Loading...
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.
Home
My WebLink
About
Council 04/11/2005
,ry AGENDA RENTON CITY COUNCIL REGULAR MEETING April 11, 2005 Monday, 7:30 p.m. 1. CALL TO ORDER AND PLEDGE OF ALT EGIANCE 2. ROLL CALL 3. PROCLAMATIONS: a. Sexual Assault Awareness Week—April 11-15, 2005 b. Youth Service Day—April 16, 2005 c. Arbor Day—April 23, 2005 4. APPEALS: Planning &Development Committee Reports re: a. Amberwood Phase II Preliminary Plat b. Park Place Preliminary Plat INABILITY OF THE CITY COUNCIL TO TAKE TESTIMONY ON APPEALS DURING THE CITY COUNCIL MEETING State law requires that the City establish a process to handle appeals from application of environmental and developmental rules and regulations. The Renton City Council,feeling it was best for the elected representatives to handle the appeals rather than require citizens to go to court,has retained appellate jurisdiction to itself. The courts have held that the City Council,while sitting as an appellate body,is acting as a quasi-judicial body and must obey rules of procedure of a court more than that of a political body. By City Code,and by State law,the City Council may not consider new evidence in these appeals. The parties to the appeals have had an opportunity to address their arguments to the Planning &Development Committee of the City Council at a meeting previously held. Because of the court requirements prohibiting the City Council from considering new evidence,and because all parties have had an opportunity to Address their concerns to the Planning &Development Committee,the City Council may not consider oral or written testimony at the City Council meeting. The Council understands that this is frustrating to citizens and is outside the normal process of open discourse provided to citizenry during the audience comment portion of the City Council meeting. However,this burden of not allowing the Council to be addressed concerning pending appeals is outweighed by the quick,easy,inexpensive and local appeal process provided by the Renton City Council. 5. ADMINISTRATIVE REPORT 6. AUDIENCE COMMENT (Speakers must sign up prior to the Council meeting. Each speaker is allowed five minutes. The comment period will be limited to one-half hour. The second audience comment period later on in the agenda is unlimited in duration.) When you are recognized by the Presiding Officer, please walk to the podium and state your name and address for the record, SPELLING YOUR LAST NAME. (CONTINUED ON NEXT PAGE) .r; • 7. CONSENT AGENDA The following items are distributed to Councilmembers in advance for study and review, and the recommended actions will be accepted in a single motion. Any item may be removed for further discussion if requested by a Councilmember. a. Economic Development,Neighborhoods and Strategic Planning Department submits 10% Notice of Intent to Annex petition for the proposed Hoquiam Annexation, 20.49 acres located along the west and east sides of Hoquiam Ave. NE between 140`h Ave. SE and 144th Ave. SE, and recommends a public meeting be set on April 25, 2005,to consider the petition. Council concur. • b. Hearing Examiner recommends approval, with conditions, of the Parkside Preliminary Plat; 15 single-family lots on 2.77 acres located on NE 24th St. (PP-04-155). Council concur. c. Development Services Division recommends approval, with conditions, of the Heritage Glen Final Plat, aka Westchester Kennydale; 37 single-family lots on 6.38 acres located on NE 20h St. (FP-04-147). Council concur. (See 10.a. for resolution.) d. Transportation Division recommends approval of the Renton Municipal Airport Development Study and approval of the eight policy recommendations. Refer to Transportation (Aviation) Committee. 8. CORRESPONDENCE Letter from David J. Gates, President& CEO of Net Assets Corporation,44 Club Rd.,Eugene, OR, 97401,regarding an administrative decision not to use the services of the Net Assets Corporation. 9. UNFINISHED BUSINESS a. Motion to reconsider conditions 2 and 3 of the Council decision on 3/21/2005 regarding the Sunset Bluff Preliminary Plat. b. Topics listed below were discussed in Council committees during the past week. Those topics marked with an asterisk (*)may include legislation. Committee reports on any topics may be held by the Chair if further review is necessary. 1) Committee of the Whole: Federal Reserve Bank Agreement Regarding 27`h St. Stormwater Detention Parcel 2) Finance Committee: Vouchers; Lease Amendment with Eoscene for the 4th & 6th floors of 200 Mill Building 3) Planning&Development Committee: Critical Areas Ordinance; McLendon Hardware Alley Vacation Compensation 4) Transportation (Aviation) Committee: Aerodyne Aviation Lease Addendum;Transportation Capital Improvement Fund 317 Increase &Reallocation* 5) Utilities Committee: Garbage Ordinance* 10. RESOLUTIONS AND ORDINANCES Resolutions: a. Heritage Glen Final Plat, aka Westchester Kennydale (see 7.c.) b. Temporary closure of Lake Washington Blvd. N. for the Lake Washington Boulevard Slip Plane Project(Council approved 4/4/2005) Ordinances for first reading: a. Increase 2005 Transportation Capital Improvement Fund 317 and reallocate funds for specific projects [see 9.b.4)] b. Garbage regulations revisions [see 9.b.5)] 11. NEW BUSINESS (Includes Council Committee agenda topics; call 425-430-6512 for recorded information.) 12. AUDIENCE COMMENT llow 13. ADJOURNMENT (CONTINUED ON REVERSE SIDE) r kare COMMLIME OF THE WHOLE AGENDA (Preceding Council Meeting) Council Conference Room 6:30 p.m. Council Vacancy Policy#800-10 Council Chambers Approximately 7:00 p.m. Federal Reserve Bank Agreement Regarding 27th St. Stormwater Detention Parcel • 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 11,2005 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; ZANETTA FONTES,Assistant City Attorney; BONNIE WALTON, City Clerk; GREGG ZIMMERMAN, Planning/Building/Public Works Administrator; ALEX PIETSCH,Economic Development Administrator; BEN WOLTERS;Economic Development Director;LESLIE BETLACH,Parks Director; DEREK TODD,Assistant to the CAO; COMMANDER FLOYD ELDRIDGE,Police Department. PROCLAMATIONS A proclamation by Mayor Keolker-Wheeler was read declaring the week of Sexual Assault Awareness April 11 to 15, 2005, to be "Sexual Assault Awareness Week" in the City of Week-April 11 to 15, 2005 Renton and encouraging all citizens to join in this special observance. MOVED BY LAW, SECONDED BY NELSON, COUNCIL CONCUR IN THE PROCLAMATION AS READ. CARRIED. Mary Ellen Stone, King County Sexual Assault Resource Center(KCSARC) Executive Director, accepted the proclamation. She expressed her appreciation to the City for supporting KCSARC in providing the best possible victim services and outstanding prevention education. She explained that the Sex Offender Management Team in King County brings together people from various disciplines, and focuses on educating citizens, providing prevention information, and developing strategies to address sex offender issues. Shauna Rumsey,KCSARC Prevention and Education Specialist, stated that the goal of ending sexual violence can be achieved, and thanked the City for its support. Youth Service Day-April 16, A proclamation by Mayor Keolker-Wheeler was read declaring the day of April 2005 16, 2005,to be "Youth Service Day" in the City of Renton and encouraging all citizens to join in supporting youth volunteerism and making youth volunteer involvement part of the ongoing efforts to create a stronger youth community. MOVED BY BRIERE, SECONDED BY PALMER,COUNCIL CONCUR IN THE PROCLAMATION AS READ. CARRIED. Arbor Day-April 23,2005 A proclamation by Mayor Keolker-Wheeler was read declaring the day of April 23, 2005, to be "Arbor Day" in the City of Renton and encouraging all citizens to join in this special observance, as trees reduce erosion of topsoil, cut heating and cooling costs,moderate the temperature,clean the air,produce life-giving oxygen, and provide habitat for wildlife. MOVED BY BRIERE, SECONDED BY CORMAN, COUNCIL CONCUR IN THE PROCLAMATION AS READ. CARRIED. Parks Director Leslie Betlach accepted the proclamation with appreciation. She noted that the urban forest is a valuable resource,providing habitat for wildlife and improving the quality of life for citizens. MOW April 11,2005 Renton City Council Minutes Page 123 APPEALS Planning and Development Committee Chair Clawson presented a report Appeal: Amberwood Phase II regarding the appeal filed by Steve Beck on the Amberwood Phase II Preliminary Plat, Steve Beck, Preliminary Plat(PP-04-117). The Committee heard this appeal on 4/7/2005. PP-04-117 After reviewing the record, the written appeal and hearing oral argument, and having heard about background from staff, the Committee found that the evidence submitted by the appellant justifies partially reversing the Hearing Examiner and granting R-4 zoning for this parcel with R-5 density and development standards. The Committee therefore recommended that the Council change the zoning on this parcel from R-1 to R-4, and approve the preliminary plat with a density of 17 lots subject to the following changes in the Hearing Examiner's report and recommendation: 1. Findings should be added on page 6 of the Hearing Examiner's report and recommendations,those findings to read: 25. The issue of zoning this property to R-5 was submitted to the voters as part of the annexation vote. The R-5 zoning was defeated in that vote. Subsequently,the Council received letters from two of the voters indicating that they were confused and wished to vote for the R-5 zoning. These two votes, if they had voted for R-5, would have resulted in a favorable vote for R-5. However,the vote was over and complete and the Council was compelled to rezone the property to R-1, when it was annexed. However, the Council did encourage the property owners to approach the City about a rezone to R-5. Before that progress was complete,the City had eliminated the R-5 zone and rezoned all R-5 zoned property to R-4. 26. At the time the application for rezone was filed, it should have been reviewed under residential low density policies LU-26 through LU-33.1, not the R-4 overlay policies nor the new Comprehensive Plan policies for 2004. The new text that sets up the R-4 zoning does not apply to this parcel as the parcel is excluded from the hatched area in the zoning map that follows policy LU-33.5. Exclusion of this parcel was done intentionally, in 2003,because a number of properties were annexing and a commitment was made for R-5 zoning to those parcels, including the subject parcel. At the same time,the Council was making policy commitments to the residents of the potential annexation area supporting a downzoned R-4 for the remainder of the area upon annexation. This led to the creation of an overlay with a low-density designation but only mapping the overlay where there were not existing commitments. In 2004,the Comprehensive Plan was again amended to eliminate the overlay,rescind the R-5 zone, and use R-4 zoning exclusively to implement these policies. 2. Even if this property was not excluded from the R-4 zoning, as set forth in the overlay map, it would be excluded from the R-4 density and development standards because of Renton Ordinance 5100, Section XIII, page 26, which states in relevant part: "For properties vested with a complete plat application prior to 11/10/2004, and for the Mosier II,Maplewood East,and Anthone', the following standards apply. Vested plats must be developed within five years of preliminary plat approval and/or annexation. Maximum density-5 dwelling units per acre." As stated in finding 24,the applicant submitted the application to change the zoning from R-1 to R-5 prior to the date of 11/10/2004. April 11,2005 Renton City Council Minutes Page 124 The conclusions of the Hearing Examiner for the rezone should be modified as follows: 1. Conclusion 1, the last sentence should be amended by adding the phrase "but should approve R-4 zoning subject to R-5 density and development regulations." 2. Conclusion 3 should be modified. All of that conclusion after the fourth sentence should be stricken and it its place substituted the following: "For the reasons set forth in findings of fact 25, 26,and 27, R-4 zoning should be approved, subject to R-5 density and development standards." 3. Conclusions 4, 5, 6, 9, and 11 should be stricken. 4. Conclusion 10 should be amended by striking the last sentence thereof. The Hearing Examiner's conclusions concerning the preliminary plat should be modified as follows: 1. Conclusion 12 should be stricken and in its place the following language should be added: "The proposed preliminary plat is appropriate based on the rezone of this parcel to R-4 with R-5 density and development standards." 2. Conclusion 13 should be modified by changing the term R-4 to R-5. 3. Conclusion 19 should be stricken. In the Hearing Examiner's recommendations starting on page 9, the following changes should be made: 1. The preamble to the recommendations should be stricken and in its place should be added the following language: "The City Council should reclassify the subject's site from R-1 to R-4, subject to R-5 density and development standards." "The City Council should approve the 17-lot preliminary plat subject to the following conditions:" 2. Recommendation 3 should be modified by adding at the end of that sentence the phrase "If possible,because of the small lots." 3. Recommendation 7 on page 10 should be modified by adding the phrase "The applicant shall comply with the R-4 landscaping requirements." MOVED BY CLAWSON, SECONDED BY LAW, COUNCIL CONCUR IN THE COMMITTEE REPORT. CARRIED. Appeal: Park Place Planning and Development Committee Chair Clawson presented a report Preliminary Plat,Heritage regarding the appeal filed by Heritage Homes on the Park Place Preliminary Homes,PP-04-126 Plat(PP-04-126). The Committee heard this appeal on 4/7/2005. The appellant argued that the City should consider only the one lot that it sought to subdivide. However,this lot was part of a larger lot, which had been platted within the last five years. According to City Code,the entire parcel must be replatted. If the entire parcel is replatted,the replat would be denser than permitted by City Code. April 11,2005 Renton City Council Minutes Page 125 Therefore, the Committee recommended that the Council affirm the decision of the Hearing Examiner and deny the replat. 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 Renton Public Library is looking for regular library users to join the Friends of the Library group to help promote library use in the community. * The economic recovery is alive and well in the City of Renton, with businesses adding 2,470 more employees to their employment rosters between October 31st and December 31st in 2004. Business license records compiled at the end of March, 2005, indicate that in the last quarter of 2004,nine of the City's ten largest private employers increased the number of employees by a combined 1,090. * April is Disaster Preparedness Month in Washington and a good time to review personal preparedness plans. Call the Renton Fire Department for information including free disaster preparedness presentations, handouts, display kits, and audio-visual presentations. * The City is taking proactive steps to handle code violations. It is now easy to report code violations by either calling 425-430-7373,filling out an on- line form on the City's website at www.ci.renton.wa.us, or e-mailing codecompliance@ci.renton.wa.us. AUDIENCE COMMENT Jim Codling, 1123 4th Ave. N., Kent, 98032,asked if the City reached a Citizen Comment: Codling- decision regarding the request to reduce its costs related to the upcoming Gene Coulon Park Hydroplane hydroplane race at Gene Coulon Beach Park. Race Jay Covington, Chief Administrative Officer,explained that in review of the costs, staff adhered to Council's directive that any City costs associated with the boat race event be reimbursed. The review was based on last year's estimates, and information from the event organizers regarding this year's event. Noting the original cost estimate of$9,400,Mr. Covington indicated that the City can still recover its costs and lost revenue by charging event organizers$3,730. He pointed out that the City is not assigning extra emergency service personnel based on the commitment by event organizers that adequate fire protection will be provided,and based on their past well-run events. CONSENT AGENDA Items on the consent agenda are adopted by one motion which follows the listing. Annexation: Hoquiam, Economic Development, Neighborhoods and Strategic Planning Department Hoquiam Ave NE submitted 10%Notice of Intent to annex petition for the proposed Hoquiam Annexation, and recommended a public meeting be set on April 25,2005,to consider the petition; 20.49 acres located along the west and east sides of Hoquiam Ave. NE between 140th Ave. SE and 144th Ave. SE. Council concur. Hearing Examiner: Parkside, Hearing Examiner recommended approval,with conditions,of the Parkside NE 24th St,PP-04-155 Preliminary Plat; 15 single-family Iots on 2.77 acres located at 2204 NE 24th St. (PP-04-155). Council concur. April 11,2005 Renton City Council Minutes Page 126 Development Services: Development Services Division recommended approval, with conditions, of the Heritage Glen,NE 20th St,FP- Heritage Glen Final Plat, aka Westchester Kennydale; 37 single-family lots on 04-147 6.38 acres located in the vicinity of NE 20th St. and Monterey Ave. NE(FP-04- 147). Council concur. (See page 129 for resolution.) Airport: Development Study Transportation Division recommended approval of the Renton Municipal Airport Development Study and approval of the eight policy recommendations. Refer to Transportation(Aviation)Committee. MOVED BY BRIERE, SECONDED BY PERSSON, COUNCIL APPROVE THE CONSENT AGENDA AS PRESENTED. CARRIED. CORRESPONDENCE Correspondence was read from David J. Gates,President and CEO of Net Citizen Comment: Gates-Net Assets Corporation,44 Club Rd.,Eugene, OR, 97401, regarding an Assets Corporation Services administrative decision not to use the services of the Net Assets Corporation. MOVED BY BRIERE, SECONDED BY PERSSON, COUNCIL REFER THIS CORRESPONDENCE TO THE ADMINISTRATION. CARRIED. UNFINISHED BUSINESS Assistant City Attorney Zanetta Fontes noted receipt of a letter from David S. Citizen Comment: Mann- Mann,Herons Forever representative, 1424 4th Ave., Suite 1015,Seattle, Sunset Bluff Preliminary Plat 98101,regarding the Sunset Bluff Preliminary Plat. Mr. Mann asked that Appeal, SR 900 LLC& Council take no action on SR 900 LLC's request for reconsideration, or if Herons Forever,PP-04-002 Council does reconsider its decision of 3/21/2005, that it amend condition 2 to prohibit all forest clearing,hillside grading, and construction activities between January 15 and July 31 in any year that such work is necessary. There was no motion to take action on the matter; therefore, the motion to reconsider(which was made at the 4/4/2005 Council meeting)failed. Committee of the Whole Council President Briere presented a Committee of the Whole report Public Works: SW 27th St recommending concurrence in the staff recommendation to approve the Improvements,Bond Issuance, agreement with the Federal Reserve Bank of San Francisco regarding the SW Federal Reserve Bank 27th St.parcel and stormwater detention parcel, and authorize the Mayor and Agreement City Clerk to execute the agreement. The Committee further recommended concurrence in the staff recommendation to authorize the expenditure of $3,000,000 to pay for the City's share of the roadway project,recognizing that the City will ultimately issue bonds to pay for this project. MOVED BY BRIERE,SECONDED BY NELSON,COUNCIL CONCUR IN THE COMMITTEE REPORT. CARRIED. Council: Filling Council Council President Briere presented a Committee of the Whole report regarding Vacancies Policy(#800-10) the update to Council Policy and Procedure#800-10,Filling Council Vacancies. The Committee reviewed the policy and recommended revisions to allow Council the option, prior to selecting a candidate as the new councilmember, of whether or not to conduct interviews of person(s)who submit a letter of interest. This change will allow Council to select or interview, by majority vote, only a selected candidate or candidates,rather than requiring that all persons submitting a letter of interest be interviewed. The Committee also recommended that the Council President be authorized to sign revised Policy and Procedure#800-10 to implement this change. MOVED BY BRIERE, SECONDED BY PERSSON, COUNCIL CONCUR IN THE COMMITTEE REPORT.* Councilman Clawson stated that instead of having a mandatory public interview of all applicants,the new process affords Council the ability to interview only a selected applicant or applicants. He emphasized that it is April 11,2005 Renton City Council Minutes Page 127 E important for the public to know that Council will consider everyone who applies. Mr. Clawson explained that as Renton grows, the number of applicants may also grow, and it is difficult to conduct quality interviews with such a large number of people. He pointed out that if someone has the interest and the background to merit an interview, Council will take a good look at them whether they are known to the Council or not. Mr. Clawson concluded by expressing his support for the revised policy. Councilman Corman stated that if there were a vacancy on the Council, a person who is interested in the position can always address Council during the audience comment portion of the Council meeting. He noted that the policy change does not shut off the ability of citizens to express their interest to Council. Councilman Clawson added that interested citizens can also contact Council via mail,e-mail, and telephone. *MOTION CARRIED. Planning & Development Planning and Development Committee Chair Clawson presented a report Committee regarding compensation for the McLendon Hardware street vacation(VAC-04- Vacation: Alley,Burnett Ave 004), located east of Burnett Ave. S. and north of S. 2nd St. The Committee S &S 2nd St,McLendon recommended concurrence in the staff recommendation to accept the appraisal Hardware,VAC-04-004 for the portion of the City alley,accept the appraisal for the 20-foot right-of- way dedication, set compensation at$25,500 for the alley vacation, and accept the dedication in lieu of a part of the cash compensation that would be paid for the alley vacation. Since City Code calls for the difference between the appraised values of$25,500 to be paid to the petitioner,the monies due the City from the petitioner would be zero. Accordingly, the monies due the petitioner from the City would also be zero. MOVED BY CLAWSON, SECONDED BY LAW,COUNCIL CONCUR IN THE COMMITTEE REPORT. CARRIED. Planning: Critical Areas Planning and Development Committee Chair Clawson presented a report Ordinance regarding the critical areas regulations. The Committee has studied the documents prepared by City staff and the consultants,including but not limited to,best available science reviews,proposed policy,map, and regulation amendments, and public comments and responses. The Committee concurred with the staff recommended approach, and in particular finds that: The City's program for "Best Available Science Critical Areas Regulations and Shoreline Master Program GMA(Growth Management Act)Integration, Featuring New Stream,River,and Lake Regulations" focuses primarily on new stream and lake,and shoreline buffers, which are designed to develop standard stream and lake and shoreline buffer widths that would result in no net loss of functions and values. Further, to provide incentives to restore degraded buffer conditions, the City's proposed critical areas update allows for both standard and flexible review processes, so that applications proposing to substantially improve functions and values may be allowed to reduce buffer widths with added site-specific studies and mitigation. Regarding wetlands,in most cases,the City expects that the standard wetland buffers will be sufficient to protect the functions and values of wetlands. However,the proposal also recognizes: 1)Renton's proposed code would widen buffers as needed to preserve all functions and values (including wildlife); 2)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 April 11,2005 Renton City Council Minutes Page 128 risk; 3)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. The City continues to be active in habitat protection and restoration as evidenced in its Capital Improvement Program 2005 to 2010; 4) 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. The Committee recommended that the City Attorney's office prepare ordinances,and that the City Council take action as follows: • Approve the recommended Shoreline Master Program amendments including policies, maps, and regulations dated 1/26/2005 with all supplemental recommendations and edits based on staff recommendations and responses to comments through 3/31/2005. • Approve the critical areas regulations amendments and related City Code Title IV amendments dated 1/26/2005 with all supplemental recommendations and edits based on staff recommendations and responses to comments through 3/31/2005. Lastly,the Committee recommended that approval of Comprehensive Plan policy amendments not associated with the Shoreline Master Program policy integration be deferred to be considered with the 2005 Comprehensive Plan Amendment cycle.* Noting the tremendous amount of work undertaken on this matter, Councilman Clawson indicated that every buffer of a certain size will be reviewed individually. He explained that this staff-intensive approach will result in more developable land and better protection for streams and wetlands. *MOVED BY CLAWSON, SECONDED BY LAW, COUNCIL CONCUR IN THE COMMITTEE REPORT.* Councilman Law pointed out that staff did an outstanding job in helping people understand this complicated issue. *MOTION CARRIED. Utilities Committee Utilities Committee Chair Corman presented a report regarding the garbage Solid Waste: Garbage ordinance. The Committee recommended concurrence in the staff Ordinance recommendation to approve amendments to City Code to clarify and add definitions, make garbage collection mandatory with certain limited exceptions, add and clarify violations to the garbage ordinance, and criminalize violations. These amendments are part of the stepped up code enforcement and nuisance abatement effort. The Committee further recommended that the ordinance regarding this matter be presented for first reading, and that the ordinance contain an emergency clause. Pointing out that the ordinance increases the penalties for extreme cases, it was MOVED BY CORMAN, SECONDED BY CLAWSON, COUNCIL CONCUR IN THE COMMITTEE REPORT. CARRIED. (See page 130 for ordinance.) April 11,2005 Renton City Council Minutes Page 129 It Finance Committee Finance Committee Chair Persson presented a report recommending approval Finance: Vouchers of Claim Vouchers 236175 -236560 and one wire transfer totaling $1,889,694.86; and approval of Payroll Vouchers 56582-56806,one wire transfer, and 569 direct deposits totaling$1,899,043.51. MOVED BY PERSSON, SECONDED BY NELSON,COUNCIL CONCUR IN THE COMMITTEE REPORT. CARRIED. Lease: Eoscene, 200 Mill Finance Committee Chair Persson presented a report recommending Building(4th&6th Floors), concurrence in the staff recommendation to approve the lease amendment with LAG-02-003 Eoscene Corporation for a five-year extension of tenancy on the fourth and sixth floors of the 200 Mill Building(LAG-02-003). The Committee further recommended that the Mayor and City Clerk be authorized to sign the lease amendment. MOVED BY PERSSON, SECONDED BY NELSON, COUNCIL CONCUR IN THE COMMITTEE REPORT. CARRIED. Transportation (Aviation) Transportation(Aviation)Committee Chair Palmer presented a report regarding Committee the 2005 Transportation Capital Improvement Fund 317 budget increase and Transportation: Fund 317 2005 project reallocation. The Committee recommended concurrence in the staff Increase and Reallocation recommendation to approve the 2005 Fund 317 budget increase and project reallocation as identified in the ordinance as "Transportation Capital Fund, Attachment A" for the purpose of increasing the Fund 317 appropriations and reallocating the project allocation. 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 later this page for ordinance.) RESOLUTIONS AND The following resolutions were presented for reading and adoption: ORDINANCES Resolution#3747 A resolution was read approving the Heritage Glen Final Plat, aka Westchester Development Services: Kennydale; approximately 6.38 acres located in the vicinity of Monterey Ave. Heritage Glen,NE 20th St,FP- NE and NE 20th St. (FP-04-147). MOVED BY BRIERE, SECONDED BY 04-147 LAW, COUNCIL ADOPT THE RESOLUTION AS READ. CARRIED. Resolution#3748 A resolution was read authorizing the temporary closure of the north and Streets: Lake Washington Blvd southbound lanes of Lake Washington Blvd. NE, in the vicinity of NE 50th St., NE Temporary Closures during the period of April 15,2005 and July 15, 2005, for the Lake Washington Blvd. Slip Plane Project. MOVED BY BRIERE, SECONDED BY PALMER, COUNCIL ADOPT THE RESOLUTION AS READ. CARRIED. The following ordinance was presented for first reading and referred to the Council meeting of 4/18/2005 for second and final reading: Transportation:Fund 317 2005 An ordinance was read amending Ordinance 5110 relating to the annual City of Increase and Reallocation Renton 2005 Budget by appropriating funds from the Transportation Capital Improvement Fund balance,increasing the 2005 Budget, and reallocating the expenditures in specific transportation improvement projects. MOVED BY CORMAN, SECONDED BY PALMER, COUNCIL REFER THE ORDINANCE FOR SECOND AND FINAL READING ON 4/18/2005. CARRIED. The following ordinance was presented for first reading and advanced for second and final reading: April 11,2005 Renton City Council Minutes Page 130 Solid Waste: Garbage An ordinance was read amending Chapter 8-1, Garbage, of Title VIII(Health Ordinance and Sanitation)of City Code by revising definitions, unlawful acts, and penalties, and revising the procedures for handling the accumulation, storage, collection,and disposal of garbage, solid waste,recyclables, and yard waste, and revising the declaration of public nuisance for violations of Chapter 8-1 and declaring an emergency. MOVED BY CORMAN, SECONDED BY CLAWSON, COUNCIL ADVANCE THIS ORDINANCE TO SECOND AND FINAL READING. CARRIED. Ordinance#5133 Following second and final reading of the above-referenced ordinance, it was Solid Waste: Garbage MOVED BY CORMAN, SECONDED BY CLAWSON, COUNCIL ADOPT Ordinance THE ORDINANCE AS READ. ROLL CALL: ALL AYES. CARRIED. NEW BUSINESS MOVED BY LAW, SECONDED BY CORMAN, COUNCIL REFER THE Transportation: Traffic ISSUE OF POLICE ENFORCEMENT AS RELATED TO TRAFFIC Calming,Police Enforcement CALMING AND SPEEDING IN NEIGHBORHOODS TO THE PUBLIC SAFETY COMMITTEE. CARRIED. ADJOURNMENT MOVED BY PERSSON, SECONDED BY CORMAN, COUNCIL ADJOURN. CARRIED. Time: /8:216 p.m. )6,1011.11. `,� 61a,tZ Bonnie I.Walton, CMC,City Clerk Recorder: Michele Neumann April 11,2005 Airimmumer RENTON CITY COUNCIL COMMITTEE MEETING CALENDAR Office of the City Clerk COUNCIL COMMITTEE MEETINGS SCHEDULED AT CITY COUNCIL MEETING April 11, 2005 COMMITTEE/CHAIRMAN DATE/TIME AGENDA COMMITTEE OF THE WHOLE MON.,4/18 Kenmore Air Noise Demonstration (Briere) 6:00 p.m. *2507 Park Pl. N.* COMMUNITY SERVICES (Nelson) FINANCE (Persson) PLANNING &DEVELOPMENT (Clawson) PUBLIC SAFETY MON.,4/18 CANCELLED (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. ;; -6 CITY OF RENTON yLL Mayor Kathy Keolker-Wheeler ''11krlr` Pr&c1witio-vti Wherea4; sexual assault is both the most common and the least reported crime in the United States, with 1 in 3 girls and 1 in 5 boys being sexually assaulted by age 16; and Wherec , most children are not assaulted by strangers, but by people they know and trust; and Whereat, many children who have been assaulted do not tell anyone; and Wherea ', the Sex Offender Management Team in King County brings together the disciplines of law enforcement, corrections,prosecution, housing providers, victim advocates, and sex offender treatment specialists in a committed effort to eliminate sexual assault by "ending the silence"about sexual violence; and W herea4, the Sex Offender Management Team began in 2001 and is focused on educating citizens and providing prevention information, as well as developing strategies to address the practical realities of sex offender issues and concerns; and Whereat; Sexual Assault Awareness Week provides an opportunity to discuss assault and abuse in various arenas—our schools, community groups, businesses, and faith communities— with our children, friends, and relatives; Now, therefore; I, Kathy Keolker-Wheeler, Mayor of the City of Renton, do hereby proclaim April 11-15, 2005,to be S e4cAtabAksakat Awa.re.neAes- Weeic/ in the City of Renton, and I encourage all citizens to join me in this special observance. In witness whereof, I have hereunto set my hand and caused the seal of the City of Renton to be affixed this 11th day of April, 2005. Egt#44.0 J Kathy Keolker-Wheeler Mayor of the City of Renton, Washington 1055 South Grady Way-Renton,Washington 98055-(425)430-6500/FAX(. 1-6523 R E N T O N �� AHEAD OF THE CURVE ' This paper contains 50%recycled material,30%post consumer rsol CITY OF RENTON Mayor Kathy Keolker-Wheeler NIrrir1 Proc W herec4; the City of Renton is made stronger by the important contribution that youth volunteering makes to our community; and W hevea4, studies show that people who volunteer in their youth are twice as likely to continue selflessly serving the community in their adult years; and Whet'-eau the City of Renton believes that youth volunteering is a crucial part of our community's success; and Whereaw; the 17th annual National Youth Service Day on April 16, 2005, organized by United Way of King County, City Year, Fremont Public Association, YMCA, King County Parks, State Farm Insurance, and Campfire's Youth Volunteer Corps, celebrates the important contributions of youth volunteers; No-w, Therefore, I, Kathy Keolker-Wheeler, Mayor of the City of Renton, do hereby proclaim April 16, 2005, to be Now Y Se cvize Day in the City of Renton, and I encourage all citizens to join me in supporting youth volunteerism and making youth volunteer involvement part of our ongoing efforts to create a stronger youth community. In witness whereof, I have hereunto set my hand and caused the seal of the City of Renton to be affixed this 11`h day of April, 2005. -7(0/4 te6-e& - Kathy olker-Wheeler Mayor of the City of Renton, Washington • 1055 South Grady Way-Renton,Washington 98055-(425)430-6500/FAX(425)430-6523 E N O N �� AHEAD OF THE CURVE 0 This paper contains 50%recycled material,30%post consumer ' ,r, CITY OF RENTON Mayor Kathy Keolker-Wheeler rrr" ProcLcun'wtton' Wherea4', in 1872, J. Sterling Morton proposed to the Nebraska Board of Agriculture that a special day be set aside for the planting of trees; and Whereaw, this holiday, called Arbor Day, was first observed with the planting of more than a million trees in Nebraska; and Wherect4, Arbor Day is now observed throughout the nation and the world; and Whereat trees can reduce erosion of our precious topsoil by wind and water, cut heating and cooling costs, moderate the temperature, clean the air, produce life-giving oxygen, and provide habitat for wildlife; and Whereas; trees are a renewable resource, giving us paper, wood for our homes, and fuel for our fires, as well as many other products; and W herea4', trees in our cities increase property values, enhance the economic vitality%re business areas, and beautify our community; and Whereat,, volunteers from neighborhoods, schools, businesses, and service clubs will help the City of Renton celebrate Arbor Day and Earth Day on Saturday, April 21d, by turning a portion of the NE 4th Street Corridor into a green space lined with trees, shrubs, and other vegetation; Now, Therefore, I, Kathy Keolker-Wheeler, Mayor of the City of Renton, do hereby proclaim April 23, 2005,to be A thor Day in the City of Renton, and I encourage all citizens to join me in this special observance. • In witness whereof, I have hereunto set my hand and caused the se. f the City of Renton to be affixed this 11th day of April, 2005. `7c r lete-14, t()kstkaa-‘._ . Kathy K,siker-Wheeler Mayor of the City of Renton, Washington Issisv RENTON 1055 South Grady Way-Renton,Washington 98055-(425)430-6500/FAX(425)430-6523 AHEAD OF THE CURVE y.} This paper contains 50%recycled material,30%post consumer ('.A.-.7'"1,77:1 .1,'7.`�,{ny iL PLANNING & DEVELOPMENT COMMITTEE Date COMMITTEE REPORT April 11, 2005 AMBERWOOD PHASE II PRELIMINARY PLAT APPEAL File LUA-04-117,PP, ECF, R (Referred February 14, 2005) The Planning and Development Committee heard this appeal on April 7, 2005. After reviewing the record, the written appeal and hearing oral argument, and having heard about background from staff, the Committee finds that the evidence submitted by the appellant justifies partially reversing the Hearing Examiner and granting R-4 zoning for this parcel with R-5 density and development standards. The Committee therefore recommends that the Council change the zoning on this parcel from R-1 to R-4 and approve the preliminary plat with a density of 17 lots subject to the following changes in the Hearing Examiner's report and recommendation: 1. Findings should be added on page 6 of the Examiner's report and recommendation, those findings to read: 25. The issue of zoning this property to R-5 was submitted to the voters as part of the annexation vote. The R-5 zoning was defeated in that vote. Subsequently, the Council received letters from two of the voters indicating that they were confused and wished to vote for the R-5 zoning. These two votes, if they had voted for R-5, would have resulted in a favorable vote for R-5. However, the vote was over and complete and the Council was compelled to rezone the property to R-1, when it was annexed. However, the Council did encourage the property owners to approach the city about a rezone to R-5. Before that process was complete,the City had eliminated the R-5 zone and rezoned all R-5 zoned property to R-4. 26. At the time the application for rezone was filed, it should have been reviewed under residential low-density policies LU-26 through LU-33.1, not the R-4 overlay policies nor the new Comprehensive Plan policies for 2004. The new text that sets up the R-4 zoning does not apply to this parcel as the parcel is excluded from the hatched area in the zoning map that follows policy LU-33.5. Exclusion of this parcel was done intentionally, in 2003, because a number of properties were annexing and a commitment was made for R-5 zoning to those parcels, including the subject parcel. At the same time, the Council was making policy commitments to the residents of the potential annexation ae supporting a down zoned R-4 for the remainder of the area upon annexation. This leVto the creation of an overlay with a low-density designation but only mapping the overlay where there were not existing commitments. In 2004, the Comprehensive Plan was again amended to eliminate the overlay, rescind the R-5 zone and use R-4 zoning exclusively to implement these policies. Planning and Development Committee Report Page 2 2. Even if this property was not excluded from the R-4 zoning, as set forth in the overlay map,it would be excluded from the R-4 density and development standards because of City Ordinance Number 5100 Section XIII at page 26 which states in relevant part: "For properties vested with a complete plat application prior to November 10, 2004, and for the Mosier II,Maplewood East and Anthone,the following standards apply. Vested plats must be developed within five years of preliminary plat approval and/or annexation. Maximum density-5 dwelling units per acre." As stated in finding 24 awe,the applicant submitted the application to change the zoning from R-1 to R-5 prior to the date of November 10,2004. The conclusions of the Examiner for the rezone should be modified as follows: 1. Conclusion 1,the last sentence should be amended by adding the phrase"but should approve R-4 zoning subject to R-5 density and development regulations". 2. Conclusion 3 should be modified. All of that conclusion after the fourth sentence should be stricken and in its place substituted the following: "For the reasons set forth in findings of fact 25,26 and 27, R-4 zoning should be approved, subject to R-5 density and development standards." 3. Conclusions 4, 5, 6,9 and 11 should be stricken. 4. Conclusion 10 should be amended by striking the last sentence thereof. The Examiner's conclusions concerning the preliminary plat should be modified as follows: 1. Conclusion 12 should be stricken and in its place the following language should be added: "The proposed preliminary plat is appropriate based on the rezone of this parcel to R-4 with R-5 density and development standards." 2. Conclusion 13 should be modified by changing the term R-4 to R-5. 3. Conclusion 19 should be stricken. In the Examiners recommendations starting on page 9,the following changes should be made: Planning and Development Committee Report Page 3 1. The preamble to the recommendations should be stricken and in its place should be added the following language: "The City Council should reclassify the subject's site from R-1 to R-4, subject to R-5 density and development standards." "The City Council should approve the 17-lot Preliminary Plat subject to the following conditions:" 2. Recommendation 3 should be modified by adding at the end of that sentence the phrase "If possible,because of the small lots". 3. Recommendation 7 on page 10 should be modified by adding the phrase"The applicant shall comply with the R-4 landscaping requirements". /r'K Dan Clawson, Chair (-C\46(//40 L/J ( V Denis W. Law, Vice Chair Marcie Palmer,Member T10.42:46 CC: Wets Wafts 1ehnifer hlen»,'n9 Fred Kaufman \. W a:nw+'swf'wc;L PLANNING & DEVELOPMENT COMMITTEE pate V-11-,2005- COMMITTEE REPORT April 11, 2005 PARK PLACE PRELIMINARY PLAT APPEAL File LUA-04-126,ECF, PP (Referred February 14, 2005) The Planning and Development Committee heard this appeal on April 7, 2005. The appellant argued that the City should consider only the one lot that it sought to subdivide. However,this lot was part of a larger lot, which had been platted within the last five years. According to City Code,the entire parcel must be replatted. If the entire parcel is replatted, the replat would be denser than permitted by City Code. Therefore,the Committee recommends that the Council affirm the decision of the Hearing Examiner and deny the replat. ns Dan Clawson,Chair 4.4/14,9 4� r ti Denis W. Law,Vice Chair 12(34niak Marcie Palmer,Member C: Susan Fiala Jennifer Henning Fred Kaufman CITY OF RENTON MEMORANDUM DATE: April 11, 2005 TO: Terri Briere, Council President Members of the Renton City Council FROM: Kathy Keolker-Wheeler, Mayor Jay Covington, Chief Administrative Officer SUBJECT: Administrative Report In addition to our day-to-day activities, the following items are worthy of note for this week: GENERAL INFORMATION • Flowers, fruits, vegetables, arts and crafts, and entertainment will be the focus of the Spring Festival on Saturday, April 23`d, at the Piazza, located on 3rd Street between Logan and Burnett Avenues. Sponsored by Piazza Renton, the City, and the Renton Chamber of Commerce, the event will run from 12:00 to 4:00 p.m. COMMUNITY SERVICES DEPARTMENT • The Renton Public Library is looking for regular library users to join the Friends of the Library group to help promote library use in the community. This organization helps organize the library's annual book sale and hopes to plan other events and activities to promote the Library. For more details, call the Library at 425-430-6610 or inquire at the information desk of either the Renton Public Library or Highlands Library. • 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, located at 1715 Maple Valley Highway. For more information, or to register for an audition,call 425-430-6700. • Registration began Friday, April 8th, for the popular Summer Day Camp programs for children ages 3 to15. A large variety of camps are offered this summer to provide active and fun experiences. • Spring into Fun neighborhood park programs for children ages 6 to 11 begin this week at Teasdale, Kiwanis, Kennydale, and Philip Arnold Parks, and include drop-in activities such as creative arts and games. • During Renton School District's spring break this week, Track and Field Camp and Skyhawks Sports Camp are available and the Highlands Neighborhood Center hours have been adjusted to better accommodate neighborhood children. • Adult basketball, softball, and volleyball spring leagues are underway, with 118 different teams participating each week. ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT,NEIGHBORHOODS, & STRATEGIC PLANNING DEPARTMENT • The economic recovery is alive and well in the City of Renton. Businesses reported adding 2,470 more employees to their employment rosters between October 3151 and December 31st in 2004. Business license records compiled at the end of March 2005 indicate that in the last quarter of 2004 nine of the City's ten largest private employers increased the number of employees by a combined 1,090, or 7.87%, and 2,469 licensed businesses in the City of Renton reported a total of 33,584 full-time positions. Administrative Report April 11,2005 Page 2 FIRE DEPARTMENT • April is Disaster Preparedness Month in Washington and a good time to review your personal preparedness plan. The website,www.Ready.gov,offers information about how to prepare for a national emergency. Also, the Washington State Department of Emergency Management has published a comprehensive Disaster Preparation Handbook available at the City of Renton's website, www.ci.renton.wa.us. Call the Renton Fire Department at 425-430-7000 for additional information including free Disaster Preparedness presentations, handouts, display kits,and audio-visual presentations. PLANNINGBUILDING/PUBLIC WORKS DEPARTMENT • The City of Renton is taking proactive steps to handle code violations. It is now easier than ever to report code violations by either calling 425-430-7373, filling out an on-line form on the City's website at www.ci.renton.wa.us, or e-mailing codecompliance@ci.renton.wa.us. A code compliance officer will investigate the problem, follow up with the reporting party, and issue an Order To Correct, if necessary. If the problem is resolved, the case is closed; however, if the Order To Correct is ignored, the City will take steps to prosecute the violator. 8-ttyit • MEMORANDUM Jt LI A ® CITY OF RENTON CITY OF RENTON APR 1 1 2005 COMMUNITY SERVICES RECEIVED 0 Committed to Enriching Lives 0 CITY CLERK'S OFFICE DATE: April 11, 2005 TO: Terri Briere, Council President Members of the Renton City Council VIA: Kathy Keolker-Wheeler, Mayor FROM: Dennis Culp, Community Services Administrator a SUBJECT: Limited Hydroplane Races—Cost Reduction Analysis Issue: Should the Council approve the Administration's recommendation to reduce the costs charged to the event organizers? This recommendation is based on having a two-day event and assumes any emergencies would be handled through the 911 emergency response system. Recommendation: That the Council authorize the Administration to charge the event organizers $3,730 to cover the cost of City services and to compensate the City for lost revenue. Background: • On April 4, 2005,the City Council requested that the Administration review event costs to see if reductions were possible without incurring any City subsidy of the event. • The total cost of this event, including all staff costs,was originally estimated at $9,400 and was based on a three-day boat launch closure and more conservative labor estimates. • The lost revenue caused by closing the boat launch on Saturday and Sunday is estimated at $842.00. The lost revenue caused by the expected inability to rent the nearby picnic shelters due to noise issues is estimated at $560.00. Total lost revenue is $1,402. • The Police Department has determined that,based on past experiences, they can forego assigning extra personnel for this event. Any police response needed could be obtained through the 911 emergency response system. COUNCIL REFERRAL TO ADMINISTRATION TO: ✓ Dennis Culp, Community Services Administrator DATE: 4/5/2005 FROM: -V Bonnie Walton, City Clerk LOG #: 05007-C On 4/4/2005, Council referred the following: Request from Lenny Baker, Commodore Seattle Drag& Ski Sprint Boat Association, 20224 81st Ave. W, Edmonds, WA 98026, to waive all costs associated with the proposed limited hydroplane race(Renton Cup Regatta) to be held at Gene Coulon Memorial Beach Park on April 30th and May 1st. Culp Please respond as follows: Prepare memo to Councilmembers via Mayor. (After Mayor's approval, Mayor's secretary will copy for Council and Clerk and return copy to you.) XX Prepare memo to Councilmembers via Mayor and include attached letter with memo. (After Mayor's approval, Mayor's secretary will copy for Council and Clerk and return copy to you.) Prepare letter(s) to citizen/agency with department head's signature and submit to Mayor for approval. (After Mayor approves the letter, the Mayor's secretary will mail it out after making a copy for Council and Clerk and returning a copy to you.) Schedule matter on Council committee agenda. Arrange with Council Liaison ASAP. (Copy of response to City Clerk not required.) Other: PLEASE REFERENCE LOG NUMBER ON ALL LETTERS. Please complete request by(4/11/2005). Thank you. cc: Derek Todd Margaret Pullar MAI -28' 05 (MON) 14 08 BILL PIERRE FORD SVC TEL:206-361-5526 P. 003 • 2005 RENTON RACE Estimated Budget APBA Sanction and Insurance Costs $3417.00 Inboard Promotions Fee $1900.00 Double Points Race Premium Mercer Island Marine Patrol $2000.00 Ambulance $1100.00 • Crane and Fuel $ 840.00 Seattle Rescue and Patrol $ 600.00 Trophies $ 600.00 Seattle Drag and Ski $ 545.00 (Includes Truck Ins,Gas, Additional Rope,Radio Batteries,Flares if needed And services rendered(setup/teardown, PA System,Announcer)) Staring Line Barge and Transport $ 300.00 Toilets $ 225.00 Region 10 Fees $ 165.00 Total Expenses $1 1692.00 Total Entry fees 38 Boats @ $100.00 ea $ 3800.00 Deficit Of The Race $ 7892.00 These expenses are based on last years budget and some minor increases in services purchased from necessary companies 1E : Mercer Island Marine Patrol, American Medical Response , APBA (This excludes prize money) Seattle Drag& Ski Sprint Boat Association Inc. Commodore Lenny Raker 425-879-4166 cell 206-364-1095xt7356 wk 425-776-1847 hm MAR. -28' 05 IMON) 14: 10 BILL PIERRE FORD SVC TEL:206-361-5526 P. 007 midnight, which rhe? Recreation L'i' isie \�_,tiid ceeei�•, en_ie 1 ' !! the r v ,�the boat launch fees lot that day fhe bud`,ct pare oC the handout for the race shows the actual hard costs to run the race. If-additional costs arc incurred the race becomes financially impossible to run which would result in the cancellation of-your event! Remember the City of Renton called us to participate in your Renton River Days festivities. We feel it's not necessary For any more community service people to attend over and above the normal daily contingency. Again our ricin` club is a -Not For Profit" club. In closin„ consider all the positive and economical benefits for haying you:- event ou-event this year in your city. Thank You. CITY OF RENTON COUNCIL AGENDA BILL • I At#: 1 J 4i% I Submitting Data: For Agenda of: ‘ikr,mr Dept/Div/Board.. Economic Development, April 11, 2005 Neighborhoods, and Strategic Planning Staff Contact Don Erickson,x-6581 Agenda Status Consent X Subject: Public Hearing.. PROPOSED ANNEXATION Correspondence.. Hoquiam— 10%Notice of Intention to Commence Ordinance Annexation Proceedings Petition Resolution Old Business Exhibits: New Business Study Sessions Issue Paper, Annexation Petition Certification, 10% Information Petition Recommended Action: Approvals: Council concur to set a Public Meeting date for April Legal Dept X 25, 2005 Finance Dept Other Fiscal Impact: Expenditure Required... Transfer/Amendment Amount Budgeted Revenue Generated Total Project Budget N/A City Share Total Project.. SUMMARY OF ACTION: The petitioners submitted this petition to the City Clerk on February 28, 2005 and the signatures were certified by the King County Department of Assessments on March 7, 2005. The proposed 20.49-acre annexation site is located in Renton's Potential Annexation Area along the west and east sides of Hoquiam Avenue NE(142nd Avenue SE)between 140th Avenue SE, if extended, on the west and 144th Avenue, if extended, on the east. The site's southern boundary would be NE 6th Street, if extended, and its northern boundary would be SE 122nd Street, if extended. State law requires the Council to hold a public meeting with the proponents to consider their request,within 60-days of their submittal. STAFF RECOMMENDATION: Council set April 25, 2005 for a public meeting to consider the 10%Notice of Intention to Commence Annexation Proceedings petition and future zoning for the proposed Hoquiam Annexation. If Council accepts the 10%Notice of Intention petition, staff recommends that it authorize circulation of a 60%Direct Petition based upon assessed value. Such a petition must specify on its face that future zoning will be consistent with the Comprehensive Plan, i.e R-8 zoning at a maximum eight units per net acre, and that existing and future property owners will be required to assume their fair share of the City's outstanding indebtedness, paying the same rate as all other City property owners. EDNSP/PAA/Annexations/Hoquiam Annexation/agnbill/de ‘11400, CITY OF RENTON ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT, NEIGHBORHOODS AND STRATEGIC PLANNING MEMORANDUM DATE: March 23,2005 TO: Tern Briere, Council President City Councilmembers VIA: Mayor Kathy Keolker-Wheeler -ce ti FROM: Alex Pietsch, Administrator ''�, L'' Economic Development,Neighborhoods and Strategic Planning Department STAFF CONTACT: Don Erickson(6581) SUBJECT: Proposed Hoquiam Annexation 10% Notice of Intent �✓ ISSUE: The City is in receipt of a Notice of Intent to annex approximately 20.49 acres by the direct petition method(Figure 1). State law requires that the Council holds a public meeting with annexation proponents within 60-days of receipt of a 10%Notice of Intent petition, to decide whether to accept, reject, or geographically modify the proposal,whether to require the assumption of bonded indebtedness, and whether to require the simultaneous adoption of city zoning if the proposed annexation is successful. RECOMMENDATION: On the basis of the following analysis, the Administration recommends that Council accepts the 10%Notice of Intent petition. If Council concurs, the Administration recommends that it take the following actions (pursuant to RCW 35A.14.120): • Accept the 10%Notice of Intent to Commence Annexation Proceedings petition; • Authorize the circulation of the 60%Direct Petition to Annex for the 24.49-acre area; and, • Require that property owners within the proposed annexation area assume a proportional share of the City's outstanding indebtedness and accept zoning consistent with the Comprehensive Plan. BACKGROUND SUMMARY: The rectangular shaped proposed Hoquiam Annexation site was previously considered for annexation as part of the original Johnson Annexation that included the so called"hook"to the Proposed Hoquiam Annexation 10%Notice of Intent March 29, 2005 Page 2 'tire north and failed to achieve sufficient signatures to meet the requirements of a 60%Petition to Annex. The current site is immediately north of the former Piele Annexation that came into the City in December 2001. 1. Location: The proposed 24.49-acre, rectangular shaped,Hoquiam Annexation is bisected by Hoquiam Avenue NE and abuts the City limits on its western and southern boundaries. Its western boundary is 140th Avenue SE, if extended, and its eastern boundary is 144th Avenue SE, if extended. Its northern boundary would be SE 122nd Street, if extended, and its southern boundary would be SE 124th Street (NE 6th Street), if extended. 2. Assessed value: The 2005 assessed valuation for the subject annexation site, at current development, is $5,109,000. 3. Natural features: The site slopes downward, slightly to the southeast and southwest, from Hoquiam Avenue SE, and is defined by the edge of a ridge in its SE corner where the site slopes at almost a 25% grade to the west/southwest (Figure 4, Topography). The west half of the proposed annexation drains to the upper reaches of Maplewood Creek. The east half of the proposed annexation drains to the upper reach of Honey Creek, which eventually flows into May Creek. 4. Existing land uses: Existing development includes twenty single-family detached dwellings and their associated structures. Most existing development is located adjacent Sow to SE 142nd Avenue SE (Hoquiam Avenue NE). Existing lots vary in size from a quarter of an acre up to four acres. (Figure 3, Existing Structures). 5. Existing zoning: King County zoning is R-4. County R-4 allows a base density of four units per gross acre, and up to 6 units per gross acre with incentives and transfer of density credits. This zoning is comparable to Renton's R-8 zone. 6. Comprehensive Plan: Renton's Comprehensive Plan designates the subject annexation site as Residential Single Family(RS). This designation would allow R-8 zoning at a maximum density of eight units per net acre. 7. Public services: All responding departments and divisions noted that the annexation represents a logical extension of their respective services and systems. Specific comments follow. Water Utility. The subject area is within the water service area of Water District#90 by agreement under the East King County Coordinated Water System Plan. A certificate of water availability from the District will be required prior to the issuance of development permits within the subject area, following annexation to the City. Hydrant flow test and hydraulic analysis of the District's system should also be required for new development within the annexation area. The District must provide adequate water supply and pressure for new development within the City and must meet Renton's standards for fire protection and domestic water service. Sewers. The area is not currently served by sewer. Sewer exists in the City of Renton to the west and south. The annexation site is located within the Renton Sewer Service Area Proposed Hoquiam Annexation 10%Notice of Intent March 29,2005 Page 3 4100+ and future sewers would be extended by developer extension, as the annexation area develops. Parks. The City has a shortfall of both neighborhood and community parkland in this area. The nearest public park is Kiwanis Park, about three-quarters of a mile to the west. Maplewood Park in unincorporated King County is approximately a mile to the south. The projected prorated cost of developing parkland for future development within the annexation site, to a level consistent with the service levels in the City's Comprehensive Park, Recreation, and Open Space Plan, is an estimated $77,452. This one time estimated cost is above the estimated $55,730 the City would receive from collecting its Parks Mitigation Fee,based upon the development of 105 new homes. Fire. The area is currently served by Fire District#25. Renton currently provides fire suppression services to the District under contract. Upon annexation, the City would continue to provide fire prevention and suppression services for the 20.49-acre area,but do so as a basic City service rather than under contract with another district. Police. With an estimated future population of approximately 313 people for this annexation,the Police Department states that there will eventually be a need for additional officers to serve this and other recent annexations. Police estimate there will be an annual call for service for each of the 313 residents living within the annexation area. ',sof Surface Water. The eastern half of the proposed annexation drains to the north into the upper reach of Honey Creek, a few hundred feet to the east. The western half of the proposed annexation drains to the southeast into the upper reaches of Maplewood Creek, via NE 4th Street. Staff notes that because of flooding problems in the lower reaches of these creeks, future development should be subject to stream protection storm water detention standards, such as the 1998 King County Surface Water Design Manual, Level 2 or equivalent or stricter standards adopted by the City. Annual maintenance costs for the existing drainage system are estimated to be less than$200 per year. Transportation. Staff notes that additional transportation staff would not be required. They also note that NE 6th Street(SE 124th Street)is an important neighborhood access street and that future dedications for street right-of-way would be required. Additionally, they note that the cost of new curbs, gutters, sidewalks, and street lighting abutting the proposed annexation area and/or new access streets within the annexation area would be at the expense of existing and new property owners as the area develops. ANALYSIS OF THE PROPOSED ANNEXATION: 1. Consistency with the Comprehensive Plan: Renton's Comprehensive Plan annexation policies generally support this proposed annexation. The subject site is within the City's Potential Annexation Area and has been ___ subject to development pressure under the King County Comprehensive Plan, zoning, and subdivision regulations (Policies LU-36 and LU-37). The area would also be available for urbanization under Renton's Residential Single-Family land use designation. Renton is the logical provider of most urban infrastructure and services to Proposed Hoquiam Annexation 10%Notice of Intent March 29, 2005 Page 4 ___ the area(Policy LU-38). Policy LU-43.1 states that, in general, the greater the contiguity with the city limits, the more favorable the annexation. The area proposed for annexation abuts the City limits along its western boundary and southern boundaries. This represents approximately 50% of its perimeter. Also,the proposed annexation does not divide an existing established neighborhood (Policy LU-43.4). 2. Consistency with the Boundary Review Board Objectives: (from RCW 36.93.180) a. Preservation of natural neighborhoods and communities; The proposed annexation would cause no disruption to the larger community. As noted above, the site is relatively under-developed at the current time. b. Use of physical boundaries, including but not limited to bodies of water, highways, and land contours; Except for a small area,boundaries follow existing city boundaries, streets, or parcel lines. c. Creation and preservation of logical service areas; Water and sewer service boundaries will not change. Neither will school district boundaries. As noted above,Renton will take over the 20.49-acres it now provides service to for Fire District 25,upon annexation. Pursuant to state law, there will be no change in the garbage service provider for at least seven years. d. Prevention of abnormally irregular boundaries; The new city boundary resulting from this annexation would be more regular than the existing City boundary. This boundary is considered interim, as this area is located within Renton's PAA,and further annexations are anticipated in the near future in this area. e. Discouragement of multiple incorporations of small cities and encouragement of incorporations of cities in excess of ten thousand population in heavily populated urban areas; Not applicable. No incorporations are proposed in this area. f Dissolution of inactive special purpose districts; Not applicable. There are no inactive special purpose districts here. g. Adjustment of impractical boundaries; This annexation is not being proposed to adjust what are considered impractical boundaries. Further annexations in this portion of Renton's PAA are anticipated in the near future. h. Incorporation as cities or towns or annexation to cities or towns of unincorporated areas which are urban in character; Proposed Hoquiam Annexation 10%Notice of Intent March 29,2005 Page 5 King County has designated this area for urban development because of its location within the Urban Growth Boundary. The County has also indicated that it wants to divest itself from providing urban services to these unincorporated urban areas by turning them over to cities. Because the subject site is within Renton's PAA, annexation is appropriate. i. Protection of agricultural and rural lands which are designated for long term productive agricultural and resource use by a comprehensive plan adopted by the county legislative authority. Not applicable. No portions of the proposed annexation area are rural or designated for long term productive agricultural use in the King County or Renton Comprehensive Plans. 3. A fiscal analysis for the proposed annexation is attached. This analysis indicates that the proposed annexation would initially cost the City approximately$1,876 a year; however, at full development with an estimated 125 homes, the City would receive $9,294 a year more than it spends to serve the area. There is an estimated one-time pro-rated cost to the City of$77,452 for park acquisition and development, based on the estimated 313 people who would ultimately live here. CONCLUSION: The proposed Hoquiam Annexation is essentially consistent with relevant County and City %,,e annexation policies, as well as Boundary Review Board objectives for annexation. Reviewing staff has identified no impediments to the provision of City services to the area. Attachments err►' Y I I W llLai '4V MOM J o gi 'ill IIIn1��EOM ♦ �11 mum -----� 1111111111 Ilium ,itandigli• _ o X11111111 �-owi�i nms- Lo NI kullnifilin 6: ■1., IlM&UL3'i■IIIIMINER ! %(f3TH St 1111111111 — 9111 ______ __ 1 — 1-- le A Lr TT l I IE____ s41 st ■ Y .. _ ________ nu a 1 i 'S �o -111 NF 8th St r- V -7 I Lo =min newt aii111111mow /J If i l� 11111 ■■■■■lmati/I, m op ,■ r 4 /211st St pilili����/�v1� Awe — Isispimmir 111 Dv111►ts CNJ L. II/1�■MOJ ►E 6th St I!IP&4 • Il�p�1� 1� L_� • r - 1 lit mongol' la ira 1110 11111 pe iiinVil Is ■� ■11111 _®� _ � Mal MITA - a1illllll�1 �4A111111111110 iii -*EDID57,Pi � Q = - 316 -0111111111111a 1 MN 1 1 1 ____Ttr,_7 44 H -;_i _ _ J — �■ I. irn-7.___ ';, ',: , .� m•�Y fi+vl lIli. . ____ nu ____IIID m i.. I ,' thI - !ii=.4Ens Ill ILI I____ si--41 W1 W I� /�`l,.� � 11111 . . '1 cn = .. . ■■'� ■/ 4'`�r ►i 110d St i---_- - 11 __, 1111 — /mliN ill 1"In • SE 13�nd „t 11111 •e� l 1401►4.,1 .4 to to I at want W at ic4 .i �I//iii — _ = '��'►Alm a ii. Dina c � z X111 ea • mime BIW à11 : 41/111 0 I �o'• �j�j:�. ,,�oposed Hoquiam Annexation 0 800 1600 s, Site Boundary Figure 1: Vicinity Map --- City Limits 1 : 9600 tiO„{, Economic Development,Neighborhoods&Strategic Planning ♦ J` ♦ Alex Pietsch,Administrator G.Del Rosario ANTO$ I March 2005 rn e, s -----,4,--r ippiP*1 irW N iiri Api is "u� ., 3 X: x, Y �` i4 Y-� ^3,? - ce tis _ E T midi .N,,,,v,.. - 1 t . e i /,-- ..ti., . .,, .,. tilli ON z{ s d TLmfi\ fi :1� 1 1,.,,, ,:77-iiir.i.k...d!— �,�74-47**',� +Ex�3 rl • ti esi, 1�'1.--- s "'Y r,. RT. � � R.: :. - �r .- Ii I I -meq - s ` _ ,.e y ' �., n 3 ay s a ! 3n A F 's . • 'i ' i St4 t 't P' '4 _t 3 ` r r , l �i is..:, I � ;lit �r 'if ta.401 ,,,,,,,, ,,,..,,,,,, ,...„2„,.. 1 ,, ,,„ .. ,_ '.. aa3 d. as' !1 ."1" . _ _ r. . v . __ ;tillf IA , ' _ el:. it'*.`4,eii*.A., l / t a� it , I si �' `' � iii tee. ..". ''..! - 1 4 jr., fit. tagg;if. -in' . k "•i r•. nt,„�. i§ � 1 t d may, � � .e y y S :td � . �� ` 'fes*' t §+ y Q mifiv- 11 � lf� -..s s. ..a.,._ ,. .V' ..,..t�i...,�se�...�F.'S`a..+a..eTt.... ,.. ..:LI .._. ;oposed Hoquiam Annexation o 200 400 Figure 2: Aerial Map SiteCBoundaryi1 : 2400 ti0=r, Economic Development,Neighborhoods&Strategic Planning Alex Pietsch,Administrator G.Del Rosario 4R'N.r0$ I March 2005 A,. 1 1 1 Li n o , ___E — El op _ in 0 1 1164 I 11 11 rs, , . ,_LI 5 i ___,,, L J, ni Q L-Liff) ElJEO Cli ,.J LL c0 ____________ 0 ...m.....14.202 — = ED ___.________________ , o i NI 11111 hill 1111 . ■ --cr ________11 ■ II iiiiik 1 • r „iv -4-- iii 1 IIII II I 111 ,r ,I. El7)4P I _ El3 2 E o `i C D 5 1 . El o d� [—IL t1 �_. > i I D S Li ❑o lir— ,ci:Z3 1 113 El izi I 1 III QD C :-nN-- r=] ifi. ❑ ❑ - � > , ;oposed Hoquiam Annexation o 200 400 NEERmasizEsmozgamm Figure 3: Existing Structures Map Site Boundary — City Limits 1 : 2400 ly oci)i, Economic Development,Neighborhoods&Strategic Planning It Existing Structure ♦ • ♦ Alex Pietsch,Administrator I G.Del Rosario NTOI March 2005 Xv X_- -__, 44.44 14408 14433 X1 5 32 • {�,_ 144 27 - X 744.36 1x392 ` X Y `\ X 143.84 1 x.42 X / X ''ll 141.65 X 144 76 X 14. 9 143 62 142 1 .I K 1 X 14 7a X 743 62 `1 \ • 743.57 / 144.66 1439° X \ \ X� X X45.04 144.85 \ \ \ \ J 141 93 142.27 ! \ x X X 144 35 X 14.47 \ r X135.81 X741.47 �. 14286 ` 1 X 14.1 X \/\/ 43.30 f ` 14164 14246 • 4 ,4x.54 X14460 X 14466 I�"^'1 315 ' X �/ \ -1 X 147 25 'i 1 X j142:9 / X - \ 135.; OM X ,i 42 Ba 1 141.38 ` 14 48 / -...... j Xis �t - • \ \ X �,-- / X14.59X143-39 • \t4J83 40. 742.71 +, X....0011111111111 142.56 ` f • \ \ X t 142.31 \ j \ '1 X 141.82 �__ _\ r \ \ 141.69 �� X1 '.19 X 141.72 , ` Q / ) ` '\\ ,,,_� X 147,1:7) ,��' /J X141.60 - - \ ) -, l . X � .16 111. \' 11 A` 141 i l• \\�S\ O- / - - _ _ X - i- \i/ \ ,36.,6 ''. q\ \ " - -' 141.26 ."//n ` X \ \\ \\ \ \ -\ t ( 141.65` X 142.94 X X \\\ '•'�• 14 \ / X74229 X1 .66 /""- ' ) � 142.47 X 14 0.55 � / �\ I 141.36 •. X \ X \ `� �1 -` .�� 141.4' - - _ i �J X i %' �� X X139-40 224 I 140.55 X 140.22 138.90 X <f' (`/ 14X ,�! \ \ --__� -----Th 137.62 41.4. 140.82 /! \ X X / , 1 ( / ; ,36.26 ` ' \ X 141.6 - 139.73 l/ X _ X \ 141. • 137.62 \ \ -'1X j X X • �\\,\ . \\ \ ' 42.2 i .139.99 • .� \�\ X1 x.58 1- U �' i 13619 . X '\ ` .141.65 / 739.71 \ , t _ 13843 137.31 \\\ 139.65 X 1, X X i \ 1 X ' ! ( ' ' / j X 139.85\ 13 it illp 1 , ` ♦♦ X 140.53NNW , .52 \ t.L. II139.67 X / jXtX138.6) /' / i mil \\"---138.8., 13'`7.41 138.47 X �,��� ` 176.78 \ Ilor Xt 39.4• \ 37.6: 76.6, 1 39.77 1 061l X ,37.38 \ ' � O 7 i X \ ,�,� ) _ _ X1 9.99 X 139.99 ( X \ / 11 137.80 \ .(12. I / ( / ` X138.68 X1.9.58 \ X \ AIM \ i 1INI . 139.12 \t 138 11 l is\ 1 401U ,IN I \ 138.55 X,•9.23 X \ \ ��•---C1111' __ lal.4.8.0 I \ 138.1• \ X /�!- X X739.22 139.12 ,2.76 I I/ X \ '-� ) I ,39.,2 / _ 138.}9 !2.27 �' ./ 13. •')1 :.27 X X .139.70 139 4 X X 1.:.69 139.57 t' gra 123.3512Z X / \ , X X I lo X ') X 723.521 r-------}"j i (r _ X I '\ X,38.3} p,_ ���© i/ 1i,f� 132.87 ) /� �.. • 1 �+ 139.65 X 139.59 / �r 1 4,,'oposed Hoquiam Annexation o 200 400 Figure 4: Topography Map Site Boundary --- City Limits 1 : 2400 ti Y Economic Development,Neighborhoods&Strategic Planning 1m Interval Contour Alex Pletsch,Administrator G.Del Rosario LN.ro$ I March 2005 1 f / / sL. L__ ___, '11✓ .\ I lI _ ___.... up ; ! 0 ----0 C NiIrr' - I i l CD H _ Q / IIikl---- L i CL) oposed Hoquiam Annexation 0 200 400 Figure 5: Sensitive Areas Map Site Boundary ^-~:'~:- ,':':: — City Limits 1 : 2400 ~- 4, Economic Development,Neighborhoods&Strategic Planning ® Wetland 0 * Alex Pietsch,Administrator G.Del Rosano L'N?O$ I March 2005 ANNEXATION FISCAL ANALYSIS SHEET FOR HOQUIAM ANNEXATION Units Population AV Existing dev. 20 50 $5,109,000 Full dev. 125 313 $41,859,000 ili"' Assumptions: 2.5 persons/household $255,450 AV/existing unit ................... $350,000 AV/existing unit ....... .......... Revenues : ' Total revenues .......... ....... ......... ......... .............. ..... ................... Existing Full Rate Existing: : $2p,611;17 Regular levy $16,042 $131,437 3.14 Full:: ::::$179,667:58 Excess levy $453 $3,711 0.08865 State shared revenues Rate (per cap) Existing Full Liquor tax $3.52 $176.00 $1,101.76 Liquor Board profits $5.04 $252.00 $1,577.52 Fuel tax-roads $14.46 $723.00 $4,525.98 Fuel tax-arterials $6.47 $323.50 $2,025.11 MVET $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 Camper excise $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 Criminal justice $0.36 $18.00 $112.68 Total $1,492.50 $9,343.05 Miscellaneous revenues Rate Existing Full Real estate excise* $40.86 $2,043.00 $12,789.18 Utility tax** $133.20 $2,664.00 $16,650.00 Fines&forfeits* $18.33 $916.50 $5,737.29 Total $5,623.50 $35,176.47 * Per capita ** Per housing unit-based on $2,220 annual utility billing @ 6%tax rate Costs ; ,`, Total ongoing costs Per capita Existing Full Existing ' $25;486;90 Contracted Services Full $1 70378 58 ............................. Alcohol $0.23 $11.35 $71.05 Public Defender $3.13 $156.70 $980.94 Jail $7.19 $359.60 $2,251.10 Subtotal $527.65 $3,303.09 Court/legal/admin. $57.08 $2,854.00 $17,866.04 Parks maintenance* $14.90 $745.00 $4,663.70 Police $282.00 $14,100.00 $88,266.00 Road maintenance** N/A $500.00 $3,248 Fire*** $1.25 $6,386.25 $52,323.75 Stormwater maintenance N/A $374.00 $703.00 Total $25,486.90 $170,373.58 *See Sheet Parks FIA **See Sheet Roads FIA *** Rate per$1,000 of assessed valuation (FD#25 contract) Net fiscal impact `***$282/service call-.92 calls/MF& .74 calls/SF Existing Full::::::::::::::::$9;294100 fine-tine costs Parks acquisition &development(from Sheet Parks FIA): $77,452.00 Other one-time costs: $0.00 ,rTotal one-time costs: $7746ZOOO Revised 8-29 per Finance Memo 1 King County Department of Assessments Scott Noble King County Administration Bldg. Assessor 500 Fourth Avenue,Room 708 Seattle,WA 98104-2384 (206)296-5195 FAX(206)296-0595 Email:assessor.info@metrokc.gov www.metrokc.gov/assessor/ ANNEXATION PETITION CERTIFICATION THIS IS TO CERTIFY that the petition submitted March 3, 2005 to the King County Department of Assessments by Don Erickson, Senior Planner for the City of Renton, supporting the annexation to Renton of the properties described as the Hoquiam Annexation, has been examined, the property taxpayers, tax parcel numbers, and assessed value of properties listed thereon carefully compared with the King County tax roll records, and as a result of such examination, found to be sufficient under the provisions of the New Section of Revised Nwise Code of Washington, Section 35.13.002. The Department of Assessments has not verified that the signature on the petition is valid through comparison with any record of actual signatures, nor that the signature was obtained or submitted in an appropriate time frame, and this document does not certify such to be the case. Dated this 7th day of March, 2005 ________,S.--"--\a_oil /1(4 i Scott Noble, King ounty Assessor fi-05-Op,. CITY OF Rpt FEB 2 8 2005 NOTICE OF INTENTION TO COMMENCE e p oFFIcE ANNEXATION PROCEEDINGS UNDER RCW 35A.14.120 (Direct Petition Method) (10%PETITION— HOOUIAM ANNEXATION) TO: THE CITY COUNCIL OF SUBMITTED BY:rhm4S 7 'r THE CITY OF RENTON ADDRESS: 6,(1 56 So u .e 0.4e r— City Hall, c/o City Clerk #X6,6 'Se1055 South Grady Way PHONE: ������ ?PgT" Renton, WA 98055 -406. _a Y-5/- The undersigned are the owners of properties representing not less than ten percent (10%) of the assessed value of all property within the proposed annexation area which they desire to annex to the City of Renton. We hereby advise the City Council of the City of Renton that it is our desire to commence annexation proceedings under the provisions of RCW 35A.14.120, of all or any part of the area described below. Nine The territory proposed to be annexed is within King County, Washington, and is contiguous to the City of Renton. A legal description (Exhibit A) and map (Exhibit B) are included as part of this petition. The City Council is requested to set a date not later than sixty days after the filing of this request for a public meeting with the undersigned. 1. At such meeting, the City Council will decide whether the City will accept, reject or geographically modify the proposed annexation; 2. The City Council will decide whether to require simultaneous adoption of a proposed zoning regulation; and, 3. The City Council will decide whether to require the assumption of a proportional share of existing city indebtedness by the area to be annexed. This page is the first of a group of pages containing identical text material. It is intended by the signers that such multiple pages of the Notice of Intention be presented and considered as one Notice of Intention. It may be filed with other pages containing additional signatures which cumulatively may be considered as a single Notice of Intention. lorkie Hoquiam Annexation Petition Page 1 of 2 WARNING: Every person who signs this petition with any other than his or her true name, or who knowingly signs more than one of these petitions, or signs a petition seeking an election when he or she is not a legal voter, or signs a petition when he or she is otherwise not qualified to sign, or who makes herein any false statement, shall be guilty of a misdemeanor. The undersigned have read the above petition and consent to the filing of this petition. ,(Names of petitioners should be in identical form as the name that appears on record in the title to the real estate.) t, #2ei� A e'369 'ffi rl�� its7 ." 5 �'" *4- s a I � tig t��.A2 S3 j F. F. �� • Ems, ,A .4 /-3 _z L� /'i ' f ' a. 1,2N e 1. p241— � � � �' t= v �, as ,�r _ 9 (s 7 1'.2- 3`'5 2Q 10_5, 0 0 Aleut€ a. i�/(cc,� e- 112,2( /411 �l'e S L. toA3o5logq 2. /,Z �� -i�/ �rUFS io2392Z2- S'n'S,r;v 21-06 /�a-eci 4. 4 UtuNicri/j--- / cam' ��(� "' / "W 5 5 r,. lz ' J W736-7371 5. 00\ 6 E i 5� �` �� �� �v l q 2- PDA S 1c '? f R d; a l o , dsq► gif Ij 7 P--// 7 8. /o2_3a59/gG 7. 8. 9. 10. Page 2 of 2 H:\DIVISION.S\P&TS\PLANNING\ANNEX\10%Notice of Intent(rev's).doc\DE 02/01/05 EXHIBIT A .v HOQUTAM ANNEXATION—EAST SIDE Name acres KC Parcel# value percentage cumulative Monte D Moore (2) 4.81 1023059222 & $855,000 37.37 37.37 Karen L. Moore 12240 & 12226142"d Ave. SE 1023059049 Thomas M. Waters 3.32 1023059179 $541,000 23.65 61.02 12220 142"d Ave. SE James Lee Zerby .47 1023059371 $221,000 09.66 70.68 Cynthia L. Zerby 12208 142"d Ave. SE William Gustin .35 1023059151 $122,000 05.33 76.01 Tiffany Gustin 12204 142"d Ave. SE Robert P Marx .25 1023059221 $172,000 07.52 83.53 Lynn J. Marx 12248 142"d Ave. SE Annabel!Marquart .26 1023059196 $226,000 09.88 93.41 4410, 12254 142"d Ave. SE Jonet M. Sudduth .28 1023059184 $151,000 06.77 100.00 12260 142"d Ave. SE Total 9.74 $2,288,000 60% 5.844 $1,376,800 Optional: Francis J. Prummer 2.39 1023059113 $331,000 02.39 12118 142"d Ave. SE ,err CT T SE 120th St In b w 4gib III ISE 1211st Sfi M ll I ' SI Mii w cnX / -,t 4/ l / _________ NE 6:..,h , , SE lr�-. SE 124th St 7. '��vis St _amr if "Ai ,,, , a NE 4th Ln 5th S'4.km _ linC ... / 'Y,„1 W d Z 1 E 4ti Pl o t = a 0 _ ai�9tn Pt °i �� o -- —� 1 - , 1 — = NEL-411r-St ti�Y o F6 - 15 T23N R5E E 1/2 4 0 4?0 C)A SLOPE ATLAS ---- Renton dity i imitB :4800 E 6 P/B/PW TECHNICAL SERVICES 15% to i:: :9:89.99% 26xto ab10 T23N R5E 1/2, CITY OF RENTON COUNCIL AGENDA BILL AIN: { + b Submitting Data: For Agenda of: 4/11/2005 Dept/Div/Board.. Hearing Examiner Staff Contact Fred J. Kaufman, ext. 6515 Agenda Status Consent X Subject: Public Hearing.. Correspondence.. Parkside Preliminary Plat Ordinance File No. LUA-04-155, 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 fir✓ Total Project Budget City Share Total Project.. SUMMARY OF ACTION: The Hearing Examiner's Report and Recommendation on the Parkside Preliminary Plat was published on March 14, 2005. The appeal period ended on March 28, 2005. The Examiner recommends approval of the proposed preliminary plat subject to the conditions outlined on pages 6 and 7 of the Examiner's Report and Recommendation. Conditions placed on this project are to be met at later stages of the platting process. STAFF RECOMMENDATION: Recommends approval of the Parkside Preliminary Plat with conditions as outlined in the Examiner's Report and Recommendation. Rentonnet/agnbill/ bh March 14, 2005 OFFICE OF THE HEARING EXAMINER CITY OF RENTON Minutes APPLICANT: Keith and Annette Demps A & D Quality Construction Co. LLC P 0 Box 2552 Renton, WA 98056 OWNER: Lester Danielson 2204 NE 24'x' Street Renton, WA 98056 Parkside Preliminary Plat File No.: LUA 04-155, PP, ECF LOCATION: 2204 NE 24th Street SUMMARY OF REQUEST: Approval for a 15-lot subdivision of a 2.77-acre site intended for detached single-family residences. SUMMARY OF ACTION: Development Services Recommendation: Approve subject to conditions '41mr'' DEVELOPMENT SERVICES REPORT: The Development Services Report was received by the Examiner on February 22, 2005. PUBLIC HEARING: After reviewing the Development Services Report, examining available information on file with the application, field checking the property and surrounding area; the Examiner conducted a public hearing on the subject as follows: MINUTES The following minutes are a summary of the March 1, 2005 hearing. The legal record is recorded on CD. The hearing opened on Tuesday, March 1, 2005, at approximately 9:00 a.m. in the Council Chambers on the seventh floor of the Renton City Hall. Parties wishing to testify were affirmed by the Examiner. The following exhibits were entered into the record: Exhibit No. 1: 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: Preliminary Grading and Utility Plan Exhibit No. 5: Preliminary Street Plan Exhibit No. 6: Conceptual Landscape Plan immorommionoirmw Parkside Preliminary Plat File No.: LUA-04-155, PP, ECF March 14. 2005 Page 2 *11010 Exhibit No. 7: Zoning Map Exhibit No. 8: Environmental Review Committee Mitigation Measures and Project Advisory Notes to the Applicant. 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.This plat is for 15 lots. There is one existing family home that is to remain. The zoning is R-8 for the 2.77-acre site. The net density for the proposed 15 lots is 7.39 dwelling units per acre. There are no critical areas on this site and the site is a slightly rolling site. They do propose to have two storm drain facilities and access to the site will be from NE 24th Street via a new public right-of-way extension of Blaine Avenue NE. The Environmental Review Committee issued a Determination of Non-Significance—Mitigated(DNS-M)with five mitigation measures. No appeals were filed. To the south of the plat is NE 24th Street, and to the west is Kennydale Lions Park. There are three existing sites that are not part of this plat that are towards NE 24"' Street. An existing house is located on proposed Lot 15. The Examiner inquired as to whether the three existing sites that are not part of the plat comply with the second setback as a front yard street,clue to the new street being created. These lots are going to become corner lots along a public street. Ms. Weil stated that because these properties have the access easement that will be improved without taking any additional property from the lots, there was no verification of whether they would meet the 15-foot setback from ,4100 the new proposed right-of-way. They were not incorporated or part of this preliminary plat,they are not held to setback requirements. The subject site is designated Residential Single Family(RSF) on the Comprehensive Plan Land Use Map and this site does comply with densities, setbacks, lot dimensions, and zoning requirements. However, each lot will be required to verify the appropriate setbacks prior to building permit approval. The net density after all deductions would be 7.39 dwelling units per acre which is within the allowed density range of the zone. The existing residence to remain on Lot 15 will have to provide yard setbacks from the existing structure to the new property lines. Staff recommends the applicant shall submit a plat showing the setbacks for the existing structure. Additionally, Lot 12 will have the private easement cutting across the front side off the bulb of the cul-de-sac to access Lot 11. The buildable area currently shown takes it up to that access easement. It has been determined that that would be a side yard and a 5-foot setback would be required off of the easement. Building standards and parking provisions would be verified at the time of building permit review. A conceptual landscape plan was submitted with this application. To meet the two trees per lot, the applicant is proposing 34 trees, 27 of those being deciduous trees and the additional 7 trees to be of a flowering variety to be located at sporadic locations outside of the planter strip. Staff recommends the establishment of a homeowner's association or maintenance agreement for the landscaping and other shared improvements on the site. Parkside Preliminary Plat File No.: LUA-04-155. PP, ECF March 14, 2005 Page 3 All lots are well oriented and unified in shape and direction to the public right-of-way. The one exception is Lot 11, which is still oriented in the same direction as other proposed lots but gaining access off of a private easement. The cul-de-sac lots meet all requirements as well. The proposed subdivision would gain access from the north side of NE 24th Street via a new 50-foot wide internal public street, an extension of Blaine Avenue NE. The extension is approximately 514 feet in length terminating in a cul-de-sac with a radius of 55 feet. All lots but one will have direct frontage and access to Blaine Avenue NE. Lot 11 will gain access from a 20-foot wide private easement across Lot 12. Staff recommends that Lots 11 and 12 have a shared driveway. Traffic, Fire and Park mitigation fees were imposed by the Environment Review Committee. The subject site is located within the Renton School District and they have indicated that they can handle the proposed new students from the proposed development. The applicant is proposing a storm water detention pond, which is proposed to be located within Tract A on the west side of the site. Another drainage area is proposed to be located within Tract B on the east side of the proposed street near the intersection of NE 24'h Street. Both tracts have direct access to the proposed extension of Blaine Avenue NE. The natural flow of water is to the west and through the Kennydale Lions Park. That was the original proposal for Tract A to tie into an existing line on the Kennydale Park. The Parks Department is not supporting that tie-in. Staff would like to make it clear that the applicant would need to obtain that easement, if possible, with the Parks Department for that connection prior to the final recording of the plat. If that easement cannot be obtained then redesign of the storm drainage facility would need to divert towards the *ow' second facility and then out into NE 24t1 Street. The applicant will be required to construct an appropriate water and sewer line within the new road extension of Blaine Avenue NE. Staff recommends approval of the Parkside Preliminary Plat subject to 5 conditions. Tom Touma, Touma Engineers, 6632 S 19151 Place, Suite E-102, Kent, WA 98032 stated that on Lot 15, there is a 20-foot front yard setback. Secondly, the report for the storm drainage, which they prepared,was based on the 1998 King County Manual. There were some restrictions dealing with Level 2 and they were complied with. One of the core requirements as far as the Manual is concerned, states that no diversion is allowed from one basin to the other. That is where the flow is naturally, from Lot 4 to 15 they congregate and converge to the center of the cul-de-sac and head west toward the park. That is the way it exists now. There is a hill, about six to seven feet higher than the cul- de-sac up to Lot 1 and 2. That is the reason it was necessary to plan two sub-basins to handle the storm drainage. The Parks Department is objecting to provide an easement to connect with their existing storm drainage that is actually traverses the park. This would be the ideal situation to do that, a conveyance pipe would be underground, it would not be disruptive as far as allowing the water the way it is not to sheet flow across the park. On the core requirement, one of the conditions of discharging, states that if there is less than half a CFS runoff of a hundred year peak flow,then a dispersion may be allowed to be installed rather than concentrated into a conveyance pipe. That condition can be met and allow the sheet flow from Tract A to go across the park as it is doing now. This would be prudent to install the conveyance pipe and not have the soggy environment every time it rains. 4Atim'" Kavren Kittrick, Development Services stated that the third party houses, two are corner lots and one becomes a new front yard and they are affected by the street. Typically these homes would be grandfathered in right where Parkside Preliminary Plat File No.: LUA-04-155, PP. ECF March 14, 2005 Page 4 41410 they are located. They are not part and parcel of this particular subdivision,they are affected by it,but it is not their fault. The difficulties for those properties occur later, if they remove the house or it gets destroyed in fire, flood, or something like that, a new home going in on that site would have to comply with the current setbacks. Any remodeling of sufficient size or value would also have to comply with the current setbacks. The Examiner inquired as to why this street was 50-feet and not 42-feet? Ms. Kittrick responded that they did not ask. It was a modification request through the office, it appears they would have had some difficulty with the tracts, but she is not sure why. Ms. Kittrick confirmed that the difficulty with the drainage did lie with the topography. There is a new storm drainage line in 24'x' but at to whether or not this could serve this particular Tract A storm when it is very obvious that it goes over onto the park and it's only going into the parking lot of the park. This is something they are continuing to work with the Park Department on to assure them, it may come down to the City taking over the section that as soon as it come off this parcel it becomes a publicly maintained storm. That may be an option to get the Parks Department to at least allow this particular connection. There is a certain advantage to it and the basins would be maintained which is preferred. There is a process for diverting it but it is something that is not often done. If there are downstream wetlands or intermittent streams that need this water going in that direction in particular, diverting it could mean the difference between an extra month of dry season or a wetland failing. It will most likely become part of the basis of negotiations with the Parks Department. This does have to be solved one way or the other. Keith Demps, 2308 NE 24th Street, Renton, WA 98056 stated that regarding the storm drainage (using an exhibit) he pointed out the location of the park, and a manhole. He stated that the worst case would be to add a piece of pipe and another manhole. The City owns the adjacent piece and they would be able to tie into this and enhance both pieces of property. wrl The Examiner stated that he would have to let the Parks Department work through this issue. Storm drainage will be required of this development, how it affects the park will be something that the City will have to determine. 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 approximately 9:45 a.m. FINDINGS, CONCLUSIONS & RECOMMENDATION Having reviewed the record in this matter,the Examiner now makes and enters the following: FINDINGS: 1. The applicant, Keith and Annette Demps, filed a request for a 15-lot Preliminary Plat. 2. The yellow file containing the staff report, the State Environmental Policy Act (SEPA)documentation and other pertinent materials was entered into the record as Exhibit #1. 3. The Environmental Review Committee(ERC), the City's responsible official issued a Determination of Non-Significance -Mitigated (DNS-M). 4. The subject proposal was reviewed by all departments with an interest in the matter. Parkside Preliminary Plat File No.: LUA-04-155, PP, ECF March 14, 2005 Page 5 5. The subject site is located at 2204 NE 24th Street. The subject site is located on the north side of NE 24th Street about a block east of Aberdeen Avenue NE. Kennydale Lions Park is located immediately west of the subject site. 6. The map element of the Comprehensive Plan designates the area in which the subject site is located as suitable for the development of 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 1822 enacted in March 1960. (This corrects the Staff Report) 9. The subject site is approximately 2.77 acres or 120,589 square feet. The parcel is somewhat irregular in shape although with rectangular property lines. The subject site is approximately 252 feet wide (east to west) by approximately 615 feet long. There is a dogleg that extends from the main parcel out to NE 24th Street. The site has approximately 71 feet of actual frontage along NE 24th. 10. The subject site has gently sloping terrain with grades ranging between 3 and 6 percent. The site does slope in two directions. It slopes to the south near its frontage along NE 24th and toward the west for the main. northern portion of the parcel. This will potentially require storm detention systems. (see below) 11. An existing home is located along the west-central portion of the subject site. This home would be retained on Proposed Lot 15. Staff noted that this home would have to meet all current setback requirements. 12. Staff reports that approximately nine trees as well as other pasture vegetation would be removed. The applicant proposes providing 34 new trees in the plat. 13. There would be 15 lots arranged around a cul-de-sac street. Proposed Lots 1 to 9 would be located along the east and north of the street while Proposed Lots 10 to 15 would be located along the western side of the cul-de-sac. 14. The cul-de-sac would run north from NE 24th Street. Currently, as the applicant did not seek a modification,the road would be 50 feet wide. It would run in a dogleg and two single-family homes, not part of this application, would bookend it at NE 24th Street. The creation of a 50-foot street might result in those homes having non-conforming setbacks from the street. If a modification were approved for a 42-foot wide street, the non-conformity, if there were one, might be reduced. Access to Proposed Lot 11 in the northwest corner of the site would be served by a private easement access across Proposed Lot 12. In addition to the fifteen lots that would be developed as single family lots, there would be three (3)tracts, Tracts A and B are proposed to serve storm drainage purposes while Tract C is a narrow, 5.25 foot wide, tract located along the western edge of the new cul-de-sac roadway. 15. The density for the plat would be 7.39 dwelling units per acre after subtracting roadways. 16. The subject site is located within the Renton School District. The project is expected to generate approximately 6 or 7 school age children. These students would be spread across the grades and would 441100. be assigned on a space available basis. Parkside Preliminary Plat File No.: LUA-04-155, PP, ECF March 14, 2005 Page 6 17. The development will increase traffic approximately 10 trips per unit or approximately 150 trips for the 15 single-family homes. 18. As noted above in the discussion of topography, the subject site slopes in two directions and therefore, stormwater naturally drains to the southeast and west. The applicant proposes providing two detention tracts. Tract A would be located between Proposed Lots 12 and 13 and would be approximately 4,300 square feet and contain most of the stormwater. Tract B would be a narrow tract located immediately south of Proposed Lot 1 and east of the new access road. The applicant has requested permission from the City to release stormwater to the park located downslope and west of the subject site. So far that permission has not been granted. The applicant may be entitled to spill stormwater to its natural discharge area but probably would not be permitted to change the natural drainage pattern. The stormwater could also be redirected to NE 24th south of the site but such redirection is not casually permitted by regulation. Tract B water would be conveyed to a system in NE 24th Street. 19. Sewer and water would be provided by the City. CONCLUSIONS: 1. The proposed plat appears to serve the public use and interest. The plat will be developed in an area that can readily be served by public services such as water and sewer. Development of the plat will increase the inventory of detached single-family homes. 2. The applicant will be paying mitigation fees to offset the impacts of this development on certain sectors of the City's services such as parks, transportation and fire resources. In addition, development of the homes will increase the tax base of the City helping to offset some of the other impacts of serving new residents. 3. The applicant will have to provide a full survey that shows that the existing home will meet all of the required setbacks or the home will have to be removed or altered to comply with code requirements. 4. The applicant will have to provide a finalized system for handling stormwater from the majority of the site. While the applicant can continue to release storm water at its natural points of release, it may not change the character of such releases in any manner that adversely affects neighboring property, in this case, a City park. 5. Development of the plat will clearly increase traffic and the population of the area but these impacts were generally understood when the Comprehensive Plan and Zoning were adopted. These impacts should not be untoward. 6. In conclusion, the City Council should approve the proposed Preliminary Plat. RECOMMENDATION: The City Council should approve the 15-lot Preliminary Plat subject to the following conditions: 1. The applicant shall comply with the ERC conditions. 2. The applicant shall be required to show all setbacks of the existing residence on Lot 15 for review and approval of Development Services Project Manager prior to the recording of the 444004 final plat. Parkside Preliminary Plat File No.: LUA-04-155, PP, ECF March 14, 2005 Page 7 Iture 3. The applicant shall revise the setback shown along the private access easement to show 5-foot side yard setbacks, for Lots 11 and 12, for review and approval by Development Services Project Manager prior to the recording of the final plat 4. A homeowner's association or maintenance agreement shall be created concurrently with the recording of the final plat in order to establish maintenance responsibilities for all shared improvements, including landscaping, utilities, storm water facilities, private easements, etc. A draft of the document(s), if necessary, shall be submitted to the City of Renton Development Services Division for review and approval by the City Attorney and Property Services section prior to recording of the final plat. 5. The applicant shall place a note on the face of the plat that Lot 11 and 12 shall be required to have a shared driveway for review and approval by Development Services Project Manager prior to the recording of the final plat. 6. The applicant shall be required to have all drainage facility maintenance agreements and easements ready to record prior to final plat approval. The satisfaction of this requirement is subject to the review and approval by Development Services Project Manager prior to the recording of the final plat. ORDERED THIS 14''' day of March 2005. Niume FRED J. KAU AN HEARING E MINER TRANSMITTED THIS 14'h day of March 2005 to the parties of record: Nancy Weil A&D Quality Construction Co. LLC Tom Touma 1055 S Grady Way PO Box 2552 6632 S 1915'Place, Suite E-102 Renton, WA 98055 Renton, WA 98056 Kent, WA 98032 Kayren Kittrick Keith & Annette Demps Lester Danielson 1055 S Grady Way 2308 NE 24'h Street 2204 NE 24'1' Street Renton, WA 98055 Renton, WA 98056 Renton, WA 98056 Dennis and Diane Mitchell 2224 NE 24'x' Street Renton, WA 98056 Parkside Preliminary Plat File No.: LUA-04-155, PP, ECF March 14, 2005 Page 8 *44.110 TRANSMITTED THIS 14th 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 l OOGof the City's Code, request for reconsideration must be filed in writing on or before 5:00 p.m.,March 28,2005. Any aggrieved person feeling that the decision of the Examiner is ambiguous or based on erroneous procedure, errors of law or fact, error in judgment, or the discovery of new evidence which could not be reasonably available at the prior hearing may make a written request for a review by the Examiner within fourteen (14) days from the date of the Examiner's decision. This request shall set forth the specific ambiguities or errors discovered by such appellant, and the Examiner may, after review of the record, take further action as he deems proper. An appeal to the City Council is governed by Title IV, Chapter 8, Section 110, which requires that such appeal be filed with the City Clerk, accompanying a filing fee of$75.00 and meeting other specified requirements. Copies of this ordinance are available for inspection or purchase in the Finance Department,first floor of City Hall. An appeal must be filed in writing on or before 5:00 p.m.,March 28, 2005. If the Examiner's Recommendation or Decision contains the requirement for Restrictive Covenants,the executed Covenants will be required prior to approval by City Council or final processing of the file. You may contact this office for information on formatting covenants. The Appearance of Fairness Doctrine provides that no ex parte (private one-on-one) communications may occur concerning pending land use decisions. This means that parties to a land use decision may not communicate in private with any decision-maker concerning the proposal. Decision-makers in the land use process include both the Hearing Examiner and members of the City Council. All communications concerning the proposal must be made in public. This public communication permits all interested parties to know the contents of the communication and would allow them to openly rebut the evidence. Any violation of this doctrine would result in the invalidation of the request by the Court. The Doctrine applies not only to the initial public hearing but to all Requests for Reconsideration as well as Appeals to the City Council. "U I 6aJ"I V- T _ e-- „....120- S 'h 1u•Vol."'" •r ., f� / 1_19 -i7�__-*-----j-µr-_`__-�-_ i.J_��_ L�"'''7J-r--"f---�'-- 8 ti h _ ( ( I.. Iii I ' I' I L ' r.o I i I r '''''::•-.2,•,'"''- ° r,. �Ea ` Ni E I I � 1-4-!!'' 5 I 1ii gr, i 9 (11 2� 3`K; ti.' ,Ili(,I �?'r$ 2 y 1! ' , l3' 1 :i'',1 ; If 4i I �' J (2) 1 9.w Wa•92.196 27 1 ii ' ' i e o w 4' s! 'I 277 Al Pi /of o< I !i y r<q i r • (Il• $ lZ)d (31 lel a° Z22 ,<Y3 zzz ' ®t j�jjfJ - ' i 27:7 ,-}i I 25'7 Du r S.P.024-94 111 4tl0iy r, 4 YY M :::. , II� .\-V,t!��Jj'(�+f�11 !p/ \ 1 =11 ' -r.`- t I 3 '� x .S'iIii M , `."-'� QJoe276 '1 157256 ' -`, , ) 1s G 240 237 t3 K,E NY O"LEA,r�1-� ' - ^--I 2_. 2 ,. '; v L ...,275 l u1.J t�x 2�S^ ° �P A•K3 D 025 N / ,26-1.'li dd.'I 4,.. A., ur - 'raa J1r.5 L cul 9+ r' `LO< Z32,7 "L `I r¢J� r 1 rr;� u -J,eJ !r• L 1rIp �4 23 i 22 21 20 19 9 , 2 9 c c7z.JZ'L'J: .,‘ ) .,). . - D5 • 4 T23N 115E W 1/2 . i, ...1 „ s i- CI. ...... c?'---1-7-- „;----- i'.: CO , pc 1,::) 44 )41W , I , , } •-•• c..,..1 ••••J,....tr,--- .....--.! H I 1 —1 w ---,..--- — I i .-a:1 "t iz iir, ..z I , ..ar................., ' I 1 ' 1 f i I I I I I I .......—1... 1 ' II i. i ....OD.. I.CO. 'CS i i L [ dr :At......,. p 0 p- 1 , , ,....., .1 „„...,. ., 1 ...1........L...1 k.. ot,"" 1::-4 Ei I' !itqL.)H! Z (d)8-2:1 I; ; • ..;,1 1 '14. • gi F; iliV -- 1 1 I - •-•4•-•••-- 3IN".f gli,v3 , H ' I H ,,, ; f%) 1 - ' l''''.: \ 1 ; 1 I : -CY. ....... --. ' ' ' ' ....1.7-17-1.-..[.......7........7, :„-;:i -TA. ; ii . ,- a I 04 , 1 [ ... . .OG , )N,,.., >- co , " ..i .......; : ' C -,-----a. i !1. 0A. . pi -.4„ - . .; .c..4 1 , ,t. i i 1 J 11(11 ,,J ' a ..,. ! / „1 -4.-• -,--' 1 . 1 i ' l \r-,1 ; 11ti , IF71v,. 1! II (- I I i 1 I , ----....1-r" •-• IN" '""' • I.C\2 i 4 I -= ' '1:. 1....'. .-- •••••-•••••-ltis)-\-".....1.. I N 1:-,., i .. . ..... '?0...,.if. .s.C.:.;5. ....,/.....,.. 1 .' •• •i°4. ..m.l. .,....---- Ur ... ").,.. - 1'7 U11--. ,,,c1........ti ' 1........... r- IT'Cbl 11 I H . a, ... • ,......r, -•• •• !., - . , i • , , , • ..c, cy T.......,,,,, , w , J.r.4 :., I .1 ! c\.2,,.. , ..{.• . ...ii L 1 tiK.......d.AV.cr)Z 011110 .1...1 .......1.....I...,i. 1....02....1 1 L. _.,:\.L.._........... 1 ' 4' A; , , ,•• ,,, H 1 is ; I II _.-,..g. ....._.......1 1, i ..1 i 1...- —-\*".-F.•.:: Z ' ' i I 1 1 , 1 ' ' I ' ; I i I , „. 4.,. ,.. -la ,i ' ' .1' N 1 •@4 . ta0,alpaaCIIV,)) ._ i i 1 i__!,i ..L ! ' ' I .... ',,' i li i I i i 1 i 1 H...- Tr8 -1 ' ....lik-....-I .co . C24', ...56 ":i 1 ! 1 1" 1 ..:.:4--1 A . .. .//' 1 , , , ......... , i i ,.1., • 1 I,..,.. ...,—(1 ..4 ......J... ..1 ....1. ... ' . [ 1c0.; -,1,1,!....,! „ .tcH .r.i. „.........i.r..,... .L.sti „t_Av. .........741 i....f.,......i ..I , re) • ---I \ 1 1 .. 1 li ..." " I r7r,T. H, ,• ••• ...... il .!;...........11--- . --,..-:,---,,:..1 iNt .-ri li i ,/ ,' 6.11upp •••1•-•• -i iii ,.., I , / .•, t i I i cp.', / , ...s,..146.411.41,1_ ..4. Li•J•-••1•••••••••••••••••N Aalogu.• h'4 .4 •-•- i-- .../ 1.•../..,..41,, • i...... si-b i, 1 ,. fy ! [ ; \ mi , 1 , --- ,4D i , Li , i sa ./... _ . 1 c:r.) h...--i 1 1 1 I !i - I _-_ a , Kaktaa-Littali P--4 I. IL [.... Cicz i ...i. / Wit i .., i 1 , [--- 1 , .. .. _... _... . “::. 1 .. I' ! ! .._. 1 .1i r-1- .-- 1 1 i ilt 1 ...--.87N /,'' \\ Ill,--.-•::, ;I 0 1 )3.....7. ..2.,... ..:-7& . 1 i t /' 1 I ' 1 , 1 i i ,ii 1, ii i aN i'ainv al.lpf t ! 1 L.4 1 g / [ :•••[L-, ,—..„."I , ,.,1.1 ' ' ' • ' ‘d iiii , co 1 1 ' e .----, ,..,_ Jil 1; ,., 1 1 1 N a ' 1 1 1 i 1 _JINNEMIN111111116101111hillk(r_14 --- e........ Z/T M aS11 Nal. S • *CI 3 e it L£C£ND PORTION OF THE NE 1/4 OF THE NE 1/4 OF r c�" o GAM I e „1,,,1,,,04,,,n SEC 5, TWN 23 N, R 5 E, W,M. M ' WM IN& CITY OF REN TON, WASHINGTON ISOr1RAstascMSC o [R DAMN GASH ret r Pitt'N MCA'MO no Y MAss ANDMODAA r MASS AND I. I MANI/WOE Q Ilett • ..SC CITY Cr MENTON wIX•M WWI CASE.IVY14 MON AND f.1JL CASE.bIY• R AMY rix N1MANt O May I NA 1117 Na MC • .wnuwYr •- our ROIL ry0Ro0q (re/rool) (10/2004) ••••1 Cl. 0 I .19911/..OFT erm WPM' _ _ _ EDMONOS AVE NE 2]otn' W CD /11.2.NE[Amer •_ _ _ _ _ W ® �ABLL N taw,' NE SMi1DN CdbltR -- �— `--- N 0071.03.E ]]207 i- —�_ a- 41 I K ÷ITC D,MSD, NODRND 909.0, GAS Y[R11 a00 CIYRDl1 N11?• CALL LA I=PO05014, )!L(M!YI(YAw4( ® bMLR.•K r • M40/NW LOGIN I., A AA.us • sn REAR/CAR CAMAS AVE NE W • (• 0714110 MOL 9 mon W S J H Q raDnrbAN PI,.IM/rWO.v RDp S a IRA.YbA•A]vt W s N x RN NAA 9.0 rosr fa G "cAr C4 n® 041,0 AAVCnLN GDR [R RAIrM1R Ul LX 1AY b11,IR L..t 1 LR=ow LAT i • E - ,..„,04�• -`-- - ,4REr rY:Jo.7, 1 1£I Y fC ` 11+.01 - - ., . ..r ....'t arANMc Lw w''r T OrA t d',ii-'.°1, H _-_- , 1 - DeK _� I r� =__= r;; tea�! 1 / i2 yl • I d� 11 r I ' .1 • DKR u GRAPHIC 3CALE �'I� 1_ I t. 1-.V r2 x•111.041 IN' W i 3 y 9 -�� ?.4( 1i' �,.^A_ J' 0.• j„oh .Ara0rs r•w IQ PS ' I - �/— '.` - �I., ` • • / Z ..o I,. /. `�� BLAIN - �1Gti'iS{•I�1'rriL'J'".��i •�Ew� • �y$'1 1J., • t. Amp lI- A •10 �� � �lilewlri!'T ' :su' BLAINE AVE NE- 11 .. lip�� ./�lJ�f16��� C , ...' w..'H GrY Y r ..1. __ 11 . •-►'b� �' r- .1 ,----4 ('--h- .'--II 1 ;i'--sr+.� i 'r'n'Am, y 10-' t \ // 13 14, rJ EX. s< j �'I y/ ER BON 4, % I XL�I"/ ' '/ _11'fn +f� ��'•/�''/q 11 ; i 2 I.---u� ffiL 2202 _� -�i 1 J L rr . to I . / r. -,X,-.7e_ __- ,i 11; .\ 1 I ail .7".. r i J1iJl' / G AI Ila:�� x 1 lafit' ,�.' e� 11 j I PIIS , + � f S �� / i ' ,.� Id. I - 11 IS !IP' / 1 Bi0 y! '` {,• ' Aqt ..p' 1�S l,r, •' y N�/..% 1,�• y 10'STORY OMNI 1 , S :'�. LASEYOvf 1 ill H +I1 ASpryAl ' 0 6,; g 11�B�t 1 1 f. 44. i I 1 0.' wF. }1 AID r•MASS CSC Ir/-X.IN NON ANO 0 •S.• CASE •1 (10/2004) \d, — I ,! F'' 1 ''';4:1.'0's .•,9-__`_ _ ,. _____ABERDEEN AVE NE. _-__ „f ->r•f�f.rcrs eyloipp.owc g' PRE-PL : .) CITY OF RENTON DETERMINATION OF NON-SIGNIFICANCE-MITIGATED MITIGATION MEASURES APPLICATION NO(S): LUA04-155, PP, ECF PROJECT NAME: Parkside Preliminary Plat APPLICANT: Keith &Annette Demps LOCATION OF PROPOSAL: 2204 NE 24th Street DESCRIPTION OF PROPOSAL: The applicant is requesting Environmental (SEPA) Review and Preliminary Plat approval for a 15-lot subdivision of a 2.77-acre site. The proposal is located within the Residential-8 (R-8) zoning designation. The lots are intended for the eventual development of detached single- family homes — lots ranging in size from 4,602 square feet to 10,555 square feet. One single-family home exists on site and is proposed to remain on what will become Lot 15. Access is proposed via 50-foot wide cul de sac street off the north side of NE 24th Street, extension of Blaine Avenue NE. One private easement is proposed within the plat to provide access for one lot. Street dedications will be required. The site does not contain any critical areas according to the City's Critical Areas map. LEAD AGENCY: The City of Renton Department of Planning/Building/Public Works Development Planning Section MITIGATION MEASURES: 1. a. The applicant shall prepare and submit a Temporary Erosion and Sedimentation Control Plan (TESCP) pursuant to the standards of the Department of Ecology and a Construction Mitigation Plan Development Services staff shall review both plans prior to issuance of Construction Permits. The'S applicant/contractor shall comply with the approved plans to the satisfaction of the representative of the Development Services Division for the duration of the project's construction. b. The project contractor shall perform daily review and maintenance of all erosion and sedimentation control measures at the site. c. 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 comply with the 1998 King County Surface Water Design Manual to meet both detention (Level 2 flow control) and water quality improvements. 3. The applicant shall pay the applicable Parks Mitigation Fee based on a rate of $530.76 (14 x $530.76 = $7,430.64) per new single-family lot with credit given for the one existing single-family residence, prior to the recording of the final plat. 4. The applicant shall pay the applicable Traffic Mitigation Fee based on a rate of $75.00 (14 x 9.57 = 133.98 x $75.00 = $10,048.50) per each new additional trip generated by the project with credit given for the one existing single-family residence, prior to the recording of the final plat. 5. The applicant shall pay the applicable Fire Mitigation Fee based on a rate of $488.00 (14 x $488.00 = $6,832.00) per new single-family lot with credit given for the one existing single-family residence, prior to the recording of the final plat. rbl Order No. 580087 A.L.T.A. COMMITMENT SCHEDULE A Page 2 The land referred to in this commitment is situated in the State of Washington, and described as follows: Tract 236, C. D. Hillman's Lake Washington Garden of Eden Division No. 4, according to the plat thereof recorded in Volume 11 of Plats, page 82, in King County, Washington; EXCEPT the east 85 feet of the south 150 feet thereof; AND EXCEPT the west 96 feet of the south 150 feet thereof; AND EXCEPT the north 90 feet of the south 240 feet of the west 96 feet thereof. END OF SCHEDULE A NOTE FOR INFORMATIONAL PURPOSES ONLY: The following may be used as an abbreviated legal description on the documents to be recorded, per amended RCW 65.04. Said abbreviated legal description is not a substitute for a complete legal description within the body of the document. Ptn. of Tract 236, C. D. Hillman's Lake Washington Garden of Eden Div. No. 4, V11/P82 e i C4 - 32 T24N R5E I/2 • . . . .. . . . - . .; R 8 . .. .. . R-8 , • s:-.... NE R-8 •-• -- - - -H--- 7th--St-.--- ------'; i_I R--- • ' 8 1 : ---- \ . , -.-----,-- • , : : . • . - .----; 1 :n .zt:h; st.: k R—8 / : --—.-, . •- - , . -.-- - - - . , , i i i , co.:-fx-1 . . . • , . . i\---,--7---', , _ : > •__,_4-•-. ------,__ --F------ 4 " —8 ''s.- ---'-' .'-1--- ----: -1-0---- -- ____. ____ --f-- ----ia.- r-4- ___.._ ! '--- -H-Z--1--- --i--- -1-,-,7 _ _1.--- :. : : , : . :• ------ril ------c-- ----1;.--, 0.) L._ „a„,... ., i LI lit_L___-__I.7 ______.= T---T___ ---1)--.,-< 1.4-, ___,L. ____, . • • • • • • ;, :_._ , , ,.., _---74"._,"___.=___,H.a_.___ , i NE 241 --, __ ; : : : ,, _i•__,..•,. .; . i i : - . . . - - , --"---7- ____ _- 1 ---I--_ - 111-' -CO c - - --, i-- ---4 t4 1 r-' 41- -NE j!2i-cit.:\ IrtiFl 2.nd NE . ----F-:--,----H.--1 3 --E ---- ---,- - • - - • - T., ' ' ' !R#8' ' /-J---- St i---- ..., :_-_-_-- , . •-f--T-190-: • . k• -L18. _ N I-- - I ----- -1-_ES --CL)17i Z • ---,--i; i : . 1 , 1 i NE 20th $t.',1 i -ii ,, -,/ '1\-1 ___- re) . . , t•I . . ___,___ _ pi E-4 „ 01 !f re] : j ! ,i ---, i I NEI 21 t w -,i 1.. _i, _j r-- --:,_ ---j-—:____ --Tozs -_-issi-- -::_ll ira NI- -- - - R C43 . jai -L --- i---', .• NErt9th.' A a; R - ! • . -----=-7--1._ __, , , . - --.-1 i i . , 1.:' 4.4 ----- _. ----h- ii---- COv_L-Atil- I i, 'I' ...f '1-77\ , 77' •-o • • . o 1--. Ir. 70_ ._ ,t_i joa5 - _ N _I . . --- -4 - i - v / • \ -1 - --1.co---ig) __)--F-1 lf,"! I -1-- , . 1 ;41-t ; 1 i 1=z1 blitl . .., , -14"40 I . i ...c::..._. i__.. .__I ? i i ! 1M !all • -±-' . 1 : ' 1 i .1s.... • ii 13 -I , i r r: )C) -6t:hi St. 11 . iii ! loi .t= --1ca. i----4Z) ---? 1 1_2,-tv Ez' - -, ,-----: a t 1 111". r ____.tb V St -4----- -.L_L.4-- „ . H- 1.. co 1 irhd 4 1 ,.. . --! -I 1"'" -! • . ------r-05 ! . . ; •-...- .7-1 - 1 --I-1 . ,--1-----i--4--ib „..._, 1 :_i I 1 __. ____, i v , : : !4,_ R-4-8,, — --.71 1-7L---;.--- --- 6 . \\. '1. ! t iNE 12th St.,:--i-- i. ; i 1 i I '-- i - --_,-_: T) , R—8(P t”D ----------- -------.-- i :i--t 70 ' ..--j - -- - - —If/---- -I - R-8 R a -' -=. ' ---- I . 401111, - - '_=-E4. 7-L-------------• .__ ______, ---- \ 0-00 • Z I ; T-: > !--g . E4 • 8 T23N R5E E I/2 •sY , ? ..:r 4r D4 +0- ZONING --_-Renton dr()limits 1:4800 f PID/PW TECHNICAL SERVICES 5 T23N R5E E 1/2 ) CITY OF RENTON COUNCIL AGENDA BILL AI#: ' V Submitting Data: Planning/Building/Public Works For Agenda of: Dept/Div/Board.. Development Services April 11, 2005 Staff Contact Jan Illian, x-7216 Agenda Status Consent X Subject: Public Hearing.. HERITAGE GLEN PLAT aka WESTCHESTER Correspondence.. KENNYDALE Ordinance File No. LUA 04-147FP (LUA 03-044PP) Resolution X 6.38 acres located on NE 20th between Aberdeen Ave Old Business NE and Jones Ave NE Exhibits: New Business Resolution, legal description, vicinity and project site Study Sessions map Information Staff Report and Recommendation Recommended Action: Approvals: Council concur. Legal Dept X Finance Dept Other Fiscal Impact: N/A , Expenditure Required... Transfer/Amendment Amount Budgeted Revenue Generated Total Project Budget City Share Total Project. SUMMARY OF ACTION: The recommendation for approval of the referenced final plat is submitted for Council action. This plat divides 6.38 acres into 37 single-family residential lots. The construction of the utilities and street improvements to serve the lots is complete at this time. All construction will be approved, accepted or guaranteed as required through the Board of Public Works prior to recording of the plat. All conditions placed on the preliminary plat by City Council will be met prior to the recording of the plat. STAFF RECOMMENDATION: Approve the Heritage Glen Plat—LUA 04-147FP, with the following conditions and adopt the resolution: 1. All plat improvements shall be either constructed or deferred to the satisfaction of City staff prior to the recording of the plat. 2. All plat fees shall be paid prior to recording of the plat. Rentonnedagnbill/ bh CITY OF RENTON, WASHINGTON 4%•••. RESOLUTION NO. A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY OF RENTON, WASHINGTON, APPROVING FINAL PLAT (HERITAGE GLEN, AKA WESTCHESTER KENNYDALE; FILE NO. LUA-04-147FP). WHEREAS, a petition for the approval of a final plat for the subdivision of a certain tract of land as hereinafter more particularly described, located within the City of Renton, has been duly approved by the Planning/Building/Public Works Department; and WHEREAS, after investigation, the Administrator of the Planning/Building/Public Works Department has considered and recommended the approval of the final plat, and the approval is proper and advisable and in the public interest; and WHEREAS, the City Council has determined that appropriate provisions are made for the public health, safety, and general welfare and for such open spaces, drainage ways, streets or Nue roads, alleys, other public ways, transit stops, potable water supplies, sanitary wastes, parks and recreation, playgrounds, schools, schoolgrounds, sidewalks and other planning features that assure safe walking conditions for students who walk to and from school; and WHEREAS, the City Council has determined that the public use and interest will be served by the platting of the subdivision and dedication; 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 IL The final plat approved by the Planning/Building/Public Works Department pertaining to the following described real estate, to wit: See Exhibit "A" attached hereto and made a part hereof as if fully set forth err 1 RESOLUTION NO. (The property, consisting of approximately 6.38 acres, is located in the vicinity of Monterey Ave. NE and NE 20 Street) is hereby approved as such plat, subject to the laws and ordinances of the City of Renton, and subject to the findings, conclusions, and recommendation of the Planning/Building/Public Works Department dated March 10, 2005. PASSED BY THE CITY COUNCIL this day of , 2005. Bonnie I. Walton, City Clerk APPROVED BY THE MAYOR this day of , 2005. Nov Kathy Keolker-Wheeler, Mayor Approved as to form: Lawrence J. Warren, City Attorney RES.1103:3/31/05:ma `'fir 2 RESOLUTION NO. EXHIBIT A LEGAL DESCRIPTION; CHAMBERLAIN: TRACT 272, C.D. HILLMAN'S LAKE WASHINGTON GARDEN OF EDEN DIVISION NO. 4, ACCORDING TO THE PLAT THEREOF; RECORDED IN VOLUME 11 OF PLATS, PAGE 82, IN KING COUNTY, WASHINGTON; EXCEPT THE EAST 100 FEET THEREOF; AND EXCEPT THE SOUTH 80 FEET OF THE WEST 126 FEET THEREOF. BLONSKI: • THE EAST 100 FEET OF TRACT 272, C.D. HILLMAN'S LAKE WASHINGTON GARDEN OF EDEN DIVISION NO. 4, ACCORDING TO THE PLAT THEREOF; RECORDED IN VOLUME 11, OF PLATS, PAGE 82, IN KING COUNTY, WASHINGTON. WEIGEL: THAT PORTION OF TRACT 263, C.D. HILLMAN'S LAKE WASHINGTON GARDEN OF EDEN DIVISION NO. 4, ACCORDING TO THE PLAT THEREOF; RECORDED IN VOLUME 11 OF PLATS, PAGE 82, IN KING COUNTY, WASHINGTON. COMMENCING AT THE SOUTHWEST CORNER OF SAID TRACT; THENCE NORTH ALONG THE WEST UNE THEREOF; 288 1/4 FEET; THENCE EAST IN A STRAIGHT UNE TO A POINT ON THE EAST UNE OF SAID TRACT, 288 1/4 FEET NORTH OF THE SOUTHEAST CORNER OF SAID TRACT; THENCE SOUTH ON SAID EAST UNE 130 FEET; THENCE WEST PARALLEL WITH THE NORTHERLY UNE OF THE PROPERTY HEREIN DESCRIBED 127 1/4 FEET; THENCE SOUTH 158 1/2 FEET TO THE SOUTH UNE OF SAID TRACT; THENCE WEST ON SAID SOUTH UNE 127 1/4 FEET, MORE OR LESS, TO THE POINT OF BEGINNING; EXCEPT THAT PORTION DESCRIBED AS'FOLLOWS: BEGINNING AT A POINT ON THE SOUTH UNE OF SAID TRACT 263 DISTANT'WESTERLY 127.25 FEET FROM.THE SOUTHEAST CORNER THEREOF; THENCE NORTHERLY PARALLEL • WITH THE EASTERLY UNE OF SAID TRACT 263, A DISTANCE OF 86 FEET; THENCE WESTERLY PARALLEL WITH NE SOUTH UNE OF SAID TRACT 263, A DISTANCE OF 95 t! FEET; THENCE SOUTHERLY PARALLEL WITH.THE EAST LINE OF SAID TRACT 263, A DISTANCE OF 86 FEET TO THE SOUTH UNE THEREOF; THENCE EASTERLY 95 FEET TO THE POINT OF BEGINNING. CHAMBERLAIN:. • TRACT 252, C.D. HILLMAN'S LAKE WASHINGTON GARDEN OF EDEN DIVISION NO. 4, ACCORDING TO THE PLAT THEREOF; RECORDED IN VOLUME 11 OF PLATS, PAGE 82, IN KING COUNTY, WASHINGTON; EXCEPT THE SOUTH 80 FEET THEREOF; EXCEPT THE EAST 150 FEET LYING SOUTHERLY OF THE NORTH 12*FEET THEREOF ALSO THE WEST 15.5 FEET OF THE EAST 165.5 FEET OF THE SOUTH 80 FEET OF SAID TRACT 252; ALSO, EXCEPT THE NORTH HALF OF THE NORTH HALF OF SAID TRACT 252; AND THE SOUTH 288.25 FEET OF SAID TRACT 1111W' RESOLUTION NO. EXHIBIT A `1rrr+ VICINITY MAI' Kennydale NE. 28th St NE 27th St Z 441i.. NE 24th St Q. . . . a zZ . °' ad . .. . yarn St . SITE , - w DEVELOPMENT SERVICES DIVISION BUILDING/PLANNING/PUBLIC WORKS *.r CITY OF RENTON STAFF REPORT AND RECOMMENDATIONS APPLICANT: Camwest Development Heritage Glen Plat File: LUA 04-147 FP Aka: Westchester Kennydale LUA03-044PP LOCATION: NE 20th Street and Monterey Ave NE NE 1/4 Section 05, Twn. 23N. Rge. 5E. WM SUMMARY OF REQUEST: Final Plat for 37 single-family residential lots with water, sewer, storm, streets, and lighting. RECOMMENDATION: Approve With Conditions FINDINGS, CONCLUSIONS & RECOMMENDATION Nose Having reviewed the record documents in this matter, staff now makes and enters the following: FINDINGS: 1. The applicant, Sara Slatten of Camwest Development, filed a request for approval of a 37 lot Final Plat. 2. The yellow file containing all staff reports, the State Environmental Policy Act (SEPA) documentation, and other pertinent materials was entered into the record as Exhibit No. 1. 3. The Environmental Review Committee (ERC), the City's responsible official, issued a Determination of Non-Significance-Mitigated on March 2, 2004, 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 at NE 20th Street and Monterey Ave NE. The new plat is located in the NE 1/4 of Sec. 5, Twn. 23N. Rge. 5E. WM 6. The subject site is a 6.38-acre parcel. 7. The Preliminary Plat received City of Renton Council approval on May 24, 2004. Page 2 8. The site has a R-8 (Single Family) land use zoning, with the adoption of Ordinance 4404 enacted in June 1993. 9. The Final Plat complies with both the Zoning Code and the Comprehensive Plan. 10. The Preliminary Plat was subject to a number of conditions as a result of both environmental review and plat review. The applicant has complied with the following conditions imposed by the ERC: 1) The applicant provided temporary erosion control in accordance with the Department of Ecology's Stormwater Management Manual. 2) Applicant has completed construction of a split rail fence along the eastern edge of the wetland buffer. Permanent signage has been provided. Development Services has approved the installation. 3) The contractor provided daily review and maintenance of the erosion control both onsite and offsite. 4) Transportation Mitigation fees will be paid prior to recording of the plat. 5) Fire Mitigation fees will be paid prior to recording of the plat. 6) Park Mitigation fees will be paid prior to recording of the plat. 11. In addition, the applicant has complied with the conditions imposed as a result of Preliminary Plat: Now 1) Applicant has complied with the above noted ERC conditions. 2) Applicant has obtained demolition permits and permits have been finaled. 3) A homeowner's association including CCRs has been drafted and submitted to the city attorney for review for the maintenance of all common stormwater and access improvements. 4) Applicant has installed "Private Street" signs for private streets serving Lots 1-4,19-20 and 26. 5) Applicant has installed "No Parking" signs within the private streets and drives. 6) Applicant will be providing an easement to the City to the proposed drainage facility prior to recording of the plat. 7) Applicant has addressed the encroachment issue with Property Services. This will be finaled prior to recording of the plat. 8) Applicant has installed"No Parking" at the mailbox locations. 9) Applicant has modified the margins of the area incorporated into the wetland buffers to make them appear less rectangular. 10) Applicant has provided means of recharging wetlands. CONCLUSIONS: The Final Plat generally appears to satisfy the conditions imposed by the preliminary plat process and therefore should be approved by the City Council. Page 3 RECOMMENDATION: The City Council should approve the Final Plat with the following conditions: 1. All plat improvements shall be either constructed or deferred to the satisfaction of City staff prior to the recording of the plat. 2. All fees shall be paid prior to the recording of the plat. SUBMITTED THIS 25th DAY of March, 2005 DEVELOPMENT SERVICES DIVISION w HERITAGE GLEN VICINITY MAP Kennydale NE 28th St • - . � : NL�=27th .St �r - - -. a NE 24th St ¢. . LI, -10 ., z. z . rn ISE: 20th St ( 1 I. ( , , _................_______ . ......_ . .._. . . . , ... . . . . . . . • • / . . • , / ..• ,.. ..... • . , • ...._ i.417vaa.t.--_/ ,_ . ..__ -..,..faalL— ,-,-— , , ' •: .t ' ..•: -: ...•'" . . • ,. . „ . . • 0 0 70 • ' , 0' . , .......... 1 . I g " 1; ..... . •• I" ...... . . .. ,.. - .. . . • ' '• i '-' KEt4N•kik#F0k.: . ; PLACE : Ng ,....... " • •••••. . • ...4..e. .j;4'..,.47",,. .6, ,......7,-.-.- -7.- :.-.77, .. . . -. . I .. . , :. . • . - - .. • 1• . .. . i.. . . 1_,.--:,. .- ni , - - :c • • -. .:::.,--- • .. --- . .. .. , ._ _. • , • >A 1 ..z —• ‘ - '-,... 0 © '1._____,'.1".' ' '' • 0 . C _..., ) o . LINCOLN PEACE NE •, 4' .)" --'....... ,--77 — 7 . M , . , ‘ '-o'• :. ''' G) '' ' C) • oi i . 44' ' ' . ....i • . . I– il ' ' e •(2) ..,, ._ . .,......., m Z : . . .............,,.:. i',. ,, , . .. . . . , . . .. 1 ,.N., . . ..._ . • ' 4 - • " ". .. . . • • .,...... ,.. . ' .'.. . . - ...:•;•.• , ' , ..,:.....„ j. ....;....,.....' ; l': ' . ', • . 1 ... • : _ , • : .:,".',4.:'::......: •••"."••••:•;: ,;• ' Ate. ,- 0 .•., . . . . , . •e . , . . .• . . . . • . . . . HERITAGE GLEN LEGAL DESCRIPTION: • CHAMBERLAIN: • TRACT 272. C.D. HILLMAN'S LAKE WASHINGTON GARDEN OF EDEN DIVISION NO. 4, ACCORDING TO THE PLAT THEREOF; RECORDED IN VOLUME 11 OF PLATS, PAGE 82, • IN KING COUNTY, WASHINGTON; EXCEPT THE EAST 100 FEET THEREOF; AND EXCEPT THE SOUTH 80 FEET OF THE WEST 126 FEET THEREOF. DLONSKI: THE EAST 100 FEET OF TRACT 272, C.D. HILLMAN'S LAKE WASHINGTON GARDEN OF EDEN DIVISION NO. 4, ACCORDING TO THE PLAT THEREOF; RECORDED IN VOLUME 11, OF PLATS, PAGE 82, IN KING COUNTY, WASHINGTON. WEIGEL THAT PORTION OF TRACT 263, C.D. HILLMAN'S LAKE WASHINGTON GARDEN OF EDEN DIVISION NO. 4, ACCORDING TO THE PLAT THEREOF; RECORDED IN VOLUME 11 OF PLATS, PAGE 82, IN KING COUNTY, WASHINGTON. COMMENCING AT THE SOUTHWEST CORNER OF SAID TRACT; THENCE NORTH ALONG THE WEST LINE THEREOF; 288 1/4 FEET; THENCE EAST IN A STRAIGHT LINE TO A POINT ON THE EAST UNE OF SAID TRACT, 288 1/4 FEET NORTH OF THE SOUTHEAST CORNER OF SAID TRACT; THENCE SOUTH ON SAID EAST UNE 130 FEET; THENCE WEST • PARALLEL WITH THE NORTHERLY UNE OF THE PROPERTY HEREIN DESCRIBED 127 1/4 FEET; THENCE SOUTH 158 1/2 FEET TO THE SOUTH LINE OF SAID TRACT; THENCE • • WEST ON SAID SOUTH LINE 127 1/4 FEET, MORE OR LESS, TO THE POINT OF BEGINNING; EXCEPT THAT PORTION DESCRIBED AS'FOLLOWS:' BEGINNING AT A POINT ON THE SOUTH UNE OF SAID TRACT 263 DISTANT WESTERLY 127.25 FEET FROM.THE SOUTHEAST CORNER THEREOF; THENCE NORTHERLY PARALLEL • WITH THE EASTERLY UNE OF SAID TRACT 263, A DISTANCE OF'86 FEET;• THENCE • WESTERLY PARALLEL WITH THE SOUTH LINE OF SAID TRACT 263, A DISTANCE OF 95 I FEET; THENCE SOUTHERLY PARALLEL WITH THE EAST LINE OF SAID TRACT 263, A DISTANCE:OF 86 FEET TO THE SOUTH LINE THEREOF; THENCE EASTERLY 95.FEET TO THE POINT OF BEGINNING.• . CHAMBERLAIN:. . • TRACT 252, C.D. HILLMAN'S.LAKE WASHINGTON GARDEN OF EDEN DIVISION NO. 4,- ACCORDING TO•THE PLAT THEREOF; RECORDED IN VOLUME 11 OF PLATS. PAGE 82, IN KING COUNTY, WASHINGTON; EXCEPT THE SOUTH 80 FEET THEREOF; EXCEPT THE EAST 150 FEET LYING SOUTHERLY OF THE NORTH 12'FEET THEREOF ALSO THE WEST 15.5 FEET OF THE EAST 165.5 FEET OF THE SOUTH 80 FEET OF SAID TRACT 252; • ALSO, EXCEPT THE NORTH HALF OF THE NORTH HALF OF SAID TRACT 252; AND THE SOUTH 288.25 FEET OF SAID TRACT 252. • CITY OF RENTON COUNCIL AGENDA BILL AU: 1 • d . Submitting Data: Planning/Building/Public Works For Agenda of: Dept/Div/Board.. Transportation Division April 11, 2005 Staff Contact Ryan Zulauf, x7471 Agenda Status Consent Subject: Public Hearing.. Airport Development Study, Briefing and Acceptance Correspondence.. Ordinance Resolution Old Business Exhibits: New Business Study Sessions Airport Development Study Information Recommended Action: Approvals: Legal Dept Refer to Transportation/Aviation Committee Finance Dept Other Fiscal Impact: Expenditure Required... Transfer/Amendment %„r Amount Budgeted $25,000 Revenue Generated Total Project Budget $25,000 City Share Total Project.. $25,000 SUMMARY OF ACTION: In March 2004, the Mayor and Council directed staff to prepare a study to evaluate aviation- related markets that are best suited for use at the airport. Staff was requested to evaluate whether airport real estate should be developed by the public or private sector. The study entitled, Renton Municipal Airport Development Study, contains eight policy recommendations for consideration by the Mayor and Council. Approval of the policy recommendations is needed in order for staff to initiate a process to lease and develop airport real estate. STAFF RECOMMENDATION: Recommend acceptance by the Mayor and Council of the Renton Municipal Airport Development Study and approval of the eight policy recommendations. H:\Fle Sys AIR-Airport,Transportation Services Division\01 Administration\l0 Programs_Plans\Business Plan\Airport Development Study\Agenda Bill\Airport Development Study Ag Bill 3-31-05.doc CITY OF RENTON PLANNING/BUILDING/PUBLIC WORKS DEPARTMENT MEMORANDUM DATE: April 11, 2005 TO: Terri Briere, Council President Members of the Renton City Council VIA: )` ) Mayor Kathy Keolker-Wheeler 51 FROM: Gregg Zimmerma , B/PW Administrator STAFF CONTACT: Ryan Zulauf, Airport Manager(extension 7471) SUBJECT: Airport Development Study, Briefing and Acceptance ISSUE: Briefing and acceptance of the Renton Municipal Airport Development Study. RECOMMENDATION: Recommend acceptance by the Mayor and Council of the Renton Municipal Airport Development Study and approval of the eight policy recommendations. BACKGROUND SUMMARY: For sixty years, the City's airport (in conjunction with The Boeing Company) has produced family wage jobs and created wealth for King County residents. Since September 11, 2001, The Boeing Company (Boeing) has significantly reduced their need to lease airport real estate for commercial aircraft manufacturing. As a result, the City has an opportunity to lease vacant airport property for new aviation-related uses that will help create new jobs, increase sales tax and bring new prestige to the City of Renton. In March 2004, the Mayor and Council directed staff to prepare a study to evaluate aviation- related markets that are best suited for use at the airport. In addition, staff was requested to evaluate whether the public or private sector should develop airport real estate. The study entitled Renton Municipal Airport Development Study (the Study) was prepared to '411w address the Mayor and Council's request for the analysis. The Study (attached) evaluated r, • Terri Briere,Council President April 11,2005 Page 2 Re: Airport Development Study,Briefing and Acceptance Issue Paper two main questions: 1) What are the markets that can be served the Airport? and, 2) Should the City fund development, or continue to allow the private sector to develop Airport property? The Study contains eight policy recommendations for consideration by the Mayor and Council. Approval of the policy recommendations is needed in order for staff to initiate a process to lease and develop airport real estate. Attachment: Renton Municipal Airport Development Study Cc(memo only): Jay Covington,CAO Sandra Meyer,Transportation Systems Director Ben Wolters,EDNSP Director Shawna Mulhall,EDNSP Development Manager Connie Brundage,Transportation Systems Administrative Secretary Susan Campbell/Kathy Nye,Transportation Systems Airport Secretary 44401 H:\Pile Sys\AIR-Airport,Transportation Services Division\01 Administration\l0 Programs_Plans\Business Plan\Airport Development Study\Agenda Bill\Issue Paper 3-31-05.doc\Airport Development Study Acceptance Issue Paper RENTQN MUNICIPAL AIRPORT DEVELOPMENT STUDY �1` ',3,2„'-'-'),-, e:$ Y::-.1t,-.411:' e-': n a - - a n „,-.4..„..0.4,...:,.„; .,,,tw s 'err.y.s �, s _ s _.j.+.i�•` ..� Ems,- #,off' _ � �-. j . �S `.011! J_- )St4, 7 •V.� • v ; .. - + ,. '"__ - . z "I'l g • is a”` '�7*:- —, ".4:::-..-,'-#.;:;4,--;-;_, 77: r :.1c b _ e c r 3 i "F�ry ''':f`-- "HwC £ ,. *-44 ',*:,; i retf •�•. _ t . r .00.-Ito "'�" .C t0 r t c '' ` I.. t � #*17arr ' ' \ ‘ -r :'4 - I PRESENTEDBY: WiSH PACIFIC a IN ASSOCATION WITH: �� Table of Contents 1 Executive Summary 2 Market Demand Report 3 Develop Method Options Report '4401) Renton Municipal Airport Development Study i March 31,2005 RENTON MUNICIPAL AIRPORT DEVELOPMENT STUDY EXECUTIVE SUMMARY This Executive Summary of the Renton Municipal Airport Development Study is organized as follows: POLICY RECOMMENDATIONS FOR CONSIDERATION BACKGROUND Policy Decision Tree Table 1: Market Sector Analysis Table 2: Public vs. Private Investment in Airport Development Explanatory Notes Two reports are appended to the Executive Summary: Market Demand Report Development Method Options Report The purpose of the Renton Municipal Airport Development Study is to perform a market study to identify the aviation market sectors best suited to the airport, to analyze public vs. private investment options for airport re-development, and to make policy recommendations to the City of Renton regarding airport development. `torr+ Renton Municipal Airport Development Study 1 March 31,2005 POLICY RECOMMENDATIONS FOR CONSIDERATION 1. Recommended Revised Vision Statement for Renton Municipal Airport: The vision of Renton Municipal Airport is to be: a. The provider of safe, efficient, and customer-friendly general aviation facilities and services; b. The airport of choice for corporate aviation in Renton, the Kent Valley, and cities on the eastern shore of Lake Washington; c. A major economic engine for the City of Renton. 2. Recommended Policy Change for Airport Activity Mix: Retain current mix of aircraft and activities on the airport and increase Renton's market share of based jet and jet operations and air taxi/air charter by: a. Directing Airport staff to pursue technical solutions to create an all-weather runway; b. Pursue the development of an executive jet center with appropriate services as market opportunities appear, and; c. Encourage the development of hangars on the airport capable of storing light and medium piston and turbine aircraft. 3. Recommended Policy Change for Airport Activity Mix: Seek to attract aircraft production, aircraft retrofitting, aviation education and other maintenance and repair services as market opportunities appear to add employment at the Airport. 4. Recommended Policy Change for Airport Activity Mix: Permit Kenmore Air Harbor to initiate scheduled seaplane operations from the City of Renton providing that the company voluntarily agrees to: a. Use the quieter turbine-equipped aircraft for the vast majority of operations; b. Develop and maintain a community outreach program to address noise, and; c. Limit weekday departures to no earlier than 7:30 a.m., and weekend departures to no earlier than 8:30 a.m., with the latest evening flights departing no later than 9:00 p.m. Renton Municipal Airport Development Study 2 March 31,2005 4orre 5. Recommended New Policy for Airport Development: Encourage the development of a Fixed Based Operator on the old restaurant property that will accommodate: a. A permanent home for U.S. Customs and Border Protection; b. A passenger waiting area with a 'Northwest' motif/design; c. Public access to the shoreline during normal business hours, and; d. Necessary services for the flying public. 6. Recommended Policy Change for Airport Development: In addition to ground leases and rental of existing buildings at the airport, the City should also consider public investment in desired facilities, contract facility operation, and other fiscally sound methods of facility development and operation that would further the realization of the City's vision for the Airport. 7. New Policy for Marketing the Airport: silare Develop and implement a plan to market the airport as an economic asset for the City of Renton. 8. Recommended New Policy for Airport Development: Evaluate the development of a new restaurant at the site of the Chamber of Commerce building as the lease expires. Nur Renton Municipal Airport Development Study 3 March 31,2005 BACKGROUND For sixty years, Renton Airport, in conjunction with The Boeing Company, has created wealth for Renton, King, and Pierce County residents. However, as Boeing downsizes its "footprint" on the Airport, new opportunities will arise to use the facility to help the local economy create additional wealth. In 2002, the City finalized the development of a "Business Plan"for the Airport. The Renton Municipal Airport Business Plan, December 5, 2002, (Business Plan) provided many useful tools for the operation and management of the Airport. However, the Business Plan did not provide a vision for the Airport's future that would turn the downsizing of Boeing into an economic benefit for the community. The vision also did not position the Airport to maximize public benefit from the Airport's role within the metropolitan system of airports. The Business Plan contained a "no action" vision and "no change" development policy that proposed: 1. Monitor the effects of terrorism on air traffic; 2. Continue the current mix of activities; 3. Focus new growth on meeting the needs of the Puget Sound Region's light aircraft activities; 4. Continue the practice of leasing land for tenant facility development. Compared to most airports of its size, Renton is "land poor" meaning that there is not a lot of property that can be developed. Therefore, it is critical that the City makes sound decisions as to what types of aviation uses are attracted to the Airport. If the City elects to pursue the"no change" vision and focuses all of the new growth to accommodating the needs of the Puget Sound Region's light aircraft activities, Airport staff will mainly pursue the development of small hangars to accommodate storage needs for these aircraft. However, the"opportunity cost" of implementing that vision will mean that the individual aircraft owner will benefit greatly from convenient storage and access to his or her aircraft, but the public will forgo future employment opportunities and increased transportation options. The Airport has an obligation in helping to continue to create wealth for the people of Renton. Similar to having a "balanced personal investment portfolio", seeking a balance of aviation related uses at the Airport is key to maximizing the public benefit from its Airport. The Market Demand Report discusses aviation markets that the City can seek to attract to establish a solid balance of uses at the Airport. Renton Municipal Airport Development Study 4 March 31,2005 %m Market Demand Report Analyses of the aviation market and investment options for airport development have indicated that the City of Renton would benefit by adopting a new, forward-thinking vision for the Airport and consider taking a more active role in the re-development of airport land. The Market Demand Report recommends that the City take actions to increase its share of light and medium business jet traffic—the highest growth area of general aviation. Attracting a larger market share of the jet fleet to Renton would produce greater revenues for on-field Fixed Base Operators (FBOs) than just servicing the single-engine piston market. Each visit by a transient corporate jet brings an estimated $1,300 of revenue to the FBO who sells fuel and provides other services. In contrast, each single engine piston aircraft visit accounts for about one-tenth of that revenue (fuel sales and tie-down fee). Higher revenues to operators would provide long- term opportunities for the City to generate higher incomes from ground leases and/or income from revenue participation provisions in those leases. It would also generate higher levels of employment to provide the expanded services required by the jet fleet. More business jet traffic would mean more affluent visitors to Renton and a business-jet friendly airport would help N, attract businesses to Renton and the east side of Lake Washington. The Airport's current share of the business jet market in the Seattle area is about one percent. The Market Demand Report indicates that the obtainable share is 10-20 percent of the business jet activity in the Seattle area if Renton chooses to pursue that market segment. At this time, however, the Airport lacks basic facilities and services needed to attract business aviation, both permanently based, as well as transient. This 10-20 percent market share would not be obtainable until facilities and services are improved, but could be obtained within ten years and maintained for the long-term future. The Market Demand Report also indicates that Renton employment could benefit by attracting aircraft production, aircraft retrofitting, aviation education and other maintenance/repair services to the Airport. The Airport is also well situated to accommodate seaplane air-taxi service and attract the high end vacation traveler. Renton Municipal Airport Development Study 5 March 31,2005 If the City decides to develop certain market segments at the Airport, several steps will need to be undertaken. On the following page, a"Policy Decision Tree"was developed to summarize specific actions that will be needed to pursue certain market segments. Table 1, the Market Sector Analysis, grades the market segments by criteria extracted from the 2002 Airport Business Plan, specifically: • Should the City Target the Markets; • Economic Benefits to the Community; • Perceived Noise Impacts; • Market Feasibility; • City Investment in Facilities. The Explanatory Notes at the end of the Executive Summary provide more detail about the Market Sector Analysis. *6104 Renton Municipal Airport Development Study 6 March 31,2005 Policy Decision Tree *toe When airport property is available for re-development for aviation related purposes: 1 I I Focus on desired Market Sectors. See Continue focus on light aircraft activity and current leasing policies Table 1 for analysis of aviation market and procedures (vision as set by the 2002 Renton Municipal sectors. Airport Business Plan). All-Weather Runway—Airport staff will pursue an improved instrument approach (FAA funded). Executive Jet Center—Airport staff will identify a portion of Airport Corporate Aviation (Transient property best suited for an executive jet center. Mayor/Council will Aircraft) & Charter/Air Taxi decide on public or private investment options. See Table 2 for an analysis of investment options. Marketing Plan—Transportation Division & EDNSP staff will actively market the Airport when seeking to attract business development to the City of Renton. See Explanatory Notes for more ideas for a marketing plan. - All-Weather Runway—Airport staff will pursue an improved instrument approach (FAA funded). Corporate Aviation iirse (Based Aircraft) RFP—Airport staff will prepare RFPs for leasing appropriate available real estate unless there is a compelling need for public investment(more control, more revenue). See Table 2 for public investment advantages and disadvantages. Aircraft and Parts Production Marketing Plan—Transportation Division & EDNSP staff will actively market these sectors when justified by public benefit, such as jobs. See Explanatory Notes for more about a marketing plan. Aircraft Services RFP—Airport staff will prepare RFPs for leasing appropriate available real estate unless there is a compelling need for public Aviation Education other than investment(incentive for providing living wage jobs, more control). Flight Training See Table 2 for public investment advantages and disadvantages. RFP—Airport staff will prepare RFPs for leasing appropriate Light GA Aircraft Storage available real estate unless there is a compelling need for public investment(more control, more revenue). See Table 2 for public investment advantages and disadvantages. Airport staff may prepare RFP for leasing old restaurant property and will require a permanent home for Customs and Border Seaplane Air Taxi/Charters Protection. There may be compelling justification for public fir► investment (more control, more revenue). See Table 2 for public investment advantages and disadvantages. Renton Municipal Airport Development Study 7 March 31,2005 Table 1: Market Sector Analysis 44400 Economic Market Sector Market City Investment in City Marketing Benefit to Perceived Target? Community Noise Impact Feasibility Facilities? ;y.,, Corporate g v :. ;,,,,,+1,,,;!, Re Aviation' RecommeHioondI r' . `- ? e . #. v.,--,,,,,,-( iransien �' , ,. e Hi ..t wY Air .aft "& '$-lcfor Tarete7 ="Z_ #., r tr,� ' t ` , ` `,',' a: mM2rketiCi"'. . � .i . ..- ; .# � {,._, _!: . r �� .. Q ' g', , :�Ct�arter/Air%Taxi.. �•��` ,-,,,,,--4,-:� , •�, ,:may , , - ���»fz� � ����. . AA2� . �� r �.,�.� Corporate' � ;a :,,: °,..: `4„ � F =r °Markting el.ov�<to:-,z:,,., ;.,` �, � �= `��.. Aviation (Based' p•.fM. M dente odet e of • , Recornrtiended,;� Moderate; ri11 k„� 4 � 'r'+'. t.{MS i:si v: i en . : Aircraft) � : .�s', v; R;� �>:�.:.�t��,,:-�.�r.�,�:<,��, �� . �i1, . iacx tv . - , ' �<"",.;± tm� Pa ks ..-' •Arcraft and Me':`: Low o o � PrarrHi h =Lowderat �”`� ' , nas Recommended .tr ' r nl, x',}Production -4.--e, :,,,-,-;4-- tv ,v -j� ”q,' # ;,i�V��` j: µMo a at _ IAircrft:ServicesRecommended= ,y�4fo Fiig . 1�;,�•a�x,': � £;'eTi :: Vk M:1451,K . Aviation ` Education other , Marketing ::,(;,,:,,---=,.1• ' : ,Low to i--.Possibly High; t,. w'• e ,,l W `ti`` •_ than Flight Recommended " ,•- ',..-:*,-;„4,-,-;,-.::,-=',:::'',..=$'' { I= Training .< ,� K ,. Light GA Marketing not Not necessary, Aircraft Storage Required Low Moderate High unless for control or revenue Seaplane Air Marketing Not Not necessary, Taxi/Charter Required Moderate Moderate High unless for control or revenue Air Cargo Marketing Not Moderate High Low Not Recommended Recommended to High Flight Training Marketing Not Low High High Required Not Recommended *Demand will be higher if the instrument approach can be improved to allow the Airport's use in lower visibility weather. Development Methods Options Report The second purpose of the Airport Development Study was to analyze public vs. private investment options for airport re-development. A case study approach evaluated three options for developing one parcel at the Airport and discussed the impacts of such development on the Airport's budget. Three scenarios were: 1. Ground Lease with Private Capital Investment 2. Facility Lease with Public Capital Investment 3. Contract Operation with Public Capital Investment Renton Municipal Airport Development Study 8 March 31,2005 The results of the case study analysis indicated that City should not be limited to ground leases N„r and rental of existing buildings at the airport, but should also consider public investment in desired facilities, contract facility operation, and other fiscally sound methods of facility development and operation. Table 2 on the following page summarizes the advantages and disadvantages of public verses private investment in Airport development. Renton Municipal Airport Development Study 9 March 31,2005 Table 2: Public vs. Private Investment in Airport Development PUBLIC INVESTMENT 10100 ADVANTAGES DISADVANTAGES MORE CITY CONTROL HIGHER FINANCIAL RISK HIGHER POTENTIAL FINANCIAL RETURN The public Airport sponsor can obtain lower Funds or bonding capacity used at the Airport cost financing than a private entity. are not available for other investments that have public benefit. Revenue in excess of the bond payment is restricted to aviation use. The sponsor does not have to pay ad-valorem The Airport may not be able to retain its taxes, as a private entity would. financial self-sufficiency. The sponsor has more control over the Risk is associated with any development, and development than if it were a private public bodies are less likely to assume investment. Retaining a high level of control financial risk than private developers. The over the Airport helps ensure public access is sponsor risks default by the tenant or an maintained and public policy is implemented, inability to find a tenant. As events such as facilitates using the Airport as an economic 9/11 have shown, the aviation industry can be development tool for the community(e.g., subject to severe economic stress. prioritizing jobs over profit), and makes it easier to control the quality and type of facilities available. If done efficiently, the project cost is lower Project financing and implementation is usually because the profit and "middleman" are cut slower than with private investment. out. Tenants are not required to make a large In addition to the capital costs, the Airport " capital investment. sponsor more often has maintenance and operating costs and responsibilities than private development on a ground lease. Staffing levels and the required skills may be hard to provide. PRIVATE.INVESTMENT'$;. ADVANTAGES DISADVANTAGES: LOWER FINANCIAL RISKw ,.LESS CITY.CONTRO tb, -.2.x! Project financing and implementation would It requires a significant capital investment by a most likely be faster. tenant or speculative developer. Market viability is surer than with public Project cost is higher than with bond financing. investment. The cost to the public Airport sponsor is Enforcement of public policy is harder. negligible. Renton Municipal Airport has existing tenants and others with access to financing who are willing to develop parts of the Airport at no cost to the City. Criticism that it is inappropriate for a public entity to compete with private enterprise is avoided. Renton Municipal Airport Development Study 10 March 31,2005 Explanatory Notes All-Weather Runway. Renton's runway is not useable during poor visibility weather. The current instrument approach to the runway can only be used when visibility is not less than 1 mile. Low visibility conditions—fog, rain, and snow—occur most often in the winter, and are reported to cause frequent wintertime diversions of corporate aircraft from Renton to other airports. Ideally, the airport should have a precision instrument approach--one that offers glide slope (descent)information as well as runway alignment and that allows landing when visibility is limited to 1/2 mile and the cloud ceiling is as low as 200 feet. Instrument landing systems (ILS) provide precision instrument approaches at most commercial service airports and at busier GA airports. However, providing an ILS at Renton would be very difficult, because the long, straight-in approach needed for an ILS would be obstructed by terrain. Also, the FAA is focused on newer technology—navigation using GPS (Global Positioning System)—and is not installing new ILS equipment. With GPS satellites,WAAS (Wide Area Augmentation System)ground-based augmentation of GPS, and appropriate cockpit equipment, an instrument approach that routes the landing aircraft around terrain is possible. WAAS was activated nationwide in 2004 and the FAA is slowly establishing new WAAS-aided approaches to runways. Detailed technical analysis is needed to determine how much instrument approach improvement is feasible at Renton. The analysis must consider the feasibility of providing an approach lighting system, which allows lower minimums because the pilot can locate the runway easier, and the feasibility of providing the larger cleared areas required for a lower visibility approach. It appears that corporate aviation and air taxi use of the Airport is adversely affected by the instrument approach limitations. City Marketing Target? Under this heading in Table 1, the Corporate Aviation (Transient Aircraft) & Charter/Air Taxi sector is most highly recommended. Marketing efforts for this sector would also reach the Corporate Aviation (Based Aircraft)market. Efforts to attract Aircraft and Parts Production, Large Aircraft Services, and Aviation Education other than Flight Training are also recommended. Marketing efforts for the Seaplane Air-Taxi/Air Charter are unnecessary because the Airport has unique facilities and services for this sector. Air cargo is not a feasible or desirable sector, so marketing it is not Now recommended. Marketing is not recommended for the Light GA Aircraft Storage and Flight Training sectors because demand is already high, their economic benefit is lower than other sectors, and their perceived noise impact is higher than other sectors. Economic Benefit to Community. Under this heading in Table 1, the Aircraft and Parts Production sector is rated high because of the large number of living wage jobs it would generate. The Transient Corporate Aviation and Air-Taxi/Charter sector is also rated high; it would provide fewer on-airport jobs than aircraft production, but it would bring affluent visitors to Renton and help attract businesses to Renton and the east side of Lake Washington. Although Renton would derive economic benefit from Light GA Aircraft Storage and from Flight Training, the benefit would be lower than the other sectors. Executive Jet Center. An executive jet center is a Fixed Base Operation (FBO)that focuses on providing the services and facilities desired by corporate jet operators. Services include everything a traditional FBO provides and more. Examples of the services that might be provided are air charters, fueling, aircraft repair and maintenance, aircraft parking and hangaring, aircraft rental, aircraft and parts sales, pilot shop, crew lounge,flight planning, flight instruction, catering, passenger lounge, conference facilities, rental cars, limousine service, and ground support services such as cleaning, deicing, towing, etc. City Investment in Facilities? Under this heading in Table 1, public investment is recommended for a new executive jet center. Analysis in the Development Method Options Report appended to this Executive Summary indicates public investment in an executive jet center would have a higher financial return than a ground lease. The City would have more control of the image,facilities, and services at the Airport and could establish a larger, higher quality facility than now exists. The executive jet center,which would include passenger lounges and similar amenities,would become the facility that users identify as the"Airport." The jet center would function like the anchor store at a shopping center, setting the stage `'rrr' for the Airport's redevelopment into a more modern, diversified, GA reliever airport. The City might also Renton Municipal Airport Development Study 11 March 31,2005 consider investing in a facility, such as for aircraft or parts production, which would generate a large number of highly skilled, high paying jobs for the community. In such a case, economic development funding might be needed to supplement airport revenue bonds. Other development and re-development at the Airport might best be accomplished through private investment on land leases. However, development guidance could be established to ensure efficient use of the limited land and development compatible with the City's updated vision for the Airport. Corporations and individuals wanting to lease land for hangar development could be restricted to predetermined arrangements of facilities and parking that would accommodate more aircraft per acre than would likely occur if the land were developed according to individual preferences. Aesthetic guidelines might be imposed on the private development to upgrade the Airport's appearance. Demand for aircraft hangars in the region is high, so the City should not need to invest in them, unless, on a case-by-case basis, the financial circumstances are favorable or there is another compelling reason to do so. General Aviation (GA). According to the Aircraft Owners and Pilots Association, GA is"all civilian flying except scheduled passenger airlines. General Aviation includes flying as diverse as overnight package delivery and a weekend visit back home; as different as emergency medical evacuation and inspection trips to remote construction sites; as complementary as aerial application to keep crops healthy and airborne law enforcement to keep the peace...An estimated 65% of general aviation flights are conducted for business and public services that need transportation more flexible than the airlines can offer." (www.aopa.org/special /newsroom/overview.html) Market Feasibility? Under this heading in Table 1, Light GA Aircraft Storage, Seaplane Air Charter/Air- Taxi, and Flight Training are rated high because they have demonstrated demand at the Airport. There appears to be no demand for air cargo activity at present. Certainly, the downsizing of Boeing's aircraft production does not indicate a feasible market for large aircraft production. However, there is seaplane research and development in progress at the Airport now—in the form of the"Gweduck," an experimental, twin-engine flying-boat style amphibian of composite construction reminiscent of the Grumman Widgeon. If the Gweduck advances to the certification and production stage, Renton will likely be a candidate site for production facilities. Opportunities associated with microjets and other new aircraft types and technologies also exist. No large aircraft services or aviation education institutions have expressed 444.0 interest in establishing at the Airport, although national and regional information indicates opportunities in these sectors. Market Sector Analysis. The City can encourage desired aviation activity through marketing efforts and public investment in facilities for the desired activity.' The Market Demand Report appended to this Executive Summary analyzes market demand for eight sectors of the aviation market. It recommends increasing Renton's market share of based jets and jet operations and its air-taxi and air charter operations. Air cargo is not recommended as a business Renton should pursue. The Airport's strengths for the market sectors are as follows: • The location in an urban area with a large population is a strength for almost all the market sectors. Being located near major corporate headquarters and branches of major national and international companies is especially important to the corporate aviation market sector. The Airport's proximity to the rapidly growing eastside business region, including the Boeing re- development site in Renton, is an advantage. The Airport's easy access to 1-405 results in reduced travel time to the eastside compared to Boeing Field or Paine Field, which is important for serving corporate, air-taxi/air charter, and other general aviation users on the eastside. Good highway access is also important to air cargo and to aircraft/parts production businesses that rely on truck traffic. • The Will Rogers -Wiley Post Memorial Seaplane Base at the north end of Renton Municipal Airport is the only publicly-owned seaplane base in the Central Puget Sound Region. The Discouraging undesired aviation activity is ill-advised. The City is required by the original airport conveyance and by federal grant assurances to operate an airport open to the flying public with no restrictions on legal aviation activities or types of aircraft,except for those restrictions necessitated by physical airfield constraints or safety. The City cannot legally grant exclusive rights to any aviation business or discriminate unfairly among aviation businesses. Renton Municipal Airport Development Study 12 March 31,2005 runway, combined with the seaplane base, offers both water operations and land operations for amphibious aircraft and is one of the only Airports in the lower forty-eight states where aircraft "%se can swap seaplane floats for wheels. • The load-bearing strength of Renton Municipal Airport's runway is unusual for a general aviation airport. For many airports seeking to serve corporate aviation, runway strength is a major constraint. This runway can handle aircraft weighing up to 340,000 pounds--adequate for all but the heaviest wide-body commercial and military aircraft. • The U.S. Customs & Border Protection (CBP)service at Renton Airport is associated with seaplane operations, which includes many charter and other flights from Canada. CBP could also be an attraction for international wheeled aircraft flights. • The air traffic control tower at the Airport is an advantage for corporate, air-taxi/charter, and air cargo operations, although not a requirement. • Renton Airport has other facilities and services that are attractive to various aviation market sectors, such as fuel sales, aircraft maintenance and repair, other FBO services, aircraft parking area secured by fencing, and the aircraft rescue and firefighting services provided by Boeing. Except for the aircraft rescue and firefighting service, these facilities and services are not listed as strengths because they are common to most general aviation airports. Aircraft rescue and firefighting capability is attractive to, but not required by, any of the listed market sectors. Renton Airport has three major weaknesses for the market sectors analyzed: • Lack of a precision instrument approach is a fatal flaw for air cargo and a significant disadvantage for the corporate aviation and air taxi/charter sectors, although not for seaplane charters that typically operate only in visual weather. • The runway length of 5,000 feet is a very significant flaw for air cargo aircraft that operate heavily loaded and need more length. The runway is short for some models of heavy jets and for other aircraft on occasion, if they are carrying very heavy fuel loads or payloads, if the runway is slippery, or if it is a very hot summer day. However, a representative of Netjets,which has the lion's share of the fractional ownership market and a fleet of 500 business aircraft, has stated that 'toe Renton's runway is long enough for any airplane in their fleet. • Lack of an executive jet center discourages corporate jet traffic and air-taxi/charters in high performance aircraft. Marketing Plan. The City should begin identifying the airport as a community asset that will help attract business to Renton. To attract the desired aviation market sectors to the airport, the City needs to develop and implement an airport marketing plan. Marketing infrastructure might include a steering committee with representatives of the City's Economic Development department, airport staff, and airport tenants. Marketing tools might include brochures outlining the airport's selling points, exhibits for trade shows, and real estate-type fact sheets for available property. The City might solicit corporate aviation activity as part of its outreach to new businesses. Marketing cooperatively with the airport's FBOs might be a successful strategy. In addition to contacting existing and potential businesses about corporate aviation, the marketing plan might include outreach to aircraft/parts production, large aircraft service providers, and aviation education institutions. Airport staff could meet regularly with the staff of King County International Airport(Boeing Field)and Auburn Municipal Airport, which are the closest GA reliever airports. The purpose of the meetings would be to discuss relative roles and prospective tenants, and to avoid competing against each other for the same market opportunities. The City's new vision for the airport should be communicated to the FAA,WSDOT Aviation Division, and the Puget Sound Regional Council, so these entities can adjust the role of the airport in future system planning efforts. A marketing plan should identify obstacles to fulfilling the Airport's new vision: • For example, while the City has taken recent steps to update or establish leasing policies, Airport rules and regulations, minimum standards, and rates and charges, additional document updating is needed. The important documents that control development and activity at the Airport are the Airport Master Plan and Airport Layout Plan, which were based on the assumption of a substantial and continued Boeing presence on the Field. 11 Renton Municipal Airport Development Study 13 March 31,2005 • The properties returning to the City from Boeing need inspection, not only to identify condition, but also to identify assets for potential new businesses at the Airport. • The Boeing auto parking area at the southeast side of the airport is limiting large aircraft movement to Ace Aviation. The City might be well advised to negotiate with Boeing to relocate the parking lot before the lease expires. • As new facility development, leasing agreement, and management options are explored, the City should communicate regularly with the FAA, to avoid grant assurance compliance problems. • Regular communication with existing tenants and airport users is also a good idea, as changes in City attitudes and actions at the Airport may foster anxiety and inhibit cooperation. Perceived Noise Impact. Under this heading in Table 1, the ratings are based on reported community perception, not scientific analysis of noise exposure. Light GA Aircraft Storage and Flight Training are rated high for perceived noise impact. These market sectors produce much more aircraft traffic than other market sectors. Neighbors reportedly object to the repetitious noise and duration of flight training. Air cargo, due to the nighttime operation that is customary with this business, is also rated high for perceived noise impact. RFP. To ensure the Airport has qualified tenants and commercial operators and to help prevent unfair discrimination, the City has the option to issue Requests for Proposals (RFP)for ground leases, building leases, and services. Vision Statement. The Business Plan recommended the following for City Council resolution: "Renton Municipal Airport will continue to be a General Aviation Reliever airport serving as a quality aerial gateway between the City and a diverse aviation system in and beyond metropolitan Seattle. The City of Renton is the airport sponsor and is dedicated to working in partnership with aviators, residents and aviation-related businesses. It will meet its Federal obligations to maintain a safe, secure, and viable airport by adopting airport zoning regulations consistent with the State of Washington RCW 36.70A.510 General Aviation Airport-Siting of Incompatible Uses to protect the airport from encroachment, require airport compatible land use, and to minimize noise impacts on new developments surrounding the airport. The noise and safety impacts of current transient and local operations on the existing surrounding neighborhoods will be mitigated by the voluntary noise abatement procedures developed by the airport tenants and users, and through continued exploration of other avenues to control present and future noise, including a compliance response system addressing individual noise and safety incidents. The City's forecasts of operations at the Airport anticipate a mix of activity on the field over the next 20 years that is similar to today's, contained within the airport's current physical dimensions. The City's development and operational plans for the airport will support that forecast. As the airport sponsor, the City's goals are to fulfill its federal legal obligations and maintain aviation business prosperity,full occupancy and financial self-sufficiency while simultaneously taking all available actions to reduce current noise and minimize noise growth through a process of developing measurements and standards. • Maintaining up-to-date documents for Leasing Policy, Airport Procedures, Minimum Standards for Aeronautical Service Providers and Airport Rules and Regulations. The City will apply those requirements in a transparent and evenhanded fashion to all airport users so that the context for all activities and communications is clear to all involved; • Providing first-class amenities and services that enhance the image and business climate of the City; and • Adopting and implementing aesthetic standards for the airport, developing systems of management accountability and maintaining mechanisms for community involvement and advice to the Council." Renton Municipal Airport Development Study 14 March 31,2005 litame RENTON MUNICIPAL AIRPORT DEVELOPMENT STUDY MARKET DEMAND REPORT low Renton Municipal Airport Development Study 15 March 31,2005 RENTON MUNICIPAL AIRPORT DEVELOPMENT STUDY MARKET DEMAND REPORT Contents Page Part 1: Inventory 16 Part 2: How the airport is used 21 Part 3: Market opportunities 26 Part 4: Economic impacts of the alternative markets 47 Part 5: Implementation Steps and Timetable 49 Part 6: Interviews with aviation businesses 51 This report assesses future potentials for revenue-generating development at the Renton Municipal Airport (Airport), including the Will Rogers —Wiley Post Memorial Seaplane Base. Starting with existing uses and revenues in November 2004, it looks forward to the year 2020 and examines opportunities to enhance the value of the airport to the City of Renton and its citizens. It analyzes future patterns and trends in the aviation industry to determine what changes are likely to occur, assesses Renton's ability to capture market share and/or recruit new types of aviation activities, and provides an analysis of impacts and trade-offs of alternative development scenarios. The report examines ways to leverage the airport as an economic asset to create family-wage jobs in Renton rather than just increase air traffic. This discussion is intended to assist policy makers at the City of Renton to steer the future development of the airport to support the City's overall economic development goals. The context of this assessment is the projection of overall patterns and trends of aviation activity in the Puget Sound region. This involves examining Renton Airport's regional position in the competitive environment of multiple general aviation airports. In 2001, the Puget Sound Regional Council published the Regional Airport System Plan (RASP) as a Modal Component of Destination 2030, the Metropolitan Transportation Plan for the Central Puget Sound Region. A revised update of the RASP was published in August 2004. Those documents were reviewed for this current report and are referenced frequently. The Washington State Aviation Division's Airport System Plan and database of aviation activity and the 2001 Draft Airport Master Plan for Renton Municipal Airport Development Study 16 King County International/Boeing Field (Boeing Field) were also consulted for regional Nome information. Several of the business owners currently operating at the Airport were interviewed to determine capacity and needs to serve additional aviation markets. In addition, national market trends were analyzed, especially projected changes in the general aviation fleet mix. Those changes will determine the components of demand for aviation services, not just overall volumes of aircraft. The national forecasts were used to estimate changes in the demand for airport services in the Puget Sound region and at the Renton Municipal airport. The Market Demand Report recommends that the Airport take actions to increase its share of business jets--the highest growth area of general aviation. Because it is impractical to lengthen the runway and increase other FAA-required clearance areas for larger, faster aircraft, the targeted market should be light and medium jets with wingspans less than 79 feet and approach speeds lower than 121 knots. Crucial to increasing the business jet market is the need to improve the existing instrument approaches to allow landing in lower visibility weather. Also needed are better, larger facilities for executive jet services. The Airport's share of the business jet market in the Seattle area is about 1%. This report estimates that the obtainable share is between 10% and 20%. Now The Airport is also well positioned to gain market share of seaplane air taxi activity in the Puget Sound Region. An improvement in FBO facilities, passenger waiting area and amenities and U.S. Customs office would facilitate the Airport increasing its market share. Other sectors of the aviation market recommended for Renton are aircraft production (best sector for employment), aircraft retrofitting and other maintenance/repair services, and aviation education such as for aircraft maintenance technicians and air traffic controllers. Part 1: Inventory Sheet 1 presents a bird's eye view of Renton Municipal Airport. The Renton Municipal Airport Business Plan, prepared in December 2002, contained a detailed examination of current uses of the Renton Airport. Some of the information it cited was taken from the 1997 Master Plan Update. Relevant data from the 2002 report are summarized here, along with some additional *ore information that was obtained from on-site inspections and from the City of Renton. Renton Municipal Airport Development Study 17 March 31,2005 • ismask LAKE WASHINGTON r1 Y - �•.A. tyy. F I I -. ti ��• ti- +41 j ` t f ciyf I 'E 4 r._ i • .(a T' ' - ^.. F . a/ .f ^" LIMN i BOEWC-737 5,, .-i ��� 4 ��^ _ FACTORY + � Ilo,\' '''.;3 Oc Aia �_, A. ••- .L. �� - ...A.. 4= .- .. s4 mat • d. + ' i 1•: :., ... 1 "\ i:.,,., t, 'Ir.-..s.', ‘, ' , r.1:. . 11 , ..t ,, , y :4„:. . . ,. , .,. .,,,,....s.. , A -.'.. . . - . , ., . 1- ''ii. 4.7 '''''' 11 t ` _ • 1:;;;:"..'0.1 1.1!:-::: „:::.:-,„'” :::,,'‘‘' r . : ,',_..i.I.i. il:off;II __k ... .... .. 1 Li ii :,14, I., . " _____ , .. .., ..4..i.„ ,... ._. : ..... ..... . _I.,,,.. . . ...6.,,,,,,,,,,,.. „.....,. _....T.,.:77. —.... v..,../..:. im. _., i .N4,v,..i. 1,.., "tr•;•7;1•:'v iv'- 'ortif. -.A..:a..L- �/���y�//ms ` - i' y•R,; S Yi _•;''.s: 1 '+3. t ..✓ ;61..,,,it !t . « ` d t� 4,..,-...„...,- _-a-' . t.` __r _ f VAI N , _ v. r ' III._ ,;:',- - „,,z,,,,,,,. .. • ,„,,, v. .,. . 1 • • < ,., i . fVOIr' ' II • 0.: A.: : ce; zL,�- N f I ,t`- �, , ar-”%) r + — - . .. r s 1 led DRANK BM CMB Y C zz CHECKED B9: ��$ � W1 335 a,Tht mega 98,21-8972 APPROVED B9. DRA NTNG FILE NAME. *P.K. ' PACIFIC,�,'°,,,-.ew 32199—AIRP—EK01 1 V� _ Am.... SHEET . ..tit.,., ,P,.�„�.aA�,�� Nome 1. Renton Municipal Airport comprises ±168 acres. The runway and taxiway areas, along with other public areas, comprise approximately 111 acres of the total. The balance of the airport property, ±57.4 acres, is City owned property either currently leased or available for lease. That property is the focus of this report as it represents the land asset that the City can use to generate leasehold revenues. 2. The Renton Airport supports the Boeing 737 assembly plant adjacent to the airport on the east side of the Cedar River (the last Boeing 757 was rolled out in October 2004). According to the 2002 Business Plan, Boeing was leasing 23.7 acres from the City at that time for its various facilities including parking, aircraft aprons, and several other support operations. Boeing has been steadily reducing and/or vacating its leases on the City- owned airport property, primarily on the west side of the runway. Boeing is now leasing 18.8 acres on the airport. Currently, Boeing has leases that run to the year 2010. In 2005, the City will initiate lease negotiations with the Boeing Company to draft a new lease, which will end in either 2015 or 2020. However, the existing Boeing leased area on the east side of the airport will be reduced from its current size in order to reduce the disruption to the Nose airport at such time as the Boeing Company permanently exits the airport. 3. All of the other tenants on the airport leased a combined total of 21.7 acres of land. Those leases were due to expire between 2002 and the year 2020, with some of them on a month- to-month rental. Leases include a large amount of relatively low-end revenue uses (outside tie-downs, T-hangars, other storage space), as well as employment-generating activities such as fixed base operators (FBOs), aircraft maintenance facilities, and aircraft manufacturing. 4. Chapter 3 of the 2002 Business Plan included a map showing the locations of those leased areas, descriptions of the tenants and their primary activities, and a table that showed the square footage leased along with other pertinent data. Readers are encouraged to review that document to obtain a full profile of the uses at the airport in 2002. The uses listed in that report included: • Fuel sales • Flight instruction Renton Municipal Airport Development Study 19 March 31,2005 • Private business/corporate flying • Private recreational flying • Rental or owned outside tie-downs • Rental or owned hangars • Aircraft rentals • Aircraft sales • Charter/air taxi • Aircraft maintenance and repair • Aircraft or parts manufacturing • Specialty services • Sub-lease office space Included in the public areas are an airport control tower and the airport offices of the City of Renton. Several changes have taken place since the 2002 Business Plan was produced. • Boeing has vacated 191,214 square feet leased from the City on the west side of the ' airport. This 4.4-acre site, known as Ramp B, is now available for reuse and/or redevelopment. • A new FBO, called AirO, is being developed on the west side of the airport with a pilots' lounge, fuel services, and other amenities. • Some older buildings are being torn down and upgraded utilities are being extended to those sites to support more modern facilities. The leased properties' configurations are not very efficient from a land use perspective, especially on the southeast corner of the Airport. Aprons and access roads are constrained by neighboring uses, especially the Boeing parking lot on the old Boeing Fuel Farm site that curtails access to Ace Aviation. This has a negative impact on the marketability of some of the properties and limits the type and size of aircraft that can be maintained by Ace Aviation. Renton Municipal Airport Development Study 20 March 31, 2005 As redevelopment opportunities are identified, it will be beneficial to configure the sites for their highest levels of utilization and attendant revenues. There are currently four areas that are vacant and could be developed for new uses: 1. The old restaurant site at the northwest corner of the airport adjacent to the seaplane base. This parcel is 1.9 acres in size and is a former restaurant site. It offers spectacular views of Lake Washington north toward Mercer Island, Seattle, Bellevue and Mount Baker. One option would be to combine the site with property leased by NW Seaplanes to develop a combination U.S. Customs facility2, passenger and crew waiting lounges, small restaurant, and other FBO services for seaplanes. An adjacent trailer park could offer a larger site for development of a hotel or other facility if it could be acquired and/or packaged with the airport property site. This would provide more flexible options for the City in what is developed there. The area provides a public setting for seaplane viewing and for the Wiley Post/Will Rogers memorial. Any development there should respect the site's historical significance as a seaplane base and the aesthetic and environmental amenities of the site. 2. The former Boeing avionics building on the west side of the airport. Known as Parcel 820 Now in the City's inventory, the total size of the site is 1.77 acres. The building should be torn down and replaced with a facility that will make better use of the parcel. 3. The vacant land immediately south of the AirO facility, identified as the 770 Parcel. The site is approximately 1.4 acres in size and could be used for a variety of uses. 4. Ramp B site, mentioned above, has a rectangular configuration and offers good redevelopment potential. The B-Ramp parcel could be utilized better if it were redeveloped in conjunction with the parcel in the southwest corner of the airport, currently leased by Bruce Leven, and partly subleased to Pro-Flight Aviation. All of these sites have "airside" access, meaning that aircraft can directly access these properties. Except for the restaurant site, the other three sites are all within the existing security fencing around the perimeter of the airport. 2 U.S.Customs clearance is required for seaplane traffic from Canada. Customs personnel are now housed at the 44110r site in a temporary building. Renton Municipal Airport Development Study 21 March 31,2005 In addition, there may be other properties that could be converted to higher uses as teases expire. For example, the Cedar River Hangars will require removal of some units for 400 environmental remediation purposes and it may be worth considering replacing all of the units at that time. More modern hangars could be developed for higher-value aircraft, producing higher revenues for the City. There is also the possibility that the City could investigate continuation of the relationship and connectivity of the parcel of land known as Apron D, when the Boeing Company vacates the site. Apron D is located on the east side of the Cedar River and connected to the airport by the south Boeing bridge. The Boeing Company uses Apron D for aircraft completions and final inspections. No maps were obtained for this site but it appears to be about 7 acres in size and its configuration is square. With its airside access, this site could accommodate a variety of aviation-related uses including an aircraft manufacturing facility or completion center, if and when the Boeing Company no longer needs this real estate for preflight of commercial aircraft. Federal grant funds could be used to acquire the parcel. Apron D is slated for private development under the current North Renton Redevelopment Plan and the City presently has no plans or funds to purchase this site. The City also owns the site that is leased to the Renton Chamber of Commerce, located on the west hill above the airport on Rainier Avenue. That site is an excellent location for a restaurant with pedestrian access to the perimeter fence. This parcel has superb access to drive-by traffic, a fair-sized parking lot that could be extended to the south, and overlooks the Airport and the City with views of Lake Washington, the Cascades, and Mount Rainier. This site has historically attracted large numbers of people during the day who enjoy watching the aircraft come and go from the Airport. All of these on-airport sites are served by utilities and the west side perimeter road. The only constraints on aviation-related development are those imposed by Federal Aviation Regulations and Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) design standards that limit building heights and provide setback requirements. Part 2. How the Airport is used The Boeing operations at Renton provide the community with a large number of well-paying jobs and the infusion of substantial amounts of capital into the local and regional economy. NINS Renton Municipal Airport Development Study 22 March 31,2005 Because the airport is essential to that operation, it can be stated that the airport is a significant `fir asset to the City and surrounding areas. Other than the current Boeing operations, the Renton Municipal Airport is classified as one of five general aviation reliever airports in the RASP. According to that Plan, the purpose of reliever airports is to provide suitable facilities to shift general aviation traffic away from Seattle- Tacoma International Airport (SeaTac). The forecasts in the 2001 RASP and the 2004 update represent what is expected to happen to the airport if the historic trends on the airport are projected into the future. According to those documents, Renton Airport had 240 based aircraft and 100,710 operations in 1998. Those numbers were expected to grow to 278 based aircraft and 109,482 operations in 2020. The RASP stated that there would be a need for four new outside tie-down spaces and 35 new hangars over the 22-year period. If nothing else happened at the airport, that new demand could be accommodated on only a small portion of the land that will be available as Boeing downsizes. The RASP estimated the need for 4.6 acres to accommodate these new tie-downs and hangars. The area estimated for each hangar, 5,400 square feet, is more than twice what a li•,, light, single engine piston aircraft needs, and would be adequate for many corporate jets. In 1998, the 240 aircraft based at Renton consisted of the following types: Single engine 217 Multi-engine 21 Turbine 0 Rotorcraft 2 Other 0 The `other" category includes ultralight aircraft, balloons, gliders, etc. The total based capacity of the airport was rated at 255 aircraft, only 15 more than were currently based there. This did not take into account the availability of additional land that has since been vacated by the Boeing Company. Renton Municipal Airport Development Study 23 March 31,2005 AnIM The other four designated reliever airports are King County International (Boeing Field) and Auburn Airport in King County, and Paine Field and Harvey Field in Snohomish County. Their *00 respective statistics for based aircraft and operations compared to Renton are shown in Table 1. Table 1: 1998 Based Aircraft and Projections to 2020 Airport 1998 Based 2020 Based 1998 2020 Aircraft Aircraft Operations Operations Auburn 238 276 172,000 186,982 Boeing Field 443 514 345,120 375,182 Harvey Field 360 476 140,700 171,924 Paine Field 483 639 192,612 235,356 Renton 240 278 100,710 109,482 The most significant finding in this table is that while the number of based aircraft was expected to increase, Renton's share of aviation activity among the five reliever airports was predicted to decline from 13.6% in 1998 to 12.7% in 2020. During the same period, Renton's share of total aircraft operations was expected to fall from 10.6% in 1998 to 10.1% in 2020. This prediction represented the pattern of historical trends and the assumption that Renton Municipal Airport would be constrained by lack of available land to accommodate greater growth. It was essentially a "no action" scenario that did not include the development opportunities cited in Part 1. In addition, the RASP called for adding two or three new reliever airports—Arlington, Bremerton and/or Tacoma Narrows —which would absorb some of the future aviation growth in the region. The City of Renton is in a position to change its assigned scenario by redeveloping portions of the airport to higher-value uses and by upgrading the kinds of aviation activities occurring on the airport. To get a total picture, the Will Rogers—Wiley Post Memorial Seaplane Base needs to be added to these figures. The 2001 RASP reported there were 45 aircraft based at this facility in 1998, which also represented its existing total aircraft capacity. That number was expected to grow to 52 by the year 2020, requiring 0.9 additional acres of land for aircraft storage. There were 2,387 operations at the seaplane base in 1998, with a projection of 2,595 operations in 2020. Renton Municipal Airport Development Study 24 March 31,2005 'fir► By comparison, Kenmore Air Harbor had 79 based aircraft in 1998 with 40,000 operations. In 2020, those figures were expected to grow to 92 based aircraft and 43,484 operations. The Lake Union Seaplane Base had no based aircraft, but was expected to see an increase in operations from 30,500 in 1998 to 33,157 in 2020. Operational growth was projected at 8.7% over the 22-year period for all three seaplane bases. The RASP did not include the seaplane base as part of the reliever airport function of Renton Municipal Airport because it does not shift aircraft operations away from SeaTac. However, the seaplane base at Renton is the only publicly-owned seaplane base in the Central Puget Sound region. The runway, combined with the seaplane base, offers both water operations and land operations for amphibious aircraft and is the only airport in the lower forty-eight states where aircraft can swap seaplane floats for wheels. Regularly scheduled charter flights are available between Renton and several destinations in the San Juan Islands, Gulf Islands, and several fishing outposts in Canada during the summer months. When the seaplane base aircraft and operations are added to those of Renton Municipal Airport, Now the total numbers in 1998 and projections to 2020 are as shown in Table 2. Table 2: 1998 Based Aircraft at Renton Municipal + Seaplane Base, with Forecasts to 2020 1998 Based 2020 Based 1998 2020 Aircraft Aircraft Operations Operations Renton Airport 240 278 100,710 109,482 (Wheeled Aircraft Only) Will Rogers — 45 52 2,387 2,595 Wiley Post Seaplane Base Total 295 330 103,097 112,077 Even with these added numbers, the RASP "no-action" scenario would have Renton Airport operating at the lowest level of the five reliever airports in the Puget Sound region. Types of Operations The 2001 RASP also provided a breakdown of types of operations at the airports in the Puget Now Sound Region in 1998, both for wheeled aircraft and for seaplanes. The data showed the Renton Municipal Airport Development Study 25 March 31,2005 figures for the five reliever airports and for the three seaplane bases in King County that appear in Table 3. Table 3: Types of Aircraft Operations, 1998 General Aviation Operations Air Carrier, Total Annual Local Itinerant Air Taxi Commuter& Operations Operations Operations Operations Military Ops. Auburn Municipal 65,565 98,339 7,996 100 172,000 Boeing Field 120,259 166,674 44,279 13,908 345,120 Harvey Field 44,352 93,223 1,879 1,246 140,700 Paine Field 99,418 84,125 3,508 5,561 192,612 Renton 62,591 36,704 980 435 100,710 Kenmore Air Harbor 7,200 800 8,000 24,000 40,000 Lake Union 7,500 2,500 20,500 0 30,500 Will Rogers/Wiley Post 1,737 650 0 0 2,387 Renton had the lowest ratio of itinerant-to-local operations among the five reliever airports at 0.6:1. Paine Field was the only other airport that had fewer itinerant than local operations, with its ratio at 0.85:1. This indicates that Renton was not seen as a destination airport for transient aircraft to the same extent as the other reliever airports in the Puget Sound Region. Among the three seaplane bases, Will Rogers/Wiley Post had the highest ratio of itinerant-to- local operations, but showed no activity in air taxi or air carrier/commuter operations. This may not be entirely accurate, as charter services have been provided at the seaplane base for several years. In any case, these figures confirm the low market share of the seaplane base at Renton Airport in all categories of activity. Without Boeing, existing conditions indicate that the airport will continue to provide aviation services that benefit the community but on a much smaller level. Most of the aircraft based and operating there are single engine, piston planes which require storage space (tie-downs or hangars), fuel, and maintenance. These are not"value added" functions in the same manner as aircraft assembly. The facilities and operations that do add value are a relatively small proportion of the business at the Renton Airport. Unless there are specific actions to change the historic trends, it is probable that the Renton Airport will continue to support primarily the lower end of the aviation market. Renton Municipal Airport Development Study 26 March 31,2005 law The low level of growth predicted for the Renton Airport by the RASP is largely based on assumptions about land capacity constraints and historic trends regarding the type and intensity of aviation use at the airport. For example, the airfield has historically been configured to support commercial aircraft production. This single-use dominance of the airfield resulted in the underdevelopment of other aviation related businesses on the airport that could have developed the turbine aircraft market. As a result, the trend has been that the airport has supported the lower end of the aviation market such as recreational uses. However, those constraints will lessen as more of the leased Boeing land becomes available. This will give the City the opportunity to change the character of the airport toward more high end, higher value uses. Part 3. Market opportunities If the historical trends cited in the RASP are not changed, then the projections in the size of the lo,, based fleet, the mix of aircraft types, and the number of operations at Renton Airport could be handled by the existing FBOs, including the new AirO facility. The current fleet is predominantly single engine, piston aircraft that can be serviced by mechanics at those FBOs. Part 3 looks at other potential market opportunities over and above these basic aircraft services. There are eight primary categories of general aviation airport uses that require "airside" land, i.e., land that has direct access to the taxiway and runway environment and needs to be inside the security fence. These are termed "aviation dependent" activities as opposed to activities that are aviation-oriented or aviation-related. The latter group would include companies that manufacture aviation products that are shipped to customers rather than installed at the site. The eight aviation dependent activities are: 1. Light aircraft storage (tie-downs and hangars) and operations. Many of these aircraft are owned by individuals or groups and are used primarily for recreational purposes and/or personal business travel. Except for the Boeing operations, most of the existing uses at the Renton Airport fit into this category, including the Boeing Flying Renton Municipal Airport Development Study 27 March 31,2005 Club, and are currently supported by the FBOs on the field. 2. Corporate fleet basing, including fractional ownership fleets. Corporate fleets consist of one or more aircraft that are owned by corporations and are used for business travel. There is also a growing market of shared equity aircraft whereby companies and/or individuals purchase a fractional share of the aircraft which entitles them to an equivalent percentage of time in use. These fleets are usually managed by an independent operator that also maintains the aircraft and charges the costs according to the shares. 3. Corporate transient operations. In addition to based aircraft, facilities to provide services to transient corporate aircraft require airside access. There are several national companies that operate executive jet centers at major commercial service and reliever airports, providing a range of services that are tailored to the needs of business travelers, their aircraft and their pilots. These may be the same FBOs that manage corporate fleet basing or shared ownership fleets. 4. Air taxi and air charter operations. Renton Airport already offers air taxi and charter operations from the seaplane base. Market demand for these services is increasing nationally, especially for services that offer an alternative to commercial airline travel. These are used by companies and individuals that do not want to own aircraft or buy into a shared equity, but still need to transport business personnel to smaller airports or on controlled schedules. 5. Air cargo. This category includes large-aircraft cargo operators as well as companies that transport products in twin-engine piston aircraft. Depending on the volume of cargo and frequency of flights, on-field requirements can range from hangar-warehouses as large as several hundred thousand square feet down to small storage buildings to transfer cargo between the aircraft and trucks. 6. Aircraft retrofitting services (maintenance and repair, overhaul, modifications and painting, completion centers, interiors, avionics). This category covers the wide range of services that are provided to existing aircraft, including new aircraft that need to be completed to meet customer specifications. Renton Municipal Airport Development Study 28 March 31,2005 lotor 7. Aviation education. Pilot training is currently offered at Renton Municipal Airport, but mostly for light aircraft. Other types of aviation education include aircraft and engine maintenance, air traffic control, logistics and dispatch training, and college training for aviation careers. Not all of these require airside access, but proximity to an airport is an advantage. 8. Aircraft and parts production. As the Boeing Company reduces its presence at Renton Municipal Airport, there may be opportunities to recruit other companies that manufacture aircraft components or whole airframes. The Puget Sound area is home to several small companies making experimental aircraft, including one at Renton, and there is a growing fleet of certificated aircraft being manufactured at smaller airports throughout the country. All of these uses presently exist in the Puget Sound region, with many of them concentrated at Boeing Field and/or Paine Field. As these markets grow, the City of Renton could position itself to attract those parts of the aviation industry that are most compatible with the airport's 'taw resources and the economic development interests of the City. Capturing Market Share Renton could expand its uses at the airport by capturing a larger market share of those activities that are currently going to Boeing Field and/or Paine Field. The focus here is on capturing a share of the growth of those activities rather than trying to shift existing businesses from those airports to Renton. Based Aircraft by Type The 2001 RASP provided a breakdown of based aircraft by type for the year 1998 (Table 4). The 2004 update did not contain more recent data. Renton Municipal Airport Development Study 29 March 31,2005 Table 4: 1998 Aircraft Mix at Puget Sound Reliever Airports (Wheeled Aircraft Only) Single Multi- Turbo Rotor Other Total Ops per Airport Engine Engine Jet Craft Aircraft Based Based Aircraft Aircraft Auburn Municipal 228 9 0 1 0 238 723 Boeing Field 283 104 38 31 0 456 757 Harvey Field 325 8 0 16 7 356 395 Paine Field 415 47 13 10 2 487 396 Renton Municipal 217 21 0 2 0 240 420 Reliever Airport Total 1,468 189 51 60 9 1,777 536 System Total 3,129 265 73 71 82 3,620 576 Of the five reliever airports in the region, the 1998 data gave Renton Municipal Airport the following shares of the fleet: Single Engine 14.8% Multi-Engine 11.1% Turbo Jet 0.0% Rotorcraft 3.3% , v Other 0.0% Renton has increased its number of based aircraft and has changed its mix of aircraft types since the 1998 figures were published. In November 2004, a count of aircraft based at Renton showed the following numbers by types of aircraft: Single Engine 247 Multi-Engine 6 Turbo Jet 1 Rotorcraft 9 Total 263 In the RASP, the only forecasts of based aircraft by type are by county rather than by airport. The 2001 RASP provided the following figures for based aircraft in the four counties of the Puget Sound Region, along with forecasts by type of aircraft to the year 2020 (Table 5). Renton Municipal Airport Development Study 30 March 31,2005 Table 5: Forecast of Future Fleet Mix by Type, 1985—2020 ___ Forecast Future Fleet—PSRC Region 1985 1990 1998 2010 2020 Single engine 3,075 2,957 3,098 3,357 3,551 Multi-engine 297 266 265 294 311 Jet 50 51 73 122 178 Helicopter 88 43 71 102 133 Other 41 125 113 204 266 Totals 3,551 3,442 3,620 4,079 4,439 The total based fleet was projected to grow by 25.0% from 1985 to 2020. Table 6 shows the projected percentage changes in the fleet mix and growth of each aircraft type. These apply to wheeled aircraft only as similar data are not available for seaplanes. Table 6: Projected Changes in Puget Sound Region Fleet Mix: 1985 - 2020 Growth in 1985 2020 Itime Aircraft Type Aircraft Fleet Mix Fleet Mix 1985-2020 Single Engine 86.6% 80.0% 15.5% Multi-Engine 8.4% 7.0% 4.7% Turbojet 1.4% 4.0% 256.0% Helicopter 2.5% 3.0% 51.1% Other 1.2% 6.0% 548.8% Total of All Aircraft 3,551 4,439 25.0% The number of jet aircraft is expected to grow by nearly 260%. Both the single-engine and multi-engine components are expected to decline in market share because of their much lower rates of growth. The "other" category includes the new classification of Light Sport Aircraft that is currently being formulated by the FAA. Its high percentage of forecast growth was based on its low starting point. `'fir►. Renton Municipal Airport Development Study 31 March 31,2005 Overview of Strategies to Develop Higher-End Markets Following is an overview of the strategies for increasing market share and/or recruiting new business operations to the Renton Airport. 1. Increase Renton's market share of based jets and jet operations This strategy includes basing more of the corporate jet fleet at Renton and garnering a larger market share of transient jet traffic. Data from the RASP (1998) and Washington Aviation Division (2000 and 2002) indicate the following number and distribution of jets based at Seattle Tacoma International and its reliever airports. 1998 2000 2002 Total Based Jets 54 48 131* Boeing Field 70% 78% 84% Paine Field 24% 16% 13% Renton Municipal 0% 0% 1% Sea Tac 6% 6% 2% *The 2002 data for Boeing Field indicate 110 jet aircraft, which likely includes many that are not corporate jets. Comprehensive statistics on GA jet aircraft operations are not available. However, data provided by NetJets conveys a sense of the distribution of business jet traffic in the Seattle area. In 2004, NetJets recorded 3,851 transactions (7,702 aircraft operations) and purchased 1,157,600 gallons of fuel at four Seattle area airports: Renton Municipal Airport Development Study 32 March 31,2005 Regional NetJets Activity-2004 Regional NetJets Fuel Purchases - %srr 2004 Paine Field 2% Paine Field Renton 1% Sea-Tac Municipal Renton 15% 0% Sea-Tac Municipal 12% 0% rbcs Boeing Boeing Field Field 83% 87% NetJets recorded 12 transactions (24 aircraft operations) and 2,300 gallons of fuel purchased at Renton Municipal Airport in 2004. Boeing Field dominates both the based and transient GA jet market in Seattle. The draft Airport Master Plan for Boeing Field indicates that in 1997, the airport had 31,131 GA business jet operations and 2,881 air taxi business jet operations. NorThe FAA's latest national aviation forecasts were published in March 2004. Through 2015, the active general aviation and air taxi fleet is projected to increase at 1.3% annually, with hours flown increasing at a slightly higher rate (1.6%). Turbine (jet) aircraft and hours flown are projected to grow at much higher rates (Table 7). Table 7: Average Annual Growth Rates for Turbine GA and Air Taxi Aircraft 2002-2005 2005-2010 2010-2015 Fleet 2.6% 5.9% 5.3% Hours Flown 2.5% 8.0% 6.3% Source: FAA-APO-04-1 FAA-APO-04-1, FAA Aerospace Forecasts Fiscal Years 2004-2015, states that the business/corporate segment continues to offer the greatest potential for GA growth; fractional ownership activity has been increasing, with flight hours up 3.8% in 2003. Business use of GA is projected to expand more rapidly than that for personal and sport use. The business/corporate side of GA should continue to benefit from safety concerns for corporate Renton Municipal Airport Development Study 33 March 31,2005 staff, increased processing times for airline travel, and the bonus depreciation provision of the President's economic stimulus package that should help stimulate jet sales. The private aircraft and engine manufacturers also predict strong growth in the turbine-powered fleet. At the September 2004 annual meeting of the National Business Aviation Association (NBAA), the Rolls-Royce Corporation predicted that more than 500 business jets will be delivered in 2004, on par with 2003 levels. The company's latest business jet forecast, which covers the market through 2023, states that"virtually all of the key market driver indicators have turned positive and are trending up". A company spokesperson said that economic indicators, coupled with a reduced inventory of viable used aircraft and the growth of fractional companies, support the forecast. The Rolls- Royce forecast shows the need for 23,000 aircraft with a delivery value of$284 billion for micro- jets through business liners. The company predicts 8,000 micro-jet deliveries through 2023 and 15,000 deliveries of traditional business jets during that period. (Micro-jets generally have four- six seat capacity.) These projections are consistent with the predicted patterns of fleet mix published by the Puget Sound Regional Council. Forecasts for the four-county area were 4.1% average annual growth in jets. The large projected increase in jet aircraft based in the region offers one way for Renton to capture additional market share. That would require jet aircraft support capabilities that are available in only limited supply at the present time. Why this would benefit Renton? Attracting a larger market share of the jet fleet to Renton would produce greater revenues for on-field FBOs than just servicing the single-engine piston market. Higher revenues to operators would provide long-term opportunities for the City to generate higher incomes from ground leases and/or income from revenue participation provisions in those leases. It would also generate higher levels of employment to provide the expanded services required by the jet fleet. For example, according to the owners of Pro-Flight Aviation, Inc., servicing a single transient corporate jet aircraft can produce $1,200 - $1,400 in fuel sales, several car rentals, plus catering Renton Municipal Airport Development Study 34 March 31,2005 services that support local businesses. The total economic impact from a single jet can be *Iwo many times higher than the impact from servicing a 4-passenger, single-engine piston airplane flying into Renton, which would consist primarily of about $100 in fuel sales. What are the advantages of Renton to this market? Renton's advantages for attracting share of this market include: • Proximity to the rapidly growing eastside business region which includes the Boeing redevelopment site in Renton. • Less air traffic congestion than at Boeing Field, cited by the RASP as a factor in diverting air traffic to other reliever airports in the region. • Available ramp space for aircraft parking, sometimes limited at Boeing Field according to some current operators. • Access to 1-405 freeway system resulting in reduced travel time to the eastside compared to Boeing Field or Paine Field. Nee What is required to capture this market? Marketing is needed to begin to capture a greater share of the market. Renton's FBOs have marketed the airport to business aircraft owners, but the City has not; in fact, the City has a reputation for actively discouraging business aviation in the past. Besides marketing efforts, some improvements in facilities and services could make the airport more attractive to business aviation, keeping in mind that business aircraft owners use airports conveniently located for the origin or destination of their trips. Excellent facilities and services will not overcome a location undesirable for business aviation. On the other hand, a business aviation-friendly airport is another asset for attracting new companies to a community. Desirable Facilities and Services for Business Aviation As of January 2004, 139 companies in Washington were members of the National Business Aviation Association (NBAA). The NBBA has published desirable airport characteristics for bra' Renton Municipal Airport Development Study 35 March 31,2005 business aviation, both based and transient. Renton Municipal Airport has most of the desirable characteristics desirable for business aviation. ' Table 8 indicates how the airport's facilities and services are aligned with what is attractive to business aviation, according to the NBAA. As shown, Renton Municipal's deficiencies for meeting the minimum needs of business aircraft are the lack of an approach lighting system (ODALS) and a slightly shorter runway length than desirable for heavy jets. It may be imprudent for Renton to try to serve the faster, heavier jets that need longer runways and are better served at Boeing Field, where the runway is twice as long as Renton's. Upgrading Renton to serve Aircraft Approach Category C3 (approach speeds up to 141 knots) would require 1,400 feet more runway safety area length, which would not be feasible to add and impractical to provide by using declared distances. Additional threshold displacement and declared distances would reduce the useable runway length until it would be adequate for small piston aircraft only. Consequently, it would be most reasonable for Renton to serve the business aircraft in Airport Reference Code3 (ARC) B-II or in a less demanding ARC. These include the Aerospatiale SN-601 Corvette, Cessna Citation (500, 501 I/SP, 525, 525A, 550, 551, 552, 560 Ultra, Encore, and Excel), Dassault Falcon (10, 20, 2000, 50, 900), Raytheon/Hawker 125-800, Learjet 28/29, Mitsubishi MU-300 Diamond, Raytheon 390 Premier, and Sabreliner 40. Renton's runway length and airfield geometry is more than adequate for microjet aircraft now under development, such as the Eclipse 500, Cessna Mustang, Adam A-700, Safire Jet, Avocet ProJet, Beechcraft Baron 58, and Piper Malibu Mirage. Other needs for the "optimum" criteria are for the control tower to operate 24 hours a day, a full approach lighting system (such as MALSR), a precision instrument approach, a qualified weather observer, security similar to major airlines, and a certified repair station for jet aircraft. Renton Airport currently meets or exceeds most of the minimum criteria for light and medium jets so meeting the "optimum" criteria can be deferred as part of a long-term development plan. 3 The Aircraft Approach Category and the Airplane Design Group of the most demanding aircraft that regularly uses an airport make up the Airport Reference Code. The ARC is an FAA coding system that determines how the airport is designed and what FAA design standards are used. An airport designed for a Piper Cub(ARC A-I)would take less room than one designed for a Boeing 747 (ARC D-V). An airport with ARC B-II is designed for aircraft with an approach speed less than 121 knots and wingspan under 79 feet. Renton Municipal Airport Development Study 36 March 31,2005 Table 8: Business Aviation Requirements to Attract Corporate Jets `+orr✓ Optimum Minimum Renton Municipal Airport Runways* Dimensions Weight Dimensions Weight Capacity Dimensions Weight Capacity (ft.)* Capacity(lbs) (ft.)* (lbs) (ft.)* (lbs) Heavy Jet 6,500 x 150 95,000 5,500 x100 75,000 5,379 x 200 340,000 Dual Tandem Wheel 5,029 130,000 Dual Medium Jet 5,500.x".100" 50,000 5,000 x 75 40,000 useable Wheel length Light Jet/ 4,500 x 75 25,000 4,000 x 60 15,000 displaced 100,000 Single Turboprop threshold Wheel Airport Meet FAA airport design Runup areas at all runway ends Meets standards for Airport Configuration standards Reference Code (ARC) B-II** Taxiways for all runways Adequate ramp for maneuvering Full parallel taxiway& adequate /parking exit taxiways Stabilized overruns on longest Safety area OK for ARC B-II runway 200 x 300 ft. ramp area Yes minimum ATC Tower 24 hours None Less than 24 hours Runway End Identifier Lights Lighting Full approach light system (REIL)or Omnidirectional: REIL both ends, no approach Approach Lighting System lighting systems (ODALS) Medium intensity runway lights High intensity runway lights Medium intensity runway lights recently reconstructed to allow easing upgrading to high "r w` intensity Visual glideslope indictor on all Visual glideslope on instrument Visual glideslope indictor(PAPI) runways runway on both runways Pilot controlled lights Pilot controlled lights Instrument Precision Localizer(LOC)or GPS NDB and GPS (1 mi. visibility Approach minimum for Category A& B) Weather Qualified Observer', AWOS-2 ASOS Reporting Communications Air Traffic Control (ATC)tower ATC Remote Controlled Outlet ATC tower Services Full -service Fixed Base Enclosed passenger waiting Full-service FBOs with waiting Operator*** area areas Transient hangar space Fuel/tiedowns Fuel, tiedowns, transient hangars "FAR Part 107'***type security Elementary security Better than elementary security (fenced and Boeing security) Telephone Maintenance FAR Part 145 Repair-Station` None Aircraft maintenance, but not jet maintenance Amenities Nearby: Distant: Nearby: Hotel/motel Hotel/motel Hotel/motel Restaurant Vending machines Restaurant Deficiencies at Renton Municipal Airport *Runway lengths at standard 59 degrees&sea level. Actual runway lengths will vary. According to NetJets, 5,000 feet(at sea level)is adequate for their fleet of 500+business jets,except for very long-haul trips. **Aircraft with approach speeds less than 121 knots and wingspans up to 79 feet. err' ***Staffed 24/7,fuel, passenger and crew lounge,rental cars,shuttle/crew car,vending machine ****Now TSR Part 1542 Renton Municipal Airport Development Study 37 March 31,2005 Probably the most effective improvement for business aviation at Renton would be a better instrument approach, which would probably require an approach lighting system. Renton currently only has what are called "non-precision" approach procedures that do not provide course guidance as accurately as the Instrument Landing Systems (ILS) that are available at Boeing Field and Paine Field. It is unlikely that an ILS system can be deployed at Renton, because of the proximity of buildings to the runway, Mercer Island terrain obstructions in the long, straight-in approach, and the FAA's reluctance to install new ILS equipment. An ILS normally allows landing aircraft to descend to a minimum altitude of 200 feet above the touchdown zone in conditions of low clouds and reduced visibility. By comparison, the RNAV (Area Navigation) Runway 15 approach has a minimum descent altitude (MDA) of 760 feet and the NDB (Nondirectional Beacon) Runway 15 approach has an MDA of 860 feet. These minimum altitudes mean that the pilot must have the "runway environment" in sight to make a safe landing from that altitude. The alternative is a missed approach and a deviation to another airport. The minimum altitudes for both approaches increase to 900 feet if wind conditions require a circling approach for a landing on Runway 33. These higher MDA requirements may mean that a jet approaching Renton will not have the ,fir runway visible upon reaching the MDA and will have to divert to Boeing Field or another airport with ILS capability. Operators of Pro-Flight Aviation have estimated that during the winter, a transient jet planning to come to Renton has to divert to Boeing Field or another airport due to poor weather between four and seven times per month. There is no data available on the number of transient jets that successfully land at Renton during the winter months, so the percentage of diversions can not be measured. The reliability that a better instrument approach would provide is probably even more important for based aircraft than for transient aircraft. This problem may be solved when a new Global Positioning System (GPS) approach is implemented at Renton that includes the Wide Area Augmentation System (WAAS), which provides vertical guidance as well as horizontal guidance. The approach is flown similar to an ILS, but the navigational guidance comes from satellite systems in tandem with ground-based equipment. Landing minimums under that system are designed to be as low as 250 feet above the touchdown zone, compared to 200 feet with most ILS approaches. Detailed technical study Renton Municipal Airport Development Study 38 March 31,2005 is needed to determine the feasibility of improving the instrument approaches to the Airport. Any improvement in the current approaches will help Renton capture greater market share of the corporate jet activity in the Puget Sound region. Approach lighting and instrument approaches are associated deficiencies. Federal Aviation Regulations (FARs) include visual recognition of the approach lighting system as qualifying for seeing the "runway environment". At night or in a foggy condition, it may be much easier to see these lights than to see the runway. Approach lighting helps provide lower instrument approach minimums. Fractional ownership is the highest growth segment of the corporate jet market. NetJets owns and manages a fleet of about 500 business jets with more customers than all other fractional ownership programs combined. NetJets, Inc. was contacted about the facilities and services at Renton Municipal. NetJets is not using Renton Airport much because aircraft owners are not requesting to go to the airport. NetJets will use an airport lacking a control tower, firefighting capability, instrument approaches, and maintenance capability if the aircraft owner wants to go to the airport and it has a safe airfield that is adequate for the specific aircraft. NetJets' Norre database shows an approval of Renton for their Hawker 1000. The database contains no negative notes about service at the airport, no weight bearing issues (NetJet's largest aircraft is the 737), and the runway length is adequate for their fleet, except perhaps for an international, heavily loaded flight. NetJets often uses Boeing Field and he noted that the aircraft parking area at Boeing Field is only marginally adequate. The presence of U.S. Customs at Renton could make it an attractive fuel stop for some of NetJets' international flights. NetJets has guidelines for FBOs and offers quarterly training for FBOs. Part of the requirements to capture a larger share of the business or corporate jet market will be to provide customer services usually found in an executive jet center. This can probably be achieved by expanding the existing Fixed Base Operators (FBOs) that currently provide services to the general aviation market at Renton. With an expansion of the market, the manager of the Aerodyne facility also indicated that they might get into this business. The requirements for an executive jet center are significantly greater than those for light general aviation aircraft. The list below shows the services offered by Galvin Flying Service at Boeing Field to attract corporate aircraft to its facility there. `fir Renton Municipal Airport Development Study 39 March 31,2005 am® Pilot Amenities • Private Sleep Room with Shower • Comfortable Pilots Lounge • Video Library • Satellite TV •WSI Weather Planning • Flight Data Center • Complimentary Crew Cars Passenger Amenities • Professional Red Carpet Service by Concierge • On-Site Rental Cars • Ramp-side Pick-up and Drop-off • Comfortable Lounge with Telephone • Private Conference Rooms Corporate Amenities • Staffed 24 hours, 7 Days per Week • 2 Person Minimum for All Aircraft Movement • NATA Safety-First Certified Line Service Technicians • 12 minute Quick Turns • Complimentary Interior Cleaning • Complimentary Coffee, Ice, and Newspapers • Metered Anti-ice • Heated and Secure Hangars Concierge Services • Northwest's Best Custom Catering • Discounted Hotel Reservations • Dinner& Entertainment Reservations • Local Event Information • Complimentary Fax &Word Processing Most executive jet centers also offer aircraft maintenance capabilities certified to FAA standards for both based aircraft and transient jet aircraft. Renton Municipal Airport Development Study 40 March 31,2005 Nose Potential Costs/Benefits A GPS-WAAS instrument approach and an approach lighting system would qualify for FAA funding, but the total costs and the portion of costs borne by the City of Renton need to be determined after detailed technical analysis. Costs for developing a jet-service capable FBO would normally be the responsibility of the operator, although the City may want to negotiate terms that will enable the operator to provide all of the services described above as an incentive to expedite the process. In terms of benefits, the business jet market has been projected to grow from approximately 73 business jet aircraft in the Puget Sound area in 1998 to 178 in 2020. That represents an addition of 105 jet aircraft in a period of 22 years. Because of land capacity constraints at Boeing Field, it is reasonable to expect that Renton could attract up to 20% of that growth, especially in the light-to-medium jet sectors that comprise the largest part of the market. Adding 20+ based jet aircraft to Renton Municipal would offer the benefits of: Nose 1. Increased employment and revenue from hangaring and servicing the based aircraft. 2. Increased transient jet traffic to take advantage of the enhanced capabilities 3. Increased appeal of Renton generally as a location for firms that use jet aircraft An estimated 45,0004 corporate jet aircraft operations (takeoffs and landings) occur annually at Sea Tac and the airports designated as general aviation relievers for Sea Tac. Estimated market shares5 are as follows: 80% at Boeing Field, 15% at Sea Tac, 5% at Paine Field, and less than 1% at Renton Municipal Airport. With Renton Municipal Airport's close location to Sea Tac and to employment centers in Renton, the Kent Valley, and the east side of Lake Washington, it can be conservatively estimated that the Airport should have at least 10% of the Seattle corporate jet market and possibly 20%. Based on the current market size, 10% would be 4,500 annual aircraft 4 This is a rough estimate based on the number of corporate jet operations at Boeing Field from that airport's master plan and the assumption that Boeing Field has 80%of the market,consistent with NetJets' Seattle area transaction data for 2004. *44001 5 These are rough estimates based on NetJets' Seattle area transaction data for 2004. Renton Municipal Airport Development Study 41 March 31,2005 operations, or 2,250 aircraft visits. By 2020, the Seattle area is projected to have between 90,000 and 120,000 corporate jet operations6. Each visit by a transient corporate jet brings an , NO estimated $1,300' of revenue to the FBO who sells fuel and provides other services. In contrast, each single engine piston aircraft visit accounts for about one-tenth of that revenue (fuel sales and tie-down fee). Consequently, obtaining a 10% market share of Seattle's corporate jet operations would bring about $3 million in annual revenue to the FBO, using the current estimate level of traffic. That number would grow along with the growth in jet traffic over time and would be higher if a larger market share, possibly 20%, was obtained. Employment increases and other secondary economic benefits would result as Renton Airport converts from a recreational airport to a business jet airport. 2. Increase air taxi and air charter operations Air taxi and commuter operations are projected by the FAA to grow from 11,305,200 in 2003 to 15,290,100 in 2014, for an annual average growth rate of 2.8% over the 11-year period. The FAA attributes this growth primarily to the convenience of air taxi and commuter travel versus viond the commercial airlines. On-demand air charter provides companies with instant access to business aviation aircraft. Many customers are new to air charter. According to the Air Charter Guide, charter activity in the United States increased by 30 percent in 2001, particularly after September 11. Despite that activity, the number of aircraft decreased in total, due to a drop-off in the number of piston aircraft. However, the number of jets has increased substantially. Charter activity experienced its seasonal slowdown at the end of 2002, which was made worse by the anemic economy and uncertainty about war. The FAA's forecast published in March 2004 noted that the number of charter passengers fell 6.7% in 2003; however, this decline was less than the 18.3% decline in passengers on domestic scheduled airline flights in 2003. 6 90,000 operations would be achieved by 2020 at a 4.1%annual growth rate,similar to the growth project for based jet aircraft in the RASP. 120,000 operations in 2020 would result from 4.8%annual growth,which is consistent with the FAA's March 2004 forecasts for hours flown in general aviation and air taxi jet aircraft. 7 Based upon interview with Pro-Flight and estimated fuel bill for NetJets' Seattle area transactions in 2004. Renton Municipal Airport Development Study 42 March 31,2005 The Air Charter Guide believes that one of the most significant trends is the imminent entry of store on-demand, commercial, charter services into the mainstream of online travel procurement. As retail and corporate buyers have improved access to peruse and purchase charter services online, charter will grow and continue to act as the entry level engagement for all types of general aviation. According to the 2001 RASP, Renton Airport had only 1.7% of the air taxi market and 2.0% of the air charter/commuter market in the Puget Sound area in 1998. None of these operations were shown as originating at the Will Rogers/Wiley Post Seaplane Base. However, the seaplane base is currently generating most of that business, at least on a seasonal basis, with flights to/from the San Juan Islands and fishing camps in British Columbia. According to the owners of NW Seaplanes, this business could be expanded to capture at least 10% of the total market at Renton. That would add more than 5,200 air taxi and air charter/commuter operations to the Renton seaplane base using 1998 figures. The main requirements cited are (1) a fully capable FBO; (2) additional terminal facilities to incorporate the US Customs personnel as well as rest rooms and waiting areas; and (3) additional dock space. That level of business would approximately triple the current number of seaplane operations at Renton. There are presently noise issues associated with seaplane operations, so expanding those operations would have to recognize and deal with those issues. These are currently being addressed by Kenmore Air Harbor and NW Seaplanes through conversion of piston engines to turbines, restricting schedules to daylight hours, and working with neighbors to mitigate complaints before they arise. 3. Air cargo Renton Airport does not currently have a role in the region's air cargo traffic. The RASP classifies Boeing Field and SeaTac as the region's air cargo airports. In 2000, Boeing Field and SeaTac Airport processed nearly 1.3 billion pounds of air cargo, with about 22% processed at Boeing Field and 78% at SeaTac. Renton Municipal Airport Development Study 43 March 31,2005 These figures are expected to grow substantially over the next several years, as shown by the forecasts below taken from the 2001 RASP: 2000 2005 2010 2015 2019 Boeing Field 143,425 194,540 243,595 305,000 N/A Sea-Tac Intl 501,597 683,100 805,200 N/A 1,057,100 Total: 645,022 877,640 1,048,795 Despite the predicted growth in this market, it is not recommended that Renton try to establish this business at its airport, for three reasons: • The runway is too short for cargo aircraft that are typically heavily loaded, traveling long distances, and need maximum takeoff distance. • It is unlikely that the Airport could ever have an instrument approach with visibility minimums as low as Sea Tac or Boeing Field. Airport closures due to poor visibility weather are especially damaging for cargo operators. Not only is the air cargo business highly time-sensitive, it is less able to tolerate diversion to another airport than a passenger airline because the cargo operator does not have the personnel, equipment, or facilities needed to handle cargo at the diversion airport. • A major part of the air cargo business is transacted at night. It is probable that this activity would encounter considerable opposition from neighboring residential areas, especially those that are classified as being in the noise sensitive zone. 4. Aircraft retrofitting services This could be a natural market for the Renton Airport, especially because of the availability of a highly skilled workforce with training in this field. With the growth of the corporate jet fleet, there is a growing demand for aircraft completion centers to equip those aircraft to customer specifications. For example, Bombardier of Canada has an aircraft completion center in Tucson, Arizona, and a completion center for Piaggio Aircraft is located in Lincoln, Nebraska, and operated by Duncan Aircraft. ,, 40 Renton Municipal Airport Development Study 44 March 31,2005 Another part of this market is for aircraft that are being taken off commercial flight status and modified for export to foreign carriers. In many instances, these aircraft are converted from passenger to freight configurations. 5. Aviation training and education In order to replace the living wage jobs disappearing with Boeing, the City might consider attracting an aviation-related educational facility. In addition to the education that would increase students' earning potential, an educational facility would provide quality teaching and administrative jobs. A. Flight Instruction The aviation education areas that Renton might specifically encourage do not include flight training. Renton Municipal Airport is now the site of one flight training operations with a few private flying clubs that provide instruction to their own members. Transient aircraft also use Renton for training, since it is a relatively low activity airport with an air traffic control tower. Flight instruction is a common service of a Fixed Base Operator and is likely to remain at Renton Municipal for many years to come. However, as the regional airspace gets busier in the future, there may be a trend for flight training to migrate to airports located in less congested airspace. B. Air Traffic Controllers The FAA hired many of today's air traffic controllers to replace those President Reagan fired in 1981. Many of them are approaching 56, the mandatory retirement age. By 2010, half the 15,000 controllers now on the job will leave the workforce. Besides replacements, the FAA needs to hire 2,000 additional controllers by 2010 just because of the increase in air traffic.8 According to the National Air Traffic Controllers Association (NATCA), the FAA has 8 GAO-02-591,United States General Accounting Office:Air traffic Control,FAA Needs to Better Prepare for Igoe Impending Wave of Controller Attrition,June 2002. Renton Municipal Airport Development Study 45 March 31,2005 acknowledged the looming staffing crisis, but is woefully behind in hiring replacements. Through May, the FAA had hired only one controller in 2004. *10 Colleges providing an education in air traffic control are few in number and none are located in Washington or the adjoining states. If not part of the armed forces, people wanting to be controllers attend one of the 14 colleges recognized by FAA that give degrees in aviation with an emphasis in air traffic control. Ten of the 14 schools are located east of the Mississippi and two are in the Midwest. The two in the western part of the country are in Anchorage, Alaska, (University of Alaska) and Walnut, California (Mount San Antonio College). Following successful completion of these programs and hiring by the FAA, employees attend the FAA Academy in Oklahoma City for 12 weeks of training. It takes at least three years and up to five years to train a controller to the point of being certified. Most (90%) civilian controllers are federal employees of the FAA. Controllers earn high pay and have good benefits. Median annual earnings of air traffic controllers in 2002 were $91,600. The average annual salary, excluding overtime, for controllers employed by the FAA was $95,700 in 2002. Disregarding the replacement crisis, employment is expected to grow about as fast as the average through 2012.9 ; The outlook for controller jobs may be less positive if more air traffic control operations are privatized. As of August 2003, 219 airports had privatized air traffic control towers. Contract towers pay less and employ fewer people than FAA towers with comparable workloads. Improvements and changes to air traffic control equipment and procedures ("free flight,"for example) may reduce controller workload. On the other hand, the proliferation of GPS approaches at U.S. airports that were previously used for visual (uncontrolled) operations only may create more work for air traffic controllers. C. Aircraft Maintenance Technicians Aircraft and avionics equipment mechanics and service technicians service, inspect, and repair planes. Many specialize, working on the airframe (the body of the aircraft), the powerplant 9 U.S.Department of Labor,Bureau of Labor Statistics,Bulletin 2540, Occupational Outlook Handbook,2004-05 Edition. Renton Municipal Airport Development Study 46 March 31,2005 (engines), or avionics (navigation and communication equipment and other parts that depend on %vow electronics). Some specialize in scheduled maintenance required by the FAA. From 2002 to 2012, the projection of job growth is 10.1% for all aviation installation, maintenance, and repair occupations: 21.1% for first-line supervisors, 6.6% for avionics technicians, and 7.9% for aircraft mechanics and service technicians. The median annual earnings of aircraft mechanics and service technicians were $48,050 in 2002, higher than any other air transportation occupation category except airline pilots, copilots, and flight engineers. "Opportunities should be excellent for aircraft and avionics equipment mechanics and service technicians. The likelihood of fewer entrants from the military and a larger number of retirements indicates excellent opportunities for students just beginning technician training."10 A May 2003 survey by Aircraft Maintenance Technology magazine found average hourly wage rates for certified non-management employees to range from $19.17 for an airframe and powerplant mechanic to $29.54 for a repair specialist. In 2000, the U.S. aviation industry employed 137,000 mechanics and the federal government reported a chronic need for 6,000 to 12,000 more. After 9/11, there were aircraft mechanics laid Now off from major airlines, but the demand has picked up again. "Companies...nationwide are on the hunt for trained aircraft mechanics as the airline industry rebounds from its economic slump."11 Many aircraft mechanics are retiring, having started their careers in the 1970s. Many were trained by the military during the Vietnam War. When the aviation industry went through an economic slump in the late 1980s and early 1990s, aviation schools turned out fewer mechanics, and with government budget cutbacks, so did the military. In addition to the need to replace retiring mechanics, demand is fueled by growth in aircraft production, particularly general aviation aircraft since the GA Revitalization Act of 1994 and the phenomenon of fractional business aircraft ownership. Although many airliners were retired to desert storage after 9/11, there has been strong growth in smaller commercial aircraft such as regional jets. The FAA projects higher growth in hours flown than in numbers of active aircraft, which will increase aviation maintenance workloads. New and improved avionics in commercial and general aviation aircraft are also adding to the need for aviation maintenance technicians. 10 U.S.Department of Labor,Bureau of Labor Statistics,Bulletin 2541,The 2004-05 Career Guide to Industries. " David Wichner,Arizona Daily Star,"Jobs aplenty,good pay",May 9,2004. Renton Municipal Airport Development Study 47 March 31,2005 According to the FAA, there are three ways to become a certified power plant or aircraft mechanic: Nosiv • Attend one of the 170 FAR Part 147 Aviation Maintenance Technician Schools nationwide for 12-24 months. • Work at a certified repair station or FBO under the supervision of a certified mechanic for 18 months for each certificate or 30 months for both. • Get equivalent training and experience in the armed services. 6. Aircraft and parts production The Renton area offers one of the best labor markets in the region for skilled workers in aviation and aerospace trades. As Boeing ramps down its production over the next several years, which labor force can be used as a resource to attract other companies that manufacture aircraft and parts. There is no specific way of identifying what companies might be recruited to Renton. They „ + could include companies that subcontract to Boeing for new aircraft such as the Boeing 7E7 aircraft. They could also be companies that supply Boeing's aerospace and defense divisions rather than commercial aircraft. Recruiting Boeing subcontractors will require working closely with the company to identify who those companies are as well as their locational requirements. Many of those firms will not require airside access but would still be good tenants for the Renton Airport. Apron D would be a logical location for those kinds of firms if it becomes available for annexation to the Airport and is not used for a large aircraft service center. Part 4. Economic impacts of the alternative uses Each of the alternative uses for airport properties at Renton will have different economic impacts on the City. While it is beyond the scope of this market report to try to estimate potential 40110 Renton Municipal Airport Development Study 48 March 31,2005 employment for each of those uses, the following information on comparative wages may be Now useful in guiding the City's policies on which types of activities it wants to actively encourage. The figures shown in Table 9 were obtained from Workforce Washington, using the NAICS definitions provided by the US Department of Commerce. They show the 2003 average employment, total wages, and average wages for each primary aviation category. Table 9: Comparative Wages paid in Washington Aviation Industries, 2003 2003 Average 2003 Total 2003 Average NAICS Description Employment Wages Wages 336411 Aircraft Manufacturing 57,879 $4,436,902,832 $76,658 336412 Aircraft Engine & Engine Parts Mfg. 181 $9,872,493 $54,544 336413 Other Aircraft Parts & Equipment 6,636 $308,012,847 $46,394 488119 Airport Operations 1,540 $33,204,849 $21,562 488190 Other Support Activities,Air Transport 1,081 $39,932,738 $36,941 It is evident that there are significant wage differences, especially between the "Airport Operations" category and the "Aircraft Manufacturing" category. Now In a hypothetical example, an aircraft parts manufacturing facility sited on four acres with 30% site coverage would be about 50,000 square feet in size. At an average manufacturing density of 500 square feet per employee, this would accommodate a maximum of 100 employees. At an average wage of$46,394 per year, the income generated from that facility would be about $4,639,400 per year. On the other hand, an FBO requires substantial land area for aircraft parking and maneuvering, so the same four-acre site might have less building coverage, say 15% or 26,000 square feet of building space. Allocating 800 square feet per employee because of inside hangar space requirements, especially for aircraft maintenance, it would accommodate only 32 employees. If the average wage is $36,941 annually, this would produce annual revenue of$1,182,112 per year. Many assumptions can be made about how the jobs would be split by category but these rough comparisons indicate how these impacts can be estimated. Other factors need to be included Nom Renton Municipal Airport Development Study 49 March 31,2005 to determine full economic impacts, such as rents paid to the City and secondary spending among other businesses in Renton. Part 5. Implementation steps and timetable Based on the research and analysis, as well as the feedback from interviews, the following recommendations are provided for the future management of the Renton Municipal Airport. 1. The initial focus should be on land planning to protect areas that can be used for large hangars for corporate jet aircraft along with the required support operations. Ramp B offers an immediate opportunity because of its size, configuration, and open access to the taxiway and runway system. Other areas of the airport may also be suitable when Boeing leases expire or they can be acquired by the City of Renton. It may also be possible to expand some of the existing FBO and hangar operations on the field to accommodate this use. The land planning can also address the inefficiencies in current land use, especially the restricted taxiway areas at the southeast end of the airport. An optimum future land plan should be developed that will guide both short-term and long-term airport development. As much as possible, this should be incorporated into the renegotiations of the Boeing leases to remove some of the current impediments to expanding airport capabilities. In any case, the first and highest priority will be to plan the airport properties for these higher end uses before they become saturated with low-end uses such as small aircraft tie- downs and T-hangars. 2. An equally high priority needs to be placed on obtaining a better instrument approach that will meet the requirements of the corporate jet market. Because an ILS is not feasible at Renton, which means a low-altitude GPS WAAS approach to a ceiling or MDA as low as 250 feet. If a 250-foot MDA is feasible, it will be only 50-feet higher than the ILS minimum approaches to Boeing Field, but sufficient to satisfy the requirements of most jet aircraft operators. This appears to be the most important hurdle to overcome in attracting corporate jet traffic. Without an improved approach, the historical trend scenario of Renton Municipal Airport Development Study 50 March 31,2005 predominant use by small, single-engine piston aircraft is likely to guide the future of the Now Renton Airport. 3. At such time as an improved instrument approach is implemented, then measures should be taken to ensure that the services would be available to accommodate corporate jet aircraft. At a minimum, these will include at least one large hangar for storing corporate jet aircraft out of the weather. Ideally, that facility will also provide some maintenance capabilities as well as pilot amenities and services. Several of the current FBOs and/or hangar operators said they would be willing to invest in such a facility once the approach issues are resolved. 4. Plans should be made for improved fueling capabilities, including self-fueling operations for light aircraft and for 24/7 service. This would most likely be a cardlock pump providing both 100LL avgas and Jet A fuels. The location of the facility needs to be planned carefully to ensure good aviation access without interfering with taxiways and ramp areas. 5. As the instrument approach, hangars, and fueling capabilities are being developed and their capabilities are confirmed, the City needs to market the airport for corporate aviation uses. The marketing efforts need to focus on repositioning Renton Municipal Airport as a primary gateway for corporate users in the Kent Valley and markets on the east side of Lake Washington. 6. For longer-term airport development, it is recommended that the relationship and connectivity of Apron D to the airport be evaluated to determine whether the parcel can be used as an aircraft manufacturing facility, or a completion or modification center, once Boeing vacates the site. err Renton Municipal Airport Development Study 51 March 31,2005 A possible ten-year timetable of events required to implement these steps is shown below: Year 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 Plan Airport for future uses Begin reconfiguring Airport for new uses Obtain a GPS WAAS approach a° Develop corporate hangar and service facilities ="x :",.. m :ak ': Market Renton Airport for new uses mow: = Evaluation/Study of Apron D opportunities* * when determined appropriate Part 6. Interviews with aviation businesses Several of the operators of existing businesses at the Renton Airport were interviewed for this project. They were asked to identify potential opportunities for the airport and for their businesses, as well as the needs and issues that will need to be addressed by the City of Renton to capitalize on those opportunities. NetJets, the leader in the fractional jet ownership program, was also interviewed for the same purpose. The interviews are presented here to reinforce the findings of the research and analysis, but also to provide a local perspective by those who are currently involved in operations at the Airport. NIS Interview with Michael Rice, Hangar Operations Manager, Aerodyne Aviation Mr. Rice believes there is great opportunity for basing and servicing corporate jet aircraft at Renton. He said he gets calls "all the time"from owners who want to base at Renton and/or fly into Renton for quick access to the east side of Lake Washington and the Seattle Metropolitan Area. There are two primary requirements to make this happen: (1) improved instrument approach capabilities, and (2) better facilities and services designed for this market. Renton will not be able to handle all corporate aircraft because of the relatively short runway length compared to Boeing Field. It can handle aircraft the size of Challengers and Falcons but is too short to allow aircraft such as Lear 55s and G200s to take off with full fuel. He has had a couple of owners of these types of aircraft interested in using Renton Airport but they backed off ,gi Renton Municipal Airport Development Study 52 March 31,2005 when they found that they could not fill the fuel tanks and meet the runway takeoff distance err requirements. Still, he believes there is sufficient demand from owners of other types of jet aircraft to warrant the investment in improved facilities. At the time of the major earthquake several years ago, there were 30 corporate jet aircraft parked at Renton including seven at the Aerodyne facility. This demonstrates the ability of the airport to handle these types of aircraft. Better fueling is a major requirement, especially a self-serve fuel facility that can be operated on a 24/7 basis. It has to be located without interfering with ramp movements. Existing fuel services need to be improved in order to attract the users who want on-demand service. Aerodyne would be willing to build a corporate jet hangar if the approach issue is resolved and if the City actively promotes attracting corporate jet business. He would prefer to let the private sector develop the hangar facilities and manage them on leased land. He thinks that would provide the best level of services to the customers that, in turn, would make Renton more competitive with Boeing Field. The key issue is how they can negotiate with the City to get the land they need and build the facilities. Long-term land leases would be required. Ramp B would be an excellent location for a corporate jet center. While it is closer to the residential areas on the west side of the field, the airport's relations with its neighbors have gotten a lot better over the past few years. He agrees that the airport could support higher uses such as a completion or modification center, as well as additional aviation-related manufacturing. A final observation was that the City needs to move quickly to position itself in this market to avoid losing customers to other airports. Interview with Diane and Bernie Paholke, Owners of Pro-Flight Aviation, Inc. Diane Paholke began by saying the market for jet traffic at Renton was not as great as some believed, but then said if the City would let them, they would greatly expand/consolidate their Renton Municipal Airport Development Study 53 March 31,2005 presence at Renton for corporate jets. They would like to expand facilities so they could perform jet maintenance and have more hangar space for overnight airplane storage. They would double their number of employees, from 15 to 30 (living wage jobs). The market is there, but everyone should realize that the jet business would grow gradually, not overnight. Limitations to jet traffic at Renton: • An instrument approach with lower visibility minimums is needed. That rainy day, they had a jet decide not to land at Renton. That meant the loss of$1200-$1400 in jet fuel sales and the rental of four cars. During the winter, 4—7 times per month,jets planning to come have to divert to another airport due to poor weather. When that happens, Pro- Flight has to quickly arrange for catering and limos at the other airport. • The 5,000' runway length is too short for some aircraft. • Better water and snow removal from the runway by the Airport is needed. • Lack of a jet maintenance facility discourages some customers. Having a jet maintenance facility at the airport increases the confidence factor for jet operators and allows aircraft maintenance to occur when aircraft while waiting for its passengers. Since the City used to discourage jet traffic at the airport, they have had to market themselves. 4,,0 Their target is businesses on the east side of the metro area, where it is faster to get to/from Renton than Boeing Field, because of traffic congestion on the highways. The key to the corporate jet market is customer service. They guarantee getting the passenger from the plane to the road within 3 minutes. They have the lay cart, catering, on-site rental cars (Enterprise and Hertz), limo service, weather service, pilot lounge (sleeping/showers), 20+ services that corporate aviation might request (e.g., dishwashing, gift shopping, laundry), security"clearance" (personnel cleared for greeting VIPs), and ground support equipment (not deicing capability). They have the equipment, personnel, and procedures that Net Jet specifies for its preferred vendors, although they have not taken NetJet's training. "NetJets likes Pro- Flight." They thought the City doesn't realize that an aviation business like theirs has a very low profit margin. The City does not realize how much of an asset a corporate-friendly airport is for economic development (new business establishment). Some of their corporate customers are the major business enterprises in Renton. Renton Municipal Airport Development Study 54 March 31, 2005 Now When asked, they commented that better directional signage is needed to the airport, particularly from the east. (That route avoids some road congestion, which is why customers use Renton.) However, they did not see this as discouraging business—more importantly, customers need to know that Renton is ready to provide the facilities, services, and customer focus that corporate aviation wants. They felt the noise issue had been put to rest through advisory committee work and flight pattern/procedure changes for noise abatement. They thought jet traffic would not lead to more noise complaints. When asked about the flight school, they said business has been steady and didn't really decline after 9/11. Flight training activity depends on clear weather. They did not perceive of any problems with congested airspace that might discourage training activity in the future. Interview with Dave Wunsch, AirO Aviation Ivor He started off by saying that the key to any business expansion at Renton was to get a good instrument approach, agreeing that an ILS system was not practical and a GPS WAAS system would be the best substitute. He felt that most of the business jet market would come from Boeing Field, with some transfer of the existing fleet but also a larger share of future growth. He said that corporate jet aircraft represented the future for the Renton Airport. In the past, local operators would fly an instrument approach into Boeing Field to let down below the clouds, then break off and "scud run" over to Renton. Boeing Field controllers do not like pilots to do that and it is not a practical solution for promoting the airport to corporate pilots. Certain aircraft will always go to Boeing Field because the runway at Renton does not allow them to take off with full fuel loads. However, there are many companies in the Kent Valley that have contacted him about basing aircraft at Renton or using it for itinerant operations. It will be important to attract the based aircraft as they require more long term services and pump more money into the local economy. Renton Municipal Airport Development Study 55 March 31,2005 He also feels there is an opportunity for more of the high-end helicopter operations at Renton Airport. He has talked with several of the news organizations that base their helicopters at 400 Boeing Field and two of them are considering relocating to Renton. One of the main requirements will be to have good self-serve fueling capabilities. AirO uses helicopters for film crews, powerline wire pulling, fire work, and fish & game operations. Having more helicopters based at Renton would increase revenues to the airport. A major requirement will be to build a corporate jet hangar. AirO would consider doing that if the approach issue is resolved and the market opens as a result. Asked whether the City should build a hangar or leave it to the private sector, he said they could "go either way". What is important is the service. He raised an issue of whether the building setbacks on some of the newer facilities are sufficient to allow a precision approach to Renton. He cited specifically the building used by NW Seaplanes at the north end of the field. This needs to be reviewed as part of the process of trying to get a GPS WAAS approach. Interview with Kurt Boswell, Ace Aviation Ace Aviation would like to expand into higher-end business but is constrained by the location of the building and the configuration of the ramp area, especially the intrusion of the fence for the Boeing Parking lot into the area in front of their facility. He said they serviced a Pilatus PC 12 turboprop aircraft and were able to get only 1 1/2 feet of clearance from each wing. He would like to tear down the existing building and build a more modern facility to service Learjets, Citations and other larger aircraft but needs to resolve the access issues. Instead, he has had to downsize because of the constraints on his operations. He said that aircraft are presently coming over to Renton and finding that there are not adequate services. Especially needed are maintenance and fueling services. Renton Municipal Airport Development Study 56 March 31,2005 He pointed out that corporate pilots frequently pick which airport they will use in a metropolitan �.,. area and they want "red carpet" services, not hanging around in a dilapidated old building. He believes there is huge potential if the right kinds of facilities and services can be provided. If a good land development plan can be provided that removes the constraints, his goal is to create the architectural plan for new buildings that will provide the kind of facility he needs. He stressed that the ability to move aircraft around safely is very important. Regarding who should build and manage the facilities, he believes the private sector should do it. He said that it would be tough for the City to manage larger hangars or condominium hangars, in part because of liability issues. These operations require full-time oversight on a 24/7 basis. If the City does construct and manage hangars, they might charge a fee that would cover the costs of these full-time services. The airport would be improved if a long-term plan is made to tear down all of the old "junk" and replace it with more modern facilities. The Renton Airport does not have the image of a modern executive jet center and needs to develop that. He said that Galvin Flying Services at BFI does about $20 million per year and that brings a lot of money into the community. He feels that an emphasis on corporate jet traffic will actually improve relations with neighbors because of the enhanced sound suppression systems being used on modern jet aircraft, especially as they move from Stage 3 engines to Stage 4 engines. He said the Stage 4 engines do not make enough noise to be heard over the freeway traffic. Interview with Al Ball, Airport Specialist with NetJets NetJets has a fleet of about 500 business jets and more customers than all other fractional ownership programs combined. NetJets is not using Renton Airport much because their customers are not requesting to go to the airport. NetJets' database shows an old approval for their Hawker 1000. There are no negative notes about service at the airport, no weight bearing issues (their largest aircraft is the 737), and runway length is adequate for their fleet, except perhaps for an international, heavily %'' loaded flight. They would use the airport at night if the Visual Approach Slope Indicators Renton Municipal Airport Development Study 57 March 31,2005 (VASIs)are operational. The lack of a precision approach would not keep them from using the airport if a customer lives or works nearby. A control tower and firefighting capability are other features that are nice, but would not keep them from using an airport if lacking. They go to Boeing Field often and have noticed times when aircraft parking capacity there was marginal. Several times he repeated that the number one reason for not using the airport is that customers have not requested going there, but he noted some things they like: • With Customs there, Renton might be used as a fuel stop from overseas origin. • They get maintenance done at the appropriate aircraft service centers (such as Cessna), but might use local mechanics for minor work such as a light bulb change. • Hangar storage. • Branded fueler, indicating some standards are met for QA and training. They contract through Mercury a lot. • A"showcase" FBO facility is not important because the owners aren't there often. However, it is good to: o Have an aircraft parking plan o Transport passengers efficiently to and from the plane o Have attentive line service people o Clean restrooms o Tasteful, comfortable waiting area for about 18 people o Decent façade o Commercial refrigerator(for temperature control and keep away from employee nibbling) o Crew area separate from FBO employees • They require safety cones for aircraft to protect from dings • Line service training is important—towing, aircraft movement areas, wing-walkers, marshallers They have FBO standards and provide quarterly training to FBOs to explain their standards, their scheduling system, etc. Other information: Renton Municipal Airport Development Study 58 March 31,2005 • Their 500 airplanes are continually out-based (not based at a particular location), slow although there is more NetJet aircraft density at the maintenance bases than at other locations. • They will buy microjets like the Eclipse if they can make money from them. They are considering them for training (pilots with lower hours) and to get into airports with short runways. • Every year they buy 6-8 aircraft per jet manufacturer, although they have a multi-year order for 100 Hawker XP aircraft. They have ordered the Citation CJ3, but are waiting for certification. • Their minimum runway length is 3500' for Citation Ultras. The Ultra fleet is getting old. Microjets might be a good substitute. • They put 1,000 hours per year on their aircraft, about five times what a normal operator would. • The Marquis program (Marquis card with as few as 20 hours a year) is their biggest customer now. • In February, FAR Part 91K will come out. It will allow charter operators to use 80% of runway length instead of 60% of runway length (Part 135). The idea is to level the field '' between charter operators and fractional ownership programs. • NetJets spends about $50-70 million in charters annually, mostly around Thanksgiving when they don't have enough aircraft in the fleet to serve their customers. Interview with Shane Carlson, NW Seaplanes The first part of the discussion focused on the existing seaplane operations at Will Rogers/Wiley Post Memorial Seaplane Base. He observed that there had been a fairly active business of air charter and air taxi operations prior to 2001, with published scheduled flights to the San Juan Islands operated by Sound Flight. At one time there were 14 aircraft operating in this market. Sound Flight has since cut back and the number of aircraft has declined. However, he said that this market appears to be coming back. NW Seaplanes operates five Beaver aircraft, mostly flying customers to/from fishing camps in British Columbia during a two-month season. About 90% of their business is international, so they make use of the US Customs facilities at the airport. Renton Municipal Airport Development Study 59 March 31,2005 He feels that there is an opportunity to attract increased market share to Renton, with 10% or „.r more being attainable. Renton offers a better location to serve the growing industrial and residential areas of the south and east sides of the Puget Sound area than either Lake Union or Kenmore Air Harbor. The major issue is dealing with the noise complaints. When they are operating their air charters, their planes all tend to leave at once. They typically receive a sustained level of complaints during that period. Mitigating the noise complaints will be a major factor in expanding the business at Renton. When asked about the option of only using turbine-powered aircraft to reduce noise, he said the costs would not be justified by the returns. He cited the cost to overhaul a piston engine on a Beaver as being $25,000 while the cost to overhaul a turbine engine on the same airplane is $200,000. However, changing the engine does not increase the number of seats or the load capacities so there would be no revenue gains to the operator. He also said there needs to be a quality FBO on the field to service seaplanes if Renton is to attract an increased share of the air commuter business. He said there are many people who live on the islands or the Olympic Peninsula who fly to the Seattle area on Monday mornings and return home on Fridays who would use Renton if those services were available. In discussing the suitability of developing the old restaurant site into a seaplane terminal with a restaurant, he cited stringent setback requirements as making the site too small to be practical. He said that combining that site with some of the land leased by NW seaplanes could create a suitable site. He stated that a suitable facility would combine a terminal with the US Customs operations, with rest rooms, a waiting area, and possibly a small restaurant. He said that the biggest question is how much the City would be willing to support expansion of the seaplane operations at Will Rogers/Wiley Post. Without elaborating, he said that there would need to be ways to reduce the risk for investing in expansion of the facilities and the operations. Renton Municipal Airport Development Study 60 March 31,2005 Noiw, Interview with Todd Banks, Kenmore Air Harbor Kenmore Air Harbor has its major seaplane base at the north end of Lake Washington. At Renton, they have a maintenance hangar and rebuild planes, mostly Beavers, for selected customers such as John Nils Nordstrom. They also install avionics and are interested in building this business at Renton as a full-service avionics shop for all customers. They are especially looking at conversions to glass panels as a mainline business. The firm currently has about 170 employees, although some of these are seasonal. Kenmore Air Harbor also owns EDO Floats. While the floats are made in China, they are shipped to Seattle and installed on aircraft at Renton and the north Lake Washington facility. Todd said that there is great potential to develop a seaplane base at Renton. He said there are as many potential customers for the south end of Lake Washington as there are for the north, where Kenmore Air Harbor is located. A seaplane base at Renton would shift some existing customers, but would also create new business from new customers. The primary services required are people to handle the aircraft, getting them into and out of the water. There needs to be some specialized equipment for seaplane handling in addition to just a ramp. Kenmore would expand its maintenance operations if a viable seaplane base were built and additional aircraft were based there. To address the noise issues at Kenmore Air Harbor, the firm has maintained a community outreach program to involve their neighbors in decisions. A major factor in gaining their support (or lack of opposition)was scheduling departures and arrivals during hours that were acceptable to them: Weekday departures— not earlier than 7:30 a.m. Weekend departures—not earlier than 8:30 a.m. The latest evening arrivals are all scheduled between 8:00 p.m. and 9:00 p.m. The firm is converting to all turbine aircraft for its air charter and scheduled air taxi operations. They are using 10-passenger turbine Otters for many of their routes, and have already _r. converted two of their Beaver aircraft to turbine engines, which has allowed them to add two Renton Municipal Airport Development Study 61 March 31,2005 extra seats. He said that they have worked with the FAA to obtain a time-between-overhauls (TBO) of 6,000 hours on the turbine-powered aircraft compared to only 1,600 on the piston- powered aircraft. That difference, plus the higher passengers loads, makes the costs of turbine aircraft virtually the same as those for piston aircraft. The turbine aircraft are significantly quieter and produce far fewer noise complaints than the piston aircraft. In concluding remarks, he said that the Renton Airport has the capability to develop similar to Hillsboro Airport in Oregon or Skagit County Airport in Washington, with a strong cluster of general aviation service facilities along with industrial plants that use aircraft in their businesses. While the airport is currently underutilized, it could be a much more vibrant component of the Puget Sound aviation economy. Interview with Clyde Carlson, NW Seaplanes/San Juan Airlines NW Seaplanes is affiliated with San Juan Airlines, a scheduled carrier that provides services from several Puget Sound airports such as Boeing Field, Bellingham, and Anacortes to the San Juan Islands and other destinations in the Northwest. They currently carry about 50,000 passengers per year from all their departure points. While they have authority to operate out of Renton, they are not using Renton as a base at this time. They are very interested in establishing a base at Renton if the right kinds of facilities can be built. Their Renton facility services the San Juan Airlines planes and does some rebuilding/ conversion of seaplanes. The firm has about 50 employees. In discussing opportunities for the old restaurant site, he said that the site is too small to stand alone after the setback requirements are met. He would be interested in combining a lease on that property with his existing adjacent lease to create a larger site. This could accommodate a terminal facility, with customs, as well as a maintenance hangar and one or two leased hangars to other tenants. There could also be a small "airport café" that would attract fly-in business as well as general customers who want to see the seaplane action. Renton Municipal Airport Development Study 62 March 31,2005 NW Seaplanes would be interested in developing the site and operating the FBO, leasing space N,,,,,,. to Kenmore Air Harbor for their operations; or, they would be willing to lease space from Kenmore if they were to build the facility and operate the FBO. He said that either option would be acceptable, subject to terms that would make it financially viable. He ran through some numbers to indicate the economic benefits to the City of Renton from this kind of operation. He said the cities where they have base operations currently receive a combined $1 million per year from the FAA and from passenger facility charges (PFCs). Major portions of their capital investments have also been financed by FAA grants. He believes that Renton would qualify both for grant funding and for fee-based revenues. At the present time, he said that Renton benefits from "thousands of people"who stay overnight in Renton prior to catching flights out of Boeing Field. In regard to noise issues, they follow a plan similar to Kenmore Air Harbor, with no departures before 7:00 a.m. on weekdays and 8:00 a.m. on weekends. Their latest arrivals are scheduled for 8:00 p.m. on weekdays and 9:00 p.m. on weekends. They only operate charter flights to/from fishing camps in British Columbia out of Renton during about a two month season. Now NW Seaplanes is already converting their Beaver aircraft to turbines, in part for noise reduction. On their piston aircraft, they have been installing wing vortex generators (VGs) and making other modifications to reduce noise. He thinks they can mitigate the issues by working closely with their neighbors, similar to what Kenmore has done. He would be receptive to an arrangement whereby the City builds an FBO and terminal facility and leases the whole package either to NW Seaplanes or Kenmore. He said the advantages would be lower cost of money, but, more importantly, ability to get FAA financing. He would like to work with the City to make something happen in the near future. Now Renton Municipal Airport Development Study 63 March 31,2005 RENTON MUNICIPAL AIRPORT DEVELOPMENT STUDY DEVELOPMENT METHOD OPTIONS REPORT vd Renton Municipal Airport Development Study 64 March 31,2005 RENTON MUNICIPAL AIRPORT DEVELOPMENT STUDY DEVELOPMENT METHOD OPTIONS This report discusses the investment options for redeveloping Renton Municipal Airport. First, it presents a financial evaluation of three options for developing one parcel at the airport and then discusses the impact of such development on the airport budget. Although maximizing revenue to the airport sponsor (the City of Renton) is very important, there are other criteria for deciding on a development method. This report lists the advantages and disadvantages of public vs. private investment. The report concludes with lessons learned from other airports' development experience and a description of development restrictions applicable to Renton Municipal Airport. Comparative Financial Evaluation Any specific development that the City might consider undertaking with public funds would need a thorough financial feasibility analysis. However, a rough analysis of a potential development 4•4109that the City might undertaken is presented here. The type of facility analyzed was a "jet center" Fixed Base Operator (FBO). The jet center scenario was chosen because the Market Demand Report recommended focusing on corporate aviation and the airport lacks a first-class jet center to serve corporate aviation. The 4.4-acre Ramp B area was considered for the analysis because it is the largest parcel currently available. Three scenarios were analyzed for developing the Ramp B area: 1. Ground Lease with Private Capital Investment 2. Facility Lease with Public Capital Investment 3. Contract Operation with Public Capital Investment All three scenarios include the following: • The development analyzed is a jet center (60,000 square foot building covering about 30% of the land). This size is probably the maximum that might be considered for the site. • The analysis does not include costs for site improvements. • The scenarios examine a 20-year time period. Ntair Renton Municipal Airport Development Study 65 March 31,2005 Scenario 1 approaches development in the manner it occurs now, with the City leasing land for a private entity to develop. The City could issue a Request for Proposal (RFP) with specific 14100 qualifications for the responding business, such as services, equipment, staffing, building uses, and minimum building size. These qualifications would be consistent with but more detailed and restrictive than the airport's Minimum Standards for Commercial Service Providers, since the goal is to provide a first-class executive jet center. With Scenario 2, the City builds the FBO facility and issues an RFP for a tenant, with specific requirements for the business' services, equipment, and staffing to ensure operation of a first- class jet center. With Scenario 3, the City develops the FBO facility and contracts with an operator rather than leasing to a tenant. The City's contract fee would be a share of the operator's gross revenue. The City would also issue an RFP similar to Scenario 2. Table 1 shows the results of the financial analysis. Scenario 3 provides the highest net revenue to the City over a 20-year period, while Scenario 2 provides the highest net revenue at the end of 10 years. For the first two years, Scenario 1 provides the highest net revenue, but over a longer period of time, Scenario 1 provides the least amount of revenue to the City. As might be expected, Scenario 1 also provides the lowest financial risk. Renton Municipal Airport Development Study 66 March 31,2005 Table 1: Net Revenue to the City ($) -Three Scenarios for Developing Ramp B '`%w Scenario 3 Scenario 1 Scenario 2 Contract Ground Lease Facility Lease Operation Time Period Private Investment Public Investment Public Investment Year 1 31,550 18,975 -16,400 Year 2 32,497 26,606 -3,830 Year 3 33,472 34,466 9,417 Year 4 34,476 42,452 23,377 Year 5 35,510 50,901 38,086 Year 6 36,575 49,490 53,584 Year 7 37,673 68,337 69,911 Year 8 38,803 77,449 87,110 Year 9 39,967 86,835 105,229 Year 10 41,166 96,502 124,312 10-yr Cumulative 361,689 552,013 490,794 Year 20 55,324 210,649 382,030 20-yr Cumulative 847,769 1,708,959 3,041,791 Scenario 1 - Ground Lease with Private Capital Investment Assumptions specific to Scenario 1 are as follows: ,,. • The lease is based on 50% of the total ground area (4.4 acres), representing 30% for the building footprint and 20% for the apron. • The lease rate is $.33 per square foot with an annual Consumer Price Index (CPI) escalation, which is the current ground lease rate at the airport. • The annual CPI escalation is assumed to be 3%. The annual revenue for the City would be $31,550 the first year, growing to $55,324 in the 20th year. Under a straight ground lease with the above assumptions, the Ramp B site would produce $361,689 in cumulative revenues over a 10-year period and $847,769 over a 20-year period. The advantage of this scenario is that there would be low costs and low risk to the City. After the costs of preparing the site, all revenues would be net to the City. Another advantage to this scenario is that the City will not have to increase current staffing levels or otherwise modify the management structure of the airport. Renton Municipal Airport Development Study 67 March 31,2005 A disadvantage to this scenario is that the City will have less control on the lessee with a long- term lease and a reduced ability to use the airport to further City objectives. Scenario 2— Facility Lease with Public Capital Investment Assumptions for Scenario 2 are as follows: • The City would construct a 60,000 square foot hangar (120 feet by 500 feet) and lease it to an FBO for an executive jet center. • The building cost would be $2.7 million ($45 per square foot). • The City's cost of money would be 6%. • With a 20-year amortization period, the annual amortization cost would be $235,400 per year. • Land rent would be included in the building amortization. • The total cost to the lessee would be the building amortization plus a return of 6% to the City on the value of the land. • Lease rate would be $254,375 in the first year ($235,400 + $18,975 as 6% return on value of land), which equals $4.24 per square foot per year for building area. • A 3% CPI increase would be built into total lease rate. *400 Table 2 presents the gross revenue the City would receive from the facility lease and the net revenue after the bond payment. Table 2: Scenario 2 - City Revenue ($) for Ramp B Development Revenue Time Period from Lease Net Revenue Year 1 254,375 18,975 Year 2 262,006 26,606 Year 3 269,866 34,466 Year 4 277,962 42,452 Year 5 286,301 50,901 Year 6 284,890 49,490 Year 7 303,737 68,337 Year 8 312,849 77,449 Year 9 322,235 86,835 Year 10 331,902 96,502 10-yr Cumulative 2,906,123 552,013 Year 20 446,049 210,649 20-yr.Cumulative 6,416,959 1,708,959 Renton Municipal Airport Development Study 68 March 31,2005 N,,,,,,. The lease would be triple net (NNN), whereby the tenant would pay all costs for maintenance. The net revenue to the City is shown as being cumulative $552,023 after 10 years and $1,708,959 after 20 years during the last year of bond repayments. While Scenario 2 produces approximately twice the amount of net revenue as Scenario 1, it involves the risk of loss of revenue if the tenant should fail. It also does not include the costs of developing the site or the costs of the financing, other than interest. A disadvantage of this scenario is that staffing of the Airport Office may need to be increased. An advantage of this scenario is that the City has a greater degree of control over the lessee as a building lease period is typically shorter than a ground lease with no public investment in facilities. Scenario 3— Contract Operation with Public Capital Investment Scenario 3 assumes the City constructs the 60,000 sq. ft. hangar and contracts with an operator rather than leasing the building to a tenant. It assumes the City's contract fee is 10% of the gross revenues, which increase by 5% per year. The operator's first year of gross revenue is assumed to be $3 million. As Table 3 shows, Scenario 3 produces $490,794 in net revenues for Noy the City at the end of Year 10, but this increases to $3,041,791 at the end of Year 20. Under this scenario, the City is benefiting from the 5% increase in revenues while holding the costs of bond amortization constant. Also, costs to the City for operating expenses are held to a 3% annual escalation. Renton Municipal Airport Development Study 69 March 31,2005 Table 3: Scenario 3 Financial Evaluation for Ramp B Development ($) Gross City Gross Operating City Net , Time Period Revenue Revenue Debt Service Expenses Revenue Year 1 3,000,000 300,000 235,400 81,000 -16,400 Year 2 3,150,000 315,000 235,400 83,430 -3,830 Year 3 3,307,500 330,750 235,400 85,933 9,417 Year 4 3,472,875 347,288 235,400 88,511 23,377 Year 5 3,646,519 364,652 235,400 91,166 38,086 Year 6 3,828,845 382,885 235,400 93,901 53,584 Year 7 4,020,287 402,029 235,400 96,718 69,911 Year 8 4,221,301 422,130 235,400 99,620 87,110 Year 9 4,432,366 443,237 235,400 102,608 105,229 Year 10 4,653,985 465,399 235,400 105,687 124,312 10-yr Cumulative 37,733,678 3,773,368 2,354,000 928,574 490,794 Year 20 7,580,851 758,085 235,400 140,655 382,030 20-yr Cumulative 99,197,864 9,919,786 4,708,000 2,169,995 3,041,791 As with Scenario 2, the major risk is that the operator will default or that the growth of revenues will be less than 5%. However, the assumptions seem reasonable in forecasting gross operating revenues of$4,653,985 in Year 10, considering that Galvin Flight Services at Boeing Field is estimated to do about $20 million per year in business. Many airports charge FBOs an amount based on their revenue. It is very important from the airport's viewpoint to apply the % fee to gross revenue rather than to net revenue to avoid the circumstance where profit is well hidden by creative accounting. Some airports negotiate a fee with an FBO that has two parts-one part is a flat fee that can escalate with time but is considerably lower than rent, and the other part is a percentage of the FBO's gross revenue. Impact on Airport Budget Currently, the airport is a self-contained enterprise fund (402) in the City. The airport is now financially self-sufficient and does not require subsidy from the City's general fund. Based on 2001 information and excluding FAA grants for capital improvements, annual airport revenue is about $778,000--$691,000 from leases, $7,000 from fuel flowage fees, and $80,000 from investment interest. Annual operating expenses total $686,000. The airport fund has a capital reserve of$2 million. It appears likely that the airport fund could support short-term losses on publicly funded development such as Scenario 3. In Scenario 3, the first year's loss to the City was less than $20,000, and by Year 3, there was a net gain. Renton Municipal Airport Development Study 70 March 31,2005 If the four parcels identified as available in the Market Report were ground-leased, the City N,,.. would realize nearly $50,000 in net revenue the first year, as shown in Table 4. It appears that a development strategy that combines public development for certain parcels and ground leases for others could ensure that the airport remains financially self-sufficient. Table 4: Net City Revenue ($) for Ground Leases of Four Available Parcels Restaurant Parcel 820 Parcel 770 Ramp B Site Total Annual Time Period 77,101 sq. ft. 47,916 sq. ft. 191,214 sq. ft. 82,764 sq. ft. Revenues Year 1 12,722 7,906 31,550 49,658 49,658 Year 2 13,103 8,143 32,497 51,148 51,148 Year 3 13,496 8,388 33,472 52,683 52,683 Year 4 13,901 8,639 34,476 54,363 54,363 Year 5 14,318 8,898 35,510 55,891 55,891 Year 6 14,748 9,165 36,575 57,568 57,568 Year 7 15,190 9,440 37,673 59,295 59,295 Year 8 15,646 9,724 38,803 61,074 61,074 Year 9 16,115 , 10,015 39,967 62,906 62,906 Year 10 16,599 10,316 41,166 64,793 64,793 10-yr Cum. 145,840 . 90,635 361,689 569,378 569,378 20-yr Cum. 341,836 212,444 847,769 1,334,440 1,334,440 Assumptions: Nrr° • Except for the restaurant site, initial annual rental rate is $.33 per square foot per year with annual 3% CPI increases. Assuming the lease rate represents 10% of the land value, this values the land at$3.30 per square foot, which is below market value for commercial/industrial property in Renton but comparable to rates at Boeing and Paine Fields. • The restaurant site is valued higher to represent prime commercial land in the Renton area. At a value of$6 per square foot and a 10% annual return in the lease rate, the property should be leased for$.60 per square foot per year with annual 3% CPI increases. • Parcel 820 requires tearing down the former Boeing Avionics Building and cleaning up the site. Ramp B requires removing Boeing fueling stations and other equipment at the site. These demolition and cleanup costs are unknown and have not been included. Note: It is not expected that all these properties will be leased in Year 1. The calculations are intended to show the revenue potential of the properties when they are leased. 'err+ Renton Municipal Airport Development Study 71 March 31,2005 Public vs. Private Investment — Advantages and Disadvantages NadiO The primary options for investing in the redevelopment of Renton Municipal Airport are public investment or private investment. A third option, a public/private partnership, maximizes the advantages of the other two options. Renton Municipal Airport has been developed through both public and private investment. The City has developed infrastructure, such as airfield improvements and roads, while private tenants developed the facilities from which they conduct aviation-related businesses. Some of the utility distribution systems were developed by Boeing, although the City is now extending utilities improvements on portions of the west side of the airport. There are various public, private, and public/private organizations that could take planning, development, and/or management responsibility for redeveloping Renton Municipal Airport. This report assumes that the City of Renton will continue to own and manage the airport, but may take a more active role in developing and managing airport facilities. Refer to the 2002 Airport Business Plan for more information about airport management options and leasing condition options, such as reversion. The following lists of advantages and disadvantages of public and private investment at airports were prepared from literature research and interviews with a cross-section of airport sponsors. Public Investment Public investment options include using the airport fund's capital reserves or using City general funds. The City could provide matching funds for federal and state grants. The airport receives $150,000 annually as an apportionment(non-primary entitlement) of the Airport Improvement Program (AIP) administered by the FAA. However, landside development for revenue generation is generally ineligible for AIP grants. The City might issue revenue or general obligation bonds. Revenue bonds are repaid with revenue generated by the improvement and are the most likely means for City financing of new development at the airport. Advantages of using public investment in airport development include: • The public airport sponsor can obtain lower cost financing than a private entity. • The sponsor does not have to pay ad valorem taxes, as a private entity would. ' Renton Municipal Airport Development Study 72 March 31,2005 • If done efficiently, the project cost is lower because the profit and "middleman" are cut out. • The sponsor has more control over the development than if it were a private investment. Retaining a high level of control over the airport helps ensure public access is maintained and public policy is implemented, facilitates using the airport as an economic development tool for the community (e.g., prioritizing jobs over profit), and makes it easier to control the quality and type of facilities available. • Tenants are not required to make a large capital investment. Disadvantages of using public investment in airport development include: • Funds or bonding capacity used at the airport are not available for other investments that have public benefit. Revenue in excess of the bond payment is restricted to aviation use. • The airport may not be able to retain its financial self-sufficiency. • Risk is associated with any development, and public bodies are less likely to assume financial risk than private developers. The sponsor risks risking default by the tenant or an inability to find a tenant. As events such as 9/11 have shown, the aviation industry can be subject to severe economic stress. • Project financing and implementation is usually slower than with private investment. • In addition to the capital costs, the airport sponsor has more maintenance and operating costs and responsibilities than private development on a ground lease. • If the City developed all of the properties, the City would need to increase current staffing levels at the airport to properly manage this new level of responsibility. • Criticism that it is inappropriate for a public entity to compete with private enterprise is avoided. Private Investment Advantages of using private investment in airport development include: • Project financing and implementation would most likely be faster. • Market viability is surer than with public investment. • The cost to the public airport sponsor is negligible. Renton Municipal Airport has existing tenants and others with access to financing and who are willing to develop parts of the airport at no cost to the City. Renton Municipal Airport Development Study 73 March 31,2005 Disadvantages of using private investment in airport development include: , .440 • It requires a significant capital investment by a tenant or speculative developer. • Project cost is higher than with bond financing. • Enforcement of public policy is harder. • Reversion clauses and use restrictions peculiar to public airports make financing more difficult to obtain than at off-airport sites. Lessons Learned from Other Airport Sponsors At many airports, a combination of development and property management options are employed. For example, Glendale Municipal Airport in Arizona recently developed an 18-acre site with infrastructure for up to 170 hangars. Organizations and individuals lease the land and build their own hangars, with stipulations. At another location on the airport, a private operator developed and manages hangars under a long-term agreement with the airport. Both options appear to be working. The City of Redmond, Oregon, has bond-financed build-to-suit hangar and office buildings at the USDA Forest Service Redmond Air Center at Roberts Field. According to the airport manager, Carrie Novick, it has worked well. Both buildings have 20-year leases. The hangar cost $1.3 million to build and the City borrowed $1.5 million. The office building cost was the same as the borrowed amount, $1.8 million. Ms. Novick said the City would not make such an investment for a private entity because of concerns about financial default. It would be necessary to retain a contingency of at least one year of bond payments if the tenant were a private entity. A key provision of the lease to the Forest Service is the City's control over structural adaptation and major maintenance. While the tenant agency performs day-to-day janitorial and other maintenance, the City performs all the major work, back charges the tenant, and updates as-built drawings. The City even locks the electrical cabinets in the buildings. The Renton Municipal Airport Leasing Policy provides for the possibility of offering land to a specific interested party when it is deemed to further development of the airport, instead of issuing an RFP for competition. Clinton County, New York, has learned many lessons from a proposal to redevelop a portion of a closed military base (Plattsbugh ARB) into a public airport. :,,,40 Renton Municipal Airport Development Study 74 March 31,2005 The County was approached by a developer who offered to make a $230 million investment and vr, promised to create thousands of jobs in return for exclusive development rights for 99 years, 30 years of tax abatement, and other incentives. Although the development company was local, credible, financially stable, and had experience with many large-scale retail developments, it did not have airport development experience or a feasible business plan. The deal fell through. The Chairperson of the County Legislature, James, R. Langley, Jr., recommended the following to airport sponsors who might be solicited by similar redevelopment proposals: • Get expert and thorough review of proposal documents. • Question every detail of the proposal, including financing, proposed tenants, and the company's history. • Request help from the FAA. • Get all proposals and agreements in writing. • Retain control. Establish your vision for the airport and issue RFPs and RFQs based on your vision. • Have the guts to make a decision. • Keep the media and general public informed. %we Currently, Clinton County has submitted letters of inquiry to eight developers/managers for input in how the military airport should be redeveloped. Development Restrictions The redevelopment of Renton Municipal Airport is subject to restrictions in a number of documents, reviewed below. Airport Improvement Program Grant Assurances. When the City receives grant funding from the FAA for capital improvement projects, it must agree to a number of grant assurances for 20 years after the grant is received. Those most relevant to the subject of this report are: • The sponsor must not unjustly discriminate among users. There are just reasons for discriminating, such as charging different rates because of different property values or different types of use. • The sponsor must not impose different rates for the similar use of similar facilities. '+irr Renton Municipal Airport Development Study 75 March 31,2005 • The sponsor must not restrict public use of the airport or access to the facility unreasonably. This does not mean fencing off the airfield for safety or security reasons; 4aisie it refers to limiting the type of aviation activity, except for a valid reason such as limiting aircraft over a certain size or weight because the airfield cannot accommodate them. • The sponsor cannot grant an exclusive right for the aeronautical use of the airport. For example, a sponsor could not guarantee that a single FBO could monopolize business at the airport. There are airport markets that do not have business for more than one supplier of a certain service. Also, an airport might lack sufficient available land or facilities for a competing business to establish and meet the airport's minimum standards. An airport in that circumstance may need to review the minimum standards to ensure they are not too restrictive or may need to expand or reconfigure the airport to provide space for business competition. Deed Restrictions. Because the airport was transferred to the City as surplus federal property, it is subject to restrictions similar to grant assurances, but without the 20-year time limit. Airport Master Plan and Airport Layout Plan. The FAA-approved Airport Layout Plan (ALP) is the document that, among other things, makes airport improvement projects eligible for grant funding. Renton's Airport Master Plan, last updated in 1997, provides the justification for the ALP. The Land Use Plan included in the ALP shows the landside areas of the airport designated for terminal area (the northwest end near the seaplane dock), aircraft manufacturing (those areas leased by Boeing at the time), and general aviation (all other areas outside the airport operations area). The 1997 Airport Master Plan called for the relocation of the majority of Boeing's operations from Apron C on the west side to the southeast corner of the airport. This strategy was devised before Boeing began downsizing and should be revisited. Airport Management has indicated that the FAA has a grant of$150,000 available in FY 2005 for updating the Airport Layout Plan and that work should be underway by Spring 2005. Airport Business Plan. Completed in 2002, the Airport Business Plan provides a number of recommendations accepted by the Renton Airport Advisory Committee and approved by the City. Several have been implemented, included formulating a leasing document, updating the Minimum Standards and Airport Rules and Regulations, tackling the noise issue, improving the main entrance to the airport, developing a security plan, and improving airport perimeter security. The Business Plan includes a vision for the airport's future that is not entirely , giemOv Renton Municipal Airport Development Study 76 March 31,2005 consistent with the Market Demand Report conclusion about the corporate jet market. The °i,,.e vision in the Airport Business Plan is to continue targeting the current aircraft fleet mix and to focus on the private pilot. Leasing Policies and Leases. The City Council adopted the current Leasing Policy on December 9, 2002. Having such a policy and rigorously applying it protects the City from charges of unjust discrimination or of granting exclusive aeronautical rights. Several clauses in the Leasing Policy refer to development being consistent with the Airport Layout Plan or the Airport Master Plan, underlying the importance of having these documents aligned with current conditions and City objectives. Rules and Regulations & Minimum Standards for Commercial Service Providers at Renton Municipal Airport. This document was updated in July of 2004, but has not yet been approved by the City Council. It contains many important requirements to ensure safety, high quality aviation services, and compliance with the grant assurances. State Constitution. Washington State's Constitution requires the City to ensure that it receives ,, fair market value for its property with a prohibition against using the credit of the public sector to aid the private sector. In addition, state law prevents leases longer than 75 years under any one lease. Renton Municipal Airport Development Study 77 March 31,2005 CITY OF RENTON �orrc �c << ,s 7005 Fay C'ounulnlenl 'j RFCEIVETerre Briere CITC E:R �'S gFF10EMarch 27, 2005 Mdjvtdua(I `( y City of Renton Council, I regret to inform you of recent events made surrounding an administrative decision made by Jay Covington, City Administrator for the City of Renton. I am sure that this decision is viewed simply as making a decision between competing vendors and I agree that a municipality should have a fair amount of discretion when making those decisions and should not have to be challenged all the time for those type of decisions made. However, in this particular case, there are circumstances surrounding the decision that have made it damaging, not in the best interests in the City of Renton, and unethical. The purpose of this letter is to inform you of those circumstances. I do not know if Jay Covington was fully aware of the circumstances surrounding his decision or what he may have been told, but I have no indication that he was not fully informed when the decision was made. In January of 2005, Net Assets Corporation was approached by the City of Renton to investigate the service that we currently offer in the states of Washington and Oregon that appeared to meet the needs of the City. At that time, the City of Renton was also working with another vendor, WebCheck, for the same potential solution. The decision was made that it would be in the best interest of the City of Renton to proceed with both vendors, as there would be no adverse effects to doing so for the City of Renton. On February 14, 2005 the Finance Committee for the City of Renton was approached. I myself attended the meeting where the recommendation was made by both the finance department and the IT department and agreed to by the committee to begin using this new type of service and to proceed with both vendors. Over the course of the next month, in good faith, Net Assets worked closely with staff at the City of Renton to implement the new service. Many hours and were used and much work was performed by Net Assets. Net Assets succeeded in fully completing the work needed to begin offering the service. This work consisted of custom programming, advanced SQL statement construction, documentation authoring, scripting, and integration into IT procedures at the City of Renton. On March 16, 2005 I received a phone call from Jay Covington informing me that the City of Renton had decided not to use the services of Net Assets and would be proceeding exclusively with WebCheck. When I inquired as to why the change in the decision that had already been made, I was told that WebCheck had decided to pull out of offering their services to the City of Renton unless they were exclusive. Here are the concerns that I have over the decision that has been made. I still cannot understand why WebCheck's decision should have any effect on the use of Net Assets' services. When I raised this question I was told that "there is a two-year relationship with WebCheck and that they were not going to just hand us the contract". I :o,,,,° am not sure if this is an admission that a personal favor was guiding the decision or if it was related to an obligation for work previously performed by WebCheck. If it was recognition of previous work performed by WebCheck, this still does not make any sense. As WebCheck has not yet produced any tangible product for the City of Renton, this work consists of consultation and meetings. The work performed to date by Net Assets far exceeds that effort. Net Assets gladly accepted the use of both vendors. We feel that we have a far superior service. If WebCheck decides for whatever reason that they would not like to compete, that is their decision and it should not penalize Net Assets. There has been a tremendous amount of knowledge transfer to the City of Renton by Net Assets that has potentially saved the City thousands of dollars in integration costs with your software vendors. Net Assets has decades of technology experience and extensive experience working with local municipalities as it relates to reporting information. All of the work done and all of the knowledge transfer is now available to WebCheck and they will now not have to do much of the same work that we have already done. We knew this would happen when we first began working with the City of Renton, but we felt this was ok because we are very confident of our services and that we would still compete very well. Of course, now that we have been removed from offering the service, this is truly an unfair course of action that has been taken. To stop us from offering the service when all the work has already been completed makes no sense at all and may even be suspicious that it was done to provide additional help to WebCheck. At no time was I ___ ever informed that the decision to proceed with both vendors was in debate. I believe that the circumstances surrounding the decision not use Net Assets services warrant an immediate investigation by the members of the Council. My knowledge is limited and I do not wish to speculate too much. The Council may have better success at finding out the reasons behind this decision that appears to not make any sense. Another situation exists that might also warrant your inquiry. The City of Renton recently hired an Interim Finance Director that used to work for WebCheck. This individual was hired after the recommendation was made to the Finance Committee to proceed with both vendors and prior to the dismissal of Net Assets. Let me be very clear, that I have no evidence whatsoever that there is any kind of gain to this individual by the use of WebCheck or that he was used to influence the decision. I am simply relating the sequence of events as they occurred so that the council can make its own inquiry as deemed necessary. I sincerely thank you for your prompt attention to this matter. '�. / David J. Gates President, CEO Net Asset Corporation (541) 485-8876 ( ( ( 44 6/0.1-, ..„..—17 ,--, „ , ,../:6 /el<•• 7 / CITY OF RENTON - -7717') : 17,-;(-,--:". VC MAR 31 2005 .....:f.":„...• „---4.4 (:...,,, .,,,,,,,, t„,./..../... RECEIVED / CITt'CLERK'S OFFICE ,,,J,,!1:-. --.), c:-,( 27 e:.; ::::i-Etf.::;SiS,•-i-:::::'2.::::::2. Iiihilidlitlii4h1Allidlii!likaillildihilliffillti Relardiag Agenda. Venl GENDLER & MANN, LLP q, a, ATTORNEYS-AT-LAW rd A G Michael W.Gendler* David S.Mann 1424 FOURTH AVENUE,SUITE 1015 �,,/�� y (206)621-8868 Lauren P.Rasmussen SEATTLE WA 98101 e teemAl/Gfitd eit Far(206)621-0512 mann gendlermann.com *Also admitted in Oregon www.gendlermann.com April 8, 2005 CITY OF RENTON Via email(bwatlton@ci.renton.wa.us) and U.S. Mail APR 1 1. 2005 RECEIVED Renton City Council CITY CLERK'S OFFICE c/o Renton City Clerk 1055 S. Grady Way, Seventh Floor Renton, WA 98055 Re: Proposed"Sunset Bluff'Preliminary Plat(File No. LUA 04-002, EC, PP) Dear Council Members: I write on behalf of Herons Forever and respectfully request that you either: (1) Take no action on the applicant SR 900 L.L.C.'s Request for Reconsideration; or (2) If you do reconsider your March 21, 2005 decision, that you amend Condition 2 to prohibit all forest clearing, hillside grading and construction activities between January 15 and July 31 in any year that such work is necessary. The following responds to the arguments raised in the applicant's March 31, 2005 letter requesting reconsideration and explains Herons Forever's recommendation. A. The Decision in Isla Verde v. Camas is inapplicable In both the applicant's March 31, 2005 Request for Reconsideration and during Mr. Halinen's public comments on April 4, 2005, the applicant argues that the City has not met its burden of proof to legally justify the imposition of any construction limit. The applicant cites to the Washington Supreme Court's decision in the case Isla Verde v. Camas to support this claim. As Ms. Fontes mentioned to you during the April 4 Council meeting, she believes Isla Verde is inapplicable. We believe strongly that Ms. Fontes' analysis is correct and that you should ignore concerns over Isla Verde. Isla Verde involved a decision by the City of Camas to condition a preliminary plat with a requirement that 30% of the property be set aside as an open space. Camus's condition was not imposed as a direct result of a specific identified impact from the plat under review. Instead, the condition was imposed due to a general City requirement that plats include 30% open space. The Supreme Court decided the case solely on its reading of RCW 82.02.020. RCW 82.02.020 prohibits the imposition of taxes, fees or other charges on preliminary plats unless certain exceptions are met. The Court determined that the 30% open space requirement, was "in kind" Renton City Council April 8, 2005 Page 2 an indirect "tax, fee or charge" on property and thus fell within the requirement of RCW 82.02.020. In order to meet one of the exceptions to RCW 82.02.020, the burden therefore was on the City to show that the dedication was "reasonably necessary as a direct result of the proposed development or plat." The Court confirmed that the condition "must be tied to a specific, identified impact of the development on a community." Isla Verde, 146 Wn.2d at 761. Because Camus could not show a direct link between the condition and an impact of the specific subdivision, the 30% set aside was deemed invalid. The City of Renton's situation is readily distinguishable for at least two reasons. First, the City of Renton has not directly or indirectly imposed a "tax, fee or charge." Nor has the City imposed an easement or set aside. Instead, the controversy in this case is over the City's imposition of a clearing and grading prohibition from January 15 to July 31. Neither Isla Verde, nor any of the cases cited within the Court's opinion, support a determination that a construction window can or should be considered a direct or indirect "tax, fee or charge." See 146 Wn.2d 758-59 (citing cases determining"tax, fees or charges"under RCW 82.02.020). Second, even if the City's clearing and grading prohibition were considered a "tax, fee or charge" under RCW 82.02.020, the City of Renton can easily demonstrate that the "dedication" is "reasonably necessary as a direct result of the proposed development or plat to which the dedication of land or easement applies." RCW 82.02.020. Unlike the general legislative requirement in Isla Verde, the clearing and grading prohibition approved for Sunset Bluff is specifically related to the impacts of those activities on the adjacent heron colony. The prohibition is based on direct testimony from both Dr. Kate Stenberg and WDFW's heron biologist Patricia Thompson that clearing, grading and construction at Sunset Bluffs would have direct and significant impacts on the heronry. The direct connection is well documented in the record and by Hearing Examiner Kaufman's decision. Thus, because RCW 82.02.020 is either inapplicable, or if applicable, the City has met its burden of demonstrating a direct link between the impact and the condition, the City should not be concerned with the courts's ruling in Isla Verde. B. There Is No Need or Basis to Reconsider the Clearing and Grading Limit The applicant's request for reconsideration continues the, frankly ridiculous, argument that there is no support for the City's January 15 to July 31 prohibition on clearing and grading. This is simply not the case. Dr. Kate Stenberg's April 18, 2004 written testimony (Exhibit 12) strongly recommends a January 15 to July 31 prohibition on all clearing, grading and construction activities. This recommendation, and its basis, was explained by Dr. Stenberg during her testimony before the Hearing Examiner. See August 3, 2004 Report and Decision, pp. 38-39. While the applicant is requesting this condition be rolled back to June 30, Dr. Stenberg was consistent in her testimony that the herons in the Black River colony fledge late - in late July or early August -- and that this is a critical time. Id. Renton City Council April 8, 2005 Page 3 The applicant continues also to argue that Dr. Stenberg recommended a shorter limitation in a 1998 letter to Renton. As Dr. Stenberg made clear in her sworn testimony before the Hearing Examiner, that letter was over 6 years old and, given the increase in knowledge of herons in general, and specifically the Black River colony, she now stood by the January 15 to July 31 prohibition. See August 3, 2004 Report and Decision,p. 17. Dr. Stenberg's recommendations were also supported by WDFW's heron biologist, Patricia Thompson. See August 3, 2004 Report and Decision, p. 34. While it may be true that other jurisdictions may apply different limitations for different colonies, the Black River colony is unique — it is the largest heron colony in King, Pierce and Snohomish Counties and among the 10 largest in Puget Sound. See Ex. 12, p. 2. As Ms. Thompson confirmed in her testimony, the largest colonies, including the Black River colony, should receive more protection than smaller ones. August 3, 2004 Report and Decision,p. 34. Thus, there is more than substantial evidence to support the Hearing Examiner's recommendation and this Council's decision. The City Council should not reconsider its decision. C. If The Council Does Reconsider its Decision, It Should Extend the Prohibition to Clearing, Grading and Construction As discussed at the end of your April 4th meeting, if the Council does decide to accept the applicant's request to reconsider conditions 2 and 3, the Council is by no means limited to granting the relief requested by the applicant. Herons Forever strongly urges that, if you do decide to re-open your decision to reconsider conditions 2 and 3, you revise condition 2 so that it reads as follows: The forest clearing, hillside grading and construction shall not occur between January 15 and July 31 in any given year that such work is necessary. The reason for this change is explained above. The record, and in particular the testimony and recommendations of Dr. Kate Stenberg and WDFW's Patricia Thompson was that there be no clearing, grading or construction during the January 15 to July 31 window. Indeed, Dr. Stenberg's first recommendation was that the City "Impose a seasonal construction window restricting all outdoor construction, land clearing and grading between January 15 and July 31." See April 18, 2004 Letter from Kate Stenberg, Exhibit 12, p. 10. The requested change to condition 2, is supported by substantial evidence in the record before you. Renton City Council April 8, 2005 Page 4 Please do not hesitate to contact me if you have any questions. Very truly yours, GE si# ':LANN, LLP t 4/14'N---------David S. ann cc: Lawrence J. Warren, City Attorney Zanetta Fontes, City Attorney David L. Halinen 11-11-ADDS COMMITTEE OF THE WHOLE COMMITTEE REPORT April 11, 2005 Agreement with the Federal Reserve Bank Regarding the 27th Street Parcel/Stormwater Detention Parcel (Referred April 4, 2005) The Committee of the Whole recommends concurrence in the staff recommendation to approve the Agreement with the Federal Reserve Bank regarding the 27th Street Parcel/Stormwater Detention Parcel and authorize the Mayor and City Clerk to execute the Agreement. The Committee further recommends concurrence in the staff recommendation to authorize the expenditure of $3,000,000 to pay for the City's share of the roadway project, recognizing that the City will ultimately issue bonds to pay for this project. Terri :riere, Council President cc: Gregg Zimmerman Alex Pietsch Sandra Meyer Leslie Lahndt Rob Lochmiller Michael 111;Icon Fed Reserve Bankcowreport4_1 l.doc\ rev 01/05 bh Dale ` //-2005 COMMITTEE OF THE WHOLE COMMITTEE REPORT April 11, 2005 Council Policy& Procedure#800-10 Update (Referred 2/7/2005) The Committee of the Whole has reviewed Council Policy and Procedure #800-10, Filling Council Vacancies, and recommends revisions to allow Council the option, prior to selecting a candidate as the new council member, of whether or not to conduct interviews of person(s) who submit a letter of interest. This change will allow Council to select or interview, by majority vote, only a selected candidate or candidates, rather than requiring that all persons submitting a letter of interest be interviewed. The Committee also recommends that the Council President be authorized to sign the revised Policy and Procedure #800-10 to implement this change. Terri Briere Council President whole800-10.doc\ rev 01/02 bh PLANNING AND DEVELOPMENT COMMITTEE COMMITTEE REPORT -�� 2�5 Da April 11, 2005 McLendon Street Vacation (VAC-04-004), Compensation (Referred March 14, 2005) The Planning and Development Committee recommends concurrence in the staff recommendation for the McLendon Street Vacation, located east of Burnett Ave S. and north of S. 2" St., to accept the appraisal for the portion of the City alley, accept the appraisal for the twenty foot right-of-way dedication, set compensation at $25,500.00 for the alley vacation (VAC-04-004), and accept the dedication in lieu of a part of the cash compensation that would be paid for the alley vacation. Since City Code calls for the difference between the appraised values of$25,500.00 to be paid to the petitioner,the monies due the City from the petitioner would be zero. Accordingly, the monies due the petitioner from the City would also be zero. Dan Clawson, Chair L)64.4.,/ Denis Law, Vice Chair ')(Y)Cid(Z6L, rfaa Marcie Palmer, Member cc: Lys Hornsby,Utilities System Director Karen McFarland,Technical Services Engineering Specialist Jennifer Henning,Development Services Principal Planner • I:\COMMITTEE\Reports\Planning&Development2005\McLendonAlleyVacCompensation.dodKLMtp PLANNING AND DEVELOPMENT COMMITTEE COMMITTEE REPORT Date Y-//- 0200 April 11,2005 Best Available Science Critical Areas Regulations and Shoreline Master Program GMA Integration, Featuring New Stream, River, and Lake Regulations (Referred October 18, 2004) 511 The Committee has studied the documents prepared by City staff and the consultants including, but not limited to, best available science reviews, proposed policy,map, and regulation amendments,and public comments and responses. The Committee concurs with the City staff recommended approach,and in particular finds that: The City's program for"Best Available Science Critical Areas Regulations and Shoreline Master Program GMA Integration,Featuring New Stream,River, and Lake Regulations"focuses primarily on new stream/lake and shoreline buffers,which are designed to develop standard stream/lake/shoreline buffer widths that would result in no net loss of functions and values. Further,to provide incentives to restore degraded buffer conditions, the City's proposed Critical Areas update allows for both standard and flexible review processes, so that applications proposing to substantially improve functions and values may be allowed to reduce buffer widths with added site-specific studies and mitigation. Regarding wetlands, in most cases,the City expects that the standard wetland buffers will be sufficient to protect the functions and values of wetlands. However,the proposal also recognizes: 1)Renton's proposed code would widen buffers as needed to preserve all functions and values(including wildlife). 2)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. 3)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. The City continues to be active in habitat protection and restoration as evidenced in its Capital Improvement Program 2005 to 2010. 4)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. The Committee recommends that the City Attorney's office prepare ordinances, and that the City Council take action as follows: Approve the recommended Shoreline Master Program amendments including policies, maps, and regulations dated January 26,2005 with all supplemental recommendations and edits based on staff recommendations and responses to comments through March 31, 2005. Approve the Critical Areas Regulations Amendments and related Title 4 code amendments dated January 26,2005 with all supplemental recommendations and edits based on staff recommendations and responses to comments through March 31, 2005. CAO.doc\ Rev 01/04 bh Lastly, the Committee recommends that approval of Comprehensive Plan Policy amendments not associated with the Shoreline Master Program policy integration be deferred to be considered with the 2005 Comprehensive Plan Amendment cycle. Dan Clawson, 4sbatt....„ ut: � Denis W. Law, Vice Chair cfnait-AS,' Y/-0021/—"- Marcie Palmer, Member cc: Alex Pietsch Rebecca Lind CAO doc\ Rev 01/04 bh UTILITIES COMMITTEE COMMITTEE REPORT D t .q-1/-4200,5- April _//-a00SApril 11,2005 Garbage Ordinance (Referred 3/21/2005) The Utilities Committee recommends concurrence in the staff recommendation to approve amendments to City Code to clarify and add definitions, make garbage collection mandatory with certain limited exceptions, add and clarify violations to the garbage ordinance and criminalize violations. These amendments are part of the stepped up code enforcement and nuisance abatement effort. The Committee further recommends that the ordinance regarding this matter be presented for first reading; 4(A ki 41- c-c a6LAAW (27- Randy Corman, Chair CSX C ws r`T� `Dl wsore Chair l GUY'S Don Persson, Member cc: Lys Hornsby,Utility Systems Director Neil Watts,Development Services Director Katie McClincy,Police Commander FINANCE COMMITTEE REPORT Date 44-11-02005- April 11, 2005 APPROVAL OF CLAIMS AND PAYROLL VOUCHERS The Finance Committee approves for payment on April 11, 2005, claim vouchers 236175-236560 and 1 wire transfer, totaling $1,889,694.86 , and 569 direct deposits, payroll vouchers 56582- 56806, and 1 wire transfer, totaling$1,899,043.51 . Don Persson, Chair Toni Nelson,Vice- air 61/ D is Law, Member Date 114/Roos FINANCE COMMITTEE COMMITTEE REPORT April 11,2005 Lease Amendment with Eoscene, Inc. (Referred March 21, 2005) The Finance Committee recommends concurrence in the staff recommendation to approve the lease amendment with Eoscene, Inc., for a 5-year extension of tenancy on the fourth and sixth floors of the 200 Mill Building, 200 Mill Avenue South, Renton, WA, 98055. The Committee further recommends that the Mayor and City Clerk be authorized to sign the Lease Amendment with Eoscene, Inc. Don Persson, Chair r amu` ` -� -- Toni Nelson, Vice Chair 1/(9,111c3.W, Denis W. Law, Member cc: Dennis Culp,Community Services Administrator Peter Renner,Facilities Director TRANSPORTATION/AVIATION COMMITTEE Da //-2GUS COMMITTEE REPORT April 11,2005 2005 Transportation Capital Improvement Fund Budget Increase and Project Reallocation (Referred: April 4, 2005) The Transportation/Aviation Committee recommends concurrence in the staff recommendation to approve the 2005 Fund 317 budget increase and project reallocation as identified in the ordinance as "Transportation Capital Fund, Attachment A" for the purpose of increasing the Fund 317 appropriations and reallocating the project allocation. The Committee further recommends that the ordinance regarding this matter be presented for first reading. U / 1 ' 1 Marcie '- 4 er it ,/' Don Persson, Vice-Chair - 'andy Corman, Member cc: Sandra Meyer,Transportation Systems Director Nick Afzali,Transportation Planning and Programming Manager Sharon Griffin,Transportation Program Development Coordinator H:\Trans\Ping\Sharon\Comm Reports\TCR 2005 Budget Increase and Reallocation aeilIta il-AIMS- CITY OF RENTON, WASHINGTON RESOLUTION NO. 37417 A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY OF RENTON, WASHINGTON, APPROVING FINAL PLAT (HERITAGE GLEN, AKA WESTCHESTER KENNYDALE; FILE NO. LUA-04-147FP). WHEREAS, a petition for the approval of a final plat for the subdivision of a certain tract of land as hereinafter more particularly described, located within the City of Renton, has been duly approved by the Planning/Building/Public Works Department; and WHEREAS, after investigation, the Administrator of the Planning/Building/Public Works Department has considered and recommended the approval of the final plat, and the approval is proper and advisable and in the public interest; and WHEREAS, the City Council has determined that appropriate provisions are made for the public health, safety, and general welfare and for such open spaces, drainage ways, streets or roads, alleys, other public ways, transit stops, potable water supplies, sanitary wastes, parks and recreation, playgrounds, schools, schoolgrounds, sidewalks and other planning features that assure safe walking conditions for students who walk to and from school; and WHEREAS, the City Council has determined that the public use and interest will be served by the platting of the subdivision and dedication; 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 IL The final plat approved by the Planning/Building/Public Works Department pertaining to the following described real estate, to wit: See Exhibit "A" attached hereto and made a part hereof as if fully set forth 1 RESOLUTION NO. (The property, consisting of approximately 6.38 acres, is located in the vicinity of Monterey Ave. NE and NE 20 Street) is hereby approved as such plat, subject to the laws and ordinances of the City of Renton, and subject to the findings, conclusions, and recommendation of the Planning/Building/Public Works Department dated March 10, 2005. 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 RES.1103:3/31/05:ma 2 RESOLUTION NO. EXHIBIT A • LEGAL DESCRIPTION: CHAMBERLAIN: TRACT 272, C.D. HILLMAN'S LAKE WASHINGTON GARDEN OF EDEN DIVISION NO. 4, ACCORDING TO THE PLAT THEREOF; RECORDED IN VOLUME 11 OF PLATS, PAGE 82, IN KING COUNTY, WASHINGTON; EXCEPT THE EAST 100 FEET THEREOF; AND EXCEPT THE SOUTH 80 FEET OF THE WEST 126 FEET THEREOF. BLONSKI: THE EAST 100 FEET OF TRACT 272, C.D. HILLMAN'S LAKE WASHINGTON GARDEN OF EDEN DIVISION NO. 4, ACCORDING TO THE PLAT THEREOF; RECORDED IN VOLUME 11, OF PLATS, PAGE 82, IN KING COUNTY, WASHINGTON. WEIGEL: THAT PORTION OF TRACT 263, C.D. HILLMAN'S LAKE WASHINGTON GARDEN OF EDEN DIVISION NO. 4, ACCORDING TO THE PLAT THEREOF; RECORDED IN VOLUME 11 OF PLATS, PAGE 82, IN KING COUNTY, WASHINGTON. COMMENCING AT THE SOUTHWEST CORNER OF SAID TRACT; THENCE NORTH ALONG THE WEST UNE THEREOF; 288 1/4 FEET; THENCE EAST IN A STRAIGHT UNE TO A POINT ON THE EAST UNE OF SAID TRACT, 288 1/4 FEET NORTH OF THE SOUTHEAST CORNER OF SAID TRACT; THENCE SOUTH ON SAID EAST UNE 130 FEET; THENCE WEST PARALLEL WITH THE NORTHERLY UNE OF THE PROPERTY HEREIN DESCRIBED 127 1/4 FEET; THENCE SOUTH 158 1/2 FEET TO THE SOUTH UNE OF SAID TRACT; THENCE WEST ON SAID SOUTH UNE 127 1/4 FEET, MORE OR LESS, TO THE POINT OF BEGINNING; EXCEPT THAT PORTION DESCRIBED AS FOLLOWS: BEGINNING AT A POINT ON THE SOUTH UNE OF SAID TRACT 263 DISTANT WESTERLY 127.25 FEET FROM THE SOUTHEAST CORNER THEREOF; THENCE NORTHERLY PARALLEL WITH THE EASTERLY UNE OF SAID TRACT 263, A DISTANCE OF 86 FEET; THENCE WESTERLY PARALLEL WITH THE SOUTH UNE OF SAID TRACT 263, A DISTANCE OF 95 FEET; THENCE SOUTHERLY PARALLEL WITH THE EAST LINE OF SAID TRACT 263, A DISTANCE OF 86 FEET TO THE SOUTH UNE THEREOF; THENCE EASTERLY 95 FEET TO THE POINT OF BEGINNING. CHAMBERLAIN: TRACT 252, C.D. HILLMAN'S LAKE WASHINGTON GARDEN OF EDEN DIVISION NO. 4, ACCORDING TO THE PLAT THEREOF; RECORDED IN VOLUME 11 OF PLATS, PAGE 82, IN KING COUNTY, WASHINGTON; EXCEPT THE SOUTH 80 FEET THEREOF; EXCEPT THE EAST 150 FEET LYING SOUTHERLY OF THE NORTH 12 FEET THEREOF ALSO THE WEST 15.5 FEET OF THE EAST 165.5 FEET OF THE SOUTH 80 FEET OF SAID TRACT 252; ALSO, EXCEPT THE NORTH HALF OF THE NORTH HALF OF SAID TRACT 252; AND THE SOUTH 288.25 FEET OF SAID TRACT 252. RESOLUTION NO. EXHIBIT A VICINITY MAP Kennydaie NE 28th St NE 27th St Lo 0 -4- ----"\ • z NE 24th St ¢. - LJ w z z t- u > Jo -c 'NE 20th St • • SITE delefreayi/- Dos CITY OF RENTON, WASHINGTON`/ RESOLUTION NO. .97W A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY OF RENTON, WASHINGTON, AUTHORIZING THE TEMPORARY CLOSURE OF THE NORTH AND SOUTHBOUND LANES OF LAKE WASHINGTON BOULEVARD, IN THE VICINITY OF NE 50TH ST., DURING THE PERIOD OF APRIL 15th, 2005 AND JULY 15th, 2005, FOR THE LAKE WASHINGTON BOULEVARD SLIP PLANE PROJECT. WHEREAS, the City of Renton plans to construct a soldier pile wall on the west side of Lake Washington Boulevard in the vicinity of NE 50th St. to remedy an existing unstable slope condition; and WHEREAS, this construction activity will require temporary street and lane closures of approximately 300 feet of Lake Washington Boulevard in the vicinity of NE 50th St.; and WHEREAS, to facilitate this construction and allow for a safe condition for both vehicles and pedestrians it is necessary to do this work under temporary street closures; and WHEREAS, pursuant to City Code section 9-9-3 the City Council is to authorize such closures by means of a Resolution; NOW, THEREFORE, THE CITY OF RENTON, WASHINGTON, DOES ORDAIN AS FOLLOWS: SECTION I. The above findings are true and correct in all respects. SECTION H. The City Council does hereby authorize the temporary closures of Lake Washington Boulevard, during the hours of 8:30 am to 5:30 pm, to occur during the period from April 15, 2005 to July 15, 2005, to allow the contractor to install the soldier pile wall and restore the roadway pavement. RESOLUTION NO. PASSED BY THE CITY COUNCIL this day of , 2005. Bonnie I. Walton, City Clerk APPROVED BY THE MAYOR this day of , 2005. Kathy Keolker-Wheeler, Mayor Approved as to form: Lawrence J. Warren, City Attorney Date of Publication: RES:1102:3/25/05:ma C:\Documents and Settings\Mary Ann\My Documents\Wiword\Res\1102.doc r CITY OF RENTON, WASHINGTON ORDINANCE NO. 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. w 1 ORDINANCE NO. SECTION III. This ordinance shall be effective upon its passage, approval, and Noe 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: err Lawrence J. Warren, City Attorney Date of Publication: ORD:1172:4/7/05:ma 2 Transportation Capital Fund 4/7/2005 Attachment A '4r.. Project Proposed TIP Project Title Number 2005 Budget Change 2005 Budget Comment Additional funding needs+2005 1 Street Overlay Program 317.012108 $ 405,000 $ 300,000 $ 705,000 budget. See Note 1. 2 SR 167/SW 27th St/Strander By 317.012138 10,000 (5,000) 5,000 Reduced request$5,000 for 2005. Completes 30%design for entire project. Recent federal award of 3a Strander By/SW 27th St Connect. 317.012239 800,000 10,000 810,000 $750,000. See Note 2. Complete final design for Ph.1, 3b Strander By, Phase 1, Segment 1 * 317.012239 210,000 210,000 Segment 1. See Note 2. TIB and Metro mitigation funding. Construct Ph 1 in 2005. Prepare PS&E package for Ph 2 with possible additional design($100k)due to 4 SR 169 HOV-140th to SR900 317.012175 10,000 1,107,800 1,117,800 Maintenance facility. See Note 3. 5 Renton Urban Shuttle(RUSH) 317.012163 5,000 - 5,000 Same as 2005 budget. 6 Transit Program 317.012109 20,400 - 20,400 Same as 2005 budget. $12,000 for additional work required to coordinate with Sound Transit and for 7 Rainier Av Corridor Study/Improv. 317.012193 20,000 63,100 83,100 additional project needs. Reduced$305,300 horn 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 rale 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. t 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 Slate 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. `fire IS/Azezdi4v Dom ' a ZUael-/-ee °21141.74' CITY OF RENTON, WASHINGTON /441.414441Z.,100— ORDINANCE NO. 5/83 AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF RENTON, WASHINGTON, AMENDING CHAPTER 8-1, GARBAGE, OF TITLE VIII (HEALTH AND SANITATION) OF ORDINANCE NO. 4260 ENTITLED "CODE OF GENERAL ORDINANCES OF THE CITY OF RENTON, WASHINGTON" BY REVISING DEFINITIONS, UNLAWFUL ACTS, AND PENALTIES, AND REVISING THE PROCEDURES FOR HANDLING THE ACCUMULATION, STORAGE, COLLECTION, AND DISPOSAL OF GARBAGE, SOLID WASTE,RECYCLABLES,AND YARD WASTE,AND REVISING THE DECLARATION OF PUBLIC NUISANCE FOR VIOLATIONS OF CHAPTER 8-1 AND DECLARING AN EMERGENCY. THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF RENTON, WASHINGTON, DOES ORDAIN AS FOLLOWS: SECTION I. Chapter 8-1, Garbage, of Title VIII (Health and Sanitation) of Ordinance No. 4260 entitled "Code of General Ordinances of the City of Renton, Washington" is hereby amended to read as follows: CHAPTER 1 GARBAGE SECTION: 8-1-1: Purpose 8-1-2: Definitions 8-1-3: Garbage, Recyclables, and Solid Waste Collection 8-1-4: Unlawful Storage, Deposit, Disposal, Scavenging, and Hauling of Solid Waste 8-1-5: Supervision 8-1-6: Violations of this Chapter Declared a Public Nuisance 8-1-7: Violations of this Chapter and Penalties 8-1-8: Schedule of Collection 1 ORDINANCE NO. 8-1-9: Billings and Collections; Lien and Enforcement 8-1-10:Rates for Services 8-1-11:Adoption by Reference 8-1-12:Severability 8-1-1 PURPOSE: It is the purpose of this Chapter to further the maintenance of health, sanitation, safety and public welfare by making the collection, disposal and removal of solid waste within the City compulsory and universal. The provisions of this Chapter shall be liberally construed for the accomplishment of that purpose. Collection of recyclables and yard waste shall be voluntary. 8-1-2 DEFINITIONS: ADJACENT: Lying next or near to or so close together that objects are not widely separated, although they may or may not touch. ALLEY: A public or private way giving access to the rear of lots or buildings. ANCILLARY DISPOSAL PROVIDER: A licensed person or business that offers delivery, maintenance or clean-up services that, by their nature, include a disposal function. Ancillary disposal providers must provide a legitimate service other than garbage collection and disposal services equivalent to those provided by a City contracted collection contractor. Examples of ancillary disposal providers include, but are not limited to licensed businesses that deliver new appliances, carpets or other furnishings and remove and dispose of the replaced item; licensed contractors that self-haul construction, demolition and land clearing waste that they produce during the course of their regular business activities; and licensed clean-up services that include a container or truck loading function in addition to hauling and disposal. 2 ORDINANCE NO. ASHES: The solid residue left over when combustible material is burned or is oxidized by chemical means including but not limited to the residue from coal, wood and any other combustible materials or fuels. BULKY WASTE: Large items of solid waste, including but not limited to items such as furniture; large household appliances, including but not limited to refrigerators, freezers, ovens, ranges, stoves, dishwashers, water heaters, washing machines, or clothes dryers;junk vehicles, vehicle hulks or any parts thereof as defined in RMC 6-1-1, as now worded or hereafter amended; and any other oversized solid wastes which would typically not fit into or be permitted for collection as garbage in garbage cans. CDL: Solid waste generated from construction, demolition and land clearing. CLINKER: A brick that has burned too much in a kiln or stony matter fused together by combustion or chemical reaction. COLLECTION CONTRACTOR: That entity holding a valid current contract with the City to collect and dispose of municipal solid waste and/or collect, process and market recyclable and/or yard waste materials. COLLECTION POINT: In multi-family residences, commercial, industrial and other nonresidential developments, the exterior location designated for garbage and recyclables collection by the City's contractor or other authorized haulers. COMMERCIAL CUSTOMER: Any business, institution, industrial site or multi-family residence within the City. COMPOST: A process of creating humus for mulch to fertilize and condition land by combining a mixture consisting of decaying or decayed organic matter in a pile or receptacle. Such organic matter includes, but is not limited to grass clippings, plant material, leaves, pine needles, wood 3 • ORDINANCE NO. chips, wood ashes, kitchen refuse including melon rinds, potato peelings, carrot peelings, tea bags, apple peelings and cores, banana peels, egg shells, or other vegetable or fruit matter. CURBSIDE: On the owner's property, within ten feet(10')of the public street without blocking sidewalks, driveways or on-street parking. For households currently receiving garbage pickup in an alley accessible by collection vehicles, "curbside" can be considered to be in the current alley location and within ten feet (10')of the edge of the alley. If extraordinary circumstances preclude such a location, curbside shall be considered a placement suitable to the resident and convenient to the collection contractor's equipment and approved by the City. DETACHABLE CONTAINER: A watertight, all metal container, compatible with the collection contractor's equipment, not less than one cubic yard nor greater than eight cubic yards in capacity and equipped with a tight-fitting cover. The contents of detachable containers are typically unloaded into a collection vehicle at the customer's site. DROP-BOX CONTAINER: An all-metal container with ten cubic yard or more capacity that is loaded onto a collection contractor's vehicle, transported to a disposal site, emptied and transported back to the customer's site. DUPLEX: A residence containing two(2)dwelling units. Each dwelling unit will be charged the single-family residential rate for collection. ELIGIBLE HOUSEHOLD: A. Multi-Family Program: A residence containing three(3)or more dwelling units and receiving commercial garbage pickup services. B. Residential Curbside Program: A residence containing not more than two(2) dwelling units and in which each unit receives individual garbage collection services. 4 • ORDINANCE NO. EXTRA GARBAGE UNIT: A garbage unit in addition to the number of garbage cans or garbage units to which the customer has subscribed. GARBAGE: This term shall be included within the definition of solid waste but shall not include all solid waste. Garbage shall exclude bulky waste, special waste, hazardous waste, construction, demolition, and land clearing waste,junk vehicles, vehicle hulks or parts thereof as defined in RMC 6-1-1, as now worded or hereafter amended, recyclable materials and yard waste, sewage, sludge or septage. GARBAGE CAN: A City approved container fabricated of material of similar size and weight to a container that is a watertight, galvanized sheet metal or plastic container not exceeding four(4) cubic feet or thirty two(32)gallons in capacity, weighing not over fifteen(15) pounds when empty or sixty-five(65)pounds when full; fitted with two (2) sturdy handles, one on each side, and a tight cover equipped with a handle; such can shall be rodent and insect-proof and be kept in a sanitary condition at all times. GARBAGE CART: A City approved, collection container contractor owned and provided by the contractor for the purpose of collecting garbage. GARBAGE DISPOSAL SITE OR DISPOSAL SITE: The areas owned, leased, or controlled by the King County Solid Waste Division, for the disposal of garbage or solid waste, or such other site as may be approved by the City and any other governmental agency having jurisdiction thereover. GARBAGE UNIT: Secure and tight bundles, none of which shall exceed three feet(3') in the longest dimension, and shall not exceed sixty five(65) pounds in weight or such"garbage unit" may be packed in small discarded boxes, barrels or bags, or in securely tight cartons or other 5 • ORDINANCE NO. receptacles reasonably easy to be handled and loaded by one person onto a collection contractor's vehicle. A garbage can may be a garbage unit. HAZARDOUS WASTE: Any wastes included in the State of Washington, Department of Ecology Dangerous Waste Regulations, Chapter 173-303 WAC. MINI-CAN: A City-approved container that is a watertight, galvanized sheet-metal or plastic container not exceeding ten(10)gallons in capacity or twenty-five(25) pounds in weight when full, fitted with a tight cover equipped with a handle. MINIMUM SERVICE LEVEL: A single-family residential, multifamily residential or commercial service at a 10-gallon garbage can rate, or at adequate service as determined by the Planning/Building/Public Works Administrator. The average weekly size and frequency of garbage service for a particular customer shall be determined by the Solid Waste Coordinator as the adequate service necessary to meet health standards of the Seattle-King County Health Department. MODERATE RISK WASTE: Any waste that exhibits any of the properties of dangerous waste but is exempt from regulation under RCW 70.102 solely because the waste is generated in quantities below the threshold for regulation and any household wastes that are generated from the disposal of substances identified by the department as hazardous household substances. MULTI-FAMILY RESIDENCE: A structure containing three(3)or more dwelling units. All multi-family residences shall be considered a commercial customer for charging of garbage rates. PERSON: Every person, firm, partnership, business, association, institution or corporation in the City accumulating garbage requiring disposal. The term shall also mean the occupant and/or the owner of the premises for which service herein mentioned is rendered. 6 • ORDINANCE NO. PLANNING/BUILDING/PUBLIC WORKS ADMINIS 1'RATOR: The official of the City holding that office, or the designated representative. RECYCLABLES: Newspaper, uncoated mixed paper, aluminum, glass and metal, food and beverage containers, polyethylene terepthalate(PET#1)plastic bottles, high density polyethylene(HDPE#2)plastic bottles, and such other materials that the City and collection contractor determine to be recyclable. RECYCLING BINS: A container provided by the City or collection contractor for the purpose of collecting recyclables. RECYCLING CART: A 32, 65, or 90 gallon wheeled container with a tight-fitting lid, provided by the City or collection contractor, for the purpose of collecting recyclables. RECYCLABLES DEPOSIT AREA: In multi-family residences, commercial, industrial and other nonresidential developments, the area(s)where recyclables will be stored. RESIDENCE: A building or portion thereof containing not more than two (2) dwelling units. RESIDENTIAL CUSTOMER: Those customers residing in single-family units and duplexes. SINGLE-FAMILY RESIDENCE: A residence containing not more than two dwelling units. Duplexes are considered Single-Family Residences. SOLID WASTE: All putrescible and nonputrescible solid and semi-solid waste-including, but not limited to garbage, rubbish, swill, refuse, trash, debris, ashes, clinkers, bulky waste, construction, demolition and land clearing waste,junk vehicles, vehicle hulks or parts thereof as defined in RMC 6-1-1, as now worded or hereafter amended, recyclable materials and yard waste, but excluding special or hazardous waste, sewage, sludge or septage. SOLID WASTE HANDLING: The management, storage, collection, transportation, treatment, utilization, processing and final disposal of solid waste, including the recovery and recycling of 7 . ORDINANCE NO. materials from solid waste, the recovery of energy sources from solid waste or the conversion of the energy in solid waste to more useful forms or combinations thereof, and the ownership or operation of a transfer station. SOLID WASTE UTILITY: That enterprise fund of the City managing the financial and administrative responsibilities for solid waste collection and disposal. SOLID WASTE COORDINATOR: The official of the City holding that office, or the designated representative. SPECIAL WASTE: A. Chemical waste from a laboratory. (This is limited to discarded containers of laboratory chemicals, lab equipment, lab clothing, debris from lab spills or cleanup and floor sweeping.) B. Articles, equipment and clothing containing or contaminated with polychlorinated biphenyls (PCB's). (Examples are: PCB capacitors or transformers, gloves or aprons from draining operations, empty drams that formerly held PCB's, etc.) C. "Empty" containers of waste commercial products or chemicals. (This applies to a portable container which has been emptied, but which may hold residuals of the product or chemical. Examples of containers are: portable tanks, drums, barrels, cans, bags, liners, etc. A container shall be determined"empty" according to the criteria specified at 40 C.F.R. 261.7.) D. Asbestos containing waste from building demolition or cleaning. (This applies to asbestos-bearing waste insulation materials, such as wallboard, wall spray coverings, pipe insulation, flooring tiles, siding, etc.) E. Commercial products or chemicals, off-specification, outdated, contaminated or banned. (This also includes products voluntarily removed from the marketplace by a 8 • ORDINANCE NO. manufacturer or distributor in response to allegations of adverse health effects associated with product use.) F. Residue and debris from cleanup of spills or releases of a single chemical substance or commercial product, or a single waste which would otherwise qualify as a miscellaneous special waste. G. Medical or infectious by-product waste from a medical or dental practitioner, individual(s), hospital, nursing home, medical testing laboratory, mortuary, taxidermist, veterinarian, veterinary hospital or animal testing laboratory, including but not limited to discarded needles or other"sharps." H. Animal waste and parts from slaughterhouses or rendering plants. I. Pumpings from septic tanks used exclusively by dwelling units. (Single-family units, duplexes, apartment buildings, hotels or motels.) J. Sludge from a publicly owned sewage treatment plant serving primarily domestic users(i.e., with no substantial industrial or chemical influent). K. Grease trap wastes from restaurants or cafeterias not located at industrial facilities. L. Washwater wastes from commercial car washes. (Note: this does not include facilities used for washing the exterior of bulk chemical or waste tank trucks, or for washing out the interior of any truck.) M. Washwater wastes from commercial laundries or Laundromats. N. Chemical containing equipment removed from service. (Example: cathode ray tubes, batteries, fluorescent light tubes, compact fluorescent lights, computer monitors, televisions, etc.) 9 ORDINANCE NO. O. Waste produced from the demolition or dismantling of industrial process equipment or facilities contaminated with chemicals from the process. P. Closed cartridge filters from dry-cleaning establishments. (Such filters being used to filter used dry-cleaning fluids or solids.) STREET: A public or private way, other than"alleys", used for public travel. SUNKEN CAN: Garbage cans which are in a sunken covered receptacle specifically designed to contain garbage cans and where the top of the garbage can is approximately at ground level. WASTE STREAM: The collection and disposal of solid waste and recyclable materials, excluding bulky waste, special waste, hazardous waste, construction, demolition and land clearing waste,junk vehicles, vehicle hulks or parts thereof as defined in RMC 6-1-1, as now worded or hereafter amended, sewage, sludge or septage. YARD WASTES: Includes leaves, grass, pruning and clippings of woody as well as fleshy plants. Materials larger than two inches (2")in diameter and four feet (4')in length shall not be considered yard waste. Christmas trees will be eligible for collection as yard waste; provided;that they have been cut into lengths of 4 feet or less and bundled, before being placed for collection. YARD WASTE CART: A City approved container at curbside or other approved point for the purpose of collecting yard wastes. 8-1-3 GARBAGE, RECYCLABLES, AND SOLID WASTE COLLECTIONS: A. Accumulation of Waste: All persons accumulating garbage in the City shall place and accumulate the same in garbage cans, garbage units or detachable containers. Recyclables may also be accumulated in recycling bins or recycling carts, and yard waste may also be accumulated in yard waste carts. 10 ORDINANCE NO. B. Collection of Garbage Required: Garbage collection shall be made by collection contractors as authorized by the City. All persons and properties within the City shall use the garbage collection system and service of the utility and collection contractor(s) of the City. C. Placement and Removal of Garbage Cans, Recycling Bins and Yard Waste Carts: Any single family residence accumulating garbage, recyclables, and yard waste shall place their materials for collection at the curbside no earlier than 24 hours prior to their collection day. Likewise, all garbage cans, recycling bins and yard waste carts must be removed from the curbside within 24 hours of being collected and returned to a location adjacent to the residential structure or within a fully enclosed building or garage. D. Minimum Service Level: All persons and occupied property shall be subject to and responsible for the minimum service level and associated charges for service for residential and commercial garbage collection as applicable, whether or not such persons use the service. The Solid Waste Coordinator may, upon a showing that a person or property produces no garbage and recyclable materials, waive the minimum service level requirements of this section. E. Collection of Residential and Multi-Family Recyclables: Any person may collect residential and multi-family recyclables. However, once recyclables are placed at the curbside or other approved point of collection, then residential and multi-family recyclables may be collected only by the City's collection contractor. F. Collection of Residential Yard Waste: Any person may collect residential yard waste. However, once residential yard waste is placed at the curbside or other approved point of collection, then residential yard waste may be collected only by the City's collection contractor. G. Weight of Cans and Collection Access: No garbage can when filled shall weigh more than sixty-five(65) pounds but shall be so packed that the contents thereof will dump out readily 11 ORDINANCE NO. when it is inverted. For residential customers, all garbage cans, recycling bins and yard waste carts shall be placed at curbside of the alley, street or road at which collection trucks are to be loaded. A residence located in an area that does not allow safe access, turn-around, or clearance for service vehicles or on a private drive will be provided service if materials are set out adjacent to a public street or private road or a location agreed to by the Solid Waste Coordinator and the City's collection contractor. H. Special Pickup Services: Special pickup services will be provided when authorized by the City, to those single-family residences and duplexes where there are handicapped or elderly people who cannot move their garbage cans, recycling bins, or yard waste carts to the curb. Single-family units and duplexes which are geographically located so as to make moving containers to the curb an unreasonable physical hardship must apply to the City for the special collection service and submit documentation to justify their application. Residences which qualify for this service will be determined by the Solid Waste Coordinator based upon submitted documentation. Special pickup services shall be from a convenient location, but such location shall be approved by both the City and the contractor. I. Number of Cans; Condition: Sufficient garbage cans must be provided for the collection of all garbage as defined in this Chapter. All garbage cans, detachable containers, recycling bins or yard waste carts shall be kept tightly covered and in good and sanitary condition for garbage and recyclables storage and handling, and garbage cans, detachable containers, recycling bins, or yard waste carts which leak or have jagged edges or holes shall not be used. The Solid Waste Coordinator, independently or at the request of the City's collection contractor, shall determine whether or not the condition of any garbage can, detachable container, drop box, recycling bin, or yard waste cart is satisfactory for use. 12 ORDINANCE NO. J. Commercial and Industrial: Subject to the approval of the City, agreement will be reached between the City's collection contractor and commercial and industrial customers concerning security, location of detachable containers, frequency of removal, and receipts for removal. K. Requirements for Garbage, Solid Waste and Recyclables Deposit Areas and Collection Point shall be designed and located as required by RMC 4-4-090 and this Chapter. L. Solid Waste Disposal System Designation: The County disposal system is designated for the disposal of all solid waste, including moderate risk waste generated and/or collected within the corporate limits of the City, and the County is authorized to designate disposal sites for the disposal of all solid waste, including moderate risk waste generated or collected within the corporate limits of the City, except for solid waste that is eliminated through waste reduction and/or waste recycling activities consistent with the County's Comprehensive Solid Waste Management Plan. No solid waste generated or collected within the City shall be diverted from the designated disposal sites without County approval. 1. The following facilities, which are owned and operated by vendors with which the County has contracts for construction, demolition and land clearing waste(hereinafter referred to as"CDL waste")handling or alternative facilities as the County may designate are hereby designated as the CDL receiving facilities for all nonrecyclable CDL waste generated within the corporate limits of the City. Rabanco Disposal Company Facilities: a. Rabanco Recycling and Waste Reduction Center, 2733 Third Avenue South, Seattle. 13 • • ORDINANCE NO. b. Regional Disposal Company Black River Transfer and Recycling Facility, Monster Road, Renton. c. Such other facilities as hereafter may be designated by the County. 2. All generators, handlers and collectors of CDL Waste shall deliver or ensure delivery of all nonrecyclable CDL waste generated within the corporate limits of the City to a designated CDL receiving facility or to a back-up facility designated by the County. 3. Recyclable CDL waste may be transported to any CDL recycling facility or to a recycling market within or outside of the City provided it contains CDL waste in amounts not exceeding ten percent (10%)of total weight per load. 4. Mixed CDL waste shall be taken only to a designated CDL receiving facility, back-up facility or CDL recycling facility located in the County to the extent permitted by applicable law; provided, that if mixed CDL waste is taken to a CDL receiving facility, all residual CDL waste must be taken to a designated CDL receiving facility or back-up facility designated by the County. M. Restrictions: Garbage shall be collected and hauled through the streets of the City only by the City's collection contractor or a person authorized to collect and haul garbage under RCW 35.13.280(Franchise) or holding a valid permit from the Utilities and Transportation Commission, except that a person within the City may occasionally self-haul garbage and recyclables from his or her property to an approved collection or disposal site. "Occasionally" shall not mean on a regular or scheduled basis, or for the purpose of avoiding paying an increased rate for service under RMC 8-1-10 for regular collection service. A minimum level of service shall be charged for each customer within the City without regard to any self-hauling of garbage and recyclables, as provided in RMC 8-1-3.D. 14 ORDINANCE NO. 8-1-4 UNLAWFUL STORAGE, DEPOSIT, DISPOSAL, SCAVENGING, AND HAULING OF SOLID WASTE: A. Unlawful Hauling of Garbage and Recyclables: It shall be unlawful for any person other than the City's collection contractor, or any other person authorized by the City to collect, haul, dump or dispose of garbage and recyclables within the City, except as provided in RMC 8-1- 3.M. B. Unlawful Hauling of Special or Hazardous Waste: It shall be unlawful for any person other than the City's collection contractor or any other person authorized by the City, state or county to collect, haul, dump or dispose of special or hazardous waste within the City. C. Unlawful Storage of Garbage and Recyclables: It shall be unlawful for any person to deposit,throw, dump, store, maintain, retain, keep or place garbage, recyclables or yard waste on private or public real property in the City, except in a garbage can or unit, recycling bin or yard waste cart for the purpose of storing such garbage, sel= t-recyclables or yard waste until the next regular collection date by the City's collection contractor or any other person authorized by the City to collect garbage or recyclables. This subsection shall not apply to yard waste in compost piles or receptacles so long as they are properly maintained free of all vectors and any odors traveling off-premises. Further, this subsection shall not apply to any business licensed to collect and store garbage and recyclables when done in an area zoned for the collection or disposal of garbage or recyclables. D. Unlawful Deposit of Garbage or Recyclables: It shall be unlawful to deposit,throw, dump, dispose or place any garbage, recyclables, or yard waste in any lane, alley, street, road or other public way or place in the City, except for the purpose of depositing such garbage, recyclables or yard waste at curbside in an approved container or containers for the next regular 15 ORDINANCE NO. collection by the City's collection contractor or any other person authorized by the City to collect garbage or recyclables. It shall also be unlawful to deposit,throw, dump or place any garbage, recyclables or yard waste on private property owned by another person in the City, without the consent of the landowner or person in possession or control of the real property. E. Unlawful Storage of Bulky Waste: It shall be unlawful for any person in the City to store, maintain, keep, retain, dump or accumulate bulky waste on private real property in the City, except for any licensed ancillary disposal provider or licensed business in connection with bulky waste collection or disposal in an area zoned for the collection or disposal of bulky waste. F. Unlawful Deposit of Bulky Waste: It shall be unlawful to deposit, throw, dump or place any bulky waste in any lane, alley, street, road or other public way or place in the City, except for bulky waste collection by the City's collection contractor or any other person authorized by the City to collect bulky waste or a licensed ancillary disposal provider pursuant to a City permit. It shall also be unlawful to deposit, throw, dump or place any bulky waste on private real property owned by another person in the City, without the consent of the landowner or person in possession or control of the real property. G. Unlawful Storage or Deposit of Special or Hazardous Waste: It shall be unlawful for any person in the City to store, maintain, keep, deposit, retain, dump or accumulate special or hazardous waste on private or public real property in the City. Any special or hazardous waste generated in the City shall be collected and disposed of in accordance with all federal, state, county, and local statutes, ordinances, rules and regulations, by a solid waste collection contractor licensed for such collection and disposal and stored and disposed of in an area zoned for the storage or disposal of special or hazardous waste. 16 ORDINANCE NO. H. Unlawful Deposit or Disposal into the Waste Stream of Special or Hazardous Waste: It shall be unlawful to deposit, throw, dump or place any special or hazardous waste into the waste stream in garbage cans or units, recycling bins or yard waste carts for regular garbage or recyclables collection, or to dispose of special or hazardous waste in a transfer station, recycling station or otherwise in the City, except in accordance with federal, state or county statutes or ordinances and in the manner approved by the state Department of Ecology or its successor, and by a person licensed by law for collection, transfer and disposal of special or hazardous wastes. L Unlawful Deposit or Storage of CDL: It shall be unlawful to deposit, throw, dump, place or store any CDL on private or public real property in the City of Renton, except for any licensed ancillary disposal provider or business in connection with CDL collection or disposal at a facility zoned for and designated for receiving disposal of CDL. J. Unlawful Use of Garbage Cans or Units, Dumpsters, Recycling Bins or Yard Waste Carts: It shall be unlawful to place, deposit or throw garbage, recyclables or yard waste in the garbage can or unit, detachable container, dumpster, recycling bin or yard waste cart that is owned, leased or rented by another person, without the consent of the person paying for the collection service. K. Unlawful Placement and Removal of Garbage Cans, Recycling Bins and Yard Waste Carts: It shall be unlawful for a person residing in a single family residence to place garbage, recyclables, or yard waste at the curbside for collection by the City's collection contractor, more than 24 hours prior to the regular collection date for his or her single family residence. It shall also be unlawful for a person residing in a single family residence to leave garbage cans, recycling bins or yard waste carts at the curbside more than 24 hours after collection by the City's collection contractor. Further, it shall be unlawful for a person residing in a single family 17 ORDINANCE NO. residence to maintain, place or store any garbage cans, recycling bins or yard waste carts at a location other than adjacent to the residential structure or within a fully enclosed building or garage. L. Unlawful Placement and Removal of Garbage Cans, Recycling Bins and Yard Waste Carts in Business Areas: It shall be unlawful for any person accumulating garbage, recyclables, and yard waste in the Center Downtown Zone, Center Neighborhood Zone or Center Suburban Zone, as set forth in RMC 4-2-020, whose location requires the placing of garbage cans or units, recycling bins or yard waste carts on sidewalks or alleys for collection, to place garbage cans or units, recycling bins or yard waste carts on sidewalks or alleys earlier than 5:00 p.m. It shall also be unlawful for any person who owns, leases or rents any garbage can or unit, recycling bins or yard waste carts in the zones referenced above to fail to remove their garbage, recycling and yard waste containers from sidewalks or alleys by 9:30 a.m. following collection of the garbage, recyclables or yard waste, except that if collection has not occurred by the City's collection contractor, then the garbage cans or units, recycling bins or yard waste carts shall be immediately removed following collection. M. Unlawful Deposit of Burning Material, Hot Ashes or Hot Clinkers for Collection: It shall be unlawful to deposit, throw, dump, or place burning material, incendiary hot ashes, hot clinkers or any other material or solid waste sufficiently hot to create combustion when the same come in contact with any garbage, into any garbage can or unit, recycling bin or yard waste cart for collection by the City's collection contractor. N. Unlawful Scavenging: Once any garbage, recyclables or yard waste have been set out on the curbside for collection, or at such other location as authorized by the City, ownership of the garbage, recyclables and yard waste passes to the City's collection contractor. It shall be 18 ORDINANCE NO. unlawful for any person, other than the City's collection contractor, to remove or collect any garbage, recyclables, or yard waste once it has been set out on the curbside or other approved location for collection. 8-1-5 SUPERVISION: The Planning/Building/Public Works Administrator of the City, or the Administrator's duly authorized representative, is hereby authorized and directed to supervise the collection and disposal of all garbage, recyclables, and yard waste as herein defined. 8-1-6 VIOLATIONS OF THIS CHAPTER DECLARED A PUBLIC NUISANCE: Any person violating any Section or part of this Chapter shall be deemed to have created a public nuisance as defined in RMC 1-3-4, as now worded or hereafter amended, and such public nuisance may be abated in accordance with RMC 1-3-3, as now worded or hereafter amended. Any person creating a public nuisance in violation of this Chapter shall be responsible for removing any unlawful solid waste from the waste stream, including any and all cleanup costs, damages, costs of suit, including attorney's fees and costs for experts incurred to enjoin such violation or removal of the unlawful solid waste from the waste stream, in addition to any remedies allowed pursuant to RMC 1-3-3, as now worded or hereafter amended. 8-1-7 VIOLATIONS OF THIS CHAPTER AND PENALTIES: A person violating any of the provisions of this Chapter shall be guilty of a misdemeanor. Penalties for violations of any of the provisions of this Chapter shall be in accord with RMC 1-3- 1, as now worded or hereafter amended. 8-1- 8 SCHEDULE OF COLLECTION: All garbage, recyclables, and yard wastes as herein provided will be collected within the boundaries of the City as follows: 19 ORDINANCE NO. A. Regular collections from business firms and commercial enterprises will be made as often as required but shall not exceed one pickup per day, five(5) days per week, Monday through Friday, between the hours of four o'clock (4:00) A.M. and four o'clock(4:00)P.M., unless the City authorizes an extension of such time. B. Regular collections of garbage from single-family units and duplexes shall be made one day per week between the hours of seven o'clock(7:00)A.M. and four o'clock(4:00)P.M., Monday through Friday, unless the City authorizes a temporary extension of hours. Regular collection of recyclables from single-family units, duplexes and multi-family residences shall be made one day per week between the hours of seven o'clock(7:00) A.M. and four o'clock(4:00) P.M., unless the City authorizes a temporary extension of hours or more frequent collection. Regular collections of yard waste from residences, except those located in mobile home courts, shall be weekly on the same day per week as regular garbage collection. Mobile home courts may have collection of yard wastes only upon agreement of the City and its collection contractor. C. When a legal holiday falls during the workweek and the contractor does not work on such holiday, Saturday collections will be permitted. 8-1-9 BILLINGS AND COLLECTIONS;LIEN AND ENFORCEMENT: A. Billings and Collections: 1. Billings: Unless otherwise specified in any contract between the City and the City's collection contractor, the City shall collect the charges for services rendered hereunder from the person as hereunto defined for whom collection services are furnished and/or the owner of the property for which the collection service is rendered. Such billing shall be made monthly or bimonthly and may include charges for other services rendered to the City to such person. 20 ORDINANCE NO. a. All charges for collection services rendered and billed hereunder shall be due and payable to the City within twenty five(25) days from billing date. b. If the charges billed are not paid within the twenty (20) day period from the due date, such charges shall become delinquent. Once the charges become delinquent, there shall be added a late fee of ten percent (10%)of the past due charges but not less than fifty cents ($0.50)to compensate the City for handling the past due account, subsequent billings and any collection action taken. c. Upon such delinquency occurring, and following at least one further billing for the charges, if the account is not paid within one hundred twenty(120) days of the rendering of the initial bill which has become delinquent,the City acting through its Utility billing section, in conjunction with the Solid Waste Coordinator, shall notify the collection contractor to cease all further collections for said account until payment of accumulated fees has been made in full. The stoppage of services for nonpayment of collection charges shall be in addition to any and all other rights of the City to proceed for the collection of unpaid charges. d. Following cessation of collection due to nonpayment of charges, the delinquent customer shall be penalized monthly an amount equivalent to the monthly services charged for collection as billed prior to the delinquency. B. Lien and Enforcement: Any such delinquent charges shall become a lien against the property for which the garbage collection service is rendered. A notice of the City's lien for garbage collection disposal service specifying the charges, the period covered by the charges, and giving the legal description of the premises sought to be charged, shall be filed with the office of the King County Auditor within the time required, and shall be foreclosed in the manner and within the time prescribed for liens for labor and material and as otherwise specified 21 ORDINANCE NO. in RCW 35.21.140 et seq. All liens filed pursuant to the aforecited State statute shall be prior to any and all other liens and encumbrances filed subsequent to the filing of such lien with the office of the King County Auditor, except the lien for general taxes and local improvement assessments whether levied prior or subsequent thereto. The City shall have the right to claim its collection costs and attorney's fees for foreclosure of the lien. C. Responsibility for Charges: The customer receiving collection services shall have a personal obligation to pay charges for said services. This obligation is in addition to the obligations detailed in Sections 8-1-9.A and 8-1-9.B. The City's Solid Waste Utility shall have the absolute authority, except as limited by State laws, to refuse to furnish service to, to discontinue service to, or to refuse to resume services to any applicant or customer on account of their failure to pay delinquent bills owing said utility by such person, whether such bills cover service at the premises sought to be served, or elsewhere within the City. D. Appeal: Prior to the City terminating further collections, the City's utility billing section shall send a notice to the responsible person or persons that the bill for services is delinquent and of the City's intention to terminate service. The person or persons so notified shall have the right, within ten(10)days of receipt of such notification, to appeal to the Finance and Information Services Administrator, in writing, the declaration of delinquency and the City's intention to terminate service. The notice shall be deemed received three(3) days following mailing of the notice. The Finance and Information Services Administrator's inquiry shall be limited to whether or not a delinquency exists, and whether or not the City should terminate further collection services. 22 ORDINANCE NO. 8-1-10 RATES FOR SERVICES: The following schedule is hereby adopted as the monthly charges to be paid to the City for services rendered in each category. These rates shall become effective with billings computed on or after January 1 of the year the budget is adopted. A. Residential Customers: 1. For garbage cans and/or garbage units: 2002 Renton Service Level SWU Monthly Rates Mini-can $6.40 1 can collected weekly 13.44 2 cans collected weekly 21.37 3 cans collected weekly 28.82 4 cans collected weekly 36.75 5 cans collected weekly 44.68 6 cans collected weekly 52.66 Each additional can weekly 8.00 Extra garbage, up to 15 gallons 4.00 per unit Return trip charge 3.00 64 gallon contractor cart— 23.33 new 96 gallon contractor cart— 31.15 new 2. Senior and/or disabled customers who qualified under Section 8-4-31.0 of this Title for low-income rates are eligible for a one dollar sixty cents ($1.60)fee mini-can service for a seventy-five percent (75%) subsidy, or three dollars eighty-four cents($3.84)for a forty percent (40%) subsidy. For services other than mini-can, the rate schedule above will apply. 23 ORDINANCE NO. 3. Miscellaneous Services: The City of Renton offers miscellaneous services. A trip charge of twenty dollars($20.00)will be imposed for each pickup. In addition, the following rates per item will be charged: Services Cost per Pickup On-Call Bulky Waste Collection Per Item: Refrigerators/freezers $39.13 Washing machine/clothes dryer 16.91 Stove/range/oven 16.91 Dishwasher 16.91 Water Heater 16.91 Other large appliances 16.91 Sofas/chairs 21.50 Mattresses/box springs 19.20 The City also offers the rental of a second 96-gallon yard waste cart for weekly pickup for one dollar ninety cents($1.90)per month. Yard waste will now be picked up weekly. B. Commercial Customers: 1. Garbage Cans: Customers have two types of service available in garbage cans— Commercial Can(32 gallons), or Commercial Mini-Can(20 gallons). 2002 Renton Service Level SWU Monthly Rates Commercial mini-can (20 gallon) $12.10 24 ORDINANCE NO. 1 commercial can (32 gallon can or units) 13.88 2 commercial cans 27.75 3 commercial cans 41.63 Extra commercial cans (per pickup) 8.00 2. Hydraulically Handled Containers One(1)to Eight(8)Yards: The rate for the handling of hydraulically handled containers approved by the City's contractor and the City for use by commercial, industrial and multiple-family residence establishments shall be as follows: a. Monthly Rates: 2002 Renton SWU Service Level Monthly Rates 64 gallon contractor cart $29.96 96 gallon contractor cart 48.23 1 yard container, 1 pickup/week 75.65 1 yard container, 2 pickups/week 142.32 1 yard container, 3 pickups/week 208.97 1 yard container, 4 pickups/week 275.62 1 yard container, 5 pickups/week 342.29 1.5 yard container, 1 pickup/week 103.59 1.5 yard container, 2 pickups/week 197.32 1.5 yard container, 3 pickups/week 291.05 1.5 yard container, 4 pickups/week 384.78 1.5 yard container, 5 pickups/week 478.50 2 yard container, 1 pickup/week 127.42 2 yard container, 2 pickups/week 243.66 2 yard container, 3 pickups/week 359.92 2 yard container, 4 pickups/week 476.17 2 yard container, 5 pickups/week 592.42 3 yard container, 1 pickup/week 181.18 3 yard container, 2 pickups/week 349.53 3 yard container, 3 pickups/week 517.88 3 yard container, 4 pickups/week 686.22 3 yard container, 5 pickups/week 854.58 4 yard container, 1 pickup/week 234.00 4 yard container, 2 pickups/week 453.99 25 ORDINANCE NO. 4 yard container, 3 pickups/week 673.98 4 yard container, 4 pickups/week 893.98 4 yard container, 5 pickups/week 1,113.96 6 yard container, 1 pickup/week 331.80 6 yard container, 2 pickups/week 640.29 6 yard container, 3 pickups/week 948.78 6 yard container, 4 pickups/week 1,257.26 6 yard container, 5 pickups/week 1,565.75 8 yard container, 1 pickup/week 427.53 8 yard container, 2 pickups/week 826.57 8 yard container, 3 pickups/week 1,225.60 8 yard container, 4 pickups/week 1,624.63 8 yard container, 5 pickups/week 2,023.67 Extra commercial yards 15.38 1 yard compactor 624.48 1.5 yard compactor 661.59 2 yard compactor 715.49 3 yard compactor 806.48 4 yard compactor 913.18 6 yard compactor 989.79 Multi-family yard waste(incl. cart) 39.62 b. Rental Rates: Rental rates for one(1)to eight(8)yard containers will be paid in the monthly rates. c. Minimum Pickups: Minimum pickups for containers and compactors between one(1)to eight(8)yards will be once per week. 3. Temporary containers are rented and billings are handled directly by Waste Management, Inc. 4. Extra Charges: a. A ten dollar($10.00) charge will be added for each occurrence of the following services: (1) Container rollouts and rollbacks over fifteen feet (15')from the point of safe truck access. 26 ORDINANCE NO. (2) Commercial cans placed more than fifty feet (50')from the point of safe truck access. (3) Opening and closing of container enclosure gates and/or locking and unlocking of container lids. b. A twenty-five dollar($25.00) charge will be added for each occurrence of the following services: (1) Hydraulic disconnect and reconnect of compactors. (2) Compactor roll-off box turnaround. (3) Containers that are not available for collection at regularly scheduled pickup time and a request is made that the contractor make a special return trip. c. Any extra yardage charges determined by the collection contractor due to overflowing containers will be charged per yard at the one(1)yard rate listed under subsection B.2 of this Section. 5. Special Services: Whenever special services not contained within this schedule are required, the rate charged for those special services shall be negotiated by the customer with the City and the collection contractor. C. Commercial Roll Off Customers: Commercial roll off customers are those who have a ten(10)to forty(40)yard container or compactor. These large disposal containers are lifted and weighed at the disposal facility. Commercial container customers pay a disposal pickup fee based upon the number of pickups, a weight-based fee and a container rental fee. Compactor customers pay a pickup fee based upon the number of pickups and a weight-based disposal fee. 1. Base Pickup Fees: The base pickup fees are as follows on a per occurrence basis: 27 ORDINANCE NO. Commercial Roll Off Rates are Per Pickup 10 yard containers $92.40 15 yard containers 92.40 20 yard containers 100.85 30 yard containers 113.40 40 yard containers 125.53 10 yard compactor 130.46 20 yard compactor 130.46 30 yard compactor 226.80 40 yard compactor 302.40 The minimum pickup is twice per month. 2. Rental Rates: The following are rental rates for roll off containers. Monthly Rental Rates 10 yard container $38.66 15 yard container 55.16 20 yard container 71.68 30 yard container 88.18 40 yard container 108.69 3. Disposal Fees: In addition to the base charge per pickup and the monthly rental fee, the customer must pay weight-based disposal fees plus tax. D. (Rep. by Ord. 4898, 3-19-2001) E. Classification And Appeal: Service category classifications shall be on the basis of the type and volume of solid waste and the purpose and type of the dwelling or facility being served as determined by the Planning/Building/Public Works Administrator of the City, or the Administrator's duly authorized representative. Any person who shall deem their classification improper may appeal to the Solid Waste Coordinator within forty five(45) days following their classification or change of classification. After the decision of the Solid Waste Coordinator, if 28 ORDINANCE NO. the party appealing is still aggrieved, then the party may appeal to the Planning/Building/Public Works Administrator, whose decision shall be final. 8-1-11 ADOPTION BY REFERENCE: A. The following Federal, State and local environmental health laws, rules or regulations, at least one copy of which is on file with the City Clerk, are hereby adopted as applicable laws, rules and regulations governing the generation and collection of solid waste: 1. Resource Conservation and Recovery Act, as amended, 42 U.S.C. 6901 et seq. 2. Title 70.95 RCW, as amended. 3. King County Board of Health Rules and Regulations No. 8. 4. King County Code Title 10. B. All waste generated or collected from within the corporate limits of the City which is delivered to the County system for disposal shall be in compliance with such provisions. 8-1-12 SEVERABILITY: If any section, subsection, paragraph, sentence, clause, or phrase of this Chapter is for any reason held to be invalid or unconstitutional such invalidity or unconstitutionality shall not affect the validity or constitutionality of the remaining portions of this Chapter, it being herein expressly declared that this Chapter and each section, subsection, paragraph, sentence, clause and phrase thereof would have been adopted irrespective of the fact that any one or more other sections, subsections, paragraphs, sentences, clauses or phrases be declared invalid or unconstitutional. SECTION II. In order to further the purpose of maintaining health, sanitation, safety and public welfare relating to the collection, disposal and removal of solid waste within the City, an emergency is hereby declared and this ordinance shall take effect immediately. 29 e ORDINANCE NO. PASSED BY THE CITY COUNCIL this day of , 2005. Bonnie I. Walton, City Clerk APPROVED BY THE MAYOR this day of , 2005. Kathy Keolker-Wheeler, Mayor Approved as to form: Lawrence J. Warren, City Attorney Date of Publication: ORD.1170:3/18/05:ma. 30