HomeMy WebLinkAboutCouncil 09/19/2005AGENDA
RENTON CITY COUNCIL
REGULAR MEETING
September 19, 2005
Monday, 7:00 p.m.
CALL TO ORDER AND PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE
2. ROLL CALL
3. PROCLAMATION: Day of Concern for the Hungry - September 24, 2005
4. PUBLIC HEARING: Allocation of the 2006 Community Development Block Grant funds
5. ADMINISTRATIVE REPORT
6. AUDIENCE COMMENT (Speakers must sign up prior to the Council meeting. Each speaker is
allowed five minutes. The comment period will be limited to one-half hour. The second audience
comment period later on in the agenda is unlimited in duration.)
When you are recognized by the Presiding Officer, please walk to the podium and state your name
and address for the record, SPELLING YOUR LAST NAME.
7. CONSENT AGENDA
The following items are distributed to Councilmembers in advance for study and review, and the
recommended actions will be accepted in a single motion. Any item may be removed for further
discussion if requested by a Councilmember.
a. Approval of Council meeting minutes of 9/12/2005. Council concur.
b. City Clerk reports receipt of $5,170 compensation paid by petitioner, as set by Council on
8/1/2005, and recommends adoption of an ordinance to finalize the Liberty Ridge LLC vacation
of three portions of Bremerton Ave. NE, south of NE 4th St. (VAC-04-007). Council concur.
(See 10.f. for ordinance.)
c. City Clerk recommends approval of a consultant agreement with Bradley and Guzzetta, LLC for
cable television franchise management and renewal services. Refer to Finance Committee.
d. Court Case filed on behalf of Andrew Hedden et al by Lawrence A. Hildes and Paul Richmond,
Attorneys, alleging violation of plaintiffs' rights during a demonstration that occurred in
downtown Seattle on 6/2/2003. Refer to City Attorney and Insurance Services.
e. Court Case filed on behalf of Robert Barnes et al by Lawrence A. Hildes and Paul Richmond,
Attorneys, alleging violation of plaintiffs' rights during a demonstration that occurred in
downtown Seattle on 6/2/2003. Refer to City Attorney and Insurance Services.
f. Development Services Division recommends acceptance of a deed of dedication for additional
right-of-way at NE 22nd St. to fulfill a requirement of the Teresa's Short Plat (SHP-04-076).
Council concur.
g. Development Services Division recommends approval of a master use agreement with Sprint
Communications Company L.P. to install fiber optic communication facilities within the City of
Renton right-of-way. Refer to Transportation (Aviation) Committee.
8. CORRESPONDENCE
9. UNFINISHED BUSINESS
Topics listed below were discussed in Council committees during the past week. Those topics
marked with an asterisk (*) may include legislation. Committee reports on any topics may be held by
the Chair if further review is necessary.
(CONTINUED ON REVERSE SIDE)
a. Finance Committee: Reimbursement Resolution for S. Lake WA Roadway & SW 27th
St./Strander Blvd. Connection Projects*; SW 27th St./Strander Blvd. Connection Project Budget
Adjustment, Perteet Contract Supplement & Bid Award
b. Planning & Development Committee: Zoning Text Amendments regarding Removal of
Residential Uses in the Commercial Arterial Zone
c. Transportation (Aviation) Committee: Contract Supplement with Perteet for Maple Valley Hwy.
Improvements; Contract with URS Corporation for Airport Layout Plan Update
d. Utilities Committee: Latecomer Agreement for Sewer Main Extension along SE 132nd St.
10. RESOLUTIONS AND ORDINANCES
Resolution:
Reimbursement of capital expenditures from proceeds of tax exempt bonds (see 9.a.)
Ordinances for first reading:
a. Docket related changes to Title IV (Council approved 3/14/2005)
b. Filing of appeals to Growth Management Hearings Board (Council approved 3/14/2005)
c. Boards and commissions organization and process modifications (Council approved 5/2/2005)
d. Changing references from Board of Public Works to Public Works Administrator (Council
approved 5/2/2005)
e. Changing references from Board of Adjustment to Public Works Administrator (Council
approved 5/2/2005)
f. Vacation of three portions of Bremerton Ave. NE (see 7.a.)
11. NEW BUSINESS (Includes Council Committee agenda topics; call 425-430-6512 for recorded
information.)
12. AUDIENCE COMMENT
13. ADJOURNMENT
COMMITTEE OF THE WHOLE
AGENDA
(Preceding Council Meeting)
Council Chambers
5:30 p.m.
Gas Tax Supported Projects in Renton;
Rainier Ave. Corridor Study Briefing;
Water Resource Inventory Area 9 Salmon Habitat Restoration Plan
• 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
September .19, 2005
Council Chambers
Monday, 7:00 p.m.
M I N U T E S Renton City Hall
CALL TO ORDER
Mayor Kathy Keolker-Wheeler called the meeting of the Renton City Council
to order and led the Pledge of Allegiance to the flag.
ROLL CALL OF
TERRI BRIERE, Council President; MARCIE PALMER; DON PERSSON;
COUNCILMEMBERS
RANDY CORMAN; TONI NELSON; DAN CLAWSON; DENIS LAW.
CITY STAFF IN
KATHY KEOLKER-WHEELER, Mayor; JAY COVINGTON, Chief
ATTENDANCE
Administrative Officer; LAWRENCE J. WARREN, City Attorney; BONNIE
WALTON, City Clerk; GREGG ZIMMERMAN, Planning/Building/Public
Works Administrator; DENNIS CULP, Community Services Administrator;
KAREN BERGSVIK, Human Services Manager; LINDA HERZOG, Interim
Assistant to the CAO; COMMANDER TIM TROXEL, Police Department.
PROCLAMATION A proclamation by Mayor Keolker-Wheeler was read declaring September 24,
Day of Concern for the 2005, to be "Day of Concern for the Hungry" and strongly urging all citizens to
Hungry - 9/24/2005 join the Emergency Feeding Program and the food banks in their efforts to
nourish those who are hungry. MOVED BY NELSON, SECONDED BY
PALMER, COUNCIL CONCUR IN THE PROCLAMATION AS READ.
CARRIED.
Captain Christine Giffey-Brohaugh accepted the proclamation on behalf of the
Salvation Army. She explained that the new Renton Rotary Salvation Army
Food Bank provides not only food, but also services such as the RotaCare
Clinic held on Saturday mornings. Captain Giffey-Brohaugh noted that the
Salvation Army needs both money and volunteers to run the facility. She
encouraged citizens to participate in the annual food drive on September 24th
by shopping at local grocery stores and purchasing items for donation.
PUBLIC HEARING This being the date set and proper notices having been posted and published in
Human Services: 2006 CDBG accordance with local and State laws, Mayor Keolker-Wheeler opened the
Funds Allocation public hearing to consider the funding recommendations for the allocation of
the 2006 Community Development Block Grant (CDBG) funds.
Karen Bergsvik, Human Services Manager, reported that Renton will receive an
estimated $48,855 in CDBG public service funds, $185,650 in CDBG capital
funds, and $48,855 for planning and administration. She indicated that this is
an approximate 10% cut in funding. She explained that the U.S. House of
Representatives has passed the 2006 CDBG budget, but it is not known what
affect Hurricane Katrina will have on the final budget amount. Ms. Bergsvik
noted that the Human Services Advisory Committee decided to extend the 2005
public service contracts to 2006, so the CDBG grants will have the same two-
year funding cycle as the general fund.
Ms. Bergsvik stated that the Human Services Advisory Committee
recommended that the 2006 CDBG capital funds be distributed to the City of
Renton Housing Repair Program ($164,546) and to the Multi Service Center for
employment services ($21,104). She reported that the advisory committee
recently recommended that the 2006 funding allocation to HomeSight (first
September 19, 2005 Renton City Council Minutes Page 314
time home buyer program) be cancelled, and that the funds be allocated to the
Housing Repair Program. She noted that HomeSight did receive 2005 funding
from Renton, Tukwila, and Home Funds.
In conclusion, Ms. Bergsvik indicated that agencies receiving CDBG funding
must meet certain criteria, including meeting one of three national objectives,
and serving at least 70% low and moderate -low income persons. She pointed
out that although the funding of agencies can be switched from the CDBG
funds to the general fund, they cannot be switched back.
Public comment was invited.
Erika Nuerenberg, DAWN (Domestic Abuse Women's Network) Board
Member, 2410 NW 58th St., Seattle, 98107, stated that DAWN has been
providing services to this community for 25 years, and thanked the City for its
past support. She noted the proposed decrease in funding to DAWN and other
agencies due to the reduction in the 2006 CDBG funding level, and questioned
why some agencies were listed for CDBG funding, and others were listed for
general funding.
Continuing, Ms. Nuerenberg pointed out that the general fund level has held
steady for the past three years, and there are no pending cuts for agencies
funded by the general fund in 2006. She reviewed the amount of funds DAWN
has received from Renton, the services DAWN provides, and the costs of
providing those services. Pointing out that Dawn and other agencies depend on
local cities to help provide services, Ms. Nuerenberg asked that the 2006
CDBG funding not be cut.
There being no further public comment, it was MOVED BY NELSON,
SECONDED BY PALMER, COUNCIL CLOSE THE PUBLIC HEARING.
CARRIED.
ADMINISTRATIVE
Chief Administrative Officer Jay Covington reviewed a written administrative
REPORT
report summarizing the City's recent progress towards goals and work
programs adopted as part of its business plan for 2005 and beyond. Items noted
included:
• A new 12-station computer lab was dedicated today at the Renton Senior
Activity Center. Using a $20,000 donation from Merrill Gardens, a new
retirement community being built in downtown Renton, the center
converted a former game room into the lab to respond to the popularity of
that amenity at the facility.
•a Valley Community Players will present the production How the Other Half
Loves from September 23rd to October 9th at Carco Theatre.
AUDIENCE COMMENT
Dan Hughes, 2139 NE 20th St., Renton, 98056, stated that he had a great
Citizen Comment: Hughes -
summer skateboarding at the Skate Park in Liberty Park. Now that summer is
Skate Park Lighting
over, he requested that lights be installed at the Skate Park, similar to the
lighting at the basketball and tennis courts. MOVED BY NELSON,
SECONDED BY CORMAN, COUNCIL REFER SKATE PARK LIGHTING
TO THE ADMINISTRATION AND COMMUNITY SERVICES
COMMITTEE. CARRIED.
Citizen Comment: Petersen -
Inez Petersen, 3306 Lake Washington Blvd. N., #3, Renton, 98056, announced
Candidate Forum, Street
that the Highlands Community Association (HCA) will host a candidate forum
Repair
on community access cable channel 77 on October 11 th, featuring Brett
05
CONSENT AGENDA
Council Meeting Minutes of
9/ 12/2005
Renton Citv Council Minutes
Page 315
Kappenman and Councilman Dan Clawson. Additionally, she noted that the
HCA board will interview the same candidates for rating purposes.
On another subject, Ms. Petersen displayed a photograph of a street near her
residence, showing cracked pavement in a low spot on the street. She noted the
issues with the private drainage system, and the costs to maintain the street and
storm drain. Ms. Petersen indicated that the affected residents should not be
financially liable for the maintenance of the City street and the storm drain, and
asked that the cracks be repaired until costs for the pavement replacement and
the storm system repairs can be integrated into the City's budget.
Gregg Zimmerman, Planning/Building/Public Works Administrator, explained
that the City is responsible for maintaining the middle portion of the pavement
of the dead-end street (that adjoins N. 33rd Pl.). The maintenance of the two
sides of the street are the responsibility of the property owners. Noting that the
water detention system was built in the right-of-way by a private developer, he
stated that several developments throughout the City have private detention and
water quality systems in City right-of-way, which are owned by the affected
property owners.
Mr. Zimmerman reported that the City has tried to change the drainage pattern
on this street, but the catch basins cannot be lowered anymore as they are
located on top of the private detention system. He indicated that the only way
to improve the drainage is to replace the private detention facility or raise the
level of the entire paved area, and both options are costly. Mr. Zimmerman
explained that the City has tried to make the drainage work as well as it can
under the constraints, but puddling still occurs. He concluded that the
pavement cracks do not appear to present any safety hazards or impediments to
access.
Items on the consent agenda are adopted by one motion which follows the
listing.
Approval of Council meeting minutes of September 12, 2005. Council concur.
Vacation: Bremerton Ave NE, City Clerk reported receipt of $5,170 compensation paid by petitioner, as set by
Liberty Ridge, VAC-04-007 Council on 8/1/2005, and recommended adoption of an ordinance to finalize the
Liberty Ridge LLC vacation of three portions of Bremerton Ave. NE, south of
NE 4th St. (VAC-04-007). Council concur. (See page 319 for ordinance.)
City Clerk: Cable Television
City Clerk recommended approval of a consultant agreement in the amount of
Franchise Consultant Services,
$235,500 with Bradley and Guzzetta, LLC for cable television franchise
Bradley and Guzzetta
management and renewal services. Refer to Finance Committee.
Court Case: Andrew Hedden
Court Case filed on behalf of Andrew Hedden et al by Lawrence A. Hildes and
et al, CRT-05-009
Paul Richmond, Attorneys, alleging violation of plaintiffs' rights during a
demonstration that occurred in downtown Seattle on 6/2/2003. Refer to City
Attorney and Insurance Services.
Court Case: Robert Barnes et Court Case filed on behalf of Robert Barnes et al by Lawrence A. Hildes and
al, CRT-05-010 Paul Richmond, Attorneys, alleging violation of plaintiffs' rights during a
demonstration that occurred in downtown Seattle on 6/2/2003. Refer to City
Attorney and Insurance Services.
Development Services: Development Services Division recommended acceptance of a deed of
Teresas Short Plat, ROW dedication for additional right-of-way at NE 22nd St. to fulfill a requirement of
Dedication, NE 22nd St the Teresa's Short Plat (SHP-04-076). Council concur.
September 19, 2005 Renton City Council Minutes Page 316
Franchise: Sprint
Development Services Division recommended approval of a master use
Communications, Fiber Optic
agreement with Sprint Communications Company L.P. to install fiber optic
Communication Facilities
communication facilities within the City of Renton right-of-way. Refer to
Transportation (Aviation) Committee.
MOVED BY BRIERE, SECONDED BY NELSON, COUNCIL APPROVE
THE CONSENT AGENDA AS PRESENTED. CARRIED.
UNFINISHED BUSINESS
Transportation (Aviation) Committee Chair Palmer presented a report
Transportation (Aviation)
recommending concurrence in the staff recommendation to authorize the Ma r
Committee
and City Clerk to execute Supplemental Agreement #6 with Perteet, Inc., for
CAG: 01-071, Maple Valley
additional work in the amount of $99,880 for the Maple Valley Hwy. (SR-169)
Hwy Improvements, Perteet
Improvements Project Phase 2. The Committee further recommended that
Council authorize funds to be transferred into this project from the following
projects:
1. Project Development/Predesign in the amount of $25,000;
2. Arterial Circulation Program in the amount of $39,880;
3. Duvall Ave. NE in the amount of $20,000;
4. Transportation Concurrency in the amount of $40,000; and
5. Interagency Signal Coordination in the amount of $5,000.
MOVED BY PALMER, SECONDED BY CORMAN, COUNCIL CONCUR
IN THE COMMITTEE REPORT. CARRIED.
Airport: Layout Plan Update,
Transportation (Aviation) Committee Chair Palmer presented a report
URS Corporation
recommending concurrence in the staff recommendation to approve the contract
with URS Corporation in the amount of $129,257.19 to update the Airport
Layout Plan. The Committee further recommended that the Mayor and City
Clerk be authorized to sign the contract. MOVED BY PALMER, SECONDED
BY CORMAN, COUNCIL CONCUR IN THE COMMITTEE REPORT.
CARRIED.
Finance Committee
Finance Committee Chair Persson presented a report regarding reimbursement
Finance: Bond Proceed
of capital expenditures from proceeds of tax exempt bonds. The Committee
Reimbursement, S Lake WA
recommended concurrence in the staff recommendation to declare the City's
Roadway & SW 27th
intent that certain capital expenditures to be made on the South Lake
St/Strander Blvd Connection,
Washington roadway and SW 27th St./Strander Blvd connection capital
Capital Expenditures
projects shall be reimbursed from the future proceeds of a tax exempt bond
sale(s) or other obligations of the City in an amount not to exceed $15,000,000.
The Committee further recommended that the resolution regarding this matter
be presented for reading and adoption.*
Councilman Persson noted that the Committee changed the bond sale amount
from the original recommendation of $31,000.000 to $15,000,000. He
indicated that the Committee will revisit the matter as more information is
obtained about the projects.
*MOVED BY PERSSON, SECONDED BY NELSON, COUNCIL CONCUR
IN THE COMMITTEE REPORT. CARRIED. (See page 318 for resolution.)
Mayor Keolker-Wheeler indicated that the $15,000,000 will not cover the costs
of the projects.
September 19, 2005 Renton City Council Minutes Page 317
Transportation: SW 27th
Finance Committee Chair Persson presented a report recommending
St/Strander Blvd Connection,
concurrence in the staff recommendation as follows for construction of a .27-
Perteet Contract, Gary Merlino
mile extension of SW 27th St. from Oakesdale Ave. SW to the proposed
Contract, Fund 317 Budget
driveway access of the Federal Reserve Bank, known as the SW 27th
Adjustment
St./Strander Blvd. Connection, Phase 1, Segment 1 construction project:
1. Approve a budget adjustment to allocate $3,217,836.86 from the
Transportation 317 Fund to the SW 27th St./Strander Blvd. Connection
Project budget for funding as detailed herein, with the full amount to be
reimbursed from future proceeds of a tax exempt bond sale;
2. Approve Supplement Agreement #3 with Perteet, Inc. in the amount of
$110,846 for project construction management services (CAG-03-033);
3. Accept the low bid as submitted and award the construction contract to
Gary Merlino Construction Company, Inc. in the amount of $2,426,530.72
(CAG-05-120);
4. Authorize a 20% construction contract contingency in the amount of
$485,306.14; and
5. Authorize soft costs for the project in the amount of $195,154.
The Committee further recommended the Mayor and City Clerk be authorized
to execute Supplemental Agreement #3 with Perteet, Inc., and the construction
contract with Gary Merlino Construction Company, Inc. MOVED BY
PERSSON, SECONDED BY NELSON, COUNCIL CONCUR IN THE
COMMITTEE REPORT.*
In response to Councilman Clawson's inquiry regarding the bonds, Chief
Administrative Office Jay Covington reviewed various revenue sources for the
South Lake Washington roadway and SW 27th St./Strander Blvd. connection
projects, and indicated that the City is continuing to analyze the matter. Mayor
Keolker-Wheeler added that the City is still pursuing Federal and State funding.
Councilman Persson noted that the Federal Reserve Bank has to pay property
taxes, which will be used to help pay for the project.
*MOTION CARRIED.
Development Services: Waiver
Finance Committee Chair Persson presented a report regarding the Evan Chan,
Request for Development &
N&C Investments LLC, fee waiver request for the proposed Morris Avenue
Mitigation Fees, Morris Ave
Townhomes development at 513 S. 2nd St. The applicant requested waiver of
Townhomes, N&C
building permit fees, utility system development charges, public works plan
Investments
review and inspection fees, and impact mitigation fees per City Code 4-1-210.
The proposal for the eight -unit condominium townhome project is eligible for
the fee waiver as it will be new owner -occupied multi -family housing, of four
units or more, located within the Center Downtown zone. The Committee
recommended concurrence in the staff recommendation to approve the fee
waiver request at the time of building and construction permit issuance, subject
to the final project design being of comparable or greater quality than the
exhibits attached to the request. MOVED BY PERSSON, SECONDED BY
NELSON, COUNCIL CONCUR IN THE COMMITTEE REPORT.
CARRIED.
September 19, 2005 Renton City Council Minutes Page 318
Utilities Committee Utilities Committee Chair Corman presented a report recommending
Latecomer Agreement: concurrence in the staff recommendation to grant preliminary approval of the
Wyman/Blood, Sewer application for a latecomer agreement request from Kevin M. Wyman and
Extension (SE 132nd St), LA- Durwood E. Blood for a period of one year. The application for latecomer
05-003 agreement was submitted to recover the $60,290.92 estimated cost of sewer
extension along SE 132nd St. at 152nd Ave. SE to allow development of two
single-family residences without the need for a previously approved site sewage
system.
The Committee further recommended that Council authorize the preliminary
assessment roll to be forwarded to the City Clerk, who will notify the affected
property owners. If no protests are received, after construction of the facilities
and approval of the final costs, Council can authorize preparation of the final
assessment roll and latecomer agreement. In the event there is a protest for
valid cause, a public hearing will be held to resolve any issues prior to
proceeding with this matter. MOVED BY CORMAN, SECONDED BY
CLAWSON, COUNCIL CONCUR IN THE COMMITTEE REPORT.
CARRIED.
Planning & Development Planning and Development Committee Chair Clawson presented a report
Committee recommending a public hearing be set on 10/3/2005 to consider the zoning text
Planning: Residential Uses in amendments residential uses in the Commercial Arterial zone. MOVED BY
Commercial Arterial Zone CLAWSON, SECONDED BY LAW, COUNCIL CONCUR IN THE
COMMITTEE REPORT. CARRIED.
RESOLUTIONS AND The following resolution was presented for reading and adoption:
ORDINANCES
Resolution #3772 A resolution was read declaring the City's intent that certain capital
Finance: Bond Proceed expenditures shall be reimbursed from the proceeds of tax exempt bonds or
Reimbursement, S Lake WA other obligations in an amount not to exceed $15,000,000. MOVED BY LAW,
Roadway & SW 27th SECONDED BY NELSON, COUNCIL ADOPT THE RESOLUTION AS
St/Strander Blvd Connection, READ. CARRIED.
Capital Expenditures
The following ordinances were presented for first reading and referred to the
Council meeting of 9/26/2005 for second and final reading:
Planning: Development An ordinance was read amending Chapters 4-1, 4-2, 4-4, 4-6 through 4-9, and
Regulations (Title IV) Docket 4-11 of Title IV (Development Regulations) and Chapter 9-11 of Title IX
& Amendments (Public Ways and Property) of City Code by clarifying zone density controls
over zone lot size provisions and removing Green River Valley landscaping
requirements; and by amending administrative, interpretation, and enforcement
procedures; fees and fee refunds and waivers; binding site plan regulations;
planned unit/urban development regulations; nonproject SEPA requirements;
and definitions. MOVED BY CLAWSON, SECONDED BY LAW, COUNCIL
REFER THE ORDINANCE FOR SECOND AND FINAL READING ON
9/26/2005. CARRIED.
Planning: Growth An ordinance was read adding Section 4-8-110.A.7 and 4-8-110.I to Chapter 8,
Management Hearings Board, Permits - General and Appeals, of Title IV (Development Regulations) of City
Filing of Appeals Code regarding the filing of appeals to the Growth Management Hearings
Board. MOVED BY CLAWSON, SECONDED BY LAW, COUNCIL REFER
THE ORDINANCE FOR SECOND AND FINAL READING ON 9/26/2005.
CARRIED.
September 19, 2005 Renton City Council Minutes Page 319
Board/Commission: An ordinance was read amending Title II (Commissions and Boards) of City
Organization & Process Code by eliminating the Boards of Adjustment, Ethics, Public Works,
Modifications Emergency Services Organization, Human Rights and Affairs, and Unfair
Housing Practices; adding the Advisory Commission on Diversity, Library
Board, Environmental Review Committee, LEOFF Disability Board, Lodging
Tax Advisory Committee, and Airport Advisory Committee; and updating all
remaining chapters. MOVED BY BRIERE, SECONDED BY PALMER,
COUNCIL REFER THE ORDINANCE FOR SECOND AND FINAL
READING ON 9/26/2005. CARRIED.
Board/Commission:
An ordinance was read amending Chapters 4-4 and 4-6 through 4-9 of Title IV
Organization & Process
(Development Regulations) and Chapter 8-7 of Title VIII (Health and
Modifications
Sanitation) and Chapter 9-2 of Title IX (Public Ways and Property) of City
Code by changing references from the Board of Public Works to the
Planning/Building/Public Works Administrator. MOVED BY BRIERE,
SECONDED BY PALMER, COUNCIL REFER THE ORDINANCE FOR
SECOND AND FINAL READING ON 9/26/2005. CARRIED.
Board/Commission:
An ordinance was read amending Chapters 4-1, 4-4, 4-5, 4-8 and 4-9 of Title IV
Organization & Process
(Development Regulations) of City Code by changing references from the
Modifications
Board of Adjustment to the Planning/Building/Public Works Administrator.
MOVED BY BRIERE, SECONDED BY PALMER, COUNCIL REFER THE
ORDINANCE FOR SECOND AND FINAL READING ON 9/26/2005.
CARRIED.
Vacation: Bremerton Ave NE,
An ordinance was read vacating three portions of Bremerton Ave. NE, located
Liberty Ridge, VAC-04-007
south of NE 4th St. and north of SE 2nd Pl. (Liberty Ridge LLC; VAC-04-007).
MOVED BY BRIERE, SECONDED BY CLAWSON, COUNCIL REFER THE
ORDINANCE FOR SECOND AND FINAL READING ON 9/26/2005.
CARRIED.
NEW BUSINESS
Responding to Councilman Persson's inquiry regarding the lawsuits related to a
Court Case: Andrew Hedden
demonstration that occurred in downtown Seattle in 2003, City Attorney Larry
et al (CRT-05-009), Robert
Warren stated that he intends to ask for early dismissal of the lawsuits for
Barnes et al (CRT-05-010)
failure to state a claim against the City, and to ask for sanctions for failure to
state facts upon which the lawsuits can be based.
Police: Renton Transit Center
Reporting some citizen concerns regarding inappropriate behavior and activities
Security
at the Renton Transit Center, it was MOVED BY PERSSON, SECONDED BY
CORMAN, THAT COUNCIL REFER THE ISSUE OF SECURITY AT THE
TRANSIT CENTER TO THE ADMINISTRATION AND PUBLIC SAFETY
COMMITTEE.*
Councilman Clawson commented that he frequents the transit center and has
not seen any violence. He indicated that some patrons' behavior, however, may
be intimidating. Mr. Clawson emphasized that safety at the transit center is
important, noting that measures must be taken if there are problems.
*MOTION CARRIED.
ADJOURNMENT
MOVED BY NELSON, SECONDED BY CORMAN, COUNCIL ADJOURN.
CARRIED. Time: 8:�00/p.m.
Bonnie I. Walton, CMC, City Clerk
Recorder: Michele Neumann, September 19, 2005
RENTON CITY COUNCIL COMMITTEE MEETING CALENDAR
Office of the City Clerk
COUNCIL COMMITTEE MEETINGS SCHEDULED AT CITY COUNCIL MEETING
September 19, 2005
COMMITTEE/CHAIRMAN DATE/TIME AGENDA
COMMITTEE OF THE WHOLE MON., 9/26 Heather Downs Park Final Concept;
(Briere) 5:30 p.m. Five -Year Financial Forecast
COMMUNITY SERVICES
(Nelson)
FINANCE
(Persson)
PLANNING & DEVELOPMENT
(Clawson)
PUBLIC SAFETY
(Law)
TRANSPORTATION (AVIATION)
(Palmer)
UTILITIES
(Corman)
MON., 9/26 2006 Community Development Block
4:00 p.m. Grant Funding Recommendations;
Former Renton Police Chief Busato
Memorial
MON., 9/26 Vouchers;
4:30 p.m. Cable Consultant Contract with Bradley
and Guzzetta
k
NOTE: Committee of the Whole meetings are held in the Council Chambers unless otherwise noted. All other committee meetings are held in the Council
Conference Room unless otherwise noted.
CITY OF RENTON
Mayor
Kathy Keolker-Wheeler
W he+-eck; the City of Renton recognizes adequate nutrition as a basic goal for each citizen;
and
Whe4,ea4-, no parent should have to send a child to school hungry, no baby should be without
the comfort of feedings needed for mental and physical growth, no elderly person's health should
be jeopardized by lack of appropriate foods; and
Wherec4; food banks, emergency, and hot meal programs working with the City of Renton,
local churches, social service agencies, and hundreds of volunteers are striving day in and day out
to stem the rising tide of hunger, but still need more help; and
W here 4,, we believe that when the citizens who are not involved hear of the especially
desperate needs of the hungry as winter approaches and their low incomes must stretch to cover
increasing fuel, electricity, and rental costs, leaving even less money for monthly food purchase,
an outpouring of community assistance will follow; and
Whereaa; the Emergency Feeding Program coordinates an annual food drive to help support
the efforts of their program and the area's food banks in fighting hunger, which will be held at
grocery stores throughout King County on Saturday, September 24, 2005;
Now, rh.erefc)-re; I, Kathy Keolker-Wheeler, Mayor of the City of Renton, do hereby
proclaim September 24, 2005, to be a
Day of Co-vwerw for thel Y unigry
in the City of Renton, and strongly urge all citizens to join the Emergency Feeding Program and
our food banks in their efforts to nourish those who are hungry.
In witness whereof, I have hereunto set my hand and caused the seal of the City of Renton to be
affixed this 19`h day of September, 2005.
1�4 1i� ,
lrtJ
Kathy K olker-Wheeler
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
RENTON
AHEAD OF THE CURVE
2006 Community Development Block Grant Public Hearing
The City of Renton is proposing to allocate 2006 Community Development Block Grant
(CDBG) Public Service Funds in the amount of $48,855 to the following projects:
Agency/Program
Recommended
Funding Amount
Community Health Centers of King County/Dental Program
$10,077
403 E Meeker Street, Kent WA. Funds will be used to provide
dental visits to low and moderate -income Renton residents.
Communities In Schools of Renton/Family Liaison Program will
$7,176
provide family liaison services to low and moderate income
students in the Renton School District.
Domestic Abuse Women's Network/Confidential Shelter. Funds
$7,907
will be used to provide confidential shelter and services to women
or children victims of domestic violence, including bednights or
referrals to Renton residents.
E1derHealth/Day Health Program, 3921 Talbot Road S., Renton.
$7,176
Funds will be used to provide adult day health care to elderly
persons or severely disabled adults residing in Renton.
Emergency Feeding Program/Food Program. Funds will be used
$9,344
to provide meals to low and moderate income Renton residents at
several Renton distribution sites.
Visiting Nurse Services of the NW/Senior Health Promotion, 211
$7,176
Burnett Avenue North, Renton. Funds will be used to provide
health assessments to senior citizens.
Total CDBG fund allocation
$48,855
The City of Renton is proposing to allocate 2006 Community Development Block Grant
Capital Funds in the amount of $185,650 to the following projects:
Agency/Program
Recommended
Funding Amount
HomeSight/First time Home Buyer Program. Funds will be used
$22,903
for first-time buyer purchase assistance loans for low and
moderate income households purchasing within Renton city
limits.
City of Renton Housing Repair Program will use funds to provide
$141,643
repairs to housing units for low and moderate income
homeowners within the Renton city limits. -
Multi Service Center will provide employment and related
$21,104
services to low and moderate income Renton residents.
Total CDBG Capital fund allocation
$185,650
'Because of a decrease in the amount of CDBG funding available in 2006 and an increase in
the labor costs for the Renton Housing Repair Assistance Program, the Human Services
Advisory Committee and staff recommend the $22,903 allocation to HomeSight be canceled,
H:\HUMAN—SE\2006\publichearinghandout.doc
and the funds be allocated to the Renton Housing Repair Assistance Program. The new
recommended amount for the Renton Housing Repair Assistance Program is $164,546. 18
The City of Renton is proposing to allocate the 2005 Community Development Block Grant
Program Administration allocation of $48,855 for staff costs in administering the Community
Development Block Grant Program at 1055 South Grady Way, Renton.
The City is proposing that if there is a change in the amount of Community Development
Block Grant funds available in 2006, the amount of funds allocated will be modified
according to the proposed contingency plan.
2006 Community Development Block Grant (CDBG) Contingency Plan
The Human Services Advisory Committee recommends adoption of the following
contingency funding plan should the amount of CDBG funds for 2006 change from the June
2005 estimated amount.
Public Services
Should there be an increase in CDBG public services funding, the Committee recommends
any increase be applied proportionally to:
• Communities in Schools of Renton/Family Liaison Program
• Community Health Centers of King County/Dental Program
• Domestic Abuse Women's Network/Shelter Program
• ElderHealth/Connection Day Health Program
• Emergency Feeding Program of Seattle & King County
Should there be a decrease in CDBG public services funding, the Committee recommends any
decrease be applied proportionally to all funded programs.
Capital
If there is an increase in CDBG capital funding, the Committee recommends any increases be
allocated to the Housing Repair Assistance Program, with funding not to exceed $166,000.
Any additional funds will be allocated to the Multi -Service Center Employee Development
Program.
If there is a decrease in capital funding, the decrease will be shared equally by all capital
programs with the exception of the Housing Repair Assistance Program. There will be no
decrease to the Housing Repair Assistance program.
Planninz and Administration
If there is an increase in CDBG Planning and Administration funds, the Committee
recommends that the City take the maximum amount allowable, to plan and administer the
Community Development Block Grant Program.
If there is a decrease in CDBG Planning and Administration funds, funding for Planning and
Administration will be decreased by that amount.
H:\HUMAN_SE\2006\publichearinghandout.doc 2
CITY OF RENTON
MEMORANDUM
DATE: September 19, 2005
TO: Terri Briere, Council President
Members of the Renton City Council
FROM: Kathy Keolker-Wheeler, Mayor
Jay Covington, Chief Administrative Officer
SUBJECT: Administrative Report
In addition to our day-to-day activities, the following items are worthy of note for this week:
GENERAL INFORMATION
• Your help is needed to make sure no child or family goes hungry this winter. Participate in the
Mayor's Day of Concern for the Hungry on Saturday, September 24th, by shopping at Albertson's,
Safeway, QFC, Thriftway or Fred Meyer, and purchasing a few items for donation. You can also
volunteer for the event by contacting the Salvation Army at 425-255-5969.
• As a reminder to our citizens, Renton City Council meetings will now begin at 7:00 p.m. and the
Committee of the Whole meetings will begin at 6:00 p.m.
FINANCE & INFORMATION SERVICES DEPARTMENT
Using a secure system, the City can now accept utility bill payments through the City's website,
www.ci.renton.wa.us, with a credit card or e-check. Payments on single-family residential accounts
and duplex utility accounts are accepted with an account number or via address and street number
and name. In addition to allowing customers to pay their bill or schedule a payment, it also allows
customers to view their water consumption, evaluate the cost of water per day, explore the history of
their account, and see the balance of their bill. Since this new service was introduced in August,
nearly 1,000 customers have taken advantage of this payment option.
PLANNINGBUILDING/PUBLIC WORKS DEPARTMENT
The Sound Transit Finance Committee met on September 15th to consider a resolution to
recommend that the Sound Transit Board approve a change to Sound Move to provide financial
support for two Renton projects: the Rainier/Hardie Corridor improvements, and the SW 27th/
Strander Boulevard Extension project. The Sound Transit Finance Committee was very supportive
of the proposal for $19 million in funding for these projects, and passed a motion to put it before the
Sound Transit Board on September 22nd. Since the proposal is a change to Sound Move, it will
require a super majority vote to pass. Renton staff will attend the September 22nd Sound Transit
Board meeting.
Administrative Report
September 19, 2005
Page 2
COMMUNITY SERVICES DEPARTMENT
• A new 12-station computer lab was dedicated today at the Renton Senior Activity Center. Using a
$20,000 donation from Merrill Gardens, a new retirement community being built in downtown
Renton, the Center converted a former game room into the lab to respond to the popularity of that
amenity at the facility. The donation covered the expenses for converting the room, purchasing some
additional computers, and funding necessary hardware improvements. Computer classes using the
new room at the Renton Senior Center will begin September 20th.
• Valley Community Players will present the production How the Other Half Loves from September
23rd through October 9th at Carco Theatre. Tickets are available by calling 425-226-5190.
• Coulon and Kennydale Beaches closed for the season on Labor Day, September 5, 2005. Jon Orton
was selected as Coulon Beach's "Most Inspirational Lifeguard." The Henry Moses Aquatic Center
also closed on Labor Day. Winners of the "Henry Moses Spirit Awards" were Katie Tasa; Kabi
Gishuru; Rickey Richards, Jr.; and Mike Preuss. These employees will be honored with their names
being placed on a perpetual plaque.
• The second annual Grateful for Grandparents Dessert Social (co -sponsored by Plum Delicious
Restaurant) was held on September 9th at the Renton Community Center. Over 125 children and
adults enjoyed this event, which was double the number of participants last year. Special
entertainment was provided by the famous Valentine Pigs.
• Renton Youth Enrichment and Support (YES) Funding Program Board had its first formal training
last weekend during a kick-off retreat at Camp Sambica. Fourteen middle and high school students
(representing McKnight and Nelsen Middle Schools, and Lindbergh, Renton, Hazen, and Satori High
Schools) participated in team -building and communication exercises. The YES Funding Program is
a Renton Youth Council project and is supported by United Way Ventures Funds. Applications for
mini grants through this program will be available January 18, 2006, for youth -driven community
projects.
CITY OF RENTON COUNCIL AGENDA BILL
Submitting Data:
Dept/Div/Board..
Staff Contact......
AJLS/City Clerk
Bonnie Walton, x6502
Subject:
Street Vacation Petition; Three Portions of Bremerton
Ave. NE, south of NE 4th St. (Petitioner: Liberty
Ridge LLC; File No. VAC-04-007)
Exhibits:
Minutes of 2/28/2005 & 8/1/2005
Ordinance
Recommended Action:
Council Concur
AI #:
For Agenda of: 9/ 19/2005
Agenda Status
Consent ..............
Public Hearing..
Correspondence.
Ordinance .............
Resolution........... .
Old Business........
New Business.......
Study Sessions......
Information........ .
Approvals:
Legal Dept.........
Finance Dept......
Other ...............
Fiscal Impact: N/A
Expenditure Required... Transfer/Amendment.......
Amount Budgeted....... Revenue Generated.........
Total Project Budget City Share Total Project..
SUMMARY OF ACTION:
On February 28, 2005, the City Council held a public hearing and approved the Liberty Ridge
LLC vacation request for three portions of Bremerton Ave. NE, south of NE 4th St. On
August 1, 2005, Council accepted the appraisal and set compensation at $5,170. On September
6, 2005, the City Clerk received the compensation amount of $5,170. The Technical Services
section has since confirmed that no other amounts are due, and that all conditions of the
vacation approval have been satisfied. Therefore, the ordinance can be adopted to finalize the
vacation.
STAFF RECOMMENDATION:
Finalize the street vacation by adopting the ordinance
cc: Karen McFarland
X
►ON
/0
Rentonnet/agnbill/ bb
February 28, 2005
Renton City Council Minutes Page 59
PUBLIC HEARINGS
Vacation: Bremerton_Ave NE,
Li e� rty Ridge, VAC-04-007
Mr. Renner also announced that Ryan Spencer was chosen as the 2004
Employee of the Year, and the Facilities Technical Team was chosen as the
2004 Team of the Year.
This being the date set and proper notices having been posted and published in
accordance with local and State laws, Mayor Keolker-Wheeler opened the
public hearing to consider the petition to vacate three portions of Bremerton
Ave. NE, located south of NE 4th St. and north of SE 2nd Pl. (Liberty Ridge
LLC; VAC-04-007).
Karen McFarland, Engineering Specialist, explained that the petitioner plans to
use the subject vacation area in the proposed Elmhurst Plat to create a uniform
half -street right-of-way width along the western half of Bremerton Ave. NE.
She noted that the vacation area does not contain any City facilities. Ms.
McFarland reported that the vacation request was circulated to various City
departments and outside agencies for review and no objections were raised.
Continuing, Ms. McFarland pointed out that both the Transportation Systems
Division and the Development Services Division recommended that a 25-foot
right-of-way width from the road centerline be maintained. She stated that staff
recommends approval of the vacation subject to the two northerly portions
being set to a maximum vacation width of 12.5 feet to allow for the 25-foot
right-of-way width, and subject to the petitioner providing satisfactory proof
that outside utilities are satisfied with any easements necessary to protect their
facilities.
Public comment was invited.
David Halinen, 10500 NE 8th St., Suite 1900, Bellevue, 98004, representing the
petitioner Liberty Ridge LLC, expressed agreement with the conditions as
recommended by staff and urged Council to approve the vacation proposal.
There being no further public comment, it was MOVED BY CLAWSON,
SECONDED BY PERSSON, COUNCIL CLOSE THE PUBLIC HEARING.
CARRIED.
MOVED BY CLAWSON, SECONDED BY LAW, COUNCIL APPROVE
THE REQUEST TO VACATE THREE PORTIONS OF RIGHT-OF-WAY
ALONG BREMERTON AVE. NE SUBJECT TO THE FOLLOWING
CONDITIONS: THE TWO NORTHERLY PORTIONS OF THE ORIGINAL
REQUEST BE SET TO A MAXIMUM VACATION WIDTH OF 12.5 FEET,
AND THE PETITIONER PROVIDE SATISFACTORY PROOF THAT
OUTSIDE UTILITIES HAVE RECEIVED AND ARE SATISFIED WITH
ANY EASEMENTS NECESSARY TO PROTECT THEIR FACILITIES IN
THE VACATION AREA. CARRIED.
Planning: Development This being the date set and proper notices having been posted and published in
Regulations (Title IV) 2004 accordance with local and State laws, Mayor Keolker-Wheeler opened the
Docket & Amendments public hearing to consider the 2004 City Code Title IV (Development
Regulations) Docket and related amendments.
Alex Pietsch, Economic Development Administrator, explained that the
purpose of the Title IV Docket is to consider annual zoning code text
amendments proposed by both applicants and the City of Renton. The City
reviews the text amendments as a group once a year, although some items may
August 1, 2005 Renton City Council Minutes Page 273
Vacation: Bremerton Ave NE, Utility Systems Division reported submittal of the appraisal performed for the
Liberty Ridge, VAC-04-007 i vacation of portions of Bremerton Ave. NE, south of NE 4th St. (VAC-04-007;
' Liberty Ridge LLC, petitioner), and requested that Council accept the appraisal
and set compensation for the right-of-way at $5,170. Council concur.
MOVED BY BRIERE, SECONDED BY PERSSON, COUNCIL APPROVE
THE CONSENT AGENDA AS PRESENTED. CARRIED.
CORRESPONDENCE Correspondence was read from Glenn Davis, Managing Partner, BDJS
Citizen Comment: Davis - Associates, 1900 W. Nickerson, PMB 116-168, Seattle, 98119, requesting
Oversizing Request for reimbursement in the amount of $51,264.24 for utilities oversizing along
Reimbursement, Urban Crafts, Olympia Ave. NE for the Urban Crafts development. MOVED BY PERSSON,
BDJS Associates SECONDED BY CLAWSON, COUNCIL REFER THIS
CORRESPONDENCE TO THE UTILITIES COMMITTEE. CARRIED.
Citizen Comment: Chan - Correspondence was read from Evan Chan, Project Manager, N&C Investments
Waiver Request for LLC, 7432 SE 27th St., Mercer Island, 98040, requesting waiver of
Development & Mitigation development and mitigation fees for the Morris Avenue Townhomes
Fees, Morris Ave Townhomes, development located at 513 S. 2nd St. MOVED BY PERSSON, SECONDED
N&C Investments BY PALMER, COUNCIL REFER THIS CORRESPONDENCE TO THE
FINANCE COMMITTEE. CARRIED.
Added Councilwoman Nelson noted receipt of a letter from Rev. Kenneth Colman, Co -
Citizen Comment: Colman - Chair Renton Domestic Violence Task Force, United Christian Church, 1707
Municipal Court Security Edmonds Ave. SE, Renton, 98058, regarding the lack of security in the Renton
Concerns Municipal Court. Mayor Keolker-Wheeler indicated that the Administration is
reviewing the matter.
UNFINISHED BUSINESS Planning and Development Committee Chair Clawson presented a report
Planning & Development regarding the compensation for the City of Renton's street vacation request on
Committee behalf of Bales Limited Partnership (VAC-04-006). The Committee
Vacation: NE 4th St, City of recommended concurrence in the staff recommendation to accept the appraisal
Renton, VAC-04-006 and waive compensation for the vacation of an eight -foot by 150-foot portion of
NE 4th St., located east of Rosario Ave. NE. MOVED BY CLAWSON,
SECONDED BY LAW, COUNCIL CONCUR IN THE COMMITTEE
REPORT. CARRIED.
Community Services Community Services Committee Chair Nelson presented a report
Committee recommending concurrence in the staff recommendation that Renton enter into
Human Services: 2006-2008 the joint interlocal agreement to receive Community Development Block Grant
CDBG Interlocal Agreement, funds through the King County Consortium for 2006-2008. The Committee
King County further recommended that the resolution authorizing the Mayor and City Clerk
to enter into the agreement be presented for reading and adoption. MOVED
BY NELSON, SECONDED BY PALMER, COUNCIL CONCUR IN THE
COMMITTEE REPORT. CARRIED. (See page 274 for resolution.)
Finance Committee Finance Committee Chair Persson presented a report recommending approval
Finance: Vouchers of Claim Vouchers 239307 - 239740 and one wire transfer totaling
$1,882,430.27; and approval of Payroll Vouchers 58507 - 58875, one wire
transfer, and 620 direct deposits totaling $2,067,280.59. MOVED BY
PERSSON, SECONDED BY NELSON, COUNCIL CONCUR IN THE
COMMITTEE REPORT. CARRIED.
SEP-15-2005 08:59
Marren Barber & Fontes
P.01/06
CITY OF RENTON, WASHINGTON
ORDINANCE NO.
AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF RENTON, WASHINGTON,
VACATING THREE PORTIONS OF BRE.MERTON AVE. NE, SOUTH OF
NE 41' STREET AND NORTH OF SE 20d PL. (LIBERTY RIDGE; VAC 04-
007)
WHEREAS, a proper petition for vacating portions of the west edge of
Bremerton Avenue NE lying between NE 4`h St. and SE 2"d pl. was filed with the City
Clerk on December 27, 2004, and that petition was signed by the owners representing more
than two-thirds (2/3) of the property abutting upon the street or alley to be vacated; and
WHEREAS, the City Council, by Resolution No. 3732, passed on January 24, 2005, set
February 28, 2005, at 7:30 p.m. in the City Council Chambers of the City of Renton as the time
and place for a public hearing on this matter; and the City Clerk having given proper notice of
this hearing as provided by law, and all persons having been heard who appeared to testify in
favor or in opposition on this matter, and the City Council having considered all information and
arguments presented to it; and
WHEREAS, the Administrator of the Planning/Building/public Works Department has
considered this petition for vacation, and has found it to be in the public interest and for the public
bene6t, and that no injury or damage to any person or properties will result from this vacation;
NOW, THEREFORE, THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF RENTON,
WASHINGTON, DOES ORDAIN AS FOLLOWS:
SECTION L The following described portions of Bremerton Avenue NE, to wit:
SEP-15-2005 08:59 Warren Barber & Fontes
F.02/06 '
ORDINANCE NO.
Three portions of right-of-way of Bremerton Ave NE, south of NE 4`b St. and
north of SE 2°d Pl; approximately 3,998 square feet, described more
particularly in Exhibits "A" and "B" attached hereto and made a part hereof as
if fully set forth herein,
be and the same is hereby vacated subject to an easement over, across, under and on all that part
as described on Exhibit "A" in favor of the City. This easement is for the purpose of constructing,
reconstructing, installing, repairing, replacing, enlarging, operating and maintaining utilities and
utility pipelines, including, but not limited to, water, sewer and storm drainage lines, together with
the right of ingress and egress thereto without prior institution of any suit or proceedings of law
and without incurring any legal obligation or liability therefore. The City may from time to time
construct such additional facilities as it may require. This easement is subject to the following
terms and conditions:
That a utility easement be retained over the entire right-of-way, with the understanding
that the property may be developed fully if the existing utilities are relocated at the sole cost of the
developer; and
That this easement shall run with the land described herein, and shall be binding upon the
parties, and their heirs and successors in interest and assigns.
SEMON K The City Council hereby elects to charge a fee of $5,170 (Five
Thousand, One Hundred and Seventy Dollars) to the petitioner -owners, which has been paid to
the City.
SECTION IM This ordinance shall be effective upon its passage, approval, and
five days after its publication.
2
SEP-15-2005 09:00 Warren Barber & Fontes P.03i06
ORDINANCE NO.
A certified copy of this ordinance shall be filed with the Office of Records and Elections,
and as otherwise provided by law.
PASSED BY THE CITY COUNCIL this day of , 2005.
Bonnie I. Walton, City Clerk
APPROVED BY THE MAYOR this day of , 2005.
Approved as to form:
Lawrence J. Warren, City Attorney
Date of Publication:
ORD.1201:9/14/05:ma
3
Kathy Keolker-Wheeler, Mayor
SEP-15-2005 09:00
Warren barber & hontes
H.04/06�
Exhibit A
Legal Description of the Proposed
Street Vacation of Three Portions of the
West Edge of Bremerton Avenue NE
That portion of the Southeast quarter of the Northwest quarter of the Northwest quarter of
Section 15, Township 23 North, Range 5 East, Willamette Meridian, situate in the City of
Renton, County of King, State of Washington legally described as follows:
Those portions of the North half of the Southeast quarter of the Northwest quarter
of the Northwest quarter of Section 15, Township 23 North, Range 5 East,
Willamette Meridian described as follows:
Commencing at the Northeast corner thereof;
Thence North 89°08'05" West along the North line thereof, a distance of
25.00 feet to the True Point of Beginning;
Thence South 00° 13'59" East parallel with the East line thereof, a distance
of 69.53 feet to the beginning of a curve tangent to said line;
Thence Southwesterly a distance of 26.18 feet along the curve concave to
the Northwest, having a radius of 25.00 feet and a central angle of
60°00'00" to a point of cusp;
Thence North 00°13'59" West parallel with the East line thereof, a
distance of 91.42 feet;
Thence South 89°08'05" East along the North line thereof, a distance of
12.50 feet to the True Point of Beginning.
Containing 1063 square feet, more or less.
AND
Commencing at the Northeast corner thereof;
Thence North 89°08'05" West along the North line thereof, a distance of
37.51 feet;
Thence South 00°13'59" East parallel with the East line thereof, a distance
of 140.14 feet to the True Point of Beginning;
Thence continuing South 00° 13'59" East parallel with the East line
thereof, a distance of 189.92 feet to the South line of said North half,
Thence South 89°11'22" East, a distance of 12.50 feet;
Thence North 00°13'59" West, a distance of 168.50 feet to the beginning
of a curve tangent to said line;
Page 1 of 2
SEP-15-2005 09:00 Warren Barber & Fontes
P.05/06
Thence northwesterly a distance of 26.18 feet along the curve concave to
the southwest, having a radius of 25.00 feet and a central angle of
60000,00" to the True Point of Beginning.
Containing 2,297 square feet, more or less.
That portion of the South half of the Southeast quarter of the Northwest quarter of
the Northwest quarter of Section 15, Township 23 North, Range 5 East,
Willamette Meridian, described as follows:
Beginning at the Southeast corner of the Southeast quarter of the
Northwest quarter of the Northwest quarter of Section 15, Township 23
North, Range 5 East, Willamette Meridian;
Thence North 89°14'40" West, along the South line thereof, a distance of
7.50 feet;
Thence North 00°13'59" West, parallel with the East line thereof, a
distance of 81.74 feet to a point of cusp on a curve concave to the
southwest having a radius of 25.00 feet and a central angle of 3 °47'02" and
being subtended by a chord which bears South 25°19'43" East 1.65 feet;
Thence Southeasterly along said curve, a distanoe of 1.65 feet;
Thence South 25°28'04" East, a distance of 15.95 feet to the East line
thereof;
Thence South 00113'59" East, a distance of 65.95 feet to the South line
thereof and the Point of Beginning.
Containing 552 square feet, more or less.
Page 2 of 2
1
9
i crr�v I
; o �.M
I it
fu
rD
Cil
:3
0
►.•.
o-
CD
Ix
T
O
3
h
CD
N
T
Ol
m
i
CITY OF RENTON COUNCIL AGENDA BILL
-7 e)
Al #:
Submitting Data:
For Agenda of-
Dept/Div/Board.. AJLS/City Clerk
Sc
Staff Contact...... Bonnie Walton
Agenda Status
City Clerk/Cable Manager, x6502
Consent ..............
Subject:
Public Hearing..
Consultant Agreement with Bradley and Guzzetta, LLC
Correspondence..
for Cable Television Franchise Management and
Ordinance .............
Renewal Services Resolution ............
Old Business........
Exhibits: New Business.......
Issue Paper Study Sessions......
Proposed Consultant Agreement Information.........
Recommended Action: Approvals:
Legal Dept.........
Refer to Finance Committee Finance Dept......
Other ...............
Fiscal Impact:
Expenditure Required... $6,000 Transfer/Amendment.......
Amount Budgeted....... $6,000 Revenue Generated.........
Total Project Budget $235,500 (2005-2008) City Share Total Project..
ber 19.2005
X
SUMMARY OF ACTION:
Renton requires the services of a cable television consultant for two purposes: to assist with ongoing management
of the Comcast Cable franchise agreement now in force, and to prepare for renewal or replacement of the current
franchise agreement that expires in September 2008. Due to the complexity and unpredictability of both cable
technology and applicable federal law, it is most cost-effective for the City to retain expert consultation in cable
franchise matters. For many years Lon Hurd, President of 3H Cable Communications, provided this consultation.
With Mr. Hurd's death in 2004, 3H continued to provide limited services to the City.
Recognizing that the current cable franchise expires in three years, the City determined to initiate the thorough
analysis and preparation needed to assure a good successor agreement. An RFP for consultant assistance was
issued in March 2005, describing the City's need for assistance in regard to both franchise renewal, and ongoing
management of the standing franchise agreement. Seven proposals were received; 3H Cable did not submit a
proposal.
The team assembled by Bradley & Guzzetta, LLC. (B&G) was ultimately chosen as best able to meet the City's
multiple cable -related needs. Funding for the proposed contract will come from the Cable Communications
Development Fund (Fund 127).
STAFF RECOMMENDATION:
Approve the consultant agreement with Bradley and Guzzetta, LLC for on -going cable franchise
administration in the amount of $2,000 per month, for franchise renewal services for an amount
not to exceed $157,500 over the period of 2006-2008, and authorize the Mayor and City Clerk to
sign the
Rentonnet/agnbill/ bh
ADMINISTRATIVE, JUDICIAL, AND
G , LEGAL SERVICES DEPARTMENT
,s
M E M O R A N D U M
DATE: September 19, 2005
TO: Terri Briere, Council President
Members of the Renton City Council
VIA: Kathy Keolker-Wheeler, Mayor
FROM: /O #" Jay Covington, Chief Administrative Officer
STAFF CONTACT: Bonnie Walton, City Clerk/Cable Manager
SUBJECT: Consultant Agreement for Cable Television Franchise
Issue:
A contract for professional consulting services for a term through 2008 is presented
relating to cable television franchise management, and franchise renewal.
Recommendation:
Staff recommends approval of the contract with Bradley and Guzzetta, LLC in the total
amount of $235,500 for professional consulting services related to ongoing cable
television franchise administration, as well as for the upcoming franchise renewal
process.
Background:
The City's long-time cable television consultant, Lon Hurd of 3H Cable
Communications, died in July 2004. Mr. Hurd assisted in negotiating the City's current
cable franchise in 1993, and also assisted with ongoing cable franchise management.
Although 3H Cable continued to provide limited services after Mr. Hurd's death, on
March 14, 2005 the City issued a request for proposals for Cable Television Franchise
Management and Renewal Consulting Services. Seven responses were received by the
closing date of April 14, 2005. 3H Cable did not submit a proposal.
The seven proposals submitted were evaluated by the Assistant to the Chief
Administrative Officer, the Development Services Director, the Information Services
Director and the City Clerk/Cable Manager. Four respondents were selected for
interview. Interview panel members were Jay Covington, CAO; Ben Wolters, Economic
Development Director; George McBride, Information Services Director; Bonnie Walton,
City Clerk/Cable Manager; and Kayren Kittrick, Development Services Engineering
Supervisor.
iAcable franchise\9-19-05 final issue paper cable contract.doc
Members, City Council
Page 2 of 3
9/19/2005
The Bradley & Guzzetta, LLC team (B&G) was selected as best qualified to provide the
needed services. B&G has extensive experience with all aspects of the cable
refranchising process. As part of its due diligence in this consultant selection process,
staff contacted several other cities who have engaged B&G and members of its sub -
consultant team. All reported great satisfaction with the services they received.
The proposed contract with B&G includes two work scopes: one to provide ongoing
daily management of the current cable franchise agreement with Comcast Cable, and the
other to perform specific franchise renewal tasks and advise and guide City staff through
the complex renewal (or replacement) process. The work included in both scopes is
described below.
Cable Franchise Administration and Management Assistance:
The consultant team will assist the City Clerk/Cable Manager on a continuous basis to
address citizen inquiries and complaints, process senior and disabled discount
applications, communicate with Comcast on behalf of the City, perform the annual rate
increase and franchise fee payment analysis, and keep City officials informed of local,
regional and national issues, providing reports as required.
Cable Franchise Renewal:
The franchise agreement between the City and Comcast Cable expires on September 13,
2008. Beginning as early as three years prior to expiration of the franchise, Comcast may
request that the City begin the process of determining whether the franchise will be
renewed. Federal law and the current franchise agreement govern franchise renewal
proceedings. Procedural steps anticipated include:
• conducting a technical inspection and assessment of the current cable system
infrastructure;
• identifying future cable -related needs and interests of the community;
• evaluating the past performance of the cable provider for compliance with the
existing franchise;
• reviewing the level of customer satisfaction with the operator;
• analyzing public, educational, and government (PEG) access;
• assessing the needs of users and other interested parties, through surveys, focus
groups, and public hearings; and
• developing a formal proposal for renewal.
The successful completion of the renewal process and negotiation of a new franchise
agreement requires expertise in areas as diverse as cable programming, PEG access and
programming, cable law and regulation, public opinion polling and market research, rate
setting, electrical engineering, and telecommunications system design. Due to the scope
of services and the range of expertise required, including specialized legal knowledge,
consultant help is mandatory. The team assembled by B&G has the expertise Renton
needs. Assuming the proposed contract is effected, B&G will prepare a franchise
renewal work program and will brief the City Council on the renewal process and
requirements.
iAcable franchise\9-19-05 final issue paper cable contract.doc 2
Members, City Council
Page 3 of 3
9/ 19/2005
Cost:
Under this contract B&G will be paid a flat fee of $2,000 per month for ongoing cable
franchise administration and management assistance. The current budget for this service
is $1,875 per month. The difference of $125 per month will not require a budget increase
for the remaining months of 2005. In 2006-2008, $24,000 per year will be budgeted
from the Cable Communications Development Fund (Fund 127).
For franchise renewal services B&G's cost proposal ranges from $72,630 to $183,900
including options that may be chosen by the City at various points in the process. The
actual cost, based on hourly rates of the team experts, will depend on the types and
quantities of services provided, and the complexity and duration of the final negotiations.
Staff estimates a total budget of $157,500 over the period 2006-2008.
Cost Recap:
2005
2006
2007-2008
Total
Assistance with
$6,000
$24,000
$24,000/year
$78,000
cable franchise
management
Cable franchise
-0-
Up to $100,000
Up to $50,000
Up to $150,000
renewal process
Reimbursable
-0-
Est. $2,500
Est. $2,500/year
Est. $7,500
Direct Costs
TOTAL 1
$6,000
1 $126,500 1
$103,000
1 Up to $235,500
Funding is available in the City Clerk/Cable Manager operating budget to cover the
$6,000 required in 2005. The $126,500 needed to fund 2006 work under this contract
(both ongoing cable franchise management and franchise renewal tasks) will be included
in the 2006 budget request for the Cable Communications Development Fund (Fund
127). Likewise, staff would intend that 2007-2008 contract costs be funded out of Fund
127.
Substantial policy, legal, administrative and financial issues are involved in the franchise
renewal process. To effectively support the process, a working group comprised of staff
from the City Clerk's Office, City Attorney's Office, Finance and Information Services
Department and the Mayor's Office will be established.
iAcable franchise\9-19-05 final issue paper cable contract.doc 3
DRAFT
CABLE TELEVISION FRANCHISE MANAGEMENT AND RENEWAL
CONSULTING SERVICES AGREEMENT
This agreement is entered into the day of , 2005, by and between
the City of Renton, a municipal corporation of the State of Washington, hereinafter referred to
as "City" and Bradley & Guzzetta, LLC, hereinafter referred to as "Consultant" whose office
is located at 950 Piper Jaffray Plaza, 444 Cedar Street, Saint Paul, MN 55101.
RECITALS:
Whereas, the City desires certain cable franchise management and renewal consulting
services, and the preparation and delivery of, without limitation, one or more sets of reports,
surveys, and other writings ("Services") as more fully described in Exhibit "A", "B", "C", and
«D„
Whereas, the City desires to engage the Consultant, including its employees and sub -
consultants, in providing the Services by reason of its qualifications and experience in
performing the Services, and the Consultant has offered to complete the Services on the terms
and conditions and in the manner set forth herein;
Now therefore, in consideration of the covenants, terms, conditions, and provisions of this
Contract, the parties agree:
Section 1. Term
This contract will commence on the date of its execution by the City, and will terminate on
December 31, 2008, unless the City earlier terminates this contract. The parties contemplate
that the Services may be required to be rendered up to and including the date of expiration of
the cable franchise with Comcast Cable of Washington, Inc., or its successor in interest, in
September 2008. Upon the receipt of the City's direction or notice to commence
performance, the Consultant will commence the performance of Services in accordance with
the time schedule set forth in Exhibits "A", `B" and "C". Time is of the essence of this
contract. In the event that the services are not completed within the time required through any
fault of the Consultant, the City's Chief Administrative Officer and City Attorney will have
the option of extending the time schedule for any period of time. This provision will not
preclude the recovery of damages for delay caused by the Consultant.
Section 2. Scope of Services: Changes & Corrections
2.1 The Services will be performed in accordance with the Scope of Work set forth in
Exhibits "A", `B", "C", and "D".
2.2 The City may order changes in the scope or character of the Services, either
decreasing or increasing the amount of work required of the Consultant, as the
negotiations with the cable franchisee may warrant. In the event that such changes are
ordered, subject to the approval of the Renton City Council, as may be required, the
Consultant will be entitled to full compensation for all work performed prior to the
Consultant's receipt of the notice of change and further will be entitled to request an
9-19-05
extension of the time schedule if necessary. Any increase in compensation for
substantial changes will be determined in accordance with the provisions of this
contract. The City will not be liable for the cost or payment of any change in the
Scope of Services, unless before the Consultant commences such performance, the
City agrees in writing to the amount of additional compensation attributable to the
change.
2.3 Where the Services entail the preparation or drafting and submission of, without
limitation, reports, surveys, and other documents, any and all errors, omissions, or
ambiguities in the reports, surveys, and other documents will be corrected by the
Consultant at no cost to the City, provided the City gives notice to the Consultant.
Section 3. Qualifications, Status, and Duties of the Consultant
3.1 The Consultant represents and warrants that it has the expertise and professional
qualifications to furnish or cause to be furnished the Services. The Consultant further
represents and warrants that the project director and every individual, including any
sub -consultants, charged with the performance of the Services are duly licensed or
certified by the State of Washington, to the extent such licensing or certification is
required by law, to perform the Services, and that the Services will be executed by
them or under their supervision.
3.2 CBG Communications, Inc., Thomas G. Robinson, Constance Book, Ph.D and Front
Range Consulting, Inc., as more fully described in the Bradley and Guzzetta, LLC
proposal dated April 14, 2005, and Exhibit "D" attached herewith, are approved sub -
consultants who may be employed and used by the Consultant in the performance of
this Agreement. The Consultant may use or employ additional sub -consultants in
connection with the performance of services under this contract only after obtaining
the prior written approval of the City of named individuals, their business names, if
any, and their rates and fee charges. The City reserves the right to refuse payment of
such fees, if the Consultant does not obtain prior approval.
3.3 In reliance on the representations and warranties set forth in this contract, the City
hires Consultant to perform, and the Consultant shall perform, or cause to be
performed, the Services in accordance with the provisions of this Contract and its
exhibits.
3.4 The Consultant will be the project director and will have supervisory responsibility for
the performance, progress, and execution of the Services. Tracy J. Schaefer or a
designated representative of Consultant will be assigned as the project coordinator
who will represent the Consultant during the day-to-day performance of the Services.
If circumstances or conditions subsequent to the execution of this contract cause the
substitution of the project director or project coordinator for any reason, the
appointment of a substitute project director or substitute project coordinator will be
subject to the prior written approval of the project manager (as defined below).
3.5 The Consultant represents and warrants that it will:
3.5.1 Procure all permits and licenses, pay all charges and fees, and give all notices
which may be necessary and incidental to the due and lawful prosecution of the
Services;
3.5.2 Keep itself fully informed of all existing and future Federal, State of
Washington, and local laws, ordinances, regulations, orders, and decrees which
9-19-05 2
may affect those engaged or employed under this contract and any reports,
surveys and other documents to be prepared by or at the direction of the
Consultant or in furtherance of the Consultant's performance of the Services;
3.5.3 At all times observe and comply with, and cause its employees and sub -
consultants, if any, who are assigned to the performance of this contract to
observe and comply with, the laws ordinances, regulations, orders and decrees
mentioned above, and
3.5.4 Will report immediately to the project manager, in writing, any discrepancy or
inconsistency it discovers in the laws, ordinances, regulations, orders, and
decrees mentioned above in relation to the reports, surveys, and other
documents.
3.6 Any report, survey, and other document given to, or prepared or assembled by the
Consultant or its sub -consultants under this contract will become the property of the
City and will not be made available to any individual or organization by the
Consultant or its sub -consultants, if any, without the prior express written approval of
the Chief Administrative Officer and the City Attorney.
3.7 The Consultant will provide the City with four (4) copies of any and all writings,
which are made a part of the reports, surveys, and other documents upon their
completion and acceptance by the City. There shall be no extra cost to the City for
provision of these multiple documents or reports.
3.8 If the City requests additional copies of any writings which are a part of the reports,
surveys, and other documents, the Consultant will provide such additional copies and
the City will compensate the Consultant for its reasonable duplicating costs.
3.9 The Consultant will be responsible for employing or engaging all persons and sub -
consultants deemed necessary to assist the Consultant in performing the Services. All
employees and sub -consultants of the Consultant will be deemed to be directly
controlled and supervised by the Consultant, which will be responsible for their
performance. If any employee or sub -consultant of the Consultant fails or refuses to
carry out the provisions of this contract or appears to be incompetent, the affected
employee or consultant will be discharged immediately from further performance
under this contract on demand of the project manager. The appointment of the sub -
consultants must be approved in advance by the City in writing, and must remain
acceptable to the City during the term of this contract, provided, however, all sub -
consultants identified in the Consultant's proposal and accepted by the City upon
execution of this contract are not subject to this provision.
3.10 In the execution of the Services, the Consultant and its sub -consultants, if any, will at
all times be considered independent contractors and not agents or employees of the
City.
3.11 In addition to the services listed in paragraph 2.1, the Consultant may perform at its
hourly rate listed in Exhibit D or obtain or cause to be performed or obtained any and
all of the following optional Services related to cable franchise management, as may
be required by the City:
3.11.1 Providing services to the City Clerk/Cable Manager, the Chief Administrative
Officer, the City Attorney and the Finance and Information Services
Administrator in connection with any public or non-public hearing or meeting,
arbitration proceeding, or proceeding of a court of record;
9-19-05 3
3.11.2 Performing any other optional Services that may be agreed upon by the parties
subsequent to the execution of this contract; and
3.11.3 Other optional Services now or hereafter described in Exhibit `B".
Section 4. Duties of the City
4.1 The City will timely furnish or cause to be furnished information relating to
Consultant's requirements under this Contract.
4.2 The City, represented by the Chief Administrative Officer, the City Clerk/Cable
Manager, the City Attorney and the Finance and Information Services Administrator,
will review and approve, as necessary, in a timely manner the reports, surveys, and
other documents and each phase of work performed by the Consultant
4.3 Jay Covington, Chief Administrative Officer, or his designee, and Bonnie Walton,
City Clerk/Cable Manager, will represent the City for all purposes under this contract.
4.4 If the City observes or otherwise becomes aware of any default in the performance of
the Consultant, the City will use reasonable efforts to give, written notice thereof to the
Consultant in a timely manner.
Section 5. Compensation
5.1 The City will compensate the Consultant for the following services and work:
5.1.1 In consideration of the full performance of the Services in connection with
cable franchise management services, as indicated in Exhibit "A", the City will
pay the Consultant a flat fee of Two Thousand Dollars ($2,000.00) per month.
5.1.2 In consideration of the full performance of the Services in connection with
cable franchise renewal, as indicated in Exhibit `B", , the City will pay the
Consultant a fee not to exceed One Hundred Fifty Seven Thousand Five
Hundred Dollars ($ 157,500.00). The amount of compensation will be
calculated in accordance with the hourly rate schedule set forth in Exhibit "D",
on a time basis, up to the maximum amount set forth in this contract.
5.2 The schedule of payments will be made as follows:
Payment for the Services will be based on quarterly invoices for actual services
rendered and will be paid by the City with thirty (30) days of receipt of the invoice.
The City will make final payment after the Consultant has submitted all reports,
surveys, and other documents, including, without limitation, reports which have been
approved by the City.
Section 6. Accounting, Audits, Ownership of Records
6.1 Records of the direct expenses incurred in connection with the performance of
Services listed in Exhibit `B" will be prepared, maintained, and retained by the
Consultant in accordance with generally accepted accounting principles, and will be
made available to the City for auditing purposes at mutually convenient times during
the term of this contract and for three (3) years following the expiration or earlier
termination of this contract.
9-19-05 4
6.2 The originals of the reports, surveys, and other documents prepared by or under the
direction of the Consultant in the performance of this contract will become the
property of the City, irrespective of whether the Services are completed, upon the
City's payment of the amounts required to be paid to the Consultant. These originals
will be delivered to the City without additional compensation.
Section 7. Indemnity
The Consultant agrees to protect, indemnify, defend and hold harmless the City, its Council
members, officers, employees and agents, from any and all demands, claims, or liability of
any nature, including death or injury to any person, property damage or any other loss, caused
by or arising out of the Consultant's, its officers', agents', consultants' or employees'
negligent acts, errors, or omissions, or willful misconduct, or conduct for which applicable
law may impose strict liability on the Consultant in the performance of or failure to perform
its obligations under this contract.
Section 8. Waivers
8.1 The waiver by either party of any breach or violation of any covenant, term, condition
or provision of this contract or of the provisions of any ordinance or law will not be
deemed to be a waiver of any such covenant, term, condition, provision, ordinance, or
law or of any subsequent breach or violation of the same or of any other covenant,
term, condition provision, ordinance or law. The subsequent acceptance by either
party of any fee or other money, which may become due hereunder will not be deemed
to be a waiver of any preceding breach or violation by the other party of any covenant,
term, condition or provision of this contract or of any applicable law or ordinance.
8.2 No payment, partial payment, acceptance, or partial acceptance by the City will
operate as a waiver on the part of the City of any of its rights under this contract.
Section 9. Insurance
9.1 The Consultant, at its sole cost and expense, will obtain and maintain, in full force and
effect during the term of this contract:
• Commercial general liability insurance in the amount of $1,000,000 with
$2,000,000 in the aggregate;
• $1,000,000 Auto Liability (needed if a vehicle will be used in performance of
work, including delivery of products to worksite.)
• $1,000,000 Excess Liability;
• Proof of Workers' Compensation coverage (provide the number);
• $1,000,000 Professional Liability
A certificate of insurance (ACORD form) shall be delivered to the City before the City
executes this agreement. The certificate shall name the City of Renton as an
additional insured, the endorsement page from the policy shall be attached, and the
cancellation clause shall be modified to state: "Should any of the above described
policies be canceled before the expiration date thereof, the issuing company will mail
45 days written notice to the certificate holder to the left."
9-19-05
9.2 All insurance coverage required hereunder will be provided through carriers with
Best's Key Rating Guide ratings of AXII or higher which are admitted to transact
insurance business in the State of Washington. Any and all sub -consultants of the
Consultant retained to perform Services under this contract will obtain and maintain,
in full force and effect during the term of this contract, identical insurance coverage,
naming the City as an additional insured under such policies as required above.
9.3 Certificates of such insurance, preferably on the forms provided by the City, will be
filed with the City concurrently with the execution of this contract. The certificates
will be subject to the approval of the City's risk manager and will contain an
endorsement stating that the insurance is primary coverage and will not be canceled or
altered by the insurer except after filing with the City's city clerk forty-five (45) days'
prior written notice of such cancellation or alteration, and the City of Renton is named
as an additional insured. Current certificates of such insurance will be kept on file
with the city clerk at all times during the term of this contract.
9.4 The procuring of such required policy or policies of insurance will not be construed to
limit the consultant's liability hereunder or to fulfill the indemnification provisions of
this contract. Notwithstanding the policy or policies of insurance, the consultant will
be obligated for the full and total amount of any damage, injury, or loss caused by or
directly arising as a result of the Services performed under this contract, including
such damage, injury, or loss arising after the contract is terminated or the term has
expired.
Section 10. Workers' Compensation
The consultant, by executing this contract, certifies that it is aware of the provisions of the
Labor Code of the State of Washington, which requires every employer to be insured against
liability for workers' compensation or to undertake self-insurance in accordance with the
provisions of that Code, and certifies that it will comply with such provisions, as applicable,
before commencing the performance of the Services.
Section 11. Termination or Suspension of Contract or Services
11.1 The Chief Administrative Officer and the City Attorney, on behalf of the City, may
suspend the performance of the Services, in whole or in part, or terminate this
contract, with or without cause, by giving sixty (60) days' prior written notice thereof
to the Consultanf, or immediately after submission to the City by the consultant of any
completed item of Services. Upon receipt of such notice, the consultant will
immediately discontinue its performance under this contract.
11.2 The Consultant may terminate this contract or suspend its execution of the Services by
giving thirty (30) days' prior written notice thereof to the City, but only in the event of
a substantial failure of performance by the City or in the event the City indefinitely
withholds or withdraws its request for the initiation or the continuation of Services.
11.3 Upon such suspension or termination by the City, the Consultant will be compensated
for the Services and the optional Services performed and approved prior to the receipt
of written notice from the City of such suspension or abandonment, together with
authorized additional and reimbursable expenses then due. If the Services are resumed
after they have been suspended for more than 180 days, any change in the
Consultant's compensation will be subject to renegotiation and, if necessary, approval
9-19-05 6
of the Renton City Council. If this contract is suspended or terminated on account of a
default by the Consultant, the City will be obligated to compensate the Consultant
only for that portion of the Consultant's services which are of direct and immediate
benefit to the City, as such determination may be made by the Chief Administrative
Officer in the reasonable exercise of his discretion. In the event of termination of this
contract or suspension of work on the Services by the City where the Consultant is not
in default, the Consultant will be paid for all services rendered and previously agreed
upon by the City. The total compensation payable under this contract will not exceed
the payment specified under Section 5 for the respective Services and optional
Services to be furnished by the Consultant.
11.4 Upon such suspension or termination, the Consultant will deliver to the City
Clerk/Cable Manager immediately any and all copies of the reports, surveys, and other
documents, whether or not completed, prepared by the Consultant or its sub -
consultants, or given to the Consultant or its consultants, in connection with this
contract. Such materials will become the property of the City.
Section 12. Assignment
This contract is for the personal services of the Consultant, therefore the Consultant will not
assign, transfer, convey, or otherwise dispose of this contract or any right, title or interest in or
to the same or any part thereof without the prior written consent of the City. A consent to one
assignment will not be deemed to be a consent to any subsequent assignment. Any
assignment made without the approval of the City will be void and, at the option of the Chief
Administrative Officer and the City Attorney, this contract may be terminated. This contract
will not be assignable by operation of law.
Section 13. Notices
All notices hereunder will be given, in writing, and mailed, postage prepaid, by certified mail,
addressed as follows:
To City: Bonnie Walton, City Clerk/Cable Manager
City of Renton
1055 S. Grady Way
Renton, WA 98055
425-430-6502
425-430-6516 - fax
bwaltonP,ci.renton.wa.us
www.ci.renton.wa.us
To Consultant: Michael R. Bradley
Bradley & Guzzetta, LLC
9-19-05 7
950 Piper Jaffray Plaza
444 Cedar Street
St. Paul, MN 55101
651-379-0900 x. 4
651-379-0999 - fax
bradley(a,bradl eyguzzetta. com
www.bradleyguzzetta.com
Section 14. Conflict of Interest
14.1 In accepting this contract, the Consultant covenants that it presently has no interest,
and will not acquire any interest, direct or indirect, financial or otherwise, which
would conflict in any manner or degree with the performance of the Services.
14.2 The Consultant further covenants that, in the performance of this contract, it will not
employ consultants or other persons having such an interest mentioned above. The
Consultant certifies that no one who has or will have any financial interest under this
contract is an officer or employee of the City; this provision will be interpreted in
accordance with the applicable provisions of the Renton Municipal Code and the
Revised Code of Washington.
Section 15. Nondiscrimination
No discrimination will be made in the employment of persons under this contract because of
the age, race, color, national origin, ancestry, religion, disability, sexual preference or gender
of such person.
Section 16. Miscellaneous Provisions
16.1 The Consultant represents and warrants that it has knowledge of the requirements of
the federal Americans with Disabilities Act of 1990, and the Health and Safety Code
of the State of Washington, relating to access to public buildings and accommodations
for disabled persons, and relating to facilities for disabled persons. The Consultant
will comply with or ensure by its advice that compliance with such provisions will be
effected pursuant to the terms of this contract.
16.2 This contract will be governed by and construed in accordance with the laws of the
State of Washington, excluding its conflicts of law.
16.3 In the event that an action is brought, the parties agree that trial of such action will be
vested exclusively in King County Washington Superior Court or in the United States
District Court for the Western District of Washington.
16.4 The prevailing party in any action brought to enforce the terms of this contract or
arising out of this contract may recover its reasonable costs and attorneys' fees
expended in connection with that action.
16.5 This document represents the entire and integrated contract between the parties and
supersedes all prior negotiations, representations, and contracts, either written or oral.
This document may be amended only by a written instrument, which is signed by the
parties.
9-19-05 8
16.6 The covenants, terms, conditions and provisions of this contract will apply to, and will
bind, the heirs, successors, executors, administrators, assignees, and consultants, as the
case may be, of the parties.
16.7 If a court of competent jurisdiction finds or rules that any provision of this contract or
any amendment thereto is void or unenforceable, the unaffected provisions of this
contract and any amendments thereto will remain in full force and effect.
16.8 All exhibits referred to in this contract and any addenda, appendices, attachments, and
schedules which, from time to time, may be referred to in any duly executed
amendment hereto are by such reference incorporated in this contract and will be
deemed to be a part of this contract.
16.9 This contract may be executed in any number of counterparts, each of which will be
an original, but all of which together will constitute one and the same instrument.
16.10 All communications between the parties shall be conducted in a manner that protects
and is intended to protect the confidential nature of such communications. The
Consultant acknowledges and agrees that the City seeks to protect any and all
communications with the Consultant under applicable laws, and the Consultant agrees
to maintain the confidentiality of any and all communications with the City, its
Council members and its employees, as practicable.
16.11 This contract is subject to the fiscal provisions of the approved City Budget. This
contract will terminate without any penalty (a) at the end of any fiscal year in the
event that funds are not appropriated for the following fiscal year, or (b) at any time
within a fiscal year in the event that funds are only appropriated for a portion of the
fiscal year and funds for this contract are no longer available. This Section 16.11 will
take precedence in the event of a conflict with any other covenant, term, condition, or
provision of this contract; provided however that the City provide Notice to
Consultant in accordance with paragraph 11.1.
IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the parties hereto have by their duly authorized representatives
executed this contract on the date first above written.
CITY OF RENTON
Kathy Keolker-Wheeler, Mayor
ATTEST:
Bonnie I. Walton, City Clerk/Cable Manager
BRADLEY & GUZZETTA, LLC
Michael Bradley, Owner
Taxpayer ID NO:
9-19-05 9
Approved as to Form:
Lawrence J. Warren, City Attorney
Attachments
Exhibit "A": Scope of Services - Franchise Management & Administration Services
Exhibit `B": Scope of Services - Franchise Renewal Process Services
Exhibit "C": Cost Detail
Exhibit "D": Hourly Billing Rates
Certificate of Acknowledgement
State of )
ss.
County of )
On this day of , 2005, before me, the undersigned notary public,
personally appeared Michael Bradley, proved to me through satisfactory evidence of
identification, to be the person whose name is signed on the preceding document, and
acknowledged to me that he signed it voluntarily for its stated purpose as Owner of Bradley &
Guzzetta, LLC, a limited liability company.
Witness my hand and official seal.
(Seal)
Signature of Notary Public
who resides in
My Commission Expires:
9-19-05 10
Exhibit "A"
SCOPE OF SERVICES
Franchise Management & Administration Services
Consultant shall perform the following services and corresponding deliverables:
Consumer Protection & Complaints — On -Going
• Assume responsibility for reviewing and promptly responding to all public inquiries
regarding cable television services, making every effort to bring such inquiries or
complaints to a satisfactory conclusion by negotiation with the cable operator
whenever possible; and
• On -site inspection of areas of dispute to be performed when necessary for
reconciliation between the citizen and the cable operator.
Senior Citizen/Disabled Person Discounts — On -going (or as otherwise specified for
compliance)
• Certify to the cable operator(s) that applicants for senior citizen/disabled person
discounts meet age and income limitations incorporated in Washington state
guidelines.
Ordinance Compliance — Periodic (or as otherwise specified for ordinance compliance)
• Monitor time or other triggering criteria when appropriate to permit the City to request
additional non -entertainment features such as Public, Educational and Government
(PEG) access and implementation of Institutional Networks (I -Nets); and
• Analyze and prepare written summaries of such periodic reports from the operator as
may be required by the Franchise Agreement.
Documents — Daily (or as needed)
• Assume responsibility for the development and maintenance of current system maps
showing the status and location of system upgrades and other cable -related projects.
Maintain records of subscriber charges, channel allocations, performance tests,
citizen's complaints, as well as other franchise records.
Bond and Insurance — Annually (or as needed)
• Maintain a complete record of all bonds and insurance required by the franchise
ordinances;
• Advise the City of any default of any such requirements; and
• Monitor performance bonds to make recommendations to the City of any cause to
exercise City options in the case of non-performance.
FCC Regulation — Monthly (or as needed)
• Maintain and update a file of FCC regulations as they pertain to municipal franchise
procedures; and
• Advise the City as to any significant change or modifications to FCC regulations or
any other Federal or State legislation as applicable.
9-19-05 11
Exhibit "A"
SCOPE OF SERVICES
Franchise Management & Administration Services
Page 2
Annual Reports — Annually
• Furnish a report to the City not less than once in a 12-month period, reviewing,
analyzing and commenting upon activities during this period.
Other Reports — Monthly (or as otherwise requested)
• Prepare reports on other matters of importance to cable television franchise
administration as they occur, to include, but not be limited to, such items as changes in
federal or state law, technological improvements effecting cable operations, financial
information pertinent to the local system, new programming and similar
developments.
Technical Assistance — As Needed
Assist in technical matters related to cable TV franchise evaluation, service delivery
and system administration.
9-19-05 12
Exhibit "B"
SCOPE OF SERVICES
Franchise Renewal Process Services
Consultant shall perform the following services and corresponding deliverables:
Performance Analysis — 3 — 6 months*
• Inspect and analyze the technical and operational effectiveness of the City's present
cable television franchise, and provide a written report of such findings to the City
upon determination by the Consultant that non-compliance exists with the City Code,
state law, and/or FCC regulations exist.
Upgrade Evaluation — 3 — 6 months*
• Inspect and verify that all features proposed by the cable operator and duly adopted by
ordinance are constructed and/or performed in a workmanlike manner on a timely
basis, to include, but not be limited to such items as type and quality of new
components, workmanship of new construction, line extension density, system
leakage, channel capacity, local access equipment, public connections, rates and
programming, reporting immediately in writing any deficiencies discovered.
Compliance with the Cable Television Consumer Protection and Competition Act of
1992 — 2 — 4 months*
• Analyze cable operator's initial and subsequent submissions and justifications for
determination of maximum permitted rates for regulated cable services, FCC
benchmark tables and other FCC guidelines including, but not limited to, generally
accepted accounting principles, justifications of cost of services, external pass -through
and, if appropriate, GNP -PI configurations;
• Based upon these assessments and consistent with FCC regulations, advise Renton in
writing to either approve submitted rates, or disapprove in whole or in part and either
order a refund or prescribe reasonable rates. If rate analysis takes place at a time when
rate adjustments are not currently at issue, advise Renton regarding the
appropriateness of past rate -related requests and approvals.
• Verifying operator adherence to FCC regulations such as carriage, positioning and
must -carry restrictions as well as consumer relation minimums and mandated
technical specifications; and
• Recommend in writing fines or monetary forfeitures if allowable or appropriate in the
event of non-compliance.
Access Utilization — 3 — 4 months*
Review the status of citizen, educational and governmental use of the access
channels provided; and
Assess the availability of such channels, time allocations provided for such
use, and equitable sharing arrangements made by the franchisee.
9-19-05 13
Exhibit "B"
SCOPE OF SERVICES
Franchise Renewal Process Services
Page 2 of 3
Collection of Franchise Fees — 3 — 6 months*
• Determine through comparative analyses and audits, if required, that the
franchisee is paying fully such fees as mandated by ordinance, and follow up
on delinquent payments if necessary, in order to ensure prompt and complete
payment of such fees on a timely basis.
Training and Evaluation —1 — 3 months*
• Educate City work team members regarding cable law and the franchise
renewal process, including routine preparation and conducting site visits.
Work Plan —1 — 3 months*
• Develop and provide a written franchise renewal/solicitation strategy and
review of the planning process, development of charts and phasing.
Special Presentation — 1 month*
• Present franchise renewal process action plan to City Council.
Survey — 3 — 6 months*
• Survey community, input and analyze results, identify needs and interests, and
provide a written report. (See also optional tasks, for telephone survey as an
alternative to mail survey.)
Comparative Studies —1 — 3 months*
• Compile and compare in writing typical franchise agreements and their terms
and conditions.
Public Hearings —1 — 3 months*
• Facilitate public hearings and other forms of citizen input, including traditional
communications, public relations and web -based communications.
Financial Implications —1 — 2 months
• Prepare written budget and financial information, and franchise analysis for a
total cost of operations, including budget development for the remaining years
of cable TV effort.
Negotiations —12 —18 months
• Facilitate franchise negotiation with leading providers.
Implementation — 3 — 6 months
1. Oversee franchise implementation, and technical and contract compliance and
acceptance.
*Project tasks can run concurrently. Total elapsed time for completion of all of these items is 12 months or less.
9-19-05 14
Exhibit "B"
SCOPE OF SERVICES
Franchise Renewal Process Services
Page 3 of 3
Optional Renewal
Training and Evaluation —1 - 2 months*
• Conduct technical cable system infrastructure field training to help city staff
(Public Works/IT) to identify and report cable violations/safety issues.
Telephone Survey - 3 — 6 months*
• Conduct community wide telephone survey, input and analyze results, and
provide a written report, in lieu of conducting written community -wide survey.
*Optional Renewal project tasks can run concurrently with other Renewal tasks.
9-19-05 15
Exhibit "C"
Cost Detail
Administrative Services described in Exhibit A:
All Administrative work will be completed by Bradley & Guzzetta, LLC for flat fee of $2,000
per month, exclusive of costs.
Franchise Renewal Services described in Exhibit B:
All renewal work will be completed according to the chart below:
Renewal
Cost Consultant Timeframe*
Performance Analysis & Upgrade
$17,000 -
CBG
Evaluation
$20,400
1Q - 2Q - 2006
Compliance with Cable TV Consumer
$11,200 -
B&G &
Protection & Competition Act of 1992
$13,600
CBG
1Q - 2Q - 2006
Access Utilization
$12,800 -
B&G &
$13,600
CBG
1Q - 2Q - 2006
$4,500 -
Front Range
Collection of Franchise Fees
$6,000
Consulting,
Inc.
1Q - 3Q - 2006
Training and Evaluation
$3,120 -
B&G &
$5,850
CBG
1Q - 2006
Work Plan
$1,560 -
B&G &
$2,340
CBG
1Q - 2006
Special Presentation
$ , 340
B&G
1Q - 2006
Survey (Mail Out Survey - City pays
$8,000 -
CBG
mailingcosts
$11,200
2Q - 4Q - 2006
Public Hearings
$1,560 -
B&G
$2,340
1Q - 2006
Financial Implications
$2,560 -
B&G
$7,680
2Q - 4 Q - 2007
Negotiations
$6,270
B&G
$63,270
IQ - 4Q - 2007
Implementation
$2,500 -
B&G
$8,000
4Q - 2007
Optional
Renewal
Costs Consultant Timeframe
Training of PW/IT staff to identify and
$1,360 -
CBG
report cable violations/safety issues.
$4,080
1Q - 2006
Telephone Survey (in lieu of written
$20,000 -
CBG
communitysurvey)
$23,200
2Q - 4Q - 2006
* Q = Quarter. The times listed are
estimates and subject to change.
9-19-05 16
Exhibit "D"
Hourly Billing Rates
CBG Communications, Inc.
Thomas G. Robinson, Executive Vice President $170.00
Richard D. Nielsen, Senior Engineer $170.00
Dr. Constance L. Book, Survey Researcher $150.00
Carson Hamlin, Video Engineer $150.00
Krystene Rivers, Administrative Assistant $35.00
Bradley & Guzzetta, LLC
Michael R. Bradley, Attorney $195.00
Stephen J. Guzzetta, Attorney $195.00
Tracy J. Schaefer, Senior Project Manager $150.00
Paralegal/Law Clerk $125.00
Front Range Consulting, Inc.
Richard R. Treich $150.00
Invoices for work would be submitted to the City monthly and are due and payable 30 days
after submission.
Cable Franchise Renewal Services Reimbursable Direct Costs:
Clerical/Word Processing, Long Distance Phone Calls,
Fax, Photocopies and Reproduction (in excess of those to be
provided under Section 3.7), Courier, Postage,
Fed Ex, Travel, and Other Similar Expenses*
*All reimbursable direct costs are billed at the actual cost.
9-19-05 17
CITY OF RENTON COUNCIL AGENDA BILL
SUBMITTING DATA:
Dept/Div/Board.. AJLS/City Clerk
Staff Contact... Bonnie Walton
S U BJ F,C'1':
CRT-05-009; Court Case
Andrew I iedden et al vs. City of* Seattle; Seattle Police
Department; The Law Enforcement Intelligence Unit; "Tukwila
Police Department; Buricn Police Department; Renton Police
Department; et al
EXHIBITS:
Summons and Complaint
'
FOR AGI;NDA OF: 9/19/2005
AGENDA STATUS:
Consent.... X
Public Hearing..
Correspondence..
Ordinance.. .
Resolution...
Old Business.......
New Business......
Study Session....
Other....
KECUMMI;NDI;D ACTION: APPROVALS:
Legal Dept......
Refer to City Attorney and Insurance Services Finance Dept..
Other...........
FISCAL IMPACT:
Expenditure Required... 'Transfer/Amendment..
Amount Budgeted........ Revenue Generated...
SUMMARY OF ACTION:
Summons and Complaint for Civil Rights Violations, False Arrest, False Imprisonment, Battery, Assault,
Trespass to Chattel, Conversion, Intentional Infliction of F,motional Distress and Negligence filed in
United States District Court Western District of Washington at Seattle by Lawrence A. I Tildes and Paul
Richmond, Attorneys, on behalf of Andrew Hedden et al alleging violation of plaintiffs' rights during a
demonstration that occurred in downtown Seattle on 5/2/2003.
®AO 440 (Rev. 8/01) Summons in a Civil Action
CITY OF RENTON
N<,ldP/I
V.
d
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
District of SEP 14 2005
RECEIVED
CITY CLEWS OFF)CE
fiaAd Dch'acrew by
SUMMONS IN CIVIL CASE &rIq Weill,
4er1A5-';6-*AY
AVY
"O.M.
CASE NUMBER:
C05-uy��
.�O: (Name and address fDef dant)
Y7
YOU ARE HEREBY SUNMONEP a d required to sery n PLAJNTIFY'S ATTORNEY (name and address)
,�� L,, '� 7 ,� fit` � r Cj Gj '// � ,%ifi�
an answer to the complaint which is served on you with this summons, within days after service
of this summons on you, exclusive of the day of service. If you fail to do so, judgment by default will be taken against you
for the relief demanded in the complaint. Any answer that you serve on the parties to this action must be filed with the
Clerk of this Court within a reasonable period of time after service. 4
Mal A/
RITKIN ISSUed in blank
CLERK DATE
(By) DEPUTY CLERK
CITY OF RENTON
1 LAWRENCE A HILDES (WSBA# 35035)
2 P.O. Box 5405
3 Bellingham, WA 98227
4 Telephone: (360) 715-9788
5 Fax: (360) 714-1791
6
7 Paul Richmond (WSBA# 32306)
8 4616 25th Avenue NE, #449
9 Seattle, WA, 98105
10 (206) 526-0565
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
41
42
SEP 1 4 2005
RECEIVED
FILED CITY CLERK'S OFFICE
ENTERED
LODGED --RECEIVED
JUN - 2 2005 ES
CLERK U.S. DISFRIC ' COURT
BY WESTERN DISTRICT OF WASHINGTON
DEPUTY
Attorneys for Plaintiffs:
ANDREW REDDEN, AARON KULLER, JESSE JOHNSON,
JARRET PUTMAN, CAYLA M. CASIANI, GREGORY DUDLEY,
MACKENZIE HAMILTON, NICOLE MARIE BADE, JOHN W. DELACY,
CHRISTOPHER G. KONKEL, ANDREW S. DELL, DALE HARDWAY,
JOHN BUCKNER, BRUCE WHITMORE, JACK WHITEHORSE,
DAWN HARDIN, TERRY BATTERSON, GRAHAM CLARK, BRIDGET
O'BRIEN-SMITH, MICHAEL VARGAS and ROGER STOCKER
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
WESTERN DISTRICT OF WASHINGTON
ANDREW HEDDEN, AARON KULLER,
JESSE JOHNSON, JARRET PUTMAN,
CAYLA M. CASIANI, GREGORY
DUDLEY,.MACKENZIE HAMILTON,
NICOLE MARIE BADE, JOHN A
DELACY, CHRISTOPHER G. KONKEL,
ANDREW S. DELL, DALE HARDWAY,
DAWN HARDIN, JOHN BUCKNER,
BRUCE WHITMORE, JACK
WHITEHORSE, TERRY BATTERSON,
GRAHAM CLARK, BRIDGET O'BRIEN-
SMITH, WILLIAM MICHAEL
VARGAS, and ROGER STOCKER
VS.
Plaintiffs,
43 CITY OF SEATTLE; SEATTLE POLICE
4 4 DEPARTMENT; THE LAW
45 ENFORCEMENT INTELLIGENCE UNIT
CASE NO. C05,099d%
COMPLAINT FOR CIVIL RIGHTS
VIOLATIONS 42 USC 1983;
FALSE ARREST, FALSE
IMPRISONMENT, BATTERY,
ASSAULT, TRESPASS TO CHATTEL,
} CONVERSION,
INTENTIONAL INFLICTION OF
EMOTIONAL DISTRESS, NEGILGENCE
1 `
)
)
}
)
}
}
}
HEDDEN ET AL V. CITY OF SEATTLE, COMPLAINT
1
1 TUKWILLA POLICE DEPARTMENT,
2 BURIEN POLICE DEPARTMENT,
3 RENTON POLICE DEPARTMENT,
4 REDMOND POLICE DEPARTMENT,
5 KING COUNTY SHERIFF'S OFFICE,
6 CAPTAIN MICHAEL SANFORD,
7 individually and in his official capacity
s as a CAPTAINOF THE SEATTLE
9 POLICE DEPARTMENT; and JANE
io DOE SANFORD, his wife, and the
11 marital community there of ; CHIEF R.
12 GIL KERLIKOWSKE individually and in
13 his capacity as the CHIEF
14 of the SEATTLE POLICE DEPARTMENT
15 and JANE DOE KERLIKOWSKE
16 and the marital community composed
17 thereof; CLARK KIMERER,
18 individually and in his capacity as
19 a DEPUTY CHIEF of the SEATTLE
20 POLICE DEPARTMENT And JANE DOE
21 KIMERER and the marital
22 community composed thereof;
23 ASSISTANT CHIEF JIM PUGEL,
24 individually and in his official capacity
25 as an ASST. CHIEF of the SEATTLE
26 POLICE DEPARTMENT and JANE DOE
27 PUGEL and the marital community
28 composed thereof; STEVE WILSKE,
29 individually and in his Official capacity
30 as a LIEUTENANT OF THE SEATTLE
31 POLICE DEPARTMENT, and JANE DOE
32 WILSKE and the marital community
33 composed thereof; J.K. DYMENT,
34 individually and in her Official capacity
35 as a SERGEANT of the SEATTLE
36 POLICE DEPARTMENT AND JOHN DOE
37 DYMENT, and the marital community
38 composed thereof, A.C. PRICE,
39 individually and in his Official capacity
4 o as a SERGEANT OF the SEATTLE
41 POLICE DEPARTMENT, and JANE
42 DOE PRICE and the marital community
43 composed thereof; G. CALDER,
44 individually and in his Official capacity
45 as a LIEUTENANT of the SEATTLE
REDDEN ET AL V. CITY OF SEATTLE, COMPLAINT
1 POLICE DEPARTMENT and JANE DOE
2 CALDER and the marital community
3 composed thereof; J.J. JANKAUSKAS,
4 individually and in his official capacity
5 as a LIEUTENANT of the SEATTLE
6 POLICE DEPARTMENT and JANE DOE
7 JANKAUSKAS, and the marital
s community thereof; M.A. COOMES,
9 individually and in his Official capacity
10 as a SERGEANT of the SEATTLE
11 POLICE DEPARTMENT and JANE DOE
12 COOMES and the marital community
13 thereof; D.R. LOWE, individually and in
14 his Official capacity as a SERGEANT of
15 the SEATTLE POLICE DEPARTMENT
16 and JANE DOE LOWE and the marital
17 community thereof; J.J. MAGAN,
is individually and in his official capacity
19 as a SERGEANT of the SEATTLE
20 POLICE DEPARTMENT and JANE DOE
21 MAGAN and the marital community
22 thereof; SGT. BRADY; individually
23 and in his Official capacity as a
24 SERGEANT of the SEATTLE POLICE
25 DEPARTMENT, and JANE DOE BRADY
26 and the marital community thereof;
27 SGT. BROTHERTON, individually and
28 in his Official capacity as a SERGEANT
29 of the SEATTLE POLICE DEPARTMENT,
30 and JANE DOE BROTHERTON and the
31 marital community thereof, DETECTIVE R.
32 ROMERO, individually and in his Official
33 capacity as a DETECTIVE of the SEATTLE
34 POLICE DEPARTMENT and JANE DOE
35 ROMERO and the marital community
36 thereof; P.C. WALL, individually and in his
37 Official capacity as an OFFICER of the
38 SEATTLE POLICE DEPARTMENT, and
39 JANE DOE WALL and the marital
40 Community thereof; D.D. DARNALL,
41 individually and in his Official capacity
42 as an OFFICER of the SEATTLE POLICE
43 DEPARTMENT, and JANE DOE DARNALL
44 and the marital community thereof; R.
45 NELSON, individually and in his Official
HEDDEN ET AL V. CITY OF SEATTLE, COMPLAINT .5
1 capacity as an OFFICER of the SEATTLE )
2 POLICE DEPARTMENT and JANE DOE )
3 NELSON and the marital community thereof )
4 G. NELSON, individually and in his )
5 Official capacity as a SERGEANT of the )
6 SEATTLE POLICE DEPARTMENT, and )
7 JANE bOE NELSON and the marital )
8 Community thereof; MATTHEW M. DIESZI, )
9 Individually and in his Official capacity as )
10 an Officer of the SEATTLE POLICE )
11 DEPARTMENT and JANE DOE DIESZI )
12 and the marital community thereof; K. )
13 SWANK, individually and in his Official )
14 capacity as an OFFICER of the SEATTLE )
15 POLICE DEPARTMENT and JANE DOE )
16 SWANK and the marital community thereof; )
17 TAD K. WILLOUGHBY, individually and in )
is his Official capacity as a SERGEANT of )
19 the SEATTLE POLICE DEPARTMENT, and )
20 JANE DOE WILLOUGHBY and the marital )
21 community thereof, MICHAEL WHIDBEY, )
22 individually and in his Official capacity as a )
23 DETECTIVE of the SEATTLE POLICE )
24 DEPARTMENT and JANE DOE WHIDBEY )
25 and the marital community thereof; VERNER )
26 O'QUIN, individually and in his Official )
27 capacity as a SERGEANT of the SEATTLE )
28 POLICE DEPARTMENT and JANE DOE )
29 O'QUIN and the marital community thereof; )
30 SGT. JANDOC, individually and in his )
31 Official capacity as a SERGEANT of the )
32 SEATTLE POLICE DEPARTMENT and JANE )
33 DOE JANDOC and the marital community )
34 thereof; OFFICER LANDERS, individually )
35 and in his Official capacity as an Officer of )
36 the SEATTLE POLICE DEPARTMENT and )
37 JANE DOE LANDERS and the marital )
38 community thereof; LOREN R. STREET )
39 individually and in his Official capacity as an)
40 OFFICER of the SEATTLE POLICE )
41 DEPARTMENT and JANE DOE STREET )
42 and the marital community thereof; P.J. FOX,)
43 individually and in his Official capacity as an)
44 OFFICER of the SEATTLE POLICE )
45 DEPARTMENT, and JANE DOE )
HEDDEN ET AL V. CITY OF SEATTLE, COMPLAINT
1 FOX and the marital community
2 thereof; THOMAS M. MOONEY, individually
3 and in his Official capacity as an OFFICER
4 of the SEATTLE POLICE DEPARTMENT,
5 and JANE DOE MOONEY and the marital
6 community thereof; K. ZEIGER, individually
7 and in his Official capacity as an OFFICER
s of the SEATTLE POLICE DEPARTMENT,
9 and JANE DOE ZEIGER and the marital
10 community thereof; J.J. LEE, individually
11 and in his Official capacity as an OFFICER
12 of the SEATTLE POLICE DEPARTMENT,
13 and JANE DOE LEE and the marital
14 community thereof; RIK K. HALL,
15 individually and in his Official capacity as
16 an OFFICER of the SEATTLE POLICE
17 DEPARTMENT, and JANE DOE HALL and
18 the marital community thereof; M. LANZ,
19 individually and in his Official capacity as an
20 OFFICER OF THE SEATTLE POLICE
21 DEPARTMENT, and JANE DOE LANZ and
22 the marital community thereof; PATRICIA
23 A. MACDONALD: individually and in her
24 capacity as an OFFICER of the SEATTLE
25 POLICE DEPARTMENT and JOHN DOE
26 MACDONALD and the marital community
27 thereof; WALTER M. HAYDEN, individually
28 and in his Official capacity as an OFFICER
29 of the SEATTLE POLICE DEPARTMENT,
30 and JANE DOE HAYDEN and the marital
31 community thereof; MARK A. GRINSTEAD,
32 individually and in his Official capacity as an
33 Officer of the SEATTLE POLICE
34 DEPARTMENT, and JANE DOE GRINSTEAD
35 and the marital community thereof; TOMMIE
36 M. DORAN, individually and in his Official
37 capacity as an OFFICER of the SEATTLE
38 POLICE DEPARTMENT and JANE DOE
39 DORAN and the marital community thereof;
4 o ADRIAN Z. DIAZ, individually and in his
41 Official capacity as a SERGEANT of the
42 SEATTLE POLICE DEPARTMENT, and
43 JANE DOE DIAZ and the marital community
44 thereof; CHAD L. MCLAUGHLIN,
45 individually and in his Official capacity as an
HEDDEN ET AL V. CITY OF SEATTLE, COMPLAINT
1 OFFICER of the SEATTLE POLICE )
2 DEPARTMENT, and JANE DOE )
3 MCLAUGHLIN and the marital community )
4 thereof; BRAD CONWAY, individually and in)
5 his Official capacity as an Officer of the )
6 SEATTLE POLICE DEPARTMENT, and )
7 JANE DOE CONWAY and the marital )
s community thereof; MATTHEW BRADRICK, )
9 individually and in his Official capacity as an)
10 OFFICER of the SEATTLE POLICE )
11 DEPARTMENT, and JANE DOE BRADRICK )
12 and the marital community thereof; DAVID )
13 FITZGERALD, individually and in his Official )
14 Capacity as an OFFICER of the SEATTLE )
15 POLICE DEPARTMENT and JANE DOE )
16 FITZGERALD and the marital community )
17 thereof; RANDALL A. JOKELA, individually )
18 and in his Official capacity as an OFFICER )
19 of the SEATTLE POLICE DEPARTMENT, )
20 and JANE DOE JOKELA and the marital )
21 community thereof, GEORGE HISSUNG JR )
22 individually and in his Official capacity as an)
23 OFFICER of the SEATTLE POLICE )
24 DEPARTMENT, and JANE DOE HISSUNG )
25 and the marital community thereof; JASON )
26 G. DRUMMOND, individually and in his )
27 Official capacity as an OFFICER of the )
28 SEATTLE POLICE DEPARTMENT, and )
29 JANE DOE DRUMMOND and the marital )
30 community thereof; JOHN A. DIAZ, )
31 individually and in his Official capacity as an)
32 OFFICER of the SEATTLE POLICE )
33 DEPARTMENT, and JANE DOE DIAZ and )
34 the marital community thereof; OFFICER )
35 MCCRAE, individually and in his Official }
36 capacity as an OFFICER of the SEATTLE )
37 POLICE DEPARTMENT, and JANE DOE }
38 MCCRAE and the marital community thereof )
39 JAMES B. PATCHEN, individually and in }
4o his Official capacity as an OFFICER of the }
41 SEATTLE POLICE DEPARTMENT and JANE )
42 DOE PATCHEN and the marital community )
43 thereof; MICHAEL M. SUDDUTH, individually)
44 and in his Official capacity as an OFFICER )
45 of the SEATTLE POLICE DEPARTMENT, )
HEDDEN ET AL V. CITY OF SEATTLE, COMPLAINT
1 and JANE DOE SUDDUTH and the marital )
2 community thereof; WILLIE WILLIAMS, }
3 individually and in his Official capacity as an)
4 OFFICER of the SEATTLE POLICE )
5 DEPARTMENT, and JANE DOE WILLIAMS )
6 and the marital community thereof; W. )
7 CRAVENS, individually and in his Official j
s capacity as an OFFICER of the SEATTLE )
9 POLICE DEPARTMENT, and JANE DOE )
10 CRAVENS and the marital community )
11 thereof, R. BOURNES, individually and in )
12 his Official capacity as an OFFICER of the )
13 SEATTLE POLICE DEPARTMENT, and )
14 JANE DOE BOURNES and the marital }
15 community thereof; MARK L. WORSTMAN, }
16 individually and in his Official capacity as )
17 a SERGEANT of the SEATTLE POLICE )
18 DEPARTMENT, and JANE DOE WORSTMAN )
19 BILL GARDINER, individually and in his )
20 Official capacity as a LIEUTENANT of the )
21 WASHINGTON STATE PATROL, and JANE )
22 DOE GARDINER and the marital community )
23 thereof; MARK W. LAMOREAUX, individually)
24 and in his Official capacity as a )
25 LIEUTENANT of the WASHINGTON STATE )
26 PATROL, and JANE DOE LAMOREAUX and )
27 the marital community thereof; SHAWN )
28 BERRY, individually and in his Official )
29 capacity as a DETECTIVE of the }
30 WASHINGTON STATE PATROL, and JANE )
31 DOE BERRY and the marital community )
32 thereof; JAMES A. CHROMEY, individually )
33 and in his Official capacity as a )
34 LIEUTENANT of the WASHINGTON STATE )
35 PATROL, and JANE DOE CHROMEY and the )
36 marital community thereof; DAVID W. )
37 BOURLAND, individually and in his Official )
38 capacity as a TROOPER of the }
39 WASHINGTON STATE PATROL, and JANE )
4 o DOE BOURLAND and the marital community)
41 thereof, CURT G. BOYLE, individually and in )
42 his Official capacity as a TROOPER of the )
43 WASHINGTON STATE PATROL, and JANE )
44 DOE BOYLE and the marital community )
45 thereof; RICARDO BRITO, individually and in)
HEDDEN ET AL V. CITY OF SEATTLE, COMPLAINT
1 his Official capacity as a TROOPER of the
2 WASHINGTON STATE PATROL, and JANE
3 DOE BRITO and the marital community
4 thereof; DARIN F. DE RUWE, individually
5 and in his Official capacity as a TROOPER
6 of the WASHINGTON STATE PATROL, and
7 JANE DOE DE RUWE and the marital
s community thereof; BRYAN R. DUCOMMUN,
9 individually and in his Official capacity as a
10 TROOPER of the WASHINGTON STATE
i i PATROL, and JANE DOE DUCOMMUN and
12 the marital community thereof; ANN E.
13 DUTTON, individually and in her Official
14 Capacity as a DETECTIVE of the
15 WASHINGTON STATE PATROL, and JOHN
16 DOE DUTTON and the marital community
17 thereof; KEVIN L. FORRESTER, individually
18 and in his Official capacity as a DETECTIVE
19 of the WASHINGTON STATE PATROL, and
20 JANE DOE FORRESTER and the marital
21 community thereof; JOEL W. GORDON,
22 individually and in his Official capacity as a
23 DETECTIVE of the WASHINGTON STATE
24 PATROL, and JANE DOE GORDON and the
25 marital community thereof; CHRIS T.
26 GUNDERMANN, individually and in his
27 Official capacity as a SERGEANT of the
28 WASHINGTON STATE PATROL, and JANE
29 DOE GUNDERMANN and the marital
30 community thereof; JOI J. HANER,
31 individually and in her Official capacity as
32 a TROOPER of the WASHINGTON STATE
33 PATROL, and JOHN DOE HANER and the
34 marital community thereof; ROGER D.
35 HANSBERRY, individually and in his Official
36 capacity as a TROOPER of the
37 WASHINGTON STATE PATROL, and JANE
38 DOE HANSBERRY and the marital
39 community thereof, RUSSELL J. HANSON,
40 individually and in his Official capacity as a
41 TRROPER of the WASHINGTON STATE
42 PATROL, and JANE DOE HANSON and the
43 marital community thereof; JEFFREY R.
44 KERSHAW, individually and in his Official
45 capacity as a DETECTIVE of the
HEDDEN ET AL V. CITY OF SEATTLE, COMPLAINT
1 WASHINGTON STATE PATROL, and JANE )
2 DOE KERSHAW and the marital community )
3 thereof; DANIEL L. MANN, individually and in)
4 his Official capacity as a DETECTIVE of the )
5 WASHINGTON STATE PATROL, and JANE )
6 DOE MANN and the marital community )
thereof; GEORGE R. MARS, JR., individually )
a and in his Official capacity as a DETECTIVE )
9 of the WASHINGTON STATE PATROL, and )
10 JANE DOE MARS and the marital community)
11 thereof; JOHN G. MCMULLEN, individually )
12 and in his Official capacity as a TROOPER of)
13 the WASHINGTON STATE PATROL and )
14 JANE DOE MCMULLEN and the marital )
15 community thereof, DARRELL R. NOYES, )
16 individually and in his Official capacity as a )
17 TROOPER of the WASHINGTON STATE )
18 PATROL, and JANE DOE NOYES and the )
i 9 marital community thereof; STEVEN E. )
20 REEVES, individually and in his Official )
21 capacity as a TROOPER of the )
22 WASHINGTON STATE PATROL and JANE )
23 DOE REEVES and the marital community )
24 thereof; WESLEY H. RETHWILL, individually )
25 and in his Official capacity as a SERGEANT )
26 of the WASHINGTON STATE PATROL, and )
27 JANE DOE RETHWILL and the marital )
28 community thereof; CRAIG L. SAHLINGER, )
29 individually and in his Official capacity as a )
3o TROOPER of the WASHINGTON STATE )
31 PATROL, and JANE DOE SAHLINGER and )
32 the marital community thereof; DAVID J. j
33 BROWNE, individually and in his Official )
34 capacity as a SERGEANT of the )
35 WASHINGTON STATE PATROL, and JANE )
36 DOE BROWNE and the marital community )
37 thereof; GARY D. GASSELING, individually j
38 and in his Official capacity as a SERGEANT )
39 of the WASHINGTON STATE PATROL, and )
40 JANE DOE GASSELING and the marital )
41 community thereof; PAUL M. STANEK Ill., )
42 individually and in his Official capacity as a )
43 DETECTIVE of the WASHINGTON STATE )
44 PATROL, and JANE DOE STANEK and the )
45 marital community thereof; RICHARD A. )
REDDEN ET AL V. CITY OF SEATTLE, COMPLAINT y
1 TAYLOR, individually and in his Official )
2 capacity as a DETECTIVE of the )
3 WASHINGTON STATE PATROL, and JANE )
4 DOE TAYLOR and the marital community )
5 thereof; GARY M. WILCOX, individually and )
6 in his Official capacity as a DETECTIVE of )
7 the WASHINGTON STATE PATROL, and )
a JANE DOE WILCOX and the marital )
9 community thereof; OREST D. WILSON, )
10 individually and in his Official capacity as a )
11 DETECTIVE of the WASHINGTON STATE )
12 PATROL, and JANE DOE WILSON and the )
13 marital community thereof; RONALD W. )
14 SERPAS, individually and in his Official )
15 capacity as the CHIEF of the WASHINGTON )
16 STATE PATROL, and JANE DOE SERPAS )
17 and the marital community thereof; DANIEL )
is E. EIKEM, individually and in his OFFICIAL )
19 capacity as a CAPTAIN of the WASHINGTON)
20 STATE PATROL, and JANE DOE EIKEM )
21 and the marital community thereof; STEVEN )
22 D. MCCULLEY, individually and in his Official)
23 capacity as a LIEUTENANT of the )
24 WASHINGTON STATE PATROL, and JANE )
25 DOE MCCULLEY and the marital community )
26 thereof; VANCE PROCTER; MANUFACTURER)
27 OF LESS LETHAL WEAPONRY DOES 1-100 )
28 DISTRIBUTOR and/or SALES AGENT OF LESS)
29 LETHAL WEAPONRY DOES 1-100 and DOES )
30 1-500 )
31 )
32 Defendants. )
33 )
34
35 ANDREW REDDEN, AARON KULLER, JESSE JOHNSON,
36 JARRET PUTMAN, CAYLA M. CASIANI, GREGORY DUDLEY,
37 MACKENZIE HAMILTON, NICOLE MARIE BADE, JOHN W. DELACY,
38 CHRISTOPHER G. KONKEL, ANDREW S. DELL, DALE HARDWAY,
39 JOHN BUCKNER, BRUCE WHITMORE, JACK WHITEHORSE,
4 o DAWN HARDIN, GRAHAM CLARK, TERRY BATTERSON, BRIDGET O'BRIEN-
41 SMITH, MICHAEL VARGAS, and ROGER STOCKER the Plaintiffs herein, by and
42 through their attorneys, allege as follows:
43
44 INTRODUCTION
HEDDEN ET AL V. CITY OF SEATTLE, COMPLAINT
10
1 1.1 Plaintiffs are citizens of Washington who attended a demonstration
2 which took place in downtown Seattle on the evening of June 2, 2003. The Plaintiffs
3 were there to protest the policies and actions of an organization called the Law
4 Enforcement Intelligence Unit (LEIU), which had gathered intelligence on lawful
5 activists, and or to record this protest for the media. All of the Plaintiffs exercised their
6 First Amendment rights by demonstrating peacefully, and or doing their duties as
7 members of the media in full accordance with the law. Yet, without provocation or
8 legitimate law enforcement purpose, and without reasonable or adequate warning, the
9 Seattle Police Department and its agents used excessive force against the Plaintiffs
10 and made an unreasonable seizure of the Plaintiffs by violating their rights under the
11 Fourth, and Fourteenth Amendments to the United States Constitution; and rights
12 under the Washington Constitution, the Seattle Police Department unreasonably
13 interfered with Plaintiffs' First Amendment Rights and as a result Plaintiffs were chilled
14 in the future exercise of their First Amendment Rights; and the Seattle Police
15 Department assaulted and battered Plaintiffs by 1) dousing them with chemical
16 weapons including OC, CS, CN combinations of these, and or similar agents sprayed
17 at close range directly into their faces and/or 2) shooting rubber bullets and other
18 projectiles including "wooden dowels", "flying batons", and "pepper -balls" at Plaintiffs
19 at close range, directly hitting many of the Plaintiffs, and/or 3) .Striking Plaintiffs with
20 hands, feet, batons, bicycles, and other instruments and/or 4) Damaging and or
21 seizing plaintiffs video cameras, still cameras, videotapes and film and/or 5) falsely
22 arresting Plaintiffs These actions caused Plaintiffs serious physical and emotional
23 harm, detriment and suffering.
24 1.2 The Seattle Police Department has a pattern and practice of flagrantly
25 violating peaceful demonstrators' First Amendment Rights and using excessive force
26 in other demonstrations held in Seattle, Washington on a continuing and regular basis.
HEDDEN ET AL V. CITY OF SEATTLE, COMPLAINT Lj
1 1.3 Plaintiffs seek compensatory and punitive damages along with injunctive
2 relief and declaratory relief from the defendants pursuant to 42 USC § 1983,
3 and compensatory damages from the City of Seattle pursuant to the
4 Washington Tort Claims Act.
5 1.4 Plaintiffs seek injunctive relief in the form of a court ordered ban on the
6 use of less lethal weaponry including chemical weapons, pepper -balls,
7 rubber bullets, flying batons, wooden dowels, stinger ball grenades, flash
e bang grenades and other related items for crowd control of peaceful
9 demonstrations.
to
11
12 1. JURISDICTION
13
14
15 1. This court has jurisdiction over the subject matter of this action pursuant to
16 Title 28, United States Code Sections 1331, 1332, 1343, and 1367, and venue is
17 properly set in the Western District Federal Court pursuant to 28 U.S.C. 1391.
1s 2. The claims upon which this suit is based occurred in this judicial district.
19 3. Plaintiffs are informed and believe, and on that basis allege, that each of the
20 named Defendants, except for VANCE PROCTER who is a resident of Los Angeles
21 County, California, reside in this judicial district, and all entity Defendants, except for
22 the Law Enforcement Intelligence Unit, which is a registered California non-profit, are
23 registered and do business in the District as their principal base of operations.
24
25
II. PARTIES
26 1.1 Plaintiff ANDREW HEDDEN is a single male residing in the State of
HEDDEN ET AL V. CITY OF SEATTLE, COMPLAINT 12
1 Washington, County of Whatcom, in the Western District of Washington, who was
2 acting lawfully within his First Amendment Rights as a participant in a peaceful
3 permitted demonstration. He was singled out for false arrest and illegal treatment
4 because he was known to the police as a demonstrator. He suffered severe physical
5 and psychological harm, monetary loss, and the illegal loss of property as a direct
6 result. The incidents herein alleged occurred in King County within the Western
7 District of Washington.
8 1.2 Plaintiff AARON KULLER is a single male residing in the State of
9 Washington, County of King, in the Western District of Washington, who was acting
10 lawfully within his First Amendment Rights as a participant in a peaceful permitted
ii demonstration. He was singled out for false arrest and illegal treatment because he
12 was known to the police as a demonstrator. As a direct result, he suffered severe
13 physical and emotional harm, and was subjected to repeated harassment by
14 Defendant police agencies subsequently, resulting in additional harm. The incidents
15 herein alleged occurred in King County within the Western District of Washington.
16 1.3 Plaintiff JESSE JOHNSON is a single man residing primarily in the State of
17 Washington, County of King, in the Western District of Washington, who was acting
18 lawfully within his First Amendment Rights as a journalist. He was singled out for
19 arrest and excessive force because he, in his role as a journalist, videotaped the
20 illegal arrest of another individual. His video camera and tapes were illegally seized
21 and never returned, even long after his charges were dismissed. As a direct result of
22 all of the above, he suffered severe physical, psychological, and monetary injuries.
HEDDEN ET AL V. CITY OF SEATTLE, COMPLAINT �,
1 The incidents herein alleged occurred in King County within the Western District of
2 Washington.
3 1.4 Plaintiff JARRETT PUTMAN is a single male residing primarily in the State
4 of Washington, CITY OF SEATTLE, in the Western District of Washington, who was
5 acting lawfully within his First Amendment Rights as a demonstrator. He engaged in
6 no illegal activity, rather the police repeatedly struck him from behind, and then simply
7 reached out and threw him behind the police line, and then cynically charged him with
s charging the police line. His charges were ultimately dismissed for lack of evidence.
9 The incidents herein alleged occurred in KING County within the Western District of
1 o Washington.
11 1.5 Plaintiff CHRISTOPHER KONKEL is a single male residing primarily in the
12 State of Washington, County of Snohomish, in the Western District of Washington,
13 who was acting lawfully within his First Amendment Rights as a journalist. He
14 engaged in no illegal activity, rather the police repeatedly without justification or
15 reason, grabbed his camera from behind and knocked it out of his hand, and then as
16 he reached for it pushed him to the ground and pinned him, causing severe physical
17 and psychological injuries. His camera was severely damaged by the Seattle Police
18 Department. His criminal charges were ultimately dismissed for lack of evidence. The
19 incidents herein alleged occurred in KING County within the Western District of
20 Washington.
21 1.6 Plaintiff CAYLA M. CASIANI is a single female residing primarily in the
22 State of Washington, County of Whatcom, in the Western District of Washington, who
HEDDEN ET AL V. CITY OF SEATTLE, COMPLAINT 14
1 was acting lawfully within her First Amendment Rights as a demonstrator. She was
2 repeatedly pepper sprayed, struck with fists, kicked, and clubbed, and hit with various
3 "less lethal" munitions without cause, and causing severe physical and psychological
4 injuries. The incidents herein alleged occurred in KING County within the Western
5 District of Washington.
6 1.7 Plaintiff GREGORY DUDLEY is a single male residing primarily in the State
7 of Washington, County of Whatcom. He was repeatedly sprayed with chemical agents,
s including OC, struck with fists, kicked, and clubbed, and hit with various "less lethal"
9 munitions without cause, and causing severe physical and psychological injuries,
to including chemical burns over much of his body. The incidents herein alleged
11 occurred in KING County within the Western District of Washington.
12 1.8 Plaintiff MACKENZIE HAMILTON is a single female residing primarily in tl--
13 State of Washington, County of Whatcom, in the Western District of Washington, who
14 was acting lawfully within her First Amendment Rights as a demonstrator. She was
15 repeatedly sprayed with chemical agents including OC, without cause while walking
16 away from a police line in a lawful direction. This spraying caused severe physical
17 and psychological injuries. The incidents herein alleged occurred in KING County
18 within the Western District of Washington.
19 1.9 Plaintiff NICOLE MARIE BADE is a single female residing primarily in the
20 State of Washington, County of KING, City of Seattle, in the Western District of
21 Washington, who was acting lawfully within her First Amendment Rights as a medic.
22 She was providing medical attention to a victim of police violence when police officers
HEDDEN ET AL V. CITY OF SEATTLE, COMPLAINT 15
1 struck her and her patient from behind in the upper back and head with their batons
2 and drenched them in pepper spray without warning or cause, and causing severe
3 physical and psychological injuries. The incidents herein alleged occurred in KING
4 County within the Western District of Washington.
5 1.10 Plaintiff JOHN W. DELACY is a single male residing primarily in the State
6 of Washington, County of Thurston, in the Western District of Washington, who was
7 acting lawfully within his First Amendment Rights as a demonstrator. He was struck
s repeatedly by an officer using a bicycle as a club, and then pepper sprayed
9 intentionally in the face, and while he was fleeing the spray lawfully, blind from the first
to burst, was sprayed again, causing severe physical and psychological injuries. The
11 incidents herein alleged occurred in KING County within the Western District of
12 Washington.
13 1.11 Plaintiff ANDREW S. DELL, is a single male residing primarily in the State
14 of Washington, County of KING, City of Seattle, in the Western District of Washington,
15 who was acting lawfully within his First Amendment Rights as a demonstrator. He
16 was, while trying to flee from generally directed pepper spray and tear gas, struck and
17 thrown to the ground by an officer without cause or warning. When he tried to get up,
18 he was grabbed, lifted, slammed to the sidewalk on top of bicycles that were lying on
19 the ground and choked at length, and finally sat on by multiple officers who then
20 arrested him, falsely claiming that he had attacked a police car. The charges were
21 subsequently dismissed. The tortuous conduct of the involved officers caused severe
22 and ongoing physical and psychological injuries. The incidents herein alleged
HEDDEN ET AL V. CITY OF SEATTLE, COMPLAINT 16
i occurred in KING County within the Western District of Washington.
2 1.12 Plaintiff DALE HARDAWAY, is a single male residing primarily in the SL.
3 of Washington, County of King, City of Seattle, in the Western District of Washington,
4 who was acting lawfully within his First Amendment Rights as a demonstrator. He was
5 slammed to the ground by a plain clothed Seattle Police Officer without cause or
6 warning, causing severe physical and psychological injuries. The incidents herein
7 alleged occurred in KING County within the Western District of Washington.
s 1.13 Plaintiff Dr. JOHN BUCKNER is a married male residing primarily in the
9 State of Washington, County of King, City of Seattle, in the Western District of
10 Washington, who was acting lawfully within his First Amendment Rights as a
11 demonstrator. He was sprayed in the face with pepper spray, and blinded by that
12 spray and the effect of pepper spray shells exploding next to him without cause or
13 warning, causing severe physical and psychological injuries. The incidents herein
14 alleged occurred in KING County within the Western District of Washington.
15 1.14 Plaintiff BRUCE WHITMORE is a single male residing primarily in the
16 State of Washington, County of King, City of Seattle, in the Western District of
17 Washington, who was acting lawfully within his First Amendment Rights as a
18 demonstrator. He was pepper sprayed twice full in the face, without warning or cause,
19 and hit in the front once and in the back four times with less lethal projectiles, causing
20 severe physical and psychological injuries. The incidents herein alleged occurred in
21 KING County within the Western District of Washington.
22 1.15 Plaintiff JACK WHITEHORSE is a single male residing primarily in the
HEDDEN ET AL V. CITY OF SEATTLE, COMPLAINT
1 State of Washington, County of King, City of Seattle, in the Western District of
2 Washington, who was acting lawfully within his First Amendment Rights as a
3 demonstrator. He was shot once ion the calf with a less lethal projectile, as he was
4 walking away from the police line and obeying all police orders, the projectile caused
5 severe and lingering physical and psychological injuries. The incidents herein alleged
6 occurred in KING County within the Western District of Washington.
7 1.16 Plaintiff BRIGET O'BRIEN-SMITH is a single female residing primarily in
8 the State of Washington, County of King, City of Seattle, in the Western District of
9 Washington, who was acting lawfully within her First Amendment Rights as a
10 demonstrator. She was violently falsely arrested and assaulted while observing
11 another false arrest, causing severe physical and psychological injuries. The incidents
12 herein alleged occurred in KING County within the Western District of Washington.
13 1.17 Plaintiff DAWN HARDIN is a single female residing primarily in the State
14 of Washington, County of King, City of Seattle, in the Western District of Washington,
15 who was acting lawfully within her First Amendment nights as a demonstrator. She
16 was violently falsely arrested and assaulted while observing anger false arrest,
17 causing severe physical and psychological injuries as well as unnecessary damage to
18 her personal property. The incidents herein alleged occurred in KING County within
19 the Western District of Washington.
20 1.18 Plaintiff TERRY BATTERSON is a single- male, residing primarily in the
21 State of Washington, County of King, City of Seattle, in the Western District of
22 Washington, who was acting lawfully within his First Amendment Rights as a journalist
HEDDEN ET AL V. CITY OF SEATTLE, COMPLAINT 18
1 and as a demonstrator. While videotaping the illegal and unjustified arrest of two
2 demonstrators at a related demonstration on June 5, 2003, he was violently falsely
3 arrested and assaulted, in retaliation for his videotaping of the other arrests, causing
4 severe physical and psychological injuries. The incidents herein alleged occurred in
5 KING County within the Western District of Washington
6 1.19 Plaintiff GRAHAM CLARK, is a single male, residing primarily in the State
7 of Washington, County of Whatcom, in the Western District of Washington, who was
s acting lawfully within his First Amendment Rights as a demonstrator, who was
9 repeatedly sprayed with copious and gratuitous amounts of pepper spray and shot
10 twice with less lethal munitions, suffering severe physical and psychological injuries.
11 The incidents herein alleged occurred in KING County within the Western District of
12 Washington.
13 1.20 Plaintiff MICHAEL VARGAS, is a single male, residing primarily in the
14 State of Washington, County of Whatcom, in the Western District of Washington, who
15 was acting lawfully within his First Amendment Rights as a journalist, and who was
16 falsely arrested specifically to enable the police to seize and convert his videotape, the
17 tool and evidence of his trade and assaulted in addition to and during the course of his
18 false arrest, and suffering severe physical, monetary and psychological injuries. The
19 incidents herein alleged occurred in KING County within the Western District of
20 Washington.
21 1.21 Plaintiff ROGER STOCKER is a male residing primarily in the State of
22 Washington, County of King, in the Western District of Washington, who was acting
HEDDEN ET AL V. CITY OF SEATTLE, COMPLAINT 1y
1 lawfully within his First Amendment Rights attending the demonstration on June 2,
2 2003, and acting as a Peacekeeper at same. While lawfully complying with the
3 demands of the police, and helping to return the demonstrators to Westlake, was
4 subjected to barrages of less lethal weaponry in front of Fourth Avenue, the blasts of
5 which knocked people to their feet. Stocker was also exposed to chemical agents.
6 Because of these he suffered physical and psychological injuries. The incidents
7 herein alleged occurred in KING County within the Western District of Washington.
f
9 2.0 The CITY OF SEATTLE is a municipal corporation located within the
10 Western District of Washington, and organized under the laws of the State of
11 Washington. The SEATTLE POLICE DEPARTMENT is a sub -entity of the CITY OF
12 SEATTLE.
13 2.1 The TUKWILLA POLICE DEPARTMENT is a sub -entity of the City of
14 Tukwilla, a municipal corporation located within the Western District of Washington,
15 and organized under the laws of the State of Washington.
16 2.2 The BURIEN POLICE DEPARTMENT is a sub -entity of the City of Burien, a
17 municipal corporation located within the Western District of Washington, and
18 organized under the laws of the State of Washington.
19 2.3 The RENTON POLICE DEPARTMENT is a sub -entity of the City of Renton,
20 a municipal corporation located within the Western District of Washington, and
21 organized under the laws of the State of Washington.
22 2.4 The REDMOND POLICE DEPARTMENT is a sub -entity of the City of
HEDDEN ET AL V. CITY OF SEATTLE, COMPLAINT 20
1 Redmond, a municipal corporation located within the Western District of Washington
2 and organized under the laws of the State of Washington.
3 2.5 The KING COUNTY SHERIFF'S OFFICE is a sub -entity of the COUNTY
4 OF KING, a municipal corporation located within the Western District of Washington,
5 and organized under the laws of the State of Washington.
6 2.6 The LAW ENFORCEMENT INTELLIGENCE UNIT, herein after referred to
7 as the LEIU, is a private non-profit, registered in California, made up virtually entirely
s of public employees of law enforcement agencies, that does substantial business in
9 Washington, and reasonably and purposely avails itself of the laws of the State of
10 Washington, and was purposefully involved in the incidents herein alleged, and
11 therefore is subject to the jurisdiction of this court.
12 2.7 Captain MICHAEL SANFORD and Jane Doe SANFORD constitute a
13 marital community under the laws of the State of Washington and upon belief reside
14 within KING County within the Western District of Washington State. Upon belief,
15 MICHAEL SANFORD was at the time of the injuries complained of in this complaint,
16 an employee and/or agent of the CITY OF SEATTLE and the SEATTLE POLICE
17 DEPARTMENT acting within the scope of his duties as a CAPATIN of the SEATTLE
18 POLICE DEPARTMENT, AND AS THE INCIDENT COMMANDER for the event in
19 question.
20 2.8 R. GIL KERLIKOWSKE and Jane Doe KERLIKOWSKE constitute a marital
21 community under the laws of the State of Washington and upon belief reside within
22 KING County within the Western District of Washington State. Upon belief, Mike Ware
HEDDEN ET AL V. CITY OF SEATTLE, COMPLAINT 21
i was at the time of the injuries complained of in this complaint, an employee and/or
2 agent of the CITY OF SEATTLE and the SEATTLE POLICE DEPARTMENT acting
3 within the scope of his duties as the CHIEF of the SEATTLE POLICE DEPARTMENT
4 2.9 DEPUTY CHIEF CLARK KIMERER and JANE DOE KIMERER
5 constitute a marital community under the laws of the State of Washington and upon
6 belief reside within KING County within the Western District of Washington State.
7 Upon belief, CLARK KIMERER was at the time of the injuries complained of in this
a complaint, an employee and/or agent of the CITY OF SEATTLE and the SEATTLE
9 POLICE DEPARTMENT acting within the scope of his duties as a DEPUTY CHIEF of
10 the SEATTLE POLICE DEPARTMENT.
11 2.10 ASSISTANT CHIEF JIM PUGEL and JANE DOE PUGEL constitute a
12 marital community under the laws of the State of Washington and upon belief reside
13 within KING County within the Western District of Washington State. Upon belief, Tim
14 JANE DOE PUGEL was at the time of the injuries complained of in this complaint, an
15 employee and/or agent of the CITY OF SEATTLE and the SEATTLE. POLICE
16 DEPARTMENT acting within the scope of his duties as an ASSISTANT CHIEF of the
17 SEATTLE POLICE DEPARTMENT.
18 2.11 LIEUTENANT STEVE WILSKE and JANE DOE WILSKE constitute a
19 marital community under the laws of the State of Washington and upon belief reside
20 within KING County within the Western District of Washington State. Upon belief,
21 STEVE WILSKE was at the time of the injuries complained of in this complaint, an
22 employee and/or agent of the CITY OF SEATTLE and the SEATTLE POLICE
HEDDEN ET AL V. CITY OF SEATTLE, COMPLAINT 22
1 DEPARTMENT acting within the scope of his duties as a LIEUTENANT of the
2 SEATTLE POLICE DEPARTMENT.
3 2.12 SERGEANT J.K. DYMENT and JOHN DOE DYMENT constitute a
marital community under the laws of the State of Washington and upon belief reside
5 within KING County within the Western District of Washington State. Upon belief, J.K.
6 DYMENT was at the time of the injuries complained of in this complaint, an employee
7 and/or agent of the CITY OF SEATTLE and the SEATTLE POLICE DEPARTMENT,
s acting within the scope of her duties as a SERGEANT of the SEATTLE POLICE
9 DEPARTMENT.
10 2.13 SERGEANT A.C. PRICE and JANE DOE PRICE constitute a marital
11 community under the laws of the State of Washington and upon belief reside within
12 KING County within the Western District of Washington State. Upon belief, A.0
13 PRICE was at the time of the injuries complained of in this complaint, an employee
14 and/or agent of the CITY OF SEATTLE acting within the scope of his duties as a
15 SERGEANT of the SEATTLE POLICE DEPARTMENT.
16 2.14 LIEUTENANT G. CALDER and JANE DOE CALDER constitute a marital
17 community under the laws of the State of Washington and upon belief reside within
18 KING County within the Western District of Washington State. Upon belief, G.
19 CALDER was at the time of the injuries complained of in this complaint, an employee
20 and/or agent of the CITY OF SEATTLE acting within the scope of his duties as a
21 LIEUTENANT of the SEATTLE POLICE DEPARTMENT.
22 2.15 LIEUTENANT J.J. JANKAUSKAS and JANE DOE JANKAUSKAS
HEDDEN ET AL V. CITY OF SEATTLE, COMPLAINT 23
1 constitute a marital community under the laws of the State of Washington and upon
2 belief reside within KING County within the Western District of Washington State.
3 Upon belief, J.J. JANKAUSKAS was at the time of the injuries complained of in this
4 complaint, an employee and/or agent of the CITY OF SEATTLE acting within the
5 scope of his duties as a LIEUTENANT of the SEATTLE POLICE DEPARTMENT.
6 2.16 SERGEANT M.A. COOMES and JANE DOE COOMES constitute a
7 marital community under the laws of the State of Washington and upon belief reside
a within KING County within the Western District of Washington State. Upon belief,
9 M.A. COOMES was at the time of the injuries complained of in this complaint, an
10 employee and/or agent of the CITY OF SEATTLE acting within the scope of his duties
11 as a SERGEANT of the SEATTLE POLICE DEPARTMENT.
12 2.17 SERGEANT D.R. LOWE and JANE DOE LOWE constitute a marital
13 community under the laws of the State of Washington and upon belief reside within
14 KING County within the Western District of Washington State. Upon belief, D.R.
15 LOWE was at the time of the injuries complained of in this complaint, an employee
16 and/or agent of the CITY OF SEATTLE acting within the scope of his duties as a
17 SERGEANT of the SEATTLE POLICE DEPARTMENT.
is 2.18 SERGEANT J.J. MAGAN and JANE DOE MAGP�N constitute a marital
19 community under the laws of the State of Washington and upon belief reside within
20 KING County within the Western District of Washington State. Upon belief, J.J.
21 MAGAN was at the time of the injuries complained of in this complaint, an employee
22 and/or agent of the CITY OF SEATTLE acting within the scope of his duties as a
HEDDEN ET AL V. CITY OF SEATTLE, COMPLAINT
24
1 SERGEANT of the SEATTLE POLICE DEPARTMENT.
2 2.19 SERGEANT BRADY and JANE DOE BRADY constitute a marital
3 community under the laws of the State of Washington and upon belief reside within
4 KING County within the Western District of Washington State. Upon belief, SGT.
5 BRADY was at the time of the injuries complained of in this complaint, an employee
6 and/or agent of the CITY OF SEATTLE acting within the scope of his duties as a
7 SERGEANT of the SEATTLE POLICE DEPARTMENT.
s 2.20 SERGEANT BROTHERTON and JANE DOE BROTHERTON constitute
9 a marital community under the laws of the State of Washington and upon belief reside
10 within KING County within the Western District of Washington State. Upon belief,
11 SGT. BROTHERTON was at the time of the injuries complained of in this complaint,
12 an employee and/or agent of the CITY OF SEATTLE acting within the scope of his
13 duties as a SERGEANT of the SEATTLE POLICE DEPARTMENT.
14 2.21 DETECTIVE R. ROMERO and JANE DOE ROMERO constitute a marital
15 community under the laws of the State of Washington and upon belief reside within
16 KING County within the Western District of Washington State. Upon belief, R.
17 ROMERO was at the time of the injuries complained of in this complaint, an employee
18 and/or agent of the CITY OF SEATTLE acting within the scope of his duties as a
19 DETECTIVE of the SEATTLE POLICE DEPARTMENT.
20 2.22 P.C. WALL and JANE DOE WALL constitute a marital community under
21 the laws of the State of Washington and upon belief reside within KING County within
22 the Western District of Washington State. Upon belief, P.C. WALL was at the time of
HEDDEN ET AL V. CITY OF SEATTLE, COMPLAINT 25
1 the injuries complained of in this complaint, an employee and/or agent of the CITY OF
2 SEATTLE acting within the scope of his duties as an OFFICER of the SEATTLE
3 POLICE DEPARTMENT.
4 2.23 D.D. DARNALL and JANE DOE DARNALL constitute a marital
5 community under the laws of the State of Washington and upon belief reside within
6 KING County within the Western District of Washington State. Upon belief, D.D.
7 DARNAL was at the time of the injuries complained of in this complaint, an employee
s and/or agent of the CITY OF SEATTLE acting within the scope of his duties as an
9 OFFICER of the SEATTLE POLICE DEPARTMENT.
10 2.24 R. NELSON and JANE DOE NELSON constitute a marital community
11 under the laws of the State of Washington and upon belief reside within KING County
12 within the Western District of Washington State. Upon belief, R. NELSON was at the
13 time of the injuries complained of in this complaint, an employee and/or agent of the
14 CITY OF SEATTLE acting within the scope of his duties as an OFFICER of the
15 SEATTLE POLICE DEPARTMENT.
16 2.25 G. NELSON and JANE DOE NELSON constitute a marital community
17 under the laws of the State of Washington and upon belief reside within KING County
18 within the Western District of Washington State. Upon belief, G. NELSON was at the
19 time of the injuries complained of in this complaint, an employee and/or agent of the
20 CITY OF SEATTLE acting within the scope of his duties as a SERGEANT of the
21 SEATTLE POLICE DEPARTMENT.
22 2.26 MATTHEW M. DIESZI and JANE DOE DIESZI constitute a marital
HEDDEN ET AL V. CITY OF SEATTLE, COMPLAINT 26
i community under the laws of the State of Washington and upon belief reside within
2 KING County within the Western District of Washington State. Upon belief,
3 MATTHEW M. DIESZI was at the time of the injuries complained of in this complaint,
4 an employee and/or agent of the CITY OF SEATTLE acting within the scope of his
5 duties as an OFFICER of the SEATTLE POLICE DEPARTMENT.
6 2.27 K. SWANK and JANE DOE SWANK constitute a marital community
7 under the laws of the State of Washington and upon belief reside within KING County
s within the Western District of Washington State. Upon belief, K. SWANK was at the
9 time of the injuries complained of in this complaint, an employee and/or agent of the
to CITY OF SEATTLE acting within the scope of his duties as an OFFICER of the
11 SEATTLE POLICE DEPARTMENT.
12 2.28 TAD K. WILLOUGHBY and JANE DOE WILLOUGHBY constitute a
13 marital community under the laws of the State of Washington and upon belief reside
14 within KING County within the Western District of Washington State. Upon belief,
15 TAD K. WILLOUGHBY was at the time of the injuries complained of in this complaint,
16 an employee and/or agent of the CITY OF SEATTLE acting within the scope of his
17 duties as an OFFICER of the SEATTLE POLICE DEPARTMENT.
18 2.29 MICHAEL WHIDBEY and JANE DOE WHIDBEY constitute a marital
19 community under the laws of the State of Washington and upon belief reside within
20 KING County within the Western District of Washington State. Upon belief, MICHAEL
21 WHIDBEY was at the time of the injuries complained of in this complaint, an employee
22 and/or agent of the CITY OF SEATTLE acting within the scope of his duties as a
HEDDEN ET AL V. CITY OF SEATTLE, COMPLAINT
1 DETECTIVE of the SEATTLE POLICE DEPARTMENT.
2 2.30 VERNER O'QUIN and JANE DOE O'QUIN constitute a marital
3 community under the laws of the State of Washington and upon belief reside within
4 KING County within the Western District of Washington State. Upon belief, VERNER
5 O'QUIN was at the time of the injuries complained of in this complaint, an employee
6 and/or agent of the CITY OF SEATTLE acting within the scope of his duties as a
7 SERGEANT of the SEATTLE POLICE DEPARTMENT.
8 2.31 SGT. JANDOC and JANE DOE JANDOC constitute a marital community
9 under the laws of the State of Washington and upon belief reside within KING County
io within the Western District of Washington State. Upon belief, SGT. JANDOC was at
11 the time of the injuries complained of in this complaint, an employee and/or agent of
12 the CITY OF SEATTLE acting within the scope of his duties as a SERGEANT of the
13 SEATTLE POLICE DEPARTMENT.
14 2.32 OFFICER LANDERS and JANE DOE LANDERS constitute a marital
15 community under the laws of the State of Washington and upon belief reside within
16 KING County within the Western District of Washington State. Upon belief, OFFICER
17 LANDERS was at the time of the injuries complained of in this complaint, an employee
i8 and/or agent of the CITY OF SEATTLE acting within the scope of his duties as an
19 OFFICER of the SEATTLE POLICE DEPARTMENT.
20 2.33 LOREN R. STREET and JANE DOE STREET constitute a marital
21 community under the laws of the State of Washington and upon belief reside within
22 KING County within the Western District of Washington State. Upon belief, LOREN R.
HEDDEN ET AL V. CITY OF SEATTLE, COMPLAINT 28
1 STREET was at the time of the injuries complained of in this complaint, an employee
2 and/or agent of the CITY OF SEATTLE acting within the scope of his duties as an
3 OFFICER of the SEATTLE POLICE DEPARTMENT.
4 2.34 P.J. FOX and JANE DOE FOX constitute a marital community under the
5 laws of the State of Washington and upon belief reside within KING County within the
6 Western District of Washington State. Upon belief, P.J. FOX was at the time of the
7 injuries complained of in this complaint, an employee and/or agent of the CITY OF
s SEATTLE acting within the scope of his duties as an OFFICER of the SEATTLE
9 POLICE DEPARTMENT.
10 2.35 THOMAS M. MOONEY and JANE DOE MOONEY constitute a marital
11 community under the laws of the State of Washington and upon belief reside within
12 KING County within the Western District of Washington State. Upon belief, THOMRc"
13 M. MOONEY was at the time of the injuries complained of in this complaint, an
14 employee and/or agent of the CITY OF SEATTLE acting within the scope of his duties
15 as an OFFICER of the SEATTLE POLICE DEPARTMENT.
16 2.36 K. ZEIGER and JANE DOE K. ZEIGER constitute a marital community
17 under the laws of the State of Washington and upon belief reside within KING County
18 within the Western District of Washington State. Upon belief, K. ZEIGER was at the
19 time of the injuries complained of in this complaint, an employee and/or agent of the
20 CITY OF SEATTLE acting within the scope of his duties as an OFFICER of the
21 SEATTLE POLICE DEPARTMENT.
22 2.37 J.J. LEE and JANE DOE LEE constitute a marital community under the
REDDEN ET AL V. CITY OF SEATTLE, COMPLAINT 29
1 laws of the State of Washington and upon belief reside within KING County within the
2 Western District of Washington State. Upon belief, J.J. LEE was at the time of the
3 injuries complained of in this complaint, an employee and/or agent of the CITY OF
4 SEATTLE acting within the scope of his duties as an OFFICER of the SEATTLE
5 POLICE DEPARTMENT.
6 2.38 RIK K. HALL and JANE DOE HALL constitute a marital community under
7 the laws of the State of Washington and upon belief reside within KING County within
a the Western District of Washington State. Upon belief, RIK K. HALL was at the time of
9 the injuries complained of in this complaint, an employee and/or agent of the CITY OF
10 SEATTLE acting within the scope of his duties as an OFFICER of the SEATTLE
11 POLICE DEPARTMENT.
12 2.39 M. LANZ and JANE DOE LANZ constitute a marital community under
13 the laws of the State of Washington and upon belief reside within KING County within
14 the Western District of Washington State. Upon belief, M. LANZ was at the time of the
15 injuries complained of in this complaint, an employee and/or agent of the CITY OF
16 SEATTLE acting within the scope of his duties as an OFFICER of the SEATTLE
17 POLICE DEPARTMENT.
18 2.40 PATRICIA A. MACDONALD and JOHN DOE MACDONALD constitute a
19 marital community under the laws of the State of Washington and upon belief reside
20 within KING County within the Western District of Washington State. Upon belief,
21 PATRICIA A. MACDONALD was at the time of the injuries complained of in this
22 complaint, an employee and/or agent of the CITY OF SEATTLE acting within the
HEDDEN ET AL V. CITY OF SEATTLE, COMPLAINT 30
1 scope of her duties as an OFFICER of the SEATTLE POLICE DEPARTMENT.
2 2.41 WALTER M. HAYDEN and JANE DOE HAYDEN constitute a marital
3 community under the laws of the State of Washington and upon belief reside within
4 KING County within the Western District of Washington State. Upon belief, WALTER
5 M. HAYDEN was at the time of the injuries complained of in this complaint, an
6 employee and/or agent of the CITY OF SEATTLE acting within the scope of his duties
7 as an OFFICER of the SEATTLE POLICE DEPARTMENT.
s 2.42 MARK A. GRINSTEAD and JANE DOE GRINSTEAD constitute a marital
9 community under the laws of the State of Washington and upon belief reside within
10 KING County within the Western District of Washington State. Upon belief, MARK A.
11 GRINSTEAD was at the time of the injuries complained of in this complaint, an
12 employee and/or agent of the CITY OF SEATTLE acting within the scope of his dutir
13 as an OFFICER of the SEATTLE POLICE DEPARTMENT.
14 2.43 TOMMIE M. DORAN and JANE DOE DORAN constitute a marital
15 community under the laws of the State of Washington and upon belief reside within
16 KING County within the Western District of Washington State. Upon belief, TOMMIE
17 M. MORAN was at the time of the injuries complained of in this complaint, an
1E employee and/or agent of the CITY OF SEATTLE acting within the scope of his duties
19 as an OFFICER of the SEATTLE POLICE DEPARTMENT.
20 2.44 ADRAIN Z. DIAZ and JANE DOE DIAZ constitute a marital community
21 under the laws of the State of Washington and upon belief reside within KING County
22 within the Western District of Washington State. Upon belief, ADIAN Z. DIAZ was at
HEDDEN ET AL V. CITY OF SEATTLE, COMPLAINT 31
1 the time of the injuries complained of in this complaint, an employee and/or agent of
2 the CITY OF SEATTLE acting within the scope of his duties as a SERGEANT of the
3 SEATTLE POLICE DEPARTMENT.
4 2.45 CHAD L. MCLAUGHLIN and JANE DOE MCLAUGHLIN constitute a
5 marital community under the laws of the State of Washington and upon belief reside
6 within KING County within the Western District of Washington State. Upon belief,
7 CHAD L. MCLAUGHLIN was at the time of the injuries complained of in this complaint,
a an employee and/or agent of the CITY OF SEATTLE acting within the scope of his
9 duties as an OFFICER of the SEATTLE POLICE DEPARTMENT.
10 2.46 BRAD CONWAY and JANE DOE CONWAY constitute a marital
11 community under the laws of the State of Washington and upon belief reside within
12 KING County within the Western District of Washington State. Upon belief, BRAD
13 CONWAY was at the time of the injuries complained of in this complaint, an employee
14 and/or agent of the CITY OF SEATTLE acting within the scope of his duties as an
15 OFFICER of the SEATTLE POLICE DEPARTMENT.
16 2.47 MATTHEW BRADRICK and JANE DOE BRADRICK constitute a marital
17 community under the laws of the State of Washington and upon belief reside within
18 KING County within the Western District of Washington State. Upon belief;
19 MATTHEW BRADRICK was at the time of the injuries complained of in this complaint,
20 an employee and/or agent of the CITY OF SEATTLE acting within the scope of his
21 duties as an OFFICER of the SEATTLE POLICE DEPARTMENT.
22 2.48 DAVID FITZGERALD and JANE DOE FITZGERALD constitute a marital
HEDDEN ET AL V. CITY OF SEATTLE, COMPLAINT
32
1 community under the laws of the State of Washington and upon belief reside within
2 KING County within the Western District of Washington State. Upon belief, DAVID
3 FITZGERALD was at the time of the injuries complained of in this complaint, an
4 employee and/or agent of the CITY OF SEATTLE acting within the scope of his duties
5 as an OFFICER of the SEATTLE POLICE DEPARTMENT.
6 2.49 RANDALL A. JOKELA and JANE [DOE JOKELA constitute a marital
7 community under the laws of the State of Washington and upon belief reside within
8 KING County within the Western District of Washington State. Upon belief, RANDALL
9 A. JOKELA was at the time of the injuries complained of in this complaint, an
10 employee and/or agent of the CITY OF SEATTLE acting within the scope of his duties
11 as an OFFICER of the SEATTLE POLICE DEPARTMENT.
12 2.50 GEORGE HISSUNG, JR. AND JANE DOE HISSUNG constitute a ma►' '
13 community under the laws of the State of Washington and upon belief reside within
14 KING County within the Western District of Washington State. Upon belief, GEORGE
15 HISSUNG, JR. was at the time of the injuries complained of in this complaint, an
16 employee and/or agent of the CITY OF SEATTLE acting within the scope of his duties
17 as an OFFICER of the SEATTLE POLICE DEPARTMENT.
18 2.51 JASON G. DRUMMOND AND JANE DOE DRUMMOND constitutes a
19 marital community under the laws of the State of Washington and upon belief resides
20 within KING County within the Western District of Washington State. Upon belief,
21 JASON G. DRUMMOND was at the time of the injuries complained of in this
22 complaint, an employee and/or agent of the CITY OF SEATTLE acting within the
HEDDEN ET AL V. CITY OF SEATTLE, COMPLAINT 33
i scope of his duties as an OFFICER of the SEATTLE POLICE DEPARTMENT.
2 2.52 JOHN A. DIAZ and JANE DOE DIAZ constitute a marital community
3 under the laws of the State of Washington and upon belief reside within KING County
4 within the Western District of Washington State. Upon belief, JOHN A. DIAZ was at
5 the time of the injuries complained of in this complaint, an employee and/or agent of
6 the CITY OF SEATTLE acting within the scope of his duties as an OFFICER of the
7 SEATTLE POLICE DEPARTMENT.
s 2.53 OFFICER MCCRAE and JANE DOE MCCRAE constitute a marital
9 community under the laws of the State of Washington and upon belief reside within
10 KING County within the Western District of Washington State. Upon belief, OFFICER
11 MCCRAE was at the time of the injuries complained of in this complaint, an employee
12 and/or agent of the CITY OF SEATTLE acting within the scope of his duties as an
13 OFFICER of the SEATTLE POLICE DEPARTMENT.
14 2.54 JAMES B. PATCHEN and JANE DOE PATCHEN constitute a marital
15 community under the laws of the State of Washington and upon belief reside within
16 KING County within the Western District of Washington State. Upon belief, JAMES B.
17 PATCHEN was at the time of the injuries complained of in this complaint, an employee
18 and/or agent of the CITY OF SEATTLE acting within the scope of his. duties as an
19 OFFICER of the SEATTLE POLICE DEPARTMENT.
20 2.55 MICHAEL M. SUDDUTH and JANE DOE SUDDUTH constitute a marital
21 community under the laws of the State of Washington and upon belief reside within
22 KING County within the Western District of Washington State. Upon belief, MICHAEL
REDDEN ET AL V. CITY OF SEATTLE, COMPLAINT 34
1 M. SUDDUTH was at the time of the injuries complained of in this complaint, an
2 employee and/or agent of the CITY OF SEATTLE acting within the scope of his duties
3 as an OFFICER of the SEATTLE POLICE DEPARTMENT.
4 2.56 WILLIE WILLIAMS and JANE DOE WILLIAMS constitute a marital
5 community under the laws of the State of Washington and upon belief reside within
6 KING County within the Western District of Washington State. Upon belief, WILLIE
7 WILLIAMS was at the time of the injuries complained of in this complaint, an employee
8 and/or agent of the CITY OF SEATTLE acting within the scope of his duties as an
9 OFFICER of the SEATTLE POLICE DEPARTMENT.
10 2.57 W. CRAVENS and JANE DOE CRAVENS constitute a marital
i1 community under the laws of the State of Washington and upon belief reside within
12 KING County within the Western District of Washington State. Upon belief, W.
13 CRAVENS was at the time of the injuries complained of in this complaint, an employee
14 and/or agent of the CITY OF SEATTLE acting within the scope of his duties as an
15 OFFICER of the SEATTLE POLICE DEPARTMENT.
16 2.58 R. BOURNES and JANE DOE BOURNES constitute a marital
17 community under the laws of the State of Washington and upon belief reside within
18 KING County within the Western District of Washington State. Upon belief, R.
19 BOURNES was at the time of the injuries complained of in this complaint, an
20 employee and/or agent of the CITY OF SEATTLE acting within the scope of his duties
21 as an OFFICER of the SEATTLE POLICE DEPARTMENT.
22 2.59 MARK L. WORSTMAN and JANE DOE WORSTMAN constitute a
HEDDEN ET AL V. CITY OF SEATTLE, COMPLAINT 35
1 marital community under the laws of the State of Washington and upon belief reside
2 within KING County within the Western District of Washington State. Upon belief,
3 MARK L. WORSTMAN was at the time of the injuries complained of in this complaint,
4 an employee and/or agent of the CITY OF SEATTLE acting within the scope of his
5 duties as a SERGEANT of the SEATTLE POLICE DEPARTMENT.
6 2.60 BILL GARDINER and JANE DOE GARDINER constitute a marital
7 community under the laws of the State of Washington and upon belief reside within
s KING County within the Western District of Washington State. Upon belief, BILL
9 GARDINER was at the time of the injuries complained of in this complaint, under a
10 material aid agreement an employee and/or agent of the CITY OF SEATTLE acting
ii within the scope of his duties as a LIEUTENANT of the WASHINGTON STATE
12 PATROL.
13 2.61 MARK W. LAMOREAUX and JANE DOE LAMOREAUX constitute a
14 marital community under the laws of the State of Washington and upon belief reside
15 within KING County within the Western District of Washington State. Upon belief,
16 MARK W. LAMOREAUX was at the time of the injuries complained of in this
17 complaint, under a material aid agreement an employee and/or agent of the CITY OF
18 SEATTLE acting within the scope of his duties as a LIEUTENANT of the
19 WASHINGTON STATE PATROL.
20 2.62 SHAWN BERRY and JANE DOE BERRY constitute a marital community
21 under the laws of the State of Washington and upon belief reside within KING County
22 within the Western District of Washington State. Upon belief, SHAWN BERRY was at
HEDDEN ET AL V. CITY OF SEATTLE, COMPLAINT 36
1 the time of the injuries complained of in this complaint, under a material aid agreem-11
2 an employee and/or agent of the CITY OF SEATTLE acting within the scope of his
3 duties as a DETECTIVE of the WASHINGTON STATE PATROL.
4 2.63 JAMES A. CHROMEY and JANE DOE CHROMEY constitute a marital
5 community under the laws of the State of Washington and upon belief reside within
6 KING County within the Western District of Washington State. Upon belief, JAMES A.
7 CHROMEY was at the time of the injuries complained of in this complaint, under a
s material aid agreement an employee and/or agent of the CITY OF SEATTLE acting
9 within the scope of his duties as a LIEUTENANT of the WASHINGTON STATE
10 PATROL.
11 2.64 DAVID W. BOURLAND and JANE DOE BOURLAND constitute a marital
12 community under the laws of the State of Washington and upon belief reside within
13 KING County within the Western District of Washington State. Upon belief, DAVID W.
14 BOURLAND was at the time of the injuries complained of in this complaint, under a
15 material aid agreement an employee and/or agent of the CITY OF SEATTLE acting
16 within the scope of his duties as a TROOPER of the WASHINGTON STATE
11 PATROL.
18 2.65 CURT G. BOYLE and JANE DOE BOYLE constitute a marital
19 community under the laws of the State of Washington and upon belief reside within
20 KING County within the Western District of Washington State. Upon belief, CURT G.
21 BOYLE was at the time of the injuries complained of in this complaint, under a
22 material aid agreement an employee and/or agent of the CITY OF SEATTLE acting
HEDDEN ET AL V. CITY OF SEATTLE, COMPLAINT 37
1 within the scope of his duties as a TROOPER of the WASHINGTON STATE
2 PATROL.
3 2.66 RICARDO BRITO and JANE DOE BRITO constitute a marital
4 community under the laws of the State of Washington and upon belief reside within
5 KING County within the Western District of Washington State. Upon belief, RICARDO
6 BRITO was at the time of the injuries complained of in this complaint, under a material
7 aid agreement an employee and/or agent of the CITY OF SEATTLE acting within the
8 scope of his duties as a TROOPER of the WASHINGTON STATE PATROL.
9 2.67 DARIN F. DE RUWE and JANE DOE DE RUWE constitute a marital
10 community under the laws of the State of Washington and upon belief reside within
11 KING County within the Western District of Washington State. Upon belief, DARIN F.
12 DE RUWE was at the time of the injuries complained of in this complaint, under a
13 material aid agreement an employee and/or agent of the CITY OF SEATTLE acting
14 within the scope of his duties as a TROOPER of the WASHINGTON STATE
15 PATROL.
16 2.68 BRYAN R. DUCOMMUN and JANE DOE DUCOMMUN constitute a
17 marital community under the laws of the State of Washington and upon belief reside
18 within KING County within the Western District of Washington State. Upon belief,
19 BRYAN R. DUCOMMUN was at the time of the injuries complained of in this
20 complaint, under a material aid agreement an employee and/or agent of the CITY OF
21 SEATTLE acting within the scope of his duties as a TROOPER of the WASHINGTON
22 STATE PATROL.
HEDDEN ET AL V. CITY OF SEATTLE, COMPLAINT 38
1 2.69 ANN E. DUTTON and JOHN DOE DUTTON constitute a marital
2 community under the laws of the State of Washington and upon belief reside within
3 KING County within the Western District of Washington State. Upon belief, ANN E.
4 DUTTON was at the time of the injuries complained of in this complaint, under a
5 material aid agreement an employee and/or agent of the CITY OF SEATTLE acting
6 within the scope of her duties as a DETECTIVE of the WASHINGTON STATE
7 PATROL.
8 2.70 KEVIN L. FORRESTER and JANE DOE FORRESTER constitute a
9 marital community under the laws of the State of Washington and upon belief reside
10 within KING County within the Western District of Washington State. Upon belief,
11 KEVIN L. FORRESTER was, at the time of the injuries complained of in this complaint,
12 under a material aid agreement an employee and/or agent of the CITY OF SEATTLF
13 acting within the scope of his duties as a DETECTIVE of the WASHINGTON STATE
14 PATROL.
15 2.71 JOEL W. GORDON and JANE DOE GORDON constitute a marital
16 community under the laws of the State of Washington and upon belief reside within
17 KING County within the Western District of Washington State. Upon belief, JOEL W.
18 GORDON was at the time of the injuries complained of in this complaint, under a
19 material aid agreement an employee and/or agent of the CITY OF SEATTLE acting
20 within the scope of his duties as a DETECTIVE of the WASHINGTON STATE
21 PATROL.
22 2.72 CHRIS T. GUNDERMANN and JANE DOE GUNDERMANN constitute a
HEDDEN ET AL V. CITY OF SEATTLE, COMPLAINT 39
I marital community under the laws of the State of Washington and upon belief reside
2 within KING County within the Western District of Washington State. Upon belief,
3 CHRIS T. GUNDERMANN was at the time of the injuries complained of in this
4 complaint, under a material aid agreement an employee and/or agent of the CITY OF
5 SEATTLE acting within the scope of his duties as a SERGEANT of the
6 WASHINGTON STATE PATROL.
7 2.73 JOI J. HANER and JOHN DOE HANER constitute a marital community
8 under the laws of the State of Washington and upon belief reside within KING County
9 within the Western District of Washington State. Upon belief, JOI J. HANER was at
10 the time of the injuries complained of in this complaint, under a material aid agreement
11 an employee and/or agent of the CITY OF SEATTLE acting within the scope of her
12 duties as a TROOPER of the WASHINGTON STATE PATROL.
13 2.74 ROGER D. HANSBERRY and JANE DOE HANSBERRY constitute a
14 marital community under the laws of the State of Washington and upon belief reside
15 within KING County within the Western District of Washington State. Upon belief,
16 ROGER D. HANSBERRY was at the time of the injuries complained of in this
17 complaint, under a material aid agreement an employee and/or agent of the CITY OF
18 SEATTLE acting within the scope of his duties as a TROOPER of the WASHINGTON
19 STATE PATROL.
20 2.75 RUSSELL J. HANSON and JANE DOE HANSON constitute a marital
21 community under the laws of the State of Washington and upon belief reside within
22 KING County within the Western District of Washington State. Upon belief, RUSSELL
HEDDEN ET AL V. CITY OF SEATTLE, COMPLAINT 40
J. HANSON was at the time of the injuries complained of in this complaint, under a
material aid agreement an employee and/or agent of the CITY OF SEATTLE acting
within the scope of his duties as a TROOPER of the WASHINGTON STATE
2.76 JEFFREY R. KERSHAW and JANE DOE KERSHAW constitute a
marital community under the laws of the State of Washington and upon belief reside
within KING County within the Western District of Washington State. Upon belief,
JEFFREY R. KERSHAW was at the time of the injuries complained of in this
complaint, under a material aid agreement an employee and/or agent of the CITY OF.
SEATTLE acting within the scope of his duties as a DETECTIVE of the
WASHINGTON STATE PATROL.
2.77 DANIEL L. MANN and JANE DOE MANN constitute a marital commu'-*'-,
under the laws of the State of Washington and upon belief reside within KING County
within the Western District of Washington State. Upon belief, DANIEL L. MANN was
at the time of the injuries complained of in this complaint, under a material aid
agreement an employee and/or agent of the CITY OF SEATTLE acting within the
scope of his duties as a DETECTIVE of the WASHINGTON STATE PATROL.
2.79 GEORGE R. MARS and JANE DOE MARS constitute a marital
community under the laws of the State of Washington and upon belief reside within
KING County within the Western District of Washington State. Upon belief, GEORGE
R. MARS was at the time of the injuries complained of in this complaint, under a
material aid agreement an employee and/or agent of the CITY OF SEATTLE acting
REDDEN ET AL V. CITY OF SEATTLE, COMPLAINT
1 within the scope of his duties as a DETECTIVE of the WASHINGTON STATE
2 PATROL.
s 2.80 JOHN G. MCMULLEN and JANE DOE MCMULLEN constitute a marital
4
community under the laws of the State of Washington and upon belief reside within
5
KING County within the Western District of Washington State. Upon belief, JOHN G.
6
MCMULLEN was at the time of the injuries complained of in this complaint, under a
7
material aid agreement an employee and/or agent of the CITY OF SEATTLE acting
s
within the scope of his duties as.a TROOPER of the WASHINGTON STATE
9
PATROL.
10
2.81 DARRELL R. NOYES and JANE DOE NOYES constitute a marital
11
community under the laws of the State of Washington and upon belief reside within
12
KING County within the Western District of Washington State. Upon belief, DARRELL
13
R. NOYES was at the time of the injuries complained of in this complaint, under a
14
material aid agreement an employee and/or agent of the CITY OF SEATTLE acting
15
within the scope of his duties as a TROOPER of the WASHINGTON STATE
16
PATROL.
17
2.82 STEVEN E. REEVES and JANE DOE REEVES constitute a marital
18
community under the laws of the State of Washington and upon belief reside within
19
KING County within the Western District of Washington State. Upon belief, STEVEN
20
E. REEVES was at the time of the injuries complained of in this complaint, under a
21
material aid agreement an employee and/or agent of the CITY OF SEATTLE acting
22
within the scope of his duties as a TROOPER of the WASHINGTON STATE
HEDDEN ET AL V. CITY OF SEATTLE, COMPLAINT 42
1 PATROL.
2 2.83 WESLEY H. RETHWILL and JANE DOE RETHWILL constitute a marital
3 community under the laws of the State of Washington and upon belief reside within
4 KING County within the Western District of Washington State. Upon belief, WESLEY
5 H. RETHWILL was at the time of the injuries complained of in this complaint, under a
6 material aid agreement an employee and/or agent of the CITY OF SEATTLE acting
7 within the scope of his duties as a SERGEANT of the WASHINGTON STATE
s PATROL.
9 2.84 CRAIG L. SAHLINGER and JANE DOE SAHLINGER constitute a
10 marital community under the laws of the State of Washington and upon belief reside
11 within KING County within the Western District of Washington State. Upon belief,
12 CRAIG L. SAHLINGER was at the time of the injuries complained of in this complair"
13 under a material aid agreement an employee and/or agent of the CITY OF SEATTLE
14 acting within the scope of his duties as a TROOPER of the WASHINGTON STATE
15 PATROL.
16 2.85 DAVID J. BROWNE and JANE DOE BROWNE constitute a marital
17 community under the laws of the State of Washington and upon belief reside within
18 KING County within the Western District of Washington State. Upon belief, DAVID J.
19 BROWNE was at the time of the injuries complained of in this complaint, under a
20 material aid agreement an employee and/or agent of the CITY OF SEATTLE acting
21 within the scope of his duties as a SERGEANT of the WASHINGTON STATE
22 PATROL.
HEDDEN ET AL V. CITY OF SEATTLE, COMPLAINT 43
1 2.86 GARY D. GASSELING and JANE DOE GASSELING constitute a
2 marital community under the laws of the State of Washington and upon belief reside
3 within KING County within the Western District of Washington State. Upon belief,
4 GARY D. GASSELING was at the time of the injuries complained of in this complaint,
5 under a material aid agreement an employee and/or agent of the CITY OF SEATTLE
6 acting within the scope of his duties as a SERGEANT of the WASHINGTON STATE
7 PATROL.
a 2.87 PAUL M. STANEK III and JANE DOE STANEK constitute a marital
9 community under the laws of the State of Washington and upon belief reside within
10 KING County within the Western District of Washington State. Upon belief, PAUL M.
11 STANEK III was at the time of the injuries complained of in this complaint, under a
1-2- material aid agreement an employee and/or agent of the CITY OF SEATTLE acting
13 within the scope of his duties as a DETECTIVE of the WASHINGTON STATE
14 PATROL.
15 2.88 RICHARD A. TAYLOR and JANE DOE TAYLOR constitute a marital
16 community under the laws of the State of Washington and upon belief reside within
17 KING County within the Western District of Washington State. Upon belief, RICHARD
18 A. TAYLOR was at the time of the injuries complained of in this complaint, under a
19 material aid agreement an employee and/or agent of the CITY OF SEATTLE acting
20 within the scope of his duties as a DETECTIVE of the WASHINGTON STATE
21 PATROL.
22 2.89 GARY M. WILCOX and JANE DOE WILCOX constitute a marital
HEDDEN ET AL V. CITY OF SEATTLE, COMPLAINT 44
1 community under the laws of the State of Washington and upon belief reside within
2 KING County within the Western District of Washington State. Upon belief, GARY tii.
3 WILCOX was at the time of the injuries complained of in this complaint, under a
4 material aid agreement an employee and/or agent of the CITY OF SEATTLE acting
5 within the scope of his duties as a DETECTIVE of the WASHINGTON STATE
6 PATROL.
7 2.90 OREST D. WILSON and JANE DOE WILSON constitute a marital
s community under the laws of the State of Washington and upon belief reside within
9 KING County within the Western District of Washington State. Upon belief, OREST D.
10 WILSON was at the time of the injuries complained of in this complaint, under a
11 material aid agreement an employee and/or agent of the CITY OF SEATTLE acting
-12 within the scope of his duties as a DETECTIVE of the WASHINGTON STATE
13 PATROL.
14 2.91 RONALD W. SERPAS and JANE DOE SERPAS constitute a marital
15 community under the laws of the State of Washington and upon belief reside within
16 KING County within the Western District of Washington State. Upon belief, RONALD
17 W. SERPAS was at the time of the injuries complained of in this complaint, under a
is material aid agreement an employee and/or agent of the CITY OF SEATTLE acting
19 within the scope of his duties as the CHIEF of the WASHINGTON STATE PATROL.
20 2.92 DANIEL E. EIKEM and JANE DOE EIKEM constitute a marital community
21 under the laws of the State of Washington and upon belief reside within KING County
22 within the Western District of Washington State. Upon belief, DANIEL E. EIKEM was
HEDDEN ET AL V. CITY OF SEATTLE, COMPLAINT 45
1 at the time of the injuries complained of in this complaint, under a material aid
2 agreement an employee and/or agent of the CITY OF SEATTLE acting within the
3 scope of his duties as a CAPTAIN of the WASHINGTON STATE PATROL.
4 2.93 STEVEN D. MCCULLEY and JANE DOE MCCULLEY constitute a marital
5 community under the laws of the State of Washington and upon belief reside within
6 KING County within the Western District of Washington State. Upon belief, STEVEN
7 D. MCCULLEY was at the time of the injuries complained of in this complaint, under a
8 material aid agreement an employee and/or agent of the CITY OF SEATTLE acting
9 within the scope of his duties as a LIEUTENANT of the WASHINGTON STATE
10 PATROL.
11 2.94 There are numerous other persons, identities presently unknown to
- ---- - Plaintiffswhoare; and were-at--atFtimes mentioned --herein; -supervisors,-incident- -
13 commanders, and decision -makers OF THE CITY OF SEATTLE, and the SEATTLE
14 POLICE DEPARTMENT and/or the other involved agencies, who acted in concert with
15 the above named Defendants and who devised or approved the police strategy for
16 responding to the demonstration and police response thereto that are the subject of
17 this action and in doing the things hereinafter alleged, acted under color of state law
18 as agents of the CITY OF SEATTLE and with its full consent and approval.
19 2.95. There are also numerous Does, who are employees and/or Managers or
20 agents of Defendant LEIU who were directly involved in planning, organizing, and
21 orchestrating the response to the demonstration in question, including to Plaintiffs,
22 and are responsible for the harm suffered by Plaintiffs.
HEDDEN ET AL V. CITY OF SEATTLE, COMPLAINT 46
1 2.96. DOES 1-500 are, and were at all times mentioned herein, OFFICERS,
2 Supervisors, and the Incident Commander For This Demonstration Of The Police
3 Department Of The CITY OF SEATTLE, Or Other CITY, other Public Agency or
4 Private Actors or Officials involved in the planning, creation, development or exercise
s of Police Force and Control against the demonstration in question, the response to
6 which is the subject of this action, and in committing the acts and omissions herein
7 alleged hereinafter alleged, acted under color of state law as agents of the CITY OF
s SEATTLE and the SEATTLE POLICE DEPARTMENT and with its full consent and
9 approval.
10 2.97 DOES 1-100 are MANUFACTURERS OF LESS LETHAL WEAPONRY do
11 substantial business in Washington, and reasonably and purposely avail themselves
12 of the laws of the State of Washington, there product was misrepresented, subject a^
13 design flaws, not fit for purpose, and or otherwise improper for the purpose of crowd
14 control at peaceful demonstrations, and was thus involved in the incidents herein
15 alleged, and therefore is subject to the jurisdiction of this court.
16 2.98 DOES 1-100 are DISTRIBUTORS and/or SALES AGENTS OF LESS
17 LETHAL WEAPONRY do substantial business in Washington, and reasonably and
18 purposely avail themselves of the laws of the State of Washington, there product was
19 misrepresented, subject to design flaws, not fit for purpose, and or otherwise improper
20 for the purpose of crowd control at peaceful demonstrations, and was thus involved in
21 the incidents herein alleged, and therefore is subject to the jurisdiction of this court.
22 2.99 This action is brought pursuant to the First, Fourth, Fifth, Eighth, and
HEDDEN ET AL V. CITY OF SEATTLE, COMPLAINT ei
1 Fourteenth Amendments to the United States Constitution, Article 1, Section 5 and
2 Article 1, Section 7 of the Washington State Constitution, 42 U.S.C. 1983, 1988,
3 Revised Code of Washington Title 9, Chapter 62, Section 10(1), Washington State
4 common law prohibiting assault, battery, intentional infliction of emotional distress,
5 false arrest and false imprisonment, and misappropriation of or damage to personal
6 property, Washington common law negligence.
7 2.100. Captain SANFORD was himself at the scene, involved in the decision-
8 making and active in creating the Constitutional and other legal violations that
9 occurred and that are the subject of this action.
10 2.101 Between June 3 2003 and June 2, 2004, Plaintiffs served Defendant
11 CITY OF SEATTLE with Notices of Claim, which were acknowledged by the county
12 shortly thereafter. Substantially more than 60 days has gone by since the service of
13 those claims without an acceptance or rejection. Therefore Plaintiffs have fulfilled
14 their obligations under the statute.
15
16
III. FACTS a) Overall
17 3.1 Plaintiffs were participants in a permitted, peaceful, and lawful
18 demonstration against the Law Enforcement Intelligence Unit (LEIU.) This
19 demonstration was permitted by the city and the police. In the course of this permitted
2 o demonstration Plaintiffs were subjected to unreasonable force. All plaintiffs were
21 subjected to improper uses of "less lethal" weaponry, including chemical agents,
22 rubber balls, wooden dowels, batons and "pepper -ball rounds" and/or other improper
REDDEN ET AL V. CITY OF SEATTLE, COMPLAINT
48
0
1 uses of force. Many Plaintiffs were improperly arrested and or had their property
2 wrongfully seized. All Plaintiffs suffered physical and or psychological injuries, and
3 lost their Constitutional Rights including their First Amendment rights.
4 gackground
5 3.2 The Law Enforcement Intelligence Unit (LEIU) is a theoretically private non-
6 profit organization, made up entirely of public law enforcement agencies and their
7 employees. The LEIU came into prominence after the scandals surrounding illegal
8 surveillance, disruption and infiltration of legal protest groups by law enforcement
9 agencies in the 1960's and 1970's. Such illegal activity by law enforcement prompted
10 the investigations of Senator Church's Committee, and led to legal limits being placed
11 on the ability of law enforcement to collect data and target citizens engaged in lawful
12 dissent in this matter. As it became illegal for the federal government to perform thF--
13 functions, they did not cease, but became absorbed by private and non-profit
14 organizations. The LEIU was one of these organizations that continued to collect data
15 on lawful protesters for the benefit of law enforcement. It even became the depository
16 of many files created by law enforcement agencies that could no longer retain their old
17 files.
18 3.3 The LEIU picked Seattle as the site of their annual convention for 2003.
19 The event was scheduled for June. Numerous corporations, many with their own
20 intelligence networks, including Boeing, Pemco and Microsoft signed on to sponsor
21 the event. Also sponsoring was the Anti -Defamation League (ADL) an organization
22 whose fact finding division had been implicated in widely publicized scandal ten years
HEDDEN ET AL V. CITY OF SEATTLE, COMPLAINT 49
1 earlier, for gathering personal information on 20,000 citizens engaged in political
2 activity and trading that information with law enforcement and foreign governments.
3 3.4 Several citizens and community organizers in Seattle became aware that
4 the LEIU was coming in February of 2003. They began holding meetings to peacefully
5 protest the convention.
6 3.5 The organizers of the demonstrations against the LEIU pledged
7 immediately to make the event family friendly and non-violent. They adopted a code
s of non violence and made it a condition for those who would be attending the rally.
9 This was reflected in subsequent meetings and in the literature distributed by this
10 group.
11 3.6 The setup and logistics of the protest involved many of the same players
12 - - that had put on many large Peace marches in- the proceeding years. One of the main
13 sponsors of this protest was the Not In Our Name Coalition that had put together the
14 first large Seattle rally around the war which had numbered in the tens of thousands.
15 Some of the main organizers, had decades of experience organizing these types of
16 events. The group included police liaisons who had worked with police on dozens of
17 these rallies before. They included peacekeepers who were trained to diffuse any
18 potential conflict and to keep the march peaceful. They included medics who were
19 trained to treat injuries that occurred during protest. They included Legal Observers
20 from both the National Lawyers Guild and the ACLU who were trained to observe what
21 occurred and make an independent record. They included videographers,
22 photographers and other independent media producers. All of these groups and
HEDDEN ET AL V. CITY OF SEATTLE, COMPLAINT 50
1 individuals had participated in these large peace rallies with numbers in the tens of
2 thousands, and few if any incidents of arrest.
3 3.7 Even from the first meeting, there were strong indications that the
4 protesters were being watched. Participants at the first meeting noticed a man in
5 attendance. This man was unfamiliar to any of them, and took copiously detailed
6 notes throughout the meeting. At the meetings end he was observed going into what
7 appeared to be an unmarked police car.
8 3.8 As the meetings progressed and the June meeting date grew closer,
9 harassment became steeper. Organizers noticed themselves being followed, near
10 homes, at work and as they drove.
11 3.9 Organizers went forward and negotiated the permit for the march with the
12 Seattle Police Department, and the permit for the rally at Westlake Park with the City
13 of Seattle. They negotiated with the Seattle Police for the march permit approximately
14 one week before the event. They spoke with Lt. Poulsen and Captain Mike Sanford.
15 There was no time limit on the permit for the march.
16 3.10 In late May and early June, organizers held teach -ins about the LEIU.
17 This included a session at Town Hall, led by researchers on the LEIU and allied
18 organizations. Several hundred attended this event on the evening of June 1, 2003.
19 Day of the Event
20 3.11 On June 2nd, some of the organizers were scheduled to meet at 10 AM in
21 the morning with their attorney, William Broberg, and Virgina Swanson from the City of
22 Seattle, to make final arrangements for the permit.
HEDDEN ET AL V. CITY OF SEATTLE, COMPLAINT 51
1 3.12 On the way to this meeting some of them drove past the Red Lion Inn.
2 There was already a heavy police presence there. Large numbers of police remained
3 there, in riot gear, the whole day.
4 3.13 The meeting for the permit took place at Westlake at 10AM as scheduled.
5 The organizers were granted access to the space from Noon until 10 PM. They held
6 a press conference at Westlake Park around mid -day. Reporters from most media
7 outlets were present.
s 3.14 Some of the organizers returned to Westlake around 3PM, to set up, to
9 be on site to observe the arrangements with police, as well as to make sure that the
io arrangements made with Ms. Swanson were complied with. Also around this time
11 people began to arrive for the demonstration in small groups of 2s and 3s.
12 3.15 Perhaps around 4 PM; police on bicycles arrived. They were patrolling the
13 area. Between 5 and 6, Captain Sanford and several of his aides walked through.
14 3.16 By about 5:30 there were fairly significant numbers of demonstrators in
15 Westlake Park.
16 3.17 The rally started at 6 PM as scheduled, and proceeded as planned -
17 peaceful and without incident. The Rally featured speakers that included victims of
18 political surveillance, as well as representatives of the ACLU and the National Lawyers
19 Guild. There were several hundred people in attendance. Some of the demonstrators
20 performed street theater skits. Some carried colorful signs, such as a copy of the Bill
21 of Rights with the word "Void" stamped across it. The atmosphere was festive. There
22 was no hint of violence from any of the protesters. Everything was calm and peaceful.
HEDDEN ET AL V. CITY OF SEATTLE, COMPLAINT 52
1 3.18 At about 7PM, the march took off as the organizers had planned with the
2 Seattle police. Westlake Plaza was located on Fourth Avenue between Pine and Pi,.-
3 Street. The Red Lion Inn was located one block south between Pike and Union, with
entrances on Fourth and Fifth Avenue, its main entrance being at 1415 Fifth Avenue.
5 The organizers' plan was to march to the Red Lion Inn, one block South of Westlake
6 Plaza, and ultimately to march around the block. They planned to pause in front of the
7 Fifth Avenue entrance.
s 3.19 The large peace rallies, organized by many of these same people had
9 been characterized by a token police presence. Marches with tens of thousands had
10 been escorted through many miles of Seattle without incident by a few dozen police.
11 Despite the fact that the same organizers were in charge of this event's logistics, an
12 - arbitrary decision was made to use a more heavy handed approach. Despite the fact
13 that this was a march with probably less than a thousand people that were only going
14 a few blocks, there were far more police present than there had been at the marches
15 and rallies that ran for miles and included tens of thousands of demonstrators.
16 Police Presence and Weaponry on June 2, 2003
17 3.20 All along the route few blocks to Red Lion Inn, almost every street or alley
18 was blocked by lines of police in full riot gear.
19 3.21 The police already had barriers set up when the few hundred
20 demonstrators arrived. There were barriers on Fifth Avenue and Fourth Avenue. The
21 police had the alley between the two streets blocked off with metal barricades and
22 squad cars.
HEDDEN ET AL V. CITY OF SEATTLE, COMPLAINT
1 3.22 Whereas the police in the prior larger rallies had worn what they referred
2 to as their "soft" uniforms, many wore the "hard" uniforms consisting of full body
3 armor (dubbed "ninja turtle" and "Robocop" uniforms by some of the press.) These
4 uniforms of course made the police look more threatening and they covered their
5 faces so they looked more like Imperial Stormtroopers from Star Wars than they did
6 human beings.
7 3.23 The SPD had already acknowledged that these uniforms often created
s more problems than they solved. For example they had stated they could not
9 intervene during the Mardi Gras beatings that had taken place in 2001, because
10 their officers wore these same uniforms. The SPD command had felt that
11 intervention by the officers wearing these uniforms would likely incite a crowd of
1-2 people.
13 3.24 A line of officers, including many from the Washington State Patrol
14 formed a line several officers deep in front of the Fifth Avenue entrance of the Red
15 Lion Inn. In defiance of the local Seattle Ordinance, many of them wore no name
16 tags. Almost all of these officers wore the same body armor that made the police
17 reluctant to take any action during the Mardi Gras event for fear of exacerbating an
18 already bad situation.
19 3.25 Most of the officers carried some type of "less -lethal weaponry."
20 Sometimes incorrectly referred to as "non -lethal weaponry," this weaponry is designed
21 to be used in a potentially life threatening situation, as an alternative to firearms or
22 other methods more likely to kill, "Less -lethal weaponry" is designed to be used in
HEDDEN ET AL V. CITY OF SEATTLE, COMPLAINT 54
1 very narrow parameters so that it may have a lower likelihood of killing someone.
2 Police training materials and that of the manufacturers themselves, stresses that there
3 is always the likelihood that these weapons can kill even when used within the
4 recommended narrow parameters, and thus should be considered a lethal use of
5 force, not something equivalent to a verbal command.
6 3.26 Despite the lethality of these weapons, and despite the fact that training
7 materials stress their lethality, their literature, notably including much of the
s companies' sales literature, refers to these weapons as "non -lethal" and gives false
9 indications some implied some overt, that these weapons do not kill, and are always
1 o safe to use.
11 3.27 Many of the officers present that day carried either 37mm, 38mm, 4Omm
- - _ -12 - - and or similar style launchers. Some of these were single shot, others were
13 configured like enormous revolvers and held five or six shots, or even as many as
14 eight shots. These held cartridges, approximately 8 inches or 250 mm long and 1 %2
15 inches or 37mm wide. These cartridges could be filled with a variety of weaponry
16 described below. At least two officers in front of the Fifth Avenue entrance to the
17 Red Lion Inn carried these.
18 3.28 Many of the officers carried 12 gauge shot guns. These were pump
19 action, or guns that required spent shells to be manually ejected, as the less lethal
20 cartridges had insufficient charge to cycle the next cartridge. The cartridges they fired
21 were the size of normal shotgun shells, and were similar to the cartridges in the
22 launchers, though much smaller. At least two of the officers in front of the Fifth
HEDDEN ET AL V. CITY OF SEATTLE, COMPLAINT 55
i Avenue entrance of the Red Lion Inn carried these.
2 3.29 The cartridges in the shotguns and larger launcher could contain "impact"
3 projectiles, chemical agents or a combination of these. The "impact" projectiles
4 included "flying batons" which were large pieces of heavy plastic usually several
5 inches long and the width of the cartridges, wooden "dowels" which were cylinders of
6 wood the width of the cartridges, "bean bags" which consisted of buck shot sewn in a
7 bag, and "rubber ball rounds" of varying sizes and densities.
s 3.30 One of the factors that made these cartridges less likely to kill people was
9 that they had a lower velocity than bullets. A "rubber ball round "given the same
10 charge as a bullet the same size would travel faster and thus be more lethal. Most of
11 the "impact projectiles" only slowed to a safe distance once they'd traveled a
12 substantial number of feet from the firearm. This meant that they were highly lethal if
13 fired in close range.
14 3.31 Another factor that made these cartridges less likely to kill people was
15 that they were designed to only be fired at limited areas of the body. These areas
16 were "the meaty areas," and consisted only of the thighs and buttocks. A large piece
17 of hard plastic, a piece of wood 38mm in diameter, a "rubber ball round" the size of a
18 marble or ball bearing, a bag of buckshot, traveling in speeds in excess of 300 feet per
19 second as most of these did, all could easily be lethal if they struck the head, if they
20 struck the kidneys, or penetrated the eyes.
21 3.32 Another factor that made these firearms less likely to kill someone was
22 that many of these were designed to be "skip -fired," or shot into the ground so that
HEDDEN ET AL V. CITY OF SEATTLE, COMPLAINT
56
1 they lost velocity and then ricocheted into the appropriate area of the specific targe+
2 3.33 This combination of factors, and other similar factors made the impact
3 cartridges of devices of limited utility in large crowd control situations. The prospect
4 that these impact projectiles could be fired at a specific person, strike a specific area
5 of their body, from a certain distance, after being skip fired off the ground, made little
6 sense in a situation where there were a dozen people moving around, let alone a few
7 hundred. It would be very easy to hit an innocent person. It would be very easy to
s strike the wrong part of the body. It would be very easy to cause a major injury or
9 fatality. For this reason many law enforcement agencies have limited their use, or
10 even banned it as regards crowd control situations.
11 3.34 Many of the cartridges contained chemical agents including OC, CN and
- - 12 C-S.
13 3.35 CN is commonly known by the brand name "Mace," contains small metal
14 barbs in a carrier agent. A common carrier agent used in Seattle in recent
15 demonstrations is methylene chloride, a known carcinogen.
16 3.36 CS is similarly a pyrotechnic carrier agent propelled through pressurized
17 aerosol. It was used by the United States Army to drive Viet Cong from trenches. It
18 has caused the death of dozens of Palestinians in Israel and large numbers of
19 children under the South African Apartheid regime. Because of its horrendous effects
20 it was given the name "tear gas."
21 3.37 OC is also known as oleoresin capsicum, cap -stun or pepper spray. OC
22 is made from an extract of cayenne peppers. It gained popularity because it not
HEDDEN ET AL V. CITY OF SEATTLE, COMPLAINT
57
i merely incapacitated, but caused involuntary physical reactions. It too has been
2 linked to many dozens of deaths.
3 3.38 All these chemical agents were designed to cause pain and
4 disorientation, confusion and fear. Typically a container carrying the chemical agent
5 would strike an area and disperse, effecting people in its vicinity.
6 3.39 Many of the cartridges contained "distraction devices," such as smoke
7 devices and explosion devices that were designed to create disorientation, confusion
8 and fear.
9 3.40 Many of the cartridges contained combinations of the above impact
10 devices, and/or chemical agents, and or "distraction devices."
11 3.41 Many of the officers carried "pepperball" and or similar style guns. These
- -12- were guns similar to -those used in paintball. They fired pellets similar in size and
13 consistency to those used in a paintball gun. The pellets fired from these guns were
14 not filled with paint. Instead they were filled with OC, and or similar agents. The pellet
15 would explode upon contact and disperse the OC, and or similar agents. These were
16 a similar type of weapon to the one that had killed the woman in Boston in October of
17 2004, after the Red Sox had won the pennant from the Yankees. These were only
18 supposed to be fired on limited parts of the body, and in highly controlled
19 circumstances.
20 3.42 Many of the officers carried "Sting -Ball" and similar style rubber ball
21 grenades. These were made of a hard rubber substance, and released hard plastic
22 balls the size of ball bearings when they exploded.
HEDDEN FT AL V. CITY OF SEATTLE, COMPLAINT 58
1 3.43 Many of the officers carried grenades similar in style to the rubber ball
2 grenades except that they also contained OC, CS, CN, a combination of these, and
3 or similar substances. When these exploded, they not only released hard plastic
4 balls, but the chemical agents as well.
5 3.44 Because of the way a grenade explodes, it would be impossible for any
6 officer throwing these to know exactly who their projectiles would hit, in what part of
7 the body and with how much force. Any use of these could potentially cause
a permanent injury or death. Additionally, when deployed in a crowded situation such
9 devices have been found to cause additional injuries as crowds panic and attempt to
16 flee the area.
11 3.45 Many of the officers carried Flash bang and Stun Grenades. These were
12 - designed as "distraction devices" that would cause loud noises, make bright flashes
13 and release smoke, OC, CS, CN or a combination of these and or similar substances.
14 These would cause fear, confusion, and disorientation. While appropriate in some
15 situations such as executing a forced entry on an armed dangerous suspect, such
16 devices routinely caused panic in crowds, causing people to trample each other, and
17 creating similar injuries.
18 3.46 Most if not all of the officers carried OC, CS, and CN dispensers. Some
19 were hand held. Others were as large as fire extinguishers. All had limits on the
20 distance from which they could be fired, as firing from a close distance could cause
21 chemical burns and other injuries. All had limits in the length of time they could be
22 fired as the likelihood of permanent damage to an individual increased with the
1
_1
HEDDEN ET AL V. CITY OF SEATTLE, COMPLAINT Jz,
1 amount of substance a person was exposed to. All were designed to be used in areas
2 where there was a free flow of air.
3 3.47 At least one of thee officers carried a variant of the AR-15/M-16 military
4 rifle. These fired highly lethal .223 caliber ammunition that traveled at a rate of 3,000
5 feet per second. This is the standard weapon used by the United States military.
6 The Demonstration in Front of the Red Lion Inn; Early Arrests
7 3.48 By about 7:15, the bicycle police had formed a line, on the Northern side
s of the Red Lion Inn on Fifth Avenue. Behind them were about a half dozen officers on
9 horses. Because of the metal barricades on the East and West sides of the street, the
to demonstrators were penned in. Arbitrarily, the police allowed certain other people
11 through these same lines, while blocking people they believed were associated with
-12 the permitted demonstration. Some of the demonstrators asked the police which way
13 they should go if they wanted to leave, but were met with silence by these same
14 police. Similarly, demonstrators who were attempting to get into the rally from the
15 same area were blocked. After a few minutes, Peacekeepers formed a line between
16 these police and the other demonstrators.
17 3.49 On the West side of the Red Lion Inn; along 4th Avenue, a smaller group
18 of demonstrators were gathered. Police singled several of these people, including
F 19 Plaintiff O'Brien -Smith out for particularly brutal arrests, stepping on one of the
20 arrestees head. Also arrested was Plaintiff Johnson, one of the few media people
21 present at this location, who was attempting to videotape the arrest.
22 3.50 On the eastside along Fifth Avenue, the demonstration continued without
HEDDEN ET AL V. CITY OF SEATTLE, COMPLAINT 60
1 incident. People held signs, chanted slogans. A marching band played. Some pea-'
2 danced. The demonstrators remained peaceful. None of them destroyed any
3 property. None of them broke any windows. Police were able to pass through the
4 demonstrators without incident.
5 3.51 A mixture of shoppers and other people moving through the downtown
6 area walked through the demonstration, or stood by and watched it without incident.
7 3.52 Many of the LEIU conference participants were at windows and balconies,
s watching the demonstration below. Some of them took photographs or shot videos of
9 the demonstration.
10 3.53 At about 7:20, a young man climbed onto a plexiglass awning, north of
11 the Red Lion Inn on Fifth Avenue. He seemed to be largely ignored by the police and
-12 most of the demonstrators.
13 3.54 At about 7:45, Robert Barnes,'one of the police liaisons asked Captain
14 Sanford if the demonstrators would be permitted to circle the building several times,
15 and then return to Westlake. Captain Sanford replied no, but assured, "your people
16 will be cold and hungry before we force you off the street."
17 3.55 One of the other organizers, Roger Weaver, announced this to the
18 demonstrators on Fifth Avenue over an amplified bull horn. Weaver complemented
19 the police, and reiterated that the demonstrators could stay there till they were cold. It
20 was 7:50 PM.
21 3.56 Sometime after this, Captain Sanford seemed to notice the young man on
22 the awning, as he attempted to burn a flag. While the majority of the demonstrators
HEDDEN ET AL V. CITY OF SEATTLE, COMPLAINT 61
1 listened to an organizer from NION tell them how they'd be proceeding back to
2 Westlake Plaza, Sanford stood North of the group, under the plexiglass awning,
3 starring up at the young man and talking into his cell phone.
4 3.57 Several of the other demonstrators voiced concern to the NION organizer.
5 She replied "the police are starting to line up. That's their message to us." It was
6 about 8:07 PM
7 The Attacks on the Demonstrators by Police
s 3.58 Captain Sanford left the area under the awning and began to talk to each
9 of his command staff. He walked through the area around the demonstrators talking
1 o to first one of the bicycle officers, then the others, including Lt. Wilske. Without
11 exception, the demonstrators stepped aside as Sanford moved forward. Sanford and
12 - the -other officers were able to move through the demonstrators without incident.
13 3.59 As Sanford made plans on how to deal with the young man on the awning
14 the majority of the demonstrators remained oblivious to this. Most in front of the Red
15 Lion Inn were gathered around a band playing "Down by the Riverside."
16 3.60 The bicycle officers lined up along the north end of the demonstrators., in
17 formation to ride into the demonstration as a group. The demonstrators continued to
18 listen to, dance or play with the band.
19 3.61 At about 8:12 the young man on the awning attempted to light a flag on
20 fire, this attracted the attention of a few dozen of the demonstrators.
21 3.62 At about 8:20, the bicycle police moved in formation to the East End of
22 Fifth Avenue, North of the awning.
REDDEN ET AL V. CITY OF SEATTLE, COMPLAINT 62
a
Y
1 3.63 At about 8:23 PM, forty minutes after Captain Sanford's statement that
2 the demonstrators could stay till they were "cold and hungry," Robert Barnes, as polit;C
3 liaison approached Captain Sanford and Lieutenant Wilske, who were standing on
4 East side of Fifth Avenue, on the sidewalk, next to the bicycle police. Barnes, the
5 liaison suggested that if the police could guarantee they would not arrest the person
6 on the awning, he could get the crowd to disperse to Westlake.
7 3.64 Captain Sanford told him, "no, that's not going to happen. You have two
a minutes to disperse."
9 3.65 No other warning was given by the police to the crowd. Some of the other
Zo organizers began to direct the demonstrators back towards Westlake Plaza.
11 3.66 Barnes, the liaison to the police, immediately asked what had changed in
12 the last 40 minutes. Captain Sanford made no reply.
13 3.67 As organizers began directing the demonstrators to Westlake, the
14 demonstrators complied and began to move South, the only direction still open to
15 them, and away from the awning, down Fifth Avenue. The Peacekeepers formed a
16 line on the North end between the police and the demonstrators.
17 3.68 The young man on the awning came down and attempted to join the
18 departing demonstrators.
19 3.69 As the group then proceeded back to Westlake, someone, presumably
20 this young man was grabbed out of the group by several undercover officers. They
21 moved him roughly to the line of police in riot gear in front of the Red Lion Inn along
22 Fifth Avenue. The young man was tossed over the railing, by a mixture of uniformed
HEDDEN ET AL V. CITY OF SEATTLE, COMPLAINT
t
b-
1 and plain clothed police.
2 3,70 None of the demonstrators attempted to go over the metal barriers. The
3 only people who attempted to go over the metal barriers were the undercover officers,
4 dressed in street clothes. In fact, the closest of the demonstrators was several feet
5 from the barricades.
6 3.71 Captain Sanford stated at a press conference later that evening that he
7 was telling the demonstrators to give the police two feet of working room and that by
s and large they complied.
9 3.72 As the young man was tossed over the metal barricade, many of the
10 officers fired their containers of OC, or similar chemical agents. The chemical agents
11 struck and drenched large numbers of people, including those demonstrators already
- -12 leaving for Westlake Plaza and the undercover officers themselves. Several of the
13 plaintiffs were hit at this time.
14 3.73 As the young man was tossed over the railing, police on bicycles rode into
15 the crowd, using their bicycles to batter the crowd. Some demonstrators were injured
16 and bleeding as they were hit by the bicycles. Some were injured and bleeding as the
17 police got off their bicycles and swung them like clubs, striking those demonstrators
18 around them. Many of the Plaintiffs were injured at this time. Barnes, a 275 pound
19 man, found himself knocked aside by these officers. Among those targeted were the
20 legal observers. One of the bicycle commanders realized they were being videotaped,
21 pointed toward the camera and shouted the words "Hey!, Movie!" to the other officers.
22 These officers relaxed their attack.
HEDDEN ET AL V. CITY OF SEATTLE, COMPLAINT 64
1 13.74 Also at this time other less lethal weaponry may have been fired into the
2 crowd of demonstrators.
3 3.75 In all this, one of the demonstrators appears to have thrown a cardboard
4 sign at the police line, which landed at their feet without effect.
5 3.76 The bicycle officers formed a second line in front of the metal barrier.
6 Several held their canisters presumably filled with OC. There was some yelling by the
7 demonstrators, but in no way did they attack the police.
8 3.77 It was around this time that several dozen more police in riot gear joined
9 the others. These held weapons that included launchers, shotguns pepper -ball guns
to OC canisters, batons, and at least one AR-151M-16 variant.
11 3.78 The police advanced using their bicycles as barriers, pushed the
12 demonstrators forward.
13 3.79 Just behind the metal barriers, at least five large police officers had the
14 young man presumed to have been on the awning on the ground.
15 3.80 During this time no aid was offered by the police to any of the people, be
16 they demonstrators, media, legal observers or bystanders who had been injured by
17 the chemical agents,. less lethal weapons, or blows of the police.
18 3.81 Some of the medics' supplies were now stuck behind police lines. The
19 police made no response to requests by medics and organizers that they be allowed
20 to retrieve them. This hindered the ability of many of the injured to receive care.
21 3.82 Organizers again started to move the crowd forward. There was some
22 yelling, at the police but the protesters again started to head out through their only
HEDDEN ET AL V. CITY OF SEATTLE, COMPLAINT 65
1 exit, going South on Fifth Avenue.
2 3.83 At least three of the police began spraying all the demonstrators in their
3 proximity with chemical agents. Dozens of the demonstrators were directly hit by this.
4 This was followed by the police striking forward with their bicycles, striking into the
5 crowd, hitting demonstrators with considerable force. Their use of force seemed in no
6 way to be connected to either of the objects that had been thrown. A few of the
7 demonstrators threw plastic water bottles back at the police as they were pushed and
s attacked. It was now around 8:28
9 3.84 At this point about two dozen or so protesters were facing the police.
10 Also there were members of the media, legal observers and passersby who'd been
11 drawn to the activity. After a brief pause, the police again pushed forward with their
12 bicycles. Several officers on the East side of the street sprayed a few dozen people
13 with OC and or similar agents. Several people were grabbed and arrested. It was
14 now about 8:32
15 8.85 With dozens of the demonstrators and some bystanders debilitated by the
16 pepper spray and other less lethal devices, many of them had to be helped as they
17 hobbled away. The police continued to push forward, striking people with their
18 bicycles and batons. By about 8:39, the police were pushing the demonstrators down
19 Union Street, from Fifth to Fourth Avenue. Some of the demonstrators chanted "this is
20 what a police state looks like."
21 3.86 In front of the Washington Mutual Bank, on the NW Corner of Union and
22 Fifth the police grabbed several of the demonstrators. Several officers yanked them
HEDOEN ET AL V. CITY OF SEATTLE, COMPLAINT 66
1 back behind lines as others sprayed those in their vicinity with chemical agents.
2 Several photographers attempting to photograph this were knocked to the ground, or
3 themselves arrested. Many of those present were stumbling blindly from the OC and
4 other agents. No aid was offered by any of the police to any of these people. Several
5 of the medics who were attempting to administer aid were themselves attacked by the
6 police.
7 3.87 The police and protesters turned North on Fourth Avenue. The other side
s of the Red Lion Inn was on this street. Those attending the LEIU Conference
9 watched from the windows, some with cameras.
10 3.88 As the group turned North on Fourth Avenue, and came back in sight of
i i the Red Lion Inn, the police's use of Less Lethal Agents again accelerated. In front of
12 the Office Depot Store, on the West side of the street, across from the Red Lion Inr
13 the police again let fly with generous bursts of OC, and or other chemical agents
14 aimed into the backs of dozens of already retreating demonstrators. Several people
15 were grabbed at by the police and wrestled to the ground.
16 3.89 Within about five seconds of the bursts of OC or other chemical agents,
17 several of the less lethal devices were used simultaneously. There were at least four
18 loud explosions of concussion grenades fired by the police. Clouds of chemical
19 agents appeared in front of the demonstrators. With the police moving forward, the
20 demonstrators, media and those who'd been swept into their path were forced to walk
21 into and through these chemical agents. A few of the protesters shouted, "Walk, don't
22 panic." As if in response, at least three more explosions soon followed. All seven
- HEDDEN ET AL V. CITY OF SEATTLE, COMPLAINT 67
i explosions had taken place within the block in front of the Red Lion Inn. All had been
2 fired into the back of a retreating crowd. All seven explosions had taken place in
3 slightly more than thirty seconds.
4 3.90 At least one photographer, was arrested for attempting to photographer
5 police firing a launcher into the backs of the retreating demonstrators.
6 3.91 In the midst of this the police fired "rubber balls" and "wooden dowels" at
7 the already retreating protesters.
8 3.92 Some of the grenades were thrown directly at the protesters,
9 3.93 All the above had taken place one block South of Westlake Plaza, where
Zo the crowd was retreating. It was approximately 8:40 PM.
11 End of the March and Gratuitous Arrests
12 3.94 The demonstrators emptied into Westlake Plaza with the police behind
13 them. A line of police in riot gear holding an array of less lethal weapons stood along
14 the South end of the park and Fourth Avenue. One of the organizers held out the
15 permit and shouted through a bull horn that they had a right to be there. It was 8:42
16 PM.
17 3.95 The police in this line held a variety of weapons. These weapons
18 included at least 1 shotgun, 1 single shot launcher, 2 six shot launchers, 1 large
19 pepper spray, 1 AR-15/M16 type firearm, 1 Pepper Ball gun. Lt. Wilske was present
20 with these officers.
21 3.96 Though a few of the demonstrators stayed around Westlake Plaza, the
22 rally that had been planned for after the march could not, and did not take place.
HEDDEN ET AL V. CITY OF SEATTLE, COMPLAINT 68
1 Organizers worked to get the demonstrators to leave the area in small groups. Medics
2 tried to treat the people who'd been injured, including those incapacitated by the
3 chemical agents. An ambulance was called to the scene. taking at least one person
4 from the scene in a gurney. The police themselves did nothing to see to the treatment
5 of any of the people they'd injured with their weaponry and tactics.
6 3.97 Police continued to grab and arrest demonstrators and others. Among
7 those they arrested were videographers, and other media producers. Those arrested
s at this time included Plaintiffs Hedden, Kuller, and Vargas. (See below.)
9 Chemical Agents Left Along Route; No Effort Made by Police to Ciean
10 3.98 With only a token number of demonstrators left, and perhaps because
11 they were out of sight of the Red Lion Inn, the police relaxed their line around 9PM,
12 first withdrawing those with the less weaponry, then, after a minute or so, the others.
13 A line of officers in riot gear stood along the side of the wall by Seattle's Best Coffee di
14 the South end of Westlake Plaza.
15 3.99 Several of those who were present began to re -walk the path of the
16 march, and collect the remains of the less lethal weaponry which had been used by
17 the police. The debris from this weaponry they collected included the remains of
18 several rubber grenades, several pepper -ball gun bullets, at least one of which had
19 not exploded, wooden dowels, at least one "flying baton", the remains of 37mm/38mm
20 shells and hundreds of rubber balls. Throughout the path of the march there were
21 areas that were thick from the residue of chemical agents. The police made no effort
22 to clean up the debris, to clean up any of the chemical agents, to collect any of the
HEDDEN ET AL V. CITY OF SEATTLE, COMPLAINT
1 unspent rounds. Nor did they make any effort to warn any of the passersby most of
2 whom had nothing to do with the event that they were exposing themselves to these
3 chemical agents.
4 3.100 Several of these people re -walking the march route returned to the front
5 of the Red Lion Inn on 1415 Fifth Avenue between Union and Pike. There were no
6 longer members of the Washington State Patrol, who could argue whether they had to
7 obey the Seattle Ordinance in front of the Fifth Avenue entrance of the Red Lion Inn.
s Now there were members of the Seattle Police Department in front of the Red Lion
9 Inn. It was about 9:12 PM.
10 3.101 Throughout this, these people found none of the broken glass, sticks, ball
11 bearings or other materials allegedly thrown by the protesters at the police. There
12 were a few soft plastic water bottles on the ground.
13 3.102 Several large deposits of chemical agents were observed in front of the
14 entrance to the Washington Mutual Bank at Fifth Avenue and Union at about 9:15.
15 There was no effort being made to clean these up, or to warn people of these. Some
16 of these chemicals were still wet.
17 3.103 There was another large deposit observed in the main intersection some
18 feet away from the Washington Mutual entrance on this corner. There were dozens of
19 rubber bails mixed in this deposit.
20 3.104 Another deposit was in the Eastern crosswalk of this intersection.
21 3.105 People walked freely through these deposits, and cars drove over them.
22 3.106 There were many, many rubber balls spread out in this area of Union
HEDDEN ET AL V. CITY OF SEATTLE, COMPLAINT 70
i Avenue at this time.
2 3.107 An officer Doe approached those documenting this and ordered those
3 collecting this data back on the sidewalk. When asked if anyone was going to be
4 cleaning this up, Doe denied knowledge and said it was not his job, then drove off.
5 This officer drove a blue unmarked police car with a license that appeared to read:
6 342-1OD.
7 3.108 Officers were available to guard innocuous locations. At least five
8 officers in riot gear guarded the alley on Union between Fifth and Fourth Avenue.
9 There was a large deposit of chemical agents on the sidewalk directly in front of them.
10 When queried, as to whether it would be cleaned, the officers first compared it to
11 papers in the street, then said it wasn't their job.
12 3.109 At about 9:37 PM, other large deposits of chemical agents were
13 observed in and around the intersection of Union Street and Fourth Avenue. These
14 included deposits of chemical agents in front of the entrance to Rainier Square, the
15 Northwest interior portion of the intersection and cross walk, the East section of the
16 intersection and crosswalk, multiple deposits on the South side of the street in front of
17 Lamont's at least one in front North side of the street in front of the Men's Wearhouse,
1s several around the fire hydrant around Fourth and Union, near the intersection; the
19 intersection in front of Tully's; in the street in front of 1411 Fourth Avenue; several
20 deposits of chemical agents in front of the West entrance of the Red Lion Inn, with a
21 smaller deposit in the center of the street lining up with the mail box; another deposit
22 of chemical agents in front of the bus stop North of the entrance of the Red Lion Inn;
HEDDEN ET AL V. CITY OF SEATTLE, COMPLAINT 71
1 several deposits in front of the Office Depot, on Fourth Avenue, another deposit on
2 Fourth Avenue about midway between the Walking Company on the East side, and
3 the Joshua Green Building on West. Approaching Westlake Plaza there were
4 chemical agents in the southern portion of the intersection of Fourth and Pike, a few
5 feet west of the curb —fragments of a rubber grenade were found in this area. There
6 were several chemical deposits and numerous rubber balls on Fourth Avenue, South
7 of Pike Street.
s 3.110 Several "pepper ball" rounds had struck the Northeast portion of the
9 curb, portions of their shells remained at the end of a small trail of the agents. At least
10 one round had been left unexploded, it had a bright color and looked about the shape,
1i size and color of a sucking candy. Fragments of grenades were found around this
-12 intersection. The remains of what looked like several pepper balls were found at the
13 South end of Westlake Plaza, along with pieces of a 37, 38mm shells. A large deposit
14 of chemical agents was left in front of the entrance and ATM of the Bank of America
15 located on the South end of Westlake Plaza. At least three large deposits of chemical
16 agents were found by the planter boxes, just North of this Bank of America. There
17 was another deposit near the streetlight on the curb on the East side of Fifth Avenue,
18 just West of this Bank of America.
19 3.111 Throughout the time these people attempted to gather documentation
20 various police continued to shine lights in the lenses of their cameras, and threaten
21 them with arrest.
22 3.112 Finally, those gathering documentation encountered police documenting
HEDDEN ET AL V. CITY OF SEATTLE, COMPLAINT 72
1
the totality of the damage caused by all those at the demonstration. These police
2
admitted that the totality of the damage consisted of two spray painted "A's" with
3
circles around them. One was in the cross walk near the Washington Mutual. One
4
was on the wall near the right front entrance of the Washington Mutual on Union. This
5
was at or slightly after 10:40 PM.
6
3.113 Captain Sanford held a press conference at the North End of Westlake
7
Park. Sanford claimed in this conference that the police had tried to contain the
s
demonstrators, but one had thrown a ball bearing at a bicycle officer. Stanford did not
9
produce the ball bearing. Stanford then flatly stated that the police formed a line and
1 o
moved the demonstrators back to Westlake Plaza. He did not mention any of the use
11
of less lethal weapons that occurred. He also accused the protesters of vandalism,
12
but gave no specific incidents. When asked, Sanford said he had no knowledge of
13
any injuries from any of the less lethal weaponry. Some of those in attendance
14
showed Sanford weaponry that he identified as an "AR-1 Round" that fired a baton,
15
and a wooden dowel. When asked he said he could not say what caused the use of
16
rubber bullets and concussion grenades. He claimed, without providing any of them,
17
that the protesters had thrown debris, ball bearings, metal pipes and wooden dowels
18
at the police.
19 Subsequent Arrests
20 3.114 On subsequent days, several smaller demonstrations took place. These
21 were also characterized by an atmosphere of intimidation by the police. Several
22 demonstrators were arbitrarily arrested, as were people who tried to videotape or
HEDDEN ET AL V. CITY OF SEATTLE, COMPLAINT 73
1 otherwise record these events, including Plaintiff Batterson (below.)
2 3.115 Despite the fact that many of the people arrested faced criminal
3 charges, and went through extensive Discovery requests, none of the material
4 Sanford alleged that had been thrown at the police was ever produced. With one
5 exception, none of the many people arrested were ever convicted. The young man
6 who was thrown over the railing was never prosecuted.
7 3.116 Much of the videotape belonging to videographers and other media
8 producers who were arrested, was "lost" by the police.
9 Individual claimants
10 3.117 Plaintiff ANDREW HEDDEN was acting lawfully within his First
11 Amendment Rights as a participant in a peaceful permitted demonstration. He was a
12 college student with finals on days immediately following the demonstration. He hung
13 to the back of the demonstration attempting to avoid trouble, but nonetheless was
14 exposed to chemical agents. At the end of the march, in Westlake Plaza, He was
15 singled out for false arrest and illegal treatment because he was known to the police
16 as a demonstrator and an organizer. He missed exams, and was damaged in his
17 ability to prepare for them because of the actions of the police. He suffered severe
18 physical and psychological harm, monetary loss, loss of First Amendment rights and
19 the illegal loss of property as a direct result of Defendants actions.
20 3.118 Plaintiff AARON KULLER was acting lawfully within his First Amendment
21 Rights as a participant in a peaceful permitted demonstration. He was a college
22 student with finals on days immediately following the demonstration. He hung to the
HEDDEN ET AL V. CITY OF SEATTLE, COMPLAINT 74
1 back of the demonstration attempting to avoid trouble, but nonetheless was exposed
2 to chemical agents. At the end of the march, in Westlake Plaza, He was singled out
3 for false arrest and illegal treatment because he was known to the police as a
4 demonstrator and an organizer. He missed exams, and was damaged in his ability to
5 prepare for them because of the actions of the police. He suffered severe physical
6 and psychological harm, monetary loss, loss of First Amendment rights and the illegal
7 loss of property as a direct result of Defendants actions.
s 3.119 Plaintiff JESSE JOHNSON was acting lawfully within his First
9 Amendment Rights as a journalist. He had attended trainings including at college and
to at the Independent Media Center. He was videotaping the arrests taking place on
11 Fourth Avenue. He obeyed all laws. He was singled out for arrest and excessive
12 force because he, in his role as a journalist, videotaped the illegal arrest of another
13 individual. His video camera and tapes were illegally seized and never returned, evei,
14 long after his charges were dismissed. As a direct result of all of the above, he
15 suffered severe physical, psychological, loss of his First Amendment Rights, and
16 monetary injuries.
17 3.120 Plaintiff JARRETT PUTMAN was acting lawfully within his First
18 Amendment Rights as a demonstrator. He engaged in no illegal activity. As the
19 demonstrators walked away from the Red Lion Inn towards Westlake Plaza, Putman
20 was caught at the rear of the march, in front of the advancing police line. In addition
21 to his exposure to chemical agents, for long minutes, he endured countless baton
22 strikes from the police, who struck him again and again from behind. As recorded on
HEDDEN ET AL V. CITY OF SEATTLE, COMPLAINT
1 videotape, the police simply reached out and threw him behind their line, then
2 swarmed and arrested him. These police then cynically charged him with charging the
3 police line. His charges were ultimately dismissed for lack of evidence. As a direct
4 result of all of the above, he suffered severe physical, psychological, loss of his First
5 Amendment Rights, and monetary injuries.
6 3.121 Plaintiff CHRISTOPHER KONKEL was acting lawfully within his First
7 Amendment Rights as a journalist. He engaged in no illegal activity. As the
s demonstrators tried to return to Westlake Plaza. He observed and began to
9 photograph, a police officer firing a launcher into the backs of demonstrators who
10 were retreating to Westlake Plaza, as they'd been directed by these police. The
11 police without justification or reason, grabbed his camera from behind and knocked it
-12- out of his hand. As he reached for the camera, he was slammed to the ground and
13 pinned by several officers He suffered severe physical injuries and his camera was
14 severely damaged by the Seattle Police Department during this attack. He was falsely
15 charged with criminal conduct. These criminal charges were ultimately dismissed for
16 lack of evidence. He was also exposed to chemical agents at this time, and has since
17 suffered As a direct result of all of the above, he suffered severe physical,
18 psychological, loss of his First Amendment Rights, and monetary injuries.
19 3.122 Plaintiff CAYLA M. CASIANI was acting lawfully within her First
20 Amendment Rights as a demonstrator. She was repeatedly pepper sprayed, struck
21 with fists, kicked, and clubbed, and hit with various "less lethal" munitions without
22 cause, and causing severe physical and psychological injuries. As a direct result of all
REDDEN ET AL V. CITY OF SEATTLE, COMPLAINT 76
11
1 of the above, she suffered severe physical, psychological, loss of her First
2 Amendment Rights, and monetary injuries.
3 3.123 Plaintiff GREGORY DUDLEY was repeatedly pepper sprayed, struck
4 with fists, kicked, and clubbed, and hit with various "less lethal' munitions without
5 cause, and causing severe physical and psychological injuries, including chemical
6 burns over much of his body. As a direct result of all of the above, he suffered severe
7 physical, psychological, loss of his First Amendment Rights, and monetary injuries.
s 3.124 Plaintiff MACKENZIE HAMILTON was acting lawfully within her First
9 Amendment Rights as a journalist. She was enrolled in a media production program
10 at Western Washington University and was making a documentary about the
11 demonstration. While attempting to videotape the activity in front of the Red Lion Inn
-12 and the retreat back to Westlake Plaza, she was repeatedly exposed to chemical
13 agents without cause while walking away from a police line in a lawful direction. This
14 spraying caused severe physical and psychological injuries. She was also forced to
15 watch the false arrests of several of her friends. As a direct result of all of the above,
16 she suffered severe physical, psychological, loss of her First Amendment Rights, and
17 monetary injuries.
18 3.125 Plaintiff NICOLE MARIE BADE was acting lawfully within her First
19 Amendment Rights as a medic, During the retreat to Westlake Plaza, she was
20 providing medical attention to a victim of police violence when police officers struck
21 her and her patient from behind in the upper back and head with their batons and
22 drenched them in pepper spray and or other chemical agents without warning or
HEDDEN ET AL V. CITY OF SEATTLE, COMPLAINT
77
1
1 '
i
1 cause, and causing severe physical and psychological injuries. As a direct result of all
2 of the above, she suffered severe physical, psychological injuries, loss of her First
3 Amendment Rights, and monetary injuries.
4 3.126 Plaintiff JOHN W. DELACY was acting lawfully within his First
5 Amendment Rights as a demonstrator. Between approximately shortly after 8:20, in
6 front of the Red Lion Inn, he was struck repeatedly by an officer using a bicycle as a
7 club, and then pepper sprayed or subjected to similar chemical agents, sprayed
8 directly and intentionally into his face. While he was fleeing the spray lawfully, blind
9 from the first burst, was sprayed again, causing severe physical and psychological
10 injuries. He was forced to return to Westlake as the police continued to attack the
11 crowd with a variety of "less lethal weapons" including grenades, rubber balls and
12 chemical agents. As a direct result of all of the above, he suffered severe physical,
13 psychological injuries, loss of his First Amendment Rights, and monetary damages.
14 3.127 Plaintiff ANDREW S. DELL was acting lawfully within his First
15 Amendment Rights as a demonstrator. On June 2, 2003 after 8:20 PM while trying to
16 flee from generally directed pepper spray and tear gas, he was struck and thrown to
17 the ground by an officer without cause or warning. When he tried to get up, he was
18 grabbed, lifted, slammed to the sidewalk on top of bicycles that were lying on the
19 ground and choked at length, and finally sat on by multiple officers who then arrested
2 o him, falsely claiming that he had attacked a police car. The charges were
21 subsequently dismissed. The tortuous conduct of the involved officers caused severe
22 and ongoing physical and psychological injuries. As a direct result of all of the above,
HEDDEN ET AL V. CITY OF SEATTLE, COMPLAINT 78
1 he suffered severe physical and psychological injuries, loss of his First Amendment
2 Rights, and monetary damages.
3 3.128 Plaintiff DALE HARDAWAY was acting lawfully within his First
4 Amendment Rights as a demonstrator. On June 2, 2003, after 8:20PM, he was
5 repeatedly exposed to chemical agents, though he broke no laws. He was also in this
6 time period, slammed to the ground by a plain clothed Seattle Police Officer without
7 cause or warning, causing severe physical and psychological injuries. The incidents
8 herein alleged occurred in KING County within the Western District of Washington. As
9 a direct result of all of the above, he suffered severe physical and psychological
io injuries, loss of his First Amendment Rights, and monetary damages.
11 3.129 Plaintiff Dr. JOHN BUCKNER was acting lawfully within his First.
--- 12 Amendment Rights as a demonstrator. On June 2, 2003, shortly after 8:20 PM, whilc-
13 attempting to return to Westlake Plaza and breaking no laws, he was sprayed in the
14 face with pepper spray, and or similar chemical agents, and blinded by that spray and
15 the effect of shells, some with chemical agents, exploding next to him without cause or
16 warning, causing severe physical and psychological injuries. As a direct result of all of
17 the above, he suffered severe physical and psychological injuries, loss of his First
18 Amendment Rights, and monetary damages
19 3.130 Plaintiff BRUCE WHITMORE was acting lawfully within his First
20 Amendment Rights as a demonstrator. On June 2, 2003 after 8:20 PM, he was
21 pepper sprayed twice full in the face, without warning or cause, and hit in the front
22 once and in the back four times with less lethal projectiles, causing severe physical
HEDDEN ET AL V. CITY OF SEATTLE, COMPLAINT Iy
1 and psychological injuries. Additionally, he was repeatedly exposed to chemical
2 agents. As a direct result of all of the above, he suffered severe physical,
3 psychological injuries loss of his First Amendment Rights, and monetary damages.
4 3.131 Plaintiff JACK WHITEHORSE was acting lawfully within his First
5 Amendment Rights as a demonstrator. Shortly after 8:20 PM, in front of the Red Lion
6 Inn, he was shot once on the calf with a less lethal projectile, as he was walking away
7 from the police line and obeying all police orders, the projectile caused severe and
8 lingering physical and psychological injuries. Additionally he was exposed to chemical
9 agents. As a direct result of all of the above, he suffered severe physical and
to psychological injuries, loss of his First Amendment Rights, and monetary harm.
11 3.132 Plaintiff BRIGET O'BRIEN=SMITH was acting lawfully within her First
---- 12 Amendment Rights as a -demonstrator: On -June 2, -2003, -at approximately y.34 in
13 front of the Red Lion Inn on Fourth Avenue, she was violently falsely arrested and
14 assaulted while observing another false arrest, causing severe physical and
15 psychological injuries. As a direct result of all of the above, she suffered severe
16 physical and psychological injuries, loss of his First Amendment Rights, and monetary
17 harm.
18 3.133 Plaintiff DAWN HARDIN was acting lawfully within her First Amendment
19 Rights as a demonstrator. On the evening of June 2, 2003, she broke no laws. While
20 attempting to return to Westlake Plaza, she was violently falsely arrested and
21 assaulted while observing another false arrest, causing severe physical and
22 psychological injuries as well as unnecessary damage to her personal property. As a
HEDDEN ET AL V. CITY OF SEATTLE, COMPLAINT 80
1 direct result of all of the above, she suffered severe physical and psychological
2 injuries, loss of his First Amendment Rights, and monetary harm.
3 3.134 Plaintiff TERRY BATTERSON was acting lawfully within his First
4 Amendment Rights as a journalist and as a demonstrator. Batterson attended the
5 June 2►,d demonstration where he was repeatedly exposed to a variety of chemical
6 agents, and corralled with other demonstrators and members of the media from the
7 East side of the Red Lion Inn to Westlake Plaza. Several days later, on Friday June
8 5th, he attended what was scheduled as the final demonstration against the LEIU.
9 While videotaping the illegal and unjustified arrest of two demonstrators, he was
10 violently falsely arrested and assaulted. He and his video camera were thrown to the
11 ground with great and unprovoked force. this arrest took place in retaliation for his
-- -i:-2 videotaping-ofthe other -arrests -causing -severe -physical and psyehological-injurieg
13 As a direct result of all the above, he suffered loss of his First Amendment Rights as
14 well as severe physical, psychological and monetary injuries.
15 3.135 Plaintiff GRAHAM CLARK attended the June 2, 2003 demonstration.
16 He broke no laws and was acting lawfully within his First Amendment Rights as a
17 demonstrator. Shortly after 8:20 PM, he was sprayed with copious and gratuitous
18 amounts of OC and or other chemical agents and shot twice with less lethal munitions,
19 suffering severe physical and psychological injuries. As a direct result of all the
20 above, he suffered loss of his First Amendment Rights as well as severe physical,
21 psychological and monetary injuries.
22 3.136 Plaintiff MICHAEL VARGAS attended the June 2, 2003 demonstration.
HEDDEN ET AL V. CITY OF SEATTLE, COMPLAINT 81
1 He was acting lawfully within his First Amendment Rights as a journalist. He retreated
2 with the rest of the marchers from the Red Lion Inn to Westlake Plaza between 8:20
3 and 8:45 PM, during which time he was repeatedly exposed to chemical agents. At
4 Westlake Plaza he was falsely arrested specifically to enable the police to seize and
5 convert his videotape, the tool and evidence of his trade and assaulted in addition to
6 and during the course of his false arrest, and suffering severe physical, monetary and
7 psychological injuries. As with other journalists arrested by the police at this time, his
8 videotape was "lost" by the police and never returned. As a direct result of all the
9 above, he suffered loss of his First Amendment Rights as well as severe physical,
10 psychological and monetary injuries.
11 3.137 Plaintiff Roger Stocker attended the June 2, 2003 demonstration as a
--1-2---peacekeeper.. -He-was-acting-lawfully-and- exercising--hi&-First Amendment-Rights.---He-----
13 was attempting to direct the protesters, many of them blinded by chemical agents,
14 when he was subjected to a barrage of less lethal weaponry and concussive devices
15 as he followed the orders of the police and walked away from the police. As a direct
16 result of the above he suffered direct loss of his First Amendment Rights as well as
17 severe physical, psychological and monetary injuries.
18
19 3.138 The SEATTLE POLICE DEPARTMENT made a specific decision to
20 seize, appropriate, and refuse to return Plaintiffs personal property including
21 Johnson's, Vargas's, Konkel's and Batterson's, videotapes, photographs, and other
22 personal property. Despite repeated motions from Defense counsel, some of this
HEDDEN ET AL V. CITY OF SEATTLE, COMPLAINT 82
i property was never returned to these Plaintiffs.
2 3.139 The journalists were arrested and their equipment and work product
3 seized for the intentional purpose of depriving them of it, and illegally obtaining it to
4 selectively use as evidence.
5 3.140 All officers were under the direct command and control of Captain
6 Sanford and Lieutenant Wilske who personally directed and approved all action by the
7 subordinate and lateral officers.
s 3.141 Lt. Wilske was under the direct command and control of Captain
9 Sanford who was on the scene and personally directed and supervised all actions.
10 3.142 Plaintiffs including Hedden, Kuller, Vargas, Johnson, Putman, Korikel,
11 Dell, Batterson and O'Brien Smith were charged based on the false arrests and false
--- — 12 —statements-by-police-and-were-forced-to-expend-time-and financial -resources--- -
13 defending themselves against the criminal actions brought as a result of this incident,
14 and were forced to retain criminal counsel to vindicate them, and are entitled to be
15 compensated for that loss. Similarly their attorneys are entitled to reasonable
16 attorneys fees, pursuant to 42 USC 1983 for the criminal action.
17 3.143 All of this Constitutionally violative and tortuous conduct resulted in the
18 harm to Plaintiffs alleged hereinafter.
19 3.144 The arrest and prosecution of Plaintiffs was in retaliation for the exercise
20 of their First Amendment Rights, either as demonstrators, or as journalists, as the
21 case may be. Defendant police officers and prosecutors' actions were made pursuant
22 to official policy of the CITY OF SEATTLE and the involved private entities creating
HEDDEN ET AL V. CITY OF SEATTLE, COMPLAINT of
1 liability on behalf of Defendant CITY OF SEATTLE.
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
IV. STATEMENT OF DAMAGES
4.1 As a direct and proximate result of the intentional and/or negligent acts
of Defendants, Plaintiffs sustained severe physical and mental pain and suffering and
injury in an amount that will be established at trial.
4.2 As a further direct and proximate result of the intentional and/or
negligent acts of Defendants, Plaintiffs may have been required to seek medical
treatment and care, and will be required to seek future medical treatment and care,
the exact amount of the expense for medical treatment and care will be established at
the time of trial.
4.3 As a further direct and proximate result of the intentional and negligent
acts of the Defendants, said Defendants deprived Plaintiffs of their physical property -
the tools of their trade as well as their work product, and acted with specific intent to
deprive them of their work product.
4.4. Plaintiffs are entitled to compensation for the Constitutional harms
Defendants inflicted on them including loss of liberty, intentional deprivation of
property, and arbitrary and excessive exercise of force against them.
4.5. As a result of Defendants intentional and/or negligent conduct, Plaintiffs
were forced to defend themselves against improper criminal actions and to retain
22 counsel to vindicate them in those cases, to which they are entitled to be reimbursed.
23
HEDDEN ET AL V. CITY OF SEATTLE, COMPLAINT 84
1
2
V. CAUSE OF ACTIONS:
s
COUNT ONE
4
Violation of Civil Rights
5
(Title 42 U.S.Q. Section 1983)
6
(AS TO ALL PLAINTIFFS
7
(As To All Individual Defendants)
8
9
5.1. Plaintiffs reallege and incorporate herein by reference the allegations set
10
forth in Paragraphs 1 through 4.5 of this complaint.
11
5.2. In committing the acts complained of herein, Defendants acted under
12
color of state law to deprive Plaintiffs as alleged herein, of certain constitutionally
13
protected rights including, but not limited to:
14
(a) the right not to be deprived of liberty without due process of law;
l
15
(b) the right to be free from invasion or interference with Plaintiffszone of
16
privacy;
17
(c) the right to freedom of speech;
18
(d) the right to freedom of association;
19
(e) the right to equal protection of the law;
20
(f) the right to petition the government for a redress of grievances:
21
(g) the right to be free from police use of excessive force;
22
(h) the right to be free from discriminatory law enforcement;
23
(i) The right to be free from unreasonable search and seizure
24
Q) The right to Freedom of the Press
25
5.3 In violating Plaintiffs rights as delineated above, and other rights according
HEDDEN ET AL V. CITY OF SEATTLE, COMPLAINT 8Z)
1 to proof, Defendants acted by direct arrest and/or use of force, or by setting the chain
2 of events in motion that led to those arrests and uses of force, Defendants acted to
3 violate Plaintiffs rights under the First, Fourth, Fifth, and Eighth Amendments to the
4 U.S. Constitution.
5 5.4. By acting to retaliate against Plaintiffs for their exercise of their First
6 Amendment Rights i.e. all members of the press's documentation of both the
7 demonstration, and the police response to it, and other Plaintiffs' presence at the
8 demonstration Defendants specifically violated Plaintiffs' First, Fourth, and Fifth141n
9 Amendment Rights.
10 5.5 As a direct and proximate result of the violation of their Constitutional
11 rights by Defendants, and each of them, Plaintiffs suffered general and special
- damages -as-afleged-in-this-complaint.-
13 5.6 The conduct of Defendants was willful, malicious, oppressive, and/or
14 reckless, and was of such a nature that punitive damages should be imposed in an
15 amount commensurate with the wrongful acts alleged herein.
16 WHEREFORE, Plaintiffs pray for relief as hereinafter set forth.
17
18 COUNT TWO
19 Violation of Civil Rights
20 (Title 42 U.S.C. Section 1983)
21 (AS TO ALL PLAINTIFFS
22 (As To Defendants CITY OF SEATTLE and SEATTLE POLICE DEPARTMENT)
23
24 5.7 Plaintiffs reallege and incorporate herein by reference the allegations set
25 forth in Paragraphs 1 through 5.6 of this complaint.
HEDDEN ET AL V. CITY OF SEATTLE, COMPLAINT
86
1 5.8 At all times herein mentioned, Defendant SANFORD acted in his official
2 capacities as a Captain of Defendant SEATTLE POLICE DEPARTMENT and
3 pursuant to a policy of the CITY OF SEATTLE and the SEATTLE POLICE
4 DEPARTMENT, and directly controlled by the Seattle Police Department to deprive
5 Plaintiffs and others of their rights secured by the Constitution of the United States,
6 including, but not limited to their rights under the First, Fourth, Fifth, and 14th
7 Amendments to the U.S. Constitution.
s 5.9 At all times herein mentioned, Defendant SANFORD acted in his official
9 capacities as Captain of Defendant Seattle Police Department's and pursuant to a
to policy of the CITY OF SEATTLE and the SEATTLE POLICE DEPARTMENT to
11 deprive Plaintiffs and others of their rights secured by the Constitution of the United
--- :2---St-ates�includhg-but-not-limited-to-their-fights-under-the-First;-Fourth-,- Fifth,-and-14th-_..
13 Amendments to the U.S. Constitution.
14 5.10, In committing the acts complained of herein and in their official capacities
15 as officials of Defendant CITY OF SEATTLE, and SEATTLE POLICE DEPARTMENT
16 Defendants SANFORD and WILSKE acted with a design and intention to deprive
17 Plaintiffs of their rights secured by the Constitution of the United States and acted with
18 deliberate indifference to Plaintiffs rights.
19 5.11. As a direct and proximate result of the acts complained of herein,
20 Plaintiffs have suffered general and special damages as set forth in this complaint.
21 WHEREFORE, Plaintiffs pray for relief as hereinafter set forth
22
23
24
HEDDEN ET AL V. CITY OF SEATTLE, COMPLAINT b,
1
2 H
3 COUNT THREE
4 Violation of Civil Rights
5 (WASHINGTON STATE CONSTITUTION)
6 (As to All Plaintiffs)
7 (As to All Defendants)
8
9 5.13 Plaintiffs reallege and incorporate herein by reference the allegations
to set forth in Paragraphs 1 through 5.12 of this complaint.
11 5.14 Defendants' arrest of Plaintiffs was unlawful because it was based on
12 conduct that is protected as freedom of the press and freedom of speech under Article
13 1 of the Washington State Constitution, Section 5.
14 5.15 Plaintiffs Johnson, Hamilton, Konkel, Batteson and Vargas were acting
15 as members of the press and were not obstructing or interfering with Defendants
16 duties. Defendants had no legal reason to arrest Plaintiffs and did so in direct
17 retaliation for their exercise of those Article 1 Rights,
18 5.16 All Plaintiffs were arrested for exercising their Article 1 protected right to
19 free speech without obstructing the arrests or any other police activity.
20 5.17 As a direct and proximate result of the violation of their Constitutional
21 rights by Defendants, and each of them, Plaintiffs suffered general and special
22 damages as alleged in this complaint.
23 5.18 The conduct of Defendants was willful, malicious, oppressive, and/or
24 reckless, and was of such a nature that punitive damages should be imposed in an
25 amount commensurate with the wrongful acts alleged herein.
26 WHEREFORE, Plaintiffs pray for relief as hereinafter set forth.
HEDDEN ET AL V. CITY OF SEATTLE, COMPLAINT 88
1
2 COUNTFOUR
3 FALSE ARREST
4 (AS TO PLAINTIFFS HEDDEN, KULLER, JOHNSON, PUTMAN, KONKEL, DELL,
5 HARDIN, BATTERSON. OBRIEN-SMITH, and VARGAS)
6 (As to All Defendants)
s 5.19 Plaintiffs reallege and incorporate herein by reference the allegations set
9 forth In Paragraphs 1 through 5.18 of this complaint.
10 5.20. Institutional Defendants as well as Defendants SANFORD and MLSKE,
11 and other agency and individual Defendants, chose specifically to arrest Plaintiffs
12 when they had done nothing illegal, as discussed. Plaintiffs Hedden and Kuller had
13 done nothing illegal and were in the process of leaving Westlake Plaza when they
14 were picked up under false pretenses. Plaintiff Putman was walking away from police
15 while they were repeatedly striking him, then pulled into their line and charged with
16 charging into it. Plaintiffs Konkel, Johnson and Batterson all were arrested simply for
17 videotaping and/or photographing other questionable arrests or activities. Plaintiff
18 Vargas seems to have been arrested simply for attempting to leave the scene with
19 videotape he had taken of the questionable activities of the police. Plaintiffs Hardin
20 and Dell were simply trying to avoid less lethal agents being directed towards the
21 demonstrators in general, and return to Westlake Plaza. Defendants thus subjected
22 Plaintiffs to a loss of liberty and directly and proximately causing them to suffer the
23 physical and psychological abuse that followed and abrogating Plaintiffs'
24 Constitutional Rights as discussed.
25 5.21. Defendants' seizure and arrests of Plaintiffs without probable cause or a
HEDDEN ET AL V. CITY OF SEATTLE, COMPLAINT tf7
3
1 warrant violated Plaintiffs' rights under Article 1 of the Washington State Constitution,
2 Section 7.4.4, and further resulted in the malicious prosecution which followed, and
3 the harm caused thereby.
4 5.22. The conduct of Defendants was willful, malicious, oppressive and/or
5 reckless, and was of such a nature that punitive damages should be imposed in an
6 amount commensurate with the wrongful acts herein alleged.
7 5,23. As a direct and proximate result of the acts complained of herein,
e Plaintiffs have suffered general and special damages as set forth in this complaint.
9 WHEREFORE, Plaintiffs pray for relief as hereinafter set forth.
11 COUNT FIVE
12 False Imprisonment
-- (AS 6 Pb4KTIFFS,--HEDDEN; KULLE"OHNSON PPtH-MAN; KONKE�flEL—L----
14 HARDIN, BATTERSON. OBRIEN-SMITH, and VARGAS)
15 (As to all Defendants)
16 5.24. Plaintiffs reallege and incorporate herein by reference the allegations set
17 forth in Paragraphs 1 through 4.23 of this complaint.
18 5.25. As a result of the false arrests detailed above, Plaintiffs were violently
19 arrested, and their property seized. All of the above listed Plaintiffs were detained and
20 transported to and held in Jail for several hours without cause or justification, before
21 being cited and released, despite there being no reasonable basis or probable cause
22 to believe that any of those Plaintiffs had committed any crime.
23 5.26 Plaintiffs were unjustly deprived of liberty for that period and subjected to
24 abuses therein.
HEDDEN ET AL V. CITY OF SEATTLE, COMPLAINT 90
1 5.27 As a further direct and proximate result of the false arrest and
2 imprisonment of Plaintiffs, they suffered damages and injuries as heretofore alleged n 1
3 this complaint.
4 5.28 The conduct of Defendants was willful, malicious, oppressive and/or
5 reckless, and was of such a nature that punitive damages should be imposed in an
6 amount commensurate with the wrongful acts herein alleged.
7 WHEREFORE, Plaintiffs pray for relief as hereinafter set forth.
n
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
ti
COUNT SIX
Assault and Battery
(AS TO ALL PLAINTIFFS)
(As to All Defendants)
5.29 Plaintiffs reallege and incorporate herein by reference the allegations set
forth in Paragraphs 1 through 5.28 of this complaint.
5.30. Defendants violent tackling, use of blows, use of chemical agents, use of
17 less impact projectiles including rubber balls, wooden dowels and batons, and all other
is physical contact pursuant to the activities carried out against all Plaintiffs on June 2,
19 2003, and against Plaintiff Batterson on June 5, 2003 and during the unlawful arrest of
20 Plaintiffs Hedden, Kuller, Johnson, Putman, Konkel, Dell, O'Brien Smith, and Vargas
21 was carried out intentionally, without consent or lawful authority, or legitimate police
22 purpose, and therefore constituted common law battery.
23 5.31. Defendants' use of force to unlawfully arrest Plaintiffs Hedden, Kuller,
24 Johnson, Putman, Konkel, Dell, O'Brien Smith, and Vargas, due to the illegality of their
25 arrests amounts to excessive force and a battery as a matter of law.
HEDDEN ET AL V. CITY OF SEATTLE, COMPLAINT 71
1 5.32. Defendants' use of excessive force, against all Plaintiffs including but riot
2 limited to gratuitous and unnecessary use of chemical agents, impact weapons,
3 batons and use of bicycles as weapons, twisting of arms, placing feet on bodies,
4 kicking, and striking the Plaintiffs, striking their cameras and other property and other
5 unnecessary force used to affect the arrest of Plaintiffs served no legitimate police
6 purpose and amount to a battery.
7 5.33 All of the above tortuous conduct caused Plaintiffs to reasonably fear
8 imminent harm to their health and safety, and additional tortuous use of force. This
9 fear constitutes a common law assault.
10 5.34 As a direct and proximate result of the violation of their rights by
li Defendants, and of Defendant$' tortuous conduct towards Plaintiffs, Plaintiffs suffered
i2---general-and-special-damages-as-aNeged-in-tWeomplaint.-------- ---- - -- -- -- ----- ._..
13 5.35 The arrests and the resulting abuse of Plaintiffs were directly and
14 proximately caused by Defendantsoperations plan and the attitudes towards the
15 demonstration and towards Plaintiffs that allowed it to be created and implemented
16 and promoted the hostile climate towards Plaintiffs' First Amendment protected
17 activities and the conduct to which Plaintiffs and others were subjected.
18 5.36 The conduct of Defendants was willful, malicious, oppressive, and/or
19 reckless, and was of such a nature that punitive damages should be imposed in an
20 amount commensurate with the wrongful acts alleged herein.
21 WHEREFORE, Plaintiffs pray for relief as hereinafter set forth.
22 //
REDDEN ET AL V. CITY OF SEATTLE, COMPLAINT 92
2 COUNT SEVEN
3 Common Law /Conversion/ Trespass to Chattel
4 (AS TO PLAINTIFFS JOHNSON, VARGAS, KONKEL, BATTERSON, HEDDEN AND
5 KULLER)
6 (As to all Defendants)
8 5.37. Plaintiffs reallege and incorporate herein by reference the allegations set
9 forth in Paragraphs 1 through 5.36 of this complaint.
10 5.38. Defendants, and all of them, conspired to unlawfully and pretexturally
11 arrest Plaintiffs Johnson, Vargas, Batterson and Konkel for the purpose of seizing
12 their video cameras, videotapes, cameras and films to be wrongfully used by them.
13 Defendants then conspired to retain and unlawfully copy Plaintiffs' work product and
14 refused to return it despite numerous demands.
,.W.----Defendants--seizureand-misappropriation-and-failure#o-return-of -
16 Plaintiffs' cameras caused them great inconvenience and personal and professiona,
17 loss. Defendants' misappropriation and refusal to return and appropriation of
18 Plaintiffs' work product caused great professional and personal harm and economic
19 loss, as well as impacting their ability to defend themselves against the frivolous
20 criminal charges.
21 5.40 This confiscation of Plaintiffs cameras and work product was part and
22 parcel of the overall scheme of harassment, false arrests, inappropriate use of
23 physical force, and other violations of rights designed to coerce Plaintiffs and others
24 into abandoning the exercise of their First Amendment Rights, and is an arbitrary and
25 capricious act with no legitimate law enforcement purpose.
HEDDEN ET AL V. CITY OF SEATTLE, COMPLAINT -i
1 5.41 As a direct and proximate result of the violation of their Constitutional
2 rights and intentional misappropriation and conversion of the documentary tools of
3 their trade, by Defendants and Defendants' other tortuous conduct, Plaintiffs suffered
4 general and special damages as alleged in this complaint.
5 5.42 The conduct of Defendants was willful, malicious, oppressive, and/or
6 reckless, and was of such a nature that punitive damages should be imposed in an
7 amount commensurate with the wrongful acts alleged herein.
a WHEREFORE, Plaintiffs pray for relief as hereinafter set forth.
9
10 COUNT EIGHT
11 Intentional Infliction of Emotional Distress
12 (AS TO ALL PLAINTIFFS)
13 (As to All Defendants)
i5 5.43 Plaintiffs reallege and incorporate herein by reference the allegations set
16 forth in Paragraphs 1 through 5.42 of this complaint.
17 .5.44 In carrying out the plan and acts alleged throughout this complaint,
18 Defendants, and each of them sought to cause emotional distress and trauma to
19 Plaintiffs and others, and Plaintiffs did suffer such emotional distress with
20 accompanying physical symptoms.
21 5.45 As a direct and proximate result of the violation of his constitutional rights
22 by Defendants and their other tortuous conduct against them, Plaintiffs suffered
23 general and special damages as alleged in this complaint.
24 5.45 The conduct of Defendants was willful, malicious, oppressive, and/or
HEDDEN ET AL V. CITY OF SEATTLE, COMPLAINT 94
1 reckless, and was of such a nature that punitive damages should be imposed in an
2 amount commensurate with the wrongful acts alleged herein.
3 WHEREFORE, Plaintiffs pray for relief as hereinafter set forth.
4
5 COUNT NINE
6 Malicious Prosecution
7 (AS TO ALL PLAINTIFFS HEDDEN, KULLER, JOHNSON, PUTMAN, KONKEL,
s DELL, HARDIN, VARGA$, and OBRIEN-SMITH
9 (As to All Defendants)
10
11 5.47 Plaintiffs reallege and incorporate herein by reference the allegations set
12 forth in Paragraphs 1 through 5.46 of this complaint.
13 5.48. Defendants arrest and prosecution of Plaintiffs were in retaliation for the
14 exercise of Plaintiffs' rights under the U.S. and Washington State Constitutions and
15 these actions constitute malicious and retaliatory prosecution, a violation of the
16 Revised Code of Washington Title 9, Chapter 62, Section 10(1). The prosecutions,
17 which were eventually dismissed, were a direct result of the false arrest of Plaintiffs
is 5.49. As a direct and proximate result of the violation of their Constitutional
} 19 rights by Defendants and Defendants other tortuous conduct, Plaintiffs suffered
20 general and special damages as alleged in this complaint and had to expend personal
21 resources to hire counsel to vindicate them and to protect their freedom. This
22 prosecution has also caused emotional distress, anxiety, fear, loss of sleep,
23 interference with work and academic studies and other physical harm to Plaintiffs and
24 thoroughly disrupted their lives.
25 5.50. The conduct of Defendants was willful, malicious, oppressive, and/or
REDDEN ET AL V. CITY OF SEATTLE, COMPLAINT 9D
i reckless, and was of such a nature that punitive damages should be imposed in an
2 amount commensurate with the wrongful acts alleged herein.
3 WHEREFORE, Plaintiffs pray for relief as hereinafter set forth
4
5 COUNT 10
6 Negligence
7 (AS TO ALL PLAINTIFFS
8 (As to All Defendants)
9
10 5.51 Plaintiffs reallege and incorporate herein by reference the allegations set
11 forth in Paragraphs 1 through 5.50 of this complaint.
12 5.52 Defendants, and each of them, owed Plaintiffs a duty to use due care at
13 or about the times of the aforementioned incidents.
- -14 -------�53--tn-committing--the-aforementioned-acts-and/or omissions; -Defendants, - ---
15 and each, of them, negligently breached said duty to use due care, directly and
16 proximately resulting in the injuries and damages to the Plaintiffs as alleged herein.
17 WHEREFORE, Plaintiffs pray for relief as hereinafter set forth.
19
COUNT 11
20 (§1983 - Violation of First Amendment Rights to Free Expression and Assembly)
21 (All Adult Plaintiffs Against all Individual Defendants)
22 5.54 Plaintiffs reallage and incorporate by reference herein paragraphs
23 1.1 through 5.53 of this complaint.
24 5.55 The conduct of all of the individual defendants violated the rights of
25 Plaintiffs under the First and Fourteenth Amendments to the United States
HEDDEN ET AL V. CITY OF StATTLE, COMPLAINT 96
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
s
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
Constitution, to free expression, to free association, to assemble peacefully, and to
petition the government for redress of grievances for which they seek redress
pursuant to 42 USC § 1983.
5.56 Plaintiffs incurred medical expenses for the treatment of their
injuries and are entitled to actual damages for medical expenses in an amount to be
determined at trial.
5.57 As a direct and proximate cause of defendants' actions, each of
the plaintiffs suffered substantial physical injury, including but not limited to severe eye
and skin burning, skin swelling and redness, wheezing and otherwise labored
breathing, coughing and temporary blindness. Plaintiffs also suffered substantial
physical injury from being shot with impact weapons including rubber bullets and/or
pepper balls. Plaintiffs also suffered substantial physical injuries do to other assaults
and batteries perpetrated by Defendants. In addition to their physical pain and
suffering, each of the adult plaintiffs also suffered emotional injuries and a severe
limitation of their ability to practice and enjoy their rights guaranteed to them as
citizens of the United States of America under the United States Constitution. As
compensation, each of the adult plaintiffs should be awarded general damages in an
amount to be proven at trial.
5.58 In addition to the immediate pain and suffering incurred by these
plaintiffs, it is likely that they also will suffer long-term health effects from the chemical
agents. As compensation, each of the adult plaintiffs should be awarded general
damages in an additional amount to be proven at trial.
5.59 Defendants acted with evil intent and with reckless and callous
indifference to Plaintiffs' federally protected rights. Their conduct was extreme and
outrageous and these defendants could not have reasonably believed their conduct
was justified or related to any legitimate police purpose. As such, plaintiffs seek
HEDDEN ET AL V. CITY OF SEATTLE, COMPLAINT >
1 damages in an amount to be proven at trial.
2 5.60 Plaintiffs are entitled to their reasonable costs and attorneys fees
3 pursuant to 42 U.S.C. §1988.
4
61
M
COUNT 11
7 (§1983 - Violation of First Amendment Rights to Free Expression and Assembly)
(All Plaintiffs Against City of Seattle)
0
10 5:61 Plaintiffs reallage and incorporate by reference herein paragraphs
11 1.1 through 5.60.
12 5.62 The customs, policies, and practices of defendant City of Seattle in
- l-3---this-complaint; caused violatiorls--by-the-individu-ally nained-police-officers-and-
14 supervisors of the rights of Plaintiffs under the First and Fourteenth Amendments to
15 the United States Constitution, to free expression, to free association, to assemble
S
16 peacefully, and to petition the government for redress of grievances for which they
4
17 seek redress pursuant to 42 USC § 1983.
f
18 5.63 Plaintiffs incurred medical expenses for the treatment of their
19 injuries. Plaintiffs are entitled to actual damages for medical expenses. Additional
20 medical treatment may be incurred and the cost is yet to be determined.
21 5.64 As a direct and proximate cause of the municipality defendants'
22 actions, each of the adult plaintiffs suffered substantial physical injury, including but
23 not limited to severe eye and skin burning, skin swelling and redness, wheezing and
24 otherwise labored breathing, coughing and temporary blindness. Plaintiffs also
25 suffered substantial physical injury from being shot with rubber balls, and/or stinger
26 ball grenades, and/or flying batons, and/or wooden dowels, and/or pepper balls. In
HEDDEN ET AL V. CITY OF SEATTLE, COMPLAINT 98
P.
1 addition to their physical pain and suffering, each of the adult plaintiffs also suffered
2 emotional injuries and a severe limitation of their ability to practice and enjoy their
3 rights guaranteed to them as citizens of the United States of America under the United
4 States Constitution. As compensation, each of the adult plaintiffs should be awarded
5 general damages in an amount to be proven at trial.
6 5.65 In addition to the immediate pain and suffering incurred by these
7 plaintiffs, it is likely that they also will suffer long-term health effects from the chemical
s agents. As compensation, each of the adult plaintiffs should be awarded general
9 damages in an additional amount to be proven at trial.
10 5.66 Plaintiffs are entitled to their reasonable costs and attorneys fees
11 pursuant to 42 U.S.C. §1988.
12
13
14
15 VI. JURY TRIAL DEMAND
16 6.0, Plaintiffs hereby demand a jury trial in this matter.
17
18 VII. PRAYER
19 7.0 WHEREFORE, Plaintiffs pray for judgment against the Defendants as
20 follows:
21 7.1 For general damages including pain and suffering together with special
22 damages for Plaintiffs reasonable and necessary legal expenses and medical
23 expenses and related treatment both past and future, the exact amount of which will
24 be established at the time of trial;
HEDDEN ET AL V. CITY OF SEATTLE, COMPLAINT 9y
1 7.2. For punitive damages in an amount to be proven at trial pursuant to
2 Federal and State law;
3 7.3 For actual criminal and civil attorney's fees and litigation costs pursuant
4 to 42 U.S.C. 1988;
5 7.4 For statutory attorneys fees and costs;
6 7.5. For court supervised crowd control and media access and enforcement
7
policies;
8
7.6 To award Plaintiffs injunctive relief, specifically to order the Seattle
9
Police to cease and desist from spraying chemical agents, firing impact weapons
10
including rubber balls, wooden dowels and flying batons, firing pepper balls and
11
throwing stinger ball or flash bang grenades for the crowd control of peaceful
13
7.7 To declare that the Defendants violated the above named constitutional
14
rights and common law rights of all Plaintiffs;
15
7.8. To award Pre- and post judgment interest on all amounts awarded; and
16
17 7.9. For such other and further relief as the Court deems just and proper.
18
19 DATED: June 2, 2005
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
& PAUL RICHMOND
Attorneys for Plaintiffs
HEDDEN ET AL V. CITY OF SEATTLE, COMPLAINT 100
ATTACHMENTS
Claim for Damages, City of Seattle
NOTE:
Type or Priht Legibly,;
See instructions on back
y of Sea , e
CLAIM[ FOR DAMAGES
CLAIMANT NAME (FIRST- M• -LAST BU
a
HOMEADDRE55 UMBER STREET CITY -SSA -Zip)
ACCIDENT"/LOSS D -2n�
LOCATIOWSffE BE VERY SPECIFIC: STREETS, ADDRESSES, etc.
WHAT HAPPENED DESCRIBE W YOUR OWN WORDS HOW THIS LOSS OCCURRED
AND WHY YOU BELIEVE THE CITY is RESPONSIBI E
I. . CITY USE ONLY
CLAIM NUMBER
DATE FILED
DIAGRAM
Use if this WE help you
locate or describe
whathappehed
:tC:r�ff
DEFT?
EMPLOYEE(S)?
CLE NUMBER, UC., etr-
°WAS YOUR PROPERTY (home, auto, pemonal p->-rty) DAMAGED?
❑ YES IF SO, THEN FULLY DESCRIB!_ -SUCH AS AGE, MAKE MODEL, CONDITION, VALUE, OR EXTENT OF DAMAGE.
ONO
WERE YOU INJURED? 13::S'ES IF.yES, THEN COMPLETE THE FOLLOWING:
❑ NO*
DESCRIBE YOUR INJURY (IDENTIFY YOUR DOCTORS)CA VW S
vU x--i- VANU► AI
DATE OF BIRTH L WAGE LO3,SSji(N0S IF YES, THEN RATE OF PAY
KIND OF WORK EMPLOYER
AMOUNT CLAIMED IF UNKNOwKTHEN ENTER
SIGNATURE OF CLAIMANT I deciare under penal* of perjury under the laws of the State of Washington
(AND T(7ZE,1F A BUSINESS] that the foregoing Is true and correct
FXECUT- Sus day of 20 .
at County, Washington.
A 4a oAeJLane Ann
CS IR.•lo P=Y rsr=
Qy of 5eaffle
Type or"�f Leobhrr CLAIM FOR DAMAGES
See instruc5ons on back
NAME - M. - LAST OR BUSINESS NAME)
CLAIMAW
HOME ADDRESS (NUMBER - STREET - CITY - STATE - 2jp)
I10 %vt5 r 0L t d
ACCIDENT/LOSS 6 Z O3 DATE rpjt� gsvr�TIME
I. OCATI ITE OWSBE VERY IFIC ''S STREETS, , ADDRESSES, efr-
VMT HAPPENED DESCRIBE IN YOUR OWN WORDS HOW THIS LOSS OCCURRED
AND WHY YOU BELIEVE THE CITY IS RESPONSIBLE.
Ac-tMMDtrt► A- PICK h rr-v� 3,a op c-- 1.wt n P.^ A. Q t-c,i
L�A
S
I wxs
N(m
f `% cyc
tfGfkt
14LI
C/TY USE ONLY
CLAIM NUMBER
GATE FILED
DIAGRAM
Use is oft win hey you
locate or desalt
what happened
CnY DEPT?
CITY EMPLOYEE(S)?
CffY
- VE 4CLE NUMBER, LIC., eft.
WAS YOUR PROPERTY cue. ate, w---a Ems) DAMAGED?
D YES IF SO, THEN FULLY DESCRIBE - SUCH AS AGE, MAKE MODEL, CONDITION, VALUE, OR EXTENT OF DAMAGE.
I%NO
WERE YOU INJURED? f o XyEs IF•YES, THEN COMPLETE THE FOLLOWING:
DESCRIBE YOUR INJURY ODENTIFYYOUR DOCTORS) FIEEEWFL, -SP E E S . Mov
4IV Y>• ?J D S�
DATE OF BIRTH [ S � t WAGE LOSS NOS IF YES, THEN RATE OF PAY
KIND OF WORK EMPLOYER
AMOUNT CLAIMED IF UNKNOWN, THEN ENTER -uNKNOww � V N Yw OWN
f
SIGNATURIE OF CLAIMANT I declare under penalty of perjury under fhe laws of the Stafe of Washington ``L
{A M TITLE, IF A BUSINESS) That the foregoing is tru�e and correct
EXECUTED Pius 8 day of ,A� Gv ST .20 03 ,
of County, Washington -
CS 1L 1D REV 12MM
(+,�" Of SE CITY USE ONLY
NOTE: `�� CLAIM NUMBER
Type orMht,e-bl,. CLAIM FOR DAMAGES CAM FILED
See insfruo6ons on bacL
- M - LAST OR
CLAIMANTT BUSINESS i
IiO(uHQNF�
HOK4E '°O;DDRES NV W �A7E - ZIP) w �.. A �ft?S, £�14I��#=u.
ACCIDENTl/LOSS DATE TIMELOCA-no W SITE BE VERY SPECIFIC- STREETS, ADDRESSES, etr- DIAGRAM
• Q^ Use it this wm help y-
locet° or desoriha
what happy
WHAT HAPPEN D1 DESCRIBE IN YOUR OWN WORDS HOW 1HIS LOSS OCCURRED
AND WHY YOU BEL1R E THE CITY IS RESPONSIBLE.
no s%oi-was, + (v-smiq wrt ea2s so I N.
j CITY DEPr
�` a CITY EMPLOYEE(S)?
cq v J>T-6 0Ck Q% �. CITY
VEHICLE NUMBER, UC., etc.
t _11 _.,iA 1._ _. _t ..c:lI I•A—P.L AA .._- 1..1_1 L __ nt /1_ - .i+__ _ 11AZ". o -
WAS YOUR PROPERTY' me.a.i+v) DAMAGED? '
DYES IF SO, THEN FULLY DESCRIBE -SUCH AS AGE, MAKE MODEL, CONDITION, VALUE, OR EXTENT OF DAMAGE.
ONO
■ «• • •
WERE YOU INJUREW■No-
DESCRIBE
• -rYll •''i. _ aairi'
-- —_
0 YES
DATE OF BIRTH 01 IN. 3_ WAGE LOSS J�NO IF YES, THEN RATE OF PAY
KIND OF WORK s fxyf, EMPLOYER Caw,M•L/l1�`eS
AMOUNT CLAIMED I IF UNKNOWN, THEN ENTER -UNKN � + 4 VAO w
SIGNATURIE OF CLAIMANT I declare under psnaltf of perjury under the laws of the State of Washington
that (AM TITLE, IF BUS ES t the foregoing is true and correct
- EXECUTED ft a. s day of
at . ' sr c,�wgQ V,,'vlq Courr[y, Washington.
p CS 1910 REV. 1=02
City of Seattle clTr usE ONLY
NOTor Print Legibly. CLAIM FOR DAMAGES CLAIM NUMBER
Type9 Y DATE FILED I'
See instructions on back
CLAIMANT
NAME ( RST - M. - LAST ORl USINE-* NAME)
q
HOME PHONE
E/PCAI
HOME N %SSE CITYUTA ZIP) f���2
J'.`'/y��
BUS. PHONE
ACCIDENT/LOSS
/`TE 06C � , TIME
LOCATION/SITE
BE VERY SPECIFIC: STREETS, ADDRESSES, etc.
DIAGRAM
Use IF this will help you
locate or describe
what happened
I'
!l l ✓f� C� 1 G�, f �% w / /- `{ffir,7
{ T -1 r
-� T c
I-TI
WHAT HAPPENED DESCRIBE IN YOUR OWN WORDS HOW THIS LOSS OCCURRED
AND WHY YOU BELIEVE THE CITY IS RESPONSIBLE
CITY DEPT? -
CITY EMPLOYEE(S)?
CITY
VEHICLE NUMBER, LIC., etc.
WAS YOUR PROPERTY (home, auto, personal Property). DAMAGED?
OYES IF SO, THEN FULLY DESCRIBE • SUCH, AS AGE, MAKE MODEL, CONDITION, VALUE, OR EXTENT OF DAMAGE.
O NO' ,
WERE YOU INJURED?
.-YES IF YES, THEN COMPLETE THE FOLLOWING:
d NO r, _
DESCRIBE YOUR INJURY (IDENTIFYYOUR DOCTC+IR(S) klaa S' <Y% / qrr ,
�I YES
DATE OF BIRTH AOCIAL SECURITY NUMBER AGE SS O NO IF YES, THEN RATE OF PAY
KIND OF WORK EMPLOYER `i '"LC% t C )P l -
AMOUNT CLAIMED IF UNKNOWN, THEN ENTER 'UNKNOWN'
SIGNATURE OF CLAIMANT I declare under penalty of perjury under the laws of the State of Washington
(AND Tip LE, IF A BUSINESS) that the foregoing is true and correct� rz
EXECUTED this l day of 7K•4 r 79 ,
at �Q °L �� ' � Coun , Washin o
71
C �Z,, Zl/
/C- w f
r �-
NoTe Uy of Seaffle
Type or PriLeob�f4 CLAIM FOR DAMAGES
See instructions on back
CLAINAM FI - M• - LAST OR�SINESS
MANT
�► nrewy eft .n
HOME AD^DRESS (NUUMBER- STREET- CITY - STA
ACCIDENT/LOSS D�rE ( Z TIME 9 m
LOCATION/SITE "EVERY SPECIFIC: STREETS, ADDRESSES, etc
&4 a7o- brrr^
lip
WHAT HAPPENED I DESCRIBE IN YOUR OWN WORDS HOW THIS LOSS OCCURR�
AND WHY YOU BELIEVE THE CITY IS RESPONSIBLE.
� v✓�'15 �Ic�at� �.�r,o�.1 .,.�,1n�,.�.I.l,_b. D_ L, �_ a- -- � -�
0
n
CITY USE ONLY
CLAIM NUMBER
DATE FILED
f •-OCI N) A'V V . i i
Use If this wi help you
low or de*mbe
what happMW
J— te.P1LS W4 — r ' - CITY DEPT?
CITYEMPLOYEE(S)?
�f(�T
l XA A* d -�-K vrlw -h t-M 1o!`11e t .. if`. c %Am t- CITY
r
CLE NUMBER, UC., etc.
WAS YOUR PROPERTY- c+�. auto, ►enat Property) DAMAGED?
$ YES 1F SO, THEN FULLY DESCRIBE - SUCH AS AGE, MAKE MODEL, CONDITION, VALUE, OR EXTENT OF DAMAGE
0 NO
5��'1Y1�MiL �wl� n I". Dtk w'dte(h wksi►`At.lan VA'" . S4,1A 1 _ II [ s Ja._ I....,..i r
of(- p11�55iA r+r J
WERE YOU IN RED? YES IF.YES COMPLETE THE FOLLOWING:
D NO %�
DESCRIBE YOUR INJURY (IDENTIFY YOUR DOCTORS) / A
T wt� �� �fi lb 1S woo o 41, kmj
DATE OF BIRTH O YES
WAGE LOSS DI NO IF YES, THEN RATE OF PAY
KIND OF WORK EMPLOYER
AMOUNT CLAIMED IF UNKNOWN, THEN ENTER "UNKNOWN'
n )en vw A.
SIGNATURE OF CLAIMANT I declare under penalty of perjury under the laws of the State of Washington
WB TITLE, IF A BUSINESS) that the foregoing is true and correct
DCECUTED'ft b clay of A N ti k 5 20 _R .
at }(�
� County,lR`ashingion.
CS 19-10 REV t1J2M
City of Seattle
NOTE: CLAIM FOR DAMAGES
Type or Print Legibly.
See instructions on back.
NAME (Fk9ST - M. - LAST OR BUSr
%AME)
[CLAIMANT il-✓ a �t a i
HOME
O / ADDRESS(NUMBER39°/%lf . RIG !/ /ETA y0 )/� : -
ACCIDENT/LOSS DATE -0j TIME
LOCATION/SITE IBE VERY SPECIFIC: STREETS, ADDRESSES, etc.
WHAT HAPPENED DESCRIBE IN YOUR OWN WORDS HOW THIS LOSS OCCURRED
AND WHYYOU
_ /_ BELIEVE CITY I ".0/ESPONSIL
E.
/ J 1/1(
��Z,
CITY USE ONLY
CLAIM NUMBER ,
DATE FILED
Hg�IE PHOI�F��^S�L
'CG-7 .
BUS. PH�N�/ �'
DIAGRAM!
Use if this will help you
locate or describe
What happened
✓ -m
ro W/ A/rc.
c
CITY DEPT?
CITY EMPLOYEE(S)?
VEHICLE NUMBER, LIC., etc.
WAS YOUR PROPERTY (home, auto, personal property) DAMAGED?
OYES IF SO, THEN FULLY DESCRIBE, SUCH. AS AGE, MAKE MODEL, CONDITION, VALUE, OR EXTENT OF DAMAGE.
O NO
OYES IF YES, THEN COMPLETE
WERE YOU INJURED?
DESCRIBEYOUR INJURY (IDENTIFYYOUR DOCTORS) u/ e-R I-w
0 YES
DATE .OF BIRTH v v SOCIAL SECURITY NUMBER` AGE LOSS NO I F YES, THEN RATE OF PAY
KIND OF WORK EMPLOYER
AMOUNT CLAIMED IF UNKNOWN, THEN ENTER "UNKNOWN"
SIGNATURE OF CLAIMANT i declare under penalty of perjury under the taws of the State of Washington
(AND TITLE, IF A BUSINESS) that the foregoing is true and correct 2� �L
EXECUTED this day of /u /t r 19
at r' r County, Washington.
✓�fP L G/lt
Cate of Seattle
Type or Print Legibly. CLAIM FOR DAMAGES
See instructions on back.
CITY USE ONLY
CLAIM NUMBER
DATE FILED
CLAIMANT
(FIRST - M. - LAST R BUSINESS NAME)
47
HOME PHONE
}p�p3 )I
HOME
Z AJ?DRESS UMBER -STREET -CITY- STCATE - ZIP) , /
Z°A
ACCIDENT/LOSS TIME
LOCA11OWSITEI
BE VERY SPECIFIC: STREETS, ADDRESSES, etm
DIAGRAM
Use 9 #ft win help You
locate or describe
what happened
WHAT WPENED I DESCRIBE W YOUR OWN WORDS HOW THIS LOSS OCCURRED
AND WHY YOU BELIEVE THE CITY IS RESPONSIBLE.
i•
H,'•*.L I 4 �
CITY DEFT?
71';CrrY�EMPLO)?.0 -F rN
Y
� rjTcvvN -� -rd -
VEHICLE NUMBER, C., etc.
WAS YOUR PROPERTY (home. auto, Personal property) DAMAGED?
X YES IF SO. THEN FULLY DESCRIBE -SUCH AS AGE, MAKE MODEL., CONDITION, VALUE, OR EXTENT OF DAMAGE
D NO t7 NOT,
tU" T wPG & T
WERE YOU INJURED?I KYES IF YES, THEN COfAPlr=TE THE FOLLOWING:
0 NO
DESCRIBE YOUR INJURY (IDENTIFY YOUR DOCTOR(S) a - C! U
m
wr_j
O YES
DATE OF BIRTH 2 5 ti WAGE LOSS g No IF YES: THEN RATE OF PAY
KIND OF WORK EMPLOYER
AMOUNT CLAIMED I IF UNKNOWN, THEN ENTER'UNKNOWW
SIGNATURE OF CLAIMANT I declare under Penalty of perjury under the laws of the State of Washington
(AND TITLE, IF A BUSINESS) that the foregoing is true and correct
EXECUTED this Zj day of T'V 20LZ-
at <_ County, Washington -
CS 19.10 REV.. 1?J M
NOTE:
Type or Print Legibly.
See instructions on back -
CLAIMANT NAME
- M. -
Cit
y of Sege
CLAIM FOR DAMAGES
NAME)
-TOM D (NUMBE - SITLRTE- CITTEN/-- Z/•IP)
ia4 �� a
O GL
ACCIDENTILOSS DATE . Z_ • G3 TIME
LOCATION/SITE BE VERY SPECIFIC: STREETS, ADDRESSES, etc.
WHAT HAPPENED DESCRIBE IN YOUR OWN WORDS HOW THIS LOSS OCCURRED
AND7YOU BELIEVE THE CITY IS RESPONSIBLE
CITY USE ONLY
CLAIM NUMBER
DATE FILED
HOME PHONE
L5 3
BUS. PHONE
DIAGRAM
Use if this will help you
locate or descn'be
what ened
0�
-c,
CITY DEPT?
CITY EMPLOYEE(S)?
CITY
VEHICLE NUMBER, LIC., etc.
WAS YOUR PROPERTY (home, auto, personal property) DAMAGED?
❑ YES IF SO, THEN FULLY DESCRIBE -SUCH. AS AGE, MAKE MODEL, CONDITION, VALUE, OR EXTENT OF DAMAGE.
❑ NO
WERE YOU INJURED? ❑ YES IF YES, THEN COMPLETE THE FOLLOWING:
❑ NO
DESCRIBE YOUR INJURY (IDENTIFY YOUR DOCTOR(S)
_ 0 YES .
DATE OF BIRTH 2 OCTAL SECURITY NUMBER WAGE LOSS ❑ NO IF YES, THEN RATE OF PAY
KIND OF WORK EMPLOYER
AMOUNT CLAIMED IF UNKNOWN, THEN ENTER "UNKNOWN' $ ,Z
SIGNATURE OF CLAIMANT I declare under penalty of perjury under the laws of the State of Washington
(AND TITLE, IF A BUSINESS) that the foregoing is true and correct
EXECUTED th• day* of K 'r_ 19 ,
24,
at County Washington:
I
NOTE:
Type or Print Legibly.
See instructions on back.
City of Seattle
CLAIM FOR DAMAGES
r
CITY USE ONLY
CLAIM NUMBER
DATE FILED
CLAIMANT
NAME (FIRST - M. - LAST OR BUSINESS NAME)
IL)Ac-l< '
HOME PHONE
w au r=
lob 2-7-SZS'
HOME ADDRESS (NUMBER - STTREEdT - CITY - STATE - ZIP)
BUS. PHONE
E501 L HA2r.ISoV . WA. cl�loZ,.
N
ACCIDENT/LOSS
DATE 6 -2 - 0 3 TIME
LOCATION/SITE
I BE VERY SPECIFIC: STREETS, ADDRESSES, etc.
DIAGRAM
Use If this will help you
i77 f' t K
locate or describe
what happened
AS GR�
WHAT HAPPENED DESCRIBE IN YOUR OWN WORDS HOW THIS LOSSOCCURRED
AND WHY YOU BELIEVE THE CITY ISRESPONSIBLE.
WA5 WAciatN% 4WAY F c - 0- cbac :iti
kI (/uloN
Q
v ►a t a 9 - =ror.R_ feat ,.
^ v P. 0 : 14 CID r MA • r t 6 t-r
F'
RDA A 6a r o • QS o dZ L
CITY DEPT?
CITY EMPLOYEE(S)?
CITY
VEHICLE NUMBER, LIC., etc.
WAS YOUR PROPERTY (home, auto, personal property) DAMAGED?
OYES IF SO, THEN FULLY DESCRIBE -SUCH AS AGE, MAKE MODEL, CONDITION, VALUE, OR EXTENT OF DAlt,5E. C7
[L-/NO
C �
DD
WERE YOU INJURED? ES IF YES, THEN COMPLETE THE FOLLOWING:
O NO c j fT
DESCRIBE YOUR INJURY (IDENTIFY YOUR DOCTORS)
L G0 [6` -' :,V AT ,-/ V7fW u 00T tr
p orJ - c
O YES .
DATE .OF BIRTH SOCIAL SECURITY NUMBER E ' z- i z!�o4<Y WAGE LOSS EYNO IF YES, THEN RATE OF PAY
KIND OF WORK EMPLOYER
AMOUNT CLAIMED
IF UNKNOWN, THEN ENTER "UNKNOWN"
uwK
SIGNATURE OF CLAIMANT
I declare under penalty of perjury under the laws of the State of Washington
(AND TITLE, IF A BUSINESS)
that the foregoing is true and correct.
EXECUTED this I sl. day of JVL y 1 ,
at SrA T rc , is t rd6 County, Washington.
r
of Seattle
NOTE. Uw
Type orPrint L oWy. CLAIM FOR DAMAGES
See instructions on back.
CLAIMANT � "T t-OR BUS I�L,B, l
ACCIDENT/LOSS DATE] V n TIME
LOCA-11OWSITE1 BE VERY SPECIFIC: STREETS, ADDRESSES. etc.
WHAT HAPPENED j DESCRIBE IN YOUR OWN WORDS HOW THIS LOSS OCCURRED
AND WHY YOU BELIEVE T;LtE CITY IS RESPONSIBLE
•
CffY USE ONLY
CLAIM NUMBER
DATE FILED
.y0%'
DIAGRAM
Use 9 this wi help you
locate or desobe .
whet happened
CITY DEPT?
CITY EMPLOYEE(S)?
CITY
VEHICLE NUMBER, UC., etr-
WAS YOUR PROPERTY (how. auto. ) DAMAGE90.
0 YES IF SO, THEN FULLY DESCRIBE - SUCH AS AGE, MAKE MODEL, CONDITION, VALUE, OR EXTENT OF DAMAGE
X NO
WERE YOU INJURED? I N(YES IF YEA THEN COMPLETE THE FOLLOWING:
ONO
DESCRIBE YPUR INJURY. (IDENTIFY YOUR DOCTOR(Sl ].
DATE OF BRTH WAGE LOSS0 YES
0 NO IF YES, THEN RATE OF PAY
[KIND OF WORK EMPLOYER
AMOUNT CLAIMED IF UNKNOWN, THEN ENTER UNKNOWN-
SIGNATURE OF CLAIMANT i declare under penalty of perjury under the taws of the State of Washington
TITLE, IF A BUSINES in
that the foregog is true and correct.
EXECUTED this day of 20
CL .
atell 110
Y1 County, Washington:
I
City of Seattle
Type or Print ieg,b,y. CLAIM FOR DAMAGES
See Instructions on back.
CLAIMANT N�ME (FIRST - M. - LA T QR BUSINESS NAME)
_Lci
HOME • 2�% �ADDRESS (NUMBER -STREET - CITY ATE -ZIP) . / p I Z
ACCIDENT/LOSS e,.Z DATE / TIME
LOCATION/SITE IBE VERY SPECIFIC: STREETS, ADDRESSES, etc.
WHAT HAPPENED I DESCRIBE IN YOUR OWN WORDS HOW THIS LOSS OCCURRED
AND WHY YOU BELIEVE THE CITY IS RESPONSIBLE.
V L"M.
l
CITY USE ONLY
CLAIM NUMBER.
DATE FILED
HOME PHONE
—7 ogV / // Lf
BUS. PHONE
DIAGRAM
Use if this will help you
locate or describe
What happened
CITY DEPT?
CITY EMPLOYEE(S)?
CITY
VEHICLE NUMBER, LIC., etc.
WAS YOUR PROPERTY (home, auto, personal property) DAMA 6 ED?
YES IF SO, THEN FULLY DESCRIBE -SUCH. AS AGE, MAKE. MODEL, CONDITION, VALLIE, OR EXTENT OF DAMAGE.
❑ NO -�' I' ! r _ O t s
WAEWA
DESCRI8EYOUR INJURY (IDENTIFYYOURDOCTOR(S)
r�r
❑ YES _
FAMOUNT
OF BIRTHI� SOCIAL SECURITY NUMBERE7C� W/9 .WAGE LOSS 13NO IF YES, THEN RATE OF PAY
Of WORK EMPLOYER
CLAIMED IF UNKNOWN, THEN ENTER "UNKNOWN'
NATURE OF CLAIMANT I declare under penalty of perjury under the laws of the State of Washington
TITLE, IF A BUSINESS} thatthe foregoing is true and correct.
EXECUTED is day of 9`
2 at r County,, Washington.
C)
1
CITY USE ONLY
CLAIM NUMBER.
DATE FILED
HOME PHONE
—7 ogV / // Lf
BUS. PHONE
DIAGRAM
Use if this will help you
locate or describe
What happened
CITY DEPT?
CITY EMPLOYEE(S)?
CITY
VEHICLE NUMBER, LIC., etc.
WAS YOUR PROPERTY (home, auto, personal property) DAMA 6 ED?
YES IF SO, THEN FULLY DESCRIBE -SUCH. AS AGE, MAKE. MODEL, CONDITION, VALLIE, OR EXTENT OF DAMAGE.
❑ NO -�' I' ! r _ O t s
WAEWA
DESCRI8EYOUR INJURY (IDENTIFYYOURDOCTOR(S)
r�r
❑ YES _
FAMOUNT
OF BIRTHI� SOCIAL SECURITY NUMBERE7C� W/9 .WAGE LOSS 13NO IF YES, THEN RATE OF PAY
Of WORK EMPLOYER
CLAIMED IF UNKNOWN, THEN ENTER "UNKNOWN'
NATURE OF CLAIMANT I declare under penalty of perjury under the laws of the State of Washington
TITLE, IF A BUSINESS} thatthe foregoing is true and correct.
EXECUTED is day of 9`
2 at r County,, Washington.
C)
1
City of >Seaffle
NOTType or Print CLAIM FOR DAMAGES
See instructions on back.
CL A[MAW E IRST - M. - LAST OR BUSINESS MEN
N irol , MCLF'�e
HO DTRESS (NUMBS - S ET - CrrY - TATE - ZIP)
AMDENTILOSS DATE TIME
LOCATIOWSITE I BE VERY SPECIFIC. STREETS, ADDRESSES, etc.
CTTY USE ONLY
CLAIM NUMBER
DATE FILED
D IAG RAM
Use f this will help you
locate or desrn'be
what happened
WHAT HAPPENED DESCRIBE IN YOUR OWN WORDS HOW THIS LOSS OCCURRED
AND WHY YOU BELIEVE T iE CITY IS RESPONSIBLE. Q
dv
a w4L MIS*( F%l Ck40
.
•
CITY DEPT? C
A CITY EMPLOYEE(S)?
CITY
VEHICLE NUMBER, LIC., etc.'
1._.tt IAAr,._ntA4_A0:. 1..,1_1 i._,.LAthe ,'I._-.i,._ I+M,i n f/
[WAS YOUR PROPERTY (home, auto, personal property) DAMAGED? i
DYES IF SO, THEN FULLY DESCRIBE -SUCH AS AGE, MAKE MODEL, CONDITION, VALUE, OR EXTENT OF DAMAGE.
D NO
WERE. YOU INJURER? DYES IF. YES, THEN COMPLETE THE FOLLOWING:
D NO
DESCRIBE: YOUR INJURY (IDENTIFYYO.UR DOCTORS) G
D YES
DATE OF BIRTH 1 -WAGE LOSS NO 1F YES, THEN RATE OF PAY
I• KIND OF WORK �1C S° f� EMPLOYER Cq
AMOUNT CLAIMED IF UNKNOWN, THEN ENTER `UNKN N" ` I��
03
SIGNATURE OF GLA[MANT I declare under penalty of perjury under fhe laws of the Sfafe of Washington
(AND FfTt JF BUAll
S that the foregoing is true and correct.
EXECUTED this �� day of A Uq 20
:
at L°GII `N'County, Washington.
Cs 19-10 R=_v -=602
City of Seattle CITY USE ONLY _
CLAIM NUMBER
r'rint CLAIM FOR DAMAGES Legibly. DATE FILED
,tTuctlons on back.
,CLAIMANT rME (FIRST - M. -LAST OR BUSINESS NAME) HO E PHONE
HOME ADVR7(NUMBER - STREET - CITY - STATE - ZIP) BUS. PHONE
ACCIDENT/LOSS I J v Yi. DAT TIME I
LOCATION/SITE BE VERY SPECIFIC: STREETS, ADDRESSES, etc. DIAGRAM
Use if this will help you
(/ L � locate or describe
whathappened
WHAT HAPPENED DESCRIBE IN YOUR OWN WORDS HOW THIS LOSS OCCURRED - �
I AND
�WHY YOU BELIEVE THE CITY IS RESPONSIBLE.7-k h"--Olf -Yt' 41, C O
La
F 1'1�
l
CITY I)EPT? -
rve) P4 CITY EMPLOYEE(S)?
VEy E NUMBER, UC, etc.
1. WAS YOUR PROPERTY (home, a -to',personal property) DAMAGEDDYES IF SO, THEN FULLY DESCRIBE SUCH, AS AGE, MAKE MODEL, CONDITION, VALUE, OR EXTENT OF DA
❑ NO'
i
WERE YOU INJURED? S IF YES, THEN COMPLETE THE FOLLOWING-
❑ NO
DESCRIBEYOUR INJURY (IDENTIFY YOUR DOCTOR(5
DATE OF BIRTH�1 SOCIAL SECURITY NUMBER �� 'La .AGE LOSS IF -YES, THEN RATE OF PAY____
KIND OF WORK EMPLOYER
AMOUNT CLAIMED IF UNKNOWN, THEN ENTER "UNKNOWN"
SIGNATURE OF CLAIMANI I declare under penalty of perjury under the laws of the State of Washington
(AND TITLE, 1F A BUSINESS) that the foregoing is true and correct.
EXECUTED this -day of T
at w County, Washington.
3C
CS is-m Rev ioioR
i�p of sbaftle
NOTE: CLAIM FOR DAMAGES
Type or Print Legibly:
See instructions on back.
G.LAIh W-MNAMEFIRST.; M. - LAST OR BUSINESS NAME)
HOME ADDRESS (NUMBER- STREET- CITY- STATE - ZIP)
110 IV1$ a `fT OL, [ O
ACCIDENT/LOSS 6 2 0 3 DATEApp{,,#X g:ao rnTIME
LOGATION/SITE BE VERY PECIFIC: STREETS, ADDRESSES, etc.
WHAT HAPPENED DESCRIBE IN YOUR OWN WORDS HOW THIS LOSS OCCURRED
AND WHY YOU BELIEVE THE CITY IS RESPONSIBLE.
P4 i wr- 7n4
.1 c e - BSOLt4 . A-r-I A, 514i& "Ttiv G RO4v p r-opNo APP
N504. WE wPRN P"SNE D �A-Lk w%T14 g• c cLES AN
CITY USE ONLY
CLAIM NUMBER
DATE FILED
DIAGRAM
Use if this will help you
locate or de§cnbe
what happehed
C=1
� rn.
.c
106 QMPR 5f," . iniDls6Rt M Nk.VE-HII.CLE
n DEPT?
Y EMPLOYEE(S)?
E _,W c w 1L -F3LI Not'Y
NUMBER, UC., etc.
�_76_Ev i JCIA( V Ali .5 FR&YtP AGAciN,
'WAS YOUR PROPERTY chome, auto, personal properly) DAMAGED?
Q YES IF SO, THEN FULLY DESCRIBE -SUCH AS AGE, MAKE MODEL, CONDT IION, VALUE, OR EXTENT OF DAMAGE
r
YNO
WERE YOU INJURED? )dYES IF_YES, THEN COMPLETE THE FOLLOWING:
D NO'
DESCRIBE YOUR INJURY (IDENTIFY YOUR DOCTORS) _ P.E P PAR
O YES -
DATE OF BIRTH1 S WAGE LOSS NO IF YES, THEN RATE OF
KIND OF WORK EMPLOYER
AMOUNT CLAIMED IF UNKNOWN, THEN ENTER "UNKNOWN- U N VN Dw
SIGNATURtH OF CLAIMANT I declare under penalty of perjury under the laws of the Stafe of Washington
(AND TITLE, IF A BUSINESS) fhaf fhe foregoing Is true and correct. /
EXECU T ED This 2day ofy ay 24 03 ,
of —Ci-4vt�-S"(� County, Washinofon.
OLy K1 k Al AT/ / ,
CS 13.10 REV 12MO2
f •
of Sbaide
C17YUSE ONLY
NOTE:
T,rpe or>=rint Leii;ty. CLAIM FOR DAMAGES
CLAIM NUMBER
See insfruciions on back.
DATE FILED
CLAIMANT NAMATIR T - M. -/LAST OR BUST ESS NAME)
De I
D �a'HQNI�~e
HOME ADD ES (NLIM BER - STREET Cr Y - STATE - ZIP) BdS,,�'- t1D1i7Es ;f "`. ' { `
L2+iti S 5,vw �/ 9g1't9 - 1: e
ve
cc � 6
AGGIDENT/L:OSS ih ur 63 ''MES �cx�PNt
-
L OCATION/SITE IBE VERY SPECIFIC: STREETS, ADDRESSES, eto.DIAGRAM
6 1 k c
c this will help you
at° or dacnbe .
S Neva) �Y1 V;�4- 51J-c 0�siieef
hathappshed
WHAT HAPPENED DESCRIBE IN YOUR 01NN WARDS HOW THIS LOtOCCURR=Efj"
AND WHY YOU BELIES THE'CI T Y IS RESPONSI!
Cow) JeYA`
rke(I An Afwr) ib -� e ra1n(r
i . �a j v,/O5 )AK s 6,f\Waln
AD orie oT if z at-fes in o(irfr5-- wasCITY
g(.Pf
DEPT7CITY EMPLO)
tCmwt �� 1 1te s T0i� VA T(010- h .5af oil
'fa 66V OkiWe*i hj han s CIMP06S,b�
rMS bcvw�
�ilCLE NUMBER UC�c.
jn:
G Ise) . ti It �Qt�Ic`
'WAS YOUR PROPERTY (home, auto, personal property) DAMAGED?
Q YES IF $O, THEN FULLY DESCRIBE - SUCH AS AGE, MAKE MODEL, CONDITION, VALUE, OR EXTENT OF DAMAGE.
�J NO
WERE YOU INJURED? YES IF_YES, THEN COMPLETE THE FOLLOWING:
D NO'
`.
DESCRIBE YOUR INJURY (IDENTIFYYO.UR DOCTOR(S) OYA - '7t vmrbak, kw - W(,15461 W
m1A e. I V11 01m. ih sl>,UgPf. cIw 'awil'al leArt tack
b 1, ears 14t C '
vm-rle04 lvdeN %a - =, r' t%pw, V)q s� n a� jj a4 t�
v 0witki5
D YE .
DATE OF BIRTH) �IZ� WAGE LOSS NO IF YES, THEN RATE OF PAY
KIND'OF WORK laoliurid d T EMPLOY_R Lt6L
AMOUNT GLAIMED j 1F UNKNOWN, THEM ENTER'UNKNOWN7
K �w
I declara under penal- o; pe,�ury under'the Laws o`-the State o," VJzshington
S[GNATURE OF CLAMANT .
(WED TITLE, IF A BUSINESS). :` that fhe foregoing is 'sue and correct
t
IE-CUTi-r-Dthis
aff
2003 ,
j/day
Cowt Washin :on.
NOTE:
Type or Print Legibly
See instructions on back.
CIMANT NAME (>
HOME ADDRESS (NUMBER -
City of sbattle
CLAIM FOR DAMAGES
- M. - LAST
A:- +1(AV V) f
- CITY -?ATE _ ZIP)
ACCIDENT/LOSS DATE 2 TIME
LOCATION/SITE BE VERY SPECIFIC: STREETS, ADDRESSES, etc.
x1i Ott
WHAT HAPPENED DESCRIBE IN YOUR OWN WORDS HOW THIS LOSS OCCURRED
�JAND WHY YOU BELIEVE THE CITY IS RESPONSIBLE.
1t
c:
--s
. CIT)' USE ONLY
CLAIM NUMBER
DATE
AFILED
�� ��'c�l?l�Sdf.^'i � � . • � to
DIAGRAM
Use if this will help you
locate or describe
whathappehad
•a
�w<
a�
mm
4.0
FVEHICLE
? ✓M' �%
- -- - - -- -- -- - _� . OYEE(S)?
- - --- -
----- UMBER LIC.,etc.
WAS YOUR PROPERTY (home, auto, personal property) DAMAGED?
Q YES IF SO, THEN FULLY DESCRIBE - SUCH AS AGE, MAKE MODEL, CONDITION, VALUE, OR EXTENT OF DAMAGE.
0 NO
WERE YOU INJURED?
IF, YES, THEN COMPLETE THE FOLLOWING:
-� 0 NO
DESCRIBE YOUR INJURY (IDENTIFY YOUR DOCTORS)
0 YES -
DATE OF BIRTH " �' WAGE LOSS NO IF YES, THEN RATE OF PAY
KIND OF WORK _ EMPLOYER
AMOUNT CLAIMED IF UNKNOWN, THEN ENTER 'UNKNOWN'
SIGNATURE OF CLAMANT
MD TITLE, IF A BUSINESS)
1 declare under penalty of perjury under the laws of the State of Washingfon
that the foregoing Is true and correct.
EXECUTED mis - day of 20 ,
at �l!� _ �� County, Washington.
Z tv
Cs f6.t0 FC-V.12/2MO2
71FI—STR•- M. - T OR BUSINESS NAME)
CLAIMANTn.4le- - L,�
HOME DDR SS Nt4MBER - STR ET - C TY - STATE - ZIP)
Ij.,r
ACCIDENTILOSS DATE 6 Z• "�� TIME
LOCATION/SITE BE VERY SPECIFIC: STREETS, ADDRESSES, etc.
CITY USE ONLY
CLAIM NUMBER
DATE FILED
HOME.7O E
2— `,� 12y
BUS. PHONE t
DIAGRAM
Use if this will help you
iocdte or describe
what happened
WHAT HAPPENED . DESCRIBE IN YOUR OWN WORDS HOW THIS LOSS OCCURRED
AND WHY YOU BELIEVE THE CITY IS RESPONSIBLE.
} / f
r O� 71z5
=,
f — i --G _T1
CYN
` :n
r
T?_LOYEE(S)?
VEHICLE NUMBER, LIC., eta
WAS YOUR PROPERTY (home, auto, personal property) DAMAGED?
❑ YES IF SO, THEN FULLY DESCRIBE -SUCH AS AGE, MAKE MODEL, CONDITION, VALUE, OR .EXTENT OF DAMAGE
❑ NO'
WERE YOU INJURED?. 3-YES IF YES, THEN COMPLETE THE FOLLOWING�.-e
❑ NOadw`
i /
DESCRIBE YOUR INJURY (IDENTIFY YOUR DOCTORS) -S art/ l-C6; ����5=�``� �CiC
DATE QF BIRTH �f S&OCIAL SECURITY NUMBER Z•32-�5 `-' e /s ❑YES
WAGE LOS/S IF YES, THEN RATE OF PAY
KIND OF WORK EMPLOYER S r
AMOUNT CLAIMED IF UNKNOWN, THEN ENTER 'UNKNOWN"
SIGNAL URE OF, CLAIMANT I declare under penalty of pefjury under the laws ai the State of Washington
that the foregoing is true and correct.
A (AND TITLE, 1F BUSINESS) _
t
EXECUTED this } day of C ¢ y g-}
at County Washington.
19.10 REV tn/Aa
I
V
NOTE Cay of S&Affle
Type or Priht Leg-lbfy., CLAIM FOR DAMAGES
See in-tfmcgorts on back
CLAI U - LAST OR 13USIN---ss NAME)
n f
HOAR ADDRESS (NUMBER 1EEI OCI -cjjy-SjkM-Zjp)
eu. il�d."aek t4 14
ACCI TIME
44. A I- - f
VMT HAPPENED
D ESC�-E
_S-
9�jjtS LASS )CCURRzDAMD HY You
BELEl'E I14E Cl-lY IS PESPONSIBLE-
- 1. U —
. I f
CFff USE ONLY
CLAW NUMBER
DATE FILED
DIAGRAM
NOTE Cay of S&Affle
Type or Priht Leg-lbfy., CLAIM FOR DAMAGES
See in-tfmcgorts on back
CLAI U - LAST OR 13USIN---ss NAME)
n f
HOAR ADDRESS (NUMBER 1EEI OCI -cjjy-SjkM-Zjp)
eu. il�d."aek t4 14
ACCI TIME
44. A I- - f
VMT HAPPENED
D ESC�-E
_S-
9�jjtS LASS )CCURRzDAMD HY You
BELEl'E I14E Cl-lY IS PESPONSIBLE-
- 1. U —
. I f
CFff USE ONLY
CLAW NUMBER
DATE FILED
DIAGRAM
Use if gl:s wig kj-jp YOU
JocaL- or dedks
.i.tk.pp.t.g..,
—
<
r-n i
;4.
CrrYDEPT? . . sp�
CITY EMPLOYEE(S)?
VEiKI
ckj:�Lj I LC NUMBER, LTC.,etr-
14
TY 'WAS YOUR P'OPERTY'omh ersonal proper j) DAMAGED?
0V-YE�i IFSO, THEN FULLY DEsCF�JBE-SUCH
0 NO AS AGE, MAKE MODEL, CONDITION, VALUE, OR EXTENT OF DAMAGE
It
V-LN.f_
WERE YOU INJURED? IF -YES, THEN COMPLETE THE FOLLOWING:
0 NO,
DESCRIBE YOUR INJURY (IDEtMFy YOUR
D6. aa!�Aj .9if
U22 i
DAJ E OFBIRTIY
U YES
KIND OF WORK WA"r-E LOSS 0 NO IF YES, THEN RAF Oi, PAY IEMPLOYER
AMOUNT CLAIMED IF UNKNOmt TH---w ENTEft -uNKNowN-
SIGNATURE OF CLAIIUNT gfVkI declare under pen2ly of pajury under taws of she Sate of Washinon
� MLE, IF A BUSINESS) ff-f (he foregoing is true and correct
:CU71 ED Us da_y of 20-p-
at
N OTE:
Type or Print Legibly.
See instructions on back.
CLAIMANT E (F
HOMEADDRESS(NUM$ER-
FLED
C17 SE,t\ ULE
City of Seattle
2(03 N0'a1AFM3FbR DAMAGES
C'IT,Y1- STATE - ZIP,),
NW - �'
. CITY USE ONLY
CLAIM NUMBER
DATE FILED
HOME PHONE
BUS. PHONE
ACCIDENT/LOSS a0,oa•. )LATE +& -
LOCA i IONiSITE BE VERY SPECIFIC: STREETS, ADDRESSES, etc. DIAGRAM.
_40/�� '' Q��� 1 �/� Use if this will help you
"� `� L' �/� l ti✓ i�i=r i�! V •®� V locate ct describe
what happened
WHAT HAPPENED DESCRIBE IN YOUR OWN WORDS HOW THIS LOSS OCCURRED
AND WHY YOU BELIEVE THE CITY IS RESPONSIBLE. i
A CITY DEPT? PQ
��1 ► y (..j` ^ �-�C U W CITY EMPLOYEE(S)?
VEHICLE NUMBER, LIC., etc.
WAS YOUR PROPERTY (home, auto, personal property) DAMAGED?
DYES IF:SO, THEN FULLY DESCRIBE -SUCH AS AGE, MAKE MODEL, CONDITION, VALUE, OR EXTENT OF DAMAGE.
NO
WERE YOU INJURED? OYES IF YES, THEN COMPLETE THE FOLLOWING:
J& NO
DESCRIBE YOUR INJURY (IDENTIFY YOUR DOCTORS)
< <• d1.�.0 YES
DATE OF BIRTH
WAGE LOSS► NO IF YES, THEN RATE OF PAY
KIND OF WORK-Ag.(' EMPLOYER
AMOUNT CLAIMED IF UNKNOWN, THEN ENTER "UNKNOWN"�-�'�'i
SIGNATURE OF CLAIMANT I declare under penalty of perjury under the laws of the State of Washington
(AND TITLE, IF A BUSINESS) that the foregoing is true and correct
EXECUTED this �� day of20
at Vf! County, l^;ashingtOn.
CS 19.10 REV! 5212002
l
CITY OF RENTON COUNCIL AGENDA BILL
SUBMITTING DATA:
Dept/Div/Board.. AJLS/City Clerk
Staff Contact... Bonnie Walton
SUBJECT:
CRT-05-010; Court Case
Robert Barnes et al vs. City of Seattle; Seattle Police
Department; The Law Enforcement Intelligence Unit; Tukwila
Police Department; Burien Police Department; Renton Police
Department; et al
EXHIBITS:
Summons and Complaint
Al11 #:
A OF:
AGENDA STATUS:
Consent....
Public Hearing..
Correspondence -
Ordinance ...
Resolution...
Old Business.......
New Business......
Study Session....
Other....
RECOMMENDED ACTION: APPROVALS:
Legal Dept......
Refer to City Attorney and Insurance Services Finance Dept....
Other.
FISCAL IMPACT:
Expenditure Required... Transfer/Amendment..
Amount Budgeted ........ Revenue Generated...
SUMMARY OF ACTION:
K4
Summons and Complaint for Civil Rights Violations, False Imprisonment, Battery, Assault, Trespass to
Chattel, Conversion, Intentional Infliction of Emotional Distress and Negligence filed in
United States District Court Western District of Washington at Seattle by Lawrence A. Hildes and Paul
Richmond, Attorneys, on behalf of Robert Barnes et al alleging violation of plaintiffs' rights during a
demonstration that occurred in downtown Seattle on 6/2/2003.
®AO 440 (Rev. 8/01) Summons in a Civil Action CITY OF RE[NT[lAI
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT SEP 14 2005
District of RECEIVED
Q 1C P T �Ilq � i �Cvcci
I � Karut Weill, to Q �1 z/6- a�
SUMMONS IN A CIVIL CASE93.''i���om,
V,
.
CASE NUMBER:
CvoS.- 13 q0
TO: Name and address of Defendant)
r
/ /
'
IC5a
YOU ARE HEREBY SUMMONED and required to serve on PLAINTIFF'S ATTORNEY (name and address)
Oc t�t� i Co
.
an answer to the complaint which is served on you with this summons within `/ days after service
p Y � Y
of this summons on you, exclusive of the day of service. If you fail to do so, judgment by default will be taken against you
for the relief demanded in the complaint. Any answer that you serve on the parties to this action must be filed with the
Clerk of this Court within a reasonable period of time after service.
SRUG - RIFKIN
CLERK
(By) DEPUTY CLERK
DATE
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
41
42
43
44
45
46
CITY OF RENTON
PAUL RICHMOND(WSBA# 32306)
4616 25th Avenue NE, #449 S E P 14 2005
Seattle, WA, 98105 RECEIVED
(206) 526-0565 CITY CLERK'S OFFICE
LAWRENCE A HILDES (WSBA# 35035)
P.O. Box 5405
Bellingham, WA 98227
Telephone: (360) 715-9788
Fax: (360) 714-1791
Attorneys for Plaintiffs:
ROBERT BARNES, JOSEPH O'CONNOR, KL. SHANNON, ERIC WIRKMAN
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
WESTERN DISTRICT OF WASHINGTON
ROBERT BARNES ,
JOSEPH O'CONNOR
K.L. SHANNON
ERIC WIRKMAN
Plaintiffs,
VS.
i CASE NO.
I COMPLAINT FOR CIVIL RIGHTS
f VIOLATIONS 42 USC 1983;
FALSE
IMPRISONMENT, BATTERY,
i ASSAULT, TRESPASS TO CHATTEL,
i CONVERSION,
INTENTIONAL INFLICTION OF
EMOTIONAL DISTRESS, NEGILGENCE
CITY OF SEATTLE; SEATTLE POLICE )
DEPARTMENT; THE LAW )
ENFORCEMENT INTELLIGENCE UNIT
TUKWILLA POLICE DEPARTMENT,
BURIEN POLICE DEPARTMENT,
RENTON POLICE DEPARTMENT,
REDMOND POLICE DEPARTMENT,
KING COUNTY SHERIFF'S OFFICE,
CAPTAIN MICHAEL SANFORD,
individually and in his official capacity
as a CAPTAINOF THE SEATTLE
POLICE DEPARTMENT; and JANE
DOE SANFORD, his wife, and the
marital community there of ; CHIEF R.
BARNES ET AL V. CITY OF SEATTLE, COMPLAINT
1 GIL KERLIKOWSKE individually and in
2 his capacity as the CHIEF
3 of the SEATTLE POLICE DEPARTMENT
4 and JANE DOE KERLIKOWSKE
5 and the marital community composed
6 thereof; CLARK KiMERER,
7 individually and in his capacity as
8 a DEPUTY CHIEF of the SEATTLE
9 POLICE DEPARTMENT And JANE DOE
10 KIMERER and the marital
11 community composed thereof;
12 ASSISTANT CHIEF JIM PUGEL,
13 individually and in his official capacity
14 as an ASST. CHIEF of the SEATTLE
15 POLICE DEPARTMENT and JANE DOEW
16 PUGEL and the marital community
17 composed thereof; STEVE WILSKE,
18 individually and in his Official capacity
19 as a LIEUTENANT OF THE SEATTLE
20 POLICE DEPARTMENT, and JANE DOE
21 WILSKE and the marital community
22 composed thereof; J.K. DYM ENT,
23 individually and in her Official capacity
24 as a SERGEANT of the SEATTLE
25 POLICE DEPARTMENT AND JOHN DOE
26 DYMENT, and the marital community
27 composed thereof; A.C. PRICE,
28 individually and in his Official capacity
29 as a SERGEANT OF the SEATTLE
30 POLICE DEPARTMENT, and JANE
31 DOE PRICE and the marital community
32 composed thereof; G. CALDER,
33 individually and in his Official capacity
34 as a LIEUTENANT of the SEATTLE
35 POLICE DEPARTMENT and JANE DOE
36 CALDER and the marital community
37 composed thereof; J.J. JANKAUSKAS,
38 individually and in his official capacity
39 as a LIEUTENANT of the SEATTLE
40 POLICE DEPARTMENT and JANE DOE
41 JANKAUSKAS, and the marital
42 community thereof; M.A. COOMES,
43 individually and in his Official capacity
44 as a SERGEANT of the SEATTLE
45 POLICE DEPARTMENT and JANE DOE
46 COOMES and the marital community
BARNES ET AL V. CITY OF SEATTLE, COMPLAINT
1 thereof; D.R. LOWE, individually and in
2 his Official capacity as a SERGEANT of
3 the SEATTLE POLICE DEPARTMENT
4 and JANE DOE LOWE and the marital
5 community thereof; J.J. MAGAN,
6 individually and in his official capacity
7 as a SERGEANT of the SEATTLE
e POLICE DEPARTMENT and JANE DOE
9 MAGAN and the marital community
10 thereof; SGT. BRADY, individually
11 and in his Official capacity as a
12 SERGEANT of the SEATTLE POLICE
13 DEPARTMENT, and JANE DOE BRADY
14 and the marital community thereof;
15 SGT. BROTHERTON, individually and
16 in his Official capacity as a SERGEANT
17 of the SEATTLE POLICE DEPARTMENT,
18 and JANE DOE BROTHERTON and the
19 marital community thereof; DETECTIVE R.
20 ROMERO, individually and in his Official
21 capacity as a DETECTIVE of the SEATTLE
22 POLICE DEPARTMENT and JANE DOE
23 ROMERO and the marital community
24 thereof; P.C. WALL, individually and in his
25 Official capacity as an OFFICER of the )
26 SEATTLE POLICE DEPARTMENT, and
27 JANE DOE WALL and the marital
28 Community thereof; D.D. DARNALL,
29 individually and in his Official capacity
3o as an OFFICER of the SEATTLE POLICE
31 DEPARTMENT, and JANE DOE DARNALL
32 and the marital community thereof; R.
33 NELSON, individually and in his Official
34 capacity as an OFFICER of the SEATTLE
35 POLICE DEPARTMENT and JANE DOE
36 NELSON and the marital community thereof
37 G. NELSON, individually and in his
38 Official capacity as a SERGEANT of the
39 SEATTLE POLICE DEPARTMENT, and
40 JANE DOE NELSON and the marital
41 Community thereof; MATTHEW M. DIESZI,
42 Individually and in his Official capacity as
43 an Officer of the SEATTLE POLICE
44 DEPARTMENT and JANE DOE DIESZI
45 and the marital community thereof; K.
46 SWANK, individually and in his Official
BARNES ET AL V. CITY OF SEATTLE, COMPLAINT
1 capacity as an OFFICER of the SEATTLE
2 POLICE DEPARTMENT and JANE DOE
3 SWANK and the marital community thereof;
4 TAD K. WILLOUGHBY, individually and in
5 his Official capacity as a SERGEANT of
6 the SEATTLE POLICE DEPARTMENT, and
7 JANE DOE WILLOUGHBY and the marital
s community thereof; MICHAEL WHIDBEY,
9 individually and in his Official capacity as a
10 DETECTIVE of the SEATTLE POLICE
11 DEPARTMENT and JANE DOE WHIDBEY
12 and the marital community thereof; VERNER
13 O'QUIN, individually and in his Official
14 capacity as a SERGEANT of the SEATTLE
15 POLICE DEPARTMENT and JANE DOE
16 O'QUIN and the marital community thereof;
17 SGT. JANDOC, individually and in his
18 Official capacity as a SERGEANT of the
19 SEATTLE POLICE DEPARTMENT and JANE
20 DOE JANDOC and the marital community
21 thereof; OFFICER LANDERS, individually
22 and in his Official capacity as an Officer of
23 the SEATTLE POLICE DEPARTMENT and
24 JANE DOE LANDERS and the marital
25 community thereof; LOREN R. STREET
26 individually and in his Official capacity as an
27 OFFICER of the SEATTLE POLICE
28 DEPARTMENT and JANE DOE STREET
29 and the marital community thereof; P.J. FOX,
30 individually and in his Official capacity as an
31 OFFICER of the SEATTLE POLICE
32 DEPARTMENT, and JANE DOE
33 FOX and the marital community )
34 thereof; THOMAS M. MOONEY, individually
35 and in his Official capacity as an OFFICER
36 of the SEATTLE POLICE DEPARTMENT,
37 and JANE DOE MOONEY and the marital
38 community thereof; K. ZEIGER, individually
39 and in his Official capacity as an OFFICER
40 of the SEATTLE POLICE DEPARTMENT,
41 and JANE DOE ZEIGER and the marital
42 community thereof; J.J. LEE, individually
43 and in his Official capacity as an OFFICER
44 of the SEATTLE POLICE DEPARTMENT,
45 and JANE DOE LEE and the marital
46 community thereof; RIK K. HALL,
BARNES ET AL V. CITY OF SEATTLE, COMPLAINT
1 individually and in his Official capacity as )
2 an OFFICER of the SEATTLE POLICE )
3 DEPARTMENT, and JANE DOE HALL and )
4 the marital community thereof; M. LANZ, i
5 individually and in his Official capacity as an )
6 OFFICER OF THE SEATTLE POLICE j
7 DEPARTMENT, and JANE DOE LANZ and )
a the marital community thereof; PATRICIA )
9 A. MACDONALD, individually and in her )
10 capacity as an OFFICER of the SEATTLE )
11 POLICE DEPARTMENT and JOHN DOE )
12 MACDONALD and the marital community )
13 thereof; WALTER M. HAYDEN, individually )
14 and in his Official capacity as an OFFICER )
15 of the SEATTLE POLICE DEPARTMENT, )
16 and JANE DOE HAYDEN and the marital }
17 community thereof; MARK A. GRINSTEAD, )
18 individually and in his Official capacity as an }
19 Officer of the SEATTLE POLICE )
20 DEPARTMENT, and JANE DOE GRINSTEAD )
21 and the marital community thereof, TOM MIE )
22 M. DORAN, individually and in his Official j
23 capacity as an OFFICER of the SEATTLE )
24 POLICE DEPARTMENT and JANE DOE )
25 DORAN and the marital community thereof; )
26 ADRIAN Z. DIAZ, individually and in his )
27 Official capacity as a SERGEANT of the )
28 SEATTLE POLICE DEPARTMENT, and )
29 JANE DOE DIAZ and the marital community )
30 thereof; CHAD L. MCLAUGHLIN, }
31 individually and in his Official capacity as an )
32 OFFICER of the SEATTLE POLICE )
33 DEPARTMENT, and JANE DOE )
34 MCLAUGHLIN and the marital community )
35 thereof; BRAD CONWAY, individually and in)
36 his Official capacity as an Officer of the )
37 SEATTLE POLICE DEPARTMENT, and )
38 JANE DOE CONWAY and the marital )
39 community thereof; MATTHEW BRADRICK, )
40 individually and in his Official capacity as an j
41 OFFICER of the SEATTLE POLICE )
42 DEPARTMENT, and JANE DOE BRADRICK )
43 and the marital community thereof; DAVID )
44 FITZGERALD, individually and in his Official )
45 Capacity as an OFFICER of the SEATTLE )
46 POLICE DEPARTMENT and JANE DOE )
BARNES ET AL V. CITY OF SEATTLE, COMPLAINT
1 FITZGERALD and the marital community
2 thereof; RANDALL A. JOKELA, individually
3 and in his Official capacity as an OFFICER
4 of the SEATTLE POLICE DEPARTMENT,
5 and JANE DOE JOKELA and the marital
6 community thereof; GEORGE HISSUNG JR
7 individually and in his Official capacity as an
8 OFFICER of the SEATTLE POLICE
9 DEPARTMENT, and JANE DOE HISSUNG
10 and the marital community thereof; JASON
11 G. DRUMMOND, individually and in his
12 Official capacity as an OFFICER of the ?
13 SEATTLE POLICE DEPARTMENT, and
14 JANE DOE DRUMMOND and the marital
15 community thereof; JOHN A. DIAZ,
16 individually and in his Official capacity as an
17 OFFICER of the SEATTLE POLICE
is DEPARTMENT, and JANE DOE DIAZ and
19 the marital community thereof; OFFICER
20 MCCRAE, individually and in his Official
21 capacity as an OFFICER of the SEATTLE
22 POLICE DEPARTMENT, and JANE DOE
23 MCCRAE and the marital community thereof
24 JAMES B. PATCHEN, individually and in
25 his Official capacity as an OFFICER of the
26 SEATTLE POLICE DEPARTMENT and JANE
27 DOE PATCHEN and the marital community
28 thereof; MICHAEL M. SUDDUTH, individually
29 and in his Official capacity as an OFFICER
30 of the SEATTLE POLICE DEPARTMENT,
31 and JANE DOE SUDDUTH and the marital
32 community thereof; WILLIE WILLIAMS,
33 individually and in his Official capacity as an
34 OFFICER of the SEATTLE POLICE
35 DEPARTMENT, and JANE DOE WILLIAMS
36 and the marital community thereof; W.
37 CRAVENS, individually and in his Official
38 capacity as an OFFICER of the SEATTLE
39 POLICE DEPARTMENT, and JANE DOE
40 CRAVENS and the marital community
41 thereof; R. SOURNES, individually and in
42 his Official capacity as an OFFICER of the
43 SEATTLE POLICE DEPARTMENT, and
44 JANE DOE BOURNES and the marital j
45 community thereof; MARK L. WORSTMAN,
46 individually and in his Official capacity as
BARNES ET AL V. CITY OF SEATTLE, COMPLAINT
1 a SERGEANT of the SEATTLE POLICE )
2 DEPARTMENT, and JANE DOE WORSTMAN )
3 BILL GARDINER, individually and in his )
4 Official capacity as a LIEUTENANT of the )
5 WASHINGTON STATE PATROL, and JANE )
6 DOE GARDINER and the marital community )
7 thereof; MARK W. LAMOREAUX, individually)
s and in his Official capacity as a )
9 LIEUTENANT of the WASHINGTON STATE )
10 PATROL, and JANE DOE LAMOREAUX and )
11 the marital community thereof, SHAWN )
12 BERRY, individually and in his Official )
13 capacity as a DETECTIVE of the )
14 WASHINGTON STATE PATROL, and JANE )
15 DOE BERRY and the marital community )
16 thereof; JAMES A. CHROMEY, individually )
17 and in his Official capacity as a )
18 LIEUTENANT of the WASHINGTON STATE )
19 PATROL, and JANE DOE CHROMEY and the )
20 marital community thereof; DAVID W. )
21 BOURLAND, individually and in his Official )
22 capacity as a TROOPER of the )
23 WASHINGTON STATE PATROL, and JANE )
24 DOE BOURLAND and the marital community )
25 thereof; CURT G. BOYLE, individually and in )
26 his Official capacity as a TROOPER of the )
27 WASHINGTON STATE PATROL, and JANE )
28 DOE BOYLE and the marital community )
29 thereof; RICARDO BRITO, individually and in)
3o his Official capacity as a TROOPER of the )
31 WASHINGTON STATE PATROL, and JANE )
32 DOE BRITO and the marital community )
33 thereof; DARIN F. DE RUWE, individually )
34 and in his Official capacity as a TROOPER )
35 of the WASHINGTON STATE PATROL, and )
36 JANE DOE DE RUWE and the marital )
37 community thereof; BRYAN R. DUCOMMUN, )
38 individually and in his Official capacity as a )
39 TROOPER of the WASHINGTON STATE )
40 PATROL, and JANE DOE DUCOMMUN and )
41 the marital community thereof, ANN E. )
42 DUTTON, individually and in her Official )
43 Capacity as a DETECTIVE of the )
44 WASHINGTON STATE PATROL, and JOHN )
45 DOE DUTTON and the marital community )
46 thereof; KEVIN L. FORRESTER, individually )
BARNES ET AL V. CITY OF SEATTLE, COMPLAINT
1 and in his Official capacity as a DETECTIVE )
2 of the WASHINGTON STATE PATROL, and )
3 JANE DOE FORRESTER and the marital )
4 community thereof; JOEL W. GORDON, )
5 individually and in his Official capacity as a )
6 DETECTIVE of the WASHINGTON STATE )
7 PATROL, and JANE DOE GORDON and the )
a marital community thereof; CHRIS T. )
9 GUNDERMANN, individually and in his )
10 Official capacity as a SERGEANT of the )
11 WASHINGTON STATE PATROL, and JANE )
12 DOE GUNDERMANN and the marital )
13 community thereof; JOI J. HANER, }
14 individually and in her Official capacity as )
15 a TROOPER of the WASHINGTON STATE )
16 PATROL, and JOHN DOE HANER and the }
17 marital community thereof, ROGER D. )
18 HANSBERRY, individually and in his Official )
19 capacity as a TROOPER of the )
20 WASHINGTON STATE PATROL, and JANE )
21 DOE HANSBERRY and the marital }
22 community thereof; RUSSELL J. HANSON, }
23 individually and in his Official capacity as a )
24 TRROPER of the WASHINGTON STATE )
25 PATROL, and JANE DOE HANSON and the )
26 marital community thereof; JEFFREY R. )
27 KERSHAW, individually and in his Official )
28 capacity as a DETECTIVE of the )
29 WASHINGTON STATE PATROL, and JANE )
30 DOE KERSHAW and the marital community )
31 thereof; DANIEL L. MANN, individually and in)
32 his Official capacity as a DETECTIVE of the )
33 WASHINGTON STATE PATROL, and JANE )
34 DOE MANN and the marital community )
35 thereof; GEORGE R. MARS, JR., individually )
36 and in his Official capacity as a DETECTIVE )
37 of the WASHINGTON STATE PATROL, and )
38 JANE DOE MARS and the marital community)
39 thereof; JOHN G. MCMULLEN, individually )
40 and in his Official capacity as a TROOPER of )
41 the WASHINGTON STATE PATROL and )
42 JANE DOE MCMULLEN and the marital )
43 community thereof; DARRELL R. NOYES, )
44 individually and in his Official capacity as a )
45 TROOPER of the WASHINGTON STATE )
46 PATROL, and JANE DOE NOYES and the }
BARNES ET AL V. CITY OF SEATTLE, COMPLAINT
1 marital community thereof; STEVEN E.
2 REEVES, individually and in his Official
3 capacity as a TROOPER of the
4 WASHINGTON STATE PATROL and JANE
5 DOE REEVES and the marital community
6 thereof; WESLEY H. RETHWILL, individually
7 and in his Official capacity as a SERGEANT
s of the WASHINGTON STATE PATROL, and
9 JANE DOE RETHWILL and the marital
10 community thereof; CRAIG L. SAHLINGER,
11 individually and in his Official capacity as a
12 TROOPER of the WASHINGTON STATE
13 PATROL, and JANE DOE SAHLINGER and
14 the marital community thereof; DAVID J.
15 BROWNE, individually and in his Official
16 capacity as a SERGEANT of the )
17 WASHINGTON STATE PATROL, and JANE
18 DOE BROWNE and the marital community
19 thereof; GARY D. GASSELING, individually
20 and in his Official capacity as a SERGEANT
21 of the WASHINGTON STATE PATROL, and
22 JANE DOE GASSELING and the marital
23 community thereof; PAUL M. STANEK III.,
24 individually and in his Official capacity as a
25 DETECTIVE of the WASHINGTON STATE
26 PATROL, and JANE DOE STANEK and the
27 marital community thereof; RICHARD A.
28 TAYLOR, individually and in his Official
29 capacity as a DETECTIVE of the
30 WASHINGTON STATE PATROL, and JANE
31 DOE TAYLOR and the marital community
32 thereof; GARY M. WILCOX, individually and
33 in his Official capacity as a DETECTIVE of
34 the WASHINGTON STATE PATROL, and
35 JANE DOE WILCOX and the marital
36 community thereof; OREST D. WILSON,
37 individually and in his Official capacity as a
38 DETECTIVE of the WASHINGTON STATE
39 PATROL, and JANE DOE WILSON and the
40 marital community thereof; RONALD W.
41 SERPAS, individually and in his Official
42 capacity as the CHIEF of the WASHINGTON
43 STATE PATROL, and JANE DOE SERPAS
44 and the marital community thereof; DANIEL
45 E. EIKEM, individually and in his OFFICIAL
46 capacity as a CAPTAIN of the WASHINGTON
BARNES ET AL V. CITY OF SEATTLE, COMPLAINT
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
STATE PATROL, and JANE DOE EIKEM )
and the marital community thereof; STEVEN )
D. MCCULLEY, individually and in his Official)
capacity as a LIEUTENANT of the )
WASHINGTON STATE PATROL, and JANE )
DOE MCCULLEY and the marital community )
thereof; VANCE PROCTER; MANUFACTURER)
OF LESS LETHAL WEAPONRY DOES 1-100 )
DISTRIBUTOR and/or SALES AGENT OF LESS)
LETHAL WEAPONRY DOES 1-100 and DOES )
1-500
Defendants. )
)
Robert Barnes, Joseph O'Connor, KL. Shannon, Eric Wirkman, the Plaintiffs herein, by
and through their attorneys, allege as follows:
INTRODUCTION
21 1.1 Plaintiffs are citizens of Washington who attended a demonstration which
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
took place in downtown Seattle on the evening of June 2, 2003. The Plaintiffs were
there to protest the policies and actions of an organization called the Law Enforcement
Intelligence Unit (LEIU), which had gathered intelligence on lawful activists, and or to
record this protest for the media. All of the Plaintiffs exercised their First Amendment
rights by demonstrating peacefully, and or doing their duties as members of the media
in full accordance with the law. Yet, without provocation or legitimate law enforcement
purpose, and without reasonable or adequate warning, the Seattle Police Department
and its agents used excessive force against the Plaintiffs and made an unreasonable
seizure of the Plaintiffs by violating their rights under the Fourth, and Fourteenth
Amendments to the United States Constitution; and rights under the Washington
Constitution, the Seattle Police Department unreasonably interfered with Plaintiffs'
First Amendment Rights and as a result Plaintiffs were chilled in the future exercise of
34 their First Amendment Rights; and the Seattle Police Department assaulted and
BARNES ET AL V. CITY OF SEATTLE, COMPLAINT 10
1 battered Plaintiffs by 1) dousing them with chemical weapons including OC, CS, CN
2 combinations of these, and or similar agents sprayed at close range directly into their
3 faces and/or 2) shooting rubber bullets and other projectiles including "wooden
4 dowels", "flying batons", and "pepper -balls" at Plaintiffs at close range, directly hitting
5 many of the Plaintiffs, and/or 3) .Striking Plaintiffs with hands, feet, batons, bicycles,
6 and other instruments and/or 4) Damaging and or seizing plaintiffs video cameras, still
7 cameras, videotapes and film and/or 5) falsely arresting Plaintiffs These actions
8 caused Plaintiffs serious physical and emotional harm, detriment and suffering.
9 1.2 The Seattle Police Department has a pattern and practice of flagrantly
10 violating peaceful demonstrators' First Amendment Rights and using excessive force
11 in other demonstrations held in Seattle, Washington on a continuing and regular basis.
12 1.3 Plaintiffs seek compensatory and punitive damages along with injunctive
13 relief and declaratory relief from the defendants pursuant to 42 USC § 1983,
14 and compensatory damages from the City of Seattle pursuant to the
15 Washington Tort Claims Act.
16 1.4 Plaintiffs seek injunctive relief in the form of a court ordered ban on the
17 use of less lethal weaponry including chemical weapons, pepper -balls,
18 rubber bullets, flying batons, wooden dowels, stinger ball grenades, flash
19 bang grenades and other related items for crowd control of peaceful
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
demonstrations.
I. JURISDICTION
1. This court has jurisdiction over the subject matter of this action pursuant to
Title 28, United States Code Sections 1331, 1332, 1343, and 1367, and venue is
properly set in the Western District Federal Court pursuant to 28 U.S.C. 1391.
BARNES ET AL V. CITY OF SEATTLE, COMPLAINT
1 2. The claims upon which this suit is based occurred in this judicial district.
2 3. Plaintiffs are informed and believe, and on that basis allege, that each of the
3 named Defendants, except for VANCE PROCTER who is a resident of Los Angeles
4 County, California, reside in this judicial district, and all entity Defendants, except for
5 the Law Enforcement Intelligence Unit, which is a registered California non-profit, are
6 registered and do business in the District as their principal base of operations.
s
9
II. PARTIES
10 1.1 Plaintiff ROBERT BARNES is a married male living in the State of
11 Washington, King County, in the Western District of Washington. He was attending
12 the June 2, 2003 Protest against the Law Enforcement Intelligence Unit. He was
13 serving as a Police Liaison, at this event. Police Liaison is a position the police
14 themselves encourage protesters to have at demonstrations. At approximately 8:20
15 PM, Plaintiff Barnes was attempting to deescalate a crisis that Defendant Sanford and
16 other Defendants were creating and escalating. Plaintiff was attempting to negotiate
17 with Captain Sanford so that demonstrators could peacefully return to the Westlake
18 Park, several blocks away, and conclude their permitted demonstration. Multiple
19 Defendant Officers rushed forward, shoving Plaintiff aside, knocking Plaintiff into the
20 air and several feet forward. Plaintiff, along with many demonstrators and bystanders,
21 was then unnecessarily subjected to chemical agents, including pepper spray. Plaintiff
22 was subjected to repeated exposures to these agents over the next approximately
23 twenty-five minutes as Defendants repeatedly and gratuitously used these agents to
BARNES ET AL V. CITY OF SEATTLE, COMPLAINT 12
1 torture the demonstrators. Plaintiff has suffered long term health consequences as a
2 direct result of this exposure. These include severe asthma, coughing fits so severe
3 they would make him pass out. Plaintiff has suffered sever limitations as a result of
4 this, and must now take an asthma inhaler with him wherever he goes.
s 1.2 Plaintiff JOSEPH O'CONNOR is a single male residing in Thurston County
6 in the State of Washington. He is a recent college graduate, and produces
7 programming for a community radio station in Olympia and other media outlets.
a Plaintiff was present at the permitted protest against the Law Enforcement Intelligence
9 Unit in Seattle Washington on June 2, 2003, and was there to videotape the event.
to Plaintiff caught the gratuitous, and excessive violence, of the Defendant officers and
11 the gratuitous and unnecessary arrests of other demonstrators by these Defendant
12 officers repeatedly on his video camera. As result of this, Plaintiff became the target of
13 retaliation by Defendant Officers, was struck directly with a bicycle, and later subject .
14 to direct attacks with chemical agents including pepper spray.
15 1.3 Plaintiff K.L. SHANNON is a single female residing in King County
16 Washington. She attended the June 2, 2003 demonstration against the Law
17 Enforcement Intelligence Unit in her capacity as a Peacekeeper. A Peacekeeper is
18 someone who has undergone training in diffusing potentially volatile situations at
19 demonstrations. At approximately 8:20 PM, as the Defendant officers viciously and
20 gratuitously attacked the demonstrators, Plaintiff strove to move the demonstrators
21 away from the fray, toward Westlake Park. Defendant Officers gratuitously struck
22 Plaintiff and exposed her to chemicals agents, including pepper spray. At
23 approximately 8:40 P.M. Defendants gratuitously fired a "less lethal" firearm equipped
BARNES ET AL V. CITY OF SEATTLE, COMPLAINT
1 with an "impact projectile" at Plaintiffs back. Plaintiff was mere feet from Westlake
2 Park when this gratuitous act occurred and doing exactly what the police were asking
3 by returning to Westlake Park. Plaintiff still has a scar from this unnecessary act.
4 1.4 Plaintiff ERIC WIRKMAN is a single male residing in King County and
s employed at the University of Washington in King County. He does much charity work
6 and frequently volunteers feeding the homeless, or organizing feeds for the homeless.
7 He attended the June 2, 2003 lawfully permitted demonstration against the Law
8 Enforcement Intelligence Unit to exercise his Constitutional Rights. He along with
9 most of the demonstrators, was in the process of leaving when the police attacked
10 them. Plaintiff attempted to calm the demonstrators, many of whom were starting to
11 panic. Defendants' chemical agents struck his face and went into his lungs.
12 Defendants struck him in the legs with their "rubber" bullets. Outraged by the
13 gratuitous use of force by Defendants, putting on a show for the people inside the Red
14 Lion Inn, Plaintiff and his friends collected much of the ordinance left around the scene
15 to preserve a record.
16 1.5 Plaintiffs have filed CLAIMS with the CITY OF SEATTLE on June 2,
17 2005 (See ATTACHMENTS) This set a 60 day tolling period that ripens on this day of
18 filing.
19 2.0 The CITY OF SEATTLE is a municipal corporation located within the
20 Western District of Washington, and organized under the laws of the State of
21 Washington. The SEATTLE POLICE DEPARTMENT is a sub -entity of the CITY OF
22 SEATTLE.
23 2.1 The TUKWILLA POLICE DEPARTMENT is a sub -entity of the City of
BARNES ET AL V. CITY OF SEATTLE, COMPLAINT 14
1 Tukwila, a municipal corporation located within the Western District of Washington,
2 and organized under the laws of the State of Washington.
3 2.2 The BURIEN POLICE DEPARTMENT is a sub -entity of the City of Burien, a
4 municipal corporation located within the Western District of Washington, and
5 organized under the laws of the State of Washington.
6 2.3 The RENTON POLICE DEPARTMENT is a sub -entity of the City of Renton,
7 a municipal corporation located within the Western District of Washington, and
s organized under the laws of the State of Washington.
9 2.4 The REDMOND POLICE DEPARTMENT is a sub -entity of the City of
10 Redmond, a municipal corporation located within the Western District of Washington,
11 and organized under the laws of the State of Washington.
12 2.5 The KING COUNTY SHERIFF'S OFFICE is a sub -entity of the COUNTY
13 OF KING, a municipal corporation located within the Western District of Washington,
14 and organized under the laws of the State of Washington.
15 2.6 The LAW ENFORCEMENT INTELLIGENCE UNIT, herein after referred to
16 as the LEIU, is a private non-profit, registered in California, made up virtually entirely
17 of public employees of law enforcement agencies, that does substantial business in
18 Washington, and reasonably and purposely avails itself of the laws of the State of
19 Washington, and was purposefully involved in the incidents herein alleged, and
20 therefore is subject to the jurisdiction of this court.
21 2.7 Captain MICHAEL SANFORD and Jane Doe SANFORD constitute a
22 marital community under the laws of the State of Washington and upon belief reside
23 within KING County within the Western District of Washington State. Upon belief,
BARNES ET AL V. CITY OF SEATTLE, COMPLAINT
i MICHAEL SANFORD was at the time of the injuries complained of in this complaint,
2 an employee and/or agent of the CITY OF SEATTLE and the SEATTLE POLICE
3 DEPARTMENT acting within the scope of his duties as a CAPATIN of the SEATTLE
4 POLICE DEPARTMENT, AND AS THE INCIDENT COMMANDER for the event in
s question.
6 2.8 R. GIL KERLIKOWSKE and Jane Doe KERLIKOWSKE constitute a marital
7 community under the laws of the State of Washington and upon belief reside within
s KING County within the Western District of Washington State. Upon belief, Mike Ware
9 was at the time of the injuries complained of in this complaint, an employee and/or
to agent of the CITY OF SEATTLE and the SEATTLE POLICE DEPARTMENT acting
11 within the scope of his duties as the CHIEF of the SEATTLE POLICE DEPARTMENT
12 2.9 DEPUTY CHIEF CLARK KIMERER and JANE DOE KIMERER constitute
13 a marital community under the laws of the State of Washington and upon belief reside
14 within KING County within the Western District of Washington State. Upon belief,
15 CLARK KIMERER was at the time of the injuries complained of in this complaint, an
16 employee and/or agent of the CITY OF SEATTLE and the SEATTLE POLICE
17 DEPARTMENT acting within the scope of his duties as a DEPUTY CHIEF of the
18 SEATTLE POLICE DEPARTMENT.
19 2.10 ASSISTANT CHIEF JIM PUGEL and JANE DOE PUGEL constitute a
20 marital community under the laws of the State of Washington and upon belief reside
21 within KING County within the Western District of Washington State. Upon belief, Tim
22 JANE DOE PUGEL was at the time of the injuries complained of in this complaint, an
23 employee and/or agent of the CITY OF SEATTLE and the SEATTLE POLICE
BARNES ET AL V. CITY OF SEATTLE, COMPLAINT 16
I DEPARTMENT acting within the scope of his duties as an ASSISTANT CHIEF of the
2 SEATTLE POLICE DEPARTMENT.
3 2.11 LIEUTENANT STEVE WILSKE and JANE DOE WILSKE constitute a
4 marital community under the laws of the State of Washington and upon belief reside
s within KING County within the Western District of Washington State. Upon belief,
6 STEVE WILSKE was at the time of the injuries complained of in this complaint, an
7 employee and/or agent of the CITY OF SEATTLE and the SEATTLE POLICE
8 DEPARTMENT acting within the scope of his duties as a LIEUTENANT of the
9 SEATTLE POLICE DEPARTMENT.
10 2.12 SERGEANT J.K. DYMENT and JOHN DOE DYMENT constitute a
11 marital community under the laws of the State of Washington and upon belief reside
12 within KING County within the Western District of Washington State. Upon belief, J.K.
13 DYMENT was at the time of the injuries complained of in this complaint, an employe.
14 and/or agent of the CITY OF SEATTLE and the SEATTLE POLICE DEPARTMENT,
15 acting within the scope of her duties as a SERGEANT of the SEATTLE POLICE
16 DEPARTMENT.
17 2.13 SERGEANT A.C. PRICE and JANE DOE PRICE constitute a marital
18 community under the laws of the State of Washington and upon belief reside within
19 KING County within the Western District of Washington State. Upon belief, A.0
20 PRICE was at the time of the injuries complained of in this complaint, an employee
21 and/or agent of the CITY OF SEATTLE acting within the scope of his duties as a
22 SERGEANT of the SEATTLE POLICE DEPARTMENT.
23 2.14 LIEUTENANT G. CALDER and JANE DOE CALDER constitute a marital
BARNES ET AL V. CITY OF SEATTLE, COMPLAINT
1 community under the laws of the State of Washington and upon belief reside within
2 KING County within the Western District of Washington State. Upon belief, G.
3 CALDER was at the time of the injuries complained of in this complaint, an employee
4 and/or agent of the CITY OF SEATTLE acting within the scope of his duties as a
5 LIEUTENANT of the SEATTLE POLICE DEPARTMENT.
6 2.15 LIEUTENANT J.J. JANKAUSKAS and JANE DOE JANKAUSKAS
7 constitute a marital community under the laws of the State of Washington and upon
8 belief reside within KING County within the Western District of Washington State.
9 Upon belief, J.J. JANKAUSKAS was at the time of the injuries complained of in this
10 complaint, an employee and/or agent of the CITY OF SEATTLE acting within the
11 scope of his duties as a LIEUTENANT of the SEATTLE POLICE DEPARTMENT.
12 2.16 SERGEANT M.A. COOMES and JANE DOE COOMES constitute a
13 marital community under the laws of the State of Washington and upon belief reside
14 within KING County within the Western District of Washington State. Upon belief, M.A.
15 COOMES was at the time of the injuries complained of in this complaint, an employee
16 and/or agent of the CITY OF SEATTLE acting within the scope of his duties as a
17 SERGEANT of the SEATTLE POLICE DEPARTMENT.
18 2.17 SERGEANT D.R. LOWE and JANE DOE LOWE constitute a marital
19 community under the laws of the State of Washington and upon belief reside within
20 KING County within the Western District of Washington State. Upon belief, D.R.
21 LOWE was at the time of the injuries complained of in this complaint, an employee
22 and/or agent of the CITY OF SEATTLE acting within the scope of his duties as a
23 SERGEANT of the SEATTLE POLICE DEPARTMENT.
BARNES ET AL V. CITY OF SEATTLE, COMPLAINT 18
1 2.18 SERGEANT J.J. MAGAN and JANE DOE MAGAN constitute a marital
2 community under the laws of the State of Washington and upon belief reside within
s KING County within the Western District of Washington State. Upon belief, J.J.
4 MAGAN was at the time of the injuries complained of in this complaint, an employee
5 and/or agent of the CITY OF SEATTLE acting within the scope of his duties as a
6 SERGEANT of the SEATTLE POLICE DEPARTMENT.
7 2.19 SERGEANT BRADY and JANE DOE BRADY constitute a marital
s community under the laws of the State of Washington and upon belief reside within
9 KING County within the Western District of Washington State. Upon belief, SGT.
10 BRADY was at the time of the injuries complained of in this complaint, an employee
11 and/or agent of the CITY OF SEATTLE acting within the scope of his duties as a
12 SERGEANT of the SEATTLE POLICE DEPARTMENT.
13 2.20 SERGEANT BROTHERTON and JANE DOE BROTHERTON constitute a
14 marital community under the laws of the State of Washington and upon belief reside
15 within KING County within the Western District of Washington State. Upon belief,
16 SGT. BROTHERTON was at the time of the injuries complained of in this complaint,
17 an employee and/or agent of the CITY OF SEATTLE acting within the scope of his
18 duties as a SERGEANT of the SEATTLE POLICE DEPARTMENT.
19 2.21 DETECTIVE R. ROMERO and JANE DOE ROMERO constitute a marital
20 community under the laws of the State of Washington and upon belief reside within
21 KING County within the Western District of Washington State. Upon belief, R.
22 ROMERO was at the time of the injuries complained of in this complaint, an employee
23 and/or agent of the CITY OF SEATTLE acting within the scope of his duties as a
BARNES ET AL V. CITY OF SEATTLE, COMPLAINT
1 DETECTIVE of the SEATTLE POLICE DEPARTMENT.
2 2.22 P.C. WALL and JANE DOE WALL constitute a marital community under
3 the laws of the State of Washington and upon belief reside within KING County within
4 the Western District of Washington State. Upon belief, P.C. WALL was at the time of
5 the injuries complained of in this complaint, an employee and/or agent of the CITY OF
6 SEATTLE acting within the scope of his duties as an OFFICER of the SEATTLE
7 POLICE DEPARTMENT.
a 2.23 D.D. DARNALL and JANE DOE DARNALL constitute a marital
9 community under the laws of the State of Washington and upon belief reside within
10 KING County within the Western District of Washington State. Upon belief, D.D.
11 DARNAL was at the time of the injuries complained of in this complaint, an employee
12 and/or agent of the CITY OF SEATTLE acting within the scope of his duties as an
13 OFFICER of the SEATTLE POLICE DEPARTMENT.
14 2.24 R. NELSON and JANE DOE NELSON constitute a marital community
15 under the laws of the State of Washington and upon belief reside within KING County
16 within the Western District of Washington State. Upon belief, R. NELSON was at the
17 time of the injuries complained of in this complaint, an employee and/or agent of the
18 CITY OF SEATTLE acting within the scope of his duties as an OFFICER of the
19 SEATTLE POLICE DEPARTMENT.
20 2.25 G. NELSON and JANE DOE NELSON constitute a marital community
21 under the laws of the State of Washington and upon belief reside within KING County
22 within the Western District of Washington State. Upon belief, G. NELSON was at the
23 time of the injuries complained of in this complaint, an employee and/or agent of the
BARNES ET AL V. CITY OF SEATTLE, COMPLAINT 20
1 CITY OF SEATTLE acting within the scope of his duties as a SERGEANT of the
2 SEATTLE POLICE DEPARTMENT.
3 2.26 MATTHEW M. DIESZI and JANE DOE DIESZI constitute a marital
4 community under the laws of the State of Washington and upon belief reside within
5 KING County within the Western District of Washington State. Upon belief,
6 MATTHEW M. DIESZI was at the time of the injuries complained of in this complaint,
7 an employee and/or agent of the CITY OF SEATTLE acting within the scope of his
s duties as an OFFICER of the SEATTLE POLICE DEPARTMENT.
9 2.27 K SWANK and JANE DOE SWANK constitute a marital community
10 under the laws of the State of Washington and upon belief reside within KING County
11 within the Western District of Washington State. Upon belief, K SWANK was at the
12 time of the injuries complained of in this complaint, an employee and/or agent of the
13 CITY OF SEATTLE acting within the scope of his duties as an OFFICER of the
14 SEATTLE POLICE DEPARTMENT.
15 2.28 TAD K. WILLOUGHBY and JANE DOE WILLOUGHBY constitute a
16 marital community under the laws of the State of Washington and upon belief reside
17 within KING County within the Western District of Washington State. Upon belief, TAD
18 K WILLOUGHBY was at the time of the injuries complained of in this complaint, an
19 employee and/or agent of the CITY OF SEATTLE acting within the scope of his duties
20 as an OFFICER of the SEATTLE POLICE DEPARTMENT.
21 2.29 MICHAEL WHIDBEY and JANE DOE WHIDBEY constitute a marital
22 community under the laws of the State of Washington and upon belief reside within
23 KING County within the Western District of Washington State. Upon belief, MICHAEL
BARNES ET AL V. CITY OF SEATTLE, COMPLAINT
i WHIDBEY was at the time of the injuries complained of in this complaint, an employee
2 and/or agent of the CITY OF SEATTLE acting within the scope of his duties as a
3 DETECTIVE of the SEATTLE POLICE DEPARTMENT.
4 2.30 VERNER O'QUIN and JANE DOE O'QUIN constitute a marital
s community under the laws of the State of Washington and upon belief reside within
6 KING County within the Western District of Washington State. Upon belief, VERNER
7 O'QUIN was at the time of the injuries complained of in this complaint, an employee
s and/or agent of the CITY OF SEATTLE acting within the scope of his duties as a
9 SERGEANT of the SEATTLE POLICE DEPARTMENT.
10 2.31 SGT. JANDOC and JANE DOE JANDOC constitute a marital community
11 under the laws of the State of Washington and upon belief reside within KING County
12 within the Western District of Washington State. Upon belief, SGT. JANDOC was at
13 the time of the injuries complained of in this complaint, an employee and/or agent of
14 the CITY OF SEATTLE acting within the scope of his duties as a SERGEANT of the
15 SEATTLE POLICE DEPARTMENT.
16 2.32 OFFICER LANDERS and JANE DOE LANDERS constitute a marital
17 community under the laws of the State of Washington and upon belief reside within
18 KING County within the Western District of Washington State. Upon belief, OFFICER
19 LANDERS was at the time of the injuries complained of in this complaint, an employee
20 and/or agent of the CITY OF SEATTLE acting within the scope of his duties as an
21 OFFICER of the SEATTLE POLICE DEPARTMENT.
22 2.33 LOREN R. STREET and JANE DOE STREET constitute a marital
23 community under the laws of the State of Washington and upon belief reside within
BARNES ET AL V. CITY OF SEATTLE, COMPLAINT 22
1 KING County within the Western District of Washington State. Upon belief, LOREN R
2 STREET was at the time of the injuries complained of in this complaint, an employee
3 and/or agent of the CITY OF SEATTLE acting within the scope of his duties as an
4 OFFICER of the SEATTLE POLICE DEPARTMENT.
5 2.34 P.J. FOX and JANE DOE FOX constitute a marital community under the
6 laws of the State of Washington and upon belief reside within KING County within the
7 Western District of Washington State. Upon belief, P.J. FOX was at the time of the
s injuries complained of in this complaint, an employee and/or agent of the CITY OF
9 SEATTLE acting within the scope of his duties as an OFFICER of the SEATTLE
10 POLICE DEPARTMENT.
11 2.35 THOMAS M. MOONEY and JANE DOE MOONEY constitute a marital
12 community under the laws of the State of Washington and upon belief reside within
13 KING County within the Western District of Washington State. Upon belief, THOMAS
14 M. MOONEY was at the time of the injuries complained of in this complaint, an
15 employee and/or agent of the CITY OF SEATTLE acting within the scope of his duties
16 as an OFFICER of the SEATTLE POLICE DEPARTMENT.
17 2.36 K ZEIGER and JANE DOE K. ZEIGER constitute a marital community
18 under the laws of the State of Washington and upon belief reside within KING County
19 within the Western District of Washington State. Upon belief, K ZEIGER was at the
20 time of the injuries complained of in this complaint, an employee and/or agent of the
21 CITY OF SEATTLE acting within the scope of his duties as an OFFICER of the
22 SEATTLE POLICE DEPARTMENT.
23 2.37 J.J. LEE and JANE DOE LEE constitute a marital community under the
BARNES ET AL V. CITY OF SEATTLE, COMPLAINT 2_
1 laws of the State of Washington and upon belief reside within KING County within the
2 Western District of Washington State. Upon belief, J.J. LEE was at the time of the
3 injuries complained of in this complaint, an employee and/or agent of the CITY OF
4 SEATTLE acting within the scope of his duties as an OFFICER of the SEATTLE
5 POLICE DEPARTMENT.
6 2.38 RIK K. HALL and JANE DOE HALL constitute a marital community under
7 the laws of the State of Washington and upon belief reside within KING County within
a the Western District of Washington State. Upon belief, RIK K. HALL was at the time of
9 the injuries complained of in this complaint, an employee and/or agent of the CITY OF
10 SEATTLE acting within the scope of his duties as an OFFICER of the SEATTLE
11 POLICE DEPARTMENT.
12 2.39 M. LANZ and JANE DOE LANZ constitute a marital community under
13 the laws of the State of Washington and upon belief reside within KING County within
14 the Western District of Washington State. Upon belief, M. LANZ was at the time of the
15 injuries complained of in this complaint, an employee and/or agent of the CITY OF
16 SEATTLE acting within the scope of his duties as an OFFICER of the SEATTLE
17 POLICE DEPARTMENT.
18 2.40 PATRICIA A. MACDONALD and JOHN DOE MACDONALD constitute a
19 marital community under the laws of the State of Washington and upon belief reside
20 within KING County within the Western District of Washington State. Upon belief,
21 PATRICIA A. MACDONALD was at the time of the injuries complained of in this
22 complaint, an employee and/or agent of the CITY OF SEATTLE acting within the
23 scope of her duties as an OFFICER of the SEATTLE POLICE DEPARTMENT.
BARNES ET AL V. CITY OF SEATTLE, COMPLAINT 24
1 2.41 WALTER M. HAYDEN and JANE DOE HAYDEN constitute a marital
2 community under the laws of the State of Washington and upon belief reside within
3 KING County within the Western District of Washington State. Upon belief, WALTER
4 M. HAYDEN was at the time of the injuries complained of in this complaint, an
5 employee and/or agent of the CITY OF SEATTLE acting within the scope of his duties
6 as an OFFICER of the SEATTLE POLICE DEPARTMENT.
7 2.42 MARK A. GRINSTEAD and JANE DOE GRINSTEAD constitute a marital
e community under the laws of the State of Washington and upon belief reside within
9 KING County within the Western District of Washington State. Upon belief, MARK A.
10 GRINSTEAD was at the time of the injuries complained of in this complaint, an
11 employee and/or agent of the CITY OF SEATTLE acting within the scope of his duties
12 as an OFFICER of the SEATTLE POLICE DEPARTMENT.
13 2.43 TOMMIE M. DORAN and JANE DOE DORAN constitute a marital
14 community under the laws of the State of Washington and upon belief reside within
15 KING County within the Western District of Washington State. Upon belief, TOMMIE
16 M. MORAN was at the time of the injuries complained of in this complaint, an
17 employee and/or agent of the CITY OF SEATTLE acting within the scope of his duties
18 as an OFFICER of the SEATTLE POLICE DEPARTMENT.
19 2.44 ADRAIN Z. DIAZ and JANE DOE DIAZ constitute a marital community
20 under the laws of the State of Washington and upon belief reside within KING County
21 within the Western District of Washington State. Upon belief, ADIAN Z. DIAZ was at
22 the time of the injuries complained of in this complaint, an employee and/or agent of
23 the CITY OF SEATTLE acting within the scope of his duties as a SERGEANT of the
BARNES ET AL V. CITY OF SEATTLE, COMPLAINT
1 SEATTLE POLICE DEPARTMENT.
2 2.45 CHAD L. MCLAUGHLIN and JANE DOE MCLAUGHLIN constitute a
3 marital community under the laws of the State of Washington and upon belief reside
4 within KING County within the Western District of Washington State. Upon belief,
5 CHAD L. MCLAUGHLIN was at the time of the injuries complained of in this complaint,
6 an employee and/or agent of the CITY OF SEATTLE acting within the scope of his
7 duties as an OFFICER of the SEATTLE POLICE DEPARTMENT-
8
2.46 BRAD CONWAY and JANE DOE CONWAY constitute a marital
s community under the laws of the State of Washington and upon belief reside within
10 KING County within the Western District of Washington State. Upon belief, BRAD
11 CONWAY was at the time of the injuries complained of in this complaint, an employee
12 and/or agent of the CITY OF SEATTLE acting within the scope of his duties as an
13 OFFICER of the SEATTLE POLICE DEPARTMENT.
14 2.47 MATTHEW BRADRICK and JANE DOE BRADRICK constitute a marital
15 community under the laws of the State of Washington and upon belief reside within
16 KING County within the Western District of Washington State. Upon belief,
17 MATTHEW BRADRICK was at the time of the injuries complained of in this complaint,
18 an employee and/or agent of the CITY OF SEATTLE acting within the scope of his
19 duties as an OFFICER of the SEATTLE POLICE DEPARTMENT,
20 2.48 DAVID FITZGERALD and JANE DOE FITZGERALD constitute a marital
21 community under the laws of the State of Washington and upon belief reside within
22 KING County within the Western District of Washington State. Upon belief, DAVID
23 FITZGERALD was at the time of the injuries complained of in this complaint, an
BARNES ET AL V. CITY OF SEATTLE, COMPLAINT 26
I employee and/or agent of the CITY OF SEATTLE acting within the scope of his duties
2 as an OFFICER of the SEATTLE POLICE DEPARTMENT.
s 2.49 RANDALL A. JOKELA and JANE DOE JOKELA constitute a marital
4 community under the laws of the State of Washington and upon belief reside within
5 KING County within the Western District of Washington State. Upon belief, RANDALL
6 A. JOKELA was at the time of the injuries complained of in this complaint, an
7 employee and/or agent of the CITY OF SEATTLE acting within the scope of his duties
s as an OFFICER of the SEATTLE POLICE DEPARTMENT.
9 2.50 GEORGE HISSUNG, JR. AND JANE DOE HISSUNG constitute a marital
10 community under the laws of the State of Washington and upon belief reside within
11 KING County within the Western District of Washington State. Upon belief, GEORGE
12 HISSUNG, JR. was at the time of the injuries complained of in this complaint, an
13 employee and/or agent of the CITY OF SEATTLE acting within the scope of his dutiE._
14 as an OFFICER of the SEATTLE POLICE DEPARTMENT.
15 2.51 JASON G. DRUMMOND AND JANE DOE DRUMMOND constitutes a
16 marital community under the laws of the State of Washington and upon belief resides
17 within KING County within the Western District of Washington State. Upon belief,
18 JASON G. DRUMMOND was at the time of the injuries complained of in this complaint,
19 an employee and/or agent of the CITY OF SEATTLE acting within the scope of his
20 duties as an OFFICER of the SEATTLE POLICE DEPARTMENT.
21 2.52 JOHN A. DIAZ and JANE DOE DIAZ constitute a marital community
22 under the laws of the State of Washington and upon belief reside within KING County
23 within the Western District of Washington State. Upon belief, JOHN A. DIAZ was at
BARNES ET AL V. CITY OF SEATTLE, COMPLAINT
1 the time of the injuries complained of in this complaint, an employee and/or agent of
2 the CITY OF SEATTLE acting within the scope of his duties as an OFFICER of the
3 SEATTLE POLICE DEPARTMENT.
4 2.53 OFFICER MCCRAE and JANE DOE MCCRAE constitute a marital
5 community under the laws of the State of Washington and upon belief reside within
6 KING County within the Western District of Washington State. Upon belief, OFFICER
7 MCCRAE was at the time of the injuries complained of in this complaint, an employee
8 and/or agent of the CITY OF SEATTLE acting within the scope of his duties as an
9 OFFICER of the SEATTLE POLICE DEPARTMENT.
10 2.54 JAMES B. PATCHEN and JANE DOE PATCHEN constitute a marital
11 community under the laws of the State of Washington and upon belief reside within
12 KING County within the Western District of Washington State. Upon belief, JAMES B.
13 PATCHEN was at the time of the injuries complained of in this complaint, an employee
14 and/or agent of the CITY OF SEATTLE acting within the scope of his duties as an
15 OFFICER of the SEATTLE POLICE DEPARTMENT.
16 2.55 MICHAEL M. SUDDUTH and JANE DOE SUDDUTH constitute a marital
17 community under the laws of the State of Washington and upon belief reside within
18 KING County within the Western District of Washington State. Upon belief, MICHAEL
19 M. SUDDUTH was at the time of the injuries complained of in this complaint, an
20 employee and/or agent of the CITY OF SEATTLE acting within the scope of his duties
21 as an OFFICER of the SEATTLE POLICE DEPARTMENT.
22 2.56 WILLIE WILLIAMS and JANE DOE WILLIAMS constitute a marital
23 community under the laws of the State of Washington and upon belief reside within
BARNES ET AL V. CITY OF SEATTLE, COMPLAINT 28
1 KING County within the Western District of Washington State. Upon belief, WILLIE
2 WILLIAMS was at the time of the injuries complained of in this complaint, an employ,-
3 and/or agent of the CITY OF SEATTLE acting within the scope of his duties as an
4 OFFICER of the SEATTLE POLICE DEPARTMENT.
5 2.57 W. CRAVENS and JANE DOE CRAVENS constitute a marital
6 community under the laws of the State of Washington and upon belief reside within
7 KING County within the Western District of Washington State. Upon belief, W.
a CRAVENS was at the time of the injuries complained of in this complaint, an employee
9 and/or agent of the CITY OF SEATTLE acting within the scope of his duties as an
to OFFICER of the SEATTLE POLICE DEPARTMENT.
11 2.58 R. BOURNES and JANE DOE BOURNES constitute a marital
12 community under the laws of the State of Washington and upon belief reside within
13 KING County within the Westem District of Washington State. Upon belief, R.
14 BOURNES was at the time of the injuries complained of in this complaint, an employee
15 and/or agent of the CITY OF SEATTLE acting within the scope of his duties as an
16 OFFICER of the SEATTLE POLICE DEPARTMENT.
17 2.59 MARK L. WORSTMAN and JANE DOE WORSTMAN constitute a marital
18 community under the laws of the State of Washington and upon belief reside within
19 KING County within the Western District of Washington State. Upon belief, MARK L.
20 WORSTMAN was at the time of the injuries complained of in this complaint, an
21 employee and/or agent of the CITY OF SEATTLE acting within the scope of his duties
22 as a SERGEANT of the SEATTLE POLICE DEPARTMENT.
23 2.60 BILL GARDINER and JANE DOE GARDINER constitute a marital
BARNES ET AL V. CITY OF SEATTLE, COMPLAINT
1 community under the laws of the State of Washington and upon belief reside within
2 KING County within the Western District of Washington State. Upon belief, BILL
3 GARDINER was at the time of the injuries complained of in this complaint, under a
4 material aid agreement an employee and/or agent of the CITY OF SEATTLE acting
s within the scope of his duties as a LIEUTENANT of the WASHINGTON STATE
6 PATROL.
7 2.61 MARK W. LAMOREAUX and JANE DOE LAMOREAUX constitute a
s marital community under the laws of the State of Washington and upon belief reside
9 within KING County within the Western District of Washington State. Upon belief,
10 MARK W. LAMOREAUX was at the time of the injuries complained of in this complaint,
11 under a material aid agreement an employee and/or agent of the CITY OF SEATTLE
12 acting within the scope of his duties as a LIEUTENANT of the WASHINGTON STATE
13 PATROL.
14 2.62 SHAWN BERRY and JANE DOE BERRY constitute a marital community
15 under the laws of the State of Washington and upon belief reside within KING County
16 within the Western District of Washington State. Upon belief, SHAWN BERRY was at
17 the time of the injuries complained of in this complaint, under a material aid agreement
18 an employee and/or agent of the CITY OF SEATTLE acting within the scope of his
19 duties as a DETECTIVE of the WASHINGTON STATE PATROL.
20 2.63 JAMES A. CHROMEY and JANE DOE CHROMEY constitute a marital
21 community under the laws of the State of Washington and upon belief reside within
22 KING County within the Western District of Washington State. Upon belief, JAMES A.
23 CHROMEY was at the time of the injuries complained of in this complaint, under a
BARNES ET AL V. CITY OF SEATTLE, COMPLAINT 30
1 material aid agreement an employee and/or agent of the CITY OF SEATTLE acting
2 within the scope of his duties as a LIEUTENANT of the WASHINGTON STATE
3 PATROL.
4 2.64 DAVID W. BOURLAND and JANE DOE BOURLAND constitute a marital
5 community under the laws of the State of Washington and upon belief reside within
6 KING County within the Western District of Washington State. Upon belief, DAVID W.
7 BOURLAND was at the time of the injuries complained of in this complaint, under a
s material aid agreement an employee and/or agent of the CITY OF SEATTLE acting
9 within the scope of his duties as a TROOPER of the WASHINGTON STATE PATROL.
10 2.65 CURT G. BOYLE and JANE DOE BOYLE constitute a marital
1i community under the laws of the State of Washington and upon belief reside within
12 KING County within the Western District of Washington State. Upon belief, CURT G
13 BOYLE was at the time of the injuries complained of in this complaint, under a matenai
14 aid agreement an employee and/or agent of the CITY OF SEATTLE acting within the
15 scope of his duties as a TROOPER of the WASHINGTON STATE PATROL.
16 2.66 RICARDO BRITO and JANE DOE BRITO constitute a marital community
17 under the laws of the State of Washington and upon belief reside within KING County
18 within the Western District of Washington State. Upon belief, RICARDO BRITO was at
19 the time of the injuries complained of in this complaint, under a material aid agreement
20 an employee and/or agent of the CITY OF SEATTLE acting within the scope of his
21 duties as a TROOPER of the WASHINGTON STATE PATROL.
22 2.67 DARIN F. DE RUWE and JANE DOE DE RUWE constitute a marital
23 community under the laws of the State of Washington and upon belief reside within
BARNES ET AL V. CITY OF SEATTLE, COMPLAINT 1)1
1 KING County within the Western District of Washington State. Upon belief, DARIN F.
2 DE RUWE was at the time of the injuries complained of in this complaint, under a
3 material aid agreement an employee and/or agent of the CITY OF SEATTLE acting
4 within the scope of his duties as a TROOPER of the WASHINGTON STATE PATROL.
s 2.68 BRYAN R. DUCOMMUN and JANE DOE DUCOMMUN constitute a
6 marital community under the laws of the State of Washington and upon belief reside
7 within KING County within the Western District of Washington State. Upon belief,
s BRYAN R. DUCOMMUN was at the time of the injuries complained of in this complaint,
9 under a material aid agreement an employee and/or agent of the CITY OF SEATTLE
10 acting within the scope of his duties as a TROOPER of the WASHINGTON STATE
11 PATROL.
12 2.69 ANN E. DUTTON and JOHN DOE DUTTON constitute a marital
13 community under the laws of the State of Washington and upon belief reside within
14 KING County within the Western District of Washington State. Upon belief, ANN E.
15 DUTTON was at the time of the injuries complained of in this complaint, under a
16 material aid agreement an employee and/or agent of the CITY OF SEATTLE acting
17 within the scope of her duties as a DETECTIVE of the WASHINGTON STATE
18 PATROL.
19 2.70 KEVIN L. FORRESTER and JANE DOE FORRESTER constitute a
20 marital community under the laws of the State of Washington and upon belief reside
21 within KING County within the Western District of Washington State. Upon belief,
22 KEVIN L. FORRESTER was, at the time of the injuries complained of in this complaint,
23 under a material aid agreement an employee and/or agent of the CITY OF SEATTLE
BARNES ET AL V. CITY OF SEATTLE, COMPLAINT 32
1 acting within the scope of his duties as a DETECTIVE of the WASHINGTON STATE
2 PATROL.
3 2.71 JOEL W. GORDON and JANE DOE GORDON constitute a marital
4 community under the laws of the State of Washington and upon belief reside within
s KING County within the Western District of Washington State. Upon belief, JOEL W.
6 GORDON was at the time of the injuries complained of in this complaint, under a
7 material aid agreement an employee and/or agent of the CITY OF SEATTLE acting
a within the scope of his duties as a DETECTIVE of the WASHINGTON STATE
9 PATROL.
10 2.72 CHRIS T. GUNDERMANN and JANE DOE GUNDERMANN constitute a
11 marital community under the laws of the State of Washington and upon belief reside
12 within KING County within the Western District of Washington State. Upon belief,
13 CHRIS T. GUNDERMANN was at the time of the injuries complained of in this
14 complaint, under a material aid agreement an employee and/or agent of the CITY OF
15 SEATTLE acting within the scope of his duties as a SERGEANT of the WASHINGTON
16 STATE PATROL.
17 2.73 JOI J. HANER and JOHN DOE HANER constitute a marital community
18 under the laws of the State of Washington and upon belief reside within KING County
19 within the Western District of Washington State. Upon belief, JOI J. HANER was at the
20 time of the injuries complained of in this complaint, under a material aid agreement an
21 employee and/or agent of the CITY OF SEATTLE acting within the scope of her duties
22 as a TROOPER of the WASHINGTON STATE PATROL.
23 2.74 ROGER D. HANSBERRY and JANE DOE HANSBERRY constitute a
BARNES ET AL V. CITY OF SEATTLE, COMPLAINT
1 marital community under the laws of the State of Washington and upon belief reside
2 within KING County within the Western District of Washington State. Upon belief,
3 ROGER D. HANSBERRY was at the time of the injuries complained of in this
4 complaint, under a material aid agreement an employee and/or agent of the CITY OF
5 SEATTLE acting within the scope of his duties as a TROOPER of the WASHINGTON
6 STATE PATROL.
7 2.75 RUSSELL J. HANSON and JANE DOE HANSON constitute a marital
s community under the laws of the State of Washington and upon belief reside within
9 KING County within the Western District of Washington State. Upon belief, RUSSELL
to J. HANSON was at the time of the injuries complained of in this complaint, under a
11 material aid agreement an employee and/or agent of the CITY OF SEATTLE acting
12 within the scope of his duties as a TROOPER of the WASHINGTON STATE PATROL.
13 2.76 JEFFREY R. KERSHAW and JANE DOE KERSHAW constitute a
14 marital community under the laws of the State of Washington and upon belief reside
15 within KING County within the Western District of Washington State. Upon belief,
16 JEFFREY R. KERSHAW was at the time of the injuries complained of in this complaint,
17 under a material aid agreement an employee and/or agent of the CITY OF SEATTLE
18 acting within the scope of his duties as a DETECTIVE of the WASHINGTON STATE
19 PATROL.
20 2.77 DANIEL L. MANN and JANE DOE MANN constitute a marital community
21 under the laws of the State of Washington and upon belief reside within KING County
22 within the Western District of Washington State. Upon belief, DANIEL L. MANN was at
23 the time of the injuries complained of in this complaint, under a material aid agreement
BARNES ET AL V. CITY OF SEATTLE, COMPLAINT 34
1 an employee and/or agent of the CITY OF SEATTLE acting within the scope of his
2 duties as a DETECTIVE of the WASHINGTON STATE PATROL.
3 2.79 GEORGE R. MARS and JANE DOE MARS constitute a marital
4 community under the laws of the State of Washington and upon belief reside within
s KING County within the Western District of Washington State. Upon belief, GEORGE
6 R. MARS was at the time of the injuries complained of in this complaint, under a
7 material aid agreement an employee and/or agent of the CITY OF SEATTLE acting
8 within the scope of his duties as a DETECTIVE of the WASHINGTON STATE
9 PATROL.
10 2.80 JOHN G. MCMULLEN and JANE DOE MCMULLEN constitute a marital
11 community under the laws of the State of Washington and upon belief reside within
12 KING County within the Western District of Washington State. Upon belief, JOHN G.
13 MCMULLEN was at the time of the injuries complained of in this complaint, under a
14 material aid agreement an employee and/or agent of the CITY OF SEATTLE acting
15 within the scope of his duties as a TROOPER of the WASHINGTON STATE PATROL.
16 2.81 DARRELL R. NOYES and JANE DOE NOYES constitute a marital
17 community under the laws of the State of Washington and upon belief reside within
18 KING County within the Western District of Washington State. Upon belief, DARRELL
19 R. NOYES was at the time of the injuries complained of in this complaint, under a
20 material aid agreement an employee and/or agent of the CITY OF SEATTLE acting
21 within the scope of his duties as a TROOPER of the WASHINGTON STATE PATROL.
22 2.82 STEVEN E. REEVES and JANE DOE REEVES constitute a marital
23 community under the laws of the State of Washington and upon belief reside within
BARNES ET AL V. CITY OF SEATTLE, COMPLAINT
1 KING County within the Western District of Washington State. Upon belief, STEVEN
2 E. REEVES was at the time of the injuries complained of in this complaint, under a
3 material aid agreement an employee and/or agent of the CITY OF SEATTLE acting
4 within the scope of his duties as a TROOPER of the WASHINGTON STATE PATROL.
s 2.83 WESLEY H. RETHWILL and JANE DOE RETHWILL constitute a marital
6 community under the laws of the State of Washington and upon belief reside within
7 KING County within the Western District of Washington State. Upon belief, WESLEY
s H. RETHWILL was at the time of the injuries complained of in this complaint, under a
9 material aid agreement an employee and/or agent of the CITY OF SEATTLE acting
to within the scope of his duties as a SERGEANT of the WASHINGTON STATE
11 PATROL.
12 2.84 CRAIG L. SAHLINGER and JANE DOE SAHLINGER constitute a
13 marital community under the laws of the State of Washington and upon belief reside
14 within KING County within the Western District of Washington State. Upon belief,
15 CRAIG L. SAHLINGER was at the time of the injuries complained of in this complaint,
16 under a material aid agreement an employee and/or agent of the CITY OF SEATTLE
17 acting within the scope of his duties as a TROOPER of the WASHINGTON STATE
18 PATROL.
19 2.85 DAVID J. BROWNE and JANE DOE BROWNE constitute a marital
20 community under the laws of the State of Washington and upon belief reside within
21 KING County within the Western District of Washington State. Upon belief, DAVID J.
22 BROWNE was at the time of the injuries complained of in this complaint, under a
23 material aid agreement an employee and/or agent of the CITY OF SEATTLE acting
BARNES ET AL V. CITY OF SEATTLE, COMPLAINT 36
1 within the scope of his duties as a SERGEANT of the WASHINGTON STATE
2 PATROL.
3 2.86 GARY D. GASSELING and JANE DOE GASSELING constitute a marital
4 community under the laws of the State of Washington and upon belief reside within
s KING County within the Western District of Washington State. Upon belief, GARY D.
6 GASSELING was at the time of the injuries complained of in this complaint, under a
7 material aid agreement an employee and/or agent of the CITY OF SEATTLE acting
s within the scope of his duties as a SERGEANT of the WASHINGTON STATE
9 PATROL.
10 2.87 PAUL M. STANEK III and JANE DOE STANEK constitute a marital
11 community under the laws of the State of Washington and upon belief reside within
12 KING County within the Western District of Washington State. Upon belief, PAUL M.
13 STANEK III was at the time of the injuries complained of in this complaint, under a
14 material aid agreement an employee and/or agent of the CITY OF SEATTLE acting
15 within the scope of his duties as a DETECTIVE of the WASHINGTON STATE
16 PATROL.
17 2.88 RICHARD A. TAYLOR and JANE DOE TAYLOR constitute a marital
18 community under the laws of the State of Washington and upon belief reside within
19 KING County within the Western District of Washington State. Upon belief, RICHARD
20 A. TAYLOR was at the time of the injuries complained of in this complaint, under a
21 material aid agreement an employee and/or agent of the CITY OF SEATTLE acting
22 within the scope of his duties as a DETECTIVE of the WASHINGTON STATE
23 PATROL.
BARNES ET AL V. CITY OF SEATTLE, COMPLAINT �,
1 2.89 GARY M. WILCOX and JANE DOE WILCOX constitute a marital
2 community under the laws of the State of Washington and upon belief reside within
3 KING County within the Western District of Washington State. Upon belief, GARY M.
4 WILCOX was at the time of the injuries complained of in this complaint, under a
5 material aid agreement an employee and/or agent of the CITY OF SEATTLE acting
6 within the scope of his duties as a DETECTIVE of the WASHINGTON STATE
7 PATROL.
8 2.90 OREST D. WILSON and JANE DOE WILSON constitute a marital
9 community under the laws of the State of Washington and upon belief reside within
10 KING County within the Western District of Washington State. Upon belief, OREST D.
11 WILSON was at the time of the injuries complained of in this complaint, under a
12 material aid agreement an employee and/or agent of the CITY OF SEATTLE acting
13 within the scope of his duties as a DETECTIVE of the WASHINGTON STATE
14 PATROL.
15 2.91 RONALD W. SERPAS and JANE DOE SERPAS constitute a marital
16 community under the laws of the State of Washington and upon belief reside within
17 KING County within the Western District of Washington State. Upon belief, RONALD
18 W. SERPAS was at the time of the injuries complained of in this complaint, under a
19 material aid agreement an employee and/or agent of the CITY OF SEATTLE acting
20 within the scope of his duties as the CHIEF of the WASHINGTON STATE PATROL.
21 2.92 DANIEL E. EIKEM and JANE DOE EIKEM constitute a marital community
22 under the laws of the State of Washington and upon belief reside within KING County
23 within the Western District of Washington State. Upon belief, DANIEL E. EIKEM was
BARNES ET AL V. CITY OF SEATTLE, COMPLAINT 38
1 at the time of the injuries complained of in this complaint, under a material aid
2 agreement an employee and/or agent of the CITY OF SEATTLE acting within the
3 scope of his duties as a CAPTAIN of the WASHINGTON STATE PATROL.
4 2.93 STEVEN D. MCCULLEY and JANE DOE MCCULLEY constitute a marital
s community under the laws of the State of Washington and upon belief reside within
6 KING County within the Western District of Washington State. Upon belief, STEVEN
7 D. MCCULLEY was at the time of the injuries complained of in this complaint, under a
e material aid agreement an employee and/or agent of the CITY OF SEATTLE acting
9 within the scope of his duties as a LIEUTENANT of the WASHINGTON STATE
10 PATROL.
11 2.94 There are numerous other persons, identities presently unknown to
12 Plaintiffs who are, and were at all times mentioned herein, supervisors, incident
13 commanders, and decision -makers OF THE CITY OF SEATTLE, and the SEATTLE
14 POLICE DEPARTMENT and/or the other involved agencies, who acted in concert with
15 the above named Defendants and who devised or approved the police strategy for
16 responding to the demonstration and police response thereto that are the subject of
17 this action and in doing the things hereinafter alleged, acted under color of state law as
18 agents of the CITY OF SEATTLE and with its full consent and approval.
19 2.95. There are also numerous Does, who are employees and/or Managers or
20 agents of Defendant LEIU who were directly involved in planning, organizing, and
21 orchestrating the response to the demonstration in question, including to Plaintiffs, and
22 are responsible for the harm suffered by Plaintiffs.
23 2.96. DOES 1-500 are, and were at all times mentioned herein, OFFICERS,
BARNES ET AL V. CITY OF SEATTLE, COMPLAINT
I Supervisors, and the Incident Commander For This Demonstration Of The Police
2 Department Of The CITY OF SEATTLE, Or Other CITY, other Public Agency or
3 Private Actors or Officials involved in the planning, creation, development or exercise
4 of Police Force and Control against the demonstration in question, the response to
s which is the subject of this action, and in committing the acts and omissions herein
6 alleged hereinafter alleged, acted under color of state law as agents of the CITY OF
7 SEATTLE and the SEATTLE POLICE DEPARTMENT and with its full consent and
s approval.
9 2.97 DOES 1-100 are MANUFACTURERS OF LESS LETHAL WEAPONRY do
10 substantial business in Washington, and reasonably and purposely avail themselves of
11 the laws of the State of Washington, there product was misrepresented, subject to
12 design flaws, not fit for purpose, and or otherwise improper for the purpose of crowd
13 control at peaceful demonstrations, and was thus involved in the incidents herein
14 alleged, and therefore is subject to the jurisdiction of this court.
15 2.98 DOES 1-100 are DISTRIBUTORS and/or SALES AGENTS OF LESS
16 LETHAL WEAPONRY do substantial business in Washington, and reasonably and
17 purposely avail themselves of the laws of the State of Washington, there product was
18 misrepresented, subject to design flaws, not fit for purpose, and or otherwise improper
19 for the purpose of crowd control at peaceful demonstrations, and was thus involved in
20 the incidents herein alleged, and therefore is subject to the jurisdiction of this court.
21 2.99 This action is brought pursuant to the First, Fourth, Fifth, Eighth, and
22 Fourteenth Amendments to the United States Constitution, Article 1, Section 5 and
23 Article 1, Section 7 of the Washington State Constitution, 42 U.S.C. 1983, 1988,
BARNES ET AL V. CITY OF SEATTLE, COMPLAINT 40
1 Revised Code of Washington Title 9, Chapter 62, Section 10(1), Washington State
2 common law prohibiting assault, battery, intentional infliction of emotional distress,
3 false arrest and false imprisonment, and misappropriation of or damage to personal
4 property, Washington common law negligence.
s 2.100. Captain SANFORD was himself at the scene, involved in the decision-
6 making and active in creating the Constitutional and other legal violations that
7 occurred and that are the subject of this action.
a 2.101 Between June 3 2003 and June 2, 2004, Plaintiffs served Defendant
9 CITY OF SEATTLE with Notices of Claim, which were acknowledged by the county
10 shortly thereafter. Substantially more than 60 days has gone by since the service of
11 those claims without an acceptance or rejection. Therefore Plaintiffs have fulfilled their
12 obligations under the statute.
13
14 Ill. FACTS a) Overall
15 3.1 Plaintiffs were participants in a permitted, peaceful, and lawful
16 demonstration against the Law Enforcement Intelligence Unit (LEIU.) This
17 demonstration was permitted by the city and the police. In the course of this permitted
18 demonstration Plaintiffs were subjected to unreasonable force. All plaintiffs were
19 subjected to improper uses of "less lethal" weaponry, including chemical agents,
20 rubber balls, wooden dowels, batons and "pepper -ball rounds" and/or other improper
21 uses of force. All Plaintiffs suffered physical and or psychological injuries, and lost
22 their Constitutional Rights including their First Amendment rights.
23 Background
BARNES ET AL V. CITY OF SEATTLE, COMPLAINT
1 3.2 The Law Enforcement Intelligence Unit (LEIU) is a theoretically private non-
e profit organization, made up entirely of public law enforcement agencies and their
3 employees. The LEIU came into prominence after the scandals surrounding illegal
4 surveillance, disruption and infiltration of legal protest groups by law enforcement
5 agencies in the 1960's and 1970's. Such illegal activity by law enforcement prompted
6 the investigations of Senator Church's Committee, and led to legal limits being placed
7 on the ability of law enforcement to collect data and target citizens engaged in lawful
a dissent in this matter. As it became illegal for the federal government to perform these
9 functions, they did not cease, but became absorbed by private and non-profit
io organizations. The LEIU was one of these organizations that continued to collect data
11 on lawful protesters for the benefit of law enforcement. It even became the depository
12 of many files created by law enforcement agencies that could no longer retain their old
13 files.
14 3.3 The LEIU picked Seattle as the site of their annual convention for 2003.
15 The event was scheduled for June. Numerous corporations, many with their own
16 intelligence networks, including Boeing, Pemco and Microsoft signed on to sponsor the
17 event. Also sponsoring was the Anti -Defamation League (ADL) an organization whose
1e fact finding division had been implicated in widely publicized scandal ten years earlier,
19 for gathering personal information on 20,000 citizens engaged in political activity and
20 trading that information with law enforcement and foreign governments.
21 3.4 Several citizens and community organizers in Seattle became aware that
22 the LEIU was coming in February of 2003. They began holding meetings to peacefully
23 protest the convention.
BARNES ET AL V. CITY OF SEATTLE, COMPLAINT 42
1 3.5 The organizers of the demonstrations against the LEIU pledged immediat-1-
2 to make the event family friendly and non-violent. They adopted a code of non
3 violence and made it a condition for those who would be attending the rally. This was
4 reflected in subsequent meetings and in the literature distributed by this group.
5 3.6 The setup and logistics of the protest involved many of the same players
6 that had put on many large Peace marches in the proceeding years. One of the main
7 sponsors of this protest was the Not In Our Name Coalition that had put together the
s first large Seattle rally around the war which had numbered in the tens of thousands.
9 Some of the main organizers, had decades of experience organizing these types of
10 events. The group included police liaisons who had worked with police on dozens of
11 these rallies before. They included peacekeepers who were trained to diffuse any
12 potential conflict and to keep the march peaceful. They included medics who were
13 trained to treat injuries that occurred during protest. They included Legal Observers
14 from both the National Lawyers Guild and the ACLU who were trained to observe what
15 occurred and make an independent record. They included videographers,
16 photographers and other independent media producers. All of these groups and
17 individuals had participated in these large peace rallies with numbers in the tens of
is thousands, and few if any incidents of arrest.
19 3.7 Even from the first meeting, there were strong indications that the protesters
20 were being watched. Participants at the first meeting noticed a man in attendance.
21 This man was unfamiliar to any of them, and took copiously detailed notes throughout
22 the meeting. At the meetings end he was observed going into what appeared to be an
23 unmarked police car.
BARNES ET AL V. CITY OF SEATTLE, COMPLAINT
1 3.8 As the meetings progressed and the June meeting date grew closer,
2 harassment became steeper. Organizers noticed themselves being followed, near
3 homes, at work and as they drove.
4 3.9 Organizers went forward and negotiated the permit for the march with the
s Seattle Police Department, and the permit for the rally at Westlake Park with the City
6 of Seattle. They negotiated with the Seattle Police for the march permit approximately
7 one week before the event. They spoke with Lt. Poulsen and Captain Mike Sanford.
s There was no time limit on the permit for the march.
9 3.10 In late May and early June, organizers held teach -ins about the LEIU. This
10 included a session at Town Hall, led by researchers on the LEIU and allied
11 organizations. Several hundred attended this event on the evening of June 1, 2003.
12 Day of the Event
13 3.11 On June 2nd, some of the organizers were scheduled to meet at 10 AM in
14 the morning with their attorney, William Broberg, and Virgina Swanson from the City of
15 Seattle, to make final arrangements for the permit.
16 3.12 On the way to this meeting some of them drove past the Red Lion Inn.
17 There was already a heavy police presence there. Large numbers of police remained
18 there, in riot gear, the whole day.
19 3.13 The meeting for the permit took place at Westlake at 10AM as scheduled.
2 o The organizers were granted access to the space from Noon until 10 PM. They held a
21 press conference at Westlake Park around mid -day. Reporters from most media
22 outlets were present.
23 3.14 Some of the organizers returned to Westlake around 3PM, to set up, to be
BARNES ET AL V. CITY OF SEATTLE, COMPLAINT 44
i on site to observe the arrangements with police, as well as to make sure that the
2 arrangements made with Ms. Swanson were complied with. Also around this time
3 people began to arrive for the demonstration in small groups of 2s and 3s.
4 3.15 Perhaps around 4 PM, police on bicycles arrived. They were patrolling the
5 area. Between 5 and 6, Captain Sanford and several of his aides walked through.
6 3.16 By about 5:30 there were fairly significant numbers of demonstrators in
7 Westlake Park.
s 3.17 The rally started at 6 PM as scheduled, and proceeded as planned -
9 peaceful and without incident. The Rally featured speakers that included victims of
10 political surveillance, as well as representatives of the ACLU and the National Lawyers
11 Guild. There were several hundred people in attendance. Some of the demonstrators
12 performed street theater skits. Some carried colorful signs, such as a copy of the Bill
13 of Rights with the word "Void" stamped across it. The atmosphere was festive. There
14 was no hint of violence from any of the protesters. Everything was calm and peaceful.
15 3.18 At about 7PM, the march took off as the organizers had planned with the
16 Seattle police. Westlake Plaza was located on Fourth Avenue between Pine and Pike
17 Street. The Red Lion Inn was located one block south between Pike and Union, with
18 entrances on Fourth and Fifth Avenue, its main entrance being at 1415 Fifth Avenue.
19 The organizers' plan was to march to the Red Lion inn, one block South of Westlake
20 Plaza, and ultimately to march around the block. They planned to pause in front of the
21 Fifth Avenue entrance.
22 3.19 The large peace rallies, organized by many of these same people had
23 been characterized by a token police presence. Marches with tens of thousands had
BARNES ET AL V. CITY OF SEATTLE, COMPLAINT Y.,
1 been escorted through many miles of Seattle without incident by a few dozen police.
2 Despite the fact that the same organizers were in charge of this event's logistics, an
3 arbitrary decision was made to use a more heavy handed approach. Despite the fact
4 that this was a march with probably less than a thousand people that were only going
5 a few blocks, there were far more police present than there had been at the marches
6 and rallies that ran for miles and included tens of thousands of demonstrators.
7 Police Presence and Weaponry on June 2, 2003
8 3.20 All along the route few blocks to Red Lion Inn, almost every street or alley
9 was blocked by lines of police in full riot gear.
10 3.21 The police already had barriers set up when the few hundred
11 demonstrators arrived. There were barriers on Fifth Avenue and Fourth Avenue. The
12 police had the alley between the two streets blocked off with metal barricades and
13 squad cars.
14 3.22 Whereas the police in the prior larger rallies had worn what they referred to
15 as their "soft" uniforms, many wore the "hard" uniforms consisting of full body armor
16 (dubbed "ninja turtle" and "Robocop" uniforms by some of the press.) These
17 uniforms of course made the police look more threatening and they covered their
18 faces so they looked more like Imperial Storm troopers from Star Wars than they did
19 human beings.
20 3.23 The SPD had already acknowledged that these uniforms often created
21 more problems than they solved. For example they had stated they could not
22 intervene during the Mardi Gras beatings that had taken place in 2001, because their
23 officers wore these same uniforms. The SPD command had felt that intervention by
BARNES ET AL V. CITY OF SEATTLE, COMPLAINT 46
1 the officers wearing these uniforms would likely incite a crowd of people.
2 3.24 A line of officers, including many from the Washington State Patrol forme
3 a line several officers deep in front of the Fifth Avenue entrance of the Red Lion Inn.
4 In defiance of the local Seattle Ordinance, many of them wore no name tags. Almost
5 all of these officers wore the same body armor that made the police reluctant to take
6 any action during the Mardi Gras event for fear of exacerbating an already bad
7 situation.
a 3.25 Most of the officers carried some type of "less -lethal weaponry."
9 Sometimes incorrectly referred to as "non -lethal weaponry," this weaponry is designed
10 to be used in a potentially life threatening situation, as an alternative to firearms or
11 other methods more likely to kill. "Less -lethal weaponry" is designed to be used in
12 very narrow parameters so that it may have a lower likelihood of killing someone.
13 Police training materials and that of the manufacturers themselves, stresses that the. _
14 is always the likelihood that these weapons can kill even when used within the
15 recommended narrow parameters, and thus should be considered a lethal use of
16 force, not something equivalent to a verbal command.
17 3.26 Despite the lethality of these weapons, and despite the fact that training
18 materials stress their lethality, their literature, notably including much of the
19 companies' sales literature, erroneously refers to these weapons as "non -lethal" and
20 gives false indications some implied some overt, that these weapons do not kill, and
21 are always safe to use.
22 3.27 Many of the officers present that day carried either 37mm, 38mm, 40mm
23 and or similar style launchers. Some of these were single shot; others were
BARNES ET AL V. CITY OF SEATTLE, COMPLAINT
1 configured like enormous revolvers and held five or six shots, or even as many as
2 eight shots. These held cartridges, approximately 8 inches or 250 mm long and 1 'h
3 inches or 37mm wide. These cartridges could be filled with a variety of weaponry
4 described below. At least two officers in front of the Fifth Avenue entrance to the Red
5 Lion Inn carried these.
6 3.28 Many of the officers carried 12 gauge shot guns. These were pump
7 action, or guns that required spent shells to be manually ejected, as the less lethal
8 cartridges had insufficient charge to cycle the next cartridge. The cartridges they fired
9 were the size of normal shotgun shells, and were similar to the cartridges in the
10 launchers, though much smaller. At least two of the officers in front of the Fifth
11 Avenue entrance of the Red Lion Inn carried these.
12 3.29 The cartridges in the shotguns and larger launcher could contain "impact"
13 projectiles, chemical agents or a combination of these. The "impact" projectiles
14 included "flying batons" which were large pieces of heavy plastic usually several
15 inches long and the width of the cartridges, wooden "dowels" which were cylinders of
16 wood the width of the cartridges, "bean bags" which consisted of buck shot sewn in a
17 bag, and "rubber ball rounds" of varying sizes and densities.
18 3.30 One of the factors that made these cartridges less likely to kill people was
19 that they had a lower velocity than bullets. A "rubber ball round "given the same
20 charge as a bullet the same size would travel faster and thus be more lethal. Most of
21 the "impact projectiles" only slowed to a safe distance once they'd traveled a
22 substantial number of feet from the firearm. This meant that they were highly lethal if
23 fired in close range.
BARNES ET AL V. CITY OF SEATTLE, COMPLAINT 48
1 3.31 Another factor that made these cartridges less likely to kill people was th-•
2 they were designed to only be fired at limited areas of the body. These areas were
3 "the meaty areas," and consisted only of the thighs and buttocks. A large piece of
4 hard plastic, a piece of wood 38mm in diameter, a "rubber ball round" the size of a
s marble or ball bearing, a bag of buckshot, traveling in speeds in excess of 300 feet per
6 second as most of these did, all could easily be lethal if they struck the head, if they
7 struck the kidneys, or penetrated the eyes.
s 3.32 Another factor that made these firearms less likely to kill someone was that
9 many of these were designed to be "skip -fired," or shot into the ground so that they
10 lost velocity and then ricocheted into the appropriate area of the specific target.
11 3.33 This combination of factors, and other similar factors made the impact
12 cartridges devices of limited utility in large crowd control situations. The prospect thaf
13 these impact projectiles could be fired at a specific person, strike a specific area of
14 their body, from a certain distance, after being skip fired off the ground, made little
15 sense in a situation where there were a dozen people moving around, let alone a few
16 hundred. It would be very easy to hit an innocent person. It would be very easy to
17 strike the wrong part of the body. It would be very easy to cause a major injury or
18 fatality. For this reason many law enforcement agencies have limited their use, or
19 even banned it as regards crowd control situations.
20 3.34 Many of the cartridges contained chemical agents including OC, CN and
21 CS.
22 3.35 CN is commonly known by the brand name "Mace," contains small metal
23 barbs in a carrier agent. A common carrier agent used in Seattle in recent
BARNES ET AL V. CITY OF SEATTLE, COMPLAINT 4�
1 demonstrations is methylene chloride, a known carcinogen.
2 3.36 CS is similarly a pyrotechnic carrier agent propelled through pressurized
3 aerosol. It was used by the United States Army to drive Viet Cong from trenches. It
4 has caused the death of dozens of Palestinians in Israel and large numbers of children
5 under the South African Apartheid regime. Because of its horrendous effects it was
6 given the name "tear gas."
7 3.37 OC is also known as oleoresin capsicum, cap -stun or pepper spray. OC
s is made from an extract of cayenne peppers. It gained popularity because it not
9 merely incapacitated, but caused involuntary physical reactions. It too has been linked
1 o to many dozens of deaths.
11 3.38 All these chemical agents were designed to cause pain and disorientation,
12 confusion and fear. Typically a container carrying the chemical agent would strike an
13 area and disperse, effecting people in its vicinity.
14 3.39 Many of the cartridges contained "distraction devices," such as smoke
15 devices and explosion devices that were designed to create disorientation, confusion
16 and fear.
17 3.40 Many of the cartridges contained combinations of the above impact
18 devices, and/or chemical agents, and or "distraction devices."
19 3.41 Many of the officers carried "pepper ball" and or similar style guns. These
20 were guns similar to those used in paintball. They fired pellets similar in size and
21 consistency to those used in a paintball gun. The pellets fired from these guns were
22 not filled with paint. Instead they were filled with OC, and or similar agents. The pellet
23 would explode upon contact and disperse the OC, and or similar agents. These were
BARNES ET AL V. CITY OF SEATTLE, COMPLAINT 50
1 a similar type of weapon to the one that had killed the woman in Boston in October of
2 2004, after the Red Sox had won the pennant from the Yankees. These were only
3 supposed to be fired on limited parts of the body, and in highly controlled
4 circumstances.
5 3.42 Many of the officers carried "Sting -Ball" and similar style rubber ball
6 grenades. These were made of a hard rubber substance, and released hard plastic
7 balls the size of ball bearings when they exploded.
s 3.43 Many of the officers carried grenades similar in style to the rubber ball
9 grenades except that they also contained OC, CS, CN, a combination of these, and or
10 similar substances. When these exploded, they not only released hard plastic balls,
11 but the chemical agents as well.
12 3.44 Because of the way a grenade explodes, it would be impossible for any
13 officer throwing these to know exactly who their projectiles would hit, in what part of
14 the body and with how much force. Any use of these could potentially cause
15 permanent injury or death. Additionally, when deployed in a crowded situation such
16 devices have been found to cause additional injuries as crowds panic and attempt to
17 flee the area.
18 3.45 Many of the officers carried Flash bang and Stun Grenades. These were
19 designed as "distraction devices" that would cause loud noises, make bright flashes,
20 and release smoke, OC, CS, CN or a combination of these and or similar substances.
21 These would cause fear, confusion, and disorientation. While appropriate in some
22 situations such as executing a forced entry on an armed dangerous suspect, such
23 devices routinely caused panic in crowds, causing people to trample each other, and
BARNES ET AL V. CITY OF SEATTLE, COMPLAINT
1 creating similar injuries.
2 3.46 Most if not all of the officers carried OC, CS, and CN dispensers. Some
3 were hand held. Others were as large as fire extinguishers. All had limits on the
4 distance from which they could be fired, as firing from a close distance could cause
5 chemical bums and other injuries. All had limits in the length of time they could be
6 fired as the likelihood of permanent damage to an individual increased with the amount
7 of substance a person was exposed to. All were designed to be used in areas where
s there was a free flow of air.
9 3.47 At least one of thee officers carried a variant of the AR-15/M-16 military
10 rifle. These fired highly lethal .223 caliber ammunition that traveled at a rate of 3,000
11 feet per second. This is the standard weapon used by the United States military.
12 The Demonstration in Front of the Red Lion Inn; Early Arrests
13 3.48 By about 7.15, the bicycle police had formed a line, on the Northern side
14 of the Red Lion Inn on Fifth Avenue. Behind them were about a half dozen officers on
15 horses. Because of the metal barricades on the East and West sides of the street, the
16 demonstrators were penned in. Arbitrarily, the police allowed certain other people
17 through these same lines, while blocking people they believed were associated with
18 the permitted demonstration. Some of the demonstrators asked the police which way
19 they should go if they wanted to leave, but were met with silence by these same
20 police. Similarly, demonstrators who were attempting to get into the rally from the
21 same area were blocked. After a few minutes, Peacekeepers formed a line between
22 these police and the other demonstrators.
23 3.49 On the West side of the Red Lion Inn, along 4tn Avenue, a smaller group
BARNES ET AL V. CITY OF SEATTLE, COMPLAINT 52
1 of demonstrators were gathered. Police singled several of these people out for
2 particularly brutal arrests, stepping on one of the arrestees head. Also arrested was
3 one of the few media people present at this location, who was attempting to videotape
4 the arrest.
5 3.50 On the eastside along Fifth Avenue, the demonstration continued without
6 incident. People held signs, chanted slogans. A marching band played. Some people
7 danced. The demonstrators remained peaceful. None of them destroyed any
s property. None of them broke any windows. Police were able to pass through the
9 demonstrators without incident.
10 3.51 A mixture of shoppers and other people moving through the downtown
11 area walked through the demonstration, or stood by and watched it without incident.
12 3.52 Many of the LEIU conference participants were at windows and balconies,
13 watching the demonstration below. Some of them took photographs or shot videos �.
14 the demonstration.
15 3.53 At about T20, a young man climbed onto a Plexiglas awning, north of the
16 Red Lion Inn on Fifth Avenue. He seemed to be largely ignored by the police and
17 most of the demonstrators.
18 3.54 At about 7:45, Plaintiff Barnes, in his capacity as police liaison,
19 approached Defendant Captain Sanford. Plaintiff asked Defendant Captain Sanford if
20 the demonstrators would be permitted to circle the building several times, and then
21 return to Westlake. Defendant Captain Sanford replied no, but assured, "your people
22 will be cold and hungry before we force you off the street."
23 3.55 One of the other organizers, Roger Weaver, announced this to the
BARNES ET AL V_ CITY OF SEATTLE, COMPLAINT
i of demonstrators were gathered. Police singled several of these people out for
2 particularly brutal arrests, stepping on one of the arrestees head. Also arrested was
3 one of the few media people present at this location, who was attempting to videotape
4 the arrest.
5 3.50 On the eastside along Fifth Avenue, the demonstration continued without
6 incident. People held signs, chanted slogans. A marching band played. Some people
7 danced. The demonstrators remained peaceful. None of them destroyed any
8 property. None of them broke any windows. Police were able to pass through the
9 demonstrators without incident.
10 3.51 A mixture of shoppers and other people moving through the downtown
11 area walked through the demonstration, or stood by and watched it without incident.
12 3.52 Many of the LEIU conference participants were at windows and balconies,
13 watching the demonstration below. Some of them took photographs or shot videos of
14 the demonstration.
15 3.53 At about 7:20, a young man climbed onto a Plexiglas awning, north of the
16 Red Lion Inn on Fifth Avenue. He seemed to be largely ignored by the police and
17 most of the demonstrators.
18 3.54 At about 7:45, Plaintiff Barnes, in his capacity as police liaison,
19 approached Defendant Captain Sanford. Plaintiff asked Defendant Captain Sanford if
20 the demonstrators would be permitted to circle the building several times, and then
21 return to Westlake. Defendant Captain Sanford replied no, but assured, "your people
22 will be cold and hungry before we force you off the street."
23 3.55 One of the other organizers, Roger Weaver, announced this to the
BARNES ET AL V. CITY OF SEATTLE, COMPLAINT 53
1 demonstrators on Fifth Avenue over an amplified bull horn. Weaver complemented
2 the police, and reiterated that the demonstrators could stay there till they were cold. i,
s was 7:50 PM.
4 3.56 Sometime after this, Defendant Captain Sanford seemed to notice the
5 young man on the awning, as he attempted to burn a flag. While the majority of the
6 demonstrators listened to an organizer from NION tell them how they'd be proceeding
7 back to Westlake Plaza, Defendant Sanford stood North of the group, under the
s Plexiglas awning, starring up at the young man and talking into his cell phone.
9 3.57 Several of the other demonstrators voiced concern to the NION organizer.
10 She replied "the police are starting to line up. That's their message to us." It was
11 about 8:07 PM
12 The Attacks on the Demonstrators by Police
13 3.58 Defendant Captain Sanford left the area under the awning and began to
14 talk to each of his command staff. He walked through the area around the
15 demonstrators talking to first one of the bicycle officers, then the others, including
16 Defendant Lt. Wilske. Without exception, the demonstrators stepped aside as
17 Defendant Sanford moved forward. Defendant Sanford and the other Defendant
18 officers were able to move through the demonstrators without incident.
19 3.59 As Defendant Sanford made plans on how to deal with the young man on
20 the awning the majority of the demonstrators remained oblivious to this. Most in front
21 of the Red Lion Inn were gathered around a band playing "Down by the Riverside."
22 3.60 The Defendant bicycle officers lined up along the north end of the
23 demonstrators, in formation to ride into the demonstration as a group. The
BARNES ET AL V. CITY OF SEATTLE, COMPLAINT
1 demonstrators continued to listen to, dance or play with the band.
2 3.61 At about 8:12 the young man on the awning attempted to light a flag on
3 fire, this attracted the attention of a few dozen of the demonstrators.
4 3.62 At about 8:20, the Defendant bicycle police moved in formation to the East
5 End of Fifth Avenue, North of the awning.
6 3.63 At about 8:23 PM, forty minutes after Defendant Captain Sanford's
7 statement that the demonstrators could stay till they were "cold and hungry," Plaintiff
s Robert Barnes, as police liaison approached Defendants Captain Sanford and
9 Lieutenant Wilske, who were standing on East side of Fifth Avenue, on the sidewalk,
10 next to the bicycle police. Plaintiff Barnes, the liaison suggested that if the police
11 could guarantee they would not arrest the person on the awning, he could get the
12 crowd to disperse to Westlake.
13 3.64 Defendant Captain Sanford told him, "no, that's not going to happen. You
14 have two minutes to disperse."
15 3.65 No other warning was given by the Defendant police to the crowd. Some
16 of the other organizers and peacekeepers, including Plaintiff Shannon, began to direct
17 the demonstrators back towards Westlake Plaza.
18 3.66 Plaintiff Barnes, the liaison to the police, immediately asked what had
19 changed in the last 40 minutes. Defendant Captain Sanford made no reply.
20 3.67 As organizers began directing the demonstrators to Westlake, the
21 demonstrators complied and began to move South, the only direction still open to
22 them, and away from the awning, down Fifth Avenue. The Peacekeepers formed a
23 line on the North end between the police and the demonstrators.
BARNES ET AL V. CITY OF SEATTLE, COMPLAINT 55
1 3.68 The young man on the awning came down and attempted to join the
2 departing demonstrators.
3 3.69 As the group then proceeded back to Westlake, someone, presumably
4 this young man was grabbed out of the group by several undercover officers. They
s moved him roughly to the line of police in riot gear in front of the Red Lion Inn along
6 Fifth Avenue. The young man was tossed over the railing, by a mixture of uniformed
7 and plain clothed police.
8 3.70 None of the demonstrators attempted to go over the metal barriers. The
9 only people who attempted to go over the metal barriers were the undercover officers,
10 dressed in street clothes. In fact, the closest of the demonstrators was several feet
11 from the barricades.
12 3.71 Defendant Captain Sanford stated at a press conference later that
13 evening that he was telling the demonstrators to give the police two feet of working
14 room and that by and large they complied.
15 3.72 As the young man was tossed over the metal barricade, many of the
16 Defendant officers fired their containers of OC, or similar chemical agents. The
17 chemical agents struck and drenched large numbers of people, including those
18 demonstrators already leaving for Westlake Plaza and the undercover officers
19 themselves. Several of the plaintiffs were hit at this time.
20 3.73 As the young man was tossed over the railing, police on bicycles rode into
21 the crowd, using their bicycles to batter the crowd. Some demonstrators were injured
22 and bleeding as they were hit by the bicycles. Some were injured and bleeding as the
23 police got off their bicycles and swung them like clubs, striking those around them,
BARNES ET AL V. CITY OF SEATTLE, COMPLAINT
1 including Plaintiff O'Connor. Many of the Plaintiffs were injured at this time. Plaintiff
2 Barnes, a 275 pound man, found himself knocked forcibly aside by these officers.
3 Among those targeted were the legal observers. One of the bicycle commanders
4 realized they were being videotaped, pointed toward the camera and shouted the
5 words "Hey!, Movie!" to the other officers. These officers relaxed their attack.
6 3.74 Also at this time other less lethal weaponry may have been fired into the
7 crowd of demonstrators.
s 3.75 In all this, one of the demonstrators appears to have thrown a cardboard
9 sign at the police line, which landed at their feet without effect.
10 3.76 The bicycle officers formed a second line in front of the metal barrier.
11 Several held their canisters presumably filled with OC. There was some yelling by the
12 demonstrators, but in no way did they attack the police.
13 3.77 It was around this time that several dozen more Defendant police in riot
14 gear joined the others. These held weapons that included launchers, shotguns
15 pepper -ball guns OC canisters, batons, and at least one AR-15/M-16 variant.
16 3.78 The Plaintiff police advanced using their bicycles as barriers, pushed the
17 demonstrators forward.
18 3.79 Just behind the metal barriers, at least five large police officers had the
19 young man presumed to have been on the awning on the ground.
20 3.80 During this time no aid was offered by the police to any of the people, be
21 they demonstrators, media, legal observers or bystanders who had been injured by the
22 chemical agents,. less lethal weapons, or blows of the police.
23 3.81 Some of the medics' supplies were now stuck behind police lines. The
BARNES ET AL V. CITY OF SEATTLE, COMPLAINT 57
1 police made no response to requests by medics and organizers that they be allowed to
2 retrieve them. This further hindered the ability of many of the injured to receive care.
3 3.82 Organizers again started to move the crowd forward. There was some
4 yelling, at the police but the protesters again started to head out through their only exit,
5 going South on Fifth Avenue.
6 3.83 At least three of the Defendants police began spraying all the
7 demonstrators in their proximity with chemical agents. Dozens of the demonstrators
s were directly hit by this. This was followed by the Defendants police striking forward
9 with their bicycles, striking into the crowd, hitting demonstrators with considerable
10 force. Their use of force seemed in no way to be connected to either of the objects
11 that had been thrown. A few of the demonstrators threw plastic water bottles back at
12 the police as they were pushed and attacked. It was now around 8:28
13 3.84 At this point about two dozen or so protesters were facing the police. AL._
14 there were members of the media, legal observers and passersby who'd been drawn
15 to the activity. After a brief pause, the police again pushed forward with their bicycles.
16 Several Defendant officers on the East side of the street sprayed a few dozen people
17 with OC and or similar agents. Several people were grabbed and arrested. It was
18 now about 8:32
19 3.85 With dozens of the demonstrators and some bystanders debilitated by the
20 pepper spray and other less lethal devices, many of them had to be helped as they
21 hobbled away. The Defendant police continued to push forward, striking people with
22 their bicycles and batons. By about 8:39, the Defendant police were pushing the
23 demonstrators down Union Street, from Fifth to Fourth Avenue. Some of the
BARNES ET AL V. CITY OF SEATTLE, COMPLAINT
1 demonstrators chanted "this is what a police state looks like."
2 3.86 In front of the Washington Mutual Bank, on the NW Corner of Union and
3 Fifth the police grabbed several of the demonstrators. Several officers yanked them
4 back behind lines as others sprayed those in their vicinity with chemical agents.
5 Several photographers attempting to photograph this were knocked to the ground, or
6 themselves arrested. Many of those present were stumbling blindly from the OC and
7 other agents. No aid was offered by any of the police to any of these people. Several
s of the medics who were attempting to administer aid were themselves attacked by the
9 police.
10 3.87 The police and protesters turned North on Fourth Avenue. The other side
11 of the Red Lion Inn was on this street. Those attending the LEIU Conference
12 watched from the windows, some with cameras. The mood of those watching from in
13 the Red Lion Inn was jovial.
14 3.88 As the group turned North on Fourth Avenue, and came back in sight of
15 the Red Lion Inn, the police's use of Less Lethal Agents again accelerated. In front of
16 the Office Depot Store, on the West side of the street, across from the Red Lion Inn,
17 the police again let fly with generous bursts of OC, and or other chemical agents
18 aimed into the backs of dozens of already retreating demonstrators. Several people
19 were grabbed at by the police and wrestled to the ground.
20 3.89 Within about five seconds of the bursts of OC or other chemical agents,
21 several of the less lethal devices were used simultaneously. There were at least four
22 loud explosions of concussion grenades fired by the police. Clouds of chemical
23 agents appeared in front of the demonstrators. With the police moving forward, the
BARNES ET AL V. CITY OF SEATTLE, COMPLAINT 59
1 demonstrators, media and those who'd been swept into their path were forced to walk
2 into and through these chemical agents. A few of the protesters shouted, "Walk, dor, .
3 panic." As if in response, at least three more explosions soon followed. All seven
4 explosions had taken place within the block in front of the Red Lion Inn. All had been
5 fired into the back of a retreating crowd. All seven explosions had taken place in
6 slightly more than thirty seconds.
7 3.90 At least one photographer, was arrested for attempting to photograph
a police firing a launcher into the backs of the retreating demonstrators.
9 3.91 In the midst of this the police fired "rubber balls" and "wooden dowels" at
io the already retreating protesters, including Plaintiffs Shannon and Wirkman.
11 3.92 Some of the grenades were thrown directly at the protesters.
12 3.93 All the above had taken place one block South of Westlake Plaza, where
13 the crowd was retreating. It was approximately 8:40 PM.
14 End of the March and Gratuitous Arrests
1s 3.94 The demonstrators emptied into Westlake Plaza with the police behind
16 them. A line of police in riot gear holding an array of less lethal weapons stood along
17 the South end of the park and Fourth Avenue. Plaintiff Barnes, trembling visibly, held
18 out the permit and shouted through a bull horn that they had a right to be there. It was
19 8:42 PM.
20 3.95 The police in this line held a variety of weapons. These weapons included
21 at least 1 shotgun, 1 single shot launcher, 2 six shot launchers, 1 large pepper spray,
22 1 AR-15/M16 type firearm, 1 Pepper Ball gun. Defendant Lt. Wilske was present with
23 these officers.
BARNES ET AL V. CITY OF SEATTLE, COMPLAINT
1 3.96 Though a few of the demonstrators stayed around Westlake Plaza, the
2 rally that had been planned for after the march could not, and did not take place.
3 Organizers worked to get the demonstrators to leave the area in small groups. Medics
4 tried to treat the people who'd been injured, including those incapacitated by the
s chemical agents. An ambulance was called to the scene, taking at least one person
6 from the scene in a gurney. The police themselves did nothing to see to the treatment
7 of any of the people they'd injured with their weaponry and tactics.
a 3.97 Police continued to grab and arrest demonstrators and others. Among
9 those they arrested were videographers, and other media producers.
10 Chemical Agents Left Along Route: No Effort Made by Police to Clean
11 3.98 With only a token number of demonstrators left, and perhaps because
12 they were out of sight of the Red Lion Inn, the police relaxed their line around 9PM,
13 first withdrawing those with the less weaponry, then, after a minute or so, the others.
14 A line of officers in riot gear stood along the side of the wall by Seattle's Best Coffee at
15 the South end of Westlake Plaza.
16 3.99 Several of those who were present, including Plaintiff Wirkman, began to
17 re -walk the path of the march, and collect the remains of the less lethal weaponry
18 which had been used by the police. The debris from this weaponry they collected
19 included the remains of several rubber grenades, several pepper -ball gun bullets, at
20 least one of which had not exploded, wooden dowels, at least one "flying baton", the
21 remains of 37mm/38mm shells and hundreds of rubber balls. Throughout the path of
22 the march there were areas that were thick from the residue of chemical agents. The
23 police made no effort to clean up the debris, to clean up any of the chemical agents, to
BARNES ET AL V. CITY OF SEATTLE, COMPLAINT 61
1 collect any of the unspent rounds. Nor did they make any effort to warn any of the
2 passersby most of whom had nothing to do with the event that they were exposing
3 themselves to these chemical agents.
4 3.100 Several of these people re -walking the march route returned to the front
s of the Red Lion Inn on 1415 Fifth Avenue between Union and Pike. There were no
6 longer members of the Washington State Patrol, who could argue whether they had to
7 obey the Seattle Ordinance in front of the Fifth Avenue entrance of the Red Lion Inn.
s Now there were members of the Seattle Police Department in front of the Red Lion
9 Inn. It was about 9:12 PM.
10 3.101 Throughout this, these people found none of the broken glass, sticks, ball
11 bearings or other materials allegedly thrown by the protesters at the police. There
12 were a few soft plastic water bottles on the ground.
13 3.102 Several large deposits of chemical agents were observed in front of the
14 entrance to the Washington Mutual Bank at Fifth Avenue and Union at about 9:15.
15 There was no effort being made to clean these up, or to warn people of these. Some
16 of these chemicals were still wet.
17 3.103 There was another large deposit observed in the main intersection some
18 feet away from the Washington Mutual entrance on this corner. There were dozens of
19 rubber balls mixed in this deposit.
20 3.104 Another deposit was in the Eastern crosswalk of this' intersection.
21 3.105 People walked freely through these deposits, and cars drove over them.
22 3.106 There were many, many rubber balls spread out in this area of Union
23 Avenue at this time.
BARNES ET AL V. CITY OF SEATTLE, COMPLAINT I
1 3.107 An officer Doe approached those documenting this and ordered those
2 collecting this data back on the sidewalk. When asked if anyone was going to be
3 cleaning this up, Doe denied knowledge and said it was not his job, then drove off.
4 This officer drove a blue unmarked police car with a license that appeared to read:
5 342-1OD.
6 3.108 Officers were available to guard innocuous locations. At least five
7 officers in riot gear guarded the alley on Union between Fifth and Fourth Avenue.
8 There was a large deposit of chemical agents on the sidewalk directly in front of them.
9 When queried, as to whether it would be cleaned, the officers first compared it to
10 papers in the street, then said it wasn't their job.
11 3.109 At about 9:37 PM, other large deposits of chemical agents were
12 observed in and around the intersection of Union Street and Fourth Avenue. These
13 included deposits of chemical agents in front of the entrance to Rainier Square, the
14 Northwest interior portion of the intersection and cross walk, the East section of the
15 intersection and crosswalk, multiple deposits on the South side of the street in front of
16 Lamont's at least one in front North side of the street in front of the Men's Wearhouse,
17 several around the fire hydrant around Fourth and Union, near the intersection; the
18 intersection in front of Tully's; in the street in front of 1411 Fourth Avenue; several
19 deposits of chemical agents in front of the West entrance of the Red Lion Inn, with a
20 smaller deposit in the center of the street lining up with the mail box; another deposit of
21 chemical agents in front of the bus stop North of the entrance of the Red Lion Inn;
22 several deposits in front of the Office Depot, on Fourth Avenue, another deposit on
23 Fourth Avenue about midway between the Walking Company on the East side, and
BARNES ET AL V. CITY OF SEATTLE, COMPLAINT 63
1 the Joshua Green Building on West. Approaching Westlake Plaza there were
2 chemical agents in the southern portion of the intersection of Fourth and Pike, a few
3 feet west of the curb —fragments of a rubber grenade were found in this area. There
4 were several chemical deposits and numerous rubber balls on Fourth Avenue, South
5 of Pike Street.
6 3.110 Several "pepper ball" rounds had struck the Northeast portion of the
7 curb, portions of their shells remained at the end of a small trail of the agents. At least
s one round had been left unexploded, it had a bright color and looked about the shape,
9 size and color of a sucking candy. Fragments of grenades were found around this
10 intersection. The remains of what looked like several pepper balls were found at the
11 South end of Westlake Plaza, along with pieces of a 37, 38mm shells. A large deposit
12 of chemical agents was left in front of the entrance and ATM of the Bank of America
13 located on the South end of Westlake Plaza. At least three large deposits of chemicu.
14 agents were found by the planter boxes, just North of this Bank of America. There
15 was another deposit near the streetlight on the curb on the East side of Fifth Avenue,
16 just West of this Bank of America.
17 3.111 Throughout the time these people attempted to gather documentation
18 various police continued to shine lights in the lenses of their cameras, and threaten
19 them with arrest.
20 3.112 Finally, some of those gathering documentation encountered police
21 documenting the totality of the damage caused by all those at the demonstration.
22 These police admitted that the totality of the damage consisted of two spray painted
23 "A's" with circles around them. One was in the cross walk near the Washington
BARNES ET AL V. CITY OF SEATTLE, COMPLAINT
1 Mutual. One was on the wall near the right front entrance of the Washington Mutual
2 on Union. This was at or slightly after 10:40 PM.
3 3.113 Defendant Captain Sanford held a press conference at the North End of
4 Westlake Park. Defendant Sanford claimed in this conference that the police had tried
5 to contain the demonstrators, but one had thrown a ball bearing at a bicycle officer.
6 Defendant Stanford did not produce the ball bearing. Defendant Stanford then flatly
7 stated that the police formed a line and moved the demonstrators back to Westlake
8 Plaza. He did not mention any of the use of less lethal weapons that occurred. He
9 also accused the protesters of vandalism, but gave no specific incidents. When
10 asked, Defendant Sanford said he had no knowledge of any injuries from any of the
11 less lethal weaponry. Some of those in attendance showed Defendant Sanford
12 weaponry that he identified as an "Arwen Round" that fired a baton, and a wooden
13 dowel. Arwen is 37-38mm launcher, usually with 5 or 6 rounds. When asked he said
14 he could not say what caused the use of rubber bullets and concussion grenades.
15 Defendant claimed, without providing any of them, that the protesters had thrown
16 debris, ball bearings, metal pipes and wooden dowels at the police.
17 Subsequent Arrests
18 3.114 On subsequent days, several smaller demonstrations took place. These
19 were also characterized by an atmosphere of intimidation by the police. Several
20 demonstrators were arbitrarily arrested, as were people who tried to videotape or
21 otherwise record these events.
22 3.115 Despite the fact that many of the people arrested faced criminal charges,
23 and went through extensive Discovery requests, none of the material Sanford alleged
BARNES ET AL V. CITY OF SEATTLE, COMPLAINT 65
1 that had been thrown at the police was ever produced. With little exception, almost
2 none of the many people arrested were ever convicted. The young man who was
3 thrown over the railing was never prosecuted.
4 3.116 Much of the videotape belonging to videographers and other media
5 producers who were arrested, was "lost" by the police.
6 Individual claimants
7 3.117 Plaintiff ROBERT BARNES was acting lawfully within his First
s Amendment Rights as an organizer and participant in a peaceful permitted
9 demonstration. He engaged in no illegal activity. He made repeated efforts to diffuse
10 the crisis the Defendant Officers created. He was shoved forward with great force
11 while attempting to diffuse the situation. He was repeatedly exposed to chemical
12 agents. He was seriously injured by that exposure losing many months of subsequent
13 activity completely, and being severely limited physically thereafter, suffering from
14 asthma and coughing spells so severe they would render him unconscious. He
15 suffered severe physical and psychological harm, loss of enjoyment, monetary loss,
16 loss of First Amendment rights and violations of his rights enjoyed under the United
17 States and Washington Constitutions as a direct result of Defendants actions.
18 3.118 Plaintiff JOSEPH O'CONNOR was acting lawfully within his First
19 Amendment Rights as a journalist. He engaged in no illegal activity. He was a regular
20 producer of media in his community including community radio stations. He was
21 videotaping the Defendants' misconduct and was deliberately punished for it. He was
22 deliberately struck by a bicycle used as a club by at least one of the Defendants. He
23 was deliberately struck with chemical agents by at least one of the Defendants. As a
BARNES ET AL V. CITY OF SEATTLE, COMPLAINT
1 direct result of all of the above, he suffered severe physical, psychological, loss of his
2 First Amendment Rights, monetary loss and violations of his rights enjoyed under the
3 United States and Washington Constitutions.
4 3.119 Plaintiff K.L. SHANNON was acting lawfully within her First Amendment
s Rights as a Peacekeeper and organizer. She engaged in no illegal activity. and went
6 to great lengths to comply with the what she could best determine to be the police
7 orders, and thus diffuse the situation by directing the demonstrators back to Westlake
s Plaza as the police began to attack them. The police subjected her to attack by
9 chemical agents, and physical blows and fired less lethal projectiles at her back as she
to was a few dozen feet from Westlake leading the demonstrators where she reasonably
11 believed the police were directing them. As a direct result of all of the above, she
12 suffered severe physical, psychological, loss of her First Amendment Rights, and
13 monetary injuries and violations of her rights enjoyed under the United States and
14 Washington Constitutions
15 3.120 Plaintiff Eric Wirkman was acting lawfully within his First Amendment
16 Rights as a demonstrator. He engaged in no illegal activity. He made repeated efforts
17 to calm people being panicked by Defendant Officers. Defendants struck him.
18 Defendants exposed him to chemical agents. Defendants shot him with rubber bullets.
19 As a direct result of all of the above, he suffered severe physical, psychological, loss
20 of his First Amendment Rights, monetary injuries and violations of his rights enjoyed
21 under the United States and Washington Constitutions.
22
23 IV. STATEMENT OF DAMAGES
24
BARNES ET AL V. CITY OF SEATTLE, COMPLAINT
67
1 4.1 As a direct and proximate result of the intentional and/or negligent acts of
2 Defendants, Plaintiffs sustained severe physical and mental pain and suffering and
3 injury in an amount that will be established at trial.
4 4.2 As a further direct and proximate result of the intentional and/or negligent
5 acts of Defendants, Plaintiffs may have been required to seek medical treatment and
6 care, and will be required to seek future medical treatment and care, the exact amount
7 of the expense for medical treatment and care will be established at the time of trial.
s 4.3 -omitted-
9 4.4. Plaintiffs are entitled to compensation for the Constitutional harms
10 Defendants inflicted on them including loss of liberty, intentional deprivation of
11 property, and arbitrary and excessive exercise of force against them.
12
13 V. CAUSE OF ACTIONS:
14
15 COUNT ONE
16 Violation of Civil Rights
17 (Title 42 U.S.C. Section 1983)
18 (AS TO ALL PLAINTIFFS
19 (As To All Individual Defendants)
20
21 5.1. Plaintiffs reallege and incorporate herein by reference the allegations set
22 forth in Paragraphs 1 through 4.5 of this complaint.
23 5.2. In committing the acts complained of herein, Defendants acted under
24 color of state law to deprive Plaintiffs as alleged herein, of certain constitutionally
25 protected rights including, but not limited to:
26 (a) the right not to be deprived of liberty without due process of law;
BARNES ET AL V. CITY OF SEATTLE, COMPLAINT
1 (b) the right to be free from invasion or interference with Plaintiffs' zone of
2 privacy;
3 (c) the right to freedom of speech;
4 (d) the right to freedom of association;
5 (e)
the right to equal protection of the law;
6 (f)
the right to petition the government for a redress of grievances.-
7 (g)
the right to be free from police use of excessive force;
s (h)
the right to be free from discriminatory law enforcement;
9 (i) The right to be free from unreasonable search and seizure
10 0) The right to Freedom of the Press
11 5.3 In violating Plaintiffs rights as delineated above, and other rights according
12 to proof, Defendants acted by direct use of force, or by setting the chain of events in
13 motion that led to those uses of force, Defendants acted to violate Plaintiffs rights
14 under the First, Fourth, Fifth, and Eighth Amendments to the U.S. Constitution.
15 5.4. By acting to retaliate against Plaintiffs for their exercise of their First
16 Amendment Rights i.e. all members of the press's documentation of both the
17 demonstration, and the police response to it, and other Plaintiffs' presence at the
18 demonstration Defendants specifically violated Plaintiffs' First, Fourth, and Fifth14th
19 Amendment Rights.
20 5.5 As a direct and proximate result of the violation of their Constitutional
21 rights by Defendants, and each of them, Plaintiffs suffered general and special
22 damages as alleged in this complaint.
23 5.6 The conduct of Defendants was willful, malicious, oppressive, and/or
BARNES ET AL V. CITY OF SEATTLE, COMPLAINT 69
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
s
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
reckless, and was of such a nature that punitive damages should be imposed in an
amount commensurate with the wrongful acts alleged herein.
WHEREFORE, Plaintiffs pray for relief as hereinafter set forth.
COUNT TWO
Violation of Civil Rights
(Title 42 U.S.C. Section 1983)
(AS TO ALL PLAINTIFFS
(As To Defendants CITY OF SEATTLE and SEATTLE POLICE DEPARTMENT)
5.7 Plaintiffs reallege and incorporate herein by reference the allegations set
forth in Paragraphs 1 through 5.6 of this complaint.
5.8 At all times herein mentioned, Defendant SANFORD acted in his official
capacities as a Captain of Defendant SEATTLE POLICE DEPARTMENT and pursuant
to a policy of the CITY OF SEATTLE and the SEATTLE POLICE DEPARTMENT, ar
directly controlled by the Seattle Police Department to deprive Plaintiffs and others of
their rights secured by the Constitution of the United States, including, but not limited
to their rights under the First, Fourth, Fifth, and 14th Amendments to the U.S.
Constitution.
5.9 At all times herein mentioned, Defendant SANFORD acted in his official
capacities as Captain of Defendant Seattle Police Department's and pursuant to a
policy of the CITY OF SEATTLE and the SEATTLE POLICE DEPARTMENT to
deprive Plaintiffs and others of their rights secured by the Constitution of the United
States, including, but not limited to their rights under the First, Fourth, Fifth, and 14th
Amendments to the U.S. Constitution.
5.10. In committing the acts complained of herein and in their official capacitie
BARNES ET AL V. CITY OF SEATTLE, COMPLAINT
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
as officials of Defendant CITY OF SEATTLE, and SEATTLE POLICE DEPARTMENT
Defendants SANFORD and WILSKE acted with a design and intention to deprive
Plaintiffs of their rights secured by the Constitution of the United States and acted with
deliberate indifference to Plaintiffs rights.
5.11. As a direct and proximate result of the acts complained of herein, Plaintiffs
have suffered general and special damages as set forth in this complaint.
WHEREFORE, Plaintiffs pray for relief as hereinafter set forth
5.12-5.28 are omitted.
OMITTED
COUNT THREE
Assault and Battery
(AS TO ALL PLAINTIFFS)
(As to All Defendants)
5.29 Plaintiffs reallege and incorporate herein by reference the allegations set
forth in Paragraphs 1 through 5.28 of this complaint.
5.30. Defendants violent tackling, use of blows, use of chemical agents, use of
less impact projectiles including rubber balls, wooden dowels and batons, and all other
physical contact pursuant to the activities carried out against all Plaintiffs on June 2,
2003 was carried out intentionally, without consent or lawful authority, or legitimate
police purpose, and therefore constituted common law battery.
5.31 Omitted.
5.32. Defendants' use of excessive force, against all Plaintiffs including but not
limited to gratuitous and unnecessary use of chemical agents, impact weapons,
BARNES ET AL V. CITY OF SEATTLE, COMPLAINT 71
1 batons and use of bicycles as weapons, twisting of arms, placing feet on bodies,
2 kicking, and striking the Plaintiffs, striking their cameras and other property and other
3 unnecessary force used to affect the arrest of Plaintiffs served no legitimate police
4 purpose and amount to a battery.
5 5.33 All of the above tortuous conduct caused Plaintiffs to reasonably fear
6 imminent harm to their health and safety, and additional tortuous use of force. This
7 fear constitutes a common law assault.
s 5.34 As a direct and proximate result of the violation of their rights by
9 Defendants, and of Defendants' tortuous conduct towards Plaintiffs, Plaintiffs suffered
10 general and special damages as alleged in this complaint.
11 5.35 The resulting abuse of Plaintiffs was directly and proximately caused by
12 Defendants' operations plan and the attitudes towards the demonstration and towards
13 Plaintiffs that allowed it to be created and implemented and promoted the hostile
14 climate towards Plaintiffs' First Amendment protected activities and the conduct to
15 which Plaintiffs and others were subjected.
16 5.36 The conduct of Defendants was willful, malicious, oppressive, and/or
17 reckless, and was of such a nature that punitive damages should be imposed in an
18 amount commensurate with the wrongful acts alleged herein.
19 WHEREFORE, Plaintiffs pray for relief as hereinafter set forth.
20 OMITTED
21 5.37-5.42 are omitted.
22
23 COUNT FOUR
24
BARNES ET AL V. CITY OF SEATTLE, COMPLAINT
1 Intentional Infliction of Emotional Distress
2 (AS TO ALL PLAINTIFFS)
3 (As to All Defendants)
4
5 5.43 Plaintiffs reallege and incorporate herein by reference the allegations set
6 forth in Paragraphs 1 through 5.42 of this complaint.
7 5.44 In carrying out the plan and acts alleged throughout this complaint,
s Defendants, and each of them sought to cause emotional distress and trauma to
9 Plaintiffs and others, and Plaintiffs did suffer such emotional distress with
10 accompanying physical symptoms.
11 5.45 As a direct and proximate result of the violation of his constitutional rights
12 by Defendants and their other tortuous conduct against them, Plaintiffs suffered
13 general and special damages as alleged in this complaint.
14 5.45 The conduct of Defendants was willful, malicious, oppressive, and/or
15 reckless, and was of such a nature that punitive damages should be imposed in an
16 amount commensurate with the wrongful acts alleged herein.
17 WHEREFORE, Plaintiffs pray for relief as hereinafter set forth.
18
19 OMITTED
20 5.46-5.50 are omitted
21 COUNT FIVE
22 Negligence
23 (AS TO ALL PLAINTIFFS
24 (As to All Defendants)
25
26 5.51 Plaintiffs reallege and incorporate herein by reference the allegations set
27 forth in Paragraphs 1 through 5.50 of this complaint.
BARNES ET AL V. CITY OF SEATTLE, COMPLAINT 73
1 5.52 Defendants, and each of them, owed Plaintiffs a duty to use due care at
2 or about the times of the aforementioned incidents.
3 5.53 In committing the aforementioned acts and/or omissions, Defendants,
4 and each of them, negligently breached said duty to use due care, directly and
s proximately resulting in the injuries and damages to the Plaintiffs as alleged herein.
6 WHEREFORE, Plaintiffs pray for relief as hereinafter set forth.
E:3
COUNT SIX
9 (§1983 - Violation of First Amendment Rights to Free Expression and Assembly)
10 (All Adult Plaintiffs Against all Individual Defendants)
11 5.54 Plaintiffs reallage and incorporate by reference herein paragraphs
12 1.1 through 5.53 of this complaint.
13 5.55 The conduct of all of the individual defendants violated the rights
14 Plaintiffs under the First and Fourteenth Amendments to the United States
15 Constitution, to free expression, to free association, to assemble peacefully, and to
16 petition the government for redress of grievances for which they seek redress pursuant
17 to 42 USC § 1983.
18 5.56 Plaintiffs incurred medical expenses for the treatment of their
19 injuries and are entitled to actual damages for medical expenses in an amount to be
20 determined at trial.
21 5.57 As a direct and proximate cause of defendants' actions, each of the
22 plaintiffs suffered substantial physical injury, including but not limited to severe eye
23 and skin burning, skin swelling and redness, wheezing and otherwise labored
24 breathing, coughing and temporary blindness. Plaintiff Barnes in particular suffered
25 severe long term injuries due to exposure from chemical agents. Plaintiffs also
BARNES ET AL V. CITY OF SEATTLE, COMPLAINT
I suffered substantial physical injury from being shot with impact weapons including
2 rubber bullets and/or pepper balls. Plaintiffs also suffered substantial physical injuries
3 due to other assaults and batteries perpetrated by Defendants. In addition to their
4 physical pain and suffering, each of the adult plaintiffs also suffered emotional injuries
5 and a severe limitation of their ability to practice and enjoy their rights guaranteed to
6 them as citizens of the United States of America under the United States Constitution.
7 As compensation, each of the adult plaintiffs should be awarded general damages in
s an amount to be proven at trial.
9 5.58 In addition to the immediate pain and suffering incurred by these
10 plaintiffs, it is likely that they also will suffer long-term health effects from the chemical
11 agents. As compensation, each of the adult plaintiffs should be awarded general
12 damages in an additional amount to be proven at trial.
13 5.59 Defendants acted with evil intent and with reckless and callous
14 indifference to Plaintiffs' federally protected rights. Their conduct was extreme and
15 outrageous and these defendants could not have reasonably believed their conduct
16 was justified or related to any legitimate police purpose. As such, plaintiffs seek
17 damages in an amount to be proven at trial.
18 5.60 Plaintiffs are entitled to their reasonable costs and attorneys fees
19 pursuant to 42 U.S.C. §1988.
20
21
22
COUNT SEVEN
23 (§1983 - Violation of First Amendment Rights to Free Expression and Assembly)
24 (All Plaintiffs Against City of Seattle)
25
26 5.61 Plaintiffs reallage and incorporate by reference herein paragraphs
BARNES ET AL V. CITY OF SEATTLE, COMPLAINT 75
1 1.1 through 5.60.
2 5.62 The customs, policies, and practices of defendant City of Seattle in
3 this complaint, caused violations by the individually named police officers and
4 supervisors of the rights of Plaintiffs under the First and Fourteenth Amendments to
5 the United States Constitution, to free expression, to free association, to assemble
6 peacefully, and to petition the government for redress of grievances for which they
7 seek redress pursuant to 42 USC § 1983.
8 5.63 Plaintiffs incurred medical expenses for the treatment of their
9 injuries. Plaintiffs are entitled to actual damages for medical expenses. Additional
10 medical treatment may be incurred and the cost is yet to be determined.
11 5.64 As a direct and proximate cause of the municipality defendants'
12 actions, each of the adult plaintiffs suffered substantial physical injury, including but
13 not limited to severe eye and skin burning, skin swelling and redness, wheezing and
14 otherwise labored breathing, coughing and temporary blindness. Plaintiffs also
15 suffered substantial physical injury from being shot with rubber balls, and/or stinger
16 ball grenades, and/or flying batons, and/or wooden dowels, and/or pepper balls. In
17 addition to their physical pain and suffering, each of the adult plaintiffs also suffered
18 emotional injuries and a severe limitation of their ability to practice and enjoy their
19 rights guaranteed to them as citizens of the United States of America under the United
20 States Constitution. As compensation, each of the adult plaintiffs should be awarded
21 general damages in an amount to be proven at trial.
22 5.65 In addition to the immediate pain and suffering incurred by these
23 plaintiffs, it is likely that they also will suffer long-term health effects from the chemical
24 agents. As compensation, each of the adult plaintiffs should be awarded general
25 damages in an additional amount to be proven at trial.
26 5.66 Plaintiffs are entitled to their reasonable costs and attorneys fees
BARNES ET AL V. CITY OF SEATTLE, COMPLAINT
1 pursuant to 42 U.S.C. §1988.
2
3
4
5
6
7
COUNT EIGHT
False Imprisonment
(AS TO PLAINTIFFS,)
(As to all Defendants)
8 5.67. Plaintiffs reallege and incorporate herein by reference the allegations set
9 forth in Paragraphs 1 through 5.67 of this complaint.
10 5.68. As detailed above, Plaintiffs were corralled inside a narrow area as they
ii were driven from the Red Lion Inn to Westlake Plaza, during which time they were
12 deprived of liberty and mobility
13 5.69 Plaintiffs were unjustly deprived of liberty for that period and subjected to
14 abuses therein.
15 5.70 As a further direct and proximate result of the false arrest and
16 imprisonment of Plaintiffs, they suffered damages and injuries as heretofore alleged in
17 this complaint.
18 5.71 The conduct of Defendants was willful, malicious, oppressive and/or
19 reckless, and was of such a nature that punitive damages should be imposed in an
20 amount commensurate with the wrongful acts herein alleged.
21 WHEREFORE, Plaintiffs pray for relief as hereinafter set forth.
22
23
24
25 VI. JURY TRIAL DEMAND
BARNES ET AL V. CITY OF SEATTLE, COMPLAINT
77
1 6.0. Plaintiffs hereby demand a jury trial in this matter.
N
3 Al. PRAYER
4 7.0 WHEREFORE, Plaintiffs pray for judgment against the Defendants as
5 follows:
6 7.1 For general damages including pain and suffering together with special
7 damages for Plaintiffs reasonable and necessary legal expenses and medical
a expenses and related treatment both past and future, the exact amount of which will
9 be established at the time of trial;
10 7.2. For punitive damages in an amount to be proven at trial pursuant to
11 Federal and State law;
12 7.3 For actual criminal and civil attorney's fees and litigation costs pursuant
13 to 42 U.S.C. 1988;
14 7.4 For statutory attorneys' fees and costs;
15 7.5. For court supervised crowd control and media access and enforcement
16 policies;
17 7.6 To award Plaintiffs injunctive relief, specifically to order the Seattle Police
18 to cease and desist from spraying chemical agents, firing impact weapons including
19 rubber balls, wooden dowels and flying batons, firing pepper balls and throwing stinger
2 o ball or flash bang grenades for the crowd control of peaceful protestors;
21 7.7 To declare that the Defendants violated the above named constitutional
22 rights and common law rights of all Plaintiffs;
23 7.8. To award Pre- and post judgment interest on all amounts awarded; and
24
BARNES ET AL V. CITY OF SEATTLE, COMPLAINT ,v
2
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
7.9. For such other and further relief as the Court deems just and proper.
DATED: August 9, 2005
LAWRENCE A. HILDES
& PAUL RICHMOND
Attorneys for Plaintiffs
BARNES ET AL V. CITY OF SEATTLE, COMPLAINT
79
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
7.9. For such other and further relief as the Court deems just a d proper.
DATED: August 1, 2005
LAWRENCEA. HILDES
& PAUL RICHMOND
Attorneys for Plaintiffs
PAUL RICHMOND(WSBA# 32306)
4616 25th Avenue NE, #449
Seattle, WA, 98105
(206) 526-0565
LAWRENCE A HILDES (WSBA# 35035)
P.O. Box 5405
Bellingham, WA 98227
Telephone: (360) 715-9788
Fax: (360) 714-1791
BARNES ET AL V. CITY OF SEATTLE, COMPLAINT
10 ATTACHMENTS
11
12
BARNES ET AL V. CITY OF SEATTLE, COMPLAINT 80
08/01/2005 14:57 2064472349 TDA PAGE 02
Jun 02 05 1 1': 05a par'' R! chtnond (206) �?6-0565 fie. 3
Cty p eatf% cfxr use ""Ly
EDATFFILED
MAER
Typt or Priht Leolw CLAIM FOR DAMAGES
Sco insrut:fions pn hick. ---r� .
CLAIMANT
rMANT NAMM. A�('i OR BMW' SS•i NAME) UQf�tc •PHdNE. ..
�---
HO = ADDR N Mbmq� S"N►»CT (;nY - STATL' - ZIF
ACCIDENT&OSS
rwv�Wvp;t;clrlr, ETRE'1=7T,MORei:.iF,a+e. DIAGAIAM
LOGATI, _ -�' ear<I+la"'rn.roro++
whv( I+eOM'Aad
WET HAPPEh D I,r irHIFF IN Vc (JR t�WN Wor,"A HOW'IHIS L0,-.;Z Q=Ut<Nn r
J A U WH 'YOU DGU� TH= cl, Y IF RKSPON51BLc.
zle—r-P, /n
_�-- GIiV EMNItiVFP( i1'
G;TY
i4%
WAS YOUR PROPERTY ()IV. Met. .OAMAGEO?_—
I t8 fC, 'I1ILN FULLY D!.' t,rtr3 ;:UGH AS ACF., lu/+KF MUtdr,l., r0NI'M'1',ON, uALUL, t'IF! M1?'if.NT Ut r1AMM51..
r1 NO
WERE YOU INJURED: ' 4�,'rjjr-.++�c`0WI FrF•n lc rcx�,��uv►rx::
;0
I 1 NO.
[—
UI?rCF;iJSI '(rsl]I4 IN•ILflfi�'•(dfYr'+VTU„YOLn L>:X.'TOR(^) ._—_ --•- -"
•' """'''— , . • •���� .
DATE or nIRTM—.» . WA(;[. I OSS C) Np
li ?'! ^a.1111•N RATE OF PAY- - ......�«.
Y1Nr) OF WLHKY._ _ _ . �_�.. _. _ L Mi'LOYEFi • _ ..
•-~�a�
THam
-- -�-�%- — - ,
AMOUNT CL4IMED. u' lnyl(Nt:%%N, LNrr!q'UNKnk)YYN'
SIGNATURE Cal^ CLAIMANT t I t+w:IaPA w�dvr runfity al he'I under (h. u+v.s v.`thc +- Ix+! of Y+'ochin inn
I that Uw Iu+l�in; is i/tJtt t+Tni .�„ rect f
({(J O:c�
(A4VJ TIT'_ E. fr .4 SUSINMS)eav
?o
(:n+mr+, V�'t? tinpltu,
02/25/2005 06:20 206-528-2523
Jun 01 05 04:11p Paul Richmond
RISE UP
(208, 526-0565
PAGE 01
p. 1
NO-M
Type or Priht Legibhr,
sec iriv a Orw on k ack.
CLAMANT kit!
tQME ADD►M-Ss (NUM'IR F . 4r rn' '.� . 7, P)
ACCIDENT/LOSS14
_ C�-�.-03 DAM _... _ nmF 8 -
L•'& Viie CY ;;r'=L'p K:: ri TkFF TS: rZCRa-S5Z5, cc.
CITY USE ONLY
CLAIM NUMBER ;` - T 3
DAM FUM 47
- • errs. Afid1YF• � - •� f
D1AGRWA
LL.,J nodr. w ducnbo
v
TT•n�.: happev+od
1 WHAT HA?PENCD D?::3�k11� !N YC+L'K v!�rl� 1kt)it;15 t'L%W i1413 . O!�r:t
i
1 .._. ..... . AtJr) w t1'Yt�U RF+t i=VF TI I% M-YIS ,'iMION'SIHLE.
• � arrn�.M,�
- - - - -• afy FMPLOYL-•L(C; i ..
- Vc.'�C:I.F N11N1'4t2; LIC:, ult:
WAS.YOUR PROPERTY (Iu, .al;t-4TR;rervtPrn,-�r_V DAMACEo? _•
0 YES 1,713. 11-4 FL-'LlY D1M�C 1�11:tL . (p lrH Ali Af, MAKE IAC1Dl I, CCENplTtna, VA! U4 C:it I XTFIJ` 0- L1AM/1!ii:, -
I�NU
(may of Sege •
CLAIM FOR DAMAGES
VVEI;f; YOU INJURED? !!
-IF,I'F:i 7Ft�N C:UHi':Ie7F. i1I'c FC1Lt.ClWiwl — 1
-._.. 1 Op4p J
Ur. ;r:t'rtnC Ynt J,i truul,Y uLtL,t t 11 Y Ynur2 rocTDR(s) . _ -' ••� e .'- t /4G Sony
YES .. �.
WA& L03 U : U N t7 IF YLL-, 7 Ni-N RN-s F- OF FRY „
}(.KIKD OF WLQK -- i°I✓d+t OYFR
+ AMOUNT C LAINIF-D 1 r� u�iwcrvN.t,:c.Yi-n1; ,� rtxnotnnt-—=----T`5 _
j SIGNATURE OF Cr acnrJi _. pr u undc. tM4 swc o-•y�:n.
I.Ai.MA�JT 1 dry undo Y 6� ri rY •` •' :ffS � Z.` Vl'ssh7j�qtnn
'ANT) ! %- A ^v$it\F-SSj that'lift f •ingoing L true n ad MnecL
oil
//h/ �'v
cl
Jqn 01 05 04:43p Paul Richmond (206) 526-0565 p.3
U%1WW!4'Vft Ub:;eV nix ur, ....� ...
Jun 01 o5 0*:Ilp D. ul Riat,m0nd p.1
Cly of Sc° tde SE ONLY
aP CLAIM FOR DAMAGE'S Mtn
aft r rift en tack.
a-Ajm it tr-,tip--r_ne "'
A=IAENT/LOSS G ,� anM - rr►. B _ �,� ; �„
LCAnOtlusrrE �4 Vlf''Y::Y_t�:JG I�iF T::. noC mg,+wale w 6&WbXJ S s �►_-r•�.� � vim. �..� p ''� � oe.► )•�E �-•;
1 WHAT i�Ai�'P�TIED 4 rLKlli1 ht YC�L'K SJ!'M ZA'1)ii �}i i!CWM : NIAS Aft lTj�,]
• ....--.... NNf1 w wy YOU AN iF1r Tt 1T- r_c,Y
- VITY of Y-17 -
- 1-1iNFrYiPLOYGtRQ + -
ter• - ...... . .
..-.�..... .... _..._�_. .. _..—�..,_,_„ .....�.�,�,.,._ �s.'9CI.C' NIa'w'C'RZ, LR:.. t� ' -•--
WAS YOUR PROPERTY DA.••"-._�_..
0 `,es !r !',A, i1 N FVf.LY DkSi.Mii . ty►C AR /Ir, >� MC1D1'I, GC?NPIT+AN. vAW; caa RXfFK a- pJ1MN.M , -
14�i�J
lhfEfiE v0U lNJUr• ED?" IF 17:i L•N MmfO r-, rF -r. FW.(W WL� _—�---
_._.— �..., O�v .
• aC-.,r.Tin,C YAIIR WJUFtY uat.►.�n rYrtllint�cr��s} ._ �J /J b '+��••l/4Ce � .S� V412 ¢ 1'yi��_E - '
� , � ;•►1t •ter`-" - - S _.. �� rt���c.•*•,ra y_ _ lug . '�j `rC`��. _ �i�45�,�7 , ....�
CY L• fw BIRTH �• �• TD _ � WA& I.COS Ll IF Y4 ')HW RA-. P C1F PAY
i!L6mOYF=t�
StCuL'.�►`i'�JRE Oi CL.AI.MANT r .1._<... uneer xA::r�l po�/,•7 nndar A„ !aws a!:t+S s,�.,. crYl�slvnpt,n _
�tY! !' • C- A Chat :Iwc c:: trua r.1d ennrr:.
i
Ca ,e+r �t ur,�oi •^
L.r'!
iV
t7
r
�.
co
w
w
�0� ... City of Seale
---
Type or Print Legibly. CLAIM FOR DAMAGES
See instructions on back
C!AlMM �E (Ft�sT -. M. - LAST o suslN ss NAME}
HOME ADDRESS MBER - � / yCWTATZIP}
ACC►DENT/LO,SS DATE f TIME ��`
W
LOCA-n0N1SlTE B/E//VERY SSPECIFiC: STREETS, ADDRESSES, et::.
Q Lt ✓14 %7 ! J r
ry iAT HAPPENED PENED DESCRIBE 1N YOUR OWN WORDS HOW THIS LOSS OCCURRED
/ AND WIi1' YOUfBBE�UUEVE THE/CITY IS RESPONSIBLE
.[�! /I ✓' k///' Gt IT�G �'� % c / �. � Sim
P 11 .17
a
USE DNLY
HOME PHONE
BUS. PHONE
DIAGRAM
Use if this wffl help you
Ion of desrLbx-,
what haooeDod
—C I
c-3 �
rTIM
�.
Tvtt
CITY DEPT? —
&iT EMPLOYEE(S)?
CrrY
VEHICLE NUMBER, LIC., etc_
WAS YOUR PROPERTY (fie, auto, Personal Property} DAMAGED?
❑ YES IF SO, THEN FULLY DESCRIBE - SUCH AS AGE, MAKE MODEL, CONDtTION, VALUE, OR EXTENT OF DAMAGE
❑ NO
WERE YOU INJURED? ❑ YES IF YES, THEN COMPLETE THE FOLLOWING:
❑ NO
DESCRIBE YOUR INJURY (IDENTIFY YOUR DOCTOR(S)
DATE OF BIRTH ❑ YES
KIND OF WORK WAGE LOSS ❑ NO IF YES, THEN RATE OF PAY
EMPLOYER
AMOUNT CLAIMED IF UNKNOWN, THEN ENTER -UNKNOWN.
SIGNATURE OF CLAIMANT
I dectare under perratty of perjury under the taws of the State of Washington . (AND TITLE, IF A BUSINESS) that faiegoing is true and correct )_
EXECUTED `thiss am of d fir r 20
of If 4p
E/2/
�c� Njast,tn�ti
cs 1s
Law Office of Paul Richmond
4616 250' Avenue NE, #449
Seattle, WA, 98105
(206) 526-0565
COPIES BY FAX AND CERTIFIED MAIL
July 18, 2005
Office of the City Clerk
600 Fourth Avenue, Floor 3
Seattle, WA, 98104-1859
Fax 206 386 9025
RE: Claim of Joseph O'Connor
To Whom It May Concern:
Enclosed claim of Joseph O'Connor. This supplements the materials for Mr. O'Connor I
hand delivered June 2, 2005 and referenced in our previous communications of June 6t',
2005 with Edna Wheaton.
Please don't hesitate/to contact me if you have any further ,questions.
Yours
Paul
City o &atfle
sv� CLAIM FOR DAMAGES
on ,>acL
CLAI ■ 1 w � rr (FIRST - M. - LAST OR BUSNESS NAW
�1/u11V To G` wn noY
HOME ADDRESS R - S EET- CffY - STATE -Zip)
.Ga��ss Av& VE Oy rl.,n, t,/A 4606
ACCIDENT/LO
SS DATE � � ;, a � ,3, a„�E bt,4- �
LOCATIOMI 1 G BE VERY SPECIFIC: STREETS. ADDRESSES, et-
d� r 1-v�.
-.
WHAT HAPPENED DESCRIBE R4 YOUR OWN WORDS HOW THIS LOSS OCCURRED
AND WHY YOU BELIEVE THE CITY IS RESPONSM-F
Al
46
�v025
MY USE ONLY
CLAIM NUMBER
DATE FILED
HOME PHONE
BUS. PHONE
An d t p m.
DIAGRAM
Usei#ftVAh*ym
locaft or desonbe
CRY DEFT?
Cmr EM OYEE(S)?
crTY
VEMCLE MAAM LC_, etc.
NA5 YOUR PROPERTY mme. aLft, permw wwedy) DAMAGED?
❑ YES IF SQ THEN FULLY DESCRIBE - SUCH AS AGE, MAKE MODEL, ((NDITION, VALUE, OR EXTCNT OF DAMAGE
0 NO
WERE YOU INJURED? ❑ YES IF YES THEN cxxMPLM THE FOLLOWING:
❑ NO
DESCRIBE YOUR INJURY (IDENTIFY YOUR DOCTOR(S) Aid / �� ,Q e,.
f ! TORS) � �L c, �
of s /v-veJ
6r0se.s ..Cr-0;0 o 1; � j�r� 4,1 -s
DATE OF BIRTH 77 ❑ YEs
KIND OF WORK WAGE L NO IF Vl&'% THEN RATE OF PAY___,
EMPLOYER
AMOUNT CLAIMED 'F .THEN ENTER'UNKNOWW
SIGNATURE OF CLAIMANT I d� � ram„ or s under *.JW.
���s�of
(AND TITLE, IF A BUSINESS) 9W the fog "bV is true =W oow D"
EXECUTED ttys day of
Colxft WW
CITY OF RENTON COUNCIL AGENDA BILL
AI#: —7�a
r
Submitting Data: Planning/Building/Public Works
For Agenda of. September 19, 2005
Dept/Div/Board.. Development Services Division
Staff Contact...... Carrie K. Olson x7235
Agenda Status
Consent .............. X
Public Hearing..
Subject:
Acceptance of additional right-of-way to comply with
Correspondence.. Ordinance .............
City of Renton code for new short plats and the Teresa's
Resolution............
Short Plat — LUA04-076
Old Business........
New Business.......
Exhibits:
Deed of Dedication
Study Sessions......
Exhibit Map
Vicinity Map
Information.........
Administrative Report & Decision
Recommended Action:
Approvals:
Council concur
Legal Dept......... X
Finance Dept...... X
Other. ..............
Fiscal Impact: N/A
Expenditure Required... Transfer/Amendment.......
Amount Budgeted....... Revenue Generated.........
Total Project Budget City Share Total Project.
SUMMARY OF ACTION:
The City requires a 1' dedication along the 103-foot northern
portion of the Teresa's Short Plat
(LUA04-076) property to complete the 42' right-of-way width needed on NE 22nd Street. Council
acceptance of said right-of-way should be completed prior to recording the deed with the short plat.
STAFF RECOMMENDATION:
Staff recommends that Council authorize the Mayor and City Clerk to execute the Deed of
Dedication.
C:\Documents and Settings\mneumann\Local Settings\Temp\TeresasSHPL07mAGNBILL.doc
Return Address:
City Clerk's Office
City of Renton
1055 South Grady Way
Renton, WA 98055
DEED OF DEDICATION Property Tax Parcel Number: tvcbZ 3 o5 9a 3
Project File #:QA _04--07& Street Intersection: .0
/YE La 1� S?
Reference Number(s) o€Documents assigned or released: Additional reference numbers are on page
Grantor(s): Grantee(s):
I . LV t 6 L f /AAA 4- T67 W E5r4 6 i3 &V-f-, R, I . City of Renton, a Municipal Corporation
LEGAL DESCRIPTION. (Abbreviated or fill legal must go here. Additional legal on page )
Pd�rtitry D,� Sul % itl u• / 5 � G %v,.VNS Xi1e
G r7 y �F IZ�PvTo�U, 1-6u16 CC, s74-re�;7 mtz tr✓gsi>'ia�T�,t)
The Grantor, for and in consideration of mutual benefits conveys, quit claims, dedicates and donates to the Grantee(s) as
named above, the above described real estate situated in the County of King, State of Washington.
IN WITNESS WHEREOF, I have hereunto set my hand and seal the day and year as written below.
Approved and Accepted By:
Gra t s): Grantee(s): City of Renton
INDIi7DUAL FORM OF
ACKNOWLEDGMENT
Notary Seal must be within box
iy'��
yslory '
f OT�y9N.
�'ir N •• PUBUG r2
OF wsSN��••`
Mayor
City Clerk
STATE OF WASHINGTON ) SS
COUNTY OF KING I^�
I certify that I know or have satisfactory evidence that V v ��IC -M (-N K A Z
1� GK
`N signed this instrument and
acknowledged it to be his/her/their free and voluntary act for the uses and purposes
mentioned in the instrument.
?1& , �
1E k\c-"
Notary Public in and for the State of Wash_mi on
Notary
My appointment expires:_ 1 9
Dated: S-L4- -O5
Hforms/xxxFRM/AGREE/DEED\ PC Page 1 FORM 04 0001/bb
Project:
Exhibit A WO#
Legal Description PID
GRANTOR:
Street:
THE NORTHERLY 1.00 FOOT OF THE FOLLOWING DESCRIBED PROPERTY
A PORTION OF THE SOUTHWEST QUARTER OF THE NORTHWEST QUARTER OF
SECTION 4, TOWNSHIP 23 NORTH, RANGE 5 EAST, W.M., IN KING COUNTY,
WASHINGTON, DESCRIBED AS FOLLOWS.
BEGINNING A T A POIN T 279. 36 FEET NOR TH AND S8878'09 "E 134 FEET
FROM THE SOUTHWEST CORNER OF THE SOUTHWEST QUARTER OF THE
NORTHWEST QUARTER;
THENCE CONTINUING S88'18'09 "E 103 FEET, THENCE S031 '05 "W 126.88
FEET, • THENCE N88.19'09 "W TO A POINT SO 31 '05 "W OF POINT OF
BEGINNING; THENCE NO 31 '05 "E TO THE POINT OF BEGINNING;
BEING IN AREA 103 SQUARE FEET MORE OR LESS.
i
j"E-EFffEEEE'FEEfEFFEEEfE
Map Exhibit
------------------------------
I 1.00' DEDICATED TO THE
o pTY 6F RENT6N FOR NE 22ND STREET
d ROADWAY PURPOSE (PARCEL B' - EASEMENT)
(10J± SO FT
— POINT Of' BEGINNING
N8878 09 "W(D)(SP) 103.00'
134.00'(D)
S8878 09 E 103.00'
06
' N
rn
O � h
w 06
4� N
SW C64NER, SW 114, NW 114
NI�
5�4FaIND CWQ?L E Al6VW&T o
/N CASE W7H PUNa1
aTY 6F RDV70N CORR0.
PONT S0. &NT3M9
(119 M D AIAY, 2(X14)
I
I
I _. _ � _ _ 103.00' _
N8879log "W
GRO V R- 08A-DEDI CA 770N. D WG
SCALE.' I' = 30' s D .
EXHIBIT MAP FOR. WILLIAM AND TERESA GROVER c? *4 s
'b �Ty oa t!3
m
CRONES & ASSOCLAND SURVEYORS � L L
OA'AL LAB
EXPIRES. 6/27/05
23806 1907H AVE. S E. KENT, WA 98042 (425) 432-5930 MARCH, 2005
SE 95th. W
L
V1Ji Pi 1:-�
181 1 N 21 A
0 St.
10
Po
-
ot 't. . .....
C�
01
C)
NE. tw
Of
C�
10(P) R
ce R-8
Sl
--h
N&
T
IVO i R-
cu
RM-C
0
L)
R4-C
I(a)
.F 0
cs
C3......... . . .
-13
CD
ncc]
4-Y
R-8(
CL/
R 0
0!
-R
R,7
L
J
NE
0
E5 - 9 T23N R5E W 1/2
ZONING — — — — Renton 6ty UrMfo D5
P/WTW TECMaCU 5MVICn
IV04/03 4 T23N ME W 1/2
M4
REPORT
City of Renton
Department of Planning / Building / Public Works
8c
DECISION
ADMINISTRATIVE SHORT PLAT REPORT & DECISION
A.
SUMMARY AND PURPOSE OF REQUEST:
REPORT DATE:
August 17, 2004
Project Name
Teresa's Short Plat
Owner/Applicant
William & Teresa Grover
P.O. Box 2701
Renton, WA 98056
Contact
James Hanson
Hanson Consulting
17446 Mallard Cove Lane
Mount Vernon, WA 98274
Number
LUA-04-076, SHPL-A
__FFile
Project Manager
Nancy Weil
Project Description
Administrative Land Use Action (Short Plat Review) for a two -lot subdivision of a 0.30-acre
site located in the Residential — 8 Dwelling Unit Per Acre (R-8) Zone. The subject site is
currently developed with an existing single-family structure, which is proposed to remain on
what would become new Lot 2. The existing detached garage is to be removed. Lot 1 is
intended for the future construction of single-family residence. Lot 1 fronts public right of
way NE 22nd Street and Lot 2 will be accessed by a 20-foot private easement.
Project Location
2525 NE 22nd Street
00
1
1_ Wt A
Project Location Map shptrpt
City of Renton P/B/PW Department Administrative Land Use Action
REPORT AND DECISION DATED August 17, 2004; LUA-04-076, SHPL-A Paqe 2
B. GENERAL INFORMATION:
Owners of Record
2. Zoning Designation:
William & Teresa Grover
P.O. Box 2701
Renton, WA 98056
Residential — 8 du/ac (R-8)
3. Comprehensive Plan Land Use Designation: Residential Single Family (RSF)
4. Existing Site Use: The site is currently developed with an existing 1,467 square foot single-family
residence proposed to remain on what would become new Lot 2.
5. Neighborhood Characteristics:
North: Single Family Residential (R-8 zone)
East: Single Family Residential (R-8 zone)
South: Single Family Residential (R-8 zone)
West: Single Family Residential (R-8 zone)
6.Access: Lot 1 would have direct access from NE 22`d Street and Lot 2 would have access from a 20-
foot private driveway easement.
7. Site Area: 13,067 square feet / 0.30 acre
C. HISTORICAUBACKGROUND:
Action Land Use File No. Ordinance No. Date
Comprehensive Plan N/A 4498 2/20/1995
Zoning N/A 4404 6/7/1993
Annexation N/A 1827 5/3/1960
Street Modification N/A N/A 8/16/2004
D. PUBLIC SERVICES:
1. Utilities
Water: There is an existing 8-inch diameter water main in NE 22`d Street.
Sewer: There is an existing 8-inch diameter sanitary sewer main in NE 22"d Street.
Surface Water/Storm Water: There are existing storm facilities in NE 22`a Street.
2. Fire Protection: City of Renton Fire Department
E. APPLICABLE SECTIONS OF THE RENTON MUNICIPAL CODE:
1. Chapter 2 Land Use Districts
Section 4-2-020: Purpose and Intent of Zoning Districts
Section 4-2-070: Zoning Use Table
Section 4-2-110: Residential Development Standards
2. Chapter 4 Property Development Standards
Section 4-4-030: Development Guidelines and Regulations
3. Chapter 6 Streets and Utility Standards
Section 4-6-060: Street Standards
4. Chapter 7 Subdivision Regulations
Section 4-7-080: Detailed Procedures for Subdivision
Section 4-7-120: Compatibility with Existing Land Use and Plan -General Requirements and
Minimum Standards
Section 4-7-150: Streets -General Requirements and Minimum Standards
Section 4-7-170: Residential Lots -General Requirements and Minimum Standards
5. Chapter 9 Procedures and Review Criteria
shpltrpt. doc
City of Renton P/B/PW Department Administrative Land Use Action
REPORT AND DECISION DATED August 17, 2004; LUA-04-076, SHPL-A Page 3
F. APPLICABLE SECTIONS OF THE COMPREHENSIVE PLAN:
1. Land Use Element — Residential Single Family
2. Housing Element
G. DEPARTMENT ANALYSIS:
1. Project Description/Background
The applicants, William and Teresa Grover, have proposed to subdivide a 0.30-acre parcel into two lots. The
property is currently developed with an approximately 1,467 square foot single-family residential structure,
which is proposed to remain on what would become new Lot 2. A portion of the existing front concrete patio
and attached awning must be removed as part of the short plat approval. The removal of the front patio
awning is necessary, as it would not meet required side yard setback to the proposed new property line. The
existing detached garage is also to be removed as it encroaches onto new Lot 1.
The lots are proposed at the following sizes: 7,107 square feet (Lot 1) and 5,960 square feet (Lot 2). The
subject property is located on the south side of NE 22"d Street, approximately 130 feet east of Edmonds
Avenue NE. The gross square footage (13,067 square feet or 0.30 acres) of the site will be adjusted due to a
required 1-foot wide public right-of-way dedication (street modification was approved August 16, 2004).
The topography of the subject site slopes approximately 6% from the southeast property line to the northwest
property line. The subject site is developed with one single-family dwelling with no significant trees. No critical
areas were found on the subject site during the review of this application. The proposal to divide the parcel into
two lots requires an administrative short plat review.
2. Environmental Review
Except when located on lands covered by water or critical areas, short plats are exempt from SEPA
Environmental Review pursuant to WAC 197-11-800(6)(a).
3. Compliance with ERC Conditions
Not applicable
4. Staff Review Comments
Representatives from various city departments have reviewed the application materials to identify and address
issues raised by the proposed development. These comments are contained in the official file, and the
essence of the comments has been incorporated into the 'appropriate sections of this report and the
Departmental Recommendation at the end of the report.
5. Consistency Short Plat Criteria
Approval of a short plat is based upon several factors. The following short plat criteria have been established
to assist decision -makers in the review of the plat:
a) Compliance with the Comprehensive Plan Designation
The site is designated Residential Single Family (RSF) on the Comprehensive Plan Land Use
Map. The RSF designation is intended to promote and enhance single-family neighborhoods. The
proposal is consistent with the RSF designation in that it would allow for the future construction of
new single-family homes, thereby promoting goals of infill development. The proposal is
consistent with the following Comprehensive Plan Land Use and Housing Element policies:
Policy LU-34. Net development densities should fall within a range of 5 to 8 dwelling units per
acre in Residential Single Family neighborhoods.
The net density of the proposed subdivision is 6.6 dwelling units per acre, which is within the
density range prescribed.
Policy LU-35. A minimum lot size of 4,500 square feet should be allowed in single-family
residential neighborhoods except when flexible development standards are used for project review.
The applicant has proposed a two -lot subdivision. Lot 1 is 7,107 square feet; Lot 2 is 5,960 square
feet. Both of the proposed lots meet the minimum lot size requirements.
shpltrpt. doc
City of Renton P/B/PW Department Administrative Land Use Action
REPORT AND DECISION DATED August 17, 2004; LUA-04-076, SHPL-A Page 4
Policy LU-36. Allow development at 9.7 dwelling units per acre on inflll parcels of one acre or,'
as an incentive to encourage single-family small lot development on 4,500 sq. ft. lots.
The applicant has proposed two -lot short plat on a 0.30-acre parcel. The proposed density for the
two lots is 6.6 du/acre, all of which complies with this policy.
Policy H-4. Encourage infill development as a means to increase capacity.
The applicant has proposed to divide an existing lot creating an additional single-family. lot.
b) Compliance with the Underlying Zoning Designation
The subject site is designated Residential — 8 Dwelling Units per Acre (R-8) on the City of Renton
Zoning Map. The proposed development would divide the property into two lots retaining the
existing single-family structure and allow for the future construction of one new single-family
dwelling.
The allowed density range in the R-8 zone is a minimum of 5.0 to a maximum of 9.7 dwelling units
per acre for lots one-half an acre or less in net size. Net density is calculated after the deduction of
sensitive areas, areas intended for public right-of-way, and private easements serving 3 lots or
more from the gross acreage of the site. The property does not contain any environmVntally
sensitive areas nor areas required for private drives serving more than three lots however a 1-foot
dedication for public right-of-way is required. Therefore, the gross property area (13,067 square
feet or 0.30 acres) is reduced by 103 square feet for a net area of 12,964 square feet. This in turn,
equates to a net density of 6.8 dwelling units per acre (2 / 0.29 = 6.8 du/ac), which is within the
allowed density range of the R-8 zone.
The minimum lot size permitted in the R-8 zone is 4,500 square feet. The short plat would create
two lots, proposed Lot 1 would be a front lot along a public right-of-way with 7,107 square feet and
Lot 2 would be an interior lot with 5,960 square feet in size. The proposed lot sizes are compatible
with other existing lots in this area under the same R-8 zoning classification.
The allowed building lot coverage in the R-8 zone is 35 percent or 2,500 square feet whichever 1Z,
greater for lots over 5,000 square feet in size and, lots 5,000 square feet or less are allowed to
have up to 50% lot coverage. Lot 2, with the existing 1,467 square foot residential structure, would
have lot coverage of approximately 24% (1,467/5,960 = 0.24) after the short plat, which is within
the allowed range. ,
The proposed lots also comply with the R-8 requirements for minimum lot width (60 feet for corner
lots and 50 feet for interior lots) as well as minimum lot depth (65 feet). Lot 1 is a front lot, meeting
the requirements with 103 feet lot width and 68.01 lot depth (69.01 feet shown is adjusted for the
required deduction of 1-foot public right-of-way). Lot 2 is an interior lot with an average of 57.89
feet width and 103 feet depth.
Setbacks in the R-8 zone are as follows: front yard 20 feet, side yard 5 feet, side yard along a
street 15 feet, and rear yard 20 feet. The existing residence currently is non -conforming as to rear
yard setback to the south property line (8.4 feet). With the proposed short plat, this structure would
be located on Lot 2 and the orientation of the lot would shift to the front yard measured from the
east property line (39.1 feet) and the rear from the west property line (13 feet). The side yards
would meet the required minimum of 5 feet once the awning over the concrete patio is removed.
Since the rear yard is currently non -conforming and the reorientation actually brings the rear yard
setback closer to conforming, no variance is required. The detached garage is non -conforming as
to the side yard setback however it is proposed to be removed because it straddles the proposed
lot line.
While no construction is planned for Lot 1 at this time, the lot appears to have adequate area for a
new single-family residence while meeting the required setbacks and lot coverage. The lot shall be
oriented for the front yard to be measured from the property line abutting the public right-of-way
and rear yard to be opposite of the front yard. In addition, each lot would have adequate area to
provide two off-street parking spaces as required by the parking regulations.
Upon recording of the short plat, the existing structures would need to conform with the minimum
required setbacks; therefore staff recommends that a condition be placed on the short plat
requiring confirmation that the residence has been modified to meet side yard setback and the
detached garage has been removed prior to the recording of the short plat approval. Staff also
shpltrpt. doc
City of Renton P/B/PW Department Administrative Land Use Action
REPORT AND DECISION DATED August 17, 2004; LUA-04-076, SHPL-A per,,,, r
recommends due to the existing non -conforming rear yard of the existing residence, the buildable
area setbacks be shown for Lots 1 and 2 on the face of the plat (as described above) prior to the
recording of the short plat.
;c) Community Assets
The applicant noted the site is has good surface drainage and no trees are to be removed. If
appears however on proposed Lot an existing ornamental tree may be located in the buildable
area and will likely to removed. As a result of the loss of existing vegetation and in keeping with the
code, which requires adding attractiveness and value to the property, staff recommends the
following condition: the applicant be required to plant two ornamental trees, a minimum caliper of
1-1/2 inches (deciduous) or 6 - 8 feet in height (conifer) per each new lot, within the 20-foot front
yard setback area.
In order to ensure the.trees are maintained and/or replaced if damaged, the applicant shall be
required to record a restrictive covenant against the property. The restrictive covenant shall
indicate that two ornamental trees are required to be planted and maintained within the front yard
setback area of each new lot. The restrictive covenant shall be recorded prior to or in conjunction
with recording of the short plat; however, the trees shall be planted prior to final building permit
inspection. This condition shall be subject to the review and approval of the Development Services
Division.
d) Compliance with Subdivision Regulations
Streets: No new public streets would be created as part of the proposed short plat
The Subdivision Regulations require the installation of full street improvements, including curb,
gutter, sidewalk, and half -street pavement along the site's NE 22"d Street frontage pursuant to
(RMC section 4-6-060), unless waived or deferred through the City of Renton Board of Public
Works. On August 18, 2004 the City of Renton Board of Public Works is scheduled to hear a
deferral request for this site. If the deferral is granted for curbs, gutters, sidewalks, street pavement
and stormwater facilities, the applicant shall be responsible for recording a Restrictive Covenant to
participate in any future Local Improvement District (LID). Staff recommends this Restrictive
Covenant shall be recorded prior to the recording of the short plat, or within two (2) years from the
Board's decision, whichever comes first.
The proposed subdivision is anticipated to generate additional traffic on the City's street system. In
order to mitigate transportation impacts, staff recommends a condition of approval be placed on
the project requiring a Transportation Mitigation Fee based on $75.00 per net new average daily
trip attributed to the project. The additional lot is expected to generate approximately 9.57 new
average weekday trips per new lot (credit was given for the existing single family residence). The
fee for the proposed short plat is estimated at $717.75 ($75.00 x 9.57 trips x 1 = $717.75) and is
payable prior to the recording of the short plat.
Blocks: No new blocks will be created as part of the proposed short plat.
Lots: The proposed division would create two lots with property lines at right angles to street lines
and having public street frontage, as discussed above under subsection (b) Compliance with the
Underlying Zoning Designation. Lot 1 fronts the public right-of-way.
The size, shape, orientation, and arrangement of the proposed lots comply with the requirements
of the Subdivision Regulations and the development standards of the R-8 zone.
e) Reasonableness of Proposed Boundaries
Access: Each lot would have the following access.
• Lot 1 direct street access from NE 22"d Street and,
• Lot 2 access from 20-foot private access easement;
Topography: The topography of the site gently slopes downwardly from southeast to northwest, at
an average slope of approximately 6%. The property is vegetated with grass lawn and ornamental
vegetation.
Relationship to Existing Uses: The properties surrounding the subject site are designated
Residential — 8 Dwelling Units Per Acre (R-8) on the City's zoning map. The proposal is similar to
shpltrpt. doc
L
City of Renton P/B/PW Department Administrative Land Use Action
REPORT AND DECISION DATED August 17, 2004; LUA-04-076, SHPL-A P- A g
existing development patterns in the area and is consistent with the Comprehensive Plan anc
Zoning Code, which encourage residential infill development.
fl Availability and Impact on Public Services (Timeliness)
Police and Fire: Police and Fire Prevention staff indicate that sufficient resources exist to furnish
services to the proposed development, subject to the applicant providing the Code required
improvements and mitigation fees. A Fire Mitigation Fee, based on $488.00 per new single-family
lot with credit given for the existing single-family residence, is recommended in order to mitigate
the proposal's potential impacts to City emergency services. The fee is estimated at $488.00
($488 x 1 = $488.00) and is payable prior to the recording of the short plat.
Schools: According to the Draft Environmental Impact Statement for the City of Renton Land Use
Element (January 16, 1992), the City of Renton has a student generation factor of 0.44 students
per single-family residential dwelling. Therefore, it is anticipated that the proposed short plat would
result in 0.88 (0.44 X 1 = 0.44) new children to the local schools (Sierra Heights Elementary
School, McKnight Middle School, and Hazen High School). The Renton School District has
indicated they can accommodate the additional student generated by this proposal.
Streets: The subject site is located on the south side of NE 22"d Street, east of Edmonds ue
NE. Currently, the public right-of-way is 40 feet where a 50-foot width is required. The applicant
requested a street modification to allow the proposed road width be reduced to 42 feet for NE 22nd
Street. The modification was approved August 16, 2004 however a dedication of 1-foot right-of-waAl
is required to meet the 42-foot width required. The street improvements are required unless the
Board of Public Works issues a deferral. A storm drainage facility is located on NE 22nd Street at
the northwest corner of the parcel. If the deferral is issued, the applicant must agree to sign and
record a Restrictive Covenant to participate in any future Local Improvement District (LID).
Nevertheless, the applicant would be required to pay a Traffic Mitigation Fee in the amount of
$75.00 per each new trip generated by the proposal prior to the recording of the short plat.
Storm Water. Storm water facilities are located in NE 22nd Street. A drainage narrative o.u�
submitted with the application and has been reviewed by the City of Renton's Plan Review Section.
An engineered design will be required to be submitted (prior to recording) for the storm water
drainage from the new dwelling. A Surface Water System Development Charge of $715.00 per
new single-family lot would be collected as part of the construction permit or prior -to the recording
of the short plat.
Water and Sanitary Sewer Utilities: There is an existing 8-inch water and 8-inch sanitary sewer
main located in NE 22nd Street. The applicant would be required to make all other necessary
connections to serve future development on Lot 1. The site is within the East Kennydale Special
Assessment District therefore is required additional sanitary sewer fee based on a rate of
$5,208.87 per new lot for Infill Phase 2 fee and $485.00 per new lot for the Interceptor fee, both
fees add interest.. A Water System Development Charge of $1,525 per new single-family lot, as
well as a Sewer System Development Charge of $900.00 per new single-family lot. These fees
would be collected as part of the construction permit or prior to the recording of the short plat.
H. FINDINGS:
Having reviewed the written record in the matter, the City now enters the following:
1. Request: The applicant has requested Administrative Short Plat Approval for the Teresa's Short Plat,
File No. LUA-04-076, SHPL-A.
Application: The applicant's short plat application complies with the requirements for information for
short plat review. The applicant's short plat plan and other project drawings are contained within the
official land use file.
3. Comprehensive Plan: The subject proposal is consistent with the Comprehensive Plan designatio,
of the Single Family Residential (SFR) land use designation.
4. Zoning: The proposal as presented, complies with the zoning requirements and development
standards of the Residential Single Family - 8 (R-8) zoning designation, provided all advisory notes and
conditions of approval are complied with.
shpltrpt. doc
City of Renton P/B/PW Department Administrative Land Use Action
REPORT AND DECISION DATED August 17, 2004; LUA-04-076, SHPL-A Page 7
5. Subdivision Regulations: The proposal complies with the requirements established by the City's
Subdivision Regulations for the short platting of two lots provided all advisory notes and conditions of
approval are complied with.
, 6. Existing Land Uses: Land uses surrounding the subject site include: North: Residential Single Family
(zoned R-8); East: Residential Single Family (zoned R-8); South: Residential Single Family (zoned R-
8); and West: Residential Single Family (zoned R-8).
7. System Development Charges: A Water System Development Charge of $1,525.00, a Sanitary
Sewer System Development Charge of $900.00, and a Surface Water Development Charge of
$715.00 will be assessed for the additional lot. The East Kennydale Infill Phase 2 Special Assessment
District Charge of $5,208.87 per new lot plus interest. The East Kennydale Interceptor Special
Assessment District Charge of $485.00 per new lot plus interest. These fees will be payable prior to
issuance of the utility construction permit or prior to the recording of the short plat.
8. Board of Public Works: An off -site deferral is scheduled to be heard by the Board of Public Works on
August 18, 2004 for curbs, gutters, sidewalks, street pavement and stormwater facilities for NE 22"d
Street on the subject site. If granted, a condition the applicant records a Restrictive Covenant to
participate in any future Local Improvement Districts (LID).
I. CONCLUSIONS:
The subject site is located in the Residential Single Family (RSF) comprehensive plan designation and
complies with the goals and policies established with this designation.
The subject site is located in the Residential — 8 Dwelling Units Per Acre zoning designation and
complies with the zoning and development standards established with this designation, provided all
advisory notes and conditions of approval are complied with.
3. The proposed two lot short plat complies with the subdivision regulations as established by city code
and state law, provided all advisory notes and conditions of approval are complied with.
J. DECISION:
the Teresa's Short Plat, File No. LUA-04-076, SHPL-A, is approved subject to the following conditions:
1. The applicant shall be required to demolish or remove the detached garage and attached patio awning
to comply with yard setback requirements. The satisfaction of the completion of this condition shall be
subject to the review and approval of the Development Services Division at the time of the final
inspection of the demolition permit.
2. The applicant shall be required to show on the face of the plat the orientation of both lots in regards to
the buildable area setbacks as follows: Lot 1 front yard from the north property line abutting the public
right of way and Lot 2 front yard from the east property line. All other yards to follow per yard definition
of Renton Municipal Code. This condition shall be required prior to the recording of the final plat.
r 3. The applicant shall record a restrictive covenant that two ornamental trees are required to be planted
0 and maintained within the front yard setback area of each new lot. The restrictive covenant shall be
recorded prior to or in conjunction with recording of the short plat; however, the trees shall be planted
prior to final building permit inspection. This condition shall be subject to the review and approval of
the Development Services Division.
4. The applicant shall be responsible for all required street improvements and dedications unless
otherwise deferred by the Board of Public Works. If the deferral is granted the applicant shall be
required to record Restrictive Covenant to participate in any future Local Improvement District (LID) or
other City initiated projects to provide improvements, which were deferred by the Board of Public
Works on the date of the meeting. The covenant shall be recorded prior to recording the short plat, or
within two (2) years from the Board's decision, whichever comes first.
5. The applicant shall pay the required Transportation Mitigation Fee of $75.00 per net average daily trip
associated with the project at a rate of 9.57 trips per new single-family residence (estimated at
$717.75). The Transportation Mitigation Fee shall be paid prior to the recording of the short plat.
The applicant shall be required to record a 20-foot minimum access easement across Lot 1 for use by
Lot 2. The access easement shall be recorded prior to the recording of the short plat.
shpltrpt. doc
City of Renton P/B/PW Department Administrative Land Use Action
REPORT AND DECISION DATED August 17, 2004; LUA-04-076, SHPL-A PaOe g
7. The applicant shall pay the required Fire Mitigation Fee equal to $488.00 per new single-family lot
estimated at $488.00. The Fire Mitigation Fee shall be paid prior to the recording of the short plat.
DATE OF`DECISION ON LAND USE ACTION: August 17, 2004
SIGNATURES:
eL ^ ��c�'� 1 Le,, 9 771irltl. ear I;�1G�G �� 1 �, 2i�01�
Gregg A. Zimmerman, P/B/PWAdmfnistrator deci�ate
ADVISORY NOTES TO APPLICANT
The following notes are supplemental information provided in conjunction with the administrative land use action.
Because these notes are provided as information only, they are not subject to the appeal process for the land use actions
Planninq
1. Work hours for new single-family developments are limited to the hours between seven o'clock (7:00) a.m, and
eight o'clock (8:00) p.m. Monday through Friday. Work on Saturdays is restricted to the hours between nine o'clock
(9:00) a.m. and eight o'clock (8:00) p.m. Nor is work permitted on Sundays.
2. Driveways shall not be closer than five feet (5') to any property line, unless a Joint Use Driveway.
Fire Prevention
1. A fire hydrant with 1,000 GPM fire flow is required within 300 feet of all new single-family structures. If the building
square footage exceeds 3,600 square feet in area, the minimum fire flow increases to 1,500 GPM and requires two
hydrants within 300 feet of the structures.
2. Fire Department access roads are required to be paved, 20 feet wide.
Plan Review — Drainage
1. The Surface Water System Development Charges of $715.00 per each new building lot. This is payable with the
construction permit and prior to recording of the short plat.
2. A temporary erosion control plan shall be required; erosion control measures shall comply with the Depart of
Ecology's 2001 Stormwater Management Manual and be to the satisfaction of the representative of the
Development Services Division for the duration of the project.
Plan Review — Sewer
1. The Sanitary Sewer System Development Charge for sewer is $900.00 per new building lot. This is payable with
the construction permit and prior to the recording of the short plat.
2. Separate side sewer stubs shall be required for each lot prior to the recording of the short plat. Side sewer shall be
a minimum 2% slope. Dual side sewers are not allowed.
3. This parcel is subject to the East Kennydale Interceptor Special Assessment District (SAD) fee $485.00 per lot plus
interest. This is payable prior to issuance of utility construction permit.
4. This parcel is subject to the East Kennydale Infill Phase 2 Special Assessment District (SAD) fee of $5,208.87 per
lot plus interest. This is payable prior to issuance of the utility construction permit.
5. Existing septic systems shall be abandoned in accordance with King County Health prior to the recording of the
short plat.
Plan Review — Water
1. The System Development Charge for water is $ 1,525.00. This is payable with the construction permit and prior to
recording of the short plat.
2. Water service stubs will be required to be provided to each new lot prior to recording of the short plat.
Plan Review — Street Improvements
1. Street improvements including curb/gutter, sidewalks and paving are required on the project side, along NE 22nd
Street unless otherwise deferred by the Board of Public Works. If a deferral is granted, the applicant shall be
required to sign and record a Restrictive Covenant to participate in any future Local Improvement District
Plan Review — General
1. All utility, drainage and street improvements will require separate plan submittals prepared according to City of
Renton drafting standards by a licensed Civil Engineer.
2. The applicant shall be responsible for securing all necessary easements for utilities, where applicable.
3. A construction permit is required. When plans are complete three copies of the drawings, two copies of the
drainage report, a construction estimate, application and appropriate fee shall be submitted to the sixth floor
counter of City Hall.
4. The applicant shall install a silt fence along the down slope perimeter of the area that is to be disturbed. The silt
fence shall be in place before clearing and grading is initiated, and shall be constructed in conformance with the
SDecificationS Dresented in the Kina Countv Surface Water Desian Manual. This will be reauired durina the
shpltrpt. doc
City of Renton P/B/PW Department Administrative Land Use Action
REPORT AND DECISION DATED August 17, 2004; LUA-04-076, SHPL-A Page 9
construction of both off -site and on -site improvements as well as building construction.
Property Services -Comments for Final Short Plat Submittal
1. Please see attached memo from Property Services dated August 6, 2004.
TRANSMITTED this August 17, 2004 to the owner/applicant:
William and Teresa Grover
P.O .Box 2701
Renton, WA 98056
TRANSMITTED this August 17, 2004 to the contact:
Jim Hanson
Hanson Consulting
17446 Mallard Cove Lane
Mount Vernon, WA 98274
TRANSMITTED this August 17, 2004 to the following:
Larry Meckling, Building Official
Stan Englar, Fire Marshal
Neil Watts, Development Services Director
Jennifer Henning
Kayren Kittrick
Jan Conklin
Carrie Olson -Davis
Lawrence J. Warren, City Attorney
South County Journal
Land Use Action Appeals & Requests for Reconsideration
The administrative land use decision will become final if the decision is not appealed within 14 days of the effective date of
decision. An appeal of the decision must be filed within the 14-day appeal period (RCW 43.21.C.075 (3); WAC 197-11-680).
RECONSIDERATION. Within 14 days of the effective date of the decision, any party may request that a decision on a short
plat be reopened by the Administrator. The Administrator may modify his decision if material evidence not readily
discoverable prior to the original decision is found or if he finds there was misrepresentation of fact. After review of the
reconsideration request, if the Administrator finds insufficient evidence to amend the original decision, there will be no
further extension of the appeal period. Any person wishing to take further action must file a formal appeal within the
following appeal timeframe.
APPEAL. This administrative land use decision will become final if not appealed in writing to the Hearing Examiner on or
before 5:00 PM on August 31, 2004. Appeals to the Examiner are governed by City of Renton Municipal Code Section 4-8-
110. Additional information regarding the appeal process may be obtained from the Renton City Clerk's Office, (425) 430-
6510. Appeals must be filed in writing, together with the required $75.00 application fee, to: Hearing Examiner, City of
Renton, 1055 South Grady Way, Renton, WA 98055.
EXPIRATION DATE: The Short Plat approval will expire two (2) years from the date of approval. An extension may be
requested pursuant to RMC section 4-7-080.M.
shpltrpt.doc
CITY OF RENTON COUNCIL AGENDA BILL
Submitting Data: Planning/Building/Public Works
Department
Dept/Div/Board.. Development Services Division
Staff Contact...... Jan Illian, x-7216
Subject:
Master Use Agreement for Sprint Communications
Company L.P.
Exhibits:
Issue Paper
Master Use Agreement Ordinance
General Information on Sprint Communications
Al #:
For Agenda of.
September 19, 2005
Agenda Status
Consent .............. X
Public Hearing..
Correspondence..
Ordinance .............
Resolution............
Old Business........
New Business.......
Study Sessions.....
Information.........
Recommended Action: Approvals:
Refer to Transportation Committee Legal Dept......... X
Finance Dept......
Other ...............
Fiscal Impact:
Expenditure Required... None Transfer/Amendment....... None
Amount Budgeted....... None Revenue Generated......... $3,000 a year
Total Project Budget City Share Total Project..
SUMMARY OF ACTION:
Approval of a Master Use Agreement Ordinance will allow Sprint Communications Company L.P. to
install its own fiber route for Sprint's private/corporate use. Sprint Communications, a
telecommunications provider and carrier, is requesting a Master Use Agreement to build a lateral fiber
route from their backbone system in Tukwila to their switch site located at 1415 Maple Avenue SW in
Renton. Conduit and fiber will be installed underground using conventional trenching, horizontal boring,
and directional drilling methods. Sprint proposes to install six 2-inch conduits and fiber along the north
side of SW 16th St. The installation will begin at the west end of SW 16th St. at Monster Rd. SW, and
will extend east along SW 161h St. to Maple Ave. SW. The majority of the work will be within city right-
of-way. This is a proposed ten (10) year master use agreement between the City of Renton and Sprint
Communications. City Code encourages telecommunications services such as this to promote
competition and provide advanced services on the widest possible basis to businesses, institutions, and
residences of the City for the future.
STAFF RECOMMENDATION:
Adopt the Master Use Agreement Ordinance with Sprint Communications Company L.P.
Sprint Communications/agnbill/
PLANNING/BUILDING/
PUBLIC WORKS DEPARTMENT
\k_,.T�4V M E M O R A N D U M
DATE: September 14, 2005
TO: Terri Briere, Council President
Members of the Renton City Council
VIA: •�' VJ Kathy Keolker-Wheeler, Mayor
FROM: Gregg Zimmerman, Administrator
STAFF CONTACT: Jan Illian, x-7216
SUBJECT: Sprint Communications Master Use Agreement
ISSUE:
Sprint Spectrum L.P. (Sprint Communications), a Delaware limited partnership, is
requesting a Master Use Agreement to install fiber optic communication facilities within
the City of Renton right -of- way to transport communication signals.
RECOMMENDATION:
The Administration recommends that the City Council authorize the Mayor and City
Clerk to execute the Master Use Agreement with Sprint Communications Company L.P.
BACKGROUND:
Sprint Communications Company L.P. is registered with WUTC as a Competitive
Telecommunications Company and is authorized to provide switched and non -switched
dedicated and private, high capacity fiber optic transmission services. Sprint
Communications is an integrated telecommunications service provider, which includes
local, long distance, voice mail, paging, Internet access, and wireless services.
Sprint Communications is requesting a Master Use Agreement to build a lateral fiber
route from their backbone system in Tukwila to their switch site located at 1415 Maple
Avenue SW in Renton. The installation within the Renton city limits will begin at the
west end of SW 16th Street near the old Longacres site and will continue east along SW
16th Street to Maple Avenue SW. Sprint Communications will be installing six (6) 2"
HDPE conduits along the north side of SW 16th Street, the majority of which will be
installed within City right-of-way.
Sprint Communications
Page 2 of 2
August 22, 2005
The route that Sprint Communications is proposing to build will be strictly for its
corporate use. More specifically, the route is to be used exclusively to backhaul Sprint
Communication's traffic from its switch site in Renton to its long haul fiber. At the
current time, Sprint Communications has no plans to offer any services on the fiber, so it
will not generate income directly.
The City's 6% utility tax will not apply to this line, as it will not be providing services to
Renton customers. In lieu of the utility tax, Sprint Communications has agreed to pay
$3,000 a year for the use of the City's right-of-way. Payment will be made to the City of
Renton's finance department on or before August 1 st of each year during the period the
agreement is in effect.
CONCLUSION:
In order to allow Sprint Communications to build its private fiber route in City right-of-
way, staff recommends that Council authorize the Mayor and City Clerk to execute the
Master Use Agreement with Sprint Communications Company L.P.
Tra P-
CITY OF RENTON, WASHINGTON
ORDINANCE NO.
AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF RENTON, WASHINGTON, GRANTING
UNTO SPRINT COMMUNICATIONS COMPANY L.P., A DELAWARE
LIMITED PARNERSHIP, ITS SUCCESSORS AND ASSIGNS, THE RIGHT,
PRIVILEGE, AUTHORITY AND MASTER USE AGREEMENT TO INSTALL
TELECOMMUNICATION FACILITIES TOGETHER WITH
APPURTENANCES THERETO, UPON, OVER, UNDER, ALONG, ACROSS
THE STREETS, AVENUES AND ALLEYS OF THE CITY OF RENTON
WITHIN CITY RIGHT OF WAY AND PUBLIC PROPERTIES OF THE CITY.
BE IT ORDAINED BY THE MAYOR AND THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF RENTON
AS FOLLOWS:
SECTION I Master Use Agreement
There is hereby given and granted unto Sprint Communications Company L.P., a Delaware Limited
Partnership, its successors, and assignees for a period of 10-years from the effective date of this
master use agreement, the rights, privileges, and authority to construct, operate, maintain, replace,
alter, remove and repair one or more wireless communications facilities ("Facilities"), together with
all equipment, support structures, conduit, cables and appurtenances of Grantees' systems, under,
along, over, below and through certain public right-of-way and other public lands within the City of
Renton.
The following City codes shall apply to this agreement in their entirety:
City Code 4-2-080A 5-19-05
4-4-140
5-19-07
4-2-070
5-19-08
4-5-050B
5-19-09
4-11-230
5-19-10
SECTION II Non -Exclusive Master Use Agreement (Code 5-19-5)
This Master Use Agreement is granted upon the express condition that it shall not be deemed or held
to be an exclusive agreement in, along, over, through, under, below, or across any of said public
rights -of -ways, public thoroughfares, sidewalks, and utility easements within the City of Renton.
Such agreement shall in no way prevent or prohibit the City of Renton or its tenants from using any
of said roads, streets or other public or tenant properties or affect its jurisdiction over them or any part
of them. The City of Renton retains full power to make all necessary changes, relocation's, repairs,
maintenance, establishment, improvement, dedication of same as they may deem fit including the
dedication, establishment, maintenance and improvement of all new rights -of -ways and thoroughfares
and other public properties of every type and description. Sprint Communications Company L.P., as
Grantee herein, agrees and covenants at its sole cost and expense to protect, support, temporarily
disconnect, relocate, or remove from any street any of its installations when so required by the City of
SPRINT COMMUNICATIONS
Renton, upon not less then ninety (90) days prior written notice. ("Relocation Notice"). The
Relocation Notice shall specify the applicable City Project, the "Cause" of the relocation and any
alternate right of way available for relocation - Cause for the City of Renton to issue such Relocation
Notice shall be the City's reasonable determination that Grantee's Facilities will conflict with a City
Project. "City Project" is the project necessitating the relocation, which City project must primarily
benefit the public (and not directly, or indirectly, primarily benefit a private entity or entities or other
commercial enterprise). Examples of City Projects include but are not limed to public safety, street
vacations, dedications of new rights -of -ways and the establishment and improvement thereof, freeway
construction, change of establishment of street grade or the construction of any public improvement or
structure by Government agency acting in a Government capacity for the benefit of the public
generally ("City Project"). The parties acknowledge and agree that when a relocation is requested in
connection with a project primarily benefiting or facilitating a planned development of a private
entity, business owner or commercial concern, the party or parties benefiting from the utility
relocation should bear the cost of utility relocation. The Grantee shall in all such cases have the
privilege to temporarily by-pass, in the authorized portion of the same street, upon approval by the
City of Renton, any section of the System required to be temporarily disconnected or removed If
Grantee is unable to by-pass the affected Facilities during the City's Project, the City and Grantee
shall reasonably cooperate to allow Grantee to operate a temporary facility on property owned,
operated or controlled by City in the immediate vicinity, if possible. In the event Grantee must
permanently relocate any Facilities due to such Project by the City, the City agrees to use best efforts
to relocate Grantee's Facilities to an adjacent right of way area.
Grantee may, after receipt of written Relocation Notice requesting a permanent relocation of its
Facilities, submit to the City written alternatives to such relocation. The City shall evaluate such
alternatives and advise Grantee in writing if one or more of the alternatives are suitable to accommodate
the work, which would otherwise necessitate relocation of the Facilities. If so requested by the City,
Grantee shall submit additional relevant information to assist the City in making such evaluation. The
City shall give each alternative proposed by the Grantee full and fair consideration, within a reasonable
time so as to allow for the relocation work to be performed in a timely manner. In the event the City
ultimately determines not less than fifteen (15) days from the commencement of such work by the City
that there is no other reasonable alternative, Grantee shall relocate its Facilities as otherwise provided in
this Section.
SECTION III Location of Facilities:
The location of facilities shall be underground or in accordance with City code 5-19-5(I) 1 through 4
as conditions warrant.
SECTION IV Master Use/Franchise Construction Permit (Code 5-19-9):
A Master Use/Franchise Construction permit application with three (3) sets of plans is required for
each proposed project. All construction, and installation of work wherever same crosses any of the
public properties shall be done under the supervision of the duly authorized representative of the
Planning/Building/Public Works Administrator, and Grantee shall timely submit unto the Public
Works Administrator, prior to any such work, detailed plans and specifications of any proposed work.
The location of any Permit on public property in a street, Municipal Airport, or other public area shall
be subject to approval of the Public Works Administrator or his authorized representative and such
approval shall be provided in writing.
SPRINT COMMUNICATIONS 2
The Grantee shall further inform the City of any time or date that the Grantee is performing work
within the franchised area to allow the City to inspect such work. Work within City Streets shall be
accomplished through boring rather than open trenching whenever reasonably feasible. New
facilities installed within City rights -of -way shall be located outside of the street travel and parking
lanes, whenever feasible and will not delay or increase the costs of the proposed facilities. The Master
Use/Franchise Construction permit fee is stated in Section 18 of this agreement document.
SECTION V System Components:
All components of the System and other components of any communication line, to be placed within
any street right-of-way, Municipal Airport, or other public property shall be designated,
manufactured, and installed in accordance and in full compliance with industry standards and
applicable ordinances.
Placement of conduit in street crossings shall be PVC schedule 80 or steel conduit. Schedule 40 PVC
is acceptable in areas outside the roadway.
SECTION VI Permanent Records (Code 5-19-9)(N):
The Grantee shall at all times keep full and complete plans, profiles and records showing the location,
installed depth and size of all its installations and systems wherefore laid in the City and hereafter
installed. Such plans and records shall be kept current by the Grantee. As -built plans and records
shall be available to the City at all times upon request. A telephone contact number for requested
plans shall be supplied to the City and kept current.
SECTION VII Planning for Construction:
During any period of construction, all surface structures, if any, shall be erected and used in such
places and positions within said public right-of-way, and other public properties so as to interfere as
little as possible with the free passage of traffic and the free use of adjoining property and tenants and
Grantee shall at all times post and maintain proper barricades during such period of construction as
required by the laws and statutes of the State of Washington. The Grantee shall avoid the use of
arterials as designated by the City of Renton Arterial Street Map, defined by the Transportation
Department and recently constructed or paved overlaid streets as much as possible. Specific route
alignments are subject to approval by the City via the construction permitting process. All
components of the System constructed and installed by the Grantee underground, within the City of
Renton, shall be located in approved locations, buried and installed to a depth of not less than three
feet and as otherwise provided for in the aforesaid Code, the laws of the State of Washington, and the
ordinances of the City of Renton, now or hereafter in force, regulating such installations. Grantee
shall establish and maintain at all times adequate facilities on the portion of each of the systems
installed under the authority of this agreement, and elsewhere on the system, to promptly localize
operating troubles and to minimize the effects thereof, whether on City streets or on their use by the
public.
All truck, vehicles, and equipment working in City right-of-way shall be marked with company
logo, including company name and phone numbers.
Approved traffic control plans shall be utilized for each installation when working in the public right-
of-way (code 5-19-11)(F).
SPRINT COMMUNICATIONS 3
The Grantee shall be responsible for all work by their contractor, meeting the requirements of
the Manual on Uniform Traffic Control Devices (MUTCD) for all work within the public rij!ht-
of-ways.
The Grantee shall be responsible for notifyinp, the Valley Communication Center for any street
closures, a minimum of 24 hours prior to said closure.
The Grantee shall subscribe to and maintain membership in the regional "One -Call" utility location
service and shall promptly locate all of its lines upon request.
SECTION VIII Restoration And Repair of Facilities (Code 5-19-10)(H):
Grantee, its successors and assignees, hereby agrees and covenants to promptly repair any damage to
City or tenant property of every type and nature and all other City or tenant improvements caused by
failure of Grantee's work during the life of this Agreement. Should it be necessary to make any
excavation within any public right-of-way, in the laying, constructing, maintenance, removing,
replacing, altering or repairing of all or any portion of the system, Grantee shall without delay and at
Grantee's sole cost and expense, restore the surface of said right-of-way or other public or tenant
property to at least the same condition immediately prior to any such installation and construction. In
case of damage by the Grantee to said streets, avenues, roads, alleys, lanes, public places and ways, to
the pavement, turnouts, gutters, ditches, walks, poles, pipes, plantings, rail, bridges, trestles, wharves
or landings, and/or other appurtenances and improvements, the Grantee shall immediately repair all
damage at its sole cost and expense. Grantee shall comply with all ordinances and regulations of the
City of Renton, Washington, regarding such excavation and whenever deemed necessary by the
Public Works Administrator shall be required to post a performance bond in favor of the City
warranting, among other things, that such restoration work will be done promptly to a condition equal
or better than the original condition and in a proper, workman like manner.
Where concrete encased recorded monuments have been disturbed or displaced, Grantee shall restore
the monument to federal state and local standards and specifications.
All restoration of public streets, sidewalks, and other amenities shall conform to current City of
Renton Standard Specifications for Road, Bridge and Municipal Construction and the City of
Renton's Trench Restoration Standards. As a condition of receiving the right to work within the
public right-of-way, Sprint Communications Company L.P. shall assume full responsibility for using
materials and installation methods that are in full compliance with City Standards and shall verify this
by submittal of documentation of materials and testing reports when requested by the City. All costs
for performing on -site testing, such as Compaction tests, shall be borne by Sprint Communications
Company L.P.
SECTION IX Hold Harmless Agreement:
The Grantee, its successors and assignees, agrees and covenants to indemnify and hold harmless the
City of Renton from and against any and all liability, loss cost, damage, whether to persons or
property, or expense of any type or nature to the extent it arises (collectively, "Claims") from any
negligent act or omission or willful misconduct of Grantee, its successors and assigns arising from or
connected to the Grantee's work under this Agreement, except to the extent any such Claim is due to
the negligence or intentional acts of the City, its employees, agents or independent contractors. In
addition, in case any suit or action is instituted against the City by reasons of any such damage or
injury, City shall (1) cause written notice thereof to be given unto Grantee and (ii) give all reasonably
requested assistance in defense or settlement of such claim at Grantee's expense, and (iii) grant
Grantee the right to control the defense or settlement of such claims.
SPRINT COMMUNICATIONS 4
SECTION X Liability Insurance (Code 5-19-10 (O, P, Q & R):
Sprint Communications Company L.P. shall maintain in full force and effect throughout the term of
this agreement, Comprehensive General Liability insurance coverage, inclusive of umbrella coverage,
insuring both the Grantee and the City and its elected and appointed officers, officials, agents and
employees as additionally insured as follows:
1. Comprehensive general liability insurance, inclusive of umbrella coverage, with limits not
less than:
a. Five million dollars ($5,000,000) for bodily injury or death to each person;
b. Five million dollars ($5,000,000) for property damage resulting from any one
accident;
2. Automobile liability insurance for owned, non -owned, and hired vehicles, inclusive of
umbrella coverage, with a limit of three million dollars ($3,000,000);
3. Worker's compensation with statutory limits and employer liability insurance, inclusive of
umbrella coverage, with limits of not less than one million dollars ($1,000,000); and
4. Comprehensive form premises - Operations, explosions and collapse hazard, underground
hazard and products completed hazard, inclusive of umbrella coverage, with limits of not less
than three million dollars ($3,000,000).
The Grantee shall submit to the City Clerk evidence that it has in full force and effect and shall keep
in full force and effect during the life of the Agreement, comprehensive general liability insurance
naming Grantee and the City of Renton as additional insured with coverage as stated above.
It is hereby understood and agreed that this policy may not be canceled until 30 days after receipt of a
written notice addressed as required by such intent to cancel.
After receipt by the City of said notice, and in no event later than ten days prior to said cancellation,
the Grantee shall obtain and furnish to the City replacement insurance policies meeting the
requirements of this section.
SECTION XI Revocation or Termination of Grant (Code 5-19-10)(U &V):
For the purpose of compelling compliance by the Grantee with all the terms and conditions of this
Agreement and the maintenance of said System and facilities in good condition, City retains the right
to end and terminate and fully forfeit the Agreement herein granted, within (30) thirty days after
written notice unto the Grantee, whenever the Grantee fails to comply with any of the material terms
and conditions hereof, provided that Grantee has a reasonable length of time in which to cure such
noncompliance. Upon forfeiture the City shall have the right to require the Grantee to remove any
and all of its systems within the City of Renton, all at the Grantee's cost and expense, and to promptly
and timely restore all roads and other public properties to the condition immediately prior to any such
forfeiture and termination.
However, the Grantee may apply to the City for an extension of time to comply due to unavoidable
delays and events beyond its control. The extension of time will not be unreasonably withheld as
determined by the City.
SECTION XII Reservation of Rights (Code 5-19-12)(D):
The Grantee acknowledges that its rights hereunder are subject to the legitimate rights of the police
power of the City at all times and the City shall enforce general ordinances necessary to protect the
safety and welfare of the public. The Grantee agrees to comply with all applicable general laws
SPRINT COMMUNICATIONS
enacted by the City as long as such regulations do not increase the burden or impair the rights of the
agreement hereunder.
The laying, construction, installation, maintenance and operation of the Facilities, System and
facilities in connection therewith shall not preclude the City of Renton, its authorized agents,
contractors and representatives from blasting, grading, excavating or doing other necessary or public
works over, unto, abutting, or contiguous to Grantee's System provided, however, that Grantee shall
be given (10) ten working days written notice of any such blasting, grading, or excavating so that the
Grantee may take proper steps to protect its communication line and facilities.
The parties agree that this Agreement is intended to satisfy the requirements of all applicable laws,
administrative guidelines, rules, orders and ordinances (the "Law"). Accordingly, any provision of
this Agreement or any local ordinance, which may conflict with or violate the Law, shall be invalid
and unenforceable, whether occurring before or after the execution of this Agreement, it being the
intention of the parties (i) to preserve their respective rights and remedies under the Law, and (ii) that
the execution of this Agreement does not constitute a waiver of any rights or obligations by either
party under the Law. The provisions of this Agreement shall be applied to all telecommunication
providers in a competitively neutral and nondiscriminatory manner.
SECTION XIII Damage, Injury, or Loss (Code 5-19-10)(K):
Except for damage, injury, or loss caused by the City of Renton, the Grantee shall have no recourse
whatsoever against the City of Renton for any loss cost, expense, or damage arising out of any
provision or requirement of this Agreement or the enforcement thereof. This Agreement does not
relieve the Grantee of any requirement of any City Ordinance, rule or regulation, or specification of
the City, including but not limited to any requirement relating to street work, street excavation permits
and fees therefore, or the use, removal or relocation of property and streets. No privilege nor
exemption is granted or conferred unto the Grantee by this Agreement except those specifically
prescribed herein, and any such privilege claimed under this Agreement by the Grantee in any street
shall be subordinate to any prior lawful occupancy of the street or any subsequent improvement or
installation therein.
SECTION XIV Discontinued Agreement (Code 5-19-10(I) 1-5):
In the event the use of any permitted property is permanently discontinued by Grantee, or no Permit
has been obtained therefore upon expiration of this Agreement, or within thirty days after any
termination of this Agreement, then the Grantee shall promptly remove from the streets and other
properties all its facilities, other than any the City may permit to be temporarily or permanently
abandoned. However, upon written consent by the City, Grantee may leave any facilities temporarily
or permanently abandoned within the streets or other properties.
SECTION XV: Ownership Transfer (Code 5-19-10(T) 1-6):
This Agreement may not be assigned to a successor or assignees without the prior written consent of
the City Council of the City of Renton, provided that Grantee may assign this Agreement to a parent
or affiliate upon prior written notice to the City. The City will not delay or withhold written consent
without just cause. For the purposes of this section, a merger or corporate reorganization of any entity
controlling, controlled by or under common control with Grantee shall not be deemed a transfer of
assignment.
SPRINT COMMUNICATIONS 6
SECTION XVI Security Device (Code 5-19-10(Q):
The Grantee shall, within (10) ten days after the award of this Agreement, file with the City of Renton
Public Works Department at all times thereafter maintain in full force and effect an acceptable
security device or escrow account in duplicate effective for the entire term of this Agreement, and
conditional that in the event Grantee shall fail to comply with any one or more of the provisions of
this Agreement then there shall be recovered jointly and severally from the principal and surety of
such security device or escrow account any damage suffered by the City as a result thereof, including
the full amount of any compensation, indemnification or cost of removal or abandonment of
properties herein above described, up to the full amount of the said bond, said condition to be a
continuing obligations within the City of Renton or may have arisen from the acceptance of such
Agreement by the Grantee or from its exercise of any such privilege herein granted. The security
device or escrow account initially filed in accordance with the requirement of this Section shall
be in the amount of Twenty Five Thousand Dollars ($25,000). In the event of substantial change
in volume of street space occupied by permitted properties, the City may permit or may require a
corresponding change in the amount of such security device or escrow account. The bond form set
forth as attachment " C " is deemed an approved security device.
SECTION XVII System Expansion:
Upon application to the City of Renton's, Department of Building/Planning/Public Works by the
Grantee, the Department of Public Works may authorize the Grantee to install, construct and/or retain
in City streets additional System expansions, as contemplated in Section I hereof, in manner
satisfactory to the Department of Public Works. Such additional installations shall be subject to all of
the terms and conditions of this Master Use Agreement and to any such additional conditions as may
be prescribed by the Department of Public Works as to any such additions.
The City of Renton conducts both an annual pavement overlay program and a 6-year transportation
improvement program for the repair and improvement of city streets. The City publishes updates to
these programs annually. It is the City's intent that newly paved streets not be excavated or damaged
within five years of pavement installation. It is therefore the Grantee's responsibility to obtain the
City's annual publications regarding the pavement overlay program and the 6-year transportation
improvement program, and to schedule any system expansions or programmed maintenance
operations in such a way as to avoid disturbing pavement within five years of installation. The City of
Renton reserves the right to withhold issuance of permits for planned expansion or maintenance
activities that will damage pavement within five years of its installation.
SECTION XVIII Telecommunication/Permit Fees:
The Grantee, Sprint Communications Company L.P., its successors and assignees) agrees to pay
annually to the City of Renton from and after the date of acceptance of this Agreement and during the
period it shall remain in effect a yearly recurring fee of $3,000.00 for the use of the public rights -
of -way within the City of Renton.
Payment to the City will be made to the Finance and Information Service Administrator on or before
August 1 st of each year during the period that this Agreement shall remain in effect.
Master Use/Franchise Construction Permit Fee is $50.00. Inspection rate is billed at $40.00 an hour.
Sprint Communications Company L.P. does hereby agree to pay a one time Administrative fee for
Agreement preparation and processing of $5,000 dollars.
SPRINT COMMUNICATIONS
Any notices or information required to be given to parties under this Master Use Agreement may be
sent to the following addresses unless otherwise directed.
Sprint Communications Company L.P.
Attn: Transaction and Project Services
Mailstop: KSOPHT0101-Z2040
6391 Sprint Parkway
Overland Park, Kansas 66251-2040
Forward copies of notices of default to:
Sprint Communications Company L.P.
Attn: Real Estate Attorney
Mailstop: KSOPHT0101-Z2020
6391 Sprint Parkway
Overland Park, Kansas 66251-2020
SECTION XIX Effective Date:
Renton City Hall
Attn: Jan Illian
Development Services 61e Floor
1055 — S. Grady Way
Renton, WA 98055
This Ordinance shall be in full force and effect from and after its passage, approval and five days after
it legal publication as provided by law, and provided it has been duly accepted by Grantee as herein
above provided.
SECTION XX Environmental Indemnification:
Grantee shall not introduce or use any Hazardous Substance on the Property in violation of any
applicable law. Grantee shall be responsible for, and shall promptly conduct any investigation and
remediation as required by any applicable environmental laws, all spills or other releases of any
Hazardous Substance caused by Grantee, that have occurred or which may occur on the Property. Each
party agrees to defend, indemnify and hold harmless the other from and against any and all
administrative and judicial actions and rulings, claims, causes of action, demands and liability
(collectively, "Claims") including, but not limited to, damages, costs, expenses, assessments, penalties,
fines, losses, judgments and reasonable attorney fees that the indemnitee may suffer or incur due to the
existence or discovery of any Hazardous Substances on the Property or the migration of any Hazardous
Substance to other properties or the release of any Hazardous Substance into the environment
(collectively, "Actions"), that relate to or arise from the indemnitor's activities on the Property. The
indemnifications in this section specifically include, without limitation, costs incurred in connection
with any investigation of site conditions or any cleanup, remedial, removal or restoration work required
by any governmental authority.
PASSED BY THE CITY COUNCIL this day of 120 _
Bonnie Walton, City Clerk
SPRINT COMMUNICATIONS
APPROVE BY THE MAYOR this day of 20
Kathy Keolker-Wheeler, Mayor
APPROVED as to Form:
Lawrence J. Warren, City Attorney
Date of Publication:
ACCEPTED BY GRANTEE, SPRINT COMMUNICATIONS COMPANY, L.P. this
day of
Signature
Print Name
Signature
Print Name
20
TITLE
TITLE
SPRINT COMMUNICATIONS
Janlllian 0001T001 pdf Pa e 2
R4,
c
O
1
m
STATE 0
e �
:c x
�y! '869 'cy
STATE of TVASHINGIDN SECRETARY of STATE
1, Ralph Munro, Secretary of State of the State of Washington and custodian of its seal,
hereby issue this
CERTIFICATE OF REGISTRATION
to
US SPRINT COMMUNICATIONS COMPANY LIMITED PARTNERSHIP
a Delaware limited partnership.
An Application for this Certificate of Registration to trans-
act business in Washington was filed for record in this office
on the date indicated below.
Number: 60.1 130 147
Date: November 21, 1988
Given under my hand and the seal of the State
of Washington, at Olympia, the State Capitol.
Ralph Munro, Secretary of State
0-0?7778-9
SSF 6-A
1,30 41 F I L E D
APPLICATION FOR REGISTRATION�+�"
OF A FOREIGN LIMITED PARTNERSHIP SMIA" STeSTATt �
In compliance with the provisions of RCW 25.10.490, the under-
signed limited partnership hereby applies for a Certificate of
Registration to transact business in Washington.
1) The name of the limited partnership as set forth in its cer-
tificate of limited partnership is:
US Sprint Communications Company Limited Partnership
2) If different, the name under which the limited partnership
proposes to transact business in Washington is:
3) The state, province or other jurisdiction under which the
partnership was organized and the date of its formation is:
Delaware AIDVlnn r JAI, If
(State, province or other jurisdiction) (Date of formation
4) The address of the office where a current list is kept of the
names) and address (es) of the limited partner(s) and the capital
contributions of the partner(s) is:
8140 Ward Parkway, Kansas City, MO 64114
5) The name of the Registered Agent residing in the State of
Washington is:
THE PRENTICE-HALL CORPORATION SYSTEM, INC.
6) The Registered Agent's office address, located in Washington,
is: c/o The Prentice -Hall Corporation System, Inc.
38th Floor
900 Fourth Avenue
Seattle, Washington 9.8164
The post office box, if any, to be used in conjunction with and
located in the same city as the Registered Agent's office address
is:
7) In the event the Registered Agent's authority is revoked or if
the agent cannot with reasonable diligence be found or served
then the Washington Secretary of State is hereby appointed to act
as agent for service of process.
8) The address of the office required to be maintained in the
state or other jurisdiction of its organization by the laws of
that jurisdiction or, if not so required, the principal office of
the foreign limited partnership is:
8140 Ward Parkway, Kansas City, MO 64114
ssf 40 (R 7/87) Page 1 of 2
i
r,'•
9) The name and business address of each general partner area
each limited partner is as follows:
General Partner: US Telecom, Inc., P.O. Box 11315, Kansas City, MO 64112
Limited Partner: GTE Communications Services, Incorporated, One Stamford
Forum, Stamford, CT 06904
Limited Partner: UCOM, Inc., P.O. Box 11315, Kansas City, MO 64112
10) If the foreign limited partnership was organized under the
laws of a jurisdiction other than another state, a copy of the.
written partnership agreement, in English language is attached.
This document is hereby executed under penalties of perjury, and
is, to the best of my knowledge, true and correct.
US Telecom, Inc., General Partner
My,
D-ate
Name: -D.A. Jensen
Title: Vice President
******r►**ir**1ri,**R,t*�r***r**:**tt*:**�***r*tr*s*******t****!****t*str
CONSENT TO APPOINTMENT AS REGISTERED AGENT
The Prentice -Hall Corporation System Y
I, Inc. • hereb Consent to serve as Reg-
istered Agent, in the State of Washington, for the limited part-
nership herein named. I understand that as agent for the partner-
ship it will be my responsibility to accept Service of Process in
the name of the partnership and to immediately notify the Office
of the Secretary of State in the event of my resignation or of
any change in the Registered Office address of the limited part-
nership for which I am agent.
t Th Prentice -Hall Corporation
� System, I�c.
(ba,'te (Signature of Registere Agent
t designated on .line #5)
*(must be signed to meet filing requirements)
o f State ' ,t, FILED
office of Secretary .�: •..,_
Corporations Division ��-
STATE OF WASHINGTON
.Y
1
RALPH MUNRO
SECRETARY OF STATE
STATE OF WASHINGTON
AMENDED APPLICATION FOR REGISTRATION OF A FOREIGN
LIMITED PARTNERSHIP
In compliance with the provisions of RCW 25.10.520, the
undersigned hereby applies for an Amended Certificate of
Registration to transact business in the State of Washington, for
purposes of changing or correcting statements given in the
original application. (Note - in instances where no change or
correction is being made, insert "No Change".)
1. A certificate of authorization to do business was issued to
the partnership by the state of Washington on November 21,
19 _$S under the name of SPRINT COMMNICATIONS COMPANY L.P.
authorizing it to transact business as SPRINT COMM[INICATIONS
CoMp"y LIMITED PARTNERSHIP
1 1 erent ,rim actua name
2. The ( ) partnership name and/or ( ) assumed business name
is changed or corrected to read as follows:
No Chan e
(Must include words "limited partnership" for use in Washington.)
3. The jurisdiction under which the partnership was formed is
corrected to read: No Change
4. The date the limited partnership was formed is corrected to
read: No Chanee -
5. The partnership is correcting or revising the statement
regarding the character of business it proposes to transact in
Washington to read as follows:
No Change
ssf 68 (R 8/84)
s
i
t
{
t
of process is being changed or corrected
h. The agent for service
as follows:
No Change
7. The address of the office required to be maintained in the
iurisc;iction of its organization by the la,,ds of the jurisdiction,
or, if none so required, the address of the principal office of
the partnership is being changed or corrected as follows:
No Change
in the event there is no requirement by the home jurisdiction to
maintain lists of partners, designations, names and addresses,
the revised list of partners is attached hereto and made part of
this amended application.
See attached Exhibit A
I CERTIFY; UNDER PENALTY OF PERJURY THAI I HAVE READ THE ABOVE
STATEMENT AND THAT THE SAME IS TRUE AND CORRECT. Witness my hand
this d a y of � �3 , 19 l!;,l
(Signature of Wasteral Partner
US Telecom, Inc., General Partner
Don A. Jensen, Vice President
FILING FEE $25.00 FILE IN DUPLICATE
NOTE - RCW 25.10.520 makes provision for filing an amended
application only to change or correct statements appearing in the
original application on file in this office.
ssf 68 (R 8/84)
r
EXHIBIT A
The names and addresses of the Limited Partners are amended
to read as follows:
LIMITED PARTNERS
UTELCOM, INC.
UCOM, INC.
SPRINT INTERNATIONAL
COMMUNICATIONS CORPORATION
2330 Shawnee Mission Parkway
Westwood, KS 66205
2330 Shawnee Mission Parkway
Westwood, KS 66205
12490 Sunrise Valley Drive
Reston, VA 22096
ST4'E of WASHINGTON
sTarE o�
O
SECRETARY of ST"E
�'t 1589 :t
I, RALPH MUIVRO, Secretary of State of the State of Washington and custodian of its seal,
hereby issue this
CERTIFICATE OF REGISTRATION
to
SPRINT SPECTRUM L.P.
a Delaware Limited Partnership. An Application for this Certificate of Registration to transact
business in Washington was filed for record in this office on the date indicated below.
UBI Number: 601 705 965
STA-
,k { J�
9" f"
et
i
Date: April 16, 1996
Given under my hand and the Seal of the State
of Washington at Olympia, the State Capital
RCP�e +�aNR0
R(Aph Munro, Secretary c,t State
0-102816-6 r.�
SECRETARY
of STATE
APPLICATION FOR REGISTRATION
OF A FOREIGN LIMITED PARTNERSHIP
RCW 25.10.490
FILED
STATE OF WAStiiNGTON
RP R 16 1996
RALPR MUNRO
sEGSETARY OF STATE
G'BI9:
Phone 4: 816-5-59-2503
Pursuant to RCW 25.10.490 of the Washington Business Corporations Act, the undersigned does
hereby submit this Limited Partnership.
1. The name of the Limited Partnership as set forth in its certificate of Limited Partnership is: _
2. If different, the name under which the Limited Partnership proposes to register and transact
business in Washington is: S r in t S e
3. The states, country, or other jurisdiction under which the partnership was organized is Delaware
and the date of its formation is: March 29,
4. The address of the office where the Limited Partnership records are maintained in accordance with
the state/country of formation is:
4717 Grand, Fifth Floor
Number and Street
City
Kansas City State 'SQ___ Zip Code 6411 —
5. The name of the person appointed as Registered Agent who resides in the state of Washington is:
Corporation Service Company
5a. The initial registered office of the Limited Partnership, which is identical to the business
address of the Registered Agent located in Washington, is:
Number and Street 520 Pike Street
Citv Seattle
State wA Zip Code 98101-4001
5b. OPTIONAL - The post office box number, located in the same city as the physical
address, is:
PO Box City State Zip Code
015-004 (1196)
6. CONSENT TO APPOINTMENT AS REGISTERED AGENT
(Corporation Service Compaggreby consent to serve as Registered Agent in the State of
Partnership. I understand that as agent for the Limited
Washington for the above named Limited
Partnership, it will be my responsibility to accept Service of Process on behalf of the Limited
Partnership; to forward other mail to the Limited Partnership; and to immediately notify the
Office of the Secretary of State in the event of my resignation or of any changes in the Registered
Office address.
Corporation Service Company
X (Date)
(Signature of Registered Ageat)
7. The Secretary of State is appointed the Registered Agent of the Limited Partnership for service of
process if the agent's authority has been revoked or if the agent cannot be found or served with the
exercise of reasonable diligence.
8. If the foreign Limited Partnership was organized raider the laws of a jurisdiction other than
another state, a copy of the written partnership agreement, in English language is attached.
9. All general partners names and usual business addresses are: City State Zip
Name Address
Sprint Spectrum Holding Company, L.P. 4717 Grand, Fifth Floor
Kansas City., Mo 64112
(Attach additional pages if necessary)
10. This document is hereby executed under penalties of perjury, and is, to the best of my
knowledge true and correct.
Dated:X i/L
g`t Gcxac� Canas<-Q Si
(Signature of General Partner) (Signature of General Partner)
X
(Signature of General Partner)
X
(Signature of General Partner)
015-004 (1/96)
� - tAt`0 Corporation Division
n s office of the Secretary of State
`r` 505 E Union, 2nd Floor
s':i1�►TE'��i ,�„ +°~' po Box 40234
olympia,.WA 9g504-0234
• (360) 753-7115
CONSENT TO SERVE AS REGISAGENT
i G+o oration service compauY . hereby consent to serve as Registered Agent
in the, state of Washington, for the following.
tint S ectrum L.P. fed partnership
enter t o name a t e corpora on or
1 understand that as agent it will be my
responsibility to receive service of
ify the Office of the
rocess: to forward all mail. and to imms4lately not
p resignation, or of any changes in the
Secretary of State in the event of my
Registered Office address.
A ri1 16 1996 s gna ture of Agent
(Date) riaureen Allen, Assistant -Secretary
SPRINT FACT SHEET
August 22, 2005
VI<VEil\1/-L-11 1O11
Sprint is a global integrated communications provider serving more than 26 million customers in
over 100 countries. The company, based in Overland Park, KS, is listed on the New York Stock
Exchange under the symbol FON . On April 23, 2004, Sprint combined its FON and PCS
tracking stocks into a single common stock.
With approximately 65,000 employees worldwide and over $26 billion in annual revenues in
2003, Sprint is widely recognized for developing, engineering and deploying state-of-the-art
network technologies, including the United States' first nationwide all -digital, fiber-optic
network and an award -winning Tier 1 Internet backbone. Sprint is the incumbent local exchange
carrier within 18 states and operates the largest 100-percent digital, nationwide PCS wireless
network in the United States.
Operationally, the company has realigned its internal resources toward two distinct consumer
types - individuals and businesses. The reorganization enables Sprint to more effectively and
efficiently use its portfolio of assets to create customer -focused communications solutions. The
company intends to create growth by capturing a greater share of Sprint customers' spending on
communications, leveraging and expanding Sprint's nationwide distribution channels and
improving sales productivity.
SPRINT BUSINESS SOLUTIONS
Sprint Business Solutions (SBS) provides a broad range of communications services to domestic
and international businesses, from multinational corporations to small businesses. SBS provides
retail and wholesale local, long distance, data and wireless services, tailoring integrated offers to
meet the particular needs of each business customer segment.
Sprint Business Solutions (SBS) was established and organized in 2004 to specifically address
meeting all business customer needs. Sprint's ability to simplify by providing business customers
single points of contact for sales and service sets it apart from the competition. Today's
businesses expect tailored products - not a "one size fits all" solution - and Sprint has structured
the SBS organization to reflect this market need. Sprint has also enhanced its vertical market
approach - in recognition of the fact that different business customers (government vs. financial
vs. manufacturers, etc.) have different needs and expectations. Sprint makes it easy for business
customers to combine wireless, wireline, local, long distance and global data and voice
capabilities, creating solutions across product boundaries in ways that are unmatched by
competitors.
SPRINT CONSUMER SOLUTIONS
Sprint Consumer Solutions (SCS) provides local, long distance, and wireless services -
individually or in product bundles - to residential customers. With more than 17,000 distribution
points, including Sprint stores and kiosks and third party channels, Sprint is one of the leaders in
the number of "doors" for customers.
Sprint Consumer Solutions (SCS) was established and organized in 2004 to specifically address
the communications needs of consumers, allowing them to connect with ease - at home and
everywhere. With a nationwide presence of local, long distance, and wireless assets and a strong
national brand, Sprint develops and delivers compelling bundles that provide the solutions
consumers demand. Sprint has plans to grow its retail presence in 2004 and expand its customer
care opportunities within Sprint Stores.
Sprint leads the wireless industry in data adoption with a growing portfolio of Sprint PCS
VisionSM services supported by a high-speed next generation wireless network that allows
customers to communicate, stay informed, be entertained and personalize their Sprint PCS
Phone. At the end of March 2004, Sprint was serving a total of 21.3 million customers on the
Sprint Nationwide PCS Network. More than six million customers were subscribing to Sprint
PCS data services, including more than four million Sprint PCS VisionSM subscribers.
SPRINT LOCAL TELECOMMUNICATIONS DIVISION
Sprint Local Telecommunications Division (LTD) provides local and long distance services,
including an expanding portfolio of bundled and integrated wireline and wireless services, as
well as broadband and video services, to consumers in markets where Sprint is the Incumbent
Local Exchange Carrier (ILEC). Sprint LTD serves nearly 8 million access lines in 18 states.
Sprint has proven that customers are interested in bundles of communications services that
include local, long distance, calling features, high-speed data and wireless. At the end of March
2004, more than 67 percent of Sprint's local residential customers purchased one or more
strategic products in addition to local service.
Sprint LTD also added a record 45,000 DSL subscribers in the first quarter of 2004 and ended
the first quarter with nearly 350,000 DSL customers. Sprint's DSL-capable footprint now
reaches 62 percent of its access lines.
SECTION XIX Applicants Contacts:
Any notices or information required to be given to parties under this Master Use Agreement may be
sent to the following addresses unless otherwise directed.
Sprint Communications Company L.P.
Attn: Transaction and Project Services
Mailstop: KSOPHT0101-Z2040
6391 Sprint Parkway
Overland Park, Kansas 66251-2040
Forward copies of notices of default to:
Sprint Communications Company L.P.
Attn: Real Estate Attorney
Mailstop: KSOPHT0101-Z2020
6391 Sprint Parkway
Overland Park, Kansas 66251-2020
SECTION XIX Effective Date:
Renton City Hall
Attn: Jan Illian
Development Services 6`h Floor
1055 — S. Grady Way
Renton, WA 98055
This Ordinance shall be in full force and effect from and after its passage, approval and five days after
it legal publication as provided by law, and provided it has been duly accepted by Grantee as herein
above provided.
SECTION XX Environmental Indemnification:
Grantee shall not introduce or use any Hazardous Substance on the Property in violation of any
applicable law. Grantee shall be responsible for, and shall promptly conduct any investigation and
remediation as required by any applicable environmental laws, all spills or other releases of any
Hazardous Substance caused by Grantee, that have occurred or which may occur on the Property.
Each party agrees to defend, indemnify and hold harmless the other from and against any and all
administrative and judicial actions and rulings, claims, causes of action, demands and liability
(collectively, "Claims") including, but not limited to, damages, costs, expenses, assessments,
penalties, fines, losses, judgments and reasonable attorney fees that the indemnitee may suffer or
incur due to the existence or discovery of any Hazardous Substances on the Property or the migration
of any Hazardous Substance to other properties or the release of any Hazardous Substance into the
environment (collectively, "Actions"), that relate to or arise from the indemnitor's activities on the
Property. The indemnifications in this section specifically include, without limitation, costs incurred
in connection with any investigation of site conditions or any cleanup, remedial, removal or
restoration work required by any governmental authority.
PASSED BY THE CITY COUNCIL this
day of 20
Bonnie Walton, City Clerk
SPRINT COMMUNICATIONS 8
TRANSPORTATION/AVIATION COMMITTEE
COMMITTEE REPORT
September 19, 2005
Arll?_ MIT, 71) BY �
CM17 CC, UNCIL
Date
Maple Valley Highway (SR 1.69) Improvements — Phase 2
(Referred September 12, 2005)
The Transportation/Aviation Committee recommends concurrence in the staff
recommendation to authorize the Mayor and City Clerk to execute the Supplement Agreement
#6 with Perteet Inc., in the amount of $99,880.
The Committee further recommends that Council authorize funds to be transferred into this
project from the following projects:
1. Project Development/Predesign in the amount of $25,000;
2. Arterial Circulation Program in the amount of $39,880;
3. Duvall Avenue NE in the amount of $20,000;
4. Transportation Concurrency in the amount of $40,000; and
5. Interagency Signal Coordination in the amount of $5,000.
ala�L YJZ_M�
Marcie Palmer, Chair
EX
Don Persson, Vice -Chair
andy Corman, Member
cc: Sandra Meyer, Transportation Systems Director
Leslie Lahndt. Transportation Design Supervisor
Robert Lochmiller, Transportation Design Project Manager
Sharon Griffin, Transportation Planning Program Development Coordinator
Connie Brundage, Transportation Systems Administrative Secretary
A!"PrTOV D BY 1
CiTV COUNCIL
Date 9-/9-a005_
TRANSPORTATION/AVIATION COMMITTEE
COMMITTEE REPORT
September 19, 2005
Airport Layout Plan Contract with URS Corporation
(Referred September 12, 2005)
The Transportation/Aviation Committee recommends concurrence in the staff
recommendation to approve the contract with URS Corporation in the amount of $129,257.19
to update the Airport Layout Plan.
The Committee further recommends that the Mayor and City Clerk be authorized to sign the
contract with URS Corporation.
Vm,k
Marcie Palmer, Chair
E_x( 54��
Don Persson, Vice -Chair
andy Corman, Member
cc: Connie Brundage, Transportation Secretary
Susan Campbell -Rehr, Airport Secretary
Kathie Nye, Airport Secretary
H:File Sys/Air/Projects/rasks/Agenda Bills/Committee ReportURS Contract.doc
FINANCE COMMITTEE
COMMITTEE REPORT
September 19, 2005
AMIRP0, VC7; BY
CiTy COUNCIL
Date 9-8-Zaf +.
REIMBURSEMENT OF CAPITAL EXPENDITURES
FROM PROCEEDS OF TAX EXEMPT BONDS
(August 15, 2005)
The Finance Committee recommends concurrence in the staff recommendation to declare the
City's intent that certain capital expenditures to be made on the South Lake Washington
Roadway and SW 27th Street/Strander Boulevard Capital Projects shall be reimbursed from
the future proceeds of a tax-exempt Bond sale(s) or other obligations of the City in an amount
not to exceed $15,000,000.
The Committee further recommends that the .Resolution regarding this matter be presented for
.reading and adoption.
Don Persson, Chair
2
Ton Nelson, Vice air
L" Lj
r
Denis W. Law, Member
cc: Michael E. Bailey, Finance & Information Services Administrator
Gregg Zimmerman, Planning/Building/Public Works Administrator
Linda Parks, Fiscal Services Director
,APPROWHO BY
CITY COUNCIL
Date 9- �q' SODS
FINANCE COMMITTEE
COMMITTEE REPORT
September 19, 2005
SW 271h St./Strander Blvd. Connection Project, Phase 1, Segment 1
(Referred September 12, 2005)
The Finance Committee recommends concurrence in the staff recommendations as follows for
construction of a .27-mile extension of SW 271h Street from Oakesdale Ave. SW to the
proposed driveway access of the Federal Reserve Bank, known as the SW 27t11 Street/Strander
Blvd. Connection, Phase 1, Segment 1 construction project:
1. Approve a budget adjustment to allocate $3,217,836.96 from the Transportation (317)
Fund to the SW 27th Street Connection Project budget for funding as detailed herein,
with the full amount `to be reimbursed from future proceeds of a tax-exempt Bond sale.
2. Approve Supplemental Agreement #3 with Perteet, Inc. in the amount of $110,846.00
for project construction management, services;
3. Accept the low bid as submitted and 'award the construction contract to Gary Merlino
Construction, Inc. in the amount of;$2,426;530.72;
4. Authorize a 20% construction contract contingency in the amount of $485,306.14
5. Authorize soft costs for the project in the amount of $195,154.00.
The Committee further recommends the mayor and city clerk be authorized to execute Supplemental
Agreement #3 with Perteet, Inc., and the construction contract with Gary Merlino Construction, Inc.
Don Persson, Chair
Toni Nelson, Vice CH -air
Denis W. Law, Member
cc: Gregg Zimmerman
Sandra Meyer
Leslie Lahndt
Mike Bailey
APPROVED BY
CITY COUNCIL
Data A-/9' aDOS
FINANCE COMMITTEE
COMMITTEE REPORT
September 19, 2005
Evan Chan Fee Waiver Request
For Morris Ave. Townhomes
(Referred August 1, 2005)
The Finance Committee met to consider a request to waive certain fees for a proposed
townhome development at 513 South 2nd Street. The applicant, Evan Chan, has requested that
building permit fees, utility system development charges, public works plan review and
inspection fees, and impact mitigation fees be waived per RMC 4-1-210. The proposal for the
eight (8) unit condominium townhome project is eligible for the fee waiver as it would be new
owner -occupied multi -family housing, of four (4) units or more located within the Center
rccomcn �AS Ao itrrenc
Downtown (CD) Zone. The Finance Committee eefss. in ��ie staff recommendation to
approve the fee waiver request at the time of building and construction permit issuance,
subject to final project design being of comparable orgreater quality than the exhibits attached
to the request. .
Don Persson, Chair
z7
Toni N son, Vice Chdi;�--
Denis W. Law, Member
cc: Jennifer Henning
Ar-PIDVED BY —.,
Cirl COUNCIL
UTILITIES COMMITTEE late 9-/9- Z05-
COMMITTEE REPORT
September,W, 2005
Latecomer's Agreement Request
SE 132"d St. Sewer Extension - File LA-05-003
(Referred 9/12/2005)
The Utilities Committee recommends concurrence in the staff recommendation to grant
preliminary approval of the application for a Latecomer's Agreement request from Kevin M.
Wyman and Durwood E. Blood for a period of one year. The application for a latecomer's
agreement was submitted to recover the $60,290.92 estimated cost of sewer extension along
SE 132"d St. at 152"d Ave. SE to allow development of two single family residences without
the need for a previously approved site sewage system.
The Committee further recommends that Council authorize the preliminary assessment roll to
be forwarded to the City Clerk, who will notify the affected property owners. If no protests
are received, after construction of the facilities and approval of the final costs, the Council can
authorize preparation of the final assessment roll' and latecomer agreement. In the event there
is a protest for valid cause, a public hearing will `be held to resolve any issues prior to
proceeding with this matter.
andy Corman, Chair
v �
Dan Clawson, Vice Chair
e X(-,-,S ED
Don Persson, Member
cc: Arneta Henninger
Lys Hornsby
utility rept-prelim.doc\ rev01/05 bb
PPROVED BY
° , COUNCIL
PLANNING AND DEVELOPMENT COMMITTEE
COMMITTEEE REPORT
September 19, 2005
Zoning Text amendments Residential Uses in the Commercial Arterial Zone
(Referred July 11, 2005)
The Planning and Development Committee recommends a public hearing be set for October 3,
2005, to consider the Zoning Text Amendments Residential Uses in the Commercial Arterial
Zone.
Marcie Palmer, Member
cc Alex Pietsch
Rebecca Lind
4dopl-rd as
CITY OF RENTON, WASHINGTON
RESOLUTION NO..37%Z.
A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY OF RENTON, WASHINGTON
DECLARING ITS INTENT THAT CERTAIN CAPITAL EXPENDITURES
SHALL BE REIMBURSED FROM THE PROCEEDS OF TAX EXEMPT
BONDS OR OTHER OBLIGATIONS.) n -fh e ✓'euised omounf o l3 m l/cw
do/la/S
WHEREAS, the City of Renton (the "City") plans to undertake the following capital
projects: the Southwest 27`h Street/Strander Boulevard Capital Improvement Project and the
South Lake Washington Roadway/Utilities Capital Improvement Project (the "Projects"); and
WHEREAS, the City plans to finance the Projects through the issuance of tax-exempt
bonds or other obligations of the City in one or more issues in an amount not to exceed
* 15, 000100 0
$34-,400-,OW (the "Bonds");
NOW, THEREFORE, THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF RENTON,
WASHINGTON, DOES RESOLVE AS FOLLOWS:
SECTION I. The above findings are true and correct in all respects.
SECTION H. For the purpose of complying with the provisions of the Treasury
Regulation Section 1.150-2 with respect to qualification of reimbursement allocations as
expenditures of bond proceeds, pending the issuance of the Bonds, the City may make capital
expenditures in furtherance of the Projects, in anticipation of reimbursement for such expenditures
from the proceeds of the Bonds, when issued.
PASSED BY THE CITY COUNCIL this day of , 2005.
Bonnie I. Walton, City Clerk
RESOLUTION NO.
APPROVED BY THE MAYOR this day of , 2005.
Kathy Keoiker-Wheeler, Mayor
Approved as to form:
Lawrence J. Warren, City Attorney
RES. 1127:8/8/05:ma
CITY OF RENTON, WASHINGTON
ORDINANCE NO.
AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF RENTON, WASHINGTON,
AMENDING CHAPTERS 4-1, 4-2, 4-4, 4-6 THROUGH 4-9, AND 4-11 OF
TITLE IV (DEVELOPMENT REGULATIONS) AND CHAPTER 9-11 OF
TITLE IX (PUBLIC WAYS AND PROPERTY) OF ORDINANCE NO. 4260
ENTITLED "CODE OF GENERAL ORDINANCES OF THE CITY OF
RENTON, WASHINGTON" BY CLARIFYING ZONE DENSITY
CONTROLS OVER ZONE LOT SIZE PROVISIONS AND REMOVING
GREEN RIVER VALLEY LANDSCAPING REQUIREMENTS; AND BY
AMENDING ADMINISTRATIVE, INTERPRETATION, AND
ENFORCEMENT PROCEDURES; FEES AND FEE REFUNDS AND
WAIVERS; BINDING SITE PLAN REGULATIONS; PLANNED
UNIT/URBAN DEVELOPMENT REGULATIONS; NONPROJECT SEPA
REQUIREMENTS; AND DEFINITIONS.
WHEREAS, the Planning Commission was consulted for its recommendations on the
2004 City Code Title IV (Development Regulations) Docket and related amendments between
November 2004 and January 2005; and
WHEREAS, the Planning and Development Committee considered the staff and
Planning Commission recommendations for the 2004 City Code Title IV (Development
Regulations) Docket and related amendments; and
WHEREAS, courtesy notices of the Planning Commission and Planning and
Development Committee meetings were provided to parties of record; and
WHEREAS, a public hearing before the City Council was duly noticed to the public and
parties of record and held on February 28, 2005; and
WHEREAS, the Planning and Development Committee considered the public hearing
testimony and made its Committee recommendation on March 14, 2005 to the full City Council,
requesting that an ordinance be prepared consistent with the Committee report;
ORDINANCE NO.
NOW, THEREFORE, THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF RENTON,
WASHINGTON, DOES ORDAIN AS FOLLOWS:
SECTION I. Sections 4-1-060.0 and D of Chapter 1, Administration and
Enforcement, of Title W, Development Regulations, of Ordinance No. 4260 entitled "Code of
General Ordinances of the City of Renton, Washington" are hereby amended to read as follows:
C. PLAN ELEMENTS:
1. Required Elements: The Comprehensive Plan shall contain the following
mandatory planning elements as required by the Growth Management Act:
a. A land use element designating the proposed distribution, location and
extent of the uses of land.
b. A transportation element that is consistent with the land use element and
includes land use assumptions, an inventory of facility and service needs, service standards,
financing needs and a reassessment of land use, if service standards cannot be met.
C. A housing element containing an inventory of needs, policies for
protection and development of housing for all economic segments of the community and
identifying sufficient land for housing.
d. A utilities element consisting of an inventory of needs and policies for the
development of utilities and the location, proposed location and capacity of all existing and
proposed utilities.
e. A capital facilities element that includes an inventory of all capital
facilities, forecast of future needs, proposed location of new or expanded facilities, a six (6) year
funding plan and a reassessment of the land use element, if funding falls short.
2
ORDINANCE NO.
2. Optional Elements: The Comprehensive Plan may include additional elements,
relating to the physical development within the City; including, but not limited to subarea plans,
each of which is consistent with the other elements of the Comprehensive Plan.
3. Land Use Element Map: The land use element map, maintained on display in the
customer service area of the Planning/Building/Public Works Department, illustrates in broad
and general terms the desired development of the City during the twenty (20) year planning
period.
D. ADOPTION:
The Comprehensive Plan and any amendments and associated subarea plans are adopted
by ordinance of the City Council after public hearing by the Council.
SECTION II. Section 4-1-070.B.1 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 amended to read as follows:
1. Title 4 — Development Regulations:
Chapter 1 Administration and Enforcement
Chapter 2 Zoning Districts: Uses and Standards
Chapter 3 Environmental Regulations and Overlay Districts
Chapter 4 City -Wide Property Development Standards
Chapter 5 Building and Fire Prevention Standards
Chapter 6 Street and Utility Standards
Chapter 7 Subdivision Regulations
Chapter 8 Permits — General and Appeals
Chapter 9 Permits — Specific
3
ORDINANCE NO.
Chapter 10 Nonconforming Structures, Uses and Lots
Chapter 11 Definitions
SECTION III. Sections 4-1-080.A-D 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" are hereby amended to read as follows:
A. ADMINISTRATIVE INTERPRETATION:
1. General: The Planning/Building/Public Works Administrator is hereby
authorized to make interpretations regarding the implementation of unclear or contradictory
regulations contained in this Title. Any interpretation of the Renton Title IV Development
Regulations shall be made in accordance with the intent or purpose statement of the specific
regulation and the Comprehensive Plan. Life, safety and public health regulations are assumed
to prevail over other regulations.
2. Zoning Conflicts: In the event that there is a conflict between either the
development standards or special development standards listed in chapter 4-2 RMC, Zoning
Districts: Uses and Standards, and the standards and regulations contained in another Section, the
Zoning Administrator shall determine which requirement shall prevail in accordance with the
intent or purpose statement of the specific regulation and the Comprehensive Plan. Life, safety
and public health regulations are assumed to prevail over other regulation.
B. CONFLICTS AND OVERLAPS:
This Title is not intended to repeal, abrogate, or impair any existing easements,
covenants, or deed restrictions. However, where this Title and another easement, covenant, or
deed restriction conflict or overlap, whichever imposes the more stringent restrictions shall
prevail.
4
ORDINANCE NO.
C INTERPRETATION OF REQUIREMENTS:
In interpreting and applying the provisions of this Title, the requirements herein shall be:
1. Considered the minimum for the promotion of the public health, safety, morals
and general welfare;
2. Liberally construed in favor of the governing body; and
3. Deemed neither to limit nor repeal any other powers granted under State statutes.
D. MORE RESTRICTIVE/HIGHER STANDARDS TO GOVERN:
Wherever any regulation in this Title imposes higher or more restrictive standards than
are required in any other statute or regulation, the provisions of this Title shall govern. Wherever
the provisions of any other statute or regulation impose higher or more restrictive standards, the
provisions of such other statute or regulation shall govern.
SECTION IV. A new Section, 4-1-080.E, 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:
E. TERMINOLOGY:
When not inconsistent with the context, words used in the present tense include the
future, words in the plural number include the singular number and words in the singular number
include the plural number. The word "shall' is always mandatory.
SECTION V. Section 4-1-100.A 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 amended to read as follows:
4-1-100 ENFORCEMENT:
ORDINANCE NO.
A. PURPOSE:
The purpose of this section is to promote compliance with this Title by establishing
enforcement authority, defining violations, and setting standards for initiating the procedures set
forth in Chapter 1-3, Remedies and Penalties, when violations of this Title occur. The provisions
of this Title and any conditions associated with entitlements approved by the City shall be
diligently enforced in order to promote the City's planning efforts and to protect the public
health, safety, and welfare. A further intent of this section is to ensure that no permit, license, or
land use approval is issued in conflict with the provisions of this Title.
SECTION VI. A new Section, 4-1-100.B, 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:
B. RESPONSIBILITY AND AUTHORITY:
The Development Services Director, or his/her designee, shall be authorized to enforce
the provisions of Title 4 of the Renton Municipal Code. The Director shall also enforce any
implementing administrative rules, administration, and approval conditions attached to any land
use approval, through revocation or modification of permits, or through the enforcement, penalty
and abatement provisions of Chapter 1-3 RMC, Remedies and Penalties.
SECTION VII. Sections 4-1-110.A and B 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" are hereby amended to read as follows:
A. VIOLATIONS:
Violations are illegal and are misdemeanors subject to the enforcement penalty and
abatement procedures of Chapters 1-3-1 and 1-3-3 of the Renton Municipal Code.
G
ORDINANCE NO.
B. REMEDIES AND PENALTIES:
Stop Work Order: Any construction in violation of this Title, or any condition(s)
imposed on a permit or license, may be subject to the issuance of a "Stop Work Order."
2. Refusal of Approvals:
a. The City shall not issue any permit or grant any approval necessary to
develop any real property which has been divided, or which has resulted from a division, in
violation of the provisions of the Renton Municipal Code or state subdivision regulations.
b. No approval shall be granted for a land -use permit, land division, or
building permit for any parcel of land on which there is a violation of any city or state law or
permit to use or development of the property, unless such violations are either corrected prior to
application or are required to be corrected as a condition of approval.
The City shall not issue any permit or grant any land use approval to any
individual or corporation that has not paid all land use -related fines, penalties, permit fees, or
collections due to the City for any previous infraction or criminal violation of Title 4 of the
Renton Municipal Code.
3. Provisions of RMC 1-3-1: Any person violating or failing to comply with any
order made hereunder, shall be guilty of a misdemeanor and punished pursuant to Chapter 1-3-1
of the Renton Municipal Code.
4. Remedies Cumulative: All remedies concerning this Title shall be cumulative
and not exclusive. The conviction and punishment of any person hereunder shall not relieve
such person from the responsibility of correcting prohibited conditions or removing prohibited
structures, signs, or improvements, and shall not prevent the enforced correction or removal
thereof.
ORDINANCE NO.
Recovery of Costs: Where any action or activity is required to be taken by a
person under the provisions of this Title, the City Administration may direct that in default of its
being done by the responsible party, such action or activity shall be done at the expense of the
party in default and the City may recover the expenses.
SECTION VIII. New Sections 4-1-110.C, D, E, and F 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" are hereby added, to read as follows:
C. INITIATION OF PROCEEDINGS AGAINST VIOLATION:
1. The City may initiate proceedings to revoke or modify any permit or land use
approval it has issued;
2. An aggrieved party may file a request for the City to initiate revocation or
modification proceedings, or suspend a permit, or land use approval.
D. AUTHORITY TO REVOKE OR MODIFY A PERMIT OR LAND USE APPROVAL:
Authority to revoke or modify a permit or land use approval shall be exercised by the
approving body, as follows:
The City Council, after a recommendation from the Hearing Examiner, may
revoke, modify, or refuse to grant any preliminary subdivision, zone reclassification or other
approval issued by the Council or Hearing Examiner.
2. The Planning/Building/Public Works Administrator may, for cause, revoke or
modify any permit or other land use approval issued by the Administrator.
3. For purposes of this Section, cause to revoke or modify a permit or land use
approval shall mean that the permit or land use approval was obtained by fraud or by providing
• : 9 _[► - GWACSJ
inaccurate, incomplete, or misleading information where the person holding the permit fails to
perform a condition precedent or subsequent to the granting of the permit or land use approval.
E. CRITERIA FOR PERMIT SUSPENSION, REVOCATION OR MODIFICATION:
Any permit, or other land use approval issued by the City pursuant to this Title may be
suspended, revoked or modified on one or more of the following grounds:
l . The approval was obtained by fraud;
2. The approval was based upon inaccurate, incomplete or misleading information
provided by the applicant;
3. The holder of the permit or approval interferes with the Administrator or any
authorized representative in the performance of his or her duties related to the permit or
approval; or
4. The holder of the permit or approval fails to comply with any notice and order
issued pursuant to code compliance regulations.
5. The holder of the permit or approval fails to comply with the condition precedent
or subsequent to the granting of the permit or land use approval.
F. APPEALS:
See RMC 4-8-110 for appeal process.
SECTION IX. Sections 4-1-140.D and E 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" are hereby amended, to read as follows:
D. DEMOLITION PERMIT FEE: $15.00
E. STATE BUILDING CODE FEE:
W
ORDINANCE NO.
A state building fee of $4.50 shall be charged to all projects requiring a building permit
as well as an additional $2.00 for each unit of multi -family.
SECTION X. A new Section, 4-1-140.P, 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:
P. REFUND OF BUILDING DIVISION FEES:
Authority to refund fees. The Development Services Director may authorize the
refunding of any fees paid hereunder which was erroneously paid or collected.
2. Amount Refunded.
a. Permit Fee. Due to the City's cost in screening, accepting, and initial
processing of land use applications the Development Services Director may authorize the
refunding of not more than eight (80) percent of the permit fee paid when no substantial work
has been done under a permit issued in accordance with this Code.
b. Plan Review Fee. Due to the City's cost in screening, accepting, and
initial processing of land use applications the Development Services Director may authorize the
refunding of not more than eighty (80) percent of the plan review fee paid when an applicant for
a permit for which a plan review fee has been paid is withdrawn or cancelled before any
substantial plan review effort has been expended.
3. Method of Obtaining Refund and Time Limit. The Development Services
Director shall not authorize the refunding of any fee paid except upon written application filed
by the original permittee not later than one hundred eighty (180) days after the date of the fee
payment.
10
ORDINANCE NO.
SECTION XI. Section 4-1-170.A 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 amended, to read as follows:
A. APPLICATION TYPE:
FEE AMOUNT:
Annexation
Expense for postage
Appeal of Hearing Examiner's Decision, Administrative
Decision, or Environmental Decision
$75.00
Binding Site Plan
$1,000.00
Comprehensive Plan
Amendment
$1,000.00
Conditional Approval Permit:
Hearing Examiner Review
$500.00
Administrative Review
$250.00
Conditional Use Permit:
Hearing Examiner Review
$2,000.00
Administrative Review
$1,000.00
Environmental Impact Statement/Draft and Final
100% of costs of
coordination, review and
appeals'
'When the City is the lead agency for a proposal requiring an Environmental Impact
Statement (EIS) and the Environmental Review Committee (ERC) determines that the
EIS shall be prepared, the City may charge and collect a reasonable fee from any
applicant to cover costs incurred by the City in preparing the EIS. The ERC shall advise
the applicant(s) of the projected costs for the EIS prior to actual preparation; the applicant
shall post bond or otherwise ensure payment of such costs. The ERC may determine that
the City will contract directly with a consultant for preparation of an EIS, or a portion of
the EIS, and may bill such costs and expenses directly to the applicant. Such consultants
shall be selected by mutual agreement of the City and applicant after a call for proposals.
If a proposal is modified so that an EIS is no longer required, the ERC shall refund any
fees collected under this subsection which remain after incurred costs are paid. The City
may collect a reasonable fee from an applicant to cover the cost of meeting the public
notice requirements of this Title relating to the applicant's proposal. The City shall not
collect a fee for performing its duties as a consulted agency. The City may charge any
person for copies of any document prepared under this Title, and for mailing the
document, in a manner provided by chapter 42.17 RCW.
Environmental Checklist:
Less than $100,000 project value
$400.00
$100,000 or more project value
$1,000.00
Environmental review/sensitive lands or lands covered by
water, except minor residential additions or modifications
$1,000.00
11
ORDINANCE NO.
Fence Permit (special)
$100.00
Grading and Filling Permit
$2,000.00
Hobby Kennel License (one time fee)
$20.00
Lot Line Adjustment
$450.00
Manufactured/Mobile Home Park:
Tentative
$500.00
Preliminary
$2,000.00
Final
$1,000.00
Open Space Classification Request
$30.00
Plats:
Short Plat
$1,000.00
Preliminary Plat
$2,000.00
Final Plat
$1,000.00
Planned Urban Development:
Preliminary Plan
$2,000.00
Final Plan
$1,000.00
Rezone:
Less than 10 acres
$2,000.00
10 to 20 acres
$3,000.00
More than 20 acres
$4,000.00
Routine Vegetation Management Permit
$75.00
Shoreline Substantial Development Permit:
Under $100,000 value
$500.00
$100,000 or more value
$1,000.00
Site Development Plan (Site Plan or Master Plan):
Hearing Examiner Review
$2,000.00
Administrative Review
$1,000.00
Special Permit
$2,000.00
Temporary Permit
$100.00
Temporary Permit Sign Deposit (refundable)
$25.00
Variance — Administrative
$100.00
Variance — Planning/Building/Public
Works Administrator or Hearing Examiner
$500.00
Waiver
$100.00
SECTION X11. Chapter 4-1-180, Public Works Fees, 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 amended to read as follows:
12
ORDINANCE NO.
4-1-180 PUBLIC WORKS FEES:
A. FRANCHISE PERMIT FEES:
Unless otherwise specified in a franchise agreement, the fee shall be due and payable at or
prior to the time of construction permit issuance. If a franchise agreement does not specify the
fee amount, the generic fee, as identified in the following table shall be collected. A bond as
stipulated in RMC 9-10-5, Street Excavation Bond, is also required.
Small work, including trenching less than sixty $50.00
(60) linear feet or installation of six (6) or less
utilitv poles
All other work
$50.00 plus $40.00 per hour of
B. LATECOMER'S AGREEMENT APPLICATION FEES:
The processing fee is due at the time of application. The administration and collection
fee is deducted from each individual latecomer fee payment and the balance forwarded to the
holder of the latecomer's agreement pursuant to RMC 9-5-9, Tender of Fee.
Processing fee (Nonrefundable) $500.00 if amount covered by latecomer's is
$20,000.00 or less
$1,000.00 if amount covered by
latecomer's is between $20,000.00 and
$100,000.00
$2,000.00 if amount covered by latecomer's
is greater than $100,000.00
Latecomer's Agreement — Administration and 15% of total amount to be collected if
collection fee I amount covered by latecomer is $20,000.00
or less;
10% if amount covered by latecomer is
between $20,000.00 and $100,000.00;
5% if amount covered by latecomer is
greater than $100,000.00;
13
ORDINANCE NO.
rcaded -
Segregation processing fee, if applicable $750.00
C. PUBLIC WORKS CHARGES FOR EQUITABLE SHARE OF PUBLIC WORKS
FACILITIES:
Owners of properties to which improvements are being proposed that have not been assessed
or charged an equitable share of the cost of public works facilities, such as water systems,
sanitary sewer systems, storm water drainage systems, and street improvements including
signalization and lighting, shall be subject to one or more of the charges listed in the following
subsections. Any fees triggered by improvements or development, as detailed in this section, are
due and payable at the first of the following instances: Prior to the issuance of a Public Works
Construction Permit; or prior to the recording of a single family residential plat or single family
residential short plat; or prior to the issuance of a building permit. All of the following charges
shall be paid into the Waterworks Utility Construction Fund except that any fees collected under
a private Latecomer's Agreement shall be passed on to the holder of the agreement with the
appropriate fees paid to the general fund. For the purposes of this section the terms property(ies)
or parcel(s) shall mean a lot which is part of a subdivision recorded in the office of the County
Assessor, or a lot or parcel described by metes and bounds or aliquot parts, the description of
which has been so recorded in conformance with all applicable regulations in effect at the time of
recording.
1. Private Held Latecomer's Fees and Special Assessment District (formerly
known as City held Latecomer's) Fees:
a. Applicability of Private Held Latecomer's Fee: The City has the
discretionary power, as detailed in chapter 9-5 RMC, to grant latecomer's
agreements to developers and owners for the reimbursement of a pro rata portion
14
ORDINANCE NO.
of public works facilities (water systems, sanitary sewer systems, storm water
drainage systems, and street improvements including signalization and lighting)
they install and turn over to the City.
b. Applicability of Special Assessment District Fee: The special assessment
charge is a fee that enables the City to recover a pro rata portion of the original
costs of public works improvements (water systems, sanitary sewer systems,
storm water drainage systems, and street improvements including signalization
and lighting) from the owners of property who would benefit from future
connections to, or future users of, improvements to the City's infrastructure that
were not installed by LIDS or by a private developer under a latecomer agreement.
The imposition, collection, payment and other specifics concerning these charges
are detailed in chapter 9-16 RMC, Special Assessment Districts. Interest may be
charged pursuant to RMC 9-16-6, Payments to City.
Segregation of Latecomer's or Special Assessment District Fees:
Segregation of Fees: The City may grant segregation of private
developer latecomer's fees or special assessment district fees on large
parcels of land per Subsection (C)(3) below.
ii. Relief Due to Two (2) Similar Facilities: The
Planning/Building/Public Works Administrator will consider relieving a
parcel of a latecomer's or special assessment district fee/assessment if the
property has a benefit from either (but not both) of two (2) similar
facilities. The Planning/Building/Public Works Administrator will make
the decision based on engineering and policy decisions as to which
15
ORDINANCE NO.
facility(s) benefit and/or are utilized by the parcel. The assessment due
would be that associated with the utilized facility. If there are no sound
engineering or policy reasons that indicate one facility over the other, the
City shall give the applicant the choice of facilities to utilize.
iii. Relief Due to Future Subdivision: At the time the latecomer's
agreement or special assessment district is formed, and as a condition of
the latecomer's agreement or special assessment district, the City may
require that the assessment against a parcel be divided such that a single
family residential connection will be assessed based upon the size of a
typical single family residential lot in that area. The remainder of the cost
attributed to said site will be due at such time as the parcel develops
further either by subdivision or increased density. In the case of a special
assessment district, interest will continue to accrue on the remaining
portion of the assessment.
iv. Reallocation of Assessment Due to Subdivision of Property: The
Planning/Building/Public Works Administrator will consider reallocation
of the latecomer's assessment or the special assessment if a property is
subdivided for any purpose other than single family use. Reallocation
may be granted based upon front footage, area, or other equitable means.
Consideration may be given to adjusting the assessment between the new
parcels, based upon value of benefit from the improvements, such that two
(2) similar parcels may pay different amounts because one receives more
benefit.
16
ORDINANCE NO.
2. System Development Charges (SDC) — Water, Wastewater, and Surface Water:
The City may hold and charge certain other fees similar to special assessment district
charges, which are commonly referred to as "system development charges."
a. Applicability of System Development Charge: The system development
charge is hereby imposed against properties and, by inference, the owners of said
properties which have not been assessed or charged or borne an equitable share of
the cost of the City's utility systems. Said property owner(s) shall pay, prior to
connection to or benefit from a City utility or utility facility, the system
development charge associated with that utility as detailed in the fees table in
subsection (C)(2)(b) of this section. A parcel may benefit from a City utility
system during the development or redevelopment of the property with or without
a connection to an established facility. Therefore, the system development charge
for a utility may be triggered without a physical connection to an existing facility.
i. Development of a utility system shall mean:
Development of the Sanitary Sewer System, including but not
limited to lift stations, force mains, interceptors and other sewer
collection mains.
• Development of the surface water system, including but not limited
to retention/detention or water quality facilities, flood hazard
reduction improvements, lift stations, force mains, interceptors,
and other surface water collection and conveyance systems.
Development of the Water System, including but not limited to
wells, pump stations, reservoirs and transmission mains.
17
ORDINANCE NO.
ii. The phrase "properties, which have not been assessed or charged
or borne an equitable share of the cost of the utility," as used in this
Section, shall mean any of the following:
• First Time Service Connection or Benefit: Any property which has
not paid a system development charge for the property based upon
the total square footage of the property and which is connecting to
or benefiting from a Renton utility system for the first time
(including but not limited to new construction, conversion from
private well, or conversion from septic system).
Further Subdivision: Any property which has not paid a system
development charge for the property based upon the total square
footage of the property and is served or benefited by the utility and
is subdividing further. However, single family usage shall receive
a credit for the existing single family residence(s).
For example, a five (5) acre parcel with an existing single family
house is being subdivided for single family lots. If the existing house is
connected to the City sewer and water systems, the development would
get credit for one single family system development charge for sanitary
sewer, storm water, and water. If the existing house was not connected to
the City sewer system, the development would get credit for one single
family system development charge for storm water and water.
A property subdividing further for single family usage that
receives a credit for existing single family residence(s) shall not qualify
In
ORDINANCE NO.
for prorating of the system development charge under subsection
(C)(2)(c)-
Existing Developments - Water and/or Sanitary Sewer: Property
that was developed before the effective date of the first
development charge ordinances for water and sanitary sewer in
1974 is exempted from the connection charge(s) for water and
sanitary sewer. Any rebuilding, change in use or additions to
exempted property that does not require additional water usage
such that a fire hydrant, additional meter, or larger meter is
necessary will not trigger a new system development charge.
However, except as provided herein, when property is redeveloped
or the use changed or intensified such that larger or additional
water meter(s) or the addition of a fire hydrant is necessary,
application(s) for these items will trigger the system development
charge(s). An application for the installation of a meter(s) solely
for the purpose of either irrigation or fire protection or the
installation of a fire hydrant will trigger a system development
charge for water. An application for an additional or a larger water
meter(s) for any purpose other than solely for irrigation or fire
protection will trigger a system development charge for both water
and sewer.
19
ORDINANCE NO.
b. Exceptions:
i. The addition of an irrigation meter only for an existing single-
family residential dwelling will not trigger a system development charge
for water or sewer.
ii. If an existing single family residence is being remodeled or
rebuilt and remains a single family residence on the same lot (not involved
in a new plat, short plat, or lot line adjustment), the addition of a larger or
additional meter will not trigger the system development charges for water
or sewer.
iii. The addition of a second meter to an existing duplex in order to
divide consumption for billing purposes will not trigger a system
development charge.
iv. Existing Developments — Surface Water:
(a) Property that was developed before the effective date of
the first development charge ordinances for surface (storm) water in 1992
is exempted from the surface water system development charge. The
addition of any new impervious surface to exempted properties will
require payment of the system development charge for surface water for
the additional new impervious area only. If an exempted property is
making a connection for the first time to a surface water system, it will
require payment of the system development charge for surface water only
for the impervious area tributary to the point of connection. Any
rebuilding, change in use or additions to exempted property that does not
20
ORDINANCE NO.
create additional impervious surface area or does not cause a first time
connection to be made will not require payment of the system
development charge for surface water.
(b) Exceptions: Improvements to existing single family residential
units such as additions that are less than 500 square feet, decks, small
sheds and other minor improvements are exempt from the system
development charge for surface water unless a new connection to the
Renton surface water utility collection system is proposed or required as
part of the permit application.
System Development Charge Table:
21
ORDINANCE NO.
`i`pe of Land Use
Water fee Amaunt
�asteaaeree
urface�ate
µ
Single family
$1,525.00 per
$900.00 per
$715.00 per
residence
dwelling unit
dwelling unit
dwelling unit
Mobile/Manufactured
$1,220.00 per
$720.00 per
$715.00 per
Homes located in a
dwelling unit
dwelling unit
dwelling unit
mobile home or
manufactured home
ark
Multi -family
$915.00 per dwelling
$540.00 per
$0.249 per
(in all zones except
unit, (auxiliary
dwelling unit,
square foot of
CD and COR zones)
buildings like club
(auxiliary buildings
new
houses are considered
like club houses are
impervious
inclusive to the
considered inclusive
surfacing, but
development and are
to the development
not less than
not counted as a
and are not counted
$715.00
dwelling unit and are
as a dwelling unit
thus not included in
and are thus not
the calculation of the
included in the
fee)
calculation of the
fee)
Mixed Use
Mixed use buildings
Mixed use buildings
$0.249 per
(in all zones except
with over 50% floor
with over 50% floor
square foot of
CD and COR zones)
space used for
space used for
new
residential shall be
residential shall be
impervious
assessed at the rate
assessed at the rate
surface, but
$915.00 per dwelling
of $540.00 per
not less than
unit
dwelling unit
$715.00
CD and COR zones
$0.213 per gross
$0.126 per gross
$0.249 per
square foot of
square foot of
square foot of
property, but not less
property, but not less
new
than $1,525.00
than $900.00
impervious
surface, but
not less than
$715.00
All other uses
$0.213 per gross
$0.126 per gross
$0.249 per
square foot of
square foot of
square foot of
property, but not less
property, but not less
new
than $1,525.00
than $900.00
impervious
surface, but
not less than
$715.00
22
ORDINANCE NO.
d. Prorating the System Development Charge for Redevelopment of
Property: An option exists for prorating the system development charge(s) for
property which has not previously paid a charge in full. Any parcel that currently
has water or sanitary sewer service is eligible for a prorated system development
charge for the associated utility.
Prorating based upon meter sizes: The prorated system
development charge will be based upon the capacity of the new meters as
compared to the capacity of the existing meters.
Meters installed solely for fire protection, either existing or
proposed are not included in the calculation for water or sanitary sewer. If
there is an additional or larger meter solely for fire flow or additional
hydrants required for the proposed development, please refer also to sub-
section c.ii, below. Meters installed solely for irrigation (either existing or
proposed) are not included in the calculation for sanitary sewer.
This prorated redevelopment charge is calculated using the
following formula:
[Proposed meter(s) capacity in gallons per minute (GPM) —
Existing meter(s) capacity in GPM] / [Proposed meter(s) capacity in
GPM] x [SDC Fee] = Amount owed.
The City will determine the safe maximum operating capacities of
all meter sizes using American Water Works Association tables (see
below). The fee paid shall be posted in the City's database and applied to
the total system development charge applicable for the parcel.
23
ORDINANCE NO.
Reduction in meter capacity shall not result in a payment from the
City to the applicant.
WATER METER EQUIVALENCIES for purposes of calculating redevelopment
credit:
ii. Prorating the System Development Charge for Fire Protection
Improvements Associated with Redevelopment of Property:
Installation of a water meter solely for a fire protection system, such as a new hydrant or
fire sprinkler system shall be charged a fee equal to thirty percent (30%) of the system
development charge applicable to the portion of the parcel containing the improvements for
which the fire protection system is constructed to serve. Thirty percent (30%) is the amount the
water utility has expended throughout its system for fire flow protection. This fee shall be posted
to the City's database and applied as a partial payment to the total system development charge
applicable for the parcel.
For the purposes of this section, "portion of the parcel containing the improvements for
which the fire protection system is constructed to serve" shall be described as:
24
ORDINANCE NO.
The smaller area of either the total square footage of the property or the square
footage of the property designated by a line drawn twenty (20) feet around the footprint
of the building being served by the meter installed for fire protection.
The smaller area of either the total square footage of the property or the square
footage of the property designated by a line drawn twenty (20) feet around the footprint
of the building(s) which by their construction, reconstruction or improvement triggered
the need for the new fire hydrant(s).
"Footprint" shall include the primary building plus ancillary structures such as garages,
carports, sheds, etc. that are considered by the Fire Department when calculating fire flow
requirements. In the case of multiple improvements, overlapping areas shall only be counted
once.
If the "portion of the parcel containing the improvements for which the fire protection
system is constructed to serve" is eighty percent (80%) of the parcel or more, then the thirty
percent (30%) shall be calculated on the total square footage of the property.
If a project both increases water meter capacity and installs a fire protection system, the
total of both prorated system development fees (subsections i and ii) would be charged. Payment
of said fees would be posted in the City's database and applied to the total system development
charge applicable for the parcel. In no case shall the total of the prorated system development
charge(s) be more than the total system development charge applicable for the parcel.
Installation of a water meter solely for a fire protection system shall not trigger a sewer
system development fee.
25
ORDINANCE NO.
iii. Prorating the System Development Charge for installation
of an Irrigation Meter only:
When a water meter is installed solely for the purpose of providing
irrigation water for private landscaping (exempt meter), there will be
charged a fee equal to ten percent (10%) of the water system development
charge applicable to the property. Said fee shall be nonrefundable, and
nontransferable (from one portion of the property to another). Payment of
said fee would be posted in the City's database and applied to the total
system development charge applicable for the parcel. At the applicant's
option, the full water system development charge may be paid instead of
the ten percent (10%) payment described herein.
iv. Examples:
Example 1: A redevelopment project that involves a change
from a single family home on a ten thousand (10,000) square foot lot with
a five -eighths inch by three-quarter inch meter (5/8" x 3/4", a standard
single family meter) that has a safe operating capacity of twenty (20)
gallons per minute (GPM), to a commercial usage with a one and one-half
inch (1-1/2") meter with a safe operating capacity of one hundred (100)
GPM can apply to pay for the following prorated charges:
(100 GPM — 20 GPM) / (100 GPM) = 0.8
For water: 0.8 x (10,000 sq. ft. x $0.213/sq. ft.) _ $1,704.00
For sewer: 0.8 x (10,000 sq. ft. x $0.126/sq. ft.) _ $1,008.00
26
ORDINANCE NO.
Without the redevelopment credit, this project would have paid
$0.213/sq. ft. x 10,000 sq. ft. _ $2,130.00 for water and paid $0.126/sq. ft.
x 10,000 sq. ft. _ $1,260.00 for sewer.
Example 2: A property owner is planning to redevelop a half acre
parcel that includes a single family home with a five -eighths inch by three-
quarter inch meter (5/8" x 3/4", a standard single family meter) that has a
safe operating capacity of twenty (20) GPM. The new development will
be an eight (8) unit multi -family dwelling with a two inch (2") meter with
a safe operating capacity of one hundred sixty (160) GPM, a three-quarter
inch (3/4") irrigation meter with a safe operating capacity of thirty (30)
GPM, and a four inch (4") meter for fire sprinklers. The property owner
can apply to pay the following prorated charges:
For water: Based on meters (160 GPM + 30 GPM — 20 GPM) /
(160 GPM + 30 GPM) = 89.5%
Based on fire service = 30%
Total = 119.5%
Therefore, 100% of the water system development charge would be due.
8 units x $915.00 / unit = $7,320.00
For sewer: based on meters — irrigation meter excluded (160 GPM — 20
GPM) / (160 GPM) = 87.5%
Therefore, 87.5% of the sewer system development charge would be due.
87.5% x 8 units x $540.00 / unit = $3,780.00
Without the redevelopment credit, this project would have paid $540.00 /
unit x 8 units = $4,320.00.
27
ORDINANCE NO.
d. Exemptions to System Development Charge:
i. Installation of an Irrigation Meter Solely for the Purpose of
Providing Irrigation Water to City Right-of-way: Installation of a water
meter solely for the purpose of providing irrigation water to City right-of-
way is exempted from the System Development Charge.
ii. Exemption for City -Owned Property: No system development
charge will be collected on City -owned properties. The benefits to the
utility from the use of other City properties such as utility easements, lift
stations and other benefits offset the amount of the system development
charge.
iii. Limited Exemptions for Municipal Corporations: A limited
exemption to the system development charge will be granted to municipal
corporations for portions of property subject to the system development
charge to the extent that those specific areas are available and maintained
at all times for public use (e.g., ballfields adjacent to a school building)
and shall be segregated from the fee determination as herein provided. In
applying this exemption, to the extent possible, a single straight line shall
be drawn across the property separating the exempt property from the
property to be charged. If a single straight line would not achieve
substantial equity, then additional lines may be drawn to include
substantial open space areas in the exemption. For purposes of this
exemption, substantial open space areas shall be at least one hundred
ORDINANCE NO.
thousand (100,000) square feet in area. Lines shall not be drawn closer
than fifteen feet (15') to any structure.
■ Nonexempt Areas: Parking lots, driveways, walkways, similar areas
and required landscape areas shall not be part of the exempt area.
■ Administrative Fees: The applicant shall pay the City's administrative
costs for the preparation, processing and recording the segregated fee.
At the time of application for system development charge segregation
the applicant shall pay the administrative fee of seven hundred fifty
dollars ($750.00).
■ Restrictive Covenants: The exemption must be memorialized by
means of a restrictive covenant running with the land. Should the
property exempted under this Section later develop, then that property
shall pay the system development charge in place at the time of
development.
■ Interpretation of Partial Payment: The Administrator of the
Planning/Building/Public Works Department shall make the final
decision on the application and/or interpretation of this limited
exemption and the achievement of substantial equity.
iv. Exemption for Undevelopable Critical Area(s) and Undevelopable
Major Easement(s): When calculating the area to be charged the system
development charge, undevelopable critical areas (per RMC 4-11-030)
and undevelopable major easements within the property shall not be
included in the square footage for the calculation of the charge. It is the
29
ORDINANCE NO.
responsibility of the property owner or applicant to submit a study
determining and classifying the critical area. The property owner or
applicant shall submit a legal description of any easement(s) or critical
arca(s) so that these portions of the property can be exempted from the
development charge(s).
The intent of this exemption is to not charge property that is
undevelopable. If the property is used or can be used to satisfy any
condition of the development such as parking or landscaping, it shall be
considered developed and does not meet the qualifications of this
exemption.
V. Exemption Credit for Regional Improvements: If an applicant's
project proposes to solve a regional drainage problem, over and above the
requirements to mitigate their project's impacts, the value of the additional
improvement shall be credited toward the surface water system
development charges due. The applicant must provide the Administrator
of the Department of Planning/Building/Public Works with the costs of the
drainage improvements and a suggested method of calculating the costs
due to the extra work done to solve a regional drainage problem. The
Administrator will make the final decision as to whether or not the
applicant's project solves a regional drainage problem and the amount of
any credit, if applicable. In no instance shall the credit duplicate a
latecomer's agreement such that the applicant will be paid twice, nor may
30
ORDINANCE NO.
the credit against the connection charge exceed the connection charge (i.e.,
no payment to the applicant under this Section).
vi. Surface Water Exemption for Infiltration Facility: Developments
which infiltrate or contain on site one hundred percent (100%) of the on -
site storm water runoff volume from a one hundred (100) year storm are
exempt from the surface water system development charge. For the
application of this credit, the owner/developer must use the current design
criteria to show that the infiltration facility will infiltrate all of the volume
of runoff produced from the site during the one hundred (100) year storm.
If a development that is granted an exemption under this section
discharges water offsite during a hundred year storm or less, the
development shall be required to make corrections or improvements to the
onsite system such that it will infiltrate up to the hundred year storm. If,
in the future, the development can no longer infiltrate one hundred percent
(100%) of the on -site storm water runoff from a one hundred (100) year
storm, the systems development charge shall be due and payable as a
condition of the connection to or utilization of the City's storm water
system.
Nothing in this section shall relieve the property owner(s) from
complying with the City's current flow control and water quality treatment
standards at the time the development converts from one -hundred percent
(100%) infiltration to use of the City storm system. When a development
is converted from one hundred percent (100%) infiltration to use of the
31
ORDINANCE NO.
City storm system, the storm water management standards used shall
consider the existing conditions prior to the property being developed
under the one hundred percent (100%) infiltration exemption and the
developed conditions at the time the conversion is made.
There may be certain conditions or locations within the City that
partially or completely preclude the use of infiltration facilities. If a
current or future code or standard prohibits or limits the use of infiltration
facilities to any level below the one hundred (100) year storm, the
development will not qualify for this exemption.
Segregation Criteria and Rules:
Except for parcels or units being developed for single family use, the ability exists
for the segregation of system development, special assessment district, and latecomer's
charges if there is partial development of a large parcel of property. This segregation
shall be based on the following criteria and rules:
a. Segregation by Plat or Short Plat: Charges shall be determined on the
basis of the specific platted properties being developed regardless of the parcel
size. Unplatted or large -platted parcels may be platted or short -platted prior to
development, in which case the system development charge will be applied to the
specific platted lots being developed.
b. Segregation by Administrative Determination: For the partial
development of a large tract of property, the owner may apply for a segregation of
the system development, special assessment district, and latecomer's charge(s) for
the specific portion of the property to be developed. The burden of establishing
32
ORDINANCE NO.
the segregation by legal description, number of units, and map would be on the
party owing the fee and not the City. The following criteria shall determine the
segregation of fees:
Applicability: This provision shall apply to all developments with
the exception of single family residential and mobile home developments.
When a parcel is segregated by administrative determination, prorating of
the system development charge for redevelopment shall not be allowed.
ii. Segregation of Fees: The segregation of fees shall be by formal,
written agreement, including a legal description approved by the City,
which shall be recorded as a restrictive covenant running with the land.
The restrictive covenant shall list the percentage of the system
development charge fee that has been paid for the property. The applicant
shall also include a detailed plan, drafted to current adopted City
standards, of the proposed development, which shall include the proposed
boundary line, as described in the legal description, for the system
development charge determination.
iii. Segregated Areas: Minimum size of area segregated for
determination and payment of system development charge(s) shall be two
(2) acres. The segregated area shall include, but not be limited to, all
contiguous existing developed land for which the system development
charge(s) have not been paid; all proposed buildings; driveways and
sidewalks; parking areas; grass and landscape areas; public access areas;
storm drainage facilities and detention ponds; and improvements required
33
ORDINANCE NO.
for mitigation of environmental impacts under the State Environmental
Policy Act (SEPA). The boundary line for the segregation of system
development charge shall be established by survey and legal description
and shall not be closer than fifteen feet (15') to any structure.
iv. Remnant Parcel: Minimum size of the remnant parcel of
undeveloped property for which the system development charge is
deferred shall be two (2) acres. Should the property partially paid for
under this Section later develop, then that property shall pay the system
development charge fee in place at the time of development. Should the
property partially paid for under this Section later be subdivided, then the
partial payment credit shall run with the subdivided lots. The burden of
establishing that the partial payment has been made would be on the party
potentially owing the fee and not on the City.
V. Determination of Charge: The system development charge shall
be determined on the basis of the percentage of a property that is
developed (existing development plus proposed development). When a
proposed development takes a parcel over the threshold of full
development, or reduces the size of the remnant parcel below two acres, as
described in this Section, one -hundred percent (100%) of the systems
development charge(s) is owed and any balance is due and payable.
vi. Full Development: For the purpose of this Code, "full
development' is considered to be sixty percent (60%) property coverage
for multi -family development and eighty percent (80%) property coverage
34
ORDINANCE NO.
for commercial, industrial, mixed use, and all other development.
"Property coverage" is defined as the portion of the property supporting
buildings, driveways and sidewalks, parking areas, grass and landscape
areas, public access areas, storm drainage facilities and detention ponds,
and improvements required for mitigation of environmental impacts under
the State Environmental Policy Act (SEPA).
vii. Developed Area: The "developed area" shall include, but not be
limited to, all contiguous existing developed land for which the system
development charges have not been paid: all existing and proposed
buildings, driveways and sidewalks, parking areas, grass and landscape
areas, public access areas, storm drainage facilities and detention ponds,
and improvements required for mitigation of environmental impacts.
viii. Administrative Fees: The applicant shall pay the City's
administrative costs for the preparation, processing and recording of the
partial payment of the fee(s). At the time of application for system
development charge partial payment the applicant shall pay the
administrative fee of seven hundred fifty dollars ($750.00) for each
segregation. If the same segregation is used for more than one utility's
system development charge, then only one administrative fee is collected.
ix. Interpretation: The Administrator of the Planning/Building/Public
Works Department shall make the final decision on interpretation of the
partial payment of system development charges.
35
ORDINANCE NO.
D. PUBLIC WORKS CONSTRUCTION PERMIT FEES:
The following public works construction permit fees, utility permit fees, and
miscellaneous charges are payable at or prior to the time of construction permit issuance.
1. Water Construction Permit Fees:
Water meter tests for 3/4" to 2" meter
$40.00
Water meter tests for meters greater than 2"
Time and materials cost ($60.00 deposit)
Open and close fire hydrants for fire flow tests
conducted by others
Time and materials
Installation fees for ring and cover castings
$200.00
Service size reductions
$50.00
Water service disconnection (cut at main)
$250.00
Meter resets
$50.00
Repair of damage to service
$50.00
Water main connections
$400.00
Water main cut and cap
$1,000.00
Water quality/inspection/purity tests
$40.00 each
Specialty water tests (lead, copper, etc.)
Cost of test plus $40.00 processing fee
Water turn ons/offs after hours
$120.00
Installation of isolation valve
Time and materials $2,000.00 deposit
New water line chlorination fee
$250.00 plus $0.15 per lineal foot for
any footage after the first two hundred
fifty 250) lineal feet.
Miscellaneous water installation fees
Time and materials
36
ORDINANCE NO.
2. Water Meter Installation Fees — City Installed: The following fees are payable at
the time of application for water meter installation(s).
WN
3/4" meter installed by City within City limits
$1,300.00 (full installation of stub
service and meter)
$240.00 (meter drop in)
3/4" meter installed by City outside City limits
$1,400.00 (full installation of stub
service and meter)
$240.00 (meter drop in)
I" meter installed by City
$1,400.00 (full installation of stub
service and meter)
$250.00 (meter drop in)
1-1/2" meter installed by City
$2,400.00 (full installation of stub
service and meter)
$300.00 (meter drop in)
2" meter installed by City
$2,800.00 (full installation of stub
service and meter)
$370.00 (meter drop in)
3. Water Meter Processing Fees — Applicant Installed: For meters larger than two
inches (2"), the applicant must provide materials and installs. The City charges a two
hundred dollar ($200.00) processing fee at the time of meter application.
4. Wastewater and Surface Water Construction Permit Fees:
37
ORDINANCE NO.
Tvne of New Service
Residential
Commercial
Industrial
Wastewater I'erm i t ,l'ce _
.S wl ac;e Water
$60.00 each connection
$60.00 each
connection
$80.00 each connection
_
$80.00 each
connection
_ _ _
$100.00 each connection
$100.00 each
connection
Repair of any of the above $50.00 each service $50.00 each
_ connection
Cut and Cap / Demolition Permit $30.00 each service $30.00 each
_ service
Ground Water Discharge (Temporary $150.00 N/A
connection to sanitary sewer system for
one time discharge of contaminated
ground water to 50,000 gallons)
Ground Water Discharge (Temporary
$100.00 + Billed for
N/A
connection to sanitary sewer system for
current Renton and King
discharge of contaminated ground
County sewer rate on
water over 50,000 gallons)
discharged amount. (meter
provided by property
5. Work in Right -of -Way — Construction Permit: (Utility and Street/Sidewalk
Improvements): A bond is required, as stipulated in RMC 9-10-5, Street Excavation
Total I rontage Length of Improvement Permit I-ee Amourit
(sidewalks, curb:, e�cca�+atzons �£ _� � }
tmprovements) LI xceri Fra �h2 �
Less than 35 feet in length $30.00
35 to 100 feet in length $60.00
Greater than 100 feet in length $90.00
-9
ORDINANCE NO.
Exception: No permit fee shall be charged for individual homeowners for work in
street rights -of -way for street tree or parking strip irrigation systems.
6. Street Light System Fee: All new installations of street lighting facilities shall incur a
fee of five hundred dollars ($500.00) per connection to the power system, payable at or
prior to the time of construction permit issuance.
E. PUBLIC WORKS PLAN REVIEW AND INSPECTION FEES:
All developers, municipal or quasi -municipal entities, or utility corporations or
companies, except those specifically exempted, shall pay fees under this Section. Exempted
entities include City -franchised cable TV, cable modem, natural gas, telecommunications, and
electrical power. Half of this fee must be paid upon application and the remainder when the
permit(s) is issued. There are additional construction permit fees which are also payable upon
issuance. The fee will be based upon percentages of the estimated cost of improvements using
the following formula:
STREET''AND t TIunY- PLAN REVII� ;ANU,INSP CT10T�l S, t _. y .,
E; tini46d Construction Cost Th qa pl�cant
,Fee ndunt G
eiaiesXOA
must sub
R,t
for each itemm osubjett°to tho
u
-ImproYement
apptoual by the I?iblicWorks2au2eiew 4
�r
z
g
4
,
$100,000.00 or less
5% of cost
Over $100,000.00 but less than $200,000.00
$5,000.00, plus 4% of cost over
$100,000.00
$200,000.00 and over
$9,000.00, plus 3% of cost $200,000.00
and over
F. RELEASE OF EASEMENT FEES:
The imposition, collection, payment and other specifics concerning this charge are
detailed in chapter 9-1 RMC, Easements.
39
ORDINANCE NO.
t'vne of
Filing fee
$250.00 payable at time of application
Processing fee
(Paid once Council approvesthe release)
$250.00 payable upon Council
approval of the release of easement
G. RIGIIT-OF-WAY USE PERMIT FEES — REVOCABLE PERMITS FOR THE USE OF
EXCESS PUBLIC RIGHT-OF-WAY:
These fees are payable at the time of application. The imposition, collection, payment and
other specifics concerning this charge are detailed in chapter 9-2 RMC, Excess Right -of -Way
Use.
...�ee.Amounbf r4 g
Single family and two-family uses
$10.00 annually, plus leasehold
excise tax', if applicable
All uses without public benefit
0.5% per month of property value of
land to be utilized, plus leasehold
excise tax', if applicable. Payable
yearly in advance.
Uses with public benefit
0.5% per year of assessed value of
land adjoining the property, plus
leasehold excise tax', if applicable. In
no case less than ten dollars ($10.00).
Pa able yearly in advance.
' There is hereby imposed a leasehold excise tax against fees so determined which are two
hundred fifty dollars ($250.00) per annum or more. Such tax shall be imposed at the rate as
established by the State of Washington, Department of Revenue.
Z Right-of-way value shall be based on the assessed value of the land adjoining the property as
established by the King County Assessor.
Insurance Required: Public liability and property damage insurance is also required pursuant to
RMC 9-2-513, Minimum Permit Requirements for Excess Right -of -Way Use.
40
ORDINANCE NO.
Exception for Public Agencies: A no fee permit may be issued only when the applicant is a
public agency and when the proposed use of the right-of-way provides a direct service to the
public (e.g., METRO applications for right-of-way for bus shelters).
H. STREET AND ALLEY VACATION FEES:
The imposition, collection, payment and other specifics concerning this charge are
detailed in chapter 9-14 RMC, Vacations.
Filing fee
$250.00 payable at time of application
Processing and completion fee
$250.00 payable upon Council approval of
the vacation
TEMPORARY UTILITY CONNECTION FEES:
Temporary connections to a City
utility system may be granted for
a one-time, temporary, short-term
use of a portion of the property
for a period not to exceed three
(3) consecutive years
Annual fee equal to ten percent
(10%) of the current system
development charge applicable
to that portion of the property,
but not less than three hundred
fifty dollars ($350.00) per year'
Annual fee equal to ten
percent (10%) of the
current system
development charge
applicable to that
portion of the property,
but not less than seven
hundred fifty dollars
750.
'Said fee shall be paid annually (nonprorated), and shall be nonrefundable, nontransferable (from
one portion of the property to another) and shall not constitute a credit to the system
development charge due at the time of permanent use of the utility system. The application for
temporary connection shall consist of a detailed plan and a boundary line of the proposed
development service area for use in the fee determination.
SECTION XIII. Chapter 4-1-210, Waived Fees, 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 amended to read as follows:
41
ORDINANCE NO.
4-1-210 WAIVED FEES:
A. GENERAL
The Renton City Council shall, upon stating an equitable or legal reason for waiver, have
the authority to waive any and all fees authorized under this Chapter of Title 4.
B. OWNER -OCCUPIED HOUSING INCENTIVE
To encourage owner -occupied housing in the CD, and RM-U, and RM-T zones, certain
development and mitigation fees for "For Sale" housing may be waived for eligible projects,
subject to City Council approval. Fees which may be waived include building permit fees, utility
system development charges, Public Works plan review and inspection fees, and impact
mitigation fees. Waived fees will be replenished from tax revenues from the projects over time.
The fee waivers apply to multi -family housing projects with four (4) or more dwelling units each
in the CD, RM-U, or RM-T zones. These fee waivers are effective for building permits issued
after August 13, 2001, and will sunset on October 1, 2007, unless extended by City Council
action.
SECTION XIV. A new Chapter, 4-1-230, Sureties and Bonds, of Chapter 1,
Administration and Enforcement, of Title IV, Development Regulations, of Ordinance No.
4260 entitled "Code of General Ordinances of t he City of Renton, Washington" is hereby
added, to read as follows:
4-1-230 SURETIES AND BONDS
A. City Approval Required: All sureties posted with the City shall be approved as to form
by the City Attorney and approved by the Administrator as to amount and adequacy. The City's
decision as to the acceptability of the security shall be conclusive.
42
ORDINANCE NO.
B. Types of Security Accepted for Public Works Construction Permits and Future Public
Works Street/Utility Maintenance Requirements:
In order to ensure protection of City -owned facilities and ensure completion of required
improvements to City standards, the City requires one of the following types of security in
consideration of issuance of a Public Works Construction Permit:
1. Cash,
2. Letter of credit,
3. Set aside -letter provided that the funds cannot be withdrawn, spent, or committed to
any third party,
4. Savings account assigned to the City and blocked as to withdrawal by the secured
party without the City's approval, or
5. Performance or Maintenance Bond.
C. Types of Security Accepted for All Other Purposes: The following security devices are
acceptable for the purposes of deferral requests, occupancy permit requests in advance of
installation of required landscaping or other improvements, critical areas mitigation performance,
and critical areas monitoring/maintenance:
1. Cash,
2. Letter of credit,
3. Set aside letter provided that the funds cannot be withdrawn, spent, or committed to
any third party, or
4. Savings account assigned to the City and blocked as to withdrawal by the secured party
without the City's approval.
43
ORDINANCE NO.
D. Security Requirements:
1. Payable to City: Any security device must be payable to the City upon demand by the
City and not conditioned upon approval or other process involving the applicant.
2. Security Requirement Binding: The requirement of the posting of any security shall be
binding on the applicant and the applicant's heirs, successors and assigns.
3. Purpose of Security: Security must be unequivocally committed to the project being
secured, and cannot be available for any other purpose.
4. Agreement Required: In case of any suit or action to enforce any provisions of this
code, the developer shall pay the City all costs incidental to such litigation including reasonable
attorney's fees. The applicant shall enter into an agreement with the City requiring payment of
such attorney's fees and litigation costs.
5. Effect of Lapse of Security: Any security that, according to its terms, lapses upon a
date certain, will cause the associated city approval (e.g. deferral, Temporary Occupancy Permit,
etc.) to lapse on that same date unless adequate substitute security has been posted prior to the
termination date of the prior security.
6. Transfer of Responsibility: Whenever security has been accepted by the City, then no
release of the owner or developer upon that security shall be granted unless a new party has been
obligated to perform the work as agreed in writing to be responsible under the security, and has
provided security. In the instance where security would be provided by a condominium owners
association or property owners association, then it shall be necessary for the owners association
to have voted to assume the obligation before the City may accept the security, and a duly
certified copy of the minutes of the owners association shall be filed with the City along with the
security to the City.
MI
ORDINANCE NO.
7. City Approval Required Prior to Transfer of Responsibility: The City shall not be
required to permit a substitution of one party for another on any security if the Reviewing
Official feels that the new owner does not provide sufficient security to the City that the
improvements will be installed when required.
8. Default: In the event that improvements are not completed as required or maintenance
is not performed satisfactorily, the Administrator shall notify the applicant/developer, property
owner and guarantor in writing. The notice must state the specific defects that must be remedied
and the date the work shall be completed.
9. Proceeding Against Security: In the event the applicant, developer, property owner,
and/or guarantor fails to complete all improvement work required in compliance with this Title,
and the City shall have to complete the improvements, the City reserves the right, in addition to
all other remedies available to it by law, to proceed against the security for funds necessary to
complete the improvements. If the amount of security shall be less than the expense incurred by
the City, the applicant, developer, and/or property owner shall be liable to City for the difference.
10. Release of Sureties for Private/On-site Improvements: Sureties for completed or
partially completed private/on-site improvements shall not be released except upon written
approval of the Administrator.
11. Release of Sureties for Public Improvements: Sureties for completed or partially
completed public improvements shall not be released except under the following conditions:
a. The developer has submitted a schedule of improvements, the sequence for
completion, and the value of each part of the public improvement for which a release of
surety shall be sought.
45
ORDINANCE NO.
b. Each segment of the public improvement shall be useable by itself without the
completion of the remainder of the improvement.
c. Each segment of the public improvement shall receive final inspection and
approval of the City before release of the surety for that part of the improvement.
d. All partial releases on each public improvement shall constitute no more than 100
percent of estimated value of the entire completed improvement.
e. All releases of surety shall be approved in writing by the Administrator.
SECTION XV. Section 4-2-030.E of Chapter 2, Zoning Districts — Uses and
Standards, of Title IV (Development Regulations) of Ordinance No. 4260 entitled "Code of
General Ordinances of the City of Renton, Washington" is hereby amended to read as follows:
E. DESIGNATION OF SPECIAL ZONING CATEGORIES AND TIME LIMITATIONS:
Properties having a zoning category subject to a time limitation, such as a Planned Urban
Development approval or reversionary zoning, and those properties under contract rezone shall
be specially designated on the Zoning Map to indicate their special nature and give notice to the
public that further inquiry into their zoning status is necessary.
SECTION XVI. The Table Section entitled "Maximum Housing Density" of
Section 4-2-110.A, of Chapter 2, Zoning Districts — Uses and Standards, of Title IV
(Development Regulations) of Ordinance No. 4260 entitled "Code of General Ordinances of the
City of Renton, Washington" is hereby amended to read'as follows:
4-2-110.A Development Standards for Single Family Residential Zoning Designations
RC
R-1
R-4
R-8
Maximum
1 dwelling
1 dwelling
4 dwelling units
8 dwelling
Housing
unit per 10
unit per 1 net
per 1 net acre13
units per 1 net
Density" 14
net acres
acre
acre
M
ORDINANCE NO.
SECTION XVII. A new subsection, 4-2-110.D.14, of Chapter 2, Zoning
Districts — Uses and Standards, of Title IV (Development Regulations) of Ordinance No. 4260
entitled "Code of General Ordinances of the City of Renton, Washington" is hereby added, to
read as follows:
4-2-110.D
CONDITIONS ASSOCIATED WITH
DEVELOPMENT STANDARDS TABLE FOR
SINGLE FAMILY RESIDENTIAL ZONING DESIGNATIONS
14. Covenants filed as part of any final plat shall establish that future division of land
within the plat must be consistent with the maximum density requirements as measured within
the plat as a whole as of the time of future division.
SECTION XVIII. In Sections 4-2-120.A and B, the subsections entitled
"Special Requirements for Properties Located within the Green River Valley Planning Area" of
Chapter 2, Zoning Districts — Uses and Standards, of Title IV (Development Regulations) of
Ordinance No. 4260 entitled "Code of General Ordinances of the City of Renton, Washington"
are hereby deleted.
SECTION XIX. In Section 4-2-130.A, the subsection entitled "Special
Requirements for Properties Located within the Green River Valley Planning Area," of Chapter
2, Zoning Districts — Uses and Standards, of Title IV (Development Regulations) of Ordinance
No. 4260 entitled "Code of General Ordinances of the City of Renton, Washington" is hereby
deleted.
SECTION XX. Section 4-4-040.E.5 of Chapter 4, City -Wide Property
Development Standards, of Title IV (Development Regulations) of Ordinance No. 4260 entitled
47
ORDINANCE NO.
"Code of General Ordinances of the City of Renton, Washington" is hereby amended to read as
follows:
5. Special Provisions: Fences for mobile home parks, subdivisions or planned urban
development and for sites which are mined, graded or excavated may vary from these
regulations as provided in the respective code sections.
SECTION XXI. Section 4-4-070.D.6 of Chapter 4, City -Wide Property
Development Standards, of Title IV (Development Regulations) of Ordinance No. 4260 entitled
"Code of General Ordinances of the City of Renton, Washington" is hereby deleted.
SECTION XXIL Subsection 4-6-030.C.1.i of Chapter 6, Street and Utility
Standards, of Title IV (Development Regulations) of Ordinance No. 4260 entitled "Code of
General Ordinances of the City of Renton, Washington" is hereby amended to read as follows:
i. Planned urban development;
SECTION XXIII. Section 4-7-070.N of Chapter 7, Subdivision Regulations,
of Title IV (Development Regulations) of Ordinance No. 4260 entitled "Code of General
Ordinances of the City of Renton, Washington" is hereby amended to read as follows:
N. LIMITATIONS ON FURTHER SUBDIVISION
Any land subdivided under the requirements of this Section shall not be further divided
for a period of five (5) years without following the procedures for subdivision. Further short
subdivision of lot(s) must be consistent with the then -current applicable maximum density
requirement as measured within the plat as a whole.
SECTION XXIV. Section 4-7-170.0 of Chapter 7, Subdivision Regulations,
of Title IV (Development Regulations) of Ordinance No. 4260 entitled "Code of General
Ordinances of the City of Renton, Washington" is hereby amended to read as follows:
ORDINANCE NO.
C. MINIMUM SIZE
The size, shape, and orientation of lots shall meet the minimum area and width
requirements of the applicable zoning classification and shall be appropriate for the type of
development and use contemplated. Further subdivision of lots within a plat approved through
the provisions of this Chapter must be consistent with the then -current applicable maximum
density requirement as measured within the plat as a whole.
SECTION XXV. Sections 4-7-230.A-H of Chapter 7, Subdivision Regulations, of
Title W (Development Regulations) of Ordinance No. 4260 entitled "Code of General
Ordinances of the City of Renton, Washington" are hereby amended to read as follows:
A. PURPOSE AND INTENT:
The purpose of this Section is to allow for:
1. Optional Methods of Subdivision: To provide an optional process for the division of
land classified for industrial, commercial, or mixed use zones CN, CV, CA, CD, CO,
COR 1, COR 2, COR 3, UC-N1, UC-N2, IL, IM, and IH through a binding site plan as
authorized in RCW Chapters 58.17 and 64.34. This method may be employed as an
alternative to the subdivision and short subdivision procedures in this Chapter.
2. Alternative Ownership Options or Alternative Standards: To allow for alternative
ownership options and/or the ability to modify development standards that are otherwise
required by the binding site plan process by allowing binding site plan application with a
commercial condominium process pursuant to RCW Chapter 64.34, and/or planned urban
development process pursuant to RMC 4-9-150.
.•
ORDINANCE NO.
3. Procedural Requirements: To specify the administrative requirements for the review
and approval of binding site plans that are in addition to the procedural requirements of
chapter 4-8 RMC and other applicable provisions of the City development regulations.
B. APPLICABILITY:
1. All proposals for binding site plans shall be subject to the provisions of this Section.
A binding site plan may be processed in one of three ways:
a. Standard Binding Site Plan: A standard binding site plan creates or alters existing
lot lines, subject to the development standards of the underlying zoning district.
b. Commercial Condominium with Binding Site Plan: Where the development
standards of the underlying zoning district cannot be achieved through a binding site
plan, a binding site plan with condominium ownerships allow for greater flexibility in
the sale and lease of commercial and industrial sites. This alternative allows the site
in question to be treated as a single lot when applying the development standard for
the underlying zone.
c. Planned Urban Development with Binding Site Plan: Where the development
standards of the underlying zoning district cannot be achieved through a Binding Site
Plan, a binding site plan merged with a planned urban development allows for greater
flexibility in the lot and infrastructure layout and development of the binding site plan
provided planned urban development criteria are met including provision of a public
benefit.
2. A binding site plan may be reviewed and approved:
a. As a separate mechanism for the division of commercial and industrial
land;
50
ORDINANCE NO.
b. Merged with a site plan review under RMC 4-9-200, development
agreement under the authority of RCW 36.70B.170, or both a site plan and
development agreement per the criteria listed in this Section. A
development agreement may include standards and decision criteria that
apply to a binding site plan application in lieu of the standards and criteria
contained in this Section. Per RCW 36.70B.170 through 36.70B.210, a
development agreement shall not be more permissive than the
development standards of the underlying zoning district or other
applicable development standards.
c. Merged with a planned urban development per RMC 4-9-150.
d. Independently for pre-existing developed sites, concurrent with or
subsequent to a site development permit application for undeveloped land,
or concurrent with or subsequent to a building permit application.
C. APPROVAL CRITERIA:
Approval of a binding site plan or a commercial condominium site shall take place only
after the following criteria are met:
1. Legal Lots. The site that is subject to the binding site plan shall consist of one or more
contiguous, legally created lots. Lots, parcels, or tracts created through the binding site
plan procedure shall be legal lots of record. The number of lots, tracts, parcels, sites, or
divisions shall not exceed the number of lots allowed in the applicable zoning district.
New non -conforming lots shall not be created through the binding site plan process.
51
ORDINANCE NO.
2. If minimum lot dimensions and building setbacks for each newly created lot cannot
be met, the binding site plan shall be processed as a commercial condominium site
per RMC 4-7-230D or merged with a planned urban development application per
RMC 4-9-150.
3. Commercial or Industrial Property. The site is located within a commercial, industrial,
or mixed -use zone.
4. Zoning Code Requirements. Individual lots created through the binding site plan shall
comply with all of the zoning code requirements and development standards of the
underlying zoning district. Where minimum lot dimensions or setbacks cannot be met,
the binding site plan shall be processed as a commercial condominium site per RMC 4-7-
230D.
a. New Construction. The site shall be in conformance with the zoning code
requirements and development standards of the underlying zoning district at the
time the application is submitted.
b. Existing Development. If the site is non -conforming prior to a binding site plan
application, the site shall be brought into conformance with the development
standards of the underlying zoning district at the time the application is submitted.
In situations where the site cannot be brought into conformance due to physical
limitations or other circumstances, the binding site plan shall not make the site
more non -conforming than at the time a completed application is submitted.
c. Under either new construction or existing development, applicants for binding site
plan may proposed shared signage, parking, and access if they are specifically
52
ORDINANCE NO.
authorized per RMC 4-4-080.E.3, RMC 4-4-100.E.5,and RMC 4-4-080.I.7, and
other shared improvements as authorized in other sections of the City's
development standards.
5. Building Code Requirements. All building code requirements have been met per RMC
4-5-010.
6. Infrastructure provisions. Adequate provisions, either on the face of the binding site
plan or in a supporting document, have been made for drainageways, alleys, streets, other
public ways, water supplies, open space solid waste, and sanitary wastes, for the entire
property covered by the binding site plan.
7. Access to Public Rights -of -ways and Utilities. Each parcel created by the binding site
plan shall have access to a public street, water supply, sanitary sewer, and utilities by
means of direct access or access easement approved by the City.
8. Shared Conditions. The Administrator may authorize sharing of open space, parking,
access, signage and other improvements among contiguous properties subject to the
binding site plan and the provisions of RMC 4-4-080.E.3, RMC 4-4-100.E.5, and RMC
4-4-080.I.7. Conditions of use, maintenance, and restrictions on redevelopment of shared
open space, parking, access, signage and other improvements shall be identified on the
binding site plan and enforced by covenants, easements or other similar properly
recorded mechanism.
9. Future Development. The binding site plan shall contain a provision requiring that
any subsequent development of the site shall be in conformance with the approved and
recorded binding site plan.
53
ORDINANCE NO.
10. Dedication Statement: Where lands are required or proposed for dedication, the
applicant shall provide a dedication statement and acknowledgement on the binding site
plan.
11. Suitable Physical Characteristics. A proposed binding site plan may be denied
because of flood, inundation, or wetland conditions, or construction of protective
improvements may be required as condition of approval.
D. ADDITIONAL CRITERIA FOR BINDING SITE PLANS PROPOSING COMMERCIAL
CONDOMINIUM SITES OR MERGING WITH PLANNED URBAN DEVELOPMENT
APPLICATION
1. Condominium — Applicability. Where subdivision of a commercial or industrial site
will result in individual lots which cannot meet the development standards of the underlying
zoning district, the condominium option allows for the conversion of lease space to
condominiums without further subdivision of land. These standards are in addition to the
requirements of RMC 4-7-230C.
2. Condominium — Approval. Condominium developments are eligible for binding site
plan approval, when the purpose of such approval is to divide the property so that the parcel or
tract, or a portion thereof, can be subject to RCW Chapter 64.34 (Condominium Act). A
condominium can only be recorded either when the development has already been constructed to
City standards established through a binding site plan or a building permit for new development
has been issued. Binding site plans for condominiums sites shall be in conformance with RCW
Chapter 64.34 and RMC 4-9-040. The binding site plan shall also include conditions requiring
that the condominium is recorded per the provisions of RCW Chapter 64.34.
54
ORDINANCE NO.
3. Planned Urban Development. To allow for the ability to modify development standards
that are otherwise required by the binding site plan process, a binding site plan application may
be merged with a planned urban development application pursuant to RMC 4-9-150.
E. APPLICATION REQUIREMENTS:
1. General Requirements. All applications for binding site plans must conform to the
requirements of RMC 4-8-120.
F. REQUIRED IMPROVEMENTS:
1. Improvements. The following tangible improvements shall be provided for, either by
actual construction or a construction schedule approved by the City and bonded by the applicant,
before a binding site plan may be recorded: grading and paving of streets and alleys, installation
of curbs, gutters, sidewalks, monuments, sanitary and storm sewers, street lights, water mains
and street name signs, together with all appurtenances thereto to specifications and standards of
this code, approved by the Department and in accordance with other standards of the City. A
separate construction permit will be required for any such improvements, along with associated
engineering plans prepared per the City Drafting Standards.
2. Phasing of Improvements. To satisfy these requirements, the Administrator is
authorized to impose conditions and limitations on the binding site plan. If the Administrator
determines that any delay in satisfying requirements will not adversely impact the public health,
safety or welfare, the Administrator may allow requirements to be satisfied prior to issuing the
first building permit for the site, or prior to issuing the first building permit for any phase, or
prior to issuing a specific building's certificate of occupancy, or in accordance with an approved
phasing plan, or in accordance with plans established by a development agreement or as
otherwise permitted or required under City code.
55
ORDINANCE NO.
G. ACCESS REQUIREMENTS:
Access requirements and street design and development standards shall be provided in
accordance with R.MC 4-6-060, unless superseded by the terms of a development agreement as
provided by RMC 4-7-230J Merger with Development Agreement. New public roads shall be
provided for lot access where determined by the Administrator to be reasonably necessary as a
result of the proposed development or to make appropriate provisions for public roads.
Establishment of public roads may also be proposed by the applicant.
H. PERMIT PROCEDURES FOR BINDING SITE PLAN APPROVAL:
1. Permit Type: Binding site plans shall be processed as Type III permits in accordance
with the procedures in chapter 4-8 RMC for Type III permits and the standards and criteria set
forth in this Section, unless the applicant elects to merge the binding site plan application with
the site plan review process or combined site plan/planned action review process in which case
the binding site plan shall be processed in accordance with the procedures set out in chapters 4-8
and 4-9 RMC. If a binding site plan permit is processed concurrently, but not merged with
another permit process, then the binding site plan application shall be processed as a Type III
permit.
2. Review Authority: Pursuant to chapter 4-8 RMC, the Responsible Official for a
binding site plan application shall be the Administrator, unless the applicant elects to have the
binding site plan application merged with a Type VI permit site plan application or a
development agreement under chapter 36.70B RCW. If a binding site plan application is to be
processed with a Type VI site plan, then the responsible Reviewing Official shall be the Hearing
Examiner. If a binding site plan application is to be processed with a development agreement, the
56
ORDINANCE NO.
responsible Reviewing Official shall be the City Council. The final decision on a development
agreement with an application for a binding site plan shall be made by City Council. No
administrative appeal of the City Council decision shall be available. If a binding site plan is
merged with a planned urban development application, the review authority shall be determined
pursuant to RMC 4-9-150.
SECTION XXVI. Sections 4-7-230.J-K of Chapter 7, Subdivision Regulations, of
Title IV (Development Regulations) of Ordinance No. 4260 entitled "Code of General
Ordinances of the City of Renton, Washington" are hereby amended to read as follows:
J. MERGER WITH DEVELOPMENT AGREEMENT:
If a binding site plan is merged with a development agreement, in the event of a conflict
between the terms of the development agreement and this Section, the terms of the development
agreement shall control. Per RCW 36.70B.170-36.70B.210, a development agreement shall not
be more permissive than the applicable development standards.
K. REVIEW AUTHORITY DECISION:
1. Action: The responsible Reviewing Official shall review and act upon binding site
plans based upon the general criteria in this Section and other criteria applicable to the
site plan or development agreement with which the applicant elects to merge the binding
site plan application. Every decision made under this Section shall include findings of
fact and conclusions to support the decision.
2. Approval: If the Reviewing Official finds the proposed binding site plan is in
conformance to the standards and requirements of this Section, then it shall be approved.
57
ORDINANCE NO.
3. Approval with Modifications: If modification(s) are deemed necessary by the
Reviewing Official, then they may be added to the binding site plan or a revised binding
site plan may be required. The applicant shall be notified of any such modification action.
4. Referral to the Hearing Examiner: Except when a binding site plan is merged with a
development agreement, if the Administrator determines that there are sufficient concerns
by residents in the area of the binding site plan, or by City staff, to warrant a public
hearing, then he/she shall refer the binding site plan to the Hearing Examiner for public
hearing and decision by the Hearing Examiner. Notice of the public hearing will be given
as for a Type VI permit hearing. Binding site plans merged with development agreements
shall be approved by City Council pursuant to the requirements of RCW 36.70B.170 et
seq.
5. Denial: If the binding site plan is denied by the Reviewing Official, the applicant shall
be notified in writing of the decision, stating the reasons therefore.
6. Reconsideration: Any party may request that an application, on which the Reviewing
Official has made a decision, be reopened by the Reviewing Official if it is found that
new information that was not previously available has come to light that might affect the
action taken by the Reviewing Official. Requests for reconsideration must be filed within
fourteen (14) days of the date of the decision.
SECTION XXVII.
Section 4-7-230.N of Chapter 7, Subdivision Regulations,
of Title IV (Development Regulations) of Ordinance No. 4260 entitled "Code of General
Ordinances of the City of Renton, Washington" is hereby amended to read as follows:
ORDINANCE NO.
N. BINDING EFFECT:
1. Vesting: Upon filing of a complete application for a binding site plan, the application
shall be considered under the binding site plan ordinance, the zoning, and other
development regulations in effect on the date of application for the land uses and
development identified in the binding site plan application or identified in a complete site
plan review application filed in conjunction with or processed concurrently with a
binding site plan application.
2. Legal Lots: Lots, parcels, or tracts created through the binding site plan procedure shall
be legal lots of record.
3. Enforceable: Approved binding site plans shall be enforceable by the City. All
provisions, conditions and requirements of the binding site plan shall be legally
enforceable on the purchaser or on any person acquiring a lease or other ownership
interest of any lot, tract, or parcel created pursuant to the binding site plan. The binding
site plan shall include a provision requiring that any subsequent development of the site
shall be in conformance with the approved binding site plan. A sale, transfer, or lease of
any lot, tract, or parcel created pursuant to the binding site plan that does not conform to
the requirements of the binding site plan approval, shall be considered a violation of this
Section, shall be a nuisance and may be subject to an injunction action in Superior Court
or such other remedies provided by City code.
SECTION XXVIII.
A new Section, 4-8-050.E, of Chapter 8, Permits — General
and Appeals, 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:
59
ORDINANCE NO.
E. EXEMPTIONS FROM STATE PROCEDURAL REQUIREMENTS FOR NON -
PROJECT PERMITS:
RCW 36.7013.020 excludes certain actions from the definition of project permits,
particularly nonproject legislative actions. The adoption or amendment of a comprehensive plan,
subarea plan, or development regulations that do not involve site -specific rezones are exempt
from procedures requiring environmental review to be completed prior to the legislative hearing.
SECTION XXIX. Sections 4-8-070.H and I of Chapter 8, Permits — General and
Appeals, of Title IV (Development Regulations) of Ordinance No. 4260 entitled "Code of
General Ordinances of the City of Renton, Washington" are hereby amended to read as follows:
H. HEARING EXAMINER:
1. Authority: The Hearing Examiner shall review and act on the following:
a. Appeals of any administrative decisions/determinations (including, but not
limited to, parking, sign, street, tree cutting/routine vegetation management standards,
and Urban Center Design Overlay District regulations) and ERC decisions, excepting
determinations of whether an application is a bulk storage facility which shall be
appealable to the City Council,
b. Appeals relating to RMC 4-5-060, Uniform Code for the Abatement of
Dangerous Buildings,
c. Bulk storage special permit and variances from the bulk storage regulations,
d. Conditional approval permit for nonconforming uses,
e. Conditional use permit,
f. Fill and grade permit, special,
M
ORDINANCE NO.
Plan,
g. Master Plan review (overall plan) and major amendments to an overall Master
h. Mobile home parks, preliminary and final,
i. Planned urban development, preliminary, when associated with an existing
development that proposes a binding site plan,
j. Planned urban development, final
k. Shoreline conditional use permit,
1. Shoreline variance,
in. Short plat — five (5) to nine (9) lots,
n. Site plan approvals requiring a public hearing,
o. Special permits,
p. Variances from the critical areas regulations listed in RMC 4-9-250B1, the land
clearing and tree cutting regulations, the wireless communication facility development
standards, the provisions of the subdivision regulations relating to short plats, and
variances associated with a development permit that requires review by the Hearing
Examiner,
q. Building permits submitted in conjunction with any of the above, and
2. Interpretation: It shall be the duty of the Hearing Examiner to interpret the provisions
of chapter 4-2 RMC, Land Use Districts, in such a way as to carry out the intent and
purpose of the plan thereof, as shown by the maps fixing districts, accompanying and
made part of this Code, in cases where the street layout actually on the ground varies
from the street layout as shown on the maps aforesaid.
61
ORDINANCE NO.
3. Recommendations: The Hearing Examiner shall hold a hearing and make
recommendations to the City Council on the following:
above
a. Rezones, site specific, in conformance with the Comprehensive Plan,
b. Preliminary plats,
c. Planned urban developments, preliminary, except those under subsection l.j
d. Special permits requiring Council approval,
e. Variances from the provisions of the subdivision regulations relating to a full
subdivision.
4. Appeals: Unless otherwise specified, any decision of the Environmental Review
Committee or the Planning/Building/Public Works Administrator or his or her designee
in the administration of this Title shall be appealable to the Hearing Examiner as an
administrative determination pursuant to RMC 4-8-110.E, Appeals.
I. CITY COUNCIL:
The City Council shall review and act on the following:
1. Annexations,
2. Appeals of Hearing Examiner decisions (any appeal from a Hearing Examiner's
decision, whether an appeal from an administrative determination or an original decision,
shall be appealable to the City Council pursuant to RMC 4-8-110.E.8),
3. Appeals of staff determinations of whether or not a proposal is considered a bulk
storage facility,
4. Comprehensive Plan map or text amendment,
5. Dedications of property for public purposes,
62
ORDINANCE NO.
6. Development and zoning regulations text amendment,
7. Final plats,
8. Preliminary plats,
9. Planned urban developments, preliminary,
10. Release of easements,
11. Rezones with associated Comprehensive Plan amendment,
12. Rezones with associated Comprehensive Plan map or text amendment,
13. Street vacations,
14. Variances from the provisions of the subdivision regulations relating to a full
subdivision.
SECTION XXX.
Sections 4-8-080.C-E of Chapter 8, Permits — General and Appeals,
of Title IV (Development Regulations) of Ordinance No. 4260 entitled "Code of General
Ordinances of the City of Renton, Washington" are hereby amended to read as follows:
C. CONSOLIDATED REVIEW PROCESS FOR MULTIPLE PERMIT APPLICATIONS:
1. Optional Process Resulting in a Single Open Record Public Hearing: An applicant may
elect to have the review and decision process for required permits consolidated into a
single review process. Consolidated review shall provide for only one open record
hearing and no more than one closed record appeal period. Appeals of environmental
determinations shall be consolidated except when allowed to be part of separate hearings
in accordance with RCW 43.21C.075, Appeals, and WAC 197-11- 680, Appeals. Where
hearings are required for permits from other local, State, regional, or Federal agencies,
the City will cooperate to the fullest extent possible with the outside agencies to hold a
single joint hearing. A flowchart showing the timeline for processing a combined land
63
ORDINANCE NO.
use, environmental, and building permit application is included in subsection H of this
Section.
2. Review Authority for Multiple Permit Applications: Where more than one land use
permit application is required for a given development, an applicant may file all related
permit applications concurrently, pay appropriate fees, and the processing may be
conducted under the consolidated review process. Where required permits are subject to
different types of permit review procedures, then all the applications are subject to the
highest -number procedure, as identified in subsection G of this Section, and highest level
of review authority, as identified in RMC 4-8-070, that applies to any of the applications.
Appeals of environmental determinations shall be consolidated except when allowed to
be part of separate hearings in accordance with RCW 43.21 C.075, Appeals, and WAC
197-11- 680, Appeals.
D. TIME FRAME BASED ON PERMIT TYPE:
The flowcharts in subsection H of this Section indicate timelines for each of the eleven
(11) land use permit types, as discussed in subsection G of this Section. For permit types I
through VIII, the timelines include the statutory requirement that requires the issuance of a letter
of completeness within twenty eight (28) days of the application submittal, pursuant to RCW
36.70B.070(1), and the provision for final decisions on permits within one hundred twenty (120)
days of receipt of a complete application. In addition, there is a generalized flowchart for the
consolidated review process. (Amd. Ord. 4974, 6-24-2002)
E. TIME FRAMES — MAXIMUM PERMITTED:
Final decisions on all Type I through Type VIII permits and reviews subject to the
procedures of this Chapter shall occur within one hundred twenty (120) days from the date an
64
ORDINANCE NO.
application is deemed complete, unless the applicant consents to an extension of such time
period. If a project application is substantially revised by an applicant, the one hundred twenty
(120) day time period shall start again after the revised project application is determined to be
complete. Development applications which are specifically exempted under RMC 4-8-050,
Exemptions from State Process Requirements, are not subject to this time frame.
SECTION XXXI. Table Subsections IV, VI, VII, IX, and X, and the Table Legend, of Section
4-8-080.G, Land Use Permit Procedures, of Chapter 8, Permits — General and Appeals, of Title
IV (Development Regulations) of Ordinance No. 4260 entitled "Code of General Ordinances of
the City of Renton, Washington" are hereby amended to read as follows:
LAND USE
PUBLIC
RECOMMEND-
OPEN
DECISION/
OPEN
CLOSED
JUDICIAL
PERMITS
NOTICE OF
ATION
RECORD,
ADOPTION
CORD
RECORD
PEAL
APPLICATION
HEARING
APPEAL
HEARING
TYPE IV4
Variances,
PBP W
Administrators
(and building
Yes
NA
Admin.
Admin.
SC
permits
submitted in
conjunction
with above)
TYPE VI4
Bulk Storage
Yes
Staff
HE
HE
CC
SC
Special Permit
Conditional
Use Permit
Yes
Staff
HE
HE
CC
SC
(Hearing
Examiner)
Fill and Grade
Permit, Special
Yes
Staff
HE
HE
CC
SC
Master Site
Plan Approval
Yes
Staff
HE
HE
CC
SC
(overall plan)
65
ORDINANCE NO.
LAND USE
PUBLIC
RECOMMEND-
OPEN
DECISION!
OPEN
CLOSED
JUDIC'
PERMITS
NOTICE OF
ATION
RECORD,
ADOPTION
CORD
APPEAL
RECORD
HEARING
APPEti—
APPLICATION
HEARING
Mobile Home
Parks,
Yes
Staff
HE
HE
CC
SC
Preliminary
and Final
Planned urban
development,
Yes
Staff
HE
HE
CC
SC
final
Planned urban
development,
preliminary,
when
associated with
Yes
Staff
HE
HE
CC
SC
an existing
development
that proposes a
binding site
plan
Shoreline
Conditional
Yes
Staff
HE
DOE, HE
SHB
Use Permit
Shoreline
Variance
Yes
Staff
HE
DOE, HE
SHB
Short Plats — 5
Yes
Staff
HE
HE
CC
to 9 Lots
Site Plan
Review
(Hearing
Yes
Staff
HE
HE
CC
Examiner) with
Environmental
Review
Special Permits
Yes
Staff
HE
HE
CC
Variances
(associated
with Hearing
Yes
Staff
HE
HE
CC
Examiner land
use review)
Building
Permits
submitted in
Yes
Staff
HE
HE
CC
coniunction
m.
ORDINANCE NO.
LAND USE
PUBLIC
RECOMMEND-
OPEN
DECISION/
OPEN
CLOSED
JUDICIAL
PERMITS
NOTICE OF
APPLICATION
ATION
RECORD,
ADOPTION
CORD
RECORD
PEAL
HEARING
APPEAL
HEARING
with any of the
above
Environmental
Yes
No
No
Staff
HE
CC
SC
Review
Site Plan
Review
(administrative)
Yes
No
No
Staff
HE
CC
SC
with
Environmental
Review
TYPE VII4
Preliminary
Plats — 10 Lots
Yes
Staff, HE
HE
CC
SC
or More
Planned Urban
Developments
(preliminary,
Yes
Staff, HE
HE
CC
SC
except as
shown under
Type VI)
Rezones (site -
specific, not
associated with
a
Yes
Staff, HE
HE
CC
SC
Comprehensive
Plan
amendment)
Building
Permits
submitted in
Yes
Staff, HE
HE
CC
SC
SC
conjunction
with any of the
above
TYPE IX4
Development
Regulation
Text
Amendments —
Yes
Staff
CC
CC
GMHB
Except Those
Referred to
67
ORDINANCE NO.
LAND USE
PUBLIC
RECOMMEND-
OPEN
DECISION/
OPEN
CLOSED
JUDICI
PERMITS
NOTICE OF
ATION
RECORD
ADOPTION
CORD
RECORD
APPEA_
APPLICATION
HEARING
APPEAL
HEARING
Planning
Commission
TYPE X4
Comprehensive
Plan Text
Yes
Staff, PC
PC, CC
CC
GMHB
Amendments
Comprehensive
Plan Map or
Text
Yes
Staff, PC
PC, CC
CC
GMHB
Amendments
with associated
Rezones
Development
Regulation
Text
Amendments
Yes
Staff, PC
PC, CC
CC
GMHB
Referred to
Planning
Commission
LEGEND:
Staff — Planning/Building/Public Works Division Staff
ERC — Environmental Review Committee
PC — Planning Commission
Admin. — Planning/Building/Public Works Administrator or his/her designee
HE — Hearing Examiner
CC — City Council
DOE — Washington State Department of Ecology
SC — Superior Court
SHB — Shoreline Hearings Board
GMHB — Growth Management Hearings Board
NA — Not Applicable
•i
ORDINANCE NO.
FOOTNOTES:
1. SEPA exempt or for which the SEPA/land use permit process has been completed.
2. Administratively approved.
3. In lieu of the public notice requirements of RMC 4-8-090, public notice of a SEPA exempt
temporary use permit shall consist of the on -site installation of a 24" x 30" sign meeting the
requirements of RMC 4-9-240E. At the discretion of the Administrator, additional notice may be
required.
4. Environmental review may be associated with a land use permits. The Environmental Review
Committee (ERC) is responsible for environmental determinations.
5. The Planning/Building/Public Works Administrator or his/her designee shall hear variances
where not associated with a development that requires review by the Hearing Examiner.
6. Shoreline conditional use permits and shoreline variances also require approval of the State
Department of Ecology (DOE). DOE has up to 30 days to make a decision on a permit. This time
period does not count toward the 120-day maximum time limit for permit decisions. DOE's
decision is followed by a 21-day appeal period, during which time no building permit for the
project may be issued.
7. An open record appeal of an environmental threshold determination must be held concurrent
with an open record public hearing.
8. Street vacations are exempt from the 120-day permit processing time limit.
9. Environmental review for a permitted/secondary/accessory use not requiring any other land
use permit.
SECTION XXXII. The following subsections of Type VI, VII, IX, and X of Section 4-8-
080.H, Review Processes, of Chapter 8, Permits — General and Appeals, of Title IV
69
ORDINANCE NO.
(Development Regulations) of Ordinance No. 4260 entitled "Code of General Ordinances of the
City of Renton, Washington" are hereby amended to read as follows:
Type VI — Land Use Permits
Hearing Examiner/Environmental Review Process
Letter Environmental Environmental
Application of Complete Public Notice Threshold Decision Hearing Hearing Examiner Open Hearing Examiner Appee
Submittal Application of Application Determination' Notice Published= Record Public Hearing3 Decision4 Period Er
II I Staff Review I
28 days max. 14 days max. 14 days min. 6 days
max.
15-29days 10 days 14 days
Type VI — Environmental Review Committee and Hearing Examiner:
Bulk Storage Special Permit
Conditional Use Permits (Hearing Examiner) with associated Environmental Review
Fill and Grade Permit, Special
Master Site Plan Approval (overall plan) and Mobile Home Parks, Preliminary and Final
Shoreline Conditional Use Permit and Shoreline Variance — Also requires approval of
Washington State Department of Ecology (DOE)4
Planned urban development, final
Planned urban development, preliminary, when associated with an existing development that
proposes a binding site plan
Short Plats of 5 to 9 lots — Environmental Review normally not required, unless previously short
platted or on lands covered by water
Site Plan Review (Hearing Examiner with associated Environmental Review) and Special
Permits
70
ORDINANCE NO.
Variances, with associated Hearing Examiner Land Use Review
Building Permits submitted in conjunction with any of the above
1. Environmental Threshold Determination shall not be issued prior to a 14-day continent
period following the mailing of public notice of the development application.
2. Comment/Appeal Period may include:
1) a 14-day appeal period with no comment period,
2) a 15-day combined comment/appeal period, or
3) a separate 15-day comment period followed by a 14-day appeal period.
3. Open Record Appeal of Environmental Threshold Determination may be included in
Public Hearing (Hearing Examiner) if applicable.
4. DOE has up to 30 days to make a decision on a Shoreline Conditional Use Permit and
Variance Permit. This time period does not count toward the 120-day maximum time limit for
permit decisions.
5. For Shoreline Conditional Use Permits and Variances, a Building Permit shall not be
issued until 21 days after the permit decision.
Type VII — Land Use Permits
City Council/Hearing Examiner Environmental Review Process
Environmental Environmental Hearing Examiner
Letter of Complete Public Notice of Threshold Decision Hearing t Open Record Public Hearing Examiner City Council
;Application SubmittalApplication Application Determination' Notice Published � Heanng° Recommendation Decisions Appeal Period Ends
II Staff Review �. Appeal Period I
28 days max. 14 days max 14 days min 6 days _ .. 15-29 days 10 days 14 days
120 days max.
Type VII — City Council/Hearing Examiner/Environmental Review Process:
Preliminary Plats
71
ORDINANCE NO.
Planned urban developments, Preliminary
Building Permits submitted in conjunction with any of the above
Rezones, site -specific in conformance with Comprehensive Plan
1. Environmental Threshold Determination shall not be issued prior to a 14-day comment
period following the mailing of public notice of the development application.
2. Comment/Appeal Period may include:
1) a 14-day appeal period with no comment period,
2) a 15-day combined comment/appeal period, or
3) a separate 15-day comment period followed by a 14-day appeal period.
3. Open Record Appeal of Environmental Threshold Determination may be included in
Public Hearing (Hearing Examiner) if applicable.
4. Appeal of City Council decision to King County Superior Court.
Type IX — Land Use Permits
City Council/Environmental Review/Staff
City Council Open Record
Application Submittal letter of Complete Application Public Notice of Application Public Hearing City Council Decision Appeal Period Ends
max. 14 days max.
4 nvironmental Determination 1, 2' 3 _i,
Type IX — City Council/Environmental Review Committee (ERC)/Staff
Development Regulation Amendments except those referred to Planning Commission
1. Environmental Threshold Determination shall not be issued prior to a 14-day comment
period following the mailing of public notice of the development application. Any required
72
ORDINANCE NO.
comment and/or appeal period must be completed before action is taken.
2. Comment/Appeal Period may include:
1) a 14-day appeal period with no comment period,
2) a 15-day combined comment/appeal period, or
3) a separate 15-day comment period followed by a 14-day appeal period.
3. Any appeal of Environmental Decision shall be heard before the Hearing Examiner.
Type X 3— Land Use Permits
City Council/Planning Commission/Environmental Review Process
Letter of Complete Planning Comission Open Planning Commission
Application Submittal Application Public Notice) f Application RecordHearingRecommendation _ _ City Council Decision Appeal Period Ends
20 days max. 14 days max. 14 days min. - 21 days
_
Environmental Determination 12
Type X 3— City Council/Planning Commission/Environmental Review Process:
Comprehensive Plan Map or Text Amendments
Rezones with associated Comprehensive Plan Map Amendments
Development Regulations Text Amendments Referred to Planning Commission
1. For Comprehensive Plan Map Amendments or Rezones with associated Comprehensive
Plan Map Amendments: Environmental Threshold Determination shall not be issued prior to a
14-day comment period following public notice of proposal. Any required SEPA comment
and/or appeal periods shall conclude prior to legislative hearing. Any appeal of Environmental
Decision shall be heard before the Hearing Examiner.
2. For Comprehensive Plan Text Amendments or Development Regulation Text
Amendments: Environmental Threshold Determination shall not be issued prior to a 14-day
comment period following public notice of proposal. Any required comment and/or appeal
73
ORDINANCE NO.
period must be completed before action is taken. Any appeal of Environmental Decision shall be
heard before the Hearing Examiner.
3. Type X Land Use Permits are exempt from the requirements of State Regulatory Reform
Act.
SECTION XXXIII. A new Section, 4-8-090.G, of Chapter 8, Permits — General
and Appeals, 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:
G. Failure to receive such mailed notification as may be required in subsections A to F shall
have no effect upon the proposed action or application.
SECTION XXXIV. Subsection 4-8-110.E.2 of Chapter 4-8-110.E, Appeals to
Examiner of Administrative Decisions and Environmental Determinations, of Chapter 8, Permits
— General and Appeals, of Title N (Development Regulations) of Ordinance No. 4260 entitled
"Code of General Ordinances of the City of Renton, Washington" is hereby amended to read as
follows:
2. Optional Request for Reconsideration: See RMC 4-9-070 N.
SECTION XXXV. Subsection 4-8-110.E.3.a of Chapter 4-8-110.E, Appeals to
Examiner of Administrative Decisions and Environmental Determinations, of Chapter 8, Permits
— General and Appeals, of Title IV (Development Regulations) of Ordinance No. 4260 entitled
"Code of General Ordinances of the City of Renton, Washington" is hereby amended to read as
follows:
a. Standing for Filing Appeals of the City's Environmental Determinations: Appeals
from environmental determinations as set forth in 4-8-110.E.Lb or 4-9-070.N may be taken to
the Hearing Examiner by any person aggrieved, or by any officer, department, board or bureau of
74
ORDINANCE NO.
the City affected by such determination. Any agency or person may appeal the City's compliance
with chapter 197-11 WAC for issuance of a Threshold Determination. A person is aggrieved
when all of the following conditions are met: The decision is prejudiced or is likely to prejudice
that person; the person's asserted interests are among those that are required to be considered by
the City when it made its decision; and a decision in favor of that person would substantially
eliminate or redress the prejudice to that person caused or likely to be caused by the decision;
and prejudice means injury in fact.
SECTION XXXVI. A new Section, 4-9-075, of Chapter 9, Permits — Specific,
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:
4-9-075: PERMITS
A. APPLICABILITY
Utilities providing service within the City of Renton (Cable TV, cable modem, natural gas,
telecommunications, and electrical) shall do so under approved franchise or agreement with the
City. If, for any reason, a utility is allowed to provide service within the City of Renton without
an approved agreement with the City, they shall be subject to the permitting requirements of this
section.
B. PERMIT REQUIRED
Construction by one of these utilities within rights of way, easements, and on public property is
subject to a permit.
C. SUBMITTAL REQUIREMENTS FEES
1. FEES: Fees shall be stipulated in RMC 4-1-180A.
75
ORDINANCE NO.
2. SUBMITTAL REQUIREMENTS: Submittal requirements shall be
stipulated by the Development Services Division.
SECTION XXXVII. Subsection 4-9-150 of Chapter 9, Permits - Specific, of
Title IV (Development Regulations) of Ordinance No. 4260 entitled "Code of General
Ordinances of the City of Renton, Washington" is hereby amended to read as follows:
4-9-150 PLANNED URBAN DEVELOPMENT REGULATIONS:
There are two (2) principal purposes of the Planned Urban Development
regulations. First, it is the purpose of these regulations to preserve and protect natural
features of the land. Second, it is also the purpose of these regulations to encourage
innovation and creativity in the development of residential, business, manufacturing, or
mixed use developments by permitting a variety in the type, design, and arrangement of
structures and improvements.
In order to accomplish these purposes, this Section is established to permit
development which is not limited by the strict application of the City's zoning, parking,
street, and subdivision regulations when it is demonstrated that such new development
will be superior to traditional development under standard regulations. In consideration
of the latitude given and the absence of conventional restrictions, the reviewing agencies,
Hearing Examiner, and City Council shall have wide discretionary authority in judging
and approving or disapproving the innovations which may be incorporated into Planned
Urban Developments proposed under this Section.
we
ORDINANCE NO.
B. APPLICABILITY:
Any applicant seeking to permit development which is not limited by the strict
application of the City's zoning, parking, street, and subdivision regulations in a
comprehensive manner shall be subject to this Section. Any amendment to existing
Planned Urban Developments shall be subject to this chapter.
1. Zones: Planned urban developments may be permitted in the following zoning
districts, when processed and approved as provided in this Section:
a. All zones, except R-1, R-4 and COR.
2. Code Provisions That May Be Modified:
a. In approving a Planned Urban Development, the City may modify any of the
standards of RMC 4-2, 4-4, 4-6-060, and 4-7 except as listed in subsection 3. All
modifications shall be considered simultaneously as part of the Planned Urban
Development.
b. An applicant may request additional modifications from the requirements of RMC
Title 4, except those listed in subsection 3. Approval for modifications other than those
specifically described subsection 2.a shall be approved by the City Council prior to
submittal of a preliminary Planned Urban Development plan.
3. Code Provisions Restricted from Modification:
a. Permitted Uses: A Planned Urban Development may not authorize uses
that are inconsistent with those uses allowed by the underlying zone, or overlay
district, or other location restriction in RMC Title IV, including, but not limited
to: RMC 4-2-010 to 4-2-080, RMC 4-3-010 to 4-3-040, RMC 4-3-090, RMC 4-3-
095,and RMC 4-4-010.
77
ORDINANCE NO.
b. Density/Permitted Number of Dwelling Units: The number of dwellings
units shall not exceed the density allowances of the applicable base or overlay
zone or bonus criteria in RMC 4-2 or 4-9.
c. Planned Urban Development Regulations: The City may not modify any
of the provisions of this Section 4-9-150, Planned Urban Development;
d. Procedures: The City may not modify any of the procedural provisions
of Title IV, including but not limited to, fees, submittal requirements, and other
similar provisions found in RMC 4-1, 4-7, 4-8 and 4-9; and
e. Specific Limitations: The City may not modify any provision of RMC 4-3-050
Critical Areas Regulations, 4-3-090 Shoreline Master Program Regulations, RMC 4-4-
130, Tree Cutting and Land Clearing, RMC 4-4-060, Grading, Excavation and Mining
Regulations, RMC 4-5, or RMC 4-6-010 to 050 and 4-6-070-110 related to utilities and
concurrency, except that provisions may be altered for these codes by alternates,
modification, conditional use, or variance as specifically allowed in the referenced
Chapter or Section. Such alternates, modification, conditional use, or variance
applications may be merged with the consideration of a Planned Urban Development per
RMC 4-9-150.H.
C. ROLES AND RESPONSIBILITY:
1. Development Services Division: The Development Services Division shall be
responsible for the general administration and coordination of this Section. However,
all proposed code modifications shall be reviewed at the same time by the Hearing
Examiner and City Council.
ORDINANCE NO.
2. Reviewing Agencies: City departments shall review each proposed Planned
Urban Development in accordance with procedures in RMC 4-8 and 4-9 as
appropriate.
3. Hearing Examiner: The Hearing Examiner is designated as the official agency
of the City for the conduct of public hearings and for recommendation to the City
Council for all requested code modifications and the overall proposal itself.
4. City Council: The City Council, upon recommendation by the Hearing
Examiner and the other agencies detailed in the paragraph above, shall be the final
approving agency under this Section for all requested code modifications and the
overall proposal itself.
D. DECISION CRITERIA:
The City may approve a Planned Urban Development only if it finds that the
following requirements are met.
1. Demonstration of Compliance and Superiority Required: Applicants must
demonstrate that a proposed development is in compliance with the purposes of this
Section and with the Comprehensive Plan, that the proposed development will be
superior to that which would result without a Planned Urban Development, and that
the development will not be unduly detrimental to surrounding properties.
2. Public Benefit Required: In addition, Applicants shall demonstrate that a proposed
development will provide specifically identified benefits that clearly outweigh any
adverse impacts or undesirable effects of the proposed Planned Urban Development,
particularly those adverse and undesirable impacts to surrounding properties, and that
the proposed development will provide one or more of the following benefits than
79
ORDINANCE NO.
would result from the development of the subject site without the proposed Planned
Urban Development:
a. Critical Areas: Protects critical areas that would not be protected otherwise to
the same degree as without a Planned Urban Development; or
b. Natural Features: Preserves, enhances, or rehabilitates natural features of the
subject property, such as significant woodlands, native vegetation, topograpy, or
non -critical area wildlife habitats, not otherwise required by other City
regulations; or
c. Public Facilities: Provides public facilities that could not be required by the
City for development of the subject property without a Planned Urban
Development; or
d. Overall Design: Provides a Planned Urban Development design that is superior
in one or more of the following ways to the design that would result from
development of the subject property without a Planned Urban Development:
i. Open Space/Recreation:
(a) Provides increased open space or recreational facilities beyond
standard code requirements and considered equivalent to features that would
offset park mitigation fees in Resolution 3082; and
(b) Provides a quality environment through either passive or active
recreation facilities and attractive common areas, including accessibility to
buildings from parking areas and public walkways; or
ii. Circulation/Screening: Provides superior circulation patterns or location or
screening of parking facilities; or
ORDINANCE NO.
iii. Landscaping/Screening: Provides superior landscaping, buttenng, or
screening in or around the proposed Planned Urban Development; or
iv. Site and Building Design: Provides superior architectural design,
placement, relationship or orientation of structures, or use of solar energy; or
v. Alleys: Provides alleys to at least 50 percent of any proposed single family
detached, semi -attached, or townhouse units.
3. Additional Review Criteria: A proposed Planned Urban Development shall also be
reviewed for consistency with all of the following criteria:
a. Building and Site Design:
i. Perimeter: Size, scale, mass, character and architectural design along the
Planned Urban Development perimeter provide a suitable transition to
adjacent or abutting lower density/intensity zones. Materials shall reduce the
potential for light and glare.
ii. Interior Design: Promotes a coordinated site and building design. Buildings
in groups should be related by coordinated materials and roof styles, but
contrast should be provided throughout a site by the use of varied materials,
architectural detailing, building orientation or housing type; e.g., single
family, detached, attached, townhouses, etc.
b. Circulation:
i. Provides sufficient streets and pedestrian facilities. The Planned Urban
Development shall have sufficient pedestrian and vehicle access
commensurate with the location, size and density of the proposed
development. All public and private streets shall accommodate emergency
W
ORDINANCE NO.
vehicle access and the traffic demand created by the development as
documented in a traffic and circulation report approved by the City. Vehicle
access shall not be unduly detrimental to adjacent areas.
ii. Promotes safety through sufficient sight distance, separation of vehicles
from pedestrians, limited driveways on busy streets, avoidance of difficult
turning patterns, and minimization of steep gradients.
iii. Provision of a system of walkways which tie residential areas to
recreational areas, transit, public walkways, schools, and commercial
activities.
iv. Provides safe, efficient access for emergency vehicles.
c. Infrastructure and Services: Provides utility services, emergency services, and
other improvements, existing and proposed, which are sufficient to serve the
development.
d. Clusters or Building Groups and Open Space: An appearance of openness
created by clustering, separation of building groups, and through the use of well -
designed open space and landscaping, or a reduction in amount of impervious
surfaces not otherwise required.
e. Privacy and Building Separation: Provides internal privacy between dwelling
units, and external privacy for adjacent dwelling units. Each residential or mixed
use development shall provide visual and acoustical privacy for dwelling units
and surrounding properties. Fences, insulation, walks, barriers, and landscaping
are used, as appropriate, for the protection and aesthetic enhancement of the
property, the privacy of site occupants and surrounding properties, and for
ORDINANCE NO.
screening of storage, mechanical or other appropriate areas, and for the reduction
of noise. Windows are placed at such a height or location or screened to provide
sufficient privacy. Sufficient light and air are provided to each dwelling unit.
f. Building Orientation: Provides buildings oriented to enhance views from within
the site by taking advantage of topography, building location and style.
g. Parking Area Design:
i. Design: Provides parking areas that are complemented by landscaping and
not designed in long rows. The size of parking areas is minimized in
comparison to typical designs, and each area related to the group of buildings
served. The design provides for efficient use of parking, and shared parking
facilities where appropriate.
ii. Adequacy: Provides sufficient onsite vehicular parking areas consistent
with the parking demand created by the development as documented in a
parking analysis approved by the City. Parking management plans shall
ensure sufficient resident, employee, or visitor parking standards, and there
shall be no reliance on adjacent or abutting properties unless a shared parking
arrangement consistent with RMC 4-4-080 is approved.
h. Phasing: Each phase of the proposed development contains the required
parking spaces, open space, recreation spaces, landscaping and utilities necessary
for creating and sustaining a desirable and stable environment, so that each phase,
together with previous phases, can stand alone.
ORDINANCE NO.
4. Compliance with Development Standards: Each Planned Urban Development shall
demonstrate compliance with the development standards contained in subsection E of
this Section.
E. DEVELOPMENT STANDARDS:
1. Common Open Space Standard: Open space shall be concentrated in large
usable areas and may be designed provide either active or passive recreation.
Requirements for residential, mixed use, commercial, and industrial developments
are described below.
a. Residential: For residential developments, open space must be equal to or
greater in size than the total square footage of the lot area reductions requested by
the Planned Urban Development, as illustrated in Figure 1. The open space shall
not include a critical area and shall be concentrated in large usable areas.
Stormwater facilities may be incorporated with the open space on a case -by -case
basis if the Reviewing Official finds:
i. The stormwater facility utilizes the the techniques and landscape
requirements set forth in The Integrated Pond, King County Water and Land
Resources Division, or an equivalent manual, or
ii. The surface water feature serves areas outside of the Planned Urban
Development and is appropriate in size and creates a benefit.
Site Area: 1.5 acres
Site Area: 1.5 acres
ORDINANCE NO.
Typical Lot Size: 4,500 sq. ft.
Total Number of Lots: 12
Standard Subdivision
Typical Lot Size: 3,500 sq. ft.
Total Number of Lots: 12
Open Space: 4,500 s.f. minus 3,500 s.f. _
1,000 s.f. x 12 lots = 12,000 sq. ft.
Example Planned Urban Development
Approach
Figure 1. Common Open Space Example
b. Mixed Use — Residential Portions: Subsections "i" to "v" specify common open
space standards for the residential portions of mixed use developments.
i. Mixed -use residential and attached housing developments of ten (10) or
more dwelling units shall provide a minimum area of common space or
recreation area equal to fifty (50) square feet per unit. The common space
area shall be aggregated to provide usable area(s) for residents. The location,
layout, and proposed type of common space or recreation area shall be subject
to approval by the Reviewing Official. The required common open space
shall be satisfied with one or more of the elements listed below. The
Reviewing Official may require more than one of the following elements for
developments having more than one hundred (100) units.
(a) Courtyards, plazas, or multipurpose open spaces;
(b) Upper level common decks, patios, terraces, or roof gardens. Such
spaces above the street level must feature views or amenities that are
unique to the site and provided as an asset to the development;
(c) Pedestrian corridors dedicated to passive recreation and separate from
the public street system;
ORDINANCE NO.
(d) Recreation facilities including, but not limited to: tennis/sports courts,
swimming pools, exercise areas, game rooms, or other similar
facilities; or
(e) Children's play spaces.
ii. Required landscaping, driveways, parking, or other vehicular use areas
shall not be counted toward the common space requirement or be located
in dedicated outdoor recreation or common use areas.
iii. Required yard setback areas shall not count toward outdoor recreation and
common space unless such areas are developed as private or semi private
(from abutting or adjacent properties) courtyards, plazas or passive use
areas containing landscaping and fencing sufficient to create a fully usable
area accessible to all residents of the development.
iv. Private decks, balconies, and private ground floor open space shall not
count toward the common space/recreation area requirement.
M
ORDINANCE NO.
Figure 2. A visible and accessible residential common area containing
landscaping and other amenities.
v. Other required landscaping, and sensitive area buffers without common
access links, such as pedestrian trails, shall not be included toward the
required recreation and common space requirement.
c. Mixed Use Non -Residential Portions, or Commercial, or Industrial Uses: The
following subsections specify common open space requirements applicable to
non-residential portions of mixed use developments or to single use commercial
or industrial developments:
i. All buildings and developments with over 30,000 square feet of non-
residental uses (excludes parking garage floorplate areas) shall provide
pedestrian -oriented space according to the following formula:
1 % of the lot area + 1 % of the building area = Minimum amount of
pedestrian -oriented space
ORDINANCE NO.
Figure 3. Examples of pedestrian -oriented space associated with a large scale
retail building.
ii. To qualify as pedestrian -oriented space, the following must be included:
(a) Visual and pedestrian access (including barrier -free access) to the
abutting structures from the public right-of-way or a courtyard not subject to
vehicular traffic,
(b) Paved walking surfaces of either concrete or approved unit paving,
(c) On -site or building -mounted lighting providing at least four (4) foot-
candles (average) on the ground, and
(d) At least three feet of seating area (bench, ledge, etc) or one individual
seat per sixty (60) square feet of plaza area or open space.
iii.The following features are encouraged in pedestrian -oriented space and may be
required by the Reviewing Official.
N.
.
ORDINANCE NO.
(a) Pedestrian -oriented uses at the building fagade facing the pedestrian -
oriented space.
(b) Spaces should be positioned in areas with significant pedestrian traffic to
provide interest and security — such as adjacent to a building entry.
(c) Pedestrian -oriented facades on some or all buildings facing the space
consistent with Figure 4.
(d) Public seating that is durable or easily replaceable, maintainable, and
accessible.
Loll�!I
II�Ii�111�age
Figure 4. Pedestrian -oriented spaces, visible from the street, including ample
seating areas, movable furniture, special paving, landscaping components, and
adjacent pedestrian -oriented uses.
iv. The following are prohibited within pedestrian -oriented space:
(a) Adjacent unscreened parking lots,
(b) Adjacent chain link fences,
(c) Adjacent blank walls,
(d) Adjacent dumpsters or service areas, and
ORDINANCE NO.
(e) Outdoor storage (shopping carts, potting soil bags, firewood, etc.) that do
not contribute to the pedestrian environment.
d. Open Space Orientation: The location of public open space shall be
considered in relation to building orientation, sun and light exposure, and local micro -
climatic conditions.
e. Common Open Space Guidelines: Common space areas in mixed -use
residential and attached residential projects should be centrally located so they are
near a majority of dwelling units, accessible and usable to residents, and visible
from surrounding units.
i. Common space areas should be located to take advantage of
surrounding features such as building entrances, significant landscaping,
unique topography or architecture, and solar exposure.
ii. In mixed -use residential and attached residential projects
children's play space should be centrally located, visible from the
dwellings, and away from hazardous areas like garbage dumpsters,
drainage facilities, streets, and parking areas.
2. Private Open Space: Each residential unit in a Planned Urban Development shall
have usable private open space (in addition to parking, storage space, lobbies, and
corridors) for the exclusive use of the occupants of that unit. Each ground floor unit,
whether attached or detached, shall have private open space which is contiguous to
the unit and shall be an area of at least twenty percent (20%) of the gross square
footage of the dwelling units. The private open space shall be well demarcated and at
least ten feet (10') in every dimension. Decks on upper floors can substitute for some
ORDINANCE NO.
of the required private open space for upper floor units. For dwelling units which are
exclusively upper story units, there shall be deck areas totaling at least sixty (60)
square feet in size with no dimension less than five feet (5').
3. Installation and Maintenance of Common Open Space:
a. Installation: All common area and open space shall be landscaped in
accordance with the landscaping plan submitted by the applicant and approved by
the City, provided that common open space containing natural features worthy of
preservation may be left unimproved. Prior to the issuance of any occupancy
permit, the developer shall furnish a security device to the City in an amount
equal to the provisions of RMC 4-9-060. Landscaping shall be planted within one
year of the date of final approval of the Planned Urban Development, and
maintained for a period of two (2) years thereafter prior to the release of the
security device. A security device for providing maintenance of landscaping may
be waived if a landscaping maintenance contract with a reputable landscaping
firm licensed to do business in the City of Renton is executed and kept active for a
two (2) year period. A copy of such contract shall be kept on file with the
Development Services Division.
b. Maintenance: Landscaping shall be maintained pursuant to requirements of
RMC 4-4-070.
4. Installation and Maintenance of Common Facilities:
a. Installation: Prior to the issuance of any occupancy permits, all common
facilities, including but not limited to utilities, storm drainage, streets, recreation
facilities, etc., shall be completed by the developer or, if deferred by the
91
ORDINANCE NO.
Planning/Building/Public Works Administrator or his/her designee, assured
through a security device to the City equal to the provisions of RMC 4-9-060,
except for such common facilities that are intended to serve only future phases of
a Planned Urban Development. Any common facilities that are intended to serve
both the present and future phases of a Planned Urban Development shall be
installed or secured with a security instrument as specified above before
occupancy of the earliest phase that will be served. At the time of such security
and deferral, the City shall determine what portion of the costs of improvements is
attributable to each phase of a Planned Urban Development.
b. Maintenance: All common facilities not dedicated to the City shall be
permanently maintained by the Planned Urban Development owner, if there is
only one owner, or by the property owners' association, or the agent(s) thereof. In
the event that such facilities are not maintained in a responsible manner, as
determined by the City, the City shall have the right to provide for the
maintenance thereof and bill the owner or property owners' association
accordingly. Such bill, if unpaid, shall become a lien against each individual
property.
F. PROCEDURE FOR PRELIMINARY APPROVAL OF PLANNED URBAN
DEVELOPMENTS:
The approval of a Planned Urban Development shall be by the City Council, upon
recommendation by the Hearing Examiner, and shall be processed in accordance with the
following procedures:
92
ORDINANCE NO.
1. Permit Process: Planned Urban Developments shall be processed consistent
with RMC 4-8 as Type VI or VII permits as specified.
2. Filing of Application: The application for preliminary approval of a Planned
Urban Development shall be filed with the Development Services Division
accompanied by a filing fee as established by RMC 4-1-170, Land Use Review Fees.
Wherever a Planned Urban Development is intended to be subdivided into smaller
parcels, an application for preliminary plat approval may be submitted together with
the application for final Planned Urban Development approval. In such case, the
preliminary plat and the final Planned Urban Development shall be processed and
reviewed concurrently. Subsequent to final Planned Urban Development approval, a
Planned Urban Development may also be subdivided by the binding site plan process.
3. Informal Review: Prior to making application for preliminary approval, the
developer shall submit a conceptual plan for preapplication review.
4. Submittal Requirements and Application Fees: A preliminary development plan
shall be submitted to the Development Services Division and shall include the general
intent of the development, apportionment of land for buildings and land use, proposed
phases, if any, and such other information or documentation which the Development
Services Division shall require. Submittal requirements and fees shall be as listed in
RMC 4-1-170, Land Use Review Fees, and 4-8-120C, Land Use Applications.
5. Public Notice and Comment Period: See RMC 4-8-090, Public Notice
Requirements.
6. Phasing: Planned urban developments may be proposed to be developed in one
or more phases. If developed in phases, each phase of the Planned Urban Development
93
ORDINANCE NO.
shall contain adequate parking, open space, recreation space, public benefits,
landscaping, buffering, circulation, utilities and other improvements necessary so that
each phase, together with any earlier phases, may stand alone and satisfy the purposes of
this Section. Further, each phase must meet the requirements of subsection D2 of this
Section, Public Benefit Required, unless the public benefits have been met by previously
approved phases.
7. Review Process: The preliminary plan shall be circulated to all reviewing
departments for comments. The Development Services Division shall evaluate
whether the plans comply with the development policies of the Renton
Comprehensive Plan and this Section and shall make a recommendation to the
Hearing Examiner accordingly.
8. Decision:
a. Preliminary Planned Urban Development — New Development: After public
hearing, the Hearing Examiner shall recommend approval, approval with
conditions, or denial of the preliminary plan. The City Council, at its discretion,
following recommendation of the Hearing Examiner, shall approve, modify or
deny the preliminary plan. City Council action to approve a preliminary plan shall
be by ordinance and shall include an accurate description of the boundaries, land
uses, any modified development standards, and number of units or building
square feet of the Planned Urban Development, and any phases thereof, as well as
the effective date of approval and the date of expiration of such approval.
b. Preliminary Planned Urban Development — Existing Development with
Binding Site Plan: After public hearing, the Hearing Examiner shall approve,
94
ORDINANCE NO.
approve with conditions, or deny the preliminary plan. The preliminary plan shall
contain an accurate description of the boundaries, land uses and number of units
of the Planned Urban Development, and any phases thereof, as well as the
effective date of approval and the date of expiration of such approval, on its face
prior to recording with King County.
9. Effect of an Approved Preliminary Plan: The approval of a preliminary plan
constitutes the City's acceptance of the general project, including its density,
intensity, arrangement and design. Approval authorizes the applicant or subsequent
owner to apply for final plan approval of the Planned Urban Development or phase(s)
thereof. Preliminary plan approval does not authorize any building permits or any site
work without appropriate permits. An approved preliminary plan binds the future
Planned Urban Development site and all subsequent owners to the uses, densities, and
standards of the preliminary plan until such time as a final plan is approved for the
entire site or all phases of the site, or a new preliminary plan is approved, or the
preliminary plan is abandoned in writing or expires subject to the provisions of
subsections G and K of this Section.
10. Zoning Map Revised:
a. New Planned Urban Development Approval: Upon the authority of the
approval ordinance of a preliminary Planned Urban Development, the City shall
place the Planned Urban Development ordinance number as an overlay on the
subject property on the City of Renton Zoning Map.
b. Demonstration Ordinances: Ordinances 4468 and 4550 which created
demonstration developments known as Village on Union and certain divisions of
95
ORDINANCE NO.
the Orchards are hereby considered final Planned Urban Developments for the
purposes of code implementation.
G. FINAL PLAN REVIEW PROCEDURES:
1. Time Limits: The developer shall, within two (2) years of the effective date of
action by the City Council to approve the preliminary plan, submit to the
Development Services Division a final development plan showing the ultimate design
and specific details of the proposed Planned Urban Development or the final phase or
phases thereof.
Upon application by the developer, the Hearing Examiner may grant an extension
of the approved preliminary plan for a maximum of twelve (12) months. Application
for such extension shall be made at least thirty (30) days prior to the expiration date
of preliminary plan approval. Only one such extension may be granted for a Planned
Urban Development. If a final development plan is not filed within such two (2) years
or within the extended time period, if any, the Planned Urban Development
preliminary plan shall be deemed to have expired or been abandoned. To activate an
expired or abandoned Planned Urban Development a new application is required.
2. Submittal Requirements and Fees for Final Plan Application: A final plan
application shall be submitted for a Planned Urban Development, or a phase thereof,
to the Development Services Division. The proposed final plan shall be in substantial
conformance with the approved preliminary plans, including phasing, subject to the
provisions of subsections G4 and G5 of this Section. Submittal requirements shall be
as listed in RMC 4-8-120C, Land Use Applications. Application fees shall be as listed
in RMC 4-1-170, Land Use Review Fees.
Nei
ORDINANCE NO.
3. Public Notice: Public notice shall be provided in the manner prescribed for
preliminary plans.
4. Minor Modifications: As part of the approval of a final plan, the City may require
or approve a minor deviation from the preliminary plan if:
a. The change is necessary because of natural features of the subject property not
foreseen by the applicant or the City prior to the approval of the preliminary
development plan; or
b. The change will not have the effect of significantly reducing any area of
landscaping, open space, natural area or parking; or
c. The change will not have the effect of increasing the density or significantly
increasing the total amount of floor area of the Planned Urban Development; or
d. The change will not result in any structure, circulation or parking area being
moved significantly in any direction; or
e. The change will not reduce any setback approved as part of the preliminary
plan by more than ten percent (10%) and the required minimum setback is met; or
f. The change will not result in a significant increase in the height of any structure
as approved in the preliminary plan; or
g. The change will not increase or create any adverse impacts or undesirable
effects on the surrounding neighborhood.
5. Major Modifications: Major modifications are those which substantially change the
basic design, density, circulation, or open space requirements of the Planned Urban
Development. Major modifications to a preliminary plan Planned Urban
Development shall be processed as a new preliminary plan.
97
ORDINANCE NO.
6. Review and Approval of Final Plan: The final plan shall be reviewed by the
departments and the Hearing Examiner, in the manner prescribed for preliminary
plans, to determine if the final plan is in substantial conformance with the approved
preliminary plan and is consistent with the purposes and review criteria of this
Section. After a public hearing thereon, the Hearing Examiner shall make a decision
to approve, approve with conditions or deny the final plan. The decision shall include
a description of the elements of the approved Planned Urban Development, including
land uses, number of units, phasing, the effective date of approval and of expiration,
time limits, required improvements and the schedule for implementation, and any
conditions that may apply to the Planned Urban Development.
a. Covenants Required:
i. Covenants Generally: As a condition of final Planned Urban Development
approval, covenants shall be executed that run with the land, and with all
subdivided portions thereof, stating that such property is part of an approved
Planned Urban Development, and including the file number thereof and a
description of the uses, densities and phases of the approved Planned Urban
Development. Such covenant shall also be recorded for each property created
through any subsequent subdivisions.
ii. Specifications of Variations: All final Planned Urban Developments shall
include specifications that are recorded with the Planned Urban Development
indicating which lots or structures vary from which specific zoning
requirement. Covenants shall indicate that such lots or structures shall meet
the standard created with the approval of the Planned Urban Development or
LN
ORDINANCE NO.
the current zone in effect at the time of subsequent land use, building or
construction permits.
b. Property Owners' Association Required: For residential Planned Urban
Developments, the developer or owner(s) of a Planned Urban Development shall
be required to form a legally incorporated property owners' association prior to
the occupancy of any portion of a Planned Urban Development. If there is only
one owner of the Planned Urban Development, either a property owners'
association shall be formed or a covenant running with the land shall be filed
requiring the formation of such an association prior to the first subsequent sale of
the property, or portion thereof. For nonresidential Planned Urban Developments,
the City may establish covenants as necessary to ensure maintenance of
infrastructure and open space or other common improvements.
7. Effect of an Approved Final Plan:
a. Standards Superimposed: The final approval of a Planned Urban
Development, under the procedures detailed in this Section, shall superimpose the
requirements of that specific approved Planned Urban Development on the
underlying zone regulations as an exception thereto, to the extent that the
requirements of the Planned Urban Development modifies or supersedes the
regulations of the underlying zone. Final plan approval shall be binding upon
property or the respective phase(s) with regards to density, intensity, open space,
uses, and other standards until such time as a new final Planned Urban
Development is approved or the final plan expires or is abandoned subject to
subsection K of this Section.
M
ORDINANCE NO.
b. Construction Authorized: Approval of a final Planned Urban Development is
authorization to apply for building permits to construct the Planned Urban
Development.
8. Time Limits:
i. Expiration: The developer shall prepare and submit building permit
applications which are accepted as substantially complete to the Development
Services Division within six (6) months of the effective date of approval. The
developer shall complete the approved Planned Urban Development or any phase
thereof included in the approved final plan within two (2) years from the date of
the decision to approve the final plan by the Hearing Examiner, unless the
examiner designates a shorter time. Failure to complete the Planned Urban
Development, or any phase thereof, within this time limit will require the
submittal of a new preliminary and final plan application in order to continue
construction of the Planned Urban Development. Failure to submit a new
application or to complete the Planned Urban Development once construction has
begun shall constitute abandonment of the Planned Urban Development subject to
subsection J of this Section. Expiration of any building permit issued for a
Planned Urban Development shall be governed by the provisions of the applicable
Building Code. Construction of any portion of the Planned Urban Development
requires a current approved Planned Urban Development and a current building
permit.
ii. Remaining Preliminary Phases with Completion of One Phase: Approval of a
final plan for any phase of the approved preliminary plan shall constitute an
100
ORDINANCE NO.
extension for two (2) years of the remainder of the preliminary plan from the
effective date of Hearing Examiner action on the final plan.
H. MERGER OF APPLICATIONS OR REVIEW STAGES:
Merger of Review Stages:The applicant may request that review and
decision on the preliminary plan and final plan be merged in one decision. The merged
decision shall follow the procedural steps required of a preliminary plan. However, the
applicant shall submit all plans and information in the detail required for a final plan and
shall comply with all other requirements and standards for a final plan.
2. Merger with Other Applications: A preliminary Planned Urban Development may
be considered simultaneously with any other land use permit required for a proposal,
including but not limited to: preliminary plats, short plats, binding site plans, critical
area modifications or variances, shoreline substantial developments permits, shoreline
variances, shoreline conditional use permits, grading regulation modifications or
variances, or other applications. Where merged, the review criteria for all of the
applications shall be considered simultaneously with the Planned Urban Development
criteria in RMC 4-9-150.C. Where there are conflicts with review criteria, the criteria
of 4-9-150.0 shall govern. Where merged, all permits shall be considered
simultaneously as part of the Planned Urban Development. The review authority
shall be determined consistent with RMC 4-8-080.C.2, Review Authority for Multiple
Permit Applications.
101
ORDINANCE NO.
I. APPEALS OF EXAMINER'S DECISION ON A FINAL PLANNED URBAN
DEVELOPMENT:
The Hearing Examiner's decision on a final Planned Urban Development may be
appealed to the City Council pursuant to RMC 4-8-110. If the Hearing Examiner acts on
appeal to approve a final Planned Urban Development, the decision will include an
effective date of approval consistent with subsections G and K of this Section.
J. BUILDING AND OCCUPANCY PERMITS:
1. Conformance with Final Plan Required: Building permits shall be issued
for construction in Planned Urban Developments only in accordance with the
approved final plan.
2. Minor Adjustments to Final Plan:
i. Minor Adjustments prior to Building Permits: Minor adjustments
to the final plan which involve only insignificant revisions to the exact location
and configuration of buildings, roadways, open space or other features and do not
involve any changes in density, relative density within the site, intensity,
architectural style, housing type or other significant characteristics of the Planned
Urban Development may be approved by the Development Services Division
when issuing building permits. Adjustments that are determined by the
Development Services Division to not be minor adjustments shall require the
submittal of a new final plan or preliminary plan application, according to
subsections G4 and G5 of this Section, Modifications.
ii. Minor Variations to Development following Final Planned Urban
Development: Property owners of units or improvements may apply for subsequent land
102
ORDINANCE NO.
use, building, and construction permits. Such permits may be approved subject to City
requirements, provided that the proposals meet the standard created with the approval of
the Planned Urban Development or the current zone in effect at the time of the
application. Common areas shall be maintained consistent with the approved Planned
Urban Development. Replacement of paving or landscaping to equivalent types is
allowed subject to City authorization that the activities are consistent with the Planned
Urban Development approval and any applicable City codes.
3. Occupancy Permit Issuance Procedure: Occupancy permits shall be
granted consistent with the requirements in Title IV. Conditions of approval shall be
based upon actions to be achieved prior to issuance of construction permits or building
permits. Deferrals of improvements shall be determined by the
Planning/Building/Public Works Administrator pursuant to 4-9-060.
4. Occupation of Structures: Any finished structures, short of full
implementation of an approved final plan for a Planned Urban Development or those
phases thereof, may be occupied upon the issuance of a conditional use permit by the
Hearing Examiner together with such conditions, covenants or other terms in order to
assure compliance with the requirements of this Section, Development Standards, and/or
any other applicable provision of this Section and the City's zoning regulations.
K. EXPIRATION OR ABANDONMENT OF A PLANNED URBAN
DEVELOPMENT:
1. Expiration: Expiration of an approved preliminary plan shall be defined as failure
to satisfy the time limits or other requirements of submitting a final plan application.
Expiration of an approved final plan Planned Urban Development shall be defined as
103
ORDINANCE NO.
failure to initiate construction of a Planned Urban Development. Expiration can only
occur if no on -site construction has begun or a lack of significant progress under
those building permits has occurred. Upon expiration of a preliminary or final plan,
the undcvcloped site may only be developed if a new preliminary and final plan
Planned Urban Development is approved or if the City Council, by ordinance,
removes the Planned Urban Development designation and revokes the original
approval.
2. Abandonment: Abandonment of a preliminary and/or final plan for the purpose of
this Section shall mean the failure and neglect of the developer to meet the
requirements of subsection G9 of this Section, or to diligently pursue the project and
the improvements incidental thereto for a period of six (6) months, after beginning or
completing construction of any of the residential units, utilities, streets or other
improvements of any phase of a Planned Urban Development. Abandonment shall
also occur when the applicant has provided a written statement indicating that he/she
is abandoning the preliminary and/or final plan.
3. Resuming Development of an Abandoned Planned Urban Development Site: In
order to resume development of an abandoned Planned Urban Development site, a
new final plan application shall be submitted for any partially completed phase of the
Planned Urban Development and a new preliminary plan application shall be
submitted for all remaining portions of the site. In any case, all subsequent
preliminary or final plans shall adhere to the Renton City Code provisions in force at
the time of resubmission including open space, dwelling unit density and setback
104
ORDINANCE NO.
requirements. No building permits shall be issued, renewed or extended until such
new preliminary or final plans are approved.
L. APPEAL OF COUNCIL DECISION ON PLANNED URBAN DEVELOPMENT:
The action, by ordinance, of the City Council to approve, modify or deny a Planned
Urban Development shall be final and conclusive, unless the time period specified in
RMC 4-8-110, Appeals, an aggrieved party obtains a writ of review from Superior Court.
If Council acts in appeal to approve a preliminary Planned Urban Development, the
decision will include an effective date of approval consistent with subsection G and Kof
this Section, Decision.
M. VIOLATIONS AND PENALTIES:
Violation of any of the provisions of this Chapter shall be a misdemeanor
punishable in accordance with RMC 1-3-1.
SECTION XXXVIII. A new definition in Section 4-11-010 of Chapter 11,
Definitions, of Title IV (Development Regulations) of Ordinance No. 4260 entitled "Code of
General Ordinances of the City of Renton, Washington" is hereby added, to read as follows:
AGGRIEVED PARTY: A person seeking to protect what must be "arguably within the zone of
interests to be protected or regulated by the statute or constitutional guarantee in question" and
must allege an "injury in fact," i.e., that he or she will be specifically and perceptibly harmed by
the proposed action.
SECTION XXXIX. The definition for Binding Site Plan in Section 4-11-020 of
Chapter 11, Definitions, of Title IV (Development Regulations) of Ordinance No. 4260 entitled
"Code of General Ordinances of the City of Renton, Washington" is hereby amended, to read as
follows:
105
ORDINANCE NO.
BINDING SITE PLAN: A drawing as authorized by chapter 58.17 RCW and provided for in
RMC 4-7-230 which:
1. Identifies and shows the areas and locations of all streets, roads, improvements,
utilities, open spaces, and any other matters specified by RMC 4-8-120C, Submittal
Requirements; and
2. Contains descriptions or attachments setting forth such appropriate limitations and
conditions for the use of the land as are established by the City; and
3. Contains provisions requiring site development to be in conformity with the approved
binding site plan.
SECTION XL.
The definition of Land Development Permit in Section 4-
11-120 of Chapter 11, Definitions, of Title IV (Development Regulations) of Ordinance No.
4260 entitled "Code of General Ordinances of the City of Renton, Washington" is hereby
amended, to read as follows:
LAND DEVELOPMENT PERMIT: An approved preliminary or final plat for single
family residential project, a building permit, site plan, or preliminary or final planned urban
development plan.
SECTION XLI.
A new definition in Section 4-11-200 of Chapter 11,
Definitions, of Title IV (Development Regulations) of Ordinance No. 4260 entitled "Code of
General Ordinances of the City of Renton, Washington" is hereby added, to read as follows:
TELECOMMUNICATIONS: The transmission, between or among points specified by
the user, of information of the user's choosing, without change in the form or content of the
information as sent and received.
106
ORDINANCE NO.
SECTION XLII. Section 9-11-2.H of Chapter 11, Street Grid System, of
Title IX (Public Ways and Property) of Ordinance No. 4260 entitled "Code of General
Ordinances of the City of Renton, Washington" is hereby amended, to read as follows:
H. Structure Address: One address shall be assigned to each building, except
residential accessory buildings. In the event of planned urban development, office park, or
industrial complex which incorporates several buildings, or has the potential to add one or more
buildings, provision shall be made to allow for buildings to be addressed as separate addresses,
one per building. In the event address numbers are not available for more than one building,
alphabetical suffixes for each building in the complex shall be applied. Structure addresses shall
be expressed in whole numbers, with no fractional appendages.
PASSED BY THE CITY COUNCIL this day of
APPROVED BY THE MAYOR this
Approved as to form:
Lawrence J. Warren, City Attorney
Date of Publication: _
ORD. 1176:9/13/05:ma
Bonnie I. Walton, City Clerk
day of
Kathy Keolker-Wheeler, Mayor
2005.
2005.
107
CITY OF RENTON, WASHINGTON
ORDINANCE NO.
AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF RENTON, WASHINGTON,
ADDING SECTION 4-8-110.A.7 AND 4-8-110.I TO CHAPTER 8,
PERMITS - GENERAL AND APPEALS, OF TITLE IV (DEVELOPMENT
REGULATIONS) OF ORDINANCE NO. 4260 ENTITLED "CODE OF
GENERAL ORDINANCES OF THE CITY OF RENTON, WASHINGTON"
REGARDING THE FILING OF APPEALS TO THE GROWTH
MANAGEMENT HEARINGS BOARD.
THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF RENTON, WASHINGTON, DOES ORDAIN
AS FOLLOWS:
SECTION I. A new section, 4-8-110.A.7, of Chapter 8, Permits — General and
Appeals, 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:
7. Appeals to the Growth Management Hearings Board.
SECTION II. A new section, 4-8-1 I0.I, of Chapter 8, Permits — General and
Appeals, 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:
I. GROWTH MANAGEMENT HEARINGS BOARD
l . Standing for Appeals to GMHB:
a. Those who may file an appeal are:
i. The state of Washington or county or city that plans under GMA;
ii. A person who has participated orally or in writing before the City
regarding the matter on which a review is being requested;
iii. A person who is certified by the governor within 60 days of filing
the request with the Board; or
iv. A person who qualifies pursuant to RCW 34.05.530 as aggrieved
or adversely affected by the City's action on an item in Subsection 2.
b. Participatory standing: A person who files an. appeal under Section La.iv
above must establish participatory standing by showing that his or her participation before the
City was reasonably related to the person's issue as presented to the Board.
C. Standing when a State Environmental Policy Act (SEPA) appeal is made
to the Board: To establish SEPA standing to appeal to the Board, the petitioner's endangered
interest must be arguably within the zone of interests protected by SEPA. Also, the petitioner
must allege an injury in fact; that is, the petitioner must present sufficient evidentiary facts to
show that the challenged SEPA determination will cause him or her specific and perceptible
harm. The petitioner who alleges a threatened injury rather than an existing injury must also
show that the injury will be `immediate, concrete, and specific'; a conjectural or hypothetical
injury will not confer standing.
2. Matters which may be appealed:
a. That the City planning under Chapter 36.70A RCW is not in compliance
with the requirements of that chapter, Chapter 90.58 RCW as it relates to the adoption of
Shoreline's master programs or amendments thereto, or chapter 43.21 C RCW as it relates to
plans, development regulations, or amendments, adopted under RCW 36.70A.040 or Chapter
90.58 RCW; or
b. That the 20-year Growth Management population projections applicable to
the City of Renton or its Potential Annexation Area as adopted by the Office of Financial
Management pursuant to RCW 43.62.035 should be adjusted.
2
ORDINANCE NO.
3. Time for Appeal: All petitions under this Section must be filed within 60 days
after publication of the appealed Comprehensive Plan, development regulation or permanent
amendment thereto by the legislative body of the City. The date of publication by the City shall
be the date it publishes the ordinance, or summary of the ordinance, adopting the Comprehensive
Plan, development regulations or amendment thereto, as is required to be published.
4. Contents of Petition for Review: Each petition for review to the Growth
Management Hearings Board shall be initiated by the filing of a petition that includes a detailed
statement of issues presented for resolution by the Board, and citation to the law that the
appellant believes has been violated.
SECTION III.
30 days after publication.
This ordinance shall be effective upon its passage, approval, and
PASSED BY THE CITY COUNCIL this day of , 2005.
Bonnie I. Walton, City Clerk
APPROVED BY THE MAYOR this day of , 2005.
Approved as to form:
Lawrence J. Warren, City Attorney
Date of Publication:
ORD. 1123:9/14/05:ma
Kathy Keolker-Wheeler, Mayor
3
CITY OF RENTON, WASHINGTON
ORDINANCE NO.
AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF RENTON, WASHINGTON, AMENDING
TITLE H (COMIVIISSIONS AND BOARDS) OF ORDINANCE NO. 4260
ENTITLED "CODE OF GENERAL ORDINANCES OF THE CITY OF RENTON,
WASHINGTON" BY ELIMINATING THE BOARDS OF ADJUSTMENT,
ETHICS, PUBLIC WORKS, EMERGENCY SERVICES ORGANIZATION,
HUMAN RIGHTS AND AFFAIRS, AND UNFAIR HOUSING PRACTICES;
ADDING THE ADVISORY COMMISSION ON DIVERSITY, LIBRARY BOARD,
ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW COMMITTEE, LEOFF DISABILITY BOARD,
LODGING TAX ADVISORY COMMITTEE, AND AIRPORT ADVISORY
COMMITTEE; AND UPDATING ALL REMAINING CHAPTERS.
THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF RENTON, WASHINGTON, DOES ORDAIN
AS FOLLOWS:
SECTION L Title II, Commissions and Boards, of Ordinance No. 4260 entitled "Code
of General Ordinances of the City of Renton, Washington" is hereby amended to read as follows:
Title H
COMMISSIONS AND BOARDS
I (Repealed)
2 (Repealed)
3 (Repealed)
4 Civil Service Commission
5 (Repealed)
6 Firefighters' Pension Board
7 Advisory Commission on Diversity
8 Municipal Arts Commission
9 Park Commission
10 Planning Commission
11 (Repealed)
12 Human Services Advisory Committee
13 Library Board
14 Environmental Review Committee
15 LEOFF Disability Board
16 Lodging Tax Advisory Committee
17 Airport Advisory Committee
18 Membership and Procedures
CHAPTER I (Repealed)
CHAPTER 2 (Repealed)
CHAPTER 3 (Repealed)
CHAPTER 4
CIVIL SERVICE COMMISSION
SECTION:
24-1: Creation of Civil Service Commission
2-4-2: Authority
24-3: Function
2-4-4: Appointment and Members
2-4-5: Terms; Vacancies
2-4-6: Quorum and Voting
2-4-1 CREATION OF CIVIL, SERVICE COMMISSION:
There is hereby created the Police and Fire Civil Service Commission.
2-4-2 AUTHORITY:
The Police and Fire Civil Service Commission is established under the authority of RCW
3 5A.11.020.
2-4-3 FUNCTION:
The Police and Fire Civil Service Commission shall have power to make such rules and
regulations as are necessary to effectuate the purposes of RCW 41.08 and 41.12. The Commission
shall also have the power to make rules and regulations governing the Commission in the conduct of
its meetings and any other matter over which it has authority. Any police civil service rules and
regulations or fire civil service rules and regulations in effect as of the adoption of this Chapter are
hereby confirmed as the present fire civil service or police civil service rules and regulations.
24-4 APPOINTMENT AND MEMBERS:
The Civil Service Commission shall consist of five (5) members, who shall be appointed by the
Mayor. No person shall be appointed a member of such Commission unless that person is a citizen of
the United States, a resident of the City for at least three (3) years immediately preceding such
W
appointment, and is an elector of the county wherein he or she resides. At the time of any appointment,
no more than two Commissioners shall be adherents of the same political party.
2-4-5 TERMS; VACANCIES:
The term of office of such Commissioners shall be for six (6) years. The members of the
commission serving at the time of this ordinance shall serve the remaining portions of their terms. Any
member of such Commission may be removed from office for incompetence, incompatibility or
dereliction of duty, or malfeasance of office, or other good cause; provided, however, that no member
of the Commission shall be removed until charges have been preferred, in writing, due notice and a full
hearing had before the remaining members of the Commission. The members of such Commission
shall devote due time and attention to the performance of the duties hereinafter specified, and imposed
upon him/her. Should any member of the Commission resign from office or be removed from office,
then the Mayor shall appoint a successor to that position for the remainder of the unexpired term.
2-4-6 QUORUM AND VOTING:
Three (3) members of the Commission shall constitute a quorum and the votes of any three (3)
members concurring shall be the decision of the Commission.
CHAPTER 5 (Repealed)
CHAPTER 6
FIREFIGHTERS' PENSION BOARD
SECTION:
2-6-1:
Creation of Firefighters' Pension Board
2-6-2:
Authority and Function
2-6-3:
Members
2-64:
Term
2-6-5:
Creation of Firefighters' Pension Fund
2-6-6:
Function
2-6-1 CREATION OF FIREFIGHTERS' PENSION BOARD:
.31
There is hereby created pursuant to Chapters 41.16 and 41.18 RCW the Firefighters' Pension
3
The Firefighters' Pension Board administers and operates the Firefighters' Pension Fund and
disperses from such Fund as provided by RCW 41.16 and 41.18. All of the provisions, regulations and
details of chapters 41.16 and 41.18 RCW are by this reference adopted and incorporated in this
Chapter. Any and all amendments of chapters 41.16 and 41.18 RCW shall constitute amendments of
and part of this Chapter, without the necessity of further adoption of such amendments by ordinance.
2-6-3 MEMBERS:
The Firefighters' Board shall consist of the Mayor, who shall be chairperson of the Board, the
City Clerk, the chairperson of the Finance Committee of the Council, and two (2) regularly employed
or retired firefighters of the City elected by secret ballot of the firefighters as designated in RCW 41.16
and 41.18.
2-6-4 TERM:
Both Firefighter representatives shall have a two-year term.
2-6-5 CREATION OF FIREFIGHTERS' PENSION FUND:
There is hereby created in the treasury of the C', a fund to be known and designated as the
Firefighters' Pension Fund.
2-6-6 FUNCTION:
The Firefighters' Pension Fund shall receive deposited monies, bequests, fees, gifts,
emoluments, donations, taxes, interest, contributions by firefighters including deductions from their
pay, and monies deriving through the State from taxes on fire insurance premiums, all as prescribed by
RCW 41.16 and 41.18. Administration and disbursements from said Fund shall be conducted and made
as provided by chapters 41.16 and 41.18 RCW.
4
CHAPTER 7
ADVISORY COMMISSION ON DIVERSITY
SECTION:
2-7-1: Declaration Of Policy
2-7-2: Creation Of Advisory Commission on Diversity
2-7-3: Duties And Powers Of Commission
2-74: Appointment and Members
2-7-5: Appointment Of Subcommittees
2-7-6: Investigations, Public Hearings, and Research
2-7-7: Procedure, Meetings, and Interpretation
2-7-8: Severability
2-7-9: City Council Review
2-7-1 DECLARATION OF POLICY:
The City Council herewith finds that all forms of prejudice and the general practice of
discrimination against any individual, group or organization by reason of race, color, creed, national
origin, age, sex, sexual orientation, the presence of any sensory, mental or physical disability or marital
status have a detrimental effect on the public welfare and well-being, and that to eliminate such
prejudice and discrimination an instrumentality should be established through which the citizens of the
City may be kept informed of developments in human relations, the employees and officials of the City
may obtain advice and assistance in wholesome practices to keep peace and good order, and private
persons, groups and organizations may be officially encouraged and advised to promote tolerance and
goodwill toward all people.
The City Council further finds that it would be in the interests of all citizens of the City of
Renton to promote and celebrate diversity.
Whenever a word is used herein, the definition given to that word shall be that of RCW
49.60.040 which is incorporated herein as if fully set forth. An "unfair practice" shall mean the denial
of any right identified in this ordinance or RCW 49.60.030(1) and shall be further defined to include
any unfair practices identified in RCW 49.60.030(3).
5
2-7-2 CREATION OF ADVISORY COMMISSION ON DIVERSITY:
There is hereby created the Advisory Commission on Diversity.
2-7-3 DUTIES AND POWERS OF COMMISSION:
In addition to other powers and duties set forth in this Chapter, the Commission shall have the
power and duty to:
A. Study, advise and hold public meetings on issues of diversity within the City.
B. Provide a forum that will encourage input concerning diversity from citizens for
reviewing and establishing the City's vision.
C. Advise and recommend to the Mayor and City Council ways and means of discouraging
and combating discrimination, prejudice, intolerance and bigotry in all groups and in their relationships
with one another.
D. Advocate and assist in development of a continuing educational program for Council
and staff that will lead to a greater understanding of the value of a diverse community to the
governance process, and advise the staff on strategies to be used in recruiting, hiring and training a
diverse work force.
E. Identify obstacles that could impede access to City government for all of the
community's diverse members.
F. Prepare and disseminate educational and informational material relating to prejudice
and discrimination and ways and means of eliminating such prejudice and discrimination.
G. Provide outreach to the community in an effort to place the value of diversity before the
citizens in a positive manner.
H. Inform and advise the public of false information which is not in the public interest or
which tends to foster or encourage prejudice or intolerance toward any person or group.
I. Consult with and maintain contact with other public agencies and with representatives
of employers, labor unions, property owners, associations, realtor associations, religious
C,
denominations and institutions, professional associations, national origin groups, community
organizations concerned with interracial, interreligious and intercultural understanding, social welfare
organizations and any such other organizations and institutions as directed by the City Council or as
the Commission shall deem advisable to further the objectives of this Chapter.
J. Help recruit minority representatives for boards, committees and commissions within
the City.
K. Organize and promote celebrations of diversity, when approved by the Administration,
and funding has been provided by the Council.
L. Promote an atmosphere Conducive for minority businesses.
M. Perform such other functions and duties as may be requested by the Mayor and/or City
Council or prescribed or authorized by any resolution or ordinance of the City.
N. Investigate and report on patterns of discrimination and means to eliminate such
patterns of discrimination in failing to list, show or transmit an offer, or to sell, rent, lease, sublease,
sign, transfer, or otherwise dispose of a housing accommodation; or failure to act upon or provide
financial assistance; or to ask questions about or keep records of, or to otherwise discriminate.
The Commission shall refer any complaints of discrimination to the appropriate State or
Federal agency(ies) in order to not duplicate the efforts of the State Human Rights Commission or the
Federal Equal Employment Opportunity Commission, or any Federal or other State agency.
In defining and prescribing the above duties and functions of the Commission it is not the intent
of the City Council to duplicate or overlap functions, duties or responsibilities heretofore or hereafter
assigned to any department or board or committee of the City or the responsibilities of the chief
executive.
2-74 APPOINTMENT AND MEMBERS:
The Advisory Commission on Diversity shall consist of nine (9) members, one of whom shall
be a youth representative under 21 years of age at the time of appointment. The members of the
h
Commission shall be citizens of the City of Renton and representative of a cross section of the citizens
of this community, including members of minority groups. Members shall consist of those persons
who have demonstrated an interest and/or expertise in civil or human rights and who are willing to
promote actively the goals of the Commission. Prospective new members may be interviewed by a
majority of the Commission members for recommendation to the Mayor for appointment with
confirmation by a majority vote of the Council.
A. All of the members shall serve without compensation but may be reimbursed for related
business expense incurred in performance of their duties, and as authorized by law. The members of
the Commission shall appoint one of their members as chairperson, and one other member as secretary,
and said persons shall serve in said capacity for the period of one year or until their successors have
been elected by the members.
B. Members of the Commission shall be appointed by the Mayor, subject to confirmation
or concurrence by a majority of Council members for a period of two (2) years; each such member
shall serve until his or her successor has been appointed and qualified. Any vacancy on the
Commission shall be filled for the unexpired term in the same manner as the original appointment. The
appointing authority has the right to remove any member of the Commission for good cause shown
with concurrence of the City Council after due hearing.
C. A majority of the members so appointed shall constitute a quorum for the purpose of
conducting the business of the Commission.
2-7-5 APPOINTMENT OF SUBCOMMITTEES:
A majority of the members of the Commission may name such subcommittee or
subcommittees, as in its judgment, will aid in effectuating the purpose of this Ordinance and may
empower any such subcommittee to study the problems of prejudice, intolerance, bigotry and
discrimination in all or any fields of human relationship within the purview of this Chapter.
L
2-7-6 INVESTIGATIONS, PUBLIC HEARINGS, AND RESEARCH:
The Commission shall, upon referral to it by the Administration, conduct its own investigation
of tensions and practices of discrimination against any group or organization by reason of race, color,
creed, national origin, age, sex, sexual orientation, the presence of any sensory, mental or physical
disability or marital status and may conduct public hearings with regard thereto, carry on research,
obtain factual data and conduct public hearings to ascertain the status and treatment of racial, religious,
ethnic and similar groups in the City and the best means of progressively improving human relations,
and make such recommendations to the Mayor and City Council, as in its judgment, will effectuate the
policies and goals of this Chapter.
2-7-7 PROCEDURE, MEETINGS, AND INTERPRETATION:
The provisions of this Chapter shall be construed liberally for the accomplishment of the
purposes set forth in this Chapter. Nothing contained herein shall be deemed to amend, repeal or
modify any of the provisions of any civil rights taw or any other law of the federal or state government,
or any other provisions of this Code relating to discrimination because of race, color, creed, national
origin, age, sex, sexual orientation, the presence of any sensory, mental or physical disability or marital
status as defined in this Chapter.
2-7-8 CITY COUNCIL REVIEW:
The Commission shall submit unto the City Council, by January 31 of each year, a summary of
all actions taken by the Commission, including the investigation of complaints and recommendations
therefrom during the preceding year so that the City Council may fully review the manner in which the
Advisory Commission on Diversity has implemented and enforced the provisions of this Chapter.
CHAPTER 8
MUNICIPAL ARTS COMMISSION
SECTION:
2-8-1: Creation of Municipal Arts Commission
2-8-2: Purpose
2-8-3: Function
W
2-84: Appointments
2-8-5: Members
2-8-6: Term
2-8-7: Works Of Art And Public Facilities
2-8-1 CREATION OF MUNICIPAL ARTS COMMISSION:
There is hereby created a Municipal Arts Commission.
2-8-2 PURPOSE:
The City of Renton recognizes and acknowledges the importance of and benefit to the public in
providing visual art and performance in its public works and facilities, and to encourage and promote
such art and the work of artists. It shall therefore be the policy of the City, unless otherwise prohibited
or limited by law, to direct and further the inclusion of art in its public works. The term "art" shall be
liberally construed and include the conscious production of arrangement of sounds, colors, forms,
movements or other elements in a manner that affects the sense of beauty and is of aesthetic value.
2-8-3 FUNCTION:
A. The Commission shall act in an advisory capacity to the Mayor and City Council in
connection with the artistic and cultural development of the City.
B. The Commission shall be responsible for reviewing the design, execution and
acceptance of works of art funded or otherwise acquired by the City. Procedures for these
responsibilities shall be developed by the Commission in writing and a copy thereof shall be filed with
the City Clerk of the City and furnished unto the office of the Mayor and City Council. Such
procedures shall not be in full force and effect until approved by the City Council.
C. The Commission shall make an annual review with the Mayor, or his/her
representative, of all capital improvement projects anticipated within the following two (2) year period
to determine which projects are appropriate for inclusion of works of art and to estimate the amount to
be allocated for said purpose. The Mayor, with appropriate budgetary authorization, may establish the
amount to be provided as guided by RMC 2-8-7 or may decide that there will be no funds expended for
10
art on a municipal construction project. If such inclusion is determined not to be appropriate as to a
given project, then the funds allocated therefor shall be expended as set forth in RMC 2-8-7.0 or as
otherwise determined by the City Council. Copies of any proposals prepared by the Commission shall
likewise be furnished to the Community Services Department of the City.
Definition of municipal construction project: Any public building, decorative or
commemorative structure, park, street, sidewalk, parking facility, or any portion thereof, within the
City limits, which will be constructed, renovated or remodeled, and paid for wholly or in part by the
City, and the total project cost of which exceeds ten thousand dollars ($10,000.00) to construct,
renovate or remodel.
2. "Municipal construction project" shall not be defined to include capital projects
paid for wholly or in part by the City's water and sewer utility.
D. Whenever a work of art is to be funded under this Chapter the Commission shall, under
its guidelines, select the appropriate work of art and recommend that work of art to the City Council.
The City Council shall consider the recommendation of the Commission and either approve or refuse
to approve the recommended work of art. Should the Council refuse to approve the work of art, then
the Commission shall consider and recommend another work of art to the City Council. Should the
City Council .approve the work of art, then the administration shall proceed to contract with the
appropriate artist or artists to obtain the work of art. The contract with the artist or artists will be
administered by the City staff.
E. Maintenance, inspection and rotation of works of art selected and installed under the
advice and direction of the Renton Municipal Arts Commission shall be the responsibility of the
administration of the City. The Commission may prepare specifications for the maintenance of works
of art and shall inspect such maintenance work and make recommendations for the guidance of the
administration in so maintaining the work of art.
11
F. The Commission shall seek, whenever appropriate, alternative sources of financing for
the visual and/or performing arts.
G. The Commission shall be responsible for disbursing money budgeted to it for support of
cultural arts performances, arts related activities and organizations. Such money shall be used to
support specific performances such as choral concerts or play performances, performing arts events
such as the River Days Art Show, or special projects of a performing arts group such as coaches and
music tutors for the Renton Youth Symphony. Such funds may not be used for capital purchases,
facility renovations, maintenance or other non-performance expenditures. Any such funded
performance must be held in Renton and primarily benefit Renton residents.
2-8-4 APPOINTMENTS:
The Municipal Arts Commission shall consist of twelve (12) members appointed by the Mayor
and subject to confirmation by a majority of the members of the City Council. Of those twelve (12)
members, at least four (4) shall be residents of the City and one member shall be under the age of 21
years. All members of the Commission shall serve without compensation for such service.
2-8-5 MEMBERS:
The membership on the Commission shall, whenever possible, include members from a variety
of art fields and related professions. The Mayor and City Council may solicit suggested nominations
for such appointments from architectural, art, musical, literary, educational and other cultural
organizations.
The Commission shall organize and elect a chairman annually. The Commission may
organize such subcommittees as it deems necessary. In order to implement such purposes, the
Commission may call upon such City departments as will assist the Commission's function, and
appointed City officials and members of the various City departments are encouraged to consult and
advise with the Commission from time to time.
12
2-8-6 TERM:
All such appointments to the Commission shall be for three (3) year terms, with one-third (1/3)
of the terms expiring each year. All appointments heretofore made by the Mayor and City Council to
such Municipal Arts Commission are hereby confirmed. Members of the Municipal Arts Commission
may be removed at any time by the appointing authority and vacancies for the remainder of unexpired
terms shall be filled in the same manner as the original appointment.
2-8-7 WORKS OF ART AND PUBLIC FACILITIES:
A. Subject to the consultation requirements of RMC 2-8-3.C, all authorizations and/or
appropriations for Municipal construction projects shall, upon budgeting therefore by the City Council
and authorization by the Mayor, whenever legally permitted, include an amount equal to not less than
one percent (10/6) of the actual total project cost, to be used for the selection, acquisition and/or
installation of works of art to be placed in, on, or about City public facilities, which are suitable and
appropriate therefore. In the event any law, rule or regulation establishing a source of funds for a
particular project, including but not limited to grants, loans, or assistance from Federal, State or other
governmental units, prohibits, limits or excludes art and art works as a proper expenditure, then the
amount of funds from such source shall be excluded in computing the one percent (11/o) amount of the
total project cost.
B. All funds authorized and/or appropriated pursuant to this Section shall be maintained in
the Municipal Arts Fund. The City Council, upon the recommendation and advice of the Commission,
shall approve, from time to time, the amount to be allocated for the selection, acquisition and/or
installation of individual works of art to be placed either as an integral part of the municipal
construction project in connection with which the funds were appropriated or attached thereto, or
detached within or outside such project, or to be placed in, on or about other public facilities. All of
such expenditures for art shall be approved by the City Council and as otherwise provided by law.
13
C. Funds authorized and/or appropriated pursuant to this Section for a municipal
construction project but not expended on any such project shall be placed and retained in the
Municipal Arts Fund. If for any reason any transfer to such Fund shall be contrary to law or prohibited
by any rule or regulation governing such funds, then any such unspent or residual sum authorized
and/or appropriated as a part of such construction project may be expended for any like or similar
public purpose or purposes relating to the selection, acquisition and/or installation of works of art.
CHAPTER 9
PARKS COMMISSION
SECTION:
2-9-1: Creation of Parks Commission
2-9-2: Authority
2-9-3: Function
2-9-4: Appointment; Members
2-9-5: Term
2-9-6: Rules and Regulations
2-9-7: Appointment, Qualifications and Duties of Parks Director and Recreation Director
2-9-1 CREATION OF PARKS COMMISSION:
There is hereby created a Parks Commission.
2-9-2 AUTHORITY:
The Parks Commission is established pursuant to RCW 67.20.010,
2-9-3 FUNCTION:
A. The Parks Commission shall establish policy to conduct any form of recreation or cultural
activity that will employ the leisure time of the people in a constructive and wholesome manner,
including policy to control and supervise all parks belonging to the City.
B. In conjunction with the Mayor and City Council, the Parks Commission may plan, promote,
manage, construct, develop, maintain and operate, either within or without the City limits, parks, play
and recreational grounds and/or other municipally owned recreation facilities, including community
buildings and improve and ornament the same.
14
C. The Parks Commission shall receive, in the name of the City, all monies or other property
donated by individuals or groups for the improvement of parks and other recreational areas. The
Commission reserves the right to reject any such donations, subject to the approval of the Council, in
the event that any such donation be considered improper, unlawful or contrary to the purposes as set
forth. Any cash received by the Commission on behalf of the City shall be forthwith paid to the
Administrator of the Finance and Information Services Department and same shall be placed in the
Park Fund.
D. The Parks Commission is authorized to grant concessions and privileges within the
parks and recreational areas, under such restrictions, and for such compensation as it shall prescribe,
and any monies or properties paid thereunder shall be turned over to the Administrator of the Finance
and Information Services Department. Such revenue shall be used for park purposes only. Any party
aggrieved by the Commission in granting or denying such concession and privileges shall have the
right of appeal to the Council within thirty (30) days of such action by the Commission. No
concession shall be granted for a period of more than five (5) years, with the right for an extension for
an additional five (5) year period of time, should the Commission deem it advisable, and then only
upon condition that the concessionaire fulfill all conditions and provisions of the original five (5) year
concession contract.
E. The Commission shall not have the power to acquire any property, by gift or otherwise,
without the consent of the Council and any properties so received and acquired shall be in the name of
the City.
2-94 APPOIlVTMENT; MEMBERS:
The Parks Commission shall consist of eight (8) members, who shall be residents of the City of
Renton, one of whom shall be under 21 years of age at the time of appointment, who shall be
appointed by the Mayor, subject to the confirmation by a majority of the members of the City Council.
15
No Commissioner shall receive any compensation for his or her service whatsoever except for
reimbursement of actual expenditures duly authorized by the City Council.
2-9-5 TERM:
The term of each Commissioner so appointed shall be for a period of four (4) years from the
date of such appointment. Such term shall also apply to incumbent Commissioners and each
Commissioner shall serve until his or her successor has been appointed and duly qualified. The terms
of office shall begin on the first Monday in June. At the expiration of each Commissioner's term, the
Mayor shall appoint, subject to confirmation or concurrence of a majority of Council members, a
successor Commissioner.
Members of the Parks Commission may be removed at any time by the appointing authority
and vacancies for the remainder of unexpired terms shall be filled in the same manner as the original
appointment. Three unexcused absences in a one-year period of time shall result in automatic removal
of the Commissioner. The Commission shall, by a majority vote, elect one of its members to be
President thereof and may appoint such other officers as may be deemed necessary by them.
2-9-6 RULES AND REGULATIONS:
A. Commission Authority: The Parks Commission shall have the authority to propose the
rules and regulations for the operation, management and maintenance of parks and other recreational
facilities, including recommendations to the City Council to fix charges for the use of any municipally
owned or controlled park or recreational facilities.
B. Council Adoption: The parks rules and regulations shall be submitted to the City
Council for approval and adoption. The parks rules and regulations, as they may be amended, from
time to time, shall be effective upon their approval by Council voice vote and the filing of at least one
copy of said park rules and regulations with the City Clerk.
16
,nalties: Those parks rules and regulations identified as criminal violations are
punishable pursuant to City Code Section 1-3-1. Those parks rules and regulations identified as civil
violations are punishable pursuant to City Code Section 1-3-2.
2-9-7 APPOINTMENT, QUALIFICATIONS, AND DUTIES OF PARKS DIRECTOR AND
RECREATION DIRECTOR:
A. When there is a vacancy in the position of Parks Director or Recreation Director, the
Parks Commission, in conjunction with the Community Services Administrator, shall recommend one
or more qualified candidates for the positions of Parks Director or Recreation Director to the Mayor for
consideration for an appointment to that position. The Mayor shall appoint a candidate to the position
of Parks Director or Recreation Director, or may reject the recommendations of the Parks Commission,
and ask for additional names to be submitted. The Mayor shall not appoint a Parks Director or
Recreation Director without that individual's name having been recommended by the Parks
Commission. The person that the Mayor appoints to the position of Parks Director or Recreation
Director shall be subject to confirmation by the City Council.
B. The qualifications and duties for the positions of Parks Director and Recreation Director
shall be established by the Human Resources Department of the City with the concurrence of the Parks
Commission.
C. The Parks Director or Recreation Director may serve as an ex officio member of the
Parks Commission but shall have no vote thereon. This individual shall be the liaison or staff support
to the Park Board.
D. The salaries of the Parks Director or Recreation Director shall be as fixed in the annual
budget of the City.
CHAPTER 10
PLANNING COMMISSION
SECTION:
2-10-1: Creation Of Planning Commission
17
2-10-2: Authority
2-10-3 : Function
2-10-4: Appointment
2-10-5: Members
2-10-6: Term
2-10-7: Expenditures; Budget
2-10-1 CREATION OF PLANNING COMMISSION:
There is hereby created a Planning Commission in the City of Renton.
2-10-2 AUTHORITY:
The Planning Commission is established pursuant to RCW 35A.63.020, providing for its
membership, method of appointment, organization and duties.
2-10-3 FUNCTION:
A. Power: The Planning Commission shall serve in an advisory capacity to the Mayor and
the City Council and shall have such powers and duties as shall be provided for herein.
B. Authority: The City Council and Mayor have designated the Planning Commission to
function as the public hearing body for many planning related activities of the City. The Council may,
at its discretion, retain this function for any specific project, proposal, or plan.
C. Representation: Planning Commissioners are entrusted to make recommendations
reflecting the broad interests of the community.
D. Conduct: All Commissioners shall conduct themselves in a manner consistent with the
Code of Ethics for Municipal Officers, RCW Chapter 42.23. In formulating its recommendations to
the City Council, the Planning Commission and its advisory committees may conduct public hearings;
however, in any event all meetings of the Commission or its advisory committees shall be open to the
public pursuant to the Open Public Meetings Act.
E. General Duties: The primary responsibility of the Planning Commission is to review the
Comprehensive Plan, carry out work activities in the work program adopted by the City Council, and
to elicit public input for and to advise the City Council and the Mayor on land use planning matters.
18
F. Scope of Review: At the direction or referral by the City Council, the Planning
Commission shall review staff proposals, hold public hearings, and submit recommendations to the
City Council and the Mayor on the adoption of and amendments to the following:
1. The Comprehensive Plan and new goals and policies.
2. Neighborhood or subarea plans and studies which will amplify and augment the
Comprehensive Plan. The Commission may conduct periodic planning studies of homogenous
community units, distinctive geographic areas, or other types of districts having unified interest within
the total area of the City which will amplify and augment the Comprehensive Plan.
4-8-070.
3. Shoreline Master Program amendments after holding a public hearing.
4. Land Use Regulations and processes upon Council request.
5. Duties related to Development Regulations and processes as described in RMC
b. Other land use plans and programs contained in the Commission's work
program, or referred by the City Council.
7. Short-range programs as necessary for implementation of the Comprehensive
Plan.
2-10-4 APPOINTMENT:
The Planning Commission shall consist of seven (7) members, appointed by the Mayor and
confirmed by a majority of the members of the City Council.
2-10-5 MEMBERS:
A. All Planning Commission members shall be residents of the City of Renton.
B. Members shall be selected without respect to political affiliations, shall serve without
compensation, and the appointees shall constitute a cross section of the community representing
different interests, geographical areas, trades, professions and activities.
19
C. The Planning Commission shall elect its own chair, vice -chair, and secretary. It may
create and fill such other offices as it may determine from time to time.
D. The Commission shall hold at least twelve (12) regular meetings in each year.
2-10-6 TERM:
The term of each appointee shall be for three (3) years and such appointment shall be made on
July 1 and February 1 respectively for such three (3) year terms. Those members currently serving
shall continue to serve for the remainder of their appointed terms.
A vacancy occurring otherwise than by expiration of term shall be filled for the unexpired term
in the same manner as the original appointment was made. Members may be removed by the Mayor,
with the approval of the majority of the City Council, for neglect of duty, malfeasance or misfeasance
in office, or when such appointee misses three (3) unexcused meetings within any twelve (12) month
period.
2-10-7 EXPENDITURES; BUDGET:
The expenditures of the Planning Commission shall be limited to those authorized by the
Economic Development, Neighborhoods and Strategic Planning Administrator as appropriated in the
Strategic Planning Division's annual budget. The services and facilities of the City's Strategic
Planning Division shall be utilized by the Commission in performing its duties.
CHAPTER 11 (Repealed)
CHAPTER 12
HUMAN SERVICES ADVISORY COMMITTEE
SECTION:
2-12-1: Creation of Human Services Advisory Committee
2-12-2: Function
2-12-3: Appointment
2-12-4: Members
2-12-5: Term
2-12-6: Rules and Procedures
20
2-12-1 CREATION OF HUMAN SERVICES ADVISORY COMMITTEE:
There is hereby created a Human Services Advisory Committee.
2-12-2 FUNCTION:
The purpose of the Committee shall be to:
A. Understand the human service needs of Renton residents.
B. Evaluate and recommend to the Mayor, City Council and City staff, allocation of funds
to specific programs and projects that meet those needs.
C. Assist staff in developing policies related to human services affecting Renton residents.
D. Keep current on community -wide actions that may affect the availability and quality of
human service provision in Renton.
2-12-3 APPOINTMENT:
The membership shall consist of nine (9) members residing within the corporate boundaries of
the City of Renton, one of whom shall be a youth representative under 21 years of age at the time of
appointment.
2-12-4 MEMBERS:
The committee shall be composed of people who represent the diverse nature of the City,
including geography, gender, age and ethnicity.
2-12-5 TERM:
The Mayor will appoint members of the Renton Human Services Advisory Committee for a
three (3) year term of office. Those members currently serving shall continue to serve for the
remainder of their appointed terms.
2-12-6 RULES AND PROCEDURES:
The Human Services Advisory Committee shall further establish in its bylaws, such written
rules and procedures deemed necessary to carry out the foregoing duties.
21
CHAPTER 13
LIBRARY BOARD
SECTION:
2-13-1 Creation Of Library Board
2-13-2 Authority
2-13-3 Function
2-13-4 Appointment
2-13-5 Terms; Vacancies
2-13-6 Meetings and Quorum
2-13-7 Appointment, Qualifications, And Duties Of Library Director
2-13-8 Budget And Finances
2-13-9 Labor Agreements And Personnel Policy
2-13-1 CREATION OF LIBRARY BOARD:
There is hereby created a Library Board in the City of Renton.
2-13-2 AUTHORITY:
The Library Board is established pursuant to RCW 35A.27.010.
2-13-3 FUNCTION:
A. The Board shall have the power to establish policy for library activity, including policy
for the control and supervision of all libraries belonging to the City.
B. In conjunction with the Mayor and City Council, the Library Board may further
establish policy to plan, promote, manage, construct, develop, maintain and operate, within the City
limits, libraries and improve and ornament the same.
C. The Board shall further receive, in the name of the City, all monies or other property
donated by individuals or groups for the improvement of libraries; the Board reserves the right to reject
any such donations in the event that any such donations be considered improper, unlawful or contrary
22
to the purposes set forth. Any cash received by the Board on behalf of the City shall be paid to the
Director of Finance and same shall be placed in the Library Fund.
The Library Board shall consist of seven (7) members, who shall be citizens of the City of
Renton, and who shall be appointed by the Mayor, subject to the confirmation by a majority of the
members of the City Council, one of which shall be a youth representative under 21 years of age at the
time of appointment. No Library Board member shall receive any compensation for his or her service
whatsoever except for reimbursement of actual expenditures duly authorized by the City Council.
2-13-5 TERMS; VACANCIES:
A. The term of each Library Board member so appointed shall be for a period of five (5)
years from the date of such appointment, unless the appointment is to fill an unexpired term, except for
the youth member, who shall serve for two years. Such designated term shall also apply to incumbent
members who shall have a term of office coinciding with their term on that predecessor board. A
vacancy shall occur upon the resignation, death, or removal of a member. A vacancy shall also occur
whenever a Board member absents himself or herself for three (3) consecutive regular meetings of the
Board or for an aggregate of five (5) regular and/or special meeting in a single year, unless the
absences are excused by action of the remaining members.
B. No person shall be appointed to the Library board for more than two consecutive terms.
The first appointments to the Library Board created by this ordinance shall be of those individuals who
were members of the Library Board in existence at the time this ordinance is adopted.
C. Members of the Library Board may be removed at any time by the appointing authority
and vacancies for the remainder of unexpired terms shall be filled in the same manner as the original
appointment. The Board shall, by majority vote elect one of its members to be President thereof, and
may elect such other officers as may be deemed necessary by them.
23
2-13-6: MEETINGS AND QUORUM:
The Library Board shall have a regular meeting each month and may, from time to time,
provide for special meetings as may be needed to carry out the proper discharge of its duties. A
majority of the Library Board shall constitute a quorum for the transaction of business, and a majority
vote of those present shall be necessary to carry any proposition.
2-13-7: APPOINTMENT, QUALIFICATIONS, AND DUTIES OF LIBRARY DIRECTOR:
A. When there is a vacancy in the position of Library Director, the Library Board
members, in conjunction with the Community Services Administrator, shall recommend one or more
qualified candidates to the Mayor for consideration for appointment to that position.
B. The qualifications and duties for the position of Library Director shall be established by
the Human Resources Department of the City with the concurrence of the Library Board. In
accordance with RCW 27.04.030, candidates for the position of Library Director shall hold a master's
degree in library science and shall hold or be eligible to acquire a State of Washington librarian's
certificate. The Library Director shall report to the Community Services Administrator, who will seek
input from the Library Board for an annual evaluation of the director's performance.
C. The Library Director may serve as an ex officio member of the Library Board but shall
have no vote thereon.
D. The salary of the Library Director shall be as fixed in the annual budget of the City.
2-13-8 BUDGET AND FINANCES:
Library appropriations and expenditures shall conform with the requirements of state law and
the Renton City Code. The City Council shall have final authority to review and approve the library
budget. The library budget proposal shall be developed by the Library Director and reviewed by the
Library Board within a resource estimate provided by the Mayor.
2-13-9 LABOR AGREEMENTS AND PERSONNEL POLICY:
24
The Mayor shall negotiate labor agreements and salary schedules for library personnel, these
agreements to be integrated with the citywide pay plan, personnel policies and collective bargaining
contracts. The Library Board members shall be consulted at the time of contract negotiations or when
policies affecting library personnel or operations are to be changed in order that their concerns may be
considered.
CHAPTER M
ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW COMMITTEE
SECTION:
2-14-1: Creation of Environmental Review Committee
2-14-2: Authority
2-14-3: Members
2-144: Duties
2-14-1 CREATION OF ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW COMMITTEE:
There is hereby created an Environmental Review Committee (ERC) in the City of Renton.
2-14-2 AUTHORITY:
Pursuant to Chapter 43.21C RCW, the ERC shall act as the City's responsible official under the
State Environmental Policy Act.
2-14-3 MEMBERS:
The ERC shall be consist of four (4) members, composed of the Fire Chiet the Administrator
of the Planning/Building/Public Works Department, the Administrator of the Department of Economic
Development, Neighborhoods and Strategic Planning, and the Administrator of the Community
Services Department, or the designees of such members.
2-14-4 DUTIES:
The ERC shall perform the function of the responsible official as required and authorized in
Chapter 43.21C RCW and Chapter 197-11 WAC. In particular, the ERC shall make environmental
25
determinations, conditioned or not, and approve and publish Environmental Impact Statements with or
without conditions.
CHAPTER 15
LEOFF DISABILITY BOARD
SECTION:
2-15-1:
Creation ofLEOFF Disability Board
2-15-2:
Authority
2-15-3:
Membership
2-15-4:
Duties
2-15-5:
Term
2-15-1 CREATION OF LEOFF DISABILITY BOARD:
There is hereby created a LEOFF Disability Board in the City of Renton.
2-15-2 AUTHORITY:
This Board is created under the authority of RCW 41.26.110 through 41.26.115, RCW
41.50.050, and WAC Chapter 415-105.
2-15-3 MEMBERSHIP:
The LEOFF Disability Board shall consist of five (5) members, which shall be composed of
two members of the City Council appointed by the Mayor, one member elected by the firefighters, one
member elected by the police officers, and one member of the public at large who resides within the
City. The member of the public at large shall be appointed by the other four Board members.
2-15-4 DUTIES:
The LEOFF Disability Board shall handle all disability and disability retirement issues under
the LEOFF system and shall establish rules, regulations and procedures for performing that function.
F
2-15-5 TERM:
The term of each member shall be for two years. The terms of the members currently serving
shall be served until expiration or resignation, at which time substitute members shall be appointed or
elected as provided herein.
CHAPTER 16
LODGING TAX ADVISORY COMMITTEE
SECTION:
2-16-1: Creation of Lodging Tax Advisory Committee
2-16-2: Authority
2-16-3: Membership
2-16-4: Function
2-16-5: Term
2-16-1 CREATION OF LODGING TAX ADVISORY COMMITTEE:
There is hereby created a Lodging Tax Advisory Committee in the City of Renton.
2-16-2 AUTHORITY:
The Lodging Tax Advisory Committee is formed pursuant to RCW 67.28.1817.
2-16-3 MEMBERSHIP:
The Lodging Tax Advisory Committee shall have five members and shall consist of two
members who are representatives of a business required to collect taxes under chapter 67.28 RCW, and
two members who are persons involved in activities authorized to be funded by revenue received under
that chapter. One such member shall be the president of the Greater Renton Chamber of Commerce,
and another member shall be the City of Renton's Community Relations Manager. Persons eligible to
be appointed as representatives of a business collecting tax, may not be appointed as a person involved
in activities authorized to be funded by the revenue from the tax. The fifth member of the Committee
shall be an elected official of the City.
2-16-4 FUNCTION:
27
The Lodging Tax Advisory Committee reviews and comments on any proposed imposition of a
lodging tax, and increase of such tax, the repeal or exemption from the tax, the use of the revenue
received from that tax, or any change in use of the revenue received from that tax.
2-16-5 TERM:
The City Council shall review and appoint the membership on an annual basis. Vacancies shall
be filled by the City Council.
CHAPTER 17
AIRPORT ADVISORY COMMITTEE
SECTION:
2-17-1:
Creation of Airport Advisory Committee
2-17-2:
Membership
2-17-3
Alternates
2-174:
Function
2-17-5:
Chair and Meetings
2-17-6:
Term:
2-17-1 CREATION OF AIRPORT ADVISORY COMMITTEE:
There is hereby created an Airport Advisory Committee in the City of Renton.
2-17-2 MEMBERSHIP:
The Airport Advisory Committee shall have 15 voting members and four non -voting members.
The Airport Advisory Committee shall have the following representation:
ORGANIZATION
VOTING MEMBERS
Neighborhood Representatives:
Kennydale
The Highlands
Talbot Hill
North Renton
South Renton
West Hill
Renton Hill
NUMBER OF MEMBERS
1 member
1 member
1 member
1 member
1 member
1 member
1 member
28
Aviation Representatives:
Airport Representatives
Airport Leaseholders
Airport -At -Large
The Boeing Company
Aircraft Owners' and Pilots' Association
City Council Transportation Committee:
Administrator, Planning/Building/Public Works:
NON -VOTING MEMBERS
Renton Municipal Airport Manager:
City Department Representatives:
WSDOT Aviation Division Representative:
Federal Aviation Administration Representative:
2 members
2 members
I member
I member
I member
1 member
I non -voting member
as needed, non -voting
1 non -voting member
1 non -voting member
The Airport Advisory Committee voting and non -voting members shall be appointed by the
Mayor and confirmed by a majority of the members of the City Council. In the event the Mayor does
not make an initial appointment of an Airport Advisory Committee member within 45 days of a
vacancy in the Airport Advisory Committee, the City Council President may make the appointment
subject to confirmation by a majority of the members of the City Council.
2-17-3 ALTERNATES
A. For each neighborhood representative voting member position, a member and an
alternate shall be recommended by the neighborhoods for appointment by the Mayor. The
recommended individuals shall have no aviation related background.
B. For each Airport Leaseholder Voting Member position, two members and two alternates
shall be recommended by the holders of airport property leases for appointment by the Mayor. For
each Airport -At -Large Voting Member position, two members and two alternates shall be
recommended by aircraft owners and pilots, who lease aircraft storage space at the Renton Municipal
Airport, for appointment by the Mayor. For each aircraft owners' and pilots' association position, one
29
member and one alternate shall be recommended by aircraft owners and pilots who are members of the
Aircraft Owners' and Pilots' Association (AOPA), the Experimental Aircraft Association (EAA) or the
Washington Seaplane Pilots' Association.
2-17-4 FUNCTION:
The role of the Airport Advisory Committee will be to act in an advisory capacity to the Mayor
and City Council on matters referred to the Airport Advisory Committee by the City Council. The
primary function will be to provide a forum for members of the community to discuss their concerns
directly with airport operators and for collaborative problem solving and resolution of their issues.
2-17-5 CHAIR AND MEETINGS
The Committee shall elect a chairperson from the voting membership and establish meeting
times. The Advisory Committee shall have the authority to change its meeting times as may be
necessary.
2-17-6 TERM:
The terms for all voting members shall be for three years and shall be staggered as follows:
A. For the neighborhood representatives the initial terms shall be two neighborhood
representatives at three years each; two neighborhood representatives at two years each; and two
neighborhood representatives at one year each. Each subsequent term shall be for three years.
B. For aviation representatives (AOPA, Boeing, and airport representatives) the initial
terms shall be: two aviation representatives at three years; two aviation representatives at two years;
and two aviation representatives at one year. Each subsequent term shall be for three years.
C. The City Council member and the Planning/Building/Public Works member shall not
have staggered terms.
D. Staggered terms for the neighborhood and aviation representatives have been
established. The City Council member shall be selected by the Council. The Planning/Building/Public
30
Works member shall be selected by the Department Administrator having responsibility for the Renton
Airport.
E_ Those members currently serving shall continue to serve for the remainder of their
appointed terms.
CHAPTER 18
GENERAL MEMBERSHIP AND PROCEDURES
2-18-1 Citizenship
2-18-2 Family or Household Members
2-18-3 Multiple Appointments
2-184 Reporting and Minutes
2-18-1 CITIZENSHIP:
Any member of a board or commission must be a citizen of the United States. Such member
shall be a citizen of the City of Renton unless state law or the authorizing ordinance states otherwise or
the commissioner is to represent a certain segment of society, i.e., a business representative doing
business with the City but not necessarily a citizen of Renton. The citizenship condition may be
waived by the Council, upon request by the Mayor.
2-18-2 FAMILY OR HOUSEHOLD MEMBERS:
A A single Board or Commission shall not have more than one member of a direct family
or household as a member of that Board or Commission.
B. No members of Councilmembers' direct families or households shall be appointed to a
Board or Commission.
C. For purposes of this ordinance, a direct family member shall be a spouse, parent, child,
or sibling.
2-18-3 MULTIPLE APPOINTMENTS:
A. No person, except a Council member, shall be appointed to serve concurrently as a
member of more than one Board or Commission.
31
B. Councilmembers shall not serve on Boards and Commissions, unless authorized by
State law or this Title, or the Board or Commission is serving as a subcommittee or advisory
committee to a City Council committee, i.e., the Airport Advisory Committee.
2-18-4 REPORTING AND MINUTES:
A. All Boards, Commissions, and Committees shall take formal minutes of their meetings
and shall appoint a member to take such minutes, or such minute responsibility may be delegated to a
staff support person if there is a staff support person assigned to the Board, Commission, or
Committee, on a permanent basis, who is always in attendance at such meetings.
B. A copy of all Minutes shall be filed with the City Clerk as the official record.
C. Any rules and regulations adopted by any Board, Commission, or Committee shall be
filed with the City Clerk.
D. Except as otherwise stated in state law, all meetings of Boards, Commissions, and
Committees are open public meetings.
E. All Boards, Commissions, and Committees shall establish regular dates and times for
meetings, and shall consult with the City Clerk about scheduling special meetings and announcing
meeting cancellations.
2-18-5 RULES OF ORDER
The proceedings of all Boards and Commissions shall be governed by the most current edition
of Robert's Rules of Order.
2-18-6 SEVERABILITY:
If any section, subsection, subdivision, sentence, clause or phrase of this Title is for any reason
held to be unconstitutional or void, such decision shall not affect the validity of any of the remaining
portions of this Chapter.
SECTION IL This ordinance shall be effective upon its passage, approval, and 30 days
after publication.
32
PASSED BY THE CITY COUNCIL this day of , 2005.
Bonnie I. Walton, City Clerk
APPROVED BY THE MAYOR this day of , 2005.
Approved as to form:
Lawrence J. Warren, City Attorney
Date of Publication:
ORD. 1186:9/9/05:ma
Kathy Keolker-Wheeler, Mayor
33
CITY OF RENTON, WASHINGTON
ORDINANCE NO.
AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF RENTON, WASHINGTON,
AMENDING CHAPTERS 4-4 AND 4-6 THROUGH 4-9 OF TITLE IV
(DEVELOPMENT REGULATIONS) AND CHAPTER 8-7 OF TITLE VIII
(HEALTH AND SANITATION) AND CHAPTER 9-2 OF TITLE IX
(PUBLIC WAYS AND PROPERTY) OF ORDINANCE NO. 4260
ENTITLED "CODE OF GENERAL ORDINANCES OF THE CITY OF
RENTON, WASHINGTON" BY CHANGING REFERENCES FROM THE
BOARD OF PUBLIC WORKS, TO THE PLANNING/BUILDING/PUBLIC
WORKS ADMINISTRATOR.
THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF RENTON, WASHINGTON, DOES ORDAIN
AS FOLLOWS:
SECTION I. Section 4-4-080.F.2 of Chapter 4, City -Wide Property
Development Standards, of Title IV (Development Regulations) of Ordinance No. 4260 entitled
"Code of General Ordinances of the City of Renton, Washington" is hereby amended to read as
follows:
2. Maximum Parking Lot and Parking Structure Slopes: Maximum slopes for
parking lots shall not exceed eight percent (8%) slope. The Planning/Building/Public Works
Administrator or his/her designee may allow a driveway to exceed eight percent (8%) slope but
not more than fifteen percent (15%) slope, upon proper application in writing and for good cause
shown, which shall include, but not be limited to, the absence of any reasonable alternative.
SECTION II. Section 4-4-080.I.3.a.iii of Chapter 4, City -Wide Property
Development Standards, of Title IV (Development Regulations) of Ordinance No. 4260 entitled
"Code of General Ordinances of the City of Renton, Washington" is hereby amended to read as
follows:
1
ORDINANCE NO.
iii. The Planning/Building/Public Works Administrator or his/her designee may
grant an exception upon proper application in writing and for good cause shown, which shall
include, but not be limited to, the absence of any reasonable alternative.
SECTION III.
Section 4-4-090.G of Chapter 4, City -Wide Property Development
Standards, of Title IV (Development Regulations) of Ordinance No. 4260 entitled "Code of
General Ordinances of the City of Renton, Washington" is hereby amended to read as follows:
G. APPEALS:
Any decisions made in the administrative process described in this Section may be
appealed to the Planning/Building/Public Works Administrator or his/her designee within fifteen
(15) days and filed, in writing, with the Planning/Building/Public Works Department. The
Administrator shall give substantial weight to any discretionary decision of the City rendered
pursuant to this Section.
SECTION IV
Section 4-6-060.L of Chapter 6, Street and Utility Standards, of
Title IV (Development Regulations) of Ordinance No. 4260 entitled "Code of General
Ordinances of the City of Renton, Washington" is hereby amended to read as follows:
L. TIMING FOR INSTALLATION OF IMPROVEMENTS:
No building shall be granted a certificate of final occupancy, or plat or short plat
recorded, until all the required street improvements are constructed in a satisfactory manner and
approved by the responsible departments unless those improvements remaining unconstructed
have been deferred by the Planning/Building/Public Works Administrator or his/her designee
and security for such unconstructed improvements has been satisfactorily posted.
2
ORDINANCE NO.
SECTION V. Section 4-6-090.E.2.a.ii of Chapter 6, Street and Utility Standards,
of Title IV (Development Regulations) of Ordinance No. 4260 entitled "Code of General
Ordinances of the City of Renton, Washington" is hereby amended to read as follows:
ii. Special Requirements for Rezoned Areas: All areas rezoned for commercial or
industrial use after the effective date of this Chapter shall be converted to underground in the
same manner as provided herein for existing facilities within fifteen (15) years from the effective
date of such rezoning, subject to a ten (10) year extension by the City, provided that the
Planning/Building/Public Works Administrator or his/her designee elects to add such rezoned
areas to those outlined on the map as designated in subsection E2a of this Section.
SECTION VI. Section 4-6-090.I of Chapter 6, Street and Utility Standards, of
Title IV (Development Regulations) of Ordinance No. 4260 entitled "Code of General
Ordinances of the City of Renton, Washington" is hereby amended to read as follows:
Authority: All applications for variances from the foregoing underground
requirements shall first be filed with the Planning/Building/Public Works Administrator or
his/her designee. The Administrator shall promulgate rules and regulations governing application
for, hearings pertaining to, and the granting of variances from the foregoing underground
requirements.
2. Review Criteria: Underground requirements shall be waived by a variance only if
the utility owner or user or any other affected party can demonstrate that it would work an undue
hardship to place the facilities concerned underground. By an undue hardship is meant a
technological difficulty associated with the particular facility, or with the particular real property
involved, or a cost of undergrounding such a facility which, in the discretion of the
3
ORDINANCE NO.
Planning/Building/Public Works Administrator or his/her designee, is deemed to outweigh the
general welfare consideration implicit in underground installation, or an area where the growth
pattern has not been sufficiently established to permit the determination of ultimate service
requirements or major service routes.
SECTION VII. Section 4-7-050.C.6 of Chapter 7, Subdivision Regulations, of
Title IV (Development Regulations) of Ordinance No. 4260 entitled "Code of General
Ordinances of the City of Renton, Washington" is hereby amended to read as follows:
6. Improvements: The Department will confirm that the required improvements have
been installed by the applicant, or deferred by the Planning/Building/Public Works
Administrator or his/her designee.
SECTION VIII.
Section 4-7-150.F of Chapter 7, Subdivision Regulations, of Title
IV (Development Regulations) of Ordinance No. 4260 entitled "Code of General Ordinances of
the City of Renton, Washington" is hereby amended to read as follows:
F. IMPROVEMENTS REQUIRED:
All adjacent rights -of -way and new rights -of -way dedicated as part of the plat, including
streets, roads, and alleys, shall be graded to their full width and the pavement and sidewalks shall
be constructed as specified in the street standards or deferred by the Planning/Building/Public
Works Administrator or his/her designee.
SECTION IX.
Section 4-8-050.D of Chapter 8, Permits — General and Appeals, of
Title IV (Development Regulations) of Ordinance No. 4260 entitled "Code of General
Ordinances of the City of Renton, Washington" is hereby amended to read as follows:
4
ORDINANCE NO.
D. EXEMPTIONS FROM STATE NOTIFICATION AND PROCEDURAL
REQUIREMENTS FOR PERMIT APPLICATIONS NOT SUBJECT TO ENVIRONMENTAL
REVIEW:
RCW 36.70B.140 allows local governments to exclude certain approvals and building
and engineering permits from the public notification and procedural requirements of the statute if
they are categorically exempt from environmental review or if environmental review has already
been completed at an earlier stage. However, the City's one hundred twenty (120) day maximum
processing time would still apply. Therefore, the City exempts the following actions from the
public notification and procedural requirements since they are typically processed very quickly
and would be considerably delayed by imposition of a public comment period(s).
l . Building and grading permits (SEPA exempt),
2. Business licenses for home occupations,
3. Planning/Building/Public Works Administrative variances (i.e., driveway grade),
4. Fire installation/construction permits,
5. Electrical, mechanical, plumbing, sign and special fence permits,
6. Lot line adjustments,
7. Final plats,
8. Minor amendments (less than 10 percent) to a previously approved site plan,
9. Occupancy permits,
10. Open space, agricultural and timber lands current use assessment,
11. Public art exemption certificate,
12. Routine vegetation management permits (SEPA exempt),
13. Shoreline exemptions,
5
ORDINANCE NO.
14. Temporary use permits (SEPA exempt), but not exempting sign requirements,
15. Water, sewer, storm drainage, roadway permits (SEPA exempt),
16. Other SEPA exempt actions/activities as outlined in WAC 197-11-800.
SECTION X. Section 4-8-110.1) of Chapter 8, Pcrmits — General and Appeals, of
Title IV (Development Regulations) of Ordinance No. 4260 entitled "Code of General
Ordinances of the City of Renton, Washington" is hereby amended to read as follows:
4-8-110.13 APPEALS OF ADMINISTRATIVE DECISIONS TO THE
PLANNING/BUILDING/PUBLIC WORKS DEPARTMENT:
Any decisions made in the administrative process related to the City's storm drainage
regulations may be appealed to the Planning/Building/Public Works Administrator or his/her
designee within fifteen (15) days and filed, in writing, with the Planning/Building/Public Works
Department. The Administrator shall give substantial weight to any discretionary decision of the
City rendered pursuant to this Chapter.
SECTION XI. Section 4-9-060.0 of Chapter 9, Permits — Specific, of Title IV
(Development Regulations) of Ordinance No. 4260 entitled "Code of General Ordinances of the
City of Renton, Washington" is hereby amended to read as follows:
C. PLANNING/BUILDING/PUBLIC WORKS ADMINISTRATOR'S DEFERRAL
OF PLAT IMPROVEMENTS OR DEFERRAL OF OTHER ON- AND OFF -SITE
IMPROVEMENTS BEYOND TEMPORARY OCCUPANCY PERMIT:
1. Applicability: If a developer wishes to defer certain improvements listed in this
Title until after obtaining a certificate of occupancy for any structures, or in the case of plats,
final plat approval, the written application shall be made to the Planning/Building/Public Works
Administrator or his/her designee stating the reasons why such delay is necessary.
31
ORDINANCE NO.
2. Decision Criteria: (Reserved)
3. Security Required: Upon approval by the Planning/Building/Public Works
Administrator or his/her designee for such deferment, for good cause shown by the applicant, the
applicant shall thereupon furnish security to the City in an amount equal to one hundred fifty
percent (150%) of the estimated cost of the installation and required improvements. The decision
of the Administrator as to the amount of such security shall be conclusive.
4. Plans for Improvements Required: Should the Planning/Building/Public Works
Administrator or his/her designee grant the deferral of part or all of the necessary on -site
improvements, then full and complete engineering drawings of the on -site improvements shall be
submitted as a condition precedent to the granting of any deferral.
Waiver of Requirement for Plans: Board may waive requirement of construction
plans for short plat improvement deferrals.
6. Expiration: Such security shall list the exact work that shall be performed by the
applicant and shall specify that all of the deferred improvements shall be completed within the
time specified by the Planning/Building/Public Works Administrator or his/her designee, and if
no time is so specified, then not later than one year. For plats, if no time is established, then not
later than one year after approval of the final plat by the City Council or one year after recording
of a short subdivision. The security shall be held by the Finance Department.
7. Extension of Time Limit: The Planning/Building/Public Works Administrator or
his/her designee (Administrator) shall annually review the deferred improvements and the
amount of the security. Should the Administrator determine that any improvement need not be
installed immediately, then the Administrator may extend the deferral for an additional period
of time up to an additional year. Any improvement deferred for five (5) years shall be required to
7
ORDINANCE NO.
be installed or shall be waived by the Administrator pursuant to RMC 4-9-250.C, Waiver
Procedures, unless the Administrator determines that it is more likely than not that the
improvements would be installed within an additional five (5) year period of time, in which case
the Administrator may continue to defer the improvements year to year subject to the other
conditions contained in this Section. Should any improvement be initiated before the lapse of a
deferral, and the work is diligently pursued, then the Administrator may extend the deferral
period for a term equivalent to the time necessary to complete construction, but subject,
however, to continuation of the security. At the same time as the granting of any additional
deferral, the security for such deferral shall be reviewed and increased or decreased as the
Administrator shall deem necessary, but shall remain in an amount equal to a minimum of one
hundred fifty percent (150%) of the estimated cost of the installation of the deferred
improvement.
Acceptable Security: Security acceptable under this Section may be cash, letter of
credit, set aside letter provided that the funds cannot be withdrawn, spent, or committed to any
third party, or savings account assigned to the City and blocked as to withdrawal by the secured
party without the City's approval. Only if these security devices are unavailable to the applicant,
or the applicant can show hardship, will the City accept a performance bond. Any security device
must be payable to the City upon demand by the City and not conditioned upon approval or other
process involving the applicant. Security must be unequivocally committed to the project being
secured, and cannot be available for any other purpose. Any security that, according to its terns,
lapses upon a date certain, will cause the deferral to lapse on that same date unless additional
adequate substitute security has been posted prior to the termination date of the prior security.
ORDINANCE NO.
Each security document posted with the City must be approved by the City Attorney, whose
decision as to the acceptability of the security shall be conclusive.
9. Special Security Option for Deferral of Street Improvements: A restrictive
covenant running with the land, signed and properly recorded after City Attorney review, may be
accepted as security if the covenant guarantees that the property will join in any future LID
established to install the required improvements in addition to the following conditions:
There are no similar improvements in the vicinity and there is no
likelihood that the improvements will be needed or required in the next five (5) years.
b. There will be no detrimental effect on the public health, safety or welfare
if the improvements are not installed.
There is no likelihood that the zoning or land use on or adjacent to the site
will change to a higher classification within a five (5) year period, thus increasing the likelihood
that the improvements will be needed.
d. A covenant approved by the Planning/Building/Public Works
Administrator or his/her designee shall contain language that stipulates the property owner will
immediately install the deferred improvements at his or her expense upon a determination of the
Administrator that the improvements have become necessary.
10. Special Security Option for Short Plats: A restrictive covenant running with the
land, signed and properly recorded after City Attorney review, may be accepted as security if the
covenant guarantees that the property will join in any future limited improvement district
established to install the required improvements in addition to the following conditions:
a. The restrictive covenant for deferrals occurs only for a single family
development no larger than a short plat.
7
ORDINANCE NO.
b. There are no similar improvements in the vicinity and there is no
likelihood that the improvements will be needed or required in the next five (5) years.
There will be no detrimental effect on the public health, safety or welfare
if the improvements are not installed.
d. There is little likelihood that the zoning or land use on or adjacent to the
site will change to a higher classification and development will occur within a five (5) year
period, thus increasing the likelihood that the improvements will be needed.
A covenant approved by the Planning/Building/Public Works
Administrator or his/her designee shall contain language that stipulates the property owner will
immediately install the deferred improvements at his or her expense upon a determination of the
Administrator that the improvements have become necessary.
11. Security Requirement Binding: The requirement of the posting of any security
therefore shall be binding on the applicant and the applicant's heirs, successors and assigns.
12. Record of Deferral: The Planning/Building/Public Works Administrator or
his/her designee shall note for the Department's record the following information: the
improvements deferred, amount of security or check deposited, time limit of security or check,
name of bonding company, and any other pertinent information.
13. Transfer of Responsibility: Whenever security has been accepted by the
Planning/Building/Public Works Administrator or his/her designee, then no release of the owner
or developer upon that security shall be granted unless a new party will be obligated to perform
the work as agreed in writing to be responsible under the security, and has provided security. In
the instance where security would be provided by a condominium owners' association or
property owners' association, then it shall be necessary for the owners association to have voted
10
ORDINANCE NO.
to assume the obligation before the City may accept the security, and a copy of the minutes of
the owners' association duly certified shall be filed along with the security.
14. Administrative Approval Required Prior to Transfer of Responsibility: The City
shall not be required to permit a substitution of one party for another on any security if the
Planning/Building/Public Works Administrator or his/her designee, after full review, feels that
the new owner does not provide sufficient security to the City that the improvements will be
installed when required.
15. Proceeding Against Security: The City reserves the right, in addition to all other
remedies available to it by law, to proceed against such security or other payment in lieu thereof.
In case of any suit or action to enforce any provisions of this code, the developer shall pay the
City all costs incidental to such litigation including reasonable attorney's fees. The applicant
shall enter into an agreement with the City requiring payment of such attorney's fees.
SECTION XII. Section 4-9-250.C.2 of Chapter 9, Permits — Specific, of Title IV
(Development Regulations) of Ordinance No. 4260 entitled "Code of General Ordinances of the
City of Renton, Washington" is hereby amended to read as follows:
4-9-250.C.2 Authority for Waiver of Street Improvements: The
Planning/Building/Public Works Administrator or his/her designee may grant waiver of the
installation of street improvements subject to the determination that there is reasonable
justification for such waiver.
SECTION XIII. Section 8-7-8 of Chapter 7, Noise Level Regulations, of Title VIII
(Health and Sanitation) of Ordinance No. 4260 entitled "Code of General Ordinances of the City
of Renton, Washington" is hereby amended to read as follows:
8-7-8 VARIANCES AND APPEAL:
11
ORDINANCE NO.
A. Jurisdiction: The Planning/Building/Public Works Administrator or his/her designee
shall hear and decide requests for variances from the requirements of this Chapter.
B. Application: Parties seeking a variance from this Chapter, or a duly authorized
representative of the parties seeking the variance, shall file an application for the variance, which
application shall set forth fully the grounds therefore and the facts the applicant deems material
to justify the granting of such a variance.
C. Public Notice And Hearing: The hearing for a noise variance shall be a public hearing,
the date of which shall be not more than forty five (45) days from the date of filing and
acceptance of the application for the variance. Notice of the time and place of public hearing
shall be given and at least one publication in the City's legal newspaper, which publication shall
be not less than ten (10) days prior to the date of said public hearing. In addition, three (3)
written notices of such public hearing shall be posted at least ten (10) days prior to such hearing
within, on or about the location which will generate such noise. Additionally, written notice of
the hearing shall be given to any resident or property owner that will experience an increase in
noise, or potentially have an increase in noise, such that this variance will increase the quantity
of noise received by that property owner or resident. The burden of providing that this written
notice has been properly given shall be upon the applicant. The Planning/Building/Public Works
Administrator or his/her designee shall not consider any variance for which written notices have
not been given, or grant any variance that would cause an increase in noise levels beyond that
permitted in this Chapter unless the affected property owner or resident has been notified.
D. Factors For Granting Variance: The Planning/Building/Public Works Administrator or
his/her designee, in passing upon an application for a variance, shall consider all technical
evaluations, all relevant factors and standards specified in other sections of this Chapter, and in
12
ORDINANCE NO.
addition thereto shall consider the following, none of which is mandatory for the granting of the
vanance:
1. That the applicant will suffer an undue hardship and the variance is necessary
because of special circumstances applicable to the applicant's property or project, and that the
strict application of this Chapter will deprive the subject property owner or applicant of rights
and privileges enjoyed by others.
2. That the granting of the variance will not be materially detrimental to the public
health, welfare or safety, or unduly injurious to the property or improvements in the vicinity of
the location for which this variance is sought.
3. That the variance sought is the minimum variance which will accomplish the
desired purpose.
4. That the variance contains such conditions deemed to be necessary to limit the
impact of the variance on the residence or property owners impacted by the variance.
5. The importance of the services provided by the facility creating the noise and the
other impacts caused to the public safety, health and welfare balanced against the harm to be
suffered by residents or property owners receiving the increased noise permitted under this
vanance.
6. The availability of practicable alternative locations or methods for the proposed
use which will generate the noise.
7. The extent by which the prescribed noise limitations will be exceeded by the
variance and the extent and duration of the variance.
E. Findings and Conclusions of Planning/Building/Public Works Administrator: The
Planning/Building/Public Works Administrator or his/her designee shall reduce his or her
13
ORDINANCE NO.
decision to written findings, conclusions and a decision. The written findings, conclusions and
decision shall include a section noting the right of appeal from the decision to the City Council.
F. Appeals: Any party participating in the public hearing feeling aggrieved by the decision
of the Planning/Building/Public Works Administrator or his/her designee may appeal the
decision of the Administrator to the Hearing Examiner within fourteen (14) days of the decision.
The appeal document shall note the errors in findings or conclusions which the appellant believes
are material to the appeal. The Hearing Examiner shall consider the appeal and shall affirm the
decision of the Administrator unless the Hearing Examiner finds that there are material errors in
the findings or conclusions, or that the decision is not supportable by the findings and
conclusions. If the Hearing Examiner finds such errors it shall reduce its decision to writing
specifying the findings and conclusions that are in error or stating that the decision is not
supportable by the findings and conclusions. Any party remaining aggrieved by the decision of
the Hearing Examiner may further appeal to the King County Superior Court within twenty-one
(21) calendar days from the date of the City Council's decision.
SECTION XIV. Section 9-2-2.A of Chapter 2, Excess Right of Way Use, of Title
IX (Public Ways and Property) of Ordinance No. 4260 entitled "Code of General Ordinances of
the City of Renton, Washington" is hereby amended to read as follows:
A. Any person, partnership or corporation desirous of temporarily or permanently
using and occupying unneeded and unused public right-of-way and whose property directly abuts
and adjoins such public right-of-way, may apply to the Planning/Building/Public Works
Administrator or his/her designee to secure a revocable permit or permanent easement for such
use. Such application shall include sufficient and specific plans as to the proposed use and any
14
ORDINANCE NO.
such use and occupancy shall be in compliance with all of the City's laws and ordinances. If such
application is for a permanent easement, that application shall additionally include the following:
Evidence, such as a title policy, title search or other similar mechanism showing
that the applicant owns the underlying fee to the public right-of-way; or
2. If the applicant is not the owner in fee of the property burdened by the right-of-
way, then a quit claim deed or easement from the fee owner; or
In doubtful cases, or where ownership cannot be proven, what title history is
available, and a covenant running with the land holding the City harmless from any and all later
claims for damages, inverse condemnation, injunction or other action premised upon the City's
granting of the permanent easement.
4. Where the City is the fee owner of the property in question, subsections A. I
through A.3 of this Section shall be satisfied.
SECTION XV
Section 9-2-3 of Chapter 2, Excess Right of Way Use, of Title IX
(Public Ways and Property) of Ordinance No. 4260 entitled "Code of General Ordinances of the
City of Renton, Washington" is hereby amended to read as follows:
9-2-3 STANDARDS OF REVIEW:
A. Revocable Permits: Prior to the issuance of any revocable permit, the
Planning/Building/Public Works Administrator or his/her designee shall find and determine that
the City has no foreseeable use or need for such excess or unused public right-of-way for the
period of time of the permit.
B. Permanent Easements: Prior to the issuance of any permanent easement, the
Planning/Building/Public Works Administrator or his/her designee shall review the application
and determine that the easement is the minimum that will be necessary, that the easement will
15
ORDINANCE NO.
not negatively affect the current or anticipated future use of the right-of-way, and that the public
good, in balance, is furthered by such easement. The easement is intended to allow granting of
minor easements for eave overhangs, foundation footings or similar minor uses when approved
by the Administrator, when the structures are deemed to be of significant benefit to the City.
Such permanent easement shall be limited to no more than three feet in width for underground
structures such as foundation footings, and no more than eight feet in width for structures above
ground such as eave overhangs or bay windows. In no case shall aboveground structures be less
than 14 feet from ground elevation, nor shall they extend over the surface of a paved street, but
shall be limited to over sidewalks, alleys, landscape areas, or unimproved areas.
C. Vacation Of Right -Of -Way: If the subject right-of-way will not be necessary for future
public use, then the applicant should be encouraged to apply for a vacation of the right-of-way.
The application for use of right-of-way shall be tabled until the applicant refuses to apply for
vacation or the vacation is denied by the City Council. If the vacation is granted, the application
for use shall be dismissed.
D. Authority And Conditions: The Planning/Building/Public Works Administrator or his/her
designee shall further have the right to impose such conditions or terms as may appear
reasonable under the circumstances in order to protect the public safety, welfare, general
appearance and aesthetics of the subject area. The Administrator shall likewise have the authority
to deny the permit should it find that it is not in the public interest and will not further the public
safety, welfare, general appearance and aesthetics of the subject area.
9-2-4 FEE DETERMINED:
When an application is approved, the Planning/Building/Public Works Administrator or
his/her designee shall determine a nonrefundable fee as established by ordinance for the
16
ORDINANCE NO.
temporary use of the right-of-way or granting of a permanent easement. The fee shall be as
stipulated in RMC 4-1-180.E.
9-2-5 MINIMUM PERMIT REQUIREMENTS:
A. Termination Of Revocable Permits: All revocable permits shall be subject to termination
upon thirty (30) days' written notice by the City.
B. Insurance Required: Any easement applicant under this Section or any permittee shall
provide, prior to the issuance or grant of any such revocable permit or permanent easement,
sufficient public liability and property damage insurance with limits of not less than one hundred
thousand dollars/three hundred thousand dollars ($100,000.00/$300,000.00) on account of public
liability and not less than fifty thousand dollars ($50,000.00) on account of property damage.
Copies of such insurance policy or policies shall be furnished unto the City with a special
endorsement in favor of the City. Upon showing of a hardship and at the discretion of the
Planning/Building/Public Works Administrator or his/her designee, the insurance requirements
may be reduced or waived for single-family or two-family residential applications. For
municipalities or utilities that are self insured, there may be substituted a statement of self
insurance showing the ability to answer for damages in the amounts stated in this paragraph.
C. Agreement Required: Any easement holder or permittee shall furnish unto the City an
appropriate hold harmless and indemnity agreement as may be approved by the City Attorney
and/or a performance or maintenance bond.
D. Cancellation Or Rescission: In case of any nonpayment of the established fee, or failure
to maintain the insurance or indemnity agreement by such user, the revocable permit shall be
deemed cancelled, or the easement rescinded.
17
ORDINANCE NO.
SECTION XVI.
30 days after publication.
This ordinance shall be effective upon its passage, approval, and
PASSED BY THE CITY COUNCIL this day of , 2005.
Bonnie I. Walton, City Clerk
APPROVED BY THE MAYOR this day of , 2005.
Approved as to form:
Lawrence J. Warren, City Attorney
Date of Publication:
ORD.1200:9/13/05:ma
Kathy Keolker-Wheeler, Mayor
IV
CITY OF RENTON, WASHINGTON
ORDINANCE NO.
AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF RENTON, WASHINGTON,
AMENDING CHAPTERS 4-1, 4-4, 4-5, 4-8 AND 4-9 OF TITLE IV
(DEVELOPMENT REGULATIONS) OF ORDINANCE NO. 4260
ENTITLED "CODE OF GENERAL ORDINANCES OF THE CITY OF
RENTON, WASHINGTON" BY CHANGING REFERENCES FROM THE
BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT TO THE PLANNING/BUILDING/PUBLIC
WORKS ADMINISTRATOR.
THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF RENTON, WASHINGTON, DOES ORDAIN
AS FOLLOWS:
SECTION I. Section 4-4-080.I.6 of Chapter 4, City -Wide Property
Development Standards, of Title IV (Development Regulations) of Ordinance No. 4260 entitled
"Code of General Ordinances of the City of Renton, Washington" is hereby amended to read as
follows:
6. Driveway Grades — Maximum Based Upon Land Use:
a. Single Family and Two (2) Family Uses: Maximum driveway slopes shall
not exceed fifteen percent (15%), provided that driveways exceeding eight percent (8%) shall
provide slotted drains at the lower end with positive drainage discharge to restrict runoff from
entering the garage/residence or crossing any public sidewalk. To exceed fifteen percent (15%),
a variance from the Planning/Building/Public Works Administrator or his/her designee is
required.
b. All Other Uses: Maximum driveway slope shall not exceed eight percent
(8%). The Planning/Building/Public Works Administrator or his/her designee may allow a
driveway to exceed eight percent (8%) slope but not more than fifteen percent (15%) slope, upon
proper application in writing and for good cause shown, which shall include, but not be limited
ORDINANCE NO.
to, the absence of any reasonable alternative. To exceed fifteen percent (15%), a variance from
the Administrator is required.
SECTION II. Section 4-4-100.S of Chapter 4, City -Wide Property Development
Standards, of Title IV (Development Regulations) of Ordinance No. 4260 entitled "Code of
General Ordinances of the City of Renton, Washington" is hereby amended to read as follows:
S. VARIANCES:
Applications for variances from the provisions of this Chapter shall be heard by the
Planning/Building/Public Works Administrator or his/her designee as provided in RMC 4-1-
050.1) and consistent with the provisions of RMC 4-9-250.B.
SECTION III. Section 4-5-050.D.4 of Chapter 5, Building and Fire Prevention
Standards, of Title IV (Development Regulations) of Ordinance No. 4260 entitled "Code of
General Ordinances of the City of Renton, Washington" is hereby amended to read as follows:
4. Appeals Board: The Appeals Board for purposes of section 112 of the
International Building Code shall be the Planning/Building/Public Works Administrator or
his/her designee.
SECTION IV. Section 4-5-055.D.3 of Chapter 5, Building and Fire
Prevention Standards, of Title IV (Development Regulations) of Ordinance No. 4260 entitled
"Code of General Ordinances of the City of Renton, Washington" is hereby amended to read as
follows:
3. Appeals Board: The Appeals Board for purposes of Section R112.1 of the
International Residential Code shall hereafter be the Planning/Building/Public Works
Administrator or his/her designee.
2
ORDINANCE NO.
SECTION V. Section 4-5-090.B of Chapter 5, Building and Fire Prevention
Standards, of Title IV (Development Regulations) of Ordinance No. 4260 entitled "Code of
General Ordinances of the City of Renton, Washington" is hereby amended to read as follows:
B. APPEALS BOARD:
The Appeals Board for purposes of Section 109 shall be the Planning/Building/Public
Works Administrator or his/her designee.
SECTION VI. Section 4-5-1003 of Chapter 5, Building and Fire Prevention
Standards, of Title IV (Development Regulations) of Ordinance No. 4260 entitled "Code of
General Ordinances of the City of Renton, Washington" is hereby amended to read as follows:
The Appeals Board for purposes of Section 109.1 shall be the Planning/Building/Public
Works Administrator or his/her designee.
SECTION VII. Section 4-8-070.0 of Chapter 8, Permits — General and Appeals, of
Title IV (Development Regulations) of Ordinance No. 4260 entitled "Code of General
Ordinances of the City of Renton, Washington" is hereby amended to read as follows:
C. PLANNING/BUILDING/PUBLIC WORKS ADMINISTRATOR OR DESIGNEE:
Authority: The Planning/Building/Public Works Administrator or his/her designee shall
review and act on the following:
l . Appeals of administrative decisions/determinations regarding requests for
modification of storm drainage regulations;
2. Appeals relating to Uniform Building Code Sections: Section 105, Section 110,
and Section 1.18 — Alternative Materials;
3. Building and grading permits;
4. Conditional approval permits for nonconforming structures;
3
ORDINANCE NO.
5. Conditional use permit, administrative;
6. Critical area regulation alternates and modifications;
7 Critical areas regulation administrative determinations per RMC
4-3-050.D.4;
8. Interpretation of flood insurance rate map boundaries;
9. Lot line adjustments;
10. Modifications:
(a) Minor modifications to previously approved site plan;
(b) Modifications of storm drainage requirements;
(c) Modification of geologic hazard regulations for man-made slopes;
(d) Modifications/waivers of sewer code requirements;
(e) Modifications of the number of required parking stalls and the
requirements of the parking, loading and driveway regulations; and
(f) Modifications to development standards in the Center Village Residential
Bonus District and the Urban Design Regulatton.Oerla°Drstrict;
11. Public art exemption certificate;
12. Review of business licenses for home occupations;
13. Revocable permits for the temporary use of public right-of-way;
14. Routine vegetation management permits;
15. Sewer modifications, alternates, and appeals pursuant to RMC 4-9-250.D and E
and 4-8-110.D, respectively;
16. Shoreline exemptions;
17. Shoreline permits;
19
ORDINANCE NO.
18. Short plats — four (4) or less;
19. Site plan approval, administrative;
20. Master Plan review (individual phases);
21. Temporary emergency wetland permits;
22. Temporary use permits;
23. Variances:
(a) Administrative pursuant to RMC 4-9-250.B. Lc;
(b) Variances not associated with a development permit that requires review
by the Hearing Examiner, provided the variance authority is not specifically given to
another authority elsewhere in this Chapter, and any building permits submitted in
conjunction with such variance application; and
(c) Variances from chapter 8-7 RMC, Noise Level Regulations; and
24. Waivers:
(a) Waivers of right-of-way dedication for plat;
(b) On- and off -site improvements (including deferrals); and
(c) Allowing a commercial or multi -family residential driveway grade of
between eight percent (8%) and fifteen percent (15%).
SECTION VIII. Sections 4-8-070.D and F of Chapter 8, Permits — General and
Appeals, of Title IV (Development Regulations) of Ordinance No. 4260 entitled "Code of
General Ordinances of the City of Renton, Washington" are hereby deleted.
SECTION IX. The Table entitled "Type IV — Land Use Permits Board of
Adjustment" in Section 4-8-080.H of Chapter 8, Permits — General and Appeals, of Title IV
ORDINANCE NO.
(Development Regulations) of Ordinance No. 4260 entitled "Code of General Ordinances of the
City of Renton, Washington" is hereby deleted.
SECTION X. Section 4-8-110.A of Chapter 8, Permits — General and Appeals, of
Title W (Development Regulations) of Ordinance No. 4260 entitled "Code of General
Ordinances of the City of Renton, Washington" is hereby amended to read as follows:
A. SCOPE AND PURPOSE:
This Section provides the basic procedures for processing all types of land use and
development -related appeals. Specific requirements are based upon the type/level of appeal and
the appeal authority. Procedures for the following types of appeals are included in this Section:
1. Appeals of administrative decisions to the Planning/Building/Public
Works Administrator or his/her designee;
2. Appeals to Hearing Examiner of administrative decisions and
environmental determinations;
3. Appeals to City Council;
4. Appeals to Superior Court; and
5. Appeals to the State Shorelines Hearings Board.
SECTION XI.
Section 4-9-250.B. Lb of Title IV (Development Regulations) of
Ordinance No. 4260 entitled "Code of General Ordinances of the City of Renton, Washington" is
hereby deleted.
SECTION XII. Section 4-9-250 B.13 of Chapter 9, Permits - Specific, of Title IV
(Development Regulations) of Ordinance No. 4260 entitled "Code of General Ordinances of the
City of Renton, Washington" is hereby amended to read as follows:
13. Decision Process:
31
ORDINANCE NO.
a. The Planning/Building/Public Works Administrator or his/her designee
Shall Announce Findings and Decisions: Not more than thirty (30) days after the termination of
the proceedings of the public hearing on any variance, the Planning/Building/Public Works
Administrator or his/her designee shall announce the Administrator's findings and decision. If a
variance is granted, the record shall show such conditions and limitations in writing as the
Administrator may impose.
b. Notice of Decision of the Planning/Building/Public Works Administrator
or his/her designee: Following the rendering of a decision on a variance application, a copy of
the written order by the Administrator shall be mailed to the applicant at the address shown on
the application and filed with the Planning/Building/Public Works Department and to any other
person who requests a copy thereof.
C. Reconsideration: (Reserved)
d. Record of Decision: Whenever a variance is approved by the
Planning/Building/Public Works Administrator or his/her designee, the Building Department
shall forthwith make an appropriate record and shall inform the administrative department
having jurisdiction over the matter.
SECTION XIII. This ordinance shall be effective upon its passage, approval, and
30 days after publication.
PASSED BY THE CITY COUNCIL this day of , 2005.
Bonnie I. Walton, City Clerk
7
ORDINANCE NO.
APPROVED BY THE MAYOR this day of
Kathy Keolker-Wheeler, Mayor
Approved as to form:
Lawrence J. Warren, City Attorney
Date of Publication:
ORD. 1198:9/12/05:ma
2005.
SEP-15-2005 aB:59 Warren Barber & Fontes
P.01/06
CITY OF RENTON, WASHINGTON
ORDINANCE NO.
AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF RENTON, WASHINGTON,
VACATING THREE PORTIONS OF BRE.MERTON AVE. NE, SOUTH OF
NE 4" STREET AND NORTH OF SE 2ed PL. (LIBERTY RIDGE; VAC 04-
007)
WHEREAS, a proper petition for vacating portions of the west edge of
Bremerton Avenue NE lying between NE 4`h St. and SE 2"d Pl. was filed with the City
Clerk on December 27, 2004, and that petition was signed by the owners representing more
than two-thirds (2/3) of the property abutting upon the street or alley to be vacated; and
WHEREAS, the City Council, by Resolution No. 3732, passed on January 24, 2005, set
February 28, 2005, at 7:30 p.m. in the City Council Chambers of the City of Renton as the time
and place for a public hearing on this matter; and the City Clerk having given proper notice of
this hearing as provided by law, and all persons having been heard who appeared to testify in
favor or in opposition on this matter, and the City Council having considered all information and
arguments presented to it; and
WHEREAS, the Administrator of the Planning/Building/Public Works Department has
considered this petition for vacation, and has found it to be in the public interest and for the public
benefit, and that'no injury or damage to any person or properties will result from this vacation;
NOW, THEREFORE, THE CITY -COUNCIL OF TBE CITY OF RENTON,
WASHINGTON, DOES ORDAIN AS FOLLOWS:
SECTION I. The following described portions of Bremerton Avenue NE, to wit:
I
SEP-15-2005 08:59 Warren Barber & Fontes P.02i06
ORDINANCE NO.
Three portions of right-of-way of Bremerton Ave NE, south of NE 4`s St. and
north of SE 2°d Pl; approximately 3,998 square feet, described more
particularly in Exhibits "A" and "B" attached hereto and made a part hereof as
if fully set forth herein,
be and the same is hereby vacated subject to an easement over, across, under and on all that part
as described on Exhibit "A' in favor of the City. This easement is for the purpose of constructing,
reconstructing, installing, repairing, replacing, enlarging, operating and maintaining utilities and
utility pipelines, including, but not limited to, water, sewer and storm drainage tines, together with
the right of ingress and egress thereto without prior institution of any suit or proceedings of law
and without incurring any legal obligation or liability therefore. The City may from time to time
construct such additional facilities as it may require. This easement is subject to the following
terms and conditions:
That a utility easement be retained over the entire right-of-way, with the understanding
that the property may be developed fully if the existing utilities are relocated at the sole cost of the
developer; and
That this easement shall run with the land described herein, and shall be binding upon the
parties, and their heirs and successors in interest and assigns.
SECTION K The City Council hereby elects to charge a fee of $5,170 (Five
Thousand, One Hundred and Seventy Dollars) to the petitioner -owners, which has been paid to
the City.
SECTION IM This ordinance shall be effective upon its passage, approval, and
five days after its publication.
2
5EP-15-2005 09:00
Warren Barber & Fontes
P.03/06
ORDINANCE NO.
A certified copy of this ordinance shall be filed with the Office of Records and Elections,
and as otherwise provided by law.
PASSED BY THE CITY COUNCIL this day of > 2005_
APPROVED BY THE MAYOR this
Approved as to form:
Lawrence J. Warren, City Attorney w
Date of Publication:
ORD.1201:9/14/05:ma
3
Bonnie 1. Walton, City Clerk
day of
Kathy Keolker-Wheeler, Mayor
2005.
SEP-15-2005 05:00 barren barber & F-ontes H.04106
Exhibit A
Legal Description of the Proposed
Street Vacation of Three Portions of the
West Edge of Bremerton Avenue NE
That portion of the Southeast quarter of the Northwest quarter of the Northwest quarter of
Section 15, Township 23 North, Range 5 East, Willamette Meridian, situate in the City of
Renton, County of King, State of Washington legally described as follows:
Those portions of the North half of the Southeast quarter of the Northwest quarter
of the Northwest quarter of Section 15, Township 23 North, Range 5 East,
Willamette Meridian described as follows:
Commencing at the Northeast corner thereof;
Thence North 89°08'05" West along the North line thereof, a distance of
25.00 feet to the True Point of Beginning;
Thence South 00° 13'59" East parallel with the East line thereof, a distance
of 69.53 feet to the beginning of a curve tangent to said line;
Thence Southwesterly a distance of 26.18 feet along the curve concave to
the Northwest, having a radius of 25.00 feet and a central angle of
60°00'00" to a point of cusp;
Thence North 00°13'59" West parallel with the East line thereof, a
distance of 91.42 feet;
Thence South 89°08'05" East along the North line thereof, a distance of
12.50 feet to the True Point of Beginning.
Containing 1063 square feet, more or less.
AND
Commencing at the Northeast corner thereof;
Thence North 89°08'05" West along the North line thereof, a distance of
37.51 feet;
Thence South 00°13'59" East parallel with the East line thereof, a distance
of 140.14 feet to the True Point of Beginning;
Thence continuing South 00°13'59" East parallel with the East line
thereof, a distance of 189.92 feet to the South line of said North half,
Thence South 89'11'22" East, a distance of 12.50 feet;
Thence North 00°13'59" West, a distance of 168.50 feet to the beginning
of a curve tangent to said line;
Page 1 of 2
P-15-2005 09:00 Warren Barber & Fontes
Thence northwesterly a distance of 26.18 feet along the curve concave to
the southwest, having a radius of 25.00 feet and a central angle of
60°00'00" to the True Point of Beginning.
Containing 2,297 square feet, more or less.
AND
That portion of the South half of the Southeast quarter of the Northwest quarter of
the Northwest quarter of Section 15, Township 23 North, Range 5 East,
Willamette Meridian, described as follows:
Beginning at the Southeast corner of the Southeast quarter of the
Northwest quarter of the Northwest quarter of Section 15, Township 23
North, Range 5 East, Willamette Meridian;
Thence North 89°14'40" West, along the South line thereof, a distance of
7.50 feet;
Thence North 00°13'59" West, parallel with the East line thereof, a
distance of 81.74 feet to a point of cusp on a curve concave to the
southwest having a radius of 25.00 feet and a central angle of 3 °47'02" and
being subtended by a chord which bears South 25019'43" East 1.65 feet;
Thence Southeasterly along said curve, a distance of 1.65 feet;
Thence South 25°28'04" East, a distance of 15.95 feet to the East line
thereof;
Thence South 00°13'59" East, a distance of 65.95 feet to the South line
thereof and the Point of Beginning.
Containing 552 square feet, more or less.
Page 2 of 2
1
.
I
j
1 -
crr
Y�.
s.u?a`I: \ Sr
\
Bremer, to.n A e e VACATION
G E I.N.NW 4 LR.EE.T U�CAT1Uh
TWEET VACA. ION
N!A�A 1ON Sel. ��
1 1.
D 'V CJ
D
TI
l'
a
Fn
to
R
l�