The URL can be used to link to this page

Home My WebLink AboutCouncil 01/24/2005AGENDA RENTON CITY COUNCIL REGULAR MEETING January 24, 2005 Monday, 7:30 p.m. 1. CALL TO ORDER AND PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE 2. ROLL CALL 3. PUBLIC MEETING WITH THE INITIATOR: Maplewood Addition Annexation - 10% Notice of Intent to annex petition for 60.5 acres bounded by Maple Valley Hwy. and the Cedar River 4. PUBLIC HEARINGS: a. Anthone' Annexation - 60% Notice of Intent to annex petition and future zoning for 4.84 acres located east of Talbot Rd. S. and south of S. 55th St. b. City -initiated request for street vacation for portions of Logan and Park Avenues N., north of N. 8th St., for the proposed Lakeshore Landing site development (VAC-04-005) 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 January 10, 2005. Council concur. b. City Clerk reports appeal of Hearing Examiner's decision on the Sunset Bluff Preliminary Plat (PP-04-002); two appeals filed - one by David S. Mann, 1424 4th Ave., Suite 1015, Seattle, 98101, representing Herons Forever; and the other by David L. Halinen, 10500 NE 8th St., Suite 1900, Bellevue, 98004, representing SR 900, LLC, both accompanied by the required fee. The appeal packet includes four additional letters received as allowed by City Code. Refer to Planning & Development Committee. Consideration of the appeal by the City Council shall be based solely upon the record, the Hearing Examiner's report, the notice of appeal and additional submissions by parties (RMC 4-8-110F.6.). c. City Clerk submits petition for street vacation for portions of Bremerton Ave. NE between NE 2nd and 3rd Streets and requests a public hearing be set on 2/28/2005 to consider the petition; petitioner Liberty Ridge, LLC, 9125 10th Ave. S., Seattle, 98108 (VAC-04-007). Council concur. (See 10.a. for resolution.) d. Community Services Department recommends approval of an amendment to the lease with Iron Mountain Information Management, Inc. for the fourth floor of Renton City Hall, extending the lease term to December 31, 2009. Revenue generated is $1,456,685.47 over the five-year term. Refer to Finance Committee. e. Development Services Division recommends acceptance of right-of-way dedications for the Lakeshore Landing site development project (BSP-04-081). Council concur. (CONTINUED ON NEXT PAGE) f. Economic Development, Neighborhoods and Strategic Planning Department submits 60% Notice of Intent to annex petition for the proposed Mosier II Annexation, and recommends a public hearing be set on 2/7/2005 to consider the petition and future zoning; 31 acres located in the vicinity of NE 2nd St. (SE 132nd St.), Jericho Ave. NE (144th Ave. SE), 142nd Ave. SE, and SE 136th St. Refer issue of boundary expansion to Planning & Development Committee; set public hearing on 2/7/2005. g. Economic Development, Neighborhoods and Strategic Planning Department reports request from Issaquah School District that Renton adopt its 2004 Capital Facilities Plan and school impact fees for new development. Refer to Finance Committee. h. Economic Development, Neighborhoods and Strategic Planning Department recommends reaffirmation of the continuing membership of the Renton Lodging Tax Advisory Committee as follows: Bill Taylor, newly -named Greater Renton Chamber of Commerce President and CEO; Rick Meinig, Silver Cloud Inn General Manager; Terry Godat, Travelers Inn General Manager; Julie Brewer, City of Renton Community Relations Manager; and Denis Law, Renton Councilmember. Council concur. i. Economic Development, Neighborhoods and Strategic Planning Department recommends approval of a contract with Hamilton/Saunderson Marketing Partnership for a seventh year of the Renton Community Marketing Campaign. Approval is also sought to allocate hotel/motel tax revenues in the amount of $50,000 to the key community stakeholders partnership for a seventh year of the marketing campaign. Refer to Finance Committee. j. Human Resources and Risk Management Department recommends approval of the 2005/2006 fee schedule for employee medical, dental, and prescription claims processing by Healthcare Management Administrators and Pharmaceutical Card Service/Caremark. Refer to Finance Committee. k. Transportation Systems Division submits CAG-03-158, Lind Ave. SW and SW 7th St. Street Signalization; and requests approval of the project, authorization for final pay estimate in the amount of $160, commencement of 60-day lien period, and release of retained amount of $9,596.62 to Totem Electric, contractor, if all required releases are obtained. Council concur. 1. Utility Systems Division recommends approval of Amendment No. 2 to CAG-03-160, King County -Suburban City contract, accepting $22,903.46 for Renton's 2005 Local Hazardous Waste Management Program. Council concur (See 10.b. for resolution.) m. Utility Systems Division recommends approval of the 2005 update to the City's Water System Plan. Refer to Utilities Committee. n. Utility Systems Division recommends approval of the annual consultant roster for telemetry and supervisory control and data acquisition (SCADA) consultant services. The roster contains the following consultants: Casne Engineering, Inc., Reid Instruments, RH2 Engineering, Inc., and Summit Engineering and Consulting, PS. Council concur. 8. CORRESPONDENCE a. Letter from Ramon Lucio, 2020 Grant Ave. S., #L-301, Renton, 98055, suggesting that the Pavilion Building be used for a public market consisting of small stalls for different businesses like fast food, services, and dry good retailing. Refer to Committee of the Whole. b. Letters concerning Sunset Bluff Preliminary Plat appeals (PP-04-002). 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. a. Finance Committee: Vouchers b. Planning & Development Committee: Release of Easements for Lakeshore Landing; Anthone Annexation Boundary Expansion; Big -Box Retail Uses Design Guidelines*; Medical Institution Definition c. Utilities Committee: Maplewood Water Treatment Improvements Consultant Agreement (CONTINUED ON REVERSE SIDE) 10. RESOLUTIONS AND ORDINANCES Resolutions: a. Setting public hearing on 1/28/2005 for Liberty Ridge street vacation petition (see 7.c.) b. 2005 Local Hazardous Waste Management Program grant (see 7.1.) Ordinance: Big -box retail uses and Urban Center design guidelines (see 9.b.) 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 Conference Room 6:00 p.m. Emerging Issues City Hall 5th Floor 6:30 p.m. Tour of Traffic Management Center Council Chambers (following tour) I-405 Context Sensitive Solutions Update • 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 January 24, 2005 Council Chambers Monday, 7:30 p.m. MINUTES Renton City Hall CALL TO ORDER Mayor Kathy Keolker-Wheeler called the meeting of the Renton City Council to order and led the Pledge of Allegiance to the flag. ROLL CALL OF TERRI BRIF,RE, 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; ABDOUL GAI=OUR, Water LJtility Supervisor; KAREN MCFARLAND, Engineering Specialist; ALEX PIF,TSCH, Economic Development Administrator; BEN WOLTERS, Economic Development Director; DON ERICKSON, Senior Planner; DEREK TODD, Assistant to the CAO; COMMANDER TIM TROXEL, Police Department. PUBLIC MEETING This being the date set and proper notices having been posted and published in Annexation: Maplewood accordance with local and State laws, Mayor Keolker-Wheeler opened the Addition, Maple Valley Hwy public meeting to consider the .1.0% Notice of Intent to annex petition for the proposed 60.5-acre Maplewood Addition Annexation, which is bounded on the north by Maple Valley Hwy. (SR-169), and on the west, south, and east by the north shore of the Cedar River. Don Erickson, Senior Planner, stated that the subject site is within Renton's potential annexation area, and contains 161 single-family dwellings. He explained that the site is also included in the proposed Fairwood incorporation area. Once Fairwood proponents file their 10% petition, there is a 90-day window to file the notice of intent package to annex with the Boundary Review Board. For example, to allow processing time, the annexation proponents must file their 60% petition by the first week of March if Fairwood proponents file their 10% petition in January. He noted that failure to meet the 90-day window precludes the area's future annexation to Renton if the Fairwood incorporation is successful. Mr. Erickson reported that the topography of the site is essentially flat above the Cedar River bank and the entire site, with the exception of the lots north of SE 149th St., is located within the flood hazard boundary. He reviewed the existing public services as follows: • Fire service is provided by Fire District #25. This stays the same if annexed; however, adequate water pressure is an issue. • Water service is provided by the Maplewood Water Cooperative. If annexed, the water cooperative can continue to operate within the City. • The site is not currently served by sewer but is located within Renton's sewer service area. There are no known septic issues at this time, and residents are not required to convert from septic to sewer if annexed. Septic systems are under the purview of the King County Health Department. 0 The site is within the Renton School District. January 24, 2005 Renton City Council Minutes Page 21 A if annexed, and residents choose to convert to City utilities, the City can assist them in the formation of Local Improvement Districts (LEDs). Continuing, Mr. Erickson stated that existing King County zoning for the site is R-6 (six units per gross acre). Renton's Comprehensive Plan designates the site as Residential Single Farnily, and concurrent zoning is R-8 (eight units per net acre). Ile noted that the City is reviewing a possible change in designation to Residential Low Density, for which concurrent zoning is R-4 (four units per net acre). Reviewing the fiscal in►pact analysis, Mr. Erickson indicated that the annual estimated cost to the City for the annexation is $40,304. If property owners decide to upgrade to sewer, the annual estimated City cost would be $35,386 due to the likely increase of property values. In conclusion, Mr. Erickson stated that the annexation proposal is generally consistent with City policies for annexation and relevant Boundary Review Board criteria. 1-le noted the adequate level of parks in the area, the likely ongoing and costly flood control challenge, the aging infrastructure, and the larger than normal annual subsidy required to serve the area. Public comment was invited. Eric Anders, 13133 SE 149th St., Renton, 98058, stated that he is a proponent of the annexation, and noted that a community meeting was recently held at which City of Renton staff provided information. Mr. Anders pointed out that the Maplewood Water Cooperative cannot support R-8 zoning, and he stated his preference for R-4 zoning. Despite the costs associated with upgrading the water and sewer systems if necessary or desired, Mr. Anders indicated his support for annexation to Renton rather than incorporation by Fairwood. In response to questions posed by Richard [tall, 13111 SE Maple Valley Ilwy., Renton, 98058, Economic Development Administrator Alex Pietsch stated that grant monies may be available for flood protection. Planning/Building/Public Works Administrator Gregg 'Zimmerman stated that the assessment for installing the water and sewer is estimated at $15,000 per household per utility. Ile noted that if residents formed an LID for these improvements, the assessment would be paid over a period of time. Bev Spears, 131 l 1 SE 151st St., Renton, 98058, stated that many residents feel they do not have enough information about the costs to the community and individual homeowners for both the Fairwood incorporation and the proposed annexation. tooting the aging infrastructure, she expressed concern that the site will never meet City standards. Ms. Spears indicated that a resident questionnaire has been submitted to Mr. Erickson for more information. Mr. Pietsch noted that the recently received resident questionnaire will be responded to by the end of the week. Discussion ensued regarding the gathering of information and approximating costs; Council policy regarding annexation areas meeting City standards; current practice of annexing areas as they are; upgrading areas only as they are requested, systems fail, or redevelopment occurs; existing substandard areas in the City; the timeline for the annexation and for the Fairwood incorporation; consequences if annexation proponents fail to meet the deadline or obtain the 60% petition; the City's option of requesting the .Boundary Review Board to amend the boundaries of the incorporated area if annexation fails; and King County's decision not to serve pockets of unincorporated areas. 24, 2005 Renton City Council Minutes Page 22 City Attorney Larry Warren stated that there is no legal authority for the City to condition the annexation upon the signing of an LU) or a commitment to improve water or sewer systems. Outside of the bonded indebtedness and the zoning requirement, the City cannot add additional conditions to annexation petitions. Stephanie Lorenz, 135 15 SE Maple Valley Rd., Renton, 98058, stated that the proponents of the Fairwood incorporation effort are unable to provide affected residents with much information, which results in the inability of the residents to compare the advantages and disadvantages of the two efforts. If the 10% petition is accepted this evening, Ms. Lorenze asked if the 60% petition deadline can be extended. Mr. Pietsch explained that the time cannot be extended as long as the Fairwood incorporation proponents file their petition to incorporate within the assumed timeframe. The longer the filing of the petition for the Fairwood incorporation is delayed, the more time the subject annexation will have. Mayor Keolker- Wheeler stressed that the City strives to provide accurate and timely information, and a number of concerns will be addressed when the City responds to the resident questionnaire. Linda Gibson, 15031 135th Ave. SE, Renton, 98058, expressed concern regarding all of the misinformation being circulated about the annexation. She also pointed out that with an LID, a lien is placed on the property. Mayor Keolker-Wheeler noted that residents must ask for the formation of an LID; the City will not impose an LID on the community. Further discussion commenced regarding septic system failure, costs related to utility systems, misinformation, and the benefit of more representation by elected officials if the area is annexed or incorporated. Ray Griffen, 14405 SE 143rd Pl., Renton, 98055, reported that Renton's Aquifer Protection Ordinance states that any homes in Aquifer Protection Zones 1 and 2 must connect to the sewer. Mr. 'Zimmerman explained that the ordinance only requires mandatory sewer connection in Zone 1. The annexation area is located in Zone 2; therefore, mandatory hook-up is not required. Dennis Wood, 14934 134th Ave. SE, Renton, 98058, opposed the annexation proposal, pointing out that new road and house numbers will be assigned if the area is annexed. Mr. Wood expressed his disapproval with the City's addressing system, and stated that the address scheme makes it difficult to find places. Additionally, Mr. Wood acknowledged the area's aging water system, and noted Maplewood Water Cooperative's policy to keep the water system within local control. He also noted the need for a pamphlet, similar to the voters pamphlet, which states the for and against positions of the various interests. Brian Lowrey, 13112 SE 150th St., Renton, 98058, inquired about the bonded indebtedness and the loss to the City if the area is annexed. Mr. Pietsch explained that the bonded indebtedness refers to the park and senior housing Renton voted debt, which equates to $8 a year for a $100,000 valued property. He pointed out that the overall tax burden of property owners will be reduced if the area is annexed to Renton. 24, 2005 Renton City Council Minutes Page 23 Noting that the area is located within Renton's potential annexation area (PAA), Councilman Corman stated that despite the cost the PAA is part of the City's responsibility. Councilman Clawson pointed out that the area will eventually have to annex to Renton or to another City. Mr. Erickson reported that a community meeting will be held if the annexation proposal proceeds to the 60% petition level. There being no further public comment, it was MOVED BY BRIERE, SECONDED BY CLAWSON, COUNCIL CLOSE THE PUBLIC MEETING. CARRIED. MOVED BY BRIERE, SECONDED BY CORMAN, COUNCIL ACCEPT THE MAPLEWOOD ADDITION ANNEXATION 10% NOTICE OF INTENT TO ANNEX PETITION AND AUTHORIZE CIRCULATION OF THE 60% DIRECT PETITION TO ANNEX, WHICH REQUIRES PROPERTY OWNERS TO SUPPORT THE ADOPTION OF FUTURE ZONING CONSISTENT WITH THE CITY'S COMPREHENSIVE PLAN AND REQUIRES THAT PROPERTY OWNERS ASSUME A PROPORTIONAL SHARE OF THE CITY'S EXISTING OUTSTANDING INDEBTEDNESS. CARRIED. RECESS MOVED BY CORMAN, SECONDED BY LAW, COUNCIL RECESS FOR FIVE MINUTES. CARRIED. Time: 8:51 p.m. The meeting was reconvened at 8:57 p.m.; roll was called; all Councilmembers present. PUBLIC HEARINGS This being the date set and proper notices having been posted and published in Annexation: Anthone Talbot accordance with local and State laws, Mayor Keolker-Wheeler opened the Rd S & S 55th St public hearing to consider the 60% Notice of Intent to annex petition for the proposed Anthone' Annexation consisting of 4.84 acres, including the abutting street right-of-way, located at the southeast corner of the intersection of S. 55th St. and Talbot Rd. S. Don Erickson, Senior Planner, stated that the site contains one single-family dwelling, and has a three percent upward slope from the southwest corner to the northeast corner. Reviewing the public services, Mr. Erickson indicated that Fire District #37, Renton water and sewer, and the Kent School District serve the site. He explained that existing King County zoning is R-6 (six units per gross acre). The land use designation under the City's Comprehensive Plan is Residential Low Density, for which R-4 (four units per net acre) zoning is proposed. Mr. Erickson noted that the City is reviewing the possible redesignation of the area to Residential Single Family, for which concurrent zoning is R-8 (eight units per net acre). Mr. Erickson indicated that despite the smaller than normal annexation area and the limitation of future development to approximately 16 lots, the annexation proposal provides a potential catalyst for annexing a larger area to the south, and facilitates upgrading the intersection of Talbot Rd. S. and S. 55th St. He reported that the fiscal impact analysis reveals a surplus of $465 at current development, and a surplus of $875 at full development. The estimated one- time parks acquisition and development cost is $8,528. Mr. Erickson concluded that the proposed annexation is consistent with City annexation policies except for size, and is consistent with Boundary Review 24, 2005 Renton City Council Minutes Page 24 Board criteria. He noted the potential of flooding in the area, and suggested Level 2 flow control for new development. Public comment was invited. Jim Biteman, 19203 98th Ave. S., Renton, 98055, reported the presence of King County land use action signs in the annexation area for a nine -home development on 1.6 acres, and expressed concern about the conflicting zoning of the two jurisdictions. Mayor Keolker-Wheeler stated that the City will investigate the development proposal. In response to Mr. Biteman's comment about the site's proposed boundary expansion by the City, Mr. Pietsch explained that if the 60% petition is accepted, the City submits a notice of intent package to the Boundary Review Board. At that time, jurisdictions can invoke jurisdiction for boundary modifications. The Boundary Review Board holds two public hearings on the matter, makes a recommendation, and then the City Council has final approval to accept the annexation as modified or not. In response to inquiries by Dan Gallagher, 19225 Talbot Rd. S., Renton, 98055, regarding the City's Cleveland Park property located in unincorporated King County, Mayor Keolker-Wheeler explained that a timeline has not been set for its annexation to the City, as the City has not received any annexation requests. She further explained that there are no pending plans for development of the park property. Harry Trapp, 19223 98th Pl. S., Renton, 98055, also expressed concern about the proposed housing development and the conflicting zoning. Additionally, he noted the problems he had with the developer of Talbot Estates, and hoped that his property would be properly protected when future development occurs. Mr. Wood displayed a photograph of a property containing a demolished house, and expressed his hope that Renton will address the unsightly problem if the area is annexed. There being no further public comment, it was MOVED BY CLAWSON, SECONDED BY LAW, COUNCIL CLOSE THE PUBLIC HEARING. CARRIED. MOVED BY CLAWSON, SECONDED BY CORMAN, COUNCIL ACCEPT THE ANTHONE" ANNEXATION 60% DIRECT PETITION TO ANNEX, SUPPORT R-4 ZONING CONSISTENT WITH THE CURRENT COMPREHENSIVE PLAN LAND USE DESIGNATION OF RESIDENTIAL LOW DENSITY, AND AUTHORIZE THE ADMINISTRATION TO SUBMIT THE NOTICE OF INTENT PACKAGE TO THE BOUNDARY REVIEW BOARD. CARRIED. MOVED BY CLAWSON, SECONDED BY CORMAN, COUNCIL SUSPEND THE RULES AND ADVANCE TO UNFINISHED BUSINESS, PLANNING AND DEVELOPMENT COMMITTEE REPORT ON THIS SUBJECT. CARRIED. Planning & Development Planning and Development Committee Chair Clawson presented a report Committee regarding the boundary expansion for the proposed Anthone' Annexation. The Annexation: Anthone', Talbot Committee recommended concurrence in the staff recommendation that Rd S & S 55th St, Boundary Council authorize the Administration to invoke jurisdiction and request the Expansion Boundary Review Board to expand the proposed Anthone' Annexation to the City boundary on the south and 100th Ave. SE, if extended, on the east. 24, 2005 Renton City Council Minutes Page 25 The Committee further recommended that staff be directed to explore expanding the boundaries of future annexations whenever it would result in more efficient service areas and City boundaries, and be consistent with the Boundary Review Board objectives and City annexation policies. It is understood that Council might, in this regard, find it necessary to amend the proposed boundaries either at the Council petition level or by invoking jurisdiction at the Boundary Review Board. MOVED 13Y ('LAWSON, SECONDED BY LAW, COUNCIL CONCI IR IN T1IE COMMITTEE REPORT. CARRIED. Vacation: Park Ave N, City of This being the date set and proper notices having been posted and published in Renton, VAC-04-005 accordance with local and State laws, Mayor Keolker-Wheeler opened the public hearing to consider the City -initiated request for vacation of four portions of right-of-way, a total of approximately 21,795 square feet, along Park Ave. N., between Garden Ave. N. and N. 8th St. The requested vacation areas are associated with the planned development of Lakeshore Landing, which consists of approximately 55 acres bounded by Logan Ave. N., Garden Ave. N., and N. 8th St. Karen McFarland, Engineering Specialist, explained that the City agreed to construct a new arterial street system to support the development of the property in the 2003 development agreement with Boeing. Additionally, Boeing agreed to dedicate certain properties for right-of-way, and the City agreed to vacate unused portions of existing right-of-way. In 2004, the Lakeshore Landing Binding Site Plan was approved that identifies specific tracts needed as right-of-way for construction of the Logan Ave. N. extension, a relocated Park Ave. N., and new sections of street for N. 10th St. and N. 8th St. Ms. McFarland stated that three portions of the right-of-way to be vacated are owned by the City (Tracts 1, K, and N), and one is owned by the Washington State Department of Transportation (Tract H). Ms. McFarland noted the existence of two stormwater systems in two of the portions (Tracts H and 1). Continuing, Ms. McFarland reported that the vacation request received no objections from City departments and outside agencies. The Utility Systems Division requested a temporary easement be retained to protect the existing stormwater systems, and the Transportation Systems Division pointed out that turnback approval is needed from WSDOT for Tract H. Ms. McFarland indicated that since this is a City -initiated request, no compensation is due. She concluded that staff recommends approval of the vacation request conditioned upon retaining the temporary easement and obtaining turnback approval. Public comment was invited. There being none, it was MOVED BY LAW, SECONDED BY CORMAN, COUNCIL CLOSE THE PUBLIC HEARING. CARRIED, MOVED BY CL,AWSON, SECONDED BY LAW, COUNCIL APPROVE THE REQUEST TO VACATE PORTIONS OF RIGHT-OF-WAY ALONG PARK AVE. N. SUBJECT TO THE FOLLOWING CONDITIONS: RETAINING A TEMPORARY EASEMENT FOR STORMWATER UTILITIES ACROSS TRACTS H AND I THAT WILL EXPIRE UPON COMPLETION OF THE PROPOSED INFRASTRUCTURE January 24, 2005 Renton City Council Minutes Page 26 IMPROVEMENTS ASSOCIATED WITH THE LAKESHORE LANDING DEVELOPMENT, AND APPROVAL AND EXECUTION OF A TURNBACK AGREEMENT BY WSDOT. CARRIED. ADMINISTRATIVE Chief Administrative Officer Jay Covington reviewed a written administrative REPORT report summarizing the City's recent progress towards goals and work programs adopted as part of its business plan for 2005 and beyond. Items noted included: • The Renton Community Center will host a Preschool Information Night on February 2nd, from 6:30 p.m. to 8:00 p.m. • Free tax assistance will be provided for low and moderate -income taxpayers (income less that $50,000) by AARP in cooperation with the IRS. Appointments at the Renton Community Center are available beginning February 2nd and ending April 13th. • The Neighborhood Program will host a "Neighbor to Neighbor" Leadership meeting on February 5th. AUDIENCE COMMENT Keith Joslin, 14048 SE 158th St., Renton, 98058, inquired as to the City's intent Citizen Comment: Joslin - or vision on annexations in relation to the Fairwood incorporation effort. Annexations Mayor Keolker-Wheeler explained that the Fairwood area has been in Renton's potential annexation area for a long time, and if it were to annex to Renton, the size of the City would double. She expressed her concerns regarding the maintenance of a certain level of service for City residents, and the generation of revenues by the annexation area. The Mayor further explained that the City is accepting of those interested in annexing to Renton; however, the City generally does not initiate annexation. Councilman Corman stated his belief that if Fairwood residents were to inquire as to what it would be like to annex to Renton, perhaps as a comparison to the Fairwood incorporation, the City would respond. Citizen Comment: Smith - Hilton Smith, 809 Fairview Pl. N., Seattle, 98109, spoke on behalf of Waterways Cruises, Moorage Waterways Cruises, which operates dinner vessels and offers catering services. at Southport He relayed that his company has been in discussion with Southport (SECO Development) regarding locating one or more vessels and an event center in the Renton area that would involve permanent moorage. Mr. Smith noted that a 300 to 400 passenger vessel could draw numerous visitors to Renton. He explained that Waterways Cruises needs a five-year commitment, including parking, from Southport for permanent moorage, and he pointed out that currently only a two-year parking commitment is allowed. Responding to Councilman Corman's and the Mayor's inquiries, Mr. Pietsch noted that the City received a multi -faceted proposal from SECO Development late last week in regards to some outstanding issues between SECO and the City pertaining to the Southport project. He explained that the Southport project was permitted under an adopted planned action, and current zoning does not allow surface parking as a stand-alone use. Mr. Pietsch stated that parking is possible via a temporary use permit, which is valid for two years with possibly a one-year extension. He noted that the City will meet with the concerned parties to discuss accommodating SECO's short-term needs and other outstanding issues. January 24, 2005 Renton City Council Minutes Page 27 MOVED BY LAW, SECONDED BY PALMER, COUNCIL REFER THE SOUTHPORT DEVELOPMENT CONCERNS TO COMMITTEE OF THE WHOLE.* Mayor Keolker-Wheeler pointed out that the matter is already being reviewed by the Administration, and stressed that unresolved outstanding issues exist with the current development. Councilman Corman noted that with this development, a commitment has been shown for revitalization of this waterfront area, and he expressed his support for Council review of the matter. Councilman Persson stated that the referral allows Council a forum for further discussion. Councilman Clawson said he will not support suspending any previous commitments by SECO Development unless it is beneficial for the City of Renton. *MOTION CARRIED. Citizen Comment: Christ - Michael Christ, 1083 Lake Washington Blvd. N., Renton, 98056, stated that he Southport Development represents the interests of the Southport community. Mr. Christ commented on the following issues: the allowance of parking on a vacant lot (over 550 stalls) for festivities and corporate events while the hotel and office development progresses; the use of the parking lot by the City for events; revitalization of the area; expansion of the tax exemption proposed for adjacent properties; the need for direction regarding additional offsite improvements; outstanding issues with the City, and the economic environment. Citizen Comment: O'Neill - Victoria O'Neill, SECO Development Marketing Director, 1083 Lake Southport Development Washington Blvd. N., Renton, 98056, pointed out that SECO has actively marketed Renton to attract people to the Southport community, and supports Renton's tourism goals. She requested the City's assistance on permitting events and parking at Southport, as SECO is unable to make commitments without the City's permission. Councilman Corman expressed his hope that the City views events on the waterfront such as a boat show differently than a long-term commitment for vessel moorage. He commented on the improvements that have been made to the Southport area, and stated that he looks forward to reviewing the matter in Committee of the Whole. Jay Covington, Chief Administrative Officer, pointed out that one of the outstanding issues with SECO Development involves an easement for public access to the waterfront. Citizen Comment: Peckham - Julia Peckham, 1083 Lake Washington Blvd. N., Renton, 98056, stated that she Southport Development is the manager of the Bristol at Southport apartment community and expressed her desire to proceed with the next mixed -use phase at Southport. Ms. Peckham requested the City's consideration of a tax exemption for this phase to make it economically feasible, noting that the tax exemption is being offered to adjacent property owners. CONSENT AGENDA Items on the consent agenda are adopted by one motion which follows the listing. Council Meeting Minutes of Approval of Council meeting minutes of January 10, 2005. Council concur. January 10, 2005 January 24, 2005 Renton City Council Minutes Page 28 Appeal: Sunset Bluff City Clerk reported appeal of the Hearing Examiner's decision on the Sunset Preliminary Plat, SR 900 LLC Bluff Preliminary Plat (PP-04-002); two appeals filed - one by David S. Mann, & Herons Forever, PP-04-002 1424 4th Ave., Suite 1015, Seattle, 98101, representing Herons Forever; and the other by David L. Halinen, 10500 NE 8th St., Suite 1900, Bellevue, 98004, representing SR 900 LLC, both accompanied by the required fee. The appeal packet included four additional letters as allowed by City Code. Refer to Planning and Development Committee. Vacation: Bremerton Ave NE, City Clerk submitted petition for street vacation for portions of Bremerton Ave. Liberty Ridge, VAC-04-007 NE between NE 2nd St. and NE 3rd St. and requested a public hearing be set on 2/28/2005 to consider the petition from Liberty Ridge LLC, 9125 loth Ave. S., Seattle, 98108 (VAC-04-007). Council concur. (See page 30 for resolution.) Lease: Iron Mountain Community Services Department recommended approval of an amendment to Information Management, City the lease with Iron Mountain Information Management, Inc. for the fourth floor Hall 4th Floor, LAG-00-003 of City Hall, extending the lease term to 12/31/2009. Revenue generated is $1,456,685.47 over the five-year term. Refer to Finance Committee. Development Services: Development Services Division recommended acceptance of right-of-way Lakeshore Landing ROW dedications for N. 10th St., N. 8th St., Park Ave. N., and Logan Ave. N. for the Dedications, BSP-04-081 Lakeshore Landing site development project (BSP-04-081). Council concur. Annexation: Mosier 11, SE Economic Development, Neighborhoods and Strategic Planning Department 136th St & 142nd Ave SE submitted 60% Notice of Intent to annex petition for the proposed Mosier 11 Annexation, and recommended a public hearing be set on 2/7/2005 to consider the petition and future zoning; 31 acres located in the vicinity of NE 2nd St. (SE 132nd St.), Jericho Ave. NE (144th Ave. SE), 142nd Ave. SE, and SE 136th St. Refer issue of boundary expansion to Planning and Development Committee; set public hearing on 2/7/2005. Finance: Issaquah School Economic Development, Neighborhoods and Strategic Planning Department District Impact Fees & Capital reported Issaquah School District request that Renton adopt its 2004 Capital Facilities Plan Facilities Plan and school impact fees for new development. Refer to Finance Committee. EDNSP: Renton Lodging Tax Economic Development, Neighborhoods and Strategic Planning Department Advisory Committee recommended reaffirmation of the continuing membership of the Renton Membership Lodging Tax Advisory Committee as follows: Bill Taylor, newly -named Greater Renton Chamber of Commerce President and CEO; Rick Meinig, Silver Cloud Inn General Manager; Terry Godat, Travelers Inn General Manager; Julie Brewer, City of Renton Community Relations Manager; and Denis Law, Renton Councilmember. Council concur. EDNSP: Hotel/Motel Tax Economic Development, Neighborhoods and Strategic Planning Department Revenue Allocation to recommended approval of a contract with Hamilton/Saunderson Marketing Community Stakeholders, Partnership for a seventh year of the Renton Community Marketing Campaign. Hamilton/Saunderson Contract Approval was also sought to allocate hotel/motel tax revenues in the amount of $50,000 to the key community stakeholders for a seventh year of the marketing campaign. Refer to Finance Committee. Human Resources: 2005/2006 Human Resources and Risk Management Department recommended approval Claims Processing Fee of the 2005/2006 fee schedule for employee medical, dental, and prescription Schedule, Healthcare claims processing by Healthcare Management Administrators and Management Administrators Pharmaceutical Card Service/Caremark. Refer to Finance Committee. January 24, 2005 Renton City Council Minutes Page 29 CAG: 03 158, Lind Ave Transportation Systems Division submitted CAG-03-158, Lind Ave. SW and SW/SW 7th St Signalization, SW 7th St. Signalization; and requested approval of the project, authorization Totem Electric for final pay estimate in the amount of $160, commencement of 60-day lien period, and release of retained amount of $9,596.62 to Totem Electric, contractor, if all required releases are obtained. Council concur. CAG: 03-160, 2005 Local Utility Systems Division recommended approval of Amendment No. 2 to CAG- Ha7ardous Waste Management 03-160, King County -Suburban City contract, accepting $22,903.46 for Program, King County Grant Renton's 2005 Local Hazardous Waste Management Program. Council concur. (See page 31 for resolution.) Utility: Water System Plan, Utility Systems Division recommended approval of the 2005 update to the 2005 Update C:ity's Water System Plan. Refer to Utilities Committee. Utility: Annual Consultant Utility Systems Division recommended approval of the annual consultant roster Roster for Telemetry & for telemetry and supervisory control and data acquisition (SCADA) consultant SCADA Services services. The roster contains the following consultants: Casne Engineering, Inc., Reid Instruments, RH2 Engineering, Inc., and Summit Engineering and Consulting, PS. Council concur. MOVED BY BR.IF,RE, SECONDED BY PERSSON, COUNCIL APPROVE THE CONSENT AGENDA AS PRESENTED. CARRIED. CORRESPONDENCE A letter was read from Ramon Lucio, 2020 Grant Ave. S., #L-301, Renton, Citizen Comment: Lucio - 98055, suggesting that the Pavilion Building be used for a public market Pavilion Building, Public consisting of small stalls for different businesses such as fast food, services, Market and dry good retailing. MOVED BY CLAWSON, SECONDED BY PALMER, COUNCIL REFER THIS CORRESPONDENCE TO COMMITTEE OF THE. WHOLE. CARRIED. Citizen Comment: Various - At the request of Councilmember Clawson, City Attorney Warren commented Sunset Bluff Preliminary Plat on the timing of letters received (from Daniel G. Rosefeld; Diane Johnson; Appeal, SR 900 LLC & Tricia Allen; and David S. Mann, Gendler & Mann, LLP) regarding the Sunset Herons Forever, PP-04-002 Bluff Preliminary Plat appeal. He indicated that the submission deadline of 1/17/2005 for these letters was not met; however, mail was not delivered that day due to the holiday. Mr. Warren suggested referral of the letters to the Planning and Development Committee, pointing out that a determination on their admissibility can be made in the future following further review by the City Attorney's Office and arguments by the appellants. MOVED BY CLAWSON, SECONDED BY PALMER, COUNCIL REFER THESE LETTERS TO THE PLANNING AND DEVELOPMENT COMMITTEE. CARRIED. UNFINISHED BUSINESS Finance Committee Chair Persson presented a report recommending approval Finance Committee of Claim Vouchers 234009 - 234346 and three wire transfers totaling Finance: Vouchers $3,126,472.97; and approval of Payroll Vouchers 55314 - 55667, one wire transfer, and 566 direct deposits totaling $2,114,237.24. MOVED BY PERSSON, SECONDED BY NELSON, COUNCIL CONCUR IN THE COMMITTEE REPORT. CARRIED. January 24, 2005 Renton City Council Minutes Page 30 Utilities Committee Utilities Committee Chair Corman presented a report concurring in the CAG: 03-168, Maplewood recommendation of the Planning/Building/Public Works Department that Water Treatment Facility Council approve Addendum No. 2 to the consultant agreement CAG-03-168 Improvements, Economic and with Economic and Engineering Services, Inc. in the amount of $116,510 for Engineering Services additional engineering services assistance for the construction of the Maplewood Water Treatment Improvements project. 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 regarding the big -box retail uses design guidelines and the Urban Center Design Planning: Big -Box Retail Uses Overlay Regulations. The Committee recommended concurrence in the staff Design Guidelines & Urban recommendation to approve the proposed revisions to the Urban Center Design Center Design Overlay Overlay Regulations incorporating revised standards for new development in Regulations the Urban Center and big -box retail in all locations except the Valley. The Committee further recommended that the ordinance regarding this matter be presented for first reading. MOVED BY CLAWSON, SECONDED BY LAW, COUNCIL CONCUR IN THE COMMITTEE REPORT. CARRIED. (See page 31 for ordinance.) Planning: Medical Institution Planning and Development Committee Chair Clawson presented a report Definition, City Code regarding the exception to the City Code Title 1V (Development Regulations) Amendment docket review process for a zoning code amendment of the "Medical Institution" definition. The Committee recommended setting a public hearing for this issue on 2/7/2005. The Committee further recommended that the draft ordinance regarding this matter be referred to the City Attorney for preparation of the final ordinance. MOVED BY CLAWSON, SECONDED BY LAW, COUNCIL CONCUR IN THE COMMITTEE REPORT. CARRIED. Release of Easement: Planning and Development Committee Chair Clawson presented a report Lakeshore Landing Site, regarding the release of easements to be granted by Boeing for the Lakeshore Boeing, RE-04-001 Landing site development project (RE-04-001). The Committee recommended concurrence in the Planning/Building/Public Works Department recommendation that Council approve a release for each of the easements with the following King County recording numbers: 8811300191; 9607220167; 200011205003127;200011205003128;200011205003129;and 200011205003130. The Committee further recommended concurrence in the recommendation of the Planning/Building/Public Work Department that Council retain a portion of the easement recorded under King County recording number 8805190541 and approve the partial release of the remaining portion of this easement. The documents recorded under King County recording numbers 9105231158 and 9106060988 (which replaced 9105231158) are not easements but agreements and will be handled by staff in a separate action to Council. MOVED BY CLAWSON, SECONDED BY LAW, COUNCIL CONCUR IN THE COMMITTEE REPORT. CARRIED. RESOLUTIONS AND The following resolutions were presented for reading and adoption: ORDINANCES Resolution #3732 A resolution was read setting a public hearing date on 2/28/2005 to vacate Vacation: Bremerton Ave NE, portions of Bremerton Ave. NE between NE 2nd St. and NE 3rd St. (Petitioner: Liberty Ridge, VAC-04-007 Liberty Ridge LLC; VAC-04-007). MOVED BY CLAWSON, SECONDED BY LAW, COUNCIL ADOPT THE RESOLUTION AS READ. CARRIED. January 24, 2005 Renton City Council Minutes Page 31 Resolution #3733 A resolution was read authorizing the Mayor and City Clerk to execute CAG: 03-160, 2005 Local Amendment No. 2 to the Suburban City contract between King County and the Hazardous Waste Management City of Renton for the 2005 Local Hazardous Waste Management Program. Program, King County Grant MOVED BY BRIERE, SECONDED BY PALMER, COUNCIL ADOPT THE RESOLUTION AS READ. CARRIED. The following ordinance was presented for first reading and referred to the Council meeting of 2/7/2005 for second and final reading: Planning: Big -Box Retail Uses An ordinance was read amending Sections 4-2-060, 4-2-070, and 4-2-080, of Design Guidelines & Urban Chapter 2, Zoning Districts - Uses and Standards, and Section 4-3-100 of Center Design Overlay Chapter 3, Environmental Regulations and Overlay Districts, and Chapter 11, Regulations Definitions, of Title IV (Development Regulations) of City Code by revising the Urban Center Design Overlay Regulations for development in the Urban Center. MOVED BY CLAWSON, SECONDED BY LAW, COUNCIL REFER THE ORDINANCE FOR SECOND AND FINAL READING ON 2/7/2005. CARRIED. NEW BUSINESS MOVED BY PERSSON, SECONDED BY NELSON, COUNCIL REFER THE Solid Waste: Waste ISSUES OF COMPUTER RECYCLING AND RECYCLABLE SORTING TO Management -Rainier, THE UTILITIES COMMITTEE. CARRIED. Recycling Services School District: Activities Councilwoman Nelson reviewed Renton School District announcements and activities. Items included: the participation of Tiffany Parks Elementary School fifth grade students in the Opera in Schools program; the donation of profits from Lindbergh High School's Club Aery beach party dance to World Vision to help the Indian Ocean tsunami victims; and the Renton Rotary Club selections for Teachers of the Month. ADJOURNMENT MOVED BY NELSON, SECONDED BY PALMER, COUNCIL ADJOURN. CARRIED. Time: p.m. ,10:35 c,e.fig. (. 6&X,4 dCL.Q.t. '^ Bonnie I. Walton, CMC, City Clerk Recorder: Michele Neumann January 24, 2005 RENTON CITY COUNCIL COMMITTEE MEETING CALENDAR Office of the City Clerk COUNCIL COMMITTEE MEETINGS SCHEDULED AT CITY COUNCIL MEETING January 24, 2005 COMMITTEE/CHAIRMAN DATE/TIME AGENDA COMMITTEE OF THE WHOLE (Briere) COMMUNITY SERVICES (Nelson) FINANCE (Persson) PLANNING & DEVELOPMENT (Clawson) PUBLIC SAFETY (Law) MON., 1/31 No Meeting (5th Monday) MON., 2/07 Emerging Issues 6:30 p.m. *Council Conference Room* Approximately Aquatic Center Policies 7:00 p.m. *Council Chambers* MON., 2/07 Lease with Iron Mountain Information 5:45 p.m. Management for City Hall 4th Floor; Renton Community Marketing Campaign Funding & Hamilton/Saunderson Contract THURS., 2/03 2:00 p.m. TRANSPORTATION (AVIATION) THURS., 2/03 (Palmer) 3:00 p.m. UTILITIES (Corman) THURS., 2/03 4:00 p.m. City Code Title IV Docket Liberty Ridge Traffic Concerns (Edmonds Ave SE); IKEA Commercial District Signage (briefing only); Airport Development Study (briefing only) 2005 Water System Plan NOTE: Committee of the Whole meetings are held in the Council Chambers. All other committee meetings are held in the Council Conference Room unless otherwise noted. MAPLEWOOD ADDITION ANNEXATION PUBLIC MEETING CONSIDERATION OF 10% NOTICE OF INTENT PETITION TO COMMENCE ANNEXATION PROCEEDINGS January 24, 2005 The City is in receipt of a 10% Notice of Intent to Commence Annexation Petition from property owners in the proposed Maplewood Addition Annexation area. This petition has signatures representing 10% or more of the area's assessed value, having been certified by King County's Department of Assessments. The subject 60.5 acre site is within Renton's Potential Annexation Area and is designated Residential Single Family (RS) on the City's Comprehensive Plan Land Use Map. The subject site is bounded on the north by the Renton — Maple Valley Road (SR- 169), and on the west, south and east by the north shore of the Cedar River. Renton abuts the annexation site on its north, west and a portion of its southern boundary and unincorporated King County abuts it on its eastern and a portion of its southern boundary (see back of this handout). The subject site currently has King County's R-4 zoning and there are 161 single-family detached dwellings on it. Proposed future zoning would likely be Renton's R-8 zone unless the City amends its Comprehensive Plan Land Use Map designation from RS, Residential Single Family to RLD, Residential Low Density. The latter would allow R-4 zoning, which would be more consistent with the existing built out level of development. The site currently has a net density of approximately 3.3 units per acre. Under state law direct petitions to annex are initiated by property owners representing at least 10% of the annexation area's assessed value. Upon receipt of a 10% Notice of Intent Petition the Council is required to hold a public meeting with the proponents within 60 days to decide whether it will accept , reject or geographically modify the proposed annexation. Reviewing departments of the City while not opposing this annexation have raised concerns about deficiencies in infrastructure that will eventually have to be addressed by the area's residents. If the Council decides to accept this proposed 10% Notice of Intent Petition to Commence Annexation, it will typically: 1. Authorize the circulation of a 60% Direct Petition to Annex based upon petitioners achieving signatures representing 60% of the area's assessed value; 2. Decide whether to require the simultaneious adoption of zoning upon annexation consistent with the City's Comprehensive Plan Land Use Map; and, 3. Decide whether to require property owners within the annexation area to assume their proportional share of the City's existing indebtedness. The Administration is recommending that Council accept the 10% Notice of Intent Petition and authorize circulation of a 60% Direct Petition to Annex. Council Hearing Handout 01 -1 2-04.doc\ 1 C} b � N O I a � Proposed Maplewood Addition Annexation Figure 3: Existing Structures Map — — current city Limits Economic Development, Neighborhoods & Strategic Planning = Annexation Area \� Alex Pietsch, Administrator Structure eli� Jam,$ G. Del Rosario 21 December 2004 o soo i000 1 : 6000 JO WNALy. IV EXtStlnu Co11ditlollS • P NA - \\ ithin Renton'; Po mitial .annexation :area • LOCatlon Soltthof Nlaplevvood(irltCourse hCh\eCn SF Renton M.tple %alle\ High\\a\ :md the Cedar RIA er • Si/o 60.5 acres, meludtn_ abuttin_ SR 16,) RO %\ • l ses- 161 sin-le-famih dvvelhn�s • 13111.1ndarics - site abuts Rcnt-vri on its north. vvc,t and portion of it's southem boundary Nlaple\N ood Addition Annexation Public Mectin C. 1 U',, Aotice of Intent Petition ,Alll ian Via. 2005 Back-al'ound Re,idoits ,ubr rtty 1 a petition to conimcnec r nev_tion pro .,2;i_, to the lity �n Deeemher' S. -'iio-t • t nder;late Lm C Jnr1CII has M1 days to h,r.e pCtitiott certified -tnd bold wniehl', nnetui,_ • At ton!aht s tn«u t_ C ouaul mutt decide v\ hcther It vv i,hc, to a'A:vpt le_ICCL or asv,�raphi.ally niodifv this proposui anncvation • IF( ouneil &Cede, to aieCpt the IU''„ Aon.c _ t Intent petition tom' -,lit. it Must approve errLGla11011 of a ou ., Direct Petition to Anticv re proponent, Lire :i11rvv Cd to proceed Exi;tina Conditions • Included in proposed Fairvvood Incorpor;ition • 90-dav vv mdovv to file \oticc of Intent to Anney vv nh the BRI3 once Fainv 0o.1 pr oponcnt, the their 10''' petition • \\ ouid regt:;rc annexation proponent, to !iic their 60 Direct Petition by first week cf d Ire't it Fair\\ood f,les ui J.uwara • Failure to meet 90-dav .kindovv would preclude future aruievation to Renton if I arnv ood Incorporation is succcsstUI ALI Existing Conditions - Environmental • .1 om,,-,raph% 11,if c,f,!r RiNet bank • I n% ironnik,wal cmiNtraint% � mu.d I % \� holc itc, %t ith 1 i '.J the ': \ c .: I, 'm of !ot,, north of Sl 140 Sm:cl, i, 1(,cat,:d V, ILIMI 01c flood hazard b(I Ll n(t! t N 'o W!", �,t \,c Sl I I SF 1C11 Y,a io-i,l, Cdar k,a 'IVA f. AV rl 7� 72 5i 71 73 71 CL Ei L CD zz CD r CD ANTHONV ANNEXATION PUBLIC HEARING COUNCIL CONSIDERATION OF 60% ANNEXATION PETITION AND POSSIBLE FUTURE R-4 ZONING January 24, 2005 The City is in receipt of a 60% Direct Petition to annex from property owners in the proposed 4.84-acre annexation area. This petition has signatures representing more than 60% of the area's assessed value. The subject site is within the City's designated Potential Annexation Area and is designated Residential Low Density (RLD) on the City's Comprehensive Plan Land Use Map (see back of handout). It located at the southeast corner of the intersection of South 55' Street and Talbot Road South in the southern portion of the City. This site currently has King County's R-4 zoning and there is one single-family detached dwellings on it. Proposed zoning is R-4 (four units per net acre). This is less dense than what would be allowed under the County's R-4 zoning since densities up to 6 units per gross acre are relatively easy to achieve with bonuses and/or TDRs in that zone. Staff estimates that under Renton's zoning up to 16 single-family detached dwellings could be constructed whereas under the County's R-4 zone up to 19 single-family dwellings (attached or detached) could be constructed on the 4.84-acre site. Council held a public meeting on August 2, 2004 to consider the applicant's 10% Notice of Intent petition to commence annexation and at that time authorized the circulation of the 60% Direct Petition, based upon assessed value. On October 4, 2004 the proponents filed the 60% Direct Petition with the City Clerk. This has now been certified by the King County Department of Assessments allowing for tonight's public meeting to consider future R-4 zoning and acceptance of the 60% Direct Petition. If the Council decides to accept this proposed annexation, it will typically authorize the Administration to prepare and forward the Notice of Intent package to the Washington State Boundary Review Board for King County, beginning their 45-day review period. Council Hearing Handout 04-19-04.doc\ V. Q Is Cif 0 54-m c, , C] 9 Proposed Anthone' Annexation Figure 3: Existing Structures Map Structure TY Economic Development, Neighborhoods & Strategic Planning — — — CityLimits G. D l Rosar Adrninistramr r--� G. Del Rosario L_J Proposed Annex. Area AN 29 Jura 2004 N 17 I 0 200 400 1 : 2400 s E l C R C C C — O— O J U — C_ V O •, 7 r H - - C .Q C W I ` Tin 070 ND O -O Z3 70 z3 w @-0 �D O JUcn JUH � O O O r' T7 - o L O a- O rJ tb G C i u _ C Y W / :.; iy :... m rz A( .%\\ a§ \/ { • A (D o - CL 0 _ ƒ � 0 � 0 m � . � jwk ou � s v LZL-! in J3 ell e s 0 Ca. Ell 17 � i =_- N C 'T i — r nil • f � ... rj `f1 � *g\ _ `2 ( - 2 % ¥ 9 -- - - r \\2-- \ k .Ar -PlIr ED BY ? CE bT C0U rtiCiL PLANNING AND DEVELOPMENT COMMITTEE aS/ SODS COMMITTEE REPORT Date January 24, 2005 Anthone Annexation Boundary Expansion (Referred January 10, 2005) The Planning and Development Committee recommends concurrence in the staff recommendation that Council authorize the Administration to "invoke jurisdiction" and request the Boundary Review Board to expand the Anthone Annexation to the City boundary on the south and 1001h Avenue SE, if extended on the east. The Committee further recommends that staff be directed to explore expanding the boundaries of future annexations whenever it would result in more efficient service areas and City boundaries, and be consistent with Boundary Review Board objectives and City annexation policies. It is understood that Council .might, in this regard, find it necessary to amend the proposed boundaries either at the Council petition level or by invoking jurisdiction at the Boundary Review Board. Denis W. Law, Vice Chair Marcie Palmer, Member cc: Alex Pietsch Rebecca Lind Don Erickson �__A��..� (r'�,-•Nri`Oe City of Renton PUBLIC INFORMATION HANDOUT January 24, 2005 STREET VACATION PETITION VAC-04-005 For additional information, please contact: Karen McFarland; City of Renton Technical Services 425.430.7209 DESCRIPTION: The City Council will hear a proposal requesting the vacation of four portions of right-of-way along Park Avenue North between North 8th Street and Logan Avenue North. These areas are labeled as Tracts H, I, K and N. Collectively, this right-of-way is approximately 21,795 square feet. The requested vacation areas are indicated on the accompanying map exhibit. RECOMMENDATION: The Planning/Building/Public Works Department recommends that Council conditionally approve the request to vacate these street rights -of -way. .ql IKAKAARY. The City has initiated the street vacation process for four portions of right-of-way along Park Avenue North between North 8th Street and Logan Avenue North. These areas are labeled as Tracts H, I, K and N. Collectively, this right-of-way is approximately 21,795 square feet. All portions of right-of-way included in this petition have been right-of-way for over twenty-five years. Tracts H and I contain storm water systems which convey run-off from streets and adjacent properties. No other facilities are known to exist within the requested areas. None of the City Departments surveyed have objections to the vacation. However, the Surface Water Utility has no objection as long as certain conditions are met. The requested vacation areas are associated with the planned development of Lakeshore Landing which consists of approximately 55 acres located within a boundary of Logan Avenue North to the west and to the north, Garden Ave North to the east and North 8th Street to the south. The City of Renton plans to construct a new arterial street system to support the redevelopment of the property and would like to vacate unused portions of the existing right-of-way for redevelopment. As established by RCW 35.79.030, the street vacation, if granted, must be approved by the City Council through ordinance after a public hearing is held. The ordinance shall be recorded with King County once it is in effect. Exhibit A VAC-04-005 Tract K Tract H N°r ve Tract I yen P t L 7 SO Z SN th � s a Y m IL Tract N North Sth Street Public Hea ~04~005 January 24, 2005 RENTON LOCATION LOCATION .... . . - - ----- Lake Washington -Lakeshore Landing BSP -Development Agreement (executed 12/1/2003) 'X� LOCATION J "X INA, , \ q Vacation Tracts 7.Y r I t 1� Ft -Lakeshore Landing BSP -Development Agreement (executed 12/1 /2003) LOCATION BACKGROUND • Most of this portion of Park Avenue North obtained by the City of Renton in July of 19150 • Portions acquired by WSDOT through warranty deed and condemnation. • Portions acquired through a City widening project. • Facilities in the right-of-way: siormwater systems in Tracts H and I PUBLIC BENEFIT • Construction of a new arterial sheet system to support the redevelopment of a portion of Boeings Renton Plant-, (Part of December of 2003 Development Agreement and Lakeshore Landing Binding Site Plan) RESEARCH/SURVEY • Vacation request was circulated to various City departments and outside agencies for review • No objections were raised RESEARCH/SURVEY Internal Review • Stormwater Utility: — Existing storm system required to convey runoff from streets and adjacent properties. — Need to retain a temporary easement that will automatically .extinguish once the proposed infrastructure improvements have been constructed. RESEARCH/SURVEY Internal Review • Transportation Systems Division: — Tract H is currently WSDOT right-of-way. — Would require turnback approval from WSDOT to complete the requested street vacation. RESEARCH/SURVEY Outside Agency Review • QWEST has no facilities in the requested vacation tracts and has indicated that no easement is needed • To date, Co,mcast, PSE and Electric Lightwave have not responded to the City's request for comments RECOMMENDATION Approve the request to vacate portions of right- of-way along Park Avenue North subject to the following conditions: ✓ The City retain a temporary easement for storm water utilities across Tracts H and I that will expire upon completion of the proposed infrastructure improvements associated with the Lakeshore Landing Development. ✓ A iurnback agreement for Tract H be approved and executed by the Washington State Department of Transportation. COMPENSATION • No compensation due • No appraisal required NEXT STEPS If Council approves this vacation petition: • Ordinances vacating street are brought forward RECOMMENDATION Approve the request to vacate portions of right- of-way along Park Avenue North subject to the following conditions: ✓ The City retain a temporary easement for storm water utilities across Tracts H and I that will expire upon completion of the proposed infrastructure improvements associated with the Lakeshore Landing Development. ✓ A turnback agreement for Tract H be approved and executed by the Washington State Department of Transportation. CITY OF RENTON MEMORANDUM DATE: January 24, 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 GENERAL INFORMATION In addition to our day-to-day activities, the following items are worthy of note for this week: VSL Construction is scheduled to work at the entrance/exit of the Benson Road City Hall access beginning Tuesday, January 25', at 5:00 p.m. with an anticipated completion date of Friday, February 1 Ph. The entrance/exit to City Hall from Benson Road will be intermittently open and plated for use during the day with evening closures at 5:00 p.m. The entrance will be closed Thursday, February P; Friday, February 4`"; and Wednesday, February 9"', through Friday, February 11"'. When this access is closed there will be a traffic plan in effect to route City Hall customers to the Grady Way entrance. COMMUNITY SERVICES DEPARTMENT • New operating hours at the Renton Public Library and Highlands Library will begin on February 15`. The hours at the Renton Public Library, 100 Mill Avenue South, will be Monday through Thursday from 10:00 a.m. to 9:00 p.m., and Friday and Saturday from 10:00 a.m. to 6:00 p.m. The hours at the Highlands Library, 2902 NE 12th Street, will be Monday through Thursday from 10:00 a.m. to 7:00 p.m., and Saturday from 10:00 a.m. to 4:00 p.m. The Highlands Library will continue to be closed on Fridays and both the Highlands Library and Renton Public Library will continue to be closed on Sundays. • The Renton Community Center will host a Preschool Information Night on Wednesday, February 2"d, from 6:30 to 8:00 p.m. Fifteen local preschools will set up booths and provide valuable information regarding their programs, hours, tuition, and registration for the 2005-2006 school year. • Free tax assistance will be provided for low and moderate -income taxpayers (income less than $50,000) by AARP in cooperation with the IRS. Appointments are available at the Renton Community Center on Wednesdays, 12:00 to 4:30 p.m., beginning February 2"d and ending April 13"'. For an appointment, call 425-430-6700. • Children ages 6 to 14 can participate in the Valley Hoop Shoot at the Renton Community Center on Monday, February 7"', from 6:00 to 8:00 p.m. For more information, call 425-430-6700. ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT, NEIGHBORHOODS, AND STRATEGIC PLANNING DEPARTMENT • The Neighborhood Program is hosting a "Neighbor to Neighbor" Leadership meeting on Saturday, February 51'. This meeting will give Neighborhood Association Board Members an opportunity to share the uniqueness and accomplishments of their neighborhood, meet other neighborhood association leaders and volunteer liaisons, and learn more about the Neighborhood Program. Renton Mayor Kathy Keolker-Wheeler will give welcoming comments and Thomas Whittemore from the City of Seattle Department of Neighborhoods will facilitate the meeting. PLANNING/BUILDING/PUBLIC WORKS DEPARTMENT • The Washington State Department of Transportation (WSDOT) will present proposed designs and environmental study approaches to the I-405 Bellevue Nickel Project, I-405 Renton Nickel Project, and two SR 518 projects at a public open house in Renton on Thursday, January 27"', from 4:00 to 7:00 p.m. at Renton High School, 400 S. Second St. This open house is an opportunity for the community to provide input as to issues that are studied in the environmental documents for all four WSDOT projects. For more information, call 425-456-8500. CITY OF RENTON COUNCIL AGENDA BILL Al #: Submitting Data: For Agenda of: 01/24/2005 Dept/Div/Board.. AJLS/City Clerk Agenda Status Staff Contact...... Bonnie I. Walton Consent .............. X Public Hearing.. Subject: Appeal of Hearing Examiner's decision dated Correspondence.. 12/20/2004 regarding the Sunset Bluff Preliminary Plat. Ordinance ............. (File No. LUA-04-002, PP, ECF) Resolution............ Old Business........ New Business....... Exhibits: A. Responses to Appeals (1/12/2005, 1/14/2005, Study Sessions...... 1/14/2005, 1/17/2005) Information......... B. City Clerk's letter (1/7/2005) C. Appeal - Herons Forever (1/3/2005) D. Appeal - SR 900 LLC (1/3/2005) E. Hearing Examiner's Report & Decision (12/20/2004) Recommended Action: Approvals: Refer to Planning and Development Committee. 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: Appeals of the Hearing Examiner recommendation on the Sunset Bluff Preliminary Plat were filed on 1/3/2005 by David S. Mann, Attorney, Representative for Herons Forever, and David Halinen, Attorney, representing SR 900 LLC, both accompanied by the required $75 fee. STAFF RECOMMENDATION: Council take action on the Sunset Bluff Preliminary Plat and the appeals. Rentonnet/agnbiW bh y. I/t� aauV yuv p/no�n 'say4v2VilRV 1"dalp srq,4 -�Vy� '4-;4;w�y s4lajal A Fa�"V au l ,•uo7lMy •W 'aa(7 LooJd ovm 03A13038 SOOZ 9 T Nbr NOINaa.4o A= C" OF RENTON JAN 1 4 2005 INTEROFFICE MEMORANDUM RECEIVED CITY CLERK'S OFFICE TO: CITY OF RENTON, CITY CLERK'S OFFICE, 1055 S GRADY WAY, RENTON WA 98055 FROM: SUBJECT: APPEAL REGARDING APIWCATION FOR CONSTRUCTION ON SW SUNSET BLVD (FILE k LUA-04-002,PP, ECF) DATE: 1/ 12/2005 CC: I support the appeal by Herons Forever. I oppose the appeal by SR 900 LLC Thank you. 11?WUJI� 8' !► �2 5 5ea+kle w� q�'i�B CITY of RENTON _ --- - -- = --J-AN 1 4 2005 INTEROFFICE MEMORANDUM RECEIVED C ITY CLERK'S OFFICE TO, CCITY OF RENTON, CITY CLERK'S OFFICE,1055 S GRADY WAY, RENTON WA 98055 FROM: L,Oi�� er 1 jV(3 SUBJECT: APPEAL REGARDING APPLICATION FOR CONSTRUCTION ON SW SUNSET BLVD (FILE N LUA-04-002,PP, ECF) DATE: 1/12/2005 CC: I support the appeal by Herons Forever. I oppose the appeal by SR 900 LLG Thank you. wx� 9 VZ-(-o HALINEN LAW OFFICES, P.S. A Professional Service Corporation David L Halinen, P.E. Bellevue Place / Bank of America Bldg. (425) 454-8272 davidhalinen@halinenlaw.com 10500 NE 8`h, Suite 1900 Fax (425) 646-3467 Bellevue, Washington 98004 January 17, 2005 ;;IT Y OF RENTON HAND -DELIVERED q / Renton City Council RECEIVED Renton City Clerk ;i"i Y CLERK'S OFFICE 1055 S. Grady Way, Seventh Floor Renton, Washington 98055 Re: Proposed "Sunset Bluff ' Residential Subdivision (Renton File No. LUA 04-002, EC, PP) Applicant SR 900 L.L.C.'s Response to Herons Forever's January 3, 2005 Appeal of the Hearing Examiner's Recommendation Report Dear Council Members: I am writing on behalf of my client SR 900 L.L.C., the "Sunset Bluff' Residential Subdivision applicant, to oppose Herons Forever's January 3, 2005 appeal to the Council of the Hearing Examiner's December 20, 2004 Recommendation report ("Herons Forever's Appeal"). As I am sure you know by now, my client has filed its own appeal of the Hearing Examiner's Recommendation report, an appeal also dated January 3, 2005 (the "Applicant's Appeal"). Let me go through Herons Forever's Appeal point by point. The Applicant's Response to the CONCLUSIONS 1-8 and "Primary Recommendation" Section of Herons Forever's Appeal In their respective appeals, both the applicant and Herons Forever have taken issue with the Examiner's Conclusions 1 through 8, but for very different reasons. The applicant's objections to them (and what the applicant requests that the Council do about them) are set forth from pages 18 to the top of page 21 of Attachment 1 to the Applicant's Appeal. Please reread that portion of the Applicant's Appeal concerning them in light of (a) the applicant's assertions of error in the Examiner's Findings of Fact on the preceding pages of Attachment 1 to the Applicant's Appeal, (b) the Department of Planning/Building/Public Works' Preliminary Report to the Hearing Examiner (recommending preliminary plat approval) and (c) the Department's hearing testimony (recommending approval). In contrast, Herons Forever wants every one of Conclusions 1 through 8 stricken because of its radical position that the Sunset Bluff proposal should be denied. In view of (1) the Staff recommendation of approval, (2) the December 10, 2003 Development Agreement between the City and the applicant (with which the Sunset Bluff proposal fully complies and which Herons Forever did not appeal), (3) the Environmental Review Committee's determination that the proposal will not have a probable significant adverse environmental impact based upon the SEPA mitigation measures imposed (the determination that the Council voted to uphold in its November 8, 2004 decision concerning the proposal's SEPA threshold determination), and (4) the arguments set forth in the Applicant's Appeal, the Council should: Renton City Council January 17, 2005 Page 2 that: (a) Deal with Conclusions 1 through 8 as the applicant has requested from pages 18 to the top of page 21 of Attachment 1 to the Applicant's Appeal rather than as requested in Herons Forever's Appeal; and (b) Replace Conclusion 9 as requested on page 21 of the Applicant's Appeal rather than indulge it as Herons Forever's appeal suggests. In Herons Forever's proposed "Correction" in this section, Herons Forever argues "The City Council should deny the requested preliminary and overturn the Hearing Examiner's primary recommendation and require the applicant to formulate a design that preserves more of the native vegetation, works with the natural terrain features of the site and clusters the homes as far from the Heronry as possible." For the Council to do so would be highly improper because (a) the proposal complies with the City's subdivision regulations and all other applicable portions of the City's Development Regulations as well as the relevant provisions of RCW 58.17.110, (b) the proposal complies with the Development Agreement between the applicant and the City concerning the site and (c) the Council has already determined that the ERC was correct in its conclusion that implementation of the proposal will not create a probable significant adverse environmental impact. Under these circumstances, no legal justification exists for a denial or requiring a different design. Further, as a practical matter, because of the relatively uniform steepness of the slopes in the central -to -western portion of the site (the portion of the site where the slopes are most conducive to residential lots), no realistic alternatives to the proposed design exist without radically reducing the number of proposed lots. As the hearing testimony of the applicant's civil engineer as well as a review of the project drawings makes clear: (a) The only viable roadway connection point to SW Sunset Boulevard is the proposed location in the eastern portion of the site; (b) The onsite roadway must run east to west to reach the developable, less steep portions of the central and western portions of the site; and (c) To provide for secondary, emergency access the roadway must extend past the east line through the abutting property to the west to Monster Road. In other words, the road must extend from end -to -end as proposed. In addition, the proposal clusters just one tier of lots along the road's north edge and just one tier of lots along the road's south edge. As was specifically contemplated by the Development Renton City Council January 17, 2005 Page 3 Agreement, a detention pond is proposed along the site's south edge (the only rational location for the pond because that edge is the lowest edge of the site and because water flows downhill). Site grades dictate that cut slopes be generally located north of the road and fill slopes be located generally south of the road (with both some cutting and some filling at the south end of the site to form the storm water pond). In sum, the applicant's proposed site design works as well with the site's terrain as is possible for development of single-family residential lots for detached homes, which is the type of site development that the applicant and the City specifically agreed to in the Development Agreement. Given the site's constraints, no better layout is possible and Herons Forever's invitation for the Council to require a different layout must be rejected on practical grounds as well as legal grounds. In addition, as further reason why the City Council should reject Herons Forever's call for Sunset Bluff denial, the City Council should take judicial notice of a just -adopted King County Critical Areas Ordinance provision addressing protection of the great blue heron. That provision is set forth in Section 198' of King County Ordinance 15051, which was adopted on October 25, 2004 and became effective on January 1, 2005. (I discovered that new provision just this afternoon.) Note that if the Sunset Bluff site were in unincorporated King County, the entire site would lie entirely outside of the "wildlife habitat conservation area" that the new County ordinance would establish within an 820- I King County Ordinance 15051 states in relevant part: NEW SECTION. SECTION 198. There is hereby added to K.C.C. chapter 21 A.24 a new section to read as follows: Wildlife habitat conservation areas -- development standards. The following development standards apply to development proposals and alterations on sites containing wildlife habitat conservation areas: C. For a great blue heron: 1. The wildlife habitat conservation area is an area with an eizht-hundred- twent .foot radius from the rookery. The department may increase the radius up to an additional one -hundred sixty-four feet if the department determines that the population of the rookery is declining; and 2. Between January 1 and July 31, clearing or grading are not allowed within nine-hundred-twentX-four feet of the rookery; (Italics and underlining added for emphasis.) Renton City Council January 17, 2005 Page 4 foot radius of the Black River Heron Colony. (The record demonstrates that the Black River Heron Colony is growing, not declining, so the potential increase of the radius by 164 feet under that ordinance would be inapplicable here.) Furthermore, under that new County ordinance, no seasonal clearing or grading restriction would be required on any portion of the Sunset Bluff site because the entire site lies outside of the 924-foot radius area subject to such a seasonal limitation. The County's brand new legislative enactment on great blue heron protection is a powerful confirmation of the propriety of the Renton City Council's November 8, 2004 affirmation of the Environmental Review Committee's SEPA threshold determination for Sunset Bluff and fully refutes Herons Forever's notion that the Sunset Bluff proposal should be denied. In addition, in view of my discovery of the new County ordinance this afternoon, the applicant hereby withdraws the proposal that the applicant made on page 22 of the Applicant's Appeal to modify the Hearing Examiner's Recommended Condition of Approval 2 and hereby requests that the Council strike that Condition of Approval in its entirety. The applicant also hereby requests that reference be made in Finding of Fact 34 (along with the modifications requested in the Applicant's appeal) to the relevant provisions of the new County Ordinance quoted in footnote 1 on page 3, above. The Applicant's Response to the "IN THE ALTERNATIVE" Section of Herons Forever's Appeal The Applicant's Response to Herons Forever's Request Concerning Recommended Condition 4 Contrary to Herons Forever's contention, Recommended Condition 4 is not "incomplete" (although it should be clarified so that it relates only to the portions of the open spaces that will be cleared and not to portions of the site that are left uncleared 2) and the modifications that Herons Forever proposes to it should be rejected. The site's grade constraints necessitate construction of 2 horizontal to 1 vertical cut slopes to the north of the north tier of the proposed lots and 2 horizontal to 1 vertical fill slopes south of the south tier of lots (between the south tier and the planned stormwater detention pond). (See Cross Section B-B on Sheet 5 of the preliminary plat drawings.) Trees on these steep slopes (whether planted or growing up from a hydroseed mix) could destabilize the slopes over the long term and could result in trees falling down into the homes on the upper lots and into the stormwater pond. Further, the work on the face of these slopes that would be involved with hand placement of shrubs would also pose unwarranted disturbance to these constructed slopes. In contrast, the applicant's proposal to hydroseed these slopes with grass seed would avoid all of these risks, as would the Hearing Examiner's condition to include in the seed mix native forbs, shrubs and wildflowers, which the applicant does not object to. 2 The applicant hereby requests that Recommended Condition 4 be modified to read as follows: The applicant shall hydroseed any cleared portions of the open space tracts with native forbs, shrubs and wildflowers and not merely use grass. (New proposed text illustrated by underlining.) Renton City Council January 17, 2005 Page 5 Please bear in mind that the applicant's proposal will leave wooded the 4.70-acre Native Growth Protection Easement proposed in the eastern portion of the site, an easement that will encompass approximately 18 percent of the site's entire area. Please also bear in mind that most of the approximately 100-acre City of Renton park property in which the Black River Riparian forest is located is wooded and that an approximately 900-foot long, mostly -wooded stretch of the park property lies between the south edge of the BNSF railroad right-of-way and the nearest heron nest. Thus, "adequate buffering", "screening" and "heron nest materials" are amply provided for and no rational justification exists for any of the modifications to Recommended Condition 4 that Herons Forever suggests. The Applicant's Response to Herons Forever's Request Concerning Recommended Condition 12 The applicant objects to Herons Forever's proposed revisions to Condition 12. The applicant and the City had already contractually agreed to a carefully drafted, detailed fence condition in the Development Agreement. While the applicant contends that the fence condition set forth therein is legally binding upon the City and that further fence requirements are thus improper, the applicant was nevertheless willing to go along with (and thus did not object to) Staff -recommended condition 3 of the Department of Planning/Building/Public Works' Preliminary Report to the Hearing Examiner, a condition that has been included in the Hearing Examiner's report and renumbered as Recommended Condition 12. However, the applicant objects to having this already -very - expensive -to -meet condition go even further and requests that the Council reject Herons Forever's proposed revisions to Condition 12. The Applicant's Response to Herons Forever's Recommendation for an Additional Stormwater Condition The applicant objects to the ad hoc concoction of proposed stormwater requirements that Herons Forever proposes. The City has extensive, formally -adopted stormwater requirements set forth in RMC 4-6-030 [Drainage (Surface Water) Standards], requirements that are part of the City's Development Regulations and that project applicants are generally entitled to develop in accordance with. Those requirements are based upon the 1990 King County Surface Water Design Manual. [See RMC 4-6-030E (Drainage Plan Requirements and Methods of Analysis).] However, as a result of pre - application consultation with the Development Services Division, to provide substantially greater stormwater control, the applicant proposed that the stormwater detention pond facility planned within proposed Tract B be designed to meet the parameters of the far - more -demanding 1998 King County Surface Water Design Manual, a manual that the City had not (and still has not) adopted. The Environmental Review Committee confirmed the appropriateness of that approach for Sunset Bluff s stormwater detention system in establishing SEPA Mitigation Measure 14. With that Mitigation Measure (and all of the other SEPA Mitigation Measures), the Environmental Review Committee (as upheld by the City Council) has determined that the proposed development will not have a probable significant adverse environmental impact. Herons Forever's proposed Renton City Council January 17, 2005 Page 6 additional requirements are not warranted, especially in view of finding of the finding of insignificant downstream impacts in hydrologist Edward McCarthy, PhD, P.E.'s hydrologic assessment of the downstream wetland (Exhibit 33). Conclusion and Request In view of the above, the City Council should deny Herons Forever's appeal. The applicant continues to request that, pursuant to the Applicant's Appeal, the City Council (a) reverse the Hearing Examiner's recommendation to the extent that it recommended denial, 3 (b) enter amended Findings of Fact and Conclusions as set forth in the Applicant's Appeal, and (c) approve the Sunset Bluff preliminary plat as presented subject to conditions of approval set forth in the Hearing Examiner's recommendation but modified to the extent requested in the Applicant's Appeal and with Recommended Condition 4 modified to read as set forth in footnote 2 on page 4 of this letter, above. Sincerely, HALINEN LAW OFFICES, P.S. David L. Hali n cc: SR 900 L.L.C. Attn: Donald J. Merlin Attn: Michael Merlin Mayor Kathy Keolker-Wheeler Gregg Zimmerman, P.E., Administrator, City of Renton Department of Planning/Building/Public Works Neil Watts, P.E., Director, City of Renton Development Services Division Jennifer Henning, Principal Planner, City of Renton Development Services Division ' Because of the nature of Conclusions 1 through 8 of the Hearing Examiner's Recommendation report, the applicant did not realize that the Hearing Examiner essentially made a "primary" recommendation to approve the Sunset Bluff approval. After having re -read the Examiner's Report in light of Herons Forever's appeal, the applicant now realizes that the Examiner apparently intended his primary recommendation to be one of approval, albeit with the numerous Findings of Fact and Conclusions with which the applicant continues to strenuously object as explained in Appendix 1 to the Applicant's Appeal. .. �- ..LL Kathy Keolker-Wheeler, Mayor January 7, 2005 CITY OF RENTON City Clerk Bonnie 1. Walton APPEALS FILED BY:1) David S. Mann, Attorney, Representative for Herons Forever 2) David Halinen, Attorney, Representative for SR 900 LLC RE: Appeal of Hearing Examiner's decision dated 12/20/2004 regarding the SR 900 LLC's application for construction of a 65-lot detached single-family home subdivision in the 1100 Block of SW Sunset Boulevard on a 26.26-acre site. (File No. LUA-04-002, PP, ECF) To Parties of Record: Pursuant to Title IV, Chapter 8, Renton City Code of Ordinances, written appeals of the hearing examiner's decision on the Sunset Bluff project have been filed with the City Clerk. In accordance with Renton Municipal Code Section 4-8-110F, within five days of receipt of the notice of appeal, the City Clerk shall notify all parties of record of the receipt of the appeal. Other parties of record may submit letters limited to support of or opposition to the appeal within ten (10) days of the date of mailing of the notification of the filing of the appeal. The deadline for submission of additional letters is 5:00 p.m., Monday, January 17, 2005, at the City Clerk's office. NOTICE IS HEREBY GIVEN that the written appeal and other pertinent documents will be reviewed by the Council's Planning and Development Committee at 2:00 p.m. on Thursday, March 17, 2005, in the Council Chambers, 71h floor of Renton City Hall, 1055 South Grady Way, Renton, WA 98055. The recommendation of the Committee will be presented for consideration by the full Council at a subsequent Council meeting. Attached is a copy of the Renton Municipal Code regarding appeals of Hearing Examiner decisions or recommendations. Please note that the City Council will be considering the merits of the appeals based upon the written record previously established. Unless a showing can be made that additional evidence could not reasonably have been available at the prior hearing held by the Hearing Examiner, no new evidence or testimony on this matter will be accepted by the City Council. For additional information or assistance, please feel free to call. Sincerely, i Bonnie I. Walton City Clerk Attachment cc: Council Liaison 1055 South Grady Way - Renton, Washington 98055 - (425) 430-6510 / FAX (425) 430-6516 ® This paper contains 50 % recycled material, 30 % post consumer RENTON AHEAD OF THE CURVE City of Renton Municipal_CodtL Title N. C'hapteoLSection 110 - Appeals 4-8-1 10C4 The notice of appeal shall be accompanied by a fee in accordance with RMC 4-1-170, the fee schedule of the City. (Ord. 3658, 9-13-82) 4-8-110F: Appeals to City Council — Procedures 1. Time for Appeal: Unless a specific section or State law providing for review of decision of the Examiner requires review thereof by the Superior Court or any other body, any interested party aggrieved by the Examiner's written decision or recommendation may submit a notice of appeal to the City Council, upon a form furnished by the City Clerk, within fourteen (14) calendar days from the date of the Examiner's written report. 2. Notice to Parties of Record: Within five (5) days of receipt of the notice of appeal, the City Clerk shall notify all parties of record of the receipt of the appeal. 3. Opportunity to Provide Comments: Other parties of record may submit letters in support of their positions within ten (10) days of the dates of mailing of the notification of the filing of the notice of appeal. 4. Transmittal of Record to Council: Thereupon the Clerk shall forward to the members of the City Council all of the pertinent documents, including the written decision or recommendation, findings and conclusions contained in the Examiner's report, the notice of appeal, and additional letters submitted by the parties. (Ord. 3658, 9-13-1982) 5. Council Review Procedures: No public hearing shall be held by the City Council. No new or additional evidence or testimony shall be accepted by the City Council unless a showing is made by the party offering the evidence that the evidence could not reasonably have been available at the time of the hearing before the Examiner. If the Council determines that additional evidence is required, the Council shall remand the matter to the Examiner for reconsideration and receipt of additional evidence. The cost of transcription of the hearing record shall be borne by the applicant. In the absence of an entry upon the record of an order by the City Council authorizing new or additional evidence or testimony, and a remand to the Hearing Examiner for receipt of such evidence or testimony, it shall be presumed that no new or additional evidence or testimony has been accepted by the City Council, and that the record before the City Council is identical to the hearing record before the Hearing Examiner. (Ord. 4389, 1-25-1993) 6. Council Evaluation Criteria: The consideration by the City Council shall be based solely upon the record, the Hearing Examiner's report, the notice of appeal and additional submissions by parties. 7. Findings and Conclusions Required: If, upon appeal of a decision of the Hearing Examiner on an application submitted pursuant to RMC 4-1-050F1, and after examination of the record, the Council determines that a substantial error in fact or law exists in the record, it may remand the proceeding to Examiner for reconsideration, or modify, or reverse the decision of the Examiner accordingly. 8. Council Action: If, upon appeal from a recommendation of the Hearing Examiner upon an application submitted pursuant to RMC 4-1-050F2 and F3, and after examination of the record, the Council determines that a substantial error in fact or law exists in the record, or that a recommendation of the Hearing Examiner should be disregarded or modified, the City Council may remand the proceeding to the Examiner for reconsideration, or enter its own decision upon the application. 9. Decision Documentation: In any event, the decision of the City Council shall be in writing and shall specify any modified or amended findings and conclusions other than those set forth in the report of the Hearing Examiner. Each material finding shall be supported by substantial evidence in the record. The burden of proof shall rest with the appellant. (Ord 3658, 9-13-1982) 10. Council Action Final: The action of the Council approving, modifying or rejecting a decision of the Examiner shall be final and conclusive, unless appealed within the time frames established under subsection G5 of this Section. (Ord. 4660, 3-17-1997) a:asp.�• N 0 APPEAL - HEARING EXAMINER CiT4'' :t?it OFFICE WRITTEN APPEAL OF HEARING EXAMINER DECISION/RECOMMENDATION TO RENTON CITY COUNCIL FILE NO. LUA -4--2, PP, ECF APPLICATION NAME: Sunset Bluff Residential Subdivision The undersigned interested party hereby files its Notice of Appeal from the decision or recommendation of the Land Use Hearing Examiner, dated December 20, 2004. 1. IDENTIFICATION OF PARTY APPELLANT: Name: Herons Forever Address: 4819 - 49`h Ave., SW Seattle, WA 98116-4322 REPRESENTATIVE: Name: David S. Mann Address: Gendler & Mann, LLP 1424 - 4" Ave., Ste 1015 Seattle, WA 98101 Phone: 206 621-8868 2. SPECIFICATION OF ERRORS (Attach additional sheets, if necessary.) See Attachment 1 elow are the specific errors of law or fact upon which the appeal are based: FINDINGS OF FACT (Please designate number as denoted in the Examiner's report) No. Error: Correction: % CONCLUSION: No. Error: i Correction: r'" / No. Error: Correction: 3. SUMMARY OF ACTION REQUESTED: The Council is requested to grant the following relief: Reverse the decision or recommendation and grant the following relief: --X Modify the decision or recommendation as follows: See Attachment 1 Remand to the Examiner for further consideration as follows: Other Appel lant/Represntative Signature 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 ATTACHMENT 1 BEFORE THE RENTON CITY COUNCIL IN RE: APPLICATION BY SR 900 LLC for a) File No. LUA 04-002, EC, PP 65-LOT SUBDIVISION OF A 26.26 ACRE ) SITE "SUNSET BLUFF" ) HERONS FOREVER'S APPEAL OF THE HEARING EXAMINER'S DECEMBER 20, 2004 RECOMMENDATION SPECIFICATIONS OF ERROR CONCLUSIONS 1-8 and "Primary Recommendation" Error: Conclusions 1-8 and the Hearing Examiner's "Primary Recommendation of approval with conditions" are not supported by the evidentiary record. Correction: Appellant Herons Forever supports fully the Hearing Examiner's Conclusion No. 9. The City Council should deny the requested preliminary and overturn the Hearing Examiner's primary recommendation and require the applicant to formulate a design that preserves more of the native vegetation, works with the natural terrain features of the site and clusters the homes as far from the Heronry as possible. HERONS FOREVER'S APPEAL OF THE HEARING EXAMINER'S DECEMBER 20, 2004 RECOMMENDATION - 1 GENDLER & MANN, LLP 1424 Fourth Avenue, Suite 1015 Seattle, WA 98101 Phone: (206)621-8868 Fax: (206) 621-0512 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 IN THE ALTERNATIVE: In the event the City Council does not reverse the primary recommendation and deny the preliminary plat, the Council should modify or add the following conditions: RECOMMENDED CONDITION 4: Error: Recommended Condition 4 is incomplete and should be modified Correction Condition 4 should be modified to require planting of trees and shrubs, not just hydroseeding shrubs and forbs. This will help reduce the temporal impact of the clearing, by planting materials that already have some size to them. This will also introduce trees back into the mix which are necessary for adequate buffering. Trees in the mix should also help stabilize the steep, regraded slope. The plantings should be monitored for a minimum of 5 to 10 years to ensure that they are established. Plants that do not survive should be replanted. The plant mix should contain a mix of both deciduous trees (for heron nest materials) and coniferous (for screening). RECOMMENDED CONDITION 12: Error: Recommended Condition 12 is incomplete and should be modified Correction: Condition 12 should be modified so that the required fence is better defined. The fence should go around three sides of the property. The proposed access road should be gated with a solid gate. RECOMMENDATION Error: The Recommended Conditions are incomplete Correction: An additional condition should be added to require the stormwater be managed to maintain pre -development condition in (1) quantity of surface and groundwater flow leaving the property; (2) periodicity of surface and groundwater flow leaving the property; and (3) quality of surface and groundwater flow leaving the property. Existing surface and groundwater flow, periodicity and quantity should be monitored and established for a period of at least one year. Post -development quantity, periodicity and quality should be monitored for a period of at least 5 year, until it is established that the pre -development conditions are met or exceeded. HERONS FOREVER'S APPEAL OF THE HEARING EXAMINER'S DECEMBER 20, 2004 RECOMMENDATION - 2 GENDLER & MANN, LLP 1424 Fourth Avenue, Suite 1015 Seattle, WA 98101 Phone: (206) 621-8868 Fax: (206)621-0512 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 J DATED This � day of January, 2005 Respectfully submitted, GENDLER & ANN, LLP By: Da S. Mann, WSBA No. 21068 Attorneys for Herons Forever HERONS FOREVER'S APPEAL OF THE HEARING EXAMINER'S DECEMBER 20, 2004 RECOMMENDATION - 3 GENDLER & MANN, LLP 1424 Fourth Avenue, Suite 1015 Seattle; OVA 98101 Phone: (206) 621-8868 Fax: (206)621-0512 CITY OF RENTON JAN 03 7-005 TTYY ��RECEIVED�� FFRRSS WRITTEN APPEAL OF HEARING EXAMINER'S RECOMMENDATION TO RENTON��ITYZ'O'lJN'C, OFFICE FILE NO. LUA 04-002, ECF, PP APPLICATION NAME: Sunset Bluff Residential Subdivision The undersigned interested party hereby files its Notice of Appeal from the recommendation of the Land Use Hearing Examiner, dated December 20, 2004 1. IDENTIFICATION OF PARTY APPELLANT: REPRESENTATIVE (IF ANY) Name: SR 900 L.L.C. Name: David L. Halinen Address: 9125-10`h Avenue South Address: 10500 NE 8`b Street, Suite 1900 Seattle, Washington 98108 Bellevue, Washington 98004 Telephone No. (206) 762-9125 Telephone No. (425) 454-8272 2. SPECIFICATION OF ERRORS (Attach additional sheets, if necessary-- see Attachment 1) Set forth below are the specific errors or law or fact upon which this appeal is based: FINDING OF FACT (Please designate number as denoted in the Examiner's report) No. Error: APPEAL - HEARING EXAMINER Correction: CONCLUSIONS: No. Error: Correction: OTHER No. Error: Correction: 3. SUMMARY OF ACTION REQUESTED: The City Council is requested to grant the following relief (Attach explanation, if desire) _X_ Reverse the decision or recommendation and grant the following relief see Attachment 1 Modify the decision or recommendation as follows: Remand to the Examiner for further consideration as follows: Other �.� 3 . s Annellant/Renres tative Signatul Date NOTE: Please refel'to Title IV, Chapter 8, of the Renton Municipal Code, and Section 4-8-11OF, for specific appeal procedures. heappeal.doc/forms ee = 0t4t� /A, 44orrnnry Fect tt N 1 +I. F . 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 ATTACHMENT I BEFORE THE RENTON CITY COUNCIL Regarding the Proposed "Sunset Bluff' ) APPLICANT SR 900 L.L.C.'S Residential Subdivision ) APPEAL OF THE, HEARING EXAMINER'S DECEMBER 20, 2004 City of Renton File No. LUA 04-002, EC, PP ) RECOMMENDATION OF PRELIMINARY PLAT DENIAL, SPECIFICATION OF ERRORS FINDING OF FACT 2 Error: This finding of fact currently states: The two appeals were filed objecting to the Determination of Non - Significance. Both appeals have been resolved at this time with the City Council upholding the Determination of the ERC. That statement is misleading and entirely inadequate to even summarize the SEPA process that has been involved to date. It refers to a mere "Determination of Non -Significance" despite the fact that the ERC issued a Mitigated Determination of Non -Significance with 26 mitigation measures. It fails to mention who the parties to the two appeals were and the particular disposition of each of the two appeals. Correction: This finding of fact should be revised to state: On February 24, 2004, the City's Environmental Review Committee issued a Mitigated Determination of Non -Significance with 26 mitigation measures. Two appeals were filed to the Hearing Examiner concerning that SEPA threshold determination, one by the applicant (involving only mitigation measures 24 and 25) and the other by a non-profit corporation named Herons Forever (more broadly challenging the ERC's SEPA threshold determination). On April 20, 2004 (the first day of the appeal hearing before the Hearing Examiner), the applicant and the ERC's representative stipulated on the record to the revisions to mitigation measures 24 and 25 that had been proposed in the applicant's appeal and Herons Forever indicated that it had no objection to that stipulation, thereby resolving the applicant's appeal of the ERC's decision- With resnect to Herons Forever's anneal. followinc a heariniz held HALINF.N LAW OFFICES, P.S. A Professional .Service Corporation APPLICANT SR 900 L. L.C.'S APPEAL OF THE Bellevue Place / 5eafirst Building HEARING EXAMINER'S RECOMMENDATION- Page 1 10500 NE 8th, Suite 1900 Bellevue, Washington 98004 (206)443-4684 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 on April 20, 2004, April 27, 2004, April 29, 2004 and May 10, 2004, the Hearing Examiner issued a decision on August 3, 2004 reversing the ERC's SEPA threshold determination, substituting a Determination of Significance for it and requiring preparation of an environmental impact statement. The applicant appealed that decision to the City Council and, following the presentation of arguments by counsel for the applicant and Herons Forever to the Council's Planning and Development Committee, on November 8, 2004 the full Council adopted the Committee's Majority Report concerning the appeal, a report that recommended the reversal of the Examiner's decision and affirmation of the ERC's decision. FINDING OF FACT 3 Error: The first sentence of this finding of fact misstates the site's address, saying it is SW1100 Sunset Boulevard. The correct address, which is set forth in the subdivision application, is 1101 SW Sunset Boulevard. Correction: The first sentence of this finding of fact should be revised to read as follows: The subject site is located at 1101 SW Sunset Boulevard. FINDING OF FACT 6 Error: This finding of fact misstates the locations of the site's two zoning classifications. This finding of fact currently states: The subject site is located in two zoning districts. The majority of the site (25.18 acres), predominantly the northern and western portions of the site, is zoned R-10 (Residential; 10 dwelling units per acre). The southeastern corner of the site (1.08 acres) is zoned RC (Resource Conservation). (Emphasis added.) In contrast, 1.08 acres at the southwestern corner of the site is zoned RC and all of the rest of the site is zoned R-10. Correction: This finding of fact should be revised to read as follows: The subject site is located in two zoning districts. Except for 1.08 acres of the southwestern corner of the site that is zoned RC (Resource Conservation), the site is zoned R-10 (Residential-10 dwelling units per acre). (Thus, 25.18 acres of the site are zoned R-10.) FINDING OF FACT 7 HALINEN LAW OFFICES, P.S. A Professional Service Corporation APPLICANT SR 900 L.L.C.'S APPEAL OF THE HEARING EXAMINER'S RECOMMENDATION —Page 2 Bellevue Place / t Building 10500 NE Sth, Suit1900 Bellevue, Washington 98004 (206)443-4684 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 Error: In view of the Hearing Examiner's strident rhetoric against the applicant (and, implicitly, against the City Council's prior zoning decisions for the property) made in Conclusions 21 and 9, Finding of Fact 7 is not only erroneous in failing to set forth the entirety of the site -specific conditions listed in the December 10, 2003 Development Agreement between the City and the Applicant but in failing to describe the applicant's two major down -zoning requests made to the City and granted by the City Council in regard to the site during the last five years, each of which involved a restrictive Development Agreement voluntarily entered into by the applicant with the City following a public hearing. Rebecca Lind, Planning Manager of the City of Renton's Department of Economic Development, Neighborhoods and Strategic Planning, testified on April 29, 2004 that, prior to the City's 2001 annexation of the portion site that was then in unincorporated King County, the site's overall zoning gave the site a potential of 842 multi -family units plus 1.5 million square feet of office development. In contemplation of the then -pending annexation, in 2001 the Renton City Council adopted RM-1 (Residential Multi-family-Infill) zoning for all of the site (other than the 1.08 RC -zoned acres in the site's southwest corner), subject to a development agreement (Exhibit - 59) limiting site development to just 260 multi -family residential units, a tremendous Conclusion 2 of the Hearing Examiner's Recommendation states in relevant part: The proposed plat will not serve the public use and interest if the heron colony located down slope of the site is not protected from the impacts of the proposed development. The clearing of the forest and the substantial grading that will occur this close to the heron colony will have an affect on that colony. It can be lessened by appropriate mitigation and with some additional conditions. If the applicant is not willing to do at least a minimum amount to avoid affecting the heronry, that a great public resource, the colony, and the public's expenditure of approximately Eight Million Dollars ($8,000,000.00) could be jeopardized. The applicant needs to work in conjunction with the heron colony and its nesting needs and activities .... (Emphasis added.) This office will not make another recommendation to the City Council. This office would urge the City Council to overturn the primary recommendation to approve the proposed plat and require the applicant to formulate a design that preserves more of the native vegetation, works with the natural terrain features of the site and clusters the homes. This office urges the City Council to deny the plat because it does not take advantage of the natural amenities of the site in a suitable fashion and does not do nearly enough to attempt to protect the nearby heron colony from the proposed plat's development impacts. The proposed plat merely exploits the site, cutting down most of the trees on approximately 20 acres, severely disturbs the natural contours of the site and does not create a layout of homes designed to work in and around the terrain. This second recommendation is unusual but not unique. In some instances, this office has recommended that a project be denied but suggested how it might be modified or conditioned such that it might be appropriate. This recommendation merely reverses that method. _(FmpTiasis added.) T-- HALINEN LAW OFFICES, P.S. A Professional Seroice Corporation APPLICANT SR 900 L.L.C.'S APPEAL OF THF, - - -- HEARING EXAMINER'S RECOMMENDATION- Page 3 Bellevue Place/ Sea,Smite rst B Building 10500 NE 00 Bellevue, Washington 98004 (206)443-4684 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 reduction in the site's previous development potential. Following the applicant's proposal for a yet further downzone of the RM-I-zoned portion of the site to R-10, the City and the applicant entered into the December 10, 2003 Development Agreement (portion of the Title Documents contained in Exhibit 1), the development agreement that is currently legally binding upon both the City and the applicant. That development agreement (a) limits site development to 69 detached single-family residences (a further tremendous reduction in the site's development potential), (b) provides for a fence along the entire south side of the development (but makes clear that the applicant can locate the fence either north of or south of the stormwater facilities contemplated to be constructed along the southerly part of the R-10 portion of the site and along the R-10-zoned portion of the site) and (c) prohibits residential or recreational buildings within the south 100 feet of the site. Ms. Lind pointed out during her testimony that both of the two downzones and the corresponding development agreements were done in part for protection of the great blue heron colony to the south of the site. These important background facts established in the record disabuse the Examiner's suggestion that the applicant has not done at least a "minimum amount" to avoid affecting the heronry and must in all fairness be set forth in Finding of Fact 7 (or in some other findings of fact). Correction: This finding of fact should be revised to read as follows: Prior to the 2001 annexation of the portion of the site that was then still in unincorporated King County, the site's zoning (some County and some City) gave the site a potential of 842 multi -family units plus 1.5 million square feet of office development. Upon the completion of that annexation (Ordinance #4891) and City Council adoption of RM-I (Residential Multi-family-Infill) zoning for all of the site other than the 1.08 RC -zoned acres in the site's southwest corner, a first Development Agreement between the City and the applicant concerning the site (Exhibit 59) (a development agreement that the City Council approved following a public hearing) limited the number of residential units on the site to 260 and eliminated the site's previous potential for office development. Subsequently, the applicant proposed a further downzone of the RM-I-zoned portion of the site (a downzone to R-10), which the City Council approved subject to a substitute Development Agreement dated December 10, 2003 (part of Exhibit 1). (That development agreement was also the subject of a City Council public hearing.) In that development agreement, the applicant and the City agreed upon the following site -specific restrictions: "(1) The maximum number of residential units that may be permitted on the Property shall be 69 units and all of such units shall only be single-family detached units on individual residential lots; HALINEN LAW OFFICES, P.S. A Professional Service Corporation APPLICANT SR 900 L.L.C.'S APPEAL OF THE HEARING EXAMINER'S RECOMMENDATION —Page 4 Bellevue Place 8th, of to ]900rst ding 10500 Bellevue, Washington 98004 (206)443-4684 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 a minimum 6-foot high fence shall be constructed along the south side of the development for the entire length of the development (i.e., from the west edge of the southerly projection of the westerly -most residential lot to the east edge of the southerly projection of the easterly -most residential lot), which fence may lie either north of or south of stormwater facilities anticipated to be constructed along the southerly portion of the site and along the RC -zoned strip of land owned by Owner that is legally -described in the second "EXCEPT that portion ..." paragraph of the Property's legal description set forth on pages l and 2 [of the Development Agreement]; and (3) No residential or recreation buildings may be constructed on the Property within 100 feet of the Burlington Northern and Santa Fe Railroad right-of-way that lies to the south of the Property." FINDING OF FACT 8 Error: While this finding of fact may contain a truism (i.e., in a literal sense, it might be true that the Comprehensive Plan's map element never mandates development within any of the Land Use Map designations regardless of "other policies of the Plan"), nothing about it has a legitimate bearing on the decision before the City Council. Of course, nothing about the City's Comprehensive Plan or Development Regulations ever mandates development. However, the site's RO Comprehensive Plan Land Use Map designation coupled with the site's R-10 zoning and the Development Agreement that is in effect certainly evidence the City Council's policy determination and intent that detached single-family residential development of up to 69 dwelling units is appropriate on the subject site. Correction: This finding of fact should be stricken in its entirety and replaced with the following substitute finding of fact: The RO Comprehensive Plan Land Use Map designation and R-10 zoning of 25.18 acres of the site coupled with the Development Agreement that is in effect provide prima facie evidence that detached single-family residential development of up to 69 dwelling units is appropriate on that portion of the site (consistent with the other site -specific restrictions set forth in the Development Agreement). FINDING OF FACT 9 Error: This finding of fact is inaccurate in referring to the "subject site". Only a portion of the subject site was annexed to the City with the adoption of Ordinance 4891 in February HALINEN 1.AW OFFICES, P.S. A Professional Seeviee Corporation APPLICANT SR 900 L.L.C.'S APPEAL OF THE — HF,ARING EXAMINER'S RECOMMENDATION- - Page 5 Bellevue Place / Seafirst Building g 10500 NE 8th, Suite 1900 Bellevue, Washington 98004 (206)443-4684 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 Correction: This finding of fact should be revised to read as follows: A portion of the subject site was annexed to the City with the adoption of Ordinance 4891 enacted in February 2001. The remainder of the site by that time already was within the City's corporate limits. (Emphasis added.) FINDING OF FACT 10 Error: This finding of fact includes a quotation from page 10 of the Staff Report to the Hearing Examiner that contains a statement of tree size that is manifestly untrue and that the applicant had demonstrated to the Hearing Examiner to be untrue on pages 39 and 40 of the applicant's closing brief concerning Herons Forever's earlier appeal of the MDNS. The quotation at issue is as follow: "The site is heavily wooded with Maple, Alder, Cottonwood, Fir, and Cedar trees ranging in size from 36-inches to 48-inches in diameter and is also vegetated with blackberry vines and other forested vegetation - most of which would be removed during the site preparation activities." (Page 10, Staff Report) (Emphasis added.) Nothing in the record exists to substantiate trees of 36 to 48 inches in diameter on the site. The trees on the site are nowhere close to that diameter because a tree coring study of the forest on the Sunset Bluff site demonstrated the forest to be "less than 50 years old with most trees determined to be 39 to 45 years old. ,2 Trees of that age simply cannot attain diameters anywhere approaching 36 inches to 48 inches. A number of ground photos of the site taken by wildlife ecologist Theresa Dusek (Exhibits 49 through 51) illustrate that the 2 As biologist Theresa Dusek explains on page 13 of her Habitat/Wildlife Assessment and Stream Study Report concerning the site (part of Exhibit 1): During our field survey, we found that the upland deciduous forest located on the site and the east 300 feet of the western road route is composed of a moderate canopy (with a cover ranging from 40% to 60%) dominated by big leaf maple and red alder. Minor trees scattered throughout the forest include Douglas fir and black cottonwood. The understory is dominated by blackberry and other non-native species in the western portion of the site and the east 300 feet of the western road route and by more native sword fern, salal, Oregon grape and snowberry in the eastern portion of the site. Several trees were cored to determine the age of the forest. The forest is less than 50 years old with most trees determined to be 39 to 45 years old. Snags on the site were small (less than 12 inches d.b.h.). (Emphasis added.) I IALINEN LAW OFFICES, P.S. A Professional Service Corporation APPLICANT SR 900 L.L.C.'S APPEAL OF THE IIEARING EXAMINER'S RECOMMENDATION- Page 6 Bellevue Place / S i Building g 10500 NE 8th, Suite 1900 Bellevue, Washington 98004 (206)443-4684 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 site's trees are far smaller than the "36 inches to 48 inches in diameter" statement made in the Staff Report. Likewise, three pages of colored site photos labeled "Figure 3" and attached to the letter of Herons Forever's witness Dr. Kate Sternberg (as part of Exhibit 12) show mostly very slender trees. Correction: This finding of fact should be revised to read as follows: The subject site has a heavy tree cover. The site is heavily treed and is considered to be a second -generation forest. A tree coring study of the forest on the site performed just prior to the subject application demonstrated the forest to be less than 50 years old with most trees determined to be 39 to 45 years old)." Trees on the site consist of maples, alders, cottonwoods, firs, and cedars. The site is also vegetated with blackberry vines and other forested vegetation. FINDING OF FACT 11 Error: This finding of fact substantially overstates the site's height in its assertion that it is "200 feet high". This is demonstrated by the table below. The existing ground elevation contours depicted on the preliminary plat drawing (which is based upon a field topographic survey prepared by Barghausen Consulting Engineers, Inc.) (part of Exhibit 1) indicate the following existing ground elevations at the north (top) and south (bottom) edges of the site at the three positions selected along the site from east to west described in the table's first column. Position (From West Existing Elevation at Existing Elevation at Elevation to East) Along the North Boundary South Boundary Differential Site (Top) in feet (Bottom) in feet (Height) in feet West Edge 161 31 130 Midpoint Between 144 29 115 West Edge and Entry Road Intersection Entry Road 150 38 112 Intersection III 11111[1111MI Average: 119 feet As the table shows, the average height of the indicated positions is only about 120 feet, not 200 feet. In addition, this finding of fact errs in describing the slope as "south-southeast facing". In actuality, it is south-southwest facing. Correction: This finding of fact should be revised to read as follows: APPLICANT SR 900 L.L.C.'S APPEAL OF THE HEARING EXAMINER'S RECOMMENDATION —Page 7 HALINEN LAW OFFICES, P S. A Professional Service Corporation Bellevue Place / Seafirst Building 10500 NE 8th, Suite 1900 Bellevue, Washington 98004 (206)443-4684 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 The site can be described as a south-southwest facing slope that descends from or near Sunset Boulevard to the BNSF railroad right-of-way with an average height of around 120 feet from top to bottom over the east -west extent of the site that is proposed for development. FINDING OF FACT 13 Error: The last sentence of this finding of fact is currently unclear in relation to the "engineer's statement"3 and should be revised to make clear that: (a) The applicant's civil engineer was the engineer referred to in this finding; and (b) The footage range referred to is the anticipated approximate maximum depth of cuts and fills. Correction: The last sentence of this finding of fact should be revised to read as follows: The applicant's civil engineer testified that cuts and fills are anticipated to get up to a vertical depth of about 30 to 35 feet. FINDING OF FACT 14 Error: This finding of fact's emotionally -charged assertion of "vast grading" that "will reshape the entire parcel" is misleading and an overstatement of what the proposal actually involves, an assertion obviously calculated to vilify the proposed development. First of all, no grading is proposed within the 4.70-acre Native Growth Protection Easement proposed in the eastern portion of the site, an easement that will encompass approximately 18 percent of the site's entire area. Thus, contrary to the Examiner's proposed finding, the "entire parcel" is certainly not proposed to be reshaped. Second, use of the adjective "vast" is not a meaningful way to describe the proposed grading because every hillside subdivision with existing slopes as extensive as those on the Sunset Bluff site (slopes that may lawfully be graded under Renton's Critical Areas Regulations) necessitates comparable site grading in order to achieve usable lots, public street(s) and a storm water detention pond. As is illustrated by both (a) Cross Section B-B set forth on the Exhibit 30 drawing (a cross section correlating to the B-B position across the site from top -to -bottom that is depicted on Sheet 2 of the 11-sheet set of the project's preliminary drawings contained in Exhibit 1) and (b) the "Existing/Proposed Cross Section Exhibit" (Exhibit 61, a cross section correlating 3 Civil engineer Hal Grubb's actual statement during the April 27, 2004 hearing describing cuts and fills anticipated with the project's design is transcribed as follows: "Vertically, the cuts get up to about 30 feet in depth. Vertically, the fills get up to almost 35 teet in depth." 1-IAI,INEN LAW OFFICES, P.S. APPLICANT SR 900 L.L.C.'S APPEAL OF THE A Professional Service Corporation-- HEARING EXAMINER'S RECOMMENDATION— Page 8 Bellevue Place heaf, Suis 90ding Bellevue, Washington 98004 (206)443-4684 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 to the A -A position extending across the site from top -to -bottom that is superimposed on the Exhibit 60 aerial photograph), the proposed cuts and fills taper to a zero foot depth at various transition points from top to bottom along the proposed graded slopes. Third, that the proposed cuts and fills are as inextensive as they are is the result of limiting the site layout to a row of lots clustered along both sides of the proposed, centrally - located east -west street through the site generally close to matching existing grade, with cuts to be generally located north of the street and fills to be located generally south of the street and with both some cutting and some filling at the south end of the site to form the storm water pond. Because of the site's slope, no more efficient way of laying out the lots, street and pond exists from a grading perspective. As the applicant's civil engineer testified during the April 27, 2004 day of the hearing, the location of the easterly end of the proposed street is dictated by the need to connect to SW Sunset Boulevard at a relatively low point and maintain suitable street slopes down into the heart of the site where the lots begin (when heading down the street from east to west). Layouts involving one or more street connections to SW Sunset Boulevard in the west or central portions of the site would invariably result in unworkably extensive fills because (a) the existing slopes in those areas are generally much steeper than where (under the proposed layout) the street begins in the eastern portion of the site and (b) the elevation of SW Sunset Boulevard in those areas is much higher. In addition, contrary to the assertion in the second sentence of Finding of Fact 14, the Staff did not note that "almost all the vegetation would be removed from the subject site" since the quotation the Examiner took from page 3 of the Staff Report merely said that "the applicant has proposed to remove the majority of the on -site vegetation". (Emphasis added.) Correction: To dispassionately and accurately describe the proposed site clearing and grading, this finding of fact should be replaced with the following substitute finding of fact: Vegetation is proposed to be retained within a 4.70-acre Native Growth Protection Easement (part of proposed Tract C) in the eastern portion of the site (about 18 percent of the site's total area). The balance of the site is anticipated to be cleared of vegetation in conjunction with site grading. Proposed cuts and fills will taper from a zero -foot depth at various transition points from top to bottom along the proposed graded slopes up to their maximum anticipated vertical depths of around 30 to 35 feet in places. The site layout involves a row of lots clustered along both sides of the centrally - located east -west street proposed to extend through the site, with the centerline of the street for the most part anticipated to be constructed at a grade close to matching existing grade. Cuts are to be generally located north of the street and fills are to be located generally south of the street. In order to form the proposed storm water detention pond near the site's south edge, some cutting and some filling at the south end of the site is anticipated. Because of the site's generally steep slopes, no way of laying out the lots, street and pond appears to exist that would be more efficient from a site f iALINEN LAW OFFICES, PS. A Professional Service Corporation APPLICANT SR 900 L.L.C.'S APPEAL OF THE Bellevue Place /SeafirstBuilding HEARING EXAMINER'S RECOMMENDATION —Page 9 10500 NE 8th, Suite 1900 Bellevue, Washington 98004 (206)443-4684 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 dictated by the need to (a) connect to SW Sunset Boulevard at a relatively low point and (b) maintain suitable street slopes down to the west into the easterly portion of the heart of the site where the lots are to begin. FINDING OF FACT 15 Error: This finding of fact incorrectly summarizes the proposed lot sizes, which are set forth on Sheet 1 of the preliminary plat drawings (part of Exhibit 1). Correction: This finding should be revised to read as follows: Thirty-seven of the proposed lots are in the 4,000 to 4,999 square foot range while twenty-four are in the 5,000 to 5,999 square foot range. Lot 42's proposed size is slightly greater than 6,000 square feet and Lot 41's proposed size is not quite 6,600 square feet. The largest of the proposed lots, Lots 1 and 38 (which occupy the east and west ends of the north tier of lots and are somewhat irregularly -shaped) have proposed sizes of slightly more than 10,000 square feet and slightly more than 9,600 square feet, respectively. FINDING OF FACT 16 Error: The next to the last sentence of this finding of fact is (a) needlessly vague in regard to the size of the native growth protection easement's size (currently stating that it could consist of "much of Tract (." rather than "4.70 acres of Tract C") and (b) needlessly unclear and potentially misleading as to whether the phrase "a portion of it" refers to the native growth protection easement (which it should not) or the balance of Tract C (which it should). Correction: In view of the above and to be consistent with the entry monumentation and SW Sunset Boulevard street frontage improvements shown on Sheet 2 of the 11-sheet set of preliminary plat drawings that are part of Exhibit 1, the next to the last sentence of this finding of fact should be revised to read as follows: The applicant has proposed to leave 4.70 acres of Tract C in a native growth protection easement while the approximately 0.5-acre remainder of Tract C would be cleared and graded to accommodate an entry monumentation area, sight distance at the street entrance to SW Sunset Boulevard, and SW Sunset Boulevard frontage improvements. FINDING OF FACT 19 Error: The last sentence of this finding of fact is based upon the erroneous premise that Proposed Lot 39 abuts property that is designated RC on the City's zoning map. However, as is clear from a careful examination of Sheet 1 of the 11-sheet set of preliminary plat drawings (part of Exhibit 1), a roughly one -foot wide gap lies between Lot 39 and the RC -zoned area of the site. APPLICANT SR 900 L.L.C.'S APPEAL OF THE HEARING EXAMINER'S RECOMMENDATION --Page 10 HALINEN LAW OFFICES, P.S. A Professional Service Corporation Bellevue Place / Seafirst Building 10500 NE Hth, Suite 1900 Bellevue, Washington 98004 (206) 44:i-4684 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 Correction: Because Lot 39 does not abut the RC -zoned area of the site, the last sentence of this finding of fact should be stricken in its entirety. FINDING OF FACT 21 Error: The first sentence of this finding of fact is made without any support or justification in the record and is flatly contradicted by the project's design drawings. By creating the proposed cut slope in Tract A (i.e., to the north of the north tier of lots) and by creating the proposed fill slope along the north part of Tract B (i.e., immediately to the south of the south tier of lots), relatively -flat functional lots can be developed in their proposed sizes and locations. (See Cross Section B-B set forth on the upper -left portion of the Exhibit 30 drawing, a cross section correlating to the B-B position across the site from top -to -bottom that is depicted on Sheet 2 of the 11-sheet set of the project's preliminary drawings contained in Exhibit 1.) Correction: In view of the above, the first sentence of this finding of fact should be stricken in its entirety. FINDING OF FACT 23 Error: This finding of fact oversimplifies and substantially mischaracterizes the proposed drainage system. Detailed summaries of the proposed drainage system are set forth in both (1) the Preliminary Drainage Study prepared by Barghausen Consulting Engineers, Inc. dated January 9, 2004 (part of Exhibit 1) and (2) Section B.3 (Water) of the Environmental Checklist (also part of Exhibit 1). Correction: In view of the detailed summaries of the proposed system referenced above, this finding of fact should be expanded as follows to more accurately describe the proposed drainage system: Storm water runoff is discharged onto the site through nine culverts extending south from SW Sunset Boulevard's road embankment. One of the culverts is an 18-inch diameter pipe that conveys storm water runoff and other flows from properties lying north of SW Sunset Boulevard and discharges those waters into the Sunset Bluff site's on -site stream channel, which drains into the Category 1 wetland. (That wetland has no outlet due to the railroad cutting off any surface water connection to downstream waters.) The other eight culverts discharge storm water runoff onto the site from relatively small portions of SW Sunset Boulevard (and, in some cases, from small undeveloped portions of existing lots lying immediately to the north of SW Sunset Boulevard). That water ultimately drains into (a) a ditch located in the railroad right-of-way immediately south of the site (from the westerly seven of those eight culverts) and (b) the Category 1 wetland (from the easterly most of those culverts). Water in that railroad ditch drains into two 12-inch culverts that extend beneath the railroad tracks and discharge to the south. HALINEN LAW OFFICES, P.S. APPLICANT SR 900 L.L.C.'S APPEAL OF THE A Professional Service Corporation HEARING EXAMINER'S RECOMMENDATION —Page 11 Bellevue Place / Seafirst Building 10500 NE 8th, Suite 1900 Bellevue, Washington 98004 (206) 44.3-4684 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 In conjunction with the proposed public street and utility crossing of the on - site intermittent stream, a Type 2 catch basin will be connected onto the end of the 18-inch diameter culvert that currently discharges into the on -site stream channel and a 24-inch diameter storm drain will be extended to clear the south edge the fill for the proposed public street. The discharge from the easterly most existing culvert will be routed to drain into an intermediate Type 2 catch basin along the route of that 24-inch diameter storm drain. All of the other seven existing culverts will be extended a short distance south to connect to an interceptor storm drain system that will route the upstream flows from those culverts through the site in a pipe system along the property lines of the proposed lots and/or along the site's western edge to a "bubble -up catch basin" near the site's south edge so that those flows will drain into the railroad ditch. This bypass system will avoid contribution of those upstream offsite flows to the site's stormwater detention system and will maintain the existing drainage basins. FINDING OF FACT 24 Error: The first sentence of this finding of fact erroneously refers to a "4.5-acre wetland" Category 1 wetland rather than the undoubtedly -intended, approximately 3-acre Category 1 wetland that straddles a part of the easterly portion of the site's south boundary (with only about 6,078 square feet of that wetland lying on the site). Further, the references to "it" in the second and third sentences are vague and misleading. Correction: In view of the above, this finding of fact should be revised to read as follows: An approximately 3-acre Category 1 wetland straddles a part of the easterly portion of the site's south boundary. Only about 6,078 square feet of that wetland lie on the site. A 100-foot wide buffer is required around that wetland, although more of a buffer will effectively be provided generally to the north and northeast of it due to the steep slopes adjacent to it and the 4.7-acre native growth protection easement proposed to encompass both (a) the on -site portion of the wetland and 100-foot wetland buffer and (b) the adjacent sloped areas to the north and northeast. (See Sheet 2 of the 11-sheet set of the project's preliminary drawings contained in Exhibit 1.) Also, an approximately 400-square foot City of Renton Category 3 Wetland straddles a small part of the westerly portion of the site's south boundary. (Again, see Sheet 2 of the 11-sheet set of the project's preliminary drawings.) Only about 258 square feet of that wetland lies on the site. While that wetland is not regulated due to its very small size, the applicant has proposed to retain it. FINDING OF FACT 27 HALINEN LAW OFFICES, P.S. APPLICANT SR 900 L.L.C.' S APPEAL OF THE A Professional Service Corporation HEARING EXAMINER'S RECOMMENDATION —Page 12 Bellevue Place Sth, Suite 1900 Buildingrst 10500 Bellevue, Washington 98004 (206)443-4684 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 Error: The last sentence of this finding of fact is misleading and erroneous in its reference to the "natural ebb and flow of storm water across the subject site" and in its assertion that "its release rate and quantity will not match the natural conditions." (Emphasis added.) First of all, water discharging onto the site from nine culverts from the south edge of SW Sunset Boulevard is not a natural phenomenon. Those culverts have all been installed in conjunction with the construction of SW Sunset Boulevard and upstream development. Except for the two existing culverts tributary to the existing intermittent stream crossing the eastern portion of the site and draining into the Category 1 wetland, the culverts currently discharging into the site from the SW Sunset Boulevard will be connected to a tightline drainage system that will bypass the proposed storm water detention facility. Under Washington law concerning storm drainage (including the "common enemy rule"), the applicant is legally entitled to intercept those upstream discharges and route them to the bottom of the slope downstream of the detention pond that will provide detention for onsite stormwater runoff. Second, the site's storm water runoff will be tributary to the proposed storm water detention pond system. The discharge from that system will be designed to match existing peak runoff rates from the site in accordance with the calculation methodology provisions and requirements of the 1998 King County Surface Water Design Manual. Correction: In view of the above, the last sentence of this finding of fact should be replaced by the following substitute sentences: The proposed bypass of certain upstream culvert discharges around the proposed storm water detention pond is appropriate even though some of the existing flow characteristics of that discharge across the subject site down to the cross culverts beneath the BNSF railroad grade may be somewhat altered. The project site's storm water runoff will be tributary to the proposed storm water detention pond system along the western part of the site's south edge. The discharge from that detention system will be designed to match existing peak runoff rates from the site in accordance with the applicable calculation methodology provisions and requirements of the 1998 King County Surface Water Design Manual. FINDING OF FACT 28 Error: The fourth and fifth sentences of this finding of fact state: "The zoning west is a mix with another City RM-I district with multiple family units and industrially zoned property in King County. A closed quarry is west of the site." (Emphasis added.) Both of those sentences are inaccurate. First, the industrially zoned property referred to is in the City of Renton rather than King County, having been annexed to the City along with a part of the subject site under Ordinance 4891. Second, the industrial property referred -to is the site of a facility that has a contractor's office, outdoor equipment and material HALMEN LAW OFFICES, P.S. APPLICANT SR 900 L.L.C.'S APPEAL OF THE A Professional Service Corporation HEARING EXAMINER'S RECOMMENDATION —Page 13 Bellevue Place Building 8th, Suite 900 Bellevue, Washington 98004 (206)443-4684 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 storage, construction materials recycling activities and concrete batching. Third, while quarrying has ceased on that industrial property, it is misleading to refer to that property as merely a "closed quarry site" because of the active, above -noted industrial uses on that site. Correction: Consistent with the City Council's amended Finding of Fact 27 set forth in the Planning and Development Committee's Majority Report concerning the applicant's appeal of the Hearing Examiner's SEPA Threshold Determination Appeal Decision, the fourth and fifth sentences of Finding of Fact 28 should be replaced with the following sentence: To the west is (a) another RM-I (Residential Multi -Family Infill district with multiple family units and (b) industrially zoned property in the City of Renton (formerly the site of the Black River Quarry, with quarrying on the site having recently ceased) that is currently used as a contractor's office, equipment and material storage, construction materials recycling and concrete batching. FINDING OF FACT 29 Error: This finding of fact (along with Finding of Fact 3 1 ) is an attempt to reiterate the Examiner's assertions that, for the most part, were revised as part of the City Council's amended Finding of Fact 31 set forth in the Planning and Development Committee's Majority Report concerning the applicant's appeal of the Hearing Examiner's SEPA Threshold Determination Appeal Decision. Correction: In view of the record and in view of the City Council's above -noted amended Finding of Fact 31 set forth in the Planning and Development Committee's Majority Report concerning the applicant's appeal of the Hearing Examiner's SEPA Threshold Determination Appeal Decision, this finding of fact should be revised to read as follows (new text indicated by underlining and deleted text indicated by strike -through): The subject site is located within approximately 1,000 to 1,500 feet from the heron colony located in the Black River Riparian Forest, which is a City park. The subject site itself is not a nesting site for the heron.'The distance the main nest tree appeafs to b abandoned 1., g the ..,,tong slightly utside o hat has been 1 +• fnumber- of < The colony is a major interestmain-pus of certainrnarry residents of the City of Renton as well as varioushy residents of King and surrounding counties. Some eo lePeeple are very concerned that the development of the subject site mightwi44 jeopardize the colony and scare away the birds but that is speculative and highly unlikely given the tremendous distance between the colony and the subject site. The colony is located south of the BNSF rail lines that lie along the bottom of the sloping subject site. Hydrologist and civil en ineer Ed McCarthy, P.E., PhD determined thatW * a airing from the 21.4-acre portion of the subject site constitutes only about 20 percent of the watershed that recharges the r-ipar-ian-wetland that lies in a doression to the HALINEN LAW OFFICES, P.S. APPLICANT SR 900 L.L.C.'S APPEAL OF THE A Professional Service Corporation— - HEARING EXAMINER'S RECOMMENDATION-- Page 14 Bellevue PlacE ell vuePlac; x Seafirst e 90o Building Bellevue, Washington 98004 (206)443-4684 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 the colony area. The heron apparently forage on portions of the subject site'-s hillside forest (primarily near the Category I wetland that straddles a part of the east portion of the site's south boundary) and collect twigs and woody debris for nest building, however, the largely wooded, nearly 100-acre Black River Riparian Forest in which the colony is located also provided extensive areas for such heron activities and the 4.7-acre portion of the site proposed as a native growth protection area will continue to provide the heron with such opportunities on the subject site. While Herons Forever's witnesses asserted that theThe heron are shy birds (an assertion sharply contested by the applicant's heron expert) and that theyde react to intrusions that come too close to their nest areas, in view of the great distance between the site and the heron colony it is difficult to appreciate that the proposed development would be too close, especially considering the fact that Herons Forever frequently invites large crowds of people to visit the park and view the birds from a distance of only a few hundred feet. Herons Forever's witnesses also assertedlt- was -noted that this colony appears to react more to disturbances from the north where there is currently more forest cover and generally less anticipated intrusions and that this colony seems less disturbed by southerly - based disturbances. Those assertions were also sharply contested by the applicant's heron expert, who contended that they were mere speculation. FINDING OF FACT 31 Error: This finding of fact (along with the Examiner's recommended Finding of Fact 29 addressed above) is an attempt to reiterate the Examiner's assertions that, for the most part, were revised as part of the City Council's amended Finding of Fact 31 set forth in the Planning and Development Committee's Majority Report concerning the applicant's appeal of the Hearing Examiner's SEPA Threshold Determination Appeal Decision. Correction: In view of the record, this finding of fact should be revised to read as follows (new text indicated by underlining and deleted text indicated by strike -through): The eet site itself-1-onot Ae I tintt.or- the heren—vuc�-c appeafs to be used f0f fOFa i — )Ileeting twigs for- nest building. Whatever- use the hernan M.—Ake �__f the forested site will be severely altered wit the mmoval of 20 aefes of forest vegetation. The removal of the forest and th grading and construetion activities on the site will also affect the her -on. Reports indicate that the birds were flushed and temporarilyseverel-y disturbed by logging just -south of the railroad tracks at the western edge of the riparian forest area. The logging referred to occurred within the property that is now the City park during mid -February of 1987 (see Exhibit 100) (the early part of the heron nesting season) up to a location that was only about 320 feet away from the heron nesting trees (April 29, 2004 hearing testimony of Theresa Dusek) and yet the number of active nests in the colony actually increased LINEN LAW OFFICES, P.S. APPLICANT SR 900 L.L.C.'S APPEAL OF THE AProfessional Service Corporation HEARING EXAMINER'S RECOMMENDATION —Page 15 Bellevue Place / Seafirst Building 10500 NE 8th, Suite 1900 Bellevue, Washington 98004 (206)443-4684 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 the applicant's heron expert Ken Raedekn _PhD)• During the Planning and Development Committee's October 2, 2004 consideration of the applicant's appeal of the Hearing_ Examiner's SEPA Threshold Determination Appeal Decision one of the Committee Members, Don Perssoni_mentioned on the record that he recalled the _ tree cutting incident and indicated that it was "within a couple hundred feet of the heron rookery".) No drop in active nests occurred as a result of that logging. Because (a) the -closest edge of the Sunset Bluff site. is at least three times as far away (and perhaps five times as far away) from the colony as was the closest edge of the logging and grading that occurred on the north side of the colony during the start of the 1987 nesting season and (b) even the relatively close 1987 logging and graftg_did not reduce the number of active nests in the colony, one can only reasonabl conclude that the proposed logging and grading of the distant Sunset Bluff site will not have an impact upon the heron colony. Herons Forever also asserted during the hearingneedet4 evidenee appears to show that the development of the office park complex nearat the north end of Naches Avenue _within 500 feet of the colon also eaused a feaetion it the heren-amay be responsible for the colony's move north and west and to their abandoning what has been termed the main nesting tree-er-colony. Dr. Radeke also sharply_ contradicted that assertion. Besides the new homes, open space, a detention pond, lawns and maybe smaller shrubs will replace forest vegetation. A -A -&€ 4heThe clearing, grading and construction work in roughlythe he south half of the site (the portion of the site closest to the colon will occur at or belowabove the nesting level of the birds. (See Exhibit 61B and hearing testimony of Theresa Dusek)Site clearing and grading above the nesting level of the birds will be in roughly the north half of the site, at least 1,450 feet away from the nearest nests. (See Exhibit 6113.) The"�".�rile th maps and the hearing testimony of Theresa Dusekappeafte indicate that this would be out of sight of the nests_; Mature heron*"�� will be able to fl above the nests and the shelter and visual screen of the tall trees nearest the nests in the park and seebuffer that much of the upslope forest on the distant siteprevidedr will be gone; fledglings won't be able to accomplish that until they have left their nests -Of ill be femoved possibly during nesting sease . In addition, the relatively short term noise of theall mar-vefy heavy construction activity will definitely be heard to some extent within the heron colpMef-fsite. Fortunately, because noise intensity (as a type of radiation) falls as the inverse square of the relative distances involved from the noise source the fact that the nearest point of the Sunset Bluff site is at least three times (and perhaps five times) farther away from the heron colony than was the nearest logging during the February 1987 logging incident the noise intensity within the nearest portion of the heron colony due to the proposed site logging will only be about 1/9th to 1/25th as intense as was the noise from the logging that occurred during that incident. HALMN LAW OFFICES, P.S. APPLICANT SR 900 L.L.C.'S APPEAL OF THE AProfessional Service Corporation HEARING EXAMINER'S RECOMMENDATION— Page 16 Bellevue Place /SeafirstBuilding 10500 NE 8th, Suite 1900 Bellevue, Washington 98004 (206) 443 4684 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 Error: The last sentence of this finding of fact is grammatically incorrect. Correction: The last sentence of this finding of fact should be revised to read as follows: That would deprive the owner of the owner's private property right to use and develop the subject site. FINDING OF FACT 34 Error: This finding of fact currently omits the overwhelming evidence adduced during the hearings that (a) contradicted the need for any seasonal construction window at all at a site as distant from the Black River Heron Colony as is the Sunset Bluff site and (b) indicated an earlier end date would be appropriate on sites close enough where a seasonal construction window is justified. Correction: In view of the record, this finding of fact should be revised to read as follows: During the hearing, a representative of theThe Washington State Department of Fish and Wildlife as well as Herons Forever'sanetlwf heron expert, Kate Stenberg, PhD, recommended --A a seasonal construction window between January 15 and July 31 to insure that development does not unduly affect the heron during their sensitive reproductive cycle including nest building, egg laying, brooding and fledging. The department has made non -binding recommendations for working around heron colonies and they have i3und-�kat working within tely 2,600 foot , e to problems and recommended 3,200 feet as a distance in which no construction or logging occur during a seasonal construction window. This of ee does note that s eh a sethaek could eliminate most development of this But the witness notes that, in an urban setting where the birds aree subject to more intrusions, that may not be reasonable. In urban King County studies found colonies shrink when there is development within 1,000 feet. The development is not proposed fer-that close and the need for any seasonal construction limit on the subject site is purely speculative. Less than seven years ago, Dr. Stenberg was the Wildlife Program Manager for the King County Wildlife Program. In a June 12, 1998 letter to Renton Development Services' Jennifer Toth Henning (Exhibit 15) concerning the then -proposed development of the Black River Tract B office project (also know as the `Black River Corporate Park", which was then proposed within about 500 feet of the Black River heron colony), Dr. Stenberg stated on page 2 of the letter under the subheading "Seasonal Construction Restrictions" that: "There should be no construction during the nesting season within a larger buffer zone of about 1000 feet. The nesting season for APPLICANT SR 900 L.L.C.'S APPEAL OF THE HEARING EXAMINER'S RECOMMENDATION ---Page 17 I IALINEN LAW OFFICES, P.S. A Professional Service Corporation Bellevue Place / Seafirst Building 10500 NE 8th, Suite 1900 Bellevue, Washington 98004 (206)443-4684 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 non -migratory birds is approximately January 15 nth » (Emphasis added.) In a July 1, 1998 letter to Renton Development Services' Jana Huerter (Exhibit 16) also concerning the Black River Corporate Park project, Dr. Stenberg similarly stated that: here should be no construction between January 15th and June within 800 to 1000 feet of the rookerv. (Emphasis added.) The 1991 Memorandum of Agreement (MOA) among the City of Renton private property owners to the south, and interested environmental groups concerning the Black River heron colony specified a seasonal construction window that had an annual end date of June 15th.hut i� rest and her -on eolony. it was noted that Fish and Wildlir-eeemmendations were based on the best available seience. it was also note,' that this eolony anives at its nests earlier- and some stay a bit later and that the window should aeeommodate this loeal var-iation from other- eoleflies. It was recommended that heavy activity such as clearing the forest and grading the site observe a window of mid -January to the end of July, which does not accommodate fully the late nesters. Dr. Raedeke testified that he was unaware of any projects in King County lying outside of a 1,000 foot radius from a heron colony in which seasonal construction limits had been imposed. He also testified that he thought that a July 31St end date for a seasonal construction limit was excessive. Renton Senior planner Jason Jordan testified on May 10, 2004 that: "The discussion of a construction season window was discussed heavily at the Environmental Review Committee. And well so, because many of the letters that we received indicated that a construction season may be appropriate. But, ultimately, the Staff and the Environmental Review Committee ultimately felt that the project the location of the project, the design of the project, the proximity of the project to the heron colony, in itself, was a mitigation factor, a mitigating factor. That's why there is no specific construction season placed on as a mitigation measure for the project." CONCLUSION 1: Error: The last sentence of Conclusion 1 is improper because the starting point for a subdivision review is not a "reasonable use" test as the Examiner suggests but an analysis of RCW 58.17.110's "factors to be considered" in relation to a proposed subdivision as well as the municipality's relevant preliminary plat code provisions. HALINEN LAW OFFICES, P.S. APPLICANT SR 900 L.L.C.'S APPEAL OF THE AProfessional Service Corporation HEARING EXAMINER'S RECOMMENDATION —Page 18 Bellevue Place 8th, a first ding 10500 Suite 9oo Bellevue, Washington 98004 (206)443-46S4 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 Correction: In view of the above, the last sentence of Conclusion 1 should be stricken and replaced with the following sentence: In regard to the proposed Sunset Bluff subdivision and accompanying street dedication, the City Council finds that all of the factors to be considered under RCW 58.17.110(l)(a) have been met, (b) the public interest will be served by the proposed subdivision and street dedication, and (c) all of the City's applicable code provisions relating to preliminary plat approval have also been met. CONCLUSION 2. Error: Conclusion 2, which throughout presupposes that the proposed development will adversely impact the heron colony, is contrary to the City Council's conclusion in the SEPA Threshold Determination Appeal phase of this case that the purported adverse impacts of the proposed subdivision were speculative, a conclusion overwhelmingly grounded in the record. In view of the discussion above concerning Finding of Fact 7 and the proposed revisions to it (focusing on the two major downzones of the site that the applicant has already spurred and the Development Agreement currently in effect that the applicant submitted to), Conclusion 2's implication that the applicant has not so far done anything to avoid effecting the heronry is not only clearly erroneous but insulting. In view of proposed, revised Finding of Fact 34, no construction season window is justified for heron protection on this site given the great distance between the site and the heron colony. Nevertheless, the applicant is willing to accept a construction season window condition in the form of proposed, revised Condition of Approval 2, below, which uses a window end date of June 15th, the end date that was utilized in the Memorandum of Agreement referenced in proposed, revised Finding of Fact 34, above. Correction: In view of the above, Conclusion 2 should be stricken in its entirety. CONCLUSION 3. Error: Same as the error for Conclusion 2. Correction: Conclusion 3 should be stricken in its entirety. CONCLUSION 4. Error: Contrary to the first sentence of Conclusion 4, it is totally speculative rather than "clear" that the proposal "will spur some reaction on the part of the heron". Correction: Conclusion 4 should be stricken in its entirety. CONCLUSION 5. HALINEN LAW OFFICES, P.S. APPLICANT SR 900 L.L.C.' S APPEAL OF THE A Professional Service Corporation HEARING EXAMINER'S RECOMMENDATION —Page 19 Bellevue Place / Seafirst Building 10500 NE 8th, Suite 1900 Bellevue, Washington 98004 (206) 443-4684 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 Error: Whether or not the Examiner is right or wrong in his contentions regarding SEPA law, (a) the asserted impacts to the heron colony are still totally speculative under the factual circumstances of this case but (b) the applicant is nevertheless willing to accept a legally - unjustified construction season window in the form of proposed, revised Condition of Approval 2, below. Further, contrary to the Examiner's contention in the second sentence of Conclusion 5, in view of the record it is not fair or accurate to say that the site (1,000 feet away from the heron colony) is "adjacent to the heronry". In addition, with the extensive mitigating requirements of the Renton Development Regulations and with the SEPA mitigation measures imposed by the ERC that have a bearing on slope -related issues, no justification exists for the Examiner's last sentence of Conclusion 5, a sentence that presupposes that work proposed on the sloping site is somehow unmitigated. Correction: Conclusion 5 should be stricken in its entirety. CONCLUSION 6. Error: The last sentence of conclusion is clearly erroneous because, as explained above (see the discussion above Finding of Fact 14), the proposed plat does work with the site's existing contours given the various site constraints that exist. Correction: Conclusion 6 should be stricken in its entirety. CONCLUSION 7. Error: This conclusion fails to mention the proposed walkway system in addition to the proposed roadway system. Correction: Conclusion 7 should be revised to read as follows: It would appear that the proposed roadway and walkway system, including the emergency access, will serve the residents and provide for emergency access once the secondary access road is redesigned and rebuilt to meet existing standards. The walkwU system will provide safe walking conditions for students who walk to a school bus since the Renton School District has indicated that it will have a new bus stop to serve the proposed subdivision. CONCLUSION 8. Error: This conclusion merely states several of the conditions of approval, some of which are acceptable to the applicant and some of which are inappropriate and unacceptable to the applicant. (See the discussion of various of the conditions of approval, below.) No need exists for this Conclusion, which can merely cause inconsistencies with revised conditions of approval. HALINEN LAW OFFICES, P.S. APPLICANT SR 900 L.L.C.'S APPEAL OF THE APro`essionut Service Corporation HEARING EXAMINER'S RECOMMENDATION-- Page 20 Bellevue Place / Seafirst Building 10500 NE 8th, Suite 1900 Bellevue, Washington 98004 (206)443-4684 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 Correction: Conclusion 8 should be stricken in its entirety. CONCLUSION 9. Error: Contrary to the Hearing Examiner's contentions, the following is the case: (a) The applicant's proposal does work with the site's existing terrain and constraints (clustering the proposed lots along either side of the proposed east -west public street in the only reasonably workable fashion available given the site's constraints); (a) In regard to heron protection, the applicant has (i) performed two major downzones of the site and has entered into a Development Agreement with the City that substantially limits development of the site, (ii) has proposed a 4.7-acre native growth protection easement immediately above the Category 1, boundary -straddling wetland that serves as a heron foraging area and (iii) is willing to accept a construction season window condition as set forth in proposed revised condition of approval 2, below; (b) While the applicant's proposal will remove all of the vegetation from about 20 acres of the site, (i) the 4.7-acre native growth protection easement will remain vegetated, (ii) no City codes prohibit the proposed vegetation removal on the 20 acres, and (iii) the vegetation removal is necessary in order to reasonably develop the site. (d) No basis exists for denial of the proposed subdivision Correction: In view of the above, the Findings of Fact (with the modifications proposed above, and the entire record, Conclusion 9 should be stricken in its entirety and replaced with the following sentence: In regard to the proposed Sunset Bluff subdivision and accompanying street dedication, with the conditions of approval set forth below [i.e., with the modifications to them and elimination of some of them proposed by the applicant, below], the City Council finds that all of the factors to be considered under RCW 58.17.110(1)(a) have been met, (b) the public interest will be served by the proposed subdivision and street dedication, and (c) all of the City's applicable code provisions relating to preliminary plat approval have also been met and the proposed subdivision and accompanying street dedication should be and is hereby approved. CONDITION OF APPROVAL 1 Error: This condition needs clarification to be consistent with the stipulation made by the parties on the first day of the SEPA appeal hearing (April 20, 2004) concerning the applicant's appeal to the Examiner of SEPA Mitip-ation Measures 24 and 25. HALINEN LAW OFTICES, P.S. APPLICANT SR 900 L.L.C.'S APPEAL OF THE A Professional Service Corporation HEARING EXAMINER'S RECOMMENDATION— Page 21 Bellevue Place / Seafirst Building 10500 NE 8th, Suite 1900 Bellevue, Washington 98004 (206)443-4684 2I 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 Correction: This condition should be revised to read as follows (new text indicated by underlining and deleted text indicated by strike -through, typical): The applicant shall comply with the SEPA Mitigation Measureseonditions imposed by the ERC Lexcept that Mitigation Measures 24 and 25 have been modified by stipulation of the parties to be consistent with the revised version of those Mitigation Measures requested in the applicant's MDNS appeal}te reach --aeeor =withtheapplica>it- on -4ht-*raPzrur e saterr-aivirg �tlns�t EeulevaM. CONDITION OF APPROVAL 2 Error: This condition is totally unjustified in view of the record and by right should be stricken. However, in the interest of minimizing controversy concerning the subject matter of this condition, the applicant is willing to agree to the modified version of this condition set forth below. Correction: This condition should be revised to read as follows: The forest clearing and initial, major hillside grading shall not occur between January 15 and June 15M-y-34 in any year that such work is necessary; however, minor earthwork, such as finish grading and earthwork associated with utilities. installation, may occur year round. CONDITION OF APPROVAL 3 Error: This condition is unreasonably restrictive as written. In view of the unlikely but potential need for using chemical drying agents (e.g., in the event of unexpected wet weather conditions during the normal dry season), flexibility should be built into the condition to allow the Development Services Division to approve the use of drying agents on an as -needed basis. Correction: In view of the above, this condition should be revised to read as follows: The applicant shall not use any chemical agents to dry or stabilize the soils that would alter the pH of the soils without the approval of the Development Services Division. CONDITION OF APPROVAL 5 Error: This condition is unreasonable. The lots are quite small and, after placement of homes, driveways, patios, and walkways on the lots, only small areas will be left on each lot for lawns and other landscaping. Requiring native vegetation is not justified. Correction: In view of the above, this condition should be stricken in its entirety. CONDITIO HALINEN LAW OFFICES, P.S. APPLICANT SR 900 L.L.C.'S APPEAL OF THE AProfessional Service Corporation HEARING EXAMINER'S RECOMMENDATION- Page 22 Bellevue Place / Seasrst Building 10500 NE 8th, Suite 1900 Bellevue, Washington 98004 (206) 443- 4684 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 Error: In view of the existing, extensive regulatory provisions of RMC 4-4-060L.4 (Fill Material) (provisions that, among other things, sets standards for cleanliness of fill material, and specifies when source statements or testing is required, this condition of approval is duplicative, inappropriate and unwarranted. Correction: In view of the above, this condition should be stricken in its entirety. CONDITION OF APPROVAL 8 Error: As drafted, this condition leaves "minimization" undefined. That concept should be defined in the condition by the use of shielded light fixtures to direct light and glare away from the Black River Riparian. This condition should be limited to the south side of the homes that will be constructed on the south tier of the proposed lots, which are the homes closest to the heron colony. The south row of homes on the proposed, relatively narrow lots will themselves substantially screen light and glare from outdoor lighting fixtures to the north. Correction: In view of the above, this condition should be revised to read as follows: Outdoor lighting should be minimized by the use ofand shielded light fixtures shall be used to direct light and glare away from the Black River Riparian Forest. This condition shall be limited to the south side of the homes that will be constructed on the south tier of the rp oposed_ lots. CONDITION OF APPROVAL 9 Error: Condition 12 (which was recommended by the Development Services Division) goes beyond the fence requirement that is specified in the currently -binding Development Agreement between the City and the applicant. Despite the fact that it goes beyond the Development Agreement's fence requirement, the applicant is willing to abide by it. It addresses the concern (an irrational concerning in the applicant's view, especially when the City Park is a park that is open to the general public) over pets and humans traveling south past the proposed detention pond, across the railroad tracks and into the City Park property). However, having the required fence "as close to the new homes as possible" would not improve the function of the keeping pets and humans from traveling to the south but it would substantially and needlessly impair the view to the south of Mount Rainier from the south tier of lots. Correction: In view of the above, this condition should be stricken in its entirety. REQUEST For all of the above reasons, Applicant hereby requests that the City Council (a) reverse the Hearing Examiner's recommendation, (b) enter amended Findings of Fact and Conclusions as set forth above, and (c) approve the Sunset Bluff preliminary plat as presented subject to the HALINEN LAW OFFICES, P.S. APPLICANT SR 900 L.L.C.'S APPEAL OF THE A Professional Service Corporation H EARING EXAMINER'S RECOMMENDATION— -Page 23 Bellevue Place / Seafirst Building 10500 NE 8th, Suite 1900 Bellevue, Washington 98004 (206)443-4684 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 conditions of approval set forth in the Hearing Examiner's recommendation but with the modifications thereto set forth above. HALINEN LAW OFFICES, P.S. APPLICANT SR 900 L.L.C.'S APPEAL OF THE A Professional Service Corporation HEARING EXAMINER'S RECOMMENDATION —Page 24 Bellevue Place / Seafirst Building 10500 NE 8th, Suite 1900 Bellevue, Washington 98004 (206)443-4684 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 DATED this 3rd day of January, 2005. HALINEN LAW OFFICES, P.S. By: Attt D icant SR 900 L.L.C. HALINEN LAW OFFICES, P.S. � APPLICANT SR 900 L.L.C.'S APPEAL OF THE A Professional Service Corporation HEARING EXAMINER'S RECOMMENDATION —Page 25 Bellevue PaceNE / S a i first 900 Building Bellevue, Washington 98004 (206)443-4684 December 20, 2004 OFFICE OF THE HEARING EXAMINER CITY OF RENTON Minutes APPLICANT: CONTACT: LOCATION: SUMMARY OF REQUEST: SUMMARY OF ACTION: DEVELOPMENT SERVICES REPORT SR 900 LLC Quarry Industrial Park LLC 9125 10°i Avenue South Seattle, WA 98108 David Halinen l Ialinen Law Offices 10500 NE 8°i Street, Suite 1900 Bellevue, WA 98004 File No.: LUA 04-002, PP, ECF 1100 Block of SW Sunset Boulevard NE Approval for a 65-lot subdivision of a 26.26-acre site intended for detached single-family residences. Development Services Recommendation: Approve subject to conditions The Development Services Report was received by the Examiner on March 16, 2004. PUBLIC HEARING: After reviewing the Development Services Report, examining available information on file with the application, field checking the property and surrounding area; the Examiner conducted a public hearing on the subject as follows: MINUTES The following minutes are a summary of the April 27, 2004 hearing. The legal record is recorded on CD. The hearing opened on Tuesday, April 27, 2004, at 9:01 a.m. in the Council Chambers on the seventh floor of the Renton City Hall. Parties wishing to testify were affirmed by the Examiner. This morning's item is actually a continuation of last Tuesday's hearing, although we are going to deal with the preliminary plat, which is a land use matter, Thursday morning at 9:00 a.m., the SEPA Appeal hearing will continue. It was determined that due to the nature of the SEPA Appeal and the Preliminary Plat hearings the Exhibit list should be continued, rather than start a new list. The following exhibits were entered into the record: Exhibit No. 25: Letter from James Rasmussen of the I Exhibit No. 26: Overall Map for Sunset Bluff Project Duwamhowin emergency ish Tribe sroad access Sunset Bluff Prelinrinary Plat File No.: I.t!A-04-002. PP, F.CF December 20, 2004 Page 2 Exhibit No. 27: New legal description for Sunset Exhibit No. 28: Illustration of where the boundary Bluff project line adjustment occurred. Exhibit No. 24 Shect 3 of I I for Road Grading Plan I Exhibit No. 30: Roadway Cross Sections Exhibit No. 31: Shows Cross sections (Ex. 30) on the 6Nbit No. 32: Stream with cross section showing Plat Plan rockeries that will be used in the project -_ Exhibit No. 33: Wetland Hydrology Analysis, dated E xhibit No. 34: Washington DOT letter dated March April 19, 2004 3, 2004 hibit No. 35: Resume of Theresa Dusek Exhibit No. 36: Letter from Larry Fisher, Department of Fish and Wildlife Exhibit No. 37 Aerial photo of the site with location Exhibit No. 38: Aerial photo showing distances from of lots. Heron nests to lot lines. Exhibit No. 39: A Great Blue Heron Assessment Report by -DrKen Radkhe. 2004 ]✓xhibit No. 40: Analysis of Great Blue Herons in King County by Amy _Stabins 2001 Exhibit No. 41: Exhibit 18 with new markings Exhibit No. 42: Letter by Theresa Dusek dated April 19, showing inlet/outlet to wetlands 2004 with summary of the off -site %vetland systeri and depression south of the site. Exhibit No. 43: November 27, 2002 }Tearing I Exhibit No. 44: Newspaper article (Becky Stanley) Examiner Decision. City of Seattle Exhibit No. 45: Drawing showing the existing cyclone fence Exhibit No. 47: Suzanne Krotn testimony packet Exhibit No. 46: Drawing showing where the new fencinp- should be located (Suzanne Krom) Exhibit No. 48: Susan Andrich testimony dated 4/20/2004 Exhibit No. 49: Photo by Ms. Dusek of the trails Exhibit No. 50: Photo of dirt road located on Sunset Bluff vrovertv by Ms. Dusek Exhibit No. 51: Photo showing the westerly most point of the nroiect site by Ms. Dusek The hearing opened with a presentation of the staff report by Jason Jordan, Senior Planner, Development Services, City of Renton, 1055 S Grady Way, Renton, Washington 98055. The subject site is located south of SW Sunset Boulevard, north of the Black River Riparian Forest in the northwestern portion of the Renton City limits. The 26.26-acre site would be subdivided into 65 lots intended for detached single-family homes. The lots range in size from approximately 4,000 up to 5,000 square feet. The majority of the property is located within the R-10 zoning designation, and the southwest corner of the site is zoned RC (Resource Conservation). The applicant has proposed three open space and/or utility tracts throughout the site that total over 16 acres_ Tract A is proposed to be a 3.8-acre open space tract located north of the proposed lots and south of SW Sunset Boulevard. Tract B is proposed to be a 7.32-acre water quality detention facility, that Tract is located south of Sunset Bluff Preliminary Plat mile No.: LUA-04-002, PP, ECF December 20, 2004 Page 3 the proposed lots and north of the southern property boundary. Tract C is approximately 5.2 acres located in the southeastern corner of the site and contains regulated slopes and a wetland. The applicant has proposed to leave Tract C in a native growth protection easement. Access to the development is proposed via a new internal 42-foot wide public right-of-way, referred to as Road A, it intersects with SW Sunset Boulevard in the northeastern corner of the site, and would be dedicated to the City. It would terminate in a proposed cul-de-sac located off site on the adjacent quarry property and then continue with a 20-foot emergency access road down to Monster Road SW. The subject site contains high erosion and landslide hazards, critical and sensitive slopes and wetlands. The Environmental Review Committee issued a Determination of Non -Significance -Mitigated with 26 measures. Two appeals were issued for the project, one by the applicant with regards to SEPA mitigation measures 24 and 25, another filed by Heron's Forever Nvith regard to the ERC's determination for a DSN-M. The net acreage of the site is approximately 20.58 acres. The proposal for 65 units on the site would arrive at a net density of 3.2 du/acre. This does not meet minimum density requirement, however this can be w'-cived if the applicant can show that the density cannot be achieved due to sensitive slopes_ In this case, the R-10 zoning is set for a minimum density of 7 du/acre. Since there are hardship critical areas that have actual physical constraints on the site, then through this exemption the reviewing body can waive the minimum density requirements. The RC zoning has not been factored in due to Lot 39 being completely outside the RC zone. A storm water detention facility will be developed in the RC zone which is allowed. All lots exceed the minimum lot width and depth requirement for the R-10 zone with single-family residences. Proposed Lot 39 is abutting property designated RC on the City's zoning map, therefore, that lot will require a 25-foot setback. Each lot satisfies the minimum lot area and dimension requirements of the R-10 zone and all lots appear to have sufficient building areas for the development of suitable detached single-family homes. The public right-of-way internal to the site is proposed at a reduced right-of-way width of 42 feet, along with curbs, gutter, sidewalks, and street lighting. Street improvements, including paving, curb, gutter, and sidewalks are required along SW Sunset Boulevard, east of the proposed intersection. Due to the presence of steep slopes along this portion of the site, the applicant has requested a modification for a reduced right-of-way width, which was approved by the Development Services Division. The emergency access appears to have some issues, it was put together without permits from King County and now without the City of Renton. The applicant has been working with Code Enforcement staff, they are in the process of evaluating the best way to rebuild the rockery. It was required that the applicant provide a geotechnical study specifically addressing this proposed emergency access. In that study it was noted that there was some erosion of the rocks that were holding back that wall. They are continuing to monitor and review the area, they will pull back the illegal wall and construct a wall that will meet the geotechnical requirements and all the applicable City building permits associated with the wall. The majority of the proposed site development would be limited to the western two-thirds of the site where the single family lots would be cut into the southeast sloping site. Most of the eastern third of the site is proposed to be Tract C, a native growth protection easement with the exception of the roadway that runs north of that area. No development is proposed to go into any critical slope or wetland or high landslide hazard. The access road avoids the critical areas. This is a hillside subdivision. The site is heavily wooded with Maple, Alder, Cottonwood, Fir and Cedar trees ranging in size from 36 to 48-inches in diameter and is also vegetated with blackberry vines and other forested vegetation. Tracts A and B would have everything removed, Tract C would remain in its vegetated state. Sunset Bluff Preliminary Plat File No.: I.UA 04-002. PP. FCF December 20, 2004 Page 4 160,000 cubic yards of earthwork activities have been proposed in order to get the correct grades for the building pads. 'I he Examiner inquired as to the existence of a Wildlife survey addendum. Mr. Halinen stated that they did have that and it would be submitted later today. As part of the proposed development, cuts up to 30 feet and fills of up to 20 feet thick are planned in order to provide level building pads and moderately sloped roadways. The geotechnical report recommends that the applicant be required to maintain a 2540ot building setback frorn the top or the toe of any 50% plus proposed slope. There are no known coal mine hazards in the vicinity of the site. As required by Code, staff directed the applicant to have the geotechnical report reviewed by a secondary geotechnical engineering consulting firm. This was done on February 8, 2004 and their analysis concluded that the initial analysis was sufficient, provided that one additional condition be placed on the project, which requires additional embedment, erosion protection or both be utilized for the lower rocks within the proposed rockeries. In order to minimize the impact to the P-1 Channel and the City of Renton's Black River Riparian Forest and the heron rookery within the public open space south of the proposed development, staff recommends that the applicant be required to construct a solid six-foot high wood fence beginning at the most western property line and ending at the northeastern property line. Traffic, Park and Fire Mitigations fees are proposed. The site is located within the boundaries of the Renton School District. The School District has indicated that they can accommodate the additional students. The drainage report shows that there are several culverts along SW Sunset Blvd that drain into the specific site and some drain directly into Tract C, there are two culverts that go under the railroad tracks that drain into the Black River Riparian Forest wetland area. The stormwater will be routed through a series of pipes and catch basins into a large stormwater detention pond located within proposed Tract B. The project is subject to the 1998 King County Surface Water Design Manual A homeowner's association or maintenance agreement for any shared utilities including the drainage facility should be established with review by the Development Services Division. The applicant is also required to landscape around the water quality detention facility. The proposed plat is within the City of Renton Water and Sewer service areas. The developer will be required to install and extend the City's water main for fire protection and domestic water service. The site is also served by the City of Renton sanitary sewer system, however, the applicant will be required to extend the City's sewer main or construct a sanitary sewer lift station. Staff recommends approval of this preliminary plat subject to six conditions. Iv_ana Halvorsen, Project Planner, Barghausen Consulting Engineers, 18215 72°d Avenue South, Kent, WA 98032 stated that the applicant generally concurs with the staff report that the project meets both the Renton City Code as well as RCW 58.17.110. Sunset Bluff Prefill) inary Plat I"ile No.: L11A-04-002, PP. ECI= December 20. 2004 Page 5 The 65 proposed lots have been centered on the site to make the project the most consistent in tears of access, providing gradual roadways rather than very steep roadways, as well as providing lots that are buffered from the rather busy highway of SR 900. The staff report states that proposed road grades range from 1-15%, the maximum proposed slope at this time is actually 12% grade for the roadway and the emergency access slope is less that 12%. On sheet one of eleven, the legal description should be updated with a new boundary line adjustment, the new recording number is: 2004-03-1 1900015 recorded March 11, 2004. The boundary adjustment removes the vegetative buffer between the site and SW Sunset Blvd. The Examiner inquired if this was no longer a part of the plat, then whose property is it? Mr. Jordan stated it is not part of the plat, it is a Tract that belongs to SR 900 LLC and they are responsible for it. The City did approve this boundary adjustment. Mr. Halinen stated that on Exhibit 27 it has been noted that a native growth easement has been imposed on this Tract subject to a water main easement shown on the drawing. Ms. Halvorsen stated that the Renton School District has worked with them to determine bus stop locations and walking conditions for students. Students on this side of SW Sunset Blvd are all bussed, there are existing bus stops at both Empire Apartments as well as Sun Pointe Townhomes. The school district stated that they would have a new bus stop to serve children of this plat. The Examiner inquired as to what was required of this property as far as improvements along Sunset? Mr. Jordan stated that they are required to do traffic improvements up the intersection of the new roadway from the southeastern corner of the site up to the new roadway where it intersects with SW Sunset Blvd, they will be required to provide improvements along that portion of the subject site. The Examiner inquired as to why not west of there? Mr. Jordan stated the ERC determined that the subject site no longer abuts SW Sunset Blvd due to the lot line adjustment and the other reason what they thought there was a safety concern there that the sidewalk continuing along that portion of SW Sunset Blvd due to traffic patterns in that area. He referred the rest to Traffic and/or Kayren Kittrick. Ms. Halvorsen referred to the native growth protection easement in Tract C, the staff report incorrectly states that all of Tract C will be set aside as a native growth protection easement. There is a delineated hatched area that is the native growth protection area which comprises 4.7 acres and what has been excepted from the native growth protection area is approximately 50 feet south of SW Sunset Blvd that is necessary for grading to accommodate frontage improvements and sight distance issues. The staff report indicates the emergency access to the west of the Quarry Industrial Park site down to Monster Road, the Quarry Industrial Park site is a Merlino Family Limited Liability Company, SR 900 LLC is also a Merlino Family Limited Liability Company, they are separate companies but they work closely together and there is an absolute agreement that the easement will be granted from Quarry Industrial Park LLC to the City of Renton for the purpose of the emergency access route. There was some question as to the length of cul-de-sac and length of the emergency access road, based on the profiles based within plans, the cul-de-sac road is approximately 2,200 feet in length from it's beginning at SW Sunset Bluff Preliminary Plat File No.: L IA-04-002, PP, ECF December 20, 2004 Page 6 Sunset Blvd to the center line of the cul-de-sac. The emergency access road is 2,700 feet from the centerline of the cul-de-sac to its terminus on Monster Road SW. The Examiner inquired about the location of the stormwater detention pond. 'There are water quality reasons to have an open water pond at the bottom of the slope, but also the fact that we are clearing a huge amount of acreage adjacent to a sensitive heron rookery whether we are within a window of 900 feet or 1,000 feet. What is the potential of putting the detention pond under the road, up on the top of the slope leaving the forest in this area and as a planning concept we would be saving trees, we would not be clearing about a third of the property, does it work? Ms. Halvorsen stated that Hal Grubb from their office has taken a little bit of extra time to evaluate other alternatives to the open pond scenario from a land use point of view would the impact be less, perhaps. When you have underground systems on a terrain that is sloped consistently in one direction the ability to get the required amounts of cover on the uphill and downhill side of an underground structure creates proLlems. The project is not adjacent to the heron rookery, there is an intervening property. The Examiner stated that birds are sensitive_ They are birds, they are not people so we can't ask them if a thousand feet makes a difference or 900 feet makes a difference, from a land use prospective, providing more landscape buffer or not cutting down every tree within the pond area at the lower portion of the slope might protect the birds a little more. Ms. Halvorsen stated that she could not answer that, she didn't know what the birds like either. Hal Grubb has evaluated the conditions of the site and this layout provides a terraced type of development. The pond is put at the lower end of the site hecause the drainage goes to the lower end ol'the site. Hal Grubb, Civil Engineer, Barghausen Consulting Engineers, 18215 72nd Avenue S, Kent, WA 98032 stated that he would like to clarify a few items related to the engineering aspects of the project especially the stormwater alternatives, on the thought of looking at some underground alternatives options as opposed to an above ground open storm pond facility. This subject property with the grades that it has on the existing topography of the site, there were a number of concepts of how to lay out the site that could accommodate the goals and codes that are imposed. The location of the roadway as it is depicted provides a connection to SR 900 that gives the best flexibility for the elevation of the roadway internal to the plat in relation to the existing ground. The purpose of the location of the connection and plan view was to provide a connection on the SR 900 that is low in elevation, allows us to have an elevation that is starting lower than if it was uphill further. There was a thought of doing the connection opposite of Oakesdale, the problem is that it is higher in elevation, it's also a whole lot closer to the first row of lots are, the problem is we are further tip in the air. The connection location was the most desirable because of the grades on site, the grades on site being the goal to get the grades to dive down as quick as possible so they are at the existing ground elevation to do a row of lots on each side of the roadway. The intent to have the least grading impact is to provide a proposed roadway profile that closely matches the existing profile as much as possible. Sight distance criteria must be met on proposed roadway profiles, you cannot go up too fast or down too fast without being in conflict with the State's guidelines for sight distance. The horizontal configuration works with the existing grades, the grading that goes along with this roadway is to cut into the bank on the uphill lots with cuts about 30 feet, there was earlier testimony about some 70 foot cuts which is not correct. The fills get up to almost 35 feet in depth. The storm drainage control system that accommodates the project must accommodate erosion control measures on a temporary basis and then permanent detention of water quality measures under a permanent basis. Sunset Bluff Prellminary Plat File No.: LUA-04-002. PP, ECF December 20, 2004 Page 7 When the site is graded, there needs to be temporary erosion control pond facilities that meet the manual's requirements. On a steep site it is fairly difficult to do, what the pond does being down on the low part of the site, it would be roughed in before all the mass grading is done on site, any runoff that occurs in a storm event would flow into this pond facility and provide erosion control measures in accordance with the King County Manual. The option of putting the permanent facility underground, the volumes do not change. The vaults have to be flat to work, a typical vault that can be built under a loading condition or traffic bearing conditions, is usually around 20 feet wide, the problem is there is a road that could handle a vault about 20 feet vide and that barely leaves room for utilities to pass around it, water, sewer, etc. A vault of that width with a fairly deep section, 10-1 1 feet deep, you would need about six vaults that are about 200 feet long that must be flat in profile and width, those six vaults would have to be laid out in this profile to accommodate a minimum one foot of cover over the vault and a maximum of seven foot of cover. That is if the lots are graded flat with the roadway, on the downhill lots where you have a daylight basement, it requires more vaults on the downhill side to accommodate downspouts, drains that are lower than the roadway. Those vaults would need to be in the backyards of the downhill lots which Iimits to a 25-foot setback. To put the stone system in an underground system is very difficult to put in that many vaults. It is possible to do some vaults up above and a smaller pond. Some of the trees might be saved. The grading for the lots takes up quite a bit of area. The toe of the slope of the fill, and the reason for the retaining walls is to take up some of that area. The bigger these facilities are the more efficient they appear to work. Our recommendation is to go with a long skinny pond to limit the grading and better water quality, there is a long way from the inlet pipe to the outlet pipe. Mr. Grubb showed the plat with cross sections for roadways and why the roads need to be where they have been proposed. There are a series of rockeries that are stair -stepped, this was found to be the most stable. Off -site, the emergency access road when it goes beyond the cul-de-sac, the alignment for that is under review at the present time. Mr. Halinen stated that an additional Hydrology Analysis Assessment was done on April 19, 2004. It is being submitted today to support the proposition that appropriate and adequate provisions for drainage have been made as relates to the plat. There were questions raised by the SEPA appellants, Heron's Forever, concerning drainage. Grubb stated that underground vaults are very expensive, the cost of six vaults would be close to $1.2 and 2.5 million for construction costs. The vault system is the best way to go, but the cost is often prohibitive. The ponds as proposed here with these rockery retaining walls added is probably a $150 to $200 thousand facility. The King County Storm Drainage Manual allows a couple methods of water quality treatment, the most common is a wet pond, that means a pond that has at least three feet deep standing water in it at all times, unless it evaporates during the summer, that is not meant to gravity drain out. Kevin L. Jones, P.E.. Sr. Transportation Engineer, The Transpo Group, 11730 118th Ave NE, Suite 600, Kirkland, WA, 98034 stated that he was the person responsible for the traffic survey submitted in this project. Upon further questioning by Mr. Halinen, he responded that it is preferred to align new access roads with existing roadways, however, given the constraints described earlier, it was recommended that the roadway be shifted east. The location identified was appropriate because it meet the Washington State DOT, as well as the City of Renton requirements for sight distance. In looking at intersections that are offset, the preferred situation is similar to this one where the road is offset by approximately 200 feet from the existing road. This offset situation does meet State standards. Sunset Bluff Preliminary Plat File No.: LUA-04-002, PP, ECF December 20, 2004 Page 8 • Draft plans for the proposed channelization at the access point were submitted to WASHDOT for review and comment, there has been no response as of today. The Examiner inquired as to the pedestrian pass through. Mr. Jones replied that the City's intent was to provide not so much a formalized pedestrian crossing with cut out sections accommodating wheel chairs, etc., instead the intent was to provide a raised median so that if a pedestrian was to choose to cross the roadway, there would be some buffer of protected area for them to get across, without the median mid street, the crossing would be very difficult. The speed limit on Sunset adjacent to the site is 35 M.P.I1., it changes to 50 just west of 80"' Ave S. All that was taken into consideration when the recommendation was made for the crossing. A raised median is a measure that provides safe harbor for the pedestrian. Mr. Halinen asked to comment on the fence issue discussed by Mr. Jordan. The issue was left open as to where the fence might be placed, on the southern boundary, or behind the property lines or somewhere in between. At this point it seems that the fence may be located along the south boundary, it may well be a chain link fence along the back edge of the lots. For safety considerations and considerations relating to the pond and storm water, but it seems that a chain link fence along the back of the lots should suffice for keeping kids off the slope and out of the pond. Theresa Dusek, Barghausen Engineering, 18215 72"d Ave S, Kent, WA 98032 stated that she was the biologist who created several of the documents that are being presented today. She started visiting the Sunset Bluff site in the spring of 2000 and is the author of the Wetland Delineation Report dated August 29, 2000. That document indicates that there are two wetlands on the site, one located along the eastern portion of the site along the south boundary, the second is a larger pond area located offsite and approximately three acres in size. The wetland is a Category 1 wetland because of its size, component of open water and the component of scrub shrub material in the wetland system. It must have a 100' buffer along the western edge down to the wetland. There will be 200-250' variable in the northeasterly and north directions. Part of this is for steep slope issues, however this entire area which totals out to approximately 4.5 acres will be set aside as native growth protection easement_ The other wetland area is located along the southern boundary towards the west, it is not regulated by the City, the applicant has opted not to fill this wetland but to leave it in place In addition to the wetland issues, there has been some concern regarding the area near Lot 60, a report indicated that there were moist and wet soils within a foot and a half of the surface. This entire site has been looked at for wetland plant material. For wetland delineation, a smaller hole is dug, about 18-20"deep, the soils are identified to see if they are actually saturated soils, meaning that all core spaces are filled. That condition was not found on this site anyplace other than the Class 1 wetland and the small non -regulated wetland. There is a stream on site that is between Oakesdale Avenue and 80'h, that stream comes down the site, crosses under an existing roadway and then flows down the hillside at a fairly steep angle. It has been identified as a Class 4 stream because it appeared that the stream had no fish bearing capacity and does not discharge to fish bearing waters down stream. In addition she is the author of the Habitat and Wildlife Assessment and Stream Study Report dated January 9, 2004 for this site. This report outlines the condition of the site and identifies the wetlands, the stream corridor and the forested condition on the site. Exhibit 38 was entered which shows distances from the polygon on the map and distance from that polygon edge to the site. The polygon follows the edge of the trees, including the entire tree, not just the nest. As it heads to the north it takes in a tree that has had herons nesting in it in 1989 and 2000 and then comes around and takes in the nest colony on the island. There have been no heron nests in the polygon area this last year or the Sunset Bluff Preliminary Plat File No.: LUA-04-002. PP. FCF December 20, 2004 Page 9 previous spring, however, there is a tree next to the pump station that has been known to have herons nesting in it, it's unknown if there are herons nesting in it currently. Most of the nests are located on the south end of the trees, there are a few that are on the north end, that entire area is included in the polygon. Distances on this indicate approximately 1,000 feet to the property line, the distance to the nearest lot line is approximately 980 feet to the south property line. Mr. Halinen submitted for the record Exhibit 39, A Great Blue Heron Assessment Report by Dr. Ken Radkhe. Mrs. Dusek indicated that her report for the Wildlife Habitat Assessment and the Stream Study Report discusses the herons, identifies where they are located, their distance from the site and evaluates some general impacts based on what's been known about surrounding properties and this particular heron rookery. Mr. R.adkhe's report is a more updated report that has information regarding this rookery that has been studied up to 2002. in her January 9 Wildlife Habitat Report she reviews the issues such as distance to the heron colony and distances that past projects have been to the heron colony when being constructed. It also discusses information regarding the buffering of the trees, potential noise impacts, the neighborhood domestic impacts that people have been concerned about and the use by these 65 homes of their residence of the open space park, which is a public park for use by City of Renton residents. Deterrents for people coming onto the site is the fence area at the back side of the lots or the storm water pond or the south side of the property, the other is the railroad grade, the next is a fence that is located south of the railroad grade, it does have two opening to allow railroad personnel to be able to access and to allow many of the local residents also access in there and go to the Class I wetland which many of them do to review and look at the herons in a closer situation while they are feeding. From the railroad grade which is about 100 feet wide there is another area that has been cleared and filled back in 1987. it's a distance of 200- i00 feet wide from that area that was cleared in 1987 that is now vegetated NNith smaller trees, shrubs, also restoration area that's been planted along those fills, then the fill slope drops down approximately 5-8 feet and is filled with concrete, asphalt and other kinds of debris, then it drops down into a depressional overflow type wetland. The wetland system has two areas that it overflows. The depression area is filled with Pacific Willow, as you move out of the wetland and into the protected forest area and into the P-I forebay, a detention facility constructed in approximately 1984, to protect from back flooding from the Green River and also to work and function as a storm water detention facility for all of the developments out here in the Black River and River Tech corporate park areas. The depression area is likely a part of the old Black River channel that was abandoned years ago and is a remnant of that. On the north side of the pump station there is a trail, gravel roadway, that comes around following the south side of the railroad grade, continues all the way around until the dead end cul-de-sac of Naches. This is a signed public trail originally constructed as a roadway access for the P-1 pump station and is currently used as part of the open space and as a trail. There are designations for no vehicles, no camping, no fires, but no designations for not walking or pets. Last spring and fall it was identified that there are numerous residents of City of Renton that utilize that trail system. Several of the individuals indicated that they do walk their pets, they are leashed due to the coyotes that are in that area. To the west of the Springbrook Creek there is a Black River Trail that is part of the interurban trail system that goes from the Pacific Algona area all the way up through and into the Renton/Tukwila area. Bicyclers occasionally use it since that trail where it is paved has a bicycle path, it is mostly used by pedestrians. This trail is approximately 200 feet to the nearest nesting trees for the herons. It is well separated by the P-1 forebay and islands in the P-1 forebay. Sunset Bluff Preliminary Flat File No.: Lt1A-04-002. PP. F:(T' December 20. 2004 Page 10 The visible ability to see from the development site to the heron nests during the spring, the largest nest trees are again on the island and during the spring months before the leaves leaf out, one, maybe two nests are visible from Sunset Boulevard (SR 900). Along the railroad grade one nest is visible prior to leaf out, after leaf out the only place that you can see nests from this side of the site is if you are standing up on SR 900, vdu;:h is approximately 80 feet higher than where this development is going to occur. The Examiner inquired if you removed all trees from the subject site, "Tract A, 65 lots and then 'Tract B the wetland area, you won't have any trees that leaf out in the spring and summer. Mrs. Dusek stated you still have all the trees that leaf out within the open space. From the railroad grade it is about 30 feet in elevation to where the roadway would be constructed, the existing elevation is about 100 feet. There is about a 70-foot difference. When you are on top of Sunset Blvd you are not looking through those trees on site, there is a gap in Sunset Blvd in the trees that you can see over the top of the site, not through the trees on the site and into the heron rookery. Tract A, which is planned open spaces that will be disturbed and re - vegetated. Hydro -seeding means not just low growing grasses but includes broad forbs, wildflowers, shrub seed which can be plant material up to 20-feet tall. in conclusion there is about 16.33 acres of the site that will be impacted and re -vegetated or left in its natural state. The development portion of the site with the lots and roadways is the remainder of the site. Lunch Break taken at 12:15 At 2:30 p.m. the Hearing Fxaminer called the hearing back to order, asking for testimony from the general public regardin' this proposed plat. Donna Kostka, 2420 30°i Avenue West, Seattle, WA 98199 stated that she has a PhD in Outdoor Recreation Planning and Ecology. She is a Certified Ecologist, retired and most important to this hearing she has direct experience with the Great Blue Heron colony in Kiwanis Ravine. This colony is about the fourth largest in King County and the largest colony in the City of Seattle. It is very important to consider the views of the birds. People today have used language such as "no visual impacts". Cottonwood trees grow 75-100 feet tall. When the birds look out, their eye view is going to be of what is happening on the slope. In the City of Seattle, the written opinion of the Hearing Examiner was dated November 27, 2002. The situation involved the heron colony in Kiwanis Ravine, a four-story condominium building was proposed an estimated 1,000 feet from the colony and would contain a rooftop garden. It was stated that the garden would be potentially disturbing to the colony. It was determined that the rooftop garden be forgiven and the money it would have cost was instead given to a neighborhood goodwill project. The Development Services Department suggested it be put into some street islands, the heron group appealed and suggested instead that the money be put into Kiwanis Ravine which needed some restoration work. The Hearing Examiner made a decision that stated that there would be the elimination of the rooftop garden and that the $30,000 would go toward restoration in Kiwanis Ravine. SEPA conditions further stated that there would be tree removal, construction of fences and external construction between February 1 and July 31. Matt Mega, Seattle Audubon Society, 8050 35`h Avenue NE, Seattle, WA 98115 stated that he is a professionally licensed Land Use Planner and trained as a landscape architect. He was here to insure the proposed Sunset Bluff development does not adversely impact the heron colony and the entire Black River Riparian Forest, but also to raise awareness to some of the bigger picture issues. In the last 10 years Renton has grown by 20%, with just over 50,000 people. While it is important for the City to grow, it is important to remember why people choose Renton as a place to live. The Black River Riparian Forest is a critical element in attracting new residents to the City and insuring a high quality of life. As a citizen of King County, as an SunSet fluffPrellminarN Plat File No.: LUA-04 002_ PP, I•:CF December 20, 200-1 Page I I employee of an organization that to preserve quality of a habitat and rnost importantly as a professional land use planner, it baffles me to see this development proposal go forward as is. The best evidence as to why this proposal should not go forward comes from the City of Renton itself, on page 3 of the Staff Report it states, "the site is heavily wooded, trees ranging in size from 36"-40" in diameter with other forest vegetation would be removed during site activities. Earthwork activities are estimated at 160,000 cubic yards, the extensive grading activities proposed on site will result in roadway grading ranging from 1 % to 15% (corrected to 12% this morning)" These issues are critical pieces as to why this should not go forward. The only way to reduce the environmental impact of this site is to do a better jab working with the site. We should be asking ourselves, since the site is adjacent to a protected forest with a regionally unique heron colony, how do we develop the site to reduce the risk of impact and insure this local treasure is not lost. The City should take the responsibility and send the developer back to the drawing board and demonstrate a less disturbing plan. This is highly unlikely, so he has prepared a few detailed suggestions. The lower one-third of the site should be kept undisturbed. Existing vegetation throughout the site should be preserved. Stormwater should be managed to the extent feasible to mimic existing conditions. To accomplish these goals the site would need to have the homes clustered at the upper portion of the site, this may mean fewer units, however, a buffer will be preserved between the development and the heron colony which will be a proactive measure to avoid negative impacts. In the Mayor's State of the City Address on February 2004, she stated that growth is l000d for the City, but "we have reached a point when we don't have to settle for whatever we get, we will foster development that will compliment what is special and unique to the City of Renton". There is nothing more unique than the largest heron colony in the region, but the adjacent development that increases the risk to this colony is certainly settling for something less than desirable. He would also like to see performance bonds put up by the builder to insure all the geotech issues that have been brought up today, to insure that hydro -seeding will include shrubs and forbs that were mentioned earlier, and lastly, to insure that the $8 million of public investment for the heron colony, that if in fact, this development does adversely affect the colony, the City, County and the State could recover some of those dollars. Michael Hamilton, 20418 NE 21" Street, Sammamish, WA 98074 stated that lie recently went to the Black River Riparian forest to first, check on the usage of the trail along the north side of the forest and have rarely seen any person there except for evidence of homeless people. He has seen tents on both the developer's property and the ground of the Black River Riparian Forest. There was a statement earlier regarding two heron nests in the clumps of trees nearest to the pump station. Over the last three years there have been no herons nesting in those trees. Today upon examining those trees, there are no heron nests and heron nests do not disappear quickly, so if they were there prior to three years, it was some time. He expressed concern of encroachment by humans into the Riparian Forest, there is easy access right now. Today he walked to the lowest part of the depression, and got within 100 feet of the P-1 pond in the middle of the forest. The surrounding ground is dry, anyone could make it all the way to the pond and then proceed east or west into the heron area. Becky Stan(U, 4108 48"' Avenue South, Seattle, stated that she is the conservation chair of the South King County Group of the Sierra Club and that she has a B.S. in Botany from the University of Washington. She is including remarks from Mark Kraft, Kelly Turner, Erin Reilly, Lisa Decker, Judy Brey, Annie Gulik, and Kathy Stanley. The applicant was approached several times with offers to purchase this property for preservation, these offers were ignored. There was a similar situation on Camano Island where a property owner was going to sell his property and then discovered a large heron colony living on the property. He allowed conservation groups to have the time to gather money to purchase the property. Upon hearing about the potential use of this property, the group did research on the applicant, it was alarming and as such they feel that special conditions need to be met by this applicant who has a demonstrated record of soil and water contamination and also of non-compliance in environmental areas. One example was in the late Sunset Bluff Preliminary Plat File No.: LUA-04-002. PP, FCF December 20, 2004 Page 12 `80*s at 1950 Maple Valley i lighway, Stoneway Concrete Inc. It was discovered that thousands of gallons of contaminated water had been discharged from the concrete plant directly into the Cedar River, this practice occurred for a two year period during which Stoneway was repeatedly ordered by King County regulatory authorities to stop. In 1995 a case US vs. Gary Merlino Construction Inc., and the applicant was fined $70,000 for two clean water act violations. The Examiner asked that the testimony be focused on this site and not what the applicant may or may not have done on other sites in the past. Becky Stanley stated that there was one small connection that later the applicant was found to be polluting the aquifer at that same position. There is a note in Renton's records, a communication between the applicant and the City Attorney that discusses the Sunset Bluff annexation and rezone as a part of the deal to get the applicant to move off of the aquifer. This part of the deal was scratched, at least from Renton's records. but Sunset Bluff was subsequently annexed and rezoned as requested by the applicant. Closer to the Riparian Forest is a concrete recycling plant and about five years ago there was a large runoff from a pipe that runs from the concrete recycling plant down towards the pump station. There was an event that appears to have caused the death of several trees at the end of that pipe. in light of the other issues relating to the applicant it makes us concerned about what might have been coming out of that pipe. The location of the stormwater pipes is very important. There are conditions that they would like to recommend to the plat, the potential owners should be informed about the odors that come from the Renton Sewage Treatment Plant, the applicant should not be allowed to used chemical drying agents or stabilizing agents not limited to, but including ammonia phosphate flyash, lime kiln dust, cement or lime, all these are of a higher ph and these chemicals can alter soil and water quality which can result in harmin',, the natural plant and wildlife in the area. All soils imported to the site should adhere to a clean fill sampling. The plat should be conditioned with strong anti -fireworks rules and enforcement. All yards should have 12" of topsoil added and tilled in before seeding, this helps to reduce runoff. Remove invasive species from the property and replace with native vegetation. Patricia Sumption, Friends of the Green River and Heron's Forever, 10510 11°i Avenue NE, Seattle, WA 98125 stated that it is not a good idea to be doing this development this close to the heron colony. That would be the preferred alternative, to just not have the development occur at this place. There are already some developments at the north side and along Sunset Way, those existing development are impacting the heron colony. The herons are moving their nests away from those existing developments, if another development goes in, basically in the same area, you will be adding to the impact that the herons seem to be avoiding, they don't like being as close or any closer than they are now to development. There is concern about taking out native soils, making cuts in the hillside, to have the least impact on the herons the slope should be maintained as natural as possible in terms of hydrology and in the profile of the slope. It appears that the intent of the applicant is to remove almost every tree that is on the site, they don't want trees on the north side of the property because one might fall on a house, and they don't want trees on the south side, of any size. It is necessary to consider what is best for the herons, it's what the herons see, the heron colony could be at eyelevel with the people living on the hillside. This could affect all wildlife, not just the herons. The impact of noise is going to increase and should be kept below the maximum level that can be tolerated by the herons. We heard today that there is a stream coming into the western part of the site that stream runs into the pond and if that is true, then there is an outlet to the pond, either the stream continues on somewhere, or it seeps into the ground and becomes part of the ground water which connects ultimately to the Green /Duwamish River. So whether or not that stream has fish in it, it is part of a system that has fish in it including threatened Chinook Salmon and the water quality that is impacted by that stream or by any other stream or ground water coming down off this site is looing to have an effect on streams and rivers with fish. Sunset Bluff Preliminary Plat File No.: LUA-04-002, PP, FCF December 20, 2004 Page 1 It should be required that the hydro -seeding in the upper north corner should be done with native plants rather than lawn seed. The water detention pond could contribute to the insect population, and people living in these new homes could begin intensive spraying for these insects which then leads to more pollution and other issues in regards to the herons and other wildlife in the area. We need to respect the fact that citizens from all over King County love the herons and want to go and watch them, the money for this was not just the City of Renton, it was from people all over King County, people want to make sure they are preserved when you get a good look at them. Brenda Buchanan, 10840 14"' Avenue South, Seattle, WA stated that the proposed project makes drastic changes to the topography and water runoff of the area and these changes would adversely affect the unique heron colony and other wildlife adjacent to the property. The developer is not very good at keeping to the laws, in today's case, they are not in good faith even planning on keeping to those laws. They don't want to build a sidewalk for public safety, it's difficult to build a daylight basement, when they say difficult, it means that it costs more money, even though it might be better for the community. There should be an impartial third party retained to oversee the environmental mitigation to protect that $8 million investment in the area. The City of Renton does so much business with Mr. Merlino, it does not seem that they could be impartial in this case. In clearing the areas for the construction of the homes, the wildlife living in that area currently, if they survive the clearing, etc, will have to move somewhere, will most likely move downhill and into the Riparian Forest and that will put further pressure on the herons and their habitat. Suzanne Krom, Heron's Forever, 4715-1/2 - 36"' Avenue SW, Seattle, WA 98126 stated that she represents Heron's Forever, founded 1989 to protect the resident coastal Great Blue Heron colony in the Black River Riparian Forest. Black River is home to the largest Great Blue Heron colony in King, Snohomish and Pierce Counties. Because of this colony, Black River has become one of the most valuable pieces of property in Renton, with 135 active nests it contains almost 6% of the State's total population of the sub -species. The 65- home development proposed for this hillside is too large, because of the steep unstable slopes and its close proximity to the heron colony. The hillside is critically important to the health of Black River. Herons at this Black River colony are the only ones that have been observed defending their young from eagles and hawks. Herons at other colonies typically flee instead of taking a strong defensive response. An accurate habitat assessment should be required to fully evaluate the potential for significant adverse impacts to the Black River and its critical areas. A letter dated April 8, 2004 was sent to City of Renton from King County Council members in which they requested a thorough environmental review of the development, they urge Renton to carefully consider the impacts this development could have on the large Great Blue Heron colony populating the Black River. They remind Renton that this site was funded in large part by King County tax dollars and have a vested interest in seeing that the property is adequately protected. The Great Blue Heron depend on this hillside, they were seen this past Sunday flying from the protected forest to the hillside. They use the large wetland at the southeastern edge of the proposed Sunset Bluff development for feeding and resting. New fledglings use the wetland as a training ground for learning how to hunt for food. This hearing represents the culmination of 15 years of work with this site. Land use is not her expertise, nor it marketing, grant writing, publicity or heading up a board or a community organization. She is here because this site is about life and the importance it holds for the community. It needs to be treated well so it will flourish forever and so that our taxpayer money that was used to buy it was money well spent. Suzanne Krom spoke to some of the comments she had heard during the hearings, including the number of people that are visitina the site, she has seen only one other person in all the trips she has made to the site; screening referred to by biologist is marginal in winter and early spring when the herons are the most skittish; Sunset Bluf1' Preliminary Plat File No.: LUA-04-002, PP, ECF December 20. 2004 Page 14 hillside is used to collect twigs and foraging for the herons, they do not like to travel far for these things; and, in Exhibit 38. the western most nest is under the "N" not the "R" as previously stated. The Black River Riparian Forest is the best of what is left, if this colony is compromised the numbers will go down because there is no habitat to support a colony of this size. if and when that hillside is cleared, there should be great caution in terms of when the cicaring takes place. You don't want to clear during nesting season or other sensitive times. Fencing should be placed close to the homes to protect the forest area. Would like to appeal to City Council to ask that the public access to the north entrance be closed off to protect the heron colony. The following is a list of recommendations: clustering units in the northern corner of the site, impose a seasonal construction Nvindow between January 15 and July 31, insure that pre -development water quantities and quality leaving the hillside do not change, surface water runoff to the Black River Riparian Forest should remain at predevelopment levels, hydroperiod data collector should be done for one water year (October to October), retain existinty vegetation and plant conifers, 6' high fence on three sides of the site leaving the side along Sunset Blvd open, wood fence is preferred because it is difficult to climb, a homeowner's association should Inspect the fence twice a year and repairs made, the emergency road should be gated, performance bond for 5 years, developer installed landscaping should include native plants, no mosquito abatement should be allowed near any of the wetlands or the Black River property, establish a buffer of 150' around the wetland near the eastern edge of the proposal, minimize outdoor lighting and shield light fixtures to direct light and glare away from the Black River Riparian Forest, woody debris should be retained on site for the use by the herons when constructing their nests. The Examiner inquired if a tree survey had been done and Mr. Jordan stated that the tree survey was waived for the preliminary plat. the applicant met with the principal planner and they decided that since the site was so heavily forested the time and cost involved would be prohibitive, they did a general canopy cover area using aerial photos and from that they highlighted the areas that would not be cleared. A tree survey is required by code, but it also allows it to be waived under certain conditions. Theresa Dusek stated that there were a few brief issues she wished to provide rebuttal on; on Exhibit 38 Ms. Krom mentioned the location of the west end of that Exhibit. On the original exhibit, that end of the system was not closed, for purposes of discussion there was a hand written approximation of where that was, if the furthest nests are under the "H" or the "N" is insignificant at this time. They were looking at the actual trees, not just the nest sites. The other issue was the western most tree near the P-1 pump station that there has never been any nesting in that location, in the Jones and Stokes report done in 1991 for status of the herons provided to the City of Renton, that was to look at why the herons were abandoning these area was because of the eagles. There were several locations on that particular island where they were trying to nest and that is circled on Exhibit 38. Entered Exhibits 49, 50 and 51 to give some perspective on things being discussed. On 49 what looks like a road is actual ly a trail along the north side of the heron colony in the open space. The bottom photo on the page is the fill slope face before you enter into the depressional wetland area about 10 feet west of the eastern most culvert that crosses under the railroad tracks. Exhibit 50 shows the dirt road that is located on the Sunset Bluff property and it is a view to the west. The second photo gives a perspective of the trees located on the site. Exhibit 51 shows the very western most point of the project near the lots that are closest to the heron colony, near where the cul-de-sac goes off site. Several of the trees have actually been chocked to death by the ivy growing in the area. Suzanne Krom stated that she had gone back to the north side of Tract C, where the railroad tracks are located, between the tracks and the heron colony and she almost never sees anyone in that area, the one time she did see someone this year, they were running their dog off leash. Sunset Bluff Preliminary Plat File No.: LUA-04-002. PP, ECF December 20. 2004 Page 15 Kaaren Kittrick, Development Services Division stated that in response to prior questions, standing water in the pond of 3-4 feet, a fence is required. A question was presented in regard to the emergency access road and the 5,000 foot cul-de-sac off site, in response, this happens occasionally when you have properties that are owned by the same entities in some form they can grant themselves or more importantly especially with the cul-de-sac, they will be dedicating that to the City, it is going to become part of the street and road system. This road will have to be securely gated. In addition the emergency access is required by the Fire Department. Sower system will be their determination with the City's approval. As to the sidewalk and crossing, the line was adjusted due to the fact that trying to build a sidewalk would have removed all the trees on that side, and it was preferred that the trees remain. There is no sidewalk further to the west, there will be sidewalks built towards the City of Renton, the east, it appears that there is a bus stop in that vicinity. Jason Jordan. stated that he had no changes at this point. The Examiner called for further testimony regarding this project. "There was no one else wishing to speak, and no further comments fi-om staff. The hearing closed at 4:25 p.m. FINDINGS, CONCLUSIONS & RECOMMENDATION Having reviewed the record in this matter, the Examiner now makes and enters the following: FINDINGS: The applicant, SR900 LLC, filed a request for a Preliminary Plat that would create 65 single family lots on an approximately 26.26 acre parcel. 2. The two appeals were filed objecting to the Determination of Non -Significance. Both appeals have been resolved at this time with the City Council upholding the Determination of the ERC. 3. The subject site is located at SW 1 100 Sunset Boulevard. The subject site is located on the south side of Sunset. The majority of the site is west of Powell Avenue SW if it were extended south. 4. While it would appear that the subject site has a long frontage along Sunset Boulevard, the City approved a lot line adjustment that separated the majority of the subject site from its frontage along Sunset. This action will preserve the trees and shrubs in this area but no frontage improvements will be done to this section of Sunset Boulevard. 5. The subject site is approximately 26.26 acres in size. The subject site is curved or crescent shaped and is approximately 2,400 feet long (east to west) by approximately 600 feet deep although it tapers to a very narrow point at its eastern end. The lot line adjustment noted above severed a large portion of the site's frontage along Sunset Boulevard creating a very long and very narrow separate lot. 6. The subject site is located in two zoning districts. The majority of the site (25.18 acres), predominantly the northern and western portions of the site, is zoned R-10 (Residential; 10 dwelling units per acre). The southeastern corner of the site (1.08 acres) is zoned RC (Resource Conservation). The rezone of the site was accompanied by a development agreement. That agreement requires amongst other things, the construction of a 6-foot fence along the south side of the development for the length of the development. It also provides that the development contain not more than 69 detached single-family housing units. Sunset Bluff Preliminary Plat File No.: LUA-04-002, PP. ECf December 20, 2004 Page 16 The map element of the Comprehensive Plan designates the area in which the subject site is located as suitable for the development of residential options and rural residential uses, but does not mandate such development without consideration of other policies of the Plan. The subject site was annexed to the City with the adoption of Ordinance 4891 enacted in February 2001. 10. The subject site has a heavy tree cover. The staff report stated: "The site is heavily treed and is considered to be a second -generation forest (approximately 50 years in age)." (Page 3, Staff Report) "The site is heavily wooded with Maple, Alder, Cottonwood, Fir, and Cedar trees ranging in size from 36-inches to 48-inches in diameter and is also vegetated with blackberry vines and other forested vegetation - most of which would be removed during site preparation activities." (Page 10, Staff Report) IL . The site can be described as a 200 foot high, south-southeast facing slope that descends from Sunset Boulevard to the railroad right-of-way. 12. Staff described the site's slopes as: "The site is characterized by having sensitive and protected slopes ranging from 10 to 50% plus in degree." (Page 3, Staff Report) 13. There was some question about the extent or height of some of the cuts and (ills. The staff report contained the following statement: "The grading activity will modify the site slopes, increasing the existing slope gradient from 15% - 20% to slopes in the range of 40% - 50% on the south and north sides of the proposed building lots. As a result of the proposed cuts and fills associated with the building pads and road development, the geotechnical report recommends that the applicant be required to maintain a 25-foot building setback from the top or toe of any 50% plus proposed slope." (Page 11, Staff Report) The engineer testified that cuts and fills should be not much more than 30 to 35 feet. 14. Vast grading activity will reshape the entire parcel and remove all vegetation on approximately 20 acres. Staff noted that almost all the vegetation would be removed from the subject site: "As a result of the preliminary plat, the applicant has proposed to remove the majority of the on -site vegetation and perform approximately 160,000 cubic yards of earthwork activity." (Page 3, Staff Report) 15. The proposed lots range in size from approximately 4,000 up to 5,000 square feet. 16. The applicant has proposed three open space and/or utility tracts throughout the site that will total over 16 acres. Tract A is proposed to be a 3.8-acre open space tract located north of the proposed lots and south of SW Sunset Boulevard. Tract B is proposed to be a 7.32-acre water quality detention facility. That Tract is located south of the proposed lots and north of the southern property boundary. Tract C is approximately 5.2 acres located in the southeastern corner of the site and contains regulated slopes and a Sunset Bluff Preliminary Plat File No.: LUA-04-002, PP, ECF December 20. 2004 Page 17 wetland. The applicant has proposed to leave much of Tract C in a native growth protection easement but a portion of it would be graded to accommodate frontage improvements access and sight distance concerns. Tracts A and B would have all vegetation removed. 17. Access to the site would be via a new street intersecting Sunset Boulevard from the south. The new street would be located between Powell Avenue SW and Oakesdale Avenue SW. Both Powell and Oakesdale intersect Sunset Boulevard from the north. The new street would be a 42-foot wide public right-of-way. it would intersect with SW Sunset Boulevard in the northeastern corner of the site. The road would be a dedicated public street. it would terminate in a proposed cul-de-sac located off site on the adjacent quarry property and then continue with a 20-foot emergency access road down to Monster Road SW. Staff indicated that the cul-de-sac would have to be dedicated also. While the parties preferred to alien the new roadway with one of the roads north of Sunset, sight distance constraints as \�,ell as topographical constraints generally favored the proposed location. The offset is approximately 200 feet from the existing intersection. This offset situation does meet State standards. 18. Approximately 5.68 acres of the site are deducted for roads, high landslide hazards area, sensitive slopes and wetlands (page 7, Staff Report) arriving at a net acreage of 20.58 acres. The proposal for 65 units on the site would arrive at a net density of 3.2 du/acre. This would not meet the minimum density requirement in the R-10 Zone. But those minimum requirements may be varied if the applicant can show that the density cannot be achieved due to sensitive slopes. The site is affected by steep slopes and wetlands. 19. There will be two tiers of lots aligned along the north and south side of the access road. Staff noted that all of the lots exceed the minimum lot width and depth requirement for the R-10 zone with single-family residences. Since Proposed 1-6t 39 abuts property designated RC on the City's zoning map that lot requires a 25-foot setback. 20. The proposed emergency access road was constructed without permits from King County. it is under review. A geotechnical study specifically addressed this proposed emergency access. Staff noted that it would have to meet geotechnical requirements and all the applicable City building permit requirements. 21. This proposal is a hillside subdivision that suggests that larger lots may be necessary to work around the steeper terrain. The geotechnical report recommends that the applicant be required to maintain a 25-foot building setback from the top or the toe of any 50% plus proposed slope. There were other geotechnical conditions imposed by the ERC that will have to be complied with by the applicant. 22. The site is located within the boundaries of the Renton School District. The development would generate approximately 25 students. The School District has indicated that they can accommodate the additional students. 23. There are culverts along SW Sunset Blvd that channel water under the roadway and onto the subject site. Culverts at the bottom of the subject site's slope drain under the railroad tracks that drain into the Black River Riparian Forest wetland area. The applicant proposes that all stormwater be routed through a series of pipes and catch basins into a detention pond located in Tract B. The 1998 King County Surface Water Design Manual will govern this project. 24_ The Category I wetland of approximately 4.5 acres will be retained. While it requires a 100 foot buffer, more will be preserved due to the slopes adjacent to it. It will be set aside as native growth protection easement. Another wetland area is located near the southwest and while not regulated by the City it will be retained. Sunset bluff PreliininaiN Plat File No.: l.t 1A-0.4-002 . PP, ECF December 20, 2004 Page 18 25. A stream flows through the site in the vicinity of Oakesdale Avenue. It does not appear to support any fish and is classified as a Class 4 stream. 'The corridor will be preserved although the access road will cross it. 26. 'fhe applicants witness indicated that Tract A. the open space above the plat lots, could be planted with more than just grass and suggested (orbs, wild flowers, and shrubs that could grow to 20-feet tall. 27. The site's storm drainage will be managed under King County manual regulations. It was noted that the King COMM manual, in this regard, treats water as an inert substance to be handled, conveyed and detained but does not deal as effectively w-ith its biological component. Releasing the water in a naturally controlled subsurface manner is different than channeling it over or around compacted soils. The natural ebb and flow of storm water across the subject site and to the riparian forest will be altered and its release rates and quantity will not match the natural conditions. 28. Property north of the subject site across Sunset is located in the City (zoned R-8 (Residential; 8 dwelling units per acre) and in King County, (zoned R-6, Residential). That property is a mix of developed and undeveloped property. Property east of the site is zoned RIM-1 (Multiple Family) and is developed with multiple family uses. The zoning west is a mix with another City RM-1 district with multiple family units and industrially zoned property in King County. A closed quarry is west of the site. The quarry site would provide a route for an emergency access road for the proposed development. 29. The subject site is located within approximately 1,000 to 1,500 feet from the heron colony located in the Black River Riparian Forest, which is a City park. "The distance calculations have varied since the colony is a rnultisidcd polygon, the main nest tree appears to be abandoned placing the colon_, slightly outside of what had been its location for a number of years. The colony is a main focus of many residents of the City of Renton as well as nearby residents of King and surrounding counties. People are very concerned that the development of the subject site will jeopardize the colony and scare away the birds. The colony is located south of the bottom of the sloping subject site. Water draining from the subject site recharges the riparian wetland that forms the northern border of the colony area. The heron apparently forage on the subject site's hillside forest and collect twigs and woody debris for nest building. The heron are shy birds and do react to intrusions that come too close to their nest areas. it was noted that this colony appears to react more to disturbances from the north where there is currently more forest cover and generally less anticipated intrusions and seem less disturbed by southerly -based disturbances. 30. This colony represents approximately six percent (6%) of the heron of King County and therefore, it represents a significant colony in terms of size and overall population of heron in the area. 31. The subject site itself is not the primary nesting site for the heron but it appears to be used for foraging and collecting twigs for nest building. Whatever use the heron make of the forested site will be severely altered with the removal of 20 acres of forest vegetation. The removal of the forest and the grading and construction activities on the site will also affect the heron. Reports indicate that the birds were flushed and severely disturbed by logging just south of the railroad tracks at the western edge of the riparian forest area. Anecdotal evidence appears to show that the development of the office park complex at the north end of Naches also caused a reaction in the heron and may be responsible for the colony's move north and west and to their abandoning what has been termed the main nesting tree or colony. Besides the new homes, open space, detention pond, lawn and maybe smaller shrubs will replace forest vegetation. All of the clearing, grading and construction work will occur at or above the nesting level of the birds. While the maps appear to indicate that this would be out of sight of the nests, the birds will be flying above the nests and the shelter and visual screen and buffer that the upslope forest provided will Sunset Bluff Preliminan i'lat File No_: Lt_JA-04-002. PP_ FC'F December 20, 2004 Page 19 be gone or will be removed possibly during nesting season. In addition, the noise of all of that very heavy construction activity will definitely be heard offsite. 32. A number of witnesses were concerned about the impacts that this development would have on the heron colony that lies south of the subject site. A number of conditions were suggested to avoid or lessen the impact on the heronry. Foremost among the suggestions was that the subject site not be developed. That would deprive the owner of this private property of their right to use and develop the subject site. 33. The range of suggestions were wide and include among other things: Clustering the development and preserving more of the on -site forest and slopes Managing storm water to retain the natural periodicity of water flow to the riparian forest parkland south of the site was suggested. That no drying agents or stabilizing agents not limited to, but including ammonia phosphate 11yash, lime kiln dust. cement or lime, be used that would alter the natural pH of the soils. If soil were imported. that all soils imported to the site should adhere to a clean fill sampling. Fencing should be placed close to the homes to protect the forest area keeping intrusions further from the heronry. Developer installed landscaping should include native plants and that no mosquito abatement should be allowed near anv of the wetlands or the Black River property. Outdoor lighting should be minimized and shielded light fixtures used to direct light and glare away fi-om the Black River Riparian Forest. That woody debris be retained on site for the use by the herons when constructing their nests 34. The Washington State Department of Fish and Wildlife as well as another heron expert recommended: A seasonal construction window between January 15 and July 31 to insure that development does not unduly affect the heron during their sensitive reproductive cycle including nest building, egg laying, brooding and fledging. The department has made recommendations for working around heron colonies and they have found that working within approximately 2,600 feet creates problems and recommended 3,200 feet as a distance in which no construction or logging occur. This office does note that such a setback could eliminate most development of this private property. But the witness noted that in an urban setting where the birds were subject to more intrusions that may not be reasonable. In urban King County studies found colonies shrink when there is development within 1,000 feet. The development is not proposed for that close but it is on property ecologically and environmentally closely associated with the riparian forest and heron colony. It was noted that Fish and Wildlife recommendations were based on the best available science. It was also noted that this colony arrives at its nests earlier and some stay a bit later and that the window should accommodate this local variation from other colonies. It was recommended that heavy activity such as clearing the forest and grading the site observe a window of mid -January to the end of July, which does not accommodate fully the late nesters. 35. Mr. Dinkehnan for the applicant testified as follows: Sunset Bluff Preliminary Plat File No.: LUA-04-002, PP, ECF December 20, 2004 Page 20 "...The site soils are fairly fine grained, they are moisture sensitive soils. From the get -go it was anticipated that the project would be a swnmer construction season type project and that's when we felt it would be appropriate to do the earthwork at the site, just because it would allow the soils to be aerated and dried back to optimum moisture at which point they could be compacted, we specified a 95% compaction criteria." 36. In similar hillside sites the ERC and City have imposed conditions similar to the following: "'The applicant shall limit site disturbance including clearing, grading, utility, and roadwork activities to occur during the relatively dry months of April through October." This second construction window, it will be noted could correspond and complement the window that would attempt to protect the heron during their nesting activity. 37. The subject site will be served by the City water and sewer systems. 38. The proposed 65 homes would generate approximately 650 additional trips per day on the road system with approximately ten percent of those trips, 65 trips, occurring in the peak hours for commuting traffic. CONCLUSIONS: First, this office concludes that the applicant is entitled to develop the subject site. It is private property and that carries with it an inherent right of use. The issue therefore, would be what is an appropriate use for the subject site given its sensitive terrain features and its sensitive location adjacent to the largest heron colony in King County. The proposed plat will not serve the public use and interest if the heron colony located doi�,n slope of the site is not protected from the impacts of the proposed development. The clearing of tho, forest and the substantial grading that will occur this close to the heron colony will have an affect on that colony. It can be lessened by appropriate mitigation and with some additional conditions. If the applicant is not willing to do at least a minimum amount to avoid affecting the heronry, that a great public resource, the colony, and the public's expenditure of approximately Eight Million Dollars ($8,000,000.00) could be jeopardized. The applicant needs to work in conjunction with the heron colony and its nesting needs and activities. It also needs to work on the steep slopes at the appropriate time of the year. The subject site should not be altered when the heron are building nests and laying eggs and fledging their young. Heavy machinery and tree felling will have an affect on the heron. A past attempt to cut trees near the colony resulted in flight behaviors and severely disturbed the birds. It was halted in a timely fashion and did not create long-term problems. The trees on this site are above the nests in the flight view of the birds. The forest is also one that the birds use for gathering materials for nest building. Additionally, we have the applicant's witness testifying that the site's soils should not be disturbed or worked during the normal wet season. The geotechnical engineer himself testified that this was the type of location that would be a dry weather grading project and simply anticipated it would be limited to dry weather grading. Since the heron nesting season overlaps the rainy season to some extent, adjusting work on the site to refrain from working during approximately mid -January to end of July should work. Clearly, this would affect the timing of the project. It might even delay the final occupancy of the project. This is not necessarily unreasonable. Sunset Bluff Preliminary Plat File No.: LUA-04-002, PP, ECF December 20, 2004 Page 21 Frankly, and not to deride the applicant's property rights or the need for additional housing in the City, the addition of 65 housing units, in the overall scheme of things is not critical to the City's objectives and goals. While 65 new homes would not be insignificant, when balanced against the potential loss of a critical percentage of the heron in the Puget Sound region, six percent of the county population and one in which the City, County and other governments have invested substantial amounts of money, some caution to try to preserve and protect that colony appears warranted. The investment of funds in the riparian forest cannot be divorced from the heron that occupy that forest. It appears clear that the forest itself was not the motivator for purchasing the habitat in which the heron live. The funds were most likely expended because the heron resided therein. Taking some extra caution and time is appropriate to save this unique resource. 4. While no one can be sure what the impacts will be of the overall development and eventual population change it seems clear that the immensity of the proposed clearing and grading, if not the homes and people will spur some reaction on the part of the heron. Therefore, in order for this proposed plat to serve the public use and interesting in a minimal fashion, the forest and hillside should not be disturbed between January 15 and July 31. The applicant will argue that all mitigation was resolved in their favor by the SEPA appeal. That would be a misreading of the law. SEPA impacts are those that determine whether or not an environmental impact statement is necessary. Projects have impacts that do not have a significant impact on the quality of the environment to the extent that an EIS should be prepared but there are impacts that r°L,uuire mitigation. So while clearing twenty -odd acres and building 65 homes might not require an EIS, those actions do have impacts not only on the subject site but also on the surrounding community. A plat is not without impacts beyond those that weigh heavily on the environment. This plat adjacent to the heronry should be mitigated_ This plat located on very steep slopes has impacts which should be mitigated. 6. Given the above discussion, the proposed plat does create additional housing choices in the City. It creates additional housing stock. The proposed plat does meet the minimum requirements of the Zoning Code — the lots meet the dimensional standards. Setback and yard standards will be checked when building permits are submitted. The lots are generally rectangular. The plat does not meet the density standards but flexibility is permissible when the property is constrained by natural features such as steep slopes or other critical areas. The plat generally complies with the housing elements of the Comprehensive Plan. As noted above, the plat does not necessarily meet a variety of the environmental policies where the plat would work in and around the natural contours and minimize the disturbance of the natural slope. It would appear that the proposed roadway system including the emergency access will serve the residents and provide for emergency access once the secondary access road is redesigned and rebuilt to meet existing standards. in addition to the conditions noted above that would create a working window to protect the hzxon from the worst disturbances of construction, the applicant should also limit the use of any agents to dry or stabilize the soils that would alter the pH of the soils. The applicant shall hydroseed any open space with native forbs, shrubs and wildflowers and not merely grass. The applicant shall plant native vegetation as landscaping on the individual lots or create a homeowners association that requires homeowners to plant and maintain native vegetation. The homeowners association shall provide future residents with information about the heronry and suggest that homeowners use no or limited amounts of herbicides or pesticides on their properties. If soils need to be imported for fills those soils shall be Sunset Bluff Preliminary Plat File No.: LUA-04-002, PP. F.CF December 20, 2004 Page 22 tested and found free of contaminants. Outdoor lighting should be minimized and shielded light fixtures shall be used to direct light and glare away from the Black River Riparian Forest. The fence that is required should be constructed as far from the heronry and riparian forest as practical, that is as close to the new homes as possible to provide as large a separator or buffer as possible and to limit intrusion by people and pets. This office will now make another recommendation to the City Council. This office would urge the City Council to overturn the primary recommendation to approve the proposed plat and require the applicant to formulate a design that preserves more of the native vegetation, works with thr natural terrain features of the site and clusters the homes. This office urges the City Council to deny the plat because it does not take advantage of the natural amenities of the site in a suitable fashion and does not do nearly enough to attempt to protect the nearby heron colony from the proposed plat's development impacts. The proposed plat merely exploits the site, cutting down most of the trees on approximately 20 acres, severely disturbs the natural contours of the site and does not create a layout of homes designed to work in and around the terrain. This second recommendation is unusual but not unique. In some instances this office has recommended that a project be denied but suggested how it might be modified or conditioned such that it might be appropriate. This recommendation merely reverses that method. RECOMMENDATION: The City Council if it approves the plat, should impose the following conditions on the proposal: The applicant shall comply with the conditions imposed by the ERC modified to reach accord with the applicant on the traffic separator along Sunset Boulevard. 2. The forest clearing and hillside grading shall not occur between January 15 and July 31 in any year that such work is necessary. The applicant shall not use any agents to dry or stabilize the soils that would alter the pH of the soils. 4. The applicant shall hydroseed any open space with native forbs, shrubs and wildflowers and not merely grass. 5. The applicant shall plant native vegetation as landscaping on the individual lots or create a homeowners association that requires homeowners to plant and maintain native vegetation. 6. The homeowners association shall provide future residents with information about the heronry and suggest that homeowners use no or limited amounts of herbicides or pesticides on their properties. 7. If soils need to be imported for fills those soils shall be tested and certified free of contaminants. 8. Outdoor lighting should be minimized and shielded light fixtures shall be used to direct light and glare away from the Black River Riparian Forest. 9. The fence that is required shall be constructed as far from the heronry and riparian forest as practical, that is as close to the new homes as possible. 10. The applicant shall be required to dedicate all necessary public right-of-way and obtain and record the necessary easements for the placement and construction of the cul-de-sac and 20-foot wide emergency Sunset Bluff Preliminary Plat File No.: LUA-04-002, PP, ECF December 20, 2004 Page 23 access roadway prior to or in conjunction with recording the final plat. This condition shall be subject to the review and approval of the Development Services Division. IL . The applicant shall be required to clearly note and show on the construction plans the location of the mailboxes for the proposed residences. In addition, the applicant shall be required to place "NO PARKING" signage near the mailboxes prior to recording the final plat. This condition shall be subject to the review and approval of the Development Services Division. 12. The applicant shall be required to construct a solid six-foot high wood fence beginning at the western most property line and ending at the northeastern property line (adjacent to SW Sunset Boulevard). The fence shall be located south of the proposed single-family lots and the new public right-of-way (Road A) and extent to SW Sunset Boulevard. The condition shall be completed prior to recording the final plat and be subject to the review and approval of the Development Services Division. 13. The applicant shall be required to place "NO PARKING" signage along the 20-foot wide emergency access easement prior to recording the final plat. This condition shall be subject to the review and approval of the Development Services Division. 14. A homeowner's association or maintenance agreement shall be created concurrently with the recording of the plat in order to establish maintenance responsibilities for all shared improvements within this development including the emergency access roadway. A draft of the document(s), if necessary, shall be submitted to the City of Renton Development Services Division for review and approval by the City Attorney and Property Services section prior to the recording of the final plat. 15. The applicant shall be required to landscape around the water quality/detention facility with native drought -resistant vegetation. This condition shall be completed prior to recording the final plat and be subject to the review and approval of the Development Services Division. ORDERED THIS 20"' day of December 2004. FRED J. KAUF N HEARING EXAMINER TRANSMITTED THIS 20"' day of December, 2004 to the parties of record: Jason Jordan SR 900 LLC David Halinen 1055 S Grady Way Quarry Industrial Park LLC Halinen Law Offices Renton, WA 98055 9125 101h Avenue S 10500 NE 8"' Street, Ste. 1900 Seattle, WA 98108 Bellevue, WA 98004 Sunset Bluff Preliminary Plat File No.: LUA-04-002, PP, F.CF December 20, 2004 Page 24 Kayren Kittrick 1055 S Gradv Way Renton, WA 98055 Ivana Halvorsen Project Planner Barghausen Consulting Engineers 18215 72" d Avenue South Kent, WA 98032 Kevin L. Jones, P.E. Sr. Transportation Engineer The Transpo Group 11730 118"' Avenue NE, Ste. 600 Kirkland, WA 98034 Becky Stanley 4108 48"' Avenue S Seattle, WA David Mann Attorney at Law 1424 Fourth Ave, Ste. 1015 Seattle, WA 98101 Hal Grubb Civil Engineer Barghausen Consulting Engineers 18215 72" d Avenue South Kent, WA 98032 Matt Mega Seattle Audubon Society 8050 35"' Avenue NE Seattle, WA 98115 Patricia Sumption 10510 11 "' Avenue NE Seattle, WA 98125 TRANSMITTED THIS 20"' day of December 2004 to the following: Mayor Kathy Keolker-Wheeler Jay Covington, Chief Administrative Officer Julia Medzegian, Council Liaison Larry Warren, City Attorney Gregg Zimmerman, PBPW Administrator Alex Pietsch, Economic Development Jennifer Henning, Development Services Stacy Tucker, Development Services Suzanne Krom Herons Forever 4715-1/2 36"' Avenue SW Seattle, WA 98126 Theresa Dusek Barghausen Consulting Engineers 18215 72°d Avenue South Kent, WA 98032 Donna Kostka 2420 30"' Avenue W Seattle, WA 98199 Michael Hamilton 20418 NE 2 1 " Street Sammamish, WA 98074 Brenda Buchanan 10840 14'h Ave S Seattle, WA Stan Engler, Fire Larry Meckling, Building Official Planning Commission Transportation Division Utilities Division Neil Watts, Development Services Janet Conklin, Development Services King County Journal Pursuant to Title IV, Chapter 8, Section I OOGof the City's Code, request for reconsideration must be filed in writing on or before 5:00 p.m., January 3, 2005. Any aggrieved person feeling that the decision of the Examiner is ambiguous or based on erroneous procedure, errors of law or fact, error in judgment, or the discovery of new evidence which could not be reasonably available at the prior hearing may make a written request for a review by the Examiner within fourteen (14) days from the date of the Examiner's decision. This request shall set forth the specific ambiguities or errors discovered by such appellant, and the Examiner may, after review of the record, take further action as he deems proper. An appeal to the City Council is governed by Title IV, Chapter 8, Section 110, which requires that such appeal be filed with the City Clerk, accompanying a filing fee of $75.00 and meeting other specified requirements. Copies of this ordinance are available for inspection or purchase in the Finance Department, first floor of City Hall. An appeal must be filed in writing on or before 5:00 p.m., January 3, 2005. Sunset Bluff Preliminary Plat File No.: LUA-04-002, PP. FCF December 20, 2004 Page 2.5 If the Examiner's Recommendation or Decision contains the requirement for Restrictive Covenants, the executed Covenants will be required prior to approval by City Council or final processino_ of the file. You may contact this office for information on formatting covenants. The Appearance of Fairness Doctrine provides that no ex pane (private one-on-one) communications may occur concerning pending land use decisions. This means that parties to a land use decision may not communicate in private with any decision -maker concerning the proposal. Decision -makers in the land use process include both the Hearing Examiner and members of the City Council. All communications concerning the proposal must be made in public. This public communication permits all interested parties to know the contents of the communication and would allow them to openly rebut the evidence. Any violation of this doctrine would result in the invalidation of the request by the Court. The Doctrine applies not only to the initial public hearing but to all Requests for Reconsideration as well as Appeals to the City Council. th St; . co; 129-th -SI Cq LS th a 61 wowim I R-8 I 13 0 RM-1 sW ii 5tb c" 'Dial V.2 k M 00 co —T RC(P) RC(P) C.) I M c 0 p co, im G2 - 24 T23N ME E IJ2 ZONING — — — — Itmtm Itty U—ito P/Bn'W TECHNICAL SERVICES 03/"3 O'D N z kA t2i I Ivi . 11 1 F2 13 T23N ME E 1/2 4313 j ?�_w•A az3.4 RENTON — ------- --- --------- RENTON - - ----- NEIGHBORHOOD DETAIL MAP f �fi _Aa CC I- ' . &SUNSET BLUFF PRELIMINARY PL NORTH AT I r*,, Voo 200' 7 ffi54 I'3 F,V r7lt, `N� �: i2 ..+{• J' .",Sf • r,,— 1�01H jr 4_4 .0 '97 zz,. CC 14 �4 T. W40 14 -W \ 4`1 , fl, A f -vrc Sw I X- oo� E All" I on sik'l 1, 4! J 17 \N e 14 t12% v w iL I X. c a N I E A 3 H I T,'O T E C H 14 '.,"I'A L,�44C E N T E,IR 1� 6 ATLAS t! ATLAS 00 45ATYLS "" �x3 st ► RFNTON \ f CAA g o p �l10 F" �m o \ -0 e'F . �- Q�GH-Wts 19215 72NO A%&Nt SWiN80 5 F m FZ (04T. WA 937 6 p t 2S)251 6122 (�2512]i -8787 W 8CF. J()),B No7 SF( 900 L I C Nl5 MAR f VAI IE:Y HK.I-iWAY HL'NTCN . WA 98055 (425)226 WX)O \1. e x�a€ 1 I a TTTI F - - — PHRIMNARY ROAD AND DRAINAGE FLAN FOR SUNSET 6LLIFf� — e v a 1 `vq OVERALL PROJECT PLAN FOR 7 - 200' SUNSET BLUFF A PORTION OF THE S 1/2 OF SECTION 13, TOWNSHIP 23 N. RANGE 4 E. W.M., RENT'ON, WASHINGTON CITY OF RENTON CITY OF RENTON COUNCIL AGENDA BILL :Submitting Data: Dept/Div/Board.. Staff Contact...... AJLS/City Clerk Bonnie Walton, x6502 Subject: Bremerton Ave. Street Vacation Request; portions of Bremerton Ave. NE between NE 2nd & 3rd Streets; Petitioner: Liberty Ridge, LLC, File No. VAC-04-007 Exhibits: Resolution setting public hearing date Petition with Statement of Purpose AI #: / . For Agenda of: Agenda Status Consent .............. Public Hearing... Correspondence.. Ordinance.. ........... Resolution............ Old Business........ New Business....... Study Sessions...... Information......... X X X Recommended Action: Approvals: Council Concur to set public hearing date of 2/28/2005 Legal Dept ......... X Finance Dept...... Other ............... Fiscal Impact: Expenditure Required... NSA Transfer/Amendment....... Amount Budgeted.......... Revenue Generated......... Total Project Budget City Share Total Project.. SUMMARY OF REQUEST: 1/24/2005 On December 27, 2004, David Halinen, Attorney, representing Liberty Ridge LLC, submitted a petition and $250 application fee, requesting vacation of three portions of the west edge of Bremerton Ave. NE for the Elmhurst residential subdivision plat. The Planning/Building/Public Works Department has verified the petition documents and reports that more than two-thirds of the abutting property owners have signed the petition, representing 100% of the frontage. STAFF RECOMMENDATION: Adopt a resolution to set a public hearing on 2/28/2005, for the purpose of determining whether the vacation should be granted, the classification of the street or alley, whether easements should be retained, and the compensation to be paid, if any. cc Karen McFarland Keterence: SJ. /9 KU W & KMU 9-14 Neil Watts CITY OF RENTON, WASHINGTON RESOLUTION NO. A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY OF RENTON, WASHINGTON, SETTING A HEARING DATE TO VACATE PORTIONS OF BREMERTON AVE. NE BETWEEN NE 2ND AND 3RD STREETS. (LIBERTY RIDGE LLC; VAC-04-007.) WHEREAS, a Petition has been filed with the City Clerk of the City of Renton on or about December 27, 2004, pursuant to the requirements of RCW 35.79, petitioning for the vacation of three portions of a street, as hereinafter more particularly described, and said petition having been signed by the owners of more than two-thirds (2/3) of the property abutting upon said alley sought to be vacated, and same being described as follows: See Exhibit "A" attached hereto and made a part hereof as if fully set forth herein (Three portions of the west edge of Bremerton Avenue NE between NE 2nd Street and NE 3rd Street). NOW, THEREFORE, THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF RENTON, WASHINGTON, DO RESOLVE AS FOLLOWS: SECTION I. That the 281h day of February, 2005, at the hour of 7:30 P.M. at the City Council Chambers at City Hall, Renton, King County, Washington, be and is hereby fixed as the time and place for a public hearing to consider the aforesaid Petition for vacating three portions of the west edge of Bremerton Avenue NE between NE 2nd Street and NE 3rd Street, which said hearing date is not more than sixty nor less than twenty days from the date of passage of this Resolution. SECTION II. The City Clerk is hereby authorized and directed to give notice of said time and date of the hearing as provided in RCW 35.79.020 and any and/or all persons interested therein or objecting to said vacation may then appear and be heard thereon, or they 1 RESOLUTION NO. may file their written objections thereto with the City Clerk at or prior to the time of hearing on said vacation. SECTION III. The City Council shall determine, as provided in RCW 35.79.030, as to whether an appraisal shall be secured to determine the fair market value of the property sought to be vacated as provided for in Ordinance No. 4266, and the amount of compensation to be paid by the Petitioner -Owners to the City for such vacation. The City likewise reserves the right to retain an easement for public utility and related purposes. PASSED BY THE CITY COUNCIL this day of APPROVED BY THE MAYOR this Approved as to form: Lawrence J. Warren, City Attorney RES.1087:1/18/05:ma Bonnie I. Walton, City Clerk day of Kathy Keolker-Wheeler, Mayor 2005. 2005. 2 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 22.00 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 29.52 feet along the curve concave to the Northwest, having a radius of 25.00 feet and a central angle of 67°39'59" to a point of cusp; Thence North 00013'59" West parallel with the East line thereof, a distance of 92.96 feet; Thence South 89°08'05" East along the South line thereof, a distance of 15.50 feet to the True Point of $eginning. Containing 1,339 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 138.72 feet to the True Point of Beginning; Thence continuing South 00°13'59" East parallel with the East line thereof, a distance of 191.34 feet to the South line of said North half, Thence South 89'11'22" East, a distance of 15.50 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 Thence northwesterly a distance of 29.53 feet along the curve concave to the southwest, having a radius of 25.00 feet and a central angle of 67°39'59" to the True Point of Beginning. Containing 2,869 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 to the True Point of Beginning 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 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 True Point of Beginning. Containing 552 square feet, more or less. / Z- z 7'9/-/ Page 2 of 2 Map Exhibit 22. 00 z i I I I 115. 50' C� �a U) > 0 i�W� 1 — _ wa If U I- Q 4zin — (�' : �•' i J w �WW o I-- o J _ 1 _ w< L'j < QU Q (n > I II I 7.50' I 2 BEN H �Q pE W A co Z 0 100 200 ,p 38965 J� Nq [ L pN0 SCALE 1"= 100' EXPIRES 5-23-2005 Vicinity Map Street Vacation VAC-04-007 Petitioner: Liberty Ridge, LLC W Q 0 D r-,- SE 2 n d PI 0 600 1200 1:'7200 o Technical Services Planning/Building/Public Yorks �-/ K. McFarland .�O Jan. 19. 2005 NE 4th St Bremerton Ave NE Street Vacations Vicinity Map vnC - 0 q- 007 CITY OF RENTON PETITION FOR STREET VACATION DEC 2 7 2004 IN THE CITY OF RENTON RECEIVED To the Honorable Mayor and Date December 22, 2004 :CITY CLERK'S OFFICE Members of the City Council City of Renton Circulated By: Liberty Ridge L.L.C. 1055 S. Grady Way Renton, WA 98055 Address: 9125 10th Avenue S. Dear Mayor and Council Members: Seattite, WA 98108 Attn: Michael Merlin Telephone:- (425) 226-1000 We, the undersigned property owners abutting a certain portion of public Right -of -Way, respectfully request the vacation of the street or alleyway as described on the attached "Exhibit A" and Three portions of the west edge of Bremerton Avenue NE commonly known as: lying between NE 2nd Street and NE 3rd Street (Insert closest cross streets and reference the street name, Le. NE Bog Street from Bicycle Alley to Slalom Avenue PIE.) We request a time and place be fixed when this petition will be heard by the City Council. Of the property owners abutting the area of this petition, 100 % (2/3 or more required) of the lineal frontage have agreed and indicated their joining this petition with their signatures below: Libert Ridge L C. 13y: signature - (425) signature Donald J. Merlin, Manager 226-1000 print name phone print name -phone 201 Bremerton Avenue. NE address 518210-0049 518210-0050 518210-0051- property identification number address property identification number --------------------------------------------------------------------- Instructions: 1. Insert name of street. (i.e. NE 4th, alleyway east of Sunset Blvd.) 2. Attach complete legal description (i.e. metes and bounds, etc.) 3. Have the applicable property owners provide the following: a) Sign name. (Signatures of owners of 2/3 of lineal frontage must sign. Spouses do not need to sign. Owners in common must sign.) b) Print name and phone number. c) List Property address and King County tax parcel identification number. 4. Attach a map to the petition designating the vacation boundaries. 5. Attach a brief statement of the purpose to be served by the street vacation. 6. Submit $250.00 filing fee with application. SUBMIT PETITION TO THE CITY CLERK, SEVENTH FLOOR, RENTON CITY HALL. PRM - Property Services Admtnistration\Administrative\FormslStreetVacationlStrtet Vacation Petition.doc Statement of Purpose of the Proposed Street Vacation of Three Portions of the West Edge of Bremerton Avenue NE The purpose of the proposed street vacation is to create a uniform half -street right-of-way width along the west half of proposed Bremerton Avenue NE once the final plat of the proposed "Elmhurst" Residential Subdivision is approved by the City of Renton and recorded with the King County Recorder. (The east portion of the proposed Elmhurst layout is depicted on the accompanying map exhibit.) That final plat will include a dedication of a portion of Bremerton Avenue NE. Page 1 of 1 CITY OF RENTON COUNCIL AGENDA BILL Submitting Data: Dept/Div/Board.. Community Services/Facilities Staff Contact...... Peter Renner Ext. 6605 Subject: Lease Amendment with Iron Mountain Information Management, Inc. Exhibits: Issue Paper — Lease Amendment with Iron Mountain for extended term. Lease Amendment AI #: For Agenda of. 1/24/05 Agenda Status Consent .............. Public Hearing.. Correspondence.. Ordinance ............. Resolution ............ Old Business........ New Business....... Study Sessions...... Information......... Recommended Action: Approvals: Refer to Finance Committee Legal Dept ..... x.... Finance Dept..x... Other ............... M Fiscal Impact: Expenditure Required... $137,134.35 Transfer/Amendment....... Amount Budgeted....... Revenue Generated......... An additional $1,456,685.47 over the 5-year life of the lease Total Project Budget City Share Total Project.. SUMMARY OF ACTION: A tenant on the 4th floor of the Renton City Hall, Iron Mountain Information Management Inc., is nearing the end of the original lease term, April 30th, 2005. Business terms also include a brokerage fee of 5% to Iron Mountain's representing broker, Cushman & Wakefield and 2 1/2% to our property manager, GVA Kidder Matthews, for a total of $121,834.35. The Tenant also requested the immediate tenant improvement of an additional security doorway that will cost $15,300.00. All of these costs will be paid from the rental account. The business terms of the proposed Lease Amendment have been favorably reviewed by our real estate team and by City staff. Legal and Risk Management have reviewed the proposed Lease Amendment document. STAFF RECOMMENDATION: Council authorize the Mayor and City Clerk to sign the proposed Lease Amendment with Iron Mountain Information Management, Inc. Rentonnet/agnbill/ bh MEMORANDUM CITY OF RENTON COMMUNITY SERVICES 0 Committed to Enriching Lives 0 TO: Terri Briere, Council President Members of the Renton City Council VIA: Kathy Keolker-Wheeler, Mayor .tL,l FROM: Dennis Culp, Community Services Administrator STAFF CONTACT: Peter Renner, Facilities Director (x6605) SUBJECT: Lease Amendment with Iron Mountain Information Management DATE: January 11, 2005 Issue• Should the City authorize the Mayor and the City Clerk to sign a Lease Amendment with Iron Mountain Information Management for space on the fourth floor of Renton City Hall? Recommendation: Council authorizes the Mayor and City Clerk to sign the Lease Amendment. Background: • Iron Mountain signed an original five-year lease with the City for a full floor of Renton City Hall, 17,681 rentable square feet, in March 2000. As a condition of that lease, the City spent $303,637 on tenant improvements. The lease was structured as a full -service lease, with the City providing all utilities, custodial and janitorial services, and property insurance inclusive in the rent. • The local commercial real estate market has softened in the meanwhile, and rather than exercise a five-year renewal option in the lease, Iron Mountain retained a broker, Cushman & Wakefield of Washington, to request proposals for similar space from other landlords in the area as well as from the City's property manager, GVA Kidder Matthews. The City's proposal was preferred as it required no relocation. Two Iron Mountain concerns that the City needed to respond to were assurance of sufficient parking and options for up to two five- year renewals. • The business points of the amended lease are as follows: o Change from Full Service to Triple Net lease basis. This format can require additional tracking of expenses, but also affords the City an opportunity to regain disproportionate electrical usage by the tenant if that is the case. The monthly rent for the space will be $14,884.17 plus Triple Net expenses of no less than $11,163.12 for a total of $26,047.29. Working through our property manager, the City must now identify actual and imputed expenses that constitute operating costs. o The current lease rate is $20.15 per square foot; the equivalent starting rent contained in the proposal is $17.50 per square ft. The rent at the end of the lease will have increased to $20.20 per square foot based on a projected 3% annual operating cost escalation. o Increase in non -designated parking space allowance from 3.7 to 4.0 spaces per thousand. With rare exception, this allowance is already available. However, we have a verbal agreement with Sam's Club to use their parking lot for overflow parking, for free, if needed. o A $15,300.00 tenant improvement, providing a set of access -controlled doorways for increased security. If they exercise a five-year renewal option at the end of the first five-year term, they would be entitled to a $5.00 per foot ($89,305 total) refurbishment allowance for carpet replacement, painting, etc.. o The rental rate for that option period would be 95% of fair market for _ comparable properties. Differences in that determination would be settled by arbitration. o Iron Mountain Inc., has provided a rent guaranty for the lessee, Iron Mountain Information Management, Inc. ('nnelncinn Iron Mountain is a responsible and compatible tenant in Renton City Hall. Extending their lease term through amendment provides the City with substantial cash flow and makes productive use of reserve City space. C: Jay Covington Victoria Runkle Larry Warren LEASE AMENDMENT NO.2 THIS LEASE AMENDMENT NO.2 (this "Second Amendment") is made and entered into this Ilik day of December, 2004, by and between The City of Renton, Washington, a Washington municipal corporation ("Landlord") and Iron Mountain Information Management, Inc. a Delaware corporation, successor in interest to Arcus Data Security, Inc., a Delaware corporation ("Tenant"). WHEREAS, Landlord and Tenant entered into a certain Lease dated March 17, 2000 that was subsequently amended pursuant to a certain Amendment dated April 20, 2000 (collectively the "Lease"); and WHEREAS, Landlord and Tenant desire to amend the Lease to extend the Term as more fully provided herein; NOW, THEREFORE, for valuable consideration, the receipt and sufficiency of which is hereby acknowledged, Landlord and Tenant agree to amend the Lease effective as of January 1, 2005, as follows: 1. Unless otherwise defined in this Second Amendment, capitalized terms shall have the same meaning as set forth in the Lease. 2. Paragraph 1(g) of the Lease captioned "Expiration Date" is amended to extend the Expiration Date to December 31, 2009. 3. Effective January 1, 2005, Section 1(i) of the Lease captioned "Minimum Monthly Rent" is amended to read as follows: "(i) "Minimum Monthly Rent" means the following amounts as to the following periods during the Term: Period January 1, 2005 to December 31, 2005 January 1, 2006 to December 31, 2006 January 1, 2007 to December 31, 2007 January 1, 2008 to December 31, 2008 January 1, 2009 to December 31, 2009 Minimum Monthly Rent $14,884.17 NNN $15,330.69 NNN $15,851.64 NNN $16,372.58 NNN $17,116.79 NNN" 4. Effective January 1, 2005, Section 7(a) of the Lease is amended to read as follows: Rent Excise Tax. Tenant shall pay to Landlord, as Additional Rent, monthly, in advance on the first day of each month during the Term, an amount equal to one -twelfth (1/12th) of Tenant's Share of all Real Property Taxes that would have been levied or assessed against the Property during each calendar year during the Term. Such Additional Rent is exclusive of any sales, franchise, business or occupation or other tax based on rents and should such taxes apply during the Term, such Additional Rent shall be increased by the amount of such taxes. Within one hundred twenty Second Amendment 12-14 (2).doc (120) days after the end of each calendar year during the Tenn or within such longer period of time as may be reasonably necessary, Landlord shall furnish to Tenant a statement of the Real Property Taxes for the preceding calendar year and Tenant's Share of the Real Property Taxes. If Tenant's Share of the Real Property Taxes for the preceding calendar year exceeds the monthly payments made by Tenant, then Tenant shall pay Landlord the deficiency within thirty (30) days after receipt of the statement. If Tenant's payments made during that calendar year exceed Tenant's Share of the Real Property Taxes for the preceding calendar year, then, at Landlord's option, either Landlord shall pay Tenant the excess at the time Landlord furnishes the statement to Tenant, or Tenant shall be entitled to offset the excess against the next installment(s) of Minimum Monthly Rent and Additional Rent, provided, however, that at the end of the Term Landlord shall pay Tenant the excess at the time Landlord furnishes the statement to Tenant. 5. Effective January 1, 2005, The last full paragraph of Section 7 is deleted in its entirety and the following is substituted in lieu thereof as new Section 7(e) of the Lease: Payment of Tenant's Share of Real Property Taxes. Notwithstanding the provisions of Section 7(a) through 7(d) above, so long as the Building is owned by the City of Renton and is exempt from general real estate taxes as a municipal corporation in accordance with RCW 84.36.010, Tenant shall only be obligated to pay to Landlord, as Additional Rent, monthly, in advance on the first day of each month during the Term, only such amounts as the City of Renton is required to charge and collect from Tenant as a leasehold excise tax on the Minimum Monthly Rent (the "Rent Excise Tax'). Landlord shall estimate the Rent Excise Tax payable by Tenant and Tenant shall pay an amount equal to one -twelfth (1/12th) of Tenant's Share of such Rent Excise Tax. Within one hundred twenty (120) days after the end of each calendar year during the Tenn or within such _ longer period of time as may be reasonably necessary, Landlord shall furnish to Tenant a statement of the Rent Excise Tax for the preceding calendar year. If the Rent Excise Tax paid by Tenant for the preceding calendar year exceeds the monthly payments made by Tenant, then Tenant shall pay Landlord the deficiency within thirty (30) days after receipt of the statement If the Rent Excise Tax paid by Tenant during that calendar year exceed actual Rent Excise Tax for the preceding calendar year, then, at Landlord's option, either Landlord shall pay Tenant the excess at the time Landlord furnishes the statement to Tenant, or Tenant shall be entitled to offset the excess against the next installment(s) of Minimum Monthly Rent and Additional Rent, provided, however, that at the end of the Tenn Landlord shall pay Tenant the excess at the time Landlord furnishes the statement to Tenant. 6. Section 9(a) of the Lease captioned "Payment of Tenant's Share of Increases in Operating Costs" is amended to read as follows: Payment of Tenant's Share of Operating Costs. Tenant shall pay to Landlord, as Additional Rent, monthly, in advance on the first day of each month during the Term, an amount equal to one - twelfth (1/12th) of Tenant's Share of the Operating Costs of the Property for each calendar year during the Term as reasonably estimated by Landlord, Landlord may, in accordance with sound accounting and management principles, both reasonably estimate, and finally determine, the Operating Costs for each calendar year during the Term. If the building is less than ninety-five percent (95%) occupied, then it may base its estimate on the Operating Costs that would have 2 Second Amendment 12-14 (2).doc been incurred if the Building had been ninety-five percent (95%) occupied during each such calendar year, taking into account historical operating costs for the Building. Landlord may, in accordance with generally accepted accounting principals ("GAAP"), make any other reasonable and appropriate changes to reflect adjustments to Operating Costs for the then current calendar year. Such Additional Rent is exclusive of any sales, franchise, business or occupation or other tax based on rents and should such taxes apply to Tenant during the Term, such Additional Rent shall be increased by the amount of such taxes. Within one hundred twenty (120) days after the end of each calendar year during the Term or within such longer period of time as may be reasonably necessary, Landlord shall furnish to Tenant a statement of the Operating Costs for the preceding calendar year and Tenant's Share of the Operating Costs. If Tenant's Share of the Operating Costs for that calendar year exceeds the monthly payments made by Tenant, then Tenant shall pay Landlord the deficiency within thirty (30) days after receipt of the statement. If Tenant's payments made during that calendar year exceed Tenant's Share of the Operating Costs for that calendar year, then, at Landlord's option, either Landlord shall pay Tenant the excess at the time Landlord furnishes the statement to Tenant, or Tenant shall be entitled to offset the excess against the next installment(s) of Minimum Monthly Rent and Additional Rent, provided, however, that at the end of the Term Landlord shall pay Tenant the excess at the time Landlord furnishes the statement to Tenant. 7. Effective January 1, 2005, Section 9(d) of the Lease captioned "Right to Examine Landlord's Books and Records" is amended by deleting the words 'the increase in" each place that such words appear in such Section. 8. Effective January 1, 2005, The next to last sentence of Section 16(a)(ii) of the Lease is amended to read as follows: The parties agree that the rate payable by Tenant to Landlord for such after hours service as of January 1, 2005 shall be Twenty and N6/100 Dollars ($20.00) for each hour heating, ventilating and air conditioning (aHVAC' is provided to the Premises outside of normal business hours during the term of this Second Amendment. 9. Section 37(a) of the Lease captioned 'Surrender' is amended to read as follows: Surrender. Upon expiration or ten (10) days after termination of the Term, Tenant shall surrender the Premises and all Tenant's improvements and alterations to Landlord broom clean and in good condition. Tenant shall remove all of its trade fixtures and personal property within the time period stated in this Section. Tenant, at its cost, shall perform all restoration made necessary by, and repair any damage to the Premises caused by, the removal of its trade fixtures, personal property and signs to Landlord's reasonable satisfaction within the time period stated in this Section. Landlord may, at its election, retain or dispose of in any manner any of Tenant's trade fixtures or personal property that Tenant does not remove from the Premises on expiration or within ten (10) days after termination of the Term as allowed or required by the provisions of this Lease by giving ten (10) days notice to Tenant. Title to any such trade fixtures and personal property that Landlord elects to retain or dispose of on expiration of such ten (10) day period shall vest in Landlord. Tenant waives all claims against Landlord for any damage to Tenant resulting from Landlord's 3 Second Amendment 12-14 (2).doc retention or disposition of any such trade fixtures and personal property. Tenant shall be liable to Landlord for Landlord's reasonable costs for storing, removing and disposing of Tenant's trade fixtures and personal property. If Tenant fails to surrender the Premises to Landlord on expiration or ten (10) days after termination of the Term as required by this Section, Tenant shall pay Landlord Rent in an amount equal to: (i) 115% of the Minimum Monthly Rent applicable for the month immediately prior to the expiration or termination of the Term for the first month Tenant thus remains in possession, (ii) 125% of the Minimum Monthly Rent applicable for the month immediately prior to the expiration or termination of the Term for the second month Tenant thus remains in possession, (iii) 135% of the Minimum Monthly Rent applicable for the month immediately prior to the expiration or termination of the Term for the third month Tenant thus remains in possession, and (iv) 150% of the Minimum Monthly Rent applicable for the month immediately prior to the expiration or termination of the Term for all subsequent months Tenant thus remains in possession. If Tenant fails to surrender the Premises to Landlord within three (3) months of the expiration or sooner termination of the Term, then Tenant shall be liable for, shall indemnify Landlord against and shall hold Landlord harmless from all damages resulting from Tenant's failure to timely surrender the Premises, including without limitation, (i) any Rent payable by, or any damages claimed by, any prospective tenant of any part or all of the Premises, and (ii) Landlord's damages resulting from such prospective tenant rescinding or refusing to enter into the prospective lease of part or all of the Premises by reason of Tenant's failure to timely surrender the Premises. If Tenant, without Landlord's prior consent, remains in possession of the Premises after expiration or termination of the Term, or after the date in any notice given by Landlord to Tenant terminating this Lease, such possession by Tenant shall be deemed to be a tenancy at sufferance terminable at any time by either party. 10. Effective January 1, 2005, Section 41(a) of the Lease captioned "Additional Rent" is amended by deleting the words 'increases in" each place that such words appear in such Section. 11. Section 43 of the Lease captioned "Parking" is amended to read as follows: Parking. Landlord shall provide four (4) unreserved parking stalls per 1,000 rentable square feet of office space in the Premises. Such parking stalls will be located in the parking areas of the Renton City Hall or on parcels adjacent to the Renton City Hall, as designated by Landlord from time to time during the Term. Tenant and Tenant's employees and invitees may utilize these parking areas, subject to the Parking Rules and Regulations set forth on Exhibit D of the Lease, in common with other tenants of, and visitors to, the Renton City Hall on a first -come, first -served basis. Landlord reserves the right to enforce the parking ratio should Landlord determine, in its sole discretion, that enforcement is required. 12. Section 43 of the Lease captioned "Option to Extend" is renumbered as Section 44 and amended to read as follows: Option to Extend. So long as Tenant is not then in default under this Lease, Tenant shall have the option to extend the term of this Lease for two (2) additional periods of five (5) years each (each, an "Extended Term"). To exercise its option to extend this Lease for the Extended Term, Tenant must deliver to Landlord and Landlord must actually receive a written notice (the 'Option 4 Second Amendment 12-14 (2).doc Notice") exercising its option to extend not less than nine (9) months before the Expiration Date, or the last day of the first Extended Term, as the case may be, but not more than twelve (12) months before the Expiration Date, or the last day of the first Extended Term, as the case may be. (Notwithstanding the above, if Tenant misses a deadline for giving notice described herein, Landlord shall notify Tenant in writing of such missed deadline and Tenant shall have a period of three (3) business days to exercise the option following receipt of written notice from Landlord. If Tenant does not exercise such option within three (3) business days or notes Landlord that it will not exercise such option, then and only then will such option terminate.] The option to extend granted to Tenant pursuant to this Section is personal to Tenant and may not be exercised by or for the benefit of any assignee or sublessee of Tenant. All of the terms and conditions of this Lease shall apply during the Extended Term except (i) the Minimum Monthly Rent shall be an amount mutually agreed to by Landlord and Tenant or determined by arbitration as set forth below, (ii) there shall be no further options to extend or renew after the commencement of the second Extended Tema; and (N) there shall be no Landlord provided Tenant Improvements or other Landlord concessions during the Extended Terms, except that Landlord shall provide a refurbishment allowance of Five and No/100 Dollars ($5.00) times the number of rentable square feet of space in the Premises as of the first day of the first Extended Term (the "Refurbishment Allowance'). The Refurbishment Allowance shall be provided on or about the first day of the first Extended Term, subject, however, to normal conditions such as receipt of copies of paid invoices and originals of lien releases from the general contractor and principal subcontractors. When the rental rate for the Extended Term is determined, whether by agreement of the parties or pursuant to arbitration as provided below, Landlord and Tenant shall enter into a lease extension agreement setting forth the new Minimum Monthly Rent for the Premises and such other terns as may be applicable. If at the time Tenant delivers the Option Notice to Landlord, or at any time between such date and the commencement date of the Extended Term, Tenant defaults under this Lease and fails to cure its default within the applicable cure period, if any, Landlord may declare the Option Notice null and void by written notice to Tenant The Minimum Monthly Rent for the Extended Term shall be one -twelfth (1/12th) of ninety -rive percent (95%) of the then 'fair market rent' (defined below) multiplied by the number of rentable square feet in the Premises. The term 'fair market rent' means the rate per rentable square foot per year (including increases therein over the Extended Term) that a new, willing, non -equity tenant would pay in an arms -length transaction for the Premises, or for comparable space in the Building, if any, or for comparable space in comparable buildings in the southend office market, including South Seattle, Renton, Washington, Kent, Washington, and surrounding areas, for leases having a five (5) year term, taking into account the Refurbishment Allowance and all other relevant factors. Landlord and Tenant agree the fair market rent for the Extended Term shall be determined as follows: (a) Promptly after Landlord receives the Option Notice, the parties (or their designated representatives) shall meet and attempt to agree on the fair market rent for the relevant Extended Term. If the parties have not agreed on the fair market rent for the Extended Tenn within ninety (90) days after Landlord receives the Option Notice, then unless otherwise agreed in writing by the parties, the matter shall be submitted to arbitration in accordance with the terms of the following paragraphs. The last day of such ninety (90 day period (as the same may be extended by the written agreement of the parties) is referred to in this Lease as the °Arbitration Commencement Date". 5 Second Amendment 12-14 (2).doc (b) Within. fifteen (15) days after the Arbitration Commencement Date, each party shall provide the other party with written notice (a "Rent Notice') of its determination of fair market rent. The matter shall then be submitted for decision to an arbitrator. The arbitrator shall be a licensed real estate broker who has been active over the five (5) year period ending on the Arbitration Commencement Date in the leasing of office properties in the southend office market, including South Seattle, Renton, Washington, Kent, Washington, and surrounding areas. If Landlord and Tenant are unable to agree on the arbitrator within thirty (30) days after the Arbitration Commencement Date, each shall select a broker who shall be qualified under the same criteria set forth above, and so notify the other party in writing within ten (10) days after the end of such thirty (30) day period. The two brokers so chosen by the parties shall then appoint the arbitrator within ten (10) days after the date of the appointment of the last appointed broker. If the two brokers so chosen by the parties are unable to agree on the arbitrator within such ten (10) day period, the arbitrator will be appointed by the director (or the equivalent) of the Seattle office of the American Arbitration Association upon the application of either party. If either party fails to timely select its broker and so notify the other party in writing within the foregoing ten (10) day period, and the other party timely selects its broker, then the broker selected by the other party shall be the arbitrator for determining fair market rent. (c) Within thirty (30) days after the selection of the arbitrator pursuant to (b) above, the arbitrator shall determine fair market rent by selecting either the fair market rent stated in Landlord's Rent Notice or the fair market rent stated in Tenant's Rent Notice. The determination of the arbitrator shall be limited to the sole issue of whether the fair market rent specified in Landlord's Rent Notice or Tenant's Rent Notice is closest to the actual fair market rent as determined by the arbitrator. The arbitrator shall have no power to average such amounts or to designate a fair market rent other than that specified in either Landlord's Rent Notice or Tenant's Rent Notice. (d) Both parties may submit any information to the arbitrator for his or her consideration, with copies to the other party. The arbitrator shall have the right to consult experts and competent authorities for factual information or evidence pertaining to the determination of fair market rent. The arbitrator shall render his or her decision by written notice to each party. The determination of the arbitrator will be final and binding upon Landlord and Tenant. The cost of the arbitration (including the charges of the broker selected by the other party) will be paid by Landlord if the fair market rent determined by arbitration is the fair market rent specked in Tenant's Rent Notice, and by Tenant if the fair market rent determined by Arbitration is the fair market rent specked in Landlord's Rent Notice. 13. Section 44 of the Lease captioned "Space Pocket" is deleted in its entirety. 14. Landlord, at its cost, will install new entry doors in accordance with the proposal captioned "Estimate for Lobby Doors" attached hereto as Exhibit A. 15. Miscellaneous. 6 Second Amendment 12-14 (2).doc a. This Second Amendment constitutes the entire agreement and understanding by and between the Landlord and Tenant. b. This Second Amendment shall bind and inure to the benefit of the parties hereto and their respective successors and assigns. C. Except as modified by this Second Amendment, the terms and conditions of the Lease are hereby ratified and confirmed and shall remain in full force and effect. In the event of any conflict between the terms of this Second Amendment and the Lease, this Second Amendment shall govern and control the intent and agreement of the parties. d. This Second Amendment may be signed in counterpart originals, in which case each counterpart when signed shall be considered an original. e. The Landlord and Tenant respectively represent and warrant to the other that there has been no transfer or assignment, whether voluntary or by operation of law, of that party's right, title or interest in the Lease except as set forth herein,or the claims being released herein. Each signatory to this Second Amendment represents and warrants that such signatory has the authority to enter into this Second Amendment on behalf of that respective party. f. Tenant acknowledges and agrees that as of the date of this Second Amendment, the Landlord is in full compliance with the Lease. All of the obligations on the part of the Landlord under the Lease have been carried out, and the undersigned has no claim against the Landlord. DATED the date first above -written. LANDLORD: City of Renton, Washington By Its: Mayor Attest: By Its: City Clerk 7 Second Amendment 12-14 (2).doc TENANT: Iron Mountain Information Management, Inc., a Delaware corporation By S:-jar-l-v M61zk,. Vice 11'rest ent and General Counsel STATE OF WASHINGTON ) ) ss. COUNTY OF KING ) I certify that I know or have satisfactory evidence that the person appearing before me and making this acknowledgment is the person whose true signature appears on this document. On this day of , 2004, before me personally appeared , to me known to be the Mayor of the City of Renton, the municipal corporation that executed the within and foregoing instrument, and acknowledged the said instrument to be the free and voluntary act and deed of said corporation, for the uses and purposes therein mentioned, and on oath stated that he was authorized to execute said instrument and that the seal affixed, if any, is the corporate seal of said corporation. WITNESS my hand and official seal hereto affixed the day and year first above written. _ Type or print name Notary Public in and for the State of Washington Residing at: My commission expires: COMMONWEALTH OF MASSACHUSETTS ) ss. COUNTY OF SUFFOLK ) I certify that I know or have satisfactory evidence that the person appearing before me and making this acknowledgment is the person whose true signature appears on this document. On this �ay of Ate.,« ti v , 2004, before me personally appeared �.4ww w� ;; , to me known to be the v«< of Iron Mountain Information Management, Inc., a Delaware corporation that executed the within and foregoing instrument, and acknowledged the said instrument to be the free and voluntary act and deed of said corporation, for the uses and purposes therein mentioned, and on oath stated that he was authorized to execute said instrument and that the seal affixed, if any, is the corporate seal of said corporation. 8 Second Amendment 12-14 (2).doc WITNESS my hand and official seal hereto affixed the day and year first above written. Type or print name cMuS�c<<,us.X� S Notary Public in and for the State of Wss#ngton Residing at: -145 Alan AVe, 8psfon 6 21 )/ My commission expires: Second Amendment 12-14 (2).doc [Mill-OTY,1 Estimates for Lobby Doors Supply and install one pair of 36" x104" P style 1/2" clear tempered flat polished glass doors 4" full length top and bottom square profile rails standard bottom rail lock and key cylinder, thumb turn, DP strike one 72" 1 3/4"x4 1/2" header two concealed 105 hold open closers two surface mount pivots four back to back standard "C" pull handles two GF 3000 mag locks With US 32 polished stainless steel finish Supply and install one 36"x104" P style 1/2" clear tempered flat polished glass door 4" full length top and bottom square profile rail standard bottom rail lock and key cylinder, thumb turn, DP strike one 36" 1 3/4" x 4 1/2" header one concealed 90 hold open closer one surface mount pivot two back to back standard "C" pull handles With US 32 polished stainless steel finish GUARANTY In consideration of the agreement of The City of Renton, Washington ("Landlord"), to give its execute that Lease Amendment No. 2 dated as of December 17, 2004 (the "Lease") between Landlord and IRON MOUNTAIN INFORMATION MANAGEMENT, INC. ("Tenant"), pertaining to certain premises located at 1055 South Grady Way, Renton Washington, the undersigned ("Guarantor") hereby unconditionally guarantees the punctual payment of all Rent, as defined in the Lease, and other payments required to be paid by Tenant, and the prompt performance of all other obligations of Tenant under the Lease Guarantor shall be directly and primarily liable to Landlord for any amount due from Tenant under the Lease, without requiring that Landlord first proceed against Tenant, join Tenant in any proceeding brought to enforce this Guaranty, or exhaust any security held by Landlord. Guarantor agrees that Landlord may deal with Tenant in any manner in connection with the Lease without the knowledge or consent of Guarantor and without affecting Guarantor's liability under this Guaranty. Without limiting the generality of the foregoing, Guarantor agrees that any extension of time, assignment of the Lease, amendment or modification to the Lease, delay or failure by Landlord in the enforcement of any right under the Lease, or compromise of the amount of any obligation or liability under the Lease made with or without the knowledge or consent of Guarantor shall not affect Guarantor's liability under this Guaranty. Guarantor's liability under this Guaranty shall not be affected by any bankruptcy, reorganization, insolvency or similar proceeding affecting Tenant, nor by any termination or disaffirmance of the Lease or any of Tenant's obligations thereunder in connection with such proceeding. This Guaranty shall remain in full force and effect until the performance in full to Landlord's satisfaction of all obligations of Tenant under the Lease. Guarantor hereby waives any claim or other right now existing or hereafter acquired against Tenant that arises from the performance of Guarantor's obligations under this Guaranty, including, without limitation, any rights of contribution, indemnity, subrogation, reimbursement or exoneration. Guarantor hereby agrees to indemnify Landlord and hold it harmless from and against all loss and expense, including legal fees, suffered or incurred by Landlord as a result of claims to avoid any payment received by Landlord from Tenant with respect to the obligations of Tenant under the Lease. Guarantor hereby waives presentment, protest, notice of default, demand for payment, and all other suretyship defenses whatsoever with respect to any payment guaranteed under this Guaranty, and agrees to pay unconditionally upon demand all amounts owed under the Lease. Guarantor further waives any setoff, defense or counterclaim that Tenant or Guarantor may have or claim to have against Landlord and the benefit of any statute of limitations affecting Guarantor's liability under this Guaranty. If Landlord retains an attorney to enforce this Guaranty or to bring any action or any appeal in connection with this Guaranty, the Lease, or the collection of any payment under this Guaranty or the Lease, Landlord shall be entitled to recover its attorneys' fees, costs, and Guarantee, 12-16 disbursements in connection therewith, as determined by the court before which such action or appeal is heard, in addition to any other relief to which Landlord may be entitled. Landlord shall have the unrestricted right to assign this Guaranty in connection with an assignment of the Lease without the consent of, or any other action required by, Guarantor. Each reference in this Guaranty to Landlord shall be deemed to include its successors and assigns, to whose benefit the provisions of this Guaranty shall also inure. Each reference in this Guaranty to Guarantor shall be deemed to include the successors and assigns of Guarantor, all of whom shall be bound by the provisions of this Guaranty. Within ten (10) days after delivery of written demand therefor from Landlord, Guarantor shall execute and deliver to Landlord a statement in writing certifying that this Guaranty is unmodified and in full force and effect, which statement may be conclusively relied upon by any prospective purchaser or encumbrancer of the premises or property. If any provision of this Guaranty is held to be invalid or unenforceable, the validity and enforceability of the other provisions of this Guaranty shall not be affected. Guarantor agrees that this Guaranty shall be construed in accordance with, and governed by, the laws of the state of Washington. Guarantor further agrees that any action or litigation to enforce this Guaranty shall properly be within the jurisdiction of the courts of the state of Washington. GUARANTOR: IRON MOUNTAIN INCORPORATED, a Pennsylvania corporation By: _ "L 2 Y'49 M Its: � Preside Gar' B• WaUzk 1cet and General Counsel Address for Notices: Iron Mountain Incorporated 745 Atlantic Avenue Boston, MA 02111 Attn: Legal 2 Guarantee, 12-16 I' CITY OF RENTON COUNCIL AGENDA BILL AI #: Submitting Data: Planning/Building/Public Works For Agenda of: Dept/Div/Board.. Development Services Division January 24, 2005 Agenda Status Staff Contact...... Neil Watts, x-7218 Consent .............. X Public Hearing.. Subject: Lakeshore Landing Development Right -of -Way Issues. Correspondence.. Acceptance of Dedications of right-of-way Ordinance ............. Resolution............ Old Business........ New Business....... Exhibits: Issue Paper Study Sessions...... Maps Information......... Recommended Action: Council Concur Approvals: Legal Dept......... X Finance Dept...... X Other ............... Fiscal Impact: None Expenditure Required... Transfer/Amendment....... Amount Budgeted....... Revenue Generated......... Total Project Budget City Share Total Project.. SUMMARY OF ACTION: The development of the Lakeshore Landing site (LUA-04-081, BSP) will include the construction of new streets and realignment of existing streets. This will require the dedication of new rights -of -way for N. loth St., N. 8th St., Park Ave. N. and Logan Ave. N. (Tracts A-G, P & Q) The related Development Agreement with the Boeing Company was executed in December 2003. STAFF RECOMMENDATION: Accept the right-of-way dedications as presented and authorize the Mayor and City Clerk to execute the dedication documents. H:/Division.s/Develop.ser/Admin/Temporary Docs/Lakeshore ROW agenda bill CITY OF RENTON PLANNINGBUILDING/PUBLIC WORKS MEMORANDUM DATE: January 18, 2005 TO: Terri Briere, Council President Members of the Renton City Council VIA:�� Mayor Kathy Keolker-Wheeler FROM: Gregg Zimmerman, Administrator STAFF CONTACT: Neil Watts, x-7218 SUBJECT: Lakeshore Landing, Right -of -Way Issues ISSUE: As part of the proposed Lakeshore Landing site development a new street system will be constructed by the City. This street system, as approved in the Development Agreement for the Boeing site development, requires new right-of-way dedications. There are also portions of existing right-of-way that will no longer be needed for public streets and are to be vacated. There are also utility easements on the development site that are no longer necessary and can be released at this time. New utility easements are proposed for the site development and are ready for Council approval at this time. RECOMMENDATION: Street Vacation Request: (January 3, 2005 Agenda) Adopt a resolution to set a public hearing on 1/24/2005, for the purpose of determining whether the vacation should be granted, the classification of the street or alley, whether easements should be retained, and the compensation to be paid, if any. Release/Partial Release of Easements and Agreement Request: (January 10, 2005 Agenda - Refer to Committee) Grant the release or partial release of seven easements and one agreement as presented; designate the classification of the easements and the compensation to be paid, if any; require execution by the property owner of certain new water and sewer utility easements; and adopt an ordinance to finalize the releases if the conditions have been met within 90 days of Council approval. Deed of Dedications for Rights -of -Way Request: (January 24, 2005 Agenda) Approve the right-of-way dedications as presented and authorize the Mayor and City Clerk to execute the deed of dedication documents. BACKGROUND SUMMARY: In December of 2003, the Boeing Company and the City of Renton agreed to a Development Agreement for the Renton Plant Redevelopment. As part of this agreement, the City will construct a new arterial street system to support the redevelopment of the property. Boeing agreed to dedicate certain properties for right-of-way for this new arterial system, and the City agreed to vacate unused portions of the existing right-of-way for redevelopment. A conceptual development plan has also been approved for this next phase of the Boeing Plant redevelopment, and a planned action for the conceptual plan. January 18, 2005 Page 2 A binding site plan has been approved conceptually by the City administration, and will be recorded prior to the sale of the property. Development is anticipated shortly for the area north of N. 8"' St., between Logan Ave. N. (extended) and Garden Ave. N. The binding site plan identifies specific tracts for future right-of-way for the construction of the Logan Ave extension, a relocated Park Ave. N., and new sections of street for N. 10th St. and N. 8"' St. These new arterial street sections are to be constructed as part of the redevelopment of this parcel in accordance with the Development Agreement. The City will be constructing arterial improvements for this redevelopment, including relocating Park Ave between N 8"' St and Logan Av N, N 10'h St from Logan Av N to Garden Av N, and completing the Logan Av N connection from the south. These arterial improvements include extending Logan Ave N south of the current development site, and completing N 8"' St between the new Logan Ave N and Park Ave N. The portion of Boeing property south of N. 8"' St (extended) and west of Park Ave. N. (the location of the 10-50 Building), is not included in this initial phase of redevelopment. Additional right- of-way dedications will be needed to complete these arterial improvements for the Lakeshore Landing development. Construction of these two street sections (Logan Ave. N. and N. 8"' St.) will require careful coordination with Boeing facilities to address construction issues with existing utilities, relocation of fences, and maintaining security for the Boeing facility. The actual recording of the approved deeds of dedication for these two right-of-way sections (Tracts P and Q of the binding site plan) will not occur until just prior to construction of these road sections. The other dedications are expected to be recorded as soon as the binding site plan is recorded. The new rights -of -way will have some private Boeing utilities remaining within the dedication areas. This can be allowed under the existing Master Use agreement between Boeing and the City for various Boeing utilities within existing streets in the area of the Renton plant site and the Boeing Longacres site. A small building will also remain temporarily in the newly dedicated right-of-way near the future intersection of Park Ave. N. and Logan Ave. N. This can remain with City approval, subject to allowing the City to require the removal of the building at a future date (with 30 days written notice) prior to construction of the new arterial street system. It is also possible that NE 10"' St may not be built until later in the development phasing. Therefore, the street dedication for these street sections is to include approval for private use as parking, circulation, landscaping, fencing, and other uses, but not allowing the construction of any buildings within the dedicated right-of-way areas. The approved conceptual plan and development agreement for this site includes the relocation of Park Ave. N. and vacation of the right-of-way, which will no longer be used, for municipal purposes. This vacated right-of-way is a section of property located in the southeast corner of the new intersection of Park Ave. N. and Logan Ave. N. Per City of Renton Municipal Code a public hearing is required prior to Council approval of a street vacation, and a resolution by Council is required a minimum of 20 days prior to the public hearing establishing the date and time of the public hearing. Portions of the proposed street vacation areas are currently WSDOT right-of-way and will require turnback approval from the State prior to completion of the requested street vacation. However, the City can proceed with the public hearing and approval of a street vacation subject to the condition of State approval for the tumback agreement. CONCLUSION: Staff recommends the Council approve the requested street dedications, with associated use allowances: Approval of dedication of the following right-of-ways: January 18, 2005 Page 3 • Tract A — Logan Ave. N. north of N. 8`'' St, subject to use allowance for the existing building to remain. The property owner will remove the building within 30 days of receiving written notice from the City. • Tract B — northerly portion of N. 8`' St between Logan Ave. N. and Park Ave. N. • Tract C — N. 10"' St, between Logan Ave. N. and Park Ave. N., subject to use allowance for allowed uses within the UC-N zoning, excluding any buildings. Any use, paving, landscaping, fencing or similar structures will be removed by the property owner within 30 days of receiving written notice from the City. • Tract D — N. 10`'' St. between Park Ave. N. and Garden Ave. N., subject to use allowance for allowed uses within the UC-N zoning, excluding any buildings. Any use, paving, landscaping, fencing or similar structures will be removed by the property owner within 30 days of receiving written notice from the City. • Tract E — A strip along the west side of Park Ave. N. • Tract F — A strip along the east side of Park Ave. N. • Tract G — A strip along Logan Ave. N./Lake Washington Blvd. • Tract P — Logan Ave. N. south of N. 8"' St. Actual recording of this dedication will not occur until prior to construction of this section of Logan Ave. N. • Tract Q — N. 8"' St. between Logan Ave. N. and Park Ave. N. Actual recording of this dedication will not occur until prior to construction of this section of N. 8`h St. Staff recommends that Council refer the following requested utility easement releases and adoptions to the Planning and Development Committee: Release of Easements/Agreement: Easement 8805190541 - This 15-foot wide easement is for an 8-inch City water main installed in 1998 for fire protection for the old Boeing building # 10-474. The building was demolished in 2000 and the existing water main was cut and capped at the northeast and southeast corners of the site. The existing 3-inch meter located at the northeast corner of the site is still in use for landscape irrigation to the new parking lot. The City will retain only a portion of the easement for the irrigation meter, unless it is no longer needed. Easement 8811300191 - This easement, 15'x 38', is for a City traffic control and signal cabinet, installed in 1988 and located at the north side of the intersection of Garden Avenue and N. 8`h Street. The City has relocated the cabinet to the southeast corner of the intersection. Agreement/License 9105231158 replaced by 9106060988 - This agreement, between the City of Renton and Boeing, is needed for a water system inter -tie, installed in 1991, to increase fire protection to the Boeing Renton Plant. Boeing owns and maintains all piping and vaults for the inter -tie, which is located on Boeing's property on the west side of Garden Avenue N. and about 100 feet north of N. 8`h Street. This agreement can be released subject to the condition that Boeing provides the City with a fire flow analysis to confirm that it is no longer needed for fire protection to the Boeing plant. Easement 9607220167 - This easement, 2'x27', is for a City telemetry control panel and architectural wall for the Boeing sanitary sewer lift station. The City conveyed the lift station to Boeing in November 2000. Easements 20011205003127 20011205003128 20011205003129 and 20011205003130- These four easements are for a future City sanitary sewer line to serve the new lots created by the Boeing' short -plat of parking lot 3B. The 15-foot wide easement is located along the easterly side of the new lots of the short -plat. The new sewer line, if needed, will be constructed within the easement to avoid tearing up the new concrete roadway of Garden Avenue North. These January 18, 2005 Page 4 easements can be released subject to the condition that Boeing provide verification that the proposed development within these lots would not need to be connected to the new sewer line. Acceptance of new Utility Easements • Water Loop Easement for Lot 3 • Water Loop for southwest corner of Lot 10-50 Staff further recommends Council approval of a resolution setting a public hearing for the vacation of the following rights -of -way identified on the binding site plan as: • Tract H — A triangular shaped area formed by the southeast intersection of Park Ave. N. and Logan Ave. N. • Tract I — A portion of right-of-way on the east side of Park Ave. N. • Tract K — A portion of right-of-way northeast of the intersection of Park Ave. N. and Logan Ave. N. • Tract N — A narrow strip along the east side of Park Ave. N. near N. 8 h St. cc: Alex Pietsch Jennifer Henning r STREET DEDICATIONS ,,,--S4236'12 E N45 39'02E 2Z 14' 39.10' 58978'06E 1059.10' )7 59 N8978 22 w 1105.1 ------------------------ (FUTURE NORTH 8 TH S TREE T) S00�742-w 00- TRACT B ' •� �� SOS•t E R-41Q50' N 44.7SR-489 50' A0976'36"N45 45'24Ecc ; Z NORTH A -097e 36 H 39.05 t L=80 8d' �� 1 s8975'S3-E h ST. \ a. 2Z' y11.31 186. 9 s` TRACT C N 4414*36 39.05, 'wLl L •� : � .rN R=639so' Nr �.6,• a s'' � � t 1p A-OMr36• s4s35.4¢E=78.80' NORTH Rf°b.5'z�" OPP -439 5W R-56a46' ?, t L-17&-V' L-69 06' Z s44 37.2f'll► TRACT D STREET DEDICATIONS R-652.50' N89ti3_18_►I�R) 6-1173 59 L-127.93' w ►�. oNi h N. 10TH Sl. W to S NO3 46'4�'W ?4.28 N0036'421E - 3 28.00' No836'24'E 'f 14.44' N00'56'42'E 27.08' z oU �Z I m� uj a� TRACT F d-08W'48' L-15a47' N70'54'57'W --," 39.12' N27'57'23'W-� 50.69' R-547.50'J (R) 6-2834'05' L-276.17' N44-74-334'w N45�1 •sl 31.32' o 21 • N591 8'S1' SW �T 47'4_ NORTH 8TH STREET R-25.00' 6-90.02or 8 TRACT L L-39.29' t9 12' i7'23 .37' N. 10TH 19- 11 ST. Z ui D cc a TRACT E STREET DEDICATIONS soo w ---112&11 ---- 471E 4 ! 4 + i A �- ;.; y 4476y (FUTURE Nw TURE NORTH 8 TH S TREE T)�•31-w� S4a2ra -w. 3058' 44 S89 45'00' 36.11 ' - - -�• (FUTURE N. 8th 58978'520E STREET 50.43' N 00 a z Q z Q c) 0 W a J :W to it O O 3 �o W) N 0 , N8271'34'W N8978'S8'W TRACT P TRACT Q STREET DEDICATIONS 016ow / 1I � tic3 RG� =1os6.so �s �� ♦9 02-21's2' �� • =4�.o1r •cQ op TRACT K R=515.62' b-2232'30' L=20286' N79 32'58'NfR) 7.00' R=52262' 6�09 32'20' L=86.70' N89W'18-KR) TRA C T'S G & K NOTE: TRACT K IS A VACATION TRACT u UC-NI -8 ........... a - - R. RS R-1 8, 1 RIO R 10. !W F Q Q i E0 I- io REl R68: R 10 R 10 R�- R-8 R-10 CA sco E3 - 7 T23N R5E E 1/2 Logan Ave. N C:-Nl Park ve. N i I u n z Gar(Fen. N z !E19 00 0-3 N z N I UC-NI -8 ........... a - - R. RS R-1 8, 1 RIO R 10. !W F Q Q i E0 I- io REl R68: R 10 R 10 R�- R-8 R-10 CA sco E3 - 7 T23N R5E E 1/2 Logan Ave. N C:-Nl Park ve. N i I u n z Gar(Fen. N z !E19 00 0-3 N z N I CITY OF RENTON COUNCIL AGENDA BILL Submitting Data: Dept/Div/Board.. EDNSP/Strategic Planning Staff Contact...... Don Erickson (X-6581) Subject: Mosier II Annexation - 60% Direct Petition to Annex Exhibits: Issue Paper 60% Direct Petition King County Certification Document AI # R For Agenda of: January 24, 2005 Agenda Status Consent .............. Public Hearing.. Correspondence.. Ordinance ............. Resolution............ Old Business........ New Business....... Study Sessions...... Information......... Recommended Action: I Approvals: • Council concur in setting the public hearing Legal Dept......... on February 7, 2005 for future zoning. Finance Dept...... • Council refer potential expansion of the Other ............... annexation area to the Planning and Development Committee for review and recommendation. Fiscal Impact: Expenditure Required... Transfer/Amendment....... Amount Budgeted....... Revenue Generated......... Total Project Budget N/A City Share Total Project.. SUMMARY OF ACTION: The Council received a 60% Direct Petition to Annex on September 14, 2004 to annex approximately 31 acres of unincorporated King County located within Renton's Potential Annexation Area. The proponent's petition has been certified as having signatures representing at least 60% of the area's assessed valuation. Under state law if the City decides to accept the 60% Direct Petition it is required to hold two public hearings on future zoning. The site is currently designated Residential Low Density (RLD) on the Comprehensive Plan Land Use Map and would be zoned R-4, four units per net acre, consistent with this designation, if it is annexed into the City. The Administration is also seeking authorization to forward the Notice of Intent Package to the Boundary Review Board if Council decides to accept the 60% Direct Petition. The City at that time may decide whether to invoke jurisdiction and request that the Boundary Review Board incorporate the 13-lot "island" subdivision to the north, in the annexation. STAFF RECOMMENDATION: • Council set February 7, 2005 for a public hearing to decide whether to accept the 60% Direct Petition, to consider future zoning for the Mosier II Annexation if the 60% Direct X X Rcntonnct/agnbill/ bh Petition is accepted, and to authorize the Administration to forward the Notice of Intent package to the Boundary Review Board for King County for their mandatory 45-day review period. • Council refer to the Planning and Development Committee the issue of "invoking jurisdiction" and requesting the Boundary Review Board to consider expanding the annexation to include the 13-lot subdivision to the north. Rentonnet/agnbill/ bh CITY OF RENTON ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT, NEIGHBORHOODS AND STRATEGIC PLANNING DEPARTMENT MEMORANDUM DATE: January 18, 2005 TO: Terri Briere, Council President Members of the Renton City Council VIA: �Mayor Kathy Keolker-Wheeler FROM: Alex Pietsch, Administrator STAFF CONTACT: Don Erickson, x-6581 SUBJECT: Mosier II Annexation - Acceptance of 60% Direct Petition to Annex and Support for Future R-4 Zoning ISSUE: Whether the City Council wants to accept the 60% Direct Petition to Annex for the Mosier II Annexation now that the petition has been certified by the King County Department of Assessments? Whether future zoning should be RC, R-I or R-4 zoning if the Council decides to accept the 60% Direct Petition to Annex? Whether Council wishes to authorize the Administration to forward the Notice of Intent package to the Boundary Review Board, at this time? Whether the City should invoke jurisdiction during the Boundary Review Boards 45-day review period in order to expand the annexation's boundaries to include the 13-lot "island" subdivision to the north? RECOMMENDATION: • Council accept the 60% Direct Petition to Annex for the 31-acre Mosier 11 Annexation site; • Council adopt the recommendation of the Administration that it supports R-4 zoning consistent with the Comprehensive Plan RLD land use designation on the site; • Council authorize the Administration to forward the Notice of Intent package for the Mosier II Annexation to the Boundary Review Board; and, Mosier II Annexation — Acceptance of 60% Direct Petition, Zoning Public Hearing January 18, 2005 Page 2 Council refer the issue of invoking jurisdiction and expansion of the annexation area to include the 13-lot subdivision to the north to the Planning and Development Committee for review and recommendation. BACKGROUND SUMMARY: At its August 23, 2004 public meeting, Council decided to accept the 10% Notice of Intent to Commence Annexation petition and authorized circulation of a 60% Direct Petition to Annex. At the public meeting, Council also authorized expanding the southern boundary to take in six abutting parcels to the south of SE 132nd Street, as well as the abutting portions of 142"d Avenue SE, 1441h Avenue SE, and SE 136`h Street. This increased the size of this proposed annexation from 10.4 acres to over 31 acres. Council at that time required petitioners to support future zoning consistent with the Comprehensive Plan land use designation upon possible future annexation to the City. It also required property owners within the annexation area to assume their proportional share of the City's outstanding indebtedness. Except for parks, no major issues were identified. Because of nearby wetlands and the potential for flooding, future development will be required to mitigate surface water impacts. The City received the 60% Direct Petition to Annex for this revised annexation on September 13, 2004. The petition was certified by the King County Department of Assessments as having signatures representing at least 60% of the area's assessed valuation on September 22, 2004. Council is now being asked to decide whether it wants to accept the 60% Direct Petition to Annex, and if it does, what future zoning of the site should be if it is subsequently annexed into the City. The Comprehensive Plan Land Use Map designation for the subject site is Residential Low Density. This designation allows three zoning classifications: Resource Conservation at one unit per ten acres, R-1 at one unit per net acre, and R-4 at four units per net acre. Because of the annexation site's proximity to areas designated Residential Single Family, which would support R-8 zoning at eight units per net acre, and the fact that there are no sensitive areas on site, staff is recommending R-4 zoning. King County currently has R-4 zoning on it, which allows four units per gross acre, and with bonuses, up to six units per net acre. The subject site was also one of three sites that were specifically identified as being "grandfathered in" when the Comprehensive Plan Update and implementing ordinances were adopted in November 2004. The implementing ordinance stated that these three sites were to be allowed to develop at the former R-5 zone development standards. As the City and County attempt to create more efficient service area boundaries either the City or King County have the authority, under state law, to invoke jurisdiction and request the Boundary Review Board to modify the annexation's proposed boundaries. Because of the unsuccessful attempts to annex the 13-lot subdivision to the north and the inefficient service area that would result if the Mosier II Annexation were adopted, the City may want to consider this option later on. A more detailed discussion of this proposed annexation and review comments are contained in the department's August 2, 2004 Mosier II Annexation 10% Notice of Intent issue paper. Mosier II Annexation — Acceptance of 60% Direct Petition, Zoning Public Hearing January 18, 2005 Page 3 CONCLUSION: The proposed Mossier II Annexation has been certified as now having sufficient signatures representing at least 60% of the area's assessed value. It also has reasonable boundaries and appears to comply with all relevant Boundary Review Board objectives. Reviewing staff raised no significant obstacles to this annexation. Parks, however, indicated a general deficiency in the area and staff estimates a one time parks acquisition and improvement cost to the City of $63,936 for the expanded annexation area. This is based upon an estimated future population of 275 people, living in 110 dwelling units, at build out. Staff estimates revenues to the City of approximately $23,306 per year at build out. Based upon the above, and the previously submitted analysis in the 10% Notice of Intent issue paper, staff concludes that the proposed Mosier II Annexation would further the City's business goals and be in the general welfare and interest of the City. Mosier II Annexation — 60% Direct Petition A-oV-00V PETITION TO ANNEX TO THE CITY OF P%EWOAF RENTON UNDER RCW 35A.14.120 S E P 13 2004 (60% Petition — Mosier II Annexation) TO: THE CITY COUNCIL Of THE CITY OF RENTON 1055 South Grady Way Renton, WA 98055 RECEIVED ,.;ITY CLERK'S OFFICE SUBMITTED BY: 5 /ell 14, &Cle ADDRESS: PHONE: The undersigned are owners of not less than sixty percent (60%) in value according to the assessed valuation for general taxation, of real property located contiguous to the City of Renton. We hereby petition that such property be annexed to the City of Renton under the provisions of RCW 35A.14.120 et seq. The territory proposed to be annexed is within King County, Washington, and is contiguous to the City of Renton. A map (Exhibit 1) and legal description (Exhibit 2) are included as part of this petition. In response to a duly filed and considered "Notice of Intention" to commence annexation proceedings, the City Council of the City of Renton met with the initiating parties under RCW 35A.14.120 on August 23, 2004. The City Council then determined that the City would accept the proposed annexation. Further, pursuant to RCW 35A.14.120, the undersigned petitioners agree to: (1) Accept the City's simultaneous adoption of zoning regulations for the subject property; (3) Accept the City's Comprehensive Plan designations as they affect the subject property; and (4) Assume their proportional share of the pre-existing City bonded indebtedness. all as noted in the minutes of the Council meeting and contained in the electronic recording of such meeting. WHEREFORE, the undersigned property owners petition the City Council and ask: (a) That the City Council fixa' date for a public hearing about such proposed annexation, cause a notice to be published and posted, specifying the time and place of such hearing, and inviting all persons who are interested to appear at the hearing and state their approval or disapproval of such annexation or to ask questions; and (b) That following such hearing, and consistent with any approval by the Boundary Review Board, the City Council by ordinance annex the above described territory to become part of the City of Renton, Washington, subject to its laws and ordinances then and thereafter in force, and to receive City public services. This two page form is one of a number of identical forms which comprise one petition seeking the annexation of the described territory to the City of Renton, Washington as above stated, and may be filed with other pages containing additional signatures. Page 1 of 2 CITY OF RENTON (60% Petition — Mosier 11 Annexation) S E P 13 2004 RECEIVED WARNING: Every person who signs this petition with any other than his or her true name orEv 0S OFFICE knowingly signs more than one of these petitions, or signs a petition seeking an election when he or she is not a legal voter, or signs a petition when he or she is otherwise not qualified to sign, or who makes herein any false statement, shall be guilty of a misdemeanor. The undersigned have read the above petition and consent to the filing of this petition. (Names of petitioners should be in identical form as the same that appear on record in the chain of title to the real estate.) h Tax d eg�1a. '+_ g hTP.k'r cr '�` 'rH�y ��'Ea3.r��.✓:ul �<` S to ��*` F" `�.K- F' tjf{�� y■�� `z �t..t Ifk x -�, n?• ?,�+'9.w � YP-.�' s,�g �Y++'`S/xiS-e ?y�l�� x' � � �v +tJ 7 "?'J+ '^h+r/ �M, yZ�E"y � p✓ 6�/Z��`l� f, �v3� j"j x 16-236 - 1. /,,Z/ 907U 2. �G�• b 14 94",� — •— �v � s ntv4oa cu-n- -5-7 ,o(�,,-7, . 3. 91 ��C�l `r 4q' uz"-'j 5� �-fl/ i1-1iiVI 01- 4. g/ �a `"e ..1/�3 0,25 �s� 3 o S — L-/lvREe r k/t /t%d S /i- A, 0 R nr�e ,1 a 4` 5. VIC* l� � PL 5f 0847Io--olo7 �4c`�"M� k FOT q8o i-tZ 6• 0 e �, 13za� 7 1-1-AYX J U �n ��, whj 9�) 7. 8. 9. 10. Page 2 of 2 ITY OF RENTON (60% Petition — Mosier li Annexation) S E P 13 2004 RECEIVED Y CLERK'S OFFICE WARNING: Every person who signs this petition with any other than his or her true name, or who knowingly signs more than one of these petitions, or signs a petition seeking an election when he or she is not a legal voter, or signs a petition when he or she is otherwise not qualified to sign, or who makes herein any false statement, shall be guilty of a misdemeanor. The undersigned have read the above petition and consent to the filing of this petition. (Names ofpetitioners should be in identical form as the same that appear on record in the chain of title to the real estate.) 4se H t. + , Fx _ •., x r 9 3* `y+3.fi [.qlk Cr+ 4' x `d `fr q- F�� R � ., '� 3'a�T _'^ia 3 '` r ..'' '. irs -"i r z J �+ .1� A t,� : , U 40E,Wfl ut"Y i p p� a ,y'ng -,•. tF`xm'i [�1�E` t LiS$ az CSSUL 4 $$ {ry 1. CA�oq ( ►s 1444,5 a,.(, s� onto ►o Ci 00 0115 2. o; 4a r 3. 4. 5. 6. 7. 8. 9. 10. Page 2 of 2 1-,XH I BIT 1 Vi 1 I l r V ,11 �-.� � _ � lr i ii�l •� � ; ti, �� t � , � � : � j r _ sY ------ r -- _ --- --- --- -- ,I/.'�'.(��' t1 i it ll� ^ / ' ,t,<< �'✓; -- ^ ..w �/—�"�—J� ---- �� 1_ This document b a gophic r%rasmtation, not quormtead to survey xcurocy, (ntanded for city only and / based m tha best nfarmatim ovwl a oa of tha dote shorn. fir _ ,s•�1! ,"" .,e . -•.•s� -"_ ,• -_ . _ _. Thb mop is for display urposes only. D riposMosier 11 Annexation o 400 800 ed : Topography Map L --- ---- -- J 1 : 4800 Y s, Economic Development, Neighborhoods & Strategic Planning I Interval Countour ® Alex Pietsch, Administrator G. Del Rosario Renton City Limits �"Jv,ro 26 August 2004 1 Proposed Annexation Area EXHIBIT 2 MOSSIER II ANNEXATION LEGAL DESCRIPTION The east half (1/2) of the west half (1/2) of the northeast quarter of Section 15, Township 23 North, Range 5 East, W.M., King County, Washington, lying southerly of the north line of the southeast quarter of the northwest quarter of the northeast quarter of said subdivision; EXCEPT the east 30 feet of said subdivision lying northerly of the southerly right-of-way margin of NE 2" d St. (SE 132"d St.) extended westerly across Jericho Ave. NE (144`h Ave. SE); and EXCEPT the west 30 feet of said subdivision lying northerly of the southerly right-of-way margin of SE 132"d St. extended easterly across 142"d Ave. SE; TOGETHER WITH that portion of 142"d Ave. SE within the south half (1/2) of the west half (1/2) of the west half (1/2) of said northeast quarter, lying southerly of the southerly right-of-way margin of SE 132"d St. extended westerly across 142"d Ave. SE, said extension terminating at the beginning of a curve to the right with a radius of 20 feet; and TOGETHER WITH that portion of 144d' Ave. SE within the west 30 feet of the east half (1/2) of the northeast quarter of said Section 15, lying southerly of the southerly right-of-way margin of NE 2"d St. extended westerly across Jericho Ave. NE (144`h Ave. SE); and TOGETHER WITH that portion of SE 130h St. within the north 30 feet of the east half (1/2) of the east half (1/2) of the west half (1/2) of the southeast quarter of said Section 15; and TOGETHER WITH the north 30 feet of the west 30 feet of the east half (1/2) of the southeast quarter of said Section 15. N:\File Sys\LND - Land Subdivision & Surveying Records\LND-01 - Leval Descriptions\0063.doc\SF\jw King Cotinty Department of Assessments King County Administration Bldg. 500 Fourth Avenue, Room 708 Seattle, WA 98104-2384 (206) 296-5195 FAX (200 296-0595 Email: assessor.info@metroke.gov www.metroke.gov/assessor/ Scott Noble Assessor ANNEXATION PETITION CERTIFICATION THIS IS TO CERTIFY that the petition submitted September 20, 2004 to the King County Department of Assessments by Don Erickson, Senior Planner for the City of Renton, supporting the annexation to Renton of the properties described as the Mosier II Annexation, has been examined, the property taxpayers, tax parcel numbers, and assessed value of properties listed thereon carefully compared with the King County tax roll records, and as a result of such examination, found to be sufficient under the provisions of the New Section of Revised Code of Washington, Section 35.13.002. The Department of Assessments has not verified that the signature on the petition is valid through comparison with any record of actual signatures, nor that the signature was obtained or submitted in an appropriate time frame, and this document does not certify such to be the case. Dated this 22nd day of September, 2004 Scott Noble, King County Assessor .4sw —m City of Renton oney CreeK East �cASTT E Current Annexations 27.5 ac. URBAN GROWIH BOUNDARY ~ Merritt II CITY LIFBTS Mc r •+'r ACTIVE ANNEXATION INAcnVEANNEXATION 'f - ri 133.3 ac. E —i. 0-1 t NelghDwhoode & Stntepk PbnnnO a ♦r t �� ( � a - - z. o. «m.. zow 'Approved by the B.R.B. '+ J Hendrickson 23.1 ac. Wedgewood Querin k moo,I Lane 9.4 ac. i rip .�, Y �tN rt'�~ Anderson , 19.8 ynac/� . Park Terrace �� Maplewood �� East 7.6 ac.G' 26.1 ac. ��l/�� lr � tiq ��iq►� rn� A !k(� �I�Ie��ii�lp y��"�.' '• � ' � .. �, I � � � � ::i L -� Lindberg' 4 r ; 10.6 ac. - X ..`� Mosier II 31.0 ac. �� , ,,,� _ • '\ � {01 u � f M I � � ��t G�j JS Tb1P nA � ' _•.'� 1. Maplewood '{, a �:Ma lewood Highlands '�- Maplewood Addition p 9.5 ac. rug I' z 60.5 ac. w lementarY a 2? 9.8 ac. �k8 Falk IIR _. 8 ac E� 6 til -�- • �► t#; Anthone�: k '� 4.9 ac. UNT CITY OF RENTON COUNCIL AGENDA BILL Submitting Data: Dept/Div/Board.. Staff Contact.. Subject: Economic Development Neighborhoods and Strategic Planning Rebecca Lind (ext. 6588) Issaquah School District 2004 Capital Facilities Plan and School Impact Fee for New Development Exhibits: Issue Paper Correspondence from Issaquah School District School District Capital Facilities Plan AI #: For Agenda of. January 24, 2004 Agenda Status Consent .............. Public Hearing.. Correspondence.. Ordinance ............. Resolution ............ Old Business........ New Business....... Study Sessions...... Information......... Recommended Action: Approvals: Refer to Finance Committee Legal Dept......... Finance Dept...... Other ............... Fiscal Impact: Expenditure Required... Transfer/Amendment....... Amount Budgeted.:..... Revenue Generated......... Total Project Budget City Share Total Project.. X SUMMARY OF ACTION: The Issaquah School District requests that the City adopt its 2004 Capital Facilities Plan and impact fees. The proposed 2004 single-family impact fee is $4,996, while the multi -family impact fee is $796. There are no multi -family homes built within the Renton portion of the school district. Renton currently collects a fee of $2,937 per new single —family dwelling built within the City of Renton portion of the Issaquah School District and passes $2,797 of that fee to the School District pursuant to Renton Ordinance 4808. This issue was last reviewed in February of 2003 when the City Council evaluated Renton's current policy and determined to continue it. Ordinance 4808 requires the City to review this fee on an annual basis. STAFF RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommends that the City retain its current fee methodology but re-evaluate the fee based on new data. EDNSPEconomicDevelopment Incentive Impact Fees 2004 Issaquah School District Impact Fee agenda bill CITY OF RENTON ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT, NEIGHBORHOODS AND STRATEGIC PLANNING DEPARTMENT MEMORANDUM DATE: January 18, 2005 TO: Terri Briere, Council President Members of the Renton City Council VIA:1OMayor Kathy Keolker-Wheeler FROM: Alex Pietsch, Administrator STAFF CONTACT: Rebecca Lind (ext. 6588) SUBJECT: 2004 Issaquah School District Impact Fees ISSUE: • Should the City of Renton increase the school mitigation fee currently collected on behalf of the Issaquah School District? • Should Renton adopt the Issaquah School District Capital Facilities Plan? RECOMMENDATION: • Retain the City's existing school mitigation fee methodology established in Ordinance No. 4808 that the City collects on behalf of the Issaquah School District but re -calculate the fee based on new data. • Do not formally adopt the Issaquah School District Capital Facilities Plan. Retain language already included in the Renton Comprehensive Plan clarifying that the fee Renton collects is determined as set out in Renton Ordinance No. 4808 and Section 4-1-160 of Title IV. BACKGROUND SUMMARY: In 1999 the City adopted Ordinance No. 4804, which added a new Section, 4-1-160, School Impact Mitigation Fees in Title IV, Development Regulations of Renton Municipal Code (Title IV). This section authorized the City to collect school impact fees for the Issaquah School District and provided for an annual review of the fee structure. After looking at differences in the price of new homes, proposed capital facilities, and school occupancy levels throughout the District, the City decided to adopt a school mitigation fee of $2,937. Because the ordinance allows the City to retain 5% of this fee for administrative purposes, the actual amount January 18, 2005 Page 2 transferred to the District is $2,797. There are no multi -family homes built within the Renton portion of the District, so Renton does not calculate a multi -family fee. At the time the Renton methodology and fees were adopted, the single-family fee requested by the District was $6,140, and the gap between the two fees was $3,203. Ordinance No. 4808 requires the City to adjust the fee it collects on behalf of the District from time to time. The existing Renton fee of $2,937 has remained in effect since 1999. It was reviewed by Council in 2003 but not changed. The Issaquah School District Capital Facilities Plan is amended annually resulting in adjustments to the proposed impact fee. In 2002, the District reduced the proposed fee to $3,924 for new single-family dwellings reducing the gap between the fees to $987. In 2003, the Issaquah District fees increased to $4,617 for single-family. The proposed 2004 fee is $4,996 (an increase of $379 from 2003). The gap is now $1,523. The change in the Issaquah District fee reflects changes in the capital building program district -wide more than changes in the differential between housing markets. The District completed Skyline High School after the 1999 CIP planning period and removed that cost from its capital program. Current capital projects include construction of anew 9th grade campus and one new elementary school, both serving the Sammamish Plateau area. A new elementary school was recently completed in Newcastle. No new capital projects are planned within the Renton city limits or its Potential Annexation Area (PAA). A gap continues to exist between the district -wide home value and the value in Renton and its PAA. An initial survey of home prices within one-half mile of Sunny Hills Elementary in the Sammamish Plateau area compared with prices around Apollo Elementary shows that while the gap in homes prices is closing, disproportionate prices for new single-family housing still persists within portions of the District. The price of homes in the two areas was checked in January 2003 as part of Renton's fee review process. The average home value was $439,558 in the Sammamish area compared to $240,543 in the Renton area. In January 2004, a preliminary review of the same areas indicated values around Sunny Hills of $470,842 (7.1 % increase) and $260,900 (8.5% increase) around Apollo. The Comprehensive Plan incorporates the Issaquah School District Capital Facilities Plan by reference in the "Other Related Documents" section. The School District's Capital Facilities Plan uses a methodology set forth on the "School Impact Fee Calculation" sheet for determining the District's school impact mitigation fee amount for both single-family and multi -family units. This methodology does not reflect the factors that the Renton code allows and results in a conflict with Title IV. There will continue to be a difference between the school impact mitigation fee referenced in the District's Capital Facilities Plan and the fee Renton actually adopts. As a result, the City needs to reference the Issaquah School District's Capital Facilities Plan, but not formally adopt that portion of the Plan entitled the "School Impact Fee Calculations Sheet" or the "Final Fee." Language should be retained clarifying that the fee Renton collects is determined as set out in Ordinance No. 4808 and Section 4-1-160 of Title IV. EDNSP/Admin/Financial Incentives/Issaquah School District Mitigation Fee Issue Paper January 18, 2005 Page 3 CONCLUSION: The City should keep the existing school impact mitigation fee methodology, but take a closer look at the fee calculation based on new data about home costs and proposed expenditures in the Renton portion of the school district. The fee calculation is based on 1999 data and should be updated to reflect current values within the City of Renton and the PAA. The data about home values needs to be more carefully reviewed and incorporated into fee calculations. It is recommended that a more detailed analysis of values and a fee recommendation be made to the Finance Committee for review and recommendation. EDNSP/Admin/Financial Incentives/Issaquah School District Mitigation Fee Issue Paper Issaquah School District No.411 565 NW Holly Street • Issaquah, WA 98027-2899 • Phone (425) 837-7000 Janet N. Barry, Ed. D. Superintendent August 30, 2004 sty Jay Covington City of Renton 1055 South Grady Way Renton, WA 98055 Dear Jay: Enclosed are copies of the Issaquah School District's 2004 Capital Facilities Plan, which the School Board adopted on June 9, 2004. The King County School Technical Review Committee approved this plan in June 2004 and submitted the plan to the King County Council for adoption. The District requests that the City of Renton adopt the 2004 Capital Facilities Plan and impact fees effective January 2005. Please advise my office of your timeline, so I may be available to answer any questions. The 2004 single-family impact fee is $4996 (an increase of $379 from last year) and the multi -family impact fee is $796 (an increase of $116 from last year). Please contact my office at (425) 837-7010 if additional information is needed. Sincerely, Craig Chris ensen Executive Director - Operations Board of Directors Constance L. Fletcher • Larry W. Ishmael • Mark Warner • Michael Winkler • Jan Woldseth _` r , D4� F „� if ra$4 # �;: £"�'.' + t4��x_�; NN V�;a :• Issaquah School District No. 411 Issaquah, Washington Adopted June 9, 2004 Resolution No. 861 The Issaquah School District No. 411 hereby provides this Capital Facilities Plan documenting present and future school facility requirements of the District. The Plan contains all elements required by the Growth Management Act and King County Council Ordinance 21A. k EXECUTIVESUMMARY.......................................................................................................... 1 STANDARDSOF SERVICE... .... ......... .................................................................................. 2 TRIGGER OF CONSTRUCTION........................................................................................... 2 FUTURE SCHOOL FACILITY NEEDS AND FINANCING....................................................... 3 EXISTING AND FUTURE CAPACITY NEEDS..............................................................4 ENROLLMENT METHODOLOGY........................................................................................... 5 TABLE #1: ACTUAL STUDENT COUNTS 1998 - 2003 AND ENROLLMENT PROJECTIONS 2004 - 2019....................................................... 6 TABLE #2: STUDENT FACTORS........................................................................................... 7 INVENTORY AND EVALUATION OF CURRENT FACILITIES ............................................... 8 SITELOCATION MAP............................................................................................................. 9 SIX -YEAR CONSTRUCTION PLAN........................................................................................ 10 TABLE #3: PROJECTED CAPACITY TO HOUSE STUDENTS ............................................. 11 SINGLE AND MULTI FAMILY IMPACT FEE CALCULATIONS .............................................. 12 BASIS FOR DATA USED IN SCHOOL IMPACT FEE CALCULATIONS ................................ 13 APPENDIX A 2003-2004 ELEMENTARY CAPACITIES......................................................... 14 APPENDIX B: 2003-2004 MIDDLE SCHOOL CAPACITIES...................................................15 APPENDIX C: 2003-2004 HIGH SCHOOL CAPACITIES........................................................ 16 APPENDIX D: 2003-2004 TOTAL CAPACITIES..................................................................... 17 APPENDIX E: SIX -YEAR FINANCE PLAN............................................................................. 18 This Six -Year Capital Facilities Plan (the "Plan") has been prepared by the Issaquah School District as the district's principle planning document, in compliance with the requirements of Washington's Growth Management Act and King County Council Code Title 21A. This Plan was prepared using data available in April of 2004. This Plan is consistent with prior long-term Capital Facilities Plans adopted by the Issaquah School District. However, this Plan is not intended to be the sole Plan for all of the District's needs. The District may prepare interim and periodic Long Range Capital Facilities Plans consistent with board policies, taking into account a longer or a shorter time period, other factors and trends in the use of facilities, and other needs of the District as may be required. Any such plan or plans will be consistent with this Six -Year Capital Facilities Plan. In June 1992, the District first submitted a request to King County to impose and to collect school impact fees on new developments in unincorporated King County. On November 16, 1992, the King County Council first adopted the District's Plan and a fee implementing ordinance. This Plan is the annual update of the Six -Year Plan. Pursuant to the requirements of the Growth Management Act, this Plan will be updated on an annual basis, and any charges in the fee schedule(s) adjusted accordingly. -I- STA N RPOE SERVICE The District's level of service is based on the number of classrooms available at each school and a desired average class load district -wide. This class load is expected to best promote the quality of education as expected by the residents of the Issaquah School District. Different class sizes are used depending on the grade level or programs offered such as special education or the gifted program. With the passage of Initiative 728 in November 2000, the Issaquah School Board established new class size standards for elementary grades K-5. It is the Board's intent to reduce the K-2 class size ratio to 18 and grades 3-5 to 22 if Initiative 728 funding is provided by the legislature. A class size average of 20 for grades K-5 is now being used to calculate building capacities. A class size of 26 is used for grades 6-8 and 28 for grades 9-12. Special Education class size is based on 12 students per class. For the purpose of this analysis, rooms designated for special use, consistent with the provisions of King County Council Code Title 21A, are not considered classrooms. Invariably, some classrooms will have student loads greater in number than this average level of service, and some will be smaller. Program demands, state and federal requirements, collective bargaining agreements, and available funding may also affect this level of service in the years to come. Due to these variables, a utilization factor of 95% is used to adjust design capacities to what a building may actually accommodate. Portables used as classrooms are used to accommodate enrolhnent increases for interim purposes until permanent classrooms are available. When permanent facilities become available, the portable(s) is moved to another school as an interim classroom. The 2004 Issaquah School District Capital Facilities Plan proposes the construction of one elementary school, a 9 h Grade/Middle School, expansion of one elementary, a satellite transportation center, site improvements and land acquisitions. Planning the need for new schools is triggered by comparing our enrollment forecasts with our permanent capacity figures. These forecasts are by grade level and, to the extent possible, by geography. The analysis provides a list of new construction needed by school year. The decision on when to construct a new facility involves factors other than verified need. Funding is the most serious consideration. Factors including the potential tax rate for our citizens, the availability of state funds and impact fees, the ability to acquire land, and the ability to pass bond issues determine when any new facility can be constructed. The planned facilities will be funded by a bond issue passed on April 27, 1999, school impact fees and reserve funds held by the District. New school facilities are a response to new housing which the county or cities have approved for construction. The District's Six -Year Finance Plan is shown in Appendix E. -2- Need for Impact Fees Because impact fees and state matching funds have not been a reliable source of revenue, the Issaquah School District asked its voters on April 27, 1999, to front fund the construction of two elementary schools and one middle school. The bond amount was reduced by $5 million in anticipation of impact fees to be collected between the years 1999 and 2004. Additional impact fees collected beyond the $5 million may cause fewer bonds to be sold, thus reducing the burden on property taxes. The District currently does not qualify for state match funding for new K-5 or 6-8 construction. The District does qualify for a small amount of state match at the 9-12 grade levels. As demonstrated in Appendix A, the District currently has a permanent capacity to serve 5980 students at the elementary level. Appendix B shows a permanent capacity for 3,124 students at the middle school level. Appendix C shows a permanent capacity of 4,228 students at the high school level. Current enrollment is identified on page 6. The District currently is over permanentcapacity at the elementary level by 644 students (Appendix A), at the middle/junior high school level by 495 students (Appendix B), and over permanent capacity at the high school level by 303 students (Appendix Q. Based upon the District's student generation rates, the District expects that .613 students will be generated from each new single family home in the District and that .195 students will be generated from each new multi -family dwelling unit. Applying the enrollment projections contained on page 6 to the District's existing permanent capacity and if no capacity improvements are made by the year 2009-10, the District will be over capacity to accommodate students at the elementary level by 784 students, at the middle school level by 688 students, and at the high school levy by 846 students. The District's enrollment projections are developed using two methods: first, the cohort survival — historical enrollment method is used to forecast enrollment growth based upon the progression of existing students in the District; then, the enrollment projections are modified to include students anticipated from new development in the District. -3- To address existing and future capacity needs, the District's six -year construction plan includes the following capacity projects: Projected Facility Completion Date Location Capacity 9`h Grade/Middle Sept. 2005 224'h SE Issaquah Fall City Road 855 School Issaquah Valley Sept. 2006 555 N.W. Holly Street, Issaquah 120 Elementary Expansion Elementary #14 Sept. 2006/07 Highlands 504 Based upon the District's capacity data and enrollment projections, as well as the student generation data, the District has determined that approximately 100 percent of its capacity improvements are necessary to serve students generated by new development. The school impact fee formula ensures that new development only pays for the cost of the facilities necessitated by new development. The fee calculations examine the costs of housing the students generated by each new single family dwelling unit or each new multi -family dwelling unit and then reduce that amount by the anticipated state match and future tax payments. The resulting impact fee is then discounted further. Thus, by applying the student generation factor to the school project costs, the fee formula only calculates the costs of providing capacity to serve each new dwelling unit. The formula does not require new development to contribute to the costs of providing capacity to address existing needs. The King County Council and the City Councils of the Cities of Bellevue, Issaquah, Newcastle, Renton and Sammamish have created a framework for collecting school impact fees and the District can demonstrate that new developments will have an impact on the District. The impact fees will be used in a manner consistent with RCW 82.02.050 - A00 and the adopted local ordinances. -4- ENROL%lYCEI TIVIETHEDOLC3GY Two basic techniques are used, with the results compared, to establish the most likely range of anticipated student enrollment: The student 3-2-1 cohort survival method. Examine Issaquah School District enrollments for the last 5 years and determine the average cohort survival for the consecutive five-year period. Because cohort survival does not consider students generated from new development it is a conservative projection of actual enrollment. For the same reason, these projections are also slow to react to actual growth. Based on information from King County, realtors, developers, etc., seek to establish the number of new dwelling units that will be sold each year. The new dwelling units are converted to new students based on the following: a) The number of actual new students as a percentage of actual new dwellings for the past several years. b) Determine the actual distribution of new students by grade level for the past several years, i.e., 5% to kindergarten, 10% to first grade, 2% to 1 ith grade, etc. c) Based on an examination of the history shown by (a) and (b) above, establish the most likely factor to apply to the projected new dwellings. After determining the expected new students, the current actual student enrollments are moved forward from year to year with the arrived at additions. One of the challenges associated with all projection techniques is that they tend to always show growth because the number of houses and the general population always increases. Enrollments, however, can and do decrease even as the population increases. The reason is as the population matures, the number of kindergartners will go down as the number of I Oth graders is still increasing. To adjust for this factor, the number of school age children per dwelling is examined. When this number exceeds expectations, it is probably because the District is still assuming kindergarten growth, while the main growth is actually moving into middle school. When this happens, a reduction factor is added to kindergarten to force it to decrease even though the general population continues to grow. A precise statistical formula has not been developed to make this adjustment. After all of the projections have been made and examined, the most likely range is selected. An examination of past projections compared with actuals indicates the cohorts tend to be more accurate over a ten-year time span while dwelling units tend to be more accurate over a shorter period. The probable reason is that over a ten-year period, the projections tend to average out even though there are major shifts both up and down within the period. Enrollment projections for the years 2004 through 2019 are shown in Table #1. Student generation factors are shown in Table #2. -5- ISSAQUAH SCHOOL DISTRICT Actual Student Counts 1998-99 Through 2003-04 Enrollment Projections 2004-05 Thru 2018-19 FTE ENROLLMENT Year j K 1ST 2ND 3RD 4TH STH 6TH 77H 87H 9TH LOTH 11TH 12TH Total `� K-5 6-8 9-12 Total 1998-99 474 1110 1127 1112 1117 1037 1051 1036 992 999 964 875 840 12,734 5977 3079 3678 12,734 1999-00 438 1091 1128 1151 1147 1114 1026 1050 1048 1028 994 914 839 12,968 6069 3124 3775 12,968 2000-01 462 1025 1094 1157 1181 1173 1154 1049 1074 1108 1024 934 887 13,322 6092 3277 3953 13,322 2001-02 475 1072 1069 1127 1171 1155 1201 1159 1072 1143 1128 969 888 13,629 6069 3432 4128 13,629 2002-03 458 1055 1104 1063 1147 1201 1166 1210 1174 1132 1131 1063 900 13,804 6028 3550 4226 13,804 2003-04 497 1074 1118 1143 1106 1159 1237 1196 1231 1201 1133 1062 956 14,113 6097 3664 4352 14,113 2004-05 495 1135 1106 1142 1171 1114 1179 1250 1215 1281 1201 1073 1005 14,368 6163 3645 4561 14,368 2005-06 496 1130 1170 1130 1169 1181 1141 1195 1270 1269 1282 1139 1012 14,584 6275 3607 4702 14,584 2006-07 483 1130 1171 1192 1156 1175 1206 1156 1215 1322 1271 1220 1071 14,768 6308 3576 4884 14,768 2007-08 491 1102 1171 1192 1221 1169 1199 1222 1174 1263 1321 1207 1148 14,880 6345 3596 4939 14,880 2008-09 494 1124 1144 1197 1223 1231 1196 1218 1242 1221 1264 1257 1134 14,943 6411 3656 4876 14,943 2009-10 491 1127 1162 1167 1225 1232 1256 1212 1237 1292 1221 1202 1191 15,015 6404 3704 4906 15,015 2010-11 1, 491 1122 1166 1185 1196 1235 1257 1272 1231 1287 1293 1158 1134 15,027 6394 3760 4872 15,027 2011-12 490 1121 1163 1189 1214 1205 1260 1274 1291 1280 1288 1230 1089 15,093 6381 3825 4887 15,093 2012-13 491 1119 1161 1186 1218 1224 1230 1276 1293 1340 1281 1225 1160 15,205 6399 3800 5005 15,205 2013-14 491 1122 1159 1185 1215 1228 1249 1247 1296 1342 1341 1218 1155 15,248 ' 6401 3792 5056 15,248 2014-15 491 1122 1162 1183 1213 1225 1253 1266 1266 1345 1342 1278 1149 15,296 6396 3785 5115 15,296 2015-16 491 1121 1162 1185 1211 1223 1250 1270 1285 1316 1346 1280 1209 15,349 6394 3805 5150 15,349 2016-17 491 1121 1161 1186 1214 1221 1248 1266 1289 1334 1316 1283 1210 15,342 6394 3804 5144 15,342 2017-18 491 1121 1161 1185 1214 1224 1246 1265 1286 1338 1335 1253 1214 15,334 6397 3797 5140 15,334 2018-19 i 491 1122 1161 1185 1214 1224 1249 1263 1284 1335 1339 1272 1184 15,323 . 6396 3796 5130 15,323 H w C -A- Table #2 .�� s z. _ ��s ft Y L' L<J la 'fiI?AMTL w....: b Student Generation Factors STUDENTS AVERAGE PER UNIT a i s h 0 �ry h (b �ry wQ Single Family Development �ec�o # #� go (b '�° �- to (b Wesley Paris 226 75 17 9 8 34 0.227 0.120 0.107 0.453 Traditions 95 95 30 17 9 56 0.316 0.179 0.095 0.589 Issaquah Highlands 270 207 81 31 34 146 0.391 0.150 0.164 0.705 Laurels 1811 90 70 10 9 3 _ 22 0.143 0.129 0.043 0.314 China Creek 225 220 85 40 26 151 . 0.386 0.1112 0.118 0.686 Highlands @Newcastle 152 65 34 3 5 42 0.523 0.046 0.077 0.646 Silverleaf 53 53 29 6 4 39 0.547 0.113 0.075 0.736 Talus 226 96 25 10 9 44 - 0260 0.104 0.094 OA58 Licorice Fern 85 85 31 15 11 57 0.365 0.176 0.129 0.671 Stonegate 53 53 19 8 12 39 0.358 0.151 0.226 0.736 Windwood 109 107 31 14 15 60 02N 0.131 0.140 0.561 TOTALS 1584 1126 392 162 136 690 0.348 0.144 0.121 0.613 .b Goa h w �ry „� h <b ten' ,� Multifamily Development %- ro C �° � °� A° Palomino Condos@ Redford 60 60 3 1 2 6 0.050 0.017 0.033 0.100 Summer Hills 168 168 11 15 12 38 0.065 0.089 0.071 0.226 Fairfield Green 59 59 9 3 10 22 0.153 0.051 0.169 0.373 Highland.Gardens 51 51 28 20 18 66 0.549 0.392 0.353 1.294 Lakemorrt Ridge 135 135 15 4 4 23 0.111 0.030 0.030 0.170 Overlook - Lakemont 420 420 15 2 2 19 0.036 0.005 0.005 0.045 TOTALS 893 893 81 45 48 174 0.091 0.05 0.054 0.195 SINGLE FAWLY MULTI -FAMILY Elementary School 0.348 Elementary K - 5 0.091 Middle School 6 - 8 0.144 Middle School 6 - 8 0.05 High School 9 -12 0.121 High School 9 -12 0.054 TOTAL 0.613 TOTAL 0.195 These developments are currently under construction or have been completed within the past five years. -7- f INVENT OTfY AND EVALUA )f ION "P CURRENT FACILITIES f = Currently, using the 95% utilization factor, the District has the capacity to house 12,697 students in permanent facilities and 2,280 students in portables. The combined permanent and portable capacity of 14,977 provides a capacity surplus of 609 for the K-12 student population of 14,368 (September 1, 2004 projected headcount). Calculations of elementary, middle school and high school capacities are shown in Appendices A, B and C. Totals are shown in Appendix D. Below is a list of current facilities. These facility locations and sites are shown on the District Site Location Map on Page 9. Existing Facility GRADE SPAN K-5: Apollo Elementary Briarwood Elementary Cascade Ridge Elementary Challenger Elementary Clark Elementary Cougar Ridge Elementary Discovery Elementary Endeavour Elementary Issaquah Valley Elementary Maple Hills Elementary Sunny Hills Elementary Sunset Elementary GRADE SPAN 6-8: Beaver Lake Middle School Issaquah Middle School Maywood Middle School Pine Lake Middle School GRADE SPAN 9-12: Issaquah High School Liberty High School Skyline High School Tiger Mountain Community High School SUPPORT SERVICES: Administration Building May Valley Service Center Transportation Center Location 15025 S.E. 117th Street, Renton 17020 S.E. 134th Street, Renton 2020 Trossachs Blvd. SE, Sammamish 25200 S.E. Klahanie Blvd., Issaquah 500 Second Ave. S.E., Issaquah 4630 167th Ave. S.E., Bellevue 2300 228th Ave. S.E., Sammamish 26205 SE Issaq.-Fall City Rd., Issaquah 555 N.W. Holly Street, Issaquah 15644 204th Ave. S.E., Issaquah 3200 Issaq. Pine Lake Rd. S.E., Sammamish 4229 W. Lk. Samm. Pkwy. S.E., Issaquah 25025 S.E. 32nd Street, Issaquah 400 First Ave. S.E., Issaquah 14490 168th Ave. S.E., Renton 3200 228th Ave. S.E., Sammamish 700 Second Ave. S.E., Issaquah 16655 S.E. 136th Street, Renton 1122 228'h Ave. S.E., Sammamish 355 S.E. Evans Lane, Issaquah 565 N.W. Holly Street, Issaquah 16404 S.E. May Valley Road, Renton 805 Second Avenue S.E., Issaquah -8- *moo lima aM5 9z �= Pon" r wwll/R M1'..., M�Yrif n , At the time of plan preparation, a new elementary school is under construction and the 90' Grade/Middle School and the satellite transportation center are in permitting. The District's Six -Year Finance Plan is shown in Appendix E. Shown in Table #3 is the District's projected capacity to house students, which reflects the additional facilities as noted. Voters passed a $68.7 million bond in April 1999 to fund Newcastle Elementary, elementary #14, and the 9t° Grade/Middle School and the expansion of Issaquah Valley Elementary. The District does not anticipate receiving State matching funds that would reduce future bond sale amounts or be applied to new K-5 or 6-8 construction projects included in this Plan. The District does however; anticipate receiving $3 million in State matching funds for the 96Grade/Middle School. The District also anticipated that it would receive $5 million in impact fees and mitigation payments that will be applied to capital projects, producing additional student capacity over• a five-year period. The District projects 14,368 FTE students for the 2004-2005 school year and 15,015 FTE students in the 2009-2010 school year. This growth represents a 4% (rounded) increase in student population. This growth will be accommodated by the planned facilities. Per the formula in the adopted school impact fee ordinance, half of this factor is assigned to impact fees and half is the local share. -10- Projected Capacity to House Students - rermanent Capacity and New Construction calculations are based on the 95% utlization factors (see Appendix D) The number of planned portables may be reduced if permanent capicity is increased by a future bond issue --11 — Table #3 SCHOOL IMPACT FEE CALCULATIONS DISTRICT Issaquah SD #411 YEAR 2004 School Site Acquisition Cost: ((AcresxCost per Acre)/Facility Capacity)xStudent Generation Factor Student Student Facility Cost/ Facility Factor Factor Cost/ Cost/ Acreage Acre Capacity SFR MFR SFR MFR Elementary 10.00 $205,000 504 0.348 0.091 $1,416 $369 Middle/JR High 22.00 $113,863 855 0.144 0.050 $422 $148 High 0.00 $0 0 0.121 0.195 $0 $0 TOTAL $1,838 $517 School Construction Cost: ((Facility Cost/Facility Capacity)xStudent Generation Factor)x(permonent/Total Sq Ft) Student Student %Perm/ Facility Facility Factor Factor Cost/ Cost/ Total Sq.Ft. Cost Capacity SFR MFR SFR MFR Elementary 95.24% $16,700,000 504 0.348 0.091 $10,986 $2,862 Middle/JR High 95.24% $28,613,600 855 0.144 0.050 $4,585 $1,606 High 95.24% $0 1,480 0.121 0.195 $0 $0 TOTAL $15,571 $4,468 Temporary Facility Cost: ((Facility Cost/Facility Capacity)xStudent Generation Factor) x (Temporary/Tota I Square Feet) Student Student Cost/ Cost/ %Temp/ Facility Facility Factor Factor SFR MFR Total Sq.Ft. Cost Size SFR MFR Elementary 4.76% $0 40 0.348 0.091 $0 $0 Middle/JR High 4.76% $0 52 0.144 0.050 $0 $0 High 4.76% $0 56 0.121 0.195 $0 $0 TOTAL $0 $0 State Matching Credit: Area Cost Allowance X SPI Square Footage X District Match %X Student Factor Student Student Current Area SPI District Factor Factor Cost/ Cost/ Cost Allowance Footage Match % SFR MFR SFR MFR Elementary $129.81 80 0.007. 0.348 0.091 $0 $0 9th Grade Caml $129.81 100 42.63% 0.216 0.050 $1,195 $279 TOTAL $1,195 $279 Tax Payment Credit: SFR MFR Average Assessed Value $412,924 $206,732 Capital Bond Interest Rate 4.35% 4.35% Net Present Value of Average Dwelling $3,291,583 $1,647,944 Years Amortized 10 10 Property Tax Levy Rate $1.89 $1.89 Present Value of Revenue Stream $6,221 $3,115 Fee Sumary: Single Multi - Family Family Site Acquistion Costs $1,837.54 $516.58 Permanent Facility Cost $15,571.40 $4,468.44 Temporary Facility Cost $0.00 $0.00 State Match Credit ($1,195.30) ($278.86) Tax Payment Credit ($6,221.09) ($3,114.61) FEE (AS CALCULATED) $9,992.55 $1,591.54 FEE (AS DISCOUNTED) $4,996.27 $795.77 FINAL FEE $4,996 $796 -12- a SCHO�OIrIMPAC��E G �II3� �� SCHOOL SITE ACQUISITION COST: • Elementary $205,000/acre is the average cost per acre for the purchase of the Highlands site ($300,000/acre — 10 acres), and the Newcastle site ($110,000/acre). • 9'h Grade/ Middle School The Fall City Rd Site ($113,863/acre — 22 acres). • High School No high schools sites are planned for purchase within the next six years. SCHOOL CONSTRUCTION COST: • Elementary $16,700,000 is the cost of the project budget for Elementary #13 • 9`h Grade/ Middle School $28,613,000 is estimated construction cost. • High School No high schools are planned within the next six years. PERCENTAGE OF PERMANENT AND TEMPORARY SQUARE FOOTAGE TO TOTAL SQUARE FOOTAGE: Total Square Footage 1,684,069 Permanent Square Footage (OSPI) 1,588,897 Temporary Square Footage 95,172 TEMPORARY FACILITY COST: No portables are anticipated. STATE MATCH CREDIT: Boeckh Index (3/l/04) $129.81 Percentage of State Match $ -0- (Issaquah School District does not qualify for state funding for new construction under existing formulas) -13- 2003 - 2004 Elementary School Capacities •••9/1/04 Headcount Enromment CompsM to PertneMnt Cape" x 95% (Wilzetbn feetor) ••••911104 Hesdeount Enrollment um Compared to MaximCapselty x 95% (utplzetlon faor) ct Permenent wpeeity reflects the building's level of service design ospealty. The msxlmum oapsolty Includes the permanent wpsolty plus the msxirrwm number of Classrooms served In portables. 14 3ndix A 2003-2004 Middle School Capacities Minus excluded agates for special program needs "911/04 Headcount Enrollment Compared to Permanent Capacity x 95% (utilization factor) " M/04 Headcount Enrollment Compared to Maximum Capacity x 95% (utilization factor) Permanent capacity reflects the building's level of service design capacity. The maximum capacity includes the permanent capacity plus fhs maximum member of classrooms served In portables. -15- Appendix B 2003-2004 High School Capacities ISSAQ HIGH 52 1458 2 Y4 LIBERTY HIGH 41 1148 3 38 TIGER MTN 0 01 7 84 SKYLINE HIGH 52 1456 2 Y4 TOTAL 145 4060 14 188 'Minus excluded spaces for special program needs "911/04 Headcount Enrollment Compared to Permanent Capacity x 95% (u8lizedon factor) —9/1/04 Headcount Enrollment Compared to Maximum Capacity x 95'% (utilization factor) Permanent capacity reflects the building's level of service design capacity, The maximum capacity Includes the permanent capacity plus the maximum number of classrooms served In portables. 1dIX C 2003-2004 District Total Capacity -17— Appendix D Six -Year Finance Plan ($ in $1,000's) BUILDING N/M• 2004 2005 2008 2007 2008 2009 Cost to Complete SECURED LOCAUSTATE— UNSECURED LOCAL- 9th Grade/Mlddle School #5 N $11,189,000 $13,250,000 $2,000,000 $26,439,000 $26,439,000 Elementa #13 N $8,079,000 $950,000 $9.029,000 $9,029,000 Issa . Valley Elem. Expansion M $150,000 $1,075,000 $1,100.000.00 $2,325,000 $2,325,000 Elementary 014 N $100,000 $400,000 $8,000,000.00 $8,650,000 $800,000 $17,750,000 $17,750,000 Satellite Transportation Center N $594,000 $200,000 $794,000 $794,000 Site Purchases N $3,339 $3,339 Portables N $0 LTAILS $20,112,000 $15,375,000 $11,100,000 $8,650,000 $600,000 $0 $56,337,000 $66,340,339 $0 •N = New Construction M = Modernization **The Issaquah School District, with voter approval, has front funded these projects. ***School Impact fees may be utilized to offset front funded expenditures associated with the cost of new facilities. Impact fees are currently collected from King County, City of Bellevue, City of Newcastle, City of Renton, City of Sammamish and the City of Issaquah for projects within the Issaq. School District. ****Funds for portable purchases may come from Impact fees, state matching funds, Interest earnings or future bond sale elections. —' a -- Apr -fix E CITY OF RENTON COUNCIL AGENDA BILL For Agenda of: January 24, 2005 DepYDiv/Board.. Economic Development, Neighborhoods and Strategic Planning Agenda Status Staff Contact...... Alex Pietsch, x6592 Consent .............. X Public Hearing.. Subject: Renton Lodging Tax Committee Membership Correspondence.. Ordinance ............. Resolution ............ Old Business........ New Business....... Exhibits: Study Sessions...... Information......... Recommended Action: Approvals: Council Concur Legal Dept......... Finance Dept...... Other ............... Fiscal Impact: Expenditure Required... Transfer/Amendment....... Amount Budgeted.......... Revenue Generated......... Total Project Budget City Share Total Project.. SUMMARY OF ACTION: Resolution #3288 established the Renton Lodging Tax Advisory Committee and authorizes Council to review the membership annually and fill any committee vacancies. Resolution #3686 established the president and CEO of the Greater Renton Chamber of Commerce as one of five committee members. Bill Taylor has been named President and CEO of the Greater Renton Chamber of Commerce and, by assuming that role, is entitled to a seat on the Committee. STAFF RECOMMENDATION: The Renton City Council approve the annual membership of the Renton Lodging Tax Advisory Committee. The following individuals will serve on the Renton Lodging Tax Advisory Committee for the coming year: • Bill Taylor, president & CEO, Greater Renton Chamber of Commerce • Rick Meinig, general manager, Silver Cloud Inn • Terry Godat, general manager, Travelers Inn • Julie Brewer, community relations manager, City of Renton, and • Denis Law, Renton City Councilmember. C:\Documents and Settings\mpetersen\Local Settings\Temp\agdbill - comm vacancies 1-05.doc CITY OF RENTON COUNCIL AGENDA BILL Submitting Data: Dept/Div/Board. . Staff Contact...... EDNSP Alex Pietsch x6592 Subject: Renton Community Marketing Campaign Funding Exhibits: Issue Paper RCMC 2005 Action Plan Contract with Hamilton/Saunderson Lodging Tax Committee Report Al N: ' For Agenda of: January 24, 2005 Agenda Status Consent .............. Public Hearing.. Correspondence.. Ordinance ............. Resolution........... . Old Business........ New Business....... Study Sessions...... Information........ . Recommended Action: Approvals: Refer to Finance Committee Legal Dept ......... X Finance Dept...... X Other ............... ►M Fiscal Impact: Expenditure Required... '$50,000 Transfer/Amendment....... $50,000 (Fund 110) Amount Budgeted....... Revenue Generated......... Total Project Budget $50,000 City Share Total Project.. SUMMARY OF ACTION: For seven years, the City has partnered with other key community stakeholders in the Renton Community Marketing Campaign (RCMC). This year, the Lodging Tax Advisory Committee has recommended allocation of $50,000 of Lodging Tax collections to support the RCMC's 2005 Action Plan. This allocation will be leveraged with additional financial contributions from the Department of Economic Development, Neighborhoods, & Strategic Planning's "business recruitment" budget and other community agencies, organizations and businesses. STAFF RECOMMENDATION: Allocate $50,000 of Lodging Tax collections to the RCMC and authorize the Mayor and City Clerk to sign contracts with Hamilton/Saunderson Marketing Partnership for a seventh year of the Renton Community Marketing Campaign. Rentonnet/agnbill/ bh CITY OF RENTON ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT, NEIGHBORHOODS, AND STRATEGIC PLANNING MEMORANDUM DATE: January 7, 2005 TO: Terri Briere, President Members of the Renton City Council VIA: .1.�y�Kathy Keolker-Wheeler, Mayor FROM: Alex Pietsch, Administrator (x 6592) tNv/l; SUBJECT: Renton Community Marketing Campaign Issue: • The Renton Lodging Tax Advisory Committee has recommended that the Renton City Council allocate funds for activities proposed by the Renton Community Marketing Campaign. Recommendations: • Authorize the Mayor to sign contracts with Hamilton/Saunderson, marketing consultants, for a seventh year of the Renton Community Marketing Campaign. • Partner with other key community stakeholders for a seventh year of the Renton Community Marketing Campaign by allocating $50,000 of Hotel/Motel Tax collections to its use. This allocation will be leveraged with additional financial contributions from the Department of Economic Development, Neighborhoods, & Strategic Planning's "business recruitment" budget and other community agencies, organizations and businesses. Background: In 1998, the Renton City Council authorized the City's participation in the Renton Community Marketing Campaign in conjunction with other key community stakeholders. The goal was to leverage marketing dollars in the community, by collectively promoting Renton as an outstanding place to work, live, learn, shop, visit, and have fun. Stakeholders, in addition to the City, include: the Renton School District, Renton Technical College, Valley Medical Center, the Greater Renton Chamber of Commerce, and the Renton hotel industry. The Renton Community Marketing Campaign goals tie directly to the City's Business Plan objectives and focus on promoting a consistent identity that builds on the appeal of Renton's residential, educational, and business opportunities. The first six years of the campaign have January 5, 2004 Page 2 been a tremendous success in both the Renton community and the Greater Puget Sound Region. Our branding slogan: "Renton. Ahead of the Curve," and using "We Chose Renton" testimonials to convey our message have been effective. In its seventh year, the Campaign will carry on this theme with advertisements speaking to why Renton is "The Right Choice" for business, education, healthcare, tourism, etc. The bottom line: people are choosing Renton as a great location to open or relocate a business, buy a house, and educate young children. Stakeholders have overwhelmingly agreed that this kind of comprehensive community effort has been very successful. They have all committed to participate in a continuation of the Renton Community Marketing Campaign. The Campaign's proposed activities are described in the attached 2005 Renton Community Marketing Campaign Action Plan. The Lodging Tax Advisory Committee met virtually over the past week and recommends that the City Council authorize the allocation of $50,000 of lodging tax revenue to the Community Marketing Campaign for Year Seven of its community marketing efforts. Attachments: Renton 2005 Marketing Action Plan cc: Jay Covington CONSULTANT AGREEMENT THIS AGREEMENT is made as of the day of , 2005, between the CITY OF RENTON, a municipal corporation of the State of Washington, hereinafter referred to as "CITY" and Hamilton/Saunderson Marketing Partnership, hereinafter referred to as "CONSULTANT", for their services related to the City of Renton's Marketing Campaign. All information shall be made available for use by the City of Renton Staff and City Council. The CITY and CONSULTANT agree as set forth below: 1. Scope of Services. The Consultant will provide all labor necessary to perform all work, which is described in the attached Scope of Services (Exhibit A). This Agreement and Exhibit hereto contain the entire agreement of the parties and supersedes all prior oral or written representation or understandings. This Agreement may only be amended by written agreement of the parties. The scope of work may be amended as provided herein. 2. Changes in Scope of Services. The City, without invalidating the Consultant Agreement, may order changes in the services consisting of additions, deletions or modifications, and adjust the fee accordingly. Such changes in the work shall be authorized by written agreement signed by the City and Consultant. If the project scope requires less time, a lower fee will be charged. If additional work is required, the consultant will not proceed without a written change order from the City. If any provision of this Agreement is held to be invalid, the remainder of the Agreement shall remain in full force and effect to serve the purposes and objectives of this Agreement. 3. Time of Performance. The Consultant shall complete performance of the Consultant Agreement for the items under Consultant's control in accordance with Exhibit A. If items not under the Consultant's control impact the time of performance, the Consultant will notify the City. 4. Term of Consultant Agreement. The term of this Agreement shall end at completion of the scope of work identified in Exhibit A, but no later than December 31, 2005. This Agreement may be extended to accomplish change orders, if required, upon mutual written agreement of the City and the Consultant. 5. Consultant Agreement Sum. The total amount of this Agreement is not to exceed the sum of $120,000. Washington State Sales Tax is not required. The Cost Estimate provided by the Consultant to the City specifies total cost. 6. Method of Payment. Payment by the City for services rendered will be made after a voucher or invoice is submitted in the form specified by the City. Payment will be made within thirty (30) days after receipt of such voucher or invoice. The City shall have the right to withhold payment to the Consultant for any work not completed in a satisfactory manner until such time as the Consultant modifies such work so that the same is satisfactory. 7. Record Maintenance and Work Product. The Consultant shall maintain accounts and records, which properly reflect all direct and indirect costs expended and services provided in the performance of this Agreement. The Consultant agrees to provide access to any records required by the City. All originals and copies of work product, exclusive of Consultant's proprietary items protected by copyright such as computer programs, methodology, methods, materials, and forms, shall belong to the City, including records, files, computer disks, magnetic media or material which may be produced by Consultant while performing the services. Consultant will grant the City the right to use and copy Consultant copyright materials as an inseparable part of the work product provided. 8. Assignment Agreement. The Consultant shall not assign any portion of this consultant Agreement without express written consent of the City of Renton. 9. Hold Harmless. The Consultant shall indemnify, defend and hold harmless the City, its officers, agents, employees and volunteers, from and against any and all claims, losses or liability, or any portion thereof, including attorneys fees and costs, arising from injury or death to persons, including injuries, sickness, disease or death of Consultant's own employees, or damage to property caused by a negligent act or omission of the Consultant, except for those acts caused by or resulting from a negligent act or omission by the City and its officers, agents, employees and volunteers. It is specifically and expressly understood that the indemnification provided herein constitutes the consultant's waiver of immunity under Industrial Insurance, Title 51 RCW, solely for the purposes of this indemnification. This waiver has been mutually negotiated by the parties. The provisions of this section shall survive the expiration or termination of this Agreement. 10. Insurance. The Consultant shall secure and maintain commercial liability insurance in the amount of $1,000,000 in full force throughout the duration of this Consultant Agreement. A certificate of insurance shall be delivered to the City before executing the work of this agreement. The certificate shall name the City as an additional insured, on a separate page attachment. Please note: The cancellation language should read "Should any of the above described policies be cancelled before the expiration date thereof, the issuing company will eRdeauerte mail 45 days written notice to the certificate holder named to the left. mpese no obligation or liability of aRy kind upon the GOFnpaRy, its agents or representatives 11. Independent Contractor. Any and all employees of the Consultant, while engaged in the performance of any work or services required by the Consultant under this agreement, shall be considered employees of the Consultant only and not of the City. The Consultant's relation to the City shall be at all times as an independent contractor. Any and all claims that may or might arise under the Workman's Compensation Act on behalf of said employees, while so engaged, and any and all claims made by a third party as a consequence of any negligent act or omission on the part of the Consultant's employees, while so engaged on any of the work or services provided to be rendered herein, shall be the sole obligation and responsibility of the Consultant. 12. Compliance with Laws. The Consultant and all of the Consultant's employees shall perform the services in accordance with all applicable federal, state, county and city laws, codes and ordinances. 13. Severability. If any provision of this Agreement is held to be invalid, the remainder of the Agreement shall remain in full force and effect to serve the purposes and objectives of this Agreement. This agreement is entered into as of the day and year written above. CONSULTANT Hamilton/Saunderson Marketing Partnershp 621 Fifth Avenue North, Suite A Seattle, WA 98109 (206) 282-6858 APPROVED AS TO FORM: City Attorney CITY OF RENTON Kathy Keolker-Wheeler, Mayor ATTEST: Bonnie I. Walton, City Clerk Exhibit A AHEAD OF THE CURVE 2005 Community Marketing Campaign Background In 1998, Renton's community stakeholders joined together to develop a marketing campaign that would achieve the following goal: Help ensure a healthy and vibrant local economy by branding Renton and communicating the community's many positive attributes as a place to do business, work, visit, learn, shop, live, play and stay. The stakeholders, including the Greater Renton Chamber of Commerce, Renton Visitor's Connection, City of Renton, Renton School District, Renton Technical College and Valley Medical Center, launched the campaign to achieve the following objectives: 1. Improve the image of Renton in the community and the region 2. Promote Renton as desirable location to do business, work, live, shop, and visit 3. Recruit quality companies to Renton to help diversity the employment base by supporting City economic development initiatives 4. Showcase Renton's stakeholders and their achievements 5. Creatively leverage and market Renton's assets and amenities While maintaining the Ahead of the Curve logo and positioning theme, the stakeholders have integrated a yearly message to help differentiate and define the benefits of Renton. The following is a review of the progress of the campaign since its inception: Year Campaign Focus Message Primary Markets 1999 Define the Brand Did you know? Renton Start the Buzz: Puget Sound Region Discovery 1 2005 Renton Community Marketing Campaign Year Campaign Focus Theme 2000 Build on the Buzz People are Talking about Renton 2001 Highlight Success We Chose Renton 2002 Renton's Benefits: Renton - The Right Choice Place to live, work, visit, do business, have fun 2003 Celebrate being Renton - Delivering on the Promise ahead of the curve 2004 Celebrate why Ahead of the Curve Renton is on the in the 21 st Century Economy leading edge and ahead of the curve Primary Markets Northwest Puget Sound Region Seattle/Eastside Puget Sound Region Seattle/Eastside Puget Sound Region Renton Puget Sound Region Decision Makers Puget Sound Region Decision Makers Since 1999, the Community Marketing Campaign has helped tell Renton's story and showcase its accomplishment. The campaign has continued to define Renton's competitive advantage and niche in the Puget Sound marketplace and spotlight why Renton continues to be the right choice for business, housing, health care, education, and tourism. The campaign has supported the City's economic development strategies by getting messages to decision makers and opinion leaders. It has developed new community initiatives, such as the Community Calendar, Outdoor Banner Program, Cinema on the Piazza and the Renton Visitor's Connection. It has supported the recruitment of destination activities, such as Cirque du Soleil. The result has been the creation of a new distinction and a speaking about Renton. 2005 Campaign Strategies Conduct surveys of business leaders and commercial real estate brokers to: a) better understand the business recruitment/retention process; b) determine the effectiveness of the campaign to date; and, c) fine tune marketing messages and strategies for future campaigns. 2. Maintain the buzz about Renton through targeted communications and continue to build and manage the Ahead of the Curve brand. 2 2005 Renton Community Marketing Campaign 3. Through sponsorships of key economic development events, keep Renton in front of decision makers. 4. Support community economic development initiatives. 2005 Campaign Tactics Strategy: Conduct Marketing Research Survey Tactic I: Business Leader Opinion Survey Budget: $30,000 We are interested in evaluating Renton's brand recognition/perceptions from top area business leaders. Specifically, we want to learn: 1. Would they consider Renton for their business location? 2. What are Renton's strengths and weaknesses as a place to do business? 3. What's the best way to reach decision makers with the Renton message? A research company will be retained to conduct a professional, scientific telephone survey of a representative sample of business leaders (CEOs, COOs, and CFOs) from Southern Snohomish, and King Counties (Mukilteo to Federal Way). The businesses will represent a cross section of the economy and have a minimum number of 50 employees. The survey would be conducted during the first quarter of 2005. Some of the areas to test include: What are your perceptions of Renton? As a community? As a place for business? As a place to live? 2. What are Renton's strengths and weaknesses as a place to do business? 3. What are your perceptions of the community's stakeholders: City? Valley Medical? Renton Technical College? Renton School District? 4. What is the importance to your business of: a. Having a regional medical facility in the community where your business is located b. Having a college that provides training/retraining in the community where your business is located C. Having a quality public school district where your business is located 5. Are you aware of the "Ahead of the Curve" campaign? 3 2005 Renton Community Marketing Campaign 6. Would you consider locating their business in Renton? Why or why not? 7. Do you have any plans to relocate your business? Strategy: Conduct Research Survey Tactic II: Commercial Broker Opinion Survey Budget: $7,500 We are interested in evaluating Renton's brand recognition/perceptions from top commercial real estate brokers. Specifically, we want to learn: 1. Are they considering Renton as a place to locate businesses? 2. What influences decision about where to locate a business? 3. What's the best way to reach brokers with the Renton message? To test Renton's brand recognition/perceptions, the top 50 commercial real estate brokers in the region will be identified and then invited to participate in an on-line research survey. As an incentive to participate, we will give participants a $100 gift certificate to a Renton restaurant. The survey would be conducted during the first quarter of 2005. Questions similar to the ones for the business leader survey would be asked of the brokers. In addition, the brokers would be asked their opinions about prospects for the coming year and how Renton could contact/influence them about Renton's opportunities. Strategy: Maintain the Buzz and Brand Tactic III: Advertising and Communication Budget: $60,000 A cornerstone of the Community Marketing Campaign has been building and maintaining a buzz about Renton through various advertising mediums. The campaign has successful utilized radio, television, print, magazine, direct mail and other tactics to keep Renton top of mind with targeted audiences. In 2004, partnerships were created with National Public Radio stations KPLU and KUOW to deliver Renton's message to Puget Sound decision makers. The 2005 advertising campaign messages will be driven by the results of our marketing research surveys. We will also seek to partner with Renton businesses to leverage our marketing resources. 4 2005 Renton Community Marketing Campaign Strategy: Maintain the Brand Tactic IV: Integrate the Logo/Theme into Communications Budget: $0 The Campaign will continue to encourage stakeholders to incorporate the Renton Ahead of the Curve logo and theme into as many advertising/communications vehicles as possible. This not only leverages resources, but extends the brand into all aspects of the community. Strategy: Showcase Renton's Economic Development Opportunities Tactic V: Sponsor Forums that Reach Decision Makers Budget: $12,500 The campaign will continue to create partnership programs with local and national organizations to position Renton and to promote its advantages. The campaign will again sponsor conferences, meetings and economic forums to keep Renton top of mind with area decision makers. Opportunities for sponsorships and partnerships include: Washington Software Alliance, Greater Seattle Chamber of Commerce, Puget Sound Regional Council, Tech Alliance and others. Sponsorship programs must include opportunities such as recognition, role on programs, advertising and other criteria to be developed with stakeholders. Strategy: Support Business Retention and Recruitment Tactic VI: Economic Strike Force with Key Stakeholders Budget: $0 The campaign will mobilize stakeholders to assist with business recruitment and retention opportunities during the course of the year. This will be accomplished through the signing of joint letters, phone calls, personal visits and other means coordinated by the City's Economic Development, Neighborhoods and Strategic Planning Department. Strategy: Support Business Retention and Recruitment Tactic VII: RentonMarket.com Web Site Budget: $5,000 The campaign will continue to update the RentonMarket.com web site, which is the primary source for information about economic development opportunities. Strategy: Support Downtown Revitalization Tactic Vill: Support Cinema on the Piazza Budget: $0 More than 1,000 people - including over 75 in costume - at the screening of Pirates of the Caribbean. Three articles weekly in the Seattle Times. More than $40,000 in free 5 2005 Renton Community Marketing Campaign publicity from Comcast Cable Television. More than 4,500 attendees overall. Those were the results of the Second Annual Cinema on the Piazza, which was created and sponsored by the Community Marketing Campaign. While previously funded in part by the Campaign, in 2005 the City and Valley Medical Center will share the $40,000 cost. VMC will be the premiere sponsor. Stakeholders will assist in the promotion of the event by distributing information to their constituents. Strategy: Marketing Opportunities Tactic IX: Contingency Budget: $900 During the course of the year, the stakeholders will be presented with new potential marketing opportunities. The contingency budget will be utilized to fund these initiatives. Strategy: Campaign Communications Tactic X: Campaign Management Budget: $4,100 Hamilton/Saunderson will facilitate and manage quarterly meetings of the stakeholders. In addition, they will facilitate a Stakeholder Marketing Retreat in October to plan the 2006 Community Marketing Campaign. 6 2005 Renton Community Marketing Campaign 2005 Community Marketing Campaign Budget Summary Tactic Expenses I. Business Leader Opinion Survey $ 30,000 II. Commercial Broker Opinion Survey $ 7,500 III. Advertising and Communication $ 60,000 IV. Integrate the Logo/Theme into Communications $ 0 V. Sponsor Forums that Reach Decision Makers $ 12,500 VI. Economic Strike Force with Key Stakeholders $ 0 VII. RentonMarket.com Web Site $ 5,000 VIII. Support Cinema on the Piazza $ 0 IX. Contingency $ 900 X. Campaign Management $ 4,100 Total $ 120,000 Income I. Hotel/Motel Tax $ 50,000 II. City of Renton $ 20,000 III. Renton School District $ 15,000 IV. Valley Medical Center $ 15,000 V. Renton Technical College $ 15,000 VI. Greater Renton Chamber of Commerce $ 5,000 Total: $ 120,000 7 2005 Renton Community Marketing Campaign LODGING TAX ADVISORY COMMITTEE COMMITTEE REPORT January 5, 2005 Renton Community Marketing Campaign 2005 Funding Recommendation The Renton Lodging Tax Advisory Committee met via e-mail over the past week and recommends to the Renton City Council allocation of $50,000 of Lodging Tax collections to the Renton Community Marketing Campaign for Year Seven of its community marketing efforts. Denis Law, Chair cc: Alex Pietsch Victoria Runkle CITY OF RENTON COUNCIL AGENDA BILL SUBMITTING DATA: 'Dept/Div.... Human Resources & Risk Mgmt Staff Contact ........... Michael Webby (x-7650) SUBJECT: Agreement with Healthcare Management Administrtors for purchase of claims administration services for fiscal years, 2005 and 2006 EXHIBITS: Plan Supervisor & Agent/Broker Fee Schedule FOR AGENDA OF: 01/24/05 AGENDA STATUS: Consent ................. X Public Hearing..... Correspondence... Ordinance........... Resolution ............. Old Business....... New Business....... Study Session........ Other ..................... RECOMMENDED ACTION: APPROVALS: Legal Dept............ Refer to Finance Committee Finance Dept........ Other..................X FISCAL IMPACT: Amount Budgeted... Approximately $212,000 approved in Fund 512 and Fund 522 of the 2005 Budget Transfer/Amendment.... Claims administration fees will increase 7% for Fiscal Year 2006 SUMMARY OF ACTION: Revenue Generated....... The City will continue to utilize the services of Healthcare Management Administrators (HMA) and Prescription Card Services (PCS/Caremark) to administer medical, dental and prescription claims within our self -funded plan. The fee includes prescription services, administration of medical and dental claims, rights to use the Regence Preferred Provider Network as well as utilization/large case management, COBRA and HIPAA administration services. Funds for this service are included in the approved 2005 Budget. STAFF RECOMMENDATION: The HR & RM Department recommends approval of the 2005/2006 Fee Schedule for medical/dental and prescription claims processed by Health Management Administrators and Prescription Card Services/Caremark nd authorize the Mayor and City Clerk to sign the agreement. PLAN SUPERVISOR & AGENT/BROKER/CONSULTANT SCHEDULE OF COMMISSIONS AND FEES Effective 01/01/2005 to 12/31/2005 administrative fees shall be: * $12.80 For administration of Medical claims $ 4.35 For administration of Dental claims Included For consolidated billing of other insurance coverage $ 5.50 For administration of the HMA-Preferred Provider Program $ 2.10 For administration of the Utilization Management Program $ 0.80 For administration of Large Case Management $ 1.05 For combined administration of COBRA and HIPAA Certificates of Coverage Effective 01/01/2006 to 12/31/2007 administrative fees shall be: * $13.65 For administration of Medical claims $ 4.45 For administration of Dental claims Included For consolidated billing of other insurance coverage $ 5.50 For administration of the HMA-Preferred Provider Program $ 3.00 For administration of the Medical Management Program $ 1.25 For administration of Prescription Integration Fee $ 1.05 For combined administration of COBRA and HIPAA Certificates of Coverage Prescription Integration Fee commences January 1, 2005 for all AdvancePCS (Caremark) clients. Commissions Payable on Excess Loss Insurance Premium 0% HMA _% Broker. Administration of PCS prescription drug claims is payable monthly to Healthcare Management Administrators, Inc. and to Pharmaceutical Card Service, Inc. The total combined fee is $0.25 per claim paid. If applicable, the administration of the Formulary Rebate program will be conducted by HMA on a quarterly basis whereby Healthcare Management Administrators, Inc. will pay you 100% of the Formulary Rebate received for your plan. Formulary Rebates retained by Healthcare Management Administrators, Inc. are used to cover expenses associated with administering the PCS program. These fees shall remain in effect beyond the above stated term until changed by mutual agreement of the parties. * Rate guarantee for contracted time period applies only to services performed by HMA. Fees for outside vendors are subject to change at any time. Healthcare Management Administrators, Inc. Agreement -1- IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the Company, the Broker/Consultant and the Plan Supervisor have executed this agreement this day of 20 THE CHARLES GROUP By: THE CITY OF RENTON By: HEALTHCARE MANAGEMENT ADMINISTRATORS, INC. By: Title: Clay Ellis, Senior Vice President, COO Healthcare Management Administrators, Inc. Agreement -2- CITY 01: R1.:NTON COUNCIL AGENDA BILL Submitting Data: Planning/Building Public Works Dept Dept/Div/Board.. Transportation Systems Division Staff Contact...... Jason Fritzler, ext. 7243 Subject: Lind Ave SW/SW 7`h Street Signalization Totem Electric (CAG 03-158) Exhibits: Final Pay Estimate Notice of Completion Al #: For Agenda of Agenda Status: Consent .............. Public Hearing...... Correspondence..... Ordinance........... Resolution........... Old Business........ New Business....... Study Sessions...... Information......... Other ................ Interlocal Recommended Action: Approvals: Legal Dept.......... Council Concur Finance Dept....... Fiscal Impact: Expenditure Required.. $160.00 Final Pay Est. Transfer/Amendment.... Amount Budgeted... Revenue Generated..... "Total Project Budget.. $213,000.00 City Share 'Total Project... Summary of Action: January 24, 2005 0 The Lind Avenue SW/SW 71h Street Signalization Project began on April 26, 2004, and was completed on August 12, 2004. The original contract amount was $172,103.70 with the final contract amount being $191,932.55. The increase in the final contract balance was due to change orders. Change order #1 for pole fabrication changes was in the amount of $1,011.47 and change order #2 for PS&E work was in the amount of $2,787.93. Additional material costs ran $6,432.83. Staff Recommendations: The Transportation Division staff recommends Council approve completion of the project, approve payment of the Final Pay Estimate, and release retainage for the full project in the amount of $9,596.62 after sixty (60) days, subject to the required authorization. 11'1 rafts/Ues1,!1dJas,)WI Itojeris/ 7°i and I.indA'it y crniesponden, OR,1 milve Ap,,-nda IiiII TO: FINANCE DIRECTOR DATE. 10/4/2004 FROM: TRANSPORTATION SYSTEMS DIRECTOR CONTRACTOR: Totem Electric CONTRACT NO. CAG 03-158 ESTIMATE NO. 6 (Final) PROJECT: Lind Ave SW / SW 7th St Signal 1. CONTRACTOR EARNINGS THIS ESTIMATE 2. SALES TAX @ $ 160.00 3. TOTAL CONTRACT AMOUNT THIS ESTIMATE - $ 160.00 4. EARNINGS PREVIOUSLY PAID CONTRACTOR 5. * EARNINGS DUE CONTRACTOR THIS ESTIMATE $ 182,183.93 6. SUBTOTAL - CONTRACTOR PAYMENTS $ 152.00 7. RETAINAGE ON PREVIOUS EARNINGS $ 182,335.93 8. ** RETAINAGE ON EARNINGS THIS ESTIMATE $ 9,588.62 9. SUBTOTAL - RETAINAGE $ 8.00 10. SALES TAX PREVIOUSLY PAID $ 9,596.62 11. SALES TAX DUE THIS ESTIMATE 12• SUBTOTAL - SALES TAX * (95%xLINEI) ** (RETAINAGE: S%) GRAND TOTAL: $ - 191,932.55 FINANCE DEPARTMENT ACTION: PAYMENT TO CONTRACTOR (Lines 5 and 11): ACCOUNT 317.012153.016.5950.0030.67/25305/5354 RETAINED AMOUNT (Line 8): ACCOUNT 317.012153.0165950.0030.67/25305/5354 $ 152.00 8.00 TOTAL THIS ESTIMATE: $ 160.00. CHARTER 116, LAWS OF 1965 CITY OF RENTON CERTIFICATION I, THE UNDERSIGNED DO HMEBY CERTIFY UNDER PENALTY OF PERJURY, THAT THE MATERIALS HAVE BEEN FURNISHED, THE SERVICES R13NDEM OR THE LABOR PERPORMED AS DESCRIBED HEREIN, AND THAT THE CLAIM IS A JUST, DUB AND UNPAID OBLIGATION AGAINST THE CITY OF RENTON, AND THAT I AM AUTHORIZED TO AUTHENTICATE AND CERTIFY TO SAID CLAIM SIGNED: I �Proleet: Renton - Und Ave SW / SW rn st 519na1 PAY ESTIMATE tee (qnd) (3ub)eel CAG 03-1N fem vlrznw-M�+.^ . Sahedule/Phe" Description Item Unit Cost unit Pin Ontld Plan Total Cost p-A .- Oiii18T pmbweA wwe Tale oa.eay law A.." Tar Tar Ae�ae xoonpr. GerwW 1 MlnorChargs 1-04A f •1. CAI.0 1 $ (1.00) j General 2 FWsh and 1-04.11 750.00 LS 1 $ 750.00 1.00 $ 750.00 0.00 j j 0.00 1.00 S j 750.00 100% 3 E22ncur s 1-05. 3 2.530. LS 1 S 2,530.00 1.00 S 2,630.00 0.0 j 1.00 j 2,530.00 100% 1 SPCC Plan 1-07.1 1 275. LS 1 $ 275.00 1.00 i 275.00 0.0 j 1.00 j 275.00 100% Gsrwral S TORIPOmfyWaterPolkAorJEmdwContml 1-07.15.8-01 325. LS 1 E 326.00 1.00 E 325.00 8 110f 1.00 j 325.00 100% P 1-07.1 500. FA 1. $ 500.00 0.00 S 1,901.14 j 0.00 j 1,901.14 7 Resolution of UMV Cord ow 1-07.1 500.00 FA 1 $ 500.00 E 8 j 0.00 j Mobilfu0on f-09. 12A50. LS 1 E 12,250.00 1.00 E 12,260.00 0.0 j 1.00 $ 12,250.00 100% c"r 9 Tr*M0C ntrd (1-101 7.500. lS 1 E 7,600.00 1.00 E 7,500.00 0.0 $ 1.00 j 7,500.00 100% 10 Clearing and GnDbkg -01 3.800.00 LS 1 $ 3,800.00 1.00 S 3,800.00 0.0 E 1.00 j 3,800.00 100% 11 Rsrtww Cub and Guber 2=02 30.00 IF 30 S 900.00 104.00 S 3,120.00 0.0 $ 104.00 j 3,120.00 3479: 12 Remove CsmsrKCon0mW Pav nwra 2 2SS4SY 110 E 2,805.00 110.00 E 2A&00 0.0 E 116.00 j 2,805.00 100% fal 13 Renwve A Carona Pavwrwnt -02 23.04SY 1 E 2,300.00 100.00 $ 2,300.00 0.0 E 100.00 $ 2,300.00 100% 14 CnMwd T Coffee 1 28.04TW - 100 E 2,800.00 53.00 E 1,484.00 0.0 E 63.00 E 1,484.00 639E a t5 IA*c and'or D!Mqway Asphalt cono. a. 8 96.04TN 67 E 5.472.00 67.00 $ 6,132.00 0.0 S 67.00 E 6,432.00 i 18% Gerwal 18 CwneraConasa AMosch 3Da eo. SY SO E 3,000.00 109.00 E 6,540.00 0.0 E 109.00 S 6,540.00 218% 17 Sod kwta0ation - 7. SY 60 $ 420.00 33M $ 233,31 0.0 j 33.33 $ 233.31 56% Gerwral 18 ExbUdedCub e-0a S. LF - 366 $ 1,900.00 362.00 E 11810.00 0.0 j .362.00 S 1,H10.00 95% 19 COW. senior Cob and Gular 8.04 S5. LF 28 $ 1,540.00 51.00 E 2,805.00 0.0 $ 51.00 $ 2,805.00 18^ 28 Cub RmV. CwrwntCMWnite 8-14 600.00 EA 1 E 800.00 1.00 E 800.00 0.0 $ 1.00 E 800.00 100% wwral 21 Cement Carona Sidewalk 'Taaaated Dorn* Detectable Warning Panend 8-'A 359.00 SY 6 i 2,100.00 30.60 $ 10,675.00 0.0 $ 30.60 j 10,675.00 608% G°My 22 Traafc SVW 8-20 aM 9-29 113.400- LS 1 $ 113,400.00 1.00 $ 113,400.00 0.0 j 1.00 $ 113,400.00 100% 23 PemwneaSipriny 8-21 3,16S.OJLS 1 S 3,165.00 1.00 j 3,165.00 0.0 j 1.00 $ 3,165.00 100% 24 Remove E>d Traffic Ma 842 6 end 8.225 GOO.00 LS t E 800.00 1.00 j 800.00 0.0 $ _ - 1.00 $ 800.00 100% 25 PasOc llrw o-22 IA LF 88 E 38720 $8.00 S 38720 0.0 S E 38720 1001/ 28 PWU CmuwA* Lire 6- 225 SF 390 E 877.50 390.00 $ 877.50 0.0 E _86.00 390.00 $ 877.50 100% 27 PlaslicTmffickmw 6-22 60.00 EA 3 E 240.00 3.00 $ 240.00 2.0 $ 160.00 5.00 $ 400.00 167% Ge^"ral28 Approach SOO$ o-22 2.70 LF 140 E 378.00 140.00 $ 378.00 0.0 E 140.00 $ 378.00 100% G.rwral 29 Pait Lkw 8-22 4 LF 20 j 90.00 20.00 $ 90.00 0.0 E _ 20.001 E 90.00 100% 30 Top" Two A 14 30.00 CY 10 E 300.00 10.00 E 300.00 0.0 $ E 300.00 100% cool (LW(YComSa/PoaReloca0on) 1.011.47 LS 1 $ 1,011.47 0.00 $ 1,0147 0.0 $ _10.00 0.00 $ 1,011.47 CO 42 (P*-ExUW-f"& nd) 2,787.93 LS _ 1 $ 2,787.93 0.00 $ 2,787.93 1.0 $ - 0.00 $ 2,787.93 Pre -Sales Tax Torah E 175,903.10 $ 191,772.55 $ 160.00 j 191,932.55 so. Tex O &Ar% TOTAL $ 175,903.10 E 191,772.55 $ 160.00 $ 191,932.55 109% Orl Inal Contract Amount E 172,103.70 CO#1 "irity Conflict/Pole Relocation $ 1,011.47 CO f2(Power Extension for Signal) $ 2,787.93 Planned Cost Differences E 16,02924 Contract w/ Changes $ 191,932.34 Material On Hand Amount Paid to Contractor Date Paid (Pay Estimate 4) Amount Deducted on This Estimate (3) Amount Paid to Contractor Date Paid (Pay Estimate M) Amount Deducted on This Estimate (4) Traffic Signal System 22 2236160.01 E 2,330.94 4/262004 2 E 330.94 Traffic Signal System 2 I0000217/218 E 8,73IA7 4/26/2004 2 E 8,731.471 Total MOH $ 11,062.41 $ 11,062dl Traffic Signal System 22 10000233 $ 10,129.87 6/1/2004 3 $ 10,129.8 Traffic Signal System 2 6801 $ 1,102.65 6/1/2004 j 1,102.65 Traffic Signet System 22 2249641410 E 1,109.77 612004 $ 1,109.77 Total MOH E 12,34229 E 12,342.29 °i'"m"r oor aawr» De.Yllem -1.00 $ 1.00 0.00 $ 0.00 E 0.00 S 0.00 $ -1.00 $ 1,401.14 -1.00 $ (500.00) 0.00 $ 0.00 E 0.00 $ 74.00 $ 2,220.00 0.00 $ 0.00 $ - -47.00 $ (1,316.00) 10.00 E 960.00 69.00 $ 3,S40.00 -26.67 $ (186.69) -18.00 $ 90.00) 23.00 j 1,265.00 0.00 $ 24.50 $ 8,575.00 0.00 j 0.00 E 0.00 $ 0.00 E 0.00 $ 2.00 $ 160.00 0.00 j - 0.00 $ 0.00 $ Total Is 14,029.45 I STA7A. O� State of Washington o Department of Revenue 9 i x Audit Procedures & Administration PO Box 47474 28 9 a Olympia, Washington 98504-7474 Reg.No.: Date: January 6, 2005 NOTICE OF COMPLETION OF PUBLIC WORKS CONTRACT Notice is hereby given relative to the completion of contract or project described below. Description of Contract Lind Ave SW / SW 7"' St Signalization Contractor's Name Totem Electric Telephone No. (253) 383-5022 Contractor's Address 2332 South Jefferson Ave., PO Box 1093, Tacoma WA 98401-1093 Date Work Commenced April 26, 2004 Date Work Completed August 12, 2004 Date Work Accepted October 4, 2004 Surety or Bonding Co. Travelers Casualty and Surety Company of America Agent's Address Karen Smith, Hartford, Connecticut 06183-9062 Contract Amount: $172,103.70 Additions or Reductions: $19,828.85 Sales Tax: Total $191,932.55 0 Phone No: Amount Disbursed: $182,335.93 Amount Retained: $9,596.62 Total: $191, 932.55 (Disbursing Officer) The Disbursing Officer must complete and mail THREE copies of this notice to the Department of Revenue, Olympia, Washington 98504- 7474, immediately after acceptance of the work done under this contract. NO PAYMENTS SHALL BE MADE FROM RETAINED FUND until receipt of Department's certificate, and then only in accordance with said certificate. FORM REV 31 0020 (12-92) H:\Division.s\TRANSPOR.TAT\DESIGN.ENGUASON\Projects\7th and Lind\Money\Notice_oL Completion.doc CITY OF RENTON COUNCIL AGENDA BILL AI #: Submitting Data: For Agenda of: January 24, 2005 Dept/Div/Board.. PBPW/Utility Systems/Solid Waste Agenda Status Staff Contact...... Linda Knight, x7397 Consent .............. X Public Hearing.. Subject: Amendment #2 to CAG 03-160 Correspondence.. King County - Suburban City Contract - Local Ordinance ............. Hazardous Waste - 2005 Grant Resolution............ X Old Business........ New Business....... Exhibits: Issue Paper Study Sessions...... Amendment #2 to CAG 03-160 Information......... Resolution Recommended Action: Approvals: Council Concur Legal Dept......... X Finance Dept...... X Other ............... Fiscal Impact: Expenditure Required... $22,903.46 Transfer/Amendment....... Amount Budgeted....... $22,903.46 Revenue Generated......... $22,903.46 Total Project Budget $22,903.46 City Share Total Project.. $0.00 SUMMARY OF ACTION: The City of Renton adopted the Local Hazardous Waste Management Plan for Seattle -King County in November 1990. As a Local Hazardous Waste Management Plan (Program) participant, the City may implement projects with Program funding that support Program goals. In addition, the City will receive compensation for staff time spent representing the Suburban Cities Association to the Program. In 2005, Renton will receive $22,903.46 in reimbursement for such programs. This year's grant will fund targeted waste collections (Renton Recycle Days), Household Hazardous Waste Education school workshops, and staff representation costs. This grant is 100% reimbursable, resulting in no cost to the City. Projects under this grant must be completed by 12/31/05. An amendment to CAG 03-160 is required to receive the funding. STAFF RECOMMENDATION: Approve a resolution authorizing the Mayor and City Clerk to amend the existing King County - Suburban City Contract -Local Hazardous Waste-2004 Grant that authorizes the City's Solid Waste Utility to receive $22,903.46 in funding from the Local Hazardous Waste Management Program. CADocuments and Settings\mpetersen\Local Settings\Temp\AB2005.doc\LKtp CITY OF RENTON PLANNINGBUILDING/PUBLIC WORKS MEMORANDUM DATE: January 7, 2005 TO: Terri Briere, Council President Members of the Renton City Council VIA: Mayor Kathy Keolker-Wheeler FROM: Gregg Zimmerman,"Administrator Planning/Building/Public Works STAFF CONTACT: Linda Knight, Solid Waste Coordinator, x7397 SUBJECT: Amendment #2 to CAG 03-160: King County -Suburban City Contract -Local Hazardous Waste-2005 Grant ISSI 1F.. Renton's Solid Waste Utility is eligible to receive $22,903.46 in non -matching grant funding for implementation of hazardous waste programs and reimbursement of travel and staff representation for suburban cities expenses in 2005 through the Local Hazardous Waste Management Program's Grants to Suburban Cities. RECOMMENDATI Staff recommends that the City Council approve a resolution authorizing the Mayor and City Clerk to execute Amendment #2 to CAG-03-160, King County -Suburban City Contract- Local Hazardous Waste- 2005 Grant that authorizes the City's Solid Waste Utility to receive $22,903.46 in funding from the Local Hazardous Waste Management Program. BACKGROUND SUMMARY: The City of Renton is a participant in the Local Hazardous Waste Management Program (Program). The Program is supported by fees collected by local jurisdictions and grant funds. The 2005 Program budget allows for reimbursement to suburban cities opting to implement hazardous waste programs that support Program goals. In addition, the Program allows the City to request reimbursement for travel and representation for expenses incurred by staff serving on Program committees. Currently, both Mayor Kathy Keolker-Wheeler and Linda Knight, Solid Waste Coordinator, serve on Program committees. January 7, 2005 Page 2 In 2003, the City of Renton entered into an agreement with the Program that defined roles and responsibilities of each party and enabled the City's Solid Waste Utility to receive Program funding for implementation of hazardous waste programs that support Program goals. An amendment to the 2003 agreement is required for the City's Solid Waste Utility to continue to implement hazardous waste collection and education projects and receive funding from the Program. The 2005 scope of work provides for targeted household hazardous waste collection via two (2) collection events (Renton Recycle Days), Household Hazardous Waste Reduction workshops provided to twenty (25) elementary school classrooms, and expenses related to representation of Suburban Cities to the Program. HAFile Sys\SWU - Solid Waste Utility\SWU-09 - LHWMP\SWU-09-0020 - LHWMP Grants - 2005\Issue2005.doc\LKtp CONTRACT AMENDMENT PROJECT NAME CITY ADDRESS 1. 2. 3. COPY Local Hazardous Waste Management Program City of Renton 1055 South Grady Way Renton, WA 98055 Page 1 of 4 Pages CONTRACT NO. D32789D DATE ENTERED 1/1/03 AMENDMENT NO. 2 DATE ENTERED 1/1/05 AMENDhl1ENT AFEC, � .Scope of Services �, �� s Tim oaf Perfo� rrnce� dofn ensatio6z Terms and',Cenciibot s AMEND Contract Amount TO READ $68,675.47 AMEND Contract Period TO READ From January 1, 2003 TO December 31, 2005 AMEND "funding block" TO READ FUNDING SOURCE FUNDING LEVEL EFFECTIVE DATES Local Hazardous Waste Fund- $68,675.47 1/1/03 — 12/31/05 4. AMEND Section II. DURATION OF CONTRACT ...and shall terminate on the 315` day of December 2004... TO READ ...and shall terminate on the 3V day of December 2005... 5. Exhibits I and II shall each be amended by adding the attached Exhibits 1-2 and II-2. All other terms and conditions of the original contract and Amendment 1 shall remain unchanged. IN WITNESS HEREOF, the parties hereto have caused this amendment to be executed and instituted on the date first written. KING COUNTY, WASHINGTON FOR King County Executive Date Contract # D32789D Amendment 2 EXHIBIT I-2 — Scope of Work & Responsibilities CITY OF RENTON MEMORANDUM OF UNDERSTANDING ON THE LOCAL HAZARDOUS WASTE MANAGEMENT PROGRAM FOR 2005 ACTIVITIES The Local Hazardous Waste Management Plan (hereafter referred to as the "Plan") as updated in 1997, was adopted by the partner agencies (King County Solid Waste Division, Seattle Public Utilities, King County Water and Land Resources Division and the Seattle -King County Department of Public Health) and cities located in King County. The Washington State Department of Ecology in accordance with RCW 70.105.220 subsequently approved the Plan. The City is an active and valued partner in the regional Local Hazardous Waste Management Program (hereafter referred to as the "Program"). The purpose of this Exhibit is to define the terms and conditions associated with the Program's funding of City activities performed under the auspices of the Plan and as approved by the Program's Management Coordination Committee (hereinafter referred to as the "MCC"). This Agreement further defines the responsibilities of the City and Seattle -King County Department of Public Health with respect to the transfer of Program monies. Scope of Work The City of Renton will organize two citywide Household Hazardous Waste Collection and Recycling Events. At these events the following materials will be collected and recycled: motor oil, oil filters, antifreeze, batteries, and other materials if determined to be cost effective. The City will also provide a minimum of 25 hazardous waste reduction workshops to grades 1-6. The City will also manage the Integrated Pest Management Model Garden. Travel and related expenses incurred for one City member to attend LHWMP meetings and events will be reimbursed. Responsibilities of the Parties The responsibilities of the parties to this Contract shall be as follows: A. The City The City shall develop and submit project proposals and budget requests to the Program's Contract Administrator. Funds provided to the City by the Local Hazardous Waste Management Program pursuant to this Contract shall be used to implement hazardous waste programs and/or services as approved by the MCC. 2. For reimbursement the City shall submit the following to the Contract Administrator: a) An invoice (see Exhibit II). Invoices should be sent to the Contract Administrator for approval and payment. b) A brief description of activity accomplished and funds expended in accordance with the scope of work. c) Copies of invoices for expenditures or a financial statement prepared by the City's finance department. The financial statements should include vendor names, a description of services provided, date paid and a check or warrant number. Contract # D32789D Amendment 2 3. The City shall notify the Contract Administrator no later than December 15"' regarding the amount of outstanding expenditures for which the City has not yet submitted a reimbursement request. 4. It is the responsibility of the City to comply with all applicable county, state and/or federal reporting requirements with respect to the collection and transfer of moderate risk wastes. The City shall report to the Contract Administrator the quantity, by type, of moderate risk waste collected using Program funds. The City shall also provide the Contract Administrator with copies of EPA's Non -Hazardous Waste Manifest or similar form, associated with the transport of moderate risk waste collected through Program - funded events. 5. The City is solely responsible for any and all spills, leaks or other emergencies arising at the facilities associated with the City's events or in any other way associated with activities conducted within the scope of this Contract. In the event of a spill or other emergency, the City is responsible for complying with all applicable laws and regulations. 6. The City agrees to appropriately acknowledge the Program in all media produced — in part or in whole — with Program funds. The intent of this provision is to further strengthen this regional partnership in the public's mind. 7. The City agrees to provide the Program with copies of all media material produced for local hazardous waste management events or activities that have been funded by the Program. The City also agrees to allow the Program to reproduce media materials created with Program money provided that the Program credits the City as the originator of that material. 8. This project shall be administered by Linda Knight at the City of Renton, 1055 South Grady Way, Renton, at (425) 430-7397, (Iknight@ci.renton.wa.us) or her designee. 9. Questions or concerns regarding any issue associated with this Exhibit that cannot be handled by the Contract Administrator should be referred to the LHWMP Program Administrator for resolution. B. Seattle -King County Department of Public Health l . Seattle -King County Department of Public Health shall administer, via the attached Contract, the transfer of Program funds to the City for hazardous waste management events and activities. 2. Within forty-five (45) days of receiving a request for reimbursement from the City, the Contract Administrator shall either notify the City of any exceptions to the request which have been identified or shall process the request for payment. If any exceptions to the request are made, this shall be done by written notification to the City providing the reason for such exception. The Contract Administrator will not authorize payment for activities and/or expenditures that are not included in the scope of work, unless the scope has been amended. The Contract Administrator retains the right to withhold all or partial payment if the City's invoices are incomplete (e.g. they do not include proper documentation of expenditures for which reimbursement is being requested) or are not consistent with the submitted scope of work. C. Program Contacts Ken Armstrong LHWMP Program Administrator 150 Nickerson Street, Suite 100 Seattle, WA 98109 206-352-8163 ken.annstrong@metrokc.gov Paul Shallow LHWMP Contract Administrator 999 Third Avenue, Suite 700 Seattle, WA 98104 206-296-4751 pain .shallow@metrokc. gov Contract # D32789D Amendment 2 EXHIBIT II-2 Budget/Invoice LOCAL HAZARDOUS WASTE MANAGEMENT PROGRAM From: The City of Renton 1055 South Grady Way Renton, WA 98055 To: Paul Shallow, LHWMP Contract Administrator Seattle -King County Department of Public Health 999 3rd Avenue, Suite 700 Seattle, WA 98104 Contract #D32789D Period of time: , 2005 to , 2005. In performance of a signed Contract between King County and the City of Renton, I hereby certify that the following expenses were incurred during the above -mentioned period of time. Signature Date Component Description Budget Current Expenses Previous Charges Balance HEW Education $7,403.46 HEW Collection $5,500.00 Travel/Related Costs $10,000.00 TOTAL $22,903.46 FOR HEALTH DEPARTMENT USE ONLY Local Hazardous Waste Management Program Approval: Paul Shallow Date CITY OF RENTON, WASHINGTON RESOLUTION NO. A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY OF RENTON, WASHINGTON, AUTHORIZING THE MAYOR AND CITY CLERK TO EXECUTE AMENDMENT #2 TO THE SUBURBAN CITY CONTRACT BETWEEN KING COUNTY AND THE CITY OF RENTON FOR THE 2005 LOCAL HAZARDOUS WASTE MANAGEMENT PROGRAM. WHEREAS, the City of Renton, as part of its solid waste utility, is required to manage hazardous wastes; and WHEREAS, the City of Renton, in achieving its management responsibilities concerning hazardous waste, has programmed certain activities for 2005; and WHEREAS, King County is willing to reimburse the City for certain hazardous waste management activities for calendar year 2005; and WHEREAS, the Local Hazardous Waste Management Program has funds available to assist the City in managing hazardous waste; and WHEREAS, in 2003, the City approved and executed the contract, entitled "King County — Suburban City Contract — Local Hazardous Waste — 2003"; and and WHEREAS, in 2004, the City approved and executed Amendment #1 to that Agreement; WHEREAS, Amendment #2 to that Agreement modifies the scope of work, grant allocation, and timeline of the program; and WHEREAS, it is necessary to document the terms and conditions under which such reimbursement will be made to the City; NOW, THEREFORE, THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF RENTON, WASHINGTON, DO RESOLVE AS FOLLOWS: I RESOLUTION NO. SECTION I. The above findings are true and correct in all respects. SECTION H. The Mayor and City Clerk are hereby authorized to enter into Amendment #2 to the contract with King County, entitled "Memorandum of Understanding on the Local Hazardous Waste Management Program for 2005 Activities." PASSED BY THE CITY COUNCIL this APPROVED BY THE MAYOR this Approved as to form: Lawrence J. Warren, City Attorney RES.1085: 01 /06/05 : ma day of , 2005. Bonnie I. Walton, City Clerk day of Kathy Keolker-Wheeler, Mayor 2005. 2 CITY OF RENTON COUNCIL AGENDA BILL Al #: Submitting Data: For Agenda of. Dept/Div/Board.. PBPW/Utility Systems January 24, 2005 Agenda Status Staff Contact...... J.D. Wilson (x7295) Consent .............. X Public Hearing.. Subject: 2005 Update to the Water System Plan Correspondence.. Ordinance ............. Resolution............ X Old Business........ New Business....... Exhibits: Issue Paper Study Sessions...... Water System Plan Information......... Resolution Recommended Action: Approvals: Refer to Utilities Committee Legal Dept......... X Finance Dept...... Other ............... Fiscal Impact: None Expenditure Required... N/A Transfer/Amendment....... Amount Budgeted....... Revenue Generated......... Total Project Budget City Share Total Project.. SUMMARY OF ACTION: The last update of the Water System Plan was adopted by the City Council in November 1998, and approved by King County and by the Washington State Department of Health (DOH) in April 1999. The Water Utility is required to update the plan and obtain plan approval from DOH every six years. An update to the plan has been prepared. Adoption of the plan by the City Council is required before forwarding the update to King County and DOH for approval. STAFF RECOMMENDATION: The Planning/Building/Public Works Department recommends that the City Council adopt the 2005 Update to the Water System Plan. HAFile Sys\WTR - Drinking Water Utility\WTR-09 - Plans\WTR-09-0020 - 2005 Water System P1an\AgendaBi11Jan2005.docVDWtp CITY OF RENTON PLANNINGBUILDING/PUBLIC WORKS MEMORANDUM DATE: January 14, 2005 TO: Terri Briere, Council President Members of the Renton City Council VIA:,Payor Kathy Keolker-Wheeler u� FROM: Gregg Zimmerman, Administrator Planning/Building/Public Works Department STAFF CONTACT: J.D. Wilson (x7295) SUBJECT: Council Adoption of the 2005 Update to the Water System Plan ISSUE: The Water Utility is required to update the Water System Plan and obtain plan approval from the Washington State Department of Health (DOH) every six years. An update to the plan has been prepared. RECOMMENDATION: • The Planning/Building/Public Works Department recommends that the City Council adopt the 2005 Update to the Water System Plan. BACKGROUND SUMMARY: The last update of the Water System Plan was adopted by the City Council in November 1998, and approved by King County and by the DOH in April 1999. The Water Utility is required to update the plan and obtain plan approval from DOH every six years. An update to the plan has been prepared. Adoption of the plan by the City Council is required before forwarding the update to King County and DOH for approval. A Brief Explanation of Each Plan Chapter: • Chapter 1: Executive Summary and Introduction: Includes "How to Use This Plan". • Chapter 2: Water System Description: An overview of the City's water service. • Chapter 3: Existing System: A detailed description of the physical facilities of the system. January 14, 2005 Page 2 • Chapter 4: Planning Data and Water Demand Forecasts: Includes population and demographic trends. • Chapter 5: Conservation Program: Describes the conservation program requirements. • Chapter 6: Policies, Criteria, and Standards: Covers the City's policies and criteria for supply, service, finance, facilities and organization. • Chapter 7: Water Supply, Water Rights and Water Quality: Addresses the City's water resources. • Chapter 8: Water System Analysis: Evaluates the present and future adequacy of the system. • Chapter 9: Operations and Maintenance: Describes the management of the water utility. • Chapter 10: Capital Improvement Program: Provides a summary of the six -year capital improvement program. • Chapter 11: Financial Program: Provides a description of the water utility's financial condition. Please refer to the Water System Plan, Section 1.5, How to Use This Plan, for a more detailed explanation of the purpose of each plan chapter. Highlights from the Plan: • The focus of the plan is the next six years (2005 - 2011) with projections out to 2025 and to land development "build -out"- whenever that occurs. • The demand forecasts include looking at two of the four alternatives for the Boeing plant property as described in the Boeing Renton Comprehensive Plan Amendment Draft EIS (2003): o Alternative 2 — Boeing stays - partial redevelopment o Alternative 4 — Boeing goes — full redevelopment • The system's annual water rights, "Qa", of 14,809 acre-feet per year are sufficient beyond 2025 for Alternative 2 (high side estimate of demand, without conservation) and Alternative 4 (high side estimate of demand, with conservation). • The system's instantaneous water rights, "Qi", are good beyond 2025. The use of the Maplewood well field for meeting peak demands is needed beginning sometime between 2005 and 2011 (high side estimate of demand, without conservation). HAFile Sys\WTR - Drinking Water Utility\WTR-09 - Plans\WTR-09-0020 - 2005 Water System Plan\lssuePaperWSPJan2005.doc\JDWtp January 14, 2005 Page 3 • The water system hydraulic analysis identified storage deficits and distribution main fire flow and low-pressure limitations, including requirements to support Boeing Redevelopment Alternative 4. • The Six Year Capital Improvements Program includes: o An additional storage reservoir in the Highlands 565 pressure zone o An additional storage reservoir in the Valley 196 pressure zone with a booster pump station feeding the West Hill 495 pressure zone o Water Treatment Improvements for Well PW-5A o Water Main Replacements — various o Water System Security Improvements — various • Annual 2.38% rate increases are projected 2005 through 2012. • Renton residential customers' water bills fall in the mid -range compared to the bills of the surrounding water systems. CONCLUSION: Staff recommends the Council adopt the 2005 Update to the Water System Plan and subsequently the Water Utility forward the plan to the King County Utilities Technical Review Committee for King County approval and to the Washington State Department of Health for approval. cc: Lys Hornsby Abdoul Gafour H:\File Sys\WTR - Drinking Water Utility\WTR-09 - Plans\WTR-09-0020 - 2005 Water System Plan\lssuePaperWSPJan2005.doc\JDWtp CITY OF RENTON, WASHINGTON RESOLUTION NO. A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY OF RENTON, WASHINGTON, ADOPTING THE 2005 WATER SYSTEM PLAN. WHEREAS, the 2005 Water System Plan ("Plan") was reviewed by the City of Renton Environmental Review Committee, which issued a Determination of Non -Significance; and WHEREAS, a Notice of Environmental Determination was made public, and no comments or appeals were received during the public comment and appeal periods, which ended November 29, 2004; and WHEREAS, the Plan was presented to the Renton City Council, discussed at a meeting of the Utilities Committee, and recommended for adoption by the full City Council; and Plans; WHEREAS, the Plan is compatible with the intent of the City's adopted Comprehensive NOW, THEREFORE, THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF RENTON, WASHINGTON, DO RESOLVE AS FOLLOWS: SECTION L The above findings are true and correct in all respects. SECTION H. The 2005 Water System Plan is hereby adopted by the City of Renton. PASSED BY THE CITY COUNCIL this day of 72005. Bonnie I. Walton, City Clerk 1 RESOLUTION NO. APPROVED BY THE MAYOR this day of 12005. Approved as to form: Lawrence J. Warren, City Attorney RES.1086:1/12/05:ma Kathy Keolker-Wheeler, Mayor 2 CITY OF RENTON COUNCIL AGENDA BILL A] #: Submitting Data: Planning/Building/Public Works For Agenda of: Dept/Div/Board.. Utility Systems January 24, 2005 Agenda Status Staff Contact...... J.D. Wilson, x7295 Consent .............. X Public Hearing.. Subject: Annual Consultant Roster for Telemetry and SCADA Correspondence.. Systems Ordinance ............. Resolution............ Old Business........ New Business....... Exhibits: List of Annual Consultants on Shortlist (Attachment A) Study Sessions...... Information......... Recommended Action: Council Concur Approvals: Legal Dept...... Finance Dept... Other ............... Fiscal Impact: Expenditure Required... None Transfer/Amendment....... Amount Budgeted....... N/A Revenue Generated......... Total Project Budget City Share Total Project.. SUMMARY OF ACTION: Utility Systems Division staff advertised for Statements of Qualifications (SOQs) for an Annual Consultant Roster to provide telemetry and supervisory control and data acquisition (SCADA) consultant services. We received SOQs from four firms. Staff evaluated the SOQs and selected all four consultants for placement on the annual consultant roster. The roster will be valid for the period from February 2005 to February 2006, with the opportunity to extend the roster for another two years. As the City requires these services, a standard City engineering services contract will be executed with the most qualified consultant on the list. Contracts will be negotiated and executed in compliance with City Policy 250-02, Bidding and Contracting Requirements, and subsequent amendments to this policy, as approved by the Mayor and City Council. STAFF RECOMMENDATION: Planning/Building/Public Works staff recommends that Council authorize inclusion of the list of consultants on Attachment A on the Annual Consultant Roster — Telemetry and SCADA Systems, to be used from February 2005 to February 2006. H:\File Sys\USA - Utility Systems Division Administration\USA-12 - Annual Consultant Agreement\USA-12-0003 - SCADA & TELEMETRY ROSTER SELECTION PROC\AgendaBi112005.docVDWtp Attachment A City of Renton Annual Consultant Roster - Telemetry and SCADA Systems Casne Engineering, Inc., 355 — 118th Avenue SE, Bellevue, WA 98005-3554 Reid Instruments, 6824 St. Andrews Drive, Mukilteo, WA 98275 RH2 Engineering, Inc., 12100 NE 195" Street, STE 100, Bothell, WA 98011 Summit Engineering and Consulting, P.S., 221 Twin Peaks Road, Selah WA 98942 H:\File Sys\USA - Utility Systems Division Administration\USA-12 - Annual Consultant Agreement\USA-12-0003 - SCADA & TELEMETRY ROSTER SELECTION PROC\Attachment A 2005.docUDWtp 1/11/2005 W4 AIi CITY OF RENTON �c2y�SDr% JAN 1 4 2005 January 10,2005 To Mr. Don OmmoM —Council President City of Renton Dear Sir, I would like to make a suggestion on the Pavilion building in rITY CLEfIK S CFFICg�downtown Renton. My proposal is a Public Market pattern like the Quincy Public Market in Boston MA. They have small stalls for different businesses like fast foods, services and dry good retailing. We can have international food outlets to attract more people to worldwide cuisine for a cheaper prices. A lot of people wants to go in business but the cost of rentals is too much. It would be like Pike Place Market but in one single dome with easy access in and out. Maybe one section could be an elevated stage for some presentation like singers, band, karaoke etc. So many things can be done inside a public market to attract people or to make it like a tourist attraction. The problems for this kind of plan is the plumbing and electrical for the fast food section together with exhaust and ventilations. A good kitchen contractor will know how to create an effective and cheapest way that the Public Health will approve. If the city don't want any hassle on these problems, an indoor flea market could be feasible since it is always raining here. Cheaper daily,weekly or mothly rent on small spaces is a big help for people trying to make a buck. Thank you very much for your attention on this matter, Sincerely, Ramon Lucio ps my phone number is 425 2278166 oa0 �,rjo t- Av S 44� L ~ 30 j 4^4rn WA 9$o05 R to CITY OF RENTON MAL CITY CLERK MEMORANDUM DATE: January 20, 2005 TO: Mayor Kathy Keolker-Wheeler Members, Renton City Council FROM: b� Bonnie Walton, City Clerk, x6502 SUBJECT: Timing Concerns on Responses To Appeals; Sunset Bluff Preliminary Plat The deadline for response from parties -of -record to the appeals filed on the Sunset Bluff preliminary plat was 5:00 p.m., Monday, January 17, 2005; however, four response letters were received in the postal mail on Tuesday, January 18, 2005. Because there was no postal service on Monday, January 17, 2005, due to the federal holiday (Martin Luther King, Jr. Day), the City Attorney has advised that the four pieces of correspondence received after the deadline be presented to Council as separate correspondence, so Council has opportunity to debate their acceptance. David Halinen, attorney for the Sunset Bluff plat applicant, has submitted a letter via fax and e-mail, objecting to acceptance of the late correspondence and asking that Council not review or consider it. (Mr. Halinen hand -delivered his response to the appeal shortly before 5:00 on Monday, January 17ch One of the four letters received on January 181h is the response letter from the Herons Forever attorney, David S. Mann.) If Council determines the January 18ch letters were untimely and should not be considered a part of the appeal, no action would be necessary. If Council determines the January 18ch letters should be considered a part of the appeal, the motion would be to accept them and refer them to the Planning and Development Committee as part of the appeal. Attachments: 1. Faxed objection letter from David Halinen dated 1/17/2005 2. City Clerk's notification letter indicating the deadline - dated 1/7/2005 3. RMC Section 4-8-110F - Regarding appeals to Council procedure and period for responses 4. Correspondence in question: 1) David Rosenfeld, 2) Diane Johnson, 3) Tricia Allen, and 4) Gendler & Mann, LLP SENT BY: LAW OFFICES; 253 272 9876 4;JAN-19-05 5:10PM; PAGE 2/2 avid L Halinen, P.E. davidhalincnCjralinenlaw. corn HALINEN LAW OFFICES, P.S. A Professional Service Corporation Bellevue Place / Bank of America Bldg. 10500 NE 8`h, Suite 1900 Bellevue, Washington 98004 January 17, 2005 VIA FAX AND E-MAIL (Bwaltonkci.renton.wa.us) Renton City Council c/o Renton City Clerk 1055 S. Grady Way, Seventh Floor Renton, Washington 98055 (425) 454-8272 Fax (425) 646-3467 Re: Proposed "Sunset Bluff ' Residential Subdivision (Renton File No. LUA 04-002, EC, PP) Applicant SR 900 L.L.C.'s Objection to Herons Forever's Late Submittal of a Letter Responding to SR 900 L.L.C.'s January 3, 2005 Appeal of the Hearing Examiner's Recommendation Report Dear Council Members: 1 am writing on behalf of my client SR 900 L.L.C., the "Sunset Bluff' Residential Subdivision applicant. 1 learned this afternoon that, yesterday, the City Clerk received from Herons Forever's attorney, David Mann, a letter responding to SR 900 L.L.C.'s January 3, 2005 appeal of the Hearing Examiner's Recommendation report. That letter was not timely received by the City Clerk's office by the 5:00 p.m. Monday cutoff specified by both the City Code and the instruction letter from the Clerk's Office. Accordingly, on behalf of my client, I object to that letter and ask that it not be reviewed or considered. Sincerely, HALINEN LAW OFFICES, P.S. 4L.Hal Davn cc: SR 900 L.L.C. Attn: Donald J. Merlino Attn: Michael Merlino Mayor Kathy Keolker-Wheeler Gregg Zimmerman, P.E., Administrator, City of Renton Department of Planning/Building/Public Works Neil Watts, P.E., Director, City of Renton Development Services Division Jennifer Henning, Principal Planner, City of Renton Development Services Division "IF !R�ENTON CITY G ° 71 City Clerk Kathy KeoIker-Wheeler, Mayor Bonnie I. Walton January 7, 2005 APPEALS FILED BY:1) David S. Mann, Attorney, Representative for Herons Forever , 2) David Halinen, Attorney, Representative for SR 900 LLC RE: Appeal of Hearing Examiner's decision dated 12/20/2004 regarding the SR 900 LLC's application for construction of a 65-lot detached single-family home subdivision in the 1100 Block of SW Sunset Boulevard on a 26.26-acre site. (File No. LUA-04-002, PP, ECF) To Parties of Record: Pursuant to Title IV, Chapter 8, Renton City Code of Ordinances, written appeals of the hearing examiner's decision on the Sunset Bluff project have been filed with the City Clerk. In accordance with Renton Municipal Code Section 4-8-110F, within five days of receipt of the notice of appeal, the City Clerk shall notify all parties of record of the receipt of the appeal. [Other parties of record may submit letters limited to support of or opposition to the appeal within ten (10) days of the date of mailing of the notification of the filing of the appeal. The deadline for submission of additional letters is 5:00 p.m., Monday, January 17, 2005, at the City Clerk's office. NOTICE IS HEREBY GIVEN that the written appeal and other pertinent documents will be reviewed by the Council's Planning and Development Committee at 2:00 p.m. on Thursday, March 17, 2005, in the Council Chambers, 71h floor of Renton City Hall, 1055 South Grady Way, Renton, WA 98055. The recommendation of the Committee will be presented for consideration by the full Council at a subsequent Council meeting. Attached is a copy of the Renton Municipal Code regarding appeals of Hearing Examiner decisions or recommendations. Please note that the City Council will be considering the merits of the appeals based upon the written record previously established. Unless a showing can be made that additional evidence could not reasonably have been available at the prior hearing held by the Hearing Examiner, no new evidence or testimony on this matter will be accepted by the City Council. For additional information or assistance, please feel free to call. Sincerely, i Bonnie I. Walton City Clerk Attachment cc: Council Liaison 1055 South Grady Way - Renton, Washington 98055 - (425) 430-6510 / FAX (425) 430-6516 R E 1 V T ®lam This pap- wniains 50%rew;yc:!ed material. 30 % post mnsume-r AHEAD OF THE CURVE F APPEALS TO CITY COUNCIL — PROCEDURES: 1. Time for Appeal: Unless a specific section of State law providing for review of a decision of the Examiner requires review thereof by the Superior Court or any other body, any interested party aggrieved by the Examiner's written decision or recommendation may submit a notice of appeal to the City Clerk, upon a form furnished by the City Clerk, within fourteen (14) calendar days from the date of the Examiner's written report. 2. Notice to Parties of Record: Within five (5) days of receipt of the notice of appeal, the City Clerk shall notify all parties of record of the receipt of the appeal. 3. Opportunity to Provide Comments: Other parties of record may submit letters in support of their �{C itions within ten (10) days of the dates of mailing of the notification of the filing of the notice of appeal. 4. Transmittal of Record to Council: Thereupon the Clerk shall forward to the members of the City Council all of the pertinent documents, including the written decision or recommendation, findings and conclusions contained in the Examiner's report, the notice of appeal, and additional letters submitted by the parties. (Ord. 3658, 9-13-1982) 5. Council Review Procedures: No public hearing shall be held by the City Council. No new or additional evidence or testimony shall be accepted by the City Council unless a showing is made by the party offering the evidence that the evidence could not reasonably have been available at the time of the hearing before the Examiner. If the Council determines that additional evidence is required, the Council shall remand the matter to the Examiner for reconsideration and receipt of additional evidence. The cost of transcription of the hearing record shall be borne by the applicant. In the absence of an entry upon the record of an order by the City Council authorizing new or additional evidence or testimony, and a remand to the Hearing Examiner for receipt of such evidence or testimony, it shall be presumed that no new or additional evidence or testimony has been accepted by the City Council, and that the record before the City Council is identical to the hearing record before the Hearing Examiner. (Ord. 4389, 1-25-1993) 6. Council Evaluation Criteria: The consideration by the City Council shall be based solely upon the record, the Hearing Examiner's report, the notice of appeal and additional submissions by parties. 7. Findings and Conclusions Required: If, upon appeal of a decision of the Hearing Examiner on an application submitted pursuant to RMC 4-1-050F1, and after examination of the record, the Council determines that a substantial error in fact or law exists in the record, it may remand the proceeding to Examiner for reconsideration, or modify, or reverse the decision of the Examiner accordingly. 8. Council Action: If, upon appeal from a recommendation of the Hearing Examiner upon an application submitted pursuant to RMC 4-1-050F2 and F3, and after examination of the record, the Council determines that a substantial error in fact or law exists in the record, or that a recommendation of the Hearing Examiner should be disregarded or modified, the City Council may remand the proceeding to the Examiner for reconsideration, or enter its own decision upon the application. 9. Decision Documentation: In any event, the decision of the City Council shall be in writing and shall specify any modified or amended findings and conclusions other than those set forth in the report of the Hearing Examiner. Each material finding shall be supported by substantial evidence in the record. The burden of proof shall rest with the appellant. (Ord. 3658, 9-13-1982) 10. Council Action Final: The action of the Council approving, modifying or rejecting a decision of the Examiner shall be final and conclusive, unless appealed within the time frames established under subsection G5 of this Section. (Ord. 4660, 3-17-1997) 02004 Code Publishing, Inc. Page 1 INTEROFFICE MEMORANDUM TOt CITY OF RENTON, C171Y CLERKS OFFICE, 1055 S GRADY WAY, RENTON WA 98055 FROM: SUBJECT: APPEAL REGARDING APPLICATION FOR 00NSTRUCIION ON SW SUNSET BLVD (FILE # LUA-04-002,PP, ECG CITY OF RENTON DATE: 1/12/2005 CC: I support the appeal by Herons Forever. I oppose the appeal by SR 900 LLC u. 7 P JAN 18 2005 RECEIVED GrPe CLERICS OFFICE City of Renton City Clerk's Office 1055 S Grady Way Renton WA 98055 ..... ........ .... ........... INTEROFFICE MEMORANDUM TO: CITY OF RENTON,, CITY CLERK'S OFFICE, 1055 S GRADY WAY, RENTON WA 98055 FROM: D t OtQ- J Q '' t� v �ni SUBJECT: APPEAL REGARDING APPLICATION FOR CONSTRUCTION ON SW SUNSET BLVD (FILE N LUA-04-002,PP, ECF) DATE: 1/ 12/2005 CC: I support the appeal by Herons Forever. I oppose the appeal by SR 900 LLC Thank you. r r ✓( W Diane Johnson 3042 Garlough Ave SW Seattle, WA 98116 Diane Johnson I- L 3042 Gariough Ave SW o 1ki v� Seattle, WA 98116 City of Renton City Clerk's Office 1055 S Grady Way Renton WA 98055 CITY OF RENTON JAN 18 2005 CITY CLERK'SEOFFIC .u--' INTEROFFICE MEMORANDUM TO CITY OF RENTON, CITY CLERK'S OFFICE, 1055 S GRADY WAY, RENTON WA 98055 FROM: SUBJECT: APPEAL REGARDING APPLICATION FOR CONSTRUCIION ON SW SUNSET BLVD (FILE N LUA-04-002,PP, ECF) DATE: 1/12/2005 CC: I support the appeal by Herons Forever. I oppose the appeal by SR 900 LLC Thank you. OVA(- `tea-�Z�-n- l�C,cJA r.� 4- CITY OF RENTON JAN 18 2005 RECEIVED CrrY CLERICS OFFICE City of Renton City Clerk's Office 1055 S Grady Way Renton WA 98055 •..�••� •�c—••—�:..• ii:�idtie ifii E4 ii2iiiliieie]jici2i(i4tFi44:i�i:4:li'el4ie�i?i Michael W. Gendler• David S. Mann Isa Lester- 'Also adnutted in Oregon -Admitted only in Oregon GENDLER & MANN, LLP ATTORNEYS -AT -LAW 1424 FOURTH AVENUE, SUITE 1015 SEATTLE WA 98101 January 14, 2005 Renton City Council Planning and Development Committee City of Renton 1055 South Grady Wav Renton, WA 98055 (206)621-8868 Fax (206) 621-0512 m ann(-)fiend lerm ann. com www.gendlermann.com CITY OF RENTON JAN 18 2005 RECEIVED CITY CLERK'S OFFICE Re: Applicant SR 900 LLC's Appeal of The Hearing Examiner's December 20, 2004 Recommendation on application for Preliminary Plat Sunset Bluff Preliminary Plat (File No LUA-04-002, PP, ECF) Honorable City Councilmembers: Pursuant to RMC 4.8.110F(3), the following letter is submitted on behalf of Herons Forever in opposition to the appeal filed by SR 900 LLC challenging the Renton Hearing Examiner's December 20, 2004 Recommendation on the Application for the Sunset Bluff Preliminary Plat. As you may recall, Herons Forever originally appealed the City's SEPA determination to the Hearing Examiner. While the Examiner agreed with Herons Forever's appeal and reversed the SEPA determination, a majority of this Council reversed the Hearing Examiner's SEPA decision. Herons Forever again generally supports the recommendation of the Hearing Examiner and opposes the appeal brought by the Applicant SR 900 LLC. Herons Forever was a party to the public hearing on the proposed preliminary plat. Herons Forever is involved in this issue o behalf of its more than 400 members that have been involved with the protection of the Black River Riparian Forest since 1989. These members live and work throughout the Puget Sound region, including the City of Renton. Contrary to the Applicant's repeated assertion before the Hearing Examiner that Herons Forever seeks to block all development of the Applicant's property, Herons Forever recognizes and values individual property rights. It recognizes that the Applicant has a legal right to make reasonable use of its property. However, a subdivision of this property into 2, 5, 10, or even 65 lots is not a "right." A subdivision is appropriate only where the City finds that the subdivision makes appropriate provisions for the public health, safety and general welfare, and that the public use and interest will be served. In this case, the landowner's right to make reasonable use of its property, must be balanced against the importance to the public interest and the community in protecting the $8 million dollar public investment in the Black River Riparian Forest and both the tangible and intangible public benefits of this valuable and rare natural resource. The proposal before the City does not meet this critical balance and is not in the public interest. Renton City Council inuary 14, 2005 _ age 2 of 2 Indeed, Herons Forever agrees with the assertions by the Applicant that it is strongly opposed to the development currently proposed. Rather than balance or even consider the public interest and welfare, the proposal before you takes a steep and difficult site and maximizes its use by extensive clearing and grading. The Black River great blue heron colony is a rare gem and the City has a trust responsibility to protect it. Recent experiments in development around the heronry have met with mixed success. We know now that nearby logging operations for only a few days in 1987 resulted in a significant disturbance to the herons. Fortunately, because logging was almost immediately halted, the herons did not abandon the site and indeed continued to expand their population. Unfortunately, it appears also that the 1999 experiment allowing development of the nearby Black River corporate park met with mixed success. While a prohibition on construction during the nesting season likely prevented significant disturbance during construction, it appears that the year round occupation of the corporate park has resulted in the herons leaving the "Main Colony" and moving west into the "Protected Forest." The Main Colony had been occupied since inception of the colony in 1986. It is now abandoned. Fortunately, this negative impact may have coincided with cessation of blasting at the Black River quarry — thereby allowing the colony to migrate westward - closer to the old quarry. The question before Renton is how much further experimentation will the herons tolerate before they abandon the Black River Riparian Forest? Herons Forever urges a cautious approach to this development. This cautious approach is more than justified in this situation. While the applicant obviously disagrees with the findings and conclusion of the Examiner, we are sure that you will find in your own review of the record, that the Examiner's recommendations are well founded in fact and supported by substantial evidence. The Council should deny the applicant's appeal and adopt the Hearing Examiner's recommendation to deny the preliminary plat. In the alternative, the Council should approve the preliminary plat, but only subject to all of the conditions identified in the Examiner's recommendation plus the additional conditions recommended in Herons Forever's appeal. We look forward to discussing this further at your Scheduled March 17, 2005 hearing. Please do not hesitate to contact me if you have questions. Very truly yours, GENDLER MANN, LLP David S. Mann cc: Clients David Halinen Zanetta Fontes GENDLER & MANN, LLP AITORNEYS-AT-LAW FOURTH AND PIKE BUILDING 1424 FOURTH AVENUE, SUITE 1015 SEATTLE, WA 98101 k I A H METER 5 2% 14 6 Renton City Council Planning and Development Committee City of Renton 1055 S. Grady Way Renton, WA 98055 FINANCE COMMITTEE REPORT January 24, 2005 Ar"77 0-E9rm By Date APPROVAL OF CLAIMS AND PAYROLL VOUCHERS The Finance Committee approves for payment on January 24, 2005, claim vouchers 234009-234346 and 3 wire transfers, totaling $3,126,472.97 , and 566 direct deposits, payroll vouchers 55314- 55667, and 1 wire transfer, totaling $2,114,237.24 . API YF-,! l L V UTILITIES COMMITTEE C;TV C UN'CiL COMMITTEE REPORT Date /- a14,2003- January 24, 2005 MAPLEWOOD WATER TREATMENT IMPROVEMENTS ADDENDUM No. 2 to CAG-03-168 (Referred January 10, 2005) The Utilities Committee concurs with the Planning/Building/Public Works Department's recommendation that Council approve Addendum No. 2 to the consultant agreement CAG-03-168 with Economic and Engineering Services, Inc. in the amount of $116,510.00 for additional engineering services assistance for the construction of the Maplewood Water Treatment Improvements project. andy Corm- an, Chair Dan Cl ice it Don Persson, Member cc: Lys Homsby Abdoul Gafour PLANNING AND DEVELOPMENT COMMITTEE`'' COMMITTEEE REPORT €; ' C i L Date L4 i 060- January 24, 2005 Big -Box Retail / Urban Center Design Guidelines (Referred April 19, 2004}Bt9 Box W Sept. '27boo y- ur6an Cenfer The Planning and Development Committee recommends concurrence in the staff recommendation for approval of the proposed revisions to the Urban Center Design Overlay Regulations incorporating revised standards for new development in the Urban Center and Big - Box retail in all locations except the Valley. The Committee further recommends that the ordinance regarding this matter be presented for first reading. Dan Clawson, Chair Ws AV -- Denis W. Law, Vice -Chair W - /f.LjA� Marcie Palmer, Member cc: Alex Pietsch, EDNSP Administrator Gregg Zimmerman, PB/PW Administrator Neil Watts, Development Services Director Rebecca Lind, Planning Manager Jennifer Henning, Principal Planner Susan Fiala, Senior Planner PLANNING AND DEVELOPMENT COMMITTEE COMMITTEEE REPORT January 24, 2005 MTTWED BY QTV COUNCIL. Data 1 aV-aOOS "Medical Institution" Definition Exception to Title IV Docket Review Process for a Zoning Code Amendment (Referred Dec.,AK,'2004) The Planning and Development Committee recommends setting a public hearing for this issue on February 7, 2005. The Committee further recommends that the draft ordinance regarding this matter be referred to the City Attorney's office for preparation of the final ordinance. _ � C/l Dan Clawson, CQiti►hair ` , 1 Denis W. Law, Vice -Chair nm Ct&-j--1 -PUA� Randy Corman, Member Cc Alex Pietsch Rebecca Lind PLANNING AND DEVELOPMENT COMMITTEE COMMITTEE REPORT January 24, 2005 C.17V COUNCIL Date-a� adO3 Release of Easements: Lakeshore Landing Site, Boeing, RE-04-001 (Referred January 3, 2005) The Planning and Development Committee recommends concurrence in the Planning/Building/Public Works Department recommendation that Council approve a release for each of the easements with the following King County recording numbers: 98811300191 #9607220167 #200011205003127 #200011205003128 #200011205003129 #200011205003130 The Planning and Development Committee further recommends concurrence in the Planning/Building/Public Works Department recommendation that Council retain a portion of the easement recorded under King County recording number #8805190541 and approve the partial release of the remaining portion of this easement. The documents recorded under King County recording numbers #9105231158 and #9106060988 (which replaced 9105231158) are not easements but agreements and will be handled by staff in a separate action to Council. Dan Clawson, Chair &"."' a &— — Denis W. Law, Vice Chair Marcie Palmer, Member cc: Lys Hornsby, Utility Systems Division Neil Watts, Development Services Division Rob Lochmiller, Transportation Systems Division CITY OF RENTON, WASHINGTON RESOLUTION NO. 373A A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY OF RENTON, WASHINGTON, SETTING A HEARING DATE TO VACATE PORTIONS OF BREMERTON AVE. NE BETWEEN NE 2ND AND 3an STREETS. (LIBERTY RIDGE LLC; VAC-04-007.) WHEREAS, a Petition has been filed with the City Clerk of the City of Renton on or about December 27, 2004, pursuant to the requirements of RCW 35.79, petitioning for the vacation of three portions of a street, as hereinafter more particularly described, and said petition having been signed by the owners of more than two-thirds (2/3) of the property abutting upon said alley sought to be vacated, and same being described as follows: See Exhibit "A" attached hereto and made a part hereof as if fully set forth herein (Three portions of the west edge of Bremerton Avenue NE between NE 2°d Street and NE 3`d Street). NOW, THEREFORE, THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF RENTON, WASHINGTON, DO RESOLVE AS FOLLOWS: SECTION I. That the 28th day of February, 2005, at the hour of 7:30 P.M. at the City Council Chambers at City Hall, Renton, King County, Washington, be and is hereby fixed as - the time and place for a public hearing to consider the aforesaid Petition for vacating three portions of the west edge of Bremerton Avenue NE between NE 2"d Street and NE 3rd Street, which said hearing date is not more than sixty nor less than twenty days from the date of passage of this Resolution. SECTION U. The City Clerk is hereby authorized and directed to give notice of said time and date of the hearing as provided in RCW 35.79.020 and any and/or all persons interested therein or objecting to said vacation may then appear and be heard thereon, or they may 1 RESOLUTION NO. file their written objections thereto with the City Clerk at or prior to the time of hearing on said vacation. SECTION III. The City Council shall determine, as provided in RCW 35.79.030, as to whether an appraisal shall be secured to determine the fair market value of the property sought to be vacated as provided for in Ordinance No. 4266, and the amount of compensation to be paid by the Petitioner -Owners to the City for such vacation. The City likewise reserves the right to retain an easement for public utility and related purposes. PASSED BY THE CITY COUNCIL this APPROVED BY THE MAYOR this Approved as to form: Lawrence J. Warren, City Attorney RES.1087:1/18/05:ma day of , 2005. Bonnie I. Walton, City Clerk _ day of , 2005. Kathy Keolker-Wheeler, Mayor 2 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 22.00 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 29.52 feet along the curve concave to the Northwest, having a radius of 25.00 feet and a central angle of 67°39'59" to a point of cusp, - Thence North 00°13'59" West parallel with the East line thereof, a distance of 92.96 feet; Thence South 89°08'05" East along the South line thereof, a distance of 15.50 feet to the True Point of Beginning. Containing 1,339 square feet, more or less. AND Commencing at the Northeast comer 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 138.72 feet to the True Point of Beginning; Thence continuing South 009T59" East parallel with the East line thereof, a distance of 191.34 feet to the South line of said North half, Thence South 89'1172" East, a distance of 15.50 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 Thence northwesterly a distance of 29.53 feet along the curve concave to the southwest, having a radius of 25.00 feet and a central angle of 67°39'59" to the True Point of Beginning. Containing 2,869 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 to the True Point of Beginning 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 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 True Point of Beginning. Containing 552 square feet, more or less. I Z-Z7--z'a Page 2 of 2 z 0 F— H w F— wa Cr U F- a (n > f z 0 F— H 04 w F— wa Ir U F— Q n\ > W v 1 � z uo JU w w Un �� z 0 F- F-1 w F— wa cc U F— Q Un > \,,,38965 ,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,.......:...::.:::. CIS SCALE 1 1 1 ,. of CITY OF RENTON, WASHINGTON RESOLUTION NO. 3 733 A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY OF RENTON, WASHINGTON, AUTHORIZING THE MAYOR AND CITY CLERK TO EXECUTE AMENDMENT #2 TO THE SUBURBAN CITY CONTRACT BETWEEN KING COUNTY AND THE CITY OF RENTON FOR THE 2005 LOCAL HAZARDOUS WASTE MANAGEMENT PROGRAM. WHEREAS, the City of Renton, as part of its solid waste utility, is required to manage hazardous wastes; and WHEREAS, the City of Renton, in achieving its management responsibilities concerning hazardous waste, has programmed certain activities for 2005; and WHEREAS, King County is willing to reimburse the City for certain hazardous waste management activities for calendar year 2005; and WHEREAS, the Local Hazardous Waste Management Program has funds available to assist the City in managing hazardous waste; and WHEREAS, in 2003, the City approved and executed the contract, entitled "King County — Suburban City Contract — Local Hazardous Waste — 2003"; and and WHEREAS, in 2004, the City approved and executed Amendment #1 to that Agreement; WHEREAS, Amendment #2 to that Agreement modifies the scope of work, grant allocation, and timeline of the program; and WHEREAS, it is necessary to document the terms and conditions under which such reimbursement will be made to the City; NOW, THEREFORE, THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF RENTON, WASHINGTON, DO RESOLVE AS FOLLOWS: 1 RESOLUTION NO, SECTION I. The above findings are true and correct in all respects. SECTION H. The Mayor and City Clerk are hereby authorized to enter into Amendment #2 to the contract with King County, entitled "Memorandum of Understanding on the Local Hazardous Waste Management Program for 2005 Activities." PASSED BY THE CITY COUNCIL this day of , 2005. APPROVED BY THE MAYOR this Approved as to form: Lawrence J. Warren, City Attorney RES. 1085:0I /06/05 : ma Bonnie I. Walton, City Clerk day of Kathy Keolker-Wheeler, Mayor 2005. 2 CITY OF RENTON, WASHINGTON ORDINANCE NO. AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF RENTON, WASHINGTON, AMENDING SECTIONS 4-2-060, 4-2-070, AND 4-2-080, OF CHAPTER 2, ZONING DISTRICTS - USES AND STANDARDS, AND SECTION 4-3-100 OF CHAPTER 3, ENVIRONMENTAL REGULATIONS AND OVERLAY DISTRICTS, AND CHAPTER 11, DEFINITIONS, OF TITLE IV (DEVELOPMENT REGULATIONS) OF ORDINANCE NO. 4260 ENTITLED "CODE OF GENERAL ORDINANCES OF THE CITY OF RENTON, WASHINGTON" BY REVISING URBAN CENTER DESIGN OVERLAY REGULATIONS FOR DEVELOPMENT IN THE URBAN CENTER. THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF RENTON, WASHINGTON, DO ORDAIN AS FOLLOWS: SECTION I. Subsection I, Retail, of Section 4-2-060, Zoning Use Table — Uses Allowed in Zoning Designations, of Chapter 2, Zoning Districts — Uses and Standards, of Title IV (Development Regulations) of Ordinance No. 4260 entitled "Code of General Ordinances of the City of Renton, Washington" is hereby amended to read as shown in Attachment A. SECTION II. The use table subsection entitled "RETAIL" in subsection 4-2- 070.K, Commercial Arterial (CA), of Chapter 2, Zoning Districts — Uses and Standards, of Title IV (Development Regulations) of Ordinance No. 4260 entitled "Code of General Ordinances of the City of Renton, Washington" is hereby amended to read as shown on Attachment B. SECTION III. The use table subsection entitled "RETAIL" in Section 4-2-070.N, Commercial/Office/Residential (COR), of Chapter 2, Zoning Districts — Uses and Standards, of Title IV (Development Regulations) of Ordinance No. 4260 entitled "Code of General ORDINANCE NO. Ordinances of the City of Renton, Washington" is hereby amended to read as shown on Attachment B. SECTION IV. The use table subsection entitled "RETAIL" in subsection 4-2- 070.0, Industrial Light (IL), of Chapter 2, Zoning Districts - Uses and Standards, of Title TV (Development Regulations) of Ordinance No. 4260 entitled "Code of General Ordinances of the City of Renton, Washington" is hereby amended to read as shown on Attachment B. SECTION V. The use table subsection entitled "RETAIL" in Section 4-2-070.P, Industrial Medium (IM), of Chapter 2, Zoning Districts — Uses and Standards, of Title IV (Development Regulations) of Ordinance No. 4260 entitled "Code of General Ordinances of the City of Renton, Washington" is hereby amended to read as shown on Attachment B. SECTION VI. The use table subsection entitled "RETAIL" in Section 4-2-070.Q, Industrial Heavy (IH), of Chapter 2, Zoning Districts — Uses and Standards, of Title IV (Development Regulations) of Ordinance No. 4260 entitled "Code of General Ordinances of the City of Renton, Washington" is hereby amended to read as shown on Attachment B. SECTION VII. Section 4-2-080.A.72 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: 72. Big -box retail uses are subject to compliance with Design Regulations applicable to District `C' as detailed in RMC 4-3-100, except in the Employment Area — Valley south of Interstate 405. Big -box retail uses are not permitted within 1,200 ft. of NE 3rd/4`h St., S. Puget Drive, and NE Sunset Blvd in the 3rd/41h Corridor, Puget Corridor, and Sunset Corridor within the Commercial Arterial (CA) Zone. 2 ORDINANCE NO. SECTION VIII. Section 4-3-100, Urban Center Design Overlay Regulations, of Chapter 3, Environmental Regulations and Overlay Districts, of Title IV (Development Regulations) of Ordinance No. 4260 entitled "Code of General Ordinances of the City of Renton, Washington" is hereby amended to read as follows: RMC 4-3-100 DESIGN REGULATIONS: A. PURPOSE: The purpose of this Section is to: 1. Establish design review regulations in accordance with policies established in the Land Use and Community Design Elements of the Renton Comprehensive Plan in order to: a. Maintain and protect property values, b. Enhance the general appearance of the City, C. Encourage creativity in building and site design, d. Achieve predictability, balanced with flexibility, and e. Consider the individual merits of proposals. 2. Create design standards and guidelines specific to District `A' (the Downtown Core) that ensure design quality of structures and site development implementing the City of Renton's Comprehensive Plan Vision for its Urban Center — Downtown. The Vision is of a downtown that will continue to develop into an efficient and attractive urban city. The Vision of the Downtown Core is of mixed -uses with high -density residential living supported by multi - modal transit opportunities. Redevelopment will be based on the pattern and scale of established streets and buildings. 3. Create design standards and guidelines specific to District `B' (the South Renton Neighborhood) that ensure design quality of structures and site development implementing the 3 ORDINANCE NO. City's South Renton Neighborhood Plan. The South Renton Neighborhood Plan, for a residential area located within the Urban Center — Downtown, maintains the existing, traditional grid street plan and respects the scale of the neighborhood, while providing new housing at urban densities. The South Renton Neighborhood Plan supports a residential area that is positioned to capitalize on the employment and retail opportunities increasingly available in the nearby Downtown Core. 4. Create design standards and guidelines specific to the Urban Center — North (District `C') that ensure design quality of structures and site development that implements the City of Renton's Comprehensive Plan Vision for its Urban Center — North. This Vision is of an urban environment that concentrates uses in a "grid pattern" of streets and blocks. The Vision is of a vibrant, economically vital neighborhood that encourages use throughout by pedestrians. Create design standards and guidelines applicable to the use of "big -box retail" as defined in RMC 4-11-180, Definitions. 6. Establish two categories of regulations: (a) "minimum standards" that must be met, and (b) "guidelines" that, while not mandatory, are considered by the Development Services Director in determining if the proposed action meets the intent of the design guidelines. In the Urban Center Design Overlay area, specific minimum standards and guidelines may apply to all three districts, or certain districts only (Districts `A', `13% or `C'), as indicated herein. B. APPLICABILITY: This Section shall apply to all development in the Urban Center — Downtown and Urban Center — North. For the purposes of the Design Regulations, the Center Downtown is District `A', South Renton is District `13% and the Urban Center - North is District `C'. Districts M ORDINANCE NO. A-C are depicted on the Urban Center Design Overlay District Map, shown in subsection 4 of this Section. 2. This Section shall also apply to big -box retail use where allowed in the Commercial Arterial (CA), Light Industrial (IL), Medium Industrial (IM), and Heavy Industrial (IH) zones, except when those zones are located in the Employment Area — Valley south of Interstate 405. Big -box retail uses within these zones, except in the Employment Area — Valley, must comply with design standards and guidelines specific to the Urban Center — North (District `C') Where conflicts may be construed between the RMC 4-3-100, Design Regulations and other sections of the Renton Municipal Code, the Regulations of RMC 4-3-100 shall prevail. 4. Urban Center Design Overlay District Map: 5 to-. ORDINANCE NO. C. EXEMPTIONS: The Design Regulations shall not apply to: Interior Remodels: Interior remodels of existing buildings or structures provided the alterations do not modify the building facade. 2. Aircraft manufacturing: Structures related to the existing use of aircraft manufacturing in District `C'. D. ADMINISTRATION: 1. Review Process: Applications subject to Design Regulations shall be processed as a component of the governing land use process. 2. Authority: The Director of the Development Services Division shall have the authority to approve, approve with conditions, or deny proposals based upon the provisions of the Design Regulations. In rendering a decision, the Director will consider proposals on the basis of individual merit, will consider the overall intent of the minimum standards and guidelines, and will encourage creative design alternatives in order to achieve the purposes of the Design Regulations. E. SITE DESIGN AND BUILDING LOCATION: Intent: To ensure that buildings are located in relation to streets and other buildings so that the Vision of the City of Renton can be realized for a high -density urban environment; so that businesses enjoy visibility from public rights -of -way; and to encourage pedestrian activity throughout the district. 1. Site Design and Street Pattern: Intent: To ensure that the City of Renton Vision can be realized within the Urban Center Districts; plan districts that are organized for efficiency while maintaining flexibility for future 7 ORDINANCE NO. development at high urban densities and intensities of use; create and maintain a safe, convenient network of streets of varying dimensions for vehicle circulation; and provide service to businesses. street pattern. a. Minimum Standards for Districts `A' and `B': Maintain existing grid b. Minimum Standards for District `C': i. Provide a network of public and/or private local streets in addition to public arterials. ii. Maintain a hierarchy of streets to provide organized circulation that promotes use by multiple transportation modes and to avoid overburdening the roadway system. The hierarchy shall consist of (from greatest in size to smallest): (a) High Visibility Street. A highly visible arterial street that warrants special design treatment to improve its appearance and maintain its transportation — function. (b) Arterial Street. A street classified as a principal arterial on the City's Arterial Street Plan. (c) Pedestrian -Oriented Streets. Streets that are intended to feature a concentration of pedestrian activity. Such streets feature slow moving traffic, narrow travel lanes, on -street parking, and wide sidewalks. (d) Internal or Local Roads (public or private) (e) Drive aisles 2. Building Location and Orientation: ORDINANCE NO. Intent: To ensure visibility of businesses; establish active, lively uses along sidewalks and pedestrian pathways; organize buildings in such a way that pedestrian use of the district is facilitated; encourage siting of structures so that natural light and solar access are available to other structures and open space; enhance the visual character and definition of streets within the district; provide an appropriate transition between buildings, parking areas, and other land uses and the street; and increase privacy for residential uses located near the street. a. Minimum Standards for Districts `A' and `B': Orient buildings to the street with clear connections to the sidewalk. b. Minimum Standards for District `C': Buildings on designated pedestrian -oriented streets shall feature "pedestrian -oriented facades" and clear connections to the sidewalk (see illustration, RMC 4-3- 100.E.7.a). Such buildings shall be located adjacent to the sidewalk, except where pedestrian - oriented space is located between the building and the sidewalk. Parking between the building and pedestrian -oriented streets is prohibited. ii. Buildings fronting on pedestrian -oriented streets shall contain pedestrian -oriented uses. iii. Non-residential buildings may be located directly adjacent to any street as long as they feature a pedestrian -oriented fagade. iv. Buildings containing street -level residential uses and single - purpose residential buildings shall be set back from the sidewalk a minimum of ten (10) feet and feature substanial landscaping between the sidewalk and the building (see illustration, RMC 4-3- 100.E.7.b). 0 ORDINANCE NO. V. If buildings do not feature pedestrian -oriented facades they shall have substantial landscaping between the sidewalk and building. Such landscaping shall be at least ten (10) feet in width as measured from the sidewalk (see illustration, RMC 4-3-100.E.7.c). C. Guidelines Applicable to District `C': i. Siting of a structure should take into consideration the continued availability of natural light (both direct and reflected) and direct sun exposure to nearby buildings and open space (except parking areas). ii. Ground floor residential uses located near the street should be raised above street level for residents' privacy. 3. Building Entries: Intent: To make building entrances convenient to locate and easy to access, and ensure that building entries further the pedestrian nature of the fronting sidewalk and the urban character of the district. a. Minimum Standard for Districts `A' and `B': Entrance Location: A primary entrance of each building shall be located on the facade facing a street. Such entrances shall be prominent, visible from the street, connected by a walkway to the public sidewalk, and include human scale elements. b. Minimum Standards for District `C': i. On pedestrian -oriented streets, the primary entrance of each building shall be located on the facade facing the street. ii. On non -pedestrian -oriented streets, entrances shall be prominent, visible from surrounding streets, connected by a walkway to the public sidewalk, and include human -scale elements. 10 ORDINANCE NO. iii. All building entries adjacent to a street shall be clearly marked with canopies, architectural elements, ornamental lighting, and/or landscaping. Entries from parking lots should be subordinate to those related to the street for buildings with frontage on designated pedestrian -oriented streets (see illustration, RMC 4-3-100.E.7.d). iv. Weather protection at least four and one-half (4-1/2) feet wide and proportional to the distance above ground level shall be provided over the primary entry of all buildings and over any entry adjacent to a street. V. Pedestrian pathways from public sidewalks to primary entrances, or from parking lots to primary entrances shall be clearly delineated. C. Guidelines Applicable to All Districts: Multiple buildings on the same site should provide a continuous network of pedestrian paths and open spaces that incorporate landscaping to provide a directed view to building entries. ii. Ground floor units should be directly accessible from the street or an open space such as a courtyard or garden that is accessible from the street. iii. Secondary access (not fronting on a street) should have weather protection at least four and one-half (4-1/2) feet wide over the entrance or other similar indicator of access. iv. Pedestrian access should be provided to the building from property edges, adjacent lots, abutting street intersections, crosswalks, and transit stops. V. Features such as entries, lobbies, and display windows should be oriented to a street or pedestrian -oriented space; otherwise, screening or decorative features such 11 ORDINANCE NO. as trellises, artwork, murals, landscaping, or combinations thereof, should be incorporated into the street -oriented facade. d. Guidelines Applicable to District `A': For projects that include residential uses, entries should provide transition space between the public street and the private residence such as a porch, landscaped area, terrace, common area, lobby, or similar feature. ii. Features such as entries, lobbies, and display windows should be oriented to a street; otherwise, screening or art features such as trellises, artwork, murals, landscaping, or combinations thereof, should be incorporated into the street -oriented facade. iii. Entries from the street should be clearly marked with canopies, architectural elements, ornamental lighting, or landscaping. Entries from parking lots should be subordinate to those related to the street for buildings within District W. e. Guidelines Applicable to District `B': Front yards should provide transition space between the public street and the private residence such as a porch, landscaped area, terrace, or similar feature. f. Guidelines Applicable to District `C': For projects that include residential uses, entries should provide transition space between the public street and the private residence such as a porch, landscaped area, terrace, common area, lobby, or similar feature. 4. Transition to Surrounding Development: Intent: To shape redevelopment projects so that the character and value of Renton's long-established, existing neighborhoods are preserved. a. Minimum Standards for District `A': 12 ORDINANCE NO. Careful siting and design treatment is necessary to achieve a compatible transition where new buildings differ from surrounding development in terms of building height, bulk, and scale. At least one of the following design elements shall be considered to promote a transition to surrounding uses: Setbacks at the side or rear of a building may be increased by the Reviewing Official in order to reduce the bulk and scale of larger buildings so that sunlight reaches adjacent yards; smaller increments; or ii. Building proportions, including step -backs on upper levels; iii. Building articulation to divide a larger architectural element into iv. Roof lines, roof pitches, and roof shapes designed to reduce apparent bulk and transition with existing development. b. Minimum Standards for District `B': Careful siting and design treatment is necessary to achieve a compatible transition where new buildings differ from surrounding development in teens of building height, bulk, and scale. At least one of the following design elements shall be provided to promote a transition to surrounding uses: (a) Setbacks at the side or rear of a building increased in order to reduce the bulk and scale of larger buildings and so that sunlight reaches adjacent yards; or (b) Building articulation provided to divide a larger architectural element into smaller pieces; or (c) Roof lines, roof pitches, and roof shapes designed to reduce apparent bulk and transition with existing development. 13 ORDINANCE NO. ii. In areas with older style, steeply -pitched, single-family homes, similar roof styles are required to achieve more harmonious relationships between new and old buildings. C. Minimum Standards for District 'C': For properties along North 61h Street and Logan Avenue North (between North 4th Street and North 6th Street), applicants shall demonstrate how their project provides an appropriate transition to the long established, existing neighborhood south of North 61h Street known as the North Renton Neighborhood. ii. For properties located south of North 8th Street, east of Garden Avenue North, applicants must demonstrate how their project appropriately provides transitions to existing industrial uses. 5. Service Element Location and Design: Intent: To reduce the potential negative impacts of service elements (i.e. waste receptacles, loading docks) by locating service and loading areas away from high -volume pedestrian areas, and screening them from view in high visibility areas. a. Minimum Standards for All Districts: Service elements shall be located and designed to minimize the impacts on the pedestrian environment and adjacent uses. Service elements shall be concentrated and located where they are accessible to service vehicles and convenient for tenant use (see illustration, RMC 4-3-100.E.7.e). ii. Garbage, recycling collection, and utility areas shall be enclosed, consistent with RMC 4-4-090, Refuse and Recyclables Standards and RMC 4-4-095, Screening and Storage Height/Location Limitations. 14 ORDINANCE NO. in. In addition to standard enclosure requirements, garbage, recycling collection, and utility areas shall be enclosed on all sides, including the roof and screened around their perimeter by a wall or fence and have self -closing doors (see illustration, RMC 4-3- 100.E.7.f). iv. The use of chain link, plastic, or wire fencing is prohibited. V. If the service area is adjacent to a street, pathway, or pedestrian - oriented space, a landscaped planting strip, minimum three feet wide, shall be located on three sides of such facility. b. Guidelines Applicable to All Districts: Service enclosure fences should be made of masonry, ornamental metal or wood, or some combination of the three. 6. Gateways: Intent: To distinguish Gateways as primary entrances to districts or to the City; provide special design features and architectural elements at Gateways; and ensure that Gateways, while they are distinctive within the context of the district, are compatible with the district in form and scale. a. Minimum Standards for District `C': i. Developments located at district gateways shall be marked with visually prominent features (see illustration, RMC 4-3-100.E.7.g). ii. Gateway elements shall be oriented toward and scaled for both pedestrians and vehicles (see illustration, RMC 4-3-100.E.7.h). following: iii. Visual prominence shall be distinguished by two or more of the 15 ORDINANCE NO. (a) Public art (b) Monuments (c) Special landscape treatment (d) Open space/plaza (e) Identifying building form (f) Special paving, unique pedestrian scale lighting, or bollards (g) Prominent architectural features (trellis, arbor, pergola, or gazebo) (h) Signage, displaying neighborhood or district entry identification (commercial signs are not allowed) 7. Illustrations Pedest—ohenled facade Pedestrla—r'lented facades: Primary budding entry mu t be facing the street 1 hansparent window area or window display along 75% of the ground floor between the height of i to B feet above the ground weather proted n at least C % feel wide abng at least 75% of the facade a. Pedestrian -oriented facades (See RMC 4-3-100.E.2.b.i) 16 ORDINANCE NO. Raised planters provide privacy for residents while maintaining views of the street from units Trees b. Street -level residential (See RMC 4-3-100.E.2.b.iv) Combination of evergreen and Building deciduous shrubs and trees -,, 'a., Raised planter e. Buildings without pedestrian -oriented uses (See RMC 4-3-100.E.2.b.v) 17 ORDINANCE NO. d. Building entries (See RMC 4-3-100.E.3.b.111) DUMPS LOCATE REAR O StTE Service elements located to minimize the impact on the pedestrian environment (See RMC 4-3-100.E.5.a.i) IN ORDINANCE NO. f. oor enclosure keep birds out I.oncreie pda Service enclosure (See RMC 4-3-100.E.5.a.iii) 111 m mmmm mmmm Wid,j does �rol - — _- — — — mangle al tasKYmz 0 0 0 0 FJevation Oo000 0 Psizcen Vza e�ms4mgs r-a i3+r..»dw 9-11 g. Distinguishable building form appropriate for gateway locations (See RMC 4-3- 100.E.6.a.i) E ORDINANCE NO. h. Gateway landscaping, open space, pedestrian amenities and signage that identifies the commercial area (See RMC 4-3-100.E.6.a.ii) F. PARKING AND VEHICULAR ACCESS: Intent: To provide safe, convenient access to the Urban Center; incorporate various modes of transportation, including public mass transit, in order to reduce traffic volumes and other impacts from vehicles; ensure sufficient parking is provided, while encouraging creativity in reducing the impacts of parking areas; allow an active pedestrian environment by maintaining contiguous street frontages, without parking lot siting along sidewalks and building facades; minimize the visual impact of parking lots; and use access streets and parking to maintain an urban edge to the district. 1. Location of Parking: Intent: To maintain active pedestrian environments along streets by placing parking lots primarily in back of buildings. a. Minimum Standards For Districts `A' and `B': No surface parking shall be located between a building and the front property line or the building and side property line on the street side of a corner lot. b. Minimum Standards for District `C': i. On designated pedestrian -oriented streets: (a) Parking shall be at the side and/or rear of a building, with the exception of on -street parallel parking. No more than sixty (60) feet of the street frontage measured parallel to the curb shall be occupied by off-street parking and vehicular access. 20 ORDINANCE NO. (b) On -street parallel parking spaces located adjacent to the site can be included in calculation of required parking. For parking ratios based on use and zone, see RMC 4-4-080, Parking, Loading and Driveway Regulations. of the street. (c) On -street, parallel parking shall be required on both sides ii. All parking lots located between a building and street or visible from a street shall feature landscaping between the sidewalk and building; see RMC 4-4-080.17, Parking Lot Design Standards. iii. Surface parking lots: The applicant must successfully demonstrate that the surface parking lot is designed to facilitate future structured parking and/or other infill development. For example, an appropriate surface parking area would feature a one -thousand and five -hundred (1,500) foot maximum perimeter area and a minimum dimension on one side of two -hundred (200) feet, unless project proponent can demonstrate future alternative use of the area would be physically possible. Exception: If there are size constraints inherent in the original parcel (see illustration, RMC 4-3-100.F.5.a). C. Guidelines Applicable to All Districts: In areas of mixed -use development, shared parking is recommended. d. Guidelines Applicable to District `C': i. If a limited number of parking spaces are made available in front of a building for passenger drop-off and pick-up, they should be parallel to the building fagade. ii. When fronting on streets not designated as pedestrian -oriented, parking lots should be located on the interior portions of blocks and screened from the surrounding roadways by buildings, landscaping and/or gateway features as dictated by location. 21 ORDINANCE NO. 2. Design of Surface Parking: Intent: To ensure safety of users of parking areas, convenience to businesses, and reduce the impact of parking lots wherever possible. a. Minimum Standards for Districts `A' and `C': i. Parking lot lighting shall not spill onto adjacent or abutting properties (see illustration, RMC 4-3-100.F.5.b). ii. All surface parking lots shall be landscaped to reduce their visual impact (see RMC 4-4-080.F.7, Landscape Requirements). b. Guidelines Applicable to All Districts: i. Wherever possible, parking should be configured into small units, connected by landscaped areas to provide on -site buffering from visual impacts. ii. Access to parking modules should be provided by public or private local streets with sidewalks on both sides where possible, rather than internal drive aisles. iii. Where multiple driveways cannot be avoided, provide landscaping to separate and minimize their impact on the streetscape. 3. Structured Parking Garages: Intent: To more efficiently use land needed for vehicle parking; encourage the use of structured parking throughout the Urban Center; physically and visually integrate parking garages with other uses; and reduce the overall impact of parking garages when they are located in proximity to the designated pedestrian environment. a. Minimum Standards for District `C': i. Parking structures fronting designated pedestrian -oriented streets: 22 ORDINANCE NO. (a) Parking structures shall provide space for ground -floor commercial uses along street frontages at a minimum of seventy-five (75) percent of the frontage width (see illustration, RMC 4-3-100.F.5.c). (b) The entire facade must feature a pedestrian -oriented fagade. ii. Parking structures fronting non -pedestrian -oriented streets: (a) Parking structures fronting non -pedestrian -oriented streets and not featuring a pedestrian -oriented facade shall be setback at least six (6) feet from the sidewalk and feature substantial landscaping. This includes a combination of evergreen and deciduous trees, shrubs, and ground cover. This setback shall be increased to ten (10) feet adjacent to high visibility streets. (b) The Director may allow a reduced setback where the applicant can successfully demonstrate that the landscaped area and/or other design treatment meets the intent of these standards and guidelines. Possible treatments to reduce the setback include landscaping components plus one or more of the following integrated with the architectural design of the building: (i) Ornamental grillwork (other than vertical bars); (ii) Decorative artwork; (iii) Display windows; (iv) Brick, tile, or stone; (v) Pre -cast decorative panels; (vi) Vine -covered trellis; 23 ORDINANCE NO. (vii) Raised landscaping beds with decorative materials; or (viii) Other treatments that meet the intent of this standard. (c) Facades shall be articulated architecturally, so as to maintain a human scale and to avoid a solid wall. Vehicular entrances to non-residential or mixed -use parking structures shall be articulated by arches, lintels, masonry trim, or other architectural elements and/or materials (see illustration, RMC 4-3-100.F.5.d). b. Guidelines Applicable to All Districts: Parking garage entries should be designed and sited to complement, not subordinate, the pedestrian entry. If possible, locate the parking entry away from the primary street, to either the side or rear of the building. C. Guidelines Applicable to Districts `A' and `C': i. Parking garage entries should not dominate the streetscape. ii. The design of structured parking at finished grade under a building should minimize the apparent width of garage entries. iii. Parking within the building should be enclosed or screened through any combination of walls, decorative grilles, or trellis work with landscaping. iv. Parking garages should be designed to be complementary with adjacent buildings. Use similar forms, materials, and/or details to enhance garages. entries. V. Residential garage parking should be secured with electronic 24 ORDINANCE NO. vi. Parking structure service and storage functions should be located away from the street edge and generally not be visible from the street or sidewalks. d. Guidelines Applicable to District `B': i. Attached personal parking garages at -grade should be individualized and not enclose more than two cars per enclosed space. Such garages should be architecturally integrated into the whole development. ii. Multiple -user parking garages at -grade should be enclosed or screened from view through any combination of walls, decorative grilles, or trellis work with landscaping. decorative doors. iii. All garage parking in this district should be secured with iv. Personal parking garages should be individualized whenever possible with separate entries and architectural detailing in character with the lower density district. V. Large multi-user parking garages are discouraged in this lower density district and, if provided, should be located below grade whenever possible. vi. Service and storage functions should be located away from the street edge and generally not be visible from the street or sidewalks. 4. Vehicular Access: Intent: To maintain a contiguous, uninterrupted sidewalk by minimizing, consolidating and/or eliminating vehicular access off streets within pedestrian environments and/or designated pedestrian -oriented streets. a. Minimum Standards for District `B': 25 ORDINANCE NO. Parking lots and garages shall be accessed from alleys when available. b. Minimum Standards for District `C': i. Parking garages shall be accessed at the rear of buildings or from non -pedestrian -oriented streets when available. streets. ii. Surface parking driveways are prohibited on pedestrian -oriented iii. Parking lot entrances, driveways, and other vehicular access points on high visibility streets shall be restricted to one entrance and exit lane per five hundred (500) linear feet as measured horizontally along the street. C. Guidelines Applicable to District `A': i. Parking lots and garages should be accessed from alleys or side streets. ii. Driveways should be located to be visible from the right-of-way, but not impede pedestrian circulation on -site or to adjoining properties. Where possible, minimize the number of driveways and curb cuts. d. Guidelines Applicable to Area `B': i. Garage entryways and/or driveways accessible only from a street should not impede pedestrian circulation along the sidewalk. ii. Curb cuts should be minimized whenever possible through the use of shared driveways. 5. Illustrations 26 ORDINANCE NO. I a. Parking and vehicular access in District "C" (See RMC 4-3-100.17.l.b.111) DO THIS T DON'T DO THIS b. Parking lot lighting (See RMC 4-3-100.F.2.a.i) 'N A )W / Parking garage on second floor Ground floor commercial space with pedestrian -oriented facade C. Parking structure fronting on pedestrian -oriented street with pedestrian -oriented uses and facades along the ground floor (See RMC 4-3-100.F.3.a.i(a)) 27 10111111111111 ORDINANCE NO. Articulation of facade components to reduce scale and add visual interest Decorative trellis slnicture for vines Raised planting bed adjacent to sidewalk d. Parking structure designed to enhance streetscape (See RMC 4-3-100.F.3.a.11(c)) G. PEDESTRIAN ENVIRONMENT: Intent: To enhance the urban character of development in the Urban Center by creating pedestrian networks and by providing strong links from streets and drives to building entrances; make the pedestrian environment safer and more convenient, comfortable, and pleasant to walk between businesses, on sidewalks, to and from access points, and through parking lots; and promote the use of multi -modal and public transportation systems in order to reduce other vehicular traffic. 1. Pathways through Parking Lots: Intent: To provide safe and attractive pedestrian connections to buildings, parking garages, and parking lots. a. Minimum Standards for District `C': i. Clearly delineated pedestrian pathways and/or private streets shall be provided throughout parking areas. ORDINANCE NO. ii. Within parking areas, pedestrian pathways shall be provided perpendicular to the applicable building facade, at a maximum distance of one hundred and fifty (150) feet apart (see illustration, RMC 4-3-100.G.4.a). 2. Pedestrian Circulation: Intent: To create a network of linkages for pedestrians to improve safety and convenience and enhance the pedestrian environment. a. Minimum Standards for Districts A and C: Developments shall include an integrated pedestrian circulation system that connects buildings, open space, and parking areas with the adjacent street sidewalk system and adjacent properties (see illustration, RMC 4-3- 100.G.4.b). ii. Sidewalks located between buildings and streets shall be raised above the level of vehicular travel. ill. Pedestrian pathways within parking lots or parking modules shall be differentiated by material or texture from adjacent paving materials (see illustration, RMC 4- 3-100.G.4.c). iv. Sidewalks and pathways along the fagades of buildings shall be of sufficient width to accommodate anticipated numbers of users. Specifically: (a) Sidewalks and pathways along the fagades of mixed -use and retail buildings one hundred (100) or more feet in width (measured along the fagade) shall provide sidewalks at least twelve (12) feet in width. The walkway shall include an eight (8) foot minimum unobstructed walking surface and street trees (see illustration, RMC 4-3-100.G.4.d). 29 ORDINANCE NO. (b) To increase business visibility and accessibility, breaks in the tree coverage adjacent to major building entries shall be allowed. (c) For all other interior pathways, the proposed walkway shall be of sufficient width to accommodate the anticipated number of users. A ten to twelve (10-12) foot pathway, for example, can accommodate groups of persons walking four abreast, or two couples passing one another. An eight (8) foot pathway will accommodate three individuals walking abreast, whereas a smaller five to six (5-6) foot pathway will accommodate two individuals. V. Locate pathways with clear sight lines to increase safety. Landscaping shall not obstruct visibility of walkway or sight lines to building entries. vi. All pedestrian walkways shall provide an all-weather walking surface unless the applicant can demonstrate that the proposed surface is appropriate for the anticipated number of users and complementary to the design of the development — b. Guidelines Applicable to All Districts: Delineation of pathways may be through the use of architectural features, such as trellises, railings, low seat walls, or similar treatment. ii. Mid -block connections are desirable where a strong linkage between uses can be established. iii. Fences, with the exception of chain link fences, may be allowed when appropriate to the situation. C. Guidelines Applicable to District `C' Only: 30 ORDINANCE NO. i. Through -block connections, should be made between buildings, between streets, and to connect sidewalks with public spaces. Preferred location for through - block connections is mid -block (see illustration, RMC 4-3-100.G.4.e). ii. Between buildings of up to and including two (2) stories in height, through -block connections should be at least six (6) feet in width. iii. Between buildings three (3) stories in height or greater, through -block connections should be at least twelve (12) feet in width. iv. Transit stops should be located along designated transit routes a maximum of one -quarter mile apart. V. As an alternative to some of the required street trees, developments may provide pedestrian -scaled light fixtures at appropriate spacing and no taller than fourteen (14) feet in height. No less than one (1) tree or light fixture per sixty (60) lineal feet of the required walkway should be provided. 3. Pedestrian Amenities: Intent: To create attractive spaces that unify the building and street environments and are inviting and comfortable for pedestrians; and provide publicly accessible areas that function for a variety of activities, at all times of the year, and under typical seasonal weather conditions. a. Minimum Standards for District 'Cl: i. On designated pedestrian -oriented streets, provide pedestrian overhead weather protection in the form of awnings, marquees, canopies, or building overhangs. These elements shall be a minimum of four and one-half (4-1/2) feet wide along at least 75% of the length of the building facade facing the designated pedestrian -oriented street, a maximum 31 ORDINANCE NO. height of fifteen (1 S) feet above the ground elevation, and no lower than eight (8) feet above ground level. ii. Site furniture provided in public spaces shall be made of durable, vandal- and weather -resistant materials that do not retain rainwater and car. be reasonably maintained over an extended period of time. iii. Site furniture and amentities shall not impede or block pedestrian access to public spaces or building entrances. b. Guidelines Applicable to District `C': i. Transit shelters, bicycle racks, benches, trash receptacles, and other street furniture should be provided. ii. Street amenities such as outdoor group seating, kiosks, fountains, and public art should be provided. iii. Architectural elements that incorporate plants, such as — fagade-mounted planting boxes or trellises or ground -related or hanging containers are encouraged, particularly at building entrances, in publicly accessible spaces, and at facades along pedestrian -oriented streets (see illustration, RMC 4-3-100.G.4.0. 4. Illustrations 32 ORDINANCE NO. a. Pedestrian walkways within parking lots (See RMC 4-3-100.G.l.a.11) t i Y% t� r' b. Integrated pedestrian access system (pathways are shown in solid black lines) (See RMC 4-3-100.G.2.a.1) R C. Parking lot pedestrian interior walkway (RMC 4-3-100.G.2.a.iii) 33 ORDINANCE NO. rel e. Street trees and/or pedestrian street lamps every 30' Weather 1 Sidewalks along retail building facade (RMC 4-3-100.G.2.a.iv(a)) Pedestrian Corridor IT Pedestrian Condor a��ti t[t1�� f•�■ Through -block pedestrian connections (See RMC 4-3-100.G.2.c) 34 ORDINANCE NO. Recessed entry Seasonal landscaping Transparent windows Weather protection Jestrian xiented space Seating areas ?es and street eatures used to define iestrian area Varied vement Iestrian xiented >ignage f. Pedestrian amenities incorporated into development (See RMC 4-3-100.G.3.b.iii) H. LANDSCAPING/RECREATION AREAS/COMMON OPEN SPACE: Intent: To provide visual relief in areas of expansive paving or structures; define logical areas of pedestrian and vehicular circulation; and add to the aesthetic enjoyment of the area by the community. To have areas suitable for both passive and active recreation by residents, workers, and visitors; provide these areas in sufficient amounts and in convenient locations; and provide the opportunity for community gathering in places centrally located and designed to encourage such activity. 1. Landscaping: Intent: Landscaping is intended to reinforce the architecture or concept of the area; provide visual and climatic relief in areas of expansive paving or structures; channelize and define logical areas of pedestrian and vehicular circulation; and add to the aesthetic enjoyment of the area by the community. a. Minimum Standards for All Districts: i. All pervious areas shall be landscaped (see 4-4-070, Landscaping). 35 ORDINANCE NO. ii. Street trees are required and shall be located between the curb edge and building, as determined by the City of Renton. iii. On designated pedestrian -oriented streets, street trees shall be installed with tree grates. For all other streets, street tree treatment shall be as determined by the City of Renton (see illustration, RMC 4-3-100.H.3.a). iv. The proposed landscaping shall be consistent with the design intent and program of the building, the site, and use. V. The landscape plan shall demonstrate how the proposed landscaping, through the use of plant material and non -vegetative elements, reinforces the architecture or concept of the development. vi. Surface parking areas shall be screened by landscaping in order to reduce views of parked cars from streets (see RMC 4-4-080.F.7, Landscaping Requirements). Such landscaping shall be at least ten (10) feet in width as measured from the sidewalk (see _ illustration, RMC 4-3-100.H.3.b). Standards for planting shall be as follows: (a) Trees at an average minimum rate of one (1) tree per thirty (30) lineal feet of street frontage. Permitted tree species are those that reach a mature height of at least thirty-five (35) feet. Minimum height or caliper at planting shall be eight (8) feet or two (2) inch caliper (as measured four (4) feet from the top of the root ball) respectively. (b) Shrubs at the minimum rate of one (1) per twenty (20) square feet of landscaped area. Shrubs shall be at least twelve (12) inches tall at planting and have a mature height between three (3) and four (4) feet. 36 ORDINANCE NO. (c) Groundcover shall be planted in sufficient quantities to provide at least ninety (90) percent coverage of the landscaped area within three years of installation. (d) The applicant shall provide a maintenance assurance device, prior to occupancy, for a period of not less than three (3) years and in sufficient amount to ensure required landscape standards have been met by the third year following installation. (e) Surface parking with more than fourteen (14) stalls shall be landscaped as follows: (i) Required amount: Total Number of Spaces Minimum Required Landscape Are 15 to 50 15 square feet/parking space 51 to 99 25 square feet/parking space 100 or more 35 square feet/parking space * Landscape area calculations above and planting requirements below exclude perimeter parking lot landscaping areas. (ii) Provide trees, shrubs, and groundcover in the required interior parking lot landscape areas. (iii) Plant at least one (1) tree for every six parking spaces. Permitted tree species are those that reach a mature height of at least thirty-five (35) feet. Minimum height or caliper at planting shall be eight (8) feet or two (2) inch caliper (as measured four (4) feet from the top of the root ball) respectively. 37 ORDINANCE NO. (iv) Plant shrubs at a rate of five per 100 square feet of landscape area. Shrubs shall be at least sixteen (16) inches tall at planting and have a mature height between three (3) and four (4) feel. (v) Up to fifty (50) percent of shrubs may be deciduous. (vi) Select and plant groundcover so as to provide ninety (90) percent coverage within three years of planting, provided that mulch is applied until plant coverage is complete. (vii) Do not locate a parking stall more than fifty (50) feet from a landscape area. vii. Regular maintenance shall be provided to ensure that plant materials are kept healthy and that dead or dying plant materials are replaced. viii. Underground, automatic irrigation systems are required in all landscape areas. b. Guidelines Applicable to all Districts: i. Landscaping should be used to soften and integrate the bulk of buildings. ii. Landscaping should be provided that appropriately provides either screening of unwanted views or focuses attention to preferred views. encouraged. will be available. iii. Use of low maintenance, drought -resistant landscape material is iv. Choice of materials should reflect the level of maintenance that IN ORDINANCE NO. V. Seasonal landscaping and container plantings are encouraged, particularly at building entries and in publicly accessible spaces. vi. Window boxes, containers for plantings, hanging baskets, or other planting feature elements should be made of weather resistant materials that can be reasonably maintained. vii. Landscaping should be used to screen parking lots from adjacent or neighboring properties. C. Guidelines Applicable to District `B': i. Front yards should be visible from the street and visually contribute to the streetscape. ii. Decorative walls and fencing are encouraged when architecturally integrated into the project. 2. Recreation Areas and Common Open Space: Intent: To ensure that districts have areas suitable for both passive and active recreation by residents, workers, and visitors and that these areas are of sufficient size for the intended activity and in convenient locations; create usable, accessible, and inviting open space that is accessible to the public; and promote pedestrian activity on pedestrian - oriented streets — particularly at street corners. a. Minimum Standards for Districts `A' and `C': 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 39 ORDINANCE NO. type of common space or recreation area shall be subject to approval by the Director. The required common open space shall be satisfied with one or more of the elements listed below. The Director 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 are provided as an asset to the development. (c) Pedestrian corridors dedicated to passive recreation and separate from the public street system; (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. iii. In mixed -use residential and attached residential projects, 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. iv. In mixed -use residential and attached residential projects 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 (see illustration, RMC 4-3-100.H.3.c). V. Private decks, balconies, and private ground floor open space shall not count toward the common space/recreation area requirement. .O ORDINANCE NO. vi. In mixed -use residential and attached residential projects 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. vii. All buildings and developments with over 30,000 square feet of non-residental uses (excludes parking garage floorplate areas) shall provide pedestrian -oriented space (see illustration, RMC 4-3-100.H.3.d) according to the following formula: 1 % of the lot area + 1 % of the building area = Minimum amount of pedestrian - oriented space included: viii. To qualify as pedestrian -oriented space, the following must be (a) Visual and pedestrian access (including barrier -free access) to the abutting structures from the public right-of-way or a nonvehicular courtyard, paving, (b) Paved walking surfaces of either concrete or approved unit (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. ix. The following features are encouraged in pedestrian -oriented space (see illustration, RMC 4-3-100.H.3.e) and may be required by the Director: (a) Provide pedestrian -oriented uses on the building fagade facing the pedestrian -oriented space. 41 ORDINANCE NO. (b) Spaces should be positioned in areas with significant pedestrian traffic to provide interest and security— such as adjacent to a building entry. (c) Provide pedestrian -oriented facades on some or all buildings facing the space. (d) Provide movable public seating. X. 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 (e) Outdoor storage (shopping carts, potting soil bags, firewood, etc.) that do not contribute to the pedestrian environment. xi. The minimum required walkway areas shall not count as pedestrian -oriented space. However, where walkways are widened or enhanced beyond minimum requirements, the area may count as pedestrian -oriented space if the Director determines such space meets the definition of pedestrian -oriented space. b. Minimum Standards for District `B': Attached housing developments shall provide a minimum area of private usable open space equal to one hundred fifty (150) square feet per unit of which one hundred (100) square feet are contiguous. Such space may include porches, balconies, yards, and decks. C. Minimum Standards for District `C': 42 ORDINANCE NO. The location of public open space shall be considered in relation to building orientation, sun and light exposure, and local micro -climatic conditions. d. Guidelines Applicable to Districts `A' and `C': 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. ii. 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. iii. 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. e. Guidelines Applicable to District `C': Developments located at street intersection corners on designated pedestrian -oriented streets are encouraged to provide pedestrian -oriented space adjacent to the street corner to emphasize pedestrian activity (see illustration, RMC 4-3-100.H.3.f). 3. Illustrations 43 ORDINANCE NO. a. Street tree installed with tree grate (See RMC 4-3-100.14.l.a.iii) Parking, service, or storage areas 10 Landscaping Butler I One free per 30 lineal feet b. Parking lot landscaped buffer (See RMC 4-3-100.H.l.a.vi) ORDINANCE NO. C. Visible and accessible common area featuring landscaping and other amenities (See RMC 4-3-100.H.2.a.iv) d. Pedestrian -oriented space associated with a large-scale retail building (See RMC 4-3- 100.H.2.a.vii) 45 ORDINANCE NO. e. Pedestrian -oriented spaces, visible from the street, including ample seating areas, movable furniture, special paving, landscaping components and pedestrian -oriented uses (See RMC 4-3-100.H.2.a.ix) Corner building �1 Comer entry------,,"",', with increased setback \ Pedestrian -oriented space f. Building setbacks increased at street corners along pedestrian -oriented streets to encourage provisions for pedestrian -oriented spaces (See RMC 4-3-100.H.2.e). I. BUILDING ARCHITECTURAL DESIGN: Intent: To encourage building design that is unique and urban in character, comfortable on a human scale, and uses appropriate building materials that are suitable M ORDINANCE NO. for the Pacific Northwest climate. To discourage standardized franchise retail architecture. 1. Building Character and Massing: Intent: To ensure that buildings are not bland and visually appear to be at a human scale; and ensure that all sides of a building that can be seen by the public are visually interesting. a. Minimum Standards for District `A': All building facades shall include modulation or articulation at intervals of no more than forty (40) feet. b. Minimum Standards for District `B': All building facades shall include modulation or articulation at intervals of no more than twenty (20) feet. C. Minimum Standards for District `C': i. All building facades shall include measures to reduce the apparent scale of the building and add visual interest. Examples include modulation, articulation, defined entrances, and display windows (see illustration, RMC 4-3-100.I.5.a). ii. All buildings shall be articulated with one or more of the following: (a) Defined entry features; (b) Window treatment; (c) Bay windows and/or balconies; (d) Roofline features; or (e) Other features as approved by the Director. 47 ORDINANCE NO. Ili. Single purpose residential buildings shall feature building _ modulation as follows (see illustration, RMC 4-3-100.I.5.b): (a) The maximum width (as measured horizontally along the building's exterior) without building modulation shall be forty (40) feet. (b) The minimum width of modulation shall be fifteen (15) feet. (c) The minimum depth of modulation shall be the greater of six (6) feet or not less than 0.2 multiplied by the height of the structure (finished grade to the top of the wall). d. Guidelines Applicable to Districts `A' and `B': i. Building facades should be modulated and/or articulated with architectural elements to reduce the apparent size of new buildings, break up long blank walls, add visual interest, and enhance the character of the neighborhood. ii. Articulation, modulation, and their intervals should create a sense of scale important to residential buildings. iii. A variety of modulations and articulations should be employed to add visual interest and to reduce the bulk and scale of large projects. e. Guidelines Applicable to District `A': Building modulations should be a minimum of two (2) feet in depth and four (4) feet in width. f. Guidelines Applicable to District `B': i. Building modulations should be a minimum of two (2) feet deep, sixteen (16) feet in height, and eight (8) feet in width. ERN ORDINANCE NO. ii. Alternative methods to shape a building such as angled or curved facade elements, off -set planes, wing walls, and terracing will be considered, provided that the intent of this Section is met. g. Guidelines Applicable to District `C': i. Although streetfront buildings along designated pedestrian - oriented streets should strive to create a uniform street edge, building facades should generally be modulated and/or articulated with architectural elements to reduce the apparent size of new buildings, break up long blank walls, add visual interest, and enhance the character of the neighborhood. ii. Style: Buildings should be urban in character. iii. Buildings greater than one hundred and sixty (160 feet) in length should provide a variety of techniques to reduce the apparent bulk and scale of the facade or provide an additional special design feature such as a clock tower, courtyard, fountain, or public gathering place to add visual interest (see illustration, RMC 4-3-100.I.5.c). 2. Ground -level Details: Intent: To ensure that buildings are visually interesting and reinforce the intended human -scale character of the pedestrian environment; and ensure that all sides of a building within near or distant public view have visual interest. a. Minimum Standards for All Districts: i. Untreated blank walls visible from public streets, sidewalks, or interior pedestrian pathways are prohibited. A wall (including building facades and retaining walls) is considered a blank wall if: ORDINANCE NO. (a) It is a ground floor wall or portion of a ground floor wall over six (6) feet in height, has a horizontal length greater than fifteen (15) feet, and does not include a window, door, building modulation or other architectural detailing; or (b) Any portion of a ground floor wall having a surface area of four hundred (400) square feet or greater and does not include a window, door, building modulation or other architectural detailing. ii. Where blank walls are required or unavoidable, blank walls shall be treated with one or more of the following (see illustration, RMC 4-3-100.I.5.d): (a) A planting bed at least five feet in width containing trees, shrubs, evergreen ground cover, or vines adjacent to the blank wall; vines; (b) Trellis or other vine supports with evergreen climbing (c) Architectural detailing such as reveals, contrasting materials, or other special detailing that meets the intent of this standard; (d) Artwork, such as bas-relief sculpture, mural, or similar; or (e) Seating area with special paving and seasonal planting. iii. Treatment of blank walls shall be proportional to the wall. iv. Provide human -scaled elements such as a lighting fixture, trellis, or other landscape feature along the fagade's ground floor. V. Facades on designated pedestrian -oriented streets shall have at least seventy-five (75) percent of the linear frontage of the ground floor fagade (as measured on a true elevation facing the designated pedestrian -oriented street) comprised of transparent windows and/or doors. 50 ORDINANCE NO. vi. Other facade window requirements include the following: (a) Building facades must have clear windows with visibility into and out of the building. However, screening may be applied to provide shade and energy efficiency. The minimum amount of light transmittance for windows shall be fifty (50) percent. (b) Display windows shall be designed for frequent change of merchandise, rather than permanent displays. (c) Where windows or storefronts occur, they must principally contain clear glazing. (d) Tinted and dark glass, highly reflective (mirror -type) glass and film are prohibited. b. Guidelines Applicable to Districts `A' and `C': i. The primary building entrance should be made visibly prominent by incorporating a minimum of one (1) of the following architectural features from each category listed (see illustration, RMC 4-3-100.I.5.e): (a) Fagade features (i) Recess (ii) Overhang (iii) Canopy (iv) Trellis (v) Portico (vi) Porch (vii) Clerestory (b) Doorway features 51 ORDINANCE NO. (i) Transom windows — (ii) Glass windows flanking door (iii) Large entry doors (iv) Ornamental lighting (v) Lighted displays (c) Detail features (i) Decorative entry paving (ii) Ornamental building name and address (iii) Planted containers (iv) Street furniture (benches, etc) ii. Artwork or building ornamentation (such as mosaics, murals, grillwork, sculptures, relief, etc.) should be used to provide ground -level detail. iii. Elevated or terraced planting beds between the walkway and long building walls are encouraged. C. Guidelines Applicable to District `B': Use of material variations such as colors, brick, shingles, stucco, horizontal wood siding, is encouraged. 3. Building Roof Lines: Intent: To ensure that roof forms provide distinctive profiles and interest consistent with an urban project and contribute to the visual continuity of the district. a. Minimum Standards for Districts `A' and `C': Buildings shall use at least one of the following elements to create varied and interesting roof profiles (see illustration, RMC 4-3-100.I.5.f): 52 ORDINANCE NO. i. Extended parapets ii. Feature elements projecting above parapets iii. Projected cornices iv. Pitched or sloped roofs (a) Locate and screen roof -mounted mechanical equipment so that the equipment is not visible within one hundred fifty (150) feet of the structure when viewed from ground level. (b) Screening features shall blend with the architectural character of the building, consistent with RMC 4-4-095.E, Roof -Top Equipment. (c) Match color of roof mounted mechanical equipment to color of exposed portions of the roof to minimize visual impacts when equipment is visible from higher elevations. b. Guidelines Applicable to District `B': i. Buildings containing predominantly residential uses should have pitched roofs with a minimum slope of one to four (1:4). Such roofs should have dormers or intersecting roof forms that break up the massiveness of a continuous, uninterrupted sloping roof. ii. Roof colors should be dark. C. Guidelines Applicable to District `C': Building roof lines should be varied to add visual interest to the building. 4. Building Materials: Intent: To ensure high standards of quality and effective maintenance over time; encourage the use of materials that reduce the visual bulk of large buildings; and encourage the use of materials that add visual interest to the neighborhood. 53 ORDINANCE NO. a. Minimum Standards for all Districts: All sides of buildings visible from a street, pathway, parking area, or open space shall be finished on all sides with the same building materials, detailing, and color scheme, or if different, with materials of the same quality. ii. Materials, individually or in combination, shall have an attractive texture, pattern, and quality of detailing for all visible fagades. maintained. iii. Materials shall be durable, high quality, and reasonably b. Minimum Standards for Districts `A' and `C': Buildings shall employ material variations such as colors, brick or metal banding, patterns, or textural changes. C. Guidelines Applicable to all Districts: Building materials should be attractive, durable, and consistent with more traditional urban development. Appropriate examples would include brick, integrally colored concrete masonry, pre -finished metal, stone, steel, glass, and cast -in -place concrete. ii. Concrete walls should be enhanced by texturing, reveals, snap -tie patterns, coloring with a concrete coating or admixture, or by incorporating embossed or sculpted surfaces, mosaics, or artwork. iii. Concrete block walls should be enhanced with integral color, textured blocks and colored mortar, decorative bond pattern and/or incorporate other masonry materials. 54 ORDINANCE NO. iv_ Stucco and similar troweled finishes should be used in combination with other more highly textured finishes or accents. They should not be used at the base of buildings between the finished floor elevation and four (4) feet above. C. Guideline Applicable to District `B': Use of material variations such as colors, brick or metal banding or patterns, or textural changes is encouraged. 5. Illustrations IINTERVALiINTERVAL, a. Building modulation and articulation (See RMC 4-3-100.I.1.c.i) a [.tea roaAme-m mis c.se. 4.dfi..l conic. b. Single purpose residential building featuring building modulation to reduce the scale of the building and add visual interest (See RMC 4-3-100.I.1.c.iii) 55 ORDINANCE NO. �o Mac mom mc,ae krym.�orea I oz =w o_ w� o� o - Mo2lnan 160' - - -� Facade is too bng N Z wJ I I 1 W W — 160' or kss _ 1W or kss -- Mae.lJ.IOeYM Mee. gwtl 4- Reducing scale of long buildings (See RMC 4-3-100.I.1.g.iii) Min bec cov Witt d. Acceptable blank wall treatments (See RMC 4-3-100.L2.a.ii) 56 ORDINANCE NO. rA 4'-6" min. RC%.COJ OVERHANG ,z CANOPY 'flL TRELLIS PORTICO PORCH Building facade features (See RMC 4-3-100.I.2.b.i) Feature elements projecting txtendeci parapets above parapets 1i nea or siopea roors 57 ORDINANCE NO. f. Preferred roof forms (See RMC 4-3-100.I.3.a). J. SIGNAGE: Intent: To provide a means of identifying and advertising businesses; provide directional assistance; encourage signs that are both clear and of appropriate scale for the project; encourage quality signage that contributes to the character of the Urban Center; and create color and interest. 1. Minimum Standards for District `C': a. Signage shall be an integral part of the design approach to the building. b. Corporate logos and signs shall be sized appropriately for their location. C. Prohibited signs include (see illustration, RMC 4-3-100.J.3.a): i. Pole signs. ii. Roof signs. iii. Back -lit signs with letters or graphics on a plastic sheet ("can" signs or "illuminated cabinet" signs). Exceptions: Back -lit logo signs less than ten (10) square feet are permitted as are signs with only the individual letters back -lit. d. In mixed -use and multi -use buildings, signage shall be coordinated with the overall building design. e. Free-standing ground -related monument signs, with the exception of primary entry signs, shall be limited to five (5) feet above finished grade, including support structure. All such signs shall include decorative landscaping (groundcover and/or shrubs) to provide seasonal interest in the area surrounding the sign. Alternately, signage may incorporate stone, brick, or other decorative materials as approved by the Director. f. Entry signs shall be limited to the name of the larger development. ORDINANCE NO. 2. Guidelines Applicable to District `C': a. Alteration of trademarks notwithstanding, corporate signage should not be garish in color nor overly lit, although creative design, strong accent colors, and interesting surface materials and lighting techniques are encouraged. b. Front -lit, ground -mounted monument signs are the preferred type of freestanding sign. C. "Blade" type signs, proportional to the building facade on which they are mounted, are encouraged on pedestrian -oriented streets. 3. Illustrations Typical "can signs" Internally lit letters are not acceptable or graphics are acceptable Plastic or J Sheet J L Only the individual translucent metal letters are lit sheet box a. Acceptable and unacceptable signs (See RMC 4-3-100.J.1.c) K. LIGHTING: Intent: To ensure safety and security; provide adequate lighting levels in pedestrian areas such as plazas, pedestrian walkways, parking areas, building entries, and other public places; and increase the visual attractiveness of the area at all times of the day and night. 1. Minimum Standards for Districts `A' and `C': It ORDINANCE NO. a. Lighting shall conform to on -site exterior lighting regulations located in RMC 4-4-075, Lighting, Exterior On -Site. b. Lighting shall be provided on site to increase security, but shall not be allowed to directly project off site. C. Pedestrian -scale lighting shall be provided, for both safety and aesthetics, along all streets, at primary and secondary building entrances, at building facades, and in pedestrian -oriented spaces. 2. Guidelines Applicable to District `C': a. Accent lighting should be provided at focal points such as gateways, public art, and significant landscape features such as specimen trees. b. Additional lighting to provide interest in the pedestrian environment may include sconces on building facades, awnings with down -lighting, decorative street lighting, etc. L. Modification of Minimum Standards: 1. The Director of the Development Services Division shall have the authority to modify the minimum standards of the Design Regulations, subject to the provisions of RMC 4-9- 250.D, Modification Procedures, and the following requirements: a. The project as a whole meets the intent of the minimum standards and guidelines in subsections E, F, G, H, I, J, and K of the Design Regulations; standard; b. The requested modification meets the intent of the applicable design C. The modification will not have a detrimental effect on nearby properties and the City as a whole; d. The deviation manifests high quality design; and ORDINANCE NO. e. The modification will enhance the pedestrian environment on the abutting and/or adjacent streets and/or pathways. 2. Exceptions for Districts A and B : Modifications to the requirements in subsections E2a(i) and E3a(i) of this Section are limited to the following circumstances: a. When the building is oriented to an interior courtyard, and the courtyard has a prominent entry and walkway connecting directly to the public sidewalk; or b. When a building includes an architectural feature that connects the building entry to the public sidewalk; or C. In complexes with several buildings, when the building is oriented to an internal integrated walkway system with prominent connections to the public sidewalk(s). M. VARIANCE (Reserved) N. APPEALS: For appeals of administrative decisions made pursuant to the Design Regulations, see RMC 4-8-110, Appeals. SECTION IX. 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 amended by adding two references, to read as follows: Active recreation: See Recreation, Active Arterial Street: See Street, Arterial SECTION X. 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 by adding a new definition, to read as follows: 61 ORDINANCE NO. Buffer, Landscape: Landscaped area used to physically separate or screen one use or property from another so as to visually shield or block views, noise, lights, or other potential nuisances. SECTION XI. Section 4-11-030 of Chapter 11, Definitions, of Title IV (Development Regulations) of Ordinance No. 4260 entitled "Code of General Ordinances of the City of Renton, Washington" is hereby amended by adding one new definition and two references, to read as follows: Collector Street: See Street, Collector Common space area (common area, common open space, common space): Land that is designed and intended for common use or enjoyment and may include such structures and improvements as are necessary and appropriate. Corner lot: See Lot Types; Lot, corner SECTION XII. Section 4-11-040 of Chapter 11, Definitions, of Title IV (Development Regulations) of Ordinance No. 4260 entitled "Code of General Ordinances of the City of Renton, Washington" is hereby amended by adding three new definitions, to read as follows: Director: The Director of the Development Services Division of the Planning /Building/Public Works Department of the City of Renton or a designee. Display window: A window in a building fagade intended for non -permanent display of goods and merchandise. Drop-off zone: A sidewalk area abutting a street intended for passengers to enter or exit vehicles that are temporarily parked for that purpose. 62 ORDINANCE NO. SECTION XIIL Section 4-11-060 of Chapter 11, Definitions, of Title IV (Development Regulations) of Ordinance No. 4260 entitled "Code of General Ordinances of the City of Renton, Washington" is hereby amended by adding one new definition, to read as follows: Franchise retail architecture (or generic or corporate architecture): Consists of site layout, buildings, and signs for businesses (usually large format, chain, or franchise retail establishments) that are the same style, color, and material regardless of location. Typically, the employees wear uniforms and the products or food are the same in every facility. SECTION XIV. Section 4-11-080 of Chapter 11, Definitions, of Title IV (Development Regulations) of Ordinance No. 4260 entitled "Code of General Ordinances of the City of Renton, Washington" is hereby amended by adding two new definitions, to read as follows: High quality design: A development project that encourages pedestrian activity or adds pedestrian interest and exhibits a degree of craftsmanship, building detailing, architectural design, or quality of materials that are not typically found in standard construction. Responds to site conditions through its orientation, circulation, and/or incorporation of special site features. Buildings characterized by standard corporate identity elements (e.g. fast food establishments with signature roofline or fagade features) or standard building plans (e.g. stock plans that are unable to adapt to site conditions) are not typically considered high quality design. Human scale: The perceived size of a building relative to a human being. A building is considered to have good human scale if there is an expression of human activity or use that indicates the building's size. For example, traditionally sized doors, windows, and balconies are 63 ORDINANCE NO. elements that respond to the size of a human body, so these elements in a building indicate a building's overall size. SECTION XV. Section 4-11-090 of Chapter 11, Definitions, of Title IV (Development Regulations) of Ordinance No. 4260 entitled "Code of General Ordinances of the City of Renton, Washington" is hereby amended by adding one new definition, to read as follows: Integrated walkway circulation: Sidewalks and streets constructed and connected in such a way as to provide an efficient and safe system for people moving through an area on foot. SECTION XVI. Section 4-11-130 of Chapter 11, Definitions, of Title IV (Development Regulations) of Ordinance No. 4260 entitled "Code of General Ordinances of the City of Renton, Washington" is hereby amended by adding one new definition, to read as follows: Main Street: A style of urban commercial development featuring concentrated retail and service uses along a street designed for use by both pedestrians and vehicles. SECTION XVII. Section 4-11-140 of Chapter 11, Definitions, of Title IV (Development Regulations) of Ordinance No. 4260 entitled "Code of General Ordinances of the City of Renton, Washington" is hereby amended by adding one new definition, to read as follows: Natural light: Interior or exterior light from the sun. SECTION XVIII. Section 4-11-160 of Chapter 11, Definitions, of Title IV (Development Regulations) of Ordinance No. 4260 entitled "Code of General Ordinances of the City of Renton, Washington" is hereby amended by adding four new definitions and two references, to read as follows: ORDINANCE NO. Parking module: A parking area that meets maximum physical dimensions as delineated in the Urban Center Design Overlay Regulations. Passive recreation: See Recreation, Passive Pedestrian -oriented facade: Ground floor facades featuring characteristics that make them attractive to pedestrians, including transparent window area or window displays along the ground floor facade, primary building entry, and overhead weather protection along at least seventy-five percent (75%) of the fagade. Pedestrian -oriented space: A publicly -accessible space that includes elements such as visual and pedestrian access to abutting structures, paved walking surfaces of either concrete or unit paving, on -site or building -mounted lighting, and public seating areas. Pedestrian -oriented street: See Street, Pedestrian -oriented. Pedestrian -oriented use: Businesses typically frequented by and conveniently located for use by pedestrians. SECTION XIX. Section 4-11-180 of Chapter 11, Definitions, of Title IV (Development Regulations) of Ordinance No. 4260 entitled "Code of General Ordinances of the City of Renton, Washington" is hereby amended by adding three new definitions, to read as follows: Recreation, Active: Leisure -time activities sometimes requiring equipment and taking place at prescribed places, sites, or fields. Active recreation includes such activities as swimming, boating, tennis, fishing, soccer, etc. Recreation, Passive: Activities that involve relatively inactive or less energetic activities, such as walking, sitting, reading, picnicking, and card, board, or table games. 65 ORDINANCE NO. SECTION XX. Section 4-11-190 of Chapter 11, Definitions, of Title IV (Development Regulations) of Ordinance No. 4260 entitled "Code of General Ordinances of the City of Renton, Washington" is hereby amended by adding five new definitions, and one reference, to read as follows: Shared parking: Use of a parking area for more than one use. Solar access: Sunlight exposure on land without impairment by other development. Street amenities: See Street furniture Street, Collector: A street classified as a collector street on the City of Renton Arterial Street Plan. Street, Pedestrian -oriented: An area with streets and sidewalks specifically designated as such and intended for use by people walking; with special design and spatial treatment of building frontages; built at human scale; with uses of interest to and functional for people on foot; and designed to hold interest for pedestrians by encouraging walking, browsing, and taking in the scene. "Pedestrian -oriented streets" are so designated in the Urban Center — North (District Q. Street furniture: Objects, such as outdoor seating, kiosks, bus shelters, tree grates, trash receptacles, and fountains that have the potential for enlivening and giving variety to streets, sidewalks, plazas, and other outdoor spaces open to, and used by, the public. Street grid pattern, traditional: A system of platting, or of street design, that features parallel and perpendicular streets and intersections of streets at right angles that form short blocks. .M ORDINANCE NO. SECTION XXI. The definition for "Street, Arterial" of Section 4-11-190 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: Street, Arterial: Street intended for higher traffic volume and speed and classified as a principal or minor arterial on the City of Renton Arterial Street Plan. SECTION XXII. 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 amended by adding a new definition, to read as follows: Transportation system, multi -modal: A system of transportation consisting of various types of conveyances, for example light rail train and bus, or ferry and automobile. SECTION XXIII. Section 4-11-210 of Chapter 11, Definitions, of Title IV (Development Regulations) of Ordinance No. 4260 entitled "Code of General Ordinances of the City of Renton, Washington" is hereby amended by adding three new definitions, to read as follows: Urban character: Attributes such as high residential densities and use intensities in multi -story buildings with small setbacks. Urban edge and urban fringe: The interface between high -density residential / high intensity uses and those that have lower density and intensity and are, therefore, more suburban. The "urban fringe" is the area where the suburban densities and uses become noticeably less intense and more rural. Urban environment: The combination of buildings, structures, and streetscape that, due to their nature, i.e. multi -storied, continuous fagade, zero side setbacks, form a neighborhood or section of a city or urban place. 67 ORDINANCE NO. SECTION XXIV. This ordinance shall be effective upon its passage, approval, and 30 days after publication. PASSED BY THE CITY COUNCIL this day of , 2005. Bonnie I. Walton, City Clerk APPROVED BY THE MAYOR this day of 52005. Kathy Keolker-Wheeler, Mayor Approved as to form: Lawrence J. Warren, City Attorney Date of Publication: ORD. 1162:1 / 10/05:ma 4-2-060-ZONING USE TABLE — USES ALLOWED IN ZONING DESIGNATIONS ZONING USE TABLE RESIDENTIAL ZONING DESIGNATIONS INDUSTRIAL COMMERCIAL ZONING DESIGNATIONS USES: RC I R-1 R-4 R-8 RMH R-10 R-14 RM IL IM IH CN CV CA CD CO COR UCN-1 UCN-2 A. AGRICULTURE AND NATU LRESOUFCES, Agriculture I P P Natural resource extractiontrecovery H H H H H H H H H H59 H H H H H H H Animal husbandry (20 or fewer smaller animals per acre P51 P51 P51 P51 P51 Animal husbandry (4 or fewer medium animals per acre P51 P51 P51 P51 P51 Animal husbandry (maximum of 1 lar a animal per acre P51 P51 P51 P51 P51 Greater number of animals than allowed above 1-136 H38 H36 H36 H36 Beekeeping P35 P35 P35 P35 Kennels AD37 P37 P37 P37 Kennels hobby AC37 AC37 AC37 AC37 AC371 AC37 AC37 AC37 AC37 AC37 AC37 AC37 AC37 AC37 AC37 AC37 Pets, common household, up to 3 per dwelling or business establishment AC AC AC AC AC AC AC AC AC AC AC AC AC AC AC AC AC AC AC Stables commercial I AD371 A037 C. RESIDENTIAL Detached dwelling P19 P19 P19 P19 P19 P19 Detached dwelling (existing legal) P P P Semi -attached dwelling P19 P19 Attached dwellings P50 P50 P19 P18 P73 P18 P16 P19 P74 P87 Fiats or townhouses(existing legal) P P P73 Flats or townhouses, no greater than 2 units total per building (existing legal) P P P P P P Manufactured Homes Manufactured homes P19 Manufactured homes designated P19 P19 P19 P19 P19 P19 P19 Mobil homes P19 Amd. Ord 5018 9-22.2003 D. OTHER RESIDENTIAL, LODGING AND HOME OCCUPATIONS Accessory dwelling unit AD7 Adult family home P P P P P P P P P P3 Caretakers residence AC AC AC AC AC AC AC AC Toongregate, residence AD P P3 Group homes 11 H H3 Group homes it for 6 or less P P P P P19 P P P P P3 P Group homes It for 7 or more P H I H H H H H H P H H3 AD Home occupations AC6 AC6 I AC6 I AC6 I AC6 AC6 AC6 AC6 AC6 AC6 AC6 AC6 AC6 ACFACRetirement residences H H AD P P P3 P39 P P75 Blank - Not Allowed AC = Accessory Use H - Hearing Examiner Conditional Use P = Permitted AD = Administrative Conditional Use # = Condition(s) P# - Permitted (Provided condition can be met) J N ZONING USE TABLE RESIDENTIAL ZONING DESIGNATIONS INDUSTRIAL COMMERCIAL ZONING DESIGNATIONS USES: RC I R-1 I R-4 I R-8 I RMH I R-10 I R-14 I RM IL IM7 IN CN I CV I CA I CD I CO I COR UCN-1 I UCN-2 Uses may oe Curtner restnctea Dy: Rnaa 4-s-u[u, Airport Reiatea heignt ana use Restriction; RMc 4-3-voUC, Aqurter Protection Regulations; RMC 4-3-040C, Uses Permitted in the Automall Improvement Districts; RMC 4-a 090, Shoreline Master Program Requirements E. SCHOOLS K-12 education Institution (public or private) 1-19 1-19 H9 H9 1-19 1-19 1-19 H9 H H H H9 H9 H9 H9 H9 H76 H89 K 12 education institution (public or private), existing P9 P9 P9 P9 P9 P9 P9 P9 P9 P9 P9 P9 P9 P9 P9 P9 Other higher education institution P38 P38 P38 P P P P21 P H88 Schools/studios arts and crafts P P38 P38 P22 P P P Trade or vocational school P P H H H77 F. PARKS Parks neighborhood P P P P P P P P P P P P P P I P P I P P P Parks regional/community,regional/community, existing P P P P P P P P P P P P P P P P P P P Parks realonal/community, new AD AD AD AD AD AD AD AD AD AD AD I AD AD AD AD AD AD P P G. OTHER COMMUNITY AND PUBLIC FACILITIES Community Facilities Cemetery H H H H H H H H H H H H H H H H H Religious Institutions H H H H H H H H H H H H H H H H H H H90 Service and social organizations H H H H H H H H H H H H H H H H12 H21 H78 H90 Public Facilities City, ovemment offices AD AD AD AD AD AD AD AD AD AD AD AD AD AD P AD AD AD90 City government facilities H H H H H H H H H H H H H H H H H H H90 Jails existing municipal P Secure community transition facilities H71 H71 Other government offices and facilities H H H H H H H H H H H H H H H H H H H90 H. OFFICE AND CONFERENCE Conference centers P38 P38 P38 P38 P P P21 P P91 Medical and dental offices P42 P38 P38 I P38 AD17 P22 I P P P P P P92 Offices eneral P42 P13 P13 P13 AD17 P22 P P P P P P93 Veterinary offices/clinics P42 P38 P38 P38 P22 P P P38 P P78 I. RETAIL Adult retail use P43 P43 P43 P43 P43 P43 P43 BI -box retail P72 P72 P72 P72 P79 Drive-In/drive—through, retell AC AC AC AC AC AC AC281 AC78 AC80 Eating and drinking establishments P1 P1 P1 P1 P1 P1 H33 P42 P P P P22 P22 P P P12 P27 P81 P94 Horticultural nurseries existing H H H H H H H H H H H H H H H H H H Horticultural nurseries new H Retell sales H33 AD P34 P34 P34 P60 P22 P68 P P54 P21 P82 P95 Retail sales outdoor P30 P30 P30 P15 P15 PIS Taverns AD P20 AD P21 P82 P99 Vehicle sales large P P P P41 Vehicle sales small P P P P20 J. ENTERTAINMENT AND RECREATION Entertainment Adult entertainment business P43 P43 P43 P43 P43 P43 Card room P52 P52 P52 P52 rt rl• Ci z rt J Blank = I- Allowed AC = Accessory Use H - Hearinr — -niner Conditional Use ,M ZONING USE TABLE RESIDENTIAL ZONING DESIGNATIONS INDUSTRIAL I COMMERCIAL ZONING DESIGNATIONS USES: RC I R-1 I R-d R-8 I RMH I R-10 I R-141 RM IL IM I IH I CN I CV I CA I CD I CO I COR UCN-1 I UCN-2 P = Permitted AD - Administrative Conditional Use # = Condltion(s) P# = Permitted (Provided condition can be met) Uses may be further restricted by: RMC 4-3-020, Airport Related Height and Use Restriction; RMC 4-3-050C, Aquifer Protection Regulations; RMC 4-3-040C, Uses Permitted in the Automall Improvement Districts; RMC 4-3 090, Shoreline Master Program Requirements Cultural facilities H H H H H H H H AD AD I AD AD AD I AD AD I AD AD I AD A090 Dance clubs P38 P38 P38 AD22 P20 H P38 H Dance halls P38 P38 P38 AD22 P20 H P38 H Gaming/gambling facilities, not -for- profit H38 H29 H38 H2O H38 Movie theaters P38 P38 P38 P P20 P P12 P83 P94 Sports arenas, auditoriums, exhibition P38 P38 P38 P20 P H84 H96 Sports arenas, auditoriums, exhibition hails outdoor P I P38 I P38 I I AD20 I I I H84 H95 Recreation Golf courses existing P P P P P Golf courses new H P H H H H Marinas P P21 H97 Recreational facilities, Indoor, existing P33 P38 P38 P38 P22 P P P65 P21 P78 P94 Recreational facilities Indoor, new H Recreational facilities outdoor L P33 P32 P32 P32 H2O H38 K. SERVICES Services, General Bed and breakfast house, accessory AD AD AD AD AD AD AD AD P Bed and breakfast house, professional AD AD AD5 AD P Hotel P38 P38 P38 P22 P20 P P38 P P P98 Motel P38 P38 P38 P22 P20 Off -site services P42 P38 P38 P38 P38 Drive-in/drive-throw h service AC62 AC62 AC62 AC AC AC AC70 AC61 AC61 AC78 AC80 Vehicle rental small P P P AD P20 Vehicle and equipment rental large P38 P29 P29 Tay Care Services Adult day care I AC AC AC AC AG AC AC AC 1255 P55 P55 P22 P22 P22 P P P P78 P100 Adult day care 11 H H H H H - H H33 H AD AD H P22 P22 P22 P P12 P21 P78 P100 Day care centers H25 H25 H25 H25 H25 H25 H33 H25 P54 I P54 P54 I P22 I P22 I P22 P I P I P21 P78 I P100 Family day care home AC AC AC AC AC AC AC AC AC AC AC AC AC AC I AC3 I AC AC I AC I AC Healthcare Services Convalescent centers H H H H H P22 H P3 P39 I AD I AD85 FAD101 Medical institutions H H H H H H H H H56 H56 H56 H H H H P40 H I H I H93 L. VEHICLE RELATED ACTIVITIES Body shops P31 P31 P31 H31 Car washes P P P AD2 P22 P22 Express transportation services AD P A022 AD20 Fuel dealers H59 P Industrial engine or transmission rebuild P31 P31 P31 w- Blank = Not Allowed AC = Accessory Use H = Hearing Examiner Conditional Use ZONING USE TABLE RESIDENTIAL ZONING DESIGNATIONS INDUSTRIAL COMMERCIAL ZONING DESIGNATIONS USES: RC I R-1 I R-4 I R-8 I RMH I R-10 I R-14 I RM I IL I IM I IH I CN I CV I CA I CD I CO I COR I UCN-1 I UCN-2 ronmuw nv — nurnnuauw wnunwnai �sef = wna¢ionts� P# = Permitted (Provided condition can be met) Uses may be further restricted by: RMC 4-3-020, Airport Related Height and Use Restriction; RMC 4-3-050C, Aquifer Protection Regulations; RMC 4-3-040C, Uses Permitted In the Automall Improvement Districts; RMC 4-3• 090, Shoreline Master Program Requirements Parking garage, structured, commercial or public P P P P22 P20 P3 P P P P102 Parking garage, surface, commercial or public P38 P38 P38 P P20 P3 AD Park and ride dedicated P105 P105 P105 P106 P105 P107 P105 P107 Park and ride shared -use P108 P108 P108 P108 P108 P108 P P P P P109 P107 P P107 Railroad yards P Taxi stand AD AD Tow truck operation/auto Impoundment yard H59 P Transit centers H38 H38 H38 H2O P H38 P P103 Truck terminals P Vehicle fueling stations P P P P P P38 Vehicle fueling stations, existing legal P P P AD 110 P P P38 Vehicle service and repair, large AD P P Vehicle service and repair, small P P P AD2 P P Wrecking yard, auto H59 H Air Transportation Uses Airplane manufacturing H59 P Airplane manufacturing, accessory functions AC AC Airplane sales and repair P Heli ads accessory to primary use H H38 H38 H2O H H H97 Heli ads commercial H H97 Munlcpal airports H M.STORAGE Hazardous material storage, on -site or off -site Including treatment H24 H24 H24 Indoor storage P P P AC11 AC11 AC11 AC11 AC11 AC11 Outdoor storage P57 P57 P57 AD64 P64 Self-service store a P8 P58 P 5 9 H26 H26 Vehicle store aWarehousin P�PPH21 N. INDUSTRIAL Industrial General Assembly and/or packaging operations P P P P86 P104 Commercial laundries e)(Isting P38 P38 P38 P4 Commercial laundries new P38 P38 P38 Construction/contractors office P14 P P Laboratories: light manufacturing P38 P38 P38 P20 P3 AD54 P P104 Laboratories: research, development and testing P31 P P P20 AD3 AD H P P104 Manufacturing and fabrication, heavy H59 P67 P23 rt rt iv t7 iD rt J MA ZONING USE TABLE RESIDENTIAL ZONING DESIGNATIONS INDUSTRIAL I COMMERCIAL ZONING DESIGNATIONS USES: RC I R-1 I R-4 I R-8 I RMH I R-10 I R-14 I RM IL I IM 1 IH CN I CV I CA I CD I CO I COR I UCN-1 UCN-2 Blank = Not Allowed AC - Accessory Use H = Hearing Examiner Conditional Use P = Permitted AD - Administrative Conditional Use # = Condition(s) P# = Permitted (Provided condition can be met) Uses may be further restricted by: RMC 4-3-020, Airport Related Height and Use Restriction; RMC 4-3-050C, Aquifer Protection Regulations; RMC 4-3-040C, Uses Permitted in the Automall Improvement Districts; RMC 4-3 090, Shoreline Master Program Requirements Manufacturing and fabrication, medium P67 P67 P23 Manufacturing and fabrication, light P P P P Solid Waste/Recycling Recycling colelction and processing center P14 P38 P38 P38 Recycling collection station P P P P P P P P P Sewage disposal and treatment plants H59 H Waste recycling and transfer facilities H59 P O. UTILITIES Communication broadcast and relay towers H H H H H H H H H38 H29 H38 H H H H H H Electrical power generation and cogeneration H H66 H66 H66 H66 H66 H66 H66 H66 H66 Utilities small P P P P P P P33 P P P P P P P P P P P P Utilities medium AD AD AD AD AD AD AD AD AD AD AD AD AD AD AD AD AD AD AD Utilities large H H H H H H H H H H H H H H H H H H H P. WIRELESS COMMUNICATION FACILITIES Lattice towers support structures H48 A047 A047 AD47 H48 H48 AD47 H48 AD47 H48 Macro facility antennas AD46 AD46 AD46 AD46 AD46 A046 AD46 P44 P44 P44 P44 P44 P44 P44 P44 P44 P44 H H Micro facilility antennas P P P P P P P P P P P P P P P P P AD AD Mini facility antennas P44 P44 P44 P44 P44 P44 P44 P44 P44 P44 P44 P44 P44 P44 P44 P44 P44 P P Minor modifications to existing wireless communication facilities P49 P49 P49 P49 P49 P49 P49 P49 P49 P49 P49 P49 P49 P49 P49 P49 P49 P P Monopole I support structures H45 H45 H45 H45 H45 H45 H45 1 AD461 P44 P44 I P44 I AD461 P44 I P44 1 AD461 P44 1 AD46 Monopole II support structures I H48 I AD471 AD47 I A047 H48 I H48 I AD471 H48 I AD471 H48 Q. GENERAL ACCESSORY USES Accessory uses per RMC 4-2-05D and as defined in Chapter 4-11 RMC, where not otherwise listed In Use Table AC AC AC AC AC AC AC AC I ACI AC AC AC AC AC AC AC AC AC AC R. TEMPORARY USES Model homes in an approved residential development: one model home on an existing lot P53 P53 P53 P53 P53 P53 P53 P53 P53 P53 P53 P53 Sales/marketing trailers on -site P53 P53 P53 P53 P53 P53 P53 P53 P53 P53 P53 P53 P53 P53 P53 P53 P53 P10 P10 Temporary or manufactured buildings used for construction P10 P10 P10 P10 P10 P10 P10 P10 P10 P10 P10 P10 P10 P10 P10 P10 P10 P10 P10 Temporary uses P53 P53 P53 P53 P53 P53 P53 P53 P53 P53 P53 P53 I P53 I P53 P53 I P53 P53 P53 P53 Blank = Not Allowed AC = Accessory Use H = Hearing Examiner Conditional Use P - Permitted AD = Administrative Conditional Use # = Condtion(s) P# = Permitted (Provided condition can be met) i I v M O O O O O N N ap N If) . N G .6 10 0*2 0 O O 0 N O 4N CV (7 N O V po O) 0 O NCN O N 0) O CO 0� p ._ p N O O .— O N N O O r- f0 N r- O r- V 00 Cj 0) O (V N (6 f- U) 00 M Co 0 V 00 V 0) E d, �g �C6 vti 0� �i 0 c� o 6N N C& 0� 6 0) �0 46 N9 m� nN v� v � O� Attachment A ATTACHMENT `B' 4-2-070K COMMERCIAL ARTERIAL (CA) Uses allowed in the CA Zone are as follows: USES: -TYPE: RETAIL Adult retail use P #43 Big -box retail P #72 Drive-in/drive-through, retail AC Eating and cidnking establishments P orticultural nurseries H Retail sales P #34 Retail sales, outdoor P #30 avems P Vehicle sales, large P Vehicle sales, small P 4-2-07ON CENTER OFFICE RESIDENTIAL (COR) Uses allowed in the COR Zone are as follows: USES: TYPE: RETAIL Eating and ddnking establishments P#27 Horticultural nurseries H Retail sales P #21 avems P#21 4-2-0700 INDUSTRIAL LIGHT (IL) Uses allowed in the IL Zone are as follows: USES: TYPE• RETAIL dult retail use P #43 I -box retail P #72 rive-in/drive-through, retail AC ating and drinking establishments P orticuttural nurseries H etail sales P #34 etail sales, outdoor P #30 ehicle sales, large P ehicle sales, small P c:lwindowsVempldesign guidelines 070 tables.doc 4-2-070P INDUSTRIAL MEDIUM (IM) Attachment B Uses allowed in the IM Zone are as follows: USES: TYPE: RETAIL Adult retail use P #43 Big -box retail P #72 Drive-in/drive-through, retail AC Eating and drinking establishments P orticultural nurseries H Retail sales P #34 Retail sales, outdoor P #30 Vehicle sales, large P ehicle sales, small P 4-2-070Q INDUSTRIAL HEAVY (IH) Uses allowed in the IH Zone are as follows: USES: TYPE: RETAIL dult retail use P #43 I -box retail P #72 Drive-in/drive-through, retail AC ating and dirinking establishments P orticultural nurseries H etail sales P #34 etail sales, outdoor P #30 ehicle sales, large P [Vehicle sales, small P OwindowsVempklesign guidelines 070 tables.doe 2 From: Julie Brewer To: Council News Date: 1 /13/2005 3:43:29 PM Subject: Fwd: Good news about Renton Schools FYI - From the Renton School District >>> "Randy Matheson" <randy.matheson@renton.wednet.edu> 1/13/2005 3:32:03 PM >>> Below are good news announcements read by the Renton School Board at a recent meeting. Please share these with your staff and community. Randy Matheson Executive Director, Community Relations Renton School District 425.204.2345 rmatheson @ renton.wednet.edu * McKnight Middle School Security Resource Office Cory Jacobs assisted the school in obtaining a grant from the Renton Police Department for an after -school reading club. Cory was instrumental in securing the grant and also provides a positive role model by attending club meetings and reading with students. The grant pays for books that are given to students to take home. For many students, the book is the only one they own. Many students, in turn, use the books at home to read to their siblings. * Fifth -grade students at Tiffany Park Elementary School are participating in the Opera in Schools program managed by the Utah Festival Opera Company. The program is a method of encouraging creativity and original thought by integrating the arts into the core curriculum. The program allows professional artists to work side -by -side with teachers in the classroom as the students: write original stories; create dialogue for the characters; compose music; create visual works for scenery, sets and costumes; audition; rehearse; and perform their own original opera. All of the materials required are solicited from local businesses. The school hopes to perform the opera in the spring. * For those feeling overloaded with the ups and downs of the Governor's race, comfort might be found in a different kind of inauguration ceremony. Third-, fourth- and fifth -graders at Talbot Hill Elementary School will officially take office as judges and government representatives during a swearing -in ceremony on Jan. 19 as part of the school's MicroSociety program. The ceremony will be presided over by King County District Court Judge Robert McBeth. Students in judgeship positions recently passed a bar exam ensuring they understood legal processes and court proceedings that would allow them to offer impartial rulings to students who are found guilty of breaking school rules such as running in hallways, wearing improper clothing or other transgressions. * Mary Trettevik, physical education teacher at McKnight Middle School, has been awarded a $2,500 grant from the American Alliance for Health, Physical Education, Recreation and Dance. Most of the funds will be given in the form of a US Games certificate allowing Mary to purchase equipment to enhance student physical education programs. The funds will also pay for Mary to attend the group's national convention. * Lindbergh High School's Club Aery recently donated profits from their beach party dance to World Vision to help victims of the tsunami relief. The club raised more than $1,500 at the event. Staff at Tiffany Park Elementary School also held a fund raiser for tsunami victims. * Renton School District staff recently gave nearly $50,000 to local and international charities through the annual United Way/Charitable Choice giving campaign. Each year, Renton teachers and staff show their compassion by pledging more than the previous year, responding well to the needs of children, families and aid organizations throughout the world. * Renton Rotary has named their Teachers of the Month for January. These teachers will receive recognition at a Rotary luncheon and $100 for classroom supplies. The recipients are: Charles Ward, a resource teacher at Dimmitt Middle School. Charles holds a bachelor's degree in Education Psychology and Counseling from Northern Illinois University and a master's degree in educational technology from City University. He has worked in Renton since 1995. Jean Levold, a music specialist and teacher at Maplewood Elementary School. Jean holds a bachelor's degree in music from the University of Washington and a master's degree in educational technology from City University. Jean has worked in Renton since 1995. Geri Scarvie, a first grade teacher at Tiffany Park Elementary School. Geri holds a bachelor's degree in elementary education from Central Washington University and a master's degree in educational technology from City University. She has worked in Renton since 1999.