available in this situation, and one requirement states that there must be a 25-foot stream buffer; and the other requirement states that there must be street improvements, and those two requirements cannot coexist together in this situation. The second criteria of granting the variance is that it would not be detrimental to public welfare. The third criteria is that the variance will not constitute a grant or special privilege inconsistent with other properties in the vicinity. This variance would allow this property to subdivide in a manner similar to other properties in the vicinity and install the required street frontage improvements. The Examiner further stated that the City had changed its ordinances in order to protect streams, and just because prior development encroached on what now is a required buffer,does that mean that we should continue to justify it? Ms. Catlin stated that looking at the site now,there is a stream buffer that has been obliterated, it has been totally diverted into a pond on the site. The activity proposed here brings that more into a standard stream channel, which is culverted under Jones and comes out on the west side. What will be seen is a better functioning and protected stream that what is presently on the property. The fourth criteria for the variance is Niue that it's determined by the reviewing official to be the minimum variance needed to accomplish the desired purpose. In this case, it is to allow only the street frontage improvements. Bartell Short Plat File No.: LUA-04-007 SHPL-H, V-H,ECF May 4, 2004 Page 4 Staff recommends approval of the Bartell Short Hat subject to conditions outlined in the Staff Report. Hans Korve, DMP Engineering, 726 Auburn Way North, Auburn, WA 98002 stated that in working with Staff over the past few months, conclusions have been reached, Staff has done a great job with a tight site. The issues involving Lots 4, 5,and 6 were resolved with Staff prior to the hearing,twelve copies of the revised plan have been submitted. No modifications were made to the actual lots themselves, the modifications were made in the stems that extended into the driveway easement. The pipestems of each lot was squared off, particularly Lots 5 and 6. The driveway access for Lot 9 was eliminated so that it will take access off the shared driveway easement with the existing house on Lot 7. In regard to the variance, in the southwest corner of the site,the manmade pond currently exists. There is a series of trees up against Jones Avenue that form a natural berm between an existing storm water ditch on the west side against Jones Avenue and the stream channel on the east side. There currently is no distinguishing between the stream and the pond. There is no stream today, it simply enters the property and bursts out into a giant pond and then goes under Jones Avenue and becomes channelized again. The proposal is to recreate a channel, create a buffer, and then put the storm water pond in the current location of the manmade pond. Larry Burnstad, Watershed Dynamics, PO Box 215,Enumclaw,WA 98022 stated that the ordinary high water line is within four feet at the closest point and seven feet at the furthest point from the property line. Upstream is a concrete lined pond and is the control point for which the water enters the property site. The culvert will be extended to the east in order to accommodate the street improvements. This limits what can be done in restoring a meandering channel pattern. Several alternatives were looked at but none seemed as attainable as what has been proposed. Kayren Kittrick,Development Services stated that the dedication of the radius curve at the corner of Jones and 24th will be presented to Council as a separate condition. In regard to trees and right-of-way, since the code has changed and there are more beautiful trees existing on the right-of-way or on the edge of the right-of-way and there are some protection limits that are to be held for maintaining the tree if at all possible, staying outside of the crowns and root balls. There are some creative modifications in street standards in order to go around them, pushing the street and sidewalk over as far as possible in order to maintain as many of the trees as possible especially in a location like this where it is part of the stream buffer. It is only a 20-foot pavement, so there is some play area. If the trees are in the way of the utility,then it becomes more problematical. It appears that the way it currently stands, sidewalk and street improvement can be shifted to accommodate the trees. The Examiner inquired as to water runoff. Ms. Kittrick stated that it would have to be figured if infiltration is part of this. The Special Assessment District fees from Kennydale Sewer District are against the entire property, not per lot. Larry Burnstad,stated that in trying to retain the trees on the west side of the property line,one of the things talked about is being able to meander the sidewalk as opposed to a straight sidewalk and using vertical containment such as keystone block so that a small amount of damage is done to the roots on the west side of the tree,but maintain all the root system to the north, south and east which should allow the tree to survive. They could trim the trees up so pedestrians may pass under the trees which would allow maximization of the saving of the trees. 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 10:32 a.m. FINDINGS,CONCLUSIONS &RECOMMENDATION Bartell Short Plat File No.: LUA-04-007 SHPL-H, V-H, ECF May 4, 2004 Page 5 Having reviewed the record in this matter, the Examiner now makes and enters the following: FINDINGS: 1. The applicants, Bob and Alina Bartell, filed a request for approval of a 9-lot Short Plat together with a variance from land clearing regulations adjacent to a stream. 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 Declaration of Non-Significance- Mitigated(DNS-M) for the subject proposal. 4. The subject proposal was reviewed by all departments with an interest in the matter. 5. The subject site is located on the southeast corner of NE 24th Street and Jones Avenue NE at 1725 NE 24th Street. Aberdeen Avenue NE is east of the subject site. 6. The subject site is approximately 1.72 acres or 75,024 square feet in area. The parcel is rectangular. The subject site is approximately 294.90 feet long(north to south)by approximately 254.77 feet wide. 7. The subject site is fairly level with a stream running across the southwest corner of the site immediately adjacent to Jones Avenue. A man-made pond is located east of the stream. 8. The subject site was annexed to the City with the adoption of Ordinance 1827 enacted in March 1960. 9. The subject site is currently zoned R-8 (Single Family- 8 dwelling units/acre). 10. 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 uses. 11. The subject site contains a home that would be retained on what would be Proposed Lot 7 located in the eastern portion of the site. 12. The applicant proposes dividing the subject site into 9 single-family lots. A storm tract will be located in the southeast corner of the parcel in the location where a pond was located. 13. The lots range in size from 5,000 square feet to approximately 13,743 square feet. 14. Proposed Lots 1, 2,3, 7, 8 and 9 would be rectangular lots with access to either Jones or 24th Street. Proposed Lot 7,the location of the existing home would be accessed from an easement to 24th across Proposed Lot 9. 15. Proposed Lots 4, 5 and 6 would be interior lots served by an easement road across Proposed Lot 3 and hammerhead turnaround. The easement would run west to Jones Avenue. These three lots would be somewhat wedge shaped. 16. Staff recommended that to reduce the number of driveways on the existing streets and to limit driveways being too close together that Proposed Lot 9 use the easement for Proposed Lot 7 for access Bartell Short Plat File No.: LUA-04-007 SHPL-H,V-H, ECF May 4, 2004 Page 6 Nod and Proposed Lot 3 use the easement for Proposed Lots 4, 5 and 6 for its access. In order to protect the lot east of the Proposed Lots 7 and 9 easement staff recommended that a fence be erected. 17. Proposed Lot 1 is required to dedicate property at the intersection of Jones and 24th in order to create an appropriate radius turn. 18. Proposed wedge-shaped Lots 5 and 6 narrow too much where they join the access easement and do not meet the regulations for pipestem width. Staff noted that the lots could be redesigned to meet code. The applicant agreed to alter the lots. 19. The development of 9 lots after the reduction of sensitive areas and roadways will result in a density of 5.66 units per acre. 20. The residential lot is covered with residential landscaping including grass,trees, shrubs and fruit trees as well as a variety of deciduous and conifers. Many of the trees would be removed to allow for the development of roads and building pads. The applicant would retain some trees along the western stream and some along the south property line. 21. Development of 9 single family homes will generate approximately 90 vehicle trips per day or 80 new trips giving credit for the one existing home. 22. The development would add approximately 3 or 4 new students to the school system. These students would be spread across the grades of the Renton School District *4404 23. Storm water will be detained in the southwest corner of the subject site. It will be released to an in- street system. 24. The stream that runs through the site was widened to create a manmade pond. The pond, since it was manmade, is not subject to ordinary critical areas regulations but the vegetation within 25 feet of it can only be cleared with approval of a variance from the Tree Cutting and Land Clearing regulations. Street improvements along Jones would require some clearing and the applicant has applied for a variance. As part of its proposal to install the needed improvements along Jones Avenue the applicant proposed restoring the stream channel to a more natural state including banks and gradient. Rock weirs to establish a gradient,gravel for a more natural streambed, native plantings and other improvements outlined in the applicant's Stream Restoration Plan(February 1,2004)will be installed. 25. There has been some flooding upstream of the subject site since the manmade pond has not functioned effectively at times causing water to backup onto nearby property. The proposed stream restoration plan along with ERC conditions and regulations required for storm water should address some of the problems. Staff reported that there were no downstream storm water problems. 26. The subject site is located in Aquifer Protection Zone 2. 27. The subject site will receive domestic water and sanitary sewer service from the City. CONCLUSIONS: Variance 1. The Reviewing Official shall have authority to grant a variance upon making a determination in writing Bartell Short Plat File No.: LUA-04-007 SHPL-H,V-H, ECF May 4,2004 Page 7 that the conditions specified below have been found to exist: a. That the applicant suffers undue hardship and the variance is necessary because of special circumstances applicable to subject property, including size, shape,topography, location or surroundings of the subject property, and the strict application of the Zoning Code is found to deprive subject property owner of rights and privileges enjoyed by other property owners in the vicinity and under identical zone classification; b. That the granting of the variance will not be materially detrimental to the public welfare or injurious to the property or improvements in the vicinity and zone in which subject property is situated; c. That approval shall not constitute a grant of special privilege inconsistent with the limitation upon uses of other properties in the vicinity and zone in which the subject property is situated; d. That the approval as determined by the Reviewing Official is a minimum variance that will accomplish the desired purpose. It appears that the proposed variance is appropriate given the restoration effort which will provide a more natural stream channel and environment. 2. The stream and its vegetation lie immediately adjacent to an existing street,Jones Avenue NE. It would be very difficult to install the necessary safety improvements including curbs, gutters, and pedestrian sidewalks along Jones if the variance were not approved. A combination of location and topography justify the variance in this case. 3. The approval of the variance should not prove materially detrimental to the subject site, the general public or other property. The removal of the vegetation will allow safety improvements along Jones but the applicant will be repairing an impaired stream course, installing native vegetation and may prevent upstream problems by unclogging the stream's current failing outlet. 4. The applicant would need a variance from either the Tree Cutting regulations or the Street Improvement standards to develop the subject site. The approval of this variance will allow the restoration of a more natural stream channel. It will allow the installation of a consistent roadway profile in this area. 5. The variance clearly involves tradeoffs but the stream is in anything but a natural state. Approval of the variance, as noted,will allow the repair of the natural systems and hopefully, rectify some other stream flow and storm water problems. It appears that it is the minimum necessary in this case. Plat 6. The proposed plat appears to serve the public use and interest. The plat creates additional single family lots in an area served by urban services,restores a more natural stream course and may solve some existing drainage problems. 7. The applicant has demonstrated the interior lots,Proposed Lots 4, 5 and 6, can be designed to meet City regulations, particularly those applicable to pipestem access. In addition, access to some exterior lots can be achieved from easement drives and roads rather than separate, independent driveways thereby — eliminating additional intersections along both Jones and 24th Street. The recommendations of staff are appropriate to reduce the number of driveways. Bartell Short Plat File No.: LUA-04-007 SHPL-H, V-H,ECF May 4, 2004 Page 8 8. Since the access for Proposed Lots 7 and 9 runs along a third party lot,that lot should be protected by a fence. 9. The plat will have an impact on the City's fire,roads and recreational systems. The City has adopted a set of fees that help offset the impacts of development on those public services and those standard fees appear reasonable to offset those impacts. 10. The development of new homes will bring new residents and new noise to the area as well as the impacts on roads and park. The impacts of new populations are not unusual for a single-family community. 11. The development of the subject site will increase the tax base of the City. 12. The proposed density of 5.66 dwelling units per acre meets the Zoning Code and Comprehensive Plan. 13. The applicant shall have to create a maintenance agreement for the detention facilities and the private easement roadways. 14. In order to create a smooth intersection radius for Jones and 24th,the applicant shall have to dedicate property subject to review and approval of the City. 15. In conclusion,the proposed plat and variance appear to allow reasonable redevelopment of the subject site and stream subject to the conditions enumerated below. �GiStd�; The Preliminary Plat is approved subject to the following conditions: 1. The applicant shall comply with the mitigation measures imposed by the Environmental Review Committee. 2. The applicant shall alter the lot boundaries of Lot 5 and Lot 6 to qualify as pipestem lots meeting the minimum pipestem width requirements prior to short plat recording. 3. The applicant shall post the private street with"No Parking—Fire Lane" signs prior to recording of the short plat. 4. The applicant shall place a note on the face of the short plat requiring Lot 3 to take access from the private street. 5. The applicant shall place a note on the face of the short plat requiring Lot 9 to access from the shared driveway easement extending south from NE 24th Street to Lot 7. 6. The applicant shall install a 6-foot solid fence along the length of the shared driveway easement prior to recording of the short plat. 7. The applicant shall pay a Traffic Mitigation Fee of$75.00 per additional generated trip prior to short plat recording. Bartell Short Plat File No.: LUA-04-007 SHPL-H,V-H, ECF May 4, 2004 Page 9 Noire 8. The applicant shall pay a Fire Mitigation Fee based on $488.00 per new single-family lot. 9. The applicant shall pay a Parks Mitigation Fee based on$530.76 per each new single-family lot. 10. The applicant will have to submit the radius-intersection dedication to the City Council. ORDERED THIS 4'h day of May, 2004. FRED J. KAL('MAN HEARING EXAMINER TRANSMITTED THIS 4th day of May,2004 to the parties of record: Kristina Catlin Hans Korve Bob&Alina Bartell 1055 S Grady Way DMP Engineering 1725 NE 24th Street Renton, WA 98055 726 Auburn Way N Renton, WA 98055 Auburn, WA 98002 Kayren Kittrick Larry Burnstad 1055 South Grady Way Watershed Dynamics Renton, WA 98055 PO Box 215 Enumclaw, WA 98022 TRANSMI I IED THIS 4'h day of May,2004 to the following: Mayor Kathy Keolker-Wheeler Gregg Zimmerman, Plan/Bldg/PW Admin. Members,Renton Planning Commission Neil Watts,Development Services Director Jay Covington, Chief Administrative Officer Alex Pietsch,Econ. Dev.Administrator Larry Rude, Fire Marshal Holly Graber, Dev. Services Lawrence J. Warren, City Attorney Larry Meckling, Building Official Julia Medzegian,Council Liaison Utilities System Division Jennifer Henning,Dev. Services Transportation Systems Division Janet Conklin, Dev. Services King County Journal Pursuant to Title IV, Chapter 8, Section 100Gof the City's Code, request for reconsideration must be filed in writing on or before 5:00 p.m.,May 18,2004. 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. Bartell Short Plat File No.: LUA-04-007 SHPL-H,V-H,ECF May 4, 2004 Page 10 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.,May 18,2004. If the Examiner's Recommendation or Decision contains the requirement for Restrictive Covenants,the executed Covenants will be required prior to approval by City Council or final processing of the file. You may contact this office for information on formatting covenants. The Appearance of Fairness Doctrine provides that no ex parte(private one-on-one)communications may occur concerning pending land use decisions. This means that parties to a land use decision may not communicate in private with any decision-maker concerning the proposal. Decision-makers in the land use process include both the Hearing Examiner and members of the City Council. All communications concerning the proposal must be made in public. This public communication permits all interested parties to know the contents of the communication and would allow them to openly rebut the evidence. Any violation of this doctrine would result in the invalidation of the request by the Court. The Doctrine applies not only to the initial public hearing but to all Requests for Reconsideration as well as Appeals to the City Council. D5 • 4 T23N R5E W 1/2 I/ •F,3 .. r=z, .,' \../ ... .. ....... . ' giltri el . • . T4-4 " Z• . 1, ; ,....,_. -m--,4_, . , 14...., , , Cr1.---1--1--• • , . " ... co w col...'•••,-' , 1 ,.... . • , ; cn,. tq ii : •:: • : 1 -, ce ........ . „.,. . „ • : ;:!! • C . ., i... ...z.. .• ....1 rY, . , - ' . ::. !CO^ci . , 1 i i aN i •anv........spuotupa! ! , , , , , , (d)E3-el i .1...1.1....,..1.1_.....1,......c.....r C) - 1,,....:....;.:‘:":.. e:1'." I!I icz)H i!..!••• 1 Z .... .... -----I C\J "*-'1 •I! : '''9AV ••••-•• ' I I ! ' ' ' 1••-•-•4 ' *I. ' 211\11 1 aAvi ; 1—77!:••:::::::-.:• _, .,.......,..,.....,...,!,:,,,!••;.•••••••••••••,]........L- , 1 _I. 1 • . i ; ! [03 1 , .,..........,,i , 1 ........ ......... 1 •e' ' • ' • • ! i ! I j.... r ,. 11 OTAT I . )- 1..‘",...--qN 1 )04v ... ......,..l..;, ..... 91, (..,) Co - - .. --..) -......; ', c' j . ---- -'''g' , 004Aticf!, . -- . 1 . ..Z . I 03............, .._:,L......., ,,'. , . , , ; ; . , a ...............w ILI I , . ..... ...,4 ......., : , ! , , ,.,\.„ . , . • • ; g.N. o4.v , 1\ -;!.; -r -- ••••-----n,••••i••••,--7•7•••••r••••••• ••••ti944RG•••• , . •-. ' .---i co cf) ' ' ' ''' C ' 1 1 ' i• 1 „..,..... 1 , , , •••••••••••••••••,a1 I 1 , 1 ............,......,, !........ . , • "• . -1 •••z•-• . . . ........................... ... 1 ,..= [ , : 1 •-•c•ri ,,, , i , 1 to 'sCr•l \.--1111 , 1 • ! s 111,. ! , !.., !,i. , 1 i . i 1 : ! , ••••••••,. , .. • N . ' 1 1-...- --ii ; i i 1 ] ...,...i ' : I 1 1 tn . 1 Li : ia)1 ..-Thj ,'11 . ,..-1 .2 ....... ..... ,......_.............. .4 . ' : ,I.....p.AV......01119-fal., i I, \..,......."---- „ . ,........,... ...... ; . f , . ' { . 1 H--,.. - . i '.' i ' i ' //' --.1 i ! . 1 i i • 1 .1.1 1 ' 11-4 . . . 1 . ,. .-........,..... i ! 1,-..i, i,...4..N...-....] ..-,..c,c) ....i........1 L„'..!, 1 . 1 1 , . , . , Z ,F, A. LO co : , 8 ,ii" if iii iii i I 1,..... , . 1 , 1 1 ,,, .,:,_.! •!!!. .....: !! , H ; , ; , i , , E-4 ryi . ,I•a„ • , ...; •‘!!!...! , ' ! • • 1 I 1 i i ..0....)- ----i I • 'i , - • -''•-I--II-iii:::::""ii 1: ‘• !MN 1 IVAI V ' : I-----1 i,,,,,,,1 i i i '; i .' I f II". i 1 -7t-,.. .1 f 1 ; T I 1 r i , , 1 f• r-f)! -----I'ae!.. 00 ; . . I , I , I , i • . . ....... ... . . . . „ .. . .., --y!!!!r!.... `..1', ' 0' .!;' - !!!!!t!!!!!!! • „... .„ ,.....!!„.!.. _I-I -!'.....!:. i...:.: -.it r21 ; I ! I C./DI 1 • , I 1 ; ! , . •1 •- r,ig• 00 ,•. . ' • .. 4 • , ' ,, 1 „.. , I 0 ''• I, 1"..1"-.1 T--, 0-lign---i.. L. s;eFi-----Jr-rr'''' 0 ,. . .., . . . , • L..c.4. t ' I ... , iz CZ '`i E rao' 4prAtattua c,4 1 ! H. ,---- -!, , .......... ! ! ; ; , . ._.. , ; ! ! !,!!!!!,! - --i..... I I ! I. '•••”- N,.."' ! 1 , , ... , , , , ! ! , , .„.... , , , , , , , ; ; ; I ; 1•!!!•••-i 01 ,, , ;, , : • , ,, , ; ! ; i : , , . , 1 ._._ , , : : , , , , (X ....... :.aa; • ..A.Ar !SOLtOlf 0- I ' .A.....i 1 I I ! ! Z75! ! ! i ' l ' il; i ,i , ri- : ni A 1 IIi /1.41' I 1/4,I I ' i 1 ll I' i IIN 'I•Vi"IiiiI 9 i 6 ii i I I 11. j I n I ' I g 1 i .- 2I ': Q.--18--1- ... ..,,, i 40, r-cimit.. .1. ...,) I; i i - . . 111 , ! , , I i N a ' v ; \, I I ! I ..,'••••', , 1 ! -. .. . -_ 1 ot 0 i ................... ... ,. . , .. Z/T At a511 NEZI. 5 • fa ) 0,) .• ••14) . ..--- . - - ---............----......-.....--3.--......--..-.- ...- i.1 1 . --....,-....-.-... -....-.....--.......-..-,....-...-,----.--..-. ....-. . ..--, I a' 1.1 iiy NE 1/4 SECTION 05, TOWNSHIP 12, RANGE 05 E. W. M. .. z ,L7.1 .... ,•Vt.e.$110 l•10 4,4.1 m V4.0 .1.".1,iir '•"•”'"', ..4:'ars.= 44..i Ps.. .".,,,,, I P-- K•/410910 I • r pm•MN K 041 n , ,•,..... 4•1•1 GO ..r•11,141, ItIL•771111 ••1.1.1•10 O.•C i V••••••11.1 ---.--."1:13•3r .1•!OHIO C•1.411111 ..t.1.0,130.1 2:r1.:.. U./ . •' t->43110.1. Il•/02.1.1 •- -"•TaKr'' I 72 OW.01 CO.•cl In lu•- C-10/1// g.;•••7•:$1 ::gtZ14 •Pe•l•PC . a , .., . a•.1044, so. Ul 0-Im•-.--.... . 411.1p. 1.10.1/0 .,•,,,,,,,,.,, , ,,,s,r '1111. -•. .- z <•1360.141 .. ....---• ---I I .14=1 -E.,1".":7 ..-1-1.-'-•- -. I •111 . „.. lett. ' '-1 01 L.P1 . t•111,01 (•"P.M - • c 01:05351=1:1321;.- --'-- - --- ••fimenr,,,,s,2414ink, ..., ....•_ .P.M' KI • ... r ....,.. 1 r•>14,Srli C rcll 1 I 1 ,.., 4 NI A'Pvr•ID DM • •Pv i PO• it IP''•.‘ . C•/ft . .PP . 5 1 41 I , f•-•••(I ,,,,,I 04 IV PVC••f 5.,..v...,.. ....., -•••-•.4 0,-• 4, ..- t L., -•••• : . . 4.040.1 , C 'N' ..',VI'Op..C.'• ''' ;,":8 .. ,-.-.: ,n, _:::),..,,, ,,p,' 4....I I ''' . I I!i . ..•,.,.. I A/I ,•,n, ' It -- •"''' • •'CS! .,8..... c. 0. ' .., :.. 4 / 'i • 1 8 O.,„, \'... . . $ ';.I . , ,,,,•-• ; . .... .1 . . , ,.. 0?,.,-.;•,...,...• ., ....;,... ..... ,, . •. . -•'',, 1:,' 1, ; . ,.,, , GRAPHIC SCALE A I 1 8 ' ..,C 4,34,04.1 la • .0, . IP. . 0111 xamo.0.14.$1400•1 't i • 0 i. p, 11,, ,F3r,, 10 BC CUMED MO 0.1000). ...-3•C 1 t.-.....1 ..7---- ' •IV 1411' IIIIrter, 4 II ti I Z ' • . ,.k ir • • ' f, .."4'' .MO•a M1 , M1 Q I' ' '' • LEGEND 1 i'fl 611i I ' ; i. t • er.o'Q..., 0 ..,1 .4...: ......, ..,.., • ..Nat.WI* 0 III 1.1•1••1 SOCK. T- •-- . • ,,T i•-..,•14!), 1 .' : to Ilt1,1040 ..•' . . IIP ' "..et . •• a ,.......".•,.. 11_ 1 -i ,.. I I 6T),+''''• .Aa.L''' '...4 , ..:••?),'".-s—lV---.-. . . • 1 a <•....4•,..v.4. . Is woos . I-1-I i r ;'..6-"A"---.... •••,-----. 10 i -4-4.........-. K••••t. ..,i, l - . 1 0 4•44 NW RR! i e.'i li i, : ..t.,1;,,..• 4 .r ..•:::: :"r' .. 4111111111%., -ii• 1,1,....14.40aavto,:e1„.:•...:4,01 . 1111 ; 1 • ii ,r SUMAC( II e' 0.... 'e :.... • ,c",.cii 1...r....,......° . /i. . ,,-•,, ,, s, . ,----v--f—1 .4K4.4--CA: ' • • e * .• it-Go? v v .,v, _ 0 0,111 no.1 4161,7Ce III... 40•MO ... FrI:X•37:.•. V 0 .4 i••• • •-• •4*".."•Nilrt- 'V - i .- i `1...1 - a•MM.) ) .... 4 ..........k, . I ''. I 1 ' t.'-/-.c..?" ! 1 ! J1, -4V OALeY-MOIRROW-POILETE.INC. ,P' 1.24•••••••••41••1 ; , 04,Ktb FOR COMPUANCE 01IPAPI.1.4.0•044.6•1 VACNI0 04 1 ...It 153.131:a. ,t,.._:.•••,,,,,,...,1...... ' 1 1 I to cfry STANDARDS aRCIPMPER"CFVCD rm.— BY -!1-+11]- ' NM ......- BY 0. 6)14100411,1•0„....... I I 1 I 1 1 .1_-_I 0414-- r( P.n.r•3..Al-j -• •---- - •- , - - .-.-----.. ... ...-.... ... .. ........ .- . - .... f..se m.,ffi_vaut.e._ -- - •, . i --.--.—_. ........ . : . ___- ..._---___.--_. —.....---.-----......... ....._......-__-.—_.--.... ...„,„\ V..... 0...... ...--.. CS p.. I . s•so cool'\ '---.... ''" :, '''...r.n.ns, ..4; .- ...•a a,, oal skv,.i.m.,alp„,,.•• .t.1,,,..,;cur . / ••••••,kj66.1 ..... kr•24") / , . I : La , '•'''P.''';,PONI*1 '•'''""' / „/ 'I . ..e!i%.I -1 I ,..•r•ett.., ..-N 6 c: / .1.P.,WWI / /' ) ) 4•113 TN, \ .a.. - -..... • , ..., .' , '----.........-.........---............-a.... ..-....a........................ M. .......--............ (4--.-JiL sa T.I.i1•k Mr..... 1 Mfh T [WONG.T•*AIM* NW•NS" - ----• °•"..,- 1_,.•_-:_..--. ----====_•---,.-.. —_,_................—_-.:-.---- — i . ------ ----77Z 787,7c•e777. .' 1.••• : LRAPII1C SCALE -L.!Y.L.V.!-.".r.:11_..-.--...-.....- — !.. \ ile 41N - .to MT k IL- , ' - Ili,L. .. • EG.'....j/ .a."if 1... — ej,-— TT ... • --------—, ( ,,,,, r PVC SO I,...I . 1 ,. ......... '74 M.G. ......,1- - '--• •--• --- -- i ,...,, 11;.V,1“- ' -- — — ' ".",_ ,,.,. ,a".,,,..i _ I 1 f.. ..._ ._._. r m I I " ',II.;r;r1.,:kr 1 i } f; fl, I , ' I 1 I 8 I t aV . , ,„ 14 i 4••,$). I I I I .• s:".. i I I 1 i 1 ( )- 4( 1100040 I1 a IS-113?1St . I I ..6 L. _ ._ ._._ . . a St.oATIMI melt, I g ' I )IN.Vel 1.1101tANT C.I.,Z , al 5 1 r''''' I i r.._.. .... __ .. . 2 ' -- ---- ' N • ,„ r .., td o ' Yi 1 i € I . 01 SI ti • I I I , 1 7 ) -A - . -- - -. • 1 T , ,t -4 i'1,.• ''' 1.- 1 I4 xlsrlEICI I-Int'SI:. '••"" . ... : !Iv,Sm,j - i 1 1 • - — .- Air I I 3 ' 1 1 '1 ' DEC. 1 . I 4: I 1 I • 1 L - ' I ' f:.1.1 ' 1 4a 11 •-•••"•••••''.-.-.....--- r PvC sO r P -I. I - ..... . ,.?,,:..e,....!E, i..x:03.:I •••w w, ':'I' • DRIVE A I__ i 6 I '-1'.'`•2 . :.,--- , .. . '"--•T ' I •.,.. i - I • . 1 ' 1 .1 1 :• :',. : ' ' 1 1 $1----TRACT._..i_ I \ \ , 1 . . i ; , i \ \ , •1 , . , .., i I . 1 . . , I ----- --—---.--------t Ji\,...2 __J--...____ ,,,,,,,f'.,. . DALEY-1,42fr2vvizP2EL.ETE,INC "..' . 1 . 1 1 1 o-te.4...' ootAvoto wosoot-tot.... olon.... , itt .i .di !"..ce"."_.7-2,_:?.,.?..2.71....'."_-,.,.,;_..:._,....'.!•-.. I , 1 „ \ PRIt.VAZ re cHfaitgrPheicifr" Dote /11 ..,4...,, .1 . ..11 /.•: 0° (.9....17.1.1304110.1.0•WAVIVINO 4NC•Pl.MN*.t.1 l_ . 2 '; ji''11.12.- 11 BY " tt.to. eY Dot4...........-. DI_ fi1:At'.- .— _ • ) ii) ) . • ) 4 CITY OF RENTON COUNCIL AGENDA BILLp� Ain: b •K Submitting Data: For Agenda of: 4/18/2005 Dept/Div/Board.. Hearing Examiner Staff Contact Fred J. Kaufman, ext. 6515 Agenda Status Consent X Subject: Public Hearing.. Correspondence.. Christelle Ridge Preliminary Plat Ordinance File No. LUA-04-100, 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 Christelle Ridge Preliminary Plat was published on March 1, 2005. The Examiner responded to these letters on March 21, 2005. The Examiner recommends approval of the proposed preliminary plat subject to the conditions outlined on pages 9 and 10 of the Examiner's Report and Recommendation. The appeal period ended on March 15, 2005. On March 7 and March 15, 2005 two Requests for Reconsideration were entered. The Examiner changed Condition 2 to read as follows: "The applicant shall not interfere or degrade the access easement that runs along the north edge of the subject site. If a stormwater vault is constructed in the location of the easement it shall be designed to support the weight of fire engines and other large trucks. "Conditions placed on this project are to be met at later stages of the platting process. STAFF RECOMMENDATION: Recommends approval of the Christelle Ridge Preliminary Plat with conditions as outlined in the Examiner's Report and Recommendation and letter dated March 21, 2005. Rentonnet/agnbill/ bh March 1, 2005 OFFICE OF THE HEARING EXAMINER CITY OF RENTON Minutes APPLICANT: Jeff Rieker Christelle Inc 1750 Monroe Avenue NE Renton, WA 98056 CONTACT: Torn Touma Touma Engineers 6632 S 19151 Place, Ste. E-120 Kent, WA 98032 OWNER: Mithra and Usha Sankrithi 17602 Bothell Way NE Lake Forest Park, WA 98155 Christelle Ridge Preliminary Plat File No.: LUA 04-100, PP, ECF LOCATION: SE 951h Way and Anacortes Avenue NE (near the intersection of Coal Creek Parkway) 'taw SUMMARY OF REQUEST: Approval for a 22-lot subdivision of a 3.54-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 November 30,2004. 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 December 7, 2004 hearing. The legal record is recorded on CD. The hearing opened on Tuesday,December 7,2004, at 9:48 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: Christelle Ridge Preliminary Plat File No.: LUA-04-100, PP, ECF March 1, 2005 Page 2 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: Street and Utilities Exhibit No. 5: Detailed Grading Plan Exhibit No. 6: Tree Clearing Plan Exhibit No. 7: Zoning Map 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 subject site is located on the south side of SE 95°t Way on the northern boundary of the City of Renton adjacent to the City of Newcastle in King County. The applicant is asking for preliminary plat and SEPA review approval for a 22-lot subdivision on a 3.54-acre site, intended for the development of detached single-family homes. The development is in the Residential-8 (R-8)zone with a net density of 7.48 dwelling units per acre. Because SE 95°t Way is under the jurisdiction of the City of Newcastle,the applicant has been working with them to obtain all right-of-way permits and meeting all code requirements for access and improvements. The site is designated on the City's Slopes Critical Areas Maps and as a Forested and Potential Wildlife Area. There are approximately 190 trees, all of which are proposed to be cleared from the site. Approximately 25,000 cubic yards of material will be removed during the earthwork and it is expected that these materials will be used on site. A 42-foot wide public street would be constructed, known as Whitman Place NE. It would be 390 feet ,4400 long and end in a cul-de-sac which will be dedicated to the City. There currently is no proposed access along SE 95°i Way. Tract A will hold an underground detention vault to handle the site's surface water runoff, as well, water and sanitary sewer utilities will be extended along the frontage of the site. It will be necessary for the project to provide a sanitary sewer lift station on site,the location has not been determined as yet. The Environmental Review Committee issues a Determination of Non-significance—Mitigated for the project, which included five mitigation measures. No appeals of the determination were filed. The site is in compliance with the Comprehensive Plan Land Use housing and environmental policies. The net density of 7.48 dwelling units per acre meets code. Lot dimensions for an R-8 zone requires a minimum lot size of 4,500 square feet with a minimum width of 50 feet for interior lots, 60 feet for corner and a depth of 65 feet. Lots along the turning circle of the cul-de-sac are required to have a 35-foot width,pipestem lots ale not to exceed 150 feet in length and not less than 20 feet in width. Pipestem portions of Lots 4, 11, and 14 were not included in the lot area calculations, that would need to be revised prior to final plat approval. Lot 17 width is actually less than the 50-foot requirement that also would need to be revised. The Examiner inquired if it could be done. Ms. Weil stated that it is expected, because it is only short a couple of feet,that the applicant should be able to acquire the additional footage, if not,then they would need to adjust the configurations of the lots to comply with the width requirements. Christelle Ridge Preliminary Plat File No.: LUA-04-100, PP. ECF March 1, 2005 Page 3 Again, Lot 7 does not comply with buildable setbacks,the applicant must meet the width requirement before final plat approval. Lot 7 requires a 20-foot rear yard. This plat has gone through several revisions, with errors and inconsistencies each time in the dimensions, calculations, however, it is clear that Lot 7 does have development issues. Lot 22 is another unusually shaped lot, it will be necessary to designate the buildable area so that this frontage would be consistent with the joining lots. Hillside subdivision requirements due to slope there are criteria to provide for larger lots, most of these lots are above the minimum 4.500 square feet, there are several that are right at or just above that minimum requirement and those are towards the southeast corner of the site. Lot 5 needs a setback of 15-20 feet depending on the garage location. While the site is located within the City of Renton,the access is located within the City of Newcastle. Permits for those access and improvements along the right-of-way in the City of Newcastle will be required before final approval. Two 26-foot wide private access easements are proposed, both extend off the bulb of the cul-de-sac to provide access to the lots located along the southern property line, Lots 14, 15, 16 and 17 will share the access easement to the southeast and Lots 8, 9, 10 and 11 will share the access easement extending to the west. 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. fir.► Traffic, Park and Fire Mitigations fees are required. The Geotechnical Report states that site grading and earthwork be performed during the dry summer months and the implementation of permanent erosion control should be completed by mid-October. There were no indicators of slope instability problems. The slope delineation map indicates that the vertical rise does not exceed 15 feet and therefore is not a protected slope. Staff recommends the applicant to plant two ornamental trees per new lot, to be located in the front yard of each lot. The site is located within the Renton School District. The school district has indicated that they would be able to support the additional students generated by this proposal. The Drainage Report indicates that on-site surface water and surface water runoff flows to the north-northwest toward the roadside swale along SE 95th Way. Staff pointed out that located on Tract A is a 30-foot private easement for access and utility for the adjoining property owner, Mr. Hudson. That does leave half of proposed Tract A to locate the stormwater facility, at this time, the actual proposed construction plan has not been submitted. The Examiner questioned all the lots that currently do not meet the requirements. He is not willing to recommend to the City Council until all lots are clearly defined. Lot 17 doesn't meet code,there have been previous revisions. Tom Touma, 6632 S 191'Place, Ste. E-102, Kent, WA 98032 stated that regarding Lot 7,the northwesterly length of that lot is 97.48 feet. Lots 4, 5, 14, 15, 16 and 17, except for Lot 17 which was inadvertently looked at, r it should be 50-feet. Moving Lots 16 and 17 would give the required footage needed. The revised plan, at the last meeting with staff, did accurately reflect the dimensions of each lot. He is not clear why some of these lots Christelle Ridge Preliminary Plat File No.: LUA-04-100, PP, ECF March 1, 2005 Page 4 are now not accurate. He does not have any problems with the rest of the conditions imposed. They .will work closely with staff to comply. There are two options for the easement on Tract A, one is to design the tank in such a way that it would handle vehicles driving over it and provide the access to people using it currently, and secondly, worst case, if this could not be done, it would mean reducing the number of lots by 1 to accommodate the storage tank and still provide the proper access to people. Mike Hudson,2626 Whitman Avenue NE, Renton, WA 98059 stated that he owns tax lot 197, immediately west of the proposed plat. He wants to make sure that the easement does not get compromised, so that at some time in the future their property to the west can be developed. The Examiner inquired if the easement was actually being used at the moment, if there was construction, would that be blocking access to the Hudson property. Mr. Hudson stated that he would not have any problem with any construction that was being done as long as the tank could support vehicles,trucks and emergency vehicles that might need to use the easement. Roger Kuykendall, Engineer,City of Newcastle, 701 Dexter Avenue North, Suite 200, Seattle, WA 98109 stated that they have met with the applicant and their engineer to discuss the project. He felt that the applicant had been given clear direction on what is expected for the right-of-way use permit to construct frontage improvements on 95th Way. Regarding Tract A private access easement to the Hudson property to the west,just so that it is cle_;r,that easement will also connect to 95th Way and depending on the type of development Hudson's are planning for the future, the way this development and the way it is connected to 95'h Way there may need to be some rethinking .41110 on how that would take place. Mr. Kuykendall further pointed out that on page 10 of 12 of the Staff Report, under Storm Drainage/Surface Water, it states that after completion of the project, approximately 25-35% of the site would be covered with impervious surfaces. It seems that it would actually be closer to 55%, there are 8 lots that under the zoning code would be required to have a 50% building coverage,there are 14 lots that are allowed to have a 35%building coverage, by the time you count patios,walkways, driveways and road and access improvements it will be well above 35%. Kayren Kittrick, Development Services stated that she did not know why roadways were being developed. It was very late in the process when they found out about the 35-foot utility and access easement on Tract A. The whole discussion on drainage and being able to comply with the County Surface Water Design Manual became an interesting question. Utilities is also part of this, and typically under ordinary construction review. There already is a sight distance issue,and a second access at that point some time in the future would be impossible. The lower portion of the Hudson property is landlocked at the lower portion. Mr. Hudson stated that they annexed all the property in 1989. They built their house in 1989 at which time there were 14 acres when they annexed to the City. Everything north of NE 25th Place was annexed in 1989. Ms. Kittrick stated that this seems to have been missed. The easement that goes to the south to NE 25th Place is only a 20-foot wide easement. That would not be a private roadway, it would barely be emergency access at 20- feet. The 30-foot access across the top of Christelle would be adequate for a private road,but the minimum for residential access is 42-feet. Moving the easement off of Tract A may be beneficial since the storm drainage may be much greater than first estimates show. Noid Christelle Ridge Preliminary Plat File No.: LUA-04-100, PP, ECF March 1, 2005 Page 5 The Examiner stated that this request should be sent back for further review by City of Newcastle,the applicant and staff. Nancy Weil stated that Mr. Touma had some concerns, the site plan has gone through 3 revisions since it was submitted and the reason for the concerns on the calculations on the lots for 14, 15, 16 and 17 around the private easement is because the original site plan showed this as an actual tract with it's own square footage, it was asked for that to be eliminated and an easement created. That was done and the final results as shown,the property lines of these lots shifted, but the square footage never was altered. As for the concerns for the buildable area for Lot 7 and meeting the development criteria for lot width for Lot 17 and the concern that has been mentioned regarding the 30-foot easement and future access. Staff would be happy to work with the applicant and resolve some of these issues. The Examiner sent this preliminary plat back to staff. Another brief public hearing would probably be the best scenario, limiting it to the issues raised today. The hearing was recessed at 10:34 am. The hearing reopened on Tuesday,February 1,2005, at 9:92 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 hearing reopened with a presentation of the staff report by Nancy Weil, Senior Planner, Development Services, City of Renton, 1055 S Grady Way, Renton, Washington 98055. There were some concerns raised from the presentation that needed to be clarified with the applicant and adjacent property owner, Mr. Hudson. To briefly outline those issues and give an explanation of how the applicant addressed those issues and the final resolution. Issue#1: Lot 17, there were concerns that the lot dimensions and the private easement were not being adequately shown on the plat that was being reviewed. The 50-foot width requirement was not being met, it was substandard to the requirements for the zoning. The applicant has since revised the site plan to indicate that there is a 50-foot width met for that lot. All lots have been revised to be accurate as far as lot dimension and square footage. Lots 4, 5, 14, 15, 16, and 17 have also been revised to make sure that they are reflecting the accurate lot dimensions and square footage. Therefore conditions one and two in the previous staff report are no longer applicable. Lot 7 was pointed out due to the unusual configuration if there was actually a buildable area on that lot. That was revised with the applicant meeting the requirement for 15 feet width with a building pad of 30 x 40 feet. Slope analysis was also of concern that due to extensive grading of the site that the applicant would have concerns with grading as well as how it was affecting the adjacent property owner. Slope analysis with some cross sections addressing how the difference in the grade from this site and the adjacent property to the west would be significant to the point that it would not allow for any feasible access. The existing 30-foot easement that was a concern with the adjacent property owner, the applicant proposes to `ern incorporate that into Tract A, in the design they will either need to make sure they will not impact that easement or they do receive written consent that they can actually utilize that from the adjacent property owner. mow Christelle Ridge Preliminary Plat File No.: LUA-04-100, PP, ECF March 1, 2005 Page 6 Mr.Touma did present staff with information addressing access to the site has been included in material to the Hearing Examiner. Leaving the easement where it is potentially that 30-foot easement could allow for four lots under code,for property that does not actually abut a public right-of-way and access to at least a 26-foot easement could allow then the development of four lots. Any further development they would have to achieve some further access to the site, it was discussed that currently there is an easement to the property from the south,they may be able to obtain access or potentially if this property is ever to develop incorporating with these lots that are abutting SE 95th Way would also give better access for the overall development. The development of this site is not impeding the development of the adjacent property any further than it was already under constraints due to the fact that it is landlocked. 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 9:15 a.m. FINDINGS, CONCLUSIONS & RECOMMENDATION Having reviewed the record in this matter,the Examiner now makes and enters the following: FINDINGS: 1. The applicant, Jeff Rieker, filed a request for a 22-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. 1414.0 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 southwest of the intersection of SE 95th Way and Coal Creek Parkway at the extreme north end of the City. The site is north of Anacortes Avenue NE if it were extended to the north. 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 uses, 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 1821 enacted in March 1960. 9. The subject site is approximately 3.54 acres. The subject site is an irregularly shaped but generally triangular. It is approximately 430 feet wide(east to west) by 440 feet long. 10. The subject site slopes downward to the north and northeast from approximately 440 feet to 350 feet. The City's Critical Areas map shows the site with protected slopes. An analysis by the applicant's engineer shows that while there are steep slopes of up to 40%,they do not meet the Protected Slopes definition of a vertical rise of 15 feet for the 40% slopes. The site nevertheless is defined as b Hillside Subdivision. Christelle Ridge Preliminary Plat File No.: LUA-04-100, PP, ECF March 1, 2005 Page 7 11. The subject site is identified as a Forested and Potential Wildlife Area in the City's inventory. The applicant proposes removing most of the nearly two hundred trees found on the subject site. The trees are a mix of coniferous and deciduous. 12. The applicant proposes dividing the subject site into 22 single-family lots. The lots would be arrayed around a curving cul-de-sac roadway that enters near the northeast corner of the site and curves south and southeast. The lots would almost be in a triangular arrangement around the perimeter of the site. Proposed Lots 1 to 8 generally lie along the western property line. Proposed Lots 9 to 15 are arranged along the south property line. Proposed Lots 16 to 22 are located along the angled northeast property line. 13. The proposed lots will range in size from approximately 4,500 square feet(the minimum permitted in the R-8 Zone) and 8,403 square feet. Staff noted that Proposed Lots 13, 14, and 15 are in areas of the subject site which have slopes between 21 and 39 percent and have lot sizes that range from 4,507 square feet to 4,779 square feet. Staff noted that in a hillside subdivision lot sizes should be adjusted upward to deal with the slopes and providing reasonable lot sizes. 14. As noted, a cul-de-sac provides primary access to the subject site from SE 95th Way. SE 95th Way is located in the City of Newcastle and that City will have control of the intersection improvements. Two easement roadways would provide access to Proposed Lots 8 to 11 in the southwest corner of the site and to Proposed Lots 14 to 17 in the southeast corner of the site. Proposed Lots 4 and 5 would share a driveway. Staff has recommended that none of the proposed lots access directly to 95th Way. The Stole intersection could be somewhat awkward given the nearby intersection with Coal Creek Parkway. (see below for discussion of the adjacent property to the north) 15. The density for the plat would be 7.48 dwelling units per acre after subtracting for land dedicated to roadways. If a lot were eliminated the plat would still meet code. 16. An easement to a separate parcel crosses the northern edge of the subject site where the applicant has proposed to place its storm drainage tract,Tract A. The drainage tract cannot impair the access easement. In addition, it was noted that the easement creates another problematic intersection along 95th Way. The easement would also limit the number of potential lots that may be accessed and could restrict the development potential of the adjacent property. 17. Staff pointed out a number of areas where the proposed subdivision did not meet various code requirements or where lots did not meet standards. The lot calculation discrepancies coupled with the question over the above noted easement and drainage tract led to a decision to continue the hearing until these issues were resolved. At the second hearing staff noted that the various calculation discrepancies were rectified. Staff noted that the easement along the north edge of the subject site would serve four lots but that grade issues made developing access through the subject site impractical. Staff Aso noted that the drainage tract could not interfere with access to the adjoining lot. 18. The record also indicated that retaining walls up to 20 feet in height would be needed along the boundaries of the subject site due to the extreme grading that will be necessary to create lots on this property. 19. The subject site is located within the Renton School District. The project is expected to generate *low approximately 9 to 10 school age children. These students would be spread across the grades and would be assigned on a space available basis. Christelle Ridge Preliminary Plat File No.: LUA-04-100, PP, ECF March 1, 2005 Page 8 4,110 20. The development will increase traffic approximately 10 trips per unit or approximately 220 trips for the 22 single-family homes. Approximately ten percent of the trips, or approximately 22 additional peak hour trips will be generated in the morning and evening. 21. As noted, stormwater would be channeled to a wet-vault on Tract A along the north margin of the site. Water would then be released into a City of Newcastle swale along 95th Way and eventually to May Creek. The City required a Level 2 analysis according to the 1998 King County regulations. Staff recommended screening and access conditions for this Tract. 22. The site will receive both its sewer and water service from the City. A lift station will be required. CONCLUSIONS: 1. The subject site is quite constrained by its topography,the shape of the property and its access as well as the fact that access to another parcel runs along its north margin where a stormwater vault ;s proposed. The subject site is aptly subject to the Hillside Subdivision regulations. Those regulations would potentially reduce the amount of grading necessary to carve building pads out of this odd-sized parcel and possibly reduce the height of retaining walls if the soils and grades are not so significantly manipulated. The Comprehensive Plan which designates the area for single-family uses did not do a site-specific analysis when adopted. Site-specific issues were not analyzed when the new zoning code was adopted. Site-specific analysis occurs when a project is submitted for review. Those site-specific factors now demonstrate that the proposal is too dense for this particular site. 2. This property is a Hillside Subdivision in which too much grading is proposed and too many lots are Ned proposed and therefore the proposed plat is inappropriate. Between the easements for access to Proposed Lots 14 to 17 and the easement to Proposed Lot 5 and the large amount of proposed grading the plat proposed does not serve the public use and interest. In order to create lots that do not require as much grading and lots that are not so oddly shaped like Proposed Lot 7 and Proposed Lot 15,the applicant should reduce the number of lots and move lot lines to create slightly larger lots. Such readjustment might allow less grading and possibly even save a couple of trees on a site designated as Forest/Wildlife area by the City. The applicant should combine Proposed Lots 6 and 7 and move the easement for Proposed Lot 5 so that Proposed Lot 4 has a more direct frontage on the cul-de-sac roadway. The plat should eliminate Proposed Lot 14 and readjust the boundaries between Lots 13, 15 and 16. This would result in a Hillside Subdivision with more rectangular lots and one that preserves a bit more of the natural topography of the subject site. The comprehensive plan suggests that development take advantage of natural features of property. Staff noted that Proposed Lots 13, 14, and 15 are in areas of the subject site which have slopes between 21 and 39 percent and have lot sizes that range from 4,507 square feet to 4,779 square feet. Staff noted that in a hillside subdivision lot sizes should be adjusted upward to deal with the slopes and provide reasonable lot sizes. 3. Creating additional building lots for single-family homes is appropriate and in that outcome, dividing the subject site makes sense. But it is unnecessary in such a constrained lot to eke out every last square foot and every steeply inclined slope for a few additional lots. 4. It appears that the streets can handle the additional traffic although at an intersection that is close to the heavily traveled Coal Creek Parkway. Christelle Ridge Preliminary Plat File No.: LUA-04-100, PP, ECF March 1, 2005 Page 9 Now 5. The subject site can be served with urban services such as water and sewer. It appears that some further analysis will be necessary for full stormwater control and any stormwater system will have to respect the existing access easement or provide a securely engineered system to support an access roadway. 6. In conclusion,the proposed plat as conditioned above should be approved by the City Council. RECOMMENDATION: The City Council should approve a twenty-lot (20)Preliminary Plat subject to the following conditions: 1. The applicant shall comply with the conditions imposed by the ERC. 2. The applicant shall not interfere or degrade the access easement that runs along the north edge of the subject site. 3. The applicant should combine Proposed Lots 6 and 7 and move the easement for Proposed Lot 5 so that Proposed Lot 4 has a more direct frontage on the cul-de-sac roadway. 4. The plat should eliminate Proposed Lot 14 and readjust the boundaries between Lots 13, 15 and 16. 5. No direct access from any lot within the plat shall be allowed onto SE 95th Way. This condition shall be placed on the face of the final plat prior to recording. 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 final plat approval. 7. The residential addresses shall be visible from the public street, Whitman Place NE by installing a private street address sign listing residential addresses of the subject plat at the intersection of the private easement with Whitman Place NE. This condition shall be subject to the review and approval of the Development Services Project Manager prior to the final plat approval. S. The applicant shall be required to create a homeowner's association or maintenance agreement for the shared private access easements, shared utilities, stormwater facilities, and maintenance responsibilities for all shared improvements 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. 9. The applicant shall be required to plant two new approved trees, per each new lot,within the 20-foot front yard setback area. The applicant shall be required to record a restrictive covenant against the property indicating that two trees are required within the front yard setback area of each new lot,prior to final plat recording. 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. 'err Christelle Ridge Preliminary Plat File No.: LUA-04-100, PP, ECF March 1, 2005 Page 10 I 0. The applicant shall provide a landscape and fencing plan for the visual enhancement of the Tract A. Staff recommends that this condition be subject to the review and approval of the Development Services Division prior to final plat approval. ORDERED THIS 1st day of March 2005. FRED J. KAL AN HEARING E MINER TRANSMITTED THIS 1st day of March 2005 to the parties of record: Nancy Weil Torn Touma Roger Kuykendall 1055 S Grady Way 6632 S 1915'Place, Ste. E-102 Engineer, City of Newcastle Renton, WA 98055 Kent, WA 98032 701 Dexter Avenue North, Suite 200 Seattle, WA 98109 Kayren Kittrick Mike Hudson 1055 S Grady Way 2626 Whitman Avenue NE Renton, WA 98055 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 Pursuant to Title IV, Chapter 8, Section 100Gof the City's Code, request for reconsideration must be filed in writing on or before 5:00 p.m.,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$75.00 and meeting other specified requirements. Christelle Ridge Preliminary Plat File No.: LUA-04-100, PP, ECF March 1, 2005 Page 11 Copies of this ordinance are available for inspection or purchase in the Finance Department, first floor of City Hall. An appeal must be filed in writing on or before 5:00 p.m.,March 15,2005. If the Examiner's Recommendation or Decision contains the requirement for Restrictive Covenants,the executed Covenants will be required prior to approval by City Council or final processing of the file. You may contact this office for information on formatting covenants. The Appearance of Fairness Doctrine provides that no ex parte(private one-on-one)communications may occur concerning pending land use decisions. This means that parties to a land use decision may not communicate in private with any decision-maker concerning the proposal. Decision-makers in the land use process include both the Hearing Examiner and members of the City Council. All communications concerning the proposal must be made in public. This public communication permits all interested parties to know the contents of the communication and would allow them to openly rebut the evidence. Any violation of this doctrine would result in the invalidation of the request by the Court. The Doctrine applies not only to the initial public hearing but to all Requests for Reconsideration as well as Appeals to the City Council. �irr/ """" ---- Ili „. M J N ' P.O HON C REE K �"* KING COUNTS' PA - K� C •TION DEPT. p I - !lit.� _ac (2f (3) = _ _ _ - jos k , 11 S. F+M,q), , �oRP pR a ' 9 5.E. .."5TH-•----WAY' 's .^8•- -1---- -- '- , T E I° .., ```` II �,y, �L.,aliDem., �Il.��y=r r, �,t�/ W .ocanor a ICI CO u+at..+ CSC 1 /� -V �^ f 1 1 ,...z/t2 , )I I P i RD' _ r N W II a.$k �0 as �' / w.t 11 oo i ' m -i W IOSOAc oilIA. 'a u i�1? t� GREENWAY �,.,__ o��k ps Georgc 5. ;1a t7 II .� _-� t- iro -• Beckwith ...1 i 1 n. - • -.),-1.7" nor. - ��•> 0.Jk Ib •\\ �I `�`�=r rl ee INN °rcC A,Skinner �a+�N 13a4Ac ,—I II James W. Dal°ay � ,„ _ ,1 -}L� 0.98k ii \ 1iy rr.• Mahlon E,Setten Frederick Harold Y. • le lx t SP.38(I)2095 . sT Parhaniemi Gambini .. •• 4.9 . 3h�_. .�._.Zfe.•I �.. - --� ..1.-• .. csa,.,.• flJ�fJk b CCM �..- OLIk. ^, IIS•. >meets•�ieci�es�-.`�. .�11L...3SOtC 1.41 Ar. nx�.�r• oar (' Fri t � x 1 Jr '�'.-,� vS ® �:- \t 3. ' s • 3.81 Ac. " 2 \'-'1,'4,. i''•' ',, iI M Lil 3411c- z j,,,,0:,11,1.z. in 1 Q�oso i3 I O .. o` Maya reek „ ..., c- . k�.:. 1 I.SO Ac, 3S1 Ac. �, II 10 • . �`'•.::. ;qL . •.� 16 .. F� P a r k ,.., lill ‘,., 5 Ac. • • m I 0 • it.,,I, (I) (7a (3) 11 .... a " £ t. LOt 3 I r ..) - tl ZS O \� s 416• �� 'C"• ' • ea •- ,g ,� 3 ;2 Acrea 1.31 )' - , OM I i.r. ZZ II .I Ac. i rn ..i. At R ,. ©.:i I Ob J3 Kai SO At• R 0• • milk, lam. c N.E.A2•THYCT. I lIC‘I . ' . 0.43 As./ r.PAIIEJ .1. - t .. CD 14. el e liiiiiii..0L'A.Z I tin ".::..1:::„\: .... 1 2 • k'T 7-1 MIP.1 lit .:; MI' --.:CI] ts 'kr WI, Dasdl EM , 51111.71113' ® num: $ ° . •41°' .. z\, 1 Ilr°14 M,Q, � • 51S A c .I A��,�;I 7.4:1,:•7•;..: toJ, ? '• GIenco .X.,:.:.1ii. " S3Park H.E• '25T eCT.o .:' "es .-@ it o 2.58 Ac . 1 • „ ' � � ' • ( (I. 7 Kap. �� N M s \ I N7ERJEO7p7 a K 11,N Mar 4'OZN OS 8 F -,~----_—..M 1.70.61' sdr2raBY 4 --� —I LEGAL OfSGRIPriON 41 hi I LECtNO 1 1NACT A • - 1 _ HATn,RANGE sE ST.634.,IN MNo ARTS OF INS4I GTTCF4 19 MN CAW • 0� 1 010 acres ® or ma '. COIRIENONC AT THE NOHTNIKST CORNER Of SA10 SUBONSIO j o A1RM MLA•6M S,t ' ♦ �rTi�• I THENCE SOON 6679'35'EAST ALONG THE NORTH UNE OF 11 A ON NCR PM A..• .. Cl ..a. .\ \I POINT or BEGINNING: i • 7E7 ROM 1 CM'(OM 1 . A" THENCE CONTNIRNO SOUTH 6Ti6'3s•EAST 130.56 FEET TO 1 1 taco.r. \4E ROAD: THENCE SOUTH 4730'46'EAST ALONG SAM MARGIN 47..64 F 1 0.17 aa.x /: • '6�JJi��yZ' 9�1.. • TNOHCE sour H m•40'06a WEST 164.41 FT'ET. . T.IDICE NORTH 1301751.WEST 430.43 FEET: , THONJE NORTH 01,47.46.EAST I r 6 3.404. � t_._., 6 Ct 22°•' '•\\ `\ �• ` THENCE NORTH 6143'71'EAST 3 11 FEET: TIE TRUE Pa I ® 2 ; �, t 41 s B O.ii • 84 �' A ' a• (ALSO KNOWN AS LOT J OF LOT UNE AC.,USIIIENT NO U.1 C �N �rs +' , e+aPit'.t.__.., 'ten RECOROINO N0.6101139004), 3 .a�� (Nov. a at 20 .. 'ay MN7M t o.14 acres Ax • N1� 11226 -- a4•a°x.r <. a z cv J3' ,`\, I .\ MSI mgtilm ow l'Z_„ �g 4 a i o: .. � �� \ I DEN IN a71-Ra6� a1. 4 PAM( I/ t it •5 ; auaa,. 7 'LIZ. /* \ ENO t M x ` ' 010 owx 8 \\ 06II 1 II MOVE SWI a V'',;4. 16 �a \ \ \ PN,43 n_r an„,;i, a �.,. Nr.Mi •e r '� TAX LOr '9i w \ :�``0q •° \ IP , 9 1 11 mia 1 NOM O rF! _ ,_.. ,�51, ) .Y( •'�\ \ ZONE It AMi at ten.at AML at 0....* 1H 12 ' 13 - 4 15 j \\ ZONE 0.16 sax• 0.13 am 0.13 aex• 4N4•aL , 46x.ar. 1; ♦ta✓. PARCE i 0 11 _ an aarn ;aw a.•• ; ;p:D.Frv__, .t6.v.. J../ - - .W •.. +a:• .A• ae n s n , -ew La• OGL.�` �_ _ / I I L68.� �7 � 000 IWI'04 �. I LGT 1 RIDGE/"EN ESTATES q`� Ffli , '; rax _�:r a \j� I TAX Lor 188 ENR/GHr Si RL TAY LOT 186 I I LUA-95x137-jnh'I, .�_.._._.__..__ -I . �..- -=.Y.�. rte_._; IIIIII ,y ,��_�..____L__.._—r____T-___4___4___44. t_—..—.t 4-_-__ L__. { � ___._, I _ _ _ _ H� • — I , • -i'--'-- -------- - -- - -- -1 R - — -—^ 1._•j..-„��- __yr.+--_-'---------'---"_ .-_'.. _-__'-- • ---_.. , aw .,.__ .--_ .. ._.•._.�...-�-44.4_4_._. ti. . 4___4_4__._._._ __..._ -_--- : • • -•-�---'---'- 4444-.---.T... -_- - -'._ -' -`-T "�" _' -_-4444__-.__.._4444.4444____._._444.4_..__ 4444_._444.4_.-...___-.----.•----_-_-.-._ ._..___�_... _..__ .__ ._..... __..-_._.fi._.-_44.4.4.__.._,-......__. ._ ___._- DEVELOPMENT PLANNING — —•–_ _._444 ____ I\X. CITY OF RENTON a I . a 4 4 4 G a t 4 a .114.• J fr _ V 9- DEC 2 8 2�0 - Lit Hi i RECEIVE(... zrx •Miq,AaM aq,P \ (1 1.I d -1.....—___-- •— — .�• iI.• r _ I PORTION OP THE NW 7/4 Or THE NW 1/4 SI(IR — _ I SECTION J. TOO NSNIP 2J NORM, RANGE 3 EAST, W.M, ����`� — -- CITY OF RENTOR; sure O'WASNlNCTON ifmi d 4.1 'i•n0 7.,.,L2 U 2,Ivi ___ t���1►`yamiihN,.. 60 i V{.0f 1 �y. \ ,,,l i�_W� I` GRAPHIC 9CALC L.J a ili•;Iv — •---Vi.4.11(01;104A ''', - –--",...........---•ii \ ,•••11••• I• Aga110111110,"111P, ''• q ,a ti � ,..1 ,.1:011r1 kNNNIftrk I 111OnW) i \ IllighL 10 a(rANN 0 w," 4 II ' �� �� NwsvPA`a���\ < 1hl�aA P II \ ,� �1 , �` ` 380 \N\:\\,\ \ 4WAJ \\\\\\\ ja II . i lli Mallailliv....____64 . (1* lalllitia 1:111ELMEmaktowaW# ������ 1. ii.-����llititik ! 15 00 0 TT ,P „ 4O — •$ WI .•'- 'Yee 111) 1 11741/1047 WAIL :0 44/4„. /IP ' 1, 410 ..2. •..-----..............-...-.................—...4.-----00 43.- .• f X00.__....._-...-. ........�_........�_..._....._._..aCO 410- _......._.... - '-_._ .....__.-..__...-.:,.._..;-__ ._..,p 390.. .... .... ._..�..........:+..e.^... ., .�790 'so-.. .. r. ._....._._...__.�......... ....'.1;.,..i c rIeI 710 •--.. .__...... ..-__.'.. y70 ...._.....__.....+_.....�..•__...�...... ':. _......•A'. 770 7e0._.._.... ... ._._._ ._. __ 7w .._.__......�...__._.._.._....__.._ . :-. 4.36 76c an...... ...• ........ .........._....._....._...»�.__...._..._._•___...+.r Tao J�A3E '_-_ L.. ._ ....._._. U.IXL'X_9Y_ .. ._ +7a0 ri'••,_*. ' •LINE L-1 LINE L-2 G R A DI11N[G it , CO 1 I •?/' I 1 c?p j -14 1 . : 1111443—i is 1 1 ..... ....i• C : . i-----,---- s -i----. t • i - _lh,„ ST:TC, -AE1:26til ti-.1-- --i ' '11 ?m- micil 0 : - --- .--fed- ...- ' te24-- •s . . ,1 t„..); 1 1 ! I - IR' _ _ 1------ . ' I\ i 1 I I 1 \ 1 -r- NE r th et. / ! 1 ._ \i • 1 s I ity,i ,i .... ,-.-,-c_i_ Pm 44111 Sti. ' i 14124th St) 1 ( SE 100t ,E 101st St . _____,c1 , g:0! , , ,• ! iii ii ; " 1:1- 3 I i ° _RiggliA, -47. ,. .).,---, _I i 1 I I 1 1 1 i ---,__--/---, , Ili , ,• - 1 74-p41, IP, i , • , , , . ,- ,,,,t - iii , !0 „ /--.. Q.N• - _.,\ •• . ,*"7" -\---4.7./7 ' -I- -- * * "' I I 1-"•-•- -'' A-- - --I.\ . - C=4 1 i V .!..:,•---- —? , , 1 . , el s ••• 1 1 1 ' 0% -÷i i • . .. 4 3' i 'St ' ' 141 1 • .s vs a S I I i i Z "4 i---.C'' ''VE\2 I ...- ;Li- "-- ..."-- 114 '4 ' . ! 44-Prigisi•St . . -__.; sii • ts • • • I t )q ; I CI.) I 1 . -1 / .! W•; ....„._ iliff s I 1 1 i \ • ' kJ • 1' 'I e..t4 ' • 19thi St Z ! i ! ! i ---i\--•:. 1 A , z "1 1 R : , (. ., 8 _,---, , „, : , , r , - , ._, 8 , , Noe E-• , , , !____ © a__ , '2 ! )--- i i -‘t• -i.--_—'''' / 1 i.- '' ' i ;\ ,. Firit . si--.), s i , 01 '1:4;4 SIP 4 ti t.---- - -.., . \ , • ,_.... --,_____ ---(1---- ,__,.. , • . - . . .. fi i , .., 1 A ' . : . , , , ,1- t • , ' ''' Ery —i .n ! i ! -; , • ..4 , % ;- •-a., t F_ _ i./..... 4 -13__I !----j-,-c-,- \ 12-0 I I f .;- ---- 43 !\15100h\ , '-' 44 •• 1 grill ,,-- n / tirrit; 1 . \ :h4 ," ' ./IV. 1_1ZI`k ......,z_Eig di SE 107th Pl. =I 1 19 Oil ".•'8 r R...8 1 1 I ' • . : ilit 1 -8 . ' ' 1 „ Inil 2 101 11 ; 1 -to ; Ma S1311Se P 1 . irt 1-- C.) i -...., , _____._ . , ______ -____, ; I i , C ..„.di ll! '‘V\i---- ---1L-71--- ...,-;:i 1 \1 ' I 1 i -N----1 s s-- I , GNI- --4, s I 1 -•-.„.., i ... rj„.. --,---•Cp I L,N csi,"4 '-'- R ! 8 1 I__ —,1----11._____..tz -----...r4 _r____ – 1 . I ' ' i I i ' i I 1 1=4 / ___' i ___ ' 3 ---- 1--- I i _ — *ow R M--N — _ . lic-, 1 1 -,...,. . . E6 - 10 T23N R5E W 1/2 ,r) 7 =20 lo D6 ZONING ---- Renton eity Um", 1,4600 - t + r/B/P'W 77CHNICAL sraVICES 1 rill'111-110 lr) C17 Air 1 /'1 ado 1 et fl IIII .. ,-, 11 on!NH 3. COMPLIANCE WITH ERC MITIGATION MEASURES Based on an analysis of the probable impacts from the proposal, the Environmental Review Committee issued the following mitigation measures with the Determination of Non-Significance— Mitigated: 1. a. The applicant shall comply with the recommendations contained within the Geotechnical Report prepared by Geo Group Northwest, Inc. dated June 21, 2004 with regard to site preparation and construction. b. Temporary Erosion Control measures shall be installed maintained in accordance with the Department of Ecology Standards to the satisfaction of the representative of the Development Services Division for the duration of the project's construction. c. The applicant shall, as necessary during construction, have trucks inspected and cleaned before leaving the site in order to ensure that dirt, mud and other materials are not deposited on public streets. The applicant shall provide for prompt sweeping or cleanup of any dirt, mud or other materials deposited by the project's trucks on public streets. Temporary traffic control shall be provided as necessary for safe sweeping or cleanup operations. d. The applicant shall identify the project clearing limits on the project drawings prior to the issuance of the construction permit, and in the field prior to initiating site work. e. The applicant shall limit site disturbance including clearing, grading, utility, and roadwork activities for to occur during the relatively dry months (April through October). f. The applicant shall designate staging areas for temporary stockpiles of excavated soil prior to the initiation of project construction. Excavated soils shall not be placed on or adjacent to site slopes. City of Renton P/B/PW Department Preliminary Report to the Hearing Examiner CHRISTELLE RIDGE PRELIMINARY PLAT L UA-04-100,PP, ECF PUBLIC HEARING DATE December 7, 2004 Page 5 of 12 g. The project contractor shall perform daily review and maintenance of all erosion and sedimentation control measures at the site. h. Certification of the proper removal of the erosion control facilities shall be required prior to the recording of the final plat. 2. The applicant shall pay the appropriate Parks Mitigation Fee based on $530.76 per new single- family lot prior to the recording of the final plat. 3. The applicant shall pay the applicable Traffic Mitigation Fee based on a rate of$75.00 per each new additional trip generated by the project prior to the recording of the final plat. 4. The applicant shall comply with the 1998 King County Surface Water Design manual for both detention(Level 2 Flow Control)and Water Quality improvements. 5. The applicant shall pay the applicable Fire Mitigation Fee based on a rate of $488.00 per new single-family lot prior to the recording of the final plat. t i7 15i2Eit44 15:26 LAWYERS TITLE/ETU -a 914252510625 N0.495 P01. deo. •• m Now' • • il • • EXHIBIT A That portion of the Northwest 1/4 of the Northwest 1/4 of Section 3. Township 23 North. Range 5 East, W.H. , King County, Washington. described as follows: Commencing at the Northwest corner of said suhdivision; • thence South 88.29-35 East along the North line of said Section 863.71 feet; thence South 01-48-21 West 318.12 feet to the True Point of Beginning; thence South 89-13-51 East 24,76 feet; psce 7o4thence NorthWest D01-43-21thence East North 89..13-5151est24. 8feet; 120,00 feet to the True Point. of Beginning. '16 kir i0-4.I CCa• tom•— r • • C\2 i Q.) . 14',......_. I --1. New ----t I • .. , . , , „ , , , 1 ; it-26 t CA 's ::t1. I i 1.______j______,.J i „IN: PE i 25 th Pis it----6 ' ' ' 41 . . - ' IN.— . -r- - .--ims- ...a., ... ! . ; • 1-i i t -; a 1--- -7. T--,-- 1,. , 1 \ i r— tih ct. • ; ,--E-z-- ' •.,---.-_______j; I ' , . ,---,--,___, R-i8 i I I I I I Ng 2411h St 1 . ' 4124th 8V ' E mist st. R•f-' €f 1 1 ' ' MIMI ' ' ' ' ' ' - ' SE 100t 0_ g:oF , 0 .111111 : i i 1111 ill ! . _ o ; kiirit a 6_,. , • . , 1, .......,i•__ : _ ii...,. , I , 1 • . . 1 , I agIlla- , D s #irti i , i. i ..ts -...„.....- , I .----r i i ki8I i — Q.)/ - .1\ •• , r,i • • • i ? 1--- ,..f-•_ ' ‘,-/e _._1-, , ; - : i ---47- -,)\_ -3-N, I:1 Iftli _ 0 I __._._T:___T__r_____. . r •; i , _, 1, .±6: , . ,s54= rg. -. _ iiffir , - I f . 1 l• I Z -1------1—_._: -* i .. hi NE 11. „ _,_t_ t_.- . : r t %I,j 1 A•4 CO 1 athiqt. . • , • i 1 , i rt • ! --1 I I I ! I !-----r,---• I *A E Z til r"-- I-----i It NI I IR-8 — / , , : : . , ,. :. „ „ ! , ' I I I 1 1 : Now" E-4 T-i-i i 0- "oL---t-7--ir,----!-JJ. 1 1 1 .i I2-18' '°'.--,: _ — r , •.,8-__, 1F.- an*. MIMSr --'. • -! /-• 111 ! i qpi •. • ,..vow, 4 pi .41- 1 • I .1 _. : I Ilp f----- - -ccs- •, s-, ' . i ! . I 1 4 ,, )•••,- 01 • • 9. i t i — .. ,.s., /. . • ! : #;\'"...v 'll)#,,,,03,4illit . f=1 •„,,, ., -4 Fir 1 ,i-' I . . • • ; i 1• • 'NO' \. I • ..1 I 1 .."---•.-4 1 —I _ - L ' -'\' ' 11---'4*\ r'..} \ --I ' ' i , p-Ei 1 I I i • 4 _ in, I --i i # ; • • ___ 1 Jirrith I / s I I IRS:kg,' le• ‘ ' amillil Z om, 11;1 I is \ SE 107th Pl. in Si NAIL' a .- ,,,,,• , , ; 1 •t ,, 8 6 I • • • 1 : • ' --L_.•__4._j_il I I 1 I I P11.3,1 1 f 1 ligl CY III • o i rI) R--H-L-8 i I i / 1 -•• 1 i 1 1 .1... F______• •--r-i 1 .. 1 f — __... , 1 . i - -- •- • qN , \\,.....,,,.....N,..,...: , , N-----i i 1 . Ti—T i 0) 1 ... 11 r'- '---i-C N , , 4._./ . Now. .1. --- __, • r . ,D 'SI ', -yr) E6 - 10 T23N R5E W 1/2 —a° 4r D6 (A. ZONING ———— Renton&Ay Limit* 1:44x.o r/B/PW TECHNICAL SERVICES 2 Pi'TM -13 ry n7 - 1111.1-11 I/JINA/ML CITY OF RENTON COUNCIL AGENDA BILL IAI#: F. I . Submitting Data: Transportation Systems For Agenda of: rnlio" Dept/Div/Board.. Planning/Building/Public Works April 18, 2005 Staff Contact Robert Lochmiller, x-7303 Agenda Status Consent Subject: Public Hearing.. Correspondence.. Maple Valley Highway (SR 169) Improvements Ordinance Perteet, Inc. Supplemental Agreement No. 5 Resolution (CAG 01-071) Old Business Exhibits: New Business Issue Paper Study Sessions Supplemental Agreement Information Recommended Action: Approvals: Legal Dept X Refer to Transportation/Aviation Committee Finance Dept Risk Management X Fiscal Impact: 317.12175.016.5950.0000.67.000000 Expenditure Required.. $38,650 Transfer/Amendment Amount Budgeted $1,117,800 (Phase 1, 2005) Revenue Generated $3,650,947 oilime Total Project Budget $8,095,492 (2005-2009) City Share Total Project.. $4,744,545 SUMMARY OF ACTION: The proposed supplemental agreement is to finalize the plans, specifications, and estimates (PS&E) for the signal and access road, address resource agencies change in endangered species and critical habitat listings in the Cedar River(part of our Endangered Species Act [ESA] compliance) and to update the contract plans to reflect the new locations and undergrounding of Puget Sound Energy facilities. The supplemental agreement is for$38,650 in addition to the initial contract work, which makes the total new maximum amount payable$870,677. The Transportation Systems Division has budgeted $1,117,800 in 2005 for the project's design and construction of Phase 1. STAFF RECOMMENDATION: Approve moving forward with the Maple Valley Highway(SR 169)Improvements Project and authorize the Mayor and City Clerk to execute the supplemental agreement with Perteet, Inc. in the amount$38,650. H:\Division.s\TRANSPOR.TAT\ADMIN\Agenda 2005\SR 169 Improvements Perteet Supplement#5.doc CITY OF RENTON Nosy PLANNINGBUILDING/PUBLIC WORKS DEPARTMENT MEMORANDUM DATE: April 18, 2005 TO: Terri Briere, Council President Members of the Renton City Council������\\ VIA: Kathy Keolker-Wheeler, Mayor'i0"" FROM: Gregg Zimmermaianning/Building/Public Works Administrator STAFF CONTACT: Robert Lochmiller, Transportation Systems Design Project Manager, x7243 SUBJECT: Maple Valley Highway (SR 169) Improvements Perteet,Inc.: Supplement Agreement No. 5 CAG 01-071 ISSUE: Supplemental agreement is to finalize the plans, specifications, and estimates (PS&E) for the signal and access road; address resource agencies change in endangered species and critical habitat listings in the Cedar River(part of our Endangered Species Act [ESA] compliance) and to update the contract plans to reflect the new locations and undergrounding of Puget Sound Energy facilities. RECOMMENDATIONS: Approve moving forward with the Maple Valley Highway(SR 169) Improvements Project and authorize the Mayor and City Clerk to execute the supplemental agreement with Perteet, Inc. in the amount$38,650. BACKGROUND: Part of the project involves relocation of major gas and power facilities. The original proposed relocation areas were provided along the side of the access road on right-of-way. With the request from the Stoneway Development and Parks Department to improve aesthetics of the entrance to the access road, the project will now move the proposed gas facility location and underground certain electrical facilities, creating additional work to the contract plans and additional coordination with Puget Sound Energy. ``err April 18,2005 Mayor Kathy Keolker-Wheeler Page 2 RE: Maple Valley Highway(SR 169)Improvements Project Perteet,Inc. Supplement Agreement No. 5,CAG 01-071 The City has received federal funding for the project; therefore, the project must follow National Environment Protection Agency (NEPA) guidelines, including Section 7 of the Endangered Species Act. The Endangered Species Act lacks a grandfathering clause. As such, we are required to update completed biological assessments (BAs)when there is a change to the listings. United States Fish & Wildlife and National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration has proposed changes in the Cedar River. To avoid unnecessary delay during construction the City must update and amend our environmental documents. The supplemental agreement will provide these needed changes. Funding will come from the SR 169 HOV/140th Way SE to SR 900 Project (2005-2010 TIP #4). Council approved the reallocation for all Fund 317 transportation projects on April 11th, 2005, which included the reallocation of$1,117,800 for SR 169 HOV/140th Way SE to SR 900 Project 2005 budget. cc: Sandra Meyer,Director,Transportation Systems Division Leslie Lahndt,Transportation Design Supervisor Robert Lochmiller,Transportation Project Manager File H\Division s\TRANSPOR TAT\ADMINWgenda 2005\SR 169 Perteet Supplement 5 Issue Paper DOC � Washington State �I/ Department of Transportation Organization and Address Supplemental Agreement Perteet Inc. 2707 Colby Avenue Suite 900 Agreement Number Everett,WA 98201 CAG 01-071 Project Number Phone 425-252-7700 Project Title New Maximum Amount Payable Maple Valley Highway(SR 169) $ 870,677.00 Description of Work Prepare and update the final contract plans, specifications, and estimates for Phase 1 -Park Access and Traffic Signal The Local Agency of City of Renton desires to supplement the agreement entered into with Perteet Engineering,Inc. and executed on 6/5/2001 and identified as Agreement No. CAG 01-071 All provisions in the basic agreement remain in effect except as expressly modified by this supplement. The changes to the agreement are described as follows: fir` Section 1, SCOPE OF WORK, is hereby changed to read: The original scope of services isamended to include additional services as described in_detaiLin the attached Exhibit «B,> II Section IV,TIME FOR BEGINNING AND COMPLETION, is amended to change the number of calendar days for completion of the work to read: 120 days from contract execution III Section V, PAYMENT, shall be amended as follows: Additional services described in Exhibit"B"will cause an increase to the contract of$'38,650 as shown in the attached exhibit"D-1"for a new Maximum Amount Payable of$870,677 as set forth in the attached Exhibit A,and by this reference made a part of this supplement. If you concur with this supplement and agree to the changes as stated above, please sign in the appropriate spaces below and return to this office for final action. By: By: Consultant Signature Approving Authority Signature DOT Form 140-063 EF Revised 10/97 Exhibit "B" — Supplemental Agreement No. 5 Scope of Services *ad City of Renton Maple Valley Highway (SR 169) 140th Way SE Intersection Improvements Vicinity of I-405 Northbound Freeway Ramps Phase 1 — Park Access and Traffic Signal INTRODUCTION This work supplements the scope of services to finalize Phase 1 construction documents for the new access road and traffic signal for Cedar River Park and the Stoneway site, including the parking lot expansion on the southeast edge of the park. In addition, coordination with the City and environmental review agencies will be provided for review of the Biological Evaluation for Phase 2 construction. The scope of services of the basic agreement is amended to add the following scope of services items. All provisions of the basic agreement remain in effect except as expressly modified by this supplement: TIME FOR COMPLETION All work under this supplement agreement shall be completed within 120 calendar days of notice to proceed. SCOPE OF SERVICES A. Project Management and Coordination 1. Prepare,monitor and update project schedule. Monitor project budget. 2. Prepare monthly billings and progress reports. 3. Attend up to four meetings for project coordination and plan review, and prepare meeting minutes. 4. Assist the City in coordination with environmental review agencies. 5. Quality Assurance B. Utility Coordination 1. Coordinate with PSE for relocation of existing gas facilities within their utility corridor at the new access road to the former Stoneway site. It is assumed that PSE will be responsible for construction of relocated facilities. PSE will install sleeves for new gas lines under the access road and retaining wall prior to construction of the roadway and wall to accommodate settlement that is expected to occur. PSE will install new gas lines and facilities after settlement has occurred. City of Renton Page 1 of 4 Maple Valley Highway(SR 169) Supplemental Agreement No.3 Scope of Services 2. Coordinate with PSE for relocation of existing electrical facilities within their utility Soso. at the new access road to the former Stoneway site. It is assumed that PSE will provide stamped design drawings and specifications for construction of relocated facilities as well as associated bid items and opinions of cost. The stamped design drawings and specifications will be inserted into the Phase 1 contract documents. Perteet will coordinate insertion of the plans and specifications into the contract set. 3. Attend up to three meetings with PSE to coordinate the design work. C. Surveying and Basemapping 1. No additional topographic survey is included, but if required will be provided under a supplement to this agreement. D. Geotechnical Engineering Exploration and Analysis 1. No additional geotechnical investigation is included, but if required will be provided under a supplement to this agreement. E. Environmental Documentation 1. It is assumed that all work will be permitted under the environmental documentation completed for the Phase 2 (ultimate)project improvements. 2. Prepare a letter to supplement the current Biological Evaluation in response to WSDOT comments that address critical habitat for Chinook salmon. 3. Respond to review comments from environmental review agencies for the Biological Evaluation. 4. It is assumed that with the recent responses provided for NOAA and decision to implement enhanced stormwater treatment for Phase 2 that no additional drainage analysis is necessary for approval of the Biological Evaluation. Additional drainage analysis and addendums to the Biological Evaluation are not included, but if required, will be provided under a supplement to this agreement. F. Channelization Plan for Approval 1. The approved channelization plans by WSDOT will be used to update Phase 1 construction plans. No additional coordination with WSDOT is included,but if required, will be provided under a supplement to this agreement. G. Drainage 1. No additional drainage design is included for Phase 1 construction documents, but if required will be provided under a supplement to this agreement. H. PS&E 1. Prepare 100%plans, specifications, and opinion of cost for Phase 1 construction documents. Plans will be revised to incorporate sidewalk ramp and striping modifications from the approved channelization plan by WSDOT. Plan utility callouts will also be revised to reflect PSE's current design for relocation of gas and electrical facilities. Right-of-way shown on the plans along the new access road will also be revised to reflect the current layout. Stow City of Renton Page 2 of 4 Maple Valley Highway(SR 169) Supplemental Agreement No.3 Scope of Services • Modifications to wall plans are not included,but if required, will be provided under a supplement to this agreement. Landscaping plans will be modified as appropriate to address Special provisions will be updated to reflect coordination for relocation of PSE's utilities `41000 with project improvements. Amendments to the Standard Specifications previously prepared will be replaced with the current version. The opinion of cost will be updated to reflect any changes to quantities and current prices. 2. Submit final plans, specifications, and opinion of cost for the construction contract. Minor adjustments to the final plan set will be made if required prior to printing of the contract document package and advertisement for bids. I. Right-of-way Documentation 1. Calculate easement and right-of-way acquisition boundaries based on PSE's electrical vault design and previously completed work. 2. Revise legal description for one right-of-way acquisition, stamped by licensed Professional Land Surveyor. 3. Revise legal description for one permanent easement, stamped by licensed Professional Land Surveyor. 4. Revise two 11"by 17"parcel maps for the legal descriptions prepared above, stamped by licensed Professional Land Surveyor. J. Bidding Assistance 1. Assist in answering contractor questions during bidding. ITEMS TO BE FURNISHED BY THE CITY 1. Front-end specifications not including: Special Provisions, Amendments to the Standard Specifications, and the bid proposal. 2. Printing of final contract package. 3. Two copies of final contract package for Perteet. PROJECT DELIVERABLES The Consultant shall provide the following deliverables with this project: • One copy of each legal description and parcel map prepared and stamped by a PLS. • One (1) copy of the opinion of cost at 100% and final submittals. • Five (5)sets of all sheets (at half-size, 11-inch x 17-inch)comprising the set of contract documents for City review at the 100 percent completion stage. • Two (2) copies of the Special Provisions,Amendments to the Standard Specifications, and Bid Proposal for City review at the 100 percent design submittal. City of Renton Page 3 of 4 Maple Valley Highway(SR 169) Supplemental Agreement No.3 Scope of Services • One (1) set of full-size final plans on translucent bond paper. • One (1) set of half-size final plans on bond paper. • One set of final Special Provisions,Amendments to the Standard Specifications, and Bid Proposal. City of Renton Page 4 of 4 Maple Valley Highway(SR 169) Supplemental Agreement No.3 Scope of Services 11111IL. Exhibit"D-1" Consultant Fee Determination-Summary Sheet Project: Maple Valley Highway Supplement #5 Client: City of Renton I HOUR ESTIMATE I Classification Hours Rate Cost Associate 8 x $46.63 = $373 Principal Surveyor 2 x $44.63 = $89 Senior Project Manager 131 x $42.25 = $5,535 Sr.Professional Land Surveyor 2 x $39.90 = $80 Project Surveyor 10 x $28.00 = $280 Environmental Planner 22 x $34.62 = $762 Design Engineer II 80 x $27.00 = $2,160 Design Engineer I 0 x $22.00 = $0 Designer 0 x $24.00 = $0 Project Surveyor 0 x $27.50 = $0 CADD Operator/Drafter 50 x $25.70 = $1,285 Clerical 23 x $19.00 = $437 Survey Technician 0 x $18.25 = $0 Urban Design Manager 0 x $39.00 = $0 Construction Observer 0 x $33.00 = $0 TOTAL HOURLY COST = $11,001 OVERHEAD(OH COST-including Salary Additives): OH Rate x DSC 168.80% x $11,001 = $18,570 FIXED FEE(FF): FF Rate X DSC 35% x $11,001 = $3,850 I REIMBURSABLES: I Outside printing $0 Watershed(Critical Habitat Analysis) $800 Mileage @ current federal rate0.375 $175 CADD Station @$10/hr $500 Traffic Modeling @$15/1r $0 Total Station$100/day $0 GPS @$200/day $0 Misc. $500 TOTAL REIMBURSABLE COST= $1,975 I SUB-CONSULTANTS: CivilTech $0 Hough Beck&Baird $3,250 TOTAL SUBCONSULTANTS COST= $3,250 GRAND TOTAL: = $38,650 Prepared By: Date: April 6,2005 Page 1 it q CITY OF RENTON COUNCIL AGENDA BILL AI#: , Submitting Data: Transportation Systems For Agenda of: Dept/Div/Board.. Planning/Building/Public Works April 18, 2005 Staff Contact Robert Lochmiller, x-7303 Agenda Status Consent Subject: Public Hearing.. Correspondence.. South Lake Washington Roadway Improvements Ordinance W&H Pacific Supplemental Agreement No. 2 Resolution (CAG 04-013) Old Business Exhibits: New Business Issue Paper Study Sessions Supplemental Agreement Information Recommended Action: Approvals: Legal Dept X Refer to Transportation Committee Finance Dept Risk Management X Fiscal Impact: 317.12306.016.5950.0000.67.000000 Expenditure Required... $ 927,329.59 Transfer/Amendment Amount Budgeted $1,100,000.00 (2005) Revenue Generated Total Project Budget $3,350,000.00 (Design) City Share Total Project.. $3,350,000.00 SUMMARY OF ACTION: The proposed supplemental agreement is to provide the finalized plans, specifications, and estimates(PS&E)for the roadway, sewer and water improvements that support the proposed • redevelopment by Harvest Partners of the former North Renton Boeing Plant properties. The City needs to complete the final design of the roadways and utilities to support the development of District 1, and be able to start construction by March 2006. The supplemental agreement is for$927,329.59 and is to be completed by February 1,2006. In addition to the initial contract work along with the supplemental agreement,the total contract cost is $2,283,815.90. The Transportation Systems Division has budgeted $1,100,000 in 2005 for the project. STAFF RECOMMENDATION: Approve moving forward with the South Lake Washington Roadway Improvements Project and authorize the Mayor and City Clerk to execute the supplemental agreement with W&H Pacific, Inc. in the amount$927,329.59. H:\Division.s\TRANSPOR.TATADMIN\Agenda 2005\So Lk WA Roadway Improvements W&H Supplement#2.doc • CITY OF RENTON PLANNINGBUILDING/PUBLIC WORKS DEPARTMENT MEMORANDUM DATE: April 18, 2005 TO: Terri Briere, Council President Members of the Renton City Council�/ VIA: Kathy Keolker-Wheeler, Mayor FROM: Gregg ZimmermaanningBuilding/Public Works Administrator STAFF CONTACT: Robert Lochmiller, Transportation Systems Design Project Manager, x7243 SUBJECT: South Lake Washington Roadway Improvements W&H Pacific,Inc. Supplemental Agreement#2 (CAG 04-013) ISSUE: err► Approval of a supplemental agreement to provide the finalized plans, specifications, and estimates (PS&E) for the roadway, sewer and water improvements that support the proposed redevelopment by Harvest Partners of the former North Renton Boeing Plant properties. RECOMMENDATIONS: Approve moving forward with the South Lake Washington Roadway Improvements Project and authorize the Mayor and City Clerk to execute the supplemental agreement with W&H Pacific, Inc. in the amount$927,329.59. BACKGROUND: The South Lake Washington Roadway Improvements is the key project for the redevelopment of Boeing property in the North Renton Site. The partnership between the City of Renton and The Boeing Company for the North Renton Site is one that aspires to draw private interest in an area to be redeveloped from the aerospace company's use to commercial/retail use. In 2004,the City entered into contract agreement with W&H Pacific, Inc. to complete the 30% design work for the development. With the recent purchase from Boeing, the developer, Harvest Partners, has plans to open all of their development by March 2007. This creates the need to complete the design and be able to construct in 2006 for the needed roadway fir° Mayor Kathy Keolker-Wheeler April 18,2005 Page 2 RE: South Lake Washington Roadway Improvements W&H Pacific,Inc. Supplemental Agreement No.2 (CAG 04-013) Ned improvements and new stormwater, sewer and water utilities required to accommodate the development. Therefore, the City needs to complete the final design of the roadways and utilities to support the development of District 1, and proposes to start construction by March 2006. The supplemental agreement is for$927,329.59 and is to be completed by February 1, 2006. In addition to the initial contract work the total contract for design is now$2,283,815.90. The following table summarizes design work on the project: Summary Table Original Contract: $ 98,164.92 Approved by Council 1/26/04 Supplement#1 $1,258,321.39 Approved by Council 3/16/04 Supplement#2 $ 927,329.59 Pending Total: $2,283,815.90 Funding will come from the South Lake Washington Roadway Improvement(#317.012306) 2005 budget(2005-2010). Council approved the reallocation for all Fund 317 transportation projects in April, which included the reallocation of$1,100,000 for the South Lake Washington Roadway Improvements 2005 budget. cc: Sandra Meyer,Director,Transportation Systems Division Leslie Lahndt,Transportation Design Supervisor Robert Lochmiller,Transportation Project Manager File H\Division s\TRANSPOR.TATADMIN\Agenda 2005\So Lk WA Rdwy Imps W&H Supp#2 Issue Paper doc DOC 40/71 Washington State 40I/ Department of Transportation Organization and Address Supplemental Agreement W&H Pacific 3350 Monte Villa Parkway Bothell,WA 98021 Agreement Number CAG 04-013 Project Number Phone 425-951-4860 Project Title New Maximum Amount Payable South Lake Washington Roadway Improvements $ 2,283,815.90 Description of Work The work will provide final engineering design and survey services for the South Lake Washington Roadway Improvements Project. The consultant will provide the final Plans, Specifications &Estimate for the City to build the roadway improvements needed to support District 1 development of the North Boeing Plant. The Local Agency of City of Renton desires to supplement the agreement entered into with W&H Pacific and executed on 1/29/2004 and identified as Agreement No. CAG 04-013 All provisions in the basic agreement remain in effect except as expressly modified by this supplement. The changes to the agreement are described as follows: 41.10, Section 1, SCOPE OF WORK, is hereby changed to read: The original scope of services is amended to include additional services as described in detail in the attached Exhibit "A-1" &Exhibit"B" II Section IV,TIME FOR BEGINNING AND COMPLETION, is amended to change the number of calendar days for completion of the work to read: Completetion Date-February -1,2006 III Section V, PAYMENT, shall be amended as follows: The additional services described in Exhibit"A-1" &Exhibit"B"will cause an increase to the contract of $927329 59 as shown in the attached Exhibit"D-L"for a new Maximum Amount Payable of $7 2R'3,R15 90 as set forth in the attached Exhibit A,and by this reference made a part of this supplement. If you concur with this supplement and agree to the changes as stated above, please sign in the appropriate spaces below and return to this office for final action. By: By: Consultant Signature Approving Authority Signature DOT Form 140-063 EF Revised 10/97 EXHIBIT A-1 SUPPLEMENTAL AGREEMENT#2 SCOPE OF WORK Ned CITY OF RENTON SOUTH LAKE WASHINGTON ROADWAY IMPROVEMENTS FINAL DESIGN The work to be accomplished under this supplemental agreement will be to provide final engineering, design and survey services for the South Lake Washington Roadway Improvements Project. The City of Renton and the Boeing Company,with the sale of Parcels Area A Lot 3 north and south, and Area B Lot 10-50 north and south, have agreed to the limits of partial buildout of roadways needed for the proposed development. The improvements include partial on Logan Avenue N from N 5th Street to existing intersection at Garden Avenue N and Lake Washington Boulevard N, full Park Avenue North from N 8th Street to new intersection with new Logan Avenue N, partial N 8th Street from new Logan Avenue N to Park Avenue N and full N 10th Street from new Logan Avenue N to Garden Avenue N. The planned improvements include new traffic signals at Park Avenue N and Logan Avenue N,Park Avenue N and N 10th Street, Logan Avenue N and N 10th Street, Logan Avenue N and N 8th Street and Logan Avenue N and N 6th Street;traffic signal modifications at N 8th Street and Park Avenue N and Logan Avenue N and Garden Avenue N/Lake Washington Boulevard N. The design of the roadway improvements will follow the criteria as developed and approved by both the City of Renton and The Boeing Company. Remaining work to be performed under Supplemental Agreement#1 has been incorporated into this Supplemental Agreement#2 and is included in this Scope of Work. 1.0 -Project Administration ,, id Project Management WHP will provide project management and administration,liaison with the CITY,develop and maintain a detailed project task percent complete schedule, coordinate and schedule project staff, and prepare monthly narrative progress reports. Subconsultant Coordination WHP will coordinate with subconsultants regarding contracting procedures, will prepare and execute supplemental contracts with individual subonsultants, and will address and resolve contract-related issues with the subconsultants as they arise during the project. This work element includes reviewing monthly progress,invoices,attending meetings and scheduling work items. Monthly monitoring of the subconsultant's design budget will be done by WHP over the course of the project. Current status, as well as projections, will be developed. This work element will help monitor and report the status of costs and budgets. WHP responsibilities could include formal requests for scope modifications and respective budget adjustments. Quality Assurance/Quality Control WHP will complete a quality assurance check prior to submitting any work for the CITY's review. A quality assurance check will be used to confirm that the submitted work follows the CITY standards and that the work is professional quality meeting industry standards. The quality assurance check will include review of engineering, drafting and clerical errors or omissions. Lead designers will review detailed technical work while it is in progress, as well as after the work products are assembled for submittal. .1001 Page 1 of 11 C:\Documents and Settings\rlochmiller\Local Settings\Temp\So Lake Wash Roadway Imps-Scope of Svcs.-3.16.05_2.doc Coordination Meetings WHP will attend project related meetings, provide information for CITY staff coordination meetings, 4410r respond to public and developer concerns through communication with CITY staff, and prepare exhibits for CITY use. WHP will attend up to ten (10) project coordination meetings with the CITY staff to review schedule, budget, status of designs, and plan review comments. WHP will prepare agendas and meeting notes and distribute to participants. Monthly Invoices and Correspondence Monthly invoices and project status reports will be prepared by WHP for work activities for the prior month. These will also include subconsultant work. 2.0 -Utility Coordination Collaborate and coordinate with CITY staff,Boeing and franchise utilities (power,phone,fiber optic,TV, natural gas, or other) on design of CITY and Boeing utility system(s) improvements as well as on required relocation of existing or location of new franchise utilities; reflect pertinent Boeing system and franchise utility system information in design drawings. In general, anticipated Boeing and franchise utility system improvements may include new, replaced or upgraded or adjusted underground and overhead utilities in order to accommodate new roadway and other project utility infrastructure improvements features and other system requirements. The planned improvements will be coordinated with Boeing and franchise utility owners to identify and resolve conflicts. Boeing and franchise utilities will be responsible for modifying their facilities within the project limits. Anticipated efforts include the following: 1. In order to sustain the integrity of Boeing's system(s) and ensure that adequate service continues to be provided to Boeing's ongoing operations, Boeing's existing utility system infrastructure may need to be removed,relocated,protected and/or new infrastructure system improvements provided. Noe 2. Coordinate Project Stormwater, Water, and Sewer Utility System(s) and other project infrastructure improvements with existing Boeing and Franchise Utility Systems infrastructure including possible removal,upgrade, abandonment and/or relocation. 3. Work with Boeing and franchise utility purveyors' staff to collaborate and coordinate project utility systems improvements development, analyses and design. 4. Coordination with Boeing, franchise utility purveyors' and others as required to meet design requirements and to assist in securing project approvals. 5. WHP will attend up to four utility coordination meetings with the City Staff, Boeing and utility owners to review coordination issues and resolve conflicts. The City has provided WHP with AutoCad drawings for the proposed alignments of the new Water and Sewer Lines. WHP shall verify that the provided alignments of the water and sewer lines can be incorporated in the design of the roadway improvements. WHP shall verify and coordinate with Boeing and with owners of private utilities to ensure that all existing Boeing's utilities and private utilities that are in conflict with the new water and sewer lines are relocated or removed in conjunction with the project. The City will be responsible for design of Water Lines. The City will provide WHP Red line drawings of water work. WHP will incorporate red line drawings into their plans. WHP will be responsible for the design of new sewer lines ( approximately 3000 LF). Win► Page 2 of 11 C:\Documents and Settings\rlochmiller\Local Settings\Temp\So Lake Wash Roadway Imps-Scope of Svcs.-3.16.05_2.doc 3.0 - Geotechnical A subsequent geotechnical study will be performed that evaluates the following issues: • Settlement in areas of fill. • Liquefaction at the locations of critical structures. • High groundwater table that will likely be encountered during utility and vault installation. A dewatering plan will likely be required. • Soft pavement subgrade conditions that is sporadically located throughout the area. • Allowable soil bearing capacity for thrust blocks. • Allowable soil bearing capacity for vaults. • Earth retention during utility and/or vault installation. • Backfill around utilities to meet City requirements for identifying leaks. This subsequent study will enable WHP to develop more detailed designs and cost estimates for the planned improvements. In order to evaluate these issues,WHP will perform the following: • We propose to explore the subsurface conditions by drilling and sampling a total of 22 borings throughout the project area. Boring locations will be chosen to augment the geotechnical data collected during preliminary study as outlined below: ' is}:i:::-i:is}:is`:i::.:iiiiiiii}i:•i:.i.. ......... ..:......:... :::::: ..._.._.........:.:..:is ......4...::::L,:-:-: -r:::::. ::ti}:::j...w.i #v:.}.....i liptighotoilimmidixootagolfeRtka 41 Signal Poles Logan Ave & 6th St 2 30 60 Logan Ave & 8h St 2 30 60 Logan Ave & 10t St 2 30 60 Logan Ave &Park Ave 2 30 60 Park Ave & 10th St 2 30 60 Subtotal 10 300 Detention Vaults Logan Ave south of 6th St 1 25 25 Logan Ave between 6th & 8th 1 25 25 St Logan Ave & 8th St 1 25 25 Logan Ave & 10t St 1 25 25 Logan Ave &Park Ave 1 25 25 Park Ave & 8th St 1 25 25 Park Ave & 10th St 1 25 25 Subtotal 7 175 Misc. Roadway Borings 5 10 50 Total 22 525 Page 3 of 11 C:\Documents and Settingsklochmiller\Local Settings\Temp\So Lake Wash Roadway Imps-Scope of Svcs.-3.16.05_2.doc An engineer or geologist from Kleinfelder will maintain a log of the soils encountered and obtain samples for visual observation, classification, and laboratory testing. A minimum of four samples will be taken in `r the upper 10 feet at 2.5-foot intervals, then at 5-foot intervals thereafter and/or at each change of stratum until boring termination. Standard Penetration Test(SPT) and thin wall Shelby tube samples will be used to collect granular soil and cohesive soil samples, respectively, as appropriate. Soil samples will be classified in accordance with the ASTM D-2488. Laboratory testing will be performed on selected samples returned to our laboratory. We anticipate the tests will include a combination of moisture content, sieve analysis, Atterberg limit, consolidation, and strength (direct shear and/or triaxial) tests. The selected type and frequency of testing will be based on the subsurface conditions encountered We will provide preliminary engineering analyses as a basis for design and construction. Our design recommendations will include the following: Site preparation and grading including evaluation of the suitability of on-site soils for use as fill,gradation criteria for imported fill soils, and placement and compaction criteria of on-site and imported soils. Preliminary allowable soil bearing pressures for native soil and structural fill,minimum footing width and depth requirements, coefficient of friction for native and backfill materials to resist sliding, and estimates of foundation total and differential settlement for shallow foundations that can be utilized by miscellaneous structures anticipated for the project. Passive and active lateral earth pressures for native and backfill materials for design of earth retention systems. Signal pole foundation design parameters based on Washington State Department of Transportation (WSDOT) guidelines. Based on the XYZ loadings, we will provide a recommended lateral bearing capacity for each side of the intersection. The modulus of subgrade reaction. Support for pavements. Now Seismic site coefficients. Liquefaction potential. Temporary and permanent site drainage and erosion control measures. Site dewatering issues. Temporary and permanent slope inclinations. • Following completion of the field exploration,laboratory testing, and the engineering analysis, we will provide verbal recommendations presenting our design recommendations. This will be followed up with a draft geotechnical report for your review containing our findings, conclusions, and recommendations. Three copies of the final report will be provided for your use. The final report will contain a site plan, boring logs,laboratory test results and water table elevations if encountered. 4.0 -Environmental WHP will prepare a final SEPA checklist and submit to the City. The Checklist will be in compliance with the State Environmental Policy Act (SEPA) and WSDOT Local Agency Guidelines. WHP tasks will include a scoping meeting with City Staff, data collection and analysis and preparation of a draft and final checklist document. The checklist will identify impacts that would result from the proposed project. A Phase II environmental study will be conducted to assess the concentrations of volatile organic compounds (VOCs), metals (i.e. arsenic and lead), polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbons (PAHs), and total petroleum hydrocarbons (TPH as gasoline, diesel, and heavy oil) in the soil and groundwater within (or Page 4 of 11 C:\Documents and Settings\rlochmiller\Local Settings\Temp\So Lake Wash Roadway Imps-Scope of Svcs.-3.16A5_2.doc immediately adjacent to) the roadway improvements areas prior to excavation, grading and dewatering activities. Analytical results generated during this investigation will be used in address the following: • Potential costs associated with handling, stockpiling, and disposal of contaminated soil generated during roadway and utility installation work. • Potential costs associated with handling, storing, and disposal of contaminated groundwater generated while removing water seeping into excavations planned for the installation of new subsurface utilities. In order to evaluate these issues,we will perform the following: • Collect up to 20 soil samples from 10 selected areas along the roadway expansion areas of Logan Avenue North, Park Avenue North, the proposed North 10th Street location, and the proposed North 8th Street location. The soil samples will be collected at varying depths, depending on the anticipated depth of excavations associated with subsurface utility installation and road grading activities. Submit the soil samples to a Washington Certified laboratory to be analyzed for the presence of VOCs,metals,PAHs, and TPH. • Install up to 10 groundwater wells (one at each soil sampling/boring location) along the above- referenced roadways. After developing and purging the wells, collect groundwater samples from each of the wells. Submit the groundwater samples to a Washington Certified laboratory to be analyzed for the presence of VOCs, metals, PAHS, and TPH. If necessary, collect subsequent rounds of groundwater samples from the wells to compare with the previous analytical results, which may very depending upon seasonal fluctuations in groundwater flow and depth in the site area. • Prepare a letter summarizing our findings during the site characterization, along with our conclusions and recommendations. WHP will survey in the location of 10 proposed monitoring wells. WHP will provide the horizontal location of each well and a vertical position of the top of case, existing ground adjacent to well and top of PVC pipe inside of well casing(assuming well casing covers are removed). WHP will prepare an exhibit map showing the well positions in relation to the site and a data table with the surveyed well information. Monitoring wells shall be installed in accordance with the Department of Ecology's regulations. Upon completion of the environmental evaluation,all monitoring wells shall be abandoned in accordance with Ecology's regulations. 5.0 -Hydraulic Analysis& Report WHP will complete the engineering analysis and conceptual design (system preliminary sizing and layout) for the required/desired stormwater system improvements (both Partial and Full Build-Out conditions) initiated under the original contract (and as documented in draft submittal dated 11/04). Further develop and refine the engineering analysis and conceptual design based on input from the CITY. The project stormwater system improvements will include new, replaced or upgraded infrastructure in order to accommodate new roadway features and other system requirements. System infrastructure improvements will include collection and conveyance piping, catch basins, existing facility adjustments, water quality treatment facilities such as oil/water separators, wet vaults or alternative treatment Page 5 of 11 C:\Documents and Settings\rlochmiller\Local Settings\Temp\So Lake Wash Roadway Imps-Scope of Svcs.-3.16.05_2.doc technologies or facilties (for roadway drainage only) and temporary erosion and sedimentation control (TESC) BMPs to comply with City and State stormwater design criteria. System improvements r„r specifically excludes stormwater detention facilities but includes water quality systems per City standards and Department of Ecology(DOE)guidelines. Anticipated SUBCONSULTANT efforts include the following: 1. Design Coordination a. Meet with City stormwater utility staff to review and discuss their written comments of draft design memoranda(submitted previously in November 2004) b. Work with City stormwater utility staff to collaborate and coordinate system improvements continued development and refinement of the conceptual design c. Coordination with Boeing,franchise utility purveyors, and others to complete final design efforts 2. Finalize Engineering Analyses, Conceptual Design, and Hydraulic Model a. Based on the CITY's input and direction, and with the CITY's comments on the initial conceptual design of system improvements documented in the 11/04 design memoranda, revise and finalize preliminary sizing and layout of major facilities and pipelines (only) for the project's proposed new stormwater collection and conveyance system improvements for both the"Partial" and"Full Build-Out" conditions. A single system layout/alignment (only) will be developed further. See also other assumptions identified below. b. Revise and finalize the hydraulic model for the proposed new stormwater conveyance system (major facilities and pipelines, only) to support the final system sizing and layout, for both "Partial"and"Full Build-Out"conditions. c. Verify and confirm with CITY staff the applicable design criteria, layout priorities hierarchy, and related requirements. Nate d. Make recommendations on system design. e. Discuss phasing concepts and feasibility 3. Stormwater Treatment Analysis/Preliminary Design a. Based on the CITY's input and direction, and with the CITY's comments on the initial conceptual design of system improvements documented in the 11/04 design memoranda, revise and finalize preliminary sizing and layout of the project's proposed new stormwater quality treatement facilities for both the "Partial" and "Full Build-Out" conditions. A single system layout/alignment(only)will be developed further. See also other assumptions identified below. b. Discuss phasing concepts and feasibility 4. Design Memoranda a. Revise and finalize the draft design memoranda (dated 11/04) documenting the refined engineering analyses and final conceptual design for project stormwater systems infrastructure improvements. The memoranda will document and define the design criteria and be used as the basis for the fmal design of the project's stormwater system improvements. The following are not included as part of WHP's efforts: 1)inspection and evaluation of the condition of the existing storm system infrastructure features and facilities; and 2) an evaluation of regional stormwater treatment facilities. 6.0 -WSDOT Channelization Approval WHP will prepare and submit and draft and final channelization plan to WSDOT for approval for work inside the limited access area of I-405 at Park Avenue N and Garden Avenue N vicinity meeting WSDOT Design Manual Requirements. WHP will address WSDOT review comments and make revisions as Page 6 of 11 C:\Documents and Settings\rlochmiller\Local Settings\Temp\So Lake Wash Roadway Imps-Scope of Svcs.-3.16.05_2.doc needed. It is anticipated two submittals will be made to WSDOT, one preliminary and one final. WHP will coordinate with WSDOT on traffic control and construction staging requirements on limited access areas to finalize the plan. NIS 7.0 -Field Survey and Base Map WHP will locate the concrete pavement in N 8th Street between Park Avenue N and New Logan Avenue N by coring a series of 2 inch holes starting at Park Avenue N intersection and continuing work to the west. It is anticipated that coring 12-15 holes will be required. WHP will perform additional topographic surveys as follows: Area of Coverage The project limits to be covered are the full right-of-way widths of the following: North 6th Street:From the end of the existing mapping west of Logan Avenue N to N Riverside Drive. North Riverside Drive:From N 6th Street to the south shore of Lake Washington. North 6th Street: Remainder of area between Logan Avenue N and Park Avenue N. Lake Washington Boulevard:From the limits of the existing mapping to the entrance of Coulon Park. WHP will complete the right-of-way and topographic field survey work for the areas described above by completing the following tasks: 1. All surveying will be tied to the City of Renton NAD 83/91 horizontal control points and NAVD 88 vertical control points. All survey work will be conducted in accordance with Nairi the City of Renton requirements. 2. WHP will research the City of Renton and King County records to recover the monumentation controlling the site, and establish a horizontal datum. 3. WHP will tie to at least two local control monuments and reference them on the final drawings. These monuments will serve as the basis of horizontal coordinates and control the site. 4. WHP will retrace the existing right-of-way,recovering field monuments, to establish the rights-of-way of the site. From this information, and the information provided from current title information, we will then compute the right-of-way to be shown on the survey and list found points at the property corners. 5. WHP will tie into the City of Renton vertical datum for the site and reference it on the final drawing. 6. WHP will set permanent vertical control benchmarks on the site at a maximum distance of 1000 feet horizontally and/or 100 feet vertically for future construction use. Page 7 of 11 C:\Documents and Settings\rlochmiller\Local Settings\Temp\So Lake Wash Roadway Imps-Scope of Svcs.-3.16.05_2.doc • 7. WHP's field survey will locate evidence of the following existing improvements fir.+ (assuming that they are visible) on site and up to 25 feet beyond the proposed right-of- way lines of the area of coverage listed above. a. Pavement limits b. Curbs and sidewalks c. Driveways and Curb cuts d. Buildings e. Fences f. Storm drainage structures with pipe invert elevations g. Sanitary sewer manholes with pipe invert elevations h. Water valves,fire hydrants and associated features i. Electrical power vaults and associated surface features j. Telephone manholes and pedestals k. Natural gas valves,meters, and warning markers 1. Cable TV pedestals m. Street lighting n. Signing o. Utility poles p. Overhead wires,guy wires q. Meters r. Road channelization 8. WHP will contract a private utility location service to mark out those facilities not marked by the City's staff. 9. WHP will prepare the final topographic survey map with a one foot contour interval. The above Scope of Services and related fees are based on the following assumptions: 1. The final base map will be drawn at a scale of 1"=20'. 2. AutoCAD layer names will conform to the City of Renton standards. 3. WHP will show spot elevations on hard surfaces on a separate layer. 4. All text and stationing on AutoCAD drawings shall read from south to north. 5. Current title reports with full backup on the easements and other appurtenances will be provided by the City for each parcel adjacent to the project limits. 6. The City will initiate contact with the adjacent property owners, and will secure permission to access all the property to be surveyed. 7. The boundaries of the parcel will be determined by the title report. Legal Descriptions: WHP will prepare legal descriptions and exhibit maps for: • The vacation of that portion of Logan Avenue N,south of N 6th Street. (City of Renton to Boeing) Page 8 of 11 C:\Documents and Settings\rlochmiller\Loca1 Settings\Temp\So Lake Wash Roadway Imps-Scope of Svcs.-3.16.05_2.doc • The dedication of the Boeing property east of Logan Avenue N and south of N 6th Street for future full build-out right of—way. (Boeing to the City of Renton) • The remainder of the dedicated parcel. (Boeing) 8.0 -Signal Design WHP will design five new,fully-actuated traffic signals with underground wiring,local illumination, and new electrical service connections. WHP will provide traffic signal modifications that include detection,new wiring and new controls to the existing traffic signal at Park Avenue and N 8th Street. WHP will provide traffic signal modifications including detection and displays to the existing traffic signal at Garden Avenue N and N Park Drive. WHP will provide signal interconnect design for seven traffic signals with connections to a hub connecting to Renton City Hall. 9.0 - 60%,90% and 100% Plans WHP will prepare detailed construction plans of the proposed improvements,including: • Plans will be prepared with such provision and in such detail to permit convenient layout in the field for construction. The plans will be prepared using AutoCAD 2004 supported by Land Development Desktop Rel.2i software. • The plans will include complete details for construction of the proposed improvements. • Plans will include plans and profiles, typical sections, and special details other than standard details available from the County,WSDOT, and the APWA Standard Drawings. • The scale for the plan and profiles will be one inch equals twenty feet(1"=20')horizontally, and one inch equals five feet(1"=5')vertically. • The complete plan set for the project will include the following plan sheets: Page 9 of 11 C:\Documents and Settings\rlochmiller\Local Settings\Temp\So Lake Wash Roadway Imps-Scope of Svcs.-3.16.05_2.doc Noise Estimated Description Sheets • Cover sheet including title,vicinity map, and sheet index 1 • Legend and abbreviations 1 • General notes 2 • Typical roadway sections 5 • Roadway details 5 • Site preparation/demo plans 20 • Utility relocate plans 20 • Sewer plans with details 10 • Roadway and drainage plan and profile 40 • Drainage details 10 ___ • Water quality 10 • Structure notes 6 • Driveway plans and profiles 2 • Driveway schedule,details,and quantities 2 • Channelization,illumination, and signing plans 20 • Illumination schedule and details 20 • Signing schedule,specifications, and details 2 • Traffic signal plans 25 • Temporary erosion and sediment control/Dewatering plans 20 • Landscape plans 20 • Construction phasing/traffic control plans 20 TOTAL: 261 Now Page l0of11 C:\Documents and Settings\rlochmiller\Local Settings\Temp\So Lake Wash Roadway Imps-Scope of Svcs.-3.16.05_2.doc WHP will provide written response to City's review comments summarizing review comments that will be incorporated in final plans, and a detail explanation of changes not provided after 60% and 90% reviews. 10.0 —Specifications WHP will prepare the specifications for the project in conformance with the City's Standard Specifications and in accordance with WSDOT Standard Specifications. WHP will assemble the complete specifications document for the project at 60%, 90%, and 100% complete submittals. The City will provide the City's "Boiler" Plate version of the specification and general special provisions. The "Boiler Plate"version will be edited by supplementing as necessary with project specific information and by deleting necessary special provisions. 11.0 —Cost Estimate WHP will prepare bid items and quantities and engineer's estimate of probable cost for the proposed improvements at 60%,90%, and 100% complete design. The engineer's estimate of probable cost will be based upon the construction plans,bid items quantities, and current bid prices for similar work. 12.0 —Review Documents WHP will provide five (5) half-size review plan sets, one (1) construction cost estimate, and one (1) specifications document for City review at the 60% and 90% complete submittal. Periodically during plan development, WHP will provide the City with a copy of the current working drawings. The City will provide WHP with"redline"review comments on one set of plans and specifications. 13.0 —Final PS&E Documents WHP shall provide the City with all final plan sheets on City approved standard 22-inch by 34-inch Mylar. Consultant shall provide design calculations,cost estimate, and specifications on 8.5-inch by 11- inch sheets. The electronic filed for the AutoCAD plan drawings and specifications will be copied on a compact disc. WHP will provide one(1)set of half-size contract plans on bond paper and one(1)set of contract documents and specifications for contractor bidding purposes. The City will be responsible for reproduction and distribution of these documents. Optional Services Advertise and Award Construction Engineering Project Schedule WHP will provide a schedule within two weeks of notice to proceed for this Supplement. The schedule will show project design complete for advertising the project in February 2006,if notice to proceed is given by May 1, 2005. Page 11 of 11 C:\Documents and Settings\rlochmiller\Local Settings\Temp\So Lake Wash Roadway Imps-Scope of Svcs.-3.16.05_2.doc k • W & H Pacific, Inc. A wholly-owned subsidiary of ASCG Incorporated Schedule of Indirect Costs Name For Year Ended December 31, 2003 DCAA Audit Report No. 04261-2004L23000001 Dated March 24, 2004 Amount per Unallowable 2003 Description G/L Costs Total Direct labor $ 19,461,066 $ - $ 19,461,066 a Payroll Burden: Fringe benefits $ 6,651,877 $ - $ 6,651,877 b Other payroll related costs $ 763,695 $ (186,703) $ 576,992 c Total payroll burden $ 7,415,572 $ (186,703) $ 7,228,869 Other Indirect Costs: Indirect Labor $ 14,516,708 $ (610,182) $ 13,906,525 d Travel $ 706,223 $ (10,427) $ 695,797 e Freight $ 86,025 $ - $ 86,025 f Legal $ 259,554 $ - $ 259,554 g Consulting $ 1,578,670 $ - $ 1,578,670 h Occupancy $ 3,664,169 $ (102,206) $ 3,561,963 i Communications $ 624,207 $ - $ 624,207 k Insurance $ 566,812 $ - $ 566,812 I Now Depreciation $ 1,306,337 $ - $ 1,306,337 m Property maintenance and taxes $ 252,971 $ - $ 252,971 0 Equipment rent and operations $ 1,171,064 $ (71,890) $ 1,099,174 p Office operations $ 1,394,092 $ - $ 1,394,092 q Business development $ 81,305 $ (45,961) $ 35,344 r Advertising $ 171,499 $ (94,910) $ 76,589 s Entertainment $ 23,966 $ (23,966) $ - t Contributions $ 30,653 $ (30,653) $ - u Bad debts $ 254,073 $ (254,073) $ - v Other $ 688,854 $ - $ 688,854 w Gain on sale of assets $ 44,923 $ (53,581) $ (8,658) x Interest $ 343,553 $ (343,553) $ - y Taxes, other than property $ 745,581 $ (740,981) $ 4,600 aa Allocated administrative costs $ (408,897) $ - $ (408,897) z Total other indirect costs: $ 28,102,343 $ (2,382,383) $ 25,719,960 Total indirect costs $ 35,517,915 $ (2,569,086) $ 32,948,829 g:overhead Rate 1.69306 Cost of Money Rate 0.00733 EXHIBIT B CITY OF RENTON SOUTH LAKE WASHINGTON ROADWAY IMPROVEMENTS PROJECT FINAL DESIGN OF -STORMWATER SYSTEM IMPROVEMENTS AND OTHER UTILITIES— SCOPE OF WORK March 2005 Berryman &Henigar SCOPE OF WORK Berryman & Henigar (the SUBCONSULTANT) will be responsible for and provide the following services for final engineering and design of the Project's public stormwater utility infrastructure improvements and assist with the coordination of the Project's public water and sewer utility infrastructure improvements and with Boeing, the Developer, and the various franchise utility purveyors to support the final design of the project. The following scope of services and level of effort are presented based on our current understanding of the project, assistance and efforts desired by W&H Pacific and the City of Renton, and respective roles/tasks to be performed by Berryman and Henigar (the SUBCONSULTANT), W&H Pacific and/or other consultant team members (the CONSULTANT), and the City of Renton(the CLIENT). *It may be appropriate to review and revise the scope and/or level of effort following further discussion with the City and/or completion of initial efforts by the design team. Task A — Stormwater System Improvements, "Partial" and "Full Build-Out" Conditions: Finalize Conceptual Design,Hydraulic Model, and Design Memoranda Complete the engineering analysis and conceptual design (system preliminary sizing and layout) for the required/desired stormwater system improvements (both Partial and Full Build-Out conditions) initiated under the original contract(and as documented in our draft submittal dated 11/04). Further develop and refine the engineering analysis and conceptual design based on input from the CLIENT. In general, anticipated project stormwater system improvements may include new, replaced or upgraded infrastructure in order to accommodate new roadway features and other system requirements. System infrastructure improvements will include collection and conveyance piping, catch basins, existing facility adjustments, water quality treatment facilities such as oil/water separators, wet vaults or alternative treatment technologies or facilities (for roadway drainage only) and temporary erosion and sedimentation control (TESC) BMPs to comply with City and State stormwater design criteria. System improvements specifically excludes stormwater detention facilities but includes water quality systems per City standards and Department of Ecology (DOE)guidelines. Anticipated SUBCONSULTANT efforts include the following: 1. Design Coordination a. Meet with City stormwater utility staff to review and discuss their written comments of draft design memoranda(submitted previously in November 2004) b. Work with City stormwater utility staff to collaborate and coordinate system improvements continued development and refinement of the conceptual design c. Work with the CONSULTANT team to collaborate and coordinate design of project stormwater system improvements with other project infrastructure improvements (roadway,utilities, etc.) d. Coordination with Boeing,franchise utility purveyors, and others to complete final design efforts Page 1 of 12 H:\Division.s\TRANSPOR.TAT\DESIGN.ENG\Rob\Boeing Redevelopment\Contract\Contract 3\Sam(BHFinal Design Draft)3.28.05.doc 2. Finalize Engineering Analyses, Conceptual Design, and Hydraulic Model a. Based on the CLIENT's input and direction, and with the CLIENT's comments on the initial conceptual design of system improvements documented in the 11/04 design memoranda, revise and finalize preliminary sizing and layout of major facilities and pipelines (only)for the project's proposed new stormwater collection and conveyance system improvements for both the "Partial" and "Full Build-Out" conditions. A single system layout/alignment (only) will be developed further. See also other assumptions identified below. b. Revise and finalize the hydraulic model for the proposed new stormwater conveyance system (major facilities and pipelines, only) to support the final system sizing and layout, for both "Partial"and"Full Build-Out"conditions. c. Verify and confirm with CLIENT staff the applicable design criteria, layout priorities hierarchy, and related requirements. d. Make recommendations on system design. e. Discuss phasing concepts and feasibility 3. Stormwater Treatment Analysis/Preliminary Design a. Based on the CLIENT's input and direction, and with the CLIENT's comments on the initial conceptual design of system improvements documented in the 11/04 design memoranda, revise and finalize preliminary sizing and layout of the project's proposed new stormwater quality treatement facilities for both the "Partial" and "Full Build-Out" conditions. A single system layout/alignment(only)will be developed further. See also other assumptions identified below. b. Discuss phasing concepts and feasibility 4. Design Memoranda a. Revise and finalize the draft design memoranda (dated 11/04) documenting the refined 'time engineering analyses and final conceptual design for project stormwater systems infrastructure improvements. The memoranda will document and define the design criteria and be used as the basis for the final design of the project's stormwater system improvements. Prepare a brief design memorandum based on preliminary engineering performed as part of Task D that will define the design criteria to guide the design development process. Deliverable(s)/Work Product(s): Refined and finalized hydraulic model and conceptual design memoranda Assumption(s): The above described effort is based on the following assumptions: 1)modest changes,only,will be required to the current conceptual stormwater system design(defined by our documents submittal in November 2004); 2)the priorities hierarchy for the utilities design layout criteria,considerations and constraints will change(if at all)only modestly from that defined previously in our November 2004 submittal; and 3)existing franchise utilities do not have to be designed around but instead will need to relocate as required to accommodate the layout/location of new City infrastructure(in accordance with typical franchise agreement terms). In other words,the vertical profile of new storm,water, and sewer lines will not need to accommodate fixed positions of the franchise utilities-- telecommunications,gas, and electric. The following are also not included as part of the SUBCONSULTANT's efforts: 1)evaluation of and preliminary engineering of TESC BMPs; 2)inspection and evaluation of the condition of the existing storm system infrastructure features and facilities; and 3) an evaluation of regional stormwater slaw treatment facilities. Page 2 of 12 H:\Division.s\TRANSPOR.TAT\DESIGN.ENG\Rob\Boeing Redevelopment\Contract\Contract 3\Sam(BHFinal Design Draft)3.28.05.doc The revised final design memoranda will submitted to the CONSULTANT for review by the CONSULTANT, CLIENT, Boeing and others. Written comments will be required for revising and finalizing the design memorandum and related documentation. SUBCONSULTANT will address review comments from the CONSULTANT, CLIENT, Boeing, and others and incorporate in the revised/final documents. The CONSULTANT will provide compiled review comments from the CONSULTANT, CLIENT, Boeing, and others into one redline plan set for the SUBCONSULTANT. One set of review comments from the CONSULTANT is anticipated. SUBCONSULTANT will meet with the CONSULTANT Team, CLIENT staff, and/or others as necessary to review and discuss the development and design of project stormwater system improvements. For budgeting purposes,up to four(4) meetings for an average of four (4)hours each including preparation, travel, and attendance are included for each of the SUBCONSULTANT's project manager and one project engineer. Task B — Stormwater System Improvements, "Partial Build-Out" Condition: Preliminary Design Drawings(30%) and Cost Estimate Prepare preliminary design drawings (30%) and a preliminary construction cost estimate. Anticipated SUBCONSULTANT efforts include the following: 1. Prepare preliminary improvement plans for stormwater system infrastructure improvements based on preliminary engineering performed as part of Task A for "Partial Build-Out" condition (only) and submit them to CONSULTANT for inclusion with project plans for submittal to the CLIENT and others for review and approval. a. Use CONSULTANT-provided base map and roadway plan and profile drawings to illustrate proposed stormwater systems infrastructure improvements based on the conceptual design system layout/alignment developed and defined in Task A. Ned b. Show preliminary sizing and layout of major facilities and pipelines for proposed new stormwater collection and conveyance system (a single system layout/alignment only) on the plans and profiles in order to help identify, coordinate, and resolve potential conflicts or crossing issues with other proposed new or existing utilities (Boeing, Developer, and/or franchise utility purveyors). c. Show proposed stormwater treatment facilities on the plan in sufficient detail to identify potential conflicts with other proposed and existing surface an subsurface improvements 2. Preliminary construction cost estimate. d. Prepare engineering estimate of probable construction costs for the above described 30% preliminary design for "Partial Build-Out" condition (only) of the project stormwater system improvements Deliverable(s)/Work Product(s): For Project Stormwater System Improvements, "Partial Build-Out" condition — Preliminary Design Drawings(30%) and Construction Cost Estimate Assumption(s): Including assumptions identified in Task A, above. Preliminary design drawings (30%) will include plan and profile drawings only and will represent preliminary sizing and layout of proposed improvements. Details will not be prepared as part of this task. Page 3 of 12 H:\Division.s\TRANSPOR.TAT\DESIGN.ENG\Rob\Boeing Redevelopment\Contract\Contract 3\Sam(BHFinal Design Draft)3.28.05.doc Draft drawings will submitted to the CONSULTANT for review by the CONSULTANT, CLIENT, Boeing and others. Written comments will be required for revising and finalizing the design `low memorandum and related documentation. SUBCONSULTANT will address review comments from the CONSULTANT, CLIENT, Boeing, and others and incorporate in the revised/final documents. The CONSULTANT will provide compiled review comments from the CONSULTANT, CLIENT, Boeing, and others into one redline plan set for the SUBCONSULTANT. One set of review comments from the CONSULTANT is anticipated. Drawings will be prepared in accordance with City of Renton Drafting standards. The drawing scale (full size) will be 1"=20'-0" (horizontal) and 22"x34" drawings with the City's standard signature block. Drawings will be prepared using AutoCAD 2002 with Land Desktop. Buzzsaw software will be used to store,manage, and share project documents on-line. SUBCONSULTANT's fee estimate is based on up to an estimated thirty-two (32) drawings total (plan & profile) may be required for illustrating preliminary design of the project's stormwater system improvements — "Partial Build-Out" condition. Stormwater system improvements information will be added to the base map and roadway plan & profiles developed, prepared and provided by the CONSULTANT. SUBCONSULTANT will provide digital files of the drawings to CONSULTANT for inclusion with and reproduction to the CLIENT, etc. CONSULTANT shall furnish SUBCONSULTANT four (4) copies of each submittal (to the CLIENT)for his use and record. Task D—Stormwater System Improvements, "Partial Build-Out" Condition: Final Design/Prep. Of PS&E The SUBCONSULTANT will perform the following services during final design and preparation of stare plans, specifications and construction cost estimates (PS&E) for the project stormwater system improvements, "Partial Build-Out" condition. PS&E will be developed for the final design, agency approval(s), bidding, and construction of the project's stormwater system improvements; in accordance with the City of Renton's current design standards (as applicable), current applicable codes and regulations, Department of Ecology's requirements, and in accordance with current, generally accepted industry standards and practices. The SUB CONSULTANT will prepare a complete set of construction plans illustrating required facilities. A temporary erosion and sedimentation control plan, conforming to DOE's 2001 Stormwater Management Manual requirements,will also be prepared. Anticipated SUBCONSULTANT efforts include the following: 1. Review the following information to be supplied by other members of the CONSULTANT Team: a. Project base mapping including topography and existing surface and subsurface features (e.g. City,Boeing and franchise utilities infrastructure) b. Roadway design information and drawings c. Geotechnical engineering data and recommendations d. Environmental information and permitting related requirements 2. Site visit(s)/Review Field Conditions Make site visit(s) during preliminary engineering and design to review field conditions (in conjunction with design review meetings). For budgeting purposes,up to two (2) site visits for an average of 4 hours per visit including travel for each of the SUBCONSULTANT's project manager and two project engineers are included. Page 4 of 12 H:\Division.s\TRANSPOR.TAT\DESIGN.ENG\Rob\Boeing Redevelopment\Contract\Contract 3\Sam(BHFinal Design Draft)3.28.05.doc 3. Plans The SUBCONSULTANT's estimate of fee is based on the following preliminary drawing/sheet list. This void drawing list (40 sheets total)represents the SUBCONSULTANT's best judgment as to the drawings that will be required for the PROJECT/design. • Stormwater Plan&Profile Drawings (32 sheets) • Stormwater Sections &Details(4 sheets) • TESC Plan,Notes and Details(2 sheets) • Miscellaneous Details(2 sheets) Applicable WSDOT or CITY Standard Plans (Details) or other applicable standard plans will be referenced and will be appended to the specifications. 4. Specifications The SUBCONSULTANT will prepare the technical specifications for the designed stormwater system improvements for the project to be incorporated with the CONSULTANT's preparation of the overall contract documents for bidding and construction of the project. The specifications will be based on the 2004 edition of the Washington State Department of Transportation (WSDOT/APWA) Standard Specifications for Road, Bridge, and Municipal Construction, as well as the City's specifications that modify or supplement the Standard Specifications. The CITY's non-technical specifications (boilerplate, forms, etc. for bidding, contracting, and general conditions and requirements — Divisions 0 and 1) that supplement the WSDOT Standard Specifications are anticipated to be used. The technical specifications (Special Provisions, Divisions 2 through 9) will be prepared for the PROJECT work that is not covered by the WSDOT Standard Specifications. The CONSULTANT will be responsible for preparing both the non-technical and technical specifications into a project manual or contract documents for the project. 5. Construction Cost Estimates The SUBCONSULTANT will prepare engineering estimates of probable construction costs for the project's stormwater system improvements for each of the preliminary design submittals (60% and 90%) and final contract documents "issued for bid". The CONSULTANT shall provide a preliminary opinion of construction cost based on current material costs and bid data available from similar Projects. 6. Design Submittals,Review and Revisions For the CITY's review and approval,the SUBCONSULANT will develop and prepare preliminary plans and specifications for the proposed project stormwater system improvements. Preliminary design of proposed improvements will represent a 60% level design. A preliminary cost estimate will also be prepared. The SUBCONSULTANT will also prepare draft submittal including plans and specifications, along with an engineers construction cost estimate for review by the CITY at the 90% level of completion. The SUBCONSULTANT requests that the CONSULTANT, CLIENT, and others provide written comments on draft submittal(s). The SUBCONSULTANT and CONSULTANT and/or CLIENT staff will meet to review and discuss the design development of the PROJECT. It is assumed that two (2) meetings will be held, one following each of the draft submittals (60% and 90% draft contract documents). The CONSULTANT's project manager and project engineer will attend the meetings. The SUBCONSULTANT requests that one set of written comments be provided by the CONSULTANT on the preliminary submittals. Page 5 of 12 H:\Division.s\TRANSPOR.TAT\DESIGN.ENG\Rob\Boeing Redevelopment\Contract\Contract 3\Sam(BHFinal Design Draft)3.28.05.doc Upon receipt of the CONSULTANT's, CLIENT's, etc. review comments, the SUBCONSULTANT will address comments and prepare final contract documents to be "issued for bid" including plans, Noire specifications and a final engineer's estimate of probable construction cost. The final submittal shall include complete plans and specifications, signed and stamped by the CONSULTANT responsible for their preparation, and ready for incorporation with the CONSULTANT's documents. An electronic copy on a CD and one set of camera ready, full-size plans and specifications will be provided to the CONSULTANT (or designated reprographics company) for printing and preparation of the contract documents. The budget assumes that the CONSULTANT will be responsible for the printing costs. Deliverable(s)/Work Product(s): For project stormwater system improvements,Partial Build-Out condition(only)—final design/PS&E (60%, 90%, and final documents "issued for bid") Assumption(s): Including assumptions identified in Task A and B, above. Final design of stormwater system infrastructure improvements will be developed and based on the preliminary engineering and design completed through the other tasks defined above. Final design and preparation of PSc4r.F will be completed for the project's stormwater system improvements for the "Partial Build-Out" condition (only). The SUBCONSULTANT's work will be submitted to the CONSULTANT for inclusion with the overall project plans for submittal to the CLIENT and others for review and approval. The SUBCONSULTANT's design drawings will utilize the CONSULTANT-provided base map and roadway plan and profile drawings to illustrate proposed stormwater systems infrastructure improvements. Location(s) of various existing utilities (listed below), surveyed/mapped during Task 1 activities, will be 'Now included on the plans. It is assumed that the information furnished by the CITY and others regarding the location, etc. of the various existing utilities can be relied upon for purposes of design of the PROJECT. Existing utilities that may be in conflict or require adjustment during the construction of this PROJECT will be identified. The CONSULTANT will prepare and submit the necessary information for utility relocation to the CITY. All coordination required for relocating existing utilities (if required) will be done by the CITY. No relocation of the CITY's existing water or stormwater system(s) infrastructure is anticipated to be required for the PROJECT. Utilities that may potentially be affected by the PROJECT include, but are not necessarily limited to the following: City of Renton—water, sewer, stormwater ComCast Cable,Verizon—phone/fiber optic/TV Puget Sound Energy—power Puget Sound Energy—natural gas City of Seattle/Metro-sewer Preliminary documents (60% and 90%PS&E)will be submitted to the CONSULTANT for review by the CONSULTANT, CLIENT, Boeing and others. Written comments will be required for revising and finalizing the design memorandum and related documentation. SUBCONSULTANT will address review comments from the CONSULTANT, CLIENT, Boeing, and others and incorporate in the revised/final documents. The CONSULTANT will provide compiled review comments from the CONSULTANT, CLIENT, Boeing, and others into one redline plan set for the SUBCONSULTANT. One set of review comments from the CONSULTANT is anticipated. 'err► Drawings will be prepared in accordance with City of Renton Drafting standards. Page 6 of 12 H:\Division.s\TRANSPOR.TAT\DESIGN.ENG\Rob\Boeing Redevelopment\Contract\Contract 3\Sam(BHFinal Design Draft)3.28.05.doc The drawing scale (full size) will be l"=20'-0" (horizontal) and 22"x34" drawings with the City's standard signature block. Drawings will be prepared using AutoCAD 2000 (or 2002) with Land Desktop. Buzzsaw software will be used to store,manage, and share project documents on-line. SUBCONSULTANT's fee estimate is based on up to an estimated forty (40) drawings total required for illustrating final design of the project's stormwater system improvements — "Partial Build-Out" condition. Stormwater system improvements information will be added to the base map and roadway plan&profiles developed,prepared and provided by the CONSULTANT. SUBCONSULTANT will provide digital files of the drawings (for both draft and final documents)to CONSULTANT for inclusion with and reproduction for both draft and final submittals to the CLIENT, etc. CONSULTANT shall furnish SUBCONSULTANT four (4) copies of each submittal (to the CLIENT)for his use and record. Surveying, mapping and related services (to be performed by the CONSULTANT) required for final design of project improvements are anticipated to include survey information for site topography, rights of way, easements, locations of existing utilities and other structures, facilities or features that may influence design. Locations of existing surface features, subsurface and aerial utilities (water, sewer, storm drain, gas, power, TV, phone and/or fiber optic) must be identified and mapped. Existing utilities infrastructure including pipe sizes and invert elevations must also be identified for utilities within the proposed new right of way and as necessary for design of the PROJECT. Field verification must be performed by the CONSULTANT consistent with standard survey practices. Proposed roadway and streetscape improvements will also be provided by the CONSULTANT. The SUBCONSULTANT's work will be based on and utilize a base map reflecting current site conditions, including topographic survey and existing facilities (including all surface and subsurface features and utilities with detailed vertical and horizontal information) furnished by the CONSULTANT in an AutoCAD drawing file/format suitable for design. *44.04 Geotechnical engineering services (to be furnished by others on the CONSULTANT Team) required for final design of project improvements are anticipated to include necessary field explorations, review and analysis of soil data and recommendations related to utilities design and construction. SUBCONSULTANT's work will be based on and utilize the geotechnical engineer's analysis and recommendations. Environmental documentation and permitting required for project infrastructure improvements will be prepared/obtained by others. SUBCONSULTANT's work will be based on and utilize the environmental documentation and permitting for the project. Task E—Water System Improvements: Coordination Assistance Collaborate and coordinate with CLIENT staff and Boeing on preliminary design of water system improvements. In general, anticipated water system improvements will include new, replaced or upgraded infrastructure in order to accommodate the new/expanded service area and other system requirements. System infrastructure improvements are anticipated to include piping, system appurtenances (such as fire hydrants, valving, service stubouts and meters to be incorporated as necessary/desired by the CLIENT), and existing facility adjustments. Anticipated SUBCONSULTANT efforts are limited as stated below,but may include the following: 1. Work with City water utility staff to collaborate and coordinate system improvements continued development and final design. Nod Page 7 of 12 H:\Division.s\TRANSPOR.TAT\DESIGN.ENG\Rob\Boeing Redevelopment\Contract\Contract 3\Sam(BHFinal Design Draft)3.28.05.doc • 2. Work with the CONSULTANT team to collaborate and coordinate design of project water system improvements with other project infrastructure improvements (roadway, utilities, etc.) and existing Nome Boeing system(s) and franchise utilities infrastructure. 3. Assist coordination with Boeing, franchise utility purveyors, and others to complete final design efforts of project water system improvements. Deliverable(s)/Work Product(s): Coordination assistance of CLIENT's final design of project water system improvements Assumption(s): Final design of project water system improvements will be performed by CLIENT's water utility staff. The SUBCONSULTANT's primary efforts will be to help coordinate the CLIENT's efforts with others during final design of the project. The extent of work, which may be required under this activity,is difficult to and cannot be accurately predicted and therefore, a budget allowance as defined in Exhibit C has been established for this work. Task F- Sewer System Improvements: Coordination Assistance Collaborate and coordinate with City staff and Boeing on preliminary design of sewer system improvements. In general, anticipated sewer system improvements may include new, replaced or upgraded infrastructure in order to accommodate the new/expanded service and other system requirements. System infrastructure improvements are anticipated to include piping, system appurtenances (such as manholes, service stubouts, etc. to be incorporated as necessary/desired by the City), and existing facility adjustments. Anticipated SUBCONSULTANT efforts are limited as stated below,but may include the following: Ntioof 1. Work with City sewer utility staff to collaborate and coordinate system improvements continued development and final design. 2. Work with the CONSULTANT team to collaborate and coordinate design of project sewer system improvements with other project infrastructure improvements (roadway, utilities, etc.) and existing Boeing system(s) and franchise utilities infrastructure. 3. Assist coordination with Boeing, franchise utility purveyors, and others to complete final design efforts of project sewer system improvements. Deliverable(s)/Work Product(s): Coordination assistance of CLIENT's final design of project sewer system improvements Assumption(s): Final design of project sewer system improvements will be performed by CLIENT's sewer utility staff. The SUBCONSULTANT's primary efforts will be to help coordinate the CLIENT's efforts with others during final design of the project. The extent of work, which may be required under this activity,is difficult to and cannot be accurately predicted and therefore, a budget allowance as defined in Exhibit C has been established for this work. Task G—Franchise Utility Purveyors: Coordination Assistance Collaborate and coordinate with City staff and franchise utility purveyors (for power, phone, fiber optic, TV,natural gas, etc.)on final design of project infrastructure improvements (public roadway and utilities) as well as required relocation (or other) of existing or location of new franchise utilities; reflect pertinent franchise utility system information in design drawings. In general, anticipated required franchise utility Page 8 of 12 H:\Division.s\TRANSPOR.TAT\DESIGN.ENG\Rob\Boeing Redevelopment\Contract\Contract 3\Sam(BHFinal Design Draft)3.28.05.doc systems' improvements may include new, replaced or upgraded or adjusted underground and overhead utilities in order to accommodate the project's new or modified existing public roadway and other utility systems infrastructure improvements, etc. Planned project improvements will be coordinated with Nod franchise utility purveyors to identify and resolve conflicts. Each of the individual franchise utility purveyors will be responsible for designing all new improvements and/or modified existing infrastructure facilities as required to accommodate the project's new public infrastructure. Anticipated SUBCONSULTANT efforts are limited as stated below,but may include the following: 1. Assist coordination with the various franchise utility purveyors regarding continued development and final design of project infrastructure improvements (public roadway and utilities). Anticipated required franchise utility systems infrastructure improvements are likely to include possible removal, upgrade, abandonment and/or relocation. 2. Work with CLIENT staff to collaborate on the coordination with the various franchise utility purveyors. 3. Work with the CONSULTANT team to collaborate on the coordination with the franchise utility purveyors regarding continued development and final design of project infrastructure improvements. 4. Reflect pertinent franchise utility system information on final design drawings. In general, anticipated required franchise utility systems' improvements may include new, replaced or upgraded or adjusted underground and overhead utilities in order to accommodate new public roadway and other utility systems' improvements,etc. Deliverable(s)/Work Product(s): Coordination assistance of project infrastructure improvements with the various franchise utility purveyors Assumption(s): Due to the existing "built" surface and subsurface environment and the intended new or improved public roadway and utilities infrastructure, significant coordination is anticipated to be required with the various franchise utility purveyors during the continued development and final design of project improvements. It is anticipated that each of the individual franchise utility purveyors will be responsible designing all new improvements and/or modified existing infrastructure facilities (including for removal, upgrade, abandonment and/or relocation, possibly) as required to accommodate the project's new public infrastructure. The SUBCONSULTANT's primary efforts will be to help facilitate and coordinate with the various franchise utility purveyors through final design of the project. The extent of work, which may be required under this activity, is difficult to and cannot be accurately predicted and therefore,a budget allowance as defined in Exhibit C has been established for this work. Task H—Boeing and Developer: Coordination Assistance Collaborate and coordinate with City staff, Boeing, and the Developer on final design of project infrastructure improvements (public utilities) as well as required relocation (or other) of existing or location of new Boeing utilities or other facilities; reflect pertinent Boeing system information on final design drawings. In order to sustain the integrity of Boeing's system(s) and ensure that adequate service continues to be provided to Boeing's ongoing operations, Boeing's existing utility system infrastructure may need to be removed, relocated, protected and/or new infrastructure system improvements provided. In general, anticipated required Boeing utilities or other facilities' improvements may include new, replaced or upgraded or adjusted underground and overhead utilities in order to accommodate the project's new or modified existing public roadway and other utility systems infrastructure improvements, Page 9 of 12 H:\Division.s\TRANSPOR.TAT\DESIGN.ENG\Rob\Boeing Redevelopment\Contract\Contract 3\Sam(BHFinal.Design Draft)3.28.05.doc etc. The Developer's site utility infrastructure ??? Planned project utility systems' improvements will be coordinated with Boeing and the Developer to identify and resolve conflicts. Boeing and the '41410' Developer will be responsible for designing all new improvements and/or modified existing infrastructure facilities as required to accommodate the project's new public utility systems' infrastructure. Anticipated SUBCONSULTANT efforts are limited as defined below,but may include the following: 1. Assist coordination with Boeing and the Developer regarding continued development and final design of project utility systems' infrastructure improvements (public stormwater,water, and sewer utilities). Anticipated required Boeing and Developer utility systems infrastructure improvements are likely to include possible removal,upgrade, abandonment and/or relocation. 2. Work with CLIENT staff to collaborate on the coordination with Boeing and the Developer. 3. Work with the CONSULTANT team to collaborate on the coordination with Boeing and the Developer regarding continued development and final design of project utility systems' infrastructure improvements. 4. Reflect pertinent Boeing and Developer utility system information on final design drawings. In general, anticipated required Boeing and Developer utility systems' improvements may include new, replaced or upgraded or adjusted underground and overhead utilities in order to accommodate new public roadway and other utility systems' infrastructure improvements, etc. Deliverable(s)/Work Product(s): Coordination assistance of project utility systems' infrastructure improvements with Boeing and the Developer Now • Preliminary PS&E-(60%)submittal • Preliminary PS&E-(90%) Submittal • Design coordination/review meetings (2) • Final PS&E/Contract Documents "Issued for Bid" Assumption(s): Due to the existing "built" surface and subsurface environment and the intended new or improved public utilities infrastructure, significant collaboration and coordination is anticipated to be required with Boeing and the Developer during the continued development and final design of project improvements. It is anticipated that Boeing and the Developer will be responsible for designing all new improvements and/or modified existing infrastructure facilities (including for removal, upgrade, abandonment and/or relocation, possibly) as required to accommodate the project's new public infrastructure. The SUBCONSULTANT's primary efforts will be to help facilitate and coordinate with Boeing and the Developer through final design of the project. The extent of work,which may be required under this activity, is difficult to and cannot be accurately predicted and therefore, a budget allowance as defined in Exhibit C has been established for this work. Task I—QAJQC Review of final design and related documentation for quality by senior engineer. Anticipated SUBCONSULTANT efforts include the following: err Page 10 of 12 H:\Division.s\TRANSPOR.TAT\DESIGN.ENG\Rob\Boeing Redevelopment\Contract\Contract 3\Sam(BHFinal Design Draft)3.28.05.doc I 1. A senior engineer (not directly associated with the design) will review the final design deliverables (major submittals only) for completeness, clarity, coordination, constructability and/or other appropriate considerations. Deliverable(s)/Work Product(s): QA/QC Assumption(s): N/A Task J-Project Management/Coordination/Administration Plan, coordinate, budget, schedule, monitor and control SUBCONSULTANT's final design efforts to meet the CLIENT's project objectives and CONSULTANT's needs. Provide for management of SUBCONSULTANT personnel and project efforts; coordination with CONSULTANT and CLIENT; contract administration, billing and progress reporting. Anticipated SUBCONSULTANT efforts include the following: 1. The CONSULTANT's project manager will meet regularly with CONSULTANT, CLIENT, and others (as the project progresses to facilitate design development) at key points during the design process to review and discuss the project. These meetings will include coordinating the project's activities, reviewing the project schedule, and assisting in making decisions that are critical to continued project development and progress. For budgeting purposes,up to eight??(8?)meetings an average of four (4) hours each including preparation, travel, and attendance are included for the SUBCONSULTANT's project manager. 2. Provide routine coordination and management of SUBCONSULTANT's work including the following. a. Provide leadership,direction and management of the SUBCONSULTANT staff. b. Provide routine monitoring and quality control of progress, including work products, costs and schedule. c. Prepare,copy and mail deliverables. d. Maintain project files. 3. Maintain regular communications (phone, facsimile, e-mail) and coordinate with CONSULTANT and CLIENT staff to exchange information, discuss project issues, coordinate efforts, etc. The extent of work, which may be required under this activity, is difficult to and cannot be accurately predicted and therefore, a budget allowance of approximately eight??(8?)hours per month has been established for this work. 4. Prepare and submit monthly project billings to CONSULTANT. The billing will reflect the SUBCONSULTANT's labor and expenses for the previous month and will include a brief description of activities performed along with a summary of expenditures for each task and overall budget status. Deliverable(s)/Work Product(s): Monthly billings;project communications Assumption(s): For budgeting purposes, it is assumed that the work period will span up to nine (9) months. It is assumed that the CONSULTANT will prepare and distribute minutes of all substantive matters discussed during meetings. The SUBCONSULTANT's time and effort required to develop, define, Page 11 of 12 H:\Divisions\TRANSPOR.TAT\DESIGN.ENG\Rob\Boeing Redevelopment\Contract\Contract 3\Sam(BHFinal Design Draft)3.28.05.doc • negotiate, and/or prepare contract amendments for additional and out of scope work will be Nome performed for an additional fee. SCHEDULE The following represents our understanding of the anticipated project schedule/timeline within the approximately nine (9) month period beginning in May 2005. Conforming to this schedule is highly dependent on receiving information and decisions from the CONSULTANT, CLIENT, Boeing, and others in a timely manner. Without timely information and decision making the schedule is subject to change and basis for review and renegotiation of the contract schedule and fee. low Page 12 of 12 H:\Division.s\TRANSPOR.TAT\DESIGN.ENG\Rob\Boeing Redevelopment\Contract\Contract 3\Sam(BHFinal Design Draft)3.28.05.doc So Lake WaNrngton Roadway Improvements %"' `upplement#2 Exihibit D-1 "'ie Date: March 15,2005 I:/projects/city of renton/31636 N Renton Infrast Improv/NewScope3.15.05.xis Labor Hour Estimate Schedule Project Project Senior Surveyor Project Project Principal Manager Engineer Designer Technician Surveyor Crew Clerical Hours Cost Hrsit Hrs 0 Hrs @ Hrs @ Hrs0 Hs Hs 0 Hrs 0 Project Tasks $ 60.00 $ 46.00 $ 40.00 $ 32.00 $ 25.00 $ 44.00 $ 53.00 $ 22.00 1.0 Project Management 1.01 Management/Administration 10 200 100 310 $12,000.00 1.02 Meetings 200 40 16 256 $11,152.00 0 $0.00 0 $0.00 1.04 Quality Assurance/Quality Controls 40 150 40 230 $10,900.00 2.0 Utility Coordination 0 $0.00 2.01 Meetings 60 60 $2,760.00 2.02 Review proposed utility work 20 20 $920.00 2.03 General coordination 40 40 $1,840.00 3.0 Geotechnical 0 $0.00 3.01 Review&Evaluation-Kleinfelder 0 $0.00 4.0 Environmental/Permits 0 $0.00 Prepare Final SEPA checklist 4 4 4 2 14 $516.00 Phase II-Kleinfelder 4 4 $184.00 5.0 Hydraulic Analysis and Report 0 $0.00 Analysis B&H 4 4 $184.00 Report B&H 8 8 $368.00 6.0 WSDOT Approvals 20 80 40 2 142 $5,164.00 7.0 Field Surveys&Base Map 0 $0.00 Set Control 4 8 16 2 30 $1,252.00 Topo Survey 8 24 56 4 92 $3,976.00 Prepare Base Map 4 40 2 46 $1,204.00 Prepare Legal Descriptions and Exhibit Maps 1 4 8 2 15 $450.00 8.0 Prelim.Design(60%) 0 $0.00 Cover Sheet 15 15 $375.00 Legend and abbreviations 15 15 $375.00 General notes 24 30 54 $1,518.00 Typical roadway sections 40 40 40 120 $3,880.00 Roadway details 40 40 60 140 $4,380.00 Site preparation/demo plans 20 60 120 200 $5,720.00 Roadway Alignment&Profile 32 100 100 232 $6,980.00 Drainage plan and profiles B&H 16 40 40 80 176 $5,616.00 Drainage details B&H 16 16 $736.00 Water quality B&H 16 16 $736.00 Structure notes B&H 16 16 $736.00 Driveway plans and Profiles 20 20 40 80 $2,440.00 Driveway schedule,details,and quantities 10 10 40 60 $1,720.00 Channelization,illumination,and signing plans 8 20 40 120 188 $5,448.00 Illumination schedule and details 10 20 60 90 $2,540.00 Signing schedule,specifications,and details 4 10 20 60 94 $2,724.00 Traffic signal plans KDD 8 8 $368.00 Temporary erosion and sediment control plans 8 40 60 108 $3,100.00 Landscape plans 100 100 200 $6,500.00 Construction phasing/traffic control plans 40 80 80 80 280 $9,600.00 Final Design(90%,100%) 0 $0.00 Respond/Incorporate County Review Comments 16 24 40 8 88 $2,872.00 Cover Sheet 10 10 $250.00 Legend and abbreviations 10 10 $250.00 General notes 8 16 24 $656.00 Typical roadway sections 16 32 40 88 $2,664.00 Roadway details 24 40 80 144 $4,240.00 Site preparation/demo plans 16 32 60 108 $3.164.00 Roadway Alignment&Prcfd:e d 20 40 80 148 $4,448.00 Drainage plan and profiles B&H 8 8 $368.00 Drainage details B&H 8 8 $368.00 Water quality B&H 8 8 $368.00 Driveway Plans and Profiles 8 16 40 64 $1,832.00 Driveway schedule,details,and quantities 8 16 24 48 $1,432.00 Channelization,illumination,and signing plans 4 10 20 60 94 $2,724.00 Illumination schedule and details 5 10 30 45 $1,270.00 Signing schedule,specifications,and details 5 10 30 45 $1,270.00 Traffic signal plans KDD 4 4 $184.00 Temporary erosion and sediment control plans/Detail Plan 8 40 60 108 $3,100.00 Landscape plans 32 40 80 152 $4,560.00 Construction phasing/traffic control plans 16 40 40 40 136 $4,616.00 9.0 Specifications 0 $0.00 Prepare Draft Technical Specifications 40 80 40 16 176 $6,672.00 Prepare Draft Specifications and Ad.Package For 90%Submittal 20 40 20 8 88 $3,336.00 Incorporate Review Comments 10 20 10 8 48 $1,756.00 10.0 Cost Estimate 0 $0.00 Prepare 60%Cost Estimate 16 24 40 40 4 124 $4,064.00 Prepare 90%Cost Estimate 8 16 40 40 2 106 $3,332.00 Prepare 100%Cost Estimate 24 8 40 40 2 114 $3,748.00 11.0 Review Documents 0 $0.00 Plot 60%Drawings 4 24 28 $760.00 Plot 90%Drawings 4 24 28 $760.00 Plot 100%Drawings 4 24 28 $760.00 12.0 Finalize PS&E Documents 16 12 24 48 60 12 172 $5,772.00 Labor Subtotal 66 1037 1054 1120 2092 0 72 190 5631 $189,958.00 Overhead (Labor*169.306%) $321,610.29 Fee labor*35% $66,485.30 Total Labor $578,053.59 EXPENSES Cost Expenses Item Quantity Unit per Unit Cost Mileage 1000 Miles $0.405 $405.00 Plan Reproduction/Plotting 2500 Plot $3.00 $7,500.00 Tech Charge 5631 Hour $5.00 $28,155.00 Total Expenses $36,060.00 Subconsultant Contract Subcontractor Amount Cost KDD Associates $104,539.00 $104,539.00 Berryman&Henegar $433,231.00' $433,231.00 Kleinfelder $85,446.00 $85,446.00 APS $50,000.00 $50,000.00 Total Subconsultants $673,216.00 Subtotal $1,287,329.59 Contingency(0%) $0.00 TOTAL $1,287,329.59 Remaining Budget -$360,000.00 New Total $927,329.59 New Scope 3.15.05.xls CITY OF RENTON COUNCIL AGENDA BILL AI#: UG ' ii = Submitting Data: For Agenda of: April 18,2005 Dept/Div/Board.. PBPW/Utility Systems/Solid Waste Staff Contact Linda Knight(ext. 7397) Agenda Status Consent X Subject: Public Hearing.. Clean Sweep Renton—residential cleanup program Correspondence.. Ordinance Resolution Old Business Exhibits: New Business Issue Paper Study Sessions Information Recommended Action: Approvals: Refer to Utilities Committee Legal Dept Finance Dept Other Fiscal Impact: Expenditure Required... $400,000.00 Transfer/Amendment Amount Budgeted $0.00 Revenue Generated $0.00 Total Project Budget $400,000.00 City Share Total Project.. $400,000.00 SUMMARY OF ACTION: The Administration has identified neighborhood cleanup as a priority. Two goals of the City of Renton are to promote neighborhood revitalization and to meet the service demands that contribute to the livability of the community. Staff has identified implementation of"Clean Sweep Renton", a suite of three pilot programs targeting Renton's residential neighborhoods, as a service that promotes these goals. The three pilot programs include: Reuse It! Renton, Neighborhood Association Cleanup, and Neighbor-to-Neighbor Curbside Cleanup. These are new programs not currently budgeted under the 2005 Solid Waste Utility budget. The Solid Waste Utility fund balance has been identified as a source of funding for these pilot programs. Council must approve the programs and appropriate funds prior to implementation. STAFF RECOMMENDATION: • Approve implementation of the Clean Sweep Renton program. • Appropriate $400,000 (from the Solid Waste Utility fund balance)to cover the costs of Clean Sweep Renton,which includes: Reuse It! Renton,Neighborhood Association Cleanup, and Neighbor-to- Neighbor Curbside Cleanup programs. H:\File Sys\SWU-Solid Waste Utility\SWU-17-Projects\CleanSweepAB.doc/LKtp CITY OF RENTON Nose PLANNINGBUILDING/PUBLIC WORKS MEMORANDUM DATE: April 8, 2005 TO: Terri Briere, Council President Members of the Renton City Council VIA: Mayor Kathy Keolker-Wheeler Jc FROM: Gregg ZimmermaYl, Administrator STAFF CONTACT: Linda Knight, Solid Waste Supervisor(ext. 7397)041"r SUBJECT: Clean Sweep Renton ISSUE: The Administration has identified neighborhood cleanup as a priority. Two goals of the City of Renton are to promote neighborhood revitalization and to meet the service demands that contribute to the livability of the community. A program that promotes these two goals is "Clean "` Sweep Renton". RECOMMENDATION: • Approve implementation of the Clean Sweep Renton program. • Appropriate $400,000 (from the Solid Waste Utility fund balance)to cover the costs of Clean Sweep Renton. BACKGROUND SUMMARY: In 1990, in an effort to provide for collection of non-curbside recyclables and in keeping with the goals of the King County Comprehensive Solid Waste Management Plan,the Renton Solid Waste Utility launched its first Special Recycling Event. The early events collected tires, re- usable household goods, scrap metals, appliances, and bulky yard waste. Since its inception, this popular program has grown to include collection of some plastics, automotive batteries,NiCad batteries, automotive oil and antifreeze,refrigerators and freezers, clean wood waste, and concrete. Offered twice a year,the Renton Fall/Spring Recycle events serve over 1100 households and recycle over 180 tons per year. The Administration has identified neighborhood cleanup as a priority. The concept of a neighborhood cleanup program goes beyond litter cleanup and addresses the need to provide a service to Renton's residential solid waste customers that includes collection of large, bulky Nar.•' materials and encourages each household to tidy up their house and yard, thus improving the overall look and feel of each neighborhood. Council/Clean Sweep April 8,2005 Page 2 of 2 Clean Sweep Renton is a suite of services that will promote the cleaning up of each of Renton's neighborhoods,while building strong neighborhoods through neighbors working with neighbors to accomplish the common goal of neighborhood improvement. The three main components of Clean Sweep Renton follow the solid waste management hierarchy of Reduce, Reuse, Recycle, and Disposal and include: Reuse It! Renton Based on the popular Use It Again! Seattle, this FREE one-day event provides a neutral zone that allows residents to get rid of reusable items they no longer want while at the same time allowing residents to take reusable items they want. This community exchange program meets the Solid Waste Utility goal of promoting Waste Reduction and Reuse. Neighborhood Association Clean-up This program will work directly with Renton's Department of Economic Development, Neighborhoods, and Strategic Planning, and Renton Neighborhood Associations. Structured as a "sign-up"program, the Solid Waste Utility will provide large collection containers, guidelines for collection, and cover collection & disposal costs for any neighborhood association that chooses to participate. Intended to go beyond the typical litter cleanup, this program will target organized neighborhood groups, and areas of the City that need special attention. Each participating Neighborhood Association will supply an organized group of volunteers to cleanup their particular service area over one weekend. Neighbor-to-Neighbor Curbside Clean-up The last of the programs to be implemented will be the curbside cleanup. Waste Management will service the entire single-family residential sector of the City on one Saturday. Residential customers will be allowed to place a variety of materials at their curbside for collection, including small broken furniture, toys, carpet and carpet pads, assorted furniture with no useful life, Styrofoam packing blocks, toilets and sinks, scrap metal, sports equipment, etc. Appliances will be handled on a scheduled collection appointment basis following the collection day. The Solid Waste Utility will work closely with staff from the Neighborhoods Division to promote neighbors helping neighbors cleanup their homes and yards to improve the overall livability of each neighborhood and strengthen relationships with each other. Funding: The Solid Waste Utility proposes to use existing ending fund balance to cover the costs of Clean Sweep Renton. CONCLUSION: Implementation of the Clean Sweep Renton program is proposed for June 2005. Solid Waste Utility staff will use the 2005 event as a pilot program, and will collect data on volume and type of materials collected, participation, and cost. Appropriation of$400,000 from the Solid Waste Utility fund balance must be approved to implement this new program. cc: Lys Hornsby,Utility Systems Director H:\File Sys\SWU-Solid Waste Utility\SWU-17-Projects\cleansweepissue 05.doc/LKtp dde-fret,ol 14/1-aoos CITY OF RENTON, WASHINGTON RESOLUTION NO. ,57419 A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY OF RENTON, WASHINGTON, AUTHORIZING THE MAYOR AND CITY CLERK TO ENTER INTO AN INTERLOCAL AGREEMENT FOR WATERFOWL (CANADA GOOSE) MANAGEMENT PROGRAM FOR THE YEAR 2005. WHEREAS, it has been determined that the City of Renton has a large surplus of Canadian Geese within its jurisdiction; and WHEREAS, the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service and the State of Washington have agreed to continue an egg addling program, and provide lethal control and to provide population monitoring and census; and WHEREAS, the costs for this procedure would be shared with a number of jurisdictions including the City of Renton; and WHEREAS, it is necessary to document the agreement between the parties; NOW, THEREFORE, THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF RENTON, WASHINGTON, DOES RESOLVE AS FOLLOWS: SECTION L The above findings are true and correct in all respects. SECTION II, The Mayor and City Clerk are hereby authorized to enter into an Interlocal Agreement for Waterfowl(Canada Goose)Management Program for the year 2005 and thereafter as long as the costs remain relatively constant for roughly equivalent efforts. PASSED BY THE CITY COUNCIL this day of , 2005. Bonnie I. Walton, City Clerk 1 RESOLUTION NO. APPROVED BY THE MAYOR this day of , 2005. Kathy Keolker-Wheeler, Mayor Approved as to form: Lawrence J. Warren, City Attorney RES.1107:4/7/05:ma 2 DRAFT CITY OF RENTON, WASHINGTON ORDINANCE NO. AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF RENTON,WASHINGTON, ADOPTING THE SHORELINE AND CRITICAL AREAS POLICY AMENDMENTS TO THE CITY'S 1995 COMPREHENSIVE PLAN, MAPS,AND DATA IN CONJUNCTION THEREWITH. WHEREAS, the City Council of the City of Renton has heretofore adopted and filed a"Comprehensive Plan" and the City Council of Renton has implemented and amended said "Comprehensive Plan"from time to time, together with the adoption of various codes, reports and records; and WHEREAS, the Planning Commission has heretofore fully recommended to the City Council, from time to time, certain amendments to the City's "Comprehensive Plan"; and Niue WHEREAS, the City of Renton,pursuant to the Washington State Growth Management Act, has been required to integrate Shoreline Management policies into its "Comprehensive Plan"; and WHEREAS, the Planning Commission has made certain findings and recommendations to the City Council, including implementing policies; and WHEREAS, the City Council has duly determined after due consideration of the testimony and evidence before it that it is advisable and appropriate to amend and modify the City's "Comprehensive Plan"; and WHEREAS, the proposed revisions to the Environment Element and specific policies in the Land Use Element are needed for policy consistency guiding Critical Area and Shorelines implementation; and Nifty 1 ORDINANCE NO. WHEREAS,the City established a public participation program pursuant to RCW 36.70A.130(2) and provided notice of the update process pursuant to RCW 36.70A.035,provided for early and continuous public participation (RCW 36.70A.140) by publishing a meeting schedule, provided updates to the schedule on public television, held public workshop sessions with the Planning Commission and televised workshop sessions with the Council Committee of the Whole during the period during the months from January to September, 2004; and held two public open houses July 27th and August 17th, 2004; and WHEREAS, such modification and elements for the"Comprehensive Plan" being in the best interest for the public benefit; and WHEREAS, The City has provided opportunity for the public to comment on the review and suggest needed revisions of the plan and regulations, and held a public hearings March 2nd and March 21st, and on this matter; NOW,THEREFORE,THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF RENTON, WASHINGTON,DO ORDAIN AS FOLLOWS: SECTION 1. The above findings and recitals are found to be true and correct in all respects. 1) The City followed its established public participation program, 2) Revisions are needed to the Comprehensive Plan, 3) The City has conducted its seven-year update requirement under RCW36.70A.130 for all portions of the Plan by completing the portions of the work program needed to implement the Critical Areas, Shorelines and Best Available Science review, 2 • ORDINANCE NO. 4) All policies within these Elements were reviewed and those policies that remained without amendment are found to be in compliance with the Growth Management Act, as amended, and 5) All modified and revised Elements of the Comprehensive Plan are internally consistent and provide sufficient capacity of land at urban densities and sufficient levels of service to comply with Countywide Planning Policies and the 20 year population forecast from the Office of Financial Management and comply with the Growth Management Act as amended. SECTION II. The "Comprehensive Plan,"maps, data and reports in support of the "Comprehensive Plan" are hereby modified, amended and adopted to include the following amendments consisting of the following elements: Comprehensive Plan Land Use and Environmental Element as shown on the attached Exhibits A and B incorporated Nome herein as if fully set forth. SECTION III. The Economic Development, Neighborhoods and Strategic Planning Administrator is hereby authorized and directed to make the necessary changes on said City's "Comprehensive Plan"to evidence the aforementioned amendments. SECTION IV. The City Clerk is authorized and directed to file this ordinance as provided by law, and a complete copy of said document likewise being on file with the office of the City Clerk of the City of Renton. SECTION V. This ordinance shall be effective upon its passage, approval and five days after publication. PASSED BY THE CITY COUNCIL this day of , 3 ORDINANCE NO. Bonnie I. Walton, City Clerk ,14004 APPROVED BY THE MAYOR this day of , Kathy Keolker-Wheeler, Mayor Approved as to form: Lawrence J. Warren, City Attorney Date of Publication: Noiliii 4 CITY OF RENTON ENVIRONMENTAL ELEMENT Exhibit A The following policies and amendments to policies are added to the Environmental Element of the Comprehensive Plan. The remaining policies of the Environmental Element remain unchanged. ENVIRONMENTAL ELEMENT GOAL 1. Continue protection of Renton's natural systems,natural beauty,and environmental quality. 2. [Reserved for 2005 Comprehensive Plan Amendments to Environment Element.] 3. Manage Shorelines of the State to protect unique and fragile areas,retain and enhance natural amenities within an urban environment, and minimize hazards to public safety. Flood Plains Objective EN-E: Protect the natural functions of 100-year floodplains and floodways. Policy EN-25a. Prohibit permanent structures modification,realignment, and straightening should from developing in floodways due to risks be discouraged as means of flood protection. associated with deep and fast flowing water. Policy EN-30a. Dredging activities may be Policy EN-26a. Limit development within the 100 conducted as follows: year floodplain to that which is not harmed by flooding. Roads and finished floors of structures a. Continue as-needed maintenance dredging of the should be located above the 100 year flood level, constructed channel section of the Lower Cedar and new development should provide compensation River per the City of Renton's agreement with the for existing flood storage capacity due to filling. U.S. Army Corps of Engineers for flood control using best management practices to minimize Policy EN-27a. Restrict land uses to those that do salmonid habitat disruption. not cause backwater or significantly increase the velocity of floodwaters. b. In coordination with Federal or State permitting agencies,the City may allow dredging outside of Policy EN-28a. Incorporate design features,which the lower Cedar River for public purposes such as are intended to keep harmful substances from to protect public facilities, or when needed to floodwaters in any development,which is allowed improve aquatic habitat,for example to correct in the 100-year floodplain. problems of material distribution or water quality when such problems adversely affect aquatic life. Policy EN-29a. Emphasize non-structural methods in planning for flood prevention and damages Policy EN-31a Renton's floodplain land use and rte,: reduction. Substantial stream channel management activities should be carried out in coordination with King County,adjacent cities,and 1 CITY OF RENTON ENVIRONMENTAL ELEMENT State and Federal agencies. The City should needed periodically. The City of Renton was the partner with agencies to implement regional plans local project sponsor with the U.S.Army Corps of NIS such as the King County Flood Hazard Reduction Engineers for the construction of the Cedar River Plan. Section 205 Flood Hazard Reduction Project. As the local project sponsor, the City of Renton is Policy EN-32a The existing flood storage and required by its Project Cooperation Agreement conveyance functions and ecological values of with the US Corps of Engineers to maintain the floodplains, wetlands, and riparian corridors should federal project, which includes future maintenance be protected, and should, where possible,be dredging. enhanced or restored. Discussion: The maintenance dredging of the lower 1.25 miles of the constructed channel section of the Lower Cedar River will continue to be Shorelines of the State: Natural Resources and Hazard Management Summary: Approximately 18 miles of shoreline in the City of Renton are under the jurisdiction of the Shoreline Management Act(SMA)of 1971,including Lake Washington, Green River,Cedar River, Black River,Springbrook Creek,and May Creek are shorelines within the City. Generally,regulated shorelines include the water bodies and their shorelands extending landward from the floodway or ordinary high water mark for two hundred(200)feet in all directions. This jurisdictional area increases to include all marshes, bogs, swamps,and river deltas,associated with the regulated Shorelines of the State. The total of this area is subject to shoreline use classification and regulation. Natural environment conservation and flood hazard minimization are priorities of the SMA and of the Renton's required Shoreline Master Program,of which the policies of this sub-element are a part. (Also refer to the Land Use Element, Shorelines of the State: Land Use, Recreation, and Circulation Management.) Objective EN-R: Protect and preserve resources and amenities of all Shorelines of the State situated in the City of Renton for use and enjoyment by present and future generations. Policy EN-88 Existing natural resources should Policy EN-89 Shoreline land uses including be conserved. residential,commercial,industrial,civic, and mixed 1. Water quality and water flow should be uses should be allowed consistent with the Land maintained at a level to permit recreational use,to Use Element.Existing and future activities on all provide suitable habitat for aquatic life, and to shorelines of the State regulated by the City of satisfy other required human needs. Renton should be designed to minimize adverse 2. Aquatic habitats and spawning grounds effects on the environment. should be protected, improved and,if feasible, restored. Policy EN-90 The City of Renton should take 3. Terrestrial wildlife habitats,including aggressive action with responsible governmental wetlands,riparian areas, and upland habitats should agencies to assure that discharges from all drainage be protected,improved and,if feasible,increased. basins are considered an integral part of shoreline 4. Unique natural and fragile areas should be planning. designated and maintained as open space. Passive 1. Soil erosion and sedimentation,which recreation access and use should be restricted,if adversely affect any shoreline within the City of necessary,for the conservation of these areas. Renton, should be prevented or controlled. 2. The contamination of existing watercourses should be prevented or controlled. 2 CITY OF RENTON ENVIRONMENTAL ELEMENT 1. Low density development should be encouraged to the extent that such development Policy EN-91 All further development of the would permit and provide for the continuation of shorelines of May Creek east of FAI-405 right-of- the existing natural character of the shoreline. way, and that portion of Springbrook Creek 2. For the subject locations, the waterways beginning from approximately SW 27th Street on should be left in an undeveloped natural state as the north to SW 31st Street on the south,abutting much as possible. City-owned wetlands in this area,and for that portion of the west side of the Creek in the vicinity Policy EN-92. Floodplain objective EN-E and of SW 38th Street abutting the City's recently associated policies are incorporated by reference as acquired Wetlands Mitigation Bank should be part of the City of Renton Shoreline Master compatible with the existing natural state of the Program objectives and policies. shoreline. 3 City of Renton Land Use Element Exhibit B The following policies and amendments to policies are added to the Land Use Element of the Comprehensive Plan. The remaining policies of the Land Use Element remain unchanged. LAND USE ELEMENT GOALS I. Plan for future growth of the Urban Area based on regionally developed growth forecasts, adopted growth targets, and land capacity as determined through implementation of the Growth Management Act. II. Minimize risk associated with potential aviation incidents on the ground and for aircraft occupants. III. Actively pursue annexations. IV. Maintain the City's natural and cultural history by documenting and appropriately recognizing its historic and/or archaeological sites. V. Pursue the transition of non-conforming uses and structures to encourage more conforming uses and development patterns. VI. Develop a system of facilities that meet the public and quasi-public service needs of present and future employees. VII. Maintain the City's agricultural and mining resources as part of Renton's cultural history. VIII. Promote new development and neighborhoods in the City that: 1) Contribute to a strong sense of community and neighborhood identity; 2) Are walkable places where people can shop, play, and get to work without always having to drive; 3) Are developed at densities sufficient to support public transportation and make efficient use of urban services and infrastructure; 4) Offer a variety of housing types for a population diverse in age, income, and lifestyle; 5) Are varied or unique in character; City of Renton Land Use Element 6) Support"grid" and"flexible grid" street and pathway Noire patterns where appropriate; 7) Are visually attractive, safe, and healthy environments in which to live; 8) Offer connection to the community instead of isolation; and 9) Provide a sense of home. IX. Develop well-balanced attractive,convenient, robust commercial office, office, and residential development within designated Centers serving the City and the region. X. Support existing businesses and provide an energetic business environment for new commercial activity providing a range of service, office, commercial, and mixed use residential uses that enhance the City's employment and tax base along arterial boulevards and in designated development areas. XI. Achieve a mix of land uses including industrial,high technology, office, and commercial activities in Employment Areas that lead to economic growth and a strengthening of Renton's employment base. XII. Plan and coordinate land uses,public access, and natural resource protection along Shorelines of the State in accordance with the State Shoreline Management Act. IV. HISTORICAL AND ARCHEOLOGICAL RESOURCES Goal: Maintain the City's natural and cultural history by documenting and appropriately recognizing its historic and/or archaeological sites. Discussion: Renton has a rich and interesting history as a community. It was the site of an established Native American settlement and changed through the years of early European immigration into a pioneer town. The City incorporated in 1901 and later became a major regional employment center and residential area. The following policies are intended to guide efforts to recognize and integrate Renton's past into future development as the City evolves into a dynamic urban community. Objective LU-O: Communicate Renton's history by protecting historic and archaeological sites and structures when appropriate and as opportunities arise. Policy LU-61. Historic resources should continue to be identified and mapped within the City as an on-going process. New 2 City of Renton Land Use Element Policy LU-62. Natural and cultural resources should be identified by project proponents when applying for land use approval, as part of the application submitted for review. Suspected or newly discovered historic or cultural sites should be kept free from intrusions for a reasonable time until their value is determined. Policy LU-63. Potentially adverse impacts on cultural resources deemed to be significant should be mitigated as a condition of project approval. Implementation of this policy should occur within three years of the adoption of the 2004 Update. Policy LU-64. The City should work cooperatively with King County by exchanging resource information pertaining to natural and cultural resources. Policy LU-65. Historical and archaeological sites,identified as significant by the City of Renton, should be preserved and/or incorporated into development projects. Policy LU-66. Downtown buildings and site development proposals should be encouraged to incorporate displays about Renton's history, including prominent families and individuals,businesses, and events associated with downtown's past. Implementation of this policy should occur within three years of the adoption of the 2004 Update. XII. SHORELINES OF THE STATE: LAND USE, RECREATION, AND CIRCULATION MANAGEMENT Summary: Shorelines are of limited supply and are faced with rapidly increasing demands for uses such as marinas, fishing, swimming and scenic views, as well as recreation,private housing, commercial and industrial uses. The Washington State Shoreline Management Act(SMA)passed in 1971 and is based on the philosophy that the shorelines of our State are among our most "valuable" and "fragile" natural resources and that unrestricted development of these resources is not in the best public interest. Therefore, planning and management are necessary in order to prevent the harmful effects of uncoordinated and piece-meal development of our State's shorelines. Under the Washington State SMA, local governments have the primary responsibility for initiating the planning program and administering the regulatory requirements of the Act, with the Department of Ecology acting in a supportive, review, or approval capacity depending on the particular shoreline proposal and regulatory requirements. Jurisdiction Approximately 18 miles of shoreline in the City of Renton are under the jurisdiction of the SMA as shown in Figures XII-A and XII-B: 1. Cedar River. 3 City of Renton Land Use Element 2. Green River. Nwersi 3. Lake Washington. 4. May Creek from the intersection of May Creek and N.E. 31st Street in the southeast quarter of the southeast quarter of Section 32-24-5E WM downstream in a northeasterly direction to its mouth at Lake Washington. 5. Springbrook Creek from the Black River on the north to S.W. 43rd Street on the south. 6. Black River. All are considered as Shorelines of the State. Further,by State standards, the Green River and Lake Washington are classified as Shorelines of State-wide Significance, requiring more close review and regulation, and comprise approximately 5.8 miles of the shorelines of the State regulated by City of Renton. Shoreline Master Programs As set forth in the provisions of the Act, local governments must fulfill the following basic requirements for regulated shorelines: • Compilation of a comprehensive inventory which includes a survey of natural characteristics, present land uses, and patterns of ownership. • Development of a Master Program, including, goals,policies, and regulations to provide an objective guide for regulating the use of shorelines. ',1100e • Administration of a shoreline permit system for proposed substantial development on Shorelines of the State regulated by Renton. In compliance with the inventory requirement of the Act, the Renton Planning Department conducted a comprehensive inventory of the natural characteristics, present land uses, and patterns of ownership along the City's shoreline. The inventory was completed in October 1972, and provided a substantial basis for the development of this Master Program. The Renton Shoreline Master Program (RSMP or SMP) shoreline environments and specific use regulations reflect the local conditions that are documented in that inventory. As updates have been prepared over time for particular locations or for particular policies or regulations, additional inventory and analysis documentation has been supplied in accordance with the SMA and Washington Administrative Code requirements. The City of Renton, with the help of its local citizens, developed a SMP in compliance with the Act to serve as a guide for regulating use of the Shorelines of the State within Renton's jurisdiction. The components of the Renton SMP, and their location in the City's plans and regulations, are as follows: • Shoreline goals, objectives, policies: o Land Use Element Subsection -Shorelines of the State: Land Use, Recreation, and Circulation Management 4 City of Renton Land Use Element o Environment Element Subsection - Shorelines of the State: Natural Resources and Hazard Management • Shoreline use environments: o Land Use Element Subsection- Shorelines of the State: Land Use, Recreation, and Circulation Management o Renton Municipal Code,Title 4. • Shoreline use regulations, and provisions for variances and conditional uses. o Renton Municipal Code,Title 4. Management Objectives & Intent The basic intent of the RSMP is to provide for the management of shorelines of the State within Renton's jurisdiction by planning for and fostering all reasonable and appropriate uses and to ensure, if development takes place, that it is done in a manner which will promote and enhance the best interests of the general public. The RSMP has further been composed to protect the public interest and general welfare in shorelines regulated by Renton and, at the same time, to recognize and protect owners'legal property rights consistent with the public interest. The goals and policies of the RSMP are formulated so as to enhance the public use and enjoyment of the shorelines so long as that public use is consistent with, and does not impair,legal private property rights. It is recognized that the Shorelines of the State found in Renton are located within a major urbanized area, and that they are subject to ever increasing pressures of additional uses necessitating increased coordination in the management and development of the shorelines. An attempt has,therefore,been made to present a planned, rational, and concerted effort to increase coordinated and optimum utilization of the Shorelines of the State under Renton's jurisdiction. The SMA legislative policy indicates that uses are preferred on Shorelines of the State as follows: "In the implementation of this policy the public's opportunity to enjoy the physical and aesthetic qualities of natural shorelines of the state shall be preserved to the greatest extent feasible consistent with the overall best interest of the state and the people generally. To this end uses shall be preferred which are consistent with control of pollution and prevention of damage to the natural environment, or are unique to or dependent upon use of the state's shoreline. Alterations of the natural condition of the shorelines of the state, in those limited instances when authorized, shall be given priority for single family residences and their appurtenant structures, ports, shoreline recreational uses including but not limited to parks, marinas,piers, and other improvements facilitating public access to shorelines of the state, industrial and commercial developments which are particularly dependent on their location on or use of the shorelines of the state and other development that will provide an opportunity for substantial numbers of the 5 City of Renton Land Use Element people to enjoy the shorelines of the state. Alterations of the natural condition of the shorelines and shorelands of the state shall be recognized by the department. Shorelines and shorelands of the state shall be appropriately classified and these classifications shall be revised when circumstances warrant regardless of whether the change in circumstances occurs through man-made causes or natural causes." (RCW 90.58.020, excerpted in part) Additionally, the Master Program has also been formulated so as to provide for uses of Shorelines of Statewide Significance (i.e. Lake Washington; Green River) in the following order of preference consistent with the SMA: 1. Recognize and protect the state-wide interest over local interest on shorelines of state-wide significance. 2. Preserve the natural character of the shorelines. 3. Result in long-term over short-term benefits. 4. Protect the resources and ecology of the shorelines. 5. Increase public access to publicly owned areas of the shorelines. 6. Increase recreational opportunities for the public in the shorelines. 7. Provide for any other element deemed appropriate or necessary. It should also be noted that the Washington State Department of Ecology has designated Lake Washington as a "region" for the purpose of shoreline planning. The Lake Washington Regional Shoreline goals and Policies adopted by the Regional Citizens Advisory Committee on October 31, 1973, were considered in the formulation of the RSMP. lore Shoreline Use Environments Summary: Shorelines of the State are to be classified into"use environments" based upon current development pattern,biophysical capabilities, and other factors. Policies, standards, and regulations can be customized by use environment, shoreline, and use depending on needs. Generally, regulated shorelines include the water bodies and their shorelands extending landward from the floodway or ordinary high water mark for two hundred(200) feet in all directions. This jurisdictional area increases to include all marshes, bogs, swamps, and river deltas, associated with the regulated Shorelines of the State. The total of this area is subject to shoreline use classification and regulation. Objective LU-DDDD: Categorize shorelines based on the existing development pattern, the biophysical capabilities and limitations of the area being considered for development, and the goals and aspirations of local citizenry. Policy LU-460. Three environments, Natural, Conservancy, and Urban, are to be designated on Shorelines of the State to provide a uniform basis to apply policies and use regulations within distinctively different shoreline areas. These classifications are applied at a programmatic level on Figure XII-A and XII-B. Policy LU-461. Natural Environment Classification. Shoreline areas meeting the following intent and characteristics should be designated with the Natural use environment classification: 444100 6 City of Renton Land Use Element A. Natural Environment Intent: The purpose of the Natural environment is to protect and preserve unique and fragile shoreline or wetland environments in their natural state. The Natural environment is intended to provide areas of wildlife sanctuary and habitat preservation. B. Areas to be designated Natural environment shorelines: Areas that are to be designated Natural environment should include: 1. Areas that are unique or fragile. 2. Floodways areas. C. Acceptable Activities and Uses: The primary human-related activities are intended to be floodway drainage or storage. Limited public access and passive recreation opportunities, when compatible with the unique and fragile characteristics, may be allowed. Policy LU-462. Conservancy Environment Classification. Shoreline areas meeting the following intent and characteristics should be designated with the Conservancy use environment classification: A. Conservancy Environment Intent: The purpose in designating a Conservancy environment is to protect,conserve, and manage existing areas with irreplaceable natural or aesthetic features in essentially their native state, while providing for limited use of the area. The Conservancy environment is intended to provide a pleasant break in the surrounding urban community. This environment seeks to satisfy a portion of the present and future needs of Renton. B. Areas to be Designated as a Conservancy Environment: Areas that are to be designated Conservancy environment should include: 1. Areas of high scenic value. 2. Valuable areas for wildlife habitat. 3. Hazardous slope areas. 4. Flood-prone areas. 5. Areas which cannot provide adequate utilities for intense development. 6. Areas with unique or fragile features. C. Acceptable Activities and Uses: Activities and uses considered to be acceptable in a Conservancy environment are those of a nonconsumptive nature which do not degrade the existing character of the area. Uses that are to be predominant in a Conservancy environment are low density residential,passive agricultural uses such as pasture or range lands, and passive outdoor recreation. Active public recreation when compatible with the biophysical characteristics of the land may also be allowed. Policy LU-463. Urban Environment Classification. Shoreline areas meeting the following intent and characteristics should be designated with the Urban use environment classification: 7 City of Renton Land Use Element A. Urban Environment Intent: The purpose of the Urban environment is to Now ensure optimum utilization of shorelines within urbanized areas by providing for public use, especially access to and along the water's edge, and by managing development so that it enhances and maintains shorelines for a multiplicity of viable and necessary urban uses. B. Areas to be designated as an Urban Environment. The Urban Environment is particularly suitable to those areas presently subjected to extremely intensive use pressure, as well as areas planned to accommodate intensive urban expansion. On certain shorelines planned for future urban expansion, there should be limitations based on the physical aspects of the site. Shorelines of the State regulated by the City which are not designated as Conservancy or Natural are designated as Urban. C. Acceptable Uses and Activities: High-intensity Land Uses: The Urban environment is an area of high-intensity land use including residential, commercial, and industrial development. Water-Oriented Activities: Because shorelines suitable for urban uses are a limited resource, emphasis should be given to development within already developed areas and particularly to water-oriented industrial and commercial uses. Public Access: Priority is also given to planning for public visual and physical access to water in the Urban environment. To enhance waterfront and ensure maximum public use, industrial and commercial facilities should be designed to permit pedestrian waterfront activities where practicable, and the various access '44110 points ought to be linked to non-motorized transportation routes such as bicycles and hiking paths. Shoreline Uses and Activities Objective LU-EEEE: Plan and coordinate the shorelines of the State to afford best use of the limited water resource, and to provide natural amenities within an urban environment. Policy LU-464 Reasonable and appropriate shoreline uses and activities should be allowed based upon the following parameters: 1. Short-term economic gain or convenience in development should be evaluated in relationship to potential long-term effects on the shoreline. 2. Increases in the density or intensity of shoreline uses or activities as a result of Comprehensive Plan, zoning, or development regulation amendments should only be allowed when: a.There is a demonstrated need for the use or activity; and b.The uses or activities are consistent with the Comprehensive Plan vision; and c. The use or activity is consistent with the use preference policies in this Section. 8 City of Renton Land Use Element 3. Mixed-use developments or activities along shorelines should be planned where location and integration of compatible uses or activities are feasible, and ,, when consistent with Policy LU-467. 4. Shoreline uses and activities should be developed with uniform or coordinated site and architectural design. Buildings, fences, and other structures should be sited to avoid or reduce impacts to public views of the shoreline. Landscaping should be employed to reduce from public view outdoor work or storage areas. These aesthetic considerations should be encouraged when contemplating new development, extensive redevelopment of existing facilities or for general enhancement of shoreline areas. 5. Shoreline uses and activities should be discouraged if they would cause significant noise or odor or unsafe conditions that would impede the achievement of shoreline use preferences on the site or on adjacent or abutting sites. 6. All shoreline developments should be designed and constructed to protect the rights and privacy of adjacent property owners. Policy LU-465 Shoreline Master Program policies, environments, regulations, and permit review should be applied to achieve the following use preferences on Shorelines of Statewide Significance which includes Lake Washington, as follows: 1. Recognize and protect the statewide interest over local interest, and promote long-term benefits over short-term benefits. Consider Federal, State, and regional policies and programs. 2. Preserve the natural character, resources, and ecology of the shoreline. Measures may include,but are not limited to: a. Requiring uses and activities to be designed to avoid unique and fragile areas; b. Reviewing and conditioning proposals to achieve no-net-loss of shoreline ecological function; c. Promoting watershed enhancement,fish passage enhancement, or other shoreline ecology enhancement proposals. 3. Increase public access to publicly owned areas of the shorelines, and increase recreational opportunities for the public in the shorelines. 4. a. Provide opportunities for water-oriented uses, which include water dependent, water related, or water enjoyment uses: i. Water Dependent Development: Water dependent uses are uses that cannot exist in any other location and depend on a water or waterfront location.Examples of water dependent development include,but are not limited to,marinas, ferry terminals, float plane facilities, and other uses that are dependent upon a water location. ii. Water Related Uses: Water related uses include uses that support a water dependent use or have a functional requirement for 9 City of Renton Land Use Element a waterfront location. Examples of water related uses include, but `'1r► are not limited to, warehousing goods transported by water, log storage, or other uses that depend on a waterfront location. iii. Water Enjoyment Uses: Water enjoyment uses include recreational uses or uses facilitating public access for a substantial number of people. Examples may include,but are not limited to, ecological reserves, parks, piers,restaurants,museums, aquariums, hotels/resorts, mixed-use commercial/office, or others which facilitate public access. b. Non-water oriented uses may be considered water oriented uses when significant public access is provided. 5. Provide for any other shoreline activity or use deemed appropriate or necessary, and consistent with the State Shoreline Management Act and the Renton Shoreline Master Program policies. Policy LU-466 Except for Lake Washington which is addressed in Policy LU- 465, Shoreline Master Program policies, environments, regulations, and permit review should be applied to achieve the following use preferences on Shorelines of the State: 1. Preference should be given to those uses or activities which: a. Enhance the natural amenities of the shorelines, such as,but not limited to, activities which promote watershed enhancement, fish passage enhancement,reduced impervious surfaces, or other shoreline ecology enhancement proposals; and/or b. Depend on a shorelines location or provide public access to the shorelines, such as water dependent, water related, or water enjoyment uses, as described in Policy LU-465, subsection 4. 2. Alterations of the natural condition of the shorelines of the state, developed in consideration of critical areas and protective of unique and fragile areas, are given priority for: Single family residences and their appurtenant structures; Shoreline recreational uses such as parks, marinas,piers, and other improvements facilitating public access to shorelines of the state; Industrial and commercial developments which are particularly dependent on their location on or use of the shorelines of the state; and Additional water dependent, water related, and water enjoyment uses, or other development that will provide an opportunity for substantial numbers of the people to enjoy the Shorelines of the State. Policy LU-467 Those shoreline uses or activities which are not water-oriented should be encouraged to relocate away from the shoreline. 444100, 10 City of Renton Land Use Element Policy LU-468. Plans should be developed for shorelines particularly suited for water-dependent uses or activities. Policy LU-469. Festivals and temporary uses involving public interest and not substantially or permanently impairing water quality, water flow or unique and fragile areas may be allowed. Shoreline Economic Uses Objective LU-FFFF: Existing economic uses and activities on the shorelines are to be recognized and economic uses or activities that are water-oriented are to be encouraged. Policy LU-470. Economic uses and activities which are not water-oriented should be discouraged. In those instances where such uses or activities are permitted, public access to and along the water's edge should be provided. Policy LU-471. Future economic uses and activities should utilize the shoreline in an efficient manner. 1. Economic uses and activities should locate the water-oriented portion of their development along the shoreline and place inland all facilities which do not require a water's edge location. 2. The length, width, and height of over-water structures should be limited to the smallest reasonable dimensions. 3. Shoreline developments should be designed to enhance the scenic view. Policy LU-472. Mixed-use economic developments on the shoreline should be encouraged to provide public recreational opportunities wherever feasible. Policy LU-473. Shoreline facilities for the moorage and servicing of boats and other vessels, may be allowed in appropriate locations within commercial or industrial zones, and should be prohibited in single family zoned areas wherever feasible, unless part of a public recreation property in a residential zone. 1. Commercial dockings and marinas are to meet all health standards. 2. Marinas and other economic activities are to be required to contain and clean up spills or discharges of pollutants associated with boating activities. 3. Shoreline facilities for the moorage and servicing of boats and other vessels should be developed in size and location when it would not impair unique or fragile areas, or impact Federal or State listed species. Policy LU-474. The expansion of log raft storage on Lake Washington should be discouraged. Policy LU-475. Containment or mitigation of pollutants is to be required of all economic activities on the shoreline by property owner and/or operator. Niaid 11 City of Renton Land Use Element Shoreline Residential Uses Now Objective LU-GGGG: Existing residential uses are to be recognized, but future residential development should optimize regulated public access to and along the shorelines consistent with legal property rights of the owner. Policy LU-476. Residential uses over water should not be permitted. Policy LU-477. Residential development should not be constructed in unique and fragile areas. Policy LU-478. New residential developments along or impinging upon the shoreline should be permitted only where sanitary sewer facilities are available. Policy LU-479. Future shoreline subdivision, multifamily developments, and planned urban developments (P.U.D.) should provide regulated public access to and/or along the water's edge. Policy LU-480. New residential developments should optimize utilization of open space areas. Policy LU-481. All further development on the shorelines of the May Creek east of FAI-405 right-of-way and that portion of Springbrook Creek beginning from approximately SW 27th Street on the north to SW 31st Street on the south, abutting City-owned wetlands in this area, and for that portion of the west side of the Creek in the vicinity of SW 38th Street abutting the City's recently acquired Wetlands Mitigation Bank should be compatible with the existing natural state of the shoreline. 1. Low density development should be encouraged to the extent that such development would permit and provide for the continuation of the existing natural character of the shoreline, and is consistent with the underlying zoning. 2. For the subject locations,the waterways should be left in an undeveloped natural state as much as possible. Shoreline Recreation Objective LU-HHRH: Water-oriented recreational activities available to the public are to be encouraged. Policy LU-482. Water-oriented recreational activities should be encouraged. 1. Accessibility to the water's edge should be improved. 2. Shoreline park areas should be increased in size and number. 3. Areas for specialized recreation should be developed. 4. Both passive and active recreational areas are to be provided. Policy LU-483. Recreational fishing should be supported,maintained and increased. Policy LU-484. As private shorelands are developed, rights of public access should be attained based upon public access and recreation plans developed by the City. 12 City of Renton Land Use Element Policy LU-485. Local jurisdictions should join in a cooperative effort to expand recreational opportunities through programs of acquisition, development, and Nod maintenance of waterfront areas. Policy LU-486. Subject to State and Federal regulations, the water's depth may be changed to foster recreational aspects. Shoreline Public Access Objective LU-IIII: Increase public accessibility to shorelines, and preserve and improve the natural amenities. Policy LU-487. Public access should recognize and be consistent with legal property rights of the owner. Policy LU-488. Just compensation should be provided to property owners for land acquired for public use. Policy LU-489. Public access to and along the water's edge should be consistent with public safety and preservation/conservation of the natural amenities. Policy LU-490. Public access to and along the water's edge should be available throughout publicly owned shoreline areas. Policy LU-491. Public access from public streets should be made available over public property or by easement. Policy LU-492. Future multi-family,planned unit developments, subdivisions, commercial and industrial developments should be encouraged to provide public access along the water's edge. Policy LU-493. Private access to the publicly owned shoreline corridor should not be denied to owners of property contiguous to said corridor. Policy LU-494. When making extensive modifications or extensions to existing structures,multi-family, planned unit development, subdivision, commercial and industrial developers should be encouraged to provide for public access to and along the water's edge if physically feasible. Policy LU-495. High-rise structures in the shoreline jurisdiction generally should not be permitted,but could be permitted in the shoreline jurisdiction if: 1. Views of the shoreline would not be substantially obstructed due to topographic conditions, and 2. Some overriding considerations of the public interest would be served. Shoreline low-rise development should provide substantial grade level views of the water from public shoreline roads running generally parallel to the water's edge. Policy LU-496. Both passive and active public areas should be designed and provided. Policy LU-497. In order to encourage public use of the shoreline corridor, public parking should be provided at frequent locations. 13 City of Renton Land Use Element Policy LU-498. Preservation or improvement of the natural amenities should be a __,, basic consideration in the design of shoreline areas to which public access is provided, including the trail system. Policy LU-499. In planning for public access,emphasis should be placed on foot and bicycle paths rather than roads, except in areas where public boat launching would be desirable. Shoreline Circulation Objective LU-JJJJ: Minimize motor vehicular traffic and encourage pedestrian traffic within the shorelines. Policy LU-500. Shoreline roadways should be scenic boulevards where possible. Road standards should meet roadway function and emergency access standards and provide for multiple modes, while reducing impervious surfaces where feasible, and managing surface water runoff to achieve appropriate water quality Policy LU-501. Public transportation should be encouraged to facilitate access to shoreline recreation areas. Policy LU-502. Pedestrian and bicycle pathways,including provisions for maintenance, operation and security, should be developed. 1. Access points to and along the shoreline should be linked by pedestrian and bicycle pathways. 2. Separate pedestrian and bicycle pathways should be included in new or expanded bridges or scenic boulevards within the shorelines. 3. Separate pedestrian and bicycle pathways should be included in publicly financed transportation systems or rights-of-way, consistent with public interest and safety. Policy LU-503. Commercial boating operations, other than marinas, should be discouraged,but if permitted, should be limited to commercial and industrial areas. Shoreline Historic/Cultural/Scientific/Education Resources&Activities Objective LU-KKKK: Shoreline areas having historical, cultural, educational, or scientific value should be retained. Policy LU-504. Through programs, acquisition, or regulations, shoreline sites with historic,cultural, educational, or scientific value should be protected, and such features may be integrated with other shoreline uses if appropriate to the character of the resource. Policy LU-505. Historic and Archaeological Resources Objective LU-O and associated policies are incorporated by reference as part of the City of Renton Shoreline Master Program objectives and policies. Norwe 14 City of Renton Land Use Element = i 1: ,-yy„....,,,,,J.......,.,..„....,.,.........,.,..ti - _,_ ' i.. t ,,xti _,,,, t _ i-{-. .MSS p.-.-01-- a . 1 µ C . t-' - _ r '._r \t ;'''',/.'i_ _- - - ---- -- - -...::^:":4.7.-:":•-: „4,'"" - . ia.* 4,„ 1 . _ ___ a '4..` ' .4..f - J , ° r •{r"::#. i\ .._..,f ; ,i.`` "_, [F �'. -;=: _:: `:-'::.7,:;::'-....::-:,f.:::-.:::.:.::::-..-.-;..--:;,..:.:-::-.,:>',>c::::: : : i ,:. {I,,.:sem, t CNA _.r W. �'q ;i„1;�5�•-G: :`; > :,;;:: - - - -- - -� _'�';j r'ilrt tm_ �' Sei- ,1,+'z d: { ,ice s x ''-j",A'7."''.;.,.,... -."'i; " A..: . ',,,,,,,,'''',;•:,":.:fffifh ."'_"1::.-It'..*:.•"!:.f.:: :,..\,i, 1:41;-'-'iL-111,0-' --').4 yi_32_, t,74:71:„ " I _A--I. ; ; (---\, ',' IA.. _,,,..„r,,,,,,, .. ., :•22.1f . :1-tily• -r. -h1»�fi-'• -.-{`max...-_t -i -• :, - ',- �� ,te 1e — - II . 1 y r r I�' 1 " im :.. i t 14I.,\,!L\�` ra;f;�' �k"y t! •n -p-, �- !.., 1 r r`, CY1rh- '.''J *R..._ t fl I. L -i FkJ`,\ rj`,�.oLc °. -Sri:° . 11=Ji ' �7j' r+'s ..) I .�, --r- ''' , 1 II IS _ 'q° ill ij E { -L'- ! t"`J ,,, '.1. ...:, '''''—"------ r i . .„ ile L 1 ptli.,,,,w.• \ , ,,,..,-.7 . it ,,j,...... „..-11:* i -I- it---:7::::; .f. it � ` �,\ .+s Y / d' I. .1#t�jil� t �,1 '" �, t 1...,..+.+ea. ;c. t !! , ,4.‘,. t7 , •.-,---7—.,- k„.. *c.i.c.. ' ' . mit, 1, t.„' , - .-,,„ ......v, r __,±„..... .7.1. ....,.._.., .... ,,_.,. Xl y. ill j b lV�� „...4,,-r1 .' -''- klam 'it •s i` i� 7.- S.� '" , '• \ ^x:.. I_ TrE jet _,,,,,,,,_,, . ----,,,,_ ,,,,......../ 0�^' �'� 1 ` 1 " ( YtLC_;r tdsll .^c.. r a ...... ._.". :::,:ry ..,„.... .... i )- `p 1��., s i' .. B \ -� '� Tls w� ' G t �"'� i4ic11i i� . City of Renton -7 rC a� :4 '- _'1 ShorelineS. _.��_ wii �:., { 1 ' } ►�, ,, Environments Map d4. 4 �' 7 „4 { There may be wetlands and floodways associated with other Shorelines of - J ! , � r- ...., the State w{hNn the qty of Renton that are not shown on this map.Those �, j , .. i II-I.' .-_t ", ." modeled wetlands and floodways are also governed by the Cit?s --=' * �— t t -`7-,t ;, i, Shoreline regulations. E fi' ,_ '"'r _ +ryi t••47.41:i711 -x. 4-'1,I (nilUrban Environment ;? ! ' "'" 1 - . --- - ' 1 �i-_.__ Conservancy Environment ` r_.. ,. '1 L.� °. lit.' It w" Nature)Environment Water Class 1 I i , -'Y �" p1 Corrected November 200305 ---— Ci Limits Figure XII-A: City of Renton Shoreline Environments Map 15 . City of Renton Land Use Element CITY OF RENTON New SHORELINE MASTER PROGRAM SPRINGBROOK CREEK SHORELINE BOUNDARY MAP 1.- pi TANI j i irmi 1pr op,_!._wpw 04_ witiii •,17.:totor:Fif 4� � cit"',.rel r17 nom,. Nit , ,,, i Mill IIIIII I �� ```�� i"1 si1 311g t tk 611 1 : 1pft .,.„,,T1 ,.. milicapt 111 S. I a' w mowam ilIiii4d& 1Y St. ill Ill \, � ''',.'3 ! ��37T CJI.`r ,e� ';1(J1," - 1 — _V r 1 ' t ; � .tea � f^I� 4 h.:„„...„..,...4 ` ale _ ',jI :iv,1.-- ff ��. 7 4 - h.:„ z.3.it "„ Fa li III t1 C.: �111i g II *how II - 'g.41-7,appc niti II 11111110tillik'ph, x'I fir-111. . r. WFAIIIII �®�,� f es':. 11311 - f\♦ iii•/' r 14i u1 '1 Sy Y '0 ..,'V *TT y 1 Tara it ` All NI MI Illipar.j SMAlIS_� / .7 4 ,..w ijaistfl �,r .a SL sr Iya SL tw u st at ,411 '7rc ,Tf 4 1P111"1N ib' f: �r . f 1IH U Urban Environment av;: C Conservancy Environment KANnelNataLDMO/PUSUC WORKS p x000 2000 JO if nUr..o*D lansal<t.IL 001100 ! • { wetlands •�?:t t Jimmy»es -----Shoreline Boundary 1:12000 —City Limits Note: This map depicts the approximate location of the Springbrook Creek shoreline boundary and associated wetlands governed by the Renton Shoreline Master Program.Application oldie Renton Shoreline Master Program to a property is determined on a site-specific basis by the Development Services Division utilizing the regulations and definitions in the Program and any site specific environmental analysis. Figure XII-B: City of Renton Springbrook Creek Shoreline Niue Environments Detail 16 City of Renton Land Use Element Exhibit B The following policies and amendments to policies are added to the Land Use Element of the Comprehensive Plan. The remaining policies of the Land Use Element remain unchanged. LAND USE ELEMENT GOALS I. Plan for future growth of the Urban Area based on regionally developed growth forecasts, adopted growth targets, and land capacity as determined through implementation of the Growth Management Act. II. Minimize risk associated with potential aviation incidents on the ground and for aircraft occupants. III. Actively pursue annexations. IV. Maintain the City's natural and cultural history by documenting and appropriately recognizing its historic and/or archaeological sites. V. Pursue the transition of non-conforming uses and structures to encourage more conforming uses and development patterns. VI. Develop a system of facilities that meet the public and quasi-public service needs of present and future employees. VII. Maintain the City's agricultural and mining resources as part of Renton's cultural history. VIII. Promote new development and neighborhoods in the City that: 1) Contribute to a strong sense of community and neighborhood identity; 2) Are walkable places where people can shop, play, and get to work without always having to drive; 3) Are developed at densities sufficient to support public transportation and make efficient use of urban services and infrastructure; 4) Offer a variety of housing types for a population diverse in age,income, and lifestyle; 5) Are varied or unique in character; City of Renton Land Use Element 6) Support"grid" and"flexible grid" street and pathway patterns where appropriate; 7) Are visually attractive, safe, and healthy environments in which to live; 8) Offer connection to the community instead of isolation; and 9) Provide a sense of home. IX. Develop well-balanced attractive,convenient,robust commercial office, office, and residential development within designated Centers serving the City and the region. X. Support existing businesses and provide an energetic business environment for new commercial activity providing a range of service, office, commercial, and mixed use residential uses that enhance the City's employment and tax base along arterial boulevards and in designated development areas. XI. Achieve a mix of land uses including industrial,high technology, office, and commercial activities in Employment Areas that lead to economic growth and a strengthening of Renton's employment base. XII. Plan and coordinate land uses,public access, and natural resource protection along Shorelines of the State in accordance with the State Shoreline Management Act. IV. HISTORICAL AND ARCHEOLOGICAL RESOURCES Goal: Maintain the City's natural and cultural history by documenting and appropriately recognizing its historic and/or archaeological sites. Discussion: Renton has a rich and interesting history as a community. It was the site of an established Native American settlement and changed through the years of early European immigration into a pioneer town. The City incorporated in 1901 and later became a major regional employment center and residential area. The following policies are intended to guide efforts to recognize and integrate Renton's past into future development as the City evolves into a dynamic urban community. Objective LU-O: Communicate Renton's history by protecting historic and archaeological sites and structures when appropriate and as opportunities arise. Policy LU-61. Historic resources should continue to be identified and mapped within the City as an on-going process. err+' 2 City of Renton Land Use Element Policy LU-62. Natural and cultural resources should be identified by project proponents when applying for land use approval, as part of the application , ed submitted for review. Suspected or newly discovered historic or cultural sites should be kept free from intrusions for a reasonable time until their value is determined. Policy LU-63. Potentially adverse impacts on cultural resources deemed to be significant should be mitigated as a condition of project approval. Implementation of this policy should occur within three years of the adoption of the 2004 Update. Policy LU-64. The City should work cooperatively with King County by exchanging resource information pertaining to natural and cultural resources. Policy LU-65. Historical and archaeological sites, identified as significant by the City of Renton, should be preserved and/or incorporated into development projects. Policy LU-66. Downtown buildings and site development proposals should be encouraged to incorporate displays about Renton's history,including prominent families and individuals,businesses, and events associated with downtown's past. Implementation of this policy should occur within three years of the adoption of the 2004 Update. XII. SHORELINES OF THE STATE: LAND USE, RECREATION,AND CIRCULATION MANAGEMENT Summary: Shorelines are of limited supply and are faced with rapidly increasing demands for uses such as marinas, fishing, swimming and scenic views, as well as recreation,private housing,commercial and industrial uses. The Washington State Shoreline Management Act(SMA)passed in 1971 and is based on the philosophy that the shorelines of our State are among our most "valuable" and "fragile"natural resources and that unrestricted development of these resources is not in the best public interest. Therefore, planning and management are necessary in order to prevent the harmful effects of uncoordinated and piece-meal development of our State's shorelines. Under the Washington State SMA, local governments have the primary responsibility for initiating the planning program and administering the regulatory requirements of the Act, with the Department of Ecology acting in a supportive, review, or approval capacity depending on the particular shoreline proposal and regulatory requirements. Jurisdiction Approximately 18 miles of shoreline in the City of Renton are under the jurisdiction of the SMA as shown in Figures XII-A and XII-B: 1. Cedar River. 3 City of Renton Land Use Element 2. Green River. 3. Lake Washington. 4. May Creek from the intersection of May Creek and N.E. 31st Street in the southeast quarter of the southeast quarter of Section 32-24-5E WM downstream in a northeasterly direction to its mouth at Lake Washington. 5. Springbrook Creek from the Black River on the north to S.W. 43rd Street on the south. 6. Black River. All are considered as Shorelines of the State. Further,by State standards, the Green River and Lake Washington are classified as Shorelines of State-wide Significance,requiring more close review and regulation, and comprise approximately 5.8 miles of the shorelines of the State regulated by City of Renton. Shoreline Master Programs As set forth in the provisions of the Act,local governments must fulfill the following basic requirements for regulated shorelines: • Compilation of a comprehensive inventory which includes a survey of natural characteristics,present land uses, and patterns of ownership. • Development of a Master Program, including, goals, policies, and regulations to provide an objective guide for regulating the use of shorelines. • Administration of a shoreline permit system for proposed substantial development on Shorelines of the State regulated by Renton. In compliance with the inventory requirement of the Act,the Renton Planning Department conducted a comprehensive inventory of the natural characteristics, present land uses, and patterns of ownership along the City's shoreline. The inventory was completed in October 1972, and provided a substantial basis for the development of this Master Program. The Renton Shoreline Master Program (RSMP or SMP) shoreline environments and specific use regulations reflect the local conditions that are documented in that inventory. As updates have been prepared over time for particular locations or for particular policies or regulations, additional inventory and analysis documentation has been supplied in accordance with the SMA and Washington Administrative Code requirements. The City of Renton, with the help of its local citizens, developed a SMP in compliance with the Act to serve as a guide for regulating use of the Shorelines of the State within Renton's jurisdiction. The components of the Renton SMP, and their location in the City's plans and regulations, are as follows: • Shoreline goals,objectives, policies: o Land Use Element Subsection - Shorelines of the State: Land Use, Recreation, and Circulation Management *lore 4 City of Renton Land Use Element o Environment Element Subsection- Shorelines of the State: Natural Resources and Hazard Management • Shoreline use environments: o Land Use Element Subsection - Shorelines of the State: Land Use, Recreation, and Circulation Management o Renton Municipal Code, Title 4. • Shoreline use regulations, and provisions for variances and conditional uses. o Renton Municipal Code,Title 4. Management Objectives&Intent The basic intent of the RSMP is to provide for the management of shorelines of the State within Renton's jurisdiction by planning for and fostering all reasonable and appropriate uses and to ensure,if development takes place, that it is done in a manner which will promote and enhance the best interests of the general public. The RSMP has further been composed to protect the public interest and general welfare in shorelines regulated by Renton and, at the same time, to recognize and protect owners'legal property rights consistent with the public interest. The goals and policies of the RSMP are formulated so as to enhance the public use and enjoyment of the shorelines so long as that public use is consistent with, and does not impair, legal private property rights. It is recognized that the Shorelines of the State found in Renton are located within a major urbanized area, and that they are subject to ever increasing pressures of additional uses necessitating increased coordination in the management and development of the shorelines. An attempt has, therefore,been made to present a planned,rational, and concerted effort to increase coordinated and optimum utilization of the Shorelines of the State under Renton's jurisdiction. The SMA legislative policy indicates that uses are preferred on Shorelines of the State as follows: "In the implementation of this policy the public's opportunity to enjoy the physical and aesthetic qualities of natural shorelines of the state shall be preserved to the greatest extent feasible consistent with the overall best interest of the state and the people generally. To this end uses shall be preferred which are consistent with control of pollution and prevention of damage to the natural environment, or are unique to or dependent upon use of the state's shoreline. Alterations of the natural condition of the shorelines of the state,in those limited instances when authorized, shall be given priority for single family residences and their appurtenant structures, ports, shoreline recreational uses including but not limited to parks,marinas,piers, and other improvements facilitating public access to shorelines of the state,industrial and commercial developments which are particularly dependent on their location on or use of the shorelines of the state and other development that will provide an opportunity for substantial numbers of the 5 City of Renton Land Use Element people to enjoy the shorelines of the state. Alterations of the natural condition of Nage the shorelines and shorelands of the state shall be recognized by the department. Shorelines and shorelands of the state shall be appropriately classified and these classifications shall be revised when circumstances warrant regardless of whether the change in circumstances occurs through man-made causes or natural causes." (RCW 90.58.020, excerpted in part) Additionally, the Master Program has also been formulated so as to provide for uses of Shorelines of Statewide Significance(i.e. Lake Washington; Green River) in the following order of preference consistent with the SMA: 1. Recognize and protect the state-wide interest over local interest on shorelines of state-wide significance. 2. Preserve the natural character of the shorelines. 3. Result in long-term over short-term benefits. 4. Protect the resources and ecology of the shorelines. 5. Increase public access to publicly owned areas of the shorelines. 6. Increase recreational opportunities for the public in the shorelines. 7. Provide for any other element deemed appropriate or necessary. It should also be noted that the Washington State Department of Ecology has designated Lake Washington as a "region" for the purpose of shoreline planning. The Lake Washington Regional Shoreline goals and Policies adopted by the Regional Citizens Advisory Committee on October 31, 1973, were considered in the formulation of the RSMP. Skive Shoreline Use Environments Summary: Shorelines of the State are to be classified into"use environments" based upon current development pattern, biophysical capabilities, and other factors. Policies, standards, and regulations can be customized by use environment, shoreline, and use depending on needs. Generally, regulated shorelines include the water bodies and their shorelands extending landward from the floodway or ordinary high water mark for two hundred(200) feet in all directions. This jurisdictional area increases to include all marshes,bogs, swamps, and river deltas, associated with the regulated Shorelines of the State. The total of this area is subject to shoreline use classification and regulation. Objective LU-DDDD: Categorize shorelines based on the existing development pattern, the biophysical capabilities and limitations of the area being considered for development, and the goals and aspirations of local citizenry. Policy LU-460. Three environments,Natural, Conservancy, and Urban, are to be designated on Shorelines of the State to provide a uniform basis to apply policies and use regulations within distinctively different shoreline areas. These classifications are applied at a programmatic level on Figure XII-A and XII-B. Policy LU-461. Natural Environment Classification. Shoreline areas meeting the following intent and characteristics should be designated with the Natural use environment classification: 6 City of Renton Land Use Element A. Natural Environment Intent: The purpose of the Natural environment is to protect and preserve unique and fragile shoreline or wetland environments in their natural state. The Natural environment is intended to provide areas of wildlife sanctuary and habitat preservation. B. Areas to be designated Natural environment shorelines: Areas that are to be designated Natural environment should include: 1. Areas that are unique or fragile. 2. Floodways areas. C. Acceptable Activities and Uses: The primary human-related activities are intended to be floodway drainage or storage. Limited public access and passive recreation opportunities, when compatible with the unique and fragile characteristics, may be allowed. Policy LU-462. Conservancy Environment Classification. Shoreline areas meeting the following intent and characteristics should be designated with the Conservancy use environment classification: A. Conservancy Environment Intent: The purpose in designating a Conservancy environment is to protect, conserve, and manage existing areas with irreplaceable natural or aesthetic features in essentially their native state, while providing for limited use of the area. The Conservancy environment is intended to provide a pleasant break in the surrounding urban community. This environment seeks to satisfy a portion of the present and future needs of Renton. B. Areas to be Designated as a Conservancy Environment: Areas that are to be designated Conservancy environment should include: 1. Areas of high scenic value. 2. Valuable areas for wildlife habitat. 3. Hazardous slope areas. 4. Flood-prone areas. 5. Areas which cannot provide adequate utilities for intense development. 6. Areas with unique or fragile features. C. Acceptable Activities and Uses: Activities and uses considered to be acceptable in a Conservancy environment are those of a nonconsumptive nature which do not degrade the existing character of the area. Uses that are to be predominant in a Conservancy environment are low density residential,passive agricultural uses such as pasture or range lands, and passive outdoor recreation. Active public recreation when compatible with the biophysical characteristics of the land may also be allowed. Policy LU-463. Urban Environment Classification. Shoreline areas meeting the following intent and characteristics should be designated with the Urban use environment classification: City of Renton Land Use Element A. Urban Environment Intent: The purpose of the Urban environment is to Now ensure optimum utilization of shorelines within urbanized areas by providing for public use, especially access to and along the water's edge, and by managing development so that it enhances and maintains shorelines for a multiplicity of viable and necessary urban uses. B. Areas to be designated as an Urban Environment. The Urban Environment is particularly suitable to those areas presently subjected to extremely intensive use pressure, as well as areas planned to accommodate intensive urban expansion. On certain shorelines planned for future urban expansion, there should be limitations based on the physical aspects of the site. Shorelines of the State regulated by the City which are not designated as Conservancy or Natural are designated as Urban. C. Acceptable Uses and Activities: High-intensity Land Uses: The Urban environment is an area of high-intensity land use including residential,commercial, and industrial development. Water-Oriented Activities: Because shorelines suitable for urban uses are a limited resource, emphasis should be given to development within already developed areas and particularly to water-oriented industrial and commercial uses. Public Access: Priority is also given to planning for public visual and physical access to water in the Urban environment. To enhance waterfront and ensure maximum public use, industrial and commercial facilities should be designed to permit pedestrian waterfront activities where practicable, and the various access points ought to be linked to non-motorized transportation routes such as bicycles and hiking paths. Shoreline Uses and Activities Objective LU-EEEE: Plan and coordinate the shorelines of the State to afford best use of the limited water resource, and to provide natural amenities within an urban environment. Policy LU-464 Reasonable and appropriate shoreline uses and activities should be allowed based upon the following parameters: 1. Short-term economic gain or convenience in development should be evaluated in relationship to potential long-term effects on the shoreline. 2. Increases in the density or intensity of shoreline uses or activities as a result of Comprehensive Plan, zoning,or development regulation amendments should only be allowed when: a.There is a demonstrated need for the use or activity; and b. The uses or activities are consistent with the Comprehensive Plan vision; and c.The use or activity is consistent with the use preference policies in this Section. 8 City of Renton Land Use Element 3. Mixed-use developments or activities along shorelines should be planned where location and integration of compatible uses or activities are feasible, and *09 when consistent with Policy LU-467. 4. Shoreline uses and activities should be developed with uniform or coordinated site and architectural design. Buildings, fences, and other structures should be sited to avoid or reduce impacts to public views of the shoreline. Landscaping should be employed to reduce from public view outdoor work or storage areas. These aesthetic considerations should be encouraged when contemplating new development, extensive redevelopment of existing facilities or for general enhancement of shoreline areas. 5. Shoreline uses and activities should be discouraged if they would cause significant noise or odor or unsafe conditions that would impede the achievement of shoreline use preferences on the site or on adjacent or abutting sites. 6. All shoreline developments should be designed and constructed to protect the rights and privacy of adjacent property owners. Policy LU-465 Shoreline Master Program policies,environments, regulations, and permit review should be applied to achieve the following use preferences on Shorelines of Statewide Significance which includes Lake Washington, as follows: 1. Recognize and protect the statewide interest over local interest, and promote long-term benefits over short-term benefits. Consider Federal, State, and regional policies and programs. NIS 2. Preserve the natural character, resources, and ecology of the shoreline. Measures may include,but are not limited to: a. Requiring uses and activities to be designed to avoid unique and fragile areas; b. Reviewing and conditioning proposals to achieve no-net-loss of shoreline ecological function; c. Promoting watershed enhancement,fish passage enhancement, or other shoreline ecology enhancement proposals. 3. Increase public access to publicly owned areas of the shorelines, and increase recreational opportunities for the public in the shorelines. 4. a. Provide opportunities for water-oriented uses, which include water dependent, water related, or water enjoyment uses: i. Water Dependent Development: Water dependent uses are uses that cannot exist in any other location and depend on a water or waterfront location. Examples of water dependent development include, but are not limited to, marinas, ferry terminals, float plane facilities, and other uses that are dependent upon a water location. ii. Water Related Uses: Water related uses include uses that support a water dependent use or have a functional requirement for 9 City of Renton Land Use Element a waterfront location. Examples of water related uses include,but are not limited to, warehousing goods transported by water, log storage, or other uses that depend on a waterfront location. iii. Water Enjoyment Uses: Water enjoyment uses include recreational uses or uses facilitating public access for a substantial number of people. Examples may include,but are not limited to, ecological reserves,parks, piers,restaurants, museums, aquariums, hotels/resorts, mixed-use commercial/office, or others which facilitate public access. b. Non-water oriented uses may be considered water oriented uses when significant public access is provided. 5. Provide for any other shoreline activity or use deemed appropriate or necessary, and consistent with the State Shoreline Management Act and the Renton Shoreline Master Program policies. Policy LU-466 Except for Lake Washington which is addressed in Policy LU- 465, Shoreline Master Program policies, environments,regulations, and permit review should be applied to achieve the following use preferences on Shorelines of the State: 1. Preference should be given to those uses or activities which: a. Enhance the natural amenities of the shorelines, such as, but not limited to, activities which promote watershed enhancement, fish passage *we enhancement, reduced impervious surfaces, or other shoreline ecology enhancement proposals; and/or b.Depend on a shorelines location or provide public access to the shorelines, such as water dependent, water related, or water enjoyment uses, as described in Policy LU-465, subsection 4. 2. Alterations of the natural condition of the shorelines of the state, developed in consideration of critical areas and protective of unique and fragile areas, are given priority for: Single family residences and their appurtenant structures; Shoreline recreational uses such as parks, marinas,piers, and other improvements facilitating public access to shorelines of the state; Industrial and commercial developments which are particularly dependent on their location on or use of the shorelines of the state; and Additional water dependent, water related, and water enjoyment uses, or other development that will provide an opportunity for substantial numbers of the people to enjoy the Shorelines of the State. Policy LU-467 Those shoreline uses or activities which are not water-oriented should be encouraged to relocate away from the shoreline. err to City of Renton Land Use Element Policy LU-468. Plans should be developed for shorelines particularly suited for water-dependent uses or activities. Policy LU-469. Festivals and temporary uses involving public interest and not substantially or permanently impairing water quality, water flow or unique and fragile areas may be allowed. Shoreline Economic Uses Objective LU-FFFF: Existing economic uses and activities on the shorelines are to be recognized and economic uses or activities that are water-oriented are to be encouraged. Policy LU-470. Economic uses and activities which are not water-oriented should be discouraged. In those instances where such uses or activities are permitted, public access to and along the water's edge should be provided. Policy LU-471. Future economic uses and activities should utilize the shoreline in an efficient manner. 1. Economic uses and activities should locate the water-oriented portion of their development along the shoreline and place inland all facilities which do not require a water's edge location. 2. The length, width, and height of over-water structures should be limited to the smallest reasonable dimensions. 3. Shoreline developments should be designed to enhance the scenic view. Policy LU-472. Mixed-use economic developments on the shoreline should be '°"' encouraged to provide public recreational opportunities wherever feasible. Policy LU-473. Shoreline facilities for the moorage and servicing of boats and other vessels, may be allowed in appropriate locations within commercial or industrial zones, and should be prohibited in single family zoned areas wherever feasible, unless part of a public recreation property in a residential zone. 1. Commercial dockings and marinas are to meet all health standards. 2. Marinas and other economic activities are to be required to contain and clean up spills or discharges of pollutants associated with boating activities. 3. Shoreline facilities for the moorage and servicing of boats and other vessels should be developed in size and location when it would not impair unique or fragile areas, or impact Federal or State listed species. Policy LU-474. The expansion of log raft storage on Lake Washington should be discouraged. Policy LU-475. Containment or mitigation of pollutants is to be required of all economic activities on the shoreline by property owner and/or operator. 11 City of Renton Land Use Element Shoreline Residential Uses 411601 Objective LU-GGGG: Existing residential uses are to be recognized, but future residential development should optimize regulated public access to and along the shorelines consistent with legal property rights of the owner. Policy LU-476. Residential uses over water should not be permitted. Policy LU-477. Residential development should not be constructed in unique and fragile areas. Policy LU-478. New residential developments along or impinging upon the shoreline should be permitted only where sanitary sewer facilities are available. Policy LU-479. Future shoreline subdivision, multifamily developments, and planned urban developments (P.U.D.) should provide regulated public access to and/or along the water's edge. Policy LU-480. New residential developments should optimize utilization of open space areas. Policy LU-481. All further development on the shorelines of the May Creek east of FAI-405 right-of-way and that portion of Springbrook Creek beginning from approximately SW 27th Street on the north to SW 31st Street on the south, abutting City-owned wetlands in this area, and for that portion of the west side of the Creek in the vicinity of SW 38th Street abutting the City's recently acquired Wetlands Mitigation Bank should be compatible with the existing natural state of Nome the shoreline. 1. Low density development should be encouraged to the extent that such development would permit and provide for the continuation of the existing natural character of the shoreline, and is consistent with the underlying zoning. 2. For the subject locations, the waterways should be left in an undeveloped natural state as much as possible. Shoreline Recreation Objective LU-HHHH: Water-oriented recreational activities available to the public are to be encouraged. Policy LU-482. Water-oriented recreational activities should be encouraged. 1. Accessibility to the water's edge should be improved. 2. Shoreline park areas should be increased in size and number. 3. Areas for specialized recreation should be developed. 4. Both passive and active recreational areas are to be provided. Policy LU-483. Recreational fishing should be supported, maintained and increased. Policy LU-484. As private shorelands are developed,rights of public access should be attained based upon public access and recreation plans developed by the City. 12 City of Renton Land Use Element Policy LU-485. Local jurisdictions should join in a cooperative effort to expand recreational opportunities through programs of acquisition,development, and maintenance of waterfront areas. Policy LU-486. Subject to State and Federal regulations, the water's depth may be changed to foster recreational aspects. Shoreline Public Access Objective LU-IIII: Increase public accessibility to shorelines, and preserve and improve the natural amenities. Policy LU-487. Public access should recognize and be consistent with legal property rights of the owner. Policy LU-488. Just compensation should be provided to property owners for land acquired for public use. Policy LU-489. Public access to and along the water's edge should be consistent with public safety and preservation/conservation of the natural amenities. Policy LU-490. Public access to and along the water's edge should be available throughout publicly owned shoreline areas. Policy LU-491. Public access from public streets should be made available over public property or by easement. Policy LU-492. Future multi-family, planned unit developments, subdivisions, commercial and industrial developments should be encouraged to provide public Ned access along the water's edge. Policy LU-493. Private access to the publicly owned shoreline corridor should not be denied to owners of property contiguous to said corridor. Policy LU-494. When making extensive modifications or extensions to existing structures,multi-family, planned unit development, subdivision, commercial and industrial developers should be encouraged to provide for public access to and along the water's edge if physically feasible. Policy LU-495. High-rise structures in the shoreline jurisdiction generally should not be permitted,but could be permitted in the shoreline jurisdiction if: 1. Views of the shoreline would not be substantially obstructed due to topographic conditions, and 2. Some overriding considerations of the public interest would be served. Shoreline low-rise development should provide substantial grade level views of the water from public shoreline roads running generally parallel to the water's edge. Policy LU-496. Both passive and active public areas should be designed and provided. Policy LU-497. In order to encourage public use of the shoreline corridor, public parking should be provided at frequent locations. 13 City of Renton Land Use Element Policy LU-498. Preservation or improvement of the natural amenities should be a Now basic consideration in the design of shoreline areas to which public access is provided, including the trail system. Policy LU-499. In planning for public access,emphasis should be placed on foot and bicycle paths rather than roads,except in areas where public boat launching would be desirable. Shoreline Circulation Objective LU-JJJJ: Minimize motor vehicular traffic and encourage pedestrian traffic within the shorelines. Policy LU-500. Shoreline roadways should be scenic boulevards where possible. Road standards should meet roadway function and emergency access standards and provide for multiple modes, while reducing impervious surfaces where feasible, and managing surface water runoff to achieve appropriate water quality Policy LU-501. Public transportation should be encouraged to facilitate access to shoreline recreation areas. Policy LU-502. Pedestrian and bicycle pathways, including provisions for maintenance, operation and security, should be developed. 1. Access points to and along the shoreline should be linked by pedestrian and bicycle pathways. 2. Separate pedestrian and bicycle pathways should be included in new or N"' expanded bridges or scenic boulevards within the shorelines. 3. Separate pedestrian and bicycle pathways should be included in publicly financed transportation systems or rights-of-way, consistent with public interest and safety. Policy LU-503. Commercial boating operations,other than marinas, should be discouraged, but if permitted, should be limited to commercial and industrial areas. Shoreline Historic/Cultural/Scientific/Education Resources &Activities Objective LU-KKKK: Shoreline areas having historical, cultural, educational, or scientific value should be retained. Policy LU-504. Through programs, acquisition, or regulations, shoreline sites with historic, cultural, educational, or scientific value should be protected, and such features may be integrated with other shoreline uses if appropriate to the character of the resource. Policy LU-505. Historic and Archaeological Resources Objective LU-O and associated policies are incorporated by reference as part of the City of Renton Shoreline Master Program objectives and policies. 'Now 14 City of Renton Land Use Element i ryc_ i 'f"j ( � " -t •: > x417.. it ` - ": <:____ _ 3 ( ., :-.7 — _ - . - �� ft '�I )/1''''."'5- .. :.-'''--:..''.::::::i,:.::: :.....,:. -. 2',::::::.::.,.....:,2')\-,,,,.?•'?-:.:.:....,.-:..:.:..:::::.....,:::::::"..,.,...7:::::-.1„ •._.:, 7. li:• '''' - c'''[ tr f !' L. .rte f\ `,?"S; {: lI6 h I -11..1,11:7., i* ' s ,i I s ,""Vii:�N• rw - �t 1' 'a 7 iii. r - �c - 1 111, n - - I, f Lf 1C ---- -- - s 11 II Z LI rT` �.� �,. Z tis=:{_--:._..'.::'.; >- };-:- t ..l�i e sTtr _ + "'�, Y :'-'i.i..),..Lcr.i.z.:._.,i..,m,11•1-'..., j s 4 _ - i_-_::,, :_>_::-,. 4t �, t1 is ,, t MIsi "`.- i •ham - ::..=, „,,,r'>=-{ F ,� 'i '��� -` ��,,:, � �!r _� � '•..,, ,y,. ...fit. '_IC•. ,--ziC- :.T` `.gam-, t1 01 ( ii, �f i-f"(,...._,.+-1 1 6-r.,x • riqq •, ; �`;41,,., '``..,� rEr ;r. J3 {�.V. `. �+ ;tea:•Cs °ibit ill , hi'.-.1. -: : ..„,_.,ff__„5, __..t.tfi '.-...I il.._.3i.r.•• Ni- r)\',`i .ter ,, .'t, Q�� :..� ,}'Y' _• . "' 1 i ,g _ ,, ,. ... „.. .„;',r , art ti,,„ t H? �k` SbIC � �� -- I ^ ! - ° lCler y 1 _ ' 1 g A \ \ el'.."”- el4 ti 1'-, ' \�.`3 rte"` y ,R J.#. 4 ``\ �''l�'".-,�,): 4 ti i. ... J '3 '---...til t V a r sf'f-,.,� � .....N.-!-_,:-•,:iii i_ 0 „,, .sio -,-,,,„ ,,- _,.Fa- ...--:j h- • .'� Ir. ,.. :Lr :••••1;1:-..:_ ~1_ • - 1 ~ ' 1 "�`MI +I j.i '{ � City of Renton --.$ ; 11i.`,-,. : Shoreline 1 �.�gI� j "Li •r r , rl _1 Environments Map E There may be wetlands and Noodways associated with other Shorelines of ' a , \ ' -> ' ,, •- the State wINn the City of Renton that are not shown on this map.Those 7-i -.' .� > • fp ' associated wetlands and Iloodways are also governed by the City's ....,,1-.... ` ,� s ' ' Shaetne regulations, 1.4 -• -40., '- ,� Urban Environment 1. �' "' I P- __,_•-•._••.41 ' UrbanConseEnvironment ancy Environment d I f r �_._.t +1 1 ,.,' • . 1 ...... Natural Environment r._.sr z..., ,r - .i -- d «.a=... Water Class 1 1 '' ULA 1.; �`• j r • Caredemter20 — City Limits �: t... 9 . jrir 1 April Figure XII-A: City of Renton Shoreline Environments Map 15 City of Renton Land Use Element CITY OF RENTON Sloe SHORELINE MASTER PROGRAM SPRINGBROOK CREEK SHORELINE BOUNDARY MAP 1,- 4,_ kii 111.7-.,••••vmst..:::.i.:.;:f. 0410 NI. ,0,, . 1` lid :r�lv �''_..41 .......:;;;Bikr.,,imiuralsothi. ;� iii/ to• N. �■ aw �•_� I �=, `' .s ', \ •`moi �� '47.7t` iiy� ,`.1 .^,4 � \ •a ��� i 211 �ryci: tl lurT3Imi enui.iiuun, !I AI s araetLIaa pill —--n �iA�i i;trail N liifr * fll' l --: ill,/ y! , �c:•Lll.,:a !S:i: � V-IN 'F tll 747 4. i �� i • i YIWwu •irk Aiaillt ' ki!,:;-. -- --.-.. Ille ormlim II .:._j h I Merr FiiU !ltta PJM • 4: MI tl% *.:1 11;1=IF fitierlai.742; a ;' 4 RI .1._, a sir sun s r / .n k all J P/& JI_SW4dSL I '� , .ipl11� � r .i Er -0,---;:lp' 3 In. Wallt U Urban Environment „tea C Conservancy Environment FLAMM/B ncntnuC WORKS 1000 2000 ttatuoata 0.vt.n..i r,r<Dolton = 1 Wattanda ? � rf` .iaawglo94 1:12000 ----Shoreline Boundary — -- City Limits Nate: This map depicts the approximate location of the Springbrook Creek shoreline boundary and associated wetlands governed by the Renton Shoreline Master Program.Application tithe Renton Shoreline Master Program to a property is determined on a site-specific basis by the Development Services Division utilizing the regulations and definitions In the Program and any site specific environmental analysis. Figure XII-B: City of Renton Springbrook Creek Shoreline *tow Environments Detail 16 GLOSSARY Exhibit C '`"rd The Comprehensive Plan Glossary is amended to include the following terms. The remaining terms in the glossary remain unchanged. GLOSSARY floodway: For purposes of determining the jurisdiction of the Renton Shoreline Master Program in conjunction with the definition of"shoreland" below, "floodway" means those portions of the area of a river valley lying streamward from the outer limits of a watercourse upon which flood waters are carried during periods of flooding that occur with reasonable regularity, although not necessarily annually, said floodway being identified, under normal condition, by changes in surface soil conditions or changes in types or quality of vegetative ground cover condition. The floodway shall not include those lands that can reasonably be expected to be protected flood waters by flood control devices maintained by or maintained under license from the Federal Government, the State, or a political subdivision of the State. high rise: For the purposes of the Renton Shoreline Master Program, a structure exceeding seventy-five (75) feet in height. Master Program: The comprehensive shoreline use plan for the City of Renton and the use regulations, together with maps, diagrams, charts or other descriptive material and text, and a statement of desired goals and standards developed in accordance with the policies enunciated in Section 2 of the Washington State Shoreline Management Act. mixed-use, shoreline: For the purposes of the Renton Shoreline Master Program, the combining of compatible uses within one development, of which the major use or activity is water-oriented. All uses or activities other than the major one are directly related and necessary to the major use or activity. shoreland or shoreland areas: For the purposes of the Renton Shoreline Master Program,those lands extending landward for two hundred (200) feet in all directions, as measured on a horizontal plane from ordinary high water mark; floodways and contiguous floodplain areas landward two hundred feet from such floodways; and all marshes, bogs, swamps, and river deltas, associated with streams, lakes and tidal waters which are subject to the provisions of the State Shorelines Management Act. For purposes of determining jurisdictional area,the boundary will be either two hundred (200) feet from the ordinary high water mark, or two hundred (200) feet from the floodway, whichever is greater. shorelines: For the purposes of the Renton Shoreline Master Program, all of the water areas of the State regulated by the City of Renton, including reservoirs, and their associated shorelands, together with the lands underlying them, except: A. Shorelines of state-wide significance. B. Shorelines on segments of streams upstream of a point where the mean annual flow is twenty (20) cubic feet per second or less and the wetlands associated with such upstream Page 1 of 3 • GLOSSARY X110' segments. C. Shorelines on lakes less than twenty (20) acres in size and wetlands associated with such small lakes. shorelines of state-wide significance: For the purposes of the Renton Shoreline Master Program, those shorelines described in RCW 90.58.030(2)(e). shorelines of the state: For the purposes of the Renton Shoreline Master Program, the total of all shorelines and "shorelines of state-wide significance" regulated by the City of Renton. unique and fragile areas: For the purposes of the Renton Shoreline Master Program, those portions of the shoreline which (1) contain or substantially contribute to the maintenance of endangered or valuable forms of life and (2) have unstable or potentially hazardous topographic, geologic or hydrologic features (such as steep slopes, marshes). water-dependent: For the purposes of the Renton Shoreline Master Program, referring to uses or portions of a use which cannot exist in any other location and is dependent on the water by reason of the intrinsic nature of its operations. Examples of water-dependent uses may include ship cargo terminal loading areas, ferry and passenger terminals, barge loading facilities, ship building and dry docking, marinas, aquaculture, float plane facilities and sewer outfalls. water-enjoyment: For the purposes of the Renton Shoreline Master Program, referring to a recreational use, or other use facilitating public access to the shoreline as a primary characteristic of the use; or a use that provides for recreational use or aesthetic enjoyment of the shoreline for a substantial number of people as a general characteristic of the use and which through the location, design and operation assures the public's ability to enjoy the physical and aesthetic qualities of the shoreline. In order to qualify as a water-enjoyment use, the use must be open to the general public and the shoreline oriented space within the project must be devoted to the specific aspects of the use that fosters shoreline enjoyment. Primary water-enjoyment uses may include, but are not limited to, parks, piers and other improvements facilitating public access to the shorelines of the state; and general water-enjoyment uses may include, but are not limited to restaurants, museums, aquariums, scientific/ecological reserves, resorts/hotels and mixed-use commercial/office; provided that such uses conform to the above water-enjoyment specifications and the provisions of the Renton Shoreline Master Program. water-oriented/non-water-oriented: For the purposes of the Renton Shoreline Master Program, "water-oriented" refers to any combination of water-dependent, water-related, and/or water- enjoyment uses and serves as an all-encompassing definition for priority uses under the Shoreline Management Act. "Non-water oriented" serves to describe those uses which have little or no relationship to the shoreline and are not considered priority uses under the Shoreline Management Act. Examples of non-water-oriented uses include professional offices, automobile sales or repair shops, mini-storage facilities, multi-family residential development, department stores and gas stations; these uses may be considered water-oriented where there is significant +'' public access. Page 2 of 3 GLOSSARY water-related: For the purposes of the Renton Shoreline Master Program, referring to a use or portion of a use which is not intrinsically dependent on a waterfront location, but whose economic viability is dependent upon a waterfront location because: A. Of a functional requirement for a waterfront location such as the arrival or shipment of materials by water or the need for large quantities of water, or B. The use provides a necessary service supportive of the water-dependent commercial activities and the proximity of the use to its customers makes its services less expensive and/or more convenient. Examples include manufacturers of ship parts large enough that transportation becomes a significant factor in the products cost, professional services serving primarily water- dependent activities and storage of water-transported foods. Examples of water-related uses may include warehousing of goods transported by water, seafood processing plants, hydroelectric generating plants, gravel storage when transported by barge, oil refineries where transport is by tanker, and log storage. Page 3 of 3 OF? A FC1: CITY OF RENTON,WASHINGTON Noe ORDINANCE NO. AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF RENTON, WASHINGTON, AMENDING CHAPTER THREE - REMEDIES AND PENALTIES; OF TITLE I (ADMINISTRATIVE), AND CHAPTER THREE - ENVIRONMENTAL REGULATIONS , CHAPTER EIGHT - PERMITS AND DECISIONS, CHAPTER NINE - PROCEDURES AND REVIEW CRITERIA, CHAPTER TEN - NON- CONFORMING STRUCTURES AND USES, AND CHAPTER ELEVEN - DEFINITIONS; OF TITLE IV (DEVELOPMENT REGULATIONS), OF ORDINANCE NO. 4260 ENTITLED "CODE OF GENERAL ORDINANCES OF THE CITY OF RENTON, WASHINGTON" TO AMEND SHORELINE MASTER PROGRAM REGULATIONS. WHEREAS, The Growth Management Act mandates integration of Shoreline Master Program requirements into the City's development regulations; and WHEREAS, the City established a public participation program pursuant to RCW 36.70A.130(2) and provided notice of the update process pursuant to RCW Now,' 36.70A.035, provided for early and continuous public participation (RCW 36.70A.140) by publishing a meeting schedule, provided updates to the schedule on public television, held public workshop sessions with the Planning Commission, and televised workshop sessions with the Council Committee of the Whole during the period during the months from January to September, 2004; and held two public open houses July 27th and August 17th, 2004; and WHEREAS, such modification and integration of the Shoreline Master Program being in the best interest for the public benefit; and WHEREAS, The City has provided opportunity for the public to comment on the review and suggest needed revisions of the plan and regulations, and held a public hearings March 2nd and March 21st, and on this matter; viasie 1 NOW, THEREFORE, THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF RENTON, Nod WASHINGTON,DO ORDAIN AS FOLLOWS: SECTION I. The above findings and recitals are found to be true and correct in all respects. 1) The City followed its established public participation program, 2) Revisions are needed to the Shoreline Master Program 3) The City has conducted its seven-year update requirement under RCW36.70A.130 for all portions of the Comprehensive Plan by completing the portions of the work program needed to implement the Critical Areas, Shorelines and Best Available Science review, 4) All development standards within these sections were reviewed and those that remained without amendment are found to be in compliance with the Growth Management Act, as amended, and NOW,THEREFORE,THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF RENTON, WASHINGTON,DO ORDAIN AS FOLLOWS: SECTION II : Title I, Chapter 3 Section 1-3-2C.e.(2)is hereby amended to read as follows:. (2) Shoreline Master Program Regulations: RMC 4-4-090. SECTION III: Title IV, Chapter 3 Section 4-3-090 is hereby amended to read as follows: 4-3-090 SHORELINE MASTER PROGRAM REGULATIONS: A.PROGRAM ADOPTED: 2 The Shoreline Master Program, as issued and prepared by City of Renton includes policies and regulations pursuant to the Washington State Shoreline Management Act, RCW 90.58. This section RMC 4-3-090 provides shoreline regulations from the officially adopted Shoreline Master Program. (Ord. 4722, 5-11-1998) B. COMPONENTS OF PROGRAM: The components of the Renton Shoreline Master Program, and their location in the City's plans and regulations, are as follows: 1. Goals, Objectives,Policies: a. Comprehensive Plan Land Use Element Subsection - Shorelines of the State: Land Use,Recreation, and Circulation Management `fir b. Comprehensive Plan Environment Element Subsection - Shorelines of the State: Natural Resources and Hazard Management c.RMC 4-3-090.D: Purposes and Priorities. 2.Use Environments: a. General Boundaries: Comprehensive Plan Land Use Element Subsection - Shorelines of the State: Land Use,Recreation, and Circulation Management b. General and Specific Boundaries: RMC 4-3-090 F, G,H, and I. 3.Use Regulations,and Provisions for Variances and Conditional Uses. a. Shoreline Use Regulations: RMC 4-3-090. b. Shoreline Permit Procedures, including Exemptions, Substantial s401 "' Development Permit, Variances, and Conditional Uses: RMC 4-9-197. 3 c. Non-conforming Uses in Shoreline Jurisdiction in RMC 4-10-100. Nurd 4.Definitions: RMC 4-11. (Ord. 3094, 1-10-1977, eff. 1-19-1977) C. AMENDMENTS TO SHORELINE MASTER PROGRAM: 1. Time: The City shall review its Master Program pursuant to the time and other procedural requirements found in the Shoreline Management Act [RCW 90.58] and the Growth Management Act [RCW 36.70A]. (Ord. 3758, 12-5-1983, Rev. 7-22-1985 (Min.), 3-12-1990 (Res. 2787),7-16-1990 (Res. 2805), 9-12-1993 (Min.), Ord. 4716, 4- 13-1998) 2. Review Process: Any amendments to the Master Program shall be reviewed first by the Planning Commission, which shall conduct one public hearing on the proposed amendment. The Planning Commission shall make a recommendation to the City Council, which may hold one public hearing before making a determination. Any proposed amendment shall be submitted to the Washington State Department of Ecology for approval in accordance with the Shoreline Management Act of 1971 2747 [RCW 90.58], and the Growth Management Act [RCW 36.70A]. (Ord. 3758, 12-5-1983,Rev. 7- 22-1985 (Min.), 3-12-1990 (Res. 2787),7-16-1990 (Res. 2805),9-12-1993 (Min.), Ord. 4716, 4-13-1998) 3.Adoption by Ordinance: Any and all amendments, additions or modifications to said Master Program, shall be by ordinance. D. PURPOSES AND PRIORITIES: The purpose of these regulations is to manage the Shorelines of the State within the City of Renton in accordance with the Washington State Shoreline Management Act,RCW 90.58,planning appropriate uses in recognition of the following use priorities: 4 1. Shoreline use priorities shall be consistent with RCW 90.58.020 for all sisie Shorelines of the State. 2. Each shoreline has its own unique qualities which makes it valuable, particularly Shorelines of Statewide Significance, which in Renton include Lake Washington and the Green River. Preference is, therefore, given to the following uses in descending order of priority for Shorelines of Statewide Significance (as established by RCW 90.58.020): a. Recognize and protect the statewide interest over local interest for shorelines of statewide significance. b. Preserve the natural character of the shorelines. c.Result in long-term over short-term benefits. d. Protect the resources and ecology of the shorelines. Now e. Increase public access to publicly owned areas of the shorelines. (Ord. 3758, 12-5-1983,Rev. 7-22-1985 (Min.), 3-12-1990 (Res. 2787), 7-16-1990 (Res. 2805), Rev. 9-12-1993 (Min.), Ord. 4716,4-13-1998) f. Increase recreational opportunities for the public in the shoreline. g. Provide for any other use or activity deemed appropriate or necessary. E. REGULATED WATER BODIES: 1.Applicability: The Renton Shoreline Master Program applies to Shorelines of the State, which includes Shorelines and Shorelines of Statewide Significance as defined in RMC 4-11 and as listed below. a. Shorelines: The Cedar River,Black River, Springbrook Creek, and May Creek are classified as Shorelines. Now 5 b. Shorelines of Statewide Significance: The Green River and Lake Washington are classified as Shorelines of Statewide Significance. 2. Extent of Shoreline Jurisdiction: The jurisdictional area includes: a. Lands within 200 feet, as measured on a horizontal plane, from the ordinary high water mark, or lands within 200 feet from floodways, whichever is greater;and b. Contiguous floodplain areas; and c. All marshes, bogs, swamps, and river deltas, associated with streams, lakes and tidal waters that are subject to the provisions of the State Shoreline Management Act. 3. Regulated Shoreline Segments: Approximately eighteen (18)miles of shoreline in the City of Renton are under the jurisdiction of the Shoreline Management Act of 1971. These eighteen (18) miles of shoreline in the City of Renton are considered an extremely valuable resource not only to the City of Renton,but also to the State Metropolitan Area of which Renton is an integral part. In the City of Renton,the following bodies of water are regulated by the Act: a. Cedar River. b. Green River. The Green River itself is outside the City limits, but a portion of the 200 foot jurisdictional area lies within Renton City limits. The City is required as the permitting agency to apply the master program applicable to the Green River(Tukwila) if the water body is outside the City of Renton,but the 200-foot jurisdictional area falls within Renton City limits. c. Lake Washington. 6 d. May Creek from the intersection of May Creek and N.E. 31st Street in the southeast quarter of the southeast quarter of Section 32-24-5E WM downstream in a northeasterly direction to its mouth at Lake Washington. e. Springbrook Creek from the Black River on the north to SW 43rd Street on the south. f. Black River. F. THREE (3)ENVIRONMENTS DESIGNATED BY CITY: 1.Names of Environments: Three (3) environments,Natural, Conservancy, and Urban, are designated to provide a uniform basis to apply policies and use regulations within distinctively different shoreline areas. 2.Basis for Designation: The environmental designation to be given to an area shall be based on the existing development pattern, the biophysical capabilities and limitations of the area being considered for development and the goals and aspirations of local citizenry. Shorelines have been categorized according to the natural characteristics and use regulations have been designated herein. 3.Map of Environments: The above information is illustrated in the following map. (Ord. 3758, 12-5-1983,Rev. 7-22-1985 (Min.), 3-12-1990 (Res. 2787), 7-16-1990 (Res. 2805),Rev. 9-12-1993 (Min.), Ord. 4716,4-13-1998) 7 • I pE 3`' Y=S' --N. }}• `�' bP Aqri('t•r`.p ;f== A` % iri `';;? Wit- "�, N -•'rl i ,'=:....-:-:-:-:::::-.:••:-•:•:-.S Baa { G=:=-_-:-_-:=:---:=-:=_,. _ -_::: G !:� : "-_ ik,: r-_I 44i ._.r il ‘l #t tlelr l r_�•�j• a``�` 1, i t �- ' • • frt �U•N.,._ - _ - _ __- - - _ _ :.„40.1 ,,7,.„a _ ,.^ . a, , � r� � `,\ - - 1 _ "i , f 1 +++ Li _ :,,,,;:,'"'<:::-.:: 13 .::.....:.....�_:� __i. _ - - _. ,. __--.....L I. Vi: ) a. • 4 I," L' �� k t= ...., !E tJ r'_ ,, , „_ _ C te 2• _1,-,.‘-r,, l.,« ., >., , l',--t--,.\1,_,-• `ti`Zl .\,, -. - _. . • \�,(1: ,ji 1;t"1j'1/ i, • 'T t3' +9�d� ,,r'(`` ._- y. •�.. 'rte-i-}4;,•,. 1,r„,,....0,- •,, ` : ' 1 ;%' kl. w,:11,1 IN , y�� 7' t a, v c7 --1--,,,31311,'-. 1z-• ,i - fit.. - --w-1"•5 k Y:w" 'I, - .r. —� r -.t...., ', ., fit., % 2: I i ) pi i-4-; ::: -_ • s1 ,,,t > Nv.... t x ' '4;04' .r ik. 4131 II' t 3 t j gqi '''''\'',"--,--•-:4-i -; kill r'• , . .\,.. „iii ,11 Itr, '. , III Inialill'..,1 ! ..‘..7-- -.v4,,,-.:,:-T—F,-,r,--- ----., 1.- '� \d s "• ~ `,. '' :. ),�) y. t■ illikk tt T: yE 1 1i+ ` :t • � ) j "'?:2,, " i ; - �:] • �� *a- -' w^._ EEN1111111 4.y, �\rl R 1 id•l� f -`\_l T'� .le"/"1...." 1 f lin .- i.,i'._! ' t„IAi 1 f ;, „'K W `•. ' it *s. 1.1111-°- rrM },�. 's!. "'�' C7""'"._._ .` 'fsa IN ,.,,,••,.•'"k+ 'InV'.\ Ev ...jr� •+-)9 lam. .fiqW,'{ .' 4 al_ ' 11� L • �i r` • wva ) ��'1i nom' �]+M•l } `i;* r*— 'I: t 1 `l � 3 PPP - N L , •443, . >' . 01 ;f4.,'\I "4 k•.„, , ,ra.. g- „,00+,____ ' ti,}1-- \ >,,Ir-j\cls.,..: ),_,>, '1/4:7-1' -- ) ,,iiios.,, I -2\k' e.,,, -A 1,...• '14snilliirg iiiii Atr . A `^-:;-,, .11.*" .,,,'",:\k),..r,, ' -^ttf.,' '------A .,,,-3-„, i±i'.. ''''l 1111 �� �G aj: i. � _; £fir r $ . � v�ir4 O( � ,� J. �� . ;ref t1! �- �_1� ”,.{�,• +.. ....,_ 1,6s, ., :d i - l`` - ► ;� City of Renton ....„. • , . � -- 1 .t ShorelineS4 _ _ „ I: 1 ' ti-, , I+f, Environments Map •. .• __ -r Ear . R- ' There may be wetlands and floodways associated with other Shorelines of AII)ms� �'s I ��= �f n` +.. .!IT the State within the Cly of Renton that are not shown on this map.Those f• t,7 _, •.. ' ei Cl :�, associated wetlands and fbodways are also governed by Use Ciys , r -'-- 7-------'i ea! 1' , i-•, ; ... Shoreline regulations. i , ,-t"`" - . , •,1 ; r d' ,, T ' _ + 1; 1( Urban Environment U ii 'i 1 "" - -- Conservancy Environment ,s.....1..'1s ) ,►1 ... .-.. -s °;.__s- _ i (.0 - Natural Environment it lr 1_ .----- Water Class 1 r k'�i + , �7_/./,,._,,.,�� Y\ November 2003; --- 1 s n. jj '*' P ,*!� iI1 c-. Corrected April z�5 City Limits 8 4.Extent of Classifications Noow a. Aquatic Area: Shoreline Environment classifications extend from the centerline of the water body to the shorelands, or City limits as appropriate, if the opposite shoreland is not within the City limits. b. Associated Wetlands—Springbrook Creek: The Springbrook Creek Shoreline Boundary Map in Section 3 above identifies Use Environments for the Creek and associated wetlands as determined at the time of the map wetland inventory. The application of the Renton Shoreline Master Program to associated wetlands shall be based on the site-specific presence and extent of associated wetlands at the time of application as determined by the Development Services Division. G.NATURAL ENVIRONMENT: 1. Objective: The objective in designating a Natural environment is to protect and Now preserve unique and fragile shoreline or wetland environments in their natural state. The Natural environment is intended to provide areas of wildlife sanctuary and habitat preservation. (Ord. 3758, 12-5-1983,Rev. 7-22-1985 (Min.) 3-12-1990 (Res. 2787), 7- 16-1990 (Res. 2805)Rev. 9-12-1993 (Min.), Ord. 4716, 4-13-1998) 2.Areas to Be Designated as a Natural Environment: a. Areas that are unique or fragile. b. Floodway areas. 3.Extent of the Natural Environment: That portion of the north bank of the Black River lying east of Monster Road/68th Avenue S. and west of its confluence with Springbrook Creek is designated Natural (see the Shoreline Environment Map in subsection F of this Section). Now 9 4.Acceptable Activities and Uses: Acceptable activities and uses in the Natural Environment are limited to the following: a. Flood control: Public flood control structures and operations; floodway drainage and storage activities. b. Dredging: Dredging necessary for public flood control activities. c. Public Access: Installation of public trails. i. Hard surface trails when located on existing rights of way; ii. Soft surface trails; iii. Public viewing platforms or areas. d. Local Service Utilities: Installation of necessary local service utilities subject to the standards of Subsection K.18, Utilities. e. Roads and Railroads: Necessary expansions or modifications of existing roads,railroads, and bridges subject to the standards of Subsection K.15, Roads and Railroads, of this Section. f. Other Activities: The following activities that are exempt from the permit system are allowed uses in the Natural Environment: RMC 4-9-197 i. C.3,Normal maintenance or repair; ii. C.5,Emergency construction; iii. C.11, Marking of property lines; iv. C.13, Site exploration and investigation activities towards preparation of an application; v. C.14,Removing or controlling an aquatic noxious weed; vi. C.15,Watershed restoration projects; 10 vii. C.16, Improve fish or wildlife habitat or fish passage; and viii. C.17,Hazardous substance remedial actions. 5.Dedication for Flood Storage: The City of Renton recognizes that preservation of Natural Environment shoreline areas can only be assured through public acquisition. Where private development is proposed in these areas,the City shall allow reasonable use of property, but shall require adequate long-term on-site flood storage. H. CONSERVANCY ENVIRONMENT: 1. Objective: The objective in designating a Conservancy environment is to protect, conserve, and manage existing areas with irreplaceable natural or aesthetic features in essentially their native state, while providing for limited use of the area.The Conservancy environment is intended to provide a pleasant break in the surrounding urban community. This environment shall seek to satisfy a portion of the present and future needs of Renton. 2.Areas to Be Designated as a Conservancy Environment: a. Areas of high scenic value. b. Valuable areas for wildlife habitat. c. Hazardous slope areas. d. Flood-prone areas. e. Areas which cannot provide adequate utilities for intense development. f. Areas with unique or fragile features. 3.Extent of the Conservancy Environment: The following segments are designated Conservancy: a. That portion of May Creek east of FAI-405 right-of-way; and Nose 11 b.That portion of the south bank of the Cedar River, two thousand five hundred feet (2,500) east of FAI-405 right-of-way, and south of Maple Valley Highway to the easternmost City limit boundary as of the effective date of these regulations (X, 2005), and c. That portion of the north and south banks of the Cedar River lying north of Maple Valley Highway between 135th Avenue SE extended and the easternmost City limit boundary as of the effective date of these regulations (X, 2005), and d. That portion of Springbrook Creek beginning from approximately S.W. 27th Street on the north to S.W. 31st Street on the south, abutting City-owned wetlands in this area, and for that portion of the west side of the Creek in the vicinity of S.W. 38th Street abutting the City's recently acquired Wetlands Mitigation Bank; (see the Shoreline Environment Map and the Springbrook Creek Shoreline Boundary Map in subsection F of this Section). e. That portion of the south bank of the Black River lying east of Monster Road/68th Avenue S. and west of its confluence with Springbrook Creek(see the Shoreline Environment Map in Subsection F of this Section). 4.Acceptable Activities and Uses: Activities and uses considered to be acceptable in a Conservancy environment are those of a nonconsumptive nature which do not degrade the existing character of the area. Uses that are to be predominant in a Conservancy environment are low-density residential, passive agricultural uses such as pasture or range lands, and outdoor recreation. 5.Use Regulations in the Conservancy Environment: Nigid 12 a. Commercial Uses: Commercial uses shall be limited to home Nolo occupations. b. Fish and Game Reserve and Breeding Operations: Any such activity shall be allowed only by the Land Use Hearing Examiner. c. Industrial Uses: All industrial activities are prohibited in a Conservancy environment. d. Recreation Use: In the Conservancy environment, only the following recreation uses shall be permitted. i. Permitted Uses: Public hiking and bicycle trails, nonmotorized public fishing, public wading and swimming spots, public areas for nature study, public picnic areas, public outdoor recreation facilities authorized by the City Parks, Recreation, and Open Space Master Plan. ii. Conditional Uses Allowed by Hearing Examiner: Public overnight camping areas. e. Residential Uses: i. Permitted Uses: Low-density single family residences. ii. Prohibited Uses: Multi-family residences of two (2)units or more. f. Utilities: i. Local Service Utilities: The necessary local service utilities shall be permitted for approved activities and uses within the Conservancy environment when consistent with requirements in subsection K.18. 13 i ii. Major Utilities: Major utilities may be allowed only by approval of the Land Use Hearing Examiner and only if they cross the conservancy area in the shortest feasible route. g. Roads: Necessary roads are permitted subject to the regulations of subsection K.15, Roads and Railroads,of this Section. h. Educational Facilities: Installation of facilities by public agencies for public educational purposes such as, but not limited to, ecological or historical education when located outside of unique or fragile areas. i. Flood control: Public flood control structures and operations; floodway drainage and storage activities. j.Dredging necessary for public flood control activities. k. Other Activities: The following activities that are exempt from the permit system are allowed uses in the Conservancy Environment: RMC 4-9-197 i. C.3,Normal maintenance and repair; ii. C.4, Bulkhead; iii. C.5,Emergency construction; iv. C.6,Farming,irrigation, and ranching activities; v. C.10,Canals, waterways, drains, and reservoirs; vi. C.11, Marking of property lines; vii. C.12,Maintenance of any system of dikes, ditches, and drains; viii. C.13, Site exploration and investigation activities towards preparation of an application; ix. C.14,Removing or controlling noxious weeds; Ned 14 x. C.15,Watershed restoration projects; and `%rr xi. C.16,Fish or wildlife habitat or fish passage; and xii. C.17, Hazardous substance remedial actions. I.URBAN ENVIRONMENT: 1. Objective: The objective of the Urban environment is to ensure optimum utilization of shorelines within urbanized areas by providing for public use, especially access to and along the water's edge and by managing development so that it enhances and maintains shorelines for a multiplicity of viable and necessary urban uses. 2. Areas to Be Designated as Urban Environment: a. Areas of High Intensity Land Use: The Urban environment is an area of high-intensity land use including residential,commercial, and industrial development. The environment does not necessarily include all shorelines within an incorporated city, but is particularly suitable to those areas presently subjected to extremely intensive use pressure, as well as areas planned to accommodate intensive urban expansion. On certain shorelines planned for future urban expansion, there should be limitations based on the physical aspects of the site. 3. Extent of the Urban Environment: All shorelines of the State regulated by the City which are not designated as Conservancy or Natural are designated as Urban (see the Shoreline Environment Map in subsection F of this Section). 4. Acceptable Use and Activities: All uses shall be allowed as indicated by subsection K of this Section, Specific Use Regulations. Also all uses in 4-9-197.C, Exemptions from Permit System, are allowed in the Urban Environment. 5.Use Regulations in the Urban Environment: Now 15 a. Water-Oriented Activities: Because shorelines suitable for urban uses are a limited resource, emphasis shall be given to development within already developed areas and particularly to water-oriented industrial and commercial uses. b. Public Access: In this Master Program, priority is also given to planning for public visual and physical access to water in the Urban environment.Identifying needs and planning for the acquisition of urban land for permanent public access to the water in the Urban environment shall be accomplished through the Master Program. To enhance waterfront and ensure maximum public use, industrial and commercial facilities shall be designed to permit pedestrian waterfront activities where practicable, and the various access points ought to be linked to nonmotorized transportation routes such as bicycle and hiking paths. J. GENERAL USE REGULATIONS FOR ALL SHORELINE USES: 1.Applicability and Exemptions: a. Applicability: i. General: The Renton Shoreline Master Program regulations apply to any use, activity, or development on the Shorelines of the State within the City. No authorization to conduct a use, activity or development shall be granted unless such use, activity, or development is found consistent with the Renton Shoreline Master Program. ii. Nonconforming uses: See RMC 4-10-100 regarding the extent to which Renton Shoreline Master Program standards apply to nonconforming uses and activities. b. Exemptions: Nad 16 i. Permit Exemptions: RMC 4-9-197.0 identifies developments or Nape activities which are not required to obtain a shoreline substantial development permit, but which must otherwise comply with all applicable provisions of the Renton Shoreline Master Program. ii. Use or Activity Exemptions: Reserved. 2.Studies Required: a. When Standard Stream or Lake Study Is Required: If a proposed development site contains a Shoreline of the State or associated buffer area, or the project area is within one hundred feet (100') of the Shoreline of the State even if the water body is not located on the subject property but the Reviewing Official determines that alterations of the subject property could potentially impact the water body in question, then the applicant shall be required to conduct a Standard Stream or Lake Study per RMC 4-8-120. b. When Supplemental Stream or Lake Study is Required: Changes to buffer requirements, or alterations of the Shoreline of the State requires a Supplemental Stream or Lake Study as identified in RMC 4-8-120. c. When Stream or Lake Mitigation Plan Required: A Stream or Lake Mitigation Plan shall be required per RMC 4-8-120.D., if impacts are identified within a required Supplemental Stream or Lake Study. The approval of the Stream or Lake Mitigation Plan by the Administrator shall be based on the criteria located in Subsection J.2.c.ii. below. i. Timing of Mitigation Plan—Final Submittal and Commencement: When a Stream or Lake Mitigation Plan is required, the applicant shall 17 submit a final mitigation plan for the approval of the Administrator prior to the issuance of building or construction permits, whichever comes first. The applicant shall receive written approval of the final mitigation plan prior to commencement of any mitigation activity. ii. Criteria for Approval of Stream or Lake Mitigation Plan for Alterations of Shorelines and Associated Buffers: In order to approve a Stream or Lake Mitigation Plan the Administrator shall find that the Plan demonstrates compliance with the following criteria: (a)Mitigation Location: Mitigation location shall follow the preferences in (i) to (iv)below: (i) On-site mitigation: On-site mitigation is required unless the Reviewing Official finds that on-site mitigation is not feasible or Neid desirable; (ii)Off-site mitigation within same drainage subbasin as subject site: Off-site mitigation may be allowed when located within the same drainage subbasin as the subject site and if it achieves equal or improved ecological functions over mitigation on the subject site; (iii)Off-site mitigation within same drainage basin within City limits: Off-site mitigation may be allowed when located within the same drainage basin within the Renton City limits if it achieves equal or improved ecological functions within the City over mitigation within the same drainage subbasin as the project; 18 (iv) Off-site mitigation within the same drainage Itase basin outside the City limits: Off-site mitigation may be allowed when located within the same drainage basin outside the Renton City limits if it achieves equal or improved ecological functions over mitigation within the same drainage basin within the Renton City limits and it meets City goals. (b)Mitigation Type: Types of mitigation shall follow the preferences in (i)to (iii)below: (i)Daylighting (returning to open channel)of streams or removal of manmade salmonid migration barriers; (ii)Removal of impervious surfaces in buffer areas and improved biological function of the buffer; (iii) In stream or in-lake mitigation as part of an Now approved watershed basin restoration project; (iv)Other mitigation suitable for site and water body conditions that meet all other provisions for a mitigation plan. In all cases, mitigation shall provide for equivalent or greater biological functions per ii(e)below. (c) Contiguous Corridors: Mitigation sites shall be located to preserve or achieve contiguous riparian or wildlife corridors to minimize the isolating effects of development on habitat areas, so long as mitigation of aquatic habitat is located within the same aquatic ecosystem as the area disturbed; and (d)Non-indigenous species: Wildlife, or fish species not indigenous to the region shall not be introduced into a riparian mitigation area unless 19 authorized by a State or Federal permit or approval. Plantings shall be consistent with Section 4-3-090.J.6.g.i; and (e)Equivalent or greater biological functions: The Administrator shall utilize the report"City of Renton Best Available Science Literature Review and Stream Buffer Recommendations"by AC Kindig & Company and Cedarock Consultants, dated X, 2003, unless superseded with a City-adopted study, to determine the existing or potential ecological function of the stream or lake or riparian habitat that is being affected. Mitigation shall address each function affected by the alteration. Mitigation to compensate alterations to stream/lake areas and associated buffers shall achieve equivalent or greater biologic and hydrologic functions and shall include mitigation for adverse impacts upstream or downstream of the development proposal site. No-net-loss of riparian habitat or water body function shall be demonstrated; and (f)Minimum Mitigation Plan Performance Standards: For any required Stream or Lake Mitigation Plans, the applicant shall: (i)Demonstrate sufficient scientific expertise, the supervisory capability, and the financial resources to carry out the mitigation project; and (ii)Demonstrate the capability for monitoring the site and making corrections during the monitoring period if the mitigation project fails to meet projected goals; and (iii)Protect and manage, or provide for the protection and management of the mitigation area to avoid further development or degradation and to provide for long-term persistence of the mitigation area; and ,0401 20 (iv)Provide for project monitoring and allow City inspections; and (v)Avoid mitigation proposals that would result in additional future mitigation or regulatory requirements for adjacent properties, unless it is a result of a code requirement, or no other option is feasible or practical; and (vi)For onsite or offsite mitigation proposals, abutting or adjacent property owners shall be notified when wetland creation or restoration, stream relocation,critical area buffer increases, flood hazard mitigation, habitat conservation mitigation, or geologic hazard mitigation have the potential to considerably decrease the development potential of abutting or adjacent properties. For example, if a created wetland on a property would now result in a wetland buffer intruding onto a neighboring property, the neighboring property owner would be notified. Notification shall be given as follows: (a)For applications that are not subject to notices of application per RMC 4-8,notice of the mitigation proposal shall be given by posting the site and notifying abutting or adjacent property owners with the potential to be impacted. Written notification may be made prior to or at the time of the SEPA determination. (b)For applications that are subject to notices of application, the mitigation proposal shall be identified in the notice of application and mailed to abutting or adjacent property owners with the potential to be impacted; if the determination of the mitigation requirements is not known at the time of 21 the notice of application, written notice to abutting or adjacent property owners shall be given instead at the time of the SEPA determination. (g)Additional Conditions of Approval: The Administrator shall condition approvals of activities allowed within or abutting a stream/lake or its buffers, as necessary to minimize or mitigate any potential adverse impacts. Conditions may include,but are not limited to, the following: (i) Preservation of critically important vegetation and/or habitat features such as snags and downed wood; (ii)Limitation of access to the habitat area, including fencing to deter unauthorized access; (iii) Seasonal restriction of construction activities; and vgird (iv)Establishment of a duration and timetable for periodic review of mitigation activities. (h)Based on Best Available Science: The applicant shall demonstrate that the mitigation is based on consideration of the best available science as described in WAC 365-195-905; or where there is an absence of valid scientific information, the steps in RMC 4-9-250F are followed. iii. Performance Surety: The Administrator shall require a performance surety to ensure completion and success of proposed mitigation,per RMC 4-1-230. The surety device shall be sufficient to guarantee that structures, improvements, and mitigation required by permit condition perform satisfactorily for a minimum of 5 years after they have been completed. 22 iv. Alternative Mitigation: The mitigation requirements set forth in Norr' this Subsection may be modified at the Administrator's discretion if the applicant demonstrates that improved habitat functions, on a per function basis,can be obtained in the affected sub-drainage basin as a result of alternative mitigation measures. d. Studies Waived: i. Standard Stream or Lake Study: May only be waived by the Administrator when the applicant provides satisfactory evidence that: (a) A road, building or other barrier exists between the water body and the proposed activity, or (b)The water body or required buffer area does not intrude on the applicant's lot, and based on evidence submitted,the proposal will not result in significant adverse impacts to nearby water bodies regulated under this Section, or yitrr (c) Applicable data and analysis appropriate to the project proposed exists and an additional study is not necessary. ii. Supplemental Stream or Lake Study: May only be waived by the Administrator when: (a) No alterations or changes to the stream or lake, or its standard buffer are proposed; or (b) Applicable data and analysis appropriate to the project proposed exists and an additional study is not necessary. iii. Stream or Lake Mitigation Plan: May only be waived when no impacts have been identified through a Supplemental Stream or Lake Study. '41rr► 23 e. Independent Secondary Review: Studies may require secondary review Nord pursuant to RMC 4-9-197.E.4. 3.Disturbance Prohibited: Streams and lakes and their buffer areas shall be undisturbed, except where the buffer is to be enhanced or in conformance with allowances of Section J.4 or 5. 4. Shoreline Buffers: The following shoreline setbacks/buffers shall be required: a. Buffer Width: i. Standard Buffer Width: Shorelines shall have a minimum 100-foot buffer measured from the ordinary high water mark of the regulated shoreline of the state. Where streams enter or exit pipes, the buffer in subsection ii shall be measured perpendicular to the ordinary high water mark from the end of the pipe along the open channel section of the stream. 9o° Figure 4-3-090.J.4.a.ii. Buffer measurement at pipe opening. ii. Piped Streams: (1)Building structures over a natural stream located in an underground pipe or culvert except as may be granted by a variance is prohibited. Roads, 24 bridges, trail, or utility crossings or other alterations pursuant to Section K are allowed. err Pavement over a pre-existing piped stream is allowed. Relocation of the piped stream system around structures is allowed. If structure locations are proposed to be changed or the piped stream is being relocated around buildings, a hydrologic and hydraulic analysis of existing piped stream systems will be required for any development project site that contains a piped stream to ensure it is sized to convey the 100-year runoff level from the total upstream tributary area based on future land use conditions. (2)No buffers are required along segments of piped or culverted streams. The City shall require easements and setbacks from pipes or culverts consistent with stormwater requirements in RMC 4-6-030 and the adopted drainage manual. iii. Alternative Buffer Width: Shoreline buffers may be increased or reduced as required or allowed in Subsections b through d. b. Use of Buffers: i. Natural or Partially Developed Shorelines: Buffers shall be maintained as stated in Subsections J.3,Disturbance Prohibited; J.6.e, Native Growth Protection Areas Required; and J.6.g.,Revegetation Required. ii. Developed Shorelines: On sites predominantly containing impervious surfaces in the shoreline buffer areas the buffer widths shall be considered building setbacks, with the setback area to be managed in accordance with Subsection J.5.b, Sites with Developed Shorelines. c. Increased Buffer Width: 25 i. Areas of High Blow-down Potential: Where the stream/lake area Nod is in an area of high blow-down potential as determined by a qualified professional, the buffer width may be expanded up to an additional fifty feet(50') on the windward side, when determined appropriate to site circumstances and ecological function by the Responsible Official. ii. Buffers Falling Within Protected Slopes or Very High Landslide Areas: When the required stream/lake buffer falls within a protected slope or very high landslide hazard area or buffer,the stream/lake buffer width shall extend to the boundary of the protected slope or the very high landslide hazard buffer. iii. Notification: Notification of an increased buffer width may be required pursuant to J.2.c.ii(f)(vi). d. Reduction of Buffer or Setback Width: i. Authority: Based upon an applicant's request, and the acceptance of a Supplemental Stream or Lake Study, the Administrator may approve a reduction in the standard buffer widths/setbacks where the applicant can demonstrate compliance with Subsections below and any mitigation requirements applied as conditions of approval. ii. Public Notice: Public notification of any buffer reduction determination shall be given as follows: (a)For applications that are not subject to notices of application per RMC 4-8,notice of the buffer determination shall be given by posting the site and notifying parties of record in accordance with RMC 4-8. (b)For applications that are subject to notices of application, per RMC 4-8, the buffer determination or request for determination shall be mud 26 included with notice of application, and upon determination, notification of parties of record shall be made. iii. Criteria for Approval of Reduced Buffer Width: If a proposal meets Subsections (a) or(b)or(c)below and meets the environmental criteria of(d), minimum buffer widths may be reduced as stated in Subsection J.4.d.iv: (a)Buffer condition: Either subsection i and iii through v shall be met or subsection ii through v shall be met: i. The abutting land is extensively vegetated with native species, including trees and shrubs, and has less than 5 percent non-native invasive species cover and has less than fifteen percent(15%) slopes, or ii. The buffer can be enhanced with native vegetation and removal of non-native species per criteria (d)(i), and has less than fifteen percent (15%) slopes; and iii. The width reduction will not reduce stream or lake functions, including those of anadromous fish or non-fish habitat; and iv. The the width reduction will not degrade riparian habitat; and v. No direct or indirect, short-term or long-term, adverse impacts to regulated water bodies, as determined by the City, will result from a regulated activity. The City's determination shall be based on specific site studies by recognized experts, pursuant to Subsection J.2 and RMC 4-8-120 and RMC 4-9-197 E.4; or sitar 27 (b)The proposal includes daylighting of a stream through the entirety of its course through the property, or removal of a legally installed, as determined by the Administrator, salmonid passage barrier; or (c)The proposal includes priority uses pursuant to RCW 90.58.020, as interpreted in the adopted Renton Shoreline Master Program, which cannot be accommodated reasonably using standard buffers/setbacks; and (d)Environmental Criteria: Proposals meeting Subsection (a) or(b)or(c) above shall also meet the following environmental criteria: (i)Buffer Enhancement: • The project includes a buffer enhancement plan using native vegetation and provides documentation that the enhanced buffer area will maintain or improve the functional attributes of the buffer; or Ned • In the case of existing developed sites where a natural buffer is not possible, the proposal includes on- or off-site riparian/lakeshore or aquatic enhancement proportionate to its project specific or cumulative impact on shoreline ecological functions; or • In the case of construction activity connected with an existing single family residence and/or garage where the temporary or permanent construction work does not increase the footprint of the structure lying within the buffer and no portion of the new work occurs closer to the critical area or required buffers than the existing structure, enhancement is not required; and (ii) The proposal will result in, at minimum, no-net loss of stream/lake/riparian ecological function; and NIS 28 (iii) The proposal does not result in increased flood hazard risk; and (iv) The applicant shall demonstrate that the proposal is based on consideration of the best available science as described in WAC 365-195-905; or where there is an absence of valid scientific information, the steps in RMC 4-9-250F are followed. iv. Minimum Buffer Width Permissible by Administrator: If the criteria in Subsection J.4.d.iii are met, the reduced buffer or setback width shall not be less than the following minimum standards. (a)75 feet for non-water-oriented development, unless otherwise listed below. (b) 50 feet for water related or water enjoyment development, unless otherwise listed below. (c) 50 feet for multi-family development in the Urban Environment along the Cedar River. (d)25 feet for a single family residential dwelling on a pre- existing legal lot, where there is not enough developable area elsewhere on the site to reasonably accommodate building pads and off-street parking. The setback shall be equal to the existing structure setback in the case of construction activity connected with an existing single family residence and/or accessory garage where the work does not increase the footprint of the structure lying within the buffer and no portion of the new work occurs closer to the required buffers than the existing structure,unless the structure or addition can meet required buffers. 'oirrr 29 (e) 25 feet for existing essential public facilities in the Urban Environment not otherwise considered water dependent. The appropriate buffer/setback shall be based on the facility type, conformance with adopted master plans, ability to provide for safe public access, or other legal or safety concerns. (f) 25 feet for water dependent development that does not require an abutting shoreline location. Ancillary water dependent or water enjoyment uses may be co-located with water dependent uses. (g)0 feet for water dependent development if the use depends on an abutting shoreline location. Ancillary water dependent or water enjoyment uses may be co-located with water dependent uses. (h)0 feet for public access connections to the water's edge, or public access water body crossings,or public access segments connecting to existing trails where an alternate alignment is not practical, or where public access alignment avoids impacts to other critical areas, or where safety requires an abutting location; otherwise 25 feet for public access proposals paralleling the water. (i) 0 feet for necessary roads,bridges, and railroads and utilities when consistent with the standards of Subsection K. (j) 0 feet for piers, docks, marinas,boat launches, and bulkheads when consistent with applicable standards in Subsection K. Ancillary water dependent or water enjoyment uses may be co-located with water dependent uses. (k) As determined by the Administrator, for development proposed on sites separated from the shoreline by pre-existing, intervening, and lawfully created structures, roads, bulkheads/hard structural shoreline stabilization, or other 30 • substantial existing improvements. For the purposes of this section, the intervening Noe lots/parcels,roads, bulkheads/hard structural shoreline stabilization, or other substantial improvements shall be found to: (i) Separate the subject upland property from the water body due to their height or width; and (ii) Substantially prevent or impair delivery of most riparian functions from the subject upland property to the water body. The buffer width established shall reflect the riparian functions that can be delivered to the regulated stream. v. Documentation: Reduced buffer width determinations and evidence shall be included in the application file. vi. Variance Required for Narrower Buffer Width: Greater buffer width or setback reductions require review as a shoreline variance by the Land Use Hearing Examiner per RMC 4-9-197. The setback provisions of the zoning district for the use must also be met unless a variance to the zoning code is achieved. e. Averaging of Buffer Width: i. Authority: Based upon an applicant's request, and the acceptance of a Supplemental Stream or Lake Study, the Administrator may approve buffer width averaging. ii. Criteria for Approval: Buffer width averaging may be allowed only where the applicant demonstrates all of the following: 31 (a)The water body and associated riparian area contains Nord variations in ecological sensitivity or there are existing physical improvements in or near the water body and associated riparian area; and (b)Buffer width averaging will result in no-net loss of stream/lake/riparian ecological function; and (c)The total area contained within the buffer after averaging is no less than that contained within the required standard buffer width prior to averaging; and (d) In no instance shall the buffer width be reduced to less than fifty feet (50'); and (e)The proposed buffer standard is based on consideration of the best available science as described in WAC 365-195-905; or where there is an ,440014 absence of valid scientific information,the steps in RMC 4-9-250F are followed. iii. Buffer Enhancement May Be Required: Buffer enhancement in the areas where the buffer is reduced shall be required where appropriate to site conditions, habitat sensitivity, and proposed land development characteristics. iv. Variance Required for Narrower Buffer Width: Greater buffer width or setback reductions require review as a shoreline variance by the Land Use Hearing Examiner per RMC 4-9-197.The setback provisions of the zoning district for the use must also be met unless a variance to the zoning code is achieved. v. Notification: Notification may be required per Section J.2.c.ii.(f)(vi) Nfted 32 f. Incentives for Restoration of Streams Located in an Underground Pipe Nosy or Culvert: Daylighting of culverted watercourses should be encouraged and allowed with the following incentives: i.. Modified Standards: (a). Residential Zones: Setbacks, lot width and lot depth standards of RMC 4-2 may be reduced by the Reviewing Official without requirement of a variance for lots that abut the daylighted watercourse to accommodate the same number of lots as if the watercourse were not daylighted. (b). Mixed Use, Commercial, and Industrial Zones: (i.) Where greater lot coverage allowances are provided for structured parking in RMC 4-2, lot coverage may be increased to the limit allowed for structured parking if instead a stream is daylighted. The increase in impervious surface allowed shall be equal to the area of stream restoration. (ii.) Density bonuses may be allowed pursuant to RMC 4-9-065 where specified. ii. Standard buffers may be reduced per 4-3-050.L.5.c. If reduced buffers in L.5.c along with other development standards of the zone would not allow the same development level as without the watercourse daylighting, a modification may be requested in 4-3-050.N. iii. When designed consistent with the City's flood regulations in RMC 4-3-050.I.6, portions of the daylighted stream/created buffer may be considered part of compensatory storage in flood hazard areas. iv. Stream relocation is permitted subject to RMC4-3-090.K. Now 33 5. Stream/Lake Buffer Standards: Any proposal subject to RMC 4-3-090 shall comply with the following standards within required buffer areas: a. Sites with Natural or Partially Developed Shorelines: Streams and lakes and their buffer areas shall be undisturbed, except where: i. Buffer averaging or buffer reduction requests are evaluated in a Supplemental Stream or Lake Study and authorized pursuant to Subsections J.4.d, Reductions of Buffer or Setback Width and J.4.e, Averaging of Buffer Width, or ii. The activity consists of a habitat or watershed enhancement proposal exempt from the Shoreline Substantial Development Permit process, or iii. A variance has been approved for the use or activity. iv. Where impervious surfaces exist in buffer areas the proposal is additionally subject standards of 5.b. Ned v. Specific criteria of Section K shall apply to the specific use or activity in addition to Subsection J. b. Sites with Developed Shorelines: Where the shoreline is largely in an unnatural state and the buffer predominantly contains impervious surfaces due to existing, legally permitted activities, the following standards shall apply: i. Streams and lakes shall be undisturbed. ii. No new buildings may be constructed within the required buffer. iii. Where impervious surfaces exist in buffer areas, such impervious surfaces shall not be increased or expanded within the buffer area. The extent of impervious surfaces within the buffer area may only be re-arranged if the reconfiguration of impervious surfaces and restoration of prior surfaced areas is part of an 34 enhancement proposal that improves ecological function of the area protected by the Nia buffer. iv. Existing native vegetation shall be preserved or enhanced to the extent possible,preferably in consolidated areas. v. The proposal will result in, at minimum, no-net loss of stream/lake/riparian ecological function;. vi. Specific criteria of Subsection K shall apply to the specific use or activity in addition to Subsection J. c. Proposed Activities Independent of a Use: Section K includes standards for practices or activities within waters or along the shoreline that can be unassociated with a land use, including but not limited to dredging, landfills, and stream alteration. Proposed activities or practices that are independent of a land use are subject to: Noise i. Authorization in the Use Environment. ii. Evaluation in a Stream/Lake Reconnaissance and Supplemental Study. iii. Preparation of a Mitigation Plan consistent with subsection J.2 as appropriate. iv. Consistency with applicable specific criteria in subsection K in addition to Subsections J2, J5and J6. 6. Permit Evaluation Criteria for Shoreline Developments: a. Burden on Applicant: Applicants must explain to the satisfaction of the Administrator the methods that will be used to halt, avoid or otherwise control any harmful effects associated with the proposal. 35 b. Erosion: Vegetation shall be used to control erosion rather than structural means where feasible. c. Geology: Important geological factors—such as possible slide areas— on a site must be considered. Whatever activity is planned under the application for the development permit must be safe and appropriate in view of the geological factors prevailing. d. No-Net-Loss of Functions: Shoreline uses or activities shall not adversely impact unique or fragile areas or stream/lake/riparian ecology function unless adequate mitigation measures are provided to ensure that there is no-net-loss of ecological functions as a result of the shoreline uses or activities. e. Native Growth Protection Areas Required: The Reviewing Official shall require the establishment of Native Growth Protection Areas consistent with RMC ,4100, 4-3-050.E.4 to protect streams or lakes or riparian or lakeshore habitat where present. Where water body or buffer disturbance has occurred during construction or other activities,revegetation with native vegetation may be required as a condition of approval. f. Preservation of Existing Vegetation: Existing native vegetation shall be preserved to the extent possible,preferably in consolidated areas. g. Revegetation Required: Revegetation may be required in order to achieve reduced buffer widths; in cases where water body or buffer disturbance has occurred during construction or other activities; or as a result of findings addressed in required studies. When revegetation is required,it shall meet the following standards: i. Use of Native Species: When revegetation is required, native species, or other appropriate species naturalized to the Puget Sound region and approved NIS 36 by the Reviewing Official, shall be used. A variety of species shall be used which serve err✓ as food or shelter from climatic extremes and predators, and as structure and cover for reproduction and rearing of young. ii. Removal of Noxious Species: When required as a condition of approval,noxious or undesirable species of plants shall be removed or controlled so as to not compete with native vegetation. h. Studies Required: All required studies shall be submitted in compliance with Subsection J.2. and RMC 4-8-120. i. Use Compatibility and Aesthetic Effects: The potential impact of any of the following on adjacent, abutting, and possibly distant land and shoreline users shall be considered in the design plans and efforts made to avoid or minimize detrimental aspects: i. View Obstruction: Buildings, smokestacks, machinery, fences, piers,poles, wires, signs, lights, and other structures. ii. Community Disturbances: Noise, odors,night lighting, water and land traffic, and other structures and activities. iii.Design Theme: Coordination and uniformity of architectural styles, exterior designs, landscaping patterns and other aspects of the overall design of a site. iv. Visually Unpleasant Areas: Landscaped screening shall be used to hide from public view any area that may negatively impact the visual quality of a site. v. Outdoor Activities: 37 (a)Residential Areas: Work areas, storage, and other activities on a site in a residential area shall be in enclosed buildings, as is reasonably possible, to reduce distractions and other effects on surrounding areas. (b) Commercial and Industrial Areas: Outdoor activities of commercial and industrial operations shall be limited to those necessary for the operation of the enterprise. Outdoor areas shall not be used for storage of more than minimal amounts of equipment, parts, materials, products, or other objects. j. Public Access: i. Where possible and consistent with this Section, space and right- of-way shall be left available on the immediate shoreline so that greater public use of the shoreline can be provided. ii.Trail systems shall be designed to avoid conflict with private residential property rights. iii. No property shall be acquired for public use without just compensation to the owner. k. Orientation: Where feasible, shoreline developments shall locate the water-dependent, water-related and water-enjoyment portions of their developments along the shoreline and place all other facilities inland. I. Other Permit Criteria: Also see criteria in Section 4-9-197.F. K. SPECIFIC USE REGULATIONS: In addition to the General Use Regulations for All Shorelines Uses in Subsection J, the following Specific Use Regulations shall be met as applicable to the use or activity: 1.Airports and Seaplane Bases: NIS 38 a. Airport Location: A new airport shall not be allowed to locate within the shoreline. However, an airport already located within a shoreline shall be permitted to upgrade and expand its facilities provided such upgrading and expansion would not have a detrimental effect on the shoreline. b. Location of Seaplane Bases: i. Private Seaplane Bases: A single private seaplane is permitted per residence. ii. Commercial Seaplane Bases: New commercial seaplane bases may be allowed in industrial areas provided such bases are not contiguous to residential areas. c. Airport Facilities: i. Future hangars shall be designed and spaced to allow viewing of airport activities from the area along the water's edge. d. Seaplane Bases (Commercial): i. Docks: Docks for the mooring of seaplanes are permitted. Seaplanes may be stored on the dock or ramps. ii. Tie-Down Areas: Tie-down areas may be provided on seaplane ramps. e. Landscaping: Landscaping shall be required around parking areas in accordance with City regulations. The landscaping shall be compatible with the activities and characteristics of aircraft in that it should be wind resistant, low profile, and able to survive under adverse conditions. 39 f. Services: Services or aircraft shall conform to FAA standards, which include fuel, oil spill clean-up, safety and firefighting equipment, and vehicle and pedestrian separation. 2.Aquaculture: a. Location: Aquaculture operations may be located on streams and rivers, EXCEPT in Natural and Conservancy environments and along urban areas developed with residential uses. b. Time: Facilities shall be allowed on a temporary basis only. c. Design and Construction: All structures over or in the water shall meet the following restrictions: i. They shall be securely fastened to the shore. ii. They shall be designed for a minimum of interference with the Nod natural systems of the waterway including,for example, water flow and quality, fish circulation, and aquatic plant life. iii. They should not prohibit or restrict other human uses of the water, such as swimming and/or boating. iv. They shall be set back appropriate distances from other shoreline uses, if potential conflicts exist. 3.Boat-Launching Ramps: a. Site Appropriateness—Water Characteristics: Water depth should be deep enough off the shore to allow use by boats. Water currents and movement and normal wave action shall be suitable for ramp activity. 40 b. Site Appropriateness—Topography: The proposed area should not present major geological or topographical obstacles to construction or operation of the ramp. Site adaptation such as dredging shall be minimized. c. Dimensions and Location: The ramp should be designed so as to allow for ease of access to the water with minimal impact on the shoreline and water surface. d. Ramp Surface Material: The surface of the ramp may be concrete, precast concrete, or other hard permanent substance.The material shall be permanent and noncontaminating to the water. Loose materials, such as gravel or cinders, will not be used. The material chosen shall be appropriate considering the following conditions: Soil characteristics,erosion, water currents, waterfront conditions, and usage of the ramp. e. Review Required: Engineering design and site location approval shall be obtained from the appropriate City department. Name 4.Bulkheads: a. Applicability and Exemption: All bulkheads are subject to the regulations set forth in this Master Program, except that bulkheads common to a single family residence are exempted from the permit system set forth in this Master Program and Building Code. b. When Permitted: A bulkhead may be permitted only when: i. Required to protect upland areas or facilities. ii. Riprap cannot provide the necessary protection. iii. The bulkhead design has been engineered by an appropriately State licensed professional engineer, and the design has been approved by the Renton Department of Public Works. 41 c. Associated Fill: A bulkhead for the purpose of creating land by filling behind the bulkhead shall be permitted only when the landfill has been approved. The application for a bulkhead shall be included in the application for the landfill in this case. (See subsection K.8 of this Section, Landfills.) d. General Design Requirements: i. The burden rests upon the applicant for the permit to propose a specific type of bulkhead design which has been engineered by an appropriately State licensed professional engineer. ii. All approved bulkheads are to be constructed in such a manner as to minimize damage to fish and shell fish habitat. In evaluating the application for a proposed bulkhead, the Development Services Division shall consider the effect of the bulkheads on public access to publicly owned shorelines. Where possible, bulkheads are Ntid to be designed so as not to detract from the aesthetic qualities of the shoreline. iii. Bulkheads are to be constructed in such a manner as to minimize alterations of the natural shoreline and to minimize adverse effects on nearby beaches. iv. In cases where bulkheading is permitted, scientific information suggests a rock riprap design is preferred. The cracks and openings in such a structure afford suitable habitats for certain forms of aquatic life.If there is determined to be a severe rate population, consideration must be given to construction of a solid bulkhead to eliminate cracks and openings typical to a riprap structure. 5. Commercial Developments: a. Location of Developments: 42 i. New commercial developments are to be encouraged to locate in those areas where current commercial uses exist. ii. New commercial developments on Lake Washington which are neither water-dependent, nor water-related, nor water-enjoyment, nor which do not provide significant public access to and along the water's edge will not be permitted upon the shoreline. b. Incorporation of Public Recreational Opportunities: Commercial developments should incorporate recreational opportunities along the shoreline for the general public. c. View Impacts: The applicant for a shoreline development permit for a new commercial development must indicate in his application the effect which the proposed commercial development will have upon the scenic view prevailing in the given area. Specifically, the applicant must state in his permit what steps have been taken in the design of the proposed commercial development to reduce to a minimum interference with the scenic view enjoyed by any significant number of people in the area. 6. Dredging: a. Definition: The removal of earth or sediment from the bottom or banks of a body of water. b. Permitted Dredging: Dredging is to be permitted only when: i. Dredging is necessary for flood control purposes,if a definite flood hazard would exist unless dredging were permitted. ii. Dredging is necessary to correct problems of material distribution and water quality,when such problems are adversely affecting aquatic life or *11 recreational areas. 43 iii. Dredging is necessary to obtain additional water area so as to decrease the intrusion into the lake of a public, private or marina dock. This type of dredging may only be allowed if the following conditions are met: The water of the dredged area shall not be stagnant or polluted; and the water of the dredged area shall be capable of supporting aquatic life. iv. Dredging may be permitted where necessary for the development and maintenance of public shoreline parks and of private shorelines to which the public is provided access. Dredging may be permitted where additional public access is provided and/or where there is anticipated to be a significant improvement to fish or wildlife habitat,provided there is no net reduction upon the surface waters of the lake. v. Dredging may be permitted to maintain water depth and navigability. vi. Dredging is performed pursuant to a remedial action plan, approved under authority of the Model Toxics Control Act or pursuant to other authorization by the Department of Ecology, U.S. Army Corps of Engineer or other agency with jurisdiction. c. Prohibited Dredging: i. Dredging is prohibited in unique or fragile areas (see RMC 4-11- 210)except for the purposes identified in subsection K.6.b of this Section where appropriate Federal and/or State authorization has been received, and any required environmental review and mitigation is conducted. 44 ii. Dredging solely for the purpose of obtaining fill or construction err material, which dredging is not directly related to those purposes permitted in subsection K.6.b of this Section, is prohibited. d. Regulations on Permitted Dredging: i. Report by Engineer Required: All proposed dredging operations shall be planned by an appropriate State licensed professional engineer. An approved engineering report shall be submitted to the Renton Development Services Division as part of the application for a shoreline permit. ii. Applicant's Responsibility: The responsibility rests solely with the applicant to demonstrate the necessity of the proposed dredging operation. iii. Minimal Adverse Effect: The responsibility further rests with the applicant to demonstrate that there will be a minimal adverse effect on aquatic life r and/or on recreational areas. iv. Timing: The timing of any dredging operation shall be planned so that it has minimal impact or interference with fish migration. v. Abutting Bank Protection: When dredging bottom material of a body of water, the banks shall not be disturbed unless absolutely necessary. The responsibility rests with the applicant to propose and carry out practices to protect the banks. If it is absolutely necessary to disturb the abutting banks for access to the dredging area, the responsibility rests with the applicant to propose and carry out a method of restoration of the disturbed area to a condition minimizing erosion and siltation. vi. Minimize Impacts: The responsibility rests with the applicant to demonstrate a method of eliminating or preventing conditions that may: 'err 45 (a) Create a nuisance to the public or nearby activity. (b) Damage property in or near the area. (c) Cause substantial adverse effect to plant, animal, aquatic or human life in or near the area. (d) Endanger public safety in or near the area. vii. Contamination: The applicant shall demonstrate a method to control contamination and pollution to water, air, and ground. viii.Disposal of dredged material: The applicant shall demonstrate a method of disposing of all dredged material.Dredged material shall not be deposited in a lake or stream except if the material is approved as part of a contamination remediation project approved by appropriate State and/or Federal agencies. In no instance shall dredged material be stockpiled in a shoreland area. If the dredged material is contaminant or pollutant in nature,the applicant shall propose and carry out a method of disposal that does not contaminate or pollute water, air, or ground. 7.Industrial Development: a.When Permitted: Industrial developments are to be permitted only when: i.They are water-dependent,water-related or they provide reasonable public access to and along the water's edge.New industrial developments on Lake Washington which are neither water-dependent,nor water-related shall provide significant public access. ii. They minimize and cluster those water-dependent and water- related portions of their development along the shoreline and place inland all facilities which are not water-dependent; and, 46 iii. Any over-water portion is water-dependent, is limited to the smallest reasonable dimensions, and is approved by the Land Use Hearing Examiner; and, iv. They are designed in such manner as to enhance the scenic view; and, v. It has been demonstrated in the permit application that a capability exists to contain and clean up spills or discharges of pollutants associated with the industrial development. 8. Landfills: a. When Permitted: Landfills shall be permitted in the following cases: i. For detached single family residential uses, when the property is located between two (2)existing bulkheads,the property may be filled to the line of igirse conformity provided the fill does not exceed one hundred twenty five feet(125 )in length along the ordinary high water mark and thirty five feet (35 )into the water, and provided the provisions of RMC 4-9-197I4b(i)through 4-9-197I4b(vi)are satisfactorily met; or • ii. When a bulkhead is built to protect the existing perimeter land, a landfill shall be approved to bring the contour up to the desired grade; or iii. When in a public use area, landfill would be advantageous to the general public; or iv. When repairs or modifications are required for existing bulkheads and fills; or v. When landfill is required for flood control purposes; or 47 vi. When a landfill is part of a remedial action plan approved by the Department of Ecology pursuant to the Model Toxics Control Act, or otherwise authorized by the Department of Ecology,U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, or other agency with jurisdiction. vii. Justification for landfill for any other purpose than those listed in subsections K.8.ai through vi of this Section will be allowed only with prior approval of the Land Use Hearing Examiner. 9.Marinas: a.When Permitted: Marinas shall be permitted only when: i. Adequate on-site parking is available commensurate with the moorage facilities provided. (See subsection K.9.bvi of this Section.) ii. Adequate water area is available commensurate with the actual moorage facilities provided. iii. The location of the moorage facilities is convenient to public roads. b.Design Requirements: i. Marinas are to be designed in the manner that will minimize adverse effects on fish and shellfish resources and be aesthetically compatible with abutting and adjacent areas. ii. Marinas utilized to overnight and long-term moorage are not to be located in shallow-water embayments with poor flushing action. iii. Applications for permits for marina construction are to be evaluated for compliance with standards promulgated by Federal, State, and local agencies. 48 iv. Marinas and other commercial boating activities are to be Nifty equipped with receptacles to receive and adequately dispose of sewage, waste,rubbish, and litter from patrons' boats. v. Applications for development permits for the construction of marinas must affirmatively indicate that the marina will be equipped to contain and clean up any spills or discharges of pollutants associated with boating activities. vi. Parking should be provided in accordance with the following ratio: private and public marinas: two (2) per three (3) slips; private marina associated with residential complex: one per(3) slips. vii. Special designated loading areas should be provided near piers in the amount of one parking space per twenty five (25) slips; all other parking areas are to be located one hundred feet(100) from the ordinary high water mark. %orw c. Location of Marinas: i.Marinas shall be permitted only upon Lake Washington. Marinas must provide adequate access,parking, and surface water area in relation to the number of moorage spaces provided. 10.Mining: a. All mining,including surface mining, shall be prohibited. b. Surface mining shall mean all or any part of the process involved in extraction of minerals by removing the overburden and mining directly from the mineral deposits thereby exposed, including open pit mining of minerals naturally exposed at the surface of the earth,mining by the auger method, and production of surface mining refuse. The surface mining shall not include reasonable excavation or grading conducted for farming, on-site road construction, or on-site building construction. 49 11. Parking: a. Public Parking: In order to encourage public use of the shoreline, public parking is to be provided at frequent locations. Public parking facilities should be discouraged along the water's edge. Public parking facilities are to be designed and landscaped to minimize adverse impact upon the shoreline and adjacent lands and upon the water view. b. Private Parking: Private parking facilities are to be located away from the water's edge where possible. 12. Piers and Docks: a. Purpose: To establish approval and design criteria. b. Fees Prohibited: No fees or other compensation may be charged for use by nonresidents of piers or docks accessory to residences. c. General Design Requirements: i. Minimize Interference: Piers and docks shall be designed to minimize interference with the public use of the water surface and shoreline. ii. Floating Docks: The use of floating docks in lieu of other types of docks is to be encouraged in those areas where scenic values are high and where substantial conflicts with recreational boaters and fishermen will not be created. iii. Expansion Encouraged: The expansion of existing piers and docks is encouraged over the construction of new facilities. iv. General Criteria for Approval of Docks and Piers: The responsibility rests upon the applicant to affirmatively demonstrate the need for the proposed pier or dock in his application for a permit. The approval of a new dock or pier 50 or a modification or extension of an existing dock or pier shall include a finding that the following criteria have been met: (a) The dock or pier length does not extend beyond a length necessary to provide reasonable and safe moorage. (b) The dock or pier does not interfere with the public use and enjoyment of the water nor create a hazard to navigation. (c) The dock or pier will not result in the unreasonable interference with the use of adjacent docks and/or piers; and (d) The dock or pier must comply with the design criteria specified in the following sections. v. Construction Type: All piers and docks shall be built of open pile construction except that floating docks may be permitted where there is no danger of significant damage to an ecosystem, where scenic values are high, and where one or more of the following conditions exist: (a) Extreme water depth, beyond the range of normal length piling. (b) A soft bottom condition, providing little support for piling. (c) Ledge rock bottom that renders it not feasible to install piling. vi. Safety: All piers and docks shall be constructed and maintained in a safe and sound condition. 51 vii. Protection from Toxic Materials: Applicants for the new construction or extension of piers and docks or the repair and maintenance of existing docks shall use materials and methods which prevent toxic materials, petrochemicals and other pollutants from entering surface water during and after construction. d. Allowable Types of Piers and Docks: Permits for the following construction of piers or docks will be allowed: i. Piers and docks which provide for public recreational access and use or marinas. ii. Community piers and docks in new major waterfront subdivisions. iii. Piers and docks which are constructed for private joint use by two (2)or more waterfront property owners. iv. Private single family residence piers and docks. v. Community piers and docks for multi-family residence including apartments,condominiums, or similar developments. vi. Water-dependent commercial and industrial uses. e. Design Criteria for Single Family Docks and Piers: i. Number: There shall be no more than one pier per developed waterfront lot or ownership. ii. Dock Size Specifications: The following dock specifications shall be allowed: (a)Length: The dock may extend to a maximum of eighty feet(80)beyond the ordinary high water line into the water or until a depth of twelve 52 feet(12 )below the mean low water mark, whichever is reached first. However, in no case shall a dock of less than fifty feet(50) in length be required. (b) Width: The maximum width of a dock shall be eight feet (8 ). (c) Location: No portion of a pier or dock for the sole use of a private single family residence may lie closer than five feet (5 ) to an abutting property line. (d) Extension: One extension of a dock parallel to the shoreline or one float may be allowed provided such extension is not located closer that five feet(5 )from a side lot line or exceed one hundred(100) square feet in size. iii. Joint Use Piers and Docks: (a) Location: A joint use dock may be constructed for two (2) contiguous waterfront properties and may be located on a side property line or straddling a side property line, common to both properties. (b) Agreement: A joint use ownership agreement or covenant shall be prepared with the appropriate signatures of the property owners in question and recorded with the King County Assessor's Office. A copy of the recorded agreement shall be provided to the City. Such document should specify ownership rights and maintenance provisions. (c) Dock Size Specifications: Joint use docks and piers may extend to eighty feet(80')beyond the ordinary high water mark or to a depth of twelve feet(12'), whichever is reached first. 53 (d) Joint use docks and piers may not exceed a maximum width of twelve feet(12). (e) Joint use docks and piers may be allowed one pier extension or float a maximum of one hundred fifty(150) square feet in size for each owner. (f) Requests for greater dock length may only be submitted as specified below under subsection K.12.i of this Section once an individual has failed to work with an abutting property owner in establishing a joint use dock. f. Design Criteria for Multi-Family Residence Docks: i. Resident Moorage: Moorage at the docks shall be limited to residents or owner of the subdivision, apartments,condominiums or similar developments for which the dock was built. ii. Maximum Number of Berthing Spaces: The ratio of moorage berths to residential units shall be one berth for every two (2) dwelling units. iii. Length of Multiple Family Pier or Dock: Multiple family piers and docks shall not exceed a length of one hundred eighty feet(180 ) into the water beyond the ordinary high water mark, except as may be allowed under subsection K.12.i of this Section. g. Design Criteria for Recreational, Commercial and Industrial Docks: The following dock specifications shall be allowed: i. Length and Depth: Unless otherwise determined or directed by any State agency having jurisdiction, the dock may extend into the water one hundred fifty feet (150); if the depth of thirty feet (30 )is not reached, the dock may be extended bald 54 until a depth of thirty(feet 30 )is reached, provided the dock does not exceed two err hundred fifty feet(250); and in the case of a marina adjacent to a designated harbor area, docks and associated breakwaters may extend to the greater of(a)the distance determined pursuant to the foregoing criteria, (b) the inner harbor line, or(c) such point beyond the inner harbor line as is allowed by the terms of a lease, license or other formal authorization approved by the Washington State Department of Natural Resources or other agency with jurisdiction. ii. Width: The maximum width shall be twelve feet (12 ). iii. Location: Docks shall be placed no closer than thirty feet (30) to a side property line. iv. Piers or Docks Associated with City Trails: Docks or piers which are associated or linked with City trails shall be no greater than necessary to serve the intended purpose and will be determined by the City on a case-by-case basis. h. Use of Buoys and Floats: i. Buoys and Floats Encouraged: Where feasible, the use of buoys and floats for moorage, as permitted below under subsection K.12.hii of this Section,may be allowed as an alternative to the construction of piers and docks. Such buoys and floats are to be placed as close to shore as possible in order to minimize hazards to navigation, including reflectors for nighttime visibility. In no case shall a buoy be located further from the shoreline than the allowable length for docks. ii. Requirements: Floats shall be allowed under the following conditions: (a) Floats shall be anchored to allow clear passage on all NINoe sides by small watercraft. 55 (b) Floats shall not exceed a maximum of one hundred (100) square feet in size. A float proposed for joint use between abutting property owners may not exceed one hundred fifty(150) square feet per residence. (c) A single family residence may only have one float. (d) Floats shall not exceed a length of fifty feet(50') into the water beyond the ordinary high water mark,except public recreation floats. i. Variance to Dock and Pier Dimensions: Requests for greater dock and pier dimensions than those specified above may be submitted as variance applications to the City's Land Use Hearing Examiner. Any greater dimension than those listed above may be allowed by the Land Use Hearing Examiner for good reason, which shall include, but is not limited to, conditions requiring greater dock dimensions. The Examiner, in approving a variance request, shall include a finding that a variance request compiles with: i. The criteria listed in subsection K.12.c of this Section when approving such requests; and ii.The criteria specified in RMC 4-9-197I4. 13. Recreation: a. Definition: The refreshment of body and mind through forms of play, amusement or relaxation. The recreational experience may be active, such as boating, fishing, and swimming, or may be passive, such as enjoying the natural beauty of the shoreline or its wildlife. b. Public Recreation: Public recreation uses shall be permitted within the shoreline only when the following criteria are considered: 56 i. Accessibility to the water's edge is provided consistent with slow public safety needs and in consideration of natural features. ii. Recreational development shall be of such variety as to satisfy the diversity of demands of the local community; and iii. Just compensation is provided to the owner for property acquired for the public use; and iv. It is designed to avoid conflicts with owner's legal property rights and create minimum detrimental impact on the adjoining property; and v. It provides parking spaces to handle the designed public use, and it will be designed to have a minimum impact on the environment. c. Private Recreation: Private recreational uses open to the public shall be permitted only when the following standards are met: i. There is reasonable public access to the recreational uses, including access along the water's edge where appropriate. In the case of Lake Washington, significant public access shall be provided. ii. The proposed facility will have no significant detrimental effects on abutting parcels; and iii. Adequate, screened, and landscaped parking facilities that are separated from pedestrian paths are provided. 14. Residential Development: Floating residences are prohibited. Residential developments shall be allowed only when: a. Adequate public utilities are available; and 57 b. New residential developments shall be encouraged to provide public Nvid access. Unless deemed inappropriate due to health, safety or environmental concerns, new multi-family, condominium,planned unit developments, and subdivisions except short plats, shall provide public access along the water's edge; in the case of Lake Washington, significant public access shall be provided. 15.Roads and Railroads: a. Scenic Boulevards: Shoreline roadways should be scenic boulevards where possible. b. Sensitive Design: Roadways and Railroads located in shoreland areas shall be limited and allowed only if the following conditions are met: i. The proposed route is determined to have the least impact on the environment, while meeting City Comprehensive Plan Transportation Element requirements and standards in RMC 4-6-060; and ii. The facility is designed and maintained to prevent soil erosion and to permit natural movement of groundwater. iii. The crossing minimizes interruption of downstream movement of wood and gravel; and iv. Roads and railroads in buffer areas shall not run parallel to the water body; and v. Crossings occur as near to perpendicular with the water body as possible; and vi. Crossings are designed according to the Washington Department of Fish and Wildlife Fish Passage Design at Road Culverts, 1999, and the 58 National Marine Fisheries Service Guidelines for Salmonid Passage at Stream Crossings, 2000, as may be updated, or equivalent manuals as determined by the Responsible Official; and vii. Seasonal work windows are determined and made a condition of approval; and viii. Mitigation for impacts is provided pursuant to an approved mitigation plan per Subsection J.2. c. Debris Disposal: All debris and other waste materials from construction are to be disposed of in such a way as to prevent their entry by erosion into any water body. 16. Stream Alteration: a. Definition: Stream alteration is the relocation or change in the flow of a °fir✓ river, stream or creek. A river, stream or creek is surface water runoff flowing in a natural or modified channel. b. Permitted Stream Alteration: i. Unless otherwise prohibited by subsection K.16c of this Section, stream alteration may be allowed subject to the regulations in subsection K.16.d of this Section. ii. Stream alteration may be permitted if it is part of a public flood hazard reduction/habitat enhancement project approved by appropriate State and/or Federal agencies. c. Prohibited Stream Alteration: 59 i. Stream alteration is prohibited in unique and fragile areas, except if the stream alteration is part of a public flood hazard reduction/habitat enhancement project approved by appropriate State and/or Federal agencies. ii. Stream alteration solely for the purpose of enlarging the developable portion of a parcel of land or increasing the economic potential of a parcel of land is prohibited. iii. Stream alteration is prohibited if it would be significantly detrimental to abutting or adjacent parcels. d. Regulations on Stream Alteration: i. Engineering: All proposed stream alterations shall be designed by an appropriately State licensed professional engineer. The design shall be submitted to the Development Services Division as part of the application. NiroOi ii. Applicant's Responsibility: The responsibility rests solely with the applicant to demonstrate the necessity of the proposal. iii. Timing: The timing and the methods employed will have minimal adverse effects on aquatic life. iv. Pollution: Pollution is to be minimized during and after construction. v. Low Flow Maintenance: The project must be designed so that the low flow is maintained and the escape of fish at low water is possible. vi. Over-Water Cover: No permanent over-water cover or structure shall be allowed unless it is in the public interest. 17.Trails: 60 a. Definition: For the purposes of the Shoreline Master Program, trails are a nonmotorized transportation route designed primarily for pedestrians and bicyclists. b. Permitted Uses: Trail uses shall be permitted within the shoreline, when the following standards are met: i. Provisions for maintenance operation and emergency access have been provided. ii. They link water access points along the shoreline, or they link water access points along the shoreline with upland community facilities. iii.They are designed to avoid conflict with private property rights and to create the minimum objectionable impact on abutting property owners. (Ord. 3758, 12-5-1983,Rev. 7-22-1985 (Min.), 3-12-1990 (Res. 2787), 7-16-1990 (Res. 2805), 9-12-1993 (Min.), Ord. 4716,4-13-1998) iv. Just compensation is provided to the owner for property to be acquired by the public. v. They insure the rights and privacy of the abutting property owners. vi. Over-water structures required by the trails are determined to be in the public interest. vii. They are designed with a surface material which will carry the actual user loads and will have a minimum impact on the environment. viii. Additional Standards Applicable within the Natural Environment: 61 (1) Within unique and fragile areas, only public soft surface trails and/or public viewing platforms or areas may be allowed and must comply with all of the following: (a) The trail is authorized by the Renton Parks,Recreation, and Open Space Master Plan; (b) City permit authorization is granted indicating compliance with City Critical Area Regulations in RMC 4-3-050. (c) The Washington State Department of Fish and Wildlife has been consulted in design; (d)The trail is seasonally restricted in public use as necessary to protect Federal, State,or locally listed wildlife and fish species; (e) Trail widths shall be a maximum width Neale of twelve (12)feet. (2) Hard surface trails when located on existing rights of way, and outside of unique and fragile areas, and meeting the remaining provisions of this subsection,4-3-090.K.17,Trails. 18.Utilities: a. Native Vegetation: The native vegetation shall be maintained whenever possible. When utility projects are completed in the water or shoreland, the disturbed area shall be restored and landscaped as nearly as possible to the original condition, unless new landscaping is determined to be more desirable. 62 b. Landscaping: All vegetation and screening shall be hardy enough to Noble withstand the travel of service trucks and similar traffic in areas where such activity occurs. c. Screening of Public Utilities: When a public utility building, telephone exchange, sewage pumping operation or a public utility is built in the shoreline area, the requirements of this Master Program shall be met and the following screening requirements shall be met. If the requirements of subsection K.18.a of this Section, Native Vegetation, and the requirements of this subsection are in disagreement, the requirements of this subsection shall take precedence. i. If the installation is housed in a building, the building shall conform architecturally with the surrounding buildings and area, or with the type of building that will develop due to the zoning district. ii. An unhoused installation on the ground or a housed installation that does not conform with subsection K.18.ci of this Section shall be sight screened with evergreen trees, shrubs, and landscaping planted in sufficient depth to form an effective and actual sight barrier within five (5)years. iii. An unhoused installation of a dangerous nature, such as an electrical distribution substation, shall be enclosed with an eight foot (8')high open wire fence. Such installations shall be sight screened with evergreen trees, shrubs, and landscaping planted in sufficient depth to form an effective and actual sight barrier except at entrance gate(s), within five (5) years. d. Special Considerations for Pipelines: Installation and operation of pipelines shall protect the natural conditions of abutting watercourses and shorelines. 63 i. Water quality is not to be degraded to the detriment of marine life nor shall water quality standards be violated. ii. Native soils shall be protected from erosion and natural conditions restored. Watercourse banks and bottoms shall be protected, where necessary, with suitable surface treatment. iii. Petro-chemical or toxic material pipelines shall have automatically controlled shutoff valves at each side of the water crossing. iv. All petro-chemical or toxic material pipelines shall be constructed in accordance with the regulations of the Washington State Transportation Commission and subject to review by the City Public Works Department. e. Major Utilities—Specifications: i. Overhead High Voltage Power Lines: Structure of overhead power lines should be single-pole type or other aesthetically compatible design. Joint use docks and piers may extend to eighty feet (80)beyond the ordinary high water mark or to a depth of twelve feet(12), whichever is reached first. ii. Electrical Distribution Substations: Electrical distribution substations shall be at a shoreland location only when the applicant proves there exists no other site out of the shoreland area and when the screening requirements of subsection K.18.c of this Section are met. iii. Communications: This Section applies to telephone exchanges including radar transmission installations,receiving antennas for cable television and/or radio, and any other facility for the transmission of communication systems. Communications installations may be permitted in the shoreline area only when there 64 exists no feasible site out of the shoreline and water area and when the screening Nor requirements of subsection K.18.c of this Section are met. In an aesthetic interest, such installations shall be located as far as possible from residential,recreational, and commercial activities. iv. Pipeline Utilities: All pipeline utilities shall be underground. When underground projects are completed on the bank of a water body or in the shoreland or a shoreline, the disturbed area shall be restored to the original configuration. Underground utility installations shall be permitted only when the finished installation shall not impair the appearance of such areas. v. Public Access: All utility companies shall be asked to provide pedestrian public access to utility owned shorelines when such areas are not potentially hazardous to the public. Where utility rights-of-way are located near recreational or Nome public use areas, utility companies shall be encouraged to provide said rights-of-way as parking or other public use areas for the abutting public use area. f. Local Service Utilities, Specifications: i. Waterlines: Sizes and specifications shall be determined by the Public Works Department in accordance with City standards. ii. Sanitary Sewer: The existence or use of outhouses or privies is prohibited. All uses shall hook to the municipal sewer system. There shall be no septic tanks or other on-site sewage disposal systems. Storm drainage and pollutant drainage shall not enter the sanitary sewer system. During construction phases, commercial sanitary chemical toilets may be allowed only until proper plumbing facilities are e 65 completed. All sanitary sewer pipe sizes and materials shall be approved by the Renton Planning/Building/Public Works Department and METRO. iii. Storm Sewers: A storm sewer drainage system shall be required. Pretreatment of storm runoff or diversion to sanitary sewers may be required to keep deleterious substances out of neighboring watercourses. Storm sewer sizes and specifications shall be determined by the Public Works Department in accordance with City standards. iv. Discharges of Pollutants and Petroleum Products: (a) Agency Review: Discharges of pollutants into watercourses and groundwater shall be subject to the Washington State Department of Ecology, Corps of Engineers, and the Environmental Protection Agency for review of permits for discharge. (b) Oil Separations: These units shall be required at sites that have oil waste disposal into sanitary or storm sewer. These units shall be built to Municipality of Metropolitan Seattle (METRO)or State of Washington Department of Public Health specifications. (c) Petroleum Bulk Storage and Distribution: Petroleum facilities shall hereafter not be allowed. g. Local and Major Utilities—Location and Crossings: Local and Major Utilities shall be designed and developed according to the following criteria and meeting mitigation criteria of J.2: i. Fish and wildlife habitat areas shall be avoided to the maximum extent possible; and 66 ii. The Utility is designed consistent with one or more of the err' following methods: (a) Installation shall be accomplished by boring beneath the scour depth and hyporheic zone of the water body and channel migration zone; or (b)The utilities shall cross at an angle greater than sixty (60) degrees to the centerline of the channel in streams or perpendicular to the channel centerline; or (c)Crossings shall be contained within the footprint of an existing road or utility crossing ; and iii. New utility routes shall avoid paralleling the stream or following a down-valley course near the channel; and iv. The utility installation shall not increase or decrease the natural rate of shore migration or channel migration; and v. Seasonal work windows are determined and made a condition of approval; and vi. Mitigation for impacts is provided pursuant to an approved mitigation plan per Subsection J.2. L. VARIANCES AND CONDITIONAL USES: See RMC 4-9-197I. (Ord. 4722, 5-11-1998) M. VIOLATIONS AND PENALTIES: See RMC 1-3-2. (Ord. 4722, 5-11-1998) N.APPEALS: See RMC 4-8-110H. (Ord. 4722, 5-11-1998) Niure 67 SECTION VI: Chapter Eight Section 4-8-120.d Definitions of terms used in submittal requirements for building, planning, and public works permit applications is hereby amended to read as follows: 19. Definitions S: Shoreline Conditional Use Justification: A written statement setting forth the reasons in favor of the shoreline conditional use permit application and addressing the criteria listed in RMC 4-9-197I5b, and used by the Hearing Examiner in reviewing the permit request. (Ord. 4587, 3-18-1996) Shoreline Variance Justification: A written statement setting forth the reasons in favor of the shoreline variance application and addressing the criteria listed in RMC 4- 9-19714b, and used by the Hearing Examiner when reviewing the variance request. SECTION VII: Chapter Nine Procedure and Review Critieria, Section4-9-197 SHORELINE PERMITS is hereby amended to read as follows: A.PURPOSE: (Reserved) B.APPLICABILITY: (Reserved) C.EXEMPTIONS FROM PERMIT SYSTEM: The following shall not be considered substantial developments for the purpose of this Master Program. 1. Any project with a certification from the Governor pursuant to chapter 80.50 RCW. 2. Any development of which the total cost or fair market value does not exceed five thousand dollars $5,000.00), if such development does not materially interfere with the normal public use of the water or shorelines of the State. 68 3. Normal maintenance or repair of existing structures or developments, including damage by accident, fire or elements. a. "Normal maintenance"includes those usual acts to prevent a decline, lapse, or cessation from a lawfully established condition. b. "Normal repair"means to restore a development to a state comparable to its original condition, including but not limited to its size, shape,configuration, location and external appearance, within a reasonable period after decay or partial destruction, except where repair causes substantial adverse effects to the shoreline resource or environment. c. Replacement of a structure or development may be authorized as repair where such replacement is the common method of repair for the type of structure or development and the replacement structure or development is comparable to the original %rr structure or development including, but not limited to,its size, shape, configuration, location and external appearance and the replacement does not cause substantial adverse effects to shoreline resources or environment. 4. Construction of the normal protective bulkhead common to single family residences. A "normal protective" bulkhead includes those structural and nonstructural developments installed at or near, and parallel to, the ordinary high water mark for the sole purpose of protecting an existing single family residence and appurtenant structures from loss or damage by erosion. A normal protective bulkhead is not exempt if it is constructed for the purpose of creating additional dry land. Additional construction requirements are found in WAC 173-27-040(2)(c). fir►. 69 5. Emergency construction necessary to protect property from damage by the elements. a. An "emergency" is an unanticipated and imminent threat to public health, safety, or the environment which requires immediate action within a time too short to allow for full compliance with this program. b. Emergency construction does not include development of new permanent protective structures where none previously existed. Where new protective structures are deemed to be the appropriate means to address the emergency situation, upon abatement of the emergency situation,the new structure shall be removed or any permit which would have been required, absent an emergency, pursuant to chapter 90.58 RCW, chapter 17-27 WAC or this Shoreline Program shall be obtained. c. All emergency construction shall be consistent with the policies of chapter 90.58 RCW and this Program. d. In general, flooding or other seasonal events that can be anticipated and may occur,but that are not imminent are not an emergency. 6. Construction and practices normal or necessary for farming, irrigation, and ranching activities, including agricultural service roads and utilities on shorelands, and the construction and maintenance of irrigation structures, including,but not limited to, head gates,pumping facilities, and irrigation channels. A feedlot of any size, all processing plants, other activities of a commercial nature, alteration of the contour of the shorelands by leveling or filling, other than that which results from normal cultivation, shall not be considered normal or necessary farming or ranching activities. A feedlot shall be an enclosure or facility used or capable of being used for feeding livestock hay, grain, 70 silage, or other livestock feed, but shall not include land for growing crops or vegetation for livestock feeding and/or grazing,nor shall it include normal livestock wintering operations. 7. Construction on shorelands by an owner, lessee or contract purchaser of a single family residence for his own use or for the use of his family, which residence does not exceed a height of thirty five feet (35') above average grade level as defined in WAC 173-27-030 and which meets all requirements of the State agency or local government having jurisdiction thereof, other than requirements imposed pursuant to this Section. a. "Single family" residence means a detached dwelling designed for and occupied by one family including those structures and developments within a contiguous ownership which are a normal appurtenance. An "appurtenance"is necessarily connected to the use and enjoyment of a single family residence and is located landward of the ordinary high water mark and the perimeter of a wetland. b. Construction authorized under this exemption shall be located landward of the ordinary high water mark. 8. Construction of a dock including a community dock designed for pleasure craft only, for the private noncommercial use of the owner, lessee, or contract purchaser of single and multi-family residences. a. This exception applies if either: i. In salt waters, the fair market value of the dock does not exceed two thousand five hundred dollars ($2,500.00). ii. In fresh waters,the fair market value of the dock does not exceed ten thousand dollars ($10,000.00); however, if subsequent construction having a 71 fair market value exceeding two thousand five hundred dollars ($2,500.00) occurs within Nord five (5) years of completion of the prior construction,the subsequent construction shall be considered a substantial development permit. b. A dock is a landing and moorage facility for watercraft and does not include recreational decks, storage facilities or other appurtenances. 9. Construction or modification,by or under the authority of the Coast Guard or a designated port management authority, of navigational aids such as channel markers and anchor buoys. 10. Operation, maintenance, or construction of canals, waterways, drains, reservoirs, or other facilities that now exist or are hereafter created or developed as part of an irrigation system for the primary purpose of making use of system waters, including return flow and artificially stored groundwater for the irrigation of lands. Nod 11. The marking of property lines or corners on State-owned lands when such marking does not interfere with the normal public use of the surface of the water. 12. Operation and maintenance of any system of dikes, ditches, drains, or other facilities existing on September 8, 1975, which were created, developed, or utilized primarily as a part of an agricultural drainage or diking system. 13. Site exploration and investigation activities that are prerequisites to preparation of an application for development authorization under this program,if: a. The activity does not interfere with the normal public use of the surface waters. 72 b.The activity will have no significant adverse impact on the environment Nr.r including, but not limited to, fish, wildlife, fish or wildlife habitat, water quality, and aesthetic values. c. The activity does not involve the installation of a structure, and upon completion of the activity the vegetation and land configuration of the site are restored to conditions existing before the activity. d. A private entity seeking development authorization under this program first posts a performance bond or provides other evidence of financial responsibility to the Development Services Division to ensure that the site is restored to pre-existing conditions. e. The activity is not subject to the permit requirements of RCW 90.58.550. 14. The process of removing or controlling an aquatic noxious weed, as defined in RCW 17.26.020, through the use of a herbicide or other treatment methods applicable to weed control that are recommended by a final environmental impact statement published by the Department of Agriculture or the Department of Ecology jointly with other State agencies under chapter 43.21C RCW. 15. Watershed restoration projects as defined below: a. "Watershed restoration project"means a public or private project authorized by the sponsor of a watershed restoration plan that implements the plan or a part of the plan and consists of one or more of the following activities: i. A project that involves less than ten (10)miles of streamreach, in which less than twenty five (25)cubic yards of sand, gravel, or soil is removed, imported, 73 disturbed or discharged, and in which no existing vegetation is removed except as minimally necessary to facilitate additional plantings. ii. A project for the restoration of an eroded or unstable stream bank that employs the principles of bioengineering,including limited use of rock as a stabilization only at the toe of the bank, and with primary emphasis on using native vegetation to control the erosive forces of flowing water. iii. A project primarily designed to improve fish and wildlife habitat, remove or reduce impediments to migration of fish, or enhance the fishery resource available for use by all of the citizens of the State,provided that any structure, other than a bridge or culvert or instream habitat enhancement structure associated with the project, is less than two hundred(200) square feet in floor area and is located above the ordinary high water mark of the stream. b. "Watershed restoration plan" means a plan, developed or sponsored by a State department, a federally recognized Indian Tribe, a city, a county or a conservation district, for which agency and public review has been conducted pursuant to chapter 43.21C RCW,the State Environmental Policy Act. The watershed restoration plan generally contains a general program and implementation measures or actions for the preservation,restoration, re-creation, or enhancement of the natural resources, character, and ecology of a stream, stream segment, drainage area, or watershed. 16. A public or private project, the primary purpose of which is to improve fish or wildlife habitat or fish passage, when all of the following apply: Nod 74 a. The project has been approved in writing by the Department of Fish and '40rrr Wildlife as necessary for the improvement of the habitat or passage and appropriately designed and sited to accomplish the intended purpose. b. The project has received hydraulic project approval by the Department of Fish and Wildlife pursuant to chapter 75.20 RCW. c. The Development Services Division has determined that the project is consistent with this Master Program. 17. Hazardous substance remedial actions pursuant to WAC 173-27-040(3). D.EXEMPTION CERTIFICATE PROCEDURES: 1. Any person claiming exemption from the permit requirements of this Master Program as a result of the exemptions specified in this Section shall make application for a no-fee exemption certificate to the Development Services Division in the manner prescribed by that division. 2. Any development which occurs within the regulated shorelines of the State under Renton's jurisdiction, whether it requires a permit or not, must be consistent with the intent of the State law. 3. The City may attach conditions to the approval of exempted developments and/or uses as necessary to assure consistency of the project with the Shoreline Management Act and this Program. 4. If any part of a proposed development is not eligible for exemption, then a shoreline permit is required for the entire proposed development project. E. SHORELINE PERMIT APPLICATION PROCEDURES: *r✓ 75 1. Information Prior to Submitting a Shoreline Substantial Development Permit vftiti Application: Prior to submitting an application for a shoreline permit or an exemption from a shoreline permit, the applicant should informally discuss a proposed development with the Development Services Division. This will enable the applicant to become familiar with the requirements of this Master Program,Building and Zoning procedures, and enforcement procedures. 2. Shoreline Substantial Development Permit Required: No shoreline development shall be undertaken on shorelines of the City without first obtaining a "substantial development permit"from the Development Services Division. 3. Shoreline Substantial Development Permit Application Forms and Fees: Submittal requirements and fees shall be as listed in RMC 4-3-090.J.2, Studies Required, and RMC 4-8-120C,Land Use Applications and 4-1-170,Land Use Review Fees. 4. Secondary Review By Independent Qualified Professionals: When appropriate due to the type of critical areas,habitat, or species present, or project area conditions, the Reviewing Official may require the applicant to prepare or fund analyses or activities conducted by third party or parties selected by the Reviewing Official and paid for by the applicant. Analyses and/or activities conducted under this Subsection include,but are not limited to: a. Evaluation by an independent qualified professional of the applicant's analysis and the effectiveness of any proposed mitigating measures or programs,to include any recommendations as appropriate; and 76 b. A request for consultation with the Washington Department of Fish and 'grr Wildlife, Washington State Department of Ecology, or the local Native American Indian Tribe or other appropriate agency; and/or c. Analysis of detailed surface and subsurface hydrologic features both on and adjacent or abutting to the site. 5. Public Notice: Three (3)copies of a notice of development application shall be posted prominently on the property concerned and in conspicuous public places within three hundred (300) feet thereof. The notice of development application shall also be mailed to property owners within three hundred(300)feet of the boundaries of the subject property. The required contents of the notice of development application are detailed in RMC 4-8-090B, Public Notice Requirements. 6. Standard Public Comment Time: Each notice of development application shall include a statement that persons desiring to present their views to the Development Services Division with regard to said application may do so in writing to that Division and persons interested in the Development Services Division's action on an application for a permit may submit their views in writing or notify the Development Services Division in writing of their interest within thirty(30) days from the date of the notice of application. 7. Special Public Comment Time: Notice of development application for a substantial development permit regarding a limited utility extension as defined in RCW 90.58.140 (11)(b) or for the construction of a bulkhead or other measures to protect a single family residence and its appurtenant structures from shoreline erosion shall include a twenty (20)day comment period. 77 Such notification or submission of views to the Development Services Division NNid shall entitle those persons to a copy of the action taken on the application. 8. Review Guidelines: Unless exempted or authorized through the variance or conditional use permit provisions of this Master Program, no substantial development permit and no other permit shall be granted unless the proposed development is consistent with the provisions of this Master Program, the Shoreline Management Act of 1971, and the rules and regulations adopted by the Department of Ecology thereunder. 9. Conditional Approval: Should the Development Services Division Director or his/her designee find that any application does not substantially comply with criteria imposed by the Master Program and the Shoreline Management Act of 1971, he may deny such application or attach any terms or condition which he deems suitable and reasonable to effect the purpose and objective of this Master Program. 10. Notification of City Departments: It shall be the duty of the Development Services Division to timely furnish copies of all applications and actions taken by said division unto such other officials or departments whose jurisdiction may extend to all or any part of the proposed development. F. REVIEW CRITERIA: 1. General: The Development Services Division shall review an application for a permit based on the following: a.The application. b. The environmental impact statement,if one is required. c. Written comments from interested persons. d. Information and comments from all affected City departments. e.Evidence presented at a public hearing. 78 f. No authorization to undertake use or development on shorelines of the 16100. state shall be granted by the Responsible Official unless upon review the use or development is determined to be consistent with the policy and provisions of the Shoreline Management Act and the Renton Shoreline Master Program. g. No permit shall be issued for any new or expanded building or structure of a height inconsistent with Renton Shoreline Master Program Public Access Policies. High-rise structures in the shoreline jurisdiction generally should not be permitted, but could be permitted in the shoreline jurisdiction if the Responsible Official determines: i. Views of the shoreline would not be substantially obstructed due to topographic conditions, and ii. Some overriding considerations of the public interest would be served. Shoreline low-rise development should provide substantial grade level views of the water from public shoreline roads running generally parallel to the water's edge. 2. Additional Information: The Development Services Division may require an applicant to furnish information and data in addition to that contained or required in the application forms prescribed. Unless an adequate environmental statement has previously been prepared for the proposed development by another agency,the City's Environmental Review committee shall cause to be prepared such a statement, prior to granting a permit, when the State Environmental Policy Act of 1971 would require such a statement. Nlowe 79 i 3. Procedural Amendments: In addition to the criteria hereinabove set forth in this Section,the Planning/Building/Public Works Department may from time-to-time promulgate additional procedures or criteria and such shall become effective, when reduced to writing, and filed with the City Clerk and as approved by the City Council and the Department of Ecology. 4. Burden of Proof on Applicant: The burden of proving that the proposed substantial development is consistent with the criteria which must be met before a permit is granted shall be on the applicant. G.BONDS: The Development Services Division may require the applicant to post a bond in favor of the City of Renton to assure full compliance with any terms and conditions imposed by said department on any shoreline permit. Said bond shall be in an amount to reasonably assure the City that any deferred improvement will be carried out within the time stipulated. H.ADMINISTRATIVE APPEALS: The Planning/Building/Public Works Department shall have the final authority to interpret the Master Program for the City of Renton. Where an application is denied or changed, per subsection E6 of this Section, an applicant may appeal the decision denying or changing a"substantial development permit"to the Shoreline Hearings Board for an open record appeal in accordance with RMC 4-8-110. See RMC 4-8-110H for appeal procedures to the Shoreline Hearings Board. I. VARIANCES AND CONDITIONAL USES: 80 1. Purpose: The power to grant variances and conditional use permits should be NIlaw utilized in a manner which, while protecting the environment, will assure that a person will be able to utilize his property in a fair and equitable manner. 2. Authority: a. City Hearing Examiner: The Renton Land Use Hearing Examiner shall have authority to grant conditional use permits and variances in the administration of the Renton Master Program. b. State Department of Ecology Decision: Both variances and conditional use permits are forwarded to the Department of Ecology and the Attorney General's office for approval or denial. c.Time Limit, Permit Validity, and Appeals: Conditional permits and variances shall be deemed to be approved within thirty(30) calendar days from the date of receipt by the Department of Ecology and the Attorney General's office unless written communication is received by the applicant and the City indicating otherwise. i. Conditional use permits and variances shall be filed with the State in accordance with RCW 90.58.140(6) and WAC 173-27-130. ii. Permit validity requirements of subsection J of this Section shall apply to conditional use and variance permits. iii. Appeals of conditional use or variance permits shall be made in accordance with RMC 4-8-110H. 3. Interpretation: It shall be recognized that a lawful use at the time the Master Program is adopted is to be considered a permitted use, and maintenance and restoration shall not require a variance or a conditional use permit. 81 4. Variances: a. Purpose: Upon proper application, a substantial development permit may be granted which is at variance with the criteria established in the Renton Master Program where, owing to special conditions pertaining to the specific piece of property, the literal interpretation and strict application of the criteria established in the Renton Master Program would cause undue and unnecessary hardship or practical difficulties. b. Decision Criteria: The fact that the applicant might make a greater profit by using his property in a manner contrary to the intent of the Master Program is not, by itself, sufficient reason for a variance. The Land Use Hearing Examiner must find each of the following: i. Exceptional or extraordinary circumstances or conditions applying to the subject property, or to the intended use thereof, that do not apply generally to other properties on shorelines in the same vicinity. ii.The variance permit is necessary for the preservation and enjoyment of a substantial property right of the applicant possessed by the owners of other properties on shorelines in the same vicinity. iii. The variance permit will not be materially detrimental to the public welfare or injurious to property on the shorelines in the same vicinity. iv.The variance granted will be in harmony with the general purpose and intent of this Master Program. v.The public welfare and interest will be preserved; if more harm will be done to the area by granting the variance than would be done to the applicant by denying it, the variance will be denied,but each property owner shall be entitled to the 82 reasonable use and development of his lands as long as such use and development is in harmony with the general purpose and intent of the Shoreline Management Act of 1971, and the provisions of this Master Program. vi. The proposal meets the variance criteria in WAC 173-27-170. 5. Conditional Use: a. Purpose: Upon proper application, a conditional use permit may be granted. The objective of a conditional use provision is to provide more control and flexibility for implementing the regulations of the Master Program. With provisions to control undesirable effects, the scope of usescan be expanded to include many uses. b. Decision Criteria: Uses classified as conditional uses can be permitted only after consideration and by meeting such performance standards that make the use compatible with other permitted uses within that area. A conditional use permit will be granted subject to each of the following conditions: i. The use must be compatible with other permitted uses within that area. ii. The use will not interfere with the public use of public shorelines. iii. Design of the site will be compatible with the surroundings and the City's Master Program. iv. The use shall be in harmony with the general purpose and intent of the City's Master Program. v. The use meets the conditional use criteria in WAC 173-27-160. J. TIME REQUIREMENTS FOR SHORELINE PERMITS: 83 1. Applicability and Modification at Time of Approval: a. The time requirements of this Section shall apply to all substantial development permits and to any development authorized pursuant to a variance or conditional use permit authorized under this Program. b. If it is determined that standard time requirements of subsections J2 and J3 of this Section should not be applied, the Development Services Division shall adopt appropriate time limits as a part of action on a substantial development permit upon a finding of good cause,based on the requirements and circumstances of the project proposed and consistent with the policy and provisions of this Master Program and RCW 90.58.143. If it is determined that standard time requirements of subsections J2 and J3 of this Section should not be applied, the Hearing Examiner, upon a finding of good cause and with the approval of the Department of Ecology, shall establish appropriate time limits as a part of action on a conditional use or variance permit. "Good cause" means that the time limits established are reasonably related to the time actually necessary to perform the development on the ground and complete the project that is being permitted. c. Where specific provisions are not included to establish time limits on a permit as part of action on a permit by the City or the Department of Ecology,the time limits in subsections J2 and J3 of this Section apply. d. Requests for permit extension shall be made in accordance with subsections J2 and J3 of this Section. 2. Construction Commencement: a. Unless a different time period is specified in the shoreline permit as authorized by RCW 90.58.143 and subsection J1 of this Section,construction activities, 84 or a use or activity, for which a permit has been granted pursuant to this Master Program must be commenced within two (2) years of the effective date of a shoreline permit, or the shoreline permit shall terminate, and a new permit shall be necessary. However, the Development Services Division may authorize a single extension for a period not to exceed one year based on reasonable factors, if a request for extension has been filed with the Division before the expiration date, and notice of the proposed extension is given to parties of record and the Department of Ecology. b. Construction activities or commencement of construction referenced in subsection J2a of this Section means that construction applications must be submitted, permits must be issued, and foundation inspections must be completed before the end of the two (2) year period. 3. Construction Completion: A permit authorizing construction shall extend for Niaw a term of no more than five (5) years after the effective date of a shoreline permit,unless a longer period has been specified pursuant to RCW 90.58.143 and subsection J1 of this Section. If an applicant files a request for an extension prior to expiration of the shoreline permit the Development Services Division shall review the permit and upon a showing of good cause may authorize a single extension of the shoreline permit for a period of up to one year. Otherwise said permit shall terminate. Notice of the proposed permit extension shall be given to parties of record and the Department of Ecology. To maintain the validity of a shoreline permit,it is the applicant's responsibility to maintain valid construction permits in accordance with adopted Building Codes. 4. Effective Date: Noble 85 6 a. For purposes of determining the life of a shoreline permit, the effective date of a substantial development permit, shoreline conditional use permit, or shoreline variance permit shall be the date of filing as provided in RCW 90.58.140(6). The permit time periods in subsections J2 and J3 of this Section do not include the time during which a use or activity was not actually pursued due to the pendency of administrative appeals or legal actions, or due to the need to obtain any other government permits and approvals for the development that authorize the development to proceed, including all reasonably related administrative or legal actions on any such permits or approvals. b. It is the responsibility of the applicant to inform the Development Services Division of the pendency of other permit applications filed with agencies other than the City, and of any related administrative or legal actions on any permit or approval. If no notice of the pendency of other permits or approvals is given to the Division prior to the expiration date established by the shoreline permit or the provisions of this Section, the expiration of a permit shall be based on the effective date of the shoreline permit. c. The City shall issue permits within applicable time limits specified in the Type III and Type VI review processes in RMC 4-8-080H. Substantial development permits for a limited utility extension as defined in RCW 90.58.140(11)(b) or for the construction of a bulkhead or other measures to protect a single family residence and its appurtenant structures from shoreline erosion shall be issued within twenty one (21) days of the last day of the comment period specified in RMC 4-9-197E3. 5.Review Period—Construction Authorization: 86 a. No construction pursuant to such permit shall begin or be authorized ''4r✓ and no building, grading or other construction permits or use permits shall be issued by the City until twenty one (21) days from the date the permit was filed with the Department of Ecology and the Attorney General, or until all review proceedings are completed as were initiated within the twenty one (21) days of the date of filing. Filing shall occur in accordance with RCW 90.58.140(6) and WAC 173-27-130. b. If the granting of a shoreline permit by the City is appealed to the Shoreline Hearings Board, and the Shoreline Hearings Board has approved the granting of the permit, and an appeal for judicial review of the Shoreline Hearings Board decision is filed, construction authorization may occur subject to the conditions, time periods, and other provisions of RCW 90.58.140(5)(b). K. RULINGS TO STATE: Any ruling on an application for a substantial development permit under authority of this Master Program, whether it is an approval or denial, shall, with the transmittal of the ruling to the applicant, be filed concurrently with the Department of Ecology and the Attorney General by the Development Services Division.Filing shall occur in accordance with RCW 90.58.140(6) and WAC 173-27-130. L. TRANSFERABILITY OF PERMIT: If a parcel which has a valid shoreline permit is sold to another person or firm, such permit may be transferred to the new owner. M.ENFORCEMENT: 87 All provisions of this Master Program shall be enforced by the Development .4001 Services Division. For such purposes, the Director or his duly authorized representative shall have the power of a police officer. N.RESCISSION OF PERMITS: 1. Noncompliance with Permit: Any shoreline permit issued under the terms of this Master Program may be rescinded or suspended by the Development Services Division of the City upon a finding that a permittee has not complied with conditions of the permit. 2. Notice of Noncompliance: Such rescission and/or modification of an issued permit shall be initiated by serving written notice of noncompliance on the permittee, which notice shall be sent by registered or certified mail, return receipt requested,to the address listed on the application or to such other address as the applicant or permittee Nod may have advised the City; or such notice may be served on the applicant or permittee in person or his agent in the same manner as service of summons as provided by law. 3. Posting: In addition to such notice, the Development Services Division shall cause to have notice posted in three (3)public places of which one posting shall be at or within the area described in the permit. 4. Public Hearing: Before any such permit can be rescinded, a public hearing shall be held by the Land Use Hearing Examiner. Notice of the public hearing shall be made in accordance with RMC 4-8-090D, Public Notice Requirements. 5. Final Decision: The decision of the Land Use Hearing Examiner shall be the final decision of the City on all rescinded applications. A written decision shall be transmitted to the Department of Ecology, the Attorney General's office, the applicant, 88 and such other departments or boards of the City as are affected thereby and the legislative body of the City. O.APPEALS: See RMC 4-8-110H. P. VIOLATIONS AND PENALTIES: 1. Prosecution: Every person violating any of the provisions of this Master Program or the Shoreline Management Act of 1971 shall be punishable under conviction by a fine not exceeding one thousand dollars ($1,000.00), or by imprisonment not exceeding ninety (90) days, or by both such fine and imprisonment, and each day's violation shall constitute a separate punishable offense. 2. Injunction: The City Attorney may bring such injunctive, declaratory or other actions as are necessary to insure that no uses are made of the shorelines of the State the City's jurisdiction which are in conflict with the provisions and programs of this Master Program or the Shoreline Management Act of 1971, and to otherwise enforce provisions of this Section and the Shoreline Management Act of 1971. 3. Public and Private Redress: Any person subject to the regulatory program of this Master Program who violates any provision of this Master Program or the provisions of a permit issued pursuant thereto shall be liable for all damages to public or private property arising from such violation, including the cost of restoring the affected area to its condition prior to such violation. The City Attorney may bring suit for damages under this subsection on behalf of the City. Private persons shall have the right to bring suit for damages under this subsection on their own behalf and on behalf of all persons similarly situated. If liability has been established for the cost of restoring an area affected by Nome 89 violation, the Court shall make provision to assure that restoration will be accomplished within a reasonable time at the expense of the violator. In addition to such relief, including monetary damages,the Court in its discretion may award attorney's fees and costs of the suit to the prevailing party. SECTION VIII: Chapter 10 Legal Nonconforming Structures, Uses and Lots Section 100 is hereby amended to read as follows: 4-10-100 SHORELINE MASTER PROGRAM — NONCONFORMING USES, ACTIVITIES,AND STRUCTURES: A shoreline use or development which was lawfully constructed or established prior to the effective date of the applicable Shoreline Master Program, or amendments thereto,but which does not conform to present regulations or standards of the program, may be continued provided that: A.Nonconforming Structures: Nonconforming structures shall be governed by RMC 4-10-050. B.Nonconforming Uses.Nonconforming uses shall be governed by RMC 4-10-060. C.Pre-Existing Legal Lot: Reserved. SECTION IV: Title IV Chapter 11,Definitions is hereby amended to add definitions of pertaining to the Shoreline Master Program as follows: ACT,SHORELINE MANAGEMENT: (This definition for RMC 4-3-090, Shoreline Master Program Regulations, use only.)The Shoreline Management Act of 1971, chapter 90.58 RCW as amended. ACTIVITY: A happening associated with a use; the use of energy toward a specific action or pursuit. Examples of shoreline activities include but are not limited to fishing, 90 swimming, boating, dredging, fish spawning, wildlife nesting, or discharging of materials. Not all activities necessarily require a shoreline location. AQUACULTURE: The culture of farming of aquatic animals and plants. 4-11-020 DEFINITIONS B: BOAT LAUNCHING RAMP: A facility with an inclined surface extending into the water which allows launching of boats directly into the water from trailers. BREAKWATER: A protective structure, usually built off-shore for the purpose of protecting the shoreline or harbor area from wave action. BUFFER,SHORELINES: BUFFER,SHORELINES: A strip of land that is designated to permanently remain vegetated in an undisturbed and natural condition to protect an adjacent aquatic, riparian, or wetland site from upland impacts, to provide habitat for wildlife and to afford limited public access. 44400. BULKHEAD: A vertical wall constructed of rock,concrete,timber, sheet steel, gabions, or patent system materials. Rock bulkheads are often termed"vertical rock walls." Seawalls are similar to bulkheads,but more robustly constructed. BUOY: A floating object anchored in a lake,river, etc., to warn of rocks, shoals, etc., or used for boat moorage. 4-11-030 DEFINITIONS C: CIRCULATION: The movement of passengers or goods to, from, over, or along a transportation corridor. CONDITIONAL USE,SHORELINE: (This definition for RMC 4-3-090, Shoreline Master Program Regulations, use only.) A use, development, or substantial development Now 91 which is classified as a conditional use or is not classified within the applicable master program. CORRIDOR: A strip of land forming a passageway between two (2)otherwise separate parts. 4-11-040 DEFINITIONS D: DEVELOPMENT: (This definition for RMC 4-3-090, Shoreline Master Program Regulations, use only.)A use consisting of the construction of exterior alteration of structures; dredging; drilling; dumping; filling; removal of any sand, gravel or minerals; bulkheading; driving of piling; placing of obstructions; or any other projects of a permanent or temporary nature which interferes with the normal public use of the surface of the waters overlying lands subject to the Act at any state of water level. DOCK: A fixed or floating platform extending from the shore over the water. Ned DREDGING: The removal of earth from the bottom or banks of a body of water. 4-11-050 DEFINITIONS E: ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT: A development which provides a service, produces goods or a product,retails a commodity, or emerges in any other use or activity for the purpose of making financial gain. 4-11-060 DEFINITIONS F: FAIR MARKET VALUE: The open market bid price for conducting the work, using the equipment and facilities, and purchase of the goods, services and materials necessary to accomplish the development. This would normally equate to the cost of hiring a contractor to undertake the development from start to finish,including the cost of labor, materials, equipment and facility usage, transportation and contractor overhead and 92 4 profit. The fair market value of the development shall include the fair market value of any donated, contributed or found labor,equipment or materials FLOOD CONTROL: Any undertaking for the conveyance, control, storage, and dispersal of flood waters. FLOOD, ONE HUNDRED (100) YEAR: The maximum flood expected to occur during a one-hundred (100) year period. FLOODPLAIN: The area subject to a one hundred(100) year flood. FLOODWAY: For purposes of determining the jurisdiction of the Shoreline Master Program in conjunction with the definition of"shoreland," "floodway" means those portions of the area of a river valley lying streamward from the outer limits of a watercourse upon which flood waters are carried during periods of flooding that occur with reasonable regularity, although not necessarily annually, said floodway being identified, under normal condition, by changes in surface soil conditions or changes in types or quality of vegetative ground cover condition. The floodway shall not include those lands that can reasonably be expected to be protected flood waters by flood control devices maintained by or maintained under license from the Federal Government, the State, or a political subdivision of the State. 4-11-070 DEFINITIONS G: 4-11-080 DEFINITIONS H: HEARINGS BOARD: The Shorelines Hearings Board established by the Act. HIGH RISE: (This definition for RMC 4-3-090, Shoreline Master Program Regulations,use only.)A structure exceeding seventy-five (75)feet in height. 4-11-090 DEFINITIONS I: stew 93 4-11-100 DEFINITIONS J: ,4410, 4-11-110 DEFINITIONS K: KENNEL: A commercial facility for the care and/or breeding of dogs and/or cats. 4-11-120 DEFINITIONS L: LANDFILL: Creation or maintenance of beach or creation of dry upland area by the deposit of sand, soil, gravel or other materials into shoreline areas. LICENSED ENGINEER: A professional engineer, licensed to practice in the State of Washington. LOCAL SERVICE UTILITIES: Public or private utilities normally servicing a neighborhood or defined subarea in the City,i.e., telephone exchanges; sewer, both storm and sanitary; distribution lines,electrical less than fifty five (55)kv, telephone, cable TV, etc. 4-11-130 DEFINITIONS M: MAJOR SERVICE UTILITY: Public or private utilities which provide services beyond the City's boundaries,i.e., pipelines, natural gas, water, sewer, petroleum; electrical transmission lines fifty five (55)kv or greater; and regional sewer or water treatment plants, etc. MARINA: (This definition for RMC 4-3-090, Shoreline Master Program Regulations, use only.) A use providing moorage for pleasure craft, which also may include boat launching facilities, storage, sales, and other related services. MASTER PROGRAM: The comprehensive shoreline use plan for the City of Renton and the use regulations,together with maps, diagrams,charts or other descriptive material 94 and text, and a statement of desired goals and standards developed in accordance with the err policies enunciated in Section 2 of the Act. MOORAGE: Any device or structure used to secure a vessel for temporary anchorage, but which is not attached to the vessels. Examples of moorage are docks or buoys. MULTIPLE-USE: (This definition for RMC 4-3-090, Shoreline Master Program Regulations, use only.)The combining of compatible uses within one development, of which the major use or activity is water-oriented. All uses or activities other than the major one are directly related and necessary to the major use or activity. 4-11-140 DEFINITIONS N: 4-11-150 DEFINITIONS 0: OPEN SPACE: (This definition for RMC 4-3-090, Shoreline Master Program Regulations, use only.)A land area allowing view, use or passage which is almost entirely unobstructed by buildings,paved areas, or other manmade structures. ORDINARY HIGH WATER MARK: On lakes and streams, that mark found by examining the bed and banks and ascertaining where the presence and action of waters are so common and usual, and so long continued in all ordinary years, as to mark upon the soil a character distinct from that of the abutting upland, in respect to vegetation as that condition exists as of the effective date of regulations, as it may naturally change thereafter, or as it may change in accordance with permits issued by the City or State. The following criteria clarify this mark on lakes and streams: A. Lakes. Where the ordinary high water mark cannot be found, it shall be the line of mean high water. 95 B. Streams. Where the ordinary high water mark cannot be found, it shall be the line of mean high water. For braided streams, the ordinary high water mark is found on the banks forming the outer limits of the depression within which the braiding occurs. 4-11-160 DEFINITIONS P: PARTY OF RECORD: (This definition for RMC 4-3-090, Shoreline Master Program Regulations, use only.) All persons, agencies or organizations who have submitted written comments in response to a notice of application; made oral comments in a formal public hearing conducted on the application; or notified local government of their desire to receive a copy of the final decision on a permit and who have provided an address for delivery of such notice by mail. PERMIT,SHORELINE: (This definition for RMC 4-3-090, Shoreline Master Program Regulations, use only.)Any substantial development, variance, conditional use permit,or revision authorized under chapter 90.58 RCW. PIER: A general term including docks and similar structures consisting of a fixed or floating platform extending from the shore over the water. PLANNED URBAN DEVELOPMENT: (This definition for RMC 4-3-090, Shoreline Master Program Regulations, use only.) Special contractual agreement between the developer and a governmental body governing development of land. PUBLIC ACCESS: (This definition for RMC 4-3-090, Shoreline Master Program Regulations, use only.) A means of physical approach to and along the shoreline available to the general public. This may also include visual approach. PUBLIC INTEREST: (This definition for RMC 4-3-090, Shoreline Master Program Regulations, use only.)The interest shared by the citizens of the state or community at 96 large in the affairs of government, or some interest by which their rights or liabilities are affected including,but not limited to, an effect on public property or on health, safety, or general welfare resulting from a use or development. 4-11-170 DEFINITIONS Q: 4-11-180 DEFINITIONS R: RECREATION: (This definition for RMC 4-3-090, Shoreline Master Program Regulations, use only.)The refreshment of body and mind through forms of play, amusement or relaxation. The recreational experience may be active, such as boating, fishing, and swimming, or may be passive such as enjoying the natural beauty of the shoreline or its wildlife. 4-11-190 DEFINITIONS S: SETBACK: (For purposes of the Shoreline Master Program.) A required open space specified in the Shoreline Master Program, measured horizontally upland from and perpendicular to the ordinary high water mark. SHORELAND or SHORELAND AREAS: Those lands extending landward for two hundred feet (200)in all directions, as measured on a horizontal plane from ordinary high water mark; floodways and contiguous floodplain areas landward two hundred feet (200 )from such floodways; and all marshes, bogs, swamps, and river deltas, associated with streams,lakes and tidal waters which are subject to the provisions of the State Shorelines Management Act.For purposes of determining jurisdictional area, the boundary will be either two hundred feet(200 ) from the ordinary high water mark, or two hundred feet(200 )from the floodway, whichever is greater. 97 SHORELINES: All of the water areas of the State regulated by the City of Renton, including reservoirs, and their associated shorelands, together with the lands underlying them,except: 1. Shorelines of statewide significance. 2. Shorelines on segments of streams upstream of a point where the mean annual flow is twenty (20)cubic feet per second or less and the wetlands associated with such upstream segments. 3. Shorelines on lakes less than twenty (20) acres in size and wetlands associated with such small lakes. SHORELINES OF STATEWIDE SIGNIFICANCE: Those shorelines described in RCW 90.58.030(2)(e). SHORELINES OF THE STATE: The total of all "shorelines" and"shorelines of statewide significance" regulated by the City of Renton. STRUCTURE: (This definition for RMC 4-3-090, Shoreline Master Program Regulations, use only.) A permanent or temporary edifice or building, or any piece of work artificially built or composed of parts joined together in some definite manner, whether installed on, above, or below the surface of the ground or water, except for vessels. SUBDIVISION: (This definition for RMC 4-3-090, Shoreline Master Program Regulations,use only.) A parcel of land divided into two (2) or more parcels. SUBSTANTIAL DEVELOPMENT: Any development of which the total cost or fair market value exceeds five thousand dollars ($5,000) or any development which materially interferes with the normal public use of the water or shoreline of the State. 98 Exemptions in RCW 90.58.030(3)(e) and in RMC 4-9-190C are not considered 'ter substantial developments. SUBSTANTIAL DEVELOPMENT PERMIT: The shoreline management substantial development permit provided for in Section 14 of the Shoreline Management Act of 1971 (RCW 90.58.140). 4-11-200 DEFINITIONS T: 4-11-210 DEFINITIONS U: UNIQUE AND FRAGILE AREAS: (This definition for RMC 4-3-090, Shoreline Master Program Regulations, use only.)Those portions of the shoreline which (1)contain or substantially contribute to the maintenance of endangered or valuable forms of life and (2)have unstable or potentially hazardous topographic, geologic or hydrologic features (such as steep slopes, marshes). `4"r.r USE: A. Uses, Permitted: Land uses allowed outright within a zone. Uses accessory to permitted uses are treated in RMC 4-11-010 and 4-2-050. B. Uses, Prohibited: Any such use not specifically enumerated or interpreted as allowable in that district. See RMC 4-2-050. C. Uses, Residential: Developments where persons reside including but not limited to single family dwellings, apartments, and condominiums. D. Uses, Unclassified: A use which does not appear in a list of permitted, conditional, or accessory uses, but which is interpreted by the Responsible Official, as similar to a listed permitted,conditional, or accessory use and not otherwise prohibited. See RMC 4-2-050. 4-11-220 DEFINITIONS V: 99 VESSEL: (This definition for RMC 4-3-090, Shoreline Master Program Regulations, use only.) Ships,boats,barges, or any other floating craft which are designed and used for navigation and do not interfere with the normal public use of the water. 4-11-230 DEFINITIONS W: WATER-DEPENDENT: Referring to uses or portions of a use which cannot exist in any other location and is dependent on the water by reason of the intrinsic nature of its operations. Examples of water-dependent uses may include ship cargo terminal loading areas, ferry and passenger terminals, barge loading facilities, ship building and dry docking, marinas, aquaculture,float plane facilities and sewer outfalls. WATER-ENJOYMENT: Referring to a recreational use, or other use facilitating public access to the shoreline as a primary characteristic of the use; or a use that provides for recreational use or aesthetic enjoyment of the shoreline for a substantial number of Nod people as a general characteristic of the use and which through the location, design and operation assures the public's ability to enjoy the physical and aesthetic qualities of the shoreline. In order to qualify as a water-enjoyment use,the use must be open to the general public and the shoreline-oriented space within the project must be devoted to the specific aspects of the use that fosters shoreline enjoyment. Primary water-enjoyment uses may include,but are not limited to,parks,piers and other improvements facilitating public access to the shorelines of the state; and general water-enjoyment uses may include, but are not limited to,restaurants, museums, aquariums, scientific/ecological reserves,resorts/hotels and mixed use commercial/office;provided that such uses conform to the above water-enjoyment specifications and the provisions of the Shoreline Master Program. 100 • WATER-ORIENTED/NONWATER-ORIENTED: "Water-oriented"refers to any combination of water-dependent,water-related, and/or water-enjoyment uses and serves as an all-encompassing definition for priority uses under the Shoreline Management Act. "Nonwater-oriented" serves to describe those uses which have little or no relationship to the shoreline and are not considered priority uses under the Shoreline Management Act. Examples of nonwater-oriented uses include professional offices, automobile sales or repair shops, mini-storage facilities, multi-family residential development, department stores and gas stations; these uses may be considered water-oriented where there is significant public access. WATER-RELATED: Referring to a use or portion of a use which is not intrinsically dependent on a waterfront location, but whose economic viability is dependent upon a waterfront location because: w 1. Of a functional requirement for a waterfront location such as the arrival or shipment of materials by water or the need for large quantities of water; or 2. The use provides a necessary service supportive of the water-dependent commercial activities and the proximity of the use to its customers makes its services less expensive and/or more convenient. Examples include manufacturers of ship parts large enough that transportation becomes a significant factor in the products cost,professional services serving primarily water-dependent activities and storage of water-transported foods. Examples of water-related uses may include warehousing of goods transported by water, seafood processing plants,hydroelectric generating plants, gravel storage when transported by barge, oil refineries where transport is by tanker, and log storage. 101 V 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: 102 ORA FT CITY OF RENTON,WASHINGTON err ORDINANCE NO. AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF RENTON, WASHINGTON, AMENDING CHAPTER THREE ENVIRONMENTAL - REGULATIONS AND SPECIAL DISTRICTS, CHAPTER FOUR - DEVELOPMENT STANDARDS, CHAPTER EIGHT - SUBMITTAL REQUIREMENTS, CHAPTER NINE - PROCEDURES, AND CHAPTER ELEVEN - DEFINITIONS; OF TITLE IV (DEVELOPMENT REGULATIONS) OF ORDINANCE NO. 4260 ENTITLED "CODE OF GENERAL ORDINANCES OF THE CITY OF RENTON, WASHINGTON" TO AMEND TO INCLUDE CRITICAL AREAS REGULATIONS. WHEREAS,The Growth Management Act mandates an update of the Critical Areas Ordinance based on Best Available Science, and WHEREAS, The City conducted a Best Available Science review of all existing and proposed critical areas regulations, and WHEREAS,the City established a public participation program pursuant to RCW sloe 36.70A.130(2) and provided notice of the update process pursuant to RCW 36.70A.035, provided for early and continuous public participation (RCW 36.70A.140)by publishing a meeting schedule, provided updates to the schedule on public television, held public workshop sessions with the Planning Commission and televised workshop sessions with the Council Committee of the Whole during the period during the months from January to September, 2004; and held two public open houses July 27th and August 17th, 2004 and WHEREAS, such Best Available Science and Critical Areas Regulations being in the best interest for the public benefit; and WHEREAS, The City has provided opportunity for the public to comment on the review and suggest needed revisions of the plan and regulations, and held a public hearings March 2nd and March 21st, and on this matter; 1 NOW,THEREFORE,THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF RENTON, WASHINGTON,DO ORDAIN AS FOLLOWS: SECTION I. The above findings and recitals are found to be true and correct in all respects. 1) The City followed its established public participation program, 2) Revisions are needed to the Critical Areas Regulations and Best Available Science documentation, 3) The City has conducted its seven-year update requirement under RCW36.70A.130 for all portions of the Comprehensive Plan and implementing regulations by completing the portions of the work program needed to implement the Critical Areas, Shorelines and Best Available Science review, 4) The City's program for Best Available Science Critical Areas Regulations features new Stream, River, and Lake Regulations designed to develop standard stream/lake/shoreline buffer widths that would result in no net loss of functions and values, 5) The City's Critical Areas regulations allow for both standard and flexible review processes, so that property owners have an incentive to substantially improve functions and values, and 6) Renton's proposed code would widen buffers as needed to preserve all functions and values (including wildlife), and 7) Renton has performed reconnaissance of its wetlands (and streams) and does understand to a greater degree the functions and values and categories of streams and wetlands in its jurisdiction, increasing confidence in its code structure to protect functions and values by lowering risk, and 2 .*Nw' 8) Renton's areas of linked wildlife habitat are limited to those areas where the City has been active in its purchases of wetlands and wetland banks and property along Springbrook Creek, May Creek, and the Black River, and 9) The City continues to be active in habitat protection and restoration as evidenced in its Capital Improvement Program 2005 to 2010, and 10) Recognizing another concentration of higher value wetlands is found in the Soos Creek vicinity outside of the City limits, Renton has added a policy to do cooperative basin planning for the Soos Creek watershed should annexation be imminent, and 11) All development standards within these sections were reviewed and those that remained without amendment are found to be in compliance with the Growth Management Act, as amended. 'fir SECTION II: Title IV, Chapter Three Environmental Regulations and Special Districts is hereby amended to read as follows. 4-3-050 CRITICAL AREAS REGULATIONS: A.PURPOSE: 1. General: The purposes of this section are to: a. Manage development activities to protect environmental quality; and b. Assist or further the implementation of the policies of the Growth Management Act, the State Environmental Policy Act, chapter 43.21C RCW, and the City Comprehensive Plan; and c. Provide City officials with information to evaluate, approve, condition or deny public or private development proposals with regard to critical area impacts; and 3 d. Protect the public life, health, safety, welfare, and property by minimizing and svalS managing the adverse environmental impacts of development within and abutting critical areas; and e. Protect the public from: i. Preventable maintenance and replacement of public facilities needed when critical area functioning is impaired; and ii. Unnecessary costs for public emergency rescue and relief operations; and iii. Potential litigation on improper construction practices occurring in critical areas. 2. Aquifer Protection: The overall purpose of the aquifer protection regulations is to protect aquifers used as potable water supply sources by the City from contamination by hazardous materials. Other specific purposes include: a. Protect the groundwater resources of the City. b. Provide a means of regulating specific land uses within aquifer protection areas. c. Provide a means of establishing safe construction practices for projects built within an aquifer protection area. d. Protect the City's drinking water supply from impacts by facilities that store, handle, treat, use, or produce substances that pose a hazard to groundwater quality. (Amd. Ord. 4851, 8-7-2000) 3.Flood Hazards: It is the purpose of the flood hazard regulations to: 4 a. Minimize public and private losses due to flood conditions in specific areas; 'fir✓ and b. Minimize expenditure of public money and costly flood control projects; and c. Minimize the need for rescue and relief efforts associated with flooding and generally undertaken at the expense of the general public; and d. Minimize damage to public facilities and utilities such as water and gas mains, electric, telephone and sewer lines, streets, and bridges located in areas of special flood hazard; and e. Help maintain a stable tax base by providing for the sound use and development of areas of special flood hazard so as to minimize future flood blight areas; and f. Ensure that those who occupy the areas of special flood hazard assume responsibility for their actions. 4. Geologic Hazards: The purposes of the geologic hazard regulations are to: a. Minimize damage due to landslide, subsidence or erosion through the control of development; and b. Protect the public against avoidable losses due to maintenance and replacement of public facilities, property damage, subsidy cost of public mitigation of avoidable impacts, and costs for public emergency rescue and relief operations; and c. Reduce the risks to the City and its citizens from development occurring on unstable slopes; and d. Control erosion and sediment run-off from development. 5 5. Habitat Conservation: The primary purpose of habitat conservation regulations is to Neitie minimize impacts to critical habitats and to restore and enhance degraded or lower quality habitat in order to: a. Maintain and promote diversity of species and habitat within the City; and b. Coordinate habitat protection with the City's open space system, whenever possible, to maintain and provide habitat connections; and c. Help maintain air and water quality, and control erosion; and d. Serve as areas for recreation, education, scientific study, and aesthetic appreciation. 6. Streams and Lakes: The purposes of the stream and lake regulations are to: a. Protect riparian habitat in order to provide for bank and channel stability, sustained water supply, flood storage,recruitment of woody debris, leaf litter, nutrients, sediment and pollutant filtering, shade, shelter, and other functions that are important to both fish and wildlife; and b. Prevent the loss of riparian acreage and functions and strive for a net gain over present conditions through restoration where feasible; and, c. Protect aquatic habitat for salmonid species. Other fish/aquatic species are addressed through Habitat Conservation regulations (see Subsection A.5. above) 7. Wetlands: The purposes of the wetland regulations are to: a. Ensure that activities in or affecting wetlands not threaten public safety, cause nuisances, or destroy or degrade natural wetland functions and values; and b. Preserve, protect and restore wetlands by regulating development within them and around them; and 6 c. Protect the public from costs associated with repair of downstream properties Niarge resulting from erosion and flooding due to the loss of water storage capacity provided by wetlands; and d. Prevent the loss of wetland acreage and functions and strive for a net gain over present conditions. B.APPLICABILITY—CRITICAL AREAS DESIGNATIONS/MAPPING: 1. Lands to Which These Regulations Apply: The following critical areas, classified in subsections H.1 through M.1 of this Section, are regulated by this section: a. Aquifer Protection Areas. (Amd. Ord. 4851, 8-7-2000) b. Areas of Special Flood Hazard. c. Sensitive Slopes, twenty five percent (25%) to forty percent (40%) and Protected Slopes,forty percent(40%) or greater. d. Medium,High, and Very High Landslide Hazard Areas. e. High Erosion Hazards. f. High Seismic Hazards. g. Medium and High Coal Mine Hazards. h. Volcanic Hazard Areas. i. Critical Habitats. j. Streams and Lakes: i. All applicable requirements of this Section,RMC 4-3-050 apply to Class 2 to 4 water bodies, as classified in RMC 4-3-050.L.1. ii. Class 5 water bodies, classified in RMC 4-3-050.L.1, are exempt from all provisions of this section,RMC 4-3-050, Critical Areas. 7 iii. Class 1 water bodies, defined in RMC 4-3-050.L.1 are not subject to this section, RMC 4-3-050, Critical Areas Regulations, and are regulated in RMC 4-3-090, Shoreline Master Program Regulations, and RMC 4-9-190, Shoreline Permits. k. Wetlands, Categories 1, 2 and 3. 2. Mapping—General: a. The exact boundary of each critical area depicted on maps referenced herein is approximate and is intended only to provide an indication of the presence of a critical area on a particular site. Additional critical areas may be present on a site. The actual presence of critical areas and the applicability of these regulations shall be based upon the classification criteria for each critical area. (Ord. 4851, 8-7-2000) b. The Planning/Building/Public Works Department shall provide an annual docket process to update the maps. As of the effective date of this section (X, 2005),critical area void reports prepared for permit applications shall be incorporated into critical area mapping as part of the annual docket process. As a result of studies prepared through the permit application process, where the City required increased buffers rather than standard buffers, it shall be noted on the map. 3.Reports and Submittal Requirements: Study requirements and submittal requirements are required in each regulated critical area as follows: a. General Submittal Requirements—All Critical Areas: See RMC 4-3-050.F, Submittal Requirements and Fees, and RMC 4-8-120, Submittal Requirements Specific to Application Type. b.Exempt Activities, Study Requirements: See RMC 4-3-050.C.4.c,Reports and Mitigation Plans Required. 8 c. Aquifer Protection Area Permit Submittal Requirements: See RMC 4-3- Now 050.H.1.e and 4-9-015.E. d. Flood Hazard Data: Flood hazard data is to be applied pursuant to RMC 4-3- 050.1.1.b,Mapping and Documentation. e. Geologic Hazards Special Studies Required: See RMC 4-3-050.J.2, Special Studies Required. f. Habitat Conservation Assessment Required: See RMC 4-3-050.K.2, Habitat Assessment Required. g. Streams and Lakes Studies Required: See RMC 4-3-050.L.3, Study Required. h. Wetlands Studies Required: See RMC 4-3-050.M.3, Study Required. C. APPLICABILITY—EXEMPT,PROHIBITED AND NONCONFORMING ACTIVITIES: 1. Applicability: Unless determined to be exempt from permitting and standards, all proposed development, fill, and activities in regulated critical areas and their buffers shall comply with the requirements of this Section. Expansion or alteration of existing activities shall also comply with the requirements of this Section. Any person seeking to determine whether a proposed activity or land area is subject to this Section may request in writing a determination from the City. Such a request for determination shall contain the information requirements specified by the Department Administrator. a. Aquifer Protection Areas—Compliance with Regulations: The following developments, facilities, uses and activities shall comply with the applicable provisions and restrictions of this Section and chapters 4-4,4-5,4-6,4-9, and 5-5 RMC for the APA zone in 9 which the developments, facilities, uses and activities are located, except as preempted by Federal or State law: i. Development Permits: Development permits shall be reviewed for compliance with the aquifer protection requirements of this Section. ii. Facilities: Facilities, as defined in RMC 4-11-060,Definitions F, which are existing, new, or to be closed are subject to this Section as specified below: (a)Existing Facilities: All owners of facilities which store, handle, treat,use, or produce hazardous materials or have done so in the past, must comply with the permit requirements,release reporting requirements, and closure requirements as set forth in this Section; (b)Existing Facilities—Limitation on Material Increase: In Zone 1 of an APA, no change in operations at a facility shall be allowed that increases the quantities of hazardous materials stored, handled,treated, used, or produced in excess of quantities reported in the initial aquifer protection area operating permit with the following exception: An increase in the quantity of hazardous materials is allowed up to the amount allowed for a new facility in Zone 1 as provided by subsection C.8.d(i) of this Section,Prohibited Activities—Aquifer Protection Areas, Zone 1; (c)New Facilities: All proposals for new facilities within any zone of an aquifer protection area must be reviewed for compliance with this Section prior to issuance of any development permits for uses in which hazardous materials are stored, handled,treated, used or produced or which increase the quantity of hazardous materials stored,handled, treated, used, or produced; 10 (d) Abandonment: No person, persons, corporation or other legal Nome entity shall temporarily or permanently abandon, close, sell, or otherwise transfer a facility in an APA without complying with the requirements of RMC 4-9-015.F, Closure Permits, and permit conditions of this Section; iii. Hazardous Materials—Use, Production, Storage,Treatment,Disposal, or Management: Persons that store, handle, treat, use, or produce a hazardous material as defined by chapter 4-11 RMC, Definitions, shall be subject to the requirements of this Section, and as further specified below: (a) All applications for development permits for uses in which hazardous materials are stored, handled, treated, used or produced or which increase the quantity of hazardous materials stored, handled, treated,used, or produced at a location in the APA must be reviewed for compliance with this Chapter by the Department prior to approval. Nape (b)The focus of review for all permits will be on the hazardous materials that will be stored, handled,treated, used, or produced; and the potential for these substances to degrade groundwater quality. (c)An inventory of hazardous materials on forms provided by the Department shall be submitted to the Department upon application for a development permit. (d)Where required by the Department, plans and specifications for secondary containment shall be submitted and shall comply with subsection H.2.d(i) of this Section, Secondary Containment—Zones 1 and 2. Development permits shall not be issued until plans and specifications for secondary containment, if required, have been approved by the Department. Noire 11 (e)The Generic Hazardous Materials List attached and incorporated as subsection R of this Section is provided for informational purposes. iv. Application of Pesticides and Nitrates: Persons who apply pesticides and/or fertilizer containing nitrate in the APA,except for homeowners applying only to their own property, shall comply with subsection H.3 of this Section,Use of Pesticides and Nitrates— APA Zones 1 and 2. v. Construction Activities: Persons engaged in construction activities as defined in RMC 4-11-030,Definitions C, shall comply with subsection 11.7 of this Section, Construction Activity Standards—Zones 1 and 2, and RMC 4-4-030.C.7, Construction Activity Standards—APA Zones 1 and 2; vi. Fill Material: Persons placing fill material on sites within the APA shall comply with subsection 121.8 of this Section,Fill Material, and RMC 4-4-060.L.4,Fill Nod Material; vii.Fuel Oil Heating Systems: Owners of facilities and structures shall comply with subsection C.8.e(i)(9) and C.8.e(ii)(6) of this Section,Prohibited Activities— Aquifer Protection Areas,Zones 1 and 2,relating to conversion of heating systems to fuel oil and installation of new fuel oil heating systems. viii. Pipelines: Owners of pipelines as defined in RMC 4-11-160 shall comply with subsection 11.6 of this Section,Pipeline Requirements; ix. Solid Waste Landfills: Owners of existing solid waste landfills shall comply with subsection H.9 of this Section,Regulations for Existing Solid Waste Landfills— Zones 1 and 2; Ned 12 x. Surface Water Systems: Surface water systems shall meet the requirements of subsection H.5 of this Section, Surface Water Requirements, and RMC 4-6- 030.E,Drainage Plan Requirements and Methods of Analysis; xi. Unauthorized Release: All persons shall comply with subsection H.10 of this Section, Hazardous Materials—Release Restrictions—Zones 1 and 2, and RMC 4-9- 015.G,Unauthorized Releases; xii. Wastewater Disposal Systems: Owners of structures that are connected to existing on-site sewage disposal systems and proposed wastewater disposal systems shall comply with subsection H.4 of this Section, Wastewater Disposal Requirements, and RMC 4-6- 040.J, Sanitary Sewer Standards, Additional Requirements that Apply within Zones 1 and 2 of an Aquifer Protection Area. 2. Permit Required: a. Permit Required—Development or Alteration: Prior to any development or alteration of a property containing a critical area as defined in subsection B of this Section, Applicability—Critical Areas Designations/Mapping, the owner or designee must obtain a development permit, critical area permit, and/or letter of exemption. No separate critical area permit is required for a development proposal which requires development permits or which has received a letter of exemption. If a proposed activity is not exempt and does not otherwise require a development permit,but is subject to this Section, the Department Administrator shall determine whether to grant or deny a separate critical areas permit based upon compliance with applicable standards and regulations of this Section. 13 b. Aquifer Protection Area—Operating and Closure Permits: Aquifer protection area operating permit and closure permit requirements are contained in RMC 4-9-015, Aquifer Protection Area Permits. 3. Finding of Conformance Required: a. General: Conformance with these critical area regulations shall be a finding in any approval of a development permit or aquifer protection area permit, and such finding shall be documented in writing in the project file. b. Aquifer Protection Areas: No changes in land use shall be allowed nor shall permits for development be issued if the Department finds that the proposed land use, activity, or business is likely to impact the long-term, short-term or cumulative quality of the aquifer. The finding shall be based on the present or past activities conducted at the site; hazardous materials that will be stored, handled,treated, used or produced; and the potential for the land use, activity, or business to degrade groundwater quality. 4. Letter of Exemption: a. Aquifer Protection,Flood Hazards, Geologic Hazards,Habitat Conservation, Streams and Lakes, Wetlands: Except in the case of public emergencies, all exemptions in subsections C5, C6 and C7 of this Section require that a letter of exemption be obtained from the Department Administrator prior to construction or initiation of activities. b. Applicability of Section Requirements to Exempt Activities: Exempt activities provided with a letter of exemption may intrude into the critical area or required buffer subject to any listed conditions or requirements. Exempt activities do not need to comply with mitigation ratios of subsection M11 of this Section,Wetlands Creation and Restoration, or subsection M12 of this Section,Wetland Enhancement, unless required in exemption criteria. 14 c. Reports and Mitigation Plans Required: A report for the specific critical area 'torr affected, and/or enhancement or mitigation plan shall be required pursuant to subsections H to M, unless otherwise waived by the Department Administrator. d. Administrator Findings: In determining whether to issue a letter of exemption for activities listed in subsections C5, C6, and C7 of this Section, the Administrator shall find that: i. The activity is not prohibited by this or any other chapter of the RMC or State or Federal law or regulation; ii. The activity will be conducted using best management practices as specified by industry standards or applicable Federal agencies or scientific principles; iii. Impacts are minimized and, where applicable, disturbed areas are immediately restored, unless the exemption is a wetland below the size thresholds pursuant to Now subsection. iv. Where water body or buffer disturbance has occurred in accordance with an exemption during construction or other activities,revegetation with native vegetation shall be required. v. If a hazardous material, activity, and/or facility that is exempt pursuant to this Section has a significant or substantial potential to degrade groundwater quality,then the Department Administrator may require compliance with the aquifer protection requirements of this Section otherwise relevant to that hazardous material, activity, and/or facility. Such determinations will be based upon site and/or chemical-specific data. 5. Specific Exemptions—Critical Areas and Buffers: Specific exempt activities are listed in the following table. If an "X" appears in a box, the listed exemption applies in the specified 15 critical area and required buffer. If an "X" does not appear in a box,then the exemption does not apply in the particular critical area or required buffer. Where utilized in the following table the term "restoration"means returning the subject area back at a minimum to its original state following the performance of the exempt activity. Activities taking place in critical areas and their associated buffers and listed in the following table are exempt from the applicable provisions of this Section,provided a letter of exemption has been issued per subsection C4 of this Section, Letter of Exemption. Whether the exempted activities are also exempt from permits will be determined based upon application of chapters 44=8 and 4-9 RMC, or other applicable sections of the Renton Municipal Code. I EXEMPT ACTIVITIES—PERMITTED WITHIN v CRITICAL AREAS AND ASSOCIATED BUFFERS 1 EXEMPT ACTIVITYo N 0 a) I O c� 1 � �O 'b ,ztcs' O xN A 4w i ' d c� w o -, xU� LIC;W U a. Conservation,Enhancement,Education and Related Activities: i. Natural Resource/Habitat xl X XX X Conservation or Preservation: Conservation or preservation of soil, water, vegetation, fish !and other wildlife. I Li.Enhancement activities as X X 1 X X defined in chapter 4-11 RMC. 'ii. Approved XlX X X 'estoration/Mitigation: Any critical area and/or buffer estoration or other mitigation activities that have been ;approved by the City. 16 b. Research and Site Investigation: i. Education and Research: 1 x1 1 X X 1 X X X Nondestructive education and research. g� «w1-» ..«...............r..a, w................. .. ...warnw,-.wwx .a - wu.M..a 1 iii. Site Investigative Work: ? X1 i X X 1 X X X :Site investigative work s ;necessary for land use ;application submittals such as 1 :surveys, soil logs,percolation !tests and other related 1 !activities. Investigative work 1 :shall not disturb any more Ethan five percent (5%) of the "critical area and required =buffer. In every case, impacts shall be minimized and disturbed areas shall be Immediately restored at a 1:1 i ratio. i L Li_ , „ _____ t 1c. Agricultural, Harvesting, Vegetation Management: 4i. Harvesting Wild Foods: The xl X X X X X harvesting of wild foods in a !manner that is not injurious to i natural reproduction of such oods and provided the i- arvesting does not require I illing of soil, planting of crops or alteration of the ;critical area. 17 I:7-7 --- "--- i. Existing/Ongoing X X �Mr X X X— gricultural Activities: I Existing and ongoing !! 1 agricultural activities i I Including farming, s thorticulture, aquaculture and/or maintenance of existing Irrigation systems. Activities ion areas lying fallow as part o / i, is conventional rotational cycle dare part of an ongoing ;i i !operation,provided that the agricultural activity must have I 1 k !been conducted within the last i five years. Activities that ° bring a critical area into agricultural use are not part of I an ongoing operation.. k vi aintenance of existing legally installed irrigation, ditch and pipe systems is t {allowed; new or expanded I i irrigation, ditch, outfall or !other systems are not exempt. fit is necessary to reduce the 'mpacts of agricultural i .ractices to critical areas, the 1 esponsible Official may equire a farm management eOm based on the King ounty Conservation D istrict's Farm Conservation and Practice Standards, or I t other best management practices. 3 ...r0' 18 ,,. iii.Dead or Diseased Trees: Xl X X = X i X: Limited to f X: Tree Removal of dead, terminally i i cutting of hazard cutting of diseased, damaged, or I I ! trees; such hazard % hazard trees 'dangerous ground cover or ,, trees shall be or other hazard trees which have been e retained as large ; woody certified as such by a forester, i i woody debris in vegetation :registered landscape architect, ithe stream/buffer I accomplished for certified arborist, selection corridor, wheresuch that trees of which to be approved by s i feasible. ?are retained in the City based on the type of I 1 ithe wetland information required, or the and buffer `City prior to their removal. . t i where 1 feasible. 1. Surface Water: 19 i. New Surface Water ! 1 X X X , 440 'Discharges: New surface water discharges to wetland i t i :Categories 1, 2 and 3, or buffers of Categories 1, 2 and „ 3, and to streams or lakes g from detention facilities, I 1 `presettlement ponds or other =surface water management structures; provided, the discharge meets the 4 (requirements of the Storm land Surface Water Drainage g 2.egulations (RMC 4-6-030); 'will not result in significant adverse changes in the water i i temperature or chemical characteristics of the wetland t or stream/lake water sources; t !and there is no increase in the 1 1 existing rate of flow unless it ;can be demonstrated that the !change in hydrologic regime would result in equal or I improved wetland or 1 stream/lake functions and values. Where differences 1 'exist between these regulations and RMC 4-6-030 ,these regulations will take precedence. 1 20 v err . New or modified Regional f . & .. X . ... Xa�,.�. X x... .. IStormwater Facilities: i Regional stormwater 1 i i 1 management facilities to be i i ¢operated and maintained under the direction of the Cityl 1 1 # Surface Water Utility that are g proposed and designed i i consistent with the i i I ashington State Department: f Ecology Wetlands and 1 1 I i tormwater Management i uidelines or meeting r equivalent objectives . For iabitat conservation areas, 1 ! his exemption applies only tot Category 1 wetlands. ... . 1 Fii. Flood Hazard Reduction: X X d mplementation of public € 1 s ood hazard reduction and ublic surface water projects, 1 here habitat enhancement '4411°' and restoration at a 1:1 ratio tare provided, and appropriate 1 J ederal and/or State authorization has been eceived. i ti t .." 'e. Roads,Parks,Public and Private Utilities: 21 i. Relocation of Existing 9 X1 X 1 X X X X lUtilities out of Critical Area i I 1 land Buffer: Relocation out of `critical areas and required i i buffers of natural gas, cable, communication, telephone land electric facilities, lines, I I 1 pipes, mains, equipment and 1 1 appurtenances, (not including substations), with an i t associated voltage of fifty1 dive thousand(55,000) volts !or less, only when required I by a local governmental agency, and with the approval 1 of the City. Disturbed areas shall be restored. 22 msi.m....r¢ Bs # ii. Existing Parks,Trails, X X t Roads,Facilities, and Utilities ) 1 3 # t Maintenance, Operation, Repair: Normal and routine i :maintenance, operation and 1 xepair of existing parks and 'trails, streets, roads, rights-of- away and associated i !appurtenances, facilities and 1 i ;:utilities where no alteration or I1 1 I additional fill materials will F ;be placed other than the minimum alteration and/or 1 ifill needed to restore those €facilities to meet established !safety standards. The use of ;heavy construction equipment i k Eshall be limited to utilities I Viand public agencies that require this type of equipment !for normal and routine maintenance and repair of i existing utility structures and 44111' ghts-of-way. In every case, 'critical area and required . � q � buffer impacts shall be I ;minimized and disturbed 1 !areas shall be restored during land immediately after the use hof construction equipment. 23 ;iii.Utilities,Traffic Control, 1 3 X j X X X ;Walkways,Bikeways Within s 1 Existing, Improved Right-of- I Way or Easements: Within i I ;existing improved public road rights-of -way or easements, 1 installation, construction, replacement, operation, overbuilding, or alteration of 1 all natural gas, cable, communication, telephone 1 i and electric facilities, lines pipes, mains, equipment or !appurtenances, traffic control devices, illumination, ;walkways and bikeways. If lactivities exceed the existing improved area or the public !right-of-way, this exemption ;does not apply. Where t 1 i applicable,restoration of disturbed areas shall be 1 (completed. ,....00 24 iv. Modification of Existing :. X. .3 r X X: .m..... `'' `Utilities and Streets b Ten g Y d Exemption §Percent (10%) or Less: ? Exemptio lis not allowed'. `.Overbuilding (enlargement c > n is not in Category 1 beyond existing project i ; :allowed in; wetlands. !needs) or replacement of i Category existing utility systems and 1 replacement and/or a 3wetlands. 'rehabilitation of existing streets, provided: (1)The work does not si € ;increase the footprint of the structure, line or street by more than ten percent (10%) ;within the critical area and/or1I i 1 ;buffer areas, and occurs in the, 1 :existing right- of-way boundary or easement boundary. 1 t (2) Restoration shall be conducted where feasible. 'Compensation for impacts to buffers shall include 1 ' enhancement of the §remaining buffer area along11 the impacted area where there ; s enhancement opportunity. l 1 (3)The Administrator j determines that based on best 'judgment, a person would !not: (a)be able to meaningfully measure , j !detect, or evaluate I 'insignificant effects; or(b) 11¢expect discountable effects to , occur. 1 i t (4)This exemption allows for 10% maximum expansion total,life of the project. After The 10% expansion cap is preached,future improvements 'are subject to all applicable i Noime ;provisions of RMC 4-3-050. 1 a `p _ I 25 - 'v. Vegetation ,m X X XiM Y X: Trees shall be 1 X: Tree Management/Essential Tree £ i 1 I retained as large cutting and i .Removal for Public or Privatei woody debris in vegetation Utilities, Roads, and Public the stream/buffer 1 management =Parks: Maintenance activities„ , corridor, where accomplished including routine vegetation 1 i 1 feasible. such that trees :management and essential iare retained in 'tree removal, and removal of 1 i the wetland ;non-native invasive t and buffer =vegetation or weeds listed by where the King County Noxious feasible. ;Weed Board or other government agency, for public and private utilities, =road rights-of-way and easements, and parks. f. Wetland Disturbance,Modification and Removal: staid 26 'wow `i. Any Activity in Small . 1 .. . ..,. .i _�,..,..X. .. >. Category 3 Wetlands: Any . ;activity affecting g !hydrologically isolated f sCategory 3 wetland no greater than two thousand two hundred(2,200) square i 1 Meet when consistent with all I ;of the following criteria: s i :(1) Standing water is not i present in sufficient amounts, i !i.e. approximately 12 inches E Eto 18 inches in depth from 1 1 :approximately December I i I !through May, to support I ;breeding amphibians; (2) Species listed by Federal or State government as • endangered or threatened, or i i !the presence of essential § 'habitat for those species, are1I 2 !not present; ' 'fir !(3) Some form of mitigation i s provided for hydrologic ,and water quality functions, for example, stormwater treatment or landscaping or other mitigation; and i i i (4) A wetland assessment is prepared by a qualified professional demonstrating the criteria of the exemption are met. The wetland ;assessment shall be subject to l !independent secondary 1 review at the expense of the 1 1 I R !applicant consistent with 1 # 3 # !Section 4-3-050.F.7. 27 ii. Temporary Wetland �,......� i�., . ..,� ! I X , . ,....� _....,b,�.,,�,�,..M.A....�...�.... .._.X mpacts: Temporary 1 I rIz disturbances of a wetland due 'to construction activities that §do not include permanent 4 I illing may be permitted; i I provided, that there are no permanent adverse impacts to l 'the critical area or required i buffer, and areas temporarily i disturbed are restored at a 1:1 I i i ratio. Category 1 wetlands ! land Category 2 forested wetlands shall be enhanced at a 2:1 ratio in addition to i being restored. For habitat ' conservation areas,this exemption applies only to Category 1 wetlands. La I ,,„ _ g. Maintenance and Construction—Existing Uses and Facilities: Remodeling, Replacing, X X X X Removing Existing i , Structures,Facilities, and r provements: Remodeling, „ad Festoring,replacing or emoving structures, facilities ,and other improvements in {existence on the date this section becomes effective and that do not meet the setback or buffer requirements of this , !section provided the work 1 omplies with the criteria in MC 4-10-01OG, i onconforming Activities. 4 28 ii. Maintenance and Repair— 1 X X X I X "AlwoAny Existing Public or Private Use: Normal and g ;routine maintenance and r 5 i repair of any existing public k or private uses and facilities I 1 i where no alteration of the critical area and required buffer or additional fill I materials will be placed. The I 1 I fuse of heavy construction i equipment shall be limited to & I I ;utilities and public agencies that require this type of equipment for normal and froutine maintenance and eir f xistiutili ublicpaostruecturesng and righttyor s- of-way. In every case, critical area and required buffer l.'mpacts shall be minimized and disturbed areas shall be I I restored during and ',owe 'mmediately after the use of I construction equipment. _i„......_1_ L _....L....____J___ +4440' 29 d iii. Modification of an ..... �,..,�.,, . ...,_.....1.......X _e...k,....�.._.1._....,...... � ,�. �,,.�.�t,��X.,...,..„,______.,. ,� .. _.,��.� 444400 Existing Single Family ) Residence: Construction , , 4tactivity connected with an i i existing single family i !residence and/or garage; provided, that the work does t 1 pot increase the footprint of 1 i1 ,.the structure lying within the S i !critical area or buffer; and !provided, that no portion of the new work occurs closer to, I i the critical area or required 1 a puffers than the existing tructure unless the structure 1 i or addition can meet required buffers. Existing or rebuilt I accessory structures # associated with single-family lots such as fences, gazebos, !storage sheds, playhouses are ,exempt from this Section. ew accessory structures ay be allowed when °" associated with single family sots such as fences, gazebos, storage sheds,play houses and when built on and located iin a previously legally altered area. 'v. Existing Activities: X X X X X Existing activities which have of been changed,expanded r altered,provided they ,.comply with the applicable requirements of chapter 4-10 :RMC ih.Emergency Activities: 30 Y. Emergency Activities v xl ! X X_._� X X.�. ,�...w. ..._, �..�X .,,..� } Emergency activities are those which are undertaken to l correct emergencies that threaten the public health, safety and welfare pursuant to= =the criteria in subsection C9b ` , I f this Section. An i i emergency means that an1 action must be undertaken immediately or within a time ' & 1 E !frame too short to allow full ;compliance with this section, I avoid an immediate threat to public health or safety, to prevent an imminent danger Ito public or private property, :or to prevent an imminent threat of serious !environmental degradation. 1 ! ,ii. Emergency Tree/Ground X1 ! X X X X X: Tree :Cover Cutting or Removal by s cutting and 441•00 ffA enc or Utility: Removal Downed hazard g Y y � 1 trees shall be vegetation :of trees and/or ground coverI management `by any City department or i retained as large accomplished agency and/or public or woody debris in such that trees ? rivate utility emergency in emer enc 1 the stream/buffer. are retained in situations involving 1 the wetland 'immediate danger to life or and buffer roperty, substantial fire where azards, or interruption of feasible. services provided by a utility. 'ii.Emergency Activities in s xl quifer Protection Area: ublic interest emergency i se, storage, and handling of 1 i ;hazardous materials by 4 ► ,governmental organizations. t i _L. . Hazardous Materials: 31 i. Federal or State Pre- MHX1 ti , emption: Cleanups, •monitoring and/or studies 1 i ,undertaken under supervision i 11 hof the Washington Department of Ecology or the iU.S. Environmental ;Protection Agency. M. Use of Materials with No xl ;Risk: Use, storage, and handling of specific Jhazardous materials that do ?not present a risk to the aquifer as determined and listed by the Department. iIf a hazardous material, activity, and/or facility that is exempt pursuant to this Section has a isignificant or substantial potential to degrade groundwater quality, then the Department Administrator may require compliance with the aquifer protection requirements of this Section otherwise relevant to that hazardous material activity and/or facility. 6. Limited Exemptions: Activities that are exempt from some, but not all provisions of ,,,,moi this Section are listed in the following table. If an "X" appears in a box, the listed exemption applies in the specified critical area and required buffer. If an "X" does not appear in a box, then the exemption does not apply in the particular critical area or required buffer. Whether the exempted activities are also exempt from permits will be determined based upon application of RMC Chapters 4-8 and 4-9, or other applicable sections of the Renton Municipal Code. LIMITED EXEMPTIONS—WITHIN CRITICAL AREAS AND ASSOCIATED BUFFERS !EXEMPT ACTIVITY b�y � 3 `" o CQ G) .- 171 g 0.31 w n a) o -§ N o o a.) ` a.Hazardous Materials: 32 J. Materials for Sale in X1a. '' '` :Original Small Containers: 1 1 I-Iazardous materials ;offered for sale in their s !original containers of five '',,(5) gallons or less shall be !exempt from requirements 1 in subsections H.2.d(i) through (vi) of this Section 1 1 !and the requirements # pertaining to removal of 1 existing facilities in subsection H.2.a(i). ii. Activities Exempt from X1 Specified Aquifer Protection Area ;Requirements: The !following are exempt from requirements in I !subsections H.2.d(i) through (vi) of this Section, the requirements pertaining to review of !proposed facilities in subsection C.8.e of this Section, Prohibited Activities—Aquifer € rotection Areas, and the equirements pertaining to I ' removal of existing facilities in subsection H.2.a(i). 33 (1)Hazardous materials X1 ' I I `use, storage, and handling k i i i `'` in de-minimus amounts '(aggregate quantities :totaling twenty (20) :gallons or less at the 4 g facility or construction Visite . Weights of solid hazardous materials will be converted to volumes i 1 for purposes of !determining whether de- ;minimus amounts are 'exceeded. Ten (10)pounds i ;shall be considered equal 1 i Ito one gallon.) (2)Noncommercial X1 _ �" esidential use, storage, and handling of hazardous aterials provided that no ome occupation business (as defined by chapter 4-11 RMC) that uses, stores, or i handles more than twenty x 1 (20) gallons of hazardous paterial is operated on the 4 remises. (3)Hazardous materials in X1 fuel tanks and fluid eservoirs attached to a .rivate or commercial motor vehicle and used directly in the operation of that vehicle. r(4)Fuel oil used in X1 ;existing heating systems. ;(5)Hazardous materials Xl used, stored, and handled y the City of Renton in 1 !water treatment processes land water system operations. 34 (6)Fueling of equipment 1 X1 1 3 not licensed for street use; ; i ;provided, that such fueling 4 !activities are conducted in t a a containment area that is s designed and maintained 1 t ;to prevent hazardous i1 i materials from coming into 1 contact with soil, surface 1 1 i water, or groundwater i i 1 ;except for refueling !associated with i i ;construction activity regulated by subsection 1H.7 of this Section, 1 Construction Activity Standards—Zones 1 and 2. 1(7)Hazardous materials X1 T !contained in properly , !operating sealed units (transformers, refrigeration units, etc.)that are not opened as part of routine :use. ' (8)Hazardous materials in 1 X1 uel tanks and fluid reservoirs attached to ff riv ate or commercial quipment and used directly in the operation of ',that equipment. (9)Hazardous materials in X1 aerosol cansL.._i . w 35 xsm..wnma en:mcwxro.•wnam ..._,. <.. ,-....> _vw, sanm., n vvnssar.ay.ewawwrvaww:awa..n,r anMam.sac+_r-a .av» ....; ......._., (10) Hazardous materials X1 T at multi-family dwellings, ii hotels, motels, retirement f homes, convalescent i =center/nursing homes, i i , mobile or manufactured home parks, group homes, I sand daycare family homes 'or centers when used by towners and/or operators of esuch facilities for on-site 1 S :operation and maintenance� � 1 :purposes. (11)Hazardous materials Xl used for janitorial purposes tat the facility where the !products are stored. £ ` x(12) Hazardous materials X1 1- fused for personal care by 3 workers or occupants of ithe facility at which-the , 'products are stored Including but not limited to I #soaps, hair treatments, 8 !grooming aids, health aids, and medicines. viii. Uses,Facilities, and X1 � ����� _ .. �� � �_,. �, ,. Activities in Zone 1 Modified Aquifer Protection Area Exempt Pfrom Specified Aquifer rotection Area Requirements: Facilities 'located in the Zone 1 Modified Aquifer ;Protection Area in Figure t 4-3-050.Q.1 are exempt ! !from the following: 36 11)Removal requirements7 X1 # "" `... .. .�.. . .. M,,.. 1-_ `'r' in subsection H.2.a(i) of 'this Section except that the} 3 ;storage, handling, use, _ 1 treatment, and production ;of tetrachloroethylene (e.g.5 dry-cleaning fluid) shall continue to be prohibited; _ ._.. j .. _._._ ._._. ..__.. . 2) Additional facility X1 I I P requirements in subsection jI.2.d(vi) of this Section; ; i , 3 Wastewater 1 X1 1 t , ---r- , 4` equirements in subsection I -6-040.J.1.a but shall be I subject to Zone 2 1 1 I equirements in 4-6- '040.J.2; - awaw F . 4)The prohibition of I X1 septic systems contained inIII 1 ;4-3-050 C 8.d(i)(2); and . .� .a _.„..._ . ,.......vas... .. 5) Surface water 1 X1 1410°` anagement requirements 1 sof 4-6-030.E except that Zone 2 requirements contained in 4-6-030.E I shall apply. 1 i 1 i. _ 1If a hazardous material, activity, and/or facility that is exempt pursuant to this Section has a significant or substantial potential to degrade groundwater quality, then the Department Administrator may require compliance with the aquifer protection requirements of this Section us material activity and/or facility. otherwise relevant to that hazardous 7. Exemptions in Buffers: The activities listed in the following table are allowed within critical area buffers, and are exempt from the applicable provisions of this Section,provided a letter of exemption has been issued per subsection C4 of this Section,Letter of Exemption. If an "X" appears in a box, the listed exemption applies in the specified buffer. If an "X" does not appear in a box, then the exemption does not apply in the required buffer. Whether the exempted 37 activities are also exempt from permits will be determined based upon application of chapters 40100 4-8 and 4-9 RMC, or other applicable sections of the Renton Municipal Code. EXEMPTIONS WITHIN CRITICAL AREA BUFFERS ,_,....,_r_i EXEMPT ACTIVITY -d o ..,,,,_ . i1 1 ,_, 0 : C d . O- F al i ' U d- a? o b i .. o � a w �x v I, 1 a.Activities in Critical Area Buffers: i. Trails and Open Space: X X X X Walkways and trails, and associated open space in critical area buffers located on =public property, or where !easements or agreements have been granted for such purposes I on private property. All of the 3 !following criteria shall be met. (1)The trail, walkway, and associated open space shall be consistent with the Comprehensive Parks, Recreation, and Open Space aster Plan. The City may allow private trails as part of the approval of a site plan, subdivision or other land use permit approvals. 2)Trails and walkways shall be located in the outer 25% of the buffer,i.e. the portion of !the buffer that is farther away from the critical area. xceptions to this requirement may be made for: Trail segments connecting to existing trails where an !alternate alignment is not practical. 38 1 Public access points to water ''"'' :bodies spaced periodically ? ialong the trail. (3)Enhancement of the buffer 1 area is required where trails !are located in the buffer. Where enhancement of the :buffer area adjacent to a trail is mot feasible due to existing high quality vegetation, i additional buffer area or other mitigation may be required. i (4)Trail widths shall be a maximum width of twelve (12) r !feet. Trails shall be !constructed of permeable = g materials. Impervious i !materials may be allowed if pavement is required for !handicapped or emergency PP g Y s !access, or safety, or is a designated nonmotorizedlore I transportation route or makes a connection to an already 8 dedicated trail, or reduces i !potential for other environmental impacts. ''`r 39 X X i ii. Stormwater Management ! X V Facilities in Buffer: g 1 tStormwater management i 1 1 s 'facilities in critical area buffers} including stormwater ; 1 'dispersion outfall systems !designed to minimize impacts Ito the buffer and critical area, !where the site topography (requires their location within the buffer to allow hydraulic I if{ unction, provided the standard !buffer zone area associated I !with the critical area classification is retained pursuant to RMC 4-3-050 .M.6.c. or RMC 4-3-050.L, land is sited to reduce impacts between the critical area and surrounding activities.For i !Habitat Conservation Areas, is exemption applies only to Category 1 wetlands. i *4400Y Stormwater management facilities located in wetland buffers shall require buffer enhancement or buffer averaging when they are sited in areas of forest vegetation. 8.Prohibited Activities: Prohibited activities are identified below for each critical area governed by this Section. a. General—All Critical Areas: No action shall be taken by any person,company, agency,or applicant which results in any alteration of a critical area except as consistent with the purpose, objectives, and requirements of this section. b. Prohibited Activities—Floodways: Encroachments, including fill,new construction, substantial improvements, and construction or reconstruction of residential 40 structures is prohibited within designated floodways, unless it meets the provisions of subsection `err I.4 of this Section, Additional Restrictions within Floodways. c. Prohibited Activities—Streams/Lakes and Wetlands: Grazing of animals is not allowed within a stream, lake, wetland or their associated buffers. d. Prohibited Changes in Land Use and Types of New Facilities—Aquifer Protection Areas: i. Zone 1: (1)Changes in land use and types of new facilities in which any of the following will be on the premises: (a)More than five hundred(500) gallons of hazardous material; (b)More than one hundred fifty (150) gallons of hazardous material in containers that are opened and handled; (c) Containers exceeding five (5) gallons in size; or (d)Tetrachloroethylene (e.g. dry-cleaning fluid). (2) Surface impoundments (as defined in chapters 173-303 and 173-304 WAC); (3)Hazardous waste treatment, storage, and disposal facilities; (4)All types of landfills, including solid waste landfills; (5)Transfer stations; (6) Septic systems; (7)Recycling facilities that handle hazardous materials; Nome 41 (8)Underground hazardous material storage and/or distribution facilities; (9)New heating systems using fuel oil except for commercial uses when the source of fuel oil is an existing above-ground waste oil storage tank; and (10)Petroleum product pipelines. ii. Zone 2: (1) Surface impoundments (as defined in chapters 173-303 and 173-304 WAC); (2)Recycling facilities that handle hazardous materials; (3)Hazardous waste treatment, storage, and disposal facilities; (4) Solid waste landfills; (5)Transfer stations; (6) New heating systems using fuel oil stored in underground storage tanks; and (7)Petroleum product pipelines. 9.Temporary Emergency Exemption Procedure: a. Temporary Emergency Exemption Purpose: Temporary emergency exemptions shall be used only in extreme cases and not to justify poor planning by an agency or applicant. b. Temporary Emergency Exemption Review Authority and Decision Criteria: Issuance of an emergency permit by the City does not preclude the necessity to obtain necessary approvals from appropriate Federal and State authorities. Notwithstanding the provisions of this section or any other City laws to the contrary, the Department Administrator may issue a temporary emergency exemption letter if the action meets the following requirements: 42 i. An unacceptable threat to life or severe loss of property will occur if an `fir emergency permit is not granted; ii. The anticipated threat or loss may occur before a permit can be issued or modified under the procedures otherwise required by this section and other applicable laws; iii. Any emergency exemption letter granted shall incorporate, to the greatest extent practicable and feasible but not inconsistent with the emergency situation, the standards and criteria required for nonemergency activities under this Section. c. Temporary Emergency Exemption Letter Process and Timing: The emergency exemption shall be consistent with the following procedural and time requirements: i. Time Limits: The emergency shall be limited in duration to the time required to complete the authorized emergency activity;provided, that no emergency permit be granted for a period exceeding ninety(90)days except as specified in subsection C9c(ii) of this Section. ii. Restoration Required: Require, within the ninety (90) day period, the restoration of any critical area altered as a result of the emergency activity, except that if more than ninety(90) days from the issuance of the emergency permit is required to complete restoration, the emergency permit may be extended to complete this restoration. For the purposes of this paragraph,restoration means returning the affected area to its state prior to the performance of the emergency activity. iii. Public Notice Required: Notice of the issuance of the emergency permit and request for public comments shall be posted at the affected site(s) and City Hall no later than ten (10) days after the issuance of the emergency permit. If significant comments are received,the City may reconsider the permit. 43 iv. Expiration of Exemption Authorization: The emergency exemption authorization may be terminated at any time without process upon a determination by the Department Administrator that the action was not or is no longer necessary to protect human health or the environment. 10.Nonconforming Activities or Structures: Regulated activities legally in existence prior to the passage of this Section,but which are not in conformity with the provisions of this Section are subject to the provisions of RMC 4-10-090 Nonconforming Activities. (Amd. Ord. 4851, 8-7-2000) D.ADMINISTRATION AND INTERPRETATION: 1. General Provisions—All Critical Areas: a. Duties of Administrator: The Planning/Building/Public Works Administrator (the Department Administrator) or his/her duly authorized representative, shall have the power and authority to enforce the provisions of this Section. For such purposes he/she shall have the power of a law enforcement officer. b. Interpretation: The Department Administrator shall have the power to render interpretations of this Section and to adopt and enforce rules and regulations supplemental to this Section as he/she may deem necessary in order to clarify the application of the provisions of this Code. Such interpretations, rules and regulations shall be in conformity with the intent and purpose of this Section. c. Compliance: Unless specifically exempted by this Section, the City shall not grant any approval or permit any regulated activity in a critical area or associated buffer prior to fulfilling the requirements of this Section. 44 d. Reviewing Official: Wherever referenced in this Section,Reviewing Official refers to the decisionmaking official or body authorized to grant permit approval for an activity. 2.Aquifer Protection: a. Inspections Authorized: The Department Administrator or his/her designee shall have the right to conduct inspections of facilities at all reasonable times to determine compliance with this Section. i. Annual Inspections: All permitted facilities in an APA will be subject to a minimum of one inspection per year by a Department inspector or designee. ii. Monthly Inspections: All permitted facilities in Zone 1 of the aquifer protection area will be subject to monthly inspections to determine compliance with the provisions of the Section. b. Potential to Degrade Groundwater—Zone 2: i. Potential for Impacts Equal to Facility in Zone 1: If the Department determines that an existing or proposed facility located in Zone 2 of an APA has a potential to degrade groundwater quality which equals or exceeds that of a permitted facility in Zone 1,then the Department may require that facility to fully comply with requirements for Zone 1 contained in subsections 112,Facilities,H4, Wastewater Disposal Requirements,H6,Pipeline Requirements, C8e(ii),Prohibited Activities—APA Zone 1, and Cla(i), Aquifer Protection Areas, Compliance with Section,Development Permits. ii. Criteria: Criteria used to make the determination in subsection D2b(i)of this Section, Potential for Impacts Equal to Facility in Zone 1, shall include but not be limited to the present and past activities conducted at the facility; types and quantities of hazardous materials stored, handled, treated,used or produced; the potential for the activities or hazardous 45 materials to degrade groundwater quality; history of spills at the site, and presence of contamination on site. (Amd. Ord. 4851, 8-7-2000) 3. Flood Hazards: a. Duties and Responsibilities of the Department Administrator or Designee: The duties of the Department Administrator or his/her designee shall include,but not be limited to: i. Review all development permits to determine that the permit requirements of this Section have been satisfied; and ii. Review all development permits to determine that all necessary permits have been obtained from those Federal, State or local governmental agencies from which prior approval is required; and iii. Review all development permits to determine if the propo sed development is located in the floodway. If located in the floodway, assure that the encroachment provisions of subsection I4 of this Section,Additional Restrictions within Floodways, are met; and iv. Obtain, review, and reasonably utilize any base flood elevation and floodway data available from a Federal, State or other source, when base flood elevation data has not been provided in accordance with subsection Ilbi of this Section in order to administer subsection I3, Specific Standards, and subsection I4, Additional Restrictions Within Floodways. b. Information to Be Obtained and Maintained: The Department Administrator or his/her designee shall obtain and maintain the following information: i. Record Required: Where base flood elevation data is provided through the flood insurance study or required as in subsection D3a(iv)of this Section, Use of Other Base Flood Data, the applicant shall obtain and record the actual elevation (in relation to mean sea 46 level) of the lowest floor(including basement) of all new or substantially improved structures, and whether or not the structure contains a basement. ii. Elevations and Certificates: For all new or substantially improved floodproofed structures: (1)The applicant shall verify and record the actual elevation (in relation to mean sea level); and (2)The Department Administrator or his/her designee shall maintain the floodproofing certifications required in subsection D6 of this Section,Flood Hazard Data; and (3)Flood elevation certificates shall be submitted by an applicant to the Development Services Division prior to the building finished floor construction. Finished floor elevation should be verified by a preconstruction elevation certificate at the time of construction of a substantial structural element of the finished floor(i.e., foundation form for the concrete floor). An as-built elevation certificate will be provided prior to issuance of final occupancy, and the certificates shall be maintained by the Department Administrator or designee. iii. Public Records: The Department Administrator or his/her designee shall maintain for public inspection all records pertaining to the provisions of the flood hazard regulations (e.g., elevation certificates, notification of alteration/relocation of watercourses, flood hazard regulation variances). c. Alteration of Watercourses: The Department Administrator, or his/her designee shall: low 47 i. Notice Required: Notify abutting communities and the State of Washington Department of Ecology prior to any alteration or relocation of a watercourse, and submit evidence of such notification to the Federal Insurance Administration. ii. Maintenance: Require that maintenance is provided within the altered or relocated portion of said watercourse so that the flood-carrying capacity is not diminished. The City may require covenants, or other mechanisms to ensure maintenance. d. Interpretation of FIRM Boundaries: The Department Administrator, or his/her designee, shall make interpretations where needed, as to exact location of the boundaries of the areas of special flood hazard(for example, where there appears to be a conflict between a mapped boundary and actual field conditions). The person contesting the location of the boundary shall be given a reasonable opportunity to appeal the interpretation as provided in RMC 4-1-050F, Hearing Examiner, and RMC 4-8-110, Appeals). (Amd. Ord. 4851, 8-7-2000) Ned e. Record Required: The Department Administrator, or his/her designee, shall maintain the records of all appeal actions and report any variances to the Federal Insurance Administration upon request. 4.Review Authority: a. Review Authority—General: The Department Administrator or his/her designee is authorized to make the following administrative allowances and determinations: i. Issue a critical areas permit for proposals not otherwise requiring a development permit per subsection C3 of this Section,Finding of Conformance Required. ii. Issue written letters of exemption pursuant to subsection C4 of this Section. wr� 48 iii. Allow temporary emergency exemptions per subsection C7 of this `fir Section. iv. Interpret geologic hazards, habitat conservation, and wetlands regulations per subsection Dlb of this Section. v. Approve the use of alternates in accordance with subsection N1 of this Section and RMC 4-9-250E. vi. Waive report content or submittal requirements per subsection F6 of this Section. vii. Grant administrative variances to those specified code sections listed in RMC 4-9-250B and per Subsection N of this Section. (Amd. Ord. 4851, 8-7-2000) viii. Require tests for proof of compliance per RMC 1-3-1E7. ix. Grant modifications per subsection N of this Section. 14110, b. Review Authority—Geologic Hazards, Habitat Conservation, Streams and Lakes, and Wetlands: The Department Administrator is authorized to make the following administrative allowances and determinations: i. Geologic Hazards: (1)Waive independent review of geotechnical reports per subsection F.7 of this Section. (2) Increase or decrease required buffer for very high landslide hazard areas per subsection J7b of this Section. (3)Waive coal mine hazard reports per subsection J8 of this Section. "err►. 49 (4) Grant a modification for created slopes per subsection N2 of this Section. ii. Habitat Conservation: Waive habitat/wildlife assessment reports per subsection K2 of this Section. iii. Streams and Lakes: (1) Waive water body study requirement per subsection L.3 of this Section. (2) Approve proposals for buffer width reductions in accordance with the review criteria stated in subsection L.5.c of this Section. (3) Approve proposals for buffer width averaging pursuant to the standards and criteria stated in subsection L.5.d of this Section. iv. Wetlands: (1) Waive wetland assessment requirement per subsection M3b of this Section. (2)Determine whether wetlands are unregulated per subsections Mia and Mlb of this Section. (3)Extend the valid period of a wetland delineation pursuant to subsection M4d of this Section. (4) Approve proposals for buffer width reductions of up to twenty five percent (25%) in accordance with the review criteria stated in subsection M6e of this Section. (5) Approve proposals for buffer width averaging pursuant to the standards and criteria stated in subsection M6f of this Section. 50 (6) Authorize other category level for created or restored wetlands per subsection Ml lc of this Section. (7) Waive requirements of this Section upon determination that all impacts on wetlands would be mitigated as part of an approved area-wide wetlands plan that, when taken as a whole over an approved schedule or staging of plan implementation, will meet or exceed the requirements of this section (see subsection M9 of this Section). c. Review Authority—Aquifer Protection Areas: The Department Administrator is authorized to make the following administrative allowances and determinations: i. Issue operating and closure permits. ii. Determine pipeline requirements per subsection H5a(iii) and H5b. iii. Determine if Zone 1 requirements should apply in Zone 2 of an APA per subsection D2b, Potential to Degrade Groundwater—Zone 2, and C8e(iii),Prohibited Activities—Aquifer Protection Areas, Zone 2. (Ord. 4851, 8-7-2000) 5. Authority to Approve, Condition, or Deny—General: Based upon site specific review and analysis,the Reviewing Official or his/her designee may approve, condition, or deny a proposal. 6. Relationship to Other Agencies and Regulations: Compliance with the provisions of this Title does not constitute compliance with other federal, state, and/or other local agency regulations and permit requirements that may be required. The applicant is responsible for complying with these requirements, apart from the process established in this Title. E. GENERAL PERFORMANCE STANDARDS,AND ALLOWED ALTERATIONS: 1. Performance Standards: The performance standards for each critical area are specified in subsections G to M of this Section. The standards are minimum standards. 51 2. Protection of Critical Areas: Critical areas and any associated buffers shall be avoided, and undisturbed,unless alterations are permitted in accordance with the requirements of this Section. 3. Allowed Alterations: Critical areas may be altered by authorized exempt activities, alterations specifically allowed in subsections H to M of this Section and subject to listed criteria, or through approval of modifications or variances. 4. Native Growth Protection Areas: a. Applicability: i. Required: A native growth protection area shall be instituted when required by subsections H to M of this Section in order to protect a critical area from any proposed development for a non-exempt activity as follows: (a)Protected slopes per subsection 4-3-050.J.5.e. .4400 (b)Very high landslide hazard areas per subsection 4-3-050.J.7.c. (c) Class 2 to 4 streams or lakes and their associated buffers per subsection 4-3-050.L.12. (d)Wetlands and their associated buffers per subsection 4-3- 050.M.7. ii. Applied with Discretion: Native growth pro tection areas may be required for very high landslide hazard area buffers, or for critical habitats and their buffers pursuant to subsections 4-3-050.J.7 and 4-3-050.K.3. iii. Application as Condition of Approval When Otherwise Not Required: Where subsections H to M do not require a native growth protection area, the Reviewing Official may condition a proposal to provide for native growth protection areas. 411101 52 b. Standards: Nifty- i.Trees and ground cover shall be retained in designated native growth protection areas. ii. Activities allowed in a native growth protection areas shall be consistent with applicable critical area regulations. iii. The City may require enhancement of native growth protection areas to improve functions and values, reduce erosion or landslide potential, or to meet another identified purpose of this section or of critical area regulations. c. Method of Creation: Native growth protection areas shall be established by one of the following methods,in order of preference: i. Conservation Easement: The permit holder shall, subject to the City's approval,convey to the City or other public or nonprofit entity specified by the City, a recorded ''fir easement for the protection of the critical area and/or its buffer. ii. Protective Easement: The permit holder shall establish and record a permanent and irrevocable easement on the property title of a parcel or tract of land containing a critical area and/or its buffer created as a condition of a permit. Such protective easement shall be held by the current and future property owner, shall run with the land, and shall prohibit development, alteration, or disturbance within the easement except for purposes of habitat enhancement as part of an enhancement project which has received prior written approval from the City, and from any other agency with jurisdiction over such activity. iii. Tract and Deed Restriction: The permit holder shall establish and record a permanent and irrevocable deed restriction on the property title of any critical area management tract or tracts created as a condition of a permit. Such deed restriction(s) shall 53 prohibit development, alteration, or disturbance within the tract except for purposes of habitat enhancement as part of an enhancement project which has received prior written approval from the City, and from any other agency with jurisdiction over such activity. A covenant shall be placed on the tract restricting its separate sale.'Each abutting lot owner or the homeowners' association shall have an undivided interest in the tract. d. Marking During Construction: The location of the outer extent of the critical area buffer and areas not to be disturbed pursuant to an approved permit shall be marked with barriers easily visible in the field to prevent unnecessary disturbance by individuals and equipment during the development or construction of the approved activity. e. Fencing: The City shall require permanent fencing of the native growth protection area containing critical area and buffers when there is a substantial likelihood of human or domesticated animal intrusion, and such fencing will not adversely impact habitat connectivity. f. Signage Required: The common boundary between a native growth protection area and the abutting land must be permanently identified. This identification shall include permanent wood or metal signs on treated or metal posts. Sign locations and size specifications shall be approved by the City. Suggested wording is as follows: "Protection of this natural area is in your care. Alteration or disturbance is prohibited by law." g. Responsibility for Maintenance: Responsibility for maintaining the native growth protection easements or tracts shall be held by a homeowners' association, abutting lot owners, the permit applicant or designee, or other appropriate entity, as approved by the City. h. Maintenance Covenant and Note Required: The following note shall appear on the face of all plats, short plats,PUDs, or other approved site plans containing separate native 54 growth protection easements or tracts, and shall also be recorded as a covenant running with the land on the title of record for all affected lots on the title: "MAINTENANCE RESPONSIBILITY: All owners of lots created by or benefiting from this City action abutting or including a native growth protection easement [tract] are responsible for maintenance and protection of the easement [tract]. Maintenance includes insuring that no alterations occur within the tract and that all vegetation remains undisturbed unless the express written authorization of the City has been received." 5. Discretionary— Building or Development Setbacks: The Reviewing Official may require a building or activity setback from a critical area or buffer to ensure adequate protection of the critical area/buffer during construction and on-going maintenance of the activity. A requirement for a setback shall be based on the findings of a critical area report or a peer review required for the activity. F.SUBMITTAL REQUIREMENTS AND FEES: 1. Applicability: When a regulated critical area or associated buffer is identified, the following procedures apply. 2. Preapplication Consultation: Any person intending to develop properties known or suspected to have critical areas present is strongly encouraged to meet with the appropriate City department representative during the earliest possible stages of project planning before major commitments have been made to a particular land use and/or project design. Effort put into a preapplication consultation and planning will help applicants create projects which will be more quickly and easily processed due to a better understanding on the part of applicants of regulatory requirements. 55 3. Plans and Studies Required: When an application is submitted for any building permit or land use review and/or to obtain approval of a use, development or construction, the location of the critical areas and buffers on the site shall be indicated on the plans submitted based upon an inventory provided by a qualified specialist. 4. Submittal Requirements: See chapter 44=8 RMC. 5. Fees: See RMC 4-1-170. 6. Waiver of Submittal or Procedural Requirements: The Department Administrator may waive any of the requirements of this subsection if the size and complexity of the project does not warrant a step in the proceeding and provided criteria to waive studies are met in subsections H to M. 7. Independent Secondary Review: The City may require independent review of an applicant's report as follows: *00 a. Aquifer Protection Areas,Flood Hazards,Habitat Conservation, Streams and Lakes, Wetlands: When appropriate due to the type of critical areas,habitat,or species present, or project area conditions,the Reviewing Official may require the applicant to prepare and/or fund analyses or activities,including,but not limited to: i. An evaluation by an independent qualified professional regarding the applicant's analysis and the effectiveness of any proposed mitigating measures or programs, to include any recommendations as appropriate. This shall be paid at the applicant's expense, and the Reviewing Official shall select the third party review professional; and/or ii. A request for consultation with the Washington Department of Fish and Wildlife,Washington State Department of Ecology, or the local Native American Tribe or other appropriate agency; and/or 56 iii. Detailed surface and subsurface hydrologic features both on and New abutting to the site. b. Geologic Hazards: Independent Secondary Review shall be conducted in accordance with the following: i. Required—Sensitive and Protected Slopes, and Medium,High, or Very High Landslide Hazards: All geotechnical reports submitted in accordance with subsection J2 of this Section, Special Studies Required, and chapter 4-8 RMC,Permits—General and Appeals, shall be independently reviewed by qualified specialists selected by the City, at the applicant's expense. An applicant may request that independent review be waived by the Department Administrator in accordance with subsection D4b of this Section,Review Authority—Geologic Hazards,Habitat Conservation, Streams and Lakes, and Wetlands. (Amd. Ord. 4963, 5-13-2002) ii. Required for Critical Facilities in Volcanic, High Erosion,High Seismic,Medium Coal Mine, or High Coal Mine Hazards: The City shall require independent review of a geotechnical report addressing a critical facility by qualified specialists selected by the City, at the applicant's expense. An applicant may request that independent review be waived by the Department Administrator in accordance with subsection D4b of this Section, Review Authority—Geologic Hazards, Habitat Conservation, Streams and Lakes, and Wetlands. iii. At City's Discretion—Volcanic, High Erosion, High Seismic, Medium Coal Mine, or High Coal Mine Hazards: For any proposal except critical facilities, the City may require independent review of an applicant's geotechnical report by qualified specialists selected by the City, at the applicant's expense. 8.Mitigation Plan Required: 'krrr 57 a. Criteria: For any mitigation plans required through the application of subsections H to M, the applicant shall: i. Demonstrate sufficient scientific expertise, the supervisory capability, and the financial resources to carry out the mitigation project; and ii. Demonstrate the capability for monitoring the site and to make corrections during the monitoring period if the mitigation project fails to meet projected goals; and iii. Protect and manage, or provide for the protection and management, of the mitigation area to avoid further development or degradation and to provide for long-term persistence of the mitigation area; and iv. Provide for project monitoring and allow City inspections;and v. Avoid mitigation proposals that would result in additional future mitigation or regulatory requirements for adjacent properties, unless it is a result of a code requirement, or no other option is feasible or practical; and vi. For onsite or offsite mitigation proposals, abutting or adjacent property owners shall be notified when wetland creation or restoration, stream relocation, critical area buffer increases, flood hazard mitigation, habitat conservation mitigation, or geologic hazard mitigation have the potential to considerably decrease the development potential of abutting or adjacent properties. For example, if a created wetland on a property would now result in a wetland buffer intruding onto a neighboring property, the neighboring property owner would be notified. Notification shall be given as follows: (a)For applications that are not subject to notices of application per RMC 4-8,notice of the mitigation proposal shall be given by posting the site and notifying -*014100 58 abutting or adjacent property owners with the potential to be impacted. Written notification may be made prior to or at the time of the SEPA determination. (b)For applications that are subject to notices of application, the mitigation proposal shall be identified in the notice of application and mailed to abutting or adjacent property owners with the potential to be impacted; if the determination of the mitigation requirements is not known at the time of the notice of application, written notice to abutting or adjacent property owners shall be given instead at the time of the SEPA determination. b. Timing of Mitigation Plan—Final Submittal and Commencement: When a mitigation plan is required, the proponent shall submit a final mitigation plan for the approval of the Administrator prior to the issuance of building or construction permits for development. The proponent shall receive written approval of the mitigation plan prior to commencement of any mitigation activity. Ntilw G. SURETY DEVICES: 1. Required for Mitigation Plans: For any mitigation plans required as a result of the application of these regulations,the Responsible Official shall require a surety device to ensure performance consistent with RMC 4- 1-230. 2. Time Period—Wetlands, Streams, and Lakes: For wetland and/or stream/lake mitigation plans, the surety device shall be sufficient to guarantee that structures, improvements, and mitigation required by permit condition perform satisfactorily for a minimum of 5 years after they have been completed. H. AQUIFER PROTECTION: 1. Applicability: The aquifer protection regulations apply to uses, activities, and facilities located within an aquifer protection area(APA) as classified below. 59 a. Aquifer Protection Area(APA): Aquifer protection areas are the portion of an NIS aquifer within the zone of capture and recharge area for a well or well field owned or operated by the City, as depicted in subsection Q.1 of this Section,Maps. b. Aquifer Protection Zones: Zones of an APA are designated to provide graduated levels of aquifer protection. Zone boundaries are determined using best available science documented in the City of Renton Wellhead Protection Plan, an appendix of the City of Renton Water System Plan, as periodically updated. The following zones may be designated: i. Zone 1: The land area situated between a well or well field owned by the City and the three hundred sixty five (365) day groundwater travel time contour. ii. Zone 1 Modified: The same land area described for Zone 1 but for the purpose of protecting a high-priority well, wellfield, or spring withdrawing from an aquifer that is partially protected by overlying geologic strata. Uses, activities, and facilities located in this area are regulated as if located within Zone 1 except as provided by C.6(a)(iii) of this section. rrrrr' iii. Zone 2: The land area situated between the three hundred sixty five (365) day groundwater travel time contour and the boundary of the zone of potential capture for a well or well field owned or operated by the City. If the aquifer supplying water to a well, well field, or spring is naturally protected by overlying geologic strata, the City may choose not to subdivide an APA into two (2) zones. In such a case, the entire APA will be designated as Zone 2. c. Mapping: i.Determination of Location within a Zone of an Aquifer Protection Area: In determining the location of facilities within the zones defined by subsection Q.1 of this Section, the following rules shall apply. 60 (a) Facilities located wholly within an APA zone shall be governed by the restrictions applicable to that zone. (b)Facilities having parts lying within more than one zone of an APA shall be governed as follows: Each part of the facility shall be reviewed and regulated by the requirements set forth in this Section for the zone in which that part of the facility is actually located. (c)Facilities having parts lying both in and out of an APA shall be governed as follows: • That portion which is within an APA shall be governed by the applicable restrictions in this Section; and • That portion which is not in an APA shall not be governed by this Section. ii. Zone Maps: The locations of aquifer protection areas (APA)in the City are depicted by the map in subsection Q.1 of this Section,Maps. d. Performance Standards: In addition to the general standards of subsection E of this Section, the following performance standards, subsections H2 to H10, apply to all non- exempt uses, activities, and facilities on sites located within an aquifer protection area per subsection H1, Applicability. e. Authority to Require Hydrogeologic Assessment: The City may require an applicant to prepare a hydrogeologic study if the proposal has the potential to significantly impact groundwater quantity or quality, and sufficient information is not readily available. Such a report shall be prepared by a qualified professional at the applicant's expense. Report content requirements may be specified by the City in accordance with State or Federal guidelines or Now 61 tailored to the particular development application. Peer review of the applicant's report may be required in accordance with 4-3-050.F.7. 2. Facilities: a. Removal of Existing Facilities—Zone 1: i. The storage, handling, use,treatment or production of hazardous materials in aggregate quantities greater than five hundred(500) gallons shall not be allowed within Zone 1 of an APA after October 14,2002. The storage, handling, use, treatment or production of tetrachloroethylene (e.g. dry-cleaning fluid) shall not be allowed within Zone 1 of an APA after March 31, 1999. ii. Once a facility in Zone 1 is closed,relocated, or the use of hazardous materials is terminated, reinstatement of the use of hazardous materials on the site in quantities greater than that allowed for new facilities locating in Zone 1 as described in subsection C.8.e(ii), Prohibited Activities,Zone 1, shall be prohibited. iii. Closure of a facility or termination of any or all facility activities shall be conducted in accordance with the closure requirements in RMC 4-9-015.F, Closure Permit. b. Existing Facilities Change in Quantities—Zone 1: In Zone 1 of an APA, no change in operations at a facility shall be allowed that increases the aggregate quantity of hazardous materials stored, handled, treated,used, or produced with the following exception: The aggregate quantity of hazardous materials may be increased not to exceed 500 gallons. c. Existing Facilities—Allowances in Zone 2: The storage, handling,treatment, use or production of hazardous materials at existing facilities shall be allowed within Zone 2 of an APA upon compliance with the provisions of this Section. 62 d. Requirements for Facilities—Zones 1 and 2: The following conditions in Now subsections H.2.d(i) to (vi) of this Section will be required as part of any operating permit issued for facilities in Zone 1 of an APA. Conditions in subsections H.2.d(i)to (v) shall apply to facilities in Zone 2 of an APA. i. Secondary Containment—Zones 1 and 2: (1)Materials Stored in Tanks subject to DOE—Zones 1 and 2: Hazardous materials stored in tanks that are subject to regulation by the Washington Department of Ecology under chapter 173-360 WAC are exempt from containment requirements in subsection H.2.d(i), Secondary Containment—Zones 1 and 2,but are subject to applicable requirements in RMC 4-5-120, Underground Storage Tank Secondary Containment Regulations. (2) Secondary Containment Devices and Requirements—Zones 1 and 2: Every owner of a facility shall provide secondary containment devices adequate in size to Now contain on-site any unauthorized release of hazardous materials from any area where these substances are either stored, handled, treated,used, or produced. Secondary containment devices shall prevent hazardous materials from contacting soil, surface water, and groundwater and shall prevent hazardous materials from entering storm drains and, except for authorized and permitted discharges, the sanitary sewer. Design requirements for secondary containment devices are as follows: (A)The secondary containment device shall be large enough to contain the volume of the primary container in cases where a single container is used to store,handle, treat,use, or produce a hazardous material. In cases where multiple containers are used, the secondary containment device shall be large enough to contain the volume of the largest container. Volumes specified are in addition to the design flow rate of the automatic fire Now 63 extinguishing system, if present, to which the secondary containment device is subjected. The secondary containment device shall be capable of containing the fire flow for a period of twenty (20) minutes or more. (B) All secondary containment devices shall be constructed of materials of sufficient thickness, density, and composition to prevent structural weakening of the containment device as a result of contact with any hazardous material. If coatings are used to provide chemical resistance for secondary containment devices, they shall also be resistant to the expected abrasion and impact conditions. Secondary containment devices shall be capable of containing any unauthorized release for at least the maximum anticipated period sufficient to allow detection and removal of the release. (C)Hazardous materials stored outdoors and their attendant secondary containment devices shall be covered to preclude precipitation with the exception of hazardous materials stored in tanks that have been approved by and are under permit from the City of Renton Fire Prevention Bureau. Secondary containment for such tanks, if uncovered, shall be able to accommodate the volume of precipitation that could enter the containment device during a twenty four(24)hour, twenty five(25) year storm,in addition to the volume of the hazardous material stored in the tank. Storage of hazardous materials,both indoors and outdoors, shall, at all times, meet both the requirements of this Section and the Uniform Fire Code. (D) Secondary containment devices shall include monitoring procedures or technology capable of detecting the presence of a hazardous material within twenty four(24) hours following a release. Hazardous materials shall be removed from the secondary containment device within twenty four(24)hours of detection and shall be legally stored or disposed. 64 (E)Areas in which there are floor drains, catchbasins, or Nome other conveyance piping that does not discharge into a secondary containment device that meets the requirements of this Chapter shall not be used for secondary containment of hazardous materials. Closure of existing piping shall be according to procedures and designs approved by the Department. (F)Primary containers shall be impervious to the contents stored therein, properly labeled, and fitted with a tight cover which is kept closed except when substances are being withdrawn or used. (G)Hazardous materials stored outdoors when the facility is left unsupervised must be inaccessible to the public. Such techniques as locked storage sheds, locked fencing, or other techniques may be used if they will effectively preclude access. (H) Stored hazardous materials shall be protected and secured, as needed, against impact and earthquake to prevent damage to the primary container that would result in release of hazardous materials that would escape the secondary containment area. ii. Hazardous Material Monitoring Requirements for Existing Facilities— Zones 1 and 2: (1)The owners of all existing facilities shall implement hazardous materials monitoring. (2) All hazardous material monitoring activities shall include the following: (A) A written routine monitoring procedure which includes, when applicable: the frequency of performing the monitoring method, the methods and 65 4 equipment to be used for performing the monitoring, the location(s)from which the monitoring will be performed,the name(s) or title(s) of the person(s)responsible for performing the monitoring and/or maintaining the equipment, and the reporting format. (B)Written records of all monitoring performed shall be maintained on-site by the operator for a period of three (3) years from the date the monitoring was performed. The Department may require the submittal of the monitoring records or a summary at a frequency that the Department may establish.The written records of all monitoring performed in the past three (3) years shall be shown to the Department upon demand during any site inspection. Monitoring records shall include but not be limited to: • The date and time of all monitoring or sampling; • Monitoring equipment calibration and maintenance records; • The results of any visual observations; • The results of all sample analysis performed in the laboratory or in the field, including laboratory data sheets; • The logs of all readings of gauges or other monitoring equipment, groundwater elevations or other test results; and • The results of inventory readings and reconciliations. (C) Visual monitoring must be implemented unless it is determined by the Department to be infeasible to visually monitor. (3) On every day of operation, a responsible person designated by the permittee shall check for breakage or leakage of any container holding hazardous materials. 66 Electronic sensing devices approved by the Department may be employed as part of the 'err inspection process, provided that the system is checked daily for malfunctions. iii. Emergency Collection Devices—Zones 1 and 2: Vacuum suction devices, absorbent scavenger materials, or other devices approved by the Department shall be present on site (or available within an hour by contract with a cleanup company approved by the Department), in sufficient quantity to control and collect the total quantity of hazardous materials plus absorbent material. The presence of such emergency collection devices and/or cleanup contract are the responsibility and at the expense of the owner and shall be documented in the operating permit. iv. Inspection of Containment and Emergency Equipment—Zones 1 and 2: Owners shall establish procedures for monthly in-house inspection and routine maintenance of containment and emergency equipment. Such procedures shall be in writing, a regular checklist and schedule of maintenance activity shall be established, and a log shall be kept of inspections and maintenance activities. Such logs and records shall be made available at all reasonable times to the Department for examination. v. Employee Training—Zones 1 and 2: Operators shall schedule training for all new employees upon hiring and once per year thereafter to explain the conditions of the operating permit such as emergency response procedures, proper hazardous waste disposal, monitoring and reporting requirements,record keeping requirements, and the types and quantities of hazardous materials on site. These training sessions will be documented and recorded and the names of those in attendance will be recorded. These records shall be made available at all reasonable times to the Department for inspection. *ow 67 vi. Additional Facility Requirements for Zone 1: Owners shall complete the following: (1) Site Monitoring: For facilities located in Zone 1 of an APA, an owner of a facility may, at their own expense, be required to institute a program to monitor groundwater, surface water runoff,and/or site soils.The Department may require that the owner of a facility install one or more groundwater monitoring wells in a manner approved by the Department in order to accommodate the required groundwater monitoring. Criteria used to determine the need for site monitoring shall include,but not be limited to, the proximity of the facility to the City's production or monitoring wells, the type an d quantity of hazardous materials on site, and whether or not the hazardous materials are stored in underground vessels. Every owner required to monitor groundwater, surface water runoff, and/or soils shall perform such monitoring semi-annually and obtain independent analytical results of the presence and concentration of those chemicals requiring monitoring (including breakdown and transformation products) as identified by the Department in the operating permit. The analytical results shall be obtained through the use of Department of Ecology-approved methods for water and/or soils. The results shall be filed within ten (10) days with the Department. If a facility is required to perform site monitoring pursuant to subsection H.2.d(vi) of this Section, Additional Facility Requirements for Zone 1, Site Monitoring, then a site monitoring plan will be required. This plan must indicate procedures to be followed to assess groundwater, surface water runoff, and/or soil for concentrations of those chemicals requiring monitoring as identified by the Department in the operating permit. If a groundwater monitoring program is in effect per the requirements of 40 CFR 264 or 265, and this program includes all of the chemicals identified in the operating permit, then it shall be incorporated into the site monitoring plan yid 68 which shall also include provisions to address the groundwater monitoring requirements of subsection H.2.d(vi)of this Section, Additional Facility Requirements for Zone 1, Site Monitoring, and RMC 4-9-015.G.3, Unauthorized Releases, Monitoring Results. (2) Site Improvements: (A)For facilities located in Zone 1 of an APA, the owner may be required to pave all currently unpaved areas of their facility that are subject to any vehicular use or storage, use, handling, or production of hazardous materials. (B)For those facilities located in Zone 1 of an APA in which the nature of the business involves the use of hazardous materials outside of fully enclosed structures, the City shall evaluate the existing storm water collection and conveyance system, and reserves the right to require the owner to upgrade the system to meet the provisions of RMC 4-6-030.E.3, Additional Requirements in Aquifer Protection Areas—Amendments to King County Surface Water Design Manual. (C)For those facilities located in Zone 1 of an APA, the City may require the owner to test interior wastewater plumbing and the building side sewer for tightness according to subsection H.6.a(ii), Pipeline Requirements—Zone 1, and reserves the right to require that such wastewater conveyance be repaired or replaced according to subsection H.6.a(i), Pipeline Requirements—Zone 1. (3) Capital Cost Reimbursement for Additional Operating Permit Requirements: The City shall pay fifty percent (50%) of documented capital costs up to twenty five thousand dollars ($25,000.00)for required installation and construction of monitoring wells, site paving, wastewater conveyance, and storm water improvements as required in subsections 69 H.2.d(vi)(1) and (2), Site Monitoring and Site Improvements. Payment by the City shall be made according to adopted administrative rules. 3. Use of Pesticides and Nitrates—APA Zones 1 and 2: a. Use of Pesticides: The application of hazardous materials such as pesticides shall be allowed in an APA, except within one hundred feet(100) of a well or two hundred feet (200) of a spring, provided that: i. The application is in strict conformity with the use requirements as set forth by the EPA and as indicated on the containers in which the substances are sold. ii.Persons who are required to keep pesticide application records by RCM 17.21.100.1 and WAC 16-228-190 shall provide a copy of the required records to the Department within seventy two (72)hours of the application. b. Nitrate-Containing Materials: The application of fertilizers containing nitrates shall be allowed in an APA except within one hundred feet (100 ) of a well or two hundred feet (200) of a spring; provided, that: i. No application of nitrate-containing materials shall exceed one-half(0.5) pound of nitrogen per one thousand(1,000)square feet per single application and a total yearly application of five (5)pounds of nitrogen per one thousand(1,000) square feet; except that an approved slow-release nitrogen may be applied in quantities of up to nine-tenths (0.9)pound of nitrogen per one thousand (1,000) square feet per single application and eight (8) pounds of nitrogen per one thousand (1,000) square feet per year; and ii. Persons who apply fertilizer containing nitrates to more than one contiguous acre of land located in the APA either in one or multiple application(s)per year shall *110 70 provide to the Department within seventy two (72) hours of any application the following information: (1)The name, address, and telephone number of the person applying the fertilizer; (2)The location and land area of the application; (3)The date and time of the application; (4)The product name and formulation; (5)The application rate. 4. Wastewater Disposal Requirements—Zones 1 and 2: Refer to RMC 4-6-040J, Sanitary Sewer Standards, Additional Requirements that Apply within Zones 1 and 2 of an Aquifer Protection Area. 5. Surface Water Requirements—Zones 1 and 2: Refer to RMC 4-6-030E,Drainage Plan Requirements and Methods of Analysis for additional surface water requirements applicable within Zones 1 and 2 of an Aquifer Protection Area. 6. Pipeline Requirements: a. Pipeline Requirements—Zone 1: i. All new and existing pipelines in Zone 1 shall be constructed or repaired in accordance with material specifications contained in subsection S of this Section, Pipeline Material. All existing product pipelines in Zone 1 shall be repaired and maintained in accordance with best management practices and best available technology. ii. All new pipelines constructed in Zone 1 shall be tested for leakage in conformance with the following provisions prior to being placed into service. 71 (1)Pipeline leakage testing shall be conducted in accordance with best available technology, to the satisfaction of the Department. (2) Pipeline leakage testing methods shall be submitted to the Department for review prior to testing and shall include: a detailed description of the testing methods and technical assumptions; accuracy and precision of the test; proposed testing durations, pressures, and lengths of pipeline to be tested; and scale drawings of the pipeline(s) to be tested. (3)Upon completion of testing,pipeline leakage testing results shall be submitted to the Department and shall include: record of testing durations,pressures, and lengths of pipeline tested; and weather conditions at the time of testing. (4) Routine leakage testing of new pipelines constructed in Zone 1 may be required by the Department. iii. If the Department has reason to believe that the operation or proposed operation of an existing pipeline in Zone 1 of an APA may degrade ground water quality, the Department may require leakage testing of the existing pipeline in accordance with subsection H6a(ii) of this Section; and installation, sampling, and sample analysis of monitoring wells. Routine leakage testing of existing pipelines in Zone 1 may be required by the Department. Criteria for this determination is specified under subsection D2b(ii),Potential to Degrade Groundwater—Zone 2, Criteria. iv. Should pipeline leakage testing reveal any leakage at any level then the Department shall require immediate repairs to the pipeline to the satisfaction of the Department such that no infiltration of water into the pipeline or exfiltrat:ion of substances 72 conveyed in the pipeline shall occur. Any repairs which are made shall be tested for leakage '41or,r pursuant to subsection H6a(ii) of this Section. b. Pipeline Requirements—Zone 2: If the Department has reason to believe that the operation or proposed operation of an existing pipeline in Zone 2 of an APA may degrade groundwater quality, the Department may require: leakage testing in accordance with subsection H6a(ii) of this Section; installation, sampling, and sample analysis of groundwater monitoring wells; repair of the pipeline to the satisfaction of the Department such that degradation of groundwater quality is minimized or eliminated. Criteria for this determination is specified under subsection D2b(ii), Potential to Degrade Groundwater—Zone 2, Criteria. 7. Construction Activity Standards—Zones 1 and 2: Refer to RMC 4-4-030.C.7, Construction Activity Standards—APA Zones 1 and 2. 8. Fill Material Requirements—Zones 1 and 2: Refer to RMC 4-4-060L4,Fill Material, '44tir regarding quality of fill and fill material source statement requirements within aquifer protection areas. 9. Regulations for Existing Solid Waste Landfills—Zones 1 and 2: a. Materials: Earth materials used as fill or cover at a solid waste landfill shall meet the requirements of RMC 4-4-060L4, Fill Material. b. Groundwater Monitoring: The Department shall have the authority to require an owner of a solid waste landfill to implement a groundwater monitoring program equal to that described by King County Board of Health Title 10 (King County Solid Waste Regulations) Section 10.72.020 and a corrective action program equal to that described by Section 10.72.030. The Department shall have the authority ascribed to the health officer in said regulations. Quarterly reports shall be provided to the Department detailing groundwater monitoring activity 'lose 73 during the preceding three (3)months. Reports detailing corrective action required by the NIS Department shall be submitted according to a written schedule approved by the Department. 10. Hazardous Materials—Release Restrictions—Zones 1 and 2: Hazardous materials shall not be spilled, leaked, emitted, discharged, disposed, or allowed to escape or leach into the air, into groundwater, surface water, surface soils or subsurface soils. Exception: Intentional withdrawals of hazardous materials for the purpose of legitimate sale, use, or disposal and discharges permitted under federal, state, or local law. Any unauthorized releases shall be subject to the procedural requirements of RMC 4-9-015G, Unauthorized Releases. (Amd. Ord. 4851, 8- 7-2000) I.FLOOD HAZARDS: 1. Applicability: Flood hazard regulations shall apply to all areas of special flood hazards within the jurisdiction of the City. In addition, all other applicable critical area or Shoreline Mas ter Program regulations shall apply within flood hazard areas. See RMC 4-3-090.E for a description of Shoreline Master Program jurisdictional areas. a. Areas of Special Flood Hazard: Areas of special flood hazard are defined as the land in the floodplain subject to one percent or greater chance of flooding in any given year. Designation on flood maps always includes the letters A or V. b. Mapping and Documentation: i. Basic Map and Documentation Identifying Hazards: The areas of special flood hazard are identified by the Federal Insurance Administration in a scientific and engineering report entitled the Flood Insurance Study for the City of Renton, dated September 29, 1989, and any subsequent revision, with accompanying flood insurance maps which are 41410 74 hereby adopted by reference and declared to be a part of this section. The flood insurance study Noise is on file at the Planning/Building/Public Works Department. ii. When Federal Insurance Study is Not Available: When base flood elevation data has not been provided in accordance with subsection Ilbi of this Section the Department Administrator shall obtain, review, and reasonably utilize any base flood elevation and floodway data available from a Federal, State or other source in order to administer subsection 13, Specific Standards, and subsection I4, Additional Restrictions Within Floodways. The best available information for flood hazard area identification shall be the basis for regulation until a new Flood Insurance Rate Map is issued which incorporates the data utilized under subsection D3a(iv) of this Section. (Amd. Ord. 4851, 8-7-2000) iii. Interpretation of FIRM Boundaries: Per RMC 4-3-050.D.3.d, the Department Administrator, or his/her designee, shall make interpretations where needed, as to 'ir✓ exact location of the boundaries of the areas of special flood hazard(for example, where there appears to be a conflict between a mapped boundary and actual field conditions). The best available information for flood hazard area identification shall be the basis for regulation. iv. Data to be Used for Existing and Future Flow Conditions: The City shall determine the components of the flood hazard area after obtaining, reviewing and utilizing base flood elevations and available floodplain data for a flood having a one percent chance of being equaled or exceeded in any given year, often referred to as the "one-hundred-year flood." The City may require projections of future flow conditions for proposals in unmapped potential flood hazard areas. In mapped or unmapped flood hazard areas, future flow conditions shall be considered for proposed bridge proposals crossing floodways. 75 c. Performance Standards: In addition to general standards of subsection E of this Section,the following regulations, subsections I.2 through I.4, apply in all areas of special flood hazard. 2. General Standards: In all areas of special flood hazards, the following standards are required: a. Anchoring—All New Construction: All new construction and substantial improvements shall be anchored to prevent flotation, collapse, or lateral movement of the structure. b. Anchoring—Manufactured Homes: All manufactured homes must likewise be anchored to prevent flotation, collapse or lateral movement, and shall be installed using methods and practices that minimize flood damage. Anchoring methods may include,but are not limited to, use of over-the-top or frame ties to ground anchors (Reference FEMA"s Manufactured Home Installation in Flood Hazard Areas guidebook for additional techniques). c. Construction Materials and Methods: i. All new construction and substantial improvements shall be constructed with materials and utility equipment resistant to flood damage. ii. All new construction and substantial improvements shall be constructed using methods and practices that minimize flood damage. iii. Electrical, heating, ventilation, plumbing, and air-conditioning equipment and other service facilities shall be designed and/or otherwise elevated or located so as to prevent water from entering or accumulating within the components during conditions of flooding. d. Utilities: 76 i. Water: All new and replacement water supply systems shall be designed to minimize or eliminate infiltration of flood waters into the system. The proposed water well shall be located on high ground that is not in the floodway (WAC 173-160-171). (Amd. Ord. 4851, 8-7-2000) ii. Sewer: New and replacement sanitary sewage systems shall be designed to minimize or eliminate infiltration of floodwaters into the systems and discharge from the systems into floodwaters. iii. Waste Disposal: On-site waste disposal systems shall be located to avoid impairment to them or contamination from them during flooding. e. Subdivision Proposals: i. All subdivision proposals shall be consistent with the need to minimize flood damage; -401r ii. All subdivision proposals shall have public utilities and facilities such as sewer, gas, electrical, and water systems located and constructed to minimize flood damage; iii. All subdivision proposals shall have adequate drainage provided to reduce exposure to flood damage; and iv. All subdivision proposals shall show the flood hazard information and boundary on the subdivision drawing including the nature, location, dimensions, and elevations of the subdivided area. f. Project Review: i. Building Permits: Where elevation data is not available either through the flood insurance study or from another authoritative source, i.e., subsection D3a(iv) of this Section, applications for building permits shall be reviewed to assure that proposed construction Nose 77 will be reasonably safe from flooding.The test of reasonableness is a local judgment and includes use of historical data, high water marks, photographs of past flooding, etc., where available. Failure to elevate at least two feet (2 ) above grade in these zones may result in higher insurance rates. ii. Land Use Applications: or is not Where base flood elevation data has not been provided available from another authoritative source, it shall be generated for subdivision proposals and other proposed developments which contain at least fifty(50)lots or five (5) acres (whichever is less). 3. Specific Standards: In all areas of special flood hazards where base flood elevation data has been provided as set forth in subsection Ilb of this Section,Mapping and Documentation, or subsection D3a(iv),Use of Other Base Flood Data, where such data provides flood elevations that exceed the regulatory standards in the FEMA flood insurance study, the following provisions are required: a. Residential Construction: i. New construction and substantial improvement of any residential structure shall have the lowest floor, including basement,elevated a minimum of one foot above base flood elevation. ii. Fully enclosed areas below the lowest floor that are subject to flooding are prohibited, or shall be designed to automatically equalize hydrostatic flood forces on exterior walls by allowing for the entry and exit of flood waters.Designs for meeting this requirement must either be certified by a registered professional engineer or architect or must meet or exceed the following minimum criteria: 4.4.04 78 (1)A minimum of two (2) openings having a total net area of not 'two, less than one square inch for every square foot of enclosed area subject to flooding shall be provided; and (2)The bottom of all openings shall be no higher than one foot above grade; and (3) Openings may be equipped with screens, louvers, or other coverings or devices; provided, that they permit the automatic entry and exit of flood waters. b. Manufactured Homes: i. All manufactured homes to be placed or substantially improved within Zones Al-A30, AH, and AE on the community's Flood Insurance Rate Map, on sites outside of a manufactured home park or subdivision, in a new manufactured home park or subdivision, in an expansion to an existing manufactured home park or subdivision, or in an existing manufactured home park or subdivision on which a manufactured home has incurred"substantial damage" as the result of a flood, shall be elevated on a permanent foundation such that the lowest floor of the manufactured home is elevated a minimum of one foot above the base flood elevation and be securely anchored to an adequately anchored foundation system to resist flotation, collapse and lateral movement. ii. Manufactured homes to be placed or substantially improved on sites in an existing manufactured home park or subdivision within Zones A1-30, AH, and AE on the community's Flood Insurance Rate Map that are not subject to the above manufactured home provisions shall be elevated so that either the lowest floor of the manufactured home is elevated a minimum of one foot above the base flood elevation or the manufactured home chassis is supported by reinforced piers or other foundation elements of at least equivalent strength that are Now 79 no less than thirty six inches (36 )in height above grade and be securely anchored to an adequately anchored foundation system to resist flotation, collapse, and lateral movement. c. Nonresidential Construction: New construction of any commercial,industrial or other nonresidential structure shall have the lowest floor, including basement, elevated a minimum of one foot above the level of the base flood elevation. Substantial improvement of any commercial, industrial or other nonresidential structure shall have the lowest floor, including basement,elevated a minimum of one foot above the level of the base flood elevation, or, together with attendant utility and sanitary facilities, shall: i. Be floodproofed so that below the minimum elevation required in "c" above the structure is watertight with walls substantially impermeable to the passage of water; ii. Have structural components capable of resisting hydrostatic and hydrodynamic loads and effects of buoyancy; iii. Be certified by a registered professional engineer or architect that the design and methods of construction are in accordance with accepted standards of practice for meeting provisions of this subsection based on their development and/or review of the structural design, specifications and plans. Such certifications shall be provided to the Department Administrator; iv. Nonresidential structures that are elevated, not floodproofed,must meet the same standards for space below the lowest floor as described in subsection I3a(ii) of this Section; v. Applicants floodproofing nonresidential buildings shall be notified that flood insurance premiums will be based on rates that are one foot below the floodproofed level (e.g., a building floodproofed to the base flood level will be rated as one foot below). 80 d. Recreational Vehicles: Recreational vehicles placed on sites within Zones Al- 30, AH, and AE on the community's Flood Insurance Rate Map not including recreational vehicle storage lots shall either: i. Be on the site for fewer than one hundred eighty (180) consecutive days; ii. Be fully licensed and ready for highway use, on its wheels or jacking system, is attached to the site only by quick disconnect type utilities and security devices, and has no permanently attached additions; or iii. Meet the requirements of subsection 13b of this Section and the elevation and anchoring requirements for manufactured homes. (Amd. Ord. 4851, 8-7-2000) 4. Additional Restrictions within Floodways: Located within areas of special flood hazard established in subsection Ilb of this Section,Flood Hazards: Mapping and Documentation, are areas designated as floodways. Since the floodway is an extremely hazardous area due to the Imre velocity of flood waters which carry debris, potential projectiles, and erosion potential, the following provisions apply: a. Increase in Flood Levels Prohibited: Encroachments, including fill,new construction, substantial improvements, and other development are prohibited unless certification by a registered professional engineer demonstrates through hydrologic and hydraulic analyses performed in accordance with standard engineering practice that: i. Encroachments shall not result in any increase in flood levels during the occurrence of the base flood discharge; and ii. There are no adverse impacts to the subject property or abutting or adjacent properties; and iii. There are no higher flood elevations upstream; and Nose 81 iv. The impact due to floodway encroachment shall be analyzed using NosiO future land use condition flows. b. Residential Construction in Floodways: Construction or reconstruction of residential structures is prohibited within designated floodways, except for: i. Repairs, reconstruction, or improvements to a structure which do not increase the ground floor area; and ii. Repairs, reconstruction or improvements to a structure, the cost of which does not exceed fifty percent (50%) of the market value of the structure either: a)before the repair,reconstruction, or repair is started; or b) if the structure has been damaged, and is being restored,before the damage occurred. Work done on structures to comply with existing health, sanitary, or safety codes or to structures identified as historic places may be excluded in the fifty percent (50%). c. Compliance Requirements: If subsections I4a and I4b of this section are `44400 satisfied, all new construction and substantial improvements shall comply with all applicable flood hazard reduction provisions of this section. (Amd. Ord. 4851, 8-7-2000) 5. Critical Facility: Construction of new critical facilities shall be, to the extent possible, located outside the limits of the special flood hazard area(SFHA) (one hundred(100) year) floodplain. Construction of new critical facilities shall be permissible within the SFHA if no feasible alternative site is available. Critical facilities constructed within the SFHA shall have the lowest floor elevated three feet or more above the level of the base flood elevation (one hundred (100) year) at the site. Floodproofing and sealing measures must be taken to ensure that toxic substances will not be displaced by or released into flood waters. Access routes elevated to or 82 above the level of the base flood elevation shall be provided to all critical facilities to the extent Now possible. (Ord. 4851, 8-7-2000) 6. Compensatory Storage: a. Compensatory Storage Required: Development proposals and other alterations shall not reduce the effective base flood storage volume of the floodplain. If grading or other activity will reduce the effective storage volume, compensatory storage shall be created on the site or off the site if legal arrangements can be made to assure that the effective compensatory storage volume will be preserved over time. Compensatory storage shall be configured so as not to trap or strand salmonids after flood waters recede and may be configured to provide salmonid habitat or high flow refuge whenever suitable site conditions exist and the configuration does not adversely affect bank stability or existing habitat. b. Additional Requirements—Springbrook Creek: The higher of the City `fir✓ hydrologic and hydraulic model results for the one hundred(100) year future land use conveyance and storage events shall be used by the City to determine the volume of compensatory storage required for filling within the one hundred(100) year flood zone of Springbrook Creek. i. An exception to this requirement shall apply where the Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) defined one hundred(100) year flood zone is lower than the City model results for the one hundred(100) year future land use conveyance event. ii. Under the exception, the lower FEMA floodplain elevation shall be used. The exception only applies for the reach of Springbrook Creek between SW 43rd Street and Oakesdale Avenue near SW 41st Street. Nome 83 c. Determining Finished Floor Elevations According to FEMA: Although City model results will apply to compensatory storage requirements, the FEMA one hundred (100) year flood plain elevations shall be used to establish building finished floor elevations to comply with other National Flood Insurance Program requirements. (Amd. Ord. 4851, 8-7-2000) J. GEOLOGIC HAZARDS: 1. Applicability: The geologic hazard regulations apply to all nonexempt activities on sites containing steep slopes, landslide hazards, erosion hazards, seismic hazards, and/or coal mine hazards classified below or on sites within fifty feet (50 ) of steep slopes, landslide hazards, erosion hazards, seismic hazards, and/or coal mine hazards classified below which are located on abutting or adjacent sites. a. Steep Slopes: i. Steep Slope Delineation Procedure: The boundaries of a regulated steep sensitive or protected slope are determined to be in the location identified on the City of Renton's Steep Slope Atlas. An applicant's qualified professional may substitute boundaries independently derived from survey data for the City's consideration in determining the boundaries of sensitive or protected steep slopes. All topographic maps shall utilize two (2)foot contour intervals or the standard utilized in the City of Renton Steep Slope Atlas. ii. Steep Slope Types: (a) Sensitive Slopes. (b)Protected Slopes. b. Landslide Hazards: i. Low Landslide Hazard(LL): Areas with slopes less than fifteen percent (15%). 84 ii. Medium Landslide Hazard(LM): Areas with slopes between fifteen percent (15%) and forty percent (40%) and underlain by soils that consist largely of sand, gravel or glacial till. iii. High Landslide Hazards (LH): Areas with slopes greater than forty percent (40%), and areas with slopes between fifteen percent (15%) and forty percent (40%) and underlain by soils consisting largely of silt and clay. iv. Very High Landslide Hazards (LV): Areas of known mappable landslide deposits. c. Erosion Hazards: i. Low Erosion Hazard(EL): Areas with soils characterized by the Natural Resource Conservation Service (formerly U.S. Soil Conservation Service) as having slight or moderate erosion potential, and that slope less than fifteen percent (15%). *two' ii. High Erosion Hazard (EH): Areas with soils characterized by the Natural Resource Conservation Service (formerly U.S. Soil Conservation Service) as having severe or very severe erosion potential, and that slope more steeply than fifteen percent (15%). d. Seismic Hazards: i. Low Seismic Hazard (SL): Areas underlain by dense soils or bedrock. These soils generally have site coefficients of types 51 or S2, as defined in the Uniform Building Code. ii. High Seismic Hazard (SH): Areas underlain by soft or loose, saturated soils. These soils generally have site coefficients of types S3 or S4, as defined in the Uniform Building Code. e. Coal Mine Hazards: 85 i. Low Coal Mine Hazards (CL): Areas with no known mine workings and no predicted subsidence. While no mines are known in these areas, undocumented mining is known to have occurred. ii. Medium Coal Mine Hazards (CM): Areas where mine workings are deeper than two hundred feet (200 ) for steeply dipping seams, or deeper than fifteen (15)times the thickness of the seam or workings for gently dipping seams. These areas may be affected by subsidence. iii. High Coal Mine Hazard(CH): Areas with abandoned and improperly sealed mine openings and areas underlain by mine workings shallower than two hundred feet (200 )in depth for steeply dipping seams, or shallower than fifteen (15) times the thickness of the seam or workings for gently dipping seams. These areas may be affected by collapse or other subsidence. f. Volcanic Hazards: Volcanic hazard areas are those areas subject to a potential for inundation from post lahar sedimentation along the lower Green River as identified in Plate II, Map D, in the report U.S. Department of the Interior, U.S. Geological Survey (Revised 1998). Volcano Hazards from Mount Rainier, Washington. Open-File Report 98-428. g. Mapping: Maps of steep slopes, landslide,erosion, seismic, and coal mine hazards are documented and included in subsection Q of this Section,Maps. The actual presence or absence of the criteria listed above, as determined by qualified professionals, shall govern the treatment of an individual building site or parcel of land requiring compliance with these regulations. h. Performance Standards: In addition to the general standards of subsection E of this Section, the following performance standards, subsections J2 to J9, apply to all regulated 86 geologic hazard areas, unless the subsection clearly identifies that the standard applies only to a 'err specific geologic hazard category. Multiple performance standards may apply to a site feature, for example steep slope, landslide and erosion hazards, based upon overlapping classification systems. 2. Special Studies Required: a. Whenever a proposed development requires a development permit and a geologic hazard is present on the site of the proposed development or on abutting or adjacent sites within fifty feet (50 ) of the subject site, geotechnical studies by qualified professionals shall be required. Specifically, geotechnical studies are required for developments proposed on sites with any of the following geologic hazards: i. Sensitive and protected slopes; ii. Medium, high, or very high landslide hazards; Igor' iii. High erosion hazards; iv. High seismic hazards; v. Medium or high coal mine hazards. b. The required studies shall demonstrate the following review criteria can be met: i.The proposal will not increase the threat of the geological hazard to adjacent properties beyond pre-development conditions; and ii. The proposal will not adversely impact other critical areas; and iii. The development can be safely accommodated on the site. c. A mitigation plan may be required by the Responsible Official, consistent with Section F.B. 87 3. Independent Secondary Review: Independent secondary review is required consistent with 4-3-050.F.7. 4. Conditions of Approval: Conditions of approval may modify the proposal,including, but not limited to, construction techniques,design, drainage, project size/configuration, or seasonal constraints on development. Additional possible conditions may be listed under the performance standards for each hazard type. Upon review of geotechnical studies, the development permit shall be conditioned to mitigate adverse environmental impacts and to assure that the development can be safely accommodated on the site and is consistent with the purposes of this Section. A mitigation plan may be required consistent with Section F8. 5. Protected Slopes: a. Prohibited Development: Development is prohibited on protected slopes. This restriction is not intended to prevent the subdivision or development of property that includes forty percent (40%) or greater slopes on a portion of the site, provided there is enough `"" developable area elsewhere to accommodate building pads. b. Exceptions through Modification: Exceptions to the prohibition may be granted for: - i. Filling against the toe of a natural rock wall or rock wall, or protected slope created through mineral and natural resource recovery activities or public or private road installation or widening and related transportation improvements, railroad track installation or improvement, or public or private utility installation activities pu rsuant to subsection N2 of this Section, Modifications. ii. Grading to the extent that it eliminates all or portions of a mound or to allow reconfiguration of protected slopes created through mineral and natural resource recovery 88 activities or public or private road installation or widening and related transportation lour improvements, railroad track installation or improvement, or public or private utility installation activities, pursuant to subsection N2 of this Section,Modifications. c. Exceptions through Variance: Exceptions to the prohibition may be granted for construction, reconstruction, additions, and associated accessory structures of a single family home on an existing legal lot pursuant to a variance as stated in RMC 4-9-250B 1,. d. Exceptions through Waiver: Exceptions to the prohibition may be granted for installation of public utilities which are needed to protect slope stability, and public road widening where all the following provisions have been demonstrated: i. The utility or road improvement is consistent with the Renton Comprehensive Plan, adopted Utility Plans, and the Transportation Improvement Program where applicable. 'fir ii. Alternative locations have been determined to be economically or functionally infeasible. iii. A geotechnical evaluation indicates that the proposal will not increase the risk of occurrence of a geologic hazard, and measures are identified to eliminate or reduce risks. iv. The plan for the improvement is based on consideration of the best available science as described in WAC 365-195-905; or where there is an absence of valid scientific information, the steps in RMC 4-9-250F are followed. Where the excepted activities above are allowed, the erosion control measures in subsection J6 of this Section, Sensitive Slopes, Medium,High and Very High Landslide Hazards, and High Erosion Hazards, shall also apply. (Amd. Ord. 4851, 8-7-2000) Nor 89 e. Native Growth Protection Areas—Protected Slopes: Unless development is allowed pursuant to subsection J.5.a through dprotected slopes shall be placed in a native growth protection area pursuant to RMC E.4 , or dedicated to a conservation organization or land trust, or similarly preserved through a permanent protective mechanism acceptable to the City. f. Conditions of Approval: Based upon the results of the geotechnical report and independent review, conditions of approval for developments on sites which include steep slopes may include, but are not limited to vegetation enhancement,slope stabilization,buffer zones, or other requirements. Mitigation plans may be required consistent with Section F8. g. Coordination with Stream and Lake Buffers: When a required stream/lake buffer falls within a protected slope area, the stream/lake buffer width shall extend to the boundary of the protected slope. 6. Sensitive Slopes—Medium,High and Very High Landslide Hazards—High Erosion ed Hazards: The following standards apply to development on sensitive slopes, medium/high/very `" high landslide hazard areas, and high erosion hazard areas: a. Erosion Control Plans: Development applications shall submit erosion control plans consistent with subsection J2 of this Section, Special Studies Required, and chapter 44=8 RMC,Permits and Decisions. b. Conditions of Approval: The Reviewing Official may condition a development proposal to achieve minimal site erosion, including,but not limited to, timing of construction and vegetation stabilization, sequencing or phasing of construction, clearing and grading limits, and other measures. Mitigation plans may be required consistent with Section F8. 90 c. On-Site Inspections: During construction, weekly on-site inspections shall be Now required at the applicant's expense. Weekly reports documenting erosion control measures shall be required. 7. Very High Landslide Hazards: a. Prohibited Development: Development shall not be permitted on land designated with very high landslide hazards, except by variance, administered pursuant to RMC 4-9-250B1, for construction of a single family home on an existing legal lot. b. Buffer Requirement: A buffer of fifty feet (50 ) shall be established from the top, toe and sides of a very high landslide hazard area. The Department Administr ator may increase or decrease the required buffer based upon the results of a geotechnical report, and any increase or decrease based upon the results of the geotechnical study shall be documented in writing and included with the project approval. fine i. The modified standard shall be based on consideration of the best available science as described in WAC 365-195-905; or where there is an absence of valid scientific information, the steps in RMC 4-9-250F shall be followed. Notification may be required pursuant to Section F8. ii. When a required stream/lake buffer falls within a very high landslide hazard area or buffer,the stream/lake buffer width shall extend to the boundary of the very high landslide hazard buffer. c. Native Growth Protection Area—Very High Landslide Hazards: The landslide hazard area shall be placed in a native growth protection area pursuant to subsection E.4 of this Section,or dedicated to a conservation organization or land trust, or similarly preserved through a permanent protective mechanism acceptable to the City. Based upon the results of the Nome 91 geotechnical study, the buffer may be placed in a native growth protection area, or it may be *4400 designated as a"no build" easement, or the area may be designated in part, a native growth protection area and in part, a"no build"easement. 8. Coal Mine Hazards: a. Medium Hazard—Report Required: Reports consistent with subsection J2 of this Section, Special Studies Required, and chapter 4-8 RMC,Permits and Decisions, shall be prepared for development proposed within medium coal mine hazard areas and for development proposed within two hundred feet (200 ) of a medium coal mine hazard area. An applicant may request that the Department Administrator waive the report requirement pursuant to subsection D4b of this Section, Review Authority—Geologic Hazards,Habitat Conservation, Streams and Lakes, and Wetlands. where it has been determined through field documentation that coal mine hazards are not present. (Amd. Ord. 4835, 8-7-2000) b. High Hazard—Report Required: Reports consistent with subsection J2 of this Section, Special Studies Required, and chapter 4-8 RMC,Permits and Decisions, shall be prepared for development proposed within high coal mine hazard areas and for development proposed within five hundred feet(500 ) of a high coal mine hazard area. An applicant may request that the Department Administrator waive the report requirement pursuant to subsection D4b of this Section, Review Authority—Geologic Hazards,Habitat Conservation, Streams and Lakes, and Wetlands, where it has been determined through field documentation that coal mine hazards are not present. c. Conditions of Approval: Based upon the results of studies prepared,the City may condition approval of development by requiring mitigation. Potential mitigation may include,but is not limited to, backfilling and sealing mine entries and shafts, backfilling existing 92 sinkholes, removal or regrading or capping coal mine waste dumps, limiting development on err portions of the site, or other measures offering equal protection from the hazard. A mitigation plan may be required consistent with Section F8. i. Additional Engineering Design and Remediation Specifications: After approval of the mitigation approach proposed as a result of subsection J8c of this Section, and prior to construction,the applicant shall complete engineering design drawings and specifications for remediation. Upon approval of the plans and specifications, the applicant shall complete the remediation. Hazard mitigation shall be performed by or under the direction of a qualified engineer or geologist. The applicant shall document the hazard mitigation by submitting as-builts and a remediation construction report. d. Hazards Found during Construction: Any hazards found during any development activities shall be immediately reported to the Development Services Division. Any coal mine hazards shall be mitigated prior to recommencing construction based upon supplemental recommendations or reports by the applicant's geotechnical professional. e. Construction in Areas with Combustion: Construction shall not be permitted where surface or subsurface investigations indicate the possible presence of combustion in the underlying seam or seams, unless the impact is adequately mitigated in accordance with the recommendations of the applicant's geotechnical professional. 9. Volcanic Hazards: Critical facilities on sites containing areas susceptible to inundation due to volcanic hazards shall require an evacuation and emergency management plan.The applicant for critical facilities shall evaluate the risk of inundation or flooding resulting from mudflows originating on Mount Rainier in a geotechnical report, and identify any engineering or other mitigation measures as appropriate. Mitigation plans may be required consistent with F8. 'itrrr 93 K.HABITAT CONSERVATION: 1. Applicability: The habitat conservation regulations apply to all nonexempt activities on sites containing or abutting critical habitat as classified below. a. Critical Habitat: Critical habitats are those habitat areas which meet any of the following criteria: i. Habitats associated with he documented presence of non-salmonid(see subsection L.1 and RMC 4-3-090 Shoreline Master Program Regulations for salmonid species) species proposed or listed by the federal government or State of Washington as endangered, threatened,candidate, sensitive, monitor, or priority; and/or ii. Category 1 wetlands (refer to subsection M.1 of this Section for classification criteria. b. Mapping: i. Critical habitats are identified by lists, categories and definitions of species promulgated by the Washington State Department of Fish and Wildlife(Non-game Data System Special Animal Species) as identified in WAC 232-12-011; in the Priority Habitat and Species Program of the Washington State Department of Fish and Wildlife; or by rules and regulations adopted currently or hereafter by the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. ii. Referenced inventories and maps are to be used as guides to the general location and extent of critical habitat. Critical habitat which is identified in subsection Kla of this Section, but not shown on the referenced inventories and maps, are presumed to exist in the City and are also protected under all the provisions of this section. 94 iii. The actual presence or absence of the criteria listed above as determined by qualified professionals, shall govern the treatment of an individual building site or parcel of land requiring compliance with these regulations. c. Performance Standards: In addition to the general standards of subsection E of this Section, the following performance standards, subsections K2 to K5, apply to all non-exempt activities on sites containing critical habitat areas per subsection K1 . 2. Habitat Assessment Required: Based upon subsection K1 of this Section, Applicability, the City shall require a habitat/wildlife assessment for activities that are located within or abutting a critical habitat, or that are adjacent to a critical habitat, and have the potential to significantly impact a critcal habitat. The assessment shall determine the extent, function and value of the critical habitat and potential for impacts and mitigation consistent with report requirements in RMC 4-8-120.D. In cases where a proposal is not likely to significantly Now impact the critical habitat and there is sufficient information to determine the effects of a proposal, an applicant may request that this report be waived by the Department Administrator in accordance with subsection D4b of this Section. 3. Bald Eagle Habitat: Bald eagle habitat shall be protected pursuant to the Washington State Bald Eagle Protection Rules (WAC 232-12-292). 4. Native Growth Protection Areas: Based on the required habitat assessment,the Reviewing Official may require critical habitat areas and their associated buffers be placed in a native growth protection area subject to the requirements of subsection E.4 of this Section, or dedicated to a conservation organization or land trust, or similarly preserved through a permanent protective mechanism acceptable to the City. Now 95 5. Alterations Require Mitigation: If alterations to critical habitat/wildlife habitat or swed buffers are proposed, mitigation shall be required by the City. The applicant shall evaluate alternative methods of developing the property using the following criteria in this order: a. Avoid any disturbances to the habitat. b. Minimize any impacts to the habitat. c. Compensate for any habitat impacts. 6. Mitigation Options: In addition to any performance standards or mitigation required by wetland regulations, additional mitigation may be determined by the Reviewing Official based upon the consultant report submitted by the applicant, and/or peer review of the applicant's consultant report by a qualified professional selected by the City at the applicant's expense, and/or by information from State or Federal agencies. a. On-Site Mitigation: Mitigation shall be provided on-site, unless on-site mitigation is not scientifically feasible due to physical features of the property.The burden of proof shall be on the applicant to demonstrate that mitigation cannot be provided on-site. b. Off-Site Mitigation: When mitigation cannot be provided on-site, mitigation shall be provided in the immediate vicinity of the permitted activity on property owned or controlled by the applicant, and identified as such through a recorded document such as an easement or covenant, provided such mitigation is beneficial to the habitat area and associated resources. c. In-Kind Mitigation: In-kind mitigation shall be provided except when the applicant demonstrates and the City concurs that greater functional and habitat value can be achieved through out-of-kind mitigation. 7. Mitigation Plan: Mitigation plans may be required consistent with F8. 1410 96 iv. Salmonid Migration Barriers: For purposes of classifying or Now reclassifying water bodies, features determined by the Administrator to be salmonid migration barriers per definition in RMC 4-11-190 shall be mapped. The Administrator shall prepare and update the map as appropriate and maintain a copy in the Planning/Building/Public Works Customer Service Area. v. Experts or State Agency May Be Required or Consulted: The City may require an applicant to retain an expert or to consult the Washington Department of Fish & Wildlife to assess salmonid-bearing status of the channel in question and prepare a report to the City detailing the facts and conclusion of their analysis. vi. Criteria to Govern: The actual presence or absence of the stream and lake criteria listed in this Section L, as determined by qualified professionals, shall govern the treatment of an individual building site or parcel of land requiring compliance with these regulations. 2. Applicability-Activities to Which This Section Applies: This Section applies to all non-exempt activities on sites containing Class 2 to 4 streams or lakes and their associated buffers. 3. Studies Required: a. When Standard Stream or Lake Study Is Required: The applicant shall be required to conduct a Standard Stream or Lake Study per RMC 4-8-120 if a site contains a water body or buffer area or the project area is within one hundred feet(100') of a water body even if the water body is not located on the subject property. b. When Supplemental Stream or Lake Study is Required: The applicant shall be required to conduct a Supplemental Stream or Lake Study per RMC 4-8-120 if a site contains a New 100 ■ water body or buffer area and changes to buffer requirements or alterations of the water body or 44.810 its associated buffer are proposed, either administratively or via a variance request. c. When Stream or Lake Mitigation Plan is Required: The applicant shall be required to conduct a Stream or Lake Mitigation Plan per RMC 4-8-120 if impacts are identified within a Supplemental Stream or Lake Study. The approval of the Stream or Lake Mitigation Plan by the Administrator shall be based on the criteria located in Subsection L.3.c.ii below. i. Timing of Mitigation Plan—Final Submittal and Commencement: When a Stream or Lake Mitigation Plan is required, the applicant shall submit a final mitigation plan for the approval of the Administrator prior to the issuance of building or construction permits whichever comes first. The applicant shall receive written approval of the final mitigation plan prior to commencement of any mitigation activity. ii. Criteria for Approval of Stream or Lake Mitigation Plan for Alterations of Streams and Lakes or Associated Buffers: In order to approve a Stream or Lake Mitigation *4400 Plan the Administrator shall find that the Plan demonstrates compliance with the following criteria: (a) Mitigation Location: Mitigation location shall follow the preferences in (i) to(iv)below. Basins and subbasins are indicated in 4-3-050.Q, Maps: (i) On-site mitigation: On-site mitigation is required unless the Reviewing Official finds that on-site mitigation is not feasible or desirable; (ii) Off-site mitigation within same drainage subbasin as subject site: Off-site mitigation may be allowed when located within the same drainage subbasin as the subject site and if it achieves equal or improved ecological functions over mitigation on the subject site; 101 (iii) Off-site mitigation within same drainage basin within Now City limits: Off-site mitigation may be allowed when located within the same drainage basin within the Renton City limits if it achieves equal or improved ecological functions within the City over mitigation within the same drainage subbasin as the project; (iv) Off-site mitigation within the same drainage basin outside the City limits: Off-site mitigation may be allowed when located within the same drainage basin outside the Renton City limits if it achieves equal or improved ecological functions over mitigation within the same drainage basin within the Renton City limits and it meets City goals. (b)Mitigation Type: Types of mitigation shall follow the preferences in (i) to (iii)below: (i)Daylighting (returning to open channel) of streams or Itrie removal of manmade salmonid migration barriers; (ii)Removal of impervious surfaces in buffer areas and improved biological function of the buffer; (iii)In stream or in-lake mitigation as part of an approved watershed basin restoration project; (iv) Other mitigation suitable for site and water body conditions that meet all other provisions for a mitigation plan. In all cases,mitigation shall provide for equivalent or greater biological functions per ii(e) below. 102 (c) Contiguous corridors: Mitigation sites shall be located to id preserve or achieve contiguous riparian or wildlife corridors to minimize the isolating effects of `" development on habitat areas, so long as mitigation of aquatic habitat is located within the same aquatic ecosystem as the area disturbed; and (d) Non-indigenous species: Wildlife, or fish species not indigenous to the region shall not be introduced into a riparian mitigation area unless authorized by a State or Federal permit or approval.Plantings shall be consistent with Section 4-3-050.L.6.c.; and (e)Equivalent or greater biological functions: The Administrator shall utilize the report"City of Renton Best Available Science Literature Review and Stream Buffer Recommendations"by AC Kindig &Company and Cedarock Consultants, dated X, 2003, unless superceded with a City-adopted study, to determine the existing or potential ecological function of the stream or lake or riparian habitat that is being affected. Mitigation shall address each function affected by the alteration. Mitigation to compensate alterations to stream/lake areas and associated buffers shall achieve equivalent or greater biologic and hydrologic functions and shall include mitigation for adverse impacts upstream or downstream of the development proposal site. No-net-loss of riparian habitat or water body function shall be demonstrated; and • (f)Minimum Mitigation Plan Performance Standards: See Subsection 4-3-050.F.8. (g)Additional Conditions of Approval: The Administrator shall condition approvals of activities allowed within or abutting a stream/lake or its buffers, as necessary to minimize or mitigate any potential adverse impacts. Conditions may include, but are not limited to, the following: 103 (i)Preservation of critically important vegetation and/or '4r.r habitat features such as snags and downed wood; (ii)Limitation of access to the habitat area, including fencing to deter unauthorized access; (iii) Seasonal restriction of construction activities; and (iv)Establishment of a duration and timetable for periodic review of mitigation activities. (h)Based on Best Available Science: The applicant shall demonstrate that the mitigation is based on consideration of the best available science as described in WAC 365-195-905; or where there is an absence of valid scientific information, the steps in RMC 4-9-250F are followed. iii. Performance Surety: The Administrator shall require a performance °jrnr surety to ensure completion and success of proposed mitigation, per RMC 4-3-050.G and 4-1- 230. iv. Alternative Mitigation: The mitigation requirements set forth in this Subsection L.3 may be modified at the Administrator's discretion if the applicant demonstrates that improved habitat functions, on a per function basis, can be obtained in the affected sub- drainage basin as a result of alternative mitigation measures. d. Studies Waived: i. Standard Stream or Lake Study: May only be waived by the Administrator when the applicant provides satisfactory evidence that: (a) A road,building or other barrier exists between the water body and the proposed activity, or lki.r 104 (b)The water body or required buffer area does not intrude on the applicant's lot, and based on evidence submitted, the proposal will not result in significant adverse impacts to nearby water bodies regulated under this Section; or (c) Applicable data and analysis appropriate to the proposed project exists and an additional study is not necessary. ii. Supplemental Stream or Lake Study: May only be waived by the Administrator when: (a)No alterations or changes to the stream or lake, or its standard buffer are proposed; or (b) Applicable data and analysis appropriate to the proposed project exists and an additional report is not necessary. iii. Stream or Lake Mitigation Plan: May only be waived when no impacts have been identified through a Supplemental Stream or Lake Study. e. Period of Validity for Studies Associated with This Section: Studies submitted and reviewed are valid for five (5) years from date of Study completion unless the Administrator determines that conditions have changed significantly. 4. General Standards for Class 2 to 4 Waters: a. Disturbance Prohibited: Streams and lakes and their buffer areas shall be undisturbed, except where the buffer is to be enhanced, or where exemptions allowed in Subsection 4-3-050.0 are conducted, or where allowed to be altered in accordance with Subsections L5,L7 and L8. Where water body or buffer disturbance has occurred in accordance with exemption or development permit approval during construction or other activities, revegetation with native vegetation shall be required. 105 b. No Net Loss: There shall be no net loss of riparian area or shoreline ecological Now function resulting from any activity or land use occurring within the regulated buffer area. 5. Stream/Lake Buffer Width Requirements: a. Buffers and Setbacks: i. Minimum Stream/Lake Buffer Widths: The minimum width of the required buffers shall be based upon the water body class. (a) Class 2: 100 feet (b) Class 3: 75 feet (c) Class 4: 35 feet ii. Piped or Culverted Streams: (a) Building structures over a natural stream located in an underground pipe or culvert except as may be granted by a variance in RMC 4-9-250 is prohibited. Transportation or utility crossings or other alterations pursuant to Section L8 are allowed. Pavement over a pre-existing piped stream is allowed. Relocation of the piped stream system around structures is allowed. If structure locations are proposed to be changed or the piped stream is being relocated around buildings, a hydrologic and hydraulic analysis of existing piped stream systems will be required for any development project site that contains a piped stream to ensure it is sized to convey the 100-year runoff level from the total upstream tributary area based on future land use conditions. (b) No buffers are required along segments of piped or culverted streams. The City shall require easements and setbacks from pipes or culverts consistent with stormwater requirements in RMC 4-6-030 and the adopted drainage manual. b. Increased Buffer Width: 106 i. Areas of High Blow-down Potential: Where the stream/lake buffer is in an area of high blow-down potential as identified by a qualified professional, the buffer width may be expanded an additional fifty(50) feet on the windward side by the Resp onsible Official. Notifications may be required per section F8. ii. Buffers Falling Within Protected Slope or Very High Landslide Area: When the required stream/lake buffer falls within a protected slope or very high landslide hazard area or buffer, the stream/lake buffer width shall extend to the boundary of the protected slope or the very high landslide hazard buffer. Notifications may be required per section F8. c. Reduction of Buffer Width: i. Authority: Based upon an applicant's request, and the acceptance of a Supplemental Stream or Lake Study, the Administrator may approve a reduction in the minimum buffer widths where the applicant can demonstrate compliance with Subsections iv(a), (c), (d), (e) 40104 and(f)below and any mitigation requirements as a result of L.3.c.ii above; or compliance with ``' Subsections iv(b), (c), (d), (e), and(f)below and any mitigation requirements as a result of L.3.c.ii. above. ii. Minimum Buffer Width Permissible by Administrator: An enhanced buffer shall not be less than the widths specified below for reduced buffers. (a) Class 2: 75 feet (b) Class 3: 50 feet (c)Class 4: 25 feet (d) Sites Separated from Shoreline: As determined by the Administrator, for development proposed on sites separated from the shoreline by pre-existing, intervening, and lawfully created structures,roads, bulkheads/hard structural shoreline 107 stabilization, or other substantial existing improvements. For the purposes of this section, the Now intervening lots/parcels, roads, bulkheads/hard structural shoreline stabilization, or other substantial improvements shall be found to: Separate the subject upland property from the water body due to their height or width; and Substantially prevent or impair delivery of most riparian functions from the subject upland property to the water body. The buffer width established shall reflect the riparian functions that can be delivered to the regulated stream. Greater buffer width reductions than listed in subsections (a) through (c) above require review as a variance per Subsection N3 of this Section and RMC 4-9- 250B. Where a Class 2 or 3 stream is daylighted, greater buffer reductions may be allowed by liraw modification in RMC 4-3-050.N.2. iii. Procedure: Such determination and evidence shall be included in the application file. Public notification shall be given as follows: (a)For applications that are not subject to notices of application per RMC 4-8,notice of the buffer determination shall be given by posting the site and notifying parties of record, if any,in accordance with RMC 4-8. (b)For applications that are subject to notices of application, the buffer determination or request for determination shall be included with notice of application. Upon determination, notification of parties of record, if any, shall be made. iv. Criteria for Approval of Reduced Buffer Width: The following criteria (a) and (c)through (f), or criteria(b) through (f) shall be met: 108 (a) Buffer condition: Either subsection i and iii through v shall be Nod met or subsection ii through v shall be met: (i.)The buffer area land is extensively vegetated with native species, including trees and shrubs, and has less than 5 percent non-native invasive species cover, and has less than fifteen percent (15%) slopes, or (ii).The buffer can be enhanced with native vegetation and removal of non-native species per criteria(c), and has less than fifteen percent (15%) slopes; and (iii.)The width reduction will not reduce stream or lake functions,including those of anadromous fish or nonfish habitat; and (iv.)The width reduction will not degrade riparian habitat; and (v.)No direct or indirect, short-term or long-term, adverse ,4000, impacts to regulated water bodies, as determined by the City,will result from a regulated activity. The City's determination shall be based on specific site studies by recognized experts, pursuant to Subsection F3 and RMC 4-8-120; or (b)The proposal includes daylighting of a stream, or removal of legally installed, as determined by the Administrator, salmonid passage barriers; and (c)The project includes a buffer enhancement plan using native vegetation and substantiates that the enhanced area will be equal to or improve the functional attributes of the buffer; or in the case of existing developed sites where a natural buffer is not possible, the proposal includes on- or off-site riparian/lakeshore or aquatic enhancement proportionate to its project specific or cumulative impact on shoreline ecological functions and 109 (d)The proposal will result in, at minimum, no-net loss of loassr stream/lake/riparian ecological function; and (e)The proposal does not result in increased flood hazard risk; and (f)The proposed buffer standard is based on consideration of the best available science as described in WAC 365-195-905; or where there is an absence of valid scientific information, the steps in RMC 4-9-250F are followed. d. Averaging of Buffer Width: i. Authority: Based upon an applicant's request, and the acceptance of a Supplemental Stream or Lake Study, the Administrator may approve buffer width averaging. ii. Minimum Averaged Buffer Widths: In no instance shall the buffer width be less than: (a) Class 2: 50 feet �r (b) Class 3: 37.5 feet (c) Class 4: 25 feet Greater buffer width reductions than listed in subsections (a)through (c) above require review as a variance per Subsection N3 of this Section and RMC 4-9-250B. iii. Criteria for Approval: Buffer width averaging may be allowed by the Administrator only where the applicant demonstrates all of the following: (a)The water body and associated riparian area contains variations in ecological sensitivity or there are existing physical improvements in or near the water body and associated riparian area; and Ivir 110 (b)Buffer width averaging will result in no-net loss of stream/lake/riparian ecological function; (c)The total area contained within the buffer after averaging is no less than that contained within the required standard buffer width prior to averaging; and (d) The proposed buffer standard is based on consideration of the best available science as described in WAC 365-195-905; or where there is an absence of valid scientific information, the steps in RMC 4-9-250F are followed. iv. Buffer Enhancement May be Required: Where the buffer width is reduced by averaging per this Subsection,buffer enhancement shall be required where appropriate to site conditions, habitat sensitivity, and proposed land development characteristics. v. Notification: Notification may be required consistent with F8. 6. Stream or Lake Buffer Use Restrictions and Maintenance: Any activity or proposal subject to RMC 4-3-050.L shall comply with the following standards within " required buffer areas: a. Preservation of Native Vegetation: Existing native vegetation shall be preserved to the extent possible, preferably in consolidated areas. b. Revegetation Required: Where water body buffer disturbance has occurred in accordance with exemption or development permit approval or other activities,revegetation with native vegetation shall be required. c. Use of Native Species: When revegetation is required,native species, or other appropriate species naturalized to the Puget Sound region and approved by the Reviewing Official, shall be used. A variety of species shall be used which serve as food or shelter from climatic extremes and predators, and as structure and cover for reproduction and rearing of young. 111 d. Removal of Noxious Species: When required as a condition of approval, noxious or undesirable species of plants shall be removed or controlled so as to not compete with native vegetation. e. Impervious Surface Restrictions: Where impervious surfaces exist in buffer areas, such impervious surfaces shall not be increased or expanded within the buffer area. The extent of impervious surfaces within the buffer area may only be re-arranged if the reconfiguration of impervious surfaces and restoration of prior surfaced areas is part of an enhancement proposal that improves ecological function of the area protected by the buffer. 7. Criteria for Permit Approval—Class 2 to 4: Permit approval by the Reviewing Official for projects on or near regulated water bodies shall be granted only if the approval is consistent with the provisions of this Section L, and complies with the following: a. Creation of Native Growth Protection Areas Required: As a condition of any approval for any development permit issued pursuant to this Section, the property owner shall be required to create a native growth protection area containing the stream/lake area and associated buffers based upon field investigations performed pursuant to Subsection E.4, and b. At least one of the following conditions must apply: i. A proposed action meets the standard provisions of this Section and results in no net loss of regulated riparian area or shoreline ecological function in the drainage basin where the site is located, or ii. A proposed action meets alternative administrative standards pursuant to this Section and the proposed activity results in no net loss of regulated riparian area or shoreline ecological function in the drainage basin where the site is located; or w 112 iii. A variance process is successfully completed and the proposed activity results in no net loss of regulated riparian area or shoreline ecological function in the drainage basin where the site is located. 8. Alterations Within Streams and Lakes or Associated Buffers a. Transportation Crossings: i. Criteria for Administrative Approval of Transportation Crossings in Stream/Lake or Buffer Areas: Construction of vehicular or non-vehicular transportation crossings may be permitted in accordance with an approved supplemental stream/lake study subject to the following criteria: (a)The proposed route is determined to have the least impact on the environment, while meeting City Comprehensive Plan Transportation Element requirements and standards in RMC 4-6-060; and NIS (b)The crossing minimizes interruption of downstream movement of wood and gravel; and (c)Transportation facilities in buffer areas shall not run parallel to the water body; and (d) Crossings occur as near to perpendicular with the water body as possible; and (e) Crossings are designed according to the Washington Department of Fish and Wildlife Fish Passage Design at Road Culverts, 1999, and the National Marine Fisheries Service Guidelines for Salmonid Passage at Stream Crossings, 2000, as may be updated, or equivalent manuals as determined by the Responsible Official; and 113 (f) Seasonal work windows are determined and made a condition of approval; and (g)Mitigation criteria of RMC 4-3-050.L.3.c.ii. are met. b. Alterations of Streams and Lakes or Associated Buffers -- Utilities: i. Criteria for Administrative Approval of Utilities in Stream/Lake or Buffer: New utility lines and facilities may be permitted to cross water bodies in accordance with an approved supplemental stream/lake study, if they comply with the following criteria: (a)Fish and wildlife habitat areas shall be avoided to the maximum extent possible; and (b)The utility is designed consistent with one or more of the following methods: (i)Installation shall be accomplished by boring beneath the Nor+ scour depth and hyporheic zone of the water body and channel migration zone; or (ii)The utilities shall cross at an angle greater than sixty (60)degrees to the centerline of the channel in streams or perpendicular to the channel centerline; or (iii)Crossings shall be contained within the footprint of an existing road or utility crossing; and (c)New utility routes shall avoid paralleling the stream or following a down-valley course near the channel; and (d)The utility installation shall not increase or decrease the natural rate of shore migration or channel migration; and `yr.r 114 (e) Seasonal work windows are determined and made a condition of approval; and (f)Mitigation criteria of RMC 4-3-050.L.3.c.ii. are met. c. Alterations of Streams and Lakes or Associated Buffers—In-Water Structures and In-Water Work: i. Administrative Approval of In-Water Structures or In-Water Work: In accordance with an approved supplemental stream or lake study,in-water structures or work may be permitted, subject to the following: In-stream structures, such as,but not limited to,high flow bypasses, sediment ponds, in-stream ponds, retention and detention facilities,tide gates, dams, and weirs, shall be allowed as part of an approved watershed basin restoration project approved by the City of Renton, and in accordance with mitigation criteria of RMC 4-3-050.L.3.c.ii. The applicant will obtain and comply with State or Federal permits and requirements. d. Alterations of Streams and Lakes or Associated Buffers --Dredging. Na i. Administrative Approval of Dredging: Dredging may be permitted only when: (a)Dredging is necessary for flood hazard reduction purposes, if a definite flood hazard would exist unless dredging were permitted; or (b)Dredging is necessary to correct problems of material distribution and water quality, when such problems are adversely affecting aquatic life; or (c)Dredging is associated with a stream habitat enhancement or creation project not otherwise exempt in 4-3-050.C; or (d)Dredging is necessary to protect public facilities; or 115 L.SHORELINES,STREAMS AND LAKES: (Reserved) 1. Applicability/Lands to Which These Regulations Apply: These stream and lake regulations apply to sites containing all or portions of Class 2 to 4 streams or lakes and/or their buffers as described below. This section does not apply to Class 1 waters which are regulated by RMC 4-3-090, Shoreline Master Program Regulations, or to Class 5 waters which are exempt. All other critical area regulations, including, but not limited to flood hazard regulations and wetland regulations, do apply to classified streams where applicable. a. Classification System: The following classification system is hereby adopted for the purposes of regulating streams and lakes in the City. Stream and lake buffer widths are based on the following rating system: i. Class 1: Class 1 waters are perennial salmonid-bearing waters which are: classified by the City and State as Shorelines of the State. ii. Class 2: Class 2 waters are perennial or intermittent salmonid-bearing waters which meet one or more of the following criteria: (a)Mapped on Figure Q.4, Renton Water Class Map , as Class 2; and/or (b)Historically and/or currently known to support salmonids, including resident trout, at any stage in the species lifecycle; and/or (c)Is a water body(e.g. pond, lake)between 0.5 acre and 20 acres in size. iii. Class 3: Class 3 waters are non-salmonid-bearing perennial waters during years of normal rainfall, and/or mapped on Figure Q.4,Renton Water Class Map, as Class *owe 96 iv. Class 4: Class 4 waters are non-salmonid-bearing intermittent waters Ned during years of normal rainfall, and/or mapped on Figure Q.4 , Renton Water Class Map, as Class 4. v. Class 5: Class 5 waters are non-regulated non-salmonid-bearing waters which meet one or more of the following criteria: (a)Flow within an artificially constructed channel where no naturally-defined channel had previously existed; and/or (b) Are a surficially isolated water body less than 0.5 acre (e.g. pond)not meeting the criteria for a wetland as defined in Section M. b. Measurement: i. Stream/Lake Boundary: The boundary of a stream or lake shall be considered to be its Ordinary High Water Mark(OHWM). The OHWM shall be flagged in the Nand field by a qualified consultant when any study is required pursuant to Subsection L of this Section. ii. Buffer: The boundary of a buffer shall extend beyond the boundaries of the stream or lake to the width applicable to the stream/lake class as noted in Subsection L.5 below, Stream/Lake Buffer Width Requirements. Where streams enter or exit pipes, the buffer in subsection ii shall be measured perpendicular to the ordinary high water mark from the end of the pipe along the open channel section of the stream. 97 `lar 9O 1 j Figure 4-3-050.L.b.ii. Buffer measurement at pipe opening. c. Maps and Inventory: i. Mapped Streams and Lakes: The approximate location and extent of Class 2 to 4 water bodies within the City limits are indicated on a map in Subsection Q of this Section, Maps. The map is to be used as a guide to the general location and extent of streams. Specific locations and extents will be determined by the City based upon field review and applicant-funded studies prepared pursuant to Subsection L.3. ii. Reclassification: Where there is a conflict between the Renton Water Class Map in Subsection Q and the criteria in Subsection L.l.a,the criteria in Subsection L.l.a shall govern. The re-classification of a water body to a lower class (i.e. 2 to 3, or 3 to 4, etc.) requires Administrator acceptance of a Supplemental Stream or Lake Study, followed by a legislative amendment to the map in Subsection Q prior to its effect. iii. Unmapped Streams and Lakes: Streams and lakes which are defined in Subsection L.l.a of this Section, Classification System, but not shown on the Renton Water Class Map in Subsection Q, are presumed to exist in the City and are regulated by all the provisions of Nov 98 this Section. IF the water body is unmapped according to the City of Renton's Water Class Map (refer to Subsection Q), and: (a)The width of the stream channel averages less than two-feet at the Ordinary High Water Mark, or (b)The stream channel has an average gradient of greater than 20 percent, or (c)The channel or water body is upstream of an existing,enduring, and complete barrier to salmonid migration, as interpreted in Subsection L.1.c.iv below, or as shown on the City of Renton's Salmonid Migration Barrier Map, and the channel or water body contains water only intermittently upstream of the barrier during years of normal rainfall, or (d)The water body is isolated from any connected stream and/or wetland, or (e)The water body is less than 0.5 acre in size and connected to a stream meeting the criteria noted in Subsections L.1.c.iii.(a)through (c) above; THEN the water body is considered Non-Salmonid-Bearing and water class would be assessed based upon the Non-Salmonid-Bearing Waters criteria in Subsections L.1.a.iii. through v. above. HOWEVER, If none of the conditions above apply, then the water body is considered Salmonid-Bearing -Class 2. Classification of an unmapped stream or lake is effective upon expiration of the 14-day appeal period following the Administrator's determination, and the map in Subsection Q shall be amended consistent with Administrator determinations at the next appropriate amendment cycle. 99 (e)Dredging is required as a maintenance and operation condition Now' of a federally funded flood hazard reduction project or a hazard mitigation project; and (f)Applicable mitigation criteria of RMC 4-3-050.L.3.c.ii. are met. e. Alterations of Streams and Lakes or Associated Buffers -- Stream Relocation: i. Administrative Approval of Stream Relocation: Stream relocation may be allowed when analyzed in an accepted supplemental stream or lake assessment, and when the following criteria and conditions are met: (a) Criteria—Stream relocation may only be permitted if associated with: (i)A public flood hazard reduction/habitat enhancement project approved by appropriate State and/or Federal agencies; or (ii)Expansion of public road or other public facility improvements where no feasible alternative exists; or (iii) A public or private proposal restoring a water body and resulting in a net benefit to on- or off-site habitat and species. (b) Additional Conditions: The following conditions also apply to any stream relocation proposal meeting one or more of the above criteria: (i)Buffer widths shall be based upon the new stream location, provided that the buffer widths may be reduced or averaged if meeting criteria of L.5 c or d or subsection (b)(ii). Where minimum required buffer widths are not feasible for stream relocation proposals that are the result of activities pursuant to criteria i(a)(i) and i(a)(ii) above, other equivalent on- or off-site compensation to achieve no-net-loss of riparian function is provided 116 (ii)When Class 4 streams are proposed for relocation due to Ned expansions of public roads or other public facility improvements per subsection (a)(ii) above, the buffer area between the facility and the relocated stream shall not be less than the width prior to the relocation. The provided buffer between the facility and the relocated stream shall be enhanced or improved to provide appropriate function given the class and condition of the stream; or if there is no buffer currently, other equivalent on- or off-site compensation to achieve no-net- loss of riparian function is provided. (iii) Applicable mitigation criteria of RMC 4-3-050.L.3.c.ii. must be met.(iv)Proper notifications and records must be made of stream relocations,per RMC 4-3-050.D.3.b,Information to be Obtained and Maintained, and RMC 4-3-050.D.3.c, Alterations of Watercourses, in cases where the stream/lake is subject to flood hazard regulations of RMC 4- 3-050, as well as RMC 4-3-050.F8 if neighboring properties are impacted. f. Alterations—Single Family Home—Existing Legal Lot: If criteria to reduce or average a buffer cannot be met, construction,reconstruction, additions, and associated accessory structures of a single family home on an existing legal lot may be allowed to intrude into a buffer pursuant to a variance as stated in RMC 4-9-250B 1. g. Alterations—Other: Proposed alterations of a stream or lake or associated buffer not addressed by Subsections L.8.a to L.8.f require a variance pursuant to RMC 4-9-250B in order to be conducted. h. When Variance Is Required: If the proposed alteration applicable to Subsections L.8.a to L.8.g does not meet the above criteria, it shall require a variance per Subsection N3 of this Section and RMC 4-9-250B in order to be conducted. 117 9. Incentives for Restoration of Streams Located in an Underground Pipe or Culvert: Noose Daylighting of culverted watercourses should be encouraged and allowed with the following incentives: a. Modified Standards: i. Residential Zones: Setbacks, lot width and lot depth standards of RMC 4- 2 may be reduced by the Reviewing Official without requirement of a variance for lots that abut the daylighted watercourse to accommodate the same number of lots as if the watercourse were not daylighted. ii. Mixed Use, Commercial, and Industrial Zones: (1)Where greater lot coverage allowances are provided for structured parking in RMC 4-2, lot coverage may be increased to the limit allowed for structured parking if instead a stream is daylighted. The increase in impervious surface allowed shall be equal to the area of stream restoration. (2)Density bonuses may be allowed pursuant to RMC 4-9-065 where specified. b. Standard buffers may be reduced per 4-3-050.L.5.c. If reduced buffers in L.5.c along with other development standards of the zone would not allow the same development level as without the watercourse daylighting, a modification may be requested in 4-3-050.N. c. When designed consistent with the City's flood regulations in RMC 4-3- 050.1.6,portions of the daylighted stream/created buffer may be considered part of compensatory storage in flood hazard areas. d. Stream relocation is permitted subject to RMC 4-3-050.L.8. yam, 118 M. WETLANDS: NIS 1. Applicability: The wetland regulations apply to sites containing or abutting wetlands as described below. Category 3 wetlands, less than two thousand two hundred (2,200) square feet in area, are exempt from these regulations if they meet exemption criteria in RMC 4-3-050.C. (Amd. Ord. 4851, 8-7-2000) a. Classification System: The following classification system is hereby adopted for the purposes of regulating wetlands in the City. Wetlands buffer widths, replacement ratios and avoidance criteria shall be based on the following rating system: i. Category 1: Category 1 wetlands are wetlands which meet one or more of the following criteria: (a)The presence of species listed by Federal or State government as endangered or threatened, or the presence of essential habitat for those species; and/or (b) Wetlands having forty percent (40%) to sixty percent (60%) permanent open water(in dispersed patches or otherwise) with two (2) or more vegetation classes; and/or (c) Wetlands equal to or greater than ten (10) acres in size and having three (3) or more vegetation classes,one of which is open water; and/or (d)The presence of plant associations of infrequent occurrence; or at the geographic limits of their occurrence; and/or ii. Category 2: Category 2 wetlands are wetlands which meet one or more of the following criteria: (a)Wetlands that are not Category 1 or 3 wetlands; and/or 119 (b)Wetlands that have heron rookeries or osprey nests,but are not Now Category 1 wetlands; and/or (c)Wetlands of any size located at the headwaters of a watercourse, i.e. a wetland with a perennial or seasonal outflow channel, but witb no defined influent channel, but are not Category 1 wetlands; and/or (d)Wetlands having minimum existing evidence of human related physical alteration such as diking, ditching or channelization; and/or iii. Category 3: Category 3 wetlands are wetlands which meet one or more of the following criteria: (a)Wetlands that are severely disturbed. Severely disturbed wetlands are wetlands which meet the following criteria: Are characterized by hydrologic isolation, human-related hydrologic alterations such as diking, Now ditching, channelization and/or outlet modification; and Have soils alterations such as the presence of fill, soil removal and/or compaction of soils; and May have altered vegetation. (b)Wetlands that are newly emerging. Newly emerging wetlands are: Wetlands occurring on top of fill materials; and characterized by emergent vegetation, low plant species richness and used minimally by wildlife. These wetlands are generally found in the areas such as the Green River Valley and Black River Drainage Basin. (c)All other wetlands not classified as Category 1 or 2 such as smaller, high quality wetlands. b. Maps and Inventory: %vow 120 i. The approximate location and extent of wetlands in the City is displayed 4410 in subsection Q of this Section, Maps. The map is to be used as a guide to the general location and extent of wetlands. ii. Wetlands which are defined in subsection M.1.a of this Section, Classification System,but not shown on the Renton Wetlands Map Inventory, are presumed to exist in the City and are also protected under all the provisions of this section. iii. The actual presence or absence of the wetland criteria listed above, as determined by qualified professionals, shall govern the treatment of an individual building site or parcel of land requiring compliance with these regulations. c. Delineation of Wetland Edge: For the purpose of regulation, the wetland edge should be delineated pursuant to subsection M4 of this Section. d. Regulated and Nonregulated Wetlands: Refer to subsection Mla and MY of this Section for applicability thresholds for regulatory and nonregulatory wetlands. e. Performance Standards: In addition to general standards of subsection E of this Section, the following performance standards apply to all regulated wetlands. i. Regulated and Nonregulated Wetlands—General: Wetlands created or restored as a part of a mitigation project are regulated wetlands. Regulated wetlands do not include those artificial wetlands intentionally created from nonwetland sites for purposes other than wetland mitigation, including,but not limited to,irrigation and drainage ditches, grass-lined swales, canals, detention facilities, wastewater treatment facilities, farm pond, and landscape amenities, or those wetlands created after July 1, 1990 that were unintentionally created as a result of the construction of a road, street, or highway. The Department Administrator shall determine that a wetland is not regulated on the basis of photographs, statements, and other evidence. 121 ii. Nonregulated Category 3 Wetlands: Based upon an applicant request, the Department Administrator may determine that Category 3 wetlands are not considered regulated wetlands, if the applicant demonstrates the following criteria are met: (a)The wetland formed on top of fill legally placed on a property; and (b)The wetland hydrology is solely provided by the compaction of the soil and fill material; and (c)The U.S. Army Corps of Engineers has determined that they will not take jurisdiction over the wetland. 2. General Standards for Permit Approval: Permit approval by the Reviewing Official for projects involving regulated wetlands or wetland buffers shall be granted only if the approval is consistent with the provisions of this section. Additionally, approvals shall only be granted if: a. A proposed action avoids adverse impacts to regulated wetlands or their buffers or takes affirmative and appropriate measures to minimize and compensate for unavoidable impacts; and b. The proposed activity results in no net loss of regulated wetland area, value, or function in the drainage basin where the wetland is located; or c. A variance process is successfully completed to determine conditions for permitting of activity requested including measures to reduce impacts as appropriate . 3. Study Required: a. When Study Is Required: Wetland assessments are required as follows: i. Wetland Classification: The applicant shall be required to conduct a study to determine the classification of the wetland if the subject property or project area is within 122 one hundred feet (100 ) of a wetland even if the wetland is not located on the subject property but it is determined that alterations of the subject property are likely to impact the wetland in question or its buffer. If there is a potential Category 1 or 2 wetland within three hundred (300)feet of a proposal, the City may require an applicant to conduct a study even if the wetland is not located on the subject property but it is determined that alterations of the subject property are likely to impact the wetland in question or its buffer. ii. Wetland Delineation: A wetland delineation is required for any portion of a wetland on the subject property that will be impacted by the permitted activities. b. Study Waived: The wetland assessment shall be waived by the Department Administrator when the applicant provides satisfactory evidence that a road, building or other barrier exists between the wetland and the proposed activity,or when the buffer area needed or required will not intrude on the applicant's lot, or when applicable data and analysis appropriate Nrad to the project proposed exists and an additional report is not necessary. 4. Delineation of Regulatory Edge of Wetlands: a. Methodology: For the purpose of regulation, the exact location of the wetland edge shall be determined by the wetlands specialist hired at the expense of the applicant through the performance of a field investigation using the procedures provided in the following manual: Washington State Wetlands Identification and Delineation Manual, Washington Sta to Department of Ecology, March 1997,Ecology Publication#96-94. b. Delineations—Open Water: Where wetlands are contiguous with areas of open freshwater, streams, or rivers, the delineation shall be consistent with the Washington State Wetlands Rating System: Western Washington, Second Edition,Washington State Department of 123 Ecology, August 1993, Publication#93-74, Appendix 5,or another accepted Federal or State `'fir► methodology, subject to City review. c. Adjustments to Delineation by City: Where the applicant has provided a delineation of the wetland edge, the City shall review and may render adjustments to the edge delineation. In the event the adjusted edge delineation is contested by the applicant, the City shall at the applicant's expense, obtain the services of an additional qualified wetlands specialist to review the original study and render a final delineation. d. Period of Validity for Wetland Delineation: i. Within City Limits: A final wetland delineation, for properties within the city limits at the time the delineation was prepared, is valid for five (5) years, unless the Administrator determines that conditions have changed. ii. Outside City Limits: The period of validity of wetland delineations for lika.r properties, which were unincorporated at the time of the delineation, will be determined by the Administrator. Following a review of a wetland delineation prepared for a unincorporated property, since annexed into the city,the Administrator may require adjustments be made to the study or a new study prepared, per subsection M3 of this Section,Delineation of Regulatory Edge of Wetlands. 5. Determination of Wetland Classification: Wetland studies shall determine the appropriate wetland classification according to subsection M1 of this Section, Wetlands. The City may accept a dual wetland classification for a wetland exhibiting a combination of Category 1 and 2 features or a combination of Category 1 and 3 features. The City will not accept a dual rating for a Category 2 wetland, such as a combined Category 2 and 3 rating. Dual ratings for a Category 1 wetland shall be consistent with the Washington State Wetlands Rating System: 4w✓ 124 Western Washington, Second Edition,Washington State Department of Ecology, August 1993, Publication#93-74 or as thereafter amended or updated. 6. Wetland Buffers: a. Buffers Required: i. Wetland buffer zones shall be required of all proposed regulated activities abutting regulated wetlands. ii. Any wetland created, restored, or enhanced in conjunction with creation or restoration as compensation for approved wetland alterations shall include the standard buffer required for the class of the wetland being replaced. iii. All required wetland buffer zones shall be retained in their natural condition. Category 3 wetland buffers of 25 feet require the buffers be fully vegetated with native species or restored; otherwise increased buffer widths to protect functions and values may be required. iv. Where buffer disturbance has occurred during construction or other activities, revegetation with native vegetation may be required. b. Measurement of Buffers: All buffers shall be measured from the wetland boundary as surveyed in the field pursuant to the requirements of subsection M4a of this Section, Methodology. c. Standard Buffer Zone Widths: i. The width of the required wetland buffer zone shall be determined according to the wetland category. The buffer zone required for all regulated wetlands is determined by the classification of the wetland. If standard buffer widths cannot be met, and buffer reductions per subsection M6e of this Section, and buffer averaging per subsection M6f 125 cannot be accomplished, a variance to buffer requirements may be requested per subsection N of `fir this Section, Alternates, Modifications and Variances, and RMC 4-9-250B, Variance Procedures. If the criteria in subsection d below are met, standard buffers may be increased. Wetland Category Standard Buffer f Category 1 100 feet Category 2 V +Ys� V' 50 feet Category 3....__�..._ ..,�m,...� 25 feet .ry.. ii. To protect the buffer functions,the Reviewing Official shall condition permits as appropriate to the nature of the development. Conditions of approval may include,but are not limited to, the following: (a) Fencing pursuant to RMC 4-3-050.E.4.e, plant materials, and signage pursuant to RMC 4-3-050.E.4.f, to limit pet and human disturbance; (b)Directing lights from buildings or parking areas, or noise generating activities, away from the wetland; (c) Implementing water quality treatment measures required in RMC 4-6-030,Drainage (Surface Water) Standards; (d) Avoidance of buffer disturbance and retention of the buffer in a • natural condition consistent with 4-3-050.M.6.a. d. Increased Wetland Buffer Zone Width: Each applicant shall document in required wetland assessments whether the criteria d.i through d.iv are or are not met and increased wetland buffers are warranted. Based on the applicant's report or third party review, the Responsible Official may require increased standard buffer zone widths in unique cases, i.e., endangered species, very fragile areas, when a larger buffer is necessary to protect wetlands 126 functions and values. Such determination shall be attached as a condition of project approval. Analysis shall be prepared as directed in subsection v, and notification shall be given pursuant to criteria vi. i. The wetland is used by species listed by the Federal or the State government as threatened, endangered and sensitive species and State-listed priority species, essential habitat for those species or has unusual nesting or resting sites such as heron rookeries or raptor nesting trees or evidence thereof; or ii. The subject property, or nearby lands to which the subject property drains in route to a wetland are susceptible to severe erosion, and erosion control measures will not effectively prevent adverse wetland impacts; or iii.The subject property, or nearby lands to which the subject property drains in route to a wetland have minimal vegetative cover or slopes greater than fifteen percent (15%) and conditions cannot be restored to prevent adverse wetland impacts; or iv. Wetland dependent wildlife species are observed to be present in the wetland, and may require larger buffers based upon the evaluation in subsection v; and v. For proposals meeting any of the criteria in subsections i to iv,buffers are established using a site specific evaluation and documentation of buffer adequacy based upon The Science of Wetland Buffers and Its Implications for the Management of Wetlands, McMillan 2000, Wetlands in Washington State Volume 2: Guidance for Protecting and Managing Wetlands, Appendix 8C (Hruby et al. 2005), or a similar approaches; and. vi. Notification is given consistent with F8. e. Reduction of Buffer Width: Based upon an applicant's request, the Administrator may approve a reduction in the standard wetland buffer zone widths on a case-by- 127 case basis for Class 1 and 2 wetlands where the applicant can demonstrate compliance with subsections M6ei and iii or ii and iii below. Such determination and evidence shall be included in the application file and public notification shall be given in accordance with M6e(iv). . Conditions may be applied in accordance with subsection v. (Amd. Ord. 4851, 8-7-2000) i. The buffer area land is extensively vegetated and has less than fifteen percent (15%) slopes and no direct or indirect, short-term or long-term, adverse impacts to regulated wetlands, as determined by the City, will result from a regulated activity. The City's determination shall be based on specific site studies by recognized experts. The City may require long-term monitoring of the project and subsequent corrective actions if adverse impacts to regulated wetlands are discovered; or ii. The project includes a buffer enhancement plan using native vegetation and substantiates that the enhanced buffer will be equal to or improve the functional attributes of the buffer. An enhanced buffer shall not result in greater than a twenty five percent (25%) reduction in the buffer width. Greater buffer width reductions require review as a variance per subsection N3 of this Section. iii. The proposal shall rely upon a site specific evaluation and documentation of buffer adequacy based upon The Science of Wetland Buffers and Its Implications for the Management of Wetlands, McMillan 2000, or similar approaches. The proposed buffer standard is based on consideration of the best available science as described in WAC 365-195-905; or where there is an absence of valid scientific information, the steps in RMC 4-9-250F are followed. iv. Public notification of the buffer reduction determination shall be given as follows: New 128 (a) For applications that are not subject to notices of application per RMC 4-8, notice of the buffer determination shall be given by posting the site and notifying parties of record, if any, in accordance with RMC 4-8. (b) For applications that are subject to notices of application, the buffer determination or request for determination shall be included with notice of application. Upon determination,notification of parties of record,if any, shall be made. v. The Reviewing Official shall apply conditions of approval equivalent or greater than those identified in M.6.c.ii to ensure that the reduced buffer width protect the functions and values of the associated wetlands. f. Averaging of Buffer Width: Standard wetland buffer zones may be modified by averaging buffer widths. Upon applicant request, wetland buffer width averaging may be allowed by the Department Administrator only where the applicant demonstrates all of the following: Ned i. That the wetland contains variations in ecological sensitivity or there are existing physical improvements in or near the wetland and buffer; and ii. That width averaging will not adversely impact the wetland function and values; and iii. That the total area contained within the wetland buffer after averaging is no less than that contained within the required standard buffer prior to averaging; and iv. A site specific evaluation and documentation of buffer adequacy based upon The Science of Wetland Buffers and Its Implications for the Management of Wetlands, McMillan 2000, or a similar approach has been conducted. The proposed buffer standard is based on consideration of the best available science as described in WAC 365-195-905; or where there is an absence of valid scientific information, the steps in RMC 4-9-250F are followed. 129 v. In no instance shall the buffer width be reduced by more than fifty Ore percent (50%) of the standard buffer or be less than twenty five feet (25 ) wide. Greater buffer width reductions require review as a variance per subsection N3 of this Section and RMC 4-9-250 B; and vi. Buffer enhancement in the areas where the buffer is reduced shall be required on a case-by-case basis where appropriate to site conditions, wetland sensitivity, and proposed land development characteristics. vii. Notification may be required pursuant to F8. 7. Wetlands—Native Growth Protection Areas: As a condition of any approval issued pursuant to this section for any development permit, the property owner shall be required to create a separate native growth protection area containing the areas determined to be wetland and/or wetland buffer in field investigations performed pursuant to subsections M4, Delineation of err Regulatory Edge of Wetlands, and M5,Determination of Wetland Classification. Native growth protection areas shall be established pursuant to subsection E.4 of this Section 8. Wetland Changes—Alternative Methods of Development: If wetland changes are proposed for a non-exempt activity,the applicant shall evaluate alternative methods of developing the property using the following criteria in this order and provide reasons why a less intrusive method of development is not feasible. In determining whether to grant permit approval per subsection M2 of this Section, General Standards for Permit Approval, the Reviewing Official shall make a determination as to whether the feasibility of less intrusive methods of development have been adequately evaluated and that less intrusive methods of development are not feasible: a. Avoid any disturbances to the wetland or buffer; b. Minimize any wetland or buffer impacts; 130 c. Restore any wetlands or buffer impacted or lost temporarily; and d. Compensate for any permanent wetland or buffer impacts by one of the following methods: i. Restoring a former wetland and provide buffers at a site once exhibiting wetland characteristics to compensate for wetlands lost; ii. Creating new wetlands and buffers for those lost; and iii. In addition to restoring or creating a wetland, enhancing an existing degraded wetland to compensate for lost functions and values. 9. Compensating for Wetlands Impacts: a. Goal: The overall goal of any compensatory project shall be no net loss of wetland function and acreage and to strive for a net resource gain in wetlands over present conditions.The concept of "no net loss" means to create, restore and/or enhance a wetland so that AG there is no reduction to total wetland acreage and/or function. b. Plan Requirements: The applicant shall develop a plan that provides for land acquisition, construction, maintenance and monitoring of replacement wetlands that recreate as nearly as possible the wetland being replaced in terms of acreage,function, geographic location and setting, and that are equal to or larger than the original wetlands. c. Plan Performance Standards: Compensatory mitigation shall follow an approved mitigation plan pursuant to subsections M8 to M10 of this Section and shall meet the minimum performance standards in subsection 4-3-050.F.8. d. Acceptable Mitigation—Permanent Wetland Impacts: Any person who alters regulated wetlands shall restore or create equivalent areas or greater areas of wetlands than those altered in order to compensate for wetland losses. Enhancement of wetlands may be provided as 131 mitigation if it is conducted in conjunction with mitigation proposed to create or restore a wetland in order to maintain "no net loss" of wetland acreage. Subsections M10 through M12 provide further detail on wetland restoration, creation, and enhancement. e. Restoration, Creation, or Combined Enhancement Required—Compensation for Permanent Wetland Impacts: As a condition of any permit allowing alteration of wetlands and/or wetland buffers, or as an enforcement action the City shall require that the applicant engage in the restoration or creation of wetlands and their buffers (or funding of these activities)in order to offset the impacts resulting from the applicant's or violator's actions. Enhancement in conjunction with restoration or creation may be allowed in order to offset the impacts resulting from an applicant's actions. Enhancement is not allowed as compensation for a violator's actions. f. Compensating for Temporary Wetland Impacts: Where wetland disturbance has occurred during construction or other activities, see subsection C5f(iii) of this Section. g. Mitigation Bank Agreement—Glacier Park Company: Pursuant to the Wetland Mitigation Bank Agreement between the City and the Glacier Park Company, King County recording number 9206241805, wetland alteration and wetland mitigation shall be conducted in accordance with the agreement. 10. Wetland Compensation—Restoration, Creation, and Enhancement: The applicant may propose a mitigation approach that includes restoration or creation solely or combines restoration or creation with enhancement. The City may require one mitigation approach in favor of another if it is determined that: a. There is a greater probability of success in ensuring no net loss of wetlands acreage, functions, and values; and b. The mitigation approach can be accomplished on-site rather than off-site. 'fir 132 11. Wetlands Creation and Restoration: Ned a. Creation or Restoration Proposals: Any applicant proposing to alter wetlands may propose to restore wetlands or create new wetlands, with priority first for on-site restoration or creation and then second, within the drainage basin,in order to compensate for wetland losses. Restoration activities must include restoring lost hydrologic, water quality and biologic functions. b. Compliance with Goals: Applicants proposing to restore or create wetlands shall identify how the restoration or creation plan conforms to the purposes and requirements of this section and established regional goals of no net loss of wetlands. c. Category: Where feasible, created or restored wetlands shall be a higher category than the altered wetland. In no cases shall they be lower, except as follows: For impacts to Category 1 shrub-scrub and emergent wetlands, if it is infeasible to create or restore a site to become a Category 1 wetland,the Administrator may allow for creation/restoration of high Y quality Category 2 wetlands at one hundred fifty percent (150%) of the normally required creation/replacement ratios of Category 1 shrub-scrub or emergent wetlands,within the basin. d.Design Criteria: Requirements for wetland restoration or creation as compensation areas shall be determined according to the function, acreage, type and location of the wetland being replaced. Compensation requirements should also consider time factors, the ability of the project to be self-sustaining and the projected success based on similar projects. Wetland functions and values shall be calculated using the best professional judgment of a qualified wetland ecologist using the best available techniques. Multiple or cooperative compensation projects may be proposed for one project in order to best achieve the goal of no net loss. Restoration or creation must be within the same drainage basin. 133 e. Acreage Replacement Ratio: The ratios listed in subsections Ml le(i),Ratios For Wetland Creation or Restoration, apply to all Category 1, 2, or 3 wetlands for restoration or creation which is in-kind, on-or off-site, timed prior to alteration, and has a high probability of success. The required ratio must be based on the wetland category and type that require replacement. Ratios are determined by the probability of recreating successfully the wetland and the inability of guarantees of functionality, longevity, and duplication of type and/or functions. ii:-R—ATIO;;O;WETLANDS CREATION `OR RESTORATION: Wetland Vegetation Creation/Restoration Category Type Ratio 1 t Category 1 Forested 6 times the area altered. Very High Scrub-shrub Quality 3 times the area Emergent altered. 2 times the area altered. Category 2 Forested 3 times the area altered. High Quality Scrub-shrub 2 times the area Emergent altered. 1.5 times the area altered. Category 3 Forested 1.5 times the area altered. Lower Scrub-shrub' Quality 1.5 times the area Emergent altered. 1.5 times the area altered. f. Increased Creation/Restoration/Replacement Ratios: The Reviewing Official err` may increase the ratios under the following circumstances: uncertainty as to the probable success 134 of the proposed restoration or creation; significant period of time between destruction and Nwed replication of wetland functions; projected losses in functional value; or off-site compensation. The requirement for an increased replacement ratio will be determined through SEPA review, except in the case of remedial actions resulting from illegal alterations where the Administrator or Environmental Review Committee may require increased wetland replacement ratios. g. Decreased Creation/Restoration/Replacement Ratios: i. Category 1: The Reviewing Official may decrease the ratios for Category 1 forested and scrub-shrub wetlands to 2.0 times the area altered, and to 1.5 times the area altered for emergent wetlands,provided the applicant has successfully replaced the wetland prior to its filling and has shown that the replacement is successfully established for five (5) years. ii. Category 2: The Reviewing Official may decrease the ratios for Category 2 forested and scrub-shrub wetlands to 1.5 times the area altered provided the applicant has successfully replaced the wetland prior to its filling and has shown that the replacement is successfully established for two (2) years. Ratios for Category 2 emergent wetlands may be reduced to 1.25 times the area altered provided the applicant has successfully replaced the wetland prior to its filling and has shown that the replacement is successfully established for two (2) years. iii. Category 3: (1)The Reviewing Official may decrease the ratios for Category 3 emergent wetlands to 1.0 times the area altered provided the applicant has successfully replaced the wetland prior to its filling and has shown that the replacement is successfully established for twelve (12)months. Ratios for Category 3 scrub-shrub and forested wetlands may be reduced to 135 1.25 times the area altered provided the applicant has successfully replaced the wetland prior to its 'err filling and has shown that the replacement is successfully established for two (2) years. (2)If the applicant can aggregate two (2)or more Category 3 wetlands, each less than ten thousand(10,000) square feet, into one wetland, the replacement ratio shall be reduced to 1:1. If the combined wetland would be rated as a Category 2 wetland as a result of the combination, the buffer requirement may be reduced to twenty five feet(25 ) minimum provided the buffer is enhanced. h. Category 3 Replacement Option: The applicant, at his/her expense, may select to use accepted Federal or State methods to establish the functions and values for the Category 3 wetland being replaced in lieu of replacement by acreage only. A third party review, funded by the applicant, and hired and managed by the City, shall review and verify the reports. Dependent upon the results of the functions and values evaluation, a Category 3 wetland may be replaced by assuring that all the functions and values are replaced in another location, within the same basin. i. Minimum Restoration/Creation Ratio: Unless allowed by subsection Ml lg of this Section,restoration or creation ratios may only be reduced by modification or variance pursuant to subsection N, Alternates,Modifications and Variances, and RMC 4-9-2508, Variance Procedures, and RMC 4-9-250D,Modification Procedures. In order to maintain no net loss of wetland acreage, in no case shall the restoration or creation ratio be less than 1:1. This minimum ratio may not be modified through the modification or variance process. 12. Wetland Enhancement: a. Enhancement Proposals—Combined with Restoration and Creation: Any applicant proposing to alter wetlands may propose to enhance an existing degraded wetland, in conjunction with restoration or creation of a wetland in order to compensate for wetland losses. "fir 136 Wetland enhancement shall not be allowed as compensation if it is not accomplished in Ned conjunction with a proposal to restore or create a wetland. b. Evaluation Criteria: A wetland enhancement compensation project may be approved by the Reviewing Official provided that enhancement for one function will not degrade another function unless the enhancement would provide a higher functioning wetland with greater or multiple environmental benefits. For example, an enhancement may degrade habitat for one wildlife species but overall it may result in a wetland that provides higher function to a wider variety of wildlife species. Wetland function assessment shall be conducted in conformance with accepted Federal or State methodologies. c. Wetlands Chosen for Enhancement: An applicant proposing to alter wetlands may propose to enhance an existing Category 2 or 3 wetland. Existing Category 1 wetlands shall not be enhanced to compensate for wetland alteration unless the wetland selected for enhancement is a Category 1 wetland only by virtue of its acreage and three (3) vegetation classes, where the existing vegetation is characterized partly or wholly by invasive wetland species. d. Mitigation Ratios: Wetland alterations shall be created, restored and enhanced using the formulas in subsection M12d(i), Ratios for Wetland Restoration or Creation plus Enhancement. The following is an example of use of the formulas below: If one acre of Category 2,forested wetland,were proposed to be removed, the creation/replacement ratio (subsection Ml le(i))requires that three (3) acres of forested Category 2 wetland be restored or created; if wetland enhancement were proposed(subsection M12d(i))for the Category 2, forested wetland, 1.5 acres of forested Category 2 wetland would have to be 137 created/restored and two (2) acres of forested Category 2 wetland enhanced, possibly in a different part of the same wetland. (Amd. Ord. 4851, 8-7-2000) `i. RATIOS FOR WETLAND RESTORATION OR CREATION PLUS ENHANCEMENT Wetland Vegetation Restoration or Creation Enhancement Ratio Category Type Ratio Category 1 Forested 3 times the area altered plus 3.5 times the area altered Very High Scrub-shrub 1.5 times the area altered plus Quality I 2 times the area Emergent 1 times the area altered plus altered 1.5 times the area altered Category 2 Forested 1.5 times the area altered plus 2 times the area altered High Quality Scrub-shrub 1 times the area altered plus 1.5 times the area Emergent 1 times the area altered plus altered 1 times the area altered Category 3 Forested 1 times the area altered plus 1 times the area altered Lower Scrub-shrub 1 times the area altered plus Quality 1 times the area Emergent 1 times the area altered plus altered 1 times the area altered e. Ratio Modification and Minimum Restoration/Creation Ratio: i. An applicant may propose an increased creation or restoration ratio and a decreased enhancement ratio if the total combined ratio is maintained overall. Restoration/creation or enhancement ratios shown in subsection M12d of this Section may only be reduced by modification or variance pursuant to subsection N3,Alternatives,Modifications and Variances, and RMC 4-9-250B, Variance Procedures, and RMC 4-9-250D,Modification 138 Procedures. In order to maintain no net loss of wetland acreage, in no case shall the restoration or *8404 creation ratio be less than 1:1. This minimum ratio may not be modified through the variance process. ii. The Reviewing Official may increase the ratios under the following circumstances: uncertainty as to the probable success of the proposed restoration or creation or enhancement proposal; significant period of time between destruction and replication of wetland functions; projected losses in functional value; or off-site compensation.The requirement for an increased mitigation ratio will be determined through SEPA review, except in the case of remedial actions resulting from illegal alterations where the Administrator or Environmental Review Committee may require increased mitigation ratios. 13. Out-of-Kind Replacement: Out-of-kind replacement may be used in place of in-kind compensation only where the applicant can demonstrate to the satisfaction of the Reviewing Official that: a. The wetland system is already significantly degraded and out-of-kind replacement will result in a wetland with greater functional value; or b. Scientific problems such as exotic vegetation and changes in watershed hydrology make implementation of in-kind compensation impossible or unacceptable; or c. Out-of-kind replacement will best meet identified regional goals (e.g., replacement of historically diminished wetland types). 14. Off-Site Compensation: a. When Permitted: Off-site compensation may be provided in lieu of on-site compensation only where the applicant can demonstrate to the satisfaction of the Responsible Official that: 139 i. The hydrology and ecosystem of the original wetland and those abutting or adjacent land and/or wetlands which benefit from the hydrology and ecosystem will not be substantially damaged by the on-site loss; and ii. On-site compensation is not feasible due to problems with hydrology, soils, or other factors; or iii. Compensation is not practical due to potentially adverse impact from surrounding land uses; or iv. The proposed wetland functions at the mitigation site are significantly greater than the wetland functions that could be reasonably achieved with on-site mitigation, and there is no significant loss of function on-site, i.e. at the development project site ; or v. Established regional goals for flood storage, flood conveyance, habitat or other wetland functions have been addressed and strongly justify location of compensatory measures at another site. b. Locations: Any off-site compensation shall follow the preferences in"i" to "iii" below. Basins and subbasins are indicated in 4-3-050.Q,Maps: i. Off-site mitigation within same drainage subbasin as subject site: Off- site mitigation may be allowed when located within the same drainage subbasin as the subject site subject to criteria in M.14.a above; ii. Off-site mitigation within same drainage basin within City limits: Off- site mitigation may be allowed when located within the same drainage basin within the Renton City limits if it achieves equal or improved ecological functions within the City over mitigation within the same drainage subbasin as the project, and shall be subject to criteria in M.14.a above; Now 140 iii. Off-site mitigation within the same drainage basin outside the City Ned limits: Off-site mitigation may be allowed when located within the same drainage basin outside the Renton City limits if it achieves equal or improved ecological functions over mitigation within the same drainage basin within the Renton City limits and it meets City goals, and shall be subject to criteria in M.14.a above. c. Siting Recommendations: In selecting compensation sites, the City encourages applicants to pursue siting compensation projects in disturbed sites which were formerly wetlands, and especially those areas which would result in a series of interconnected wetlands. d. Timing: Compensatory projects shall be substantially completed and approved by the City prior to the issuance of an occupancy permit. Construction of compensation projects shall be timed to reduce impacts to existing wildlife and flora. The Reviewing Official may elect to require a surety device for completion of construction. Nod 15. Cooperative Wetland Compensation: Mitigation Banks or Special Area Management Programs (SAMP): a. Applicability: The City encourages, and will facilitate and approve cooperative projects wherein a single applicant or other organization with demonstrated capability may undertake a compensation project under the following circumstances: i. Restoration or creation on-site may not be feasible due to problems with hydrology, soils, or other factors; or ii. Where the cooperative plan is shown to better meet established regional goals for flood storage, flood conveyance,habitat or other wetland functions. b. Process: Applicants proposing a cooperative compensation project shall: i. Submit a permit application; Ned 141 ii. Demonstrate compliance with all standards; iii. Demonstrate that long-term management will be provided; and iv. Demonstrate agreement for the project from all affected property owners of record. c. Mitigation Banks: Mitigation banks are defined as sites which may be used for restoration, creation and/or mitigation of wetland alternatives from a different piece of property than the property to be altered within the same drainage basin. The City of Renton maintains a mitigation bank. A list of City mitigation bank sites is maintained by the Planning/Building/Public Works Department. With the approval of the Planning/Building/Public Works Department, non-City-controlled mitigation banks may be established and utilized. d. Special Area Management Programs: Special area management programs are ,, those wetland programs agreed upon through an interjurisdictional planning process involving the ew U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, the Washington State Department of Ecology, any affected counties and/or cities,private property owners and other parties of interest. The outcome of the process is a regional wetlands permit representing a plan of action for all wetlands within the special area. e. Compensation Payments to Mitigation Bank: Compensation payments, amount to be determined by the Reviewing Official, received as part of a mitigation or creation bank must be received prior to the issuance of an occupancy permit. 16. Mitigation Plans: a. Required for Restoration, Creation and Enhancement Projects: All wetland restoration, creation, and enhancement in conjunction with restoration and creation projects required pursuant to this section either as a permit condition or as the result of an enforcement 142 action shall follow a mitigation plan prepared by qualified wetland specialists approved by the City. b. Timing for Mitigation Plan Submittal and Commencement of any Work: See subsection F.8. c. Content of Mitigation Plan: Unless the City, in consultation with qualified wetland specialists, determines,based on the size and scope of the development proposal, the nature of the impacted wetland and the degree of cumulative impacts on the wetland from other development proposals, that the scope and specific requirements of the mitigation plan may be reduced, the mitigation plan shall address all requirements in RMC 4-8-120D23, Wetland Mitigation Plan and RMC 4-3-050F8. d. Performance Surety: As a condition of approval of any mitigation plan, the Reviewing Official shall require a performance surety per RMC 4-1-215 and RMC 4-3-050.G. N. ALTERNATES,MODIFICATIONS AND VARIANCES: 1. Alternates: a. Applicability: See RMC 4-9-250E. 2. Modifications: a. Applicability: The Department Administrator may grant modifications,per RMC 4-9-250D1, Application Time and Decision Authority,in the following circumstances: i. Aquifer Protection—Modifications: The Department will consider modification applications in the following cases: (1)The request is to find that a standard is inapplicable to that activity, facility, or development permit due to the applicant's proposed methods or location; or 143 (2)The request is to modify a specific standard or regulation due to Nitro practical difficulties; and (3)The request meets the intent and purpose of the aquifer protection regulations. Based upon application of the above tests (1), (2), and(3), applications which are considered appropriate for review as modifications are subject to the procedures and criteria in RMC 4-9-250D,Modification Procedures. Requests to modify regulations or standards which do not meet the above tests shall be processed as variances. (Amd. Ord. 4851, 8-7-2000) (4) In addition to the criteria of RMC 4-9-250D, Modification Procedures,the following criteria shall apply: The proposed modification is based on consideration of the best available science as described in WAC 365-195-905; or where there is an absence of valid scientific information,the steps in RMC 4-9-250F are followed. ii. Geologic Hazards—Modifications: An applicant may request that the Administrator grant a modification to allow: (1)Regrading of any slope which was created through previous mineral and natural resource recovery activities or was created prior to adoption of applicable mineral and natural resource recovery regulations or through public or private road installation or widening and related transportation improvements, railroad track installation or improvement, or public or private utility installation activities; (2)Filling against the toe of a natural rock wall or rock wall created through mineral and natural resource recovery activities or through public or private road installation or widening and related transportation improvements,railroad track installation or 441.0. 144 improvement or public or private utility installation activities; and/or (3) Grading to the extent that it eliminates all or portions of a mound or to allow reconfiguration of protected slopes created through mineral and natural resource recovery activities or public or private road installation or widening and related transportation improvements, railroad track installation or improvement, or public or private utility installation activities. The following procedures shall apply to any of the above activities: (i)The applicant shall submit a geotechnical report describing any potential impacts of the proposed regrading and any necessary mitigation measures; (ii)All submitted reports shall be independently reviewed by qualified specialists selected by the City at the applicant's expense; (iii)The Department Administrator may grant,condition, or deny the request based upon the proposal's compliance with the applicable modification criteria of RMC 4-9-250D; and (iv)Any slope which remains forty percent(40%) or steeper following site development shall be subject to all applicable geologic hazard regulations for steep slopes and landslide hazards, in this section. (v)In addition to the criteria of RMC 4-9-250D, Modification Procedures, the following criteria shall apply: The proposed modification is based on consideration of the best available science as described in WAC 365-195-905; or where there is an absence of valid scientific information,the steps in RMC 4-9-250F are followed. 145 fir►. iii. Wetlands—Modifications: An applicant may request that the Administrator grant a modification as follows: (1) Modifications may be requested for a reduction in creation/restoration or enhancement ratios for a Category 3 wetland; however, the creation/restoration ratio shall not be reduced below 1:1. (2) In addition to the criteria of RMC 4-9-250D, Modification Procedures, the following criteria shall apply: (i) The proposal will result in no-net loss of wetland or buffer area and functions. (ii) The proposed modification is based on consideration of the best available science as described in WAC 365-195-905; or where there is an absence of valid scientific information, the steps in RMC 4-9-250F are followed. iv. Streams—Modifications: An applicant may request that the Administrator grant a modification as follows: (1)Modifications may be requested for a reduction in stream buffers for Class 2 or 3 watercourses proposed to be daylighted,below the stream buffer reduction levels of 4-3-050.L.5.c. (2) In addition to the criteria of RMC 4-9-250D, Modification Procedures, the following criteria shall apply: (i) The buffer is lowered only to the amount necessary to achieve the same amount of development as without the daylighting. (ii) The buffer width is no less than 50 feet on a Class 2 watercourse and 25 feet on a Class 3 watercourse. 146 The proposed modification is based on consideration of the best available science as described in WAC 365-195-905; or where there is an absence of valid scientific information, the steps in RMC 4-9-250F are followed. 3. Variances: a. Aquifer Protection—Variance: i. Applicability: If an applicant feels that the strict application of this Section would deny all reasonable use of the property or would deny installation of public transportation or utility facilities determined by the public agency proposing these facilities to be in the best interest of the public health, safety and welfare, the applicant of a development proposal may apply for a variance. ii. Application Submittal: An application for a variance shall be filed with the Development Services Division. Ned iii. Review Authority: A variance shall be decided by the Hearing Examiner based on the standards set forth RMC 4-9-250B, Variance Procedures. (Amd. Ord. 4851, 8-7-2000) b. Flood Hazards—Variances: i. Applicability: Refer to RMC 4-9-250B. c. Geologic Hazards, Habitat Conservation, Streams and Lakes—Classes 2 to 4, and Wetlands—Variance: i. Applicability: If an applicant feels that the strict application of this section would deny all reasonable use of the property containing a critical area or associated buffer, or would deny installation of public transportation or utility facilities determined by the agency proposing these facilities to be in the best interest of the public health, safety and welfare, 147 the public agency or an applicant of a development proposal may apply for a critical area variance. ii. Application Submittal: An application for a critical areas variance shall be filed with the Development Services Division. iii. Review Authority: Variances shall be determined administratively by the Department Administrator,or by the Hearing Examiner, as indicated in RMC 4-9-250B. O. APPEALS: 1. General: See RMC 4-8-070, Authority and Responsibilities, and RMC 4-8-110. (Amd. Ord.4851, 8-7-2000; Ord. 4963, 5-13-2002) 2. Record Required—Flood Hazards: The Department Administrator or his/her designee, the Building Official, shall maintain the records of all appeal actions and report any variances to the Federal Insurance Administration upon request. Nomw P.ASSESSMENT RELIEF—WETLANDS: 1. City Assessments: Such landowner should also be exempted from all special City assessments on the controlled wetland to defray the cost of Municipal improvements such as sanitary sewers, storm sewers, water mains and streets. Q.MAPS: 1. Aquifer Protection: See Figure 4-3-050Q1 for reference map. 2. Flood Hazards: see Figure 4-3-050Q2 for reference map. 3. Geologic Hazards: a. Coal Mine Hazards: i. Map: See Figure 4-3-050Q3a(i)for reference map. ii. Mapping Criteria: 148 (1)Low Coal Mine Hazards (CL): Areas not identified as high or medium hazards. While no mines are known in these areas, undocumented mining is known to have occurred. (2)Medium Coal Mine Hazards (CM): (i)Lands overlying coal mines,but not included in the high hazard category; and (ii) Surrounding lands overlying a wedge between a plane rising vertically from the mine and a plane rising from the mine at a break angle of between twenty five (25) and forty (40) degrees. The break angle is measured from the vertical. The break angle appropriate for the given seam is determined by the slope of the seam and the workings. Approximate mine depths and seam dip and break angles are provided in Appendices C and D of the Summary Report, Critical and Resource Areas Evaluation, GeoEngineers, 1991. (3)High Coal Mine Hazard(CH): All lands where underlying coal mines are within two hundred feet (200 )below the ground surface, or fifteen (15)times the height of the mine workings below the surface, whichever is less. b. Erosion Hazards: i. Map: See Figure 4-3-050Q3b(i) for reference map. ii. Mapping Criteria: (1)Low Erosion Hazard(EL): All surface soils on slopes less than fifteen percent (15%). Mapped areas include all Natural Resource Conservation Service (formerly U.S. Soil Conservation Service) soils designated A,B, or C. 149 (2)High Erosion Hazard (EH): All surface soils on slopes steeper Now than fifteen percent (15%). Mapped areas include all Natural Resource Conservation Service (formerly U.S. Soil Conservation Service) soils designated as D,E, or F. c. Landslide Hazards: i. Map: See Figure 4-3-050Q3c(i)for reference map. ii. Mapping Criteria: (1)Low Landslide Hazard(LL): Areas with slopes less than fifteen percent (15%). (2)Medium Landslide Hazard(LM): areas with slopes between fifteen percent(15%) and forty percent (40%) where the surface soils are underlain by permeable geologic units. The permeable units include: (i)Fill: af, afm, and m; (ii)Alluvium: Qac, Qaw, Qas, and Qa; (iii) Vashon recessional and advance glacial deposits: Qik, Qit, Qiv, Qpa, Qis, Qys, Qyg, Qvr, Qsr, and Qos; (iv)Vashon glacial deposits: Qg, Qgt, Qt, and Qvt. (3)High Landslide Hazards (LH): Areas with slopes greater than forty percent (40%) and areas with slopes between fifteen percent (15%) and forty percent (40%) where the surface soils are underlain by low permeability geologic units. The low permeability units include: (i)Post-glacial lake and peat silts: Qlp, Qp, Qlm, and Qvl; (ii)Pre-Vashon Pleistocene deposits: Qss, Qu, Qc, Qcg, and Qog; Nome 150 (iii)Tertiary rock formations: Ts,Ti, Tr,Tt,Tet,Ttu, Tta, *01 Teta, and Ttl. (4) Very High Landslide Hazards (LV): All mapped landslide deposits: Qmc, Qm, Ql, and landslides known from public records. d. Seismic: i. Map: See Figure 4-3-050Q3d(i)for reference map. ii. Mapping Criteria: (1) Low Seismic Hazard (SL): All Vashon age glacial and older sediments. The mapped areas include: (i)All deposits of recessional and advance glacial deposits: Qik, Qit,Qiv, Qpa, Qis, Qys, Qyg, Qur, Qsr, Qos, Qog. (ii)Vashon glacial deposits: Qg, Qgt, Qt, and Qvt; (iii)Pre-Vashon Pleistocene deposits: Qss, Qu, Qc, and Qcg; (iv)Tertiary rock formations: Ts,Ti,Tr,Tt,Tet,Ttu,Tta, Teta, and Ttl; (v) Areas of roadway fill, af and afm, which overly the above units. (2)High Seismic Hazard (SH): Post-glacial deposits which are likely to be saturated as they occupy low areas and frequently overlay low permeability deposits. They include: (i)Deposits of fill: af, afm, and m; (ii) Alluvium: Qaw, Qac, Qas, and Qa; (iii)Mass wasting deposits: Qmc, Qm, and Ql; 151 (iv)Post-glacial lake silts and peats: Qlp, Qp, Qlm, and Qvl. e. Steep Slopes: i. Map: Refer to the City of Renton Steep Slope Atlas and Figure 4-3- 050Q3e(i) for reference map. f. Volcanic Hazards: Volcanic hazard areas are those areas subject to a potential for inundation from post lahar sedimentation along the lower Green River as identified in Plate II, Map D, in the report U.S. Department of the Interior, U.S. Geological Survey (Revised 1998). Volcano Hazards from Mount Rainier, Washington. Open-File Report 98-428. 4. Streams and Lakes: See Figure 4-3-050.Q.4 for reference map identifying Class 2 to 4 water bodies. Water class shall be determined in accordance with RMC 4-3-050.L.1. For Class 1 waters, refer to RMC 4-3-090, Shoreline Master Program Regulations. 5. Wetlands: Refer to the City of Renton Wetland and Stream Corridors Critical Areas Inventory and see Figure 4-3-050Q5 for reference map. (Amd. Ord. 4851, 8-7-2000) 6. Drainage Basins: See Figure 4-3-050.Q.6 for a map identifying basins and subbasins in the Renton vicinity. SECTION III: Chapter Four Figure 4-3-050Q1 Aquifer Protection Zones, is amended to read as shown in Exhibit I. SECTION IV: Chapter Four Figure 4-3-Q4 is amended to add Class 2-4 Streams and Lakes. For Class 1 waters,refer to RMC 4-3-090, Shoreline Master Program Regulations as shown in Exhibit II. SECTION V: Chapter Four Figure 4-3-Q6 amended to add Drainage Basins as shown in Exhibit III. Now 152 SECTION VI: Chapter Four Property Development Standards, Section 4-4-130 Tree Cutting And Land Clearing Regulations is hereby amended to read as follows. A.PURPOSE: This Section provides regulations for the clearing of land and the protection and preservation of trees and associated significant vegetation. The purposes of these regulations are to: 1. Preserve and enhance the City's physical and aesthetic character by minimizing indiscriminate removal or destruction of trees and ground cover; 2. Implement and further the goals and policies of the City's Comprehensive Plan for the environment, open space, wildlife habitat, vegetation, resources, surface drainage, watersheds, and economics; 3. Promote building and site planning practices that are consistent with the City's natural topographical and vegetative features while at the same time recognizing that certain factors such as condition (e.g., disease, danger of falling,etc.), proximity to existing and proposed structures `"" and improvements, interference with utility services, protection of scenic views, and the realization of a reasonable enjoyment of property may require the removal of certain trees and ground cover; 4. Ensure prompt development,restoration and replanting, and effective erosion control of property during and after land clearing; 5. Promote land development practices that result in minimal adverse disturbance to existing vegetation and soils within the City; 6. Minimize surface water and groundwater runoff and diversion, and aid in the stabilization of soil, and to minimize erosion and sedimentation, and minimize the need for additional storm drainage facilities caused by the destabilization of soils; 153 7. Retain clusters of trees for the abatement of noise and for wind protection; and Noe 8. Recognize that trees and ground cover reduce air pollution by producing pure oxygen from carbon dioxide. B. APPLICABILITY: The regulations of this Section apply to any developed, partially developed, or undeveloped property where land development or routine vegetation management activities are undertaken. C. EXEMPTIONS: The following activities are exempt from routine vegetation management permit requirements, and may be authorized without an associated land development permit; however, the activities must be conducted in accordance with stated requirements: 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, and/or damaged, ground cover or trees which have been certified as hazard trees by a forester,registered landscape architect, or certified arborist, selection of which to be approved by the City based on the type of information required, or the City prior to their removal. 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 public 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 litre 154 virrasaim provisions of the State Environmental Policy Act and RMC 4-9-070,Environmental Review Ned Procedures. 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 that are planted and growing on the premises of a licensed retailer or wholesaler. 7. Public Road Expansion: Expansion of public roads, unless critical areas would be affected,in which case see C12 and C13. 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. NIS a. Investigative work should not disturb any more than five percent(5%) of any protected sensitive area described in subsection D2 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 D2 of this Section,Restrictions for Critical Areas. d. No site investigative work shall commence without first notifying the Director or designee in advance. 155 ,yam 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 one-half(1/2) of an acre and greater 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 thirty five thousand (35,000) square feet and greater in size. ')Irrr 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 C9 of this Section, Allowable Tree Cutting Activities, and subsection D2, 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 C9, Allowable Minor Tree Cutting Activities, and subsection D2, Restrictions for Critical Areas, is permitted 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. "%rry 156 12. Modification of Existing Utilities and Streets (not otherwise exempted by RMC 4-3- 05007)by Ten Percent (10%) or Less: See RMC 4-3-050.0 for conditions. (Ord. 4851, 8-7-2000) 13. Utilities,Traffic Control,Walkways, Bikeways Within Existing, Improved Right-of- Way or Easements: Within existing improved public road rights-of-way or easements, installation, construction,replacement, operation, overbuilding, or alteration of all natural gas, cable, communication, telephone and electric facilities, lines pipes, mains, equipment or appurtenances, traffic control devices, illumination, walkways and bikeways. If activities exceed the existing improved area or the public right-of-way, this exemption does not apply.Where applicable,restoration of disturbed areas shall be completed. D.PROHIBITED ACTIVITIES: 1. Prohibited Activities: There shall be no tree cutting or land clearing on any site for the sake of preparing that site for future development unless a land development permit for the site has been approved by the City. 2. Restrictions for Critical Areas—General: Unless exempted by critical areas, Section 4- 3-050.C.5 or Shoreline Master Program Regulations, Section 4-3-090,no tree cutting, or land clearing, or groundcover management is permitted: a. On portions of property with protected critical habitats, per RMC 4-3-050.K; streams and lakes,per RMC 4-3-050.L; Shorelines of the State, per RMC 4-3-090,Renton Shoreline Master Program Regulations; and wetlands,per RMC 4-3-050.M; and their associated buffers; b. On protected slopes except as allowed in this Section or in the Critical Areas Regulation,RMC 4-3-050; or 157 c. Areas classified as very high landslide hazards, except as allowed in this Section Ntirw or in the Critical Areas Regulations,RMC 4-3-050. Buffer requirements shall be consistent with the critical area regulations. Tree cutting or land clearing shall be consistent with established Native Growth Protection Area requirements of RMC 4-3- 050E.4. 3. Restrictions for Native Growth Protection Areas: Tree cutting or land clearing shall be consistent with established Native Growth Protection Area requirements of RMC 4-3-050E.4. E. AUTHORITY AND INERPRETATION: The City's Development Services Division Director, or his duly authorized representative, is hereby authorized and directed to interpret and enforce all the provisions of this Section. F. PERMITS REQUIRED: 1. Land Development Permit: An approved land development permit is required in order %r o to conduct tree cutting or land clearing on any site for the sake of preparing that site for future development. 2. Permit Required for Routine Vegetation Management on Undeveloped Properties: Any person who performs routine vegetation management on undeveloped property in the City must obtain a routine vegetation management permit prior to performing such work. 3. Permit Required to Use Mechanical Equipment: Except where use of mechanical equipment is specifically listed as exempt, any person who uses mechanical equipment for routine vegetation management, land clearing, tree cutting, landscaping, or gardening on developed, partially developed or undeveloped property must obtain a routine vegetation management permit prior to performing such work. 158 4. Timber Stand Maintenance—Conditional Use Permit Required: While timber harvesting shall not be permitted until such time as a valid land development is approved, a request may be made for maintenance and thinning of existing timber stands to promote the overall health and growth of the stand. Permits allowing maintenance and thinning beyond the limits allowed in subsections subsection C9 of this Section, Allowable Minor Tree Cutting Activities, shall be considered as a conditional use permit,by the Hearing Examiner according to the following criteria in lieu of standard conditional use permit criteria: a. Appropriate approvals have been sought and obtained with the State Department of Natural Resources; and b. The activity shall improve the health and growth of the stand and maintain long- term alternatives for preservation of trees; and c. The activity shall meet the provisions of subsections H2, Applicability, Performance Standards, and Alternates, and H3, General Review Criteria, of this Section; and d.Thinning activities shall be limited to less than forty percent (40%)of the volume and trees. 5. Tree Cutting—Solar Access or Pasture Land: A routine vegetation management permit is required for tree cutting in greater amounts than specified under partially exempt actions in subsection C9 of this Section, Allowable Minor Tree Cutting Activities, for any property where tree cutting is proposed without an associated land development permit. A routine vegetation management permit may be issued allowing tree cutting only in the following cases: a. For purposes of allowing solar access to existing structures; or b. To create pasture land where agricultural activities are permitted uses in the zone. 159 Any tree cutting activities shall be the minimum necessary to accomplish the fiw purpose, and shall be consistent with subsection D2 of this Section,Restrictions for Critical Areas. G. ROUTINE VEGETATION MANAGEMENT PERMIT REVIEW PROCESS: Permits for routine vegetation management shall be processed consistent with RMC 4-9- 195, Routine Vegetation Management Permits. (Amd. Ord. 4963, 5-13-2002) H.PERFORMANCE STANDARDS FOR LAND DEVELOPMENTBUILDING PERMITS: 1. Plan Required: When a development permit is submitted to the City it shall be accompanied by a tree cutting and land-clearing plan. Where it is not practicable to retain all trees on site due to the proposed development, the plan shall identify trees that are proposed for removal. Where the drip line of a tree overlaps an area where construction activities will occur, Now this shall be indicated on the plan. Trees shall be shown on the plan as follows: a. For allowed activities, including allowed exemptions, modifications, and variances, show all trees proposed to be cut in priority tree retention areas: slopes twenty five percent (25% to 39%), high or very high landslide hazard areas, and high erosion hazard areas. b. Show trees to be cut in protected critical areas: wetlands, shorelines of the state, streams and lakes, floodways, floodplain slopes forty percent (40%) or greater, very high landslide hazard areas, and critical habitat if the activity is exempt or allowed by the critical areas regulations in RMC 4-3-05005, Specific Exemptions. c. Show all trees to be retained in critical area buffers. d. Show trees proposed to be cut within required zoning setbacks along perimeter of development. Now 160 e. In all other areas of the site, trees to be cut may be indicated generally with clearing limit lines. (Amd. Ord. 4963, 5-13-2002) 2. Applicability,Performance Standards and Alternates: All land clearing and tree cutting activities shall conform to the criteria and performance standards set forth in this Section unless otherwise recommended in an approved soil engineering, engineering geology, hydrology or forest management plan or arborist report and where the alternate procedures will be equal to or superior in achieving the policies of this Section. All land clearing and tree cutting activities may be conditioned to ensure that the standards, criteria, and purpose of this Section are met. 3. General Review Criteria: All land clearing and tree cutting activities shall meet the following criteria: a. The land clearing and tree cutting will not create or significantly contribute to landslides, accelerated soil creep, settlement and subsidence or hazards associated with strong ground motion and soil liquefaction. b. The land clearing and tree cutting will not create or significantly contribute to flooding, erosion, increased turbidity, siltation, or other forms of pollution in a watercourse. c. Land clearing and tree cutting will be conducted to maintain or provide visual screening and buffering between land uses of differing intensity, consistent with applicable landscaping and setback provisions of the Renton Municipal Code. d. Land clearing and tree cutting shall be conducted so as to expose the smallest practical area of soil to erosion for the least possible time, consistent with an approved build-out schedule and including any necessary erosion control measures. e. Land clearing and tree cutting shall be consistent with subsection D2 of this Section,Restrictions for Critical Areas, and RMC 4-3-050, Critical Areas Regulations. 161 4. Tree Preservation: Trees shall be maintained to the maximum extent feasible on the property where they are growing. a. Ability to Condition Plan: The City may require a modification of the land clearing and tree cutting plan or the associated land development plan to ensure the retention of the maximum number of trees. b. Clearing—Conditions of Approval: The Department Administrator or designee may condition a proposal to restrict clearing outside of building sites,rights-of-way, utility lines and easements, to require sequencing and phasing of construction, or other measures, consistent with the permitted density and intensity of the zone. 5. Timing: The City may restrict the timing of the land clearing and tree cutting activities to specific dates and/or seasons when such restrictions are necessary for the public health, safety and welfare, or for the protection of the environment. 6. Restrictions for Critical Areas: See subsection D2 of this Section,Restrictions for Critical Areas—General and RMC 4-3-050, Critical Areas Regulations. 7. Tree/Ground Cover Retention: The following measures may be used by the Department Administrator or designee in conditioning a land development permit or building permit proposal per subsection H4 of this Section,Tree Preservation,to comply with the general review criteria of subsection H3. a. Trees shall be maintained to the maximum extent feasible on the property where they are growing. b. The City may require and/or allow the applicant to relocate or replace trees, provide interim erosion control,hydroseed exposed soils, or other similar conditions which would implement the intent of this Section. 162 c. Priority shall be given to retention of trees on sensitive slopes and on lands NIS classified as having high or very high landslide hazards, or high erosion hazards as classified in the critical areas regulations. d. Where feasible,trees that shelter interior trees or trees on abutting properties from strong winds that could otherwise cause them to blow down should be retained. e. Except in critical areas unless enhancement activities are being performed, the removal of trees on the following list should be allowed in order to avoid invasive root systems, weak wood prone to breakage, or varieties that tend to harbor insect pests: i. All Populus species including cottonwood (Populus trichocarpa), quaking aspen (Populus tremuloides), lombardy poplar(Populus nigra"Italica"), etc. ii. All Alnus species including red alder (Alnus oregona),black alder (Alnus glutinosa), white alder(Alnus rhombifolia), etc. iii. Salix species including weeping willow (Salix babylonica),etc., unless along a stream bank and away from paved areas. iv. All Platanus species including London plane tree (Platanus acerifolia), American sycamore/buttonwood(Platanus occidentalis), etc. 8. Protection Measures During Construction: a. Tree Protection Measures: Protection measures in the following subsections H8b(i) through H8b(vi)of this section shall apply for all trees which are to be retained in areas immediately subject to construction.These requirements may be waived pursuant to RMC 4-9- 250D, Modification Procedures, individually or severally by the City if the developer demonstrates them to be inapplicable to the specific on-site conditions or if the intent of the regulations will be implemented by another means with the same result. 163 b. Drip Line: All of the following tree protection measures shall apply: i. The applicant may not fill, excavate, stack or store any equipment, or compact the earth in any way within the area defined by the drip line of any tree to be retained. ii. The applicant shall erect and maintain rope barriers, temporary construction fencing, or place bales of hay on the drip line to protect roots. In addition, the applicant shall provide supervision whenever equipment or trucks are moving near trees. iii. If the grade level adjoining a tree to be retained is to be raised, the applicant shall construct a dry rock wall or rock well around the tree. The diameter of this wall or well must be equal to the tree's drip line. iv. The applicant may not install impervious surface material within the area defined by the drip line of any tree to be retained. v. The grade level around any tree to be retained may not be lowered within the greater of the following areas: (1)the area defined by the drip line of the tree, or(2) an area around the tree equal to one foot in diameter for each one inch of tree caliper. vi. The applicant shall retain a qualified professional to prune branches and roots,fertilize, and water as appropriate for any trees and ground cover that are to be retained. I.VARIANCE PROCEDURES: The Hearing Examiner shall have the authority to grant variances from the provisions of this Section pursuant to RMC 4-1-050Flq and RMC 4-9-250. J. VIOLATIONS AND PENALTIES: 1. Penalties: Penalties for any violation of any of the provisions of this Section shall be in accord with RMC 1-3-2. In a prosecution under this Section, each tree removed, damaged or 164 destroyed will constitute a separate violation, and the monetary penalty for each violated tree shall be no less than the minimum penalty, and no greater than the maximum penalty of RMC 1-3-2D. 2. Additional Liability for Damage: In addition, any person who violates any provision of this Section or of a permit issued pursuant thereto shall be liable for all damages to public or private property arising from such violation, including the cost of restoring the affected area to its condition prior to such violation. 3. Restoration Required: The City may require replacement of all improperly removed ground cover with species similar to those which were removed or other approved species such that the biological and habitat values will be replaced. Restoration shall include installation and maintenance of interim and emergency erosion control measures that shall be required as determined by the City. 4. Replacement Required: The City may require for each tree that was improperly cut Ned and/or removed, replacement planting of a tree of equal size, quality and species or up to three (3) trees of the same species in the immediate vicinity of the tree(s) which was removed.The replacement trees will be of sufficient caliper to adequately replace the lost tree(s) or a minimum of three inches (3 )in caliper. 5. Stop Work: For any parcel on which trees and/or ground cover are improperly removed and subject to penalties under this Section, the City shall stop work on any existing permits and halt the issuance of any or all future permits or approvals until the property is fully restored in compliance with this Section and all penalties are paid. (Ord. 4219, 6-5-1989; Amd. Ord. 4835, 3- 27-2000) 165 SECTION VII: Title IV Chapter Eight, Permits and Decisions, Section 4-8-120 "fir►, Submittal Requirements- Specific Application Type is here by amended to read as shown in Exhibit IV. SECTION VIII: Section 4-8-120.D Definitions of Terms used in Submittal Requirements for Building, Planning, and Public Works Permit Applications is hereby amended to read as follows. DEFINITIONS OF TERMS USED IN SUBMITTAL REQUIREMENTS FOR BUILDING, PLANNING, AND PUBLIC WORKS PERMIT APPLICATIONS: 7. Definitions G: Geotechnical Report: A study prepared in accordance with generally accepted geotechnical practices and stamped by a professional engineer licensed in the State of Washington which includes soils and slope stability analysis,boring and test pit logs, and recommendations on slope setbacks, foundation design,retaining wall design, material selection, and all other pertinent elements. If the evaluation involves geologic evaluations or interpretations, the report shall be reviewed and approved by a geologist. Further recommendations, additions or exceptions to the original report based on the plans, site conditions, or other supporting data shall be signed and sealed by the geotechnical engineer. If the geotechnical engineer who reviews the plans and specifications is not the same engineer who prepared the geotechnical report, the new engineer shall in a letter to the City accompanying the plans and specifications,express his or her agreement or disagreement with the recommendations in the geotechnical report and state that the plans and specifications conform to his or her recommendations. If the site contains a geologic low 166 hazard regulated by the critical areas regulations,the preparation and content requirements of RMC 4-8-120D, Table 18 shall also apply. (Ord. 4835, 3-27-2000) Table 18—Geotechnical Report—Detailed Requirements Report t 1 1 1 c 1 1 Preparation/Content R, c, z „ a� on . cA E 2 4c Requirements c° i s ax ° z r '9 6 x 1. Characterize soils, X X X X X X X X X geology and drainage. 2. Describe and depict all X X X X X X X X X natural and man-made features within one hundred fifty feet (1500) of the site boundary. 3. Identify any areas that X X X X X X X X X have previously been disturbed or degraded by human activity or natural ' processes. 4. Characterize X X X X X X X X groundwater conditions including the presence of any public or private wells within one-quarter(1/4) mile of the site. 5. Provide a site X X X X X X X X X evaluation review of available information regarding the site. 6. Conduct a surface X X X X X X X X reconnaissance of the site and adjacent areas. 7. Conduct a subsurface X X X X X X X X exploration of soils and hydrologic conditions. 8. Provide a slope stability X X X X X X X analysis. Nteid 167 Now 9. Address principles of X X X X X X X erosion control in proposal design including: Plan the development to fit the topography, drainage patterns, soils and natural vegetation on site; Minimize the extent of the area exposed at one time and the duration of the exposure; Stabilize and protect disturbed areas as soon as possible; Keep runoff velocities low; Protect disturbed areas from stormwater runoff; Retain the sediment within the site area; Design a thorough maintenance and follow- up inspection program to ensure erosion control practices are effective. 10. Provide an evaluation X of site response and liquefaction potential relative to the proposed development. 11. Conduct sufficient X subsurface exploration to provide a site coefficient (S)for use in the Uniform Building Code to the satisfaction of the Building Official. Itav 168 12. Calculate tilts and X X strains, and determine appropriate design values for the building site. 13. Review available X X geologic hazard maps, mine maps, mine hazard maps, and air photographs to identify any subsidence features or mine hazards including,but not limited to, surface depressions, sinkholes, mine shafts, mine entries, coal mine waste dumps, and any indication of combustion in underground workings or coal mine waste dumps that are present on or within one hundred feet (100¢)of the property. 14. Inspect, review and X X document any possible mine openings and potential trough subsidence, and any known hazards previously documented or identified. 15. Utilize test pits to X X investigate coal mine waste dumps and other shallow hazards such as slope entry portals and shaft collar areas. Drilling is required for coal mine workings or other hazards that cannot be adequately investigated by surface investigations. 169 16. Provide an analysis of X X X X X X X X litre proposed clearing, grading and construction activities including construction scheduling. Analyze potential direct and indirect on-site and off- site impacts from development. 17. Propose mitigation X X X X X X X X X measures, such as any special construction techniques,monitoring or inspection programs, erosion or sedimentation programs during and after construction, surface water management controls, buffers,remediation, stabilization,etc. 18. Critical facilities on X sites containing areas susceptible to inundation due to volcanic hazards shall require an evacuation and emergency management plan. The applicant for critical facilities shall evaluate the risk of inundation or flooding resulting from mudflows originating on Mount Rainier in a geotechnical report, and identify any engineering or other mitigation measures as appropriate. Note: An "X" indicates that the requirement applies in the identified critical area. 19. Definitions S: IItoe 170 Site Plan: A single fully dimensioned plan sheet drawn at a scale of one inch equals twenty feet(1" = 20') (or other scale approved by the Development Services Division Director) clearly indicating the following: a. Name of proposed project, b. Date, scale, and north arrow oriented to the top of the paper/plan sheet, c.Drawing of the subject property with all property lines dimensioned and names of adjacent streets, d. Widths of all adjacent streets and alleys, e. The location of all existing public improvements including, but not limited to,curbs, gutters, sidewalks, median islands, street trees,fire hydrants, utility poles,etc., along the full property frontage, f. Location and dimensions of existing and proposed structures, parking and loading areas, driveways,existing on-site trees, existing or proposed fencing or retaining walls, freestanding signs, easements, refuse and recycling areas, freestanding liquid fixtures, utility junction boxes,public utility transformers, storage areas,buffer areas, open spaces, and landscaped areas, g. The location and dimensions of natural features such as streams, lakes, marshes and wetlands, h. Ordinary high water mark, existing and proposed, if applicable, i.For wireless communication facilities,indicate type and locations of existing and new plant materials used to screen facility components and the proposed color(s) for the facility, 171 j. A legend listing the following must be included on one of the site plan 'err sheets: i. Total square footage of the site, ii. Square footage (by floor and overall total) of each individual building and/or use, iii. Total square footage of all buildings (footprint of each building), iv. Percentage of lot coverage, v. Square footage of all landscaping(total,parking lot, and wildlife habitat), vi. Allowable and proposed building height, vii. Building setbacks required by Code, viii. Proposed building setbacks, ix.Parking analysis, including: (1) Number of stalls required,by use; number of stalls provided,by use, (2) Sizes of stalls and angles, (3) Location and number of handicap stalls, compact, employee and/or guest parking stalls, (4) Location and size of curb cuts, (5) Traffic flow within the parking, loading, and maneuvering areas and ingress and egress, (6) Location of wheel stops, 172 (7) Loading space, (8) Stacking space, (9) Location and dimensions of bicycle racks,carpool parking spaces, and other facilities designed to accommodate access to the site, (10) Square footage of interior parking lot landscaping. k. Footprint of all proposed buildings showing the location of building entrances, window openings, and landscape features (required for Urban Center Design Overlay District review packet only), 1. Footprint of all abutting and adjacent buildings showing the location of building entrances, window openings, and landscape features (required for Urban Center Design Overlay District review packet only), m. For nonconforming use or structure rebuild approval permits: draw on the scaled plan the exact sizes and locations of existing structures and uses, whether damaged or not; write on the scaled plan the dates these structures/uses were established; on a separate sheet,identify the subject property, abutting lots and buildings and list adjacent and abutting land uses. (Ord. 5028, 11-24-2003) Site Plan,Shoreline: A single fully dimensioned plan sheet drawn at a scale of one inch equals twenty feet (1" =20') (or other scale approved by the Development Services Division Director) clearly indicating the information requested by the"Site Plan"with the following additional information: a. Ordinary high water mark, existing and proposed, b. Name of water body, c. Material stockpiles or similar/related activities, 173 d. Quantity, source and composition of any fill material that is placed on Sow the site whether temporary or permanent, e. Quantity, composition and destination of any excavated or dredged material, f. Where applicable, a depiction of the impacts to views from existing residential uses and public areas. Stream or Lake Study,Standard: A report shall be prepared by a qualified biologist, unless otherwise determined by the Administrator, and include the following information: a. Site Map: Site map(s)indicating, at a scale no smaller than 1" =20' (unless otherwise approved by the Development Services Director): i.The entire parcel of land owned by the applicant, including 100 feet of the abutting parcels through which the water body(ies) flow(s); ii. The ordinary high water mark(OHWM) determined in the field by a qualified biologist pursuant to RMC 4-3-050.L.1.b (the OHWM must also be flagged in the field); iii. Stream classification, as recorded in the City of Renton Water Class Map in RMC 4-3-050QX or RMC 4-3-090 (if unclassified, see Supplemental Stream or Lake Study below); iv. Topography of the site and abutting lands in relation to the stream(s) and its/their buffer(s) at contour intervals of 2 feet where slopes are less than 10 percent, and of 5 feet where slopes are 10 percent or greater; 174 v. 100-year floodplain and floodway boundaries, including 100 Nord feet of the abutting parcels through which the water body(ies) flow(s); vi. Site drainage patterns, using arrows to indicate the direction of major drainage flow; vii. Top view and typical cross-section views of the stream or lake bed,banks, and buffers to scale; viii. The vegetative cover of the entire site, including the stream or lake,banks, riparian area, and/or abutting wetland areas, extending 100 feet upstream and downstream from the property line. Include position, species, and size of all trees at least 10 inches average diameter that are within 100 feet of the OHWM; ix. The location, width, depth, and length of all existing and proposed structures,roads, stormwater management facilities, wastewater treatment and installations in relation to the stream/lake and its/their buffer(s); and x. Location of site access, ingress and egress. b. Grading Plan: A grading plan prepared in accordance with RMC 4-8- 120.D.7, and showing contour intervals of 2 feet where slopes are less than 10 percent, and of 5 feet where slopes are 10 percent or greater. c. Stream or Lake Assessment Narrative: A narrative report shall be prepared to accompany the site plan which describes: i. The stream or lake classification as recorded in the City of Renton Water Class Map in RMC 4-3-050QX or RMC 4-3-090. 175 ii. The vegetative cover of the site, including the stream or lake, Slow banks, riparian area, wetland areas, and flood hazard areas extending 100 feet upstream and downstream from the property line; iii. The ecological functions currently provided by the stream/lake and existing riparian area; iv. Observed or reported fish and wildlife that make use of the area including, but not limited to, salmonids, mammals, and bird nesting,breeding, and feeding/foraging areas; and v. Measures to protect trees, as defined per RMC 4-11-200, and vegetation. Stream or Lake Study,Supplemental: The application shall include the following information: Noe a. Unclassified Stream Assessment: If the site contains an unclassified stream, a qualified biologist shall provide a proposed classification of the stream(s)based on RMC 4-3- 050.L.1 and a rationale for the proposed rating. b.Alterations to Stream/Lake and/or Buffer(s): A supplemental report prepared by a qualified biologist shall evaluate alternative methods of developing the property using the following criteria for justification: Avoid any disturbances to the stream, lake or buffer; Minimize any stream, lake or buffer impacts; 176 Compensate for any stream, lake or buffer impacts,; Restore any stream, lake or buffer area impacted or lost temporarily; Enhance degraded stream or lake habitat to compensate for lost functions and values. c.Impact Evaluation: i. An impact evaluation for any unavoidable impacts prepared by a qualified biologist,to include: Nard (a) Identification,by characteristics and quantity, of the resources (stream, lake) and corresponding functional values found on the site; (b)Evaluation of alternative locations,design modifications, or alternative methods of development to determine which option(s)reduce(s)the impacts on the identified resource(s) and functional values of the site; (c)Determination of the alternative that best meets the applicable approval criteria and identify significant detrimental impacts that are unavoidable; 177 (d)To the extent that the site resources and functional values are part of a larger natural Now system such as a watershed, the evaluation must also consider the cumulative impacts on that system; ii. For a violation, the impact evaluation must also include: (a)Description,by characteristics and quantity, of the resource(s) and functional values on the site prior to the violations; and (b)Determination of the impact of the violation on the resource(s) and functional values. Stream or Lake Mitigation Plan: The mitigation plan must ensure compensation for Now unavoidable significant adverse impacts that result from the chosen development alternative or from a violation as identified in the impact evaluation. A mitigation plan must include: a. Site Map: Site map(s) indicating, at a scale no smaller than 1"=20' (unless otherwise approved by the Development Services Director): i. The entire parcel of land owned by the applicant, including 100 feet of the abutting parcels through which the water body(ies) flow(s); Now 178 aiiimmwrimanssaismor ii. The ordinary high water mark(OHWM) determined in the field by a qualified biologist pursuant to RMC 4-3-050.L.1.b (the OHWM must also be flagged in the field); iii. Stream classification, as recorded in the City of Renton Water Class Map in RMC 4- 3-050QX or RMC 4-3-090 or as determined through a Supplemental Stream or Lake Study approved by the Administrator; iv. Topography of the site and abutting lands in relation to the stream(s) and its/their buffer(s) at contour intervals of 2 feet where slopes are less than 10 percent, and of 5 feet where slopes are 10 percent or greater; v. 100-year floodplain and floodway boundaries, including 100 feet of the abutting parcels through which the water body(ies) flow(s); vi. Site drainage patterns, using arrows to indicate the direction of major drainage flow; vii. Top view and typical cross-section views of the stream or lake bed,banks, and buffers to scale; viii.The vegetative cover of the entire site, including the stream or lake, banks,riparian area, and/or abutting wetland areas, extending 100 feet upstream and downstream from the property line. Include position, species, and size of all trees at least 10 inches average diameter that are within 100 feet of the OHWM; 179 ix. The location, width,depth, and length of all existing and proposed structures,roads, stormwater management facilities, wastewater treatment and installations in relation to the stream/lake and its/their buffer(s); and x. Location of site access, ingress and egress; xi. Indication of where proposed mitigation or remediation measures will take place on the site; xii. Separate indication of areas where revegetation is to take place and areas where vegetation is anticipated to be removed; and `�rrr xiii. Any other areas of impact with clear indication of type and extent of impact indicated on site plan. b.Mitigation narrative that includes the following elements: i. Description of existing conditions on the site and associated water resource (baseline information); ii. Resource(s) and functional values to be restored, created, or enhanced on the mitigation site(s); `herr 180 low iii. Documentation of coordination with appropriate local, regional, special district, state, and federal regulatory agencies; iv. Construction schedule; v. Operations and maintenance practices for protection and maintenance of the site; vi.Environmental goals, objectives, and performance standards to be achieved by mitigation; vii. Monitoring and evaluation procedures,including minimum monitoring standards and timelines (i.e., annual, semi-annual, quarterly); viii. Contingency plan with remedial actions for unsuccessful mitigation; ix. Cost estimates for implementation of mitigation plan for purposes of calculating surety device; and x. Discussion of compliance with criteria or conditions allowing for the proposed stream/lake alteration or buffer reduction or buffer averaging, and a discussion of conformity to applicable mitigation plan approval criteria . Ned 181 xi. A review of the best available science supporting the proposed request for a reduced standard and/or the method of impact mitigation; a description of the report author's experience to date in restoring or creating the type of critical area proposed; and an analysis of the likelihood of success of the compensation project. 23. Definitions W: Wetland Mitigation Plan—Preliminary: A preliminary wetland mitigation plan shall include the following: a. A conceptual site plan demonstrating sufficient area for replacement ratios; b. Proposed planting scheme for created, restored, and enhanced wetlands; c. Written report consistent with final wetland mitigation plan requirements regarding baseline information, environmental goals and objectives, and performance standards. (Ord. 4835, 3-27-2000) 'err►° Wetland Mitigation Plan—Final: A final wetland mitigation plan shall include: a. Baseline Information: A written assessment and accompanying maps of the impacted wetland including, at a minimum, a wetland delineation by a qualified wetland specialist; existing wetland acreage; vegetative, faunal and hydrologic characteristics; an identification of direct and indirect impacts of the project to the wetland area and wetland functions; soil and substrata conditions; topographic elevations and compensation site. If the mitigation site is different from the impacted wetland site, the assessment should include at a minimum: existing acreage; vegetative,faunal and hydrologic conditions; relationship within the watershed and to existing water bodies; soil and substrata conditions, topographic elevations; existing and proposed adjacent site conditions; buffers; and ownership. '4rrr 182 b. Environmental Goals and Objectives: A written report by a qualified wetland specialist shall be provided identifying goals and objectives of the mitigation plan and describing: i. The purposes of the compensation measures including a description of site selection criteria, identification of compensation goals; identification of target evaluation species and resource functions, dates for beginning and completion, and a complete description of the structure and functional relationships sought in the new wetland. The goals and objectives shall be related to the functions and values of the original wetland or if out-of- kind, the type of wetland to be emulated; and ii. A review of the best available science and report author's experience to date in restoring or creating the type of wetland proposed shall be provided. An analysis of the likelihood of success of the compensation project at duplicating the original wetland shall be provided based on the experiences of comparable projects,preferably those in the same drainage basins,if any. An analysis of the likelihood of persistence of the created or restored wetland shall be provided based on such factors as surface and ground water supply and flow patterns, dynamics of the wetland ecosystem; sediment or pollutant influx and/or erosion,periodic flooding and drought, etc., presence of invasive flora or fauna,potential human or animal disturbance, and previous comparable projects,if any. c. Performance Standards: Specific criteria shall be provided for evaluating whether or not the goals and objectives of the project are achieved and for beginning remedial action or contingency measures. Such criteria may include water quality standards, survival rates of planted vegetation, species abundance and diversity targets, habitat diversity indices, or other ecological, geological or hydrological criteria.These criteria will be evaluated and reported pursuant to subsection e of this definition,Monitoring Program. 183 An assessment of the project's success in achieving the goals and objectives of the �rrr mitigation plan should be included along with an evaluation of the need for remedial action or contingency measures. d. Detailed Techniques and Plans: Written specifications and descriptions of compensation techniques shall be provided including the proposed construction sequence, grading and excavation details, erosion and sediment control features needed for wetland construction and long-term survival, a planting plan specifying plant species, quantities, locations, size, spacing, and density; source of plant materials, propagates, or seeds; water and nutrient requirements for planting; where appropriate,measures to protect plants from predation; specification of substrata stockpiling techniques and planting instructions; descriptions of water control structures and water level maintenance practices needed to achieve the necessary hydroperiod characteristics; etc. These written specifications shall be accompanied by detailed site diagrams, scaled cross-sectional drawings, topographic maps showing slope percentage and final grade elevations, and any other drawings appropriate to show construction techniques or anticipated final outcome. The plan shall provide for elevations which are appropriate for the desired habitat type(s) and which provide sufficient hydrologic data.The City may request such other information as needed to determine the adequacy of a mitigation plan. e. Monitoring Program: A program outlining the approach for monitoring construction and development of the compensation project and for assessing a completed project shall be provided in the mitigation plan. Monitoring may include, but is not limited to: i. Establishing vegetation plots to track changes in plant species composition and density over time; 'i✓ 184 ii. Using photo stations to evaluate vegetation community response; iii. Sampling surface and subsurface waters to determine pollutant loading, and changes from the natural variability of background conditions (pH, nutrients, heavy metals); iv. Measuring base flow rates and storm water runoff to model and evaluate hydrologic and water quality predictions; v. Measuring sedimentation rates; vi. Sampling fish and wildlife populations to determine habitat utilization, species abundance and diversity; and vii. A description shall be included outlining how the monitoring data will be evaluated by agencies that are tracking the progress of the compensation project. A monitoring report shall be submitted quarterly for the first year and annually thereafter, and at a minimum, should document milestones, successes, problems, and contingency actions of the compensation project. The compensation project shall be monitored for a period necessary to establish that performance standards have been met,but not for a period less than five (5) years. f. Contingency Plan: Identification of potential courses of action, and any corrective measures to be taken when monitoring or evaluation indicates project performance standards are not being met. g. Permit Conditions: Any compensation project prepared for mitigation pursuant to RMC 4-3-050M, Wetlands, and approved by the City shall become part of the application for project approval. h. Demonstration of Competence: A demonstration of financial resources, administrative, supervisory, and technical competence and scientific expertise of sufficient standing to 185 successfully execute the compensation project shall be provided. A compensation project manager shall be named and the qualifications of each team member involved in preparing the mitigation plan and implementing and supervising the project shall be provided, including educational background and areas of expertise, training and experience with comparable projects. (Ord. 4835, 3-27-2000) Wetland Assessment: A wetland assessment includes the following: a. A description of the project and maps at a scale no smaller than one inch equals two hundred feet (1" =200') showing the entire parcel of land owned by the applicant and the wetland boundary surveyed by a qualified wetlands ecologist, and pursuant to RMC 4-3-050M3; b. A description of the vegetative cover of the wetland and adjacent area including identification of the dominant plant and animal species; c. A site plan for the proposed activity at a scale no smaller than one inch equals two hundred feet (1" = 200') showing the location, width, depth and length of all existing and proposed structures, roads, stormwater management facilities, sewage treatment and installations within the wetland and its buffer; d.The exact locations and specifications for all activities associated with site development including the type, extent and method of operations; e. Elevations of the site and adjacent lands within the wetland and its buffer at contour intervals of no greater than five feet(5') or at a contour interval appropriate to the site topography and acceptable to the City; f. Top view and typical cross-section views of the wetland and its buffer to scale; 186 g. The purposes of the project and, if a wetland alteration or a buffer reduction or averaging proposal is being requested, an explanation of how applicable review criteria are met; h. If wetland mitigation is proposed, a mitigation plan which includes baseline information, an identification of direct and indirect impacts of the project to the wetland area and wetland functions, environmental goals and objectives,performance standards, construction plans, a monitoring program and a contingency plan. i.Alternative Methods of Development: If wetland changes are proposed, the applicant shall evaluate alternative methods of developing the property using the following criteria in this order: • Avoid any disturbances to the wetland or buffer; • Minimize any wetland or buffer impacts; • Compensate for any wetland or buffer impacts; • Restore any wetlands or buffer impacted or lost temporarily; • Create new wetlands and buffers for those lost; and • In addition to restoring a wetland or creating a wetland,enhance an existing degraded wetland to compensate for lost functions and values. This evaluation shall be submitted to the Department Administrator. Any proposed alteration of wetlands shall be evaluated by the Department Administrator using the above hierarchy. j. Such other information as may be needed by the City,including but not limited to an assessment of wetland functional characteristics, including a discussion of the methodology used; a study of hazards if present on site,the effect of any protective 187 Nary measures that might be taken to reduce such hazards; and any other information deemed necessary to verify compliance with the provisions of this Section. (Ord. 4587, 3-18- 1996; Amd. Ord. 4835, 3-27-2000) SECTION IX: Title 1V Chapter Nine, Procedures and Review Criteria Section 4-9-065 Density Bonus Review is hereby amended to read as follows. 4-9-065 DENSITY BONUS REVIEW: A.PURPOSE: r The purpose of the density bonus review is to provide a procedure to review requests for density bonuses authorized in chapter 44=2 RMC. Density bonuses are offered to meet the intent of the Comprehensive Plan policies, including but not limited to Land Use and Housing Element policies and the purpose and intent of the zoning districts. (Amd. Ord. 4985, 10-14-2002) B. APPLICABILITY: The density bonus review procedure and review criteria are applicable to applicants who request bonuses in the zones which specifically authorize density bonuses in chapter 44=2 RMC. This Section of chapter 44=9 RMC contains density bonus procedures and review criteria for the R-14, RM-U, COR-1, and COR-2 Zones. (Amd. Ord. 4985, 10-14-2002) C. REVIEW PROCESS: 188 1. Concurrent Review: Density bonus review shall occur concurrently with any other required land use permit that establishes the permitted density and use of a site, including subdivisions, site plan review, and conditional use permits. When the development proposal does not otherwise require a subdivision, site plan review, or conditional use permit to establish the permitted density of a site,but includes a density bonus request, the development proposal shall be reviewed under administrative site plan review requirements. 2.Reviewing Official:The Reviewing Official for the required land use permit as described in subsection Cl of this Section, Concurrent Review, shall also determine compliance with the density bonus process. 3. Submittal Requirements and Fees: An applicant sh all submit applications and fees in accordance with the requirements for the primary development application per chapters 44=1 and 4-8 RMC. (Amd. Ord. 4985, 10-14-2002) D.BONUS ALLOWANCES AND REVIEW CRITERIA: The following table lists the conditions under which additional density or alternative bulk standards may be achieved: R-14 ZONE RM-U ZONE COR 1 COR 2 189 Density and The bonus The bonus NA NA Unit Size provisions are provisions are Bonus— intended to allow intended to allow Purpose: greater flexibility in greater densities the implementation within the of the purpose of portion of the the R-14 RM-U zone designation. Bonus located within criteria encourage the Urban Center provision of Design Overlay aggregated open and north of space and rear South 2nd Street access parking in an for those effort to stimulate development provision of higher proposals that amenity provide high neighborhoods and quality design project designs and amenities. which address methods of reducing the size and bulk of structures. Applicants wishing such bonuses must demonstrate that the same or better results will occur as a result of creative design solutions that would occur with uses developed under standard criteria. 190 Maximum 1 to 4 additional Up to 25 Up to 5 Up to 2 dwelling Additional dwelling units per dwelling units additional units per acre for Units Per net acre.Densities per net acre. dwelling units compliance with Acre: of greater than 18 Densities of per acre may be each provision units per net acre greater than 100 allowed; listed below may are prohibited. dwelling units provided there is be allowed; per net acre are a balance of provided there is prohibited. height, bulk and a balance of density height,bulk and established density through a floor established area ratio system addressing the and/or a master following public plan to be benefits: decided at the time of site plan (i)Provision of review. continuous pedestrian access to the shoreline consistent with requirements of the Shoreline Management Act and fitting a circulation pattern within the site, (ii)Provision of an additional 25 ft setback from the shoreline beyond that required by the Shoreline Management Act, 191 MOW Now' Maximum (iii) Additional Establishment of Units Per view corridors Acre: from upland (continued) boundaries of the site to the shoreline, (iv)Water Related Uses. If the applicant wishes to reach these bonus objectives in a different system, a system of floor area ratios may be established for the property to be determined at the time of site plan review as approved by Nome Council. (v)Daylighting of piped streams. loire 192 Maximum Dwelling units NA NA NA NIS Allowable permitted per Bonus structure may be Dwelling Unit increased as Mix/Arrangem follows: ent: (i)Dwellings Limited to 3 Attached: A maximum of 4 units per structure, with a maximum structure length of 100¢. (ii)Dwellings Limited to 6 Attached: A maximum of 8 units per structure with a maximum structural height of 35¢, or 3 stories and a maximum structural length of 115¢. **41100 *Si 193 Bonus Bonuses may be Development NA NA Criteria: achieved projects within independently or in the applicable combination. To area that meet qualify for one or both the both bonuses the "Minimum applicant shall requirements" provide either: and at least one "Guideline"in (i) Alley and/or rear each of the access and parking following four for 50% of categories: detached, semi attached, or Building Siting townhouse units, or and Design; (ii) Civic uses such Parking, Access, as a community and Circulation; meeting hall, senior center,recreation Landscaping/Rec center, or other reation/Common similar uses as Space; and determined by the Building low Zoning Architectural Administrator, or Design (iii) A minimum of applying to Area 5% of the net "A" of the Urban developable area of Center Design the project in Overlay District aggregated common located in RMC open space. 4-3-100 shall be Common open permitted a space areas may be maximum used for any of the density of 100 following purposes dwelling units (playgrounds,picnic per net acre. shelters/facilities and equipment, village greens/square,trails, corridors or natural). Structures such as kiosks, benches,fountains Now and maintenance equipment storage facilities are permitted provided that they serve 194 and/or promote the Bonus Criteria be maintained by *44110 (continued): the homeowners association if the property is subdivided, or by the management organization as applied to the property if the property is not subdivided. In addition, in order to qualify for a bonus, developments shall also incorporate a minimum of 3 features described below: (i)Architectural design which incorporates enhanced building entry features (e.g., varied design materials, arbors and/or trellises, cocheres, gabled roofs). (ii) Active common recreation amenities such as picnic facilities, gazebos, sports courts, recreation center, pool, spa/jacuzzi. (iii)Enhanced ground plane textures or colors (e.g., stamped patterned concrete, cobblestone, or brick at all building Noid entries,courtyards, trails or sidewalks). (iv)Building or 195 structures `'r _ General NA NA Where included, Where included, Provisions: affordable units affordable units must meet the must meet the provisions of provisions of housing element housing element of the of the Comprehensive Comprehensive Plan. Plan. For COR 2, if a significant public benefit above City Code requirements can be provided for a portion of the property which may be contaminated, a transfer of density may be allowed for other portions of the site. (Ord. 4963, 5-13-2002; Amd. Ord. 4985, 10-14-2002) err' 196 SECTION X: Title IV Chapter Nine Procedures and Review Criteria Section 4-9-070 Environmental Review Procedures is hereby amended to read as follows. 4-9-070 ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW PROCEDURES: J.ENVIRONMENTALLY SENSITIVE AREAS/INAPPLICABLE EXEMPTIONS: 1. Maps Depicting Environmentally Critical Areas and Critical Area Designation: a. Maps Adopted by Reference: The map(s) in RMC 4-3-050.Q identify Critical Areas. The Maps in RMC 4-3-090 identify regulated Shorelines of the State. The specific environmentally critical areas where SEPA exemptions are not applicable are identified in subsection "1.b" below. b. Critical Areas Designated: Wetlands,Protected Slopes, Very High Landslide Hazard Areas, Class 2 to 4 Streams and Lakes, Shorelines of the State designated as Natural or Conservancy, or Shorelines of the State desginated Urban if also meeting the requirement of RMC 4-9-070.J.2.a or c, and the one hundred(100) year floodway, as mapped and identified pursuant to subsection "a" above, or when present according to the critical area classification criteria of RMC 4-3-050, are designated as environmentally critical areas pursuant to the State Environmental Policy Act,WAC 197- 11-908. 2. Inapplicable State Environmental Policy Act (SEPA)Exemptions: a. General: Certain exemptions do not apply on lands covered by water, and this remains true regardless of whether or not lands covered by water are mapped. b. Environmentally Critical Areas: For each environmentally critical area, the exemptions within WAC 197-11-800 that are inapplicable for that area are: i. WAC 197-11-800(1) 197 ii. WAC 197-11-800(2)(d, e, g) Now iii. WAC 197-11-800(6)(a) iv. WAC 197-11-800(24)(a,b, c, d, f, g) v. WAC 197-11-800(25)(f, h) c. Wetlands: The following SEPA categorical exemptions shall not apply to wetlands: i. WAC 197-11-800(1) ii. WAC 197-11-800(2) iii. WAC 197-11-800(3) iv. WAC 197-11-800(4) v. WAC 197-11-800(6) vi. WAC 197-11-800(8) °'1rnr vii. WAC 197-11-800(25) • Unidentified exemptions shall continue to apply within environmentally critical areas of the City. 3. Threshold Determinations for Proposals Located within Environmentally Sensitive Areas: The City shall treat proposals located wholly or partially within an environmentally sensitive area no differently than other proposals under this Section, making a threshold determination for all such proposals. The City shall not automatically require an EIS for a proposal merely because it is proposed for location in an environmentally sensitive area. (Ord. 4835, 3-27-2000) SECTION XI: Title IV Chapter Nine Section 250, Variances, Waivers, Modifications, and Alternatives is hereby amended to read as follows: 198 4-9-250 VARIANCES,WAIVERS,MODIFICATIONS,AND ALTERNATES: A.PURPOSES: 1. Variances: A grant of relief from the requirements of this Title which permits construction in a manner that otherwise is prohibited by this Title. 2. Waivers: (Reserved) 3. Modifications: To modify a Code requirement when there are practical difficulties involved in carrying out the provisions of this Title when a special individual reason makes the strict letter of this Code impractical. (Ord. 4346, 3-9-1992) 4. Alternates: To allow the use of any material or method of construction not specifically prescribed by this Title. (Ord. 4346, 3-9-1992) B. VARIANCE PROCEDURES: 1. Authority and Applicability: a. Hearing Examiner Variances:The Hearing Examiner shall have the authority to grant variances from the provisions of those sections of this Title listed in RMC 4-8-070 where the proposed development requires or required any permit or approval as set forth in RMC 4-8-070,Review Authority for Multiple Permit Applications, and for variances from the following critical area regulations: i. Proposals Located within Critical Areas—Aquifer Protection Areas: If an applicant feels that the strict application of aquifer protection regulations would deny all reasonable use of the property or would deny installation of public transportation or utility facilities determined by the public agency proposing these 199 %se facilities to be in the best interest of the public health, safety and welfare, the applicant of a development proposal may apply for a variance. ii. Proposals Located within Critical Areas—Flood Hazards: The Hearing Examiner shall hear and decide requests for variances from the flood hazard requirements of RMC 4-3-050, Critical Areas Regulations. iii. Proposals Located within Critical Areas—Wetlands: Buffer width reductions not otherwise authorized by RMC 4-3-050M6e and M6f—Category 1 or 2. iv. Proposals Located within Critical Areas—Streams and Lakes: Buffer width reductions not otherwise authorized by RMC 4-3-050.L—Class 2 to 4. Activities proposing to vary from stream regulations not listed elsewhere in l.a or as an administrative variance in 1.c, and authorized to be requested as variances in RMC 4-3- 050.L. v. Proposals Located Within Critical Areas—General: Public/quasi-public utility or agency proposing to alter aquifer protection, geologic hazard, habitat or wetlands regulations not listed above or as an administrative variance. b. Board of Adjustment Variances: The Board of Adjustment shall have authority to grant variances from the provisions of this Title upon application to the Development Services Division where no approval or permit is required for the proposed development which must be granted by the Hearing Examiner pursuant to RMC 4-1-050 H. The Board of Adjustment shall have no authority to vary the terms or conditions of any permit, recommendation or decision issued by the Hearing Examiner. Nitrie 200 c. Administrative Variances: The Planning/Building/Public Works Administrator or his/her designee shall have the authority to grant variances from the following development standards when no other permit or approval requires Hearing Examiner Review: i. Residential Land Uses: Lot width, lot depth, setbacks, allowed projections into setbacks, and lot coverage. Lot width, lot depth, and setback variations do not require a variance if the request is part of a stream daylighting proposal and meets criteria in RMC 4-3-050.L; and ii. Commercial and Industrial Land Uses: Screening of surface- mounted equipment and screening of roof-mounted equipment. iii. Proposals Located Within Critical Areas: (a) Steep Slopes Forty Percent (40%) or Greater and Very High Landslide Hazards: The construction of one single family home on a pre-existing platted lot where there is not enough developable area elsewhere on the site to accommodate building pads and provide practical off-street parking. (b)Wetlands: (i) Creation/restoration/enhancement ratios: Categories 1 and 2. (ii) Buffer width reductions not otherwise authorized by RMC 4-3-050M6e and M6f—Category 3. (iii) A new or expanded single family residence on an existing, legal lot, having a regulated Category 3 wetland. (Amd. Ord. 4835, 3-27- 2000; Ord. 4851, 8-7-2000) 201 (c) Streams and Lakes. A new or expanded single family No residence on a pre-existing platted lot where there is not enough developable area elsewhere on the site to accommodate building pads and provide practical off-street parking, providing reasonable use of the property. 2. Filing of Application: A property owner, or his duly authorized agent, may file an application for a variance which application shall set forth fully the grounds therefor and the facts deemed to justify the granting of such variance. 3. Submittal Requirements and Application Fees: Shall be as listed in RMC 4-8-120C,Land Use Applications, and 4-1-170,Land Use Review Fees. 4. Public Notice and Comment Period: Notice of the application shall be given pursuant to RMC 4-8-090, Public Notice Requirements. 5. Decision Criteria: Except for variances from critical areas regulations, the Reviewing Official shall have authority to grant a variance upon making a determination in writing that the conditions specified below have been found to exist: (Amd. Ord. 4835, 3-27-2000) a. That the applicant suffers undue hardship and the variance is necessary because of special circumstances applicable to subject property, including size, shape, topography, location or surroundings of the subject propert y, and the strict application of the Zoning Code is found to deprive subject property owner of rights and privileges enjoyed by other property owners in the vicinity and under identical zone classification; b.That the granting of the variance will not be materially detrimental to the public welfare or injurious to the property or improvements in the vicinity and zone in which subject property is situated; 202 c.That approval shall not constitute a grant of special privilege inconsistent with the limitation upon uses of other properties in the vicinity and zone in which the subject property is situated; d. That the approval as determined by the Reviewing Official is a minimum variance that will accomplish the desired purpose. (Amd. Ord. 4835, 3-27- 2000) 6. Special Review Criteria—Reasonable Use Variance—Critical Areas Regulations Only: For variance requests related to the critical areas regulations not subject to subsections B7 to B11 of this Section, the Reviewing Official may grant a reasonable use variance if all of the following criteria are met: a. That the granting of the variance will not be materially detrimental to the public welfare or injurious to the property or improvements in the vicinity and zone in `4rr0 which subject property is situated; b. There is no reasonable use of the property left if the requested variance is not granted; c. The variance granted is the minimum amount necessary to accommodate the proposal objectives; and d. The need for the variance is not the result of actions of the applicant or property owner; and e. The proposed variance is based on consideration of the best available science as described in WAC 365-195-905; or where there is an absence of valid scientific information,the steps in RMC 4-9-250F are followed. (Ord. 4835, 3-27-2000; Amd. Ord. 4851, 8-21-2000) 203 7. Special Review Criteria for Variances from the Aquifer Protection Regulations: Except for public or quasi-public utility or agency proposals which are subject to subsection B10 of this Section, the Hearing Examiner shall consider the following criteria, in addition to those criteria in subsections B5 and B6 of this Section,for variances from aquifer protection regulations: a. That the proposed activities will not cause significant degradation of groundwater or surface water quality; b. That the applicant has taken deliberate measures to minimize aquifer impacts, including but not limited to the following: i. Limiting the degree or magnitude of the hazardous material and activity; and ii. Limiting the implementation of the hazardous material and Now activity; and iii. Using appropriate and best available technology; and iv. Taking affirmative steps to avoid or reduce impacts; and c. That there will be no damage to nearby public or private property and no threat to the health or safety of people on or off the property; and(Ord. 4835, 3-27- 2000; Amd. Ord. 4851, 8-21-2000) d. The proposed variance is based on consideration of the best available science as described in WAC 365-195-905; or where there is an absence of valid scientific information, the steps in RMC 4-9-250F are followed. 8. Special Review Criteria for Variances from Flood Hazard Requirements in the Critical Areas Regulations: In lieu of the variance criteria of subsection B5 of this Now 204 Section, the following directives and criteria shall be utilized by the Hearing Examiner in .4400 the review of variance applications related to the flood hazard requirements of the critical areas regulations: a. Purpose and Intent: Variances, as interpreted in the national flood insurance program, are based on the general zoning law principle that they pertain to a physical piece of property; they are not personal in nature and do not pertain to the structure, its inhabitants, economic or financial circumstances.They primarily address small lots in densely populated residential neighborhoods. As such, variances from the flood elevations should be quite rare. b. Review Criteria: In passing upon such an application for a variance, the Hearing Examiner shall consider the following review criteria: i. Consider all technical evaluations, all relevant factors, standards specified in other sections of this section; and: (1)The danger that materials may be swept onto other lands to the injury of others. (2)The danger to life and property due to flooding or erosion damage; (3)The susceptibility of the proposed facility and its contents to flood damage and the effect of such damage on the individual owner; (4)The importance of the services provided by the proposed facility to the community; (5)The necessity to the facility of a waterfront location, where applicable; 205 (6)The availability of alternative locations for the proposed use which are not subject to flooding or erosion damage; (7)The compatibility of the proposed use with existing and anticipated development; (8)The relationship of the proposed use to the comprehensive plan and flood plain management program for that area; (9)The safety of access to the property in times of flood for ordinary and emergency vehicles; (10)The expected heights, velocity, duration,rate of rise, and sediment transport of the flood waters and the effects of wave action, if applicable, expected at the site; and (11)The costs of providing governmental services during Nriiie and after flood conditions, including maintenance and repair of public utilities and facilities such as sewer, gas, electrical, and water systems, and streets and bridges. ii. Generally,the only condition under which a variance from the elevation standard may be issued is for new construction and substantial improvements to be erected on a lot of one-half(1/2) acre or less in size contiguous to and surrounded by lots with existing structures constructed below the base flood level,provided criteria in subsection B8bi of this Section have been fully considered. As the lot size increases the technical justification required for issuing the variance increases. iii. Variances may be issued for nonresidential buildings in very limited circumstances to allow a lesser degree of floodproofing than watertight or dry-floodproofing, where it can be determined that such action will have low damage potential,complies with all other Niow 206 variance criteria except subsections B8bii, iii or iv, and otherwise complies with RMC 4-3-050I2a and I2b of the general standards. iv. Variances may be issued for the reconstruction,rehabilitation, or restoration of structures listed in the National Register of Historic Places or the State Inventory of Historic Places, without regard to the procedures set forth in this section. v. Variances shall not be issued within a designated floodway if any increase in flood levels during the base flood discharge would result. vi. Variances shall only be issued upon: (1) A showing of good and sufficient cause; (2)A determination that failure to grant the variance would result in exceptional hardship to the applicant; (3)A determination that the granting of a variance will not result in increased flood heights, additional threats to public safety, extraordinary public expense,create nuisances, cause fraud on or victimization of the public or conflict with existing local laws or ordinances. (4) A determination that the variance is the minimum necessary, considering the flood hazard,to afford relief. c. Conditions of Approval: Upon consideration of the factors of subsection B8b of this Section, and the purposes of this section,the Hearing Examiner may attach such conditions to the granting of variances as it deems necessary to further the purposes of this section. d. Notice Required upon Variance Approval: Any applicant to whom a variance is granted shall be given written notice that the structure will be permitted to be 207 .r built with a lowest floor elevation below the base flood elevation and that the cost of 4. flood insurance will be commensurate with the increased risk resulting from the reduced lowest floor elevation. e. Records: The Department Administrator or his/her designee, the Building Official, shall maintain the records of all variance actions and report any variances to the Federal Insurance Administration upon request. (Ord. 4835, 3-27-2000; Amd. Ord. 4851, 8-7-2000) 9. Special Review Criteria—Single Family Residence on a Legal Lot with a Category 3 Wetland; or Single Family Residence on a Legal Lot with a Class 2, 3, or 4 Stream/Lake: In lieu of the criteria shown in subsections B5 and B6 of this Section, a variance may be granted from any wetland or stream requirement in the critical areas regulations for a single family residence to be located on an existing legal lot if all of the following criteria are met: a.The proposal is the minimum necessary to accommodate the building footprint and access. In no case, however, shall the impervious surface exceed five thousand(5,000) square feet,including access. Otherwise the alteration shall be reviewed as a Hearing Examiner variance and subject to the review criteria of subsection B6 of this Section; b. Access is located so as to have the least impact on the wetland and/or stream/lake and its buffer; c. The proposal preserves the functions and values of the wetlands and/or stream/lake/riparian habitat to the maximum extent possible; 208 d. The proposal includes on-site mitigation to the maximum extent possible; e. The proposal first develops non-critical area,then the critical area buffer,before the wetland area itself is developed; f. The proposed activities will not jeopardize the continued existence of endangered, threatened or sensitive species as listed by the Federal government or the State; g. The inability to derive reasonable economic use of the property is not the result of actions segregating or dividing the property and creating the undevelopable condition after the effective date of this Section; and(Ord. 4835, 3-27-2000; Amd. Ord. 4851, 8-7-2000) h. The proposed variance is based on consideration of the best available science as described in WAC 365-195-905; or where there is an absence of valid scientific information, the steps in RMC 4-9-250F are followed. 10. Special Review Criteria—Public/Quasi-Public Utility or Agency Altering Aquifer Protection, Geologic Hazard,Habitat, Stream/Lake or Wetland Regulations: In lieu of the variance criteria of subsection B5 of this Section, applications by public/quasi- public utilities or agencies proposing to alter aquifer protection, geologic hazard,habitat, stream and lake or wetland regulations shall be reviewed for compliance with all of the following criteria: a. Public policies have been evaluated and it has been determined by the Department Administrator that the public's health, safety, and welfare is best served; Nod 209 b. Each facility must conform to the Comprehensive Land Use Plan and with any adopted public programs and policies; c. Each facility must serve established, identified public needs; d. No practical alternative exists to meet the needs; e. The proposed action takes affirmative and appropriate measures to minimize and compensate for unavoidable impacts; f. The proposed activity results in no net loss of regulated wetland or stream/lake area, value, or function in the drainage basin where the wetland, stream or lake, is located; g. The proposed activities will not jeopardize the continued existence of endangered, threatened or sensitive species as listed by the Federal government or the State; h. That the proposed activities will not cause significant degradation of groundwater or surface water quality; i. The approval as determined by the Hearing Examiner is a minimum variance that will accomplish the desired purpose; and. (Ord. 4835, 3-27-2000; Amd. Ord. 4851, 8-7-2000) j. The proposed variance is based on consideration of the best available science as described in WAC 365-195-905; or where there is an absence of valid scientific information, the steps in RMC 4-9-250F are followed. 11. Special Review Criteria—Constructing Structures over Piped Streams: For variance requests involving the construction of structures over piped streams,the following criteria shall apply: a. The proposal is the minimum necessary to accommodate the structure. 210 b. There is no other reasonable alternative to avoid building over a piped stream; c. The existing pipe stream system that would have to be located under the structure is replaced with new pipe material to insure long term life of the pipe and meets structural requirements; d.The piped stream system is sized to convey the 100-year future land use condition runoff from the total upstream tributary area as determined from a hydrologic and hydraulic analysis performed in accordance with standards determined by the City and in accordance with other City's standards; e.The piped stream that will be built over will need to be placed in a casing pipe sized to allow pipe skids and the potential need to increase the pipe size by a minimum of one pipe diameter. The casing pipe shall be a minimum of three pipe diameters larger than the diameter of the pipe that conveys the stream; f. To allow for maintenance, operation and replacement of the piped stream that has been built over, a flow bypass system shall be constructed and access manholes or other structures of sufficient size as determined by the City shall be required on both sides of the section of the piped stream that is built upon; and g. There will be no damage to nearby public or private property and no threat to the health or safety of people on or off the property. 12. Continuation of Public Hearing: If for any reason testimony in any manner set for public hearing, or being heard, cannot be completed on date set for such hearing,the person presiding at such public hearing or meeting may,before adjournment or recess of such matters under consideration,publicly announce the time and place to and at which 211 said meeting will be continued, and no further notice of any kind shall be required. (Ord. 3463, 8-11-1980; Amd. Ord. 4648, 1-6-1997; Ord. 4835, 3-27-2000) 13. Board of Adjustment Decision Process: a. Board of Adjustment Shall Announce Findings and Decisions: Not more than thirty (30)days after the termination of the proceedings of the public hearing on any variance,the Board of Adjustment shall announce its findings and decision. If a variance is granted, the record shall show such conditions and limitations in writing as the Board of Adjustment may impose. b. Notice of Decision of Board of Adjustment: Following the rendering of a decision on a variance application, a copy of the written order by the Board of Adjustment shall be mailed to the applicant at the address shown on the application and filed with the Board of Adjustment and to any other person who requests a copy thereof. c. Reconsideration: (Reserved) d. Record of Decision: Whenever a variance is approved by the Board of Adjustment, the Building Department shall forthwith make an appropriate record and shall inform the administrative department having jurisdiction over the matter. (Amd. Ord. 4835, 3-27-2000) 14. Conditions of Approval: The Reviewing Official may prescribe any conditions upon the variance deemed to be necessary and required. (Amd. Ord. 4835, 3- 27-2000) 15. Finalization: (Reserved) 16. Expiration of Variance Approval: Any variance granted by the Reviewing Official, unless otherwise specified in writing, shall become null and void in the event 212 that the applicant or owner of the subject property for which a variance has been requested has failed to commence construction or otherwise implement effectively the variance granted within a period of two(2) years after such variance has been issued. For proper cause shown, an applicant may petition the Reviewing Official during the variance application review process, for an extension of the two (2) year period, specifying the reasons therefor. The time may be extended but shall not exceed one additional year in any event. (Amd. Ord. 4835, 3-27-2000; Ord. 4851, 8-7-2000) 17. Extension of Approval: For proper cause shown, an applicant may petition the Reviewing Official for an extension of the approved expiration period established per subsection D15 of this Section prior to the expiration of the time period, specifying the reasons therefor. The Reviewing Official may extend the time limit, but such extension shall not exceed one additional year in any event. (Ord. 3463, 8-11-1980; Amd.Ord. 4648, 1-6-1997; Ord. 4835, 3-27-2000; Ord. 4851, 8-7-2000) C.WAIVER PROCEDURES: 1. Authority for Waiver, General: (Reserved) 2. Authority for Waiver of Street Improvements: The Board of Public Works may grant waiver of the installation of street improvements subject to the determination that there is reasonable justification for such waiver. 3. Application and Fee: Any application for such a waiver shall specify in detail the reason for such requested waiver and may contain such evidence including photographs, maps, surveys as may be pertinent thereto. The application fee shall be as specified in RMC 4-1-170, Land Use Review Fees. 4. Decision Criteria, General: (Reserved) 213 5. Decision Criteria for Waivers of Street Improvements: Reasonable justification shall include but not be limited to the following: a. Required street improvements will alter an existing wetlands or stream, or have a negative impact on a shoreline's area. b. Existing steep topography would make required street improvements infeasible. c. Required street improvements would have a negative impact on other properties, such as restricting available access. d. There are no similar improvements in the vicinity and there is little likelihood that the improvements will be needed or required in the next ten (10) years. e. In no case shall a waiver be granted unless it is shown that there will be no detrimental effect on the public health, safety or welfare if the improvements are not installed, and that the improvements are not needed for current or future development. D.MODIFICATION PROCEDURES: 1. Application Time and Decision Authority: Modification from standards, either in whole or in part, shall be subject to review and decision by the Planning/Building/Public Works Department upon submittal in writing of jurisdiction for 2.Decision Criteria: Whenever such modification. (Amd. Ord. 4777,4-19-1999) there are practical difficulties involved in carrying out the provisions of this Title, the Department Administrator may grant modifications for individual cases provided he/she shall first find that a specific reason makes the strict letter of this Code impractical, and that the modification is in conformity with the intent and purpose of this Code, and that such modification: 214 a. Will meet the objectives and safety, function, appearance, environmental protection and maintainability intended by the Code requirements,based upon sound engineering judgment; and b. Will not be injurious to other property(s)in the vicinity; and c. Conform to the intent and purpose of the Code; and d. Can be shown to be justified and required for the use and situation intended; and e. Will not create adverse impacts to other property(ies)in the vicinity. (Ord. 4517, 5-8-1995) 3. Additional Decision Criteria Only for Centers Residential Bonus District: For a modification to special development standards in the Centers Residential Bonus District RMC 4-3-095B3, the Department shall rely on the recommendations contained within the report on design criteria for modifications prepared by the Economic Development, Neighborhoods and Strategic Planning Administrator or designee as the basis for approval or denial of the request. In addition to the criteria in subsection D2 of this Section, the request for modification in the Centers Residential Bonus District shall meet all of the following criteria: a. Project uses a modified street grid system where most buildings front on a street. Where no public streets exist, a private street grid system within the project is provided. b. Project orients residential developments to the street and has primary building entries facing the street.Entries are identified with a prominent feature or detail. 215 c. Parking garages are designed in a way which does not dominate the facade of the residential building. When garages must be located with vehicular access in the front due to physical constraints of the property, they are stepped back from the facade of the building. d. Parking lots are oriented to minimize their visual impact on the site and are designed so that the size and landscaping support the residential character of the developments in contrast to adjacent or abutting commercial areas. e. Project provides direct pedestrian access from the street fronting the building and from the back where parking is located. f. Walkways through parking areas are well defined and provide access from public sidewalks into the site. Walkway width is a minimum of five feet(5 ). Pavers, changes in color, texture or composition of paving are used. g. Pedestrian connections are provided to the surrounding neighborhood. h. Distinctive building design is provided. No single architectural style is required; however, reliance on standardized"corporate"or"franchise" style is discouraged. i. Exterior materials are attractive even when viewed up close. These materials have texture,pattern,or lend themselves to a high level of quality and detailing. j. A consistent visual identity is applied to all sides of buildings which can be seen by the general public. k. A superior level of quality is provided for materials, detailing and window placement. 216 1. At least one of the following features is incorporated in structures containing three (3) or more attached dwellings: i. For each dwelling unit,provide at least one architectural projection not less than two feet (2 ) from the wall plane and not less than four feet(4 ) wide, or ii. Incorporate building modulation to reduce the overall bulk and mass of buildings, or iii. Vertical and horizontal modulation of roof lines and facades of a minimum of two feet(2 ) at an interval of a minimum of forty feet (40) on a building face or an equivalent standard which adds interest and quality to the project. (Ord. 4777, 4-19-1999; Amd. Ord.4963, 5-13-2002) 4. Additional Decision Criteria Only for Center Office Residential 3 (COR 3) Zone: For a modification to special upper story setback standards in the COR 3 Zone, RMC 4-2-120B, the Department shall rely on the recommendations contained within the Report on Design Criteria for Modifications prepared by the Economic Development, Neighborhoods and Strategic Planning Administrator or designee as the basis for approval or denial of the request. In addition to the criteria in subsection D2 of this Section, the request for modification in the COR 3 Zone requirements for upper story setbacks shall meet all of the following criteria: a. In comparison to the standard upper story setbacks, the proposed building design will achieve the same or better results in terms of solar access to the public shoreline trails/open space and publicly accessible plazas; the building will allow access to sunlight along the public trail/open space system and plazas abutting the 217 shoreline during daytime and seasonal periods projected for peak utilization by Now pedestrians. b. The building will create a step in perceived height, bulk and scale in comparison to buildings surrounding the subject building. (Amd. Ord. 4802, 10-25-1999) E.ALTERNATE PROCEDURES: 1. Authority: The provisions of this Title are not intended to prevent the use of any material or method of construction or aquifer protection not specifically prescribed by this Title, provided any alternate has been approved and its use authorized by the Planning/Building/Public Works Administrator. 2. Decision Criteria: The Administrator may approve any such alternate, provided he/she finds that the proposed design and/or methodology is satisfactory and complies with the provisions of this Title and that the material, method or work offered is, for the Now purpose intended, at least the equivalent of that prescribed in this Title in suitability, strength, effectiveness, durability, safety, maintainability and environmental protection. (Amd. Ord. 4851, 8-7-2000) 3. Substantiation: The Department Administrator shall require that sufficient evidence or proof be submitted to substantiate any claims that may be made regarding its use. (Amd. Ord. 4851, 8-7-2000) 4. Record of Decision: The details of any action granting approval of an alternate shall be written and entered in the files of the Code enforcement agency. (Ord. 4367, 9- 14-1992) F.ABSENCE OF VALID SCIENTIFIC INFORMATION: low 218 Where there is an absence of valid scientific information or incomplete scientific information relating to a critical area leading to uncertainty about the risk to critical area function of permitting an alteration of or impact to the critical area, the Responsible Official shall: 1. Take a"precautionary or a no-risk approach,"that appropriately limits development and land use activities until the uncertainty is sufficiently resolved,or determine that protection can be ensured by using an approach different from that derived from the best available science provided that the applicant demonstrates on the record how the alternative approach will protect the functions and values of the critical area; and 2. Require application of an effective adaptive management program that relies on scientific methods to evaluate how well regulatory and nonregulatory actions protect the critical area. An adaptive management program is a formal and deliberate scientific approach to taking action and obtaining information in the face of uncertainty. An adaptive management program shall: a. Address funding for the research component of the adaptive management program; b. Change course based on the results and interpretation of new information that resolves uncertainties; and c. Commit to the appropriate timeframe and scale necessary to reliably evaluate regulatory and nonregulatory actions affecting protection of critical areas and anadromous fisheries. 219 SECTION VI: Title IV Chapter 10,Legal Nonconforming Structures, Uses And Lots, Section 4-10-090 Critical Areas Regulations- Nonconforming Activities and Structures is hereby amended to read as follows. 4-10-090 CRITICAL AREAS REGULATIONS—NONCONFORMING ACTIVITIES AND STRUCTURES: A legally nonconforming,regulated activity or structure that was in existence or approved or vested prior to the passage of the Critical Area Regulations,RMC 4-3-050, and to which significant economic resources have been committed pursuant to such approval but which is not in conformity with the provisions of RMC 4-3:050 may be continued; provided, that: 1. No such legal nonconforming activity or structure shall be expanded, changed, enlarged or altered in any way that infringes further on the critical area that increases the extent of its nonconformity with this Section without a permit issued pursuant to the provisions of RMC 4-3-050; 2. Except for cases of on-going agricultural uses, if a nonconforming activity is discontinued pursuant to RMC 4-10-060, any resumption of the activity shall conform to this Section; 3. Except for cases of on-going agricultural use, if a nonconforming use or activity or structure is destroyed by human activities or an act of God,it shall not be resumed or reconstructed except in conformity with the provisions of RMC 4-3-050 and RMC 4-10-050 and 060; 4. Activities or adjuncts thereof that are or become nuisances shall not be entitled to continue as nonconforming activities. (Ord. 4963, 5-13-2002) 220 SECTION XII: Title IV Chapter Ten Section 4-10-110 Violations of This Chapter and Penalties is hereby amended to read as follows. 4-10- 110 VIOLATIONS OF THIS CHAPTER AND PENALTIES: Penalties for any violations of any of the provisions of this Chapter shall be in accord with chapter 1-3-2 RMC. (Ord. 4963, 5-13-2002) SECTION XIII: Title IV Chapter Eleven Definitions is hereby amended to add the following definitions pertaining to Critical Areas. CHAPTER GUIDE: Definitions for terms used throughout this Title are primarily grouped in chapter 4-11 RMC.A few chapter-specific definitions can be found in individual chapters, but are cross-referenced here. For the purpose of this Title,the following words, terms, phrases and their derivations shall have the meaning given herein, unless the context otherwise indicates. Noiri 4-11-010 DEFINITIONS A: ARTIFICIAL CHANNEL: A stream channel that is entirely manmade but does not include relocated natural channels. 4-11-020 DEFINITIONS B: BASEMENT: (This definition for RMC 4-3-050, flood hazard regulations, use only.)Any area of the building having its floor subgrade (below ground level) on all sides. 4-11-030 DEFINITIONS C: CRITICAL AREAS: Wetlands, aquifer protection areas, fish and wildlife habitat, frequently flooded and geologically hazardous areas as defined by the Growth Management Act and Section 4-3-050, Critical Area Regulations, in this Title. Nod 221 Nor CRITICAL FACILITY: A facility for which even a slight chance of flooding, high geologic hazard, or inundation in the areas of flood hazard or volcanic hazard might be too great. Critical facilities include, but are not limited to schools,nursing homes, hospitals, police, fire and emergency response installations, and facilities that produce, use or store hazardous materials or hazardous waste. 4-11-040 DEFINITIONS D: DAYLIGHTING:Restoration of a culverted or buried watercourse to a surface watercourse. DENSITY,NET: A calculation of the number of housing units and/or lots that would be allowed on a property after critical areas, i.e. very high landslide hazard areas, protected slopes, wetlands, Class 1 to 4 streams and lakes, or floodways, and public Now rights-of-way and legally recorded private access easements serving three (3)or more dwelling units, are subtracted from the gross area(gross acres minus streets and critical areas multiplied by allowable housing units per acre). Required critical area buffers, streams that have been daylighted including restored riparian and aquatic areas, and public and private alleys shall not be subtracted from gross acres for the purpose of net density calculations. DEVELOPMENT: (This definition for RMC 4-3-050, flood hazard regulations, use only.) Any man-made change to improved or unimproved real estate, including but not limited to buildings or other structures,mining, dredging, filling, grading, paving, excavation or drilling operations or storage of equipment or materials located within the area of special flood hazard. 222 4-11-080 DEFINITIONS H: HAZARD TREE: Any tree or tree part that poses a high risk of damage to persons or property as certified by a qualified arborist and accepted by the City. HIGH BLOWDOWN POTENTIAL: An area where field conditions indicate the potential for tree blowdown is high. Evidence may include the presence of toppled trees in the area, and thin or saturated soils. HYPORHEIC ZONE:The saturated zone located beneath and adjacent to streams that contains some portion of surface waters, serves as a filter for nutrients, and maintains water quality. 4-11-090 DEFINITIONS I: INTERMrn'ENT: A condition where water is not present in the channel year round during years of normal or above normal rainfall. 4-11-120 DEFINITIONS L: LOWEST FLOOR:The lowest floor of the lowest enclosed area(including basement). An unfinished or flood-resistant enclosure, usable solely for parking of vehicles, building access or storage, in an area other than a basement area, is not considered a building's lowest floor; provided, that such enclosure is not built so as to render the structure in violation of the applicable non-elevation design requirements of RMC 4-3-050.1. 3.a.ii. 4-11-140 DEFINITIONS N: NORMAL RAINFALL:Rainfall that is at the mean or within one standard deviation of the mean of the accumulated annual rainfall record,based upon the water Niki 223 Nine year for King County as recorded at the Seattle-Tacoma International Airport by the graph shown at King County Department of Natural Resources and Parks' Water and Land Resources Division's Hydrologic Information Center (http://dnr.metrokc.gov/hydrodat/seatacprecip.asp ). 4-11-160 DEFINITIONS P: PERENNIAL: Waters which flow continuously. 4-11-170 DEFINITIONS Q: QUALIFIED PROFESSIONAL: A person with experience and training in the pertinent scientific discipline, and who is a qualified scientific expert with expertise appropriate for the relevant subject in accordance with WAC 365-195-905(4). A qualified professional must have obtained a B.S. or B.A. or equivalent degree in biology, and professional experience related to the subject habitat or species. 4-11-180 DEFINITIONS R: RIPARIAN AREA: The upland area immediately adjacent to and paralleling a body of water and is usually composed of trees, shrubs and other plants. Riparian functions include bank and channel stability, sustained water supply, flood storage, recruitment of woody debris, leaf litter,nutrients, sediment and pollutant filtering, shade, shelter, and other functions that are important to both fish and wildlife. 4-11-190 DEFINI'T'IONS S: SALMONID MIGRATION BARRIER:An in-stream blockage that consists of a natural drop (no human influence) with an uninterrupted slope greater than 100-percent (45 degree angle) and a height in excess of 11 vertical feet within anadromous salmon- bearing waters or a height in excess of 3 vertical feet within resident trout only bearing 224 Aiimimmomosommormimamor waters.Human-made barriers to salmonid migration (e.g., culverts, weirs, etc.) shall be 'Ne , considered barriers to salmonid migration by this definition, only if they were lawfully installed; permanent; present a complete barrier to salmonid passage based on hydraulic drop,water velocity,water depth, or any other feature which would prevent all salmonid from passing upstream; and in the opinion of the City Reviewing Official cannot be modified to provide salmonid passage without resulting in significant impacts to other environmental resources, major transportation and utility systems, or to the public, and would have significant expense.For the purposes of this definition significant expense means a cost equal to or greater than 50% of the combined value of the proposed site buildings, structures, and/or site improvements, and existing buildings, structures, and/or site improvements to be retained. SCHOOLS/STUDIOS,ARTS AND CRAFTS: Schools and studios for education in various arts and crafts including but not limited to photography, dance, music, and language skills. SCOUR:The erosive action of running water in streams, which excavates and carries away material from the bed and banks. Scour may occur in both earth and solid rock material. STREAM/LAKE CLASS: The stream and lake waters in the City are defined by class as follows: 1. Class 1: Class 1 waters are perennial salmonid-bearing waters which are: classified by the City and State as Shorelines of the State. 2. Class 2: Class 2 waters are perennial or intermittent salmonid-bearing waters which meet one or more of the following criteria: 225 a. Mapped on Figure 4-3-050.Q.4,Renton Water Class Map, as Class 2; and/or b. Historically and/or currently known to support salmonids, including resident trout, at any stage in the species lifecycle; and/or c. Is a water body(e.g. pond, lake)between 0.5 acre and 20 acres in size. 3. Class 3: Class 3 waters are non-salmonid-bearing perennial waters during years of normal rainfall, and/or mapped on Figure 4-3-050.Q.4, Renton Water Class Map, as Class 3. 4. Class 4: Class 4 waters are non-salmonid-bearing intermittent waters during years of normal rainfall, and/or mapped on Figure 4-3-050.Q.4, Renton Water Class Map, as Class 4. 5. Class 5: Class 5 waters are non-regulated non-salmonid-bearing waters which liotore meet one or more of the following criteria: a. flow within an artifically constructed channel where no naturally-defined channel had previously existed; and/or b. Are a surficially isolated water body less than 0.5 acre (e.g. pond) not meeting the criteria for a wetland as defined in Section M. 4-11-220 DEFINITIONS V: VOLCANIC HAZARDS: Volcanic hazard areas are those areas subject to a potential for inundation from post lahar sedimentation along the lower Green River as identified in Plate II,Map D, in the report U.S. Department of the Interior, U.S. Geological Survey(Revised 1998). Volcano Hazards from Mount Rainier, Washington. Open-File Report 98-428. Now 226 4-11-230 DEFINITIONS W: WETLAND CREATION(OR ESTABLISHMENT):The manipulation of the physical, chemical, or biological characteristics present to develop a wetland that did not previously exist on an upland or deepwater site. Establishment results in a gain in wetland acres. WETLAND ENHANCEMENT:The manipulation of the physical,chemical, or biological characteristics of a wetland (undisturbed or degraded) site to heighten, intensify, or improve specific function(s) or for a purpose such as water quality improvement, flood water retention or wildlife habitat. Enhancement results in a change in wetland function(s)and can lead to a decline in other wetland function,but does not result in a gain in wetland acres. This term includes activities commonly associated with the terms enhancement, management, manipulation, directed alteration. WETLAND PROTECTION/MAINTENANCE:The removal of a threat to, or preventing decline of,wetland conditions be an action in of near a wetland. Includes purchase of land or easement,repairing water control structures or fences, or structural protection such as repairing a barrier island. This term also includes activities commonly associated with the term preservation. Protection/Maintenance does not result in a gain of wetland acres or function. WETLAND,REGULATED: See RMC 4-3-050Mle. WETLAND RESTORATION:The manipulation of the physical, chemical, or biological characteristics of a site with the goal of returning natural/historic functions to tmid 227 err former or degraded wetland. For the purpose of tracking net gains in wetland acres, restoration is divided into: Re-establishment: the manipulation of the physical, chemical, or biological characteristics of a site with the goal of returning natural/historic functions to a former wetland. Re-establishment results in rebuilding a former wetland and results in a gain in wetland acres. Rehabilitation: the manipulation of the physical, chemical, or biological characteristics of a site with the goal of repairing natural/historic functions of degraded wetland. Rehabilitation results in a gain in wetland function,but does not result in a gain in wetland acres. 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: 228 Reserved for 4400 EXHIBIT 3 DRAINAGE BASINS FIGURE 4-5-050 Q6 229 EXHIBIT 1 r FIGURE 4-3-050Q1 AQUIFER PROTECTION ZONES rmtromilig NW -i,.. pr N.::Iiii:iiiiiiiii!iiiiiiiiiiiiiiiIiiiiiiIii,i,i,i,i,i,i4,.-.,:_ *,*,*::„,, _ ,,,,,--F:r4,)-— E C 'ii•Y;:i'l:IiIiiiii:3::lilill:11ii:I*IililiiIiliiiiil:.:::„;ili. AN •i is : 2r :S,a3t.;, f .. S .. �_.,. mak" ii ,1�� Reye41. r .• {iiii1• Se 12. St' iiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiii : 0 1111101 ix I ! F . g 0 , ...1 1 1 1 1 34th St1 �, SE wno.xsr w rw ir .•• •........................::::::.:::::::::,,,::::::::::::::::„...,..„ :- . g ....::::,,,„„:„,„,„„„,„„„„„„,„„,„„„„„„,.„„,„,„,„„„„,.„,„„,.„„„„„„„,:„„,,i, =, i .:.:::::::,.•:.„:„:„:„:„:„:„::::.:::.:::.:::.:::::,:.:::.:::.:::.::.::::„:„.,.:.:::.:::.:::.:::.::,.:„.„.:::.:::.:::.:::.:::..:::...:.:::.:::.„:•:::•:::.:..:.:::.:::.:::.:::.:::.:::.:.,.:.:::.:::,:.::::::.::,..,:.:::.:::.:::.a . 1111.11 Lim .*:.):.:.:.::::.:.:.:.:.:.::::::.:....x.::::::.:.:.:.:.::::::.:„.:.::::::.:.:.:„:::.:.:.:.:.:.::::::„.:.:.::::.:. RENTON MUNICIPAL CODE 0 5280' 10560' Zone 1 �///////////. Zone 1 Modified :::::::::::::::>::::>::<:::::::: .......; :'? Zone 2 1" = 1 MILE City Limits arrnri_ EXHIBIT 2 Streams and Lakes Figure 4-3-050.Q.4 --____:_:_ _ •';_ 4. , , li ' ----- ------- - ,rte:_.. .......... s - • R .s'b `- i.J : s^ p Y / \^ ___ fiIA [ � �yr ,'. .a ',•:.\•,;1,--', ' �___ -- r,. ..2...ifl,":„...,,,_,..„:..i. .M ,1•,,:,;,,,,,,,,, -• ,,„..,-.•-•44.,...-n..__„:„ ,.i 4' 3 ‘ ,c,t . , ,. as....,11 i.,:t ..:::k.o .i... ,a. _ - : 1 ! r_„„--.... �'ti' :Y;-.•-:_:-.i..‘:,-.. . S r ,,, .... §` ,.."¢r, I € Y3 1 I _ - .L- --, I. , •.' FE k4.7•,. ' ,),/" .. i 1 '4",f '""-"Y;4, „.,'.., --L.-,,,,,i---. 1, •",,.--4, I l'"i"''..-4, .-: i i'4,-;„4 ..°i,..a�,i,�'f Z { :t 1.ill 2�« '� ,."-.`.� j "„+iF_'}^ {£ f €.'.. .. _ f 1 At 3 sr J 3 .1 � li Ii 53 „. I :_. " F : 4.14 y'f i( E E 3 -,._,,,,...t... r'- _r!'- t 'Y\1 ( ( ir` I I • Tl 7� \-., 4 Y .,, ,. _ -;_c.. € p_ ;i. .tom j 7.y t ,..„�.' 'E..t. ='jya'...}..E. `j}"x""...3 .1_='.:. ,✓",” �..##,„„g�,r�'^)§ . . _>/' .�\ r ' ,/.. '``. ,,,- 5� c 1-':-4,4,7277 ‘1( 4),411114.1,41.+L'jl k: ,-`-A 1E -.,=T'l'.-1-,1,y,,,f,)-,.i'_',.4d,,T,.,—:r11:...1!-—1' r-'1 -.,. 1.--',L-S,•-k-T,,t-'"r!-;)„, x ori .._• T,-4•11,:/i•..•.„•,-::-_-:_:-_:-.__-1,.1-._,--.---s-__--E,,_1_-:„:1-_,:„-1i111f1; 11 ,/ ._---._-:-_:,::( !...,-; - .- t,...,„;;„,,,, --------,---,,,,-----, • 3_1' � _:_::::_-;_-_S-":_•-•.,_:_43:: µ ;31-3 il{ �( � � ' :f '-i a-xI ' ., ._i ,�„ t �' I ' 1 - i1 � : if _____ :_:__-:.__ •- _ ' :��_ r , CIaSs 2 .a. l Class 3 ,,, , E _- : .<.,� , , _:Y�:- Class _ 4 „ j T+a I "7 Reserved for EXHIBIT 3 DRAINAGE BASINS FIGURE 4-5-050 Q6 33 /St /,2a9s- adairdzei /t-ar CITY OF RENTON, WASHINGTON ORDINANCE NO. 67.317/ AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF RENTON, WASHINGTON, AMENDING ORDINANCE NO. 5110 RELATING TO THE CITY OF RENTON 2005 ANNUAL BUDGET BY APPROPRIATING FUNDS FROM THE TRANSPORTATION CAPITAL IMPROVEMENT FUND BALANCE, INCREASING THE 2005 BUDGET, AND REALLOCATING THE EXPENDITURES IN SPECIFIC TRANSPORTATION IMPROVEMENT PROJECTS. WHEREAS, the City Council passed the 2005 Annual Budget Ordinance (Ordinance No. 5110) on December 20, 2004; and 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: Fund 2005 Budget Beginning Fund Balance, Jan. 1, 2005 $ 10,539,176 Total New Revenue 6,145,200 Total Committed Expenditures (7,986,500) Budget Adjustments Per this Ordinance (2,382,300) Total Adjusted Budget $ 10,368,800 Ending Fund Balance,Dec. 31, 2005 $ 6,315,576 SECTION II. A list of all individual budget adjustments in the Transportation Capital Fund is hereby attached as Attachment A, and is available for public review in the office of the City Clerk, Renton City Hall. 1 ORDINANCE NO. SECTION III. This ordinance shall be effective upon its passage, approval, and five 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:1172:4/7/05:ma Transportation Capital Fund 4/7/2005 Attachment A 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 $750,000. See Note 2. Complete final design for Ph.1, 3b Strander By, Phase 1, Segment 1 * 317.012239 210,000 210,000 Segment 1. See Note 2. TIB and Metro mitigation funding. Construct Ph 1 in 2005. Prepare PS&E package for Ph 2 with possible additional design($took)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 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 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. 33 Missing Links Program 317.012106 30,000 - 30,000 'Same as 2005 budget. I\Griffin\budget\2005\2005 Reallocation Summary i ' Transportation Capital Fund 4/7/2005 Attachment A Project Proposed TIP Project Title Number 2005 Budget Change 2005 Budget Comment 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 39 Environmental Monitoring 317.012187 85,000 - 85,000 1 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 project closeout and WSDOT 55 SW 7th St./Lind Ave SW 317.012153 26,500 (23,500) 3,000 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 Strander, 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. $1 million 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. 7. The Dec. 31,2005,fund balance is projected to be$6,315,576. I\griffin\budaet\2005\2005 Reallocation Summary