No preview available
HomeMy WebLinkAboutCouncil 12/22/2003it AGENDA RENTON CITY COUNCIL REGULAR MEETING December 22, 2003 Monday, 7:30 p.m. 1. PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE (Flag Ceremony by Cub Scout Pack 482) 2. CALL TO ORDER AND ROLL CALL 3. PROCLAMATION: National Mentoring Month - January, 2004 4. PUBLIC MEETINGS: a. Maplewood Highlands Annexation - 10% Notice of Intent Petition to Annex for 10.88 acres bounded by 144th Ave. SE, NE 2nd St., and Lyons Ave. NE b. Merritt II Annexation - 10% Notice of Intent Petition to Annex for 20.59 acres bounded by Lyons Ave. NE, SE 100th St., and 14.2nd Ave. SE 5. ADMINISTRATIVE REPORT 6. AUDIENCE COMMENT (Speakers must sign up prior to the Council meeting. Each speaker is allowed five minutes. The comment period will be limited to one-half hour. The second audience comment period later on in the agenda is unlimited in duration.) When you are recognized by the Presiding Officer, please walk to the podium and state your name and address for the record, SPELLING YOUR LAST NAME. 7. CONSENT AGENDA The following items are distributed to Councilmembers in advance for study and review, and the recommended actions will be accepted in a single motion. Any item may be removed for further discussion if requested by a Councilmember. a. Approval of Council meeting minutes of December 15, 2003. Council concur. b. Administrative, Judicial and Legal Services Department recommends approval of a contract with Warren, Barber & Fontes, P.S. for legal services. Council concur. c. Economic Development, Neighborhoods and Strategic Planning Department recommends that public hearing dates be set on 1/26/2004 and 3/01/2004 on the proposed R-1 prezone for the proposed Bales Annexation; 8.52 acres bounded by SE 128th St., SE 130th St., 156th Ave. SE, and 152nd Ave. SE. Council concur. d. Economic Development, Neighborhoods and Strategic Planning Department recommends a public hearing be set on 1/12/2004 to consider the 50% Petition to Annex for the proposed Stoneridge Annexation; 28 acres bounded by Jericho Ave. SE, 148th Ave. SE, NE 19th St., and NE 16th St. Council concur. e. Finance and Information Services Department recommends approval of a resolution updating signature authorities for depositories and electronic fund transfers for the City, due to personnel changes. Council concur. (See 10.a. for resolution.) f. Fire Department recommends approval of the City of Renton Hazard Mitigation Plan. Council concur. (See 10.b. for resolution.) g. Hearing Examiner recommends approval, with conditions, of the Clover Creek II Preliminary Plat; 15 single-family lots on 4.43 acres located at Park Ave. N. and NE 27th Pl. (PP-01-034). Council concur. (CONTINUED ON REVERSE SIDE). v i h. Community Services Department submits CAG-03-138, Museum Roof Replacement; and requests approval of the project, authorization for final pay estimate in the amount of $4,787.20, commencement of 60-day lien period, and release of retained amount of $3,325 to Lloyd A. Lynch, Inc., contractor, if all required releases are obtained. Council concur. Additionally, approval is sought to defer a 316 CIP Fund project ($50,000) to cover the shortfall in the Museum Roof Replacement project budget. Refer to Finance Committee. 8. CORRESPONDENCE 9. OLD BUSINESS Topics listed below were discussed in Council committees during the past week. Those topics marked with an asterisk (*) may include legislation. Committee reports on any topics may be held by the Chair if further review is necessary. a. Public Safety Committee: Fire Department Records Management System Agreement Addendum b. Utilities Committee: Soos Creek Water & Sewer District Boundary Agreement Addendum* 10. ORDINANCES AND RESOLUTIONS Resolutions: a. Updating signature authorities for banking transactions (see 7.e.) b. Hazard Mitigation Plan (see 71.) c. Soos Creek Water & Sewer District Boundary Agreement Addendum (see 9.b.) Ordinances for second and final reading: a. 2003 amendments to zoning classifications of properties (1st reading 12/15/2003) b. Multi -Family Housing Property Tax Exemption (1st reading 12/15/2003) c. Real estate sign code amendments (1st reading 12/15/2003) d. Downtown core parking standards (1st reading 12/15/2003) 11. NEW BUSINESS (Includes Council Committee agenda topics; call 425-430-6512 for recorded information.) 12. AUDIENCE COMMENT 13. ADJOURNMENT COMMITTEE OF THE WHOLE AGENDA (Preceding Council Meeting) CANCELLED • 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 December 22, 2003 Council Chambers Monday, 7:30 p.m. MINUTES Renton City Hall FLAG CEREMONY Cub Scout Pack 482 posted the colors and led the audience in the Pledge of Allegiance. ROLL CALL OF KATHY KEOLKER-WHEELER, Mayor Pro Tem; DAN CLAWSON; TONI COUNCILMEMBERS NELSON; RANDY CORMAN; DON PERSSON; KING PARKER; TERRI BRIERE. CITY STAFF IN JAY COVINGTON, Chief Administrative Officer; LAWRENCE J. WARREN, ATTENDANCE City Attorney; BONNIE WALTON, City Clerk; GREGG ZIMMERMAN, Planning/Building/Public Works Administrator; ALEX PIETSCH, Economic Development Administrator; DON ERICKSON, Senior Planner; DEREK TODD, Assistant to the CAO; CHIEF LEE WHEELER, DEPUTY CHIEF GLEN GORDON and FIRE MARSHAL/BATTALION CHIEF LARRY RUDE, Fire Department; COMMANDER KEVIN MILOSEVICH, Police Department. PROCLAMATIONS A proclamation by Mayor Tanner was read declaring the month of January, National Mentoring Month - 2004, to be "National Mentoring Month" in the City of Renton in tribute to the January, 2004 many mentors in Renton who contribute their time, compassion, and talents to help young people in the community succeed. MOVED BY CORMAN, SECONDED BY NELSON, COUNCIL CONCUR IN THE PROCLAMATION AS READ. CARRIED. Amy Bresslour, Mentor Program Coordinator with Communities in Schools of Renton, accepted the proclamation with appreciation for the support the program receives from the Mayor, Council, City staff, and citizens. King Parker Recognition A proclamation by Mayor Pro Tem Keolker-Wheeler was read recognizing outgoing Councilmember King Parker's service to the Renton community. Councilman Parker has lived and worked in Renton for over 36 years, served on the City Council for eight years, represented the City on several boards and committees, and was selected as Citizen of the Year in 1999. MOVED BY CORMAN, SECONDED BY CLAWSON, COUNCIL CONCUR IN THE PROCLAMATION. CARRIED. PUBLIC MEETINGS This being the date set and proper notices having been posted and published in Annexation: Maplewood accordance with local and State laws, Mayor Tanner opened the public meeting Highlands, 144th Ave SE to consider the proposed Maplewood Highlands 10% Notice of Intent to Annex Petition for approximately 9.89 acres located on the half block immediately north of the Maplewood Heights Elementary School. The area is bounded by 144th Ave. SE on the west, NE 2nd St. on the north, and Lyons Ave. NE on the east. Senior Planner Don Erickson reported that the proposed annexation area contains 15 single-family dwellings and is within the East Renton Plateau Potential Annexation Area. He noted that the topography is essentially flat with a slight slope to the northwest. Public services are provided by Water District #90, Renton sewer, Fire District #25, Renton School District, and he pointed out that stormwater improvements are likely on 144th Ave. SE. Current King County zoning for the annexation area is R4 (Residential - four dwelling units per gross acre). The area is designated Residential Low Density December 22, 2003 Renton City Council Minutes Page 478 by Renton's Comprehensive Plan for which R-4 (Residential - four dwelling units per net acre) zoning is proposed. Mr. Erickson analyzed the fiscal impacts of the proposed annexation, assuming an increase to 34 single-family homes at full development and a new home value of $380,000. Stating that the City will realize a surplus of $6,471 at full development, he noted the estimated one-time parks acquisition and development expense of $20,245. In conclusion, he said the annexation proposal complies with Boundary Review Board objectives and City policies, and except for parks and surface water, no major services issues were identified. Responding to Councilman Persson's inquiry regarding expanding the annexation area to include Maplewood Heights Elementary School, Mr. Erickson reported that the annexation of the school will be considered as a separate annexation proposal. Public comment was invited. Chris Johnson, 519 Hoquiam Ave. NE, Renton, 98059, stated that his property was recently annexed to Renton; however, prior to the annexation, he was concerned about costs, services, and sewer issues. Mr. Johnson thanked the City for its responsive police service, and questioned whether the policy has changed regarding hooking -up to the City's sewer. Mr. Erickson stated that the sewer policy has not changed. Residents are not required to hook-up to Renton's sewer unless they choose to, have a septic failure, or property owners establish a Local Improvement District. There being no further public comment, it was MOVED BY PARKER, SECONDED BY PERSSON, COUNCIL CLOSE THE PUBLIC MEETING. CARRIED. MOVED BY PERSSON, SECONDED BY CORMAN, COUNCIL ACCEPT THE 10% NOTICE OF INTENT TO ANNEX PETITION, AUTHORIZE CIRCULATION OF THE 50% PETITION TO ANNEX, AND IF PROPERTY OWNERS AND REGISTERED VOTERS WISH TO BE ANNEXED TO RENTON, REQUIRE THE ADOPTION OF CITY ZONING ON THE PROPERTY CONSISTENT WITH THE COMPREHENSIVE PLAN, AND REQUIRE THAT PROPERTY OWNERS ASSUME A PROPORTIONAL SHARE OF THE CITY'S BONDED INDEBTEDNESS. CARRIED. Annexation: Merritt II, Lyons This being the date set and proper notices having been posted and published in Ave NE accordance with local and State laws, Mayor Tanner opened the public meeting to consider the proposed Merritt H 10% Notice of Intent to Annex Petition for approximately 20.59 acres located to the northwest of the Stonegate subdivision. The site is bounded by Lyons Ave. NE on the east, SE 100th St., if extended, on the south, and approximately 142nd Ave. SE, if extended, on the west. Don Erickson, Senior Planner, stated that the site is within the East Renton Plateau Potential Annexation Area and currently contains five single-family dwellings. The topography consists of some steep slopes along a ridge that runs diagonally through the muddle of the site, and May Creek intersects the site's northern tip. He noted that the site is considered to be within a high erosion hazard area. Reviewing the public services, Mr. Erickson explained that the potential annexation area is served by Fire District 25, by both the December 22, 2003 Renton City Council Minutes Page 479 Renton and Issaquah School Districts, and is within the Water District #90, Renton, and Coal Creek Utility District water service areas. Mr. Erickson reported that the existing King County zoning is R-1 (one dwelling unit per gross acre). The area is designated Residential Low Density by Renton's Comprehensive Plan and is prezoned R-1 (one dwelling unit per net acre). Regarding the fiscal impact of the proposed annexation, he stated that the City will realize a $2,208 surplus at full development, assuming an increase to 17 single-family homes and an assessed home value of $400,000. A one- time estimated parks acquisition and development expense of $10,866 is anticipated. He concluded that the proposed annexation is generally consistent with Boundary Review Board objectives, conforms to City policies, and serves the best interests and general welfare of the City. In response to Councilman Persson's inquiry, Mr. Erickson confirmed that even though property owners representing 100% of the site's 20.59 acres signed the petition, a 50% Direct Petition to Annex must still be circulated. Public comment was invited. Bob Blayden, 9933 143rd Ave. SE, Renton, 98059, reported that he owns 6.15 acres of the proposed annexation area, and expressed his support for the annexation. Jean Rollins, 9605 143rd Ave. SE, Renton, 98059, stated her support for the annexation. She noted that the site is a green belt urban separator, is subject to the May Creek Basin action plan, contains sensitive slopes, and is a high erosion hazard. Ms. Rollins reviewed Renton's Comprehensive Plan policies pertaining to open space protection and street standards, and requested the City use its policies to require development clustering, open space tracts, and minimal street lighting. In conclusion, she urged the City to provide the same environmental protection, and the same amenities and neighborhood mitigation as King County. Debra Rogers, 5326 NE 22nd Ct., Renton, 98059, indicated that she lives in the nearby Stonegate neighborhood, and stated her support for the annexation. Pointing out that that although Mike Merritt's property is accessible from her neighborhood off of Lyons Ave. NE, she requested that the City not allow any other adjoining properties in the proposed annexation area to have that same access right, so as to avoid security and traffic problems. John Todderud, 5316 NE 24th Ct., Renton, 98059, reported that he also lives in the Stonegate neighborhood, and pointed out that the potential annexation site lacks parkland. He asked the City to consider acquiring land for that use. Andrew Duffus, 9605 143rd Ave. SE, Renton, 98059, stated that he is in favor of the annexation. He indicated that the City Council and staff understand the environmental constraints of the area and recognize the surface water issues associated with the steep slopes, erosion hazards, water quality, and fish habitat challenges. Mr. Duffus encouraged the City to be cognizant of the ongoing surface water problems and to find permanent solutions for those problems. There being no further public comment, it was MOVED BY BRIERS, SECONDED BY CLAWSON, COUNCIL CLOSE THE PUBLIC MEETING. CARRIED. MOVED BY PARKER, SECONDED BY PERSSON, COUNCIL ACCEPT THE 10% NOTICE OF INTENT TO ANNEX PETITION, AUTHORIZE December 22, 2003 Renton City Council Minutes Page 480 CIRCULATION OF THE 50% PETITION TO ANNEX, AND IF PROPERTY OWNERS AND REGISTERED VOTERS WISH TO BE ANNEXED TO RENTON, REQUIRE THAT PROPERTY OWNERS ASSUME A PROPORTIONAL SHARE OF THE CITY'S BONDED INDEBTEDNESS. CARRIED. Responding to Council President Keolker-Wheeler's inquiry regarding the timing of the two proposed annexations, Mr. Erickson stated that the Merritt JI Annexation should move fairly quickly (six to ten months); however, he indicated that he was unable to predict whether the Maplewood Highlands Annexation has enough support to move forward. 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 2003 and beyond. Items noted included: King County is offering free Christmas tree cycling on January 3 and 4, from 9:00 a.m. to 5:00 p.m. at the Renton Boeing Facility located at the intersection of NE Park Dr. and Garden Ave. N. Tattletale lights, small blue lights attached to red turn signal lights, have been installed at the intersection of S. 2nd St. and Rainier Ave., SW 43rd St. and East Valley Rd., and Grady Way and Rainier Ave. The small light on the signal box turns blue at precisely the same time a turning vehicle would get the red light, thereby enabling the motorcycle officer to monitor red light violations. CONSENT AGENDA Items on the consent agenda are adopted by one motion which follows the listing. At the request of Councilman Persson, item 7.b. was removed for separate consideration. Council Meeting Minutes of Approval of Council meeting minutes of December 15, 2003. Council concur. December 15, 2003 Annexation: Bales, SE 128th Economic Development, Neighborhoods and Strategic Planning Department St recommended that public hearing dates be set on 1/26/2004 and 3/01/2004 on the proposed R-1 prezone for the proposed Bales Annexation; 8.52 acres bounded by SE 128th St., SE 130th St., 156th Ave. SE, and 152nd Ave. SE. Council concur. Annexation: Stoneridge, 148th Economic Development, Neighborhoods and Strategic Planning Department Ave SE & NE 16th St recommended a public hearing be set on 1/12/2004 to consider the 50% Petition to Annex for the proposed Stoneridge Annexation; 28 acres bounded by Jericho Ave. SE, 148th Ave. SE, NE 19th St., and NE 16th St. Council concur. Finance: Signatures for Finance and Information Services Department recommended approval of a Banking Transactions resolution updating signature authorities for depositories and electronic fund transfers for the City, due to personnel changes. Council concur. (See page 481 for resolution.) Fire: Hazard Mitigation Plan Fire Department recommended approval of the City of Renton Hazard Mitigation Plan. Council concur. (See page 481 for resolution.) Plat: Clover Creek 11, Park Ave Hearing Examiner recommended approval, with conditions, of the Clover Creek N, PP-01-034 II Preliminary Plat; 15 single-family lots on 4.43 acres located at Park Ave. N. and NE 27th Pl. (PP-01-034). Council concur. December 22, 2003 Renton City Council Minutes Page 481 CAG: 03-138, Museum Roof Community Services Department submitted CAG-03-138, Museum Roof Replacement, Lloyd A Lynch Replacement; and requested approval of the project, authorization for final pay estimate in the amount of $4,787.20, commencement of 60-day lien period, and release of retained amount of $3,325 to Lloyd A. Lynch, Inc., contractor, if all required releases are obtained. Council concur. Additionally, approval was sought to defer a 316 CIP Fund project in the amount of $50,000 to cover the shortfall in the Museum Roof Replacement project budget: Refer to Finance Committee. MOVED BY KEOLKER-WHEELER, SECONDED BY PARKER, COUNCIL APPROVE THE CONSENT AGENDA AS AMENDED TO REMOVE ITEM 7.b. FOR SEPARATE CONSIDERATION. CARRIED. Separate Consideration Administrative, Judicial and Legal Services Department recommended approval Item 7.b. of a contract with Warren, Barber & Fontes, P.S. for legal services. Legal: Legal Services Stating that the contract needs further review, it was MOVED BY PERSSON, Contract, Warren, Barber & SECONDED BY CORMAN, COUNCIL REFER THIS ITEM TO THE Fontes PS FINANCE COMMITTEE. CARRIED. OLD BUSINESS Utilities Committee Chair Corman presented a report recommending Utilities Committee concurrence with the recommendation of the Planning/Building/Public Works Utility: Soos Creek Water & Department to approve the addendum to the water and sanitary sewer boundary Sewer Boundary Agreement agreement between Renton and Soos Creek Water and Sewer District that Addendum conditionally allows Soos Creek to service a portion of their sewer service area into Renton's facilities. The Committee further recommended Council adopt the resolution authorizing the Mayor and City Clerk to execute the interlocal agreement. MOVED BY CORMAN, SECONDED BY BRIERE, COUNCIL CONCUR IN THE COMMITTEE REPORT. CARRIED. (See page 482 for resolution.) Public Safety Committee Public Safety Committee Chair Clawson presented a report regarding the Fire CAG: 02-020, Fire Department Department records management contract. The Committee recommended Records Management System, concurrence in the recommendation of staff to approve the contract addendum Public Safety Consultants with Public Safety Consultants, Inc. in the amount of $74,348.95, to continue implementing and integrating the FDM software. The Committee further recommended that the Mayor and Cites be authorized to execute the contract addendum. MOVED BY CLAWSON, SECONDED BY NELSON, COUNCIL CONCUR IN THE COMMITTEE REPORT. CARRIED. ORDINANCES AND The following resolutions were presented for reading and adoption: RESOLUTIONS Resolution #3679 A resolution was read authorizing signature for depositories and electronic fund Finance: Signatures for transfers on behalf of and in the name of the City of Renton. MOVED BY Banking Transactions PARKER, SECONDED BY CORMAN, COUNCIL ADOPT THE RESOLUTION AS READ. CARRIED. Resolution #3680 A resolution was read adopting the City of Renton Hazard Mitigation Plan. Fire: Hazard Mitigation Plan MOVED BY CLAWSON, SECONDED BY BRIERE, COUNCIL ADOPT THE RESOLUTION AS READ. CARRIED. December 22, 2003 Renton City Council Minutes Page 482 Resolution #3681 A resolution was read authorizing the Mayor and City Clerk to enter into an Utility: Soos Creek Water & interlocal agreement with the Soos Creek Water and Sewer District to modify Sewer Boundary Agreement the interlocal agreements between the City and Soos Creek Water and Sewer Addendum District related to the establishment of service boundaries. MOVED BY BRIERE, SECONDED BY CORMAN, COUNCIL ADOPT THE RESOLUTION AS READ. CARRIED. The following ordinances were presented for second and final reading and adoption: Ordinance #5060 An ordinance was read adopting the 2003 amendments to the zoning Zoning: 2003 Annual Update classifications of properties located within the City of Renton. MOVED BY of Zoning Book & Wall Map BRIERE, SECONDED BY CLAWSON, COUNCIL ADOPT THE ORDINANCE AS READ. ROLL CALL: ALL AYES. CARRIED. Ordinance #5061 An ordinance was read amending Chapter 1, Administration and Enforcement, Planning: Multi -Family of Title IV (Development Regulations) of City Code to establish a property tax Property Tax Exemption exemption incentive for the development of multi -family housing in targeted areas. MOVED BY BRIERE, SECONDED BY CLAWSON, COUNCIL ADOPT THE ORDINANCE AS READ. ROLL CALL: ALL AYES. CARRIED. Development Services: Real Councilwoman Briere explained that due to concerns from the property rental Estate Sign Code Amendments community, second reading of the ordinance regarding the real estate sign code amendments will be postponed until 1/12/2004. NEW BUSINESS MOVED BY CORMAN, SECONDED BY NELSON, COUNCIL SET A Council: Special Meeting, SPECIAL MEETING ON 1/05/2004 AT 6:30 P.M. FOR THE PURPOSE OF Swearing -In of Elected SWEARING -IN THE NEW ELECTED OFFICIALS. CARRIED. Officials Council: Outgoing Describing how overwhelmed he was as a newly elected Councilmember in Councilmember Comments 1996, Councilman Parker indicated that he soon understood the government (Parker) process and learned to work within it. He stated that the job has been challenging and rewarding, and expressed his gratitude for having had the opportunity to serve his community in this way. Councilman Parker commended City of Renton staff, Administration, and fellow Councilmembers for working very hard to do their best for the community. Additionally, he thanked his wife for all of her support. Councilmembers expressed their appreciation to Mayor Tanner and Councilman Parker for their many years of service to the Renton community. ADJOURNMENT MOVED BY PARKER, SECONDED BY NELSON, COUNCIL ADJOURN. CARRIED. Time: 8:44 p.m. BONNIE I. WALTON, City Clerk Recorder: Michele Neumann December 22, 2003 CITY COUNCIL COMMITTEE MEETING CALENDAR Office of the City Clerk COUNCIL COMMITTEE MEETINGS SCHEDULED AT CITY COUNCIL MEETING December 22, 2003 COMMITTEE/CHAIRMAN DATE/TIME AGENDA COMMITTEE OF THE WHOLE MON., 12/29 NO MEETING (5th Monday) (Keolker-Wheeler) MON., 1105 CANCELLED COMMUNITY SERVICES (Nelson) FINANCE MON., 1/05 Vouchers; (Parker) 5:45 p.m. City Attorney Contract Renewal PLANNING & DEVELOPMENT (Briere) PUBLIC SAFETY (Clawson) TRANSPORTATION (AVIATION) (Persson) , 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. CITY OF RIENTON Mayor Jesse Tanner Whe,reCW, Communities in Schools of Renton represents a local partnership with the City of Renton, the Renton School District, businesses, churches, health and social service providers, parents, students, and community members; and W herecW, the mission of Communities in Schools of Renton is to champion the connection of needed community resources with schools to help young people successfully learn, stay in school, and prepare for life; and Whe4-ems; Communities in Schools of Renton's Mentor Program links a caring adult with a child at school sites within the Renton district for one hour a week during the school day; and W he ww, each mentor -student relationship helps build an inter -generational connection to improve the student's well-being and self-esteem; and N&W, T71erelbre; I, Jesse Tanner, Mayor of the City of Renton, do hereby proclaim the month of January, 2004 as NaUov� in the City of Renton, in tribute to the many Mentors in Renton who contribute their time, compassion, and talents to help young people in our community succeed. 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 22"d day of December, 2003. Mayor of the City of Renton, Washington 1055 South Grady Way - Renton, Washington 98055 - (425) 430-6500 / FAX (425) 430-6523 ® This paper contains 50 % recycled material, 30 % post consumer R E 1®T 'T ®1�T AHEAD OF THE CURVE �yCITY OF RENTON g-R Mayor Jesse Tanner Whereat, King Parker has lived and worked in the Renton community for over 36 years and during that time, found numerous ways to serve the community; and W herea4, for 21 of those years, King has successfully operated the business known world- wide as "King and Bunny's Appliances" (Home of the Whammer Deal!); and W herec , King was elected to the Renton City Council in 1995, and began his service on the Council in January 1996;.and W herea4, from the beginning, King applied his business background and customer service philosophy to his city responsibilities in order to best serve Renton citizens; and W herea4, during his eight -year tenure on the City Council, King has `served on each of the seven Council Committees, served one year as chair of the Community Services Committee, one year as chair of the Committee of the Whole, and took particular interest and delight in chairing the Finance Committee for six of his eight years on the Council; and Wherea,, no one can quote the amount the City pays for its monthly power bill like King can; and W he e,a, , during his time as a City Councilmember, King made sure that the City's focus on economic development provided results in all areas throughout the City and worked to ensure that the City's neighborhood interests were addressed; and W herea4, King represented the City on several boards and committees, including Hotel/Motel Tax Advisory Committee, Performing Arts Center Committee, Fire Pension Board, Law Enforcement Officers/Firefighters Pension Board, Regional Water Quality Committee, Region 8 Watershed Inventory Resource Area Forum, and the Inter -City Policy Board for the Suburban Cities Association; and W herea,s, King also served on the volunteer Pool Task Force that recommended the City move ahead with similar plans to that of the recently dedicated Henry Moses Aquatic Center; and W her'ea*; King's marketing prowess and unstoppable enthusiasm for Renton made him a natural to represent Renton's efforts for community -wide marketing, and helped to brand Renton Ahead of the Curve; and 1055 South Grady Way - Renton, Washington 98055 - (425) 430-6500 / FAX (425) 430-6523 9 This paper contains 50 % recycled material, 30 % post consumer RENTON AHEAD OF THE CURVE Wherea4; King has also served as a Communities in Schools of Renton mentor to an elementary -aged child for more than five years; and W h ev ec , in 1999 King was recognized for his overall service to Renton when he was selected as Citizen of the Year; and Whe,rec4, King always used his time as a Councilmember to never stop acting as one of Renton's most positive and cheerful ambassadors; and Wh.P.4,-ea4, these walls will long echo with the sound of King's deep and forceful voice, his general observations about how great Renton is, and his enthusiastic responses during public hearings, Council debates, staff presentations, and citizen comments; Now, T AerefCq,-ei, on behalf of the Renton' ity Ciiunc 1, I, Kathy Keolker-Wheeler, Mayor Pro-tem of the City of Renton, do.hereby salui6,with pride, pkl � service to this community, and aenco.0 rag all Renton,resident In witness whereof, I have hereunto set my hand and caused tf, affixed this 22"d day of December;`2003> s Kathy Ke ker-Wheeler Mayor Pro-tem of the City of Rentok Washington Xa`y and gratitude King Parker's to the same. alhof the City of Renton to be �k Iv,<APLEWOOD HIGHLANDS ANNEXATION PUBLIC MEETING COUNCIL CONSIDERATION OF PROPOSED ANNEXATION - WITH R-4 ZONING December 22, 2003 The City is in receipt of a Notice of Intention to Commence Annexation Petition from property owners in the proposed annexation area representing approximately 32% of the area's 9.89 acres (see back side of handout). The subject site is within the City's East Renton Plateau Potential Annexation Area and is designated Residential Low Density (RLD) on the City's Comprehensive Plan Land Use Map. This site currently has the County's R-4 zoning on it. The area currently has 15 single-family dwelling units. Proposed zoning would be R-4 (4 units per net acre). This is slightly less density than would be allowed under the County's R-4 zoning due to the difference between gross and net density. With the City's proposed R-4 zoning, the site could accommodate approximately 34 single-family detached dwelling units including the 15 units now within it. In contrast to the City's zoning the County zoning allows both attached and detached units. Under the recently adopted new rules amending RCW 35A.14.120, direct petitions to annex are initiated by property owners representing at least 10% of the annexation area's acreage. The Notice of Intention to Commence Annexation Proceedings petition is then forwarded to the Council. Council is required to hold tonight's public meeting in order to decide whether the City will accept, reject or geographically modify the proposed annexation. If the Council decides to accept the 10% Notice of Intent Petition, it may: 1. Authorize the circulation of the new 50% Direct Petition to Annex; 2. Decide whether to require the -simultaneous adoption of zoning consistent with the Comprehensive Plan Land Use Map; and, 3. Decide whether to require property owners within the annexation area to assume their fair share of the City's existing indebtedness. Council Hearing Handout 12-22-03.doc\ Proposed Maplewood Highlands Annexation Figure 3: Existing Structures Map Site Boundary — — — City Limits tiS Economic Development, Neighborhoods & Strategic Planning — Urban Growth Boundary ♦ ♦ Alex Pietsch, Administrator G. Del Rosario Existing Structure L'N rO� 28 October2003 i � r L Maplewood. Highlands Annexation Public Meeting December 22, 2003 Background • 10% Petition to Commence Annexation received October 24, 2003 • Signatures representing 16 % of proposed area's acreage • Site within East Renton Plateau Potential Annexation Area • Recently adopted City Comp Plan Amendments for area change land use designation to Residential Low Density (RDL) • King County zoning is R-4 (4 du/gross acre) • R-4 zoning (4 du/net acre) proposed upon annexation Existing Conditions • Location — east of 144th Ave SE in King County and south of NE 2nd Street in Renton • Size - 9.89 acres • Uses - 15 existing single-family detached dwellings • Boundaries - site abuts Renton on its north and east and Maplewood Elementary School on south Existing Conditions - Vicinity LTI C. FUU. M. TETI J.. NkV... T 'A d St S. 47th St 144th Avenue SE Figure 1 - Vicinity Map Existing Conditions- Structures A b . . .............. ........ . .... ..... ........ ..... 'Tg .. . ........... .................. 13�77,77,"'zil, SE I . ..................... ........ . . School Homes on south side T rl of NE 2nd.St Figure 2 - Structures Map N3 S ! C wA '10 t i NA `!�r r �'�aa�-�'`st�*•'1i�� t.)iJ� x''�` r�r��fi�(al �)��srr`t) �Ay ,m e. ��`?"- g�"Jd€»w+ga� u+1ri 3 `k .Poi ar?.�.yz •'�..h` (, Bd''. � Y?.�� aw"" ,., ;..:� tk^�� �k• a t �,�`p� Existing Conditions -Topography Figure 5 - View looking northeast from144th Avenue SE Existing Conditions Public Services • Utilities — Within District # 90 Water Service Area — Within Renton Sewer Service Area — Stormwater improve- ments likely on 144th • Fire - District 25 under contract with Renton • Schools - Renton District r 4. R Existing Land Use Designation and Current Zoning K.C. Land Use Map -Urban Residential 4-12 du/ac K.C. Zoning - R-4 - Residential 4 du/gross ac Figure 6 - County Zoning Map Existing Land Use Designation and Proposed Zoning Renton Comp Plan Land Use Map - Residential Low Density Renton Zoning Map - R-4 (4 du/net acre) Figure 7 - Renton Zoning Map 2 Fiscal Impact Analysis • General Fund cost and revenue implications — Assumes potential of + 34 single-family detached homes at full development — Assumes a new home value of $380,000 — Assumes 14 dwellings currently on site Fiscal Impact Analysis One-time expenses: Parks acquisition and development @ $20,245 7 Fiscal Impact Analysis Current Dev Full Dev Revenues: $131365 Costs: $161036 Surplus/<Deficit> $2fi7l $54,441 $471969 $6,471 One-time expenses: Parks acquisition and development @ $20,245 Relevant Boundary Review Board Objectives • Preservation of natural neighborhoods and communities — no change • Use of physical boundaries, including but not limited to bodies of water, highways, and land contours — uses major arterials and City boundary • Creation and preservation of logical service areas — school district does not change and service areas previously agreed to • Prevention of abnormally irregular boundaries — not applicable • Incorporation as cities or towns or annexation to cities or towns — annexation is consistent with latter Conclusion • Furthers City Business Goals • Generally consistent with City policies for annexation • Consistent with City policies for single-family rezones • Generally consistent with Boundary Review Board criteria • Moderate revenue surplus at full development • Except for parks and surface water, no major service issues identified • Best interests and general welfare of City served �L� Recommendation • Accept the 10% Notice of Intent Petition • Authorize circulation of the 50% Direct Petition to Annex for this 9.89-acre area, asking property owners and registered voters: — whether they wish to be annexed to Renton and, if so, — whether property owners within the annexation area shall be required to assume their fair share of the City's outstanding indebtedness — whether R-4 zoning should be applied to this area once if it is annexed to the City v Qi r= � � 1 MERRITT II ANNEXATION PUBLIC MEETING COUNCIL CONSIDERATION OF PROPOSED ANNEXATION WITH R-1 ZONING December 22, 2003 The City is in receipt of a Notice of Intention to Commence Annexation Petition from property owners in the proposed annexation area representing 100% of the area's 20.59 acres (see map on back of handout). The subject site is within the City's East Renton Plateau Potential Annexation Area and is designated Residential Low Density (RLD) on the City's Comprehensive Plan Land Use Map. This site currently has the County's R-1 zoning and there are 5 dwelling units on it. In 1996 the site was prezoned to R-1 (1 unit per net acre). With the City's R-1 prezoning, the site could accommodate approximately 17 single-family detached dwelling units including the 5 units already there. Unlike the County zoning which allows both attached and detached units, Renton's zoning only allows detached single-family dwelling units. Under the recently adopted new rules amending RCW 35A.14.120, direct petitions to annex are initiated by property owners representing at least 10% of the annexation area's acreage. The Notice of Intention to Commence Annexation Proceedings petition is then forwarded to the Council. Council is required to hold tonight's public meeting in order to decide whether the City will accept, reject or geographically modify the proposed annexation. If the Council decides to accept the 10% Notice of Intent Petition, it may: 1. Authorize the circulation of the new 50% Direct Petition to Annex; 2. Decide whether to require the simultaneous adoption of zoning consistent with the Comprehensive Plan Land Use Map; and, 3. Decide whether to require property owners within the annexation area to assume their fair share of the City's existing indebtedness. Council Hearing Handout 12-22-03.doc\ fl I F-I 6' n ffD -,I I V � I �❑ a al ~ ►I L� L�jLE�J]E�i UD E= El ❑E Q M w I X This dowmrnt is a grophie represrntatirn, not guaranteed to survey accuracy, intrnded for dty prtp�ees only oM based on the frost 'formation awilable os of the dote eM1own. Th{s mop ie for display purposes only. Proposed Merritt Annexation 0 200 400 Figure 3: Existing Structures Map 1 : 2400 Gti�Y Q{, Economic Development, Neighborhoods & Strategic Planning Existing Structure ♦ + Alex Pietsch, Administrator --- Renton City Limits =�- G. Del Rosario L'NTo 3 November 2003 O Proposed Annexation Area Merritt 11 Annexation Public Meeting December 22, 2003 Background • Revised 10% Petition to Commence Annexation received October 31, 2003 • Signatures representing 100 % of proposed area's 20.59 acres • Site within East Renton Plateau Potential Annexation Area • Recently adopted City Comp Plan Amendments for area change land use designation to Residential Low Density (RDL) • King County zoning is R-1 (1 du/gross acre) • Area including annexation site prezoned R-1 in 1997 Existing Conditions • Location — east of 142th Ave SE if extended and west of Lyons Ave NE (Stonegate) — south of SE May Valley Road. • Size - 20.59-acres • Uses - 5 existing single-family detached dwellings • Boundaries - site abuts Renton on portions of its southern and eastern boundaries 2 � �6P�ura.ur r , �i;g7ifur "r�Ll� logo Q U. �ttycl�u,� mctw "rr =Itut7iiIIIIi1jL• s I� � / *! � �J-�� Existing Conditions - Structures N 00 Figure 2 - Structures Map 9 NIUrl VV� 'No"' 2"N !1.111 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Existing Conditions -Topography Topography- average slope of 10% to north. Some steep slopes of 40% along ridge = yf line ' S Existing Conditions - Public Services • Utilities — Within District # 90 and Renton Water Service Areas • Fire - Fire District 25 Schools — Split between Renton and Issaquah School Districts E Existing Conditions - Public Services .._.. _....... _........ _............. ..J._...1 fl Coal_ Lek Uti r-District-9,6- ryoe, Area_J EIELTO 'Aft �o �(-'yy L] D i- Wate Water District Renton 90 Service Are S rvice rea Water Utility ' : 1 t- 7' Districts Existing Land Use Designation and Current Zoning K.C. Land Use Map -Urban Residential - 1 du/ac K.C. Zoning - R-1 - Residential 1 du/gross ac Figure 9 - County Zoning Map Existing Land Use Designation and Proposed Zoning Renton Comp Plan Land Use Map - Residential Low Density Renton Zoning Map - R-1 (1 du/net acre) Figure 10 - Renton Zoning Map Fiscal Impact Analysis • General Fund cost and revenue implications — Assumes potential of + 17 single-family detached homes at full development — Assumes a new home value of $400,000 — Assumes S dwellings currently on site VA Fiscal Impact Analysis Revenues: Costs: Current Dev Full Dev $81225 $28,335 VM24 $261127 Surplus/<Deficit> $1,201 $21208 One-time expenses: Parks acquisition and development @ $10,866 Fiscal Impact Analysis One-time expenses: Parks acquisition and development @ $10,866 Relevant Boundary Review Board Objectives • Preservation of natural neighborhoods and communities — no change • Use of physical boundaries, including but not limited to bodies of water, highways, and land contours —uses City boundaries and parcel boundaries • Creation and preservation of logical service areas - school district does not change and service areas previously agreed to • Prevention of abnormally irregular boundaries — boundaries considered interim pending future annexations to UGA boundary • Incorporation as cities or towns or annexation to cities or towns — annexation consistent with criteria N. Conclusion • Furthers City Business Goals • Generally consistent with City policies for annexation • Consistent with City policies for single-family rezones • Generally consistent with Boundary Review Board criteria • Minor revenue surplus at full development • Except for parks and surface water, no major service issues identified • Best interests and general welfare of City Recommendation • Accept the revised 10% Notice of Intent Petition • Authorize circulation of the 50% Direct Petition to Annex for this 20.59-acre area, asking: both property owners and registered voters: — whether they wish to be annexed to Renton and, if so, — whether property owners within the annexation area shall be required to assume their fair share of the City's outstanding indebtedness 0 01-4 4 ; s r w s CITY OF RENTON MEMORANDUM DATE: December 22, 2003 TO: Kathy Keolker-Wheeler, Council President Members of the Renton City Council FROM: Jesse Tanner, 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 • Renton City Hall and other public facilities will be closed on Thursday, December 25"'; Friday, December 260'; and Thursday, January V. Police and fire personnel will remain on duty 24 hours a day. The public is invited to attend a special Council meeting at 6:30 p.m. on Monday, January 5t", as Mayor - elect Kathy Keolker-Wheeler, two newly elected Councilmembers, and two returning Councilmembers are officially sworn in. The ceremony will take place in the Renton City Council Chambers, 7th floor of Renton City Hall, 1055 S. Grady Way. Washington State Attorney General Christine Gregoire will administer the oath of office to Kathy Keolker-Wheeler as she is sworn in as Mayor. King County District Court Judge Robert McBeth will swear in newly elected Councilmembers Marcie Palmer and Denis Law and re-elected Councilmembers Toni Nelson and Don Persson to their respective Council positions. A public reception will follow. COMMUNITY SERVICES DEPARTMENT • The Renton City Concert Band's holiday concert was held at the IKEA Performing Arts Center on December 11"'. With more than 500 people attending, this new venue was definitely a success. • On Saturday, December 13t", the Senior Activity Center sponsored Breakfast with Santa. This annual event hosted over 400 people, with Santa Claus available for pictures with each child. Thanks to all the volunteers from the Renton Key Club at Renton High School, Hazen High School, Kiwanis Club, and Senior Activity Center for helping to make this event possible. • On December 14'h, more than 250 people enjoyed the music of the Renton Youth Symphony Orchestra's holiday concert held at Carco Theatre. • The Canine Candy Cane Fun Run and Walk was held at the Community Center on December 10' with over 120 runners, walkers, and dogs crossing the finish line and then posing with Santa for a fun photo! Donations for the event came from Talking Rain and Sports Etc. PLANNING/BUILDING/PUBLIC WORKS DEPARTMENT • On December 130', the 26-inch Williams northwest natural gas pipeline ruptured near Toledo, Washington. This follows a May V rupture of the pipeline near Lake Tapps, Washington. The line had been operated at 80% design pressure (under a corrective action notice from the Office of Pipeline Safety). This line runs from Washougal, Washington, near the Columbia River, to Sumas, Washington, near the Canadian border, a length of 268 miles. The line runs several miles east of the Renton city limits but has a lateral line that delivers natural gas to the Williams Pipeline Station at the corner of SR 515 and South 21st Street in Administrative Report 12/22/03 Page 2 Renton. A revised corrective action order requires Williams Pipeline Company to begin reducing the pressure of the line to 100 psi within 30 days, replace the line within high population areas within three years, in other areas of importance within five years, and the entire pipeline within ten years. Williams runs a parallel 30-inch natural gas pipeline that will not be shut down and which should provide sufficient natural gas supply to the region while remedial work is being done to the 26-inch pipeline. King County is offering free tree cycling on Saturday, January P, and Sunday, January 4 h, from 9:00 a.m. to 5:00 p.m. at the Renton/Boeing Facility located at the intersection of NE Park Drive and Garden Avenue N. This event is for Christmas trees ONLY - yard waste, artificial, fireproofed, or flocked trees will not be accepted. All hooks, ornaments, tinsel, and stands must be removed. Tree base must be four inches or less in diameter and there is a limit of three trees per car. This event is for residential customers only; trees will not be accepted from fundraising groups. For additional information, please call King County Solid Waste at 206-296-4466. Trees will also be collected on regularly scheduled yard waste pick-up days for yard waste customers with normal curbside pick-up. However, trees must have no flocking or tinsel, all ornaments must be removed, and trees must be trimmed to less than four feet in length and two feet in diameter. POLICE DEPARTMENT • Tattletale lights, small blue lights attached to red turn signal lights, have been installed at the intersections of 2nd/Rainier (westbound to southbound turn), 43rd/E Valley Road (southbound to eastbound turn), and two at the intersection of Grady/Rainier (westbound to southbound, and southbound to eastbound turns). The small light on the signal box turns blue at precisely the same time a turning vehicle would get the red light, thereby enabling the motorcycle officer to sit at a safe location and monitor red light violations. Historically, the Rainier/Grady intersection has been the highest crash intersection in Renton and the new tattletale lights will allow more focus for red light violations at that location. • During the week of December 23-29, the Police Department will be conducting traffic emphasis in the following areas and, in addition, all school zones during school days: Renton Police Department Traffic Enforcement Emphasis December 23-29 Date 6:00 a.m. to Noon Noon to 6:00 p.m. All Da Motorcycles/Cars Motorcycles/Cars Radar Trailer December 23, Tuesday 1100 blk, Carr Rd (speed) Williams/Grad Way (stop sign) 1100 blk, N 30 St (speed) Rainier Ave N (speed) 2600 blk, NE 7 St December 24, Wednesday Rainier Ave N (speed) SW Sunset Blvd (turns/speed) Maple Valley Hwy (speed) Maple Valle H (speed) 300 blk, Edmonds Ave SE December 25, Thursday Holiday Holiday Holiday December 26, Friday Holiday Holiday Holiday December 29, Monday Rainier Ave N (speed) Edmonds Ave SE (speed) Maple Valley Hwy (speed) Rainier Ave N (speed) 1300 blk, N 3rd St CITY OF RENTON COUNCIL AGENDA BILL Submitting Data: Dept/Div/Board.. EDNSP/Strategic Planning Staff Contact...... Don Erickson (x-6581) Subject: Bales Annexation R-1 Prezoning Exhibits: Issue Paper, Committee of the Whole Report and Recommendation Recommended Action: Council concur Al #: For Agenda of: December 22, 2003 Agenda Status Consent .............. Public Hearing.. Correspondence.. Ordinance ............. Resolution............ Old Business........ New Business....... Study Sessions...... Information ......... Approvals: Legal Dept...... 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: On December 15th, 2003 the Committee of the Whole considered this issue and recommended that the Bales Annexation area be prezoned to R-1, which would be applied upon annexation. Because the Revised Code of Washington (RCW 35A.14.330-340) stipulates that the legislative body of the code city must hold two or more public hearings on the proposed zoning regulation, staff is recommending that Council set aside meeting dates in January and February for this purpose. STAFF RECOMMENDATION: Council establish January 26th and March 1st, 2004 as future public hearing dates to consider R-1 prezoning for the Bales Annexation site. ►a Bales Annexation R-1 Prezoning Public Hearings/agnbill/ de CITY OF RENTON ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT, NEIGHBORHOODS, AND STRATEGIC PLANNING DEPARTMENT MEMORANDUM DATE: December 17, 2003 TO: Kathy Keolker-Wheeler, President City Council Members VIA: Mayor Jesse Tanner FROM: Alex Pietsch, Administrator Economic Development, Neighborhoods, and Strategic Planning Department STAFF CONTACT: Don Erickson (x-6581) SUBJECT: Bales Annexation R-1 Prezone ISSUE: Because R-5 zoning for this annexation by election was voted down the annexation site must be prezoned consistent with the Comprehensive Plan Land Use Map. Of the two remaining zones allowed under the Residential Low Density land use designation, R-1 is the denser of the two and therefore closer to the R-5 zone. RECOMMENDATION: • Prezone the 8.52-acre Bales Annexation site R-1, one unit per net acre, consistent with the Comprehensive Plan Land Use Map. • Hold the first of two required public hearings on this proposed prezone on January 26, 2004. BACKGROUND SUMMARY: Voters at the special annexation election held on September 16, 2003 approved by a majority the Bales Annexation and agreed to assume their fair share of the City's bonded indebtedness. However, they failed to approve the proposed R-5 prezone since the vote was split 50150 between those supporting it and those opposed to it. The City Attorney has determined that since the R-5 zoning was basically rejected by the voters, it can not be reconsidered as part of the annexation. Therefore, in order for the 8.52-acre site to be brought into the City it must be prezoned with another zone consistent with the City's current Bales Annexation R-1 Prezone December 17, 2003 Page 2 Comprehensive Plan Land Use Map designation for it. Besides the R-5 zone, the Residential Low Density land use designation also allows the Resource Conservation zone and the R-1 zone. Staff is recommending the R-1 zone, with the understanding that the applicant will apply for R-5 zoning, through the Hearing Examiner, once the Bales Annexation site is brought into the City. On December 15`h, 2003 Council adopted the recommendation of the Committee of the Whole to adopt R-1 prezoning for the Bales Annexation site consistent with the Residential Low Density Comprehensive Plan land use designation. Under state law two public hearings on the proposed prezone are required. Staff are requesting that the first of these be held on January 26`h, 2004 and the second on March ls`, 2004. CONCLUSION: R-1 prezoning of the Bales Annexation site would allow the City to complete the annexation process and bring this 8.52 acre site into the city. Since Council endorsed this annexation earlier, this would appear to be in the best interest and general welfare of the City. The applicant has stated that it is their intent, once they are in the City, to request a rezone to the R-5 zone, through the Hearing Examiner. Staff have indicated that they would support such a change since surrounding properties within the City are currently zoned R-5 and future properties in the Residential Low Density designation nearby will likely be zoned R-4, upon annexation. H:/EDNSP/Strategic Planning/PAA/Annexations/Bales fiPPR0V17) By 1 CITE' COU'NUL Date COMMITTEE OF THE WHOLE COMMITTEE REPORT December 15, 2003 Bales Annexation Zoning — Leifer Letter eferred November 3, 2003 The Committee recommends that the Council adopt R-1 zoning under the Residential Low Density.Comprehensive Plan land use designation. This recommendation is based upon. the City Attorney's: letter. of September 26, 2003 in which he opines that, since the R-5 zoning regulation was rejected by the electorate Wo longer be considered as part of the same annexation. '- 7 If the property owners desir ,. n's dke"pti, n f R-5 z din fter the subject properties are annexed into the City, they eeletutli za ong Inge gh the Hearing Examiner. al athy olker-Wheeler; . c c szeri �• f` cc: Alex Pietsch. Rebecca Lind Don Erickson Bales Annexation -Leifer Letter.rpt\ rev 01/02 bh CITY OF RENTON COUNCIL AGENDA BILL Dept/Div/Board.. Economic Development, Neighborhoods and Strategic Planning Staff Contact...... Don Erickson x6581 iubject: PROPOSED ANNEXATION Stoneridge Annexation — 50% Petition to Annex Exhibits: Issue Paper Petition and Certification For Agenda of: Agenda Status Consent .............. Public Hearing.. Correspondence.. Ordinance ............. Resolution............ Old Business........ New Business....... Study Sessions...... Information......... Recommended Action: Approvals: Council concur. Legal Dept......... Finance Dept...... Other ............... Fiscal Impact: Expenditure Required... Transfer/Amendment....... Amount Budgeted.......... Revenue Generated......... Total Project Budget N/A City Share Total Project.. December 22, 2003 SUMMARY OF ACTION: The Council accepted a 10% Notice of Intent petition to initiate annexation of approximately 28 acres located west of 148th Avenue SE and north of NE Sunset Blvd. The proponents have submitted a 50% Petition to Annex that has been certified as sufficient by the King County Department of Assessments and the King County Records, Elections and Licensing Services Division. Under State law, a Public Hearing must be held prior to acceptance of the Petition to Annex. STAFF RECOMMENDATION: Council set January 12, 2004 for a public hearing to accept the Stoneridge Annexation 50% Petition to Annex and authorize the sending of the Notice of Intent package to the Washington State Boundary Review Board for King County. C:\Documents and Settings\mpetersen\Local Settings\Temp\Agenda Bill 50%.doc/ CITY OF RENTON ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT, NEIGHBORHOODS AND STRATEGIC PLANNING MEMORANDUM DATE: December 10, 2003 TO: Kathy Keolker-Wheeler, Council President City Council Members VIA: L Mayor Jesse Tanner �J FROM: Alex Pietsch, Administrator Economic Development, Neighborhoods and Strategic Planning Department STAFF CONTACT: Don Erickson (X-6581) SUBJECT: Proposed Stoneridge Annexation 50% Petition to Annex ISSUE: The City is in receipt of the 50% Petition to Annex about 28 acres to the City of Renton by direct petition (Figure 1, Vicinity Map). State law requires that the Council hold a public hearing to consider whether to accept the 50% Petition to Annex or not as well as consider future zoning for the site. In this case the City has already pre -zoned the annexation site and surrounding area R-5. Those signing the petition have agreed to be annexed into the City and assume their proportional share of the City's outstanding indebtedness. RECOMMENDATION: On the basis of the following analysis, the Administration recommends that Council: • accept the 50% Petition to Annex, and authorize the Administration to send the Notice of Intent package to Washington State Boundary Review Board to begin their 45-day review period. BACKGROUND SUMMARY: On September 8, 2003 Council authorized the circulation of the 50% Petition to Annex for the Stoneridge Annexation site. In signing the petition, petitioners acknowledged that they were in favor of the annexation, accepted the City's existing R-5 prezoning, and would assume a proportional share of the City's outstanding indebtedness. Location: The proposed 28-acre Stoneridge Annexation site is roughly located between Jericho Avenue SE, if extended, on the west, 148`h Avenue SE on the east, NE 19t" Street, if extended, on the north, and, NE 16'h Street, if extended on the south. Proposed Stoneridge Annexation 10% Notice of Intent Decemberl0, 2003 Page 2 2. Natural features: The site generally slopes northward with a ravine and Greenes Creek running through the middle of the site. Slopes of 25% exist on the western side of this ravine and slopes of approximately 15% exist on its eastern site. There is nearly a 100-foot change in elevation across the '/a mile wide site. (Figure 2, Topography). Existing land uses: Existing development includes eight dwellings and various associated structures with lots varying from 0.34 acres up to 7.12 acres in size.. Two of the 10 lots are currently vacant. (Figure 3, Existing Structures) The center portion of the annexation site is the subject of a proposed 45-lot subdivision. Preliminary plat approval for this subdivision was granted in King County for a maximum of 51 lots, however, the developer and annexation proponent has stated that final plat approval will be through the City and will be for a maximum of 45, rather than 51 lots. 4. Existing zoning_ King County zoning is R-4. R-4 allows up to a base density of four units per gross acre, and up to six units per gross acre with incentives and transfer of density credits. Comprehensive Plan: Renton's Comprehensive Plan designates the subject annexation site Residential Low Density (RLD). The subject annexation as well as the area to the north and south (to NE Sunset Blvd.) was prezoned in 1997 to R-5 and R-1. All of the annexation site as well as the area to the south of it was prezoned R-5 at that time. 6. Public services: All responding departments and divisions noted that the annexation represents a logical extension of their respective services and systems. Water Utility. The subject area is within the water service area of 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. The District must provide adequate water supply and pressure and meet Renton's standards for fire protection and domestic water service. Sewers. The area is within Renton's Sewer Service Area but is not currently served by sewer. Sewer exists in the Summerwind Subdivision abutting the site to the west. Sewers would be extended by developer extension as the annexation area develops. A sewer availability certificate has already been issued for the proposed 44-lot Stoneridge Development approved in King County and located approximately in the middle of the 28-acre annexation site. Parks. The City has a shortfall of both neighborhood and community parkland in this area. King County owns approximately 39 acres of parkland, primarily undeveloped, about 3/10's of a mile to the southeast of the proposed annexation. In the past, the County has expressed an interest in conveying these properties to the City, with their annexation. Development of existing parkland would most likely occur at the City's expense after these areas are annexed into the City. Park's staff recommends re -initiating negotiations for the transfer of these park properties to the City to offset the growing local shortfall. The projected cost of developing and maintaining park land to a level consistent with the service levels in the City's Comprehensive Park, Recreation and Open Space Plan are included in the fiscal impact analysis for this annexation. Fire. The area is currently served by Fire District #10 and will transfer to the City upon annexation. EDNSP/PAA/Annexations/Stoneridge Proposed Stoneridge Annexation 10% Notice of Intent Decemberl0, 2003 Page 3 Police. With an estimated future population of approximately 280 people Police states that there will eventually be a need for additional officers to serve this and other recent annexations. Public Works Maintenance. Maintenance staff noted that the only organized drainage is by roadside ditches. Because 148`' Avenue SE is just outside the Urban Growth Boundary, the only roadway that would be part of the current annexation would be NE Sunset Boulevard on its southeastern corner. Surface Water Utility. Staff has indicated that storm water management of King County's storm water control pond will be important in controlling downstream drainage. Utility staff have stressed the importance of using the higher environmental standards identified in the May Creek Basin Plan for future development in this area. Transportation. Staff notes that additional transportation staff would not be required. They also note that upgrading NE Sunset Boulevard (SR 900) and providing new access streets within the annexation area would be at the expense of existing and/or new property owners. ANALYSIS OF THE PROPOSED ANNEXATION: Consistency with the Comprehensive Plan: The annexation policies generally support the proposed annexation. The subject properties are within Renton's Potential Annexation Area acid are subject to development pressure (Policies LU-378 and LU-380). The City of Renton prezoned this area in 1997 consistent with its Comprehensive Plan Land Use Map to R-5 (5 units per net acre). Renton is the logical provider of urban infrastructure and services to the area (Policy LU-383). 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 underdeveloped 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 physical features such as the edges of existing plats, streets, parcel lines and the like. C. Creation and preservation of logical service areas; Not applicable. The only service area boundary that will change as a consequence of this annexation is that for Fire District No 10, which will shrink by 28 acres.. d. Prevention of abnormally irregular boundaries; The boundaries are somewhat irregular but not abnormally irregular. 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. f. Dissolution of inactive special purpose districts; EDNSP/PAA/Annexations/Stoneridge Proposed Stoneridge Annexation 10% Notice of Intent Decemberl0, 2003 Page 4 Not applicable. g. Adjustment of impractical boundaries; This annexation is not being proposed to adjust what are considered impractical boundaries. h. Incorporation as cities or towns or annexation to cities or towns of unincorporated areas which are urban in character; and, King County has designated this area for urban development because of its location within the Urban Growth Boundary. Also, it is located within Renton's Potential Annexation Area. 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 designated rural. 3. Fiscal Analysis: Units Population (est.) Assessed Valuation Existing conditions 8 20 $2,720,530 Full development (est.) 112 280 $31,200,000 1) Estimated City Expenditures City Services Current Development Full Development Contracted services $211 $2,954 Road Maintenance $500 $5,288 Fire Protection $3,401 $41,625 Police Protection $1,669 $22,740 Parks Maintenance $298 $4,172 Court, Legal and Other $1,142 $15,982 Total ongoing costs $7,221 $92,761 2) Estimated City Revenues to be Gained Revenue Source Current Development Full Development Regular Property Tax Levy $8,675 $99,488 State -Shared Revenues $597 $8,358 Miscellaneous Revenues $2,249 $31,492 Excess Lev $241 $2,766 Total $11762 $142104 Net Fiscal Existing $4,541 Full $49,343 EDNSP/PAA/Annexations/S toneridge Proposed Stoneridge Annexation 10% Notice of Intent Decemberl0, 2003 Page 5 CONCLUSION: The proposed Stoneridge Annexation is generally consistent with City policies and Boundary Review Board objectives for annexation. No impediments to the provision of City services to the area have been identified during staff review. The fiscal analysis conducted by staff indicated at full development an annual surplus of $49,342 and a one-time cost of $67,885 for parks acquisition and improvement. However, if the City were successful in assuming ownership from the County of existing unimproved park land, this latter amount presumably would be reduced to a one time cost of $29,245. The proposed Stoneridge Annexation appears to be in the best interests and general welfare of the City. Attachments cc: Jay Covington Alex Pietsch Rebecca Lind Don Erickson EDNSP/PAA/Annexations/Stoneridge Curtis Schuster, Proponent File No: A-03-001 PETITION TO ANNEX TO THE CITY OF RENTON UNDER RCW 35A.14.120 (50% Petition to Annex — Stoneridge Annexation) TO: THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF RENTON 1055 South Grady Way Renton, WA 98055 The undersigned (the "Petitioners") are either owners of not less than fifty percent (50%) of real property located contiguous to the City of Renton and registered voters representing fifty percent (50%) of the registered voters residing within the proposed annexation area. We hereby petition that such property be annexed to the City of Renton (the "City") under the provisions of RCW 35A.14.120 et seq. The territory proposed to be annexed is within King County, Washington, and is contiguous to the City. A map (Exhibit 1) and legal description (Exhibit 2) are included as part of this petition. In response to a duly filed and considered "Notice of Intention" to commence annexation proceedings, the City Council of the City of Renton held met with the initiating parties under RCW 35A.14.120 on September 8, 2003. The City Council then determined that it would authorize the circulation of 50% Petition to Annex. Further, pursuant to RCW 35A.14.120, the undersigned petitioners acknowledge that: (1) They are in favor of the proposed annexation; (2) They accept the City's simultaneous adoption of zoning regulations consistent with the existing prezoning on the subject property; and (3) They assume their proportional share of the City's pre-existing outstanding indebtedness, all as noted in the minutes of the Council meeting and contained in the electronic recording of such meeting. WHEREFORE, the undersigned property owners and registered voters petition the City Council and ask: (a) That the City Council fix a date for a public hearing about such proposed annexation, cause a notice to be published and posted, specifying the time and place of such hearing, and inviting all persons who are interested to appear at the hearing and state their approval or disapproval of such annexation or to ask questions; and (b) That following such hearing, and consistent with any approval by the Boundary Review Board, the City Council by ordinance annex the above described territory to become part of the City of Renton, Washington, subject to its laws and ordinances then and thereafter in force, and to receive City public services. This three page form is one of a number of identical forms which comprise one petition seeking the annexation of the described territory to the City of Renton, Washington as above stated, and may be filed with other pages containing additional signatures. Page 1 of 2 Curtir, Schuster, Proponent File No: A-03-001 50 % Petition to Annex - Stoneridge Annexation PROPERTY OWNERS ,,ARNING: 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 Hof 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 same that appear on record in the chain of title to the real estate.) Date Signed Signature and Printed Name of Owner of Mailing Tax Lot Legal No. Description Property Size in Annexation Record of Property Address (Lot, Bloc, Plat, Assessor's No. or other) Area 03 t a o2 $S' Si1x�0 Dur►��'ENr✓ D 3 a dos - 9�S V06 -Z-Uck 0�,'V SNa 3, w0 9r6b 03; Qaq0 !-4 o��� l�• ��S'I�P�'.i7�^ 03a3dS ' QAi3 11 2. ,c �� lr� RoBERrt✓• kODt - i''rw�EQ i2 idOS oa o = golf 9bi61t 3 ....: a3-o3 i �Sl y- roq�(�c. ©3 �-3os9 s 980sqWall 4.Y�s �03 1y�a,x S�' lases1°�- o3�3d��g01y �. o�i�� `�'$o 5. -C / 6 . S 0 R�� 7. 8. 19. 10. Page 1 of 2 Curtis Schuster, Proponent File No: A-03-001 50 %-Petition to Annex — Stoneridge Annexation REGISTERED VOTERS 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. Date Signature and Mailing Voter Registration Printed Name Address Number. o a.?os-golY 1. �W� �6,67S-%k$M44-C.I4-- 860��(p� r J� er�zYy q�� 2. �i/a,31( It1S/jo �E �09111,PC . ©�� D 0 � ��� R�►rt�lry ft 7 .o3z3osRaeq 4. Ci�3 -03 10103 5. Z3 03)(Ourj64Z I 6. -.�3 �� f4,Z— rl8�r�sE. M ��✓ Aa�.'low 408oS'� %,S06�Oa3�. 2%103 x Itc-r K o 3os'- 9o3y 7. 0)0? /g8Z`�se Of YR9�. ofrq')')O�� 8. RevTP ,& br3r 3�s`�e3 y tow . w avl yasj 9. 10. Page 1 of 2 EXHIBIT 2 STONERIDGE ANNEXATION LEGAL DESCRIPTION That portion of the northeast quarter of the southeast quarter of Section 3, Township 23 North, Range 5 East, W.M., King County, Washington, lying southerly of the north 396 feet thereof; EXCEPT "Tract A" of King County Short Plat No. 486017, recorded under King County Recording No. 8703039001 and as amended by Affidavit of Correction, recorded under King County Recording No. 8706260950; and EXCEPT the County Road; TOGETHER WITH a portion of the east half (1/2) of the southeast quarter of the southeast quarter of said Section.3, described as follows: Commencing at the. northwest corner of said subdivision; Thence South 87°49'08" East, along the north line of said subdivision, a distance of 251.24 feet, to the Point of Beginning; Thence continuing South 87°49'08" East, a distance of 380 feet, more or less, to an intersection with the westerly right of way margin of 148t' Avenue SE; Thence southerly along said westerly right of way margin and its southerly extension, crossing SE Renton -Issaquah Road (SR-900), to an intersection with the southeasterly right of way margin of said SE Renton -Issaquah Road; Thence southwesterly along said southeasterly right of way margin, to a point which bears South 16°30'00" East from the Point of Beginning; Thence North 16'30'00" West, crossing said SE Renton -Issaquah Road, to the Point of Beginning. \ � ; '` I\\ ♦\\ \'/>, / \II \11,\It It , \ \ \ I � . � \\\\ X iI � % III � j • ' I x % I. \ \ �bJ iJi/ \ 1\ i it \1 \1 \1 \` \ \ \ 1 1 \ ` \ 1 \\\ 'I « \ \ % � ( I � -, tm.a / azu Itm I' ; � i `\ ��;� \ t 111 \ \'111 i i i \'li I �u: I � x �'m.• x % \\\ ` \\ ♦\\\; \ 1 \t\\ I, \1 `I1 I( I ' /� .eo len \ ` ♦\ 1 \'1 \ 1 1 l t 1 1 1 1 t 1 1 �' Il��jll tis. Illtll n� / I / w I � '— \ \ l \ \ 1 \ 11 1 1 ! I M 11 ' \ \ ♦ \;\ \\\\\\\\\\\\ \\ \\ 1 1 1 1 1 11 � 11 I I 1 I t 11 I I tl I ; I — \,\ \ \� ♦ � \ 1 q, 1 I L \ \ 1 n x ` \\ \\ \\ � ;'l l \ \I \I \ \ \ \ \ I\ 1111 �I\ I I � \I \` ♦` ♦\\y`,mo• � l,'tl / iiiiJ n �i i / tm n \ 1 \ 11111 1 \ \\ 11 \ 111\\ I\ I '1 \\ ♦\1 4 , 11 „/, � i ` I,u ,w.te ♦\\\1\` \ \\ \\ \\ \\ \;1 � � \ \ � \\♦1'1 '\ 1 1 1 \ t\\\ 1\\ t\ 1\\ \ ��1 I 1 j i I 1 I'\ I 1 I �ax.eo J I J• \\ \\ ��\ \\ \\ \\ 111\\\ `\\ \ 1 \'1 \II\\\— n.e ` \\\I 111\I\\'\�\11;\\\I 1��\ 1\I\I I , I /„I 1^/ / // I•t 1 T I 1 1 I ♦1 \\ \ \\ \\ \\ \I I'x°r0 t t 1 \'\ 1 1I 11 i I 11\ I\ \ \ \\ \ \ \iJ/ 1 I f , I` — — — — — -- I _ 1 t11e1 II 1 I t rm I_ tc- ;a 1; X \\ 11\ — \ I yea I Ixi .I I x i 1 v n � / n 1 \ \ 11 \ °t 1 \ \ \ , x C\ , 1 \ 1 X,axm XtazA� x — III\ ; \ ♦ ♦ \\ \ \ / its• I �. ♦\ ♦\'7y\\;\\ \ \ \\\ I 1 1 / ,a. 1 \ rase e�ptr ' i ' / i / \\ z x .� \\♦ \ \\\ `\\ �\\ 1 1 \\\\\\\\\\1 \\\\ Xt•2M `♦\\ \`�\♦; ; ♦ l 1\ \ \ 1 \ 1 \ \\\I� \I \i l /1\\ I \I ,A.ax X n \11 \III\`\J; I « « A 1 / \�i X \ \ ' / \\ \ \ \\\� ��♦�\ ` \ \1 '1'\\111111\ \I'1 / �I I \\\\\\`♦ \ ♦\♦ xa \\ \ 1111j1111111' 1 1 I \ A X x \ \ \ \ \ \ n \ \ \`\\\\lilt\\ I IA \ \ \ \ \ \ \ t \ 1 \1\1 \ I \ ' Xb 'r.tr ♦\ l \ \\'\1\\\ `♦\\\az z \\ \\\\\111, I'tlll\I !Lx I \Iran tw.A \ \ This document Is o graphic representotlon, not guaronteed x\\V\\ \ply. \ I ,nm10''° to surven occurocy, Intended fir city rposes only and x o thebest information awilabie osof the date shown. \Iwfi 111 111 \ . \ \ ` \ \ \ \J\ . `\♦♦ i. \ \ . I 1 I This mop is for disDloy Purposes only. I . posed Stoneridge Annexation o 300 600 e 2: Topography Map 1 : 3 600 Gti�Y �f Economic Development, Neighborhoods & Strategic Planning 1 m Interval Countour + Alex Pietsch, Administrator --- Renton City Limits G. Del Rosario 23 July 2003 O Proposed Annexation Area E Is 0 me 4 E] C3 This dowment is o graphic representation, not guaranteed O to survey occurocy, intended for city pu-poses only and ❑ 93 based on the best information ovoilable as of the dote shown. This mop Is for display purposes only. Proposed Stonersidge Annexation 0 300 600 r,vure 3: Existing Structures Map 1 : 3 600 Economic Development, Neighborhoods & Strategic Planning Existing Structure O Alex Pietsch, Administrator G. Del Rosario --� Renton City Limits �'gNTp$ 23 July 2003 0 Proposed Annexation Area FV �- This document is o graphic representation, not guoronteed b survey accuracy, intended for city Wrpo of only and F-1 hosed on the best information r ybie ao of the date shown. This map Is for display purposes only. Proposed Stoneridge Annexation ° 300 600 it AM f .,.,re 4: Sensitive Areas Map 1 : 3600 Stream Economic Development, Neighborhoods & Strategic Planning V�, > 40% Slope i $Alex Pietsch, Administrator — — — Renton City Limits G. Del Rosario �NT� 23 July 2003 = Proposed Annexation Area King County Department of Assessments King County Administration Bldg. 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 Scott Noble Assessor 7 t OCT 8 2003 ECONOMIC DE': NEIGHBO" ANO STRATE:` CERTIFICATION THIS IS TO CERTIFY that the petition submitted October 3, 2003 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 Stoneridge Annexation, has been examined, the property taxpayers, tax parcel numbers and acreage of properties listed thereon carefully compared with the King County tax roll records, and as a result of such examination, found to be sufficient under the provisions of the New Section of Revised Code of Washington, Section 35.13.002. The Department of Assessments has not verified that the signature on the petition is valid through comparison with any record of actual signatures, nor that the signatures were obtained or submitted in an appropriate time frame, and this document does not certify such to be the case. Dated this 7th day of October, 2003 Scott Noble, King County Assessor 0 King County Records, Elections and Licensing Services Division PETITION CERTIFICATION THIS IS TO CERTIFY that the petition, submitted October 7, 2003 to the King County Records, Elections, and Licensing Services Division, concerning a proposed annexation into the City of Renton of the area known as Stoneridge, has been examined, the signatures thereon carefully compared with the voter registration records of the King County Elections Section, and as a result of such examination, signatures of a majority of the registered voters of the area were found upon the petition, thus the petition is found to be sufficient under the provisions of the Revised Code of Washington. Dated this 161h day of October 2003 Dean C. Logan, Dire -designee fm l /pet-"-cert. doc CITY OF RENTON COUNCIL AGENDA BILL Submitting Data: Dept/Div/Board.. Finance & IS Dept. Staff Contact...... Victoria Runkle, Administrator Subject: Update of Resolution "Authorizing Signature for Depositories and Electronic Fund Transfers on Behalf of and in the Name of the City of Renton" Exhibits: Resolution Recommended Action: Council concur ,v a: For Agenda of: December 22, 2003 Agenda Status Consent .............. Public Hearing.. Correspondence.. Ordinance ............. Resolution ............ Old Business........ New Business....... Study Sessions...... Information......... X KAN Approvals: Legal Dept......... XX Finance Dept...... XX Other ............... Fiscal Impact: $0 Expenditure Required... Transfer/Amendment....... Amount Budgeted....... Revenue Generated......... Total Project Budget City Share Total Project.. SUMMARY OF ACTION: The proposed Resolution updates Section I of Resolution 3648. Section I identifies the officers and officials of the City of Renton that are authorized to sign bank instruments on behalf of the City of Renton. Section I of the Resolution has been updated to remove outgoing Mayor Jesse Tanner and add incoming Mayor Kathy Keolker-Wheeler, effective January 1, 2004. STAFF RECOMMENDATION: Finance staff recommends that Council authorize the Mayor and City Clerk to execute the proposed Resolution that updates Section I of Resolution 3648. Rentonnet/agnbill/ bh CITY OF RENTON, WASHINGTON RESOLUTION NO. A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY OF RENTON, WASHINGTON, AUTHORIZING SIGNATURE FOR DEPOSITORIES AND ELECTRONIC FUND TRANSFERS ON BEHALF OF AND IN THE NAME OF THE CITY OF RENTON. WHEREAS, the City of Renton maintains one or more accounts at one or more qualified public depositories including the state operated Local Government Investment Pool for primary banking, investing, or third party trust agreement purposes; and WHEREAS, the City's appointed Finance & Information Services Administrator is hereby authorized and directed to open and maintain these accounts as required from time to time on behalf of and in the name of the City of Renton; NOW, THEREFORE, THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF RENTON, WASHINGTON, DO RESOLVE AS FOLLOWS: SECTION I. The depositories are hereby authorized to honor and pay checks, drafts, and similar instruments in the name of the City of Renton and signed by any one of the following officers and officials of the City of Renton, effective January 1, 2004. Resolution 3648 remains in effect through December 31, 2003: Title Mayor Name Kathy Keolker-Wheeler Finance & Information Services Administrator Victoria Runkle SECTION II. Any of the above named officers or officials are further authorized to endorse any such checks, drafts, or other instruments made payable to the City of Renton for the purpose of depositing same into the City's accounts. 1 RESOLUTION NO. r►, SECTION III. The designated depository for the account in the name of City of Renton Municipal Court (Municipal Court account) is hereby authorized to honor and pay checks, drafts, and similar instruments signed by the Court Services Director or Municipal Court Judge. The Director or Judge are further authorized to endorse checks, drafts, or other instruments made payable to the City of Renton for the purpose of depositing the same into the Municipal Court account. Title Name Court Services Director Joseph T. McGuire Muncipal Court Judge Terry L. Jurado SECTION IV. The following individuals are authorized to initiate and/or approve electronic fund transfers for the purposes of disbursing and depositing City funds for the purposes of investing, cash management, and accomplishing authorized City business in the City's name: Title Name Initiate Approve Finance & Information Services Administrator Victoria Runkle No Yes Fiscal Services Director Elaine Gregory Yes Yes Finance Analyst Supervisor Linda Parks Yes Yes Finance Analyst Linda Dixon Yes No SECTION V. There shall be no obligation on the part of the depositories to see the application of funds in any case whatsoever, and that a true copy of this resolution be certified and delivered to each said depository at the time any such account is opened on behalf of the City of Renton. SECTION VI. Section I of Resolution No. 3648, passed and approved on August 4, 2003, is hereby repealed. RESOLUTION NO. PASSED BY THE CITY COUNCIL this APPROVED BY THE MAYOR this Approved as to form: Lawrence J. Warren, City Attorney day of 52003. Bonnie I. Walton, City Clerk day of Jesse Tanner, Mayor 2003. 3 CITY OF RENTON COUNCIL AGENDA BILL Submitting Data: Fire Department Dept/Div/Board.- Administration Staff Contact...... Deputy Chief Glen Gordon Subject: City of Renton Hazard Mitigation Plan Exhibits: (1) Issue Paper (2) City of Renton Hazard Mitigation Plan (3) Resolution (4) FEMA letter dated December 9, 2003 (5) FEMA Region 10 Plan Review Checklist Recommended Action: Council Concur For Agenda of: December 22, 2003 Agenda Status Consent .............. Public Hearing.. Correspondence.. Ordinance ............. Resolution............ Old Business........ New Business....... Study Sessions...... Information......... Approvals: Legal Dept......... Finance Dept...... Other ............... Fiscal Impact: Expenditure Required... Transfer/Amendment....... Amount Budgeted....... Revenue Generated......... Total Project Budget City Share Total Project.. SUMMARY OF ACTION: The Robert T. Stafford Disaster Relief and Emergency Assistance Act established the requirement for state and local government mitigation planning as a condition of disaster assistance. The Act also emphasizes the importance of strong State and local planning processes and comprehensive mitigation program management at the State level. The City of Renton Hazard Mitigation Plan fulfills the applicable regulatory criteria outlined in 44 CFR Part 201. The only criteria left to be approved by FEMA is for the City to formally adopt the plan and submit documentation to Washington Emergency Management Division. STAFF RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommends that Renton City Council approve the resolution authorizing adoption of the City of Renton Hazard Mitigation Plan. X Rentonnet/agnbill/ bh RENTON FIRE DEPARTMENT MEMORANDUM DATE: December 16, 2003 TO: Council President Kathy Keolker-Wheeler Members of the City Council VIA: Jesse nner, May FROM: A. y9 , Fire Chief SUBJECT: Heard Mitigation Plan ISSUE: The City of Renton Hazard Mitigation Plan Steering Committee has developed a Hazard Mitigation Plan to ensure that the opportunity to take mitigation measures to protect lives and property from future disasters is enhanced by providing the City with a long-term structured process for identifying mitigation goals and opportunities, for implementing the most effective mitigation measures, and for involving and educating the public regarding mitigation. The Hazard Mitigation Plan Steering Committee developed this Plan through a collaborative process, involving City personnel, local business owners and City residents. The planning process took place over the course of six months, beginning in February 2003 and ending with the preparation of a final plan in August 2003. BACKGROUND SUMMARY: Section 322, Mitigation Planning, of the Robert T. Stafford Disaster Relief and Emergency Assistance Act (the Act), enacted by Section 104 of the Disaster Mitigation Act of 2000 (DMA) (P.L. 106-390) provides new and revitalized approaches to mitigation planning. Section 322 emphasizes the need for State, local, and tribal entities to closely coordinate mitigation planning and implementation efforts. It continues the requirement for a State mitigation plan as a condition of disaster assistance, and creates incentives for increased coordination and integration of mitigation activities at the State level. Section 322 also establishes a new requirement for local mitigation plans. As a result of FEMA's previous mitigation planning requirements, such as State mitigation planning under Section 409 of the Stafford Act, plan requirements associated with the Hazard Mitigation Grant Program (HMGP), and the Flood Mitigation Plan under the Flood Mitigation Assistance (FMA) Program of the National Flood Insurance Program (NFIP), States and many communities have developed some form of a hazard mitigation plan. The most successful of these plans — where practical, meaningful mitigation measures have been the result — have two common elements: Comprehensive risk and capability assessments that form a solid foundation for decision making; and Input from a wide range of stakeholders who would play a role during implementation of recommended mitigation actions at the Federal, State, and local levels. Accordingly, the Disaster Mitigation Act of 2000 emphasizes greater interaction between State and local mitigation planning activities, and highlights the need for improved linkage of hazard and capability analyses to State and local hazard mitigation strategies. At the same time, FEMA has a continuing interest in streamlining the mitigation planning and implementation process. The implementation of planned, pre -identified, cost- effective mitigation measures will make a major contribution to such streamlining. The DMA mitigation planning provisions, along with other sections of the Act, provide a significant opportunity to reduce the Nation's disaster losses. The language in the Act, taken as a whole, emphasizes the importance of strong State and local planning processes, and comprehensive mitigation program management at the State level. State of Washington Military Department Emergency Management Division and U.S. Department of Homeland Security have approved this entire Plan. Any changes to the Plan would require re -submittal and a new review by the aforementioned agencies. RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommends that Renton City Council approve the resolution authorizing adoption of the City of Renton Hazard Mitigation Plan. CITY OF RENTON, WASHINGTON RESOLUTION NO. A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY OF RENTON, WASHINGTON, ADOPTING THE HAZARD MITIGATION PLAN. WHEREAS, Section 322, Mitigation Planning, of the Robert T. Stafford Disaster Relief and Emergency Assistance Act, enacted by Section 104 of the Disaster Mitigation Act of 2000 (DMA) (P.L. 106-390) provides new and revitalized approaches to mitigation planning; and WHEREAS, the Disaster Mitigation Act establishes the requirement for state and local government mitigation planning as a condition of disaster assistance; and WHEREAS, the Mayor and City Council recognize that mitigation planning, along with other emergency preparedness actions, provides a significant opportunity to reduce the City's disaster losses; and WHEREAS, the City has developed the City of Renton Hazard Mitigation Plan and is committed to fidfilling the mitigation goals and objectives outlined in the Plan; NOW, THEREFORE, THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF RENTON, WASHINGTON, DO RESOLVE AS FOLLOWS: SECTION I. The above findings are true and correct in all respects. SECTION H. The City of Renton Hazard Mitigation Plan is adopted by the City and all responsible departments are authorized to execute their responsibilities in implementing this Plan. 1 RESOLUTION NO. PASSED BY THE CITY COUNCIL this day of , 2003. Bonnie I. Walton, City Clerk APPROVED BY THE MAYOR this day of , 2003. Approved as to form: Lawrence J. Warren, City Attorney RES.l 027:12/10/03:ma Jesse Tanner, Mayor F) U.S. Department of Homeland Security FEMA Region 10 130 — 2281h Street, SW Bothell, WA 98021 y FEMA .Y � �•n ND 5tiGJ4 December 9, 2003 Glen Gordon, Deputy Chief City of Renton Fire Department 105 S. Grady Way Renton, Washington 98055 Dear Deputy Chief Gordon: The U.S. Department of Homeland Security's Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) has reviewed the City of Renton Hazard Mitigation Plan, which was submitted by Washington Emergency Management Division. Based on the local plan criteria outlined in 44 CFR Part 201, the plan met the requirements to receive FEMA approval after it is adopted by the entity's governing authority. A FEMA approved hazard mitigation plan is required for eligibility to apply for the Pre -Disaster Mitigation Grant Program, and after November 1, 2004, for the Hazard Mitigation Grant Program. The local plan must contain a planning process, risk assessment, mitigation strategy and plan maintenance, as well as be adopted by the local governing body. The Renton Hazard Mitigation Plan successfully contains the required criteria, excluding the adoption. The plan will not be approved by FEMA until it is adopted. Please arrange for adoption of the plan and submit documentation to Washington Emergency Management Division (MS: TA 20, Building 20, Camp Murray, Washington 98430). They will forward the documentation to FEMA and coordinate the plan's approval. If you have any questions, please contact Sharon Loper, at 425.487.4700, or her state counterpart, Martin Best, at 253.512.7073. Sincerely, Bru ipe, Chief Hazard Identification and Risk Assessment Branch Enclosure: FEMA Region 10 Plan Review Checklist cc: Chuck Hagerhjelm, Washington EMD www.fema.gov Jurisdiction(s): Renton, Washington August, 2003 Title of Plan: Hazard Mitigation Plan Date of Plan: (revised 200 3) Determination: Approved - Criteria Met & Plan Adopted (Check one) X Not Approved - Criteria Met / Plan Not Adopted Not Approved - Criteria Not Met / Plan Adopted or Not Adopted The plan determination was based upon the review of each of the following plan criteria, excluding the shaded criteria, as required in 44 CFR Part 201. For a local plan to receive FEMA approval, all plan criteria must receive a Satisfactory (S) rating and the plan must be adopted by the local governing body. The Needs Improvement (N) rating indicates the criteria was not addressed or additional information is needed to met the criteria. 3.1.1* Adoption by the Local Governing Body.......................................................................... 3.1.2 Multi -jurisdictional Plan Adoption............................................................................. 3.1.3 Multi -jurisdictional Planning Participation.................................................................... 3.2.1 Documentation of Planning Process................................................................................ 3.3.1 Identifying Hazards............................................................................................................ 3.3.2 Profiling Hazard Events..................................................................................................... 3.3.3 Assessing Vulnerability: Identifying Assets.................................................................. 3.3.4 Assessing Vulnerability: Estimating Potential Losses .................................................. 3.3.5 Assessing Vulnerability: Analyzing Development Trends .......................................... 3.3.6 Multi -jurisdictional Risk Assessment........................................................................ 3.4.1 Local Hazard Mitigation Goals......................................................................................... 3.4.2 Identification and Analysis of Mitigation Measures...................................................... 3.4.3 Implementation of Mitigation Measures......................................................................... 3.4.4 Multi -Jurisdictional Mitigation Strategy.......................................................................... 3.5.1 Monitoring, Evaluating, and Updating the Plan............................................................ 3.5.2 Implementation through Existing Programs.................................................................. 3.5.3 Continued Public Involvement......................................................................................... N S X X X X g X X X X { T t� ' d XWO X X X * The numbers correlates to the system used in the FEMA "Regional and State Mitigation Planning Workshop — Student Manual." Comments: Based on the local plan criteria outlined in 44 CFR Part 201, the plan met the requirements to receive FEMA approval after it is adopted by the entity's governing authority. Please arrange for adoption of the plan and submit documentation to Washington .Emergency Management Division (MS: TA 20, Building 20, Camp Murray, Washington 98430). They will forward the documentation to FEMA and arrange for the plan's approval. Please refer to the attached Local Hazard Mitigation Plan Review Worksheet for additional information and comments on each criteria. FEMA Reviewer: Jerry Probst Date: 11/22/03 FEMA Mitigation Plan Manager: Sharon Loper Date: 12/09/03 3.1.1 Adoption by the Local Governing Body Requirement §201.6(e)(5) [The local hazard mitigation plan shall include] documentation that the plan has been formally adopted by the governing body of the jurisdiction requesting approval of the plan (e.g., City Council, County Commissioner, Tribal Council)... X KI X 3.1.2 Multi -jurisdictional Plan Adoption MET y Requirement §201.E(e)(5) For multi -jurisdictional plans, each jurisdiction requesting approval of the plan must document that it has been formally adopted. . . �� ur�sdi tion ire resenfed A, Qoe a lar�,� icate #E�e specific p �M "�Y#in the p�at��, a , k B �For,eac u%tsdiC# o , # ti the local gomeJg,bo app�o�ed CRITERIA NOT REQUIRED the pl` ,�e�4�.. Es.�iS. .?� �"`f%�x'R' ., y �'�h �`t ka ., Are support trtat�on�suchs�resoloAns, p a` •YP'{"Y�'�. �. 1R. :.�M N � .. ,61 '" mclUded�, 0� 3.1.3 Multi -jurisdictional Participation Requirement §201.6(a)(3) Multi jurisdictional plans (e.g., watershed plans) may be accepted, as appropriate, as long as each jurisdiction has participated in the process... Statewide plans will not be accepted as multi - jurisdictional plans. CRITERIA NOT REQUIRED LOCAL h. .ARD MITIGATION PLAN REVIEW WORKSHEET FEN.. _-.egion 10 Jurisdiction: City of Renton, WA Title of Plan: City of Renton Hazard Mitigation Plan Date of Plan: August 2003, Revised 12/2003 3.2.1 Documentation of the Planning Process ZN ° $ Requirement §201.6(c)(1): [The plan must document] the planning process used to develop the plan, including how it was prepared, who was involved ink, the process, and how the public was involved. X 4�A 4�Doe the plan prOVlde a n7frailYe�deSCript�On that expiamS Chapter One, page 1, identifies a two phase plan development. First phase was consultant led series of meetings with the Deputy Fire Chief and city planning ���4 the �lan s�developme,�t,p�oG�S��ncludmg wha�letl�the �-,�. g p �' �' p g X development at the stf#ev�e(d,ny extefnalntnbutors staff to initiate a planning process. Second phase included three meetings with the business community and community representatives over a six month span. TM„+ r'zz r' rrc Xf �. ,. *�" '"�" 1� . r L. S Ahe p�anlais�td w�hovas,.invoived �an"d ova[ they cot�trtbuto Chapter One, page 1 explains the role of the consultants, Assistant Fire Chief, 4°r*F f0 th�plalanl�gtprocess�y(e g parcipatedonk Ian CommitteeL`* :d and collaboration with the business, government, and neighborhood Associations. These groups provided input. Hazard Mitigation Plan Steering �providedtinfo mat�On reyie�e bra#s) a,�� �� Committee formed as result of meetings. Draft Mitigation Plan Resolution for City g g X Council included. adoption ���������� Chapter One, page 1-2 explains several methods used to advertise public Does thgla�tjdiC�tehw thepul�cwsn�rlv4td�4 meetings, and for "obtaining communit support." tom, g g Y PP A Hazard Mitigation Plan Steering Committee Members. Appendix —lists Appendix B -meeting agendas and attendance lists. 3.3.1 Identifying Hazards Requirement §201.6(c)(2)(i): [The risk assessment shall include a] description of the type ... of all natural hazards that can affect the jurisdiction... X Chapter Two, Risk Assessment, Page 3-10 (Table 2-1) Hazard Identification. The Renton Hazard Mitigation Plan provides detailed descriptions of natural hazards for the entire city. The plan identifies seven specific descriptions of X earthquakes, flooding, landslides, storms (winter and wind), abandoned coal mines, hazardous materials release, and terrorism/civil disturbance. VERSION — 8/2003 3 LOCAL &RD MITIGATION PLAN REVIEW WORKSHEET 10 Jurisdiction: City of Renton, WA Title of Plan: City of Renton Hazard Mitigation Plan Date of Plan: August 2003, Revised 12/2003 3.3.2 Profiling Hazard Events N' Requirement §201.6(c)(2)(i): (The risk assessment shall include a] description of the ... location and extent of all natural hazards that can affect the jurisdiction. The plan shall include information on previous occurrences of hazard events and X on the probability of future hazard events. A Does a r�sl ass ssme t d nfify CAM-- o ea flazard;—v- N Yes. Following page 13, a series of city maps show sensitive areas for seismic, land slide, flood, coal mine, and volcano lahar events. / X �B?DOeSfjle rlS SeSS ;et�eRfl #fie t�ee�%ad Yes. Table 2-1 has a column labeled "Why Identified that explains the extent of } ... X betn9ddres,` ed are each hazard. DOeepa ,ate rde norms` t1�On tllp YtOUS O�C3ltrenGe1 Yes. Profiling Hazard Events, Page 5-10 describes past history for X ;Ofeach g� earthquakes, flooding, tsunami, landslide, winter storms. Chapter Two, Risk Assessment, Pages 5-10 provides brief narrative descriptions detailing hazard events, and maps reflect future probability. voes t � p a Inc ud probability of u u e EntS7 Recommendation for Improvement: Additional information on the probability of future hazard events would improve the risk assessment and X information for the items. provide valuable mitigation strategy and action 3.3.3 Assessing Vulnerability: Identifying AssetsN -. g Requirement §201.6(c)(2) (ii)(A): [The risk assessment shall include a] description of the jurisdiction's vulnerability to the hazards described in paragraph (c)(2)(i) of this section. This description shall include an overall summary of each hazard and its impact on the community. The plan should describe vulnerability in terms of.§ The types and numbers of existing X and future buildings, infrastructure, and critical facilities located in the identified hazard areas... I Yes. An overlay map showing the major natural hazard areas within the ROEsepa"Ou'pa l[PSrpm�c"1dE�Gt fi0rif3fttlE� Renton City Limits with the Ci s Critical Facilities overlain on the Hazard s . ty ty' X JU d Ctf(i Iqe .abr a bazar, Areas ( " Critical Facilities in Hazard Areas" ma opposite a e 15 ) « see P PP page ���� Does fie pl �dr e�mp cts of �e haas�te� Yes. Assessing Vulnerability: Estimating Potential Losses (pages15-19). X VERSION - 8/2003 LOCAL 1 .RD MITIGATION PLAN REVIEW WORKSHEET FEN._ __egion 10 Jurisdiction: City of Renton, WA Title of Plan: City of Renton Hazard Mitigation Plan Date of Plan: August 2003, Revised 12/2003 3.3.4 Assessing Vulnerability: Estimating Potential Losses Requirement §201.6(e)(2) (ii)(B): [The plan should describe vulnerability in terms of an] estimate of the potential dollar losses to vulnerable structures identified in paragraph (c)(2)(i)(A) of this section and a description of the methodology used to prepare the estimate... CRITERIA NOT REQUIRED 3.3.5 Assessing Vulnerability: Analyzing Development Trends Requirement §201.6(c)(2) (ii)(c): [The plan should describe vulnerability in terms of providing a general description of land uses and development trends within the community so that mitigation options can be considered in future land use decisions. CRITERIA NOT REQUIRED 3.3.6 Multi -Jurisdictional Risk Assessment Requirement §201.6(c)(2) (iii): For multi -jurisdictional plans, the risk assessment must assess each jurisdiction's risks where they vary from the risks facing the entire planning area.. CRITERIA NOT REQUIRED MIM 3.4.1 Local Hazard Mitigation Goals Requirement §201.6(c)(3)(i): [The hazard mitigation strategy shall include: a] description of mitigation goals to reduce or 4N avoid long-term vulnerabilities to the identified hazards. X ADoes fat i# c tte descrp#r®n©,fga o s? Yes. Chapter 3, Mitigation Strategy, Proposed Mitigation Goals, G�AtS 0►i ep'rese i1 Objectives, Actions 22-26) X �1�+ e'rm d e tllmuttity and (page �`�ct'a'�a VERSION - 8/2003 5 LOCAL &RD MITIGATION PLAN REVIEW WORKSHEET FEN, ?Sion 10 Jurisdiction: City of Renton, WA Title of Plan: City of Renton Hazard Mitigation Plan Date of Plan: August 2003, Revised 12/2003 3.4.2 Identification and Analysis of Mitigation Measures N $`"'�` Requirement §201.6(e)(3) (ii): [The mitigation strategy shall include a] section that identifies and analyzes a comprehensive range of specific mitigation actions and projects being considered to reduce the effects of each hazard, with X particular emphasis on new and existing buildings and infrastructure 8 � S '„``�' �� ! x1 s.,-"x` •c�*.:�` .cA �'�'d$'i1`t a �' �ir�� b5e^;� ,'''�� * Fti` f � r^x j,..+-•. rn � 'i„� '� 1 •k f L s '. � •� n '� ' S'L# Does�the 'a ompehenste range°Of Yes. Pages 22-26. Table 3-1. Describes to implement __�^��A pla°`idenfl SpeClflC/x,".•:x specific actions six 3rfi•C✓ _ '�'`+��.��.� identified "Goals Objectives" lead agency identified. X �mlt�gationaetrilnsandJJeeefsforeaeh�hZard? � �. and with responsible B Doesthe ideratifiedd i©ns►d�proteets address retluclftg they' Yes, the identified hazard specific action items address affected new buildings. � X ��e�fects o�azards.o dings and�l�f�a��.tpii�ture� � :�':�w �v •''i'"�� N�s.rY`.� �� 114, C Doers the tde tlfed aetions and,- rb-eets1addres�s reducing,t e Yes, the identified hazard specific action items address affected existing ef€ts�fh�zrds.onXtstmgulidlgstandithfras#ructure?�� X buildings. d zV }+ ..w.d i f. L T1.... .-1„ ..1.'K •Iv��'F✓ Al v%T'tvi. 3.4.3 Implementation of Mitigation Measures Q ,t1 'C Sp a Requirement: §201.6(c)(3) (iii): [The mitigation strategy section shall include] an action plan describing how the actions identified in section (c)(3)(ii) will be prioritized, implemented, and administered by the local jurisdiction. Prioritization shall include a special emphasis on the extent to which benefits are maximized according to a cost benefit X review of the proposed projects and their associated costs. .Evx�`5'✓kr �� k v4.a�^$ � tY 'ts. ,:"S^9} �`%Y �A�D esthe mega I nstrat�gy lncl �e hgw�th�?ons wlllbe� �,y ��� p ,�� �� � ,, � -• ,� �Yes. See Table 3-1 Hazard Mitigation Measures -Priority Ranking. rtMntt X "'- Yes. Located within Table 3-1 is a column that identifies how the mitigation �mitiga wts ategy address howhthe#actions will b� g - �.r tmpl�mented� C e��exas#�ngres6t roes and�poten#aai�futtare;� measures will be implemented. NOTE: High priority mitigation measures are =x �e actions already underway through normal city actions. Mitigation measures Y Y g tY g X n in the medium and low priority are categorized as "future action and will be ��'� dui �.., ,�� ����'�� d;" � ,`' .� °i • ,l^�� ��. p t3' g r examined and re-evaluated in the plan review cycle. _�,`i'v'.`z .E`' r f - C���es theme Mows trategy,addresstaw the=actions wlli be Yes. Through normal City operations or prior development activities, i.e., o� ,�� Aquifer Protection Plan, Critical Areas Regulation through the Growth Management Act. X D Does fhe rnifagabon strategyref#efian emphasis on the use of Yes. Page 28 and Table 3.1. Table 3.1 provides a priority ranking of hazard "* low link • mitigation measures based on high, medium and priority with a to the cost �enfatrev�e� �� 2 g g P ty 1 cost -benefit review. The priority is based on "balancing considerations of life safety, number of people affects, and cost-effectiveness - determined that actions in the "high" category would bring the most immediate benefit to the �� City in mitigation disaster effects. The emphasis on cost -benefit review in the &sh X riori process is demonstrated through the indication that will have priority P g projects a benefit to cost ratio of 1.0 as a basis for consideration and additional e� '�+1��Ir - �5• ••.3'f .f R h+i'i9d'^ �.,`CtW t .'4 .. prioritization under the system. Specific cost -benefit analysis will be conducted as future actions are evlauted for inclusion into the City's budget process. VERSION — 8/2003 LOCAL f. ,,RD MITIGATION PLAN REVIEW WORKSHEET FEN._ __egion 10 Jurisdiction: City of Renton, WA Title of Plan: City of Renton Hazard Mitigation Plan - Date of Plan: August 2003, Revised 12/2003 1 9 Strategy S< 3.4.4 Multi -jurisdictional Mitigation Strate Requirement §201.6(e)(3) (iv): For multi -jurisdictional plans, there must be identifiable action items specific to the jurisdiction requesting FEMA approval or credit of the plan. e u�e�s�eparate, eni<ifiabie action items fo[ : eao�h jurts lc i f ruesUrig app;vaof tfie plane CRITERIA NOT REQUIRED 3.5.1 Monitoring, Evaluating, and Updating the Plan ,N�5 .� . Requirement §201.6(e)(4)(i): [The plan maintenance process shall include a section describing the] method and schedule of monitoring, evaluating, and updating the mitigation plan within a five-year cycle. X " Mitigation Plan Maintenance Procedures, Page 29. The Hazard �A Does vyt(ie�p nq��, scrt6e�the method rm�mto� g`the�plan�`¢�' Yes. Chapter Four, g g (i a both staff-�oS,�,res onsibl for m n o and th� � Mitigation Plan (HMP) Steering Committee will meet in March, 2004, and annually eartment thereafter to the The Emergency Operations Committee )( 04erseeing th2 tit orin�""' oversee progress of plan. will - mm M12 om, review the plan for specific actions and report to the Steering Committee. P P P g BDoes morttann } the plartisenbehe e� of�r ; eVaUatit-,Recommendations forwarded to the City Council. pP� �� {ai�withiri the fve year�cyc Yes. Six months after CityCouncil Adoption, mitigation activities will be included in q 1? g q i L F 1� �' x rt ; x> r ri kz the existing mechanisms. The HMP review will be conducted 2 years after X planning adoption. The overall Comprehensive Plan is reviewed every five years. The HMP element is included as part of the review. 3.5.2 Implementation Through Existing Programs P 9 9 9 _ �� �� Requirement §201.6(c)(4) (ii): [The plan shall include a] process by which local governments incorporate the requirements of the mitigation plan into other planning mechanisms such as comprehensive or capital improvement plans, when X appropriate... ,.t..0 A Does the an tden Rothe oeai Jannln mechahi p _ Yes. The HMP will be integrated with other city development regulations such as g tY o P g a�ia� ale=for tncoorat Ie ulrements�ofth� X building codes, and capital improvements. �mitig�t�n n=, Yes. The Comprehensive Land Use Plan is updated as needed (mandatory B Doestp a In)pdea process bywh�c�r le loeai. �. „ * ,. - ;.� r sa every five years). All elements of the plan, including the HMP, are part of this en e ill i�orat h c{uirererts3trtother '� ° ov-. process. X pI ns wb appropriate? t E�� VERSION — 8/2003 7 LOCAL F6. -,iRD MITIGATION PLAN REVIEW WORKSHEET FEN,, - —egion 10 Jurisdiction: City of Renton, WA Title of Plan: City of Renton Hazard Mitigation Plan Date of Plan: August 2003, Revised 12/2003 3.5.3 Continued Public Involvement Requirement §201.6(c)(4) (iii): [The plan maintenance process shall include a] discussion on how the community will continue public participation in the plan maintenance process. x c , t Yes. Ensuring Continuing Public Involvement, page 30. The Hazard PRa i'oh'A Mitigation Plan Steering committee members are responsible for oversight of I Vj the plan. Changes in the HMP will be advertised to the public via various local x public notice outlets such as newspaper, cable channel, neighborhood Associations, etc. - END REVIEW CHECKLIST - VERSION - 8/2003 i &d l5i � a� k��4R phb:�nr�{t1 !•f -t !F R•ev� °r �F'r •'� pp��9a�r°S�tli �{t? ! M.}'j is �EdS !a �! f• 1 3 t ��v� �gfa�rrl l r5F �j a YY ;.vlild, City of Renton Hazard Mitigation Plan Table of Contents Section page Mitigation Plan Adoption Resolution iv Chapter One — Mitigation Planning Process 1 Chapter Two — Risk Assessment 3 Identifying Hazards 3 Profiling Hazard Events 5 Assessing Vulnerability: Identifying Assets 15 Assessing Vulnerability: Estimating Potential Losses 17 Assessing Vulnerability: Analyzing Development Trends 20 Chapter Three — Mitigation Strategy 22 Local Hazard Mitigation Goals 22 Identification and Analysis of Mitigation Measures 26 Implementation of Mitigation Measures 26 Chapter Four — Mitigation Plan Maintenance Procedures 30 Monitoring, Evaluating, and Updating the Plan 30 Implementation through Existing Programs 30 Continued Public Involvement 31 Appendices Appendix A — Hazard Mitigation Plan Steering Committee Members A-1 Appendix B — Meeting Agendas and Attendance Lists B-1 Appendix C — HAZUS Reports C-1 August 2003 ii City of Renton Hazard Mitigation Plan List of Maps Following page 13: City of Renton Seismic Sensitive Areas City of Renton Slide Sensitive Areas City of Renton Flood Hazard Sensitive Areas City of Renton Sensitive Areas: Coal Mine Hazards City of Renton Hazard Zones for Lahars Following page 15: City of Renton: Critical Facilities in Hazard Areas City of Renton: Critical Facilities and Coal Mines City of Renton: Critical Facilities in Landslide Hazard Areas City of Renton: Critical Facilities within,the Floodplain City of Renton: Critical Facilities within Seismic Hazard Areas List of Tables Table 2-1 Hazard Identification 4 Table 2-2 Winter Storm Timeline 11 Table 2-3 Hazardous Material Facilities 12 Table 2-4 City of Renton Infrastructure and Capital Facilities 16 Table 2-5 Direct Economic Losses for Buildings Juan'De Fuca Interplate Event 17 Table 2-6 Direct Economic Losses for Buildings Seattle Fault, Shallow Event 18 Table 2-7 Direct Economic Losses for Buildings Cascadia Subduction Zone Event 18 Table 2-8 Army Corps of Engineers Study Data 19 Table 2-9 1990 Population Data 20 Table 2-10 2010 Population Forecasts 20 Table 3-1 Hazard Mitigation Measures — Priority Ranking 27 City of Renton Hazard Mitigation Plan prepared by: John R. Labadie Sarah Hawkins August 2003 iii City of Renton Hazard Mitigation Plan Chapter One Mitigation Planning Process Mitigation is any sustained action taken to reduce or eliminate long-term risk to people and property from the affects of both natural and man-made hazards. An efficiently planned and managed hazard mitigation program can be a powerful resource in the combined effort by the City, State, and Federal governments to end the cycle of repetitive disaster damage. The purpose of this Mitigation Plan is to ensure that the opportunity to take mitigation measures to protect lives and property from future disasters is enhanced by providing the City with a long-term structured process for identifying mitigation goals and opportunities, for implementing the most effective mitigation measures, and for involving and educating the public regarding mitigation. The Planning Process The City of Renton has developed a local Hazard Mitigation Plan through a collaborative process, involving City personnel, local business owners and City of Renton residents. The City hired a consultant to organize the planning process and to research and draft the Mitigation Plan. The planning process took place over the course of six months, beginning in February 2003, with a meeting between City personnel and the consultants to initiate the planning process (please see Appendix B for all meeting agendas and attendance lists). The meeting was one in a series of meetings held with the City of Renton Deputy Fire Chief, Glen Gordon and the planning consultants. In addition to meetings with the Deputy Fire Chief, the consultants held three meetings with representatives from throughout the Renton community. The notification of the meetings were by various means including; City of Renton web site, through the Greater Renton Chamber of Commerce, direct notification to neighborhood associations via telephone or email, direct notification to school districts, hospitals, Boeing, King County, churches, and South King County Journal newspaper. The first of these meetings was held on May 20, 2003 at 1:30 pm at the Renton City Hall. The purpose of the first meeting was to answer questions about the planning process, and to receive feedback and input on a preliminary list of mitigation goals. In attendance at this first planning meeting were representatives from the Renton School District, two area churches, Valley Medical Center, Police and Fire Department representatives, planning, building and public works representatives, representatives from the Renton Municipal Airport and Renton neighborhood associations, as well as representatives from the business community. In addition, attendees included representatives from King County Department of Natural Resources. From these meetings, the Hazard Mitigation Plan Steering Committee was formed to review, comment, and direct the planning process (please see Appendix A for list of the Steering Committee Members). A second meeting was held on June 12t' at 9am. This meeting was aimed at addressing the draft risk assessment, eliciting feedback and input on mitigation strategies and programs, and receiving review and comment on proposed mitigation goals and actions. The meeting was also aimed at obtaining community support for continued mitigation planning within the City of August 2003 City of Renton Hazard Mitigation Plan Renton. A third meeting was held on June 24, 2003 to discuss and review the first draft of the City of Renton Hazard Mitigation Plan. The consulting team then interviewed and met with local officials and representatives from the business and residential communities. Additionally, information from prior public plans was used to determine hazards and mitigation activities already in progress within the City. The draft Plan was presented to the Mayor and Department Heads for their review, and the Plan was discussed at a Department Heads meeting on July 15, 2003. Minor changes were made to the draft Plan as a result of the meeting, and the Plan was accepted by the Mayor at that time. A final Hazard Mitigation Plan was then prepared for presentation to the Renton City council. Following the completion of the final Plan, the Plan was made available to the public for their information. The plan was posted on the City of Renton web site, and the City advertised the plan to the community through various sources including: the Renton Reporter (newspaper), Channel 21 (Renton cable station), neighborhood associations newsletters (thru Norma Quiller), Renton School District, Piazza Renton (downtown business association), and the Renton Chamber of Commerce. Comments could be made to the Steering Committee through Deputy Fire Chief Glen Gordon. August 2003 2 City of Renton Hazard Mitigation Plan Chapter Two Risk Assessment The purpose of this Risk Assessment is to provide information on various large-scale hazards, both natural and technological, that could affect the City of Renton. The Risk Assessment serves as a basis for emergency management planning, as a justification for necessary preparedness - related budgeting and expenditures, and as a foundation for mitigation and recovery policy decisions. The Risk Assessment will allow the City to establish program goals and priorities commensurate with the need for protection. Decisions for creating new preparedness and mitigation initiatives, for modifying existing programs, and for evaluating progress toward achieving mitigation goals should be based upon the Risk Assessment and reflected in the City's development plans. Finally, the Risk Assessment can identify areas needing further research on hazards or on the application of technical solutions to mitigate their effects. Risk Assessment builds on three concepts: • A hazard is a possible source of danger or harm to people, property, or the environment. Hazard identification is the process of recognizing the various dangers present that could threaten a jurisdiction and its residents; Vulnerability is the degree of susceptibility to injury or harm. Vulnerability analysis assesses the relative degree of risk presented by hazards threatening a community; The Risk Assessment identifies potential dangers within or near a community and estimates the community's susceptibility to harm from those hazards. Identifying Hazards The City of Renton is subject to a number of hazards that are addressed in the Hazard Mitigation Plan. These hazards were identified through an extensive process that used input from Planning Committee members, research in historical documents, analysis of National Weather Service records, a review of current FI RMs, and a review of risk assessments prepared by King County and the State Emergency Management Division. In addition, the City's GIS database, county mapping data, and HAZUS information was used to map the City's infrastructure, critical facilities, and land uses. Initial data from this study was also used to determine those hazards that present the greatest risk to the City. Table 2-1 identifies those hazards: August 2003 City of Renton Hazard Mitigation Plan Fable 2-1— Hazard Identification Hazards How Identtfed s y fi W F Identified { R Earthquake • Review of state and county 0 Renton is located in Washington State, a region HIVAs with a 3% peak G force soon to be upgraded to • Review of Renton planning 4% documents 9 Washington ranks second in the nation in • USGS records vulnerability to earthquakes • Identified as a hazard in the 0 There are about 1000 earthquakes recorded each City of Renton Emergency year 10-20 of them strong enough to be felt; a 30 Management Plan year interval between Juan de Fuca plate earthquakes, most recent of which occurred on February 28, 2001 Flooding Review of local • The Cedar River runs through the City of Renton comprehensive plan — and floods generally about once a year; has had flooding sources; Cedar significant flooding in the past River, Green River, • Other rivers and streams are located within the Springbrook & May Creeks City, including the Green River, with a flood • Review of County plan and hazard in the City limits, May & Springbrook Emergency Management Creeks documents • The City may also be subject to urban flooding • Review of State HIVA (public works, storm water) • Identified in Renton • The City has floodplains and flood hazard areas Emergency Management mapped using GIS technology Plan • Much work has been done with the Cedar River by the Army Corps of Engineers to mitigate the problem using dredging. Landslides • Review of local plans and 0 Renton has many landslide hazard areas mapped ordinances on slide hazard maps produced by the City's • Review of county plans and Technical Services Division emergency management 0 The topography, climate and weather systems of documents the Puget Sound region, including Renton, make • Identified in Renton it the most susceptible region in the state to Emergency Management landslide hazards Plan • Renton has many moderate and high hazard slopes within the City, especially on the hills above the Cedar River and Lake Washington Winter • The National Weather 0 Between the months of October and April the Storms/Wind Service archives of local Puget Sound region is hit with a number of Storms storms weather systems that bring rain, wind, snow, and • Renton historical documents ice. These types of events can cause disruptions in and timelines of natural transportation systems, school systems, tree hazards and disasters damage, and power outages. • Heavy snow, severe • In the past, storms have followed one another - thunderstorms, ice storms, such as in 1996 and 1997 causing secondary and wind identified in the hazards to occur including, flooding and Renton Emergency landslides. Management Plan 0 The Puget Sound region, including Renton, has had a number of localized severe winter storms — see Winter Storm list/Timeline August 2003 City of Renton Hazard Mitigation Plan z,HazardA ,r�iw Ident�fed 4'Wu. r r`% i�h , Identified' dy- • Identified in Renton • The region, including Renton, is subject to high Emergency Management winds. The National Weather Service archives list Plan several wind storms that have impacted the Renton area. • Windstorms cause transportation and utility disruptions including power outages and trees blocking roadways. • Tree hazards resulting from high wind have caused damage to property and in some occasions death to residents. Coal Mine • Renton has several abandoned coal mines within hazards 0 Review of City its boundaries, many located in slide, seismic or Comprehensive Plan erosion hazard areas • Review of Critical Areas • Coal mines mapped by Renton's Technical Ordinance Services Department Hazardous 0 Conversation with Deputy • There are 14 Tier 2 facilities located within the Materials Fire Chief City limits, including King County, American Air Release 0 Identified in Renton Products, Boeing, and Kenworth Emergency Management • The Seattle Public Utilities water pipeline and the Plan Olympic Pipeline both run through the City of Renton • There has been at least one hazardous materials release from the Olympic Pipeline at the Renton site, 2500 gallons of hazardous materials • Proximity to railroad tracks in Tukwila — vulnerable to fumes from a spill just outside of Renton City limits • Boeing has a major plant in Renton • The Renton Municipal Airport Terrorism/ 0 Identified in Renton 0 Renton is home to at least one nationally Civil Emergency Management recognized company — Boeing Disturbance Plan • Renton's proximity to Seattle, ranked in the top • Interview with Renton ten among potential targets in the U.S, make it Deputy Fire Chief Glen vulnerable to impacts from a Seattle event Gordon • Renton may also be vulnerable to terrorist attacks from small terrorist organizations • Past civil disturbances in the area, but not Renton, include the WTO riots, in the late 90's • Boeing may be a potential target due to its national prominence; the various pipelines may also be a potential target. Water sources may be areas of concern • The Renton Municipal Airport is located in Renton and also a potential target Profiling Hazard Events The Mitigation Plan has identified a number of natural and man-made hazards that could affect the City of Renton. These hazards are discussed in this section, detailing the past history, August 2003 City of Renton Hazard Mitigation Plan susceptibility of the City to hazard effects, scope and extent of severity, and particular circumstances of the City that contribute to the severity of hazard effects. Maps following pages 13 & 15 provide visual detail to amplify information discussed in the text. Volcanoes/Lahars Mt. Rainier at 14,410 feet is the highest peak in the Cascade Mountain Range. It is a dormant volcano whose load of glacier ice exceeds that of any other mountain in the conterminous United States. Mt. Rainier is located approximately 50 miles southeast of Renton and according to the USGS/Cascade Volcano Observatory located in Vancouver, Washington, the City of Renton is at very low risk for volcanic and lahars activity. Earthquakes The City of Renton, located in the Puget Sound region of Washington State, is vulnerable to damage from earthquakes throughout large sections of the City. As part of the Puget Sound area, Renton is vulnerable to three different types of earthquakes. Damage and loss are variable with each type of earthquake. The King County Hazard Identification and Vulnerability Assessment (HIVA) defines an earthquake as a naturally induced shaking of the ground, caused by the fracture and sliding of rock within the earth's crust; the movement of the tectonic plates is one of the principle causes of earthquakes. In Western Washington, the primary plates of concern are the North American Plate and the subducting Juan de Fuca Plate. The first type of earthquake occurs along the Cascadia Subduction Fault, resulting from the convergence of the two faults. An earthquake resulting from movement along this zone would be considered a great quake. There have been no recorded "great" earthquakes along this fault since historic records began for this area in 1790, but there is evidence that one occurred in 1700; other subduction zones around the world similar to the zone off Washington State have had earthquakes with magnitudes of 8 or greater. Estimates suggest that this type of earthquake occurs, approximately, every 500 years. This type of quake could cause catastrophic damage from Vancouver B.C. to Northern California and trigger tsunamis off the coast. This type of earthquake event would be followed by strong aftershocks. The entire state is vulnerable to damage from this type of earthquake. Occurrence intervals range from every 550 years to every one hundred years. The second type of earthquake occurs deep within the Juan de Fuca Plate, between 25 — 100 kilometers beneath the Earths surface. This type of earthquake occurs approximately every 35 years in the Puget Sound region, the most recent being the Nisqually Quake that occurred on February 28, 2001 and measuring 6.8 on the Richter scale. Prior to that, an earthquake of this type occurred in 1965 with a magnitude 6.5, and in 1949 with a magnitude 7.1. This type of deep earthquake is not typically followed by aftershocks. Renton suffered some damage due to the recent Nisqually Quake. There was sloughing of land into the Cedar River just east of Renton, and a boat ramp was damaged at Gene Coulon Park. Shallow earthquakes are the third type of earthquake common to the region. These earthquakes occur within the North American plate to depths up to 30 kilometers. Shallow earthquakes are the most common type of earthquake to occur within the region. Recent studies have found August 2003 City of Renton Hazard Mitigation Plan evidence of large, shallow earthquakes occurring along the Seattle Fault 1,100 years ago. Most shallow earthquakes are relatively small, but there is potential in the region for a major shallow quake, capable of causing major damage throughout the Puget Sound region. Damage and vulnerability to earthquakes largely depends on the magnitude, depth, and location of the epicenter. Damage from earthquakes is largely caused by strong ground shaking; secondary effects such as landslides, subsidence, liquefaction and seiches can cause considerable damage. Ground and soil conditions can amplify or minimize the effects of groundshaking on a particular site. Soft soils are particularly at risk. Soft soil areas include floodplains, wetlands and valley areas. The City of Renton's Technical Services Division has mapped the seismic hazard areas within the City. Areas along Renton's Cedar River are identified as seismic hazard areas. Much of downtown Renton is located in the mapped seismic hazard area, including major infrastructure such as the I- 405 and SR 167 interchange. All of Route 167 within Renton City limits is located within the seismic hazard areas; the same can be said for I-405. Areas immediately surrounding the Cedar River are also considered seismic hazards. Homes and businesses within these areas are vulnerable to damage from any of the three events. Other critical infrastructure located within the seismic hazard area includes: two Renton Fire Stations, the Police Department and City Hall, Renton Municipal Airport, Puget Sound Energy facility and several schools and school facilities. Based upon information in the Hazard Risk Analysis prepared by the Washington Emergency Management Division, the likelihood of a major earthquake is "medium" and the potential for significant damage is "high." Numerous small earthquakes, causing no damage, occur on a daily basis. Tsunami Earthquakes in the Puget Sound are the usual producers of tsunamis in the Puget Sound region. An earthquake in A.D. 900 caused an up lift that triggered a tsunami in central Puget Sound and probably also caused landslide generated waves in Lake Washington. The last major tsunami in the Puget Sound region was in 1964, with no adverse effects felt in the City of Renton. Due to the distance to the Puget Sound, a tsunami would be low risk event for the city. Flooding A flood is an inundation of normally dry land resulting from the rising and overflowing of a body of water. It is a natural, geologic process that shapes the landscape, but can be exacerbated by development and other human activities. Floodplain locations are most at risk to riverine or stream flooding. The City of Renton is subject to minor riverine flooding from several different sources: the Cedar River, the Green River, Springbrook Creek, and May Creek. The Cedar River is the main source of flooding and concern for the City of Renton. The City can generally expect the river to flood once per year with minimal impact because a major dredging project was completed in 2000. Since 1990, there have been 3 - 4 major floods along the River in Renton. August 2003 7 City of Renton Hazard Mitigation Plan The Cedar River is one of six major rivers systems running through King County. The Cedar River begins in the Cascade Mountains, with the last 4.5 miles of the river running through the City of Renton. The last 1.25 miles are of particular concern to the City. Major flood events occurred on this portion of the River in 1990, 1995, and in 1996. The November 1995 and the February 1996 flood events were both Presidentially -declared disasters. The Cedar River at the Renton Airport was inundated and airport operations were impacted. Effects associated with flooding include loss of life, damage to structures, and loss or damage to roads and utilities. Flood damages in King County exceed damages by all other natural hazards occurring in the state (County HIVA). Secondary hazards associated with flooding include electrocution, structural collapse, hazardous materials incidents, and fire. Renton's Technical Services Division of the Planning, Building and Public Works Department, King County Emergency Management, and the Federal Emergency Management Agency have created maps of the City's flood hazard areas. Past areas of specific concern were those located at or near the mouth of the Cedar River, including the Renton Airport and the Renton Boeing Plant. Several floods have occurred in this area in the past (see winter storm timeline), inundating much of the Renton Airport and the Boeing Plant. Since the Army Corps of Engineers Cedar River dredging project took place, the area near Renton Airport is generally considered safe from flooding and, as long as there is periodic dredging of the channel, it will remain so. The City of Renton Surface Water Utility is currently revising FEMA Flood Insurance Rate Maps to account for the reduction in flood hazard due to the Army Corps of Engineers Cedar River Section 205 Flood Hazard Reduction Project. Other areas of concern are those along the Green River in South West Renton, mainly an industrial area. The City of Renton is a member of the National Flood Insurance Program and participates in the Community Rating System program. The City's current CRS rating is 7, allowing the City's residents to receive a 15% discount on flood insurance policies. Landslides A landslide is the downslope movement of land, rock and soils. Landslide can be caused by a number of factors including change in slope gradient, increasing land load, shocks or vibrations from events such as an earthquake, changes in ground water content or movement, and changes in vegetation (this includes changes in type of vegetation or removal of vegetation from the slope). The Puget Sound region's young geologic history makes much of the region's hill slopes vulnerable to landslide hazards. Renton is not excluded. The soil covering much of the area was left behind by Ice Age glaciers. There are several layers to the soil: the top layer is Vashon Till (a mix of rock, clay, dirt and sand), underneath which is a layer of Esperance Sand (very permeable) on top of an impermeable layer of Lawton Clay. When conditions are right and water permeates the sand and reaches the impermeable clay and builds up, sliding occurs. Many of the local slopes follow this pattern and hence are vulnerable to landslide hazards. August 2003 8 City of Renton Hazard Mitigation Plan Homes and property on, above, and below slopes are vulnerable to damage from landslides. Landslide records do not indicate significant historic slides in the City of Renton, but there are many areas with a grade above 15%, the minimum grade which defines a landslide hazard area. The City of Renton's landslide hazard areas are mapped by the City's Technical Services Division. Specific areas include hill slopes along the Cedar River and the Maple Valley Highway in Eastern Renton, in South Renton along the Benson Hills and South Puget Drive, and in Northeast Renton above the southeastern banks of Lake Washington (See landslide hazard map). Homes and businesses located in these areas are most at risk to landslides. Many of the slopes in Renton have a high vulnerability to slides. The area is most vulnerable to landslides in the winter months following periods of heavy precipitation. While landslides can occur independently, they are generally a secondary, or related, hazard to other events including heavy rainstorms, snow or winter storms, and earthquakes. The most recent landslide to occur in Renton occurred on February 28, 2001 as a result of the Nisqually Earthquake. A section of land slumped into the Cedar River in East Renton blocking the channel and causing temporary flooding in areas behind the slide. While there have not been many slides in the City, landslides are considered a hazard because of the slopes within the City and the increased construction along these areas. Some of the typical effects of landslides include damage or destruction of portions of roads and railroads, sewer and water lines, homes and public buildings. Landslides, even small-scale slides are expensive due to cleanup costs. Cleanup may include removal of debris from roadways, drains, or reservoirs. Costs associated with landslides also include: support for road embankments, vehicle and building damage, personal injury and damage to utility systems, among many others. Absent a major earthquake or a significant rainstorm event, the likelihood of a serious landslide in Renton remains low. Winter Storms Winter storms will affect the entire City of Renton and wind, snow, ice and hail are not uncommon occurrences for the Puget Sound Region, impacting a broad area depending on the severity of the storm. The most recent severe storm to impact the area occurred following Christmas 1996 and continued through January 1997. On December 26, 1996, 8 + inches of snow fell across the region, and more snow fell and ice fell the following day. Trees fell and branches snapped under the weight and stress of the snow and ice. Power lines snapped, and many residents were without power. Puget Sound Energy had 122,000 customers without power. On December 29, 1996, heavy rain fell on top of more than one foot of snow. Flooding on major rivers, including the Cedar River began to occur. Flooding, wind and rain continued into mid - January. The Cedar River broke its bank, and throughout the Puget Sound, although not Renton, landslides were occurring on steep and unstable slopes. A family of four was killed when their home slid into the Puget Sound. August 2003 City of Renton Hazard Mitigation Plan Winter storms are the most common widespread occurrence for the region. General effects include interruptions to power, infrastructure, and other utilities. Isolation is a hazard during winter storms, especially to at -risk and vulnerable populations. Although high snow accumulations are not common in the Puget Sound lowlands, even a small amount of snow can cause interruption and immobility, wreaking havoc on transportation systems. Other storms impacting the City are shown on the winter storm timeline, Table 2-2. Based on this timeline and on information in the Hazard Risk Analysis prepared by the Washington Emergency Management Division, Renton may expect a serious winter storm every two to three years, on average. The City maintains a constant maintenance program by removing trees that could pose a problem during a storm and cleaning of storm drains to prevent flooding. The City maintains a fleet of snow plow trucks, sanders and street sweepers to maintain unobstructed roadways during a snow storm or other problems related to weather. Wild Land Fires Due to major urban development in and near the City, and roadways throughout, a major wild land fire is considered a very low risk. Small brush fires and beauty bark fires are to be expected. August 2003 10 City of Renton Hazard Mitigation Plan Table 2-2: Winter Storm Timeline 3/3/56 King Count — Thunderstorm 3-3-56 11/23/90 King County — "the Pineapple Express" weather system brought heavy rain and flooding to the City of Renton, and all of King County— basement of City Hall flooded, Airport closed, depths of floodwaters along Cedar River at Boeing Field 3-4 ft. Dollar losses more than 15 million in King County 3/91 Renton — Cedar River 1/20/92 King Count — 1993 high wind — power outages, fallen trees "Inauguration Day" storm 1994 King Count - High winds 3/21 — 11/01 &12/30 1994 1/08/95 King County - Including Renton - Freezing rain 11/6/95 King County — Including Renton —Heavy snow, 6-15 inches in places - snapped power lines, several minor car accidents 11/17/95 King County — High winds 11/29/95 King County - Flooding along all major rivers including cedar — River flooded at Renton Airport, Heavy flows reached 8600 cfs — Airport flooded extensively — large amounts of water brought down logs to the mouth (Renton section 205) 2/96 King Count — Renton — unexpected heavy rain brought river levels to 8500cfs (Renton Section 205) 11/19/96 King County — Heavy snow, 7+ inches in the Renton area, schools closed 11/27/96 King County — High wind, sustained winds, 40-45 miles per hour 12/26/96 King County —heavy snow "Holiday Blast" begins 12/28/96 King County —heavy snow "Holiday Blast" Power outages, road closures, flight delays and cancellations, ice storms caused breaking tree limbs and more power outages. 12/29/96 King County —heavy rain "Holiday Blast" 1/01/97 King County —flooding and high winds "Holiday Blast" 03/20/97 King County — Renton Cedar River —Flooding 3/30/97 King Count — High winds 1/12/98 King Count — Heavy Snow 2-4 inches around the Seattle Metro area 11/23/98 King Count — High winds, sustained up to 50 mph 12/24/98 King County — Heavy Snow 4-8 inches over Puget Sound area, knocking out power and causing numerous car accidents 12/27/98 East King County, heavy snow and some sleet 1-28-99 King County - High wind, power losses 2-5-99 South East King County — High Wind magnitude 65 knots Central King County — sustained winds of 40 mph with gusts to 60 mph 3/1 — 3/15/99 King County — County wide. High wind also caused flooding and damage county wide including flooding along the cedar river in Renton. 3-2-1999 King County — High wind sustained wind 35-50 mph all of western Washington, knocked out power 1-16-00 King Count — western Washington, high winds, resulting in power outages and fallen trees 12/14— 12/ 15/00 King County —high winds — knocking out power, toppling trees 2/15- 2/16/01 King County , heavy snow — 8-10 inches average around Puget Sound areas, closed schools, caused auto accidents, power outages 3-8-02 Southeast King County — Heavy snow — five inches of "thundersnow"— snow on 405 caused drivers to abandon their vehicles cause traffic jams 12-27-02 King Count — high winds throughout King County, causing power outages and downed trees Information obtained from National Weather Service, Renton Cedar River Section 205 flood damage study, and King County Emergency Management data -dates between October and April — events — the typical timeline and dates for occurrence of winter storms, flooding. August 2003 11 City of Renton Hazard Mitigation Plan Hazardous Materials Release: King County has one of the highest probabilities in Washington State for being the scene of a significant hazardous materials release. Hazardous materials are transported over or near numerous bodies of waters, wetlands, environmentally -sensitive areas, and through numerous population centers. This is directly related to the high level of diverse industrial facilities and transportation routes in the County (King County HIVA). A hazardous materials release may occur at a fixed site or during transport of a product. The Washington State Department of Transportation reported that almost 60,000 transportation incidents resulting in the accidental release of hazardous materials occurred between 1987 and 1989 (King County HIVA). King County has not had any significant railroad incidents in recent years. Pierce County recently had a derailment which spilled boric acid and diesel fuel into south Puget Sound. Two recent derailments in Snohomish County resulted in a fire and evacuation that lasted several days. Rail lines run throughout downtown Seattle and populated areas of King County, including west of Renton through Tukwila. Additionally, a natural disaster such as an earthquake or a flood may cause hazardous materials releases, and during a natural disaster the numbers of hazardous materials releases can be expected to increase in number. The City of Renton has a high volume of hazardous materials stored within the City limits. The City of Renton Emergency Management plan identifies 14 SARA Title III hazardous materials sites located within the City. Each of these sites contains a variety of hazardous materials of concern. Table 2-3 shows the name of the business and the type of materials contained on the site, as taken from the City of Renton Emergency Management Plan. Table 2-3 — Hazardous Materials Facilities >usi es Behh `�i +.. .i f ' "k Y - � Chemicals., sue., M. r. 0aittes�;: Air Products Cryogenic Carbon Dioxide 14 Tons Cryogenic Argon 3,000 Gallons Cryogenic Nitrogen 6,000 Gallons Cryogenic Oxygen 6,000 Gallons Cryogenic Nitrous Oxide 14 tons Cryogenic Helium 11,000 gallons Chlorine 900 lbs H dro en Sulfide 300 lbs Boeing — BECO Nitrogen 200,000 cu. Ft. Oxygen 4067 cu. Ft. Production Chemicals Boeing — Renton Plant Gasoline 10,000 gallons Diesel 1000,000 gallons Jet Fuel 160,000 gallons Production Chemicals K&N Meats Ammonia for refrigeration 5,000 lbs Kenworth Truck Co. Diesel 5,000 gallons Ethylene Glycol 5,000 gallons Isocyanate 1,100 gallons August 2003 12 City of Renton Hazard Mitigation Plan Paint, Solvents & Flammable Liquids 5,500 gallons City of Renton Chlorine 300 lbs Sodium Hydroxide 12,000 gallons Sulfuric Acid Orca Bay Seafood Ammonia for refrigeration 1,500 lbs Draper Valley Farms Ammonia for refrigeration 3,300 lbs King County Sulfur Dioxide 10 tons Wastewater Treatment Plant Sodium Hydrochloride 20,000 Gallons Sodium Hypochlorite 20,000 gallons Gasoline 8,000 gallons Diesel Fuel 2,000 gallons US West Sulfuric Acid 2,000 gallons Diesel Fuel Oil 4,000 gallons Puget Sound Energy Propane 712,000 gallons (Williams Gas Company) Olympic Pipe Line Gasoline Pipeline and 15,000 gallon mix tank Diesel Tosco Tank Farm Gasoline 3.5 million gal. Diesel 1.5 million gal. Jet A Fuel 378,000 gallons Ethanol 580, 000 gallons Integra Chemical Bulk storage of laboratory chemicals Warehouse storage Additionally, there are many hazardous materials sites located in surrounding areas that may impact the City of Renton if an event does take place (an event in Tukwila, for example); the prevailing winds could blow fumes or materials into the City of Renton. Because numerous regional roadways run through or very near the City, Renton is also vulnerable to incidents resulting from traffic accidents, and the rail lines running just west of Renton carry hazardous materials daily near the City. In the event of derailment or other accident, Renton could be impacted. In addition to known hazardous materials sites in Renton, there are also unknowns that may have an impact on City operations. Illegal drug labs and dumping create another item of concern for the City. A hazardous materials incident may occur slowly or without warning, but require immediate response from City first responders. While most spills are minor and can be handled by City personnel, there is potential within the City for a more significant event requiring assistance from outside jurisdictions, especially in evacuation of downwind residents or the creation of a sheltering place. Recent significant events in Renton include the release of 2500 gallons of fuel from the Olympic Pipeline at their Renton pumping station (King County HIVA). Based upon the Hazard Risk Analysis prepared by the Washington Emergency Management Division, one may infer that the overall risk of a hazardous materials incident impacting Renton is in the low to medium range, largely due to the existence of major transportation routes through, or in close proximity to, the City. August 2003 13 W. Graham Lake Tapps Sumner G �alZOW Lake �f Kapowsin Pierce Co my Eatonville Thurston County 9 Alder Dam Thurston County _ . _ River Lewis County Elbe EXPLANATION Small lahars with recurrence interval <100 years (Case 3) Moderate lahars with recurrence interval 100-500 years (Case 2) ❑Large lahars with recurrence interval 500-1000 years (Case 1) 0J, Area most likely to be affected by lava flows and pyroclastic flows ® Post-lahar sedimentation Rifle Lake Enumclaw �rftP � n Buckley Greenwater King County y Ikeson Mountain Pierce 7 Dam County 4 t IWO Ashf.rd `- ' Packwood yet Packwood Lake Cowlitz .:. 0 5 10 MILES 0 5 10 KILOMETERS FIGuBE 3.—Hazard zones for lahars, lava flows, and pyroclastic flows from Mount Rainier (Hoblitt and others, 1998; US Geological Survey Open -File Report 98-428). Page 1 of 1 Puyallup McMillan orting McKenna Nisqually River 1 15 miles Electron Puyallup River Areas inundated t mudf lows (green) Mount Rainier in t last 5,600 years Enumclaw Buckley Mount Rainier Elbe e * Ashford National �JZUSG—S]Tbpinka, USGST VO, 2001; Modified from: Sisson, 1995, USGS Open -File Report 9"42 Whit, River glaciers http://vulcan.wr.usgs.gov/lmgs/Gif/Rainier/OFR95-642/rainier_mudflows.gif 9/30/03 0 City Limits City of Renton Fire Stations Critical Facilities in Slide Hazard Areas y� Police Stations Schools and Facilities Wells Sewer System Olympic Pipeline Streets Landslides 1 0 1 2 Miles 0 City Limits Fire Stations Police Stations a Schools and Facilities • Wells NSewer System Olympic Pipeline Streets FEMA Floodplain !® 100 Year 500 Year Floodway 12i City of Renton Critical Facilities in the Floodplain 1 0 1 2 Miles Q City Limits Fire Stations Police Stations rF Schools and Facilities Wells Sewer System Olympic Pipeline Streets 0 Seismic Hazard Areas U City of Renton Critical Facilities in Seismic Hazard Areas 1 0 1 2 Miles E3City Limits Fire Stations Police Stations Schools and Facilities o Wells Sewer System V Olympic Pipeline Streets 'Landslides FEMA Floodplain 100 Year 500 Year Floodway Coalmines Seismic Hazard Areas City of Renton Critical Facilities in Hazard Areas 1 0 1 2 Miles 0 S, iD a Tx ti • • r. • �t • N 0 p City Limits Fire Stations City of Renton * Police Stations Critical Facilities and Coalmine Hazards Schools and Facilities Wells Sewer System Olympic Pipeline Streets Coalmines 1 0 1 2 Miles City of Renton Hazard Mitigation Plan Terrorism/Civil Disturbance Terrorism has been defined by the Federal Bureau of Investigation as "The unlawful use of force or violence against persons or property to intimidate or coerce a government; the civilian population; or any segment of it, in furtherance of political or social objectives." The devastation which occurred at the World Trade Center in New York and the Alfred P. Murrah building in Oklahoma City points to the need to plan for potential threats within our own communities (King County HIVA). Washington State, and therefore the City of Renton, is vulnerable to terrorist activity. Terrorism can be state sponsored or the outgrowth of a frustrated, extremist fringe of polarized and/or minority groups of people, for example: • Ethnic, separatists, and political refugees • Left wing radical organizations • Right wing racists, anti -authority survivalist groups • Extremist issue -oriented groups such as animal rights, environmental, religious, anti - abortionists (Washington State Emergency Management Division). Communities are vulnerable to terrorist incidents and many have highly visible and vulnerable targets. These critical facilities, sites, systems, and special events in the community are usually located near routes with easy transportation access. Potential vulnerable sites in Renton include: government institutions, water supply sources, power distribution systems, communications terminals, and financial centers. Renton is home to one of the Boeing plants and has a Municipal Airport. Additionally, the Olympic Pipeline also runs through the City of Renton. The Washington State Emergency Management Division suggests that while the likelihood of an attack against United States interests is high, Washington State is at a relatively moderate risk to terrorism. Recent reports, corroborated through multiple intelligence sources, suggest an increased likelihood that the Al-Qaeda terrorist network may attempt to attack Americans in the United States or abroad within the year. After major combat activity is concluded in Iraq, a terrorist attack is likely to demonstrate that they are still a capable force and their struggle continues. Additionally, press reports indicate Al-Qaeda may be close to producing a biological weapon (Washington State Emergency Management Division http://emd.wa. gov/3-map/a-p/hiva/update-anal ysis/update-analysis.htm). Coal Mine Hazards The City of Renton has historical roots in the coal mining industry. Coal mining was one of Renton's earliest industries and the one that it became known for throughout the region. Its historical past in mining is still evident today with the presence of abandoned underground coal mines located throughout the City. The City of Renton has four mapped abandoned coal mines located within the City limits. They are located in the southeastern portions of the City and have been mapped by the City of Renton Technical Services Division as well as the Department of August 2003 14 City of Renton Hazard Mitigation Plan Natural Resources. The Washington State Hazard Identification and Vulnerability Assessment provides a section related to abandoned underground mine hazards. Underground coalmines present the largest abandoned mine hazard in Washington State. This is because of the extent of the mines and the urban development that has occurred around them. Most residents of cities such as Renton and Bellingham are not aware that they live in former "mining towns," with abandoned mines still present... Hazards are related to mine shaft openings, the mouths of tunnels and airways, or where mining operations were conducted close to the surface. Openings in developed areas are commonly plugged with mine waste, land clearing debris, or car bodies. These "un- engineered" caps may eventually fail, especially where the original slopes are steep. Plugging of mines in which water flows may cause unexpected and sudden outbursts of water at unanticipated locations. The most obvious effect of abandoned mine cave-ins is the sudden appearance of a hole in the ground. Due to the size and location of the underground opening, holes may be very difficult to plug permanently and after "filling," may reappear unexpectedly. Repairs are costly when holes appear under or near structures, homes, land developments, transportation routes, and utilities. Also, the costs of geological and engineering services to locate, map, and evaluate the safety of sites are expensive. Land subsidence or ground settling can be the result of underground mining of coal or other minerals, groundwater and petroleum withdrawal, and drainage of organic soils. Earthquakes near abandoned mines may cause cave-ins, surface faulting, and liquefaction. Construction near abandoned underground mines should be regulated and avoided to prevent injury and save property. (Washington State EmergencManagement Division and Washington State Department of Natural Resources). There is a low probability and low risk that an event would occur involving an underground coalmine, but the risk increases to those people and property located in the immediate vicinity of the mine if another hazard were to occur such as an earthquake or landslide that impacts the mine. The Renton mines are located outside of the seismic hazard and flood hazard areas, but are found in landslide hazard areas and have significant residential development above and/or nearby. Assessing Vulnerability: Identifying Assets The City of Renton's infrastructure and capital facilities may be vulnerable to a variety of hazards. The following table presents a list of critical facilities and infrastructure as identified in the City's Comprehensive Plan as well as information gathered from a HAZUS analysis. Following the table are maps that identify these critical facilities and indicate where they are located within the City in relation to certain hazard areas. August 2003 15 City of Renton Hazard Mitigation Plan Table 2-4: City of Renton Infrastructure and Capital Facilities Ca,,itaiFacilit�es �� s� � _: kv City of Renton • 10 Wells City of Renton Staff Water System 1 Spring • 12 Booster Pump Stations • 9 Reservoirs • 9 Metered Connections to Outside Sources • 2 Water Treatment Facilities • 290 Miles of Water Main City of Renton . 23 Lift Stations City of Renton Staff Wastewater . 4,219 Manholes System . 180 Miles of Sewer Main City of Renton 0 2 Pump Stations City of Renton Staff Surface Water . 184 miles of storm sewer main Utility • 19 detention facilities • 1.25 mi. levee and floodwall Seattle Public • 5 Water Transmission Mains City of Renton Staff Utilities King County • 7 Sewer Interceptors (trunk lines) City of Renton Staff Waste Water . 1 Treatment Plant Treatment Public Safety • 1 Police Facility, including jail services and • City of Renton facilities Comprehensive Plan Fire Capital • 5 City fire stations • City of Renton Facilities o Station 11: Main station located in Comprehensive Plan Downtown Renton • City of Renton Home Page o Station 12: Serving Renton Highlands o Station 13: Benson Hill, south end o Station 14 - 1900 Lind Av SW o Station 16 - 12923 156th Av SE (Stations 14 and 16 are not on critical facilities map) • Fire District 25 — King County Station, serving the east portion of the City Utilities: 0 Bonneville Power Administration • City of Renton Electricity o 5 transmission circuits Comprehensive Plan • Puget Power o Talbot Hill Station, high capacity lines Utilities: Natural . Puget Sound Energy • City of Renton Gas o SWARR Station & Gate Station Comprehensive Plan o Network of high pressure mains and distribution lines Utilities Fuel • Olympic Pipeline • City of Renton Product Pipelines o Central monitoring station at 2319 Lind Comprehensive Plan Ave SW o Petroleum enters and leaves Renton Via 2 pipelines Hospitals • Valley Medical Center (169 beds), includes • City of Renton an emergency room Comprehensive Plan • HAZUS loss estimation August 2003 16 City of Renton Hazard Mitigation Plan Schools • 36 Schools and related facilities • HAZUS Loss Estimation Airports • Renton Municipal Airport • HAZUS Loss Estimation • Conversation with Airport Staff, Ryan Zulauf • City of Renton Comprehensive Plan (Renton Airport not identified on hazard maps) Assessing Vulnerability: Estimating Potential Losses Earthquake The City of Renton is vulnerable to damage as a result of three different types of earthquakes as identified in profiling hazards. To estimate potential losses in Renton as a result of these three earthquake hazards and secondary hazards, a HAZUS scenario was run for each of the three different types of earthquakes. Summary reports from each analysis are located in Appendix C. Tables 2-5, 2-6, and 2-7 show direct economic losses from building damage for each type of earthquake. HAZUS is a regional loss estimation model developed by the Federal Emergency Management Agency and the National Institute of Building Sciences to estimate losses at a regional scale. The software is intended to be used by state, local, and regional governments to reduce risks from earthquakes. HAZUS data is limited in that it reaches only the census tract level data, and it does not assess damage at a smaller scale. It is also limited as to the amount of data that it produces based on the data available from the jurisdiction at the time HAZUS was created in 1999. HAZUS information and data from the model should be viewed as a starting point to develop a more specific and comprehensive loss estimation. Table 2-5: ('.V dC "uix"9k y "'iYS 3Y. ©irectEconomlcL�osses For Iva #`F ,r. :€ �. �. ...; 'Lx 'i✓,e:�...w;.ak:..+,e.:�...�.� ck .... .t ...,''�v5�. a r � i` ...a,�. . 4/24/2003 Capital Stock Losses Income Losses Cost Cost Cost Inventory Relocatio Capital Wages Rental Total Structural Non- Contents Loss Loss Related Losses lencom Loss strucDamage Damage Damage Loss Loss 10,578 38,862 17,597 544 8,453 4,209 6,463 4,817 91,523 Renton, Washington Juan De Fuca Interplate Earthquake All values are in thousands of dollars August 2003 17 City of Renton Hazard Mitigation Plan Table 2-6: Earthquake Event Type: Seattle Fault, Shallow Event 4/24/2003 Capital Stock Losses Income Losses Cost Cost Cost Inventory Relocation Capital Wages Rental Total Structural Non- Contents Loss Loss Related Losses Income Loss strucDamage Damage Damage Loss Loss 3,404 177,470 63,268 1,413 38,171 17,042 25,228 23,098 II values are in thousands of dollars Table 2-7: Earthquake Type: Cascadia Subduction Zone 4/24/2003 Capital Stock Losses Income Losses Cost Cost Cost Inventory Relocation Capital Wages Rental Total Structural Non-struct. Contents Loss Loss Related Losses Income Loss Damage Damage Damage Loss Loss 138,275 1,153 45,455 41,362 31,616 15,668 25,838 19,217 316,584 II values are in thousands of dollars Floods Renton's Technical Services Department, King County Emergency Management, and the Federal Emergency Management Agency have all created maps of the City's flood hazard areas. Areas of specific concern are those located at or near the mouth of the Cedar River including the Renton Airport and the Renton Boeing Plant. Several floods have occurred in this area in the past (see winter storm timeline), inundating much of the Renton Airport and the Boeing Plant. The November 1990 floods along the Cedar River caused nearly $8 million in damage to the Renton Airport, Cedar River Park and the Boeing facilities. Other areas of concern are those along the Green River in South West Renton, mainly an industrial area. In 1995 the Army Corps of Engineers conducted a study identifying buildings and establishing the amount of dollar loss that could be expected following a 100-year flood event based on a proposed dredging project. The study also estimated the numbers of commercial, industrial, and residential buildings located within the floodplain. Based on the 1995 channel conditions, flood damage estimates fell between $3,121,000 and $4,329,000. August 2003 18 City of Renton Hazard Mitigation Plan The study identified two main facilities impacted by Cedar River flood events, the Renton Municipal Airport and The Boeing Company's Renton plant. • Renton Municipal Airport: Total value in 1995: estimated 3.7 million Assessed value of the commercial establishments including Boeing: $3,950,000 Aircraft Inventory at Renton Airport: • 331 small engine aircraft - valued at $60000 each • 25 larger aircraft - value of $250,000 • 2 jet engine planes — valued at $2.5 million Total value of aircraft: $31310,000 • The Boeing Company Renton Plant: Total value of the Boeing structures and aircraft located in the floodplain — $1,193,000,000 (1995) Upstream of Boeing, land use changes to residential, varied commercial, and a number of public buildings including the Renton Library which is located directly above the Cedar River. • Residential and commercial in the floodplain located upstream of Logan Avenue: Approximately 300 residential structures and 50 commercial/public buildings Following the 1995 Corps of Engineers report, the Cedar River was dredged and floodwalls and levies were constructed to provide 100-year flood event protection. Following the completion of the project, residential and commercial structures are generally considered safe from flood events. Estimates suggest the river will need to be dredged every three to ten years to maintain the 100-year flood event protection. Although the Federal Emergency Management Agency's flood maps show areas near the Airport as a special flood hazard area, since the Army Corps project completion, the Airport is considered to be out of the special flood hazard area. New flood maps are being developed. Table 2-8 identifies damages as a result of a 100, 200, and 500-year flood event before and after the dredging project as reported by the Army Corps of Engineers. Table 2-8: �`SrA" '# ib ye Hof %e tznp�dred y� ` 'd y4c9 �r £ `ef # ��e ` ` t ... �� ' u} ' ^ ar '� IIE ������ ` t 11,V ��Y �� �d•n � �`ww,, � §! y� C § n M;»�wd. Existing annual $7097 - 9491 $7097 - 9491 $7097 - 9491 damages Damages reduced $5452 - 7225 1 $6309 - 8459 $6743 - 9084 Residual damages $2069 - 2876 1 $787 - 1032 $353 - 497 Information obtained from the Army Corps of Engineers Flood Damage Reduction Study August 2003 19 City of Renton Hazard Mitigation Plan Analyzing Development Trends The City of Renton is located at the south end of Lake Washington, between Seattle, Tacoma and Bellevue. Renton covers 16 square miles and is bordered by King County, Kent, Tukwila, Newcastle, and Bellevue, with downtown Seattle 20 miles to the north. Two major freeways bisect the City, Interstate 405 and State Highway 167. Renton is a growing City in the Puget Sound region and, as a City in a Growth Management State, is expected to take its fair share of growth for the King County'region. The City of Renton's Comprehensive Plan (completed in 1995) projects that during the time period of 2002 — 2022 the City would grow from 21,708 to 27,906 households. Table 2-9 shows the total population in 2002 and the expected population for 2022. Table 2-9: 2002 Population Data 2002 Population Total 2002 Total Population in City Limits 50,969 Total Jobs 54,825 Table 2-10: 2022 Population Forecasts 2022 Population Forecast Total 2022 Population Forecast 66,301 Total Jobs 82,422 Renton has a mix of land uses throughout the City. Some existing development occurred in hazard areas prior to the adoption of current zoning and development standards regulating development in sensitive areas. The land uses within the City include industrial and commercial uses located primarily in the downtown areas of Renton. Boeing and the Renton Airport are located on the southern end of Lake Washington in northwestern Renton, at the mouth of the Cedar River and the site of past severe flooding. Also downtown are mixed use residential and commercial land uses, with a mix of single and multi -family homes. Single family residential dominates the eastern and southeastern portions of the City. In addition, in those areas there are pockets of mixed -use commercial centers aimed at providing services for residents living along eastern edges of the City. Resource conservation lands are located along major rivers and creeks in areas associated with Critical Areas and in the Valley where significant wetlands exist. Southwest Renton, west of Highway 167, is a mix of commercial office space, light and heavy industrial and resource conservation lands. To the east of Highway 167, in southern Renton, is a mix of low -density single family, multi -family infill lands, single family homes and commercial office space. The Comprehensive Plan provides a vision of Renton development 20 years into the future. The vision includes infill into existing neighborhoods on vacant lots and with an increase in multi- family housing in the downtown areas, again with the emphasis on infill rather than on urban sprawl. August 2003 20 City of Renton Hazard Mitigation Plan According to the City of Renton Zoning Map (October 24, 2002), much of the hazardous and sensitive areas are zoned to allow only very low -density residential uses. The exception is building within the seismic hazard areas, since seismic hazard areas encompass much of downtown and southwest Renton. Multi -family infill development has increased over the past ten years to accommodate the growth expected within the City. Much of the downtown seismic hazard area is designated as mixed -use downtown center. While this accommodates the growth expected for the region it may also increase both the day and nighttime populations of downtown Renton. Single-family residential growth is occurring in eastern Renton, largely outside of hazard zones. The City currently controls development of lands that are identified hazard areas in several ways. The Critical Areas Regulations, adopted into zoning in 1999, protect lands with identified aquifers, flood hazards, steep slopes, geologic hazards, and wetlands. Lands that are mapped in these designations, and lands that are identified as "critical areas" based upon adopted criteria upon site -specific review, are subject to restrictive standards and additional environmental analysis. Development regulations require that critical areas be deducted from the buildable area of the land in question for regulated hazards. For lands with characteristics below regulated thresholds, additional technical analysis — such as geotechnical reports or wetlands analysis — is required to ensure that development responds to hazardous conditions. August 2003 21 City of Renton Hazard Mitigation Plan Chapter 3 Mitigation Strategy Through a series of planning meetings, the City of Renton Hazard Mitigation Plan Steering Committee identified goals that will guide the implementation of the Hazard Mitigation Plan. The goals listed were those that were determined to best minimize impacts of disasters. It important to note that budget and fiscal constraints may have significant impact on the City's ability to initiate new mitigation activities and even to continue current actions over the long term. Proposed MitijZation Goals, Obiectives, and Actions Goal 1 — to protect aquifers used by the City and the City water supply system from contamination by hazardous materials and other hazard effects Objectives: a. Protect the groundwater resources of the City. b. Provide a means of regulating specific land uses within aquifer protection areas. c. Provide a means of establishing safe construction practices for projects built within an aquifer protection area. d. Protect the City's drinking water supply system from impacts by facilities that store, handle, treat, use, transport, or produce substances that pose a hazard to water quality. e. Reduce the effects of actual contamination of potable water sources Actions (lead agency — Planning, Building, & Public Works): a. Continue to implement and maintain the Aquifer Protection Plan b: Continue Risk Assessment Methodology for Water Systems Process; implement measures as appropriate Goal 2 — Minimize public and private losses due to flood conditions in specific areas Objectives: a. Protect human life and health; b. Minimize expenditure of public money and costly flood control projects; c. Minimize the need for rescue and relief efforts associated with flooding and generally undertaken at the expense of the general public; d. Minimize damage to public facilities and utilities such as water and gas mains, electric, telephone and sewer lines, streets, and bridges located in areas of special flood hazard; e. Help maintain a stable tax base by providing for the sound use and development of areas of special flood hazard so as to minimize future flood blight areas; August 2003 22 City of Renton Hazard Mitigation Plan f. Ensure that those who occupy the areas of special flood hazard assume responsibility for their actions; Actions (lead agency — Planning, Building, & Public Works): a. Continue,to enforce, maintain and update Renton Critical Areas Regulations, development regulations, and Surface Water Management Design Standards; b. Continue to perform maintenance dredging, when needed, and maintenance of the levees and floodwalls associated with the Army Corps of Engineers Cedar River Section 205 Flood Hazard Reduction project; c. Develop criteria for and conduct hazard -susceptibility assessments of business and public facilities (baseline and changed conditions); d. Enhance and continue drainage system maintenance; e. Avoid/reduce instances of non -underground extensions of utility lines which may create debris dams during floods; f. Evaluate and reconcile competing goals and practices regarding habitat protection and flood mitigation; g. Maintain and enhance the City of Renton Flood Hazard Reduction Plan; h. Continue to participate with King County in the King County Flood Warning System and the Green River Flood Control Zone District Administration. Goal 3 — Minimize damage due to natural hazards Objectives: a. Protect the public against avoidable losses due to maintenance and replacement of public facilities, property damage, subsidy cost of public mitigation of avoidable impacts, and costs for public emergency rescue and relief operations; b. Reduce hazards created by failure of the built environment (e.g., buildings, bridges, freeways, utility lines); c. Reduce impacts of disaster on fragile environments/facilities, e.g.: • Hospitals, nursing homes, etc. • Day care centers • Assistance clinics • Halfway houses • Special populations requiring public assistance d. Reduce the risks to the City from development occurring on unstable slopes; e. Reduce the risks to the City from damage caused to existing resources in known unstable areas; f. Control erosion and sediment run-off from development; Actions (lead agency — Planning, Building, & Public Works): a. Conduct hazard -susceptibility assessments of business and public facilities b. Identify, assess, and maintain critical transportation routes within the City; August 2003 23 City of Renton Hazard Mitigation Plan c. Develop objective criteria and conduct seismic preparedness and retro-fit of critical public and private facilities; d. Re -enforce utility infrastructure and connections; e. Implement slope stabilization measures in steep/unstable areas; f. Use HAZUS Loss Estimation tool kit to identify and assess vulnerabilities to earthquake damage. Goal 4 — to minimize impacts on critical habitats and wetlands from natural or man-made disasters Objectives: a. Maintain and promote diversity of species and habitat within the City; b. Help maintain air and water quality, and control erosion; c. Enhance and maintain the capacity for critical habitat and wetland areas to serve as mitigation buffers for floods; d. Reduce the impact of: i. Preventable maintenance and replacement of public facilities needed when wetland functioning is impaired through disaster impact; ii. Costs associated with repair of downstream properties resulting from erosion and flooding due to the loss of water storage capacity provided by wetlands; Actions (lead agency — Planning, Building, & Public Works): a. Assess vulnerability of critical habitat and wetland areas to disaster damage; b. Assess capacity for critical habitat and wetland areas to serve as mitigation buffers for floods; c. Incorporate habitat and wetland mitigation enhancements into drainage maintenance program; d. Evaluate and reconcile competing goals and practices regarding habitat protection and flood mitigation. Goal 5 — Minimize the impact of technological or man-made disasters on the City (e.g., hazardous materials incidents, terrorist attack, civil disturbance, etc.) Objectives: a. Reduce the community's risk of exposure to hazardous materials releases/incidents; b. Ensure that the City government has reliable communications and information management systems: c. Reduce risk to critical public and private facilities. August 2003 24 City of Renton Hazard Mitigation Plan Actions (lead agencies — Police and Fire): a. Robust systems Retro-fit critical facilities for blast -resistance and resistance to forced entry; Protect utility lifelines (water, power, communications, etc.) by concealing, burying, or encasing; Develop backup control center capabilities; b. Security/Safety • Incorporate vehicle barriers such as walls, fences, ponds/basins, plantings, sculptures into site planning and design; design grounds and parking facilities for natural surveillance; • Ensure adequate site lighting; • Locate critical assets (people, activities, systems) away from entrances, vehicle circulation and parking, and loading and maintenance areas; • Separate high -risk and low -risk activities; separate high -risk activities from public areas; • Install public and employee screening systems and closed-circuit television (CCTV) security systems. c. System Redundancy • Implement separate emergency and normal power systems; ensure that backup power systems are periodically tested under load; • Ensure provision of primary and backup fuel supplies; provide secure storage; • Install exterior connection for emergency power; • Enhance communications and information management capabilities: o Update the telecommunications capabilities of City government offices. o Create redundant/backup capability for landline telephone system. o Develop off -site backup of information technology systems. d. Enhanced Emergency Response • Maintain access (ingress and egress) for emergency responders, including large fire apparatus, and for resident evacuation; • Develop and maintain comprehensive emergency response and recovery plans; • Conduct regular evacuation and security drills; • Regularly evaluate emergency equipment readiness/adequacy; • Develop backup control center capabilities; August 2003 25 City of Renton Hazard Mitigation Plan Goal 6 — Enhance the City's capability for gathering, organizing, and displaying spatial data regarding hazards, vulnerabilities, critical facilities, and vital statistics. Objectives: a. Enhance the capability to access and synthesize City, County, and State geo-spatial hazard data; b. Increase the ease with which City geo-spatial hazard data can be accessed and used. Actions (lead agency — Technical Services Division): a. Maintain comprehensive hazard maps; b. Create critical facilities data base information for use in future mitigation strategies c. Obtain and integrate HAZUS Loss Estimation tool and AreView GIS with existing City GIS geospatial programs Identification and Analysis of Mitigation Measures The City of Renton has identified several hazard mitigation projects that would benefit the City, and these have been formalized in the City's Hazard Mitigation Plan. These were identified in the meetings of the Hazard Mitigation Plan Steering Committee, which included input from local government agencies, businesses, community neighborhood associations, the Renton School District, and City residents. The Steering Committee chose to focus on mitigation measures in the areas of: • Aquifer Protection — protection of the City's water source from impacts of construction, development, hazardous materials releases or infiltration; • Flooding — protection of residents, structures, and the tax base from the effects of flood damage; • Earthquakes/Landslides — reduction of losses, from seismic events and landslides, to life and property, fragile environments and facilities, and the City's tax base; • Technological Hazards (including terrorism) — reduction in the City's vulnerabilities to technological hazards and enhancement of security of critical facilities. In addition, the Steering Committee agreed to enhance the City's capability to access, manipulate, and display geo-spatial data in order to foster and maintain mitigation planning and implementation over the long term. Implementation of Mitigation Measures The Hazard Mitigation Plan Steering Committee examined the various mitigation measures identified and decided — for reasons of budgetary restraint and efficiency — to place the highest priority on mitigation actions that were already underway through normal City operations or prior development initiatives. These include continued implementation and articulation of the Aquifer Protection Plan, continued enforcement of Critical Areas Regulations and other August 2003 26 City of Renton Hazard Mitigation Plan applicable portions of the City code, enhancement of drainage system maintenance, and increased attention to the effectiveness of existing emergency response capability. The Steering Committee determined that concentrating on these activities would afford the City time to investigate funding sources, to identify specific high -value actions in the other priority categories, and to establish a reasonable implementation framework for later actions. It would also afford an opportunity for the City to conduct preliminary actions (e.g., development of criteria and protocols for conducting hazard -susceptibility assessments; developing objective criteria for seismic retro-fit) to support later mitigation programs. The following matrix (Table 3- 1) shows the priority ranking of mitigation measures identified in the Plan. Table 3-1 Hazard Mitigation Measures — Priority Ranking Al f AquiferProtectionImplement and maintain Aquifer Protection Plan High Standard adopted. Ongoing Continue Risk Assessment Methodology for Water Systems Process; implement measures as appropriate High Standard adopted. Ongoing Flooding Continue to enforce and maintain Renton Critical Areas Regulations; High Standard adopted. Ongoing Continue US Corps of Engineers Cedar River channeling project High Standard adopted. Ongoing Enhance and continue drainage system maintenance High Standard adopted. Ongoing Earthquake/Landslide Obtain and use HAZUS Loss Estimation tool kit High Pending Technological Enhanced Emergency Response Measures High Pending Geo-spatial Data Use Integrate HAZUS Loss Estimation tool for ArcView GIS and ArcView; High Under consideration Create and maintain comprehensive hazard maps and critical facilities data base information for use in future mitigation strategies. High Under consideration iYx 2^ " fl Flooding Develop criteria for and conduct hazard- susceptibility assessments of business and public facilities Medium Future Action Earthquake/Landslide Develop criteria for and conduct hazard- susceptibility assessments of business and public facilities Medium Future Action Re -enforce utility infrastructure and connections; Medium Future Action Identify, assess, and maintain critical transportation routes within the City Medium Future Action August 2003 27 City of Renton Hazard Mitigation Plan Technological Determine feasibility, develop plans, and Medium Future Action secure funding for: • robust systems measures, • security/safety measures and, • system redundancy measures. AW,L•ul�,.S�E" i Flooding Avoid/reduce instances of non- Low Future Action underground extensions of utility lines which may create debris dams during floods Evaluate and reconcile competing goals Low Future Action and practices regarding habitat protection and flood mitigation. Assess vulnerability of critical habitat and Low Future Action wetland areas to disaster damage; Assess capacity for critical habitat and Low Future Action wetland areas to serve as mitigation buffers for floods; Incorporate habitat and wetland Low Future Action mitigation enhancements into drainage maintenance program Earthquake/Landslide Develop objective criteria and conduct Low Future Action seismic preparedness and retro-fit of critical public and private facilities Implement slope stabilization measures in Low Currently done, steep/unstable areas case -by -case This priority ranking demonstrates a clear understanding by the Steering Committee of the current financial position of the City and the "limits of the possible" in the City's abilities to address disaster mitigation. The Steering Committee — balancing considerations of life safety, number of people affected, and cost-effectiveness — deterruned that actions in the "High" category would bring the most immediate benefit to the City in mitigating disaster effects. Actions in the "Medium" and "Low" categories will bring long-term benefit as the City is able to afford to commit resources for their implementation and to integrate these actions into the City's operations. Actions in these categories will be re-examined and re-evaluated as part of the Plan review cycle described in Chapter Four. A new cost -benefit analysis was not conducted for those projects and activities already underway. Specific cost -benefit analysis will be conducted on a case -by -case basis as future actions are evaluated for inclusion into the City's budget process. All projects considered for implementation will have a benefit to cost ratio of at least 1.0 before being considered for additional prioritization using the established criteria. Funding sources for new projects are at present unknown. Hazard mitigation measures identified in the Plan and already in progress will continue to be funded through the current City budget process. The City will investigate and seek grant support for hazard mitigation measures from FEMA, other federal agencies (e.g., EPA for water system security), Washington State EMD and other funding sources. The City will consolidate the grant application August 2003 28 City of Renton Hazard Mitigation Plan process for hazard mitigation measures within the Fire Department (Emergency Management) under the oversight of the Steering Committee. August 2003 29 City of Renton Hazard Mitigation Plan Chapter Four Mitigation Plan Maintenance Procedures Monitoring, Evaluating, and Updating the Plan The City of Renton has developed a process for regularly reviewing and updating the Hazard Mitigation Plan. The Hazard Mitigation Plan Steering Committee will hold an annual meeting in March, and Committee members will be responsible for overseeing the progress of the mitigation actions in the Plan. The Emergency Operations Committee (chaired by the Fire Department and composed of representatives from all City Departments) will periodically a formal assessment of the Hazard Mitigation Plan following a schedule described below. The Emergency Operations Committee will report to the Steering Committee whether and to what extent: • The goals and objectives address current and expected conditions. • The nature or magnitude of risks has changed. • The current resources are appropriate for implementing the plan. • There are implementation problems, such as technical, political, legal or coordination issues with other agencies. • The outcomes have occurred as expected. • The agencies and other partners have participated as proposed. The Steering Committee will review the results of the Plan assessment, identify corrective actions, and recommend to the Mayor what actions are necessary to bring the Mitigation Plan back into conformance with the stated goals and objectives. The Fire Department will then update and make changes to the plan before submitting it to the Committee members and the State Hazard Mitigation Program Manager. If no changes are necessary, the State Hazard Mitigation Officer will be given a justification for this determination. The initial Hazard Mitigation Plan assessment and review will be conducted 2 years after the Plan has been formally adopted by the City Council. Thereafter, the Hazard Mitigation Plan will be conducted every 5 years to coincide with the review of the City Comprehensive Plan. City has chosen this cycle and process in order to provide a sufficient time horizon for mitigation actions to take effect and show results. Implementation through Existing Programs The City of Renton relies on comprehensive land use planning, capital improvements planning, and building codes to guide and control development in the City. After the City officially adopts the Hazard Mitigation Plan, these existing mechanisms will, as appropriate, include and integrate mitigation strategies identified in the Plan. August 2003 30 City of Renton Hazard Mitigation Plan After adoption of the Mitigation Plan, the City will address hazards in the comprehensive plans and land use regulations. Specifically, one of the goals in the Mitigation Plan is to protect life and property from natural disasters and man -caused hazards. The Economic Development, Neighborhoods, and Strategic Planning Department will review the City's comprehensive plans and land use policies, analyze any plan amendments, and provide technical assistance in implementing these requirements. The capital'improvement planning that occurs in the future will also contribute to the goals in the Hazard Mitigation Plan. The Economic Development, Neighborhoods, and Strategic Planning Department will work with capital improvement planners to secure high -hazard areas for low risk uses. Within six months of the formal adoption of the Mitigation Plan, the mitigation activities listed in chapter 3 will be incorporated into the process of existing planning mechanisms. Ensuring Continued Public Involvement The City of Renton is committed to involving the public directly in the continual reshaping and updating of the Hazard Mitigation Plan. The Hazard Mitigation Plan Steering Committee members are responsible for oversight of the plan. Although the members of this Committee represent the public to some extent, the public will be able to directly comment on and provide feedback about the plan. Copies of the plan will be catalogued and kept on hand at the Renton Public Library. The existence and location of these copies will be publicized in the newsletter sent out by the Renton Chamber of Commerce. Contained in the plan is the address and phone number of City staff responsible for keeping track of public comments on the plan. In addition, copies of the plan and any proposed changes will be posted on the City Government website. This site will also contain an email address and phone number to which people can direct their comments or concerns. The City will further publicize the Plan availability on the City web site through various sources including: the Renton Reporter (newspaper), Channel 21 (Renton cable station), neighborhood association newsletters, Renton School District, Piazza Renton (downtown business association), Renton Chamber of Commerce. Citizen comment and interest will be solicited and directed to the Steering committee. At the discretion of the City, a public meeting may be held after each review of the plan by the Hazard Mitigation Plan Steering Committee. This meeting will provide the public a forum for which they can express concerns, opinions, or ideas about the plan. The Fire Department (Emergency Management) will publicize and host this meeting, and any up -dates will be posted on the City web -site allowing for additional public input. August 2003 31 City of Renton Hazard Mitigation Plan Appendix A — Hazard Mitigation Plan Steering Cominittee Members Name Affiliation Phone Jim Amandus Highlands Community Church 425-255-4751 Tom Armstrong Valley Medical Center 425-228-3440 x 5659 Norma McQuiller Renton Neighborhood Coordinator 425-430-6595 Ray Sled Renton PBPW/Shops 425-430-7400 Abdoul Gafour Renton Water Engineering 425-430-7210 Ruth Larson Renton Hill Community Assn. 425-255-0290 Greg McNabb St. Anthony Parish 425-255-3132 x226 Joe Lamborn Renton School District 425-204-4406 Floyd Eldridge Renton Police Department 425-430-7555 Herb Postlewait Kennydale Community 425-228-2209 Al Folmar, Chaplain Renton Police & Fire Depts. 425-226-2029 Bill Williams King County DNR 206-684-2411 Michael Fischer King County DNRP 206-684-2408 Rebecca Lind Renton EDNSP 425-430-6588 Glen Gordon Renton Fire Dept. 425-430-7022 Ryan Zulauf Renton Airport 425-430-7471 Bob Blayden Blayden Design/Build 425-271-8018 August 2003 A-1 City of Renton Hazard Mitigation Plan Appendix B — Meeting Agendas and Attendance Lists City of Renton Hazard Mitigation Planning Process Planning Meeting Agenda — February 19, 2003 I. Introductions • City Representatives • Planning Team II. Planning Process • Kick-off meeting • Meeting with City departments. planning representatives, stakeholders, public participants • Information gathering — information sources and needs • Specific follow-up on planning factors — hazards and vulnerabilities; critical facilities; mitigation concepts and policies, etc. • Expeditious review of draft materials III. Project Schedule • Risk Assessment Report — approximate completion date, 30 April 2003 • Draft Local Mitigation Plan — approximate completion date, June 2003 • Final Mitigation Plan for the City of Renton — 31 July 2003. IV. Documents requested for hazard plan V. People or organizations to involve/contact August 2003 B-1 City of Renton Hazard Mitigation Plan City of Renton Hazard Mitigation Planning Meeting 2-19-03 Name Dept/Div Phone Number E-Mail Glen B. Gordon Fire 425-430- 7022 ggordon@ci.renton.wa.us Ron Straka Utilities Div — Surface water 425- 430- 7240 rstraka@ci.renton.wa.us Tom Malphrus Planning/B/W — Utilities division — water 425-430- 7313 talphrus@ci.renton.wa.us Jennifer Henning Planning/Bldg/Pub. Works Dev. Services 425-430- 7286 jhenning@ci.renton.wa.us Jack Crumley Planning/Bldg/Pub. Works Maintenance services 425-430- 7400 jc.rum.Iey@cj.renton.wa.us Larry Rude Fire 425-430- 7000 ]rude@ci.renton.wa.us Ryan Zulauf Airport 425-430- 7471 rzulauf@ci.renton.wa.us Additional Contacts Department/Division Phone Number Julie Brewer Community Relations Manager 425-430-6522 Abdoul Gafour Utility Systems Division 425-430-7210 Rebecca Lind Neighborhoods and Strategic Planning 425-430-6588 Norma McQuiller Strategic Planning Neighborhood coordinator 425-430-6595 J.D. Wilson Utility Systems Division 425-430-7295 Greg Zimmerman Planning/Bldg/Pub. Works Administrator 425-430-7311 August 2003 B_2 City of Renton Hazard Mitigation Plan City of Renton Hazard Mitigation Planning Process Planning Meeting Agenda — May 20, 2003 I. Introductions — Planning Team • City representatives • Business representatives • Community representatives • Consultant team II. Objectives of the meeting • Form the Hazard Mitigation Planning Team • Discuss the hazard mitigation plan process • Identify/explore mitigation goals • Establish a work plan and schedule for next steps III. The Planning Process • Meetings with City departments: planning representatives, stakeholders, public participants • Information gathering — information sources and needs • Specific follow-up on planning factors — hazards and vulnerabilities; critical facilities; mitigation concepts and policies, etc. • Project schedule — projected o Risk Assessment Report — completed o Draft Hazard Mitigation Plan — approximate completion date, 6/30/2003 o Final Mitigation Plan for the City of Renton — 7/31/2003 IV. Discussion of Mitigation Goals • Goals • Objectives • Potential activities V. Next Steps August 2003 B-3 City of Renton Hazard Mitigation Plan Name Jim Amandus Tom Armstrong Norma McQuiller Ray Sled Abdoul Gafour Ruth Larson Greg McNabb Joe Lamborn Floyd Eldridge Herb Postlewait All Folmar, Chaplain Bill Williams Michael Fischer Rebecca Lind Glen Gordon Ryan Zulauf Bob Blayden John Labadie City of Renton Hazard Mitigation Planning Process Planning Meetin�May 20 2003 — Sign -in Sheet Affiliation Highlands Community Church Valley Medical Center Renton Neighborhood Coordinator Renton PBPW/Shops Renton Water Engineering Renton Hill Community Assn. St. Anthony Parish Renton School District Renton Police Department Kennydale Community Renton Police & Fire Depts. King County DNR King County DNRP Renton EDNSP Renton Fire Dept. Renton Airport Blayden Design/Build Emergency Management Consultant Phone 425-255-4751 425-228-3440 x 5659 425-430-6595 425-430-7400 425-430-7210 425-255-0290 425-255-3132 x226 425-204-4406 425-430-7555 425-228-2209 425-226-2029 206-684-2411 206-684-2408 425-430-6588 425-430-7022 425-430-7471 425-271-8018 206-320-0455 August 2003 B-4 City of Renton Hazard Mitigation Plan City of Renton Hazard Mitigation Planning Process Planning Meeting Agenda — June 11, 2003 I. Objectives of the meeting • Validate results of previous meeting • Discuss proposed mitigation actions • Set priorities for mitigation actions • Establish next steps II. Mitigation goals and objectives • Validate draft list • Discuss proposed mitigation actions III. Mitigation actions • Sufficient & appropriate to meet mitigation goals? • Funding of mitigation activities • Cost -benefit considerations? • Evaluation & priority -setting — method? IV. Discussion of public involvement V. Next Steps August 2003 B-5 City of Renton Hazard Mitigation Plan City of Renton Hazard Mitigation Planning Process Planning Meeting — June 11, 2003 Name Affiliation Phone Glen G.• Gordon Fire 425.430.7022 Floyd Eldridge Police 425.430.7555 Larry Rude Fire 425.430.7028 Dan Kellogg Citizen 425.227.8700 Herb Postlewait Citizen 425.228.2209 Joe Lamborn Renton School District 425.204.4406 Ruthie Larson Renton Hill Community Association 425.255.0290 Gary Gordon The Boeing Company 253.657.8657 Ryan Zuluaf The Airport 425.430.7471 August 2003 B-6 City of Renton Hazard Mitigation Plan City of Renton Hazard Mitigation Planning Process Planning Meeting Agenda — June 24, 2003 I. Objectives of the meeting • Validate results of previous meeting • Review of initial draft Mitigation Plan • Establish next steps II. Review and validation of previous meeting items III. Initial draft Mitigation Plan • Questions, comments or suggestions? • Plan review process IV. Next Steps • Role of the Hazard Mitigation Plan Steering Committee • Continued public outreach August 2003 B-7 City of Renton Hazard Mitigation Plan City of Renton Hazard Mitigation Planning Process June 24`h Meeting Attendees Name Affiliation Phone Ruth Larson Renton Hill Neighborhood 425.255.0290 Tom Malphrus Water Utility 425.430.7313 Herb Postlewait Citizen 425.228.2209 Dan Kellogg Citizen 425.227.8700 Glen G. Gordon Fire 425.430.7022 Jennifer Henning Planning/Bldg/Public Works 425.430.7286 Ray Sled Planning/Bldg/Public Works 425.430.7400 Rebecca Lind ENDSP 425.430.6588 Joe Lamborn Renton School District #403 425.204.4400 Abdoul Gafour Renton Water Utility 425.430.7210 August 2003 B-8 City of Renton Hazard Mitigation Plan City of Renton Hazard Mitigation Planning Process Department Heads Meeting, July 15, 2003 Mitigation Plan Roles & Responsibilities The Hazard Mitigation Plan Steering Committee has prepared a draft Plan for the City, which is now under review. The FEMA Guidelines on creating mitigation plans places a heavy emphasis on the maintenance and implementation of the finished plan. That is, both the plan itself, and the implementation of mitigation measures, will require periodic review and modification to ensure that mitigation activities continue to meet the goals articulated in the Plan and that both goals and activities continue to reflect the actual circumstances of the City. With that in mind, it is necessary for the City to make some assignments of roles and responsibilities to carry out the actions identified in Chapter Four of the Plan, "Mitigation Plan Maintenance Procedures." Specific issues are: • Should the City choose to apply for grants to fund specific mitigation measures, who will consolidate and manage that process for the City? o Development Services, Development Planning in PBPW? o Long -Range Planning in EDNSP? o Other? • Who will provide staff support to the Hazard Mitigation Plan Steering Committee in their role of overseeing the progress of the mitigation actions in the Plan? • Who will be responsible for the periodic (suggested biennial) assessment of the Plan and report to the Steering Committee? • Generally, who will be responsible for the review, update, and maintenance of the Hazard Mitigation Plan? How often should this be done (annually? biennially?) August 2003 B-9 City of Renton Hazard Mitigation Plan Appendix C — HAZUS Reports August 2003 C-1 HAZUS 99-SR2: Earthquake. Event Report Region Name: Earthquake Scenario: Print Date: Renton, Washington Juan De Fuca Interplate Earthquake Thursday, April 24, 2003 Disclaimer: The estimates of social and economic impacts contained in this report were produced using HAZUS loss estimation methodology software which is based on current scientific and engineering knowledge. There are uncertainties inherent in any loss estimation technique. Therefore, there may be significant differences between the modeled results contained in this report and the actual social and economic losses following a specific earthquake. These results can be improved by using enhanced inventory, geotechnical, and observed ground motion data. Table of Contents Section Page # General Description of the Region 3 Building and Lifeline Inventory 4 Buiding Inventory Critical Facility Inventory Transportation and Utility Lifeline Inventory Earthquake Scenario Parameters 6 Direct Earthquake Damage 7 Buildings Damage Critical Facilities Damage Transportation and Utility Lifeline Damage Induced Earthquake Damage 11 Fire Following Earthquake Debris Generation Social Impact 12 Shelter Requirements Casualties Economic Loss 13 Building Losses Transportation and Utility Lifeline Losses Long-term Indirect Economic Impacts Appendix A: County Listing for the Region Appendix B: Regional Population and Building Value Data Earthquake Event Summary Report Page 2 of 17 GenerAU Widnpfid-`bf the R gi+ana k HAZUS is a regional earthquake loss estimation model that was developed by the Federal Emergency Management Agency and the National Institute of Building Sciences. The primary purpose of HAZUS is to provide a methodology and software application to develop earthquake losses at a regional scale. These loss estimates would be used primarily by local, state and regional officials to plan and stimulate efforts to reduce risks from earthquakes and to prepare for emergency response and recovery. The earthquake loss estimates provided in this report was based on a region that includes 1 county(ies) from the following state(s): - Washington Note: Appendix A contains a complete listing of the counties contained in the region. The geographical size of the region is 27 square miles and contains 11 census tracts. There are over 25 thousand households in the region and has a total population of 59,400 people (1990 Census Bureau data). The distribution of population by State and County is provided in Appendix B. There are an estimated 17 thousand buildings in the region with a total building replacement value (excluding contents) of 3,385 million dollars (1994 dollars). Approximately 96% of the buildings (and 75% of the building value) are associated with residential housing.. The replacement value of the transportation and utility lifeline systems is estimated to be 1,620 and 254 million dollars (1994 dollars), respectively. Earthquake Event Summary Report Page 3 of 17 M&.11a1 74.7% m 6.1 18.4% hers 2.6% lal: 100.0% ial Figure 1: Building Exposure by Occupancy Type (Thousands of dollars) In terms of building construction types found in the region, wood frame construction makes up 88% of the building inventory. The remaining percentage is distributed between the other general building types. Critical Facility Inventory HAMS breaks critical facilites into two (2) groups: essential facilities and high potential loss (HPL) facilities. Essential facilities include hospitals, medical clinics, schools, fire stations, police stations and emergency operations facilities. High potential loss facilities include dams, levees, military installations, nuclear power plants and hazardous material sites. For essential facilities, there are 1 hospitals in the region with a total bed capacity of 196 beds. There are 36 schools, 3 fire stations, 1 police stations and 0 emergency operation facilities. With respect to HPL facilities, there are 0 dams identified within the region. Of these, 0 of the dams are classified as 'high hazard'. The inventory also includes 227 hazardous material sites, 0 military installations and 0 nuclear power plants. Earthquake Event Summary Report Page 4 of 17 Transportation and Utility Lifeline Inventory Within HAZUS, the lifeline inventory is divided between transportation and utility lifeline systems. There are seven (7) transportation systems that include highways, railways, light rail, bus, ports, ferry and airports. There are six (6) utility systems that include potable water, wastewater, natural gas, crude & refined oil, electric power and communications. The lifeline inventory data is provided. in Tables 2 and 3. The total value of the lifeline inventory is over 1,728 million dollars. This inventory includes over 135 kilometers of highways, 58 bridges, 0 kilometers of pipes. Table 2: Transportation System Lifeline Inventory System Highway Component Major Roads w Bridges Tunnels 1 # locations/ # Segments _ 24 58 0 Replacement value (millions of dollars) 1,350 154 0 Railways Rail Tracks 58 44 Bridges 0 0 Tunnels 0 0 Facilities 0 0 M Light Rail Rail Tracks Bridges 0—� 0 Tunnels 0 0 Facilities 0 0 Bus Ferry Port Facilities Facilities Facilities � 0 0 1 0 _ _ _0 .. 2 Airport Facilities 5 15 I Runways _ __a 2 56 Earthquake Event Summary Report Page 5 of 17 Table 3: Utility System Lifeline inventory System Component # Locations / I Replacement value Segments (millions of dollars) Potable Water ; Pipelines 0 0.0 �Facilities_.�,_...__..._. 0 _......_..___________�.__.._.._ 0.0� mDistribution Lines NA w 59.9 Waste Water Pipelines P 0 0.0 Facilities 0 0.0 Distribution Lines�� I NA 35.9 Natural Gas Pipelines 2 0.0 t Facilities 0 0.0 Distribution Lines NA _ 24.0 Oil Systems Pipelines 0 0.0 Facilities 0 M 0.0 Electrical Power Facilities 100.0 € Distribution Lines � NA IIWI1R 18.0 Communication Facilities 4 8.0 Distribution Lines NA 8.0 HAZUS uses the following set of information to define the earthquake parameters used for the earthquake loss estimate provided in this report. Scenario Name Type of Earthquake Fault Name Historical Epicenter ID # Probabilistic Return Period Longitude of Epicenter Latitude of Epicenter Earthquake Magnitude Depth (Km) Rupture Length (Km) Rupture Orientation (degrees) Attenuation Function Juan De Fuca Interplate Earthquake Historic event NA 1769 NA -122.75 47.1 7.1 9.9 67.9 0 Project 97 West Coast Earthquake Event Summary Report Page 6 of 17 Table 4: Expected Building Damage by Occupancy None Slight Moderate Extensive Complete ii Count NO Count (%) Count (%) ! Count (%) Count (%) I Residential 12,922 96.92 2,790 96.4771 718 91.35 71 84.52 3 100.00 Commercial 308 2.31 81 2.801� 55 7.00 12 14.29 �0 0.00 Industrial i 56 0 442 14 0.48 12 1.53 1 1.19 0 0.00 Agriculture 4 0.42 0 0.00� _ 0 _ 0.00 0 0.00 0 _ 0.00 Religion 22 0.17 5 0.00 1 0.131 0 0.00 0 0.00 Government 6 0.05 0 0.00 0 0.00 0 0.00 0 0.00 Education 14 0.11 2 0.07 0 0.00 0 0.00 0 0.00 Total 13,332 2,892 786 84 3 Table 5: Expected Building Damage by Building Type (All Design Levels) None Slight Moderate Extensive Complete Count (0/6) Count (°/� Count (0/6)Count (%) Count NO Concrete 98 0.7 23 0.8 14 1.8 2 2.6 0 0.0 Mobile Homes 548 4.1 , 289 10.0 287 36.5 66 85.7 3 100.0 Precast Concrete 90 0.7 14 0.5 15 1.9 4 5.2 0 0.0 RM* 366 2.7 46 1.6 31 3.9 3 3.9 0 0.0 Steel 112 0.8 18 0.6 13 1.7 0 0.0 0 0.0 URM* 32 0.2 13 0.4 11 1.4 2 2.6 0 0.0 Wood 12,086 90.71 2,4891 86.11 415 T 52.8 0 0.01 0 0.0 *Note: RM Reinforced Masonry URM Unreiforced Masonry Earthquake Event Summary Report Page 7 of 17 Essential Facility Damage Before the earthquake, the region had 196 hospital beds available for use. On the day of the earthquake, the model estimates that only 131 hospital beds (67%) are available for use by patients already in the hospital and those injured by the earthquake. After one week, 80% of the beds will be back in service. By 30 days, 93% will be operational. Table 6: Expected Damage to Essential Facilities � #Facilities Classification Total j Least Moderate Complete Functionality w^ y+MMi Damage > 50% Damage > 50% > 50% at day 1 Hospitals ^ 1 0 0 1 I Schools _..�,._...� _.. _ 36 0 36 1 EOCs Police Stations 0 1 _..�..�..�0 0 _ 0 0 0 0 1 Fire Stations 3 0 0 3 Earthquake Event Summary Report Page 8 of 17 Transportation and Utility Lifeline Damage Table 7 provides damage estimates for the transportation system. Table 7: Expected Damage to the Transportation Systems i Number of Locations System Component Locations/ With at Least With Complete With Functionality > 50 % Highway _ Roads Segments 24a Mod. Damage Damage After Day 17 After Day 7 gg 24 24 4 0 58 58 Bridges 58 Tunnels i 0 0 0� 0 Railways [Tracks 58 MR 58 0 0 Bridges 0 0 0 Tunnels 0 �_�.._.. 0 0 0 � 0 Facilities 0 � 0 0 0 0 Light Rail Tracks 0 0 0 0 Of 0 � Bridges 3 0 0 Tunnels W O 0 0 0 0 Facilities 0 0� 0 0 _ 0 Bus Facilities 0 0 0 0 0 Ferry Facilities 0 0 0 0 0 Port Airport Facilities —3g Facilities 1 ! 5 0 0 0 0 1 5 1 5 Runways 2 0 0 2 2 Note: Roadway segments, railroad tracks and light rail tracks are assumed to be damaged by ground failure only. If ground failure maps are not provided, damage estimates to these components will not be computed. Tables 8-10 provide information on the damage to the utility lifeline systems. Table 8 provides damage to the utility system facilities. Table 9 provides estimates on the number of leaks and breaks by the pipelines of the utility systems. For electric power and potable water, HAZUS performs a simplified system performance analysis. Table 10 provides a summary of the system performance information. Earthquake Event Summary Report Page 9 of 17 Table 8 : Expected Utility System Facility Damage # of Locations System Total # With at Least With Complete w Moderate Damage Damage After Day After Day 7 NOR X WARNMRO ON Table g: Expected Utility System Pipeline Damage System Total Pipelines Number of Number of Length (k Leaks Breaks Table 1B:Expected Potable Water and Electric Power System Performance (Level 1) Total # of Households Number of Households without Service At Day 1 At Day 3 At Day 7 At Day 30 At Day 90 Earthquake Event Summary Report Page 10of17 Fire Following Earthquake Fires often occur after an earthquake. Because of the number of fires and the lack of water to fight the fires, they can often burn out of control. HAZUS uses a Monte Carlo simulation model to estimate the number of ignitions and the amount of burnt area. For this scenario, the model estimates that there will be 2 ignitions that will burn about 0 sq. mi (1.4% of the region's total area.) The model also estimates that the fires will displace about 0 people and burn about 0 million dollars of building value. Debris Generation HAZUS estimates the amount of debris that will be generated by the earthquake. The model breaks the debris into two general categories: a) Brick/Wood and b) Reinforced Concrete/Steel. This distinction is made because of the different types of material handling equipment required to handle the debris. The model estimates that a total of 0.05 million tons of debris will be generated. Of the total amount, Brick/Wood comprises 33% of the total, with the remainder being. Reinforced Concrete/Steel. If the debris tonnage is converted to an estimated number of truckloads, it will require 2,000 truckloads (@25 tons/truck) to remove the debris generated by the earthquake. Earthquake Event Summary Report age 11 of 17 Shelter Reauirement HAZUS estimates the number of households that are expected to be displaced from their homes due to the earthquake and the number of displaced people that will require accommodations in temporary public shelters. The model estimates 88 households to be displaced due to the earthquake. Of these, 50 people (out of a total population of 59,400) will seek temporary shelter in public shelters. Casualties HAZUS estimates the number of people that will be injured and killed by the earthquake. The casualties are broken down into four (4) severity levels that describe the extent of the injuries. The levels are described as follows; Severity Level 1:Injuries will require medical attention but hospitalization is not needed. Severity Level 2:lnjuries will require hospitalization but are not considered life -threatening Severity Level 3:lnjuries will require hospitalization and can become life threatening if not promptly treated. Severity Level 4:Victims are killed by the earthquake. The casualty estimates are provided for three (3) times of day: 2:00 AM, 2:00 PM and 5:00 PM. These times represent the periods of the day that different sectors of the community are at their peak occupancy loads. The 2:00 AM estimate considers that the residential occupancy load is maximum, the 2:00 PM estimate considers that the educational, commercial and industrial sector loads are maximum and 5:00 PM represents peak commute time. Table 11 provides a summary of the casualties estimated for this earthquake Table 11: Casualty Estimates II Level 1 1 Level 1 Level ! Level 2 AM ; Residential 17 Non -Residential 1 2 0 ' 0 0 0 0 Commute 0 0 0 0 2 PM Residential 5 1 0 0 Non -Residential 49 9 1 2 Commute 0 0 0 0 y 5 PM Residential 6 1 0 0 Non -Residential 19 3 0 1 Commute 0 0 0 0 Earthquake Event Summary Report Page 12 of 17 The total economic loss estimated for the earthquake is 97 million dollars, which represents 2 % of the total replacement value of the region's buildings. The following three sections provide more detailed information about these losses. Building -Related Losses The building losses are broken into two categories: direct building losses and business interruption losses. The direct building losses are the estimated costs to repair or replace the damage caused to the building and its contents. The business interruption losses are the losses associated with inability to operate a business because of the damage sustained during the earthquake. Business interruption losses also include the temporary living expenses for those people displaced from their homes because of the earthquake. The total building -related losses were 91 million dollars. 26% of the estimated losses were related to the business interruption of the region. By far, the largest loss was sustained by the residential occupancies which made up over 47% of the total loss. Table 12 below provides a summary of the losses associated with the building damage. Table 12: Building -Related Economic Loss Estimates (Millions of dollars) Category Area Residential Commercial Industrial Others Total Structural 4.6 4.5. 1.0 0.5 Building Non -Structural 23.8 11.0 2.6 1.5.. ; Loss content 7.9 6.81 2.0 _ 0.8 Inventory N/A 0.2 0.4 0.0 Wage 0.2 5.4 0.2 0.1. Business Income 0.1 3.9 0.1 0.0 Interruption Rental 2.4 2.2 0.1 0.1 z Loss Relocation 3.3 4.0 0.4 0.8 ER,: ` m q , Earthquake Event Summary Report Page 13 of 17 Transportation and Utility Lifeline Losses For the transportation and utility lifeline systems, HAZUS computes the direct repair cost for each component only. There are no losses computed by HAZUS for business interruption due to lifeline outages. Tables 13 & 14 provide a detailed breakdown in the expected lifeline losses. HAZUS estimates the long-term economic impacts to the region for 15 years after the earthquake. The model quantifies this information in terms of income and employment changes within the region. Table 15 presents the results of the region for the given earthquake. Table 13: Transportation System Economic Losses (Millions of dollars) System ' Component Inventory Value Economic Loss Loss Ratio (%) Highway Roads � 1,350.1 OA 0.0 1 Bridges 154.0 1.2 0.8 Tunnels _ w.. 0.0 0.0 0.0 ^t Railways Tracks 43.8 0.0 0.0 Bridges 0.0 0.0 0.0 I Tunnels 0.0 0.0 0.0 Facilities�� � 0.0 0.0 0.0 Light Rail Tracks Bridges �M 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 I 0.0 1 Tunnels 0.0 0.0 0.0 Facilities 0.0 0.0 0.0 Bus Facilities 0.0 0.0 0.0 Ferry Facilities 0.0 0.0 _ 0.0 Port Facilities 1.5 0.0 0.0 Airport Facilities 14.5 1.0 6.9 Runways 56.0 0.0 0.0 70.5 1.0 1.4 ' 1 ' go � � cM Earthquake Event Summary Report Page 14 of 17 Table 14: Utility System Economic Losses (Millions of dollars) Table 15. Indirect Economic Impact (with outside aid) Year(s) 1 2 3 4 5 6-15 Income Impact (millions $) -1 -2 40 40 40 40 3.95 1,190 % Income Impact -0.07 -0.18 3.95 3.95 3.95 Employment Impact (#) 0 0 1,190 1,190 1,190 % Employment Impact 0.00 0.00 3.60 _ 3.60 3.60 3.60 Earthquake Event Summary Report Page 15 of 17 Appendix A: County Listing for the Region Washington - King Earthquake Event Summary Report Page 16 of 17 Appendix B: Regional Population and Building Value Data State County Name Population Building Value (millions of dollars) Residential Non -Residential Total Washington King 59,400 2,530 850 3,390 State Total 59,400 2,530 850 3,390 Region Total 59,400 2,530 850 3,390 Earthquake Event Summary Report Page 17 of 17 SUBMITTING DATA: Dept/Div/Board. Staff Contact.. SUBJECT: EXHIBITS: CITY OF RENTON COUNCIL AGENDA BILL HEARING EXAMINER Fred J. Kaufman, ext. 6515 Clover Creek II Preliminary Plat File No. LUA-01-034, PP, R. ECF Hearing Examiner's Report and Recommendation RECOMMENDED ACTION: Council Concur FOR AGENDA OF AGENDA STATUS: Consent ......... XX Public Hearing.. Correspondence.. Ordinance....... Resolution...... Old Business.... New Business.... Study Session... Other........... APPROVALS: Legal Dept...... Finance Dept.... Other........... FISCAL IMPACT: N/A Expenditure Required... Transfer/Amendment.. Amount Budgeted........ Revenue Generated... SUMMARY OF 22, The Hearing Examiner's Report and Recommendation on the Clover Creek II Preliminary Plat was published on November 20, 2003. There were no requests for reconsideration and the appeal period ended on December 4, 2003. The Examiner recommend that the City Council approve the proposed plat, subject to the conditions outlined on page 6 and 7 of the Examiner's Report and Recommendation. STAFF RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommends approval of the Clover Creek II Preliminary Plat project. November 20,2003 OFFICE OF THE HEARING EXAMINER CITY OF RENTON Minutes APPLICANT: LOCATION: SUMMARY OF REQUEST: SUMMARY OF ACTION: DEVELOPMENT SERVICES REPORT: Brad Hughes Labrador Ventures, LLC File No.: LUA01-034,PP,R,ECF The site is located at Park Avenue North and NE 270' Place Proposes to subdivide the 4.43-acre site into 15 single-family lots, R-5 zone. Development Services Recommendation: Approve Preliminary Plat, subject to 5 conditions. The Development Services Report was received by the Examiner on October 28, 2003. PUBLIC HEARING: After reviewing the Development Services Report, examining available information on file with the application, field checking the property and surrounding area; the Examiner conducted a public hearing on the subject as follows: MINUTES The following minutes are a summary of the November 4, 2003 hearing. The legal record is recorded on tape. The hearing opened on Tuesday, November 4, 2003, at 9:01 a.m. in the Council Chambers on the seventh floor of the Renton City Hall. Parties wishing to testify were affirmed by the Examiner. The following exhibits were entered into the record: Exhibit No. 1: Yellow file containing the original application, proof of posting, proof of publication and other documentation pertinent to this request. The hearing opened with a presentation of the staff report by Jason Jordan, Senior Planner, Development Services, City of Renton, 1055 S Grady Way, Renton, Washington 98055. The applicant is requesting approval of a proposed subdivision of a 4.43-acre site currently located within a residential 5 dwelling units per acre zone (R-5). The lots range from 7,200 square feet to 24,252 square feet and are intended for the development of 15 detached single-family homes. There are 2 existing residences, which will remain on lots 5 and 11. The proposal of 15 lots on this parcel would yield a net density of 4.6 dwelling units per acre after the deduction of critical areas and roadways. The Environmental Review Committee issued a Determination of Non -Significance — Mitigated (DNS-M) for the Clover Creek II Preliminary Plan. The DNS-M included 20 mitigation measures. No appeals were filed. Clover Creek II Preliminary Plat File No.: LUA-01-034,PP,R,ECF November 20, 2003 Page 2 The purpose of R-5 zone is to establish and promote urban single-family residential neighborhoods of intermediate density, serviced by urban utilities and containing amenity open spaces. The project would be required to comply with the applicable development standards of the R-5 zone designation. The proposal is within the allowed density range of the requested zoning designation. Minimum lot size permitted in the R-5 zone is 7,200 square feet. A minimum lot width of 60 feet for interior lots and 70 feet for corner lots is required. Proposed Lot 12 would need to be revised in order to meet the minimum lot width and the remaining lots appear to be appropriately sized. The size, shape and orientation of lots shall meet the minimum area and width requirements of the applicable zoning classification and are appropriate for the type of development and use contemplated. Lots 1, 2, 3, 4, and 5 will have a minimum building setback of 15 feet from the top of the northerly slope in the form of a Native Protection Easement. Access to the proposed lots will be provided from N 27'h Street, Park Avenue North rights -of -way which were constructed as part of the Labrador Preliminary Plat improvements. The cul-de-sac is proposed for the area east of Park Avenue. Full street improvements including 28-foot pavement section, gutter, and a 6-foot sidewalk are required along the site's 26"' Street frontage. Construction traffic will be restricted to the hours of 8:30 am to 3:30 pm, Monday through Friday unless approved in writing in advance by the Development Services Division. There is concern by residents of the use of Park Avenue and North 20h Street by construction vehicles, the Environment Review Committee has required that the applicant limit construction vehicles to the use of North 27`h Place and Burnett Avenue throughout the site preparation and construction. Approximately 20,037 square feet along the northern boundary of the site, leading into the ravine containing Kennydale Creek and the Category 2 wetland, contains sloped areas in excess of 40% that qualify as protected slopes. The plans were amended to reflect the required 50-foot buffer from the category 2 wetland as well as the necessary adjustments to the proposed building setbacks for the affected lots. A Native Growth Protection Area of approximately 20,046 square feet will be created and will contain the required 25-foot setback from the creek. The NGPA will also contain the protected slope areas, the 25-foot stream setback, and the 50-foot wetland buffer, which must be established as a protective easement to be recorded concurrently with the final plat. A tree clearing plan has been submitted, 10 trees are proposed for removal. The ERC required the applicant to retain 6 trees within Lots 2, 3, and 4. Applicant will pay Parks, Traffic and Fire Mitigation Fees. Temporary Erosion and Sedimentation Control Plan and a Construction Mitigation Plan are required prior to issuance of construction permits. The applicant's SEPA checklist indicates the use of erosion control measures, including silt fences, drainage ditches, and sedimentation control ponds during site construction. The site is located within the boundaries of the Renton School District. The District has indicated that they would be able to support the additional students generated by the proposal. There is an existing 8-inch water line in North 20h Street and Park Avenue North. A water main extension will not be required for this project. There is a 15-inch sanitary sewer line within North 27`b Place, as well as existing mains in North 26`h Street and Park Avenue North that will sufficiently serve this site. Clover Creek II Preliminary Plat File No.: LUA-01-034,PP,R,ECF November 20, 2003 Page 3 Staff recommends approval of the Clover Creek II Preliminary Plat with five conditions James Handmacher, Morton McGoldrick, PO Box 1533, Tacoma, WA 98401 stated his opposition for conducting a public hearing this day, they felt that the public hearing was conducted several years ago and the record was closed, the matter should be considered upon that record. However, they are prepared to go forward this morning. To all SEPA and Mitigation rulings by the City, the applicant agrees with those measures and will comply with each one. As to the conditions stated by Staff, the applicant is at no opposition to those conditions and will go forward and comply with each of those conditions as well. There are a couple of minor revisions to the dimensions of certain lots within the plat, there is adequate area within the property to accommodate those modifications without changing the overall layout and we believe those can be accommodated as part of the final plat design. Brad Hughes, Labrador Ventures, LLC, 2631 Park Avenue North, Renton, WA 98056 asked that the Examiner approve this project, and also consider the prospect of introducing rolled curbs into the project section. The Examiner stated that he did not believe the Council would approve rolled curbs, they have not been in favor of them in the past and was sure they would not change their attitude. Mr. Hughes further stated that they were going to grant an easement to the Scotts, and that that was not their only access to their property. There is an existing easement on this property, there is an existing sewer line along that strip. If Staff is asking us to record an easement in favor of this property, I would like to know how we are going to be addressing the joint maintenance of that easement if they are going to use this as their access for the house. I do not want to propose a joint maintenance agreement and then have the parties that own this property now and in the future, protest the maintenance of that road if they are the ones using it. Sally Scott, 1405 N 28'h Street, Renton, 98056 stated that Mr. Hughes was correct, the easement has been in this area for three families, from the beginning of the property ownership (about 30 years ago). There is access on North 261h, it is a very steep hill and is impassable during snow and icy weather. The concern is that traffic is by vehicles serving the development and is in a rundown condition. The easement should remain and before we join any agreement as to maintenance, the road should be restored to a stable condition. Marleen Mandt, 1408 N 26'h Street, Renton, WA 98056 stated that there is a problem on 26"' Street and the visibility there. A traffic safety study was done, it was determined that the stopping distance to stop an automobile at 25 mph, the street had poor visibility. It was determined that no construction traffic would travel on that street, is that still the case? The Examiner stated that Mr. Jordan addressed that concern, and that traffic would be addressed through 270'. Ms. Mandt further stated that 95% of the big haul trucks come down 26"'. How can this be enforced? City Hall is called on a daily basis to talk about the trucks using this street, trucks driving over private property because they cannot get the clearance or visibility. The trucks are most likely over the weight limit on this particular street, they are full of big rocks. During the construction of Clover Creek I, the construction trucks used 26 b to deliver materials to the site, and approximately 8-9 residents had flat tires. Mr. Handmacher pointed out that the issues regarding the easement along Lots 5, 6, and 7 is not a platting issue but a private issue between adjacent property owners as to the extent of use of that easement, maintenance of the easement, etc. The plat condition recommended by staff stating that there will be no buildings on that easement adequately addresses it from a platting perspective. As to the scope of who paves it and what vehicles use it, is outside of the platting issues. As to the issues raised by Ms. Mandt, the review committee has imposed conditions that require 27"' and Park be used as a haul route. Some access on 261h is necessary to develop the lots located on that street, but the trucks would then follow Park and 27'h out to Burnett. Clover Creek II Preliminary Plat File No.: LUA-0l-034,PP,R,ECF November 20, 2003 Page 4 Kayren Kittrick, Development Services, City of Renton stated that there is a long file on this matter. There are benefits to a rolled curb within an enclosed cul-de-sac, however, Council has definitively spoken that there is not to be any rolled curb. Routes can be enforced for a plat. Citations can be issued, citation have been issued, work can be shut down completely costing everyone money, however, a public street cannot be closed down. Many complaints that have come in have not been able to be verified as to whether or not it was this contractor. It has been traced to being other developments, to private garbage. The question is always, who is using the street. The police have responded, the City has responded. There has been almost daily contact with the developer and contractors, it has been a struggle the entire time. There are, however, public roads that we have to allow access to. The Examiner called for further testimony regarding this project. There was no one else wishing to speak, and no further comments from staff. The hearing closed at 9:50 a.m. FINDINGS, CONCLUSIONS & RECOMMENDATION Having reviewed the record in this matter, the Examiner now makes and enters the following: FINDINGS: 1. The applicant, Brad Hughes, for Labrador Venture L.L.C., filed a request for approval 15-lot subdivision for detached single-family homes. 2. The yellow file containing the staff report, the State Environmental Policy Act (SEPA) documentation and other pertinent materials was entered into the record as Exhibit #1. 3. The Environmental Review Committee (ERC), the City's responsible official, issued a Declaration of Non -Significance - Mitigated (DNS-M) for the subject proposal. 4. The subject proposal was reviewed by all departments with an interest in the matter. 5. The subject site is located in the vicinity of Park Avenue North and North 27th Place. The site is northeast of Lake Washington Boulevard and north of North 26th Street. The site is located adjacent to the Griffin/Friends of Youth home. 6. The subject site is a very irregular parcel of approximately 4.43 acres. The subject site is comprised of four underlying lots that contain two existing, occupied single-family homes. 7. The parcel has very complex topography. A ravine with a stream runs generally along the north boundary of the site. The ravine is characterized by slopes that range up to and over 40 percent. There is also a Category 2 Wetland located just north of the site. A Native Growth Protection Easement will encompass the slopes, creek and wetland buffer. Staff has recommended that the easement be expanded to contain all sensitive areas that are contained on Proposed Lots 1 and 2. 8. The subject site was annexed to the City with the adoption of Ordinance 1821 enacted in March 1960. 9. The city-wide zoning that the City approved in June 1993 reclassified the site to R-1. The City Council recently approved a reclassification of the subject site to R-5 (LUA-01-034, Ordinance 5022). Clover Creek II Preliminary Plat File No.: LUA-0 I -034,PP,R,ECF November 20, 2003 Page 5 10. The Comprehensive Plan for this area of the City was adopted in February 1995. The map element of the Comprehensive Plan designates the area in which the subject site is located as suitable for the development of single-family use but does not mandate such development without consideration of other policies of the Plan. The plan suggests that the eastern acreage is suitable for Residential Rural or R-5 zoning. 11. Two existing single-family homes are located on the subject site. One home is located on Proposed Lot 5. The second home is located on Proposed Lot 11. 12. Access to the site is via N 27'h Place and N 26`h Street as well as a cul-de-sac. In addition, there is an easement that runs along the eastern edge of the subject site that provides access to the northeasterly most lot as well as a third party property located immediately southeast of the project. 13. The applicant proposes dividing the site into 15 lots. Proposed Lot 1 would be located in the northwest corner of the site. The lot numbers would then run eastward, around the proposed cul-de-sac and then west ending with Proposed Lot 15 in the southwest corner of the site. The lots would range in size from 7,200 square feet to 24,252 square feet. 14. The cul-de-sac would provide access to Proposed Lots 4 through 9. These lots meet the minimum 35- f6ot frontage requirements of the code. Proposed Lot 14 would be a pipestem lot that staff reports meet the code requirements of 20-foot width and a depth of not more than 150 feet. Lot 14 does not meet the front yard setback demanded by code but staff reports that sufficient area exists in the plat to provide the needed setback. Proposed Lot 5 would have access via the easement located along its eastern margins but that access is considered substandard for Fire Department access. The applicant will be required to provide access to the cul-de-sac. Staff has recommended that the easement across Lot 6 be developed as a shared driveway to reduce the number of driveways on the cul-de-sac. Proposed Lot 12 does not meet the width provisions of the code and would need to be widened. 15. Staff has also recommended that the development of the plat, its improvements and landscaping not be permitted to block or impede the easement that serves the third party property southeast of the site. 16. The geotechnical report relied on by the ERC requires a 15 foot setback from the steep slopes. This setback has been provided in the plat plans. 17. The net density for the R-5 density would be 4.6 which meets that zone's maximum of 5 units per acre. 18. The proposed lots appear to meet the code standards for the R-5 Zone with the exceptions noted. Staff has recommended the applicant provide the necessary modifications as a condition of approval. The R- 5 zone requires lot sizes of 7,200 square feet. 19. Development of the 15 homes would generate approximately 150 trips per day with reductions for the two existing homes. The development will add some additional trips to the neighborhood system but there should be no untoward impacts on existing Levels of Service which now range generally from A to B. There are concerns about the heavy construction traffic. Staff noted that haul routes limit the routes for such traffic but there could be some impacts and deviations from the required routes. 20. The development of the subject site will generate approximately 5-6 students who will be assigned to schools on a space available basis. 21. The subject site will be served by City water and sewer services. Clover Creek II Preliminary Plat File No.: LUA-01-034,PP,R,ECF November 20, 2003 Page 6 22. Storm water will be contained by vaults and systems constructed in the companion plat located west of the site. CONCLUSIONS: 1. The proposed subdivision appears to serve the public use as long as the conditions imposed by the ERC and suggested by staff are complied with to protect the site and slope and sensitive areas. 2. The density and proposed single-family development meet the goals and objectives of the Comprehensive Plan as well the as development regulations and standards of both the Zoning and Platting Codes. 3. The development of the site will increase the tax base of the City while the payment of the various mitigation fees will help offset the impacts that the development will create on parks, roads and fire services. The development of in -town housing will also decrease the effects of urban sprawl on more rural areas east of the City. 4. The applicant should be required to fully respect the existing easement located along the eastern edge of the site and not interfere with its permitted use. This office cannot make any determination about its current state of maintenance. That will be a private matter between the parties. 5. The development of this portion of what was a larger development proposal will continue the alteration of rural land to more intense development and there will be more people and traffic. Those impacts were forecasted by the adoption of the Comprehensive Plan. 6. The applicant will be required to observe the intended haul routes and other development guidelines and regulations. 7. The preservation and demarcation of the sensitive areas should be done in the manner suggested by staff. 8. The applicant shall revise the plat to provide the appropriate setbacks and lot dimensions for all lots. 9. In conclusion, the plat as proposed should be approved by the City Council subject to the conditions outlined below. RECOMMENDATION: The City Council should approve the proposed plat subject to the following conditions: 1. The applicant shall establish the access easement necessary for emergency access to proposed Lot 5 prior to the recording of the final plat. The satisfaction of this requirement shall be subject to the review and approval of the Development Services Division. 2. The applicant shall establish the access to Lot 5 as a shared driveway for both Lots 5 and 6. The satisfaction of this requirement shall be subject to the review and approval of the Development Services Division prior to the issuance of construction permits for the plat. Clover Creek I1 Preliminary Plat File No.: LUA-0 1 -03 4,PP,R,ECF November 20, 2003 Page 7 3. The development of the project, specifically the homes within Lots 6 and 7, shall not preclude use of the easement located along the eastern most property line of the site by the property owner's who have been granted the rights to the use of the easement. 4. A homeowner's association of maintenance agreement shall be created concurrently with the recording of the final plat in order to establish maintenance responsibilities for shared private roadway and utility improvements. The satisfaction of this requirement shall be subject to the review and approval of the development Services Division prior o the recording of the final plat. The Native Growth Protection Area (NGPA) shall be amended to include all portions of the 50-foot wetland. The NGPA, which shall contain the protected slope areas, 25-foot stream setback, and 50-foot wetland buffer, shall be established as a protective easement to be recorded concurrently with the final plat pursuant to RMC Section 4-3-050.G. In addition, the NGPA shall be marked during project construction, permanently established through wood split -rail fencing, and maintained as established by a Homeowner's Association or similar mechanism to be recorded with the final plat. 6. The applicant shall revise the plat to provide the appropriate setbacks and lot dimensions for all lots. 7. The applicant shall comply with the conditions imposed by the ERC. ORDERED THIS 20th day of November 2003, FRED J. KA N HEARING E MINER TRANSMITTED THIS 20`h day of November, 2003 to the parties of record: Jason Jordan 1055 S Grady Way Renton, WA 98055 Kayren Kittrick 1055 S Grady Way Renton, WA 98055 Marleen Mandt 1408 N 26"' Street Renton, WA 98056 Brad Hughes 2631 Park Avenue N Renton, WA 98056 Sally Scott 1405 N 28`h Street Renton, WA 98056 Matt Pool 900 N 27th Street Renton, WA 98056 Tom Touma Touma Engineers Amy Buhrig Labrador Ventures, LLC 6632 South 19V Place, Suite E-102 1301 N 26`h Street PO Box 3344 Kent, WA 98032 Renton, WA 98056 Kirkland, WA 98083 Clover Creek II Preliminary Plat File No.: LUA-0 1 -03 4,PP,R,ECF November 20, 2003 Page 8 TRANSMITTED THIS 20'h day of November, 2003 to the following: Mayor Jesse Tanner Members, Renton Planning Commission Larry Rude, Fire Marshal Lawrence J. Warren, City Attorney Transportation Systems Division Utilities System Division King County Journal Gregg Zimmerman, P1anBldg/PW Admin. Neil Watts, Development Services Director Alex Peitsch, Econ. Dev. Administrator Larry Meckling, Building Official Jay Covington, Chief Administrative Officer Councilperson Kathy Keolker-Wheeler Julia Medzegian, Council Liaison Pursuant to Title IV, Chapter 8, Section 100Gof the City's Code, request for reconsideration must be filed in writing on or before 5:00 p.m., December 4, 2003. 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 fled with the City Clerk, accompanying a filing fee of $75.00 and meeting other specified requirements. Copies of this ordinance are available for inspection or purchase in the Finance Department, first floor of City Hall. An appeal must be filed in writing on or before 5:00 p.m., December 4, 2003 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. a 1 3�F"y;10 vl a 14 �I 20 2' 22I :3 1 1 _ •---iL_— �_--- » ji� 41140 39t 50 SERV34 2 '� N. BOTH ST. ` Tell i 6 Y! I I` fa L I IId IS I I� I za .7 IF�'o'i I^' IP li' " 11 24.91i y O I I q I 30 49 145 47 4E• I qa 43 4: 41 dt� —35 1 3q 33 ' li1~' 31 1 ' 120 27 t6 I w c I I s I �?, I f i __--140 i 4P- Ial .i•- • ! 1.;;E 11 I :d IS ie i 17 I©O v ~ 4I'C 2 r ^= - 'sue ItINA , 4 �47 d0 33 38 137 135 i j4 3'' S1 I 3oM29 £ 2T� v-, �109. �i • 411, r 1-�?_4� 'I id •."^E: i"'U. "' i I I6'J `+' `C I©'• I " 1 3 i r� _-�'.►/�1:.- 'r 2. 2B , -- �J i' - _! lit 1 IF ' • 10 � ' 1 1 VI'I I 4 01 3 I ��v I�b ii i~ � It MR LJL.IiI ;;�E'=';' �.: �i _.`33�•.�.:_,.,IJ--��4�%12 I �1;9I2°I21 22I23' •bu '� li 1 ,r� '�'btP a,Mf. ! _'�°J' ,,, ••9 9: 9s �i Ji JI Ja w .i -- � � b.� � _ � •171 � ..Ax. i 1. .A u n ro Muy w .; - - • ♦ I : Q9� ,, r d f \\Z •' - _ - .. -- - - �,. urn a>' ... -.ter ,i� 40 2 0 \; \ � 6 -,Q r ! _ ,, Ji ti...•Ji g79�r � 2TI I • a 1s ,` TRAC72A" --- 32 ) ter. _ r Vi' 2T'44 ryg FA D� 6 •o h� +'` i �, r. _ \ a F,N ♦ X. a.I Cq7� 3 O,tJ b I -- - ,� ♦♦ 29 :awe �i►-- j ♦ I.�y 'd141 i xi.3l• __ 24 ,c 28 t3) se sa.hs 23 �I I t � Sty 4 rz)' I I �avon•eo qo a cel 27 o x (2)q (I) I8 wit Z L_!.€_ �Y z (eI Is O I I � r 4 c A-r r♦ (C) I (3)s� I it M. 60 r . ..i �~ 'it._.1ri,f _t n eele_Ta SPIIB 80 �LI $91 = I � 12 ) 30TH 3 4 't^ • 6' y 8 J �4Q oI a � 2 W � W � F W' F. roFWgF P• •R' . 50 `--1•� —,28TH — s- SST 2 'I — t rs r, I I a r j i 17 rf ' N.E.2 HIV C7a 09 e, I' .1 n B73 °r". 2619 5 2 5 3 41. 33.76 g $ (D) (Cl A )zo W 7 = Z I ' W 5-- Q -- b � iisa v 10------- t 11 - W v Q CC It4bM C3 ZONING IPI&7w TUMMUM ovum 31 T24N R5E IE 1/2 I - CLOVER CREEK NO. 2 I "04 01 OOKRNMFNr tort 46, a xcnaN TONNSNfR IJ NM7}� RANo[ a [AtT, M{A6 — _ — — prY OF RFNRYi WAFN/NO>LW ORAAHIC sc= N711N•7C�-- — fT T T T T 7 too. r-,-I N(J12 xf li 1. OAROCN Mal; N�. �e 1! I 20 . 17 I I? 2 I� 2, I I �� /A'a MnyC I r y y Co. HIUMAN'S AKC WASNINOTON GA�POCN Or COON NO. I i,Lw'.Lw—"i. L, ttt� SC NMMir — _1 yT t 18 I 19 I JO I 31 ( J2 I JJ (34 I JS ( J6 I' J7 J8 I IJ9 40 I 4i I 41 4J I 44 T rz Ja n 40 I Tc e7 I I n 0e aj.27 11 I Fwcr 10 I 9 I 8 7 CiL , �z `�� .aFL li 21 is 7 15 14 \ '� • 18 j ii,, 3--�\c4:o dR ,,tom, ..L �� 0"i �' ,` I t 1 \, •.� I•• .� M1 t //' ,ten aE \ 1J 1 // �i'/ �/• \ \ tnavnr r� t t I 1 7iT 122 r i��.LDON ACRESall ` NtIlANO! \ ` • • 1 ® mnerouwlso \ 1 �„A .,w. !/r-r�------------- �......� a.nNlr a �..a. wn r. r / ► WdiT1W!"� mu n CITY OF RENTON COUNCIL AGENDA BILL Submitting Data: Dept/Div/Board.. Staff Contact...... Community Services Greg Stroh x 6614 Subject: Museum Roof Replacement Project Closeout Exhibits: Issue Paper - Museum Roof Replacement Project Closeout Final Pay Application Notice of Completion of Public Works Contract Al #: For Agenda of: 12/22/03 Agenda Status Consent .............. Public Hearing.. Correspondence.. Ordinance ............. Resolution........... . Old Business........ New Business....... Study Sessions...... Information........ . Recommended Action: Approvals: Refer to Finance Committee Legal Dept......... X Finance Dept...... X Other ............... Fiscal Impact: Expenditure Required... $72,352 Transfer/Amendment....... Amount Budgeted....... $33,000 Revenue Generated......... Total Project Budget $72,352 City Share Total Project.. SUMMARY OF ACTION: Authorize the Mayor to defer a 316 CIP fund project ($50,000) to cover the shortfall in the Museum Roof Replacement Project budget. This shortfall was discovered when the 2003 CIP document was reviewed during project closeout and a discrepancy was noted between the project budget and the amount authorized. STAFF RECOMMENDATION: Council Concur in authorizing the Mayor to use 316 Fund savings to pay for the Museum re- roofing project. Council Concur in processing the final pay application and release of retainage subject to lien releases after the sixty-day lien release period. Rentonnet/agnbill/ bh CITY OF RENTON Community Seruices Department O� �Y U~ a �� 0 Committed to Enriching Lives 0 MEMORANDUM DATE: December 22, 2003 TO: Kathy Keolker-Wheeler, Council President Renton City Councilmembers VIA: Jesse Tanner, Mayor , FROM: Dennis Culp, Community Services Administrator STAFF CONTACT: Greg Stroh (ext. 6614) SUBJECT: Museum Roof Replacement Project Closeout ISSUE: Should the City Council authorize the Mayor to defer a Major Maintenance project in the CIP Fund to cover the shortfall in the Museum Roof Replacement Project budget? RECOMMENDATION: Authorize the Mayor to defer a Major Maintenance project in the CIP Fund for the Museum Roof Replacement Project. BACKGROUND: • A line item was included in the 316 CIP Leased Facilities budget in 2002 for Museum Improvements to take place in 2003. This item, described as re -roofing and installation of a fire alarm system, was budgeted per the project description at $83,000. The actual authorized amount, however, was $33,000. See Attachment A for the discrepancy details. • The fire alarm system cost $10,000 as was budgeted. The remaining $73,000 was the engineer's estimate for the re -roofing project. • We received five (5) sealed bid proposals after published call for bids and subsequent on -site mandatory walk through. The low bid was $72,352 the high bid was $95,755, low bid was accepted. • Since the roof needed to be replaced to prevent structural deterioration to the building and damage to the building contents, the work was required. Furthermore, the bids were competitive and under the engineer's estimate. • The budget discrepancy did not become apparent until the payment application was processed. • We intend to defer a CIP project (the P3 resurfacing project) to fund this oversight. This is what we would have done anyway had we picked up the shortfall earlier. hcouncil\Issue Paper - Museum Roof.doc CONCLUSIONS: The roof replacement was required to protect the Museum structure and assets. Funds are available from the deferral of a major maintenance project to another year. The appropriate budgeted amount would have been inserted in the 2003 CIP document had the oversight been discovered in time. hcoundhissue Paper - Museum Roof.doc Project Title: Leased Facilities Project Type: Major Maintenance Total Anticipated Project Cost E$;, 589 Project Description: Museum (Built 1940): In 2003 we plan to re -roof the building and to install a fire alarm system. Estimated project cos is $83,000. he Old City Hall (Built 1968): Completion of the ground floor improvements as part of the lease with KCSARC, design fees for Heery Internatl, a T.I. alto commissions for Vykor Real Estate are estimated at $265,672. The exterior glazing has never been resealed. It is old, brittle and starting to leak. By b02 it will be past its useful life. By 2004, the chiller, which is the original one for the building, will be 36 years old and pushing the end of its design life. It uses d refrigerant, which is no longer available, and repair parts that are increasingly difficult to acquire. Estimated project cost is $290,000. Activity Life to Date I Proj,ected Through 2001 YTD 2002 Proiect Total 2003 2004 Funds Available (2571; m=mitigaBon; g=grant d=developerconstdbution; n=not funded Summary of Progress & Changes Work schedule for completion in 2002 was completed. The work for 2003 consists of re -roofing the Museum and adding a fire alarm system to the structure. Amounts are in thousands of dollars Community Services Page 1 STATE o� State of Washington o Department of Revenue w Audit Procedures & Administration a y" PO Box 47474 1889 a0 Olympia, Washington 98504-7474 Reg.No.: Date: NOTICE OF COMPLETION OF PUBLIC WORKS CONTRACT Notice is hereby given relative to the completion of contract or project described below. Description of Contract Museum Roof Replacement Contractor's Name Lloyd A. Lynch Inc. Phone No. 425 485 5596 Contractor's Address P.O. Box 1305, Woodinvile, WA 98072-1305 Date Work Commenced 10/6/03 Date Work Completed 12/5/03 Date Work Accepted 12/22/03 Surety or Bonding Co. Great American Insurance Company Agent's Address 6912-220thStreet S.W., Ste 315, Mountlake Terrace, WA 98043 Contract Amount: Additions or Reductions: Sales Tax: Total $ 66,500.00 $ 0.00 $ 5852.00 $ 72,352.00 By Phone No: Amount Disbursed: Amount Retained: Total: $ 69,027.00 $ 3,325.00 $ 72,352.00 (Disbursing Officer) The Disbursing Officer must complete and mail THREE copies of this notice to the Department of Revenue, Olympia, Washington 98504- 7474, immediately after acceptance of the work done under this contract. NO PAYMENTS SHALL BE MADE FROM RETAINED FUND until receipt of Department's certificate, and then only in accordance with said certificate. FORM REV 310020 (12-92) Notice of Completion Museum.doc City of Renton Finance Department PAYMENT TO CONTRACTOR DATE: December 11, 2003 TO: Tracy Schuld, Finance Department FROM: Greg Stroh CONTRACTOR: Lloyd A. Lynch Inc. PROJECT NAME: Museum Roof Replacement CONTRACT NO.: CAG-03-138 ESTIMATE NO.2 1. CONTRACTOR EARNINGS THIS ESTIMATE $4,400.00 2. SALES TAX @ 8.8% $387.20 3. TOTAL CONTRACT AMOUNT THIS ESTIMATE $4,787.20 4. EARNINGS PREVIOUSLY PAID CONTRACTOR 5. * EARNINGS DUE CONTRACTOR THIS ESTIMATE 6. SUBTOTAL - CONTRACTOR PAYMENT 7. RETAINAGE ON PREVIOUS EARNINGS 8. ** RETAINAGE ON EARNINGS THIS ESTIMATE 9. SUBTOTAL - RETAINAGE 10. SALES TAX PREVIOUSLY PAID 11. SALES TAX DUE THIS ESTIMATE 12. SUBTOTAL * (95% x Line 1) ** (RETAINAGE @ 5%) GRAND TOTAL FINANCE DEPARTMENT ACTION $58,995.00 $4,180.00 $3,105.00 $220.00 $5,464.80 $387.20 $63,175.00 $3,325.00 $5, 852.00 $72,352.00 PAYMENT TO CONTRACTOR (LINES 5 AND 11) No. 2 $4,567.20 Account 316.000000.020.5940.0076.63.020050 RETAINED AMOUNT (LINE 8) No. 2 $220.00 Account 316.000000.020.5940.0076.63.020050 TOTAL THIS ESTIMATE: $4,787.20 CHARTER 116, LAWS OF 1965 I, THE UNDERSIGNED DO HEREBY CERTIFY UNDER PENALTY OF PERJURY, THAT THE MATERIALS HAVE BEEN FURNISHED, THE SERVICES RENDERED OR THE LABOR PERFORMED AS DESCRIBED HEREIN, AND THAT THE CLAIM IS A JUST, DUE AND UNPAID OBLIGATION AGAINST THE CITY OF RENTON, AND THAT I AM AUTHO IZED TO AU NTI TE AND CERTIFY TO SAID CLAIM. SIGNED: P.O. BOX 1305 Woodinville, WA 98072-1305 425-485-5596 425-485-4704 FAX To: City of Renton LLOYD A. LYNCH, INC. FAXED DEC 05 2003 From: Peggy Lynch Attm Greg Stroh Pages: Three Fan: 425-430-6603 Date: 12/5/2003 Phone: Project: Renton Museum Roof Project ENCLOSED: u Invoice #2 (Original is in the mail to you today) We are having the final inspection for this project with the City of Renton on Monday. The inspection for the .roofing warranty has been completed and the warranty is being processed. I will forward to you the original warranty as soon as I receive it from Soprema, Inc. Please feel free to call me if you have any questions. Thank You. APPLICATION AND CERTIFICATE FOR PAYMENT (Invoice # 2-388 12/05/2003) TO: RENTON, CITY OF Application No 2-388 ATTEN: GREG STROH 1055 SOUTH GRADY WAY Application Date 12/05/2003 RENTON WA 98055 Period To 120503 FROM: Lloyd A. Lynch, Inc. 21828 — 87th Avenue SE Architect Project # 388 Suite F WOODINVILLE WA 98072 CONTRACT: MUSESUM ROOF REPLACEMENT, CITY OF RENTON CONTRACTOR'S APPLICATION FOR PAYMENT ORIGINAL CONTRACT SUM ................ $ 66,500.00 NET CHANGE BY CHANGE ORDERS .......... $ 0.00 CONTRACT SUM TO -DATE ................. $ 66,500.00 TOTAL COMPLETED & STORED TO -DATE ..... $ 66,500.00 RETAINAGE ............................ $ 3,325.00 TOTAL EARNED LESS RETAINAGE .......... $ 63,175.00 LESS PREVIOUS CERTIFICATES FOR PAYMENT $ 58,995.00 PLUS SALES TAX DUE THIS INVOICE ...... $ 387.20 CURRENT PAYMENT DUE .................. $ 4,567.20 BALANCE TO FINISH, INCLUDING RETAINAGE $ 3,325.00 The undersigned Contractor certifies that to the best of the Contractor's knowledge, information and belief the Work covered by this Application for Payment has been completed in accordance with the Contract Documents, that all amounts have been paid by the Contractor k for w 'ch p evious Certificates for Payment were issued and payments received from the Owner, and that currI I " ent showherei is w due. BY: DATE: TO ARCHITECT'S CERTIFICATE FOR PAYMENT In accordance with the Contract Documents, based on on -site observations and the data comprising the above application, the Architect certifies to the Owner that to the best of the Architect's knowledge, information and belief the Work has progressed as indicated, the Quality of the W k is in accordance with the Contract Documents, and the Contractor is entitled to payment of the AMOUNT, CBRTIFIBD. �,/ BY : DATE : ( �3 AMOUNT $ il ��. -0 ARCHITECT CERTIFIED: �T DATE: This Certificate is not negotiable. The AMOUNT CBRTIFIBD is payable only to the Contractor named herein. Issuance, payment and acceptance of payment are without prejudice to the rights of the Owner or Contractor under this Contract. *** C O N T R A C T I N V 0 I C E *** TO: RENTON, CITY OF Invoice No 2-388 ATTEN: GREG STROH Invoice Date: 12/05/2003 1055 SOUTH GRADY WAY RENTON WA 98055 Application No: 2-388 Owner Job No 388 FROM: Lloyd A. Lynch, Inc. 21828 - 87th Avenue SE Suite F WOODINVILLE WA 98072 425-485-5596 CONTRACT: 388 MUSESUM ROOF REPLACEMENT, CITY OF RENTON PHASE COST CHG DESCRIPTION OF WORK SCHEDULED PREVIOUSLY - - ------ THIS PERIOD ----------------- MATERIALS TOTAL - It - - ------------- BALANCE RETENTION CODE ORD VALUE COMPLETED STORED COMPLETED COMPL TO & STORED FINISH 01 BONDS & INSURANCE 3585.00 - --- 3585.00 - ------------------------------------------------------------ 0.00 0.00 3585.00 100 0.00 179.25 02 MOBILIZATION 1330.00 1330.00 0.00 0.00 1330.00 100 0.00 66.50 03 ROOFING MATERIALS 37185.00 37185.00 0.00 0.00 37185.00 100 0.00 1859.25 04 ROOFING LABOR 20000.00 20000.00 0.00 0.00 20000.00 100 0.00 1000.00 05 SHEET METAL 4400.00 0.00 4400.00 0.00 4400.00 100 0.00 220.00 Totals To -Date: 66500.00 62100.00 4400.00 0.00 66500.00 100 0.00 3325.00 Scheduled Value: 66,500.00 Plus Change Orders: 0.00 ------------- To-Date Scheduled Value: 66,500.00 Total Completed & Stored To -Date: 66,500.00 Less Retention: 3,325.00 ------------- 63,175.00 Less Previous Billing: 58,995.00 Plus Sales Tax: 387.20 Current Payment Due: 4,567.20 Submitting Data: Dept/Div/Board. . Staff Contact...... CITY OF RENTON COUNCIL AGENDA BILL AJLS/Mayor's Office Jay Covington Subject: Renewal of Agreement for City Attorney Services With firm of Warren, Barber & Fontes, P.S. Exhibits.: Agreement Recommended Action: Council Concur Al #: y , For Agenda of: December 22, 2003 Agenda Status Consent .............. X Public Hearing.. Correspondence.. Ordinance ............. Resolution........... . Old Business........ New Business....... Study Sessions...... Information........ . Approvals: Legal Dept ......... X Finance Dept...... Other ............... Fiscal Impact: Expenditure Required... $1,080,200 Transfer/Amendment....... Amount Budgeted....... $1,080,200 Revenue Generated......... Total Project Budget City Share Total Project.. SUMMARY OF ACTION: F e City of Renton has contracted for City Attorney services with the firm of Warren, Barber & Fontes, S. for over 26 years. The City Council approved the budget for this Agreement as part of the City's 2004 Budget process. This agreement would be for the year 2004, with an anticipated renewal in 2005. The only real change to the contract from prior years is an increase in the hourly rate of $5 an hour each year, which amounts to approximately 2'/2% each year. The firm of Warren, Barber & Fontes, P.S. has performed admirably for the City of Renton over the years, with this year being no exception. The Comprehensive Plan changes, the Boeing Development Agreement, and other significant land use decisions, as well as a number of successful cases litigated by the firm, are indicators of the outstanding services we have received. STAFF RECOMMENDATION The City Council approve the Agreement for City Attorney services with the law firm of Warren, Barber, & Fontes, P.S. CITY OF RENTON MEMORANDUM DATE: December 16, 2003 TO: Kathy Keolker-Wheeler, Council President Members of the Renton City Council FROM: 21C, Jay Covington, Chief Administrative Officer Cc: Jesse Tanner, Mayor SUBJECT: Renewal of City Attorney Services Agreement with Warren, Barber & Fontes, P.S. Summary of Action: Renewal of Agreement between the City of Renton and the law firm of Warren, Barber & Fontes, P.S. for City Attorney services. Recommendation: The City Council approve the Agreement for City Attorney services with the law firm of Warren, Barber, & Fontes, P.S. Background: The City of Renton has contracted with the law firm of Warren, Barber, & Fontes, P.S. for City Attorney services for over 26 years. The City recently adopted the 2004 operating budget, which provided for a 3% increase in the Agreement with Warren, Barber & Fontes. Slight changes in the stated hourly rates and the amounts designated for each category within the Agreement are needed to coincide with the budget increase. As drafted, the Agreement with the law firm of Warren, Barber & Fontes, P.S. would provide City Attorney and other legal services as follows: $ 292,000 General City Attorney Services $ 318,000 Prosecution Services $ 244,000* Other Legal Services $ 26,200 Supplies, Publications, and City -related Travel $1,080,260 Total Contract Amount *The amount budgeted for "Other Legal Services" is an estimate, and depends on the number, type, and complexity of litigation, hearings, and other services provided by this category. 1- General City Attorney Services $292 000: The firm provides general City Attorney services on a retainer. The services include attendance at City Council meetings, consultation and advice for Boards and Commissions, legal research and opinions, preparation of legal documents, ordinances and resolutions, and participation in various staff and project meetings. Renewal of Agreement with Warren, Barber & Fontes, P.S. for 2004-2005 Page 2 of 2 December 16, 2003 This year, in particular, the City received a significant service in this area, with the modifications to the Comprehensive Plan, Zoning Ordinance, and various affiliated codes. The City Attorney was also instrumental in completing the Boeing Development Agreement, and other significant pieces of legislation. 2- Prosecution Services $318 000: This service includes representation of city interests at our municipal and district court proceedings, providing legal research, advice and training to Police Department personnel, and attendance at drug forfeiture and pawnshop hearings. 3- Other Legal or Supplemental services $244 000• This contract also provides for "other legal services", which are performed only upon request by the Mayor or Department Head, or by referral of the City Council. These services include litigation involving the City that are not claim -related —such as the Brightwater Challenge; litigation involving property disputes, etc.; appearing on behalf of one of the City's Boards, officials or employees; acquisition of easements, rights of way, or other real property transactions; and appearing on behalf of the City at hearings, or before boards or commissions, and other legal services not defined under the general services section. The amount we pay for these services largely depends on litigation or other outside influences the City responds to during each year. 4- Supplies, Training and Publications $26 200• The Agreement with Warren, Barber & Fontes also provides that the City pay for city -related supplies and training, including travel, and for publications necessary for City Attorney work. As proposed, this Agreement would be for the year 2004, with an anticipated renewal in 2005. The only real change to the contract from prior years is an increase in the hourly rate of $5 an hour each year, which amounts to approximately 2%z% each year. The firm of Warren, Barber & Fontes, P.S. has performed admirably for the City of Renton over the years, with this year being no exception. The Comprehensive Plan changes, the Boeing Development Agreement, and other significant land use decisions, as well as a number of successful cases litigated by the firm, are indicators of the outstanding services we have received. CITE' OF RENTON ..al Office of the City Attorney Jesse Tanner, Mayor Lawrence J. Warren MEMORANDUM To: Jay Covington, CAO From: Lawrence J. Warren, City Attorney Date: August 28, 2003 Subject: Legal Services Agreement Assistant City Attorneys Mark Barber Zanetta L. Fontes Russell S. Wilson Ann S. Nielsen Sasha P. Alessi RECEIVED E 2 ?003 I have redrafted the Legal Services Agreement between my firm and the City. The only real change is the hourly rate which will be increased, for the partners, $5.00 per hour in 2004 and $5.00 per hour in 2005. This amounts to 2 '/2 % for each year. The associates hourly rates have also gone up $5.00 per hour per year. While this amounts to slightly more than 2 'h %, the associates are now more experienced and correspondently would charge more in the open market. Through an informal review of attorneys of similar experience in the general area, I believe that our hourly rate billings are below average, even though the contract provides for the "prevailing rate for services provided for attorneys of comparable experience". After you have had a chance to review the contract, please let me know if any changes need to be made and whether or not we should forward it to the Council for review. We have had several issues arise recently, about the contract. We have been asked to do tow hearings and there has been some mention of prosecuting gun forfeitures: I believe both of those items would fall under supplemental services under Item B3 or B5. The increase in our contract rate would be slightly less than the cost of living increase being given to other City departments. If you have any questions, please feel free to contact me. Lawrence J. Warren LJW:tmj T10.38:38 Post Office Box 626 - Renton, Washington 98057 - (425) 255-8678 / FAX (425) 255-5474 til 7{;i----I —/.nn.rA—.r.n.n.:ni ']lto%n..�a .-.....-...... RENTON AHEAD OF THE CURVE AGREEMENT BETWEEN THE CITY OF RENTON AND WARREN, BARBER & FONTES, P.S. FOR CITY ATTORNEY SERVICES THIS AGREEMENT made and entered into this day of , 2003 by and between the City of Renton and Warren, Barber & Fontes, P. S., a Washington professional services corporation. 1; and WHEREAS, City Attorney services are being provided pursuant to City Code Chapter 3- WHEREAS, the parties desire to clarify and delineate those services; and WHEREAS, the parties desire to make clear, for accounting purposes, the routing of attorney fee billings. NOW, THEREFORE, the City of Renton and Warren, Barber & Fontes, P.S. do agree as follows: I. TERM The term of this agreement shall be for one year from the date this agreement is made; subject, however, to paragraph VII entitled "Termination." H. SERVICES TO BE PERFOMED A. General City Attorney services are defined to include: Attendance at all regular and special meetings of the City Council and Council committees, when requested. 2. Consultation with advisory boards and other boards and commissions of the City and City administration, including officials, City Council members, department heads, and other City employees in their official capacity. 3. Routine preparation and legal research required in connection with any of the above subparagraphs, and in preparation of routine ordinances and resolutions. 4. Preparation for and attendance at ERC meetings. 5. Attend and provide counsel at various division staff meetings and such other staff meetings as requested. AGREEMENT BETWEEN CITY OF RENTON & WARREN, BARBER & FONTES, P.S. - 1 6. Perform special projects for the City upon agreement. 7. Provide services to law enforcement including: a. Attendance at municipal court but not including appeals to the superior court. b. Attendance at drug forfeiture hearings and pawnshop hearings. C. Legal research, advice and training on police issues. d. Attendance at police staff meetings. B. Supplemental services are defined to include: All other litigation wherein the City one of its boards, officials or employees is a party. 2. Acquisition of easements, rights -of -way, or other property and real property interests, including condemnation proceedings. 3. Appearance on behalf of the City, its boards, commissions, officials or employees before hearing panels or administrative bodies, including preparation for such appearances. 4. Appeals to superior and appellate courts from municipal court. Any other services requested to be performed and not falling within the definition of "general services.". III. METHOD OF COMPENSATION A. General Services: All of the general services included in the definition of general services will be performed for a flat rate included in the City budget item for regular legal staff services and municipal court prosecutor. The amount shall be established in the City's annual budget. B. Supplemental Legal Services: All supplemental legal services will be performed only upon request directed to the City Attorney's office by the Mayor or appropriate department head or by referral of the City Council in open meeting. Compensation for supplemental legal services will be a the prevailing rate for services provided for attorneys of comparable experience, with the current rate being $200.00 per hour for the year 2003, $205.00 per hour for the year 2004 and $210.00 per hour for the year 2005 for partners, $170.00 per hour for the year AGREEMENT BETWEEN CITY OF RENTON & WARREN, BARBER & FONTES, P.S. - 2 2003, $175.00 per hour for the year 2004 and $180.00 per hour for the year 2005 for senior associates, $145.00 per hour for the year 2003, $150.00 for the year 2004 and $155.00 per hour for the year 2005 for junior associates, and $75.00 per hour for the year 2003, $80.00 per hour for the year 2004 and $85.00 per hour for the year 2005 for paralegals; provided, however, that some basis of compensation other than an hourly rate may, as to certain particular services, be agreed upon. In such instances the agreed basis for compensation shall be set forth in the written request of the Mayor or entered in the minutes of the City Council. C. Expense Reimbursement: In addition to the compensation above, reimbursement will be made by the City for the following out-of-pocket expenditures when made on behalf of the City: Maintenance of the firm's municipal law library and annual supplements thereto, including but not limited to, membership in the International Municipal Lawyers Association (HOLA), Washington Association of Municipal Attorneys, McQuillans Municipal Corporations a Law Treatise on Municipal Law, and subscriptions to or purchase of other reference works. 2. Continuing'legal education expenses for municipal topics for six attorneys per year. Court costs and expenditures which are not normally included within the legal fee for professional services, e.g., filing fees, title report costs, expert's fees, witness fees, deposition and reporter costs, photocopying and printing costs, etc. 4. Long distance telephone calls, fax, cellular phone charges, travel, meals and lodging expense outside of the Metropolitan Seattle area when required on City business. D. Dates of Payment: The City of Renton will make two payments a month to Warren, Barber & Fontes, P.S. One is payment of the retainer or flat rate amount described in Section 3A. The second payment is for supplemental legal services described in Section HIB. IV. POSSESSION AND DESTRUCTION OF FILES Warren, Barber & Fontes, P.S. is currently the custodian of a number of files representing City of Renton matters over a number of years. Warren, Barber & Fontes, P. S. is the successor law firm to several prior firms that, in total, has been the City Attorney for the City of Renton for over fifty (50) years. File storage has and continues to be a problem. AGREEMENT BETWEEN CITY OF RENTON & WARREN, BARBER & FONTES, P.S. - 3 The City Clerk's office is the official custodian of City of Renton legal documents. Warren, Barber & Fontes, P.S. will use its best efforts to forward all original legal documents to the City Clerk's office including original Ordinances, Judgments and Deeds. Warren, Barber & Fontes, P.S. will retain key documents in its offices as an accommodation to the City of Renton and for internal references. The files maintained by Warren, Barber & Fontes, P.S., however, belong to the law firm and not to the City of Renton. Warren, Barber & Fontes, P. S. shall have the right and authority to destroy those files it believes are not current and necessary for the day to day business of the City Attorney. For any open files, the City shall have the right to request copies of any documents from those files. Should the City desire to have another attorney, not part of the City Attorney's office, handle a legal matter, Warren, Barber & Fontes, P.S. will provide the City with a complete copy of the file, absent personal items such as attorney's notes. V. INSURANCE Warren, Barber & Fontes, P.S. shall secure Public Liability and Property Damage Insurance Coverage in the amount of one million dollars ($1,000,000.00) from a company approved by the City of Renton. The City Attorney shall submit to the City a copy of the insurance policy declaration page as evidence of insurance coverage acceptable to the City. Warren, Barber & Fontes, P.S. may be required, at its own expense, to secure and maintain in full force and effect during the term of any Task Order to this basic agreement a policy for professional liability insurance from a company approved by the City of Renton. The City shall require coverage of up to one million dollars ($1,000,000.00) against professional liability and/or errors and omissions unless the City determines that the risk to the City of the City Attorney's work does not necessitate one million dollars ($1,000,000.00) coverage. Warren, Barber & Fontes, P.S. shall keep in full force and effect during the term of the agreement a policy of professional liability insurance as required by the City. The City Attorney shall provide evidence of such insurance coverage in a manner and form required by the City. The limits of said insurance shall not, however, limit the liability of the City Attorney's office. The City Attorney's relation to the City shall be at all times as an independent contractor as a private law firm providing legal services. VL DESIGNATION OF RESPONSIBLE ATTORNEYS The attorney with overall responsibility for legal services under this agreement will be Lawrence J. Warren. Other attorneys from the firm Warren, Barber & Fontes, P. S. may be assigned to work on legal matters at the discretion of Lawrence J. Warren, who shall remain responsible for the legal services. The ongoing day-to-day responsibility for the provision of "law enforcement legal services" under this agreement will be Zanetta L. Fontes or Lawrence J. Warren; and for all other legal services under the agreement, Lawrence J. Warren. VH. TERN ATION AGREEMENT BETWEEN CITY OF RENTON & WARREN, BARBER & FONTES, P.S. - 4 This agreement shall remain in full force and effect and shall be extended year to year so that this agreement shall always be in effect for at least a one year period of time. The agreement may be terminated by either party by giving the other party one year's notice of termination, which such notice shall be given at the date of annual renewal of this contract. This agreement may be terminated, notwithstanding the terms of this paragraph, should Lawrence J. Warren leave the firm of Warren, Barber & Fontes, P.S., die, or become permanently disabled so as to be unable to perform the duties of City Attorney. However, the City will negotiate with the firm, in good faith, and attempt to extend this contract, but only if Zanetta L. Fontes or an acceptable experienced attorney from the firm is available to serve as City Attorney. This agreement shall remain in effect should any other member of the firm of Warren, Barber & Fontes, P.S. leave that firm except for Lawrence J. Warren. CITY OF RENTON WARREN, BARBER & FONTES, P.S. By: Jesse Tanner, Mayor ATTEST: By: Bonnie Walton City Clerk T10.38:30 sr: c:/mydocuments/myfiles/city/contract/8-03 By: Lawrence J. Warren President AGREEMENT BETWEEN CITY OF RENTON & WARREN, BARBER & FONTES, P.S. - 5 Ca COUNCIL Date ��-as-aoD3 UTILITIES COAUMTTEE COlVMTTEE REPORT December 22,,2003 Water and Sanitary Sewer Boundary Agreement Between Renton and Soos Creek Water and Sewer District (Referred December 15,.2003) The Utilities Committee recommends concurrence with the Planning/Building/Public Works Department recommendation to approve the addendum to the Water and Sanitary Sewer Boundary Agreement between Renton, -ands Soon.,. Creek Water and Sewer District that conditionally allows Soos Creek to s ry ce a portion of 'heir sewer service area into Renton's facilities. .., . , The Utilities Committee further recdt nnorids Councit`adopt the ire olution authorizing the Mayor and City Clerk to execute the'Interfocal agreement. a 3 Randy Corman, Chair A �`ras iQ. ••� i `�A 4 1 �ii, R� Terri Brierej Vice Chair f Dan Clawson, Member cc: Lys Hornsby CAWiNDOWSUEMP4Soos Creek Interlocal UCR.doc\MBtp APPROVED BY CCTV COUNCIL Date _/a-a2- A 03 PUBLIC SAFETY COMMITTEE COMMITTEE REPORT December 22, 2003 Fire Department Records Management Contract (Referred November 24, 2003) The Public Safety Committee recommends concurrence in the staff recommendation to approve the contract with Public Safety Consultants, Inc., to continue implementing and integrating the FDM software. The total negotiated cost is $74,348.95. The Committee further recommends that the n_W- and city clerk be. authorized to execute the contracts t . 8 % Dan C n, Chair Don Persson, Vice Chair Toni Nelson, Member cc: Fire Chief A. Lee Wheeler Deputy Chief Glen Gordon Fire Marshal Lary Rude Mary Weirich, Administrative Secretary II 04psciCl\ rev O1/02 bli CITY OF RENTON, WASHINGTON RESOLUTION NO. 36 79 A , RESOLUTION OF THE CITY OF RENTON, WASHINGTON, AUTHORIZING SIGNATURE FOR DEPOSITORIES AND ELECTRONIC FUND TRANSFERS ON BEHALF OF AND IN THE NAME OF THE CITY OF RENTON. WHEREAS, the City of Renton maintains one or more accounts at one or more qualified public depositories, including the state operated Local Government Investment Pool for primary banking, investing, or third party trust agreement purposes; and WHEREAS, the City's appointed Finance & Information Services Administrator is hereby authorized and directed to open and maintain these accounts as required from time to time on behalf of and in the name of the City of Renton; NOW, THEREFORE, THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF RENTON, WASHINGTON, DO RESOLVE AS FOLLOWS: SECTION I. The depositories are hereby authorized to honor and pay checks, drafts, and similar instruments in the name of the City of Renton and signed by any one of the following officers and officials of the City of Renton, effective January 1, 2004. Resolution 3648 remains in effect through December 31, 2003: Title Mayor Name Kathy Keolker-Wheeler Finance & Information Services Administrator Victoria Runkle SECTION H. Any of the above named officers or officials are further authorized to endorse any such checks, drafts, or other instruments made payable to the City of Renton for the purpose of depositing same into the City's accounts. 1 RESOLUTION NO. PASSED BY THE CITY COUNCIL this day of , 2003. Bonnie I. Walton, City Clerk APPROVED BY THE MAYOR this day of , 2003. Approved as to form: Lawrence J. Warren, City Attorney RES.1029:12/15/03:ma Jesse Tanner, Mayor 3 CITY OF RENTON, WASHINGTON RESOLUTION NO. _4_,6.90 A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY OF RENTON, WASHINGTON, ADOPTING THE HAZARD MITIGATION PLAN. WHEREAS, Section 322, Mitigation Planning, of the Robert T. Stafford Disaster Relief and Emergency Assistance Act, enacted by Section 104 of the Disaster Mitigation Act of 2000 (DMA) (P.L. 106-390) provides new and revitalized approaches to mitigation planning; and WHEREAS, the Disaster Mitigation Act establishes the requirement for state and local government mitigation planning as a condition of disaster assistance; and WHEREAS, the Mayor and City Council recognize that mitigation planning, along with other emergency preparedness actions, provides a significant opportunity to reduce the City's disaster losses; and WHEREAS, the City has developed the City of Renton Hazard Mitigation Plan and is committed to fulfilling the mitigation goals and objectives outlined in the Plan; NOW, THEREFORE, THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF RENTON, WASHINGTON, DO RESOLVE AS FOLLOWS: SECTION I. The above findings are true and correct in all respects. SECTION H. The City of Renton Hazard Mitigation Plan is adopted by the City and all responsible departments are authorized to execute their responsibilities in implementing this Plan. 1 RESOLUTION NO. PASSED BY THE CITY COUNCIL this day of APPROVED BY THE MAYOR this Approved as to form: Lawrence J. Warren, City Attorney RES.1027:12/10/03:ma Bonnie I. Walton, City Clerk 2003. day of , 2003. Jesse Tanner, Mayor 2 CITY OF RENTON, WASHINGTON RESOLUTION NO. 36 9l A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY OF RENTON, WASHINGTON, AUTHORIZING THE MAYOR AND CITY CLERK TO ENTER INTO AN INTERLOCAL AGREEMENT WITH THE SOOS CREEK WATER AND SEWER DISTRICT TO MODIFY THE INTERLOCAL AGREEMENTS BETWEEN THE CITY AND SOOS CREEK WATER AND SEWER DISTRICT RELATED TO ESTABLISHMENT OF SERVICE BOUNDARIES. WHEREAS, the City of Renton and Soos Creek Water and Sewer District both provide sanitary sewer services to citizens within the greater Renton area; and WHEREAS, with the effective date of the 61° day of August, 1991, the City of Renton and. Soos Creek Water and Sewer District entered into an agreement for the transfer. of facilities and the establishment of water and sewer service boundaries; and WHEREAS, by mutual agreement in 1997, the City of Renton and Soos Creek Water and Sewer District amended the service boundaries but left intact all obligations of the 1991 agreement; and WHEREAS, both parties now desire to modify the 1991 agreement as to the terms and service area; and WHEREAS, the 1991 agreement, as modified by the 1997 agreement, and by this addendum will continue to provide for maximum efficient use of existing and future facilities, and orderly and efficient water and sanitary sewer system planning; and NOW, THEREFORE, THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF RENTON, WASHINGTON, DO ORDAIN AS FOLLOWS: SECTION I. The above recitals are found to be true and correct in all respects. 1 RESOLUTION NO. SECTION H. The Mayor and City Clerk are hereby authorized to enter into an interlocal agreement with the Soos Creek Water and Sewer District amending the 1991 and 1997 agreements by amending the water and sewer service boundaries. PASSED BY THE CITY COUNCIL this day of , 2003. APPROVED BY THE MAYOR this Approved as to form: Lawrence J. Warren, City Attorney RES.1025:12/4/03:ma Bonnie I. Walton, City Clerk day of , 2003. Jesse Tanner, Mayor 2 a 'Al,&� CITY OF RENTON, WASHINGTON ORDINANCE NO. &61�P0 AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF RENTON, WASHINGTON, ADOPTING THE 2003 AMENDMENTS TO THE ZONING CLASSIFICATIONS OF PROPERTIES LOCATED WITHIN THE CITY OF RENTON. WHEREAS, pursuant to Ordinance No. 4260 entitled "Code of General Ordinances of the City of Renton, Washington," as amended, and the maps and reports adopted in conjunction therewith, property located within the City of Renton has been zoned as various zoning classifications; and WHEREAS; the Planning Commission held numerous public hearings and made its recommendation to the City Council; and WHEREAS, the City Hearing Examiner held numerous public hearings and made its recommendation to the City Council; and i WHEREAS, the City Council and the Planning and Development Committee have held public meetings to consider the zoning classifications to be assigned to various properties within the City of Renton; and WHEREAS, the City Council established an amendment process as part of its greater Growth Management Act process; and WHEREAS, numerous individuals availed themselves of the amendment processes; and WHEREAS, the City Council having duly considered all matters relevant thereto, and all parties having been heard appearing in support thereof or in opposition thereto; NOW, THEREFORE, THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF RENTON, WASHINGTON, DO ORDAIN AS FOLLOWS: 1 ORDINANCE NO. SECTION I. The above findings and recitals are hereby found to be true and correct in all respects. SECTION II. The zoning map attached hereto as Exhibit "A" on a single sheet, and Exhibit `B" as a bound Map Book, are hereby adopted as the zoning map for the City of Renton, and the zoning categories shown on these maps for the various properties located within the City limits of the City of Renton are hereby designated as the zoning designations for those properties. Rezone ordinances adopted after this ordinance shall amend the official zoning map. SECTION III. The Economic Development, Neighborhoods and Strategic Planning Administrator is hereby authorized and directed to make the necessary changes on the City's zoning maps, to evidence the adoption of the new zoning map. SECTION IV. The City Clerk is hereby authorized and directed to file this ordinance as provided by law and to keep a copy on file with the office of the City Clerk. SECTION V. This ordinance shall be effective upon its passage, approval, and five (5) days after publication. PASSED BY THE CITY COUNCIL this day of , 2003. Bonnie I. Walton, City Clerk APPROVED BY THE MAYOR this day of , 2003. Jesse Tanner, Mayor 0) ORDINANCE NO. Approved as to form: Lawrence J. Warren, City Attorney Date of Publication: ORD.1087:12/5103:ma CITY OF RENTON, WASHINGTON ORDINANCE NO. 50�/ AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF RENTON, WASHINGTON, AMENDING CHAPTER 1, ADMINISTRATION AND ENFORCEMENT, OF TITLE IV (DEVELOPMENT REGULATIONS) OF ORDINANCE NO. 4260 ENTITLED "CODE OF GENERAL ORDINANCES OF THE CITY OF RENTON, WASHINGTON" TO ESTABLISH A PROPERTY TAX EXEMPTION INCENTIVE FOR THE DEVELOPMENT OF MULTI- FAMILY HOUSING IN TARGETED AREAS. WHEREAS, in 1995 the Washington State Legislature adopted Chapter 84.14 RCW, to encourage increased residential opportunities in cities required to plan under the Growth Management Act, by providing for special property tax valuations for eligible multi -family housing in targeted urban areas; and WHEREAS, Chapter 84.14 RCW, as amended, further authorized cities with a population of at least thirty thousand (30,000) to adopt procedures to implement the special property tax valuations; and WHEREAS, other cities throughout the state, including the City of Seattle and the City of Tacoma, have successfully used the incentives found in Chapter 84.14 RCW to encourage development of housing in targeted areas; and WHEREAS, in 1995 the Renton City Council adopted the Renton Comprehensive Plan, to implement the planning requirements of the Growth Management Act, RCW 36.70A; and WHEREAS, the City desires to assist in directing future population growth into the Center Downtown, Center Village and Urban Center North Comprehensive Plan designated areas, thereby reducing development pressures on single-family residential neighborhoods; and 1 ORDINANCE NO. WHEREAS, the City desires to stimulate new construction of multi -family housing in the Center Downtown, Urban Center North and Center Village Comprehensive Plan designations to increase housing opportunities; and WHEREAS, on December 15, 2003, the Renton City Council held a public hearing to receive public comments regarding proposed designated "residential targeted areas" in the Center Downtown, Urban Center North and Center Village Comprehensive Plan designations for the purpose of allowing a limited property tax exemption for qualifying multi -family housing, pursuant to RCW 84.14.040(2); and WHEREAS, the Renton City Council desires to adopt procedures for the application for and approval of property tax incentives for qualifying multi -family housing within the "residential targeted areas;" NOW, THEREFORE, THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF RENTON, WASHINGTON, DO ORDAIN AS FOLLOWS: SECTION I. Findings of Fact. A. The Center Downtown, Center Village and Urban Center North Comprehensive Plan designation areas are urban centers, as defined in RCW 84.14.010. B. The Center Downtown, Center Village and Urban Center Comprehensive Plan designation areas currently lack sufficient available, desirable, and convenient residential housing to meet the needs of the public who would be likely to live in the Center Downtown, Center Village and Urban Center North Comprehensive Plan designation areas if desirable, attractive and livable places to live were available. C. The provision of special property tax valuations within the Center Downtown, Center Village and Urban Center North Comprehensive Plan designation areas will encourage 0? ORDINANCE NO. construction of new multi -family housing, and that provision of such additional housing opportunities in the Center Downtown, Center Village and Urban Center North Comprehensive Plan designation areas will assist in achieving the goals of the City's Comprehensive Plan and the parallel purposes set forth in RCW 84.14.007. D. The development of new residential units in the Center Downtown, Center Village and Urban Center North Comprehensive Plan designation areas will also assist in reducing development pressures on single-family residential neighborhoods. SECTION II. Designated Targeted Residential Areas. The City Council hereby designates the following "residential targeted areas" for the purpose of allowing a limited property tax exemption for qualifying multi -family housing, pursuant to RCW 84.14.040(4): the Center Downtown (CD) zone, Residential Multi -Family Urban Center (RM-U) zone, Residential Multi -Family Traditional (RM-T) zone and Urban Center North District 1 (IJCN-1) zone and, within the Center Village Comprehensive Plan designation, the Center Suburban (CS) zone, Residential Multi -Family Suburban Center (RM-C) zone and Residential 10 du/ac (R-10) zone. SECTION III. A new Section, 4-1-220, Property Tax Exemption for Multi - Family Housing in Residential Targeted Areas, of Chapter 1, Administration and Enforcement, of Title IV (Development Regulations) of Ordinance No. 4260 entitled "Code of General Ordinances of the City of Renton, Washington" is hereby added, to read as follows: 4-1-220 PROPERTY TAX EXEMPTION FOR MULTI -FAMILY HOUSING IN RESIDENTIAL TARGETED AREAS A. Purpose: 3 ORDINANCE NO. As provided for in RCW 84.14, the purpose of this Section is to provide limited, ten (10) year exemptions from ad valorem property taxation for qualified new multi -family housing located in designated residential targeted areas. B. Definitions: In construing the provisions of this Section, the following definitions shall be applied: l . "Administrator" means the Administrator of the Renton Economic Development, Neighborhoods and Strategic Planning Department, or any other City office, department or agency that shall succeed to its functions with respect to this Section, or his or her authorized designee. 2. "Multi -family housing" means one or more new buildings designed for permanent residential occupancy, each with four (4) or more dwelling units. 3. "Permanent residential occupancy" means multi -family housing that provides either owner occupancy or rental accommodation on a nontransient basis. This defmition includes rental accommodation that is leased for a period of at least one (1) month but excludes, for example, hotels and motels that predominately offer rental accommodation on a daily or weekly basis. C. Tax Exemption: 1. Duration of Exemption: The value of improvements qualifying under RMC 4-1- 220.1) is exempt from ad valorem property taxation for ten (10) successive years beginning a January V of the year immediately following the calendar year of issuance of the final certificate of tax exemption. 2. Limits on Exemption: The exemption does not apply to the value of land or to the value of nonhousing-related improvements not qualifying under RMC 4-1-220.1), nor does the 4 ORDINANCE NO. exemption apply to increases in assessed valuation of land and nonqualifying improvements. This Section also does not apply to increases in assessed valuation made by the county assessor on nonqualifying portions of building and value of land, nor to increases made by lawful order of a county board of equalization, the Department of Revenue, or a county, to a class of property throughout the county or specific area of the county to achieve the uniformity of assessment or appraisal required by law. D. Project Eligibility: To qualify for exemption from property taxation under this Section, the project must satisfy all of the following requirements: 1. Location: The property must be located in one of the following designated "residential targeted areas": (i) Within the Center Village Comprehensive Plan designation and in one of the following: the Center Suburban (CS) zone, the Residential Multi -Family Suburban Center (RM-C) zone, or the Residential 10 dwelling units/acre (R-10) zone; or (ii) in the Center Downtown (CD) zone, Residential Multi -Family Urban Center (RM-U) zone, Residential Multi -Family Traditional (RM-T) zone, or Urban Center North District 1 (UCN-1) zone. If a part of any legal lot is within a residential targeted area, then the entire lot shall be deemed to lie within the residential targeted area. 2. Size and Structure: a. If the project is located in the Residential Multi -Family Urban Center (RM-U) zone or Residential Multi -Family Traditional (RM-T) zone or within the Center Village Comprehensive Plan designation and in either the Residential Multi -Family Suburban Center (RM-C) zone or the Residential 10 du/ac (R-10) zone, the project must (i) consist of a minimum total of ten (10) new dwelling units of multi -family housing, and (ii) be located within a new W ORDINANCE NO. residential structure(s) or a new mixed use development as allowed by the RMC for the specific zone. At least fifty (50) percent of the space within the project shall be intended for permanent residential occupancy. b. If the project is located in the Center Downtown (CD) zone or Urban Center North District 1 (UCN-1) zone or, within the Center Village Comprehensive Plan designation and in the Center Suburban (CS) zone, the project must (i) consist of a minimum total of thirty (30) new dwelling units of multi -family housing and (ii) be located in a new mixed -use development, unless otherwise waived by the Administrator. If the Administrator waives the mixed -use development requirement, the multi -family housing must be located in a new residential structure(s). At least fifty (50) percent of the space within the project shall be intended for permanent residential occupancy. 3. Special Design Regulations for Projects Located in the Center Village Comprehensive Plan Designation: a. If the project is located in the Center Suburban (CS) zone or Residential Multi -Family Suburban Center (RM-C) zone within the Center Village Comprehensive Plan designation, the project must also comply with the design standards and guidelines in RMC 4-3- 100 for District `C', even though the project is not located in the Urban Center North Comprehensive Plan designation, unless otherwise waived by the Administrator. b. If the project is located in the Residential 10 dwelling units/acre (R-10) zone within the Center Village Comprehensive Plan designation, the project must also comply with the design standards and guidelines in RMC 4-3-100 for District `B,' even though the project is not located in the Residential Multi -Family Traditional (RM-T) zone, unless otherwise waived by the Administrator. If the project is located in the Suburban and Neighborhood Center 0 ORDINANCE NO. Residential District described in RMC 4-30-095, the project must also comply with the provisions therein. 4. Exception for Existing Residential Structure: In the case of an existing occupied residential structure that is proposed for demolition and redevelopment as new multi- family housing, the project must replace the existing number of dwelling units and provide for a minimum of four additional dwelling units in the new multi -family housing project. An existing residential rental structure that has been vacant for twelve (12) months or more prior to demolition does not have to provide additional dwelling units. 5. Completion Deadline: The project must be completed within three (3) years from the date of approval of the contract by the City Council as provided in RMC 4-1-220.F.2 or by any extended deadline granted by the Administrator as provided in RMC 4-1-220.I. E. Application Procedure: 1. Form: The owner of property applying for exemption under this Section shall submit an application to the Administrator on a form established by the Administrator. The owner shall verify the correctness of the information contained in the application by his/her signature and affirmation made under penalty of perjury under the laws of the State of Washington. The application shall contain such information as the Administrator may deem necessary or useful, which at a minimum shall include: a. A completed City application form, including information setting forth the grounds for tax exemption. b. A brief written description of the project, and schematic site and floor plans of the multi -family dwelling units and the structure(s) in which they are proposed to be located; 7 ORDINANCE NO. C. Floor and site plans of the proposed project, which plans may be revised by the owner provided such revisions are made and presented to the Administrator prior to the City's final action on the exemption application; d. A statement from the owner acknowledging the potential tax liability when the property ceases to be eligible for exemption under this Section; 2. Fee: At the time of initial application under this Section, the owner shall pay to the City an initial application fee of five hundred dollars ($500). 3. Deadline: The application shall be submitted prior to the issuance of the building permit for the project. The Administrator shall approve or deny an exemption application within ninety (90) days of receipt of a complete application. F. Application Approval: 1. Approval: The Administrator may approve an application if he or she finds that: a. The owner has complied with all of the requirements of this Section, including but not limited to the project eligibility requirements contained in RMC 4-1-220.1) and the application requirements contained in RMC 4-1-220.E; and b. The proposed project is or will be, at the time of completion, in conformance with all approved plans, and all applicable requirements of the Renton Municipal Code or other applicable requirements or regulations in effect at the time the application is approved. 2. Contract Required: If the application is approved, the owner shall enter into a contract with the City, approved by the City Council, regarding the terms and conditions of the project under this Section. 8 ORDINANCE NO. 3. Issuance of Conditional Certificate: Following Council approval of the contract, the Administrator shall issue a conditional certificate of acceptance of tax exemption. The conditional certificate shall expire three (3) years from the date of Council approval of the contract unless an extension is granted as provided in RMC 4-1-220.I. G. Application Denial: 1. Denial: The Administrator shall deny an application if the criteria in RMC 4-1- 220.F.1 are not met. The Administrator shall state in writing the reasons for the denial and send notice of denial to the owner's last known address within ten (10) days of the denial. 2. Appeal: An owner may appeal a denial of a tax exemption application to the City Council by filing a notice of appeal with the City Clerk within thirty (30) calendar days of receipt of notice of the denial. The appeal before the City Council shall be based upon the record before the Administrator, and the Administrator's decision will be upheld unless the owner can show that there is no substantial evidence on the record to support the Administrator's decision. The City Council's decision on appeal is final. H. Amendment of Contract: An owner may request an amendment(s) to the contract by submitting a request in writing to the Administrator, together with a fee of two hundred fifty dollars ($250), at any time within three (3) years of the date of the approval of the contract as provided for in RMC 4-1-220.G.2. The date for expiration of the conditional certificate shall not be extended by contract amendment unless all the conditions for extension set forth in RMC 4-1-220.I are met. I. Extension of Conditional Certificate: 1. Application: The conditional certificate may be extended by the Administrator for a period not to exceed twenty-four (24) consecutive months. The owner shall submit a written 6 ORDINANCE NO. request stating the grounds for the extension together with a fee of two hundred fifty dollars ($250). that: 2. Approval: The Administrator may grant an extension if the Administrator finds a. The anticipated failure to complete construction within the required time period is due to circumstances beyond the control of the owner; b. The owner has been acting, and could reasonably be expected to continue to act, in good faith and with due diligence; and C. All the conditions of the original contract between the owner and the City will be satisfied upon completion of the project. 2. Denial — Appeal: If an extension is denied, the Administrator shall state in writing the reason for denial and shall send notice to the owner's last known address within ten (10) calendar days of the denial. An owner may appeal the denial of an extension to the Hearing Examiner by filing a notice of appeal with the City Clerk within fourteen (14) calendar days after issuance of the notice of the denial. The appeal before the Hearing Examiner shall follow the provisions of RMC 4-8-110.E. The owner may appeal the Hearing Examiner's decision to the King County Superior Court according to the procedures contained in RCW 34.05.510 through 34.05.598, as provided in RCW 84.14.090(6), within thirty (30) days of notification by the City to the owner of the decision. J. Final Certificate: 1. Application: Upon completion of the construction as provided in the contract between the owner and the City, and upon issuance of a temporary certificate of occupancy, or a permanent certificate of occupancy if no temporary certificate is issued, the owner may request a 10 ORDINANCE NO. final certificate of tax exemption. The owner shall pay a fee of two hundred fifty dollars ($250) and file with the Administrator such information as the Administrator may deem necessary or useful to evaluate eligibility for the final certificate, which shall at a minimum include: a. A statement of expenditures made with respect to each multi -family housing unit and the total expenditures made with respect to the entire property; b. A description of the completed work and a statement of qualification for the exemption; and C. A statement that the work was completed within the required three (3) year period or any approved extension. 2. Determination: Within thirty (30) days of receipt of all materials required for a final certificate, the Administrator shall determine whether the completed work is consistent with the contract between the City and owner, whether all or a portion of the completed work is qualified for exemption under this Section and, if so, which specific improvements satisfy the requirements of this Section. 3. Filing with County Assessor: For projects that comply with the requirements of RMC 4-1-220.J.1, the City shall file a final certificate of tax exemption with the county assessor within ten days of the expiration of the 30-day period provided in the prior subsection. 4. Recording: The Administrator is authorized to cause to be recorded, at the owner's expense, in the real property records of the King County Department of Records and Elections, the contract with the City required under RMC 4-1-220.F.2, as amended under RMC 4-1-220.K if applicable, and/or such other document(s) as will identify such terms and conditions of eligibility for exemption under this Section as the Administrator deems appropriate for recording. 11 ORDINANCE NO. 5. Denial: The Administrator shall notify the owner in writing that the City will not file a final certificate if. (i) the Administrator determines that the project was not completed within the required three (3) year period or any approved extension, or was not completed in accordance with the contract between the owner and the City and the requirements of this Section, or the owner's property is otherwise not qualified for the limited exemption under this Section; or (h) the owner and Administrator cannot come to an agreement on the allocation of the value of the improvements allocated to the exempt portion of the project. 6. Appeal: The owner may appeal the Administrator's decision to the Hearing Examiner by filing a notice of appeal with the City Clerk within fourteen (14) calendar days after issuance of the notice of the denial. The appeal before the Hearing Examiner shall follow the provisions for appeal contained in RMC 4-8-110.E. The owner may appeal the Hearing Examiner's decision to the King County Superior Court according to the procedures contained in RCW 34.05.510 through 34.05.598, as provided in RCW 84.14.090(6), within thirty (30) days of notification by the City to the owner of the decision. K. Annual Certification: Within thirty (30) days after the first anniversary of the date the City filed the final certificate of tax exemption and each year thereafter, for a period of ten (10) years, the property owner shall file a certification with the Administrator, verified upon signed affirmation under penalty of perjury under the laws of the State of Washington. Failure to submit the annual certification may result in cancellation of the tax exemption. The certification shall contain such information as the Administrator may deem necessary or useful, and shall at a minimum include the following information: 12 ORDINANCE NO. a. A statement of occupancy and vacancy of the multi -family dwelling units during the previous year; b. A certification that the property has not changed use since the date of filing of the final certificate of tax exemption, and continues to be in compliance with the contract with the City and the requirements of this Section; and C. A description of any improvements or changes to the property made after the filing of the final certificate or most recent certification, as applicable. L. Cancellation of Tax Exemption: 1. Cancellation: If at any time the Administrator determines that: (i) the property no longer complies with the terms of the contract or with the requirements of this Section; (ii) the use of the property is changed or will be changed to a use that is other than residential; (iii) the project violates applicable zoning requirements, land use regulations or building code requirements; or (iv) the property for any reason no longer qualifies for the tax exemption, the tax exemption shall be canceled and additional taxes, interest and penalties imposed pursuant to state law. Upon determining that a tax exemption shall be canceled, the Administrator shall notify the property owner by certified mail, return receipt requested. 2. Appeal: The property owner may appeal the determination by filing a notice of appeal with the City Clerk, within thirty (30) days after issuance of the decision by the Administrator, specifying the factual and legal basis for the appeal. The appeal before the Hearing Examiner shall follow the procedures set forth in RMC 4-8-110.E. At the appeal hearing, all affected parties may be heard and all competent evidence received. The Hearing Examiner shall affirm, modify, or repeal the decision to cancel the exemption based on the evidence received. The Hearing Examiner shall give substantial weight to the Administrator's 13 ORDINANCE NO. decision to cancel the exemption, and the burden of proof and the burden of overcoming the weight accorded to the Administrator's decision shall be upon the appellant. An aggrieved party may appeal the Hearing Examiner's decision to the King County Superior Court in accordance with the procedures in RCW 34.05.510 through 34.05.598, as provided in RCW 84.14.110(2), within thirty (30) days after issuance of the decision of the Hearing Examiner. 3. Change of Use: If the owner intends to convert the multi -family housing to another use, the owner must notify the Administrator and the County assessor within sixty (60) days of the change in use. Upon such change in use, the tax exemption shall be canceled and additional taxes, interest and penalties imposed pursuant to state law. M. Sunset of Exemption for Applications for Conditional Certificates: The City shall not accept new applications for conditional certificates as provided in RMC 4-1-220.E after December 31, 2006, unless extended by City Council action. Incomplete applications for conditional certificates as of December 31, 2006, shall be returned to owners. Notwithstanding the above, the City shall process (i) pending complete applications for a conditional certificate as of December 31, 2006, and (ii) applications for an extension of the conditional certificate and/or a final certificate received after December 31, 2006, as provided in this Section under Sections RMC 4-1-220.1) through RMC 4-1-220.J. Sections RMC 4-1-220.0 and RMC 4-1-220.J through RMC 4-1-220.L shall continue to apply to all properties that have been or are issued a final certificate of tax exemption under this Section until expiration, termination or cancellation of the tax exemption. SECTION IV. Severability. The provisions of this ordinance are declared separate and severable. The invalidity of any clause, sentence, paragraph, subdivision, section, or portion of this ordinance or the 14 ORDINANCE NO. invalidity of the application thereof to any person or circumstance, shall not affect the validity of the remainder of the ordinance, or the validity of its application to other persons or circumstances. SECTION V. Ratification. Any act consistent with the authority and prior to the effective date of this ordinance is hereby ratified and affirmed. SECTION VI. Effective Date. This ordinance shall be effective upon its passage, approval, and five (5) days after its publication. PASSED BY THE CITY COUNCIL this day of , 2003. Bonnie I. Walton, City Clerk APPROVED BY THE MAYOR this day of , 2003. Approved as to form: Lawrence J. Warren, City Attorney Date of Publication: ORD.1088:12/8/03:ma Jesse Tanner, Mayor 15